Essay
Kim De Vidts
Futures Researcher at Open Time Applied Futures Research, Faculty at Idea & Innovation Management, Erasmus Brussels University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Belgium.
Abstract
The following exposé offers insight into the process of a research project undertaken by the Open Time Applied Futures Research knowledge centre (Open Time AFR) at the Erasmus Brussels University of Applied Sciences and Arts and a social innovation non-profit organisation – both located in Brussels. Mindful of the overarching research question, “how can an NGO motivate and involve different actors in society in social innovation, regardless of socio-economic, financial, ecological and societal circumstances?”, the overall intent of the research was to gather relevant lessons and insights for strengthening/implementing contemporary social innovation via various collective and co-creative futures processes. In methodological order, subsequent to a brief immersion into the domain, (1) a contemporary horizon scan was conducted, followed by (2) the development of four alternative 2040 futures scenarios, in accordance with the University of Hawaii at Mānoa’s Generic Futures, into which college students and social entrepreneurs were then placed via (3) the deployment of the Shuffle the Future online serious game developed by Open Time. Navigation in these predetermined futures allowed players/participants to critically contemplate social innovation and entrepreneurship in their respective and diverse new 2040 realities.
Keywords
Social Innovation, Serious Games, Manoa Futures, Flanders-Belgium, Shuffle the Future.
Pre-Production: Setting Up
Rather than a theoretical narrative, the following discourse offers a pragmatic reflection and as such, a practical overview of a participative futures endeavour process that took place in 2017–2021 as a structural research project between a Brussels-based NGO (which wishes to remain anonymous due to ongoing strategic processes), Open Time AFR, and the Bachelor’s programme in Idea and Innovation Management at the Erasmus Brussels University of Applied Sciences and Arts. In the spirit of Beth Jenkins’s (2018) article “Cultivating the Social Intrapreneur”, the broader concept of social entrepreneurship in a changing society as the development of “a new product, service, or business model that creates value for…society” has been firmly positioned within the Idea and Innovation Management programme since its establishment in 2014.
The social innovation NGO’s main goal is the integration of a culture of social innovation in Flanders, with the aspiration of positioning social innovation as a mainstream mindset in the future. With its desired (utopian) end vision being “global awareness”, in which the organization can be seen as the “ripple in the water that becomes a hurricane”, the central overarching research question that drove this futures investigation directly connects to Le Roux and De Pree’s confirmation that “we are past ‘should we?’ The question now is ‘How?’” (2018). Indeed, with a preferred long-term perspective that sees the organisation itself vanish as it will have become irrelevant, the main intent of this project was to use diverse collective and co-creative futures images to gather attention points that may be relevant for contemporary social innovation.
Production: Playing for/in/with the Future(s)
In the footsteps of Dunagan’s (2012) third assertion that the futurist’s job is “to contest, extend, or invent alternative images and find a way to make them flourish in the global cognitive ecology” (p. 141), this project used the Shuffle the Future (StF) serious game platform, developed by Open Time AFR in 2017, which was enhanced to allow the scenario visualisation of four alternative futures instead of one. Players could navigate from one future image to another, comparing and contrasting their experiences. Much like the Institute for the Future’s Foresight Engine, StF is “a systematic engagement and conversation tool that facilitates the generation of responses to a given scenario. It allows players to create ideas, comment on others’ ideas, and build conceptual and thematic resonances …” (p. 142). With its main intent being to gather attention points on how players “feel” (useful, frustrated, angry, happy, entrepreneurial, inventive, etc.) in each of the futures scenarios, players were stimulated to interact, engage on the propositions of fellow-players and seek social innovation within alternate 2040 realities.
To ensure sufficient framing of the concept for participating futures explorers, facilitated workshops and gaming sessions were set up in physical locations and, following COVID-19 lockdowns, conducted via webinars for a total of 105 players: 68 Idea and Innovation Management students (aged 18–26) and 37 social innovation stakeholders (aged 25–70). All participants were located in Flanders and Brussels, 99% held Belgian nationality and every single participant was connected to social entrepreneurship. Each gaming session lasted approximately one hour, in which participants played one or two scenarios: 29 in Transform, 19 in Growth, 33 in Discipline and 24 in Collapse. Figure 1 depicts the process the players engaged in (in the Flemish/Dutch language).
Fig. 1: Process of the Shuffle the Future Game (in the Flemish/Dutch language).
The following steps outline the actions and directions taken by players, and the process that led to the creation of these steps and considerations from played sessions are described:
- Players registered into the game, then created a fictional biography to allow the players’ new identities maximum freedom and creativity in the future, free from contemporary problems and/or inhibitions. Every action the players undertook was in the name of their fictional personas.
Even though clearly positioned as a collateral matter, the time, energy, and depth with which many players approached their fictional future biography indicates their obvious interest in the co-creation of their own future image – for themselves and the society in which they would live. Interesting impressions of many players either reflect (1) an obvious anchoring in and with the present, (2) self-positioning as a vulnerable subject in society, (3) playfulness, (4) the ability to completely detach from the present and/or (5) an over-relaxed attitude regarding the alternate future scenario. Oral transference during the sessions clarified that players were radically against a future in which they were not active participants in its realisation; they want to develop and determine the course of the future rather than be forcibly placed in one and have to survive and navigate within it. “Actually, I don’t want to live in this (disciplined) world, how do I get out?” was a commonly overheard remark. The difficulty of suddenly ending up in a new world did, however, promote the players’ extensive imagination through the eyes of their personas.
- Players chose one of the four alternate futures scenarios to explore, and read the 2040 status-quo of the world and more particularly, Flanders within a Belgian and European setting (see full text below Figure 2). An additional brief timeline showing the back-casted events that resulted in the creation of the alternate 2040 future gave participants an evolutionary perspective of how society had arrived at the new reality.
To facilitate substantiated projections towards futures images, a clear image of contemporary society was mapped with an in-depth horizon scan that was conducted in line with Molitor’s S-curve (2003), consisting of (a) driving forces, (b) contemporary trends and (c) emerging issues within the Flemish, Belgian and international social innovation landscape. The non-exhaustive list of elements that paint the present was used as the starting point for the creation of the four generic alternative futures scenarios, as stipulated by Dator and the Mānoa School (2009). Figure 2 depicts these four generic futures categories.
Fig. 2: Four Generic Alternative Futures in Accordance with Dator and the Mānoa School (2009).
The actual four generic alternative futures for social innovation in Flanders, Belgium in 2040 were available in text format when players selected the new reality:
Continued growth: Flemish apathetic solidarity
Following many turbulent political years, 2040 sees Flanders flourish within a confederate Belgian system. Economic prosperity ensures tremendous social engagement by and for the Flemish population, mainly stimulated by the fiscal advantage for cooperative forms of entrepreneurship in support of the social economy. In other words, engaging in social entrepreneurship that benefits Flemish society pays off fiscally!
Due to the economic and social wealth, independent and autonomous entrepreneurship is highly attractive, especially within performance-based communities where the creation of your own future, your own success, reigns supreme. Technology not only assists in making a name for one’s own business, it aids in promoting one’s lifestyle to the outside world. The same technology that caters to digital connectedness, equally lies at the foundation of loneliness and the “drifter-culture” in stronger urbanized regions. The mounting tax pressure to guarantee this “total package” for Flemish citizens still leads to parallel economies.
The short-chain and pride of Flemish production is even more visible in rural settings than in the cities, despite less propaganda. High-tech connectivity at minimal cost allows a global overview of the dealings of the world, but the Flemish region reigns supreme. Even though daily digital contacts allow the maintenance of a façade of individual “success and happiness”, physical solitude is one of the main societal challenges. After all, the current generation of young adults grew up in digital connectedness and experience the lack of physical connection less strongly than those above the age of 55 – however, the 70-year-old (and older) citizens miss their local family members most.
The world is digitally connected, but somewhat less physically connected due to the high travel costs in support of the global climate policy that was implemented nearly 15 years ago. But in fact, for most Flemings, it is a distant concern since everything is well in prosperous Flanders. The rising water levels that have flooded several Flemish coastal areas are reinvigorating a “pull” towards Wallonia…
Collapse: social engagement for survival
The exponential increase in nationalist tendencies paved the way to the implosion of the European Union; the latest war between the Middle East and the USA saw multiple information satellites come down, which catapulted the planet into a complete internet black-out. Blind human faith and dependence on technology was punished by the failing of communication, which resulted in the extreme darkness of the past decade; national Belgian policy became trivial, survival became central.
Today, Belgium consists of a large collection of small communities, all living autonomously, and independently protecting their neighbourhoods. Interaction between regions is a part of life, but each inhabitant’s loyalty lies with his or her own home. The security found in the local community is of such a high degree that it also dominates the individual habitat in the villages, communes and cities. The return to analogue technologies allows close interaction between citizens, and the return of historically compartmentalized values provides a support network for every individual within the local caring community. Thveragege citizen’s high degree of involvement sees the full employment of public spaces for weekly commune meetings and increases awareness of local needs.
The communities are dependent upon nature, primarily work in the capacity of food provision, and as such, natural surroundings are respected for the sake of survival. “Climate” and “the environment” have become marginal matters, even after the Dutch dikes failed to hold back the water from the North Sea, which transformed many communities into swamps and brought about emigration towards the heart of the continent. Civic initiatives oversee small-scale improvements to the local community, and ideas form part of the inter-communal trade. With great respect for “old” materials, the repair-recycling business has boomed. With the younger generation, the urge to look and live “beyond” the local community is slowly becoming tangible again…
Discipline: social credit in/by/for society
“State Flanders” determines every element of society; every citizen is expected to be an engaged individual whose priority is the good of society. The behaviour of every inhabitant, regardless of gender, religion or social status, is directly connected to the contribution(s) delivered to the well-functioning state and the potential to “move ahead” in life.
The society meticulously protects the work-life balance of every citizen: By banning work-related messages outside working hours, burn-out is prevented, and the private sphere of the citizen is respected for family roles, relaxation and efforts in social engagement.
Social credit is granted when energy-efficient decisions are made, when garbage is sorted, when people deliver an active contribution to a social initiative, etc., but also when individuals report fellow citizens for “misconduct”. Social credit is subtracted for default payments, for lacking civic duty or contribution, for polluting society, etc. Solidarity is a little known/respected concept in this dog-eat-dog society, with the excellent news that a high credit score is synonymous with a highly pleasant life, since your efforts to benefit society are rewarded. Non-compliance, on the other hand, ensures a citizen’s demotion to the status of a social pariah with severely limited access to international travel, desired jobs, loans, etc.
Transform: technology as the social transforming catalyst
Following great bottom-up pressure, in the last decade, the European Union decided not to hinder the regulation of social innovation within its protected borders. The free availability of technology and knowledge allows immediate sharing and replication, property rights vanished several years ago, all with the goal of making societal “good” the priority within the European continent. The knowledge economy is shared, and as such the “sharing-principle” is eagerly used to retain an enjoyably high living standard and quality of life for all Europeans.
The fear of Artificial Intelligence and the increase in technology, primarily in the job-related sector, seemed unjust. The robotization of many sectors, linked to a universal basic income for every legal adult citizen of the EU, guaranteed that social involvement for the benefit of society was and still remains stimulated. With the European eye on welfare and high-quality living, the following forms an integral part of the continental ideology: all citizens have time for society, social engagement, and actively contributing to the sense of “community”. The main problem Europe faces today is the vanishing of precious land due to the rising water levels, and the continuously increasing extreme weather conditions that pose a threat to both humans and infrastructure.
For six years now, public property has been abolished and car sharing and all forms of public transportation are entirely subsidized and almost 100% reliant on green energy. For those still desiring to make use of meeting “on location” rather than via hologram, a flawless trajectory can be taken through the landscape of pure nature and green energy.
In other parts of the world, the “transformation” that characterizes Europe, is of a drastically different nature. Protectionist tendencies have rendered the United States of America exclusive and closed to immigrants, the social-credit system in China has led to a stream of emigrants to other Asian countries to build a future apart from the state-controlled lifestyle, African regions can no longer handle overpopulation and the transformed European landscape still attracts millions of refugees per year.
- Following the careful reading of their new reality, players were guided to the online “playroom”, where they could engage via “playing cards”.
As shown in Figure 1, five different themes were set up in each of the generic scenarios to offer structure and support in every future society: (1) Society and Living, (2) Economy; (3) Social Innovation; (4) Governance and Politics; and (5) Climate. Each of these themes allowed for extra information to be accessed via a “+” button. If so desired, players were given access to examples, thoughts and questions to ignite creative conversation.
Individual players interacted by “(p)laying cards” below every theme within a set scenario. Cards could include any type of action, idea, thought-process, social innovation suggestion, etc. and could either form the basis of a newly formed thread upon which others could then (p)lay their card(s), or one could simply jump onto an already existing and ongoing conversation within a theme to offer more depth and interaction to initially played actions. Equally, a “like” could be added to a card to highlight its importance.
The qualitative analyses of the results were, mindful of the subsequent COVID-19 situation, at times predictable in the exposure of concerns, wishes and needs for the present. In respective order of online game/scenario availability, Continued Growth offered a clear, rationally founded sense of reasoning in extension of today’s management. Collapse, played primarily by students, reflected an impulsive train of thought, though with surprisingly optimistic experiences. Many players seem undeniably happy in this society and saw potential for themselves and their community. If it were not for the detailed input received, a critical evaluation and possibly volatile conclusion might suggest the belief that only a drastic event can inspire youngsters to think and act socially. Similar sentiments were perceived in Discipline, where many positive elements were observed in the required, forced “social” attitude. The youngsters’ totalitarian acceptance in this futures scenario was sometimes reminiscent of the “ousting-culture” perceived during the COVID-19 pandemic, where people would report (perceived) violations of their neighbours. Along the same line, the parallels between Transformation and the COVID-19 pandemic are striking; public spaces’ need for a societal transformation is clearly evident.
Post-Production: Lessons Learned from/for 2040 Social Innovation
Throughout the trajectories of the four futures scenarios, several potentially relevant attention points were built in for contemporary strategic thought exercises: universal basic income, solidarity, solitude and loneliness, technological progress, digital connectivity, the role of government structures, the willingness and motivation for social engagement, etc. While played in diverse futures, it is not the segmented input per scenario, but rather the sum of the generated feedback, that provided a general image of the attention points for the present. In that regard, several overarching themes left their mark on one, several, or (at times) all futures scenarios.
Happy people contribute to a caring society in which everyone can find their sense of harmony. One phenomenon of the rapid changes in technology is that of loneliness in an era of digital connectivity. It is often questioned whether individualism is a conscious choice between chosen (“I prefer living on my island of one”) and non-chosen (“I’m forgotten now I’m old”) behavioural patterns. The student generation of players displayed enthusiasm for technological innovations that offered the potential to combat loneliness, even contemplating non-human elements as a solution to human solitude: “Innovation and technology are deployed to counter loneliness. Robots, holograms, and others are used to create a feeling of connection with something or someone. Not only humans do the ‘listening and comforting’ anymore.” Players from the professional domain, with a little more life experience under their belts, took a clear stand that technological or digital connectedness threatens to lead to physical loneliness. They opted for “focus…to find offline forms of connections between generations. Genetically we’re still the hunter-gatherers in the African savannah and we instinctively crave social connection.” The COVID-19 pandemic, which placed much of the world in lockdown immediately following several on-location Shuffle the Future gaming rounds, possibly and equally caused a shift in mindset The rapid increase in the use of social media and digital connectivity was and remains undeniable, and ensured social control between generations. Yet it appears that both generations experienced a clear lack in “skin contact” or “cuddle contact”, as referred to in Belgium. Even students at the Erasmus Brussels University of Applied Sciences and Arts indicated that they had never “craved for actual classes as much as now” and in the present day, “really how lucky they are to be allowed to go to school”. Whether this is an effectively learned lesson for the future or a flighty sentiment that will revert back to individuality, only the future will tell.
Within the recently reignited need for essential “skin contact”, the desire and need for healthy green public spaces became very apparent. This was expressed as being needed to improve mental health and accomplish societal transformation since “people are generally happier when they’re in touch with nature, bringing about less burnout and stress”. An even stronger sentiment expressed by some players was that “the solution can be found in more social cohesion between the older and younger generations, between newcomers and Flemings.” Coupled with these public spaces and a sense of communal belonging, a rise in acceptance and active stimulation of communal forms of habitation was noticeable, such as cohousing and intergenerational cohabitation.
The happiness of that unity or togetherness seemed to centre in and around those small communities. Opinions like “How do I indicate that I’m happy in ‘Collapse’? Because for me, everything can stay exactly as it is. I don’t want to change a thing; I think I’m happy here. For me, they can raise that wall around my village even higher…” offered a glimpse of the importance attached to that communal feeling and the fact that outside menaces would be shunned if they (could) threaten that harmony. In order to accomplish this, further specification was offered in how “we” first “strengthen the small communities and integrate the general vision of citizens to one coherent vision, and strive to achieve this via civic initiatives”. The players’ recognition of enjoying that sense of security in a small community seems difficult to deny, though a certain worldly idealism remained intact. Even though the initial focus on local initiatives took priority over international connections, it did remain relevant and desired once a small community was considered balanced or in harmony. From that point forward, digital connectivity to exchange inter-local and international knowledge, technology, information, and strategy were deemed relevant and important again.
Possible obstacles for such social cohesion were noticeable in elements that players carried with them from the past to the future. “Stronger punishments for extreme right, zero tolerance for racism and fascism” versus “punishing racism seems difficult to me because it can depend on the glasses with which you approach something or your interpretation of the facts” offers a certain duality in comparing the idealistic desire to undermine the state for humanitarian goals. What is striking is many players’ conformity and acceptance of government structures that were depicted in the scenarios; particularly in Discipline, a positive demeanour was detected “for people who fit in the frame and for whom life is agreeable. There are good social provisions, the whole works.” Even more important was the urge to think innovatively about how one can be successful and happy within the permitted game boundaries. Indeed, in times of difficulty or perceived difficulty, like in the Discipline futures scenario, social entrepreneurship seemed to flourish the most. An accompanying framework to organise individual intentions and, if necessary, provide a network towards larger organisms, was essential at that point.
The perception of corruption at the government level is strongly ingrained in the 2020 Flemish mindset and the idea that “politicians finally earn as much/little as those who actually work for it” is not unheard of. Even in the harmonious Transformation scenario, indications of detest for the current political practices were detected: “politicians manipulate the entire democratic system to their liking – via technological developments they influence people and their voting. People no longer believe in it and stop voting.” Media attention for the abuse of subsidies, the appointment of ministers not on the electoral lists, the discrepancy in salary between politicians and the larger population, etc. did not contribute to the stabilisation of this perception. Transparency, civic initiatives, democratic dialogue, etc. were propositions to contribute to the feeling of involvement and the overall sense of a more honest society. An instance that would officiate as an overarching and systematic integration organism of and for such initiatives was often seen as the missing link.
There was no shortage of good will amongst the individual players, but by engaging in larger structures and involving larger actors, that much-sought change seemed within reach. Players online offered hope for solidarity and engagement, but walking the talk seems less evident. Much like political campaigns rarely fulfilling their promises post-victorious elections, online “likes” rarely lead to the concrete execution of those “likes” in the real world, further strengthening the idea of online concern but real-life societal apathy. Society in the COVID-19 era offers such an analogy: the visual representations of communal support for health workers, by offering them applause and thankful banners, stands in stark contrast to the (dis)respect displayed by a minority (with great impact) guilty of infractions of government regulations.
In line with Richard Heinberg’s (2020) criticism on the lack of a coherent ideology in the USA during the COVID-19 pandemic, Belgium and Flanders are often characterized by fragmented political structures that give impetus to parallel side-systems. Considered an abuse of the (welfare) state by some, from an economic standpoint, these systems could actually be regarded as an indication of the Flemish entrepreneurial feeling that offers a solidary contribution where overarching organisms often fail. The COVID-19 pandemic has already illustrated that the power of civic initiatives is not merely theoretically noticeable in played scenarios. In order to meet the economic reality, ideas were suggested to implement “a new currency per village” and to place the “circular economic central” or even to transfer to a barter system of knowledge and skills to stimulate the feeling of belonging to the community. Within the image of a harmonious society, we also found the much-discussed matter of the basic income.
One of the main hindrances in the global discussion regarding the universal basic income runs side by side with the obtained input, namely the feared “lax attitude” upon receiving such a monthly payment. Whereas many players viewed this as the start of a laissez-faire society by questioning whether “when everyone receives a basic income, will people still be willing to think innovatively and create things to contribute to society when they aren’t rewarded for it via extra income?”, it offered other players perspective for true creative social innovation. The duality in opinion that a basic income either (a) hinders social innovation, taking initiative and performing extra due to the “lazy nature” of humankind; or (2) promotes originality by translating social innovation, solidarity and enthusiasm into social engagement clearly tilted to the advantage of the latter, even though concerns were expressed over the effective filling of the least desirable jobs. An ideal image unfolded as “official work and engagement outside of work eventually fade out” since “when people needn’t worry about their basic provisions like clothing, food, shelter, love, etc., then they become truly creative”.
In contrast to the idea that social innovation and creativity are or are not a possible consequence of security in a basic income, all scenarios indicated recognition of methods for expressing social innovative behaviour. On one hand, a certain consensus was detected for imbedding or even conditioning social innovation as a mandatory part of the educational curriculum, in other words, “social innovation becomes a course in school. Students develop a social innovative concept as their graduation project.” On the other hand, government-sanctioned regulations for investing in social innovative project were suggested, where “the government no longer grants innovation support if the societal added value is not evident from the innovation”. In contradiction to the belief that “obligation” leads to embedding, the notion of “social engagement and obligation being a contradiction in terminus” did find its way into the players’ feedback.
Do social involvement and engagement exist if the voluntary incentive expires? If we follow the results of the played scenarios, we are confronted with many ideas and thought processes that display social engagement in both extremes, provided that (a) the communal feeling is present, (b) collaboration takes place to crowd out individual apathy via transparent structures and (c) a broader organism acts as facilitator to bundle forces.
As indicated earlier, some priorities shifted focus when ad hoc survival became essential. As such, climate was no longer a relevant point of attention in a Collapse scenario, but remained one in the others. Perhaps this translates to reality once again as it rang ever so true when fully plastic-wrapped take-away meals became the norm during the COVID-19 pandemic, with no questions asked and accompanied by minimal media reporting on climate vitals. Once again, a local healthy energy and climate policy takes precedent over the international, primarily in the presence of public spaces and sufficient exposure to nature. And yet, global measures did find their place in 2040: “European legislation obligates banks to only invest in companies that do no damage to the climate, the environment and human beings” because “the climate youth anno 2020 were unfortunately correct” – an indication of the fear for the future that may be accompanied by severe action and sanctions since “heat, water and electricity usage will be charged double when excessively used”.
The fact that social innovation is not yet fully absorbed into society is obvious, even though the COVID-19 pandemic was indicative of the high engagement in communities to optimize it. As such, the role of social innovation NGOs is and remains not only essential and relevant, but very much necessary in striving for that harmonious collaboration in which social engagement becomes centrally positioned, but for which far-reaching coaching is required. Social innovation NGOs ideally embrace the roles of facilitators, diplomatic liaisons, innovators, researchers, initiative takers, organisers and bridge builders to guide society into a future in which social engagement stands firmly positioned as a core value, preferably one which actors jointly decide to build together. Because, while from a procedural and content perspective, there is no denying that “forcing” participants into a set (generic) future scenario ensures an innovative attitude, the consensus that people demand to be involved in the actual creation of the(ir) future(s) remains explicit.
References
Dator, J. (2009). Alternative futures at the Manoa school. Journal of Futures Studies, 14(2).
Dator, J., Sweeney, J. & Yee, A. (2014) Mutative technologies: Communication technology and social change in the past, present and futures. Spring Press.
Dujardin, Y. (2017). Shuffle the future. Wtnschp: Wetenschap in en uit Brussel. https://www.wtnschp.be/project/shuffle-the-future/
Dunagan, J. (2012). Massively multiplayer futuring: IFTF’s foresight engine. Journal of Futures Studies, 17(1). https://jfsdigital.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/171-S05.pdf
Heinberg, R. (2020). Museletter #334/2020: The year consensus reality fractured. Bounce forward: Collective wisdom for building resilient communities. https://richardheinberg.com/museletter-334-2020-the-year-consensus-reality-fractured/museletter-334
Jenkins, B. (2018). Cultivating the social intrapreneur. Stanford social innovation review. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/cultivating_the_social_intrapreneur#
Le Roux, H. & De Pree, M. (2018). How to create the conditions for social intrapreneurs to thrive. Stanford social innovation review. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/how_to_create_the_conditions_for_social_intrapreneurs_to_thrive
Molitor, G. (2003). The power to change the world: The art of forecasting. Public Policy Forecasting.