Essay
Lindsey Krummell1*, Adelheid Bjornlie2*, Naila Tariq2*
1MSc. Education Futures, Edinburgh Futures Institute, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom
2MSc. Narrative Futures, Edinburgh Futures Institute, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom
Abstract
With the rising popularity of formal futures education within academia, we recent graduates from the inaugural cohort of the Edinburgh Futures Institute reflect on our experiences through the framework of the Futures Triangle to envision the future of futures institutes. We advocate for futures institutes to integrate professional and community perspectives, reject disciplinary hegemonies, and prioritize peer-led, community-based learning, underscoring the potential of futures institutes to become hubs of engagement and innovation for wider communities beyond academia and expert practitioners.
Keywords
Futures Institutes, Higher Education, Futures Triangle, Futures Literacy, Participatory Futures
Introduction
With the rising popularity of formal futures education within academia, we three recent graduates from the inaugural cohort of the Edinburgh Futures Institute (EFI) reflect on our experiences of the design and delivery of a new futures institute. Through the framework of the Futures Triangle, we use our lived experience to share our preferred vision for the future of futures institutes.
EFI is a new School under the University of Edinburgh’s College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences (CAHSS). The three co-authors attended EFI as MSc students during the School’s first year of delivery (academic year 2022-23). With extensive work experience, both commercially and in academia, we enrolled at EFI to connect with a group of futures-oriented individuals while gaining the tools, frameworks, and support to feel empowered to shape the future. As the first cohort of a nascent program, we took this unique opportunity to reflect on how new forms of learning and teaching about the future were delivered, and how futures institutes might learn from our practice.
Facer (2016) poignantly questions, “Where … is the potential for creating real alternatives … in the pedagogy of the present?” (p. 71). Futures institutes such as EFI have the potential to inform and document the processes by which potential futures are actualized, fostering opportunities to interact with and influence tangible alternatives to the status quo. Futures institutes can, and should, act as critical sites of engagement for the future of education as a whole and futures literacy in particular. This is why we chose to reflect upon our futures institute within the framing of the Futures Triangle, which allows us to acknowledge the weight of the past and push of the present, while adding our voices to the pull of the future.
Methodology
Within the framework of the Futures Triangle (Inayatullah, 2023), we respond to Facer’s provocation and trace possible pathways to actualizing the potential of futures institutes as critical sites of intervention. This response arises from our personal reflections, but it does not represent the reflections of all postgraduate students, nor does it reflect the formal pedagogy of EFI or any particular futures institute. Rather, it is a critical reflection on the intersection of the postgraduate experience, futures literacy, interdisciplinary practice, and opportunities presented by the educational models of futures institutes.
The Futures Triangle supports the identification and isolation of pertinent factors that influence the trajectory of institutions like EFI, and co-develops visions for their futures. Given the exercise we are conducting, the operationalization of the Futures Triangle is particularly apt within this reflection, as it in fact originates from an exercise to “futurize the university” (Inayatullah, 2023, p. 112).
Fig. 1: Futures institutes through the Futures Triangle
Weight of the Past
Fig. 1.a: Weight of the past
It would be remiss to speak of the weight of the past without discussing the wider sector of academia. Though we focus on our experience in the United Kingdom, there is broader acknowledgement that centralized systems and policies within any organization can lead to greater efficiency and accountability; however, many academics have opined that universities are now more focused on metrics, due to the need to produce specific, quantitative data-driven outcomes (Husain, 2022). This can often deter academia from blue sky thinking that may yield more unpredictable results (Husain, 2022), which is so integral to the multiplicity of futures work.
So, while EFI is a nascent program focused on looking towards the future, our futures-focused training and perspectives cannot be divorced from the pedagogy and approach of an organization like The University of Edinburgh, which was founded in 1583 and which has particular ways of thinking about itself in the past, present, and future. Our experiences in this historical context prompted us to question the challenges faced in the realm of futures education, and their impact on futures literacy within and outside of academia.
This rigidity, while reproducing replicable knowledge, creates a hegemonic system of power that can reinforce existing societal views and consolidate ideas about who is entitled to exercise knowledge (and therefore power) and who is not (D’Ignazio & Klein, 2020). With rigorous metrics and highly regulated governing bodies, disciplines are also institutionalized at established universities (Krishnan, 2009). This simultaneously limits imagination as well as obfuscates critical interconnected challenges. As Facer (2016) notes:
Narratives of the future that dominate education today are plausible only when other factors are systematically excluded from consideration: factors such as the pattern of declining economic growth, of increasing carbon production, of the uncertain trajectories of representative democracies, of disruptive biotechnologies, of the pressures on public resources of aging populations and of adaptation to climate disruption (p. 66)
Futures-based education thus inherently requires a diversity of attitudes, great imagination, and reflexivity (Mangnus et al., 2021), while traditional academia is by nature highly disciplined and highly regulated. Such a closed system encourages, whether intentionally or unintentionally, critical investigations of imagined futures that are shaped to fit larger cultural assumptions about valuable knowledge, and decision-making of what preferred and probable futures might be (Mangnus et al., 2021).
Push of the Present
Fig. 1.b: Push of the present
We would be negligent if we did not acknowledge that in many ways, an institute like EFI being university-based does offer it greater legitimacy, standing on the shoulders of well-established institutions whose knowledge production has already been validated. However, it can be argued that in our increasingly complex world, the need for futures literacy infuses its own legitimacy into a futures institute, and that universities subsume and support futures studies in an attempt to maintain their relevance and disrupt themselves before they are rendered obsolete (Christensen & Eyring, 2011). There is an inherent tension between these two forces, and thus a disconnect between the university and centers of futures learning. Currently, the relationship appears symbiotic, but it is unlikely to remain so.
Another factor to consider is the sheer complexity and interconnectedness of world challenges. Rather than allow ourselves to be paralyzed by the scope, we must consider it as essential information that informs the way we learn and educate ourselves. Futures institutes like EFI play a role in untangling this complexity. That role includes facilitating the embrace of a diversity of perspectives, and acknowledging the importance of multi- and inter- disciplinarity, as “futures work inevitably is a multi-, inter-, trans-, or cross-disciplinary activity,” (Van Leemput, 2019, p. 4). This philosophy is at the heart of the curriculum at EFI, which allows students to take a variety of courses which are either inherently interdisciplinary or from many different disciplines. The courses were taught by educators from across the university, which meant that we had access to a wide range of expertise we could integrate into our developing epistemic framework. It is this combination of interdisciplinarity and integration that we believe is at the heart of our future studies experience.
However, every organization shows their biases in what types of knowledge are prioritized by where funding, time, and energy of the organization are deployed. For example, data literacy was a highly emphasized skill at EFI, but education should not be constrained and constructed only within what can be known through quantifiable data that is readable by machines or neatly boxed into large datasets (Williamson, 2019). There are limitations to data-driven technologies; they are, inherently, historically recursive and reflect human biases (Gray & Witt, 2021), and thus the bias of what the university finds valuable.
Although we are encouraged by the foundations put in place by futures institutes, we caution that imaginaries about what futures institutes could encompass are often driven by the western research centers and international organizations that dominate the production of imaginaries about the future (Bourgeois & Sette, 2017; Jeflea et al., 2022). So, although data literacy and critical data thinking assist the struggle toward ethical data futures, over-engineered technological solutions often arise at the expense of further investment in those that are kinship-based and community-driven. From the climate crisis to higher education, the de-emphasis on community and kinship-driven solutions points to the trap of datafication and technological interventionism, which has been well-documented in ongoing, thorny problems. Striving toward just and sustainable futures is a wider struggle than the operationalization and critical review of the emergent techno-moral landscape. Doubtless, this landscape underscores the importance of data literacy and tech literacy, yet we question the emphasis of such literacies at the expense of a literacy in how to widen space for community, kinship, and belonging.
Pull of the Future
Fig. 1.c: Pull of the future
Our shared vision of futures learning is that as many people as possible acquire futures thinking skills, empowering the commons to action achievable, near-term futures, and dream towards radical far futures. In the near-term, we implore futures institutes to:
Integrate Professional Perspectives in Addition to Academic Voices as a Design Principle, Rather than a ‘Nice to Have’
Futures learning has an immense opportunity to integrate the sometimes-overlooked knowledge of the commons and recognize the multiple forms of expertise outside of academic peer review and formal, credentialed education systems writ large. Co-design and co-production from industry supports a more robust variety of futures, expanding ideas of what is considered possible and probable (Dunne & Raby, 2013). The learning design of a futures institute must recognize the expertise of industry professionals and local changemakers, whether from the community or as students. These industry actors are signals of the future themselves.
Reject Discipline Hegemonies, Pull Learning from Diverse Sources
The future is a resource with the potential to be wielded for the inclusion or exclusion of the commons (Bourgeois et al., 2022). Within the development of futures institutes, there is space for both academics and practitioners to support the development and acknowledgement of community-driven interventions that tackle the challenges of our times by inviting learners and practitioners from diverse groups, rather than having them remain as passive observers or research participants or target groups. As young people are thrust into an increasingly complex and competitive world, the education system must be rebalanced to acknowledge learning in sites outside of formal education, and seek to bring in that world of complexity as well as promote diverse learning networks (Facer & Sandford, 2010). The acknowledgement, but more importantly, validation of industry and community knowledge, creates an open invitation for the commons to shape wider futures landscapes.
Prioritization of Peer-led Community-based Learning
Inspired by the future scenarios devised in Bayne and Gallagher’s “Near Future Teaching” (2021), we have developed our ideal scenario for futures institutes. We authors decided to construct a scenario in this style to fully capture the possibilities that can emerge from an interconnected, decolonized system of learning and futures thinking. We were inspired by Kesson’s “Evolution/Revolution” scenario (2020), trying to capture a future that would “tear down the walls that have separated school and community and invite local and intergenerational knowledge and traditional ways of knowing into conversation with modern empirical science and technological know-how.”
Fig. 2: Future of futures institutes ideal scenario
Our scenario reflects how we would envision the learnings from our experiences to be implemented in the design and delivery of futures institutes going forward. Futures and foresight as a discipline require a new type of learning paradigm, where education is reimagined. We accounted for our experiences not only as students but as industry professionals when considering what we both need and hope for from the future. Our desire for disruptive, non-linear future scenarios led us to lean heavily on community knowledge and imaginings from a wider variety of experiences and demographics than academia often calls upon. As the saying goes, there are no future facts, and we hope that futures institutes will become more playful and uninhibited with how they consider the study and production of knowledge.
Conclusion
We wrote this essay because we had the unique experience of having lived through futures imagined by the University of Edinburgh. It was through these experiences that we were also empowered to imagine our own futures and those of the students who will come after us. We therefore wanted to take the opportunity to share what we envision to be a more human-centric, imaginative and community-based system of knowledge about the future.
We urge futures institutes to prioritize human-centered learning and resist the tendency to lean into data-focused education, which must rely on present data. This traps future imaginings in a place that is historically recursive and biased. An overreliance on data does not feel true to the study of futures, which focuses on the design of a plurality of futures. These pluralities are led by people and the choices they make, not by purely technological and economic drivers that are limited by our understanding of where we are in the present, rather than helping us imagine where we could be in the future.
Imaginative and disruptive futures must by definition be uncomfortable to those in the present. Futures institutes, particularly those attached to academic or government organizations, can be encumbered by the bureaucratic weight and rigidity typically associated with such institutions. We therefore encourage futures institutions to look to the world around them, beyond those that would be considered experts, and invite a myriad of participants from the commons to engage not just in data-gathering, but also directly in the design, pedagogy, and spaces of learning and futures creation.
References
Bayne, S., & Gallagher, M. (2021). Near Future Teaching: Practice, policy and digital education futures. Policy Futures in Education, 19(5), 607–625. https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103211026446
Bourgeois, R., Karuri-Sebina, G., & Feukeu, K. E. (2022). The future as a public good: Decolonising the future through anticipatory participatory action research. Foresight. https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-11-2021-0225
Bourgeois, R., & Sette, C. (2017). The state of foresight in food and agriculture: Challenges for impact and participation. Futures, 93, 115–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2017.05.004
Christensen, C. M., & Eyring, H. J. (2011). The innovative university: Changing the DNA of higher education from the inside out (First edition). Jossey-Bass.
Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming. The MIT Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qf7j7
Facer, K. (2016). Using the Future in Education: Creating Space for Openness, Hope and Novelty. In H. E. Lees & N. Noddings (Eds.), The Palgrave International Handbook of Alternative Education (pp. 63–78). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-41291-1_5
Facer, K., & Sandford, R. (2010). The next 25 years?: Future scenarios and future directions for education and technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 74–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00337.x
Gray, J., & Witt, A. (2021). A feminist data ethics of care for machine learning: The what, why, who and how. First Monday. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v26i12.11833
Husain, M. (2022). The three deceits of bureaucracy. Brain, 145(6), 1869. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awac163
Inayatullah, S. (2023). The Futures Triangle: Origins and Iterations. World Futures Review, 15(2–4), 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/19467567231203162
Jeflea, F. V., Danciulescu, D., Sitnikov, C. S., Filipeanu, D., Park, J. O., & Tugui, A. (2022). Societal Technological Megatrends: A Bibliometric Analysis from 1982 to 2021. Sustainability, 14(3), 1543. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031543
Krishnan, A. (2009). What Are Academic Disciplines? Some Observations on the Disciplinarity vs. Interdisciplinarity Debate [Working Paper]. National Centre for Research Methods. https://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/id/eprint/783/
Mangnus, A. C., Oomen, J., Vervoort, J. M., & Hajer, M. A. (2021). Futures literacy and the diversity of the future. Futures, 132, 102793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2021.102793
Tamm, M. (2020). How to Reinvent the Future? History and Theory, 59, 448–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/hith.12173
Van Leemput, M. (2019). Destinations for Polyamorous Futures and Their MAD Lovers. Journal of Futures Studies, 23(4), 3–14. https://jfsdigital.org/articles-and-essays/vol-23-no-4-june-2019/destinations-for-polyamorous-futures-and-their-mad-lovers/
Williamson, B. (2019). Datafication of Education. In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age (3rd ed., pp. 212–226). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351252805-14