Search results

States that four trends promise to dramatically change the university of the next century: globalization, virtualization, multiculturalism, and politicization, driven by economy and efficiency, technology, values and rights, and power and politics. The article explores the impact of these trends on the future of the university, presents possibilities for structural change, and offers probable scenarios for the future. The conclusions suggest that the Web and globalism may end the monopoly of the traditional university and paradoxically place the transformed university simultaneously at the center of society.

This study aims to provide insights into ecosystem builder futurists’ work and their orientations toward creating more connected communities of the future.

Anticipation of and relationship with the future are not straightforward. How we approach the future and our relationship with it has underlying ontological and epistemological assumptions (Poli, 2010, 2017). Forecasting (Makridakis et al., 2008), foresight (Bishop and Hines, 2012; Hines and Bishop, 2013; Popper, 2008), futures studies (Bell, 2009; Gidley, 2017) and anticipatory logics (Miller and Poli, 2010; Miller et al., 2017; Nadin, 2010; Poli, 2017) inform this research study of a select group of futurists’ relationships with the future. This research explores ecosystem builder futurists’ work and their orientations toward creating more connected communities of the future. A primary driver of this research aims to understand how futurists with emergentist understandings think about and work with their clients to better understand how to facilitate individual and community transformations through anticipatory future perspectives.

This qualitative study was designed to explore the why, where and how of the ecosystem builder futurists. The “why” question of their work focused on capacity building, disruption and community for evolving systems revealing an emergentist orientation to the future. The “where” question, focusing on where their passions and ideas for futures work came from, revealed a commitment to forge new territories and support communities through the change process. Finally, the “how” questions revealed using both/and methods of traditional and innovative approaches with a special focus on changing the hearts and minds of those who participated in their community change initiatives.

A total of 15 ecosystem futurists participated in this study. Their perspectives were strongly affiliated and aligned with ecosystem building and communities of the future ideas. The narrow focus, however, is important to represent this particular population of the futurists.

There is a great need for ecosystem futurists who can work with communities for social and community transformations. This paper introduces ecosystem builder futurists as a unique population of futurists with specific drivers for and perspectives of change.

Especially in post-normal, mid-pandemic times, there will be more opportunities and need for ecosystem builder futurists to engage groups of individuals in transformative and community building processes. This study focuses on ecosystem futurists and how they work toward fundamental, community change.

Futurists work across many areas and emerging fields. A search of futurist activities reveals some of these areas including Marketing, Team Building, Coaching, Strategic Planning, Partner Management, Marketing Strategy, Ecosystem Building and Sustainable Community Development, to name a few. The purpose of this study is to describe the perspectives and underlying drivers of a particular group of futurists who have been working in large and small communities, organizations, governments and with clients with an underlying focus on creating communities of the future.

The purpose of this paper is to overview the futures of the university by analyzing critical drivers. It also aims to assess drivers identified a decade ago on university futures.

The paper reviews drivers, trends and scenarios.

The paper finds first, globalization will likely continue but innovation will move to Chindia. Second, democratization has resulted by not as imagined a decade ago, rather, peer‐to‐peer or web 2.0 has changed the game. Three new scenarios are articulated: Wikipedia university; core‐periphery reversed and incremental managerialism. Bliss for all remains an outlier.

Asian‐Pacific universities instead of adopting the used future of the core will find it wiser to innovate and create new visions as well as to develop new global ranking systems.

Traditional universities are the likely dinosaurs unable to thrive in a dramatically changing world. Increasing inequity in traditional western universities will likely further devalue higher education. New models of inclusion are required.

The paper articulates new scenarios of the future, and assesses trends identified a decade ago. It provides a strategy for university administrators to navigate the challenges ahead.

To review what “quality” meant to universities historically and might mean in the future.

Written as a keynote talk for The Australian Universities Quality Forum 2004, this paper problematizes “universities” and “quality” by reviewing the way changing communication modalities have changed the meaning of the two terms over time.

After reviewing some of the literature forecasting alternative futures of universities, the paper settles on a preferred future in which all education, higher and lower, is driven by the logic, best practices, and evolving technologies of electronic games.

The paper reveals that researchers who compare word‐based educational systems with electronic, interactive sound‐and‐image‐based systems should use measures appropriate for the latter, rather than derived from the former.

The paper shows that educators should take interactive electronic game methods more seriously in thinking about and planning for the futures of universities and their curricula.

This paper provides a contribution to the growing emphasis on making learning interactive, engaging, effective, and fun.

The purpose of this paper is to describe the development and delivery of an aftercare programme called Learning To Live Again, which was co-produced between service users and clinic staff.

In total, 37 semi-structured interviews were conducted with 29 project stakeholders who were service users, mentors, university and clinical staff. The data were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis.

Four overarching themes were identified in the analysis of interview data as characterising the process of co-producing an aftercare programme. These were: achieving common ground, roles and responsibilities, the activities programme and the road to recovery. Interdependence of service users and clinicians was given strong emphasis.

A number of challenges arise in co-producing an aftercare programme which is largely service user led and adds to the local recovery capital. The benefits of co-producing aftercare outweigh the difficulties and the programme can be set up within existing resources. Given the study's focus on the process of setting up and maintaining an aftercare programme, no attempt was made to evaluate the improvement in outcomes or cost-effectiveness.

Many peer-mentor-led aftercare programmes have been set up and this paper describes stakeholders’ thoughts about the challenges and benefits of co-producing an aftercare programme.