Search results

We live in the Age of Knowledge, which is impelling us towards the Age of Imagination. The technological wave rises and with it rises a wave of change that will affect both the economy and society. When these two waves will reach the coast where knowledge meets ignorance, and how to ride them, are questions that require us to imagine the future. We must, therefore, embark on the vessel of imagination, leaving behind us the baggage of what we know and understand. Imagination is not just the springboard for ideas; it also acts to connect ideas in different ways that may blossom in the garden of an entrepreneurial renaissance. Symbols, metaphors and concepts that belong to our tacit knowledge come to light in our memory. It is from here that the imagination draws its lifeblood, broadening our horizons, inducing us to interact with others who may be the bearers of other cultures. Are we ready to engage in an imaginative learning process to join business with innovation and art? Are we prepared to design a wide-open white space where the actors of entrepreneurship, innovation and art can generate a constructive tension that will sweep away what appears to be mutual antagonism or incompatibility?

This chapter focuses on researchers as knowledge workers in higher education in England as an illustration of what Katznelson (2003, p. 189) identifies as the ‘professional scholar’ undertaking intellectual work as a public intellectual. I begin by examining the challenges to intellectual work and its location in a university, particular from the media and the popularity of what Bourdieu calls Le Fast Talkers ¹ – those who talk a lot but have nothing much to say. After drawing out the tensions within knowledge production, I then locate the analysis of what it means to do research in a period of education policymaking in England between 1997 and 2010, when New Labour called on researchers to produce evidence to support radical reforms. In particular, I argue that school effectiveness and school improvement (SESI) knowledge workers in Schools of Education in higher education in England are an interesting case for investigating the public intellectual positioning as ‘detached attachment’ (Melzner, 2003, p. 4), particularly through their attachment to New Labour governments and the subsequent detachment following a change of government in May 2010.

This chapter suggests a perspective on dealing with the future as dealing with uncertainty, which necessitates an alteration of the current learning paradigm and the adoption of a model that, not only accommodates, but also anticipates and embraces diversity, variety, and differences in knowledge. It calls for a model that moves beyond pre-determined content and learned solutions to seeding creativity and cultivating improvization. It approaches education as lifelong learning, as necessarily transformative, creative and authentic. It posits that dealing with the uncertainties of the future requires the acquisition of skills of mitigation and improvization that anticipate, not only mitigate; but to acquire the ability to see and create opportunities out of uncertainty. It endeavors to explore the ways by which higher education can address the need for facing the uncertainties of the future and the complexity of the sustainability challenges.

Critical Theory was, more than anything else, a determined effort to keep alive the notion that there were alternatives to the existing cognitive order, one that seemed to find necessity in the contingent (and irrational) order of mature capitalism. Herbert Marcuse famously paid tribute to the power of the Imagination to destroy the illusion of the absence of alternatives to the existent, developing both an esthetic social theory and a social theory of esthetics. Yet the founder of Critical Theory, Max Horkheimer, was always suspicious of the Imagination, seeing it as predominantly a reproductive and not productive faculty – something that strengthened the hold of the existent on us, not the reverse. I argue that some of Horkheimer's interpretation of the role of the Imagination is rooted in his early work on Kant's Third Critique, which was conducted under the imprimatur of Gestalt psychologist Hans Cornelius. Thus suggests that there may be more connection between Horkheimer's early Gestalt-influenced thinking and his later work, and may even suggest possible directions for a post-Freudian critical theory.

The Chicago School of Sociology heralded a new age: that of the rise and establishment of sociology as an academic discipline in the US. It also spurred on an intellectual tradition in ethnography that focuses on a wide array of methodological tools and empirical data with a focus on the specificity of place that continues to live on in contemporary urban sociology. Yet, its traditions have also been extensively criticized. Burawoy (2000) is one preeminent scholar, who has denounced the Chicago School as being parochial, ahistorical, and decontextualized from the national and international processes that shape cities. Instead, he calls for a move toward “global ethnography,” one that focuses on “global processes, connections, and imaginations” (Burawoy et al., 2000). Increasingly, US urban sociologists study research sites that are located outside the US and pay attention to how global actors and/or transnational connections influence US dynamics. Given this trend, what, if any lessons can global and urban sociologists take away from the Chicago School? In this chapter, I highlight three such lessons: (1) the global is central to city life; (2) rooting our work in the specificities of place helps extend and build theory; and (3) the School still provides useful conceptual and methodological tools to study the global. In doing so, I argue that scholars should recognize the plurality of approaches to global ethnography and how each approach can further our understanding of how the global shapes social life.

In an era of polycrisis, we argue that responsible leaders need to unlearn common thinking patterns imprinted by old (management) paradigms in order to find new solutions to the grand challenges of our time. To be able to overcome the “crisis of the imagination” and spur narratives about more sustainable futures, leaders need to update and restructure their skill sets and invest in developing anticipatory and futures (thinking) skills, as well as futures literacy as a competence. To achieve this on the student level, we also need to rethink business and management education at the university level by challenging the ways we teach, i.e., teaching pedagogics, as well as the content and story we want to tell about the future of management. Thus, with this chapter, we aim to rethink pedagogical methods and tools by introducing educators to potential pathways for equipping students with adequate skills to be able to “use-the-future”. As the process of unlearning is difficult, we argue that we need to venture out of the business discipline and push the barriers of the business and management curriculum so as to be able to further unleash creativity and imagination. To achieve this aim, we propose the integration of methods and approaches from art-related disciplines, such as theater, visual arts, or design, into the business curriculum.