Installation piece by artist couple Eva & Adele. Photo by Ferdinand Feys
Edit (Jan. 20, 2023): An expanded peer-reviewed article based on the research described here has been published. See here:
Thayer, T. (2023), “Identifying similarities and differences in sustainability education and foresight and futures education: a comparative analysis of competence frameworks”, On the Horizon, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/OTH-11-2022-0066
I recently attended a kick-off meeting for a new project, Partnership for Sustainable Development and Social Innovation (PASSION), that is meant to explore and address contemporary needs and challenges in higher education. In our kick-off meetings we read about and discussed various things such as competence frameworks and needs assessments. Here, I want to discuss two things in particular that came up in our meetings:
- Competence frameworks for sustainable development education (SDE) – not surprisingly these are very similar to frameworks for foresight and futures education (FFE) but with some notable differences that I think could prove helpful to highlight.
- Systemic elements of change – the framework introduced (but not much discussed) is similar to a framework that I have used in my teaching and work, but, again, with some notable, and I think helpful, differences.
While what follows here is more or less just me working my way through some of what I picked up at our kick-off meeting, I think it may also be helpful for our project, but also anyone involved with, or thinking about, sustainable development or foresight and futures in education.
A brief caveat, I haven’t yet received copies of all of the materials that were presented to frame our discussion at the meetings and am working from memory in some instances.
SDE competence framework
It’s not surprising that competence frameworks for SDE and FFE would be very similar. Both involve forward-looking endeavours that aim to address long-term needs and challenges. In fact, they are so similar that it begs the question, whether they are just two terms for essentially the same thing? Indeed, it’s happened that people that I have worked with have said to me that their “take” on foresight and futures is sustainable development, suggesting that the two are interchangeable. But, I don’t think they are interchangeable and clarifying some of the differences could be helpful for both SDE and FFE.
The SDE competence frameworks that I was introduced to over the past few days suggest some important differences between approaches and aims in SDE and FFE. One competence framework for SDE that was presented was developed by Wiek and others (see Source 1 (on Academia.edu, may require log in) and Source 2).
The primary components of the Wiek, et al framework are:
• Systems thinking competence
• Futures thinking (or anticipatory) competence
• Values thinking (or normative) competence
• Strategic thinking (or action-oriented) competence
• Collaboration (or interpersonal) competence
Wiek, et al’s competence model for sustainability education (Source).
Comparing SDE and FFE competence frameworks
Now, the similarities to FFE should be pretty obvious to anyone familiar with foresight and futures work. In fact, the SDE competences echo in many ways the essential aspects of the Association of Professional Futurists’ (APF) competence framework developed a few years ago by Andy Hines and his colleagues (keeping in mind however that the APF framework is a framework for working professionals, whereas the SDE framework is intended for education purposes – significant differences there). But, I want to go through the SDE competences and highlight some of the differences between it and what we would expect in FFE.
Starting with the Systems Thinking competence – this is spot on with FFE. In FFE, systems thinking is critical and informs pretty much everything else. In fact, I would (and often do) say that futures thinking is essentially just applying systems thinking to long-term change. I will discuss the systems thinking component of FFE some more below when I get into the systemic elements of change.
Second is the futures, or anticipatory, thinking competence, and here we start to see some differences. Whereas Wiek bundle a number of elements under anticipatory thinking, in the context of FFE a more fine-grained definition is common, and some might say, necessary.
In FFE we assume that there are different types of anticipatory knowledge, each of which requires different competences to work with. I generally differentiate between three types of anticipatory knowledge (I have seen a number of variations on this):
1. Possible futures – This includes all futures that we might imagine.
2. Probable futures – Is a subset of 1. and includes the futures that available evidence suggests are likely to occur.
3. Preferred futures – Another subset of 1. that likely overlaps (but not necessarily) with 2. and includes all of the futures that are considered to be most beneficial for those affected by the relevant change.
So, for example, let us consider the following:
1. Possible future – We could face an invasion by a superior alien race from outer space at some point in the future.
2. Probable future – It is unlikely that we would be invaded by anything from outer space because all evidence that we have today suggests that it would have to come from well beyond our solar system and space travel across such vast distances is not feasible for living beings.
3. Preferred future – We would rather not have to face such an invasion because the invaders might not recognise us sentient beings and inadvertently wipe us out.
The first, the Possible future, is really only limited by our imagination. If we’re thinking far enough ahead, then the old adage, “Anything is possible.”, really does hold a lot of truth. However, our imagination is somewhat more constrained the closer we move to our contemporary period. Thus, things are less likely to change from one day to another, whereas we should expect more significant change from, for ex. one decade to another, or one century to another.
The second, the Probable future, requires a more analytical approach. While everything may be possible in the future, not everything is as likely to occur. Probable futures are the products of our imagination, but we’ve whittled down the range of possible futures by considering the circumstances that would give rise to them and weighing the probability that each could be reasonably expected to occur.
The third, the Preferred future, arises from a more normative assessment of what is possible. Thus, preferred futures are the futures that logic and ethics suggest are feasible and desirable.
Each of these categories of futures require competences that are in many ways distinct to foresight and futures studies in the ways that they are applied. Possible futures requires that individuals be able to harness their creative talents to imagine and visualise events that have not (yet) occurred. Probable futures require analytical and skills to make inferences from available data about emergent changes and change forces in the environment. Preferred futures requires an understanding of ethics and how values evolve over time. Finally, as has been mentioned, all of the futures categories require an understanding of and capacity to apply systems thinking to considerations of how changes impact societies and environments.
There is some discernible overlap with SDE competences that is worth noting. Especially, aside from the critical role of systems thinking, is the normative element – what appears in the SDE framework as “Values thinking”. In FFE frameworks, this competence does not appear as a distinct category but rather is embedded in the concept of Preferred futures.
More notable, however, are the competences that are embedded in the FFE concepts of Possible and Probable futures that are not clearly outlined in the SDE framework. For Probable futures these are the analytical and logic skills needed to assess the feasibility of specific paths of change. Wiek et al seem to assume that these skills are encompassed by the Systems Thinking competences, but logic and systems thinking are quite different despite some similarities. Logic deals with the validity of propositions and assertions while systems thinking deals with the interconnectivity of things.
For Possible futures creativity is a key competence. Wiek et al seem hesitant to refer to creativity as a competence. We find references to creativity under the Anticipatory Thinking competence, but then qualified as “craft” or “crafting”. This, to me, is a gaping hole in the framework. Creativity is the cornerstone of any anticipatory thinking, which essentially involves imagining circumstances and events that have not occurred, and may never occur. Some may not agree that creativity is a competence, and indeed it is often described more as a trait than something that can be taught, learned, nurtured, and honed. But, I simply don’t agree with such positions, and I think that this is the general assumptions in relation to FFE. Applying creative talents is something that requires practice and work, and methods for doing that can be taught. Therefore, in FFE frameworks, creativity is included as a distinct competence that is more or less on a par with systems thinking, in terms of its relevance.
Having described what I see as key differences between SDE and FFE competence frameworks it’s useful to look at the two side by side:
| SDE competences | FFE competences |
|
|
The differences between the two are not great, but are, nonetheless, significant. Most significant is FFE’s Creative competence. In foresight and futures fields it is often said, “The future is not something that happens to us. It is something that we are constantly creating through all of our actions and decisions, whether they are individual or collective.” Working with futures is a creative process. It simply cannot be done without applied creativity. Also, I think it would be helpful for those in SDE fields to consider the finer granularity regarding Anticipatory competence that appears in FFE frameworks. At any time, when we look forward, there are infinite possible futures. They are not all the same, and working with the different types requires different skill sets.
Systemic change
The other point that I wanted to make here regards systems frameworks for analysing change looking towards the future. I do not have a reference for the framework that was suggested in our meetings but my understanding was that it is essentially represented as a triangle to demonstrate three forces that interact to moderate change: environmental, economic, and social.
But, here (again), I see a gaping hole. Where is technology? Technology is arguably the greatest driver of change in our societies and moderate other change forces in very significant ways. So, either we are not talking about a triangle, i.e. three axes, but rather a square, i.e. four axes; or we are talking about a triangle with three axes, but different values on the axes.
I have, indeed, used a triangle with three axes to model and analyse how three key change forces and moderators interact to produce (or resist) change. In my model the three axes are technology, environment, and socio-economic forces.
Some would want to separate the social and economic values, but I have yet to find a reason to do so. But, I am not an economist. I’m sure that there are those that would be happy to change my mind in this regard, and I invite them to do so. In the work that I have done I have simply found that, in general, the social and economic forces act together to moderate what people want and are willing to invite into their environment. Thus, for the sake of simplicity, I have modelled these as a single force.
Systemic model to explore how three key change forces promote or hinder change.
What my triangle represents is this: Opportunities for change are specific for individual contexts and are moderated by the forces on the three corners. These act as push/pull forces. The centre of the triangle is where change is most likely to occur. An object is evaluated for acceptability or resistance on each axis. As acceptability increases, the push force moves the object being evaluated towards the centre, indicating overall increased potential for change along that axis. Resistance, on the other hand, pulls the object from the centre, indicating overall decreased potential for change. Equal push forces will move the object to the centre of the triangle demonstrating the greatest potential for change, whereas uneven push/pull forces will offset the object. The offset object demonstrates less potential for change, but also indicates why the object being analysed is less likely to produce change.
Let’s look at an example and harness the benefit of hindsight. A lot of people remember Google’s Glass project. The aim was to develop eyewear that would grab data relevant to users from the Internet and project it into their field of vision in a way that it would interact with their perceived environment. To promote and test their product, Google launched a programme in which people in the US were invited to apply to be able to purchase advance issues of the glasses. If I remember correctly, about 2,500 people were carefully selected (they had to demonstrate relevance) to be able to purchase the glasses. Not surprisingly, the greatest numbers of individuals selected were in two areas in the US: Silicon Valley in CA, USA; and Seattle, WA, USA (area where Microsoft’s headquarters are). What happened next was quite interesting. Before anyone had even received their glasses, signs started popping up in Silicon Valley and Seattle restaurants, bars, and cafés banning said glasses – even though no-one had any, yet!
So, let’s use my triangle to see what happened:
Google Glass: Change forces promoting and resisting change.
What the triangle demonstrates is that technology-wise there was nothing hindering the adoption of Google Glass – the product was ready and about to ship. In terms of environmental impact, there was no significant resistance, i.e. the product was not perceived to threaten the environment in any way. However, on the social axis we see that there was considerable resistance (demonstrated by the bans that were put in place prior to distribution). This resistance was enough to offset the object (widespread Glass adoption) far from the centre of the triangle, indicating that change would be unlikely to occur. And, indeed, the project failed spectacularly and we have yet to see anything like widespread adoption of Glass or a similar product. But, change may again be nigh because attitudes change over time. I’m sure that the triangle would look very different if we did the same analysis today.
Using this tool, we could also model, for example, electric cars. I think in general we would see that there is currently little resistance on any of the axes. Electric cars are generally regarded as a good thing and are on a course to produce significant change in our societies. This might change in the future, however. Especially, I could imagine that resistance could grow on the environmental axis as concern grows regarding the resources needed to produce modern batteries and the environmental impact of gathering those resources. Thus, it is conceivable that the current rapid diffusion of electric cars could stall until new technologies are developed. We’ll see…
Summary
So, to sum up what I hope to have accomplished here:
SDE competence frameworks might benefit from examining better what has been done in FFE. FFE is, I believe, a field that has a longer history of development than SDE and, thus, has gone through more trial-and-error processes. Most important, is for SDE to clarify the role of creativity in their competence models and to better address different types of futures and the competences required to work with each.
Systems thinking is critical to both SDE and FFE, but it’s also exceedingly hard to do. Systems can be infinitely complex and wrapping our minds around them is very difficult. Therefore, it’s important that we start from well-reasoned positions. Obvious holes in our models are likely to cause immense problems in our analyses. Technology is, I believe, undeniably the greatest force driving change in all human endeavours. Overlooking it in systems models meant to represent human activity is akin to leaving the yeast out of beer – you’ll end up with something, but it won’t be beer. Likewise, without technology in human activity systems, you’ll end up with a model of some kind of activity, but will it be a human activity?
