The Future Of Education And Labor 3030260674, 9783030260675, 9783030260682

Table of contents :
Series Foreword......Page 5
References......Page 7
Contents......Page 9
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Future of Education and Labor......Page 11
1.1 The Organization of Contributions to This Book......Page 13
1.2 Part I: The Future of Education and Labor – The Economy Does Matter, the How and Why......Page 14
1.3 Part II: The Future of Education and Labor – The Arts Do Matter, the How and Why......Page 16
References......Page 17
Chapter 2: The Future of Education and Labor......Page 18
References......Page 28
Part I: The Future of Education and Labor, The Economy Does Matter, The How and Why......Page 29
3.1 Introduction......Page 30
3.1.1 The 2030 World......Page 31
3.1.2.1 The DeSeCo Theory of Competencies......Page 33
Creating New Value......Page 35
Taking Responsibility......Page 36
Knowledge for 2030......Page 37
Attitudes and Values for 2030......Page 38
3.1.2.6 Curriculum Design Principles......Page 39
3.2 Conclusions......Page 41
References......Page 42
Chapter 4: The Consequences of Industry 4.0 for the Labour Market and Education......Page 43
4.1 Industry 4.0 and the Labour Market......Page 44
4.2 A Comprehensive Macrostudy for Germany......Page 45
4.3 Outcomes of the Modelling Approach......Page 51
4.4 The Future of Education......Page 58
4.5 Policy Consequences......Page 59
References......Page 60
5.1 Introduction......Page 63
5.2 The Network Firm: The Fourth Historical Stage of Productive Organization......Page 65
5.3 The Formation of the Network Firm’s Knowledge Capital (KC)......Page 69
5.4 What Are the Consequences for Knowledge Production and Scientific Work?......Page 75
5.5 Conclusion......Page 77
References......Page 79
Chapter 6: The Coevolution of Labor and Creativity: A Way from the “Old” to the “New” Economy......Page 81
6.1 Introduction......Page 82
6.2 Preindustrial and Industrial Economies: Labor as a Forced Work......Page 83
6.3 Postindustrial Economy and “Creative” Economy: Contrasting Labor and Creativity......Page 86
6.4 Creativity, Knowledge, and Innovation Economies: Merging (Fusion) of Labor and Creativity......Page 95
6.5 Conclusion......Page 99
References......Page 100
Chapter 7: Collaborative Creativity and Creative Collaboration as Future Work Paradigms: A Philosophical Conception and Real Practices: A Case Study of the Practical Case of the Banff Centre......Page 103
7.1 Introduction......Page 104
7.2 A Brief Synthesis of Creativity Research......Page 105
7.3 Creativity as a Complex Individual and Social Phenomenon......Page 106
7.4 Creativity in a Context of Social Evaluation......Page 108
7.4.1 Contribution Framework by Paulus and Nijstad......Page 109
7.4.2 The Micro-interactional Model by Keith Sawyer......Page 111
7.5 Creativity as a Collaborative and Communicative Phenomenon......Page 112
7.6 The Peter Lougheed Leadership Initiative at the Banff Centre for Arts and Creativity......Page 113
7.7 The MDA Approach to Facilitation and Collaborative Creativity......Page 115
7.8 Aesthetics......Page 117
7.10 Conclusion......Page 118
References......Page 120
8.1 Introduction......Page 123
8.2 Economic Education in Universities......Page 124
8.3 A Position of the Government......Page 126
8.5 Economic Education at the School Level......Page 128
8.6 The Position of the Key Stakeholders: A Summary......Page 133
8.7 The Future of Economic Education in Russia and the World......Page 134
8.8 Conclusion......Page 137
References......Page 139
9.1 Introduction......Page 140
9.2 The Formative Phase of the OECD’s Educational Mission......Page 141
9.3 The Reconfiguration of the OECD’s Educational Leitmotif......Page 144
9.4 Diverging National Pathways to Education and Skills Formation......Page 147
9.4.1 The USA and General Higher Education......Page 148
9.4.2 Collective Skills Formation in Germany and Austria......Page 150
9.5 Encompassing Differences: Skills for All in the Twenty-First Century......Page 154
9.6 Future Prospects of the ‘Skills Concept’......Page 156
References......Page 159
Part II: The Future of Education and Labor, The Arts Do Matter, The How and Why......Page 161
Chapter 10: Artists as Translators in Societal Turns......Page 162
10.1 Introduction......Page 163
10.2.1 Case Study: Austria......Page 166
10.2.2 Evaluation in Education: Serious Considerations About Arts and h-Metrics......Page 167
10.2.2.1 Peer Review Versus h-Metrics: Claim for Interdisciplinary Peer-Review Boards in the Arts......Page 168
10.2.3 Evaluation in Education: Considerations About Design h-Metrics......Page 169
10.2.6 Summary: Industry 4.0 and Lebensreform 4.0......Page 170
10.2.7 The Future Role: Art and Design Universities | Learn Now!......Page 171
10.3.1 Social Impact of Participation in the Arts......Page 172
10.3.3 Creative and Transferable Skills......Page 173
10.3.4.1 Case Study: SECURIWAS?......Page 176
10.4 Vision......Page 177
References......Page 179
11.1 Introduction: Backward Design......Page 183
11.2 Forward Design......Page 185
11.3 Expanding Art Education to Embrace Creative Technologies......Page 187
11.3.1 Fluency......Page 188
11.3.2 Build and Make......Page 191
11.3.3 Integration......Page 193
11.3.4 Meaning Making......Page 195
11.3.5 Collaboration......Page 198
11.3.6 Stewardship......Page 200
11.4 Conclusion......Page 201
References......Page 202
Chapter 12: Becoming Worldwide: Transdisciplinary Ways of Collaborations in Philosophy and the Arts – A Case Study......Page 205
12.1 Philosophical Preliminary Remarks......Page 206
12.2.1 Lecture Series: Philosophy on Stage......Page 208
12.2.2 Art-Labs......Page 210
12.2.2.1 Art-Lab #1......Page 211
12.2.2.2 Art-Lab #2......Page 214
12.3 Philosophy on Stage #4......Page 224
12.4 Conclusion: A Transdisciplinary View at the Future of Research and Education......Page 226
References......Page 227
Chapter 13: Querkraft – Cross-Force – Art as Education. Transversal Practices Versus Economic Rationalization......Page 228
13.2 Unequal Competition......Page 229
13.3 Educational Systems in Crisis......Page 231
13.4 Historical Models That Are of Current Relevance......Page 233
13.5 Art as Education......Page 235
13.6 Cultural Education as Transformative and Transversal Practice......Page 237
Chapter 14: Conclusion: The Future of The Future of Education and Labor......Page 245
References......Page 253
Index......Page 255

Citation preview

Arts, Research, Innovation and Society

Gerald Bast Elias G. Carayannis David F. J. Campbell Editors

The Future of Education and Labor

Arts, Research, Innovation and Society

Series Editors Gerald Bast, University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Austria Elias G. Carayannis, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA David F. J. Campbell, University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Austria Editors-in-Chief Gerald Bast and Elias G. Carayannis Chief Associate Editor David F. J. Campbell

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/11902

Gerald Bast  •  Elias G. Carayannis David F. J. Campbell Editors

The Future of Education and Labor

Editors Gerald Bast University of Applied Arts Vienna Vienna, Austria David F. J. Campbell University of Applied Arts Vienna Unit for Quality Enhancement (UQE) Vienna, Austria

Elias G. Carayannis European Union Research Center GWU School of Business The George Washington University Washington, DC, USA

Danube University Krems Department for Continuing Education Research and Educational Technologies Center for Educational Management and Higher Education Development Krems, Austria University of Vienna Department of Political Science Vienna, Austria Alpen-Adria-University Klagenfurt Faculty for Interdisciplinary Studies (IFF) Department of Science Communication and Higher Education Research Klagenfurt, Austria

ISSN 2626-7683     ISSN 2626-7691 (electronic) Arts, Research, Innovation and Society ISBN 978-3-030-26067-5    ISBN 978-3-030-26068-2 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26068-2 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Series Foreword

Creativity in general and the Arts in particular are increasingly recognized as drivers of cultural, economic, political, social, and scientific innovation and development. In Art and Research (see Bast 2013; Ritterman et al. 2011), some of the principal questions to be explored by the ARIS project (Arts, Research, Innovation, and Society) are outlined (Bast et al. 2015, 2018; Carayannis et al. 2017): 1 . Could and should Artists be Researchers? 2. How are the systems of the Arts and the Sciences connected and/or disconnected? 3. What is the position and status of the arts in defining the terms “progress” and “development”? Other key questions that the ARIS project aims to focus on are (these are clearly indicative and not all-inclusive or exclusive of additional issues, themes, and questions that may arise in the context of the ARIS theory, policy and practice discourse): 1 . What is the impact of the Arts in societal development? 2. How are the Arts interrelated with the mechanisms of generating social, scientific and economic innovation? 3. What is, could be and should be the nature, dynamics and role of the Arts in shaping the Research and Innovation theories, policies and practices such as the New Growth Theory? 4. In the same context, what could and should be a new understanding of the support for funding of the Arts as a stand-alone pillar with its own merit, value and potential along with Research and Innovation of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth that is socially-embedded and cohesive development and progress? 5. What are the socio-economic, socio-political, socio-technical implications for Society from the answers to any and all of these questions? 5.1. For instance, what are the particular implications for sectors such as Politics, Education, Health, Manufacturing and others? 5.2. How can the New Growth Theory be understood in the context of Creative Economies, Societies and Democracies? v

vi

Series Foreword

5.3. Are there limits to growth in the traditional economy and what is the role of artistic research and arts-based innovations in re-defining growth, development and progress? 5.4. What are the role, inter-dependencies and dynamics of Arts versus Research versus Innovation versus Society as catalysts, drivers and accelerators of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth? 5.5. What is the relationship of Arts to “quality of democracy” in theory and practice? In particular and based on this context, Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship (CI2E, see also the Springer Encyclopedia of CI2E, edited by Carayannis 2013) are key drivers of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth that are both enhanced and constrained by financial as well as social and environmental considerations and trade-offs. In this context, Arts, Research, Innovation and Society (ARIS) are four vantage points from which one could derive and develop insights as to how best to drive cultural, economic, political, social, and scientific development and progress. The Springer ARIS series explores (at the macro, meso and micro levels and in terms of qualitative as well as quantitative studies) theories, policies and practices about the contributions of artistic research and innovations towards defining new forms of knowledge, knowledge production (see Mode 3 Knowledge Production Systems by Carayannis and Campbell 2006, 2009, 2012) as well as knowledge diffusion, absorption and use (Pirzadeh 2016). Artistic research, artistic innovations and arts-based innovations have been major transformers as well as disruptors of the ways in which societies, economies, and political systems perform. Ramifications here refer to the epistemic socio-economic, socio-political and socio-technical base and aesthetic considerations on the one hand, as well as to strategies, policies, and practices on the other, including sustainable enterprise excellence considerations in the context of knowledge economies, societies and democracies (see also Quadruple and Quintuple Helix innovation systems concepts by Carayannis and Campbell 2009, 2010, 2014; furthermore, see Campbell 2019). The series features research monographs, edited volumes, proceedings, Briefs, and textbooks, and may also include handbooks and reference works, and in-print as well on-line rich media encapsulations of ideas and insights, representing cutting-­ edge research and the synthesis of a body of work in the field. Please contact ALL three editors at the emails provided for further information and proposals submission guidance. Gerald Bast ([email protected]) Elias G. Carayannis ([email protected]) David F. J. Campbell ([email protected]) ARIS book series: http://www.springer.com/series/11902 Until now and recently, the following three volumes already have been published in the ARIS book series:

Series Foreword

vii

Bast, Gerald / Elias G.  Carayannis / David F.  J. Campbell (eds.) (2015). Arts, Research, Innovation and Society. New York, NY: Springer (http://www.springer. com/business+%26+management/technology+management/book/978-3-31909908-8 and http://www.springer.com/de/book/9783319099088). Pirzadeh, Ali (2016). Iran Revisited. Exploring the Historical Roots of Culture, Economics, and Society. New  York, NY: Springer (https://link.springer.com/ content/pdf/bfm%3A978-3-319-30485-4%2F1.pdf and http://www.springer. com/de/book/9783319304830). Bast, Gerald / Elias G. Carayannis / David F. J. Campbell (eds.) (2018). The Future of Museums. New  York, NY: Springer (https://www.springer.com/de/ book/9783319939544). Vienna, Austria  Gerald Bast Washington, DC, USA  Elias G. Carayannis Vienna, Austria  David F. J. Campbell December, 2019

References Bast G (2013) Preparing a “creative revolution” – arts and universities of the arts in the creative knowledge economy. In: Carayannis EG (Editor-in-Chief), Dubina IN, Seel N, Campbell DFJ, Uzunidis D (Associate Editors) (eds) Encyclopedia of creativity, invention, innovation and entrepreneurship. Springer, New  York, pp  1471–1476. http://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-1-4614-3858-8_442 and http://www.springerreference.com/docs/ html/chapterdbid/378818.html Bast G, Carayannis EG (2018) In: Campbell DFJ (ed) The future of museums. Springer, New York. https://www.springer.com/de/book/9783319939544 Bast G, Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (eds) (2015) Arts, research, innovation and society. Springer, New  York. http://www.springer.com/business+%26+management/technology+management/ book/978-3-319-09908-8 Campbell DFJ (2019) Global quality of democracy as innovation enabler. Measuring democracy for success. Palgrave Macmillan, New  York. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3319-72529-1 and https://www.palgrave.com/de/book/9783319725284 Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (2006) “Mode 3”: meaning and implications from a knowledge systems perspective. In: Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (eds) Knowledge creation, diffusion, and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters. A comparative systems approach across the United States, Europe and Asia. Praeger, Westport, pp 1–25 Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (2009) “Mode 3” and “Quadruple Helix”: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. Int J Technol Manag 46(3/4):201–234. http://www.inderscience. com/browse/index.php?journalID=27&year=2009&vol=46&issue=3/4 and http://www.inderscience.com/search/index.php?action=record&rec_id=23374&prevQuery=&ps=10&m=or Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (2010) Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix and Quintuple Helix and how do knowledge, innovation and the environment relate to each other? A proposed framework for a trans-disciplinary analysis of sustainable development and social ecology. Int J Soc Ecol Sustain Dev 1(1):41–69. http://www.igi-global.com/free-content/41959 and http://www. igi-global.com/article/triple-helix-quadruple-helix-quintuple/41959

viii

Series Foreword

Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (2012) Mode 3 knowledge production in Quadruple Helix innovation systems. 21st-century democracy, innovation, and entrepreneurship for development. SpringerBriefs in business. Springer, New  York. http://www.springer.com/ ­ business+%26+management/book/978-1-4614-2061-3 Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (2014) Developed democracies versus emerging autocracies: arts, democracy, and innovation in Quadruple Helix innovation systems. J Innov Entrepreneurship 3:12. http://www.innovation-entrepreneurship.com/content/3/1/12 Carayannis EG (Editor-in-Chief), Dubina IN, Seel N, Campbell DFJ, Uzunidis D (Associate Editors) (eds) (2013) Encyclopedia of creativity, invention, innovation and entrepreneurship (CI2E). Springer, New  York. http://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007 %2F978-1-4614-3858-8_509# and http://www.springerreference.com/docs/html/chapterdbid/378878.html Carayannis EG, Bast G, Campbell DFJ (2017) Arts, research, innovation, and society: ARIS.  In: Carayannis EG (Editor-in-Chief), Dubina IN, Seel N, Campbell DFJ, Uzunidis D (Associate Editors) (eds) Encyclopedia of creativity, invention, innovation and entrepreneurship. Springer, New  York, pp  1–5. https://link.springer.com/ referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-1-4614-6616-1_200024-1 Pirzadeh A (2016) Iran revisited. Exploring the historical roots of culture, economics, and society. Springer, New York. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/bfm%3A978-3-319-30485-4%2F1. pdf Ritterman J, Bast G, Mittelstraß J (eds) (2011) Art and Research: Can Artists be Researchers? Kunst und Forschung: Können Künstler Forscher sein? Edition Angewandte. Springer, Vienna. http://link.springer.com/bookseries/7882 and http://link.springer.com/ book/10.1007/978-3-7091-0753-9

Contents

1 Introduction to the Future of Education and Labor����������������������������    1 Gerald Bast, Elias G. Carayannis, and David F. J. Campbell 2 The Future of Education and Labor������������������������������������������������������    9 Gerald Bast Part I The Future of Education and Labor, The Economy Does Matter, The How and Why 3 An OECD Learning Framework 2030 ��������������������������������������������������   23 OECD 4 The Consequences of Industry 4.0 for the Labour Market and Education������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   37 Robert Helmrich, Enzo Weber, Marc Ingo Wolter, and Gerd Zika 5 The Knowledge Capital of the Network Firm: Socialization Versus Business Appropriation of Scientific Work ������������������������������   57 Blandine Laperche and Dimitri Uzunidis 6 The Coevolution of Labor and Creativity: A Way from the “Old” to the “New” Economy����������������������������������������������������������   75 Igor N. Dubina, Elias G. Carayannis, and David F. J. Campbell 7 Collaborative Creativity and Creative Collaboration as Future Work Paradigms: A Philosophical Conception and Real Practices: A Case Study of the Practical Case of the Banff Centre����������������������������������������������������������������������������������   97 Gerald Bartels, Igor N. Dubina, David F. J. Campbell, Jerrold McGrath, and Elias G. Carayannis 8 The Trends and Prospectives of Professional Economic Education in Russia ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  117 Igor N. Dubina, Elena G. Limanova, and Gagik M. Mkrtchyan ix

x

Contents

  9 From Universal “Higher Education for All” to Differentiated “Skills for All”: The Shifting Rationale of the OECD Regarding Education and Labour����������������������������������������������������������  135 Laura C. Sturzeis Part II The Future of Education and Labor, The Arts Do Matter, The How and Why 10 Artists as Translators in Societal Turns ������������������������������������������������  159 Ruth Mateus-Berr 11 Forward Design: Creative Technologies in Art Education������������������  181 Richard Jochum 12 Becoming Worldwide: Transdisciplinary Ways of Collaborations in Philosophy and the Arts – A Case Study ������������������������������������������  203 Arno Böhler 13 Querkraft – Cross-Force – Art as Education. Transversal Practices Versus Economic Rationalization������������������������������������������  227 Barbara Putz-Plecko 14 Conclusion: The Future of The Future of Education and Labor ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  245 David F. J. Campbell, Elias G. Carayannis, and Gerald Bast Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  255

Chapter 1

Introduction to the Future of Education and Labor Gerald Bast, Elias G. Carayannis, and David F. J. Campbell

Abstract  Due to an increased and increasing automatization (robotic manufacturing) and digitalization and a more widespread and increased use of AI (artificial intelligence and logarithms), the character of labor and work in more general will change dramatically in the near future. While the significant transition from an agricultural society toward an industrial society took almost a century and was limited to certain regional parts of the globe, the speed of implementing robots and artificial intelligence is tremendously high and spreads all over the globe. There are estimations that about half of the present employment in the United States is at risk, and the situation in other countries is comparable. The way social and economic processes are working has become significantly complex. Combining knowledge in a creative way is at least as necessary as the increasing and collecting of knowledge. The educational system does not reflect this sufficiently. Cross-disciplinary (interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary) thinking and learning is not in the main focus of our educational systems. Educational systems must change now – when the risk of economic and societal collapse should be avoided.

G. Bast (*) University of Applied Arts Vienna, Vienna, Austria e-mail: [email protected] E. G. Carayannis European Union Research Center, GWU School of Business, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA e-mail: [email protected] D. F. J. Campbell University of Applied Arts Vienna, Unit for Quality Enhancement (UQE), Vienna, Austria Danube University Krems, Department for Continuing Education Research and Educational Technologies, Center for Educational Management and Higher Education Development, Krems, Austria University of Vienna, Department of Political Science, Vienna, Austria Alpen-Adria-University Klagenfurt, Faculty for Interdisciplinary Studies (iff), Department of Science Communication and Higher Education Research (WIHO), Klagenfurt, Austria e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 G. Bast et al. (eds.), The Future of Education and Labor, Arts, Research, Innovation and Society, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26068-2_1

1

2

G. Bast et al.

Keywords  Artificial intelligence · Automatization · Digitalization · Education · Fourth industrial revolution · Labor · The future of education and labor The message is radical. A recent study indicates that “about 47 percent of total US employment is at risk” due to computerization and other changes in the labor markets (Frey and Osborne 2013, p.  1). Furthermore, the authors (Frey and Osborne 2013, p.  44) assert: “While computerization has been historically confined to routine tasks involving explicit rule-based activities …, algorithms for big data are now rapidly entering domains reliant upon pattern recognition and can readily substitute for labor in a wide range of non-routine cognitive tasks …. In addition, advanced robots are gaining enhanced senses and dexterity, allowing them to perform a broader scope of manual tasks …. This is likely to change the nature of work across industries and occupations.” While the significant transition from an agricultural society toward an industrial society took almost a century and was limited to certain regional parts of the globe, the speed of implementing robots and artificial intelligence is tremendously high and spreads all over the globe. So the transition process caused by the recent technological revolution will affect much more people within a much shorter time than any other industrial revolution before. Due to an increased and increasing automatization (robotic manufacturing) and digitalization and a more widespread and increased use of AI (artificial intelligence and logarithms), the character of labor and work in more general will change dramatically in the near future. This will be the case not only in the western countries but also in the larger emerging economies in Asia, for example, China and India. According to recent studies, almost half of the current workplaces in the United States may disappear within the next one or two decades. Future labor will be creative, will take the social context more into account, and will be more interdisciplinary (bringing together different competences and skills). Knowledge society, knowledge economy, and knowledge democracy require changes and innovations in our educational systems. If, at all, the technological revolution will create new jobs similar to the amount of jobs it will destroy, it could be an extremely painful and dangerous process. It is no secret that dramatically and quickly rising unemployment has significant negative impact on society, being clearly correlated with poverty, crimes, physical and mental diseases, as well as political radicalism. Given the foreseeable changes in society and the economy, which will result from technological developments, that seems all too logical. Automatable work, manual as well as mental, will be taken over by machines within a few years. Fields of work that cannot be automated, whether they already exist or are newly developed, will require higher education  – but one that is significantly different from what is currently offered.

1  Introduction to the Future of Education and Labor

3

The way social and economic processes are working has become significantly complex. Combining knowledge in a creative way is at least as necessary as the increasing and collecting of knowledge. The educational system does not reflect this sufficiently. Cross-disciplinary (interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary) thinking and learning is not in the main focus of our educational systems. Consequently, the systems of academic research follow and apply disciplinary or even subdisciplinary strategies, avoiding cross-disciplinary research approaches, and are not supporting interdisciplinary academic career models. Along the fourth industrial revolution, fueled by the recent technological revolution, we need an educational revolution. This revolution has to be a revolution driven by creativity and social intelligence. This revolution has to implement holistic approaches into our system of teaching, learning, and research. This revolution will provide experts in synthesizing knowledge and in bridging the towers of knowledge (University of Applied Arts Vienna and Gerald Bast 2018). Educational systems must change now – when we want to avoid the risk of economic and societal collapse. The current systems of education and research are rooting in the age of industrialization. Nowadays, there is still this focus on producing industry, service economy, perhaps also bureaucracy. While societal environments, economy and the character of labor are increasingly in a process of dramatic changes, the educational systems and the leading principles of research about labor and employment do not change adequately. Big research projects like the Human Brain Project have to provide their own preparatory programs in order to make university graduates able to participate in these types of necessarily multidisciplinary and cross-disciplinary research projects. The future of education and labor is essential, and the future of labor is also dependent and depending on the future of education.

1.1  The Organization of Contributions to This Book After the introduction, the book is organized in two main sections. In Part One, the future of education and labor is discussed from the perspective of The Economy Does Matter, the How and Why. In Part Two, the future of education and labor are being discussed and rediscussed and reassessed from the perspective of The Arts Do Matter, the How and Why. Altogether, there are 12 main contributions to this book (without the introduction and conclusion), written by a diversity and plurality of authors. In the following, we provide an overview and preview of short summaries of the chapter contributions (see also the abstracts directly to the chapters later in the book).

4

G. Bast et al.

1.2  P  art I: The Future of Education and Labor – The Economy Does Matter, the How and Why 1. Gerald Bast introduces into the theme of the future of education and labor. He emphasizes that there is a need for driving a revolution in creativity, social intelligence, but also in educational system reform. Cross-connecting in interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity is key. He is envisioning a contemporary version of the ancient Greek society, where the (normal or routine) work could be carried out (to a further extent) by machines, computers, robots, and artificial intelligence while the definition of human labor has changed fundamentally - towards contributing to societal development mainly with the means of social and creative intelligence. 2. In the contribution of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), reference is being made to an important OECD project: “The Future of Education and Skills: Education 2030.” The project is multiyear in design, and the contribution summarizes the thinking so far. It considers the challenges that young people will face; suggests the importance of the concept of a learner agency; proposes an overarching learning framework with a number of new transformative competencies; reviews the nature of the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values that young people will need; and ends with possible curriculum design principles. 3. Robert Helmrich, Enzo Weber, Marc Ingo Wolter, and Gerd Zika focus on the consequences of Industry 4.0 for the labor market and education. Their study focuses on the economic effects of the phenomenon of “Industry 4.0,” the digitalization of the production processes. These developments involve considerable challenges for companies as well as on a political level. The results show that Industry 4.0 will accelerate the structural change toward more services. In the process, labor force movements between sectors and occupations are significantly greater than the change of the number of employees overall. However, that also means that, given a delayed implementation, the assumptions are turning against the business location Germany: there possibly then will be less exports and demands for more “new” goods from abroad. 4. The changes that have affected academic institutions and scientific work in the last twenty years can be explained by the evolution of organization and strategy of the firms. As Blandine Laperche and Dimitri Uzunidis assert, the current network firm represents the fourth stage in the organization of production, characterized by the importance of networks, linking salaried people from the firm and from many other institutions like universities and research centers, with the aim to increase the innovation capacity. The constitution of the enterprise knowledge capital largely involves academics institutions and scholars themselves, who are urged to commercialize their research and develop narrow partnerships with companies. The rules of the markets are now dominating the production of

1  Introduction to the Future of Education and Labor

5

knowledge, and this may explain the increasing flexibility and agility that increasingly applies to academic institutions and work. 5. What are innovative approaches to and for the “creativity economy”? This question is being raised by Igor N.  Dubina, David F.  J. Campbell, and Elias G. Carayannis. An underlying model would have to interrelate creativity, knowledge, and innovation economies and reflect on the role and place of creativity and labor in a progressing economy. Without sufficient creativity, the further development and evolution of innovation may be constrained. Therefore, creativity and innovation play together in a mutually reinforcing and beneficial way, referring to scenarios for the “new” economy. Here also patterns of a coevolution of creativity and labor are working with each other in an interactive manner and also in an intersectoral and interdisciplinary (and transdisciplinary) sense and setting. Creativity serves as a crucial input for innovation that again acts as a driver for development and progress in knowledge economy, knowledge society and knowledge democracy. 6. Gerald Bartels, Igor N. Dubina, David F. J. Campbell, Jerrold McGrath, and Elias G. Carayannis focus their analysis on creativity (in the frame of this chapter contribution). It is being argued for the pedagogical importance of a nuanced understanding of creativity as a communicative and collaborative phenomenon in the field of university education. Especially training undergraduate students to work in interdisciplinary groups is vital as many of those will have to develop into “young leaders” and solve the major global environmental and social problems challenging our planet. Also a literature review is being carried out that emphasizes specifically the social and interactive elements of creativity. 7. Into which direction (directions) is professional economic education developing in Russia? Igor N. Dubina, Elena G. Limanova, and Gagik M. Mkrtchyan discuss major trends in the development of modern economic education in Russia on the levels of high school, university, academia, and professional society. As a special case, also statistical data are being provided and discussed that are characterizing the situation with economic education in the Novosibirsk region of Russia. The authors also hypothesize about the future of economic education in Russia and in the world. 8. Whereas a “higher education for all” rationale has dominated the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) policies until the beginnings of the twenty-first century, recent initiatives and publications point into the direction of a “skills for all” approach. This shift can be regarded as an acknowledgement of the diversity of the educational systems of the OECD member countries, as it is being asserted by Laura C.  Sturzeis, with skills equally stemming from vocational education and training and general (higher) education becoming the focus of policy formulation.

6

G. Bast et al.

1.3  P  art II: The Future of Education and Labor – The Arts Do Matter, the How and Why 9. In her contribution, Ruth Mateus-Berr addresses “Artists as Translators in Societal Turns.” Artists will be consulted as translators of different fields, because they govern divergent thinking, inherit entrepreneurial spirit, and are used to collaborate with other disciplines. The artistic approach inherits an empathic understanding of the human and of the material, which is creatively applied in artistic works. Interdisciplinary teamwork is the crucial expertise of current and future work. Education on these interdependent skills must be implemented in school and higher education institutions and must also be provided for lifelong learning. 10. What are possible creative technologies in an art education? As Richard Jochum emphasizes, the ubiquity of digital technology has been a major driver of change in art education and has forced art programs across the United States to recalibrate their curricula. A particular focus will be placed on six principles that guided the expansion and reorganization of a graduate-level art and art education program. The analysis explores the relationship between art, technology, and education as a critical trifecta. 11. Arno Böhler raises the question, how a transdisciplinary cooperation of heterogeneous research practices could be organized in the future? He argues that such a cooperation would be about the construction of transdisciplinary milieus allowing for the untimely self-transgression of the various disciplines, knowledge cultures, and research practices. In the presented case study, the self-­ transgression (transcendere) of philosophy started with having declared philosophy as a kind of artistic research. This was a way of proceeding, which finally forced to create an arts-based image of thought in the context, of which the sensual rooting of thought in sensory processes was recognized, materially presented, and bodily exposed firsthand by way of lectures, interventions, lecture-­performances, and morning and evening readings. 12. With QUERKRAFT, Barbara Putz-Plecko is indicating that transformative and visionary force necessitates creativity, but a creativity that has to be freed from its straitjacket. It is a force that requires something artists possess in great measure: the ability to change perspectives, to question traditions, to break with routines and taboos, to see dichotomies as processes, and to draw creatively on the antinomies of chaos and order, fantasy and reality, and improvisation and perfection. Embedded in this system, art education sees its task as being to identify the specific (defining) peculiarities of education by means of art and culture and to make them productive in the educational process. Art schools maintain spaces that are consciously structured to ensure that encounter and debate regularly take place (for example, in the form of art classes). The goal is to create within the study framework a space for learning and development that provides impulses.

1  Introduction to the Future of Education and Labor

7

In the conclusion, again the whole thematic spectrum of the book is being reflected. The Future of Education and Labor expresses the amount and degree of change that is currently transforming society, economy, and democracy. The message is radical and the change will be even more so radical.

References Frey Benedikt Carl and Michael A. Osborne (2013) The future of employment: how susceptible are jobs to computerization? http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_ Future_of_Employment.pdf University of Applied Arts Vienna/Gerald Bast (eds) (2018) Digitale Transformationen. Gesellschaft, Bildung und Arbeit im Umbruch. Vienna: Brandstätter Verlag https://www. dieangewandte.at/digitale_transformationen

Chapter 2

The Future of Education and Labor Gerald Bast

Abstract  Along the fourth industrial revolution, fueled by the recent technological revolution, we need an educational revolution. This revolution has to be a revolution driven by creativity and social intelligence. This revolution has to implement holistic approaches into our system of teaching, learning and research. This revolution will provide experts in synthesizing knowledge and in bridging the towers of knowledge. If we do not follow this path, we will lose the race either against the machines or against the big data companies, which already identified education as the most important business of the twenty-first century and are about to take over the educational sector following shareholder interests instead of societal interests in a democratic society of free men and women. In the ancient Greek society – which many western politicians often refer to – the free (at that time only male) citizens spent their time with thinking, debating, writing, deciding on societal issues, exercising or perceiving arts and sports, and caring for people beyond base and servile work. The base and servile work was done by slaves. In our times, we in fact could think about having a society of free women and free men who dedicate their lives to shaping their private and sociopolitical as well as the socioeconomic sphere and to actively participating in jointly developing the cultural, political, and economic environment where they are living in. In the modern free version of the ancient Greek society, more of the (boring) work could be carried out by machines, computers, robots, and artificial intelligence, while people could focus more on the interesting work. Keywords  Ancient Greek society · Fourth industrial revolution · Future of education · Future or labor · University of the future

G. Bast (*) University of Applied Arts Vienna, Vienna, Austria e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 G. Bast et al. (eds.), The Future of Education and Labor, Arts, Research, Innovation and Society, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26068-2_2

9

10

G. Bast The human history is a race between education and catastrophe. (H.G. Wells)

Something dramatic is going to happen within the next 30 years. There will be manufacturing but no manufacturers. There will be sale. But no salespersons. There will be mobility. But no drivers. There will be banking. But no banks. There will be public administration. But no civil servants. The implications of this fourth industrial revolution will for the first time reach deep into the supposedly well-educated middle classes. Medical professions will be affected, as artificial intelligence systems are quicker, better, and more precise in diagnosis and medication, because the computers compare millions of patient histories and x-ray pictures by using image reading and pattern recognition. Legal professions will be affected as algorithms only in a few hours can read and analyze hundred thousands of document pages, which masses of lawyers needed months for reading and analyzing. Teachers will be affected as schools and universities will be totally different to educational institutions at all levels we know now. Wherever work, or parts of working processes, can be standardized or determined by algorithms, humans will be replaced by machines. Computers and robots are faster, more flexible, more precise, and above all cheaper than human labor. Serious studies estimate that 40–50% of current jobs will disappear within the next 20 years (Frey and Osborne 2013). In 2017, the Harvard Business Review reported that according to McKinsey (2017) “1.2 billion full-time equivalents and $14.6 trillion in wages are associated with activities that are automatable with current technology. This automation potential differs among countries, ranging from 40% to 55% (Harvard Business Review 2017).” As once in the nineteenth century the Silesian weavers were unable to stop the first industrial revolution, neither can we halt the current changes in our working world caused by digitalization and automation. And the coming changes that will be brought about by biotechnology and quantum physics are even more difficult to comprehend. The remarkable rates of automation in China and India already show the dimensions of the coming job losses on a global scale. It does not take much imagination to recognize the enormous social and politically explosive potential if half of what we now understand as human work is about to collapse in less than a single generation. These developments are impossible to stop. One can demonize them, ignore them, play them down, or one can face up to them. At the present, they are generally being ignored or played down, by political leadership as there are no simple answers to this situation. A common argumentation is that there were industrial revolutions driven by new technologies before and each time we had even more jobs after a period of adaption. But the recent technological revolution that has already started will massively change our ways of working and living, our entire culture. It is not

2  The Future of Education and Labor

11

comparable to earlier technological revolutions because it is faster and further reaching than any previous one. The current technologies, from artificial intelligence and robotics to genetic engineering and nanotechnology will, within a few years, affect practically every aspect of life and have serious effects on human life and the effects will take place globally. Even if certain technologies are not immediately and directly available to everyone on a global scale, their use by even a part of humankind will have effects on the others. This time it is totally different to the times when the power of horses was replaced by the horsepower of machines, different to the times when farm workers moved to industrial assembly-lines and different to the times when assembly-line workers could move to a cash desk in a supermarket. Robotics and artificial intelligence will at first destroy middle-skilled jobs. Jobs that demand low or almost no skills will survive for a longer time just for economic reasons and jobs with very high specialized, cross-disciplinary and social skills will hardly be affected by automation. So transition will be painful for the masses of middle-skilled people as they won’t be able to move into new jobs that demand higher or different skills without significant education and training. While the significant transition from an agricultural society toward an industrial society took almost a century and was limited to certain regional parts of the globe, the speed of implementing robots and artificial intelligence is tremendously high and spread all over the globe. So the transition process caused by the recent technological revolution will affect much more people within a much shorter time than any other industrial revolution before. If at all the technological revolution will create new jobs similar to the amount of jobs it will destroy, it could be an extremely painful and dangerous process. It’s no secret that dramatically and quickly rising unemployment has significant negative impact on society, being clearly correlated with poverty, crimes, physical and mental diseases, as well as political radicalism. The so-called end of work may create a new kind of economy. According to Harvard economist Lawrence Katz, “it’s possible that information technology and robots [will] eliminate traditional jobs and make possible a new artisanal economy ... an economy geared around self-expression, where people would do artistic things with their time.”1 From his standpoint, this transition would move the world from one of consumption to creativity. In a  world shaped by artificial intelligence, digitalization and robotics, humans will only be able to attain social and economic effectiveness through creative thought processes. That is, through processes that create connections which had not previously been thought of, or that had been considered unthinkable among known, and thus increasingly automated, areas of knowledge and action. For the first time in the history of civilization, machines are replacing not only the power of human muscles but also complex collections of human thoughts. Self-learning machines are entering into a directly competitive relationship to humans as autonomous shapers of the course of the world.  Quoted in Thompson (2015).

1

12

G. Bast

People’s power to make things happen will no longer express itself as much through putting their thoughts into material form, but will instead manifest itself in linking intellectual, intuitive, social, and emotional processes. Machines cannot do that or at least not yet. Machines can recognize patterns from a multitude of ­processes that have already taken place and systematize these for a particular purpose. Intuition and emotion remain (for now) the domain of humans, even if machines can recognize emotions and even simulate them with emotional patterns that are already stored. As paradoxical as it sounds, it is precisely a far-reaching technological revolution that will lead to a renaissance of reflection about the evolution of humanity beyond virtuality, to reflection about civilization as a cultural process. The dichotomy constructed by Aristotle between vita activa and vita contemplativa, which depended on dividing people into citizens and slaves, could be interpreted in completely new ways in the age of digital machines. In the ancient Greek society – which many western politicians often refer to – the free (at that time only male) citizens spent their time with thinking, debating, writing, deciding on societal issues, exercising or perceiving arts and sports, and caring for people beyond base and servile work. The base and servile work was done by slaves. In our times we in fact could think about having a society of free men and women (!) who dedicate their lives to shaping their private and sociopolitical as well as the socioeconomic sphere and to actively participating in jointly developing the cultural, political, and economic environment where they are living in. In times of shifting the paradigms of what is the mission of humankind on the globe, in times when technology will be taking over large parts of what is known as human labor, in times when the meaning of human labor in its philosophical, political and economic context needs to be redefined. What is the alternative to turning our societies toward a new kind of the ancient Greek society: • A society of free men and women supported by robots and self-learning machines? • A society which is getting its identity from a new definition of human labor? • A society which is based on a definition of citizenship and societal involvement which rather refers to the ancient Greek society than to the society shaped by the needs and mechanisms of the last three industrial revolutions? What is, in the digital age, the peaceful alternative to a society where mankind can concentrate on education, research, arts and politics, and acting into human relationships? In this context it is obvious that a new definition of the concept of human work – or, as Ralf Dahrendorf puts it in a visionary phrase, “meaningful activity” (Dahrendorf 1982) – is urgent. But the concept of human work always was and still is linked with education. Changes in the mechanisms and ways of human work at any time had effects on changing the principles and the content of education and vice versa. Since we need a new definition of human labor and employment, the principles and contents of education, not least tertiary education, will have to redefined as well.

2  The Future of Education and Labor

13

In 2009, the European Research Area Board had already called for a paradigm change in thinking and in the role of science. A new “holistic thinking” would be necessary; science and research should pay more attention to systemic effects than on narrow goals. The report’s remarkable title was “Preparing Europe for a New Renaissance (European Commission 2009).” And the reality? Our current systems of education still largely function according to the principles of the industrial age of the nineteenth century: acquisition and production of knowledge driven by division of intellectual labor. The speed of fragmentation within the systems of education and research has rapidly advanced in recent decades. In parallel, our societies have grown constantly more complex, and the parameters for having effects on society have shrunk correspondingly. Everything is connected. We live in a world that is characterized by change, uncertainty, insecurity and ambiguity. By contrast, our educational institutions – at least outside of the art universities – are dominated by a culture of clarity: yes or no, true or false, and correct or incorrect. Almost a century after Heisenberg formulated the uncertainty principle and his theory of quantum mechanics has broken the paradigms of physics – and even philosophy – we are still accustomed to arguing and acting largely along linear causality patterns within insulated boxes of fragmented sciences. Just as the first industrial revolution compelled even paradigm-breaking changes in the educational system, it is now necessary to have structural and content-related renewal of the educational system that measures up to the radicalism of these upcoming and partly even ongoing technological, economic, and societal revolutions. Compulsory education for all children, introduced in the eighteenth century in societies which were highly dominated by agriculture, was indeed a revolution in educational standards. It was the precondition for the raise of industrialization and the professionalization of public administration in Europe. At the end of the twentieth century, the classical canon of cultural skills – speaking, reading, writing, and arithmetic – was extended to include the ability to communicate and articulate oneself digitally. People who did not master this skill were punished with social marginalization as digital illiterates and suffered significant disadvantages in the labor market. In the twenty-first century, this canon of cultural skills must be extended again. Creative abilities will be some of the most important skills for managing life. These include: • • • • • • • • •

Handling multiple meanings and uncertainty Imaginative and associative abilities Intuitive ability Thinking in the form of alternatives Questioning existing structures and appearances Establishing unconventional contexts Questioning the status quo Seeking new perspectives Recognizing that there are forms of communication other than verbal

14

G. Bast

While educated citizens still complain about the downfall of a long-lost ideal of encyclopedic education, and the main actors in education policy – from government to universities – pursue a policy of cosmetic repairs of the symptoms, our education system continues to speed further down the dead-end road formed by the ways of thinking in the pre-digital age. Education and research shape themselves around a paradigm of progress in knowledge, which is primarily defined within disciplines or sub-disciplinary niches, and measured by quantitative bibliometric indicators. That complex mechanisms of effect increasingly cross the borders of academic disciplines is largely ignored in our system of education and research. Education, which once carried the hopes for solving the problems of human society and its environment, is now in danger of becoming a part of the problem itself, if it holds on to disciplinary specialization as the foremost guiding principle for the qualitative development of the system of research. Never before in history humans have produced so much knowledge. At present, there are 34,550 peer-reviewed scientific journals around the world. Every year, 2.5 million academic papers are published; every 12  seconds a scholarly article appears in a journal (STM Report 2015). Given this explosion of knowledge, an encyclopedic approach to education seems an absurd claim. Since we have had access to the technology to save unlimited amounts of knowledge and to be able to retrieve it at previously unknown speeds in every desirable degree of detail, the preparation and connection of knowledge should have been made more of a topic than in the past. That is all the more important because mono-discipline knowledge without some sort of interdisciplinary connection can no longer fulfill what both the national authority for laws on universities and the European Union have declared to be the top priority for universities: “responsible for contributing to the solution of the problems of humanity, as well as to the successful development of society and the natural environment” (Austrian Universities Act, § 1) and to make graduates employable (European Commission 2014a). The acquisition of knowledge about the potential for connections between the disciplines and about the synergistic potential of connected specialist knowledge is a type of expertise that, as a supplement to expertise in highly specialized areas of knowledge, is indispensable. The speed of progress in scientific and technological knowledge as well as the increasingly urgent need for solutions to global challenges such as aging societies, climate change, migration, and human-machine merging make it seem irresponsible to do without systematic acquisition of expertise in cross-discipline, analytical approaches to seeking synergistic potential to solve complex challenges. “We are all surely in agreement that the task of education … was, is, and probably will remain preparing young people for life. If this is in fact the case, then education (including university education) is now in the deepest and most radical crisis of its crisis-rich history,” declared Zygmunt Bauman in a lecture at the University of Padua (Bauman 2011). He was referring to his theory of “liquid modernity,” which he described as follows: “The forms of modern life can be differentiated in various

2  The Future of Education and Labor

15

ways, but what ties all of them together is their fragility, temporality, vulnerability, and tendency toward constant change (Bauman 2000).” According to the World Economic Forum2 in 2020, the following skills will be the most important for the requirements of the fourth industrial revolution, in order: 1. Complex problem-solving 2. Critical thinking 3. Creativity 4. People management 5. Coordinating with others 6. Emotional intelligence 7. Judgment and decision-making 8. Service orientation 9. Negotiation 10. Cognitive flexibility Do our universities see these skills as the most important competencies to be provided for their graduates? The dramatically progressing specialization in the scholarly landscape and the attendant increasing tendency of scholars to exhaust themselves in detailed analyses are facts. The history of universities is a history of fragmentation. The innovative, integrative work on ideas for solutions to the great challenges of the twenty-first century is getting lost along the way. Curricula and academic careers are constructed in increasingly narrow channels of knowledge. One can, however, only partly reproach the scholars who are active in the system because in recent decades politics and industry have pushed the universities to produce graduates who are prepared and usable for the current realities of work as quickly as possible. The scholarly journals that are relevant for careers have concentrated on increasingly narrow disciplines, and the pressure to publish quickly and as numerously as possible has systematically repressed labor-intensive and time-consuming publications such as monographs or cross-discipline papers. Shaped by political powers and the relative simplicity of the culture of rankings, universities have in the meantime largely internalized the primacy of quantitative measurement of research. In light of the efficiency monitoring that is supposed to guide the development of universities’ performance with quantitative targets and annual milestones, but which is increasingly designed around short-term effects. The change in the structures of economy and the world of work is thus well underway. “Liquid times” (Bauman 2000), in the truest sense of the phrase, have begun. Work is changing, and work as it is currently known will partly disappear. That means that the term “employability,” on the one hand, has to be adapted to the changed structures and requirements, and on the other has to include the ability to adapt to new forms of work. Education, particularly university education can no  World Economic Forum: The 10 Skills you need to thrive in the fourth industrial revolution; https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-10-skills-you-need-to-thrive-in-thefourth-industrial-revolution/ 2

16

G. Bast

longer limit itself, as in the past had increasingly been the case, to producing employability for existing professional fields. 65% of children entering primary schools today will ultimately work in new job types and functions that currently don’t yet exist (The Future of Jobs Report 2016). University education – and research! – must actively contribute to the development of completely new fields of human work. Further, they must contribute to the new definition of the term “work” and on the conceptual formation of the social framework that will be necessary for it. That means the universities are facing entirely new challenges. If the social and economic realities rapidly follow a completely new logic in their structure and contents, thanks to the technological revolution, that will not take place without significant consequences for universities’ self-understanding, for established approaches to education, and for the social position of universities. The EU and the OECD have proclaimed the goal for modern societies of having the largest possible share of the population complete tertiary education. At least 40% of the population aged between 30 and 34 should have completed tertiary education (European Commission 2014b). Given the foreseeable changes in society and the economy that will result from technological developments, that seems all too logical  -  albeit not enough. Automatable work, manual as well as mental, will be taken over by machines within a few years. Fields of work that cannot be automated, whether they already exist or are newly developed, will require higher education – but one that is significantly different from what is currently offered. Furthermore, the fact that in the future humans will be in competition with “intelligent” robots, for which the recognition of basic rights and admission to suffrage are already being seriously discussed, makes clear how important education will be for the question of human self-image. In a situation of competition with artificial intelligence and synthetic biology, humanity will not over the long term be able to afford allowing education (or art) to be a method of social distinction, much less actively instrumentalizing it in that way. Education, including university education, in the “industrialized countries” will (have to) become even more essentially a good that is used by broad swathes of the population. It will, however, largely be a different kind of education, not least in the universities. But so-called mass education on tertiary level, which will be the consequence of meeting the target of at least 40% - and beyond - of the population aged between 30 and 34, does not fit together with specialization. “Mass universities” and almost exclusively specialized curricula do not go together, either for labor policy or for social policy. And even more critical for a knowledge-based society, this constellation will also not last much longer because it is insufficiently accepted by society. The appropriate consequence, however, cannot be a reduction in the number of students because that would contradict the well-­ known arguments for the long-term necessity of a generally high level of education in the population as a whole. The rebirth of educational politics supporting academic elitism will meet neither the economic challenges of the twenty-first century

2  The Future of Education and Labor

17

nor the sociopolitical challenges deriving from demography, climate change, and a technological revolution with disruptive power never seen before. The universities will have to complete a paradigm change in their contents. In democratic societies universities need the emotional and political backing of the vast majority of citizens. Societal recognition can be gained by proving, that universities are providing solutions for the complex problems of the future or that the universities in teaching and research at least are seriously focusing on the grand societal challenges. • The university of the future will, naturally, continue the link between research and teaching. Only institutional, research-driven teaching can ensure that the curricula are up to date and able to keep up with the changing content requirements. • The university will be more digital and more personal than ever before. The organization of MOOCs and other online classes will increase, not least as an image-building function of universities. Much more important, however, for the majority of universities around the world will be the use of such digital offerings produced by a small number of universities or knowledge institutions (e.g., TED) with significant financial and technical investment. At the same time, however, online teaching will make the universities more personable because digital lectures will just be the basis for interpersonal, discourse-intense discussion sections in small groups, led and moderated not only by instructors but also by more advanced students. • The role of university teachers will dramatically change from giving lectures for a large number of students toward facilitating and stimulating critical reflections on information and data and their interrelations. • Exams will not asses how students succeed in acquiring existing knowledge – which is stored in books or data bases – but if and how they are able to find new or adapt existing processes and strategies for totally new problems and challenges. • Artificial intelligence in the form of academic chatbots with powerful databanks in the background will play a substantial role in the operations of university studies. • The university of the future will be an institution that is actively devoted to lifelong learning. The rapid growth of knowledge and the near permanent changing of social and economic conditions make this indispensable. The widespread break in university education between introductory courses as career preparation and upper-level courses is anachronistic and does not correspond to social and economic needs. If education is to be an important aspect of the new definition of work, which can be assumed in light of the technologically driven revolutionizing of labor markets, then the university will in the future be one place of periodic employment among other increasingly changing work relations. • At the university of the future, in addition to highly specialized research areas there will be cross-discipline, thematically focused research structures concen-

18

G. Bast

trating on “global and regional challenges.” That does not mean a relativization of the importance of basic research. Basic research is not necessarily ­mono-­disciplinary, nor does this claim speak of a utilitarian obligation for research. The desire to want to understand the world and the contexts of how the great challenges to our society work has nothing to do with utilitarianism. It is not a matter of the self-referentiality of utilitarianism, but rather openness to the world in the true sense of the words, in which transdisciplinary research is led out of its career-damaging pariah existence. • Scientific and scientific-artistic publications for project-oriented, multidiscipline research on research agendas that are “relevant to society” (“global challenges”) will be promoted at a supra-university, ideally European, level. Review boards comprised of first-class scholars will provide these publications with recognition in the scientific and artistic communities, and thus also with career decisions at universities. • In the future more students than today will be enrolled at a university but the profile of the programs and thus the profile of the graduates will be different. Alongside traditional curricula with specialized content for a small number of students, universities will offer interdisciplinary and inter-university programs for a large number of students, gaining knowledge that is adaptable to change and general knowledge about principles, mechanisms, and potentials for synergetic power in science, technology, and philosophy: • • • • • • • •

Critical thinking Skills in cross-discipline communication and cooperation Handling ambiguity and uncertainty Thinking in unusual contexts Imagination and intuition Artificial intelligence, robotics, genetic engineering, and quantum physics Mechanisms of politics and economics in the digital age Philosophy understood as ways of knowing and meaning in a world driven by the new technological revolution • Global challenges, like climate change, migration, human rights, aging society, and new forms of labor Along the fourth industrial revolution, fueled by the recent technological revolution, we need an educational revolution. This revolution has to be a revolution driven by creativity and social intelligence. This revolution has to implement holistic approaches into our system of teaching, learning and research. This revolution will provide experts in synthesizing knowledge and in bridging the towers of knowledge. If we don’t follow this path, we will lose the race either against the machines or against the big data companies, which already identified education as the most important business of the twenty-first century and are about to take over the educational sector following shareholder interests instead of societal interests in a democratic society of free men and women.

2  The Future of Education and Labor

19

References Austrian Universities Act. Bauman Z (2000) Liquid modernity. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK, p viii Bauman Z (2011) Liquid modern – challenges to education, Lecture given at the Coimbra Group annual conference – Padua, 26 May 2011 Dahrendorf R (1982) Wenn aus Arbeit sinnvolles Tun wird. Die Alternativen zur Arbeitsgesellschaft. In: Die Zeit, 3 Dec 1982 European Commission (2009) Preparing Europe for a new Renaissance, A strategic view of the European Research Area European Commission (2014a) Modernisation of higher education in Europe. Access, retention and employability European Commission (2014b) Taking stock of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, COM(2014) 130 final, Brussels, p. 13 Frey CB, Osborne M (2013) The future of employment. Oxford Martin School. http://www. oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Employment.pdf Harvard Business Review (2017). https://hbr.org/2017/04/the-countries-most-and-least-likely-tobe-affected-by-automation. 12 Apr 2017 McKinsey Global Institute (2017) A future that works: automation, employment and productivity. Jan 2017 https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Featured%20Insights/Digital%20 Disruption/Harnessing%20automation%20for%20a%20future%20that%20works/MGI-Afuture-that-works_Executive-summary.ashx STM Report (2015). https://www.stm-assoc.org/2015_02_20_STM_Report_2015.pdf The Future of Jobs Report (2016) WEF, http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs. pdf Thompson D A world without work, Atlantic, July/August, 2015

Part I

The Future of Education and Labor, The Economy Does Matter, The How and Why

Chapter 3

An OECD Learning Framework 2030 OECD

Abstract  Under the umbrella of The Future of Education and Skills: Education 2030, more than thirty countries, a range of interested organisations and many individual experts are considering what young people need to learn for a 2030 world. The project is multi-year: this analysis summarises the thinking so far. It considers the challenges that young people will face; suggests the importance of the concept of learner agency; proposes an overarching learning framework with a number of new transformative competencies; reviews the nature of the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values that young people will need; and ends with possible curriculum design principles. The article expands on and develops the initial document published by the OECD in February 2018. Keywords  OECD · Education policy · Education and Skills · 2030 · OECD learning compass · DeSeCo

3.1  Introduction Since Confucius and Socrates, educators have recognised the double purpose of education: to pass on the meaning and significance of the past and to prepare young people for the challenges of the future. What young people need to learn therefore changes over time: the curriculum cannot be static. In recent years and in many countries, curricula have developed significantly: it is no longer true – though you often hear it said – that today’s students, while living in a digital world, go to school in the nineteenth century. In an era characterised by a new explosion of scientific

The project will continue to develop, adding new insights and materials. For further information, visit https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/ The OECD (*) Paris, France e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 G. Bast et al. (eds.), The Future of Education and Labor, Arts, Research, Innovation and Society, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26068-2_3

23

24

OECD

knowledge and a growing array of complex societal problems, it is appropriate that curricula should continue to evolve, perhaps in radical ways. The Future of Education and Skills: an OECD Learning Framework 2030 poses a large and fundamental question. How should countries equip people to understand, engage with and shape a changing world? To answer the question, the OECD followed a series of steps. First, we analysed societal trends in order to identify the challenges they place on education. Second, we developed a “learning framework” that suggests what people need to learn for 2030. Third, we considered the design principles for future curricula. This paper sets out our thinking so far. We will go on to create roadmaps and toolkits, to help policy-makers and practitioners develop and update curricula that are responsive to the changing global context and tailored to local values and cultures. We anticipate a need to extend the project, to consider the implications for teaching and learning, assessment, learning environments and education systems. The OECD Learning Framework 2030 is about orientation, not prescription. Working with leaders in key knowledge fields, education experts and the most experienced and innovative jurisdictions, the OECD aims to create a space in which countries can exchange and learn from each other’s best practice. We expect that over time the project will provide insights and resources relevant to all stages in the learning cycle, including early years, primary, secondary and tertiary education and learning through life.

3.1.1  The 2030 World 2030 is not an arbitrary date. It is then that many of the current primary school entrants will graduate from secondary school. What kind of lives do we wish them to have? Over recent years, OECD countries have set a new priority on helping citizens achieve well-being, as the precondition of a good life. Individual well-being depends on equitable access to resources and opportunities but also, for example, on safety, a clean environment and respect for civic engagement. Individual well-being in turn contributes to the well-being of communities. The well-being of people in 2030 is vulnerable to the future impact of three contemporary problems, each shaped by the interaction of globalisation and technology. A first challenge is environmental: the endangered state of our planet in the face of resource depletion and climate change. A second challenge is economic. Industries, organisations and professions have been disaggregated and automated. For niche suppliers to hollowed-out corporates, or for dynamic internet businesses, the rewards are high. But for others, the gig economy means the scourge of vulnerable work: zero hours contracts without benefits, insurance or pension. Entrepreneurial economies have unleashed new growth, but at the price of widening inequality.

3  An OECD Learning Framework 2030

25

A third challenge is social. Across the world, people are on the move. Many work internationally by choice. Others are forced into migration by war and poverty. How diverse can communities become before trust corrodes, social capital weakens and civil society is undermined? This is the Age of Accelerations, a speeding-up of human experience through the compound impact of disruptive forces on every aspect of our lives (Friedman 2016). It is also a time of political contestation. The priority of the wider international community is still to reconcile the needs and interests of individuals, communities and nations within an equitable framework based on open borders, free markets and a sustainable future. But in a number of countries, where disruption has brought a sense of dislocation, governments have come to power offering closed borders, the protection of traditional jobs and a promise to put the interests of today’s generation first. This analysis suggests new emphases for education. In the face of challenges as great as any that have gone before, human beings need not be passive or inert. We have agency, our sense of responsibility to participate in the world and to influence people, events and circumstances for the better. Leadbeater argues that being a purposeful, responsible and capable agent “means casting oneself into a future which is necessarily uncertain and so involves taking risks”. Citing John Dewey, Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum, he suggests that agency lies in the power to frame one’s actions within a purpose and to devise and execute a plan to achieve that purpose (Leadbeater 2017, 42 and 45). For effective agency in the 2030 world, young people will need to be innovative, responsible and aware. They will be the creators of the products, services and models of the future. They will have a sense of right and wrong, sensitivity to the claims that others make on us and a grasp of the proper limits on individual and collective action. They will have a broad comprehension of how others live, in different cultures and traditions, and how others think, as citizens, co-workers, scientists and artists. They will temper their orientation to the future with an understanding of the past: the challenges societies have faced, the solutions they have discovered and the values they have developed and defended over time. This is a challenging view of emerging priorities for education, but is it really proof against the future? Recently, some writers have suggested that advances in artificial intelligence mean that agency will increasingly shift from humans to robots – implying a different set of priorities altogether. At the centre of this discussion lies the impact of AI on the future of work. Scholars such as Friedman (2016) argue that jobs are usually automated only in part, and that the effect of partial automation is both to increase the productivity of the original job and create new jobs altogether. Conversely, scholars such as Tucker (2016) suggest that contemporary forms of automation, for example, Amazon’s storage and delivery revolution, replace economic activity, with little compensatory job creation. Where many agree is that computers will process information with ever greater sophistication and that future jobs will pair computer intelligence with the skills, attitudes and values of human beings. It will then be precisely our capacity for innovation, our awareness and our sense of responsibility that equip us to harness machines to shape the world for the better.

26

OECD

3.1.2  E  merging Thinking: Towards an OECD Learning Framework 2030 The OECD Learning Framework 2030 avoids prescription: the thinking is conceptual, to accommodate frameworks and rubrics developed or under development elsewhere. Our aim is to provide a space in which countries can establish their own learning goals and curricula  – informed by an understanding of other countries’ preferences and decisions. In this section we link what individuals need to learn for 2030 to a theory of competencies; and point to a new set of competencies for 2030. We consider the nature and role of knowledge, skills, attitudes and values for 2030. And we conclude with the concept of a learning compass, by which young people can navigate their lives and their world. Our thinking is anchored in the OECD’s Description and Selection of Competencies project (“DeSeCo”), which ran from 1996 to 2003. This is work that has strongly influenced national curricula over the last two decades, and helped steer the evolution of international assessments such as PISA and PIAAC. In addition, we have taken stock of existing frameworks (international and national). The OECD Learning Framework 2030 is being developed and revised through an iterative process. At the early meetings of the OECD Education 2030 Informal Working Group (IWG), its theoretical underpinnings were researched, tested and validated by a wide range of stakeholders, with an eye to global relevance and policy and practical implications. Following the 5th IWG meeting in Lisbon, participants joined thematic working groups to work collaboratively on the further development of the framework. The IWG participants include policymakers, academics, school leaders, teachers, students from school networks and social partners (including private foundations, private companies, trades unions and community services). They all have an interest in supporting system reform for 2030, through a framework that is forward-­ looking and actionable. 3.1.2.1  The DeSeCo Theory of Competencies DeSeCo begins with the assumption that education should prepare young people to engage with the world, act in it and shape it for the better: its central concern is to equip young people for agency. The approach it takes is to describe and select key competencies, each of which should “contribute to valued outcomes for societies and individuals; help individuals meet important demands in a wide variety of contexts; and be important not just for specialists but for all individuals” (OECD 2005, 4).

3  An OECD Learning Framework 2030

27

A competency combines different learning components. It is “more than just knowledge and skills. It involves […] drawing on and mobilising psychosocial resources (including skills and attitudes) in a particular context”. In revisiting DeSeCo, the OECD has sought to underpin it in two ways. First, we have analysed the learning components from which competencies can be built. The resulting taxonomy differentiates between three learning domains: knowledge (knowing), skills (doing) and attitudes and values (being). Each domain contains a set of subdomains. Both domains and subdomains are taken to be mutually exclusive and comprehensively exhaustive (Fig. 3.1). Second, we are analysing some of the key constructs that sit within the subdomains, concentrating on cognitive and meta-cognitive skills, social and emotional skills and attitudes and values. The aim here is to provide a validation, using six criteria. • Clear definition: does the construct have a commonly used and understood definition? • Relevant for 2030: does the construct, alone or in combination with others, equip people for future challenges? • Interdependent: can we say how the construct develops in conjunction with others? • Impactful: is the construct proven to have a bearing on future life outcomes? • Malleable: can the construct be developed through the processes of learning? • Measurable: can the construct be given a comparative numerical value on a scale, or a non-numerical account?

Fig. 3.1  A taxonomy of learning to stimulate the development of competencies. (Source: OECD 2017a, b, 10)

28

OECD

3.1.2.2  The DeSeCo Competency Framework The DeSeCo framework proposed three interrelated competency categories: using tools (such as language and technology) interactively, interacting in socially heterogeneous groups and acting autonomously. Within each category it located a set of key competencies (Table 3.1). DeSeCo invites policy-makers to draw on specific key competencies, from one or more categories, in order to establish overarching competencies, for use in local curricula. 3.1.2.3  DeSeCo 2.0: Transformative Competencies 2030 Over recent months, the OECD has asked whether the DeSeCo framework remains relevant. We conclude that the original choice of categories and key competencies was well-judged: it accurately foresaw the demands and challenges of the early twenty-first century. Nevertheless, we propose to introduce three new overarching competencies, each assembled from across the three categories. These are transformative competencies that together constitute a response to the claim that in future young people should be innovative, responsible and aware. They are outlined below. Creating New Value At different speeds and with different emphases, economies around the world have become more innovative and entrepreneurial, in pursuit of growth and increased productivity. Critical to their success are people who think creatively about the development of new products, the introduction of new enterprises and the

Table 3.1  Key competencies in three broad categories Using tools interactively

Interacting in heterogeneous groups

Acting autonomously

Table based on OECD (2005, 5)

Use language, symbols and texts interactively Use knowledge and information interactively Use technology interactively Relate well to others Cooperate Manage and resolve conflicts Act within the big picture Form and conduct life plans and personal projects Defend and assert rights, interest, limits and needs

3  An OECD Learning Framework 2030

29

deployment of new business models. In the years running up to 2030 and beyond, while some experts foresee a world of large, fully automated organisations, others suggest that an increasingly digitised economy will be built around small, agile companies, employing just a handful of carefully chosen people. But creating new value will be important well beyond the sphere of the economy. As Friedman argues, it will be the key to transforming our social, political and cultural models. Creating new value, as a transformative competency, connotes processes of making, bringing into being and formulating; and outcomes that are innovative, fresh and original, contributing something of intrinsic positive worth. It suggests entrepreneurialism in the broader sense of being ready to venture, to try out without fear of failure (Grayling 2017, 8). The constructs that underpin the competency include adaptability, creativity, curiosity and open-mindedness. In terms of the analysis of the 2030 world, young people’s agency to shape the future will partly hinge on their capacity to create new value. Reconciling Conflicts and Dilemmas The growing complexity of modern living, for individuals, communities and societies, suggests that the solutions to our problems will also be complex: the imperative of reconciling diverse perspectives and interests, in local settings with sometimes global implications, will require young people to become adept in handling tensions, dilemmas and trade-offs. Striking the balance, in specific circumstances, between competing demands – of equity and freedom, autonomy and community, innovation and continuity and efficiency and democratic process – will rarely lead to an either/or choice or even a single solution. Individuals will need to think in a more integrated way that avoids premature conclusions and attends to interconnections. The constructs that underpin the competency include empathy (the ability to understand another’s perspective and to have a visceral or emotional reaction), communication and collaboration skills, perspective-taking, resilience and trust (Bentley 2017, 28). In a 2030 world of interdependency and conflict, people will successfully secure their own well-being and the well-being of their families and communities only by developing this second transformative competency: the capacity to reconcile their own goals and perceptions with the perspectives of others. Taking Responsibility The third transformative competency is a prerequisite of the other two. Dealing with novelty, change, diversity and ambiguity assumes that individuals can “think for themselves”. Equally, creativity and problem-solving require the capacity to consider the future consequences of one’s actions, to evaluate risk and reward and to accept accountability for the products of one’s work. This suggests a sense of responsibility, and moral and intellectual maturity, with which a person can reflect upon and evaluate their actions in the light of their experiences and personal and

30

OECD

societal goals; what they have been taught and told; and what is right or wrong. The perception of what is right or wrong, good and bad in a specific situation is about ethics. It implies asking questions related to norms, values, meanings, and limits such as: What should I do? Was I right doing that? Where are the limits? Knowing the consequences of what I did, should I have done it? Central to this competency is the concept of self-regulation, in the spheres of personal, interpersonal and social responsibility. The underpinning constructs include critical thinking skills, meta-­ learning skills, mindfulness, problem-solving skills and risk management. Advances in developmental neuroscience show that a second burst of brain plasticity takes place during adolescence, and that the brain regions and systems that are especially plastic are those implicated in the development of self-regulation. As Laurence Steinberg argues (2017, 9), adolescence can now be seen as a time not just of vulnerability but opportunity for the development of responsibility. 3.1.2.4  Knowledge, Skills, Attitudes and Values for 2030 Students who are prepared for the future will be able to combine knowledge, skills, attitudes and values in specific situations in order to create value and achieve positive impact. Knowledge for 2030 It was long ago conceded that we can know only a small proportion of what there is to know. And much of what we don’t know is often to be found via Google. Nevertheless, the OECD Learning Framework 2030 claims a central role for knowledge itself. What kind of knowledge remains essential for fulfilled and productive human lives? The educational sociologists Young and Muller have developed a theory of Powerful Knowledge (Young 2017, 4–9). They define Powerful Knowledge as specialised, in the sense that it is produced and validated by particular communities in the sciences, social sciences, humanities and the arts, and differentiated, in the sense that unlike everyday knowledge it is independent of experiential context. The value of the theory, they suggest, lies in its explanatory power: it helps us understand that the best knowledge we can have is still fallible and open to challenge. Analysis of curricula suggests four different types of knowledge: • Disciplinary knowledge (forming the dots) • Interdisciplinary knowledge (connecting the dots across disciplines) • Epistemic knowledge (connecting the dots between different ways of thinking about the world) • Procedural knowledge (connecting the dots across different and often unfamiliar contexts)

3  An OECD Learning Framework 2030

31

Disciplinary knowledge consists of those essential concepts that characterise the discipline. In Mathematics, for example, these might include number systems and their algebraic qualities, and functional relationships between quantities. Interdisciplinary knowledge, the capacity to see real-life problems, phenomena and issues through multiple disciplinary lenses (different disciplines) has become increasingly important. It is rooted in disciplinary knowledge. Teachers increasingly underline the importance of epistemic knowledge, the capacity to understand the distinctive nature of the thinking processes and beliefs specific to each discipline. Epistemic knowledge can be stimulated by questions such as “What am I learning in this subject and why?”, “What can I use the knowledge for in real life?” and “How do professionals from this disciplinary field think?” Procedural knowledge develops through understanding how something is done or made – the series of steps or actions taken to accomplish a goal. Some procedural knowledge is domain-specific, some transferable across domains. It typically develops through practical problem-solving. Skills for 2030 Cognitive skills are a set of thinking strategies that enable the use of language, numbers, reasoning and acquired knowledge. They comprise verbal and non-verbal skills, higher-order thinking skills, effective use of executive functions (especially working memory) and problem-solving. Meta-cognitive skills, in particular, include the ability to recognise one’s knowledge, skills, attitudes and values. Social and emotional skills are a set of individual capacities that can be manifested in consistent patterns of thought, feelings and behaviours. They can help balance and ground personalities and strengthen character. Physical and practical skills are a set of abilities to use physical tools, operations and functions. They include manual skills, life skills, professional skills and the ability to mobilise capacities. Foundational skills are defined as skills that act as gateways for other skills. In their nature they are know-how rather than know-that. They encompass literacy, numeracy, digital literacy and data literacy. Data literacy refers to the ability to create and exchange information. Attitudes and Values for 2030 Attitudes are defined as “a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favour or disfavour” (Eagly and Chaiken 1993, p.1). Attitudes can be formed and changed and are generally considered much less enduring and stable than other personality attributes such as traits or temperament. Attitudes are separate from and more malleable than personality tendencies and values. In addition to an evaluative aspect (either positive or negative) an attitude may entail a tendency to behave in a particular way towards a given object.

32

OECD

Values are guiding principles by which particular beliefs, behaviours and actions are judged to be good or desirable (adapted from Halstead and Taylor 2000). They develop through a process of exploration and experimentation, where young people make sense of their experiences and refine what they believe. They transcend specific actions and contexts; are normative in that they prescribe what ought to be done or thought in different situations; and may be used to guide individuals’ attitudes, judgments and actions. Both attitudes and values can operate at or be applied to the personal, local, societal or global level. In each of these domains, there is a perceived tension between seeking to articulate common or core (universal) human values and recognising and respecting diversity, particularly as it relates to language and specific cultural contexts and norms. 3.1.2.5  Learning as a Navigational Compass The ability to develop competencies is something to be learned, using a sequenced process of reflection, anticipation and action (Report of the AAR Competency Development Cycle Working Group (OECD Education 2030), 2017a, b). Reflective practice is the ability to take a critical stance when deciding, choosing and acting, by stepping back from what is known or assumed and looking at a situation from other, different perspectives. Anticipation mobilises cognitive skills, such as analytical or critical thinking, to foresee what may be needed in the future or how actions taken today might have consequences for the future. Both reflective practice and anticipation contribute to the willingness to take responsible actions, in the belief that it is within the power of all of us to shape and change the course of events. This is a model that suggests how agency is built. It proposes that through anticipation, action and reflection we assemble the competences that enable us to engage with the world - incisively, sensitively and responsibly. The OECD Learning Framework 2030 therefore encapsulates a complex concept: the mobilisation of knowledge, skills, attitudes and values, through a process of reflective practice, anticipation and action, in order to build inter-related competencies that equip us to act. A way to visualise the concept is as a compass (Fig. 3.2). The image has a double force. First, it suggests that people learn in order to navigate a difficult landscape. Second, it emphasises the growing importance of their capacity for choice, deliberation and discriminating judgement. 3.1.2.6  Curriculum Design Principles For many years teachers and students have struggled with overloaded curricula, to which new dimensions are added but from which few are taken away. Time lags pose additional challenges: the lag between the emergence of new curriculum needs and the recognition of these needs; the lag between recognising these needs and

3  An OECD Learning Framework 2030

33

Fig. 3.2  The OECD Learning Framework 2030. (Source: OECD (& Knotion) 2017a)

deciding to address them; and the lag between implementing these needs and observing the impact on learners. Curriculum design principles can address both overload and time lags. They can also ensure that curriculum changes benefit all learners, not just a few, thus promoting equity; and that changes are not made piece-meal but as part of a broader plan for an integrated learning experience. The OECD is developing a set of design principles for competency-based curricula, working with countries and jurisdictions that have relevant recent experience. So far, the following principles have emerged: Concept, content, and topic design: • Student agency. The curriculum should be designed around students. to motivate them and recognise their prior knowledge, skills, attitudes and values, • Focus. A relatively small number of topics should be introduced in each grade to ensure the depth and quality of students’ learning. Topics may overlap in order to reinforce key concepts. • Coherence. Topics should be sequenced to reflect the logic of the academic discipline or disciplines on which they draw, enabling progression from more basic concepts to more advanced ones through stages and age levels. • Rigour. Topics should be challenging and enable deep thinking and reflection. • Alignment. Curriculum should be well aligned with teaching and assessment practices. Furthermore, different assessment practices for different purposes should be acknowledged and new assessment methods should be developed to value student outcomes and processes that cannot always be measured. • Transferability. Higher priority should be placed on knowledge, skills, attitudes and values that can be learned in one context and transferred to others.

34

OECD

• Choice. Students should be offered a diverse range of topic and project options as well as space to suggest their own topics and projects, with the support to make well-informed personal choices. Process design: • Teacher agency. Teachers should be empowered to use their professional knowledge, skills and expertise to deliver the curriculum effectively. • Authenticity. Learners should be able to link their learning experiences to the real world and feel purposefulness in their learning. This requires inter-disciplinary and collaborative learning alongside mastery of discipline-based knowledge. • Interrelation. Learners should be given opportunities to discover how a topic or concept can link and connect to other topics or concepts within and across disciplines as well as with real life outside school. • Flexibility. The concept of “curriculum” should be developed from “predetermined and static” to “adaptable and dynamic”. Schools and teachers should be able to update and align curriculum to reflect evolving societal requirements as well as individual learning needs. • Engagement. Teachers, students and other relevant stakeholders should be involved early in the development of the curriculum, to ensure their strong ownership for implementation.

3.2  Conclusions The challenges facing the 2030 generation require people to become innovators in every dimension of their lives while building on the experience and values of their forbears. In principle, the approach described in this paper offers the prospect of learning what they need. They will have a set of competencies covering knowledge, skills, attitudes and values. Future-ready learners should be equipped with an interdisciplinary perspective anchored in disciplinary knowledge structures; epistemic knowledge, such as what it is to think like a mathematician or a historian; and procedural knowledge, such as knowledge of systems thinking and design thinking. They should have cognitive skills such as critical thinking and creative thinking; social and emotional skills such as empathy and resilience; and practical and physical skills. When they apply their knowledge and skills, their actions and behaviours should be underpinned by attitudes and values such as open-mindedness and respect. The agenda for educators remains daunting. The validation of individual constructs and the development of curriculum design principles will serve as useful guidelines. It is planned to explore effective strategies for teaching, learning and assessment in further phases of the project.

3  An OECD Learning Framework 2030

35

References Bentley T (2017) OECD transformative competencies 2030: coping with tensions, dilemmas. Organization for economic co-operation and development. Future of education and skills 2030: Reflexions on transformative competences 2030. EDU/EDPC(2017)16/ANN5. Unpublished Eagly and Chaiken (1993) The Psychology of Attitudes Friedman, T.L. (2016). Thank you for being late. Farrar, Straus & Giroux November 2016 Grayling AC (2017) OECD transformative competencies 2030: creating new value. Organization for economic co-operation and development. Future of education and skills 2030: Reflexions on transformative competences 2030. EDU/EDPC(2017)16/ANN5. Unpublished Halstead M, Taylor MJ (2000) The development of values, attitudes and personal qualities  – a review of recent research. National Foundation for Educational Research, Slough Leadbeater C (2017) Student agency. organization for economic co-operation and development. Future of education and skills 2030: Reflection on student agency. EDU/EDPC(2017)16/ ANN3. Unpublished OECD (2005) Definition and Selection of Key Competencies OECD (2017a) Progress Report 2030 Learning Framework. EDU/EDPC(2017)16. Unpublished OECD (2017b) Progress Report 2030 Learning Framework. EDU/EDPC(2017)25. Unpublished Steinberg L (2017) OECD transformative competencies 2030: taking responsibility. Organization for economic co-operation and development. Future of education and skills 2030: Reflexions on transformative competences 2030. EDU/EDPC(2017)16/ANN5. Unpublished Tucker, M.S. (2016). Preparing students for the gig economy, automation, and uncertainty. http:// blogs.edweek.org/edweek/top_performers/2016/06/preparing_students_for_the_gig_economy_automation_uncertainty.html?cmp=eml-enl-eu-news3 Young M (2017) Reflection on the knowledge domain: school curriculum in 2030. Organization for economic co-operation and development. Preliminary reflections and research on knowledge, skills, attitudes and values necessary for 2030. EDU/EDPC(2016)23/ANN2/REV1. Unpublished

Chapter 4

The Consequences of Industry 4.0 for the Labour Market and Education Scenario Calculations in Line with the BIBB-IAB Qualifications and Occupational Field Projections Robert Helmrich, Enzo Weber, Marc Ingo Wolter, and Gerd Zika

Abstract This study focuses on the economic effects of the phenomenon of “Industry 4.0”, the digitalisation of the production processes. These developments involve considerable challenges for companies as well as for politics. This five-step scenario analysis begins with the impacts of increased investments in equipment (1) by companies and in the network infrastructure (2) by the government on the overall economy and the labour market. On this basis, we continue to model the consequential personnel and material costs of the companies (3) and a changed pattern of demand according to occupations and skills (4). The cumulative effects of these four partial scenarios are compared to a baseline scenario, which does not contain an advanced developmental path to Industry 4.0. In another scenario, the effects on the labour market of a potentially increasing demand for goods (5) are taken into consideration and also contrasted with the baseline scenario. The results show that Industry 4.0 will accelerate the structural change towards more services. In the process, labour force movements between sectors and occupations are significantly greater than the change of the number of employees overall. The turnover on the labour market is accompanied by an increasing added value, which not only leads to more economic assets but also – due to greater demands on the labour force – to higher aggregate wages.

R. Helmrich (*) Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training – BIBB, Bonn, Germany e-mail: [email protected] E. Weber · G. Zika Institute for Employment Research – IAB, Nuremberg, Germany e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] M. I. Wolter The Institute of Economic Structures Research – GWS, Osnabrück, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 G. Bast et al. (eds.), The Future of Education and Labor, Arts, Research, Innovation and Society, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26068-2_4

37

38

R. Helmrich et al.

The underlying assumptions have a positive effect on the economic development. However, that also means that, given a delayed implementation, the ­assumptions are turning against the business location Germany: We will export less and demand more “new” goods from abroad. In order to continue to improve the economic findings on the effects of digitisation, a further development of the QUBE-I4.0-project is planned. Keywords  Industry 4.0 · Labour market · Scenario calculation · Long-term projection · Qualification

4.1  Industry 4.0 and the Labour Market The latest wave of technological progress, known as “Industry 4.0”, has been the subject of intensive debate. Industry 4.0 stands for an interactive networking between analogue production and the digital world. This transformation includes elements such as big data, autonomously operating systems, Cloud computing, social media, mobile and self-learning systems. This development is more of an evolutionary process than a revolution. Developing and implementing new cyber-physical systems innovative paths in production. Even today, there are discussions about individual serial production, improved production planning using near real-time data and the resulting increase in production flexibility or businesses being better fit to respond to market fluctuations. The high degree of volatility of “on demand” production leads to a more a flexible utilisation of production facilities as well as company employees (Spath et al. 2013). However, Industry 4.0 not only means an intelligent control and planning of production within a company (vertical integration), but also beyond the company (horizontal integration). The interface between horizontal and vertical integration lies in planning, purchasing, production and logistics. After the previous industrial revolutions, this current process involves interconnecting the virtual-digital and physical world, as well as machine learning in production.1 This includes machines, products, information and communication systems, and humans. The objective is that the value chain can be controlled entirely by digital means or that it can control itself in a self-organised way, also beyond company borders. The result shall be a more efficient, flexible and individual production. This goes hand in hand with discussions about the future of labour under these circumstances (compare amongst others Frey and Osborne 2013; Autor et al. 2013). And the positions could not be more different: On the one side, fears of massive job losses if current jobs became redundant due to interconnected robots. On the other side, shiny images of huge employment and innovation gains and of stress relief for employees. Technological progress is as old as mankind and work has not ceased to exist yet. Of course, every generation tends to see its own future as a qualitative leap rendering  Compare Weber (2016a) for these explanations.

1

4  The Consequences of Industry 4.0 for the Labour Market and Education

39

all hitherto existing laws and reaction patterns obsolete. On the one hand, h­ owever, this idea regularly turns out to be wrong. Why should technological progress massively reduce work just now when it has not done so over thousands of years? Yet on the other hand, this is not as easy as it seems: The change from conventional factory work in Germany starting in the 1970s, for example, has been accompanied by a strong increase in structural unemployment in particular of low-skilled workers. This contrast illustrates one thing in particular: In order to obtain an extensive assessment of the economic effects of Industry 4.0 one must consider a multitude of effects; jobs disappearing and new jobs being created, changing requirements, more efficient processes and new products, macroeconomic interrelationships, adjustment of (labour) supply and demand, price and quantity reactions. The Institute for Employment Research (IAB), the Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training (BIBB) and the Institute of Economic Structures Research (GWS) have presented such a study for Germany (Wolter et al. 2015). The following two chapters are based on this study.

4.2  A Comprehensive Macrostudy for Germany This study is based on the idea of using a complex macroeconomic model for a scenario analysis of Industry 4.0. It uses the Q-INFORGE model from the QuBe project (see Method Box), which connects comprehensive macroeconomic modelling with a labour market mapped in detail. The latter organises labour supply and demand according to industries, professions and qualifications. The functional core of this model is a matching module allowing for occupational flexibilities and generating feedback effects via wage and price reactions.

Method Box: QuBe Project The BIBB-IAB qualifications and occupational field projections (QuBe project), developed in collaboration between the Institute of Economic Structures Research (GWS) and the Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology (FIT), show how supply and demand for qualifications and occupations can develop on a long-term basis using model calculations. This case is based on data from the microcensus (in the available projection up to 2011): Official representative statistics from the Federal Statistical Office on the population and the labour market, in which 1% of all German households participate each year, adapted to the parameters of national accounts (in the available projection up to 2012). Wage information originates from the employee history of the employees subject to social insurance contribution (in the available projection up to 2011). A standard occupational field system for distinguishing occupations was developed by BIBB, which groups occupations at a three-digit classification level of occupations according to activities (continued)

40

R. Helmrich et al.

(continued) (Tiemann et al. 2008). For illustration purposes, these 54 occupational fields are aggregated into 12 primary occupational fields (MOF) (see chart 4  in Maier et al. 2014). These results are based on the baseline projection (baseline scenario) of the third projection phase. These are based on the methods of the first (Helmrich and Zika 2010) and the second phase (Helmrich et al. 2012; Zika et al. 2012) and also includes other innovations. Therefore, the previous IAB/INFORGE model (Hummel et  al. 2010; Schnur and Zika 2009) is expanded on the demand side by including the available job-related labour supply in numbers and hours in determining wages for the occupational fields. On the supply side, the advantages of both previous supply models BIBB-FIT (Kalinowksi and Quinke 2010) and BIBB-DEMOS (Drosdowski and Wolter 2010) are combined into one supply model while modelling wages depending on occupational flexibilities, which allows the labour supply to respond to the changing wages in the occupational fields. However, the QuBe project pursues an empiricism-based concept in the baseline projection: Only the previously proven behavioural patterns are projected to the future. Consequently, past unascertainable behavioural changes are not part of the baseline projection. This also applies to the modelled market adaptation mechanisms. All innovations in the modelling are detailed in Maier et al. 2014. Figure 4.1 provides a rough overview of the functionality of the model. Further information can be found at www.QuBe-Projekt.de.

Fig. 4.1  QuBe project at a glance. (Source: Diagram by author)

4  The Consequences of Industry 4.0 for the Labour Market and Education

41

We distinguish between the terms “Industry 4.0” and “Economy 4.0”; the latter having a much greater scope. While we interpret “Industry 4.0” as interactive interconnectedness between analogue production and the digital world, “Economy 4.0” defines the factor that digitisation not only results to a change in industrial production but all service sectors, and will therefore affect all spheres of life. Accordingly, the consequences of “digitising work” discussed publicly, like the Green Paper “Work 4.0” (BMAS – Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs 2015), accordingly refer to Economy 4.0. We use a baseline scenario considering technological progress to the usual extent as reference. Until 2030, the baseline projections (third wave of Qube) show an increase in labour demand only in the field of tertiary qualifications. According to the development derived from the model, the labour supply increasing significantly in line with the propensity for academic studies will not be utilised completely. Shortages occur in the medium qualification section since the supply decreases more strongly than the labour demand in particular due to demographic reasons. The field of low qualified persons shrinks slightly as a whole, however, the situation of underemployment does not relax. Shortages in the healthcare and nursing industry but also in typical production professions become more severe due to the demographic change. Now, in this model a set of parameters should be identified and quantified, which can map the phenomenon of Industry 4.0 economically. We use a comprehensive literature analysis, interviews with company representatives and economic analyses as foundation, another representative company survey will follow. Five partial scenarios were assessed, which are based on each other, due to the high level of ­complexity of an Industry 4.0 scenario. Each is compared with the preceding partial scenario (Fig. 4.2).

Fig. 4.2  Scenario results. (Source: Diagram by author)

42

R. Helmrich et al.

Initially, the implementation of Industry 4.0 will require considerable investments in equipment (partial scenario 1 in Table 4.1). One deciding factor for economic development is how many additional investments in equipment will be needed and over which time, when transitioning to Industry 4.0. This question cannot be answered conclusively since newly purchased equipment may already have the required features but may have been purchased again in line with general replacement processes. We can therefore only attempt to make assumptions on the additional investments, taking plausibility into consideration. Measured relative to the capital stock for equipment, equipment investments have an approximate of 10% stake. That means, the capital stock is normally replaced every 10 years. It is assumed that of the last ten model years invested in, only the five more recent years will be equipped with Industry 4.0 compatible control instruments in the coming years. It is no longer profitable with older equipment, since it will be replaced in the next 5 years as scheduled. It is further assumed that not only control instruments, but IT services are also required to integrate the respective machinery into the new production process. A total of approximately €33 billion adjusted for price more will be invested in 2016–2025 than in the baseline scenario. This value consists of a price adjusted investment volume of €18 billion in sensor technology and IT services as well as an additional €15 billion (adjusted for price) through additional investments amounting to €1.5 billion annually. During the period 2026 to 2030 the general additional annual investments continue, so that the total investment volume increases by another €7.5 billion to €39.5 billion by 2030. Furthermore, additional investments caused indirectly ensue in the model context. The investments are financed via depreciations, which either reduce the profit of the companies or result in shifting to ex-factory prices. Expenditures for faster internet access are included in the section of construction investments (PSC 2). According to a study conducted by TÜVRheinland on behalf Table 4.1  List of assumptions Partial scenarios

PSC 1

PSC 2

PSC 3

PSC 4

PSC 5

Comparison with the baseline scenario (baseline projection) QuBe project

Source: Diagram by author

Overall scenario 2

with a shift in demand

Equipment investments Additional investments Conversion of capital stock sensor technology Conversion of capital stock IT services Building investments Capital expenditure “high-speed Internet” … and distribution Balanced Government budget Material and personnel costs … Continuing education … consulting services … digitisation … proportional decrease in raw materials and supplies as well as purchased services … increasing labour productivity Change in the structures of occupational fields Adjustment in occupational structure with industrial sectors considering routine Adjustment in labour productivity Increases in demand … increases in export … additional demand from Private households

Overall scenario 1

without a shift in demand

Assumptions

4  The Consequences of Industry 4.0 for the Labour Market and Education

43

of BMWi (TÜVRheinland 2013), the costs for the upgrade amount to approx. €20 billion to ensure 100% of households have a 50 Mbit/s connection. The costs amount to €12 billion for a supply goal of 95%. Regarding labour and material costs, we expect a significant increase in expenses for further training and consulting (PSC 3). Finally, we have simulated a doubling of the digitalisation level of the production chains while considering respective expenditures for IT services, All assumptions have been located on the expense side up to now. The idea is to determine the necessary increases in efficiency in production inputs using dynamic investment calculation to obtain a good entrepreneurial return for the implementation of Industry 4.0. Hence, the laws of economic reason hold true also facing technological revolutions. We find improvements in the cost of material rates and labour productivity of 1.2% respectively within 10 years as compared to the baseline scenario (Table 4.2). Furthermore, we consider that the technological changes will, in addition to the mechanisms endogenous in the model, affect the demand for certain professions. Which effects the transition to Industry 4.0 will have on the structure of the occupational fields in a sector is unknown. Assuming that as a result of the transition to Industry 4.0 primarily occupations with a high percentage of routine jobs will be cut back and occupations with a low percentage of routine jobs will increase (Autor et  al. 2013; Bonin et  al. 2015; Bowles 2014; Brzeski and Burk 2015; Frey and Osborne 2013), the possible effects of Industry 4.0 for employment in the sectors can be assessed. For this purpose, the percentages of routine jobs identified by Dengler and Matthes (2015) are used in the BIBB occupational fields based on the occupational data from the expert databank BERUFENET of the Federal Employment Agency. In this connection, job tasks which “can be conducted according to programmable standards” are described as routine jobs; “while non-routine [jobs] can merely be supported by computers” (ibid.). For instance, if the sector average of non-routine jobs in an occupational field is 40% and 80% for an occupational field within the same sector, the number of Table 4.2  Comparison of costs (payments) and savings, nominal In €billion Rounded to 100 m Continuing education Consulting IT service Investments Costs (payments) Cumulative … intermediate inputs … wage payments Savings Cumulative Profit or loss Cumulative

900 900 900 500 500 600 500 1.000 1.600 3.800 4.100 4.100 5.700 6.500 7.200 5.700 12.200 19.400

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.100 1.100 600 600 600 700 700 2.300 3.100 4.000 4.900 6.000 3.900 3.800 3.900 4.000 4.200 7.800 8.500 9.500 10.700 12.000 27.200 35.700 45.200 55.900 67.900

1.100 700 7.200 4.400 13.400 81.300

1.200 700 8.600 2.400 12.900 94.200

10.200 6.200 39.200 38.600 94.200

Discounted to 2015 7.800 4.700 27.500 30.000 70.000

1.200 400 1.600 1.600

5.300 6.900 8.400 10.100 11.800 1.700 2.200 2.600 3.100 3.500 7.000 9.100 11.000 13.200 15.300 17.200 26.300 37.300 50.500 65.800

13.600 15.100 4.000 4.500 17.600 19.600 83.400 103.000

78.800 24.200 103.000

56.000 17.300 73.300

8.800

3.300

9.3

4.7

2016

2017

2018

2.500 3.900 900 1.300 3.400 5.200 5.000 10.200

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

–4.100 –3.100 –2.000 –800 600 1.500 2.500 3.300 –4.100 –7.200 –9.200 –10.000 –9.400 –7.900 –5.400 –2.100

Return (result in relation to costs)

Source: Diagram by author

2024

2025

4.200 2.100

6.700 8.800

Cumulative

44

R. Helmrich et al.

employees in the occupational field with a higher percentage of routine should show a greater decline in line with the transition to Industry 4.0. However, because there are also numerous reasons, which argue against a complete adaptation ac-cording to routine percentages, it is furthermore assumed that merely half the routine jobs can be saved by technological progress, at the most. Nevertheless, which routine percentages can actually be saved cannot be determined in advance be-cause in addition to the assumptions made, further changes in the occupational field structure result from the model – for instance due to varying wage growth (Maier et al. 2014). The changes in the occupational field structure resulting which result in the course of the transition to Industry 4.0 have consequences: Along with assigning more complex work, the percentage of occupations with higher wages increases. Therefore, the average wage costs of the sector increase. As in the assessment of the material and personnel costs it is again assumed that the companies will not make any changes which reduce their profit. Therefore, the assumption is made that labour productivity will increase by another 0.9% by 2025. The 0.9% corresponds to the increase in wage costs in the selected sectors for an exclusive restructuring of the occupational fields. In other words, the occupational fields, which are considerably above the average routine percentage in their sector, lose, whereas occupational fields with a relatively low routine percentage compared to the sector average will win. Overall, however, employment in the sectors in which investments were made will decrease in equal measure due to the assumed increase in labour productivity. Table 4.3 shows a fictitious example of a sector with four occupational fields, which is used to explain the approach. Lastly, we also need to consider the demand for goods. Regarding external demand, we assume a strong position of the German industry in the fields of mechanical engineering and sensor technology (as opposed to big data) and foreign countries react with a five-year delay. Therefore, international demand for machinery and measurement technology takes place 5  years later (i.e. 2020) than in Germany and then also continues for 10 years. It is assumed that the demand will increase similarly worldwide and German exports will increase by approximately 1%. We expect also a moderate plus for domestic final demand, which can be substantiated with additional consumer demand due to individualisation and interconnection. The dynamics and the extent of this additional demand are difficult to assess. It is therefore assumed that demand will only increase by 2% by 2025 for selected consumer purposes. The selection of the respective purposes follows the products produced by the industrial sectors in the manufacturing sector, that is, which have changed their production method in line with the scenario analysis and therefore can also produce customised products. Food and beverages represent an exception because we do not assume additional food consumption. Furthermore, in addition to the export assumption (pioneering role), it is consequently assumed that the new goods can only be acquired domestically, that is, import is not possible. Therefore, for goods with a high import percentage it is assumed the demand for imported finished products will not increase until 2020. This applies to clothing,

4  The Consequences of Industry 4.0 for the Labour Market and Education

45

Table 4.3  Integration of the routine percentage, model calculation

Employees in 2015 .. In% Routine percentage of the job Halving of the routine percentage Percentage of the complex jobs at halved routine percentage Bonus/malus: In relation to the industry sector average, scaling factor Employees considering the bonus/ malus factor in 2025 Considering the increase of labour productivity by 1.2%

Occupational fields 1 2 3 4 Total Average In persons 1000 1000 3000 5000 10,000 In% of total 10 10 30 50 100 In% 10 70 80 90 77 In% 5 35 40 45 In% 95 65 60 55 61.5 Factor

1.54 1.06 0.98 0.89

In persons

1545 1057 2927 4472 10,000

In persons

1526 1044 2892 4418 9880

Source: Diagram by author

furniture and automobiles. The imported intermediate inputs (raw materials and semi-finished products) were left unchanged, given that it is assumed that these will not be enhanced and are processed inside the country.

4.3  Outcomes of the Modelling Approach The result shows positive changes: Consumption, investments (primarily equipment) and trade balance are positive in both periods examined (Fig. 4.3). However, the advantage of declining imports is lost due to the additional demand (partial scenario 5). The result cannot be determined until the partial scenarios are examined together (Table 4.4). The overall scenario has a positive effect on the consumption of private households; this is caused by increasing demand (partial scenario 5) and effects resulting from the cyclical flow of income (partial scenario 1 & partial scenario 3). Government consumption can achieve an overall positive result in the second period. The effects are only minor in the partial scenarios; a positive effect only results in the synopsis. The equipment investments are either directly initiated (partial scenario 1) or are increased based on cyclical flow relationships (partial scenario 5) due to higher production in different sectors. Overall, the result is positive. In contrast, building investments only achieve noteworthy positive values (by 2018) in partial scenario 2. The changes in inventory are not part of a scenario and they are also not able to achieve a positive change through indirect effects. There is a noteworthy increase of imports overall. However, partial scenario 4 shows obvious declines due to the low demand of raw and semi-finished products.

46

R. Helmrich et al.

Fig. 4.3  Overall scenario 1–5 – components of the gross domestic product in comparison with the baseline scenario. (Source: Diagram by author)

This can lead to an overall positive change in the trade balance, given that exports indicate consistent positive results with the exception of the first partial scenario. Higher imports occur because of the increase of private consumption and additional exports. Figure 4.4 shows the effect on production. As per definition, production consists of the produced intermediate inputs and the generated added value. These in turn can be broken down into employee compensation, depreciations and net operating sur-­pluses (profit). Overall, production increases over the years. In 2020, it can increase by approx. €22 billion – in 2025 and 2030 even by more than €30 billion. While the demand increases in the beginning and the cost structures change, all effects are simultaneously and consistently active as of 2025. Essentially, the value added of the national economy consists of profit, employee compensation and depreciations. Aggregated value added also predominantly defines the gross domestic product. In terms of the composition of the additional production, it must be pointed out that the intermediate inputs are in fact higher but do not continue to increase after 2025. This is due to the gains in efficiency which, amongst other things, lead to a more efficient use of raw, semi-finished and finished products. Furthermore, significant increases in employee compensation can be identified. The reduction of routine jobs and increasing labour productivity in the manufacturing sector favours occupational fields with a higher level of qualification and higher wages. The assumed increase in labour productivity results in wage increases for employees under productivity-oriented wage policy. Ultimately, depreciations will increase over time: Even after the last investments have been made, depreciations will continue. Given that depreciations for the investment years (vintage years) accumulate, the highest depreciations will accrue after

O

O

O

+

O

Government consumption

Equipment investments

Building investments

Source: Diagram by author “Ο” ±1 billion; “+” >1 billion; “–” 3.5%. (Source: Diagram by author)

from the baseline scenario of more than 3.5% are selected. The most severe deviations are negative. These occupational fields can normally be attributed to the manufacturing sector. In particular, the professions in chemicals and plastics (MOF 4) are seriously impacted. This is not surprising given that they are greatly affected by the restructuring of the production processes as well as by the rearrangement of the occupational situation because the routine percentage is very high according to Dengler and Matthes (2015). The change amongst jobs by sectors has continued to increase in the overall scenario with the changes in demand (Fig. 4.8). The sectors with declining employment figures will have cut back 200,000 jobs in 2025. The other sectors can create approximately 140,000 new jobs by 2025. A total of nearly 60,000 jobs are lost. The sectors with job losses are in agriculture and the manufacturing sector. An overall additional demand for employees results due to higher consumption by private households, but mainly in service sectors (retail, amongst others). The reallocation amongst the 54 occupational fields is also greater than before (Fig. 4.9). It is also still greater than amongst the branches. A total of approximately 450,000 jobs will be lost by 2025 based on the occupational fields, with 390,000 jobs created elsewhere. In the case of an increasing demand for products, the loss of jobs would be reduced from previously 100,000 (compare Sect. 4.5) to approximately 60,000. However, not all reallocations are included in the analysis of jobs lost or created at industrial sector level or in the analysis on the level of occupational fields. The expected upheaval on the labour market based on the implementation of Industry 4.0 becomes most obvious when comparing the employment figures for each of the 54 occupational fields within the 63 industrial sectors and including all 54  ×  63 potential cell allocations in the analysis (Fig. 4.10). Finally, a flow calculation is approximated for this examination by means of a small-scale calculation of inventory change. Ac-cording to this, approximately 490,000 jobs will be cut back by 2025, while 430,000 new jobs will be created elsewhere.

4  The Consequences of Industry 4.0 for the Labour Market and Education

51

Fig. 4.8  Overall scenario 1–5 – number of jobs lost and created by branches in comparison with the baseline scenario. (Source: Diagram by author)

Fig. 4.9  Overall scenario 1–5 – number of jobs lost and created by occupational fields in comparison with the baseline scenario. (Source: Diagram by author)

In terms of qualification levels (Fig.  4.11), the negative consequences for the level of intermediate skills have now also declined with a loss of approximately 130,000 employees. This is due to the additional demand, amongst others in retail trade, which is attributed to a growth in consumption and which leads to additional demand for persons with vocational training.

52

R. Helmrich et al.

Fig. 4.10  Overall scenario 1–5 – the jobs lost and created by branches and occupational fields in comparison with the baseline scenario. (Source: Diagram by author)

Fig. 4.11  Overall scenario 1–5 – number of employees by qualification levels in comparison with the baseline scenario. (Source: Diagram by author)

4.4  The Future of Education The scenario shows a massive change of job requirements, on qualification levels and between tasks. A total of 920,000 jobs will change their tasks within 10 years beyond the baseline scenario. Education and further education play an important role. Due to the expansion of education (GEIßLER 2011) more workers have higher formal qualifications. Germany is increasingly becoming a service economy (BELL 1976; Maier et al. 2016).

4  The Consequences of Industry 4.0 for the Labour Market and Education

53

In addition, the employees have good communication and social skills, which are the basis for functioning reorganisation processes (Datenreport 2015, S. 403ff). Furthermore, activity requirements for unskilled, take on the demanding maintenance and quality assurance tasks. Higher requirements do not necessarily lead always directly to a higher skill levels. The assumption that digital revolution can only succeed with (more) academics is a fallacy. Technical and procedural abstract skills are present not only in academics. But rarely technical skills and experience are found in academics. This does not mean that more IT specialists are needed. But there must be especially IT skills in width for all professional activities. In all occupations and industries IT skills are considered to increase as a significant part of competence. These requirements – particularly with regard to Industry 4.0 – are important regarding all current and future reorganisation process. It seems obvious to encourage strengthening digital content. And it will be equally important to impart competences such as conceptional thinking, and abstraction and communication skills in order to make effective use of the new possibilities. Due to changing and increasing requirements, further training after initial training will become decisive to continuously further develop competences. For each country it will prove crucial to analyse the strengths and weaknesses of its education and qualification system with regard to digitalisation. For example, Germany should combine the important and productive role of formal qualifications with flexible and coordinated acquisition of competences (compare Weber 2016b). Likewise, while a growing focus on university education is of obvious importance, specific German strengths lie in the area of vocational education with parallel practical and theoretical training. Thus, a proactive policy should strengthen this system in a way that develops human capital enabling employees to form the process of putting digitalisation into practice in the German industry. Along with Industry 4.0, production work, knowledge work as well as research and development (R&D) will grow together, hierarchical management recedes. Logically, there is room for new tasks and jobs into which the sector of occupations based on vocational training can grow. Indeed, a business model of implementing digitalisation based on the creation of high-quality jobs will only emerge if qualified personnel for responsible tasks are available – also to newly founded companies, which are often drivers of economic and technological progress.

4.5  Policy Consequences The scenario shows an increasing creation of value, which, with increasing productivity and higher requirements on employees, results especially in growing wages.1 The employment level does not show significant changes; as a whole, Industry 4.0 is thus neither a job-producer nor an employment-destroyer. Behind that, however, there are considerable changes: In the cells consisting of 54 occupational fields and 63 economic sectors, 490,000 jobs will be lost, while in other areas 430,000 jobs will be newly created within 10 years beyond the baseline scenario.

54

R. Helmrich et al.

In particular professions in the manufacturing area decline, for instance, machineand facility-controlling and maintaining professions. There are increases in a number of occupational fields and in particular in service professions, most significantly in IT and scientific professions. In terms of qualification levels the academic field gains, the majority of losses occur in the field of vocational training. Also the demand for low-qualified work decreases. As a whole, it can be observed that the effects of Industry 4.0 can even lead to some kind of compensation of the imbalances emerging in the baseline scenario. Shortages in the field of vocational training of the industry are softened. In contrast, additional demand is generated for the strongly increasing supply in the academic field. For an effects analysis of the labour market development we must thus also consider the country-specific development of the labour supply in addition to the changes in labour demand dominating the debate. However, this seemingly elegant result should not be taken as an all-clear signal. According to the results, the difficult labour market situation of low-qualified persons will even deteriorate by trend. While also positive impulses, for instance, by using assistance systems, can be imagined in this area, the necessity of labour supply-­side measures will increase. The macroeconomic effects of the phenomenon of Industry 4.0 entail major challenges on a political and company level. After all, major shifts and changes of workplaces are foreseeable. Besides the educational system, labour market policies, too, need to adjust to new developments. In particular, we must expect increased dynamics and larger requirements for reallocation while the risk for dismissals is currently at a record low in Germany. If the structural and professional change increases, consulting in the fields of further and new qualification will become essential. Other areas such as occupational health and safety, working time regulation and management, codetermination, social security and data protection will be faced with new challenges. While the scenario described here focuses on the industrial (and agricultural) sector, there are already significant effects for the service sector as well. Nevertheless, a comprehensive analysis of the effect of digitalisation on the overall economy (“Economy 4.0”) is still pending. The project partners will present such a study in 2016.

References Autor DH, Levy F, Murnane RJ (2013) The skill content of recent technological change: an empirical exploration. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 118(4):1279–1333 BELL (1976) Daniel: Die nachindustrielle Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main 1976 BMAS (2015) Arbeiten weiter denken. Green Paper. Arbeiten 4.0. Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs Bonin H, Gregory T, Zieran U (2015) Transfer of the study from Frey/Osborne (2013) to Germany. Expert synopsis on behalf of the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs Bowles J (2014) The computerisation of European jobs-who will win and who will lose from the impact of new technology onto old areas of employment? Bruegel, Brussels

4  The Consequences of Industry 4.0 for the Labour Market and Education

55

Brzeski C, Burk I (2015) Die Roboter kommen. Folgen der Automatisierung für den deutschen Arbeitsmarkt. INGDiBa Economic Research Datenreport zum Berufsbildungsbericht (2015) Informationen und Analysen zur Entwicklung der beruflichen Bildung, Bonn Dengler K, Matthes B (2015, forthcoming) Substituierbarkeit von Berufen durch Computerisierung in Deutschland (IAB research report), mimeo Drosdowski T, Wolter MI together with Helmrich R, Maier T (2010) Entwicklung der Erwerbspersonen nach Berufen und Qualifikationen bis 2025: Modellrechnung mit dem BIBB-­ DEMOS-­Modell. In: Helmrich R, Zika G (2010) Beruf und Qualifikation in der Zukunft, Bonn Frey CB, Osborne MA (2013) The future of employment: how susceptible are jobs to computerization? University of Oxford, Oxford Geißler R (2011) Die Sozialstruktur Deutschlands. Zur gesellschaftlichen Entwicklung mit einer Bilanz zur Vereinigung. Wiesbaden Helmrich R, Zika G (eds) (2010) Beruf und Qualifikation in der Zukunft, BIBB-IAB-­ Modellrechnungen zu den Entwicklungen in den Berufsfeldern und Qualifikationen bis 2025, publication series from the Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training, Bonn Helmrich R, Zika G, Wolter MI, Schandock M, Maier T, Kalinowski M, Hummel M, Hänisch C, Drosdowski T, Bremser F, Bott P (2012) Shortages on the labour market: changes in education and employment behaviour will mitigate shortages of skilled workers. BIBB-Report 18/12, Bonn Hummel M, Thein A, Zika G (2010) Der Arbeitskräftebedarf nach Wirtschaftszweigen, Berufen und Qualifikationen bis 2025, IAB model calculations. In: Helmrich R, Zika G (eds) Beruf und Qualifikation in der Zukunft. BIBB-IAB-Modellrechnungen zu den Entwicklungen in den Berufsfeldern und Qualifikationen bis 2025, (reports on vocational training). Bertelsmann, Bielefeld, pp 81–102 Kalinowski M, Quinke H (2010) Projektion des Arbeitskräfteangebots bis 2025 nach Qualifikationsstufen und Berufsfeldern. In: Helmrich R, Zika G (eds) Beruf und Qualifikation in der Zukunft. Bonn Maier T, Zika G, Mönnig A, Wolter MI, Kalinowski M, Hänisch C, Helmrich R, Schandock M, Neuber-Pohl C, Bott P, Hummel M (2014) Wages and occupational flexibilities as determinants of the interactive QuBe labour market model. A methodological report on the basic projection of the 3 wave of the BIBB-IAB qualifications and occupational field projections. Wissenschaftliche Diskussionspapiere BIBB issue 149 Maier T, Zika G, Wolter MI, Kalinowski M, Neuber-Pohl C (2016) Die Bevölkerung wächst Engpässe bei fachlichen Tätigkeiten bleiben aber dennoch bestehen. BIBB-IAB-Qualifikationsund Berufsfeldprojektionen bis zum Jahr 2035 unter Berücksichtigung der Zuwanderung Geflüchteter. (BIBB-Report, 2016,03), Bonn, 20 S. Schnur P, Zika G (eds) (2009) The IAB/INFORGE model. Ein sektorales makroökonometrisches Projektions- und Simulationsmodell zur Vorausschätzung des längerfristigen Arbeitskräftebedarfs. IAB library 318, Nuremberg Spath D (ed), Ganschar O, Gerlach S, Hämmerle M, Krause T, Schlund S (2013) Produktionsarbeit der Zukunft – Industrie 4.0. Fraunhofer Institute for Industrial Engineering (IAO) Tiemann M, Schade H-J, Helmrich R, Hall A, Braun U, Bott P (2008) Berufsfeld-Definitionen des BIBB auf Basis der KldB1992. Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training TÜVRheinland (2013) Szenarien und Kosten für eine kosteneffiziente flächendeckende Versorgung der bislang noch nicht mit mindestens 50 Mbit/s versorgten Re-gionen. Study on behalf of the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology. Abstract Weber E (2016a) Industry 4.0 – job-producer or employment-destroyer? Institute for Employment Research, Aktuelle Berichte, 02/2016 Weber E (2016b) Industrie 4.0: Wirkungen auf den Arbeitsmarkt und politische Herausforderungen. Z Wirtsch 65(1):66–74

56

R. Helmrich et al.

Wolter MI, Mönnig A, Hummel M, Schneemann C, Weber E, Zika G, Helmrich R, Maier T, Neuber-Pohl C (2015) Industry 4.0 and the consequences for labour market and economy. Scenario calculations in line with the BIBB-IAB qualifications and occupational field projections (IAB-Forschungsbericht, 08/2015 (en)), Nürnberg, 66 S Zika G, Helmrich R, Kalinowski M, Wolter MI, Hummel M, Maier T, Hänisch C, Drosdowski T (2012) In der Arbeitszeit steckt noch eine Menge Potenzial. Qualifikations- und Berufsfeldprojektionen bis 2030. In: IAB Kurzbericht 18/2012, pp 1–12

Chapter 5

The Knowledge Capital of the Network Firm: Socialization Versus Business Appropriation of Scientific Work Blandine Laperche and Dimitri Uzunidis

Abstract  The changes that have affected academic institutions and scientific work in the past 20 years can be explained by the evolution of the firm’s organization and strategy. The current network firm represents the fourth stage in the organization of production, characterized by the importance of networks, linking salaried people from the firm and from many other institutions like universities and research centers, with the aim to increase the innovation capacity. The constitution of the enterprise knowledge capital largely involves academics institutions and scholars themselves who are urged to commercialize their research and develop narrow partnerships with companies. We analyze the impacts of this privatization of knowledge with respect to its orientation and private appropriation. The rules of the markets are now dominating the production of knowledge which may explain the increasing flexibility and agility asked to academic institutions and work. Keywords  Knowledge capital · Network firm · Research commercialization · Academic institutions · Academic work

5.1  Introduction This chapter aims to study the status of scientific work through the prism of the evolution of firm organization and strategy. We consider that the great changes that have affected academic institutions and, incidentally, scientific workers, over the last 20 years of the twentieth century are largely explained by the necessity for firms to have direct access to scientific results, and to control the direction and trajectories

B. Laperche (*) · D. Uzunidis Research Unit on Industry and Innovation, Université du Littoral Cote d’Opale, Dunkerque, France e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 G. Bast et al. (eds.), The Future of Education and Labor, Arts, Research, Innovation and Society, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26068-2_5

57

58

B. Laperche and D. Uzunidis

of knowledge. This necessity can be explained by the role of knowledge as a main input, or in other words as a main production force, in our knowledge-based societies (Foray 2004). The first part of the chapter defines the characteristics of the network firm. When one refers to the works of the classical economists, the network firm can be considered as the fourth historical stage of productive organization (Uzunidis 2006). It follows the gathering of workers at the same place (first stage), the division and specialization of tasks (second stage), and the clear separation of intellectual and manual work (third stage) that began in factories and continued in the large hierarchical firms of the twentieth century. This fourth stage is that of the combination in the same group of staff paid by the company itself, and staff paid by other organizations, either other independent companies or institutions like universities and research centers. The second part of the chapter is dedicated to analysis of the strategy implemented by the network firm to develop its “knowledge capital” (Laperche 2016), that is, the set of scientific and technical knowledge and information produced, acquired, combined and systematized for productive and, more broadly, value creation purposes. The constitution and the use of this knowledge capital is collective, and the key words to characterize these are networks, interactions and openness. It thus seems that, in the fourth moment in the organization of production, the power of firms not only stems from the ownership of assets, but mostly ensues from the capacity to appropriate or control the assets – and especially the intangible ones – produced through contractual relations. The third and final parts of the chapter focus on the great changes that have affected academic institutions and scientific work, which are in our view closely linked to the evolution of firm organization and strategy. Many concepts have been developed to study the transformation of the way knowledge is developed, such as, for example, the interactive process of innovation (Kline and Rosenberg 1986), the open innovation model (Chesbrough 2003), mode 1 and 2 of knowledge production (Gibbons et  al. 1994), the triple  – and more  – helix models (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 2000; Carayannis and Campbell 2009). The focus of these concepts is not the same: some emphasize firm strategy, others study the innovation and knowledge production processes at the macro level, and others position their study on academic institutions. However, they share common characteristics, like questioning the linear model of innovation, the accent put on interactions and networks, and the socialization of the production of knowledge. This socialization has, in our view, to be understood as being only one face of the process of knowledge production; the other face being business appropriation of this knowledge, according to the ultimate aim of profit generation.

5  The Knowledge Capital of the Network Firm: Socialization Versus Business…

59

5.2  T  he Network Firm: The Fourth Historical Stage of Productive Organization The modification of the organizational structure of the firm from the 1980s in the United States and in Europe is the result of changes in economic structures (Uzunidis and Boutillier 1997). First, it is a response to the limits of Fordism revealed at the end of the 1960s by the depletion of technological clusters – mechanics, electricity, automobile  – by the growing denial of salaried working conditions, and by the increase in internal organizational costs of the large multidivisional firm. The passage from the unitary hierarchical structure to the multidivisional form had already helped to limit organizational costs stemming from the increase in the flows of information to be processed, generated by increasingly varied and extensive demand (Chandler 1977). But this organizational transformation of the firm proved to be inadequate in a context of a change in the nature of competition. In the Fordist production model, this was based on prices and justified integration strategies that were based on internal and external growth. On the one hand, the saturation of demand for standardized goods required the introduction of flexibility in order to be able to generate variety in production and in the expansion of markets to reestablish opportunities for profits for these large centralized entities. Liberalization of the markets for goods and services and capital from the 1980s does in fact represent a second significant development. These policies favored the globalization of markets and the globalization of firm strategy. By globalization of firm strategy, we mean the freedom by which companies can manage their assets at a global level. But strategies of internal and external growth have proved to be too risky to deal with competition based on differentiation and reaction times at global level, given the immobilization of capital that they involve. It is then that, on the one hand, firms have reviewed their organization by focusing on areas of strategic activities, and by externalizing those that were not strategic activities. They pursued their expansion relying more on more or less long-term contracts (depending on the specificity of the assets concerned) and less on direct investment (whether or not these were located abroad). Flexible methods of production (Toyotism, Onism), associated with the organizational model of the Japanese Kereitsu, strongly influenced the new organizational structures of network firm. Firm J (Japanese) confronts firm A (American) by reconciling the advantages of integration and the market (Aoki 1986, 1988). Its advantages are based on an efficient system of information, organized horizontally, and ensuring coordination of activities. In reality, it is clear that the diffusion of information and communication technologies is the essential tool for establishing network firms and global innovation networks (conception, production and diffusion of new goods, services, organizational or commercial methods). The network firm has been defined as the merging by contract of “a group of firms that are i) legally independent, ii) vertically linked iii), within which one main firm, described as a pivot firm, a core firm or a central agency (…) regularly coordinates operations of supply, production, distribution” (Beaudry 2004, p.  250). It combines classic integration (subsidiaries established through internal and external

60

B. Laperche and D. Uzunidis

growth) with the decentralization of activities, through externalization and contractual relations (Uzunidis and Boutillier 1997). This allows the global organization of functions: most often, commercial and engineering activities are those which are the most decentralized and located in different countries in the world. The essential functions of the firm (R&D, productive, commercial and financial management) are very centralized (even if they can also be globalized), and are made up of functional units charged with the management of international flows of productive entrants. Thus planning of activities and decision-making power remain centralized, just like in the integrated, centralized firm; while management of activities (production, assembly, distribution) is decentralized for all or some of them. Thus the parent company or pivot firm is the architect of a global network. The firm conducts a strategy of “internalizing outsourcing” (Uzunidis 1996), which, on the one hand, enables economies of scale to be extracted, thanks to refocusing on key activities, and to strengthen its particular advantage and, on the other hand, to make the most of external economies linked to network organization, and to create economies of scope, while moving closer to the end customer. The network firm is based on flexible financial relations which unify its organization, and on informational flows, which allow the coordination of various decentralized activities (Antonelli 1988). The horizontal and vertical integration required by the dual necessity to reduce transaction costs linked to the imperfection of markets, and to increase barriers to entry, forced firms to bear the costs of mergers, takeovers and majority shares. In contrast, the network firm offers a more flexible range of contractual relations between firms who are members of the network (joint venture, partnerships, subcontracting, franchises, license agreement…). Nevertheless, these relations are similar to quasi-vertical integration, since the contracting units (often cascading) are in a situation of dependence compared with the pivot firm (Beaudry 2013; Chassagnon 2014), thus allowing production of a “relational quasi-rent” (Aoki 1986, 1988). With Miles and Snow (1995), we can consider that the network firm adopts a spherical structure “that can rotate competent, self-managing teams and other resources around a common knowledge base” (Miles and Snow 1995, p.  6). However, in our view, the spherical structure gathers  – around the pivot firm  – dependent units acting as quasi-firms (QF) and independent units (IU) that are linked through contracts. While the main orders are given by the pivot firms, quasi-­ firms also benefit from autonomy in decisions and thus give orders to other dependent or independent units, which can change/rotate according to the project and the competencies needed. Control of the whole network firm is thus achieved through ownership relations and contractual ones (see Fig.  5.1). Also, this project-based management implies that the firms’ boundaries are not strictly defined – they are fuzzy – and are transformed according to the projects. Referring to the work of the classical economists, we can consider that the network firm corresponds to the fourth moment or stage in the organization of production and, in the same movement, of the organization of labor. From the work of the classical economists, we can indeed define three stages in the transformation of the forces of capitalist production (Uzunidis 2006): the first

5  The Knowledge Capital of the Network Firm: Socialization Versus Business…

61

Fig. 5.1  The network firm. (Source: Author’s own conceptualization)

one corresponds to the meeting of workers isolated under the same manager, that is, the holder of the capital. The second stage corresponds to the division of labor and the differentiation of tasks with the setting up of a salaried management team, first in manufacturing and then in factories. Then the third stage corresponds to the clear separation between intellectual and manual work within the first factories, then within large managerial companies. Analyzing some of these stages, or the three of them in the case of Marx (1893), the classical economists paid particular attention to two main issues. The first one is the development of the competencies and knowledge of workers contributing to the increase in the productive power of labor induced by the division of labor and the introduction of the machine. The second one, particularly in the case of Marx, refers to the constitution of the collective worker and the appropriation of these competencies and knowledge by the owner of production forces. Regarding the first issue, for A.  Smith the potential of work (knowledge and know-how) is the possession of the individual and the worker uses this consciously to facilitate and shorten his work. The technical and social division of work favors human inventiveness and technical developments. It therefore increases the productive power of work, thanks to learning by doing processes. The increasing production that flows from this in the products of all the applied arts and crafts leads, if the economy is well governed, to general wealth, which spreads to the whole of society (Smith 1776). For Marx, on the other hand, in the capitalist mode of production, science, appropriated by capital, is opposed to the worker: “it is not the resource of the worker, but that par excellence of his exploitation and his alienation” (Fallot 1966, p. 62). In K. Marx’s analysis, technology substantiates the antagonism between capital and work. Before K. Marx, D. Ricardo had revealed the struggle opposing workers and

62

B. Laperche and D. Uzunidis

machines: machines and work are in constant competition, Ricardo thought, returning to his first idea, according to which machines improve the fate of the working population (Ricardo 1821). According to Marx, although this struggle initially occurs between the employee and the work tool (the machine), more fundamentally it embodies the antagonism between work and capital in the capitalist mode of production. This antagonism between work and capital, embodied by the technology, is revealed from the moment when general knowledge on natural laws (general intellect) becomes “productive forces of capital.” For Marx, the “general work of the human mind” (or general intellect) corresponds to all human knowledge on nature. It brings together all discoveries, all inventions. Its condition is partly cooperation with living people, partly the use of the work of our predecessors (Marx, Le Capital, L2, quoted by J.  Fallot 1966, p. 113). This scientific and technical knowledge possesses attributes of goods that are free and are not expensive: science, Marx writes, generally costs the capitalist nothing, which does not prevent him from using it. The science of others is incorporated into capital just like the work of others. But, once captured and placed at the service of capital (Marx 1973), by the mediation of industry, the invention then becomes a business and the application of science to direct production itself becomes a prospect that determines and solicits it. The scientist is separated from his work tool, and the technological applications of science become essential productive forces for the increase in work productivity and the development of productive forces. Regarding the second issue, Marx insisted on the fact that the development of manufacturing and the introduction of the division of work produce a collective know-how, which the “collective worker” owns: Learning, the result of the collective nature of work, accumulates and is passed on thanks to “organic solidarity,” produced by the division of labor. According to E. Durkheim, the social division of labor, and its specialization, produce an “organic solidarity,” derived from the individual’s own personality, acquired through the specialization of their work, and which allows society to move together, at the same time as each of its elements has more of its own movements (Durkheim 1984). The capitalist organization of labor, by dividing and subdividing labor, by reducing the individual to a fragment of himself, creates the “collective worker” and produces a solidarity and a dependence between individuals: on the one hand, each depends all the more closely on society if labor is divided, and, on the other hand, the activity of each is all the more personal because it is more specialized. For Marx, the individual’s know-how is monopolized by the holder of the means of production, to be identified in the collective worker. He considers that in manufacturing, the condition of the enrichment of the collective worker, and therefore of capital, in social productive forces, is the impoverishment of the worker in individual productive forces (Marx 1887). It is through this organic solidarity within the collective worker that learning capabilities develop, arising from the interaction between the work of individuals, and that the technical information contained in this collective know-how passes on. In the terms of the managerial theory that developed in the twentieth century, as firms grow and are turned into multidivisional firms managed by hierarchies of

5  The Knowledge Capital of the Network Firm: Socialization Versus Business…

63

managers (Chandler 1977), the competencies and knowledge of the firm are crystallized in the technostructure that constitutes an “association of men of diverse technical knowledge, experiences and other talents” (Galbraith 1967), and which permits the development of the competencies and knowledge necessary for the needs of modern technology. The network firm introduces a fourth stage in the organization of production. It corresponds to the combination in the same group of staff paid by the company itself, and staff paid by other organizations. The pivot firm still aims to boost the development of workers’ competencies and knowledge, and also to keep control of the group and of the knowledge developed in various areas and by various entities. The technostructure is more open than in the traditional managerial company, and some forms of communities, like “communities of practice,” are built with the aim of sharing, but also of co-creating, knowledge. They are defined as “groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly” (Wenger et al. 2002). They can occur within organizations and “through” them. In the fourth moment of the organization of production forces, and compared to the hierarchical company, there is a decentralization of the constitution and of the management of the “collective worker.” However, we believe, the same dependence on one or another member, the collective worker, still exists, due in particular to the necessity to put together many competencies to cope with modern technological requirements. The communities of practices developed within and through the network firm are the producers of the firm’s knowledge capital, as detailed in the next section.

5.3  T  he Formation of the Network Firm’s Knowledge Capital (KC) The network firm is distinguished from the network of firms, which “characterizes firms regularly linked to each other, but in a horizontal dimension of different activities.” (Beaudry 2004, p. 250). However, network firms and networks of firms have a close relationship, as is shown by the spread of multi-partner innovation strategies. In a network firm, as in networks of firms, trade cannot be assimilated with commercial relations because this is behind the creation of specific assets (tangible and intangible), which generate sunk costs if there is a breakdown in the relationship, and which explain its durability (Beaudry 2004, p. 251–253). Inter-firm cooperation (especially to innovate) is not a new theme (Richardson 1972), but nowadays it is the subject of a large number of publications. Multi-partner innovation is understood here as a generic model, integrating all forms of the firm opening onto its environment with the aim of innovating (Laperche et al. 2008). It is currently widely popularized by the term “open-innovation” (Chesbrough 2003). The multiplication of these forms of multi-partner innovation is largely explained by changes in the institutional environment (market liberalization, global competition, permanent

64

B. Laperche and D. Uzunidis

innovation, rapprochement between research and the market), and in the increase in technological complexity. There are many reasons for the development of these forms of hybrid organization (located between the hierarchy and the market, such as cooperation agreements or strategic alliances), and they can be drawn from different theoretical approaches (Ménard 2012). The theory of transaction costs presents alternative forms to the market and the hierarchy which are defined according to the specificity of assets, the degree of uncertainty, and the frequency of transactions. The latter, governed by contract law, offer advantages in terms of adaptability, incentives and control. The approach of “relational contracts” (Malcomson 2012), adds the “relational” or “non-contractual” dimension to the analysis. The importance of non-contractual, tacit or relational elements (vis-à-vis experience undertaken or future projects), may explain the increase in hybrid forms. In the same way, these hybrid forms, through their adaptability, enable the tensions and conflicts linked to the tacit nature of non-­ contractual elements to be limited and managed. As for agency theory, this emphasizes the incentives and financial motivations as major reasons for the development of hybrid forms, by focusing the analysis on the case of franchises. Resource-based theories concentrate on the pooling of very specific resources and competencies, such as the engine of partnership relations. The evolutionary theory deepens the analysis by explaining learning processes, and the common construction of routines, notably at the global level. Science and Technology are as a matter of fact generated through global strategies of multinational corporations organized as network firms. For a long time, knowledge development was indeed considered as nationally confined, but the current period show the development of global techno-­ scientific cooperations and of the global generation of knowledge (Archibugi and Filippetti 2016). The networks allow firms to build their knowledge capital, namely “the set of scientific and technical knowledge and information produced, acquired, combined and systematized by one or several firms for productive and more broadly value creation purposes” (Laperche 2007, 2013, 2016) by reducing the costs and uncertainty of the process of technological innovation, marked by a growing complexity. These are the main lessons of the contemporary approaches based on resources and competencies. The authors emphasize the role of competencies (particularly key competencies, Prahalad and Hamel 1990), and capabilities in the explanation of firms’ competitive advantage. Capabilities, able to develop new specific assets gathered into organizational routines, are called “dynamic capabilities” by Teece et al. (1997). They refer to the “capability of the firm to integrate, build and reconfigure internal and external competencies to changes in the environment.” Among these, absorption capacity is central to the analysis of the formation of firms’ knowledge capital within networks. Absorption capacity was first defined by Cohen and Levinthal (1990) and the capacity of the firm to recognize the value of new information, to turn it into knowledge, to assimilate it and to apply it for commercial purposes. The question of the integration of the particular knowledge of participants in the innovation process is today considered to be an essential element in obtaining a competitive advantage (Grant 1996). Furthermore, the capacities to appropriate

5  The Knowledge Capital of the Network Firm: Socialization Versus Business…

65

s­ cientific and technical information and knowledge are based on often aggressive strategies of the protection of intellectual property (combining the patents, trademarks, copyright, secrets and normalization) (Laperche 2012). At the same time, the valorization of their production is carried out on expanded markets, which helps to maintain or strengthen the differential between the cost of production and profits from sales. The monopoly rent thus obtained shows the power of the network firm. Knowledge capital (see Fig. 5.2) refers to the accumulated knowledge of one or several linked firms. It is embedded in the individuals (know-how), in the machines, technologies, and routines of the enterprise. It is continuously enriched by information flows and is used in the production process, or more globally in the value creation process. Thus, it is a dynamic concept – a process – that defines the knowledge accumulated by one or several firms and is continuously enriched and combined in different ways, and eventually used or commercialized. This productive aim – the creation of value – is the main characteristic, which turns knowledge into “capital.” Studying the KC of enterprises makes it possible to understand how they generate new knowledge and how they transform this knowledge into (technological, organizational, and commercial) innovation. In fact, the information is collected on markets through intelligence strategy, through access to patent information, through the purchase of technology and license signature, and other cooperation contracts. It is integrated into the knowledge stock through learning processes which are basic in the transformation of information (flow) into knowledge (stock). The use of the knowledge stock depends on market and production opportunities and on the degree of maturity of the developed technologies. A firm may use its KC in a value creation process by (1) simply selling this knowledge base to another enterprise (e.g., the selling of a computer program). Thus, the KC (embodied in the software) is transferred to another enterprise, which can use it in its production process; (2) using this KC in its own production process. In this case, the KC can be considered as a means to produce or to improve goods and services and as a tool for reducing the production process completion time.

Fig. 5.2  Enterprise knowledge capital. (Source: Laperche 2017)

66

B. Laperche and D. Uzunidis

For a firm, whether large or small, building a KC is essential for its capacity to innovate (whether in high or low tech sectors) and thus to survive in a context of innovation-based competition. At the macro level, the ability of firms to develop their KC is also crucial to maintain or increase the country’s or region’s competitiveness and to boost economic growth. In a more analytical sense, we conceive the KC as a tool to study the role and place of each stakeholder in innovation processes (e.g., large and small firms, academic and research institutions, intermediaries, and public institutions). Large firms are of course pivotal when dealing with the innovation process. Studying the way they build their KC helps to understand the evolution of the firm’s boundaries (from an integrated company to a network one), and of the innovation process (the role of open innovation and the building of innovation networks). As a matter of fact, the formation of the large enterprise’s KC implies the gathering of different types of inputs, i.e. human resources (researchers and engineers), tangible resources (machines and tools) and intangible ones (patents, software, information, know-how, methodologies and protocols). The enterprise has to produce and appropriate scientific and technical, commercial knowledge in order to expand the knowledge base it has already accumulated. Different means – usually complementary – are used: in-house (or internal) means (investment and management of human resources, R&D and tangible and intangible resources), and external means. External means can be divided into two categories: equity relations (e.g., joint venture, acquisition of start-ups) and non-equity relations (contracts with firms and other institutions and more informal contacts) (see Table 5.1). Partnerships (non-equity relations) may deal with precompetitive research, the design of new products and services, product development and diffusion, and each of them will imply a different mix of partners. The objectives presented above may be specific to a type of partner, or they may overlap, as shown in Table 5.2. In all cases, however, the aim of reducing the risk, cost and length of the innovation

Table 5.1  In-house and external means of the constitution of firms’ knowledge capital Internal (In-house) means Investment in human resources. Investment in and management of R&D and the means of production (both tangible and intangible).

Source: Laperche (2017)

External means Equity relations  Joint venture  Acquisition of innovative enterprise  Alliances Non-equity relations  Contracts (including licensing) with other (industrial and service) firms.  Contracts (including licensing and hiring of short-term researchers) with institutions: e.g., university research labs.  Participation in common research programs (e.g.,  European research programs)  More informal contacts

5  The Knowledge Capital of the Network Firm: Socialization Versus Business…

67

Table 5.2  Type of partners, forms of collaboration, and objectives of the large company Type of partners Academic research

Competitors

Communities/ Crowd

Forms of collaboration Research programs –research consortium International and European tenders Researchers’ mobility and PhD funding Licensing in Joint ventures International and European research programs – research consortium Cross licensing – pools Platforms (web site) Games and prices

Objectives of the firm Access to an anticipated vision of the technological evolution and to new knowledge Reduction of the risk and cost of upstream research

Design of future technologies Precompetitive research Reduction of the risk and cost of precompetitive research

Access to the creativity of anonymous individuals or groups of individualsDisruptive ideas Reduction of the cost of emerging of new ideas Suppliers/Clients Alliances and agreements (with or Access to complementary resources and co-development of products & services without capital participation) Reduction of the risk and cost of product Licenses development Games and prices Small innovative Venture capital, and acquisition of Access to very specialized competencies Technological watch; strategic firms start-up, spin-off intelligence. Cooperation agreements within Reduction of the risk and cost of clusters development European and national research programs Source: Laperche (2017)

p­ rocess is observable and aims to answer the profitability imperative (Laperche et al. 2011). • When cooperating with academic research, the main objectives of firms are to access new knowledge (or an anticipated vision of technological evolution). The forms of cooperation will be research consortia, common research programs, mobility. License agreements are also part of the “outside-in” strategy of the company. • With competitors, firms cooperate in order to design future technologies and resort to joint ventures, cross licensing strategies and participation in common research programs. • Cooperating with users, is not new, as is well explained by E. Von Hippel (2005), but gains ground notably with the phenomenon of crowdsourcing. Through games and awards, firms try to capture disruptive ideas from the crowd or from specific communities to constantly stay in touch with the evolution of markets and to be able to cater to the needs of the users.

68

B. Laperche and D. Uzunidis

• With suppliers or clients, the aims are access to complementary resources and to co-develop products and services. Partnerships take the form of various forms of alliances or contracts and licensing. Games and prices may also be used. • Through venture capital, firms develop their strategy of business intelligence and also stay in touch with new technologies proposed by start-ups. Start-ups may be bought at the end of the process. In that case, the development cost of the start-up is shared between several investors (Tidd et al. 2005). They may also integrate the firm’s network through cooperation agreements that can include licensing agreements (licensing-in or licensing-out contracts). Thus, today the process of knowledge creation is the result of a node of partnerships between the (more or less independent) units of a network firm, other network firms and other institutions (universities, research labs). The fourth stage includes the organization of production, the companies’ staff, and thus competencies and know-how are split into various institutions, located in various places. In this context, the question of the size and the power of the firms is no longer defined solely according to the ownership of assets, but also, and above all, to their capacity to absorb and appropriate assets, in particular intangible assets produced through contractual relations. This is also explained by Rajan and Zinguales (2000). According to these authors, in an economy based on knowledge, where firms’ critical resources come more from human capital than physical capital, the boundaries of the firm are no longer determined by the ownership of physical assets, but by the synergies created by the contractors. By conferring on some key subcontractors privileged access to the firm’s critical resources (the authors give the example of subcontractors for Toyota, who have access to some parts of – one could say - its ‘knowledge capital’), the firm encourages subcontractors (who are in a situation of “managed competition”) to carry out specific investments which could only be valorized through the firm. On the one hand, it is access given to certain critical resources that will give the firm more power, on the other hand, the dependence of the subcontractor compared with the large firm will be strengthened. In other words, the power and the capacity of the firm depend less on the ownership of physical assets than on the capacity, via their specificity and their synergy, to appropriate the intangible assets developed in common, but within independent entities. This new organizational trend affects all institutions. The diversification of the channels of scientific and technical knowledge and information transfer from universities to companies is proof of this; the refinement of the legal and financial system for the appropriation of the value represented in the scientific institutions (universities and research centers) by companies is further proof of this; the multiplication of the different levels of social status and workers, and the commercialization of all kinds of manual and intellectual competence, is yet more proof.

5  The Knowledge Capital of the Network Firm: Socialization Versus Business…

69

5.4  W  hat Are the Consequences for Knowledge Production and Scientific Work? Since the end of the 1970s, many concepts and models have been developed with the aim of describing and analyzing the great changes in the process of innovation and, within this, in the process of knowledge production. The creativity in concepts and models can be explained by the discipline perspective (economics, management, sociology) and the particular focus chosen to study the still ongoing changes in the process of innovation, and of the production of knowledge. We can, for example, refer to the chain-linked model of innovation (Kline and Rosenberg 1986), which depicts the innovation process at the level of the firm. This model contradicts the linear vision of the innovation process, where science has the major role, and on the contrary puts the emphasis on the role of design: “(…) the central process of innovation is not science but design” (Kline and Rosenberg 1986, p. 286).” It also considers the feedbacks that lead to many redesigns so as to lead to an effective innovation. Science does not begin the innovation process but rather extends it throughout the process. Science in its various forms (pure research, systems and process research) is employed at all points along the central chain of innovation, as needed. Another, different, but also complementary vision of the innovation process within the company is the one offered by the concept of open innovation (Chesbrough 2003), which suggests that the management of innovation activities by the firm has been changing over time, from a “closed” to an “open” process through which “valuable ideas can come from inside or outside the company and can go to market from inside or outside the company as well” (Chesbrough 2003, p. 47). According to this author, the open innovation paradigm has tended to replace the earlier paradigm of closed innovation since the end of the twentieth century. The logic of the closed innovation paradigm was an internally focused logic where companies financed, generated, developed, built and marketed their inventions. This model began to be undermined at the end of the twentieth century due to a conjunction of factors such as the growing mobility of highly skilled workers, the growing presence of private venture companies, new possibilities offered to market internal ideas, and the increasing capabilities of external suppliers. The economic context where innovation performance is the engine of competition and where profitability imperatives constrain the investment policy of firms is also an important factor explaining the growing place of collaboration in the formation of the KC.  Open innovation strategies set out the growing importance of networks, considered as knowledge factories and boosters. It is within these networks that firms now build their KC. According to this model, firms collaborate at all stages of the interactive innovation process (design, production and commercialization) and with multiple partners. The analysis of collaborative innovation with an “open” approach defines three processes of open innovation (Chesbrough 2003; Gassmann and Enkel 2004).

70

B. Laperche and D. Uzunidis

The first is known as inbound or outside-in OI, which refers to the exploration and integration of external resources for internal knowledge development. The second is known as outbound or inside-out IO, which exploits the technology capacities externally through various paths of commercialization, IP licensing, technology multiplying, or spin-offs. The third is a coupled process which mixes the outside-in and inside-out processes while dealing with different partners engaged in the same R&D project. Through partnerships with various actors (other competitors, suppliers, start-ups, clients, research institutions), firms achieve the inbound process (Outside-In), which will contribute toward feeding the knowledge capital of the enterprise. At the other end of the scheme, through the transfer to another company via, for example, intellectual property licensing or spin-off (inside-out), the firm commercializes and gives value to its knowledge capital. We can also refer to the national (regional, or sectoral) systems of innovation (Freeman 1987; Lundvall 1988), which develop an institutional perspective and study the forms of interactions needed within national or subnational and/or industry boundaries to improve the process of knowledge production, its transformation into innovation and the achievement of performance criteria. The concept of a cluster (Porter 1998) can also be included in this perspective. Other concepts particularly focus on academic institutions. As a matter of fact, a third mission of the commercialization of research and economic development has been added to their historical missions of education/teaching and research. Universities are now endowed with norms of entrepreneurial operation, they become “entrepreneurial universities” (Etzkowitz 2003) integrating the demands of the market in their operation (requirement for a profit, competition, emphasis placed on applied research), while trying not to neglect their traditional functions: teaching and basic research. The main forms of commercialization of public research that can be identified are as follows: • Scientific cooperation: joint programs carried out in partnership between the universities, public research centers and firms. • Exploitation of research results (filing of patents by universities and negotiation of operating licenses providing remuneration for the universities). • Mobility of researchers: young PhD students who belong to a public research laboratory will prepare their thesis in a firm (the thesis is partly funded by the firm); a researcher or a team of researchers provides its scientific support or its advice to the firm, etc. • The creation of firms by researchers themselves. The researcher assumes the practices of the entrepreneur. In this context, modes 1 and 2 of knowledge production (Gibbons et al. 1994; Nowotny et  al. 2001, 2003), mostly study the great change in the production of knowledge, from the perspective of academic institutions. The authors study how what they call Mode 1 of scientific discovery, characterized by the “hegemony of disciplinary science,” with its strong sense of an internal hierarchy, and driven by the autonomy of scientists and their host institutions, the universities, was being

5  The Knowledge Capital of the Network Firm: Socialization Versus Business…

71

superseded – although not replaced – by a new paradigm of knowledge production (Mode 2), which was socially distributed, application-oriented, trans-disciplinary and subject to multiple accountabilities” (Nowotny et  al. 2003). The Tripe helix model (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 2000) insists on University  – Industry  – Government networks. Some authors propose adding several helixes, in order to include civil society and the environment in the analysis of networks (Carayannis and Campbell 2009). However, these links between science and industry are not new. In particular, Habermas’s “scientization of technology” (1971) dates from the final quarter of the nineteenth century. As we pointed out in the first part, Marx had revealed the connection between science and technology in the capitalist mode of production. From the moment when the scientist is himself integrated in the production process, his work is appropriated by capital, and he himself is separated from his work tool. But although this rapprochement is not new, the end of the twentieth century was, however, marked by a growing socialization of the work of producing scientific and technical knowledge, highlighted by the concepts that we have mentioned above. By socialization, we mean the fact that scientific and technical knowledge is produced in many places and institutions in an interactive and open way. Nevertheless, we believe it is important to consider the fact that this socialization movement corresponds to a movement that is just as powerful, of appropriation by the firm of scientific work, organized in a network. Indeed, currently the market, (via the network firm) is opening the doors of the university and of public research centers, and imposing its rules on the functioning of scientific work, with the consent of the State and the researchers themselves. It is now that the deep sense of valorization (literally, which gives value) of research is emerging. This can be defined as the process of transformation of basic knowledge into new commercial products or services. This most often stipulates private appropriation (exclusive or not) of the results of research. But, even more, public research is called on to satisfy the objectives of profit and of the growth of firms. Its orientation, through its financing (whether public or private), its evaluation (according to economic criteria), are defined not so much according to social needs and the challenges which humanity has to confront, but, in a crucial way, depending on firms’ profits outlook. These challenges can merge at certain moments, but most often they are incompatible.

5.5  Conclusion Scientific work is embedded in the economic and social structure, which imposes its operational standards on all the institutions which are part of this. In the fourth moment of the organization of labor, the organizational logic and the objectives of the firm extend beyond its boundaries. The collective worker of the past, limited to the boundaries of the firm, defined by the ownership of the assets, is now extended

72

B. Laperche and D. Uzunidis

to the social system within which the firm builds its knowledge capital. Partnerships that are now essential for academic structures mean that, not only the results of scientific production, but more fundamentally its orientation, are largely defined according to economic and financial interests. The rules of the markets are now dominating the production of knowledge which may explain the increasing flexibility and agility asked to academic institutions and work: academics have to teach, do research, and develop entrepreneurial skills at the same time. In this highly competitive context, education and research work have to comply with these rules, in order to increase their visibility and attractiveness. On the other hand, “free” research, that is the one that is not oriented toward lucrative goals in the medium term, becomes difficult to fund and to achieve. Indeed, the credits granted to university research are gradually replaced by contracts with companies or with institutions directly linked to companies (banks, research and innovation centers, employers’ unions, etc.). As shown, Archibugi and Filippetti (2016), from 1981 to 2013, the share of public-­ financed R&D to GDP in OECD countries was reduced from 0.82% to 0.67%. By contrast, the industry-financed R&D has increased from 0.96% of GDP to 1.44%. According to the authors, this growing privatization of knowledge can have adverse implications for long-term innovation and economic welfare: first, “there is no guarantee that market-led opportunities correspond to societal needs and priorities. Second, an excessive privatization of knowledge reduces the possibilities for the diffusion of knowledge. Third, because long-term technological opportunities, especially when they are radical, are often associated with major scientific break-­ throughs, generated by basic research carried out in public institutions” (Archibugi and Filippetti 2016, p. 20). The large company directs academic research and defines the objectives to be achieved. These objectives are determined by the mercantile needs (capital accumulation, competition, profit, dividends) of firms and their shareholders. The major challenges facing society and the planet are flouted; which has repercussions on democracy both as a mode of societal organization and as a political regime. This fourth moment of the organization of production is, therefore, that of the unprecedented socialization of knowledge production, but also, paradoxically, that of its private appropriation. In this chapter, we have considered the current status of scientific work through the lens of the evolution of firm strategy and organization. This offered us the opportunity to put forward the socialization of knowledge production and, as a counterpart, its growing private appropriation. We can consider that this complements the approaches that emphasize the privatization of knowledge funding and generation. Finally, these two trends, the private appropriation of knowledge and the privatization of its generation, are certainly aspects that should be better handled by public policies, with the aim of building knowledge-based societies oriented toward the societal needs and challenges of the twenty-first century.

5  The Knowledge Capital of the Network Firm: Socialization Versus Business…

73

References Antonelli C (1988) The emergence of the network firm. In: Antonelli C (ed) New information technology and industrial change, The Italian Case. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 13–32 Aoki M (1986) Vertical integration and the nature of the firm. Am Econ Rev 76(5):971–983 Aoki M (1988) Information, incentives and bargaining in the Japanese industry. Cambridge University Press, UK/New York Archibugi D, Filippetti A (2016) The retreat of public research and its adverse consequences on innovation, CIMR research working paper series, working paper no. 31. University of London, Birkbeck Beaudry B (2004) La question des frontières de la firme. Incitation et coordination dans la firme réseau. Revue économique 55(2):247–274 Beaudry B (2013) Quasi intégration et relation de sous-traitance industrielle: une évaluation des travaux de Jacques Houssiaux. Revue d’économie industrielle (142):11–39 Carayannis E, Campbell D (2009) ‘Mode 3’ and ‘quadruple helix’: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. Int J Technol Manag 46(3–4):201 Chandler AD (1977) The visible hand. The managerial revolution in American business. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge Chassagnon V (2014) Beyond markets and hierarchies: an economic analysis of vertical quasi-­ integration. Revue de philosophie économique 15:135–165 Chesbrough H (2003) Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, p 2003 Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm Sci Q 35(1):128–152 Durkheim E (1984) The division of labour in society. Macmillan, London Etzkowitz H (2003) Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: the invention of the entrepreneurial university. Res Policy 32:109–121 Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L (2000) The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and Mode 2 to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Res Policy 29:109–123 Fallot J (1966) Marx et le machinisme. Cujas, Paris Foray D (2004) The economics of knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge Freeman C (1987) Technology policy and economic performance. Pinter, London Galbraith JK (1967) The new industrial state. Houghton Mifflin, Boston Gassmann O, Enkel E (2004) Towards a theory of open innovation: three core process archetypes. R&D Management Conference (RADMA). Conference paper Lisbon, 6 July 2004 Gibbons M, Limoges C, Novotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporaries societies. Sage, London Grant RM (1996) Towards a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strateg Manag J 17:109–122 Habermas J (1971) Technology and science as ideology. In: Toward a rational society. Heinemann, London. (Translation of Habermas, 1967) Kline SJ, Rosenberg N (1986) An overview of innovation. In: Landau R, Rosenberg N (eds) The positive sum strategy: harnessing technology for economic growth. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., pp 275–305 Laperche B (2007) Knowledge capital and innovation in global corporations. Int J Technol Glob 3(1):24–41 Laperche B (2012) How to coordinate the networked enterprise in a context of open innovation? A new function for intellectual property rights. J Knowl Econ 3(4):354–371 Laperche B (2013) Knowledge-capital and innovation. In: Carayannis EG (ed) Encyclopedia of creativity, invention, innovation and entrepreneurship, vol 2. Springer, New York, pp 1191–1198 Laperche B (2016) Large firms’ knowledge capital and innovation networks. J  Knowl Econ 2016:1–18

74

B. Laperche and D. Uzunidis

Laperche B (2017) Enterprise Knowledge Capital. ISTE- Wiley, Hoboken USA Laperche B, Uzunidis D, von Tunzelmann N (2008) The genesis of innovation, systemic linkages between knowledge and the market. E. Elgar, Cheltenham Laperche B, Lefebvre G, Langlet D (2011) Innovation strategies of industrial groups in the global crisis: rationalisation and new paths. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 78(8):1319–1331 Lundvall BA (1988) Innovation as an interactive process: from user-producer interaction to the national system of innovation. In: Dosi G, Freeman C, Nelson R, Silverberg G, Soete L (eds) Technical change and economic theory. Pinter Publisher, London/New York, pp 349–369 Malcomson J (2012) Relational incentive contracts. In: Gibbons R, Roberts J (eds) Handbook of organizational economics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 1014–1065 Marx K (1887) Capital, A critique of political economy, vol I (1st English edn). https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ Marx K (1893) Capital, vol II (2nd edn). https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ Marx K (1973) Grundrisse. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ Ménard C (2012) Hybrid modes of organization. Alliances, joint ventures, networks and other ‘strange animals’. In: Gibbons R, Roberts J  (eds) Handbook of organizational economics. Princeton University Press, Princeton Miles RE, Snow CC (1995) The new network firm: a spherical structure built on a human investment philosophy. Organ Dyn 23(4):5–18 Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2001) Re-thinking science. Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity Press, Cambridge Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2003) Mode 2 revisited: the new production of knowledge. Minerva 41:179–194 Porter M (1998) On competition. Harvard Business Review Books, Boston Prahalad CK, Hamel G (1990) The core competence of the corporation. Harv Bus Rev 68(3):79–92 Rajan RG, Zinguales L (2000) The governance of the new enterprise, Working paper 7958. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge Ricardo D (1821) On the principles of political economy and taxation, 3rd edn. John Murray, London Richardson GB (1972) The organization of industry. Econ J 82(327):883–896 Smith A (1776) An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. W. Strahan and T. Cadell, London Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A (1997) Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg Manag J 18(7):509–533 Tidd J, Bessant J, Pavitt K (2005) Managing innovation. Integrating technological, market and organizational change. John Wiley and Sons Ltd, Chichester Uzunidis D (1996) Mondialisation, intégration et normalisation du progrès technique. A propos de l’interactivité des stratégies des firmes et des Etats et de la configuration de l’économie mondiale. Innovations (3) Uzunidis D. (2006) Science and technology in today’s economy. The fourth stage in the organization of production. Cahiers du LabRII (125) Uzunidis D, Boutillier S (1997) Le travail bradé. Automatisation, mondialisation, flexibilité. Economie et Innovation, L’Harmattan, Paris Von Hippel E (2005) Democratizing innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge Wenger E, McDermott R, Snyder WM (2002) Cultivating communities of practice: a guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business School, Boston

Chapter 6

The Coevolution of Labor and Creativity: A Way from the “Old” to the “New” Economy Igor N. Dubina, Elias G. Carayannis, and David F. J. Campbell

Abstract  The “category of labor” is included as a basic concept in the terminology of many humanitarian, social, and economic disciplines, such as philosophy, economics, sociology, psychology, and anthropology. Definitions of this category are spreading over a broad spectrum. The heterogeneity of the concept of labor is related to the fact that, firstly, the various scientific disciplines consider various manifestations of labor, and secondly, labor activity manifests itself differently in different historical, social, and economic contexts. However, a very few definitions indicate the involvement of creative elements in a labor process. Moreover, labor and creativity are often considered as opposite phenomena in the majority of classical and contemporary research. The authors of this chapter trace the history of such an opposition and demonstrate that this is unproductive in the modern economy of knowledge and creativity.

I. N. Dubina (*) Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, Russia Altai State University, Barnaul, Russia e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] E. G. Carayannis European Union Research Center, GWU School of Business, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA e-mail: [email protected] D. F. J. Campbell University of Applied Arts Vienna, Unit for Quality Enhancement (UQE), Vienna, Austria Danube University Krems, Department for Continuing Education Research and Educational Technologies, Center for Educational Management and Higher Education Development, Krems, Austria University of Vienna, Department of Political Science, Vienna, Austria Alpen-Adria-University Klagenfurt, Faculty for Interdisciplinary Studies (iff), Department of Science Communication and Higher Education Research (WIHO), Klagenfurt, Austria e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 G. Bast et al. (eds.), The Future of Education and Labor, Arts, Research, Innovation and Society, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26068-2_6

75

76

I. N. Dubina et al.

In this chapter, we conceptually define the “creativity economy” and suggest a model that interrelates creativity, knowledge, and innovation economies and reflect on the role and place of creativity and labor in the “new” economy. Keywords  Coevolution · Creative class · Creative economy · Creative industries · Creative occupations · Creativity · Creativity economy · Creative knowledge-based innovation · Creativity management · Innovation economy · Knowledge economy · Labor

6.1  Introduction The category of labor is included as a basic concept in the terminological system of many humanitarian and socioeconomic disciplines. Philosophy, economics, sociology, psychology, anthropology, and others define this term in a wide semantic range, for example, labor is defined in terms of energy expenditure, or physical effort to overcome natural resistance, or processing and transmission of information, or a kind of social activities. The heterogeneity of this concept reflects the fact that, firstly, the various disciplines studying various aspects of labor category, and secondly, labor activity manifests itself differently in different historical, social, and economic conditions. However, none of the definitions of labor indicates the involvement of creativity or some creative elements in labor process. Moreover, the most of classical and modern research firmly oppose the phenomena of labor and creativity (that is no less a problematic category than labor) (Inozemtsev 1998). Such a contradiction is reflected even by the etymology of the words “labor” (English), “arbeit” (German), “arbas” (Gothic), “trabail” (French), “labor” (Latin), and “trud” (Russian). In all of these as well as many other Indo-European languages, this word originally relates to the following meanings: “exertion of the body”; trouble, difficulty, hardship, tribulation, suffering, toil, pain, fatigue, physical exertions of childbirth, keep busy, take pains, strive, have difficulty, be afflicted, be in distress or difficulty, be burdened (with trouble), to stay without their parents, to be doomed to need, a hard existence, anguish, hardship, anxiety, slave (forced labor) (Online Etymology dictionary; Michailova 1998; Hornby 1984). So, the very original meanings of the word “labor” emphasizes some kind of coercion as a priority and thus opposes creativity that primarily associated with free will and action. This tradition is entrenched in the Western culture and has led to a specific understanding of labor and its “natural” opposition of creativity, which is also reflected in the contradiction of labor and creativity in philosophical, sociological, and economic studies of these phenomena. However, we think this attitude is not indisputable, and in this chapter, we attempt to trace the outline of the history of this opposition and to show that in the present conditions of the “new economy,” labor and creativity can be compatible (although not reducible to each other). Presently, we have many concepts characterizing the “new economy.” Our study (Dubina et al. 2012) shows that “knowledge economy” is the most used concept. There are also other popular concepts: “learning economy,” “innovation economy,”

6  The Coevolution of Labor and Creativity: A Way from the “Old”…

77

or “innovative economy,” “e-economy,” etc. “Creative economy” has also become one of the most discussed concepts of the modern global economy for the last 10 years. This concept is also understood as a paradigm for the future economy and the future society as a whole, and creativity in combination with knowledge is being considered the most important economic resource in the world with increasing population and decreasing natural resources. The widely distributed term “creative economy” accentuates sharply risen significance of creativity as an economic factor and also characterizes a qualitative transition of the modern economy to a new level (Dubina et al. 2012).

6.2  P  reindustrial and Industrial Economies: Labor as a Forced Work Up to the eighteenth century, labor has not been a subject of a serious philosophical and scientific reflection. A unified and completed concept of labor did not exist; there were just some notions of labor integrated into various philosophical and economic conceptual systems. As Drucker (1993) noted, there is still no history of labor up to this day, and labor should be an important subject of study in the next 100 years. In ancient philosophy and culture which are characterized by contemplation and priorities of theory over practice, physical labor was considered humiliating occupation. Chanting of peasant labor in Hesiod poem “Works and Days” and Virgil’s “Georgiki” (“Poem of agriculture”) is rather a symbol, like a symbolic touch of the Chinese emperor to the plow once a year, on the feast day of rice planting. Labor in the ancient culture is, generally, an employment of slaves, unworthy of the attention of free citizens (Dubina 2002). In the medieval theocentric Western philosophy, labor was seen as a consequence and manifestation of human imperfection and the first fall (Adam and Eve did not work in the Paradise, but after the fall, they were forced to labor as the punishment). Labor was understood not only as a necessary means to earn one’s living, but also as a divine prescription, a way of prevention and atonement of sins by “exiling idleness” and “curbing lust” (Michailova 1998). In the Renaissance, new shades have become in the understanding of labor. Labor was considered in opposition not with creativity, but with inaction and indolence. Labor has started to be understood not just as a natural human need, but also as a way to self-improvement of an individual and social prosperity. The Renaissance, for the first time in the history, allowed the assumption of possible creative elements (as free activities) in labor (including physical labor) (Dubina 2002). Protestantism emerged in the sixteenth century during the Reformation, additionally enriched understanding of labor and lifted its value in the European culture because a success in work became the sign of “blessing.” This idea also related to even commercial business and trade, which, according to the Catholic philosophy, have the purpose of enrichment and were therefore almost obscene. This circum-

78

I. N. Dubina et al.

stance, as Weber (2001) has shown, became a basis for forming a new type of economic relations in the Western Europe: capitalist production and competition. In the Enlightenment period of the eighteenth century, labor has started to be commonly understood as any work that is spent not only physical, but also ­intellectual and emotional, resources. Moreover, ideas of the inadmissibility of idleness and a beneficial effect of labor have widely spread in the public consciousness. This understanding of labor has been categorically presented in Hegel’s philosophy. In his philosophical system, labor is considered as a “universal substance of the human being,” a way to implement a form of personal consciousness and self-realization. In other words, labor may manifest in all possible forms of human activity, from routine production to creative activities in art or science. Thus, Hegel’s system removed the opposition of labor and creative activity for the first time in the history of philosophy. At the same time, Hegel’s globalist approach universalizes creativity and presents it as a necessary condition and the principle of development of the world, thereby masking the specificity of creativity as a phenomenon of human activity (Dubina 2002). However, this opposition has not disappeared in the economic theory of that time. Starting from the seventeenth century, that is, since the emergence of mechanized production, labor has started to be analyzed on the basis of economic and social relations. For example, in Petty’s theory of value, the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labor spent on its production. Developing this theory, Adam Smith (1979) designated labor as a main economic category. However, in the works of Smith, who was not only a classic of European political economics, but also a professor of moral philosophy, one can trace a tendency to regard a category of labor in relation to also noneconomic (social, psychological) aspects of the work (e.g., moral standards, motives of behavior, and traditions). A transition to mass production made possible a phenomenon of labor exploitation and led to a special issue of the fundamental objectives of labor. The classical economists answered this question quite clearly in the spirit of the already established tradition: people do not work for the sake of work, but because of the money they receive for their labor. So, the concept of homo economicus rises: an “economic man,” a rational actor, is seeking to obtain the maximum benefit through his labor. On this basis, an idea of the global mercantilism emerged: labor activity is considered to be motivated by solely utilitarian, no other interest. A consequence of such an idea was the first theory of wages: workers should not receive more than the living minimum; otherwise they will lose interest in work. The obvious conclusion seemed to be that a person cannot be satisfied by work itself (and this was indeed the case to some extent in terms of mass introduction of machinery in factories). Thus, the work was not seen as a form of personal self-perfection, but predominantly as a livelihood. In these circumstances, it seemed indisputable that labor and creativity are incompatible. This very basic concept has led to the crisis of European classical political economics, clearly marked with the representatives of the utopian socialism, which not only recognized labor as a priority source of wealth, but also proposed measures for the reorganization of labor and property relations (Dubina

6  The Coevolution of Labor and Creativity: A Way from the “Old”…

79

2002). For example, Charles Fourier in his work on the future of the society (see Fourier 1971; Poster 1971) pointed out (albeit implicitly) the need to remove the dilemma of labor and creativity: economic differences between mental and physical labor should be removed, individual and collective economic interests should be combined and integrated, and this frees labor from coercion and makes labor a pleasure; it complies with human inclinations and abilities. Marx, heavily influenced by Hegel, not only assumed a creative character of labor, but also considered it an important moment in forming man and society. Labor is defined by Marx as a purposeful activity of converting or adapting the nature and a way of creating a new world and a new man. However, the established capitalist system of production and income distribution, according to Marx, results in the alienation of labor that is loses expression of human creative powers and transforms itself into just sustenance; products and process of alienated labor itself become independent on the human wills and plans. Therefore, workers regard their own labor as something alien, not belonging to them. Alienated labor is linked to human alienation from themselves as creative beings from other people, from all over the world, which is perceived as alien and hostile. Alienated labor destroys human creative ability (which can and should be presented in labor), thereby it destroys personality and transforms a person into a thing. The concept of alienated labor reflects Marx’s criticism of contemporary political economics, built on abstraction of homo economicus that reduces creative nature of a person to the need for money as the only need. As a result, a person becomes a slave of inhuman, unnatural, and contrived desires. The poorer an individual as personality, the greater the individual’s need for money, consumption, and possession which become the meaning of his life. Indeed, the system of work incentives, prevailing in Marx’s time, is based on the Adam Smith’s position that workers and employers are guided only by material interests (workers want to receive as much as possible and the employers want to give possibly less). In fact, a capitalist production and distribution system, criticized by Marx, did not leave the place of creativity in labor. In order to improve work performance, a worker had to work a longer or more intensely. In other philosophical systems of the nineteenth century, like the philosophy of romanticism (Schelling, Schleiermacher) and the philosophy of life (Nietzsche, Dilthey, Bergson), as well as in existentialism and personalism of the twentieth century, a contrast between labor (as utilitarian and practical work) and creativity as free personal manifestation become stronger again. For example, Mounier distinguished labor from “activities in general” and creativity in particular, “the most spiritual form of any activity” (cited in Michailova 1998). Labor, in his opinion, is a necessary but lowly condition of human existence, “natural, but difficult, aimed at the production of a useful product taming the stubborn matter” with no elements of spirituality and creativity. So, labor was treated as something quite opposite to a generic nature of a human being. According to L. Mumford (1974), an American philosopher, labor brings a person to an animal state because a human, producing tools of labor, likes an animal, while a true human was a creator of images, a dreamer and an artist before he became a producer of labor tools.

80

I. N. Dubina et al.

In sum, creativity did not represent a significant factor of economic production, mainly symbolized by the conveyor system, and thus, labor and creativity ­predominantly considered as the opposite phenomena until the mid of the twentieth century.

6.3  P  ostindustrial Economy and “Creative” Economy: Contrasting Labor and Creativity The most successful economies in the world are those that engage ordinary workers in processes of creative thinking, doing and using. The less distinct ‘the creative class’ is from the rest of society, the more successful the learning economy. B.A. Lundvall (2008)

In the second half of the twentieth century, work motivation has significantly changed and the role of creativity in economic development has clearly increased. Since the 1950s, business has started demonstrating a keen interest in creativity. Social, economic, and technological conditions of production, business, and management began to change very quickly; a great number of new problems, not corresponding to known classes of typical problems and solutions, have been continuously increasing. The dynamism and turbulence of a real business environment demanded a more flexible and rapid response from management and staff. In such circumstances, it was necessary to quickly find new solutions, but well-known organizational structures with a rigid hierarchy were unsuitable. There was a need in the mobile, temporary, self-dissimilated structural units (Toffler 1970). Further development of the production has not been possible without the decentralization and fragmentation. The decision-making and responsibilities were transferred to the lower levels of the organization, which required employees’ greater freedom and the realization of their creative abilities. The work in the new economic conditions started to require not only accurate performance, but also creativity, that is, the creation of new principles and methods of activity (Dubina 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2013). All of these factors resulted in understanding creativity as a key factor of the economic success of organizations interested in long-term competitive development. Companies such as 3M, General Electric, IBM, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Motorola, Procter & Gamble, and Sony used their employees’ creativity as an economic resource and effectively applied a “continuous creativity” strategy (Carr 1994; Ford 1999; Rickards 1999). Firms using their employees’ creativity had been shown to have conclusive advantages over those who neglect this factor (Carayannis and Gonzales 2003). Therefore, more and more companies participated in the race of creating new products, new markets, and new ways of promotion. Thus, the companies that do so increase the velocity of the transformation of creative ideas into innovations, adding pressure to the competition. So, creativity started to be considered as a component of labor. Ideas about the development of employee creativity to enable successful business practices have widely distributed by the end of the 1990s and early 2000s. In the literature of those

6  The Coevolution of Labor and Creativity: A Way from the “Old”…

81

years there were many discourses of business creativity as one of the key factors of competitiveness in the “creative age” (Bentley 2000). Florida (2002, 2004, 2006), a professor of Public Policy at George Mason University, states there is a rise of a whole new class of workers in the United States and the world: the creative class, whose economic function is to create new ideas, new technology, or new content. According to his research, the creative sector of the US economy employs more than 30% of the workforce (more than all of manufacturing) and accounts for nearly half of all wage and salary income (some $2 trillion). If technicians are included in his analysis, the creative class rises up to 47% in some countries (Florida 2004). Managing this new class of workers demands specific methods and approaches. However, there remains little consensus on how to define, mobilize, facilitate, and manage this important and unique resource (Banks et al. 2003). Thus, from the second half of the twentieth century, alongside with the shift from “Fordist” to “post-Fordist” economies and the increasing role of creativity in business, “romantic” approaches to creativity as the manifestation of individual genius have been replaced with more pragmatic approaches to “everyday” creativity (De Bono 1992; Boden 1994). These approaches are based on the understanding of creativity as a nonstandard problem-solving process or generating and developing new opportunities for business. For example, creativity, considered in an organizational context, is often understood as the generation of ideas which are simultaneously new and appropriate (potentially useful) for an organization (Csikzentmihalyi 1988, 1999; Boden 1994; Ford and Gioia 1996; El-Murad and West 2004). According to this point of view, creativity can be defined in the system of the following elements: • A creative employee generating ideas and introducing variations • A domain (a set of available ideas, rules, organizational routines, and patterns of behavior) • Experts evaluating suggested ideas and selecting the variations (Dubina 2005, 2006) If an idea suggested by the employee is deemed by the experts as new and useful, it is then included in the set of rules and the domain is subsequently changed. In other words, creativity may be defined as engendering original and useful ideas (solutions, methods, and techniques) which are accepted in the organization as the rules of future activities (Dubina 2006). As a result of an increased interest of business in creativity, the management of creativity appeared as a special theoretical and practical discipline in the late 1980s to early 1990s (Dubina 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2013). Creativity management has been developing on theoretical and methodological bases of such disciplines as research and development (R&D) management, creativity psychology, organizational behavior, and innovation management. Despite the fact that a distinct and universally recognized notion about the specific subject, role, methods, and place of creativity management still does not exist, the term “creativity management” is not metaphorical, but claims a scientific status (Ford and Gioia 1996; Proctor 1995). Employee creativity is often misused or used inefficiently and insufficiently due to

82

I. N. Dubina et al.

a lack of adequate management systems. As G. Tan (1998) declares, “Sometimes, organisations are not creative simply because employees do not know how to be creative, and/or managers do not know how to lead and motivate employees to contribute creatively towards the organisational goals and objectives.” In a number of our works, we discussed the problems of optimally managing creativity in order to develop and use creativity as an element of employees’ labor process in more effective ways (Dubina 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2013). The apparent increase in these trends, especially in work motivation, according to postclassical sociologists, psychologists, and economists, indicates a decrease of utilitarian interest in work and the replacement of materialistic orientation with “postmaterialist” motivation. Workers were gradually turning from seeking funds to seeking new experiences and new competences, personal growth, participation in decision-making, etc. By analyzing these trends, Vladislav Inozemtsev, a Russian economist, come to the conclusion that labor exploitation in the classical understanding of this phenomenon is not possible in the modern economy (1998). Moreover, those trends characterizing the change in the entire system of economy led many modern scholars to talk about the formation of the “posteconomic” (“postcapitalist,” “postconsumer,” “postindustrial”) society, the “displacement of labor,” “overcoming labor with creativity,” “shift from labor to creativity,” “transformation of labor” (Inozemtsev 1998). Paradoxically, these modern conceptions support the traditional opposition of labor (as a necessary and extremely financially stimulated activity) and creativity (as a free noneconomic motivated activity). In order to deeper analyze a modern status of creativity in the “new economy,” as well as interrelationship of creativity and labor, let us turn to a conception of “creativity economy.” A big part of the analysis below is based on our work (Dubina et al. 2012). Strangely enough, the first problem of creativity economy definition is related to mythologized and stereotyped understanding of creativity and labor we discussed above. In the common mind, there is still a strong connection of creativity with certain spheres, like arts, for example, and a strong contraposition of creativity to labor. In the literature, there is a great variety of unconsensual definitions, classifications, and conditionally stereotyped agreements on what “creative economy” is. The most popular approach to the “creative economy” understanding is an “industry approach” (Markusen et al. 2008; Vorley et al. 2008), which is based on the identification of “creative industries” or “sectors” in which creativity and creative contributions are seemingly most significant, for example, arts, architecture, and advertisement. Historically this approach is strongly connected with the concept of “culture industries” or “cultural industries,” introduced and developed in the 1940s and 1950s (Adorno 1975; Adorno and Horkheimer 1979). About 50,000 papers with this term were published during the last 50 years and are registered in databases. Another concept, “culture economy,” was introduced in the late 1970s to characterize the involvement of cultural products into economic and market relations (about 2000 papers are registered in databases). The first discussion of “creative industries” appeared in the early 1990s (over 2000 publications related to this term have been published for the last 20 years). The first definitions of “creative economy” were suggested in the early 2000s (Coy 2000; Howkins 2001).

6  The Coevolution of Labor and Creativity: A Way from the “Old”…

83

There is no single classification of economic activities on which the creative industries are based, however there is still the stable idea that “creative industries” mostly relate to “culture economy,” media and art business (Caves 2000). Preliminarily defined, the “creative industries” are at the crossroads of the arts, culture, business, and technology. They comprise the cycle of creation and production and distribution of goods and services that use creativity and intellectual capital as their primary input (UNSTAD 2008). Today’s creative industries involve the interplay of traditional, technology-intensive, and service-oriented subsectors. A number of different models have been put forward, over recent years, as a means of providing a systematic understanding of the structural characteristics of the “creative industries” (CIE 2009; Lovink and Rossiter 2007; UNSTAD 2008). One of the historically first models was suggested by the UK Department of Culture, Media, and Sport in the late 1990s (see DCMS 2001; UNSTAD 2008). “Creative industries” are defined as those requiring creativity, skill, and talent, with potential for wealth and job creation through the exploitation of their intellectual property. This model includes 13 industries, such as advertising, architecture, art and antiques market, crafts, design, fashion, film and video, music, performing arts, publishing, software, television and radio, and video and computer games. Different levels of the “creative industries” are specified in some models (Markusen et al. 2008). For example, in the symbolic text model, there are 3 clusters (Hesmondhalgh 2002; UNSTAD 2008): • Core industries (advertising, film, internet, music, publishing, television and radio, video and computer games) • Peripheral industries (creative arts) • Borderline industries (consumer electronics, fashion software, sport) In the concentric circles model (UNSTAD 2008), there are four levels: • Core creative arts (literature, music, performing arts, visual arts) • Other core cultural industries (film, museums and libraries) • Wider cultural industries (heritage services, publishing, sound recording, television and radio, video and computer games) • Related industries (advertising, architecture, design, fashion) The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) also suggested a classification of “creative industries” (see UNSTAD 2008) which considers industries producing copyrighted products and services: • Core copyright industries (advertising, film and video, music, performing arts, publishing, software, television and radio, visual and graphic art) • Partial copyright industries (architecture, clothing, footwear, design, fashion, household goods, toys) • Interdependent copyright industries (blank recording material, consumer electronics, musical instruments, paper, photocopiers, photographic equipment) The most expanded variant of an approach for classifying creative industries is the UNCTAD model. It relies on enlarging the concept of “creativity” from ­activities having a strong artistic component to “any economic activity producing symbolic

84

I. N. Dubina et al.

products with a heavy reliance on intellectual property and for as wide a market as possible.” UNCTAD makes a distinction between “upstream activities” (traditional cultural activities such as performing arts or visual arts) and “downstream activities” (much closer to the market, such as advertising, publishing, or media-related activities) and argues that the second group derives its commercial value from low reproduction costs and easy transfer to other economic domains. From this perspective, cultural industries make up a subset of the creative industries. The model includes 236 positions corresponding to “creative goods and services” in areas of design, visual art, publishing, music, audio and videorecording, advertising and marketing, architecture, etc. (UNSTAD 2008). Therefore, according to such approaches, “creative economy” is understood as a set of the “creative industries” with several levels of “creativity inputs.” However, there are no objective criteria for such a delineation or for measuring and evaluating creative contributions in industries. It represents just a stereotyped convention to consider one industry to be more “creative” than another, and such a stereotype provokes a question: Should we consider industries unlisted in a “creative industries” classification (e.g., electronics and pharmaceutical) to be “uncreative”? Should not we say that employees of “creative industries” labor? The existing models of the “creative industries” represent different ways of interpreting the structural characteristics of creative production. Such approaches to the definition of the “creative economy” are based on classifications of the “creative industries,” in which creativity and creative contribution are seemingly most significant. Nevertheless, such classifications are widely used now since they give a way to quantitatively estimating the scale and dynamics of “creative economy” in different regions and countries, and to identify places with high concentrations of creative activities. Accordingly, there is an opportunity for characterizing the creative economy with quite traditional economic indexes (percentage of GDP, employment and wages, export and import, etc.), so we can entitle this approach as quantitative. At the same time, the reference to the “creative industries” appears rather problematic in a certain sense for the analysis of creative economy, since all of the “creative industries” are not based only on new ideas and creativity. Like all other economic sectors, the “creative industries” can develop on the basis of both creative and imitative activities (i.e., applying standard procedures, technologies, etc.). Moreover, as some research demonstrates (Hailey et al. 2010), creativity, per se, is less valued by some “creative industries” than knowledge in reference to innovation processes. The definition of the “creative economy” as a set of “creative industries” is grounded basically on stereotypes. For example, very few architectural or design companies are “constantly creative”; they mostly offer quite standard projects requiring standard materials and technologies. As the famous architect and designer Frederick Kiesler remarked, only 5–15% of architectural works were creative, the rest were imitative. Does it mean that only 5–15% architects are creative and they do not labor, while the rest labor but “uncreatively”? Another quantitative attempt for understanding, defining, and analyzing the ­creativity economy refers to an occupation approach, based on the theory of “the

6  The Coevolution of Labor and Creativity: A Way from the “Old”…

85

creative class” (Florida 2002, 2006) already mentioned above. According this approach, creative professionals are knowledge workers, including doctors, professors, lawyers, finance experts, and the “super creative core” represents 12% of all of the jobs in the United States (Florida 2002). However, knowledge workers are not always “creative workers.” It is easier to identify formally knowledge workers (e.g., “who work with their heads, not hands,” Drucker 1993) than creative workers. The existing classifications of “creative industries” and “creative occupations” widely differ in the breadth of the spectrum of industries and occupations included (Markusen et al. 2008), but none of the models can really register “creative” contributions to the economy, and traditional measures like GDP, employment, wages, export, and import cannot adequately characterize the “creative economy.” For example, conventional trade measures focus on the flow of material goods, but many “creative” products and services are immaterial. The estimation of “creative industries” employment may be also confusing (e.g., machine operators might be seen as creative workers if they are working for a printing press but not a sheet metal press), overestimated (e.g., a security guard working for a music company would be classified as a creative employee), or underestimated (in the “creative economy” there is up to 60% unpaid, part-time, or noncontracted work; see CIE 2009). So, the “creative industries” and “creative occupations” approaches to identify and define “the new economy” and, in particular, new interrelations of labor and creativity, assume that labor can be creative just in certain sectors of economy. These approaches, undoubtedly, make a bridge between labor and creativity, but in our opinion, it is not enough to characterize creativity and labor in the “new economy.” The concept of “creative economy” based on classifications of “creative industries” appears incorrect, since most of the economic activities include creativity to a certain extent. Creativity is not something new for the economy, “creative” products and services have been always included in economic relations, and economic development has always been based on new ideas. Economic contributions depending on creativity have become especially remarkable for the last decades, since new ideas and knowledge based on creativity constantly supersede traditional economic resources. “For countries in the vanguard of the world economy the balance between creativity, knowledge and traditional resources has shifted and creativity and knowledge have become the most important factor determining the standard of living – more than land, than tools, than labor” (Carayannis and Sipp 2006). However, it seems incorrect to keep contradicting creativity and labor as different resources influencing on work performance and economic growth, since labor may include both creative and noncreative elements, and these resources may overlap in all sectors of economy. As J. Howkins, one of the creators of the concept of “creative economy,” notes: “The phrase ‘creative industry’ has never really struck a chord with the public. It is jargon; it does not fit common sense. … [This definition] excludes most of business creativity and almost all scientific creativity. … Creativity can take place anywhere” (Howkins 2005, p. 125).

86

I. N. Dubina et al.

Really, while the “creative industries” are mainly defined as “arts-related,” creativity and innovation are vital to the success of all spheres of today’s economy, creativity penetrates all of the modern economy. All spheres of creativity may be economically significant, and in all of these spheres people labor that does not exclude creativity (see Figs. 6.1 and 6.2). Actually, in the modern economy, the meaning of GDP, productivity, value added, etc., is also not so clear and the traditional indexes already are insufficient (Negreponti-Delivanis 2002). New parameters are needed for estimating creative capital and its productivity, and to characterize the “creative economy” additional “noneconomic” factors should be taken into account (Wright et  al. 2009). Some other indexes have been suggested for characterizing the “creativity economy” dynamics (patents, inventions, R&D publications, etc.), but they are often difficultly recorded or not quite reliable to describe “the new economy” development (Tellis et al. 2009). R. Florida (2002), with his “3 T’s of economic development” (technology, talent, and tolerance), was one of the first who proposed quite unorthodox indices to evaluate “creative economy.” The first of these is The Melting Pot index, or mixes of Scientific creativity

Cultural creativity

Business creativity

Technological creativity

Fig. 6.1  Creativity in today’s economy and labor. (Source: Authors’ own conceptualization based on Dubina et al. 2012) Fig. 6.2  Levels of “creative economy”. (Source: Authors’ own conceptualization based on UNSTAD 2008)

Peripheral industries

Related industries

Borderline industries

Core

6  The Coevolution of Labor and Creativity: A Way from the “Old”…

87

ethnic groups, which, as he argues, is indicative for high levels of technologically based industry in the United States. Second is the Gay Index, which proposes that homosexuals as a group are more inclined to be tolerant of others. The next one is the Bohemian Index, measuring the numbers of “creative people” in a city. The final index, Good Lifestyles, refers to places of long-established artistic pedigree, and the good life of entertainment, etc. In his critique of this approach, Montgomery (2005) ironically concludes that “creative entrepreneurs tend to be attracted to cities where it is possible to enjoy the arts, entertainment and good food.” Montgomery (2005) and Nathan (2007) identify serious problems and confusions in understanding the “creative economy” by measuring “creative cities” and “creative clusters,” as is being attempted in Florida’s creative class model. Other researchers suggest more complex and integrative indicators, for example an Economic Creativity Index (Warner 2000) and a Composite Indicator of the Creative Economy (Bowen et al. 2008), which is a summary measure of an entity’s (e.g., a region’s) creative capacity or capability in three key dimensions: innovation, entrepreneurship, and openness. Therefore, the role of creativity as an economic resource is quite obvious today, but the questions of properly estimating the “creative economy” and “creative resources” still remain unanswered. Many analysts propose that there is value in viewing “the creative economy” from both an industry and occupation perspective (CIE 2009). According to this “combined” quantitative approach, the total number of “creative employees” is calculated as the sum of the following: • All workers employed in creative industries, whether or not creatively occupied (e.g., all musicians, security guards, cleaners, accountants, and managers, working for a record company) • All workers that are creatively occupied and are not employed in creative industries (e.g., a piano teacher in a school) (CIE 2009) Obviously, this approach provides a too broad view of “the creative economy.” Based on the combination approach, the Australian Creative Industries and Innovation (CCI) center developed the creative trident, an approach to estimate the dynamics of creative workforce: • Specialist creatives (employed in creative occupations in creative industries) • Support workers (employed in creative industries, but in non-creative occupations) • Embedded creatives (employed in creative occupations, but in industries that do not produce creative products) However, many creative people operate simultaneously in multiple roles and jobs. So estimating a creative trident across all industries may result in significant double counting (CIE 2009). At present, the idea of the “creative economy” based on the industry and occupation approaches is a subject for serious criticism (Lovink and Rossiter 2007). Wilson (2010), in his critique of the conception of “creative economy,” also makes an accent

88

I. N. Dubina et al.

on its stereotyped character, namely “a deep-seated belief that creativity is something (only) talented and artistic individuals do. This individualistic conception of creativity extends to the framing of the creative industries and the creative economy, where creativity is treated as either a quasi-commodity or the preserve of the so-­ called ‘creative class’” (p.  367). He suggests that at this time of the economic, social and environmental “melt-down,” “there is a need to re-claim creativity as a social phenomenon, often resulting from human interaction across boundaries (e.g. across nation states, professions, industries, organizations, disciplines, social and cultural groupings, methods, epistemologies and rationalities).” We see several problems for an analysis of the “creative economy,” based on the reviewed approaches. First of all, there is an obvious lack of agreement about definitions of the “creative industries” and “creative occupations.” Choices about which industries, firms, and occupations are to be included affect the resulting size and content of the “creative economy.” Markusen and her colleagues (2008) compare several classifications of “creative industries” and show that the Boston metro’s “creative economy” varies in size from less than 1% to 49%, although most cultural definitions range from 1% to 4%. Besides, researchers and academic institutions develop and use different models and classifications for “creative economy” and the obtained results are hardly commensurable (Dubina et  al. 2012). Different systems of national statistics, insufficiency of statistical data (a significant proportion of the “creative economy” is not registered in trade or economic statistics), and the absence of reliable measures of creative contributions to the output of industries also limit the analysis of the creativity economy. Leaving all of these numerous “technical” problems of reliably identification of “creative industries” and “creative occupations,” let us focus on a relation creativity and labor in this context. Based on these approaches, can one say that labor has been excluded from “creative industries” and “creative occupations” or worker of these industries and occupations does not interested, including utilitarian interests, in the results of their work in such industries? Of course, not. So, based on the industry and occupation approaches, one cannot say about exclusion of labor from “creativity economy” and supplanting labor with creativity. In our opinion, the main defect of the industry and occupation approaches is that creativity is considered to relate to some professions, not to people. Quantitative approaches reflect the structural economic transformation, but not the qualitative shift in the current economy which depends on and is driven by new ideas in all sectors (“mass and constant” creativity). The mass and constant creativity has become the main resource and driver for a new epoch in the economic development, a “creativity economy” that equals neither with the “creative industries” or “creative economy.” We will additionally argue this view in the next section of this chapter.

6  The Coevolution of Labor and Creativity: A Way from the “Old”…

89

6.4  C  reativity, Knowledge, and Innovation Economies: Merging (Fusion) of Labor and Creativity Creativity will be the next economic activity, replacing the current focus on information. Nomura Research Institute

Presently, “creativity economy” is deemed as one of the new stages of our civilization development (Nussbaum et  al. 2005). According to the Nomura Research Institute (Japan), the main stages of human civilization are agricultural, industrial, informational, and creative. Just as the industrial revolution replaced agriculture as the dominant economic activity, “creativity age” is replacing the “information age” as the next dominant global economic focus (see Kao 1996, p. 4). “This is the age of creativity because the subtext of global competition is increasingly about a nation’s ability to mobilize its ideas, talents, and creative organizations” (Kao 1996, p. 16). Carayannis and Sipp (2006) reviewed the economies of several nations within a spectrum of possible states of development and related those to developmental pathways: (a) Subsistent focused: where survival is the issue (b) Commodity based: where commodities are the dominant means and goals of economic production and exchange, ranging from barter-based economies up to some transitioning economies (c) Knowledge-based: knowledge is one of the key means and goals of economic production and exchange, representing a key economic resource with a high degree of utilization and sharing (d) Knowledge-driven: where knowledge is the major means and goal of economic production and exchange, and the most valuable economic resource under continual renewal, sharing and utilization Based on such a classification, and referring to the well-known Maslow’s pyramid of behavior motivation hierarchy, we consider the economic development stages as those that correspond to societal needs (see Figs. 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, and 6.7). The creative economy is based substantially on social and personal values (cooperation, trust, etc.), not only economic values (such as profit), and produces an inter-­ impact on social, political, and cultural life (Carayannis and Campbell 2009, 2010). New ideas and knowledge, based on creativity (“creative knowledge,” Carayannis and Campbell 2009), constantly supersede traditional economic resources. In the modern economy, the proportion of tangible to intangible assets has changed dramatically over the past 50 years. In 1955, tangible assets accounted for nearly 80% of the value of the non-financial businesses; by 2005 that proportion had fallen to 50%. The value of intangibles had trebled over the past 30  years (Wright et  al. 2009). In 2005, 78% of the market value of the Fortune 500, and 35% of the market value of all listed companies worldwide, was intangible (Wright et al. 2009).

90

I. N. Dubina et al.

Economy development

Needs

creativity innovation knowledge

creative self-actualization communication

economy

information economy

safety

industry economy

basic needs

agriculture economy

Fig. 6.3  An analogy with Maslow’s pyramid. (Source: Authors’ own conceptualization based on Dubina et al. 2012) Fig. 6.4  Interrelations of creativity, knowledge, and innovation economies. (Source: Authors’ own conceptualization based on Dubina et al. 2012)

Creativity economy 4

1

2

Knowledge economy 3

6

5

Innovation economy 7

We intend to define creativity economy from the perspective of a “main resource and driver approach:” • Knowledge economy is a knowledge-based and knowledge-driven economy. • Innovation economy is an innovation-based and innovation-driven economy. • Creativity economy is a creativity-based and creativity-driven economy. These definitions, although somewhat tautological, can characterize a new stage in economic development and help to illustrate the interrelations of creativity, knowledge and innovation economies. Similarly to the definition of the knowledge-­ based and knowledge-driven economy (Carayannis and Sipp 2006), we define creativity economies as those that are directly based on mass and constant creativity involvement in the production and distribution of new knowledge, new technologies, and new contents, and those economies with mass and constant creativity play the predominant part in the creation of wealth. Although the term of “creativity economy” is being rarely used in the literature when compared with “creative econ-

91

6  The Coevolution of Labor and Creativity: A Way from the “Old”… Fig. 6.5  “Ripples” of creativity, knowledge, and innovation economies. (Source: Authors’ own conceptualization based on Dubina et al. 2012)

Creativity economy

Knowledge economy

Innovation economy

Fig. 6.6 Dialectical dynamics of innovation and a crisis. (Source: Authors’ own conceptualization based on Dubina et al. 2012)

economic development time

recession

creative / innovative activity

omy,” we consider creativity economy to be conceptually better connected to widely used definitions of the knowledge economy and innovation economy, and has not such a vivid connotation of “cultural economy” and “creative industries”, as is the case for the “creative economy.”

92

I. N. Dubina et al. Gradual increase of innovation and creativity dependence in interrelation with the advancedness of knowledge economies (proposition).

The degree or amount ("volume") of innovation

Dependence of structures and processes of an advanced knowledge economy (knowledge society) on innovation and creativity. Dependence of structures and processes of an economy on innovation and creativity.

The degree or amount ("volume") of creativity

Fig. 6.7  The interrelation of innovation, creativity, and the “advancedness” of a knowledge economy and knowledge society. (Source: Authors’ own conceptualization based on Dubina et  al. 2012)

We would like to emphasize that people do not stop to labor in all and any economies. But their labor is based and driven by different drivers (e.g., conveyer, information, knowledge, and creativity). So their labor has different character in different economies. For example, many companies or workers can innovate without ­creativity (e.g., by purchasing and applying new technologies), and in this case we are facing routine economic production and business procedure implementations. And, obviously, saying about the future of labor, it will have more and more creative character.

6  The Coevolution of Labor and Creativity: A Way from the “Old”…

93

6.5  Conclusion It is impossible to carry out stable and reliable distinction and even contradiction between labor and creativity based on motivational criteria, “occupational” or “industrial” criteria, criteria of personal attitude to performed work, as well as other criteria. Certainly, labor and creativity are not identical phenomena. Labor is a purposeful activity aimed at creating spiritual and material values, and providing and securing spiritual and material needs of a human being. A special feature of creativity is the creation of new and significant (valuable, useful) products, forms and models of the future activity, including working activity. The more creative (new and meaningful) elements are involved in a labor process, the more this process becomes creative. Presently, in the sphere of both practical management and management scholarship, there is consensus about creativity as a valuable and inexhaustible business and economic resource. So this resource should be correspondingly managed like labor generally should be managed and administrated. However, there is much less consensus regarding the methods to manage this resource. We argued for the necessity of optimizing creativity management in a company or organization in order to mobilize the resource of creativity more effectively. Optimizing creativity management is considered as an evolutionary stage of the economics and management of labor. Working values in the modern economy have really changed for the last decades and profit maximization is not the main priority for many workers indeed, but this does not mean that creativity substitutes labor. We can talk about expanding the presence of creative elements in labor, but not about overcoming labor by creativity. Answering a question on the interrelation of labor and creativity and managing them, we should ground our answer on the principle of labor and creativity compatibility in the sense that labor includes to some extent both routine and creative elements. So, it seems unproductive to keep contradicting creativity and labor as different resources influencing on work performance and economic growth, since resources may overlap in all sectors of economy, not just in “creative” industries or occupations. People do not stop to labor in all and any economies. But their labor is based and driven by different drivers (e.g., conveyer, information, knowledge, creativity). So their labor has different character in different economies. And, obviously, saying about the future of labor, it will have more and more creative character. Creativity serves as a crucial input for innovation that again acts as a driver for development and progress in knowledge economy, knowledge society and knowledge democracy (Bast et  al. 2015; Campbell and Carayannis 2016a, b; Carayannis and Campbell 2014). Without sufficient creativity, the further development and evolution of innovation may be constrained. Therefore, creativity and innovation play together in a mutually reinforcing and beneficial way, referring to scenarios for a “New” Economy. Here also patterns of a coevolution of creativity and labor are working with each other in an interactive manner, also in an intersectoral and interdisciplinary (and transdisciplinary) sense and setting.

94

I. N. Dubina et al.

References Adorno T (1975) Culture industry reconsidered. New German Crit (6):12–20 Adorno T, Horkheimer M (1979) Dialectic of enlightenment. Verso, London Banks M, Eliott M, Owen J  (2003) Managing creativity and competitive advantage in SMEs: examining creative, new media firms. In: Jones O, Tilley F (eds) Competitive advantage in SMEs: organizing for innovation and change. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 120–134 Bast G, Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (eds) (2015) Arts, research, innovation and society. Springer, New  York. http://www.springer.com/business+%26+management/technology+management/ book/978-3-319-09908-8 Bentley T (2000) The creative age. Demos, London Boden MA (1994) Precis of the creative mind: myths and mechanisms. Behav Brain Sci 17(3):519–570 Bowen H, Moesen W, Sleuwaegen L (2008) A composite index of the creative economy. Rev Bus Econ 53(4):375–397 Campbell DFJ, Carayannis EG (2016a) The academic firm: a new design and redesign proposition for entrepreneurship in innovation-driven knowledge economy. J  Innov Entrep 5(12):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-016-0040-1. http://innovation-entrepreneurship.springeropen. com/articles/10.1186/s13731-016-0040-1 Campbell DFJ, Carayannis EG (2016b) Epistemic governance and epistemic innovation policy. Technol Innov Educ 2(2):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40660-016-0008-2. http://technologyinnovation-education.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40660-016-0008-2 Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (2009) “Mode 3” and “quadruple helix”: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. Int J Technol Manag 46(3/4):201–234 Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (2010) Triple helix, quadruple helix and quintuple helix and how do knowledge, innovation and the environment relate to each other? A proposed framework for a trans-disciplinary analysis of sustainable development and social ecology. Int J Soc Ecol Sustain Dev 1(1):41–69 Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (2014) Developed democracies versus emerging autocracies: arts, democracy, and innovation in quadruple helix innovation systems. J Innov Entrep 3:12. http:// www.innovation-entrepreneurship.com/content/3/1/12 Carayannis E, Gonzales E (2003) Creativity and innovation = competitiveness? When, how and why. In: Shavinina LV (ed) International handbook on innovation. Elsevier Science, Boston, pp 587–605 Carayannis EG, Sipp CM (2006) E-development toward the knowledge economy: leveraging technology, innovation and entrepreneurship for “smart” development. Palgrave Macmillan, New York Carr C (1994) The competitive power of constant creativity. AMACOM, New York Caves RE (ed) (2000) Creative industries: contracts between art and commerce. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA CIE (2009) Analysis final report 2009, prepared for Enterprise Connect and the Creative Industries Innovation Centre (CIIC), Centre for International Economics (CIE), Canberra and Sydney Coy P (2000) The creative economy. BusinessWeek, 08/21/2000, Issue 3696, pp 76–82 Csikzentmihalyi M (1988) Society, culture, and person: a system view of creativity. In: The nature of creativity: contemporary psychological perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, NY Csikzentmihalyi M (1999) Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In: Sternberg RJ (ed) Handbook of creativity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, NY, pp 313–335 DCMS (2001) Creative industries mapping document 2001, 2nd edn. Department of Culture, Media and Sport, London, UK. Also available at: http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/ publications/4632.aspx

6  The Coevolution of Labor and Creativity: A Way from the “Old”…

95

De Bono E (1992) Serious creativity: using the power of lateral thinking to create new ideas. Harper Business Drucker P (1993) Post-capitalist society. Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford Dubina IN (2002) A question of the interrelations of labor and creativity. In: A transitional economy. Altai State University, Barnaul Dubina IN (2005) Managing creativity: theoretical approaches to employees’ creativity development and regulation. Int J Manag Concepts Philos 1(4):334–349 Dubina IN (2006) Optimising creativity management: problems and principles. Int J Manag Decis Mak 7(6):677–691 Dubina IN (2007) Optimally managing creativity in organizations. In: Carayannis EG (ed) Managing creative and innovative people: the art, science and craft of fostering creativity, triggering invention and catalyzing innovation. Praeger, Westport, pp 143–170 Dubina IN (2009) Creativity management in innovation economy. Academia, Moscow. (in Russian) Dubina IN (2013) Creativity management optimization. In: Encyclopedia of creativity, invention, innovation and entrepreneurship. Springer, New York Dubina IN, Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (2012) Creativity economy and a crisis of the economy. J Knowl Econ 3(1):1–24. http://www.springerlink.com/content/t5j8l12136h526h5/ El-Murad J, West DC (2004) The definition and measurement of creativity: what do we know? J Advert Res 44(2):188–201 Florida R (2002) The rise of the creative class and how it’s transforming work, leisure and everyday life. Basic Books, New York Florida R (2004) America’s looming creativity crisis. Harv Bus Rev, Reprint R0410H Florida R (2006) The flight of the creative class: the new global competition for talent. Lib Educ 92(3):22–29 Ford CM (1999) Business strategy. In: Runco M (ed) Encyclopedia of creativity. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 235–243 Ford CM, Gioia DA (1996) Creativity management. In: The international encyclopedia of business and management. Routledge, New York, pp 878–872 Fourier C (1971) Design for utopia: selected writings. Studies in the libertarian and utopian tradition. Schocken, New York Hailey D, Cox M, Loader E (2010) Relationship between innovation and professional communication in the “creative” economy. J Tech Writ Commun 40(2):125–141 Hesmondhalgh D (2002) The cultural industries. SAGE, London Hornby AS (1984) Oxford student’s dictionary of current English. Moscow, Oxford Howkins J (2001) The creative economy: how people make money from ideas. Penguin, London Howkins J  (2005) The Mayor’s Commissions on creative industry. In: Hartley J  (ed) Creative industries. Blackwell, Malden, pp 117–125 Inozemtsev VL (1998) For 10 years: to the concept of a posteconomic society, Moscow. (in Russian) Kao J (1996) Jamming: the art and discipline of business creativity. Harper Collins, New York Lovink G, Rossiter N (2007) In: Institute of Network Cultures (ed) MyCreativity reader: a critique of creative industries, Amsterdam Lundvall BA (2008) Innovation and creativity  – the crisis as opportunity for change. A working paper also available at: http://www.slideshare.net/…/ innovation-and-creativity-the-crisis-as-opportunity-for-change Markusen A, Wassall G, DeNatale D, Cohen R (2008) Defining the creative economy: industry and occupational approaches. Econ Dev Q 22(1):24–45 Michailova TM (1998) Labor as a historical and philosophical problem. Moscow (in Russian) Montgomery J (2005) Beware ‘the creative class’: creativity and wealth creation revisited. Local Econ 20(4):337–343 Mumford L (1974) Enough energy for life and the next transformation of man (MIT lecture transcript). CoEvol QSausalito, CA: POINT Foundation 1(4):19–23

96

I. N. Dubina et al.

Nathan M (2007) Wrong in the right way? Creative class theory and city economic performance in the UK. In: Lovink G, Rossiter N (eds) MyCreativity reader: a critique of creative industries. Institute of Network Cultures, Amsterdam, pp 125–142 Negreponti-Delivanis M (2002) Mondalisation conspiratrice. L’Harmattan, Paris. (in French) Nussbaum B, Berner R, Brady D (2005) The creative future. Bus Rev Wkly 27(32):58–62 Online Etymology dictionary. http://www.etymonline.com Poster M (ed) (1971) Harmonian man: selected writings of Charles Fourier. Doubleday, Garden City Proctor T (1995) The essence of management creativity. Prentice Hall, London Rickards T (1999) Organizations interested in creativity. In: Runco M (ed) Encyclopedia of creativity. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 319–323 Smith A (1979) An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Clarendon Press, Oxford Tan G (1998) Managing creativity in organizations: a total system approach. Creat Innov Manag 7(1):23–31 Tellis GJ, Prabhu JC, Chandy RK (2009) Radical innovation across nations: the preeminence of corporate culture. J Mark 73(January):3–23 Toffler A (1970) Future shock. Random House, New York UNSTAD (2008) Creative economy report 2008. Also available at: www.unctad.org/ creative-economy Vorley T, Mould O, Smith H (2008) Introduction to geographical economies of creativity, enterprise and the creative industries. Geogr Ann Ser B Hum Geogr 90(2):101–106 Warner AM (2000) Economic creativity, the global competitiveness report 2000, Geneva, pp 28–39 Weber M (2001) The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Routledge, London/New York Wilson N (2010) Social creativity: re-qualifying the creative economy. Int J  Cult Policy 16(3):367–381 Wright S, Newbigin J, Kieffer J, Holden J, Bewick T (eds) (2009) After the crunch. MLG Edinburgh. Also available at: http://www.creative-economy.org.uk

Chapter 7

Collaborative Creativity and Creative Collaboration as Future Work Paradigms: A Philosophical Conception and Real Practices: A Case Study of the Practical Case of the Banff Centre Gerald Bartels, Igor N. Dubina, David F. J. Campbell, Jerrold McGrath, and Elias G. Carayannis Abstract  In this chapter, we argue for the pedagogical importance of a nuanced understanding of creativity as a communicative and collaborative phenomenon in the field of university education. Especially training undergraduate students to work in interdisciplinary groups is vital as many of those will have to develop into “young leaders” and solve the major global environmental and social problems challenging G. Bartels (*) Department of Communication Studies, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada Banff Centre for Arts and Creativity, Banff, AB, Canada Intervene Design, Toronto & Calgary, ON & AB, Canada e-mail: [email protected] I. N. Dubina Novosibirsk National Research State University, Novosibirsk, Russia Altai State University, Barnaul, Russia D. F. J. Campbell University of Applied Arts Vienna, Unit for Quality Enhancement (UQE), Vienna, Austria Danube University Krems, Department for Continuing Education Research and Educational Technologies, Center for Educational Management and Higher Education Development, Krems, Austria University of Vienna, Department of Political Science, Vienna, Austria Alpen-Adria-University Klagenfurt, Faculty for Interdisciplinary Studies (iff), Department of Science Communication and Higher Education Research (WIHO), Klagenfurt, Austria e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] J. McGrath Banff Centre for Arts and Creativity, Banff, AB, Canada Intervene Design, Toronto & Calgary, ON & AB, Canada Artscape Launchpad, Toronto, ON, Canada © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 G. Bast et al. (eds.), The Future of Education and Labor, Arts, Research, Innovation and Society, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26068-2_7

97

98

G. Bartels et al.

our planet. We review the literature of creativity research, which emphasizes specifically social and interactive elements of creativity. Subsequently, the chapter presents a case study of an interorganizational leadership development programme, designed for an interdisciplinary group of undergraduate students. The programme, which has been borrowed from the discipline of game design and research, features a co-creative process among students, universities and other organizations, specializing in education and development in the area of arts and creativity. Keywords  Collaborative creativity · Innovation · Social communication · Knowledge democracy · Knowledge economy · Knowledge society

7.1  Introduction This chapter presents creativity as a collaborative and social phenomenon, constituted by and within communication. The attention to the social features of creativity has been predominant in the field of creativity research. However, the phenomenon of communication, as well as the question of how more recent understandings of creativity could be implemented in educational and professional settings, has still not been a major focus in creativity research or pedagogical programmes. The following deliberations will delineate the development towards a collaborative and communicative understanding of creativity and argue for the pedagogical importance of a nuanced understanding of creativity as a phenomenon of social communication in the field of university education. In support of this claim, the second part will portray a specific leadership development programme designed for an interdisciplinary group of undergraduate students and implemented by a cooperation between the Banff Centre for Arts and Creativity (a Canadian centre and incubator for creativity, arts and leadership development) and the University of Alberta, Canada. The programme, which has been designed from the beginning as a collaborative and processual event and case study, exemplifies how university education in leadership development benefit from a co-creative process among students, universities and other organizations specializing in education and development in the realm of arts and creativity. The design for this collaborative programme has been borrowed from the discipline of game design and research, with a focus on stimulating an interactive and spontaneous relationship between game designer and game users. As illustrated in the second part of this chapter, the Banff Centre adapted and redesigned a concept called “MDA” (mechanics – dynamics – aesthetics). The case study also responds to the pressing question of how education can prepare young leaders to innovate scientific solutions for the development of thriving communities, to support vivid societies and to create a sustainable relationship between human beings and nature. E. G. Carayannis European Union Research Center, GWU School of Business, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA e-mail: [email protected]

7  Collaborative Creativity and Creative Collaboration as Future Work Paradigms…

99

7.2  A Brief Synthesis of Creativity Research A historical and systematic review of the three waves of creativity research (Isaksen et al. 1993) reveals that there is no single and universal criteria to define creativity or to describe and explain creative processes and activities (Sawyer 2007, 2012). Currently, the notion of creativity is predominantly understood as sociocultural activity and is usually defined as the capacity to generate novel and appropriate ideas, processes, products or solutions (Amabile 1996; Ford and Gioia 1996; Shalley 1991). Over the last two decades, “creativity” has indeed become a ubiquitous buzzword as demonstrated by a substantial increase in publications related to the topic. Academic journals as well as feuilletons of international newspapers and magazines urge for the importance of a far-reaching understanding of the phenomenon of creativity, and its features and processual character, if we want to solve, for example, the major global environmental problems challenging our planet. Sustainable development, ethical business endeavours and a respectful relationship between human beings and their natural-social environments define today’s political discourses worldwide. Already in 1992, the summary of the programme “Agenda 21” of the United Nations and its corresponding call for problem-solving, technological innovations confronting a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend for our well-being (see the Preamble of the UN’s Agenda 21 declaration), illustrate the need for an in-­ depth knowledge of creativity. Creativity and the implementation of socially beneficial and economically viable ideas (also called innovation in the field of innovation and creativity research) seem to function as the final glimmer for hope for many environmental problems and social confrontations. The environmental and social challenges acknowledged by international programmes such as Agenda 21 and other social policy debates, which require collaboration and working arrangements on various organizational and social levels, but also complex and fundamental technological achievements, for instance, the progressive development of the Internet or any other technological achievement in the area of global telecommunication and distribution of knowledge, indicate the need for creative organizations. New cooperation schemes and organizational structures (e.g. virtual enterprises, network companies or new and/or adapted communicative and interactive approaches to collaboration) have been developed accordingly, and many formerly local competencies and various stages of project planning and processes are more and more realized in an interconnected and interdependent way (Boutellier et al. 2008; Welfens et al. 1999). As a result, the requirements for innovations have changed dramatically, and the conditions for and forms of innovation have undergone a fundamental transformation. Typically, novelty or the creation of something new, in the fields considered above, depends on complex research designs and an interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary perspective. Research and development departments of major innovative organizations utilize the advantages of teamwork (Caloghirou et al. 2004). At the same time, development of novelties also involves the application of comprehensive

100

G. Bartels et al.

technical apparatuses and infrastructure, e.g. machines for the development, planning, construction and procession, as well as customized solution concepts based on computer programmes and simulations. And to the extent that those technical apparatuses cannot be characterized merely as tools within creative processes but rather as carrying out development activities and creatively playing a part in the constitution of the new, which could not be accomplished by human agency alone, technologies and instruments are thus given an almost equal status throughout the process of creativity and innovation. Particularly with regard to the possibility of technological precision and quality, modern technologies cannot be regarded as purely additions, but rather as sovereign, innovation-relevant actors/contributors/actants (cf. Latour, 2005 for an overview of the term actant[s]). Computer applications, software developments, multi-agent systems, expert systems and the latest outcomes of artificial intelligence research (Alquézar et al. 2010; Berlatsky 2011) highlight their autonomy and creative potential of technological-induced operations. By implication, creativity is a phenomenon that combines psychological, biogenetical, historical, cultural, social and many other aspects. In this chapter we present, characterize and discuss different conceptual models of creativity and, finally, synthesize approaches to creativity as an integral and complex phenomenon of communicative behaviour in social, organizational, sociocultural technical and cultural contexts. We argue that creativity is not just a characteristic of specific activities and products but also a characteristic of social relations and communications. In particular, this chapter is based on a social-communicative approach to creativity (Dubina 2000), methodological concepts (Bartels and Bencherki 2013) and empirical studies in the field of organizational studies (Bartels 2010). With the progression of the knowledge economy, knowledge society and knowledge democracy, creativity is being increasingly regarded as a “necessary further input” for innovation. Without diversity in creativity, innovation systems cannot realize their full potential (Dubina et al. 2012; Bast 2013, 2015; Bast et al. 2015). While there is considerable focus on the importance of innovation, less attention, so far, has been devoted to creativity per se.

7.3  C  reativity as a Complex Individual and Social Phenomenon Different but closely related concepts and their elements are designated by the same term, “creativity”. In particular, this term relates to both individual (subjective, personal, cf. Lindqvist 2003; Ponomarev 2008; Vygotsky 2004) and sociocultural (organizational, professional, gender, historical, religion, cf.; Csikszentmihalyi 1996; Dubina 2000; Lotman 2009) contexts of creativity. Both are described in the semantic fields of two categories, which conditionally can be designated as “generative” and “selective” or “novelty” and “importance”. One of them includes the concepts of novelty, originality and uniqueness, while the other is filled with personal,

7  Collaborative Creativity and Creative Collaboration as Future Work Paradigms…

101

social, historical, cultural criteria (value, recognition, relevance, importance, usefulness, standards and traditions). Creativity can be explained and understood only in these two polar semantic fields, and a breakup of this field can result in the mystification and mythologization of the phenomenon of creativity (Dubina 2000). Creativity mystification is expressed in the processes of linking creativity with its uncharacteristic, however taken for granted, contexts. For example, the myth of the supernatural nature of creativity is one of the oldest myths, and it can be revealed in the mythology of almost all ancient cultures, and in many philosophical concepts, e.g. Plato’s dialogues on creativity with terms like enthoysiasis, enthoysiasmos (which literally mean “the spirit of God within”, “inspired by God”), mania (“madness”, “ecstasy”) and spoken language (“an idea has dawned on me”), “descended ideas”, scientific terminology (e.g. “inspiration”). Sources of creativity are also sought outside personal and social activities, beyond the personal and social interactions, e.g. in a relationship to God or any other kind of spiritual connection to a space. Creativity is therefore alienated from the “man and society” relations. Other popular, “holy” and difficult to debunk “creativity myths” relate to the idea of the genius, an “isolated and independent artist” or “pure art” (Oates 1973). One more “creativity myth” is based on “the uncritical and almost hysterical idea of an unappreciated genius: the genius who not only expresses the spirit of his time but who actually is “ahead of his time”; a leader who is normally misunderstood by all his contemporaries except for a few “advanced” connoisseurs (Popper 1992, p.  70). Creativity mystification may express in giving a creative status (“gluing” of social labels of “creativity” to uncreative activities), for example, in cases of reproduction and imitation of socially recognized creative patterns in art, science, technology and other spheres. There are many “schemes of creativity”, or “creative stamps”, and an artist or a researcher often follow them, because the scheme is convenient: it has already been tested, developed and recognized, and it protects against accidents and ensures success with the public, because this pattern and this decision is generally recognized as “creative” at the moment. There are some attempts at terminological separation of personal and sociocultural aspects of creativity presented in the literature. For example, Margaret Boden (1994) highlighted two aspects of creativity, P-creativity (psychological/personal creativity) and H-creativity (historical creativity). Many creativity researchers, in order to avoid ambiguity in creativity definitions, use the concept of “Big-C  – Creativity” (with a upper case “C”) to refer to a social context of creativity (“eminent creativity”) and “little-c-creativity” (with a lower case“c”) to relate to “internal” (personal, everyday) creativity (Kaufman and Beghetto 2009). We consider creativity as a complex social interaction, a phenomenon that appears in and constitutes (Bartels and Bencherki 2013) the processes of human activity in a sociocultural system and causes a transformative impact on a system’s paradigm (knowledge, values, attitudes, norms, modes of action and so on), or according to the terminology of Margaret Boden (1994) on a “conceptual space” of possible solutions, or “conceptual space[s] of thought and action” (Shchedrovitsky 1987), or constitutes new discourses (Foucault 1998). In such a context, creativity can be defined as the creation of new opportunities for a sociocultural system where

102

G. Bartels et al.

various creative subject act. Creativity is creating new social and cultural forms. Creativity is not just generating new conversations, but also constituting discourses for and within a specific social system.

7.4  Creativity in a Context of Social Evaluation Most creative interactions occur in a complex context. As pointed out above, many creative accomplishments are not grounded on solitary endeavours, but rather on humans and other “things” (Bartels and Bencherki 2013) working together. The social aspect of creativity has been the guiding principle Theresa M. Amabile (1996) utilizes for the study of social-psychological attributes to an understanding of creativity. Her component theory considers the influence of potential cognitive, personal, motivational and social attributes on the specific phases of the creative process. Amabile stresses an individual’s knowledge, skills and talents related to a specific task or field of activity. Amabile also informed the sociocultural approach to creativity with their work in Creativity in Context (1983) by identifying the subjective element within any evaluation of the social appropriateness and novelty of a creative “new” idea, product and artwork. The experts of a specific field of work (arts, science, music, etc.) assess whether or not one could speak of creativity and their affirmative judgement allows a product, idea or art piece to enter a specific creative domain. Whereas Amabile’s framework is based on a socio-psychological perspective, Mihály Csikszentmihalyi (1988, 1996) as well as David H.  Feldman, Csíkszentmihályi and Howard Gardner (1994) further developed the sociocultural approach towards a systemic understanding of creativity. Csíkszentmihályi’s work (1996) defines three key elements of creativity: • A domain (a particular set of rules or standards) • Activity and its products beyond the existing framework in a particular domain • Assessment of activities and results of a group of people who are familiar with the rules in this domain, which can make a judgement about novelty and importance of creative suggestions Creativity is closely related to awareness, adoption and evaluation of new ideas by certain social groups. Therefore, creativity is not just a psychological but also a sociological, historical and cultural phenomenon. For creativity, processes of transformation of newness and uniqueness in something translatable and canonized are extremely important. A “creative” pattern should consolidate itself in a social context to get a creative one and become a reality for the social system. Consequently, creativity is co-creation (co-creativity), it is impossible without reciprocity and co-involvement of a creative person with other people, cultures and societies, without communication and co-reference of the individual and a social group. A social system (a cultural group, a business team, etc.) means social relations, interactions and communications. This way, we arrive at a conception of creativity

7  Collaborative Creativity and Creative Collaboration as Future Work Paradigms…

103

as a phenomenon of social communications. Such a concept pre-assumes the ­presence and relations with others, and changing/transforming the others. Hence, an attribute of “creativity” can be assigned to human activities only post factum, after the moment of some degree of social transformation. For example, when new concepts of work arrangement are being introduced into work, then also social interaction and communication may change. Here we can mention the so-called “cross-employment” scheme that indicates a person (researcher), who is being employed simultaneously by two different (or even more than two) organizations or institutions, and this at the same time (Campbell and Carayannis 2016a). To illustrate this idea further, such a person may be employed for the same time period by a higher education institution (HEI) and an organization (university-related or a company) in areas of a more practical application of knowledge. This then would create diversified knowledge networks. Creativity researchers of the sociocultural approach have addressed the importance of interaction for a comprehensive understanding of creativity; nevertheless, most accounts neglect to provide a detailed description of the element of interaction in their conceptualizations and therefore cannot do justice to the role of communication as argued at this point. The following approaches have been promising to inform a nuanced understanding of creativity as a co-creative and communicative phenomenon.

7.4.1  Contribution Framework by Paulus and Nijstad In Group Creativity Paulus and Nijstad (2003) present a concept in order to explore prospectively the potential and actual productivity of a group. The concept depicts a reference system comprising four fields of action organizing group creativity. These four action fields are the creative potential principle, the effective sharing principle, the accessibility principle and the effective convergence principle. The various resources of a group need to be combined in a beneficial way to let creativity thrive, and so Paulus and Nijstad argue for a combination of contributions, which will provide a natural framework to understand group creativity. The creative process is described in the following way: Each group member brings knowledge, skills, and abilities to the group. Using these sources, the member can generate ideas or find problem solutions. These individual outputs can then be shared with other group members. They are contributed to what we call the group processing space. Once contributed, an item of information (e.g., an idea) is in principle available to the other members. Information contributed by the others can have various effects on group members: A contributed idea may lead to the generation of a problem solution. Eventually, the group must come to some kind of collective response, such as a decision about which creative ideas to implement or a proposed solution to a problem that can next be tested for effectiveness. To summarize: Individual group members contribute information to the group and individual contribution must SOMEHOW (our emphasis) be combined to produce a group response that can vary in creativity (e.g., in originality and usefulness). (p. 164)

104

G. Bartels et al.

Within the category of the creative potential, Paulus and Nijstad attribute central importance to the heterogeneity of a group. With regard to a creative solution, the individual group members need to exhibit extensive knowledge of a specific domain and need to be skilled in different areas. But they also mention the danger of too much of a heterogenic group composition, depending on a group’s specific cultural and organizational environment. The effective sharing principle takes into account the importance to establish a culture of informational exchange, an openness and willingness to share ideas, preferences, solution and knowledge to other group members. But also here, Paulus and Nijstad see group creativity endangered if information flow and processing disturb the phases of individual reflection and further idea development. (The readers will acknowledge the individualist perspective that also sneaked into Paulus and Nijstad concept of Group Creativity.) The accessibility principle emphasizes the significance of members sharing their information effectively, leading to information processing. Creative groups are able to activate the ideas that were previously mentioned and collected by the group members. Paulus and Nijstad stress the importance of this kind of group memory, which also depends on a specific social context of a group. For instance, the openness to utter and consequently share thoughts constitute the group environment, contextualizing also the group climate. Finally, the effective convergence principle is essential as here the group “will be only creative when they eventually converge on their best ideas” (p. 172). Agreement has to be reached on which idea the group will continue to work towards further innovation. Consequently, Paulus and Nijstad argue for the vital prominence of an effective selection process. Paulus and Nijstad’s theoretical concept, which they also call “generic model of group creativity” (p. 334) entertains the idea of processual idea generating. It speaks in favour of the here predicated understanding of an integrated, collaborative process of creation. The three major components of their concept, namely, group members, group processes and group context, have already informed organizational creativity research. Nonetheless, there is one significant question that still needs to be addressed in order to empirically apply Paulus and Nijstad’s theoretical concept, namely: How exactly does the group-level process of combining the individual ideas take place? The concept is more or less based on an individual-psychological perspective, neglecting unfortunately the Eigendynamik of a group. This dynamic, however, is exceedingly important for the combination of possibilities, emergence and unfolding of creativity. Otherwise any concept of creativity will result in a mainly additive construct of creative processes, emphasizing the individual resources of group members and overlooking the group level, collaborative and communicative phenomenon of creativity. Apart from the theoretical complexity of their conceptualization of group creativity, it is quite baffling why Paulus and Nijstad have not tested or applied – neither quantitatively nor qualitatively  – their theoretical deliberations in a group environment. Some of the arguments are taken from Paulus’s previous e­ xperiences and publications, taking into account well-known assumptions of Amabile (1983) and the exploratory study of Kevin Dunbar (1995) on scientists’ reasoning at

7  Collaborative Creativity and Creative Collaboration as Future Work Paradigms…

105

r­ eal-life microbiological labs. In a similar way, Keith Sawyer’s exploratory study of performance groups resulted in significant viewpoints on creativity and provide a methodological approach for exploring the collaborative and communicative events of creative groups.

7.4.2  The Micro-interactional Model by Keith Sawyer Social psychology, small group research, semiotics and creativity research are at the core of Keith Sawyer’s micro-interactional model. The concept of indexicality by Charles Sanders Peirce (see Liszka 1996) and its further refinement through the work of Jakobsen and Silverstein take a prominent position in Sawyer’s (2003) theory design. His approach to group creativity mainly investigates the multifaceted situations of improvising groups, especially improves theatre and groups and jazz ensembles/combos. The groups do not feature either a group or improvisation leader nor are there any normative guidelines or instructions throughout a performance. Sawyer reflects on the proceedings of the creative groups instead of the creative product, although he elaborates – based on the philosophical notions of creativity in the arts (Collingwood 1938; Dewey 1934) – on the importance of the product as a processual result of creation. In accordance with (small) group research, Sawyer argues for a qualitative difference between research focusing on individual members of a group and a dynamic understanding of groups, which consequently calls for an altered approach to the exploration of a creative group as a social phenomenon. It is precisely the interactional feature of group creativity that differentiates it from an additional methodology to group decision-making. Sawyer suggests to comprehend interaction via a semiotics of improvisational interaction (2003, p. 76 et seq.) for the indexical nature of group creativity. Indexical semiotic refers to the circumstance that indexicality should not be restricted to words, sentences or any other semiotic – more or less materialized – symbol but rather allows for an interactional apprehension of improvisations. One could understand Sawyer’s approach as an attempt to transform the concept of indexicality to a generating and coordinating principle of individual improvisations and performance acts. And his graphical illustration (Sawyer 2003, p.  89) seems to be in congruence with our communicative conceptualization of creativity. Every single act of a proceeding performance depends on multiple interactional factors. So what starts to emerge at time t(1) influences an indexical premise for actor A(1), who is stimulated by the current emergent E(x) and further refines/enhances something new, which again influences in an indexical, interactive manner what happens to become a temporary E(2). One can assume that the further development and refinement of a performance will lead to a continuously re-created – although we do not like to name it that way – new emergent niveau, transformed and transferred to be transformed. Sawyer coins this process “semiotic mediation in interaction” (2003) and describes the process as follows:

106

G. Bartels et al.

The emergent is structured but ephemeral, changes with each performance act. It is an emergent social fact; it is not determined by any single performer, and only partially constrained by the genre definition. For the interaction to continue as an intersubjective shared activity, the performers must work together in creating the emergent. (p. 89–90)

The indexical performance is characterized by (a) an openness and uncertainty in regards to the various contribution of the other group members, (b) a non-­ reductiveness of any act or emergence to the contribution of an individual participant, (c) a complex communication system nurturing negotiation and interpretation of what has been created hitherto and (d) a high creative potential of all group members (which resembles any psychological approach to creativity research). Interesting is that what has been agreed upon before, namely, an emergent E(x) requires a minimal coherence between E(x − 1) and also E(x + 1), etc. Sawyer sees here a problem as this property of any E(x) will result in a restricted E(xr) per se. He does differentiate between more loosely defined coherent emergent E(x) and possible variations restricting, coherence-oriented emergent E(xr). Every E(x) can be changed, restricted and even abandoned throughout a performance. Sawyer’s micro-interactional model of group creativity certainly advances our concept of creativity towards a communicative understanding of creativity that is envisioned in this text. It is also  – as far as we know  – except from Häußling’s (2007) more quantitative network approach, one of the most detailed theoretical approaches. Based on numerous empirical case studies, his model is informed by a differentiation between individual and group creativity but at the same time pays attention to the subtleties of both aspects of individual and group communication; but the question remains open if Sawyer’s notion of improvisation exhibits theoretical and unfortunately empirical restrictions, as in this particular model he equates improvisation with creation.

7.5  C  reativity as a Collaborative and Communicative Phenomenon Whereas research speaks of individual, group and team creativity, contemplating in each case on a specific social system or unit of analysis, we would like to emphasize our deliberations on the collaborative aspect of creativity. Sonnenburg (2007) defines collaborative creativity as “the contextual potential for meaningful novelty” (p. 89), which develops throughout situational cooperation. The situation of creative interaction draws our attention again to Csíkszentmihályi’s (1990) considerations of the social aspect of creativity. He emphasizes the correlation between individuals, their fields and domains, respectively; however, we consider the social dimension of creativity to be more than just individuals’ interrelations with their environment. Collaborative creativity cannot be simply reduced to a situational incidence of working together towards a common goal. Focusing only on the creative situation and the social factors that impinge on a particular interaction ignores a group’s

7  Collaborative Creativity and Creative Collaboration as Future Work Paradigms…

107

process of co-construction. The collaborative nature of creativity within an ­environment, as described above, could be called the creative sphere (cf. Bartels 2010), which echoes Jürgen Habermas’s (1962/1989) communicative concept of a free area of critical public debate. Similar to the overlapping character of the pieces of a kaleidoscope, the interactions within the creative sphere provide colourful interrelations between its social elements. Although one can look at the particular coloured pieces of the kaleidoscope individually, it only exploits its full potential when moving it around and observing the pieces as they interact. According to this perspective, creativity refers to a contextual capability for meaningful novelty or novel ideas, which emerge from interaction (cf. also Bartels 2010). For instance, the initial process of ideation can occur during a dialogue of a creative team or small group. The development of that creative thought, however, relies on the expression of ideas and the intellectual exchange of creative humans within a specific, creativity-promoting environment. This correlation defines the emergent process of creativity within a creative sphere. Thus, we suggest that communication is the key to an understanding of any creative sphere; communication that can be thought of as the animating spirit or, in other terminology, as the “dynamis,” a phenomenon that Paul Weiss (1992) calls the “primary pulsating ground” (p.  4), which humans exploit for their creative endeavours. The following part of this chapter will illustrate how creativity understood predominantly as a collaborative process, constituted by and in social communication, has informed the innovative design of an interorganizational leadership development programme. After a brief description of the organizations involved in the leadership development programme, the chapter will outline how an interorganizational approach to leadership education addresses the questions and challenges of highly talented and motivated university students with a potential to develop for themselves, and the societies they live and act in, a skill set that is associated to what has been called the promising and globally acting “young leaders”.

7.6  T  he Peter Lougheed Leadership Initiative at the Banff Centre for Arts and Creativity The Banff Centre for Arts and Creativity (the “Banff Centre”) was founded in 1933 through the University of Alberta Faculty of Extension. Currently, the Banff Centre welcomes thousands of artists, leaders, researchers and others across dozens of disciplines and hosts over more than 100 programmes each year. The Banff Centre has been developing leaders since the creation of the Banff School of Advanced Management in 1952. This case study, focus of the last part of this chapter, describes an example, situated within the Peter Lougheed Leadership Initiative (the “Initiative”), a partnership between the University of Alberta and Banff Centre for Arts and Creativity. The

108

G. Bartels et al.

Banff Centre focuses principally on post-graduates and professionals, and ­programming addresses issues of Indigenous leadership, creative education, organizing in the creative sector, various forms of entrepreneurship and innovation in the public service. One programming focus has been on the development of learning experiences for the cross-departmental cohort of undergraduates from the University of Alberta instituted as the Peter Lougheed Leadership College. The pedagogical model used in leadership programming traditionally prioritized the use of direct experiences that would encourage the sense-making processes of leaders rather than typical classroom instruction. Direct experiences often involved art making or exploring the natural environment around the Banff Centre campus. This experimental approach was a departure from established pedagogical models in other post-secondary and professional environments that would prioritize sets of competencies and behaviours that were thought to comprise and foster effective leadership skills. While the older competency-based approach supported training and simulation of desired behaviours, the emerging pedagogy focused on interpretive comprehension and has been described as an “aesthetic approach”. In practice, leaders were exposed to strong sensory experiences, which were described as “aesthetic encounters”, and then were encouraged to make sense of the experiences as they related to their leadership practice. As an example, an executive team would work with a ceramicist in her studio to physically model the relationships that define their work context without the aid of language. Structured reflection asked the team to make sense of both the artefacts generated and the process of sense-making that the “aesthetic encounter” demanded. These aesthetic encounters of nature and art were integrated into leadership programme design and included intentional processes to facilitate reflection on these experiences to develop the capacity of leaders to interpret the daily stream of organizational activity that defined their leadership practice. In 2012, the leadership of the Banff Centre decided to constitute the centre as a generative space, exploring how the application of creativity could give rise to innovative ideas and solutions that were shaped by collaborative approaches, diverse perspectives and forward-thinking ideas. While the previous hermeneutic approach had focused on the individual leader and their experiences, the new direction argued that innovative breakthroughs in the future would come from networks of people who could bring together and re-combine different ideas and concepts from diverse domains. The concept of leadership was understood as increasingly relational and social, manifested through the ongoing interactions that contributed to adaptation and change. Leadership programming continued to apply the “aesthetic approach”, but the perspective was shifting to accommodate the relationships among community members and with their environment. Rather than passing through structured reflections on previous encounters with sensory experiences, such as art making or the natural world, participants were engaged in co-creative projects that asked them to interpret the sense- and meaning-making of their co-creators in order to make progress on the project. By intentionally curating diverse perspectives and experiences, leaders, their collaborators and community partners could work on meaningful projects with very different ways of seeing the world and the projects at hand. For example, a week-long residency focused on the theme “hope and hopelessness”

7  Collaborative Creativity and Creative Collaboration as Future Work Paradigms…

109

gathered artists, Indigenous leaders, front-line social workers, researchers, philosophers, technologists and others around projects. The group shared a strong commitment to supporting four partner organizations and needed to work across significant boundaries to do so. Every interaction became source material for self-directed interpretation. Those “co-creative” periods of exploration were pedagogical responses to the Banff Centre’s learning community, which was dominated by artists and Indigenous leaders that were often uncomfortable with or antagonistic to pedagogical approaches that positioned an “expert”, dispensing information in front of a room of learners taking a mostly passive role. In 2015 and 2016, the “co-creative approach” was applied to the orientation session of a full cross-disciplinary cohort of undergraduate students from the Peter Lougheed Leadership College at the University of Alberta. Based on feedback from the students and the organizers, the programme was perceived as effective in promoting communication and collaboration among the participants, particularly across disciplinary boundaries and may suggest a potential way towards innovation in our educational systems. The College “was developed as an inclusive community of undergraduate students to learn, grow and connect with other change makers through an experiential, interactive, interdisciplinary leadership program” (“The College – Peter Lougheed – University of Alberta” 2017). The first cohort of the College was drawn from across departments and campus locations and was targeted at third-year students that demonstrated leadership promise.

7.7  T  he MDA Approach to Facilitation and Collaborative Creativity To facilitate the co-creative process in leadership programmes, the Banff Centre applied a specially redesigned concept called “MDA”(mechanics – dynamics – aesthetics) which is drawn from its use in video game design and research (Hunicke, LeBlanc, & Zubek 2004). The MDA model is a design process that ensures systematic coherence in created environments. The MDA model suggests that “thinking about games as designed artifacts helps frame them as systems that build behavior via interaction” (Hunicke, LeBlanc, & Zubek 2004). A set of linear rules (mechanics) describe the types of decisions available to players. As players make decisions and thereby takes action, emergent properties of the game are manifested (dynamics). Examples of dynamics include agency and autonomy, tension, use of assets or information sharing. Emergent properties may or may not reflect the intentions of the game designer. The player’s experience of these emergent properties, or how they feel about them (aesthetics), informs what they do next and is subjective to the player and their individual and internal experience of the emergent dynamics. Contrary to the diversity of gaming environments generated through an MDA approach, the range of interactions available in most formal learning environments is limited. The rules and roles of the space are well-understood, particularly in ­educational institutions. The teacher or expert stands in front of the gathered l­ earners and presents the required information. Interactions may involve questions or small

110

G. Bartels et al.

group conversations. Evaluation may also involve different techniques. However, the knowledge of institutional representatives is consistently privileged over the knowledge of the learners. A presentational model of education assumes that information is presented and consumed, while any errors in transmission are embedded in the sender or the receivers’ activities. Even when the process of information transfer has been successful, it requires a significant leap of faith that a receiver will therefore be capable of applying that information and transforming it into in a meaningful and applicable knowledge within a social context. Presentational approaches are inappropriate to encourage and initiate the collective creation of knowledge or to stimulate the spanning of disciplinary boundaries. Leaving the learning process to the subjective interpretation of the individual learner offers too many opportunities for failure and too few opportunities for personal growth. The application of the MDA model to the design of learning spaces proves an effective way of intentionally structuring interactions that create the conditions for co-creation. Traditional approaches to designing learning spaces are generally positivist. Information is delivered in a pre-planned manner, and evaluation is mostly indifferent to the subjective experience of the learner to the mechanism of delivery. Learners are ranked based on their ability to demonstrate mastery over the information. Collective inquiry may occur in both formal and informal ways, but little consideration is given to how learners engage in this process, creating repeating loops in how knowledge is transferred, internalized, and applied. The MDA model allows learners to get out of these loops by making relevant the decisions of participants in the programme. Participants become co-creators of the learning experience and can therefore individually and collectively determine how knowledge will be made explicit, processed and applied. What this suggests is a different way of approaching the design of learning spaces. If a social learning environment, like a game, only exists through its interactions, then the design focus needed to be on the nature and experience of those interactions (the aesthetic). Rather than prioritizing what the designer wants the participants to do, the focus is on how the participants need to subjectively experience the design space to encourage non-habitual interaction. It is tempting to focus on the mechanics of the learning space (actions, behaviours and controls) because this is where the designer has greatest control. However, mechanics can have unpredictable impacts on system behaviour and the experience of the learner. In fact, dominant mechanics in formal learning often directly contradict the stated intentions of the learning process. A lecturer can speak persuasively about creativity to a class of 100 students, but the spoken and unspoken rules of a lecture hall promote a sense of distance and dependence on the lecturer that discourages expression and collaborative inquiry into novelty. The MDA model, as deployed at the Banff Centre, focused attention on the experience of the learner and the dynamic behaviour of the system. Iterative loops and testing focused on enhancements in the experience of the learners. Industrial models of education fail to support the behaviours necessary to thrive in an increasingly uncertain labour market. Ad hoc and interdisciplinary teams require a fluency in

7  Collaborative Creativity and Creative Collaboration as Future Work Paradigms…

111

working across disciplinary boundaries and in collectively navigating uncertainty. An approach that focuses on the experience of the participant allows for a greater likelihood of new desirable behaviours to emerge that are intrinsically derived and centred on positive interactions with other learners and learning objects such as generated ideas, applicable models or created artifacts. The MDA approach is about designing spaces and experiences that are more likely to inspire the application of diverse perspectives and novel problem-solving approaches to complex and intransigent issues. As a design approach, the MDA model has proven particularly effective in the following: –– Opening and supporting alternative views, patterns of thinking, perceptions and interactions –– Synthesizing different disciplines and approaches to meaning-making –– Dismantling invisible or stubborn behaviour patterns –– Recognizing and reconciling to paradox and contradiction –– Augmenting reflection and supporting coherent decision-making As an approach and praxis, the model seems appropriate as a strategy for preparing learners to succeed in an economic and social context defined by cross-­ disciplinarity, complexity and change.

7.8  Aesthetics The MDA model is an iterative methodology that simultaneously considers the learner’s experience of system dynamics and the mechanics that enable those system dynamics. As the learning spaces are targeting transformational adaptations in perspective and behaviour, focus on controls is eschewed in favour of a focus on aesthetics. Structured reflection on aesthetic experience and collective processes of meaning-making allow groups to interrogate existing patterns of behaviour and apply new behaviours as demanded by the designed context. Through collective inquiry into a shared aesthetic experience, a group can begin a process of adaptation to the emerging context of the creative environment. The groups transition from “what does this mean to me” to “what does this mean to us” to “how might we move forward”. The types of adaptations needed to thrive in the current labour market are poorly enabled by explanatory or descriptive methods. Prior to considering the overall architecture of a design, an aesthetic is selected that informs the various scales of activity. An aesthetic, in this context, refers to the experience or feeling that the design is intended to engender in a participant. Aesthetics are imperfect and are refined through implementation. For the launch of the orientation with the College, the aesthetics of “curiosity” and “confusion” were deemed most likely to engender the interactions that would facilitate cross-­ disciplinary collaboration and inter-subject dialogue. Testing validated this prior to and during programme delivery.

112

G. Bartels et al.

7.9  Limitations The implementation of the approach to an undergraduate community demonstrated successes but points of tension and limitations of the process were also evident. For example, one limitation relates to different interest and comfort in unfamiliar spaces. The design process often results in spaces and activities that are well outside the standard pedagogical frame of post-secondary education in Canada. Some participants expressed a desire for more traditional approaches and felt overwhelmed by the ongoing expectations of interactivity and collective meaning-making. Some individuals are more suited to these environments by temperament or by experience. Cultural factors can play a role, as disruptions in patterns of deference and etiquette are more directly felt by some. Finally, incentives that extended beyond the orientation continued to impact learner behaviour. Learners were very conscious of evaluative structures and frequently inquired into how they would be assessed over the multi-year programme. Awareness of evaluation led to deference patterns, and learners were unable to forget how they would be evaluated going forward, which influenced how they reflected upon and understood their experiences. Based on previous programmes with professional participants, we expected higher levels of critical and/or negative feedback regarding the overall design of the students’ engagement at the Banff Centre. The lack of negative evaluation feedback may suggest a successful intervention, or it may reflect an ongoing desire by the students (instead of the “feeling” of independent learners) to accommodate the expectations of university faculty members with power over students’ evaluation and assessment.

7.10  Conclusion Creativity is not just an act or an action; it is a form of social relation and interaction. Creativity is communicatively focused on others. As Albert Camus said in his Nobel Prize Acceptance speech (1957), “Every man, and for stronger reasons, every artist, wants to be recognized. … And often he who has chosen the fate of the artist because he felt himself to be different soon realizes that he can maintain neither his art nor his difference unless he admits that he is like the others. The artist forges himself to the others, midway between the beauty he cannot do without and the community he cannot tear himself away from”. Creativity as a characterizing phenomenon of a human being is based on social communication and interaction of human uniqueness with social regulatory bodies (e.g. social orders, social norms, expectations, requirements, rules, anticipations) and reproducibility. Social communications are the basis of interpersonal and individual social interaction. Only such interactions produce ideas that can be deemed as “creative”. Social communications form and constitute the conditions for creativity in the context of groups, teams and organizations since they provide a channel to transform newness and uniqueness to a social standard and norms that are necessary for the existence of a phenomenon of creativity.

7  Collaborative Creativity and Creative Collaboration as Future Work Paradigms…

113

In the newly emerging contexts of knowledge society, knowledge economy and knowledge democracy, knowledge creation (research) and knowledge application (innovation) are crucial drivers for further development and progress (Campbell et al. 2015). Here, education sometimes is being considered as something in relation to knowledge and knowledge bases, whereas innovation has this dynamic momentum that adds and supports the connection and linkage of knowledge to practical use purposes and problem-solving capabilities. Innovation obviously depends on knowledge and knowledge bases. However, what are the further inputs that drive innovation? In this regard, creativity plays a particularly important and increasingly more important role. Therefore, we can put forward the proposition (hypothesis) that the combination of knowledge with creativity should be regarded as the crucial coming-­ together that serves as a further crucial input for fostering and driving innovation. Creativity matters in a decisive way for innovation in the knowledge society, knowledge economy and knowledge democracy. Creativity and knowledge augment here the opportunities. So there is a need to design. Experiment, and develop structures and processes in organizations and systems that motivate and foster chances of and for creativity. Art, artistic research and arts-based innovation provide even more opportunities (Carayannis and Campbell 2014). New types of organizations and companies, for example the “academic firm”, should be further explored (Campbell and Carayannis 2016a). New schemes of employment, such as “cross-employment” (implying to work for more than one organization at the same time), bring here together cross-connections in a trans-sectoral, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary manner (Campbell and Carayannis 2016a). Such innovative ecosystems require also new approaches in governance and policy, with the examples of Epistemic Governance and Epistemic Innovation Policy (Campbell and Carayannis 2016b). While there is clearly evidence for necessary changes in the work arrangements, also education and educational systems are coming under pressure to adapt and to evolve further in novel ways, so as to encourage durable creativity. There is a need to design and to identify possibilities and examples in education and higher education, how this could be approached in concrete ways. The pilot project implemented at the Banff Centre serves as one concrete example. Innovative solutions addressed at pressing needs in our societies have mostly been developed by young leaders, unhappy with the status quo of “how things are done”. For more than 50  years, the Banff Centre has experienced that mid-level managers and younger entrepreneurs are the most likely group willing to tackle the pressing challenges of our society. Consequently, it has focused on the development of innovative and advanced leadership and educational programmes as illustrated in the second part of this article. Industrial models of education often are not preparing students for the labour market they are entering. Broadcast models of instruction and behavioural systems of training fail to reflect the complex and cross-disciplinary reality of work. An approach to designing learning spaces developed at the Banff Centre was applied to cohorts of 70–150 cross-departmental undergraduates from the Peter Lougheed Leadership College at the University of Alberta, and feedback suggests the efficacy of the approach for undergraduate education. The approach understands learning processes as designed artifacts that come into being through processes of ­interaction.

114

G. Bartels et al.

By selecting and testing desired aesthetics, a university design team can ensure systematic coherence while promoting emergent perspectives and behaviours that are collectively discovered and deployed. The approach bypasses disciplinary strategies and centres interactivity and direct experience in order to encourage personal and collective reflection and adaptation. As the overall architecture and design differ significantly from standard post-secondary modalities, these elements become points of consideration and reflection as well and encourages learners to critically reflect on the spaces within which their academic and professional practice are situated. The aesthetic nature of the experiences allows for impact to extend beyond the lifespan of the intervention as the learners continue to make sense of their experience and their individual and collective responses to it.

References Alquézar R, Moreno A, Aguilar J  (2010) Artificial Intelligence research and development. IOS Press, Amsterdam Amabile TM (1983) The social psychology of creativity. Springer, New York Amabile TM (1996) Creativity in context: update to the social psychology of creativity. Westview Press, Boulder Bartels G (2010) The creative small group  – towards a framework of collaborative creativity within the creative sphere. Master’s thesis. Retrieved from http://dc.msvu.ca:8080/xmlui/ handle/10587/943 Bartels G, Bencherki N (2013) Actor-network-theory and creativity research. In: Carayannis EG (ed) Encyclopedia of creativity, invention, innovation and entrepreneurship. Springer, Berlin, pp 116–122 Bast G (2013) Preparing a “creative revolution”  – arts and universities of the arts in the creative knowledge economy, 1471-1476. In Carayannis EG (Editor-in-Chief)/Dubina IN, Seel N, Campbell DFJ, Uzunidis D (Associate Editors) Encyclopedia of creativity, invention, innovation and entrepreneurship. Springer, New  York. http://link.springer.com/ referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-1-4614-3858-8_442 Bast G (2015) Fighting creative illiteracy. Creative skills constitute the new cultural techniques of twenty-first century innovation societies. In: Bast G, Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (eds) Arts, research, innovation and society. Springer, New York, pp 5–28. https://link.springer.com/ chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-09909-5_2 Bast G, Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (eds) (2015) Arts, research, innovation and society. Springer, New  York. http://www.springer.com/business+%26+management/technology+management/ book/978-3-319-09908-8 Berlatsky N (2011) Artificial intelligence. Greenhaven Press, Incorporated Boden MA (1994) Precis of the creative mind: myths and mechanisms. Behav Brain Sci 17(3):519 Boutellier R, Gassmann O, von Zedtwitz M (2008) Managing global innovation. Springer, Berlin Caloghirou Y, Vonortas NS, Ioannides S (2004) European Collaboration in research and development. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham Campbell DFJ, Carayannis EG (2016a) The academic firm: a new design and redesign proposition for entrepreneurship in innovation-driven knowledge economy. J  Innov Entrepreneursh 5(12):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-016-0040-1. http://innovation-entrepreneurship. springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13731-016-0040-1 Campbell DFJ, Carayannis EG (2016b) Epistemic governance and epistemic innovation policy. Technology, Innovation and Education 2(2):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40660016-0008-2. http://technology-innovation-education.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/ s40660-016-0008-2

7  Collaborative Creativity and Creative Collaboration as Future Work Paradigms…

115

Campbell DFJ, Carayannis EG, Rehman SS (2015) Quadruple Helix structures of quality of democracy in innovation systems: the USA, OECD countries, and EU member countries in global comparison. J  Knowl Econ 6(3):467–493. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/ s13132-015-0246-7 Camus A (1957) Banquet speech. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1957/camus-speech.html Carayannis, Elias G. / David F.  J. Campbell (2014). Developed democracies versus emerging autocracies: arts, democracy, and innovation in Quadruple Helix innovation systems Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 3:12. http://www.innovation-entrepreneurship.com/ content/3/1/12 Collingwood RG (1938) The principles of art. Clarendon Press, Oxford Csikszentmihalyi M (1988) Society, culture, and person: a systems view of creativity. In: Sternberg RJ (ed) The Nature of creativity: contemporary psychological perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Csíkszentmihályi M (1990) Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row, New York Csikszentmihalyi M (1996) Creativity: flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. HarperCollins, New York Dewey J (1934) Art as experience. Minton, Balch & Company, New York Dubina IN (2000) Creativity as a phenomenon of social communications. Russian Academy of Sciences (Siberian Branch), Novosibirsk Dubina IN, Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (2012) Creativity economy and a crisis of the economy? Coevolution of knowledge, innovation, and creativity, and of the knowledge economy and knowledge society. J  Knowl Econ 3(1):1–24. http://www.springerlink.com/content/ t5j8l12136h526h5/ Dunbar (1995) How scientists really reason: scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In: Sternberg RJ, Davidson JE (eds) The nature of insight. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Feldman DH, Csikszentmihalyi M, Gardner H (1994) Changing the world: a framework for the study of creativity. Praeger, Westport Ford CM, Gioia DA (1996) Creativity management. In: Warner M (ed) International encyclopedia of business and management. Routledge, New York, pp 878–882 Foucault M (1998) What is an author. In: Foucault M, Faubion JD (eds) Aesthetics, method, and epistemology. The New Press, New York, pp 205–222 Habermas J  (1962) Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit: Untersuchung zu einer Kategorie derbürgerlichen Gesellschaft. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main Habermas J (1989) The structural transformation of the public sphere: an inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Häußling R (2007) Interaktionen in Organisationen: Ein Vierebenenkonzept des MethodologischenRelationalismus und dessen empirische Anwendung. Universität Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe Isaksen SG, Murdock MC, Firestien RL, Treffinger DJ (1993) Understanding and recognizing creativity: the emergence of a dicipline. Ablex, Norwood Kaufman JC, Beghetto RA (2009) Beyond big and little: the four C model of creativity. Rev Gen Psychol 13(1):1–12 Lindqvist G (2003) Vygotsky’s theory of creativity. Creat Res J 15(2&3):245–251 Liszka JJ (1996) A general introduction to the semeiotic of Charles Sanders Peirce. Indiana University Press, Bloomington Lotman J (2009) Culture and explosion. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin Oates JC (1973) The myth of the isolated artist. Psychol Today 6:74–75 Paulus PB, Nijstad BA (2003) Group creativity: innovation through collaboration. Oxford University Press, New York Ponomarev IA (2008) Prospects for the development of the psychology of creativity. J Russ East Eur Psychol 46(3):3–93 Popper KR (1992) Unended quest: intellectual autobiography. Routledge, London Sawyer RK (2003) Group creativity. Lawrence Erlbaum

116

G. Bartels et al.

Sawyer RK (2007) Group genius: the creative power of collaboration. Basic Books, New York Sawyer RK (2012) Explaining creativity: the science of human innovation. Oxford University Press, New York Shalley CE (1991) Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal discretion on individual creativity. J Appl Psychol 76(2):179–185 Shchedrovitsky GP (1987) The scheme of thinking-doing activities: system-structural framework, meaning and content. Science, Moscow. (in Russian) Sonnenburg S (2007) Kooperative Kreativität: Theoretische Basisentwürfe und organisationale Erfolgsfaktoren. Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag, Wiesbaden Vygotsky LS (2004) Imagination and creativity in childhood. J Russ East Eur Psychol 42:7–97 Weiss P (1992) Creative ventures. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale Welfens PJJ, Addison JT, Audretsch DB, Gries T, Grupp H (1999) Globalization, economic growth and innovation dynamics. Springer, Berlin

Chapter 8

The Trends and Prospectives of Professional Economic Education in Russia Igor N. Dubina, Elena G. Limanova, and Gagik M. Mkrtchyan

Abstract  The system of education, as well as many other institutional systems in Russia, has being under continuous reformations and transformations during the last 25 years. At the same time, the economic education has faced perhaps the most dramatic large-scale changes. The value changes of the whole Russian society that started in the early 1990s have formed a number of serious challenges for economic education, such as a need to change the ideological paradigm of the Soviet period, an enormous interest in economic education on different social levels, since economics and economic knowledge started to be considered as a key to wealth and success in the early 1990s, etc. The authors of this chapter discuss the major trends of the development of the modern economic education in Russia on the levels of high school, university, academia and professional society. As a special case, statistical data characterizing the situation with economic education in Novosibirsk region of Russia are provided and discussed. The authors also hypothesize about the future of economic education in Russia and the world. Keywords  Education · Economics · Economic reforms · Teaching

8.1  Introduction All Russian social, political, economic, and other institutions have been under permanent transformation and modernization since the early 1990s. Perhaps the sphere of education, especially the economic education, has faced the most dramatic large-­ scale changes. In the Soviet period, the content of higher economic education has I. N. Dubina (*) Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, Russia Altai State University, Barnaul, Russia e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] E. G. Limanova · G. M. Mkrtchyan Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, Russia e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 G. Bast et al. (eds.), The Future of Education and Labor, Arts, Research, Innovation and Society, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26068-2_8

117

118

I. N. Dubina et al.

been arranged in accordance with the communist ideology. By the way, the specificity of Novosibirsk State University, as well as a number of other leading Russian universities which emphasize on the use of mathematical methods in economics, predetermined a relatively lower level of indoctrination of economic education. The value changes of the whole Russian society that started in the early 1990s have formed a number of serious challenges for economic education, including the following: 1. An acute need to change the paradigm of the form and content of economic education 2. An enormous interest in economic knowledge and education that started to be considered by the whole society as a key to wealth and a way of constructing effective life strategies and trajectories in the context of economic liberalization and the “shock therapy” of the early 1990s. As a response to those challenges, elements of a new system of continuous economic education began to form on the levels of high school, university, academia, and professional society The authors of this chapter discuss the major trends of the development of the modern economic education in Russia on different levels. The positions of the key stakeholders of the Russian educational systems are considered and discussed. As a special case, statistical data characterizing the situation with economic education in Novosibirsk Region of Russia are provided and discussed. The authors also hypothesize about the future of economic education in Russia and other societies.

8.2  Economic Education in Universities As noted above, the dramatic changes in economic and social life in the Russian society defined the growing demand for economic education from all parts of the society. Additionally, there was an urgent need to train economists and administrators with the knowledge and skills which meet the requirements of a new market economy. As a result, training of economists conducted almost anywhere. Even noncore educational institutions, such as engineering, art, medical, pedagogical, and other colleges and universities, have begun training in the field of economics and management without the correspondingly qualified teaching staff (Limanova et  al. 2016). A lot of instructors who taught engineering and other noneconomic disciplines began developing and teaching courses on economics and management because of the large demand for economic education and simultaneous decrease in the number of students in engineering and technical profiles. In this context, many of those universities opened economic and management departments, and the transition to economic training provided them a chance to “survive” under the conditions of the strong decline of government funding year to year. But economic universities also faced serious challenges to change the educational paradigm. They had to start revising and transforming curricula based on the

8  The Trends and Prospectives of Professional Economic Education in Russia

119

experience of Western universities. In particular, all higher educational institutions which train economists substituted Marxist political economics with micro- and macroeconomics, as well as a number of subjects relating to the market economy. However, not all universities have adequate and sufficient access to contemporary teaching resources, content and methodology of economic education, as well as adequately qualified and experienced professors and instructors. At the same time, in order to secure money flow from students, many universities started to accept almost all applicants (high school graduates) who could pay for the admission to a university, thereby they greatly reduced the requirements to the student evaluation and, consequently, education quality. In fact, higher education in the history of Russia has never been as available and massive as at present. Thus, around 25–30% of the population had a certificate (diploma) from a higher education institution like a university in the end of the 1980s. This figure has doubled by 2014. At the same time, the number of universities in Russia has increased from 514 in 1991 to 896 in 2015 (Gromov et al. 2016). As a result, (1) the strong differentiation of universities in term of the quality of economic education has emerged and (2) the Russian labor market has been saturated with “economists” and “managers” in the presence of a real shortage of qualified specialists for a market economy in all sectors: education, real sector of the economy, and public administration (Limanova et al. 2016). The quality of university education is based on two components: (1) what a university can and wants to offer and (2) what a student can and wants to take. Regarding the students, as we have already noted, there is no actual selection at the entrance to a system of university education, since every school graduate can find a place in some university, if he or she can pay a tuition fee. In addition, the Unified State Exam (USE) provides an easier access to a higher education system. This was one of the main objectives of USE (Efimov 2011) and it has been achieved. With such a system of easy entrance to a university, an enrollee has no need to assess the level of requirements in this or that university and to prepare for it. As a result, Russian universities face an extremely diversity of students in terms of their training and a level of motivation to study. In such a context, a student starts realizing a choice of a university and a chosen specialty on the first or second course of study. Such a challenge to the system of higher education further reinforces the importance of the quality of a university teaching staff. And it is, as mentioned, also very diverse, especially in economic subjects. The quality of teaching staff can be supported and improved with continuous training and intensive research activity as a way of continuous updating of knowledge and skills. A number of Russian universities, including Novosibirsk State University (NSU), have managed to organize, we can say, mass training of lecturers in Western universities in the 1990s, as well as adaptation and preparation of new teaching materials. These efforts have created all the necessary conditions for training specialists on the highest world standard level. However, not all universities had such opportunities. Recently, in the most of Russian universities, professors generally do not improve their qualification on a regular basis. In state universities, there is not enough funding for this, while in private universities the earned money is hardly

120

I. N. Dubina et al.

enough for s­ alaries to instructors and other employees, as these universities greatly reduce tuition fee in order to attract more students. Systematic improving of professors’ level through regular research activities is also problematic for many universities in Russia. Unlike the Western system of university education, research is traditionally separated from education in Russia and mainly concentrated in research institutions of Russian Academy of Sciences. The government tries to make research an imperative part of university education. However, the institutional work conditions are generally not conducive to this effort. According to a normal contract, a university instructor has to teach for 18–23 hours per week that is much more than in a European or US university (Limanova et al. 2016). Taking into account a comparatively low salary for such a contract (Limanova et al. 2016) and, as a result, working for a number of universities, a typical university professor has no chance for research activity.

8.3  A Position of the Government For the last 5 years, the Russian Government has clearly declaring the overproduction of specialists in economics and an excess number of universities which offer programs in economic fields, as well as the great diversity of these universities in term of training quality (Malykhin 2015). In this regard, there are following trends in economic education in Russia: 1. Continuous and significant reduction of government funds for training specialists in economics and management (by around 5–25% every year for the period of 2012–2018) 2. Continuous education reforms as a sequence of intensive search, often in a trial-­ and-­effort regime, for ways of fixing obvious problems in recent professional education Since the first trend indifferently concerned all Russian universities, it was very painful especially for relatively small universities with high education standards, like NSU, where every professor and student is critical to keeping high standard of education quality. The second trend manifests itself in manifold forms as follows. The transformation of the contents of the federal educational standards has being so intensive that a student starts studies in a framework of one educational standard and graduates on another. This results in a great increase of the workload of university teachers and administrators who have making a huge effort in order to formally meet the new and quickly changing requirements, often in prejudice of real teaching and research. In a certain sense, these processes can be seen as a kind of university selection: universities which cannot satisfy formal quality of educational standards have to stop their activities. Often, however, one can observe the full compliance of a university to formal requirements and standards and simultaneously low education

8  The Trends and Prospectives of Professional Economic Education in Russia

121

quality (Limanova et  al. 2016). It just means that the limited resources of these universities are redistributed in favor of administrative reporting about the compliance of the standards in prejudice of real teaching and research. The transition from the one-level (a specialist) to the three-level system of higher education (a bachelor, master and a graduate student (an analogue of a PhD student) generates a number of new problems. Firstly, all universities have been allowed training master and graduate students, while a few universities had the real capacity and potential to train on such a level. Secondly, the status of the post-graduate (PhD) level as the third level of higher education, where there is no target and certain audience, under the conditions of per capita funding with a regular norm of ten students, resulted in obviously insufficient labor payment for professors who teach such students in a group of two or three people. It consequently results in efforts of universities to enroll students for post-graduate training as much as possible that certainly reduce the requirements for such category of students, including their motivation to study and research work. Due to a very modest scholarship stipend, the most of post-graduate students have to work in parallel. As a cumulative result, many Russian universities face a decrease in the efficiency of post-graduate training, as well as a low level of PhD dissertations presented and defended. Such a situation with postgraduate training that should prepare a new generation of university teachers, as well as the low stimulation of active professors working with students, has resulted in ageing teaching staff (Limanova et al. 2016). The recent education standards accentuate the importance of students’ homework and self-instruction and assume students should spend for these forms 50–85% of their total education time. It takes much time from professors to organize this work and then check and evaluate its results, while the payment basis remains the same, namely, classroom hours. Thus, the organization of the educational process is not conductive to effective self-instruction. Another visible trend in the Russian system of higher education is an attempt to create new opportunities for universities – leaders. This trend is also a way to cope with the challenge of quality differentiation, but it is opposite to negative selection process based on formal indicators; we noted above. According to this trend, the government allocates specific categories of universities: federal universities, national research universities, and universities with a special status (e.g., Moscow State University) as well as universities included in large-scale and ambitious projects such as 5TOP-100 (Knyazev and Drantusova 2012). The holders of such status get additional resources and much more funding than universities with a general status. However, being part of the system, they face with all the problems of the Russian system of education too. The continuous reforms of the Russian education system partially relate to the process of its internationalization in the context of Bologna process and other international agreements signed by the Russian Federation. But these reforms are also an intrinsic part of a rather turbulent social and economic environment filled with dynamic changes and uncertainties (Carayannis and Dubina 2014; Dubina and Carayannis 2015). Looking for answers to numerous and manifold internal and external challenges for Russian economy and society, government policymakers

122

I. N. Dubina et al.

must often resort to trial and error, trying out this policy or that, hoping to discover one that will be the best. Consequently, the strategic vectors (i.e., the goals and priorities set by the government for innovative development of the country) are changed frequently, within comparatively short time frames, and abruptly (Dubina and Carayannis 2015), that greatly affects education policy and practice as well.

8.4  Professional Community At a time when there are many challenges that a university cannot cope alone, we observe a consolidation of different professional communities. This is a very positive trend, because in a civilized society professional groups play an important role, they determine the prospects’ needs and find solutions and ways of social control of the government. Just as a few examples of this trend, we note an active position of the Education and Methodic Association in classic university education and the Association of the leading universities in the field of economics and management. These structures are actively cooperating with both the employers and the government. As a result, it has been possible to escape from inefficient and excessive classification of specialties in the field of economics and management, recognizing that the fundamental and wide education generates more adequate competences of students and creates the possibilities of adapting the professional activity according to the changing requirements of the labor market. Interestingly, this trend is opposite of recent specialization of education at the high school. But, in our opinion, there is no contradiction. This way, the most important task of a high school is implemented, namely, identification of abilities, aptitudes, and interests of pupils for their further in-depth development in the framework of a university. In the next sections of this chapter, we discuss the situation with economic education in schools.

8.5  Economic Education at the School Level Universities really and greatly concern about the school education, since the quality of entrants is crucial for them. And this context remains a major issue, when the interaction of a university with a school is considered and discussed. No wonder that the best universities in the field of economic education most largely participated in the development of economic education in schools and created such forms of cooperation as so-called basic schools and lyceums in the 1990s under conditions of low regulation of the universities’ selection of applicants. The introduction of the Unified State Exam (USE) and the unification of admission procedures (in fact, prohibition of “special” relations of universities with schools) have led to the fact that this form of cooperation has recently come to naught, and now it takes other forms.

8  The Trends and Prospectives of Professional Economic Education in Russia

123

As noted above, interest in school economic education emerged in the wake of large-scale socioeconomic reforms in Russia. Below, we consider the following components of the school economic education system: –– –– –– ––

A status of the subject on economics The content Teachers of the economics and a system of their training Teaching materials

Historically, the basics of economics were taught in soviet schools through different subjects, like geography and mathematics on a level of examples, illustrations, and tasks. The introduction of economics as an independent subject started in the 1991–1992 academic year. Since 1999 this subject has a status of a mandatory subject to study in 10–11 (i.e., final) grades. However, the basic curriculum (school standard) of the Russian Federation does not allocate hours to teach this subject, and it is recommended to study it in the framework of the optional part, that is, at the expense of hours of elective components. In general, such a position reduces the chances of developing economic education in schools, since they normally have very limited resources. One of the main reasons for non-successful attempts to introduce the teaching of economics at the school level was a conflict of interest on the part of other subjects, the restrictions for student’s workload led to decreasing workload, and, consequently, salaries of teachers. The introduction of the USE system without an USE on economics also contributed to a dramatic reduction of hours for classes on economics, reduction, and dismissal of teachers or loading them with other subjects of the curriculum. For example, in the Novosibirsk region, average time for teaching economics is only 0.03 hours per week in the elementary school (1–4 grades) and 1.1 hours in high school (10–11 grades). Interviewed teachers say that these hours is not sufficient for obtaining initial economic knowledge and competences and believe that the time to teaching economics should be allocated on average 0.5 and 2.2 hours per week in primary and high school, respectively (NIMRO 2016). In most schools of the Novosibirsk region, economics is taught at the basic level as a part of the general course on Social Science. In this format, teaching economics is given from 0.5 to 35 hours per year (4 hours per year on average) in a 10th grade class, and from 0.5 to 56 hours per year (9 hours per year on average) in a 10th grade class. Economics as a special subject is taught in 13% of schools (NIMRO 2016). Some schools are practicing the teaching of economics in mixed forms. For example, it may be a special subject in some classes, and a part of the course on Social Science in others. In addition to a subject on economics, some schools of the Novosibirsk regions offer elective courses on Basics of Entrepreneurship, Consumer Law, Basics of Doing Business, Management and Marketing Basics, and the like. According to a survey of teachers of the Novosibirsk region in 2015 (NIMRO 2016), the majority of them (87%) use a standard training programs and curricula for teaching economics, while the rest develop new programs (9%) or use experimental (pilot) programs (4%). As a rule, these teachers teach economics as a special subject. These programs are predominantly based on theoretical positions of

124

I. N. Dubina et al.

e­ conomic science and have a propaedeutic character, i.e., they are intended to prepare pupils to further training in universities. Such an approach contributes to the formation of the economic way of thinking and decision-making on the basis of performance criteria. Besides, getting motivated and professionally oriented applicants is a very important issue to a university. However, as we have already noted, the number of hours for teaching economics is in the framework of teaching the subject of Social science is enough for forming neither a systemic view of the basics of economic theory, nor competences and skills for economic decision-making. Another goal of economic education at school is based on the idea that a school should form a competence for action to help student orient in a socioeconomic environment and to build a conscious life strategies. However, the majority of schools miss the possibility of formation of economic culture and literacy, which should be formed within a long-term period and secured with practical skills. It must be admitted that a clear request for such education in schools does sound neither from the government nor from the students or their parents. Start of teaching economics in schools in the early 1990s has largely spontaneous character. Since there was no specialty “A school teacher of economics,” teachers of history, geography, and other subjects, as well as economists without pedagogical background, started to teach economics in schools. A great influence on this process was provided by European and American educational institutions. In the 1990s, a lot of work on the retraining of teachers was conducted with large contribution from the “International Centre for Economic and Business Education,” organized in 1992 at the expense of funds received from the USA, as well as the large-scale international project “Teaching economic and business courses in high schools, technical and classic universities” as a part of the EU TACIS program. However, these two projects did not cover all regions of Russia, so the situation in different regions and places was very heterogeneous. In the Novosibirsk region, hundreds of teachers have been trained, but they quickly lost obtained knowledge and skills without practice. A lack of access of schools to IT channel of communication, a low level of computer equipment of schools, and other technological and organizational factors also complicated the implementation of a unified system of economic education in schools. In 1992, due to increased demand for economic education in schools, the Ministry of Education included a qualification of “A School Teacher of Economics” in a list of specialties. However, this did not solve the problem of training of teachers of economics, since pedagogical universities, taking advantage of this decision and in the spirit of the time (the commercialization of teaching), opened faculties of economics, where trained specialists, most of all, on the economic specialties which were in demand, while training teachers had mainly “covering” and advertising character. As a result, the training of teachers of economics by pedagogical universities was suspended in 1999. So, pedagogical universities recently train teachers of economics in the frame of training teachers of social science or other subjects, as economics is not a compulsory subject in secondary schools. For example, Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University trains teachers of entrepreneurship (as the second specialty) at the Faculty of Technology and teachers of economics and the Faculty of Mathematics.

8  The Trends and Prospectives of Professional Economic Education in Russia

125

As noted, the situation with teachers of economics is very heterogeneous in the country because of different access to training and professional development. The Novosibirsk region refers to the relatively prosperous Russian regions with a large agglomeration, strong universities, and professional communities. In this region, the majority (84%) of school teachers of economics has a higher pedagogical degree, but only 9% of teachers have economic education and 10% of the teachers were retrained to teach economics. The majority (81%) of the teachers is engaged in self-education on the issues of economics (NIMRO 2016). A few Russian universities, including Higher School of Economics, Novosibirsk State University, and Herzen State Pedagogical University, have begun working on the development of concepts and programs of economic education in primary, secondary, and high schools and school textbooks on economics, as well as (re)training school teachers in economics in the 1990s. However, a list of these textbooks have not been updated for more than 5 years, except a textbook on economics for grades 8–9 published by the NSU together with the Institute for Economic Education (Oldenburg, Germany) specifically for the Novosibirsk region in 2013. A second edition of this textbook adapted to the Krasnoyarsk region was published in 2015. At the peak of teaching economics in schools (1992–2009), the three Russian universities mentioned above began publishing special theoretical and methodological journals for school teachers of economics. However, a gradual decrease in the demand for these journals caused the exception of economics from school curricula suspended the release of most of them by 2006. There was last journal on this topic, “Economics: Issues of School Economic Education,” has published by NSU for 19 years by May 2016. So, the analysis of the components of school economic education demonstrates that a good reserve has been created in the 1990s, which was able to generate a lot of new ideas and products, but a system of school economic education has not been formed because of the absence of political will and a lack of clearly articulated social demand for school education in economics. As a result, we observe a negative trend for economics studies in a school. While in 1999, after the suspension of training of teachers of economics in pedagogical universities and liquidation vacancies of economics teachers in schools, some authors have still continued to recommend to address the issue of implementation of economic education in a secondary school, as a part of general economic education, and provide high-quality teaching materials for school teachers of economics (Mikheeva 2010). However, the interest in school economic education has been gradually reducing. An example the Novosibirsk region shows that the trend has changed just at the turn of centuries (Fig. 8.1). Economics as a special subject was taught in about a third of all schools in the Novosibirsk region in 2001–2002, and just in 13% of schools in 2015, and only 6% of schools indicate this subject in a certificate of school completion. With a goal of identification of main barriers for the development of school economic education, we conducted a survey in 2015 and compared the results with a similar survey of 2001. The main results of those surveys are presented at Figs. 8.2 and 8.3 correspondingly.

126

I. N. Dubina et al.

70

65

60 50 schools, %

30

23

20

0

57

41

40

10

59

54

16 4 1991/92

9

6

1992/93

1993/94

1994/95

1995/96

1996/97

1997/98

1998/99

1999/00

2000/01

academic years

Fig. 8.1  Teaching economics in schools of the Novosibirsk region, 1991–2001. (Kharchenko et al. 2001) 25 20 15 10 5 0 Educational policy inefficiency

Lack of teachers

Lack of Inefficiency of Inefficiency of Insufficient supply of (re)training teaching support and teaching criteria development materials of the best practicies

Lack of clear demand

Fig. 8.2  The main barriers for the development of school economic education according to the survey of 2015. (NIMRO 2016) 100 80 60 40 20 0 Lack of textbooks

Lack of methodical aids Lack of teaching hours for teachers

Lack of teachers

Fig. 8.3  The main barriers for the development of school economic education according to the survey of 2001. (NIMRO 2016)

8  The Trends and Prospectives of Professional Economic Education in Russia

127

The comparison of two surveys shows that the main problem was the insufficiency of textbooks (84% of all schools) in 2001, while just every fifth teacher points to the insufficient supply of teaching materials in 2015, but it still remains the main problem according to the teachers’ evaluation. Just as 15 years ago, the legitimacy of the subject on economics (a lack of teaching hours and teachers) in a school remains a problem as well. But the lack of order of economic education from the government and the lack of demand for economic education from pupils and their parents under the weak legitimacy of the subject are a modern trend. It is no wonder that the amount of research on school economics has been permanently decreasing, in spite of the enthusiasm of some universities like NSU that being much concerned about the level of entrants and continuing to encourage both students and the remaining teachers of economics in schools.

8.6  The Position of the Key Stakeholders: A Summary Based on the analysis of these trends, a question logically arises, whether a school needs a subject on economics. This question may have different answers from different communities. Teachers of economics, of course, support this idea. At the same time, they have a sufficiently clear vision what should be changed in teaching economics at a school. Our survey demonstrates that the majority of them (67%) consider it is necessary to adapt the content of the subject to the realities of modern life, 17% accentuate necessary orientation on forming creative thinking of pupils, and 11% emphasize the use of new information technologies in teaching economics (NIMRO 2016). Such a view shows that this professional community has an understanding of the need to change the traditionally established priorities of teaching economics. However, the community of school teachers of other subjects negatively reacts to the idea of enhanced teaching economics in schools. Their motives are understandable, because the amount of school disciplines is limited, and many teachers lay a claim to priority of their subjects. University professors of economics actively support teaching this subject in schools, because all universities are fighting for strong and well prepared applicants, while the current level of the entrants to university economics faculties is comparatively low. This professional community supports including economics in the curricula of secondary and high schools as a mandatory subject, and also the introduction of a USE in economics. Recently (2015), according to the official statistics, knowledge of economics is verified through a USE on social science, and this exam is the most popular among school-leavers (55%), while a USE on physics is on the second place (25%). It should be noted that the academic community in a number of leading universities, including NSU, is driven not only by these motives but also by a deep understanding of the significance of an economic view and consciousness for a young generation in the modern world.

128

I. N. Dubina et al.

The government, one of the most important stakeholders of the system of e­ conomic education, seems quite indifferent in relation to the idea of school economic education and very empathic in reduction of economic education in universities. At the same time, this important stakeholder concerns failures in certain economic competencies of the society. In particular, there are a number of federal projects for the development of financial literacy of the country population for the last 2 years (Limanova et al. 2016). It is easy to understand such concerns: citizens who cannot correspondingly use banking products and unreasonably spend or save their money deprive the national economy of investment and hence economic growth. But if the government claims to be more ambitious goals, including technological breakthroughs and changing social and economic lifestyle of the Russian society, the citizens also need other competencies, like independence, pro-active attitude, and the ability to assess the prospects for themselves and their country.

8.7  T  he Future of Economic Education in Russia and the World In this section, we delineate some prospectives of economic education based on the trends discussed above. As for the pre-university economic education, its future greatly depends on whether the subject of economics is legitimized in school. This is not an easy issue and question. Schools in Russia mostly public and state-owned, their work is determined and funded by the ministries of education, both federal and regional, so they work in the conditions of the strongest dependence on the policy of educational authorities. The structure of the school curriculum is such that the introduction of one subject is possible only by excluding the other. This threatens the interests of teachers who teach other subjects. Since there is no prerequisite for such an initiative from the governing bodies, the question is whether the interested academic community and the school economics community can offer this idea to the government quite attractively for the legitimization. At the national level, this perspective is illusive: there is no proper level of consolidation of the professional community and, accordingly, a consensus on what this subject should represent at school. And if so, then we should not expect an educational product, which could be the basis for the proposal to legitimize the economy in the school. As a result, at the country level, only such a strong stakeholder as the banking system can support and promote the idea of developing financial literacy in schools. There is another situation at the level of a region. There can be quite cohesive teams amalgamated via cooperation, joint projects, and, as a result, mutual understanding. Such teams are able to offer the regional authorities a well prepared and grounded solution, a ready product that can meet the development goals of the region. So it happened in the Novosibirsk region, as an instance. An innovative school textbook on economics, developed by Novosibirsk State University in cooperation with European partners, has become a key element of developing entrepreneurial ideas in

8  The Trends and Prospectives of Professional Economic Education in Russia

129

the school as an integral part of education in engineering classes. In other words, those textbook has become precisely an element that was lacking in the development of a regional project aimed at popularizing technological innovation development as the basis for reindustrialization the region. As a result, the subject of economics is mandatory in the engineering classes of schools of Novosibirsk Region. An interest in developing creativity and entrepreneurial spirit through school interdisciplinarity is a key characteristic that will determine the future of professional economic education. It is based on labor market trends. The rapidly changing external environment of business, its customization, expansion of services, interpenetration of technologies, and other factors of the modern market and business lead to the following trends. In the labor market, there are more and more offers for professionals with interdisciplinary skills. This trend relates both full and part-time employments. Transformation of the economy leads to the fact that employers or organizations sometimes do not have mono-disciplinary positions with full employment. For example, a university instructor in Russia and some other developing countries, as a rule, cannot have a full workload focusing on teaching just one subject. This is partly due to the specifics of a contract of university instructors in Russia. Due to the traditional division of science and education, the teacher’s contract does not include paid time for research activities. All the time, stipulated by the contract, the teacher should be engaged in educational activities. The importance of employee’s “soft competencies” (including, among others, creative thinking, entrepreneurial spirit, and openness to newness at a workplace) is constantly growing. This trend stipulates coming the term of intrapreneurship that means a set of entrepreneurial behavioral characteristics and qualities of an employee. For some companies such qualities may even be the only requirements at the entrance. As the President of the Olin College, Richard Miller, noted at a meeting with Russian teachers, Google can hire employees without higher education, if they demonstrate a high level of creativity, non-standard thinking. Concerning soft competences, as follows from discussions with employers, both in Novosibirsk State University and in other Russian universities, they easily tolerate the lack of any applied professional knowledge but say that universities have a problem with graduates of soft competencies: the ability to work with a large volume information in conditions of limited time, the ability to represent ideas and projects, the ability to adequately perceive the task, comply with deadlines, etc. All this likely means a significant change in higher education in general and economic education in particular. The value of structured fundamental and theoretical education will decrease and the importance of applied aspects will grow. The importance of a capacity for self-learning will grow as well as, so that a graduate can independently learn in a changing environment and this capacity will determine the employability of a graduate. When we talk about applied aspects in economic education, for us it is, first of all, not a set of applied knowledge, but the ability to work with information, data, knowledge, and statistics. It should be understood that a university graduate in the field of economics and management will face specific situations at a workplace. The

130

I. N. Dubina et al.

key skill of a professional in the field of economics and management is an ability to distinguish signals of an internal and external environment, to analyze them, to identify and predict significant trends and influence factors, and to build adequate strategies. We do want not say that a degree in economics should be given a person who defended a thesis with a forecast economic model after it becomes clear whether the forecast has come true or not. The quality of forecasting in economics is a very controversial and difficult task. But for Russian economic and management education, there is a really big gap in the field of statistical analysis, econometrics, forecasting, and so on, partly because of the gap between economic education and research. The proper level of knowledge and skills of applying quantitative tools, econometric, and statistical methods is available only in the few best universities in Russia, which, as a rule, are related to research. Therefore, the quality of professional economic education will depend on how much universities will be able to integrate methods of forecasting, optimization, and experimental economics into the educational programs. These subjects just allow an economist to assess the realism of the proposed measures and strategies. While a physicist constructs a physical model of an explored phenomenon, an economist sets an experiment, simulates “economic games” (business and management simulation games), as his strategic decisions and models collide with the expectations and interests of other people (Dubina and Carayannis 2015). Another serious gap is between economic theory and real economic practice because of a barrier in communication of university professors and real economic life practitioners. Such a barrier is particularly caused by a weak connection between the contents of economic disciplines and needs and requirements of real economic practice. As a particular case, such gaps and barriers have been pronouncedly demonstrated during the “Lab to Industry” business and management simulation game we organized and conducted at Bauman Moscow State Technological University and Skolkovo Management School with representative groups of universities, government, industries, and inventors in May 2015. All of this again leads us to a question about the differentiation of universities and the quality of training there. This differentiation will apparently intensify: the best universities will get even better, and the worse ones will be even worse. This trend is not only a Russian phenomenon; this is happening everywhere (Altbach et al. 2009). For higher economic education in Russia, this will mean that fundamental knowledge, a high level of education, and a research component will remain the lot of just a few leading universities. However, the prospects are not cloudless for them as well. The desire to be the best does not leave them another way as to develop research, and not specific national and regional Russian research, but world-class research integrated in the world academic community. This means the ability to speak the same language, literally and figuratively. Literally, it means that the importance English language proficiency as a necessary professional competence will grow under the conditions of the domination of English as an international language of research and education in all fields, including economics and management. And this means that the desire to be a player at global educational markets will expand the offer of English language educational programs.

8  The Trends and Prospectives of Professional Economic Education in Russia

131

Speaking the same language in a figurative sense, that is, understanding each other, is important not only for professors and researchers. This has a very important effect for societies and the whole world. Regardless of the diversity of economic systems, the fundamental principles of economics must be shared by all members of a community. With the growing interdependence of different parts of the global world, a common understanding of the fundamental principles of economic relations allows us to find common solutions to related problems. And, finally, what about those universities which are not getting better? This is an important question, in particular, for the field of economic education in Russia, especially in the context of many assurances of government officials about the overproduction of economists in Russia. Nevertheless, we believe those universities have an important mission. A big number of their graduates, economics, and economy may not become a profession. But economic knowledge is necessary for making decisions in a society; it is important for a conscious civic position. Here we must recall the important mission of universities in the era of mass higher education, namely, universities produce cultural values and thus form a culture, including a culture of decision-making. So understanding of efficiency, benefits, needs, resources, etc. may serve a good basics for making any decisions in a person’s life. It is clear that some of inefficient universities can leave the market, but on the whole, we believe that it is not worth worrying about the overproduction of economists.

8.8  Conclusion The continuous reforms of the Russian education system reflect a general attempt of Russian Government policymakers to solve numerous and multifold internal and external problems and challenges on a basis of the trial-and-error approach, trying out this policy or that, hoping to discover one that will be the best (Dubina and Carayannis 2015). Very often only a short period has elapsed between the introduction of one policy document and the introduction of another, as that indicates just how quickly education policy and strategic vectors change in Russia (Limanova et al. 2016). The conceptual and principal strategic documents have been revised or somewhat changed every 3–4 years on average, that is, too short a period for a long-­ term education policy. Definitely, a trial-and-error strategy is not the best way to make decisions, especially policy decisions. When policymakers establish well-developed policy guidelines, they should change education policies only seldom, to secure the stability of an education environment. Education development requires a long-term view, so an education policy should be stable and consistent over a long period. University students, professors, and administrators want and should have a clear vision and a detailed road map of the future of education. An education policy should be more certain and less ambiguous, since the “trial and error” failures and errors cost very much. The policymaker should be guided, at least as a worst-case scenario, by the principle “if you are lost and do not know where to go, you should go straight ahead

132

I. N. Dubina et al.

and never alter your direction.” The policymaker should not be like the Tsar in the Russian fable who commanded, “Go there  — I do not know where  — and find that — I do not know what” (Dubina and Carayannis 2015). In a turbulent environment and when confronted with different challenges, a policymaker has “a temptation” to change or “improve” the policy, hoping to design better conditions and incentives for the key stakeholders of the education system. But although such a temptation appears to be quite reasonable per se, it is often not good for education, as it introduces higher levels of unpredictability and discontinuity. If the “rules of the game” are changed often and abruptly, risk and uncertainty are introduced that discourage the education system. Highly volatile and ambiguous policies disrupt education. The solution of the problems of economic education discussed in this chapter, especially at the school level, is a complex task that should integrate the existing reserve and achievements in this area with potentials of all interested stakeholders (Federal and regional authorities, leading universities, institutions of Russian Academy of Sciences, foreign partners, etc.) in order to improve the concept of professional economic education, including the goals, objectives and outcomes of economic education at different levels, a status and the contents of the subject of economics in schools and universities, requirements for school teachers of economics, and measures for their training. All of these issues should be merged into a unified project with an estimate of the time and expenses for its implementation. The trends of the evolution of economic education in Russia discussed in this chapter can be extrapolated both to many post-Soviet countries (the territory of most former Soviet republics) and to other countries with developing economies. In addition, similar trends have already manifested themselves to some extent in developed countries. Based on those trends, we can designate our assumptions about the future interaction and interrelations of education and labor in the general context of this book. Trend 1. The amplification of turbulence at labor market that will lead to diversification and multidisciplinarity of education, which will consequently lead to increased demand for several different specialties. Trend 2. The need for effective decision-making in a turbulent environment will ensure a sufficiently high demand for a high-standard economic and management education with elements of creative decision-making. Trend 3. The technologization and creativization of labor will increase the demand for educational specialties with high level of training in the field of high tech. Trend 4. In combination of trends 1, 2 and 3, one should expect an increase in demand for specialties that integrate high technologies with abilities to make ­effective decisions under the conditions of the new (creative, knowledge, innovation) economy. Therefore, in the coming years, we should expect a massive increase of the demand not just for technological education, but rather for integrative education that ensures the both technical knowledge and economic and management skills.

8  The Trends and Prospectives of Professional Economic Education in Russia

133

References Altbach PG, Reisberg L, Rumbley LE (2009) Trends in global higher education: tracking an academic revolution. A report for the UNESCO 2009 World Conference on Higher Education. UNESCO Carayannis E, Dubina I (2014) Thinking beyond the box: game-theoretic and living lab approaches to innovation policy and practice improvement. J Knowl Econ 3(5):427 Dubina I, Carayannis E (2015) Potentials of game theory for analysis and improvement of innovation policy and practice in a dynamic socio-economic environment. J  Innov Econ Manag 3(8):165–183 Efimov VN (2011) USE and the objectives of educational system. Experiment and Innovations at Secondary School, #1-2011, pp 53–55. (in Russian) Gromov AD, Platonova DP, Semyonov DS, Pyrova TL (2016) The availability of higher education in the Russian regions. Higher School of Economics, Moscow. (in Russian) Kharchenko I, Chinakova N, Ermakova I (2001) On the state of school economic education in the Novosibirsk region. Part I. Economics: Issues of economic education in the school, Vol. 4. (in Russian) Knyazev EA, Drantusova NV (2012) Differentiation in higher education: the main concepts and approaches to study. In: Strategic university management. Higher School of Economics, Moscow. (in Russian) Limanova EG, Mkrtchian GM, Kolmykova NV (2016) Economic education in Russia and in Novosibirsk region. The Conference Proceedings on Mathematical modeling for rational use of nature, SKNC HS Publishing House, Rostov-on-Done. (in Russian) Malykhin M (2015) Ministry for education and Science: a half of graduates who failed to get a job are economists and lawers. Vedomosti, 23 June 2015. (in Russian) Mikheeva SA (2010) Forming school economic education in Russia. Voprosy obrazovaniya 2. (in Russian) NIMRO (2016) On situation with economic education in secondary school of Novosibirsk region (based on interviews of school teachers). Novosibirsk Institute for Monitoring and Development of Education (NIMRO). (in Russian)

Chapter 9

From Universal “Higher Education for All” to Differentiated “Skills for All”: The Shifting Rationale of the OECD Regarding Education and Labour Laura C. Sturzeis Abstract This chapter argues that the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) performed an about-face regarding its higher education goals and related policy approach. Whereas a ‘higher education for all’ rationale dominated the OECD policies until the beginnings of the twenty-first century, recent initiatives and publications point into the direction of a ‘skills for all’ approach. This shift can be regarded as an acknowledgement of the diversity of the education systems of the OECD member states, with skills equally stemming from vocational education and training and general (higher) education becoming the focus of policy formulation. In this chapter, the two different approaches towards education and skills formation of the USA and of the ‘Germanophone’ countries Germany and Austria will serve as examples of diverging influences on international policy making in the field of education through its most visible actor, the OECD. Keywords  Skills · Higher education · Education regimes · Varieties of capitalism · Education policy · OECD · OECD education policy · Global education policy

9.1  Introduction In recent years, the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) performed an about-face regarding its higher education goals and related policy approach. Whereas a ‘higher education for all’ rationale dominated the OECD policies until the beginnings of the twenty-first century, recent initiatives L. C. Sturzeis (*) Institute of Science Communication and Higher Education Research, Alpen-Adria-University Klagenfurt, Vienna, Austria Institute of Sociology and Social Research, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna, Austria e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 G. Bast et al. (eds.), The Future of Education and Labor, Arts, Research, Innovation and Society, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26068-2_9

135

136

L. C. Sturzeis

and publications point into the direction of a ‘skills for all’ approach. The ‘higher education for all’ rationale developed in two different cycles. Whereas the first cycle was dominated by a strong belief that widening participation and overall inclusion into higher education will lead to economic prosperity, the second cycle focused primarily on individual returns on investment originating from higher education. This paved the way to a new rationale of a ‘skills for all’ approach, which is advocated strongly by the OECD and also the EC since the 2000s. The current dominant rationale encompasses a strong nexus between education and labour, and its focus lies clearly on the individual as a subject of activating reforms. Furthermore, this shift towards a ‘skills for all’ approach can be regarded as an acknowledgement of the diversity of the education systems of the OECD member states, with skills equally stemming from vocational education and training and general (higher) education becoming the focus of policy formulation. In Sect. 9.2, the OECD’s educational mission and its historical roots in the 1960s will be laid out, followed by an analysis of the reconfiguration of its educational leitmotif during the 1970s in Sect. 9.3. The different approaches of the USA and the Germanophone countries Germany and Austria towards education and labour will be laid out in Sect. 9.4 in order to argue in the following Sect. 9.5 that a ‘skills for all approach’ has been adopted on a supranational and an international level and taking shape since the 2000s. The contribution ends with pointing out future prospects of a ‘skills for all’ approach for education and labour in Sect. 9.6.

9.2  T  he Formative Phase of the OECD’s Educational Mission The OECD was founded in 1960 as a successor organisation of the Organisation for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC), encompassing all Marshall Plan beneficiaries. The primary goal of the OECD was the close cooperation of its member states1 in order to achieve economic growth and foster economic development. Although education was not a main aim,2 it has been part of OECD’s work from the beginning. In fact, the first important OECD conference was held on the topic of ‘Economic Growth and Investment in Education’ in Washington in 1961. The link between the economy and education should be characteristic for the organisation’s work through the 1960s. Furthermore, the first OECD publications on education were driven by the belief in a causal mechanism between  The founding member states were Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the UK and the USA. During the 1960s two more states joined the OECD: Japan in 1964 and Finland in 1969. 2  The founding articles did not mention ‘education’ specifically, but the member states agreed on promoting the development of their resources in the scientific and technological field, encouraging research and promoting vocational training. (OECD, 1960, Article 2b). 1

9  From Universal “Higher Education for All” to Differentiated “Skills for All”…

137

the expansion of education and economic prosperity. In simpler words, more investment in education would lead to higher economic growth.3 Differences in the structures of educational and economic systems of member countries were ascribed to different stages of progress on the way to the prospering economy as a result of universal participation in higher education (OECD 1961a, b, 1964, 1965, 1966).4 The 1960s marked the birth of the first wave of human capital theories characterized by a strong macroeconomic view on education and (scientific) training and were mainly developed in a US context and inspired the beginning of OECD work on education.5 Due to the subordination of education to mainly economic purposes, these approaches were soon criticized by some sociologists, who developed a ‘social demand’ approach in order to highlight the emancipatory and civic function of education in modern societies contrary to its perceived economic reduction of education stipulated by the human capital approach. The conflicting functions of education were not only reflected outside the OECD but also within the work of the organisation itself.6 Besides theoretical and method As Pedro Teixeira has put it in his ‘Portrait of the Economics of Education’: ‘[D]uring the sixties, a large amount of work was produced aiming at the classification and quantification of the economic benefits and costs of education. This literature usually reflected the conviction that expenditures on education had an important effect on the economic performance of individuals and of society. Therefore, governments were called upon to reinforce their financial effort in education’ (Teixeira. 2001. A Portrait of the Economics of Education, 1960–1997). 4  According to Schmelzer (p. 202), the ‘human capital revolution’, as it was later termed, ‘was a major theoretical and policy shift in conceptualizing economic growth and the relation between people, the economy and capital. Developed by economists, in particular at the University of Chicago, it was diffused through think tanks and international organisations – most importantly the OECD – and became highly influential since the early 1960s both in academia and as a policy framework’ (Schmelzer, M. 2016. The Hegemony of Growth. The OECD and the Making of the Economic Growth Paradigm). 5  In his selected bibliography of ‘Economics of Education’ Blaug writes that ‘the fashion [hereby he means the young discipline of Economics of Education, LS] has crossed the Atlantic and spread throughout Europe (…). Paris has now become the veritable capital of the world of educational planning, with UNESCO, OECD, and the new International Institute of Economic Planning pouring forth a ceaseless flow of literature (…)’ (Blaug, M. 1966. Economics of Education: A Selected Annotated Bibliography. p. viii). 6  Especially influential social scientists were responsible for the balance between economic and social aspects of education in the work of the OECD during the 1960s and 1970s. The British sociologist A.H. Halsey was rapporteur of the conference proceedings and the following OECD publication on Ability and Educational Opportunity in 1961, where he focused on the twofold goal of education as a driver of economic growth and at the same time as a civil right in a modern society. Torsten Husén, a Swedish educationalist, was strongly involved in OECD’s work on education and published two influential books on the utility of educational research (Educational Research and Educational Change: The case of Sweden. 1967. with Gunnar Boalt; Educational Research and Policy: How do they relate? 1984. with Maurice Kogan). On the second book, he cooperated with Maurice Kogan, another famous British scholar, who engaged extensively on matters of education and public policy (see for example: The Politics of Education: Edward Boyle and Anthony Crosland in conversation with Maurice Kogan. 1971). For more information on the renowned scholars’ work for the OECD in the field of education see Istance 1996; Papadopoulos 1994; Eide 1990. 3

138

L. C. Sturzeis

ological differences, to economists, educationalists, sociologists and also politicians alike, it was almost undisputed, that there was a central link between reforms in education systems and economic growth. Major reforms were undertaken in the OECD member countries paving the way for the massification of secondary and tertiary education. The political climate of the 1960s, with unprecedented economic growth rates in Western industrial nations and a strong belief in Keynesian politics, which propagated a strong and active role of the state, led to high public expenditures, not only but also in education. According to Schmelzer (2016), the cooperative work style of the OECD played a vital role in securing a wide impact of the organisation’s educational mission: ‘[T]he transnational collaboration of eminent economists in this new field [economics of education] with key policy-makers of OECD countries was influential in making educational policies geared toward economic expansion a policy goal throughout the OECD world’ (ibd., p. 207). In the USA, the massification of higher education took off earlier than in Europe due to the GI bills,7 which granted financial support to WWII veterans in order to pursue higher education. In 1950, approx. 15% of the relevant age cohort were enrolled at higher education institutions. That number increased to 35% in 1970 (National Center for Education Statistics 1993:65–66). In Germany, the number of secondary school leavers possessing the entrance qualifications for higher education (“Abitur”) increased from 5.6% in 1960 to 20.2% in 1975 (Kehm 1999:41). In Austria, the reform paralleled the German way and resulted in an increase of secondary school leavers with university entrance examination (“Matura”) from 8% in 1960 to 17% in 1971 (Pechar 2006:274).8 But then the student revolts in 1968 brought the first experience of crisis, which in retrospect can be interpreted as a consequence of the frictious relationship between education and labour, unfolding due to widening access to higher education. On the one hand, the primary rationale of an education in a Humboldtian and liberal sense lies in its emancipatory potential, which enables the individual to reflect his or her position in and towards the world and others. On the other hand, the focus of the policies was directed towards closing the gap between the low education of the existing labour force and the higher demand for scientific and managerial personnel in the long term. The educational expansion was driven by the strong conviction that education had an emancipatory potential and was at the same time a crucial factor for economic prosperity. The realisation  In 1944, the so-called GI Bill was passed under Roosevelt and provided WWII veterans with financial support for university tuition and living expenses. After its introduction, the veterans amounted for 70 % of all students at American colleges and universities (Bound J. and Turner S. 2002. Going to War and Going to College. Journal of Labour Economics. 20:785). Due to its impact, Stanley described it as a ‘domestic Marshall plan’ (Stanley, M. 2003. College Education and the Midcentury GI Bills. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 118:671). A second G.I. Bill was passed in 1952 to benefit the veterans of the Korean War. 8  Whereas in the USA, the access to colleges and universities is dependent on an individual admission process, in the Germanophone countries the successful passing of the final high school exams provides each student with a general university entrance exam (‘Matura’ or ‘Abitur’). 7

9  From Universal “Higher Education for All” to Differentiated “Skills for All”…

139

of both ends had seemed as mutually reinforcing and not, as the reality of those years had showed, a possible zone of conflict between self-fulfillment, equality, and efficiency. Considerable investments in (higher) education were made, new institutions were founded and barriers to the entrance into upper secondary and higher education were eliminated. So, not few were caught by surprise by the student protests in 1968. Students all over the world, but most prominently in the USA, France and Germany, started to publicly question the established traditional social and economic order by means given to them through education. At the same time, the labour market was clearly rooted in the capitalist system, criticized by the students, and it did not change in the same way as it would have been needed in quantitative (number of graduates) and qualitative (autonomous work) terms. The work of the OECD and its member countries shifted gradually from expanding education systems to coping with the problems arising from expansion (OECD 1971) and from quantitative to qualitative issues (Papadopoulos 1994:81). This shift can also be attributed to the disillusionment accompanying the still existing social inequalities in education systems despite the huge efforts undertaken in the course of the 1960s. The human capital theory, which had held so many promises, came under fierce criticism, because it had not been able to consistently proof the link(s) between education, productivity and economic growth. More ‘pessimistic’ theories gained momentum, which disclosed the still existing inequalities in education systems. Teixeira (2001) summarizes the situation of the 1970s as follows: ‘These criticisms of human capital theory were perhaps given additional credibility by the economic context of the late seventies. The sluggish growth rates of the mid-­ seventies throughout the Western world called into question the inevitability of economic growth and the efficacy of education as a way of promoting that growth’ (ibd., p. 266).

9.3  T  he Reconfiguration of the OECD’s Educational Leitmotif Until 1975, there was a strong focus of educational policy recommendations on reduction of social inequalities in the field of education, much in line with the Keynesian approach of the 1950s and 1960s. OECD recommendations typically entailed the proposition of an ideal model, which followed a ‘higher education for all’ rationale. In the 1960s, this took the form of national education plans, established and realized at the level of the member states, supported by the expertise of the OECD.9 By introducing a new form of policy exchange, mainly through consultation, cooperation and evidence-based criticism, the OECD managed to gain repu The first member state, which conducted a pilot study, was Ireland (1965), followed by Sweden (1967) and Austria (1968) (Papadopoulos 1994. Education 1960–1990: The OECD perspective. p. 56). 9

140

L. C. Sturzeis

tation as an important actor in economic affairs that were closely related to education.10 With the implementation of the Center for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI) in 1971,11 the limited focus of the OECD on technical and scientific personnel shifted to general education as a broad new governing narrative (Papadopoulos 1994:79). The strong involvement of the Nordic European member countries was visible in the comprehensive approach towards education, which the OECD embraced in the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s (Eide 1990:4–6).12 The few opponents of comprehensive education systems were mainly the ones with a strong tradition of vocational education and training systems, clearly separate from general education at schools (mainly Austria and Germany). Primary and secondary education were strongly linked to the nation state and thus lay within the authority of national education bureaucracies. Here, reforms focusing on secondary education were made in the era of massification in order to pave the way for the expansion of education systems first and deal with its consequences later. The sector of higher education was more autonomous and from the point of view of the nation state often perceived as reform resistant. Therefore, it was often in the states’ interest to cooperate more closely with OECD in order to build up pressure for reforms. The economic crisis of the mid-1970s, following the first oil shock of 1973, did not spare the education sectors in the OECD member countries. The cuts on public expenditures especially hit the higher education sector, which in addition was confronted with employment cuts by the public sector, traditionally the main employer of university graduates (Papadopoulos 1994; OECD 1983a). The economic crisis was one of the main underlying factors for the neoliberal turn that was about to gain momentum in most of the member countries in the course of which education lost its priority status on the policy agenda (Eide 1990:38–40).  The approach is laid out in various documents and publications by the OECD, i.e. The OECD at work (1964). In this publication, the OECD addresses the link of education, science and economic growth accordingly: ‘Investment in science and education (…) is investment in growth. (…) An active program on international cooperation has been launched in OECD (…). More specifically, this program (…) is conceived as a live experiment aimed at studying the links between science, education and the economy and at developing new and rational approaches to science and education policy in order to meet the requirements of a modern economy’ (101f.; Papadopoulos, see above, p. 68–73). 11  The Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI) was created through a one million Dollar grant of the Ford Foundation in 1968 and initially set up as a 2-year educational think-tank project. After that time, Royal Dutch Shell financed CERI with another grant in the same amount and in 1971 the CERI think tank became an autonomous OECD body located in Paris (OECD/ CERI: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. The First Ten Years 1968–1978. Paris 1978). 12  During the 1960s and the first half of the 1970s, the Nordic countries played a vital role in the work done on education within the OECD.  Based on an agreement on Nordic collaboration in international organisations, relevant issues were discussed and coordinated beforehand, which led to ‘a relatively homogeneous Nordic model of educational policy’. In the 1980s, the Nordic countries acted more defensively, due to a changed political climate within the OECD. The influence of the Nordic model declined further, when Denmark left the common political grounds towards more neo-liberal policies in the 1980s (Kjell 1990. 30 Years of Educational Collaboration in the OECD. p. 40–41;50). 10

9  From Universal “Higher Education for All” to Differentiated “Skills for All”…

141

At the end of the 1970s, the Keynesian imperative13 had been gradually abandoned, followed by neoliberally inspired reforms focusing on supply-side demand and individual capital formation. The proclaimed “Crisis of the Welfare State” (OECD 1980)14 is the starting point for viewing welfare as an obstacle to growth, a view becoming more and more dominant the following decades (Deacon and Kaasch 2008:229). Together with the neoliberal turn, also the human capital approach returned to the ‘policy table’. But this time the focus was not on social inequality as in the 1960s and 1970s, but on human capital understood as an individualized form of capital, which means humans need to accumulate in order to succeed in a fierce global competition (OECD 1998).15 The second wave of human capital theories16 can be seen in clear contrast to the first wave of human capital thinking, which was – at least within the OECD work – backed by Keynesian ideology and in general a wider approach towards the role of education in modern societies. After a phase of consolidation in the 1970s, reformulated human capital theories emerged, which placed educational quality and related efficiency considerations on the top of their research agenda. This time, the focus was not on public expenditures on education and its link to economic growth, but on the providers and consumers of education as a ‘good’. The market approach to education gained even more attention in the 1990s (Teixeira 2001:268–270). The fading 1970s and the 1980s were characterized by significant changes in the political landscape which had consequences  – not only, but also  – for education policy. The USA under Ronald Reagan and Great Britain under Margret Thatcher were on the forefront of reducing the role of the state, mainly through decentralization and cuts to public funding. The 1980s were characterized by the formation of the ‘accountability’ movement and new approaches towards measuring quality. After initial refusal, the OECD gave in to growing pressure from the USA, which were the main advocates of ‘educational benchmarking’ (Rubenson 2008:246; see also: Papadopoulos 1994:221; and Eide 1990:47). Policy relevance became a top priority of the OECD work and went hand in hand with a decline of ‘holistic’ social criticism, which characterized the work done for the OECD by famous social scientists in the 1960s and 1970s (see footnote 2). Instead, a closer connection between  The term ‘Keynesian imperative’ is used for the pursuit of Keynesian growth politics with a focus on public spending/investments and full employment in all developed nations during the post-war economic expansion almost without alternative. 14  ‘The crisis of the welfare state’ is the title of an influential OECD publication, in which the organisation performed the shift from viewing social expenditures as growth-compatible to regarding them as an ‘obstacle to growth’ (Schmelzer, see above. p. 324–5). 15  In his account of 40 years of OECD CERI, Jarl Bengtsson, former head of CERI, summarizes that ‘[b]eyond the education system, CERI’s work extended to re-exploration of the nature of human capital in a knowledge economy in the late 1990s and its appropriate measurement’ (OECD’s Centre for Educational Research and Innovation – 1968–2008, p. 3). 16  For example, Blaug, M. 1976. The empirical status of human capital theory. Journal of Economic Literature (JEL) 14(3): 827–55; Hanousek, E. 1986. The Economics of Schooling: Production and Efficiency in Public Schools. JEL 49(3):1141–77; Psacharopoulos, G. 1987. Economics of Education: Research and Studies. Oxford: Pergamon. 13

142

L. C. Sturzeis

education, economy, and society was fostered by a new ‘OECD approach’, putting a strong emphasis on mutual learning (Istance 1996:94). In order to do so, efforts in developing internationally comparable indicators were intensified. In 1992, the first education indicators, focusing on formal education in schools, were published (OECD 1992). With the takeoff of globalisation, spurred by the information and telecommunications revolution, indicators have become more important and ­international comparisons, such as the OECD’s Program for International Student Assessment (PISA),17 particularly influential, leading to the formation of ‘a global education policy field through the creation of the globe as a commensurate space of measurement and a global community of policy makers who share similar values and dispositions’ (Lingard 2016:23). In accordance with Rizvi and Lingard (2010:3), the observation can be made that ‘[o]ver the past two decades, (…) a new global policy paradigm seems to have emerged. Yet while similarities in policy shifts occurring in a wide variety of nations are clearly evident, it is also the case that these changes are mediated at the national and local levels by particular historical, political and cultural dynamics’. The OECD is on the forefront of establishing this ‘global policy paradigm’ by embracing a ‘liberalizing vocation’, which is characterized by ‘a core belief in the desirability of liberal, market-oriented economic policies (Porter and Webb 2008:50)’. The term ‘liberalizing vocation’ was first coined by the former OECD official, in order to highlight the organisation’s founding mission of ‘helping to make international trade and capital flows freer’ (Henderson 1996, S. 11). Porter and Webb, however, stress the fact that the OECD has not only the mandate of the member countries to develop policies in pre-assign fields but to construct powerful ideas of the ‘ideal modern state’, mainly through peer review, to which the member states confine (Porter and Webb 2008:44ff.). The ‘liberalizing vocation’, which the OECD embraces is reflected in the fact that a neoliberal ideology became dominant in most member countries since the last two decades. Against the background of the rising importance of the OECD as a global policy actor, the persisting path dependencies of education systems and their connection to labour markets remain particularly interesting and deserve a closer look.

9.4  D  iverging National Pathways to Education and Skills Formation Due to its evidence-based working methods, the OECD has long been aware of the fact that the education systems are deeply rooted in a given culture and that educational institutions are closely connected to the state and its bureaucracy and thus not  The first PISA results were released in 2001 and had far-reaching consequences from the beginning. Back then, Germany suffered its ‘PISA-shock’, a term used by German media to describe the public outcry in light of the twenty-second (reading) and twenty-first (mathematics and science) place German pupils reaching in the international assessment.

17

9  From Universal “Higher Education for All” to Differentiated “Skills for All”…

143

likely to change through policy intervention from outside. In a certain way, an outcome of the demystification of modernist theories is the widespread understanding, that the interplay of the transnational with the national arena produces some intentional outcomes, on the one hand, but far more unintentional outcomes, on the other hand. These are characterized by the adoption of internationally inspired reform ideas and their implementation into a given structure, which differs historically, politically and economically from country to country. To illustrate different developments of educational systems within the OECD, two contrasting educational pathways will be laid out in the following section: In a first section, the developments in the USA with their appraisal of general higher education are described briefly. In the second section, more emphasis is given to their Germanophone counterparts Germany and Austria with their characteristic vocational education and training systems (VET), as their systems followed a different approach towards the (de-)coupling of education and labour.

9.4.1  The USA and General Higher Education Not long after the ‘social crisis’ of 1968, the first hard recession after WWII hit the world economy with the oil crisis in 1973. In higher education, the student numbers fell for the first time and paved the way for the crisis of the universities in the 1980s, with falling student numbers and shrinking budgets (OECD 1983a). But not all member states were equally affected by these developments. Especially the USA, the most influential member state of the OECD,18 and leading world economy were hit hard by the global recession in the aftermath of the oil crisis. There, the times of ‘endless growth’ had stopped – also for universities. Prospective students increasingly turned to short-cycle programmes in the field of professional and vocational education, promising better labour market chances than a more expensive and longer-­lasting general university education.19 But instead of adopting a vocational education and training (VET) system as an alternative to higher education and thus parallel to the Continental European model or strengthening the already existing forms of VET in (typically large) manufacturing firms, the run to  The influence of the USA on OECD activities originates from the financial contributions which reflect the member countries size and thus leaving the USA with the highest share. But, as an expert organisation, also the origins and loci of socialisation of the OECD experts contribute to a US dominance of the OECD (for more detailed information: Dostal, J. 2004: Campaigning on expertise. Journal of European Public Policy 11(3):440–60). In education, however, there was a strong Nordic influence on OECD activities until the 1980s, putting a strong emphasis on the public provision of comprehensive education coupled with extensive redistributive policies (Kjell, see above. p. 5–6). 19  As Papadopoulos laid out (p. 163–189), these developments took place against the background of economic recession in combination with demographic changes of the post-babyboomer generation in almost all OECD member countries, with some countries experiencing the changes earlier others with a time lag (Papadopoulos, see above). 18

144

L. C. Sturzeis

the ‘save haven’ of vocational training in the USA was absorbed by the junior colleges, later renamed community colleges. As a consequence, this sector experienced a massive expansion. These newly founded institutions were specialized in short-term programmes with a specific labour market orientation and close roots to their regions. In the 1960s, a national network of community colleges was established encompassing 457 public community colleges. Today the network includes 1,166 colleges (AACC 2017).20 The rising status of a higher education, typically attained at liberal arts colleges and public or private universities, was accompanied by a steady decline of the status of VET and generally ‘vocationalism’ both, inside and outside of the higher education system.21 Streeck (2012) argues that the skilled labour force, primarily associated with the automotive industry, was considered immobile and due to its high specialization unfit for the mobile labour market needed in the uprising service-­ driven knowledge society. In the USA, skilled labour was associated with membership at traditional craft unions, which trained their members in apprenticeships lasting up to 7 years, whereas unskilled labour was organized in industrial unions across industries. Skills were defined on an institutional basis, with powerful unions, especially craft unions, watching over their de-facto monopolies. ‘[T]he Anglo-­ American pattern of skills and their distribution and production, with its reflection in divided trade unionism, horizontally and vertically segmented labour markets, and a rigid system of job demarcation and entitlement at the workplace, came increasingly to be seen as a source of competitive disadvantage in a changing world economy’ (ibd., p. 321). Hence, there was a positive attitude of company management and owners towards substitution of labour through technology. Indeed, the substitution of manual skilled and unskilled labour by technology was proof for many, that VET was not fit to meet the educational needs of a future-­ oriented labour market. As a consequence, vocationalism was perceived as outdated, and too narrow and general skills were redefined as flexible and academic, which were typically acquired through higher education. The de-skilling of the US industry was thus accompanied by developments of up-skilling through higher education, in which education and labour were only loosely connected. Consequently, a ‘higher education for all’ approach gained the upper hand in shaping the US education systems and successively, roused the aspirations of many US students to pursue a general university education. For those, who could not afford a 4-year college education, community colleges became the only alternative. There, the cooperation between  Burton Clark used the term of ‘the cooling-out function’ in order to describe the role of the Community College sector for the overall US higher education system. By that, he referred to informal practices within the Community Colleges in order to redirect the high educational aspirations of (typically first generation) students to lower goals within their reach (Clark, B. 1960. The ‘Cooling-Out’ Function in Higher Education. American Journal of Sociology 65(6):569–576). Steven Brint and Jerome Karabel were developing a similar argument in their book Diverted Dream (Karabel, J. and Brint, S.G. 1989. The Diverted Dream. Community Colleges and the Promise of Educational Opportunity in America, 1900–1985. OUP: Oxford). 21  As Streeck points out, the decline of VET in the USA was part of a broader decline in relevance and status of trade unions (more detailed: Thelen, K. 2004. How institutions evolve). 20

9  From Universal “Higher Education for All” to Differentiated “Skills for All”…

145

community colleges and firms on a regional level resulted in the development of apprenticeship-like programmes, but with the students having to pay the costs. The preference of general skills, originally associated with the absence of any specific skills and thus equal to low skills, was not only the result of an ongoing structural change from an industrial to a post-industrial or service economy but also the ­outcome of shifting power relations and new ideologies about the workforce needed in a knowledge-based economy and knowledge society.

9.4.2  Collective Skills Formation in Germany and Austria In Germany and Austria, the developments differed strongly from those in the USA due to a long-lasting and persistent educational schism  – a term introduced by Baethge (2006) to refer to the long history of the separation between the VET and the academic track in the German school system, which also applies to the other German speaking countries Austria and (parts of) Switzerland.22 The educational schism extends to the labour market, as the different educational pathways led to different skills profiles and thus were catering to different segments of the labour market. The dualist structure of the German education system consists of a vocational track having close ties to the economy on the one hand and a general track with close ties to public administration on the other hand.23 In Germany, the model of the ‘duale Ausbildung’, the combination of school-based vocational education and company-based professional training, took off pressure from public education and is itself deeply woven into the labour market, which finds its expression in the term ‘collective skill formation systems’ (Thelen 2004; Busemeyer and Trampusch 2012). In this perspective, ‘the development and availability of skills is not a matter of unconstrained, rational choices but is strongly conditioned by and reflected in the institutional context of political economies, both historically and in the contemporary period’ (Busemeyer and Trampusch 2011:3). Differences in education and training systems can, therefore, be attributed to diverging national trajectories, tracing back to different historical origins. In Germany, the self-governance of handicraft associations was the basis for the evolution of the self-regulated system of VET administered jointly by employer associations and trade unions without much intervention from the state (Thelen 2004:39ff.). To tackle youth unemployment in the 1970s and 1980s, the number of training slots was continuously raised from 22  In this chapter, the focus will be on Germany and Austria as representatives of a model of coordinated skills formation. The situation in Switzerland has many similarities, especially in the German-speaking Cantons, but is not included in this analysis in more detail due to limited space. 23  During the nineteenth century, the law faculties of German universities gained importance in educating civil servants for the modern (nation) states (see, i.e. Fritz K. Ringer. 1969. The decline of the German mandarins. Ben-David. 1979. Centers of Learning; Stichweh, R. 1991. Der frühmoderne Staat und die europäische Universität).

146

L. C. Sturzeis

81,734 (1975) to 132,560 (1985) (Baethge and Martin 1999:491 cit. in ibd., p. 266). Contrary to the USA, in Germany and Austria, there were enough skilled jobs for graduates of secondary vocational education and training programmes, attractive enough to provide an alternative to higher education. In Austria, the main difference with regard to the German VET system lays in the strong component of formal vocationally oriented schooling vis-à-vis the German focus on plant-based training.24 The colleges for training as specialized institutions for secondary vocational schooling were created in 1960, but their roots go back to the formative phase of the collective skills formation system in former centuries (Graf 2013:136ff.). The school-based VET in higher colleges lies within the realms of the state, namely, the ministry of education, with involvement through close cooperation with the social partners. In contrast to Germany, these ‘hybrid institutions’ bridge the gap between VET and higher education and thus contribute to reduce educational inequality as VET institutions are mainly attended by lower socio-economic groups (Powell and Solga 2010). In Germany and Austria alike, the tight coupling between education and training systems, labour market and social security systems functioned as a prevention mechanism for a great run on the universities because it absorbed the majority of young people and directed them on alternative career paths as was the case in the more loosely coupled systems of the US (Flora and Heidenheimer 1981:275). In Germany and Austria, the student numbers started to rise during the 1960s, but at a significantly slower pace than in almost all OECD countries. With a time lag of about 20 years compared to the USA, and 10 years to the Scandinavian countries, the student numbers started to rise significantly during the 1970s.25 The social selectivity of the German and Austrian systems was well-known, but put explicitly into question for the first time by the social democrats. Especially in Austria, under the government of the social democrat Bruno Kreisky, major reform efforts were undertaken to open the universities for the masses. Germany and Austria were not equally affected by the economic crisis of the 1970s as the USA. But also in continental Europe, the focus of politics had shifted from long-term educational issues to shorter-termed labour market concerns. The new labour market focus led to raising  The high attendance rates of the upper secondary VET colleges in the field of engineering, business administration, management and service industries, tourism and fashion and design, with 27% of all students in upper secondary education in 2012 (OECD 2013. A Skills beyond School Review of Austria), proves their popularity (Graf, Lassnigg and Powell, Justin J. W. 2012. Austrian Corporatism and Institutional Change in the Relationship between Apprenticeship Training and School-Based VET, p. 150–78, in: Busemeyer and Trampusch: The political economy of collective skill formation; Graf 2015. The rise of work-based academic education in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. Journal of Vocational Education and Training 68(1):1–16. Doi:10.1080/13636820.2 015.1107749). 25  In Austria, the student numbers at universities more than doubled in absolute numbers from about 50.000 students in 1969/70 to 109.000  in 1979/80 (Statistik Austria, Hochschulstatistik [Higher Education Statistics], 9.8.2016). In Germany, the student numbers also more than doubled in absolute numbers from about 422.000 in 1970 to about 1.036.000 in 1980 (Franzmann, Gabriele. 2006, Bildung in Deutschland [education in Germany], retrieved from histat – historical statistics, table B1.00, www.gesis.org). 24

9  From Universal “Higher Education for All” to Differentiated “Skills for All”…

147

interest of OECD members in the VET sector of the German-speaking countries, as it directly connected labour market and education systems. Furthermore, VET remained the preferred choice among young Germans and Austrians, underlining its high relevance in those countries. The criticism, which addressed the social selectivity of the Germanophone education systems, was replaced by growing interest of other OECD member countries in adopting (elements of) these VET systems in order to reduce their high youth unemployment (OECD 1979). A major OECD conference on Youth Unemployment took place in 1977, which in retrospect initiated the shift towards employability aspects in education (OECD 1978; Papadopoulos 1994:170). Due to continuing youth unemployment in many OECD member states, the focus on vocational education was upheld during the 1980s (Eide 1990:43; OECD 1983b). The success of the German VET model inspired the foundation of CEDEFOP, the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Education in Thessaloniki (Greece), in 1975 with the main idea to spread the model to other countries. Whereas in Europe some countries implemented a VET sector  – mostly within or with very close ties to their education systems as in Austria and not as in the German model closely tied to companies – the concept could not be transferred to the USA successfully. Against the backdrop of an ongoing economic stagnation, the 1980s brought with them rising numbers of VET beginners in Germany, who were turning to more secure career paths in turbulent times, with the sector managing to absorb most of the growing numbers of young school leavers (Thelen and Busemeyer 2013:12f.). In OECD statistics, this was reflected by low rates of students, who obtained an university entrance certificate (Abitur/Matura): 22% in comparison to an OECD average of 42% in 1980. But including the VET sector, almost all young people aging 17 years were pursuing education and training, thus making Germany one of the only countries with nearly ‘full coverage’ in education and training of that age cohort (OECD 1984 cit. in: Teichler 1985:168). But by the end of the millennium, the VET sector started to show clear signs of crisis – with small and medium sized companies reducing their training slots continuously and overall shrinking numbers of apprentices – whereas the higher education sector grew more and more popular. The transition from the industrial to the post-industrial society with the service economy as the new key employment sector and accelerated innovations spurred by the information and communication technology constituted major challenges for coordinated skill formation systems as Germany and Austria up until today. The rising demand for (higher) general skills calls into question the ‘lack of permeability’ between VET and higher education in those two-tiered countries  – with debates increasingly taking place at a European level. In the field of higher education, the 1990s started to bring major changes, which fully unfolded in the course of the 2000s onwards, essentially turning the universities into more autonomous actors with more responsibilities. This was particularly the case in Austria, where the foundations for the autonomy of the universities were laid in 1993 with the passing of the legislative framework of the Universitäts organisations gesetz (UOG). The universities gained full autonomy with the passing of

148

L. C. Sturzeis

the university law (UG) in 2002. Furthermore, the universities of applied sciences were created in 1995 as a second layer in the Austrian higher education system, aiming at widening access to higher education especially in the field of VET. On a European level, the introduction of the two-tiered Bologna study architecture brought a strong shift in higher education institutions towards graduates’ employability. With respect to the Bologna reform, it has been pointed out that the ‘soft’ method of open coordination, which functions as an intergovernmental steering mechanism pushing reform efforts forward in areas without a direct mandate of the European Commission, unleashed unforeseen dynamics through the involvement of actors on the local, national and international level (Maassen and Olsen 2007; Sin et al. 2016; Huisman et al. 2015). The common denominator behind the reforms undertaken from the 1980s onwards was the re-shifting of power between the actors on different levels leading in general to greater decentralization. Higher education institutions, particularly in Austria with the universities as autonomous actors, and companies, especially in Germany in the field of VET, were able to seize more power, whereas the state as a central planning and coordinating actor lost significant rule making and decision-­ making power. On the level of the nation state, this organisational drift was complemented by a shift from direct to indirect forms of policy making. For both levels, the international arena functioned as trigger for their reform plans, mainly through comparison and best practices. As for the OECD, the organisation was sticking to its ‘higher education for all’ rationale, more in line with a model of liberal market economies, as constituted by the USA, than coordinated market economies, for which Germany and Austria serve as good examples. There, education and labour are part of a more encompassing and institutionalized welfare state regime and a coordinated market economy (Fig. 9.1). With the advancement of the service economy and the expansion of knowledge-­ intense labour, also the coordinated countries were experiencing the drift towards greater liberalization and flexibility – particularly in the field of skills formation and education (Thelen 2014). Here, blurring boundaries between specific (vocational) Germanophone Education and skills Formation system

General/ academic education

Labour market

Vocational education and training

US-American Education and skills Formation system

General education Vocational education and training

Labour market

Fig. 9.1  Comparison of the Germanophone and the US-American Education and skills Formation systems

9  From Universal “Higher Education for All” to Differentiated “Skills for All”…

149

skills and general (academic) skills are one challenge, which is tackled, for example, through the academization of vocationalism or the specialization of higher education.26 Rapid technological change and dominance of service sector is posing challenges to all OECD member states but predominantly in the field of skills formation, where the structural changes led to the formation of the social investment paradigm, which will be laid out in the following chapter.

9.5  E  ncompassing Differences: Skills for All in the Twenty-­ First Century The economic crisis of 2008 constituted a major challenge to the ‘liberalizing vocation’ underlying OECD policies. It became obvious that those countries, which did not pursue active labour market policies, experienced higher rates of unemployment. Another issue, explicitly taken up by the OECD (2008a; 2011), was rising inequality around the world, but especially high gaps between the rich and the poor in liberal market economies, as the USA and UK, in contrast to coordinated market economies, which can be found in Continental Europe and Scandinavia. As Deacon and Kaasch (2008) stated, the OECD Directorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs (DELSA) has a stronger orientation towards European labour market realities and thus a less ‘liberalizing vocation’ as other OECD directorates. It comes with little surprise, that DELSA was the directorate in charge for publishing the reports on inequality. McBride and Mahone second that ‘[t]here is some evidence that the issue of US influence may overlap with that of differences between the economic and social policy portfolios of the OECD, with the neoliberal American model having made a strong impact on the former and being less apparent in the latter’ (2008:279). With regard to the recent skills focus adopted by the OECD, one of the main missions of the Directorate of Education and Skills is to ‘strengthen employability, social participation and inclusive growth’,27 encompassing education at all levels, including VET and HE. The PIAAC project,28 aiming at gathering comparable data on the skills levels of the member states’ populations, had initially been a joint effort of DELSA and the education directorate (Rubenson 2008:247). Due to the strong path dependencies of education systems, vocational training systems and labour  The expansion of the dual studies (‘duales Studium’) in Germany, which represents a combination of apprenticeship and university study, can be seen as an example of ‘academization of vocationalism’, whereas the introduction of specialized BA- and MA-studies in the course of the Bologna Reform can count as examples for an ‘specialization of higher education’. 27  A pdf version of a brochure, describing the main tasks and projects of the Directorate for Education and Skills, can be found here: https://www.oecd.org/education/edubrochure-eng.pdf [22.1.2017]. 28  The OECD Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) is a largescale assessment initiated in 2008 and encompassing 24 member countries. 26

150

L. C. Sturzeis

market arrangements, the joint efforts to provide suitable policies in those field undertaken by the OECD point to increasing diversification in policy recommendations with regard to the institutional frameworks of the member states. Regarding the overarching ‘liberalizing vocation’ of the OECD, stemming primarily from the economics department, ongoing change can be expected primarily through ‘contestation’ of dominant liberal economic theory (Porter and Webb 2008:46–47), either from other disciplines, which manage to gain more influence in the relevant OECD directorates, as was the case at DELSA, or from ‘real life’, as experienced in the aftermath of the economic crisis 2008. The central importance the OECD is giving NEET (young people Not in Employment, Education or Training) in their analyses of skills and education, point in the direction of a re-integration of social issues into education and training policies. With the European Commission (EC), another transnational actor has embarked on the train of ‘skills’ and ‘skills formation’. In 2016, the EC released the ‘New Skills Agenda for Europe’29 which Michel Servoz, the director General of the EC’s employment, social affairs and inclusion department, opened with the following remark: ‘It represents a key milestone in the shaping of the European Social Pillar. The skills issue is very much at the cross-roads between social and economic policy, working life and life in society, employment and unemployment, inclusion and poverty (…)’. This statement underlines the notion that in Europe ‘skills’ are rooted at a conjunction between social and economic policy. The nexus between social and economic policy, with a clear focus on human capital formation, has found its most prominent formulation in the social investment paradigm as an alternative to Keynesianism of the 1960s and 1970s and present-day neoliberalism. ‘[H]uman capital investment plays a critical role in minimizing potential trade-offs; promoting educational opportunities from early childhood, through VET and higher education, to lifelong-learning  – together with active labour-market policies – is at the core of the social investment paradigm’ (Busemeyer 2014:259–60). The re-orientation from a passive to an active welfare state has left its marks on OECD states, most visible in the politics of the ‘third way’ in Great Britain under Tony Blair and in Germany under Gerhard Schröder. Also on the level of the European Union, there is a visible shift towards an activating policy agenda (Hemerijck 2017), with skills and human capital formation at its core. The OECD, particularly the education department and DELSA, first mentioned the social investment approach (SIA) in the mid-1990, amid concerns about shrinking social cohesion in eroding welfare states. The series on ‘Babies and Bosses’30 initiated a shift in viewing social investment not only as a barrier to growth but also as a starting point (Jenson 2017) which shows clear parallels to the view on education for economic growth during the 1960s and 1970s within the OECD work. In the aftermath of the crisis of 2008, the strong OECD focus on inequality is also a  http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1223 [22.1.2017].  The series was initiated in the mid-1990s and published from 2002 to 2005 in four volumes and a synthesis report in 2007 (OECD. 2007. Babies and Bosses. Reconciling Work and Family Life. Paris). 29 30

9  From Universal “Higher Education for All” to Differentiated “Skills for All”…

151

central focus of the organisation’s work on education and a more differentiated approach towards the nexus of education and labour. There are clear signs of a shift in the OECD policy in education from a rationale of universal ‘higher education for all’ to a newly adopted ‘skills for all’ approach. This change has been spurred by growing understanding for differing institutional arrangements within the OECD member states, more precisely differences between liberal and coordinated market economies, accompanied by rising importance of the EC as policy actor in economic and social issues, with skills providing a link to both spheres. Furthermore, the economic crisis of 2008 has led to a questioning of neoliberal answers on a global scale. Within the OECD, the search for new answers has highlighted once again the importance of education within the organisation’s work. As it already had been the case during the 1960s, education seems to be a safer bet for creating integrative views on a global scale than economic approaches. According to Lingard, ‘[t]he virtues of education[, that] can be easily argued in terms of improving both social and economic outcomes and, particularly in the context of financial crises and pressures on the European Union, education is a policy area that allows for a greater convergence of views than some others (Lingard 2016:25)’.

9.6  Future Prospects of the ‘Skills Concept’ Bearing the past developments of OECD’s education mission in mind, certain assumptions can be articulated and questions formulated when looking into the future of education and labour: 1. Time Dimension: The era of Europe’s reconstruction was also the formative phase of the OECD. It was characterized by long time horizons for educational planning and education reforms. From the 1980s onwards, the reform cycles became shorter and more dependent on short-termed political considerations in light of economic ‘needs’ of the labour market and economic cycles in general vis-à-vis long-term educational visions. Since the mid-2000s and especially nowadays, where education has re-entered the policy arena as a cross-sectional issue,31 the question arises whether the time span of education and up-/re-skilling reforms have to be prolonged in general and made more flexible for the individual. Shortages in the labour market cannot be tackled by education and training systems shorthandedly. Young people spend more time preparing for the labour market as they have done in the 1960s. Furthermore, continuing education and training activities become more important for keeping up with the requirements of the labour market in complex modern societies. Recognizing the important role of education and training for modern labour markets and societies in general  See, for example, the OECD Better Life Initiative, launched in 2011, which tries to find new ways to measure Well-Being and Progress in and across OECD countries: http://www.oecd.org/ statistics/better-life-initiative.htm. 31

152

L. C. Sturzeis

means thinking about ways of how to integrate these activities into the individual life course adequately. Here, fixed educational accounts in terms of paid leave for up-skilling or re-skilling activities or a basic income for educational and training purposes could be promising answers in the near future. 2. Social Dimension: Rising inequality has dominated the political debate in recent times. When looking at education and training, the renewed focus on young people who are neither employed nor in education and training (NEET) seems to be a first step towards tackling the problem of growing inequality. The question that arises here is if the momentum, the “inequality” movement is experiencing at present times, will continue in the (near) future in order to undertake political reforms aiming at equality. In this respect, the question will be, if governments are willing (in terms of financial resources) and able (in terms of voters’ support) to invest in socially just education and training at different stages of (young) people’s development. Large-scale assessments conducted primarily by the OECD, as most prominently PISA for pupils and PIAAC for adults, serve as starting point for identifying starting points for reforms aiming at achieving greater social justice. But instead of reducing social justice and equity solely ‘into a field of measurement and comparison’ (Lingard et  al. 2014:711), a broader political debate has to initiated about the nature and sources of social inequalities with respect to education and training. Following Lingard et  al. (p. 272), not all aspects of what constitutes social justice and equality in the field of education (and training) are measured or even measurable at all, therefore the ‘agenda is not so much about resuscitating older conceptions of social and educational justice, but about inventing new ones that can help to address shortcomings in current and future metrics, while also demonstrating the need for conceptual arguments about dimensions of inequality for which measurement is not an appropriate tool’. But as this chapter has argued, the ways to tackle these problems are dependent on the historical, political and social background, in which education and training institutions are embedded in a specific nation state. It is clear though that investing in skills in different stages of life – from early childhood to later stages of life – is a far more promising approach than concentrating on getting up the numbers of university enrolments. In light of varied challenges to tackle inequality in the future, most likely will be those, which combine an ‘old school’ or more traditional social protection approach with more modern social investment programmes, as argued by Busemeyer (2014:261). 3 . Thematic Dimension: The emergence of two separate fields for general education on the one hand and vocational education on the other hand has its roots in historical, national and cultural specificities, which  – together with political decisions  – provided the framework for the development to their present-day status. In the context of the knowledge society, general academic education seemed to be the safest bet for succeeding in flexible labour markets. But vocational education and training is finding its way back on the agenda, as either a safety net (Shavit and Muller 2000) or a way of reducing inequality more effectively than ‘higher education for all’ (Busemeyer 2014:261). Different concep-

9  From Universal “Higher Education for All” to Differentiated “Skills for All”…

153

tions of education lay at the core of the dualization of general and vocational education and training. Whereas general education is closely connected to an ideal of autonomy, reflexivity and careful reasoning,32 vocational education has a strong emphasis on usefulness and utility and is bound to a context of application. Our modern world is structured as a market society, in which integration functions through labour markets.33 Therefore, the orientation of the education system towards labour markets seems plausible. An important question is, if there will be still enough spaces left, in which (general) education, freed from any direct labour market concerns, can be exercised. Basic analytical and reflexive competences acquired through general education are the core foundational skills (OECD 2008a, b) on which all other knowledge and skills processes rest upon – irrespective of their general or specific, theoretical or application-­oriented nature. Here, you could draw a parallel on the necessity in academia for the need to be grounded well in one (or more) discipline(s) in order to engage in interdisciplinary  – meaning a discourse within academic but outside one’s core discipline(s) – or transdisciplinary, relating to discourses transgressing academic boundaries and often in cooperation with non-academics, activities. How the balancing of general and specific skills will be approached by political decision-­ makers in shaping educational landscapes, but also by education professionals on different levels in their everyday work, will be a key question and ongoing work to be done in the near future. The education process itself is not self-fulfilling and needs also a goal(s). At the beginning those goals may lie within the boundaries of the education system itself, for example, learning to read, to write, to calculate. But the further one advances, the more those goals lie in areas outside of the education systems, and in general they encompass learning to work, but also learning to sing or to write scientific papers. Whenever educating people for the labour market, it can only relate to the process of learning to work, whereas the working itself takes place outside the education system. But as modern labour markets are changing, also the process of learning to work has to change – and it is changing. The difficult task is to bridge the gap between education and labour without ignoring their autonomous nature and different functions. Education and work can both be equally fulfilling and satisfying activities. But, therefore, enough possibilities have to be created in order to acquire skills demanded by the changing and successively technology-driven labour market – irrelevant if general or specific in nature and if their acquisition is through academic education or company training. At the same time, every person should have enough resources at hand in order to learn those skills, which are relevant for living a modern and thriving life in the twenty-first century.

 This concept of education is rooted in the Humboldtian Ideal of the Enlightenment era, stemming from eighteenth-/ninteenth-century Prussia, but also foundational for the liberal academic curriculum in American (liberal arts) colleges. 33  For the concept of society as a market society, I refer to the work of Günter Dux and his ‘Historico-genetic Theory of Culture’ (2011). 32

154

L. C. Sturzeis

References AACC (2017) Community colleges past to present. http://www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/history/ Pages/pasttopresent.aspx Baethge M (2006) Das deutsche Bildungs-Schisma: Welche Probleme ein vorindustrielles Bildungssystem in einer nachindustriellen Gesellschaft hat, Göttingen Baethge, Martin (1999): Glanz und Elend des deutschen Korporatismus in der Berufsbildung. In: WSI Mitteilungen 52(8):489–497 Busemeyer MR (2014) Skills and inequality: Partisan politics and the political economy of education reforms in western welfare states. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Busemeyer MR, Trampusch C (2011) The comparative political economy of collective skill formation. In: Busemeyer MR, Trampusch C (eds) The political economy of collective skill formation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3–40 Busemeyer MR, Trampusch C (2012) The political economy of collective skill formation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York Deacon B, Kaasch A (2008) The OECD’s social and health policy: neoliberal stalking horse or balancer of social and economic objectives? In: Mahon R, McBride S (eds) The OECD and transnational governance. UBC Press, Vancouver, pp 226–241 Eide K (1990) 30 years of educational cooperation in the OECD. International Congress, Planning and Management of Educational Development. Mexico, 26–30 Flora P, Heidenheimer AJ (1981) The development of welfare states in Europe and America. Transaction Books, New Brunswick, USA Graf L (2013) The hybridization of vocational training and higher education in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland. Budrich UniPress Ltd, Opladen/Berlin/Toronto Hemerijck A (ed) (2017) The uses of social investment. Oxford University Press, Oxford Henderson D (1996) The role of the OECD in liberalising trade and capital flows. World Today 19(1):11–28 Huisman J, Boer H d, Dill DD (2015) The Palgrave international handbook of higher education policy and governance. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills/Basingstoke/Hampshire/New York Istance D (1996) Education at the Chateau de la Muette. Oxford Rev Educ 22(1):91–96 Jenson J (2017) Devoloping and spreading a social investment perspective. In: Hemerijck A (ed) The uses of social investment. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 207–215 Kehm B (1999) Higher education in Germany: developments, problems and perspectives. Institute for Higher Education Research, Wittenberg/Bucharest Kjell E (1990) 30 years of educational collaboration in the OECD, International Conference, Planning and Management of Educational Development. Mexico, 26–30 Lingard B (2016) Globalizing educational accountabilities. Routledge, New York Lingard B, Sellar S, Savage GC (2014) Re-articulating social justice as equity in schooling policy. The effects of testing and data infrastructures. Br J Sociol Educ 35(5):710–730 Maassen PAM, Olsen JP (2007) University dynamics and European integration. Springer, Dordrecht McBride S, Mahon R (2008) Conclusion. In: Mahon R, McBride S (eds) The OECD and transnational governance. UBC Press, Vancouver, pp 276–281 National Center for Education Statistics (1993) 120 years of American education. A statistical portrait. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93442.pdf OECD (1961a) Ability and educational opportunity: Report on the conference organised by the Office for Scientific and Technical Personnel. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris OECD (1961b) Policy Conference on economic growth and investment in education, economic growth and investment in education: Washington 16th – 20th October 1961. Paris OECD (1964) Economic aspects of higher education. OECD, Paris OECD (1965) Econometric models of education: some applications. OECD, Paris

9  From Universal “Higher Education for All” to Differentiated “Skills for All”…

155

OECD (1966) Conference on the Financing of Education for Economic Growth, Financing of education for economic growth: Papers prepared for the Conference organised by the Directorate for Scientific Affairs of OECD held in Paris, 21st - 24th September 1964. OECD, Paris OECD (1971) Educational policies for the 1970s. OECD (1978) Youth unemployment. OECD, Paris OECD (1979) Policies for apprenticeships. OECD, Paris OECD (1980) The welfare state in crisis: an account of the Conference on Social Policies in the 1980s. OECD, Paris OECD (1983a) Policies for higher education in the 1980s. OECD, Paris OECD (1983b) The future of vocational education and training. OECD, Paris OECD (1984) Policies for Post-Compulsory Education and Training. Unpublished Manuscript. OECD (1992) The OECD international education indicators: a framework for analysis. OECD, Paris OECD (1998) Human capital investment: an international comparison. OECD, Paris OECD (2008a) Growing unequal? OECD Publishing, Paris OECD (2008b) Teaching, learning and assessment for adults. Improving foundation skills. s.l. OECD OECD (2011) Divided we stand. OECD Publishing, Paris Papadopoulos GS (1994) Education 1960-90: The OECD perspective. OECD Publishing, Paris Pechar H (2006) Backlash or modernisation? Two reform cycles in Austrian higher education. In: Gornitzka Å, Kogan M, Amaral A (eds) Reform and change in higher education. Analysing policy implementation. Springer Netherland, Berlin, pp 269–286 Porter T, Webb M (2008) Role of the OECD in the orchestration of global knowledge networks. In: Mahon R, McBride S (eds) The OECD and transnational governance. UBC Press, Vancouver, pp 43–59 Powell JJW, Solga H (2010) Analyzing the nexus of higher education and vocational training in Europe. A comparative-institutional framework. High Educ Stud 35(6):705–721. https://doi. org/10.1080/03075070903295829 Rizvi F, Lingard B (2010) Globalization education policy. Routledge, London [etc.] Rubenson K (2008) OECD education policies and world hegemony. In: Mahon R, McBride S (eds) The OECD and transnational governance. UBC Press, Vancouver, pp 242–259 Schmelzer M (2016) The hegemony of growth. The OECD and the making of the economic growth paradigm. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Shavit Y, Muller W (2000) Vocational secondary education. Euro Soc 2(1):29–50 Sin C, Veiga A, Amaral A (2016) European policy implementation and higher education: analysing the Bologna process. Palgrave Macmillan, London Streeck W (2012) Skills and politics: general and specific. In: Busemeyer MR, Trampusch C (eds) The political economy of collective skill formation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, pp 317–348 Teichler U (1985) Zum Wandel von Bildung und Ausbildung in den 70er und 80er Jahren. Mitteilungen aus der Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung 18(2):167–176 Teixeira PN (2001) A portrait of the economics of education, 1960–1997. An exploratory portrait. Hist Political Econ 2001(Annual Supplement):257–287 Thelen KA (2004) How institutions evolve: the political economy of skills in Germany, Britain, the United States, and Japan. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York Thelen K (2014) Varieties of liberalization and the new politics of social solidarity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Thelen KA, Busemeyer MR (2013) From collectivism towards segmentalism: institutional change in German vocational training. MPIfG Discussion Papier 08/13. http://www.mpifg.de/pu/ mpifg_dp/dp08-13.pdf

Part II

The Future of Education and Labor, The Arts Do Matter, The How and Why

Chapter 10

Artists as Translators in Societal Turns Ruth Mateus-Berr

Abstract  This text describes the future of education and labor and the role of artists and designers within the changing process of contemporary societal turn. Our century, which aimed for peace with the foundation of the European Union, faces the biggest Migration Period in world’s history, caused by climate change and wars. In the upcoming years, it also seems possible that robots and computers will take over work of many human positions. The survey of Deloitte (Insall J, Borthakur, Deloitte LLP (2015) From Brown to Brains. Impact of technology on jobs in the UK. Deloitte, London https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/uk/Documents/ Growth/deloitte-uk-insights-from-brawns-to-brain.pdf (7.9.2019)) on the impact of technology on jobs in the UK and switzerland stated that “Over recent years, automation has created more jobs than it has destroyed. Of the 800,000 or so new jobs created between 1990 and 2013, some 200,000 can probably be attributed solely to automation. And in future years, automation is likely to continue to create more jobs than it destroys”. Future will therefore ask for skills, for interactions with computers, but what will never be substituted are human empathic, creative, and social skills. These will be requested more than ever. Artists will be consulted as translators of different fields because they govern divergent thinking, inherit entrepreneurial spirit, and are used to collaborate with other disciplines. Artistic approach inherits empathic understanding of human and material, which is creatively applied in artist works. Interdisciplinary teamwork is the expertise of today’s and future work, but most established company’s work multidisciplinary. Education for these interdependent skills must be implemented in school and higher education and provided for lifelong learning. Within the fields of art and design, “interdiscipline” is rather used than “interdisciplinary work” and interpreted as a challenge of “breakage or rupture, when continuity is broken and the practice comes into question.” Dalrymple and Miller. Planet 17:29–31, 2006 believe that “interdisciplinarity

R. Mateus-Berr (*) Center for Interdisciplinary Didactics and Art Didactics. University of Applied Arts Vienna, Vienna, Austria e-mail: [email protected]; http://www.ruth-mateus.at/

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 G. Bast et al. (eds.), The Future of Education and Labor, Arts, Research, Innovation and Society, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26068-2_10

159

160

R. Mateus-Berr

encourages “multilogical” thinking – the ability to think accurately and fair-mindedly within opposing points of view and contradictory frames of reference.” When reliability cannot be relied on, risk for innovation is demanded. Keywords  Role of artist and designers · Future education and labor · Artists as translators · Interdisciplinary · Empathic · Creative skills

10.1  Introduction The area we live in is called Fourth Industrial Revolution or The Big Shift, and it has not only influenced and transformed business but economy in general and especially society. This article will discuss challenges of this turn and possibilities for educational institutions, the artist and designer. “By one popular estimate, 65% of children entering primary school today will ultimately end up working in completely new job types that don’t yet exist,” The Executive Summary of the Future of Jobs and Skills (2016) reports. Further it is expected that 7.1  million jobs—two thirds of which are concentrated in routine white collar office functions, such as office and administrative roles—will be lost, and a total gain of two million jobs, in Computer-, Mathematical-, Architecture-, and Engineering-related fields as well as Education, is estimated. Overall, “social skills—such as persuasion, emotional intelligence, and teaching others—will be in higher demand across industries than narrow technical skills, such as programming or equipment operation and control. In essence, technical skills will need to be supplemented with strong social and collaboration skills” (2016, 3). “The modern system of disciplinarity is more than a century old,” as Klein (2010, 158) concludes, and “it is considered as a product of professionalization and institutionalization of a new system of knowledge production in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.” Increase of knowledge and yet unrelated, fragmented transfer of knowledge in secondary schools provoke the problem that this generated knowledge will neither prepare scholars for studies at universities of the future nor dedicate to challenges of work in future times. It is believed that artists and designers have a multidisciplinary view on the world and inherit the role of translators between disciplines. These innovative approaches will strengthen the role of higher education as inter-/transdisciplinarity is requested but hardly taught and researched. A huge number of recent publications engage, for example, in teamwork within healthcare, as the knowledge within healthcare is said to double in biennial steps; nonetheless, interdisciplinary approaches will change the work of tomorrow. Therefore, it is indispensable to integrate interdisciplinary study experience within tertiary education curricula. In 2003, James Patell, the father of the interdisciplinary seminar at Stanford University: “Center on Longevity Design Challenges”, describes the expertise of participant students as “T”: the vertical line stands for disciplinary expertise; the horizontal line stands for curiosity and broad interest (Heinrich 2014, 157).

10  Artists as Translators in Societal Turns

161

Knowledge embodied in art, which has been analyzed as tacit, practical knowledge, is cognitive, though nonconceptual (Borgdorff 2012, 49), and interconnects disciplines. A good example is Stoke (1997, 71–72) analysis of Louis Pasteur in the field of microbiology. Pasteur followed a perfect synthesis of the aims of “understanding” of the bacteriological process and “use” of controlling these effects (Borgdorff 2012, 98). This approach (“mode 2”) “focuses on knowledge application and a knowledge-based problem solving that involves the following principles: knowledge produced in the context of application, transdisciplinarity, heterogeneity, and organizational diversity; social accountability and reflexivity and quality control” (Carayannis and Campbell 2009, 3; Gibbons et al. 1994). Today’s society even demands a “mode 3”: “top-down government, university, and industry policies and practices and bottom-up civil society and grassroots movements initiatives and priorities to interact and engage with each other toward a more intelligent, effective and efficient synthesis” (Carayannis and Campbell 2009, 3–5), requests a “knowledge nugget” (Carayannis 2004) because it requires and supports practical and application-oriented decision-making with regard to knowledge, knowledge optimization, and especially through inter-/transdisciplinary habits, leveraging of knowledge for other purposes” (Carayannis and Campbell 2009, 5). In inter-/ transdisciplinary work, practitioners must be able to cooperate with fellow team members and make referrals and offer educational services (Klein 1990, 150). The National Research Council (NRC) of the USA tracked series of research reports and announced that most significant growth in knowledge production in recent decades was occurring due to Interdisciplinary Research (NRC report 1986; Klein 1990, 2010:17). According to Klein (2010, 158f.), interdisciplinarity today is situated by at least three voices: the radical transformation, claimed by Mark Taylor in 2009, the reconsideration of interdisciplinary theory and practice by Jill Vickers (2003), and addressing institutionalization and self-definition by Sheila Jasanoff (2012). Taylor (2009) claimed the “End of University as we know it” and created the slogan “GRADUATE education is the Detroit of higher learning“ as “universities produce a product for which there is no market and develop skills for which there is diminishing demand.” He quotes Kant, who wrote in his 1798 work The Conflict of the Faculties, which universities should “handle the entire content of learning by mass production, so to speak, by a division of labor, so that for every branch of the sciences there would be a public teacher or professor appointed as its trustee. Unfortunately this mass-production university model has led to separation where there ought to be collaboration and to ever-increasing specialization.” Today we live in an after-Ford’s educational time, with new challenges such as robotics and AI (artificial intelligence). Josh Bersin (2017), founder and principal by Deloitte, provider of research-­ based membership programs in human resources (HR), talent, and learning, gave a speech at the Singularity University Summit in San Francisco about The Future of Work. He sums up that the future is already present today. He describes the changes as follows: The average baby boomer is looking for a job approximately 11,7 times in his/her life; the Millenials change jobs every 2 years or less. Many of us work on

162

R. Mateus-Berr

a contingent basis already today. Technology (artificial intelligence, robotics) became mainstream and include potential job loss from driverless cars and trucks, for example. The just-released research (Deloitte Human Capital Trends 2017) shows that companies are not waiting for such technology to be perfected: they are implementing it now. Thirty-eight percent of companies in their new research (10,400 respondents from 140 countries) believe that robotics and automation will be “fully implemented” in their company within 5 years (Bersin 2017). Forbes argues that there will not be a “jobless” economy, but 50% of workers will be retrained and people will be engaged to do “more human tasks” augmented by robotics and AI. The pessimism appears quite low for Bersin. The industries believe in automation and more comfort for the people. Most of the CEOs of companies believe their structure must change, and most are looking at ways to flatten the hierarchy, make jobs more dynamic, and further leverage contingent and contract labor. Bersin believes that as automation increases, the organizational redesign will become the #1 issue. The new “job description” is: “skills and capabilities” and people are engaged to work in teams in every part of organizations. 2016 Alex Gray reported about skills needed for work in the future and argued that one third of skills (35%!) that are considered important in 2015 will have changed in 2020. She refers to a report, The Future of Jobs, published 2016 by the World Economic Forum, which seeks to understand the current and future impact of key disruptions on employment levels, skill sets, and recruitment patterns in different industries and countries. For such kind of information, the Chief Human Resources Officers (CHROs) of today’s largest employers have been asked to imagine how jobs in their industry will change up to the year 2020. For sure advanced robotics and autonomous transport, artificial intelligence and machine learning, nanotechnology, 3-D printing, advanced materials, genetics, biotechnology, and genomics will characterize the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The future workforce will need to align its skill set to keep pace (see Fig. 10.1).

Fig. 10.1  10 Top Skills 2020, 10 Top Skills 2015, c.f. Alex Gray: Future of Jobs Report, World Economic Forum ©WordItOut Ruth Mateus-Berr

10  Artists as Translators in Societal Turns

163

10.2  Impact on Education The quote often attributed to Albert Einstein, but perhaps more properly attributed to William Bruce Cameron1, is often referred to when writing a foreword such as this: “Not everything that counts can be counted, and not, everything that can be counted counts” (Colledge and Verlinde 2014).

Taking these discussions about The Future of Work seriously, we need to discuss the new challenge for education. On the one hand, it is challenging in a very positive way, as there is a raise of employment in training and education expected; on the other hand, it challenges institutions to redirect immediately their curricula according to new requested skills. Governmental institutions work and react slowly to demands of today because this is a character of bureaucracy, and changing conviction in leadership demands preparation for the staff at least 4 years in advance. Apart from this, a financial support to educational institutes has to be provided in times of change in order to facilitate and initiate new curricula. Even though universities own autonomy, which they defend energetically, changes in hierarchy wait loop. Curricula are designed which dismantle hierarchies, presidents and senates encouraging these movements criticized. The majority of full professors are hardly willing to share competences with the academic mid-level faculty and collaborate in teams as laws for universities encourage this old system by paragraphs at least in Austria.

10.2.1  Case Study: Austria The academic mid-level faculty—which represents the biggest group of staff at each university and overtakes most of the work of “famous” full professors who spend most of their time abroad and in their studios—still is excluded in many decisions made at universities in Austria. First of all it seems crucial to change the law for educational institutions if we want to catch up with the dynamics of changes of today. One could say that the University of Applied Arts in Vienna takes on a pioneering position, as there are curricula, which consist of a team of staff instead of a single professor. There are a few new study programs, which meet these requirements at the University of Applied Arts Vienna: Trans Arts and Social Design, Arts as Urban Innovation and, the recent program, Cross-Disciplinary Strategies, and Applied Studies in Art, Science, Philosophy and Global Challenges, which will has started in autumn 2017/2018. The last one represents the first “studium generale” at universities in Austria and aims to integrate a wide range of artistic skills, processes, and experiences as tools to foster critical thinking and collaboration and engaged learning in nonartistic domains as a response to the transformation our globalized societies are facing today and demonstrate correlations of fragmented subjects in most educational forms of today in an embodied form. Though Art Universities in Austria still ignore some of international misleading quality

164

R. Mateus-Berr

strategies such as h-metrics and teacher qualifications, and even employ professors without degree as doctorate (either from the arts or philosophy) or habilitation (either arts or philosophy) or higher education teacher certificates at all, they are challenged by international competition and pressure from ministries. But especially art and design universities are still claiming the uniqueness of one professor and the influence he or she gives to the students and still continue the system of the “Meisterklasse,” though it was changed by organization and by law to “departments.” The narcissism and hubris does not help innovative ideas and changes. Future-oriented institutions might have to move toward topics rather than professors. Teams on crucial items of society as well as interdisciplinarity will be requested to staff, rather than single professors, evaluated by numbers and h-metrics, which unfortunately and misleading conquers the criteria of art and design universities in the world.

10.2.2  E  valuation in Education: Serious Considerations About Arts and h-Metrics Metrics are supposed to indicate and measure the quality of highly cited papers which an academic has written and replaces peer review in a form. Funding for research is increasingly competitive both nationally and internationally, so there exists an increasing emphasis on research quality. “The h-index, for example, is a measure of researcher impact and productivity derived from the citation counts of papers” (Hirsch 2005). Researchers have an index h if exactly h of their published papers have been cited h or more times. This way of aggregating the citation counts means that researchers have to produce highly cited papers in quantity in order to score highly; a large quantity of poorly cited papers or a one-off influential paper are not enough. (Ball and Duke 2015)

Gross and Gross (1927) “were the first to use citation counts to evaluate the importance of scientific work. Since then, citation analyses have been conducted for assessment of national science policies and disciplinary development” (Bornmann and Daniel 2006). First one must argue that most artists haven’t been used to publish or forced to publish at all, besides art catalogues. Recent research field of artistic research initiated grants and empowers artists and designers to publish their work. The form and texts are still discussed as it belongs to new scientific strings and leads to new text types. Further one must argue that in former times art historians or curators have been writing texts about artists, and the today artist is challenged to be an incredible Renaissance versatile and write texts about the own artwork ­himself/herself. In September 2016, the Arts Council of England planned a standardized system for measuring artistic quality on its National Portfolio Organizations. Hundreds of artist, professionals, and academics immediately shared their critical views (Arts

10  Artists as Translators in Societal Turns

165

Professionals 2016). At Research Gate (2011) a member from Italy initiated a conversation about Science Communication and relevance of IF and h-index in specific scientific communities. Also in the Netherlands the h-index is very important but very controversial because different origins and faculties developed specific attitudes: Whereas the Natural Scientists score high because they publish a lot of articles, humanities and arts researchers publish fewer articles and score lower. A Guide 2 Research (2017) claims an “Index for Art.” Opening the website it is explained to you that “We list only scientists having H-Index>=40.” Researching on this website brings you to the conclusion that the subject is IEEE, computer engineering, machine learning, computational linguistics, data mining, communication security, etc. Another “Design and Applied Arts Index” can be found at DAAI which claims to have access to design and crafts journals and containing references to 500+ journals published since 1973 and data over 50.000 designers, craftspeople, studios, workshops, etc. This page is only accessible for users of the Indiana University Bloomington (USA) and appears to be an USP (Unique Selling Proposition) for the campus. Scopus, the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature from more than 5000 publishers, does not succeed with keywords such as art or design. There exists a counter-position concerning h-index and ‘measurement’ and allows sharing of articles as open resource, such as JAR (Journal of artistic research): (http://www.jar-online.net/) and within the Research Catalogue, an international database for artistic research (https://www.researchcatalogue.net/), or Design Studies (https://www.journals.elsevier.com/design-studies) as well as such journals as the International Journal of Design (http://www.ijdesign.org/ojs/index.php/ IJDesign/), ARIS (Arts, Research, Innovation, and Society) (http://www.springer. com/series/11902), and others. All of them are peer-reviewed and should become an awareness level as PubMed, US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, which is the core journal reference for all physicians of the world. Especially between the young community of artists and designers, these publications should be read and cited frequently to assure proactive assessments. 10.2.2.1  P  eer Review Versus h-Metrics: Claim for Interdisciplinary Peer-­Review Boards in the Arts Earnshaw (2016, 81) claims in his book on Research and Development in Art, Design and Creativity that “Peer review processes in these areas generally check first of all that all the relevant and most recent work is cited in a publication to give confidence that the research published may be regarded as a new and distinctive advance on current knowledge.” R.A.  Earnshaw, Emeritus Professor of Electronic Imaging of Bradford University, advocates the consolidation of art schools and local universities and stresses the benefit of quality such as academic standards, though he argues about the difficulty about evaluating art and design (2016, 2–3). Such arguments show strategic policy plans from people with

166

R. Mateus-Berr

different disciplinary background. Art and design schools prove their quality in gaining research grants, which are always peer reviewed and demand the highest standards. Peter Scott (2015), professor of higher education studies at the Institute of Education in UK, vice-chancellor of Kingston University, pro vice-chancellor for external affairs at the University of Leeds, believes that “peer review is like democracy – a lousy system but better than all the others, although that does raise the interesting question of how democratic peer review really is” and confirms: “Sadly, despite this evident truth, it is now almost impossible not to regard research in terms of competition. Universities jostle for league-table advantage, individual scholars and scientists battle for h-index reputation. Rivalry is now part of higher education’s DNA.” How therefore measuring arts and design h-metrics? In the arts it is obvious that peer review will remain the most important quality control and h-metrics negligible, although many art institutions request h-metrics for art and design professorships in 2017. This has to be reconsidered and discussed with the boards of ELIA (European League of the Institutes of the Arts) and SAR (Society for Artistic Research) as expert boards. More and more calls are claiming interdisciplinary approach, but the scientific community misses a board for “interdisciplinary peer review.” Therefore reviewers misjudge entries due to their singular approach.

10.2.3  E  valuation in Education: Considerations About Design h-Metrics The field of design seems huge and encloses engineering, whereas for engineering, the h-index is measured quite clearly; for design issues, it is not so clear that far, though related to industries and demanding evaluations. Helminiak (2016) questions how one can react to the requested ROI (return of investment) regarding design thinking. She refers to a study done in 2015 by a research team associated with Stanford’s lauded d.school, which surveyed 403 design-thinking practitioners (most from larger, for-profit businesses). “Their paper, titled Measuring the Impact of Design Thinking, affirmed that organizations continue to struggle in determining ROI. However, it also found that those most committed to the task recognized that design thinking can’t be measured as a single concept” (Köppen et  al. 2015; Helminiak 2016). There are even authors who claim to measure empathy which is supposed to be very integrated part of design thinking. Roth and Royalty (2016) claim to track it by numbers, which is doubted by the author so far. Dow and Klemmer (2011) proofed that “more iteration leads to stronger prototypes, and stronger prototypes lead to better products” (Helminiak 2016), but what about measuring design processes which change management structures at institutions and approaches that lead to better outcomes?

10  Artists as Translators in Societal Turns

167

10.2.4  E  valuation in Education: Considerations About Arts Metrics and Museums Art and design museums are not judged differently: metrics of success, requested by ministries, led in Austria to frauds by museums, where every website user was counted as real visitor of the museum. Stephen Weil is criticizing this system and differs between “outputs” (quantity)—as opposed to “outcomes” (quality) (Anderson 2004, 2).

10.2.5  O  utput Versus Outcome: Human Being Is a Nontrivial Machine The constructivist thinker and Viennese Heinz von Foerster (one father of cybernetics) explained that human beings do not behave like machines (Riegler 2010). Von Foerster’s famous distinction between trivial (input-output) and nontrivial machines (input—not predictable output) is a starting point to recognize the complexity of contemporary belief in measurement of quality and standardization of education, especially within the fields of art. Von Foerster (1993) describes a trivial machine, which is a machine whose operations are not influenced by previous operations and can be compared to a “well-defined problem” (i.e., single, guaranteed solution) in cognitive psychology (Schraw et  al. 1995, 2006). It is analytically determinable, independent from previous operations, and thus predictable. For nontrivial machines, however, this is no longer true as nonlinear equations define various solutions and cannot be foreseen; human being is a nontrivial machine, if compared (e.g., Riegler 2010; Von Foerster 1993, 134–151). Hundred years ago, before World War I., the fascination of machines and the industrialization led to enthusiasm for acceleration and war (e.g., Futurists). The last centuries this resulted to more innovations and less (convertible interpretable) or new working fields. Today artists and designers (inflationary, increasing number) suffer from accelerated hype to be forgotten very fast. Therefore paradigm shifts as # Changes of Values, # Deceleration, # New understanding of Designprocess, # Interdisciplinary Collaboration, # Artistic Research, and # Definition of New Identities of the artists and designers are necessary to be reconsidered (Mateus-Berr and Poscharnig 2014, 471 ff).

10.2.6  Summary: Industry 4.0 and Lebensreform 4.0 In this time of paradigm shifts and fundamental change of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (Industry 4:0), a counter-position must be taken as in the past: Lebensreform 4:0. But what is it about? Artists have initiated all counter-positions

168

R. Mateus-Berr

in the past according to industrial revolutions. The Lebensreform 4:0 is not only reminding us to the contents of the movement such as rediscovery of feelings, mindfulness, caretaking for nature, authenticity, etc. It must provoke interactions between humans and machines and scrutinize real needs of human beings in this world rather than measuring “inputs and outputs”; it shall be drifting to “outcomes” and not mistaking the hierarchies (human-machine) following the claim of Richard Sennet (2016). Quality control must not be mistaken with efficiency and evaluated by numbers but by a new form of quality control, co-developed with art universities. Lebensreform 4:0 should not disappear insignificantly by just ignoring the technical developments but succeed in demanding their humanist application, as Mateus-Berr (2015) described at the Teachers College Columbia New York at her speech about Art & Design As Social Fabric: The constructivist thinker and Viennese Heinz von Foerster (one father of cybernetics) explained that human beings do not behave like machines (Riegler 2010). Von Foerster’s famous distinction between trivial (input-output) and non-trivial machines (input – not predictable output) is a starting point to recognize the complexity of contemporary belief in measurement of quality and standardization of education, especially within the fields of art. Von Foerster (1993) describes a trivial machine, which is a machine whose operations is not influenced by previous operations and can be compared to a “well defined problem” (i.e. single, guaranteed solution) in cognitive psychology (Schraw et al. 1995, 2006). It is analytically determinable, independent from previous operations, and thus predictable. For non-trivial machines, however, this is no longer true as non-linear equations define various solutions and cannot be foreseen, human being is a non-trivial machine, if compared. (e.g., Riegler 2010; Von Foerster 1993, 134–151)

Institutions as ELIA (European League of the Institutes of The Arts) or SAR (Society of Artistic Research) will need to initiate a panel of experts for such peer reviews, supplying expertise and avoiding h-metrics. Equally important is the competence, e.g., that the jury consists of artists and not theoreticians, or hybrid practitioners.

10.2.7  T  he Future Role: Art and Design Universities | Learn Now! Regarding the Top 10 Skills, requested of today, one can sum up: Artists and especially designers are doing well with complex problem solving. Both are good in critical thinking and creativity and also cognitive flexibility and judgment. Decision-­ making is part of their “job description” as far as they are designers and not too much influenced by generation Y, which is overstrained of tenders and struggle to make decisions (compare Facebook alerts: commitments are rare, nonbinding interest statistically significant). Artistic research, as a new discipline in research, is even making tacit knowledge (of decision-making) explicit. Both—artists and designers—engage in emotional intelligence, as it is part of the art to mirror societal issues in diverse forms of empathy and from diverse perspective taking. What artists and

10  Artists as Translators in Societal Turns

169

designers have to learn now is people management, improving the coordination with others (as they are used to be single players as their professors and the importance of the art market), learning service orientation (which is behalf of the designers education but missing in the arts), and self-esteem in negotiation. Inter-/ transdisciplinarity is one of their daily engagements but working in teams not really their issue.

10.3  The Future Role: Artists and Designers as Translators What will be the role of an artist and designer in the future, concerning the change of work? To argue with and for the artists and designers, the author starts with research results about the social impact of participation in the arts, the business of being an artist and the requested future creative and transferable skills.

10.3.1  Social Impact of Participation in the Arts This paragraph will take the United Kingdom as example, regarding research outcomes and arts funding. François Matarasso argues in his book Use or Ornament? The Social Impact of Participation in the Arts (1997, 6) with the outcomes of a leading independent research center in the United Kingdom about the social impact of arts programs (85–87 in detail): Participation in the arts is an effective route for personal growth, leading to enhanced confidence, skill-building, and educational developments which can improve people’s social contacts and employability: > It can contribute to social cohesion by developing networks and understanding and building local capacity for organization and self-determination. > It brings benefits in other areas such as environmental renewal and health promotion and injects an element of creativity into organizational planning. > It produces social change, which can be seen, evaluated, and broadly planned. > It represents a flexible, responsive, and cost-effective element of a community development strategy. > It strengthens rather than dilutes Britain’s cultural life and forms a vital factor of success rather than a soft option in social policy. The study concludes that a marginal adjustment of priorities in cultural and social policy could deliver real socio-economic benefits to people and communities and recommends a framework for developing the role of participatory arts initiatives in public policy.

Although such studies prove the impact of arts in society, as Matarasso argues, the economic downturn and subsequent recession, arts funding suffered continuously substantial government cuts. And although the Arts Council for England claimed to investigate in encouraging artist’s practice, career development, artist-­ led spaces, etc., mainly specialist galleries for contemporary visual arts received

170

R. Mateus-Berr

48% of the 2012–2015 budget and increased for 2015–2018 to 68% (Jones 2014); “a-n’s Paying artists research revealed the last 3 years, 71% of artists had received no fee at all for exhibiting in arts council-funded galleries, and 63% had been forced to turn down exhibitions because they could not afford to carry the costs themselves, from their low income base.”

10.3.2  The Business of Being an Artist Moody and Summerton provided an alternative set of definitions in 1995: > Maker of unique works of value for sale > Animateur – encouraging other people’s creative expression > Public servant – making work to commission for public places, regeneration, etc. > Economic unit – a ‘small business’/a creative industry employing others > Social worker – empowering others to be fulfilled and improve their lives > Educator – delivering into schools and the educational curriculum > Initiator of new arts ventures – creators of arts festivals, open studios, etc. > Visionary – a ‘social conscience’.

Artists still suffer from “misleading and stereotypical notions, romanticized and dismissive assumptions about the role of artists in society” (Davis 2011). According to a research report for Missions Model Money in 2010 by Roane Dods, today people are described as: Innovative and conservative; have multiple truths held lightly; they live, think and act locally and globally; they embrace spirituality; they think holistically and systemically; they tolerate ambiguity and difference; they are reflexive learners; they contextualise - putting themselves into the process; they value ethics  – eschewing right action over fixed principles; they assume personal responsibility and accountability; they are both particularist and generalist; they reason abstractly and narratively and they trust physical intelligence.

Artists demonstrate many of these characteristics of competencies that are required in twenty-first-century cultural people. Artists and creative practitioners are “key workers” and entrepreneurs in the development of healthy and sustainable communities, the policy-making logic of the towns and cities of which they are part of. Therefore they will be needed in the future, but what for?

10.3.3  Creative and Transferable Skills Competencies became the “new currency” of the twenty-first century. Students should be equipped with these key competencies. These following keywords matched 920.000 hits at Google in May 2017. They are believed to represent the core qualifications of future work. Theorist and strategists of political theory and opinion leaders in the areas of education and economy in 2012 set them up.

10  Artists as Translators in Societal Turns

171

The so-called 4 C’s of the National Education Association (2012) are: > Critical thinking and problem solving skills, which include reasoning effectively, using systems thinking, making sound judgments and decisions, and solving problems. > Communication skills, which include effective oral, written and non-verbal communication in a variety of forms, contexts and technologies; listening to decipher meaning and intention; and communicating in diverse environments. > Collaboration skills, which include working effectively and respectfully with diverse teams, exercising flexibility and willingness to accomplish a shared goal, and assuming a shared responsibility for collaborative work while valuing individual contributions of team members. > Creativity and innovation skills, which include thinking that creates new and worthwhile ideas; and elaborating, refining, analyzing, and evaluating ideas to improve and maximize efforts. (Germaine et al. 2016, 19; Van Roekel 2012)

Transferable skills are: > Critical thinking, problem solving, reasoning, analysis, interpretation, synthesizing information > Research skills and practices, interrogative questioning > Creativity, artistry, curiosity, imagination, innovation, personal expression > Perseverance, self-direction, planning, self-discipline, adaptability, initiative > Oral and written communication, public speaking and presenting, listening > Leadership, teamwork, collaboration, cooperation, facility in using virtual workspaces > Information and communication technology (ICT) literacy, media and internet literacy, data interpretation and analysis, computer programming > Civic, ethical, and social-justice literacy > Economic and financial literacy, entrepreneurialism > Global awareness, multicultural literacy, humanitarianism > Scientific literacy and reasoning, the scientific method > Environmental and conservation literacy, ecosystems understanding > Health and wellness literacy, including nutrition, diet, exercise, and public health and safety. (Abbot 2014)

Universities will have to engage in teaching all these skills. First, there is not such a thing as “the artist,” “the designer.” There are many types and characters, though one might expect critical thinking and creativity as crucial part of being an artist. As entrepreneurs per se, artists know perseverance, self-direction, planning, self-discipline, adaptability, and initiative taking very well. Their approach and methodologies are dedicated to creativity and innovation. Divergently to designers, some artists might lack to work in collaboration, and their communication might not always fit. Artists always claim creativity, but people from other disciplines are not less talented. For sure they engage in global awareness and many other challenging competencies. Scientific literacy in the arts (artistic research) still has to be established or further developed and is yet considered dangerous if degenerated to h-­metrics and prerequisite for full professorships. The paradigm shift within the arts and the design world is driven by critical reflection of meanings and highly variable regimes of values (Appadurai 2010, 15) of things, too triggered by the crisis of the financial markets and not to forget the

172

R. Mateus-Berr

i­ntrinsic art and design practice and the political engagement of the arts itself. Due to rapid urbanization, the devasting of rural landscapes, increasing density in cities, ­structural unsustainability and conflicts over diminishing natural resources, massive explosion of environmental and economic refugees, design must become politics. Value is never considered as an inherent property of objects but as a judgment made about them by subjects (Simmel 2009, 73). Yet many of the actions that follow from these judgments have significant consequences for the well-being of others, our health, the environment, etc. When exchange of commodities is the source of the mutual valuation of objects, balance and gift exchange (which rise reciprocal exchange—Mauss 1967) seems to be needed. We have to follow the things themselves, for their meanings are inscribed in their forms, their uses, and their trajectories to illuminate their human and social context and empower the subjects to re-design the world with their voices as a democratization of design to re-inforce relationships between human beings and environments (as robotics, AI, etc. too). To use the capability of art and design means to use its tools as instruments, and we also need to move design out of economic function and put it into a political frame (Fry 2011, viii). Design writer Nick Currie (2008, 1) reflects on the conceptual and immaterial qualities of current designers work saying that Rather than products, these people are designing situations, intervening in existing arrangements, framing everyday activities in ways that make us think of them, unexpectedly, as ‘design’. And although they’re often satirical in tone, these designers share a concern with ethics and responsibility; one of the reasons the design they make is so often immaterial is their sense that the last thing the world needs is more objects, more consumer goods.

The Viennese manager Peter Drucker (1992) predicted a radical turn in our days (Wartzman 2014), as Schumpeter (1994) the “gale of creative construction” as the process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, subsequent destroying the old one, and creating a new one. Drucker’s writings can be marked by a focus on relationships among human beings. He believes in staff relationship, which “pays attention to the dignity of people in charge of operating divisions” (1955, 2). His books were filled with lessons on how organizations can bring out the best in people, and how workers can find a sense of community and dignity in a modern society organized around large institutions. He described the challenging time before World War II as a time where the everyday routine made men accept existing forms, institutions, and tenets as unalterable laws and that this passivity led catastrophes break through. Drucker wrote: “They suddenly exposed the vacuum behind the façade of society.” Looking for a miracle, he added, the masses turned toward the “abracadabra of fascism.” We are witnessing very similar predictions today. What the complex world of today needs now is translation.

10  Artists as Translators in Societal Turns

173

10.3.4  Translation Translation is initially used in disciplines such as literature and language. As our world is becoming more and more fragmented and complex, we need people who combine and contextualize, translate complex meanings. These efforts have to be done by posing good questions, which derive of contextualized associations. Artists and designers are curious people who engage to understand the context, and therefore do not hesitate to ask questions and translate their understanding. 10.3.4.1  Case Study: SECURIWAS? Miriam Hübl, Virginia Lui Students from the department of Social Design – Arts as Urban Innovation of the University of Applied Arts Vienna engaged with the precarious and booming sector of security personal. In their Master thesis, they claim: “The project ‘SECURIWAS?’ deals with security guards and how the booming sector of private security brings the conditions of new and precarious labor to the forefront. By taking the presence of guards in cities for granted, the contradictions and hardships of these kinds of jobs remain invisible. Critical questioning about exploitation on the labor market is needed to reformulate demands for solidarity. The topic holds implications for an abundance of connected topics: changing gender roles, the securitization of public space, the role of the body in precarious labor relations or the function of uniforms. The theorist Franco Berardi notes that the era of ‘Semio-Capital’ primarily produces commodities in the form of signs and symbols. Security guards offer a symbolic service in that sense by embodying security, order and authority through their mere physical presence. By carrying these symbols, an excessive focus on the body becomes apparent. The guards themselves become commodified to sell the image of security. The project is dealt with artistically by considering the cultural and aesthetic dimensions of security guards’ appearance. Tool and strategies were developed to engage with security guards, to translate our findings into artistic outputs and confront our audience with the questions that rose through the project. Three stages were involved in the formation of the project: artistic research, translation and exhibition and performance. Artistic research constituted the link from theoretical research to observational research whereby visual-­ sociological investigations and expert interviews were conducted on-site. Translation necessitated the artistic rendering of material taken from on-site research in order to sharpen the focus on conditions and hardships of security work. The ‘Body Behavior’ series and an audio piece ‘Activity Protocol’ mirrors the immaterial and non-productive nature of their work. The prominent, yet often unchallenged utilization of symbols of masculinity and authority are illustrated in the series ‘Uniform 1’ and ‘Uniform 2.’ Exhibition and performance featured the presentation of the translated results through two site-specific presentation formats: An exhibition and a public performance. The exhibition took place at KUNST HAUS Vienna from the 29th of May till 1st of June 2017. For the exhibition, the photographic series were transformed into postcards and sold to the visitors. This format was meticulously staged with Miriam Hübl playing the role of a sales person and the use of receipts and paper bags for the visitors. Framing the exhibition as a commercial setting

174

R. Mateus-Berr

Fig. 10.2  Body language literacy. (© Miriam Hübl, Virginia Lui)

pointed to the entanglement of security and consumption. Statements from security guards were placed behind each displayed postcard in order to re-introduce a human dimension into the seemingly homogenizing imagery produced by the uniforms. The public performance took place at various consumption venues in Vienna. A photo from the ‘Uniform 2’ series was printed to life-size proportions in a cardboard figure that is mobile. Virginia Lui, dressed as a security guard, performed the duties of the guards. During breaks, she would replace herself with the life-sized figure. This action was an experiment with the public’s reaction to ‘security’ when it is reduced to its most symbolic function” (Hübl and Lui 2017) (see Fig. 10.2).

A visitor of the exhibition reported: “It was totally interesting to read the quotes at the KUNST HAUS and focus on the visual language of the body during security duty. I have never thought about this profession, its tedium, senselessness, missing dignity and precarious situation.” Artists provoke and translate difficult situations to public awareness.

10.4  Vision Different understanding and interpretation of quality, deceleration, and building up trust in times of uncertainty becomes particularly important.

10  Artists as Translators in Societal Turns

175

In eras of standardization, imaginative visions in education (e.g., Lake 2013) become extremely important. Schubert believes that nowadays the landscape of education continues in “schooling to follow order and for profit through throat cutting competitions, acquisitive test scores, and commodified standards” (Schubert 2009; Lake 2013, xiv). The next years not only impacts of teaching will have to change radically but art institutions should react with radical change, too: we should not take on too much as we criticize the meritocracy, but totally correspond to it and arrange more and more events, expecting more and more impact from the students to be exhausted at the end. There is too much inflationary program in these fields, rarely visited. Why not agree upon one exhibition per month, for example. Then more participants will be joining and having time to reflect and discuss. Wouldn’t that be real radical? The mathematician Vernor Vinge predicts the end of the anthropocentrism and the rise of the mechanocentrism. SEE-KID is a recording and analysis high performance computer program of eye movements; already succeeds to show fixations, saccades, and oscillations; and has been developed by RISC Software GmbH. Its somehow transformed colleague, E-David, the painting robot, developed by a research team of the University in Konstanz knows how to paint in different styles and is able to correct, compared with the original. And robots know how to design exceptional, so what is next? Can we program ourselves? And if yes, what will be missing? Maybe the sinus curve will switch back to the “Aura of the Original” according to Benjamin. Interaction in Art and Computing will have to develop further than in critical design. There are still essential improvements to be made for human needs according to Papanek. Empathy, I believe, still remains a human character but is already simulated by robots, and some AI-experts, as Jürgen Schmidhuber, who works for economy and industry, believe they will become empathic soon (Göring 2017, 68). Hild and his research team engage in grounded research and have been developing the humanoid robot Myon, who has an integrated embodied learning system by 20 neuronal networks. Myon is expected to show emotions very soon, as he experiences similar situations as human beings in the LAB. Illouz (2015) stresses that economic relationships are ever more affected by feelings. Stephen Hawking warned to further develop AI and billionaire and inventor Elon Musk believes the biggest danger for the future in AI, though he wants to implant a human brain into the next Tesla generations. Their critic lies in the danger of autonomous weapons and the development of AI as it is doubling all 1.5 years. Even a Kill Switch as considered by the European Parliament will not guarantee safety. Schmidhuber believes that human beings will become minority, but robots will be interested in them as they are curious. The machine ethic expert Oliver Bendel (2017, 84–97) stresses the need of “Watson” (IBM), who is able to filter therapy for cancer suggestions for physicians and doesn’t believe in the danger of machines becoming empathic (Bendel et al. 2017, 90). But Bendel is convinced that they will overtake jobs in production and office and creative industry as the robots are extremely creative.

176

R. Mateus-Berr

The vision for The Future of Work will be that the human artists and designers are integrated in the design process from the beginning by translating necessities and asking not expected questions in interdisciplinary teams, which will foster ­innovation (compare Mateus-Berr et al. 2015). There artistic research can investigate in the fields of science with its unusual approaches. Divergent thinking will synchronize fragmented work. According to Sennet, human should use machines for their interests. There will be work in re-inventing leisure and defining useful and useless delivery of work to machines and definitions of when human beings are not replaceable. As autonomous machines also might fail completely, human will need to rely on his/her brain and memory. Dependency of all knowledge to the robots will destroy common sense, which is becoming visible already in these times and develop an even more irresponsible society. In education already today subjects as “responsibility” appear and will have to be extended to empathy and subjects as ethics of and not for (machine) design and robots, again not. Policy will have to co-­ decide with citizens in ethic commissions new rules, something like the “10 commandments for a peaceful society” must be supplemented regarding applications in a world of mechanocentrism. I will keep remaining preferring human voices and warm handshakes.

References Abbot S (Ed.) (2014) 21st century skills. The Glossary of Education Reform. Retrieved from http://edglossary.org/21st-century-skills/ Anderson ML (2004) Metrics of success in art museums. The Getty Leadership Institute. http:// isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic974245.files/Accountability%20Sept%2012/metrics%20 of%20success%20in%20art%20museums.pdf Appadurai A (2010) The social life of things: commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Arts Professional (2016) Metrics to measure arts quality? The sector speaks out. http://www. artsprofessional.co.uk/magazine/article/metrics-measure-arts-quality-sector-speaks-out Ball A, Duke M (2015) How to track the impact of research data with metrics. DCC How-to guides. Digital Curation Centre, Edinburgh. Available online http://www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/ how-guides: http://www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/how-guides/track-data-impact-metrics Bendel O, Bellinger I, Gless F (2017) Wir können in der Hängematte liegen. National Geographic July 2017. Hamburg Bersin J (2017) Robotics, AI and cognitive computing are changing organizations even faster than we thought Borgdorff H (2012) The conflict of the faculties. Perspectives on artistic research and academia. University Press, Leiden Bornmann L, Daniel D (2006) What do citation counts measure? Carayannis EG (2004) Measuring Intangibles: managing Intangibles for Tangible Outcomes in research and Innovation. International Journal of Nuclear Knowledge Management, v. 1, no. 1, January Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (2009) “Mode 3” and “Quadruple helix”: toward a twenty-first-­ century fractal innovation ecosystem. Int J  Technol Manag 46(3/4):201–234. http://www. inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=27%26year=2009%26vol=46%26issue=3/4. Accessed 25 July 2012

10  Artists as Translators in Societal Turns

177

Colledge L, Verlinde R (2014) SciVal. SciVal metrics guide book. Elsevier Research Intelligence. https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/53327/scival-metrics-guidebook-v1_01-february2014.pdf Currie N (2008) A Duchamp moment [Electronic version]. Frieze. Retrieved 19 March 2009, from http://blog.frieze.com/a_duchamp_moment/ Dalrymple J, Miller W (2006) Interdisciplinarity: a key for real-world learning. Planet 17:29–31. Taylor & Francis Online Davis R (2011) The 21st century artist, Artlicks Issue 3, Spring Dods R (2010) Inside the edge, research report for Missions Models Money. www.missionmodelsmoney.org.uk/sites/default/files/23974648-Inside-the-Edge-by-Roanne-Dods-2008_0.pdf. https://doi.org/10.1108/002204108108441 Dow SP, Klemmer SR (2011) The efficacy of prototyping under time constraints. In: Design thinking. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 111–128 Drucker PF (1955) Correspondence from Lyndall Urwick to Peter Drucker, 1955-01-27. http:// ccdl.libraries.claremont.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/dac/id/1622/rec/1 Drucker PF (1989) “The Nonprofit Drucker.” This tape is part of the series, “People and Relationships.” Drucker Archives -http://ccdl.libraries.claremont.edu/cdm/singleitem/ collection/dac/id/5072/rec/3 Drucker PF (n.d.-b). http://www.drucker.institute/about-drucker-post/header/ Earnshaw R (2016) Research and development in art, design and creativity. Springer, Cham Germaine R, Richards J, Koeller M, Schubert-Irastorza C (2016) Purposeful use of 21st century skills in higher education. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching 9(1):19–29. Publication of National University, La Jolla, CA USA. La Jolla Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage, London Göring M (2017) Serie Künstliche Intelligenz. 1. Geburt einer neuen Spezies: Begegnung mit einer unbekannten Art. National Geographic July 2017. Hamburg Gray A (2016) Top 10 skills © Alex Gray: future of jobs report, World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-10-skills-you-need-to-thrive-in-thefourth-industrial-revolution/ Gross PLK, Gross EM (1927) College libraries and chemical education Guide 2 Research (2017). http://www.guide2research.com/scientists/art Heinrich C (2014) James Patell. In: Terra Mater, Ausgabe 2 Februar & Mtambaugh. Hn: Terra Mater, Ausgabe 2 Februar & Mtambaugh). Alb 2014 Helminiak L (2016) How to measure the ROI of Design Thinking. http://azulseven.com/ journal_entries/how-to-measure-the-roi-of-design-thinking/ Hirsch JE (2005) An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102:16569–16572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102. http://www.eerqi.eu/ sites/default/files/BornmannLutzCitingBehavior.pdf Hübl M, Lui V (2017) Master Thesis SECURIWAS, University of Applied Arts Vienna Illouz E (2015) Gefühle in Zeiten des Kapitalismus. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main Jasanoff S (2012) A field of its own: the emerge of science and technology studies. In: Frodeman R, Klein JT, Mitcham C (eds) Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press, New York Jones S (2014) Rethinking artists: the role of artists in the 21st century. http://www.padwickjonesarts.co.uk/rethinking-artists-the-role-of-artists-in-the-21st-century/ Klein JT (1990) Interdisciplinarity: history, theory and practice. Wayne State University Press, Detroit Klein JT (2010) Creating interdisciplinary campus cultures. A model for strenghth and sustainability. Wiley Imprint, San Francisco Köppen E, Meinel C, Rhinow H, Schmiedgen J, Spille L (2015) Measuring the impact of design thinking. In: Plattner H, Meinel C, Leifer L (eds) Design thinking research. Springer, Switzerland, pp 157–170

178

R. Mateus-Berr

Lake R (2013) Curriculum of imagination in an era of standardization: An imaginative dialogue with maxime greene and Paulo Friere, Information Age Publishing INC, Charlotte, NC Matarasso F (1997) Use or ornament. The social impact of participation in the arts. Comedia Report. http://www.culturenet.cz/res/data/004/000571.pdf Mateus-Berr R (2015) Art & Design as Social Fabric push-button-artists and antinomy caused by constructivist approach. In: Jochum R (ed) Remixing Art Education Symposium. Proceedings, New York Mateus-Berr R, Poscharnig J (2014) Kunst-Leben. 40 Biographien zu Beruf und Bildung. nap (New Academic Press) Wien Mateus-Berr R, Karlusch A, Sachsenhofer, W (2015) The case for interdisciplinary art and design education. In: Perspectives on art education, Mateus-Berr, Ruth; Götsch, Michaela (Hg.) (2015): Perspectives on art education, Edition Angewandte. DE GRUYTER, Berlin, Boston Mauss M (1967) The Gift. New York: Norton. http://goodmachine.org/PDF/mauss_gift.pdf (29.9.2013) National Research Council (1986) Scientific Interfaces and Technological Applications. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC N.N (2011) ACE Wednesday, a-n, 2011. http://www.a-n.co.uk/resource/ace-wednesday Papanek V (1953) F. Pumh imagination. Principles and procedures of creative problem-solving. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York. Psychology Press; 2005. Campus Verlag, York; Springer, Wien; 1973/2009 Papanek V (2009) Design für die reale Welt. Anleitung für eine humane Ökologie und sozialen Wandel. F. Pumhösl, T. Geisler, M. Findeder, G. Bast (Eds.). Vienna, Austria: Springer Research Gate (2011). https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_relevance_of_IF_and_ H-Index_in_your_Scientific_Comunity Riegler A (2010). http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/HvF.htm (18.5.2013) Roth B, Royalty A (2016) Developing design thinking metrics as a driver of creative innovation. In: Plattner H, Meinel C, Leifer L (eds) Design thinking research. Springer, Switzerland, pp 171–183. Science, Vol. 66, pp. 385–389 Schraw G, Dunkle ME, Bendixen LD (1995, 2006) Cognitive processes in well-defined and ill-­ defined problem solving. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350090605 Schumpeter JA (1994[1942]) Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Routledge, London, pp 82–83. ISBN 978-0-415-10762-4. Retrieved 23 Nov 2016 Scott P (2015) Research metrics have made rivalry part of higher education’s DNA. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/aug/04/research-metrics-higher-educationacademic-measure-university Screven CG (2008) The measurement and facilitation of learning in the museum environment: an experimental analysis. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.  Vol. 64 No. 1, pp 45–80q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0022-0418 Schubert W (2009) Landscapes in Education, Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC Sennet R. Lecture 9.10. 2016 at MAK (Museum of Applied Arts Vienna) Simmel G (2009) Die Philosophie des Geldes. Anaconda, Köln Moody E, Summerton J, (1995), The Business of Being an Artist, City, University of London. https://www.city.ac.uk/study/courses/short-courses/courses/the-business-of-the-visual-arts Taylor M (2009) End the University as we know it. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/ opinion/27taylor.html The Executive Summary of the Future of Jobs and Skills (2016) The World Economic Forum (2016) The future of jobs, employment, skills and workforce strategy for the fourth industrial revolution. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_FOJ_Executive_ Summary_Jobs.pdf Van Roekel D (2012) National Education Association, Preparing 21st Century Students for a Global Society. An Educator’s Guide to the “Four Cs”. http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/ AGuide-to-Four-Cs.pdf (8.9.2017)

10  Artists as Translators in Societal Turns

179

Vickers J (2003) Diversity, Globalization, and “Growing Up Digital”: Navigating Interdisciplinarity in the Twenty-First Century: History of Intellectual Culture 2003, 3(1). http://www.ucalgary. ca/hic/ Von Foerster H (1993) KybernEthik. Merve Verlag, Berlin Wartzman R (2014) Was schon Peter Drucker über das Jahr 2020 wusste. Harvard Business Manager. http://www.harvardbusinessmanager.de/blogs/a-1000774.html Weil S (2002) Are you really worth what you cost, or just merely worthwhile? And who gets to say? Assembly 2002, Museum Trustee Association in collaboration with the Getty Leadership Institute, http://www.getty.edu/leadership/dowloads/weil.pdf, p. 7

Chapter 11

Forward Design: Creative Technologies in Art Education Richard Jochum

Nothing operates the way it was designed. Deleuze and Guattari (as cited in Siepen 2010, p. 2)

Abstract  The ubiquity of digital technology has been a major driver of change in art education and has forced art programs across the country to recalibrate their curricula. This analysis will focus on the six principles that guided the expansion and reorganization of a graduate-level art and art education program. Specifically, we applied six major program goals to the design of our creative technologies curriculum, each of which will be discussed below. While this analysis describes our thinking behind the curriculum design, it also explores the relationship between art, technology, and education as a critical trifecta. Keywords  Curriculum design · Art education · Media art education · Art and technology · Creative technologies · Creative industries · Maker culture · Maker movement

11.1  Introduction: Backward Design Creative technologies are rapidly transforming the artistic landscape, and programs devoted to educating future art educators and artists are evolving alongside it. When my college embarked on the design of a new curriculum focused on the use of creative technologies in art education, we identified six goals that guided us throughout that process. Those goals are outlined below, along with the rationale for each, in the hope that they will prove useful to others engaged in similar endeavors. Underlying

R. Jochum (*) Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 G. Bast et al. (eds.), The Future of Education and Labor, Arts, Research, Innovation and Society, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26068-2_11

181

182

R. Jochum

all six curricular goals is a principle I think of as “forward design,” which is also the title of this analysis. The title—“Forward Design”—is not without irony. It alludes to “backward design,” a concept that has become more popular with the standardization and accountability movement in public schools. Although preceded by Franklin Bobbitt’s efficiency curriculum (Bobbitt 1924) and Ralph W. Tyler’s Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction (Tyler 1949), the term “backward design” gained recognition due to Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe’s 1998 book, Understanding By Design. The book developed a tiered model of how best to instruct learners in order to achieve comprehensive understanding, and it set out a guiding principle for how to design curricula and lesson plans: backwards. That is, the teacher or curriculum designer starts with the outcome in mind and works backward from there. Understanding By Design (Wiggins et al. 1998) gained prominence at a time when the national discourse had turned toward common core standards and those faced with implementing the new standards had to analyze and reassemble their old curricula. Backward design continues to hold appeal in an educational environment that is marked by a race to the top, high-stakes testing, competitiveness, outputdriven instruction geared toward college and career-readiness, accountability, professionalization and, as a side effect, bureaucratization. The basic tenet of backward design is sensible: teachers need to keep sight of larger curricular goals and learning objectives in order to be effective. Yet backward design cannot translate into learning in the way that ingredients translate into a recipe. Instructional practices, while reliant on curricular objectives and a concrete vision of what students are expected to learn, are more complex than simply identifying the desired learning outcomes. Otherwise teaching would collapse into technique and curriculum into instruction. When too rigidly implemented, backward design ignores the importance of the learning environment and the diversity of both students and teachers, as well as their unique abilities, beliefs, and visions. For the curriculum to operate in a rich and effective way, it needs a teacher who thoughtfully negotiates its content in order to address the needs of an ever-changing student population. Meaningful teaching requires flexibility and the ability to pay close attention to the specific context within which learning occurs. In addition to the formal curriculum, there is an invisible one that reflects the unspoken messages, beliefs and assumptions of that learning ecology, as well as a missing curriculum, which represents what has been left out or deliberately not taught (Eisner 2004; Gude 2000). Curriculum theorists have warned of a reductionist understanding of curriculum, in order to prevent education from turning into a form of social engineering that values only the end result (Pinar 2004). The current fixation in public schools on test scores and “teaching to the test” exemplifies such reductionism and has led to discontent. The accountability movement in higher education is modeled along the same lines. Backward design helps teachers to emphasize purpose, which is particularly relevant to teachers new to the field who are looking for guidance; more experienced

11  Forward Design: Creative Technologies in Art Education

183

teachers tend to move more fluently between different teaching methods and instructional practices and repertoires (Bain 2016). With its emphasis on assessment, backward design reminds teachers that class time ought to be more than the implementation of an unordered list of activities; instead, that time should be thoughtfully organized into learning experiences and sequences as well as connected with assessment and evaluation. “Without some form of assessment and evaluation, the teacher cannot know what the consequences of teaching have been” (Eisner 2004, 179). Yet a too mechanical interpretation of backward design can lock a teacher into the role of a personality-less operator, someone without “identity and integrity” (Palmer 1998, 10) forced to overlook “the numerous realities in which he exists as a living person” (Greene 1973, 269). Teaching and learning are demanding; they both require the whole teacher as well as the whole student. In order for the teacher to meet the whole student, she needs to be present, to connect, to observe, and to listen carefully so she can build on the experiences, development, and diversity that students bring to the classroom. “If he is to be effective, the teacher cannot function automatically or according to a set of predetermined rules” (Greene 1973, 69). The reality of classrooms, which can be messy, and the multitude of student needs, which keep changing, must be taken into account. Careful curriculum design pays tribute to the cultural context in which the teaching is taking place, the realities of classrooms, the changing nature of student bodies, and the personalities of the teachers themselves, which, while essential to purposeful teaching, are always developing and evolving. Good teaching comes from a connection between students and teachers and the teachers’ ability to pay attention, to listen, and to be present. To do this well, teachers need to know their students, who they are and what they care about (McKenna Salazar 2011; Palmer 1998).1

11.2  Forward Design Learning, if truly educational, is holistic, not a one-way street, and teachers, too, must be ready to learn from their students. If curricular goals are about what knowledge is most worth having, teaching is about co-constructing such knowledge along with the students in learning experiences that leave both teacher and student transformed (Burton 2004). This holds particular truth in art education, where teachers need to make space for reflective thinking, imagination, and a sense of wonder and where exploration is critical to a meaningful learning process. “One of the marks of professionalism in teaching is precisely being able to make the adjustments or to create the improvisations that will render the materials effective” (Eisner 2004, 149). This applies to studio teaching and in particular to maker-education, which  “[I]n every class I teach, my ability to connect with my students, and to connect them with the subject, depends less on the methods I use than on the degree to which I know and trust my selfhood and am willing to make it available and vulnerable in the service of learning” (Palmer 1998). 1

184

R. Jochum

relies heavily on student choices, personal expression, and inquiry-based explorations. In such a context, backward design provides limited guidance: what this needs is forward design. Art education is not limited to a set of knowledge or skills. It requires the active, individualized, personal involvement of students who are deeply engaged in learning. “[O]ne of the features of the arts is the encouragement of improvisation and the cultivation of a personal rendering of one’s ideas” (Eisner 2004, 160). For a forward-­ oriented process that backward planning cannot quite anticipate, surprise plays a big role. “As a result, activities in the arts do not always lend themselves to the kind of predictability that is inherent in an objectives-oriented approach to curriculum” (Eisner 2004, 164). Forward design emphasizes a type of learning that is student-­ centered, open-ended, project-based, and inquiry-driven. This approach requires students to participate and engage in the making and critical assessment of their own work and the work of their peers. By allowing all learners to find space in such learning experiences, the arts stand out for their ability to adapt to students who learn differently, thereby making space for multiple intelligences (Burton 2004; Gardner 2011) beyond the exclusivity of the verbal language and in a manner that allows students to express emotions they may not be able to express elsewhere in school. By engaging the whole learner, effective art education models a teaching method that can be useful in other academic subjects as well. While professional-level teaching in any subject requires careful assessment, art education stands out with its process-oriented studio practices, which have little in common with standardized testing but take advantage of iterative feedback, peer review and critique. In order to leave room for unpredictable and heterogeneous outcomes, art teachers often emphasize process over outcome.2 Reflection-in-action and valuation are built into this process with the intent to enable and give room to individual expression (Schön 1983; Eisner 2004). Already implementing their own form of assessment, many art educators have expressed reservations about national standards and accountability movements.3 Attempts to homogenize education and bureaucratize learning have been seen as hindrances if not antithetical to creative work and the experience that is central to art education (Burton 2004; Eisner 2004; Greene 1973). The goal of art teaching is to create significant learning experiences (Fink 2003) and engagements in a process from which both teachers and students  While many art educators tend to favor process over outcome, some prefer outcome over process. This is sometimes the case in studio art teaching: “One of the greatest weaknesses of art education is the emphasis on output, projects, and objects. These range from works of art to installations and from paintings to visualization and much more. The orientation always seems to be on outcome, as if creativity must have practice attached to it in order to legitimize process” (Ron Burnett, as cited in Alexenberg 2008). Process and outcome are intricately connected and both are important for a rich learning experience. 3  The skepticism toward the professionalization of education runs deep. The discussion around backward design has played a less prominent role in higher art education, which has traditionally shown irreverence toward instrumentalist planning, with some art school faculty promoting studio teaching without any explicit curriculum. Generally, public school teaching follows very different rules. 2

11  Forward Design: Creative Technologies in Art Education

185

can learn and on which they can imaginatively build. Effective studio art teaching combines backward and forward design.4 “It is in the interactive space created by the overlap of teachers’ and pupils’ ideas that planning takes place and learning is accomplished” (Burton and Bildstein 2010, X). While teachers do need an informed vision of what it is that they are trying to accomplish in their teaching, the open-endedness of making, the multitude of art practices, the limitlessness of the human imagination as well as the transiency of materials and technologies enhance the importance of what I call forward design in today’s art education. A field devoted to the education of artists, educators, and teachers has to renew and reinvent itself perpetually in order to redefine its purpose and its future.

11.3  E  xpanding Art Education to Embrace Creative Technologies Forward design is not just a complementary concept to backward design; it stresses the importance of looking ahead, which has become even more essential due to the ubiquity of digital technology in everyday life and the recent prominence of technology in artistic practice as well as classroom instruction. Art programs across the country have found themselves recalibrating their curricula to address these developments. And, while increasing numbers of institutions are now engaged in this process, art educators are still looking for guidance in meeting this challenge. Below I explain how our art and art education program in a graduate school of education revamped our course offerings and retooled our program in order to adapt to technology-infused art making. We felt compelled to do this not only due to the sea changes that digital technology and emergent media have brought to the arts and to education but also because of specific requests and feedback from our students, who urged us to offer additional courses in technology integration. In order to do this, we needed to take a step back from the curriculum, analyze the existing offerings, and reassemble them in a revised form. Dissecting the curriculum in this way meant looking at the larger picture and identifying general values and principles that would direct our more detailed planning. We came up with six curricular goals to structure and design an expanded creative technologies curriculum: Fluency, Making and Building, Integration, Meaning Making, Collaboration, and Stewardship.5 We considered the first three skill-based goals and latter three conceptual (see Fig. 11.1).  “[E]xperienced teachers have a greater repertoire of scripts than novice teachers  – standard sequences of activities, or responses to students, that work in specific situations. Researchers also found, however, that experienced teachers were better at improvising in response to each class’s unique flow. […] Experienced teachers do two apparently contradictory things: they use more structures, and yet they improvise more” (Sawyer 2011). 5  Feedback over the years from different schools has expressed enthusiasm for these goals. 4

186

R. Jochum

Fig. 11.1  Curricular goals

Curricular goals are, of course, broad statements. They “act to provide direction for more detailed planning of individual lessons; they are end-points arrived at as a consequence of carrying forward and connecting experiences in learning” (Burton 2004, 8). It is important to keep in mind that no one curricular goal is enough to express the vision that forms our (or perhaps any) curriculum. Nor is any one of these goals the only means to an end. Instead, they need to work together to create significant learning experiences.

11.3.1  Fluency Of our six curricular goals, fluency seemed to us the most pivotal. It means approaching the curriculum in a way that teaches students to learn and to become confident and persistent in their learning. This seems of particular relevance for teaching that has technology at its center: technology frequently unearths a deep-seated apprehension in learners, who are often quick to doubt themselves rather than the circuit, program or machine (Anders 1984).6 Fluency gives students a way around the intimidation that technology can cause, emphasizing fearlessness in the encounter with whatever technical issues may arise and a notion that it is possible either to solve or work around these issues. The confluence of a number of factors favors fluency, not skills, as the primary goal for the design of a technology-infused art education curriculum. First, because technologies change incessantly, a traditional skill-based learning approach makes

 Technology often comes with a utopian promise of unthinkable possibilities. The German philosopher and writer Guenther Anders described this phenomenon in his two volumes on the antiquity of mankind, which center on the observation that people feel shame and embarrassment in the face of machines since machines make them recognize their incompleteness and susceptibility to errors. Anders 60 years ago was vexed by the enormous and potentially disastrous power of technology, with nuclear power being the most prominent one; today we are preoccupied with the acceleration of change in the myriad of technologies around us. 6

11  Forward Design: Creative Technologies in Art Education

187

teachers competitors in a race they cannot win.7 It would be very difficult for a skill-­ centered curriculum design to keep up with the rapid changes constantly being made to hardware and software, which not only go through update cycles but also become increasingly complex and powerful. This poses a real challenge to technology-­infused art education, since it alters and defies traditional pedagogical practices and, on top of that, puts a particular onus on equipment that can be burdensome for learning institutions since they are often costly to purchase and staff-­ intense to maintain. Second, the sheer quantity of digital technologies speaks to the value of fluency over skills. The recent focus among educational service providers and policy-­makers on professional development reflects the desire of the field to keep up, de-skill, re-­ skill, unlearn, and retrain. Still, it is all but impossible for curriculum designers and teachers who work with creative technologies to keep up with a field that not only reinvents itself constantly but continues to expand. With the abundance of transient technologies, there is little time for teachers and learners to develop deep skills in any particular new medium. And the lure that the newest, fanciest gadgets hold for a society that embraces them adds to their transiency and number. Educators are left with the challenging task of parsing fad from fab and making thoughtful choices about which media are the most worthy or feasible to pursue. The third factor is the expanded access to instruction created by online education and step-by-step tutorials available through Google, lynda.com or YouTube, to name just a few resources relevant to technology-infused art education today. Such broad access alters the instructional landscape in profound ways and compensates for the disadvantage that teachers (and learners) experience in the face of a rapidly expanding influx of technologies. Not only can this provide some instruction on particular technological tools, but it can also accommodate a greater variety of learners’ interests, which is of particular value to the type of project-driven and inquiry-based learning that takes place in art studios and makerspaces. As a consequence, instructors can afford to take a step back and leave parts of the training aspect of teaching to resources that are readily available online. This frees them up to be thoughtful facilitators of an environment that encourages student creativity and interests.8 Related to the availability of online instruction is the fourth factor: the ability of students, with guidance from their teachers, to find relevant resources quickly and on their own. Giving students the tools they need to find the right resources is not new to teachers9 but has become increasingly important with the exponential expansion  The Brothers Grimm’s tale “The Hare and The Hedgehog” illustrates the underlying dilemma aptly and colorfully. 8  The change in the role of teachers in making environments has frequently been described as shift from “the sage on the stage” to the “guide on the side.” Teachers need to be both, however, and good teaching often displays the flexibility to quickly move between these two roles. 9  I still remember how, when I was in the sixth grade, I asked my older brother—who was a history student at that time—when a specific Greek battle took place. He didn’t know. “But don’t you study history,” I asked? “Yes,” he said, “but the goal is not to memorize when the battle took place: you only need to be able to look that up.” 7

188

R. Jochum

of new technologies and techniques. Where there is no need for a whole class to learn a specific technique, the emphasis shifts to helping the student who wants to learn that technique by assisting with identifying and finding educational resources, that is, teaching the student how to access information fluidly, readily, and continually. Essentially, gaining fluency in art education is similar to gaining fluency in language. When I was a high school student in Austria, my English teacher frequently reminded us in preparation for exams not to worry if we could not remember a particular English word; there is always a way to say the same thing in a different way using more familiar words, he said. I often pass this lesson on to my own students as a metaphor for working with new technologies. Working creatively with technology means finding multiple and alternative ways of addressing a problem: there often is more than one solution to a problem. Similarly, novices to programming learn to appreciate the amazing power of libraries when they first struggle with the assemblage of line-by-line scripts. This is why literacy in computer science does not just teach students to program: it also teaches what has been called “computational thinking,” the ability to find ways to rearticulate a problem so it becomes computable with the available hard- and software at hand (Krauss and Prottsman 2016; Papert 1980). Teaching with fluency in mind means we do not need to restrict ourselves—or our students—to any particular medium or script. There are always workarounds, and students learn to swim better if they are in the pool instead of sitting poolside. Fluency is more than the robotic assembling of words in a pre-scripted manner: it is the ability to speak to be understood. We have moved on from what Clement Greenberg once described as “medium specificity.” Media-based art making is not beholden to any one particular practice, technique or medium any more10; it is now the fluent passing and crossing of hybrid concepts, materials, and forms. The implications are large and vastly underestimated for how art looks nowadays, how art is made, and—as a consequence—how art is being taught. How does this translate into practice? We don’t necessarily need to teach students how to do curves or black/white conversion in photoshop or how to use the selection tool; it might suffice to show them the interface and point them to resources where they can learn the granular skills that they require for their particular project, driven by their own interest. While providing guidance and a sequence of steps at the beginning may make sense to enable a student to explore a particular subject or project, digging too deeply into soft- or hardware can do more harm than good since it emphasizes the intricacies of a particular technology rather than the potential that that technology offers as an artistic medium. Fluency and creativity are entwined. Creativity allows us to remix, mash up, and hybridize using old and new forms, thereby producing new forms and new knowl With medium specificity taking a back seat, artists are more connected to the concepts that their work articulates. The locus of their body of work now lies less in the body itself than in the way of thinking or in the attitude it reveals or creates. This is in sync with the dematerialization of the aesthetic object, which places the onus of the aesthetic encounter on the experience. 10

11  Forward Design: Creative Technologies in Art Education

189

edge. The main point is that we must not be afraid of doing so. In order to teach students that, we must provide them with (among other things) time in the studio, where they can build and make and collaborate in order to practice what they have learned and expand and share their knowledge. From a curricular perspective, fluency is one of the most essential lessons education can provide: learning how to learn. As the oft-quoted proverb says, Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime. With true fluency, the world itself becomes the playground, and any material available to us becomes fair game for (art) making.11

11.3.2  Build and Make In order to achieve fluency with technology, students need to practice—whether in their own studio, in class, or at home. “The way you get to be fluent in using technology is like the way you get to be fluent in French. Fluency comes from use” (Papert 1996, 28). The ability to move with relative ease between different materials and technologies is more of an attitude than a skill. That attitude begins with play. For children, play is fundamental, and indeed Froebel’s building blocks lie at the foundation of Kindergarten. Playful, experimental inquiry continues in classrooms at all grade levels as well as in the creative making that happens in art and design studios. In order for students to apply what they have learned in our survey and foundation courses, we create opportunities for them to practice what they have learned in our makerspaces: collaboratively, in groups, and by themselves as well as by having them practice-teach others. Our second-year studio courses put great emphasis on this by giving students not only the means to produce—through a series of workshops in digital storytelling and fabrication, creative coding, and physical computing—but also the challenge to apply their knowledge with semester-long projects that carry an inbuilt-opportunity for exhibition. This practice enhances fluency and lays the foundation for the students comfortably to be able to bring what they have learned into their own future art studios and classrooms. Since doing leads to knowing only where it becomes part of an inquiry-driven reflective practice, we also encourage students to keep journals or blogs and to participate in an evaluative dialog of peer and group critiques.

 “Our task, in a situation such as that in which I found myself, is one of learning to learn. Gregory Bateson  – anthropologist, cybernetician and general intellectual maverick  – called it ‘deuterolearning’ Bateson (1973: 141). This kind of learning aims not so much to provide us with facts about the world as to enable us to be taught by it. The world itself becomes a place of study, a university that includes not just professional teachers and registered students, dragooned into their academic departments, but people everywhere, along with all the other creatures with which (or whom) we share our lives and the lands in which we – and they – live. In this university, whatever our discipline, we learn from those with whom (or which) we study” (Ingold 2013). 11

190

R. Jochum

With our emphasis on making and building, we find ourselves in great and growing company. Making, tinkering, and building have gained significant traction not just through art and design education but through the recent boom in maker culture (Halverson and Sheridan 2014). Hackathons and makerspaces are increasingly prominent in informal and formal learning environments, such as K-12 schools, libraries, and higher education.12 Learning by making and building is powerful and hands-on. This process calls the whole learner into play, bringing together the body and the mind. It is also consistent with a student-centered approach and a constructionist theory of learning, where students construct new knowledge by being engaged as a whole in the processes of making (Martinez and Stager 2013).13 Opportunities to build and to make push students to interact with technology as creators rather than consumers. This is particularly relevant in a consumption-based, market-driven culture, where technology is produced for short life-cycles. Popular screen-based devices engage us only as “users,” and rarely fully. They are self-­ assertive,14 keeping us entertained and demanding attention. And their tendency to reappear again and again in improved iterations as new gadgets reinforces our role as consumers. We rarely tire of such devices, yet they frequently exhaust us. In the art room or maker space, however, students have the opportunity to work creatively with such technologies; they can take a step back and move beyond devices’ habitual functions. This is where the imaginative value of making lies. That type of creativity is alive and well in today’s maker culture, which is grounded foremost in the affordability of technologies. Digital fabrication tools that were long used in industrial production have become portable and affordable for a broad base of consumers. Computers and 3D printers, for example, which cost dozens of thousands of dollars 30 years ago, can now be bought at a fraction of that price as mobile printers or tiny Arduinos. With low-cost, professional technologies in place, formal engineering processes and playful tinkering have become greatly aligned. It was not always like this. The blurring of boundaries between art, craft, and design is a remarkable phenomenon of art and design today (Pöllänen 2011). There are at least three reasons for this growing together of art and design. First, affordable  Forward design, the way I introduced it here, is closely aligned with inquiry-based teaching and learning. The learners’ interests not only gain prominence; they become central to the learning and teaching with new technologies and in new spaces of making and doing. This has not been uncommon in art classrooms and particularly in studio teaching. It also has not been new to the educational debate. What is today known and discussed as twenty-first-century learning shares its main legacy with progressive education as outlined by John Dewey. 13  “From constructivist theories of psychology we take a view of learning as a reconstruction rather than as a transmission of knowledge. Then we extend the idea of manipulative materials to the idea that learning is most effective when part of an activity the learner experiences as constructing a meaningful product” (Seymour Papert, as cited in Martinez and Stager 2013). 14  “The danger is that today’s students, equipped with technologies they did not themselves create and which yield them experiences they are not prepared for or temptations they cannot resist, are at the mercy of the inevitably self-assertive tendencies of technologies” (Frank R. Wilson, as cited in Hermano and Somerson 2013). 12

11  Forward Design: Creative Technologies in Art Education

191

digital fabrication technologies have enabled artists to apply design techniques to their processes. Second, remixing, mashing-up, and hybridization, which for a long time were trademarks of artists pushing the boundaries, have become widespread cultural practices (Navas 2012). Third, designers are not just tailoring products to customer needs and wants but are taking on a greater and often critical role. While the coming together of art and design may still challenge the world view of some artists and some designers, the dissolution of clear boundaries and the transdisciplinary practice of making have created something new and real. It is important to remember that making is more than the building of two- and three-dimensional things. It is also the making of memories and stories as well as the making of mistakes (Sweeny 2013). All forms of making are constructive for learners who make and build and figure things out and who can learn from errors, glitches, and failure as much as, and even more than, they can learn from success. This has frequently been pointed out as of particular value to artists, who are free to tinker and build without some of the constraints that engineers may confront (Smith and Henrikson 2016).

11.3.3  Integration Our third curricular goal is integration, both within the arts and across the curriculum. Integration within the arts means that we encourage our students to approach all materials with the same type of curiosity and freshness, whether these materials are traditional and familiar or emergent and unfamiliar. Artists tend to take little issue with a democratic approach to materials; they are often eager to try out new things, and they see experimentation as an integral part of their making. Students training to teach, however, may have a different perspective. Initially they may resist an unfamiliar material, asking themselves how it will work in their own future classrooms. Yet it is those students who can benefit most from integration within the arts and the creative experimentation in new artistic territory that that makes possible; ample studio time and practice are crucial to make this a success. And integration can help students who are less comfortable with technology to fold technology into their repertoire: more familiar materials can be a comfortable starting point. By declaring “all materials equal” we follow Seymour Papert’s inclusive view of technologies in education and his constructionist approach to learning (Papert and Solomon 1971), which comes into play in art classrooms and studios. Treating all materials as equal puts electronics and digital making alongside clay, paint, paper and cardboard, among others. “[T]raditional and new forms of image making complement each other as we make meaning of the world around us” (Burton 2004, 194). If art is a dialog with materials, there is little reason to insert a hierarchy. By

192

R. Jochum

treating all materials as art materials, no matter if they are old, digital, new or emergent, students learn to fluently move back and forth between them. Nor does the underlying concept of materials have to stop at physical forms; it can include, for example, “space,” which can be understood as a material that we can design, shape, and form, giving students agency over the spaces they inhabit, be they classrooms, schools, studios, communities, or culture. Such ownership over the world we live in is a deep-seated and profound interest shared by both art and design.15 Integration in the arts goes both ways: it does not just oblige traditionalists to open themselves up to the inclusion of technology; it also encourages artists interested in, say, screen-based media to give themselves permission to consider including traditional materials in their work. This does not mean, of course, that all art needs to be hybrid; rather, integration sets a tone for experimentation that is common in FabLabs and makerspaces, which are designed to be interest-driven, inquiry-­ based, and inclusive. It also reflects contemporary art making, as represented in maker fairs, art fairs, galleries, museums, and schools. It is important to give students the tools they need to move back and forth between traditional and new media. Within interdisciplinary contemporary practice, the hierarchy between new and old has long been dissolving. This rings particularly true at a time when technology is no longer an option but a given. The pervasiveness of technology leaves art educators who hold tightly to a notion of making that is steeped solely in past practices at a disadvantage. While change can cause growing pains, it also creates new possibilities for art educators who are open to technology. This brings us to the second aspect of integration: integration across the curriculum and even across disciplines. The critical trifecta of art, education, and technology allows art educators to reposition themselves. Due to making’s newfound popularity in schools, and FabLabs and makerspaces in particular, art educators who are comfortable working with technology-infused materials and digital fabrication are well positioned not only to incorporate those within their own discipline but also to become leaders in collaboration across the disciplines. Technology integration adds to a long history of arts integration16 and reinforces the interdisciplinary role that the arts can play.  Treating space as a material is consistent with design thinking as outlined by David Kelley: “Regardless of whether it’s a classroom or the offices of a billion-dollar company, space is something to think of as an instrument for innovation and collaboration. It’s not an initial, given condition, something that should be accepted as is. Space is a valuable tool that can help you create deep and meaningful collaborations in your work and life” (Kelley, as cited in Doorley et al. 2012). 16  Arts integration has been a fiercely debated topic among educators, with mutual apprehension, frequent misunderstandings, and sometimes misaligned interests arising from different disciplines. If understood as a form of knowledge construction, the arts can serve as an example of a holistic notion of learning across disciplines. By activating a variety of learning styles—the visual, verbal, and nonverbal, among others—they allow for rich learning experiences, which makes art attractive to the curriculum at large. An “arts centered integrated curriculum” (Marshall and Donahue 2014) works best when schools are understood as learning communities (Clark 2001, 154). 15

11  Forward Design: Creative Technologies in Art Education

193

Technology can be a vehicle to bring closer together what belongs together. If art educators engage proactively with a technology-infused making environment, then they are more likely able to integrate art making across their own curriculum and to strike up partnerships and collaborations with neighboring disciplines. Applying art and technology across a broad spectrum of learning ecologies is integral to a creative technologies curriculum. Irrespective of whether schools believe in arts integration as a means of integrative learning, preparing our students to be ready for such learning is crucial to our curriculum. It will not only help students to be prepared for a diverse set of educational ecologies, it will also help them to become leaders in an interdisciplinary movement. Art flourishes most when applied to the full spectrum of knowledge: It is a deep engagement with the real and imagined world around us. To paraphrase Kant: Imagination without knowledge would be empty; knowledge without imagination would be poor. A focus on integration across and beyond the curriculum is consistent with an experiential, interdisciplinary, non-compartmentalized learning approach.

11.3.4  Meaning Making The use of technology in art education is not an end in itself. New tools may be exciting, but like conventional art materials, they serve a purpose that is extraneous to the medium. 3D printers may be relatively cutting-edge tools in art education, but they would be superfluous ones if all they did was print plastic name tags and keychains. For any piece of technology to be relevant to art making, it must transcend its status as a gadget and become part of a process, for example, by facilitating storytelling and creating meaning. While the first three curricular goals discussed above—fluency, building and making, and integration—are skill-based, the last three, meaning making, collaboration, and stewardship, are conceptual goals. Both goal strands relate to each other, and all six goals are braided together. That interconnectedness is most pertinent to meaning making, which relates to both the outcome and the process of making. Meaning making occupies a central space in any art curriculum, since much of what art does (and artists do) is “thinking with things” (Pasztory 2005). This only gains in importance where technology is part of the equation; technology often is seen as a means to no particular end and therefore underscores the “thingly” character of art. Meaning making is misunderstood if the focus is solely on outcome. While it is true that the outcome brings a work of art closer to its aesthetic resolution—a work that stays unfinished is deprived of such resolution—the curricular goal of meaning making underlines the importance of a deep engagement with the making and learning process itself. Following Merleau-Ponty, art and learning can be understood as embodied, purposeful engagement with the world. To make meaning making a focal point of a curriculum pays tribute to a constructivist theory of learning for which the individual construction of meaning, understanding, and knowledge is a key aspect

194

R. Jochum

of learning. This would be a hollow theory if it were not connected to experiential learning for which the reflective process of art making provides a perfect ­playground. The reflective process of art making unfolds in a process of “doing and undergoing” (Dewey 2005). Art helps us to make sense of the world around us. “Figuring things out” describes the locus of thinking in the making of art, tapping equally into the conscious and the not-so-conscious. Cognitively speaking, the object used in the making becomes a proxy for our mind. Persistence and mindfulness are necessary to turn a problem into a concept and the concept into a form and vice versa. And studio thinking provides an excellent space for this. It enables students not only to develop skills, techniques, and craft but also to follow through, learn to think in images, and find meaning while expressing themselves (Hetland et  al. 2013). By allowing a deep engagement with the making process and considerable time for its outcome, the studio gives students the opportunity to add layers to their work, which is critical for the meaning making process. Despite its importance, meaning making often falls to the side in a technology-­ driven studio environment, in which machines drive the agenda and fabricated outcome replaces (and reinvents) parts of the process. But that doesn’t have to happen. By making meaning a focal point of the curriculum, art educators can increase the attention paid to a deeper type of reflective learning and encourage the technology-­ infused maker-pedagogies that are being developed over time to gain in insight and regard for student needs. Meaning making extends beyond the studio. It is also valuable to the process of critique, in which key ideas of a work or a work in progress are articulated and discussed with collaborators, peers, or an instructor. Critique offers a unique, interactive space in which the making process, which otherwise could remain a mere expression of self, enters collective meaning making in “the aesthetic field” (Abbs 1991; Gude 2008). With its multiple access points, meaning making is an expansive process and does not stop at self-expression on an individual level.17 It includes the ability to communicate artistic intent to diverse audiences and in varied settings with an understanding of how these settings influence the process and the presentation of the outcome. This comes full circle in the presentation of the finished work. The act of presenting a work of art, which essentially sets the context of its reception, received increasing attention and prominence throughout the second half of the twentieth century. Yet presentation is often an overlooked and underestimated aspect of art education. Still, it has gained some momentum from an unexpected direction: design education. With art and design growing together through technology and social practice, community engagement and real-life settings are increasingly more important in art education as well.  Self-expression, for some time the prime principle of a child-centered focus in art education in the service of children’s personal, artistic development (Abbs 2003, 50), needs the challenge of critique in order to enter the aesthetic field (Abbs 1991; Gude 2008). 17

11  Forward Design: Creative Technologies in Art Education

195

There is another aspect of meaning making connected to art that needs to be mentioned: the meaning of an object. This has confounded many theorists of art and literacy studies, with some of them, most prominently Beardsley, warning about the “intentional fallacy” related to art objects. While I find his theory inconsistent with today’s practice, Tristan Garcia has recently come up with a reformulation of this approach, in which he separates the object of art distinctly from the interpretation of its representation. “Art is, quite simply, the way of making a form of an object, which differs from the meaning of an object.”18 (Garcia et al. 2014, 257). While there is ample evidence (and supporting literature) that play is vital for artistic development and creativity, it is the meaning making that renders the engagement with materials specific and artistic. While art education, particularly where it concerns teacher education, often puts its main emphasis on process—partially as a reaction to a product-focused society—outcome is a crucial part of aesthetic resolution and allows an engagement with the public that the process of making may not easily provide. It gives students the opportunity to experience success and failure, both of which are valuable in a forward-thinking curriculum. Meaning making is particularly relevant to a technology-infused curriculum. At a time when so many industries are being transformed by new technologies, it can be easy for a student to get lost in new technical possibilities while losing sight of artistic ones. But a curriculum that emphasizes meaning making can show a student that a 3D printer is more than just a way to print plastic. It can open their views to the many ways artists have taken to approach technology creatively.19 It can also help students understand not just the benefits but also the tradeoffs of using new materials and technologies. Students who engage with technology in this way are able to merge new practices with their existing repertoire to develop an extended visual vocabulary and gather building blocks for art creation, storytelling, and meaning making. Making in its full sense includes the making of meaning, which may start with the making of objects and the process that leads to it but does not stop there. It entails the making of culture (Balsamo 2011), civic engagement, and the shaping of the worlds in which students will live. Meaning making challenges teachers and students. It encourages both to push their boundaries beyond material explorations. It inspires them to make curriculum “real,” creating connections between lesson plans and the real world that make learning more meaningful to the lives of students. And it teaches the tenacity that is  “Meaning is a partially transcendent relation to an object, which connects this object to other signs and objects through a process of interpretation. Art is immanent to an object, the way in which one makes a form of an object. […] It is not the product of interpretations or the meaning given to this object, but a part of the object itself. The meaning that one gives to a painting or to a piece of music is a variable relation, dependent on other (cultural) signs. But the pictorial or musical form of an object is in the object itself thanks to the art that made it what it is” (Garcia et al. 2014, 257). 19  “The core goal of the pedagogical practices of art education ought to be enabling our students’ empowered making and empowered experiencing by introducing them to the many practices of making meaning that have been developed by artists throughout the world and throughout the ages” (Olivia Gude, as cited in Addison and Burgess 2012, 41). 18

196

R. Jochum

necessary for finding aesthetic solutions to a problem that may or may not be articulated yet. “Teachers in rigorous visual arts classes present their students with ­engaging projects, and they teach their students to connect to the assignment personally, to persist in their work, and to stick to a task for a sustained period of time” (Hetland et al. 2013, 52). The ability to persist “extends beyond just working hard. Developing this habit involves figuring out how to start and keep working in meaningful ways” (Hetland et al. 2013, 58). Meaning making as part of a studio thinking practice teaches self-awareness and forces students to identify their interests and to develop strategies that help them succeed or, just as fine, successfully fail, while getting feedback along the way. “In making central to our teaching the arts and the symbol system that present them, we may render conscious the process of making meaning, a process that has much to do with the shaping of identity, the development of a sense of agency, and a commitment to a certain mode of praxis” (Greene 2000, 394).

11.3.5  Collaboration Traditionally, much of the learning in an art classroom was based on individual skills, authorship, and self-expression.20 Indeed, artists sometimes have difficulty with collaboration due to their unique visions and quest for perfection.21 While individual signature still matters in studio teaching and learning, there has been a noticeable shift toward more collaborative making processes. Technology, problem-based learning, interdisciplinary practice, and social media have all been key drivers of this change. Although the value of collaboration to learning has long been researched,22 its implementation still poses challenges to educators (Johnson and Johnson in Gillies et al. 2011). For those charged with developing a collaborative, technology-based curriculum, however, technology-based art practice can be a valuable source of inspiration. For example, Harvestworks, a non-profit digital media arts center located in New York City that has been working with art and technology since 1977, has a lengthy tradition of awarding artists T.E.A.M. residencies.23 Typically, the  “In the arts, individuality rather than uniformity is prized. Surprise is not only permitted; it is pursued. Individual signature matters” (Eisner 2004, 166). 21  “Collaboration and artistic practice are not always easy bedfellows. The artist is sometimes perceived to be a ‘difficult’ person to work with because of the primacy of ownership of the artwork and an uncompromising concern for every detail” (Candy et al. 2011, 120). 22  Peer mediation and cooperative learning have been subjects of educational research for a long time. Their importance has “led Slaving (1999) to suggest that is one of the greatest educational innovations of recent times” (Gillies et al. 2011, 1). 23  T.E.A.M. stands for technology, engineering, art, and music. I was the recipient of such a residency in 2016, which gave me an insight into the type of collaborative work that is being done at this digital media arts center. 20

11  Forward Design: Creative Technologies in Art Education

197

residency provides not only a stipend but also an engineer and a producer to help an artist whose proposal was accepted either realize an already interactive work or expand the scope of an existing piece in order to render it interactive; to make the artwork interactive, the engineer usually designs a hardware or software interface alongside the artist. The finished product, although directed and owned by the artist, is the result of collaboration. And audience interaction with the resulting piece may add another layer of collaboration, for example, where the piece is affected by viewers’ physical and sensory interaction with it. While not every work of art being produced today is interactive, there is little doubt that interactivity, enhanced audience engagement and collaboration play a significant role in current art. Digital technology has made such interactivity possible and the participation of the audience easier. Participatory practices and social media technology have expanded art studios and galleries alike and have invited new audiences into the process who can either participate, collaborate, or interact with the work on display. Designing for such audience engagement has also increased collaborative work among artists. The recent emphasis on social practice in the arts reflects how essential collaboration has become to the artistic process. This shift has taken place outside the arts as well: the four “Cs” of the so-called twenty-first-century skills as mapped out by P21, the Partnership for twenty-first Century Learning, are critical thinking/ problem-­solving, communication, creativity, and collaboration. Including collaboration as a curriculum goal indicates the importance of team learning and shared expertise in a word of rapidly changing technologies and technology immersion in which no one can hope to (or will ever) become a master of all. Collaboration is a key asset in a contemporary practice that has taken on some characteristics of film production, “with teams of experts from different backgrounds, with different contributions to make, working together” (Candy et  al. 2011, 121). Interestingly, the trend toward collaboration is visible in general workplace culture as well. With the increasing emphasis on the single-employee company, or “soloist” (Knight Foundation 2016), the shift from the “traditional, employer-based economy to an emerging independent one in which people design their own work, create their own jobs, and reinvent the workplace as we know it” (http://www.thesoloproject.com/the-report/) will depend on “soloists’” ability to work together, build strategic teams, know what they can bring to the collaboration, and know what they can get out of it in return. Highlighting collaboration in a curriculum is of great value to all students. It restores some balance in a learning environment and job market that otherwise overstates competition. While only a fraction of students going through art education will end up becoming professional artists (see SNAAP, http://snaap.indiana.edu/ snaapshot/), collaboration is relevant to all learners, such as students preparing for a workforce that is likely to draw from the soft skills that are being facilitated by a collaborative learning environment; students who will become professional artists

198

R. Jochum

and may find themselves working in an expanded field of making in a role that resembles that of a director or choreographer more than that of a traditional artist; and students who will serve as educators in learning ecologies that are increasingly interdisciplinary and technology-based. Collaboration involves a multi-layered set of competencies and promotes higher-­ level thinking (Gillies et  al. 2011), among other soft skills: For students to ­collaborate, they need to respect, help, and listen to each other, acknowledge differences, show flexibility, and develop an ability to compromise while working toward a common goal. This is easier for them if they understand that they share equal responsibility in the making. This creates an opportunity for teachers, too: confronted with the same tsunami of technology that students are, teachers can themselves benefit from a constructivist approach to learning and an ability to collaborate. For teachers to take a step back and participate in the learning process rather than simply instruct, however, they must let go of some control and allow themselves to make space for what students may be able to bring to the table; this shifts the paradigm of instruction from intricate planning to forward design, i.e., co-construction of learning in the making. Makerspaces, with their inclination toward interest-driven, project-based learning, invite this type of collaboration (Peppler 2014) and can do so across the curriculum. With their unique place within the learning environment, makerspaces may attract the attention of teachers from disciplines beyond art and design education, leading to additional avenues for team-building and communal learning. Collaboration, of course, is not limited to a physical space. Virtual and augmented reality and social media, alongside real-life contexts, are also extending collaborative making (Beetham and Oliver 2010).

11.3.6  Stewardship Collaborative learning environments in which teachers give up a certain amount of control allow students to become stewards of their own learning. Stewardship is our sixth curricular goal. When we started to develop our curriculum, we defined the mission of the Creative Technologies curriculum expansion as preparing students to lead the integration of creative and emerging technologies in art, technology, and education. Ultimately, students should be able to apply the tenets they learned through the curriculum in the varied traditional and non-traditional environments in which they will work. The arts, which have been expanded by new media and emergent technologies, are a formidable tool to “invite students to be active participants in their worlds and not mere observers in it” (Fowler 1994). Stewardship prepares students to accept that invitation, reminding teachers and students alike that students will soon be called upon to apply what they have learned in real-life situations. It also helps

11  Forward Design: Creative Technologies in Art Education

199

students to succeed as students: many learn best when they are asked to take ownership of their learning. By placing part of students’ education in their own hands, stewardship in a creative technologies curriculum empowers them to implement what they have learned in their lives postgraduation and even to develop a creative technologies curriculum of their own. Leadership in this context means the ability to operate fluidly within an expanded universe of technology-infused and traditional art materials and to ­create synergies between art and other disciplines, through curricular integration or otherwise.

11.4  Conclusion While the goals discussed above were developed within the curricular framework of a graduate school of education, they may be equally useful in other contexts, and even outside of a formal learning environment. The most important requirement for implementing these goals is a community of inquisitive learners. Just as technology has brought significant changes to the making, teaching, and learning of art, it will also change—and, indeed, already is changing—learning environments themselves. If the soloist entrepreneur can be a viable player in a remodeled labor market, then the traditional brick and mortar school can claim no monopoly on art education. While this poses new challenges for institutions of higher education, it also creates an opportunity for all educators to find new ways to carry out a fundamental value: care for those who need or want to learn. After several hundred pages of curriculum design materials had finally been assembled—an elaborate effort several years in the making whose completion supposedly marked the end point of the curriculum’s design—a dear colleague of mine made a comment whose veracity I only understood over time. He said: You’ll keep working on this and will continue making changes to it as time goes by. I did not know then how right he was. It is one thing to design a curriculum, and it is another to implement it. Curriculum design is always forward design, is always a negotiation between a vision of what is needed and the reality of what is possible. Students and teachers alike need to be cognizant that a curriculum must be reinvented on a continuous basis in order to meet the changing needs of students. And while the design aspect of a curriculum is certainly important, so is the lived aspect of the curriculum: “I believe that education, therefore, is a process of living and not a preparation for future living” (Dewey, 1897). Neither the curriculum nor the way we teach it must be set in stone: “If we teach today’s students as we taught yesterday’s, we rob them of tomorrow” (Dewey 2017). The future of education and labor, as envisioned by the editors of this volume, will require students to work creatively and move easily among disciplines, in order to respond to an increasingly automatized world. The six curricular goals that this

200

R. Jochum

article outlines are designed to give students the skills they need to face these challenges and succeed. When classrooms are understood as cross-disciplinary artist’s studios and makerspaces, creative practice will take priority over rote learning and collaboration over narrow specialization. If the job market of the future is to be built on flexibility, education must do more than just prepare students to do one thing well. The changing education of the artist, designer, and creative technologist can serve as a formidable model.

References Abbs P (1991) Defining the aesthetic field. In: Smith RA, Simpson A (eds) Aesthetics and arts education. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, p 245ff Abbs P (2003) Against the flow education, the art and postmodern culture. Routledge Addison N, Burgess L (2012) Debates in art and design education. Routledge, New York Alexenberg M (ed) (2008) Educating artists for the future: learning at the intersections of art, science, technology, and culture. Intellect Ltd, Bristol Anders G (1984) Die Antiquiertheit des Menschen. Beck, München Bain K, Starlink Project, & Texas Association of Community Colleges (2016) What the best college teachers do. Starlink, Dallas Balsamo AM (2011) Designing culture: the technological imagination at work. Duke University Press, Durham. Retrieved from http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord. aspx?p=1171725 Beetham H, Oliver M (2010) The changing practices of knowledge and learning. In: Rethinking learning for a digital age. Routledge, pp 155–169. Retrieved from http://eprints.ioe.ac.uk/14480/ Bobbitt F (1924) How to make a curriculum. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston Burton JM (2004) A guide for teaching and learning in the visual arts (course-material). Teachers College, Columbia University, New York Burton JM, Bildstein I (2010) Challenging thinking. Possibilities and potentials for teaching and learning in the visual arts. Grade 3–8. Teachers College, Columbia University, New York Candy L, Edmonds E, Ascott R (2011) Interacting: art, research and the creative practitioner. Libri Publishing, Faringdon Clark ET (2001) Designing and implementing an integrated curriculum: a student-centered approach. Holistic Education Press, Brandon (Vermont) Dewey J (1897) My pedagogic creed. E.L. Kellogg & Co, New York Dewey J (2005) Art as experience. Penguin, New York Dewey J  (2017) Democracy and education. Dancing Unicorn Books, Lanham. Retrieved from http://public.eblib.com/choice/PublicFullRecord.aspx?p=4810433 Doorley S, Witthoft S, Kelley DS (2012) Make space how to set the stage for creative collaboration. Hoboken (N.J.): John Wiley & Sons. Eisner EW (2004) The arts and the creation of mind. Yale University Press, New Haven Fink LD (2003) Creating significant learning experiences: an integrated approach to designing college courses. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco Fowler C (1994) Strong arts, strong schools. Educ Leadersh 52(3):4–9 Garcia T, Ohm MA, Cogburn J (2014) Form and object: a treatise on things. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh Gardner H (2011) Frames of mind: the theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books, New York Gillies RM, Ashman AF, Terwel J (2011) The teacher’s role in implementing cooperative learning in the classroom. Springer, New York; London

11  Forward Design: Creative Technologies in Art Education

201

Greene M (1973) Teacher as stranger: educational philosophy for the modern age. Wadsworth Publishing Co, Belmont Greene M (2000) Releasing the imagination: essays on education, the arts, and social change. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco Gude O (2000) Investigating the culture of curriculum. In: Fehr DE, Fehr K, Keifer-Boyd K (eds) Real world readings in art education: things your professor never told you. Falmer Press, New York Gude O (2008) Aesthetics making meaning. Stud Art Educ 50(1):98–103 Halverson ER, Sheridan K (2014) The maker movememt in education. Harv Educ Rev 84(4):495–504. Hermano MAL, Somerson R (2013) The art of critical making Rhode Island School of Design on creative practice. Wiley, Hoboken. Retrieved from http://proxy2.hec.ca/login?url=http://proquestcombo.safaribooksonline.com/?uiCode=hecmontreal&xmlId=9781118764039 Hetland L, Winner E, Veenema S, Sheridan KM (2013) Studio thinking 2: the real benefits of visual arts education. Teachers College Press, New York Ingold T (2013) Making: anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture. Routledge, Abingdon Knight Foundation (2016) 2016 Solo city report. Retrieved 24 Apr 2017, from http://www.thesoloproject.com/the-report/ Krauss J, Prottsman K (2016) Computational thinking and coding for every student: the teacher’s getting-started guide. Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks Marshall J, Donahue DM (2014) Art-centered learning across the curriculum: integrating contemporary art in the secondary school classroom. Teachers College Press, New York Martinez SL, Stager G (2013) Invent to learn: making, tinkering, and engineering in the classroom. Constructing Modern Knowledge Press, Torrance McKenna Salazar SR (2011) Art school consequential: teaching and learning in the first year of art school (Ed.D.). Teachers College, Columbia University, New York. Retrieved from http:// search.proquest.com.eduproxy.tc-library.org:8080/docview/903257080/abstract/13C0325DC8 156CC7365/1?accountid=14258 Navas E (2012) Remix theory: the aesthetics of sampling. Springer, Wien/New York Palmer PJ (1998) The courage to teach: exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. Jossey-­ Bass, San Francisco Papert S (1980) Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, New York Papert S (1996) The connected family: bridging the digital generation gap. Longstreet Press, Atlanta Papert S, Solomon C (1971) Twenty things to do with a computer. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, A.I. Laboratory, Cambridge, MA. Retrieved from http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/ handle/1721.1/5836/AIM-248.pdf?sequence=2 Pasztory E (2005) Thinking with things: toward a new vision of art. University of Texas Press, Austin. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/id/10245677 Peppler KA (2014) New creativity paradigms: arts learning in the digital age. Peter Lang, New York Pinar W (2004) What is curriculum theory. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah Pöllänen SH (2011) Beyond craft and art: a pedagogical model for craft as self-expression. Int J Educ Art 7(2):111–125. https://doi.org/10.1386/eta.7.2.111_1 Sawyer RK (2011) Structure and improvisation in creative teaching. Cambridge University Press, New York Schön DA (1983) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. S.l. Basic Books Siepen N and A S (2010) Learning by doing: reflections on setting up a new art academy. e-flux J 14 Smith S, Henriksen D (2016) Fail again, Fail better: embracing failure as a paradigm for creative learning in the arts. Art Education 69(2):6–11 Sweeny R (ed) (2013) Ten ways of making. Art Education, 66(2):4–5

202

R. Jochum

Tyler RW (1949) Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Wiggins G, McTighe J, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (1998) Understanding by design. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria

Chapter 12

Becoming Worldwide: Transdisciplinary Ways of Collaborations in Philosophy and the Arts – A Case Study Arno Böhler

Abstract  In the following, by the example of the Philosophy on Stage #4 research festival, I would like to analyse how a transdisciplinary cooperation of heterogeneous research practices could be organised in the future. Such a cooperation would be about the construction of transdisciplinary milieus allowing for the untimely self-transgression of the various disciplines, knowledge cultures and research practices. In our case study, the self-transgression (transcendere) of philosophy started with having declared philosophy a kind of artistic research. This way research methods, sensual ways of expression and presentation as being practised by the arts became an integral part of our own philosophical research practice. This was a way of proceeding which finally forced us to create an arts-based image of thought in the context of which the sensual rooting of thought in sensory processes was recognised, materially presented and bodily exposed firsthand by way of lectures, interventions, lecture-performances and morning and evening readings. Together with those sensitive witnesses as attending our research festival, this way there developed a research field to which one was intellectually, however also aesthetically, exposed insofar as one was called upon to test the research processes initiated during the festival also bodily and sensitively firsthand. By virtue of this aesthetic-intellectual double reading, arts-based research became a habitat which was firsthand sensorily shared with others in a corporeal, bodily manner. Philosophy

This article has been realised in the context of the research project “Artist-Philosophers. Philosophy AS Arts-based Research” funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF): AR275-G21 in line with the Programme for Arts-based Research (PEEK). Parts of this text are a revised and extended version of part 2 of a text pulished in the performance philosophy journal (PPJ) Vol 3, No 3 (2017) by the author under the title “Immanence: A life... Friedrich Nietzsche”. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21476/ PP.2017.33163

A. Böhler (*) University of Applied Arts Vienna, Cross-Disciplinary-Strategies, Vienna, Austria Faculty member University of Vienna, Department of Philosophy, Vienna, Austria e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 G. Bast et al. (eds.), The Future of Education and Labor, Arts, Research, Innovation and Society, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26068-2_12

203

204

A. Böhler

on Stage #4, funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF): AR275-G21 in the context of the Programme for Arts-based Research (PEEK), thus gave testimony to a future form of life based on artistic research and education. A way of life, however, as is one basic thesis of this text, which will have become possible only after we will have liberated ourselves from Plato-based images of thought which up to now have ascetically denied the earthly rooting of life. Keywords  Transdisciplinarity · Artistic research · Arts-based philosophy · Philosophy on stage · Artist-philosophers · Nietzsche · Form of life

12.1  Philosophical Preliminary Remarks Since long our forms of life have become planet-wide. There is hardly any place not connected to the global network of our information technologies. Not even the most remote places on our planet are isolated islands anymore; they are part of a worldwide culture which has, sensorily, moved immediately close on us. Skin like. Bodily. But what about the images of thought by which we are held captive? Do we also think worldwide? ∗∗∗ In the following, by the example of a concrete research project at the interface of art and philosophy, I would like to analyse how a transdisciplinary cooperation of heterogeneous research practices could be organised in the future. This way of cooperation would no longer primarily be about determining, defining and securing clearly outlined subjects, disciplines and methods but about the construction of transdisciplinary milieus allowing for an encounter, not to say the getting into touch, of a variety of different disciplines, knowledge cultures and research practices. Worrying about the identity of one’s own discipline will no longer be in the fore of such an orientation of research and teaching processes but the pooling of strengths, the making of alliances and the transgression of limits: in short, the exploration of that what is beyond the limits of one’s own identity – the disconcerting which separates and differentiates us from ourselves. ∗∗∗ Thus, we must take the word “transdisciplinary” literally when speaking of a future transdisciplinary image of thought. Something is transcended when a limit is transgressed, in order of experiencing that what is beyond. One seeks contact to what is outside, one relates oneself to it, to make possible what I would like to call the transdisciplinary self-transgression of a discipline: its becoming untimely. ∗∗∗ The German word “Gemüt” (mind/mood) still contains the “Mut” (courage) required for being courageous enough to be touched by that what is outside oneself.

12  Becoming Worldwide: Transdisciplinary Ways of Collaborations in Philosophy…

205

Thus imagined, mind/mood is not at all any kind of private capability of sensing, no subjective inwardness but, vice versa, the capability of a body to physically experience its relation to the world by his/her own body. For a long time the meanwhile outmoded German word “Herzensbildung” (nobleness of the heart) referred to nothing else than to this capability of self-transgression. One gives up on one’s own insular ontological constitution when opening one’s heart, when de-centring oneself and when becoming open-minded to the world (“welt-offen”). ∗∗∗ Precisely in this sense education and research processes will only be transdisciplinary when no longer autonomously generating their own identity and expertise but when being related to and by dealing with the outside world they are themselves a part of. From then on, not the autonomous self but the relational being-with-each-­ other will prove to be the differentiating, generative momentum by which the limits of one’s own discipline, but also the limits of other ones, are only shaped and a result of. One is related to them; one thinks and defines oneself by virtue of being differentiated from them. ∗∗∗ Usually, however, the images of thought by which we are culturally imprisoned these days point into a completely different direction. Currently, today’s education does not focus on transgressing one’s own identity but on safeguarding and maintaining it. At first and in most cases, we experience ourselves as single individuals whose field of responsibility ends at the limits of their own lived-body. In this case, taking over responsibility for oneself means taking care for oneself as being different from other people, but also from other “objects”. Quite as if those others around us were no essential element of our own being-in-the-world. This solipsistic self-image of the human stands in the way of a future transdisciplinary orientation of institutions of education and research processes, since it flagrantly excludes the environments, in which we are situated, from the care for our “own” being-in-the-world, rather than including them. ∗∗∗ We may like it or not. Being bodily entities, we are inevitably exposed to the worldwide of the world around us. Bodies cannot even be imagined without something outside surrounding them. In this sense, already Jean Luc Nancy could claim in Corpus: “The body is a thing of exposition. It’s not just that the body is exposed but that the body consists in being exposed. A body is being exposed” (Nancy 2008: p. 124). It is this exposed constitution of bodies which will, sooner or later, have thwarted any attempt to withdraw into some private inwardness. ∗∗∗ In the following, by way of the transdisciplinary research project Artist-­ Philosophers. Philosophy AS Arts-based Research as a case study, it shall be analysed how a becoming worldwide of thought, resulting in giving up on the insular

206

A. Böhler

ontological constitution of modern man, could be started. The research project had its peak with the research festival Philosophy on Stage #4, where a transdisciplinary milieu was created which allowed for practising philosophy as artistic research.1

12.2  T  ransdisciplinary Education in the In-Between of Art and Philosophy In the course of the research festival Philosophy on Stage #4, which happened in Hall G and the studios of Tanzquartier Wien from November 26 to 29, 2015, 43 research contributions were presented  – lectures, lecture-performances, interventions and morning and evening lectures – in the course of which philosophy made research alliances with the arts, in order of generating arts-based images of thought within a transdisciplinary milieu. By having declared philosophy a kind of arts-­ based research we were enabled to include artistic research practices, apart from scientific ones, into the gradual working out of philosophical ideas. This extension of philosophical research practices was meant to once again provide philosophy with its own physicality. Not only in the sense of actually rediscovering the physical dimension of thought by way of including artistic research practices but also common formats of the presentation of philosophical thoughts, e.g. the academic lecture, were supposed to be put into question during Philosophy on Stage #4. Just like those spatial structures according to which thought usually happens these days. For example, thought was, e.g. taken out of the classical lecture hall and placed into a public space of the arts.

12.2.1  Lecture Series: Philosophy on Stage In the run-up to the lecture series Philosophy on Stage of the same title, which happened in the winter semester 2015/2016 at the University of Vienna in cooperation with the University of Applied Arts Vienna, for one semester the research questions Philosophy on Stage was supposed to deal with were theoretically discussed with students and put into a philosophical and artistic context. More than 200 students, most of all coming from the Institute of Philosophy and the Institute of Theatre, Film and Media Studies of the University of Vienna and the University of Applied Arts Vienna, attended the lecture series to be topically prepared for the research festival. ∗∗∗ By combining the Philosophy on Stage #4 research project with the lecture series of the same title, inevitably the research festival became a public laboratory where  http://homepage.univie.ac.at/arno.boehler/php/?page_id=7386 (last accessed 30 August 2019).

1

12  Becoming Worldwide: Transdisciplinary Ways of Collaborations in Philosophy…

207

research and education were overlapping. In physical co-presence with the performers, the students became sensitive witnesses of how, over 4 days, artists and philosophers were experimentally trying out a cooperation in the relational in-between of philosophy and art. ∗∗∗ Right at the beginning of the lecture series the students were asked to be present at the festival for all of the 4 days, if possible, to be able to also experience the commonly shared research space as a commonly shared habitat: 11:30 morning lectures in the studios of Tanzquartier Wien, 13:30 having lunch together. 15:00–23.00 presentation of research contributions in Hall G of Tanzquartier Wien. 23:00–02:00 evening lectures in the studios of Tanzquartier Wien, sometimes lasting until the morning hours. On the whole, over the 4 days the students spent more than 35 hours in the research field we had provided for, which often pushed not only the researchers but also the “audience-researchers” participating in the research processes to the brink of exhaustion. Soon it became obvious that taking part in a research project such as Philosophy on Stage #4 could no longer mean just to have a mental look from the outside at the research contributions presented in the course of the festival. Rather, one had to involve oneself into the research processes initiated at the festival; one had to also open oneself towards the forces and power relations one was embedded in, corporeally, sensually, bodily and affectively, to be able to give testimony to what one was watching. One was no neutral observer any more, but a sensible witness of the research processes one was bodily in touch with. No wonder that many made use of the camp beds provided in Hall G not only for sitting but also for sleeping. Philosophy, done as an artistic kind of research, seemed to eat up, not only intellectually but also physically, the participants because in this case one did not only reflect on the body, on sensuality, on the material conditions of thinking but by help of all this. Here the physical arrangement of the rooms, the bodily presentation of thoughts, the sensual togetherness with others were part of the research field which was to be philosophically reflected on, to be materially arranged and to be actively experienced firsthand, bodily, sensually, fleshly. ∗∗∗ Already in Spinoza. Practical Philosophy, Gilles Deleuze had confronted the readers of Spinoza’s Ethics with the demand to consider the reading of this work a double reading, understanding the problems of Spinoza’s ethics both as rational and as aesthetic issues. Also the participants in Philosophy on Stage #4 were confronted with this demand. Anybody was called upon “to realize a systematic reading in pursuit of the general idea and the unity of the parts” at stake at our research festival, but on the other hand and at the same time, everybody was also called upon to realise an affective reading, “without an idea of the whole, where one is carried along or set down, put in motion or at rest, shaken or calmed according to the velocity of this or that part” in a bodily manner (Deleuze 1988: p. 129). By being involved in what was happening not only as a neutral, disembodied observer but also aesthetically, due to one’s own sensorily presence, one inevitably

208

A. Böhler

contributed to organising the research field, thus becoming a sensitive witness2 of the research field one was constantly feeding with one’s own sensory feedback. There where one contributes to the configuration of transdisciplinary research milieus, as we might have it in line with Nietzsche’s Zarathrustra, one stays true to the earth (cf. Nietzsche 2005: p. 18), insofar as, being an earthly being, one is part of a world sensorily shared with other bodies. ∗∗∗ Obviously, in the context of a research project such as Philosophy on Stage #4, it is no longer possible to just keep the world at arm’s length in the good old ascetic manner, as one has oneself become a momentum of the research one is doing. Thus, taking part in the research festival required student researchers and performing researchers to intensively concentrate in the commonly shared resonance field within which they were jointly doing research.

12.2.2  Art-Labs Whereas the students were prepared for the festival by help of the lecture series Philosophy on Stage, in the run-up to the festival three Art-Labs were realised for the artists and philosophers, where they could work out their research contributions to the festival. These contributions were supposed to deal, both by way of artistic and philosophical means, with the following research questions: • How does the image of philosophy change if philosophy is practised as artistic research? • Which methodological consequences result if, apart from scientific-discursive methods, also artistic practices are included into philosophical research? • How must the cross-over of the disciplines, philosophy and arts be imagined which Nietzsche welcomed by the hybrid figure of the artist-philosopher (Nietzsche 1999: p. 89) already in the nineteenth century? • Which promise is connected to the cross-over of art and philosophy? • Which images of thought, which kinds of arts are made possible by the cross-­ over of the two disciplines? • Could it be that the tying together of the two research practices even announces that Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future which Nietzsche envisaged in Beyond Good and Evil? After all, all these questions aimed at how a transdisciplinary cross-over of the philosophical tradition and the arts might be initiated which will not only realise an interdisciplinary dialogue among the two disciplines but will also cause the mutual transgression (transcendere) of the common ways in which philosophy and the arts understand themselves: Will an interdisciplinary cooperation of philosophers and  On the figure of giving testimony as a sensory body, see Böhler (2017).

2

12  Becoming Worldwide: Transdisciplinary Ways of Collaborations in Philosophy…

209

artists, as a result of this cooperation, indeed produce differences as a result of which the self-understanding of the two disciplines and their relation to each other will be changed? For, in the emphatic sense, research becomes transdisciplinary only there where it generates, by way of interdisciplinary cooperation, differences which might change or even destroy the self-understanding of each discipline. 12.2.2.1  Art-Lab #1 The first Art-Lab (January 16–18, 2015, studios of Tanzquartier Vienna) aimed at clarifying in advance within which images of thought philosophy and the arts are currently historically trapped, as during our preparations for the Philosophy on Stage #4 research festival, we believed it to be most of all necessary to at first focus on the origins of today’s common use of the words art and philosophy which hold us captive. ∗∗∗ Quite in the sense of Alfred North Whitehead, who still in the twentieth century could claim that the safest general characterisation of Europe’s philosophical tradition was that it consisted of a number of footnotes on Plato,3 we soon realised that Plato is indeed still key when it comes to defining today’s common image of thought. Who is under the spell of our European intellectual history need not necessarily have read Plato him/herself to think like Plato. Usually one thinks like he did as, cultural-historically, over 2500 years we have incorporated the image of thought he created to such a degree that, on the contrary, we are hardly capable of thinking differently from him. Namely Post-Plato. Beyond the disciplining constraint his image of thought triggers within us – inevitably – automatically – quasi machine-driven. ∗∗∗ Since Plato one assumes that thought moves within a purely ideal sphere, separated from our lived-bodies. Quite as if our head was no part of our bodiliness. That Descartes, at the beginning of the modern age, clearly separates the idea of thinking substance (res cogitans) from the idea of extended substance (res extensa) may, in the sense of Whitehead, indeed be read as a footnote on Plato. Just like Kant’s famous statement according to which we are citizens of two worlds, belonging to the phenomenal word of nature as empirical beings and to the noumenal world of freedom as intelligible beings. Obviously, since Plato it has become common practice to no longer think by help of the senses but against them. No longer by help of the body but as separated from it as possible, as if thought, separated from all earthly desires, happened in a Platonic heaven of ideas. Untouched by all our desires, untouched by the earthly affections of others with whom we sensorily share our bodily being-in-the-world.  “The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato” Whitehead (1979), p. 39. 3

210

A. Böhler

∗∗∗ If Nietzsche already at an early stage characterised his own philosophical position as inverted Platonism,4 this was because, like later Freud, he started denying the independence of cogito from the driving forces of our lived-bodies. For him, thought does not contradict the emotions, rather it formulates them. Articulates them. Allows them to have their say, thus making them sound. ∗∗∗ In Beyond Good and Evil, he gets at the heart of this post-Plato image of thought when writing: “Having long kept a strict eye on the philosophers [fingers], and having looked between their lines, I say to myself: the largest part of conscious thinking has to be considered an instinctual activity, even in the case of philosophical thinking” (Nietzsche 1998: p. 7). Obviously here Nietzsche denies the possibility to completely isolate or even separate the sphere of thought from the level of bodily being-in-the-world. Our thinking is too closely interwoven with the driving forces of our lived-body to be imagined, not to speak of understood, as being separated from the great reason of the lived-body. After all, he assumes that “most of a philosopher’s conscious thinking is secretly guided and channelled into particular tracks by his instincts” (Nietzsche 1998: p. 7). By his expression “inverted Platonism”, obviously Nietzsche indicates a revolution of the way of thinking in the context of which a new image of thought becomes apparent which does no longer think against driving forces but out of them, in accordance with the conatus, the natural desire of an organism to stay alive in the midst of the world in which it exists. ∗∗∗ Here we get an idea why Nietzsche created the figure of the artist-philosopher right at a time when formulating this new image of thought. What in his opinion was urgently needed for the humanities is the deconstruction of the idealistic image of thought in favour of an aesthetic [aisthetic] image of thought which once again has the courage to enter the cellar regions of our lived-bodies where the driving forces of thought are bustling. The ego must give up on its shyness towards the id if it wants to make itself happen as artistic research. ∗∗∗ However, is it not that this way of thinking describes the way in which artists usually think? They think aesthetically [aisthetically], not ascetically. ∗∗∗ The more clearly Nietzsche developed his arts-based image of thought, the more clearly he understood Plato’s image of thought to be just one possible image of  See Nietzsche (2009), 7(156), p. 52.

4

12  Becoming Worldwide: Transdisciplinary Ways of Collaborations in Philosophy…

211

thought among others. What is more, he understood it to be a dangerous image of thought, as it separates us from the driving forces of our lived-body and thus also from the driving forces of art. For Nietzsche, the fact that in Plato’s philosophy art and philosophy became rivals – “bards tell a lie” (Aristoteles 1924, I,2,983a) is an ancient saying  – is just a logical consequence of the unearthly image of thought Plato essentially invented. Plato’s instinct, the instinct of the “greatest enemy of art Europe has yet produced” (Nietzsche 1967a: p.  154), demanded the poet to be banned from his ideal state, in order of saving the ascetic ideal of a kind of extrasensory thought which happens in a purely intellectually-ideally way while being separated from the chaos of becoming. ∗∗∗ Our transdisciplinary research project within the in-between of philosophy and art, as our way of proceeding at Art-Lab #1 might be summarised, started with the deconstruction of historically generated images of thought by which we are historically trapped. Quite in the sense of Wittgenstein in his Philosophical Investigations: “A picture held us captive. And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably” (Wittgenstein 1958: p. 24). At first we had to say good-bye to Plato’s image of thought to pave the way for an arts-­ based image of thought which was supposed to result from the cross-over of philosophical and artistic research practices. Accordingly, transdisciplinarity requires theory. Not as a reconstruction of historical ideas and representation of the past, but as a practice of regaining our liberty from historically generated images of thought which hold us captive. ∗∗∗ At Art-Lab # 1 Plato’s and Nietzsche’s antagonistic images of thought were analysed in detail and discussed in the context of lectures. Always with a view on our intention, putting the deconstruction of images of thought into question by which we are historically trapped, not only in the conceptual-abstract sense but also when it comes to the methodical consequences for our thinking. How must the act of thinking be imagined in a post-Plato, post-idealistic sense? What does it mean for artists, for dancers, for musicians, to think within the medium of their respective art? ∗∗∗ This is why at the Art-Labs we wanted to avoid forcing fine artists, dancers, musicians to deal with our research questions most of all in a discursive manner. This was supposed to prevent any monopolisation of the medium of language and the thus connected research methods. Right from the beginning we did not only intend to liberate ourselves from images of thought in our minds but also, by liberating ourselves from traditional images of thought in our heads, to put inherited methods and ways of presenting thought into question. Is the lecture hall really the appropriate place for post-Plato thought resulting from the cross-over of philosophy and arts? Is the classical academic format of thought, the lecture, really still the appropriate way of presenting a now post-Plato image of thought? Or is it time to create

212

A. Böhler

laboratories of thought where even unexpected ways of making thought happen and ways of presenting thought are transdisciplinarily welcomed in the course of jointly working out a new image of thought? 12.2.2.2  Art-Lab #2 At Art-Lab #2 (01st-03rd May, 2015), which happened about three and a half months after Art-Lab #1, finally the focus of our questions started shifting towards the ways of presenting and expressing thought. How does thought find expression when becoming reversed Platonism? Thus, when it starts making itself happen as a transdisciplinary, post-Plato way of thinking? Now it was time to initiate concrete ways of an interdisciplinary cooperation of artists and philosophers. Who would like to work out, in cooperation with whom, a research contribution on our research questions, in order of creating something different? Something which will be powerful enough to burst out of the constraints of disciplining the different disciplines of art and philosophy are subject to? ∗∗∗ In several reading circles we read Nietzsche texts together and started to develop concrete research contributions for Philosophy On Stage#4: • At a workshop with Erin Manning and Brian Massumi the relation of text and artistic stimulations was theoretically and practically tried out.

Twisted Nietzsche, Erin Manning, Brian Massumi. (Photo by Christoph Hochenbichler, © Austrian Science Fund (FWF): AR 275-G21) Video documentation Erin Manning, Brian Massumi http://homepage.univie.ac.at/arno. boehler/php/?p=9081

12  Becoming Worldwide: Transdisciplinary Ways of Collaborations in Philosophy…

213

• Barbara Kraus, a performance artist from Vienna, discovered that Nietzsche was her alter ego, Jonny. For, like Nietzsche, also Jonny did not seem to have trust in any idea which had not been produced while walking.

Out there is a field, Barbara Kraus. (Photo by Christoph Hochenbichler, © Austrian Science Fund (FWF): AR 275-G21) Video documentation Barbara Kraus http://homepage.univie.ac.at/arno.boehler/ php/?p=9052

• This is a motto also adopted by the philosopher Jens Badura, the performance philosopher Laura Cull and the performance artist Tess Denman Cleaver, by developing Walking Lectures starting out from the idea that only by way of a body one is capable of speaking about bodies – ex corpore, as Nancy writes in his much discussed text Corpus.

214

A. Böhler

Entangled thinking, Jens Badura. (Photo by Christoph Hochenbichler, © Austrian Science Fund (FWF): AR 275-G21) Video documentation Jens Badura http://homepage.univie.ac.at/arno.boehler/php/?p=9055

The Sea, Lies Open, Laura Cull, Tess Denman-Cleaver. (Photo by Christoph Hochenbichler, © Austrian Science Fund (FWF): AR 275-G21) Video documentation Laura Cull, Tess Denman Cleaver http://homepage.univie.ac.at/arno. boehler/php/?p=9130

12  Becoming Worldwide: Transdisciplinary Ways of Collaborations in Philosophy…

215

• The actress and performance artist Anna Mendelssohn was fascinated by the circular, repeating aspect of Nietzsche’s thought. In her Nietzsche reading she struggles for a spatial structure of his thought. Finally she will start her Nietzsche reading at Philosophy on Stage #4 with a tear stick which is passed around the audience sitting in a circle: Is it possible to really want the eternal return of such a tearful life, by once and for all agreeing with the constant return of always the same? Is it not that Nietzsche’s idea of eternal return becomes a failure due to this object, the tear stick? Finally everybody will dance the syrtaki in a circular spiral, in a Dionysian frenzy “in which no member is not drunk” (Hegel 1977: p. 27).

Nietzsche and I.  And you and the horse and the group, Anna Mendelssohn. (Photo by Christoph Hochenbichler, © Austrian Science Fund (FWF): AR 275-G21) Video documentation Anna Mendelssohn http://homepage.univie.ac.at/arno.boehler/ php/?p=9066

• The actress Corinna Kirchhoff and the actor Wolfgang Michael dealt with Ecce Homo, Nietzsche’s philosophical autobiography. By Nietzsche they recognise the creator of a new figure of thought, with all senses celebrating, even the basements of our lived-bodies. For them, reversal of Platonism means making the reason of the body the heart of philosophy; not only topically but also by the How of performing the text. Wolfgang Michael reads Ecce Homo in a revealing manner. His voice gives testimony to the fragility and violability of a body which is marked by many diseases yet still does not give up. Mercilessly, without ­sentiment or resentment towards itself. Clear, determined, knowing about how one becomes what one is.

216

A. Böhler

Ecce Homo, Corinna Kirchhoff, Wolfgang Michael. (Photo by Christoph Hochenbichler, © Austrian Science Fund (FWF): AR 275-G21) Video documentation Corinna Kirchhoff and Wolfgang Michael http://homepage.univie.ac. at/arno.boehler/php/?p=9072)

• Milli Bitterli relates the mortality of her own dancing performance to the eternal return of the same, this most abysmal idea of Nietzsche, not knowing death. Her confession of being incapable of giving up on dancing becomes a declaration of her love of dancing. Something within her always tells her to dance, as if dancing allowed her to dance her own mortality away. Calling to the dance while shouting da capo – to the eternal return of movement, to the eternal lust of movement, by moving. Lust of stumbling. Lust of falling. Lust of getting up again. Of stumbling, of falling, of getting up again. Again and again. Ad infinitum. In infinitum. The Dionysian lust of movement she communicates by her dancing performance at the Philosophy on Stage #4 research festival is actually transferred to the audience. At the end they will be with her on the stage, dancing, falling, stumbling, getting up again, shouting da capo again and again, calling for a life in movement.

12  Becoming Worldwide: Transdisciplinary Ways of Collaborations in Philosophy…

217

Friedrich Bitterli, Milli Bitterli. (Photo by Christoph Hochenbichler, © Austrian Science Fund (FWF): AR 275-G21) Video documentation Milli Bitterli http://homepage.univie.ac.at/arno.boehler/php/?p=9074

• Dieter Mersch, a philosopher from the Zurich University of Arts, reads his text on Nietzsche’s Dionysos as a resonating performance in cooperation with the fine artist Nikolaus Gansterer who works out a diagram of the lecture during Dieter Mersch’s reading.

Who is Nietzsche’s Dionysos? Nietzsche Diagrams, Dieter Mersch, Nikolaus Gansterer. (Photo by Christoph Hochenbichler, © Austrian Science Fund (FWF): AR 275-G21) Video documentation Dieter Mersch, Nikolaus Gansterer http://homepage.univie.ac.at/ arno.boehler/php/?p=8921

218

A. Böhler

• The philosopher Arno Böhler will lie on the couch in Lou Salome’s (the actress Susanne Valerie Granzer) psychoanalytic office, acting Kant after having read Nietzsche and trying to analyse, in cooperation with Lou, the thus resulting shock of his Nietzsche reading.

Nietzsche et cetera. Kant in Analysis. (Photo by Christoph Hochenbichler, © Austrian Science Fund (FWF): AR 275-G21) Video documentation Susanne Valerie Granzer and Arno Böhler http://homepage.univie. ac.at/arno.boehler/php/?p=8932

• Hester Reeves will orchestrate an audio drama on the sound of Zarathustra, with the philosophers Georg Stenger and Graham Parkes producing those sounds on stage Nietzsche is alluding to in his Zarathustra.

12  Becoming Worldwide: Transdisciplinary Ways of Collaborations in Philosophy…

219

Of Sound in the Landing Page, Hester Reeve et al. (Photo by Christoph Hochenbichler, © Austrian Science Fund (FWF): AR 275-G21) Video documentation Hester Reeves http://homepage.univie.ac.at/arno.boehler/ php/?p=9391

• Without further ado, Barbara Kraus will use the audience researcher as stage hands, and the Theatre of Assemblage will even be directed by the audience researcher.

Performing Creative Indifference, Alice Lagaay, TdV. (Photo by Christoph Hochenbichler, © Austrian Science Fund (FWF): AR 275-G21) Video documentation Alice Lagaay, TdV, Jörg Holkenbrink http://homepage.univie.ac.at/ arno.boehler/php/?p=9064

220

A. Böhler

• But there shall also be a contradicting voice. Martin Puchner, a professor of theatrical science and literature, in his reading defends Plato, by arguing that due to our fixation on bodily issues we might be no longer healthy enough for ascetic ideals.

Socrates on Stage, Martin Puchner. (Photo by Christoph Hochenbichler, © Austrian Science Fund (FWF): AR 275-G21) Video documentation Martin Puchner http://homepage.univie.ac.at/arno.boehler/ php/?p=9068

• Where the Collective ME21, presents musical works by Nietzsche in dialogue with fragments of his texts, exposing some of the tensions between Nietzsche-­ the-­composer and Nietzsche-the-philosopher.

12  Becoming Worldwide: Transdisciplinary Ways of Collaborations in Philosophy…

221

Nietzsche5: The Weight of Music, Collective ME21. (Photo by Christoph Hochenbichler, © Austrian Science Fund (FWF): AR 275-G21)

∗∗∗ In contrast to classical, academic Nietzsche research, which happens exclusively in a conceptual-reflective manner by medium of language, here reason has become part of the philosophical practice. Now, after having called on philosophical thought to making itself happen as artistic research, now, after it has adopted post-Plato features, one does no longer just talk about the reason of the body, now the intelligence of bodies is made part of the research processes. Now it is no longer sufficient to just quote a passage from Ecce Homo like the following one: “Sit as little as possible; give no credence to any thought that was not born outdoors while one moved about freely – in which the muscles are not celebrating a feast, too. All prejudices come from the intestines. The sedentary life-as I have said once before – is the real sin against the holy spirit” (Nietzsche 1967a, p. 239/240).5 Rather, one jointly looks for ways, practices and methods of thinking by help of which the corporeality of thought is presented by the act of thinking itself.

 Wolfgang Michael liest Ecce Homo: http://homepage.univie.ac.at/arno.boehler/php/?p=9072.

5

222

A. Böhler

12.2.2.3  Art-Lab #3 At the third Art-Lab there happened the final rehearsals for the Philosophy on Stage #4 festival. Now the research contributions were located at the rooms of Tanzquartier Wien. Mobile research islands were created, allowing for the participants in the festival to make intensive contact to each other. Thus the preparations for the festival were over, and for 4 days Tanzquartier Wien was changed into a space of transdisciplinary research.

12.3  Philosophy on Stage #4 Philosophy on Stage #4 was ready to start. The intended research cooperation with the students was visibly announced right at the entrance. To enter the festival, the audience had to move through fenced corridors to reach Hall G. Instead of being allowed to immediately use the two entrance doors to Hall G, the visitors were confronted with a barrier like it is used by the police. At the centre of this barrier there was a huge iron gate through which one could enter. Simultaneously, passing this gate started two processes: on the one hand a musical phrase like a kind of welcome, on the other hand the loud click of a camera made clear that one was photographed, as it has become common for passport controls. Furthermore, one’s own huge portrait was projected onto the wall, and if one stopped for a moment, one could read in big letters above it: “Thinking depends on forces which take hold of thought // Das Denken hängt ab von den Kräften, die sich seiner bemächtigen”. (Deleuze, Nietzsche and Philosophy)

∗∗∗ After having crossed this threshold, the audience themselves had become a cooperation partner for our experimental research arrangement. A part of that black box which reminded many students to Plato’s allegory of the cave. For wide Hall G, with its black walls, had been cleared to form one wide room resembling a dark underground cave. Instead of the usual rows of seats there were, freely distributed across the room, mobile black cubes as seats and camp beds as an addition, then at the side walls there was a double row of narrow stage pedestals which could also be used for sitting. Several research islands had been created for the philosophers and artists. Over the coming 4 days, all participants made very different use of this collective research setting. By the transdisciplinary cross-over of artistic and philosophical practices, this cave was supposed to provide space for a kind of thoughtful sensing, the conceptual thinking of philosophy touching the thinking of the unconscious. Quite in the sense of Nietzsche’s criticism of the superstition of the logicians who, as he writes in Beyond Good and Evil, had overlooked the simple fact that usually not the “ego” is thinking but the “id”. That processual structure of sensual driving forces which  – like the structure of audience, philosophers and artists in the

12  Becoming Worldwide: Transdisciplinary Ways of Collaborations in Philosophy…

223

darkness of Hall G – encounter each other in a commonly shared space and, by way of this encounter, create an intensive assemblage of forces and power relations to which thinking, even the thinking of philosophers and logicians, secretly obeys whenever and where ever there happens thinking (cf. Nietzsche 1998: p. 16–18). ∗∗∗ Like Nietzsche in his concept of the artist-philosopher envisaged “a higher concept of art” (Nietzsche 1967b: 795) and the Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future (Nietzsche 1998),6 both resulting from the transdisciplinary interplay of arts and philosophy, also the students in the context of our research festival were confronted with the task of being sensitive witnesses, “artistic listeners” (Deleuze 1983: p. 17) who had to combine reflective-conceptual thought with thinking the unconscious driving forces with which arts-based research is always in touch, so that there would result an intensive double reading. ∗∗∗ In this sense, one could read in the fanfold of our event: Staging philosophy makes sense with a view to creating an image of thought that seeks to remind us – philosophers and non-philosophers – of the significance of the material condition at work while somebody is doing science and philosophy. This is also what gives arts-­ based-­philosophy an essentially political relevance as it not only draws explicit attention to its own conditions of production, but also seeks to embody and communicate a form of philosophy that is relevant to the experienced world in its becoming. Our interventions are such a be-coming. (Fanfold, Philosophy on Stage#4)

∗∗∗ Due to the emphasis on the material spatial-temporal conditions under which and from which philosophy is done, the students in their written comments on the research festival often perceived the research space provided by us as a habitat shared with others. It was, they said, a kind of research whose questions literally touched the body. According to their feedbacks, repeatedly our “sensitive witnesses” experienced their actual entering our transdisciplinary research milieu as entering an intensive form of life dominated by philosophy and the arts. One has given up on being a neutral, disembodied observer who comes and goes as he/she likes. Being a sensitive witness of a collectively shared field of intensity, one rather had the impression to be called on to stay continuously, to be present more or less for the entire time of the festival. One had become part of an increased being-together, which made some visitors say in their feedbacks that they had experienced a new way of social togetherness with and among each other. Thus, arts-based research became an intensified form of life which could unfold over 4  days in the physical co-­ presence of the researching performers and the researching audience. The festival started on Thursday, November 26, at 6.00 p.m. and ended on Sunday, November 29, at 2.00 p.m.

 “Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future” is the subtitle of Nietzsche’s book Beyond Good and Evil.

6

224

A. Böhler

12.4  C  onclusion: A Transdisciplinary View at the Future of Research and Education In our case study, the following work steps guided the construction of our transdisciplinary research project: 1. The research project started with a performative speech act (research application) which had declared philosophy a kind of artistic research. This allowed for a transdisciplinary transgression of common research methods and practices. Now philosophy no longer needed to delimit and defend itself from the arts, it was able to include their ways of thinking and researching into the production of philosophical deliberations, it was thus enabled for a cross-over (chiasm) with the arts, for creating something else, different, untimely. 2. As transdisciplinary research and education is not only about shaping concepts but also about shaping sensual milieus whose material structure is supposed to co-allow for new ideas, the question of the spatial establishment of arts-based research is crucial. By our case study those research applications as having been jointly developed at the Art-Labs and in the context of the lecture series were brought together in Hall G of Tanzquartier Wien. An open hall, equipped with mobile research islands of which the participating artists, philosophers as well as the “aesthetic listeners/wittnesses” attending the research festival made functional use in the most different ways: as seats or places to sleep, as mobile stage elements, as a setting for artistic-philosophical experimental arrangements etc. 3. As actually the open stage of a transdisciplinary encounter of research and education is occupied by inherited images, concepts, stereotypes, clichés and much more, such a kind of research starts with deconstructing the images by which the different disciplines are historically trapped. In our case study this means the deconstruction of Platonic-idealistic images of thought which are contrasted by thinking the untimely. The latter no longer thinks contrary to but along with sensuality and thus generates an arts-based image of thought peaking by the figure of the artist-philosopher, philosophy being practised as artistic research. 4. Crucial for the transdisciplinary orientation of research and education is its process nature. Right from the beginning, research and education must be generated by the two disciplines dealing with each other. In our case study the research contributions were developed at Art-Labs, the two disciplines constantly dealing with each other, with the intention of processing a research contribution which already as such is a hybrid result of the cooperation of several disciplines. 5. In our case study, however, transdisciplinary research and education does not only refer to the cooperation of different disciplines. In the case of Philosophy on Stage #4, transdisciplinary research and education always happened by cooperating and dealing with the participants of the research festival in the public space. This way transdisciplinarity became a laboratory for an arts-based form of life in the context of which ways of social togetherness within a commonly shared

12  Becoming Worldwide: Transdisciplinary Ways of Collaborations in Philosophy…

225

research field are tried out. There where something like this is successful, the transdisciplinary research space becomes an intensive habitat where the untimely is happening by “acting in a non-present fashion, therefore against time and even on time, in favour (I hope) of a time to come” (Deleuze 1991: p. 107). From a transdisciplinary point of view, the future of research and education is the future building of such laboratories, pushing towards thinking the untimely.

References Aristoteles (1924) Metaphysics, translated by WD Ross. Oxford University Press, Oxford Böhler A (2017) Sensorial bodies forces – bodies – sensations. In: Gansterer N, Cocker E, Greil M (eds) Choreo-graphic figures deviations from the line. Walter De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, pp 210–213 Deleuze, G (1983) Nietzsche and Philosophy, translated by H Tomlinson. continuum, London. Deleuze G (1988) Spinoza: practical philosophy, translated by Robert Hurley. City Light Books, San Francisco Deleuze G (1991) Nietzsche and philosophy, translated by Hugh Tomlinson. Columbia University Press, New York Hegel GFW (1977) Phenomenology of Spirit, translated by A V Miller. Clarendon Press, Oxford Nancy J-L (2008) Corpus, translated by Richard A. Rand. Fordham University Press, New York Nietzsche F (1967a) On the genealogy of morals and Ecce Homo, translated by Walter Kaufmann and R. J. Hollingdale. Random House, New York Nietzsche F (1967b) The Will to Power, translated by W Kaufmann. Vintage, New York Nietzsche F (1998) Beyond good an evil, translated by Marion Faber. Oxford University Press, Oxford Nietzsche F (1999) Nachgelassene Fragmente Herbst 1985-Anfang Januar 1889. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston Nietzsche F (2005) Thus Spoke Zarathustra, translated by Graham Parkes. Oxford University Press, Oxford Nietzsche F (2009) Notebook 7. In: Writings from the early notebooks, translated by Ladislaus Löb. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Whitehead AN (1979) Process and reality. Free Press, New York Wittgenstein L (1958) Philosophical investigations, 3rd edn. Basil Blackwell Ltd, Oxford

Chapter 13

Querkraft – Cross-Force – Art as Education. Transversal Practices Versus Economic Rationalization Barbara Putz-Plecko

Abstract  Transformative and visionary force necessitates creativity, but creativity has to be freed from its straitjacket. It is a force that requires something artists possess in great measure: the ability to change perspectives, to question traditions, to break with routines and taboos, to see dichotomies as processes, and to draw creatively on the antinomies of chaos and order, fantasy and reality, and improvisation and perfection. In order to develop new forms and concepts of the (political) capacity to act, we must avoid applying the usual patterns; we must open up the disciplines; we must further develop our ability to communicate and cooperate; we must break up binary forms of logic; we must recognize hitherto unnoticed connections; and we must develop a network-like, transversal way of thinking. This means we must learn. But not only that. We must also and above all unlearn. Embedded in this system, art education sees its task as being to identify the specific (defining) peculiarities of education by means of art and culture and to make them productive in the educational process. Art schools maintain spaces that are consciously structured to ensure that encounter and debate regularly take place (e.g., in the form of art classes). The goal is to create within the study framework a space for learning and development that provides impulses to thought processes and work methods which are not automatically adapted to knowledge that has been transmitted or to practices that have been established without questioning; and this means opening up spaces for thought and action where difference and disagreement are welcome. Keywords  Art as Education · Cross-force · Economic rationalization · Interdisciplinarity · Querkraft · Transversal practices

B. Putz-Plecko (*) Research and Diversity, Vice-Rector Art Sciences and Art Education, Head of Institute, University of Applied Arts Vienna, Vienna, Austria e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 G. Bast et al. (eds.), The Future of Education and Labor, Arts, Research, Innovation and Society, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26068-2_13

227

228

B. Putz-Plecko

13.1  Introduction We must examine the ways in which we think and act, and we must depart from paths that are all too familiar in order to be able to cope with structural and systemic crises and to create new social and economic models. In order to develop visions for the future, we must look at the world in ways that are different from those that our educational systems have taught us. We must not only give fresh thought to the things and circumstances – small and large and ordinary and extraordinary – that surround us; we must also draw conclusions from what we learn by doing so. Changes and crises on both the personal and the global scale have shown us that “business as usual” simply does not work, that sclerotic structures and the value systems that go along with them are no longer sustainable. Calls for change are growing steadily louder. But the conclusions drawn from the current crises follow familiar old patterns. The political courses set for our educational systems to follow show this very clearly: in a world pervaded by the economy principle, the humanities and the social sciences as well as the arts are being increasingly suppressed – precisely those disciplines in which changes of perspective, debate, criticism, transversal, and transformative processes are of central importance. Although creativity is ubiquitously invoked, it is becoming an empty word (in the service of those who seek to safeguard existing positions of power); and exploited as an economically founded imperative, it is being robbed of its much wider-ranging potential. Transformative and visionary force necessitates creativity, but creativity has to be freed from its straitjacket. It is a force that requires something artists possess in great measure: the ability to change perspectives, to question traditions, to break with routines and taboos, to see dichotomies as processes, and to draw creatively on the antinomies of chaos and order, fantasy and reality, and improvisation and perfection. In order to develop new forms and concepts of the (political) capacity to act, we must avoid applying the usual patterns; we must open up the disciplines; we must further develop our ability to communicate and cooperate; we must break up binary forms of logic; we must recognize hitherto unnoticed connections; and we must develop a network-like, transversal way of thinking. This means: we must learn. But not only that. We must also and above all unlearn.

13.2  Unequal Competition There are times in life when the question of knowing if one can think differently than one thinks, and perceive differently than one sees, is absolutely necessary if one is to go on looking and reflecting at all. (Michel Foucault)1

 Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, Volume 2: The Use of Pleasure, trans. Robert Hurley, original title: L’Usage des plaisirs (Paris: Gallimard, 1984). 1

13  Querkraft – Cross-Force – Art as Education. Transversal Practices Versus…

229

[E]ducators for economic growth will do more than ignore the arts. They will fear them. For a cultivated and developed sympathy is a particularly dangerous enemy of obtuseness, and moral obtuseness is necessary to carry out programs of economic development that ignore inequality. It is easier to treat people as objects to be manipulated if you have never learned any other way to see them. (Martha Nussbaum)2

Throughout the world, societies and the structures that define them have been subjected to social, political, economic, and technological changes of such a fundamental nature that the far-reaching consequences of these changes have long since made themselves felt in all areas of social action. Crises, processes of reorganization, polarizations, tensions, and divisions determine, alter, and delimit individual, collective, and, consequently, institutional fields of action and room for maneuver. Insecurity is spreading as a result of an unresolved play of political, economic, and cultural forces. Centralized management and control by global capital deepens class divisions and intensifies the monopolization of industries and destabilization due to national conflicts, political unrest, and radicalization. The dramatic developments in the Middle East in particular, military provocation, acts of assertion of power, repression, and forced displacement in various regions of the world, as well as the extremely inadequate – in fact desperate – living conditions that exist in vast southern regions of the world and the continuous mass movement of refugees that has resulted from this make perfectly clear how very much – more than ever – our world is characterized by inequality and competition. Global capitalism produces product worlds that are impossible to grasp and enormous wealth for only a few, while at the same time impoverishing and condemning to misery those who produce these products in the world’s industrial zones. The struggle over the distribution of wealth is relentless. Those who possess power seek to retain it by all available means (whereby constant growth is seen as a necessary basis) and to ensure for themselves the advantages they derive from it. Any discussion of values is strictly guided by self-interest. As a consequence, more farsighted views cannot really be debated. Too often dissent is blocked or it is inhibited and disposed of by means of strategic scenarios, such as offers to participate, which create the illusion of participation and hold out a promise of empowerment but in reality serve only to maintain the stability of the system. Doubt and empathy are stigmatized as weaknesses and are deliberately denigrated. Critical reflection is dismissed as being bothersome and unproductive, or – like all forms of opposition – it is incorporated into the existing order and gradually deactivated. Economic growth has long since become the sole gauge of societal well-being. The primary goal is constant optimization. Also, developments in media technology that make it possible for the ruling order’s controlling eye to peer into the most private niches of society, developments that are geared toward maximum visibility and transparency, have become the catalysts of the dispositif of self-optimization. It is no longer necessary for control to be exerted by manifest power; rather, it functions by means of system feedback and self-regulation. At the beginning of the 1990s,  Martha Nussbaum, Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities (Princeton University Press, 2010). 2

230

B. Putz-Plecko

Gilles Deleuze observed and analyzed a transition from disciplinary societies to societies of control as well as an increasingly tight intertwining of overt control and self-surveillance. He sees the individual’s connection to society and his steering mechanisms as having been significantly altered. Oppression, discipline, and confinement are being replaced by “ultra-rapid forms of free-floating control.”3 Often, agents and managers are no longer recognizable as such; veiled authority makes its way into the individual’s imagination and takes hold of his fear of falling by the wayside or of being excluded and becoming useless.

13.3  Educational Systems in Crisis Only what can be used to generate profit in the short term has relevance; this has proven to be the political consensus. And educational systems, ever more blatantly implicated in this logic of exploitation tend to contribute to it, the priority aims being: successful inclusion, functional adaption, constant performance and maximum efficiency, as well as concentrated focus on predetermined goals, finding solutions according to established procedures and applying tried-and-tested (profitable) forms of system logic. Thus, neither a differentiated cognitive ability nor the abilities to analyze and exercise critical judgment are developed or encouraged, nor are independent thinking or an emancipated capacity to act beyond predefined system rules. Instead, what is practiced and rewarded is optimized functioning within predefined control loops. The problematic consequences of this “worldwide crisis in education”4 have long since become manifest, a crisis that is taking place almost silently and against which the American philosopher Martha Nussbaum already sounded the alarm in 2010 in her plea against the rationalization of education, Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities. In schools and institutions of higher learning, the humanities, art and cultural education, the humanistic areas of study, are being sacrificed as a result of increasingly massive budget cuts. The argumentation for these austerity measures is market-based and founded on a notion of efficiency that is understood purely in the economic sense and geared toward the natural sciences and technology. The kinds of competence that are fostered are those that are considered useful, application-oriented, quantifiable, and as profitable as possible in the short term. As a result, precisely those elements of educational systems that significantly contribute to developing personality and  Gilles Deleuze, “Postscriptum on the Societies of Control,” in October, vol. 59 (The MIT Press, winter 1992): 4 https://cidadeinseguranca.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/deleuze_control.pdf, accessed on 17 September 2017. 4  Martha C.  Nussbaum, op.  cit., 2. http://www.filosofia.unimi.it/zucchi/NuoviFile/(Public%20 square%20(Princeton,%20N.J.))%20Martha%20C.%20NussbaumNot%20For%20Profit_%20 Why%20Democracy%20Needs%20the%20Humanities%20(The%20Public%20Square)%20 %20-Princeton%20University%20Press%20(2010).pdf, accessed on 17 September 2017. 3

13  Querkraft – Cross-Force – Art as Education. Transversal Practices Versus…

231

strengthening democratic ­awareness – namely, rigorous, critical thinking, empathy, imagination, and ­creativity – are being suppressed. Martha Nussbaum’s concerned and critical assessment of the current courses set for our educational systems to follow, in particular the narrowing of curricula by educational policies rooted in a faith in competencies and technology, is shared by many of her European colleagues who give serious thought to this kind of development dynamics with regard to its specifically political connections and forms of subservience.5 It is important to note that her critical analysis in no way suggests that the natural and social sciences, the humanities, technical studies, economics, or the arts should be seen as being in opposition to each other; because it is absolutely clear that they are all not only important but, due to the differences in their cognitive methods, also indispensable to our development and our ability to meet social and global challenges. Particularly in light of the fact that the current state of affairs very clearly points to the need for the various disciplines to interact, Nussbaum warns us against a form of political control over educational processes that could have serious consequences by preferentially making room for the curricula of the natural sciences, technical studies, and economics while massively disfavoring those of the humanities, the social sciences, and the arts. Practical “problem-solving competence” is typically attributed in significantly greater measure to the natural sciences and technical studies. A major reason for their being considered particularly efficient is that they deliver quantifiable, measurable results, thereby conveying a feeling of certainty that an objective will be achieved; because these disciplines, when applied, bring about advances in knowledge at a breathtaking tempo; and, serving an idea of innovation that is defined from the perspective of the natural sciences and technology, they are held to be guarantees of (short-term) economic success. By serving the aim of orienting all activity toward the demands of the market and profit, educational processes are becoming a mere form of training: young people are being trained (in a sense like “useful machines”) to function optimally within a predefined framework and a predefined set of rules and within a clearly defined sphere of activity. The competencies acquired are the measure of success. All knowledge must be immediately useful, applicable, and exploitable. Accordingly, the competency-based orientation that has been pushed through politically in Europe in recent years aims directly and in short-circuit fashion at a skill, an application, at solving a problem. In his recently published book Bildung als Provokation, the Austrian philosopher Konrad P. Liessmann addresses the problem of “short-circuited thinking” in a world that is extremely complex, referring to it in essence as a hollowing out of the notion of education and a grave  Cf. for example: Konrad P. Liessmann, Bildung als Provokation (Vienna: Paul Zsolnay Verlag, 2017) and Irit Rogoff, “Schools of Thought,” Frieze Magazine, Issue 101 (2006), and also a statement made by the neurobiologist Gerhard Hüther: “This school system does not correspond to the human brain, because the brain is geared towards establishing interconnections and not towards accumulation.” (Translated from: Gerhard Hüther, Was wir sind und was wir sein könnten: Ein neurobiologischer Mutmacher (Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer Verlag, 2011)). 5

232

B. Putz-Plecko

­ isunderstanding of what actually constitutes education; and in doing so, he m sharply ­criticizes (as does Martha Nussbaum, providing substantiation) the narrowness and the aberrations of today’s educational reforms.6 The aspiration to provide – with a broad horizon in view – time and room for the development of insights and attitudes “that already have their intrinsic value and that allow individuals to take a position with respect to themselves and to the world, rather than merely obeying the dictates of the times and fashions”7; fostering independence of thought and action, encouraging approaches to understanding that involve multiple perspectives, and developing critical faculties and a sense of social responsibility, these essential qualities of education are being sidelined as a consequence of the trend. As a further consequence, vital incentives or the very basis needed to develop nuanced perception and the ability to analyze social dynamics are diminishing considerably or are simply being lost; and the same can be said of the incentives and basis needed to develop an active democratic attitude, that is, those needed for participation in the shaping of society.

13.4  Historical Models That Are of Current Relevance In what amounts to a counter-reaction to a progressive and critical approach to teaching that marked the 1960s and 1970s (noteworthy proponents of which included Ivan Illich, Everett Reimer and Paolo Freire in the international arena; and in the German-speaking world, Klaus Mollenhauer, Wolfgang Klafki, and Horst Rumpf) and to radical positions adopted by artists in connection with this approach (that of Joseph Beuys, e.g., which was founded on the frequently quoted proposition: “Every person is an artist”8 to the extent that he or she makes a contribution to our society, which is seen as social sculpture), our educational institutions are busier pruning and taming the forces of thought and imagination – which are so crucial to what makes us human beings – than developing them and setting them free. In putting forth this proposition, the artist, teacher, and political activist, Beuys, was giving articulation both to his faith in the creative potential of every individual and to each individual’s clear duty to do his or her best, according to his or her abilities, to contribute to social development, which he saw as a continuous creative process. He insisted on the need for individuals to become aware of the consequences of their actions and to see them within a larger context. He considered it important not only to understand the suffering and achievements of others but also to give their suffering and achievements the acknowledgment they deserved.9 He held that, as a citizen, one had to take responsibility not only for oneself but also for the common good and to use one’s creativity to contribute to finding new modes of living. Thus,  Liessmann, op. cit., 9.  Ibid., 9. 8  Joseph Beuys, Manifest, documenta 5, Kassel, 1972; see also an interview with Peter Brügge at www.spiegel.de/ “Die Mysterien finden im Hauptbahnhof statt” (Der Spiegel, 23/1984). 9  Cf. in this respect Martha C. Nussbaum, op.cit., 16. 6 7

13  Querkraft – Cross-Force – Art as Education. Transversal Practices Versus…

233

as an anthropological notion of art, his term social sculpture encompasses every creative form of human activity. Beuys, an impassioned fighter for democracy, thus saw every creative individual becoming active as a contributor to social change. He maintained that the abilities needed to make social sculpture reality were inherent in us all, but that they had to be recognized and properly nurtured.10 Education understood in this way cannot be reduced to formal abilities or to an orientation toward practical application and profit. It develops from a foundation of sound knowledge, an understanding of one’s culture and its history, and a keen interest in the unknown – and in the invisible. It thrives where obstacles and boundaries – one’s own and those of others – are put in question, particularly when this questioning is supported by a growing ability to communicate, to empathize (without an attitude of moral superiority or complacency), and to collaborate. The practice of Socratic debate and reflection – that is, the practice of independent thinking and argumentation and, consequently, the exercise of sharpened judgment – allows it to unfold, as does artistic exploration, experimentation, precise observation, and enhanced sensory perception. And it acquires form in the forming process, a process in which we conceive, concretize, and try out alternatives to the status quo in efforts to explore and understand ourselves and the world by repeated practice, by breaking with routines, and by questioning traditions. For more than a hundred years, eminent figures in teaching such as Tagore in India, Pestalozzi and Montessori in Europe, or Dewey in the United States have diversely argued that our educational systems should see it as their task to provide room precisely for processes of this kind (which has also meant including the humanities, the social sciences, and the arts), ultimately translating their theories and concepts of teaching into practice in their respective schools, which have since served as models. As different from each other as these educators have been, they have all firmly opposed the practice of drills and pressures, the drumming of information into pupils’ heads and rote memorization, and uncritical repetition of other people’s thoughts (this “chatter of parrots” that the French philosopher Jacques Rancière, among others, lambastes in his book Le Maître ignorant (The Ignorant Schoolmaster), published in 1987, seeing it as a dulling of the mind, which – contrary to the intellectual emancipation that is so much needed  – only results in entrenching inequality institutionally and in confirming the systemic inferiority of the pupil.11). These teachers founded schools that they saw not merely as places for training and social assimilation, but rather as spaces where “room for possibility” could be opened up – spaces for potentiality, experimental spaces in which individuals could experience, discover, and examine themselves and their relation to tradition and to otherness as well as the possibilities the world offers them to act – or, indeed, not to act. (In this connection, Rancière speaks of a transformation of statically canonical knowledge into a form of speech that changes processually. In this  Cf. Joseph Beuys, “Aufruf zur Alternative,” first published in the Frankfurter Rundschau, 23 Dezember 1978. 11  Cf. Jacques Rancière, The Ignorant Schoolmaster: Five Lessons in Intellectual Emancipation (Stanford University Press, 1991). 10

234

B. Putz-Plecko

process, the role of the teacher is to appeal to the pupils’ intelligence to dare to assert itself in independent processes of appropriation and translation, whereby all persons involved in the learning process have an equal right to express themselves.12). All of the above-mentioned pioneers in teaching (as well as Joseph Beuys in his concept of social sculpture) held that the equality of all individuals, which derives from pluralities and contingencies, was a self-evident and essential pre-condition for meaningful, social interaction. Their approach to teaching, in its application, conveyed not the myth of total control, but rather, the experience of mutual reliance and that of interrelated, interconnected action as well as a cosmopolitan attitude. Also, it took account of the fact that education must be cross-culturally conceived if it is to be preparation for active citizen participation in a pluralistic democracy. Accordingly, cultural education and the artistic disciplines had a place of priority in the curricula. One might expect these insights to have long since brought about changes in our educational systems. Unfortunately, just the opposite has been the case. The conclusions regarding educational policy that are being drawn from today’s crises and in anticipation of foreseeable challenges are, seen in the long term, extremely problematic. The alteration of the educational landscape does not correspond to what analyses show is needed to prepare us best for the future. For that reason it is essential to recognize not only the importance of the humanities but also the significance of artistic and cultural education.

13.5  Art as Education When children play, they learn to experiment with their abilities. They learn to deal with surprises; they marvel, and they start to ask questions. As they metamorphose by playing, and by learning in the process, their growing curiosity and their interest in their playmates and their surroundings as well as the joy they have in playing together in various creative ways make their need for control vanish. There is a direct relation between playing and creativity.13 And creativity’s central domain is art. The methods of artistic work make it possible to intensify, expand, and transform the experiences described above. A sensory approach allows children to discover new worlds and to come to grips with them in playful ways. It is a proven fact that we need sensory experiences in order to develop. Neuroscientific research ­demonstrates how thinking is stimulated by the senses and that creativity requires neuroplasticity.  Ibid., see the section entitled “Society Pedagogicized,” chapter 5, “The Emancipator and His Monkey”. 13  See Donald Winnicott, Playing and Reality (London: Tavistock Publications, 1971). Winnicott expresses the view that in all human cultures art essentially has the function of maintaining and expanding room for play. 12

13  Querkraft – Cross-Force – Art as Education. Transversal Practices Versus…

235

In a focused creative process, thoughts and information become material for experimentation: they are examined, selected, further developed, refined or discarded, reorganized, restructured, reworked, and reframed. It is not difficult to come to the realization  – and this has been amply studied and expounded upon  – that learning by means of art-based methods opens up specific areas of experience and development. It is characterized by an exceptional capacity for making things vivid. It promotes a positive idea of diversity and a favorable attitude toward approaches that differ from one another and toward views that are formed from multiple perspectives. For example, this kind of learning can often make it clear in a very direct way that there is more than just one appropriate answer and more than just one solution to a problem. The explicit aim of education in the arts and through the arts is to allow the personality, talents, and mental and physical abilities of each child to develop fully and to open up areas of experience and development in which young people can discover themselves and familiarize themselves with the world and which contribute to the holistic development of their personality. Literacy – as an educational goal and as a key competence – must be taken further than language conceived merely as a verbal means of expression and communication. Form is given to things in many “languages.” Schools must therefore provide time and space for the development of verbal and nonverbal modes of expression. Experimental situations must be allowed to occur – or must be created – in order for individuals to be able to discover or develop things or to present them in a new way, and to do this in their own personal language, in their own characteristic style, in their own individual way of expressing themselves. Art and design have long since ceased to be restricted to the physical work produced or to the product. They can each be a process, a concept, a practice, a network, social or ecological intervention and innovation; they can be material or immaterial, analog, digital or virtual. Aesthetic education, education in the arts, is characterized by its specific way of cross-linking cognition and emotion. We know that if we do not learn to deal with emotional forms of intelligence, we run the risk of incurring a considerable deficit in perception as well as in our ability to make decisions, to cope with everyday life and to interact socially.14 Nevertheless, surprisingly little account has been taken of this knowledge. Plenty of good intentions have been expressed, but little has actually been done in educational policy-making that could facilitate and promote a paradigm shift, although the need for one has clearly been acknowledged. More effort has to be made to establish synergies between knowledge, skills, and creativity. With few exceptions, educational policy makers have hardly gone beyond ­paying lip service. As it has already been mentioned above, reduced hours and prioritization in quite different directions are causing these areas of education to  At this point, mention should also be made of a very problematic issue, one that is fraught with contradictions, namely, that of artists becoming models of neoliberal entrepreneurs, a topic that cannot be further expanded upon here. Cf. Barbara Putz-Plecko, “Provocation as a constructive element in the arts and in education to foster societal development and innovation: Experience and knowledge as forms of social relations,” in Gerald Bast, Elias Carayannis, David F.G. Campbell (eds.), Arts, Research, Innovation and Society (New York: Springer, 2015). 14

236

B. Putz-Plecko

d­ iminish in many European countries to such an extent that the potential of children and young people often goes ignored. As a result, young people’s chances for development are lost at an early age and, in addition, their potential remains untapped for society as a whole; even though society needs– now more than ever  – precisely those competencies and qualities that artistic and cultural education cultivate.15

13.6  C  ultural Education as Transformative and Transversal Practice The question of the social relevance of cultural education (and consequently of artistic and aesthetic education as being a part of it) always brings into focus at the same time both the make-up of a society and its values, “since educational processes are embedded in social structures and take place according to ritual arrangements.”16 Statements about the interrelationship of art, culture, and education require making transparent the ways in which these notions are conceptualized and the elements of argumentation involved. As can quickly be seen on closer consideration, culture and, consequently, cultural education are “disputed” notions. On the one hand, there is a broad consensus concerning the central role and importance of cultural education in developing creativity and cultural knowledge as well as abilities needed for cultural participation, a role considered to be a basic function of education. On the other hand, this role and its importance are vitiated by the fact that culture is exploited for the sake of specific, hegemonic interests. Cultural education that addresses the demands of a critical, reflective practice must reject any attempt at co-opting it ideologically, and it must build on an enlightened, non-essentialist concept of culture, resisting imposed forms of exploitation logic and obsessions with effect or efficiency. These processes are nevertheless encroaching upon educational systems and increasing their control over them. If we can be aware of the collective responsibility we bear for this world, we will realize with a sense of urgency that we must finally draw conclusions from this awareness and take appropriate action on both the large and the small scale. The enormous magnitude and the tempo of global changes as well as the complexity of the demands that these changes implicate and the issues they raise call for an awareness of the problems posed that is both comprehensive and nuanced. This awareness, in its turn, requires constant questioning and deconstruction of dominant viewpoints, discourse and forms of systemic logic. It requires, in other words, not only developing spheres of activity, but also opening these up, creating new linkages and synergies among them in order to nurture a cognitive ability and an ability to act  Cf. Barbara Putz-Plecko, Art and Culture – Key Elements of Education, background report prepared for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (Vienna/Paris, 2009). 16  Carmen Mörsch and Ute Pinkert, “Transformative Wirkung künstlerischer Strategien in sozialen Feldern,” Kunstpädagogik im Projekt der allgemeinen Bildung, eds. Johannes Kirschenmann, Frank Schulz and Kurt Sowa (Munich, 2006), 538. 15

13  Querkraft – Cross-Force – Art as Education. Transversal Practices Versus…

237

that is commensurate with the challenges that arise. In order for this to be achieved, cross-disciplinary and transverse forms of practice and new forms of collaboration are needed. The cultural sociologist Richard Sennett stresses precisely this point in Together: The Rituals, Pleasures and Politics of Cooperation, a book in which he reflects on the capacities that will be decisive for our future. He considers the capacity for cooperation to be the most essential of all. For how else are we to meet such complex challenges if not together? How, though, can people cooperate and live together when their ways of experiencing the world and relating to it, when their self-image and – considering the great inequality of living conditions  – their existential basis differ so fundamentally? What does it mean simply not to take this inequality for granted? How can we act together, bring about change, think radically new thoughts together? How do we realize what is to be done? How do we encounter other human beings? What do we need and what must we learn in order to communicate with each other with some degree of depth? Can we avoid making our own advantage the most important gauge of our actions and reflect (self-) critically on our own practice? How can we share knowledge, find constructive links between different opinions, make decisions through negotiation? How can we acknowledge ambiguities, contradictions, and differences in ourselves and around us? What exactly does it mean to “cooperate”? These are burning questions. Few topics currently debated in the social arena are more charged with emotion and more controversial than those concerning the opening and closing of horizons. Today, one cannot help noticing the extent to which conflicts that clearly have economic or political causes are attributed to a “battle of cultures”17 and reduced to differences between ethnically and religiously defined notions of culture. Culture thus becomes a political category and a symbolic weapon in the war for power and hegemony, whether it is exploited in the name of nationalistic interests or as a means of articulating identities in the form of relationships of dominance and subordination.18 There is no question that culture (like art) is a notion highly charged with norms. Since the bourgeois Enlightenment, “culture” has been treated as a distinct category that serves to contrast with non-bourgeois lifestyles; and, in conjunction with a markedly colonialist understanding of the world, the notion has been expanded to include the delimitation of “one’s own culture” with respect to “foreign culture.” Taste, connoisseurship, styles of communication, and consumer ­sophistication are considered to be indicators of a suitable level of cultivation, even though these indicators are totally subject to variation.19  Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York, 1996). Cf. other standpoints such as Amartya Sen, Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny (New York and London, 2006) or Amin Maalouf, Les Identités meurtrières (Paris, 1998). 18  Cf. Oliver Marchart, “Warum Cultural Studies vieles sind, aber nicht alles. Zum Kultur- und Medienbegriff der Cultural Studies,” Medienheft/Dossier (19/2003). 19  Cf. Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, trans. Richard Nice (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984). 17

238

B. Putz-Plecko

Over the past 20 years, deconstructivist, post-structuralist, and anti-racist theories have subjected essentialist and biologistic concepts of culture to profound critical analysis. They have shown how forms of racism based on biological arguments are transformed into culturalized forms of racism in the sense that individuals’ characteristics deriving from their (cultural) origin are claimed to have been determined in a form that is definitive and unalterable.20 On the other hand, contemporary theories opposed to racism adhere to an anti-essentialist concept of “culture.” Thus, for example, as early as 1992 the German art theorist and cultural philosopher Wolfgang Welsch criticized as being both untenable and obsolete the traditional Herderian closed-sphere model of culture, with its focus on the notions of nation and closed system (“Every nation has its center of happiness within itself, as every sphere has its center of gravity!”21) and its emphasis on internal homogeneity and delimitation with respect to the outside. In opposition to this separatist model, which presents cultures as being clearly distinct from one another, Welsch puts forward a permeative model of culture seen as an intermeshing characterized by permeability, a model he refers to as transculturality.22 In today’s general understanding of culture, however, the various delimiting functions are still operative, in spite of the fact that for more than 50 years reductionist views have been vigorously controverted – by Cultural Studies and Stuart Hall, for example. Proponents of Cultural Studies see culture as a process, they see it as production and as an exchange of shared meanings23; and they expand the notion of culture to include practices of everyday life and phenomena of popular culture that a bourgeois understanding of the notion would exclude. So, as the notion of culture is subjected to ideological appropriation and fraught with tensions, the same can be said for cultural education as well. There is therefore a need for a critical and self-reflective practice that is aware of the context in which it evolves and of its own inherent problems and inconsistencies. Only a practice of this kind can open the way for the creation of an emancipatory dimension of education. The artistic and pedagogical areas of study at the University of Applied Arts pursue these aims by developing, both in theory and in practice, a sense of what the notions of art, culture, and education can mean. By perceiving and analyzing the social and practical consequences that these notions imply, students build the foundation they need for a critical practice and are in a position to reflect on how they themselves have been formed.

 Cf. IAE zhdk.ch Glossar, https://www.zhdk.ch/forschung/iae/glossar-972 (accessed on 11 September 2019). 21  Johann Gottfried Herder, Auch eine Geschichte der Philosophie zur Bildung der Menschheit (Frankfurt am Main, 1967 [1747]), 44f. 22  Wolfgang Welsch, “Was ist eigentlich Transkulturalität?” in Kulturen in Bewegung. Beiträge zur Theorie und Praxis der Transkulturalität, eds. Dorothee Kimmich and Schamma Schahadat (Bielefeld, 2012), 26f. 23  Cf. Stuart Hall, “Cultural Studies: Two Paradigms,” Media, Culture and Society (1980/2), 57–72. 20

13  Querkraft – Cross-Force – Art as Education. Transversal Practices Versus…

239

This is all the more important that current debates about globalization, demographic change, migration and discontinuous biographies, inequality, and the ­rapidly advancing transformation of work all raise enormous, new expectations regarding cultural education: regarding the ability to cope with (global) transformation processes, for example, or ways to facilitate intercultural exchange, the competence to provide biographical direction, teaching soft skills that are relevant to work, and – not least of all – a reflective approach to an all-embracing and pervasive culturalization.24 These expectations grow in proportion to the social challenges and crises that develop. The process of culturalizing the economy, or, alternatively, the economization of culture, and, as a consequence, the culturalization of all spheres of daily activity, has fundamentally changed our lives. The social figure of the creative individual has long since become a role model for the new economy, creative industries, and creative cities. Connected with this is the fact that the digital revolution, the digitalization of the media, has brought about a profound transformation of our patterns of perception, thought, and action. With incredible speed, artificial intelligence is radically changing our work world and our very understanding of work. We find ourselves being propelled forward by forms of logic based on optimization, acceleration, and commercial exploitation. As critically as one may view this state of affairs, art and culture are being assigned new functions as a result of it, as are educational processes connected with art and culture. Cultural practices are basic social techniques. And especially considering that signs and individual articulations require space and that this space is determined by power relations and embedded in symbolic orders, abilities to deal with these productively, reflectively, and communicatively are urgently needed. If art education and cultural education can encourage thoughtful discussion of cultures and their intrinsic orders (sexual, ethnic, social, etc.), these abilities can gradually be developed. “The aesthetic/artistic attitude as a form of practice or as cognitive interest in the study of art has a cultural function that can be precisely defined. How do I see my world and give shape to it? How do I explore my world and test it? In the teaching of art, thinking revolves precisely around this pivot point.”25 So how can my actions be meaningful in this world? Here, I allow myself once again to refer to Sennett and his urgent call for cooperation. He urges us to recognize that one of the most pressing necessities today is to provide impetus for cooperation and to enhance our abilities to communicate. Alongside dialectical forms of communication, he stresses the need for greater efforts to develop dialogic forms of communication. This, he argues, would f­ acilitate an open and unbi-

 See in this respect a current analysis of the culturalization of politics and the culturalization of the refugee question in Ruth Wodak, The Politics of Fear: What Right-Wing Populist Discourses Mean (London and Los Angeles: Sage, 2015). 25  Klaus-Peter Busse, Bildumgangsspiele einrichten, vol. 9 of Studien zur Kunstdidaktik (Dortmund, 2009), 22f. 24

240

B. Putz-Plecko

ased exchange of views and experience, which, in turn, ultimately enables us to have deeper understanding and empathy.26 Only then is relationship possible. If our ability to cooperate is not to be more strongly inhibited by institutional structures and further diminished by the existing social order,27 then changes of perspective, mobility among various standpoints as well as a constructive approach to ambiguity must be encouraged and supported. These insights formulated by Sennett and the abilities he derives from them coincide with the potentialities attributed to or inherent in the arts and their basic techniques of grasping the world. Wolfgang Welsch, for example, in texts he has devoted to aesthetic thinking, writes the following in connection with art experience and the competence needed to act: “[…] whoever is thoroughly familiar with what constitutes plurality and with its precepts– and here art experience is the best school – is able to move about comfortably in a situation of radical plurality; he need not be repulsed by it, but rather, taking it in, he can penetrate it and act in it. For this reason, art experience and aesthetic thinking today become effective aids to orientation.”28 Learning processes of existential importance emerge from this: acknowledgment of what is different, resistance to structural standardization and uniformity, and also acquiring the ability to see things in terms of transitions instead of leveling. Here too, according to Welsch, art can have a certain avant-garde function in the sense that it develops new models and ways of perceiving links between things that are different as well as transitions in the midst of heterogeneity.29 Crossing boundaries has always been a part of artistic processes. It is an essential element of development. However, one must always inquire into the aesthetic and ethical criteria involved in any given transformation process as well. Works of art are always both a finding of one’s way and objects of thought. Although the models, often complex, that art offers us are not simply transferable or application-oriented and designed to be immediately utilizable, they have a function that is analogous to understanding and experiencing reality – a reality that we not only experience but also recreate every day. The philosopher Boris Groys speaks of art as being otherness thought of positively, an otherness in which one recognizes and understands oneself in a new way, an otherness that “can open up, deepen, and critically examine understanding.”30 Thus, the aesthetic/artistic attitude has an ascertainable cultural function: How do I perceive the world? How do I analyze it? How do I go about understanding it and how can I act in it and shape it? Who am I? (Here, the “I” that asks itself these  Cf. Richard Sennett, Together: The Rituals, Pleasures and Politics of Cooperation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012). 27  Ibid., 374. 28  Wolfgang Welsch, Aesthetisches Denken (Stuttgart, 1990), 76. 29  Ibid., 72. 30  Johannes Kirschenmann, “Wider das Ideal ästhetischer Autonomie,” in Kunstpädagogik im Projekt der allgemeinen Bildung, eds. Johannes Kirschenmann, Frank Schulz and Kurt Sowa (Munich, 2006), 28. Cf. Boris Groys, Über das Neue: Versuch einer Kulturökonomie (Frankfurt am Main, 1999). 26

13  Querkraft – Cross-Force – Art as Education. Transversal Practices Versus…

241

questions must always be construed as a plural. Its subjectivity is unfinished and varies according to the situation; in other words, it has the character of a process. Its subjectivity is constantly being recreated through a variety of discursive and non-­ discursive practices.) The material of art consists not only of material things but also of forms of knowledge, structures, processes, strategies, and perceptions, which do not necessarily have to be assigned to places within the art system. Getting involved with art today means delving into an immense variety of forms of practice; and it means coming into contact with creative processes that can be of relevance at all levels of individual and social thought and action. This involvement is not restricted to a specific mode of experience. One can nevertheless try to conceive what emerges from it. Having an aesthetic experience can mean, for example, “encountering afresh worlds of experience familiar from the real world in the mode of reflective distance.”31 What emerges from this involvement is something that the philosopher Juliana Rebentisch, for example, refers to as critical empathy. Aesthetic experience is thus to be understood as a transforming process: art as a catalyzing force in society, as a medium for bolstering personality and sociability, a medium for free discovery, but also for the awkward, the surprising, the unpredictable, the ambiguous, a medium for constructive divergence and productive play, a medium in which visions of the world are made manifest in images.32 Art being equivocal, the furthering of the appreciation of art cannot start from a premise of unambiguity; the stuff with which it deals is, after all, neither firmly established nor constant. Rather, it confronts uncertainties and works with them. As it is an emancipatory practice, it is not oriented toward the feasible; it has to desire the impossible. It is itself an experimental situation of a somewhat artistic character. To further the appreciation of art, therefore, means to establish a possible position between the observer and the aesthetic concept, object or event. Accordingly, what results from this work is not a predetermined “real understanding,” but rather the production of possible ways to understand within the real.33 Art, with its specific experimental, open, unfinished, process-like qualities, is also constantly concerned with abandoning the familiar. Inherent in these qualities that characterize art and the work of furthering the appreciation of art is the valuable potential to “break patterns of thought and to reveal how modern rationality has jeopardized itself with its own strategies of security in order to make a new relation to knowledge, to our times and to otherness conceivable – another possibility of the possible.”34 Only when this potential has been tapped can new spaces for d­ evelopment and learning be opened up for developing our capacity to imagine and to act (culturally).  Juliane Rebentisch, Theorien der Gegenwartskunst. Zur Einführung (Hamburg, 2013), 80.  Cf. Johannes Kirschenmann, Frank Schulz and Kurt Sowa (eds.), Kunstpädagogik im Projekt der allgemeinen Bildung (Munich, 2013), 16. 33  Eva Sturm, Im Engpass der Worte. Sprechen über zeitgenössische Kunst (Berlin, 1996). 34  Andrea Liesner and Michael Wimmer, Der Umgang mit Ungewissheit. Denken und Handeln unter Kontingenzbedingungen (Hamburg: digital publication, 2004). 31 32

242

B. Putz-Plecko

What, then, does this imply with respect to academic structures? The university also sees itself as an institution of learning that constantly recreates itself through discursive practices. In order to ensure that appropriate spaces for thought and action have the broad horizons they need, institutional structures and routines must be opened up, and – across institutional and disciplinary boundaries – new synergies must be allowed to emerge. In concrete terms, this requires relaxing, indeed shattering familiar frameworks, rules and habits and making room for the unpredictable. We need (infra-) structures that are both capable of development and adaptable in order to be able to experiment, learn, and research in individual and collaborative processes and thus to redefine our room for action and coexistence. Embedded in this system, art education sees its task as being to identify the specific (defining) peculiarities of education by means of art and culture and to make them productive in the educational process. It has as much to do with vividness, sensuality, establishing shape and form, distraction, experiment, reflection, and transformation as it does with communication, change of perspective, or incentives to cross boundaries. The latter manifest themselves in multifaceted (which also means transverse and cross-cultural) forms of practice as well as in the crossing of diverse media (transmediality), the interconnection between art, science, and practice (transdisciplinarity), and the combination of teaching and artistic research within the framework of a great variety of projects.35 The teaching grows out of art but does not remain limited to it. Rather, it creates room for thought and action in which a work can be discussed in relation to its cultural references. It is all about production and reception as well as examining modes of operation; it is about the conditions necessary for articulation to take place, it is about incorporation into areas of social relevance. In other words, it is about a creative process of probing and connecting that is not oriented merely toward the ostensibly feasible – it is all about creating new links. This requires both time and a set of conditions that welcomes and encourages autonomous movement. Because creativity is not simply scalable, it is not summoned up arbitrarily. It thrives on freedoms and not on commands.36 Art schools maintain spaces that are consciously structured to ensure that encounter and debate regularly take place (e.g., in the form of art classes). The goal is to create within the study framework a space for learning and development that provides impulses to thought processes and work methods which are not automatically adapted to knowledge that has been transmitted or to practices that have been established without questioning; and this means opening up spaces for thought and action where difference and disagreement are welcome. These are spaces in which  “The sibling pair ‘art and science’ alone has the ability to transform the thick jungle of circumstances in which we live into a bewildering labyrinth. Chaotic complexity becomes a landscape, which, rather than proposing prepackaged solutions, reveals perspectives and possibilities.” Rudolf Scholten, Die Politik und die Kunst (text of a lecture given within the framework of aut (architektur und tirol). https://aut.cc/veranstaltungen/rudolf-scholten-die-politik-und-die-kunst (accessed on 11 September 2019). 36  Cf. Barbara Putz-Plecko, Kunst und Kultur: Art and Culture – Key Elements of Education, background report prepared for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (Paris, 2009). 35

13  Querkraft – Cross-Force – Art as Education. Transversal Practices Versus…

243

individuals, with their experience, show themselves and recognize themselves as being distinct, spaces in which meaning and value emerge through a mutual exchange – through the recognition and creation of relationships, interconnections and affinities within groups and networks. Therefore, of central importance here are not those learning processes that increase knowledge on the basis of set requisites for learning (schemata, frameworks, models), but rather learning processes that transform these basic requisites. At its best, “education forms collectivities, many fleeting collectivities which ebb and flow ... small, ontological communities” that “are propelled by desire and curiosity, cemented together by the kind of empowerment that comes from intellectual challenge,”37 as Irit Rogoff, Professor of Visual Culture at Goldsmiths, University of London, puts it in her essay entitled “Turning.” Education, she says, “signals rich possibilities of coming together and participating in an arena not yet signaled.” Rogoff sees education as thus being able to release energies enabling us to progress “from what can be opposed to what can be imagined.”38 It is imperative that all of us do what we can to keep these spaces for learning, development, encounter, and action alive and open in order to be prepared for the future and to give utopia a chance (Fig. 13.1).

Fig. 13.1  STOPPT SCHULE JETZT. MANIFEST FÜR EINE ERNEUERTE SCHULE. Manifesto. (Source: Manifesto for school reform drawn up by the University of Applied Arts Vienna in 2015 calling on the Austrian Federal Government to institute responsible educational reform that finally takes account of the transformation taking place in society and the challenges it poses. It also stresses the need to tap the enormous potentials of the arts, cultural education, and cross-­ disciplinary forms of practice in order for such reform to be effective)

37  Irit Rogoff, Turning, http://www.lot.at/sfu_sabine_bitter/Rogoff_Turning.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2017), 39. 38  Ibid. An earlier version of this text with illustrations first appeared in e-Flux Journal, No.0. 2008. See http://www.e-flux.com/journal/view/18

Chapter 14

Conclusion: The Future of The Future of Education and Labor David F. J. Campbell, Elias G. Carayannis, and Gerald Bast

Abstract The transformation of Industry 4.0 will destroy labor, and the ­transformation of Industry 4.0 will create new labor, so finally there even may be more (new) labor. This requires, however, to reorganize labor and education in innovative and progressive approaches, so that then the net gain of new labor has the full potential of even to outpace the losses of old labor. Competences of persons, people, and humans must be developed and developed further, to prevent that labor can be replaced by automation effects or by artificial intelligence (at least not in simple ways). Crucial are here multifaceted competences, where disciplinary professional knowledge is being augmented and recombined with interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary skills and competences (for this also the metaphors of “T-competences” and “M-competences” are being used). Creativity and creativity skills are crucial in

D. F. J. Campbell (*) University of Applied Arts Vienna, University Development and Quality Enhancement (UQE), Vienna, Austria Danube University Krems, Department for Continuing Education Research and Educational Technologies and Department for Continuing Education Research and Educational Technologies, Center for Educational Management and Higher Education Development, Krems, Austria University of Vienna, Department of Political Science, Vienna, Austria Alpen-Adria-University Klagenfurt, Faculty for Interdisciplinary Studies (iff), Department of Science Communication and Higher Education Research (WIHO), Klagenfurt, Austria e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] E. G. Carayannis European Union Research Center, GWU School of Business, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA e-mail: [email protected] G. Bast University of Applied Arts Vienna, Vienna, Austria e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 G. Bast et al. (eds.), The Future of Education and Labor, Arts, Research, Innovation and Society, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26068-2_14

245

246

D. F. J. Campbell et al.

driving innovation, which again is advancing the evolution of knowledge society, knowledge economy, and knowledge democracy. Arts and artistic research ­represent crucial components in an advanced innovation system. Artificial intelligence will not replace human intelligence, but artificial intelligence will complement human intelligence. However, also here the challenge is to organize labor (and the economy, society, and democracy) in a way, so that human intelligence is using artificial intelligence for the purpose of supporting (and carrying higher) human intelligence and human labor. Therefore, the idea is to speak more of a co-evolution of artificial intelligence and of human intelligence but where the humans are in the position of control and sovereign decision-making (also expressed in the metaphor of a “Centaur Intelligence”). Artificial intelligence can provide assumptions and guidance; however, the humans are the ones who are making the decisions or who engage in “making the decision-making.” There is this understanding that advanced knowledge manifests itself in a diversity of knowledge modes and innovation modes, and that this pluralism of knowledge also requires a political pluralism, which is a characteristic and component clearly of democracy. Democracy as innovation enabler, or the quality of democracy as an innovation enabler, emphasize the connectedness and interconnectedness of (a) knowledge development and of (b) democracy development and democracy evolution. In reference to the example and metaphor of a society of free women and free men in ancient Greece (the democratic polis in Athens), we can speculate, how in Industry 4.0 the artificial intelligence and other advanced technological means could be used and can be used and utilized to carry out the (boring) standard work, whereas persons, people, and humans then are focusing more on the interesting work. This we may phrase and paraphrase as a type of Renaissance of (interesting) labor in the Age of Knowledge and Innovation. So what are then the new (and old) forms of entrepreneurship and of creative innovation in Industry 4.0 (or Industry 5.0 in a later phase), what can artificial-intelligence-based entrepreneurship possibly mean? What Industry 4.0 really needs and requires is a Democracy 5.0. If there is Art and Democracy, we also should think about the Art of Democracy. Keywords  Artificial intelligence (AI) · Artistic research · Art and democracy · Art of computerization · Automation · Cross-disciplinarity · Democracy · Arts · Centaur intelligence · Creativity · Democracy as innovation enabler · Democracy 5.0 · Digitalization · Education · Global challenges · Interdisciplinarity · Knowledge democracy · Knowledge economy · Knowledge society · M-competences · The future of education and labor · The future of future · Transdisciplinarity · Industry 4.0 · Industry 5.0 · Innovation · Labor · T-competences · Transformation

14  Conclusion: The Future of The Future of Education and Labor

247

We stand on the brink of a technological revolution that will fundamentally alter the way we live, work, and relate to one another. In its scale, scope, and complexity, the transformation will be unlike anything humankind has experienced before. We do not yet know just how it will unfold, but one thing is clear: the response to it must be integrated and comprehensive, involving all stakeholders of the global polity, from the public and private sectors to academia and civil society (Schwab 2016, p. 1). While computerization has been historically confined to routine tasks involving explicit rule-based activities …, algorithms for big data are now rapidly entering domains reliant upon pattern recognition and can readily substitute for labor in a wide range of non-routine cognitive tasks … . In addition, advanced robots are gaining enhanced senses and dexterity, allowing them to perform a broader scope of manual tasks … . This is likely to change the nature of work across industries and occupations (Frey and Osborne 2013, p. 44). Based on these estimates, we examine expected impacts of future computerization on US labor market outcomes, with the primary objective of analyzing the number of jobs at risk and the relationship between an occupation’s probability of computerization, wages and educational attainment. According to our estimates, about 47 percent of total US employment is at risk (Frey and Osborne 2013, p. 1).

The message is radical and the change will be even more so radical. In the ancient Greek society—which many western politicians often refer to— the free (at that time only male) citizens spent their time with thinking, debating, writing, deciding on societal issues, exercising or perceiving arts and sports, and caring for people beyond base and servile work. The base and servile work was done by slaves.1 In our times we in fact could think about having a society of free women and of free men, who dedicate their lives to shaping their private and socio-­ political as well as the socio-economic sphere, to actively participating in jointly developing the cultural, political, and economic environment, where they are living in. In times of shifting the paradigms of what is the mission of humankind on the globe, in times when technology will be taking over large parts of what is known as human labor, in times when the meaning of human labor in its philosophical, political, and economic context needs to be redefined. What is the alternative to turning our societies toward a new kind of the ancient Greek society? What is, in the Digital Age, the peaceful alternative to a society where mankind can concentrate on education, research, arts, and politics and acting into human relationships? In parallel, our societies have grown constantly more complex, and the parameters for having effects on society have shrunk correspondingly. Everything is connected. We live in a world that is characterized by change, uncertainty, insecurity, and ambiguity. By contrast, our educational institutions—at least outside of the art universities—are dominated by a culture of clarity: yes or no, true or false, correct or incorrect. Almost a century after Heisenberg formulated the uncertainty principle and his theory of quantum mechanics has broken the paradigms of physics, and  We must add that in ancient Greek society there were not only free people, but also slaves.

1

248

D. F. J. Campbell et al.

even philosophy, we are still accustomed to arguing and acting largely along linear causality patterns within insulated (isolated) boxes of fragmented sciences. The acquisition of knowledge about the potential for connections between the disciplines and about the synergistic potential of connected specialist knowledge is a type of expertise that, as a supplement to expertise in highly specialized areas of knowledge, is indispensable. The speed of progress in scientific and technological knowledge as well as the increasingly urgent need for solutions to global challenges such as aging societies, climate change, migration, and human-machine merging make it seem irresponsible to do without the systematic acquisition of expertise in cross-disciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary analytical approaches to seeking synergistic potentials to solve complex challenges. At the end of the twentieth century, the classical canon of cultural skills—speaking, reading, writing, and arithmetic—was extended to include the ability to communicate and articulate oneself digitally. People who did not master this skill were punished with social marginalization as digital illiterates and suffered significant disadvantages in the labor market. In the twenty-first century, this canon of cultural skills must be extended again. Creative abilities will be some of the most important skills for managing life. The change in the structures of economy and the world of work is thus well underway. “Liquid times,” in the truest sense of the phrase, have begun. Work is changing, and work as it is currently known will partly disappear. That means that the term “employability,” on the one hand, has to be adapted to the changed structures and requirements, and on the other has to include the ability to adapt to new forms of work. Given the foreseeable changes in society and the economy, which will result from technological developments, that seems all too logical. Automatable work, manual as well as mental, will be taken over by machines within a few years. Fields of work that cannot be automated, whether they already exist or are newly developed, will require higher education—but one that is significantly different from what is currently offered. Along the Fourth Industrial Revolution, fuelled by the recent technological revolution, we need an educational revolution. This revolution has to be a revolution driven by creativity and social intelligence. This revolution has to implement holistic approaches into our system of teaching, learning, and research. This revolution will provide experts in synthesizing knowledge and in bridging the towers of knowledge. The universities will have to complete a paradigm change in their contents. In democratic societies, the universities need the emotional and political backing of the vast majority of citizens. Societal recognition can be gained by proving that universities are providing solutions for the complex problems of the future and that universities, in their teaching and research, are seriously focusing on the grand societal challenges. University (higher education) education—and university (higher education) research—must actively contribute to the development of completely new fields of human work. Further, they must contribute to the new definition of the term “work” and on the conceptual formation of the social framework that will be necessary for it. That means that the universities (higher education institutions) are facing entirely new challenges. If the social and economic realities rapidly follow a completely new logic in their structure and con-

14  Conclusion: The Future of The Future of Education and Labor

249

tents, thanks to the technological revolution, that will not take place without significant consequences for the self-understanding of the universities, for established approaches to education, and for the social position of universities. In the following (and not finally), further hypotheses are being introduced for the purpose of a further discussion of the transformation of Industry 4.0 in the Future of Education and Labor, and how this may relate with an Industry 5.0 and a Democracy 5.0 that are arising on the horizon. 1. Hypothesis #1—The transformation of Industry 4.0 will destroy labor, and the transformation of Industry 4.0 will create new labor, so finally there even may be more (new) labor: Historically, there always have been major changes in the economic structure, for example, the transformation of an agriculture-based economy to industry-based and service-based economies. This was accompanied mostly by (massive) changes in labor. In principle, this also is the current transformation process of Industry 4.0 (Frey and Osborne 2013). Contemporary specifics of course are the speed and rapidness of the transformation, its global stretch, and the ramifications of (disruptive) artificial intelligence. However, should labor and education be reorganized and innovated in progressive approaches, then the net gain of new labor has the full potential of even to outpace the losses of old labor. Competences of persons, people, and humans must be developed and developed further in a way, so that they cannot be replaced by automation effects (e.g., digitalization or computerization)2 or by artificial intelligence (at least not in simple ways). Crucial are here multifaceted competences, where disciplinary professional knowledge is being augmented and recombined with interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary (also cross-disciplinary) skills and competences (for this also the metaphors of T-competences and M-competences are being used).3 Creativity and creativity skills are crucial in driving innovation, which again is advancing the evolution of knowledge society, knowledge economy and knowledge democracy (In’t Veld 2010). Arts and artistic research represent crucial components in an advanced innovation system (Bast et al. 2015, 2018; Campbell 2013; Carayannis and Campbell 2014, 2015; Pantelić 2019). Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity are requiring furthermore trans-­sectoral mobility and networking, sometimes with international and global connotations, ramifications, and follow-ups, so to better address the Global Challenges. Knowledge workers should have the ability and opportunity of working (and to work) simultaneously in different contexts. Changes in labor also require changes in education (Campbell et al. 2018; Reichle 2018; University of Applied Arts Vienna and Bast 2018). In educational systems (higher education systems),  In a recent study, the OECD (2019) estimates that within the OECD world an average of 14% of the current jobs are at risk to be replaced by automatization (and 32% of the jobs are likely to change in a considerable or even dramatic way). However, this risk or effect varies across the different countries. 3  Within the picture of the metaphor of T-competences and M-competences, the T and M, the vertical lines refer to disciplinary competences and the horizontal lines to interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary competences. 2

250

D. F. J. Campbell et al.

there is a necessity for more interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary competences and skills, and educational systems (also higher education institutions and universities) have to develop further, so to support and offer life-long learning and continuing education to their students (graduates) and to society in general. 2 . Hypothesis #2—Artificial intelligence will not replace human intelligence, but artificial intelligence will complement human intelligence: There are areas (of performance) where artificial intelligence (AI) and human intelligence overlap and where AI performs better. This has consequences for the organization of labor, and this will have (and already has) the potential of the destruction of certain types of human labor. However, the challenge is to organize labor (and the economy, society, and democracy) in a way, so that human intelligence is using artificial intelligence for the purpose of supporting (and carrying higher) human intelligence and human labor. Because there are areas for which artificial intelligence is better prepared, but clearly there are also areas in which artificial intelligence is performing weaker than human intelligence. Artificial intelligence is better in (data) correlations, but weaker in reasoning and a thinking in the categories of causality. Artificial intelligence is better in syntax but weaker in semantics and understanding (the understanding of meaning).4 Artificial intelligence is better in data-based (old-data-based) predictions but weaker in evaluation and assessment. Artificial intelligence may be (or may be not) better in offering answers (based on provided data and models), but is weaker in asking good and creative questions. Therefore, the idea is to speak more of a co-evolution of artificial intelligence and of human intelligence, but where the humans are in the position of control and sovereign decision-making. Artificial intelligence can provide (model-based) predictions; however, the humans are the ones who are making the decisions or who engage in “making the decision-making.” For such forms of working-together of human intelligence and of artificial intelligence also the metaphor of a “Centaur Intelligence” has been introduced and used. In that sense (or thought further), artificial intelligence resembles something like an advanced or next-stage (next-generation) IT (information technology). Cyber-­ society, cyber-economy, and cyber-democracy require advancing IT and artificial intelligence, but they are more than an IT concept (only) and therefore transcend IT concepts, because the challenge here is to organize society, labor, and education in ways so to create and progress knowledge society, knowledge economy, and knowledge democracy (Carayannis et al. 2018). We can speculate, to which extent human civilization will extend into the solar system and perhaps beyond the boundaries of our solar system into deep (and bright) galaxy, during the further course of the twenty-first and twenty-second centuries (and later on). This will require more fundamental technological progress, with artificial intelligence representing one of the crucial key components here. Industry 4.0 perhaps can provide one of the bases for making such technological progress to happen, but probably we will need a further Industry 5.0, without knowing (for

 Here we do not provide any associations, how artificial intelligence may relate to pragmatics.

4

14  Conclusion: The Future of The Future of Education and Labor

251

now) what Industry 5.0 will mean in concrete terms, and what the differences are between an Industry 4.0 and 5.0. 3 . Hypothesis #3—Democracy and quality of democracy can act and will act as an innovation enabler for Industry 4.0 (Industry 5.0) and Democracy 5.0: There is this idea that advanced knowledge manifests itself in a diversity of knowledge modes and innovation modes and that this pluralism of knowledge also requires a political pluralism, which is a characteristic (“characteristicness”) and ­component clearly of democracy. In metaphorical terms, this also was described and portrayed as a “democracy of knowledge” (Carayannis and Campbell 2009, p. 208). For the full unfolding of knowledge and innovation and their momentum and momenta, the context of a democracy or the context of a knowledge democracy are necessary (Campbell 2019). Democracy as innovation enabler, or the quality of democracy as an innovation enabler, they emphasize the connectedness and interconnectedness of (a) knowledge development and of (b) democracy development and democracy evolution (Campbell 2019). In the current world, perhaps there is a race and competition between democracies and autocracies (Carayannis and Campbell 2014). But one further assertion here is that we may be actually overestimating the performance of autocracies and underestimate the performance of democracies, in the sense that the authoritarian political systems actually are profiting tremendously from the knowledge developments in the freer democracies and freer societies (Campbell 2019, p.  339; Popper 1945; Böning and Ellrich 2019).5 In reference to the example and metaphor of a society of free women and free men in ancient Greece (the democratic polis in Athens),6 we can speculate, how in Industry 4.0 the artificial intelligence and other advanced technological means could be used and utilized to carry out the (boring) standard work, whereas persons, people, and humans are focusing then more on the interesting work. This could be phrased and paraphrased as a type of Renaissance of (interesting) labor in the Age of Knowledge and Innovation. However, should such a transformation occur and take place, this still would not be the (simple) output of a (linearly) planned economy, but would have to follow the principles and logic of a market economy, driven by innovation, entrepreneurs, and entrepreneurship. So what are then the new (and old) forms of entrepreneurship and of creative innovation in Industry 4.0 (or Industry 5.0 in a later phase), what can artificial-intelligence-based entrepreneurship possibly mean?7 Some of the ramifications for labor and education we already explored and discussed briefly. In the long run, there is evidence that the evolution of a knowl “… finally, as a last note and thought: perhaps the economic successes of non-democracies or autocracies (authoritarian and semi-authoritarian regimes) are being overestimated anyway, because autocracies are also benefitting from the knowledge production and innovation systems of democracies and semi-democracies, so in that sense autocracy is depending on democracy and the knowledge and innovation of democracy in a global system” (Campbell 2019, p. 339). 6  In ancient Greek society there were not only free people, but also slaves. 7  On options and possibilities for applying AI (artificial intelligence) to organizations, see Burgess (2018). 5

252

D. F. J. Campbell et al.

Industry 4.0

Democracy 5.0

Digital Transformation(s) Artificial Intelligence Robots Computers, Supercomputers Big Data, Algorithms Automatization Creativity, Creativity-Based Innovation Interdisciplinarity, Transdisciplinarity Networking Arts, Artistic Research Internationalization, Globalization Other Transformation(s) Fig. 14.1  The transformation of Industry 4.0 and of Democracy 5.0. (Source: Authors’ own conceptualization)

edge economy apparently is linked to an evolution of knowledge democracy. In this regard, we can say that Industry 4.0 requires a Democracy 4.0 (for possible characteristics of a Democracy 4.0, see Filzmaier 2018). But we can and should move forward. What Industry 4.0 really needs is a Democracy 5.0 (see Fig. 14.1). If there is Art and Democracy, we also should think about the Art of Democracy. The Future of Education and Labor already has arrived with us. The transformation of (and transformations in) Industry 4.0 are to be accompanied by the ­development of a Democracy 5.0, so that there can be an evolution and a co-evolution

14  Conclusion: The Future of The Future of Education and Labor

253

of knowledge economy, knowledge society, and knowledge democracy. The vision here and goal here are a further better building and progress of a human society.8 For the future of education and labor, the economy does matter. For the future of education and labor, The Arts Do Matter. The Future of Education and Labor: this requires us to prepare for The Future of The Future of Education and Labor.

References Bast G, Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (eds) (2015) Arts, research, innovation and society. Springer, New York. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319099088 Bast G, Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (eds) (2018) The future of museums. Springer, New York. https://www.springer.com/de/book/9783319939544 Böning M, Ellrich L (eds) (2019) Werte (De) Konstruktionen. University of Applied Arts Vienna: Edition Angewandte & De Gruyter Verlag, Vienna Burgess A (2018) The Executive Guide to Artificial Intelligence. How to identify and implement applications for AI in your organization. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham Campbell GS (2013) Speaking pictures: innovation in fine arts. In: Carayannis EG (Editor-in-­ Chief), Dubina IN, Seel N, Campbell DFJ, Uzunidis D (Associate Editors) (eds) Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Springer, New York, pp 1718–1720 Campbell DFJ (2019) Global quality of democracy as innovation enabler. Measuring democracy for success. Palgrave Macmillan, New  York. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3319-72529-1 and https://www.palgrave.com/de/book/9783319725284 Campbell DFJ, Carayannis EG, Grigoroudis E (2018) Knowledge Poduction und Mode-3-­ Universität. In: University of Applied Arts Vienna, Bast G (eds) Digitale Transformationen. Gesellschaft, Bildung und Arbeit im Umbruch. Vienna, Brandstätter Verlag, pp 36–51. https:// www.dieangewandte.at/digitale_transformationen Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (2009) “Mode 3” and “Quadruple Helix”: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. Int J Technol Manag 46(3/4):201–234. http://www.inderscience. com/browse/index.php?journalID=27&year=2009&vol=46&issue=3/4 and http://www.inderscience.com/search/index.php?action=record&rec_id=23374&prevQuery=&ps=10&m=or Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (2014) Developed democracies versus emerging autocracies: arts, democracy, and innovation in Quadruple Helix innovation systems. J Innov Entrepreneurship 3:12. http://www.innovation-entrepreneurship.com/content/pdf/s13731-014-0012-2.pdf and http://www.innovation-entrepreneurship.com/content/3/1/12 Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (2015) Art and artistic research in Quadruple and Quintuple Helix innovation systems. In: Bast G, Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (eds) Arts, research, innovation and society. Springer, New York, pp 29–51. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319099088 Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ, Marios Panagiotis Efthymiopoulos (2018) Handbook of cyber-development, cyber-democracy, and cyber-defense. Springer, New  York. https://www.springer.com/de/book/9783319090689 and https://link.springer.com/ referencework/10.1007/978-3-319-06091-0 Filzmaier P (2018) Demokratie 4.0: Die Neuschreibung der Politischen Theorie? In: University of Applied Arts Vienna, Bast G (eds) Digitale Transformationen. Gesellschaft, Bildung und  Anja Seipenbusch-Hufschmied created this expression of a “humanes Zukunftsmodell” (human future model). 8

254

D. F. J. Campbell et al.

Arbeit im Umbruch. Brandstätter Verlag, Vienna, pp  52–77. https://www.dieangewandte.at/ digitale_transformationen Frey CB, Osborne MA (2013) The future of employment: how susceptible are jobs to computerization? http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Employment.pdf In’t Veld RJ (2010) Knowledge democracy. Consequences for science, politics, and media. Springer, Heidelberg. http://www.springer.com/de/book/9783642113802 and https://link. springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-642-11381-9 OECD (2019) The future of work. OECD, Paris. https://www.oecd.org/employment/future-of-work/ Pantelić I (2019) Areas of innovation in arts: innovation and where to look for it. In: Carayannis EG (Editor-in-Chief), Dubina IN, Peris-Ortiz M, Campbell DFJ, Grigoroudis E (Associate Editors) (eds) Encyclopedia of creativity, invention, innovation and entrepreneurship. Springer, New York, pp 1001–1005 Popper KR (1945) The open society and its enemies. Routledge, London Reichle I (2018) Teaching for The Future. Anforderungen an eine Hochschulbildung der Zukunft. In: University of Applied Arts Vienna, Bast G (eds) Digitale Transformationen. Gesellschaft, Bildung und Arbeit im Umbruch. Brandstätter Verlag, Vienna, pp  206–219. https://www. dieangewandte.at/digitale_transformationen Schwab K (2016)The fourthindustrialrevolution:whatitmeans,howtorespond.WorldEconomicForum/ WEF, Geneva. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-fourth-industrial-revolutionwhat-it-means-and-how-to-respond/ University of Applied Arts Vienna (2018) In: Bast G (ed) Digitale Transformationen. Gesellschaft, Bildung und Arbeit im Umbruch. Brandstätter Verlag, Vienna. https://www.dieangewandte.at/ digitale_transformationen

Index

A Academic institutions, 57, 58, 70, 72 Academic work, 58, 66 Aesthetics, 111 Ancient Greek society, 12 Art and democracy, 252 Art and technology, 193 Art as Education, 234, 235 Art education, 181, 183–188, 193–195, 197, 199 Art of computerization, 249 Artificial intelligence (AI), 2, 4, 250, 251 Artistic research, 206, 208, 210, 211, 221, 224, 249 Artist-Philosophers, 205, 208, 210, 223, 224 Artists and designers body language literacy, 174 business, 170 “gale of creative construction”, 172 national education association, 171 new currency, 170 paradigm shift, 171 Securiwas, case study, 173, 174 social impact, 169 transferable skills, 171 translation, 173 Artists as translators CHROs, 162 higher education, 160 HR, 161 impact on education art and design universities, 168 arts and h-metrics, 164, 165 Austria, case study, 163, 164 h-metrics design, 166 Industry 4.0 and Lebensreform 4.0, 167, 168

output vs outcome, 167 peer review vs h-metrics, 165, 166 “knowledge nugget”, 161 NRC, 161 professionalization and institutionalization, 160 vision AI, 175 anthropocentrism and mechanocentrism, 175 empathic, 175 responsibility, 176 standardization, 175 Art-Labs, 208–211, 213, 215, 218, 221, 222 Arts-based research, 223, 224 Automation, 2, 249 B Banff Centre for Arts and Creativity (the “Banff Centre”), 107–109 Bologna study architecture, 148 Bureaucratization, 182 C Centaur intelligence, 250 Center for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI), 140 Center on Longevity Design Challenges, 160 Chief Human Resources Officers (CHROs), 162 Coevolution, 93 Cognitive methods, 231 Collaborative creativity, 106, 109–111 Competencies, 26–28, 32, 34 Competency-based orientation, 231

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 G. Bast et al. (eds.), The Future of Education and Labor, Arts, Research, Innovation and Society, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26068-2

255

256 Cosmopolitan attitude, 234 Creative class, 81, 85, 87, 88 Creative economy, 77, 82, 84–91 Creative industries, 82–88 Creative knowledge-based innovation, 89 Creative occupations, 85, 87, 88 Creative skills, 170 Creative stamps, 101 Creative technologies, 181, 185, 186 Creativity age, 89 in business, 81 continuous, 80 contradiction, 76 dilemma of labor, 79 economic contributions, 85 in economic development, 80 economic factor, 77 economy, 90 employees, 80 human activity, 78 industry and occupation approaches, 88 interrelations, 90 management, 81 mass and constant, 90 modern status, 82 ripples, 91 social evaluation, 102, 103 today’s economy and labor, 86 Creativity economy, 82, 84, 86, 88–90 Creativity management, 81, 93 Creativity mystification, 101 Creativity myth, 101 Critical reflection, 229 Cross-disciplinarity, 248, 249 Cross-force, see Transversal practices vs. economic rationalization Cultural education aesthetic/artistic attitude, 239, 240 artificial intelligence, 239 artistic and pedagogical areas, 238 cognitive ability, 236 collective responsibility, 236 communication, 239 complexity, 236 constructive approach, 240 contemporary theories, 238 cooperation, 237 creative process, 242 critical and self-reflective practice, 238 crossing boundaries, 240 crossing of diverse media, 242 developing creativity, 236 economic/political causes, 237

Index economy, 239 effect/efficiency, 236 foreign culture, 237 forms of racism, 238 learning and development, 241, 242 learning processes, 240 material of art, 241 nation and closed system, 238 political category and symbolic weapon, 237 practices, 239 radical plurality, 240 social and practical consequences, 238 society and values, 236 systemic logic, 236 transculturality, 238 transformation processes, 239–241 Curriculum design, 183, 187, 199 D Democracy 5.0, 251, 252 Democracy as innovation enabler, 251 Democracy of knowledge, 251 Description and Selection of Competencies project (DeSeCo), 26, 28–30 Digitalization, 2, 4, 249 Directorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs (DELSA), 149 Disciplinary knowledge, 30, 31 E Economic Creativity Index, 87 Economic growth, 229 Economic reforms, 123 Economy 4.0, 41, 54 Education economic, 117–120 at high school, 122 in Russia, 120, 128–131 policy and practice, 122 at school level, 122–125, 127 three-level system, 121 (see Transformation of Industry) Educational systems, 230, 232 Education and skills, 24 Education policy, see Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Education regimes, 148 e-economy, 77 Epistemic Governance and Epistemic Innovation Policy, 113 Epistemic knowledge, 30, 31

Index F Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training (BIBB), 39 Florida’s creative class model, 87 Fluency, 186–189 Fordist production model, 59 Form of life, 223, 224 Forward Design, 182–185, 198, 199 Fourth industrial revolution, 2, 3, 10, 15, 18 Future education and labor, 168 Future of education ancient Greek society, 12 educational institutions, 13 eighteenth century, 13 encyclopedic approach, 14 encyclopedic education, 14 end of work, 11 fourth industrial revolution, 10 free men and women, 12 human labor and employment, 12 human society, 14 interdisciplinary connection, 14 intuition and emotion, 12 legal professions, 10 liquid modernity, 14 liquid times, 15 mass education, 16 OECD, 16 political powers, 15 robotics and artificial intelligence, 11 self-learning machines, 11 Silesian weavers, 10 societal challenges, 17, 18 societal recognition, 17 technological revolution, 10, 11 twentieth century, 13 twenty-first century, 15 The future of education and labor, 249, 252, 253 Future of education holistic approaches, 18 Future/labor, see Future of education G German education system, 145 Global challenges, 248, 249 Global competition, 63 Global education policy, 142 H Habermas’s scientization of technology, 71 Higher education Austria, 146, 147

257 Germany, 145–148 USA, 143–145 Higher education institution (HEI), 103 Historical creativity (H-creativity), 101 Homo economicus concept, 78 Horizontal integration, 38 Human Brain Project, 3 Human resources (HR), 161 I Inbound/outside-in OI, 70 Industry 4.0, 4, 249, 251, 252 employees, communication and social skills, 53 IT specialists, 53 and labour market, 38, 39 macrostudy, Germany, 39–44 modelling approach, 45, 46, 48, 50, 51 policy consequences, 53, 54 proactive policy, 53 vocational training, 53 Industry 5.0, 249–251 INFORGE model, 40 Informal Working Group (IWG), 26 Innovation, 99, 100, 104, 108, 109, 113, 249, 251 Innovation economy, 77, 89–92 Institute for Employment Research (IAB), 39, 40 Institute of Economic Structures Research (GWS), 39 Integration, 191–193 Interdisciplinary, 2, 3, 5, 249 Interdisciplinary Design Research, 161, 166 Interdisciplinary knowledge, 30, 31 International Centre for Economic and Business Education, 124 International programmes, 99 K Keith Sawyer’s micro-interactional model, 105, 106 Knowledge application (innovation), 113 Knowledge Capital (KC) academic research, 72 academic structures, 72 industry-financed R&D, 72 network firm, 58, 63–66, 68 public-financed R&D, 72 scientific work, 69–72 Knowledge creation (research), 113 Knowledge democracy, 100, 113, 249–253

258

Index

Knowledge economy, 76, 91–93, 100, 249–253 Knowledge society, 89, 100, 113, 249, 250, 253

Neuroscientific research, 234 Nietzsche’s antagonistic images, 211

L Labor, see Transformation of Industry Labour market educational system, 54 effects analysis, 54 Industry 4.0, 38, 39 Learning economy, 77 Learning processes, 240 Limitation, 112 Long-term projection, 39, 48

O Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 4, 5 countries, 24 DeSeCo, 26–28 education and labour, 136 education policy ‘higher education for all’, 135, 139, 148, 152 ‘liberalizing vocation’, 142, 149, 150 skills for all approach, 136 educational leitmotif CERI, 140 Crisis of the Welfare State, 141 economic crisis, 140 education and training systems, 140 educational benchmarking, 141 global policy paradigm, 142 Keynesian approach, 139 Keynesian ideology, 141 neoliberal ideology, 142 PISA, 142 policy table, 141 educational mission economy and education, 136 emancipatory potential, 138 GI bills, 138 human capital theory, 137, 139 Keynesian politics, 138 Marshall Plan, 136 policy, 138 social and economic order, 139 social demand approach, 137 framework 2030, 24, 26, 30, 32 IWG meeting in Lisbon, 26 skills for all DELSA, 149 economic and social issues, 151 economic and social policy portfolios, 149 human capital formation, 150 NEET, 150 SIA, 150 skills and skills formation, 150 VET and HE, 149

M Maker culture, 190 Makerspaces, 187, 189, 190, 192, 198, 200 Market liberalization, 63 M-competences, 249 Meaning making, 193–196 Mechanics– dynamics– aesthetics (MDA) model, 109–111 Media art education, 196 Melting Pot index, 86 Micro-interactional model, 105, 106 Mutual transgression, 208 N National pathways Germany and Austria CEDEFOP, 147 education and training programmes, 146 education regimes, 148 full coverage, 147 labour market and social security systems, 146 liberalization and flexibility, 148 social democrats, 146 VET, 147 USA de-facto monopolies, 144 global recession, 143 higher education for all approach, 144 VET, 143 National Research Council (NRC), 161 Network firm characteristics, 58 flexible financial relations, 60 multinational corporations, 64 organizational structures, 59 spherical structure, 60

P Paulus and Nijstad ’s theoretical concept, 104 Pedagogical programmes, 98

Index Peter Lougheed Leadership Initiative, 107–109 Petty’s theory of value, 78 Philosophy on Stage, 206–208, 222, 223 The PIAAC project, 149 Pluralistic democracy, 234 Post-secondary modalities, 114 Problem-solving competence, 231 Procedural knowledge, 30, 31 Professional communities, 122 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), 142 Psychological/personal creativity (P-creativity), 101 Q Q-INFORGE model, 39 Qualification, 39, 41, 46, 51–54 Qualifications and occupational field projections (QuBe project), 39, 40 Querkraft, see Transversal practices vs. economic rationalization R Research commercialization, 68–70 Russian education system, 121, 131 S Scenario calculation, 41, 43, 47 Self-transgression, 204, 205 Single-employee company, 197 Skills concept social dimension, 152 thematic dimension, 152, 153 time dimension, 151, 152 Social communications, 98, 103, 107, 112 Social dimension, 106 Social investment approach (SIA), 150 Social sculpture, 233 Socioeconomic reforms, 123 Soft competencies, 129 Soloist, 197, 199 Stewardship, 198, 199 T The creative sphere, 107 T-competences, 249 Teaching, 118–121, 123–125, 127, 129 Tension, 112 Transdisciplinarity, 211, 224, 249

259 Transdisciplinary, 3, 5, 6, 204, 211 Transformation of Industry AI, 249–251 arts and artistic research, 249 creativity and creativity skills, 249 democracy and quality, 251, 253 democratic societies, 248 Digital Age, 247 economic structure, 249 educational institutions, 247 Greek society, 247 human labor, 247 labor market, 248 non-routine cognitive tasks, 247 private and socio-political, 247 revolution, 248 social and economic realities, 248 societal recognition, 248 society and economy, 248 speed of progress, 248 technological revolution, 247 US labor market outcomes, 247 Transversal practices vs. economic rationalization art as education, 234, 235 business as usual, 228 creativity, 228 educational systems, crisis, 230, 232 historical models, 232–234 political courses, 228 social and economic models, 228 unequal competition, 228, 229 The 2030 World, 24, 25 attitudes and values, 31 knowledge, 30, 31 skills, 31 U UNCTAD model, 83 Unified State Exam (USE), 119, 122, 123, 127 Unique Selling Proposition (USP), 165 University of the future, 17 V Vertical integration, 38 Vocational education and training (VET), 143–148 W Work 4.0, 41 Worldwide crisis in education, 230