While preparing for a keynote on advanced technology transitions this week, I revisited an old concept note exploring how the idea could help shape a school focused on tech, society and the future
Thanks for this Andrew. I think this is a very important exercise! Whether the corporate world recognizes it or not, this is a lot of what they do on a daily basis and having people specifically trained in it would be a boon to their efforts. When I think about what those practitioners lack, I am continually pulled to the ideas of justice and equity. You certainly mention those here, but my push would be to make them a bit more prominently displayed as part of the curriculum. The students I interact with are very much interested in changing the world, but when they say that they actually mean changing the world so that it is better for more people. Unfortunately there are few places that offer the tools to help them do the "better for more people" part.
I've had similar comments from others on what seems to only be lightly touched on here, yet is important :). And yes!
The big picture here was designed as a framework that needs a lot of fleshing out. The important thing to me was to establish roots and a direction that responded to what I consider an urgent need for new thinking around the how and why of technology innovation in a world that's focused on human flourishing at all levels rather than simply the acceleration of innovation in ways that ultimately threaten what is of value to people.
What this looks like in practice will be different for different people, which is where with a practical initiative there would have to be discussion and flexibility. But to me the core question is what is ultimately important to us as individuals and society. What are the core elements of value that we feel strongly we need to preserve and grow -- either by not doing some things, or by not blocking other things from happening.
This is very different from trickle down economic models, or market-driven models, which assume a) certain economic models work, b) existing economic, political and social theories are robust over time and changing circumstances, and c) equitable human flourishing is a by-product of an "innovate faster and damn the consequences" approach to futures-building.
I entered university in 1988 at Dakota State University in South Dakota. Computers were just beginning to be integrated into all fields of study and in our homes for personal computing projects. Dial-up was still a thing. Our first class was a mandatory computing class with instructions on using our token ring. Computing was mandatory for every field of study because every degree you could earn was followed by "for Information Systems." I changed my major a couple of times, then finally settled on English for Information Systems, with a specialization in Technical Writing and Desktop Publishing. I feel like a similar change is coming with AI integrating into so many facets of our lives. I'm here for it and plan to stay engaged and curious and forever learning.
Love to weave into this via my overlapping networks. 18 years ago teaming up with public and private partnerships that included the NZ Government, Universities (Auckland University of Technology) Nokia, Vodafone and local communities as pilot studies, created benefits across the entire stakeholder group. For the students, piloting new tech in a real world situation gave insights students were able to draw upon for their thesis. As the inventor I had (at zero cost) a user study I was able to present at severa international conferences.
I might have something primed for a focus group that could include all of above.
Over on LinkedIn my colleague Clark Miller posted a link to this book chapter on science and technology studies and the design if futures – I'd argue that we probably need to think bigger than science and technology studies here, but the article should be essential reading for anyone grappling with how we think about prepare intellectually and practically for the future, and very relevant to the discussion here:
Great call-out to the Houston program! This is different in that it’s not based in futures methodologies (although you imagine they would be incorporated) but in developing new understanding across the board on supporting human flourishing in a world where many of our past models and skills don’t work as expected. E.g what does responsible and ethical innovation look like in a world dominated by AI? What skills will be needed in a technologically complex future, and how do we yea h these? What will the role of the arts and humanities be in a world where transformative tech dominates? How do we navigate a world where old laws and policies do not match up to new capabilities?
It’s a long, long list that touches on much that we currently take for granted
Thanks for this Andrew. I think this is a very important exercise! Whether the corporate world recognizes it or not, this is a lot of what they do on a daily basis and having people specifically trained in it would be a boon to their efforts. When I think about what those practitioners lack, I am continually pulled to the ideas of justice and equity. You certainly mention those here, but my push would be to make them a bit more prominently displayed as part of the curriculum. The students I interact with are very much interested in changing the world, but when they say that they actually mean changing the world so that it is better for more people. Unfortunately there are few places that offer the tools to help them do the "better for more people" part.
I've had similar comments from others on what seems to only be lightly touched on here, yet is important :). And yes!
The big picture here was designed as a framework that needs a lot of fleshing out. The important thing to me was to establish roots and a direction that responded to what I consider an urgent need for new thinking around the how and why of technology innovation in a world that's focused on human flourishing at all levels rather than simply the acceleration of innovation in ways that ultimately threaten what is of value to people.
What this looks like in practice will be different for different people, which is where with a practical initiative there would have to be discussion and flexibility. But to me the core question is what is ultimately important to us as individuals and society. What are the core elements of value that we feel strongly we need to preserve and grow -- either by not doing some things, or by not blocking other things from happening.
This is very different from trickle down economic models, or market-driven models, which assume a) certain economic models work, b) existing economic, political and social theories are robust over time and changing circumstances, and c) equitable human flourishing is a by-product of an "innovate faster and damn the consequences" approach to futures-building.
This resonates and is doable.
I entered university in 1988 at Dakota State University in South Dakota. Computers were just beginning to be integrated into all fields of study and in our homes for personal computing projects. Dial-up was still a thing. Our first class was a mandatory computing class with instructions on using our token ring. Computing was mandatory for every field of study because every degree you could earn was followed by "for Information Systems." I changed my major a couple of times, then finally settled on English for Information Systems, with a specialization in Technical Writing and Desktop Publishing. I feel like a similar change is coming with AI integrating into so many facets of our lives. I'm here for it and plan to stay engaged and curious and forever learning.
Love to weave into this via my overlapping networks. 18 years ago teaming up with public and private partnerships that included the NZ Government, Universities (Auckland University of Technology) Nokia, Vodafone and local communities as pilot studies, created benefits across the entire stakeholder group. For the students, piloting new tech in a real world situation gave insights students were able to draw upon for their thesis. As the inventor I had (at zero cost) a user study I was able to present at severa international conferences.
I might have something primed for a focus group that could include all of above.
I’m in. Ready to get cracking anytime soon.
Sounds a bit like the HSD program which is very compelling. Why wouldn't ASU jump on something like this since they already have the infrastructure?
Over on LinkedIn my colleague Clark Miller posted a link to this book chapter on science and technology studies and the design if futures – I'd argue that we probably need to think bigger than science and technology studies here, but the article should be essential reading for anyone grappling with how we think about prepare intellectually and practically for the future, and very relevant to the discussion here:
STS and the Design of Futures, by Clark A. Miller. In Climate, Science and Society (2023): https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/oa-edit/10.4324/9781003409748-30/sts-design-futures-clark-miller
How is this different than futures training? As an example
https://www.houstonforesight.org/program/
Great call-out to the Houston program! This is different in that it’s not based in futures methodologies (although you imagine they would be incorporated) but in developing new understanding across the board on supporting human flourishing in a world where many of our past models and skills don’t work as expected. E.g what does responsible and ethical innovation look like in a world dominated by AI? What skills will be needed in a technologically complex future, and how do we yea h these? What will the role of the arts and humanities be in a world where transformative tech dominates? How do we navigate a world where old laws and policies do not match up to new capabilities?
It’s a long, long list that touches on much that we currently take for granted