The Transformation of Higher Education Institutions …
645
by the large amount of qualitative research methodologies and inter- and transdisciplinary research projects. The HEIs’ ethos thus changes from fact orientation to
relationship orientation.
In teaching, HEI 3.0 prefer dialogue oriented seminars to classic large-scale lectures and experiment with innovative concepts such as global classrooms. These
learning arrangements aim at competencies rather than knowledge only (Rieckmann
2012) and try to bridge the gaps between the scattered disciplines and stakeholders
by reaching out and promoting self-reflection. Moreover, post-modern universities
begin to experiment with online learning tools and on-demand lectures to further
help meeting students’ needs.
In the field of campus management, HEI 3.0’s post-modern worldview is reflected
by the attempt to achieve climate neutrality and reduce unnecessary resource consumption. Furthermore, in line with their dialogue orientation, HEI 3.0 are often
shaped by student initiatives, for example regarding organic, vegan and/or vegetarian food options as well as social initiatives regarding inclusion, gender sensibility
or refugee projects. In general, HEIs 3.0 try to be as much stakeholder oriented and
considerate as possible.
A lot of current researchers—especially in the realm of sustainability
research—are centered in the post-modern worldview of HEI 3.0. However, to
advance or stabilize their careers they often have to play by the rules of the modern
worldview of HEI 2.0, leading to a lot of tension and trade-offs on a personal level.
3.4 Integral HEI 4.0: Integrated Learning Labs
While there are several examples of integral organizations in business (Laloux 2014)
there are few examples for integral HEIs. Deduced from Laloux’ (ibid.) research,
such HEI 4.0 should possess qualities of self-management, a strive for wholeness and
listen to their evolutionary purpose. Researchers are then part of a larger evolution
and generation of knowledge, blurring the boundaries between objects and subjects of
knowledge as well as between rational and non-rational sources of knowing (MüllerChrist 2017; Brown 2012).
Researchers, teachers, students and citizens are then co-creating solutions for
common challenges. Therefore, a HEI 4.0 can be framed as a citizens’ university
(Bürgeruniversität) (Schneidewind 2014). Integral HEIs build on post-modern HEIs’
community values but go beyond them by allowing natural hierarchies to emerge and
by allowing the open discussion of tensions, dilemma and trade-offs of sustainable
development. These developments are facilitated by the willingness of individuals to
take responsibility for SD challenges and be vulnerable at the same time—a new kind
of action oriented mindfulness. Therefore, within their Theory-U model, Scharmer
and Kaufer (2013) propose the evolution from HEI 1.0 to HEI 4.0 to be an inversion
journey: “That means opening the mind, heart, and will (micro), moving conversations from downloading to generative dialogue (meso), and converting hierarchical
645
by the large amount of qualitative research methodologies and inter- and transdisciplinary research projects. The HEIs’ ethos thus changes from fact orientation to
relationship orientation.
In teaching, HEI 3.0 prefer dialogue oriented seminars to classic large-scale lectures and experiment with innovative concepts such as global classrooms. These
learning arrangements aim at competencies rather than knowledge only (Rieckmann
2012) and try to bridge the gaps between the scattered disciplines and stakeholders
by reaching out and promoting self-reflection. Moreover, post-modern universities
begin to experiment with online learning tools and on-demand lectures to further
help meeting students’ needs.
In the field of campus management, HEI 3.0’s post-modern worldview is reflected
by the attempt to achieve climate neutrality and reduce unnecessary resource consumption. Furthermore, in line with their dialogue orientation, HEI 3.0 are often
shaped by student initiatives, for example regarding organic, vegan and/or vegetarian food options as well as social initiatives regarding inclusion, gender sensibility
or refugee projects. In general, HEIs 3.0 try to be as much stakeholder oriented and
considerate as possible.
A lot of current researchers—especially in the realm of sustainability
research—are centered in the post-modern worldview of HEI 3.0. However, to
advance or stabilize their careers they often have to play by the rules of the modern
worldview of HEI 2.0, leading to a lot of tension and trade-offs on a personal level.
3.4 Integral HEI 4.0: Integrated Learning Labs
While there are several examples of integral organizations in business (Laloux 2014)
there are few examples for integral HEIs. Deduced from Laloux’ (ibid.) research,
such HEI 4.0 should possess qualities of self-management, a strive for wholeness and
listen to their evolutionary purpose. Researchers are then part of a larger evolution
and generation of knowledge, blurring the boundaries between objects and subjects of
knowledge as well as between rational and non-rational sources of knowing (MüllerChrist 2017; Brown 2012).
Researchers, teachers, students and citizens are then co-creating solutions for
common challenges. Therefore, a HEI 4.0 can be framed as a citizens’ university
(Bürgeruniversität) (Schneidewind 2014). Integral HEIs build on post-modern HEIs’
community values but go beyond them by allowing natural hierarchies to emerge and
by allowing the open discussion of tensions, dilemma and trade-offs of sustainable
development. These developments are facilitated by the willingness of individuals to
take responsibility for SD challenges and be vulnerable at the same time—a new kind
of action oriented mindfulness. Therefore, within their Theory-U model, Scharmer
and Kaufer (2013) propose the evolution from HEI 1.0 to HEI 4.0 to be an inversion
journey: “That means opening the mind, heart, and will (micro), moving conversations from downloading to generative dialogue (meso), and converting hierarchical