242
H. Avery and B. Nordén
spaces need to be sufficiently funded, while continuity in interpersonal relationships
(Shore and Wright 2000) plays a key role in ensuring effective communication and
enabling investment in long-term, deeper reflections.
Crucially, the development of such spaces is obstructed by the paradigm of competition in HEIs (Marginson 2006) that fosters mistrust and a lack of collaboration.
Competitive pressures lead to a focus on streamlining and prioritising the here-andnow to generate immediate revenue, rather than investing in the necessary open
spaces between institutions, sectors and knowledge fields. An overarching paradigm
of collaboration rather than competition is therefore needed to sufficiently prioritise
work for the “commons” (Waddell 2011) and the public good.
3 Blueprint for a New Paradigm in HEIs
Despite global efforts towards sustainability, the principal drivers of our economies
and national policies remain substantially the same. There is, therefore, reason to
believe that in the coming years we will see an increase in the adverse effects
of business-as-usual, including risks of financial collapse, currency shocks and
bankruptcies; the deterioration of working conditions and loss of livelihoods and
the incapacity of institutions to provide services or social insurance. We can also
expect to see an increase in loss of functionality of automated systems and “hi-tech”
as well as an increase in accidents and disasters. Direct climate impacts include the
loss of food security and loss of health and adequate living conditions. Among further
impacts are increasing inequity, causing extreme stress on family and social support
networks, particularly if there is a loss of collective solidarity. Finally, we are already
witnessing increasing militarisation, control and surveillance, resulting in a loss of
democracy.
In the face of these developments, what kind of knowledge, capacity and
competences do we need, and where should HEIs place their priorities?
• To enable action, both trust (Power 1997; Shore and Wright 2000) and hope, as
well as the ability to coordinate and mobilise resources, are fundamental conditions (socially, technically and economically in developing new knowledge and
capacity).
• For resilience within our institutions and in society (Berkes 2007; Sriskandarajah
et al. 2010), we need to develop solidarity, empathy, caring and understanding.
Importantly, we must strive to build alliances and teams, prioritise the reduction
of risk and vulnerability, and build real capital to maintain margins of action.
Essential elements to any strategy are therefore to maintain redundancy and
free capacity, rather than to “slim” our organisations. We must plan for multiple
scenarios and have the capacity to do so in ways that are in line with facts rather
than wishful thinking and rhetoric.
• For agility and creativity, there is an urgent need to develop future-oriented
methodologies and stimulate collective action-oriented imagination. Critical
H. Avery and B. Nordén
spaces need to be sufficiently funded, while continuity in interpersonal relationships
(Shore and Wright 2000) plays a key role in ensuring effective communication and
enabling investment in long-term, deeper reflections.
Crucially, the development of such spaces is obstructed by the paradigm of competition in HEIs (Marginson 2006) that fosters mistrust and a lack of collaboration.
Competitive pressures lead to a focus on streamlining and prioritising the here-andnow to generate immediate revenue, rather than investing in the necessary open
spaces between institutions, sectors and knowledge fields. An overarching paradigm
of collaboration rather than competition is therefore needed to sufficiently prioritise
work for the “commons” (Waddell 2011) and the public good.
3 Blueprint for a New Paradigm in HEIs
Despite global efforts towards sustainability, the principal drivers of our economies
and national policies remain substantially the same. There is, therefore, reason to
believe that in the coming years we will see an increase in the adverse effects
of business-as-usual, including risks of financial collapse, currency shocks and
bankruptcies; the deterioration of working conditions and loss of livelihoods and
the incapacity of institutions to provide services or social insurance. We can also
expect to see an increase in loss of functionality of automated systems and “hi-tech”
as well as an increase in accidents and disasters. Direct climate impacts include the
loss of food security and loss of health and adequate living conditions. Among further
impacts are increasing inequity, causing extreme stress on family and social support
networks, particularly if there is a loss of collective solidarity. Finally, we are already
witnessing increasing militarisation, control and surveillance, resulting in a loss of
democracy.
In the face of these developments, what kind of knowledge, capacity and
competences do we need, and where should HEIs place their priorities?
• To enable action, both trust (Power 1997; Shore and Wright 2000) and hope, as
well as the ability to coordinate and mobilise resources, are fundamental conditions (socially, technically and economically in developing new knowledge and
capacity).
• For resilience within our institutions and in society (Berkes 2007; Sriskandarajah
et al. 2010), we need to develop solidarity, empathy, caring and understanding.
Importantly, we must strive to build alliances and teams, prioritise the reduction
of risk and vulnerability, and build real capital to maintain margins of action.
Essential elements to any strategy are therefore to maintain redundancy and
free capacity, rather than to “slim” our organisations. We must plan for multiple
scenarios and have the capacity to do so in ways that are in line with facts rather
than wishful thinking and rhetoric.
• For agility and creativity, there is an urgent need to develop future-oriented
methodologies and stimulate collective action-oriented imagination. Critical