Global leadership for social design: theoretical and educational perspectives

Abstract

The rapid change of technological, social, and cultural structures is challenging universities to offer new educational programs. The Global Leader Program for Social Design and Management (GSDM) of the University of Tokyo can be seen as a forerunner in this field. The paper provides definitions of social design as well as of global leadership and provides a proposal for the definition of the objective of the GSDM program, i.e., multi-level resilient human–environment system. These subjects are embedded in the framework of human–environment systems (HES). We identified the different types of knowledge integration that ‘global leaders for social design’ should master. The core of a sustainable social design is to (1) properly conceptualize and manage “resilient coupled human-environment systems” and to (2) integrate or relate different systems, epistemics, interests, cultures, and knowledge systems. The specific challenge in this context is to cope with conflicting cultural–religious systems or to understand how the vulnerability of different human systems with respect to digital environments. Social design is conceived as all rules, mechanisms, and preferences that govern the interaction of humans with material, biophysical, technological, and socio-cultural epistemic environments. The goal of education for global leadership for social design may have to progress from the T-shaped skills profile (i.e., being specialized in one discipline and having the capability to collaborate with other disciplines) to the π-profile. Students for leadership in global designs must be qualified in a social and an engineering/natural science and literate and capable to know, relate, and govern different disciplines, cultures, or systems which have to be included in the sustainable transitioning of cultural and socio-technological systems. The paper elaborates in what way transdisciplinarity is needed and why resilience management should be seen as a proper objective of GSDM. The challenges of the new educational program for the science system and institutions as well as for students and professors are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

(modified and extended from Scholz and Tietje 2002)

Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Adger WN (2000) Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Program Hum Geogr 24:347–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Amdam GV (2012) The making of a social insect—genetics of social design. Integr Comp Biol 52:E5–E5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bartlett CA, Ghoshal S (1992) What is a global manager? Harv Bus Rev 70(5):124–132

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Baruch Y (2002) No such thing as a global manager. Bus Horiz 45(1):36–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bauch CT, Sigdel R, Pharaon J, Anand M (2016) Early warning signals of regime shifts in coupled human-environment systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113(51):14560–14567

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Baumann L (2013) Human-environment systems of a phosphate rock mine. Encountered challenges for the environmental management at Foskor, a Phosphate Rock Mine in Phalaborwa South Africa. Zurich and Muscle Shoals, Global TraPs & Phalaborwa, Foskor

  7. Beck G (2011) The Lisbon Judgment of the German Constitutional Court, the Primacy of EU Law and the Problem of Kompetenz-Kompetenz: a conflict between right and right in which there is no praetor1. Eur Law J 17(4):470–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Biermann F (2008) Earth system governance: A research agenda. In: Young OL, King LA, Schroeder H (eds) Institutions and environmental change: Principal findings, applications, and research frontiers. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  9. Binder CR, Absenger-Helmli I, Schilling T (2015) The reality of transdisciplinarity: a framework-based self-reflection from science and practice leaders. Sustain Sci 10(4):545–562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bird A (2008) Assessing global leadership competencies. In: Mendenhall ME, Osvald J, Bird A, Oddou GR, Maznevski ML (eds) Global leadership: research, practice, and development. Routledge, London

  11. Bruner JS, Goodnow JJ, Austin GA (1956) A study of thinking. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  12. Brunswik E (1957) Scope and aspects of the cognitive problem. In: Gruber H, Hammond KR, Jessor R (eds) Contemporary approaches to cognition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cacioppe R (1998) An integrated model and approach for the design of effective leadership development programs. Leadersh Organ Dev J 19(1):44–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Carlsson F, Martinsson P (2001) Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments? Application to the valuation of the environment. J Environ Econ Manag 41(2):179–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chapple ED, Coon CS (1953) Principles of anthropology. Henry Holt, New York

    Google Scholar 

  16. Chesbrough HW, Teece DJ (2002) Organizing for innovation: when is virtual virtuous? Harvard Business School Publishing, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  17. Crutzen PJ (2002) The “anthropocene”. J Phys IV France 12:10/1–10/5

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Engbers M, Maas-Deipenbrock RM, Luthardt P (2014) The mutual learning sessions (MLS) and dialogue session (DS) of the 1st Global TraPs World Conference, Beijing, 2013, from the Perspective of Master and PhD Students.” Global TraPs Newsletter (3–4)

  19. Ferrer-Balas D, Adachi J, Banas S, Davidson CI, Hoshikoshi A, Mishra A, Motodoa Y, Onga M, Ostwald M (2008) An international comparative analysis of sustainability transformation across seven universities. Int J Sustain High Educ 9(3):295–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Fisher AC, Krutilla JV (1975) Resource conservation, environmental preservation, and the rate of discount. Q J Econ 89(3):358–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Folke C (2006) Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Glob Environ Change 16(3):253–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Folke C, Carpenter SR, Walker B, Scheffer M, Chapin T, Rockström J (2010) Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecol Soc 15(4):20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Freitas Ld, Morin E, Nicolescu B (1994) Charter of transdiciplinarity. Convento da Arrábida, Arrábida, Portugal

    Google Scholar 

  24. Galloway JN, Townsend AR, Erisman JW, Bekunda M, Cai Z, Freney JR, Martinelli LA, Seitzinger SP, Sutton MA (2008) Transformation of the nitrogen cycle: recent trends, questions, and potential solutions. Science 320(5878):889–892

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (1999) The Eco-indicator 99. A damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment. DGM, The Hague

  26. Gonokami M (2017) Message from the President. Global Leader Program for Social Design and Management, The University of Tokyo, http://gsdm.u-tokyo.ac.jp/en/message_president.html. Accecced 21 June 2017

  27. GSDM (2013) Global Leader Program for Social Design and Management. Graduate School of Public Policy, Universuty of Tokyo, Tokyo

  28. GSDM (2017) Competencies developed and possible career paths. Global Leader Program for Social Design and Management, The University of Tokyo, http://gsdm.u-tokyo.ac.jp/en/overview_career-path.html. Accessed 8 May 2017

  29. Haken H (1983) Synergetics: an introduction: nonequilibrium phase transitions and self-organization in physics, chemistry, and biology. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hamada J (2014) Message from the president, Gleader program for social design and management, The University of Tokyo

  31. Hammond KR (1981) Principles of organisation in intuitive and analytical cognition. Report Nr. 231, Centre for Research, Judgement and Policy, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado

  32. Harris M (1976) History and significance of emic-etic distinction. Ann Rev Anthropol 5:329–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hendrickson CT (2006) Environmental life cycle assessment of goods and services: an input-output approach. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  34. Holling CS (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 4:1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Holling CS, Carpener SR, Brock WA, Gunderson LH (2002) Sustainability and panarchies. In: Gunderson LH, Holling CS (eds) Panarchy, understanding transformation in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  36. Internet Governance Forum (2014) The charter of human rights and principles for the internet, 4th edn. Internet Rights and Principles Dynamic Coalition, UN Internet Governance Forum, New York

  37. Jantsch E (1972) Towards interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in education and innovation. In: Apostel L, Berger G, Briggs A, Michaud G (eds) Interdisciplinarity: Problems of teaching and research in universities. University of Nice, Nice

    Google Scholar 

  38. Janzer CL, Weinstein LS (2014) Social design and neocoloniasm. Des Cult 6(3):327–344

    Google Scholar 

  39. Johnson-Laird PN, Byrne RMJ (2002) Conditionals: a theory of meaning, pragmatics, and inference. Psychol Rev 109(4):646–678

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Jokinen T (2005) Global leadership competencies: a review and discussion. J Eur Ind Train 29(3):199–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York

    Google Scholar 

  42. Khadduri M (1956) Human rights in Islam. Ann Am Acad Political Soc Sci 243:77–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kimbell L (2011) Design thinking, part 1. Des Cult 3(3):285–306

    Google Scholar 

  44. Klitgaard R (1988) Controlling corruption. Univ of California Press, Berkeley, CA

    Google Scholar 

  45. Kolb DA (1984) Experiential learning. Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  46. Kraus H (1948) Community planning for the aged: outline of a working hypothesis. J Gerontol 3(2):129–140

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Kruetli P, Stauffacher M, Flueeler T, Scholz RW (2010) Functional-dynamic public participation in technological decision-making: site selection processes of nuclear waste repositories. J Risk Res 13(7):861–875

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kunz JL (1952) Supra-national organs. Am J Int Law 46:690–698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Swilling M, Thomas CJ (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci 7:25–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Lee WH (1971) Decision theory and human behavior. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  51. Lobel SA (1990) Global leadership competencies: managing to a different drumbeat. Hum Resour Manag 29(1):39–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Matsumoto Y (2014) Message from the program director, Gleader program for social design and management, The University of Tokyo

  53. Max-Neef M (2005) Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecol Econ 53:5–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Mendenhall ME (2008) Leadership and the birth of global leadership. In: Mendenhall ME, Osvald J, Bird A, Oddou GR, Maznevski ML (eds) Global leadership: research, practice, and development. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  55. Mendenhall ME, Osvald J (2012) Global leadership: research, practice, and development. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  56. Moser C, Stauffacher M, Smieszek T, Seidl R, Kruetli P, Scholz RW (2013) Psychological factors in discounting negative impacts of nuclear waste. J Environ Psychol 35:121–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Moser C, Stauffacher M, Blumer YB, Scholz RW (2014) From risk to vulnerability: the role of perceived adaptive capacity for the acceptance of contested infrastructure. J Risk Res 18(5):622–636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Nicolescu B (2002) Manifest of transdisciplinarity. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY

    Google Scholar 

  59. Nicolescu B (2014) From modernity to cosmodernity: science, culture, and spirituality. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY

    Google Scholar 

  60. Nikitin MP, Shipunova VO, Deyev SM, Nikitin PI (2014) Biocomputing based on particle disassembly. Nat Nanotechnol 9(9):716–722

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Nisbett RE (2003) The geography of thought: how asians and westerners think differently… and why. Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London

    Google Scholar 

  62. Nolan P, Lenski G (2005) Human societies: An introduction to macroscociology. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  63. Oppenheim P, Putnam H (1958) Unity of science as a working hypothesis. Minn Stud Philos Sci 2:3–36

    Google Scholar 

  64. Orzack MH, Ross CJ (2000) Should virtual sex be treated like other sex addictions? Sex Addict Compuls J Treat Prev 7(1–2):113–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325(5939):419–422

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Parsons T (1951) The social system. The Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  67. Paustenbach DJ (ed) (2002) Human and ecological risk assessment. Theory and practice. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  68. Perry TS (1997) Special issue: electronic money: toward a virtual wallet. IEEE Spectr 34(2):18–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Pew Research (2012) The global religious landscape. Pew Reserach Religion and Public Live, Washington DC. Accessed 20 Aug 2014

  70. Piaget J (1972) The epistemology of interdisciplinary relationships. In: Apostel L, Berger G, Briggs A, Michaud G (eds) Interdisciplinarity: problems of teaching and research in universities. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  71. Pirages DC (1977) The sustainable society. Praeger, New York

    Google Scholar 

  72. Ritter G (2006) The constitution as social design. Gender and civic membeship in the America constitutional order. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA

  73. Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS III, Lambin E, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, Nykvist B, de Wit CA, Hughes T, van der Leeuw S, Rodhe H, Sörlin S, Snyder PK, Costanza R, Svedin U, Falkenmark M, Karlberg L, Corell RW, Fabry VJ, Hansen J, Walker B, Liverman D, Richardson K, Crutzen P, Foley J (2009) Planetary Boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol Soc 14(2):32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Rotmans J, Loorbach D (2008) “Transition management: Reflexive governance of societal complexity through searching, learning and experimenting. In: van den Bergh JCJM, Bruinsma FR (eds) Managing the transition to renewable energy: theory and practice from local, regional and macro perspectives. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  75. Ryan A, Tilbury D, Corcoran PB, Abe O, Nomura K (2010) Sustainability in higher education in the Asia-Pacific: developments, challenges, and prospects. Int J Sustain High Educ 11(2):106–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Sawyer S, Venkatesh M, Iivari J, Urquhart C, Light B (2011) The social design of information systems. In: Chiasson M, Henfridsson O, Karsten H, DeGross JI (eds) Researching the future in information systems. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  77. Schimel D, Hibbard K, Costa D, Cox P, van der Leeuw S (2015) Analysis, integration and modeling of the earth system (aimes): advancing the post-disciplinary understanding of coupled human-environment dynamics in the anthropocene. Anthropocene 12:99–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Scholz RW (1987) Cognitive strategies in stochastic thinking. Reidel, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  79. Scholz RW (2000) Mutual learning as a basic principle of transdisciplinarity. In: Scholz RW, Häberli R, Bill A, Welti M (eds) Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem-solving among science, technology and society. Workbook II: mutual learning sessions. Haffmans Sachbuch, Zürich

  80. Scholz RW (2011) Environmental literacy in science and society: From knowledge to decisions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  81. Scholz RW (2016) Sustainable digital environments: what major challenges is humankind facing. Sustainability 8(8):726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Scholz RW (2017) Digital threat and vulnerability management: the SVIDT method. Sustainability 9(4):554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Scholz RW, Stauffacher M (2009) From a science for society to a science with society. Psychol Rundsch 60(4):242–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Scholz RW, Steiner G (2015a) The real type and ideal type of transdisciplinary processes: part I—theoretical foundations. Sustain Sci 10(4):527–544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Scholz RW, Steiner G (2015b) The real type and ideal type of transdisciplinary processes: part II—what constraints and obstacles do we meet in practice? Sustain Sci 10(4):653–671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Scholz RW, Tietje O (2002) Embedded case study methods: integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  87. Scholz RW, Mieg HA, Oswald J (2000) Transdisciplinarity in groundwater management: towards mutual learning of science and society. Water Air Soil Pollut 123(1–4):477–487

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Scholz RW, Lang DJ, Wiek A, Walter AI, Stauffacher M (2006) Transdisciplinary case studies as a means of sustainability learning: historical framework and theory. Int J Sustain High Educ 7(3):226–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Scholz RW, Blumer YB, Brand FS (2012) Risk, vulnerability, robustness, and resilience from a decision-theoretic perspective. J Risk Res 15(3):313–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Scholz RW, Roy AH, Hellums DT (2014a) Sustainable phosphorus management: a global transdisciplinary challenge. In: Scholz RW, Roy AH, Brand FS, Hellums DT, Ulrich AE (eds) Sustainable phosphorus management: a global transdisciplinary roadmap. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  91. Scholz RW, Roy AH, Hellums DT (2014b) Sustainable phosphorus management: a transdisciplinary challenge. In: Scholz RW, Roy AH, Brand FS, Hellums DT, Ulrich AE (eds) Sustainable phosphorus management: a global transdisciplinary roadmap. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  92. Scholz RW, Wellmer FW et al (2016) Comment on: “Recent revisions of phosphate rock reserves and resources: a critique” by Edixhoven et al. (2014)- clarifying comments and thoughts on key conceptions, conclusions and interpretation to allow for sustainable action. Earth Syst Dyn 7:103–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Schumpeter JA (1950) The process of creative destruction. In: Schumpeter JA (ed) Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Allen and Unwin, London

    Google Scholar 

  94. Senge PM (1990) The fifth discipline. The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday, New York

    Google Scholar 

  95. Shiroyama H (2015) Nuclear safety regulation in japan and impacts of the Fukushima Daiichi accident. In: Ahn J, Carson C, Jensen M, Juraku K, Nagasaki S, Tanaka S (eds) Reflections on the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident: toward social-scientific literacy and engineering resilience. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  96. Shiroyama H, Yarime M, Matsuo M, Schroeder H, Scholz RW, Ulrich AE (2012) Governance for sustainability: knowledge integration and multi-actor dimensions in risk management. Sustain Sci 7(Supplement 1):45–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Simon HA (1979) Rational decision making in business organizations. Am Econ Rev 69(4):493–513

    Google Scholar 

  98. Sommer R (1983) Social design: creating building with people in mind. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  99. Spencer H (1855) The principles of psychology. Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, London

    Google Scholar 

  100. Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockstrom J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, Bennett EM, Biggs R, Carpenter SR, de Vries W, de Wit CA, Folke C, Gerten D, Heinke J, Mace GM, Persson LM, Ramanathan V, Reyers B, Sorlin S (2015) Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347(6223):1259855

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Stein J (2006) Can you tell a sunni from a shiite? October 17, The New York Times

  102. Tallberg JE (2004) European governance and supranational institutions: making states comply. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  103. Tayob A (2011) Human rights in modern Islamic discourse. In: Voort B-vd, Versteegh K, Wagemakers J (eds) The transmission and dynamics of the textual source of Islam. Essays on honor of Harald Motzki. Koninklojke Brill NV, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  104. Thompson Klein J, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Häberli R, Bill A, Scholz RW, Welti M (eds) (2001) Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem solving among science, technology, and society. An effective way for managing complexity. Birkhäuser, Basel

    Google Scholar 

  105. Torstendahl R (1993) “The transformation of professional education in the nineteenth century. In: Rosenblatt S, Wittrock B (eds) The European and American university since 1800: Historical and sociological essays. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  106. Turner BL, Matson PA, McCarthy JJ, Corell RW, Christensen L, Eckley N, Hovelsrud-Broda GK, Kasperson JX, Kasperson RE, Luers A, Martello ML, Mathiesen S, Naylor R, Polsky C, Pulsipher A, Schiller A, Selin H, Tyler N (2003) Illustrating the coupled human-environment system for vulnerability analysis: three case studies. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100(14):8080–8085

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Ulfstein G, Christiansen HF (2013) The legality of the bombing in Lybia. Int Comp Law Q 62(1):159–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. United States Geological Survey (2014) Mineral Commodity Summaries 2014. United States Geological Survey, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  109. Vilsmaier U, Engbers M, Luthardt P, Maas-Deipenbrock R-M, Wunderlich S, Scholz RW (2015) Case based mutual learning sessions: knowledge integration and transfer in transdisciplinary processes. Sustain Sci 10(4):563–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1944) Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  111. Weber M (2010) Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus. Beck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  112. Wemyss D (2012) Lessons learned and transferable technology for phosphorous recycling from domestic wastewater in Japan and Switzerland. MSc. Thesis, ETH Zurich

  113. Williamson OE (2000) The new institutional economics: taking stock, looking ahead. J Econ Lit 38(3):593–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Wynne B (1996) “May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In: Lasch S, Szerszynski B, Wynne B (eds) Risk, environment and modernity: towards a new ecology. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  115. Yar M (2013) Cybercrime and society. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  116. Yarime M, Trencher G, Mino T, Scholz RW, Olsson L, Ness B, Frantzeskaki N, Rotmans J (2012) Establishing sustainability science in higher education institutions: towards an integration of academic development, institutionalization, and stakeholder collaborations. Sustain Sci 7(Supplement 1):101–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Yarime M, Carliell-Marquet C, Hellums DT, Kalmykova Y, Lang DJ, Le QB, Malley D, Matsubae K, Matsuo M, Ohtake H, Omlin M, Petzet S, Scholz RW, Shiroyama H, Ulrich AE, Watts P (2014) Dissipation and Recycling: What losses, what dissipation impacts, and what recycling options? In: Scholz RW, Roy AH, Brand FS, Hellums DT, Ulrich AE (eds) Sustainable phosphorus management: a global transdisciplinary roadmap. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roland W. Scholz.

Additional information

Handled by Osamu Saito, United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS), Japan.

Appendix

Appendix

The global leader program for social design and management (GSDM) of the University of Tokyo

GSDM, with 9 graduate schools including those of public policy and engineering and 21 departments involved, has students coming from diverse academic backgrounds, covering natural sciences, engineering, social science, and humanities. As of April 2016, the total number of the students who participate in this program was 105, which includes 62 students majoring in engineering, 14 students in social sciences including economics, political science, and public policy, and others in agricultural and life sciences, medicine, and informatics. Each doctoral student belongs to one of the schools and departments in the university with a focus on a specific academic area and works on a sub-topic concerning societal dimensions related to his or her doctoral research. Student whose major is engineering would consider implications of his/her main research topic for society. If a student is working on robotics for medical operation, e.g., a potential sub-topic could be an examination of the policy process of approving new robots for medical operation, a review of the technical standards for designing and developing new robots, or an evaluation of economic and social aspects of new robots. In conducting a sub-theme research, each student receives advices and support from two co-advisers who have different backgrounds, in addition to close consultation with the main supervisor. The result of the work on the sub-theme is expected to be published as an academic paper or included as a chapter in the doctoral dissertation.

The curriculum of the program provides the students with comprehensive coursework, research design workshop, and international projects. In the comprehensive coursework students are expected to acquire more than one special field and cross-cutting strong knowledge base. Three core courses are offered to the students in the comprehensive coursework in the fields of global society and public policy, advanced science and technologies, and issue solving through lectures as well as problem-based learning. The research design workshop is organized at the end of the first year of the doctoral program. Students report the status of their doctoral research and demonstrate the ability to design solutions to tackle societal challenges, based on the courses they have taken and the competencies they have acquired through the program. The international project is aimed at cultivating the ability to handle diversity, think globally, and act independently. Each student plans and carries out an internship at an international organization, private company, or research organization overseas. In addition, student initiative projects are organized by groups of students with diverse backgrounds covering natural sciences and engineering as well as social sciences and policy studies to analyze the structure of pressing issues and to propose solutions to them in the key areas identified by the program.

There still remain many challenges in moving towards achieving the objectives of the program, particularly the integration of knowledge on natural sciences and social sciences. While the difficulty for students majoring social sciences to understand scientific or technological details involved in social issues is relatively well recognized, the fact that engineering students as well are struggling hard to acquire basic knowledge about social sciences asks for special attention. Engineering students do not necessarily have a sufficient level of understanding of the concepts and frameworks used in social sciences. It is hard for them even to think about societal dimensions or implications of their own research. Therefore, when they are asked to consider the relevant stakeholders involved in societal issues and to propose policies to address them, they would not be able to construct convincing arguments utilizing social scientific concepts, theories, and frameworks. It is of critical importance to navigate natural science and engineering students for learning and understanding social scientific ways of approaching diverse phenomena in society.

Addressing this challenge, the curriculum of GSDM is designed so that the students can learn basic knowledge and skills for social design and management in class and gain practical experiences through project-based learning. Approximately 150 courses have been offered in the core courses in the fields of global society and public policy, advanced science and technology, and issue solving. Many of the courses concerning specific aspects of social sciences, however, are often provided separately by faculty members belonging to different departments, and their contents might not be well-coordinated with each other or refer to issues such as resilience or HES. Presumably, the student initiative projects are a good platform for students and scientists to relate natural and social sciences by jointly identifying and tackling the common problems. Through collaborating closely with the stakeholders involved in these problems, the students can obtain actual experiences of integrating knowledge in science and practice. Only with strong academic foundations of social sciences gained in systematic manners, students would be able to benefit fully from project-based exercises.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Scholz, R.W., Yarime, M. & Shiroyama, H. Global leadership for social design: theoretical and educational perspectives. Sustain Sci 13, 447–464 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0454-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Social design
  • Global leadership
  • Resilience
  • Human environment systems
  • Knowledge integration
  • π-profiles for knowledge integration