Skip to main content

Co-Becoming: How to Shape Desirable Futures in Highly Uncertain Times

Co-becoming: Wie man wünschenswerte Zukünfte in höchst unsicheren Zeiten gestaltet

On learning and the role of futures literacy in a VUCA world

Über Lernen und die Rolle der Zukunftskompetenz in einer VUCA-Welt

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Die menschliche (Hoch)schule - Human(e) Education

Abstract

Our world has always been changing, sometimes rather gradually, at other times more radically. In today’s world, we see both tremendous challenges and potential to shape it in a new and desirable direction. In almost every domain of our lives we are challenged by high levels of volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguousness (“VUCA world”). In this context of profound technological, digital, social, and political changes and transformations, we have to ask ourselves: what is it that makes us humans human? What does a meaningful and joyful relationship between humans, technology, and the future look like? How do we meet the challenges of increasingly blurred borders between humans and technology in a more human(e) manner? Which skills and mindsets do we need to deal with our uncertain and unpredictable future in order to co-shape it in a purposeful and thriving manner? In this chapter, we will explore the challenges of a VUCA world and take a closer look at what their implications are for our educational systems. We will develop a future-oriented perspective on learning that is based on the concept of learning as co-becoming with the world. We will discuss that this requires futures literacies, such as sense-making capabilities, a constructivist epistemology, systems thinking, designerly ways of thinking and making, and most importantly, a capacity to identify and make use of future potentials. We will both discuss theoretical foundations (e.g., from cognitive science/enactive cognition approaches, systems thinking, etc.) and practical implications, skills, mindsets, and a concrete case study illustrating these concepts.

Zusammenfassung

Unsere Welt hat sich schon immer verändert, manchmal eher in kleinen Schritten, manchmal aber auch radikal. In der heutigen Welt sehen wir sowohl enorme Herausforderungen als auch das Potenzial, unsere Welt in eine neue und wünschenswerte Richtung zu gestalten. In fast jedem Bereich unseres Lebens erfahren wir durch ein hohes Maß an Volatilität, Unsicherheit, Komplexität und Ambiguität („VUCA“-Welt) immer neue Herausforderungen. In diesem Kontext tiefgreifender technologischer, digitaler, sozialer und politischer Veränderungen und Transformationen müssen wir uns fragen: Was macht uns in solch einer Welt zum Menschen? Wie sieht eine sinnvolle Beziehung zwischen Mensch, Technologie und Zukunft aus? Wie begegnen wir den Herausforderungen der zunehmend verschwimmenden Grenzen zwischen Mensch und Technologie auf eine menschlichere(re) Weise? Welche Fähigkeiten und Denkweisen brauchen wir, um mit unserer ungewissen und unvorhersehbaren Zukunft umzugehen, um sie mit Bedeutung und fruchtbar zu co-kreieren? In diesem Beitrag werden wir uns mit den Herausforderungen einer VUCA-Welt auseinandersetzen und die Implikationen für unsere Bildungssysteme näher beleuchten. Wir werden eine zukunftsorientierte/gestaltende Perspektive auf das Lernen entwickeln, die auf dem Konzept des Lernens als „co-becoming“ mit der Welt basiert. Wir werden erörtern, dass dies Zukunftskompetenzen („futures literacies“) erfordert, wie z.  B. „sense-making“, eine konstruktivistische Erkenntnistheorie, Systemdenken, gestalterische Denk- und Gestaltungsweisen sowie die Fähigkeit, Zukunftspotenziale zu erkennen und zu nutzen. Wir werden sowohl theoretische Grundlagen (z. B. aus der Kognitionswissenschaft/enaktive Ansätze, Material Engagement Theory, Innovationsstudien) als auch praktische Implikationen, Fähigkeiten, Denkweisen und eine konkrete Fallstudie zur Veranschaulichung dieser Konzepte diskutieren.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    See, for instance, here for a recent description of the protopia framework: https://medium.com/protopia-futures/protopia-futures-framework-f3c2a5d09a1e

  2. 2.

    See: ​​https://bene.com/en/products/storage/pixel

References

  • Adolf, M., & Stehr, N. (2014). Knowledge. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ainsworth, T. (2016). Form vs. Matter. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/form-matter/

  • Aristotle. (1991a). Metaphysics. In J. Barnes & Aristotle (Eds.), The complete works of Aristotle. The revised Oxford Translation (Vol 2) (fourth). Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. (1991b). Physics. In J. Barnes & Aristotle (Eds.), The complete works of Aristotle. The revised Oxford Translation (Vol 1) (4th ed.). Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashby, R. W. (1964). An introduction to cybernetics. Methuen.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Baran, B. E., & Woznyj, H. M. (2020). Managing VUCA. The human dynamics of agility. Organizational Dynamics, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2020.100787 (date of download: 26.08.2020)

  • Bennett, N., & Lemoine, G. J. (2014). What a difference a word makes: Understanding threats to performance in a VUCA world. Business Horizons, 57(3), 311–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertalanffy, L. v. (1968). General system theory. Foundations, development, applications. George Braziller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloch, E. (1986). The principle of hope (3 Volumes). MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brassett, J., & O´Reilly, J. (2015). Styling the future. A philosophical approach to design and scenarios. Futures, 74(Nov 2015), 37–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broo, D. G. (2021). Transdisciplinarity and three mindsets for sustainability in the age of cyber-physical systems. Journal of Industrial Information Integration, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jii.2021.100290

  • Brook, C., Pedler, M., Abbott, C., & Burgoyne, J. (2016). On stopping doing those things that are not getting us to where we want to be: Unlearning, wicked problems and critical action learning. Human Relations, 69(2), 369–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. (2009). Change by design. How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, R. (2015). Worlds in the making. Design, management, and the reform of organizational culture. She Ji The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 1(1), 5–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, R. (2019). Systems thinking and design thinking: The search for principles in the world we are making. She Ji The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 5(2), 85–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chemero, A. (2003). An outline of a theory of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 181–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. (1999). An embodied cognitive science? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(9), 345–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind. Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(3), 1–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. (2016). Surfing uncertainty. Prediction, action, and the embodied mind. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, M., & Derry, J. (2005). We have met technology and it is us. In R. J. Sternberg & D. Preiss (Eds.), Intelligence and technology. The impact of tools on the nature and development of human abilities. (pp. 209–227). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. (2006). Making present. Autopoiesis as human production. Organization, 13(1), 59–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corning, P. A. (2002). The re-emergence of “emergence”: A venerable concept in search of a theory. Complexity, 7(6), 18–30.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing. Design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jaegher, H. (2019). Loving and knowing: Reflections for an engaged epistemology. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-019-09634-5

  • De Jaegher, H., & Di Paolo, E. (2007). Participatory sense-making. An enactive approach to social cognition. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 6(4), 485–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation. Create new thinking by design. MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • d.school. (2010). Design thinking bootcamp bootleg. Methodbook. d.school, Hasso Platter, Institute of Design. http://dschool.typepad.com/files/bootcampbootleg2010.pdf (date of download: 26.01.2011)

  • Felin, T., Kauffman, S. A., Koppl, R., & Longo, G. (2014). Economic opportunity and evolution: Beyond landscapes and bounded rationality. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 8(4), 269–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felin, T., & Zenger, T. R. (2017). The theory-based view: Economic actors as theorists. Strategy Science, 2(4), 258–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foerster, H. v. (Ed.). (2003). Understanding understanding. Essays on cybernetics and cognition. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Froese, T., & Di Paolo, E. A. (2011). The enactive approach. Theoretical sketches from cell to society. Pragmatics & Cognition, 19(1), 1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception (new). Psychology Press. Taylor and Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glanville, R. (2007). Try again. Fail again. Fail better: The cybernetics in design and the design in cybernetics. Kybernetes. The International Journal of Systems and Cybernetics, 36(9/10), 1173–1206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glasersfeld, E. v. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80(1), 121–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glasersfeld, E. v. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleason, N. W. (2019). The digital economy and learning. In BBVA Open Mind Book (Ed.), Work in the age of data (pp. 142–149). BBVA. https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/BBVA-OpenMind-book-2020-Work-in-the-Age-of-Data.pdf (date of download: 27.02.2020)

  • Goldspink, C., & Kay, R. (2003). Organizations as self-organizing and sustaining systems. A complex and autopoietic systems perspective. International Journal of General Systems, 32(5), 459–474.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grisold, T., & Peschl, M. F. (2017). Why a systems thinking perspective on cognition matters for innovation and knowledge creation. A framework towards leaving behind our projections from the past for creating new futures. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 34(3), 335–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hernández, R. J., Cooper, R., Tether, B., & Murphy, E. (2018). Design, the language of innovation: A review of the design studies literature. She Ji The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 4(3), 249–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hippel, E. v. (2005). Democratizing innovation. MIT Press. http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/democ1.htm (date of download: 04.11.2010)

  • Hohwy, J. (2013). The Predictive Mind. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hopp, C., Antons, D., Kaminski, J., & Salge, T. O. (2018). What 40 years of research reveals about the difference between disruptive and radical innovation. Harvard Business Review, 2018(4). https://hbr.org/2018/04/what-40-years-of-research-reveals-about-the-difference-between-disruptive-and-radical-innovation (date of download: 16.04.2018)

  • Ingold, T. (2013). Making. Anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingold, T. (2014). The creativity of undergoing. Pragmatics & Cognition, 22(1), 124–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingold, T. (2018). Anthropology and/as education. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johansen, B., & Euchner, J. (2013). Navigating the VUCA World. Research-Technology Management, 56(1), 10–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlsen, J. E. (2021). Futures literacy in the loop. European Journal of Futures Research, 9(17). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40309-021-00187-y

  • Kauffman, S. A. (1993). The origins of order: Self-organisation and selection in evolution. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, S. A. (2000). Investigations. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, S. A. (2008). Reinventing the sacred. A new view of science, reason, and religion. Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, S. A. (2014). Prolegomenon to patterns in evolution. BioSystems, 123(2014), 3–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, S. A. (2016). Humanity in a creative universe. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kay, R. (2001). Are organizations autopoietic? A call for new debate. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 18, 461–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kokshagina, O., Rickards, L., Steele, W., & Moraes, O. (2021). Futures literacy for research impact in universities. Futures, 132, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (1989). On the essential contexts of artifacts or on the proposition that “Design is making sense (of things).” Design Issues, 5(2), 9–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (2006). The semantic turn. A new foundation for design. Taylor and Francis CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (2007). The cybernetics of design and the design of cybernetics. Kybernetes, 36(9), 1381–1392.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (2011). Principles of design and a trajectory of artificiality. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(3), 411–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laszlo, A. (2018). Leadership and systemic innovation: Socio-technical systems, ecological systems, and evolutionary systems design. International Review of Sociology, 28(3), 380–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K. (2021). Critique of design thinking in organizations: Strongholds and shortcomings of the making paradigm. She Ji The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 7(4), 497–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malafouris, L. (2013). How things shape the mind. A theory of material engagement. MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Malafouris, L. (2014). Creative thinging: The feeling of and for clay. Pragmatics & Cognition, 22(1), 140–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malafouris, L. (2020). Thinking as “thinging”: Psychology with things. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(1), 3–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maturana, H. R. (1970). Biology of cognition. In H. R. Maturana & F. J. Varela (Eds.), Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living (pp. 2–60). Reidel Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1975). Autopoiesis: The organization of the living. In H. R. Maturana & F. J. Varela (Eds.), Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living (pp. 63–134). Reidel Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (Eds.). (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Reidel Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meadows, D. (2001). Dancing with systems. Whole Earth, 106, 58–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menary, R. (Ed.). (2010). The extended mind. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R. (2015). Learning, the future, and complexity. An essay on the emergence of futures literacy. European Journal of Education, 50(4), 513–523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R. (Ed.). (2018). Transforming the future. Anticipation in the 21st century. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitleton-Kelly, E. (2003). Ten principles of complexity and enabling infrastructures. In E. Mitleton-Kelly (Ed.), Complex systems and evolutionary perspectives on organisations: The application of complexity theory to organisations (pp. 23–50). Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newen, A., Burin, L. de, & Gallagher, S. (Eds.). (2018). The Oxford Handbook of 4E cognition. Oxford University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198735410.001.0001

  • Nicolis, G., & Prigogine, I. (1989). Exploring complexity. An introduction. Freeman.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2018). The Future of Education and Skills: Education 2030. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf (date of download: 27.02.2020)

  • Peschl, M. F. (2007). Triple-loop learning as foundation for profound change, individual cultivation, and radical innovation. Construction processes beyond scientific and rational knowledge. Constructivist Foundations, 2(2–3), 136–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peschl, M. F. (2019a). Design and innovation as co‐creating and co‐becoming with the future. Design Management Journal, 14(1), 4–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peschl, M. F. (2019b). Unlearning towards an uncertain future: On the back end of future-driven unlearning. The Learning Organization, 26(5), 454–469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peschl, M. F. (2020). Theory U: From potentials and co-becoming to bringing forth emergent innovation and shaping a thriving future. On what it means to “learn from the future as it emerges.” In O. Gunnlaugson & W. Brendel (Eds.), Advances in Presencing (Vol. 2, pp. 65–112). Trifoss Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peschl, M. F., & Fundneider, T. (2012). Spaces enabling game-changing and sustaining innovations: Why space matters for knowledge creation and innovation. Journal of Organisational Transformation and Social Change (OTSC), 9(1), 41–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peschl, M. F., & Fundneider, T. (2014). Why space matters for collaborative innovation networks. On designing enabling spaces for collaborative knowledge creation. International Journal of Organisational Design and Engineering (IJODE), 3(3/4), 358–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peschl, M. F., & Fundneider, T. (2015). Designing and envisioning a desired future by Emergent Innovation of meaning. In L. Collina, L. Galluzzo, & A. Meroni (Eds.), The virtuous circle. Design culture and experimentation (pp. 335–349). Mc Graw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peschl, M. F., & Fundneider, T. (2017). Future-oriented innovation. How affordances and potentials can teach us how to learn from the future as it emerges. In W. Hofkirchner & M. Burgin (Eds.), The future information society. Social and technological problems (pp. 223–240). World Scientific Publishing. doi: https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813108974_0012

  • Peschl, M. F., Rötzer, K., Bottaro, G., & Hartner-Tiefenthaler, M. (2019). The role of the shift from I-to-We and Theory-U in overcoming 21st century illiteracies. In O. Gunnlaugson & W. Brendel (Eds.), Advances in Presencing (Vol 1) (pp. 161–210). Trifoss Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poli, R. (2006). The ontology of what is not there. In J. Malinowski & A. Pietruszczak (Eds.), Essays in Logic and Ontology (Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, vol. 91) (Vol. 91, pp. 73–80). Rodopi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poli, R. (2011a). Ontological categories, latents and the irrational. In J. Cumpa & E. Tegtmeier (Eds.), Ontological categories (pp. 153–163). Ontos Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poli, R. (2011b). Steps toward an explicit ontology of the future. Journal of Future Studies, 16(1), 67–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poli, R. (2021). The challenges of futures literacy. Futures, 132, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Razeto-Berry, P. (2012). Autopoiesis 40 years later. A review and a reformulation. Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres, 42(6), 543–567.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risto, H. (2011). Artifact. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/artifact/ (date of download: 08.05.2018)

  • Roth, W. M., Socha, D., & Tenenberg, J. (2016). Becoming-design in corresponding: Re/theorising the co- in codesigning. CoDesign, 12(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowlands, M. (2009). Enactivism and the extended mind. Topoi, 28(1), 53–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saad-Sulonen, J., Eriksson, E., Halskov, K., Karasti, H., & others. (2018). Unfolding participation over time: Temporal lenses in participatory design. CoDesign, 14(1), 4–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarasvathy, S. D., Dew, N., Velamuri, S. R., & Venkataraman, S. (2003). Three Views of Entrepreneurial Opportunity. In Z. D. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research (pp. 141–160). Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://www.effectuation.org/sites/default/files/research_papers/three_views_of_opportunity.pdf (date of download: 24.02.2015)

  • Scharmer, C. O. (2016). Theory U. Leading from the future as it emerges. The social technology of presencing (second). Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, S., & Kokshagina, O. (2021). Digital transformation: What we have learned (thus far) and what is next. Creativity and Innovation Management, 30(2), 384–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (third). MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, A. (2002). Emergentism, irreducibility, and downward causation. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 65, 77–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, A. (2006). The dual role of “emergence” in the philosophy of mind and in cognitive science. Synthese, 151, 485–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D., Peteraf, M., & Leih, S. (2016). Dynamic capabilities and organizational agility: Risk, uncertainty, and strategy in the innovation economy. California Management Review, 58(4), 13–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Lisbon Council, & Accenture. (2007). Skills for the future. The Lisbon Council & Accenture. http://www.lisboncouncil.net/media//6086_skillsforthefuture_final.pdf date of download: 27.4.2007)

  • Thurner, S., Hanel, R., & Klimek, P. (2018). Introduction to the theory of complex systems. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198821939.001.0001

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13(5), 567–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO. (2021). Learning to become with the world: Education for future survival. UNESCO (Futures of Education). https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000374032?fbclid=IwAR0YU-sJserzEoHPvkRHkYAYO1Eq_nyFjHmcH8Em0n4KJx0BZib4hP5bk8A (date of download: 07.12.2021)

  • Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (2016). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience (rev.). MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verganti, R. (2006). Innovating through design. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 114–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verganti, R. (2009). Design driven innovation. Changing the rules of competition by radically innovating what things mean. Harvard Business Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, G. M. (2011). An introduction to general systems thinking. Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel, M., Krämer, H., Koch, J., & Reckwitz, A. (2020). Future and Organization Studies: On the rediscovery of a problematic temporal category in organizations. Organization Studies, 41(10), 1441–1455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, A., Kennedy, S., Philipp, F., & Whiteman, G. (2017). Systems thinking: A review of sustainability management research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 148, 866–881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willis, A.-M. (2006). Ontological designing. Design Philosophy Papers, 4(2), 69–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yakhlef, A., & Rietveld, E. (2020). Innovative action as skilled affordance-responsiveness: An embodied-mind approach. Creativity and Innovation Management, 29, 99–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Markus F. Peschl .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Der/die Autor(en), exklusiv lizenziert an Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Peschl, M.F., Fundneider, T. (2023). Co-Becoming: How to Shape Desirable Futures in Highly Uncertain Times. In: Kohlert, C. (eds) Die menschliche (Hoch)schule - Human(e) Education. Springer Vieweg, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-39863-7_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-39863-7_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer Vieweg, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-39862-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-39863-7

  • eBook Packages: Education and Social Work (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics