Keywords

Introduction

What sets us apart as human beings is that we can connect to the emerging future. That is who we are. We can break the patterns of the past and create new patterns at scale. No other species on earth can do this. Bees, for example, may be organised by a much higher collective intelligence. Yet they have no option to change their pattern of organising. But we as humans do. (Scharmer, 2018, p. 10)

We live in a time when our planet, our societal norms, and the essence of our humanity are threatened. Global climate change, pandemics, national and international crime, spread of misinformation, terrorism, and warfare; the list of threats towards life as we know it can be long. In times like these, it is remarkable that accountability, effectiveness, and outcomes have become the key concepts around which we structure education in Sweden, similar to many other countries. Of course, there are also counter-movements questioning the egocentric mindsets and economic models that operate and steer the everyday work in our schools. This contemporary image shows how the world is, but what it can become is less clear. In response to these threats, we, as researchers and educators, have felt an urge and an obligation to engage with the future and invite others to do the same. The study reported on in this chapter is one expression of that engagement.

Since both of us authors frequently meet and work with Swedish principals, it seemed natural to start with them. However, the choice of participants is not to be seen as a matter of convenience. Rather, it is our strongest belief that principals are important promoters of educational as well as civic change. In their role as formal leaders, principals have the power to question practices that are reproducing or even creating results that nobody wants and, perhaps even more importantly, they are in a position where they can facilitate and nurture praxis in education. Therefore, by listening to the voices of principals, we can learn not just what is happening in our schools and societies today but also what may be happening there tomorrow. Moreover, by asking questions that concern all our co-existence on this planet, we may also become promoters of the movement towards a better future.

In this chapter, attention is directed towards emerging practices and practice projects aiming for positive social changes and a better future for all. A particular focus is placed on activities that include a shift in the mindset from ego-thinking (i.e., my success and well-being) to eco-thinking (i.e., the well-being and success of many). The purpose of the study reported in this chapter was to nurture praxis in education. In the study, we invited principals to engage with the project’s core questions (What does it mean to live well? What is a world worth living in? What does it mean to live well in a world worth living in for all?). We also invited principals to reflect upon their part in the realisation of a world worth living in for all, in relation to these questions. The inquiry was transformed into two research questions:

  1. 1.

    What does it mean for principals in Sweden to live well in a world worth living in for all?

  2. 2.

    How do principals in Sweden nurture the realisation of a world worth living in for all?

Practice Architectures and the Theory U as the Framework

From a theory of practice architectures perspective, practices are seen as “dynamic, organic and open-ended, individual and collaborative […] processes” (Olin et al., 2020, p. 143). Based on our understanding, this means that practices evolve on a continuum, extending from not at all realised (imagined future practices) to fully realised (transformed practices). On this continuum, new practices emerge alongside more established ones, creating conditions “under which the merits of the new can be assessed alongside the old” (Kemmis, 2021, p. 10), in a process referred to by Kemmis and his colleagues as “hybridisation” (Kemmis, 2021; Kemmis et al., 2014).

Common to these different types of practices is that they are site-based. What distinguishes one from the other is the degree of realisation. In order for imagined future practices to transform into fully realised practices, the sayings, doings, and relatings of a practice must change. This means that the practitioners (i.e., those who are part of a current, ongoing practice) need to change the way they think, speak, and (inter)act. These “shifts in the combinations of sayings, doings, and relatings that compose the practices involved, along with shifts in the practice architectures that make them possible” (Kemmis, 2021, p. 7) cannot happen without learning. Hence, accomplishing a transition from the current towards an imagined future practice is a matter of learning.

This way of reasoning has served as an important starting point for our work with the study reported on in this chapter. Yet, another source of inspiration was found in the work of Otto Scharmer, who claims that learning from the past is a necessary but not sufficient condition for transformational change (Scharmer, 2018, p. 10). Since the past is a limited source of information, and since previous experiences sometimes prevent rather than promote transformational change, we need to develop the capacity to learn not only from the past but also from “the emerging future” (Scharmer, 2018, p. 10).

According to Scharmer (2018), the ability to connect to, and learn not only from the past but also the emerging future is a gift, exclusive to the human species.

We have the gift to engage with two very different qualities and streams of time. One of them is a quality of the present moment that is basically an extension of the past. The present moment is shaped by what has been. The second is a quality of the present moment that functions as a gateway to a field of future possibilities. (Scharmer, 2018, p. 10)

This particular ability to connect to and learn from the emerging future is closely related to an activity that Scharmer (2018) refers to as “presencing”. In his writings, the word “blends ‘sensing’ with ‘presence’” (p. 10) and means “to sense and actualise one’s highest future potential” (p. 10). According to Scharmer (2018), the second stream of time (e.g., engaging with the emerging future) is the most important in times of disruption (or crisis), since “without that connection we tend to end up as victims rather than co-shapers of disruption” (p. 10).

In what has become known as Theory U, Scharmer (2016, 2018) describes five movements (Co-initiating, Co-sensing, Co-inspiring, Co-creating, and Co-evolving) related to presencing.Footnote 1 The five movements constitute the process of presencing, and they are often illustrated in a shape of the letter U, from which the name of the theory is drawn, i.e., Theory U. (Fig. 4.1).

Fig. 4.1
An infographic diagram presents the 5 movements. 1. Co-initiating, uncover common intent. 2. Co-sensing, observe. 3. Co-inspiring, connect to the source of inspiration and will. 4. Co-creating, prototype the new. 5. Co-evolving, institutionalize the new in practices.

Reproduced with permission from The Presencing Institute

U-Process: 1 Process, 5 Movements, by Otto Scharmer.

Full size image

According to Scharmer (2018), the first movement (Co-initiating) is about building a common intent. This means listening to others with the purpose of uncovering common intentions. Moving down the left side of the U-shaped arrow, we get out and connect to the world outside our own institutional (as well as social and digital) bubble to make observations and listen to others with an “open mind, open heart, and open will” (p. 34). By suspending the “voice of judgement” (p. 36) and listening to what emerges from the collective, we let go of our ego in order to connect to the greater ecosystem (Co-sensing). As we reach the bottom of the U-shaped arrow, others are invited to contribute to the whole, rather than act in the interest of a few (Co-inspiring). In this “pivot point at the bottom” (Pavey, 2021, p. 582), we connect to and make use of various sources of knowledge, including what is referred to as the inner source of inspiration, as we open up for and jointly explore various emerging possibilities. As we move up along the right side of the U-shaped arrow, we elaborate on collectively developed ideas (prototyping) and experiment with new concepts and new ways of doing things (Co-creating) before these are introduced to and incorporated in the system. The last movement is about embodying the new and facilitating, that is, creating conditions that enable new ways of seeing and acting (Co-evolving).

Our understanding of what it means to learn from the future as it emerges is, to a large extent, captured in this brief summary of the presencing process. The summary also reflects the intentions of our interaction with the principals participating in the study.

Data and Method

In our interaction with the participating principals, the process of learning from the emerging future, or presencing, started when we visited two groups participating in the Swedish National School Leadership Training Programme (Rektorsprogrammet),Footnote 2 to inform them about the World Worth Living In project and its core questions. As formulated, these questions hold, within themselves, an invitation to a journey in which those who choose to accompany are asked to go beyond their everyday professional practice and connect to their inner source of inspiration (i.e., open mind, open heart, open will) as well as the greater ecosystem (i.e., world of which we are all a part). Out of a total of 217 principals informed about the project, 16 signed up for further information. Twelve agreed to the terms and conditions of the project and thus gave their informed consent to participate in the study. None of the participating principals were enrolled in any of the courses in which we, the authors, were engaged. All participants were given pseudonyms.

The empirical data were produced in semi-structured interviews carried out during the Covid-19 pandemic and recorded on a platform for digital meetings. Two sets of questions guided the interviews as well as the data analysis: The first relates to principals’ ideas of what it means to live well in a world worth living in for all; the second relates to principals’ conceptions of their contributions to the realisation of practices promoting a world worth living in for all.

The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using various techniques. First, principals’ answers to the question of what it means to live in a world worth living in for all were coded and structured thematically (i.e., the different ideas expressed in the interviews). Second, answers related to the realisation of such a world were analysed with a focus on practice and practice change (e.g., the transition from the current to imagined future practices). As part of this second analysis, we used the five movements conceptualised in Theory U to identify signs of what has previously been described as a presencing process.

Findings

In this section, we present the findings, starting with the principals’ answers to the question of what it means to live well in a world worth living in for all. Then, we move on to realisation: practice transitions and presencing activities.

A World Worth Living in for All

The principals’ answers to the question of how to live well in a world worth living in for all may be structured around the main ideas: basic needs, access to education, and equal opportunities.

Out of the three, the first is the most salient. In fact, not one single principal provided an answer that did not somehow include the satisfaction of basic physical and social needs. “Living well […] I think directly about these basic needs for people […] food, roof.” (Johanna). The quotations are quintessential, as is the conclusion that a world that fails to meet the basic needs of its citizens is not a world worth living in. Having stated that, some of the principals developed their answers to include other aspects of importance for human well-being. Several mentioned, for instance, the importance of having a job, and an income that allows people to live well. Some also pointed out that it is important to know that you are able to care for and provide for yourself. Yet, others dwelt on the importance of trust and relationships; of being loved and cared for; and to love and care for others in return.

Besides what was said about basic needs, most principals also stressed the importance of education. In their narratives, access to education was often expressed in terms of a right along with other human rights, such as the right to health care, freedom of expression, and the right to decide over one’s own life (e.g., whom to have sex with or marry, what to do with your life, and what to wear). Several build their narratives incrementally, starting with the basic needs and rights and then adding to that, as illustrated below:

Well, physical activity. You should be able to feel good, mentally and physically as well. It is not just a matter of avoiding diseases, and so on. But somehow it will be... That will be the next step or the next level in this. It’s the kind of things that you can allow yourself if everything else is there. So, purely basic: the security, work, housing, and food on the table. That is to live well. (Lena)

Most of the principals seemed to believe it does not take much to be able to live well. However, difficulties seem to arise when we asked them to contextualise and provide examples, and when we asked them to enhance their reasoning on the meaning of a world that is worth living in for all, with emphasis put on the last word (all). Then it became clear that the world we live in today does not allow all people to live well because resources are unevenly distributed, and because there are structures that limit people’s opportunities to have their needs and rights met.

I think the world should be a place where there are opportunities for everyone to be able to live well. So this leads us to… We need to consider issues of fairness and things like that. If we look at the world, we have everything: the problem of poverty, different types of regimes that oppress and so on. […] Imagine if you could live well wherever you lived in the world […] One should be able to feel confident that it is possible to have a good future [...] no matter where you live in the world. Well, that’s what it means […] a world worth living in for everyone. (Lena)

Several attempts made to express what it means to live well in a world worth living for all started with or included some kind of comparison between countries or between groups of people. When these comparisons were made, it was repeatedly pointed out that we, who live in this part of the world, and particularly in Sweden, are privileged. In comparison to people in many other parts of the world, the conditions for living well are good; most of us have our basic needs met, education is available to all, and we have the right to speak freely without fearing reprisals or punishments.

For me, who lives in Sweden, it feels quite easy to make sure that I get an education and a job and... It feels pretty much as a matter of course. In any case, there are prerequisites to have good health. There’s health care and stuff like that […] But that it’s becomes more difficult when you think about the whole world. It [living well] can be harder if you live in a different type of country. (Margareta)

When speaking of differences, several principals expressed feelings of gratitude as well as responsibility. One of them, Marie, concluded:

“We should create better conditions for all on this planet. It may actually be that we who live in this part of the world, where we are still living pretty well, will have to lower our standard a little, so that those who live in other parts of the world can live a little better”.

Marie develops her reasoning by stressing her own responsibility as the principal:

“I feel this big responsibility. […] to plant these seeds and thoughts, so that they [the students] can do… So that they understand that they have a place to fill [and a task to fulfil]: to make the world a little better”.

Participation in this study was viewed by some of the principals as an opportunity to nurture praxis within their respective educational settings, and thus make a contribution to a better future for all.

Realisation of a World Worth Living in for All

As previously stated, emerging practices unfold between current and future practices. In this section, we report the results of our search for such practices (e.g., practices in transition or transformation). In doing so, we recall the participating principals’ conceptions of a world worth living in and their responses to our questions on how these are realised in the local school settings.

Principals’ responses to our questions on how their conceptions of a world worth living in for all are realised in the local school setting varied in scope and nature. In the interviews, several principals informed us that their participation in the study inspired them to start local school projects (e.g., workshops with students, studio work, and art exhibitions). Others shared visions for their schools and vividly sketched images of future practices. For instance, one of the principals, Anders, shared the vision of his school becoming a hub in the local area:

I see a future where our school becomes the hub of this area. Because everyone who lives in this area has no connection to the school. It is a gigantic building with a schoolyard and football field and park area all around that is really in the middle of the area. So, if you don’t have kids or friends’ kids here [in this school], you walk past it all the time and you see the school. So, you can... Imagine if this school could become a springboard that creates some faith in the future for the area. (Anders)

In the interview, when Anders talked about the future prospects of his school, the tone of his voice changed, and there was an energy that had not been there before. It was clear that this vision inspired and guided his work towards several not-yet-realised practices (e.g., an extensive rebuild and a planned musical).

We are in the process of rebuilding the school […] from scratch and buying new furniture, and we will rebuild the entire schoolyard when the actual construction is finished […]. I already have teachers who say: when my students are going to finish third, then we’re going to have a huge musical and we’re going to invite... So, they see things like that in front of them; how we’re going to do open houses, and how we could do more things for the whole area. (Anders)

However, others provided examples of already ongoing (current) practices. For instance, one principal told us about a very special cupboard, named “Tage”, located in the hallway where it greets everyone who enters the building. Parents borrow (or take) clothes from the cupboard and add their children’s outgrown clothes into the cupboard. It is worth pointing out that Tage is not only a common male name in Sweden but also a merging of the words ta (take) and ge (give); an apt description of what is happening, thanks to this activity.

Another example was presented by a principal who works in a school for pupils with learning disabilities. According to her, they have educated their students to become “accessibility scouts” (tillgänglighetsspanare) within their school. As such, their task is to examine the school’s physical environment and report to the teachers and the principal if they discover spots that are not accessible for all (e.g., a place where a student in a wheelchair would have difficulties).

These initiatives provide examples of practices that, according to the principals, are contributing to the world becoming a better place for all. In the subsequent section, focus is placed on activities associated with transformation: the imagination and realisation of alternative practices. In doing so, we rely on Theory U and the five movements previously referred to and conceptualised as presencing.

Presencing

Several signs of presencing were found in the data. Out of these, most were related to the first couple of movements (Co-initiating and Co-sensing) and activities associated with these movements (i.e., the left-hand side of the U-image—Fig. 4.1). For instance, many of the narratives constructed throughout the interviews provided examples of principals’ involvement in, or facilitation of, listening activities. In the analysis, such findings were differentiated, categorised, and labelled as either listening to oneself or listening to others, depending on their characteristic features. In some narratives, such activities seemed to incorporate, or result in, a greater interest in and understanding of the world outside of the local school setting. Such findings were categorised and labelled in the analysis as connecting to the wider system. Signs indicating activities associated with Co-inspiring, and with Co-creating and Co-evolving (i.e., the right-hand side of the U-image), were less frequent and/or less articulated in the data.

Co-initiating

The importance and value of asking oneself what really matters was emphasised recurrently in the interviews with the principals participating in the study. An illustrating example was found in the narrative of Anna, who argued that “it is […] important to reflect upon life’s big questions, to be able to do that […] so you don’t become like a machine; just working and working” (Anna). Despite this seemingly widespread recognition of listening to oneself, few seemed to be reflecting upon the world and their place in it on a daily basis. In fact, most seemed to find this particularly difficult to prioritise in their busy lives as school or preschool leaders. Instead, more focus seemed to be placed on listening to various stakeholders.

From the various examples found in the data, the activity of listening to others (potentially with an open mind and an open heart) seems to be well integrated in the everyday life of the participating principals’ schools and pre-schools. The activity of listening was claimed to take place in various situations and settings (e.g., spontaneous encounters with individual students and teachers, or in pre-arranged meetings where members of the staff are invited to share their concerns, ideas, and knowledge) and were often strongly connected to learning. Several principals made it clear that listening is the key to understanding, and that understanding your organisation and those involved in, or affected by its various practices, is crucial to any change process. However, it is important to make sure that everyone’s voice can be heard. As pointed out by one principal, Anna, this may call for specific arrangements:

If someone speaks another language, they may need an interpreter, and if someone has a physical or intellectual disability, they may need [other] support so that they can understand and speak their mind, and take part on equal terms. (Anna)

Co-sensing

The aspect of listening, not just to a few but to “the voice of many”, is pivotal to the presencing process and a prerequisite to the shift from ego-thinking to eco-thinking. The following example is taken from the narrative of a principal, Amanda, who recalled and reflected upon her school’s encounter with the young refugees who came to Sweden during the great refugee flow during 2015 and 2016:

It was mostly boys, but some girls as well, who had fled under terrible circumstances to a country that suddenly shut down. We have young people [in our school] that needed to hide [from the Swedish authorities], and we have young people who are still, six years later, living under the threat of deportation. They strongly believe that they will die if they are sent back, but the Migration Board does not trust their story. So, they are kind of discredited. (Amanda)

According to Amanda, the stories of these young boys and girls contributed not only to her own and her teachers’ understanding of the specific needs of these students but also to a greater understanding of, and interest in, the world outside the school walls. The stories helped Amanda and her teachers to connect to the wider system. Moreover, they created incentives to take action on some of the challenges we, as humans, are facing on a global level, as these suddenly became present in the classroom:

There is so very much that you know nothing about. When suddenly, you get all this information, and then you understand […] The stories made me think that it was time to fix things. (Amanda)

Similar examples were found in the narratives of other principals participating in the study:

I have a friend who is the manager of a home for care or housingFootnote 3 [...]. Many [of the boys who live there] come from other countries, and they carry with them experiences of war, torture, and rape. So, we have many discussions related to these issues as well. (Anders)

Again, the quotation illustrates that listening to others’ experiences may open windows to the world outside and make the connection between the local educational practices and the world we live in (i.e., the wider system) less distant and elusive.

Co-inspiring, Co-creating, and Co-evolving

As previously stated, signs indicating activities associated with Co-inspiring, Co-creating, and Co-evolving (i.e., the bottom and the right-hand side of the U-image) were less frequent and or less articulated in the data. However, there were some signs indicating activities associated with these movements. Among those, one illuminating example was found in the narrative of a principal, Marie, who shared how she had involved a group of students in a dialogue that was inspired by the project questions (i.e., What does it mean to live well in…?):

I really just started by telling them about the project and these issues and then, it [the collaborative practice] sort of just came. They [the students] had a lot of wise thoughts and reflections. (Marie)

The dialogue soon developed into a workshop, in which the students started to come up with ideas on how things could be changed for the better.

Discussion

In this chapter, we have explored what it means for Swedish principals to live well in a world worth living in for all, and how such a world can be realised within Swedish schools and pre-schools. As a result of the study drawn upon, we have been able to provide examples of emerging practices, together with signs of presencing, i.e., transitions in practices that incorporate a shift from ego- to eco-thinking. From this venture, it can be concluded that there is a strong incentive among these principals to move from practices that promote success and well-being for a few towards practices that promote success and well-being for many.

It may also be concluded that the majority of the principals doubted their possibility to have a real impact on the world, until they were asked to talk about their current (ongoing), and not-yet-realised future practices. Overall, the change in focus from a global to a local perspective counteracted the initial feeling of an otherwise insurmountable task.

The principals’ interest in what has here been referred to as a shift from ego-thinking to eco-thinking became evident in the principals’ answers to questions related to a world worth living in for all, and in actions taken to support future-oriented practice transitions.

However, since the aim of the study drawn upon in this chapter was not merely to report on (describe) emerging practices and activities associated with practice transitions but also to nurture praxis in education, it seems necessary to discuss our own role as interlocutors in this venture. For this purpose, we have seized on the words of Hopwood (2021) who suggests that the theory of practice architectures is to be “made dangerous again” (p. 79), indicating that researchers who use the theory are not using it in the way it is supposed to be used. In his criticism on contemporary research based on the theory, Hopwood stresses the fundamental ideas of the theory which are related to critical reflection and praxis, and above all the strive to make a contribution to the world. This is also stressed in previous publications by Kemmis (2021) and Stetsenko (2020) who claim that researchers should not just listen and report, but they should also become activists who take part in the common project of building a science that will change the world. This request of researchers becoming part of a social movement that seeks solutions to common problems and striving for a better world for all has warranted some critical (self)reflection related to this study. What was, for instance, “the danger” in this study?

Perhaps the danger was not so much to be found in the project questions or the participating principals’ answers to those, but rather in our response to their answers, i.e., the follow-up question(s) in which we asked how they view their role as principals in relation to their ideas on a world worth living in, and what they as principals can do to contribute to the changes imposed by these ideas. By posing such questions, we addressed the participating principals as agents (or even activists), as we expected them to be willing to do more than just talk. When doing this, we become contributors to an altered, or different and (supposedly) better practice and hence, a better world.

Worth noting here is that this is also what some of the participating principals ask of us as researchers:

It [transformation] takes an extremely long time and you feel quite small. You do not have much influence. But I just think that this type of research study can be one way among others. (Amanda)

As indicated in this quotation, we as researchers were also expected to make a contribution. Not only because we have the possibility but also because it is our responsibility to nurture praxis and enable a better future for all.

Although practices are claimed to be “dynamic, organic and open-ended, individual and collaborative […] processes” (Olin et al., 2020, p. 143), most empirical studies carried out by researchers using the theory of practice architectures focus mainly on what is happening in current practices, that is, the sayings, doings, and relatings, and the related arrangements, which are present in the here and now. Supposedly this is because these are the only practices that are physically accessible and thus possible to observe. However, in this study, we sought to go beyond the present. Inspired by Theory U, we turned our gaze to the future when we invited Swedish principals to share their prospects and jointly learn from the future as it emerges.