Search results

The purpose of this study is to identify global trends in disruptive technological change and map the social and policy implications, particularly as they relate to the educational ecosystem and main stakeholders across all levels of education.

The authors conducted a two-stage meta-analysis of 1,155 scholarly, peer-reviewed articles. The investigation involves a systematized literature review for data identification and collation adhering to defined selection criteria, and a network analysis to scrutinize data, consolidate information and unveil correlations and patterns from the literature review to produce a set of recommendations.

The study unveiled educational trends related to disruptive technologies and delineated four principal clusters representing how these technologies are transforming the education ecosystem. Additionally, a series of transversal aspects that reveal a societal vulnerability toward future prospects in the realms of ethics, sustainability, resilience, security, and policy were identified.

The findings spotlight an enlarging chasm between industry (and society at large) and conventional education, where many transformations triggered by disruptive technologies remain absent from teaching and learning systems. The study further offers recommendations and envisions potential scenarios, urging stakeholders to respond based on their positions concerning disruptive technologies.

Expanding from the meta-analysis of pertinent literature, this paper offers four collections of curated resources, four mini case studies and four scenarios for policymakers and local communities to consider, enabling them to plot courses for their optimal futures.

This essay aims to introduce the “knowmads” concept in the context of converging futures of work, learning, and how people relate to one another in a world driven by exponential, accelerating change.

A conceptual framework for understanding knowmad society is presented, with specific insight to how it impacts formal education systems. A summary of articles following this viewpoint in this issue of On the Horizon is presented to highlight key ideas and how the issue is structured.

Knowmad society is already here, but education systems seem ignorant of this reality. This essay highlights that in this issue, ideas, approaches, and original solutions are offered for further discussion.

It is too late to ignore the trends driving the creation of a knowmad society, and it has to be decided if there is to be an attempt to catch‐up to the present, or leapfrog ahead and create future‐relevant learning options today. Otherwise there is a risk of producing workers equipped for the needs of previous centuries, but not the kind that can apply their individual knowledge in contextually‐varied modes to create new value.

This essay presents a formal introduction to the knowmad concept, and calls for the co‐creation of a broader ecology of options for relevant learning in a knowmad society.

This article seeks to introduce how the convergence of globalization, emergence of the knowledge society and accelerating change contribute to what might be best termed a new paradigm of knowledge production in higher education.

A review of the literature was conducted regarding the three driving trends of the new paradigm. Following a discussion on these trends, the new paradigm is discussed in relation to old and emergent paradigms of the twenty‐first and twenty‐second centuries.

The article concludes that the new paradigm requires a systems approach to thinking and leading in higher education.

This article provides a macro‐level perspective of the three phenomena as they impact higher education. Such perspectives provide insight to higher education leaders throughout the world on how tertiary institutions relate to the new paradigm of knowledge production. By putting the pieces of the new paradigm together, improved leadership directions for higher education and relevant policy actions may be identified to secure success through the twenty‐first century and beyond.

While the three component trends in the new paradigm are not unknown to the academic community, discussion of the trends as elements of a larger system is absent from most literature. Together, these new patterns of thought and belief are forming to harness and manage the chaos, indeterminacy, and complex relationships of the postmodern.

This essay aims to focus on the development and application of knowledge within competitive national and global contexts. Systems thinking concepts are used to define and further explore three plausible pathways for future knowledge development and application.

The approach is anticipatory, utilizing a dynamic knowledge development and application framework based on three futures‐relevant systems paradigms: mechanical (conservatively repetitive), evolutionary (self‐organizing), and teleogenic (purposively creative).

The article projects three heuristic MET archetypes depicting logical paths of knowledge development and application from now to 2025.

The MET framework provides a systems‐language descriptive means for understanding and engaging in an expanding ecology of educational and new knowledge development options.

The aim in this paper is to extend Dorothy Smith's conceptual understanding of work to consider the emerging labor of “knowmads” within internationalization of higher education. Through original research on everyday experiences of internationalization, the authors seek to illuminate the ways individuals develop skills and competencies in relation to these new forms of work in order to address the reproduction of inequities. The authors make a connection between internationalization of higher education and knowmadic labor based on the premise that cross‐border education is often pursued in order to develop knowmadic attributes.

Through a critical institutional ethnography of one mid‐sized Canadian university, the paper uses survey and interview data gathered from students and faculty ‐ individuals who are involved in knowmadic labor connected to internationalization – to illustrate some of the study participants' daily experiences of internationalization coordinated by the institutional structures of the university in times of globalization.

It is concluded that internationalization and connecting new forms of work involved in becoming and producing knowmads not only bypass and disregard present inequities in higher education, but work to reproduce them in new ways.

The paper provides insight in regards to processes and allocation of work within internationalization, while addressing forms of social inequities that often cut across these practices and concludes with brief comments on the implications of academic knowmadic labor in Western higher education institutions engaged in internationalization.

While research has been conducted on work in international contexts, little has addressed “the labor” that is involved in becoming knowmads, and that of “producing” knowmads. The paper draws connections between the internationalization of higher education and knowmadic work showing that knowmadic labor is often preceded by knowmadic educational opportunities. The cosmopolitan vision of creating globally aware citizens, with international knowledge, skills, and competencies that institutions espouse, are assumed to be good per se, and to lead to knowmadic qualities and attributes required in a knowmad society. The paper questions these assumptions and the relations of power on which they rest.

This chapter introduces a metaphor—the house—and applies Habermas’ philosophy to examine the environment where knowledge production takes place. The analysis shows the dominance of “the systemic paradigm,” which is characterized by increased bureaucratization and commercialization. This paradigm has severe consequences for two core features of universities: the open-ended search for deeper understanding and the principle of autonomy. The chapter advances the idea of reclaiming the political dimension of the epistemic endeavor and presents a series of initiatives which help to advance tourism scholarship by non-conforming to the steering conditions of this paradigm and instead reclaiming the personal and subjective; promoting multiple knowledges; and building alternative platforms of knowledge production, cooperation, and dissemination.

The aim is to explore the role of personal learning environments in an already ICT‐dense context and in combination with some educational approaches in the field of technology enhanced education. The paper seeks to analyze how personal learning environments are not a device but a learning strategy that threatens the way educational institutions and their functions are understood, by contributing to enable a borderless learning society.

The research begins by revisiting Vygotsky's concept of the zone of proximal development and assesses the role of educators and educational institutions as the actual more knowledgeable others in scaffolding learners' learning paths. This role is put in relationship with different learning scenarios (formal, non‐formal, informal and autodidactic) according to their inner structure (or lack of) and degree (or absence) of planning. The research then puts PLEs in relationship with other “physical” spaces (VLEs and LMSs), the digitization of content (open educational resources), records and assessments (e‐Portfolios) and the possibility to flip some traditional tasks or processes that enabled regaining the social component in the classroom (Education 2.0).

It is suggested that PLEs have come to close the circle of ICTs in education with a highly transformative power: the power to blur the boundaries between formal teaching and informal learning. Indeed, the traditionally difficult transition from one learning scenario to a different one has been made smoother by the appearance of OER and, especially, social media constructs that can be used for learning purposes, especially within a PLE‐based strategy.

It is stated that institutions should embrace and even foster the possibility that learners could easily and intensively switch educational resources, just like they could shift among different registers and learning scenarios, as a newly enabled way to tear down the artificial divisions that formal learning edified.

Pressing sustainability issues face the 21st century, as identified by the Millennium Development Goals and its post initiatives, and ethical principles related to fairness, equity, and justice are increasingly important to address climate change and resource scarcities. Yet, such ethical dimensions remain surprisingly little addressed in the tourism literature. Ecofeminist critique offers insights into this gap, identifying historical antecedents in patriarchal, Enlightenment-driven discourses of science where positivistic approaches facilitate the control and use of nature and women. This chapter draws from this critique to propose a preliminary, justice-oriented framework to resituate sustainable tourism within an embodied paradigm that covers intangibles such as emotions, feelings, and an ethic of care.

This chapter explores the potential for and value of imagining a humanist paradigm for tourism studies. It explores how the idea of a “paradigm” in tourism can be conceptualized, arguing that dominant thoughtlines in other fields regarding the meaning of a paradigm are not sufficient for making sense of this idea in the context of tourism studies. The chapter introduces humanism as a philosophical position in the academy and as a lived cultural practice, explores examples of extant work in tourism studies that might be seen to provide the seeds of a humanist paradigm, and offers reflections on the value of imagining such a paradigm for our field.

In the Western thought tradition, the tourist has not been a subject worthy of intellectual musings and philosophical deliberations. Indeed, the tourist has been portrayed in primarily derisive ways. Nietzsche’s remark, “Tourists—they climb mountains like animals, stupid and perspiring, no one has told them that there are beautiful views on the way,” epitomizes the dominant attitude. Why does the figure of the tourist elicit such negative reactions? Do the sentiments perhaps imply something else, or is the tourist a doppelgänger, not anomalous or marginal but normative—a paradigmatic figure? If so, then what can be said of the poetics and politics of the tourist conceptualized as a paradigmatic subject?