There seems to be broad agreement on the urgent need to make sure that everyone (pre-work, working, and in transition) is equipped to navigate a world disrupted by radical and accelerating changes in the future of work, caused by AI and the 4th Industrial Revolution.
This urgent imperative may open up the opportunity to reinvent education, potentially utilizing recent advances in innovation frameworks, methods and practice. These suggest that learning can be radically accelerated and democratized, in part by leveraging technology and cloud-based knowledge libraries to break down silos and traditional hierarchies. As a result it can become more fundamentally flexible, iterative and self-directed (heutagogy).
The workshop outlined below is just a proof-of-concept for what we call fractal learning. It’s the roughest of drafts, sketched in response to a challenge: can we develop a “seed methodology”, a “Minimum Viable Instruction” package which starts any individual on a learning / innovating / goal-achieving journey, spiraling out from the first iterative cycle to acquire a broad and personalized toolbox of learning and problem-solving skills.
Academic and scientific journals publish many different types of articles, and the names and categories they use to label and describe those documents are still more numerous. Scientific journals tend to focus on different kinds of articles than humanities journals do, and even when they publish similar kinds of articles, they often refer to them differently. This means that each basic type of scholarly article tends to have more than one name. What might be called a research article in one journal, for instance, might in another be labelled an empirical article, an original article, a full article or simply an article. A review article in one periodical could be referred to as a survey paper in the next, and the Brief Communications section in one journal might be entitled Micro-Articles in another.
In 2011, when I first began my career as a researcher in the context of business and design, I knew almost nothing about the field I had decided to work in. I lacked a basic understanding of how products are designed, how businesses work, and how to work with people in this world.
What I did know was that my anthropology training was highly relevant, but I needed to learn as much as I could to supplement it. I devoured every possible resource I could on these topics, from websites and blogs to journals and books. Doing so helped me effectively transition into being a researcher in industry, translate my skills to non-anthropologists, and do my job with passion and success. I felt less like an impostor and more confident in myself.
The rise of user centric design is truly problematic when looking beyond its obvious immediate benefits. We should be able to have a multi-centric design approach, an approach that is systemic. (ref. www.systemsorienteddesign.net and www.systemic-design.net ) Mayve user centric design is the most anthropocentric design perspective?
Here some sources criticising user centric design:
Wagenknecht, S. (2017). Beyond non-/use: The affected bystander and her escalation. New Media & Society, 1461444817708775.
From Erik: I recently published a storybook, Designer and Goldcrest, intended as an accessible introduction to some more-than-human perspectives on design. It’s freely available here: https://www.sorgenfripress.se.
Jönsson, L. (2014). Design events: On explorations of a non-anthropocentric framework in design. The Royal DanishAcademy of Fine Arts, School of Design.
Avila, M. (2012). Devices. On Hospitality, Hostility and Design. HDK – School of Design and Crafts Faculty of Fine, Applied and Performing Arts, University of Gothenburg, Sweden.