Regenerative Higher Education — The Journey of Mission Impact
I don’t really believe in endings, so it feels weird to be writing this last blog. At least the last in the series that goes into my Ph.D. Two-and-a-half years ago I started this journey with the intention of discovering how to design, and how to do, regenerative higher education. It feels a bit like balacing a sense of loss but also a sense of grace or gratitude. Not unlike what I imagine (I do not have children) it feels like to send your kids off to college in a different place. While it is too early to talk about specific lessons that have been drawn from the last years of design-based autoethnography. I did stumble unto at least one especially powerful epiphiny in this journey. Following in the perspective posed by Biesta in his latest book World-Centred Education that Education is a thoroughly practical art, a transformation has occured in my perspective and practicing of my own artistry as an educator. Where we left of with this journey, the main focus was on connecting students with sustainability transitions to tackle some of the grand challenges of our times — i.e. the regenerative challenge of redesigning the human presence on earth to be within the socio-ecological limits so that all life has a right and space to flourish. And my perspective was very much that the practical artistry lied in facilitating and nurturing that connection. I know see that while at one level there is artistry that resides in that exterior dimension of regenerative education. A much more fundamental, core, elemental artistry lies in the inner dimension. The artistry in regenerative education in my opinion now lies primarily in the educator and students that through their engagement with regenerative education leave as fundamentally changed. They, those that leave, and move on, much like the seeds of flowers being carried by the wind to other places, are the living embodiment of that practical art of education. As an educator, the art is in guiding, being, supporting, nurturing the students on their path towards becoming that practical expression of living artistry.
Anyways, in the process of doing design-driven autoethnography, I have had the amazing and life-changing in many ways, the privilege of teaching the Mission Impact course twice. This 30 ECTS (Full semester) course at The Hague University of Applied Sciences was designed with the purpose of bringing regenerative principles into formal higher education. In many ways, we succeeded. On that journey, there have also been many obstacles, some of which were like floating debris in a body of water that we could swim under or around. Others forced us to find alternative routes entirely. What started as a small seed aiming to create a transdisciplinary graduation lab, eventually blossomed into a nationwide elective course (from 2022 onwards). Hence, it feels like I am both in the middle of and at the start of a new beginning. In a way, one of the best ways I can serve this emerging paradigm of practice and theory is to retreat for a bit and distill the scent, flavoring, and seeds that can be shared. So that may grow in other gardens, at other universities. From May through June, this is exactly what I will be doing. I don’t really believe in endings, but this year Mission Impact will die. I look forward to seeing what will blossom from its compost. To do so, I will reflect on these last few weeks that closed the minor, as well as share some of my speculative musings about the futures for regenerative education and for myself as a ART-ist (Activist, Researcher, Teacher). This also raises questions about how one can engage with ART in regenerative ways.
The final weeks
Presentations
One of the last elements of the course, for the students at least, was to give presentations where they shared their findings and experiences. Initially, we had this planned as an exhibition (like a museum) but like many things, COVID-19 has interrupted that plan considerably. We had to shift once again to digital presentations but all went well. To be very honest, I was happily surprised by the quality of the work presented. Especially as I was concerned about one team in particular to create anything that was still worth while for our guests.
Some of the results from the research by the students were also quite informative and insightful. For example, in one of the places, the perception of nature was as ‘weak’. As someone who has a particular obsession with nature and all things eco, I have personal issues with this perspective. Implicit to this is that improvements to nature by the ‘strong’ i.e. humans are actually improvements. And are ethically justifiable. In a way, a very religious argument that the world is there for humans to use, abuse, and manipulate. In addition, a number of the other insights triggered my interest as well, as I like to think that some of them would not have been seen without the course that the students just experienced. For example, including non-human perspectives into the future of the place. More specifically, highlighting that the young and more-than-human life has not really been included or involved in the process of futuring as it has been carried out so far is a sign to me, of a more regenerative perspective. The team decided to capture and translate these insights into a small series of (digital) art pieces. Choosing to use the communicative power of the aesthetic for sharing their results.
A selection of art-works
The pieces are quite expressive and the representative from the field was visibly touched by them, as well as the result. One of the representatives has a background in (visual) anthropology which makes their being touched extra impactful for me at least. Because I have limited experience with myself I have a bit of a sense of the meaning stemming from that. This was also highlighted in the diversity of artefacts that this particular team showed. For example, they played a game ‘Broekpolder fued’ which I really liked as it really captures some of the creativity components included in the course as a starting block for.
The purpose of this artefact is too highlight that the area’s future has largely already been reduced and decided by those currently in power. The purpose is to playfully create awareness that more inclusive and multi-perspectives approaches ought to be invited into this process. As we saw they already have a clear idea of what will happen to the roads, houses, and greenhouses but they don’t really have a clear idea of how the young and nature integrate into this area in a strong way instead of a way that is in the way. This puzzle shows that their are more than three pieces that ought to be considered for co-creating a regenerative future.
One of the insights was that there was little space for nature in the place at the moment as well as the future plans. One of the members decided to use contrasting colours to highlight the amount of man-made structures already dominating the space.
And a particularly powerful painting represented the diversity of stakeholders that were voice-less or ignored in the decision-making processes about the future of the place. Perspectives that ought to be involved in the decision-making like the young, nature, and the sky. This could also mean that there are stakeholders that may even be intended to be have been included but that there is little action or actionable knowledge about how to do so in a just way.
This team clearly chose to incorporate speculative design through arts as a form of social critique. I quite like this as it highlights how (engineering) students can use beauty to critique and propose alternatives. At the same time, I also realize that there is more potential for such a form of regeneration higher education to plant tangible seeds of change by the inclusion of arts as well as design. As well as a better balance between theory, practice, and action in the space.
The second team presented a really interesting video with some useful insights that can be used. They also showed a great example of how video can be used as a successful artifact and makes me consider the future of the course and my own intention to include documentaries as the main deliverable as a team. Partially because of my own interest in documentaries as a valid form of (student) scholarship. But also because of the accessibility of such formats to share them and to act as plant seeds of change. One of the reasons that got me to start a PhD actually was seeing someone who graduated on a documentary (and literature review). I see at least a lot of potential of using other formats for communicating science than only textual papers for a myriad of reasons. Prime amongst them the availability as content and a moral obligation to engage in public scholarship if funded by public moneys.
The power of these aesthetic approaches were also reflected by partners from the places that worked with us, below you will find a collage of comments from the session:
I really appreciate that you do this kind of projects and try to work on all these big questions that are really a thing here in the area. To summarize, I appreciated the cooperation, I find it interesting to hear the presentation. I was a bit at a distance and that makes it harder to give an in-depth reflection. I think you would get a lot more qualitative reflections from the other partner in the field — reflections from the field.
I already gave some things in my Q&A round, but also ask anything. Looking back at the time what I learned, you are the researchers but we are doing action research so we are gathering data where things are changing and we are learning. When we started I had a view about the cases and looking at the results now and following the work of the students I thought oh okay this was a bit different. I think next time it would be good to also have questions on these things, now we had the meetings and for me, it was kind of listening and it would also be good for me as a case owner kind of regrouping of this is what we discovered and what we will do now.
So more update meetings and discussions about the processes? Yeah…yeah… don’t know how to call it, but it’s a bit about being a case owner instead of being a partner. Maybe we can intermingle it a bit more? As I said, I was also learning but perhaps we can do more? — Other Partners — Would it be different if we had the artifacts half way?
The comments are representative of the experience of the teaching team as well, particularly related to how we can shift from working with case owners to working collaboratively as temporary co-owners of a case. This is a structural as well as perceptive challenge that hides a good lesson for those engaging in regenerative education. Not only is choosing the right type of challenge to tackle on important, but the people with whom and how you go about tackling that challenge are paramount so that everyone involved gets a chance to be impacted. The highlighted difficulty in communication was also experienced in both directions. With some of the students remarking how hard it was to reach people and get responses back.
Living Spiral Framework
Thank you for the lessons
One of the most important realizations of the last few weeks, that has really transformed my view of RHE, and education more generally, has been an emerging result of connecting with Tim Logan for the Future Learning Design Podcast that will be released somewhere in February as well as listening to the latest episode with the philosopher Gert Biesta. In his latest work, as well as in the podcast, Biesta zoom into the need for seeing education as a thoroughly practical art and the importance of subjectification. The process of becoming a mature member of society is one of the key tasks of education. As well as one of the key differences with learning (as education requires judgment from an educator to (co-)decide which direction subjectification ought to go towards (the final decision is always the learners, however). I really like the perspective of education as an art, and from that perspective would argue there are two types of artistic inquiry going on within RHE contexts like the Mission Impact minor. On an external layer, the transition layer, artifacts, and interventions are created, little seeds of sustainable change, that may cascade in the system that is being worked with. As an example, if you are working with your RHE on creating a more food transition system in a city, the art lies in the artifacts and interventions that can be co-created during the RHE to work towards alternative more regenerative food futures. However, there is another layer of artistry that I underappreciated so far. In a way, this realization is ‘my spear in the chest moment’ of the entire experiment. The major artwork that is being co-created in RHE contexts is actually the student. The people, who will leave from the education changed, who will bring with them the lessons and learnings as they become ecologically mature members of society committed to redesigning the human presence on Earth. Perhaps it is a bit pretentious to label this as art, and I’m sure that aestheticians may not agree, nor do I really care to engage in a debate about what is art and if living people can be considered art. But as a teacher, as a scholar, seeing and engaging with the practice of RHE with the intention of nurturing the living artistry of those under your temporary care makes a lot of sense to me. Moving forward, I will place my main focus on precisely this art. In the end, I don’t expect transition challenges to be completed or conquered ever, but definitely not in six months. Planting the seeds of sustainable change in the living art (the people that participate in the course) may allow a much larger blossoming later in different contexts. In one of the episodes of my podcast, dr. Cardozo says that engaging with RHE is ‘a leap of faith every time’. I thought I understood what she meant but now I think I really do. The leap of faith is exactly where the beautiful risk of the educational task lies, in daring to ask ‘hey, where are you (going)?’ as Biesta would say.
Bittersweet
There is not really a better word in the English Lexicon that captures how I look at the last few weeks. I am happy that we get a rest, I am happy to see some of the profound changes in the people that have trusted us with their time, who were under our educational wings so to speak. I am excited to see how their journeys unfold and what impact they will have on the world. I am also a bit sad by that it is suddenly over. It feels like closing down a good book, you are happy you have had a chance to experience a really nice story, but also saddened because of a sense of lossed relationship. Of course, like has happened with the first iteration, I will probably still see or interact with at least some of the participants for some time to come so in that sense it is not a loss. But perhaps it feels like a transition to a different stage in my life, also because I am temporarily starting a new job. As educators with experience of hosting and coordinating large courses like Mission Impact know, there is also a sense of relaxation after the last formal things have been completed. A sense that you can step of the threadmill for a bit and take a breather, although constrained by the ongoing onslaught of daily work. Overall, these feelings are captured in a simple word, I feel bittersweet.
Next Steps — Analyzing the Experience of Students in Regenerative Higher Education
A personal failing, one of the last planned chapters of my PhD is an interpretative phenomenological analysis of the experience of students going through our prototype Mission Impact, which we hope is an example of regenerative education. Initially, this study was designed quite strictly because so much else of my work, research, and PhD is reflexive, adaptive, moving, organic. Imposing a faux-sense of structure on one of the chapters gave me a sense of calm. In, this tendency towards structuring the complexity of reality, I leaned heavily away from the regenerative education and a co-emergent approach that I envision and campaign for. While this is understandable, as a human reaction to already navigating so much ambiguity and uncertainty, just wishing for more structure is not sufficient argumentation for a methodological choice as argued by my supervisors for the Ph.D. In short, my own uncomfortableness with incorporating more emergence into my research for this study does not fly as sufficient reason to avoid it. Generally, I believe this emerged from a fear of diving into the unknown which is quite natural for all of us. But as we know, fear is a terrible guide. In this context, we discussed the difference between a more linear systemic approach in which my education is currently situated, that prioritizes and privileges a particular type of methodological rigor. For a more regenerative emergent approach that we aim to nurture into existence, where methodological sensitivity or adaptiveness is paramount over following highly predefined methodologies. I suppose walking the talk is indeed more difficult than talking it. Perhaps that is precisely the educational task that we all have as educators, me for my students, my supervisors for me. To be there along our journeys to ask, to probe, to challenge, and confront. To help us in becoming. To ask ‘hey, where are you (going)?’.
Adiee
So here I am, finishing this journey at what is hopefully the tailend of the covid-19 pandemic, once again in my little room. Along the way, I have had the extreme privilege of having students from all over the world and many disciplines in my care. A special thank you is required for all of them for their courage, patience, love, warmth. A thank you for going on this journey with me. A thank you for the valleys and peaks. A thank you for the vulnerability. Thank you. Without all of your effort and energy this entire study would have been impossible. I sincerely hope and wish for you all a regenerative future.
It feels only fitting to end this journey where we left off. I started, 23 instalments ago with ‘As long as most education is only aimed towards external sustainability transitions but continues to ignore what the transition towards a regenerative society means for our own practice we will not be enablers of better futures and at best do no (further) harm.’ The last years have been focussed on challenging our own practice, my own practice. I am about to start analyzing the data that we have co-generated over the last two-and-a-half-years of experimenting, of probing, of questioning. I have previously written about how this entire endeavour feels like going through uncharted waters in a sailboat. We have now come to the part of the trip where we can go back to the harbour, reflect, drop our anchors. For the next part of the journey involves raising our glasses and sharing stories of our adventures. I look forward to, once the stories have been properly nourished, sharing them with you all. And who knows, with a bit of luck and a bit of magic, perhaps they may inspire your regenerative artistry. I know that I will take the lessons with me on my next adventures.
For now, this is me signing out,
Thank you all for going on this journey with us,
Bas van den Berg
