1

1

CAMPUSES  2060:  FOUR  FUTURES  OF  HIGHER  EDUCATION  IN  FOUR  ALTERNATIVE  FUTURES  

OF  SOCIETY  

Jim  Dator,  Ray  Yeh  and  Seongwon  Park  

in Munir Shuib, Aida Suraya Md. Yunus, and Shukran Abd. Rahman (Eds.). Developments

in Higher Education: National Strategies and Global Perspectives, Universiti Sains

Malaysia Press and National Higher Education Research Institute, Penang, Malaysia,

2013.  

Introduction  

 

Considerable  time  was  spent  first  in  our  project  on  understanding  the  historical  coevolution  of  

society,  education,  technologies  and  the  environment  across  many  cultures.  Historical  lessons  

learned   were   combined   with   theories   and   methods   in   futures   studies   to   develop   four  

fundamentally   different   "alternative   futures"   of   society   across   a   series   of   common   "driving  

forces"  (i.e.,  population,  energy,  economy,  environment,  culture,  technology  and  governance)  

and  then  to  deduce  plausible  educational   futures  for  each  of  the  four   futures  across  a  set  of  

common   "dimensions"   (i.e.,   mission,   participant,   resource,   pedagogy   and   the   physical  

campus).   The   resulting   information   has   been   displayed   in   written   documents,   posters   and  

three-­‐dimensional   models   of   a   "campus"   and   "prototypic   buildings"   for   each   educational  

system  in  each  future.      

 

It  is  very  important  to  understand  that  none  of  the  four  alternative  futures  is  intended  to  be  a  

"preferred"  future  of  society.  None  of  the  four  universities  is  offered  as  a  preferred  future  of  

higher   education.   Rather,   each   of   the   four   universities   is   intended   to   make   the   point   that  

thinking   about   and   planning   for   the   future   of   universities   must   always   be   done   within   the  

context   of   a   prior   assessment   of   the   futures.   Regrettably,   this   is   seldom,   if   ever,   done.  

Typically,  a  future  that  is  more  or  less  a  continuation  of  what  is  thought  to  be  happening  now  

is  assumed,  and  improved  processes  of  higher  education  are  planned  for  it.    

 

Our   extensive   experience   in   the   field   of   futures   studies   has   made   it   crystal   clear   that  

consideration   of   plausible   alternative   futures   is   an   absolutely   necessary   step   that   must   be  

undertaken   prior   to   trying   to   imagine   and   move   towards   preferred   societal   futures   or  

preferred  educational  processes.  Without  a  careful  consideration  of  alternative  futures,  one's  

2

stated   preferred   future  will  most   likely   be   a   response   to   current   or   past   problems   and  may  

have  little  to  do  with  actual  problems  and  opportunities  yet  to  come.  In  this  case,  one's  stated  

preferred  system  of  higher  education  may  be  fit  for  the  past,  but  not  likely  to  be  as  fit  for  the  

futures  as  it  could  and  should  be.  This  paper  depicts  one  way  that  alternative  societal  futures  

might   be   developed   and   how   systems   of   higher   education   created   specifically   for   each  

alternative  might  be  developed.    After  this  has  been  done,  it  is  then  possible  to  move  towards  

conceptualizing  preferred  futures  and  systems  of  higher  education  for  them.  

 

Background  of  the  Campuses  2060  Project  

 

In   September   2008,   Professor   Ray   Yeh   (specializing   in   architecture)   and   Professor   Jim  Dator  

(specializing  in  political  science/futures)  jointly  held  a  graduate  class  in  political  futures  studies  

and   an   advanced   course   in   architecture   in   a   newly-­‐designated   "Futures   Room"   within   the  

School  of  Architecture  of  the  University  of  Hawaii  at  Manoa  to  begin  thinking  about  alternative  

futures   for   universities.   Extensive   material   about   the   past,   present   and   futures   of   higher  

education  was  collected  and  discussed.  

 

Four   teams  were   then   formed  combining  architects,   futurists  and  educators.   Each   team  was  

dedicated  to  elaborating  one  of  the  four  generic  alternative  future  scenarios  of  2050—Grow,  

Begin,  Sustain  and  Transform—for  the  Hawaiian  Islands  and  University  of  Hawaii  in  each  of  the  

four  futures.  Each  of  the  resulting  three-­‐dimensional  models  and  their  respective  implications  

were  responsive  to  the  societal  future  in  which  they  were  situated.  In  the  following  semester,  

continuing   and   new   students   advanced   this   work   which   they   presented   at   a   workshop   at  

Windward  Community  College,  Honolulu  on  the  Four  Futures  for  Manoa  in  2050:  What  Might  

They  Mean  for  Windward  Community  College?    

 

Throughout  the  fall  2009  semester,  continuing  and  new  students  prepared  for  an  international  

conference  to  be  held  in  Honolulu  in  November  by  elaborating  on  the  four  alternative  futures  

(now  aimed  at  2060)  for  Hawaii  within  a  global  context  and  developing  more  fully  a  version  of  

the   University   of   Hawaii   at  Manoa   appropriate   for   each   future.   The   four   alternative   future  

versions   of   the   University  were   called   “al-­‐Madhi   University   Hawaii”   (University   of   Hawaii   at  

3

Manoa  2060  Grow),  “New  Beginnings  in  Manoa”  (University  of  Hawaii  at  Manoa  2060  Begin),  

“The  Global  Green  University  of  the  Pacific”  (University  of  Hawaii  at  Manoa  2060  Sustain)  and  

“Transform   You   in   Manoa”   (University   of   Hawaii   at   Manoa   2060   Transform).   Through   the  

Learning   by   Design   Process,   each   scenario   was   explored   through   general   physical   design  

representations  with  scenario-­‐specific  design  attributes.  Several  professors  from  the  University  

of   Hawaii   at   Manoa   College   of   Education,   especially   Joanne   Cooper,   Professor   of   Higher  

Education,   and   Peter   Leong,   Professor   of   Educational   Technology,   also   advised   us   in   this  

process.  What  we  believe  is  unique  about  our  project  is  the  combination  of  written  and  visual  

representations  of  futures  of  universities  in  four  generic  alternative  versions  developed  jointly  

by   advanced   students   and   professors   from   political   futures   studies,   architecture   and  

education.  

 

In   the  spring  of  2010,   students  varied   the   focus   from  higher  education  and  the  University  of  

Hawaii  at  Manoa,  and  worked  with  a  private  school,  Kauai  Pacific  Academy,  on   the   island  of  

Kauai,   that  wished   to  expand   from  an  elementary  school   in  a  Montessori  mold   through  high  

school.  They  had  been  given  a  large  plot  of  land  and  wanted  to  develop  a  campus  that  would  

facilitate   a   curriculum   that   combined  both  preparation   for   complete   local   self-­‐sufficiency  on  

the   one   hand   with   preparation   for   high-­‐tech   proficiency   within   an   increasingly   virtually  

interconnected   global   political   economy   on   the   other.   They   also   wanted   us   to   focus   on   a  

shorter  time  span—2030.  

 

Finally,   in   preparation   for   this   report   at   the   Global   Higher   Education   Forum   in   Penang   in  

December  2011,  a  group  of  architect  students  under  Professor  Ray  Yeh  along  with  Seongwon  

Park  and  Professor  Jim  Dator  in  political  futures  studies  further  elaborated  on  the  description  

and   display   of   the   four   futures   of   Hawaii   and   the  University   of   Hawaii   at  Manoa   during   fall  

2011.  

 

While   the   information   generated  by   this   ongoing   project  may  be   useful   to   the  University   of  

Hawaii   at   Manoa,   the   campus   setting   of   the   University   was   used   only   in   order   to   have   a  

specific  physical  space  to  explore   in  some  detail  one  particular  university's  possible  response  

to   four   significantly   different   alternative   futures   within   a   specific   community.   The   more  

4

general   purpose   of   our   work   is   to   develop   and   refine   information   about   and   theories   and  

methodologies  for  alternative  futures  design  that  can  be  used  by  and  adapted  to  any  university  

and   community   anywhere   in   the   world.   The   Campus   Futures   Project   intends   to   continue  

raising   awareness   among   educators,   administrators,   funders   and   consumers   of   higher  

education  of  the  need  to  take  a  long-­‐term  view  in  comprehensive  campus  planning,  mindful  of  

the  many   and   uncertain   possible   alternative   futures   for   society   and   higher   education.  With  

some   notable   exceptions,   almost   all   existing   thinking   about   and   planning   for   the   future   of  

higher  education  plan  only  for  the  one  future  of  continued  economic  growth.  This  single  vision  

may  result  in  higher  education  that  is  tragically  unable  to  respond  and  thrive  in  other  potential  

futures.  

 

What  Have  We  Done  So  Far?      

In   this  paper,  we  will   focus  on  the  activities  of   the  2050/2060  campuses  of  higher  education  

part  of  the  overall  project.  

 

Four  Interrelating  Elements:  Society,  Knowledge,  Technology  and  Environment    

 

We  began  our  work  by  surveying  the  historical  interrelationship  of  the  following  four  elements  

in  Asia,  Europe  and  the  United  States  from  the  earliest  establishment  of  "universities"  to  the  

present:   society,   knowledge   and   skills,   technology,   and   the   biophysical   environment   (see  

sources   listed   under   History   and   Present   of   Higher   Education   in   the   Appendix   [Further  

Reading]).  We  observed   that  as  each  of   the   four  changed,   the  other   three  changed  more  or  

less   appropriately.     As   a   crude   example,   the   knowledge/skills,   technologies   and   biophysical  

environment  of  a  hunting  and  gathering  society  were  similar  to  but  different  in  important  ways  

from   those  of   an   agricultural   society,  which  were   similar   to   and  different   from  an   industrial  

society,   which  were   similar   to   and   different   from   an   information   society,   and   thus,  may   be  

similar   and   different   in   significant   ways   as   society   continues   to   evolve.     Different   societies  

require  and  develop  different  knowledge  and  skills  for  survival  and  success;  possess  and  invent  

different  enabling  technologies;  and  exist  within  different  biophysical  environments  to  which  

they  must  adjust  and/or  strive  to  modify.  

 

5

Three  kinds  of  technology  

 

We  believe  it  is  imperative  to  reflect  on  the  role  of  technology  in  order  to  understand  the  past  

and   anticipate   alternative   futures   of   higher   education   (see   sources   [especially   Dator,   1983]  

listed  under  Technology  and  Social  Change  in  the  Appendix  [Further  Reading]).  We  accept  the  

definition  that  "technology  is  how  humans  do  things"  and  distinguish  between  three  kinds  of  

technology:    

(1) Physical  technology    

Physical   technology   refers   to   a   specific   physical   tool   (what   most   people   popularly  

mean  when   they   refer   to   technology)   such   as   the   "learning   pill",   or   biotechnologies  

which  enable  such  things  as  test-­‐tube  babies  or  a  bulldozer.    

(2) Social  technology    

Examples  of  social   technology   include  schools,   the   legal  adoption  of  children  or   faith  

that  moves  mountains.    

(3) Biological  technology    

Examples  of  biological   technology   include   learning  by  watching  and   imitating,   sexual  

intercourse  to  produce  children  or  manual  labor.      

Historically,  most  technologies  were  initially  social  and/or  biological,  and  then  (and  especially  

recently)   were   increasingly   challenged   and   often   eventually   replaced   or   marginalized   by  

physical  technologies.    

 

The   three  examples  of   technology   for  each  of   the   three  kinds  of   technology  above   illustrate  

the  following:  bulldozers  have  more  or  less  displaced  faith  and  manual  labor  as  ways  to  move  

mountains;   test-­‐tube   babies   may   replace   adoption   or   sexual   intercourse   as   a   way   to   make  

babies;  and  learning  pills  may  replace  schools  and  imitation  as  a  way  to  learn.  

 

Since   each   of   the   three   kinds   of   technology   has   its   own   accompanying   hardware   (tool),  

software   (rules   for   use)   and   orgware   (supporting   humans   and   organizations),   when   a   new  

technology   threatens   to   replace   an   established   one,   conflict   occurs,   and   eventually,   society  

changes.   It   is  not   just  one   tool   replacing  another;   it   is   an  entire  way  of   life,   and   the  people,  

who   live   it,   being   threatened   and/or   replaced   by   different   people   with   different  

6

technologically  enabled  behaviors.  Usually  this  also  means  that  new  skills  are  needed  and  old  

ones  become  less  vital  while  new  knowledge  displaces  older  knowledge  and  thus,  new  modes  

of  teaching  and  learning  arise.  

 

Environments  

 

Stability  and  changes  in  both  the  biophysical  ("natural")  and  now,  overwhelmingly  the  artificial  

(built)   environment   are   also   very   important   in   understanding   the   past   and   in   envisioning  

futures   of   higher   education.   For   most   of   human   history,   humans   took   their   natural  

environment  as  a  given  and  devised  ways   to   learn   from   it  and  adjust   to   it  whether   it  be   the  

snows  and  winds  of  the  Arctic;  the  sands  and  winds  of  the  deserts;  the  heat,  humidity  and  lush  

growth   of   the   jungles;   or   the  measured   four   changing   seasons   in   the   so-­‐called   "temperate"  

zones  of   the  Earth.  Each  environment  provoked  different   technologies,  skills  and  knowledge,  

and  social  structures.    

 

As   the   natural   environments   "naturally"   changed,   societies   fell   or   thrived,   in   part,   by   their  

ability   to  change   in  all   three  areas.    Now,  humans  have  arguably  moved   from  the  geological  

Holocene  period  of  their  origin  and  early  development  to  the  recently  emerged  Anthropocene  

period   where   all   once   natural   processes   are   increasingly   influenced   by   human   action.  

"Sustainability"   is   now   a   new   (and   probably   belated)   cry,   calling   for   new   technologies   and  

knowledge  related  to  sustainability  that  will  enable  us  to  conserve  a  viable  Mother  Nature  for  

future  generations.  Education,  especially  higher  education,  is  now  expected  by  some  people  to  

suddenly   change   from   being   an   engine   of   endless   economic   growth   to   instead   (or   also)  

becoming   the   producer   of   knowledge   and   technologies   that   will   enable   sustainability   and  

survival.   It   is   doubtful   that   the   higher   education   systems   of   any   previous   society  were   ever  

called  upon  to  perform  such  a  function.  

 

The   Six   "Dimensions"   of   Universities:   Societal   Assumption,   Mission,   Participant,   Resource,  

Pedagogy  and  Physical  Structure  

 

In  our  historical,   contemporary   and   futures-­‐oriented   research,  we   focused   specifically   on   six  

7

dimensions   of   institutions   of   higher   education   over   time:   societal   assumption,   mission,  

participant,  resource,  pedagogy,  and  physical  structure  and  configuration.  

 

Societal   assumption   designates   the   basic   assumptions  made   about   the   society   in  which   the  

institution  of  higher  education  is  located.  Is  it  an  agricultural,  industrial  or  a  "dream”  society?  

Does  it  have  a  clean  and  abundant  natural  environment?  Is  there  environmental  degradation  

or  an  entirely  artificial  environment?      

 By  mission,  we  mean  the  manifest  and  latent  functions,  purposes,  goals  and  raison  d'etre  for  

institutions  of  higher  education  in  different  societies.    What  are  universities  supposed  to  "do"  

to  or  for  the  societies  within  which  they  are  embedded?  What  missions  have  persisted?  What  

changed  and  why?  

 

Participant   refers   to   everyone   who   is   involved   in   some   direct   or   important   indirect   way   in  

higher   education—what   we   might   now   call   students,   teachers,   administrators,   supervisors,  

legislators,  funders,  alumni,  parents  and  the  like.  Issues  of  governance  are  included  under  the  

category   of   participant.   We   use   the   generic   term   participant   so   as   to   not   privilege   the  

terminology  of  one  historical  moment  over  others.  Indeed,  this  was  true  of  all  six  of  the  terms  

we  used,  and  was  especially  important  because  we  aimed  at  showing  profound  differences  in  

society  and  institutions  of  higher  education  in  the  four  alternative  futures.  We  did  not  want  to  

become  a  captive  of  language  and  hence,  features  of  one  period.    This  was  difficult  to  do.    

 

Similarly,  we  use  the  term  resource  to  refer  not  only  to  money—a  key  resource  presently—but  

also   to   human   and   natural   resources   of   various   kinds   as   appropriate   for   each   alternative  

future.  For  example,  energy  is  a  resource  that  has  varied  in  form  and  utility  in  the  past.  It  has  

greatly  shaped  our   ideas  and   institutions   in  the  present  because  of  the  abundance,   flexibility  

and  low  cost  of  oil,  and  is  highly  problematic  in  all  three  categories  of  the  futures.  Differences  

in  assumptions  of  energy  supply  and  cost  are  important  factors  across  all  four  societal  futures  

university  responses.  

 

Pedagogy  is  intended  to  refer  to  what  is  taught  or  learned,  how  and  why.  It  includes  both  the  

overall  curriculum  and  specific  syllabi  as  well  as  the  mode  of  delivery  and/or  knowledge  or  skill  

8

acquisition.   It   not   only   includes   the   content   of   a   class   or   course,   but   also   the   "educational  

technology"   used,   whether   it   be   one   human   speaking   to   others;   intense   reading   of   texts;  

audio-­‐visual   electronic   technologies,   direct   brain-­‐to-­‐brain   or   database-­‐to-­‐brain   transfer;   etc.  

We   also   include  what   is   now   called   basic   and   applied   research,   and   the   production   of   new  

knowledge  and  technologies  in  the  term  pedagogy.  

 

Finally,  we   very   heavily   focused  on   the  physical   structure   and   configuration   of   the  places   of  

learning—campfires,  classrooms,  campuses  and  holograms—particularly  the  way  in  which  they  

reflected,   facilitated   and/or   hindered   the  mission   and   pedagogy,   especially   when   new   skills  

and  knowledge  were  needed  as  societies  and  technologies  changed.  

 

We  noticed  in  our  survey  that  most  studies  of  higher  education  focused  on  only  one  or  two  of  

the   following   features:   1)   what   should   be   taught   in   the   future,   perhaps   with   what   new  

technologies;  2)  how   institutions  of  higher  education  should  be   funded  and  administered;  3)  

what   their   mission   should   be   (for   example,   is   higher   education   for   personal,   societal   or  

economic  enhancement,  or  for  sustainability  and  the  preservation  of  certain  values,  behaviors  

and  beliefs?);  or  4)  what  their  physical  presences  should  be.    We  believe  that  we  are  one  of  the  

very  few  who  has  tried  to  combine  six  dimensions  of  higher  education  in  an  alternative  futures  

context.  

   

Historical  Examples  of  Interrelationships:  Korea,  England,  the  United  States  and  Hawaii  

 

With   these   factors   as   our   guide,   we   studied   the   way   the   interrelation   of   society,  

skills/knowledge,  technology  and  the  physical  environment  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  mission,  

participant,   resource,   pedagogy   and   campus   on   the   other,   played   out   in   different   societies  

over  time  in  different  parts  of  the  world.    

 

Take   Korea   as   an   example.     Korean   education   systems   have   been   affected   by   dominant  

knowledge   systems,   the   geopolitical   environment,   and   national   strategies   for   survival.   For  

example,  the  Goryeo  Dynasty  (918–1392)  was  much  influenced  by  China’s  Tang  Dynasty  (618–

907).   As   a   result,   there  was   a   national   language   school   (Sayokone)  where   the   Chinese  were  

9

taught.   This   language   school   published   a   textbook,  Noguldae,   for   teaching   the   Chinese,   and  

this  publication  was  also  used  as  a  textbook  in  the  Chosun  Dynasty  (Jeong,  2004).  Among  other  

things,   Chinese   language   skills   were   useful   for   facilitating   the   selling   of   products   such   as  

ginseng   and   celadon   porcelain.   Proficiency   in   spoken   or   written   Chinese   in   the   Goryeo   and  

Chosun   dynasties   was   directly   linked   with   accumulating   wealth   through   successful   business  

practices.  Many  Koreans  adapted  to  Chinese  writing,  culture  and  scholarship  in  many  ways.    

 

Other  religions  and  belief  systems  also  played  an  important  role  in  shaping  and  reshaping  the  

Korean  education  systems  throughout  history.  For  example,  for  many  centuries,  various  forms  

of   Confucianism   were   dominant   in   education   and   governance,   and   are   still   influential.  

However,   in  the  late  19th  century,  Christian  missionaries  effectively  worked  with  Koreans  and  

led  them  to  be  aware  of  “the  importance  of  Western  practical  and  scientific  knowledge…and  

democratic  and  female  education”,  introducing  to  them  “Western  institutional  administrative  

systems”   (Lee,   2002,   p.   97).   Ewha  Woman's  University   and  Yonsei  University   are  prestigious  

schools  that  were  founded  by  Western  missionaries  at  that  time.    

 

Korean  higher  education  was  also  heavily   influenced  by  a  series  of  rapidly  succeeding  events  

that   the  Korean   society  went   through   in   the   20th   century:   first,   it  was   the   Japanese   colonial  

annexation  of  Korea   (1910–1945)   including   the  Second  World  War,   followed   immediately  by  

the  Korean  War  and  the  military  government  of  the  United  States  in  Korea  (1945–1948).  These  

external  elements  changed  Korean  education  in  terms  of  systems,  curricula  and  administration  

by   interacting   with   the   Korean   internal   circumstances   (Lee,   2004).   Even   now,   Korea   is   still  

strongly   under   the   influence   of   American   culture   and  policies,   after   experiencing   a   series   of  

dictatorships   before   achieving   democratic   governance   in   1988.   During   this   time,   Korea   has  

been   single-­‐mindedly   focused   on   a   policy   of   economic   development   aimed   at   "catching   up"  

with   the  most   advanced   economies   of   the  world   as   soon   as   possible—a   goal   that   has   been  

largely  achieved.    

 

Consider   England.   We   studied   in   a   little   more   detail   the   evolution   of   institutions   of   higher  

education   in   England   (Graham,   2002),   noting   the   relationship   between   societal   assumption,  

mission,  participant,  resource,  pedagogy  and  the  structure  of   institutions  of  higher  education  

10

in  Britain,  from  the  establishment  of  the  first  two  colleges,  Oxford  and  Cambridge,  in  the  late  

12th  century  oriented  towards  training  the  clergy  and  aristocrats,  through  the  establishment  of  

a  third  university,  London,  with  a  broader  mission  in  the  mid  19th  century,  700  years  later.  It  is  

important   to   reflect   on   how   long   the   university   was   a   slowly   "emerging   issue"   in   England  

before   it   finally   caught   on  with   the   creation  of   industrial   “Red  Brick”   universities,  with   their  

practical   educational   mission,   which   were   created   during   the   late   19th   century;   the   high  

technology,   postindustrial   “Plate   Glass”   universities   of   the   1960s   along   with   the   highly  

innovative   open   university;   and   finally   Thatcher's   bottom-­‐line-­‐focused   “New  Universities”   in  

the  1990s.  

 

We   looked  at   the  situation   in   the  United  States   in  yet  more  detail   (see  Cohen,  1998;  Geiger,  

2000;   Hofstadter   &   Smith,   1961;   Lucas,   2006;   Rhodes,   2001;   Smith  &   Bender,   2008;   Thelin,  

2004).   All   of   the   first   few   universities  were   not   public   universities   but  were   created   by   one  

Christian  denomination  or  another.  They  were  based  largely  on  the  Oxford  model  in  terms  of  

faculty,   curriculum  and  campus  design.  The  very   first,  Harvard  University,  was  established   in  

1636   to   “produce   not   only   ministers   but   Christian   gentlemen   who   would   be   civic   leaders“  

(Hofstadter  &  Smith,  1961,  Vol.  1,  p.  2).  By  1800,  it  had  one  president,  three  professors  and  six  

tutors.  By  1900,   it  had  450  faculty  members.   In  2011,  which  was   its  375th  anniversary,   it  had  

2,100  faculty  members.  

 

William  and  Mary  was  created   in  1693  with   the  mission   to  ”raise  youth   ʻin  good  Letters  and  

Mannersʻ  and  propagate  Christianity  among  the  Western  Indians”  (Hofstadter  &  Smith,  1961,  

Vol.  1,  p.  2).  Yale  (1701)  was  intended  to  produce  men  “fitted  for  Public  employment  in  both  

Church  &  Civil  State”  (Hofstadter  &  Smith,  1961,  Vol.  1,  p.  2).  The  curriculum  of  all  three  was  

British-­‐style  classical,  based  on  the  Latin  and  Greek   language  and   literature.  Moreover,  while  

the  British  colleges  of  the  time  were  self-­‐governing,  none  were  in  the  United  States  where  all  

were  ruled  by  a  board  of  overseers  made  up  of  magistrates  and  ministers  whose  duty  it  was  to  

see  that  the  teachers  and  scholars  kept  the  faith  of  their  founding  denomination.  

 

There   was   a   flurry   of   new   private   universities   in   the   immediate   prerevolutionary   period:  

Pennsylvania   (1740),   Princeton   (1746),   King's   (that   became   Columbia;   1754),   Rhode   Island  

11

(that  became  Brown;  1764),  Queen's  (later  called  Rutgers;  1766)  and  Dartmouth  (1769).  All  of  

these  were  broadly  Christian-­‐based  but  not  narrowly  denominational,  this  being  a  low  period  

in  American  Christianity  where  a  kind  of  Newtonian  deism  was  widespread.  

 

The  first  state  university  created  after  the  American  Revolution  was  Georgia  (1785),  followed  

by  North  Carolina  (1789),  Tennessee  (1794)  and  South  Carolina  (1801)—all  in  the  south  of  the  

United  States.  Interestingly,  the  United  States  has  never  had  a  national  university,  much  less  a  

set   of   national   universities   spread   throughout   the   nation,   although   one   was   suggested   by  

Washington,  Madison  and  a  committee  of  Congress  in  1812.  

 

The   first   specifically   secular   university   in   America  was   the  University   of   Virginia   (1817)  with  

Thomas  Jefferson  as  its  architect  in  all  senses  of  the  word.  It  was  also  the  first  university  in  the  

United  States  with  what  could  be  considered  to  be  a  "modern"  curriculum—not  based  on  the  

ancient  classics  but  on  more  practical  and  liberating  arts  and  sciences.  

 

The  19th  century  marked  the  rapid  expansion  of  the  United  States  from  the  Atlantic  seaboard  

across  the  mountains  to  the  Midwestern  prairies.    The  University  of  Michigan  was  established  

in  1817,  20  years  before  Michigan  became  a  state.  In  1819,  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  

issued  the  seminal  Dartmouth  College  Case  that  established  private  colleges  as  "corporations"  

and   declared   that   corporations   have   individual   human   rights,   not   subjected   to   state  

abrogation—both  decisions  still  of  current  controversy.    

 

The   19th   century   also   saw  what   is   called   "The   Great   Awakening”—a  mighty   religious   revival  

that  swept  across  the  frontier  and  the  South.  This  resulted  in  the  revitalized  flowering  of  small  

denominational   and   private   colleges   in   the   early   19th   century.   Thirty-­‐seven   church   colleges  

were  created  in  Ohio  alone  from  1833  to  1852  and  many  more  elsewhere  in  the  Midwest  and  

South.  

 

Throughout   this   period,   there   was   considerable   controversy   about   the   content   of   the  

curriculum—should   it   be   mainly   classical   or   practical,   or   religious   or   secular;   about   "lazy  

students",  "educational  quacks"  and  grade  inflation;  and  about  governance  (who  controls  the  

12

curriculum—the  faculty  or  funders?).    

 

American  universities  initially  were  almost  exclusively  for  upper-­‐class  White  men.  Some  freed  

slaves  attended,  and  there  were  classes  for  women  which  led  to  the  creation  of  "seminaries"  

and   "finishing   schools"   for  women   in   the   East   and   South.   Eventually  women's   colleges   rose:  

Vassar,   Smith,   Wellesley   and   Radcliffe.   Some   colleges   in   the   Midwest   were   coeducational  

(admitting  both  men  and  women)  from  the  very  beginning,  Oberlin  being  the  first   (1833).  By  

1880,  more  than  half  of  the  American  universities  were  coeducational.  

 

Some  were  also  "racially  integrated"  (such  as  Antioch  [1852]  and  Iowa  [1856]).    Before  the  Civil  

War   (1860–1866),   there   were   few   opportunities   for   formal   higher   education   for   African-­‐

Americans:   The   Cheyney   Institute   (1837)   was   established   for   freed   slaves.   Wilberforce  

University  (1856)  was  the  first  college  created  for  African-­‐American  women.  

 

One   of   the  most   important   developments   in   higher   education   in   the  United   States  was   the  

Morrill  Land-­‐Grant  Act,  passed  by  the  United  States  Congress  in  1862  during  the  American  Civil  

War  when  the  absent  southern  representatives  could  not  object  to  the  federal  government's  

"interference"   in  the  right  of  each  state  to  control  education  within   its  borders.  According  to  

the  Act,  30,000  acres  of   land  for  each  member  of  Congress  were  to  be  set  aside  in  each  new  

state   to   fund   colleges   of   agriculture   and   mechanics,   which   also   teach   the   humanities   and  

practical   arts,   to   uplift   ordinary   citizens.   Michigan   State   University   (1855)   was   one   model.  

Cornell  University  (1865)   in  New  York  was  another.  The  mission  of  each  land-­‐grant  university  

was   to   be   a   secular   place   of   higher   education   dedicated   to   creating   through   research   and  

teaching  a  powerful,  industrial  nation  and  state.  

 

Alcorn   State   University   (1870)   in   Mississippi   was   created   explicitly   as   a   Black   land-­‐grant  

college.  The  Second  Morrill  Land-­‐Grant  Act  of  1890  specified  that  any  state  using  federal  land-­‐

grant  funds  must  either  make  their  schools  open  to  both  Blacks  and  Whites  or  allocate  money  

for   segregated  Black  colleges   to   serve  as  an  alternative   to  White   schools.   Sixteen  exclusively  

Black   institutions   of   higher   education   received   land-­‐grant   funds   in   1890.   The   American  

Missionary   Association   and   the   Freedmen's   Bureau   also   set   up   Black   colleges   until   1910.  

13

Among   these   were   Fisk   (1866),   Howard   (1867),   Morehouse   (1867),   Hampton   (1868)   and  

Tuskegee  (1881).    

 

Developments   in   Germany   during   this   time   also   greatly   influenced   the   direction   of   higher  

education  in  the  United  States.  In  many  ways,  Germany  was  the  first  consciously  industrializing  

state—the  first  to  use  higher  education  to  transform  a   loose  agricultural  state   into  a  focused  

industrial   state.   Germany   did   this,   in   part,   by   creating   the   first   research   universities   and  

graduate  schools,  such  as  Berlin  (1810),  based  on  Wissenschaft,  Lehrfreiheit  and  Lernfreiheit—

the   ideals  of  Wilhelm  von  Humboldt  and  Friedrich  Schleiermacher.  "A  German  university  has  

one   and   only   one   object:   to   train   thinkers.   It   does   not   aim   at   producing   poets,   painters,  

sculptors,   engineers,  miners,   architects,  bankers,  manufacturers.   There  are  other   schools   for  

that”  (Hofstadter  &  Smith,  1961,  Vol.  2,  p.  571).  

 

In  the  United  States,  Johns  Hopkins  (1876),  Stanford  (1885)  and  Chicago  (1890)  were  created  

based  on   the  German  model  while  Harvard,   Yale,   Princeton   and  many  more   redefined   their  

mission,   participants,   pedagogy   and   the   rest   according   to   that  model.  Higher   education  was  

now   to   be   based   on   science,   specialization,   departmentalization,   professionalism   and  

academic  freedom  (with  many  struggles,  especially  between  advocates  of  "liberal  education"  

and  those  of  professionalization).   In  1800,  there  had  been  nine  colleges  with  750  students   in  

the  United  States.  By  1900,  there  were  450  colleges  and  universities.  

 

A  major   development   after  World  War   I   (1914–1918)  was   the   rise   of   a   "general   education"  

core  curriculum  that  all  students  needed  to  master,  along  with  a  "disciplinary  major",  in  order  

to   get   a   college   degree.   "In   1918,   roughly   one-­‐third   of   the   college   courses   at   Columbia  was  

prescribed;  by  1938  it  had  become  one-­‐half"  (Hofstadter  &  Smith,  1961,  Vol.  2,  p.  896).  

 

However,   following   World   War   II   (1940–1945),   the   so-­‐called   "GI   Bill"   revolutionized   higher  

education  in  terms  of  the  number  of  "college  age"  persons  actually  in  college.  For  the  first  time  

in   history,   the   American   government   subsidized   the   expenses   of   college   for   the   people  

(colloquially  called  the  "GIs")  who  had  served  in  the  Armed  Services  during  the  War.  This  gave  

many   thousands   of   men   and   women   a   chance   for   higher   education   who   had   never   even  

14

imagined  of  such  a  thing  before.  

 

In  Brown  v.  Board  of  Education  (1954),  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  declared  that  racially  

"separate  but  equal"  schools  were  unconstitutional.  From  this  point  on,  to  receive  federal  aid,  

education  at  all   levels  must  be  racially   integrated,   though  some  of   the  historically  Black   (and  

women's)   colleges   were   exempt   for   a   while.   The   1965   United   States   Higher   Education   Act  

marked  the  first  time  that  there  was  substantial  federal  funding  for  higher  education  for  all.  

 

During  the  1960s,  in  part,  because  of  these  developments  and  the  large  number  of  college  age  

members  of  the  massive  "baby  boom"  generation,  there  was  an  explosion  of  mass  education  

universities,   along   with   the   creation   of   two-­‐year   community   colleges   and   of   colleges   of  

continuing  education   (also  called  outreach  colleges  or  colleges  of  adult  education)   to   further  

live  long  higher  education  opportunities.  

 

From   the   1980s   onward,   higher   education   in   the   United   States   has   moved   in   yet   another,  

different,   direction—from   local,   state   or   national   in   orientation   to   global   in   focus;   and   from  

national  and  state  in  funding  to  private  or  a  self-­‐funding  base.  It  is  often  said  that  what  could  

once   fairly  be  called  "state"  universities,  because  they  received  most  of   their   funding   from  a  

state  legislature  with  student-­‐paid  tuition  either  nonexistent  or  very  low,  have  become  at  best  

"state-­‐assisted"  universities  where  taxpayers  pay  less  and  less  of  the  overall  expenses,  to  what  

are  now  really  just  "universities  in  a  state"  with  public  funding  near  or  almost  zero.  

   

At   the   same   time,  with   the   rise   of   computer   networks   and   the   internet,   distance   education  

transformed   from   being   a   decidedly   second-­‐class   stepchild   of   higher   education,   dependent  

entirely  on  reading,  writing  and  mailing  of  assignments  and  answers,  to  a  high-­‐tech  and  often  

highly   personalized   and   appealing   adjunct   to   face-­‐to-­‐face   classroom   education,   perhaps  

replacing  campus-­‐based  education  almost  entirely  in  future.  

 

Moreover  institutions  such  as  the  University  of  Phoenix  and  other  for-­‐profit  universities  serve  

students   unserved,   underserved   or   only   bureaucratically   served   by   traditional   universities,  

with   standardized   pedagogies,   poorly-­‐paid   and   untenured   faculty   and   highly   flexible   times,  

15

places,   and   delivery   systems,   of   varying   quality.   From   store   fronts   to   holograms,   higher  

education   is   rapidly   becoming   a   global   business   with   global   focuses   and   standards.   Many  

people,   thus,   believe   that   the   next   step   in   American   higher   education   is   the   end   (or   severe  

marginalization)   of   campus-­‐based   delivery   systems   and   the   rise   in   global   virtual   educational  

modes,   governance,   funding   and   accreditation.   Nonetheless,   as   we   will   see,   this   is   not  

inevitable.  There  are  alternatives  that  need  to  be  considered.  

 

 

University  of  Hawaii  at  Manoa  

 

Finally,  in  order  to  base  our  alternative  futures  on  some  real  place  with  a  real  past  and  future  

in  order  to  have  a  geographic  location  for  our  architectural  renderings,  we  decided  to  focus  on  

the  University  of  Hawaii  at  Manoa.  We  gave  serious  consideration  to  other  locations,  including  

Mars  where  we  most  truly  could  "start  anew",  but  decided  it  made  more  sense  to  focus  on  a  

place  we  knew  and  could  therefore   imagine  a  past  and  future  more  vividly.    However,  as  we  

have  said,  our  purpose  is  not  primarily  to  discuss  futures  of  the  University  of  Hawaii  per  se,  but  

to  develop  a   template   for   the   study  of   futures  of   institutions  of  higher  education  anywhere,  

with  Hawaii  as  one  model.  

 

History  and  present  of  the  University  of  Hawaii  

Hawaii   is   presently   a   state   within   the   United   States.   Hawaii   lost   its   independence   as   an  

internationally  recognized  sovereign  nation  in  1898  when  the  United  States  Congress  annexed  

Hawaii  as  a  territory,  following  the  forceful  overthrow  of  the  last  Hawaiian  queen,  Liliuokalani,  

in  1893.  During   this   time  and  until  well   after   the   Second  World  War,  Hawaii's   society  was   a  

kind   of   feudal   oligarchy   with   an   economy   based   largely   on   agriculture   and   plantation   for  

export  under  the  control  of  White  land  owners  and  using  the  labor  of   immigrants  brought  to  

Hawaii  largely  from  Asia  (Kent,  1993;  Smith  &  Pratt,  1992;  Trask,  1999).      

 

During  this  time,  higher  education  was  a  privilege  of  the  children  of  the  ruling  classes  who  sent  

their  sons   (sometimes  their  daughters)   to  colleges  on  the  mainland,  United  States.  However,  

there  was  also   recognition   that   talented  children  of  plantation  workers  and  others  deserved  

16

some   kind   of   higher   education   opportunity   in   the   Islands.   In   1908,   the   prospectus   for  

establishing   the  College  of  Agriculture  and  Mechanic  Arts   in   the   territory  of  Hawaii  said   that  

“the   leading  object   shall  be,  without  excluding  other   scientific  and  classical   studies   including  

military  tactics,  to  teach  other  branches  of  learning  as  are  related  to  agriculture  and  mechanic  

arts…in   order   to   promote   the   liberal   and   practical   education   of   the   industrial   classes   in   the  

several  pursuits  and  professions  of  life”  (Kamin  &  Potter,  1998,  p.  9).    

 

From   the   beginning,   plans   for   the  University   (then   called   a   college)   aimed   at   having   it   be   a  

congressionally  recognized  land-­‐grant  university  under  the  Morrill  Act  of  1890.  The  catalog  for  

1908–09   showed   that   the   College   consisted   of   three   small   departments:   agriculture,  

engineering,  and  arts  and  sciences.  

 

Amazingly   enough,   from   the   very   beginning,   the   University   of   Hawaii   was   open   to   all   who  

applied  and  were  academically  qualified  for  higher  education,  declaring  that  “no  person  shall,  

because   of   age,   sex,   color   or   nationality,   be   deprived   of   the   privileges   of   this   institution”  

(Kamin  &  Potter,  1998,  p.  10).  This  is  amazing  because  most  universities  in  the  United  States,  

at   this   time,   certainly   did   discriminate   against   applicants   on   the   basis   of   "age,   sex,   color   or  

nationality."  

 

The  first  president,  John  Gilmore,  and  most  members  of  the  first  faculty  of  Hawaii  College  had  

studied  or  taught  at  Cornell  University,  a  prestigious   land-­‐grant  university   in  upper  New  York  

state.  Thus,  a  university  in  a  cultural  and  physical  environment,  as  different  from  Hawaii  as  is  

possible  to  imagine,  became  the  model  for  the  University  of  Hawaii  in  curriculum  and  campus  

style  and  layout.  

 

A  design   for   the   campus  was   completed  by   the  engineering  Professor   John  Mason  Young   in  

February   1909.   The   plan   anticipated   buildings   not   only   for   agriculture,   engineering   and   the  

liberal  arts  but  also  for  architecture,  law  and  medicine.    Young  planned  for  a  geometrical  array  

of  structures  on  the  campus  that  were  squared  to  the  cardinal  points  of  the  compass,  strongly  

resembling   the  quadrangle  of   the  Cornell   campus.   In   fact,   all   of   the  permanent  buildings  on  

campus,  beginning  with  the  Hawaii  Hall   in  1911  (designed,   in  part,  by  Young  and  still   in  use),  

17

were  neoclassical  and  would  have  matched  the  architecture  of  Cornell  or  many  other  mainland  

college   campuses  of   the   time.   There  was  no   sense  of   a  Hawaiian  place   in   any   aspect   of   the  

University—save  its  coeducational  and  multiethnic  student  body.  

 

The  White  oligarchy  that  ruled  Hawaii  for  so  long  was  peacefully  overthrown  after  the  Second  

World   War   when   the   Japanese   and   other   non-­‐White   local   men   and   women   served   in   the  

United   States  military  with   enormous   distinction   and   loss   of   life.  When   they   returned,   they  

demanded   justice  and  equality,  and  created  a  new  multiethnic  democratic  party   that  ousted  

the   ruling   republican  party   at   the  ballot   box,   eventually   leading   to   the   statehood   for  Hawaii  

within   America   in   1959   (statehood   is   a   very   problematic   and   contested   achievement   now  

because  the  option  of   independence  should  have  been  placed  on  the  ballot   in  1959,  but  was  

not,   the  only  options  given  being  either   continuing  as  a   territory  or  becoming  a   state  of   the  

United  States).  

 

During  the  1960s,  processes  that  impacted  the  mainland,  United  States,  including  the  creation  

of  opportunities  for  mass  higher  education,  were  felt  even  more  strongly  in  Hawaii.  A  series  of  

community   colleges  were   created   for   all   islands  of   the   State   and   a   four-­‐year   institution  was  

established  at  Hilo  on  the  "Big  Island"  (the  island  is  officially  named  "Hawaii"  but  called  the  Big  

Island   to   avoid   confusion   with   the   entire   state).   The   government   in   Hawaii   also   poured  

enormous   amounts   of  money   into   creating   a   "world-­‐class"   university   out   of   the   old  Manoa  

campus   in   Honolulu  with   a  massive   new   building   program   and   the   hiring   of   scores   of   well-­‐

established  older  and  promising  younger  faculty  members—almost  entirely  of  White  men  and  

largely   from   the   mainland,   United   States.   At   the   same   time,   at   the   urging   of   the   faculty  

members  of   the  University  of  Hawaii   and  prominent   local  political   and  business   leaders,   the  

United  States  Congress  created  and  placed,  under  the  control  of  the  United  States  Department  

of  State,  The  Center  for  Cultural  and  Technical  Interchange  Between  East  and  West  (East–West  

Center)   in  the  University  campus.  The  East-­‐West  Center  brought  many  scholars  and  students  

throughout  Asia  and  the  Pacific   region  to   the  University,  giving   the  University  a   regional  and  

global  prominence  it  would  not  otherwise  have.  

 

From   that   time   onward,   the   University   of   Hawaii   at   Manoa   has   expanded   or   stagnated  

18

depending   on   the   economic   fortunes   of   its   home:   A   tiny   set   of   islands—the   most   remote  

populated  place  on  planet  Earth—with  a  population  now  of  only  a   little  over  one  million  and  

an   economy   entirely   dependent   on   fragile   tourism   and   volatile   military   funding   from   the  

United   States   Congress   (Dator,   1999;   Yount,   1996).   At   the   present   time,   the   University   of  

Hawaii   at   Manoa   is   the   "flagship"   of   a   multicampus,   multi-­‐island   university   system   with   a  

potential   capacity   of   60,000   students.   The   University   currently   has   20,000   students   (14,000  

undergraduates)—70%   of   them   are   from   Hawaii—and   1,200   full-­‐time   faculty   members.   In-­‐

state   tuition   at   the   University   currently   amounts   to   about   $8,500   per   year   and   out-­‐of-­‐state  

tuition,  about  $23,000  per  year.  Tuition  is  much  lower  at  other  campuses  of  the  University  of  

Hawaii  system.  Once,  tuition  was  almost  free  everywhere.  Although  the  University  of  Hawaii  is  

still   supported   by   the   Hawaiian   state   legislature   at   higher   levels   of   funding   than   is   true   for  

most  other  "state"  universities  in  America  now,  the  University  has  moved  toward  becoming  a  

university  "in  Hawaii"  rather  than  "of  Hawaii."  

 

The  University  of  Hawaii  at  Manoa  is  a  Carnegie  I  research  institution  as  well  as  a  land-­‐grant,  

sea-­‐grant   and   space-­‐grant   university,   indicating   national   and   international   prominence   in  

agriculture,   ocean   resources,   and   astronomy   and   space   sciences   and   exploration.   The  

University  considers  itself  a  "bridge  between  Asia  and  the  West"  as  exemplified  by  the  cultural  

diversity  of  its  student  body  along  with  extensive  courses  in  Asian,  Hawaiian  and  other  Pacific  

communities'   history,   culture   and   languages.   Its   academic   programs   are   accredited   by   the  

Western   Association   of   Schools   and   College.   Of   equal   importance   is   that   the   University   of  

Hawaii   at   Manoa   competes   in   many   sports   at   the   highest   "National   Collegiate   Athletic  

Association  Division  I"  level.  

 

The   Manoa   campus   presently   sits   on   320   acres   in   the   lower   region   of   Manoa   Valley.   The  

campus  no  longer  reflects  any  architectural  style.  Its  buildings  are  a  hodge-­‐podge  of  structures  

built   with   little   regard   to   each   other   or   to   the   magnificent   climate   and   culture   around   it.  

Nonetheless,  the  University  of  Hawaii  at  Manoa  is  the  dominant  institution  of  higher  education  

on   the   island   of   Oahu   (Honolulu)   and   the   entire   state.   Private   universities   in   the   State   are  

much   smaller—Chaminade   University,   Hawaii   Pacific   University,   Brigham   Young   University  

(Hawaii)   and   Tokai   University.   There   is   also   a   rich   assortment   of   extension   and   for-­‐profit  

19

universities  such  as  the  University  of  Phoenix.  

 

Characterizing  the  state  of  Hawaii  within  the  global  community  at  the  present  time  

 

Our  alternative  futures  exercise  requires  that  we  know  something  about  the  past,  present  and  

future  of  the  world  generally,  and  of  specific  communities,  before  we  can  imagine  the  futures  

of   institutions   of   higher   education   within   the   world   and   those   specific   communities.   The  

following   is   a   brief   description  of   the  essence  of  Hawaii  within   the   global   community   at   the  

time  of  our  research  in  terms  of  the  seven  driving  forces  of  the  alternative  futures:  

 

Population  

When  modern  universities  were  conceived  and  created  in  the  middle  of  the  19th  century,  the  

population  of  the  world  was  for  the  first  time  about  one  billion  people.  Now,  150  years  later,  

the  population  of   the  world   is   seven  billion  people   and   still   growing   rapidly,   even   though   in  

some  parts  of   the  world   (especially   in  Europe,  North  America  and  East  Asia),   the  population  

growth   rate   is   stagnant   or   declining—in   some   places,   very   rapidly   declining.     Population   is  

growing  slowly  in  Hawaii.    

 

For   most   of   the   world's   history,   the   "typical   human"   has   been   Chinese—China   has   almost  

always  had  a  larger  population  than  any  other  region.  However,  by  the  end  of  the  19th  century,  

the  number  of  White  people  and  non-­‐White  people  in  the  world  was  roughly  equal  for  the  first  

time   in  history  because  Europe  had  been  able  to  "export"   its  surplus  population  to  the  "new  

worlds"  of  North  and  South  America  and  Oceania   in  the  18th  and  especially  19th  century.  The  

balance  was  short   lived.  Because  of   fertility  differences  between  White  and  most  non-­‐White  

cohorts  over  the  20th  century,  the  percentage  of  Whites  in  the  world  has  substantially  declined  

to  about  20%.  Current   fertility   trends  suggest   that   the  White  proportion  of   the  world  by   the  

middle  to  end  of  the  21st  century  might  be  between  1%  and  5%  of  the  global  total,  portending  

big  differences  in  cultural  and  perhaps  economic/political  dominance.    

 

Following   the   rapid  die-­‐off  of  native  Hawaiians  after   their   first  encounters  with   the  Western  

culture,  diseases  and  technologies  (from  perhaps  one  million  in  1790  to  about  40,000  in  1905),  

20

Hawaii  has  had  a  culturally  mixed  population  with  no  single  ethnic  group  a  numerical  majority.  

This  trend  is  still  continuing,  with  new  ethnic  groups  arriving  at  the  Islands  (along  with  fertility  

differentials   among   established   ethnic   groups   in   Hawaii)   to   change   the   mix.   Intermarriage  

among   the   ethnic   groups   remains   very   high,   a   trend   that   led   Hawaii's   first   democratically  

elected   governor   (John  Burns)   to   proclaim   that   the   residents   of  Hawaii  were  becoming   "the  

Golden  People  of  the  Pacific."  

 

Energy  

The  so-­‐called  "developed"  parts  of  the  world  run  overwhelmingly  on  abundant  and  cheap  oil—

first  discovered   to  be  and  exploited  as  an  energy   resource   in   the  mid  1850s.  Without   cheap  

and   abundant   oil,   almost   nothing   that   is   part   of   the  modern   and   postmodern  world   would  

exist.   Our   food,   transportation,   communication,   health,   goods—everything—is   heavily  

dependent  on   it.   If   anything  were   to  cause  oil   to  be   scarce  and  expensive  before  equivalent  

energy   sources   could   be   fully   brought   online,   "development"   and   "continued   economic  

growth"  would  end  very  quickly.  While  most  decision  makers  seem  to  assume  that  cheap  and  

abundant  oil  will  exist  forever  (within  their  ken  of  "forever"),  more  and  more  people  fear  the  

effective  "end  of  oil"  soon,  and  well  before  equivalents  are  available.  

 

Even   though  Hawaii   has   abundant   resources   of   alternative,   renewable   energy   (solar   energy,  

wind,   tide,   wave,   ocean,   geothermal   energy   and   biogas),   Hawaii   has   been   overwhelmingly  

dependent  (80%–90%)  on  imported  oil  for  many  years.  Indeed,  Hawaii  is  more  dependent  on  

oil  than  any  other  American  state.  Tourists,  food,  automobiles  and  all  consumer  products  flow  

into  the  State  on  oil.  Hawaii  could  not   feed   itself  without  the   inflow   in  more  than  a  week  or  

two.   It   is   extremely   vulnerable   to   anything   that   might   interrupt   the   flow   of   cheap   and  

abundant  oil  into  the  State.  Current  efforts  to  reduce  the  dependence  on  oil  in  Hawaii  are  very  

timid  and  have  been  energy-­‐intensive  themselves  so  far.    

 

Economy  

Since  at  least  the  1980s,  and  driven  by  the  economic  theories  and  policies  of  the  United  States,  

the   economy   of   the   world—all   of   its   developed   and   developing   parts—has   been   ruled   by  

"global   neoliberalism"   that   discourages   and   strives   to   prevent   government   regulation  of   the  

21

economy,  leaving  it  up  to  the  "invisible  hand  of  the  market"  to  distribute  resources,  jobs  and  

wealth  on  a  worldwide  basis.  

 

In  addition  to  being  one  of  the  most  politically  "liberal"  places  in  the  United  States,  Hawaii   is  

also  fully  a  part  of  the  global  neoliberal  economy.  It  cut  its  once  steeply  progressive  tax  rate,  

reduced  the  number  and  pay  of   its  civil   servants,  and,  since   it   is  not  allowed  to  go   into  debt  

according   to   the   State   constitution,   substantially   reduced   its   once   humane   social   services,  

including  funding  for  its  public  schools  and  university  system.  

 

Environment  

For  most  of  human  history,  humans  seemed  to  be  at  the  mercy  of  "nature",  and  too  few  and  

puny  to  impact  the  natural  environment  upon  which  they  depended  for  their  very  life.  Several  

decades  ago,  some  people  became  aware   for   the   first   time  that  because  of  human  numbers  

and   their   technologies,  humans   in   fact  were  now  major   factors   in  determining   the   future  of  

the  Earth—and  had  been  so  since  the  beginning  of  slash  and  burn  horticulture  and  sedentary  

agriculture;  only  the  scale  of  human   impacts   in  time  and  space  are  different  now.  Geologists  

label  the  time  period  that  saw  the  emergence  of  homosapiens  on  Earth  as  the  Holocene.  A  few  

years  ago,  some  geologists  and  others  said  that  it  was  time  to  recognize  that  we  had  entered  

into   a   new   geological   era   they   called   the   "Anthorpocene",   since   humans   were   a   major  

geological  force.  About  30  years  earlier,  Walter  Truett  Anderson  had  recognized  this  fact  in  his  

book  To  Govern  Evolution,  arguing  that  governing  evolution  must  become  the  primary  political  

focus   of   humans.     In   spite   of   this,   and   a   host   of   warnings   and   policy   proposals,   humans  

continue  massively  to  change  the  biosphere  much  faster  than  they  understand  it.  Though  we  

may  be   "governing  evolution",  we  are  doing   so  unintentionally   and  with  no   sense  of   ethical  

obligation  or  social  goals  in  mind,  other  than  continued  economic  growth.  As  a  consequence,  

global  climate  change  and  the  potential  rise  in  sea  level  are  among  many  major  environmental  

challenges  that  are  almost  entirely  unaddressed.  

 

Though  Hawaii   is  often  viewed  as  a  "paradise",  and  people  in  Hawaii  take  pride  in  their  open  

and   laidback   lifestyle,  most  people   in  Hawaii  are,   in  many  ways,  equally  as   irresponsible  and  

uncaring  about  their  impact  on  the  local  environment  as  are  those  anywhere  else.  In  part,  this  

22

may   be   because  Hawaii   has   no   polluting   factories,   though   decades   of   plantation   agriculture  

has  polluted  the  soil  with  pesticides  which  threaten  the  thin  lens  of  fresh  water  between  the  

saline  ocean  water  and  the  land  upon  which  Hawaii  entirely  relies.  Strong  trade  winds  usually  

also  push  visible  pollution  away.  The  mid-­‐Pacific  Garbage  Patch   is  still   invisible  offshore.  But,  

Hawaii   has   no   organized   recycling   program,   and   future   garbage   disposal   remains   an  

unresolved  dilemma.  Urban  sprawl  and  highway  congestion  go   largely  unchecked.  Moreover,  

Hawaii's  economy   is  based  on   tourism,  and   tourism  requires  a  beautiful  environment  with  a  

balmy  climate.  Water  scarcity,   local   impacts  of  the  global  climate  change,  and  the  rise   in  sea  

level  may  threaten  that.  

 

Culture  

The  long-­‐entrained  process  of  globalization,  vastly  speeded  up  with  modern  technologies  and  

ideologies,   has   destroyed   many   cultures   and   languages   worldwide.   Many   people   fear   (or  

welcome)  a  global  monoculture,  dominated  by  Western  lifestyles  and  the  English  language.  At  

the   same   time,   there   has   been   an   amazing   renaissance   of   local   cultures   in   recent   decades.  

Although  "the  world",  in  1892,  celebrated  the  400th  anniversary  of  the  "discovery  of  the  New  

World"   by   Christopher   Columbus,   not   many   celebrated   the   500th   anniversary   in   1992,   and  

many  more  used  it  as  an  opportunity  for  education  as  to  the  true  impact  of  Western  conquest  

on  indigenous  peoples  everywhere.  

 

Hawaii  has  long  celebrated  its  cultural  diversity  and  the  fact  that  the  different  groups  not  only  

tolerate  each  other,  but  also  actively  celebrate  their  differences  and  participate  in  the  rites  of  

many   cultures.   Still,   English   language   speakers   basically   destroyed   the  Hawaiian   culture   and  

language  by  laws  and  other  means  until  a  small  group  of  singers,  dancers  and  young  activists,  

in  the  1990s,  brought  the  Hawaiian  language  and  culture  back  from  the  very  edge  of  extinction  

with  Hawaiian  language  immersion  schools  and  other  means.  The  English/American  language  

and  culture  still  dominates  and  is  argued  as  essential  for  integration  into  the  global  economy.  

 

Technology  

We   have   contended   that,   in   the   world   we   live   in   now,   technological   change   is   the   major  

vehicle  for  social  and  environmental  change.  Programs  of  development  have  spread—or  tried  

23

to  spread—modern  technologies  to  every  corner  of  the  Earth.  To  be  alive   in  the  world  today  

means  to  have  the  latest  gadgets  and  be  attuned  to  the  latest  fashions  and  fads.    Humans  have  

never   lived  without   technologies.   Humans   become   and   “re-­‐become”   humans   by   interacting  

between  themselves  and  their  environments  via  some  mediating  technologies.    Nonetheless,  

technologies   now  are  often   far  more  powerful   and   intrusive  with   longer-­‐lasting   effects   than  

they   were   earlier.   And,   as   one   technology   replaces   or   marginalizes   another,   social   and  

environmental  change  occurs.  

 

Things   are   no   different   in  Hawaii.  Without   the   jet   airplane,   internet   and   credit   card,   Hawaii  

would  still  be  a  quiet  remote  place  in  the  middle  of  the  Pacific.  Because  of  these  technologies  

(their  hardware,  software  and  orgware)  and  more,  Hawaii’s  youth  dresses  and  acts   like   inner  

city  rappers,  and  Waikiki  hotels  feel  like  hotels  everywhere  else  in  the  world,  with  the  tourist  

experience  standardized  and  safe.  

 

Governance  

Almost  every  government  in  the  world  today  says  it  is  a  democracy,  be  it  liberal,  social,  Islamic  

or  Christian  democracy,  or  democracy  the  Asian  way.  All  democracies  (actually  "representative  

governments")   are   based   on   once-­‐great   ideas   and   technologies   that   are   200–400   years   old.  

They  are  woefully  out  of  date  in  terms  of  contemporary  cosmologies  and  technologies,  but  few  

new  ideas  for  governance  exist.  People  are  discontented,  but  few  can  suggest  what  will  make  

them   content   in   any  nuanced  way.   In   addition,   the   ruling  basis   of   all   polities   is   the   "nation-­‐

state",  a  form  of  government  invented  in  Europe  several  hundred  years  ago  to  solve  European  

political   problems,   but   spread   worldwide   through   Western   imperialism.   Nonetheless,   few  

national   governments   are   able   to   govern   effectively   anymore.   Too  many   problems   (such   as  

those   of   the   economy   and   environment)   are   global   and   beyond   the   reach   of   democratic  

national   governments.  Many  other  problems  are   local,   resisting   the   insensitive   "one   size   fits  

all"  regulations  of  the  national  government.  

 

The  situation  in  Hawaii  is  similar.  In  obtaining  statehood  in  1959,  Hawaii  adopted  all  the  then-­‐

modern   ideas   of   governance   and,   for   a   while,   ran   smoothly   and   effectively.   In   some   ways,  

governance   in  Hawaii   is   reasonably   satisfactory,   but   in   others,   it   is   as   unable   to   rule   as   any  

24

other  polity,  and  no  one  knows  what  to  do  about  it  but  to  complain  and  despair.  

 

Ideas  About  the  Futures  of  Higher  Education  

 

With   an   understanding   of   the   history   and   evolution   of   the   universities   in   general   and   the  

University  of  Hawaii  at  Manoa  as  well   as   the   state  of  Hawaii  now   in  hand,  we  collected  and  

read  everything  we  could  find  about  the  present  and  future  of  higher  education:  calls  for  new  

forms  or  returns  to  earlier  ones;  how  further  commercialization  and/or  the  internet  and  virtual  

education  would  destroy  old  brick  and  mortar  universities;  whether  universities  should  serve  

the   needs   of   business   better;   and   whether   universities   must   change   from   being   focused  

merely   on   continued   economic   growth   (as   their   sole  modern   purpose   and   continuing  major  

justification)   to   include   sustainability,   which   are   clearly   competing   and   perhaps   mutually  

exclusive  goals  and  concerns  for  the  most  part.  We  read  what  people  thought  would  happen  

and  what  people  said  should  happen.    We  then  felt  that  we  were  ready  to  begin  to  look  at  the  

futures  (see  sources  listed  under  Images  of  the  Futures  of  Higher  Education  [listed  by  the  four  

generic  futures]  in  the  Appendix  [Further  Reading]).  

 

Theories  and  Methods  Underlying  Our  Study:  Four  Generic  Alternative  Images  of  the  Future  

as  a  Design  Tool  

 

We  based  our  work  on  certain  theories  and  methods  of  futures  studies  as  developed  over  the  

years   by   students   and   the   faculty   of   the   Hawaii   Research   Center   for   Futures   Studies   in   the  

Department  of  Political  Science  of  the  University  of  Hawaii  at  Manoa  (see  sources  listed  under  

Alternative  Futures  Approach  [especially  Dator,  2009]  in  the  Appendix  [Further  Reading]).  The  

fundamental  perspectives  of  what   is   also   called   “the  Manoa  School”   state   that   "THE   future"  

cannot   be   predicted,   but   that   several   alternative   futures   can   be   forecasted   and   their  

implications  considered,  and   then   that  preferred   futures  can  be  envisioned  and   invented,  all  

the   while   continuing   to   scan   the   horizon   for   new   opportunities   and   problems   which  might  

suggest  new  visions  of  preferred  futures  or  reinforce  the  existing  visions.  

 

The   Manoa   School   had   developed   a   typology   of   four   generic   images   of   the   future.   This  

25

typology  had  been  empirically  derived  by  collecting  and  evaluating  “images  of   the   future”   in  

national  and  corporate  plans  for  the  future,  research  statements  about  the  future,  articles   in  

the   peer-­‐reviewed   futures   journals   and   conference   proceedings,   books   and   other   media   of  

futurists,   fictional   stories  about   the   futures   in  many  media,   images  of   the   futures   in  popular  

culture   including   advertisements,   annual   "state   of   the   state/nation"   speeches,   and   the   like.  

From  this  empirical  base,  the  Manoa  School  concluded  that  all  of  the  millions  (if  not  billions)  of  

images  of  the  future  existing  in  the  minds  of  people  can  be  categorized  as  specific  examples  of  

one   of   four   generic   images   of   the   futures.   The   four   generic   images   are   Grow,   Collapse,  

Discipline   and   Transformation   (see   sources   listed   under   each   of   the   four   generic   images,  

beginning  with  Images  of  Continued  Growth  Futures  in  the  Appendix  [Further  Reading]).  

 

By   far,   the  overwhelming  majority  of  all   images  of   the  future,   including  the   images  of  higher  

education,  are  variations  of  continued  economic  growth.  Indeed,  continued  economic  growth  

is   the   "official"   future   of   all   advanced   nations   and   hence   of   all   components   of   the   nations,  

including   universities.   The   very   purpose   of   the  modern   university   was   and   is   to   enable   the  

community   it   serves   to   grow   and   prosper   economically   by   virtue   of   the   research   and  

development  it  does  and  by  the  human  resources  it  produces.  It  is  very  difficult  for  university  

funders,   administrators   and   researchers   to   imagine   any   other   future   or   any   other   kind   of  

university.  

 

And  yet,  nothing  is  forever.  Everything  that  now  exists,  at  one  time,  did  not  exist  and,  at  one  

time,  will  not  exist.   Societies  and   their   components   constantly  emerge,   rise,  mature,  decline  

and  die.   Currently,   “Collapse”   is   gaining   some  popularity   as   an   image  of   the   future   as  more  

people  than  usual  worry  about  the  unsustainable  environment  and  economy.  

 

In   part   to   avoid   a   collapse,   and   in   part   in   recognition   of   the   impossibility   and   perhaps  

undesirability   of   continued   economic   growth,  many  more   people   now   share   some   kind   of   a  

“disciplined”   view   of   the   future,   often   currently   expressed   as   sustainability.   Many   people  

believe   that   it   is  necessary   to  adopt  certain  values  and  discipline  our   life  and  actions  around  

them  if  we  are  to  survive  and  thrive.  

 

26

Finally,  many  futurists  agree  that  continued  economic  growth  is  unsustainable,  but  insist  that  

many  technologies  are  converging  rapidly  in  such  a  way  as  to  transform  society  as  profoundly  

and  unpredictably  as  a  caterpillar  is  transformed  into  a  butterfly,  or  as  liquid  water  into  steam  

(or   ice).  A  world  of  abundance  and   leisure  with  humans,   transhumans  and  artilects  on  Earth  

and   the   inner   solar   system   is   potentially   imminent.   The   timid   views   and   actions   of  

sustainability   are   unimaginative   and   uninspiring,   they   argue   (there   also   are   versions   of  

Transform  that  are  based  on  spiritual  and  not  technological  factors).  

 

Please   note   that   these   four   futures   are   not   simply   variations   on   a   common   theme   such   as  

"high,   medium   and   low"   or   "optimistic   or   pessimistic."   Each   futures   makes   very   different  

assumptions   about   a   number   of   common   variables.   The   variables—the   driving   forces   we  

discussed   earlier—that   are   common   to   each   of   our   four   futures   of   Hawaii   in   2060   are  

population,   environment,   economy,   technology,   energy,   culture   and   governance.   It   is   the  

quantitative   and   qualitative   differences   of   each   of   these   seven   driving   forces   in   relation   to  

each  other  that  result  in  four  quite  different  futures.  

 

The  four  generic  images  of  the  futures  have  two  fundamental  uses.  

 

One   is   for  deductive   forecasting.   If  one  wishes  to   think  about   the   futures  of  anything,  at   the  

very   least,   one   should   begin   thinking   in   terms   of   the   four   generic   alternative   futures.   One  

future  should  not  be  privileged  over  the  others.  None  is  a  “most  likely”  or  “least  likely”  future.  

All  lie  before  us  as  possibilities  every  moment  of  our  lives,  and  need  to  be  kept  in  mind  when  

making  decisions  about  the  future.  

 

Secondly,   experience   has   shown   that   before  members   of   an   organization   can   think   usefully  

about  their  future,  they  need  to  be  shaken  from  their  “crackpot  realism”  of  the  present.  Until  

they  have  had  a  chance  to  think  more  broadly  and  deeply,  most  people  assume  that  the  future  

will  be  more  or  less  like  the  present.  If  things  are  bad  now,  they  will  continue  to  be  bad,  and  it  

will  be  difficult   to  get   them  to   imagine  anything  else.   If   things  are  good  now,   they  will   resist  

worrying  about  bad  times  and  will  assume  everything  will  be  fine  forever.  

 

27

Thus,   if   people  are  asked   to   think  about   the   future  without  prior   familiarity  with  alternative  

futures,  they  probably  will  plan  basically  for  the  present,  or  strive  to  get  rid  of  the  problems  of  

the  present,  without  sufficient  thought  of  what  new  or  renewed  problems  and  opportunities  

might  lie  ahead.  One  way  to  get  people  in  a  frame  of  mind  to  envision  more  robust  preferred  

futures  is  to  have  them  consider  (and,  to  the  extent  possible,  experience)  examples  of  the  four  

alternative  futures.  

 

How  We  Worked  on  the  Project  

 

As  we  have  shown,  we  began  our  inquiry  by  considering  the  history  of  higher  education  from  

its   earliest   origins   in   Asia   and   Europe   through   its   creation   and   growth   of   universities   in   the  

United  States  and  the  University  of  Hawaii  at  Manoa  as  outlined  above.    The  process  of  looking  

at   the   historical   context   and   evolution   of   universities   across   the   globe   enabled   us   to  

understand   trends   and   the   implications  of   our  university’s   own   campus   facilities,   operations  

and  systems.  

 

Next,  we  engaged  in  a  review  of  futures  theories  and  methods,  including  age-­‐cohort  analysis,  

trend  analysis,  emerging-­‐issue  analysis  and  alternative  futures  creation.  Under  the  guidance  of  

Dator’s  second  law  of  the  future—that  in  a  situation  of  rapid  social  and  environmental  change,  

"any  useful   idea  about  the  future  should  appear  to  be  ridiculous"  (Dator,  2005,  p.  205)—and  

the  assumptions  of  the  four  generic  alternative  societal  futures,  we  considered  a  wide  variety  

of  patterns  and  societal  activities  that  could  have  implications  on  universities.    

 

We  then  formed  four  teams.  Each  team  had  three  broad  tasks:  (1)  flesh  out  the  details  of  their  

assigned  alternative  future  for  Hawaii  in  2060  according  to  the  seven  driving  forces,  (2)  devise  

one  possible  "University  of  Hawaii  at  Manoa"  in  response  to  that  future  according  to  the  first  

five  of  the  six  dimensions  of  universities,  and  (3)  develop  the  sixth  dimension  by  designing  and  

constructing   three-­‐dimensional   models   and   associated   textboards   and   illustrations   of   the  

relevant   campus   of   the   University   of   Hawaii   at   Manoa   in   2060   as   well   as   one   "prototype"  

building  for  that  campus.  

 

28

Each  team,  for  several  weeks,  researched  the  seven  driving  forces  pushing  and  pulling  higher  

education   for   their   particular   scenario   and  developed  a  written  description  of  Hawaii  within  

the   world   of   2060   for   their   specific   future.   Table   1   presents   a   simplified   overview   of   the  

distinguishing  features  of  each  driving  force  for  each  societal  future.  

 

Table  1  Seven  driving  forces  and  their  implications  on  each  of  the  four  generic  scenarios  

Futures:   Grow     Collapse   Discipline   Transform  Forces:          Population   Increasing   Declining   Diminished   Posthuman  Energy   Sufficient   Scarce   Limited   Abundant  Economy   Dominant   Survival   Regulated   Trivial  Environment   Conquered   Overshot   Sustainable   Artificial  Culture   Dynamic   Stable   Focused   Complex  Technology   Accelerating   Stable   Restricted   Transformative  Governance   Corporate   Local   Strict   Direct  

 

With   the   scenarios   and   forces   concretely   specified,   the   teams   then   developed   written  

descriptions  of  the  University  of  Hawaii  at  Manoa  appropriate  for  their  societal   future.  Then,  

they   engaged   in   architectural   planning   and   decision   making,   leading   to   a   design   of   three-­‐

dimensional  models  of  their  particular  University  of  Hawaii  at  Manoa.  Those  models  not  only  

represented   physical   elements   of   the   campus,   but   also   conveyed   its   systems,   operations,  

virtual   spaces,  pedagogies  and  communities.  The   teams  employed  concepts  grounded   in   the  

architectural   design   theory,   especially   those   of   Alexander   (1964),   Cherry   (1999)   and   Pena  

(2001).  The  teams  created  parti  or  visual  representations  of  each  of  the  campuses,  using  them  

to   guide   their   construction   of   plastic   three-­‐dimensional   models   for   each   of   the   alternative  

campuses,  and  a  prototype  building  for  each.  

 

The  Four  Futures  of  Hawaii  and  Four  Forms  of  the  University  of  Hawaii  at  Manoa  

 

Hawaii  Grow  2060:  Grow  and  Succeed!  

Hawaii  is  a  thriving,  growing  community  within  a  prosperous  and  growing  world  

 

▄  Population:  World—10  billion;  Hawaii—4  million  

29

▄  Environment:  Totally  human-­‐dominated;  entirely  artificial  with  “no  problems”  

▄  Economy:  High  growth  and  high  tech;  extensively  dynamic  and  entrepreneurial  

▄  Technology:  Ubiquitous  and  effective,  but  with  humans  in  control  

▄  Energy:  Plenty  of  fossil  fuels,  nuclear  energy  and  renewable  sources  

▄  Culture:  No  dominant  culture  in  Hawaii;  few  native  Hawaiians  remain    

▄  Governance:  The  United  States  governments  weak;  entrepreneurs  and  nonprofits  active  

 

University  of  Hawaii  at  Manoa  Grow  2060:  Al-­‐Madhi  University  Hawaii    

 

The   old   "University   of   Hawaii   system"   was   acquired   by   Al-­‐Madhi   Futures,   a   highly   dynamic  

global  conglomerate  focusing  on  new  technologies,  entrepreneurism  and  entertainment.   It   is  

headquartered  in  Baghdad,  Iraq.  The  primary  mission  of  al-­‐Mahdi  University  Hawaii  is  to  be  a  

major   engine   of   local   and   global   economic   growth   through   local   and   global   strategic  

partnerships,   by   producing   creative,   adaptable,   efficient   and   critical   entrepreneurs   who   not  

only  develop  new  high   technologies  but   also   create   start-­‐up  organizations   that  produce  and  

sell   them.   Producing   entrepreneurs   and   new   technologies   is   the   main   goal   of   al-­‐Mahdi  

University  Hawaii.  

 

Between  50,000  and  100,000  participants  are  on  the  Hawaii  campus  on  any  given  day.  Most  

learners,   trainers,   researchers,   business   partners   and   supervisors   participate   remotely   from  

around   the   world   though   the   numerous   channels   of   three-­‐dimensional/multisensory   virtual  

presence.  Except  for  the  original  Hawaii  Hall  quadrangle,  all  buildings  of  the  old  University  of  

Hawaii  at  Manoa  have  been  torn  down  and  replaced  by  modern,  efficient  office   towers.  The  

bottom   floors   and   surrounding   courtyards   resemble   a   crowded   Persian   bazaar   in   which  

learning,   research,   sports   and   entertainment   entrepreneurs   hawk   their   modules   and   other  

products  continually.  Middle  levels  include  flexi-­‐spaces  that  can  be  easily  reconfigured  to  serve  

as  real  or  virtual  research  and  learning  areas.  Just  above  them  are  rooms  and  apartments  for  

learners,  trainers  and  researchers  mixed  together,  while  the  top  floors  are  the  executive  and  

administrative  suites  and  residencies  for  the  al-­‐Mahdi  supervisors  and  directors.  

 Assumption   Hawaii   is   a   thriving,   growing   community   within   a   prosperous   and   growing  

world.  

30

Mission   Al-­‐Mahdi  University  Hawaii   is  part  of  a  highly  dynamic  global   conglomerate  focusing  on  new  technologies,  entrepreneurism  and  entertainment.  

Participant   Many   learners,   trainers,   researchers,   business   partners   and   supervisors  participate  remotely   from  around  the  world  though  the  numerous  channels  of   three-­‐dimensional/multisensory   virtual   presence.   Only   courses   that   sell  are  offered  except  for  a  few  loss-­‐leaders.  

Resource   Ample  money,  fossil  fuels,  nuclear  energy  and  renewable  sources.  Pedagogy   A  blend  of  methods  that   facilitate   learning  activities   in  virtual  spaces  aimed  

at  producing  high  tech  commercial  products.  Campus   The   university   operates   like   a   corporation   where   experts   in   business   and  

fiscal  management  run  the  administration.  

 

Description  of  the  campus  of  the  University  of  Hawaii  at  Manoa  Grow  2060,  and  its  prototype  

building  

 

The   design   of   al-­‐Madhi   University   Hawaii   mega   buildings   is   for   high   growth   total   flexible  

architecture.  Total  flexible  architecture  offers  total  freedom  of  spatial  configuration—not  only  

flexible   instant   plan   changes   but   also   volumetric   modifications.   All   spaces   are   open   to  

reconfiguration  and  modification  according  to  the  needs  of  the  users.  However,  buildings  still  

have  a  permanent  exterior  skin  as  well  as  permanent  structural  elements.  

 

The  difference  between  our  design  and  what  already  exists  (such  as  the  open  floor  plan  design  

that  has  been  practiced  through  various  architectures  such  as  Toyo  Ito’s  Sendai  Mediatheque  

and  the  Centre  Pompidue  by  Renzo  Piano  and  Richard  Rogers)   is  that  of  volumetric  freedom.  

Changes   in  ceiling  height   (from  various  heights   to  no  height  at  all)  as  well  as  plans  maximize  

usage  as  a  magic  box  that  is  able  to  contain  any  program.      

 

The  ability  to  achieve  this  type  of  volumetric  freedom  allows  the  walls  themselves  to  act  and  

become  a   changeable  entity  while   facilitating  entrepreneurship   through  advertisements.  We  

are  all   accustomed   to  boards  on  walls  with   information  on  what   they  are   trying   to  promote  

and  sell.  In  our  design,  we  go  beyond  boards,  and  make  advertisements  become  one  with  the  

wall,   structure,   façade   and   skin.   Our   building   is   a   place   of   liveliness   that   people   come   to  

experience  as  if  shopping  in  a  mall.  People  have  the  opportunity  to  experience  walls  that  are  

virtual,  can  be  projected  or  even  be  formed  by  the  touch  of  a  hand.  The  spaces  will  have  the  

31

ability  to  form  quickly  according  to  the  wants  and  needs  of  the  users.    

 

Prototype  building:  In  accordance  to  our  future  scenario,  we  have  generated  a  building  that  is  

able   to  adjust  and  change   throughout  all   events.   The  building   itself  does  not  have  a   specific  

function.  It  can  be  reorganized  according  to  the  program  of  each  event.  The  building  form  no  

longer  limits  its  uses.  Freedom  of  plug-­‐ins  for  interior  spaces  will  permit  any  shape,  context  or  

program.  

 

Hawaii  Begin  2060:  Survival  +  

Hawaii  is  a  thriving,  self-­‐sufficient,  postcollapse  community  of  new  beginnings.  

 

▄  Population:  World—3  billion;  Hawaii—400,000  

▄  Environment:  Still  severely  contaminated;  sea  level  rise;  severe  climate  change  

▄  Economy:  Agriculture  and  aquaculture  based  on  manual  labor  and  simple  machines  

▄  Technology:  Recycled  technologies;  new  technologies  that  enhance  food  production  

▄  Energy:  Manual,  renewable  with  some  biofuel  and  local  hydro  or  solar  electricity  

▄  Culture:  Focused  on  survival  and  enhancement  with  old  and  new  technologies  

▄  Governance:  Island-­‐wide  council  of  local  representatives;  no  “chiefs”  

 

University  of  Hawaii  at  Manoa  Begin  2060:  New  Beginnings  University  in  Manoa  

 

After   many   years   of   chaos   and   conflict   following   the   global   economic   and   environmental  

collapse  of  2015,  some  of   the  remaining   inhabitants  of  Oahu  converged  on  Manoa  Valley  on  

New  Year's  Day  2030  to  survey  and  reclaim  the  remains  of  the  old  University  of  Hawaii  campus  

there.   Unlike   the   old   University   of   Hawaii   at   Manoa,   this   new   center   of   learning   (New  

Beginnings,  as   it  was  to  be  called)  provides  a  place  for  storing,   learning,  creating  and  sharing  

the  knowledge  and  technologies  necessary  for  creating  and  sustaining  a  new,  smaller,  vibrant  

and  completely  self-­‐sufficient  Hawaii.  

 

The  mission  of  the  New  Beginnings  University  is  to  preserve  and  pass  on  useful  knowledge  and  

artifacts  from  the  past,  and  to  cultivate  and  transmit  new  information  and  techniques  that  will  

32

benefit  the  survival  and  enhancement  of  the  Oahu  community  as  a  whole.  On  any  given  day,  

there   may   be   between   5,000   and   6,000   participants   at   New   Beginnings.   Initially,   most  

participants   were   of   two   kinds—teachers   and   learners—though  most   often,   each   individual  

played  both  roles—teaching  what  one  knew  and  learning  what  one  did  not.  Now  there  are  also  

1)  formal  teachers,  2)  preservers  of  old  knowledge,  3)  experts  especially  adept  in  certain  skills  

and  4)  people  who  create  new  knowledge  and  technologies.  

   

Of   special   interest   at   the   University   of   Hawaii   at   Manoa   are   advanced   techniques   for  

agriculture,   aquaculture,   energy   generation   and   transmission,   and   transportation,   with   an  

increased   focus   on   how   to   utilize   every   piece   of   material   and   all   the   natural   processes   for  

enhanced   living.   Each   learner—as   well   as   each   teacher,   preserver,   adept   and   creator—is  

expected   to   spend   some   time   tending   the   gardens   and   animals,   preparing   food,   recycling  

wastes,   cleaning   the   environment,   repairing   the   learning   areas   and   all   the   other   things  

necessary   for   a   healthy   and   meaningful   communal   life.   The   entire   campus   is   a   living   and  

breathing   environmental   and   cultural   experiment   for   the   benefit   of   the   entire   island  

community.  

 Assumption   Hawaii   is   a   thriving,   self-­‐sufficient,   postcollapse   community   of   new  

beginnings.  Mission   New   Beginnings   in   Manoa   is   a   learning   center   that   provides   a   place   for  

storing,   learning,   creating   and   sharing   the   knowledge   and   technologies  necessary  for  a  completely  self-­‐sufficient  Hawaii.  

Participant   Teachers   and   learners   play   both   roles   and   as   teacher,   preserver,   adept   or  creator.  

Resource   Manual,  renewable  with  some  biofuel  and  local  electricity.  Pedagogy   Indigenous  ways  of  learning  take  place  within  the  natural  environment  where  

a  group  or  an  individual  seeks  out  a  mentor  to  learn  something  necessary  or  desired.  

Campus   The  physical  campus  itself  comprises  the  buildings,  structures  and  resources  of   the   old  University   of   Hawaii   at  Manoa  which  were   abandoned   after   the  disaster  of  2015  and  reclaimed  in  2030,  plus  new  shelters.  

 

Description  of  the  campus  of  the  University  of  Hawaii  at  Manoa  Begin  2060,  and  its  prototype  

building    

 

33

The  campus  of  the  New  Beginnings  University  in  Manoa  is  a  space  for  collaboration  and  shared  

knowledge   between   all   members   of   society   so   that   the   community   can   survive   and   thrive.  

There  are  no   longer  any  boundaries   restricting   integration  of   the  wider   community  with   the  

university  community.  Any  old  technologies  that  are  still  functional,  along  with  that  which  has  

been  created  recently,  are  used  to  enhance  survival.    

The  university   is   a   realm  of   collaborative   research  among  all  members  of   the   community   as  

they   search   for   ways   to   ensure   community   survival   in   an   environment   of   almost   complete  

isolation   from   the   rest   of   the   world.   Though   the   campus   focuses   on   the   preservation   and  

progression  of  higher  education,   it   is   also   the  hub  of   community  gatherings  where  all   active  

inhabitants   of   the   island   can   come   to   have   their   concerns   addressed.   This   collaborative  

structural  system,  one  without  any  underlying  hierarchies  or  classification  restrictions,  allows  

for   an   open   and   inviting   atmosphere   where   issues   facing   the   community   find   mutually  

beneficial  solutions.        

 

Prototype  building:  The  New  Beginnings  prototype  building   is  a   synthesis  of   two   intersecting  

structures.  The  base  structure  is  the  exoskeleton  of  an  old  campus  building.  It  functions  as  the  

collaborative   hub   for   evolving   campus   knowledge   reinforced   through   the   layout   of   the  

building.   The   first   floor   is   used   for   food   storage   and   preparation,   and   as   an   indoor/outdoor  

social-­‐gathering   space.  The   second   floor   is  utilized  as  open  areas   for   learning  and  expanding  

community  knowledge.  The  top  floor  has  been  adapted  as  an  archival  space  for  collecting  and  

preserving   the   information  of   the  society.  The  second  structure   is  a  new  construction.   It   is  a  

movable   structure   composed  of   rubble   and  other   adaptive   reusable  materials   found  on   and  

around  campus.  It  is  seen  as  the  focal-­‐gathering  location  for  the  entire  island  community  and  

can  be  used  just  as  easily  by  100  people  as  by  5000.  This  flexible  and  malleable  nature  of  the  

structure  further  expounds  on  the  importance  of  making  the  most  of  each  and  every  resource  

in   New   Beginnings.   The   design   approach   resembles   that   of   Sam   Mockabee’s   Rural   Studio,  

producing  primal,  sophisticated  modernist  structures  out  of  recycled  material.  

 

Hawaii  Sustain  2060:  Slow…but  Steady!  

Hawaii  is  struggling  towards  environmental,  energy  and  food  sustainability.  

 

34

▄  Population:  World—down  a  third  to  5  billion;  Hawaii—down  one  half  to  600,000  

▄  Environment:  Severely  degraded;  sea  level  rise;  climate  change;  food  shortages  

▄  Economy:  Necessary  growth  without  waste;  modest  expansion  through  efficiency  

▄  Technology:  New  and  old  technology  for  environmental  sustainability  

▄  Energy:  Few  fossil  fuels;  research  for  reliable  renewable  sources  

▄  Culture:  From  consumerism  to  conservation;  from  materialism  to  spiritualism  

▄  Governance:  By  scientists,  engineers  and  other  experts  aimed  at  sustainability    

 

University  of  Hawaii  at  Manoa  Sustain  2060:  The  Global  Green  University  of  the  Pacific  

 

The   collapse   of   the   global   economic   system,   catastrophic   regional   food   shortages,   and   the  

multiple  energy  and  ecological  crises  that  plagued  the  early  21st  century  led  to  mass  starvation,  

many  episodes  of  extensive  violence  and  death,  and  the  migration  of  millions  of  environmental  

refugees  around  the  world.  Thus,  a  new  global  governance  system  emerged  from  an  economic  

gathering   of   the   G-­‐20.   The   G-­‐20   created   a   network   of   transnational   research   universities  

around  the  globe,  funding  them  substantially  to  do  the  research  and  development  needed  for  

survival.  The  old  University  of  Hawaii  at  Manoa  was  designated  the  Global  Green  University  of  

the  Pacific  (GGUP)  and  soon  became  one  of  the  most  important  of  them  all.  

 

Now,  in  2060,  the  GGUP  specializes  in  learning  how  to  utilize  the  resources  of  the  ocean,  earth  

and  space   to   solve  energy,   food,  environmental  and   related  challenges.  The   total  number  of  

participants   on   the   GGUP   campus   is   roughly   20,000   to   25,000.   The   GGUP   has   recruited  

outstanding  global  scientists,   leaders,  visionaries,  engineers,  designers  and  economists   in  the  

fields   of   ocean,   earth   and   space   sciences.   There   are   also   humanists,   philosophers,   ethicists,  

spiritual   leaders,   poets,   singers   and   dancers   who   roam   the   campus   providing  

emotional/aesthetic   critique   and   depth   to   the   severe   science/engineering   based   enterprise.  

Competition   to   become   a   learner   at   the   GGUP   is   intense.   Only   the   very   best   are   chosen—

people  who   are   disciplined,  well   trained   and   hardworking.   Learners   do   not   passively   attend  

lectures.  Rather,   they  become   interns  on  projects,   immediately  working  on  practical  ways   to  

solve  specific  energy,  environmental  and  food  problems.  While  the  G-­‐20  provides  substantial  

financial  support  from  its  limited  budget  for  research,  we  need  to  be  very  frugal  and  efficient  

35

in   spending   it.   Learning  starts  with   the  self-­‐awareness  of  one's  own  mind.  Advances   in  brain  

science  and   the   functional   information  about   the  human  genome  have  set  a  new  course   for  

learning.  

 

Assumption   Hawaii  is  struggling  towards  environmental,  energy  and  food  sustainability.  Mission   The   GGUP   is   a   representative   of   the   new   world   order   as   captured   in   the  

phrase,  “Tighten  your  belts  and  save,  and  produce  more  than  you  consume.”  Participant   Outstanding   global   scientists,   leaders,   visionaries,   engineers,   designers   and  

economists   in   the   fields   of   ocean,   earth   and   space   sciences   as   well   as  humanists  and  anesthetists  are  recruited.  

Resource   Fossil  fuels  are  limited  and  expensive.  The  G-­‐20  provides  substantial  financial  support.  

Pedagogy   Learners   are   interns   on  projects,   immediately  working  on  practical  ways   to  solve  specific  energy,  environmental  and  food  problems.  

Campus   The   campus   has   energy-­‐efficient   buildings,   living   quarters   and   classrooms  that  are  used  for  multiple  purposes.  

 

Description  of  the  campus  of  the  University  of  Hawaii  at  Manoa  Sustain  2060,  and  its  prototype  

building  

   

The   campus   of   the  GGUP   is   a   showcase   of   the   latest   and   greatest   energy   conservation   and  

generation   technologies,   comprised  of  many   smaller   buildings,  with   high   recyclability,  which  

can   be   renovated   or   replaced   to   ensure   they   are   running   at   maximum   energy   and  

environmental  efficiency.  The  larger  scale  buildings  of  the  campus  are  designed  for  a  lifespan  

in  excess  of   100   years  with  exceptionally  durable  materials   and   flexibility.  Carbon  neutral   or  

zero-­‐energy  buildings  are  not  just  an  ideal  to  aspire  to—they  are  the  minimum  standard.  With  

its   prominent   Pacific   location,   the   GGUP   also   serves   as   the   gateway   between   Eastern   and  

Western  civilizations  and  philosophies,  all  aimed  at  conservation  and  sufficiency.  

 

Many   classrooms   and   research   facilities   have   been   removed   from  Manoa   and   placed   near  

where   they   serve:   the  medical   school   near   the   hospitals;   business   school   downtown;   travel  

industry  at   the  airport;   School  of  Hawaiian  Knowledge  near  Kamehameha,  Kalihi;   and   so  on.  

They  are  linked  by  the  City's  mass  transit  rail  system.  

 

36

The  GGUP  is  a  model  for  energy  and  environmental  awareness.  Student  housing  has  a  mixed-­‐

use  environment  and  is  placed  at  the  edges  of  the  campus  that  border  the  larger  community,  

creating  opportunities  for  them  to  meet  and  mingle.  

 

Prototype  building:  Our  design  for  the  main  science  campus  building  aims  to  change  the  way  

people  view  a  sustainable  lifestyle  and  architecture.  Users  are  encouraged  and  conditioned  to  

assume  conserving  behavior  with  a  Rationing  and  Energy  Card  Reward  System.  Every   time  a  

user   leaves  a   light  on  or  forgets  to  remove  a  phantom  load,  points  are  deducted.  Our  design  

aims   to   make   users   self-­‐aware   of   their   actions   with   respect   to   sustainability.   The   building  

features   column   tunnels   that   not   only   act   as   structure   and   circulation   paths,   but   maximize  

volume  of  air  movement  and  natural   sunlight,  which  will,   in   turn,   cool  and   light   the  building  

passively.  

 

The  science  center  serves  to  bring  together  multiple  disciplines  to  work  together  and  test  out  

ideas,  creating  spaces  that  can  bring  together  nanoscientists,  chemical  engineers,  philosophers  

and  artists  to  collaborate  and  create  groundbreaking  developments.  A  flexible,  open  floor  plan  

allows  for  reconfiguration  of  offices  and  classrooms  as  necessary.  Room  configurations  can  be  

easily  adapted  to  specific  needs  and  usages.    

 

Hawaii  Transform  2060:  Beyond  Singularity  to  Dynamic  Cosmic  Diversity!  

Hawaii  is  a  dynamic  part  of  a  changing,  diverse  inner  solar  system.  

 

▄  Population:  Transhumans,  cyborgs,  and  artilects—too  numerous  and  transient  to  count  

▄  Environment:  Entirely  artificial;  earth  a  designed  and  maintained  garden  

▄  Economy:  Abundance;  anything  is  a  resource,  and  nothing  is  waste  

▄  Technology:  Dominated  by  intelligent,  autonomous  robots  and  mind-­‐controlling,  posthuman  

nanotechnology;  limited  teleportation  

▄  Energy:  Plentiful  and  cheap;  from  nuclear  fusion  and  solar  satellites  

▄  Culture:  Artificial,  but  Hawaii  tries  to  remain  a  real  and  yearned-­‐for  “paradise”  

▄  Governance:  Hive  mind  via  bioelectronic  networking;  intelligent  government  chips  

 

37

University  of  Hawaii  at  Manoa  Trans  2060:  Transform  You  in  Manoa  

 

Ray  Kurzweil,  Hans  Moravec,  Ian  Pearson  and  all  of  the  other  high  technology  optimists  were  

right!  In  spite  of  the  economic  recession  in  the  early  21st  century,  technological  developments  

continued   to  accelerate  at  an  ever-­‐increasing  pace.  The  consequence,  however,  was  not   the  

“singularity”  they  anticipated,  but  instead  a  flowering  of  ever-­‐transforming  diversity.  Hawaii  is  

both  a  dynamic,  ever-­‐changing  physical  paradise  on  Earth  and  an  inspiring  vision  of  an  “even  

better   world”   in   cyberspace.   It   is   both   autonomous   and   yet   fully   integrated   physically   and  

virtually  with  all  activities  on  the  globe  and  the  inner  solar  system.    

 

Hawaii  is  considered  by  some  seers  to  be  the  center  of  the  universe-­‐becoming-­‐self-­‐conscious.  

Thus,   the   old  University   of  Hawaii   at  Manoa   has   become   Transform  You   in  Manoa,   a   prime  

place  for   intelligences  to  gather  who  wish  to  study  and  develop  powers  of  self  and  collective  

consciousness  and  mind  control.  Like  everything  else  about  the  highly  flexible  Transform  You,  

the  number  of  participants  on  any  given  day  varies  from  about  2,000  to  the  millions,  including  

humans,  posthumans,  avatars,  and  artilects.    

 

Transform  You  in  Manoa  as  well  as  its  pioneering  branch  campus  on  Valles  Marineris,  Mars  has  

become  one  of   the  primary  places   intelligences   “go”   (physically   and/or   virtually)   to  enhance  

and   evolve   their   consciousness.   The   University   of   Hawaii   at   Manoa   has   also   developed  

considerable   expertise   in   “special   needs”   research   and   applications,   and   so   many   older  

homosapiens   ludditus   are   on   campus   to   learn   how   to   live   and   love   with   their   artilect  

companions.  Most  environmental,  energy,  and  even  economic  concerns  of  the  past  are  rapidly  

receding.   There   is   no   such   thing   as   either   waste   or   natural   resource—via   nanotechnology,  

molecules  can  always  be  changed  from  one  structure  to  another  at  will   (indeed,   increasingly  

merely  by  thought).  

 Assumption   Hawaii  is  a  dynamic  part  of  a  changing,  diverse  inner  solar  system.  Mission   Transform   You   in   Manoa   is   the   center   of   the   universe-­‐becoming-­‐self-­‐

conscious.  Participant   Humans,  posthumans,  avatars,  and  artilects.    Resource   Plentiful   and  cheap.  Resources  and   information  are  dispersed  and  available  

anywhere,  anyplace,  anytime.  

38

Pedagogy   Learners  are  diverse,  and  education  is  universally  interdisciplinary.  Campus   Structures  are  composed  of  psychoreactive  material   that  can  be  configured  

and  reconfigured   into  poly  units,  based  on  human   interaction  and  thoughts  controlling  nanotechnological  processes.  

 

 

 

Description   of   the   campus   of   the   University   of   Hawaii   at   Manoa   Transform   2060,   and   its  

prototype  building    

 

Clarke   (1973)   said   “any   sufficiently   advanced   technology   is   indistinguishable   from  magic”   (p.  

21).  Thus,  in  a  society  that  is  as  exponentially  more  technologically  advanced  than  the  present  

day  (as   is   the  case  of  Transform  2060),  almost  anything  that  can  be  dreamed  of  can  become  

reality.   Information   retrieval   is   instant   as   the   vast   majority   of   humans   are   biologically  

enhanced  with  the  help  of  the  nanobot  technology  and  perpetually  tied  in  to  the  metaverse.  

For   those   who   have   decided   to   pursue   higher   education,   learning   itself   has   changed   from  

accessing   information   to   applying   it   in   the  hopes  of   gaining  wisdom.  As   for  others,   it   simply  

means  attempting  to  keep  up  with  the  rapid  rate  of  technological  change.  And  still  for  others,  

it  means   learning  how   to  do   things   the  old  ways,   just   for   the  perverse   fun  of   it.  As  a   result,  

there   exists   some   redundancy   of   systems   for   those   who  may   not   be   comfortable   with   the  

present   technology,   such   as   that   of   using   the   teleportation   nodes   as   the   primary  means   of  

public  transit.  

 

Prototype   building:  Once   the  more   optimistic   expectations   of   nanotechnology   are   achieved,  

whatever   is  desired   is  what   the  campus  can  be.  Strategically   located  nanotechnology   towers  

distribute   raw   materials   when   and   where   needed   to   assemble   entire   classroom   structures  

based  on  user  preference,   climate,   zoning,  and   the   scheduling  of  other  activities.  Depending  

on  the  activities  of  the  day,  these  sculptural  towers  will  themselves  fluctuate.  Certain  research  

and  residential  functions  require  a  more  static  footprint,  and  consequently,  certain  large-­‐scale  

structures   and   towers   remain   in   a   constant   location   though   their   size   and   shape   might  

fluctuate   dramatically   over   longer   periods   of   time.   The   administration   of   the   campus   is  

governed   mostly   by   artificial   intelligence   based   on   guidelines   thought   up   with   the   help   of  

39

human  counterparts.  Mind  control  of  matter  is  advanced,  and  thus,  the  function  of  nanobots,  

structures,  pathways,  and  everything  else  on  campus  can  be  controlled  by  the  users’  mind  so  

long  as  their  requests  fall  within  the  set  parameters  established  by  the  campus-­‐at-­‐large.  

 

   

Figure  1  The  University  of  Hawaii  at  Manoa  campus  in  2010  

40

University  of  Hawaii  Campus  Future  Scenarios

Collapse:  5,000  students Grow:  100,000  students

Sustain:  25,000  students Transform:  2,000-­‐millions  students

 

  Figure  2  Model  of  each  of  the  four  campuses  of  2060  

 

 

41

 

Figure  3  Prototypic  building  for  each  of  the  four  campuses  of  2060  

 

Discussion  

Alternative  v.  Preferred  Futures  

It   is   important   to   remember   that   the   generic   four   images   of   the   future—grow,   collapse,  

discipline,  and  transform—are  derived  from  an  analysis  over  many  years  of  what  people  have  

said  they  hope,  fear,  expect,  or  desire  the  future  to  be  like.  Those  four  categories  are  different  

views  of  the  future   in  and  of  themselves.  What  we  hope  for  the  future  may  not  be  what  we  

expect  or  even  what  we  desire.  What  we  fear  may  or  may  not  be  what  we  expect  the  future  to  

42

be  like.  We  analyzed  formal  plans  for  the  future,  popular  fiction,  images  of  advertising,  books  

by   futurists   or   others—wherever   ideas   about   the   future   were   expressed,   we   tried   to  

understand  their  basis  and  implications.  

 

The   specific   futures   that  we  described  of  Hawaii   and   the  University  of  Hawaii,   however,   are  

only   four   among   the   myriad   of   ways   in   which   generic   futures   could   have   been   concretely  

described.  We   believe   each   of   our   descriptions   is   plausible   and   logically-­‐consistent  with   the  

generic  form  and  its  internal  construction.  But,  they  are  by  no  means  inevitable  or  exclusive.  

 

Each   future  was   also   described   enthusiastically   and  positively   from  within   its   own   logic.  We  

tried   not   privilege   or   denigrate   any   of   the   four.   We   wanted   to   present   each   as   fairly   and  

positively  as  possible,  but  showing  the  weaknesses  and  inadequacies  of  each  as  well.  It  is  very  

important   that   one   understands   this.   Therefore,   the   four   alternative   futures,   overall,   aim   at  

providing  people  with  diverse   images  of  the  future  that  challenge  their  own  views  about  the  

future,  and  challenging  them  to  also  create  their  own  preferred  future  that  is  better  than  any  

of  the  four.  

 

The  description  of  the  university  in  each  of  the  four  futures  is  also  intended  to  make  clear  that  

there  is  no  "best  case"  future  to  hope  for  or  "worst  case"  future  to  be  feared.  Universities  (and  

everything  else)  can  thrive  or  fail  in  any  future  depending,  in  part,  on  how  they  were  designed.  

Planners  should  plan  for  success  across  a  wide  range  of  alternative  futures  and  only  on  the  

basis  of  a  single  "most  likely"  future  which  may  not  be  likely  at  all.  

 

Similarly,   it   is   very   important   to   understand   that   none   of   the   four   images   is   our   preferred  

image   of   the   future   of   Hawaii   or   of   higher   education.   As   we   have   tried   to   make   clear,   in  

determining  one's  preferred  future,  it  is  necessary  to  follow  a  series  of  specific  steps.  We  have  

taken  and  displayed  those  steps  here.  A  huge  mistake  that  is  commonly  made  is  to  ask  people  

to   envision   and   move   towards   a   preferred   future   before   they   have   seriously   considered  

alternative  futures.  Thus,  we  have  focused,  in  our  paper,  on  what  is  necessary  to  be  done  first  

in  order   to   then  envision  a  preferred   future,  namely,   to  develop  or  embrace  some  theory  of  

social  change;  to  use  the  theory  to  acquire  and  analyze  information  from  the  past  and  present;  

43

and   then   to   use   the   theory   and   data,   along   with   certain   methods   from   futures   studies,   to  

develop  and  somehow  "experience"  four  alternative  futures.  

 

Once   that   has   been   done,   it   is   then   possible   to   engage   in   a   futures   visioning   exercise   that  

envisions  a  preferred   future  not   just  of   an   institution  of  higher  education,  but   specifically  of  

the   environment   within   which   that   institution   will   be   situated.   In   this   paper,   we   thus   have  

illustrated   how   to   take   all   the   steps   but   the   last   and  most   important   one—envisioning   and  

then   planning,   in   detail,   on   how   to  move   towards   a   preferred   future   for   society   and   higher  

education.  

 

Six  Dimensions  are  Unique,  but  are  They  Sufficient?  

Each  alternative  future  of  the  University  of  Hawaii  at  Manoa  2060  considered  six  dimensions  of  

the   university:   assumption   about   the   society   it   is   in;   basic   mission   of   the   institution;  

participant—broadly   understood;   resource—human,   fiscal,   and   physical;   pedagogy—what   is  

taught  and  researched,  and  how;  and  form  of  a  physical  campus.  We  believe  we  are  unique  in  

considering   such   a   wide   variety   of   dimensions   within   a   four   futures   format.   But,   are   there  

dimensions  we  have  missed?  Did  we  try  to  cram  too  many  things  into  just  six  dimensions?  We  

welcome  comment  on  this.  

 

Participants  in  the  Campuses  2060  Project  

We   also   believe   that   our   project   brings   additional   and   unique   value   by   involving   architects,  

futurists,  and  educators  in  every  aspect  of  the  project  from  the  very  beginning.  This  has  been  a  

true   team  project  with  members   of   the   teams   changing   as   the   rhythm  of   semesters  moved  

some  members  out  and  new  ones   in.  Thus,  we  have  been  and  are  now  very  attentive  to  the  

interrelationship  between  function  and  form  in  higher  education  historically,  at  present,  and  in  

the  futures.  We  are  not  aware  of  any  other  such  effort  elsewhere  in  the  world.  

 

However,   in   this   process,   we   have   faced   some   problems   brought   about   by   the   changes   of  

participating   members.   Each   semester   brought   a   different   mix   of   participants,   many   brand  

new   to   the   project,   some   experienced.   Moreover,   all   of   the   work   was   voluntary   within   a  

classroom  environment.  There  was  essentially  no  funding  for  any  aspects  of  our  project  save  

44

for  the  money  that  enabled  presentations  at  one  or  two  conferences.      

 

We  have  been  so  busy  planning  and  doing  our  projects  each  semester  that  we  have  not  had  a  

chance  either  to  write  up  our  work  in  detail  or  seek  proper  funding  for  it.  We  would  very  much  

welcome  suggestions  for  possible  funding  so  that  we  can  put  this  project  on  a  solid  academic  

research  basis  with  paid  researchers  instead  of  voluntary  students  only—though  we  think  the  

pedagogical  experience  for  the  students  are  extremely  valuable.  

 

Response  From  the  Audience  

We  have  displayed  our  work  on  three  occasions.  One  was  for  the  faculty  and  administrators  of  

Windward  Community  College;  one  was  for  a  meeting  of  the  faculty  of  the  University  of  Hawaii  

at  Manoa  College  of  Education;  and  one  was  at  a  small  international  workshop  specifically  on  

the  Futures  of  Campuses  for  Higher  Education  Project,  which  was  held  on  13  and  14  November  

2009,  at  the  School  of  Architecture,  University  of  Hawaii  at  Manoa.  We  received  many  helpful  

responses   from   the   audience   at   these   meetings.   They   helped   shape   our   subsequent   work.  

Here  is  one  example  from  a  careful  observer  who  was  an  economist  at  the  University  of  Hawaii  

at  Manoa:    

Begin  and  Sustain:  It  occurred  to  me  that  the  “history”  behind  these  scenarios  

in   2060   might   well   lead   the   society   members   to   be   particularly   concerned   about  

outsiders   and/or   “new”   ideas.   In   the   Begin   scenario,   the   trauma   of   a   near   total  

collapse  might   lead  to  a   relatively  conservative  point  of  view  with  respect   to  outside  

people  or  ideas.  Even  the  Sustain  scenario  follows  a  crisis  so  that  new  ideas  might  be  

frowned  upon  or  substantially  scrutinized  for  “dangerous”  elements.    The  “discipline”  

of   this   scenario   might   also   extend   to   top-­‐down   decisions   about   permitted   verses  

nonpermitted  ideas.  In  both  cases,  I  wondered  if  this  might  get  reflected  in  the  future  

curriculum  and  even  the  physical  environment  of  the  campus.    

Grow:  The  corporation  dominance  of   this  scenario  should  really  be  adjusted  

so  that  the  focus  is  really  on  entrepreneurial  activity.  I  wanted  to  note  that  one  should  

be  careful  about  starting  the  analytical  story  from  the  goals  of  business.  An  economist  

would  argue  that,  at  least  in  a  competitive  (multisupplier)  environment,  businesses  will  

be   focused   on   trying   to   meet   perceived   consumer   desires.   How   well   businesses  

45

perceive  those  desires  and  react  to  them,  and  whether  fine  distinctions  can  be  made  

between   individual  consumer  desires   in  a  way  that   is  profitable,  would  be   important  

for  characterizing  the  “desirability”  of  this  future.    

Transform:  My  first  reaction  to  this  scenario  was  that  it  was  not  at  all  clear  if  

there   was   any   need   for   a   physical   university   in   this   future.   In   a   real   sense,   this  

observation  may  point  out  the  limitation  of  connecting  futures  analysis  to  architecture  

(or,   in   other   contexts,   other   disciplines):   If   technology   makes   a   particular   space  

unnecessary,   then   there   is   not  much   that   architects   can   contribute   to   this   scenario.  

This   problem   may   apply   to   linking   futures   with   other   fields   as   well—there   may   be  

limitations  defined  by  the  subject  matter  of  those  fields.    

 I  enjoyed  seeing  this  real  application  of  futures  studies  methods,  and  I  found  

it  quite  stimulating.    

 

Conclusion  

 

A  major  purpose  of  our  project  is  to  develop  the  knowledge  and  expertise  at  the  University  of  

Hawaii   at   Manoa   to   become   a   major   world   resource   for   people   thinking   and   planning   the  

futures  of  higher  education  anywhere   in   the  world.  We  believe   that  we  are  well  on   the  way  

towards  that  goal  and  would  most  sincerely  welcome  comments  and  cooperation  from  others  

who  share  our  interests.  

 

References    

 

Note:  This  list  of  references  is  of  sources  consulted  and  used  in  preparation  of  the  Hawaii  2050  

and  2060  projects  described  above.  It  has  not  been  updated  to  reflect  newer  sources  of  which  

we  are  also  aware  as  we  continue  our  work.  

 

Alexander,  C.  (1964)  Notes  on  the  synthesis  of  form.  Cambridge,  MA:  Harvard  paperback  

Brown  v.  Board  of  Education,  347  US  483  (1954)  

Cherry,  E.  (1999).  Programming  for  design:  From  theory  to  practice.  New  York:  Wiley.  

46

Clarke,  A.  C.  Profiles  of  The  Future,  New  York:  Harper  and  Row,  Revised  Edition,  1973  

 

Dator,  J.  (1999).  UH  can  be  good,  but  not  great.  Honolulu  Star-­‐Bulletin  

http://starbulletin.com/1999/01/23/editorial/special.html  

 

Dator,   J.   (2005).   Universities   without   “quality”   and   quality   without   “universities,"   On   the  

Horizon,  13,  (4),  199-­‐215.    

 

Geiger,  R.  (Ed.).  (2000).  The  American  college  in  the  Nineteenth  Century.  Nashville,  TN:  

Vanderbilt  University  Press  

 

Graham,  G.  (2002).  Universities:  The  recovery  of  an  idea.  Thorverton,  UK:  Imprint  Academic.  

Hofstadter,  R.,  &  Smith,  W.  (Eds.)  (1961).  American  Higher  Education:  A  Documentary  History  

(Vol.  1  &  2).  Chicago,  IL:  University  of  Chicago  Press  

Jeong,  K.  (2004).  Chosun  sidea  chungkooko  kyoyook  kwa  kyoje  [How  did  people  learn  Chinese  

in  the  Chosun  Dynasty?]  Yijoon  on’o  haghoi,  24,  21-­‐43.    

Kamins,  R.,  &  Potter,  R.  (1998).  Malamalama:  A  history  of  the  University  of  Hawaii.  Honolulu,  

HI:  University  of  Hawaii  Press.  

Kent,  N.  (1993).  Islands  under  the  influence.    Honolulu,  HI:  University  of  Hawaii  Press.  

Lee,  J.  K.  (2002).  Christianity  and  Korean  Education  in  the  Late  Choson  Period.  Christian  Higher  

Education,  1,  85-­‐99.    

 

Lee,  S.  H.  (2004).  Korean  Higher  Education:  History  and  Future  Challenges.  In  P.  G.  Altbach  and  

T.   Umakoshi     (Eds.),   Asian   Universities:   Historical   Perspectives   and   Contemporary  

Challenges  (pp.  145-­‐173).  Baltimore,  MD:  Johns  Hopkins  University  Press.  

 

Lucas,  C.  (2006).  American  higher  education:  A  history.  New  York:  Palgrave  Macmillan.    

47

 

Pena,  W.  (2001).  Problem  seeking;  An  architectural  program  primer.    New  York:  Wiley.  

 

Rhodes,  F.  H.  T.  (2001).  The  creation  of  the  future:  the  role  of  the  American  university.  Ithaca,  

N.Y.:  Cornell  University  Press.  

Smith,   W.,   &   Bender,   T.   (Ed.)   (2008).   American   higher   education   transformed,   1940-­‐2005:  

Documenting  the  national  discourse.  Baltimore,  MD:  Johns  Hopkins  University  Press  

 

Smith,  Z.  A.,  &  Pratt,  R.  C.  (1992).  Politics  and  Public  Policy  in  Hawaii.    Albany:  State  University  

of  New  York  Press.  

 

Thelin,  J.  (2004).  A  history  of  American  higher  education.  Baltimore,  MD:  Johns  Hopkins  

University  Press.  

Trask,   H-­‐K.   (1999).   From   a   Native   Daughter:   Colonialism   and   Sovereignty   in   Hawai’i.  

Honolulu:  University  of  Hawai’i  Press.  

 

Yount,  D.  (1996).  Who  runs  the  university?  The  politics  of  higher  education  in  Hawaii,  1985-­‐

1992.  Honolulu,  HI:  University  of  Hawaii  Press.  

Appendix  (Further  Reading)  

 

Architecture  

 

Alexander,   C,   Ishikawa,   S.,   Murray   Silverstein,   M.   (1977).   A   pattern   language:   Towns,  

buildings,  construction.   New  York:  Oxford  University  Press,  1977.  

 

Brand,  S.  (1994).  How  buildings  learn:  What  happens  after  they’re  built.  New  York:  Viking.  

 

Dober,  R.  (1991).  Campus  Design.  New  York:  Wiley.    

48

 

Mitchell  Jr.,  W.  (1996).  City  of  Bits.  Cambridge,  MA:  MIT  Press  

 

Yeh,  R  (ed)   (1997).  The  making  of  public  spaces.  Proceedings  from  the  Second  International  

Symposium  on  Asia  Pacific  Architecture.  Honolulu:  University  of  Hawaii.    

 

Futures  Studies  

   

Bell,  W.  (1997).  Foundations  of  futures  studies:  Human  science  for  a  new  era.  Two  volumes.  

New  Brunswick,  New  Jersey:  Transaction  Publishers.    

   

Dator,   J.   (Ed.).   (2002).   Advancing   futures:   Futures   studies   in   higher   education.   London:  

Praeger.  

   

Dator,   J.   (2011).   Futures   Studies.   In   W.   S.   Bainbridge.   (Ed.),   Leadership   in   Science   and  

Technology.  (pp.  32-­‐40).  Thousand  Oaks,  California:  Sage  Reference  Series,  Volume  One.  

 

de  Jouvenel,  B.  (1967).  The  art  of  conjecture.  New  York:  Basic  Books.    

     

Slaughter,  R.  (Ed.).  (1996).  The  knowledge  base  of  futures  studies.  Melbourne,  Australia:  DDM  

Media  Group.  

 

Alternative  Futures  Approach  

 

Bezold,  C.  (2009).  Aspirational  Futures.  Journal  of  Futures  Studies,  14  (2),  81-­‐90.  

 

Bezold,   C.   (2009).   Jim   Dator's   Alternative   Futures   an   the   path   to   IAF's   Aspirational   Futures.    

Journal  of  Futures  Studies,  14  (2),  123-­‐134.  

 

Dator,   J.   (1975).   Adult   education   and   the   invention   of   alternative   futures.   Convergence:  

International  Journal  for  Adult  Education,  8  (3),  17-­‐24    

49

 

Dator,  J.  (2009).  Alternative  futures  at  the  Manoa  School.  Journal  of  Futures  Studies,  14  (2),  1-­‐

18.  

 

Dator,  J.  (2006).  Campus  Futures  (published  simultaneously  in)  Planning  for  Higher  Education,  

34  (3),  45-­‐48;  Business  Officer,  39  (10),  24-­‐17;  and  Facilities  Manager,  22  (2),  24-­‐27.  

 

Images  of  Continued  Growth  Futures  

 

Davis,  B.,  &  Wessel,  D.   (1998).    Prosperity:  The  coming  20-­‐year  boom  and  what   it  means  to  

you.  New  York:  New  York  Times  Books.  

   

Davis,  S.,  &  Meyer,  C.  (1998).  Blur:  The  speed  of  change  in  the  connected  economy.  Reading,  

MA:  Addison-­‐Wesley.  

   

Friedman,  B.  (2005).  The  moral  consequences  of  economic  growth.  New  York:  Knopf/  

   

Gingrich,  N.  (2005).  Winning  the  future.  The  21st  Century  Contract  with  America.  Washington:  

Regnery  Publishing.  

   

Glassman,  J.,  &  Hassett,  K.  (1999).  Dow  36,000.  New  York:  New  York  Times  Books.  

   

Huber,   P.   (2000).     Hard   Green:   Saving   the   environment   from   the   environmentalists:   A  

conservative  manifesto.  New  York:  Basic  Books.  

   

Kadlec,  C.  (1999).    Dow  100,000.  New  York:  New  York  Institute  of  Finance.    

   

Kahn,  H.,  Brown,  W.,  &    Martel,  W.  (1976).  The  next  200  years:  A  scenario  for  America  and  the  

world.  New  York:  Morrow.  

   

Kahn,   H.   (1982).   The   coming   boom:   Economic,   political   and   social.   New   York:   Simon   &  

50

Schuster.  

   

Lomborg,   B.   (2001).   The   skeptical   environmentalist:   Measure   the   real   state   of   the   world.  

Cambridge,  UK:  Cambridge  University  Press.  

Lomborg,   B.   (2004).   Global   crises,   global   solutions.   Cambridge,   UK:   Cambridge   University  

Press.  

   

McCarthy,  John.  (1995).  Progress  and  its  Sustainability.    Retrieved  from  

http://www-­‐formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/index.html    

   

Michaels,   P.   (2004).  Meltdown:   The   predictable   distortion   of   global  warming   by   scientists,  

politicians  and  the  media.  Washington,  DC:  Cato  Institute.  

   

Sanera,   M.,   &   Shaw,   J.   (1999).   Facts,   not   fear:   Teaching   children   about   the   environment.  

Vancouver,  BC:The  Fraser  Institute.  

   

Peter  Schwartz,  P.,  Leyden,  P.,  &  Hyatt,  J.  (1999).  The  Long  Boom:  Forging  a  better  future  for  

our   families,   communities,   and  business   in   the  new  global   economy.   Reading,  MA:  Perseus  

Books.  

   

Simon,  J.  (1998).  The  ultimate  resource  2.    Princeton,  NJ:  Princeton  University  Press/  

   

Simon,  J.,  &  Kahn,  H.  (Eds.).  (1984).  The  resourceful  Earth.  A  response  to  "Global  2000".  New  

York:  Basil  Blackwell.    

 

Images  of  Collapse  Futures  

   

Costanza,  R.,  Graumlich,  L.,  &  Steffen,  W.  L.  (2007).  Sustainability  or  collapse?  An  integrated  

history  and  future  of  people  on  Earth.  Cambridge,  MA:  MIT  Press.  

   

Dator,  J.  (2009).  The  Unholy  Trinity,  Plus  One.    Journal  of  Futures  Studies,  13  (3),  33  –  48.  

51

 

Diamond,   J.   (2005).   Collapse:   How   societies   choose   to   fail   or   succeed.   New   York:   Penguin  

Books,  2005  

     

Foster,  J.  (2008).  The  sustainability  mirage:  Illusion  and  reality  in  the  coming  war  on  climate  

change.  Sterling,VA:  Earthscan.  

   

Hall,  C.  A.  S.,  &  Day,  Jr.,  J.  W.  (2009).  Revisiting  the  Limits  to  Growth  After  Peak  Oil.  American  

Scientist,  97,  230-­‐237.  

 

Joy,   B.   (2000).   Why   The   Future   Doesn't   Need   Us.     Wired,   8   (4).     Retrieved   from  

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html  

   

Lovelock,  J.  (2009).  The  Vanishing  Face  Of  Gaia:  A  Final  Warning.  New  York:  Basic  Books.  

   

Meadows,   D.,   Randers,   J.,   &   Meadows,   D.   (2004).     Limits   to   growth:   The   30-­‐year   update.  

White  River  Junction,  VT:  Chelsea  Green  Publishing.  

 

Orlov,  D.   (2006,  December  4).  Closing  the  “Collapse  Gap”:  The  USSR  was  better  prepared  for  

collapse  than  the  US.    Retrieved  from  http://energybulletin.net/23259.html  

   

Orlov,   D.   (2009,   February   14).   Five   Stages   of   Collapse.   Retrieved   from  

http://www.energybulletin.net/40919.html  

   

Orlov,  D.   (2009)  Thriving   in  the  Age  of  Collapse     (&)    Post-­‐Soviet   lessons   for  a  Post-­‐American  

Century.  Retrieved  from  http://www.lifeafterpeakoil.com/BreakingNews.html  

 

Rawles,  J.  W.  (2009).    How  to  survive  the  end  of  the  world  as  we  know  it:  Tactics,  techniques,  

and  technologies  for  uncertain  times.  New  York:  Plume.    

 

Rees,   Martin   (2003).   Our   final   hour:   A   scientist's   warning:   How   terror,   error,   and  

52

environmental   disaster   threaten   humankind's   future   in   this   century-­‐-­‐on   Earth   and   beyond.  

New  York:  Basic  Books.  

 

Stein,   S.   (2008).  When   technology   fails:   A  manual   for   self-­‐reliance   and   planetary   survival.  

White  River  Junction,  VT:  Chelsea  Green  Publishing  

Turner,  G.  (2008).  A  comparison  of  the  Limits  to  Growth  with  thirty  years  of  reality.  Canberra,  

ACT,   Australia:   CSIRO   Working   Paper   Series   2008-­‐2009.   Retrieved   from  

http://www.csiro.au/files/files/plje.pdf  

   

Weisman,  A.  (2007).  The  world  without  us.  New  York:    St.  Martins  Press.  

   

Images  of  Disciplined  Futures  

   

Blewitt,  J.  (2008).  Understanding  sustainable  development.  London:  Earthscan.  

   

Dator,   J.   (2004).   Assuming   “responsibility   for   your   rose.     In   Paavola,   J.,   &   Lowe,   I.   (Eds.).  

Environmental  values   in  a  globalising  world:  Nature,   justice  and  governance   (pp.  215-­‐235).  

London:  Routledge,    

 

Dator,   J.   (2009).   Through   a   brushwood   door:   Should   Korea   become   a   Conserver   Society?  

Seoul,  Korea,  Korean  Institution  of  Public  Administration.    

   

Deffeyes,  K.  (2005).  Beyond  oil:  The  view  from  Hubbert's  Peak.  New  York:  Hill  and  Wang.  

   

Ehrenfeld,   J.   (2008).   Sustainability   by   design:   A   subversive   strategy   for   transforming   our  

consumer  culture.  New  Haven,  CT:  Yale  University  Press.  

   

Ehrlich,   P.,   &   Ehrlich,   A.   (2004).  One   with   Nineveh:   Politics,   consumption,   and   the   human  

future.  Washington:  Island  Press.  

   

Flannery,   T.   (2006).   The   weather   makers:   How   man   is   changing   the   climate   and   what   it  

53

means  for  life  on  Earth.  New  York:  Atlantic  Monthly  Press.  

     

Newt  Gingrich,  H.,  &  Maple,  T.   (2007).  A  contract  with  Earth.  Baltimore,  MD:   Johns  Hopkins  

Press.  

   

Hawken,  P.,  Lovins,  A.,  &  Lovins,  H.  (2000).    Natural  capitalism:    The  next  industrial  revolution.  

Boston:  Little,  Brown,  2000.  

   

Heinberg,  R.  (2007).    Peak  everything:  Waking  up  to  the  century  of  declines.  Gabriola  Island,  

BC:  New  Society  Publishers.  

     

Homer-­‐Dixon,   T.   (2006).     The   upside   of   down:   Catastrophe,   creativity,   and   the   renewal   of  

civilization.  Washington:  Island  Press.  

     

Kunstler,  J.  H.  (2005).  The  long  emergency:    Surviving  the  converging  catastrophes  of  the  21st  

Century.  New  York:  Atlantic  Monthly  Press.  

 

McDonough,   W.,   &   Braungart,   M.   (2002).   Cradle   to   cradle:   Remaking   the   way   we   make  

things.    New  York:  North  Point  Press.  

   

McGibben,Bill.   (2007).  Deep   economy:   The  wealth   of   communities   and   the   durable   future.  

New  York:  Holt  and  Company.  

     

Rohter,  I.  (1992).    A  Green  Hawaii.  Honolulu,  HI:  Na  Kane  O  Ka  Malo  Press.  

   

Quinn,  D.  (2000).  Beyond  civilization:  Humanity’s  next  great  adventure.  New  York:  Harmony  

Books.    

   

Speth,  J.  (2008).  The  bridge  at  the  end  of  the  world:  Capitalism,  the  environment  and  crossing  

from  crisis  to  sustainability.  New  Haven,  CT:  Yale  University  Press.  

   

54

Speth,  J.  (2004).  Red  sky  at  morning:  America  and  the  crisis  of  the  global  environment.  New  

Haven,  CT:  Yale  University  Press.  

 

Steffen,   W.,   Crutzen,   P.,   &   McNeill,   J.   (2007).   The   Anthropocene:   Are   humans   now  

overwhelming  the  great  forces  of  nature?  Ambio,  36  (8),  614-­‐621.  

Tomkins,  R.  (2006).  Let's  bring  back  rationing,  Financial  Times,  July  1,  2006,  p.  W2  

   

Images  of  Transformational  Futures  

     

Cordell,  B.   (2006).  21st  Century  Waves:  Forecasting  Technology  Booms  and  Human  Expansion  

into  the  Cosmos,  Futures  Research  Quarterly,  22  (3),  21-­‐42.  

 

Bostrom,   B.   (2007).   The   future   of   humanity.   In  Olsen,   I-­‐K.   B.,  &   and   Selinger,   E.   (Eds.).  New  

waves  in  philosophy  of  technology,  New  York:  Palgrave  McMillan.  

 

Dator,  J.  (December  1990).    It's  only  a  paper  moon.  Futures,  22,  pp.  1084-­‐1102.  

 

Dator,  J.,  &  Seo,  Y.  (2004).  Korea  as  the  wave  of  a  future:  The  emerging  Dream  Society  of  icons  

and  aesthetic  experience.    Journal  of  Futures  Studies,  9  (1),  31-­‐44.    

 

Garreau,   J.   (2006).  Radical   evolution:   The   promise   and  peril   of   enhancing   our  minds,   our  

bodies  -­‐-­‐  and  what  it  means  to  be  human.  New  York:  Broadway.  

   

Goonatilake,   S.   (1999).   Merged   evolution:   Long-­‐term   implications   of   biotechnology   &  

information  technology,  London:  Gordon  &  Breach.  

     

Inayatullah,  S.,  Sudia,  F.,  Oliver,  K.,  Dator,  J.,  &  Dolan,  T.  (2001).  Legal  rights  of  artilects.  Journal  

of  Futures  Studies,  6    (2),  43-­‐108.  

 

Kurzweil,   R.   (2005).   The   singularity   is   near:   When   humans   transcend   biology.   New   York:  

Viking.  

 

55

   

Mulhall,   D.   (2002).     Our   molecular   future:   How   nanotechnology,   robotics,   genetics,   and  

artificial  intelligence  will  transform  the  world.  Amherst,  New  York:  Prometheus  Books.    

   

Pink,  D.  H.   (2005).  A  whole  new  mind:  Moving  from  the   Information  Age  to  the  Conceptual  

Age.  New  York:  Riverhead.  

   

Stock,   G.   (2002).   Redesigning   humans:   Our   inevitable   genetic   future.   Boston:   Houghton  

Mifflin.  

   

Technology  and  Social  Change  

 

Dator,  J.  (1983).  Loose  connections:  A  vision  of  a  Transformational  Society.  In  Masini,  E.  (Ed.).    

Alternative  Visions  of  Desirable  Societies  (pp.  25-­‐45).  New  York:  Pergamon.  

Eisenstein,  E.  (1979).  The  printing  press  as  an  agent  of  change:  Communications  and  cultural  

transformations  in  early  modern  Europe.  New  York:  Cambridge  University  Press.  

 

Goody,   J.   (1986).  The   logic  of  writing  and  the  organization  of  society.  New  York:  Cambridge  

University  Press.  

 

Havelock,   E.   A.   (1986).   The   muse   learns   to   write:   reflections   on   orality   and   literacy   from  

antiquity  to  the  present.  New  Haven:  Yale  University  Press.  

 

Katsh,  M.  E.  (1989).  The  electronic  media  and  the  transformation  of  law.  New  York:  Oxford  

University  Press.  

 

McLuhan,  M.  (1964).  Understanding  media:  the  extensions  of  man.  New  York:  McGraw-­‐Hill.  

History  and  Present  of  Higher  Education  

 

56

Altbach,  P.  (1998).  Comparative  Higher  Education:  Knowledge,  the  University,  and  

Development.    Greenwich,  CN:  Ablex  Publishing  Corporation.  

 

Altbach,   P.,   &   Umakoshi,   T.   (Eds.).   (2004).     Asian   universities:   Historical   perspectives   and  

contemporary  challenges.  Baltimore:  Johns  Hopkins  University  Press,    

 

Ash,  M.  (Ed.).  (1997).    German  universities  past  and  future:  Crisis  or  renewal?  Providence,  RI:  

Berghahn  Books.  

 

Ashby,   E.   (1966).   Universities:   British,   Indian,   African:   A   study   in   the   ecology   of   higher  

education.  Cambridge,  MA:  Harvard  University  Press.  

 

Fischer,   K.   (2009,   October   5).   America   Falling:   Longtime   Dominance   in   Education   Erodes.  

Chronicle   of   Higher   Education.   Retrieved   from   http://chronicle.com/article/America-­‐Falling-­‐

Longtime/48683  

 

Bok,  D.   (2003).  Universities   in   the  marketplace:   the   commercialization  of  higher  education.  

Princeton,  N.J.:  Princeton  University  Press.  

 

Cohen,  A.  (1998).  The  shaping  of  American  higher  education:  Emergence  and  growth  of  the  

contemporary  system.  San  Francisco:  Jossey  Bass.  

 

Damrosch,   D.   (1995).  We   scholars:   Changing   the   culture   of   the   university.  Cambridge,  MA:  

Harvard  University  Press.  

 

Davidson,  C.,  &  Goldberg,  D.  T.  A  (2004).  Manifesto  for  the  humanities  in  a  technological  age.    

Chronicle  of  Higher  Education,  50  (23),  B7.    Retrieved  from  http://chronicle.com/article/A-­‐

Manifesto-­‐for-­‐the-­‐Humanities/17844  

 

de  Wit,  H.   (2002).   Internationalization  of  higher   education   in   the  United  States  of  America  

and  Europe:  A  historical,   comparative,  and  conceptual  analysis.    Westport,  CN:  Greenwood  

57

Press.  

 

Duderstadt,  J.  (2007).  A  view  from  the  helm:  Leading  the  American  university  during  an  era  of  

change.  Ann  Arbor,  MI:  University  of  Michigan  Press.  

 

Dunn,  L.,  &  Wallace,  M.  (Eds.)  (2008).  Teaching  in  transnational  higher  education.  New  York:  

Routledge.  

 

Ehrenberg,  R.  (2007).  What's  happening  to  public  higher  education?  The  shifting  financial  

burden.  Baltimore,  MD:  Johns  Hopkins  University  Press.  

 

Epstein,   D.   (Ed.).     (2007).  World   yearbook   of   education   2008:   Geographies   of   knowledge,  

geometries  of  power:  Framing  the  future  of  higher  education.  London:  Routledge.  

 

Giroux,  H.   (2008).   The  militarization   of  US   higher   education   after   9/11.  Theory,   Culture   and  

Society,  25  (5),  56-­‐82.  

 

Guri-­‐Rosenblit,  S.  (2006).  Higher  education  in  transition:  Horizontal  and  vertical  patterns  of  

diversity.  In  Nata,  R.  (Ed).  New  directions  in  higher  education  (pp.  23-­‐45).  New  York:  Nova  

Science  Publishers.    

 

Hirsch,  W.  Z.,  &  Weber,  L.  E.  (Eds).  (1999).  Challenges  facing  higher  education  at  the  

millennium.  Phoenix,  AZ:  Oryx  Press.  

 

Hvistendahl,   M.   (2009,   October   5).   Asia   Rising:   Countries   Funnel   Billions   Into   Universities.  

Chronicle   of   Higher   Education.   Retrieved   from   http://chronicle.com/article/Asia-­‐Rising-­‐

Countries-­‐Funn/48682  

 

International   Association   of   Universities   (2003).   Special   Issue   on   Higher   Education   Reform,  

Newsletter  9  (2-­‐3).    

 

58

Kunstler,   B.   (Ed.).   (2007).   Higher   education's   strategic   response   to   online   learning:   Critical  

perspectives  and  creative  successes.  On  the  Horizon,  15  (3),  127-­‐195.    

 

Lee,   S.L.   (2006).     Korean   higher   education:   Its   emergence,   development   and   future  

challenges.  Seoul,  Korea:  Hakjisa.  

 

Lincicome,   M.   E.   (1995).   Principle,   praxis,   and   the   politics   of   educational   reform   in   Meiji  

Japan.  Honolulu:  University  of  Hawaii  Press.  

Lulat,  Y.  G.-­‐M.  (2005).  A  history  of  African  higher  education  from  antiquity  to  the  present:  A  

critical  synthesis.  New  York:  Praeger  Publishers.  

 

Marshall,   B.   K.   (1994).   Learning   to   be   modern:   Japanese   political   discourse   on   education.  

Boulder,  CO:  Westview  Press.  

 

Ministry   of   Education.   (1980).   Japan’s   modern   education   system:   a   history   of   the   first  

hundred  years.  Tokyo,  Japan:  Research  and  Statistics  Division,  Minister’s  Secretariat,  Ministry  

of  Education,  Science  and  Culture,  Government  of  Japan.  

 

Morrison,  J.  (2003).  US  higher  education  in  transition.    On  the  Horizon,  11  (1),  6-­‐10.  

 

Teferra,  D.,  &    Altbach,  P.  (Eds.).  (2003).  African  higher  education:  An  international  reference  

handbook.  Bloomington,    IN:  Indiana  University  Press  

 

Teichler,  U.  (2004).  The  changing  debate  on  internationalisation  of  higher  education.  Higher  

Education,  48  (1),  5–26.    

 

Teodorescu,  D.  (2006).  Building  lifelong  learning  opportunities  in  the  knowledge  society:  

Implications  for  the  academy.  In  R.  Nata,  R.  (Ed).  New  directions  in  higher  education  (pp.  47-­‐

56).  New  York:  Nova  Science  Publishers.  

 

59

Tierney,  W.,  &  Hentscke,  G.  (2007).  New  players,  different  game:  Understanding  the  rise  of  

for-­‐profit  colleges  and  universities.  Baltimore,  MD:  Johns  Hopkins  University  Press.  

 

van   der   Wende,   M.C.   (2000).   The   Bologna   Declaration:   Enhancing   the   Transparency   and  

Competitiveness  of  European  Higher  Education.  Higher  Education  in  Europe,  26  (3),  305-­‐310.  

Hawaii  and  the  University  of  Hawaii  

 

Hawai’inuiakea,   School   of   Hawaiian   Knowledge,   University   of   Hawaii   at   Manoa    

http://manoa.hawaii.edu/hshk/index.php/site/en/  

 

Howes,   C.,   &  Osorio,   J.   (Eds.)   (2010)   The   Value   of   Hawai’i:   Knowing   the   Past,   Shaping   the  

Future.  Honolulu,  HI:  University  of  Hawai’i  Press  

 

Kobayashi,  V.  (Ed.).  (1983).  Building  a  rainbow:  A  history  of  the  buildings  and  grounds  of  the  

University  of  Hawaii's  Manoa  Campus.  Honolulu,  HI:  Hui  O  Students,  University  of  Hawaii  at  

Manoa.    

 

Sidener,  J.  (2005).  Planning  for  an  evolving  campus,  UH  Campus  Planner,  October  2005  

 

Stannard,  D.  E.  (1989).  Before  the  horror:  The  population  of  Hawaii  before  the  eve  of  Western  

contact.  Honolulu,  HI:  Social  Science  Research  Institute,  University  of  Hawaii.  

 

Images  of  the  Futures  of  Higher  Education  

 

Continued  Growth  

 

Altbach,  P.,    Berdahl,  R,  &  Gumport,  P.    (Eds).  (2005).  American  higher  education  in  the  21st  

Century.  Baltimore:  MD:  Johns  Hopkins  University  Press.  

 

Altbach,  P.,  &  Balan,  J.  (Eds).  (2007).  World  class,  Worldwide:  Transforming  Research  

Universities  in  Asia  and  Latin  America.  Johns  Hopkins  University  Press.  

60

 

Douglass  Capogrossi,  D.  (2002,  December).  The  Assurance  of  Academic  Excellence  among  

Nontraditional  Universities,  “Journal  of  Higher  Education  in  Europe,  27  (4),  481-­‐490.  

 

Maureeb  D.,  &  Meyerson,  J.  (Eds).  (2001).  Forum  futures:  exploring  the  future  of  higher  

education.  San  Francisco,  CA:  Jossey-­‐Bass.  

 

Duderstadt,  J.  (2000).  A  university  for  the  21st  Century.  Ann  Arbor,  MI:  University  of  Michigan  

Press  

 

Duderstadt,  J.  (2002).  Higher  education  in  the  digital  age.  New  York:  Praeger.  

 

Duderstadt,  J.,  &  Womack,  F.  W.  (2003).  Beyond  the  crossroads:  The  future  of  the  public  

university  in  America.  Baltimore:  Johns  Hopkins  Press.  

 

Hirsch,   W.   Z.,   &   Weber,   L.   E.   (Eds).   (1999).   Challenges   facing   higher   education   at   the  

millennium.  Phoenix,  Ariz.:  Oryx  Press.  

 

National   Education   Association   (US).   Future   of   higher   education.   Retrieved   from  

http://www.nea.org/he/future/index.html

 

Passin,  H.  (1982).  Society  and  education  in  Japan.  New  York:  Kodansha  International.  

 

Scott,  G.  (2004,  February).  Change  matters:  Making  a  difference  in  higher  education.  European  

University.  Association  Workshop,  University  College  Dublin,  Ireland.  

 

Snyder,  D.  P.,  Edwards,  G.,  &  Folsom,  C.  (2002).  The  strategic  context  of  education  in  America  

2000  to  2020,  part  1.  On  the  Horizon,  10  (2),  6-­‐12.  

 

Snyder,  D.  P.,  &  Edwards,  G.  (2003).  The  strategic  context  of  education  in  America  2000  to  

2020,  part  2.  On  the  Horizon,  11  (2),  5-­‐18.  

61

 

Symonds,  W.  C.  Cash-­‐Cow  Universities  [about  the  University  of  Phoenix].  Retrieved  from  

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_46/b3858102_mz021.htm

 

Yamada,  R.  (2006).  Accountability  and  assessment:  A  new  era  of  Japanese  higher  education.  In  

Nata,   R.   (Ed).   New   directions   in   higher   education.   (pp.   183-­‐202).   New   York:   Nova   Science  

Publishers.    

 

Collapse  

 

Cobb,  K.  (May  8,  2006)  The  next  casualty  of  the  oil  depletion  age:  state  universities.  Retriever  

from  http://www.energybulletin.net/15724.html      

 

Disciplined  

 

Berea   College   (1993)   The   Great   Commitments   of   Berea   College.   Retrieved   from  

http://www.berea.edu/about/mission.asp    

 

Cortese,  A.D.  (March-­‐May  2003)  The  critical  role  of  higher  education  in  creating  a  

sustainable  future:  Higher  education  can  serve  as  a  model  of  sustainability  by  fully  integrating  

all  aspects  of  campus  life.  Planning  for  Higher  Education,  31  (3),  5-­‐22.  

 

Day,   R.,   de   Peuter,   G.,   Cote,   M.,   (2007).   Utopian   pedagogy:   Radical   experiments   against  

neoliberal  globalization.  Toronto:  Ontario:  University  of  Toronto  Press  

 

Ford,   M.   P.   (2002).   Beyond   the   modern   university:   Toward   a   constructive   postmodern  

university.  Westport,  CT:  Praeger  

 

Rahman,   T.   (1998).   Transforming   the   colonial   legacy.   The   future   of   the   Pakistani   university.  

Futures,  30  (7),  673-­‐684.  

 

62

Edmund  O'Sullivan,  E.  (1999).  Transformative  learning:  Educational  vision  for  the  21st  

Century.  New  York:  Zed  Books.  

 

Indigenous  knowledge  as  a  discipline  image  

 

Alfred,   T.   (2005).  Warrior   scholarship:   Seeing   the   university   as   a   ground   of   contention.   In   J.  

Barker   (Ed.),   Sovereignty   matters:   Locations   of   contestation   and   possibility   in   indigenous  

struggles  for  self-­‐determination  (pp.  88–99).  Lincoln,  NE:  University  of  Nebraska  Press.  

Ball,  Jessica  (2004,  January  1).  As  if  indigenous  knowledge  and  communities  mattered:  

Transformative  education  in  First  Nations  communities  in  Canada.  American  Indian  

Quarterly,  28,  454-­‐479.    

 

Bull,  C.  (2004).  Decolonizing  research:  Indigenous  scholars  can  take  over  

the  research  process.  Tribal  College  Journal  of  American  Indian  Higher  Education,  

16  (2),  14-­‐15.      

 

Feinstein,  B.  (2004).  Learning  and  transformation  in  the  context  of  

Hawaiian  traditional  ecological  knowledge.  Adult  Education  Quarterly:  A  Journal  of  

Research  and  Theory,  54  (2),  105-­‐120.    

 

Mihesuah,  D.,  &  Wilson,  A.  (Eds).  (2004).  Indigenizing  the  academy:  Transforming  scholarship  

and  empowering  communities.  Lincoln:  University  of  Nebraska  Press.  

 

Mignolo,  W.D.  (2003).    Globalization  and  the  geopolitics  of  knowledge:  The  role  of  the  

humanities  in  the  corporate  university.  Nepantia,  4  (1)  97-­‐119.  

 

Nandy,  A.  (2000),  Recovery  of  indigenous  knowledge  and  dissenting  futures  of  the  university,"  

In  Inayatullah,  S.,  &  Gidley,  J.  (Eds),  The  university  in  transition.  Westport,  CN:  Bergin  &  

Garvey.  

 

Goodyear-­‐Ka’opua,   N.   (2009).   Rebuilding   the   ‘auwai:   Connecting   ecology,   economy   and  

63

education  in  Hawaiian  schools  Alternative,  5  (2),  47-­‐77.  

 

Thaman,  K.H.   (2002).  Towards  cultural  democracy   in  Pacific  education:  An   imperative   for   the  

21st   century.   In   F.   Pene,   Taufe’ulungaki,   A.,   &   Benson,   C.     (Eds.).   Tree   of   opportunity:   Re-­‐

thinking  Pacific  education  (pp.22–30).  Suva,  Fiji:  Institute  of  Education,  University  of  the  South  

Pacific.  

 

Transformational  

 

Abeles,  T.  (2008).  Questioning  academic  standards  in  the  age  of   innovation.    On  the  Horizon,  

16  (2),  51-­‐55  

 

Aldrich,   C.     (2004).   Simulations   and   the   future   of   learning:   An   innovative   (and   perhaps  

revolutionary)  approach  to  e-­‐learning.  San  Francisco,  CA:  Pfeiffer  

 

Clark  Aldrich,  C.  (2005).  Learning  by  doing:  A  comprehensive  guide  to  simulations,  computer  

games,   and   pedagogy   in   e-­‐learning   and   other   educational   experiences.   San   Francisco,   CA:  

Pfeiffer.  

 

Cheal,    C.  (2007).  Second  Life:  Hype  or  hyperlearning?"  On  the  Horizon,  15,  (4),  204-­‐210.  

 

Blass,  E.  (2003,  Winter).  The  future  university:  Towards  a  normative  model  from  an  emerging  

provision  of  higher  education  in  Britain.  Futures  Research  Quarterly,  19  (4),  63–77.  

 

Dator,  J.  (1998).  Futures  of  universities:   Ivied  halls,  virtual  malls,  or  theme  parks?  Futures,  30  

(7),  615-­‐623.  

 

Dator,   J.   (1977).   The   pedagogy   of   the   oppressed:   North   American   style.  McGill   Journal   of  

Education,  12  (1),  57-­‐72.  

 

Dator,   J.   (2004).   Visions,   Values,   Technologies   and   Schools.   In   Aviram,   A.,   &   Richardson,   J.  

64

(Eds.)  Upon  What  Does   the   Turtle   Stand?  Rethinking   Education   for   the  Digital   Age   (pp.   241-­‐

250).  Dordrecht:  Kluwer  Academic  Publishers.  

 

Devlin,  K.  (2002).  Media  X:  The  new  liberal  arts?  On  the  Horizon,  10  (2),  15–17.  

Education   arcade   seeks   to   merge   learning,   gaming   [at   MIT].   (2003,   December   10).   Herald  

Sunday.   Retrieved   from  

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,8101066%255E11869,00.ht

ml  

 

Gibson,  D.,  Aldrich,  C.,  &  Prensky,  M.  (Eds.)  (2007).    Games  and  simulations  in  online  learning:  

Research  and  development  frameworks.    Hershey,  PA:  Information  Science  Publishers.  

 

S.  Inayatullah  &  J.  Gidley  (Eds),  (2000).  The  university  in  transition.  Westport,  Conn:  Bergin  &  

Garvey.  

 

Jensen,  R.  (1999).  The  dream  society:  How  the  coming  shift  from  information  to  imagination  

will  transform  your  business.  New  York:  McGraw-­‐Hill.  

 

Prensky,  M.  (2001).  Digital  game-­‐based  learning.  New  York:  McGraw-­‐Hill.  

 

Prensky,  M.  (2003).  Escape  from  Planet  Jar-­‐Gon:  Or  what  video  games  have  to  teach  academics  

about  teaching  and  writing.  On  the  Horizon,  11  (3)  30-­‐38.  

 

Prensky,  M.  (2002).  The  motivation  of  gameplay:  The  real  twenty-­‐first  century  learning  

revolution.  On  the  Horizon,  10  (1),  5-­‐11.  

 

Sarath,  E.  (2006)  Meditation,  spirituality  and  educational  leadership:  Consciousness  studies  

and  the  future  of  academe.  In  Nata,  R.  (Ed.).  New  directions  in  higher  education  (pp.  73-­‐97).  

New  York:  Nova  Science  Publishers,  2006.    

 

Sax,  B.  (2003).  Academic  tradition  in  a  digital  age.  On  the  Horizon,  11  (3),  5-­‐8.  

65

 

Taylor,  R.,  Barr,  J.,  &  Steele,  T.  (2002).  For  a  radical  higher  education:  After  postmodernism.  

Milton  Keynes,  UK:  Open  University  Press.  

Young,  J.  (June  20,  2008)  Short  and  sweet:  Technology  shrinks  the  lecture.  

htty://chronicle.com/free/v54/i41/1a00901.htm  

 

Young,  J.  (2008).  When  professors  print  their  own  diplomas,  who  needs  universities?  

http://chonicle.com/free/2008/09/4744n.htm