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  

1
 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