Here I focus on an analysis of a different sort. I want to show why, in futures studies, publication processes are becoming untenable, because future reaches us faster and faster.

I wrote a paper on futures of universities well over a year ago.
Lets take a look what could have been understood, had the paper been out there:

Ten Issues We Could Have Undersood:

𝗜𝗻 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟱 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗻𝘂𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗯𝘆 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗱𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗱𝘀.
→ The paper already argued that demographic change would force structural rethinking of mission, learner groups, and education models, not just recruitment tactics.
(Source: Inside Higher Ed; AP News)

𝗨𝗻𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗻 𝗲𝘅𝗮𝗺𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗶𝗻-𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗿 𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗔𝗜.
→ The paper already showed that technology adoption would reshape pedagogy, quality assurance, and governance simultaneously.
(Source: Washington Post)

𝗔𝗹𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹 𝗔𝗜 𝗴𝘂𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴.
→ The paper already treated AI as an external driver affecting teaching, research, ethics, and management at once.
(Source: HEPI; OECD)

𝗦𝗵𝗼𝗿𝘁, 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝘁𝗼 𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗲𝘀.
→ The paper already anticipated pressure to move beyond degree-only education and rethink the purpose of the university.
(Source: OECD)

𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗲𝘅𝗲𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀.
→ The paper already identified a shift toward centralized governance under competitive and funding stress.
(Source: Reuters; Deloitte)

𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵.
→ The paper already described growing tension between academic autonomy and public accountability.
(Source: Wall Street Journal; Council of Europe)

𝗖𝗮𝗺𝗽𝘂𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗯𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀.
→ The paper already framed universities as stakeholder-dependent institutions whose futures hinge on community trust.
(Source: HEPI; Scholars at Risk)

𝗟𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲 𝗔𝗜 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀.
→ The paper already explained how changes in knowledge production reorganize internal structures and power.
(Source: NSF; Nature)

𝗨𝗻𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗱𝗼𝗽𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗱𝗮𝘀𝗵𝗯𝗼𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗴𝘂𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗯𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀.
→ The paper already warned that technology would reshape governance and decision-making, not just efficiency.
(Source: EDUCAUSE)

𝗨𝗻𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗴𝗴𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻.
→ The paper already identified competing and incompatible ideas of university purpose as a core future tension.
(Source: Nature)

Selected sources

• Nature (2025). The future of universities.
• Washington Post (2025). Reporting on AI-driven shifts in university assessment practices (e.g. oral exams).
• Reuters (2024–2025). Coverage of financial stress, restructuring, and governance changes in higher education.
• Inside Higher Ed (2024–2025). Analysis of enrollment decline, admissions strategy shifts, and institutional responses.
• OECD (2024–2025). Micro-credentials and the future of higher education.
• HEPI – Higher Education Policy Institute (2025). Student Generative AI Survey and analysis of AI policy in universities.
• EDUCAUSE (2024–2025). Reports on analytics, dashboards, and data-driven university governance.
• Wall Street Journal (2024–2025). Reporting on political intervention and curricular governance in U.S. universities.
• Council of Europe (2024). Briefs on academic freedom and political pressure on universities.
• Scholars at Risk (2025). Free to Think report on academic freedom, protests, and institutional legitimacy.
• National Science Foundation (NSF) (2024–2025). Documentation of national AI research infrastructure and funding concentration.

Read the paper here:

Abstract

This conceptual paper presents a multidimensional framework for analyzing the futures of universities. It identifies some key dimensions that shape university futures including purpose, knowledge production, organizational structure, educational approach, technology integration, and community relationships. It then proceeds to introduce the University Futures Matrix as a tool for universities to assess their current position, analyze environmental factors, identify possible trajectories, and recognize interconnections between the key dimensions. However, the knowledge-centric nature of universities adds a layer of reflexivity and, therefore, complexity to the foresight processes within universities, as universities both use and produce knowledge that shapes the world and serves as a source of foresight. However, these relations to knowledge management also offers opportunities. By adapting the matrix to their contexts, universities can engage in foresight that informs strategic planning and contributes to their societal role. The University Futures Matrix provides a structured and flexible conceptualization that universities can use when doing foresight.

1. Introduction. Setting the Stage for University Futures

Universities are unique institutions in many ways when it comes to the future. First, they are unique in that they are constellations where knowledge of highest order is produced, preserved, and disseminated. Through these practices (which we now on refer as ‘knowledge management’) universities have a great impact on the futures of societies. It is difficult to conceive how anything could affect the future more than what people and other actors believe and know. Second, this knowledge production and management mean that they incorporate knowledge and experts that can be used to probe the possible futures – even desirable futures, given their self-reflective capabilities. Third, despite universities being future-shaping and future-knowing institutions, there is relatively little coherent discourse on university futures from the perspective of futures studies. Surely, there are several academic works and reports that discuss, and create scenarios of, the future of universities (e.g., Vincent-Lancrin, 2004; Blass et al., 2010; Barth et al., 2011; Ashyrov et al., 2019; Bleiklie 2023), but the discourse is scattered and would benefit from a shared conceptual framework – or so we argue in this paper.

In this conceptual paper, we outline a conceptual framework that is designed to understand possible future trajectories of universities, given how complex and unique institutions they are. we call this the ‘University Futures Matrix’. Of course, there are thousands of universities around the globe and they differ in size, environment, internal workings, and relations to external stakeholders. However, in order to be a university, an institution must produce, preserve, and disseminate knowledge in many ways, the central of which is teaching. Given this common core, there are issues that all universities need to critically focus on, if they are to be future-oriented institutions. In this paper, we outline the issues in order to clarify how the futures of universities can be approached.

This conceptual framework originates from a foresight project undertaken in University of Turku[1]. The project was dedicated to identifying and analyzing key trends, signals, and drivers that could shape the future of universities on both a global and national scale. By examining these factors, the project aims to provide a foundation for strategic planning and to enable the university to better understand its operating environment. The framework developed in this paper builds on insights of this foresight project by university to offer the conceptual backbone of an approach to understanding and influencing the future trajectories of universities.

We proceed as follows. In Section 2, we discuss universities as complex, multi-dimensional institutions, setting the stage for the conceptual approach that takes into account the complexity of universities. Section 3 outlines the key dimensions of university futures, providing a detailed examination of each aspect that shapes the future of universities. Section 4 introduces the University Futures Matrix, a conceptual framework for university self-analysis and foresight. Section 5 discusses the unique relationship between universities and knowledge, discussing how this relationship impacts the application of foresight methodologies. Finally, Section 6 concludes by summarizing the value and challenges of applying the University Futures Matrix in the context of knowledge-centric institutions. The overall purpose of this paper is to provide a structured, multidimensional approach to understanding and shaping the future of universities, recognizing their unique role as producers and disseminators of knowledge in society.

2. Universities as multi-dimensional institutions

The world is changing rapidly, and universities are affected by – and affecting –these changes. Literature on the futures of universities highlights a growing number of rupture factors that shape universities and influence how they perform their core functions in teaching and research (Salmi, 2015). Some voices suggest that we are at a crucial point in the history of universities as external pressures, market influences, and political interference challenge basic principles and purpose (Thrift, 2023). These changes seem to be linked and, thereby, impacting various parts of university life at the same time. From how research is conducted and shared to how teaching is delivered (Cox, 2021; Rivera-Vargas et al., 2021), from changing student populations to evolving funding models (Ashwin & McVitty, 2015; Bolli et al., 2016), universities face changes on multiple fronts.

In this complex environment, universities need to engage in strategic planning for their futures in order to maintain their status and existence in knowledge management However, traditional scenario methods, in light of these complexities, often fall short, as they are forced to present the future in a way that obscures the wide range of combinations different trajectories can create. To avoid simplifying the futures, universities can be understood as complex systems of interconnected dimensions. Each dimension faces pressures and changes, influencing and being influenced by others. This interconnectedness means changes in one area can have wide-reaching, unexpected effects elsewhere. On a one hand, trying to understand university futures by focusing on individual dimensions in isolation is likely to produce incomplete or misleading conclusions. On the other hand, presenting a set of scenarios that collect together specific developments within the dimensions oversimplifies the space of possibilities

This paper proposes a multi-dimensional framework for analyzing university futures. By examining key dimensions of universities, we can develop an approach to the futures of universities that maintains the nuances of the futures. This approach acknowledges the inherent complexity of universities and provides a structured way to explore how changes might shape the futures of universities. It considers both direct effects of trends and changes on each dimension, and possibleripple effects across other dimensions, i.e., the university system itself.

This multi-dimensional perspective helps us understand university futures in their complexity and range. This understanding is crucial for university leaders, policymakers, and all university stakeholders. It can inform strategies for institutional development, guide resource allocation, and enhance public discourse about universities’ role and future. As we face an uncertain future, this approach is necessary for creating robust and adaptive strategies for a changing world. Most importantly, the framework provides a common language for discussing university futures and, thereby, enables productive conversations among stakeholders across different contexts. In what follows, we explicate the key dimensions that must be considered when the futures of universities are discussed.

3. Key dimensions of university futures

To understand the complex future trajectories of universities, we need to distinguish and identify several key dimensions that makes these institutions what they are and that can develop to various direction. In what follows, we discuss some of the key dimension of universities. The dimensions are meant to conceptually cut universities into elements that we are able to conceive separately when we think of the future. Then, after being able to identify the elements, we can begin to connect them together and find different types of combinations that the elements might form in the future. These possible combinations of the elements (dimensions) can be understood as possible futures of universities. Already, it must be warned that no neat set of scenarios will come out of these type of exercises – which points back to the fact that universities are complex and multidimensional institutions. we come back to this in later sections; here we focus on the elements that we can isolate conceptually.

A. Purpose and mission

The purpose and mission of universities appear increasingly diverse and sometimes conflicting, reflecting different understandings of their role in society. One perspective emphasizes a mission-oriented purpose, where universities are seen as key players in addressing grand societal challenges such as climate change, inequality, and public health crises (Berchin et al., 2018). This view aligns with the concept of the “third mission” of universities, extending beyond teaching and research to direct societal engagement and impact (Compagnucci & Spigarelli, 2020). In contrast, an economically-oriented understanding positions universities as drivers of innovation and economic growth, emphasizing their role in producing skilled graduates, fostering entrepreneurship, and engaging in industry partnerships (Klofsten et al. 2019; Audretsch, 2014). This perspective often aligns with calls for universities to be more responsive to market demands and demonstrate practical relevance. A third view, rooted in traditional academic values, prioritizes curiosity-driven research and education and emphasizes the university’s role as a space for critical thinking and the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake (Jessop, 2018).

These different understandings of university purpose create tensions that institutions need to negotiate. For example, the push for economic relevance can conflict with the ideal of academic freedom and the pursuit of curiosity-driven research. Similarly, the emphasis on addressing immediate societal challenges may clash with the long-term, open-ended nature of curiosity-driven inquiry. Finally, there is no guarantee, far from it, that research on societal issues matches the economic-growth identity. Moreover, internally, universities often exhibit a conservative nature when it comes to their own structures and traditions, which can create resistance to change (Martin, 2016). This internal conservatism can make it challenging for universities to adapt to new societal expectations or implement significant reforms.

The negotiation of the purpose of the university is further complicated by the fact that universities need to balance their global aspirations with local responsibilities, i.e.; their search for international recognition while remaining responsive to their immediate communities (Guri-Rosenblit, 2015; Giuri et al. 2019). As universities evolve, they need to find ways to reconcile these competing visions and pressures, perhaps by developing hybrid models that combine elements of each. The challenge lies in maintaining a coherent institutional identity and set of values while adapting to diverse and changing expectations from various stakeholders in society – all this while universities navigating their own internal resistance to change.

B. Knowledge production and dissemination

The knowledge production in universities is, and has been, constantly changing like science itself. Currently there seems to be a trend, determination, and increasing incentives towards interdisciplinary approaches, although the trend looks different in different disciplines (Bonaccorsi et al., 2022; Millar 2016). This shift may create tension between specialized knowledge and integrated research approaches (MacLeod 2018). Moreover, universities seem to be facing challenges in balancing different research orientations. The tension between academic values and market-oriented approaches likely extends to research priorities (Mudrak et al., 2022). The global-local dynamic appears to add complexity, as universities balance global engagement with regional relevance, particularly in “third mission” activities (Sánchez-Barrioluengo & Benneworth, 2019). This suggests tension between pursuing global research excellence and addressing local needs. Additionally, growing interest in citizen science has implications for knowledge production and scientific governance, potentially challenging notions of who produces knowledge within academia (Vohland et al., 2021).

New technologies, particularly artificial intelligence (AI), impacts research methods and capabilities. AI has become important in scientific approaches and discoveries (Gil, 2021). AI tools enable researchers explore hypothesis spaces, generate hypotheses, and guide experimentation and simulation (Messeri & Crockett, 2024; Wang et al., 2023). However, AI tools could lead to scientific monocultures that prioritize certain research methods while ignoring diverse human perspectives (Messeri & Crockett, 2024). In pessimistic visions, this shift towards AI-driven research could lead to traditional research skills being devalued and illusions of understanding where researchers believe they understand more than they do. Also changes in scientific understanding become central in the era of AI research (Messeri & Crockett, 2024; Wang et al., 2023). To mitigate risks, university researchers need to work in diverse teams and expose the next generation to research beyond AI education, and discuss the type of understanding research is hoped to increase (Messeri & Crockett, 2024; Wang et al., 2023).

In knowledge dissemination, universities seem to be adapting to new expectations about their research audience. There appears to be pressure to communicate findings beyond academics to a wider range of stakeholders. The emphasis on public engagement with science implies a shift in how universities disseminate knowledge (Stilgoe et al., 2014; Macnaghten & Chilvers, 2014). This raises questions about balancing specialized academic discourse and accessible communication. As universities adapt to the changes in knowledge production and dissemination, they need to maintain research integrity and rigor while increasing relevance and impact. Universities need to adapt to pressures while protecting core research functions (Thrift, 2023). These shifts appear to be part of broader changes in university purpose and structure which reflects the evolving societal expectations and raising questions about academic work and the role of universities in the 21st century.

C. Organizational structure and governance

The organizational structure and governance of universities appear to be changing in response to evolving societal expectations and pressures. There seems to be a trend towards centralized, corporate-style governance models, driven by the need for efficiency and accountability in a competitive higher education networks (Bleiklie, 2023; Whitley, 2011). This model is characterized by stronger executive leadership, hierarchical decision-making, and adoption of business management practices. However, this trend creates tension with notions of academic freedom and faculty governance. Universities appear to be balancing effective management with academic autonomy and shared governance (Kupriyanova et al., 2020; Mudrak et al., 2022). The push for centralized control often meets resistance from academic staff who value independence and fear erosion of collegial decision-making. However, the complexity of university operations, including expanding research portfolios, diversifying revenue streams, and managing international partnerships, pressures traditional governance structures to adapt (Kupriyanova et al., 2020, 2009; Bolli et al., 2016).

Balancing institutional autonomy with public accountability is another challenge in university governance. As public institutions or recipients of public funding, universities face pressure to demonstrate their value and impact to society (Martin, 2016; Jessop, 2018). This has led to performance metrics and quality assurance mechanisms, which can conflict with the desire of universities for autonomy. The tension between autonomy and accountability is evident in curriculum design, research priorities, and resource allocation. Universities need to negotiate expectations of multiple stakeholders while maintaining academic integrity and pursuing core missions (Winter & O’Donohue, 2012; Pruvot et al., 2015). The emphasis on universities’ role in addressing societal challenges and contributing to economic development adds complexity to governance structures. Institutions are experimenting with new models of engagement and partnership that blur boundaries between academia, industry, and the public sector (Sánchez-Barrioluengo & Benneworth, 2019; Compagnucci & Spigarelli, 2020). As universities evolve, balancing centralized control and distributed decision-making, and institutional autonomy and public accountability, remains a critical challenge for their organizational structure and governance.

D. Educational approach and pedagogy

Universities appear to be experiencing shifts in their educational approaches and pedagogies, driven by technological advancements, changing student expectations, and evolving workforce demands. Innovations in teaching and learning seem to be transforming the traditional classroom experience. Blended learning models, which combine face-to-face instruction with online activities, are becoming more common as they offer students greater flexibility and access to educational resources (Valtonen et al., 2021). Problem-based learning and other active learning strategies are gaining attention. These emphasize the development of critical thinking skills and practical application of knowledge (Birtwistle & Wagenaar, 2020). These approaches aim to better prepare students for the complexities of the modern workplace and foster lifelong learning skills. In general, the concept of lifelong learning is gaining prominence as university education is needed by many groups from traditional undergraduate students to mid-career professionals and beyond (Council of the European Union, 2018).

Universities attempt adapt to changing student needs and demographics. They are recognizing the diversity of student populations, including non-traditional students, international students, and lifelong learners (Brooks et al., 2020). This diversity may lead to a more flexible and inclusive approaches to education. For example, personalized learning pathways, enabled by data analytics and adaptive learning technologies, are being explored as a way to cater to individual student needs and learning styles (Dobre et al., 2023). Alongside these pedagogical changes, there is growing recognition of the importance of comprehensive support services. Universities may need to focus on providing holistic support that addresses not only academic needs but also mental health, career guidance, and overall student well-being (O’Regan, 2020; Rutherford and Pickup, 2015; Humphreys, 2023). These support services are seen as crucial for ensuring student success, particularly for diverse student populations who may face unique challenges (Alexe et al., 2015; Cismaru et al., 2015; Samatar et al., 2021).

The tension between mass education and tailored learning experiences remains a challenge for many universities. There is often pressure to provide education at scale, sometimes through large lecture classes or online courses, to meet growing demand and improve access (Bowen et al., 2014). At the same time, there is recognition of the value of small-group instruction, mentoring, and personalized feedback in promoting deeper learning and student engagement. Some universities are experimenting with ways to balance these competing demands (Gaebel & Morrisroe, 2023). The challenge of balancing scalability with personalized attention extends to support services as well, as institutions are exploring ways to provide individualized support efficiently. However, the shift toward a greater role for support services could require significant investments in resources, infrastructure, and personnel, and, thereby, potentially create trade-offs with other institutional priorities (Davis et al., 2023; Humphreys, 2023). As universities continue to develop their educational approaches and support structures, they need to recognize the interactions between innovation, scalability, and the need to provide high-quality education and support to an increasingly diverse student body across different life stages.

E. Technology integration

Digital technologies appear to be profoundly impacting all aspects of university life, from teaching and learning to research, administration, and student services. The adoption of online tools has significantly changed how academic communities access, share, and create knowledge (Gaebel & Morrisroe, 2023). In the realm of teaching, blended and fully online learning models seem to be gaining traction as they off greater flexibility and potentially widening access to higher education (Valtonen et al., 2021). These digital platforms are not only changing the delivery of education but also enabling new forms of assessment and feedback, such as adaptive learning systems that tailor content to individual student needs (Dobre et al., 2023). When it comes to research, there are hopes that digital technologies enable new methodologies, facilitating global collaborations, and accelerating the pace of discovery across disciplines. Big data analytics and artificial intelligence are opening up new avenues for research to tackle complex problems in novel ways (Wang et al., 2023). However, the integration of these technologies also raises critical questions about digital literacy, equitable access, and the changing nature of academic work (Whitworth, 2020). Universities need to ensure that all members of their community can effectively engage with and benefit from these digital tools.

Emerging technologies present both exciting opportunities and significant challenges for universities. Artificial intelligence and machine learning have the potential to revolutionize research practices, enhance personalized learning experiences, and streamline administrative processes (Cox, 2021). Virtual and augmented reality technologies are opening up new possibilities for immersive learning experiences and innovative research visualization (European Commission, 2023). Blockchain technology is being explored for its potential to secure academic credentials and facilitate more transparent research data management (Williams, 2019). However, the rapid pace of technological change also presents challenges. There are concerns about the ethical implications of AI in education and research, particularly regarding data privacy, algorithmic bias, and the potential exacerbation of existing inequalities (Brevini, 2020). The implementation of these technologies requires significant investment in infrastructure and staff training, which can strain university budgets (Mohamed Hashim et al., 2022). Moreover, there is a risk that the focus on technological solutions could overshadow the human aspects of education and research. As universities focus on the digital transformation, they need to critically discuss embracing novelties and preserving the core values of academic inquiry and human interaction. The challenge lies in harnessing the potential of these technologies to enhance the university’s mission while critically examining their implications and ensuring their ethical and equitable implementation.

F. Community and stakeholder relationships

Universities are going through shifts in relationships with local and global communities. Traditionally seen as ivory towers – or so the common idea goes –, universities now seem to recognize their role in addressing societal challenges and regional development (Addie et al., 2015; Petersen & Kruss 2021; Giuri et al. 2019). This has led to emphasis on community engagement and social impact as core missions. Academic institutions are increasingly reaching out to their surrounding areas. Various initiatives aim to share knowledge and create learning opportunities beyond campus borders. These programs allow students to gain real-world experience while also benefiting local communities. Such efforts appear to be expanding the traditional role of universities in society (Addie et al., 2015). Globally, universities expand through international partnerships, satellite campuses, and online platforms. This reflects interconnected knowledge production and demand for international experiences (De Wit & Deca, 2020). However, balancing local responsiveness with global aspirations presents challenges. There is no straightforward way to do both, address community needs and pursue international recognition, often with limited resources (Harmsen, 2015). As universities expand globally, questions arise about cultural sensitivity, academic colonialism, and impact on local higher education systems (Blanco & Muthanna, 2022).

Partnerships with industry and government are evolving which reflects the changing expectations about universities’ role in innovation and economic development. The traditional “triple helix” concept of university-industry-government relations emphasizes synergistic relationships driving innovation and growth (Etzkowitz et al., 2000). Universities engage in collaborative research, technology transfer, and entrepreneurship programs (Forliano et al., 2021). These partnerships provide resources, create opportunities, and translate academic knowledge into applications. However, they raise concerns about commercialization and corporate influence on university priorities (Borah & Ellwood, 2022). Moreover, government relationships are complex. Public funding often comes with accountability expectations and policy alignment (Pruvot et al., 2015). Some institutions take active roles in policy development, particularly in innovation and regional development (Compagnucci & Spigarelli, 2020; Tjörnbo & McGowan 2022). This engagement can create tensions with academic autonomy.

Virtual environments and evolving physical campuses appear to be reshaping university interactions. Digital platforms extend reach beyond physical boundaries (Gaebel & Morrisroe, 2023). Virtual events connect universities with other universities, alumni, industry partners, and the public. However, this raises concerns about loss of face-to-face interactions and digital divides (Rivera-Vargas et al., 2021). Physical campuses remain crucial for in-person interactions and community building (Valtonen et al., 2021). Universities seem to be reimagining spaces to support collaborative research, interdisciplinary projects, and industry partnerships. Innovation hubs and makerspaces may become more common which would connect universities with practical skills and entrepreneurship (Sánchez-Barrioluengo & Benneworth, 2019). Some institutions are integrating campuses with surrounding communities, blurring town-gown boundaries (Petersen & Kruss 2021; Addie et al., 2015). This evolution reflects a shift towards more open institutions engaging with broader communities. However, it also raises questions about resource allocation, balancing physical and digital infrastructure, and sustainability of traditional campus models in a digital world.

4. A Conceptual Framework for University Self-Analysis and Foresight

The dimensions of university futures outlined in the previous section provides the backbone of a structured framework for analyzing the futures of universities. These dimensions – including purpose and mission, knowledge production and dissemination, organizational structure and governance, educational approach and pedagogy, technology integration, and community and stakeholder relationships – serve as conceptual building blocks that can be combined and reconfigured to envision various possible futures for universities. By examining each dimension individually and then considering how they might interact, we can begin to construct rich understanding of the possibilities and challenges that lie ahead for universities.

The value of this dimensional approach is in its flexibility and adaptability. Rather than presenting a fixed set of scenarios, these dimensions allow us to explore a range of possible futures by adjusting the trajectory of each dimension and observing how changes in one area might influence others. This approach recognizes that the future of universities is not predetermined or limited to a few possible outcomes, but rather the outcome of interplay of various factors. By using these dimensions as a starting point, researchers, policymakers, and university leaders can engage in more structured and comprehensive foresight exercises which allow them to anticipate possible challenges, identify opportunities, and develop more robust and adaptive strategies.

Building upon the dimensional framework, we propose the “University Futures Matrix” that universities can use to systematically analyze their current position and possible future trajectories. This matrix is designed to help universities to approach the future by providing the conceptual backbone. The matrix consists of four key components:

a) Assessing current position along each dimension

The first step in using the University Futures Matrix in universities is to assess their current position along each of the dimensions discussed earlier. This assessment involves a detailed analysis of the university’s current practices, policies, and orientations along the dimensions of purpose and mission, knowledge production and dissemination, organizational structure, educational approach, technology integration, and community relationships. For example, a university might evaluate its current balance between curiosity-driven and market-oriented research or assess the extent to which it has adopted blended learning approaches. This self-assessment provides a baseline from which to consider possible future trajectories.

b) Analyzing unique environmental factors

Each university operates within a unique context shaped by factors such as its geographical location, historical legacy, regulatory environment, and stakeholder expectations. Following the matrix, universities need to identify and analyze these environmental factors and recognize that they influence the possible future paths of the institution. For example, a university might consider how its local economic conditions affect its ability to engage in industry partnerships or how national higher education policies shape its governance structure. This analysis helps to ground the foresight exercise in the realities of the specific context of each institution.

c) Identifying possible future trajectories

Based on the assessment of current positions and environmental factors, the matrix then guides universities in identifying different possible future trajectories along each dimension. This involves considering both internal aspirations and external trends that might influence the institution’s development. For example, a university might explore how adopting more interdisciplinary approaches could shape its future research output, or how investing in AI technologies might change its educational offerings. The matrix suggest that institutions consider multiple possible trajectories for each dimension, and, thereby, recognize the inherent uncertainty in long-term planning.

d) Recognizing interconnections between dimensions

Perhaps the most crucial aspect of the University Futures Matrix is its emphasis on recognizing and analyzing the interconnections between different dimensions. This component drive universities to consider how changes in one area might affect others and, thereby, helps to identify possible synergies and conflicts. For example, a shift towards more market-oriented research might influence the institution’s governance structure and community relationships. These, then, might affect how the university spaces are used and what kind of teaching is provided. And so on. By mapping these interconnections, universities can develop a more holistic understanding of their possible futures and the trade-offs involved in different strategic choices. For example, a commitment to provide locally relevant workforce may contradict the ability to stay on the cutting edge of global research.

The University Futures Matrix is not intended to predict the future or prescribe a single optimal path. Instead, it serves as a tool for structured reflection and strategic conversation within institutions. By working through the matrix, university management and stakeholders can engage in more informed discussions about their institution’s future and consider a range of possibilities and their implications.

It is important to emphasize that this University Futures Matrix is a conceptual scheme rather than a prescriptive tool or methodology. The specific methods, processes, or tools that universities might use to operationalize this conceptual scheme in their strategic planning is beyond the scope of this paper and would likely vary depending on each institution’s unique context and needs. The value of this conceptual approach appears to lie in its ability to provide to different stakeholders a common language and structure for thinking about the multidimensional nature of university futures. Moreover, it remains flexible enough to accommodate the diversity of universities and their individual circumstances.

5. Universities and Knowledge. Foresight Complicated

The unique position of universities in relation to knowledge production, preservation, and dissemination (i.e., knowledge management) influences their possible futures and the application of the University Futures Matrix. This special relationship with knowledge both complicates and enriches the foresight process for universities. The application of the University Futures Matrix to these knowledge-centric institutions requires adaptation to account for their unique characteristics. When assessing their current position along each dimension, universities need to consider not just their practices but also the knowledge they produce about those practices. This reflexive aspect of university foresight creates a situation where the institution studying its future is simultaneously shaping that future through its research and teaching activities. In analyzing environmental factors, universities need to account for their role in shaping that environment through their research and educational outputs. This dual role as both observer and participant in societal change adds layers of complexity to the foresight process that are unique to universities.

Universities need to consider not only how external trends might affect them but also how their own knowledge production might influence or even create these trends – knowledge is power. This requires a level of self-awareness and critical examination that goes beyond typical organizational foresight exercises. The tracking of interconnections between dimensions becomes even more complicated when we consider how knowledge connects different dimensions of universities. For example, advancements in research methodologies might influence how universities are able to respond to their local needs, which in turn might affect how the local community, through its livelihood, can support university with resources such industry-partnerships for expensive research projects. This web of knowledge – how knowledge is managed within and outside the university walls – makes the task of mapping interconnections in the University Futures Matrix particularly challenging but also possibly more insightful for universities.

Universities’ role in shaping knowledge in society means that their future trajectories have far-reaching implications beyond the institutions themselves. The Matrix needs to consider these broader societal impacts and acknowledge that changes in university practices can have ripple effects across various sectors of society. As institutions dedicated to the management of knowledge, universities need to answer ethical questions about the future they are helping to create through their knowledge management practices. This ethical dimension adds yet another layer of complexity to the foresight process. It forces universities to consider not just what is possible or probable, but also what is desirable and responsible.

Moreover, the ethical responsibilities stem from the long time-frames associated with knowledge production. The evolving and changing nature of knowledge – with its long developmental arcs, paradigm shifts, and deep traditions – enables universities, as centers of knowledge management, to understand the significance of long-term processes. This unique relationship with knowledge means that universities can engage in foresight on timescales that many other institutions struggle to contemplate. This brings ethical responsibility to the core of university foresight.

While this knowledge-centric nature complicates the application of the University Futures Matrix, it also to offer unique benefits. Due to their knowledge management, universities have the intellectual resources to engage deeply with questions of the future, to critically examine assumptions, and to generate new knowledge about possible futures. They are able to draw on a range of disciplinary perspectives within their walls to enrich their foresight exercises and bring together insights from fields as diverse as sociology, computer science, environmental studies, and philosophy – just to mention some examples. Moreover, the academic tradition of critical inquiry and debate should be capable of leading to more robust and thoroughly examined presentations of possible future, although the cautiousness in knowledge management may also make consensus-building more challenging. In general, this tension between critical analysis and the consensus needed for strategic decision-making is a unique aspect of university foresight that the matrix needs to accommodate.

By recognizing and embracing their knowledge-centric nature, universities might use the matrix not just as a tool for strategic planning, but as a means of fulfilling their fundamental mission of advancing human understanding and shaping societal futures. Moreover, the process of engaging with the matrix might itself become a form of knowledge production and generate insights not just about the future of the institution but about the nature of foresight and the role of knowledge in shaping futures more broadly.

In conclusion, the application of the University Futures Matrix to these knowledge-centric institutions appears to present both unique challenges and opportunities. The use of the matric requires a careful balance between leveraging the rich intellectual resources of these institutions and navigating the complexities brought by their special relationship with knowledge. By adapting the matrix to account for these characteristics, universities might engage in a foresight process that not only informs their strategic planning but also contributes to their broader mission of advancing knowledge and understanding.

6. Conclusion. The University Futures Matrix: A Tool for Knowledge-Centric Foresight

The University Futures Matrix presented in this paper offers a structured approach to understanding and approaching the multidimensional issue of university futures. By examining key dimensions such as purpose and mission, knowledge production and dissemination, organizational structure and governance, educational approaches and pedagogy, technology integration, and community and stakeholder relationships, the matrix provides the backbone for universities to assess their current positions, analyze their unique environmental factors, identify possible future trajectories, and recognize the interconnections between different aspects of their operations. This multidimensional perspective acknowledges the unique nature of universities as institutions and enables nuanced analysis of possible futures. The flexibility of the matrix enables institutions to adapt it to their specific contexts and needs which makes it a valuable tool for strategic foresight across diverse university settings.

However, the application of the University Futures Matrix is uniquely complicated due to universities’ fundamental role in knowledge management – the production, preservation, and dissemination of knowledge. This knowledge-centric nature of universities adds layers of reflexivity, complexity, and ethics to the foresight process that are not often present in many other types of institutions. Universities need to understand that they are not only subjects of foresight exercises but also producers of foresight knowledge. This creates a situation where the institution studying its future is simultaneously shaping that future through its knowledge management. This dual role as both observer and participant in societal change through knowledge requires a level of self-awareness and critical examination that goes beyond typical organizational foresight exercises. Moreover, the ethical implications of knowledge production and the far-reaching societal impacts of university trajectories add further complications to the foresight process that need to be carefully considered.

Despite these challenges, the knowledge-centric nature of universities also seems to offer unique opportunities for enriching the foresight process. The intellectual resources available within universities, including expertise from a range of disciplines, are capable of being leveraged to create more nuanced analysis of possible futures. The academic tradition of critical inquiry and debate, while possibly complicating consensus-building, is able to lead to more robust and thoroughly examined futures. By embracing their knowledge-centric nature and adapting the University Futures Matrix accordingly, universities might engage in a foresight process that not only informs their strategic planning but also contributes to their broader mission of advancing human understanding and shaping societal futures.

In order to be proactive, tools like the University Futures Matrix are needed in these vital institutions maintain their relevance, fulfill their missions, and continue to be at the frontline of knowledge in the changing world.

Bibliography

Addie, J.-P. D., Keil, R., & Olds, K. (2015). Beyond town and gown: Universities, territoriality and the mobilization of new urban structures in Canada. Territory, Politics, Governance, 3(1), 27–50.

Alexe, D., Hâj, C.M., & Murgescu, B. (2015). Struggling with social polarization. Student financial support in Romania in the framework of the Bologna Process. In A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, & J. Salmi (Eds.), The European higher education area: Between critical reflections and future policies (pp. 501-520). Springer.

Ashwin, P., & McVitty, D. (2015). The meanings of student engagement: Implications for policies and practices. In A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, & J. Salmi (Eds.), The European higher education area: Between critical reflections and future policies (pp. 343-360). Springer.

Ashyrov, G., Alunurm, R., Pentus, K., & Vadi, M. (2019). The future of university–industry collaboration: Scenario analysis based on case of Estonia. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 17(4), 421–435.

Audretsch, D. B. (2014). From the entrepreneurial university to the university for the entrepreneurial society. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(3), 313–321.

Barth, M., Adomßent, M., Albrecht, P., Burandt, S., Godemann, J., Balsen, A. F., & Rieckmann, M. (2011). Towards a sustainable university: Scenarios for sustainable university development. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 5(4), 313.

Berchin, I. I., da Silva, S. A., Ceci, F., Gabriel, G. M., Anhalt, T. C., & Guerra, J. B. S. O. A. (2018). The role of universities to promote sustainable practices and climate change adaptation: Analysis of the 22 conferences of the parties using text mining. In Towards green campus operations: Energy, climate and sustainable development initiatives at universities (pp. 251-279). Springer.

Birtwistle, T., & Wagenaar, R. (2020). Re-thinking an educational model suitable for 21st century needs. In A. Curaj, L. Deca, & R. Pricopie (Eds.), European higher education area: Challenges for a new decade (pp. 465-481). Springer Nature.

Blanco, G. L., & Muthanna, A. (2022). Looking for hope abroad: The new global university beyond neoliberalism. In S. S. E. Bengtsen & R. E. Gildersleeve (Eds.), Transformation of the university: Hopeful futures for higher education (pp. 125). Routledge.

Blass, E., Jasman, A., & Shelley, S. (2010). Visioning 2035: The future of the higher education sector in the UK. Futures, 42(5), 445–453.

Bleiklie, I. (2023). Norwegian higher education futures. Higher Education.

Bolli, T., Olivares, M., Bonaccorsi, A., Daraio, C., Aracil, A. G., & Lepori, B. (2016). The differential effects of competitive funding on the production frontier and the efficiency of universities. Economics of Education Review, 52, 91–104.

Bonaccorsi, A., Melluso, N., & Massucci, F. A. (2022). Exploring the antecedents of interdisciplinarity at the European Research Council: A topic modeling approach. Scientometrics, 127(12), 6961–6991.

Borah, D., & Ellwood, P. (2022). The micro-foundations of conflicts in joint university-industry laboratories. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 175, 121377.

Bowen, W. G., Chingos, M. M., Lack, K. A., & Nygren, T. I. (2014). Interactive learning online at public universities: Evidence from a six-campus randomized trial. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 33(1), 94–111.

Brevini, B. (2020). Black boxes, not green: Mythologizing artificial intelligence and omitting the environment. Big Data & Society, 7(2), 2053951720935141.

Brooks, R., Abrahams, J., Lažetić, P., Gupta, A., & Jayadeva, S. (2020). Access to and experiences of higher education across Europe: The impact of social characteristics. In A. Curaj, L. Deca, & R. Pricopie (Eds.), European higher education area: Challenges for a new decade (pp. 197-209). Springer Nature.

Cismaru, D-M., Fiţ, C., & Gologan, D. (2015). Premises of inclusive access and success of Roma people in the Romanian higher education. In A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, & J. Salmi (Eds.), The European higher education area: Between critical reflections and future policies (pp. 521-540). Springer.

Compagnucci, L., & Spigarelli, F. (2020). The third mission of the university: A systematic literature review on potentials and constraints. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 161, 120284.

Council of the European Union. (2018). Council recommendation of 22 May 2018 on key competences for lifelong learning. Official Journal of the European Union, C 189, 1-13.

Cox, A. M. (2021). Exploring the impact of Artificial Intelligence and robots on higher education through literature-based design fictions. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1), 3.

Davis, A. R., Jhangiani, R., & Purvey, D. (2023). Rethinking the university: A case study. On the Horizon: The International Journal of Learning Futures, 31(1), 11–23.

De Wit, H., & Deca, L. (2020). Internationalization of higher education, challenges and opportunities for the next decade. In A. Curaj, L. Deca, & R. Pricopie (Eds.), European higher education area: Challenges for a new decade (pp. 3-11). Springer Nature.

Dobre, C., Ciobanu, R., Mihai, L., & Costoiu, M. (2023). Post-pandemic education for the students of the future. In 2023 European Learning & Teaching Forum: Connecting people, spaces and realities.

Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Terra, B. R. C. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2), 313–330.

European Commission. (2023). On the futures of technology in education: Emerging trends and policy implications. Publications Office of the European Union.

Forliano, C., De Bernardi, P., & Yahiaoui, D. (2021). Entrepreneurial universities: A bibliometric analysis within the business and management domains. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 165, 120522.

Gaebel, M., & Morrisroe, A. (2023). The future of digitally enhanced learning and teaching in European higher education institutions. European University Association absl.

Giuri, P., Munari, F., Scandura, A., & Toschi, L. (2019). The strategic orientation of universities in knowledge transfer activities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 138, 261–278.

Gil, Y. (2021). Will AI write scientific papers in the future? AI Magazine, 42(1), 3-15.

Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2015). Internationalization of higher education: Navigating between contrasting trends. In A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, & J. Salmi (Eds.), The European higher education area: Between critical reflections and future policies (pp. 13-26). Springer.

Harmsen, R. (2015). Future scenarios for the European Higher Education Area: Exploring the possibilities of “experimentalist governance”. In A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, & J. Salmi (Eds.), The European higher education area: Between critical reflections and future policies (pp. 785-806). Springer.

Humphreys, M. J. (2023). Moral courage: Restoring well-being, community, and capacity within the post-pandemic university. On the Horizon: The International Journal of Learning Futures, 31(1), 30–34.

Jessop, B. (2018). On academic capitalism. Critical Policy Studies, 12(1), 104–109.

Klofsten, M., Fayolle, A., Guerrero, M., Mian, S., Urbano, D., & Wright, M. (2019). The entrepreneurial university as driver for economic growth and social change: Key strategic challenges. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 141, 149-158.

Kupriyanova, V., Pruvot, E.B., & Estermann, T. (2020). Autonomy, efficiency and effectiveness—Opportunities for higher education: A pilot study. In A. Curaj, L. Deca, & R. Pricopie (Eds.), European higher education area: Challenges for a new decade (pp. 437-453). Springer Nature.

Macnaghten, P., & Chilvers, J. (2014). The future of science governance: Publics, policies, practices. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32(3), 530-548.

MacLeod, M. (2018). What makes interdisciplinarity difficult? Some consequences of domain specificity in interdisciplinary practice. Synthese, 195(2), 697–720.

Martin, B. R. (2016). What’s happening to our universities? Prometheus, 34(1).

Messeri, L., & Crockett, M. J. (2024). Artificial intelligence and illusions of understanding in scientific research. Nature, 627, 49-56.

Millar, V. (2016). Interdisciplinary curriculum reform in the changing university. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(4), 471–483.

Mohamed Hashim, M. A., Tlemsani, I., & Matthews, R. (2022). Higher education strategy in digital transformation. Education and Information Technologies, 27(3), 3171–3195.

Mudrak, J., Zabrodska, K., Machovcova, K., Cidlinska, K., & Takacs, L. (2022). Competing values at public universities: Organisational cultures and job demands‐resources in academic departments. Higher Education Quarterly, 76(1), 153–173.

O’Regan, M. (2020). Networked in or networked out? What can we learn from diverse learners’ experiences of progressing with and completing doctoral studies? In A. Curaj, L. Deca, & R. Pricopie (Eds.), European higher education area: Challenges for a new decade (pp. 253-271). Springer Nature.

Petersen, I., & Kruss, G. (2021). Universities as change agents in resource-poor local settings: An empirically grounded typology of engagement models. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 167, 120693.

Pruvot, E.B., Claeys-Kulik, A-L., & Estermann, T. (2015). Strategies for efficient funding of universities in Europe. In A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, & J. Salmi (Eds.), The European higher education area: Between critical reflections and future policies (pp. 153-168). Springer.

Rivera-Vargas, P., Anderson, T., & Cano, C. A. (2021). Exploring students’ learning experience in online education: Analysis and improvement proposals based on the case of a Spanish open learning university. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(6), 3367–3389.

Rutherford, A., & Pickup, I. (2015). Negotiating liminality in higher education: Formal and informal dimensions of the student experience as facilitators of quality. In A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, & J. Salmi (Eds.), The European higher education area: Between critical reflections and future policies (pp. 703-726). Springer.

Salmi, J. (2015). Evidence-based policies in higher education: Data analytics, impact assessment and reporting [Overview paper]. In A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, & J. Salmi (Eds.), The European higher education area: Between critical reflections and future policies (pp. 815-848). Springer.

Samatar, A., Madriaga, M., & McGrath, L. (2021). No love found: How female students of colour negotiate and repurpose university spaces. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 42(5–6), 717–732.

Sánchez-Barrioluengo, M., & Benneworth, P. (2019). Is the entrepreneurial university also regionally engaged? Analysing the influence of university’s structural configuration on third mission performance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 141, 206–218.

Stilgoe, J., Lock, S. J., & Wilsdon, J. (2014). Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 4–15.

Thrift, N. (2023). The pursuit of possibility. Redesigning research universities. Bristol University Press.

Tjörnbo, O., & McGowan, K. (2022). A complex-systems perspective on the role of universities in social innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 174, 121247.

Valtonen, T., Leppänen, U., Hyypiä, M., Kokko, A., Manninen, J., Vartiainen, H., Sointu, E., & Hirsto, L. (2021). Learning environments preferred by university students: A shift toward informal and flexible learning environments. Learning Environments Research, 24(3), 371–388.

Virmajoki, V., Ahokas, I., Witoon, S., Ahlqvist, T., Kirveennummi, A., & Suomalainen, K.-M. (2024). Future directions and possibilities for the university: Report on literature review and Delphi study. University of Turku Strategic Planning Unit in collaboration with the Finland Futures Research Centre (FFRC). ISBN 978-952-249-617-1.

                      LINK: https://www.utupub.fi/handle/10024/179116

Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2004). Building futures scenarios for universities and higher education: An international approach. Policy Futures in Education, 2(2), 245–263.

Vohland, K., Land-Zandstra, A., Ceccaroni, L., Lemmens, R., Perelló, J., Ponti, M., Samson, R., & Wagenknecht, K. (Eds.). (2021). The science of citizen science. Springer.

Wang, H., Fu, T., Du, Y., Gao, W., Huang, K., Liu, Z., Chandak, P., Liu, S., Van Katwyk, P., Deac, A., Anandkumar, A., Bergen, K., Gomes, C. P., Ho, S., Kohli, P., Lasenby, J., Leskovec, J., Liu, T.-Y., Manrai, A., … Zitnik, M. (2023). Scientific discovery in the age of artificial intelligence. Nature, 620, 47-60.

Whitley, R. (2011). Changing governance and authority relations in the public sciences. Minerva, 49(4), 359–385.

Whitworth, A. (2020). Fostering digital skills and competencies through discursive mapping of information landscapes. In A. Curaj, L. Deca, & R. Pricopie (Eds.), European higher education area: Challenges for a new decade (pp. 531-543). Springer Nature.

Williams, P. (2019). Does competency-based education with blockchain signal a new mission for universities? Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 41(1), 104–117.

Winter, R. P., & O’Donohue, W. (2012). Academic identity tensions in the public university: Which values really matter? Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34(6), 565–573.

---

[1] See Virmajoki et al. 2024.