Navigating University Futures in the Age of Polycrisis

🎤 KEYNOTE ADDRESS · NATIONAL RESEARCH WEEK 2026

"Research futures: Designing tomorrow's sociotechnical imaginaries"

Assoc. Prof. Nico Pizzolato · Middlesex University, London

Strategic Foresight Report:
Navigating University Futures in the Age of Polycrisis

🌍 systemic instability · causal entanglement · institutional futures

1 The Global Landscape: Defining the Polycrisis and Institutional Impact

The contemporary global landscape is no longer defined by isolated challenges but by a "polycrisis"—a state of systemic instability where multiple, overlapping disruptions converge to threaten the established order. For higher education leadership, this environment renders traditional linear forecasting obsolete. To remain relevant, universities must pivot from being passive observers of global trends to active architects of future-building. We are at a critical juncture where the strategic imperative is to consciously construct the futures we wish to inhabit, rather than merely managing the symptoms of an increasingly volatile present.

This polycrisis is driven by a "causal entanglement" of global systems. Climate change, geopolitical conflict, mass migration, and radical technological disruption do not exist in silos; they interact and amplify one another, creating a collective impact far more damaging than the sum of their parts. For our institutions, this entanglement manifests as acute funding volatility, as both public and private capital are redirected toward immediate crisis mitigation. Simultaneously, geopolitical tensions and climate imperatives are aggressively reshaping research agendas, forcing a departure from curiosity-driven inquiry toward securitized or reactive outputs.

Societal expectations for the university have undergone a profound transformation. We are no longer viewed simply as engines of human capital and credentialing; the institutional mandate has shifted toward planetary survival. We are now tasked with the responsibility to "save the earth," acting as stewards for not only human society but also non-human actors—forests, glaciers, and oceans. To meet this responsibility, we must deploy sophisticated conceptual tools that move beyond the limitations of "short-termism" and path dependency.

2 Theoretical Frameworks: The Cone of Possibility and Socio-Technical Imaginaries

To navigate the current era, leadership must abandon the antiquated "upward arrow" model of progress. Historically, institutional planning assumed a linear trajectory toward a guaranteed "better place." However, current ecological and social realities suggest we are at a tipping point where paths may lead toward degradation or institutional obsolescence. Strategic foresight offers a non-linear methodology to map these divergent trajectories.

A foundational tool is the Cone of Possibility, distinguishing between:

• Probable Futures: What is likely if current trends—AI-driven labor displacement, erosion of public funding—continue uninterrupted.
• Plausible Futures: Outcomes that could realistically occur based on current understanding, even without immediate momentum.
• Possible Futures: "Wild card" scenarios and remote possibilities not yet fully reflected in data.
• Preferable Futures: Normative trajectories we actively work toward, often in tension with "probable" trends.

The realization of these futures depends on Socio-Technical Imaginaries. As defined by Sheila Jasanoff, these are collectively held, institutionally stabilized visions of social life and social order. History proves their power: 19th-century socialist imaginaries prefigured modern credit cards, while Fritz Lang’s Metropolis (1927) provided the architectural imaginary for today's mega-cities. The imaginary we adopt today will dictate which institutional model takes hold.

3 Comparative Evaluation of the Four Future University Models

The tensions within contemporary higher education contain the "seeds" of four potential futures. These models are prefigurative — elements of each already exist simultaneously within our current landscape.

⚡ The Reactive University

Perpetual crisis management, audit culture, "change without transformation." Researchers become "portfolio workers." Probable continuation of current trends.

🏰 The Fortress University

Nationalized, securitized sphere. Governance shifts to authoritarianism, surveillance of scholars. Research as strategic state asset. Seeds visible in US, Hungary, Turkey.

📱 The Platform University

Big Tech provides primary infrastructure. "Vendor lock-in," loss of sovereignty. Two-tier researcher class: elite controllers vs. data inputs.

🌱 The Regenerative University

Custodian of planetary and social repair. Knowledge as a "common," open science, deep co-production. Success measured by long-term societal impact.

📊 Strategic Trade-offs of Future Institutional Paths

Model Type	Governance Logic	Role of Research	Primary Risk
Reactive	Managerial / Audit-led	Driven by funder/gov agendas	Erosion of leadership; status quo stagnation
Fortress	Authoritarian / Securitized	Strategic state asset; compliance-focused	Loss of autonomy; isolation from global science
Platform	Algorithmic / Private-led	Mediated by Big Tech infrastructure	Vendor lock-in; loss of institutional sovereignty
Regenerative	Collegial / Commons-based	Steward of planetary & social repair	Institutional resistance; perceived as utopic

4 The "So What?" Layer: Strategic Implications for Leadership

The choice of imaginary is the ultimate leadership imperative. The "Fortress" and "Platform" models are the default, probable outcomes of passive management. If we do not actively intervene, the "pressure toward the probable" will continue to drive universities toward "quick fixes"—short-term research trends that fail to address the long-term vision required to survive the polycrisis.

Strategic planning must account for "Black Swan" events and non-linear trajectories. Organizations like the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk at Cambridge are already analyzing extinction-level threats — the stakes of future-building are now survival-level.

🎯 Strategic Mandates for Future-Building

• Infrastructure Sovereignty: Resist "vendor lock-in" by developing independent, public-interest digital infrastructures.
• Active Decoupling from Surveillance: Actively decouple research activities from restrictive state surveillance.
• Reject the "Quick Fix": Shift funding and prestige away from short-term, trend-based research toward long-term stewardship.
• Embrace the Power of Desirability: Recognize that the research and values we deem "desirable" today determine which futures remain open.

5 Conclusion: From Imagination to Institutional Action

The university stands at a critical tipping point between institutional decline and regenerative transformation. The status quo is no longer a viable trajectory in an age of causal entanglement and systemic crisis. We are currently choosing — through our actions or our apathy — between becoming technological subsidiaries, securitized fortresses, or fundamental forces for planetary repair.

The central takeaway: our present-day decisions are entirely shaped by the specific imaginary we hold for the future. If we commit to the Regenerative University as our normative goal, our governance, research, and ethics will naturally align to meet that vision. We must consciously choose to be custodians of knowledge and repair, ensuring the university remains a vital steward for the world’s survival.

---

Strategic Foresight Report · Polycrisis & Higher Education Futures · #RegenerativeUniversity · Knowledge Sovereignty