Currently reading Wiek & Iwaniec (2014) on “Quality criteria for visions and visioning in sustainability science”

When I hear the term “vision”, I always think of the former german chancellor Helmut Schmidt, who is quoted as having said “people with visions should go see a doctor.” With that out of the way — sustainability science has recognized that positive visions about the future are “influential, if not indispensable, stimulus for change” (Wiek & Iwaniec, 2014), since pull factors are usually more successful than push factors like policies and guidelines. In contrast to predictions, which are likely future states, a vision is a possible future state, and it does not necessarily contain a pathway for how to get there.

But, as Wiek & Iwaniec (2014) describe in the article “Quality criteria for visions and visioning in sustainability science“, not every vision is necessarily a good vision. They review the literature and come up with 10 quality criteria, separated into a normative, construct and transformational quality as backbones:

• Normative quality
  • Visionary (duh!), describing a desirable future state
  • Sustainable, meaning in compliance with sustainability principles
• Construct quality
  • Systemic, decribing how the different parts of the system are working together
  • Coherent, meaning that goals have to be compatible
  • Plausible, i.e. informed by empirical examples, theory, pilot projects
  • Tangible, consisting of clearly articulated and detailed goals
• Transformational quality
  • Relevant to “me” and “us”
  • Nuanced with detailed priorities
  • Motivational so it can inspire action towards the envisioned change
  • Shared, meaning that there needs to be a degree of consensus and support for it from the community

To create a vision that meets all these quality criteria, this is a typical sequence “(1) Framing the visioning process [Framing]; (2) Creating initial vision material (vision pool) [Initializing]; (3) Decomposing and analyzing this material [Analyzing]; and, finally, (4) Revising and recomposing [Synthesizing and Finalizing] the vision“. Lastly, Wiek & Iwaniec (2014) call for adequate documentation and justification of the methods applied in the process.

I’m reading this in the context of writing about trust, where I had the idea that we should start academic development work on building trusting relationships based on a vision of what the world would be like if there was more trust in general. I was thinking that this could be individual visions that teachers develop, but the more I think about it, also about this article, the more I think that it should be a shared vision. Maybe we can start out by sharing a vignette of a trusting university, where we are not policing students, where we aren’t still anxiously waiting to hear the decision that was made weeks ago and will determine our career progression, where we don’t have to document work tasks and hours, where we can spontaneously share thoughts in meetings without having to think through all the ways in which they can backfire, …? Somehow I feel like I have read something like this already, maybe in the Stories of Hope?

Wiek, A., & Iwaniec, D. (2014). Quality criteria for visions and visioning in sustainability science. Sustainability science, 9(4), 497-512.

Birthday trip a while ago.

This could have easily become my new happy place! At least in that weather…