This book includes a selection from the papers that were presented at the Fred Emery Memorial Conference, organized by Sabancı University on April 10-13, 1998. The aims of the conference were to honor Fred Emery's ideas on the future of education, but also to evaluate the results yielded thus far by the participative design process initiated for the University in 1995. We believe it may be useful for the unfamiliar reader to briefly recall some of the events that led to the organization of these conferences.

About the 1995 Search Conference and the 1998 Fred Emery memorial Conference

Following the Sabancı Holding's Board of Directors' decision to create a university-the ideal university for the 21st century -the Holding approved the idea to organize an international Search Conference that would help suggest the guiding principles for creating a world university in Turkey.

The Search Conference took place in August 1995. Its some 50 participants were systematically chosen in order to meet one of the requirements of a Search Conference to achieve its planning objectives: that is, to include in the search process all the stakeholders of a university for the future. Present were businessmen , administrators, students, and scholars from well-known established universities, but also from never experimental ones. The participants represented a variety of nations and continents as well as a diversity of disciplines. Fred Emery attended the conference as one of the participants; but as a leading expert in participative design methodologies, he, together with Merrelyn Emery, also provided support to its organizer and "process manager," Oğuz N. Babüroğlu. As explained in the latter's paper, "The Genesis of Sabancı University: the Design of a Greenfield University." the Search Conference yielded two important results for the development of Sabancı University: Frst, it produced a philosophy statement and a motto, "Create and Develop Together," for the future University; second, it turned out to be the initial milestone in the participative design process for the University.

The 1998 Conference provided the University's designers the opportunity to initiate another participative design of the underpinnigs of a university for the future. Because Fred Emery had passed away shortly after the 1995 Search Conference in Istanbul-his last trip abroad-the organizers decided to dedicate the 1998 Conference to this scholar whose thinking about education rested on collaborative and innovative approaches to social science, and they agreed that the best way to pay him tribute was to hold a future-oriented development conference, the chosen theme of which would be, "On the Future of Universities and Education."

Acting on the premise that Sabancı University was to become a global reference point for educational innovation, the organizers challenged potential participants to question some of the basic assumptions on which rests the traditional outlook on education and/or universities, by questioning, for instance, prevailing learning paradigms and education pedagogies, the role of theory, and/or the current, traditional objectives and values of universities. Proposals were sought for papers demonstrating a plurality of perspectives and methodologies as well as an emphasis on multi-, inter-, trans-, or cross disciplinarity.

The contribution of the Fred Emery Memorial Conference to the development of Sabancı University and to its views on education and institutional organization was twofold. Te Key Trends Workshop, organized alongside the Parallel Sessions, yielded very important results in that it produced specific principles concerning the "Goals for Education and Learning of The Next Generation" as well as the "Key Elements of the Ideal University," principles that, as Babüroğlu explains in his paper, werre ultimately adopted by Sabancı University to define its current vision.

The Parallel Sessions were devoted to such topics as New University Paradigms, Relationships Between Universities and Social Sciences Practice, Interdisciplinary Thrust, Business Schools of the Future, Organizational Learning, and the Educational Environment; and they resulted in vaulable debates on alternatives for the future of education and universities, debates that are reflecred in the various contributions to this book.

The attendance at the Conference was international in scope, with participants from Australia, Canada, France, germany, Israel, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Turkey. We also want to stress that the scholars who responded to the call for papers and were invited to attend the Conference had varied backgrounds and perspectives. Their papers do not, threfore, necessarily reflect Fred Emery's ideas. Nor were they meant to, as participation in the Conference was not restricted to preselected circles.

About the Structure of This Book

There is a consensus among all the authors that whatever their level, educational institutions of the 21st century can no longer afford to remain out of touch with life and society. There is also a consensus that the education of the future will have to change to conform to the conditions and needs of changing times. But there is no overall agreement as to what "the" future of education will and can be. Hence the title of this book, "educational Futures: Shifting Paradigm of Universities and Education."

Even though no single ultimate model of university or learning paradigm of the future is arrived at in the contributions, the direction of the paradigm shift is an emergent point of consensus.

One major direction of the paradigm shift identified by the authors is toward develoing a boundaryless learning community. This entails analyzing and overcoming the limitations of some well-known boundaries of the currently existing paradigm: the current tendency to focus on education and educational institutions rather than on learning and learning communities; the focus on a discipline-oriented education rather than on an inter- and transdisciplinary one, and on the limited modalities of when and where education should be given and received-in particular, the tendency to see learning as taking place only within the context of schools and classrooms, rather than as a lifetime process which extends to work, home, and community settings.

The second major direction toward a new paradigm appears in the tendencytoward the primacy of practice that refers to both methodology of action and a new way of lookinng at theory. Dialogue with and between students, managers, policy makers, and members of communities, and collaborative work by academics and researchers with the aforementioned parites are encouraged in order to produce new knowledge that is based on relevance, that is grounded in real-life problems, and that can only be produced effectively through reflection in the course of action. A new approach to understanding and meaning, through the promotion of theories which produce useful and relevant action knowledge to improve current situations, are emerging as the second core constituent of the new paradigm.

Among the main themes in this publication is that ofthe need for universities and business schools to reorganize themselves, as both work organizations and as learning and knowledgeproducing institutions. the need for an interdisciplinary approach in research and education as a key to solve real-life problems is the explicit theme of some papers, and also an implicit concern in most of the others. Various methodologies that may provide ways to change public education or transform universities into better learning places are described in the last two sections.

Nevertheless, because of the variety in the contributors' background and interests, the ensuing plurality of approaches made it somewhat diffucult to classify the papers in rigid, narrowly defined, or all-encompassing categories. This book is about similar, parallel, recurring, and overlapping ideas that we chose to organize around the aforementioned themes.

Section One, "Primacy of Practice," has to do mostly with need for universities of the future to reorganize themselves as work organizations, in order to take up new functions. As Greenwood and Levin put it, universities-presently caught in an autopoetic isolation-have to reorganize themselves away from the Tayloristic model with its compartmentalized structure so as to be able to produce knowledge relevant to society's needs. For Ennals, the issue at stake is somewhat different. Universities should opt for collaborative work by academics and other partners in order to be able tofulfill a triple function: to contribute not only to research and teaching, but also to the regional economic development. Davies understands challenges that face universities as the need for them to response to the industry'sgrowing demand for human resources capabilities and to adapt to the emergence of new learning paradigms including the lifelong organizational paradigm. In this section, "practice" refers to both a methodolgy of action and a way of looking at theory. Action research is understood as an appropriate mode of action to be used by universities to reach their new objectives. But in Toulmin's paper, it is argued that the university's focus is on giving primacy to practice, with less emphasis being given to theory. Hence practice becomes a means acquire clinical, practice-derived knowledge-as opposed to the theoretical and abstract knowledge traditionally favored by academia.

The main theme in Section Two, "Leading Concepts of the New Paradigm," concerns what universities, as learning and knowledge-producing institutions, could do to get in touch with life and society. For Pines, this new engagement implies favoring a student-based complex adaptive learning community, where transdisciplinary problem-oriented learning should be given priority. Engagement for Duenas means that universities will no longer restrict themselves to producing intelelctual capital: They will instead create social capital that is meant to incalcate values in people to bring about a overall betterment of society. Awareness and improvement of society are also at stake in Fricke's paper, which argues that universities have to engage in a dialoguewith society so as to be able to produce-in the field of social science, for instance-knowlege that will be relevant to society in that it will contribute to its social transformation processes. According to Glaser, Elliot, and Halliday, universities have not produced relevant knowledge in such areas as social science because of their apparent inability differentiate-or treat differently-sciences that operate within open as opposed to closed systems perspectives. To overcome this problem, universities have to become true open system and inquiry habitats; Fred Emery is cited as one of the scholars who, while working outside universities, greatly contributed to the development of this field. In the final paper of this section, van den Bosch presents five different views on learning and higher education. Each one of these views being situational, there is no one single ultimate model for the universities or learning paradigms of the future.

In Section Three, "Experiences in Interdisciplinarity," the common assumption is that research and education should not be confined to single disciplines, but should rather imply a collaboration between academic disciplines at universities, and even between academic and nonacademic institutions. For Gür, interdisciplinarity must be encouraged in education and research, but not at the expense of a discipline-based approach to education and research, becaue the former cannot be a substitute for the latter: Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Examples taken from the development of materials science also show how, up to a point, interdisciplinarity is inevitable as real life problems grow more complex and thus require team answers and teamwork. The idea of inevitability is also explicit ibn Crone's and Kardam's paper on new programs in the field of International Relations. As the natureand professional job opportunities of that field evolve with the globalization of society, culture and economy, International Relations must become more interdisciplinary to address relevant questions and provide students with adequate professional skills. Curricula should thus be (re)designed accordingly. Qvale's paper stresses that interdisciplinarity is not simply a matter of prompting a collaboration between various academic disciplines at the universities. In order to take up the challenge of collaborating with industries that are decentralized, flexible, team-oriented and cross-disciplinary organizations, universities will have to adopt an new approach to learning, work across and beyond their institutional boundaries, and thereby reevaluate their own centralized, discipline-based structure. The INPRO case, an interdisciplinary doctoral program based on partnerships between a university and Norweigian process industries, is an experience of this kind.

Section Four, "Approaches to Learning in Changing Business Schoolls and More," stresses, like most previous sections, that higher education is out of touch with the world. In the context of business schools, however, this notion takes on a different connotation. For Boyatzis, the challenge which higher education faces, in general, is to stimulate sustained learning; the challenge which business schools face, in particular, is to develop the management competencies required by today's world. As shown by the outcome of assesment studies undertaken at the wheaterhead School of Management at Case Reserve University, the implementation of new competency-based, outcome-oriented MBA prgrams can succeed in improving students' managerial and leadership effectivenesss-related competencies. McKenna and Brueckner explain business schools' lack of concern for the world in terms of the predominance of the conventional-"unethical"-economics paradigm and the persisitence of specialized structures at the universities. Key assumptions about economic rationalism have to be reevaluated so as to include moral values and concerned stakeholders' values. More specifically, business schools need to take into account growing environmental concerns, and to adopt the concept of ecological sustainable development via an interdisciplinary collaboration of business with other disciplines that are traditionally not associated with it. Beasley's paper evaluates management education at a time when the growth of information and knowledge is overwhelming, and its author wonders what the required balance between academic and applied approaches to that education might be: In order to be able to master today's information technology, studentsneed to acquire greater humanity, intellectual capacities and independence-rather than short-term, operational, skill-based applied knowledge. Unlike the other contributors to this section. Diemer focuses on the field of social science. He contends that quantificaiton-born from a tool fixation-should be used as a means rahter than as an end in itself if relevant knowledge is to be produce in that field. But that tool fixation may be at best a stage in the discipline's evolution. As far as education is concerned, says he, the current system should be reformed so as to cultivate in society a desire to learn; and universities should be transformed in order to be able to act as true open systems that address real-life problems.

Even though a concern for new learning paradigms, more suitable for the 21st century, is also central to the papers included in Section Five, "Changing and Evaluating Education in the Public Domain", these focus more on the methodology used to introduce educational changes and on the diffuculties encountered while doing so, than on the paradigms themselves Smith's paper provides an overview of a developing partnership among rural West Virginia schoool systems community-based foundation, a state university system, and a national foundation. The aim of this ongoing and growing project of community development is to promote a new approach to education-experiantial learning-and to foster community stewardship principles at school. The author's method of procedure is one of reflection-in-action. Blichfeldt describes an attempted program evaluation, based on action research, of the Norwegian-democratic-reform of upper secondary education. He emphasizes the various stages of the program and the difficulties encountered during its implementation; namely, the contradictions that exist between the program's ideal principles and goals and the resulting practises. Branson's paper focuses on the consensus and concurrent design processes that were applied to facilitate management strategies used by the Florida Schoolyear 2000 Initiative. That project's aim was to introduce a learning-centered model in Florida's public education. But consensus among stakeholders pertaining to the needs and ways to carry out changes in the public educational system is difficult to obtain...

Papers in Section Six, "Designing the New and Changing the Old," are primarily concerned with the application of modalities of the participative methodology which Fred Emery designed to transform universities-and other systems-into more democratic and better learning communities. However different experiences yielded different results. Based on the experience of the Reflexion and Design Conference they ran at a Mexican university, Jimenénez and Aguirre-Vásquez emphasize how a well-planned and well-designed Search Conference, organized with the support of concerned authorities, can help an institution plan its desired future and organize a learning and active adaptive community. Martin describes a Search Conferencethat was held in connection with the merger of two nonacademic-learning-centers of American university with the aim of contributing to participatory democracy at the university and improving the institution's learning and teaching environment. she explores the learning potential which the Search Conference process and environment themselves have for the participants. As for Merrelyn Emery, she analyzes the aims and results of a study on the six criteria that are the human requirements for productive work and learning. Those criteria measure the degree of intrinsic motivation that arises from genotypical design principles which produce organizational sytuctures. A study conducted during an intership program at the Australian National University confirmed that these requirements are as important in educational systems as in other systems. In the closing paper, Babüroğlu traces the genesis of Sabancı University, from its initial "beginning stage" to its final "formalization stage" while stressing in particular the "virtual stage" during which the core philosophy and the core academic design of the future university were nourished; in terms of approach, the emphasis is palced on the action research-based design process itself rather than on the result of that process.

We wish to emphasize that this book also gives the reader the occasion to familiarize him/herself with Fred Emery's own ideas on education and univerities. In Merrelyn Emery's and Babüroğlu's Introduction, "Universities as Seen by Fred Emery", the reader can become acquainted with fundamental aspects of the open systems theory which this scholar developed as his conceptual framework, and with key concepts pertaining to his understanding of learning, education, sciene, and their implications for the future. Moreover the challenges that face a university of the future-such as Sabancı's-are articulated on the basis of notes left by Fred Emery concerning the development of the University.

The Epilogue of the book, "Some Thoughts About the University," is a compilation of various notes written by Fred Emery in 1994 but hitherto never published. It develops at greater lengths some of the ideas conveyed in the introduction, but in the Australian context of the 1970s, where and when academics were trying to recover the idea of a university from the counterculture of the 1960s and early 1970s.

Lastly, we wish to stress that if one of the aims of the 1998 Fred Emery Memorial Conference was to pay tribute to the scholar, the purpose of this book is simply to perpetuate in a tangible from the Conference's most important outcomes and give the reader the occasion to recall them, or learn about them.

About the Selection of the Papers

Papers that were presented at the Fred Emery Memorial Conference were selected for publication here on the basis of two criteria. The decision regarding the inclusion of submitted papers in the book was based on the decision of the editors of this book, and/ or on recommendations of other participants in the Fred Emery Memorial Conference who reviewed the papers and gave feedback to the authors. Moreover manuscritps were considered for publication in this book withthe understanding that the papers are original, have not been published elsewhere, are not under consideration for publication elsewhere, or that if they have been published in whole or in part, all necessary permissions to publish them in this book heve been obtained by the authors and provided to Sabancı University with ad hoc copyright notices.

Acknowledgements

This book may be viewed as a summing up of many activities that were generated with the design process of Sabancı University. There are, therefore, many individuals, in addition to those affiliated with the book project, whose efforts and contributions are gratefully acknowledged. First and foremost, we would like to take this opportunity to express our very special thanks to Ms. Güler Sabancı, Chairwoman of the Board of Trustees of Sabancı University for her leadership, courage, and ability to nurture innovative processes, and for support throughout the Sabancı University design process as well as the Fre Emery Memorial Conference.

Since the papers published here werre selected from those presented at the first international conference that Sabancı University organized even before it had begun providing instruction, we thought this preface would be an appropriate place to mention the names of all the people who contributed to the academic design process, particularly between 1995-1997. The participants in the Search Conference to design a university of the future were: Fred Emery, Merrelyn Emery, Albert A. Angehrn, Tamotsu Aoki, stanley S. Gryskiewicz, Thedore R. Marmor, Morten Levin, Per Abdel Monem Said Aly, Homann Jespersen, Sergio Oscar Vera Munoz, Dan Avnon, Günter Endruweit, Heath W. Lowry, Harold G. Nelson, Özay Oral, Nina Segre, Rukhsana A. Siddiqui, Wynand H. F. W. Wijnen, Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., Ömer Saatçioğlu, Can Paker, Soli Özel, Muhittin Oral, Hüseyin Leblebici, Üstün Ergüder, Kemal Gürüz, Nilüfer Göle, Nakiye Boyacıgiller, Ertuğrul Ergöz, Banu Onaral, Işık İnselbağ, Metin Ger, Vural Akışık, İlker Baybars, Şerif Mardin,M. Süleyman Demokan, Güliz Ger, Turgut M. Gür, Ahmet Evin, Bülent Eczacıbaşı, Hazım Kantarcı, Kemal Derviş, Atıf Cezairli, Hüveyda Başağa, Oğuz Babüroğlu (process manager), Ahmet Aykaç, Nur Yalman, Güngör Uras, Ayşegül Arsoy (assistant), Emine Batislam (student), Ceyda Ünal (student), Nilüfer Yılmazkaya (student), Aslı Gürler (student), Volkan Hidayetoğlu (student), and Murat Fiş (student).

As for the design committees throughhout 1995-1997, Nilüfer Göle, Bahri Yılmaz, Soli Özel, Erdağ Aksel, Hasan Bülent Kahraman, and Ahmet Evin, participated in the Arts and Social Sciences Committee; Metin Ger, Hüveyda Başağa, Metin Durgut, Abdülkadir Erden, Ruhi Kaykayoğlu, Nuket Yetiş, Nesim Erkip, Meral Özgüç, Banu Onaral, and Hazım Kantarcı in the Engineering and Natural Sciences Committee; Ahmet Aykaç, Hüseyin Leblebici, Güliz Ger, Can Paker, Oğuz Babüroğlu, Muhittin Oral, and Osman A. Ataç in the Business Administration Committee; and Ertuğrul Ergöz, Ömer Saatçioglu, Hikmet Fişek, Okan Tarhan, and Mithat Çoruh in the Administrative Systems Committee.

Neither the Fred Emery Memorial Conference nor this book would have come about without the generous support and encouragement of the President of Sabancı University, Tosun Terzioğlu; and the General Secretary of the University, Hüsnü Paçacıoğlu.

Since the initial Search Conference, three very different-but critical- contributors passed away; and we would like to remember them here. Hacı Sabancı was, together with Sakıp Sabancı, the champion of the University initiative in the Sabancı Group; and as the Chairman of the Sabancı Foundation which the University is a part of, he was known among the design community as the "guardian angel" of the University. Another of the critical contributors who left us in a very untimely manner was Ayşegül Ersoy, the assistant to the acting General Secretary of the Sabancı University, Ertuğrul Ergöz. Ayşegül was assigned full-time to the Sabancı University by the Sabancı Group and fulfilled, together with Ertuğrul Ergöz, a linking function without which many administrative tasks would not have been completed. Finally, this work is dedicated to Fred Emery, who influenced so many people, sometimes directly and sometimes in a very subtle way, and whose loss as a friend and mentor is deeply felt.

This book would not have been brought to its completion without the painstaking work of its Managing Editor, Maryse Posanaer, Editor for Foreign Publications of the Sabancı University Press. Her professionalism, endurance, and critical interventions were crucial in enabling the editors, and the contributors, to progress toward completing the various publication requirements. We are very grateful for the kind of competence that she brought to the editing process.

We would also like to acknowledge the help advice of several individuals during the preparation of the book. Sırma Evcan, Sabancı University Press Manager, has been a constant source of encouragement, support, and advice. Professor Behlül Üsdiken of Sabancı University gave us valuable and sensible advice on overall editorial matters. Joan Eröncel is to be thanked for the proofreading of the papers and Professors Johann Pillai of Eastern Mediterranean University in Famagusta, Northern Cyprus for helping with editing of some sections. Numerous colleagues from Sabancı University, in particular Sibel Kamışlı and Ayşe Yılmaz, provided us with very helpful advice on languag-related editorial topics. We would also like to thank Aydan Baktır of Ring Reklam Ajansı for the cover design and intelligent page layout.

Last-but not least-we are grateful to all of the contributors for agreeging to have their papers published here, and for showing infinite patience through a long preparation process and a seemingly endless exchange of correspondence.

Istanbul, June 2000

Oğuz N. Babüroğlu

Sabancı University and ARAMA Consulting, Istanbul

Merrelyn Emery

Australian National University, Centre for Continuing Education and the Fred Emery Institute, Australia

Educational Futures: Shifting Paradigm of Universities and Education posist educational futures as a choice of futures as well as the futures we are in. The contributors help us to recognize a shifting paradigm, and they urge us to make choices: to direct and shape a future in which we are already participating but have not yet made a comprehensive and explicit attempt to change, as well as to direct and shape the process of education to acknowledge the new paradigm.

One major direction of the paradigm shift identified by the authors is toward developing a boundaryless leraning community. This entails analyzing and overcoming the limitations of some well-known boundaries of the currently existing paradigm: the current tendency to focus on education and educational institutions rather than on learning and learning communities; the focus on a discipline-oriented education rather than on an inter-and transdisciplinary one, and one the limited modalities of when and where education should be given and received-in particular, the tendency to see learning as taking place only within the context os schools and classrooms, rather than as a lifetime process which extends to work, home, and community settings.

The second major direction toward a new paradigm appears in the tendency toward the primacy of practice that refers to both a methodology of action and a new way of looking at theory. Dialogue with and between students, managers, policy makers, and members of communities, and collaborative work by academics and researchers with the aforementioned parites are encouraged in order to produce new knowledge that is based of relevance, that is grounded in real-life problems, and that can only be produced effectively through reflection in the course of action. A new approach to research based on "action research," and a new approach to understanding and meaning, through the promotion of theories which produce useful and relevant action knowledge to improve current situations, are emerging as the second core consituent of the new paradigm.

This book includes a selection of the papers presented at the Fred Emery Memorial Conference on the "Future of Universities and Education," organized by Sabancı University on April 10-13, 1998 in Istanbul. The primary aim of the Conference was to celebrate Fred Emery's contributions to education and beyond, and also to allow perspectives derived from different inspirations and foundations. Athough no single ultimate model of university or learning paradigm of the future is arrived at, the direction of the paradigm shift is an emergent point of consensus. The scholars and practitioners who participated in the conference represented a broad range of cross-disciplinary approaches to education, in countries from Australia, Canada, France and Germany, to Israel, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Turkey; and the papers in this volume illustrate diverse experiences from public, private, state, community, and enterprise programs, at university or institute level, shedding new light on the globally shifting paradigm of universities and education.

This book concludes with an epilogue written by Fred Emery on his thoughts about the universities and educational futures.