3. Learning to Innovate in Higher Education Through Deep Wonder

Finn Thorbjørn Hansen1 Aalborg University, Denmark

Abstract: Humanities and liberal art are called for in science and innovation. The fast development in Artificial Intelligence, Biotechnology, etc. demands a new kind of “Responsible Innovation”. How do we in higher education teaching work with ethical, existential, philosophical and even metaphysical questions concerning what a human being and a good life is? In this article the focus will be on learning to innovate through nurturing teaching practices for deep wonder among students and teachers. By taking up Ronald Barnett’s notion of a ‘Metaphysical University” and his description of the Three Voices in university teaching (the Voices of Skill, Knowledge and Being), and by elaborating on the Phenomenology of Wonder and what I call “delicate problems” in contrast to “wicked problems”—this article suggested a model for a Four Voiced Approach to innovation in higher education. The Fourth Voice being the Voice of Ethical Callings.

Keywords: responsible innovation, metaphysical university, phenomenology of wonder, wicked problems, delicate problems

“It is in Apple’s DNA that technology alone is not enough— it’s technology married with liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the results that make our heart sing.” —Steve Jobs, presentation of iPad 2, March 2011

“Universities are no longer permitted to be places of mystery, of uncertainty, of the unknown. The mystery of universities has ended.” —Ronald Barnett2

1 Finn Thorbjørn Hansen, Professor, PhD, Centre for Dialogue and Organization, Department of Communication, University of Aalborg (Denmark): e-mail: finnth@ hum.aau.dk 2 Barnett, Ronald. 2011. Being a University. London: Routledge, 15.

© 2020 Finn Thorbjøn Hansen - http://doi.org/10.3726/ptihe.2019.03.04 - The online edition of this publication is available open access. Except where otherwise noted, content can be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0). For details go to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 52 Finn Thorbjørn Hansen

Introduction

The humanities and liberal arts are now called upon from an unexpected cor- ner of the universities. In the wake of The Fourth Industrial Revolution,3 scientists in geoengineering, biotechnology and genome editing and technicians of cyborg robotics and artificial intelligence (A.I.) are asking for advice, regu- lation and ethical criteria for what the direction and restrictions of the upcom- ing technological developments and innovations might be. In the discipline of Responsible Research and Innovation,4 we see this appeal being addressed to the humanities. In the work of ‘human-centered design’ and so-called meaning-driven innovation,5 we also see a new focus on how to bring in a more philosophical, aesthetical and existential dimension when working with meaning and ‘meaning-making’ in innovative processes and in teaching radical innovation at higher education.6 But if we want to create spaces for a more existential, aesthetical and philosophical dimension in innovative learning in higher education then how do we theoretically grasp this need? In this essay, I will to some extent follow the lead of the British philosopher of higher education, Ronald Barnett.7 In his works from 2004 and 2007

3 Schwab, Klaus. 2016. The Fourth Industrial Revolution. London: Random House. 4 Sutcliffe, Hilary. 2011. A Report on Responsible Research and Innovation (Prepared for DG Research and Innovation, European Commission): http://ec.europa.eu/research/ science-society/document_library/pdf_06/rri‐report‐hilary‐sutcli e_en.pdf [accessed: 14.05.2016]; Owen, Richard, John Bessant, and Maggy Heintz. 2013. Responsible Innovation. London: Wiley & Sons; Philbeck, Thomas, Nikolai Davis, and Anne Marie Engtoft Larsen. 2018. Values, ethics and innovation: Rethinking technological development in the fourth Industrial Revolution. (White Paper from World Economic Forum, August 2018: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_WP_Values_Ethics_In- novation_2018.pdf 5 Verganti, Roberto, and Åsa Öberg. 2013. Interpreting and envisioning—A hermeneutic framework to look at radical innovation of meanings. Industrial Marketing Man- agement, Vol. 42: 86–95; Norman, Donald, and Roberto Verganti. 2014. Incremental and radical innovation: Design research vs. technology and meaning change. Design Issues, Vol. 30, Issue 1: 78–96; Verganti, Roberto. 2017. Overcrowded. Designing Meaningful Products in a World Awash with Ideas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 6 Hasanefendic, Sandra, Julie Birkholz, Hugo Horta, and Peter van der Sijde. 2017. In- dividuals in action: Bringing about innovation in higher education. European Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 7, No. 2: 101–119; Horn, Michael, and Alana Dunagan. 2018. Innovation and Quality Assurance in Higher Education. San Francisco, CA: The Christensen Institute. 7 Barnett, Ronald. 2004. Learning for an unknown future.Higher Education Research & Development, Vol. 23, No. 3, August 2004: 247–260; Barnett, Ronald. 2007. A Will To Learn. Being a Student in an Age of Uncertainty. Berkshire: Open University Learning to Innovate in Higher Education Through Deep Wonder 53 he talks about a missing ‘ontological dimension’ in higher education research and about the need in higher education pedagogy to give space not just for the epistemological “Voice of Knowledge” and pragmatic “Voice of Skills”, but also for the ontological “Voice of Being”, where the student as a unique person with his or her unique passion, aspirations and “authentic self-creation” is nurtured. Later8 his interests are more on how universities can avoid becoming just pragmatic “entrepreneurial universities” or evidence-based “scientific universities”. He calls for a world-oriented higher education—an “ecological university”—which also is qualified and characterized by a responsible wisdom-oriented way of thinking that lets the universal and metaphysical questions and wonder live and inspire the teachers and students.9 I want to press this even further and ask how we can strengthen the sense of wonder, which is cultivated and nurtured in the old Greek understanding of living a philosophical life as a love for wisdom. Or, as the French philosopher and phenomenologist Emman- uel Levinas would say: “Philosophy is the wisdom of love at the service of love”.10 Might this kind of philosophical and wisdom-seeking wonder help us better to “make our heart sing” as Steve Jobs (and Verganti11) urges innovators to have as their final goal.12

Press; Barnett 2011; Barnett, Ronald. 2018. The Ecological University. A Feasible Utopia. London: Routledge. 8 Barnett 2011, 2018. 9 The Dutch educational researcher, Gerd Biesta can be read as being in coherence with Ronald Barnett here. He too calls for a third dimension in education, called Subjectifi- cation, which he sees as an important critical corrective to the dominating dimensions of Qualification and Socialisation in education. He also speaks for a “world-centered education”. See: Biesta, Gerd. 2010. Good Education in an Age of Measurement: Eth- ics, Politics, Democracy. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers; and Biesta, Gerd. 2012. The future of teaching education: Evidence, competence or wisdom? Research on Steiner Education, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 8–21. As I will elaborate later in the essay, the difference between the two researchers might be found in their different philosophical orientations. Where Barnett refers mainly to Heidegger when talking about the Voice of Being, Biesta mainly refers to Levinas when talking about Subjectification. 10 Levinas, Emmanuel. 1998. Otherwise Than Being. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 162. 11 Verganti 2017. 12 In the scope of this essay I will not be able to reflect upon the intriguing question of the relationship between love and wonder in philosophy and educational theory. This is a grand question, which is touched upon by educationalists such as Arcilla, Rene. 1995. For the Love of Perfection: Richard Rorty and Liberal Education. London: Routledge; Taylor, James. 1998. Poetic Knowledge: The Recovery of Education. New York: SUNY Press; Mackler, Stephanie 2009. Learning for Meaning’s Sake: Toward 54 Finn Thorbjørn Hansen

In this essay, I will stick to the question of how the sense and experience of deep wonder may influence the students’ and the teacher’s ability to ‘stand in the openness’? Will it strengthen their ability to become innovative? And yet at the same time, will it also give them some sense of the existential and ethical callings in their own life and profession and practices, which a wondrous approach might reveal? In addition to the three voices of skills, knowledge and being suggested by Barnett, I will argue for a ‘fourth voice’—the Voice of the Ethical Callings. This will foster an ability to see where deep wonder has its relevance and its limitations in wanting to cultivate meaning-driven and responsible innovation in higher education.

From Wicked to Delicate Problems

Before I turn to Ronald Barnett and his notion of the ‘ontological turn in higher education’ let me briefly present some arguments for why an ontological dimension is of importance in the research on responsible and meaning- driven innovation. In the research on how to work with radical innovation the concept of ‘wicked problems’ is often used. ‘Wicked problems’ are defined as complex problems that cannot be solved or ‘tamed’ within the current paradigm of a theory, system or a practice.13 To radically think creatively and anew one has to either think within a radical new cognitive framework (knowledge experts

the Hermeneutic University. Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishers. Mackler (2009); and philosophers such as Arendt, Hannah. 1998 [1958]. The Human Condition. Chi- cago: Chicago University Press; Nussbaum, Martha. 1990. Love’s Knowledge: Essays on Philosophy and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Marion, Jean.-Luc. 2002. Being Given: Toward a Phenomenology of Givenness. Stanford: Stanford Uni- versity Press. As I have shown ealier—Hansen, F.T. 2015b. Om Wittgenstein som humorist og eksistentiel fænomenolog. In: M. Pahuus, J. Rendtorff, and P. Søltoft (eds.), Kierkegaard som eksistentiel fænomenolog. Aalborg: Aalborg Universitetsforlag, 179–210—I primarily follow an existential interpretation of Wittgenstein’s philosophy and his notion of wonder and what Wittgenstein scholar James Edwards describes as “the ethics of love” behind this philosophical wonder. Edwards, James. 1982. Eth- ics without Philosophy: Wittgenstein and the Moral Life. Tampa: University Press of Florida: 234–255. 13 Ingerslev, Karen. 2014. Healthcare Innovation under The Microscope Framing Bound- aries of Wicked Problems. (PhD dissertation). Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School; Cleland, Jennifer, Fiona Patterson, and Mark Hanson. 2018. Thinking of selection and widening access as complex and wicked problems. Medical Education, Vol. 52, Issue 12: 1228–1239. Learning to Innovate in Higher Education Through Deep Wonder 55 bringing surprisingly new knowledge or technology into the field), or a new political framework (policy makers changing the overall political conditions and purpose of the previous system or practice of the field). In my earlier work14 I have argued for a new concept in contemporary innovation research, which can offer the concept of ‘wicked problems’ a more philosophical and existential approach to innovation. The wicked problems are in the main literature on innovation research typically approached from a technical, skill-oriented and cognitive and epistemological approach. How- ever, this may prevent us from touching upon problems which can only be met on an existential and ontological level. Wicked problems such as “The robots are coming – what do we humans do?” or “The growing problem of loneliness in a welfare state—why is that?” or “How do we solve the increas- ing problem of stress in western societies?” are all touching upon more philosophical, ethical and existential questions such as” What is a human being?” “What is human freedom and human flourishing?” “What is loneliness com- pared to inner peace and personal integrity?” These are all what I name ‘delicate problems’. They help us to look for the existential, ethical and aesthetical (or maybe even spiritual) dimensions in our professional work life and personal life as such. They are delicate in three ways:

1. They touch upon some very personal and existential issues in our own lives that we cannot ignore, and if we do, they become an existential problem felt as an imperceptible existential uneasiness in the midst of our daily lives.

2. They are delicate meaning understood as very fragile and porously lived experiences of meaningfulness or lack of meaningfulness in our lives, which so easily can be missed or fixed or explained away though social technologies or psychological categories and methods.

3. They are delicate in the sense that they touch upon something very fine and precious in humans’ lives, which seems to carry the human sense of meaningfulness.

These existential, aesthetical, ethical and possibly spiritual experiences of

14 Hansen, Finn Thorbjørn. 2018. At møde verden med undren: Dannelse, innovation og organisatorisk udvikling i et værensfilosofisk perspektiv. [To Encounter the World in Wonder: Bildung, Innovation and Organizational Development in an Existential Perspective]. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzel. 56 Finn Thorbjørn Hansen deeper meaning are in fact not really to be understood as ‘problems to be solved’ but rather as ‘mysteries to be lived’. For example, is love a problem to be mastered and solved? Yes, in some sense it feels like a problem, when we do not receive love, or when we cannot give it to another person, or when we somehow have lost our love for the world or for the simple things in life. However, as experienced human beings, we will probably also recognize that love as such cannot be defined and ‘mastered’ in the same way that we can master a thing, a tool or a machine. There is something mysteriously unfathomable and ineffable with the living phenomenon of love (or the phenomenon of inner peace, joy of life, beauty, etc.), which poets, philosophers, theologists, artists and novelists for thousands of years have dwelled upon, and which existential philosophers and phenomenologists nowadays are describing as an ontological event15 or as a metaphysical experience of transcendence.16 These existential philosophers and phenomenologists argue for a ‘meaning-giving’-dimension in life, a form of ‘emanation’ from the phenomenon, Being or life itself that is mysterious in nature and which often may bring us to deep ontological wonder and awe.17 If we take these ontological experiences and metaphysical questions into account, which also seem to lay under the philosophical and existential questions that are brought up in the contemporary research in innovation as mentioned above,18 then how are we to make sense of that, and make room for that, in modern higher education? How do we acknowledge this dimension of mystery and deep wonder19 in the midst of academic teaching and educa-

15 Marcel, Gabriel. 2000 [1950]. The Mystery of Being (Vol 1: Reflection and Mystery). South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press. 16 Marion 2002. 17 This does not necessarily mean that we must rely on religious or semi-religious understandings and ideas. As modern phenomenologists like Marion, Løgstrup and even Hannah Arendt have shown, such philosophical, ethical and metaphysical questions do not have to be interpreted and answered within a theological and religious framework, but could just as well be understood within a life philosophical, existence philosophical or phenomenological framework or as a kind of ‘Negative Metaphysics’ as Arcilla (1995) proposes. But it does open up for a possibility of a post-secular and post-postmodern re-enchartment of the world, as also Taylor, Charles. 2007. A Secular Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; and Dreyfus, Hubert, and Sean Dorrance Kelly. 2011. All Things Shining. New York: Free Press have described. 18 We see that those who take such a philosophical and existential approach remain in a ‘meaning-making’-paradigm and in a more epistemological understanding of meaning-driven innovation. For a discussion see Hansen 2018. 19 The concept of ‘deep wonder’ is found in the work of the Canadian phenomenologist Van Manen, Max. 2014. Phenomenology of Practice: Meaning-giving Methods in Phenomenological Research and Writing. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, 236 as Learning to Innovate in Higher Education Through Deep Wonder 57 tion? And what might be the relevance? Is it at all possible to find free spaces for this kind of slow and deep wonder in the contemporary effective ‘cost-benefit universities’?

The Ontological Turn in Higher Education and the University of Tomorrow

Ronald Barnett is indeed concerned about the future of higher education and the possibility of understanding higher research from a kind of ‘Mode-3-research’.20 In several books21 he and commentators ask what kind of university we want to aspire to. Barnett is a proponent for a future university, which he calls ‘the authentic university’22 and the ‘ecological’ or ‘wise university’23.

a concept connected to late Heidegger and the notion of the phenomenological and inceptive reduction. You can also find this concept used by the Dutch educational philosopher Anders Schinkel but not in the same phenomenological and ontological way as Heidegger and Van Manen, see: Schinkel, A. (2017). The educational importance of deep wonder. Journal of Philosophy of Education, Vol. 51, No. 2: 538–553; Schinkel, A. (2018). Wonder and moral education. Educational Theory, Vol. 68, No. 1: 31–48. My way of understanding deep ‘ontological wonder’ is closer to Van Ma- nen, late Heidegger and Wittgenstein as I have elaborated elsewhere, Hansen, Finn Thorbjørn. (2008). At stå i det åbne: Dannelse gennem filosofisk undren og nærvær [To Stand in the Openness: Bildung through Philosophical Wonder and Presence]. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzel; Hansen, Finn Thorbjørn. 2015a. “The Call of Wonder and Practice of Wonder”. In: Michael Noah Weiss (ed.), The Socratic Handbook. Wien: Lit Verlag: 217–244; Hansen, Finn Thorbjørn. 2011. “The phenomenology of wonder in higher education”. In: Erziehung: Phänomenologische Perspektiven: 161–178. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann; Hansen, Finn Thorbjørn. 2014. Kan man undre sig uden ord? [Can You Wonder without Words?] Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg University Press; Hansen, Finn Thorbjørn. 2016. At undres ved livets afslutning: Om brug af filosofiske samtaler i palliativt arbejde [To Wonder at the End of Life: The Use of Philosophical Conversations in Palliative Care]. Copenhagen: Akademisk forlag; Hansen 2018. 20 Barnett sees his approach as an alternative both to the scientific university and the entrepreneur university, which is also described as the difference between ‘Mode-1 research’ and ‘Mode-2 research’, see: Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny,. Simon Schwartzman,. Peter Scott, and Martin Trow. 1994. The New Pro- duction of Knowledge: Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage. 21 Barnett 2007, 2011, 2018; Bengtsen, Søren. 2017. Supercomplexity and the university: Ronald Barnett and the social philosophy of higher education. Higher Education Quarterly, Vol. 72: 65–74. 22 Barnett 2007, 2011. 23 Barnett 2011, 2018. 58 Finn Thorbjørn Hansen

He calls for a university, which works in a profoundly interdisciplinary way through ‘knowledge ecologies’, oriented towards the promotion of societal and global wellbeing and students understanding themselves as global citizens. In a way, you could say that he aspires to a ‘world-oriented university’ that transcends both the “scientific university” (the ivory tower ideal) and the “entrepreneurial university” (the market-oriented ideal). He wants, like Ver- ganti,24 students and teachers to be able to learn and teach in innovative ways based on ‘heartfelt’ longings and searching. Like the people behind Respon- sible Science and Innovation, he too wants to create universities and higher education with a closer dialogue with the public domain where focus is on the universities’ responsibility in engaging with the world. He suggests this be done not only in a pragmatic and utilitarian way, like ‘the entrepreneurial university’, but in ways that have the necessary distance through critical reflection and through engaged teachers who have made their value positions clear on how they want to help create a better world. Nevertheless, what I emphasize here is Barnett’s call for a revitalization of ‘the metaphysical university’25 and his earlier pointing out of a missing dimension, a third dimension, in higher education and universities,26 which neither Verganti nor the researchers behind the idea of ‘wicked problems’ nor the discipline of Responsible Science and Innovation seems to have noticed or asked for. It is the dimension of Being, or as Barnett refers to it, the ‘Voice of Being’ as opposed to the ‘Voice of Knowledge’ and the ‘Voice of Skills’. As was mentioned previously, the researchers behind the notion of ‘wicked problems’ usually operate within a horizon determined by two dimensions: the dimension of expert knowledge and the dimension of policy-making.27 In his 2007 book, A Will to Learn. Being a Student in an Age of Uncertainty, Barnett is especially interested in how to engage students not just in an epistemological and technical or skill-oriented way. To orient yourself towards the knowledge experts and participate in analytical and critical reflections is not enough. Neither is it enough to engage in political debates and strategic nego- tiations and pragmatic decision-making. The students and teachers at universities and in higher education must also create spaces for more existential and

24 Verganti 2017. 25 Barnett 2011, 11–20. 26 Barnett 2007. 27 See also Ralph Stacy’s matrix of change management and organizational complexity, which in a similar way as the researchers on wicked problem, is suggested as a matrix to grasp organizational problems in highly complex situations and contexts: Stacy, Ralph. 2002. Strategic Management and Organizational Dynamics: The Challenge of Complexity. Harlow: Prentice Hall. Learning to Innovate in Higher Education Through Deep Wonder 59 ethical reflections he says in 2007, that is, in terms of how they are as persons and in their way of being and how they want to live a ‘good life’. You can have a lot of knowledge and skills, but the real quality of a mature or wise professional is his or her way of using this knowledge and skills in a wise way. This calls of course for an ethical and responsible perspective. But, the Voice of Being (‘What is the meaning or purpose of my life?’) is, Barnett says, closely connected to the Voice of Knowledge (what do I know?) and the Voice of Skills (how do I act?). “The position that I want to press for,” Barnett writes, “is that the student’s ontological and epistemological voices are intertwined, but also, the ontological voice has the upper hand”.28 That the ontological dimension in higher education is prior to the epistemological should, Barnett claims, remind the teachers who care for their teaching “… that their first duty is to engage with the student as a person, respecting her own situation.”29 When Barnett calls for an “ontological turn” in higher education,30 he is critical towards a development in higher education that has happened the last two decades. Because of new liberalism and new public management universities all over the world have become more and more market- and skill-oriented. But only to focus on knowledge and skills is, he claims, not enough when wanting to create good higher education that can prepare students for living in an age of super complexity and uncertainty. The knowledge and skills of yesterday and today are seldom enough to keep up with the problems (wicked or ordinary) that universities will meet in the world of tomorrow. Thus, students’ ability to learn,to be open and to listen to the world and to their own ‘being-in-the-world’ are for Barnett important dispositions or ways of being that teachers of higher education must call upon in their students and in themselves as teachers to live out.

What Do We Really Mean by Saying the ‘Ontological’

However, what does it mean to be and to ‘be-in-the-world’? When Barnett is so keen on creating a higher education that has this third dimension of Being in focus, then what does he exactly mean by this dimension? What kind of understanding of ‘ontology’ is he a proponent of? This is where it begins to get tricky. On the one hand, Barnett is very clear that his notion of Being and

28 Barnett 2007, 97. 29 Barnett 2007, 96. 30 Barnett 2004, 247. 60 Finn Thorbjørn Hansen ontology is closely connected to the German existential philosopher Martin Heidegger. When Heidegger talks about “being-in-the-world”31 this means for Barnett a special mood of being present and authentic in the world and life of the individual student. Questions Barnett wants the students to reflect on would be questions such as ‘Who and where am I in all these many voices of systems, sciences, professional practices and skills to learn?” “What is my passion, my deeper meaning doing this profession or this education?” “How can I live in a way that I feel is most aligned with what I care for and find worth doing?” As Barnett would say, in an age of uncertainty students have to live with, and they get to have, a personal will to learn how to work with ‘open ontologies’, that is, open possibilities of identities and ways of being that might go against the ‘closed ontologies’ of the systems, ideas, knowledge and skills of tomorrow and today. On the other hand, when being more precise in his description of how to live in the world and with open ontologies he points to a kind of Nietzschean and Sartrean way of “authentic self-creation” as an ideal and also to a ‘critical realism’ and ‘meta-realism’,32 which has a “universal self-realization” as its ideal. However, is this kind of ideal of ‘authentic self-creation’ and the notion of ‘meta-realism’ really in line with Heidegger’s existential and phenomenological ontology? I don’t think so. I will come back to Barnett’s reference to Bhaskar and initially say, that where Nietzsche and Sartre work from within a “Meaning-Making Paradigm”—which, by the way, suits very well many postmodern and social constructivists’ ways of thinking—Heidegger, and especially Heidegger’s later philosophy33—is better described and understood as a thinking which works from within a “Meaning-Receiving Paradigm”. What seems to be at stake here is two very different understandings of what ontology is, and what the “Voice of Being” could be. Is it the voice of the authentic self (Dasein as Heidegger would have said), or is it the voice of the subject matter or phenomenon in and by itself (Sein or ‘Seyn’ as Heideg- ger calls it in his later works)? The first voice make us focus on the subject and the willfulness and dispositions of the individual student and his or her existential self. The second voice make us listen to an Otherness or a Thou34 and some existentials or

31 Heidegger, Martin. 1998 [1927]. Being and Time. Oxford: Blackwell. 32 Bhaskar, Roy. 2002. Reflections on Meta-Reality: A Philosophy for the Present. London: Sage. 33 Heidegger, Martin. 2004 [1954]. What Is Called Thinking?. New York: Harper & Row; Mugerauer, Robert. 2008. Heidegger and Homecoming. The Leitmotif in the Later Writings. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 34 Buber, Martin. 2013 [1923]. I and Thou. London: Bloomsbury. Learning to Innovate in Higher Education Through Deep Wonder 61

‘attractors’, which is positioned outside the individual person and also outside the cultural and human-made context. This voice calls the student (or teacher) to act or think in a way that is attuned to or in resonance with the phenomenon itself (die Sache selbst), which the person or persons in their inquiry want to get in contact and dialogue with in order to better understand it. This possible philosophical puzzling incoherence in Barnett’s early thinking (Heideg- ger or Sartre/Nietzsche?) is, as I see it, not solved or cleared up in Barnett’s later thinking (Heidegger or Bhaskar?).

Opening Up for a Metaphysical Dimension

In any case, Barnett’s focus has clearly changed in his later thinking from a subject-oriented approach to a world-oriented approach. He even tries to incorporate an openness for a metaphysical dimension in his understanding of higher education,35 which was not displayed in his work from 2004 and 2007. He sees the metaphysical questions as an important dimension of ‘not-knowing’, and as a fruitful experience in higher education for the students (and teachers) of really being caught up by an authentic experience and sense of mystery, wonder and awe.36 This dimension is crucial, he clams, for the teaching at the future universities not to collapse into self-sufficient and self-assured knowledge- and marked-oriented universities. He wants the future universities to connect (in new innovative ways of course) “…with sentiments of being, of spirit, wonder or even emancipation…”.37 If it does not achieve that, he is afraid that the university will “shrink”. What he calls for is a kind of “…re-enchantment for the university, for its epistemologies to be connected with the world and with improving wellbeing in the world…”.38

An Epistemological or Phenomenological Approach to Wonder

Now, I find this call for wonder and a re-enchantment of the university very sympathetic and necessary and I follow Barnett’s many convincing arguments for this request. Personally I have for the last ten years been working with

35 Barnett 2011, 13–20. 36 There seems to be a resemblance here between Archilla (1995) and Barnett (2011) in their sympathy with and emphasis on the importance of the open metaphysical questionings in higher education teaching. However, a further investigation into their possible similarities and differences will have to wait for a future comparison. 37 Barnett 2011, 16. 38 Barnett 2011, 30. 62 Finn Thorbjørn Hansen students in teacher training as well as training of other professionals (nurses, coaches, social workers, architects, designers, school managers, etc.) at my university in master courses in wonder-based dialogues and reflections—also called ‘Wonder Labs’.39 The students and other participants join these courses and Wonder Labs with the purpose of receiving a greater phenomenological sensitivity and Soc- ratic Bildung because they either see these wonder-based learning processes as (1) a kind of personal-academic development,40 (2) as a way to strengthen their ‘phronetic judgment’ in practice,41 (3) as a new way to cultivate a creative and innovative attitude and mindset,42 or (4) as a cultivation process for developing a dialogical and ‘negative capability’43 to facilitate Wonder Labs and Socratic Communities of Wonder in professional settings.44 These many years of working with learning and innovation in higher education through deep wonder have given me manifold experiences of different forms and gestalts of people being in ‘wonder’. It is also on the backdrop of these experiences that I now think that we can strengthen the argument for such a re-enchantment and call for wonder at the universities even more if we elaborate further on what we philosophically mean by ‘ontology’ and ‘being- in-the-world’ and what for instance the difference is between an ‘ontic’ wonder and an ‘ontological wonder’.45

39 Hansen 2015a, 2016. 40 Hansen 2011. 41 Hansen 2008, 2016. 42 Hansen 2014, 2016, 2018. 43 Keats, John. 2002 [1817]. Letters to G. and T. Keats, 21. December, 1817. In: G. Scott (ed.), Selected Letters of John Keats. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 59–64. 44 Hansen 2018. 45 As I have described more in detail in other places (Hansen, 2011, 2015a, 2018) and which is also elaborated and discussed by Keen, Sam. 1969. An Apology for Wonder. New York: Harper Collins; Arendt, Hannah. (1978). The Life of the Mind. New York: Harcourt, Inc; Miller, Jerome. 1993. In the Throe of Wonder: Intimations of the Sacred in a Post-Modern World. New York: SUNY Press; Rubenstein, Marie-Jane. 2011. Strange Wonder. The Closure of Metaphysics and the Opening of Awe. New York: Columbia University Press; Vasalou, Sophia. (ed.). 2012. Practices of Wonder. Cross-disciplinary Perspectives. Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick Publications; and Schinkel (2017, 2018) the phenomenology of wonder is today a very complex and branched field. The distinction between ontic and ontological wonder, or between active and passive wonder, or hermeneutic and phenomenological wonder, or explaining-seeking scientific wonder and wisdom- and love-seeking wonder, is just a few examples of how nuanced the discussion of the phenomenology of wonder is today. Learning to Innovate in Higher Education Through Deep Wonder 63

A key to understanding what ontology and ‘the ontological’ mean in the thinking of Heidegger is namely to understand his distinction between ‘the ontic’ and ‘the ontological’.46 Being in an ‘ontic’ relation with the world is when we are guided by the ‘common sense’ of functionality and pragmatic living, as well as being guided by a scientific (epistemological and methodolog- ical) way of thinking. Both approaches are led by cognitive, self-reflective and intentional consciousness. But to ‘be-in-the-world’ as a human being—that is, being present in where you are and what you say, think and do in an ontological and existential way— is quite another way of being! Dasein, or the existential self, must not be confused with the cognitive or transcendental ego as Heidegger so carefully argues.47 If we talk about ontology as “…a set of concepts and categories in a subject area or domain that shows their properties and the relations between them…” (when Googling the concept of ontology), or as the science of critical reflection on the basic assumptions, principles or theories humans have on what Being is, or what Language, Rationality, Consciousness or Understand- ing are, then we are only approaching ‘the ontological’ from an epistemological perspective. Thus, when Heidegger talks about ‘ontology’, it is the living ontology— the mood and felt and lived sense of being-in-the-world, not understood and explained in a psychological or cause-seeking way, but understood through a vivid phenomenological description of how a phenomenon is lived and shows itself when human beings live this phenomenon. This is also the reason why Heidegger insists that ontology can only be understood and practiced as a phenomenology.

Where Is the Phenomenological Dimension in Barnett’s Thinking?

When reading Barnett, I am surprised how little focus he seems to put on the phenomenological dimension of ‘being-in-the-world’. For example, when Barnett describes the basic conditions of a university, he only mentions four conditions: empirical, ideological, imaginative conditions and the condition of the value background.48 But none of these conditions can really capture

46 Heidegger, Martin. 1988. The Basic Problems of Phenomenology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 47 Heidegger 1998. 48 Barnett 2011, 60–61. 64 Finn Thorbjørn Hansen the phenomenological conditions. By referring, as Barnett does,49 to ‘the real’ as opposed to the ‘actual’ and ‘ideological’, and to a critical realism and ‘meta-realism’50 we are not opening us to the call of the phenomenon in a phenomenological way. Even if some, like Budd,51 connect critical realism and meta-realism to phenomenology, this only makes sense, as Michel52 shows, when thinking from within the epistemological and transcendental phenomenology of Edmund Husserl.53 If we follow late Heidegger and go even further with ethical phenomenologists like Levinas54 and Marion,55 we learn that the horizon of Dasein is limited. Before acknowledging this limitation, we must go from an ontic and epistemological approach to an ontological and existential relation with the world. This is what Barnett captures when talking about the existential and ontological learning processes guided by six dispositions: a will to learn, to engage, to hold oneself open to experiences, a preparedness to listen and explore and a determination to keep going forward.56

The Difference Between ‘Ontic’ and ‘Ontological’ Wonder

To wonder could indeed be one of the main qualities or six dispositions connected to what Barnett describes as the disposition to “hold oneself open to experience”. But taking a closer look we then have to be more clear on whether we are referring to an ‘ontic wonder’ or an ‘ontological wonder’.

49 Barnett 2011, 134–135. 50 Bhaskar 2002. 51 Budd, John. 2012. Phenomenological critical realism: A practical mMethod for LIS. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, Vol. 53, No. 1 (Winter): 69–80. 52 Michel, Torsten. 2012. In Heidegger’s shadow: a phenomenological critique of critical realism. Review of International Studies, Vol. 38: 209–222. 53 It is, though, important to notice, that the Marxist, materialistic and naturalistic worldview that is associated with ‘critical realism’, is later critically revised by Bhaskar (2002) himself with his notion of a ‘meta-realism’. This meta-reality is grounded in a non-dual, trans-individual spiritual worldview or mundane ‘practical mysticism’ with references to Buddhism and Taoism and other wisdom traditions. See: Morgan, Jamie. 2003. What is meta-reality? Journal of Critical Realism. Vol. 1, No. 2: 115–146. It is not clear whether Barnett connects to this ‘meta-realism’ or not, when writing with reference to Bhaskar (2002) that the universities “…have abandoned any sense of meta-reality in which they have their being”(Barnett 2011, 17). 54 Levinas 1998. 55 Marion 2002. 56 Barnett 2007, 102. Learning to Innovate in Higher Education Through Deep Wonder 65

Ontic wonder is problem-solution oriented and unfolds in the realm of the horizon of the cognitive, critical and intentional ego. One has to be open- minded and inventive and enterprising when dealing with problems, and the kind of wonder that occurs in these activities is typically the explaining- and solution-seeking wonder ‘about’ something. Schinkel57 calls this kind of wonder the “inquisitive wonder”. Heidegger would say that the scientific and explaining-seeking and solu- tions-seeking wonder is positioned in the ontic realm. Being in relation with the world through an ontic wonder will help us to explore and explain and master puzzling practical and scientific problems (ordinary as well as wicked problems). This is basically the form of wonder we find described in Egan et al.58 when they focus on wonder in education. Ontological wonder, on the other hand, is a philosophical wonder, where the ‘thatness’ of the world—that this flower, this person, this life, exist— suddenly and overwhelming is experienced in awe and wonder. The pragmatic and scientific explaining-seeking How- and Why-questions should not be confused with the phenomenological ‘How-the-phenomenon-shows-itself-question’ or the philosophical and existential ‘Why-question’. This kind of contemplation is evocated through an existential philosophical approach as well as an aesthetic one.

Is There Even a Pre-ontological Wonder?

Levinas59 and Marion60 want us to go a step further than Heidegger because they see a kind of phenomenological and apophatic61 wonder that emanates— comes to us as a spontaneous inflowing access of meaningfulness—in the encounter with the phenomenon in and by itself—before it, so to speak, hits

57 Schinkel 2017. 58 Egan, Kieran, Annabella Cant, and Gillian Judson (eds.). 2014. Wonder-Full Edu- cation. The Centrality of Wonder in Teaching and Learning Across the Curriculum. London: Routledge. 59 Levinas 1998. 60 Marion 2002. 61 The original meaning of ‘apophatic’ comes from a theological tradition connected to ‘Negative Theology’. In its philosophical term, as I use it here, it is connected to radical philosophizing as such, stating that whatever we come up with, in concepts and in language, will never grasp the surplus of the meaningfulness that emanates from life and the singular life phenomena as such, see: Franke, William. 2014. A Philosophy of the Unsayable. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Therefore a ‘apophatic wonder’ will indicate a pointing towards what cannot be said or written directly but only indirectly and in negation. 66 Finn Thorbjørn Hansen the coastline of, coagulates and is reduced within, our language and conceptu- alized understandings and even within the existential conditions (the existentials) that shape the existential understanding and meaning horizon of Dasein. In this respect, deep wonder flourishes and becomes visible in the acknowl- edgement of the Other, the Otherness or Thou of the phenomenon.62 Or said in another way: deep wonder happens in philosophizing wondrous moments, when the person tries to give, as Gabriel Marcel says, “a personal response to a call”.63 As I have earlier elaborated,64 this is the kind of pre-ontological wonder where we meet a saturated silence, a silence in excess with a strange abun- dance of meaningfulness. As an example of this silent voice of wonder, where the person experiences a strange resonance with life and the phenomena and materials she or he is engaged with, I will refer to a Danish designer at a design school. She was one of ten design teachers who took part in an phenomenological action research project,65 where wonder-based dialogues and phenomenological writing exercises were used (in the Wonder Lab) in order to inquire phenomenologically into the lifeworld and artistic and wondrous moments of a designer and design teacher. In her own phenomenological descriptions of her lived experience of being in those artistic and wondrous moments she writes:

The reason why I teach has to do with my own experiences of being in these rooms [the analytical room and the silent room, FTH], and maybe especially the ‘silent’…I can recall experiences here, which makes me deeply grateful, and which connects me with the world, get things to happen in front of my eyes through a presence in the actions my hands, the material and the mood I am in…I am not able to seperate these in the moment, when it happens. Hands, material and I are a whole….but I become humble after the event…quiet and grateful.66

When Dasein, or the existential self, are caught in this kind of deep wonder, the self is then—if we follow Levinas and Marion—at the very border of its own horizon, and only out there is it able to hear the Thou of the phenomenon, that is, the Otherness or, in short, the real and unfathomable Mystery of

62 See also Hepburn, Ronald. 1980. “Wonder: The inaugural address,” Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 54, 14. 63 Marcel, Gabriel. 1973. Tragic wisdom and beyond. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 3. 64 Hansen 2011, 2015a. 65 Hansen 2014. 66 Graabaek in Hansen 2014, 375–376 (my translation). Learning to Innovate in Higher Education Through Deep Wonder 67 the phenomenon. This is what I call ‘ethical and phenomenological callings’. Here it is not the ‘thatness’ of the phenomenon, but a strange ‘givenness’ or excess of meaningfulness of the phenomenon that flows from the phenomenon towards the person, who is grasped by the phenomenon in wonder. In the same text, the designeralso described this moment as “an ethical appeal or as an experience of reverence towards life itself.”67

The Matrix of the Fourth Voice in Higher Education

Now, if we include this ethical phenomenological dimension inspired by Levi- nas and Marion we can draw a figure, which adds a fourth voice to the three voices of Barnett.68

Inspired by Martin Buber’s notion of an I-It- and an I-Thou-relation69 this matrix is basically grounded on a doublesided tension between, on the one hand, an I-It-relation (the Voice of Skills and the Voice of Knowing), and, on the other hand, an I-Thou-relation (the Voice of Being and the Voice of Eth- ical or phenomenological Callings). The I-It-relations are concerned with the ‘ontic matters’ whereas the I-Thou-relations are concerned with the ontological and pre-ontological matters.

67 Schweitzer, Albert. 1969. The Teaching of Reverence for Life. New York: Holt, Rine- hart & Winston. 68 And if we take Gerd Biesta’s three dimensions into account as well (Socialization, Qualification and Subjectification) the fourth dimension here could then be called Emanation. 69 Buber 2013. 68 Finn Thorbjørn Hansen

This create four ‘learning spaces’: (1) a theoretical space guided by a scientific and inquiring mind and attitude (the scientific level of deduction), (2) a practical space guided by a pragmatic and problem-solving mind and attitude (the scientific level of induction), (3) a knowledge-based space of innovation guided by a curious and experimental mind and attitude (the scientific level of abduction), and (4) a wonder-based space of innovation guided by an wonderous, contemplative and existential mind and attitude (the level of phenomenological reduction). The first three spaces are led by an epistemological and knowledge-seeking approach: The first is focused on ‘that, which we know that we know and how to build further on that’. The second space is focused on ‘that which we do not know (theoretically) but know through practice’. The third space is focused on ‘that which we know that we do not know’ (epistemological aporia) and therefore seek to gain new knowledge and approaches to know better. The fourth space stands in contrast to the three others by being based on an ontological approach. This is the space which is focused on ‘that, which we do not know that we do not know—but are—or are called to become’. This space of wonder and existential contemplation is guided by a radical unknowing and a listening attitude towards openings of ‘being-in-the-world’ and ‘being-in-dialogue-with-the-Thou-of-the-phenomenon’. As Barnett advises us to consider, one should be careful not to make too strong a distinction between the epistemological and ontological dimension in higher education. Although it makes sense to make this distinction, we also have to acknowledge that they are—in real life—intertwined. Likewise, there will always be an ontic aspect of the ontological, as well as there will be an ontological aspect in the ontic. But you cannot see both at the same time. It’s like looking at the well-known Gestalt picture: You either see the rabbit or the duck. This matrix will help us to better acknowledge the phenomenological and ethical callings in higher education and why a phenomenon-centered and wonder-based approach is different than the existential and person-centered (self-authoring being-dimension) of Barnett, when he talks abut the Voice of Being. It can also show that when Barnett in his later writings talks about a ‘world-centred’ (society-oriented responsibility) approach to higher education it is not to be confused with the pre-ontological and phenomenological ethics and responsibility of Life itself as the philosophy of Buber, Levinas and Marion reveal. Learning to Innovate in Higher Education Through Deep Wonder 69

Some Implications When Taking a Wonder-based Approach to Innovation

Verganti70 and the discipline of Responsible Science and Innovation and Bar- nett help us to see that there is a missing dimension of meaning, ethics and being in most innovative research and in higher education learning theory. To ‘solve’ wicked problems in organizations of super complexity and in an age of uncertainty requires innovators, scientists and professionals that have a sense for the existential and ethical dimensions. Some ‘wicked problems’ might be mastered in the way Stacy71 and Ingerslev72 suggest—that is, basically through bringing in new unexpected expert knowledge and a decision-making that is guided by a trans-disciplinary field of professionals as well as politicians and lay people from the public domain. But my point, which I have argued in depth elsewhere73—is that often underneath the wicked problem there are some tacit philosophical assumptions and ideas and, even deeper, phenomenological experiences of what a human is and what a good human life is. These basic metaphysical and ethical assumptions, values and phenomenological experiences are seldom discussed. And if they are discussed—as also in the case of Verganti in his Interpreters Lab and “communities of critical inquiry”74—they are only reflected in a cognitive, critical and knowledge-based way.75 When supplying this cognitive and critical approach with a ‘third Being-dimension’ as Barnett does, we are, in my view, only going halfway. “Authentic self-creating” might bring us from a socialized and cognitive I to an emanci- pated and existential self, but it will not bring us into an encounter and dialogue with the phenomenological and meaning-giving “Thou” of life itself. This might happen in authentic ‘Communities of Wonder’, as I have described and also seen practiced in different professional domains.76

70 Verganti 2017. 71 Stacy 2003. 72 Ingerslev 2014. 73 Hansen 2018. 74 Verganti and Öberg, 2013; Verganti, 2017, 75 One may differ between a rational, cognitive and ontic form of critical reflection on the one hand, and on the other hand, an existential, ethical and phenomenological form of critical reflection. The latter helps us to be open towards the ontological dimension in higher education and critical towards those systems, practices and languages that narrow down our ability to ‘stand in the openness’ and prevent us from hearing the phenomenological and ethical callings of the situation and relations in a professional or educational setting. 76 Hansen, 2015a, 2018. 70 Finn Thorbjørn Hansen

I have shown in different action research projects in the area of design teaching,77 existential and spiritual care in palliation in hospices,78 and innovation in public organizations79 and through my own courses in ‘wonder-based dialogues at the university,80 it is possible to create Wonder Labs and the required phenomenological and existential reflections in those different contexts. It is, though, beyond the scope of this essay to describe in detail how I design Wonder Labs and teach in wonder-based dialogues and reflections.81 What I leave as an open question is how we on the more administrative, structural and organizational level can make spaces and find ways to support and care for not only the Voice of Being but also for the Voice of the phenomenological and Ethical Callings. I do not think it is enough only to focus on the empirical, ideological, imaginative conditions and value background if we want to find a way for a re-enchantment of the university and to create a “new kind of metaphysical university”.82 Staying only on those four levels will make us reflect critically and pragmatically on an ontic and existentialist (Sar- trean) level. As I see it, we must also find ways to give space to and cultivate sensitiv- ities for the phenomenological lifeworld and for the ontological and pre-ontological levels in life from where deep wonder wells up. The cognitive and existentialistic eye will only be able to see how those existential and ethical life phenomena appear as constructed and shaped on the psychological (idiosyn- cratic), professional, organizational, cultural and political level. The contemplative, aesthetic and philosophical ‘wonder-eye’, on the other hand, is able to ‘see with the heart’. This is indeed what poets, philosophers, novelists and artists, and spiritual rituals and myths have a sense and musicality for. I think that when Steve Jobs asked for a marriage between technology and humanities he probably sensed the importance of this unfathomable life

77 Hansen, 2014. 78 Hansen, 2016. 79 Hansen, 2018. 80 See: https://www.communication.aau.dk/research/knowledge_groups/cdo/dia- loguelabs/wonderlab. 81 Currently, I am inquiring into how a more playful and an aesthetic approach might be an important supplement to the wonderous and philosophical approach, see: Thor- sted, Ann Charlotte. 2016. Communities of play: A collective unfolding. Interna- tional Journal of Play, Vol. 5, Issue 1: 28–46. At the University of Aalborg’s Centre for Dialogue and Organization, we now work with both Wonder and Play Labs, see: https://www.communication.aau.dk/research/knowledge_groups/cdo 82 Barnett 2011, 18. Learning to Innovate in Higher Education Through Deep Wonder 71 dimension and of the creative force in the sense of wonder that liberal arts and philosophers for thousand of years have kept alive.

Conclusion

My concluding remark will therefore be that university leaders and educators who want to work with and teach in meaning-driven and responsible innovation, and who wish indeed to enhance and cultivate a spirit and an atmosphere of wonder and a development towards a re-enchantment of the university, would benefit, I think, by finding a balance between technology and liberal arts, especially if this is done in respect of the four spaces and the four ‘voices’ in higher education, that I have sketched out in the matrix above. I have followed Barnett in his attempt to show the need for an ‘ontological turn in higher education’, but I have questioned and asked for a further qualification of his notion of the ‘Voice of Being’. This brought me to suggest two diffent ways of understanding, or opening up for, the ontological dimension in higher education. On the one hand, we have an ontology where the ‘Voice of Being,’ as Barnett describes it, is equal to the authentic inner self and his or her “self-creation”. On the other hand, we have an ontology where this voice emanates from the world or the phenomenon itself. This led me to a ‘fourth dimension’ in the philosophy of higher education, which I call ‘the Voice of the phenomenological and Ethical Call’ or ‘Emanation’. In his later works, Barnett points to the need for a more metaphysical voice or practice of wonder and questioning, but when talking about a ‘world-centred education’ this is not to be confused with the Otherness or Thou of the being-dimension. Here Buber, Levinas and Marion have an extra philosophical and phenomenological dimension, which I now have built into the Matrix of the Four Voices in Higher Education. This fourth dimension can, as we have seen, also help us to deepen the understanding of the difference between what researchers in entrepreneurship and innovation call ‘wicked problems’ and what I have called ‘delicate problems’. The latter are, as explained, not really problems to be solved but living mysteries to be released and embraced. In making this distinction I have made an argument for why radical and meaning-driven innovation in higher education can be nurtured by an ontological and possible also a pre-ontological wonder.83

83 For a more practical and ’how-to’-approach to ”wonder-based innovation” and how to facilitate Wonder Labs in higher eduation or professional work, see Hansen (2014, 2015, 2016, 2018). 72 Finn Thorbjørn Hansen

References

Arendt, Hannah. 1998 [1958]. The Human Condition. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Arendt, Hannah. 1978. The Life of the Mind. New York: Harcourt, Inc. Arcilla, Rene. 1995. For the Love of Perfection: Richard Rorty and Liberal Education. Lon- don: Routledge. Barnett, Ronald. 2004. Learning for an unknown future. Higher Education Research & Development, Vol. 23, No. 3, August, pp. 247–260. Barnett, Ronald. 2007. A Will to Learn. Being a Student in an Age of Uncertainty. Berk- shire: Open University Press. Barnett, Ronald. 2011. Being a University. London: Routledge. Barnett, Ronald. 2018. The Ecological University. A Feasible Utopia. London: Routledge. Bengtsen, Søren. 2017. Supercomplexity and the university: Ronald Barnett and the social philosophy of higher education. Higher Education Quarterly, Vol. 72, pp. 65–74. Biesta, Gerd. 2010. Good Education in an Age of Measurement: Ethics, Politics, Democracy. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. Biesta, Gerd. 2012. The future of teaching education: Evidence, competence or wisdom? Research on Steiner Education, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 8–21. Bhaskar, Roy. 2002. Reflections on Meta-Reality: A Philosophy for the Present. London: Sage. Buber, Martin. 2013 [1923]. I and Thou. London: Bloomsbury. Budd, John. 2012. Phenomenological critical realism: A practical method for LIS. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, Vol. 53, No. 1 (Winter), pp. 69–80. Cleland, Jennifer, Fiona Patterson, and Mark Hanson. (2018). Thinking of selection and widening access as complex and wicked problems. Medical Education, Vol. 52, Issue 12, pp. 1228–1239. Dreyfus, Hubert, and Sean Dorrance Kelly. 2011. All Things Shining. New York: Free Press. Edwards, James. 1989. Philosophy without Ethichs: Wittgenstein and Moral Life. Gaines- ville, FL: University Press of Florida. Egan, Kieran, Annabella Cant, and Gillian, Judson (eds.). 2014. Wonder-Full Education. The Centrality of Wonder in Teaching and Learning Across the Curriculum. London: Routledge. Franke, William. 2014. A Philosophy of the Unsayable. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott, and Martin Trow. 1994. The New Production of Knowledge: Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage. Hansen, Finn Thorbjørn. 2008. At stå i det åbne: Dannelse gennem filosofisk undren og nærvær [To stand in the Openness: Bildung through Philosophical Wonder and Pres- ence]. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzel. Hansen, Finn Thorbjørn. 2011. “The Phenomenology of Wonder in Higher Education”. In: M. Brinkmann (ed.), Erziehung. Phänomenologische Perspektiven. Würzburg: Könighausen & Neumann, pp. 161–178. Hansen, Finn Thorbjørn. 2014. Kan man undre sig uden ord? [Can You Wonder without Words?] Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg University Press. Learning to Innovate in Higher Education Through Deep Wonder 73

Hansen, Finn Thorbjørn. 2015. “The Call of Wonder and Practice of Wonder”. In: Michael Noah Weiss (ed.), The Socratic Handbook. Wien: Lit Verlag, pp. 217–244. Hansen, Finn Thorbjørn. 2016. At undres ved livets afslutning: Om brug af filosofiske samtaler i palliativt arbejde [To Wonder at the End of Life: The Use of Philosophical Conversations in Palliative Care]. Copenhagen: Akademisk forlag. Hansen, Finn Thorbjørn. 2018. At møde verden med undren: Dannelse, innovation og organisatorisk udvikling i et værensfilosofisk perspektiv. [To Encounter the World in Wonder: Bildung, Innovation and Organizational Development in an Existential Perspective]. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzel. Hasanefendic, Sandra, Julie Birkholz, Hugo Horta, and Peter van der Sijde (2017). Indi- viduals in action: Bringing about innovation in higher education. European Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 101–119. Heidegger, Martin. 1988. The Basic Problems of Phenomenology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Heidegger, Martin. 1998 [1927]. Being and Time. Oxford: Blackwell. Heidegger, Martin. 2004 [1954]. What Is Called Thinking?. New York: Harper & Row. Hepburn, Ronald. 1980. “Wonder: The Inaugural Address,” Aristotelian Society Supple- mentary Volume 54, 1–23. Horn, Michael, and Alana Dunagan. 2018. Innovation and Quality Assurance in Higher Education. San Francisco, CA: The Christensen Institute. Ingerslev, Karen. 2014. Healthcare Innovation under the Microscope Framing Boundaries of Wicked Problems. (PhD dissertation). Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School. Keats, John. 2002 [1817]. Letters to G. and T. Keats, 21. December, 1817. In: G. Scott (ed.), Selected Letters of John Keats. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 59–64. Keen, Sam. 1969. An Apology for Wonder. New York: HarperCollins Levinas, Emmanuel. 1998. Otherwise Than Being. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press. Mackler, Stephanie. 2009. Learning for Meaning’s Sake: Toward the Hermeneutic Univer- sity. Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishers. Marcel, Gabriel. 2000 [1950]. The Mystery of Being (Vol 1: Reflection and Mystery). South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press. Marcel, Gabriel. 1973. Tragic Wisdom and Beyond. Evanston, IL: Northwestern Univer- sity Press. Marion, Jean.-Luc. 2002. Being Given: Toward a Phenomenology of Givenness. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Michel, Torsten. 2012. In Heidegger’s shadow: A phenomenological critique of critical realism. Review of International Studies, Vol. 38, pp. 209–222. Miller, Jerome. 1993. In the Throe of Wonder: Intimations of the Sacred in a Post-Modern World. New York: SUNY Press. Morgan, Jamie. 2003. What is meta-reality? Journal of Critical Realism. Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 115–146. Mugerauer, Robert. 2008. Heidegger and Homecoming. The Leitmotif in the Later Writ- ings. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Norman, Donald, and Roberto Verganti. 2014. Incremental and radical innovation: Design research vs. technology and meaning change. Design Issues, Vol. 30, issue 1: 78–96. Nussbaum, Martha. 1990. Love’s Knowledge: Essays on Philosophy and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 74 Finn Thorbjørn Hansen

Owen, Richard, John Bessant, and Maggy Heintz. 2013. Responsible Innovation. London: Wiley & Sons. Philbeck, Thomas, Nikolai Davis, and Anne Marie Engtoft Larsen. 2018. Values, ethics and innovation: Rethinking technological development in the fourth Industrial Rev- olution. (White Paper from World Economic Forum, August 2018: http://www3. weforum.org/docs/WEF_WP_Values_Ethics_Innovation_2018.pdf Rubenstein, Marie-Jane. 2011. Strange Wonder. The Closure of Metaphysics and the Opening of Awe. New York: Columbia University Press. Schinkel, A. 2017. The educational importance of deep wonder. Journal of Philosophy of Education, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 538–553. Schinkel, A. 2018. Wonder and moral education. Educational Theory, Vol. 68, No. 1, pp. 31–48. Schwab, Klaus. 2016. The Fourth Industrial Revolution. London: Random House. Schweitzer, Albert. 1969. The Teaching of Reverence for Life. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Stacy, Ralph. 2002. Strategic Management and Organizational Dynamics: The Challenge of Complexity. Harlow: Prentice Hall. Sutcliffe, Hilary. 2011. A Report on Responsible Research and Innovation (Prepared for DG Research and Innovation, European Commission): http://ec.europa.eu/research/ science-society/document_library/pdf_06/rri‐report‐hilary‐sutcli e_en.pdf [accessed: 14.05.2016]. Taylor, James. 1998. Poetic Knowledge: The Recovery of Education. New York: SUNY Press. Taylor, Charles. 2007. A Secular Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Thorsted, Ann Charlotte. 2016. Communities of play: A collective unfolding. Interna- tional Journal of Play, Vol. 5, Issue 1: 28–46 Van Manen, M. (2014). Phenomenology of Practice: Meaning-giving Methods in Phenome- nological Research and Writing. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Vasalou, Sophia (ed.). 2012. Practices of Wonder. Cross-disciplinary Perspectives. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications. Verganti, Roberto, and Åsa Öberg. 2013. Interpreting and envisioning—A hermeneutic framework to look at radical innovation of meanings. Industrial Marketing Manage- ment, Vol. 42, pp. 86–95. Verganti, Roberto. 2017. Overcrowded. Designing Meaningful Products in a World Awash with Ideas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.