Content uploaded by Riel Miller
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Riel Miller on Feb 09, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
An Essay in a Paquetian Key Riel Miller
1
Beyond Skills:
An Essay in a “Paquetian Key”
Riel Miller
A Harbinger Encounter – Carleton University 1976
I opened the door. Gilles was sitting at the head of the table. The room was small, painted white
and, to my recollection windowless. He did not turn as we walked in. He sat and waited. Our
delegation of four sat down. It felt very formal. Electricity was in the air. The stakes were high.
After three nights of excited and uncomfortable sleep on the floor of the President’s office we
were ready to negotiate. Only we were unsure about the “establishment’s” chief negotiator. Who
was this guy? We knew the President, Michael Oliver, who happened to be away in Africa at the
time. We knew Michael Porter, the Vice-President of the University, as students in his classes.
But who was this Dean?
It didn’t take long to find out. No nonsense, to the point and fair. He kindly guided us through the
discussion. Laid out the political realities and listened carefully. In ten minutes it was over. The
occupation was terminated. The University Senate would be asked to provide official permission
for students to attend a protest rally in Toronto and to consider a motion objecting to the
government’s policies of the time. No guarantee of the outcome of the votes. In turn we, the
brave student protesters, would vacate the President’s office immediately. Occupation over.
Quintessential Gilles, an elegant and respectful teacher practicing what he preaches as a decision
maker and thinker. When Gilles and I crossed paths next, I was working for the OECD in Paris
and Gilles was running the Centre on Governance at Ottawa University. By then, having read his
writings and seen him in action at a podium, I also appreciated the deeply inquisitive and
subversive nature of his thought. Today the word innovation is over used to the point of
becoming meaningless, but applied to Gilles it is fitting. He embodies in thought and deed that
rare combination of creativity and problem solving that generates insights that go beyond existing
theories, systems and practices. He is an explorer who seeks the emergent with gusto and style.
Finally, most recently, I would be remiss to my own inner voice if I didn’t also mention that
Gilles offered honest and comforting words at the funeral commemoration for my father, Morris
Miller, in February 2008. For this and all the rest I am grateful to Gilles.
An Essay in a Paquetian Key Riel Miller
2
Beyond Skills: an short essay in a Paquetian key1
The “Paquetian key” is non-ergodic, which means that it is a way of thinking that tries to imagine
a “change in the conditions of change”. The “Paquetian key” helps policy makers hear (make
sense of) emerging systemic patterns and to explore new ways of making sense of phenomena
observed in the present by imaging what a discontinuous future might be like. The point is not to
offer an alternative model that serves as planning target for policies meant to chart a path or
control the future. The aim is at once more modest and more ambitious. It is more modest
because it makes no case for any particular future outcome. It is more ambitious because the hope
is to tell a story in terms that help decision makers to understand the anticipatory assumptions
that underpin their choices.
This short essay offers a quick sketch of an imaginary “learning intensive society” as an example
of non-ergodic thinking – sense making in a “Paquetian key”. The imagined discontinuity at the
core of this essay is in the relationship between knowledge and wealth. For a long time this
relationship has been considered equivalent to the relationship between certified skills and paid
employment in the form of a “job”.2 As everyone knows this is a limited way of defining both
what people know how to do and the value added by people’s efforts. Considerable attention has
been paid to different ways of accounting for broader conceptualisations of work and wealth but
it has been difficult to get beyond the categories defined by the existing rules and norms of the
industrial system.3
One way of moving outside the existing accounting frameworks is to imagine an alternative
wealth creation system. This does not mean that existing industrial systems, including the
services subject to the organisational logic of hierarchical specialisation (e.g. division of
conception and execution) and scale economies (e.g. mass-standardisation), are not changing. But
these changes are perceptible and make sense within a framework of variables, relationships and
historical observations that are ergodic – the parameters of the model stay the same. The attempt
at non-ergodic thinking, in a “Paquetian key”, tries to imagine a change in the parameters of the
model.
Section 1: Imagining a Changed Context – a sketch of the Learning Intensive Society (LIS)
The imaginary subject used for this exercise can be described in terms of two overarching
attributes. The first attribute, depicted in Diagram 1, is about the composition of wealth creating
activity. The second attribute, depicted in Diagram 2, is related to the “intensity” of learning in
everyday life. Taken together these descriptive frames allow for a picture to be sketched, at a
very general level, of a socio-economic system – a learning intensive society (LIS) that is
distinctly different from the present.
1 This short summary is based on a series of articles and presentations over the last decade and picks up the theme of a
presentation prepared for CEDEFOP. For more details and references see: http://www.rielmiller.com .
2 See Goldin and Katz for a recent analysis of education and wages.
3 See for instance the Canadian Index of Well-being at http://www.atkinsonfoundation.ca/ciw and the “Alternative Measures of
Well-being”, OECD Statistics Brief, No. 11, May 2006.
An Essay in a Paquetian Key Riel Miller
3
Diagram 1 depicts an imaginary change in the composition or different shares of different types
of production activity4 in total wealth creation (at each point in time the shares add up to 100% of
wealth created). The decline of the share of activity devoted to producing agricultural products5
is a familiar story. A similarly recognizable pattern, although now considered with much more
anxiety, is the “hollowing out” of industrial activity. I include all types of industrial activity,
from hospitals and schools to factories and banking since from a workflow organizational
perspective all these activities share the same basic logic: specialization (division of labor, in
particular the distinction between conception and execution) and economies of scale
(standardization).6 Diagram 1 offers an illustration of an imaginary reallocation of wealth
creating activities such that industry becomes relatively marginal while “household” and “craft”
become more important as a share of total production activity.
Diagram 1 – Imagining the Learning Intensive Society: Compositional Dimension
4 The term “production activity” is intentionally generic and could be measured in a variety of ways, including time, inputs or
outputs, using monetary or non-monetary metrics. For the purposes of this story the diagram simply illustrates a change in the
shares of this type of activity.
5 Resources devoted to the production of agriculture is not the same as the total resources devoted to what we eat – which
includes, amongst other activities, those of restaurants, home preparation of food, time spent shopping for food, learning how to
cook, etc..
6 This is not meant to imply that the different sectors are characterized by the same evolutionary processes – there are clearly
distinctive dynamics in different activities, different ownership structures, etc.. There are also parts of these sectors that resist
industrial productivity and competitiveness enhancing changes such as the division of conception from execution, usually due to
some mechanism the protects these activities from choice or profit or reallocation imperatives, such as doctors and schools. Note
as well that there are sectors where industrial forms of organization are finally penetrating, such as in agriculture and education.
An Essay in a Paquetian Key Riel Miller
4
The terms used in Diagram 1 – household and craft – are not meant to be definitive nor, I
reiterate for emphasis, predictive. The language of the future – the words we will use to describe
the world have yet to be invented and the forms suggested by the terms used here may never
become manifest. Either way it is not possible to use what does not yet exist. The point is that in
this story humans continue to find things to do – ways to add-value – create utility (even if what
is deemed useful to one person is considered a waste to another and what is “value” changes over
time). The category “household” activity, largely unaccounted for by industrial era bookkeeping,
involves the many activities that are both essential for everyday life but also a fundamental
component of the everyday life.
Diagram 2 illustrates this idea of a growing average learning intensity of everyday life, over an
entire lifetime and across an entire society, using the four knowledge variables – know-what,
know-how, know-who and know-why. The deskilling-re-skilling of know-how reflects the rise
and fall of the extreme division of conception and execution achieved by the industrial creative
society – with its thin layer of cream on the top – giving way to a much broader diffusion of DIY
(do-it-yourself) and integrated Pro/Am (professional/amateur). Know-what explodes in the
industrial era with the diffusion of basic literacy and the mediums of mass-communication,
reaching the point of information overload – not enough control in order to filter the raw data of
information and be able to only pay attention to relevant sources.
Diagram 2 – Imagining the Learning Intensive Society: Learning Dimension
An Essay in a Paquetian Key Riel Miller
5
Know-who increases across all “eras” as the permissions and means for connecting beyond the
perimeter of the already familiar grows. The boundaries of the village or schoolyard or water
cooler or cafeteria all begin to fade as the connections of daily life bring a wider range of
contacts. Finally, the last and potentially most influential variable for changing the overall
average, since it starts from a relatively low base and grows quite quickly, is know-why. Again,
not in a cosmic or “rocket-science” sense of the term, but in a way that is meaningful for what
people do in their everyday lives and how they construct the “unique creations” and identities that
are their world. It is this attribute, the search at a mundane and personal level for know-why, that
gives the term LIS its meaning.
On the basis of these two frames – one related to sectoral composition and the other learning
activity – four other general attributes of the LIS can be described. Diagram 37 presents, in highly
reduced form, some of the other key dimensions of a learning intensive society. Each of the
possibility spaces focuses on a key dimension: technological, economic, social and governance.
In quadrant 3a “technological dynamism” depicts the extent to which a new technology (or set of
technologies – like info-, nano- or bio-techs) might become pervasive. In quadrant 3b “economic
dynamism” is described by variables that relate to changes in the basic conditions of production
and consumption. In quadrant1c “social dynamism” is described by variables that track change
in the nature of social identity – the “who am I?” question. And in quadrant 3d the “governance
dynamism” variables capture ways in which changes in decision-making capacity can be
described.
In all of these possibility spaces the arrow of change goes from the lower-right (mass-era) to
upper-left (learning society). Once again, this is not because such a movement is considered
likely or desirable. That is not the point here. The aim is solely to specify variables that can help
to describe an imaginary and different social order. The LIS is meant to be a society that exhibits
transition scale transformation, where transition scale is equivalent to the kinds of changes in the
conduct of daily life that characterized the shift from agricultural to industrial society.
A brief elaboration of the attributes of the LIS in three of the dimensions (economic, social and
governance) may help to clarify why the LIS is discontinuous, i.e. in what way there has been a
change in the conditions of change (a new model, one that is not ergodic with the present model,
i.e. does not share the same parameters).
7
An Essay in a Paquetian Key Riel Miller
6
Economic dynamism – This descriptive area considers discontinuity in the way production and
consumption are organized. The activity at the core of this change is “unique creation”. Unique
Industrial Era
Learning
Society
Simple
Difficult
Ease
of use
Range of
uses
Limited
Unlimited
1 a - Technological Dynamism
New Pervasive Technologies
Industrial Era
Learning
Society
Unpre-
dictable
Predict-
able
Predictability
of output/
choices
Freedom of
initiative
Limited
Unlimited
1b - Economic Dynamism
Fusion of Supply and Demand in Unique Creation
Industrial Era
Learning
Society
Small &
hetero-
geneous
Scale of
social
affiliation
Extent of
decision making
Limited
Unlimited
1c - Social Dynamism
Beyond the Dualism of Individual vs Collective
Industrial Era
Learning
Society
Extensive
Limited
Trans-
parency
& access
Experimentation
& learning
Limited
Permanent
1d - Dynamic Governance
Capacity to Make and Implement Decisions
Large &
homo-
geneous
Diagram 1
Possibility Space Diagrams of Transition Scale Changes in Key Technological, Economic, Social
and Governance Variables
An Essay in a Paquetian Key Riel Miller
7
creation (UC) is what the terms imply. It is creative, something dreamt up – an “ah ha” moment –
by the unique person or team that had the idea.8 Diagram 3b offers a partial description of the
“unique creator, the “artist” in the upper-right of the possibility space. This diagram evokes the
main organizational attributes of production – how it is coordinated and where the value-added
comes from. Unique creation overthrows the centrality of the two profound dualisms of industrial
society – between demand and supply, conception and execution. Not quite a change in the
“mode of production” – markets and private property still reign – but certainly a change in the
ownership of the means of production and a decisive break with the image of the pyramidal
hierarchy of creativity and talent that is used to legitimate meritocracy.
There is also a craft dimension to unique creation, highly specialised skills that are networked
with both household and industrial production through co-production. This is “personalization” –
the self or local bespoke value-added – intangible or tangible – that entails the refinement of
specific skills. The artisan and expert do not disappear, but the cost of integrating their
knowledge into UC through highly fluid, transparent and dense networks is much lower. The
“banal creativity” of every person as artist does not negate the role of craft but integrates and
extends it in new ways.
Imagining this kind of transformation extrapolates or generalises phenomena that are currently
peripheral or only beginning to hint at the emergence of other systems, such as the growing
importance of DIY – “do it yourself” and of the social networks of Web 2.0 as platforms for
collaborative unique creation. Such experiences and infrastructure are essential for building up
the capacity, so at odds with the passivity of mass-consumption and mass-production, to discover
and refine what matters in a unique creation economy. This investment and pursuit of meaning in
unique creation, that on the surface looks like the branding and individualism of today’s hyper-
active conspicuous consumption, connects to another critical attribute of the LIS – the
“personalization of community”.
Social Dynamism. What distinguishes the present from the LIS in the “social” sphere is the basic
way that identity evolves. The LIS breaks away from the dualism so dominant and powerful up
until now between the individual and the state, the private and the public. Diagram 3c describes
the personalization of community through the creation of identity. In the LIS the frenzy of efforts
to fill the vacuum left by the insufficiency of yesterday’s mass-identities, be it of nation, religion
or class, has opened up by creating space for a more engaged and collective construction of
personal identity. In the LIS learning-by-doing occurs in a highly interdependent and densely
networked context. People are engaged in constant and diversified experiments in their search for
an answer to the question of “who am I?” In the LIS there can be no mistaking that meaning is
socially, inter-actively constructed. In the LIS identity is personal and collective at the same time.
Responsibility is internalized not socialized.
Both the economic and social dimensions of this imaginary LIS require an underlying capacity to
be constantly engaged in decision making. It is a decision intensive social order. And since “all
8 Note, most of the discussions of the transformation of production along the lines of mass-customization, unique creation and co-
design remain within the context of the overarching organizational forms of the industrial era – the firm and the administrative
system. This is fair enough, the emergence of new systems happens from both within and outside existing ones – and certainly in
relation to (one way or another – opposition, support, ignorance) existing systems.
An Essay in a Paquetian Key Riel Miller
8
decisions are about the future”9 it is also a society where anticipatory systems are called into play
constantly. Relative to the industrial era, people in this imaginary LIS have an enhanced capacity
to make choices. I call this “Futures Literacy” and it is similar to an important attribute of the
functioning of industrial society, the capacity to read and write. In a similar fashion, FL plays an
important role in facilitating the functioning of the economic and social organization of the LIS.
However, this enhanced capacity to make decisions does not at all imply – as might be thought
on the basis of industrial era notions of leadership, artistic genius and entrepreneurial
exceptionalism – that everyone becomes a visionary. The kind of creativity implied by the model
of the LIS can be described in much more mundane terms related to the unique creations and
identity development of each person, on their own terms and relative to their own path of
discovery. This is the “banal creativity” that makes a learning intensive society practical, not
some illusory world of hyper-educated geniuses. Instead meaning and wealth arise from the
conduct of everyday activity – the day-in and day-out decisions about what to do, how to tell the
story of one’s self, who to link up with and in what ways, what information is needed right now
in order to act now, etc..
Governance Dynamism. Diagram 3d depicts this enhanced decision-making and anticipatory
capacity. All other things held constant, it is reasonable to consider that if a person has more and
better information, if they have more experience with making choices, and if they live in a
context where value is put on developing the capacity to discover the potential of the present,
then their capacity to make decisions should be better than if they lived in a context where they
faced little choice, less information, fewer opportunities to experiment and an authoritarian or
fatalistic view of social well-being.
Section 2 – Beyond Skills: Spontaneity, futures literacy and ambient learning
In the LIS the industrial era mechanisms that create a link between skills and jobs is broken.
Production activities with a one-way flow from conception to execution are no longer
predominant in the LIS. Diagram 4 outlines the typical industrial era production process that
moves from an entrepreneur who has a brilliant (innovative) idea to the design of a production
process that requires specific skills to hiring people with those skills from a pool of people
trained to have those skills. Afterwards the test of the market and the reallocation decisions – to
abandon the production process because it is not profitable or redesign it, with implications for
the skill mix, closes the loop.
9 Kenneth Boulding, Foreword to The Image of the Future, by Fred Polak, translated and abridged by Elise Boulding, Elsevier,
1973
An Essay in a Paquetian Key Riel Miller
9
Diagram 4 – Determining Skill Needs in the Industrial Era:
A Division of Conception and Execution
The process described in Diagram 4 applies to even the most “white collar” creative work of the
industrial era. The “creative class”, even though they do invent things and are often the genius
breakthrough innovators, like Steve Jobs or Google founders such as Page and Brin, still fit
firmly within the flow of industrial production. These innovators are at the top of a pyramid and
are the initiators, the decision makers who launch and control the production process and the
skills that are specified and engaged in the production process. In the industrial era production is
organized, for many reasons – including the way value is accounted for (meaning what is feasible
from a business model point of view), in firms that however restructured and “modernized”
remain administrative organizations.10
10 Obviously it is possible to argue that the firm can evolve to the point where it no longer uses the administrative methods of
command and control, hierarchical conception and execution, etc., but at some point in the evolutionary process resilience gives
way to transformation and there is a discontinuity of forms. The genetic origins of the human hand have been traced to the fins of
fish, there is resilience or continuity of a fragment of genetic code, but it would be absurd to say that therefore a human is a fish.
An Essay in a Paquetian Key Riel Miller
10
Diagram 5 – Learning: The Organisation of Unique Creation
In the LIS both the objective of the production process and the way of organizing production
change profoundly.11 First, the relationship between conception and execution is different, since
the key steps are personal and involve a fusion of what were formerly two sides of a clearly
demarcated division between supply and demand. Second, given the spontaneous nature of the
banal creative insights that drive personalized unique creation (material and immaterial –
including identity), these “innovations” arise as people question, encounter, collaborate, discuss,
reflect, etc.. This means that the skills needed to engage in these activities are largely internal to
the personalisation process, i.e. can not be contracted out to someone with the skills, and cannot
be specified in advance because what is being produced is only discovered at the moment of its
11 The question of the business models, or how people generate income and engage in market exchange is an important question
and the belief (anticipatory assumption) that firms, jobs, stores and marketing are the only way to make the economy go around is
deeply entrenched. This is not the place to go into these how-to questions, but it is of course both historically true and within the
range of our imaginations to think of a different way of realizing the advantages of market exchange and cash income.
An Essay in a Paquetian Key Riel Miller
11
production. The more that process becomes product the less amenable the production process to
industrial era forms of organization.
The contrast between Diagrams 4 and 5 is one way of illustrating the difference between the
organization of wealth creation in the industrial era as opposed to the LIS. In Diagram 5 it is the
internal process of reflection that is the fundamental moment of “production” (a term that
undoubtedly is redolent of industrial era ways of thinking). Certainly there are feedback loops
that then alter allocative choices. And there is also collaboration, in a wide variety of ways, some
of which are still industrial in nature such as outsourcing tasks or simply purchasing off-the-shelf
inputs. But from a value-added point-of-view, largely because of the immense success of the
productivity enhancing evolution of industrial production, these outsourced activities are not the
predominant source of society-wide value creation. As already suggested by the imaginary
reallocation illustrated in Diagram 1 the shares of different sources of value creation have shifted.
The efforts to become more competitive industrially have been successful and just like
productivity enhancements in agriculture allowed resources to be devoted elsewhere.
What Diagram 5 shows is how the organization of the use of resources in the LIS is primarily
devoted/created in learning, viz. learning intensive society. The preponderant share of value –
both used and created (input and output, stock and flow) in unique creation and the
personalization of identity is not embodied in an artefact or even an experience, it arises from the
learning that occurs by doing and experimenting. In other words the radically different nature of
the relationship between the socio-economic system and skill is defined at its root by the specific
nature of learning as simultaneously and inextricably consumption (time, mental and physical
energy, pleasure) and production (output of new insights, pleasure of realization, problem
solved).
Of course this does not at all imply that there is no in-depth knowledge. Quite the contrary
because for each person as they learn they deepen their knowledge of themselves in their lives in
their communities. They become wiser – relative to their own aspirations and life (to be judged
on heterarchical not hierarchical grounds). And, as already pointed out, there is still access to
and use of the old industrial forms of expertise – but fortunately this is an inexpensive input. The
sharing that is critical for learning is, however, central. Perhaps the easiest way to describe the
way value creation is organised in the LIS is with the image of a cloud.
Diagram 6 is unfortunately static in the media used here, but it should be swirling and
reconnecting, with a continuous process of new hubs, new networks, new loners. It is a cloud of
communities within which communities are born and die and change membership on a permanent
basis in ways that consistent with the unpredictability and spontaneity of complex evolutionary
processes.
An Essay in a Paquetian Key Riel Miller
12
Diagram 6 – Learning: Clouds of Unique Creation
Imagining the LIS in this way, and it is only one way – there are certainly an infinite variety of
other ways of describing this kind of society, puts very high requirements on the achievement of
transparency, access and trust. For the LIS to be as fluid and spontaneous as the patterns within a
cloud it needs an operational infrastructure that corresponds. Such infrastructure, as Gilles Paquet
underscored throughout his work on the emerging forms of governance and the limitations of
current policy making systems, still needs to be invented. The collective resources (technologies,
norms, institutions) like the semantic web and ambient computing are the underlying conditions
for this descriptive specification of the LIS – the environment, like the Earth’s atmosphere and
water that make cloud formation possible.
An Essay in a Paquetian Key Riel Miller
13
Similarly, the fluidity requirements for the functioning of a LIS community depend on new forms
of governing networks – inventing the standards on the fly that enable asynchronous and
synchronous connections with differing degrees of bandwidth (from text messages to face-to-
face) combined with a high degree of inter-dependency. In this way life adapts to the needs of
learning as it happens, when it happens, with whom it happens, and where it happens. This is not
the industrial era’s organisation of life to suit the needs of the place where they are willing to hire
your skill. The person is not a tool or input into a production process where the specification of
the role of the tool is what defines the skill and ties the person to the job. The LIS is “beyond
skills” because it is a way of imagining a community where people are not instrumentalised.
♦ ♦ ♦
“What is needed for a real change in the social system of knowledge production is a change in its
theory. Such a change is more difficult to neutralize, and it often turns out to be rather
subversive: it triggers creative disequilibrium and cumulative causation of change.”
p.11, Gilles and Paquet, “On Delta Knowledge”, 1989.
“It is difficult however to underestimate the toxic effect of positivism and scientism on the
social sciences (including management). These forces denounced by Hayek (1952) have
proved even more toxic than he had anticipated. Much of the research in management
and governance has been vitiated by this virus, and most importantly alternative ways to
strengthen the governance education have been grossly neglected.”
p. 15, Paquet, “Organization Design as Governance’s Achilles’ Heel”, 2007
The description in this essay of a snapshot of an imaginary social order where skills are a defunct
category of times gone by is meant to offer one alternative to the positivist approach to policy
that Gilles so rightly exposes as a deception. What this essay in a “Paquetian key” attempts to do
is follow Gilles’ admonition to seek real change in a social system’s production of knowledge by
trying to change its theory. Imagining a world without skills is a practical way to reconsider the
potential of the present because it helps us to challenge both implicit and explicit policy
assumptions. As a practical approach to changing the theory knowledge in could fulfil Gilles
hope that such change can trigger creative disequilibrium and cumulative causation.
Selected bibliography.
• Aaltonen, Mika, The Third Lens: Multi-ontology Sense-making and Strategic
Decision-making, Ashgate, 2007.
• Benkler, Yochai, The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms
Markets and Freedom, Yale University Press, 2006
• Booth, Charles, Rowlinson, M., Clark, P., Delahaye, A. & Procter, S. “Scenarios and
Counterfactuals as Modal Narratives,” Futures, 2008.
• Bauman, Zygmunt, Liquid Times: Living in an Age of Uncertainty, Polity, 2007
An Essay in a Paquetian Key Riel Miller
14
• De Jouvenel, Hugues, An Invitation to Foresight, Futuribles, 2004.
• DeLanda, Manuel, A New Philosophy of Society, Continuum, 2006.
• DeLanda, Manuel, A Thousand Years of Non-Linear History, Zone Books, 1997.
• Drucker, Peter F., Post-Capitalist Society, Harper Business, 1993
• Fukuyama, Francis, The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstruction of
Social Order, Touchstone, 1999.
• Georghiou, L., Harper, J., Keenan, M.P., Miles, I.D., Popper, R., Handbook of
Technology Foresight - Concepts and Practice, Edward Elgar, 20008
• Gilles, Willem, and Paquet, Gilles, “On Delta Knowledge”, in G. Paquet & M. von Zur-
Muehlen (eds) Edging toward the Year 2000, Ottawa: Canadian Federation of Deans of
Management and Administrative Studies, 1989, 15-30.
• Goldin, Claudia, and Katz, Lawrence, The Race Between Education and Technology,
Harvard University Press, 2008
• Kingwell, Mark, The World We Want: Virtue, Vice and the Good Citizen, Penguin
Books, 2000.
• Lessig, Lawerence, Code 2.0 and other laws of cyberspace, http://code-is-law.org/.
• Levy, Pierre, Becoming Virtual: Reality in the Digital Age, Plenum Press, 1998.
• Miller, Riel, et. al., School is Over: The Rise of Learning Spaces, Institute for
Prospective Technological Studies, Seville, 2008.
• Miller, Riel, “Futures Literacy: A Hybrid Strategic Scenario Method”, Futures, 39, 2007,
p. 341- 362.
• Miller, Riel, “From Trends to Futures Literacy: Reclaiming the Future”, Centre for
Strategic Education, Melbourne, Australia, Seminar Series Paper No. 160, December,
2006
• Miller, Riel “The Future of Public Sector Reform: Towards a Learning Society?”, in
Adaptive Public Services: The Next Phase of Transformation?, Hewlett Packard &
DEMOS, London, December 12, 2003.
http://www.demos.co.uk/catalogue/theadaptivestate2/
• Miller, Riel, Equity in a 21st Century Learning Intensive Society: is schooling part of the
solution, Foresight, Vol. 8, No. 4, 2006.
• Mulgan, Geoff, Connexity: Responsibility, Freedom, Business and Power in the New
Century, Vintage, 1998.
• North, Douglas C., “Dealing with the Non-Ergodic World: Institutional Economics,
Property Rights, and the Global Environment”, Duke Environmental Law & Policy
Forum, Vol. X, No. 1, Fall 1999
• Ogilvy, Jay, Creating Better Futures: Scenario Planning as a Tool for a Better
Tomorrow, Oxford University Press, 2002, Chapter 10, “Scenario Planning: A Tool for
Social Creativity.
• Paquet, Gilles, The New Geo-governance, University of Ottawa, Press, 2007.
An Essay in a Paquetian Key Riel Miller
15
• Paquet, Gilles, “The Many are Smarter than the Few: a plea for Möbius-web
governance”,
http://gouvernance.ca/index.php?page=embed&lang=ce&embed=publications/06-
19.pdf , September 2006
• Paquet, Gilles, Governance Through Social Learning, University of Ottawa Press,
1999.
• Paquet, Gilles, Canada 2015: The Governance Challenge, September 1999.
• Polanyi, Karl, The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of our
Times, Beacon Press, 1944.
• Poli, Roberto, “Three Obstructions: forms of causation, chronotopoids, and levels of
reality”, Axiomathes, 2007
• Popper, Karl, The Poverty of Historicism, Routledge, 1957
• Prahalad, C.K. and Venkat Ramaswamy, The Future of Competition:Co-creating
Unique Value with Customers, Harvard Business School Press, 2004.
• Prigogine, Ilya, The End of Certainty, Free Press, 1997.
• Slaughter, Richard, Futures Beyond Dystopia: Creating Social Foresight, 2004.
• Sterling, Bruce, Tomorrow Now: Envisioning the Next 50 Years, Random House,
2003.
• Storper, Michael and Robert Salais, Worlds of Production: The Action Frameworks of
the Economy, Harvard University Press, 1997.
• Toffler, Alvin, Revolutionary Wealth, Knopf, 2006.
• Wenger, Etienne, Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity,
Cambridge University Press, 1998.
