What happens when we treat education not as a pipeline for delivering content, but as a public practice that brings new possibilities into view? Earlier posts in this series examined how platform logics shape teaching and learning, how care must be cultivated rather than assumed, and how learners and educators can claim digital agency in ways that are equitable and accountable (Passey et al., 2018). This post marks a shift from critique to practice. The question is no longer only what is wrong with our systems; it is how we act to make different worlds possible within and against them.

By world-making I mean the creative and shared work through which classrooms, projects and platforms become sites for imagining and enacting alternatives. Cornelius Castoriadis helps to clarify this move. For Castoriadis, societies do not merely inherit institutions; they institute themselves through the social imaginary, which supplies meanings and forms that orient collective life (Castoriadis, 1997). If education operates inside that field of invention, then pedagogic action participates in shaping the worlds we live in, rather than simply transmitting what already is.

World-making is imaginative, because it asks what if and invites experiments with forms, methods and artefacts. It is also ethical, because it binds us to others through consequences and commitments. Autonomy here does not mean solitary self-expression; it means the capacity for self-institution with others, exercised through participation, deliberation and shared authorship (Castoriadis, 1997). Relationality names the fact that meaning arises between people engaged in speech and action, not in isolation; Hannah Arendt’s account of the public realm underscores how plurality and appearance make judgment and initiative possible (Arendt, 2018). Collective responsibility follows from these claims. If we co-create the conditions of learning, then we are answerable for the futures our pedagogies help to set in motion.

This orientation reframes familiar digital practices. Narrative assignments, speculative design briefs and collaborative mapping projects are not merely techniques; they are ways of composing shared worlds. They invite students to rehearse public judgment, to negotiate values and to make something that addresses an audience beyond the classroom. Such work also stretches digital agency beyond competence toward confidence and accountability, insisting that tools be used to widen participation and to surface the social stakes of design decisions (Passey et al., 2018; Otrel-Cass et al., 2024).

The shift to practice does not ignore constraint. Institutions sediment habits and metrics that narrow attention. Yet invention remains possible in the interstices. Charles Taylor’s account of modern social imaginaries reminds us that shared pictures of social life are historically made and therefore revisable (Taylor, 2004). Small, situated actions can open space for alternative imaginaries to take root: co-authored rubrics that foreground judgment, student-led archives that pluralise memory, or cross-context collaborations that test sustainable futures.

The post unfolds across five parts. Part I explores pedagogy as an imaginative institution, revisiting Castoriadis’ understanding of education as a social force capable of re-creating meaning. Part II turns to practices of world-making in digital education, showing how assignments and collaborations can enact imagination as a shared act. Part III considers autonomy and collective responsibility, examining how educators and learners negotiate agency and accountability within digital infrastructures. Part IV presents case studies of student-led projects that embody these principles in practice. Finally, Part V frames education as the renewal of the world - an ongoing process through which teaching and learning sustain imagination, justice, and care in common.

Education, as Cornelius Castoriadis reminds us, is never merely about transmitting knowledge but about instituting the capacity for autonomy within a community. In The Imaginary Institution of Society he argues that “society is self-instituting,” a creative and ongoing activity through which people bring new meanings and forms into existence (Castoriadis, 1997, p. 221). This means that education itself functions as an imaginative institution - one that participates in shaping the very worlds learners and educators inhabit. To teach, then, is not to maintain the social order but to join in its continual reinvention.

Earlier posts in this series have suggested that pedagogy can be understood as an act of instituting meaning and possibility. Through digital practice, educators and students enact values, design structures of participation and decide which voices are amplified or marginalised. To describe pedagogy as imaginative institution is to foreground this constitutive power. Each lesson, platform and design choice embodies a view of what learning - and the learner - might be. In this sense, pedagogy is a social imaginary in motion, an ongoing negotiation of how we live, learn and make meaning together.

Institutions, however, are double-edged. They stabilise shared practices but can also solidify power and limit imagination. In digital education this tension becomes visible in the architectures of learning management systems, analytics dashboards and automated feedback tools. As Knox (2019) observes, the digital is no longer an external force acting upon education but an entangled condition that shapes how teaching and learning are imagined and enacted. The Manifesto for Teaching Online (Bayne et al., 2020) extends this critique, showing how the design of online platforms and pedagogical technologies encodes particular values - efficiency, standardisation, and control - while also offering spaces for creative resistance and renewal. Recognising that such infrastructures both sustain and constrain, educators are called to work critically and imaginatively within them. When platforms configure participation in advance, imagination is constrained; when they are opened to reinterpretation and re-configuration, they allow educators and learners to act as co-designers of their institutional world.

World-making extends beyond representation: it is performative. Judith Butler (1993) reminds us that social realities are enacted through repeated discursive and material acts; Karen Barad (2007) extends this insight to show that meaning and matter are entangled in every act of creation. Learning activities, then, do not simply reflect worlds - they perform them. A collaborative mapping project or a speculative design assignment does more than display knowledge; it enacts a possible future, rehearsing the kinds of relations and responsibilities that might sustain it. Through such performative acts, education becomes a site of ontological invention, where imagination materialises into shared forms of life.

Within this framing, the educator’s role shifts from authority to facilitator of imagination. To be a world-maker educator is to create conditions under which others can institute meaning. This involves designing open-ended tasks, co-authoring rubrics, and nurturing spaces where collective authorship can unfold. It demands attentiveness to autonomy - not as isolation but as the capacity to act with others - and to relationality, the recognition that understanding emerges between participants rather than within individuals. Above all, it entails collective responsibility: acknowledging that the pedagogical worlds we bring into being carry ethical and social consequences.

To speak of pedagogy as imaginative institution is therefore to treat education as a practice of renewal. Institutions are remade whenever educators and learners engage in creative, reflective, and ethical action. Each pedagogical encounter becomes a small act of world-making - an opportunity to shape futures otherwise foreclosed by the routines of platform and policy. The challenge is not merely to critique existing infrastructures but to inhabit them differently, transforming constraint into possibility and practice into creation.

If pedagogy as an imaginative institution describes education’s capacity to re-create society, then practices of world-making show how that capacity unfolds in everyday acts. World-making is not a single event of invention but an ongoing, iterative, and participatory process. Nelson Goodman (1978) proposed that worlds are “made” through the symbolic systems and representations we construct. In education, these systems take form as stories, designs, maps, and digital artefacts that shape how learners imagine and inhabit the world. While Goodman emphasised the symbolic, education extends this process into the social and ethical realm, aligning with Castoriadis’s understanding that collective meaning-making institutes new possibilities for living together.

World-making in pedagogy is thus relational. It emerges through interaction and negotiation among learners, educators, and technologies. Karen Barad’s (2007) concept of intra-action captures this relational ontology: creative acts do not simply happen to the world but within the entanglement of human and nonhuman forces. Learning, in this light, is not merely an exchange of information but a performative act that produces new configurations of meaning. Each digital project - whether speculative, narrative, or cartographic - becomes both an artefact and an encounter, where imagination and ethics are interwoven.

These theoretical insights materialise in a range of pedagogical genres that mobilise imagination as inquiry.

Speculative design tasks

invite students to imagine alternative futures or social systems through digital media such as prototypes, simulations, or interactive artefacts. Dunne and Raby (2013) describe speculative design as a critical practice that provokes reflection on what kind of worlds we are creating through technology. In education, such exercises help students anticipate the social and environmental implications of emerging technologies. A sustainability course, for example, might ask students to design digital artefacts envisioning equitable post-carbon societies. The goal is not prediction but the cultivation of anticipatory and ethical imagination.

Narrative and multimodal assignments

extend this imaginative mode into storytelling. Narrative remains one of the oldest forms of world-making, and digital environments expand its expressive range. Hayles (2008) notes that electronic literature enables new forms of textuality - non-linear, multimodal, and participatory - that mirror the complexity of contemporary experience. Through digital storytelling, podcasts, or interactive essays, students weave together experience, research, and creativity. When developed collaboratively, these narratives become shared acts of authorship, revealing how individual voices can coalesce into collective meaning.

Collaborative mapping projects

offer a spatial and visual expression of world-making. As Harley (1989) reminds us, maps are never neutral - they are arguments about the world encoded spatially. Using platforms such as StoryMapJS or ArcGIS StoryMaps, learners can co-create digital maps that visualise connections between histories, communities, or speculative geographies. Such mapping projects situate knowledge within networks of place and relation, prompting reflection on perspective, power, and representation. They are dialogic exercises in seeing and situating the world together.

Across these practices, shared authorship and interpretive openness are essential. Students and educators co-construct meaning, acknowledging that each artefact is provisional and partial. This ethos resonates with postdigital pedagogy, which, as Bayne et al. (2020) argue, values experimentation and uncertainty as generative conditions for learning. Small, situated experiments - an open-ended design brief, a co-written story, a collaboratively curated map - can enact new forms of the possible. Such practices show that educational transformation often occurs not through grand innovation but through modest, iterative acts of reimagining. Through these creative encounters, pedagogy performs its most vital work: renewing the world by making it anew, together.

Autonomy has been a central theme throughout this series, understood in Castoriadis’s sense as the capacity for self-institution with others. In The Imaginary Institution of Society, Castoriadis (1997) conceives autonomy as a social, not solitary, project - the collective ability of people to question inherited norms and create new forms of life. Education, or paideia, is the process through which such autonomy is cultivated: a space where individuals learn to reflect on, and participate in, the re-making of their shared world. To speak of autonomy in this way is to reject the idea of the learner as an isolated actor or consumer. Autonomy is not freedom from others but freedom with others - the ethical capacity to shape meaning, institutions and relationships together.

In digital learning environments, these dynamics of autonomy and interdependence are both amplified and complicated. Platforms can extend collaborative reach and enable multimodal authorship, yet they also embed assumptions about what counts as participation and success. Knox (2019) argues that the digital is not an external tool but an entangled condition of education: it shapes how teachers and learners perceive agency itself. Data infrastructures, analytics dashboards and automated feedback systems often redefine autonomy as a form of managed choice - a set of options determined by algorithms rather than negotiated by communities. Williamson (2017) similarly observes that the logics of datafication and optimisation recast accountability as quantifiable performance. Responsibility becomes procedural rather than ethical, shifting from mutual care to compliance with metrics. In this environment, educators and learners risk becoming operators within systems that decide for them what counts as meaningful action.

Reclaiming autonomy requires making responsibility visible again. Ethical autonomy emerges when learners and educators act with transparency, reciprocity and shared authorship. Cook-Sather, Bovill and Felten (2014) describe this as students-as-partners pedagogy: a form of democratic co-creation that positions collaboration not as consultation but as shared governance. When learners and teachers co-design rubrics, negotiate project goals, or engage in peer review, they practice a micro-politics of institution-building. These acts demonstrate that freedom is not license but participation in collective judgment. Open collaborative tools - version-controlled writing platforms, shared repositories or digital archives - make these processes tangible and traceable, foregrounding how learning is both personal and relational.

Open educational practices further extend this ethic beyond institutional boundaries. Cronin (2017) describes openness as a praxis of “critical engagement with participation,” where learners become co-creators of public knowledge. Such practices cultivate responsibility through visibility: when work circulates openly, the community becomes the audience and arbiter of its integrity. Transparency in assessment also supports this ethos. Co-authored rubrics or reflexive self-assessment frameworks encourage students to confront the evaluative dimension of learning and to recognise their role in sustaining fairness and trust.

Educators likewise have a responsibility to interrogate the infrastructures that mediate learning. Selwyn (2019) calls for critical platform literacy: understanding how digital tools structure participation and data flows. This literacy supports more intentional choices - adopting open-source platforms when possible, questioning algorithmic biases, or at least disclosing them. Even within proprietary systems, small acts such as publishing open rubrics or sharing process notes can re-centre agency and ethical transparency. Through such gestures, autonomy becomes a lived relation rather than an abstract principle.

Autonomy and collective responsibility, then, are not opposing forces but complementary commitments. To act freely is to act with and for others; to design ethically is to invite others into the work of creation. Each instance of shared authorship - each negotiated rubric, each co-designed task - re-institutes education as a collective practice of freedom. In this sense, digital pedagogy realises its highest potential not by automating care or measuring engagement, but by renewing the democratic labour of learning together.

The previous section explored autonomy and collective responsibility as ethical foundations for digital pedagogy. This section extends those ideas through three examples of student-led, digitally mediated projects that enact world-making in practice. Each demonstrates how shared authorship, ethical negotiation and imaginative experimentation translate theory into lived pedagogy. Together, they reveal how creativity in education is both enabled and constrained by institutional and technological structures - and how care and labour quietly sustain it.

If world-making names the imaginative act of creation, renewal describes its rhythm - the ongoing re-commitment to sustaining shared worlds with care. Education, at its best, is this rhythm made visible: the continuous reimagining of meaning, relationship, and responsibility through learning. Cornelius Castoriadis (1987) understood such renewal as central to autonomy - the collective capacity of societies to re-institute themselves through reflective creation. Each generation inherits the task not only of preserving knowledge but of reinterpreting it, of asking again what kind of world it wishes to inhabit. Renewal is thus both creative and ethical: the will to begin anew within the fragile institutions we share.

In an age marked by ecological crisis, algorithmic automation, and social fragmentation, the renewal of the world through education becomes both urgent and precarious. Hope, as Freire (1994) reminds us, is not naïve optimism but an “anchored” disposition toward action, sustained by practice. Digital pedagogy can embody this hope when it resists reduction to metrics and control, instead fostering collaboration, transparency, and care. When educators and learners co-create digital spaces - open repositories, shared rubrics, participatory archives - they enact what bell hooks (1994) called an education as the practice of freedom: a pedagogy grounded in love, dialogue, and the belief that transformation is still possible. Even small, situated acts - a collaboratively annotated text, an open peer review, a shared reflection on failure - become gestures of hope. They show that the digital can be a medium not only of automation but of renewal: a place where imagination and solidarity re-enter public life.

To sustain such renewal demands attention to justice - ecological, social, and epistemic. Rosi Braidotti (2019) calls for a posthuman pedagogy that repositions learning within the planetary web of interdependence. Ecological justice requires recognising that education is entangled with nonhuman life and environmental systems, including the material infrastructures of digital networks. Jandrić et al. (2020) argue that the educational imagination must expand to meet the intertwined crises of climate change and pandemic disruption, urging educators to remember the lessons of Greta Thunberg and to locate pedagogy within the ecological realities of our time. Their call reframes digital education not as a neutral tool but as part of the environment it inhabits - a terrain of responsibility, vulnerability and renewal. MacKenzie et al. (2022) further develop this ecological sensibility, dissolving the dichotomy between online and campus-based teaching to highlight how all education is now irreversibly postdigital: embedded in material, environmental, and social systems that shape its possibilities. Social justice insists that learning remain a space of emancipation rather than exclusion. Epistemic justice, as argued by Andreotti (2011) and de Sousa Santos (2018), asks educators to value multiple ways of knowing and to dismantle hierarchies that privilege Western knowledge. Mignolo and Walsh (2018) describe this as pluriversality: the recognition that “the world is not one but many.” Digital pedagogy, when practiced with critical attentiveness, can make such plurality visible - connecting dispersed voices, decentralising authority, and opening space for co-authorship beyond borders. In doing so, it enacts the moral horizon of renewal: to learn is to care for the world we make together.

Imaginative co-creation is therefore not an addition to pedagogy but its ethical core. To teach is to participate in the unfinished project of creation; to learn is to assume responsibility for the worlds one helps to bring into being. Renewal depends on this reciprocity of imagination and care. As Puig de la Bellacasa (2017) suggests, care is not sentiment but action - the maintenance of relationships that sustain the possibility of flourishing. In digital education, such care may take humble forms: the accessible design of a course site, the empathetic tone of feedback, or the deliberate choice to make a resource open. Each is a small act of re-worlding, a refusal to let automation or standardisation define the horizon of the possible.

To imagine education as renewal is to reclaim its creative and moral purpose. Against the flattening forces of crisis and computation, pedagogy endures as an act of care and imagination - a reaffirmation that the world can still be otherwise. Every classroom, every collaborative document, every shared digital moment offers a chance to begin again: to weave new relations, tell new stories, and sustain hope in common.

Throughout this series, Enacting Digital Pedagogy: From Imaginaries to Action, I have explored how pedagogy moves from imagination to enactment - how ideas become worlds through practice. To speak of pedagogy as world-making is to affirm that education is not a neutral enterprise but an act of imagination, care, and courage. In digital as in physical spaces, it requires the refusal to accept inherited boundaries of what education can be, insisting instead that learning is a creative, ethical, and collective process through which societies continually reinvent themselves. Cornelius Castoriadis (1997) called this capacity autonomy: the ability to question and re-institute our own meanings. Pedagogy, viewed through this lens, becomes the social imagination at work - a space where learners and educators co-create worlds of possibility rather than merely transmit knowledge of what already exists. Such imagination is neither escapist nor utopian; it is grounded in the everyday acts of designing, listening, collaborating, and caring that make shared life possible.

Digital pedagogy has emerged across this series as both a challenge and an opportunity for such world-making. The digital is not an abstract realm but the material and relational texture of contemporary social life, shaping how we communicate, learn, and remember. When designed ethically and enacted collaboratively, digital practices can nurture autonomy while sustaining collective responsibility. bell hooks (1994) reminds us that education as the practice of freedom must be rooted in love and dialogue - principles that remain vital as we navigate the data-driven and platformised realities of learning. Open-source infrastructures, co-authored materials, and participatory digital spaces embody this ethic of freedom, demonstrating how technology can serve relational rather than extractive ends. As Jandrić et al. (2020) argue, crises such as the pandemic and the climate emergency demand that we recognise digital education as part of our ecological and social interdependence. The design of learning environments is therefore both a moral and a technical question: how to sustain care, reciprocity, and justice across digital networks.

Yet imagination alone is insufficient without courage - the willingness to act amid uncertainty and constraint. Such acts of freedom demand courage: the readiness to step into uncertainty where creation meets responsibility. Arendt (2006) described action as the capacity to begin something new, to make an appearance in the shared world. Teaching and learning are such beginnings: each encounter an invitation to co-create meaning, each dialogue a gesture toward renewal. Courage in pedagogy does not mean certainty; it means keeping open the space where new possibilities can emerge. As Freire (1994) observed, hope without action is idle, but action without hope is destructive. The courage to hope sustains the educator’s work even within resistant institutions, transforming routine acts - feedback, course design, moderation - into occasions for ethical creation and collective care.

Ultimately, pedagogy’s transformative potential lies in its ordinariness. World-making does not depend on large-scale innovation but on the cumulative force of small, situated acts: a student-led project, an inclusive assessment, a conversation that alters understanding. These gestures, repeated across classrooms and digital spaces, weave the texture of a more just and imaginative education. Puig de la Bellacasa (2017) reminds us that care is not merely maintenance but a speculative practice - an opening toward the possible. Every educator participates in this speculation: reconfiguring what counts as knowledge, who counts as a knower, and what worlds education might sustain. To imagine education as renewal is to reclaim its creative and moral purpose. Against the flattening forces of crisis and computation, pedagogy endures as a fragile and hopeful practice - one that remains, at its core, profoundly human.

• Andreotti, V. (2011) Actionable Postcolonial Theory in Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.manchester.idm.oclc.org/lib/manchester/detail.action?docID=815812
• Arendt, H. (2006) Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought. New York: Penguin Books
• Arendt, H. (2018) The Human Condition. 2nd edn. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/H/bo29137972.html
• Barad, K. (2007) Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv12101zq
• Bayne, S., Evans, P., Ewins, R., Knox, J., Lamb, J., Macleod, H., O’Shea, C., Ross, J., Sheail, P., and Sinclair, C. (2020) The Manifesto for Teaching Online, MIT Press, Cambridge. https://doi-org.manchester.idm.oclc.org/10.7551/mitpress/11840.001.0001
• Braidotti, R. (2019) Posthuman Knowledge. Cambridge: Polity Press. https://www.vlebooks.com/Product/Index/1674304?page=0&startBookmarkId=-1
• Butler, J. (1993) Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex.” New York: Routledge. https://www.vlebooks.com/Product/Index/1996224
• Candy, S. and Dunagan, J. (2017) ’Designing an experiential scenario: The People Who Vanished’, Futures, 86, pp. 136–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2016.05.006
• Castoriadis, C. (1997) The Imaginary Institution of Society. Translated by K. Blamey. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Christen, K. (2012) ’Does information really want to be free? Indigenous knowledge systems and the question of openness’, International journal of communication, 30 Nov, 2870+, available: https://link-gale-com.manchester.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/A317781186/LitRC?u=jrycal5&sid=summon&xid=218ca4fe
• Cook-Sather, A., Bovill, C., and Felten, P. (2014) Engaging Students As Partners in Learning and Teaching : A Guide for Faculty. Neward: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.manchester.idm.oclc.org/lib/manchester/detail.action?docID=1650837
• Cronin, C. (2017). ’Openness and Praxis: Exploring the Use of Open Educational Practices in Higher Education’. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(5). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i5.3096
• de Sousa Santos, B. (2018) The End of the Cognitive Empire: The Coming of Age of Epistemologies of the South. Duke University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv125jqvn
• Dunne, A., and Raby, F. (2013) Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming, Cambridge: MIT Press. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/manchester/detail.action?docID=3339745
• Flinn, A., Stevens, M. and Shepherd, E. (2009) ’Whose memories, whose archives? Independent community archives, autonomy and the mainstream’. Archival Science 9, pp. 71-86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-009-9105-2
• Freire, P. (1994) Pedagogy of Hope: Reliving Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.
• Goodman, N. (1978) Ways of Worldmaking. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
• Harley, J. B. (1989) ’Deconstructing the Map’, Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization, 26(2), pp. 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3138/E635-7827-1757-9T53
• Hayles, N. K. (2008) Electronic Literature: New Horizons for the Literary. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.manchester.idm.oclc.org/lib/manchester/detail.action?docID=3441028
• hooks, b. (1994) Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge.
• Jandrić, P. et al. (2020) ’Philosophy of education in a new key: Who remembers Greta Thunberg? Education and environment after the coronavirus’. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 53(14), pp. 1421–1441. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1811678.
• Knox, J. (2019) ’What Does the “Postdigital” Mean for Education? Three Critical Perspectives on the Digital, with Implications for Educational Research and Practice’. Postdigital Science and Education 1, 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-019-00045-y
• MacKenzie, A. et al. (2022) ’Dissolving the Dichotomies Between Online and Campus-Based Teaching: A Collective Response to The Manifesto for Teaching Online’. Postdigital Science and Education, 4(2), pp. 305–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-021-00259-z
• Mignolo, W. D. and Walsh, C. E. (2018) On Decoloniality: Concepts, Analytics, Praxis. Durham: Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11g9616
• Otrel-Cass, K., Costello, E., Lyngdorf, N. E. R. and Mendel, I. (2024) ’Methods for dreaming about and reimagining digital education’, International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00463-4
• Passey, D., Shonfeld, M., Appleby, L., Judge, M., Saito, T. and Smits, A. (2018) ’Digital Agency: Empowering Equity in and through Education’, Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 23(3), pp. 425–439. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10758-018-9384-x
• Puig de la Bellacasa, M. (2017) Matters of Care : Speculative Ethics in More Than Human Worlds Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.ctt1mmfspt.
• Selwyn, N. (2019) Should Robots Replace Teachers? AI and the Future of Education. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Simon, N. (2010) The Participatory Museum. Santa Cruz: Museum 2.0. https://participatorymuseum.org/read/
• Taylor, C. (2004) Modern Social Imaginaries. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11hpgvt
• Wiek, A., Iwaniec, D. (2014) ’Quality criteria for visions and visioning in sustainability science’. Sustainability Science, 9, 497–512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-013-0208-6
• Williamson, B. (2017) Big Data in Education: The Digital Future of Learning, Policy and Practice. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.