(Mis)Understanding the minds that make up the Global Futures Laboratory

As humanity seeks pathways to a more sustainable future, we are constantly making decisions based on what we believe to be true. But what if those beliefs are incorrect?

We polled a group of our Global Futures Scientists and Scholars to address common misconceptions they experience regarding their fields of expertise.

Perhaps one of the greatest misperceptions about the Julie Ann Wrigley Global Futures Laboratory is that its scope is narrow, limited to topic areas such as sustainability or environmental science that center on practices around conservation and community activism. While these are integral components of what the Global Futures Laboratory does, they are a mere sliver of its larger efforts. In reality, there are more than 820 Global Futures Scientists and Scholars based across all of ASU’s campuses, including research stations in Hawaii and Bermuda. These experts study and work across a spectrum of disciplines in the natural and social sciences, medicine, engineering, mathematics, humanities, and the arts, considering topics such as increasing sustainability practices, protecting resilient economic systems, limiting our carbon footprint, shifting negative societal behaviors and informing progressive policies.

If a thriving future is the final image of the puzzle, our wide range of planetary and societal systems make up the pieces. The experts within the Global Futures Scientists and Scholars Network have the task of putting those pieces together.

These scientists and scholars have their own misconceptions to unravel. Here are a just a few they encounter:

“The major one is that gerontologists deal with rocks — that is geology. The other misconception is that those of us who are gerontologists only study older adults, but we study aging and everyone is aging. It is a challenge because when we aim to engage people, they may not want to talk with us, or believe we have nothing to contribute. They focus on the older age aspect, and no one likes to think of themselves as ‘in older age.’ We struggle making individuals realize the decisions they make today will impact them in older age. Aging is an ongoing process. The decisions you make today will influence your health in older age. To fully understand older adulthood we have to look at individuals at every life stage.”

M. Aaron Guest, socio-environmental gerontologist

“The most common misconception I see is that organizations that improve their sustainability performance sacrifice their financial performance. Much time and effort is spent debating the misconception rather than considering creative solutions that would improve financial performance through sustainability initiatives. In actuality, the organizations that improve their sustainability performance create opportunities for improved financial performance and stronger community outcomes.”

Nicole Darnall, Foundation Professor, sustainability and enterprise

"Many people think that technical communicators still only write user manuals for software that no one reads. Technical communication gets minimized as a skill or a mandatory class. It is actually a way of helping real people get the information they need. When I say I teach technical communication, people are puzzled.

When I say that I teach professional social media use for technical companies, they say, ‘Oh, we need lots of that in the world.’ It radically changes what they think technical communication is when they see how it helps people in real, daily interactions. Contemporary technical communication delivers specialized information about technology to people who don’t usually interact with information in that area.

The areas of our information delivery are vast: user experience, medical communication, science communication, data visualization, social media, artificial intelligence and more. We still deal with software as part of our work, but given that software has eaten the world, we work in all areas of the world. We help people use technologies that they’re unfamiliar with, whether that’s behind the scenes or in front of the scenes. We are the present and the future of work, not the past.”

Stephen Carradini, assistant professor of technical communication, specializing in implementation of emerging technologies in the workplace

“Most commonly, I hear that we are nearing ‘peak phosphorus,’ when supplies of this critical agricultural commodity begin to dwindle to zero. This illustrates the imminent collapse of our global food system. The notion is rooted in a combination of outdated geological data and a misunderstanding of the difference between mineral reserves and resources.

This sensational narrative distracts from the more immediate and alarming concerns related to the eutrophication of our waters as a result of nutrient pollution. I’ve seen it raised in major publications and know of at least one instance where an interviewed scientist informed the reporter of the narrative’s fallacy, only to have the reporter highlight it regardless. I get asked about peak phosphorus all the time, and I often have to correct the record. To set the record straight: the best estimates I’ve seen suggest that we have about 350 years of phosphates available, and that presumes that we have no improvement in the technology used to mine it over that time, no great improvement in its efficiency of use (including recycling) and no major new discoveries of resources. Some reports suggest more than 1,000 years of supply remains.

It’s good to think long-term about such a critical, finite and irreplaceable resource and to conserve it. It’s also good to reduce the disruption of our biogeochemical cycles by reducing mined inputs. But it’s also important to focus efforts where the science supports them. We’re not running out of phosphorus, but we are running out of quality freshwater.”

Matt Scholz, research professor, phosphorus sustainability

“I ran a program called GlobalResolve to work with underserved communities in basic problems like clean water, agriculture, health care and education. The most common misconception is that the communities gain the most benefit from our work, and the truth is the opposite: We gain much more than the communities. We learn from them about life issues and become totally impressed with their energy and knowledge and realize that they know how to solve their problems, but just don’t have the resources.

Instead of arriving in a community with a set of solutions to assumed problems, we shifted to always listening first and arriving with no agenda until we collaboratively develop a plan with the community. Underserved communities are too often disrespected and we are often too confident in ourselves. It takes a recognition of equal collaboration to improve conditions for both of us.”

Mark Henderson, President’s Professor emeritus, engineering

“The most common misconception: Architects need only be responsible for the operational energy and operational carbon of projects for which they are responsible, rather than taking embodied energy and embodied carbon into account, as well as a full life cycle assessment inclusive of an end-of-life strategy (or better yet, planning for future expansion or adaptive reuse) for the project. Much of my current work is focused on expanding the field to not only look at the entire life cycle, but to work collaboratively with the stakeholders who are both ‘upstream’ (planners, policymakers, real estate developers, financiers) of architecture, as well as ‘downstream’ (construction managers, facilities managers, occupants, community members) of architecture.

The built environment is responsible for nearly 40% of greenhouse gas emissions, 70-75% of energy consumption, 30% of water consumption, and 30% of effluent waste. The built environment is also responsible for a number of social injustices. The only way for true sustainability in the built environment is for architects and engineers to help align the full end-to-end value chain of the built environment to help lead the (re)alignment of policy, finance, design (from urban/site design to building systems), construction, facilities management and operations, and end-of-life repurposing of what we design to make our relationship with the environment a regenerative relationship.

Phillip Horton, clinical associate professor, architecture

“One common misconception of religious studies is that it is primarily about the study of ancient texts, and especially ancient theologically oriented texts. A related misconception is that scholars in religious studies aren’t engaged in work that is directly related to culture, politics, and contemporary issues and societies. I think it can create a conceptual box that is overly or unnecessarily limiting to the breadth of topics, methods and areas of expertise that people working within the field have and can contribute. In reality, ASU faculty who work in this field have projects that are deeply connected to political violence, immigration, gender, race and climate change, among others. It is a field that is highly interdisciplinary and therefore can have a lot to offer to fields and collaborators, including those in non-humanities disciplines.”

Jason Bruner, ethnographer, writer and historian studying Christians and Christianity in Sub-Saharan Africa and the United States

“The most common misconception is that sustainability is just about the environment, and that you can achieve sustainability by focusing solely on environmental issues. The obstacles to implementing sustainability solutions are often economic or social rather than environmental. Researchers and practitioners now increasingly recognize that to effectively address a wide range of community issues requires working across silos. For example, air quality in places like Phoenix or southern California is related to transportation, housing, employment, safety, well-being and so on. Sustainability is about the interconnections between environmental, economic and social objectives. You can’t have a sustainable society without addressing all three of these dimensions. Having good tools to visualize how they all work together helps people understand synergies and potential co-benefits.”

Mark Roseland, professor, sustainable community development

“ One of the key challenges regarding the image of the humanities both within academia and with regard to the larger public is that the humanities are often reduced to the English department and the study of literature. However, humanities disciplines include history, philosophy, religious studies, international culture, languages, cultural anthropology and sometimes art history.

Another misconception is that the humanities do not draw on rigorous methods of investigation, which reflects an unfamiliarity with the research practices of humanities scholars. Overall, it leads to a lack of respect for the value of the humanities. This leads to a lack of humanities knowledge in both academia and the general public, which has consequences when it comes to addressing a wide range of problems, from climate change to international conflict. It also results in fewer funding opportunities for humanities scholars. Knowledge produced by humanities disciplines is crucial to addressing current challenges, including climate change, international conflict and social justice.”

Nina Berman, professor, international letters and cultures