Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 16

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Critical design futures thinking and GenerativeAI: a Foresight 3.0 approach in higher education to design preferred futures for the industry

Patel, Nadya Shaznay, Lim, Jawn Tze-hin·2025·foresight

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to examine how integrating Foresight 3.0 (FS3.0) and the Critical Design Futures (CDF) framework into higher education can enhance students’ capacity to design preferred futures for the hospitality industry. Specifically, this study hypothesises that (H1) participation in a Digital Media Production module, underpinned by the CDF framework, bolsters students’ capabilities in designing innovative solutions for future‐oriented challenges in a Future of Hospitality-themed project. Additionally, (H2) the strategic integration of Generative AI (GenAI) tools with critical, design, and futures thinking skills within the CDF framework enhances students’ intellectual agility through iterative and dialogic interactions with GenAI tools. The methodology includes online surveys, multimodal and thematic qualitative analyses of students’ digital prototypes and reflections to study the effectiveness of FS3.0 and the CDF framework in cultivating future-ready graduates. Design/methodology/approach: This study aims to explore the adoption of innovative tools and methodologies that anticipate future challenges while promoting proactive, solution‐oriented learning within higher education. The research investigates the integration of FS3.0 with the newly developed CDF framework within a Digital Media Production module tailored for the hospitality industry. FS3.0, by merging foresight with collective intelligence, fosters a collaborative, forward‐thinking educational paradigm that enhances students’ capacity to address complex, systemic, real‐world challenges. In this context, students engage in hands‐on activities, participating in intellectual sparring with GenAI tools–prompting, critiquing, and refining AI‐generated outputs–guided by the CDF framework. This approach aims to develop students’ creative confidence, critical competence, and futures flexibility (Patel et al. , 2024). Findings: Preliminary findings suggest that integrating FS3.0 and the CDF framework elevates students’ abilities to ideate and innovate effectively, particularly in developing solutions for industry‐specific challenges in the hospitality sector. The iterative, collaborative interaction with GenAI tools appears to enhance students’ intellectual agility, enabling them to flex their problem‐solving and creative thinking skills. Consequently, the study recommends establishing a collaborative learning space involving students, instructors, and industry stakeholders to continuously redesign innovation‐related modules based on the principles of collective intelligence and interdisciplinarity. Additionally, this study proposes a broader implementation of the FS3.0 and CDF approach across various educational disciplines to nurture innovative, forward‐thinking graduates who can navigate and innovate in complex environments. Originality/value: This study contributes to higher education by demonstrating the value of integrating Foresight 3.0 and the Critical Design Futures (CDF) framework to equip students for an increasingly uncertain and complex world. The adoption of such innovative tools and methodologies enables students to anticipate and navigate future challenges effectively. Incorporating FS3.0 into educational curricula fosters a holistic perspective among students, encouraging them to think beyond present conditions and consider broader social, economic, and environmental contexts. This approach not only enhances students’ problem‐solving skills but also strengthens their resilience in facing multifaceted, real‐world challenges.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/fs-11-2023-0228

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. 2020, Academia Next: The Futures of Higher Education
  2. 2008, Global Catastrophic Risks
  3. 2010, The Futures of Everyday Life: Politics and the Design of Human Worlds
  4. 2019, Design thinking, collaborative innovation, and neoliberal disappointment, Radical Teacher, 114, 34, 10.5195/rt.2019.548 · doi:10.5195/rt.2019.548
  5. 2010, Communication, learning, and retrieval in transactive memory systems, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1084, 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 2008, Six pillars: futures thinking for transforming, Foresight, 10, 4, 10.1108/14636680810855991 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 2020, Developing Creativity in Higher Education: An Imaginative Curriculum
  8. 2011, Learning to use design thinking tools for successful innovation, Strategy & Leadership, 39, 29, 10.1108/10878571111161480 · doi:10.1108/10878571111161480
  9. 2009, Harnessing crowds: mapping the genome of collective intelligence (February 3, 2009), 10.2139/ssrn.1381502 · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1381502
  10. 2003, Molitor forecasting model: key dimensions of change, Journal of Futures Studies, 8, 61
  11. 2022, Transforming international higher education in a post-covid world: using the methodologies of futures thinking and arts-based research to amplify students’ voices, Transformative Dialogues: Teaching and Learning Journal, 15, 161
  12. 1998, Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises, Review of General Psychology, 2, 175, 10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 2007, The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies
  14. 2024, Shaping future-ready graduates with mindset shifts: studying the impact of integrating critical and design thinking in design innovation education, Frontiers in Education, 9, 10.3389/feduc.2024.1358431 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 2017, The futures of learning 3: What kind of pedagogies for the 21st century
  16. 2020, Deeper City: Collective Intelligence and the Pathways from Smart to Wise
  17. 2017, Group Genius: The Creative Power of Collaboration
  18. 2020, Innovating how to learn design thinking, making, and innovation: incorporating multiple modes in teaching the innovation process, INFORMS Transactions on Education, 20, 25, 10.1287/ited.2019.0220 · doi:10.1287/ited.2019.0220
  19. 2015, Wiser: Getting beyond Groupthink to Make Groups Smarter
  20. 2004, The Wisdom of Crowds
  21. 2020, Radical flexibility and relationality as responses to education in times of crisis, Postdigital Science and Education, 2, 849, 10.1007/s42438-020-00196-3 · DOI
  22. 2010, What Did You Do in School Today? Exploring the Concept of Student Engagement and Its Implications for Teaching and Learning in the 21st Century
  23. 1993, Critical thinking assessment, Theory Into Practice, 32, 179, 10.1080/00405849309543594 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 2015, Learning across disciplines: a collective case study of two university programs that integrate the arts with STEM, International Journal of Education & the Arts, 16
  25. The Futures Group International, 2009, Scenarios
  26. 2011, Strategic foresight for corporate and regional development, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78, 162
  27. 2009, Instructional and assessment practices in Singapore, 253
  28. 2013, Design thinking: past, present and possible futures, Creativity and Innovation Management, 22, 121, 10.1111/caim.12023 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 2011, Rethinking design thinking: part I, Design and Culture, 3, 285, 10.2752/175470811X13071166525216 · DOI · Paper page
  30. 1997, Collective Intelligence: Mankind’s Emerging World in Cyberspace
  31. 2015, Handbook of Collective Intelligence
  32. 2021, Better together, again, Marketing Education Review, 31, 53, 10.1080/10528008.2021.1923393 · doi:10.1080/10528008.2021.1923393
  33. 2017, Learning from Singapore: The Power of Paradoxes
  34. 2006, Critical thinking: the nature of critical and creative thought, Journal of Developmental Education, 30, 34
  35. 2011, Interdisciplinary Research: Process and Theory
  36. 2002, Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution
  37. 2020, Impact of AI application on digital education focused on STE(A)M, 10.38069/edenconf-2020-ac0013 · doi:10.38069/edenconf-2020-ac0013
  38. 2010, Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups, Science, 330, 686, 10.1126/science.1193147 · DOI · Paper page

Metadata

Authors
Patel, N. S., & Lim, J. T.-H.
Venue
foresight
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2024-10-30
Volume
27
Issue
2
Pages
380-402
ISSN
  • 1463-6689
  • 1465-9832
Cited by
16
References
5
Language
en
Licence
www.emerald.com/insight/site-policies (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Critical design futures thinking and GenerativeAI: a Foresight 3.0 approach in higher education to design preferred futures for the industry. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/fs-11-2023-0228
The paper
Patel, N. S., & Lim, J. T.-H. (2025). Critical design futures thinking and GenerativeAI: a Foresight 3.0 approach in higher education to design preferred futures for the industry. foresight. https://doi.org/10.1108/fs-11-2023-0228

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.