Behind the Digital Curtain: a cross-cultural study of academic identities, liminalities and labour market adaptations for the ‘Uber-isation’ of HE

Dr Hilary Collins

In this post blog, Dr Hilary Collins, Senior Lecturer with Executive Education, discusses ‘Behind the Digital Curtain’, a paper co-authored with OU colleague Dr Hayley Glover and former colleague Fran Myers, now at the University of Manchester. This was recently published in the ‘Teaching in Higher Education’ academic journal. A further study is now underway exploring the impact of Covid-19 on the increasingly digitised teaching role.

Opportunities and challenges presented by digital teaching have been rising for a generation now. Lecturers have applied themselves to new platforms and practices since initial interest from individual academics started to gather traction for an online complement to study, to today’s ubiquity of digital equivalence in a higher education student experience. These online teaching and learning practices have brought many benefits for students, including greater reach and greater resources for today’s mobile learners and a reduction of barriers to accessibility. Benefits to those teaching online have also been seen in the ability to engage with and challenge students in different ways as lecturers have invested in their own skills and practices.

As universities adopted the positive outcomes of such practices, investment was made in teaching staff competence in new ways of working required. Benefits of time saving and focus on teaching rather than manual administration were sold (rather than expected cost saving for universities), with lecturers reflecting on both new ways of one-to-many communication and engagement and personal skills required. This reorientation provided the first of our studies undertaken for Teaching in Higher Education, ‘The Automation Game: technological retention activities and perceptions on changes to tutors’ roles and identity’ (Myers, Collins, Glover and Watson, 2019).

Much of this work was focused on the practicalities of adapting to a digital working life, both from institution and lecturers, as they considered new skills necessary, and unlearning required from former routines and practices. However, other pockets of meanings kept popping up during the dialogues in the focus groups, and a sense of identity development through new forms of work appeared underway from participants. These developments were highly fragmented, indicating teachers testing out and tentatively experimenting with new ideas and alternate perceptions of selfhood. Both a sense of purpose behind new skills and routines and the group environment saw discussions drifting back to the practicalities of digital teaching.

Having undertaken the initial study, as researchers we were struck by ideas on how new identities were developing but wanted to give them space and time to unfold in exploration. It seemed a relevant place for study but how to get people to focus on, and surface such fragmented stories of self was a challenge. Our study used photographic techniques for the explicit purpose of drawing out these plastic and mutable oral stories into more linear formats.

We found that along the way between our first study and second that many developments for digital teachers were snowballing around other issues for today’s workforce, including the rise of precarious and piecemeal work practices and the normalisation of different forms of employment. We had undertaken a study in two universities expecting to find differences in approaches, rather than a commonality of digital identity work we uncovered. While contributions such as the 2017 Taylor report acknowledged both the drivers and the necessity for effective management of digital working practices, it was those rising discourses around the emotional labour of becoming such a worker that interested us. Seeing applicability from other studies that divided the digital, liminal and precarious from their embodied counterparts provided the basis of our investigation, and an insight into life behind a largely unseen ‘digital curtain’ in higher education.

Our paper raises important questions about the onus of responsibility and future policy making for contingent workers. There is a need in the digital age to both confront and respond to perceptions of what these flexible arrangements may mean in practice for workforce’s. However, while resonant with practical recommendations for the importance of fairness and dignity in future workplaces, as heralded by a fourth industrial revolution, emotional aspects of such labour remain largely unstudied. Competitive advantage from these new business models may yet regulated by government legislation to facilitate this in a positive way.

At the individual level, reductions in tenured roles coupled with eroding contractual rights and trends towards hourly-paid teaching have resulted in precarious work and associated practices. Uncertainty of the digital workspace, in parallel with supervisory increases has resulted in teaching, appearing in some cases as reduced to mechanistic, process-driven approaches riven with emotional labour. We appear to be losing academia as a critique of society while the efforts by teachers are diverted towards being compliant with frantic attempts to ‘belong’ to a profession despite an othered status.

However, we also noted a secondary picture as some teachers spoke of successful coping mechanisms emerging in some cases, where teachers were starting to instigate spontaneous, online groups which replicate the physical events of ‘water cooler’ moments through supportive virtual networks. These online meetings, acting as a form of compensation to the physical are being undertaken on a personal, or social level, largely unseen by their employers.

Universities are starting to recognise symptoms and actions from a precarious and increasingly digitised academic workforce. Within the changing landscape of today’s digital age and the associated macro-environmental drivers for change, educators are impelled to explore these new horizons and perspectives in education. This needs to be balanced with ongoing evaluation of the impact of such teaching strategies and developing ways and means of supporting teachers as individuals and members of an academic community. This has never been more relevant than now when due to the Covid-19 pandemic more and more universities are asking academics to change their pedagogy to distance learning.

Social innovating for a better tomorrow

The COVID-19 pandemic has shown how society can innovate at speed. And while the focus for now is on helping each other, this social innovation demonstrates how we can all make an impact. Let’s start thinking now about how we can use this to improve society going forward, says Professor George Frynas from The Open University Business School.

The current COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated – in a very short space of time – the great potential of social innovation to aid society. The European Commission guide to social innovation defines “social innovation as ‘the development and implementation of new ideas (products, services and models) to meet social needs and create new social relationships or collaborations”.

We can just name a few of the recent innovations:

Companies are changing their delivery modes
Many retailers are turning to home deliveries. Health care providers and professionals are developing remote services for advising and monitoring patients at home. Arts and crafts schools are producing home kits. Gyms and fitness studios broadcast online classes. In China, Kuaishou – a social video platform valued at $28 billion – promoted online education offerings to compensate for school and university closures.

Companies are shifting production towards ventilators and other essential equipment
In North America, automotive suppliers are collaborating to produce ventilators. In many European countries, small businesses are turning to producing masks and other protective equipment. Different types of companies like US breweries including the giant Anheuser-Busch and Central-Eastern European oil companies including Poland’s Orlen are producing hand sanitisers.

Organisations are developing new technology solutions
In Italy, a 3D printing company called Isinnova quickly developed a design for producing plastic parts for hospital ventilators – much faster and cheaper to make than the industrial alternatives. The Austrian Red Cross has developed a phone app for virus contact tracing (pictured below), which alerts people about having come in contact with someone who has contracted the virus, and the app is now used by hundreds of thousands of people.

Austrian Red Cross Coronavirus app

These are desperate solutions in desperate times. What we are still missing is a future vision of how social innovations can help to avert the next pandemic and to make our world a safer place.

In the aftermath of previous epidemics such as avian flu, expert surveys suggested that the pharmaceutical sector is the key sector in terms of driving innovation related to pandemics and provides ‘the main pathway to mitigating the risk of a pandemic outbreak’ (Wallace and Ràfols, 2018). Pharmaceutical companies are, of course, at the forefront of developing vaccines and medical treatments. At the same time, the narrow profit motive of the pharmaceutical industry constrains innovation and the social impact of pharmaceutical companies.

Furthermore, in order to prevent and mitigate another pandemic, we will require government policy at the domestic and global levels, such as early warning systems, stockpiles of medical equipment, cross-border solidarity mechanisms and a reform of the World Health Organization. Government agencies can also play a key part in social innovation, for example through new types of budgetary processes and finance provision like dedicated innovation funds, hybrid financing models and financial incentives for successful innovation, and through creating public spaces for social innovation, such as the Korean idea of an Imagination Bank to draw in public ideas for improving public services and many other forms of democratic participation.

But social innovation can come from many other organisations, including charities, companies, universities, online groups and local community groups. There are many methods of social innovation, including open source soliciting of innovative ideas and ideas banks, donor platforms and other interactive platforms, social enterprises and other companies with a social mission, inter-household reciprocity and forms of local exchange, and so on. Universities could play an important role in this innovation process, through their research and experimentation, web-based platforms and alumni networks. At the Open University, for example, we have a wealth of experts in areas such as health and wellbeing, social enterprise, development studies and so on. This is the time for academics to start working together across disciplinary and other boundaries.

Today and now, we need to focus on how we can support each other in these difficult times. But we can all start to brainstorm about how we can innovate for a better world the day after tomorrow.

Jedrzej George Frynas is Professor of Strategic Management at The Open University Business School. He has published extensively on topics in strategic management, international business and corporate social responsibility (CSR) and has authored/co-authored four books and over 40 academic articles.

The Research into Employment, Empowerment and Futures group (REEF) is proud to be partnering with The People Space. This article was originally published on The People Space website; click to read the original article.

Business Network Breakfast Briefing: Work and Meaning

Why do we work? What does work mean to you?

Have you ever wondered why some people get so much satisfaction from their job while others never seem to be very engaged or motivated? Is it something that we have inside of us or are we influenced by external factors? If it’s within us, then how do we tap into this for our own benefit? Is there anything we can do as leaders to support this? If it is externally influenced then how do we as leaders or people managers use this knowledge to improve workplace engagement and the gains that arise from that to our organisations.

Liz Moody has for many years been interested in how to release the potential in people and the organisations they work in. She has variously tried to understand performance, effective team leadership and employee engagement. In looking at many of the ways organisations and managers seek to organise work, she has concluded that perhaps we are looking in the wrong places for answers to the wrong questions.

A book written 50 years ago by Studs Terkel about working people and how they think and feel about work prompted curiosity about how we derive meaning from work. In this briefing we explored where this meaning comes from and why it might be important. Liz also considered what it is that leaders do (and sometimes don’t) that has an impact on how people think and feel about work.

Watch the recording.

You can also share your views and comments about the event or topic by following us on Twitter @OUBSchool, using #breakfastbriefing.

Business Network Breakfast Briefing: Managing non-market risk to foreign investments: do nothing or manage actively?

The latest Business Network Breakfast Briefing saw Dr Anna John use examples from all over the world as she explored three approaches to managing political risks to foreign investments. The Lecturer in Strategic Management presented her research and took questions at the Milton Keynes campus on Tuesday 9 April.


Her presentation, ‘Managing non-market risk to foreign investments: do nothing or manage actively?’, explored these different approaches with examples from countries as varied as Mozambique to China, India to Russia – with the UK and its never-ending Brexit another good source – helping to bring the theory alive.

Non-market risk comprises social risks (for example, nationalist movements and environmental protests) and political risks (for example, political regime change and regulatory uncertainty). Arguably, social activity of organisations, groups and individuals is more visible so social risks are relatively easier to predict and manage. Managing political risks is more of a challenge as the lack of information about political actions and intentions of organisations and governments makes it more difficult to make sense of these risks.

I wanted to focus on how, if at all, political risk should be managed relating to foreign direct investments. What is better: to ‘do nothing’ or to manage actively?

Dr Anna John, Lecturer in Strategic Management, OUBS

Two views – traditional, and modern – exist on what companies should do. The traditional view says political risk has negative implications for the performance of foreign direct investments and is largely defined by actions of governments (for example, protectionist policies). It should be avoided, meaning any investments into highly risky areas should be avoided too.

The modern view, which emerged in the early 1990s, suggests that political risk does not always have negative implications for the performance of organisations; instead, it may be a source of opportunities. Organisations can manage political risk and use it to their benefit.

Anna explored these two views in suggesting three approaches to political risk management of foreign direct investments: institutions approach (reactive), resources and capabilities approach (proactive) and resource dependence approach (active).

The institutions approach suggests that organisations passively react to pressures of political and regulatory institutions and ‘do nothing’. They either passively comply with the existing legislation, or avoid investing into a new and unfamiliar area; for instance, some US-listed companies are expected to comply with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (1977) and may not invest in some African and Asian countries where corruption is high.

The resources and capabilities approach suggests that organisations can proactively manage political risk and turn it their advantage by using political resources and capabilities. For instance, companies may benefit from prior experience of working in politically risky contexts (political resource) and from the ability to use this experience to make sense of new politically risky contexts (political capability). Some companies from politically risky environments like Russia, China and South Africa invest actively in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

The third resource dependence approach is a midway option with its major assumption that organisations are not autonomous; instead, they are dependent on resources of others. Like the institutions approach, this focuses on the negative implications but, like the resources and capabilities approach, suggests that organisations can manage political risk by managing their resources dependence upon others.

Reducing resource dependence by gaining control over key strategic resources is a possible strategy. For example, some newcomers to the Mozambican oil and gas sector such as Qatar Petroleum gain access to its key onshore and offshore blocks by partnering with more experienced firms with established ties to key government officials to lead the bidding process. This reduces dependence upon the government officials in the petroleum sector of the country.”

Dr Anna John, Lecturer in Strategic Management, OUBS

The effectiveness of these approaches varies from one context to another:

  • The institutions approach is more effective in places such as China and Russia where institutions are well defined and homogenous, and where the central authority is rather strong.
  • The resources and capabilities approach may be more effective in volatile places such as Venezuela and Ukraine.
  • The resource dependence approach may work better in the USA and India, and somewhere like Mozambique, which have divisions due to federal structure and ethnic differences.

These approaches are not mutually exclusive or in conflict with each other; they can complement and be used in combination with each other.

The Breakfast Briefings are a series of face-to-face events, as part of The Open University Business Network. These events aim to foster collaboration and create an opportunity to explore together the latest and best of business thinking. We understand business and want to help your business flourish by sharing our insights into leadership and management at this series of collaborative events. In between briefings, why not join in on LinkedIn.

Big data, CSR and sustainability

Big data - glasses (source - Pexels photo 577585)Big data analytics seems entirely absent in research on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and sustainability. Yet the potential of big data to advance environmental and social concerns is enormous.

Big data analytics is about analysing very large structured datasets (e.g. those drawn from financial records and stock exchanges) and unstructured datasets (e.g. those generated by emails, tweets and GPS signals) that often cannot be analysed using traditional statistical methods. It opens up entirely new possibilities for spotting previously unnoticed patterns and anomalies.

In our research published in the British Journal of Management last year, we found that big data capabilities of managers are linked to higher sustainability of their organization. We surveyed 175 top management representatives (chief executive officers and managing directors) in food import and export firms headquartered in the UK and New Zealand. Our results from structural equation modelling indicated that big data competencies of top managers help towards environmental practices. What we still do not know is what specific technical or relational big data competencies would be best to advance sustainable practices and how.

What is the potential of big data in sustainability?

There is exponential growth of big data volumes driven by technology advances and lower equipment costs. Let us take a few practical examples from the oil and gas sector that I am familiar with. For example, Chevron’s Tengiz oil field in Kazakhstan has about one million sensors. Combined with real-time weather data and other types of data, big data generated by such equipment can be used to provide near-real-time alerts and help prevent accidents. Similarly, big data from safety inspections, location devices and drone photography can be used to develop predictive analytics to improve safety. In the area of transportation, for example, Devon Energy in the United States apply big data analytics to monitor the speed and location of their vehicle fleet and the need to evacuate workers in areas where hydrogen sulphide is located.

Big data has also been used in human development. The UN established Global Pulse, a big data lab in New York with satellite offices in Kampala and Jakarta. For example, in Indonesia, Global Pulse applied mobile phone data to understand food price fluctuations, and in Uganda, population movements. Non-governmental organizations and initiatives – particularly in health services – are also using big data (e.g. Médecins sans Frontières, Global Viral Forecasting Initiative).

Indeed, the donation of data by companies (or ‘data philanthropy’) has become a CSR activity by itself. For example, IBM and other companies regularly host ‘Open Data’ events (‘jams’ and ‘hackathons’) in which governments, NGOs and companies are encouraged to release data that can be used for some social or environmental purposes.

In a few countries, there is also some regulatory pressure for big data adoption. In the United States, the Deepwater Horizon disaster influenced debates about better process indicators for improving health and safety in offshore oil drilling. For example, the U.S. Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) requires offshore oil drillers to monitor critical safety equipment in real time and then archive the related data onshore – which generates huge volumes of data. More indirectly, government mandates for energy efficiency, climate change and other environmental restrictions have spurred some companies to use big data analytics towards environmental improvements.

So why is so little work done to apply big data?

There are open-source applications such as Apache Hadoop and IBM’s BigSheets that have made big data analytics more accessible to individuals and organizations around the world. So why is so little work being done to apply big data analytics for sustainability?

Big data - computer room photo

Part of the explanation may be that a lot of good work may remain unnoticed under the radar screen. Despite the attraction of the topic, the academic community and some popular media outlets do not seem to find this of interest, or perhaps the researchers and writers may feel out of their depth in writing about big data.

Another part of the explanation is that companies have largely focused on big data analytics to improve financial performance, for example, by mining customer data to help sell more products, applying big data analytics to effectively manage inventories or – in the example of the oil sector – using data from sensors to facilitate exploration and production operations.

CSR and sustainability seem to have been left behind. When I spoke with a number of CSR advisers in the oil and gas sector recently and tried to get their companies to support my research, I was told things like ‘I couldn’t sell this to my boss’. However, if you really want to tackle sustainability in new ways, you sometimes need to move outside of your comfort zone. This is what I have done.

Prof. J. George Frynas is Professor of Strategic Management at the Open University Business School. This blog is partly based on the article “Essential Micro-Foundations for Contemporary Business Operations: Top Management Tangible Competencies, Relationship-Based Business Networks and Environmental Sustainability”, British Journal of Management, 29(1), 43-62, 2018. Contact George.

Event – Business Network Breakfast Briefing: The challenge of smart contracts

The Open University Business Network and Business Perspectives Programme are here to share insights to help your business flourish.

This Breakfast Briefing will be led by Dr Robert Herian, Senior Law Lecturer at The Open University Law School.

What’s in a name? The challenge of smart contracts
When’s a contract not a contract? When it’s a smart contract! I think we can all agree that’s not much of a punchline. But then smart contracts are not really a joke, or rather we shouldn’t treat them as such. Even if we suspend judgement on whether or not smart contracts and the wider blockchain architecture that supports them is “revolutionary” or “disruptive”, the reality is that smart contracts, at least as a concept, are affecting the global contractual landscape by forcing a reappraisal of fundamentals such as: what is a contract, what must a contract do, and who gets to decide?

The aim of this briefing is to explore some of the challenges that smart contracts pose to business as well as law, beginning with what is perhaps the most contentious issue of all: what should we be calling them?

The event will be held at The Open University’s campus in Milton Keynes with breakfast served at 08:00. The presentation will start at 08:30 – 09:30 with an opportunity for networking at the end.

Places are limited so please book early. Visit the website for more details and to book.

Technological disruptions in business – does it change everything? Webinar Recording

Our Business Perspectives webinar on “Technological disruptions in business – does it change everything?” took place on Monday 2 July. If you missed the webinar or want to watch it again, it is now available to view on demand. If you haven’t already, you will need to complete the registration form for access.


Download the slides

Download the additional Q&A

During our webinar we explored the opportunities and challenges surrounding the ‘fourth industrial revolution, industry 4.0’. This was followed by a question and answer session with questions and insights from the webinar audience.

Our webinar panellists were Robert Herian, Lecturer in Law, from The Open University Law School and Dr Charles Barthold, Lecturer in People Management, OUBS. The webinar was facilitated by Lucy Clarke, Digital Development Manager, OUBS.

You can also share your views and comments about the event or topic by following us on Twitter @OUBSchool, using #OU_BP.

Money for nothing? The pros and cons of a ‘basic income’

The recent news that the Finnish Government will not be expanding its trial which provided 2,000 unemployed people with a state-supplied basic income has sparked fresh debate on the topic.

A basic income is defined as ‘a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement’. It is supplementary to any other support someone might receive such as unemployment, child or housing benefit.

Dr Charles Barthold, Lecturer in People Management at OUBS, discussed the potential advantages and drawbacks in ‘Modern Empowerment Today: The Possibilities of a Citizen’s Basic Income’, one of three presentations at a masterclass organised by OUBS at the Crowne Plaza in The City on Wednesday 2 May 2018.

Charles discusses the issue:

“The important criteria of a basic income are that it is an ‘unconditional’ income to every individual in a particular country via a repetitive cash payment and is universal (so not means tested). The idea is to democratise society with an intention to be inclusive as everyone becomes ‘part of society’ regardless of gender, class or poverty. It could empower us all and provide more choices for people such as offering the opportunity for couples to both work part-time, for example. It would be simple to administer and much easier than the complex current means tested system which is subject to both fraud and errors, although some people would still be receiving other benefits on top of this basic income.

“There is an expectation that innovation will destroy and create jobs and that the current level of employment will continue to increase. Basic income is an instrument to smooth the transition from one job to another but with individual responsibility to look for the next job and to be employable. It’s meant to provide a minimum income as you transition to another job – perhaps by learning new skills through going back to education – as a response to automation which will see some repetitive, low-skilled jobs replaced and a move towards other low-skilled jobs that are not repeatable such as cleaners and care workers.

“Usually these experiments are very limited in both the amount of people involved and the time it happens for. Despite the Finnish experiment not being continued beyond the end of the year, people have continued to work and stress levels decreased during these trials. I don’t see the basic income as a silver bullet as it’s difficult to provide money to people without any responsibility – according to the current world view – but it could offer more freedom and choice through education and entrepreneurship.”

‘The future of work 4.0: Disruptive technologies, opportunity or threat?’ Business Perspectives masterclass also featured presentations on the fourth industrial revolution and regulating blockchain led by Lecturer in Law Robert Herian from The Open University Law School, as well as a discussion on some of the opportunities and challenges posed by potential economic ‘disruptions’.

Do we need to regulate blockchain technology?

By Robert Herian, Lecturer in Law, The Open University Law School

Blockchain technologies first emerged as the architecture making Bitcoin work after the 2008 financial crisis, and arguably as a direct response to it. Since then, blockchains have been promoted as a means of conducting peer-to-peer, decentralised networking in a variety of sectors in order to do away with the problem of the ‘middleman’, and help build the economic layer the World Wide Web never truly had.

From supply chain management to land registries, provenance to artist income, electoral monitoring to health records, blockchain appears to its stakeholders as a clear answer to the question of how online activity between individuals and businesses can be made more secure, trustworthy and transparent. Centralised global financial institutions and services that blockchain was designed to circumvent are, however, now in control of much of the research and development around the technology. So, what is the future for blockchain?

Robert Herian from the OU Law School sits on the All-Party Parliamentary Group on blockchain, examining policy development and regulation of distributed ledger technologies. With the debate raging about how to regulate – or indeed even ban – cryptocurrency and the role blockchain can play in the world economy, his new book ‘Regulating blockchain’ is due out later in the year. The Lecturer in Law also gave one of three presentations at a masterclass organised by the OU Business School at the Crowne Plaza in The City last Wednesday (2 May) to discuss his ideas.

“There’s so much excitement and positivity about blockchain at the moment, while radical blockchains undoubtedly scare governments and big business. It’s still really unclear what role blockchain will play in the fourth industrial revolution but one thing is for certain, this technology can’t be ignored.

“Businesses have been put on notice but in reality, it’s really hard to tell when it will arrive on a wider scale. There is a marked contrast between blockchain evangelists who claim that the technology can solve all the world’s problems, versus a far more mundane reality that blockchain is little more than a means of accounting. Our underlying problems in society will still exist even though we’re using a new technology.”

‘The future of work 4.0: Disruptive technologies, opportunity or threat?’ Business Perspectives masterclass also featured presentations from Dr Charles Barthold, Lecturer in People Management, on the fourth industrial revolution and the possibility of a universal basic income, as well as a discussion on some of the opportunities and challenges posed by potential economic ‘disruptions’.

Have we anything to fear from the ‘fourth industrial revolution’?

By Dr Charles Barthold, Lecturer in People Management, The Open University Business School

A life full of copious amounts of leisure time with mundane tasks a thing of the past, or a world with mass unemployment which is ruled by machines?

Nobody is quite sure what the period we are entering, often referred to as the ‘fourth industrial revolution’, will mean for mankind but there will be significant changes to the lives of many as we progress through the 21st century.

Is it a positive, utopian prospect as we become a technology-driven ‘leisure society’? Or is there a far more troubling dystopian view that robots and corporations will dominate in a world of large-scale unemployment as both blue and some white collar jobs disappear?

Dr Charles Barthold, Lecturer in People Management, discussed both theories in ‘Preparing for Industry 4.0’, one of three presentations at a masterclass organised by the OU Business School at the Crowne Plaza in The City last Wednesday (2 May).

“The future is not inevitable and it’s something humans will create. It’s only the beginning and there’s lots of scope to shape what will happen. The future will be what we make it to be and it will be shaped by debate and will require global buy-in through investment decisions and political support.

“With artificial intelligence (AI) able to make strategic decisions, it could operate interconnected factories, rather than having a need for the current network of managers. ‘Smart’ organisations will be more efficient, providing better services to their customers. According to current patterns, inequality between countries as a whole is likely to decrease but also increase among individuals in a world of ‘smart’ technologies, organisations and cities. There is the assumption that low-skill jobs will be replaced; with our existing economic model disrupted, a new lifelong education system will be required to upskill workers for the new jobs created.

“This vision of the future is sure to raise moral and ethical issues such as drones fighting our wars, using genetics to cure cancer, or even AI controlling our sacrosanct justice system as lawyers and even judges could become obsolete. All the three previous industrial revolutions led to conflicts – will this one be any different?”

‘The future of work 4.0: Disruptive technologies, opportunity or threat?’ Business Perspectives masterclass also featured presentations on the possibilities of a basic income and regulating blockchain led by Lecturer in Law Robert Herian from the OU Law School, as well as a discussion on some of the opportunities and challenges posed by potential economic ‘disruptions’.