Liquid Times – Newness and Uncertainty: An Innovative AAU PBL Response

  • Romeo V. TurcanEmail author


This chapter puts forward a Holistic Problem Based Learning (HPBL) model that integrates research-based teaching and learning and teaching-based research, and redefines the PBL process. It builds on the Aalborg University PBL model that has been part of the Aalborg University DNA since the university inception in 1974 and the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy to redefine the PBL process. I reflect on my personal experience in engaging with PBL from the moment I started my full-time position at Aalborg University in 2010. Before discussing HPBL, I set the stage by a review of the ‘liquid times’ we live in, highlighting the impact of newness and uncertainty—quintessential by-products of these ‘liquid times’—on collective behaviour, free will, ascertaining what the future holds for our graduates, and conjecturing how to mitigate these challenges. As part of the HPBL discussion, I introduce the basic principles, pillars a PBL model rests on. I conclude by underlining pointers for future research, policy and practice.


  1. About Aalborg University. Aalborg University. Accessed 5 Jan 20120.Google Scholar
  2. About the PBL Academy. Aalborg university. Accessed 14 Dec 2019.Google Scholar
  3. Amer, K. & Noujaim, J. 2019. The Great Hack. United States: NetflixGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, Lorin W., and David R. Krathwohl. 2001. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  5. Bauman, Zygmunt. 2007. Liquid Times: Living in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  6. Björnberg, Karin Edvardsson, Mikael Karlsson, Michael Gilek, and Sven Ove Hansson. 2017. Climate and Environmental Science Denial: A Review of the Scientific Literature Published in 1990–2015. Journal of Cleaner Production 167: 229–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Centinel. 1788. [Likely Samuel Bryan] “To the People of Pennsylvania” (January 12, 1788), Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, cited in The Complete Anti-Federalist, edited by Herbert J. Storing, 2 (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1981), 183.Google Scholar
  8. de Graaff, E., Holgaard, J. E., Bøgelund, P. & Spliid, C. M. 2016. When students take the lead. In (Re) Discovering University Autonomy: The Global Market Paradox of Stakeholder and Educational Values in Higher Education, ed. Romeo V. Turcan, John Reilly, and Larisa Bugaian, 125–135. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  9. Deák, Bernadett, Denis J. Garand, and Romeo V. Turcan. 2019. “Fintech – An Existential Carrot that Flutters in Front of your Noses: A Case of Financial Ecosystem Innovations in Quebec”. Paper Presented at European International Business Academy, Leeds, United Kingdom December 12–16.Google Scholar
  10. Diethelm, Pascal, and Martin McKee. 2009. Denialism: What Is It and How Should Scientists Respond? European Journal of Public Health 19 (1): 2–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  12. Grey, Alex. 2016. The 10 Skills You Need to Thrive in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. World Economic Forum. Accessed 5 Jan 2019.
  13. Hansson, Sven O. 2017. Science Denial as a Form of Pseudoscience. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 63: 39–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hugo, Victor. 1848. “To the Constitutional Assembly (November 10,)”, Cited in The Usefulness of the Useless, Nuccio Ordine (Philadelphia: Paul Dry Books, 2017), 83Google Scholar
  15. Ingenioren. 2004. Survey by Opinion on Employer Satisfaction with Competences of Graduates from Technical University of Denmark and Aalborg University, 13.Google Scholar
  16. Jones, Geoffrey G. 2019. “IB in a Confused World Order”. Opening Plenary at the 45 EIBA Conference. University of Leeds, Leeds. December 13–15.Google Scholar
  17. Kjersdam, Finn, and Stig Enemark. 1994. The Aalborg Experiment, Project Innovation in University Education. Aalborg: Aalborg University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kolmos, A. (1996). Reflections on Project Work and Problem-based Learning. European Journal of Engineering Education 21 (2): 141–148.Google Scholar
  19. Lee, Caroline W. 2010. The Roots of Astroturfing. Contexts 9 (1): 75–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moore, Wilbert E., and Melvin M. Tumin. 1949. Some Social Functions of Ignorance. American Sociological Review 14 (6): 787–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Morgan, Gareth, ed. 1983. Beyond Method: Strategies for Social Research. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  22. Orwell, George. 1949. Nineteen Eighty-Four. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  23. Prensky, Marc. 2009. H. Sapiens Digital: From Digital Immigrants and Digital Natives to Digital Wisdom. Innovate: Journal of Online Education 5 (3): 1.Google Scholar
  24. Slowbalisation. 2019. The Economist, January 24.Google Scholar
  25. Smithson, M. 1985. Toward a Social Theory of Ignorance. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 15 (2): 151–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sternberg, R. 2008. Interdisciplinary Problem-Based Learning: An Alternative to Traditional Majors and Minors. Liberal Education 94 (1): 12–17.Google Scholar
  27. The Hedgehog Review Editors. 2003. Fear Itself. The Hedgehog Review: Critical Reflections on Contemporary Culture 5 (3).Google Scholar
  28. Toffler, Alvin. 1985. The Adaptive Corporation. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
  29. Trump, Donald. 2018. What You’re Seeing and What You’re Reading Is Not What’s Happening. Address Before the National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. BBC Video, 1: 41. July 24. Accessed on 5 Dec 2019.
  30. Turcan, Romeo V. 2012. External Legitimation in International New Ventures: Toward the Typology of Captivity. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business 15 (2): 262–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. ———. 2016. Exploring Late Globalization: A Viewpoint. Markets, Globalization & Development Review 1 (2): 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Turcan, Romeo V., and Larisa Bugaian. 2015. Restructuring, Rationalizing and Modernizing Higher Education Sector in the Republic of Moldova. Chisinau: Cuvântul ABC.Google Scholar
  33. Turcan, Romeo V., and Valeria Gulieva. 2016a. De-Internationalization of Universities: An Exploratory Study. In Finding Solutions to the Challenges of Internationalisation, ed. Marian Marinov and Olav Sørensen, 313–329. Aalborg: Aalborg Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
  34. ———. 2016b. University Internationalization and University Autonomy: Toward a Theoretical Understanding. In (Re) Discovering University Autonomy: The Global Market Paradox of Stakeholder and Educational Values in Higher Education, ed. Romeo V. Turcan, John Reilly, and Larisa Bugaian, 215–235. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Turcan, Romeo V., Behnam Boujarzadeh, and Nikhilesh Dholakia. 2020. Late Globalization and Evolution, Episodes and Epochs of Industries: Evidence from Danish Textile and Fashion Industry, 1945–2015. Thunderbird International Business Review 62: 515–530.Google Scholar
  36. Turcan, Romeo V., John Reilly, and Larisa Bugaian. 2016. (Re)Discovering University Autonomy: The Global Market Paradox of Stakeholder and Educational Values in Higher Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. van Den Bossche, E. 1984. The Message for Today in Orwell’s ‘1984. New York Times, January 1.Google Scholar
  38. Watzlawick, Paul, John H. Weakland, and Richard Fisch. 1974. Change: Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  39. Wells, S. 1997. Choosing the Future: The Power of Strategic Thinking. Wobum. MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  40. Wright Mills, C. 2000. The Sociological Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aalborg University Business SchoolAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations