Three projects. Three very different problems. One month inside the work.
Most of the work that actually shapes what we do never appears in public.
It happens before anything is funded, before anything is tested, and long before anything can be presented as a finished result. It is the phase where ideas are forced to become precise, where assumptions are challenged by constraints, and where something that initially feels intuitive has to be translated into a structure that others can understand, question, and eventually decide to support.
This past month has been almost entirely spent inside that phase.
Not building one project, but three. Each of them developed in parallel, each of them moving through its own set of negotiations, revisions, and conceptual adjustments. At times, it felt less like working on three separate proposals and more like shifting between three different worlds, each with its own logic, its own language, and its own expectations.
One project works inside STEM education, but not at the level of curriculum. It questions how access to meaningful creation is structured, and who is actually able to participate in it.
Another operates in adult learning, where the infrastructure already exists, but participation does not follow. It asks what happens between opportunity and decision, and why so many people never cross that threshold.
The third moves into a more unstable terrain altogether, where climate, agriculture, and information systems intersect. Here, the problem is not access or motivation, but how reality itself is interpreted in environments where information is constantly reshaped.
On paper, these projects do not belong together. They address different audiences, rely on different methods, and respond to different types of challenges. There is no obvious narrative that connects them, and forcing one would miss the point.
What made this month interesting is precisely that lack of overlap.
Because working on them side by side makes something difficult to ignore. The further you move into each project, the clearer it becomes that the problems we tend to group under the same labels — education, participation, information — are not variations of the same issue. They are different conditions altogether, each requiring its own way of being understood, structured, and addressed.
And yet, the work required to build them shares a common tension.
In each case, the challenge is not only to define a problem, but to design a system that can hold it without simplifying it. To move from something that makes sense conceptually to something that can actually function in the world, across institutions, across countries, and across very different realities.
This is where we have been working.
Not at the level of outputs, but at the level where things either start to make sense, or don’t.
A brief orientation
If these three projects are read too quickly, they can give the impression of a scattered direction. Different topics, different target groups, different types of intervention. It would be easy to assume that they are loosely connected expressions of a broader interest in education or civic work.
That is not what is happening.
What becomes clearer when you spend time inside each of them is that they are built on fundamentally different diagnoses of what is not working.
In one case, the issue is structural. Access to meaningful learning environments is uneven, and the way systems are organised determines who gets to participate in more than a superficial way.
In another, the issue is behavioural. Opportunities exist, but engagement does not follow. The gap sits between what is offered and what people actually choose to do.
In the third, the issue is epistemic. The conditions under which information is encountered and interpreted are unstable, which means that even well-established knowledge can lose coherence once it enters public space.
These are not interchangeable problems.
Trying to address them with the same tools produces familiar results: initiatives that look well-designed but fail to engage, systems that expand but are not used, information that circulates but does not lead to understanding.
Working across these three projects at the same time makes those limits visible in a very concrete way. Methods that feel appropriate in one context quickly become inadequate in another. Concepts that seem clear in one space need to be redefined in the next.
What connects the projects, if anything, is not a shared theme, but a shared point of friction.
In each case, people are expected to engage with systems that they did not design, do not fully control, and often only partially understand. Whether those systems are educational, institutional, or informational, they tend to appear as something external, something to navigate rather than something to shape.
Each project intervenes in that relationship, but in a different way. One by restructuring access, another by rethinking entry and motivation, and the third by addressing how meaning itself is formed and contested.
That is where the overlap ends.
What follows is not a single argument developed in three directions, but three separate constructions, each working through its own constraints. Taken together, they show less a unified narrative and more a range of terrains in which the same question keeps reappearing in different forms: under what conditions do people actually engage with the systems that shape their lives?
Subscribe to our Newsletter to read the full article.
