How to "integrate ESD into disciplines" within HE seems a topical issue, at least amongst those who see "promoting ESD" as being important, as opposed, say, to changing curricula. However, I think it's possibly (ie, probably) the wrong question. I think I'd ask:
How can disciplines integrate a focus on sustainability into what they do?
I think these questions can be rephrasing as:
A – How [can we] integrate ESD into disciplines?
B – How can disciplines [themselves] develop an integral focus on sustainability?
Superficially, of course, A and B look the same, and the outcome may well be of the same form and structure, but they start from different positions, and, in the way that I have set them out here, the development force is differently placed:
In B, the locus of the activity is the discipline itself, and the process if one of absorption and assimilation, and the volition lies with those responsible for the discipline; it looks like an organic growth model.
In A, however, the volition seems to be external (those promoting ESD) and the process seems one of penetration; it resembles an infection model.
In other words, A takes ESD seriously (and sees this as a supply-side issue); B takes the discipline seriously (recognising that it's really a demand-side issue). Both say they take the learner seriously, but this seems questionable.
Respond