The presentations in the second Symposium session were:
Research in Higher Education for Sustainable Development – Current Trends and Approaches
Matthias Barth (University of Applied Sciences, Ostwestfalen-Lippe) & Marco Rieckmann (University of Vechta)
Implementing ESE in education systems. Researching the Dynamics of Policy Making and Politics in a Changing World.
Jutta Nikel (University of Education Freiburg)
Thinking particularly about the first of these, my admiration for those setting out to do such studies knows no bounds
They are inherently difficult. In part, this is because of breadth and complexity. But also because of boundary issues and contestation as to meaning. Most educational research has breadth & complexity to cope with. Think of maths education, for example. But what maths is, what it means, and its purposes are all settled questions, more or less. And that applies to maths education as well – not completely, of course, but more or less.
None of this is true for ESE / ESD / EfS / EE / or whatever we call it. One of the strengths of ESE / ESD is the variation that is found from one educational context to another. These have arisen from local interpretations and developments as the concept is shaped to fit, more or less comfortably, with existing policy and practice. Inevitably, this all involves accommodations with preferred ideological and epistemological dispositions.
Equally inevitably, all interpretations of ESE / ESD rest on understandings of what sustainable development itself is. How could this be otherwise, even if the conceptual links are loose, or talked about in hushed tones between consenting adults.
This diversity of ESE / ESD, which is clear to see from a look at emerging practice, or any reading of the increasing number of journals that now cater for interested academics, is a strength. It is also a considerable weakness, as it betrays a lack of shared understandings which, in turn, inhibit communication and collaboration.
An aspect of this is that not all ESD is described as ESD, with a plethora of alternatives and ESE – now joins these. Some of these are supported by particular groups, sometimes to distance themselves from ESD which they see, variously, as too neo-liberal / pro-growth / conservative / ‘Western’ / etc., according to taste. Even UNESCO sees the problem, though it doesn’t really understand it. This is from an email I got in August …
“ESD is called by many names in national and local contexts. In some places, Environmental Education and other related “educations” (e.g. global education and climate change education) are defined and practiced to include socio-cultural and economic aspects alongside environmental aspects.”
A number of dilemmas emerge from this confusion of language and goals, none of which make the researcher’s life any easier.
In research carried out for the Higher Education Funding Council for England in 2008 there was no one view of sustainable development that could command consensus across the sector. The researchers began by defining teaching and research activity relating to sustainable development as that containing …
“a significant element related to either or both of the natural environment and natural resources, PLUS a significant element related to either or both of economic or social issues.”
Note how this differs from the Unesco quote where environment / society / economy remain essentially uncoupled.
In the 2008 research, it was impossible to maintain the conceptual tightness of this framing whilst collecting the data that academics in the institutions wanted the researchers to collect. This contrasted sharply with similar data collection in Wales through the STAUNCH initiative where a fully uncoupled framing was allowed. This did not specify or attempt to demand the significance of the natural environment, and so was more permissive. In the end, anything, and hence, everything, counted which led to an over-estimation of incidences of sustainable development as a focus of academic activity. Good for Wales and its image, of course; less so for accuracy. The moral hazard in all this is considerable.
The problem is that, whilst sustainable development may be a socially constructed idea, you can’t construct it any way you like. All this matters because our conceptual framing of sustainable development influences how (and if) we think about ESD / ESE. It will be a key factor in determining our framing of ESE / ESD, and may go some way to explaining why there are such diverse, and often polarized, views on how to think about ESD / ESE. Or whether it's worth thinking about at all.
Most teachers and academics, despite the Decade, don’t.
Respond