Search results

The purpose of this paper is to argue that the types of and ways in which academic institutions produce knowledge are insufficient to contribute to a transition to sustainability.

Reflecting on experiences at the School of Sustainability, the authors contend that a different kind of knowledge is needed, what we call sustainability knowledge. A conceptual approach is taken wherein the authors propose several characteristics of sustainability knowledge and offer some proposals on how academic institutions must be structured to produce it.

Sustainability knowledge has several characteristics including social robustness, recognition of system complexity and uncertainty, acknowledgement of multiple ways of knowing and the incorporation of normative and ethical premises. In order to produce sustainability knowledge, the knowledge production process itself must be changed to be more adaptive and engaged with society. Two organizing characteristics for institutions seeking to produce such knowledge are proposed – epistemological pluralism and reflexivity. The adaptive cycle from resilience theory is then used as a heuristic to illustrate how these design characteristics play out in making the institution (and individual) more adaptive.

As more academic institutions move to address sustainability, this paper does not offer a roadmap; rather, it raises important issues that must be addressed in performing research and education for sustainability.

The paper shows that type of knowledge that academia must produce and how it might produce it are redefined for sustainability problems.

Academic sustainability programs aim to develop key competencies in sustainability, including problem‐solving skills and the ability to collaborate successfully with experts and stakeholders. These key competencies may be most fully developed in new teaching and learning situations. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the kind of, and extent to which, these key competencies can be acquired in real‐world learning opportunities.

The paper summarizes key competencies in sustainability, identifies criteria for real‐world learning opportunities in sustainability programs, and draws on dominant real‐world learning models including project‐ and problem‐based learning, service learning, and internships in communities, businesses, and governments. These components are integrated into a framework to design real‐world learning opportunities.

A “functional and progressive” model of real‐world learning opportunities seems most conducive to introduce students (as well as faculty and community partners) to collaborative research between academic researchers and practitioners. The stepwise process combined with additional principles allows building competencies such as problem solving, linking knowledge to action, and collaborative work, while applying concepts and methods from the field of sustainability.

The paper offers examples of real‐world learning opportunities at the School of Sustainability at Arizona State University, discusses general challenges of implementation and organizational learning, and draws attention to critical success factors such as collaborative design, coordination, and integration in general introductory courses for undergraduate students.

The paper contributes to sustainability education by clarifying how real‐world learning opportunities contribute to the acquisition of key competencies in sustainability. It proposes a functional and progressive model to be integrated into the (undergraduate) curriculum and suggests strategies for its implementation.

It will be recalled that in May, 1935, the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland appointed an Advisory Committee “to enquire into the fact, quantitatively and qualitatively, in relation to the diet of the people, and to report as to any changes therein which appear desirable in the light of modern advances in the knowledge of nutrition.” This appears to be the first occasion in history that a survey dealing with the diet of a whole nation has been set on foot by any government; yet no one can question the prime importance of the subject from a national standpoint.

This paper examines the conditions under which ancient peoples might have developed a concept of “sustainability,” and concludes that long-term resource management practices would not have been articulated prior to the development of the first cities starting c. 6,000 years ago.

Using biological concepts of population density and niche-construction theory, cities are identified as the first places where pressures on resources might have triggered concerns for sustainability. Nonetheless, urban centers also provided ample opportunities for individuals and households to continue the same ad hoc foraging strategies that had facilitated human survival in prior eras.

The implementation of a sustainability concept requires two things: individual and institutional motivations to mitigate collective risk over the long term, and accurate measurement devices that can discern subtle changes over time. Neither condition was applicable to the ancient world. Premodern cities provided the first expression of large population sizes in which there were niches of economic and social mutualism, yet individuals and households persisted in age-old approaches to provisioning by opportunistically using urban networks rather than focusing on a collective future.

Archaeological and historical analysis indicates that a focus on “sustainability” is not an innate human behavioral capacity but must be specifically articulated and taught.

A MIXED feeling seems to be present in the minds of members of Public Library Committees regarding the clause in the new Libraries Bill which gives local authorities the option of increasing the present limited rate of one penny to any amount up to a maximum total of twopence in the pound. In view of the fact that the extension of the rate can only be made at the discretion of local authorities, it is difficult to see what objections can be brought against it. One of the strongest arguments in favour of an extension of the penny rate limit is that about thirty library districts have varied the Acts by special legislation giving increased rating powers. When one realizes the demands made on Public Libraries at the present day, compared with those made upon them in 1855, when the penny rate was fixed, the suggested increase appears to be only reasonable.

IN making the suggestion, as some of my friendly critics have done, that the classes Fine and Useful Arts should be restored, as in Dewey, they rather miss the humour of the situation. The Subject Classification is not an amended Dewey or Cutter, but a humble attempt at an entirely new system, designed to meet the needs of popular libraries. It is not even a classification of knowledge, but, as experience has proved, a very practical and simple rearrangement of the factors of knowledge as set forth and preserved in books. The scheme is not indebted to any other system for aught but suggestions of main classes; all the details of the tables having been worked out independently, without reference to any classification save the Adjustable. It will be manifest, on reflection, that it would be fatal for the compiler of a new system to allow himself to be fettered or influenced by the schedules of other authors. I am one of those who decline to believe in the value of standardization of ideas or practice, save to a small degree in certain mechanical matters, and it would therefore be foolish to follow in the same rut as certain predecessors, simply because a longer existence has to some extent established their findings as settled conventions.

The decision of the Wolverhampton Stipendiary in the case of “Skim‐milk Cheese” is, at any rate, clearly put. It is a trial case, and, like most trial cases, the reasons for the judgment have to be based upon first principles of common‐sense, occasionally aided, but more often complicated, by already existing laws, which apply more or less to the case under discussion. The weak point in this particular case is the law which has just come into force, in which cheese is defined as the substance “usually known as cheese” by the public and any others interested in cheese. This reliance upon the popular fancy reads almost like our Government's war policy and “the man in the street,” and is a shining example of a trustful belief in the average common‐sense. Unfortunately, the general public have no direct voice in a police court, and so the “usually known as cheese” phrase is translated according to the fancy and taste of the officials and defending solicitors who may happen to be concerned with any particular case. Not having the general public to consult, the officials in this case had a war of dictionaries which would have gladdened the heart of Dr. JOHNSON; and the outcome of much travail was the following definition: cheese is “ coagulated milk or curd pressed into a solid mass.” So far so good, but immediately a second definition question cropped up—namely, What is “milk?”—and it is at this point that the mistake occurred. There is no legal definition of new milk, but it has been decided, and is accepted without dispute, that the single word “milk” means an article of well‐recognised general properties, and which has a lower limit of composition below which it ceases to be correctly described by the one word “milk,” and has to be called “skim‐milk,” “separated milk,” “ milk and water,” or other distinguishing names. The lower limits of fat and solids‐not‐fat are recognised universally by reputable public analysts, but there has been no upper limit of fat fixed. Therefore, by the very definition quoted by the stipendiary, an article made from “skim‐milk” is not cheese, for “skim‐milk” is not “milk.” The argument that Stilton cheese is not cheese because there is too much fat would not hold, for there is no legal upper limit for fat; but if it did hold, it does not matter, for it can be, and is, sold as “Stilton” cheese, without any hardship to anyone. The last suggestion made by the stipendiary would, if carried out, afford some protection to the general public against their being cheated when they buy cheese. This suggestion is that the Board of Agriculture, who by the Act of 1899 have the legal power, should determine a lower limit of fat which can be present in cheese made from milk; but, as we have repeatedly pointed out, it is by the adoption of the Control system that such questions can alone be settled to the advantage of the producer of genuine articles and to that of the public.

MID‐OCTOBER sees all library activities in process. The autumn and winter prospects are interesting and, in some senses, may be exciting. The autumn conferences have been held, except that of the London and Home Counties Branch, which is at Southend for the week‐end October 17th to 20th, and is the third sectional conference to be held this month in addition to seven other meetings. These gatherings, at Torquay, Greenwich, Felixstowe, London (three), Tunbridge Wells and Leicester, show a fairly wide coverage of the lower part of Great Britain. The northerners had their go, so to speak, last month, in Durham and elsewhere, as we have previously recorded. The Programme of Meetings, 1952–53, arranged by organisations in the London and Home Counties Branch area, is a most convenient leaflet listing 33 meetings in the area. Every interest seems to be served, with two exceptions, and every L. A. member of whatever section may attend any or all of the meetings. The exceptions are the meetings of ASLIB and the Bibliographical Society. Any list of meetings for librarians would be improved if it noted all that interest them and these would be a useful, not extravagant, addition. London Library Intelligence, the editorship of which has been handed over by Mr. F. J. Hoy, who did it extremely well, to Mr. R. W. Rouse, Borough Librarian, Finsbury, E.C.1, does provide the required information we understand. It is perhaps too much to expect a list of all gatherings throughout these islands; or is it? There are 12,000 of us and, if only 50 attended a meeting once a year—a satisfactory number for discussion— there would be room for 240 meetings.