Search results

This study aims to explore barriers and pathways to a whole-institution governance of sustainability within the working structures of universities.

This paper draws on multi-year interviews and hierarchical structure analysis of ten universities in Canada, the USA, Australia, Hong Kong, South Africa, Brazil, the UK and The Netherlands. The paper addresses existing literature that championed further integration between the two organizational sides of universities (academic and operations) and suggests approaches for better embedding sustainability into four primary domains of activity (education, research, campus operations and community engagement).

This research found that effective sustainability governance needs to recognise and reconcile distinct cultures, diverging accountability structures and contrasting manifestations of central-coordination and distributed-agency approaches characteristic of the university’s operational and academic activities. The positionality of actors appointed to lead institution-wide embedding influenced which domain received most attention. The paper concludes that a whole-institution approach would require significant tailoring and adjustments on both the operational and academic sides to be successful.

Based on a review of sustainability activities at ten universities around the world, this paper provides a detailed analysis of the governance implications of integrating sustainability into the four domains of university activity. It discusses how best to work across the operational/academic divide and suggests principles for adopting a whole institution approach to sustainability.

This study aims to explore how the boundary between science and society can be addressed to support the transformation of higher education towards sustainable development (HESD) in the sense of the whole institution approach. It analyses students’ learning experiences in self-led sustainability projects conducted outside formal curricula to highlight their potential contribution to HESD. The students’ projects are conceived as learning spaces in “sustainability-oriented ecologies of learning” (Wals, 2020) in which five learning dimensions can be examined.

Using an iterative, grounded-theory-inspired qualitative approach and sensitising concepts, 13 in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted exploring students’ learning experiences. Interviews were categorised in MAXQDA and analysed against a literature review.

Results revealed that students’ experiences of non-formal learning in self-led projects triggered deep learning and change agency. Trust, social cohesion, empowerment and self-efficacy were both results and conditions of learning. Students’ learnings are classified according to higher education institutions’ (HEIs) sustainability agendas, providing systematised insights for HEIs regarding their accommodative, reformative or transformative (Sterling, 2021) path to sustainable development.

The education for sustainable development (ESD) debate focuses mainly on ESD competences in formal settings. Few studies explore students’ learnings where formal and non-formal learning meet. This article investigates a space where students interact with different actors from society while remaining rooted in their HEIs. When acting as “change agents” in this hybrid context, students can also become “boundary agents” helping their HEIs move the sustainability agenda forward towards a whole institution approach. Learning from students’ learnings is thus proposed as a lever for transformation.

As higher education institutions (HEIs) have increasingly turned to consider sustainability over the last decade, education for sustainable development (ESD) has emerged as a way of imbuing students with the skills, values, knowledge, and attributes to live, work, and create change in societies facing complex and cross-cutting sustainability challenges. However, the question of how HEIs can actively embed ESD more broadly in and across curricula is one that continues to challenge institutions and the HE sector as a whole. While traditional teaching practices and methods associated with subject-based learning may be suitable for educating students about sustainable development, a re-orientation towards more transformational, experiential and action-oriented methods is required to educate for sustainable development. The need for educators to share their practices and learn lessons from each other is essential in this transformation.

This paper presents a selection of practical examples of how to embed a range of interactive, exploratory, action-oriented, problem-based, experiential and transformative ESD offerings into HE teaching practice and curricula. Presented by a group of academics and professional services staff at the University of Strathclyde who lead key modules and programmes in the institution’s ESD provision, this paper reflects on five approaches taken across the four faculties at Strathclyde (Humanities and Social Sciences, Science, Engineering and the Strathclyde Business School) and examines the challenges, practicalities and opportunities involved in establishing a collaborative programme of ESD.

This paper aims to present the progress of the implementation of sustainability in business schools in line with the United Nations Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME) and its principles of responsible management education.

By analyzing the content of the Sharing of Information on Progress reports from PRME signatories, this study identified significant developments in the strategies business school use to implement sustainability. However, it seems that a framework that business schools can apply to accomplish that goal is still lacking. This paper proposes a framework that addresses four components of the integration process and stresses the important role of stakeholders. The authors discuss the results from 2021 in comparison to the results of a previous analysis of the first 100 signatories from 2010 and analyze the findings in relation to the developed framework.

This study shows that business schools have improved their sustainability engagement in many areas (e.g. education offerings and teaching methods, campus practices and engaging stakeholders). However, less attention has been paid to other aspects, such as reviewing and assessing, capability development or communication, which could slow the transformation process. The authors discuss further implications of the findings for enhancing the PRME signatories’ ability to implement the underrecognized aspects.

While the analysis focuses on the status and progress of the integration of PRME within business schools during the past decade, the framework may enable higher education institutions to analyze their potential to implement change and plan future transformation strategies.

This case study explores different perspectives on integrating the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in universities to achieve university transformations. This study recognises that university actors think differently about the purpose of universities, hold diverse perspectives on the SDGs, and, thus, prefer specific types of SDG integration.

Using Q methodology, 29 participants from one university expressed their perspectives by sorting 50 statements covering different types of SDG integration. Statements were based on academic and grey literature on SDG integration in universities, and interviews with university actors from a previous study. After the sorting task, participants were interviewed to understand the reasons behind the placement of particular statements.

The study identifies three perspectives held by the study participants. Perspective 1 emphasises the value of the SDGs and supports a deep integration of the Goals in their university. Perspective 1 also advocates for incorporating the SDGs into the university’s identity. Perspective 2 sees the university’s purpose as more comprehensive than the SDGs; thus, the university should develop knowledge regardless of its relevance to the SDGs. This perspective supports a pragmatic integration of the SDGs – favouring actions that benefit the university without introducing significant changes. Finally, Perspective 3 argues that the university should approach the SDGs through social justice and empowerment lenses. This perspective also questions the suitability of the SDGs for universities, arguing that the SDGs fail to challenge current structures underpinning the unsustainability of the world.

Although previous studies have analysed diverse ways of understanding the SDGs in universities, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to treat the SDGs as a governance framework of 17 goals and adopt a whole-institution approach to study universities.

Anyone seeking to influence another is a potential leader. Within higher education, determining what an institution should undertake on sustainability can be daunting. Sustainability leaders face labyrinthine, multifaceted sub-cultures, influencers and viewpoints across staff, students, government, business and alumni all with an opinion on whether, how and in what order of priority sustainability should be taken forward. In this paper we take on this challenge by synthesising and critically evaluating core principles and working models for influencing and leading for sustainability in higher education. We identify a series of eight challenges affecting delivery of sustainability and seek to understand how conceptual models and principles in sustainability decision-making and leadership could address these. We draw on the experience of both authors, in tandem with comments from workshop and leadership training programme participants who attended the Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges (EAUC) Leadership Lab training in the UK, as well as reflections arising in a detailed case study from the University of Edinburgh. We bring key insights from theory and practice for the benefits of individuals or teams seeking to influence and persuade key decision-makers to embrace the sustainability agenda.

Guided by paradox theory, the study aims to significantly advance Sustainability in Higher Education Institutions (SHEI) scholarship and inform change agents’ (CAs) practices by uncovering the tensions underlying the challenges CAs face in embedding sustainability in their universities and learning about potential strategies to manage these tensions.

The authors conducted a multi-step, mix-methods study including interviews (n = 15), an online survey (n = 36) and focus groups (n = 29) with CAs from 17 of Austria’s 22 public universities. Participating CAs consisted of faculty, staff and administrators with leading roles in their Higher Education Institutions’ sustainability change processes.

Austrian SHEI CAs’ responses revealed 15 tensions at and between the individual, organizational and system level addressing academic, organizational and external stakeholder engagement aspects. Six tensions were selected for more in-depth exploration including elaboration of management strategies, building on CAs’ experiences. Results revealed examples of acceptance, separation and synthesis strategies.

Based on the exploratory nature of our study, the authors do not claim to have identified a comprehensive list of tensions underlying the challenges faced by SHEI CAs, nor of all potential management strategies.

Although this study focused exclusively on Austrian SHEI CAs, the challenges they shared were consistent with those in the literature and, thus, insights should also support the CAs’ efforts in other countries.

This study offers novel perspectives on how to manage the challenges to SHEI. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, it is the first to describe paradox theory-informed management strategies recommended by a heterogenous group of SHEI CAs to address the barriers they face in transforming their universities toward sustainability.

The universities of applied sciences (UASs) in Finland play a significant role in providing skilled professionals with higher education degrees to meet the needs of the labor market and society as a whole. The purpose of this study is to determine what the staff in these universities consider the role of UASs in promoting sustainable development (SD) to be.

The qualitative research data were collected from a survey distributed among UAS staff in the spring of 2021. The data consisted of 831 responses to an open-ended question on how UASs could promote SD and a sense of responsibility for it. The method used for the data analysis was theory-led content analysis.

Staff at UASs are actively promoting SD in higher education and have many ideas on how to do this, which is encouraging. With further processing of these ideas and support from management, UASs can play a more important role in sustainability work and set an example for how to build a sustainable future.

The promotion of SD is a timely topic, and examples of SD implementation and good practices can promote discussion of the role of higher education institutions in SD promotion and highlight collective ways to promote it.

This paper aims to analyze the extent to which education for sustainable development (ESD) training enhances university teachers’ professional competence and whether it has the same effect in the digital as in the face-to-face format.

A training concept was developed based on the professional action competence model. Between 2018 and 2021, 19 training sessions were conducted with 183 university teachers: ten in face-to-face sessions and nine in the digital format. Questionnaires were administered before and after the training to determine its impact.

Overall, the training proved to be effective. There was a significant increase in professional knowledge and self-efficacy after the training, but there was no change in motivation. The face-to-face and digital formats proved to be equally effective.

The long-term effect of the training could not be determined.

There should be regular ESD training and coaching for university teachers.

There has been little research on the effectiveness of ESD teacher training, and no comparison between the face-to-face and digital approaches exists. It has been possible to train a relatively large number of university teachers from a wide range of subject areas, about two-thirds of whom have had no previous ESD experience.

Higher education institutions have a significant role in preparing future generations for the world of work and sustainable development. This paper aims to present a curriculum model of an enquiry-based learning pedagogy and a sustainable development conceptual context as a mechanism for teaching skills in a geography module. Potential influences of this model on organisational change towards integrating sustainable development are explored.

Following the design and implementation of the curriculum model, semi-structured interviews of the module teaching team were conducted. Thematic analysis was undertaken against a priori objectives determined from existing theoretical frameworks.

Thematic analysis suggests powerful synergies exist between enquiry-based learning, education for sustainable development and skills teaching. Potential impacts are as follows: conceptual perspectives enhance cognitive potential around systems thinking, learning methods promote behavioural potential around professional capability and agency and cultural encounters raise affective potential around inclusive curricula.

Findings indicate potential for bottom-up curriculum intervention to enhance individual learner capability and outcomes, to promote the role of Geography in responsible futures, to build teaching team capacity for active learning pedagogies, to influence individual and institutional behaviour change towards sustainability practices, diversity and inclusion, and to catalyse organisational change around sector priorities including integrating education for sustainable development, active learning, inclusive education and enhanced graduate outcomes.

This paper identifies multiple benefits from a curriculum model combining skills teaching in a synergistic pedagogical and conceptual framework and its bottom-up potential to catalyse organisational change in higher education.