Environmental sustainability in higher education

This article was downloaded by: [Deakin University Library] On: 28 May 2015, At: 16:59 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Environmental Education Research Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceer20

Environmental sustainability in higher education: What do academics think? a

a

a

Belinda A. Christie , Kelly K. Miller , Raylene Cooke & John G. a

White a

School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia Published online: 13 Mar 2014.

Click for updates To cite this article: Belinda A. Christie, Kelly K. Miller, Raylene Cooke & John G. White (2015) Environmental sustainability in higher education: What do academics think?, Environmental Education Research, 21:5, 655-686, DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2013.879697 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.879697

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 16:59 28 May 2015

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Environmental Education Research, 2015 Vol. 21, No. 5, 655–686, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.879697

Environmental sustainability in higher education: What do academics think? Belinda A. Christie, Kelly K. Miller*, Raylene Cooke and John G. White School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia


(Received 1 August 2013; accepted 17 December 2013) The slow uptake of Education for Sustainability (EfS) curricula in universities has, partly, been attributed to academics’ perceptions that EfS has little relevance within some disciplines. Understanding teaching academics’ attitudes, values and experiences of EfS across disciplines can inform future EfS efforts in higher education. This paper presents one part of a larger study that sought the views of ≈6% of the entire university teaching workforce of Australia. One quarter of the teaching academics in every discipline of every Australian university (except one) (n = 38) was sent an online questionnaire asking for their opinions of EfS. Precisely, 1819 academics participated (26% response rate) and data was analysed with descriptive and inferential statistics. The findings suggest that academics are supportive of EfS for all university students. Support, perceived relevance and reported difficulties with EfS are discipline specific; academics would respond positively to EfS framed within their disciplinary worldviews. Keywords: lecturer; attitudes; university; multidisciplinary; ESD

Introduction The world’s future leaders, decision-makers, teachers and professionals are formed and shaped, in part, by their university education – one of the foremost places that can evoke societal change and contribute to the creation of new knowledge and paradigms (Bekessy et al. 2003; Cortese and Hattan 2010; Lozano 2006; Sherren 2006). Inter-governmental bodies, nations, industry and universities worldwide have proposed that by the time a student graduates from university, they should possess the knowledge, values and skills to contribute to an environmentally sustainable society through their personal and professional actions (Bekessy et al. 2003; Cortese and Hattan 2010). Moore (2005, 326) explains that universities have a moral imperative, ‘given what academics know about the current ecological condition of the planet, there is an obligation for universities to become leaders in the movement to prevent global ecological collapse’. Since the 1970s, major international declarations and commitments have been aimed at universities, encouraging them to adopt environmentally sustainable practices in their teaching, research and campus operations (CRE-COPERNICUS 1994; UNCED 1992; ULSF 1990; UNESCO 1975, 1978, 2001, 2005; UNFCCC 1997; WCED 1987). Nations and universities worldwide have established policies and agendas for Education for Sustainability (EfS) in line with these commitments, *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] © 2014 Taylor & Francis

656

B.A. Christie et al.

and especially in response to the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005–2014) (Commonwealth of Australia 2007, 2009; HEFCE 2009; UNESCO 2005). These declarations and policies have stated that EfS should be included in the education of all university students, regardless of their discipline, not just for students who choose a sustainability-orientated subject or course (CRE-COPERNICUS 1994; ULSF 2010; UNESCO 1997, 2005; WCED 1987). McKeown and Hopkins (2003, 124) explain that:


In theory, every discipline can contribute to ESD [Education for Sustainable Development] from its current repertoire of lesson plans and curriculum units. Each discipline can provide knowledge, skills, perspectives, and values that when woven together, will help create a holistic ESD program … Fortunately, every educator in every discipline has some existing expertise or strength to bring to ESD.

Despite the ability of EfS to be adapted to any discipline and the professed commitment of universities to do so, curricular inclusion of EfS has been slow to materialise (Wals and Blewitt 2010). Most action taken by universities thus far has been through the management of campuses and operations, rather than on teaching and learning (Leihy and Salazar 2011; Wals and Blewitt 2010). This is due, in part, to the visibility of alterations to the campus landscape, regulation pressure, financial incentives, and the fact that many universities employ campus and environmental managers specifically to address campus environmental sustainability (Sterling and Scott 2008). There are numerous commentaries on the reasons behind the slower uptake of EfS curricula. One such reason may be due to the controversy over the concept of sustainability itself and difficulties in defining it (Thomas and Nicita 2002). Natural scientists have argued that a clear definition of sustainability is required so that it can be quantified to neatly inform policy and decision-making (Schultz et al. 2008). Others have suggested that the word ‘development’ be replaced by ‘living’, as ‘sustainable living’ may resonate more closely with an individual’s life, rather than governmental development and responsibilities (IUCN, UNEP, and WWF 1991). Some have called sustainable development an oxymoron, an ‘empty signifier’, a set of ‘internal contradictions’, an educational or political slogan, or an excuse for continued western economic dominance (respectively, Schultz et al. 2008; González‐Gaudiano 2006, 297; Bonnett 2002, 9; Jickling and Spork 1998; Stevenson 2002). Because of this controversy, and the subjective and contradictory nature of the term, some have previously argued that EfS should be further developed and debated before its inclusion in education is pursued (Bonnett 2013; Jickling 1992; Jickling and Wals 2003). Some commentators, are comfortable with this ambivalence, stating that sustainable development is a learning process (Scott and Gough 2004) and that EfS should always be defined or delivered in a ‘locally relevant and culturally appropriate’ form (McKeown and Hopkins 2003, 119; UNCED 1992; WCED 1987). Sustainability is not so different from other ill-defined concepts taught at university, such as justice, democracy and beauty (McKeown and Hopkins 2003). Sustainable development is a ‘regulative ideal’; that while perhaps not completely attainable, is a concept which can ‘guide and mediate our actions in practical matters’ (Stables 2013, 177). Some indeed argue that a rigid definition of sustainability would prevent its implementation, as the concept draws on multiple disciplines, is contextual and subjective, and therefore adaptable to any discipline or situation (Wals and Blewitt 2010).


Environmental Education Research

657

The differences, similarities and tensions between EfS and Environmental Education also contribute to the debate (McKeown and Hopkins 2003). Environmental education developed from the environment movement and pollution concerns of the 1970s, where protecting the environment was the primary concern (McKeown and Hopkins 2003; Monroe 2012). Social and economic issues were mentioned in foundation environmental education documents only to provide context or as a means to ensure environmental protection (McKeown and Hopkins 2003). Environmental education in this context was education in, for or about the environment itself (Lucas 1978). In the late 1980s, new international and national policies began to emerge where the concepts of sustainable development and sustainability dominated (Stevenson et al. 2013). EfS and Education for Sustainable Development began to replace environmental education in policy documents and literature (Stevenson et al. 2013). At present, the term EfS is often used interchangeably with Education for Sustainable Development as both terms are commonly considered to have the same educational aims (Monroe 2012; Stevenson et al. 2013). The term EfS (Education for Sustainability) will be used throughout this paper, as it is the most commonly used term in Australian universities, where the present study took place (Commonwealth of Australia 2007, 2009; Deakin University 2013a; James Cook University 2013; Monash University 2007; The University of Melbourne 2011; University of Technology Sydney 2011). EfS has come to be based on the triple bottom line principle, incorporating economic, ecological and sociocultural perspectives, thereby allowing holistic interpretation (Jones, Selby, and Sterling 2010; Littledyke and Manolas 2010). In contrast to environmental education, EfS provides a more anthropocentric, rather than ecocentric, worldview, attempting to address human suffering and poverty (Littledyke and Manolas 2010). EfS is therefore interdisciplinary in nature with an emphasis on developing skills and criticality to support action towards a more sustainable society (Jones, Selby, and Sterling 2010). EfS as a concept requires subjective interpretation, value judgements and comfort with controversy, aligning with postpositivist epistemology – where knowledge is considered to be a human construct ever-developing through the influences of interaction within a dynamic world (Littledyke and Manolas 2010). Such debates over terminology however, continue to pervade EfS literature. In addition to debates and confusion in defining EfS, fears of teaching students a certain way to think, or what values to hold, may also be preventing academics and university leaders from supporting EfS in universities (Ashley 2005; Gough 2002; Wals and Jickling 2002). Some fear that any education which is taught for a particular purpose is not educational at all, rather a form of indoctrination, promoting changes in individual and gradually, societal, behaviour (Cushman 1997; Jickling and Wals 2003; Knight 2005). In retort Shephard (2010) argues that all education has a purpose, such as to prepare students for the workforce and contribute to the economy. The solution to this concern is of course ensuring that whenever EfS is taught, students (and teachers) should learn to develop critical and autonomous thinking, and assess sustainability for themselves (Jickling 1992; McKeown and Hopkins 2003; Wals and Jickling 2002). Many other causes for the lag in curricula EfS persist, such as the disciplinefocused nature of academic work, overloaded curricula, and the perception that EfS is irrelevant to an academics’ particular discipline, although many argue EfS can be linked to any field (Blewitt and Cullingford 2012; Cotton and Winter 2010; Dawe,


658


Jucker, and Martin 2005; Hopkinson, Hughes, and Layer 2008). Cotton et al. (2007) note, however, that many of these constraints to EfS are similar to those experienced when any change is proposed to the university sector. Previous studies have also found academics’ perceptions of EfS to be a major inhibitor to EfS curricula inclusion (Dawe, Jucker, and Martin 2005; Lozano 2006; Velazquez, Munguia, and Sanchez 2005). Academics who understand sustainability in a limited way may teach it in a limited way; thereby leading their students to similar understandings and reducing their ability to recognise sustainability when they see it and expand upon it in their future industry (Cotton et al. 2007; Prosser and Trigwell 1997; Reid and Petocz 2006). If EfS is to be part of a students’ university education, then teaching academics need to support and understand EfS (Cotton et al. 2007; Reid and Petocz 2006). Academics are likely to resist the integration of EfS if they feel their views are not taken into account (Cotton et al. 2007). Yet there is little knowledge of whether teaching academics value, understand or implement EfS in their classrooms (Reid and Petocz 2006). Reid and Petocz (2006) explain: in order to answer the world-wide call for the integration of sustainable development within university curriculum, we need to find out how those responsible for teaching about sustainability – especially in areas that do not traditionally focus on sustainability – actually understand what it is all about.

Gaps in current research Few studies have sought to identify teaching academics’ conceptions, beliefs or experiences of EfS in higher education (Cotton et al. 2007), and even fewer from a nationwide, multidisciplinary perspective encapsulating teaching academics not particularly associated with EfS (indeed those who are more likely to feel that it is not related to their discipline). Broad reviews of EfS efforts in universities do exist (Tilbury et al. 2005; UNESCO 2009), although these studies give an overview of the sector (EfS in the curriculum and in campus operations), rather than seeking the empirical opinions and practices of current working academics not directly involved in EfS. Studies that have directly sought the opinions of teaching academics have indicated that academics may be theoretically supportive of EfS, hold various opinions regarding its definition, and while many believe EfS is irrelevant to their particular discipline, they are open to participation in EfS professional development programmes or are willing to self-educate (e.g. Aznar Minguet et al. 2011; Carew and Mitchell 2006; Cotton et al. 2007; Dyball and Carpenter 2006; Joseph et al. 2013; McKeown-Ice 2000; Reid and Petocz 2006). Such research is often based on a singular university, discipline or case study, and usually involves respondents with a stated interest in sustainability. For example, such studies have been conducted on: the University of Valencia, Spain; Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia; Plymouth University, UK; American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, USA; University of Guelph, Canada; University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; and Australian universities The University of Sydney, The Australian National University, and Macquarie University (respectively, Aznar Minguet et al. 2011; Brinkhurst et al. 2011; Carew and Mitchell 2006; Cotton et al. 2007; Dyball and Carpenter 2006; Joseph et al. 2013; McKeown-Ice 2000; Reid and Petocz 2006; Wemmenhove and de Groot 2001). How findings would differ between academics across disciplines, across



659

universities, and particularly those without a stated interested in EfS, is largely unknown. There is a common belief among academics and the public that the life sciences and disciplines like geography and biology house EfS more readily than other disciplines (Cotton et al. 2007). Reid and Petocz (2006, 119) have suggested that ‘it seems that different subject areas characteristically position the notion of sustainability in more central or more marginal roles.’ Previous studies, however, have reported no significant differences between disciplines in their understanding of EfS (Cotton et al. 2007; Stables and Scott 2002). Agreement on the general importance of EfS, and small sample sizes, may conceal underlying differences in the epistemic beliefs of the disciplines (Cotton et al. 2007; Stables and Scott 2002). Yet broad multidisciplinary investigation into EfS is rare, so this assumption has been largely untested. The importance of building national studies on EfS in universities should not be underestimated, as lessons learnt across the university sector can help inform innovation in the field of EfS as a whole (Scott and Gough 2004), and may inform ‘evidence focused’ decision-makers. Research is required to enable comparisons between disciplines and give a clearer picture of the responses of academics to EfS from different disciplines. This will help explain how sustainability can be positioned within the range of disciplines and suggest how EfS advocates should tailor their efforts (Reid and Petocz 2006). Australian context Most Australian universities have policies in response to the Australian Government’s national action plan for EfS, the Decade for Education for Sustainable Development or the Talloires Declaration, committing them to addressing sustainability in their research, campus operations and teaching (Australian National University 2001; Deakin University 2012; Monash University 2009; Tilbury et al. 2005; ULSF 2010; University of Queensland 2011; University of Technology Sydney 2011). Studies report that while campus greening initiatives are underway, such as tree planting and greenhouse gas reduction programmes, most Australian universities, like many others from other nations, are lagging in EfS curricula inclusion (Christie et al. 2013; Bekessy et al. 2003; Lang, Thomas, and Wilson 2006; Leihy and Salazar 2011; Noonan and Thomas 2004; Tilbury et al. 2005). Similar to other countries, curricula EfS tends to progress due to a small number of interested and committed academics, and EfS remains mostly represented in specialty degrees (Thomas and Nicita 2002; Tilbury et al. 2005). While many of these studies have attempted to build a national picture of EfS in Australian universities, the research is largely based on the views of administrators, information gathered from policy documents or university websites. National research thus far has had little emphasis on the beliefs, opinions or experiences of teaching academics from across disciplines. Research that is conducted across the sector in Australia can therefore help to inform the university sector worldwide. Aims The objective of this study was to investigate teaching academics’1 opinions of EfS across disciplines. The aims were to: (1) Determine teaching academics’ current conceptions of EfS

660



(2) Determine teaching academics’ current attitudes towards implementing EfS in higher education (3) Determine teaching academics’ encountered problems and solutions when implementing EfS in their classrooms (4) Identify the differences between the disciplines in higher education in regard to the first three aims Methods This paper describes findings from a multistage research project. As such, research methods previously described in Christie et al. (2013) are the same as this paper and have been summarised here for the readers’ benefit. Results from the present paper are best interpreted in conjunction with the aforementioned paper regarding academics’ perceptions and practice of EfS pedagogy. As the concept of sustainability is interdisciplinary, the use of both positivist/ scientific and post-positivist/interpretive research methods is appropriate (Christie et al. 2013). Qualitative data can provide an in-depth understanding of opinions, attitudes and experiences while quantitative data can provide meaningful representation of an entire population (Huberman and Miles 2002; Onwuegbuzie, Johnson, and Collins 2009). Pursuing both types of data in tandem can therefore offer a more complete and meaningful picture of EfS. A ‘mixed-methods’ approach was therefore taken. A 26 question, online, questionnaire was sent to approximately one quarter of the teaching academics from every discipline, in every Australian University (except one) on the 24 January 2011 (n = 7066). Contact details of every forth academic listed in each Australian university’s publically accessible webpages were collated (academics whose profile suggested they held a non-teaching position at their university were excluded). A personally addressed email was sent to academics with a letter of invitation, URL link to the online survey, consent and prize entry form ($100 gift voucher) (Dillman, Smyth, and Christian 2009). All disciplines in every Australian university (n = 38) were included, except one Victorian university where contact details for academics could not be accessed via the internet. Academics were sent an initial invitation, a follow-up reminder via email (at five weeks), and a second, shorter questionnaire was sent to academics who did not respond to the original questionnaire (at seven weeks) (Christie et al. 2013). The shorter questionnaire consisted of three questions identical to the original questionnaire. This allowed responses to the original and shorter questionnaires to be compared, to check for bias in the study, and gain further insight into the opinions of non-respondents for the original questionnaire (Kretser et al. 2009). Questionnaire design Questions were designed to provide a ‘snap shot’ of the opinions of teaching academics from across disciplines regarding EfS. The subject line of the email was labelled ‘teaching methods’, intentionally excluding the use of any words which might bias the sample to those interested in sustainability. Data can therefore help assess how current EfS efforts might be received by the wider academic population not pre-disposed to, or with an overt interest in, EfS.



661

Questions were developed in reference to environmental education literature and best practice survey design principles (Dillman, Smyth, and Christian 2009). A number of qualitative and quantitative methods were used within the questionnaire – such as ‘closed’ questions (Likert scale; yes/no) and open-ended questions (providing space for the respondent’s own descriptions) (McKernan 1996). Questions were grouped thematically, and so the questionnaire consisted of multiple sections. This paper presents findings from questions relating to academic opinions of EfS (i.e. definitions, attitudes and experiences of constraints). Demographic information will also be briefly presented. The questionnaire itself has been included as an appendix – abridged for space reduction and only showing questions disseminated in this paper. The other sections of the questionnaire included questions relating to teaching methods and pedagogy for EfS, and have been previously published (see Christie et al. 2013). The questionnaire was also designed to enable post-participation selection of respondents for further involvement in the research through in-depth interviews (not reported in this paper). To enable comparison between disciplines, the same questionnaire was distributed to all. Although this meant that questions could not be tailored to specific disciplines (nor did we wish to presuppose disciplinary experience), the spaces for qualitative responses used alongside the quantitative questions allowed respondents to express their views within their disciplinary framework. It was assumed (and tested by piloting) that some would be unfamiliar with the term EfS (or any variation), and would need some guidance to participate in the study. Conversely, it was also evident that some academics would be familiar with EfS. If respondents regularly used a particular terminology, the qualitative questions would allow them to freely express their opinions. A question was posed to respondents: For the purposes of this study, ‘education for sustainability’ is defined as: ‘Building knowledge and skills to create environmentally sustainable citizens.” Often referred to as “environmental education’. If you disagree with the above definition please give your own definition or explanation below (in 50 words or less).

The given definition was developed in reference to the Australian Government and university EfS policy documents (e.g. Commonwealth of Australia 2007, 2009; Monash University 2007; The University of Melbourne 2011; University of Technology Sydney 2011). The term EfS (rather than any other variation) was used as it was most likely to be in use within the respondent’s institution. The historically used (and somewhat more self-explanatory) concept of ‘environmental education’ was also added. Although there are numerous commentaries on how EfS differs from environmental education, it was felt these differences would be too onerous to explain in a questionnaire where minimising text is essential to ensuring a high response rate (Dillman, Smyth, and Christian 2009). Explicit mention of the triple bottom line principle was intentionally excluded to determine whether respondents who did feel familiar with EfS, or environmental education, would mention it themselves. The study was designed to enable respondents to express their own views of EfS, with the expectation that multiple conceptions of EfS would be given, and would be equally valid. This decision of course had its drawbacks. The given definition may have biased the results slightly for respondents whose first encounter with discussion

662



on EfS was the questionnaire itself. Others still raised concerns that they did not understand the term, or still felt unqualified to respond. Despite these limitations, the questionnaire design enabled a response from a good representation of all disciplines. This exercise demonstrates how difficult it is to design and conduct large-scale, multidisciplinary, research on such an ill-defined concept. Responses should therefore be understood as provisional and should be read with caution. Data analysis Quantitative data were analysed with descriptive and inferential statistics for categorical data using SPSS (v.17.0); including the use of chi square tests of independence. It was expected that very small differences in the data would result in statistical significance, due to the large sample size, even if these differences had little to no theoretical meaning (Pallant 2011). To compensate, percentages and effect size (Cramer’s V for chi square) have been reported where appropriate (for an explanation of effect size statistics in this study, see Christie et al. 2013). Qualitative data were analysed thematically using QSR NVivo v10. Themes were subsequently analysed with descriptive statistics to provide quantitative representation of the data. Quotes have been reported verbatim, to reduce the likelihood of distorting their meaning through researcher interpretation (Maxwell 1992). Respondent quotes were selected to represent the quantitative themes and diversity present in the data. Results Questionnaires were returned complete by 1819 academics (26%) from the sample, which equates to approximately 6% of the entire teaching academic workforce of Australia. Shorter questionnaires (three questions), used to test for any systemic bias, were obtained from 802 respondents of the sample. Therefore, 2621 questionnaires were returned overall, or 37% of the selected sample. Demographic information was not collected from short questionnaire respondents, and so their opinions have not been pooled with those of the original questionnaire, and are therefore not represented in this paper. As disseminated in Christie et al. (2013) short questionnaire respondents overall held similar views to those of the original questionnaire, with few differences found – and so suggest that results from the original questionnaire have not been biased by respondents interested in the subject matter. Therefore, the results of this study can be considered a reliable representation of Academic opinions from across Australian universities (Christie et al. 2013). Sample profile Respondents represent the full range of academic disciplines, employment status and number of years teaching in tertiary education in Australia (Christie et al. 2013). The respondents constitute a statistically fair representation of the true population of Australian teaching academics (Christie et al. 2013). Respondents were most commonly male (51.1%), 41–50 years old (31.8%), lecturers (44.6%) and taught a range of undergraduate and postgraduate years (See Table 3(a,b) in Christie et al. (2013) for full demographic information). Largely respondents did not consider they explicitly taught Environmental Science, Sustainability, Ecology or any other


663


courses or subjects they would consider to be primarily focused on the environment (81.0%, n = 1705). The remainder either did teach it, or were unsure (respectively 16.5 and 2.5%). Aggregate disciplines When indicating which field or discipline they taught (n = 1508), one quarter of the sample reported that they taught more than one discipline (25% or 375 respondents, n = 1819) (Christie et al. 2013). Respondents were asked to select their discipline(s) from a list of 13, and were free to add others not listed. To aid reader interpretation, these 13 disciplines were pooled into four categories, which will be referred to as ‘aggregate disciplines’ (Tümkaya, Aybek, and Aldaş 2009). A fifth ‘interdisciplinary’ aggregate was created for any respondent who fell into two or more aggregates. Aggregate disciplines were defined according to the most common disciplines grouped together under the faculties of each of the Australian universities surveyed (Christie et al. 2013). The five aggregate disciplines were: Environment (n = 49): comprising ‘environmental science, ecology, geology etc’ Science (n = 601): including Health/Medicine, Science (not environmental), Engineering, Information Technology Creative (n = 69): Media/communications, Fine arts and Architecture Humanities (n = 560): Business/economics, Arts/humanities, Education, Law, Indigenous studies Interdisciplinary (n = 229): Any respondent in two or more aggregates. The difference between respondent numbers in each of the aggregate disciplines may be due to a true difference within the population (Christie et al. 2013), and the aggregation of more populous disciplines. For a complete description of respondent numbers within their aggregates, see Table 4 in Christie et al. (2013). Where sample sizes were large enough to yield reliable results, aggregate disciplines have been compared throughout the results section of this paper. Table 1. Respondents’ conceptions of EfS (n = 211). Theme

n

%

Society (including political and cultural aspects) Environment Economy Knowledge Skills Literal understanding of the word ‘sustainable’ Economic, environmental and social aspects should be equally pursued Additional aspects, rather than solely the environment Attitudes and values towards the environment Actions and behavior Equipping students with abilities and understandings Developing the ability for critical and reflective thinking

52 51 32 30 29 29 26 19 19 15 13 12

24.6 24.2 15.2 14.2 13.7 13.7 12.3 9.0 9.0 7.1 6.2 5.7

Note: Only themes with ≥ 10 respondents are reported. Respondents suggested multiple themes in their definitions and so percentages do not total 100.


664


Academics’ conceptions of EfS The vast majority of respondents did not provide further qualification to their understanding of EfS (n = 1608) (Q11, Appendix 1). This may have been due to either agreement with the definition provided in the questionnaire itself, ambivalence, not knowing how else to define it, or simple ‘survey fatigue’ (Dillman, Smyth, and Christian 2009). Those who did respond to the question (n = 211) gave qualifications to the given definition, stated their agreement or posed alternative definitions (Table 1). Many included or hinted at a belief that the triple bottom line principle was important to EfS; with society (including political and cultural aspects) and environment being near equally important, and others also adding economic considerations to their definitions. Some believed EfS included knowledge and skills, and demonstrated understanding of the triple bottom line principle itself, stating that economic, environmental and social aspects should be equally pursued. Others hinted at an inclusive EfS where additional aspects, rather than solely the environment, was important, but did not articulate what these other aspects might be. Overall, many of their explanations demonstrate an understanding of the matter: Education for Sustainability is essential in order to create awareness and direct action by the citizenry to support the three pillars of sustainability – the environment, economy and social wellbeing of all inhabitants of the biosphere. (Business/Economics academic (Tourism), March 2011) I believe that EfS needs to go BEYOND just the environmental to understand that the social, economic, political, policy & psychological is what is driving the environmental destruction … and likewise need to be understood and incorporated. It’s a complex, messy, interractive[sic] system between all these components.’ (Environment, Business/ Economics and Arts/Humanities academic, January 2011, capitalisation in original) I would also add other aspects of sustainability, relating to conditions that support: ethical outcomes (not harming others – animals, people, as well as the environment); the greater good (not exploiting or harming others for profit); empowerment – e.g. positive experiences for workers, clients, management as well as the corporation and shareholders, where possible.’ (Business/Law and Media/Communications academic, March 2011)

As could be expected from a highly educated group, many respondents took the opportunity to either just analyse the definition they had been given (not provide their own) or explain why, or why not, EfS was an important concept (32.3%). For example: This is something for schools not for universities (with the exception of some obvious subjects, which have a role to play here. Certainly not biochemistry or medicine.). (Science academic, March 2011) I think this definition is nonsensical. (Business/Economics academic, March 2011)

Some respondents demonstrated confusion, ambivalence or stated they had not heard of the term EfS (respectively, 12.3; 6.2%; 2.4%). Twenty-nine respondents (13.7%) defined EfS through a literal understanding of the word ‘sustainable’, for example:


665

Sustainability means to be able to continue something, anything really for some period of time. In the common speech of today it is for all intents and purposes meaningless. (Information Technology and Arts/Humanities academic, March 2011) I don’t really understand the definition. My notion of ‘sustainability’ in education would be about retention of information and ability and skills relative to their course of study. Sustainability is the most overused term in the contemporary lexicon and drives me mad. (Indigenous studies and Media/Communications academic, January 2011)


Unfortunately, in an engineering context, sustainability refers to: sustainability of the resource, sustainability of the workforce, sustainability of the market. However, in general, I use the your [sic] definition but highlight to students what industry often means. (Engineering academic, January 2011)

Others echoed concerns of indoctrination in their remarks: Education and sustainability are two different concepts. Linking them is silly. Education is about critical thinking … Sustainability is about the future use of resources and the ‘do not use resources today that will impede those of future generations’, etc. I would suggest that your definition is an oxymoron, like milatary [sic] intellegence [sic]. How can you talk of education [sic] people to believe a believe [sic] in a mantra, that’s propaganda, not education. (Environment, Business/Economics and Engineering academic, January 2011) In practice, including in academic work, ‘sustainability’ is an anti-concept created to emphasize [sic] environmental goals, while neglecting human interests and other goals. In practice, based on its actual use, the term is most often applied to refer to a practice that is alleged to be environmentally sustainable but is probably not economically sustainable (though the latter is never mentioned). (Science and Engineering academic, January 2011) The definition is too vague. The MD [managing director] of any of the large coal companies could agree with this. (Arts/Humanities academic, March 2011) A politically hijacked agenda. (Information Technology academic, March 2011)

Academics’ attitudes towards EfS Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement to given statements regarding EfS on a Likert scale (Table 2; Q12, Appendix 1). Overall respondents were supportive of EfS, indicating that ‘EfS is important’ and that ‘all university students should learn about EfS’. Respondents also supported the statement, ‘all courses should have EfS in some form’, agreeing that EfS should be part of the curriculum and taught in some (but not all, or most) subjects. Respondents most frequently disagreed that only courses that directly relate to sustainability issues should include EfS. Furthermore respondents often disagreed that it should be left to the individual teacher to decide if they want to include EfS in their classes. Most respondents agreed that EfS should be taught by teaching critical thinking skills. There were significant differences between the aggregate disciplines in their responses to all of the given statements, except one (Table 2). Overall environment respondents (and to some extent the creative disciplines) were slightly more supportive of EfS, whereas the sciences although still supportive, demonstrated the least agreement with EfS amongst the aggregate disciplines. The environment and science

1684

1686

1680

All university students should learn about EfS

All courses should have EfS in some form

n

EfS is important

Statement

58.5

73

85.8

Agree (%)

All respondents

Table 2. Respondents’ opinions on EfS in higher education.

20

8.4

2.4

Disagree (%) n

χ2 P

20 1490 53.563