The challenges of introducing sustainable development in the curriculum at a UK university

Abstract

It might seem that implementing sustainable development in the curriculum at universities is a straightforward win-win for all concerned, with access to expertise in the latest research and understanding concerning the issues and a dynamic, transient population who are open to change and embracing new ideas. Yet, this optimism can be faced with an institutional framework that is inflexible and non-compliant, almost draconian at times, to aspects that are not perceived as central to the success of research, funding and teaching. Academics, by nature, are strongly opinionated and have robust worldviews, which can be resistant to proposed changes to individual aspirations, ambitions and priorities. With this in mind, this paper presents the results of some first steps that were taken at a UK university regarding the introduction of sustainable development in the curriculum. The results, coming from various sectors across the institution, were very mixed. Some sectors, for example, were open to the introduction of a mandatory sustainability module for all students whilst others were not sure whether or not there was a place, or even a necessity, for sustainability considerations at all. The viable options for the university are discussed along with the influences and driving forces that affect such a move, including group dynamics, individual attitudes and behaviours, and resources and support – and how students can best help to nudge the process forward. This paper will be of interest to others who are implementing sustainable development in the curriculum, especially those taking the initial steps and finding more brick walls and reticence than opportunities.

Keywords

academic community behaviour change curriculum marketing sustainable development university

Introduction

Introducing sustainability in the curriculum, or ESD, would seem a no-brainer. From a moral or normative viewpoint the obligation to sustainability, defined by its economic, social and environment pillars, is unconditional irrespective of whether or not the predictions regarding our global climate long term are to be believed. Universities are the main institutions where the future decision makers, leaders and innovators are being primed (Gough and Scott, 2007; Lozano, 2006) and, thus, have the responsibility to integrate ESD comprehensively (e.g. Stephens et al., 2008; Wright, 2004). A recent report by the Higher Education Academy (HEA) revealed that more than 80% of students surveyed believe that sustainable development should be actively promoted and integrated into the UK curriculum (www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/sustainability/2013_student_skills_final_report). The literature concerning ESD covers an increasing number of disciplines including science, engineering, business, management and IT, and aspects such as pedagogy design (Lockrey and Johnson, 2013), the effectiveness of changes to the curriculum (Lambrechts et al., 2013) and the added value of extra-curricular activities and greening the campus (Lu and Zhang, 2013), although it is still lagging behind in the humanities and social sciences (Vaughter et al., 2013). The Quality Assurance Agency and the HEA have demonstrated their support by producing new guidance for HE providers that focus on competences and the aim of achieving a shift in mind-set and stance that will, it is hoped, affect actual behaviour (www.qaa.ac.uk/ImprovingHigherEducation/Pages/Leading-Curriculum-Change.aspx), and the NUS has been working with the Higher Education Academy since 2010 to assess student experiences of ESD and understand the attitudes and skills developed as a result (www.nus.org.uk/en/greener-projects/greener-curriculum/greener-curriculum/).

Strategically, it is important that what is introduced regarding ESD succeeds in fostering a change and that the literature provides many studies evaluating course material and its applicability. Most recently, for example, using a sustainability tool assessment and perception surveys (Watson et al., 2013) monitoring student numbers and credit awards (Lozano and Young, 2013) and competency levels in Belgium (Lambrechts et al., 2013). Cotton and Alcock (2013) concluded that university attendance has a significant positive association with commitment to environmental sustainability over other adult transition pathways, and Lockrey and Johnson (2013) found that incorporating an industry partner into the process of SD education enhanced student engagement levels. Yuan et al. (2013) explored the awareness of faculty, alumni and students’ parents regarding the concept of the Green University in China, whilst Davison et al. (2014) looked at how to overcome the fragmentation that typically impedes collaborative teaching practices. Not all interventions have been found to be effective, however; a Canadian study indicated that what students were being taught about the environment and economics actually undermined the university sustainability commitments (Green, 2013). Even though the HE sector can be conservative and resistant to innovation (Elton, 2003), the influences during these few years at university lay the foundation for the next 50 years or so of adult life and, hence, it is important that the current extensiveness of ESD research continues, to ensure that HE curricular changes worldwide are effective.

At an individual level, there are various models that categorise the way people behave and engage that may be relevant in the ESD context. According to Defra’s (2007) Segmentation Model, for example, people range from those who engage willingly in sustainability activities at work and home to those who are totally uninterested in such issues and inactive. Prochaska and DiClemente’s (1983) Stages of Change model describes a series of stages that individuals go through when changing a behaviour, encompassing ignorance or indifference, premeditation regarding ways to engage, adjustments once the change has been made and the new behaviour ultimately becoming the norm. In their self-determination theory, Deci and Ryan (1985, 2000) identified different motivational states that affect whether or not an individual’s engagement will be maintained once external triggers are removed. An internalised motivation, for example, is driven by internal characteristics such as the satisfaction, or importance, of undertaking activities and does not require external incentives, such as financial rewards or recognition, for it to be maintained. Individual motivation is context specific and invariably driven by getting a tangible return, which can be difficult to quantify for many aspects of sustainable development, including ESD. Each one of us has to make a decision about how we behave in terms of sustainability, consumption, our day to day lifestyles and the impact of that on others – and realise the potential influence that we have within our personal life, social networks and at work, whether we are a CEO of a company or someone in the mailing room, and that if we are motivated to make a difference, it is possible.

Methods

The aim of this paper was very much a fact finding mission regarding ESD from an environmental psychology viewpoint – where is the university at? Where are the win-wins? Who is on board and why? Where are the brick walls and why? Where are the innovators, the pioneers – are there any? Who are the key players in effecting full integration? Twenty-eight people were selected from a cross section of the university community including students, administrative teams, academics, support service departments, sustainable societies, senior management and associate deans, and formally interviewed for around 30 minutes. The stance of each individual regarding ESD was not specifically known prior to the interview. Once the key aspects from the data had been coded and analysed, a further 18 people were approached ad hoc around the campus for a 15-minute discussion on relevant points and the new data incorporated into further coding and analysis. Random samples of the texts were coded by three colleagues, who were familiar with qualitative methods and the ESD context, for reliability purposes.

Results

The respondents (26 females and 20 males) ranged in age from 19 to 53 and the most common responses were grouped, tabulated (see Table 1) and discussed below. There was no obvious trend regarding attitude towards, or engagement in, ESD when categorised by role, age, discipline or primary focus such as economic viability, government policy or CSR. Although a higher awareness and acceptance to ESD was apparent within sustainably related disciplines such as engineering and business, this did not necessarily translate into greater motivation to change markedly the current curriculum.

Table 1.

Most common responses regarding the need for, and introduction of, ESD.

Response regarding the need for, and introduction of, ESD	Percentage of respondents (n = 46)
Compulsory module for all first years – won’t happen overnight	11
ESD was not valued or supported by the university decision makers and local businesses and community need to be involved to make it more relevant	54
I know I should be doing more – I believe that it is important. I just don’t feel I have the time, support or authority to introduce it and it needs doing across the whole campus and curriculum	70
Important for specific groups/departments – ACE, labs, engineering, business	83
Sounds good but…	28
Definitely needed, as long as it’s voluntary for people	17
Already people in the university taking charge of this e.g. academic heads, champions, sustainability societies, so not really my concern	31
Impact of introducing it needs to be monitored e.g. KPIs, AWLM	17
Is there a place for sustainability considerations at all…? Not core business	20

Discussion

Down to the individual

There was a general perception that at this particular institution, the implementation of, and engagement with, ESD was very much down to the individual. It was felt unlikely that a uniform, cross-campus directive from the VC, Directors or HoDs for people to engage and ESD to be integrated as the norm would be effective, even with the backing of local business, industry and the community. This finding is consistent with the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Homans, 1961), which posits that decisions between two parties are governed by the balance of rewards and costs for actions taken. For employees to engage in new behaviours they need to feel that there is some benefit in the efforts they are being asked to make, along with adequate provision of facilities, resources and support, which outweigh the costs that will occur as a result. When the organisation fails in such provision, however, the employees are more likely to withdraw and disengage themselves; 70% of the respondents in this present study felt that there was no time, support or authority given to enable them to engage with ESD as they might like. The need to overcome such barriers for engagement to be effective has previously been identified; see, for example, Ferrer-Balas et al. (2010). At the early stage of implementation, the type of messenger that used to promote ESD and motivate others, is crucial. One common method is champions, people identified as being actively engaged and promoting a particular cause; the literature generally portrays a positive outcome from utilising such a method. See, for example, Taylor et al. (2012) for a discussion on the different types and contexts of champions and Hargreaves (2011), who described the subtle shifts in behaviour that can occur following an intervention. The results here highlighted one drawback, however; 31% of respondents felt that there was no need to get involved in sustainability concerns as specific people had been allocated to do so. This response reiterated the perception that addressing sustainability was optional and that the tipping point, whereby a sufficient number of adopters of a new behaviour (the critical mass) is reached, so that the rate of adoption becomes self-sustaining and creates further growth (see, for example, Kiron et al., 2012), would require far greater collective action that presently existed.

Group dynamics

The sense of autonomy, self-interest and apparent lack of willingness for cohesion and team work that was evident between departments in this case study poses an interesting challenge for the introduction of ESD: ‘Academics are generally independent and don’t talk to each other. If they were outgoing people and people-focused people, they probably wouldn’t be academics!’ (Senior Lecturer, November 2013). Patterns of individual behaviour do not simply combine to determine the behaviour of any group as a whole and emergent group patterns depend on how the agents within the group interact, the role of copying amongst peers (Kennedy, 2009) and the dynamic interactions between, for example, competition and cooperation (Goldstone and Gureckis, 2009). Even though there is a growing appreciation that people are inherently social creatures and do care about the welfare of the groups to which they belong (Haidt et al., 2008), and academic departments, for example, have a common focus regarding research and teaching roles, the results here showed that sustainability was generally considered relevant only to departments that specifically focused on subjects such as environmental management, corporate social responsibility and alternative energy sources. There were a few exceptions: ‘There is definitely a place for a mandatory module for say first year students when they arrive’ (Senior Academic, December 2013); ‘All the disciplines need to start including sustainable development compulsory modules’ (Second year student, January 2014). The ongoing reliance on senior management support and achievement recognition, even by departments who were evidently proactive regarding sustainability, was indicative of an externally incentivised motivation and the need for a holistic approach incorporating changes to technological operations (Koester et al., 2006), institutional strategies and organisation (Ferrer-Balas et al., 2009) and teaching practices (Barth and Rieckmann, 2012).

There was an even split in the responses regarding whether or not there was potential to incorporate a student voice in ESD. People associated with academic departments generally felt students had other priorities such as jobs, degrees and ensuring they had the right material for their studies, whereas people associated with support service departments felt there was value in the students being actively involved; the split may simply have reflected the differently perceived purpose of the respective departments regarding the student experience at university. The students, unsurprisingly, considered their voice was very influential in nudging the ESD agenda forward, especially when the interventions contained lots of fun, energy and the here and now – flashmobs, instant messaging and the use of social media generally.

Academics

Even within academic departments that one might have expected ESD considerations to be integrated, such as engineering, science or business, the results here revealed a mix of opinions regarding the importance and relevance of ESD compared to other considerations in the curriculum and a disparity in the interpretation and delivery of sustainability-related course material. Such a mix highlighted that even if ESD was added to the curriculum, the individual academics have a huge role to play in whether or not students are positively influenced concerning the importance they place on such considerations in their professional lives and decision making in the future. As Hagarty (2008) argued, effecting change in learning processes is largely dependent on the willingness of academic staff to support such actions, highlighting the value of, for example, the flexible pedagogies approach proposed by Ryan and Tilbury (2013). There is a need to train the teachers and engage them in a positive manner so that the potential that universities have to carve the way forward for students and fully integrate ESD is reached. Previous work has found that academics are often harder to recruit to the sustainability agenda than support services staff and students (Lampkin, 2014); this does not necessarily imply that academics are less interested in sustainability issues, although that may be the case. Such findings do suggest, perhaps, that in academic departments, research and teaching is still perceived as core business, whereas for other stakeholders such aspects may be considered equally with issues like ethics, equal opportunities and community inclusion.

Academic buy-in and proactivity is critical to ESD, in terms of knowledge transfer, stakeholder compliance, structural reorganisation and the repositioning of the curriculum. Although there are only a few studies that use academic staff as the starting point for change (e.g. Roberts and Roberts, 2008), this author considers that ESD is one key area where academics do need to take the lead. Academics have strong worldviews and it is imperative that any interventions are consistent with their ambitions, aspirations and priorities. Information that is contrary to a habitual behaviour is commonly perceived as unreliable, erroneous or unrepresentative and tends to be dismissed (Festinger, 1957; Nisbett and Ross, 1980), and a greater understanding regarding how the academic community perceive ESD will enable the goals to be more appropriately matched so academics are more likely to listen to, and engage with, what is being said and asked of them. Hence, a key action in the initial stages of ESD introduction is to identify those individuals and pockets of academics that are advocates and well networked, especially connectors, whilst also engaging the sceptics, who, once on board, tend to be vocal, passionate and energised.

Marketing

How ESD is marketed is key. It requires regular, transparent promotion and updates, telling people when and why, keeping changes clearly defined and logical, and with no surprises or hidden agendas. There needs to be a mentality of ‘this is the change that is happening, how can you best help in effecting it’, so the focus is on the how not the if. In this case study, there was an urgent need to address the balance between the perceived benefits of introducing ESD and perceived costs. The process has not been ambitious enough – it needs to be visible, tangible and ubiquitous to enable people to reflect on the rationale behind the way they behave and the choices they make (Hastings, 2013; see also Porter and Kramer, 2011), and with a focus on the ends that the means are serving and the development of a lifestyle that ensures materialism and consumption are put in their rightful, secondary, place behind well-being (see, for example, Schumacher, 1993). Instilling a more internalised type of motivation to engage with ESD requires competency (refer to Barth and Rieckmann, 2012; Deci and Ryan, 1985; Quality Assurance Agency guidelines (www.qaa.ac.uk/ImprovingHigherEducation/Pages/Leading-Curriculum-Change.aspx)), an obligatory sense of responsibility to act as stewards of the planet, a vision of cohesion and autonomy, belonging and freedom similar to the concept of individuation (Kagiticibasi, 2005), underpinned by a sense of value. Successful marketing requires central coordination to maintain the overall direction, departmental coordination to ensure specific issues are addressed, and adequate resources and time allocation so people feel secure in the process and gain motivation from the security, authority and raised awareness. Once there is sufficient internal momentum, new information and behaviours are more likely to be validated, which prevents people from reverting to their old, habitual behaviours. Table 2 provides the Top Ten Tips regarding the marketing of ESD.

Table 2.

The Top Ten Tips regarding marketing ESD.

(1) Listen – put yourself in their shoes

(2) Play to strengths – easy wins; people on board

(3) Drip feed – added value with simple messages; guide forward

(4) Allow creativity – fun, energy; framing & flexibility

(5) Make bridges – like-minded people; connectors; sceptics

(6) Coordination – central/departmental; communications; demand & supply

(7) Nurture & celebrate all efforts

(8) Set tangible and achievable goals – aim small: miss small

(9) Begin with the end in mind – be patient, focused and determined

(10) Be nosy – share good practice; keep asking questions

Conclusion

The academic community needs to embrace ESD – see this as an opportunity, a niche where their community can make a difference by being the provider of teaching and learning for students as they become active contributors to society and in the workplace. The influences that people experience at university carve the path and direction for the rest of their lives. Academics need to realise the potential to reposition the curriculum so SD is integral to changes in markets, economies and globalisation in general. Their strong worldviews will be an advantage in this context, in combination with support and directions from other stakeholders and two-way interactions with their students. With a cautionary note due to the limited unrepresentative sample used in this case study, this work adds to the current understanding regarding engagement in ESD and offers opportunities for future research including longitudinal studies of sustainable lifestyles and a greater understanding of individual motivation alongside the collective dynamics.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Barth

Rieckmann

(2012) Academic staff development as a catalyst for curriculum change towards education for sustainable development: An output perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production 26: 28–36.

Blau

(1964) Exchange & Power in Social Life, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Cotton

DRE

Alcock

(2013) Commitment to environmental sustainability in the UK Student population. Studies in Higher Education 38(10): 1457–1471.

Davison

Brown

Pharo

(2014) Distributed leadership building capacity for interdisciplinary climate change teaching at four universities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 15(1): 98–110.

Deci

Ryan

(1985) Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human Behaviour. New York: . Plenum Press.

Deci

Ryan

(2000) The “what” and the “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry 11: 227–268.

Defra (2007) A framework for pro-environmental behaviours: A report by the Behaviours Unit , London: Defra.

Elton

(2003) Learning and teaching in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology 34(2): 235–236.

Ferrer-Balas

Buckland

de Mingo

(2009) Explorations on the University’s role in society for sustainable development through a systems transition approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 17: 1075–1085.

10.

Ferrer-Balas

Lozano

Huisingh

(2010) Going beyond the rhetoric: System-wide changes in universities for sustainable societies. Journal of Cleaner Production 18: 607–610.

11.

Festinger

(1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Evanston, IL: Row Peterson.

12.

Gough

Scott

(2007) Higher Education and Sustainable Development: Paradox and Possibility, London: Routledge Falmer.

13.

Goldstone

Gureckis

(2009) Collective behavior. Topics in Cognitive Science 1: 412–438.

14.

Green

(2013) Teaching (un)sustainability? University sustainability commitments and student experiences of introductory economics. Ecological Economics 94: 135–142.

15.

Haidt

Seder

Kesebir

(2008) Hive psychology, happiness and public policy. Journal of Legal Studies 37: S133–S156.

16.

Hargreaves

(2011) Practice-ing behaviour change: Applying social practice theory to pro-environmental behaviour change. Journal of Consumer Culture 11(1): 79–99.

17.

Hastings

(2013) The Marketing Matrix, London: Routledge.

18.

Hagarty

(2008) Shaping the self to sustain the other: Mapping impacts of academic identity in education for sustainability. Environmental Education Research 14: 681–692.

19.

Homans

(1961) Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

20.

Kagiticibasi

(2005) Autonomy and relatedness in cultural context: Implications for self and family. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 36(4): 403–422.

21.

Kennedy

(2009) Social optimization in the presence of cognitive local optima: Effects of social network topology. Topics in Cognitive Science 1(3): 498–522.

22.

Kiron

Kruschwitz

Haanaes

(2012) Sustainability nears a tipping point. MIT Sloan Management Review 53(2): 69–74.

23.

Koester

Eflin

Vann

(2006) Greening of the campus: A whole systems approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 14(9–11): 769–779.

24.

Lambrechts

Mulà

Ceulemans

(2013) The integration of competences for sustainable development in higher education: An analysis of bachelor programs in management. Journal of Cleaner Production 48: 65–73.

25.

Lampkin SR (2014) The impact of withdrawing a structured initiative aimed at engaging departments in sustainable activities, at a UK university. In: Leal Filho W, Brandli L, Kuznetsova O, et al. (eds) Integrative Approaches to Sustainable Development at University Level: Making the Links. Springer, pp. 321–330.

26.

Lockrey

Johnson

(2013) Designing pedagogy with emerging sustainable technologies. Journal of Cleaner Production 61: 70–79.

27.

Lozano

(2006) Incorporation and institutionalization of SD into universities: Breaking through barriers to change. Journal of Cleaner Production 14(9–11): 787–796.

28.

Lozano

Young

(2013) Assessing sustainability in university curricula: Exploring the influence of student numbers and course credits. Journal of Cleaner Production 49: 134–141.

29.

Zhang

(2013) A comparative study of education for sustainable development in one British university and one Chinese university. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 15(1): 48–62.

30.

Nisbett

Ross

(1980) Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

31.

Porter

Kramer

(2011) Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review 89(1/2): 62–77.

32.

Prochaska

DiClemente

(1983) Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: Toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 51(3): 390–395.

33.

Roberts

(2008) Starting with the staff: How swapshops can develop ESD and empower practitioners. Environmental Education Research 14(4): 423–434.

34.

Ryan

Tilbury

(2013) Flexible Pedagogies: New Pedagogical Ideas, York: The Higher Education Academy.

35.

Schumacher

(1993) Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered, London: Vintage.

36.

Stephens

Hernandez

Roman

(2008) Higher education as a change agent for sustainability in different cultures and contexts. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 9(3): 317–338.

37.

Taylor

Cocklin

Brown

(2012) Fostering environmental champions: A process to build their capacity to drive change. Journal of Environmental Management 98(1): 84–97.

38.

Vaughter

Wright

McKenzie

(2013) Greening the ivory tower: A review of educational research on sustainability in post-secondary education. Sustainability 5: 2252–2271.

39.

Watson

Lozano

Noyes

(2013) Assessing curricula contribution to sustainability more holistically: Experiences from the integration of curricula assessment and students’ perceptions at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Journal of Cleaner Production 61: 106–116.

40.

Wright

TSA

(2004) Definitions and frameworks for environmental sustainability in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 3(3): 203–220.

41.

Yuan

Zuo

Huisingh

(2013) Green universities in China – What matters? Journal of Cleaner Production 61: 36–45.