Learning for Sustainability: Considering Pathways to Transformation

Abstract

Social-ecological systems face increasing disruptions and challenges, many deriving from human actions, and learning is frequently touted as “the way out” for addressing them. Using a systematic review of 26 studies that span about 20 years and cover four continents, this article interrogates the link between learning, action, and societal transformation toward sustainability. Transformative learning theory provides the analytical framework. Studies indicated abundant instrumental learning outcomes, and substantial communicative learning, while personal transformation was less common. Individual, interpersonal, and collective sustainability action resulted from various kinds of learning, underscoring the important role that learning can play in shaping individual sustainability behavior. Instrumental learning, in particular, provided the skills and knowledge necessary for action. While study findings confirm the fundamental importance of learning, actions were largely individual and had lesser impact at the societal level.

Keywords

transformative learning theory sustainability natural resource management

Introduction

In their seminal book, Adult Education at the Crossroads, Finger and Asún (2001) argue that industrial societies must “learn their way out” of the global crises that industrial development and turbo-capitalism are wreaking. In the realm of environmental sustainability, learning at the individual and social levels has become a normative approach, through environmental education programs, public education campaigns, and natural resource governance processes that favor participatory, learning-based approaches (e.g., Boström et al., 2018; Suškevičs et al., 2018; Wals, 2011). Such approaches are favored because they address the foundational worldviews and practices that shape action and behavior (Finger & Asún, 2001; Sterling, 2010). Learning is also more democratic and emancipatory than legislation and other “command and control” approaches and is argued to be more effective and just in achieving sustainability goals (Blackmore, 2007; Diduck et al., 2015; Wals, 2011). Finally, learning-based governance approaches have the potential to mitigate the complexity, uncertainty, and conflict characteristic of sustainability problems by encouraging experimentation, innovation, and adaptability (Baird et al., 2014; Boström et al., 2018).

Researchers we have worked with, including graduate students and colleagues, have studied learning for sustainability for about 20 years through numerous applications and contexts. These studies used transformative learning theory (TLT) as a theoretical lens, because it offers a promising theoretical frame for understanding learning and promoting individual and social change necessary for action on sustainability through its focus on transformation that produces far-reaching change in learners. Furthermore, the theory was designed for adult learners, and despite its focus on classroom learning, can be applied in both formal and nonformal settings. Among others testing TLT outside the classroom (e.g., D’Amato & Krasny, 2011; Taylor et al., 2012), the scholars we considered are contributing a critical mass of such studies, in the field of sustainability generally, and particularly in natural resource and environmental management (NREM).

Purpose and Approach

In promoting learning as a “way out,” Finger and Asún (2001) advocated for evaluation and reform of adult learning processes that may not be achieving the goals they were purported to achieve. In this spirit, our purpose in bringing together insights gained through these TLT studies is to critically reflect on whether individual adult learning and personal transformation can act as a foundation for encouraging more environmentally sustainable behavior in society through both individual and social action.

Our review includes 26 studies conducted by ourselves, graduate students, and with academic colleagues, including 18 published journal articles, one dissertation, and seven master’s theses, and involving 25 researchers (Table 1). We included in our sample any studies addressing learning through TLT related to environmental sustainability completed by ourselves, associated graduate students, and studies with colleagues. Sustainability is defined broadly as promoting the flourishing of social-ecological systems and the individuals and communities within them. These studies focused on the intersection of social and ecological systems. The published studies range from 2001 to 2019, reflecting the period of this ongoing work. The coauthors worked collaboratively to summarize the study results in tabular form, detailing the learning outcomes as they relate to TLT domains, actions and implications for sustainability. We also communicated with eight randomly chosen study authors from the 18 journal articles and asked for their reflections on key learning triggers and action outcomes identified in their research. These reflections helped to shape the results and discussion below. We focus on this body of knowledge because it is the largest longitudinal collection we know of engaging TLT and its literature outside of the classroom setting, we had access to the data and researchers, and sustainability was a common focus of the research done. Studies by others were incorporated into the analysis of the data across the work with which we have been engaged.

Table 1.

Areas of Application.

Areas of application		No. of studies	Publications
Natural resource governance and community conservation	Environmental assessment processes	8	Sinclair & Diduck, 2001; Fitzpatrick Sinclair, 2003; Sinclair et al., 2008; Spaling et al., 2011; Vespa, 2013; Walker et al., 2014; Boerchers, 2016; Dennis, 2017
	Agricultural extension	3	Sims & Sinclair, 2008; Dunne, 2013; Najjar et al., 2013
	Watershed management	3	Sinclair et al., 2013; Walker et al., 2015; Almudi, 2019
	Forestry/forest conservation	2	Sinclair et al., 2011; Richardson, 2008
	Fisheries	1	Marschke & Sinclair, 2009
	Hydroelectric project planning	1	Diduck et al., 2013
	Resources management	1	Diduck et al., 2012
Individual lifestyle and experience	Sustainable food and agriculture	3	Kerton & Sinclair, 2010; Looy, 2016; Leonard, 2015
	Faith-based development and environmental NGO workers	2	Moyer et al., 2014; Moyer & Sinclair, 2016
	Personal sustainable clothing practices	2	Moyer et al., 2016; Quinn & Sinclair, 2016
Total		26

Note. NGO = nongovernmental organization.

Table 1 captures the areas of field application of the studies. Studies in the natural resource governance and community conservation category investigated participants’ learning within structured NREM programs. Many of these considered new forms of governance in resource management contexts (e.g., community forestry, participatory irrigation management, strategic environmental assessment) as potential platforms of learning, as well as decision making about projects that gathered people in potentially deliberative forums where learning could occur. They include grassroots conservation projects facilitated by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) such as Farmer Field Schools and eco-tourism initiatives. Studies in the individual lifestyle and experience category either considered disconnected individuals learning through sustainability lifestyle choices, or individuals learning through work with NGOs on sustainability and livelihood issues. The research took place in various jurisdictions: Half of the projects were conducted in Canada, and the other half were conducted overseas in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

The studies consisted of two conceptual articles (Diduck et al., 2012; Sinclair et al., 2008) and 24 empirical studies, which were almost exclusively qualitative, involving case study designs and semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and document reviews. They ranged in size from seven to 130 participants, with a combined total of more than 900 participants and used qualitative data analysis software to identify and analyze grounded and literature-based themes.

Transformative Learning Theory

TLT considers the process of learning as individual learners evaluate and refine their perceptions, worldviews, and meanings (Mezirow, 1981, 1991, 2012) and can be applied to diverse social settings in which learning occurs (Merriam, 1993; Merriam & Caffarella, 1991). The theory identifies categories for different domains of learning: instrumental learning, concerned with learning about how the world works and how to accomplish desired ends (e.g., water management techniques); and communicative learning, which involves interpreting, understanding, and conveying meaning in social interactions, including negotiating norms and desired ends (e.g., resource conflict resolution).

Personal transformation occurs when a learner evaluates the outcomes of instrumental and communicative learning, reaching a deep level of assumptions and understandings, and experiences a tangible, profound change in their perception of self and the world. Ideally, personal transformation should result in changed behavior, though this does not always occur (Cranton, 2006; Mezirow, 1991). The primary learning processes described by the theory are rational discourse and critical reflection. Through these mechanisms, assumptions and beliefs are questioned and improved so they can be applied more effectively to future action (Mezirow, 1991, 2012).

TLT holds a prominent position within adult learning studies (Finger & Asún, 2001; Taylor, 2007) and is gaining recognition within the learning for sustainability discourse (e.g., Boström et al., 2018; D’Amato & Krasny, 2011; Taylor et al., 2012). Despite its stature, it remains a theory-in-progress and continues to be reenvisioned (e.g., Cranton & Taylor, 2012; Dirkx et al., 2006; Taylor, 2007; Taylor & Cranton, 2013). The theory’s treatment of the link between learning and action, which largely takes for granted the process through which individual transformation interacts with societal change (Collard & Law, 1989; Cranton, 2006; Finger & Asún, 2001; Taylor & Snyder, 2012), is an enduring gap and a fundamental link in achieving sustainability. We also considered the interactions between instrumental and communicative learning, which are often theorized in a simpler relationship than we found in the field (Hart, 1990).

Learning for Sustainability

The tables that follow outline selected results of the studies, highlighting documented learning and action outcomes. The studies used various themes to describe learning outcomes within each of the learning domains, most of which were grounded in the individual studies’ data. Some later studies used themes from earlier studies, while others created their own categorization schemes. In the tables that follow, we have included themes that generated the most attention from respondents and provided descriptive examples to illustrate the data collected. Many of these examples are cross-cutting and appear in more than one study. Because different studies used different sets of themes, some themes have been combined and renamed. For example, some researchers had separate themes for obtaining “information,” “skills,” and “knowledge,” and others combined them as we have done.

Table 2 documents the instrumental outcomes for individual learners, which are numerous given the sustainability/natural resources and environmental management contexts of the research. The examples illustrating the themes were selected to demonstrate the breadth of instrumental learning outcomes from the studies but do not capture all instrumental learning outcomes for all research participants.

Table 2.

Instrumental Learning Outcomes.

Instrumental learning themes	Examples
Scientific, technical, and ecological knowledge and skills	General environmental awareness/knowledge/appreciationForests, forest species, and forest ecologySpecies of crops ideally suited to local climateUnderstanding the potential impacts of a resource/development projectHarnessing new resources from waste through recovery and recyclingImplementing flood and erosion control through drainage restorationComposting food waste as organic manure in crop cultivationUnderstanding environmental management systems and the remediation of mine impactsRelationship between agricultural practices and watershed managementWater conservation and management techniquesClothing construction: knitting, sewing, crocheting, weavingFarming techniques: conservation agriculture, bee keeping, horticultureBirding research techniques: measuring biometrics; attaching leg bands
Social and economic knowledge and skills	Trade and market economies of scaleConsequences of globalization on clothing productionEffects of consumerismMining economics and the local meaning of sustainabilitySkills for purchasing sustainable apparel and buying localThe benefits of organic agriculture, especially during periods of climatic stress
Legal, administrative, and political procedures and strategies	Applicable resource management laws (e.g., fishing, forest harvest)Organic certification requirementsProtest action to register dissatisfactionEnvironmental legislation (e.g., environmental assessment)Political will and political cycle for initiating actionMeaningful consultation and participation
Cause and effect relationships	Connection between deforestation and aridityBenefits of cooperation for water managementRelationship between forest degradation and climate changeConnection between extreme weather, climate change, and agricultural practices
Task-oriented problem solving	Farmers adapting projects to suit their needsDeveloping a management plan and resolving implementation conflicts in participatory irrigation managementImportance of group formation for securing project fundingActions for adapting to floods and climate variability
Risks and impacts	Risk of industrial agriculture to personal healthRisks of resource development projectsPositive impacts of technical training and employmentImpacts of the fashion industry
Sharing ideas/community work	Ways of teaching and information diffusionRelating to others and managing groupsProject design, planning, and evaluationDoing community work as a church organizationEffectiveness of leading by example

The instrumental learning domain revealed multiple outcomes for participants in the 24 empirical studies. Participants learned specific knowledge and skills across a variety of sustainability and natural resource management areas, as illustrated in selected quotes from interviews and focus groups:

. . . a rotational water delivery technique was introduced to farmers in IWUG [integrated water user group] meetings and farmers learned to make decisions about water delivery patterns deliberately. Ditch drainage and ditch excavation techniques were commonly exchanged between public irrigation staff and farmers at IWUG meetings, and farmers learned to maintain ditches properly (Sinclair et al., 2013, p. 60).

. . . participants developed a familiarity with issues related to sustainability and clothing. Knowledge of the negative aspects of clothing included an awareness of workers’ rights violations (e.g., unsafe work conditions, poor pay), cotton production practices (e.g., excessive use of pesticides, farmer suicides), the distance clothing travels, and the wide use of chemicals in textile production (Quinn & Sinclair, 2016, p. 205).

Many of the customers of the TMF CSA [Community Supported Agriculture] were new to eating organic food [. . .]. Therefore, many of them learned a lot about the administration of the CSA, and the standards related to organic farming (Kerton & Sinclair, 2010, p. 407).

The following quotes illustrate examples in some of the theme areas.

Scientific, technical, and ecological knowledge and skills:

We learned about conserving by planting trees so that we can easily get either firewood or money after selling. We were taught to plant the trees on the shambas and by that part, we can conserve [the forest] (Walker et al., 2014, p. 5).

Learning about soil fertility was related to the usage of artificial and organic fertilizers. The learning that participants stressed as being the most useful was related to adding manure to planting holes, which many participants mentioned had increased their yields (Najjar et al., 2012, p. 469).

Cause and effect relationships:

I see the results. I get more and more excited that planting with organic fertilizer can have a good result, and we can eat what we harvest with no chemicals. I’m more and more convinced because each day I see that the earth is improving, that the hill has better quality crop (Sims & Sinclair, 2008, p. 157).

Sharing ideas/community work:

I’ve learnt more on how to work with communities [. . .]. What brings them together, the cohesion, that group approach. So it has really forced me to go into serious studies to understand groups. How do you work with groups? How do they behave (Moyer et al., 2014, pp. 364-65)?

In most studies, instrumental learning outcomes were the most frequent. The prominence of instrumental learning is not surprising within the contexts of these studies, given that sustainability work was often new, whether people were learning different agricultural practices, understanding links between deforestation and climate change, or learning about how environmental assessments work. In many cases, these skills and knowledge were essential on-ramps to participation in sustainability/NREM processes and activities.

Table 3 reveals the communicative learning outcomes documented across the studies. The table summarizes examples of the learning outcomes documented and illustrates the breadth of these outcomes but is not an enumeration of all the communicative learning outcomes found.

Table 3.

Communicative Learning Outcomes.

Communicative learning themes	Examples
One’s own values and interests	Interrelationships between farmer actions and watershed healthRealizing the importance of trees, forests, and conservationPersonal drivers for consumptionCompany relationships and appearancesUnderstanding one’s own thinking regarding community opportunitiesValue of sharing resources in times of crisis
Others’ values and interests	Farmers sharing alternative approaches with each otherRecognition of shared or differing valuesHow other companies/organizations workResource needs and use practices of neighborsUnderstanding of those living more sustainablyBusiness interests (e.g., clothing, mining)
Cultural norms/values	Questioning beliefs about gender roles in societyNavigating cross-cultural interactionsSocietal norms regarding beautyThe role of development
Cooperation and collaboration	Developing cross-cultural relationshipsDesigning group dialogue opportunities; improving interaction and cooperationImportance of community/team bonding to achieve common goals
Communication strategies and methods	Ways of sharing knowledge with othersAttending meetings is critical to good governanceImportance of information sharing to become more competent problem solversBuilding personal relationships early and sustaining them for problem solving

All 24 empirical studies revealed a fairly substantial amount of communicative learning. For example, a significant number of participants reported learning outcomes related to insights into values and interests—their own and those of others—as well as cultural norms and values:

Farmers have never had a chance to know the constraints of fellow farmers. They are then concerned with only their own problems. Participating in an IWUG general meeting helps us to understand the situation of others and initiates empathy among farmers (Sinclair et al., 2013, p. 63).

I think that when someone has made the commitment to grow food organically they’ve also made the commitment to protect the land, protect the community they live in. [. . .] I think that it goes into having a deeper understanding of our relationship with the earth and our natural resources and basically it comes down to being able to responsibly manage the natural resources that you come across or that you have in your surrounding area (Kerton & Sinclair, 2010, p. 408).

I remember reading about Nike in [No Logo] and it was studying the sweatshop conditions and things and I was really horrified. Many corporations are engaged in “cultural manipulation,” and this isn’t all by chance that it came about this way. There are certain people that are trying to manipulate cultural values, because they want certain results out of it (Quinn & Sinclair, 2016, p. 207).

I don’t have anything against Hudbay at all—you need to have a very solid relationship with the mining company but you need to understand that they aren’t there for you. The only one who is there for you is you. The mining company has shareholders, stakeholders, they have an agenda of their own that involves—you are only one part of their agenda . . . and you are probably in no way the most important part (Boerchers, 2016, p. 113).

Communication strategies and methods were also a common theme as people worked together and learned from communicating with each other:

I learned the importance of sharing experiences with people from other areas. Other communities have similar problems and they may have different solutions to the problems. This is a way of exchanging ideas (Walker et al., 2014, p. 6).

I realized that it doesn’t matter if you can connect with somebody on the Internet, if you haven’t sat with them and drank tea for a while and spent some time in their community then you aren’t getting anywhere. You have to have a personal contact (Boerchers, 2016, p. 113).

Despite evidence of robust communicative learning, fewer study participants noted communicative outcomes, particularly compared with instrumental learning outcomes. This was consistent across all studies, regardless of the mix of participants or location. Given that many of the cases studied involved groups of people, this surprised us. Some studies (e.g., Almudi, 2019; Boerchers, 2016) revealed that communicative learning underpinned people’s desire to get involved and therefore led to much of the instrumental learning that followed. We discuss further below how learning in each of the domains is often intertwined.

As defined by TLT, personal transformation occurs when learning processes involve reflective evaluation and result in profound change in an individual’s framework for understanding themselves and the world (Cranton, 2006; Mezirow, 1991). Given that the motivating concern in these studies is societal transformation, these profound changes have been a particular focus. Personal transformation outcomes were identified in 15 of the studies, and Table 4 provides examples of these.

Table 4.

Personal Transformation Outcomes.

After an epiphany about the importance of food, MLOO-05 began changing what he ate, shifting to an organic and vegetarian diet. Changing his perspective and behavior about food acted as a catalyst for engaging other macro-environmental issues and participating in community organizations and activism (Kerton & Sinclair, 2010).

Over several stints working on organic farms, Sara abandoned the expectation of a 9 to 5 desk job she had grown up to expect, and shifted to a career more oriented to relationships and tangible outcomes (Looy, 2016).

James’s involvement in a community forest conservation project changed his view of the forest, leading to questioning of cultural norms, intervening in illegal forest activities, and proselytizing about the importance of the forest (Sinclair et al., 2011).

A community leader was initially in favor of a hydroelectric project near his village. After the project resulted in extensive negative impacts and he lost his home, he was personally devastated. He reversed his position on this kind of development, personally taking the blame for the damage to the community (Diduck et al., 2013).

Staff and volunteers at the Rural Service Programme in Kenya experienced profound personal development, gaining confidence and broadened perspectives of themselves and their community through the training and empowerment they received to deliver community development projects (Moyer et al., 2014).

Through participation in a strategic environmental assessment for the Kenya Coastal Development Project, members of the Watha community learned that they could have a voice and an impact in decision-making processes, increasing their cultural pride as a minority ethnic group, and increasing their enthusiasm for future participation in similar processes (Walker et al., 2014).

Learning about the link between his Christian faith and his passion for wildlife increased and deepened Henry’s commitment to protecting habitat because he now sees his environmental work as a way of serving God (Moyer et al., 2014).

Both the literature and our field experience indicate that personal transformation outcomes are more difficult to identify consistently than other types of learning (Cranton & Taylor, 2012; Hoggan, 2016). Personal transformations also occur less frequently than other kinds of learning. Yet, as the quotations above highlight, there were instances of transformation within about two thirds of the studies, and across different types of cases. Transformation was most evident in individual lifestyle and experience cases (e.g., Kerton & Sinclair, 2010; Leonard, 2015; Quinn & Sinclair, 2016) but also appeared in natural resource governance (e.g., Dennis, 2017; Walker et al., 2014) and community conservation (e.g., Sims & Sinclair, 2008; Sinclair et al., 2011).

Sixteen of the studies considered explored action data derived from a variety of instrumental, communicative, and transformative learning outcomes. Moyer et al. (2016) examined action the most systematically, distinguishing between three types of social action:

Individual action: “a single person acting on something they learned. Although this type of social action is executed by individuals, they are not necessarily acting in isolation” (Moyer et al., 2016, p. 317-318).

Interpersonal action: “a single person acting in a way that transfers what he or she had learned to other people” (Moyer et al., 2016, p. 318).

Collective action: “action taken by groups of people applying learning together” (Moyer et al., 2016 p. 319-320).

Table 5 provides examples from the studies considered, applying Moyer et al.’s (2016) analytical categories.

Table 5.

Action Outcomes.

Type of action	Examples of action outcomes
Individual action	Participating in bird monitoring activitiesPlanting climate appropriate trees and cropsEngaging in sustainable lifestyle activities (e.g., water conservation, buying sustainable apparel, energy conservation)Modifying travel behaviorFood choices (e.g., reducing/eliminating meat, dumpster diving)Life choices (e.g., more time outdoors)Confronting those involved in illegal activities related to resource use
Interpersonal action	Informing/sharing informally with others (e.g., sustainable practices, company profiles, organic food options)Challenging family and friends to question cultural norms, such as gendered practicesTeaching others through NGO programs (e.g., appropriate technology; tree planting techniques; bird banding)Educating neighbors/friends that could not participate in trainings (e.g., cropping, composting, alternative farm practices)
Collective action	Community organization (e.g., community cooperatives, urban green team, master composting, farmer field schools)Advocacy and awareness raising through mobilized networks: protesting consumerism in malls; letter writing campaigns; farmers and eaters pushing government for fewer barriers to small-scale farms, boycotting producers, environmental and social justice awareness campaignsSustainable fashion shows, clothing swapsBuilding brooder stoves in communityShared labor (e.g., Fruit Share picking; cooperative gardening)

Note. NGO = nongovernmental organization.

Individual action was the most common action outcome in most studies. This result is not surprising given the abundance of instrumental learning outcomes related to information and skills across the studies, which naturally lead to the types of action described in the following quotes:

KCDP [Kenya Coastal Development Project] participants primarily demonstrated individual action by putting newly acquired information and skills into practice. “We didn’t consider it before. After the meetings, we knew the importance of planting trees on our shamba and how it can change our lives . . . We have planted many Casuarina. And we are also planting beans and cowpeas” (Walker et al., 2014, p. 6).

[T]he ICE [Instituto Cotsarricense de Electricidad] WMAP [Watershed Management Agricultural Program] resulted in action through farmers adopting sustainable farming practices that protect the watershed. Learning has resulted in changes in the condition of mind and also in individual and social action. This has promoted sustainable development, such as farmers and ICE taking a more purposeful role in protecting the watershed by reducing manure and other contaminants from getting into the rivers (Sims & Sinclair, 2008, p. 116).

Interpersonal action was also common across numerous studies, involving sharing new skills, information, and ideas with others. For example:

As a local leader committed to education, James saw the effect that conservation organisations like ASSETS [Arabuko-Sokoke Schools and Eco-Tourism Scheme] were having on schools and students in his area and decided to take action. An ASSETS parent himself and a participant in many local organisations, James took up the cause of forest conservation and began spreading the word. When he became aware of local residents involved in illegal activities in the forest he, along with one or two friends, began visiting these residents to tell them about the benefits of the forest and warn them of the consequences of being caught poaching (Sinclair et al., 2011, p. 48).

An emerging pattern among various studies was participants’ emphasis on sharing their learning and being a model for others as an important response to learning. For instance:

Among Kenyan participants, this desire to be a model appeared to be instigated by a strong sense of service to the community, by the awareness that one cannot teach something one does not do oneself, and an evangelistic zeal to share knowledge in the community. There was an assumed imperative that those who have gained learning and knowledge should share it with others. There was also a sense of responsibility as staff within organizations that served the community to extend this role beyond their work hours (Moyer et al., 2016, p. 319).

Collective action was the least common type of action across the studies but was still evident. It took the form of communal organizing, political advocacy, and groups working on projects together:

After being threatened by the government of Manitoba over food safety practices, OB Farm invited their “food community” to come work on the farm, to butcher a pig together, and to discuss what their collective approach would be to advocate for their right to an alternative food system. The food community used this time to plan how they would engage the Province of Manitoba, including the creation of a phone chain to mobilize the food community to come to the farm if the farm was raided. The community wrote letters to their local MLAs [Members of the Legislative Assembly], found legal assistance, and discussed potential long-term solutions that would allow them to continue to directly buy food from the farm (Leonard, 2015, p. 85–86).

Building on earlier studies that reflected on barriers to action, Moyer et al. (2016) formally explored barriers to action across two cases. They identified seven barriers that prevented study participants from acting on what they had learned:

Situational barriers: for example, limited finances (Walker et al., 2015)

Personal/psychological barriers: for example, self-esteem and self-image (Almudi, 2019)

Interpersonal barriers: for example, pressure from family to meet social norms

Lack of knowledge and skills (Dennis, 2017)

Sociocultural barriers: for example, traditions, customs, and cultural taboos (Najjar et al., 2013)

The human-built environment: for example, dearth of retailers supplying sustainable products

The Biophysical Environment: for example, climate and weather (Almudi, 2019)

Review of the 14 studies that addressed barriers confirms this list, as indicated by the additional citations above. This review also revealed the necessity of adding barriers related to governance at various levels, including factors limiting engagement within environmental governance processes (e.g., Sims & Sinclair, 2008; Walker et al., 2014) and government policy and regulation that constrain sustainability action (e.g., Dennis, 2017; Leonard, 2015).

Discussion

The summary of data presented above demonstrates the wide range of learning the studies documented across a variety of settings, including environmental assessment processes, community conservation projects, and individual sustainable lifestyle initiatives. Learning included gaining new information and knowledge, developing skills, self-reflection that helped align actions with values, personal empowerment, and profound transformation in worldview and commitment to sustainability principles.

Guided by the framework of TLT, researchers assumed that the most important kind of learning for sustainability would be communicative, because personal transformation is thought to emerge from communicative rather than instrumental learning. Thus, in early studies, researchers reported on the abundant instrumental learning outcomes they found with a degree of disappointment. If most of the study participants were mainly learning instrumentally, researchers were concerned that learning would not result in the profound transformation that sustainability requires. As this trend continued, however, later researchers recognized the fundamental necessity of instrumental learning in building a sustainable society as well as the important relationship of such learning to other domains. Understanding how social-ecological systems work helps individuals make sound decisions, particularly, when they embrace the connections between this information and their personal lives and behavior. Similarly, developing skills helps people implement sustainable action. Furthermore, the data showed that these instrumental learning outcomes build confidence and empower learners, and this can also lead to the deep and enduring transformation that sustainability requires.

Communicative learning outcomes were evident across the studies and play an important role in creating understanding in complex, conflict-ridden situations, and developing skills necessary for participatory decision-making processes. While the two domains provided useful analytical categories for identifying and analyzing learning, researchers saw increasing evidence of complexity in their relationship. The term “domain” suggests distinct, delineated territories, but many learning outcomes among the studies expressed aspects of both domains, and the distinctions between them were difficult to disentangle (Marschke & Sinclair, 2009; Moyer & Sinclair, 2016; Quinn & Sinclair, 2016; Sims & Sinclair, 2008). While Mezirow (e.g., 2012) and other TLT proponents (e.g., Cranton 2006) do recognize an interrelationship between the domains, TLT has been criticized for creating an analytical separation between them that does not reflect their origin in Jürgen Habermas’s theory (Habermas, 1971; Hart, 1990). Taylor et al. (2012) also note how instrumental and communicative learning work in tandem and build upon each other, underscoring the value of both dimensions of learning (Moyer & Sinclair, 2016).

According to TLT, transformative learning is supposed to help individuals develop better assumptions about the world that will guide their actions more effectively (Mezirow, 2012); the focus is building good assumptions rather than the action outcomes of learning. In the classroom, teaching for particular action outcomes is considered indoctrination and therefore is contradictory to the emancipatory aims of the theory (Mezirow, 1989). In the sustainability context however, action outcomes that arise from learning are fundamental. The summarized data highlight the complexity of the relationship between learning and action. Learning can lead to action at the individual, interpersonal, and collective levels. Action at the individual level was more common, often manifested as acting on learned skills or information in the participant’s work or personal life. This learning was shared through interpersonal action, and less frequently, applied as a collective. At the same time, learning is not necessary for action to occur. People may act because legislation forced them, or a respected authority directed them. In particular, profound personal transformation is not necessary for sustainability action. Other types of learning can lead to (and are necessary for) action. For example, as described above, instrumental learning provides skills that enable and empower people to act (Wynes & Nicholas, 2017). These actions may be small, such as one farmer changing their methods, but many increments of small changes do affect society. Thus, while personal transformation plays an important role, it is not the sole route to personal and societal behavior change.

Conversely, learning and personal transformation does not necessarily lead to action, because a variety of barriers may prevent it (Boström et al., 2018; Mezirow, 1989). As outlined above, a wide range of barriers were identified across the studies. When situational, social, or environmental barriers exist, people will generally choose to change their behavior only if necessary actions require little cost or effort. Even when people understand and accept correct information, there is often a disconnect between their attitudes and their actions (Pezzullo & Cox, 2018). This is where communicative learning and personal transformation become important—to help people develop the level of commitment that brings change in their behavior (Sterling, 2010). These disconnects between learning and behavior also underscore the importance of collective action, which can empower people to behave counter to societal norms, build a sense of solidarity, support, and accountability in community, and work toward transforming societal barriers to sustainable ways of behaving.

The contexts in which the researchers conducted their studies have helped contribute unique insights to our learning reflections. Studies were conducted across four continents, and in many cases wrestled with the cultural implications of the different contexts encountered. TLT has been critiqued for its rootedness and consistent application within White, middle-class North America and its “acontextuality,” lacking a grounding of its analysis in cultural understandings (e.g., Taylor, 2007). These studies provide a unique cross-cultural window on the theory. For instance, Taylor and Snyder (2012) identify Sims and Sinclair (2008) as one of few studies that begins to identify what in the learning process is culturally unique and what is universal in their Costa Rican study. As noted in the tables of learning outcomes and transformations above, other studies also considered cross-cultural implications and start to reveal that the theory does have application in other contexts. Furthermore, learning outcomes will be affected by the cultural context, such as degree of comfort with deliberative dialogue.

The studies also included both nonformal (e.g., farmer field schools) and informal (e.g., interpersonal sharing) learning contexts, applying a formal learning theory outside the classroom. In these contexts, interpersonal interactions, through sharing information and providing mutual support, were important components of the learning process. These non/informal contexts highlighted that learning in life is an ongoing, cyclical process. Profound learning experiences may happen in one sudden epiphany or through many small increments. Researchers only get a snapshot of the study participants’ lives and catch people at different points in the learning process. Sometimes we see what may become a profound personal transformation, but it is not there yet.

Conclusion

Considering the data presented across the studies, it is evident that individual adult learning and personal transformation can act as a foundation for encouraging environmentally sustainable behavior. The many examples of instrumental and communicative learning, the resulting (though fewer) personal transformations, and concrete action outcomes highlight this, as does each of the individual studies. Contentions in the literature about the importance of learning to sustainability outcomes (e.g., Boström et al., 2018; Suškevičs et al., 2018; Wals, 2011) are robustly supported by these studies. Such learning is taking place in diverse settings and is directed toward a wide range of personal, local, national, and even international sustainability issues and actions. This further underscores the importance of recognizing the power of learning when designing initiatives, whether educational or governance related, and of capturing this potential in the planning phases, using, for example, the ideal conditions of learning (Mezirow, 1991; Sinclair & Diduck, 2001).

While we feel that the learning outcomes we documented reveal learning as a foundation for sustainability action, we are less confident about “learning our way out” (Finger & Asún, 2001), at least in the shorter term. The data show that adult learning can be part of, and an important outcome of, resource and environmental management initiatives aimed at sustainability and that sometimes these can lead to profound change within the learner. The data also reveal how different types of learning (e.g., instrumental, communicative) play distinct roles in motivating sustainable behavior and supporting individuals in enacting such behavior. However, much of the instrumental and even communicative learning and perspective transformation that occurred resulted in actions that seem to satisfy only very basic aspects of sustainability (e.g., learning how to compost, buying organic, how to conserve soil). Learning and action that would transform the unsustainable pillars within society were much less evident, though documenting the degree to which individual or collective action made societal level impacts was not the primary focus of these studies.

Finger and Asún (2001) and other sustainability learning proponents (e.g., Wals, 2011) question the assumption that simply more learning is the solution to building a sustainable society and argue that a more strategic approach to learning is required. Based on the insights of these studies, we suggest that in building a more strategic approach, we need a better understanding of how learning at the worldview, value, and attitude level is translated into action. An important component of this is assessing barriers to action and overcoming them. In contrast to the approaches described in the majority the studies, perhaps we need to look further at instances where societal change has successfully occurred and investigate the role that learning played in those processes, to better understand how individual learning “scales up” to the societal level.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank all the communities that participated in these projects, the collaborating researchers for their contributions to this work, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council for providing funding. Special thanks to Morrissa Boerchers and Justine Backer for assistance in compiling data from the reviewed studies.

Authors’ Note

The following are the related oral presentations:

Sinclair, J., Moyer, J. M., & Hostetler, G. (2019, February 6-8). Recognizing the potential for and of transformative learning through existing resource and environmental governance systems. [Paper presentation]. Leverage Points: International conference on sustainability research and transformation. Lüneburg, Germany.

Moyer, J. M., & Sinclair, J. A. (2017, June 19-22). Transformative learning theory in the field: Considering individual learning through natural resource and environmental management [Panel presentation]. The International Symposium on Society and Resource Management, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.

Moyer, J. M., & Sinclair, J. A. (2016, May 30-June 4). Transformative learning theory in the field: Considering individual learning through natural resource and environmental management [Paper presentation]. Canadian Association of Geographers. Dalhousie University and St. Mary’s University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

ORCID iD

Joanne M. Moyer

Author Biographies

Joanne M. Moyer is an assistant professor of environmental studies and geography at The King’s University in Edmonton, Alberta. She studies learning for sustainability and the intersection of faith and environmental issues, with a focus on civil society initiatives.

A. John Sinclair is a professor and director at the Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba. His main research interest focuses on community involvement and learning through processes of resource and environmental decision-making. His applied research takes him to various locations in Canada, as well as Africa and Asia.

References

Almudi

(2019). Water up to our necks: Learning and adaptation to weather variability in Brazilian Amazon floodplain communities [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Manitoba.

Baird

Plummer

Haug

Huitema

(2014). Learning effects of interactive decision-making processes for climate change adaptation. Global Environmental Change, 27(1), 51-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.019

Blackmore

(2007). What kinds of knowledge, knowing and learning are required for addressing resource dilemmas? A theoretical overview. Environmental Science & Policy, 10(6), 512-525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2007.02.007

Boerchers

(2016). Mining for sustainability: Examining the relationships among environmental assessments, mining legacy issues, and learning [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Manitoba.

Boström

Andersson

Berg

Gustafsson

Gustavsson

Hysing

Lidskog

Löfmarck

Ojala

Olsson

Singleton

B. E.

Svenberg

Uggla

Öhman

(2018). Conditions for transformative learning for sustainable development: A theoretical review and approach. Sustainability, 10(12), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124479

Collard

Law

(1989). The limits of perspective transformation: A critique of Mezirow’s theory. Adult Education Quarterly, 39(2), 99-107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001848189039002004

Cranton

(2006). Understanding and promoting transformative learning: A guide for educators of adults (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Cranton

Taylor

E. W.

(2012). Transformative learning theory: Seeking a more unified theory. In Taylor

E. W.

Cranton

(Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 3-20). Jossey-Bass.

D’Amato

L. G.

Krasny

M. E.

(2011). Outdoor adventure education: Applying transformative learning theory to understanding instrumental learning and personal growth in environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 42(4), 237-254. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2011.581313

10.

Dennis

(2017). The roles of strategic environmental assessment and learning in planning for successful community-based solid waste management in Kenya [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Manitoba.

11.

Diduck

A. P.

Pratap

Sinclair

A. J.

Deane

(2013). Perceptions of impacts, public participation, and learning in the planning, assessment and mitigation of two hydroelectric projects in Uttarakhand, India. Land Use Policy, 33(1), 170-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.01.001

12.

Diduck

A. P.

Reed

M. G.

George

(2015). Participatory approaches to resource management. In Mitchell

(Ed.), Resource and environmental management in Canada: Addressing conflict and uncertainty (5th ed., pp. 142-170). Oxford University Press.

13.

Diduck

Sinclair

A. J.

Hostetler

Fitzpatrick

(2012). Transformative learning theory, public involvement, and natural resource and environmental management. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 55(10), 1311-1330. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2011.645718

14.

Dirkx

J. M.

Mezirow

Cranton

(2006). Musings and reflections on the meaning, context, and process of transformative learning: A dialogue between John M. Dirkx and Jack Mezirow. Journal of Transformative Education, 4(2), 123-139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344606287503

15.

Dunne

(2013). Food security in the Kullu District: Perspectives, policies and learning in the transition to commercial agriculture [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Manitoba.

16.

Finger

Asún

J. M.

(2001). Adult education at the crossroads: Learning our way out. Zed Books.

17.

Fitzpatrick

Sinclair

A. J.

(2003). Learning through public involvement in environmental assessment hearings. Journal of Environmental Management, 67(2), 161-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4797(02)00204-9

18.

Habermas

(1971). Knowledge and human interests ( Shapiro

J. J.

, Trans.). Beacon Press.

19.

Hart

(1990). Critical theory and beyond: Further perspectives on emancipatory education. Adult Education Quarterly, 40(3), 125-138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001848190040003001

20.

Hoggan

C. D.

(2016). Transformative learning as a metatheory: Definition, criteria, and typology. Adult Education Quarterly, 66(1), 57-75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713615611216

21.

Kerton

Sinclair

A. J.

(2010). Buying local organic food: A pathway to transformative learning. Agriculture and Human Values, 27(4), 401-413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-009-9233-6

22.

Leonard

(2015). Back-to-the-landers and the emergence of a peasant paradigm in Manitoba [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Manitoba.

23.

Looy

(2016). Action for sustainability through community gardening: The role of adult learning [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Manitoba.

24.

Marschke

Sinclair

A. J.

(2009). Learning for sustainability: Participatory resource management in Cambodian fishing villages. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(1), 206-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.08.012

25.

Merriam

S. B.

(1993). Adult learning: Where have we come from? Where are we headed? New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 1993(57), 5-14. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.36719935703

26.

Merriam

S. B.

Caffarella

R. S.

(1991). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide. Jossey-Bass.

27.

Mezirow

(1981). A critical theory of adult learning and education. Adult Education, 32(1), 3-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/074171368103200101

28.

Mezirow

(1989). Transformation theory and social action: A response to Collard and Law. Adult Education Quarterly, 39(3), 169-175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001848189039003005

29.

Mezirow

(1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass.

30.

Mezirow

(2012). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In Taylor

E. W.

Cranton

(Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 73-95). Jossey-Bass.

31.

Moyer

J. M.

Sinclair

A. J.

(2016). Stoking the dialogue on the domains of transformative learning theory. Adult Education Quarterly, 66(1), 39-56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713615610625

32.

Moyer

J. M.

Sinclair

A. J.

Diduck

A. P.

(2014). Learning for sustainability among faith-based organizations in Kenya. Environmental Management, 54(2), 360-372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0289-8

33.

Moyer

J. M.

Sinclair

A. J.

Quinn

(2016). Transitioning to a more sustainable society: Unpacking the role of the learning-action nexus. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 35(3), 313-329. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2016.1174746

34.

Najjar

Spaling

Sinclair

A. J.

(2013). Learning about sustainability and gender through Farmer Field Schools in the Taita Hills, Kenya. International Journal of Education and Development, 33(5), 466-475.

35.

Pezzullo

P. C.

Cox

(2018). Environmental communication and the public sphere (5th ed.). Sage.

36.

Quinn

L. J.

Sinclair

A. J.

(2016). Undressing transformative learning: The roles of instrumental and communicative learning in the shift to clothing sustainability. Adult Education Quarterly, 66(3), 199-218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713616640881

37.

Richardson

(2008). A gendered perspective of learning and representation in forest management advisory committees in Canada [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Manitoba.

38.

Sims

Sinclair

A. J.

(2008). Learning through participatory resource management programmes: Case studies from Costa Rica. Adult Education Quarterly, 58(2), 151-168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713607309802

39.

Sinclair

A. J.

Collins

S. A.

Spaling

(2011). The role of participant learning in community conservation in the Arabuko-Sokoke Forest, Kenya. Conservation and Society, 9(1), 42-53. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.79187

40.

Sinclair

A. J.

Diduck

A. P.

(2001). Public involvement in EA in Canada: A transformative learning perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 21(2), 113-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(00)00076-7

41.

Sinclair

A. J.

Diduck

A. P.

Fitzpatrick

(2008). Conceptualizing learning for sustainability through environmental assessment: Critical reflections on 15 years of research. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28(7), 415-428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2007.11.001

42.

Sinclair

A. J.

Kumnerdpet

Moyer

J. M.

(2013). Learning sustainable water practices through participatory irrigation management in Thailand. Natural Resources Forum, 37(1), 55-66. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12012

43.

Spaling

Montes

Sinclair

(2011). Best practices for promoting participation and learning for sustainability: Lessons from community-based environmental assessment in Kenya and Tanzania. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 13(3), 343-366. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333211003924

44.

Sterling

(2010). Learning for resilience, or the resilient learner? Towards a necessary reconciliation in a paradigm of sustainable education. Environmental Education Research, 16(5-6), 511-528. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2010.505427

45.

Suškevičs

Hahn

Rodela

Macura

Pahl-Wostl

(2018). Learning for social-ecological change: A qualitative review of outcomes across empirical literature in natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 61(7), 1085-1112. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1339594

46.

Taylor

E. W.

(2007). An update of transformative learning theory: A critical review of the empirical research (1999–2005). International Journal of Lifelong Education, 26(2), 173-191. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370701219475

47.

Taylor

E. W.

Cranton

(2013). A theory in progress? European Journal for Research on the Education and Learning of Adults, 4(1), 33-47. https://doi.org/10.3384/rela.2000-7426.rela5000

48.

Taylor

E. W.

Duveskog

Friis-Hansen

(2012). Fostering transformative learning in non-formal settings: Farmer-field schools in East Africa. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 31(6), 725-742. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2012.713035

49.

Taylor

E. W.

Snyder

M. J.

(2012). A critical review of research on transformative learning theory 2006–2010. In Taylor

E. W.

Cranton

(Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 37-55). Jossey-Bass.

50.

Vespa

(2013). The Western Newfoundland and Labrador offshore area strategic environmental assessment: Public participation and learning [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Manitoba.

51.

Wals

A. E. J.

(2011). Learning our way to sustainability. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 5(2), 177-186. https://doi.org/10.1177/097340821100500208

52.

Walker

Sinclair

A. J.

Kumnerdpet

(2015). Learning through participation in joint management committee for reservoir-level irrigation governance in Thailand. International Journal of Water Governance, 3, 17-36. https://doi.org/10.7564/14-IJWG72

53.

Walker

Sinclair

A. J.

Spaling

(2014, February). Public participation in and learning through strategic environmental assessment in Kenya. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 45, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.10.003

54.

Wynes

Nicholas

K. A.

(2017). The climate mitigation gap: Education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions. Environmental Research Letters, 12(7), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541