Abstract
Despite mounting evidence of global environmental stress, many educationalists appear to be discounting warnings of ecological collapse from scientists, futurists and community leaders. One way of promoting sustainability awareness may be to combine cognitive reasoning with emotional awareness. This article considers the complex dynamics relating to attitudinal and behavioural institutional change by exploring the impact of a large-scale exhibition called ‘Whole Earth?’ on the staff and students at a UK university over a 15-month period. The exhibition contained a wide range of powerful visual images and drew on a famous protest song to frame its wider message. Although there were a variety of responses, the exhibition had the overall effect of raising the profile of sustainability across the university. Could initiatives of this kind, which are open-ended in character and which harness the arts to engender an emotional response, offer a model which could be used more widely?
Introduction
Developing sustainability and environmental awareness in higher education institutions is no easy matter. Tutors and managers have to respond to multiple agendas relating to teaching and professional practice, and often find that they need to balance conflicting demands. Issues such as recruitment, retention, inclusion and employability tend to be high on their agenda, occupy large amounts of time and command considerable resources. On an individual level, professional concerns relating to course management and development compete with the demands of research and knowledge exchange. Record-keeping and accountability add further pressures. In the climate of neoliberalism which currently pervades Western industrialized countries, universities are not only driven by a culture of compliance but they find themselves in competition with each other as they struggle to maintain their financial viability. In such circumstances, sustainability is all too often marginalized and neglected. Furthermore, those initiatives which are undertaken tend to be spasmodic and focus on single interventions as opposed to a more systematic institutional change (Holdsworth & Thomas, 2015).
Taking Account Of The Complex Interplay Between The Different People And Communities That Make Up A University And Its Surrounding Environment Is A Useful Way To Begin To Understand How To Promote Sustainability Awareness. However, It Would Be NaïVe To Think That Simply Communicating Information About Planetary Stress And The Urgent Need To Address Current Issues Will Lead To Curriculum Innovation On Its Own. Zajonc (1980) Is One Of A Number Of Researchers Who Has Found That Exposure To Images Appears To Have A Greater Impact On Behaviour Than Abstract Or Technical Information. It Is Argued That Emotional Reactions To Stimuli May Be Developed Prior To Cognition, And That Emotions Guide The Way We Process And Assess Information. Research Also Indicates The Importance Of Moral Or Social Responsibility In Decision-Making, So That Action May Be Sustained (Leiserowitz, 2006; Weber, 2010). The Important Conclusion For Educators, Scientists, Politicians, Decision Makers And Others Is That ‘simply providing more accurate and detailed information, while important, is not sufficient to generate appropriate public concern for some risks or to allay public fears about others’ (Leiserowitz, 2006, p. 47).
Images And Emotions
The idea that sustainability is about feelings as well as about information suggests that it might be constructive to approach it in multiple ways. The visual arts, dance, drama, music, religion and storytelling are time-honoured methods of communicating ideas and touching people in a manner which is often profoundly moving. The psychiatrist Iain McGilchrist makes the point that music and the arts are deep and ancient ways of constructing meaning, and they brought us together before even language existed. Could it be, he speculates, that they might now ‘prove effective in regenerating commonality, avoiding the need for words that have been devalued, or for which we have become too cynical?’ (2009, p. 548).
One medium which has a particularly impressive record of changing public opinion is photography. A single photograph can get to the heart of complex issues and communicate messages which touch people in a uniquely powerful way. The image of five desperate children fleeing a napalm attack in 1972, for example, crystallized the grim injustices of the Vietnam War and sparked worldwide protests. More recently, the scenes of fragile boats packed with seemingly impossible numbers of refugees adrift in the Mediterranean Sea proved every bit as eloquent as and significantly more powerful than many news reports. Historically, it was the images of the Earth from space transmitted at the time of the first moon landings in the 1960s which marked the early beginnings of global environmental consciousness. Today, satellite images of burning rainforests and shrinking ice caps are updating our knowledge with frightening immediacy.
Sustainability education has always favoured innovative methods of teaching which have a deep and lasting impact. It favours experiential and interactive learning about real world issues, and it encourages students to reflect on their own and others’ values (HEA/QAA, 2014). Holistic learning and transformative pedagogies are also championed as ways of envisioning alternative choices and lifestyles (UNEP, 2013). Collaborative learning environments in which students and tutors feel secure to explore controversial issues and alternative modes of thinking seem particularly conducive to such endeavours.
At first sight, seeking to present scientific facts about ecology and the environment through channels which appeal to the sentiments might seem at odds with educational principles and appears to open the door to indoctrination and bias. However, the danger is largely illusory. Critical appraisal, reasoned analysis and dispassionate reflection are central to academic life, and they offer essential safeguards which are fiercely guarded. Just as novels explore universal truths about the human condition, so can the creative arts raise our sense of planetary awareness and the importance of sustainable living. There is every reason to harness this potential.
It is relatively easy to call for the use of new approaches in sustainability education, but much harder to put them into practice. The research presented in this article focuses on a single intervention: The impact of a large-scale exhibition on sustainability and learning on the staff and students at Canterbury Christ Church University (CCCU)—a medium-sized provincial university in southern England. How the exhibition raised awareness in unexpected ways across different sections of the academic community emerges from the following account and analysis.
The ‘Whole Earth?’ Exhibition
The ‘Whole Earth?’ exhibition was created in partnership with UK National Union of Students by the pioneering environmental photographer Mark Edwards, in conjunction with the writer and journalist, Lloyd Timberlake. Consisting of six banners, each 10 metres long, it covers a range of sustainability issues using dramatic photographs from around the world, and a supporting text which highlights environmental issues and possible solutions. Each thematic panel also contains a section relating to teaching and learning, with questions for both staff and students about how sustainability perspectives can be meaningfully incorporated into programmes and courses in every academic discipline.
The rationale behind ‘Whole Earth?’ is that the leaders of tomorrow are at university today, and that universities have a major leadership role in addressing environmental problems. It follows that students need to engage critically and creatively with sustainability issues within their area study during their time at university. It is also recognized that tutors and other university staff need to develop the capabilities, capacity and disposition to support such work. By providing information and asking questions, ‘Whole Earth?’ seeks to serve as a provocation which will raise awareness of environmental thinking and sustainability issues. It is particularly timely given the impetus given to sustainability following the adoption of the United Nations of the Sustainability Development Goals (2015–2030) by nearly every country in the world, and the moves to implement them in higher education.
The opening panels of ‘Whole Earth?’ explore a protest song, Hard Rain, by the acclaimed singer and poet, Bob Dylan, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2016. Although the lyrics were written in the 1960s at the time of the Cuban missile crisis, they bring alive the challenges of the twenty-first century with extraordinary prescience. The subtitle of the exhibition ‘Aligning Human and Natural Systems’ neatly encapsulates its key message. At the current moment, as we move towards the middle decades of the twenty-first century, we urgently need to find ways of living in harmony with our surroundings and the planet which supports us. Lasting change will require new and imaginative thinking. Many of the technologies and lifestyle approaches needed for sustainable living are already available or appear to be imminent. What is lacking is the leadership from politicians and the business community, and a bedrock of public support to take difficult, long-term decisions to underpin the future security for us all.
‘Whole Earth?’ was launched at the Eden Project in Cornwall, UK, and at around 20 universities across Europe in autumn 2015. Each of these first phase universities was then encouraged to send their banners to a partner institution in Africa, Asia or South America to reach as many students as possible in the global South. At CCCU, the exhibition provided the focus for sustainability awareness throughout the academic year of 2015–2016. Initially ‘Whole Earth?’ was displayed on a lawn in the centre of the main campus on a specially erected scaffold where it was opened with a short speech and lecture by the author Michael Morpurgo (see Figure 1). It was then moved to other university campuses before being taken to South India where a two-day international symposium marked the start of a touring programme involving thousands of students. The exhibition returned to Canterbury in the summer of 2016 where it continued to provide inspiration and was featured in a sustainability conference at the end of the term.
Initial Responses To ‘Whole Earth?’
Preparations for ‘Whole Earth?’ began many months before the exhibition was launched. Staff with a specific remit for promoting sustainability within the university met together to discuss how best to maximize its impact and to raise awareness amongst a wide range of colleagues from different faculties. Further ideas were developed at an away-day for team leaders. Tutors were informed about the exhibition and were invited to consider ways of incorporating it in their academic courses and programmes. Professional staff considered how to publicize and promote what was happening. Some of the different responses are chronicled further (see Table 1).
The academic year concluded with a conference organized in conjunction with the University of Plymouth as part of a ‘catalyst’ series aimed at advancing sustainability in higher education. Around 120 delegates from universities across England and Wales engaged with seminars and lectures that were designed to offer creative and reflective spaces. The opening address, which was given in the ruins of a monastery dating back to the sixth century (St Augustine’s Abbey in Canterbury), drew parallels between the ancient monastic traditions which respected the environment and the modern need to live sustainably within planetary limits. This neatly established a framework for subsequent events, showing how it might be possible to reconcile the tension between tradition and innovation which is deeply embedded in the notion of sustainability. The presentations included sessions led by tutors from a wide range of disciplines—health, education, business studies, arts and humanities. A textile artwork was unveiled as part of the closing ceremony.
A final celebration in December rounded off these various events. Photographs, testimonies and personal reflections relating to ‘Whole Earth?’ were displayed along a timeline in the staff common room. New panels were added to timeline day by day in the style of a ‘pop-up’ advent calendar. Not only were these panels a timely reminder of the way the exhibition had spawned a range of responses, they also attracted renewed interest in their own right (see Table 1).
Whole Earth? Stimulated a Range of Unexpected Responses Involving Different Sections of the University and Discipline Areas
Research Findings
So what was the impact of the exhibition in both the shorter and the longer terms, and how effective was it in changing the attitude of staff and students? The evidence presented here comes from three main sources:
Spontaneous reflections of those who viewed the exhibition In-depth personal testimonies from staff and students who reflected on its impact, and An online staff survey conducted at the end of the academic year.
Our own observations provide an additional source of data as we regarded ourselves not as impartial observers of what happened but as active agents who contributed to giving meaning and significance to the events as they unfolded. The data was gathered over a 15-month period using a variety of methods and approaches to create a mosaic of complementary perspectives. When set against each other, these findings represent a rounded analysis which captures unexpected as well as more immediate and direct responses.
Spontaneous Responses
The initial evidence of the impact of ‘Whole Earth?’ comes from an informal assessment conducted alongside the exhibition itself. Staff and students were invited to write comments and ask questions immediately after viewing the banners on lengths of paper suspended in a yurt (traditional round tent) erected in close proximity to the exhibition (see Figure 1). These notes accumulated over a number of weeks and built up into a significant database. A total of 58 responses were assembled from different sections and groups within the university. Some feedback resulted from structured visits organized by module leaders, whereas other feedback was more personal and individual. A preliminary thematic analysis following the approach proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006) revealed four key themes: knowledge and learning, emotional impact, the need for wisdom and the need for action (see Table 2).
Initial Responses to ‘Whole Earth?’ Focused on Knowledge, Feelings, Wisdom and Action.
It is important to note that there were negative as well as positive responses expressed in these initial responses. At their most extreme, these suggest denial, hatred and lack of hope. Whilst such sentiments were minority views, they are nevertheless significant because they hint at the formidable barriers to changing deeply held attitudes and beliefs. Furthermore, given the widespread scepticism concerning environmental issues in the public at large, there are good reasons why the ‘silence’ of those who decided not to participate and offer their opinions needs to be taken into account.
Personal Testimonies
Some of those who viewed the banners made repeated visits and took notes as they studied the text and photographs. This suggested the need for a number of ad hoc in-depth interviews to find out more about their responses. Two vignettes are presented here, both of which show the deep impact that Whole Earth? had on certain individuals. The first comes from a senior manager, whilst the second comes from a student at the start of her career.
The physical presence of the ‘Whole Earth?’ exhibition, overtaking large unoccupied green spaces on the campus, provided a point at which to stop, to pause and to reflect for hundreds of people within our community. Given the competing demands of daily life, the impact of visual imagery to jolt individuals out of their comfort zone should never be underestimated. ‘Whole Earth?’ generated sparks of curiosity, conversations and discussions between strangers. For me, it raised fundamental questions about the way in which I live my life, how I enact my role and the opportunities for the university to play a leading role in raising aspirations for a sustainable future for all.
Dean of Faculty and University Pro Vice Chancellor.
So we visited the exhibition and we walked around and I thought, my God! You know there are so many things you can change. I realized the impact MY plastic, MY meat, MY waste is making to planet that is keeping me alive. What’s good is that ‘Whole Earth?’ shows what my generation—and universities—can do to bring about real change. Now I am going to campaign to make those changes.
First year business studies student.
It is significant that both the senior manager and the student who made these comments were already deeply interested in sustainability before they saw the exhibition. The senior manager had been developing her ideas over a prolonged period which included a study visit to south India to explore professional practice in different cultural settings. The student had focussed on sustainability in her assignments and previous university activities. It appears that ‘Whole Earth?’ took them further along a journey on which they had already embarked.
Online survey
To assess the impact of Whole Earth? in a more systematic way, academic staff who had engaged with the exhibition and activities related to it were invited to participate in an online survey. The survey was conducted anonymously at the end of the 2016 summer term and involved no face-to-face conversations. As so often in university life, this was an additional demand for tutors who were already extremely busy. However, 19 responses were received from colleagues in a range of roles and faculties across the university.
Analysis of the data shows that the majority of respondents had taken their students to see the exhibition as part of their teaching programme. Many tutors had used associated resources to encourage discussion about sustainability, had tried to respond to the challenges and questions relating to their specific discipline, and incorporated ideas from the exhibition in formal assessment activities. Many respondents agreed that ‘Whole Earth?’ raised important questions about what to teach students, and that it prompted viewers to think about sustainable living in new ways. While some felt it raised the profile of areas they are already addressing, others felt it alerted them to new thinking. One tutor commented, ‘It was really thought provoking…. It made me think about the way I live and the amount of waste that I produce!’
When asked about the barriers of incorporating sustainability perspectives in their programmes, the most recurring problem that emerged was lack of time, followed by apathy and negative attitudes from colleagues. Some also cited a perceived lack of institutional support, whilst others mentioned the absence of resources and materials to support their teaching. As one colleague put it, ‘Sustainability is still an ‘add-on’ and not considered part of your proper role.’ These responses suggest that communication and the cultural norms of the university remain a problem. Sustainability features as a cross-cutting theme in the university strategic framework 2015–2020 as well as in the opening sentence of the university mission statement, but it still doesn’t seem to be properly embedded at a department and programme level, and is not wholeheartedly adopted by a significant number of tutors.
Discussion
It has been argued that one of the most effective ways of promoting sustainability and instigating change in higher education is to build the capability and capacity of the academic staff (Scoffham, 2016). The evidence from our research suggests that ‘Whole Earth?’ contributed to this process. It was notable how the exhibition provided colleagues with a focus for discussion of the issues related to sustainability, and gave them the opportunity to reflect on their own experience and to share their thoughts and ideas. It also led to the formation of a number of groups that evolved spontaneously in response to circumstances. For example, colleagues worked together collaboratively in poetry and arts’ workshops made links with partner institutions (both locally and in South India), and they shared ideas amongst each other at the ‘catalyst conference’ in a spirit of generosity and collegiality. These associations represent what Wenger (1998) terms ‘communities of practice’ and they had the effect of raising the profile of sustainability not only amongst those who participated in them but across the university as a whole. Whilst the impact may be hard to quantify, the overall trend and direction of travel is much easier to discern.
The analysis also indicates that the images in the exhibition communicated to participants on an affective as well as a cognitive level. Feelings feature strongly in both the spontaneous responses and the online survey. Significantly, many tutors singled out the impact of the photographs. ‘The visual impact hit home more than words’ one of them commented. ‘The photographs caught your eye and made you stop,’ a second remarked. A third noted the importance of ‘stimulating the imagination,’ whilst several others commented more generally on the ‘quality of the presentation’.
The range and variety of responses to ‘Whole Earth?’ was particularly striking. The exhibition succeeded in appealing to very different sections of the university community (both academic and support staff), and was successful, in some cases at least, in unleashing creativity and imaginative thinking. It is tempting to speculate that there might be certain critical thresholds or tipping points which punctuate the journey towards greater institutional awareness and involvement in sustainability. Certainly those who became involved found the process empowering and developed an increased sense of agency (see Figure 2). They also transmitted their enthusiasm to their colleagues, thereby contributing to wider cultural change within the university. The number of delegates at the ‘catalyst’ conference (many of whom presented papers) indicates the scale of this impact.
One criticism of ‘Whole Earth?’ was that the images in the exhibition did not depict scenes that students and staff encounter in their everyday lives in Kent such as poverty, pollution and environmental degradation. This would have been impossible in an exhibition with an international remit, but the criticism is nevertheless well-made. People often find it difficult to connect with sustainability on a personal level. Failing to appreciate its relevance can lead to feelings of alienation and can trigger sceptical and hostile responses.
Negative sentiments towards Whole Earth? were expressed in both the spontaneous responses and the online survey. For example, one tutor criticized the exhibition as being ‘oversold’ and ‘no more than a load of posters on some scaffolding’. ‘I hardly knew it was there’ said a second. ‘A waste of time and money’ declared a third. Such sentiments need further investigation to establish if they are surface level or deeply held responses. It hardly seems credible, for example, to overlook a display which occupies an entire courtyard in the centre of the main university campus for many months. Equally, complaining about the time and money it required may well mask deeper hostility to environmental issues in general.
Another question that arose is how those who had seen the exhibition might take action to address the issues they had just learnt about. It is easy to feel overwhelmed and powerless in the face of global issues and this can have a negative impact unless carefully handled. The fact that it is impossible to know what effect our individual actions will have on people and places that are distant in both time and space compounds the problem. However, it is important to remember that Whole Earth? also invited viewers to make immediate responses. It asked them to consider how well their courses align with current environmental issues, and it was punctuated by challenges which invited staff and students to formulate responses based on their own experience and expertise. Respondents from a variety of disciplines ranging from criminology to early childhood took this message strongly on board, others discarded it. Such diversity was only to be expected.
One of the other features of ‘Whole Earth?’ is that it provided a shared experience for those who viewed it, and subsequent opportunities to exchange and develop ideas. Olivos and Clayton (2017) highlight how the social environment mediates the formation of individual environmental identity. We suggest that, in a similar way, the experience of viewing the exhibition in the company of lecturers and peers affected students’ understanding of what it meant and influenced the way they conceptualize their personal relationship with environmental issues. Although we cannot account for the origins of the ideas expressed in individual responses, the positive sentiments which many of them expressed may well reflect elements of a new collective identity based on shared values and a sense of conviction (see Figure 3).
Research suggests that values guide our ecological world view (Steg at al. 2014; Stern, 2000). In turn these values influence the information we detect, the significance we attribute to it and the way we react to specific situations. The feedback we received from staff and students, thus, reflects a dialogue between each person’s personal values and beliefs, and the values and stimulus encapsulated in the exhibition. The personal testimonies of the senior manager and first year student show that when values align, the impact can be extremely powerful. On the other hand, in situations where they conflict, the result can be hostility, apathy or even malicious scepticism.
Finally, our analysis indicates how an exhibition and related arts events have the potential to promote interdisciplinary teaching and to raise awareness about sustainability issues through connecting information and creating space for emotional responses. Some years ago, Iozzi argued that the emotions are the ‘gateway’ to learning and that success in promoting the facts about environmental issues would be achieved more easily if ‘greater emphasis was placed on the affective domain’ (1989, p. 3). Interestingly, Iozzi also recognized that dealing with emotions might offer great challenges to educators, and he emphasized the need to focus teaching on developing positive environmental attitudes and feelings, at all levels of education. Such considerations chime with our own experience of exhibiting and using ‘Whole Earth?’ which tapped into the existing enthusiasms, beliefs and values of those who viewed it.
There is nothing particularly novel about using an exhibition as a catalyst to promote learning and disseminate ideas. What is much more unusual is that ‘Whole Earth?’ was physically extremely large; it was displayed for a considerable period of time and it was framed by a protest song designed to evoke original and imaginative responses. Even more significantly, the photographs conveyed powerful and sometimes disturbed messages that provided an unusual but powerful entry point to learning. The analysis shows that some of those who viewed the exhibition were deeply affected by it, that it succeeded in appealing to many different disciplines and aspects of the university community, and that it had multiple, unexpected consequences. Allowing events to unfold and giving colleagues the space to develop their own ideas is an important part of developing sustainability awareness. To return to the lyrics of Dylan’s song Hard Rain which frame the ‘Whole Earth?’ exhibition, we need to give people opportunities to write their own songs—‘to tell it and think it and speak it and breathe it’ in ways that they find individually meaningful.
Conclusion
Introducing sustainability perspectives into university life is a complex challenge, not least because of the traditional disciplinary boundaries which permeate higher education. As well as organizational barriers, there are also epistemological difficulties resulting from the different vocabularies that are used and the way that questions are framed (Consorte-McCrea & Newing, 2015; Cotton & Winter, 2010). One of the achievements of the ‘Whole Earth?’ exhibition is that it served to bridge these dichotomies, illustrating how real world problems may be presented in an integrated, multi-disciplinary way within a higher education context. It would be unrealistic to think that a single exhibition will entirely change people’s ideas. Rather, it should be seen as one of a number of factors which collectively contribute to new ways of thinking. This means that it takes its place as one element in the ‘full court press’ which Howard Gardner (1993) believes is necessary to bring about structural changes in educational practice.
It is difficult to pinpoint where institutional change begins. Linear models based on hierarchical command and control structures appear logical at first but tend to be over simplistic and, as Scott, Tilbury, Sharp and Deane (2012) point out, fail to capture both the dynamics of complex situations and the dilemmas of everyday practice. More nuanced approaches focus on the interconnections between different parts of an organization and the relationships between people. They also try to give a meaningful account of how organizations respond to their surrounding environment. Lowell (2016) suggests that large institutions are best regarded as ‘complex adaptive systems’ which are constantly responding to external pressures in organic and evolutionary ways, and that change is intricately linked to processes of self-organization. It follows that rather than attempting to exercise control and enforce rigid hierarchies, the challenge for senior managers is to create a supportive environment in which ideas can flourish, framed by a vision to which all staff can aspire. At Canterbury, the whole-hearted support and endorsement of senior managers created the context for this to happen.
We recognize that no two institutions or settings are the same, and that individual circumstances will play out in different ways. However, the importance of accessing both the affective and cognitive aspects of sustainability awareness emerges as one of the key principles underlying our analysis. We also recognize that there are multiple and complementary ways of reaching staff and students, and engaging them constructively in sustainability issues. A major photographic exhibition such as ‘Whole Earth?’ takes its place alongside a range of other pedagogies and techniques as a catalyst for change. Finding new ways of generating sustainability awareness and overcoming the barriers which inhibit wider engagement is an urgent challenge. Mobilizing creative and affective responses appears to be a constructive approach which brings out latent human qualities. Simply presenting the facts about the dangers and threats facing humankind highlights problems rather than solutions, and has been shown to be ineffective as it triggers guilt and denial responses (Marshall, 2015). Seizing opportunities and devising positive and meaningful narratives which people can ‘own’ in different ways offers a valuable way forward.
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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Mark Edwards for his support and encouragement in bringing Whole Earth? to CCCU. We are also grateful to all those who provided feedback which contributed to our research. Further information about Whole Earth? is available at