International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 8:4 Sustainable University: Holistic Approach to Sustainability in Higher Education Institutions 9781846636370, 9781846636363

Citation preview

ijshe cover (i).qxd

20/09/2007

11:40

Page 1

ISSN 1467-6370

Volume 8 Number 4 2007

International Journal of

Sustainability in Higher Education “Sustainable University” – holistic approach to sustainability in higher education institutions Guest Editors: Maik Adomssent, Jasmin Godemann and Gerd Michelsen

www.emeraldinsight.com

International Journal of

ISSN 1467-6370

Sustainability in Higher Education

Volume 8 Number 4 2007

“Sustainable University” – holistic approach to sustainability in higher education institutions Guest Editors Maik Adomssent, Jasmin Godemann, Gerd Michelsen

Editorial __________________________________________ 383 Transferability of approaches to sustainable development at universities as a challenge Maik Adomssent, Jasmin Godemann and Gerd Michelsen _______________

385

Do sustainability projects stimulate organizational learning in universities? Patrick Albrecht, Simon Burandt and Stefan Schaltegger _______________

403

Developing key competencies for sustainable development in higher education Matthias Barth, Jasmin Godemann, Marco Rieckmann and Ute Stoltenberg _________________________________________________

416

Managing sustainability communication on campus: experiences from Lu¨neburg Angela Franz-Balsen and Harald Heinrichs __________________________

431

The Lu¨neburg Sustainable University Project in international comparison: an assessment against North American peers Almut Beringer _________________________________________________

446

News _____________________________________________ 462 Diary _____________________________________________ 464 Books and resources _______________________________ 467

CONTENTS

CONTENTS continued

News from the net _________________________________ 470 Feature ___________________________________________ 471

Editorial Sustainable development, and the process of institutional transformation this requires, remains a considerable challenge for universities. Worldwide, only a few universities are to date confronting these challenges. As early as 1994, the then European Rectors’ Conference (CRE, now EAU) formulated the Copernicus Charta and called upon higher education institutions to tackle sustainable development within the framework of a voluntary commitment. Thus, far, more than 300 European higher education institutions have accepted this Charta and its obligations. Committing to the Copernicus Charta, the University of Lu¨neburg (Germany) started the journey toward sustainability in the mid-late 1990s. In doing so, the University did not merely sign the Charta papers, but deliberately sought opportunities to realize aspects of sustainable development in different realms and on varying levels within the University. For this process, the University could rely on external support, the German Environment Foundation (Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt) financing the “Agenda 21 and the University of Lu¨neburg” scheme (1999-2001) and the Ministry for Science and Culture of Lower Saxony (Niedersa¨chsisches Ministerium fu¨r Wissenschaft und Kultur) the research and development project “Sustainable University – sustainable development in the context of university tasks” (2004-2007). This Special Issue of the International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education reflects on and shares the experiences of interpreting sustainable development for a university, and the associated processes of application and transformation. Theoretical considerations, empirical findings as well as practical experiences from the various subprojects of the Lu¨neburg Sustainable University research and development project are highlighted in each of the five contributions. This is meant to draw attention to the fact that integrating sustainability into higher education institutions and processes needs theoretical reflection as well as to show that sustainability in higher education can be articulated, substantiated and put into action. The results of this research and development project can serve as a valuable starting point for other higher education institutions which want to begin or progress on the journey toward sustainability. The article by Maik Adomssent, Jasmin Godemann and Gerd Michelsen unfolds the theoretical framework for a sustainable development process at a higher education institution, spells out the methodological approach of the subprojects, and discusses selected findings of a university-wide survey regarding understandings of sustainability and necessary change. Patrick Albrecht, Simon Burandt and Stefan Schaltegger analyze the two subprojects “sustainability management and reporting” and “sustainable resource use”. Herein, the need and type of organizational learning processes arising from a sustainable development mandate are discussed as a question of priority. The article by Matthias Barth, Jasmin Godemann, Marco Rieckmann and Ute Stoltenberg addresses the question of competency acquisition in formal and informal learning processes. Findings of focus group interviews, conducted in the subprojects “teaching and learning sustainable development” and “lifeworld university,” are shared and examined with regard to their transferability to other contexts. Angela Franz-Balsen and Harald Heinrichs develop ideas on how to communicate the concept of sustainable development on campus. In this, they discuss

Editorial

383

International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education Vol. 8 No. 4, 2007 pp. 383-384 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1467-6370

IJSHE 8,4

384

issues emerging from the diversity of disciplinary cultures on campus; cultures which harbour varying degrees of familiarity with sustainability and sustainable development and thus require sensitive communication approaches and strategies. Finally, Almut Beringer looks at the Lu¨neburg Sustainable University Project from a bird’s eye view, benchmarking the Lu¨neburg initiatives against North-American universities which confront sustainability questions in the different sectors of the university and on varying institutional levels. The comparative analysis investigates the areas of governance and administration, curriculum development, student participation, research and scholarship, operations, and community relations. The Special Issue editors hope that readers of this journal will welcome the experiences and thoughts shared here and that the contributions advance the discourse on integrating aspects of sustainable development in higher education. May interesting, stimulating and maybe even controversial debates arise from each and all of the articles which can then lead to new and creative contributions to this journal. Maik Adomssent, Jasmin Godemann and Gerd Michelsen Guest Editors

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1467-6370.htm

Transferability of approaches to sustainable development at universities as a challenge

Transferability of approaches

Maik Adomssent, Jasmin Godemann and Gerd Michelsen

385

Institute for Environmental and Sustainability Communication, University of Lu¨neburg, Lu¨neburg, Germany Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to outline the particular character of the research and development project “Sustainable University – Sustainable development in the Context of University Remits” which lies both in its integrative perspective on universities and the attempt to transfer its findings onto other higher education institutions. Design/methodology/approach – The paper describes the testing and further development of transdisciplinary research methods (transformative approach, scenario development) for the purpose of both exploring and testing potentials/capabilities for sustainable development of a single institution (case study: University of Lu¨neburg, Germany) against the backdrop of sustainability concept; and making this kind of development transferable to other universities. The paper offers additional reinforcement of strategic scope/effectiveness by means of reference to findings of higher education research (e.g. relevance of neo-institutionalism) Findings – There is empirical evidence for successful development of transdisciplinary techniques for sustainability in higher education domains (among others management, research, and teaching – cf. other contributions of this issue). Further, dissemination of the “Lu¨neburg Approach” by establishing an intermediate level of collaboration between sustainability activists within universities and in higher education policy and administration (e.g. constitution of working groups in northern Germany and at the federal level) Research limitations/implications – There is a need for enhancing research tools for transdisciplinary sustainability science; deliberating on international transferability (current focus: (solely) German academia) Practical implication – A systemic approach is indispensable: instead of focusing upon isolated sustainability fields of action” (management, research, teaching, etc.), all-embracing advancement to encompass their strategic relationships and thus synergies. Originality/value – The paper provides a holistic view of academic organisations addressing the issue of how universities are to be proactive in advancing sustainable development. Keywords Sustainable development, Universities, Higher education Paper type Research paper

Introduction If sustainable development is seen from a holistic perspective, it can be understood simultaneously as a concept, a goal and as a process or strategy: The concept speaks to the reconciliation of social justice, ecological integrity, and the well-being of all living systems on the planet. The goal is to create an ecologically and socially just world within the means of nature without compromising future generations. Sustainability also refers to the process or strategy of moving toward a sustainable future (Moore, 2005, p. 78).

International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education Vol. 8 No. 4, 2007 pp. 385-402 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1467-6370 DOI 10.1108/14676370710823564

IJSHE 8,4

386

In line with this understanding, sustainability is relevant for universities in many regards and at many levels: both at the micro-level – universities as sociotopic constructions with political implications – and at the macro-level – the higher education system as a political construct with sociotopic implications (Kehm and Pasternack, 2000, p. 207). Therefore, in the search for promising means of encouraging universities to engage with the concept of sustainable development, both levels are to be taken into consideration. Through its initiatives “Agenda 21 and the University of Lu¨neburg” (1999-2001) and “Sustainable University – Sustainable Development in the Context of University Remits” (2004-2007), as well as through the UNESCO Chair of Higher Education for Sustainable Development, the University of Lu¨neburg has been among the first European universities to view the institution as a whole and to attempt to initiate processes in all working areas which point the way towards the integration of sustainability into each of the different areas in which it is active. Against this backdrop, a particularly interesting question is to what extent the experiences gained and the knowledge acquired through these projects could be transferred to other universities or could provide support for them. In this analysis, the University of Lu¨neburg is to be seen as the case for a case study approach. Transferability of approaches to sustainable university development as a challenge In order to better understand this transfer and its associated challenges, reference shall be made to the findings of higher education research. This branch of research – in particular, the area of comparative higher education research, which is most relevant to the case at hand – deals with questions which provide important findings in estimating the feasibility of approaches to transfer. Within this field of research, two dominant strands can be identified: . . . a predominantly political-economic strand focusing on issues of HE steering, such as governance and finance [. . .] and a more sociological strand dealing with structural features of the HE system (Witte, 2006, p. 78).

In addition, a number of approaches drawn from neoinstitutionalism are employed, which in all of their main forms (sociological, historical, and economic/rational choice variant) deal with the question of how institutions affect the behaviour of individuals: “an institutional approach is one that emphasizes the role of institutions and institutionalisation in the understanding of human actions within an organisation, social order, or society” (March and Olsen, 1998, p. 948). The individual institutions (micro-level) and the higher education system as a whole (macro-level) form the two points of reference for the following considerations, which are to focus closely on the potential for transfer and illustrate this potential by making reference to the findings of higher education research. (1) For universities, dealing with the idea of sustainable development at both institutional and organisational levels provides an opportunity to understand and face up to manifold and complex challenges. The growing complexity of the factors involved represents a major driving force behind the structural development of universities. The British higher education researcher Barnett (2000) speaks of an “age of

supercomplexity” in this regard. In similar manner to the findings of higher education researchers working together in the framework of the UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, Research and Knowledge, this formulation describes the fact that universities find themselves caught up in the constant interplay of newly arising demands – including that of the globalisation of the higher education system:

Transferability of approaches

Academic work appears to be buffeted by all sorts of external forces. It is subjected to greater managerialism, greater instrumentalism, greater competition, new forms of control and accountability, and so on (Brennan et al., 2004, p. 28; Teichler, 2005, p. 171).

387

The concept of sustainable development offers the opportunity for a productive encounter with complexity, to the extent that it neither denies this complexity nor reduces it in an unacceptable manner. Simultaneously, aspects such as justice, participation and interculturalism provide points of orientation for a comprehensive approach on the part of the university, which combines with a forward-looking attitude to lead to a desirable form of development for the whole of society. [. . .] transition has less to do with that which is passing, than with that which is to come. This is an important shift in mental perspective. It casts aside the notion of institutional development as “transition from” but rather puts great emphasis and weight on the notion of “transition for” (Neave, 2006, p. 1).

At the same time, the idea of sustainability also appears applicable from an organisational perspective: “sustainability can, at the institutional level, be viewed as catalyst for systemic institutional and organizational change” (Wals and Corcoran, 2006, p. 107). Even if universities can be described as institutions characterised by paradoxes and contradictions, these should not be glossed over in the course of efforts to push through change in the direction of sustainable development; rather, they should be actively harnessed in reformist efforts as a kind of structural tension (Kehm and Pasternack, 2000, p. 214). Precisely, due to its explicit open-endedness, the manifold tensions contribute to making a field characterised by reflexivity and openness to experimentation bear fruit: . . . a creation of space for transformative learning: [. . .] for alternative thinking – to cope with uncertainty, poorly defined situations, and conflicting or at least diverging norms, values, interests and reality constructions (Wals and Corcoran, 2006, p. 103).

(2) Transferable case study findings on the integration of sustainability at universities must reflect their organisational specificities; therefore, it is essential to process partial findings on key areas of university activity in such manner that they present as many openings for transfer as possible. Numerous findings from higher education research focus on the organisational specificity of universities, while some authors go as far as to describe universities as “organized anarchies in which the garbage can model of decision making prevails” (Cohen et al., 1972). According to an oft-cited formulation, universities are functionally only loosely coupled systems, which can develop smoothly in isolation from one another: “Functional loose coupling refers to the low level of cooperation and coordination required by teaching and research activities within HEIs” (Weick, 1976). The reason for this is that teaching and research can be considered “unclear technologies”: “Teaching and research are complex processes which are difficult to grasp . . . with an ambiguous causal relationship between tasks

IJSHE 8,4

388

and results” (Musselin, 2007, p. 71). This long-established autonomy in content terms has more recently been joined by increasing procedural autonomy, which leads to increased “tensions between normative and operative modi” (Kehm and Pasternack, 2000, p. 209). This diversity within the university unit is, however, not to be seen merely in negative terms. On the contrary, for desirable sustainable development to take place, it is unlikely that it will be formulated on the basis of current expectations and knowledge: Rather, it is to suggest that there are some desirable social ends, which cannot be achieved through explicit, linear processes of planning, monitoring and evaluation. If this is true for future economy-related skills-need, it must be doubly so for sustainable development which is a wider concept within which the economy is subsumed (Scott and Gough, 2006, p. 93).

The independence of individual university subsystems can thus also be seen as a defence against instrumentalisation, which has allowed universities to succeed as institutions over the centuries. Even if, from the perspective of SHE actors, a rapid change of course, in the direction of sustainable development on the part of universities would certainly be desirable, their eccentric and wilful character must be taken into account and adapted to. This carries the consequence for research initiatives in this field that suitably formulated research findings and open-ended models must be held ready to be easily adapted or modified without undue effort by the various people involved in the HEI at the most varied points of the organisation. In this manner, individual university subsystems can set out on the path towards sustainability (such as teaching or administration) while other areas (still) remain stubbornly static: Loose coupling allows for important transformation to happen in one part of the system without disturbing the other parts, but at the same time it impedes the diffusion of change from one part to another (Weick, 1982).

(3) On-target results can only be achieved with the aid of holistic, integrative project-based approaches, as only thus can systemic internal university processes run their course – thus allowing potential obstacles and success factors to be identified. A number of organisation theory approaches have been used to suitably describe the model of the “group university” which has long been dominant in the German-speaking world. On this basis, the university can be seen as a “living organism” within which self-organisation processes, interaction with and adaptation to the external environment and biodiversity in the sense of diversification can all be found. Alternatively, the university can be characterised as a “symbolic-cultural space” the communicative construction of which as an organisation takes place through an emphasis on norms, values, convictions and rituals on the part of its members. And finally, the university as an organisation can be seen as a “political arena” in the sense of interest-driven interventions, negotiations and conflicts in which control, power, influence, prestige and access to resources are at stake (Kehm and Pasternack, 2000, p. 207). The systemic core of such descriptions of universities is maintained in the current tendency to see universities from a predominantly functional perspective as an organisation (Pellert, 1999). The ability of universities to react to the challenges they are

faced with through self-driven change and readiness to develop is characterised by the term “learning organisation”. In terms of transformative processes within the university as an organisation, a whole series of intertwined subsystems can be addressed from a systemic perspective against the backdrop of the guiding principle of sustainability. Sterling differentiates between seven operational dimensions of educational institutions: ethos; curriculum; pedagogy, research, learning and inquiry; organisation/management style; resource management and use; physical structures/architecture; community links and relationships (Sterling, 2004, p. 65). The case study “Sustainable University” attempts to do justice to the complexity of one’s own university by using an integrated approach, in the sense of extrapolating to the level of an abstract, generalising “university system”. As the quest for sustainable university development essentially revolves around learning processes at the various levels of the system, the diverse relationships and interactions of these various dimensions among one another play a central role, and one which is all too often neglected: (4) In the long term, sustainable university development can only take place successfully if it is presented to universities as an optional possibility, as universities have effective defensive and relativising strategies for dealing with unwished for top-down regulation. There may well be examples in Germany of national political initiatives addressing the entire higher education system (e.g. the introduction of the grade of junior professor), but the paradox remains that universities (with just a few exceptions) are state-owned institutions with a privileged degree of autonomy, or “state institutions at distance from the state” (Pasternack, 2006, p. 156). Particularly when faced with forms of steering in the style of hierarchical state intervention, the higher education system often reacts in a volatile manner – and with a high degree of resilience. This, however, is one of the most significant reasons for its success, as it should not be forgotten that these structural mechanisms allow universities not only to fulfil the diverse range of often contradictory demands made of them, but to build upon them in a productive manner: Following an organizational perspective, it is not surprising that the university can deal with and even integrate a variety of heterogeneous, and at times even conflicting, demands and purposes (i.e. science, education, politics, economy) (Kru¨cken et al., 2007, p. 16).

Against this background, there is a risk of wasting the chance of seeing universities make a genuine attempt to tackle sustainable development if this is decreed from on high, as universities cannot be considered in isolation from the development of society as a whole. Thus, it is altogether possible that besides their active role as “change agents” they can also reproduce existing conditions: “It is important to distinguish between universities that ‘ignite’ change, those that ‘accelerate’ change and those that ‘block’ change” (Brennan et al., 2004, p. 16). If thoroughgoing transformation towards the dissemination and acceptance of the ethos of sustainability is to be achieved, it would appear advisable to place our trust in “co-evolution as learning process between institutions and their communities” (Sterling, 2004, p. 49). At the same time, this circumvents the danger of prematurely extrapolating the future exclusively on the basis of questions and assumptions from the present and thus falling into a counterproductive dead-end which could shut off or exclude in advance important but hitherto unidentified alternatives:

Transferability of approaches

389

IJSHE 8,4

390

(5) Nevertheless, impulses from higher education policy are indispensable in giving a wider impact to activities aimed at encouraging universities to take up sustainability issues. Here, an important contribution is made by declarations stating optional voluntary commitments. The potential effectiveness of (supra-)national higher education policy declarations in Europe is surely best shown by the Bologna Process. This represents the “fastest-moving and most comprehensive process of university structural reforms in Europe” (Kehm, 2004, p. 15), while: . . . it has to be kept in mind that the Bologna declaration is not a binding legal contract or policy agreement, but a declaration of intent of the European ministers in charge of HE (Witte, 2006, p. 4).

The area of sustainability declarations in higher education now counts a whole series of texts (Adomssent, 2006, p. 14) which have been signed by many hundreds of universities, and optimism would therefore seem to be justified. These documents, all similarly formulated in wording and intention, recall that “the university has a special role in society and is morally bound to create change” (Wright, 2004, p. 14). In addition, the COPERNICUS Charter, which is relevant to the European higher education sector, shows that even if not all of the over 300 signatory universities can be described as active members, then at least a considerable and growing proportion of these universities are moving in the direction of sustainability. In the German-speaking countries, relevant texts include the memorandum “Rethinking Universities” and the “Lu¨beck Declaration: University and Sustainability”; both underline the path to be taken in the direction of sustainability, where voluntarily assumed commitments play a key role: (6) Intermediary bodies play an important role in the implementation of aspects of sustainable development. Unlike many other countries, and not least due to its federal structure of responsibilities, the German higher education system presents a lack of entities situated between the State and universities (“intermediary bodies” or “buffer organisations”). “The German situation is characterised by a high degree of polarisation [. . .] reflected in the extreme gap between far-reaching policy-change [. . .] and hesitant national decision-making on implementation” (Witte, 2006, p. 524). This is to be seen as a significant cause for the shift from process control to output control and the associated problems with coherence and consistency at institutional and legislative levels (Kehm and Pasternack, 2000, p. 215). This lack of such an intermediary level also has a negative impact on sustainability-oriented universities. For the actors involved, the situation thus far has been that of isolated individual fighters, while sustainability-oriented initiatives put forward by representative organisations such as the German Rectors’ Conference or the German Science Council have hitherto received no political support. In order to receive support from these and other organs and institutions, three initiatives have joined forces with the aim of bringing together the universities active in the area of sustainable development into a high-profile network, functioning as a transmission belt in the direction of higher education policy and administration (Adomssent and Michelsen, 2006). The model for this initiative is the working methodology of the Dutch DHO, many members of which straddle both of the said levels – often including the

Ministries themselves – thus ensuring a stronger influence on the drafting of legislation or on research programmes in preparation. Summary In sum, it is to be noted that a variety of increasingly global forces are influencing the structural development of universities – “with implications for higher education at the organizational, but also at the societal and political level” (UNESCO, 2003, p. 4). But, in spite of this trend, there is potential room for action – for individual countries and for individual universities (Teichler, 2005, p. 171). Such a proactive perspective, seeing transformative processes not as a reaction to external influences, but rather “as an act of anticipation” (Neave, 2006, p. 1), can be linked to an optimistic view of the shaping of a conceivable future within the scope of the normative, orienting paradigm of sustainable development. The considerable contradictions to be overcome can be thus summarised: “how do we work towards transformative learning in a system that itself is intended to be a prime agency of learning?” (Sterling, 2004, p. 51). In the following, the Lu¨neburg Approach shall be presented, with its transformative approach to overcoming the challenges described. The “Lu¨neburg Approach” The research and development initiative “Sustainable University – Sustainable Development in the Context of University Remits” is aimed at integrating the idea of sustainability into a range of areas at universities. The focus is placed on the following question: How can universities actively face up to the challenges associated with sustainable development, and to what extent can targeted structural changes perform a contribution to transforming universities for sustainability? In order to work through these overarching questions, the whole spectrum of the project was broken down into six sub-projects, which are attributed to three central dimensions (Figure 1). The central question can be broken down into a number of sub-questions: (1) How can interdisciplinary working methods be implemented in teaching, and to what extent are interdisciplinary courses part of the “basic armoury” of a sustainability-oriented university? (2) How is the university as a living environment to be shaped so that it can open up educational opportunities for sustainable development – as a space for experience – and potential for structural changes for sustainable development – as a space for intervention? (3) What should integrative sustainability management for universities look like, and what contributions can external sustainability reporting make in this area as an instrument? (4) What specific factors are involved in the use of energy and other resources at universities, and by which means can sustainability-oriented behaviour be achieved in the areas of energy and mobility? (5) How can the idea of sustainable development be communicated in the university as knowledge factory, and how can perspectives be widened by development theory and cultural theory discourses?

Transferability of approaches

391

IJSHE 8,4

Sustainability management and reporting

392 Figure 1. Dimensions of the research and development project “Sustainable University“

University as life-world Interdisciplinarity in teaching and learning

University Organisation and its members

University as teaching, learning and life-world

Reflection and communication on sustainability

Energy and resource management

Communication and knowledge transfer Culture and sustainable development

The first two questions are to be assigned to the area of learning and living environment and remind us that the reformulation of these core tasks is part of the transformation of the university as an entire organisation. The questions on sustainability management and use of resources suggest that the targeted improvement of sustainability performance is among the key management tasks at universities. Systematic engagement with university communication processes – which are essential for the dissemination of the idea of sustainability and which are aimed at critical reflection on the concept as a whole – is a further emphasis for the project. Communication and participation are key principles for the implementation of the idea of sustainability in the university context; the task is to raise the issue of the development process towards a sustainable university, to discuss it and develop common practical steps towards its realisation. The sustainable university project can be characterised as a research and development initiative in which the case study as a research method has been selected as the central approach. A case study represents a comprehensive research strategy which takes account of qualitative and quantitative aspects and is based on multiple sources of knowledge and data evaluation (Yin, 1984). By employing a multi-level approach, it becomes possible to make reference to the case in its fullness and complexity throughout the entire process of analysis, while influencing factors and framework conditions can be analysed in detail, leading to more precise and thoroughgoing knowledge (Kyburz-Graber, 1999; Mayring, 1996). Case studies are a specific research design in that they investigate the complexity of human actions in their social context and can be relevant to both individual and collective forms of action (Flick, 1995). A number of case studies are available in the area of sustainable university development. A wealth of examples are to be found in Leal Filho (2000), Corcoran and Wals (2004) and the various issues of the International Journal for Sustainability in Higher Education. However, these are predominantly descriptive approaches which do not go much beyond “storytelling”. Corcoran et al. (2004) have criticised the lack of analytical depth of such approaches: Current case-study research in the context of sustainability in higher education does not problematize practice. [. . .] Stories of success are reported, but the data supporting these successes are not available for the public critique. Such success stories may mask the problems experienced by the institution in implementing sustainability. Case-study research

in sustainability in higher education rarely includes information on the theoretical approach to the methodology or on the methods used to gather the data. We argue that such case-study research would be more effective in bringing about change if it were better theorized and documented.

Similar arguments are also expressed by Fien (2002): “few studies have thought to go beyond description to include a critical and theoretical analysis of findings or to ground explanations in social or organisational theory.” The case study approach would appear fundamentally suitable in examining sustainable university development. Nevertheless, existing approaches must be expanded in order to do justice to this complex range of problems. The lack of a theoretical foundation; the failure to draw generally applicable consequences from primarily descriptive reports; and the failure to provide externally verifiable data are among the most serious criticisms levelled at existing case studies on sustainable university development. Therefore, the Lu¨neburg “Sustainable University” project has expanded the case study approach to include transformative aspects, in order to view transformation processes from two different levels: on the one hand, the development of the case should not only be described, but developments should also be anticipated on the basis of an explanatory system analysis which allows the development of possible scenarios. On the other hand, the issue of special transferability should be consciously considered in the analysis. With the aid of such a detailed analysis, it should be possible to reach a degree of general validity that enables knowledge transfer from the studied case to other cases in different contexts. A contribution to interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary sustainability research In light of the research topic and the focus on shaping change at universities to the benefit of sustainable development, the “Sustainable University” project can be described as an actor- and problem-oriented project, and as a discipline-spanning project. In order to do justice to the diversity of different subject perspectives, a differentiated approach is used in the research process – neither making abstract, metatheoretical generalisations nor giving precedence to any one dominant discipline. The project has an explicitly interventionist character (c.f. the various contributions to this volume) as it intervenes in current issues and discourses on universities and sustainable development. Thus, the project as a whole can be classified as sustainability research dealing with questions of securing the conditions for societal development in the long term. Through its orientation towards the normative principle of sustainability, sustainability research is not only distinct from environment research, for example, in content terms, but it is also distinct in terms of its research methods and organisational aspects. Sustainability research is based on a new relationship between science, the public sphere and practice, and must fulfil quality criteria distinct to those applied in pure subject-based research (Brand, 2000). In sustainability research, three fundamental levels can be distinguished, with relevance to research the: (1) analytical level, aimed at the creation of systems knowledge; (2) normative level, at which target knowledge is developed; and

Transferability of approaches

393

IJSHE 8,4

394

(3) operative level, at which transformation knowledge is generated (No¨lting et al., 2004). As a rule, sustainability research is thus transdisciplinary research. The characteristics of a transdisciplinary research process – besides the complexity and dynamics of the research question – include respect for diverse perspectives, careful regard to the consequences, and embeddedness in the “real”, i.e. the societal context (Smrekar et al., 2005). As understandings of transdisciplinarity often differ considerably, a definition of the key terms should be provided at the outset in order to make clear how transdisciplinary is understood in the present contribution. Unlike discipline-based research, multidisciplinary research deals with a research topic that addresses a number of disciplines and the various partial aspects of the problem are studied by the different disciplines using their respective methods. These partial findings can then be compiled to reflect different facets of the topic. When this process goes beyond a “mere juxtaposition of discipline-bound particularities” (Mittelstraß 1987, p. 155), we may speak of interdisciplinary research, in which a problem is studied involving two or more disciplines and in which an interface is created. By integrating a range of disciplinary perspectives, theories and methods, new knowledge structures are built up. Furthermore, the knowledge acquired in tackling and solving a problem in common can be taken up within the respective disciplines. The approach of transdisciplinary research goes beyond the boundaries of academia, tackling and solving problems from outside of the realm of academia through cooperation between academics and practitioners, in an integrative manner. An ideal transdisciplinary sustainability research process (Figure 2) would encompass the following aspects (Bergmann et al., 2005): (1) The first step is to establish a structure for analysing problems and involving the relevant actors. The starting point for this should be a practical problem. The composition of the research team depends upon the specific formulation of the question. (2) In the next step, the project is implemented in accordance with defined methods. After the question to be researched has been broken down into a series of sub-areas (differentiation), new knowledge is generated and existing knowledge is extended or transferred through discipline-spanning and cooperative work. (3) The third step is that of evaluation: this new knowledge must be appropriately brought together (integration 1) and then applied in academia and in practice (integration 2) so that innovative processes – in the sense of transformative development – can take place. In particular, the problem breakdown and the later integration of the generated knowledge can be considered to be the key challenges of transdisciplinary research and its evaluation. The challenge of transdisciplinary processes lies in overcoming a high degree of complexity. The issues to be resolved generally cut across disciplinary paths to a solution, and the methods of analysis must be flexible to adapt to the constellation of the task. Complex problem situations encompass factors which are not necessarily predictable, which give rise to uncertainty, and which may lead to some of the sub-objectives finding themselves in a contradictory relationship with one another.

Transferability of approaches

Transdisciplinary Research Process A Team-Formation Process Everyday Life Problems

Scientific Problems

Construction of a Common Research Object

395

B Division into Heterogenous Perceptions of the Problem and Methodological Approaches in the Research Team

Disciplinary/Interdisciplinary Generation of Knowledge – Compatibiliy Between Parts of the Project

Transformation in Everyday Life (New Problem Situation)

Scientific Innovation (New Questions)

C

'Integration' 'Differentiation'

Impetus for Discourse and Changes in the Realm of Practice

Transdisciplinary Integration ProblemRelated Integration

Interdisciplinary Integration

Impetus for Discourse and innovation in Science

'Intervention'

Source: Adapted from Bergmann et al. (2005, p.19)

The difficulty for action lies in the fact that although objectives are stated, they are unclear and cannot be used as guidelines for action without further work (Do¨rner et al., 1994). Structuring complex problems implies the challenge of carrying out a differentiation, without being able to rely on simple cause-effect mechanisms. In the framework of the research and development process, such describable phenomena must be broken down into meaningful sub-projects. Breaking down the problem into sub-areas is a necessary step, but hardly an easy one. The division of the problem must take account of the need for integration at a later stage, and the individual sub-areas must be placed in a relationship with one another so as not to mutate into isolated satellite systems, but rather, so that they can exist in communication with one another and contribute to solving the overall problem. Furthermore, a research team working in a transdisciplinary manner is a heterogeneous group, and the success of the communication process within the group comes up against a range of challenges (Godemann, 2005). Transdisciplinary research deals with issues of societal practice which can only be solved through the cooperation of academics and practitioners. In the “Sustainable University” project, a more precise definition of this understanding of trandisciplinarity is required, as in this case, it is impossible to make a clear distinction between “academia” and “societal practice” – as the university itself is the subject of the research. The participants in this system are, on the one hand, the academics who are involved in the research and development process; but they are also practitioners, for example as teaching staff at the university. It is easier to define students as experts for the area of

Figure 2. The transdisciplinary research process

IJSHE 8,4

396

“studying” and thus representatives of practical action. Given this particularity, the project works on the premises of transdisciplinary research, attempting to bring practical problems from everyday working and studying together with scientific issues, and working on them with the appropriate methods. University-wide data gathering and analysis The stated research interest of the “Sustainable University” initiative covers the university as whole. Thus, over the full duration of the project a diverse range of research methods were applied to answering these questions, held together by a comprehensive research design. With the objective of sounding out, the current situation with regard to “sustainability and higher education” at the University of Lu¨neburg, and of obtaining a common empirical basis for all of the individual stages of the investigation, an online survey was held in summer 2005, entitled University on the Move. In concrete terms, this census-scale survey aimed – among other things – to discover the level of awareness of the concept “sustainable development” at the University of Lu¨neburg, and to find out whether the basic ideas of the concept were accepted. In order to discover where students, teaching staff and administrative staff saw potential for further steps in the direction of the “Sustainable University of Lu¨neburg” questions on the areas of learning, living and university organisation were studied closely. Further, questions asked about respondents’ expectations of the role of universities in general, in relation to their assessment of their own university. The survey was particularly interesting as a reflection of the University’s different campuses[1], but also through the search for divergences between students, teaching staff and administrative staff. The survey took place by means of an online questionnaire. The choice of an electronic survey was motivated by logistical considerations: by this means, over 11,000 members of the university at the four separate campuses were reached without undue effort. The base population for the survey encompassed all members of the University of Lu¨neburg. Because of the high degree of heterogeneity of the members of the university, random sampling or stratified sampling with an acceptably low number of respondents appeared impracticable – ten departments, many of which are very small, with potentially different departmental cultures and different status groups, would have to be addressed. A comparative analysis of the respondent groups and their distribution within the base population shows that the survey is subject to certain limitations in terms of its representative nature. With 2,110 participants, it is true that a large number of members of the university were motivated to participate, as intended, but the response rate as a proportion of the total population varied considerably around the average rate of just over 19 per cent (Table I). For the questions on the understanding of sustainability, both awareness and understanding of the term “sustainable development” were surveyed, as was agreement with fundamental issues of sustainable development. About 86.8 per cent of respondents had heard of the term “sustainable development”: among respondents from the Department of Environmental Sciences awareness stood at 100 per cent, whereas the term is least current in the departments of Automation Technology (68.0 per cent) and Social Studies (61.7 per cent). Comparing the status groups, there is less awareness of the term among the students (85.5 per cent) than there is among staff (professors: 100 per cent; scientific assistants: 98.8 per cent;

Status Group Students Professors Scientific assistants and other teaching staff Administrative and technical staff Not stated or not directly classifiable members of the university Gesamt

n

N

RR (percentage)

1,787 36 131 125

10,295 171 226 382

17.4 21.1 58.0 32.7

31 2,110

– 11,074

– 19.1

Transferability of approaches

397

Notes: n – absolute number of responses; N – absolute population; RR – response rate in percentage

Table I. Distribution by status groups

administration: 86.9 per cent). Men (89.2 per cent) demonstrated a slightly higher awareness of the term than women (85.8 per cent). Figure 3 shows what the respondents associated with the concept of sustainable development in concrete terms. It is no surprise that there are significant differences between members of the different subject departments: 97.2 per cent of environmental scientists associate “considering future generations” with the idea of sustainability; fewer respondents from the business law department (63.3 per cent) and from civil engineering (58.3 per cent) made this connection. While only 13.3 per cent of respondents from the business law department saw global justice as an element of sustainable development, this proportion stood at 39.1 per cent among educational scientists and at 74.2 per cent in the environmental sciences. 23.5 per cent of respondents from automation technology

What do you associate with the term ‘sustainable development’? considering future generations sparing use of natural resources acting responsibly permanence / long term holistic thinking environmental programme global justice social security buzzword technical progress economic growth slowing down compromise solution empty jargon utopia other 0

10

20

30

40 50 Percentage

60

70

80

90

Figure 3. Understanding of sustainability among the respondents

IJSHE 8,4

398

associated sustainable development with economic growth, while only 6.0 per cent of respondents from cultural studies held the same opinion. The respondents were asked to agree or disagree with five statements which touch upon the basic issues of sustainable development and allow conclusions to be drawn as to the level of acceptance of sustainability, as shown in Figure 4. The following differences were observed between the various subject departments: members of the Department of Environmental Sciences agreed to all of the basic statements on sustainable development at an above-average rate. For example, 94.8 per cent agree with the assertion that the relationship between industrialised and developing countries should be altered in favour of the developing countries. Members of the Department of Educational Sciences agreed with some statements at an above-average rate. On the other hand, members of the Departments of Automation Technology and Civil Engineering in particular generally demonstrated a below-average level of agreement. Conclusion The survey results (only been partially presented here – for a more comprehensive breakdown of results see Adomssent et al., 2007) together with the detailed descriptions of the various contexts from the perspective of the sub-projects, as well as the findings of the previous project, are of central importance. The most recent developments at the University (including a merger with a polytechnic) provide a complementary perspective on the contextual conditions and, together with the views of the actors involved, have allowed a deepened understanding for the complexity of the framework conditions. The selected procedure, following the Lu¨neburg approach, can be directly classified as belonging to the procedural model of transdisciplinary sustainability research, as developed by Bergmann et al. (2005). This procedure is capable of delivering detailed answers to the question of how the transition from knowledge generation to knowledge integration can be brought about.

Nature should be protected even when there is no known benefit to mankind Global problems such as the greenhouse effect and loss of biodiversity can only be solved through technological progress People alive today cannot take responsibility for future generations. We should not consume more resources than can be renewed by natural means. The process of give-and-take between industrialised and developing countries should change in favour of the developing countries

Figure 4. Level of agreement with basic issues of sustainability

0 fully agree

10

generally agree

20

30 40 50 Percentage

generally disagree

60

70

fully disagree

80

.

.

The triangulation of quantitative and qualitative methods in surveying the current situation at the level of the various sub-projects allows a comprehensive perspective of the complex issues bound up with the “sustainable university”. In the course of the sustainable university project, the comprehensive overview built up in this manner corresponds to the second stage of the transdisciplinary research process (Figure 2). This includes analytical recognition of causal relationships and structures; at the same time, intervention takes place at the level of the sub-projects, which are inflected on the basis of the findings produced thus far, and can be seen as tests of the “university system”. The third step of evaluation in the “Lu¨neburg Approach” consists, in a first stage, of knowledge integration into a model of sustainable university development which is specific to the University of Lu¨neburg, but which considers the underlying causal system of universities and thus provides transferable findings on more generally applicable factors. In a further stage, which has not yet been definitively completed, the temporal dimension of possible transformative developments is being assessed in the form of qualitative forecasting processes. The scenario method shall be applied in order to better estimate the scope and effects of different developments, and to identify significant influencing factors for the future.

The decisive step for transdisciplinary research – namely, transdisciplinary integration – is driven by system analysis, aided by the restricted scope of the individual sub-projects and the common development of scenarios (Keil, 2005). By classifying the present research initiative as sustainability research, the methodological framework and transformative approach have been dealt with. Thus, intensive involvement of all concerned shall enable solutions to be put together – solutions which are not conceived with little regard for practical application, but which are ready to be implemented and feasible. A further advantage lies in the fact that transformation processes are actively considered in the analysis. At the same time, generally applicable connections are identified, and thus the problem of transferability is tackled proactively. For the future, the question posed for all of the research levels and contents studied shall be that of how interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research can be successful, and how discipline-spanning communication can take place in order to tackle complex issues in a comprehensive manner. In this process, one important question shall be that of what criteria will look like for evaluating and measuring interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research processes. This calls for a suitable quality assessment mechanism, in turn, necessitating the development of appropriate indicators. And in doing so, it is not only the research process which should be examined under the magnifying glass, but also interdisciplinary university teaching and knowledge transfer. The development of such instruments does not only make it possible to measure how far universities have progressed along the road to the sustainable university. Indeed, systematic analysis and engagement with this kind of project experience promises to make an important contribution to the continued development of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research methodology. Note 1. The University is divided into four sites, one of which is more than 50 km outside Lu¨neburg.

Transferability of approaches

399

IJSHE 8,4

400

References Adomssent, M. (2006), “Higher education for sustainability: challenges and obligations from a global perspective”, in Adomssent, M., Godemann, J., Leicht, A. and Busch, A. (Eds), Higher Education for Sustainability. New Challenges from a Global Perspective, VAS, Frankfurt/Main, pp. 10-22. Adomssent, M. and Michelsen, G. (2006), “German academia heading for sustainability? Reflections on policy and practice in teaching, research and institutional innovations”, Environmental Education Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 85-99. Adomssent, M., Albrecht, P., Barth, M., Burandt, S., Franz-Balsen, A., Godemann, J. and Rieckmann, M. (2007), “Sustainable University – eine Bestandsaufnahme”, INFU-Diskussionsbeitra¨ge, 34/07, Universita¨t Lu¨neburg, Lu¨neburg. Barnett, R. (2000), Realizing the University in an Age of Supercomplexity, Open University Press, Maidenhead. Bergmann, M., Brohmann, B., Hofmann, E., Loibl, M.C., Rehaag, R., Schramm, E. and Voß, J.-P. (2005), Quality Criteria of Transdisciplinary Research. A Guide for the Formative Evaluation of Research Projects, ISOE-Studientexte, Nr. 13, Frankfurt am Main. Brand, K.-W. (2000), Nachhaltige Entwicklung und Transdisziplinarita¨t, Analytica, Berlin. Brennan, J., King, R. and Lebeau, Y. (2004) The Role of Universities in the Transformation of Societies, an International Research Project, Synthesis Report, London, available at: www. open.ac.uk/personalpages/y.lebeau/Transfo.pdf (accessed 10 June 2007). Cohen, M.D., March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1972), “A garbage can model of organizational choice”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 17, pp. 178-84. Corcoran, P.B. and Wals, A.E.J. (2004), Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustainability: Problematics, Promise, and Practice, Kluwer, Boston. MA. Corcoran, P.B., Walker, K.E. and Wals, A.E.J. (2004), “Case studies, make-your-case studies, and case stories: a critique of case-study methodology in sustainability in higher education”, Environmental Education Research, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 7-21. Do¨rner, D., Bick, T., Bru¨derl, L., Lu¨ttner, A., Klee, U. and Reh, H. (1994), Lohhausen: Vom Umgang mit Unbestimmtheit und Komplexita¨t, Huber, Bern. Fien, J. (2002), “Advancing sustainability in higher education: issues and opportunities for research”, Higher Education Policy, Vol. 15, pp. 143-52. Flick, U. (1995), Qualitative Forschung: Theorie, Methoden, Anwendung in Psychologie und Sozialwissenschaften, Rowohlt-Taschenbuch-Verlag, Reinbek. Godemann, J. (2005), “Zum Verha¨ltnis von interdisziplina¨rer Zusammenarbeit und Kompetenz”, in Radits, F., Rauch, F. and Kattmann, U. (Eds), Gemeinsam Lernen – Gemeinsam Forschen: Wissen, Bildung und Nachhaltige Entwicklung, Studien Verlag, Wien, pp. 123-32. Kehm, B.M. (2004), “Hochschulen in Deutschland”, Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, B25/2004), pp. 6-17. Kehm, B.M. and Pasternack, P. (2000), Hochschulentwicklung als Komplexita¨tsproblem. Fallstudien des Wandels, Beltz, Weinheim. Keil, F. (2005), “Qualitativ-quantitative Szenarien als Methode transdisziplina¨rer Integration”, paper presented at Manuscript of a Contribution to the Workshop, Interdisciplinary Knowledge Syntheses, 30 June-1 July in Darmstadt, available at: www.zit.tu-darmstadt.de/ cipp/tudzit/lib/all/lob/return_download,ticket,guest/bid,565/ check_table,it_chap_downl_embed/,/Talk-Keil-DAWS2.pdf (accessed 10 June 2007). ¨ Krucken, G., Kosmu¨tzky, A. and Torka, M. (Eds) (2007), Towards a Multiversity? Universities between Global Trends and National Traditions, Transcript, Bielefeld.

Kyburz-Graber, R. (1999), “Qualita¨tskriterien fu¨r Fallstudien – dargestellt an Fallstudien zu interdisziplina¨rem Unterricht in der Sekundarstufe II”, in Bolscho, D. and Michelsen, G. (Eds), Forschungsmethoden zur Umweltbildung, Leske þ Budrich, Opladen, pp. 85-111. Leal Filho, W. (2000), Sustainability and University Life, Lang, Frankfurt am Main. March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1998), “The institutional dynamics of international political orders”, International Organisation, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 943-69. Mayring, P. (1996), Einfu¨hrung in die qualitative Sozialforschung: eine Anleitung zu qualitativem Denken,Vol. 3, Beltz Publisher, Weinheim. Mittelstraß, J. (1987), “Die Stunde der Interdisziplinarita¨t?”, in Kocka, J. and Zentrum fu¨r Interdisziplina¨re Forschung (Eds), Interdisziplinarita¨t: Praxis, Herausforderung, Ideologie, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 152-8. Moore, J. (2005), “Is higher education ready for transformative learning? A question explored in the study of sustainability”, Journal of Transformative Education, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 76-91. Musselin, C. (2007), “Are universities specific organisations?”, in Kru¨cken, G., Kosmu¨tzky, A. and Torka, M. (Eds), Towards a Multiversity? Universities between Global Trends and National Traditions, Transcript, Bielefeld, pp. 63-84. Neave, G. (2006), “Higher education and aspects of transition”, Higher Education Policy, Vol. 19, pp. 1-5. No¨lting, B., Voß, J.-P. and Hayn, D. (2004), “Nachhaltigkeitsforschung – jenseits von Disziplinierung und anything goes”, Gaia, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 254-61. Pasternack, P. (2006), “Hochschulflexibilisierung und Mitbestimmung”, in Kremberg, B. (Ed.), Mitbestimmung und Hochschule, Shaker, Aachen, pp. 155-72. Pellert, A. (1999), Die Universita¨t als Organisation. Die Kunst, Experten zu managen, Bo¨hlau, Wien/Ko¨ln/Graz. Scott, W. and Gough, S. (2006), “Universities and sustainable development in a liberal democracy: a reflection on the necessity for barriers to change”, in Holmberg, J. and Samuelsson, B.E. (Eds), Drivers and Barriers for Implementing Sustainable Development in Higher Education, paper presented at Go¨teborg Workshop, 7-9 December 2005, pp. 89-95, available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001484/148466E.pdf (accessed 10 June 2007). Smrekar, O., Pohl, C. and Stoll-Kleemann, S. (2005), “Evaluation: Humano¨kologie und Nachhaltigkeitsforschung auf dem Pru¨fstand”, Gaia, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 73-6. Sterling, S. (2004), “Higher education, sustainability, and the role of systemic learning”, in Corcoran, P.B. and Wals, A.E.J. (Eds), Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustainability: Problematics, Promise and Practice, Kluwer, Boston, MA, pp. 49-70. Teichler, U. (2005), “Hochschul- und Studiengangsstrukturen im internationalen Vergleich”, in_ Cremer-Renz, C. and Donner, H. (Eds), Die innovative Hochschule, Webler, Bielefeld, pp. 161-80. UNESCO (2003), “Synthesis report on trends and developments in higher education since the World Conference on Higher Education (1998-2003)”, paper presented at Meeting of Higher Education Partners, Paris, 23-25 June, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris, available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001455/145529e. pdf (accessed 10 June, 2007). Wals, A.E.J. and Corcoran, P.B. (2006), “Sustainability as an outcome of transformative learning”, in Holmberg, J. and Samuelsan, B.E. (Eds), Drivers and Barriers for Implementing Sustainable Development in Higher Education, Go¨teborg Workshop, December 7-9 2005,

Transferability of approaches

401

IJSHE 8,4

402

pp. 103-10, available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001484/148466E.pdf (accessed 10 June, 07). Weick, K.E. (1976), “Educational organization as loosely coupled systems”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-19. Weick, K.E. (1982), “The management of organizational change among loosely coupled elements”, in Goodmann, P. (Ed.), Change in Organisation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 375-408. Witte, J.K. (2006), “Change of degrees and degrees of change. Comparing adaptations of European higher education systems in the context of the Bologna process”, dissertation, University of Twente, Enschede. Wright, T. (2004), “The evolution of sustainability declarations in higher education”, in Corcoran, P.B. and Wals, A.E.J. (Eds), Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustainability: Problematics, Promise and Practice, Kluwer, Boston, MA, pp. 7-19. Yin, R.K. (1984), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. About the authors Maik Adomssent studied Applied Cultural Sciences and holds a doctorate degree in Educational Sciences. He is Lecturer at the Institute for Environmental and Sustainability Communication at the University of Lu¨neburg, and Research Coordinator of the Project “Sustainable University”. Member of the working group “Higher Education – Research, Teaching, Service” at the Round Table of the German National Committee for the UN Decade. Research fields: knowledge and sustainability, education for sustainable development, nature conservancy communication. Maik Adomssent is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]; www.uni-lueneburg.de/infu Jasmin Godemann holds a doctorate degree in Educational Sciences. She is a Lecturer at the Institute for Environmental and Sustainability Communication at the University of Lu¨neburg and Research Coordinator of the Project “Sustainable University – Sustainable Development in the context of university remits”. Her main research areas are interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in research and teaching as well as sustainability communications. Gerd Michelsen is Head of the Institute for Environmental and Sustainability Communication at the University of Lu¨neburg. He was a joint Founder of the Institute for Applied Ecology in Freiburg i.Br. He is the German representative in the UNECE Task Force “Strategy for Education for Sustainable Development”. He is also a member of the UNESCO National Committee for the decade of “Education for Sustainable Development”. Since, 2005, he is the Owner of the UNESCO-Chair “Higher Education for Sustainable Development”.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1467-6370.htm

Do sustainability projects stimulate organizational learning in universities? Patrick Albrecht, Simon Burandt and Stefan Schaltegger

Do sustainability projects stimulate OL? 403

Institute for Environmental and Sustainability Communication, Centre for Sustainability Management, University of Lu¨neburg, Lu¨neburg, Germany Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyze the preparation of a sustainability report and a large-scale energy-saving campaign with regards to their role for organizational learning (OL). Similar processes indicating OL were observed during the implementation of both projects. Along the lines of a theoretical framework of OL these processes will be discussed. Potential of institutional transformation regarding sustainable development is indicated. Design/methodology/approach – Following calls for “unified theory” on OL which can be used for empirical research, an integrative perspective has been proposed. Based on this perspective, two projects are discussed with respect to five dimensions in the process of OL: actors and media as communicative characteristics and triggers, factors as well as results as information processing characteristics. Findings – The results show the driving role of making data available to the public (transparency as incentive for organizational change) and the need to change structures for cross-linking information. Furthermore, benefits of creating new networks of actors for reflecting current structures and developing visions for future change are outlined. Practical implications – Possibilities for transferring the project designs and experiences to other institutions are shown. Need for further research on the mechanisms of OL for promoting structural change toward a stronger role of sustainability in higher education is indicated. Originality/value – The perspective of OL for sustainability reporting and energy saving offers new perspectives for internal change processes triggered by sustainability related projects. Promising research opportunities on triggers and drivers of such processes evolve. Keywords Learning organizations, Sustainable development, Universities, Energy management Paper type Research paper

Introduction This paper explores how universities as organizations can change their behavior to become more sustainable and be innovators rather than laggards in societal change processes towards sustainability. For this we draw on theoretical concepts developed under the paradigm of organizational learning (OL) and discuss their application to the university context. Owing to the diversity of theoretical approaches, an integrative perspective is used that outlines several dimensions of OL processes. Along these dimensions, the question whether two sustainability projects (preparation of a sustainability report and a large-scale energy-saving campaign) initialized OL is addressed.

International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education Vol. 8 No. 4, 2007 pp. 403-415 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1467-6370 DOI 10.1108/14676370710823573

IJSHE 8,4

404

Theoretical background: dimensions of organizational learning and universities OL is “the ability of the institution as a whole to discover errors and correct them, and to change the organization’s knowledge base and values so as to generate new problem-solving skills and new capacity for action” (Probst and Bu¨chel, 1997). Universities are today’s central institutions for advanced individual learning and the advancement of knowledge. However, it is rather questionable whether they are themselves learning organizations. Levin and Greenwood (2001) state the irony that “institutions that claim the position of the premier and most advanced knowledge producers in society frustrate learning and social change in most of their internal processes and in their interaction with surrounding society.” The German sociologist Helmut Willke (1997) goes so far as to call universities dumb organizations (with intelligent members), as they appear to be unable to establish internal networks and to properly respond to external, public demands. These comments offer an explanation for the low number of universities that strived to transform themselves in order to contribute to a sustainable development of society. They are, however, also based on the presumption that universities should and can respond in an unambiguous way to external demands. Organizational theorists discuss at least two explanations why this commonly does not happen: Weick (1976) characterized educational organizations as “loosely coupled systems,” highlighting the high-degree of autonomy of sub-systems like departments or faculties. A university can furthermore be characterized as an ideal type of Brunsson (1989) “political organization” that – opposed to an “action organization” – “has no need at all to produce coordinated action; its only basis for legitimation is that it reflects inconsistent norms.” These arguments cast doubts on the usefulness of talking about OL in the university context, as it does not seem to sufficiently take place in practice and appears to be conceptually problematic due to characteristics like loose coupling. The first argument states that OL is rather difficult to achieve; however, it also implies that it is both desirable and possible. It is therefore rather a challenge and a plea for endeavors to promote OL. The second argument, however, questions the usefulness of such endeavors and shall therefore be explored more carefully. First of all, one should ask, whether universities really are loosely coupled systems. Weick (1988) himself comments that research into the metaphor of loosely coupled systems has moved towards the recognition that “organizations are simultaneously loose and tight because they are coupled and decoupled on multiple dimensions.” The most obvious example for this would be the administrative support structure of universities that is much more coupled than that of research faculties. Also there might be some overarching – necessarily vague – shared goals and objectives. These could be void goals like to be “excellent” (as some kind of focus on quality that can only be defined in comparison to other institutions that fail to be excellent) but also – more prolific – be some shared goal to contribute to a sustainable development. Such a goal goes along with a focus on the solution of real world problems. Universities therefore need to cross borders from being pure “political organizations” to becoming partly “action organizations” in Brunsson (1989) sense of constituting organizational legitimacy through action.

Dimensions of organizational learning The role of OL for sustainability processes in the university context has been discussed by few authors so far[1] and there is as yet no accepted way for linking theory and empirical finding in this field. Several authors discuss notions of OL of universities (Senge, 2000; Levin and Greenwood, 2001) and the potential of OL for a sustainable development (Brentel, 2003; Siebenhu¨ner et al., 2006; Godemann, 2002; Jamali, 2006). The three aspects of OL, university context and sustainable development are, however, rarely discussed together. One exception to be mentioned is Gudz’s (2004) analysis on the institutionalization of a sustainability policy in the University of British Columbia, outlining transformation processes that enhance OL capacities. Arguing for an integrative perspective for empirical research, we give a brief overview on streams of research in OR. With regards to streams of research, Shrivastava (1983, p. 10) distinguishes in his influential classification of OL approaches the perspectives of: . Adaptive learning. Organizations adapt to changes in the environment by readjusting their goals, attention rules and search rules. . Assumption sharing. Organizational theories in-use results from shared assumptions. Learning involves changes in these theories. . Development of knowledge base. Learning is the process by which knowledge about action-outcome relations is developed. . Institutionalized experience effects. Learning curve effect extended to managerial decision-making.

Do sustainability projects stimulate OL? 405

These perspectives are based on “very different theoretical assumptions and should be viewed as complementary to each other in understanding organizational learning” (Shrivastava, 1983, p. 9). The diversity of these theoretical approaches, however, is seen as one reason for a lack of empirical research in OL (Klimecki et al., 1999, p. 4), leading to calls for a “unified theory” on OL (Dodgson, 1993). For this study, we will draw on an integrative perspective that has been proposed by Klimecki et al. (1999). The basis of their integrative approach is the perspective that “[a]n entity learns if, through its processing of information, the range of its potential behavior is changed” (Huber, 1991, p. 89).[2] Klimecki et al. (1999) distinguish five dimensions in the process of OL (Figure 1): actors and media as communicative characteristics and triggers, factors as well as results as information processing characteristics. Triggers: How is information generated and how does it trigger organizational learning?

Actors: Who is in which way part of the communicative formaion of organizational learning?

Knowledge base (old)

Media: By which forms of communication is information transmitted?

Information Interpretation Factors: By which factors and in which way is organizational learning influenced?

Source: Klimeki (1999, pp.8-12)

Results: How to learning processes transform the organizaion's knowledge base?

Knowledge base (new)

Figure 1. Dimensions of organizational learning

IJSHE 8,4

406

Reviewing the energy-saving campaign and sustainability reporting along the dimensions of organizational learning Both the energy-saving campaign and the preparation of the university’s sustainability report that will be discussed here were implemented under the common framework of the Lu¨neburg “Sustainable University Project.” Both projects did not exclusively aim at fostering OL and are therefore briefly characterized in Table I. During the organization and implementation of the projects, it became obvious that they touch upon similar processes that are closely associated with the characteristics of OL processes: the collection, interpretation and distribution of information with relevance to all organization members (and further external stakeholders) and the

The large-scale energy saving campaign was designed to promote patterns of responsible and conscious energy behavior among the university members. The main intervention and key element lay in the visualization and projection of the university’s energy demand, displayed at the most frequented places. The intervention intended to give all university members a direct visual feedback about their own (collective) energy relevant behavior, to raise the awareness about the issue of energy consumption and to sharpen the understanding for scarcity and cost of this public good in the minds of university members. Charts were used to provide visual feedback on the daily amount of energy being used, total costs and a comparison to last year’s consumption. To disseminate the information, e.g. a projector was installed at the canteen’s entrance of the university’s largest campus. In comparison with the winter semesters 2005/2006, the university saved more than 10 percent of energy in winter semester 2006/2007 (heating and electricity cumulated).a

Table I. Brief characterization of projects

The project of establishing a comprehensive sustainability report for the University of Lu¨neburg had to take into account the whole range of sustainability issues. Based on conceptual work, a specific design for the Lu¨neburg report was developedb. For the selection of relevant contextual content the following core materiality criteria (Sustainability, 2004) and a threefold approach were chosen: The Global Reporting Initiative’s guidelines (GRI, 2006) were used for an initial selection of indicators for operational aspects. Expert knowledge from the sustainable university project team was integrated to select relevant aspects and add topics specific to the university context. Opinions and feedback from university members and regional stakeholders were solicited. The first report will be published in June 2007; regular reporting will be established

Notes: aCorresponding VDI 3807 (Association of German engineers) – the outdoor temperature is incorporated into the calculation, e.g. to minimize the influence of cold winters on heating. To confirm the results because the winter 2006/2007 was above-average warm the results were compared to the warm winter 2004/2005 as well and showed savings of more than 8.5 percent. The psychological results of the campaign have been confirmed by a survey (n ¼ 513) (Burandt, in preparation).b In an initial analysis of existing sustainability reports of universities it became obvious that there is not yet a mainstream approach to capture relevant issues of sustainable development for universities. Most reports have a rather narrow focus on campus greening or focus solely on an administrative perspective, failing to capture the core functions of universities in teaching, research and transfer. To establish a theoretical basis for the Lueneburg report, possible approaches to university reporting were assessed. Mostly, a management perspective is chosen when dealing with the sustainability of organizations. This perspective alone, however, tends to have a narrow focus on specific problems of organizations and easily misses problems of global nature. This view was therefore extended by taking into account approaches that are based on a more societal perspective, focusing on global problems of un-sustainable development. The study resulted recommendations for context-aware approaches to be tailored to the specific requirements of reporting universities (Albrecht, 2006)

importance of communication processes. Furthermore, both projects have the objective to increase internal and external transparency by making information publicly available and to stimulate new responses of the organization to challenges of sustainable development, particularly the challenges of integrating social, environmental and economic aspects (Schaltegger et al., 2002 et seq.). Along the lines of the dimensions of OL (triggers, actors, media, factors, results), we seek to identify the central characteristics of this learning process. Triggers: how is information generated and how does it trigger organizational learning? The two projects’ basic intention aimed at making sustainability-related information transparent to university members and the public; thus, the collection of data was one of the basic processes in both projects and potentially a central trigger for OL. Duncan and Weiss (1979) describe the collection of new information and the optimization and broadening of the organizational knowledge base as triggers for OL. They distinguish between adding new information to the already existing knowledge base, the replacement of wrong information and the confirmation of correct information by adding new details. Learning effects can be expected mostly from the first two categories, as they make changes in existing mental models necessary. The sustainability report can be best described within the first category, as much of the information had to be collected for the first time. In most cases, the central challenge was to collect information in different parts of the organization and to adopt it to the new context. During this process, knowledge is generated by articulating implicit knowledge held by individual actors and transforming it to explicit knowledge. By contextualizing it within the sustainability report, information is combined and made accessible collectively. This process initializes a knowledge spiral as described in general terms by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995). Following the process of making implicit knowledge explicit, they describe the steps of internalization (connecting the new information with individual experience) and socialization (sharing of mental models). These will be further steps of knowledge generation when sustainability reporting is institutionalized as an ongoing process. Within the context of the energy saving campaign, energy data from the central building control systems (in collaboration with the technical manager) and additional data from the university administration were made available and were used in a more detailed way then before (different periods of time, broken down on individual demand of single buildings). A preliminary assessment revealed several inconsistencies, making a physical check of all meters and a review of manually collected data necessary. It showed that some meters were placed sub-optimally for exact measurement of energy used by single university buildings or possibilities to improve the procedure of meter reading. Actors: who is in which way part of the communicative formation of organizational learning? Learning processes of individuals do not necessarily result in group or OL. However, it can be observed that groups within organizations learn from each other, a phenomenon that is described in studies on organizational behavior – based on cognitive-psychological research (Bandura and Walters, 1963) – as vicarious learning

Do sustainability projects stimulate OL? 407

IJSHE 8,4

408

(defined by Manz and Sims, 1981 as learning from the experience of others). Thus, organizational and group learning are closely linked. Numerous actors carried learning processes through their involvement in and communication with the projects. This is in line with Shrivastava (1983) who see participation as one of the key facilitators of OL. Three (groups of) actors that closely interacted with the projects were considered as particularly important regarding learning processes: . Groups within the university administration. Both the energy saving campaign and the sustainability reporting project were formally embedded in the university’s administrative and management structure. For the sustainability report, participation in a newly formed “Change Management” group was supported by the university executive board in July 2005. This group comprised of university members from both teaching/research and administration and seemed therefore appropriate to discuss the preparation of the sustainability report. When this group discontinued its activities in May 2006, the reporting process was embedded within the “Working Group Environment” that also gave the energy saving project a regular forum to discuss its ideas and activities. This group is closely connected to the administration’s environmental and technical staff. Furthermore, environmentally engaged students participated. The interaction with the academics in the university is less stringent and results, on the large part, as a consequence of the two projects described here. . Environmental coordination. In 2002, the university established the position of an environmental coordinator. As this position has both administrative tasks and close connections to students and researchers (e.g. by supporting environmental student initiatives or participating in project seminars), it served as a hub for the communication with different contexts in the university and for data collection (extending beyond the environmental area). This function was of high importance to both projects. . Stakeholder Forum. To solicit project-external feedback, to facilitate opinion building on sustainability issues in the university context and to increase the external impact, a stakeholder forum was established as part of the sustainability reporting process. Stakeholders were identified based on the AcccountAbility 1000 Stakeholder Engagement Exposure Draft (Accountability, 2005) and convened for two meetings in June and December 2006. Both regional stakeholders (e.g. from NGOs, Business Initiatives, Schools, etc. and university members) were invited (Albrecht, 2007, in press). Media: by which forms of communication is information transmitted? For new information to influence the development of the university, it has to be transformed into the organization’s “language” (Klimecki et al., 1999). In general, terms, for information to change organizations, it can either be initially integrated into formal policies, goals and management systems or into daily action. The first case is described by Argyris and Scho¨n (1996) as espoused theory – the formal world-view, values and prescribed practices that behavior in the organization is supposed to be based on. The second case is referred to as theory-in-use – the world-view and values implied by the behavior of the organization’s members. For instance, a university may be signatory to

a university charter for sustainability without direct effects on practice. Differences between espoused theory and theory-in-use lead to frictions which may in turn lead to changes in the norms and values of the organization (an effect to which we will later on return to when discussing learning results). Integration into formal setting can thus result in changes in organizational culture and vice versa. The projects shall be described both with regards to their influences on formal and on cultural aspects. With regard to formal systems, the management of sustainability performance is part of strategic management, accounting and public reporting; all three being closely tied together (Schaltegger and Wagner, 2006). The idea to integrate sustainability into the management structure of the university was central to the sustainability reporting project: according to the WBCSD (2004), organizations either start with implementing management systems or public reporting, depending on their individual organization culture. As outlined above, universities are characterized by high-degrees of autonomy of their sub-systems. Furthermore, they are firmly embedded in regional contexts and international research communities (Becher and Kogan, 1992; Cohen et al., 1972; Baldridge, 1978). It therefore seems more appropriate for universities to begin with a participatory process utilizing public reporting. Data collection for the sustainability report has revealed potential for improvements of existing management systems and the integration of sustainability as an element into existing systems (e.g. suggesting the integration of “sustainability,” “interdisciplinarity” and “participation” in the development process of a newly established database for research projects). Furthermore, extensive new data has been collected for the report and will be used for future reporting (CO2-emissions, commuting, accidents, courses on sustainability, etc.). Generally, by collecting data and integrating targets into the report, initial steps towards a sustainability oriented management system have been established. Triggered by the before-mentioned problems in data collection for the implementation of the energy saving campaign, technological and procedural changes regarding the collection of energy data were implemented. The process of data collection by technical assistants from four different sites of the university was improved as well as the digital processing of data. Some meters have been changed to improve different calculations. The prescribed formal policies, goals and management systems do not necessarily coincide with the practical theories-in-use. Research on organizational culture explores the patterns that underlie practical action. Basic characteristics of organizational cultures are that they form well-enough-working and collectively shared basic assumptions (Schein, 1988). Organizational structures and processes as well as “espoused justifications” (strategies, goals, and philosophies) form the surface structure of organizational culture. The “ultimate source of values and action” are, however, “unconscious, taken for granted beliefs, habits of perception, thought and feeling” (Schein, 1988, p. 10). The two projects discussed here share basic underlying values. Firstly, both refer to the concept of sustainable development. This concept can already be seen as forming not only part of the formal university policy but also as part of the shared value system of a significant section of its members and becomes visible not only in management, teaching and research but also in many aspects of campus life (e.g. Agenda 21-cafe´; organic food available in cafeteria, etc.). Secondly, both projects operate under the

Do sustainability projects stimulate OL? 409

IJSHE 8,4

410

assumption that greater transparency and accountability about sustainability related aspects (e.g. energy consumption) is part of the societal responsibility of universities and will contribute to improving the performance of the organization (for example, by more informed and responsible behavior of its members). The institutionalization of central information systems – like an internet platform about the energy demand[3] – expands the range and detail of available information. Thus, both projects re-confirm the espoused theory of a “sustainable university” and contribute to strengthening the values of transparency and accountability. The projects clearly resulted in visibly formal changes of the management systems. Their influence on the organizations culture is not tangible but can be argued for on basis of the increased transparency and participation of the institutional actors. As a consequence, this slowly triggers into the organization and the organizational language. Factors: which factors influence organizational learning in which way? Throughout information processing, different factors can influence learning. When acquiring information, the amount of information and its equivocality impose the logistical problem of “determining whether the amount of information is sufficient, excessive, or optimal” and the interpretative problem of developing “a shared interpretation of messages that have been received through the logistical system” (Daft and Huber, 1987). The two projects discussed here differ in the amount and equivocality of information. It can be expected that this influences OL. As for the preparation of the university’s sustainability report, a high amount of information had to be processed due to the broadness and complexity of sustainability issues. Partly, new information was not directly needed because existing management processes had to be gathered (e.g. information about the daily commuting of university members). Information on sustainability issues is characterized by a high-degree of equivocality as there is no generally accepted way of interpretation. This situation holds the potential for the highest level of learning as “events are poorly understood” and there are a “large number of events to be dealt with” (Daft and Huber, 1987, p. 11). To release this learning potential, extensive discussion and judgment is necessary to reduce equivocality. It was therefore important to design a process to generate shared meaning. Therefore, the embedding of the project into university management structures and extensive stakeholder involvement (as described under the learning dimension “actors”) were crucial. Furthermore, strategies like benchmarking data with other universities needed to be used in order to contextualize information. This was needed to move forward from initial interpretations based on an introspective view like “stable energy consumption levels” to observations like, e.g. “low consumptions in comparison with other German universities” and with a still wider horizon, to objectives like the initiation of a carbon neutral campus. The energy saving campaign also had to deal with large amounts of data. However, due to the clearly defined object range of energy data, the equivocality of information was low. Comparatively reliable raw data could be compiled and this helped to reduce the uncertainty of interpretation. The before-mentioned problems in metering energy use were perceived similarly by all relevant actors (energy saving campaign; environmental management; technical supervision).

Thus, it can be said that the experts involved shared a homogenous interpretation of the situation. The major learning effect lies in the improvement of formal information acquisition and processing as Daft and Huber (1987, p. 11) predict for situations of high amounts of information and low equivocality. It must, however, be added that outside the expert context interpretation of energy data appears to be heterogeneous. During the development of energy diagrams for the visualization of energy demand, it came to light that existing knowledge of students about energy, energy supply or heating varies and is rather minimal in many cases. Even if the obstacle of creating shared meaning is overcome, there is an additional problem of storing and retrieving information within organizations. Much information that is generated in an organization is either not stored at all, is not stored in an easily accessible way or lost through unlearning effects like personnel turnover (Huber, 1991). Furthermore, “[as] a result of specialization, differentiation, and departmentalization, organizations frequently do not know what they know” (Huber, 1991, p. 106). Both the energy-saving campaign and the sustainability report utilize printed and electronic media to make information available to the university members and to the interested public. They contribute to the long-term storage of information, which might be used for future interpretation and informed strategic decision-making. In some cases, the sustainability report began with collecting information and therefore had to deal with lack of data on past activities and performance. The exception was the availability of data through the long-established EMAS environmental management system. Data on non-environmental topics (particularly data on social aspects) going back several years was largely unavailable or difficult to reconstruct. Therefore, some interpretations (e.g. on accident statistics) that need comparisons across several years will only be possible in subsequent reports. Formal reports – be they about environmental or sustainability issues – thus serve as an important means of knowledge storage. Results: how do learning processes transform the organization’s knowledge base? Successful OL processes result in a modification of the knowledge base of organizations. This transgresses the learning factor of long-term storage of information as it involves the modification of the organization’s cognitive structure (Klimecki et al., 1999). Recalling the definition of OL by Probst and Bu¨chel (1997), the ability to generate new problem-solving skills and new capacity for action is thereby acquired. It is commonly distinguished between incremental forms of learning, fundamental forms and second-order/deutero learning (for an overview of different classifications see: Probst and Bu¨chel, 1997, p. 39). Second-order learning is established by reflecting past (incremental or fundamental) learning processes. This paper strives to identify these past first-order learning effects triggered by the outlined projects. The discussion of “learning of learning” (Bateson, 1985) thus lies beyond its scope. The incremental form of learning – in the terminology of Argyris and Scho¨n (1996) “single-loop learning” – describes a reaction to a difference between the actual and expected outcome of an action that corrects the inconsistency without affecting consisting norms, moral concepts or theories-in-use. Single-loop learning effects that were mainly observed according the improvement of data collection and processing (e.g. placement of energy meters; building-specific energy consumption; various improvements throughout the preparation of the sustainability report).

Do sustainability projects stimulate OL? 411

IJSHE 8,4

412

Differences between espoused theories and theories-in-use (see learning dimension “media”) may lead to modifications in the norms and values of an organization. Fundamental or “double-loop” learning processes result from contesting goals, rules, expectations or strategies of the organization. Thus, double-loop learning is closely associated with the norms and values of the organization. The discussed projects touched upon norms and values in several ways. They were not only committed to the guiding principle of sustainable development, but also to values like increased transparency, accountability and participation. With regard to sustainable development, a double-loop learning process has already taken place when the university committed to a sustainability policy in 2000. However, the projects reconfirmed the importance of this guiding principle and contributed to setting new objectives. The culture of transparency and accountability still impose new challenges for universities. As a German university, the University of Lu¨neburg does, for example, not yet publish public financial statements or comprehensive research reports. The sustainability report and the public visualization of energy consumption can be seen as groundbreaking for an improved culture of transparency. A third process of double-loop learning may have been initiated by utilizing participative designs and demonstrating their workability: e.g. the sustainability report brought regional and university actors together, the energy campaign invited university members to provide feedback on energy saving opportunities and to work as change agents. The long-term effects of both projects, however, still have to be observed and investigated more profoundly. Conclusions Clearly both projects proved to be highly workable for initiating OL in the university. Energy issues and sustainability reporting have the potential to mobilize actors from all groups of university actors and these topics allow for both incremental and fundamental learning. OL as observed for the University of Lu¨neburg, can be expected for other universities as well. Learning effects can even be expected to be more profound, as Lu¨neburg University looks back to a long history of sustainability processes. This, however, also includes higher initial resistance to change. The analysis demonstrated the importance of both information generation and communication on all dimensions of OL. The discussion of learning results showed incremental learning mostly for data collection and processing and fundamental learning for communicative processes of interpretation. As main drivers of these processes, the notions of transparency, broad participation and accountability to the public were identified. These notions are of great transformative power as they both affect (partly unconsciously) aspects of organizational culture and the formal processes (e.g. management systems). They are, thus, also seen as main drivers in implementing sustainable development in universities. With regards to the integrative theoretical approach applied here – Klimecki et al.’s (1999) integrative approach to organization learning – it can be concluded that it proved generally helpful. However, some pitfalls of integrative perspective also have to be stated. As mentioned in discussing learning results, the identification of second order (deutero) learning processes lies beyond the scope of this paper. Nevertheless, it will be necessary to institutionalize self-reflective forms of OL for real progress towards more sustainable universities. Be it by stakeholder committees that reflect upon the tasks

and responsibilities of universities out of the bounds of formal university structures or by other means and instruments. Universities need to learn to be learning organizations. Notes 1. Several authors discuss notions of organisational learning of universities (Senge, 2000; Levin and Greenwood, 2001) and the potential of organizational learning for a sustainable development (Brentel, 2003; Siebenhu¨ner et al., 2006; Godemann, 2002; Jamali, 2006). The three aspects of organizational learning, university context and sustainable development are, however, rarely discussed together. One exception to be mentioned is Gudz’s (2004) analysis of the implementation of a sustainability policy in the University of British Columbia, outlining transformation processes that enhance organizational learning capacities. 2. In Huber’s (1991, p. 90) perspective, learning consists of knowledge acquisition, information distribution (sharing of information within the organization), information interpretation (attributing one or more commonly understood interpretations) and storing information for future use in an organizational memory. 3. During the project a web-platform “energy-server” was developed, all energy data was automatically processed and available for detailed queries or comparisons for public and university members. References Accountability (2005), “AA1000 Stakeholder Engagement Standard (Exposure Draft)”, available at: www.accountability.org.uk/uploadstore/cms/docs/SES%20Exposure%20Draft% 20dtv.pdf Albrecht, P. (2006), “Nachhaltigkeitsberichterstattung an Hochschulen – Diskussion mo¨glicher Ansatzpunkte und ihrer Konsequenzen fu¨r die Praxis”, INFU-Diskussionsbeitra¨ge/CSMDiskussionspapier, Vol. 33 No. 6. Albrecht, P. (2007), “Stakeholder-Dialog als Instrument zur partizipativen Gestaltung von organisationalen Lernprozessen”, in Jansen-Schulz, B. (Ed.), Zukunft Bologna – Gender und Nachhaltigkeit als Leitideen fu¨r eine neue Hochschulkultur, Peter Lang Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, in press. Argyris, C. and Scho¨n, D.A. (1996), Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice, Vol. XXIX, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, p. 305. Baldridge, J.V. (1978), Policy Making and Effective Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Bandura, A. and Walters, R.H. (1963), Social Learning and Personality Development, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY. Becher, T. and Kogan, M. (1992), Process and Structure in Higher Education, Routledge, London. Brentel, H. (2003), “Strategische Organisationsanalyse und organisationales Lernen. Schlu¨sselkompetenzen fu¨r nachhaltiges Wirtschaften” (“Strategic organizational analysis and organizational learning. Key competencies for sustainable management”), in Linne, G. and Schwarz, M. (Eds), Handbuch Nachhaltige Entwicklung. Wie ist nachhaltiges Wirtschaften machbar?, VS Verlag, Opladen. Brunsson, N. (1989), The Organization of Hypocrisy: Talk, Decisions and Actions in Organizations, Vol. VII, Wiley, Chichester, p. 242. Cohen, M.D., March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1972), “A garbage can model of organizational choice”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 1-25.

Do sustainability projects stimulate OL? 413

IJSHE 8,4

414

Daft, R.L. and Huber, G.P. (1987), “How organizations learn: a communication framework”, Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 5, pp. 1-36. Dodgson, M. (1993), “Learning, trust, an technological collaboration”, Human Relations, Vol. 46, pp. 77-95. Godemann, J. (2002), Leitbildimplementierung in Organisationen: Chancen und Mo¨glichkeiten einer Bildung fu¨r eine nachhaltige Entwicklung in Kinderga¨rten, p. 178. GRI, Global Reporting Initiative (2006), “RG. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Version 3.0”, Global Reporting Initiative, available at www.globalreporting.org/Services/ ResearchLibrary/GRIPublications/ Gudz, N.A. (2004), “Implementing the sustainable development policy at the University of British Columbia: an analysis of the implications for organisational learning”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 5, pp. 156-68. Huber, G.P. (1991), “Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literature”, Organization Science, Vol. 2, pp. 88-113. Jamali, D. (2006), “Insights into triple bottom line integration from a learning organization perspective”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 12, pp. 809-21. Klimecki, R.G., Laßleben, H. and Thomae, M. (1999), “Organisationales Lernen. Ein Ansatz zur Integration von Theorie, Empirie und Gestaltung”, Management Forschung und Praxis. Universita¨t Konstanz, Vol. 26. Levin, M. and Greenwood, D.J. (2001), “Pragmatic action research and the struggle to transform universities into learning communities”, in Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (Eds), Handbook of Action Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 103-14. Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. (1981), “Vicarious learning: the influence of modeling on organizational learning”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 6, pp. 105-13. Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), “The Knowledge-creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation”, p. XII, 284 S.: graph. Darst. Probst, G.J.B. and Bu¨chel, B.S.T. (1997), Organizational Learning: the Competitive Advantage of the Future, Prentice-Hall, London. Schaltegger, S. and Wagner, M. (2006), “Integrative management of sustainability performance, measurement and reporting”, International Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation, Vol. 3, pp. 1-19. Schaltegger, S., Herzig, C., Kleiber, O. and Mu¨ller, J. (2002), Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement in Unternehmen. Konzepte und Instrumente zur nachhaltigen Unternehmensentwicklung, MuK. Medien und Kommunikations GmbH, Berlin. Schein, E.H. (1988), Organizational Culture, Sloan School of Management Working Paper, MIT, Cambridge, MA, p. 2088. Senge, P.M. (2000), “Die Hochschule als lernende Gemeinschaft”, in Laske, S., Schyett, T., Meister-Scheytt, C. and Scharmer, C.O. (Eds), Universita¨t im 21. Jahrhundert: zur Interdependenz von Begriff und Organisation der Wissenschaft, Hampp, Mu¨nchen, pp. 17-44. Shrivastava, P. (1983), “A typology of organizational learning systems”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 20, pp. 7-28. Siebenhu¨ner, B., Arnold, M., Hoffmann, E., Behrens, T., Heerwart, S. and Beschorner, T. (2006), “Organisationales Lernen und Nachhaltigkeit: Prozesse, Auswirkungen und Einflussfaktoren in sechs Unternehmensfallstudien”, p. 277 S. Sustainability (2004), “Materiality: does it matter?”, Issue Brief, Vol. 6.

WBCSD (2004), Guide How to Report: Approach, World Business Council for Sustainable Development, available at: www.sdportal.org/web/sdportal/guide/approach.htm Weick, K. (1976), “Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems”, Administrative Journal Quarterly, Vol. 21, pp. 1-19. Weick, K.E. (1988), “Loose coupling: beyond the metaphor”, Current Contents, Vol. 20, p. 14. Willke, H. (1997), “Dumme Universita¨ten, intelligente Parlamente. Wie es kommt, daß intelligente Personen in dummen Organisationen operieren ko¨nnen, und umgekehrt”, in Grossmann, R. (Ed.), Wie wird Wissen wirksam? (IFF-Texte; Bd. 1), Springer, Wien, New York, NY, pp. 107-9. About the authors Patrick Albrecht holds a graduate degree in business administration and economics. He is Scientific Assistant at the Institute for Environmental and Sustainability Communication at the University of Lu¨neburg and researcher in the project “Sustainable University – Sustainable Development in the context of university remits.” His main research areas are Organizational Theory, Sustainability Management, Sustainability Reporting and Corporate Social Responsibility. Patrick Albrecht is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected] Simon Burandt, Environmental Scientist. He is Scientific Assistant at the Institute for Environmental and Sustainability Communication at the University of Lu¨neburg and researcher in the projects “Sustainable University – sustainable development in the context of university remits” and “CAST – climate trends and sustainable development of tourism in coastal and low mountain range regions.” His main research areas are energy management and behavior, tourism and climate change as well as e-learning. Stefan Schaltegger, Professor of Corporate Environmental and Sustainability Management, is Head of the Centre for Sustainability Management and the MBA Sustainability Management at the University of Lu¨neburg. His research deals with corporate sustainability management.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Do sustainability projects stimulate OL? 415

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1467-6370.htm

IJSHE 8,4

Developing key competencies for sustainable development in higher education

416

Matthias Barth, Jasmin Godemann, Marco Rieckmann and Ute Stoltenberg Universita¨t Lu¨neburg, Lu¨neburg, Germany Abstract Purpose – To date, little attention has been given to the circumstances in which the process of developing key competencies for sustainable development may take place. The purpose of this paper is to consider, the possibilities both of formal and informal learning and their relationship to competence development within higher education. Design/methodology/approach – An explorative, qualitative study based on focus groups was designed using different groups from formal and informal learning settings. Findings – The development of key competencies is based both on cognitive and non-cognitive dispositions and asks for multiple contexts. Through combining formal and informal learning settings within higher education – as part of a new learning culture – a variety of contexts can be given and competence development can be enhanced. Research limitations/implications – While aspects of both formal and informal learning settings could be identified, the interdependencies between them remain elusive. Practical implications – Based on the findings, some main aspects for acquiring competencies can be pointed out that may be crucial in higher education settings. Originality/value – The paper analyses the implications for both formal and informal learning settings of new ways of developing key competencies within higher education. Particular attention is given to interdisciplinarity and students’ self-responsibility. Keywords Sustainable development, Higher education, Competences, Learning Paper type Research paper

International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education Vol. 8 No. 4, 2007 pp. 416-430 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1467-6370 DOI 10.1108/14676370710823582

Introduction Science and technology are the crucial structural driving forces in all societal spheres. Sustainable development is the ethically founded response to a worldwide process in which not only research is increasingly carried out on the basis of private and economic interests but where these interests are also shaping the profile of academically educated young people (Altner and Michelsen, 2005). Against the background of globalisation and increasing complexity, higher education for sustainable development (ESD) aims at enabling people to not only acquire and generate knowledge, but also to reflect on further effects and the complexity of behaviour and decisions in a future-oriented and global perspective of responsibility. Higher ESD has to participate in the discussion about sustainable ways of living and working. Acquiring relevant competencies within and by academic work cannot be a private concern of faculty, staff or administration. Absolutely essential is a new learning culture which does not confirm academic tradition but examines its potential for a sustainable future, in an open-minded and participative process. It has to be related to one’s own sphere of influence and desires. On the other hand, individual

and societal learning should be related, for sustainable development is a matter of negotiation. Within this perspective, it seems vital to consider the university as a learning and life world. In general, universities are seen as formal educational institutions. When discussing the role of academia for competence development the focus is mostly on study programmes and courses – thus formal learning settings. But universities also offer opportunities for learning in informal settings, such as volunteering in student groups. The potential of the different settings and their relationship are discussed theoretically and with regard to their meaning in practice[1]. Theoretical framework Competencies and key competencies The term “competency” echoes throughout the country. It is discussed not only within the work environment or in the context of educational issues, but has also become a concern in personal and societal everyday life. Societal change, the progress of technology and globalisation are accompanied by new challenges which have to be mastered: increasing individualisation and growing societal diversity, accompanied in parallel by expanding economic and cultural uniformity, the availability of a rapidly growing amount of information, as well as the necessity to cope with increasing complexity and uncertainties (Rychen, 2001). However, no agreement exists about what (key) competencies actually are, which are of importance and how the approach of competence acquisition finds its way into higher education. In a general approach, competencies may be characterised as dispositions to self-organisation, comprising different psycho-social components, existing in a context-overlapping manner, and realising themselves context-specifically. They may be acquired gradually in different stages, and they are reflected in successful actions. Furthermore, the term key competency seems of importance as it represents a qualitative extension that points out the special significance of certain competencies. Key competencies are relevant across different spheres of life and for all individuals (Rychen and Salganik, 2003). They do not replace domain-specific competencies which are necessary for successful action in certain situations and contexts. They rather bear a different, a wider focus, pooling different competency classes and being situated transversely to them. They comprise different domain-specific competencies and point out the most relevant competency fields. In order to render this concept, relevant in practice, we need not only a defined understanding of the term, but also information about which key competencies are of particular importance. The attempt to compile a comprehensive scheme about all possible and necessary key competencies is bound to fail right from the start since such a list must end in arbitrariness (Weinert, 2001). Sustainable development as a normative framework for selecting key competencies Sustainable development can be seen as a normative starting point for selecting relevant key competencies. On the international level, the concept of ESD is – amongst others – shaped by the foundational documents of the UNESCO (2004). Here, the acquisition of life skills is particularly emphasised and focused on. Thus, UNESCO (2004, p. 20) formulated in its “draft international implementation scheme” about the ESD World Decade:

Sustainable development in higher education 417

IJSHE 8,4

418

ESD requires a re-examination of educational policy [. . .] in order to focus clearly on the development of the knowledge, skills, perspectives and values related to sustainability. This [. . .] requires a review of recommended and mandated approaches to teaching, learning and assessment so that lifelong learning skills are fostered. These include skills for creative and critical thinking, oral and written communication, collaboration and cooperation, conflict management, decision-making, problem-solving and planning, using appropriate ICTs, and practical citizenship.

In Germany, developing “Gestaltungskompetenz” (shaping competence; de Haan, 2006) has been discussed as the central educational objective of ESD. “Gestaltungskompetenz” encompasses a set of key competencies which are expected to enable active, reflective and co-operative participation toward sustainable development. The term is used to describe the “forward-looking ability to modify and to shape the futures of those societies we live in via active participation in terms of a sustainable development” (de Haan and Harenberg, 1999, p. 62). “Gestaltungskompetenz” comprises the following eight key competencies (de Haan, 2006, pp. 22-5): (1) competency in foresighted thinking; (2) competency in interdisciplinary work; (3) competency in cosmopolitan perception, transcultural understanding and co-operation; (4) participatory skills; (5) competency in planning and implementation; (6) capacity for empathy, compassion and solidarity; (7) competency in self-motivation and in motivating others; and (8) competency in distanced reflection on individual and cultural models. Sustainable development necessitates societal modernisation and may only be realised via the active participation of competent citizens; therefore the concept of Gestaltungskompetenz is characterised in particular by key competencies that are required for forward-looking and autonomous participation in shaping sustainable development. Competency acquisition Acquiring competencies is hardly comparable with learning as knowledge acquisition. Competencies are described as learnable but not teachable. This leads to the increasing relevance of the question whether and how they may be acquired via learning programmes (Weinert, 2001). Methodical notes about competency acquisition or about didactic conceptions of imparting competence are usually of a rather general character, which is often not least due to a rather vague competency concept (Arnold, 1997). If we understand key competencies – as it is outlined in this text – as the interplay of cognitive and non-cognitive components, then at least these two elements must be considered in any approach of competence acquisition. In addition, two different explanatory approaches might be drawn on (Barth, 2007): (1) The development of higher stages of consciousness as an indication of increased cognitive complexity and thus enhanced cognitive components is traceable, considering the construction of mental models.

(2) The acquisition of non-cognitive components is explained with the concept of value interiorisation. In this sense, competence acquisition may be understood as learning of values and thus it assumes interiorisation processes: production and reproduction, reception and communication of values are central points. The learning individual must be enabled to discover and to analyse his/her own value system, and to revise it with respect to its adequacy to reality. To successfully impart competencies, those methods that involve an affective component are increasingly necessary, breaking through established patterns of action and leading to a re-evaluation of action possibilities. Higher education and competence acquisition Higher education understood as the answer to the outlined challenges, and focusing on the development of key competencies needs a reorientation of learning processes and therewith of one of its core tasks. For that purpose a “new learning culture”[2] is necessary, which moves away from a culture of learning based on the principle of indoctrination and is “enabling-oriented, based on self-organisation and centred on competence” (Erpenbeck and Rosenstiel, 2003, p. XIII)[3]. Arnold and Lermen (2005, p. 59), in this context also deal with the necessity of establishing an “enabling didactic”. The goal in this case, in addition to professional training, is to promote personality development, enabling a person to be able to cope with complex situations, to be able to act upon reflection and to make decisions. It is also about being able to take on responsibility, to consider ethical standards when acting and to be able to judge consequences. Learning processes which consider the requisites of such a new learning culture can be characterised on the basis of three consequences: (1) Competence-orientation. The focus of learning processes is on attaining relevant key competencies. This requires a normative framework for the justified selection of such competencies in the same way as an educational concept is necessary which offers contents for developing competencies and helps to identify learning opportunities. (2) Societal orientation. Learning for sustainable development is always also societal learning. Learning takes place in real-life situations which question and change societal living. (3) Individual centring. Learning by the individual is seen to be active in the societal context. For formal learning processes this means a change from teacher to learner-centring. Additionally, informal learning processes should be taken into consideration for developing competencies, also and in particular at the university, because individuals not only learn in formal settings; informal settings but also play an important role. About 70 per cent of all human learning processes belong to informal learning (Overwien, 2005, p. 340). Requirements for learning in formal settings For a new orientation of academic teaching, which places the focus on key competencies and the key principles of higher ESD (Barth et al., 2007), at least two central challenges, amongst others, can be identified: Orientation towards interdisciplinarity. Interdisciplinary cooperation – regardless whether in the context of teaching or research – requires new forms of communication

Sustainable development in higher education 419

IJSHE 8,4

420

and cooperation. Working out solutions for complex problems in heterogeneous teams necessitates including and understanding various perspectives in order to combine them profitably. So far, however, teaching at universities has been shaped very much by disciplinary structures. Universities are structured according to faculties and education is based on traditional disciplines, to which a specific socialisation of graduates is linked. Interdisciplinary opportunities, which would support developing the required competencies, are rare. Opportunities would have to be created which aim: . . . to reflect in education the disciplines with regard to their relation to the world, to life-worldly goods and to other disciplines; to support their understanding of each other and to prepare future researchers to approach complex questions in a comprehensive way and thus to attain an integrated whole again (Defila and Di Giulio, 1996, p. 133).

Strengthening self-reliance and self-direction in the learning process. To develop and to stabilise competencies in various contexts, students actively shaping the learning process should be encouraged right from the start in order to strengthen their self-reliance. Self-direction relates to learning processes as well as to the choice of appropriate methods, dealing with information and firmly establishing the given subject framework with regard to contents. In order to encourage the principle of self-direction, two different but complementary approaches come to mind: Firstly, a step-by-step opening from very guided to self-directed learning. This opens the opportunity for gradually testing and applying self-reliance and self-control within the learning process. It also allows less experienced learners a substantial amount of autonomy in the learning process. Secondly, independent project work which is the student’s sole responsibility can serve to be a test of self-direction in a real-life situation. Consequently, it can be concluded that for successful self-directed learning, first and foremost competencies or rather personality traits are necessary, which however cannot be directly influenced. They can, nevertheless, form the basis for adapting an individual learning strategy (Barth and Godemann, 2007). Characteristics of learning in informal settings Informal learning has to be distinguished from formal and informal education. It does not only take place outside the formal educational institutions, e.g. during free time, but also inside these institutions where learning is not a part of the education process intended by the curriculum (Schugurensky, 2000, p. 2). Thus, informal learning is “any activity involving the pursuit of understanding, knowledge or skill which occurs without the presence of externally imposed curricular criteria” (Livingstone, 2001, p. 4). Against this background we can refer to universities as learning environments that also offer settings for informal learning, such as discussions with fellow students or volunteering in student groups on campus where students learn outside the organised academic learning processes. Referring to Schugurensky (2000) three forms of informal learning can be differentiated: (1) Self-directed learning. Learning projects undertaken by individuals (alone or as part of a group) without the assistance of an ’educator’ both intentional and conscious.

(2) Incidental/experiential learning. Without any previous intention of learning, but after the experience the individual becomes aware that some learning has taken place; unintentional but conscious. (3) Socialisation. Tacit learning; internalisation of values, attitudes, behaviours, skills, etc. during everyday life; unintentional and unconscious.

Sustainable development in higher education

In the case of experiential learning, “sensory impressions [. . .] are allocated comparatively and integrated into previously developed experience and imaginative contexts” thus they are “condensed into experiences” (Dohmen, 2001, p. 28). “Experiential knowledge” is acquired which “makes it easier to deal with the environments where these experiences are made” (Dohmen, 2001). For experiential learning the following features are characteristic (Kolb, 1984, p. 38): . the involvement of the whole person (intellectual and sensory faculties as well as emotional responses); . an active use of all previous relevant life and learning experiences; and . reflection upon earlier experiences so as to allow an evolution of thought and hence a deeper understanding.

421

Informal learning in all its forms, but particularly experiential learning, contributes to developing competencies, because it is integrated in activities (Dohmen, 2001, p. 42ff.). Experiential learning especially facilitates the development of action competencies (Dohmen, 2001, p. 33), e.g. in the context of volunteering (Du¨x and Sass, 2005). According to Lipski (2004), informal learning has a special importance for developing “life competency” which means the capacity to plan and implement projects that serve for realising individual and/or common life goals; here the capacity for self-organisation plays an important role. With respect to higher education institutions, this means that students learn by means of self-organisation processes, e.g. in the context of projects and student participation, and in doing so they develop “life competency”. Learning environments should be designed in a way that they also enable informal, partly also unconscious learning processes (Overwien, 2005, p. 343f). Marsick et al. (in Overwien, 2005, p. 344) state that important arrangements for facilitating informal learning are first and foremost providing time and places for learning, examining the environment with regard to learning opportunities, directing the attention to learning processes, strengthening the capacity for reflection and creating an atmosphere of cooperation and confidence. Research question Both threads presented establish the starting position for answering, the question how acquiring key competencies for sustainable development can be realised at universities. The theoretical considerations are supplemented by empirical data obtained via two specific fields of examination: RQ1. Examining an interdisciplinary study programme from the perspective of what contribution reoriented interdisciplinary study programmes can make to the realm of formal learning.

IJSHE 8,4

422

RQ2. Analysing the “lifeworld university” with the question of how student participation on campus, understood as a field of informal learning at universities, contributes to developing key competencies. Methodological approach Acquiring competencies is not only based on individual processes, but is always achieved in social contexts and, at least in part, collaboratively. In order to reproduce such group processes parallel to individual ones, it is necessary to use an approach which is suitable for adequately reproducing cross-individual opinions. Analyzing focus group discussions considers that subjective meaning structures are frequently integrated in social contexts, which can only be surveyed in group situations (Denzin and Lincoln, 1998). For the study programme “Sustainability” three focus group discussions were carried out with each of the three project groups of the programme in August and September 2005 which worked together on producing a final report. The analysis of the acquisition of competencies within the framework of student on-campus volunteer engagement is based on three focus group discussions with a total of 13 students[4] which took place in April 2007. The focus group discussions were realised using Morgan’s (1997) process model. The presentation was carried out by two scientists involved in the project “Sustainable University” using a rough thematic guideline (topic guide). The guideline to be used and the research situation were successfully tested in a pre-test. The focus group discussions, taking an average of 60-90 minutes, were recorded digitally, transcribed and anonymised. The data were analysed using the qualitative data analysis software MAXqda. The results of this analysis are presented in extracts in this paper. Sample For the focus group discussions, two samples representing formal and informal learning settings were chosen. Study programme “Sustainability” Within the framework of the three year research and development project “Sustainable University” at the University of Lu¨neburg, a study programme was developed and tested which aims to constructively take up the described challenges for the university with respect to curriculum development. Based on the concept of sustainable development, the programme encourages the ability to solve problems in an interdisciplinary way. The developed approach can be distinguished by two main criteria: (1) complex problem areas are dealt with in an interdisciplinary manner, whereby interdisciplinarity relates to both the group of learners and to the group of teaching staff; and (2) the learning process is supported by the development of an alternative learning environment (blended learning). Within the one-year interdisciplinary study programme “Sustainability” 32 students from educational, cultural, environmental and business sciences work together on a specific problem area. They identify societal problems and global trends from a political, economic, cultural and social point of view in an interdisciplinary dialogue and also work on developing solutions. From the winter semester 2004/2005 to the summer

semester 2005, the subject “nutrition, agriculture and consumption” were dealt with under the motto “Eating better – only a question of production and consumption?” The course was taught by faculty from various disciplines as well as external practice experts. This allowed for various approaches to the problem; discipline-specific methods and states of knowledge were able to be integrated and reflected upon.

Sustainable development in higher education

Student initiatives and groups Student volunteering on campus can be seen as one important setting for informal learning at universities. For this empirical study, students participating in student groups or the student government at the University of Lu¨neburg were chosen as a sample. The student groups are organised in an umbrella organisation called “Dachverband der Studierendeninitiativen Lu¨neburg” (DSi, www.uni-lueneburg.de/ dsi/). For instance AIESEC, 25 initiatives are members of the DSi, Amnesty International and the Market Team. Each semester the initiatives present their work in a fair on campus; furthermore, once per year the DSi organises a symposium which deals with questions of sustainable development. The bodies of student selfadministration, the student government and the student parliament, represent the interests of the students in the university. The student government consists of three spokespersons and the representatives of ten task forces, such as the task force for public relations or the task force for ecology.

423

Results Acquisition of competencies The analysis of the group discussions focuses on the question which of the key competencies considered to be fundamental can be identified in the formal and informal learning settings. Data show that with regard to the study programme the competence for interdisciplinary cooperation appears to be central. In this case, the development of various sub-competencies becomes clear, which is also reflected by the students. Thus, the problem of the ability to take over different perspectives, combined with tolerance and acceptance with regard to other disciplines as a central personal competence, is initially expounded. The necessary observations from a metaperspective lead to a debate about how representatives of other disciplines deal with their own and other technical terms and how the own application of terms, methods and strategies with regard to problem-solving takes place. Personal specialised knowledge is applied to new questions and problems in different combinations of disciplines and placed in an integrative perspective, so that “there is an expert on every subject, who can be asked detailed questions and who, for example, also knows where something can be read or followed up on quickly” (Spn_20). As interdisciplinarity takes place in social groups, socio-communicative competencies are a further crucial criterion. Important in this case is particularly the ability to understand the other person’s perspective, to communicate one’s own specialised knowledge comprehensively to persons from other disciplines in order to eventually be able to develop a shared knowledge base. Voluntary commitment, which the students participating in the focus group discussions themselves perceive to be a learning setting, also promotes communication skills: “Yes, it is definitely possible to learn a lot, especially in the field

IJSHE 8,4

424

of communication with people you are involved with – how to approach them [. . .]” (INT 2, TN 3). Organisational skills are also fundamental: “ [. . .] I, as a person have been able to profit somewhat in the framework of methodical competencies, from the fact that events, etc. have to be organised ” (INT 2, TN 2). Apart from these, skills with regard to team-leading, taking on responsibility, self-motivation and motivating others, time management, group work and presentation are also developed; new knowledge which is important for voluntary work is also acquired. It becomes clear that in both learning settings various sub-competencies, dispositions and skills are touched on. In addition to cognitive dispositions, emotional and motivational dispositions which appear to be of special significance for competencies are mentioned by the interviewees participating in the study programme: the various viewpoints and approaches are explicitly seen as an enrichment; the close cooperation also offers a basis for trust, which is seen as being critical for high quality discussions and leads to a more trusting cooperation than in “normal” seminars. Process of competence acquisition If competence acquisition is seen as the development of a “mental complexity” then attention should be turned to the development of mental models, which are necessary to attain, to structure and to organise new knowledge. For the study programme, contact with complexity is stated as an important pre-requisite, which is reflected when dealing with different bodies of knowledge: “With Wiki complicated questions can be far better structured and one can retain an overview, without loosing sight of the contexts” (Spn_18). Data show that working on a mutual knowledge base which can simultaneously reproduce the multilateral interactions and influences supports the development of mental models; it equally allows for a comparison with the models of others. Such an “explication of a mental model” is a definite added value for the collaborative work and therefore favours the acquisition of competencies. Competencies are acquired not least by the restructuring of knowledge and new formulation of personal understanding based on experience, viewpoints and contexts. This process of de- and re-construction becomes obvious and comprehensive and can be mutually negotiated and assessed. The process orientation in the work leads to scrutiny of the connected values and norms, which are discussed and (re)produced. Successfully dealing with decision-making processes full of conflicts as a critical incentive for value interiorisation necessitates methods of work which include an affective component, which break with established action patterns and which lead to new assessments of ways of taking action. This happens in two ways: on the one hand via an explicit value discussion, especially between the various disciplines, on the other hand in developing the mutual knowledge base. Collaboratively acquiring competencies can be described as learning in communities of practice. By “growing into” a community, not only knowledge but also values guiding actions are acquired. This is supported by a focus on action-relevant practice contexts, by highlighting individual and collaborative learning as well as by reflecting social constructions. The various contexts of the study programme offer a space where gradually increasing participation and a “catching-up” type of learning is made possible. Simultaneously, students as “experts” and “laypersons” can be involved in a subject and in this way learn from each other:

I actually think it’s good, because I myself, when sitting opposite my fellow-students, do not like to get involved in discussions, because I always need a little longer to organise my points of discussion in my head [. . .] with regard to “my” subject in Wiki I was, however, able to discuss and argue competently; in that situation I was an “expert” (SPN_18).

Sustainable development in higher education

Acquiring competencies and skills happens in volunteer work as experiential learning or rather incidental learning: persons start to commit themselves and then encounter initial hurdles. They have to come to terms with tasks where they are not certain if they can cope, because they have absolutely no relevant experience and they try to develop problem-solving strategies themselves:

425

. . . the first question that came up was how to make contact, how can I address the people, that is what I thought of, [. . .] That was difficult to overcome [. . .] that is a genuine responsibility (INT 1, TN 1).

With regard to the success of the strategies put into practice there is an uncertainty and the anxiety of not being able to accomplish the task. When the challenges are met, however, all the existing anxieties can be thrown off and one is calmer: “throwing off anxieties, [. . .] that you learn because you realise that, in the end, what you do is not at all so bad” (INT 1, TN 5). One is proud of the success achieved, gains confidence and, in turn, looks for new challenges. In the sense of learning-by-doing, students can try things out, gather experiences; they not only start to relax more but also acquire new skills: “[. . .] but then, that is easy, you can try it out and experience it, I think that you become much calmer that way [. . .]” (INT 1, TN 1). Special aspects in the learning process With regard to the acquisition of key competencies in the study programme, data show that three aspects of the learning process are significant criteria: . Reflection processes. For acquiring key competencies, a critical distance to one’s own actions as well as the ability to reflect on one’s actions is seen to be a crucial pre-requisite (Rychen, 2003). Through explicating the learning process, this is supported on different levels. Individually because one’s personal method of learning has to be questioned and tried and tested routines have to be examined. In group contexts, reflecting on the collaboration leads to identifying possible solutions which could take new, as yet, untried directions. Interdisciplinary collaboration gets to be a key role. . Self-reliance and self-direction. Within the study programme the principle of self-direction enters into the learning process in two ways: Firstly, the gradual opening of more guided to self-directed learning during the phases of attendance is seen to be a testing of real-life situations in which the students can apply existing competencies and acquire new ones. Apart from that, the applied learning platform plays an important role; it strengthens the individual’s responsibility for the learning processes as well as her/his chance to independently direct the learning processes. The reflection on the perceived advantages and disadvantages of this type of learning and the testing and accomplishment of various demand contexts leads to a deeper reflection and to an actively designed approach which encourages the acquisition of corresponding key competencies.

IJSHE 8,4

426

.

Multiple contexts. A fundamental condition which supports acquiring competencies has turned out to be the perceived demand context, where certain strategies are implemented. The demand framework defines learning situations in which acquiring competencies can be realised. Simultaneously providing different demand contexts in which different actions are called for opens the possibility of testing and consolidating interdisciplinary competencies in various contexts: “In my opinion, I have not yet acquired any new competencies [. . .] or skills. [Such skills] I have also practiced more or less intensively in other seminars, so that it is not new to me. Through the intensive application in the study programme, however, these ‘techniques’ are improved, bit by bit” (Spn_19). Through the close interlocking with changing problem situations, different stocks of knowledge are activated. Thus, inactive knowledge – as it often arises in higher education – Is avoided.

According to the gathered data, the non-organised and non-structured learning process in the framework of voluntary commitment, which is primarily to be seen as experiential learning, can be especially characterised by the following elements: . Voluntariness and individual responsibility. The students commit themselves voluntarily and organise their work processes themselves. There is no supporting or directing third party. This means that the learning processes also take place without guidance; possible reflection processes take place on an individual basis or rather in exchange between learners but without the support of a teacher. . Learning with an ethical orientation in meaningful real-life situations. Students act with a certain objective in mind, they want to achieve something with their actions, want to effect changes. For this reason they take part in student initiatives, groups or bodies which have to be managed and organised. The students act “as in real life” and in this way prepare themselves for their professional life. At the same time, they can do this in a protected context. They support each other and rely on the group, they can try and test different strategies in a somewhat protected framework. . Unintentional, but conscious learning. The students have a basic intention to learn something through their volunteer commitment. The concrete actions are, however, not motivated by the desire to learn, but to carry out a project or to organise an event, etc. Actions are not taken because of a specific intention to learn; the students are also not aware of learning while taking this action. With hindsight, they become aware of having gained experience and thus also skills. The committed students learn incidentally, by experience. . Interdisciplinary collaboration. The students, who are committed, are from different study programmes. During their voluntary work they experience interdisciplinary collaboration and get to know different disciplinary perspectives. General conditions and learning pre-requisites Acquiring the competencies described above is dependent on an appropriate learning setting. Working on certain issues in interdisciplinary contexts encourages developing

those competencies. However, organising an entire course of studies in an interdisciplinary manner cannot be the aim, because interdisciplinary collaboration is based on the combination of disciplinary viewpoints, which, above all, can be developed in a disciplinary course of studies. In order to enable students to take up volunteer activities at the university and to facilitate the shown learning processes, certain general conditions have to be given. Especially, time for participating in volunteer activities has to be available outside and beyond formal study. Even students who have only little time during their studies become active nonetheless, because voluntary work has a high priority for them. Against this background, it is of particular importance that students get an insight into the actual value of their voluntary work for their environment but also for themselves; that they get sufficient recognition; that they have the freedom to organise their voluntary work themselves; and that they have the support of, for example, teaching staff with regard to their voluntary work. Ultimately, it is about a university culture which supports and recognizes students’ voluntary commitment as a condition for the informal acquisition of competencies in the framework of students’ self dependent action. Discussion The results obtained regarding the acquisition of competencies in formal and informal settings at universities make clear the following: . Within the study programme “Sustainability” as well as the students’ volunteer work, developing competencies or rather particular dispositions is encouraged. Important aspects of “Gestaltungskompetenz” such as interdisciplinary collaboration, planning and implementation skills or the ability to motivate oneself and others are addressed. . To acquire and implement competencies, the existence of various and manifold contexts is important. In formal settings multifaceted contexts have to be created; informal learning offers these per se. It is, however, dependent on the fact that universities create spaces for informal learning and appreciate and support informal learning processes. The present results illustrate which factors play an important role in this context. . Developing competencies is only controllable up to a certain degree. Learners’ individual responsibility is of great importance: it leads to a maximum of possibilities for learning and acquiring competencies. Learners can be supported by making spaces for informal learning processes available to them. . Interdisciplinarity is important for promoting reflection processes, developing a key competency for interdisciplinary collaboration and developing motivational dispositions. In formal settings, the possibility for interdisciplinary collaboration must be made available; in informal settings it is more likely already existent as subjects are not differentiated. The results of the present analysis indicate that formal as well as informal learning settings at universities are relevant for developing competencies for sustainable development.

Sustainable development in higher education 427

IJSHE 8,4

428

Thus, it can be stated that a culture of teaching should be superseded by a culture of learning that combines the learning processes in academic formal and informal settings and that includes competencies developed in extra-curricular settings. Establishing such a learning culture enlarges the learning space and facilitates better learning opportunities for developing future-oriented competencies across different contexts. In addition to professional-vocational education it aims at a personal development that enables individuals to cope with complex situations, to be able to act and to decide reflectively, to take responsibility, to consider ethical criteria while acting and to be able to envision consequences. The question remains how formal and informal learning can be systematically related to each other. If and in how far both forms of learning can complement one another (additive learning), how they can extend and transform what has already been learned in each respective area (transformative learning, Schugurensky, 2000, p. 6), or in other words, which interactions actually exist between them remains to be examined. Initial indications emerging from the obtained data suggest that mutual support could exist: “[. . .] and that can also be marvellously combined, and I do, yes, I really feel that studying, thus the theoretical, and the practical work are also incredibly mutually dependent” (INT 1, TN 5). Notes 1. The activities and research findings described here are from the subprojects “Interdisciplinarity in Teaching” and “Lifeworld University”. 2. “Learning culture means the cognitive, communicative and socio-structural implementation programme for all socialisation concerned with learning processes. The focus is on the therefore necessary professional-methodical, social-communicative, personal and action-oriented competencies that are developed in action learning (Lernhandeln) (Erpenbeck and Rosenstiel, 2003, p. 8f). 3. About the shaping of a new learning culture see for instance: Arnold and Schu¨ßler (2001) and Arnold and Siebert (1995). 4. All student groups and initiatives active at the University of Lu¨neburg were informed about the planned group discussions. A number of 13 students volunteering in student initiatives or the student government (see section “sample”) responded to the request to participate in the focus group discussions. References Altner, G. and Michelsen, G. (2005), Baustelle Hochschule. Nachhaltigkeit als neues Fundament fu¨r Lehre und Forschung, Politische o¨kologie 93, o¨kom, Mu¨nchen. Arnold, R. (1997), “Von der Weiterbildung zur Kompetenzentwicklung: Neue Denkmodelle und Gestaltungsansa¨tze in einem sich vera¨ndernden Handlungsfeld”, in Arbeitsgemeinschaft Qualifikations-Entwicklungs-Management (Ed.), Kompetenzentwicklung ’97: berufliche Weiterbildung in der Transformation, Waxmann, Mu¨nster, pp. 253-309. Arnold, R. and Lermen, (Hrsg.), M. (2005), Didaktik des E-Learning, Baltmannsweiler: SchneiderVerlag, Hohengehren, pp. 75-90. Arnold, R. and Schu¨ßler, I. (2001), “Entwicklung des Kompetenzbegriffs und seine Bedeutung fu¨r die Berufsbildung und fu¨r die Berufsbildungsforschung”, in Franke, G. (Ed.), Ausgewa¨hlte Fragen der Kompetenzforschung, Schneider-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 52-74.

Arnold, R. and Siebert, H. (1995), Konstruktivistische Erwachsenenbildung. Von der Deutung zur Konstruktion von Wirklichkeit, Schneider-Verlag, Hohenge h ren. Barth, M. (2007), Gestaltungskompetenz durch Neue Medien? Die Rolle des Lernens mit Neuen Medien in der Bildung fu¨r eine nachhaltige Entwicklung, BWV, Berlin, forthcoming. Barth, M. and Godemann, J. (2007), “Study programme sustainability – a way to impart competencies for handling sustainability?”, in Adomssent, M., Godemann, J., Leicht, A. and Busch, A. (Eds), Higher Education for Sustainability: New Challenges from a Global Perspective, VAS, Frankfurt/Main, pp. 198-207. Barth, M., Godemann, J. and Michelsen, G. (2007), “Nachhaltige Entwicklung in der Hochschullehre: Herausforderungen, Chancen und Erfahrungen”, in Berendt, B., Voss, H-P. and Wildt, J. (Eds), Neues Handbuch Hochschullehre, Raabe Fachverlag fu¨r Wissenschaftsinformation, Berlin, forthcoming. de Haan, G. (2006), “The BLK ‘21’ programme in Germany: a ‘Gestaltungskompetenz’-based model for education for sustainable development”, Environmental Education Research, Vol. 1, pp. 19-32. de Haan, G. and Harenberg, D. (1999), Gutachten zum Programm Bildung fu¨r eine nachhaltige Entwicklung, Materialien zur Bildungsplanung und zur Forschungsfo¨rderung, Heft 72, Bund-La¨nder-Kommission fu¨r Bildungsplanung und Forschungsfo¨rderung, Bonn. Defila, R. and Di Giulio, A. (1996), “Voraussetzungen zu interdisziplina¨rem Arbeiten und ¨ kologie und Interdisziplinarita¨t – Grundlagen ihrer Vermittlung”, in Balsiger, P. (Ed.), O eine Beziehung mit Zukunft? Wissenschaftsforschung zur Verbesserung der fachu¨bergreifenden Zusammenarbeit, Birkha¨user Verlag, Basel, pp. 125-42. Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1998), The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA,. Dohmen, G. (2001), Das informelle Lernen. Die internationale Erschließung einer bisher vernachla¨ssigten Grundform menschlichen Lernens fu¨r das lebenslange Lernen aller, BMBF, Bonn. Du¨x, W. and Sass, E. (2005), “Lernen in informellen Kontexten. Lernpotenziale in Settings des freiwilligen Engagements”, Zeitschrift fu¨r Erziehungswissenschaft, Vol. 3, pp. 394-411. Erpenbeck, J. and von Rosenstiel, (Hrsg.), L. (2003), Handbuch Kompetenzmessung. Erkennen, verstehen und bewerten von Kompetenzen in der betrieblichen, pa¨dagogischen und sychologischen Praxis, Scha¨ffer-Poeschel. Kolb, D. (1984), Experiential Learning as the Source of Learning and Development, Prentice-Hall International, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Lipski, J. (2004), “Fu¨r das Leben lernen: Was, wie und wo? Umrisse einer neuen Lernkultur”, in Hungerland, B. and Overwien, B. (Eds), Kompetenzentwicklung im Wandel. Auf dem Weg zu einer informellen Lernkultur?, VS Verlag, Wiesbaden, pp. 257-73. Livingstone, D. (2001), “Adults’ informal learning: definitions, findings, gaps and future research”, NALL Working Paper 21, New Approaches to Lifelong Learning (NALL), Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Toronto. Morgan, D. (1997), Focus Groups as Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Overwien, B. (2005), “Stichwort: Informelles Lernen”, Zeitschrift fu¨r Erziehungswissenschaft, Vol. 3, pp. 339-55. Rychen, D. (2001), “Introduction”, in Rychen, D. and Salganik, L. (Eds), Defining and Selecting Key Competencies, Hogrefe & Huber, Seattle, pp. 1-16.

Sustainable development in higher education 429

IJSHE 8,4

430

Rychen, D. (2003), “Key competencies: meeting important challenges in life”, in Rychen, D. and Salganik, L. (Eds), Key Competencies for a Successful Life and Well-Functioning Society, Hogrefe and Huber, Cambridge, pp. 63-108. Rychen, D. and Salganik, L. (2003), “A holistic model of competence”, in Rychen, D. and Salganik, L. (Eds), Key Competencies for a Successful Life and Well-Functioning Society, Hogrefe and Huber, Cambridge, pp. 41-62. Schugurensky, D. (2000), “The forms of informal learning: towards a conceptualization of the field”, available at: www.oise.utoronto.ca/depts/sese/csew/nall/res/19formsofinformal.htm UNESCO (2004), United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development: Draft International Implementation Scheme (IIS), United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris. Weinert, F. (2001), “Concept of competence: a conceptual clarification”, in Rychen, D. and Salganik, L. (Eds), Defining and Selecting Key Competencies, Hogrefe and Huber, Seattle, pp. 45-66. About the authors Matthias Barth holds a doctorate degree in educational sciences. He is Lecturer at the Institute for Environmental and Sustainability Communication at the University of Lu¨neburg and Research Fellow in the project “Sustainable University – sustainable development in the context of university remits.” His main research areas are education for sustainable development, ICT and e-learning and competence development. Matthias Barth is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected] Jasmin Godemann holds a doctorate degree in Educational Sciences. She is Lecturer at the Institute for Environmental and Sustainability Communication at the University of Lu¨neburg and Research Coordinator of the project “Sustainable University – sustainable development in the context of university remits”. Her main research areas are interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in research and teaching as well as sustainability communications. Marco Rieckmann, Environmental Scientist, is Lecturer at the Institute for Environmental and Sustainability Communication at the University of Lu¨neburg and Research Fellow in the project “Sustainable University – sustainable development in the context of university remits”. His main research areas are education for sustainable development/global education, the concept of sustainability in North-South discourse and development theories and policy. Ute Stoltenberg holds a doctorate degree in social sciences. She is the Director of the Institute for Integrative Studies at the University of Lu¨neburg and Coordinator of the sub-project “Lifeworld University” in the project “Sustainable University – sustainable development in the context of university remits”. Her main research areas are education for sustainable development for children, teachers and students, (Local) Agenda 21 and regional sustainable development and the role of education in this context.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1467-6370.htm

Managing sustainability communication on campus: experiences from Lu¨neburg Angela Franz-Balsen and Harald Heinrichs

Managing sustainability communication 431

Institute for Environmental and Sustainability Communication, University of Lu¨neburg, Lu¨neburg, Germany Abstract Purpose – Sustainability communication is evolving as a new interdisciplinary field of research and professional practice. The purpose of this paper is to point out the advantage of applying theoretical frameworks and related research instruments for an adequate sustainability communication management on campus. It also aims to highlight the normative constraints and challenges (participation) that differentiate sustainability communication from public relations. Design/methodology/approach – An interdisciplinary theoretical framework and empirical studies (quantitative/qualitative; audience research) were used for the design of a context-sensitive sustainability communication management concept for the University of Lu¨neburgFindings – Empirical data clearly showed that disciplinary cultures (including their gender specificity) are highly relevant for sustainability attitudes. Continuous visibility of sustainability efforts on campus is critical for people’s attitudes and engagement. Campus community members can be characterized by degrees of “sustainability affinity” vs “sustainability distance”. Too much sustainability-campaigning is counterproductive, whereas listening to campus community members’ ideas and needs seems appropriate. Research limitations/implications – There is a need for qualitative data to assess “communication culture” Practical implications – A balanced theoretically, empirically and normatively grounded communication management is recommended in order to establish a participatory communication culture. Originality/value – The application of sustainability communication theory, including participation research, in the context of higher education for sustainable development is overdue; thesis: sustainability communication wants to initiate structural changes on campus, but is itself dependent on visible structural change in order to be effective. Keywords Sustainable development, Communication, Communication management, Higher education, Germany Paper type Research paper

Introduction A prerequisite for a university to commit to sustainability is communication in all forms – from singular or spontaneous communication impulses and initiatives to the professional management of long-term consultation processes and other participatory interactions. The vision of a “sustainable university” is ideally generated in a mutual communication process and is continuously elaborated, thereby stimulating structural changes as well as individual and collective development: Finding the right way to tell someone about sustainable development, and relating it to their experience has been crucial in engaging universities and colleges with the sustainable development (SD) agenda. Good communication can influence people’s behaviour, create

International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education Vol. 8 No. 4, 2007 pp. 431-445 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1467-6370 DOI 10.1108/14676370710823591

IJSHE 8,4

432

dialogue, foster understanding and open up dialogue between groups. Without listening and responding to those around you, it is difficult to provide useful educational services or encourage different behaviour (Forum for the Future and HEPS, 2004, p. 15).

The Lu¨neburg sustainable university project explores sustainability communication both from its overarching research perspective, striving for empirical results and theoretical findings about the characteristics of sustainability communication on and beyond campus grounds, and from a developmental perspective, which means designing and implementing a comprehensive communication management concept for the University of Lu¨neburg, based on a systemic understanding of the campus sustainability process. Communicating sustainability on campus – state of the art The number of publications dealing exclusively or more or less extensively with the communication/diffusion aspect of a campus sustainability process is relatively small (Bogun, 2004; Moore, 2005; Pittman, 2004; Roorda, 2001; Sharp, 2002; Stoltenberg, 2000). Some guidelines for practitioners exist, though; they are meant to facilitate disseminating the sustainability concept in institutions of higher education and rely very much on a social marketing and event marketing approach (Forum for the Future and HEPS, 2004), campaigning, indeed, being an important tool for raising awareness. On the other hand, the special “communication culture” characteristic of sustainability communication in comparison to conventional communication policies is also mentioned in the same guideline: “listens to public, nurtures relationships with stakeholders” (Forum for the Future and HEPS, 2004, p. 17). Sharp (2002) published results of a broad study comprising more than 30 universities. With respect to communication strategies she recommends “maximize face-to-face communication – dialogue is the most effective means of progressing with the change process, learn the language of other people, active listening skills are essential” (Sharp, 2002, p. 131). Barlett and Chase (2004, p. 17) draw similar conclusions: “personal relationships are critical”. Corcoran and Wals (2004, p. 1) touch upon the conflictive potential of the normative character of the sustainability concept, pointing out that for such controversial issues an open confrontation allowing for a diversity of positions is essential: The conflicts that emerge in the exploration of sustainable development [. . .] are prerequisites rather than barriers to higher learning. Universities in particular have a responsibility in creating space for alternative thinking. They have a profound role to play in developing students’ so-called dynamic qualities or competencies. They will need these qualities to cope with uncertainty, poorly defined situations and conflicting or at least diverging norms, values, interests and reality constructions).

Against the background of the Swedish top-down strategy for higher education for SD Wickenberg (2006, p. 116) studied its chances of success by way of a norm analysis: We know from experience that requirements and rules have little or no long-term effect on the development of sustainability work, and do not serve to create any self-generating driving force. Whenever new ideas and activities, such as the new sustainability theme, are introduced in higher education, extra committed individuals – called “dedicated key actors” or “dedicated individuals” play a decisive role.

Thereby Wickenberg confirms what several other authors have stressed (Bogun, 2004; Clugston and Calder, 1999; Lidgren, 2004; Lotz-Sisitka, 2004; Orr, 2004; Sharp, 2002). But according to Wickenberg (2006, p. 117), “norm-supporting structures” such as identification of the university leaders with the mission or participatory structures or other social arenas are of complementary importance to stabilize the sustainability process. Besides, the drivers, the barriers against implementing sustainability at universities have also been investigated. In their worldwide literature analysis Velasquez et al. (2005) identified “lack of awareness, interest and involvement” as a frequent barrier. “Resistance to change” is mainly found in groups that do not want to share their interests with others (Velasquez et al., 2005). Both barriers are significant challenges for sustainability communication management. Summarizing these findings it can be said that “the human factor” seems to be critical in sustainability communication on campuses. Investigating target audiences could be one way of addressing this difficulty. Also times are changing, the new media are gaining ground in campus communications. A screening of all kinds of communication instruments including the latter seems to be a desideratum. Apart from that, the implications of the normative character of SD demand special attention in communication management. A look at university members’ attitudes concerning this would be instructive. In the priority list of higher education research themes identified during the Halifax Consultation (Wright, 2005, 2006), one of the top research interests covers the field of communication as it is understood by the authors of this paper, which is as a fundamental element and outcome of institutional culture (Wright, 2005, p. 44). What is missing in this context is investigating the impact of disciplinary cultures. There is evidence that disciplines influence mental models and professional habits of university members (Multrus, 2004). Another research desideratum worked out by the Halifax Delphi touches upon participation: inclusiveness and voice in SD. Diversity and gender issues are mentioned here, but surprisingly not yet attributed to campus structures; they are just mentioned as issues that have to be explored generally (Wright, 2005, p. 41). In a compilation of diverse, isolated aspects, however, two research tasks explicitly point out the need for studies in communication management: “Examining the nature of systemic change and how to stimulate and guide it (rather than control it) within the institution” and “Does social marketing for sustainability on campus work?” (Wright, 2005, p. 30). Consequently, the Halifax Delphi confirms that there is definitely a lack of empirical evidence with respect to sustainability communication in higher education institutions. Empirical designs, however, have to be deducted from and framed by theoretical approaches. The most crucial ones that we recommend for the design of sustainability communication management on campus are shortly introduced. Organisational theory Organisational theory is widely used as a reference for authors investigating oder examining the development of higher education institutions (Hanft, 2000; Pellert, 1999; Kru¨cken, 2004) or sustainability processes (Bogun, 2004; Cortese, 1999; Clugston and Calder, 1999; Leal Filho, 1999; Orr, 1994; Pittman, 2004; comp. Albrecht and Burandt, this issue) Theories about the idea of man[1] within an organization (McGregor, 1960; Schreyo¨gg, 1996, 219 ff), its follow up by the gender and diversity concept, about

Managing sustainability communication 433

IJSHE 8,4

434

organisational culture, organisational learning and change management – all this is of highest importance for sustainability communication at universities. Sustainability communication wants to initiate change, but it is also dependent on structural change. The question of bottom-up or top-down processes is located here. Owing to organisational theory, systemic understandings of university development are prevailing (Pittman, 2004; Senge, 2000; Sharp, 2002; Sterling, 2004; Wals and Corcoran, 2006) So-called “postmodern organisational theory” (Schreyo¨gg, 1999; Schmidt, 2004) has not yet been much discussed in this context, although it has much in common with sustainability discourses. Postmodern organisational theory differs from modern theories insofar as it is characterised by scepticism towards generally accepted concepts; uncertainty prevails (Schreyo¨gg, 1999, p. 17). A new key term is the “heterarchical” organisation which is the opposite to the hierarchical organisation. Another remarkable phenomenon in current discourses is the re-entry of a moral-ethical perspective (e.g. corporate social responsibility) into organisational theory. With regard to the challenge of integrating sustainability into higher education institutions, the mentioned approaches in organisational theory emphasize the central role of communication. Communication management Professional communication planning goes back to the fields of marketing (Novelli, 1984) and public relations (Bernays, 1928), but has been established as a routine for the internal processes of consultation and in the interaction of organisations as well as for their external communication. Acting professionally in this context means that after a profound assessment of the situation, aims or target-states are defined which are then complemented by a strategy to reach these goals. Short-term decisions of individual members are substituted by systematically planned, long-term concepts that are generated collaboratively. Central elements of such processes are therefore: . consideration of plans and actions of others in the field; . assessment of personal capacities; . extensive analysing; . collaborative planning; . long-term projects in contrast to short-term tactics; and . measurement/evaluation (White and Mazur, 1994; Mast, 2005, p. 2). Public relations and especially social marketing (Kotler and Zaltman, 1971) are helpful frameworks for sustainability communication management. Therefore, the first guidelines for sustainability communication on campus focus on these approaches (Forum for the Future and HEPS, 2004; UNEP and Futerra, 2005). They preferably illustrate one-way communication[2] which is not really compatible with the special quality of sustainability communication. Normative constraints and challenges differentiate sustainability communication from marketing and public relations; they have created specific variations of social marketing, e.g. the “empowerment strategy” (Singh and Titi, 1995) or “Community-based Social Marketing” (McKenzie-Mohr and Smith, 1999). The model of the human being underlying these approaches is one of a competent citizen, which is in line with current approaches of sustainability communication where dialogue and participation play a central role.

Feeding from a still wider range of disciplines than mentioned above, e.g. sociology, political science (environmental) psychology, education, ethics and more, sustainability communication theory is evolving as an interdisciplinary theoretical framework for sustainability communicators (Michelsen, 2005). It offers models and tools – such as lifestyle analysis, online-discourses or participatory approaches – for the design of context-sensitive and effective interventions. Since, SD is very complex by nature – because of its multi-dimensionality, interrelatedness and global- and future-orientation – interactive processes are an essential feature of sustainability communication. Participatory approaches are needed in order to harness the pluralism in knowledge claims, interests and values within search, learning and design processes towards SD. Recent developments of concepts and methods in participation research and knowledge communication provide a fruitful basis for dialogic sustainability communication (Heinrichs, 2005, Kropp et al., 2007). Applying the evolving approaches in the context of higher education for SD is overdue. Based on everything described so far, it can be concluded that both a rich theoretical framework to inspire and practical guidelines to help structure sustainability communication on campus obviously exist. Missing, however, is a body of empirical evidence, challenging the theoretical and practical models by confronting them with the complexity of the university microcosm. The aim of the communication and participation focus of the sustainable university project therefore was the exemplary design of a context-sensitive sustainability communication management concept for University of Lu¨neburg, which draws on the just-mentioned theories and others, which is based on empirical data and which is in accordance with the basic norms of the sustainability concept. The research interest goes beyond this, referring to the overarching questions of the sustainable university project: is there a correlation between university practices and (infra-)structures and a specific communication culture, for example communication bridging gaps between departments and stakeholder groups? If sustainability communication as defined above can help to change (infra)structure in higher education institutions (HEI), do changing structures also influence the communication culture within HEI? Empirical study: understanding the case Interventions – media mix and more From the very beginning of the sustainable university project, a systematic screening of existing and possible communication channels for sustainability took place. A range of communication tools/strategies for the diffusion of the idea of SD on campus and for the participation of all groups of university members were tested. visualisation of (un)sustainability and of efforts to act in a sustainable way was considered crucial. This was in response to a specific German discourse on the particular challenges of sustainability communication, e.g. the challenge of coping with the lack of visuality of SD (Sustainable Development Commission, 2001; Rat fu¨r Nachhaltigkeit, 2004). To detect university members’ expectations and wishes concerning sustainability on campus was considered equally important to stimulating and facilitating participation. Two classical mass media channels were used regularly for one-way communication on campus grounds: a newspaper called “Campus Courier” (CC) and an environmental radio programme. Lecture series and film programmes with subsequent discussions were partly interactive and situated on the threshold between

Managing sustainability communication 435

IJSHE 8,4

436

lectures and leisure. Special events, exhibitions and interventions on campus were used to draw attention to special issues, e.g. fair trade. Student activities of all kinds (study projects, social marketing, interviews and articles for the CC, radio and film production[3]) guaranteed students’ involvement as well as their critical comments on the sustainability process. Regular round tables with stakeholders were initiated in order to allow participation and to foster networking, but had to be given up because of participants’ lack of time. Informal networking was intensified and showed results in a growing number of collaborative projects. Transdisciplinary projects bridged the gap between campus and the local community. Apart from all these visible or tangible processes and products dynamic, invisible processes occur (knowledge transfer, snowball-effects of networking), the results of which ought to be taken into account by communication management. Therefore, it was important to know as much as possible about these dynamic and complex communication processes and to measure their effects. One method of achieving this was to research university community members themselves. Listening to the campus – methodology Audience research is essential in both sustainability communication and in communication management in general. Two main foci out of a broader set of empirical investigations are reported in this paper. University members’ attitudes and daily routines were measured in an online survey as part of the so-called situation analysis, which is always the start up in communication management. A media reception study was carried out, designed not only to evaluate campus print media, but also to find out more about information behaviour, knowledge and interests of campus community members. Both research aspects are part of step one in the Lu¨neburg case study: understanding the complexity of the case. Online survey In order to obtain a profound situation analysis of the campus, various empirical steps were taken, e.g. secondary analysis of existing data on campus members’ attitudes concerning their university or interviews with “key informants[4]”. Most prominent was an online survey in 2005, covering both the research interests connected to the overarching questions of the sustainable university project as well as relating to the specific dimensions of the subprojects. Items of the questionnaire aimed at assessing the character and state of sustainability-relevant attitudes und habits of campus community members. How many have heard of SD? Do they accept the basic principles of the concept? Which further steps toward a “Sustainable University” might meet their interests? What is their notion of a good university? From the point of view of communication management most thrilling was the attempt to design a set of items measuring a complex manifestation of “sustainability affinity” – in analogy to the construct “environmental awareness” used in the representative studies on environmental awareness of the German public (Kuckartz, 2002, 2004, 2006). A favourable condition for this undertaking was the fact that the University of Lu¨neburg at that time offered an ideal experimental setting: Four campus sites of very distinct disciplinary cultures and varying exposures to sustainability communication and activities were to be compared.

Media reception analysis Media reception analyses yield data about the media investigated and, at the same time, about the recipients. Both were of equal interest in our study. The “Campus Courier” is a periodic (two issues per year) print publication in newspaper-styling that is edited by the “Sustainable University Project” involving students as reporters, authors and photographers. It addresses all campus community members, offering information about the Lu¨neburg sustainability process, about national and international contexts with a strong focus on higher education policies, and last but not least about the sustainable university project itself. It also gives campus community members a voice (portraits, interviews, comments or articles). From the research perspective, “Campus Courier” (Figure 1) is a vehicle to find out in how far journalistic writing (including visual documents and stimuli) can be an instrument for providing a profound insight into the relation between HEI and SD. Further, it is a vehicle to find out how a newspaper can serve as a feedback tool to committed individuals or groups (Fietkau and Kessel, 1981) or as a tool to capture attention. This has to be seen against the backdrop of the rise of new media in campus communication. A media reception study of the CC was carried out in 2006, using a kind of experimental setting which made sure that informants initially did not know that the main research interest was the “Campus Courier”. Reader Scan Analysis[5] was the central element. It allows for detailed observation and documentation of informants’ reading habits and thematic preferences. In a second step (“think aloud-technique” Huber and Mandl, 1994) informants were given ample space for commenting on articles, and for sharing their reactions.

Managing sustainability communication 437

Results: strong influence of campus infrastructures and disciplinary cultures The online survey was supported by many university members comprising all status groups (see the paper titled “Transferability of approaches to SD at universities as a challenge” by Adomssent, Godemann and Michelsen, elsewhere in this special issue). A selection of results that are of relevance to the communication of sustainability on campus are reported. The degree to which the term “SD” is known among respondents is amazing (86.8 per cent), compared with the average result of 22 per cent for the German

Figure 1. Front page of campus courier, Autumn 2006

IJSHE 8,4

438

population in 2004 (BMU, 2004, p. 69). The degree varies from campus site to campus site, however. The main campus with its tradition of Agenda 21 activities reaches the highest values. Notions of sustainability vary significantly between faculties, one reason being differing assessments of the relevance of global justice for SD, another one the partly one-dimensional notion of sustainability as environmental programme. The members of the technical faculties (traditionally male domains) show least consent with basic issues of sustainability, instead showing confidence in technical solutions for global problems. Female respondents show a little more advocacy for environmental protection programmes, a more biocentric understanding of nature protection; they are also less convinced that SD is just a “buzz-word”. Altogether, however, the concept of SD is highly feasible among Lu¨neburg campus community members. In order to find out whether SD is seen as a means of sharpening the profile of universities, some notions of higher education institutions that would be compatible with a sustainable university were offered for consent. More than 95 per cent of the respondents agreed that “higher education institutions should be examples for society”. Consent was also high for the statement “higher education institutions ought to have a mission statement supported by all members” (82 per cent). Nearly, 100 per cent agreed that “there ought to be an open dialogue between academia and society”. About 91 per cent understand that universities should teach more than expert knowledge to the students. Students’ and faculty/staff participation in projects, initiatives or committees was measured via reported behaviour. Again, disciplinary cultures and gender are critical here: Male students tend to engage in long-term initiatives and political committees, female students prefer engagement for singular events or projects, mostly in the social sphere. Environmental sciences students are willing to commit themselves more than others. Like faculty/staff members they often do this beyond campus grounds (44 per cent average of all groups). Among faculty/staff members engagement is relatively high, especially in committees or work groups. The field of engagement is often related to the respective disciplines. The internet has become a very important communication channel for more than 90 per cent of all respondents, the university web site being crucial. Nevertheless, face-to-face communication ranks higher still (96 per cent). Campus events are popular (64 per cent). Factor analysis yielded four types of media users: (1) Type A is campus life-oriented and reads all papers distributed on the campus, including the “Campus Courier”. (2) Type B is interested in the local area and reads the local newspaper and city magazines, for instance; (3) Type C is sociable, interested in events and personal exchange. (4) Type D is curriculum-oriented, regularly attends lectures and seminars and frequently consults the university web site. What themes would campus community members like to learn about? Research projects and future perspectives as well as international contacts are of great interest to more than half of the respondents. In topics like gender issues, health issues and

environmental protection, which were used to characterize “sustainability affinity” only a minority (20 per cent) is interested. Media reception: results of ”reader scan analysis” and “read aloud-technique” The “Campus Courier” (CC) is competing with other print products and is definitely less popular than gazettes that are edited by students only, CC ranking equal to papers edited by the university administration. Whereas, the layout of CC appeals to most of the interviewees, students consider the newspaper format as not ideal (can not be read in class). Newspaper-style is identified as contradictory to a print product that does not appear in short intervals. Most important, however, are the informants’ unanimous statements that “Campus Courier” is successful in transporting the message that a relationship exists between higher education institutions and SD. The read-aloud technique, which documents readers’ associations while they are reading an paper, revealed that individual articles can illustrate very well what universities can do to meet their tasks and functions under the challenge of SD. The recommendation was given, however, not to overload “Campus Courier” with the sustainability issue. Discussion and consequences Both approaches to campus audience research yielded results that gave very precise information on how to develop a context-sensitive sustainability communication management at the University of Lu¨neburg. The effort built into the online survey to assess “sustainability awareness” or “sustainability disposition” of individuals proved successful. Clusters of campus community members could be characterized by their degree of “sustainability affinity” vs “sustainability distance”. This again can partly be assigned to their work or study environment. The empirical data clearly showed that disciplinary cultures are highly relevant for sustainability attitudes. Consequently, relatively precise definitions of target audiences and their special needs were possible: Those highly affined to sustainability can be understood as waiting for challenges like transdisciplinary study or research projects, whereas the “sustainability distant” groups first of all need basic information and motivation, although their right not be bothered ought to be respected. Sub-audiences were also defined along locations, disciplines and gender. Even though gender differences were not spectacular with respect to higher education and campus life, in combination with the disciplinary cultures as male or female domains Gough’s (2004, p. 153) statement “there is a gender dimension in all academic activity”) is confirmed by our data. More significant were differences between women and men concerning SD. Female respondents are less convinced than males that sustainability is a “buzzword” they tend more towards strong sustainability[6] and trust technical solutions less. The impact of norms of masculinity and feminity on individual understandings of SD is definitely strong (Franz-Balsen, 2005). For communication management this means that special attention should be paid to male disciplinary cultures. Considering the differing exposure to sustainability processes at the four locations of the University of Lu¨neburg, it could also be concluded from the outstanding results for the “Agenda 21 campus” that structural change, the visibility of sustainability efforts on the campus, plus sustainability communication is critical for people’s attitudes and engagement. Obviously some kind of collective identity[7] had developed on that site. Does this entail a special communication culture? If the normative

Managing sustainability communication 439

IJSHE 8,4

440

implications of the sustainability concept are taken seriously, respect of individual opinions, tolerance and trust are shaping the style of communication, the idea of man behind participatory processes being that of the competent and committed individual. The groups of campus community members with high sustainability affinity might be interpreted as carriers of such a culture; they are very consistent in their sustainability profiles. The results of the media reception study show that it is not so difficult to convey the links between higher education and SD of society if there is a room to explain and illustrate the interrelation for instance via a newspaper and when it is translated into people’s language and linked to their interest to learn more about current research projects and the internationalisation of their university. Since, communication habits are changing and the internet has become routine for all campus groups, the next step to take is to try the same with Web 2.0; this marks the qualitative step from one-way to bi-directional media. This will be an additional measure, because – as the typology showed – the full media-mix is necessary to reach all “information types”. Last but not least the reception study pointed out that too much sustainability-campaigning is counterproductive. Listening to campus community members or giving them a voice – which is also dialogue – seems much more appropriate. The data concerning campus community members’ participation are encouraging, too – for a very process-oriented, adaptive communication management. Conclusion The few empirical data reported here were only part of a much broader attempt to assess and understand our case, the University of Lu¨neburg. They have to be interpreted in the context of our whole set of interventions, observations and experiences around these interventions, for instance a surprising rise in students’ initiatives for sustainability. They also have to be contrasted with or complemented by the theoretical frameworks mentioned above. Moreover, to really understand the system, parallel processes of change in HEI, the Bologna Process and gender mainstreaming (Dudeck and Jansen-Schulz, 2007) have to be taken into account as well and are of course, considered in the broader project context. Universities in Europe are undergoing reforms that also affect organisational cultures. Confronting such complex situations, the combination of the perspectives and measures taken here can be recommended: theoretical frameworks and audience are used for the design of a strategic sustainability communication concept. This is brought to balance with the normative demand for participation, but also with current models in organisational theory (heterarchical organisation, gender and diversity), all characterized by confidence in the competence of individuals. The result of this is an open way of managing sustainability communication, adaptive to the needs and the creativity of the stakeholders involved as well as to the overall situation of the university. But communication has its limits, as our data also show. Without the structural changes accomplished by other features of the long-term process at Lu¨neburg University, the findings of the online survey (high degree of sustainability affinity) would not have been the same. Sustainability communication wants to initiate change, but for success it is also dependent on structural changes, whether gradual or ad hoc decided by the university leaders. Owing to the experimental setting of Lu¨neburg

campus sites, there is some evidence that structural changes might influence changes in (communication) culture just as vice versa. This conclusion is to be validated in the future, the intriguing question being what adequate tools to assess academic “communication culture” could be. .

Notes 1. The German term “Menschenbild” is not really captured in the English term “idea of man”. Point of reference is an individual or an organisation the behaviour of which is determined by its interpretation of human nature, especially in the work environment. Current organisation theories assume an intrinsic attitude towards work on the part of the members of the organisation. 2. Compare Grunig and Hunt (1984) who offer a ranking of models of communication based on the criterion of symmetry of dialogue. 3. One of the film projects was a means of engaging students in exploring the relation between gender issues and sustainability on campus; others had the task to document and visualize the foci of the Sustainable University Project (study programme, sustainability report, arts and culture, communication). 4. Key informants are individuals that have more insight into and more contacts within an organization than others. 5. Reader Scan Analysis was developed by Carlo Imboden, media researcher; it has been widely applied for audience research by German newspapers since 2004. www.bpb.de/ veranstaltungen/L7SAKV,0,0,Entzauberte_Mythen.html (accessed 15 June 2007). 6. The academic discourse on concepts of strong sustainability vs weak sustainability was initiated by the ecological economist Hermann Daly (Daly, 1996). 7. A critical analysis of this phenomenon would be interesting; are new norm constraints being built up? References Barlett, P.F. and Chase, G.W. (2004), Sustainability on Campus. Stories and Strategies for Change, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Bernays, E.L. (1928), Propaganda, H. Liveright, New York, NY. BMU (2004), Umweltbewusstsein in Deutschland 2004. Ergebnisse einer repra¨sentativen Bevo¨lkerungsumfrage, Bundesministerium fu¨r Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit, Bonn, (Hrsg.). Bogun, R. (2004) Umweltsu¨nder“ oder ”Vorreiter“? U¨ber Bewertungs- und Motivationsprobleme an Hochschulen. Artec-paper, Universita¨t Bremen, Bremen. Clugston, R.M. and Calder, W. (1999), “Critical dimensions of sustainability in higher education”, in Leal Filho, W. (Ed.), Sustainability and University Life, Peter Lang Scientific Publishers, New York, NY, pp. 31-46. Corcoran, P.B. and Wals, A.E.J. (2004), Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustainability, Kluwer Academic Publisher, Boston, MA. Cortese, A. (1999), Education for Sustainability: The University as a Model of Sustainability, Second Nature, Boston, MA. Daly, H. (1996), Beyond Growth, Beacon Press, Boston, MA. Dudeck, A. and Jansen-Schulz, B. (2007), Zukunft Bologna!? Gender und Nachhaltigkeit als Leitideen fu¨r eine neue Hochschulkultur, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main.

Managing sustainability communication 441

IJSHE 8,4

442

Fietkau, H.J. and Kessel, H. (1981), Umweltlernen. Vera¨nderungsmo¨ glichkeiten des Umweltbewusstseins, Schriften des Wissenschaftszentrums Berlin Band 18, Ko¨nigsstein/Taunus. Forum for the Future and HEPS (2004), Communicating for Sustainability: Guidance for Higher Education Institutions, Forum for the Future, Forum for the Future and HEPS, London. Franz-Balsen, A. (2005), “Gender im Mainstream”, in Michelsen, G. and Godemann, J. (Eds), Handbuch Nachhaltigkeitskommunikation, Oekom, Mu¨nchen. Gough, A. (2004), “The contribution of ecofeminist perspectives to sustainability in higher education”, in Corcoran, P.B. and Wals, A.E.J. (Eds), Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustainability, Kluwer Academic Publisher, Boston, MA, pp. 149-61. Grunig, J.E. and Hunt, T. (1984), Managing Public Relations, CBS College Publishing, New York, NY. Hanft, A. (2000), Hochschule managen? Zur Reformierbarkeit der Hochschule nach Managementprinzipien, Universita¨tsVerlagWebler, Neuwied. Heinrichs, H. (2005), “Herausforderung Nachhaltigkeit: Transformation durch Partizipation?”, in ¨ ffentlichkeitsbeteiligung, Nachhaltigkeit. Feindt, P.H. and Newig, J. (Eds), Partizipation, O ¨ konomie, Metropolis-Verlag, Marburg. Perspektiven der politischen O Huber, G.L. and Mandl, H. (1994), “Gedankenstichproben”, in Huber, G.L. and Mandl, H. (Eds), Verbale Daten. Eine Einfu¨hrung in die Grundlagen und Methoden der Erhebung und Auswertung, Beltz, Weinheim, pp. 04-118. Kotler, Ph. and Zaltman, G. (1971), “Social marketing: an approach to planned behaviour change”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35, pp. 3-12. Kropp, C., Schiller, F. and Wagner, J. (Eds) (2007), “Die Zukunft der Wissenskommunikation”, Perspektiven fu¨r einen reflexiven Dialog von Wissenschaft und Politik – am Beispiel des Agrarbereichs, Edition Sigma, Berlin. Kru¨cken, G. (2004), “Hochschulen im Wettbewerb – eine organisationstheoretische Perspektive”, in Bo¨ttcher, W. and Terhard, E. (Eds), Organisationstheorie: Ihr Potential fu¨r die Analyse und Entwicklung von pa¨dagogischen Feldern, Verlag fu¨r Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp. 286-301. Kuckartz, U. (2002), Umweltbewusstsein in Deutschland, available at: www.umweltbewusstsein. de/ub/ (accessed 15 June 2007). Kuckartz, U. (2004), Umweltbewusstsein in Deutschland, available at: www.umweltbewusstsein. de/ub/ (accessed 15 June 2007). Kuckartz, U. (2006), Umweltbewusstsein in Deutschland, available at: www.umweltbewusstsein. de/ub/ (accessed 15 June 2007). Leal Filho, W. (1999), Sustainability and University Life, Peter Lang Europischer Verlag der Wissenschaften, Frankfurt am Main. Lidgren, A. (2004), “A sustainable course for higher education”, dissertation, Universita¨t, Lund. Lotz-Sisitka, H. (2004), “Stories of transformation”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 8-10. McGregor, D. (1960), The Human Side of Enterprise, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. McKenzie-Mohr, D. and Smith, W. (1999), Fostering Sustainable Behaviour, New Society Publishers, Victoria, BC. Mast, C. (2005), Grundlagen: Kommunikationskonzepte strategisch planen und umsetzen, BAW-Texte, Reihe Public Relations, Mu¨nchen.

Michelsen, G. (2005), “Nachhaltigkeitskommunikation: versta¨ndnis – entwicklung – perspektiven”, in Michelsen, G. and Godemann, J. (Eds), Handbuch Nachhaltigkeits kommunikation, Oekom, Mu¨nchen. Moore, J. (2005), “Seven recommendations for creating sustainability education at the university level: a guide for change agents”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 326-39. Multrus, F. (2004), “Disciplinary cultures”, dissertation, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, available at: www.ub.uni-konstanz.de/kops/volltexte/2004/1326 (accessed 15 June 2007). Novelli, W.D. (1984), “Developing marketing programs”, in Frederikson, L.W., Solomon, L.J. and Brehony, K. (Eds), Marketing Health Behaviour, Plenum Press, New York, NY, pp. 59-89. Orr, D. (1994), Earth in Mind: On Education, Environment and the Human Prospect, Island Press, Washington, DC. Orr, D. (2004), “Can educational institutions learn?”, in Barlett, P.F. and Chase, G.W. (Eds), Sustainability on Campus. Stories and Strategies for Change, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 159-75. Pellert, A. (1999), Die Universita¨t als Organisation: die Kunst, Experten zu managen, Bo¨hlau, Wien. Pittman, J. (2004), “Living sustainability through higher education: a whole systems design approach to organisational change”, in Corcoran, P.B. and Wals, A.E.J. (Eds), Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustainability, Kluwer Academic Publisher, Boston, MA, pp. 199-211. Rat fu¨r Nachhaltigkeit (2004), Momentaufnahme Nachhaltigkeit und Gesellschaft, Rat fu¨r Nachhaltigkeit, Berlin. Roorda, N. (2001), AISHE: Auditing Instrument for Sustainability in Higher Education, Dutch Committee for Sustainable Higher Education (CDHO), available at: www.dho.nl/aishe (accessed 15 June 2007). Schmidt, S.J. (2004), Unternehmenskultur, Velbru¨ck-Wissenschaft, Weilerswist. Schreyo¨gg, G. (Ed.) (1996), “Organisation”, Grundlagen moderner Organisationsgestaltung, Gabler, Wiesbaden. Schreyo¨gg, G. (1999), Organisation und Postmoderne, Gabler, Wiesbaden. Senge, P. (2000), “Die hochschule als lernende gemeinschaft”, in Laske, S. et al. (Eds) Universita¨t im 21. Jahrhundert: zur Interdependenz von Begriff und Organisation der Wissenschaft, Mu¨nchen. Sharp, L. (2002), “Green campuses: the road from little victories to systemic transformation”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 128-45. Singh, N. and Titi, V. (1995), Empowerment: Towards Sustainable Development, Zed Books, London. Sterling, St (2004), “Higher education, sustainability, and the role of systemic learning”, in Corcoran, P.B. and Wals, A.E.J. (Eds), Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustainability, Kluwer Academic Publisher, Boston, MA, pp. 47-70. Stoltenberg, U. (2000), “Raum-Bildung, Konsum-Muster und Kommunikation fu¨r eine nachhaltige Universita¨t”, in Stoltenberg, U. (Ed.), Lebenswelt Hochschule, VAS, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 9-12.

Managing sustainability communication 443

IJSHE 8,4

444

Sustainable Development Commission (2001), “How the public learns about sustainable development: an audit of key campaigns”, TV and Newspapers, available at: www.sdcommission.org.uk/cgi-bin/search.cgi?m ¼ any&q ¼ how þ the þ public þ learns& search_submit.x ¼ 12&search_submit.y ¼ 5 (accessed 15 June 2007). UNEP and Futerra (2005), Communicating Sustainability. How to Produce Effective Campaigns, available at: www.unep.fr/pc/sustain/reports/advertising/Communication_Guide/ webEN2.pdf (accessed 15 June 2007). Velasquez, L., Munguia, N. and Sanchez, M. (2005), “Deterring sustainability in higher education institutions”, Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 383-91. Wals, A.E.J. and Corcoran, P.B. (2006), “Education for sustainable development in action”, in Holmberg, J. and Samuelsson, B.E. (Eds), Drivers and Barriers for Implementing Sustainable Development in Higher Education, Technical Papers Nr. 3, UNESCO, Paris, pp. 103-8. White, J. and Mazur, L. (1994), Strategic Communications Management: Making Public Relations Work, Economist Intelligence Unit, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Wickenberg, P. (2006), “Norm supporting actors and structures at the very local level of implementation in higher education”, in Holmberg, J. and Samuelssohn, B.E. (Eds), Drivers and Barriers for Learning for Sustainable Development in Higher Education, technical papers Nr. 3, UNESCO, Paris, pp. 111-9. Wright, T. (2005), Higher Education for Sustainability: Developing a Comprehensive Research, available at: http://halifaxconsultation.environmentalscience.dal.ca/Halifax%20Con sultation%20Report.htm (accessed 15 June 2007). Wright, T. (2006), “The role of research in achieving a sustainable future”, in Holmberg, J. and Samuelsson, B.E. (Eds), Drivers and Barriers for Implementing Sustainable Development in Higher Education, technical papers Nr. 3, UNESCO, Paris, pp. 121-5.

Further reading Good Company (2004), “Sustainable pathways toolkit for universities and colleges”, available at: www.goodcompany.com/lib/documents/SP ToolkitTechMan-091503.pdf (accessed 15 June 2007, updated version available). Kuckartz, U. (2000), Umweltbewusstsein in Deutschland, available at: www.umweltbewusstsein. de/ub/ (accessed 15 June 2007). Kuckartz, U. (2001), Umweltbewusstsein in Deutschland, available at: www.umweltbewusstsein. de/ub/ (accessed 15 June 2007). Kuckartz, U. (2003), Umweltbewusstsein in Deutschland, available at: www.umweltbewusstsein. de/ub/ (accessed 15 June 2007). Kuckartz, U. (2005), Umweltbewusstsein in Deutschland, available at: www.umweltbewusstsein. de/ub/ (accessed 15 June 2007). Kuckartz, U. and Schack, K. (2002), Umweltkommunikation gestalten, Leske und Budrich, Opladen. Pasternack, P., Bloch, R., Gellert, C., Ho¨scher, M., Kreckel, R., Lewin, D., Lischka, I. and Schildberg, A. (2005), “Die Trends der Hochschulbildung und ihre Konsequenzen”, Wissenschaftlicher Bericht fu¨r das Bundesministerium fu¨r Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur der Republik O¨sterreich, available at: http://archiv.bmbwk.gv.at/medienpool/ 13020/studie_trends_hsbildung.pdf (accessed 15 June 2007).

About the author Angela Franz-Balsen, PhD, is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Lu¨neburg, Institute of Environmental and Sustainability Communication; coordinator of the subproject “Communication, Participation and Knowlegde Transfer” of the “Sustainable University” project. Angela Franz-Balsen is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected] Harald Heinrichs, is a Junior Professor at the University of Lu¨neburg, Institute for Environmental and Sustainability Communication, head of division “Participation and Sustainable Development”. E-mail: www.uni-lueneburg.de/infu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Managing sustainability communication 445

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1467-6370.htm

IJSHE 8,4

446

The Lu¨neburg Sustainable University Project in international comparison An assessment against North American peers Almut Beringer Faculty of Arts, University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, Canada Abstract Purpose – To assess the Lu¨neburg Sustainable University Project (the Project) in a non-European international context; to relate the project scholarly approach to selected scholarly and practice-oriented North American sustainability in higher education (SHE) methods; to analyze project innovations against North American initiatives. Design/methodology/approach – Benchmarking indicators were developed inductively in four SHE areas – governance/administration, curriculum/student opportunities, research/scholarship, and operations – via thematic content analysis of 15 descriptions of USA and Canadian universities active in SHE. Data were triangulated with data from the four Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education Campus Sustainability Leaders 2006. Findings – The assessment against selected North American peers suggests that the project is unique in its scholarly approach to and scientific foundation of sustainability in higher education. The transdisciplinary transformative case study is not replicated at any of the comparison institutions; however, elements of the approach and scholarly framework can be found at all North American universities participating in this assessment. North American institutions tend to excel in operational innovations; to keep abreast of international developments, University of Lu¨neburg is encouraged to commit to a climate-neutral campus strategy and to implement a sustainability management system, amongst other initiatives. Practical implications – Knowledge transfer and capacity-building: North American post-secondary institutions can learn from the theoretically-guided, applied research-based approach to SHE. Through intensified exchange (partnerships) with North American peers, the project and the University of Lu¨neburg stand to profit from community-based research approaches and the practice-oriented work of USA and Canadian campus sustainability offices. Originality/value – The paper contributes an “outsider’s perspective” to the project evaluation. Methodologically, the paper contributes to inductive SHE indicator development. Keywords Sustainable development, Higher education, Benchmarking, Best practice, Germany, North America Paper type Research paper

International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education Vol. 8 No. 4, 2007 pp. 446-461 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1467-6370 DOI 10.1108/14676370710823609

The present study was conducted during a sabbatical in the Sustainable University Project, University of Lu¨neburg. The author thanks Professor Dr Gerd Michelsen and all Sustainable University Project/Institute for Environmental and Sustainability Communication faculty for an enriching learning experience and for their hospitality. The author also thanks the Dean of Arts, University of Prince Edward Island for making this study leave possible. Special thanks go to Sustainable University Project colleagues for critical and constructive feedback on an earlier version of this manuscript.

Benchmarking Sustainable University Lu¨neburg: the national and international context Sustainability in higher education is increasing in importance internationally, and becoming more critical for higher education institutions – to the extent that in North America, “greening the campus” has now entered mainstream (Akel, 2006). Universities and colleges, at least in North America, can no longer afford not to engage in sustainability, if only to remain competitive (McIntosh et al., 2001; Rowe, 2006). The ever-increasing membership in the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE), the rise in sustainability coordinator positions – be they within administrative or academic structures or student government – and conferences seeking to establish international networks are further evidence of sustainability in higher education being cemented in institutional policy and practice, and its internationalization (Adomssent, 2006; Schaltegger, 2005). As the campus sustainability movement gains momentum, the specialization of sustainability in higher education (SHE)[1] – an “inchoate field” (Corcoran and Wals, 2004: back cover) until now variously considered a subset of sustainability science (Leal Filho, 1999), higher education (Fien, 2002) or an evolution/emergence of environmental education (Bolscho and Hauenschild, 2006; Tilbury, 2004) – is maturing beyond its descriptive, atheoretical phase (Fien, 2002) toward establishing itself as a distinctive body of knowledge of inter-, multi- and trans-disciplinary expertise (Brand and Karvonen, 2006; Scholz et al., 2006). Theoretically, grounded, empirically-based multidisciplinary projects such as the Sustainable University Project at the University of Lu¨neburg, Germany are contributing to a scientific investigation of the SHE phenomenon, on the one hand, and to multi-stakeholder institutionalization of higher education for sustainable development, on the other (Adomssent et al., 2007a, b; Albrecht et al., 2007). SHE internationalization, professionalization and certification (AASHE rating system, AISHE 2.0) require higher education institutions submit themselves to evaluations against international best practice standards. The purpose of this paper is to benchmark the University of Lu¨ neburg, Germany (Lu¨ neburg) against North American SHE best practice, as determined by SHE achievements and leadership in the USA and Canada. Learning from such assessment is mutual: best practice benchmarking results in recommendations for Lu¨neburg, specifically, and German and North American peers, more broadly. “Meeting the challenge of sustainability in higher education is culturally embedded” and is linked to institutional academic history and curricular tradition (Wals et al., 2004, p. 348). The Lu¨neburg Sustainable University Project builds on a track record in environmental education, experiential education and Environmental Sciences degrees; an entrepreneurial environmental management system; as well as a previous Agenda 21 project which, in concert with other initiatives, built the foundation as well as sensitivity for environment and sustainability issues at the University of Lu¨neburg. The Sustainable University Project is recognized under the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD), one of five DESD initiatives at the University. Methods To develop a set of benchmarking indicators, the 15 submissions for the AASHE Campus Sustainability Achievement Award 2006 in the category 10,000 þ students – the category Lu¨neburg with its 11,000 EFT students falls within – were subjected to

Sustainable University Project 447

IJSHE 8,4

448

thematic content analysis. Nominations for the award were invited by AASHE via a call for submissions and were received in August 2006 (self-selection). The 15 reports comprised 13 US and two Canadian post-secondary institutions (www.aashe.org/ resources/profiles/profiles.php)[2]. The submission guidelines requested 500-word maximum descriptions of achievements of the past two years in the categories “governance and administration,” “curriculum and research,” “operations,” and “community outreach and service”; initiatives which commenced prior to 2004 whose impact continued into 2006 were permitted for inclusion. (In the five cases where texts exceeded 2,000 words the full submissions were used.) The AASHE texts were subjected to frequency analysis for SHE activities using MaxQDA2 qualitative-data analysis software. Three of the 15 submissions were randomly selected for intersubjective verification by a second coder which confirmed the coding. For purposes of indicator categories, subcodes were re-arranged into the categories “governance and administration,” “curriculum and student opportunities,” “research and scholarship,” “operations,” “community outreach and service,” and “faculty and staff professional development opportunities;” this follows the grouping used in the ULSF Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ) (ULSF, 2001; Beringer et al., 2006). For purposes of data triangulation, Lu¨neburg data were also assessed against the winner in each of the four AASHE categories as per awards judges’ rationale (www. aashe.org/highlights/awards06.php). The winner in the 10,000 þ students, the University of British Columbia, was targeted specifically, as per web site (document) analysis (www.sustain.ubc.ca/). The primary source of Lu¨neburg data were the interim project report (Sustainable University Zwischenbericht (Anonyms, 2006); Adomssent and Godemann, 2005), a journal collection (Adomssent et al., 2007a, b) and the author’s insights of the Sustainable University Project, gained via a six-month study leave (January/July, 2007) (participant observation, personal communication). The draft assessment report was subjected to project members’ feedback (member-checking). Methods selection for this international benchmarking assessment is against the backdrop that “[c]urrently, there are no explicit guidelines for how to create cross-institutional assessment tools” (Shriberg, 2004, p. 73). Criteria can be articulated within broad SHE principles of resource consumption, sustainability policies, ecological literacy, post-secondary institutions fiscally supporting regional economies, and graduates’ life and work (Orr, 2000 in Shriberg, 2004, p. 73, Clugston, 2004, p. ix). The employed methods reflect the assumption that “best practice” can, at least in part and to some degree, are determined via frequency analysis. Cutting edge innovations, however, are most often than not singular by default; as such, thematic content analysis also specifically examined SHE practices with low occurrence. Findings The overall finding is that elements of the comprehensive, systemic Lu¨neburg project as well as/or aspects of the scholarly framework can be found at all the USA and Canadian institutions participating in this assessment. Differences in approach exist, as do length and breadth of SHE engagement. Moreover, it appears none of the 15 North American universities which were part of this comparative study employs a scholarly-scientific approach to SHE to the same extent and depth as Lu¨neburg. The theoretically-framed, empirically-guided applied research and development

project methodology is not replicated at selected North American peers (Adomssent et al., 2007a, b; Scholz et al., 2006). With respect to sustainability education, Lu¨neburg is setting standards in Germany (Michelsen, 2006). Recent curriculum innovations – for instance a semester-long general studies subject with sustainability induction, a requirement for all incoming students (Leuphana Semester) or project-based interdisciplinary sustainability learning as in the study programme sustainability (Barth and Godemann, 2006) – are facilitated by European higher education policy developments[3] and/or Lu¨neburg-specific restructures. With its integration of academic environmental sciences with campus sustainability and its formal sustainability teaching and learning, Lu¨neburg meets or exceeds North American standards. With its informal, hidden sustainability curriculum as an explicit aspect of post-secondary sustainability learning (Lebenswelt Hochschule (university lifeworld) Stoltenberg, 2000; Barth et al., 2007), Lu¨neburg attracts international interest (Stoltenberg pers comm., 2007). Informal aspects of sustainability learning as per Lebenswelt Hochschule find their counterpart as student opportunities on North American campuses. North American institutions tend to exceed Lu¨neburg in student opportunities as well as in operational innovations. Furthermore, Lu¨neburg, while including sustainability in its three-pillar institutional foundation (www.leuphana.de/), has yet to develop, adopt and implement a comprehensive sustainability strategy – a SHE instrument accepted as best practice in North America (UBC Leadership Award citation, www.aashe.org/highlights/awards06.php). In the practical SHE areas where Lu¨neburg is seeking constructive change toward improved sustainability performance – such as in reducing energy and resource consumption – innovation is always at the heart of investigation and application, because Lu¨neburg wants to be leading edge (Project team, pers comm). While respective initiatives may be groundbreaking in Germany – for instance, the visualization/direct feedback to stakeholders of energy savings via a monitor in the cafeteria – such kind of communication may be a well-established practice in North American institutions. In the area of sustainability communication (category “outreach and service”), Lu¨neburg is setting standards of excellence toward establishing a culture of sustainability communication on and beyond the campus, explicitly drawing on the arts toward a holistic communication strategy (Franz-Balsen and Heinrichs, 2007; Michelsen and Godemann, 2006). The next paragraphs are dedicated to detailing the findings in each of the six categories: (1) governance and administration (Table I); (2) curriculum and student opportunities (Table II); (3) research and scholarship (Table III); (4) operations (Table IV); (5) community outreach and service (Table V); and (6) faculty and staff professional development opportunities. An accompanying table for each of the categories provides an overview of the emergent SHE activities (subcodes) within each of the six categories with associated frequency statistics. A checkmark indicates the Lu¨neburg modus operandi. Because of manuscript limits, only selected findings can be described.

Sustainable University Project 449

IJSHE 8,4

450

Table I. Emergent “governance and administration” subcodes, in order of frequency

SHE activity Committees Staff positions, Inc. a sustainability office Policies, Inc. campus master plan, principles, strategy Institutional declarations, Inc Talloires; major guiding statements/resolutions Memberships Strategic approach Audits Internal awards Annual sustainability reports Social equity Student levy

Undergraduate sustainability education Graduate sustainability education Doctoral studies Sustainability education, not specified Integrated/infused into traditional disciplines Service-learning Student research Graduation pledge UN DESD activities Student environmental/sustainability groups

13 (26) 13 (19) 12 (30)

x x x

11 (19) 11 (12) 3 (5) 3 2 (3) 2 1 1

x x x x x x (gender equity) x (U-Pass)

Frequencya

Lu¨neburg

14 (29) 13 (18) 4 13 (21) 5 (8) 6 (8) 4 2 1 5

x x x x x x x x x

Notes: aFirst number is number of institutions out of 15; second number in parentheses indicates coding rate where different from institution number

SHE activity

Table III. Emergent “research and scholarship” subcodes, by frequency

Lu¨neburg

Notes: aFirst number is number of institutions out of 15; second number in parentheses indicates coding rate where different from institution number

SHE activity

Table II. Emergent “curriculum” subcodes and “student opportunities” by type of sustainability education

Frequencya

Research centre/s and research institute/s Internal grant opportunities Endowed professorships, chairs or similar External funding Misc. research activities

Frequencya

Lu¨neburg

11 (30) 4 (5) 3 2 (3) 3 (5)

x x x x

Notes: aFirst number is number of institutions out of 15; second number in parentheses indicates coding rate where different from institution number

Frequencya

SHE activity Waste, recycling Energy Transportation, Inc. vehicle fleet LEED (green building) Water and storm-/wastewater Land use, Inc. pesticides Food and dining Greenhouse gas emissions and climate change Purchasing/procurement Buildings, design and planning except LEED Paper Janitorial services Housing Ecological restoration EMS, sustainability management system Investment

15 14 14 14 12 12 13 8 9 7 7

(35) (33) (24) (21) (18) (17) (15) (14) (11) (14) (10) 8 4 (7) 3 (4) 4 1

Lu¨neburg x x n/a

451 x x x

x

Notes: aFirst number is number of institutions out of 15; second number in parentheses indicates coding rate where different from institution number

SHE activity Events except conferences Community projects Conferences University-community partnerships Web site External awards or recognition/s Media Campus tours and flyers Misc

Frequencya 14 11 9 8 8

(32) (19) (15) (14) (10) 4 (6) 3 (5) 3 (4) 11

Sustainable University Project

Table IV. Emergent “operations” subcodes, by frequency

Lu¨neburg x x x x x x x

Notes: aFirst number is number of institutions out of 15; second number in parentheses indicates coding rate where different from institution number

Governance and administration According to the data received, only three universities conduct regular sustainability audits; a somewhat surprising finding given audits constitute the foundation for monitoring progress and evaluation; comprise a critical element of transparency, reporting and stakeholder communication; and are best practice in sustainability management (Pittman, 2004; Albrecht pers comm., 2007a, b). Since, being among the first post-secondary institutions in Germany to subject itself to and receive EMAS-certification (Schaltegger in Albrecht et al., 2007; Delakowitz and Hoffmann, 2000), Lu¨neburg has regularly repeated this three-year review (Schaltegger in Albrecht et al., 2007). A comprehensive sustainability report, addressing the three pillars of ecological, social and economic sustainability and identifying achievements as well as future goals and targets, is to be published mid-2007; it is henceforth scheduled to appear biannually. With this, its

Table V. Emergent “community outreach and service” subcodes, by frequency

IJSHE 8,4

452

first sustainability report, Lu¨neburg is setting a standard of excellence: while the timing departs from some North-American institutions’ annual practice (e.g. UBC, University of Victoria, University of Prince Edward Island), the Lu¨neburg report meets or sets corporate best practice standards in methodology: it is adapted and extended from GRI reporting guidelines; relied on extensive on- and off-campus stakeholder consultations; and seeks peer review (Albrecht pers comm., 2007a, b; Zimmermann, 2005). Infusing an explicit sustainability guideline into the organizational mission in the recent restructure is a novelty in Germany and sets Lu¨neburg apart from other German post-secondary institutions committed to or practicing sustainability (Oldenburg, Zittau-Go¨rlitz; Gruppe 2004, 2004). With this, Lu¨neburg can compare itself to UBC which also explicitly mentions sustainability in its vision and mission (TREK 2010, www.trek2000.ubc.ca/index.html). However, UBC already dedicated to sustainability in higher education, including as a form of outreach toward sustainable community development, in 1997 (www.sustain.ubc.ca/), something that was being pursued in Lu¨neburg within Agenda 21 and/or environmental education projects at the time and which since 2003/2004 has received institutional reinforcement via the project. 2 Curriculum and student opportunities Project-based sustainability learning within a semester-long subject, responsibility for society (Verantwortung in der Gesellschaft), to be implemented fall term 2007 as a requirement for all incoming first year students irrespective of major, is an innovation for German post-secondary education and parallels leading initiatives in the USA and Canada. It also follows best practice sustainability education which demonstrates project-based, experiential learning as superior to conventional lectures (Haigh, 2006; Herrmann, 2007; Pittman, 2004; Barth et al., 2007). While informal sustainability learning opportunities certainly exist on the Lu¨neburg campus (Barth et al., 2007), USA and Canadian higher education institutions appear to more deliberately exploit such student opportunities; in particular as they exist via residence life, first-year student orientations and community-based service learning. “Green” dorm rooms; sustainability topics and demonstrations within first-year student orientation, e.g. conducting a hands-on waste and recycling audit of campus trash cans as part of frosh week; or an organized recycling of student goods at the end of the year via the campus sustainability office are not known from Lu¨neburg. Within the courses and curriculum restructure toward internationally accepted bachelor and master’s qualifications, Lu¨neburg, framed by its mission and curriculum guidelines of action orientation (Handlungsorientierung) and personal development (Humanismus), is introducing a volunteering option (Projekt Ehrenamt). Under the supervision of a former project faculty member, students will have the opportunity to work 40 hours in a community setting of their choice during fall term 2006/2007. Projekt Ehrenamt is a pilot toward establishing a regular subject, with students receiving credit for their community engagement. Credit for community work is a well-established feature of course, requirements or electives at many North American, particularly undergraduate liberal arts, institutions. Research and scholarship The transformative case study that is the Sustainable University Project at Lu¨neburg (Adomssent et al., 2007a, b) characterizes an all-encompassing institutional infusion of

sustainable development into higher education unlike to any of the institutions drawn on for this comparative assessment. While sustainability also pervades UBC, and most selected North American post-secondary institutions have multi- or inter-disciplinary research centres or groups, none can match the scholarly-scientific multi- and trans-disciplinary approach of the Lu¨neburg Sustainable University Project. This includes the explicit theoretical framing and grounding as well as the ongoing empirical monitoring which accompanies the entire project and each of the six subprojects (see this Issue). Operations With its energy and resource reduction campaign (Albrecht et al., 2007), Lu¨neburg is in line with most North American post-secondary institutions. At many North American universities, the issue of rising energy costs – and now, climate change – is driving the SHE agenda (Presidents’ Climate Commitment, www.presidentsclimatecommitment. org/index.php). What stands out with the Lu¨neburg energy and resource initiative is the close collaboration between an academic department (in this case the Institute for Environmental and Sustainability Communication) and the Environmental Coordinator – a type of collaboration which did not find mention in the 15 North American descriptions but which is known from the University of Toronto Rewire Project (www.sustainability.utoronto.ca/projects/rewire; Caners, 2006) and, to some extent, from the University of Prince Edward Island. In contrast to most of the North American counterparts, Lu¨neburg as an institution does not yet pursue sustainable transport. Students initiated and approved a U-Pass, operate a bicycle rental and repair workshop as well as a car-sharing cooperative. The environmental coordinator office is planning an institutional mobility campaign for the coming year. Whether this will result in a best practice transportation demand management strategy is not known. Green building, in particular LEED-standards, are an issue of excellence in North American post-secondary institutions (Harvard Green Campus Initiative, www. greencampus.harvard.edu/). Germany does not yet have a LEED-equivalent green building rating system, though ecological/green building, in particular energyefficiency, is certainly an issue for post-secondary institutions and society at large. At Lu¨neburg, the passive solar renovation of the cafeteria (Mensa) is noteworthy. Community outreach and service In its communication strategy, the Sustainable University communication subproject advocates for balanced reporting, not only sharing the positive aspects, the successes but also highlighting the limitations and need for change (Scheibel pers comm., 2007). In this, the subproject follows the philosophy that in contrast to corporations, universities have the responsibility and the mandate to report critically on processes, barriers, and failures. This, too, raises awareness. The communications subproject serves a similar function as UBCs marketing/communications manager position within the Sustainability Office and Education/Communication/Outreach staff in other North American campus sustainability offices (e.g. Yale University). Faculty and staff professional development opportunities Similar to all its selected North American peers, the area of professional education and development for faculty and staff is a neglected SHE domain in Lu¨neburg

Sustainable University Project 453

IJSHE 8,4

454

(Beringer et al., 2006; Eisen and Bartlett, 2006). Only one post-secondary institution, Ball State University, mentioned a professional development opportunity for faculty and staff. To date, sustainability themes are not yet reflected in the University’s offerings for its faculty and staff. The forthcoming Lu¨neburg Sustainability Report 2007 has identified this lacuna and recommends including sustainability themes in professional development in the future. In sum, Lu¨neburg excels in the areas of research/scholarship and curriculum. In comparison to North American peers, potential appears in particular in the categories of governance and administration, student opportunities, and operations. With respect to UBC – and this is a preliminary impression requiring further examination – Lu¨neburg and UBC seem to be setting standards of excellence on different ends of the SHE spectrum: Lu¨ neburg advancing the academic, scientific-scholarly approach, UBC the applied practice orientation. Discussion As sustainability in higher education matures, internal and external stakeholders are calling for best practice determinants, objective performance assessments, and nationally and internationally accepted rating systems. Such instruments serve as accountability tools as well as vectors to communicate sustainability into civic society, thereby advancing post-secondary institutions’ societal mandate to be leaders toward preferred, sustainable futures. Research and development projects like the Lu¨neburg Sustainable University Project, practice-oriented campus sustainability leaders like UBC and the many and varied efforts at so many post-secondary institutions worldwide add to clarifying the fundamental question, what is a sustainable post-secondary institution? Further, they draw attention to the institutional transformation processes necessary to become exemplars of sustainable living. This inductive best practice indicator assessment development operationalizes the “sustainable university” phenomenon while respecting its dynamic, evolutionary nature. What constitutes sustainability within higher education is a moving target; the transpired categories of practice are signposts at a given point in time, for one part of the world. This one-off, region-specific snapshot suggests a post-secondary institution on the journey toward sustainability is one which: . has adopted sustainability as a major guiding principle, championed by senior administration; has a sustainability strategy or approved sustainability policies; has sustainability-related multi-stakeholder committee/s; has dedicated faculty or staff time for campus sustainability, including a campus sustainability office; is a member of professional organizations; conducts regular audits and regularly publishes the results in a sustainability report; dedicates student fees to sustainability; and has received external awards (governance and administration); . has at least one sustainability-related research centre or institute; holds an endowed professor, chair or similar; provides internal grant opportunities for sustainability initiatives; and supports external funding applications for sustainability (research and scholarship); . offers undergraduate, graduate and/or doctoral studies in sustainability, including a focus on interdisciplinary project-based learning; infuses sustainability themes in traditional disciplinary education; offers

.

.

.

.

sustainability-related service-learning; provides opportunities for student sustainability research; includes sustainability themes in first-year student orientation; gives students and/or graduates the option of a sustainability pledge; and frames (some of) its sustainability education by the UN DESD (curriculum); has one or more student environmental/social justice/sustainability groups; a green dorm or sustainable living alternatives in residence/s; and other informal sustainability education which structure and foster a sustainable campus community lifeworld (student opportunities); engages in waste, energy and water management, including resource minimization and recycling; commits to a GHG emissions reduction strategy, including transportation planning; exemplifies green building, design, construction and management; applies ecological principles in land use; commits to ethical procurement, including paper, and investment; and subjects itself to EMS or SMS certification (operations); conducts educational outreach; hosts sustainability-related events and conferences; has established university-community partnerships and community projects; and communicates its efforts and achievements via a web site, media and/or campus tours or flyers (community service and outreach); and provides faculty and staff development opportunities regarding sustainability and supports external funding applications (faculty and staff development).

This ensuing transferable checklist is not unlike the items sampled in the SAQ (ULSF, 2001) which sought to comprehensively capture, if not define, sustainability in higher education. The SAQ as one of the most widespread instruments used to ascertain SHE performance thus confirms this inductive best practice benchmarking checklist and vice versa. While performance and/or best practice can be determined via either of these (and other) instruments, innovations, and the potential for innovations, can also be gleaned; innovations such as: . a specific commitment to transcend the dominant environmental sustainability orientation to foster the social justice pillar of sustainability (University of Florida, UBC; AASHE, 2007, www.aashe.org/programs/awards. php) (governance and administration); . a cross-sectoral, cross-faculty, interdisciplinary sustainable university initiative using a scientific framework (e.g. transdisciplinarity – Lu¨neburg, The Natural Step – UC Santa Barbara, community-based social marketing – University of Toronto, Caners, 2006) and making use of the resultant synergies between research, education/curriculum and operations/facilities management (Lu¨neburg) (research and scholarship, curriculum, operations); . framing campus sustainability with theory, contributing to theory development and building the body of knowledge in this emerging specialization (Lu¨neburg, Harvard University (Sharp, 2005), ETH Zu¨rich (Scholz et al., 2006)); . promotion and tenure restructures which respect the critical global sustainability challenge and reward faculty and staff working toward solutions (faculty and staff development);

Sustainable University Project 455

IJSHE 8,4

.

.

456

a faculty salary/staff wage levy toward campus sustainability which complements the student levy becoming more prominent on North American university and college campuses; and together with non-scientific knowledge systems such as faith/spiritual communities, explicit attention to the cultural dimensions of the crisis of unsustainability, including a paradigm critique of the modern, western, secular worldview and the role of higher education institutions in “paradigm revolution” (Orth, 2005, ISSRNC, 2007).

Assessments, as well as the ratings and rankings which build on them, always highlight the complexities, so as not to say limitations, of cross-institutional comparison. Further, attempts to “compare and contrast” underscore the unique “institutional biography” and ecological-cultural context which frame as well as ascertain the possibilities of transformation (Adomssent, 2006; Wals et al., 2004; Shriberg, 2004; M’Gonigle and Starke, 2006; VVelzquez et al., 2005). This performance assessment of the University of Lu¨neburg against selected North American peers indicates Lu¨neburg can be considered an international SHE leader. By choosing sustainability as a central organizing focus (Gudz, 2004); with its inter-, multi- and trans-disciplinary SHE research and scholarship; and in its multiple approaches to sustainability education, Lu¨neburg fulfils and/or sets international standards of excellence. To continue innovation and excellence, it is recommended Lu¨neburg commit, as soon as possible, to a climate-neutral strategy: setting greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets, developing an action plan to achieve these targets and fully offsetting GHG emissions – and promoting campus community buy-in and engagement for carbon neutrality via community-based social marketing. In committing to GHG reduction/neutrality, Lu¨neburg would follow suit in what is fast becoming a critical aspect of SHE excellence in North America. With a climate commitment, Lu¨neburg would equal quite a few of its USA counterparts, especially since the University and College Presidents’ Climate strategy was initiated in early 2007. By immediately offsetting 100 per cent of its greenhouse gases, Lu¨neburg would become the first carbon-neutral German University and could claim to be among the first carbon-neutral post-secondary institutions worldwide (College of the Atlantic October 2006, www.coa.edu/html/pressreleases_199.htm)[4]. Other specific recommendations for Lu¨neburg include a strengthening of sustainability initiatives in student residences, sustainability themes in first-year student orientation, a sustainability management system and more concerted efforts to educate faculty and staff (professional development opportunities) as well as to reward sustainability engagement via tenure and promotion structures (Rowe, 2006). From a research perspective, it seems the Lu¨neburg Sustainable University Project could benefit from intensified collaborations, including formalized partnerships or exchange, with post-secondary institutions proficient in applied research approaches, those applying community-based social marketing (University of Toronto) and those with existing regional university-community partnerships (e.g. University of Toronto, UBC) (Adomssent, 2006, p. 14; Rowe, 2006). More generally, by joining existing North-American initiatives, such as the university and college presidents’ climate strategy or the campus climate challenge, Lu¨neburg could set precedents of international alliance, thereby reflecting and contributing to the trend toward

denationalization and globalization of universities and higher education activities – the “global space of higher education” (Adomssent, 2006, p. 11). Extending the part-time environmental coordinator position to a full-fledged campus sustainability office modeled after North American facilities is another issue for consideration, and one that would be unique in Germany. What insights can North American peers, specifically, and the SHE field, more broadly, glean from this benchmarking assessment? As yet largely unmined potential for SHE knowledge transfer and capacity-building lies in analyzing the Lu¨neburg transformative case study approach regarding its transferability to respective North American post-secondary institutions (Scholz et al., 2006); analyzing, comparing and assessing the efficacy and efficiency of the transformative case study approach with an institutional action research approach (Beringer, 2006) and/or the community-based social marketing approach of selected SHE initiatives; and in analyzing institutional factors and processes which facilitate and accelerate the kind of holistic and consequently, synergistic transformation that seems possible in Lu¨neburg. While this is a tentative conclusion requiring further empirical inquiry, a significant insight for North American institutions arising from this analysis may be that the conventional “Sustainability Coordinator approach” – i.e. a staff position at a chosen administrative level within facilities management and reporting to a vice-president operations, frequently with an engineering background and largely independent (isolated) from academe – may not be the most effective and efficient vehicle for a two-pronged, combined “top-down” and “bottom-up” strategy of institutional transformation. Lu¨neburg, UBC and others – e.g. Harvard, Yale – demonstrate that a combined expertise in organizational leadership and management, operations, and academic research/scholarship and education are required to tap unfulfilled SHE synergies, and to realize these; synergies marked by accelerated progress which, it seems, only appear once a multi-stakeholder process is secured and a certain tipping point of cross-sectoral commitment and multi-/trans-disciplinary functioning has been reached (Stokols, 2006; Schoot Uiterkamp and Vlek, 2007). Tipping points, critical elements of SHE transformation and their synergies may be a priority for the next phase of SHE research and practice. The guiding question of the UNESCO Chair “Higher Education for Sustainable Development” at Lu¨neburg – how may sustainable development steer post-secondary education, and how can the principle of sustainability be implemented into research? (Michelsen, 2006) – demands cutting edge work. The transferability question contained within this mandate and addressed throughout this IJSHE Issue echoes repercussions and promises benefits across the Atlantic. Notes 1. The term “sustainability in higher education” contains the notion of “higher education for sustainable development.” 2. US institutions: Ball State University, California State University Chico, Duke University, Michigan State University North-western University, Portland State University, University of California Berkeley, University of California Santa Barbara, University of Florida, University of Michigan, University of New Hampshire, University of South Carolina, University of Vermont; Canadian institutions: McGill University, University of British Columbia.

Sustainable University Project 457

IJSHE 8,4

458

3. For example, the Bologna Process which requires all German post-secondary education qualifications to be transmuted into the internationally accepted bachelor and master’s degrees by 2010. 4. Lu¨neburg announced a climate-neutral university strategy 29 May 2007 while this paper was in print, www.uni-lueneburg.de/uni/index.php?id ¼ 4439

References AASHE (2007), Campus Sustainability Leadership Awards, Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education, Lexington, KY. Adomssent, M. (2006), “Higher education for sustainability: challenges and obligations from a global perspective”, in Adomssent, M., Godemann, J., Leicht, A. and Busch, A. (Eds), Higher Education for Sustainability: New Challenges from a Global Perspective, Verlag fu¨r Akademische Schriften, Frankfurt/M., pp. 10-22. Adomssent, M. and Godemann, J. (2005), “Campus im Spannungsfeld: Sustainable University ¨ kologie, Vol. 93, pp. 52-3. Lu¨neburg”, Politische O Adomssent, M., Albrecht, P., Barth, M., Burandt, S., Franz-Balsen, A., Godemann, J. and Rieckmann, M. (2007a), “Sustainable University – eine Bestandsaufnahme”, INFU Diskussionsbeitra¨ge, Vol. 34/07. Adomssent, M., Godemann, J. and Michelsen, G. (2007b), “Towards sustainable universities: findings of the transformative ‘Lu¨neburg Approach’”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 8 No. 4. Akel, M. (2006), “Institutions of higher education: a study of facilities and environmental considerations”, available at: www.universitybusiness.com/uploaded/pdfs/ HiEdGreenFacilitiesStudyECNN.pdf (accessed 22 September 2006). Albrecht, P. (2007a), Nachhaltigkeitsbericht University of Lu¨neburg (draft), unpublished manuscript. Albrecht, P. (2007b), “Sustainability management and reporting”, pers comm., February/March. Albrecht, P., Burandt, S., Ruck, W. and Schaltegger, S. (2007), “Do sustainability projects stimulate organizational learning?”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 8 No. 4. Anonyms (2006), Sustainable University – nachhaltige Entwicklung im Kontext universita¨rer Aufgabenstellungen (Zwischenbericht), Universita¨t Lu¨ neburg INFU Institut fu¨r Umweltkommunikation, Lu¨neburg, unpublished manuscript. Barth, M. and Godemann, J. (2006), “Study Programme Sustainability – a way to impart competencies for handling sustainability?”, in Adomssent, M., Godemann, J., Leicht, A. and Busch, A. (Eds), Higher Education for Sustainability: New Challenges from a Global Perspective, Verlag fu¨r Akademische Schriften, Frankfurt/M., pp. 198-207. Barth, M., Godemann, J., Rieckmann, M. and Stoltenberg, U. (2007), “How to develop key competencies for dealing with sustainable development in higher education”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 8 No. 4. Beringer, A. (2006), “Sustainable UPEI: an action research project”, paper presented at 3rd Annual Environmental Research Symposium, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, NS, Environmental Studies Students. Beringer, A., Wright, T. and Malone, L. (2006), “Sustainability in higher education in Atlantic Canada”, available at: www.upei.ca/environment/Atl_Can_SHE_study.pdf (accessed December 2006).

Bolscho, D. and Hauenschild, K. (2006), “From environmental education to education for sustainable development in Germany”, Environmental Education Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 7-18. Brand, R. and Karvonen, A. (2006), “The ecosystem of expertise: complementary knowledges for sustainable development”, Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-11. Caners, C. (2006), “Sustainability at the University of Toronto”, in Garcia Lamarca, M. (chair), The movement towards sustainable campuses in Canada: processes and experiences, paper presented at 3rd Annual Conference of the Northeast Campus Sustainability Consortium, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 2-3 November. Clugston, R.M. (2004), “Foreword”, in Corcoran, P.B. and Wals, A.E.J. (Eds), Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustainability, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. ix-xi. Corcoran, P.B. and Wals, A.E.J. (2004), Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustainability, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. Delakowitz, B. and Hoffmann, A. (2000), “The Hochschule Zittau/Go¨rlitz: Germany’s first registered environmental management (EMAS) at an institution of higher education”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 35-47. Eisen, A. and Bartlett, P. (2006), “The Piedmont project: fostering faculty development toward sustainability”, Journal of Environmental Education, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 25-36. Fien, J. (2002), “Advancing sustainability in higher education: issues and opportunities for research”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 243-53. Franz-Balsen, A. and Heinrichs, H. (2007), “Strategic – adaptive – participatory: sustainability communication management on campus”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 8 No. 4. Gruppe 2004 (2004), “Memorandum ‘rethinking academia:’ reorientation on the horizon of sustainability”, available at: www.uni-lueneburg.de/gruppe2004/seiten/memo.htm (accessed January 2007). Gudz, N.A. (2004), “Implementing the sustainable development policy at the University of British Columbia: an analysis of the implications for organisational learning”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 156-68. Haigh, M.J. (2006), “Promoting environmental education for sustainable development: the value of links between higher education and non-governmental organizations (NGOs)”, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 327-49. Herrmann, M. (2007), “The practice of sustainable education through a participatory and holistic teaching approach”, Communication, Cooperation, Participation: Research and Practice for a Sustainable Future, Vol. 1, pp. 72-87, available at: www.ccp-online.org/en/details/ herrmann_01.php (accessed 9 May 2007). ISSRNC (2007) paper presented at International Conference on Religious Studies and Theology Exploring Sustainable Development: Challenges for Higher Education, International Society for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture Nijmegen, September 27-28. Leal Filho, W. (1999), Sustainability and University Life, Peter Lang, Frankfurt/M.. M’Gonigle, M. and Starke, J. (2006), Planet U: Sustaining the World, Reinventing the University, New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC.

Sustainable University Project 459

IJSHE 8,4

460

McIntosh, M., Cacciola, K., Clermont, S. and Keniry, J. (2001), State of the Campus Environment: A National Report Card on Environmental Performance and Sustainability in Higher Education, National Wildlife Federation, Reston, VA. Michelsen, G. (2006), “Higher education for sustainable development: the UNESCO Chair at the University of Lu¨neburg”, in Adomssent, M., Godemann, J., Leicht, A. and Busch, A. (Eds), Higher Education for Sustainability: New Challenges from a Global Perspective, Verlag fu¨r Akademische Schriften, Frankfurt/M., pp. 46-57. Michelsen, G. and Godemann, J. (Eds) (2006), Handbuch Nachhaltigkeitskommunikation, Oekom, Frankfurt/M.. Orth, G. (2005), “Verschieden und doch a¨hnlich: Theologie im interreligio¨sen Dialog”, Politische ¨ kologie, Vol. 93, pp. 40-2. O Pittman, J. (2004), “A whole systems design approach to organizational change”, in Corcoran, P. and Wals, A. (Eds), Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustainability, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 199-211. Rowe, D. (2006), “Education for sustainable development in the US – an update”, in Adomssent, M., Godemann, J., Leicht, A. and Busch, A. (Eds), Higher Education for Sustainability: New Challenges from a Global Perspective, Verlag fu¨r Akademische Schriften, Frankfurt/M., pp. 145-54. ¨ kologie, Vol. 93, pp. 37-9. Schaltegger, S. (2005), “Standortvorteil Nachhaltigkeit”, Politische O Scheibel, R. (2007), “Sustainable University subproject communication”, pers comm, March. Scholz, R.W., Lang, D.J., Wiek, A., Walter, A.I. and Stauffacher, M. (2006), “Transdisciplinary case studies as sustainability learning”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 226-51. Schoot Uiterkamp, A.J.M. and Vlek, C. (2007), “Practice and outcomes of multidisciplinary research for environmental sustainability”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 175-97. Sharp, L. (2005), “Campus sustainability for practitioners: challenges for a new profession”, unpublished manuscript. Shriberg, M. (2004), “Assessing sustainability: criteria, tools and implications”, in Corcoran, P. and Wals, A. (Eds), Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustainability, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 71-86. Stokols, D. (2006), “Toward a science of transdiscciplinary action research”, American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 38 Nos 1/2, pp. 63-77. Stoltenberg, U. (2000), “Lebenswelt Hochschule als Erfahrungsraum fu¨r Nachhaltigkeit”, in Michelsen, G. (Ed.), Sustainable University, Verlag fu¨r Akademische Schriften, Frankfurt/M., pp. 90-116. Stoltenberg, U. (2007), “Lu¨neburg university lifeworld”, pers comm, April. Tilbury, D. (2004), “Environmental education for sustainability: a force for change in higher education”, in Corcoran, P. and Wals, A.E.J. (Eds), Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustainability: Problematics, Promise, and Practice, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 97-112. ULSF (2001), Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire, University Leaders for a Sustainable Future, Washington, DC, available at: www.ulsf.org (accessed September 2006). Velzquez, L., Munguia, N. and Sanchez, M. (2005), “Deterring sustainability in higher education institutions: an appraisal of the factors which influence sustainability in higher education institutions”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 383-91.

Wals, A.E.J., Walker, K.E. and Corcoran, P.B. (2004), “The practice of sustainability in higher education: a synthesis”, in Corcoran, P.B. and Wals, A.E.J. (Eds), Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustainability, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 347-8. Zimmermann, F.M. (Ed.) (2005), “Nachhaltigkeitsbericht Universita¨t Graz”, available at: www. uni-graz.at/bdrwww_nachhaltigkeitsbericht_unigraz_2005.pdf (accessed 15 May 2007).

Sustainable University Project 461

Corresponding author Almut Beringer can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

IJSHE 8,4

462

News Climate change: a new momentum after the G8 meeting A meeting of G8 þ 5 government leaders in Heiligendamm, Germany, last summer has delivered “a message in the right direction” on climate change. Countries like the USA are still far from accepting the European position, represented at the meeting by Germany, the UK, France and Italy, that climate change must be tackled through binding emission caps. But the USA had moved some way towards the EU’s understanding on climate since the start of the Gleneagles dialogue 18 months ago. The outcome of the meeting is expected to strongly influence whether wider international talks on a post-Kyoto international climate regime in Bali this coming December will be successful. The USA has announced it would bring together the 15 biggest greenhouse gas-emitting nations for a series of meetings starting this autumn to discuss ways to limit global emissions by a set amount by 2050. The new US strategy calls for consensus on long-term greenhouse gas reduction goals by the end of next year.

Portugal launches environment and health plan Portugal has recently unveiled an action plan on environmental risks to human health. The plan aims to improve understanding of the impact of water, air, noise and electromagnetic pollution, to implement corrective measures and to plan responses to emerging risks, especially climate-related ones. The plan lists 33 priority actions to be carried out by 2013. It will also investigate the “cocktail effect” of exposure to multiple environmental risks. The environment and health plan is available at: www. endseuropedaily.com/docs/70606a.pdf

ECO-I NET: network for innovation launched Eco-i net aims to support the creation, research, development and commercialisation of existing and new eco-innovative products, services and technologies working across the full innovation cycle. The network includes a unique back-office – Green Think! Lab – that provides a range of eco-innovation services with a particular focus on building technologies and low carbon solutions. To subscribe eco-i net via e-mail, send a blank e-mail to: [email protected]

International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education Vol. 8 No. 4, 2007 pp. 462-463 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1467-6370

Quality of inland bathing water in Europe improves Water quality at the European Union inland bathing waters improved slightly last year after a drop in 2005, new figures have revealed. The results for the EU’s 2006 bathing season show that compliance with mandatory standards at inland bathing sites rose by almost three percentage points to 88.6 per cent. The number of sites meeting the more stringent “guide” quality value also rose slightly.

The quality of inland sites still lags behind that of coastal waters. Compliance rates at coastal beaches remained stable at 96.1 per cent for mandatory standards and decreased slightly to 88.4 per cent for the guide values. Rio Tinto, BP launch joint green drive Mining company Rio Tinto and oil firm BP have announced the creation of a jointly owned company – Hydrogen Energy – to develop decarbonised fossil-fuel-based energy products. The firms’ initial focus will be to produce hydrogen for power generation from coal or petroleum coke, with carbon dioxide to be captured and stored underground. The joint venture will be based in the UK.

News

463

IJSHE 8,4

Diary 2008

464

Bioenergy World Europe 2008 7-10 February, Verona, Italy Bioenergy World Europe 2008 gathers together leading actors from across the bioenergy industry spectrum and is being staged again in conjunction with Fieragricola, a major international agricultural exhibition and a highly relevant context for bioenergy. Bioenergy World Europe 2008 comprises around 150,000 visitors from more than 70 countries attending Bioenergy World Europe and Fieragricola, an International Bioenergy Exhibition covering: . liquid: biodiesel and ethanol for transport; . solid: wood and agri-residues for heat and power; and . gaseous: biogas for heat and power, transport. For further information on Bioenergy World, please visit the web site: www.bioenergyworld.com

International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education Vol. 8 No. 4, 2007 pp. 464-466 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1467-6370

ASCE GeoCongress 2008-New Orleans Session on Assessment of Variability and Risk by Geophysical Methods 9-12 March, New Orleans, USA New Orleans, USA The ASCE risk assessment and management committee and geophysical engineering committee invite for the submissions of abstracts on the application of geophysical tools (including but not limited to seismic, electromagnetic electrical, GPR, LiDAR, remote sensing, etc.) to quantity the variability and risks. Examples include surveying the subsurface conditions, infrastructure health conditions and assessment of risks prior or after major natural hazards. The technical content of papers can include either theoretical model development or practical applications to account for the measured variability’s in the design, performance assessment and risk evaluation. Case studies describing the incorporation of measured variability’s by geophysical tools in the design and condition/risk assessment of infrastructure system are welcomed. Examples of application areas include but not limited to: . geotechnical and environmental sit evaluation; . earthquake damage assessment; . levee damage assessment; . foundation design; . slope stability assessment; and . pavement and bridges condition assessment, etc. For further information, please visit the web site: http://content.asce.org/conferences/ geocongress2008/index.html5

GLOBE 2008 12-14 March, Vancouver, Canada GLOBE 2008 will be the tenth event in the GLOBE series and will serve as an ideal venue for interested people to meet and exchange ideas, build partnerships and conduct business on a wide range of global environmental issues. The GLOBE 2008 conference will focus on three major thematic areas: corporate sustainability and finance; energy and the environment; and building better cities. The GLOBE 2008 Conference themes are: Enhancing corporate sustainability Leading experts will explore policies, systems and tools for corporations to maximize the benefits of environmental responsibility. Setting new priorities for energy and environment Visionaries will discuss how to identify and seize business opportunities accompanying the new energy era and explore climate change issues. Finance and sustainability An exploration of the relationship between sustainability and finance, with a focus on clean technology investment, capital markets, and responsible investment strategies. Building better cities Addressing the challenges of incorporating sustainability principles into the design, development, financing, construction, operation and governance of cities. Further information on the GLOBE 2008 Conference and Trade Fair please visit the web site: www.globe2008.ca 7th International Conference on “Environmental Engineering” 22-23 May, Vilnius, Lithuania The 7th International Conference on “Environmental Engineering” will be held in Vilnius, Lithuania on 22-23 May 2008. The main topics of the meeting are: . environmental protection; . environmental engineering; . urban transport systems; . roads and railways; . geodesy and cadastre technology; and . energy for buildings. Further details are available at: Organizing Committee of Conference “Environmental Engineering” Environmental Engineering Faculty, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Sauletekio ave 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania, Tel.: þ 370 5 2745090; Fax: þ 370 5 2744731, E-mail: [email protected]

Diary

465

IJSHE 8,4

466

9th International Symposium on Environmental Geotechnology and Global Sustainable Development 1-4 June, Hong Kong This biennial symposium will be hosted and organized by the University of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology with support from the International Society for Environmental Geotechnology. The themes of the event are: . soil contamination assessments and monitoring; . groundwater contamination assessments and monitoring; . environmental site assessment: practices and standards; . site investigation and field sampling; . techniques of contaminated site remediation; . waste containment and attenuation; . pollutant fate and transport in soil and groundwater; . soil-waste interaction; . design and operation of landfills; . landfill aftercare and restoration; . use of construction and demolition wastes; . re-use and recycling of materials; . natural resources exploration; . hazard mitigation; . mitigation of construction noise and vibration; . urban renewal; . sustainable environmental policies, strategies and management; . drought and desertification; . landslides; . mining subsidence; . geothermal energy; and . radioactive waste disposal. For further information, please contact: [email protected]

Books and resources Saling Urban Environmental Challenges: From Local to Global and Back Peter J. Marcotullio and Gordon McGranahan Earthscan London March 2007 399 pp. ISBN 978-1-84407-323-8 £22.95

Books and resources

467

“Think globally, act locally” emphasizes the importance of scale in dealing with environmental challenges, but not how to factor it in. This major new book focuses on the spatial dimensions of urban environmental burdens, showing how important it is to take these into account when pursuing environmental justice and good governance – whether in the context of the sanitary risks of slum living, the pollution of uncontrolled industrialization and motorization, or the enormous ecological footprints of affluent urban lifestyles.

Information, Communication and Education on Climate Change – European Perspectives Leal Filho, W., Mannke, F., Schmidt-Thome´ P. Peter Lang Scientific Publishers Frankfurt May 2007 216 pp. ISBN 978-3-631-56682-4 US$41,95 It is now beyond any doubt that climate change represents a major threat to the environmental, social and economic well being of the planet. There are now many mechanisms in place to address the challenges posed by climate change. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol are examples of what is being done. However, more is needed. A further means to work towards a reduction in greenhouse emissions is by raising awareness on the causes and consequences of climate change. Only by motivating and engaging people to actively consider how their habits and behaviours contribute towards the problem, can we expect it to be solved in the long-term. This book is an attempt to contribute to the global debate on climate change by outlining some educational methods, approaches and projects which have been focusing on climate issues in Europe. The examples provided in the book illustrate a point often made but unfortunately not sufficiently pursued: education, communication and training can play a key role in supporting efforts towards addressing climate change. The book explores the links between education, communication and training and the challenges of climate change. It describes approaches, methods and initiatives

International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education Vol. 8 No. 4, 2007 pp. 467-469 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1467-6370

IJSHE 8,4

aimed at raising awareness on climate change and illustrates some of the future action needed in this field. Prepared within the framework of the Interreg IIIB (Baltic Sea) project ASTRA – Developing Adaptation Strategies to Climate Change in the Baltic Sea Region – (www.astra-project.org), the book is published as Vol. 26 of the awardwinning series “Environmental Education, Communication and Sustainability”.

468 Environmental Principles and Policies: An Interdisciplinary Introduction Sharon Beder Earthscan London October 2006 366 pp. ISBN 1844074048 24.95 This textbook is an useful course text for environmental studies, politics, business and related fields. It provides comprehensive coverage and clear explanation of principles including sustainability, the precautionary principle, public participation, equity and polluters pays. The book also covers how principles are applied in real life to a range of issues from persistent chemical pollution to climate change to fishing rights and watershed usage. As well as full coverage of economic approaches including cost-benefit analysis and emissions, pollution and ecosystem services trading.

Degrees That Matter – Climate Change and the University Ann Rappaport and Sarah Hammond Creighton MIT University Press May 2007 376 pp. ISBN-100-262-68166-8 US$24.95/£15.95 Universities and colleges are in a unique position to take a leadership role on global warming. As communities, they can strategize and organize effective action. As laboratories for learning and centres of research, they can reduce their own emissions of greenhouse gases, educate students about global warming, and direct scholarly attention to issues related to climate change and energy. Degrees That Matter offers practical guidance for those who want to harness the power of universities and other institutions, and provides perspectives on how to motivate change and inspire action within complex organizations. The authors, drawing on almost a decade of experience leading the Tufts Climate Initiative and other institutional “greening” efforts, provide both the basic facts and more detailed information about climate issues. Some chapters can be used as stand-alone action guides for specific areas, while others put climate action in scientific, economic, and political contexts. The authors discuss the major sources of greenhouse

gas emissions on campus and the importance of an emissions inventory for setting goals and strategies. They consider decision making (and decision makers), costs, budgets, and institutional priorities, and describe different emission reduction projects. They look at the importance of master planning for the university and the value of action by individual community members. Finally, they suggest climate action projects for the classroom and offer guidance for tapping student energy. Their aim is to inspire others to take on global warming regardless of organizational setting. RSPB’s booklet: “Strategic Environmental Assessment – Learning from Practice” The booklet features examples of SEA provided by practitioners from around the UK. These case studies show how SEA and sustainability appraisal (SA) are being approached in various sectors to help improve the environmental sustainability of public plans and programmes. Each of the case studies demonstrates an aspect of SEA/SA that has been carried out to a good standard. The booklet also includes the RSPB’s advice for carrying out effective SEA/SA. The booklet can be downloaded from the RSPB’s web site at: www. rspb.org.uk/policy/planningpolicy/s_e_a.aspw UN-Energy Biofuels Report As the demand for biofuels surges with over one billion people living without access to electricity, a new UN report released last week cautions that the world’s energy needs must be met in a sustainable and environmentally sound manner. The report from UN-Energy, an inter-agency body established to coordinate the UN’s work in the realm of energy, is entitled “Sustainable Energy: A Framework for Decision Makers”. The study is the first of its kind to examine the issue of bioenergy through the lens of nine issues, including poverty, health, food security, agriculture, climate change, finance and trade. To download the report, visit the UN Energy web site: http://esa.un. org/un-energy/

Books and resources

469

IJSHE 8,4

470

International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education Vol. 8 No. 4, 2007 p. 470 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1467-6370

News from the net Global species information system announced. The European Union recently announced that it would contribute to a global species information system announced the same day in Washington as a follow up to G8 þ 5 biodiversity talks in Potsdam, Germany in mid-2007. The EU contribution, SpeciesBase, will use European funds to collate data from across the continent for the new database. The European Commission has also launched “Net-Biome” a research project to aid biodiversity protection in the tropical overseas territories of EU countries such as France and the UK. Details on Net-Biome are available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference ¼ MEX/07/0510&format ¼ HTML&aged ¼ 0&language ¼ EN&guiLanguage ¼ en (“Other news” item 3).

Feature UNEP: e-learning programme on climate change As part of its commitment to deliver useful products and services to its membership, UNEP FI has launched an e-learning programme on climate change. The programme has been developed with the support of the UNEP FI Climate Change Working Group, the UNEP FI Australasian Credit Risk Advisory Committee, and Bank of America. The aim is to develop a comprehensive, innovative, and effective global e-learning programme to support staff in financial institutions in enhancing knowledge on climate change and carbon finance. UNEP FI is working with some of the globe’s leading experts to better understand the business complexities and financial implications of climate change to produce a course that is both practical and relevant. The course uses the United Nations Institute on Training and Research’s (UNITAR) sophisticated e-learning portal to make the course as effective and interactive as possible. The course provides an introduction to climate change and the science behind it, as well as emphasises how it will affect the financial services sector. Participants are exposed to the policy and regulations in place, specifically the Kyoto Protocol and other regional policies. The course also aims to educate participants on the effect of climate change on energy financing and energy alternatives. Another important aspect of this course is the module on carbon finance, covering emissions trading as well as opportunities in the clean development mechanism and joint implementation. Further information, including details on how to apply for the course is available at: www.unitar.org/unepfi/

Feature

471

International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education Vol. 8 No. 4, 2007 p. 471 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1467-6370