No abstract

No abstract

The UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development stresses the fundamental role science should play in implementing the 17 Sustainable Development Goals endorsed by the global community. But how can and should researchers respond to this societal demand on science? We argue that answering this question requires systematic engagement with the fundamental normative dimensions of the 2030 Agenda and those of the scientific community-and with the implications these dimensions have for research and practice. We suggest that the production of knowledge relevant to sustainable development entails analytic engagement with norms and values through four tasks. First, to unravel and critically reflect on the ethical values involved in sustainability, values should increasingly become an empirical and theoretical object of sustainability research. Second, to ensure that research on social-ecological systems is related to sustainability values, researchers should reflect on and spell out what sustainability values guide their research, taking into account possible interdependencies, synergies, and trade-offs. Third, to find common ground on what sustainability means for specific situations, scientists should engage in deliberative learning processes with societal actors, with a view to jointly reflecting on existing development visions and creating new, contextualized ones. Fourth, this implies that researchers and scientific disciplines must clarify their own ethical and epistemic values, as this defines accountability and shapes identification of problems, research questions, and results. We believe that ignoring these tasks, whether one is in favor or critical of the 2030 Agenda, will undermine the credibility and relevance of scientific contributions for sustainable development.

No abstract

Abstract:If we postulate a need for the transformation of society towards sustainable development, we also need to transform science and overcome the fact/value split that makes it impossible for science to be accountable to society. The orientation of this paradigm transformation in science has been under debate for four decades, generating important theoretical concepts, but they have had limited impact until now. This is due to a contradictory normative science policy framing that science has difficulties dealing with, not least of all because the dominant framing creates a lock-in. We postulate that in addition to introducing transdisciplinarity, science needs to strive for integration of the normative aspect of sustainable development at the meta-level. This requires a strategically managed niche within which scholars and practitioners from many different disciplines can engage in a long-term common learning process, in order to become a "thought collective" (Fleck) capable of initiating the paradigm transformation. Arguing with Piaget that "decentration" is essential to achieve normative orientation and coherence in a learning collective, we introduce a learning approach-Cohn's "Theme-Centred Interaction"-which provides a methodology for explicitly working with the objectivity and subjectivity of statements and positions in a "real-world" context, and for consciously integrating concerns of individuals in their interdependence with the world. This should enable a thought collective to address the epistemological and ethical barriers to science for sustainable development. Highlights:• Science needs to be transformed to become science for sustainable development• Future transdisciplinarity must face the contradictory normative framing of science• Pursuing one's concern rather than only facts or critiques can transform science• Ruth Cohn's learning approach can lead to a transformative thought collective• Science policy must provide a strategically managed niche for this innovation Post-print of peer-reviewed article published in FUTURES: http://dx

The call for integration of competences in tertiary education for sustainable development (ESD) has been heard. Helpful competence models for ESD are available but little exists about how to put them into practice. As illustrated in this article in an initial review of competence models for change agency, this is not easy because competences are fundamentally context-bound and generalized models make little sense. Faculty staff who wish to foster competences for SD therefore need help with contextualising and operationalising competences. They often lack the pedagogic-didactic understanding needed to implement competence orientation in their teaching, in an institutional context where knowledge transmission is traditionally rated higher than competence development. Using a reflective practitioner approach, this paper addresses the need for methodological guidance by introducing a heuristic procedure and a didactic planning tool from adult education that enable lecturers to establish coherent ESD teaching-and-learning environments and curricula: the tree of science model and constructive alignment. Two case studies show how these instruments can be used to increase coherence when operationalising competences for SD. The article concludes by outlining three factors that foster integration of competence orientation in ESD: pedagogic-didactic tools, professional development for ESD, and institutional change.

Is higher education capable of promoting learning for change? Can transformative learning nurture spaces for innovation in education for sustainable development? A call to action from saguf.

No abstract