Exceptionalism and Evasion: How Scholars Reason About Air Travel

Abstract

Understanding how scholars reason about their own flying habits is important when dealing with the problems of large emissions from academic air travel. This study is based on a travel habits survey with scholars at KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm. KTH has relatively high emissions from air travel, but at the same time, it has a high profile in matters of sustainability and a lot of research related to this theme. One can therefore assume a high degree of knowledge about the climate crisis and the climate impact of various actions. It is also plausible that KTH scholars meet special expectations to be role models and that practices in conflict with their teaching can have consequences for the public confidence in the university. In this study, we look at how scholars reason about how emissions from their flying could be reduced. Their responses display a spectrum of varying attitudes, from climate scepticism to a commitment to radical transformation, with the majority in between, either suggesting different types of concrete changes or invoking arguments to justify the status quo. The proposed interventions, several of which are ingenious and wise, can guide university managements to strategies that have support from employees. The more reluctant arguments point to cultural and discursive habits that must be understood and met in an empathetic way.

Towards post-COVID-19 responsible academic air travel

“…They do not want to make changes if that might weaken the university's global status or reputation. These results respond to previous studies where academics emphasised the strong relationships between air travel and performance and career (Baer, 2022;Eriksson et al, 2022;Kreil, 2021;Strengers, 2014), which is also the reason most participants used "sacrifice" to describe air travel reduction in our study. Combining this situation with the pre-COVID university air travel policies, academics are unsure how to advance their research, maintain their performance and prepare for their future careers while also practising responsible air travel.…”

“…When the world urgently needed to reduce emissions, many researchers started to argue if academics’ frequent air travel could be justified by the positive research and teaching contributions they make to society (Buchs, 2019). Eriksson et al (2022) concluded this situation as a “moral dilemma” in which academics know they should fly less, but the higher education system increasingly promotes aeromobility.…”

Perspective Chapter: Educational Technology under Scrutiny in Higher Education – A Framework for Balancing Environmental, Economic and Social Aspects in a Blended Design

“…While one can dispute whether the digital technology required should be subsumed under the banner of EdTech, it is strongly interrelated and contributing to HE's carbon footprint. It seems crucial for academics to keep abreast of the latest developments in their field and network in person at these events [45]. The impact and quality of research are dependent on international collaboration and these collaborations are usually initiated and sustained through physical meetings [46].…”

Flight quotas outperform focused mitigation strategies in reducing the carbon footprint of academic travel

“…However, global annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have continued to increase steadily and unabated, reaching approximately 59±6.6 GtCO 2 -eq in 2019, which is 54% (21 GtCO 2 -eq) higher than in 1990 IPCC [2023]. While all sectors of the economy are concerned by target mitigation e↵orts, a mounting body of evidence a rms the obligation of research and higher education institutions to take ownership of this critical topic [Robinson et al, 2015, Knödlseder et al, 2022, Eichhorn et al, 2022, Vidal et al, 2023, El Geneidy et al, 2021, Eriksson et al, 2022. Given that scientific practices may, to a certain extent, be linked to the credibility of scientific results [Nordhagen et al, 2014, Cologna andSiegrist, 2020], there are concerns regarding the potential impact of the disparity between rhetoric and actions on undermining science-based paradigm shifts in society [Attari et al, 2019, Sparkman and Attari, 2020, Borgermann et al, 2022.…”