Higher education for sustainable development in Flanders: balancing between normative and transformative approaches

Abstract

This paper provides critical reflections on higher education for sustainable development (HESD) from a philosophical perspective. A theoretical framework is developed, based on John Dewey's thoughts on the aim of democracy and the critical role of education herein, and with specific focus on two constructs: 'initiative and adaptability' and 'values and virtues'. This theoretical framework is used to analyze HESD in Flanders, from a historical and socio-political perspective. The Flemish case shows a gradual evolution from a focus on environmental management on campus, followed by a normative interpretation of what HESD should look like, and a more transformative approach in light of citizenship and democratic ideals. The case also shows considerable exchange of information between Flanders and the Netherlands, in which Dutch models and instruments were used in the Flemish context. The philosophical perspective provides a theoretical grounding of the field of HESD, which enables us to further develop the field, with a specific focus on initiative and adaptability on the one hand, and the importance of a virtues perspective on the other. 1.1. Different approaches in HESD Different approaches are identified within the HESD field. Derived from a series of charters and declarations on sustainability in higher education, Lozano et al. (2013) defined seven dimensions of HESD: (1) institutional framework; (2) campus operations; (3) education; (4) research; (5) outreach and collaboration; (6) on-campus experiences;

Learning to Navigate (in) the Anthropocene

“…For one, the instrumental approach towards HESD seeks to instill particular sets of knowledge, skills, and attitudes in students in order to tackle the increasing complexity of sustainability issues (such as climate change, shoreline erosion, or interspecies living at the seaside) and the uncertainty associated with these issues [6,7]. Higher education is, in that respect, often considered the place par excellence to develop and enhance necessary competences of students: by means of the close intertwinement of research and teaching, higher education is able to offer the newest insights to students, and to train them in the ability to propose answers to (or even solve) contemporary and future sustainability problems [8,9]. Currently, research on HESD has identified crucial competences which are necessary in order to solve such challenges: systems thinking, anticipatory, normative, action-oriented, and interpersonal competences are increasingly considered interdisciplinary bundles that, when equipped correctly, will allow future generations to deal with our present-day problems [6,10,11].…”

“…Instead of positioning HESD as a problem solver, the emancipatory approach conceives of sustainability as continuously emerging. More particularly, higher education is considered as a field that should offer opportunities for a deeply engaging form of learning (and education) that has no pre-defined end goal, but that is rather seeking to foster the critical and transformative capabilities of the individual learner [8]. As such, the emancipatory approach is not interested in offering clear-cut solutions that would make a contribution to singular problems.…”

On the Inevitable Bounding of Pluralism in ESE—An Empirical Study of the Swedish Green Flag Initiative

“…(p. 39), and "it is the professional teacher who has the crucial role with regard to the direction, possible continuation, and conclusion of deliberative communication." (p. 41) Literature that advocates pluralistic ESE based on pragmatism and Dewey's transactional theory conceptualize learning as meaning-making that stems from continuous interplay between, on the one hand, learners and their previous experiences, and, on the other hand, their social and physical environment [7,16,71]. This process-oriented understanding of learning and the anti-foundational ontology of pragmatism can explain the reluctance to theorize bounding of pluralism by design in this literature.…”

“…[6] (p. 150) Along the same lines, Lambrechts et al assert that "the urgency of wicked problems does not allow for relativism, and the unpredictability of it does not allow paternalistic and indoctrination approaches." [7] (p. 11).…”

“…We will argue that the results of this study call for further theorizing, scrutiny and methodological development in relation to bounding of pluralism by design, both in transformative learning approaches and in ESE in a broader sense. The reluctance towards theorizing bounding by design in literature advocating pluralistic ESE is often implied in expressions of resistance against indoctrination and paternalism [3,7,23,40], as exemplified by the quote from Lambrechts et al above. However, that bounding of pluralism by design is difficult to avoid in ESE suggests that paternalism is too, at least in formal education settings.…”