ABSTRACT
To begin a review of the purpose(s) of ESD research, we must first ask the basic question of the purpose of research generally. Definitions of research normally centre on it comprising systematic investigation which contributes to knowledge or understanding of phenomena or a problem. A distinction is commonly drawn between pure or basic research which focuses on understanding phenomena and issues, and applied research where the primary emphasis is on research which contributes to the solution of problems or some systemic improvement rather than knowledge for its own sake. Some commentators see action research as a third category as it is predicated on the researcher being part of the research process which itself is committed to personal or social change. ESD research as an area of interest is perhaps unusual because it accommodates and crosses these categories. It also engages in philosophic research regarding cultural, worldview and ethical dimensions of sustainability education – critically important dimensions of ESD research, but not within the scope of this chapter. Research on – say – the relative effect of different pedagogies, or how a learning environ-
ment affects learning, may be thought of as basic research, but at another level, ESD research is often purposeful beyond the accumulation of understanding about educational processes. At a prosaic level, the motivation for research could be little more than funding opportunities or academic profile and advancement: these factors play an influential role in ESD research as in any other area of education research. However, for many ESD researchers, their primary purpose and motivation often operates at a deeper level and relates to the grand challenge of securing a more sustainable societal and planetary future, through the agency and processes of education and learning which are perceived as having a critical role. For example, commenting on action research, Reason and Bradbury (2001: 2) suggest that its ‘wider purpose’ is to contribute ‘to the increased well-being – economic, political, psychological, spiritual – of human persons and communities, and to a more equitable and sustainable relationship with the wider ecology of the planet of which we are an intrinsic part’. This kind of argument – whatWals et al. (2013: 542) call ‘engaged scholarship with a plan-
etary conscience’ – relates to a broad discussion on the purposes not just of research in higher
education, but to the purposes of HE generally (Sterling 2013: 17-50). For example Chase and Bartlett (2013: 15) suggest: ‘Sustainability in higher education calls us to new sets of relationships – with our students, with each other, with what we learn, and with ourselves’. Put alternatively, policy, practice and research in ESD is commonly motivated and shaped
by the desire for change – in staff and student understanding and engagement, in organisational orientation, and in social processes towards conditions perceived as consistent with a safer,more sustainable world (Reunamo and Pipere 2011). Importantly, this agentive approach to ESD and by extension, to HE as a whole, is endorsed and promoted by UNESCO (2012a) and UNECE (2013). ESD work therefore can be marked out as often having an implicit or explicit ethical or teleological dimension which is much less evident in most mainstream discourse on higher education. Arguably, this latter discourse has been influenced by a narrow instrumentalism in recent years through the dominance of neo-liberal policies advocating marketisation and commodification of the sector (Blewitt 2013). However, the overall picture is not simple, and this complexity derives from two main
factors. First, the fact that ‘education for sustainable development’ draws on and attempts a synthesis of two (often otherwise separate) areas of work and discourse: education, and sustainable development. Whereas the above point about teleology is generally valid, the history of ESD research reveals a distinction between those researchers who are primarily interested in learning and educational processes and who therefore are likely to stress intrinsic values in education, and those researchers who are primarily interested in the role of education and learning ultimately in advancing sustainable development, and who hold more instrumental values. For the former, intellectual curiosity and a desire to understand learning may precede their interest in its contribution to sustainable development. The emphasis is on the quality of learning, and often, on building the individual’s capacity (for example, to think critically, systemically and reflexively), rather than encouraging particular social or environmental outcomes. For the latter the reverse tends to hold. The former are more likely to put emphasis on research about change, the latter on research for change, or – in the case of action research – research as change, stressing the transformative role of education. This is a tension in ESD research which relates to the matter of research paradigms and methodology, and also – more generally – educational paradigms which influence thinking and practice, and this is returned to below. The second complicating factor is that whereas movement towards sustainability requires
the sufficient development of learning and capacity through the effect of educational systems, this is reliant on the achievement of adequate learning and capacity within educational systems (Richmond 2010). We can therefore make a useful distinction between two interrelated arenas of learning in HE, being designed learning and institutional learning. Both are of interest to the ESD research community. As Sterling and Maxey (2013: 7) have outlined previously:
Designed learning is the concern of all educational programmes: it is planned, resourced and provided for all the different student groups that experience higher education. Institutional learning refers to the social and organisational learning that the policy-makers and providers may themselves undergo or experience: senior managers, academic staff, support staff, and policy-makers and stakeholders. In the movement to align HE towards sustainability over recent years, it has become clear that substantive progress in designed learning is dependent on sufficient depth and extent of institutional learning and capacity building.
