Encyclopedia of Sustainability in Higher Education

Living Edition
| Editors: Walter Leal Filho

Knowledge Generation and Sustainable Development

  • Pascal Frank
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63951-2_409-1

Introduction

This entry sketches the relation between knowledge generation (KG) and sustainable development (SD) as it appears within the realm of Higher Education for Sustainable Development (HESD). The suggestion is to distinguish three forms of appearances: The first relation can be called a passive relation. In this appearance, KG for SD is mainly undertaken by (academic) experts whose results and methods are conveyed to students in forms of canonical knowledge within HESD. The students’ role in KG processes is hence the role of passive recipients of this canonical knowledge. Opposed to this appearance is the active relation. Here, students (and other social actors) are directly included in the process of KG in order to craft applicable solutions to concrete challenges for SD. Moreover, KG is not restricted to the acquisition of explicit knowledge. It also includes the development of tacit forms of knowledge that are deemed important for the prospective professional activities of...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Barr RB, Tagg J (1995) From teaching to learning – a new paradigm for undergraduate education. Chang Mag High Learn 27(6):12–26Google Scholar
  2. Barth M, Michelsen G, Rieckmann M, Thomas I (eds) (2015) Routledge handbook of higher education for sustainable development. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck U (1986) Risikogesellschaft: auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  4. Belgrade (1975) International workshop on environmental education. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0002/000276/027608eb.pdf. Accessed 30 Jan 2018
  5. Bettencourt LM, Kaur J (2011) Evolution and structure of sustainability science. PNAS 108(49):19540–19545Google Scholar
  6. Böhme T, Geiger SM, Grossman P, Stanszus L, Schrader U (2016) Arbeitsdefinition von Achtsamkeit im Projekt BiNKA, Technical paper. Technische Universität, Berlin Available from: http://achtsamkeit-und-konsum.de/en/publications2/Google Scholar
  7. Brehm JW (1966) Theory of psychological reactance. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Brundiers K, Wiek A (2011) Educating students in real-world sustainability research: vision and implementation. Innov High Educ 36(2):107–124Google Scholar
  9. Brundiers K, Wiek A (2017) Beyond interpersonal competence: teaching and learning professional skills in sustainability. Educ Sci 7(39):1–18Google Scholar
  10. Brundiers K, Wiek A, Redman CH (2010) Real-world learning opportunities in sustainability: from classroom into the real world. Int J Sustain High Educ 11(4):308–324Google Scholar
  11. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jäger J, Mitchell RB (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. PNAS 100(14):8086–8091Google Scholar
  12. Chatzidakis, Hibbert S, Smith AP (2007) Why people don‘t take their concerns about fair trade to the supermarket: the role of neutralisation. J Bus Ethics 74:89–100Google Scholar
  13. Clark WC, Dickson NM (2003) Sustainability science: the emerging research program. PNAS 100(14):8059–8061Google Scholar
  14. Clark WC, van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L, Gallopin C (2016) Crafting usable knowledge for sustainable development. PNAS 113(17):4570–4578Google Scholar
  15. Curry N, Kirwan J (2014) The role of tacit knowledge in developing networks for sustainable agriculture. Sustain Agric 54(3):341–361Google Scholar
  16. Dixon AB (2005) Wetland sustainability and the evolution of indigenous knowledge in Ethiopia. Geogr J 171(4):306–323Google Scholar
  17. Dorjee D (2016) Defining contemplative science: the metacognitive self-regulatory capacity of the mind, context of meditation practice and modes of existential awareness. Front Psychol 7(1788):1–15Google Scholar
  18. Du Pisani JA (2006) Sustainable development – historical roots of the concept. Environ Sci 3(2):83–96Google Scholar
  19. Festinger L (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Frank P (2017). Warum wir Tiere essen (obwohl wir sie mögen): Sozialpsychologische Erklärungsansätze für das Fleischparadox. Psychosozial 40(148):49–69Google Scholar
  21. Frank P, Fischer D (2018) Introspektion und Bildung für nachhaltigen Konsum: Ein Lehr-Lern-Format zur systematischen Selbsterforschung in der Auseinandersetzung mit Argumenten zum Konsum tierischer Produkte – Leuphana Universität Lüneburg. In: Leal W (ed) Nachhaltigkeit in der Lehre: eine Herausforderung für Hochschulen. Springer, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  22. Frank P, Sundermann A, Fischer D (forthcoming) Stimulating competence acquisition for sustainable consumption through cultivating introspection in mindfulness training in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher EducationGoogle Scholar
  23. Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research and contemporary science. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  24. Gibson T, Wisner B (2016) ‘Lets talk about you…’ – opening space for local experience, action and learning in disaster risk reduction. Disaster Prev Manag Int J 25(5):664–684Google Scholar
  25. Haidt J (2001) The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgement. Psychol Rev 108(4):814–834Google Scholar
  26. Haselton MG, Nettle D, Andrews PW (2005) The evolution of cognitive bias. In: Buss DM (ed) The handbook of evolutionary psychology. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 724–746Google Scholar
  27. Hofer BK, Pintrich PR (2002) Personal epistemology: the psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  28. Hopwood B, Mellor M, O’Brien G (2005) Sustainable development: mapping different approaches. Sustain Dev 13(1):38–52Google Scholar
  29. Hulme M (2009) Why we disagree about climate change. Understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  30. Hume T, Barry J (2015) Environmental education and education for sustainable development. Int Encycl Soc Behav Sci 7:733–739Google Scholar
  31. International Association of Universities (IAU). Kyoto declaration on sustainable development. http://www.iau-hesd.net/sites/default/files/documents/sustainable_development_policy_statement.pdf. Accessed 13 Jan 2018
  32. Johannesburg (2002) Johannesburg declaration on sustainable development. https://joburg.org.za/pdfs/johannesburgdeclaration.pdf. Accessed 12 Feb 2018
  33. Kates R, Clark W, Corell R, Hall J, Jaeger C et al (2001) Sustainability science. Science 292(5517):641–642Google Scholar
  34. Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Swilling M, Thomas CJ (2011) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci 7(suppl. 1):25–43Google Scholar
  35. Leal Filho W (2015) Education for sustainable development in higher education: reviewing needs. In: Transformative approaches to sustainable development at universities. Working across disciplines. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  36. MacDonald L, Shriberg M (2016) Sustainability leadership programs in higher education: alumni outcomes and impacts. J Environ Stud Sci 6:360–370Google Scholar
  37. Marten GG (2001) Human ecology – basic concepts for sustainable development. Earthscan Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  38. Martens P (2006) Sustainability: science or fiction? Sustain Sci Pract Policy 2(1):36–41Google Scholar
  39. Masterson FA, Crawford M (1982) The defense motivation system: a theory of avoidance behavior. Behav Brain Sci 5(4):661–675Google Scholar
  40. McMellan H (1996) Situated learning: multiple perspectives. In: McMellan (ed) Situated learning perspectives. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, pp 5–17Google Scholar
  41. Michelsen G (2016) Sustainable development: Background and context. In: Heinrichs H, Martens P, Michelsen G, Wiek A (eds). (2016) Sustainability science. An introduction. Springer, Dordrecht, 5–29Google Scholar
  42. Miller TR (2013) Constructing sustainability science: emerging perspectives and research trajectories. Sustain Sci 8:279–293Google Scholar
  43. Mochizuki, Yarime (2016) In: Barth M, Michelsen G, Rieckmann M, Thomas I (eds). (2015) Routledge handbook of higher education for sustainable development. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. Muis KR, Pekrun R, Sinatra GM, Azevedo R, Tevors G, Meier E, Heddy BC (2015) The curious case of climate change: testing a theoretical model of epistemic beliefs, epistemic emotions, and complex learning. Learn Instr 39:168–183Google Scholar
  45. Næss A (1972) Shallow and the deep. Inquiry, OsloGoogle Scholar
  46. Nickerson RS (1998) Confirmation Bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev Gen Psychol 2(2):175–220Google Scholar
  47. Nowotny H (2003) Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge. Sci Public Policy 30(3):151–156Google Scholar
  48. Oreskes N (2004) The scientific consensus on climate change. Science 306(5702):1686Google Scholar
  49. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2007) Higher education for sustainable development. Final report of international action research project. https://www.oecd.org/education/innovation-education/centreforeffectivelearningenvironmentscele/45575516.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2018
  50. Pohl R (ed) (2004) Cognitive illusions: a handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgement and memory. Psychology Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  51. Pohl C, Hirsch Hadorn G (2007) Principles for designing transdisciplinary research. Oekom, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  52. Power N, Beattie G, McGuire L (2017) Mapping our underlying cognitions and emotions about good environmental behavior: why we fail to act despite the best of intentions. Semiotica 215:193–234Google Scholar
  53. Prain V (2011) Acting on sustainability. Res Sci Educ 4(1):149–154Google Scholar
  54. Robbins P, Aydede M (eds) (2008) The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  55. Scholz RW (2001) The mutual learning sessions. In: Thompson Klein J, Häberli R, Scholz RW, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Bill A, Welti M (eds) Transdisciplinarity: joint problem solving among science, technology, and society. An effective way for managing complexity. Springer, Basel, pp 117–129Google Scholar
  56. Schütte L, Gregory-Smith D (2015) Neutralisation and mental accounting in ethical consumption: the case of sustainable holidays. Sustainability 7:7959–7972Google Scholar
  57. Sezen-Barrie A, Shea N, Borman JH (2017) Probing into the sources of ignorance: science teachers’ practices of constructing arguments or rebuttals to denialism of climate change. Environ Educ Res 0–21.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1330949
  58. Smith ER, Semin GR (2007) Situated social cognition. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 16(3):132–135Google Scholar
  59. Sol J, Wals AE (2015) Strengthening ecological mindfulness through hybrid learning in vital coalitions. Cult Stud Sci Educ 10(1):203–214Google Scholar
  60. Sommer R (2007) Consumer’s mind: Die Psychologie des Verbrauchers. Deutscher Fachverlag, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  61. Stanley J (2005) Knowledge and practical interests. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  62. Strube G, Wender KF (eds) (1993) The cognitive psychology of knowledge. Advances in psychology, vol 103. New Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  63. Tenbrunsel AE, Messick DM (2004) Ethical fading: the role of self-deception in unethical behavior. Soc Justice Res 17(2):223–236Google Scholar
  64. Thorén H, Breian L (2016) Stepping stone or stumbling block? Mode 2 knowledge production in sustainability science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 56:71–81Google Scholar
  65. Tytler R (2011) Socio-scientific issues, sustainability and science education. Research in Scienc Education. Res Sci Educ 42:155–163Google Scholar
  66. United Nations (UN) (1972) Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm, 16 June 1972. Available: http://www.unep.org/Documents/Default.asp?DocumentID¼97&ArticleID¼1503. Accessed 4 Jan 2018
  67. UN (1993) Agenda 21: the United Nations programme of action from Rio: Earth Summit. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  68. UN (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development: resolution adopted by the general assembly on 25 September 2015. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  69. UN (2017) General assembly 11 December 2017: sustainable development: education for sustainable development. https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N17/435/17/PDF/N1743517.pdf?OpenElement. Accessed 13 Feb 2018
  70. UNESCO (1977) Tbilisi Declaration. https://www.gdrc.org/uem/ee/tbilisi.html. Accessed 31 Jan 2018
  71. UNESCO (2018a) Education for sustainable development. https://en.unesco.org/themes/education-sustainable-development. Accessed 12 Jan 2018
  72. UNESCO (2018b) Global action programme on education for sustainable development. https://en.unesco.org/gap. Accessed 12 Jan 2018
  73. van Dijk T (2009) Society and discourse: how social contexts influence text and talk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  74. Vilsmaier U, Engbers M, Luthardt P, Maas-Deipenbrock RM, Wunderlich S, Scholz RW (2015) Case-based Mutual Learning Sessions: knowledge integration and transfer in transdisciplinary processes. Sustain Sci 10:563–580Google Scholar
  75. Wackernagel M, Hanscom L, Lin D (2017) Making the sustainable development goals consistent with sustainability. Front Energy Res 5:18–18Google Scholar
  76. Wamsler C (2018) Mind the gap: the role of mindfulness in adapting to increasing risk and climate change. Sustain Sci 13:1121–1135Google Scholar
  77. Wamsler C, Brossmann J, Hendersson H, Kristjansdottir R, McDonald C, Scarampi P (2018) Mindfulness in sustainability science, practice, and teaching. Sustain Sci 13(1):143–162Google Scholar
  78. Wiek A, Lang D (2016) Transformational sustainability research methodology. In: Heinrichs H, Martens P, Michelsen G, Wiek A (eds). (2016) Sustainability science. An introduction. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Sustainability, Working Group Sustainable Consumption & Sustainabilily Communication, Institute for Environmental and Sustainability Communication (INFU)Leuphana University of LüneburgLüneburgGermany

Section editors and affiliations

  • Ingrid Molderez
    • 1
  1. 1.KU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium