Leal Filho, W. et.al eds (2020) Universities as Living Labs for SD

Part I: Campus as Living Labs for the SDGs

Living Labs for SD: the Role of the European School of Sus Science and Res.

 ..."quadruple helix model"... a model which entails linkages between government, academia, society and business...

According to Liedtke et al. (2012), a living lab is a “combined lab-/household system, analysing existing product-service-systems as well as technical and socioeconomic influences focused on the social needs of people, aiming at the development of integrated technical and social innovations”.

Leal Filho (2015) explained the usefulness of the living labs approach as part of transformative efforts.(p. 17). 

Table 1 illustrates some of the measures uni may deeply, with a view to maximise their potentials as living labs.

Fig. 2 Benefits from a living labs approach

“European School of Sustainability Science and Research” (ESSSR) was brought to life based on the perceived need to explore new ideas, develop new approaches and new methods in the field of sustainability science, to meet current and future needs, and which can also help to achieve the many goals listed in the document “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”.

The Role of Green Areas in University Campuses: contribution to SDG 4 and SDG 15

Sustainability is defined by Moore (2005) as a concept that permeates the spheres of social justice along with ecological integrity, considering the well-being of all living systems on the planet. Another definition found is the one of applied sustainability, given byLeal Filho (2011), who sees sustainability as a way to approach and guide actions in real contexts and situations applying the principles of “SD”. This term was conceived in 1987 by the United Nations’ (UN) World Commission on Environment and Development and means “to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (UN 1987). These concepts converge to the central idea that everyone has the right to live in an ecologically balanced environment ... and for that, conscious use of the natural resources of the planet is necessary, avoiding its capacity of support to be exceeded and ensuring that the next generations also have right to its use. (pp. 84-85). 

How Do You Teach Undergraduate University Students to Contribute to UN SDGs 2030?

ESD can help move the concept of SDGs beyond UN terminology and into practice. Even still, the educational community has struggled to embrace the broader concept of sustainable development (Venkataraman 2009). Wals (2011) has cautioned that ESD runs the risk of overemphasizing “correct” and “incorrect” behaviors, which could result in big-brother sustainability or eco-totalitarianism, instead of focusing on ways of thinking and problem solving. Vare and Scott (2007) suggest two primary components of ESD, recognizing the need for an emphasis both on content and process-based skills and competencies.

1. built around traditional forms of education during which recipients receive information about which options are more sustainable and why. The recipient is then assumed to make rational decisions that promote more sustainable behaviors. But, Vare and Scott point out that people rarely change their behaviors in response to a rational call to do so. 
2. ESD component based on building capacity to think critically about what experts say and to test ideas, exploring the dilemmas and contradictions inherent in sustainable living. The significance of this second component is echoed by Sterling (2010) who states that an educational focus on critical thinking, capacity building, and resiliency in the face of future uncertainty, threat, and surprise creates individuals who can best respond to the needs of sustainable development efforts. Other scholars have noted that ESD must contain opportunities for social learning through the interrogation of values, norms, and beliefs as these are often neglected in ESD curriculum and yet undergird every aspect of sustainable development (Wals 2007). (pp. 112-113).

Students are often trained to solve complex, real-world problems both independently and in groups (Ensign 2017). Graduates with a liberal arts education are well prepared to problem solve and tackle a plethora of challenges that come with executing the UN SDGs. Ensign (2017) argues that universities and colleges are responsible for producing students with both traditional degrees, but also the ability to act as agents of change throughout the world. (p. 114).

(SPSF) The Core Curriculum in Environmental Science & Sus.

1. Yr1 ESS 110 "Intro to Sus: Think Sustainability"
2. Yr 2 ESS 201 "Environmental Problem Analysis: Analyze Sus." - ESS 210 "Environmental Res. Methods: Res. Sus."
3. Yr 3 ESS 585 "Junior Seminar in SD: Apply Sus"
4. Yr 4 ESS 600/610 "Senior Project: Becoming an Agent of Change"
5. Co-curricular experiences

Mobilising the SDGs Through Universities: Case Studies of Sus. Campuses in Malaysia

According to Mohd et al. (2011), the definition of a sustainable campus is based on its operations, social and economy that promotes long term survival of the environment and respective social structures. Another definition of sustainable campus as developed by Cole (2003), Velazquez et al. (2006) and Habib and Ismaila (2008) put emphasis on well-being and health being the main characteristic, in leading towards a better balance between social, economic and environment. In general, a sustainable campus would cover four areas of university community, which include the administration, academic departments, university research efforts and local community (Kasim and Ujang 2014). (p. 188).

The question on the awareness affecting campus sustainability against readily available sustainable facilities affect the campus community awareness is a chicken and egg dilemma. To achieve whole-of-institution change and adopt a holistic sustainability approach to the universities, there are a number of criteria to take into consideration, which primarily starts at an institutional level... Continuity of sustainability projects in universities is vital to ensure that more campus community can benefit from them. A key success factor that is identified through the three case studies is people, particularly committed individuals.(p. 197). 

Nurturing the Seeds of Sustainability Governance: Rio+25 Brazilian HEI Case Study

Sus in HE: The first statement that referred to sustainability in higher education was the Stockholm Declaration (1972), which established the need to implement environmental education already in primary school through adulthood, incorporating a sense of responsibility for improvement of the environment for people, businesses and the community (Organization des nations unies pour l’education, La science et la culture, 1973 apud Madeira 2008). In 1992, Agenda 21 chapter entitled “Education, Training and Public Awareness” highlighted current priorities of higher education on sustainability issues: development of transdisciplinary curricula, scientific research on sustainability and the formation of a network of organizations and individuals involved in promoting environmental awareness (United Nations Department of economic and social affairs, Division for sustainable development, 2007 apud Madeira 2008). .. Transforming our educational systems to support sustainable development is a challenge that involves all levels of education—policy, curriculum and pedagogical practice (Raus and Falkenberg 2014). (p. 232).

Actions stemming from student leadership led to programs “capable of individually and collectively putting scientific and technological knowledge acquired at the service of political, economic and social development in which they live”...

The Transdisciplinary Living Lab Model (TDLL)

A Transdisciplinary Living Lab Model (TDLL) was developed in collaboration with two Australian Universities: the University of Technology Sydney and Western Sydney University.

(SPSF) TDLL model was designed to facilitate students to:

1. (1) reflect critically on their embedded views of, roles in and impact on campus systems;
2. (2) develop skills in collaborative research to identify, bound, reflect and intervene to improve campus systems;
3. (3) justify the scientific and societal benefits of transdisciplinary outcomes for sustainable development.(p. 250).

Issue: Food waste

Recognising the complex inter-relations between the goals, the mechanisms for addressing food waste also influence goals related to Zero Hunger (2); Good Health and Well-being (3); Clean Water and Sanitation (6); Sustainable Cities and Communities (11); and Climate Action (13).

Translating Commitment to the SDGs into Practice: the transdisciplinary living lab: In defining the TDLL, we must first define transdisciplinarity. The term ‘transdisciplinarity’ (TD) has no single unified meaning (Jahn et al. 2012), it can, as Pohl (2011, p. 98) suggests, be perceived as a ‘structured plurality of definitions’. Reiterating this idea, Ison (2017) observes that different histories have given rise to different understandings of TD. Riedy (2017) defines transdisciplinary research as a ‘bundle of interwoven social practices that takes different forms in different local and historical contexts’. While there is no single definition, there are overarching characteristics of TD research and practice (Jahn 2012). Wickson et al. (2006) identify three primary characteristics of transdisciplinary research, that is (1) it is problem focused, (2) it has an evolving methodology and (3) it is highly collaborative and participatory in nature. Mobjork (2010) observes there are close similarities between transdisciplinary (pp. 254-255). 

(SPSF) Fig. 1 Overview of key stages of skills development in the transdisciplinary living lab model

1. Phase 1: Enterint the living Lab: Scale Matters - The initial phase and entrance into the TDLL had two goals: (i) to encourage students to articulate a form of teamwork and collaborative res. that was appropriate for team members and in the process, identify individual strengths, weaknesses and potential contributions each participant make to the project...  (ii) to encourage students to identify their own individual contribution to food waste on a daily basis, both on-campus and within their own homes. (p. 260).
2. Phase 2: Transdisciplinary Learning: Multi Scalar Perspectives: ... Students drew from a range of system thinking tools and methods including stakeholder mapping, ‘rich pictures’, and causal loop diagramming to facilitate teams to initially identify their own knowledge of the system, interactive components and critical actors in the system. Primary research methods included interviews, surveys, shadowing cleaners to identify everyday cleaning practices and participatory observation. 
3. Phase 3: Global Context, Local Practices: students to justify their final designs in relation to the methodological approach, knowledge ... and TD skills... The engagement of student/researchers with the broader global context was delivered in three Acts: 

   Act 1 explored how the earth systems which support the emergent property of ‘life’ (Capra 1996) are severely disrupted. Included in the discussion were the concepts of The Anthropocene (Lewis and Malsin 2015); The Great Acceleration (Steffen et al. 2015); The Tipping Points (Rockstrom et al. 2016); and The Planetary Boundaries (Rockstrom 2009). 

   Act 2 focused on understanding the concept of ‘systemic intervention’. As mentioned above, the purpose of this exercise was to demonstrate that there are many interwoven causes and effects of food waste within campus, and that designing an intervention is most effective when the system has been mapped and observed... Students were introduced to Donella’s Meadows notion of leverage points for change in a system (1999; Abson et al. 2017). We discussed example levers of change for each of the high-level system characteristics (e.g. parameters, feedbacks, design, intent). 

   Based on the global context of Act 1 and the notions of designing systemic change in Act 2, the Act 3 focused on designing ‘glocal’ interventions (globally aware, yet locally relevant). The context for Act 3 included the introduction of the Earth Charter and the Donut Model (a safe and just operating space) (Raworth 2017), and the introduction of the SDGs.

Visual Displays of the SDGs in the CUrricular and Extra-Curricular Activities at Nottingham Trent Uni

SDGs have been fully embedded into the formal and informal curriculum of Nottingham Trent University...The purpose of this chapter is to give new and significant insight into the use of visual aids to engage staff and students with the UN SDGs in the curriculum and extra-curricular activities carried out at Nottingham Trent University

Communicating the SDGs: ... to ensure all our students leave with the knowledge of the global goals, teaching and learning must also be taken out of the classroom. As advocated by the future fit framework for ESD (Sterling 2012), sustainability is flourishing where it has been embedded into the curriculum, including curriculum strategies at extra-curricular events. (p. 341)

The contested definition of sustainability is problematic when trying to embed sustainability across the university, as each discipline conceptualises it differently. (pp. 342-343). 

... The goal of an ESD is to help create the conditions for self-determined and autonomous action and not just to train changes in behaviour. ESD aims at developing and enhancing the creative potential in the individuals, their competencies in communication and cooperative work as well as problem-solving and taking action. (Godemann and Michelsen 2011, p. 10) 

Barriers to Communicating the SDGs:  Problems that relate to the economy, environment, social welfare and health (Newman-Storen 2014) such as loss of biodiversity loss (Sharman and Mlambo 2012), and climate change (Head 2008; Sun and Yang 2016) are increasingly being referred to as ‘wicked problems’. This is attributed, to their complex nature with complex solutions that are not immediately available, nor solvable (Rittel and Webber 1973). The SDGs provide the opportunity to collate these ‘wicked problems’ and outline the specific goals to end them. However, due to the complexity of the issues covered there is a danger to overwhelm and in fact disengage people. According to Shome and Marx (2009) people have a limited capacity to worry, thus only using a few of the global goals during the visual displays is significant. (p. 345).

ESD Integrated Approach for Sustainability (ESD-IA): Campus as a Living Laboratory Experience

Adding a “social floor” to Rockstrom’s “environmental ceiling”, Kate Raworth, relied on the planetary boundaries approach to build her “donut” theory (Raworth 2012). She then delimited more precisely the safe and just space for humanity prosperity, representing the inalienable social gains to be guaranteed for equitable development. (p. 428). .. Both Rockström and Raworth’s approaches influenced the debates of the United Nations conference on sustainable development, Rio + 20 in 2012. These discussions led to the adoption in 2015 of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by the United Nations General Assembly as part of its 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

(SPSF) Participatory Action-Creation: 

...The integrated EDS-IA was designed first to mobilize researchers, teachers and students. However, by its very nature which is anchored in a specific environment or object, it calls for the intervention of professionals, citizens, entrepreneurs, governmental organizations from all sectors and scales of action as well as representatives of civil society organizations. (p. 431). 

1. Diagnosis: This first step aims to facilitate the appropriation of SD issues and encourages the commitment of stakeholders, by answering the question: What does sustainable development mean in my living environment? Participants are invited to carry out a participatory diagnosis on the studied object. The exercise begins with an appropriation of the different elements of the conceptual scheme. Participants are asked to identify the complex interactions between the different SDGs and the state of disruption or respect of environmental and social boundaries. The findings shared by the group are represented on the diagram.

2. Mobilization: This second step mobilizes the knowledge and the actors that can contribute to the identification of new initiatives and solutions. .. Knowledge mobilization is at the heart of the process in every activity.

3. Ideation: Based on the results of the diagnosis and the knowledge mobilization from all stakeholders, participants at this step propose new solutions to the problems identified for the studied object.

EDS-IA Results and Implementation 

1. Year 1: 2016–2017—Université Laval, Québec,Canada: The groups started by the appropriation of the element of the graphic by identifying links in existing activities... The second step was carried at the ESD symposium... The cycle of the first year ... implementation culminated in the completion of a three-day summer school in Aug. 2017.

2. Year 2: 2017–2018—Université Alioune Diop de Bambey, Sénégal

Participatory & Interdisciplinary Action-Creation: Finding solutions to achieve SD requires the mobilization of all disciplines... The first condition for interdisciplinarity is communication. 

Part II: ESD

Opportunities and Challenges of Digitalization to Improve Access to ESD in HE

ESD in HE: ... Notable achievements of the DESD include: (a) integration of national ESD strategies with coordinating bodies in most member states of the UN and (b) initiation of a reorientation of education systems with the integration of several ESD programs into curricula, especially with regard to early childhood education, primary and secondary education and non-formal education. (p. 506). .. The GAP aims to contribute substantially to the 2030 agenda for SD through the following two objectives: ​

• ​Reorienting education and learning so that everyone has the opportunity to acquire the knowledge, skills, values and attitudes that empower them to contribute to a sustainable future.
• ​Strengthening education and learning in all agendas, programmes and activities that promote sustainable development.

In addition to these two objectives, the GAP defines five priority action areas, namely: (1) Advancing policy, (2) Transforming learning and training environments, (3) Building capacities of educators and trainers, (4) Empowering and mobilizing the youth, and (5) Accelerating sustainable solutions at local level (UNESCO 2014b). (p. 507).

DX in HE: ... A trusted publication as the Horizon Report: 2015 HE Edition of the New Media Consortium (NMC) (NMC 2015), which surveys short, mid and long term trends, technologies and developments in HE, underlines the numerous advantages of the DX. .. virtual education is referred to as a meaningful alternative to attendance teaching. In addition to that, specific advantages as flexibility, accessibility and practical relevance are mentioned (NMC 2015). Online lectures in particular give students the opportunity to study in a flexible way. Students get the opportunity to study at any time, at any place and at their own pace. To get access to content... and process it in a self-guided way, fits the needs of students...(pp. 511-512). ..HEIs are facing some general challenges, which DX might assist them to cope with: large numbers of students, diversity of students, dropout rates, and internationalization.(p. 513). 

The Virtual Academy of Sustainability at the University of Bremen:  ... Virtual Academy covers three aspects, namely: (1) learning videos, (2) the learning platform and (3) electronic assessment...

Fig. 2: The res-teaching nexus

Interdisciplinary Cooperation and Collaboration in Undergraduate Sustainability-Based Programs

Context: In Canada, education lies within Provincial jurisdiction; Federal involvement is limited. Each of the ten provinces and three territories has its own system for providing post-secondary education. These systems are overwhelmingly in the public sector as there is a very small private sector involvement in Canadian postsecondary education.  

... Use of independent study, internships, and experiential learning has been seen as critical in interdisciplinary programs, including those that involve sustainability education (Cortese 2003; Holley 2009; Benton-Short and Merrigan 2016). (p. 591). 

(SPSF) EUS Prog Dev.:

  ... The structural underpinnings of the program are based on the idea of a T-shaped curriculum. The issue in many undergraduate interdisciplinary programs is that they are focused on general education and/or allow for a high degree of individualization; the rigour of these ‘quasi-self-directed’ approaches has been questioned (Newell 1992; Soule and Press 1998; Holley 2009). The idea of T-shaped expertise arose in the 1990s in the field of computer technology (Heinemann 2009). Figuratively, the horizontal crossbar represents an ability apply a set of skills that allow one to communicate, understand and apply knowledge across fields outside one’s principal area of expertise and to collaborate with those in those in different areas of expertise (Fig. 1)... A need for “meta-experts” to broker among different disciplinary experts and between experts and non-experts has been noted as important in the development of sustainability (Brand and Karvonen 2007). 

(SPSF) Fig. 1: T-shaped skills development in EUS

• Horizontal: Ability to communicate, understand and apply knowledge across fields
• Vertical: Functional/Disciplinary skill (Policy, Community, Science, Design, Management)

The EUS program exhibits more of the character of their third model: as one with an interdisciplinary-based management focus emphasizing problem analysis and solutions.

The Realities: ... EUS students have also been active in embracing the opportunities in Zone-based Learning at the university. Zone learning is a new model of experiential learning embraced by the university which, through mentorship, workshops, and entrepreneurial and analytics training, provides opportunities for students to develop their own projects, causes, or startup companies (Castillo and Meyer 2018; Zone Learning n.d.). (p. 602).  

The Integration of Competencies for SD: a case of study programs in a non-elite uni.

SD calls for a paradigm change where education plays a key role (UNESCO 2009) and HEIs are supposed to take responsibility in promoting the SD principles (Lozano et al. 2015). HEIs can contribute meaningfully to the transition towards a sustainable society due to their dual role (Stough et al. 2018). Firstly, universities produce new knowledge, disseminate it and are expected to be thought leaders (De Lange 2013). Secondly, universities prepare students for their future role in daily life (Cortese 2003)... Under the influence of

(SPSF) social constructivism theory,

HEIs adopted a competency-based approach (Van der Bergh et al. 2006; Stough et al. 2018)—a type of education that focuses on a clear definition of competencies, which are needed for future leaders. Within the context of higher education, different clusters of competencies for SD were defined (De Haan 2006; Roorda 2010; Sleurs 2008; Wiek et al. 2015; UNESCO 2017) offering a set of skills, knowledge, values and attitudes necessary to improve the sustainability literacy and deal with the economic, environmental, social and cultural issues (Lambrechts et al. 2010). (p. 864). 

.. The present research is aimed at answering the following research questions: (1) Does the wording of competencies fit the meaning of the same competencies provided by the heads of study programmes? (2) Which competencies for SD are treated by the heads of study programmes as most relevant in the context of study programme? (3) To what extent are the competencies for SD integrated in different study programmes? What are the intentions and actual behaviour of the heads of study programmes as regards the SD competencies? (4) What are the main barriers for the integration of SD competencies in study programmes? (5) What is the main value of integrating the SD competencies into the curricula? To answer these questions, the paper presents the results from 15 interviews with heads of different study programmes in a non-elite-university. The research fits into Lambrechts et al. (2013) encouragement to reveal the current stage of integration of competencies in study programmes. (p. 865).

Linkage bw SD & HE: ... HEIs have signed a lot of declarations demonstrating their commitment to embed the sustainability in their systems (Lozano et al. 2013b, 2015). The list of the success stories how the on-paper commitments were translated by universities into broad-scale, long-term mainstream changes is not impressive (Bekessy et al. 2007)... Some of them will be shortly discussed as they are relevant within the context of this paper. 

1. Firstly, universities remain traditional with strong disciplinary structures that hinder inter- and transdisciplinary approaches (Disterheft et al. 2013). 

2. Secondly, signing the declarations for higher education for SD does not ensure that HEIs implement SD in their systems.

... Lambrechts et al. (2013) underline that sus has been integrated into the curricula in piecemeal, rather than holistic approaches. According to Wals (2010), the rigid disciplinary structures of universities and content-based learning are the key barriers in integrating the sustainability in curriculum. (p. 867).

(SPSF) Competences & SD:  

Competency-based approaches focus on the “output” of educational process and primarily ask what should be learnt instead of asking what should be taught (Hesselbarth and Schaltegger 2014; De Hann 2006). The concept of competency is defined in many different ways...

In this paper, the definition of Rychen and Salganik (2003) is employed defining competencies as “the ability to successfully meet complex demands in a particular context through the mobilisation of psychological prerequisites (including both cognitive and non-cognitive aspects)” (p. 43). Moreover, in the literature, the differentiation between competencies and key competencies can be found (Lambrechts et al. 2010; Barth et al. 2007). Key competencies refer to those competencies useful and relevant for everybody and in different contexts (Lambrechts et al. 2013). They can be understood as transversal, multifunctional and context-independent (UNESCO 2017). (p. 868). 

Table 1 gives a brief overview of the competencies for SD demonstrating some similarities and differences of various sets.(p. 869)

Table 1: Competencies for SD

... from Table 1, De Haan (2006) introduces the set of “Gestaltungskompetenz” (“shaping competency”) developed in Germany. The “shaping competency” encompasses a set of key competencies... UNESCO (2017) introduced eight key competencies for sustainability arguing that these competencies represent the ones the sustainability-oriented citizens particularly need to deal with the today’s complex challenges. (pp. 870-871). 

The actual presence of SD comp in study prog largely depends on the head of study prog... Firstly, the dilemma of wording and meaning (Del Sarto 2007) of comp for SD... Secondly, there is a gap between the intentions of study prog leaders and their actual behaviour as regards the implementation of competencies for SD in prog. (p. 871). 

... The mismatch between the loudly announced on-paper commitments and explicit inclusion of competencies for SD in study prog can be treated as an illustration of “green-washing” (Laufer 2003; Ramus and Montiel 2005; Bekessy et al. 2007). Actually, the form of SD competency implementation can vary significantly. Within the curricula, the so-called “built-on” (adding new courses and modules that contain elements of ESD) and “built-in” (integrating sustainability in the existing study programmes) approaches can be found (Watson et al. 2013; Wals 2014). The “built-on” approach could be called education about sustainability, whereas the “built-in” approach represents education for sustainability and aims at creating the connection between the subject in question and SD (Sammalisto and Lindhqvist 2008). Lambrechts et al. (2010, 2013) argue for horizontal (competencies are embedded into different courses), vertical (one specific course on SD) or combined integration and enumerate the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. (pp. 871-872). 

Table 2: Competencies for SD provided by UNESCO (2017)

Discussion: The majority of the heads of study prog described precisely such competencies as system thinking, critical thinking, integrated problem-solving, strategic and collaboration. There were more difficulties with the anticipatory competency and only a few of participants were able to characterise clearly the content of normative and self-awareness competencies.  

Part III: Sus Processes & Practices

The Transformation of HEIs towards Sustainability from a System Perspective

Table 1: Overview of four evolutionary stages(pp. 940-941).:

1. Traditional Environmental compliance: Sus 1.0 as Environmental Compliance 
2. Modern Eco-efficiency: Sus 2.0 as Eco-Efficiency
3. Post-modern Respect for nature and people: Sus 3.0 as Respect for Nature & People
4. Integral Systemic management of multi-level development: Sus 4.0 as Systemic Management

Four Distinct Value Systems of HEI

1. Traditional HEI 1.0: Preserving Truths and Insights from Experts

2. Modern HEI 2.0: Top Notch Science in Specialized Fields 

3. Post-modern HEI 3.0: Action Research and Stakeholder Dialogue: In teaching, HEI 3.0 prefer dialogue oriented seminars to classic large-scale lectures and experiment with innovative concepts such as global classrooms. These learning arrangements aim at competencies rather than knowledge only (Rieckmann 2012) and try to bridge the gaps between the scattered disciplines and stakeholders by reaching out and promoting self-reflection... A lot of current researchers—especially in the realm of sustainability research—are centered in the post-modern worldview of HEI 3.0. However, to advance or stabilize their careers they often have to play by the rules of the modern worldview of HEI 2.0, leading to a lot of tension and trade-offs on a personal level.

4. Integral HEI 4.0: Integrated Learning Labs: ... a HEI 4.0 can be framed as a citizens’ university (Bürgeruniversität) (Schneidewind 2014). Integral HEIs build on post-modern HEIs’ community values but go beyond them by allowing natural hierarchies to emerge and by allowing the open discussion of tensions, dilemma and trade-offs of sustainable development. These developments are facilitated by the willingness of individuals to take responsibility for SD challenges and be vulnerable at the same time—a new kind of action oriented mindfulness. Therefore, within their Theory-U model, Scharmer and Kaufer (2013) propose the evolution from HEI 1.0 to HEI 4.0 to be an inversion journey: “That means opening the mind, heart, and will (micro), moving conversations from downloading to generative dialogue (meso), and converting hierarchical silos into eco-creative fields that connect the eco-system as a living whole (macro)” (ibid., p. 240). Scharmer and Kaufer (2013) further propose that learning at integral HEIs will be shaped by global classrooms, action learning, innovation hubs and individualized lifelong learning journeys. (p. 945).

Table 2: Four phases of HEI evolution Evolutionary phase Teaching Research

Leadership Qualities: To shift toward HEI 4.0 a whole institution approach is needed (Mader and Rammel 2015) which implies an integrative leadership concept. Therefore, in line with the assumptions made by Scharmer and Kaufer (2013), building collective leadership capacities is crucial for the transformation of HEIs. Scharmer and Kaufer (2013, p. 243) propose the need for awareness-based leadership technologies:

Participatory Action Research (PAR) as a Res. Approach for Sus. Community Dev.

...The PAR methodology is an approach to research in communities that emphasizes participation and action and seeks to understand a phenomenon by attempting to produce change (social, economic or environmental) in a collaborative manner through a series of reflection, collective inquiries, and experimentation that is justified in experience and social history. (p. 987).

PAR methodology is an action-oriented research approach that emphasizes on an interactive, democratic inquiry and participatory process that involves researchers working in collaboration “with” and “for” the research subjects (also known as co-researchers, research participants or critical friends) towards a social, environmental or economic change (Reason and Bradbury 2001; MacIntyre 2007; Smith 2015; Bradbury 2015). PAR methodology is defined by Reason and Bradbury (2008) as “a participatory, democratic process that seeks to bring together action and reflection, theory and practice, in participation with others, in the pursuit of practical solutions to issues of pressing concern to people in their communities”. This perspective was strongly supported by the work of Freire (1972) who used PAR to encourage poor and deprived communities to examine and analyse the structural reasons for their oppression.

Fig. 1: The participatory action research approach, principles & cycles (p. 989)

PAR Methodology: three strong key principles.

1. The first key principle is that the PAR approach is “action-oriented” and is underpinned by the belief that “the study of society is not worth the trouble if it does not help its members to grasp the meaning of their lives and to move to action for progress, peace and prosperity for all” (Fals Borda 2006).
2. is participatory and thus involves researchers working “with” and “for” the research subjects, also known as co-researchers.
3. focuses on reflective learning and generation of rich knowledge and information through the application of through a diverse range of quantitative and qualitative research techniques and tools.

Bordieu (1983) noted that the primary aim of utilizing the PAR method is not to change practice in the course of research, rather, the aim is to produce knowledge in collaboration between researchers and practitioners. (pp. 991-992).

Action-Oriented Research Approach: ... This means that the PAR researcher is constantly addressing space and power discourses through the timeframe of the PAR period.

Researching “with” Rather Than “on” People:  the “object of research” is the community. This requires the PAR researcher to pay full and careful attention to power relationships among the research participants, and negotiating for access and advocacy to a democratic space and approach between the researcher and the community...target ways to bring social transformation through self-realization, emancipation and empowerment under the existing circumstances (Dillard 1991). This democratic approach of the PAR method generates rich knowledge and information to help the researcher and the research participants strategize on designing and implementing interventions rather than relying on external ideas from the researcher.

... In essence, sustainable community development studies require the researcher to conduct their research process with people whose life-world and actions are under study.

Fig. 3: The quantitative and qualitative research methods and tools utilized in the PAR approach in the study (p. 1004). 

1. Inclusive Participation
2. Community Empowerment
3. Live-in Experience
4. Critical  Reflection

Focuses on the Need of the Community, and not that of the Research

Universities as Living Labs for Sustainable Development: Supporting the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (World Sustainability Series) (English Edition)