Article Preview
Top1. Introduction
Several studies have discussed the role universities can play in addressing socio-environmental problems (e.g., Disterheft et al., 2015, 2016; Fensham, 2016; Ferrer-Balas et al., 2009, 2008; Müller-Christ et al., 2013; Sterling, 2010-11). However, universities have made few contributions to sustainability, considering their potential as promoters of reflection and innovation.
There are several factors at play. One is that many proposals do not consider the fact that sustainability is a complex issue, involving multiple actors (politicians, entrepreneurs, environmentalists, academics, citizens, etc.), multiple factors (economic, social, environmental, cultural, etc.), and multi-level effects (micro, meso, and macro). Consequently, many reference points must be addressed to have a systemic and inter/transdisciplinary perspective (Müller-Christ et al., 2013; Wals&Schwarzin, 2012).
Nevertheless, the conceptual structure of neoclassical theory and the paradigm of simplification (Morin, 2011), which predominate in our society, have led to a limited understanding of human beings (Murtaza, 2011; Soderbaum, 1999) and organisations (Soderbaum 2009; Stubbs&Cocklin, 2008), and consequently of sustainability. This has also led to the development of fragmented proposals and marginal changes.
Sustainability, however, requires more profound changes. Some authors argue that to make effective advances towards sustainability, both individuals and organisations need to go through a transformative learning process (e.g., Chen & Martin, 2015; Sipos et al., 2008; Sterling, 2010-11; Thomas, 2009). This goes beyond behavioural changes; It challenges existing beliefs and ideas and promotes the reconstruction of meanings; and finally, it suggests a more radical change, a paradigm change, rather than a modification within the existing paradigm.
However, the changes that have occurred in higher education courses for the inclusion of the sustainability theme are still incipient and often related to maintaining the status quo. They represent only the addition of one more subject in the curriculum to deal with sustainability, without meaning its reconstruction or the advance to interdisciplinary and even transdisciplinary proposals. Therefore, the question is: what changes would be necessary for IEs to insert sustainability beyond the status quo?
To contribute to the construction of the answer to such question, the Framework for Sustainable Transformative Learning (FSTL), developed by Palma and Pedrozo (2014), presents itself as a useful tool since it has been developed to understand the process of change in EIs in order for them to become agents that promote transformation towards sustainability.
To advance the understanding of the changes needed in IEs to insert sustainability beyond the status quo, this research presents two case studies conducted in England of management and economic programmes that have sustainability included in their proposals, applying the FSTL. Based on FSTL, the Complex Matrix for the Analysis of Sustainable Transformative Learning (CMASTL) was developed to define analysis categories.
Following this introduction, the FSTL and its main concepts are briefly presented. Then, the methodological procedures and CMASTL are explained, followed by the presentation of the case studies' main results. Finally, other considerations are presented, including suggestions for further research.