I NTEGRATION OF ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

EMS – a Way towards SD in Universities

questionnaire was distributed to the all staff emails and the response rate was 37%. As can be seen from the analysis presented in Appendix C, and discussed in Section 4.3.2 and Paper III, the respondents are, to a high degree, representative of the university’s statistics. Thus, this representation is consistent when compared to a number of measurable variables such as gender, staff category and department. The validity of the study was enhanced by triangulation along with other information sources at the university, such as records regarding the participation rates in training, information received through informal interviews, and feedback from the persons responsible for environmental work at the different departments.

Figure 5-10. Areas of daily work where faculty and staff see they can contribute to sustainable development at the University of Gävle.

Source: Sammalisto & Brorson (2006)

5.4 Integration of environment and sustainable

Kaisu Sammalisto, IIIEE, Lund University

76

(Figure 5-5). Although the indirect aspects cannot be measured directly, activities to promote continuous improvement in the methods that are used to stimulate student learning, can be assessed (Sammalisto, 2004). These include, for instance, providing environmental courses for all students and increasing integration of SD in disciplinary courses.

The most common tools affecting these indirect aspects are policy documents, competence development and training of faculty and students.

Three universities have also been identified to use classification of courses as a tool. One of these universities also uses classification with explanations for research projects (Sammalisto, 2007a).

The results of the case study of 1317 courses at the University of Gävle indicate that the four dimensions of SD; environmental, social, cultural and economic, were all visible in the explanations of classifications made by the lecturers. Although the courses are frequently classified as addressing one dimension of SD, many of the courses have also been connected to other dimensions of sustainability in the explanations (Sammalisto & Lindhqvist, 2007). The single environmental dimension dominates for courses at the departments representing mathematics and computer sciences, and technology, but is present in all departments.

The social dimension alone, or together with the one or two other dimensions, is dominating at the departments hosting health sciences and education. This dimension is present in less than ten percent of the courses in the department representing humanities and social sciences and only marginally in the department including natural and computer sciences. The single cultural dimension is clearly dominating in the department representing humanities and social sciences, but appears as marginal in the departments representing technology, and natural and computer sciences.

Integration was not considered relevant in theoretical courses in four of the five departments. In all departments you also find optional courses, where students can choose to write about sustainability issues in their papers. Many of these courses contain the economic dimension of SD. It should, however, be noted that the department representing economics is not represented in the study, due to lack of explanations in the classification forms.

The departments representing education and health sciences have a larger number of courses with broad approaches, covering several of the dimensions of SD. They also have, together with the department

EMS – a Way towards SD in Universities

representing humanities and social sciences, courses which are classified as including the four dimensions of sustainable development.

The study of 125 applications for research funding in the year 2005 depicted that 90% of them were classified using the form included in the application document. Of the 125 projects, 71%, were also provided with an explanation regarding the project’s contribution to sustainable development.

Most of the latter research applications include more than one dimension of sustainability. 32% of the applications combine the social dimension with one other dimension, while the corresponding figures for a two-dimensional combination with environmental and cultural aspects are also frequent: 21%

and 20% of the research projects (Sammalisto & Lindhqvist, 2007).

Interviews with the faculty within the case study demonstrate that, although a few of those interviewed have experienced the classification mainly as a bureaucratic exercise, many have started thinking about the possibility of integrating SD in their courses. Several discussed the possibilities with their colleagues and moved from thinking mainly about the direct environmental impacts of their courses to the course content and its future impact on the students. One of the interviewed lecturers describes the process in the following way: “It was difficult at first and we did not know what to do. It ended up in direct use of materials etc. Then we started talking with our colleagues and we saw it in a longer perspective. Some of the things can be difficult to interpret or are interpreted too much. But it does not take a lot of time”. The lecturers have, for instance, included a new assignment for the students to stimulate their thinking in connection to the course in question (Sammalisto & Lindhqvist, 2007). A lecturer in another department concludes: “It was difficult at first and the first reflection was that it was not relevant. Then we started thinking regarding sustainable development that maybe we have some (content of environment/ sustainable development) and then we saw that it is good. But we (me and my colleagues) thought that it was an administrative invention and it was least painful just to fill in the form and send it further”.

The case study described above has two main elements: the analysis of the forms of classification, and the analysis of a set of 13 interviews. The reliability of the first part was enhanced by having two researchers independently interpret the classification made by the lecturers. Following the independent interpretations, the findings were then discussed regarding the different classifications, and afterwards the final outcome was determined. However, there remains a more difficult problem: attempting to

Kaisu Sammalisto, IIIEE, Lund University

78

determine whether the lecturers interviewed have a common understanding of the classification forms and the concepts used, in particular in relation to sustainable development.

The purpose of the interviews was partly to better understand how the classification forms were understood and further, how the concept of sustainable development was interpreted. The conducted interviews were also an attempt to enhance the validity of the examination as to the classification forms. Finally, the interviews provided some insight into how the process was perceived by the lecturers and the practicalities connected to filling in the forms. The number of interviews was very limited and should be seen only as a first and explorative study of the procedure and its impact.

In order to get a diverse picture, emphasis was spent on selecting interviewees from different departments and representing the various different classification categories in their forms, as described in Section 4.3.3 and Paper IV. In order to address the potential bias related to the author being central in the development of the EMS in the university, the initial interviews were conducted by a researcher from outside the university, who acted as the lead interviewer. Triangulation was also attempted with experiences from literature and through other contacts, formal and informal, and with lecturers at the University of Gävle.