ABSTRACT
Realising organisational transformation for sustainability in higher education is a complex process fraught with resistance and ambiguity. While there are signs of promise in the proliferation of declarations for Higher Education for Sustainable Development (HESD), the growth in sustainability related courses and research, and the efforts taken by a number of campuses to green their operations (Hopkinson and James 2013; Luna and Maxey 2013; Sylvestre et al. 2013a; Wals 2014), HESD scholars and advocates criticise what they view as a ‘bolt-on’ approach to sustainability rather than a fundamental commitment to organisational transformation (Ferrer-Balas et al. 2010; Lotz-Sisitka 2004; Sterling 2004; Sterling 2010;Wals 2014). It is one thing for a university to become a signatory to a declaration, develop new course offerings or revamp pre-existing courses to incorporate sustainability related content, and undertake a series of energy efficiency retro-fits; it is another matter altogether to make concrete the forms of radical,whole institution transformations implied in the language of the HESD declarations and called for by many scholars in the field (Jickling and Wals 2008; Lozano 2006a; Sterling 2010;Velazquez et al. 2006). The former entails change that fits within pre-established norms of the institution, while the latter necessitates a complete re-envisioning of the fundamental norms and structural relations that in many ways culturally define contemporary universities (Cortese 2003; Sterling 2013; Tilbury 2013). Whole institution transformation necessitates more than asserting claims to a moral high
ground, a little gumption, and good deal of elbow grease. Transforming a university from merely using HESD rhetoric, into an institution that truly engages in concrete pro-sustainability change activities requires a serious commitment to understanding how universities as organisations learn and change (Kezar 2005; Kezar and Eckel 2002, Sterling 2013). This assertion is in no way novel. Over a decade ago, Corcoran et al. (2004) called for the scholarship of HESD to move beyond cases reporting on individual, campus-based SHE projects and to move toward more meta-analyses and a theoretical commitment to organisational theory as a body
of scholarship. Wright (2007) echoed this in her report on research priorities for the HESD field, highlighting consensus around the perceived importance of greater engagement with the scholarship of organisational studies. Despite this, there are few examples of HESD studies grounding their work in a robust theorising of organisational learning and change (with a few notable exceptions: Cebrián et al. 2013; Stephens and Graham 2010). The relationship between organisational learning (OL) and organisational change (OC) is
complex.Whether learning is conceptualised as a cognitive process which underpins and leads to change (as it is for Senge 1990 and Argyris and Schon 1978), or as practical and collective action where the distinction between learning and change is dissolved (see for example Caldwell 2012 or Gherardi 2009), the importance of working toward understanding the nature of learning in an organisation cannot be sufficiently underscored. In this chapter, we present a review of several trajectories of thought concerning how OL is thought to facilitate and drive change,placing these in the context of sustainability in higher education. The scholarship and practice of OL is a jargon-laden, interdisciplinary field whose divergent threads draw from a diversity of ontological and epistemological positions which translates into a high level of contention regarding even the most basic premises related to the nature of knowledge and agency within an organisation (Friedman et al. 2005). Given that different ways of conceptualising the relationship between organisations and individuals, and learning and change, necessarily lead to different ideas on how to promote learning for the purpose of creating effective and sustained change, drawing lessons from the OL and change literature that are applicable to the context of HESD is important, not only for creating successful change but also for understanding past failures. This chapter is divided into two sections. In the first section we offer an overview of four
broad typologies of OL theory and how these construct concepts of change, learning and the relationship between individuals and organisations. We will then highlight the unique nature of universities as organisations and discuss which theoretical frameworks are best suited to dealing with the inherent complexity of promoting organisational transformation for sustainability within higher education. In the second section we identify three areas of inquiry that show great potential for advanc-
ing our understanding of how institutions of higher education learn while concomitantly promoting learning and transformation for sustainability. We discuss the importance of developing a deep understanding of the institutional contexts where change initiatives will be implemented.We discuss approaches and reasons for constructing culturally appropriate change strategies rooted in institutional histories and the lived experiences of stakeholders prior to deploying change initiatives. Following this, we explore the processual conceptions of change and how strategies for collaborative and dialogically driven methodologies for promoting learning and change can be effectively employed to achieve buy-in around sustainable transformation among a multiplicity of constituencies. Finally, we discuss examples of promising structural developments that can act as an institutional substrate for leaning and change. Specifically, we discuss the importance of developing effective assessment tools for measuring and reporting progress while possessing the requisite sophistication to adequately engage with a pluralistic and transformative conceptualisation of sustainability. In addition,we describe institutional mechanisms developed elsewhere that can give a transformative process a foothold so that it can be sustained for the long term.
