Richard Beecroft 1v2'* and Jan C. Schmidt 1
1 Unit of Social,
Culture and Technology Studies, Darmstadt University of Applied Sciences,
Haardtring 100, 64295 Darmstadt, Germany; E-Mail: jan.schmidt@h-da.de Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis,
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Postfach 36 40, 76021 Karlsruhe, Germany
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail:
richard.beecroft@kit.edu; Tel.: +49-721-608-24674.
Received: 1 April 2014; in revised form: 9 May 2014
/Accepted: 11 May 2014 /
Published: 27May 2014
Abstract: Both sustainability and education are challenging
process-oriented objectives.
When the aim is to combine both notions, as in Higher
Education in Sustainability (HES), it is indispensable to first establish a
common ground between them. In this paper, we characterise this common ground
in terms of four aspects: future orientation, normativity, global perspective,
and theory engaged in practice. Based on an analysis of the common ground, one
method that is well-established in a wide range of sustainability sciences
shows high potential for use in HES because it covers all four aspects in
detail: the scenario method. We argue that a didactical reconstruction of the
scenario method is necessary to utilise its potential and develop adequate
forms of teaching in higher education. The scenario method is used to construct
and analyse a set of alternative future developments to support decisions that
have to be made in the present. Didactical reconstruction reveals a spectrum of
objectives for which the scenario method can be employed: (1) projection; (2)
teleological planning and (3) an explorative search for possibilities not yet
considered. By studying and experimenting with this spectrum of objectives,
students in HES can develop fundamental reflexive competencies in addressing
the future in different ways that are relevant for both sustainability and
education.
Keywords: scenario method; didactics; didactical reconstruction;
philosophy of education; methodology; future orientation; higher education;
technology assessment
The phrase "higher education in sustainability"
does at first appear to be overloaded with expectations. Both the notion of
"education" and of "sustainability" convey ambitious
idea(l)s that aim at changing the current state of affairs. The discourse on
sustainability combines global justice issues with ecological awareness,
creating one overarching paradigm. Education, on the other hand, is a matter of
centuries-old struggles to enable the next generation to achieve a life of
autonomy, subjectivity, and freedom. The two goals are ambitious—some might say
naive and unrealistic—, and both are interpreted in various ways,
instrumentalised and treated as a subject of controversy and dispute.
Therefore, it may be overambitious to unify both goals in a single concept of
higher education in sustainability. It is probably more promising to dig deeper
and to reconstruct a common ground from which each one can be addressed in its own right [1].
In this paper, we propose that the common ground between sustainability and education be described using
four aspects which are fundamental to both notions (Section 2). On this basis,
certain deficits can be identified in the two most common teaching formats in
HES—case study courses and theory-oriented courses. We suggest that these deficits can be overcome by
an intermediate, method-oriented approach (Section 3). We then use the common aspects of education
and sustainability to explore the potential of a method-oriented approach to HES. For this purpose, we
apply a concept from didactics, didactical reconstruction (Section 4.1), to a method used in various fields of
sustainability sciences: the scenario method (Section 4.2). This method relates directly to one aspect,
namely, future orientation, and touches on several others on closer
examination, which makes it a strong basis for HES. We propose the didactical
reconstruction of the scenario method in the form of three ideal types describing
the spectrum of aims the scenario method can be used for, and derive adequate teaching formats for the scenario method (Section 4.3). We conclude with reflections on the potential of the scenario method for higher education and
sustainability, re-emphasising the fundamental links between the two notions
(Section 5).
Since Hans Jonas' theoretical work [2,3] and the Brundlandt
report [4], "sustainability"—as an abbreviation for "sustainable
development"—has been understood as a normative framework and guiding
vision of a state of the world that offers at least minimal justice to all
humans (and in its strong version: to the environment at large) whilst taking
into account the limitations of the natural systems on which our societies are
based. The notion of sustainability is, it has to be conceded, certainly a
vague one. Nevertheless, it opens up avenues for discourse about our common
future. Since the 1990s, a distinction has been made between weak and strong
sustainability, the latter rejecting the assumption that natural capital can be
translated into monetary terms or replaced by other forms of capital.
Sustainability carries a critical impetus regarding the present state of the
world and aims to foster and facilitate a transition. Bryan Norton, a
philosopher engaged in sustainability sciences and public sustainability
discourses, sees the open notion of sustainability as a chance for a
normative-reflexive and adaptive approach towards our common future, as an
alternative to relying on the one-dimensional technical way of thinking that
drives optimisation oriented concepts. Our argumentation follows
Norton [5] and his pragmatist concept of "normative
sustainability"—which is a reflexive type of norm-setting and norm
revision and is viewed as an adaptive societal learning process.
The term "sustainability sciences" can be used to
describe all those scientific endeavours that contribute to the conceptual
development of sustainability, as for example presented in [6,7], that analyse
the sustainability of the present situation or potential developments, and that
aim to foster a transition towards sustainability [8]. Sustainability sciences
contain a broad plurality of perspectives and research areas with no clear cut
methodology. Due to the complex nature of sustainability issues and the
critical perspective on science itself, large parts of sustainability sciences
transgress the border between the public and the academy, between the policy
arena and academic research; in other words: they are transdisciplinary [9].
Education ("Bildung') is, again, a complex notion that has not been ultimately
defined. However, in most interpretations it combines (a) an individual level
describing the development and growth of subjectivity and the facilitation of
these ends by others; and (b) a societal level describing the reproduction,
development and transformation of society as a whole [10-12]. Such a twofold
understanding opens up a perspective on how to relate education to
sustainability [13] without instrumentalising the former. The term
"didactic" as used in this paper refers to the planning,
implementation and evaluation of all means of facilitating or supporting
education.
The common ground between the notions of sustainability and
education can be described by four aspects which are fundamental to both
(Figure 1).
|
Figure 1. Higher Education in Sustainability (HES) based on the
common ground between sustainability and education.
 |
2.1. Future Orientation
Sustainability is part of our modern age, possibly even in
a radical way because it is concerned with analysing, planning and influencing
the long-term future of the whole world in numerous dimensions. The Brundtland
report states in its third chapter: "Humanity has the ability to make
development sustainable to ensure that it meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs." [14] Education shares this inherent orientation towards the
"future": To enable subjectivity and autonomy, a systematic
orientation towards the future is necessary
in education. This idea was already formulated at the very beginning of educational theory. Immanuel Kant argues in his introduction to pedagogy:
in education. This idea was already formulated at the very beginning of educational theory. Immanuel Kant argues in his introduction to pedagogy:
"Children ought to be educated, not for the present,
but for a possibly improved condition of man in the future; that is, in a
manner which is adapted to the idea of humanity and the whole destiny of man.
This principle is of great importance. Parents usually educate their children
merely in such a manner that, however bad the world may be, they may adapt
themselves to its present conditions. However, they ought to give them an
education so much better than this, that a better condition of things may
thereby be brought about in the future" [15].
Kant's argument also illustrates how future orientation can
provide a moral basis for inter-generational relations in educational theory,
bringing the latter close to the notion of sustainability in the sense of
inter- and intra-generational justice.
2.2.
Normativity as Part of Rationality
The second link is the notion of normativity as an integral
part of rationality rather than as an added feature of rationality or even its
opposite. The key element of the normative rationality underlying the discourse
on sustainability—as heterogeneous as it is—is a critical reflection on the
past and the present. All ideas of a good future are to some extent linked to
the shortcomings of the present. Consequently, this gives sustainability
sciences a prominent role in cultivating normative rational thought and having
to defend it from calls for "value-free" science. Theories on
education face similar expectations, but with two normative anchor points:
societal development and the (yet to be achieved) autonomy of the developing
subject. Normative rationality can play a double role in this context: For the
person educating others (educans), normative rationality is necessary to reflect on the
educational process, and for the one to be educated (educandus), normative rationality describes the necessary capacity for
rational thinking, which has to be developed as a prerequisite for autonomy
(and for eventually becoming the next educans) [16].
2.3.
Global Perspective
Both sustainability and education carry a universal
perspective addressing all mankind (in the case of philosophy of education) and
the whole world (in sustainability sciences). The idea of offering one
educational basis for all mankind—regardless of class or gender—was formerly a
highly political issue [17,18], just as global justice and global ecology,
which the discourse on sustainability has managed to combine, are today.
Education and sustainability are both faced with the necessity to relate this
global perspective to various specific contexts.
2.4.
Theory Engaged in Practice
The theoretical discussion on sustainability is deeply
rooted in political practice. Societal demands, hopes and transition processes
are the driving force of theory development and the context in which further
efforts are urgently needed. Sustainability science has, therefore, always been
a theory engaged in practice. Educational theory, on the other hand, has
evolved parallel to the institutionalisation of education in schools and
universities; it is an integral part of the educational system [19]. Both
sustainability sciences and educational theory are involved in societal practices and consequently part of the objects they analyse. This deep involvement can create various difficulties, for example, the need to defend a scientific status whilst viewing it critically.
sustainability sciences and educational theory are involved in societal practices and consequently part of the objects they analyse. This deep involvement can create various difficulties, for example, the need to defend a scientific status whilst viewing it critically.
Having established these four common aspects of
sustainability and education, we can derive a teaching concept for HES. The
scope we have in mind consists of an extensive electives programme [20,21], in
other words, neither a complete sustainability sciences curriculum nor an
isolated course on sustainability. The two elements of sustainability sciences
most commonly used as the basis for HES within this scope are case studies and
theories [22,23]. Case studies focus on examples of sustainability issues and possible
solutions to them. They can use fictive cases, use "authentic"
documents as teaching material, or even tackle real cases which the project
courses try to help resolve [24]. The advantages of this starting point for
both students and teachers consist in the motivation gained from specific,
practical questions, the additional benefit regarding real-world issues, and
the possibility of offering active project work. However, the deficit of an HES
concept oriented purely towards case study is that it is difficult to
transgress the case at hand: What is typical in a particular case, what is not?
What are the not-so-obvious sustainability aspects of the case? Theory courses, on the other hand, can offer a broad understanding of
sustainability. Different sustainability concepts can be analysed in light of
their time and context. Examples can be presented and—ex post—analysed in
detail. However, in this teaching approach sustainability can easily become an
abstract topic, giving students little basis for actually contributing to it.
Is there a third, more apt way to link theory of sustainability and practical
projects to project work, rather than having to decide between the two
elements?
As we have found, the methodology [25] of sustainability
sciences is a promising candidate for such a third way for six reasons. First,
although the problems treated as sustainability issues vary widely and the
normative aim of sustainability is often interpreted very differently in
specific projects, there is at least some coherence in the methodology and
methodological reflection. Methods are therefore an appropriate starting point
to learn something about sustainability sciences as a scientific field, instead of
only learning from its findings. Second, methods are used in sustainability
sciences to achieve practical relevance whilst still being part of
sustainability theory. Third, methods carry in their set-up many lessons learnt
from earlier projects. Their change over time is part of the learning process
in sustainability sciences. The use of methods makes it possible to utilise
acquired experience and changes in sustainability sciences for educational
purposes, for example, to develop a critical perspective on the present state
of sustainability sciences. Fourth, understanding can be described as a process
of developing knowledge [26], combining both creative and formalised aspects to
this end. Many transdisciplinary methods from sustainability sciences [27,28]
do precisely that. Therefore, they can potentially be adapted to foster
understanding in educational contexts as well. Fifth, methods offer many
opportunities for active teaching formats, from short exercises to intense
project work, which prepare directly for real sustainability projects. Sixth
and finally, since working methodically is a foundation of all sciences, it is
possible to train students in these basic science skills along the way. This is
far more than a bonus effect in soft skills, because basic scientific thinking
techniques
(formulating theories, collecting information and analysing it critically, forming valid arguments etc.) are much more difficult in transdisciplinary sciences such as sustainability sciences and sometimes the only quality criteria that can be applied.
(formulating theories, collecting information and analysing it critically, forming valid arguments etc.) are much more difficult in transdisciplinary sciences such as sustainability sciences and sometimes the only quality criteria that can be applied.
Our thesis is that method-based teaching represents an
approach in its own right, as a third alternative focus between case studies
and theory-oriented courses, and that it offers opportunities to relate to the
other two approaches.
Sustainability sciences do not have a canonical structure
like physics or mechanical engineering: In HES the question of what can and
what should be learnt is open. For method-based teaching, this is a twofold
question, because methods can be part of the subject to be studied and part of
the way in which other subjects are taught. To which educational end can one
use a method like the scenario method on both levels; what knowledge and what
competencies can and should students develop with it? A didactical
reconstruction of the methods employed in sustainability sciences has to lay
open their potential for education and adapt the chosen method for didactical
use.
4.1. Didactical Reconstruction
The focal point of didactics is the question of how
educational processes can be fostered and facilitated: Which objects and
methods should be used? Who addresses whom? The "object"—that is, the
didactical impulse—carries a potential for education which can be used in
various ways, for example, as a reference for the understanding of abstract
principles [29] or as a starting point for educational interaction (a critical
discussion is provided in [30]). Didactics is the systematic search for
educational potentials. One manner of accomplishing this is through
"didactical reconstruction" [31-33]. In this approach, one starts
from the educational aim and the object and not, as the main stream of current
didactic models do, from the teaching situation. An example is given in [34].
While education describes the aims and results, didactics describes the process
of reflection and revision with regard to the means of facilitating education.
Didactical reconstruction is far more than the old
"principle of elementarisation" in the pedagogical and educational
tradition, also known as "didactical reduction". In this tradition,
the object would be treated as a given, which merely has to be presented in
easy-to-follow steps, starting from objects already taught. By contrast,
didactical reconstruction describes the "(re-)construction of structures
from meaning-bearing units. Both deconstruction and reconstruction are carried
out according to normative aspects—the educational aims" ([35], our
translation). In other words: Didactical reconstruction is a constructivist
view of the object—in contrast to all forms of (scientific) realism on which
"didactical reduction" is based. The use of objects in education is
not restricted to material ones. Anything can be reconstructed as an object:
ideas, biographies, theories, models, or in our case: a method. The
reconstruction starts with the object; it does not invent it, but shapes it and
works with it. The object itself is not replaced, but specific properties and
structures of it are reconstructed. Also, secondary aspects pertaining for
example to the students' motivation and the inclusion of their existing
competencies are analysed, always starting from the object and the educational
aim. Choosing or
developing appropriate teaching forms—or other didactical settings such as museums, e-learning software or field trips—is only the last step.
developing appropriate teaching forms—or other didactical settings such as museums, e-learning software or field trips—is only the last step.
We use didactical reconstruction to bring to light the
specific potential of the scenario method. This is quite a different aim from
finding out how to teach the method or how to teach something specific using
it. A reconstructed scenario method should show what it can offer for
sustainability and for education alike. As there is ample methodological
literature on the properties and qualities of the method in scientific
practice, we use this material as a basis to focus on the educational potential
of the method.
4.2. Didactical Reconstruction of the Scenario Method
 |
|||
 |
|||
The scenario method is a typical technique in sustainability sciences. It has been applied ever since the beginning of this recent branch of science and it is still being discussed and adapted today [36,37]. Nevertheless, it also plays a role in various other academic (e.g., future studies [38,39]) or non-academic (e.g., strategic management [40]) fields. It is commonly used to write scenario studies as a form of consulting or policy advice. Starting from a future-related question (Figure 2, No. 1), a description of the present state is given (2). From this point on, a set of scenarios unfolds, each scenario consisting of a description of a future state (3) and a plausible path leading to it (4) along a common time line. The scenarios have to be analysed as a set (5) to derive answers or recommendations (6) for the initial question. Apart from its fundamental structure, scenario construction can vary considerably.
Which distinctions, describing the spectrum of variants of
the scenario method, are relevant in an educational context? It is necessary to
identify these in order to reconstruct the method accordingly. To do so, we
start with the different aims for which the method is used, because these aims
each carry an idea of how the results of a scenario study relate to human
judgements, decisions and actions. Thus, the different aims directly describe
the aspects relevant for education. In this way, we can identify three ideal
types of the scenario method: the projective, the explorative and the
teleological type. These distinctions are derived from similar methodological
differentiations [39,41-46], but the reason for reconstructing the method is in
our case to identify the educational potential of the whole spectrum of ideal types, and not to answer the methodological question of when to
use which type of scenario method.
The projective ideal type (1): This type describes
extrapolations of historical trends up to the current state and projections of
the past into the future. It is therefore based on the assumption that the
future is to some degree or in some aspects predefined by the past. In its
strong form, it follows the assumption of an (ontological) existence of laws
determining the development of socio-technical systems. This brings a
problematic proximity to the paradigm of technological determinism to the fore,
which leaves few options for human decisions. If prognosis, based on causality,
is possible, then decisions are not. In intermediate forms, the only necessary
assumption is a ceteris paribus clause: If none of the relevant conditions of the system
in question is altered in the time span discussed, a certain future state will
evolve (with a certain probability). Differences between scenarios result
merely from uncertainties in the description of the present and past or in the
causal laws derived from these descriptions. The results of a projective
scenario study cannot be used to change the course of a development, but merely
to develop mitigation strategies within the corridors of possibility set out by
the study, for example as shown in [47].
The teleological ideal type (2): This type focuses on aims,
desires and values [48], a typical example of which is given in [49]. Means are
identified according to their potential for contributing to the aims. Two forms
can be distinguished: one form works backwards from a desired future state to
identify development paths that might lead up to it from the present
(backcasting; see [50]). The other form starts in the present and runs through
many different courses of action trying to find a path to the desired future state
(strategic gaming) and optimising the strategies by a process of
trial-and-error. This type shows an inverse temporal structure: To achieve a
state of y in the future, x has to be done today. Strong forms also reflect on
and revise the aim and include it in the evaluation, while weaker forms are
primarily instrumentalist; they only search for means without questioning the
ends. The teleological ideal type of scenario method comes closest to its
historical beginnings in military strategy development.
The explorative ideal type (3): This experimental type is
used to open up and analyse the "space" of possible futures. Present
decisions and actions are analysed as the main driving force, each opening up
different pathways into the future (and closing others). Assumptions regarding
causal mechanisms in socio-technical systems are necessary as well, not to give
a prognosis of the future, but to establish different futures as the result of
different actions or unexpected system changes ("wild cards" [51]).
This type aims at broadening the spectrum of possible actions in an open
future. The explorative type is based on a causal structure: if we do x today,
we will reach the state of y in the future. Starting from the present, a space
of possible futures is opened and can be analysed as more or less desired
alternatives. In a descriptive form of this type, assessment of the options is not part of the method itself, it is externalised. In a normative form, value judgements are a central element of the method and can be assessed and reconsidered in the process as well, for example as shown in [52].
alternatives. In a descriptive form of this type, assessment of the options is not part of the method itself, it is externalised. In a normative form, value judgements are a central element of the method and can be assessed and reconsidered in the process as well, for example as shown in [52].
These three ideal types describe corner points of the whole
spectrum of different aims underlying the scenario method (Figure 3). Real
scenario studies in most cases combine these types, marking different areas in
the triangle, not just the corners. The most common combination involves the
inclusion of one projective scenario as a reference (often called
"trend" or "business-as-usual") in a study having an
overall explorative or teleological structure. Teleological studies can combine
the search for feasible strategies for a given goal with an (explorative) test
of the robustness of this strategy in different circumstances. Projective
studies can describe future developments without intending to predict the
future, but to criticise current developments, as in the well-known report
"The Limits to Growth" to the Club of Rome [36], hereby adding a
teleological element.
|
Figure 3. Three ideal types of the scenario method open up a
triangle of possible aims for scenario studies.
 |
After this reconstructive step, it can be shown that the
scenario method truly relates to all four aspects of the common ground between
sustainability and education. Future orientation constitutes the very basis of the method, as has been
shown by the typology of the method's underlying aims. The scenario method is
used to analyse issues regarding the future, originally based on the paradigm
that one can model the future as a system and thereby predict or steer it [53].
This futurological idea has subsequently been replaced by the aim of
reorganising present thinking about the future to derive arguments for today's decisions [54]. The scenario method
treats normativity as part of rationality: It aims at enabling a rational discourse on possible
futures, always combining predictive and normative arguments about the future.
Value judgements are seen not as external to but rather as a crucial element of
rational thinking, making it possible to derive suggestions on how to act.
Sustainability provides a normative background that one can explicitly cite,
interpret in various ways or criticise by using the scenario method. The
scenario method adopts a global perspective, even when very specific
and small-scale issues are tackled. The global perspective only requires ensuring that none of the reductions—in time, space, or in the aspects to be discussed—thwarts the correct analysis of the issues at stake. The use of the scenario method mainly involves precise theoretical work; nevertheless, it is a method engaged in practice, often in an advisory setting: public or private research institutions offer advice in the form of scenario studies for political or other players. Although scenario studies are claimed to be relevant for decisions, they are not the decision itself. This distinction of roles offers another valuable aspect that can be modelled didactically and used to clarify the interplay of sustainability science and decision making. The direct link between the scenario method and all four aspects shared by sustainability and education suggests that it has high potential for HES.
and small-scale issues are tackled. The global perspective only requires ensuring that none of the reductions—in time, space, or in the aspects to be discussed—thwarts the correct analysis of the issues at stake. The use of the scenario method mainly involves precise theoretical work; nevertheless, it is a method engaged in practice, often in an advisory setting: public or private research institutions offer advice in the form of scenario studies for political or other players. Although scenario studies are claimed to be relevant for decisions, they are not the decision itself. This distinction of roles offers another valuable aspect that can be modelled didactically and used to clarify the interplay of sustainability science and decision making. The direct link between the scenario method and all four aspects shared by sustainability and education suggests that it has high potential for HES.
In educational contexts, the scenario method is intensely
discussed mainly with regard to the specific issues that can be addressed with
it, e.g., biotechnology [55], emergency management [56], or regional
development [57]. Furthermore, it is discussed as a technique to help students
develop specific practical competencies, for instance in health care [58] or as
librarians [59]. In this context, the scenarios primarily offer realistic
pictures of future professional situations, and the scenario methodology is not
taught as such. Finally, there are courses that teach the scenario method
itself, for example as part of future studies (an empirical overview is given
in [60]). The discussions are not usually about analysing the potential offered
by the scenario method; they treat the method either as a didactical means for
other, predefined ends or as an end in itself. The question of what can be achieved with the method is scarcely considered.
According to our reconstruction, the educational potential
of the scenario method lies at its very core: systematic consideration of the
future following a strategy of combining teleological, explorative and
projective elements. Being able to tackle the future—one's own, that of society
or of mankind—is one of the most fundamental educational aims. The educational
nature of the scenario method, as it has been brought to light in the
didactical reconstruction, can consequently be turned into an educational aim
to be addressed with the scenario method. The scenario method can be used to
foster the ability to think about the future in different ways and to recognise,
choose and evaluate specific ways. This is at the same time an essential
prerequisite for contributing to sustainable development. It requires the
ability to step back and assume a critical perspective with regard to one's own
thinking and the scenario method as a thinking technique.
4.3. Adapting the Scenario Methodfor Higher Education
As stated above, the search for teaching formats is the
last step in the didactical reconstruction. An adequate teaching format for the
use of the scenario method would typically be a simulation game [58]. This
format combines intense phases of active project work with phases of
theoretical input and reflection, using a method-based didactical approach as a
bridge from sustainability sciences to sustainability practice. It can be seen
as an intermediate format between case study teaching and theory-oriented
courses (see Table 1).
|
Table 1. Comparison between three fundamental approaches to HES.
|
Beyond this point, an adaptation of the scenario method on
a general scale is hardly feasible; the specific teaching and learning context
to which the method is meant to contribute has to be taken into account The
points outlined below were relevant in the development of interdisciplinary
courses on technology assessment for engineering students at Darmstadt
University of Applied Sciences, mostly in their first year.
We offered a broad spectrum and choice of technological
examples (concentrated solar power, neuro-enhancement, geothermal energy or
care robotics) to trigger students' interest, give them a new perspective on
their own (engineering) science and show the similarities and differences
between different approaches the method is used for. To fit the scenario method
into a course within a usual curriculum structure (15 weeks, course duration 90
min), it is necessary to choose a simple and flexible variant of the scenario
method. We used a "morphological analysis" [41] as a procedure to
construct a model and develop a promising set of scenarios to work on. An
additional quality is that it shows very clearly the formality and possible
technocratic bias the scenario method carries. Our experience with this form
has been good, but other modelling approaches have similar qualities [61,62],
as long as the procedures are transparent and not, for example, hidden behind
modelling software. Using models of reduced complexity seems crucial for an
understanding of the method's qualities and shortcomings, which are difficult
to identify in 'up to date' computer-based models.
While case studies usually start with a clear group of
addressees and a given problem to work on (even though sustainability problems
are usually ill-posed problems), simulation games offer the possibility to vary
both the question and the addressees between the project teams or even to treat
the addressees as secondary: this approach—albeit unrealistic—gives students
the opportunity to frame the question purely for the planned use of the
scenario method, forcing them into intense methodological reflection instead of
performing the research question by a specific addressee. The variation of
addressees and research questions can be used systematically by comparing the
results of the different
scenario studies produced by different teams in the same course. This proves to be an interesting approach especially when working with larger groups.
scenario studies produced by different teams in the same course. This proves to be an interesting approach especially when working with larger groups.
One of the crucial steps in producing a scenario study is
to formulate scenarios in such a way that they are similar enough to be
analysed together, but different enough to see the specific properties of
each—usually this takes a number of recursive loops. One way to organise the
integration of different scenarios is to personalise this step: the whole group
decides on the structure of each scenario, each student writes one of them, the
group tries to integrate the scenarios and determines necessary changes for the
next individual round.
Finally, the scenario method can be used to relate the
students' own future life world to the otherwise distant, scientific future.
This can be achieved with small exercises to get used to the method (e.g.,
work-life balance), or with topics impacting their future directly (care
robotics). Ideally, this should help them to consider their own life, to treat
it as a project from a subject perspective.
The scenario method—based upon its didactical
reconstruction—proves to be an excellent way to initiate educational processes
regarding socio-technological futures. It offers high potential for HES,
contributing both to sustainability and education, by focusing on the aspects
they have in common: future orientation, which lies at the core of the scenario method. The method
provides a medium of reflection to clarify ideas, plans, and expectations for
the future, making it possible to consider whether the futures described are
consistent, realistic, and desirable. Students can learn to question and to
formulate aims and goals—in Kant's words: the possible better future state of
mankind. The use of the scenario method also shows how normativity is part of rationality in all major and minor decisions that have to be made from
the first project steps on, and how value judgements predefine the possible
results to be drawn from the study. Value reflection is indispensable;
normativity is a part of the rational procedure, not an add-on or a flaw. The
choice to be made between the different ideal types of the scenario method is a
typical example of such decisions. The scenario method, thus, offers an insight
into critical reflection and shows that care must be exercised when working
with the interwoven patterns of analysis and value judgements. This is particularly
important for pressing societal issues, which are often considered to be
addressable as neutral topics far removed from the sphere of values, such as
technology. The scenario method contributes to an understanding of science and
technology as part of socio-technical systems, with their ill-defined elements
and changing boundaries. The differences to be observed in possible
perspectives on the same technology, different methodological approaches and
different types of results—all within the scenario method—show the absurdity of
a positivistic idea of technology and technology studies. Technology is
conceived of a phenomenon that is always to be interpreted, contextualised.
Peter Euler characterises this as "technological reason" [11]. Working with the
scenario method enables students to take on a global perspective, but does not lead them to an ultimately distanced
perspective. On the contrary, it helps them focus on one concrete issue while
bearing the whole context in mind. The global perspective should contribute to
a careful, self-critical and reflexive perspective: Thinking about the future
is crucial for sustainable development, but there is no guarantee that these
thoughts are true, sensible, or capable of guiding decisions in the right direction.
Studying sustainability actively by using a method
from sustainability sciences offers an excellent basis for future contributions to sustainable development. Even if the teaching format is not a real project itself (in the sense of a scientific enterprise or a contribution to life world problems), it prepares for and substantiates sustainability science that is theory engaged in practice.
from sustainability sciences offers an excellent basis for future contributions to sustainable development. Even if the teaching format is not a real project itself (in the sense of a scientific enterprise or a contribution to life world problems), it prepares for and substantiates sustainability science that is theory engaged in practice.
Besides these fundamental links that we identified at the
beginning, one further aspect can be added: By using HES as a link between
sustainability sciences and educational sciences, the normative basis of
education could be enriched, and the methodological discussion of
sustainability science could benefit from an educational perspective:
Didactical methodology could be developed as another aspect of the common
ground between sustainability and education. However, combining methodology and
didactics of sustainability needs further conceptual work, for which at least a
minimal fundament in philosophy and pedagogy is necessary. Taking the scenario
method as an example, we have tried to establish a strategy as to how one can
derive specific didactical settings from fundamental aspects of education and
sustainability. Presumably, many other methods from sustainability sciences
carry educational potential for various contexts, both in professional training
and general education—a potential which is yet to be explored.
Richard Beecroft and Jan C. Schmidt contributed equally to
all sections of this paper.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
1.
In this way we can avoid treating education (German: Bildung) as a mere instrument for sustainability, as often happens, for example in the UN
Decade 2005-2014 "Education for Sustainable Development".
2.
Jonas, H. The Imperative of Responsibility. In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1984.
3.
Schmidt, J.C. Defending Hans Jonas' Environmental Ethics. J. Environ. Ethics 2014, in press.
4.
World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987.
5.
Norton, B. Sustainability: A Philosophy of Adaptive Ecosystem
Management; Chicago University Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2005.
6.
Kopfmuller, J.; Brandl, V.; Jorissen, J.; Paetau, M.;
Banse, G.; Coenen R.; Grunwald. A. Nachhaltige Entwicklung Integrativ Betrachtet-Konstitutive
Elemente, Regeln, Indikatoren; Edition Sigma: Berlin, Germany, 2001.
7.
Ipsen, D., Schmidt, J.C., Eds. Dynamiken der Nachhaltigkeit; Metropolis: Marburg, Germany, 2004.
8.
This very broad understanding includes many other traditions
that do not necessarily use the term, such as technology assessment.
9.
Jaeger, J.; Scheringer, M. Transdisziplinaritat.
Problemorientierung ohne Methodenzwang. GAIA 1998, 7, 10-25.
10.
Even though education requires teaching and learning, it
cannot be reduced to those elements, neither can it be described purely
idealistically as the introduction to a culture, because it also provides the
basis for the material reproduction of modern societies, for example through the
technological use of natural resources [11]. The materialist view on education
is not the only one to be found in philosophy of education, but it is one that
explicitly includes an understanding of the relationship between humans and
nature [12], which is crucial for HES.
11.
Euler, P. Technologie und Urteilskraft. Zur Neufassung des
Bildungsbegriffs; Beltz Verlag: Weinheim, Germany, 1999.
12.
Bulthaup, P. Zur gesellschaftlichen Funktion der Naturwissenschaft; Suhrkamp: Frankfurt, Germany, 1973.
13.
Klafki, W. Neue Studien zu Bildungstheorie undDidaktik, 5th ed.; Beltz: Weinheim, Germany, 1996.
14.
Brundtland, G. Report of the World Commission on Environment and
Development: Our Common Future; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987. Available online:
http://www.un-documents.net/ our-common-future.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2014).
15.
Kant, I. On Education (Uber Padagogik); translated by Churton, A.; D.C. Heath and Co.: Boston, MA,
USA, 1900. Available online: http://files.libertyfund.org/files/356/Kant_0235_EBk_v6.0.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2014).
16.
This view is in line with those of discourse theorists such
as Jurgen Habermas and Karl Otto Apel.
17.
The works of Johann Amos Comenius, an educational
philosopher in the early phase of the Enlightenment, root such ideas of
equality deeply in the notion of education itself: "omnes omnia
omnino"—teaching everything to all with respect to the whole—is the often
forgotten core of all modern concepts of "general knowledge" [18].
18.
Comenius, J.A. Grofie Didaktik. Die vollstandige Kunst, alle Menschen
alles zu lehren, 10th ed.; Flittner, A., Ed.; translated; Klett Cotta:
Stuttgart, Germany, 2007.
19.
One important and highly formalised contribution of
educational theory to the practical field is teacher training, a system with no
equivalent in sustainability sciences.
20.
The programme we are working for offers for almost all B.A.
and M.A. students at Darmstadt University of Applied Sciences about one hundred
courses per term in which sustainability is an overarching issue for the whole
programme and an explicit focus of a large number of courses. Its status as an
extensive electives programme concurs with an understanding of sustainable
development as a dynamic to which various players need to contribute. The work
of a few sustainability experts is not enough, nor is a change in everyone's
attitude; systematic transformations are required in various fields. To foster
these changes, the specialists in their respective fields need specific
competencies. Because most study programmes in DUAS are engineering courses or
otherwise technology-related, the field of sustainability sciences we emphasise
the most is technology assessment [www.suk.h-da.de] See also: [21].
21.
Sotoudeh, M. Technical Education for Sustainability. An Analysis of
Needs for the 21st Century; Peter Lang Verlag: Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 2010.
22.
A typical example is Michael Jischa's argumentation on how
to sensibilise engineering students by means of a theoretical lecture on
sustainability to prepare them for active case study courses; see [23].
23.
Jischa, M. Technikfolgenabschatzung Lehren-Wann, Warum und
Wie? In Technikfolgen abschatzen lehren. Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinarer
Methoden; Dusseldorp, M., Beecroft, R., Eds.; Springer VS:
Wiesbaden, Germany, 2012.
24.
Scholz, R.; Lang, D.; Wiek, A.; Walter, A.; Stauffacher, M.
Transdisciplinary case studies as a means of sustainability learning: Historical framework and
theory. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2006, 3, 226-251.
25.
This "methodology" is by no means a completed or
even consistent framework. Nevertheless, reflection on the appropriateness of
methods for certain issues tends to be relatively well developed in comparison
with the self-contained but unquestioned methodologies of classical disciplines.
26.
Wagenschein, M. Verstehen lehren, 5th ed.; Beltz Verlag: Weinheim, Germany, 1999; p. 75.
27.
Hirsch Hadorn, G., Hoffmann-Riem, H., Biber-Klemm, S.,
Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Joye, D., Pohl, C., Wiesmann, U., Zemp, E., Eds. Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2008.
28.
Schmidt, J.C. What is a Problem? On Problem-Oriented
Interdisciplinarity. Poiesis Prax 2011, 7, 249-274.
29.
Wagenschein, M. Verstehen Lehren, 5th ed.; Beltz Verlag: Weinheim, Germany, 1999.
30.
Gruschka, A. Didaktik. Das Kreuz mit der Vermittlung; Buchse der Pandora: Wetzlar, Germany, 2002.
31.
Kircher, E.; Girwidz, R.; HauBler, P. Physikdidaktik: Eine Einfuhrung in Theorie und Didaktik; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2001; p. 107ff
32.
Duit, R.; Komorek, M.; Wilbers, J. Studien zur Didaktischen
Rekonstruktion der Chaostheorie. Z. Didakt. Naturwissenschaften 1997, 3, 19-34.
33.
Kattmann, U.; Duit, R.; GropengieBer, H.; Komorek, M. Das
Modell der Didaktischen Rekonstruktion—Ein Rahmen fur
naturwissenschaftsdidaktische Forschung und Entwicklung. Z. Didakt. Naturwissenschaften 1997, 3, 3-18.
34.
Terhart, E. Didaktik. Eine Einfuhrung; Reclam: Stuttgart, Germany, 2009.
35.
Kircher, E.; Girwidz, R.; HauBler, P. Physikdidaktik: Eine Einfuhrung in Theorie und Didaktik; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2001; p. 107.
36.
Meadows, D.H.; Meadows, D.L.; Randers, J. The Limits to Growth; Universe Books: New York, NY, USA, 1972.
37.
Dieckhoff, Ch., Fichtner, W., Grunwald, A., Meyer, S.,
Nast, M., Nierling, L., Renn, O., VoB, A., Wietschel, M., Eds. Energieszenarien. Konstruktion, Bewertung und
Wirkung—"Anbieter" und "Nachfrager" im Dialog; KIT Scientific Publishing: Karlsruhe, Germany, 2011.
38. Steinmuller, K. Grundlagen und Methoden der Zukunftsforschung: Szenarien,
Delphi, Technikvorschau. Secretariat fur Zukunftsforschung; 21. Werkstattbericht: Gelsenkirchen, Germany, 1998.
39.
Bishop, P.; Hines, A.; Collins, T. The current state of
scenario development: An overview of techniques. Foresight 2007, 1, 5-25.
40.
Fahey, L., Randall, R., Eds. Learning from the Future. Competitive Foresight Scenarios;
John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1998.
41.
Kosow, H.; GaPner, R. Methods of Future and Scenario Analysis; DIE Studies 39: Bonn, Germany, 2008; p. 66.
42.
Beecroft, R.; Schmidt, J.C. Die Szenariomethode in der
Interdisziplinaren Technikbildung—Eine didaktische Rekonstruktion. In Technikfolgen abschatzen lehren. Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinarer Methoden; Dusseldorp, M., Beecroft, R., Eds.; Springer VS: Berlin,
Germany, 2012; pp. 141-155.
43.
Liebert, W.; Schmidt, J.C. Zukunftswissen und
Technikfolgenabschatzung. Die Rolle von Szenariomethoden zu einer fruhzeitigen Technikgestaltung.
In Der Systemblick auf Innovation. Technikfolgenabschatzung in der Technikgestaltung; Decker, M., Grunwald, A., Knapp, M., Eds.; Edition Sigma:
Berlin, Germany, 2012; pp. 127-139.
44.
Grunwald, A. Technikfolgenabschatzung—Eine Einfuhrung; Edition Sigma: Berlin, Germany, 2002; p. 224.
45.
Steinmuller, K.-H. Szenarien in der
Technikfolgenabschatzung. In Handbuch Technikfolgenabschatzung; Brochler, S., Simonis, G., Sundermann, K., Eds.; Edition
Sigma: Berlin, Germany, 1999; Volume 3.
46.
Gausemeier, J.; Fink, A.; Schlake, O. Szenario-Management. Planen undFuhren mit Szenarien; Verlag Carl Hanser: Munchen, Germany, 1996.
47.
International Energy Agency. World Energy Outlook to the Year 2010; International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 1993.
48.
De Jouvenel, H. Sur la methode prospective: un bref guide methodologique. Futuribles 1993, 179, 51-71.
49.
International Energy Agency. Energy Technology Perspectives; Scenarios & Strategies to 2050: Paris, France, 2008.
50. Dorner, D. Die Logik des Misslingens. Strategisches Denken in
komplexen Situationen; Rowohlt: Reinbek, Germany, 1992.
51.
Steinmuller, A.; Steinmuller, K. Ungezahmte Zukunft: Wild Cards und die Grenzen der Berechenbarkeit; Gerling Akademie Verlag: Munchen, Germany, 2003.
52. LTI-Research Group, Ed. Long-Term Integration of Renewable Energy Sources into the
European Energy Systems; Physika Verlag: Heidelberg, Germany, 1998.
53. Kahn, H.; Wiener, A.J. The Year 2000—A Framework for Speculation on the Next
Thirty-Three Years; Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 1967.
54.
Grunwald, A. Wovon ist die Zukunftsforschung eine
Wissenschaft? In Zukunftsforschung und Zukunftsgestaltung; Popp, E., Schull, R., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany,
2009; pp. 25-36.
55.
Meyer, R. Szenario-Workshops: Partizipation als
Hochschullehre. In Technikfolgen abschatzen lehren. Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinarer Methoden; Dusseldorp, M., Beecroft, R., Eds.; Springer VS: Berlin,
Germany, 2012; pp. 257-276.
56.
Alexander, D. Scenario methodology for teaching principles
of emergency management. Disaster Prev. Manag. 2000, 9, 89-97.
57.
Muhar, A.; Vilsmaier, U.; Glanzer, M.; Freyer, B.
Initiating transdisciplinarity in academic case study teaching. Experiences from a regional development
project in Salzburg, Austria. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2006, 7, 293-308.
58.
Masters, C.; O'Toole Baker, V.; Jodon, H.
Multidisciplinary, team-based learning: The Simulated Interdisciplinary to Multidisciplinary Progressive-Level
Education (SIMPLE) approach. Clin. Simul. Nurs. 2013, 9, e171-e178.
59.
Frantz, P. A scenario-based approach to credit course
instruction. Ref. Serv. Rev. 2002, 30, 37-42.
60.
Tiberius, V. Hochschuldidaktik der Zukunftsforschung; VS Research: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2011.
61.
A less intense, more preparatory form would be the use of
exercises. A form with a stronger focus on real projects would actually
contribute to sustainability science, for example, by formulating pre-studies,
evaluating real projects—but always addressing sustainability scientists rather
than other stakeholders, since they are the people who are mainly interested in
the methodological issues arising from their projects.
62.
Gottschick, M.; Schafers H. Partizipative Modellierung—Wie
lehrt man einen Paradigmenwechsel? In Technikfolgen Abschatzen Lehren. Bildungspotenziale
transdisziplinarer Methoden; Dusseldorp, M., Beecroft, R., Eds.; Springer VS: Berlin,
Germany, 2012; pp. 141-155.
© 2014 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel,
Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms
and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar