modeling ideas of free citizenship within democracies, have been inadequate to resist corporatization and
the growth in centralized administrations (particularly
entrenched with centralized organizational responses
to the COVID-19 crisis). Some new scholarly identity needs to reconcile older scholarly institutions
while taking seriously the market forces shaping the
corporate university and the social, economic, and
ecological imperatives of sustainability. A relatively
new identity (from a historic perspective), that of
“sustainable livelihoods” (SL), has emerged since the
early 1990s (Scoones 2015, p. 5–9). The “sustainable livelihoods approach” (SLA) has been applied
to development principally in the non-university context of international development (such as rural areas
in developing countries; ibid., p. 11–13). It will be
argued that SLs as an identity within the academy
would allow universities to embrace their traditions
of academic freedom and collegial governance while
addressing in a robust way their embeddedness in
market norms and corporate institutional frameworks.
Case studies will be used to illustrate how a new
identity of “sustainable scholarly livelihoods” (SSLs)
can create the individual and organizational assets
and capabilities needed by scholars to directly engage
the more promising avenues of research, teaching,
and service to achieve the sustainable development
goals.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW AND
TERMINOLOGY
As a starting point there are two general research questions that this paper seeks to explore: can a Sustainable
Livelihoods Approach (SLA) be used in the context
of the corporatized university to alter its institutional
arrangements and “production and consumption” of
scholarly materials to strengthen the traditional scholarly identity (tied to individual academic freedom
and collegial university governance) through a new
identity of Sustainable Scholarly Livelihoods (SSLs)?
Secondly, how might a university be restructured to
advance this shared identity to enable innovation for
responsible (sustainable) consumption and production
within and outside the university context? A review of
the scholarly literature combining the concept of “sustainable livelihoods” with “university governance”
and/or “scholarly identity” indicates that the sustainable livelihoods approach has not been employed as a
conceptual tool in framing debates in either of these
other two areas. This is despite extensive and ongoing publications related to each separately. As will be
discussed later, Petry, a co-author of this paper, proposed the merits of such an analysis in the conclusions
of a paper in 2018. This paper seeks to advance this
current gap in scholarship.
Prior to elaborating on the concept of SLs, it is
important to recognize how the terms “institution” and
“organization” are being employed. Douglas North
(1990) argued that institutions should be understood
as “the rules of the game” with organizations as “the
players.” More generally, this paper follows new institutionalism theory that sees institutions as “sets of
rules, decision-making procedures, and programs that
define social practices, assign roles to the participants
in these practices, and guide interactions among the
occupants of individual roles” (Young 2002, p. 5).
These institutions or rules are those that are actually
practiced (vs. codified rules in documents that are not
actually followed). Universities themselves are understood as organizations, namely, “material entities with
employees, offices, equipment, budgets, and (often)
legal personality” (ibid.). New institutionalism has its
own evolution as a disciplinary study with shifting
emphases on institutions as a means of understanding organizational efficacy in achieving wider social
goals, to examinations of institutions in their own right,
to a return in focus on the organization as the key
concern and level of analysis (Greenwood, Hinings, &
Whetten 2014, p. 1207–1211).
This paper chooses not to take sides in this theoretical debate in light of the research questions posed. To
the extent we are concerned with responsible (or sustainable) consumption and production, institutions as
rules are constitutive of and shape the actual scholarly
productive practices within universities. This focus on
institutions shaping complex and interrelated systems
of rules is implicit in UNESCO’s (2014) definition
of whole-institution approaches: “Whole-institution
approaches encompass mainstreaming sustainability
into all aspects of the learning environment. This
includes embedding sustainability in curriculum and
learning processes, facilities and operations, interaction with the surrounding community, governance and
capacity-building” (p. 30). On the other hand, the merits of mobilizing the actual resources of the university
as organizational wholes by linking its organizational
structures or functional units to advance SDG 12 (and
the 17 UN SDGs more generally) demands, simultaneously, an organizational focus. McMillan and
Dyball (2009) discuss the importance of a “whole-ofuniversity approach” to sustainability that “explicitly
links the research, educational and operational activities” of the university, “engag[ing] students in each,
rather than confining their education solely to the
classroom” (p. 56). Both an institutional and organizational focus are also key elements of a SLA (and
as will be seen, a Sustainable Scholarly Livelihood
Approach (SSLA)). For example, institutions shape
the livelihood strategies one might pursue (including
one’s access and claims to resources and how they
can be used) while organizations (through their collective actions and allocation of resources) can act
as both barriers to livelihoods or can create mutually
reinforcing livelihood strategies. Sustainable livelihood frameworks, such as that of Scoones, commonly
have “institutions and organizations” as part of their
modeling given how these influence “access to livelihood resources and composition of livelihood strategy
portfolio” (2015, p. 36, Figure 3.1).
30
the growth in centralized administrations (particularly
entrenched with centralized organizational responses
to the COVID-19 crisis). Some new scholarly identity needs to reconcile older scholarly institutions
while taking seriously the market forces shaping the
corporate university and the social, economic, and
ecological imperatives of sustainability. A relatively
new identity (from a historic perspective), that of
“sustainable livelihoods” (SL), has emerged since the
early 1990s (Scoones 2015, p. 5–9). The “sustainable livelihoods approach” (SLA) has been applied
to development principally in the non-university context of international development (such as rural areas
in developing countries; ibid., p. 11–13). It will be
argued that SLs as an identity within the academy
would allow universities to embrace their traditions
of academic freedom and collegial governance while
addressing in a robust way their embeddedness in
market norms and corporate institutional frameworks.
Case studies will be used to illustrate how a new
identity of “sustainable scholarly livelihoods” (SSLs)
can create the individual and organizational assets
and capabilities needed by scholars to directly engage
the more promising avenues of research, teaching,
and service to achieve the sustainable development
goals.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW AND
TERMINOLOGY
As a starting point there are two general research questions that this paper seeks to explore: can a Sustainable
Livelihoods Approach (SLA) be used in the context
of the corporatized university to alter its institutional
arrangements and “production and consumption” of
scholarly materials to strengthen the traditional scholarly identity (tied to individual academic freedom
and collegial university governance) through a new
identity of Sustainable Scholarly Livelihoods (SSLs)?
Secondly, how might a university be restructured to
advance this shared identity to enable innovation for
responsible (sustainable) consumption and production
within and outside the university context? A review of
the scholarly literature combining the concept of “sustainable livelihoods” with “university governance”
and/or “scholarly identity” indicates that the sustainable livelihoods approach has not been employed as a
conceptual tool in framing debates in either of these
other two areas. This is despite extensive and ongoing publications related to each separately. As will be
discussed later, Petry, a co-author of this paper, proposed the merits of such an analysis in the conclusions
of a paper in 2018. This paper seeks to advance this
current gap in scholarship.
Prior to elaborating on the concept of SLs, it is
important to recognize how the terms “institution” and
“organization” are being employed. Douglas North
(1990) argued that institutions should be understood
as “the rules of the game” with organizations as “the
players.” More generally, this paper follows new institutionalism theory that sees institutions as “sets of
rules, decision-making procedures, and programs that
define social practices, assign roles to the participants
in these practices, and guide interactions among the
occupants of individual roles” (Young 2002, p. 5).
These institutions or rules are those that are actually
practiced (vs. codified rules in documents that are not
actually followed). Universities themselves are understood as organizations, namely, “material entities with
employees, offices, equipment, budgets, and (often)
legal personality” (ibid.). New institutionalism has its
own evolution as a disciplinary study with shifting
emphases on institutions as a means of understanding organizational efficacy in achieving wider social
goals, to examinations of institutions in their own right,
to a return in focus on the organization as the key
concern and level of analysis (Greenwood, Hinings, &
Whetten 2014, p. 1207–1211).
This paper chooses not to take sides in this theoretical debate in light of the research questions posed. To
the extent we are concerned with responsible (or sustainable) consumption and production, institutions as
rules are constitutive of and shape the actual scholarly
productive practices within universities. This focus on
institutions shaping complex and interrelated systems
of rules is implicit in UNESCO’s (2014) definition
of whole-institution approaches: “Whole-institution
approaches encompass mainstreaming sustainability
into all aspects of the learning environment. This
includes embedding sustainability in curriculum and
learning processes, facilities and operations, interaction with the surrounding community, governance and
capacity-building” (p. 30). On the other hand, the merits of mobilizing the actual resources of the university
as organizational wholes by linking its organizational
structures or functional units to advance SDG 12 (and
the 17 UN SDGs more generally) demands, simultaneously, an organizational focus. McMillan and
Dyball (2009) discuss the importance of a “whole-ofuniversity approach” to sustainability that “explicitly
links the research, educational and operational activities” of the university, “engag[ing] students in each,
rather than confining their education solely to the
classroom” (p. 56). Both an institutional and organizational focus are also key elements of a SLA (and
as will be seen, a Sustainable Scholarly Livelihood
Approach (SSLA)). For example, institutions shape
the livelihood strategies one might pursue (including
one’s access and claims to resources and how they
can be used) while organizations (through their collective actions and allocation of resources) can act
as both barriers to livelihoods or can create mutually
reinforcing livelihood strategies. Sustainable livelihood frameworks, such as that of Scoones, commonly
have “institutions and organizations” as part of their
modeling given how these influence “access to livelihood resources and composition of livelihood strategy
portfolio” (2015, p. 36, Figure 3.1).
30