3 METHODOLOGY
In seeking to advance a whole-institution and wholeuniversity approach to advancing the SDGs in universities this paper chooses to employ the concept of SLs.
This choice needs to be defended in light of the range
of options one might choose as proposed “drivers of
the integrative process” (terminology used by McMillan & Dyball 2009, p. 58) needed for these wholistic
approaches. Other drivers could include, for example, the implementation of high-level organizational
policies for sustainable development putting in place
specific institutional rules (say, around sustainable
procurement) or the creation of new organizational
structures, such as staffing a campus sustainability
office. In an earlier publication, Petry (2018) a coauthor of this paper, raised a number of skeptical
questions about the necessity and adequacy of campus
sustainability policies and organizational resourcing
of dedicated sustainability offices through centralized
administrations. While these arguments will not be
reintroduced here they point to the need for further,
alternative drivers of integration. In his concluding
remarks Petry introduced the potential of a SLA as
a lens for critiquing and reforming specific university
policies, especially in response to university corporatization (ibid., p. 9–11). However, this, effectively,
was still seeing the needed intervention at purely a
policy governance level. This paper seeks to illustrate how a SLA can transform universities at a much
deeper, more profound level when employed as part
of a values framework that seeks to shift the entire
culture of modern universities, adjusting scholarly
institutions and organizational activities and resourcing to support the ethical concerns implicit within
a SLA.
To intervene at this cultural level within a particular kind of organization (in this case universities),
we need to understand what is captured by the concept of culture more generally. Sutter (2016) citing
Worts (2006, 2011), defines culture as “a pervasive
and evolving suite of values, beliefs, attitudes and
behaviours” (p.3). Sutter then draws upon the work
of Dyball and Newell (2015) to talk about the importance of culture in advancing sustainability: “culture
can provide an effective perspective for sustainability work, because it is rooted in the values that
drive our individual and collective behaviours, and
it responds and contributes to the complex systems
that govern so much of our increasingly globalized
world” (ibid.). This, in turn, necessitates “events and
opportunities that encourage cultural reflection...at
both individual and collective levels if humanity is
to remain in sync with the changing world” (ibid.).
It will be argued and illustrated through two avenues
that a SLA provides an appropriate set of questions
needed for the cultural reflection and organizational
and institutional transformation within universities to
advance sustainable development at this time. SLs as
a new sharable identity for scholars also provides an
important means to preserve the important cultural
heritage tied to traditional scholarship, including its
non-formal, intangible dimensions.
If there is a central contribution of SLs to enriching the culture of universities it is at the level of
values, particularly those that are foundational and
shared across the academy that inform a shared scholarly identity. For example, the earliest universities
embraced the methods of argument of the ancient
philosophical academies with the expectation that
beliefs would be formulated, supported by, and evaluated against rational standards. Scholars also value
reproducible and rigorous scholarly methods (such as
the scientific method) that are the basis for accepting new disciplines into the university. To these might
be added the value of the skepticism scholars apply
when studying and interpreting written texts (something championed by the early humanist scholars).
Scholars also share ethical values implicit in the ethical
criteria employed when approving research, especially
research involving humans and other living organisms. With the advent of the corporate university,
core values around academic freedom, investigatordriven pursuit of knowledge, and collective resourcing
towards answering “the best questions” (as determined through processes of collegial governance) have
received considerable attention, in part, due to their
erosion.
What particular value, then, might SLs contribute to
the scholarly identity in response to the corporatization
of the university, the dominance of market organizations in the global economy, and the call of SDG 12 to
advance more responsible and sustainable patterns of
consumption and production? For those not familiar
with the academic literature around livelihood analysis (including the components of a livelihood) and the
normative values implicit in sustainable livelihoods
it is worth noting briefly that livelihoods capture the
diverse ways one makes a living (for a good overview
see Scoones 2015). While government policy makers frequently focus on formal employment generation
as the primary end of public policy (and a key way
we are to make a living), livelihoods themselves are
more than a job and potentially involve a diverse set
of market and non-market strategies. A diverse set
of market roles are also incorporated into the typical analysis of individual livelihoods. Here one acts as
an owner and investor in one’s own assets (including
one’s human capital), as a board of directors setting the livelihood outcomes one chooses to pursue,
as a manager of one’s resources or assets (including one’s own labor) in advancing livelihood strategies
to achieve these outcomes and mitigate risks, and as
an autonomous corporate entity that contends with
other livelihoods and organizations, while concerning
itself with the total stocks of natural, human, social,
physical, and financial capital upon which one’s own
livelihood strategies depend. A sustainable livelihood
generalizes (or universalizes) one’s concerns for one’s
own livelihood improvement to include those of others
(especially the most marginalized and future generations), thereby establishing ethical boundaries and
31
In seeking to advance a whole-institution and wholeuniversity approach to advancing the SDGs in universities this paper chooses to employ the concept of SLs.
This choice needs to be defended in light of the range
of options one might choose as proposed “drivers of
the integrative process” (terminology used by McMillan & Dyball 2009, p. 58) needed for these wholistic
approaches. Other drivers could include, for example, the implementation of high-level organizational
policies for sustainable development putting in place
specific institutional rules (say, around sustainable
procurement) or the creation of new organizational
structures, such as staffing a campus sustainability
office. In an earlier publication, Petry (2018) a coauthor of this paper, raised a number of skeptical
questions about the necessity and adequacy of campus
sustainability policies and organizational resourcing
of dedicated sustainability offices through centralized
administrations. While these arguments will not be
reintroduced here they point to the need for further,
alternative drivers of integration. In his concluding
remarks Petry introduced the potential of a SLA as
a lens for critiquing and reforming specific university
policies, especially in response to university corporatization (ibid., p. 9–11). However, this, effectively,
was still seeing the needed intervention at purely a
policy governance level. This paper seeks to illustrate how a SLA can transform universities at a much
deeper, more profound level when employed as part
of a values framework that seeks to shift the entire
culture of modern universities, adjusting scholarly
institutions and organizational activities and resourcing to support the ethical concerns implicit within
a SLA.
To intervene at this cultural level within a particular kind of organization (in this case universities),
we need to understand what is captured by the concept of culture more generally. Sutter (2016) citing
Worts (2006, 2011), defines culture as “a pervasive
and evolving suite of values, beliefs, attitudes and
behaviours” (p.3). Sutter then draws upon the work
of Dyball and Newell (2015) to talk about the importance of culture in advancing sustainability: “culture
can provide an effective perspective for sustainability work, because it is rooted in the values that
drive our individual and collective behaviours, and
it responds and contributes to the complex systems
that govern so much of our increasingly globalized
world” (ibid.). This, in turn, necessitates “events and
opportunities that encourage cultural reflection...at
both individual and collective levels if humanity is
to remain in sync with the changing world” (ibid.).
It will be argued and illustrated through two avenues
that a SLA provides an appropriate set of questions
needed for the cultural reflection and organizational
and institutional transformation within universities to
advance sustainable development at this time. SLs as
a new sharable identity for scholars also provides an
important means to preserve the important cultural
heritage tied to traditional scholarship, including its
non-formal, intangible dimensions.
If there is a central contribution of SLs to enriching the culture of universities it is at the level of
values, particularly those that are foundational and
shared across the academy that inform a shared scholarly identity. For example, the earliest universities
embraced the methods of argument of the ancient
philosophical academies with the expectation that
beliefs would be formulated, supported by, and evaluated against rational standards. Scholars also value
reproducible and rigorous scholarly methods (such as
the scientific method) that are the basis for accepting new disciplines into the university. To these might
be added the value of the skepticism scholars apply
when studying and interpreting written texts (something championed by the early humanist scholars).
Scholars also share ethical values implicit in the ethical
criteria employed when approving research, especially
research involving humans and other living organisms. With the advent of the corporate university,
core values around academic freedom, investigatordriven pursuit of knowledge, and collective resourcing
towards answering “the best questions” (as determined through processes of collegial governance) have
received considerable attention, in part, due to their
erosion.
What particular value, then, might SLs contribute to
the scholarly identity in response to the corporatization
of the university, the dominance of market organizations in the global economy, and the call of SDG 12 to
advance more responsible and sustainable patterns of
consumption and production? For those not familiar
with the academic literature around livelihood analysis (including the components of a livelihood) and the
normative values implicit in sustainable livelihoods
it is worth noting briefly that livelihoods capture the
diverse ways one makes a living (for a good overview
see Scoones 2015). While government policy makers frequently focus on formal employment generation
as the primary end of public policy (and a key way
we are to make a living), livelihoods themselves are
more than a job and potentially involve a diverse set
of market and non-market strategies. A diverse set
of market roles are also incorporated into the typical analysis of individual livelihoods. Here one acts as
an owner and investor in one’s own assets (including
one’s human capital), as a board of directors setting the livelihood outcomes one chooses to pursue,
as a manager of one’s resources or assets (including one’s own labor) in advancing livelihood strategies
to achieve these outcomes and mitigate risks, and as
an autonomous corporate entity that contends with
other livelihoods and organizations, while concerning
itself with the total stocks of natural, human, social,
physical, and financial capital upon which one’s own
livelihood strategies depend. A sustainable livelihood
generalizes (or universalizes) one’s concerns for one’s
own livelihood improvement to include those of others
(especially the most marginalized and future generations), thereby establishing ethical boundaries and
31