2018). Lastly, if universities each saw the other as
a SSL, this would entail a highly cooperative (vs.
competitive) relationship between universities. Universities would see themselves as sharing a common
planetary fate and the need to preserve the unique
knowledges held by each university particularly as it
relates to the sustainability of their respective regions.
The politics of individuals
Scoones (2015) notes that in livelihood analysis one
needs to also focus on “actor-oriented approaches”
focused on “human agency, identity and choice,”
approaches that drill down “to what individuals
think, feel and do”—their “behaviour, emotion, and
responses” and the intensely personal dimensions of
who we are (p. 111). These are tied, for example, to
the “the politics of the body, gender and sexuality”
(ibid., p. 112). If we are to incorporate and advance
this dimension of the SLA in forming new SSLs, we
need to understand the relevance of these features to
university scholarly production processes. At one level
universities are ideal as these personal dimensions are
the object of study of multiple academic disciplines
(including entirely new disciplines). Universities also
have the qualitative and grounded theoretical methodologies (among others) that can generate this knowledge. What would be the contribution to a SSL? In
this case universities would care not only about institutional and organizational features tied to scholars
in general (and perhaps replicable across universities)
as set out in The Politics of Interests (see above).
Rather a SSL approach would include concerns of
the particular scholars making up a given university
campus and how their scholarly livelihoods could be
made more sustainable through this study. This would
enable a profound self-understanding of scholars that
connect these dimensions of self to the areas of traditional livelihood analysis, namely understandings
of hazards and risk, assets, institutional and organizational barriers and opportunities, viable livelihood
strategies, and desired livelihood outcomes. It is the
latter which would be most affected as many outcomes
tied to dimensions of well-being are very personalized, tied to a particular individual’s subjectivities,
self-understandings, and context, and not generalizable. Robust livelihood fulfillment in general, much
less the fulfillment of a scholar’s livelihood would
seem almost impossible in the absence of this concern
with individuals. Universities as “whole-institutions”
seeking to see themselves as their own SSL would
require this self-understanding of the particular scholars making up the university and need to put in place
supportive institutions and appropriate changes to their
own governance models.
The politics of knowledge
Scoones (2015) notes that in livelihood analysis
“whose knowledge counts?” (p. 112) is a key question
along with the question raised by Robert Chambers
(1997) of “whose reality counts?” Both of these questions for Scoones have shaped policy debates about
“[w]hich versions of whose livelihood is seen as valid
and which is seen as deviant and in need of change”
(2015, p. 112). At its root this is a normative debate
about “what makes a good livelihood?” (ibid.). In
terms of this debate, universities are well equipped
to the extent, again, there are entire disciplines dedicated to these questions. In particular, philosophy
explores the underpinnings of all three questions in the
sub-fields of epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics.
These scholarly resources could be readily mobilized to address these questions. To the extent these
debates are often tied to marginalized peoples whose
livelihoods have historically been undervalued due
to, for example, colonialism and racism, again universities have the scholarly resources to critique and
re-evaluate earlier erroneous judgments by listening
to these “unheard voices” and offering new and multiple forms of assessment—something also of concern
for Scoones (p. 113–14). These new, more wholistic
forms of livelihood assessment would be especially
beneficial at this time in assessing scholarly livelihoods, particularly where scholarly output is measured
by a narrow assessment of publications in specific
formats (journals and books) without consideration
of its broader impact on how these transform the
university or the wider society for sustainable development. Importantly, universities have the opportunity
in shaping SSLs to validate multiple knowledges,
especially those of Indigenous peoples, through recognizing these as contributing important methodologies
and discoveries to the scholarly community. These
knowledges can provide important insight into more
sustainable livelihood strategies pursued both on and
off campuses. A SSL identity on campuses can also
serve to protect a diversity of ways scholars choose to
question, pursue methods to answer these questions,
and apply and disseminate knowledge, especially in
ways that are optimal for long-term sustainable development. This, then, directly challenges external efforts
to direct university research through primarily STEM
disciplines for knowledge privatization and product
commercialization. Commercialization efforts of university knowledge aimed at sustainable development,
particularly that which generates sustainable livelihoods, have been shown to be especially problematic
in particular university settings (see Petry 2008).
The politics of ecology
Scoones (2015) begins by emphasizing rapid environmental change impacting livelihoods and the recursive
relationship between ecology and politics, with each
shaping the other (p. 114). Livelihoods need to be able
to rapidly change to respond to ecological shifts (ibid.).
The ethics of sustainable livelihoods also presupposes
that resulting livelihood burdens and opportunities are
maintained “in an equitable and socially just way”
including between globally interconnected regions
(ibid.). Again, universities are at a distinct advantage at
addressing these multiple concerns. Universities have
departments of biology and environmental studies,
specialized scholars in the area of political ecology
and environmental ethics, and are traditionally one
34
a SSL, this would entail a highly cooperative (vs.
competitive) relationship between universities. Universities would see themselves as sharing a common
planetary fate and the need to preserve the unique
knowledges held by each university particularly as it
relates to the sustainability of their respective regions.
The politics of individuals
Scoones (2015) notes that in livelihood analysis one
needs to also focus on “actor-oriented approaches”
focused on “human agency, identity and choice,”
approaches that drill down “to what individuals
think, feel and do”—their “behaviour, emotion, and
responses” and the intensely personal dimensions of
who we are (p. 111). These are tied, for example, to
the “the politics of the body, gender and sexuality”
(ibid., p. 112). If we are to incorporate and advance
this dimension of the SLA in forming new SSLs, we
need to understand the relevance of these features to
university scholarly production processes. At one level
universities are ideal as these personal dimensions are
the object of study of multiple academic disciplines
(including entirely new disciplines). Universities also
have the qualitative and grounded theoretical methodologies (among others) that can generate this knowledge. What would be the contribution to a SSL? In
this case universities would care not only about institutional and organizational features tied to scholars
in general (and perhaps replicable across universities)
as set out in The Politics of Interests (see above).
Rather a SSL approach would include concerns of
the particular scholars making up a given university
campus and how their scholarly livelihoods could be
made more sustainable through this study. This would
enable a profound self-understanding of scholars that
connect these dimensions of self to the areas of traditional livelihood analysis, namely understandings
of hazards and risk, assets, institutional and organizational barriers and opportunities, viable livelihood
strategies, and desired livelihood outcomes. It is the
latter which would be most affected as many outcomes
tied to dimensions of well-being are very personalized, tied to a particular individual’s subjectivities,
self-understandings, and context, and not generalizable. Robust livelihood fulfillment in general, much
less the fulfillment of a scholar’s livelihood would
seem almost impossible in the absence of this concern
with individuals. Universities as “whole-institutions”
seeking to see themselves as their own SSL would
require this self-understanding of the particular scholars making up the university and need to put in place
supportive institutions and appropriate changes to their
own governance models.
The politics of knowledge
Scoones (2015) notes that in livelihood analysis
“whose knowledge counts?” (p. 112) is a key question
along with the question raised by Robert Chambers
(1997) of “whose reality counts?” Both of these questions for Scoones have shaped policy debates about
“[w]hich versions of whose livelihood is seen as valid
and which is seen as deviant and in need of change”
(2015, p. 112). At its root this is a normative debate
about “what makes a good livelihood?” (ibid.). In
terms of this debate, universities are well equipped
to the extent, again, there are entire disciplines dedicated to these questions. In particular, philosophy
explores the underpinnings of all three questions in the
sub-fields of epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics.
These scholarly resources could be readily mobilized to address these questions. To the extent these
debates are often tied to marginalized peoples whose
livelihoods have historically been undervalued due
to, for example, colonialism and racism, again universities have the scholarly resources to critique and
re-evaluate earlier erroneous judgments by listening
to these “unheard voices” and offering new and multiple forms of assessment—something also of concern
for Scoones (p. 113–14). These new, more wholistic
forms of livelihood assessment would be especially
beneficial at this time in assessing scholarly livelihoods, particularly where scholarly output is measured
by a narrow assessment of publications in specific
formats (journals and books) without consideration
of its broader impact on how these transform the
university or the wider society for sustainable development. Importantly, universities have the opportunity
in shaping SSLs to validate multiple knowledges,
especially those of Indigenous peoples, through recognizing these as contributing important methodologies
and discoveries to the scholarly community. These
knowledges can provide important insight into more
sustainable livelihood strategies pursued both on and
off campuses. A SSL identity on campuses can also
serve to protect a diversity of ways scholars choose to
question, pursue methods to answer these questions,
and apply and disseminate knowledge, especially in
ways that are optimal for long-term sustainable development. This, then, directly challenges external efforts
to direct university research through primarily STEM
disciplines for knowledge privatization and product
commercialization. Commercialization efforts of university knowledge aimed at sustainable development,
particularly that which generates sustainable livelihoods, have been shown to be especially problematic
in particular university settings (see Petry 2008).
The politics of ecology
Scoones (2015) begins by emphasizing rapid environmental change impacting livelihoods and the recursive
relationship between ecology and politics, with each
shaping the other (p. 114). Livelihoods need to be able
to rapidly change to respond to ecological shifts (ibid.).
The ethics of sustainable livelihoods also presupposes
that resulting livelihood burdens and opportunities are
maintained “in an equitable and socially just way”
including between globally interconnected regions
(ibid.). Again, universities are at a distinct advantage at
addressing these multiple concerns. Universities have
departments of biology and environmental studies,
specialized scholars in the area of political ecology
and environmental ethics, and are traditionally one
34