590
E. Staniškien˙ e and Ž. Stankeviˇ ci¯ ut˙ e
1 Introduction
Sustainable development (SD) is globally accepted as a concept to guide the decisions
of various stakeholders coping with challenges such as lack of resources, climate
change, loss of biodiversity, social inequity or poverty (Disterheft et al. 2013). SD
calls for a paradigm change where education plays a key role (UNESCO 2009) and
higher education institutions (HEIs) are supposed to take responsibility in promoting
the SD principles (Lozano et al. 2015). HEIs can contribute meaningfully to the
transition towards a sustainable society due to their dual role (Stough et al. 2018).
Firstly, universities produce new knowledge, disseminate it and are expected to be
thought leaders (De Lange 2013). Secondly, universities prepare students for their
future role in daily life (Cortese 2003).
Universities can justify their role as the major agents of social change (Elton 2003;
Cortese 2003) only if they respond to the SD imperatives in a systematic and serious
manner. Therefore, in the last decade, a huge number of HEIs have been engaged in
incorporating SD in all five elements of the university system: curricula, research,
operations, outreach, and assessment and reporting (Lozano 2010). The level of SD
integration in HEIs ranges from just “add-ons” to existing practices to fundamental
transformations (Lozano et al. 2013a). However, in general universities have a very
low-success rate in translating the SD promises into reality (Bekessy et al. 2007). The
failure to achieve much progress also applies to the fields of learning and training of
future professionals and integrating sustainability into the students’ curricula.
Under the influence of social constructivism theory, HEIs adopted a competencybased approach (Van der Bergh et al. 2006; Stough et al. 2018)—a type of education
that focuses on a clear definition of competencies, which are needed for future leaders.
Within the context of higher education, different clusters of competencies for SD were
defined (De Haan 2006; Roorda 2010; Sleurs 2008; Wiek et al. 2015; UNESCO
2017) offering a set of skills, knowledge, values and attitudes necessary to improve
the sustainability literacy and deal with the economic, environmental, social and
cultural issues (Lambrechts et al. 2010). The integration of these competencies in
study programmes relies on the study programmes leaders. However, the difference
between the intentions of these leaders and their actual behaviour concerning the
inclusion of competencies for SD can be noticed. To explain this, the paper builds
on the conceptual framework of Argyris (1999) introducing espoused theory versus
theory-in-use. Espoused theory represents the way the people intend to act in a given
situation and the rationale behind the intentions; theory-in-use reflects the way people
actually behave. The next issue under consideration refers to the distinction between
the wording and meaning of the same competency. It is important to establish the
degree of coincidence between the competency wording from documents and the
meaning of the same competency given by heads of study programmes.
Despite the numerous efforts to reveal how the sustainability is linked to the students’ curricula, there is still little knowledge about the current stage of the integration
of competencies for SD in different study programmes (Lozano 2010; Lambrechts
et al. 2013). Moreover, current research provides the evidence from well-known
E. Staniškien˙ e and Ž. Stankeviˇ ci¯ ut˙ e
1 Introduction
Sustainable development (SD) is globally accepted as a concept to guide the decisions
of various stakeholders coping with challenges such as lack of resources, climate
change, loss of biodiversity, social inequity or poverty (Disterheft et al. 2013). SD
calls for a paradigm change where education plays a key role (UNESCO 2009) and
higher education institutions (HEIs) are supposed to take responsibility in promoting
the SD principles (Lozano et al. 2015). HEIs can contribute meaningfully to the
transition towards a sustainable society due to their dual role (Stough et al. 2018).
Firstly, universities produce new knowledge, disseminate it and are expected to be
thought leaders (De Lange 2013). Secondly, universities prepare students for their
future role in daily life (Cortese 2003).
Universities can justify their role as the major agents of social change (Elton 2003;
Cortese 2003) only if they respond to the SD imperatives in a systematic and serious
manner. Therefore, in the last decade, a huge number of HEIs have been engaged in
incorporating SD in all five elements of the university system: curricula, research,
operations, outreach, and assessment and reporting (Lozano 2010). The level of SD
integration in HEIs ranges from just “add-ons” to existing practices to fundamental
transformations (Lozano et al. 2013a). However, in general universities have a very
low-success rate in translating the SD promises into reality (Bekessy et al. 2007). The
failure to achieve much progress also applies to the fields of learning and training of
future professionals and integrating sustainability into the students’ curricula.
Under the influence of social constructivism theory, HEIs adopted a competencybased approach (Van der Bergh et al. 2006; Stough et al. 2018)—a type of education
that focuses on a clear definition of competencies, which are needed for future leaders.
Within the context of higher education, different clusters of competencies for SD were
defined (De Haan 2006; Roorda 2010; Sleurs 2008; Wiek et al. 2015; UNESCO
2017) offering a set of skills, knowledge, values and attitudes necessary to improve
the sustainability literacy and deal with the economic, environmental, social and
cultural issues (Lambrechts et al. 2010). The integration of these competencies in
study programmes relies on the study programmes leaders. However, the difference
between the intentions of these leaders and their actual behaviour concerning the
inclusion of competencies for SD can be noticed. To explain this, the paper builds
on the conceptual framework of Argyris (1999) introducing espoused theory versus
theory-in-use. Espoused theory represents the way the people intend to act in a given
situation and the rationale behind the intentions; theory-in-use reflects the way people
actually behave. The next issue under consideration refers to the distinction between
the wording and meaning of the same competency. It is important to establish the
degree of coincidence between the competency wording from documents and the
meaning of the same competency given by heads of study programmes.
Despite the numerous efforts to reveal how the sustainability is linked to the students’ curricula, there is still little knowledge about the current stage of the integration
of competencies for SD in different study programmes (Lozano 2010; Lambrechts
et al. 2013). Moreover, current research provides the evidence from well-known