644
B. Giesenbauer and M. Tegeler
dents. This kind of worldview is not open to crosscutting topics such as sustainable
development (except in very concrete forms such as the protection of rare plants and
animals) and rather protects the division of disciplines (ibid.).
Although most HEIs to this date are not pure traditionalist, their basic structure
is usually still shaped by traditional thinking. The more they gravitate around the
traditional worldview the less they are open to impulses from the outside, resulting
in few initiatives for SD that go beyond the bare minimum of compliance with
environmental or minority protecting regulations.
3.2 Modern HEI 2.0: Top Notch Science in Specialized Fields
Current academia is mostly shaped by the modern worldview with its focus on quantitative success, professional specialization and competition. This kind of worldview
leads to an academic merit system based on numbers such as frequency of publications, journals’ impact factor and level, acquired research grants or number of
students, to name a few. Each HEI and each participant of the scientific community
thus compete for attention, grants and status (Müller-Christ 2017). Researchers have
to distinguish themselves by both quality, quantity and specialization of publications, as defined by their narrow disciplinary niche. This means that crosscutting
topics such as SD are often disregarded—not so much due to their content but due
to their limited ability to promote careers.
Furthermore, in the field of campus management, the modern worldview of HEI
2.0 leads to optimized and numbers-driven administration, with clear and at the
same time changeable processes. Sustainability is generally not a part of HEI 2.0’s
reasoning, with the exception of “greening the campus” and eco-efficiency regarding
the use of water, energy and other resources, leading to reductions of costs (Leal Filho
2010). Although being cost-aware and optimizing processes are highly appreciated
from a SD point of view, HEIs 2.0 are too much focused on quantitative success and
show a lack of societal responsibility. According to Müller-Christ (2017), this stage
can be classified as an egocentric system.
3.3 Post-modern HEI 3.0: Action Research and Stakeholder
Dialogue
When members of HEIs act mainly from a post-modern worldview, they tend to
have a different approach to teaching and researching. Being highly aware of global
challenges and societal responsibility they try to integrate different perspectives of
regional and global stakeholders (Leal Filho 2010). They try to make everyone heard,
especially with regards to students, minorities and disempowered and underprivileged groups (see e.g. the Rio+20 Treaty on Higher Education 2014). This is reflected
B. Giesenbauer and M. Tegeler
dents. This kind of worldview is not open to crosscutting topics such as sustainable
development (except in very concrete forms such as the protection of rare plants and
animals) and rather protects the division of disciplines (ibid.).
Although most HEIs to this date are not pure traditionalist, their basic structure
is usually still shaped by traditional thinking. The more they gravitate around the
traditional worldview the less they are open to impulses from the outside, resulting
in few initiatives for SD that go beyond the bare minimum of compliance with
environmental or minority protecting regulations.
3.2 Modern HEI 2.0: Top Notch Science in Specialized Fields
Current academia is mostly shaped by the modern worldview with its focus on quantitative success, professional specialization and competition. This kind of worldview
leads to an academic merit system based on numbers such as frequency of publications, journals’ impact factor and level, acquired research grants or number of
students, to name a few. Each HEI and each participant of the scientific community
thus compete for attention, grants and status (Müller-Christ 2017). Researchers have
to distinguish themselves by both quality, quantity and specialization of publications, as defined by their narrow disciplinary niche. This means that crosscutting
topics such as SD are often disregarded—not so much due to their content but due
to their limited ability to promote careers.
Furthermore, in the field of campus management, the modern worldview of HEI
2.0 leads to optimized and numbers-driven administration, with clear and at the
same time changeable processes. Sustainability is generally not a part of HEI 2.0’s
reasoning, with the exception of “greening the campus” and eco-efficiency regarding
the use of water, energy and other resources, leading to reductions of costs (Leal Filho
2010). Although being cost-aware and optimizing processes are highly appreciated
from a SD point of view, HEIs 2.0 are too much focused on quantitative success and
show a lack of societal responsibility. According to Müller-Christ (2017), this stage
can be classified as an egocentric system.
3.3 Post-modern HEI 3.0: Action Research and Stakeholder
Dialogue
When members of HEIs act mainly from a post-modern worldview, they tend to
have a different approach to teaching and researching. Being highly aware of global
challenges and societal responsibility they try to integrate different perspectives of
regional and global stakeholders (Leal Filho 2010). They try to make everyone heard,
especially with regards to students, minorities and disempowered and underprivileged groups (see e.g. the Rio+20 Treaty on Higher Education 2014). This is reflected