We Can Only Do It Together: Addressing Global Sustainability …
249
9 Conclusions
Regardless of which strategies and pathways are chosen in HEIs, planetary boundaries (Steffen et al. 2015; Raworth 2017) must be respected. The material/ecological
limits for sustainable modes of production and consumption are non-negotiable.
These limits concern impacts on the planet as a whole, but also the limits of each
country and locality. Collapses at any point in our life systems may have irreversible effects and trigger cascades, which means that planetary boundaries need
to be considered qualitatively and holistically from their most vulnerable points,
rather than only assessed through indicators and geographical or chronological averages. It follows that among the most urgent steps in transforming HEIs is to move
away from formalised systems of evaluation, to instead consider capacity, education,
collaboration and research based on real impacts on our societies and planetary life
systems.
From the arguments outlined in this paper, it would seem that there is a paradox
in the need for innovation, mobility and change, on the one hand, and the need
for continuity on the other. But if we look closer, we can see that this paradox
only exists to the extent that trust, social position, decision-making or innovation
are primarily mediated through institutional structures and configurations, and to
the extent that communication and reflection are carried by formalised information
systems that serve a competitive paradigm. If these various functions are instead
carried by humans and mediated through stable teams and interpersonal relationships,
collective intelligent action becomes possible.
Despite the urgency of transforming higher education, there is a real danger in
reducing academia to serving purely instrumental purposes. Academic freedom with
space for critical thinking can prevent blind spots and miscalculations and is essential
to preserving democratic values and maintaining credibility in scientific judgement
as independent from particular political or commercial interests. Academic freedom
is additionally crucial for maintaining foundational and exploratory research, which
may provide key insights in the longer term. Diversity of fields of knowledge and
academic actors, as well as pluralism in perspectives and methodologies, are vital for
the longer-term resilience of our knowledge systems, enabling creativity (Marginson
2008) and preventing group think or perceptual “bubbles”. Considering the great
uncertainties in how political or environmental issues will unfold in the coming
years, critical voices are even more important.
A further key consideration in any strategy to transform HEIs for sustainability, is
that although challenge-driven, future-oriented research requires transdisciplinarity
(Mochizuki and Yarime 2015), transdisciplinarity in turn depends on functioning and
sufficiently stable environments in which disciplinary perspectives can be developed.
There is otherwise a risk that research will be reduced to a series of disconnected
endeavours locked within specific projects. To create the radical transformation that
is needed in the face of global challenges, sufficient attention must be devoted to
maintaining diversity, academic freedom, disciplinary expertise and continuity.
249
9 Conclusions
Regardless of which strategies and pathways are chosen in HEIs, planetary boundaries (Steffen et al. 2015; Raworth 2017) must be respected. The material/ecological
limits for sustainable modes of production and consumption are non-negotiable.
These limits concern impacts on the planet as a whole, but also the limits of each
country and locality. Collapses at any point in our life systems may have irreversible effects and trigger cascades, which means that planetary boundaries need
to be considered qualitatively and holistically from their most vulnerable points,
rather than only assessed through indicators and geographical or chronological averages. It follows that among the most urgent steps in transforming HEIs is to move
away from formalised systems of evaluation, to instead consider capacity, education,
collaboration and research based on real impacts on our societies and planetary life
systems.
From the arguments outlined in this paper, it would seem that there is a paradox
in the need for innovation, mobility and change, on the one hand, and the need
for continuity on the other. But if we look closer, we can see that this paradox
only exists to the extent that trust, social position, decision-making or innovation
are primarily mediated through institutional structures and configurations, and to
the extent that communication and reflection are carried by formalised information
systems that serve a competitive paradigm. If these various functions are instead
carried by humans and mediated through stable teams and interpersonal relationships,
collective intelligent action becomes possible.
Despite the urgency of transforming higher education, there is a real danger in
reducing academia to serving purely instrumental purposes. Academic freedom with
space for critical thinking can prevent blind spots and miscalculations and is essential
to preserving democratic values and maintaining credibility in scientific judgement
as independent from particular political or commercial interests. Academic freedom
is additionally crucial for maintaining foundational and exploratory research, which
may provide key insights in the longer term. Diversity of fields of knowledge and
academic actors, as well as pluralism in perspectives and methodologies, are vital for
the longer-term resilience of our knowledge systems, enabling creativity (Marginson
2008) and preventing group think or perceptual “bubbles”. Considering the great
uncertainties in how political or environmental issues will unfold in the coming
years, critical voices are even more important.
A further key consideration in any strategy to transform HEIs for sustainability, is
that although challenge-driven, future-oriented research requires transdisciplinarity
(Mochizuki and Yarime 2015), transdisciplinarity in turn depends on functioning and
sufficiently stable environments in which disciplinary perspectives can be developed.
There is otherwise a risk that research will be reduced to a series of disconnected
endeavours locked within specific projects. To create the radical transformation that
is needed in the face of global challenges, sufficient attention must be devoted to
maintaining diversity, academic freedom, disciplinary expertise and continuity.