Modelling Institutional Change for Sustainability in Universities

1. Modelling Institutional Change for Sustainability in Universities Carolyn Roberts Director, Centre for Active Learning University of Gloucestershire U.K. ICEE Conference, Ahmedabad, India, 24-27th November 2007

2. Institutional change • Several examples of the nature and process of institutional change in universities working towards more sustainable practices in the West – e.g. Downey, for Sheffield Hallam UK; Gudz, for British Columbia; Thomas for Melbourne, Australia; von Oelreich for Mälardalen, Sweden • Also many examples of the changes occasioned by particular activities such as environmental auditing of a campus (Bardati, for Bishop’s University, Quebec) • Few are long term studies, and most separate out curriculum from ‘housekeeping’ issues in considering whole institutional practices.

3. The University of Gloucestershire case study • University based in the Midlands/South West of England • Higher Education courses since 1847, University title since 2003 • ‘Liberal arts’ College plus+ • c. 10,000 Bachelor’s, Masters and PhD students, including some distance learners • Teaching-led, research-informed • Diverse set of five campuses in three locations (Cheltenham, Gloucester, London), some historic, some modern

5. The University Mission “is to create a dynamic and sustainable portfolio of learning opportunities for the communities it serves. Within this overarching mission, the University will contribute fully to the economic, social and cultural life of Gloucestershire and its region, while fostering national and international links. It will also develop an approach to social responsibility which reflects its commitment to sustainability and social justice.”

6. BS14001 Environmental Management Standard • First English university to achieve British Standard ISO14001 Environmental Management System for the whole institution, in July 2005, after three years of specifically working towards this • ISO14001 provides a framework for targets, responsibility and accountability, plus a driver for continuous improvement

7. Other indicators of ‘sustainability’ practice • Forum for the Future (NGO) identified the university as a – ‘Trailblazer’ institution, 1997, in their HE21 initiative funded by central government • Highly commended for transport policy, ‘Green Gown Award’, 2006 • Highly commended, Times Higher Education Supplement Award ‘Outstanding Contribution to Sustainable Development’ 2006 • Shortlisted for curriculum development, ‘Green Gown Award’ 2007

8. Institutional Background to change • Environmental and sustainability commitment in the University ‘Vision’ statement • Institutional level policy and implementation strategies on sustainable development • Vice Chancellor’s commitment to sustainability, including in the curriculum • Strongly centralised quality assurance systems for teaching

9. Modelling Institutional Change – Simple models 1 • Initiation Structure, clarity, advocacy, champions, understanding • Implementation Responsibility, empowerment, pressure, Faculty development • Institutionalisation Embedding, organisational, strength, spread, facilitation In Hopkins, 2002

10. Modelling Institutional Change – Simple models 2 • Courtship • Choosing the target (beginning) • Expanding the scope of change • Making connections and sustaining the change process • Rebalancing the campus to support different ways of doing things • Reflection on the significance of what we have done • Ending Ramaley, 1994

11. Modelling Institutional Change – Simple models 3 The Four Factors for Success 1. Pressure for change 2. A clear, shared vision 3. Capacity for change 4. Action UK Government Office for the South West, 2004

12. Modelling Institutional Change – Simple models 4 Appreciative Enquiry Approach 1. Appreciating and valuing the best of ‘what is’ 2. Envisioning ‘what might be’ 3. Dialoguing ‘what should be’ 4. Innovating ‘what will be’ Hammond, 1998

13. Modelling Institutional Change – Simple models 5 • Staff • Style • Systems • Strategy • Structure • Skills • Super-ordinate goals McKinsey, 2002

14. Another simple change model

15. Models of change in Higher Education, according to Trowler et al, 2003 • Technical-rational • Resource allocation • Diffusionist:epidemiological • Kai Zen or continuous quality improvement • Models using complexity

16. Kotter’s Eight Stages of Change • Establishing a sense of urgency • Creating a guiding coalition • Developing a vision and strategy • Communicating the change vision • Empowering broad-based action • Generating short term wins • Consolidating gains and producing more change • Anchoring new approaches in the culture Kotter, 1995

17. The Ladder of Divine Ascent metaphor St. John Climacus’s text explains the ‘journey to Heaven’ as involving many challenging steps. The icon shows monks on the ladder, demons trying to pull them off, the mouth of Hades swallowing up those who have fallen off, the angels lamenting over those who have fallen, and people on the earth praying for those on the ladder. Christ is depicted at the top of the ladder, waiting for the successful ones to enter His holy Kingdom.

18. Establishing an initial sense of urgency Need for compliance with legislation (e.g. on waste) at the time of external audit of the University (fear??) Regional Development Agency interest in ‘environmental issues’ Need for a unique institutional ‘selling point’ for student recruitment Vice Chancellor’s personal interest UK Higher Education awareness of ‘environmental issues’ was strong in 1990s Desire to link curriculum and research activity in the School of Environment to local, national and international communities Potential employability imperative for students

19. 1. Drivers for change Generic Pressures to HE Specific institutional pressures 2. Drivers for change Political Economic Socio-cultural Technological Legal Environmental Establishing an initial sense of urgency

20. Creating a guiding coalition • From 1992 the ‘Environmental Management Committee’ and from 2001 the ‘Sustainable Development Committee’, with sufficient power to drive the agenda • The ‘best’ people, regardless of their roles, including academic staff/Faculty and professional support staff with responsibilities in key areas such as purchasing, estates, human resource management, external relations, curriculum, teaching and learning • Need for understanding of both the external context and philosophy of SD, and the internal processes of the University • A subsidiary ‘ISO14001 Working Group’ created in 2002

21. Developing a vision and strategy • Wide ranging aspirations embracing all areas of the university’s practice • Multiple goals and targets – managerial and educational • Initially ‘environmental’ goals, and latterly ‘sustainability’ goals • Evidence-based practice • Involving all staff and students as collaborators

22. The University Vision Is to be a high quality university with global reach which is passionate about: • The creation and transmission of knowledge • Its students and staff working in partnership for mutual benefit • Providing accessible opportunities for learning at all ages and levels • Diversity, sustainability and social justice • Building on its Christian foundation

23. Sustainable Development “underpins each of the University’s strategic priorities and informs all elements of University life. The University promotes sustainable development, locally and globally, through teaching, research, knowledge transfer and the general conduct of its business.”

24. Definition continued.. ‘Sustainable development is recognised internationally and by the UK Government as having four main components, namely • Social progress which recognises the needs of everyone • Effective protection of the environment • Prudent use of natural resources • Maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment’

25. The SD policy includes: • Curriculum Strategy • Utilities Strategy • Transport Strategy • Waste Management Strategy • Procurement Strategy • Buildings and Estates • Community Development (to come)

26. What did we do? • Environmental Management Committee initiated in 1991, with cross institutional representation. • Policy and strategies • First ‘State of the Environment Report’ undertaken by staff and students in 1993, following local government guidelines • Individual initiatives such as recycling drives, energy and paper awareness, ecological art exhibitions, mass bicycle rally, ‘environment week’, bus service

27. Communicating the change vision • Using every mechanism possible to communicate the new vision and strategies to staff, students and stakeholders • Provide staff development for all • Motivating and inspiring; going for challenging targets • Linking the ‘housekeeping’ and the formal curriculum in projects • Mixture of ‘top down’ and ‘bottom up’ initiatives

28. Empowering broad-based action • Getting rid of obstacles, including maverick ideas (“well, of course this doesn’t apply to me/our course/my research/my area of responsibility”) • Challenging structures and pushing the boundaries, including University regulations, and asking ‘why?’ • Recognising immovable objects and circumventing them • Drawing in student activity e.g. in community programmes and in reviewing the University’s operations

29. Generating short term wins • Media interest in environmental ‘stories’ • University hosts part of the national seminar series on ‘Taking Responsibility: Promoting Sustainable Practice through Higher Education Curricula’, 1994-5 • University identified as an environmental ‘Trailblazer’ in 1997 • School of Environment achieves success and is identified as a national ‘Centre of Excellence in Teaching and Learning’, and wins £5M, in 2005. New ‘Centre for Active Learning in Geography, Environment and Related Disciplines’ established

30. The Gloucestershire approach to active learning “The distinctive feature of the University of Gloucestershire definition of active learning is that it centres on the mastery of theory within a ‘learning by doing’ approach involving working in real places with actual people and live projects”

31. Consolidating gains and producing more change • Identifying ISO14001 as the vehicle for maintaining progress • Review suggests areas for improvement, including limited progress on estates, water management, some areas of the curriculum • Need to involve more students, and re-engage with the Students’ Union • Need for more high profile initiatives • ‘Fairtrade University’ status achieved, July 2006

32. Anchoring new approaches in the culture • Using the Quality Assurance system for teaching to promote ‘compliance’ in the curriculum • Encouraging multiple interpretations of the phrase ‘SD’ by different groups • Producing an edited book of 37 case studies – ‘Greener by Degrees’ (2007) • Maintaining dialogue amongst different groups internal and external • Enabling activity; promoting links

33. What were the key drivers? • External pressure/stimulus/risk • Strong guiding coalition/team • Drawing on existing diversity of strengths and interests in the University • Utilising a mixture of centralised and decentralised decision making • Utilising diversity in the campuses as a ‘laboratory’ for experimentation • Publicity relating to early wins • New goals being adopted e.g. ISO14001 • Serendipity

34. What did not drive change • Significant expenditure of resources, except time (especially ‘transactional’ time). Costs included a junior part time ‘environmental manager’ from 2005, but the main responsibilities for administration were linked with Health and Safety • Technology • Agonising over ‘top down’ or ‘bottom up’ • Promotion or other financial rewards

35. Ambiguous issues • Students’ interest and attitudes are variable, and challenging to harness except through the formal taught curriculum. Voluntary groups come and go. • University Quality Assurance systems for teaching have vacillated in their support for ESD • Research and curriculum strengths will vary with national patterns of recruitment and funding • In the transformation from ‘environmentally friendly’ to ‘sustainable’, ISO14001 is insufficient.

36. Models of change • Change is highly complex, not linear, but can be steered to some degree • Many changes occur concurrently, change breeds change • Change can be developmental or emergent • We shift rapidly and dynamically between states • Goals are adjusted and we move towards a new goal without achieving the first • No end point can be defined

37. What’s missing from the simple models of change? • Key roles and strengths of team members • Communication amongst the team and beyond – celebrating success: • Developing mutual support, a ‘community of scholars’, through staff development • The role of the students, in joining and supporting the enterprise • Evaluating the change and developing as a ‘learning institution’ • New opportunities, challenges (and risks) appearing

38. Models using complexity • Indeterminate systems, hence outcomes are not predictable. Can create likely conditions for change • No locus of power; ‘power is’. System not directly controllable but open to indirect influence • Multiple small changes provide suitable conditions for change • Over-optimal supply of ‘tools’ required • Change champions are organic, intellectual and skilled in praxis and creating affordances Trowler, Saunders and Knight, 2003

39. Dreamtime as a metaphor of change?

40. Please look at our websitehttp://www.glos.ac.uk/sustainability/index.cfm ‘Making a difference’