Exploring Faculty Conceptualizations of Sustainability in Higher Education: Cultural Barriers to Organizational Change and Potential Resolutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is often suggested that for institutional change efforts towards sustainability to bear fruit a common vision for sustainability in higher education (SHE) is necessary. Given the contested nature of the concept and the complexity of academic institutional culture, seeking broad consensus around sustainability presents a significant challenge to those seeking organizational change for sustainability. This article describes a research project that explored professors’ conceptualizations of SHE in the case study of Dalhousie University. We identified a number of divergent and conflicting conceptualizations around not only the concept of sustainability but also the role of the university in education for it, and promoting sustainability outside of its walls. Given the nature of the tensions in this study in particular and how they relate to important debates in the field of SHE generally, we propose embracing a vision of sustainability rooted in plurality and dialogue.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.059 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".