Universities are facing increasing pressures to change the educational programmes they offer in order to make graduates fit for future citizenship and employment in the twenty first century. The impetus for radical repurposing of universities comes from a complex array of contemporary issues, including societal, economic and environmental challenges as well as national and international policy change. Curriculum reform and innovation are beginning to take place in many universities in the UK and elsewhere in the world in response to such pressures and policy developments. This international edited volume’s 31 chapters focus on some of the current research approaches that underpin how universities go about transforming their teaching, learning in the context of Higher Education for Sustainable Development (HESD).

Without doubt, researching HESD is an ambitious task and not without its conceptual and temporal limitations, given that HESD has many distinctive definitions; advocates who frame it in different ways; and critics. Disappointingly, the editors fail to cover this issue in their introduction in two principal ways; firstly, by offering neither definition nor explanation of HESD and its importance as an emerging context for research; nor any clear objectives for this manifestly huge and in some places over-written ‘Handbook’. Nor, is it clear why the title ‘handbook’ was chosen, since this is not ‘a manual (from the Latin, manulus – meaning hand) of instruction or guidance’ in HESD. Clearly it cannot claim to be such given that to many of those experts who crafted their chapters, HESD is about a ‘social learning process’ and in systems theory, it could be described as an emergent property of a complex, and contested process and, hence, it is about learning our way towards a sustainable future. This in part is due to what some have described as the ‘relative immaturity of our conceptual tools’ and, because there is no a priori reason to expect that what we can know from our sustainability science research, is what we most need to know. The disciplinary traditions and organisations of our universities recognise and focus on questions that can be answered and in the context of research in HESD, take our thinking and practice away from understanding whole natural systems and their inherent dynamics.

The editors advocate three different audiences for this book: early-career researchers, already conversant as postgraduates in the field of HESD; early and mid-career researchers from a wide range of disciplinary traditions who wish to specialise in HESD research; and academics who specialise in HESD research, as part of their sustainability-related research in teaching and learning scholarship.

Whilst there are many valuable, and well-written chapters in this book, the introduction fails in any real sense to initiate and engage the reader in what research in HESD looks like – either conceptually or in practice – other than to say it has ‘distinctive topics and research approaches’. It is only when you read the lucid and well-crafted chapter by Stephen Sterling et al. from Plymouth University, that coherent understandings of research in HESD begin to crystallise in any tangible and thoughtful way – and this is Chapter 6 of the book!

The editors have structured the book in four parts:

Part 1 Education for sustainable development in higher education;

Part 2 Paradigms and methodologies of research on HESD;

Part 3 Issues and themes on HESD; and,

Part 4 Examples of research on HESD. There is considerable overlap between these Parts and, whilst the editors and authors have usefully referenced where there is similar discussion or overlap, the volume is not consistently sign-posted or cross-referenced.

One of the most significant issues with the concept of research in HESD is that it is rarely set in the wider context of a whole institutional reform and change process as exemplified by the (University of) Melbourne Model and other examples such as the University of Arizona, University of British Columbia and the University of Aberdeen. As Collini (2012) in his book, What are Universities for? has said:

Crow and Debars (2015) in their recent, challenging and far-reaching book, Designing the New American University, go further:A few of the chapters in this book do address, in a limited sense, the complexity of the wider institutionalisation process of transforming teaching and learning and research, in the context of sustainable development. Indeed, as Gough and Scott (2007) have stated:But all of this raises some important questions: for example, are our universities systematically creating the conditions that offer under-graduates the context, understanding, skills and values that will prepare them for the challenges we face in creating a more sustainable future? And do the thousands of academic staff have the expertise and capabilities to create these conditions? We currently have no mechanism for assessing this capacity in any meaningful way. Even though the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) undertook a strategic review of sustainable development in HE in England in 2007, which covered some aspects of teaching and learning, the findings are outdated and unlikely to be repeated with the current emphasis on budget cuts.

The Higher Education Academy in the UK has initiated an ambitious but relatively small-scale institutional change programme involving some 20 universities called the Green Academy – A Curriculum for Tomorrow, which aims to promote new approaches to the curriculum. It is fundamentally aimed at achieving what are described as ‘Graduate Attributes for the 21 Century’ after a radical curriculum restructuring programme carried out by the University of Melbourne – which became known as the Melbourne Model. Harvard, Hong Kong and Yale have undergone similar reforms along with a small number of universities in the UK including Aberdeen, Manchester, Keele and Southampton.

The Melbourne Model is based on five well-defined graduate attributes: Academic Excellence; Knowledge across Disciplines; Leadership in Communities; Attuned to Cultural Diversity; and Active Global Citizenship. Two of these attributes directly focus on international learning experiences. Graduates of the University are expected to have an understanding of and respect for social and cultural diversity and value different cultures. They are expected to accept social and civic responsibilities and be advocates for improving the sustainability of their environment and have a broad global understanding coupled with a high regard for human rights, equity and ethics. Interdisciplinary is emphasised especially where complex issues require more than one discipline to resolve them.

The Melbourne approach is exemplified by two programmes: ‘An Ecological History of Humanity’ and ‘Food for a Healthy Planet’. Throughout their undergraduate programme, students benefit from exposure to and experience of more than one way of knowing and seeing the world. Another good example is provided by the University of British Columbia whose courses seek to achieve four graduate attributes whereby the graduate: demonstrates (i) holistic systems thinking and (ii) sustainability knowledge; (iii) awareness of, and integrates across, intellectual constructs; and (iv) acts to create positive change. But there is little mention of these whole institutional reform programmes in this book. This is a major omission given the international scope of its coverage. Such initiatives are still relatively new and as yet mostly under-researched and evaluated: some grounded critical appraisal of their progress is much needed to enlighten those higher education academics who seek to promote and develop new horizons for their universities.

Notwithstanding these missed opportunities, there are many chapters which exemplify some of the best commentary on the current state of research in HESD across the globe. Readers might find the following chapters useful in setting out clearly and cogently some of the key issues universities face. Chapter 2, written by Arjen Wals and colleagues at Wageningen University, ‘Learning for Walking the Change’, emphasises the need to have in place a widely shared commitment for curriculum change facilitated by sensitive and informed leadership and management. Above all it requires some serious and resilient strategic direction created through systematic stakeholder consultation and the coordinated decision-making of the institutional governance structures (however, the role of university governance receives little mention in this book). None of which is easy given the diverse cultural traditions in many universities, namely the sector’s general commitment to collegiality; the fuzzy lines of accountability for academic staff; and the well-developed subject sub-cultures, to name but a few. Accordingly, Stephen Sterling et al.’s Chapter 6 asks the question, ‘Is there room for objectivity in the politically motivated realm of ESD?’ According to these authors sustainability can only be achieved through a participatory research paradigm where ESD is conceived as a ‘cultural product’ of the institution working collaboratively through participative inquiry and practice.

Chapter 18 sets out some of the real successes of the engagement of the National Union of Students in the UK. The National Union of Students (NUS) is a confederation of around 600 institution-based students’ unions in the UK, with devolved sub-groups in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Its remit is to provide a national voice for students in UK universities and colleges, and to help students’ unions within institutions to work effectively in order to improve the experience of all students.

The charitable arm of the NUS, NUS Charitable Services, has a remit to drive improvement within students’ unions. It focuses on issues such as equality and diversity, strategic development and sustainability. A major part of the work of the charity is delivered by the NUS Department for Sustainability which works on behaviour change, educational and institutional development programmes within and across universities and colleges. Over time, behaviour-change activities have evolved into more ambitious institution-wide and national activities. These include:

•	Dissertations for Good: a matching service between academics and social causes to help get social value out of student research. This initiative was piloted in 2014 – with three new universities involved;
•	Green Impact: helping students’ unions to green their campuses, curriculums and communities, delivering 70,000 greening actions a year – 47 universities and colleges and 100 community organizations are involved;
•	Responsible Futures: an externally-assessed accreditation mark to assist institutions in helping students to gain the skills and experience they need to thrive in a global economy at a time of climate change – 20 universities are involved.

According to a recent UK National Commission of UNESCO policy brief, the work that NUS has either done or encouraged has helped a wide range of academics within institutions to re-focus their teaching programmes to address sustainability. Crucial to this success has been the work that NUS has done through its long-term surveys to establish that UK students want their institutions to take sustainable development seriously in everything they do, and, in particular, to ensure that what they are taught has an appropriate sustainability focus. All this has been helped by students saying very clearly that they want sustainability infused within established programmes, rather than being presented in free-standing units or courses.

Perhaps the parts of the book which have the most to offer those who are grappling with curriculum and pedagogical reform are Chapters 16 and 17 respectively. The first, by Arnim Wiek and colleagues at Arizona State University seeks to define and operationalise the competencies for sustainable development. This is a well-structured and forensic analysis of the kinds of abilities and capabilities graduates will need to meet the complex requirements of society and its institutions if we are to become less reliant on unsustainable processes and practice. Wiek’s five key competences are a useful framework to fully operationalise most courses from high school through to undergraduate and postgraduate level. They are:

•	System thinking competence
•	Futures thinking or anticipatory competence
•	Values thinking or normative competence
•	Strategic thinking or action-orientated competence
•	Collaborative or inter personal competence

And, they suggest, a sixth might include an integrative competence. A separate ethical competence might be justified too, although it might be part of values thinking; but it is not clear where in the action-oriented competence hierarchy it might come?

Perhaps the most challenging chapter is that by Kerry Shephard based at the University of Otago in New Zealand in which he explores educational outcomes achieved by students in the context of education for sustainable development. He clearly differentiates between teaching and learning for awareness or knowledge of sustainability and that aimed at changing skills, attitudes and values and stresses that all of these are ‘somehow less than behaviour change’. The chapter offers some interesting insights into how change happens in individuals and cohorts of students and how research into anonymised individual learning in the affective domains of values, attitudes and behaviour can be applied using a revised New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale. However, in his own institution, research using the NEP did not indicate that students change their ‘ecological world views’ as they experience higher education.

Overall, it is difficult to do justice to this wide-ranging international compendium of research in HESD. The scale and complexity of the research theme is daunting, particularly if, as one author claims, there are now 150 million students currently enroled in HE internationally – an increase of 50% over the past decade. Furthermore, most universities over this period have expanded their campuses and building programmes to such an extent that their collective carbon footprint will be significantly higher and hence more damaging to the planetary boundaries that define the sustainability of the planet. Whilst change in many universities is happening, the scale and pace remain fundamental issues.