Communicating The

8/3/2019 Communicating The

1/14

Communicating thesustainability message in higher

education institutionsA. Djordjevic

Education for Sustainability Project, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK, and

D.R.E. CottonTeaching and Learning Directorate, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to explore the possibilities and problems with engaging in effectivecommunication about sustainability in higher education (SHE) institutions.

Design/methodology/approach Using a case study of a new (post-1992) university in the UK, theresearch investigated the ways in which sustainability issues were communicated with staff across theinstitution, and any barriers encountered. Semi-structured interviews and a focus group with selectedstaff led to the development of four key themes related to different aspects of the communicationstrategy, and it is these which are explored in this paper.

Findings This research suggests that there are some particular difficulties with regard tocommunicating messages about sustainability successfully. These relate to the lack of an agreeddefinition or shared understanding of sustainability, and also to potential individual differences invalues and attitudes which may act as a perceptual filter of the message.

Research limitations/implications This is a small-scale project so findings should be treatedwith caution. However, the lack of previous research in this area gives this interest as an exploratorystudy.

Practical implications In the context of a large organisation, the research emphasizes the

importance of alignment of institutional strategies, in order to provide a coherent view of what theorganisation expects from employees. This needs to be supported by staff at the highest level, in orderfor it to have the maximum impact.

Originality/value This paper is the first to use a model of organisational communication toanalyse and evaluate the effectiveness of communication around SHE context.

Keywords United Kingdom, Universities, Communication management, Sustainability,Higher education, Marketing

Paper type Research paper

1. IntroductionThere has been a growing awareness in national and international policies of the need tointegrate sustainability into both business and educational arenas. As one of the largestindustries in the world, and one in which [

. . .

] the specialists of most industries in thiseconomy were trained [. . .] (MGonigle and Starke, 2006, p. 36), higher education (HE)clearly has a key role to play. Education for sustainable development (ESD) is an issue ofincreasing importance in HE, steadily infusing the campus, curriculum, community andculture of many institutions (Dyer et al., 2006). According to UNESCO, ESD is a processof learning how to make decisions that consider the long-term future of the economy,ecology and equity of all communities (UNESCO, 2004). Viewed as an institution-wideissue, sustainability has the potential to become a gateway to a different view

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1467-6370.htm

Thesustainability

message

381

Received 10 November 2010Revised 10 March 2011Accepted 30 May 2011

International Journal of Sustainability

in Higher Education

Vol. 12 No. 4, 2011

pp. 381-394

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1467-6370

DOI 10.1108/14676371111168296


2/14

of curriculum, of pedagogy, of organizational change, of policy and particularly of ethos(Sterling, 2004, p. 50), drawing together campus changes, curriculum development andpedagogic reform. Specific changes which have been made in successful sustainableuniversities include: teaching and learning and research policies with sustainability as a

key theme; changes to core processes such as course validation and monitoring toenhance sustainability content; sustainable procurement offices to manage theinstitutions day to day business; and campaigns to change behaviours of staff andstudents regarding electricity, paper use and recycling.

A report by Forum for the Future & HEPS (2004) describes communication ascrucial in engaging universities and colleges with the sustainable development (SD)agenda (p. 15). However, communication of sustainability messages (such ascampaigns to increase recycling or more controversially to include sustainabilityin the curriculum) is problematic in the HE context underlying belief structuresintrinsic to HE (such as independence of thought and critical thinking) may conflictwith the attitudinal implications of the sustainability message (Cotton et al., 2007).Yet, effective organisational communication conveying meaning from sender toreceiver is a key part of the move towards more sustainable universities, andthis canbe explored using a model of the interpersonal communication process offered byHuczynski and Buchanan (2007). This model positions the message-sender as atransmitter who encodes the message, which then travels through communicationchannels to the receiver(s), who then decode it. During both coding and decoding,perceptual filters can distort the meaning of the message. The process is completed byfeedback travelling in the opposite direction, telling the transmitter if the message hasbeen received and how it was decoded.

In a potentially contested area such as sustainability, perceptual filters are akey element in the communication process. The attitudes of both sender andreceiver play a central role in influencing the message and its reception, and the

communication will be ineffective if it is not received or not fully understood. Wherethe aim of communication is a change in knowledge, attitude or behaviour, a sharedunderstanding of the message is even more important; communication is essentially asocial affair (Corner and Hawthorn, 1993). In this sense, messages cannot be seen asdefined entities, separate from the context and the worldview of the recipient. If weapply the communication model by Huczynski and Buchanan (2007), then the reality isthat these perceptual filters continuously intervene between sender and recipient.

An underlying assumption of much research into communication is thatreceiving new information leads to changes in attitude or behaviour. However, theevidence in support of this link is, at best, scanty and predicting an individualsbehaviour from their knowledge or attitudes is unreliable leading McGuire to describelow attitude-behaviour correlation as the scandal of social psychology (McGuire, 1999,

p. 326). Arbuthnott (2009) echoes this finding in the context of sustainability, noting thathabits, social norms and environmental factors may intervene between attitudes andbehaviours. It is clear that whilst awareness-raising campaigns, which are commonlyused in the public sector, may be successful in transmitting information,they often fail tomake a difference to behaviour (McKenzie-Mohr and Smith, 2006). Nonetheless,communicating information effectively is an essential first stage. Barriers to effectivecommunication include lack of clarity in message formulation; inaccuratepreconceptions on the part of the sender about the recipient; lack of shared

IJSHE12,4

382


3/14

understanding between sender and receiver; and use of jargon or symbolic languagewhich is open to differential interpretations (Rollinson, 2002). Noise in the channel isanother widespread communication barrier: the message changes while travelling fromsender to receiver because of intervening influences, such as perceptions, motives and

emotions (Huczynski and Buchanan, 2007, p. 181). Use of electronic communicationchannels may add to the problems of noise, since messages are more easily misread thanin face-to-face communication, and are less effective at conveying honesty, integrityand trustworthiness (Rollinson, 2002, p. 623). Moreover, information overload in manyorganisations leads to incoming e-mail traffic being widely ignored, and a reduction inthe capacity of recipients to decode even those messages which are relevant andimportant (an issue identified and discussed in higher education institutions (HEIs) byConroy (2007). For this reason, face-to-face communication around sustainability isrecommended as a primary approach by Sharp (2002). Nonetheless, electroniccommunication is increasingly prevalent in organisational settings, due to its flexibilityand efficiency. It may also be valued from the sustainability point of view, since it doesminimum harm to the environment and saves paper use.

Effective internal communication is a key issue for HEIs, as in other organisations, as away of enhancing employee commitment, performance, motivation and empowerment. Inaddition to these basic functions, internal communication is an important tool in enhancingthe understanding of corporate strategy, mission and values, strengthening corporateculture and enabling change (Fowler, 1991; Brassington and Pettitt, 2007). According toCornelissen (2008), effective internal communication is present in organisations whereemployees are well-informed about the future directions of the organisation and at the sametime have influence on decision-making processes. This combining of upward anddownward communication is especially important during processes of organisationalchange in order to get employees to commit to the change and to make the change happen(Cornelissen, 2008, p. 212). Similarly, Franz-Balsen and Heinrichs (2007, p. 435) note that,

interactive processes are an essential feature of sustainability communication. This is apoint of major importance in communicating issues relating to sustainability, given thedemocratic ideals of many sustainability advocates.

Literature on communication about sustainability is mostly found in the area of socialmarketing. McKenzie-Mohr and Smith (2006) apply the standard marketing strategy ofanalysing target behaviour, segmenting the target audience and designingcommunication strategies for target audiences. When developing a strategy for socialmarketing, they aim to removebarriersto behaviouralchange and at the same time to offerincentives for the desired behaviour. Suggestions for effective communication include:

. use captivating information (grab attention by using vivid, personal andconcrete information);

.

know your audience (research attitudes, beliefs and the behaviour of the audience);. use a credible source (trustworthy transmitter of the message);

. make your message easy to remember and focus on action;

. provide personal or community goals (or targets to help with motivation);

. emphasize personal contact (provide opportunities for people to talk to oneanother); and

. provide feedback (show effectiveness of new behaviour).

Thesustainability

message

383


4/14

Applying the Huczynski and Buchanan (2007) communication model to this concept,it is noteworthy that these suggestions are aimed at the removal of communicationbarriers: the message is likely to suffer less distortion through encoding and decodingif it is captivating, easy to remember and tailored to the audience; noise in the channel

will be minimised by using a credible source, providing personal contact and feedback,and by making the message motivating.

Nonetheless, communicating about sustainability is a trickybusiness: Sustainability is a complex field so it can be very difficult to framemessages so they dont just confuse people (Hitchcock and Willard, 2006, p. 200). It isclear that many organisations stumble at this hurdle, and HE is no exception. Roorda(2004, p. 310) uses the auditing instrument for sustainability in higher education to showthat communication about sustainability is, without any exception, a main point forimprovement. Particular issues identified include poor communication betweenmanagement and staff, and between the university and its students. This is problematicgiven the key role played by staff and students in embracing sustainability andintegrating it in core activities. Communication is clearly essential to effective changemanagement and organisational learning. Lozano (2006) uses innovation theory to helpunderstand the process of incorporation of SD into HE. His recommendation is thatorganisations provide the necessary information and skills to all the stakeholdersthrough different media (such as internet, education, etc.), with a special focus oneducating the educators. (Lozano, 2006, p. 793). Change towards sustainability requiresbuy-in from a wide range of individuals and groups within the organisation, andeffective communication in this area is likely to be complex. This study grew from adesire to investigate further the potential communication issues in a HE setting.

2. ContextThis research was carried out at a new university (designated post-1992) in the UK.

The institution is widely regarded as having strong sustainability credentials andcommunication of the sustainability agenda is undertaken using a range of strategies:

. A newsletter about sustainability at the university and across the HE sectordistributed three times per year. Contributors are mostly staff and students, withoccasional external partners or visitors. It is available electronically, on-line andin paper form (available on campus and on request). Target audiences arepredominantly staff, but contents are relevant to present and prospectivestudents, alumni, the local community and HE sector generally. A web site basedon open-source web 2 technology, developed by a team of staff and students, ismaintained by students on industrial placement in the team. The web site isdynamic, with content being updated regularly in-house. It is loosely linked to

the main university web site, which is a proprietary (closed-source) system,content-management based and therefore more rigid.

. Sustainability Staff Development Courses are offered to university staff via aDevelopment Activities Programme in order to explore the conceptof sustainability in a university context, and enable the use of interactiveapproaches.

. An Occasional Paper Series presents research about different aspects ofsustainability in the university and HE sector in general. It is significant that

IJSHE12,4

384


5/14

the first issue in this series looked at how the university could use itssustainability credentials in its marketing policy. One of the recommendations inthis study was that the university should review the internal marketing ofsustainability and ensure it went hand in hand with external marketing, noting

the advantage of the additional weight this would carry.. A Seminar Series with an interdisciplinary approach, featuring guest speakers

from different disciplines committed to sustainability study and action.. An annual conference attracting a wide range of speakers and delegates across

the public and private sector.. The Green Screen: a large urban permanent screen located on campus, of the

kind that is normally used for commercial purposes. This is an innovative wayfor a university to communicate with its staff, students and the local community.It is powered by low energy LEDs.

It is clear that a range of communication strategies have been piloted involving both

one-way and two-way communication methods, therefore this provides an interestingcontext in which to investigate the effectiveness of communication around sustainability.

3. MethodologyThis study used an instrumental case study approach (Stake, 1995) to explore the issueof communication about sustainability in a single HEI. The HEI selected was consideredto provide strong possibilities for exploring sustainability, since it is considered a leaderin this area, and has been nationally recognised for its achievements in sustainability.The case study approach, using qualitative methods, was felt to provide strong potentialto explore a complex, multi-layered issue such as sustainability; to capture the essenceand ambience of the context, the meanings, concepts, definitions, characteristics,metaphors, symbols and descriptions of things (Berg, 2001, p. 3). Within the case study

institution, a mixture of focus group and individual interviews were conducted with arange of stakeholders, in order to explore their understandings of sustainability and,in particular, their views on the effectiveness of different communication methods inthis area.

Key informants (Jankowicz, 2005) were selected for interview, including the directorof a centre for ESD at the university. A purposive sampling approach (Patton, 1990)was taken in order to maximize the opportunity to learn from a wide range ofrespondents. Criteria for selection of respondents included the following:

. members of staff at the university with some experience or interest insustainability;

. a range of staff who had strong or weaker links with the Centre for ESD;

. a mix of genders and disciplines; and

. a mix of academic and professional services staff.

In total 25 staff with different connections to the ESD centre were invited to participate,and ten staff ultimately took part in the research three key informants with closelinks to the ESD centre were interviewed (the director of the centre, a centre fellow anda steering group member), and a further seven members of staff with less closeconnection to the centre took part in a focus group discussion. Whilst this is not a large

Thesustainability

message

385


6/14

number of respondents, those selected offered a range of different perspectives onthe effectiveness of communications around sustainability, and the discussions werelengthy and wide-ranging. It could be argued that what the project lacked in breadth,it made up for in depth.

The project conformed to the ethical principles and procedures of the university. Allparticipantswere informed about the purpose of the research andthat interviews would bedigitally recorded and transcribed. The participants had an option to withdraw from theresearch at any time and request that their data be removed from the data set. They werealso told that their names would not be used in this project, and participants in individualinterviews were offered the opportunity to read transcripts of their interviews and checkthem for accuracy. The questions were developed following recommendations by Krueger(1998). The interviews started with an opening question about the background of theparticipant, followed by introductory questions about the centre for ESD. The keyquestions about effectiveness of communication and behavioural change followed,concluding with an open-ended question eliciting further suggestions or any pointsmissed. The key-informant interview was more comprehensive and in-depth, and alsoincluded a question about evaluation of the centres communication.

Data were analysed using the constant comparative method to draw outcross-cutting themes (Silverman, 2005), an iterative process of reading and re-readingdata, looking for similarities and differences between accounts, and specific referencesto communication strengths and weaknesses. Clearly, the degree of generalisationwhich can be made from such a sample is limited. However, it is possible to use thedata collected to theorise about the possible wider applicability of the findings aboutcommunication of sustainability issues, by using theoretical inference (Hammersley,1998). Any theoretical understanding thus produced should be considered provisionalin nature and would benefit from further investigation.

4. FindingsWhen answering questions participants talked about their perceptions of thesustainability team, their activities, and their communication management. They alsodiscussed the integration of sustainability messages with communication about otheruniversity agendas. Four themes emerged across all interviews:

(1) the contested definition of sustainability;

(2) conflict with university mission;

(3) resistance to change; and

(4) needs and expectations of staff members.

These themes are discussed below in relation to different aspects of communication.

The first two themes focus primarily on the message content and how it is encoded anddecoded in the light of noise in the communication channel, whilst the last twothemes are concerned mainly with perceptual filters at work in this context.

4.1 Theme 1: the contested definition of sustainabilityThis issue was of concern to the sustainability team right from the start, and the tensionbetween imparting a simple message, but without oversimplifying to the point of makingthe concept entirely meaningless was a matter of some debate. The director noted:

IJSHE12,4

386


7/14

Do we go for precise, almost sound bite definition, or do we convey this as a diverse, difficult,contested field, awash with controversy and difference of opinion? [. . .] It becamestrategically important to diversify understandings and messages about sustainability [. . .]and [. . .] pique the interest of different groups.

However, the success of this approach was somewhat questionable, since he alsocomments that:

Despite our holistic rendition of sustainability, I am sure there are thousands of people acrossthis University who have not bothered to listen because they think sustainability is about theenvironment and thats not for them.

This illustrates an underlying difficulty with communicating the sustainability messageitself. Irrespective of communication channels, if the sender and receiver are not clearabout the content of the message, it is unlikely to be acted upon. One focus groupdiscussion offered a clear account of how difficult it was for individuals to engage withthe concept of sustainability if they were not certain, and were not told, what it meant:

As a one word entity its its too inaccessible for somebody who isnt involved to kind of gethold of it.

That is a turn-off.

The lack of definition doesnt help.

This issue has been noted in much previous research, leading Reid and Petocz to cointhe phrase, definition dementia to describe the varied range of understandings ofsustainability. It is clear that the longstanding failure to agree on a definition ofsustainability limits the potential for successful communication. Gough (2002) notesthat: [. . .] a field incapable of establishing agreed definitions of its most basicterminology seems unlikely to make any other sort of progress. Without a cleardelineation of the content of the message, the communication between sender andreceiver is unlikely to be effective. There is some evidence that the interpretation ofsustainability by the core team was simply too complex to be easily understood by themajority of recipients.

4.2 Theme 2: conflict with university missionThis theme was concerned with the way in which sustainability was embedded (or not)in the mission, vision and organisational culture of the university. A number ofrespondents felt that there was a lack of commitment from the top: the perceived lowpriority given to sustainability by senior managers (and, in some cases, departmentalheads) was a common theme across all interviews, with a general consensus that insuch conditions staff could not be expected to engage with the issue deeply:

It [the teams message] hasnt been given the institutional authority.It [uncertainty] is something thats high level institutional at the moment.

My [. . .] Head of Department appointed me to deal with it.

It is interesting to note these responses, given the universitys apparent and widelypublicized commitments to sustainability. One would anticipate that this might beeven more of a limiting factor in universities where sustainability is not seen as a keyissue. However, it should also be noted that previous research indicates that strong

Thesustainability

message

387


8/14

institutional support in this area can be a double-edged sword: Cotton et al. (2009) statethat, one risk arising from strong leadership is that sustainable development may beviewed as another imposed agenda and that resistance to change may actually beincreased in these circumstances.

Alongside the perceived lack of support from senior managers, participants alsoexpressed concerns about the apparent limited alignment of sustainability with otherinstitutional priorities:

. The [university] strategy documents do not talk to each other they are sayingdifferent things.

. The university is on loads of initiatives all over the place.

The message about sustainability was seen by many staff as being disjointed fromthe university mainstream, its policies, structure and institutional culture despite thepotential for linking the sustainability agenda with other current issues such asemployability, inter-disciplinarity and internationalisation. In this environment

sustainability messages were seen as tokenistic and lacking credibility. In addition,staff felt overloaded with trying to respond to different strategic agendas, and in thiscontext sustainability was frequently not viewed as the number one priority. Crucially,noise from other strategic documents and statements appeared to be a key element inreducing the impact of communications about sustainability.

4.3 Theme 3: resistance to changeOn numerous occasions during interviews, participants talked about human nature,and resistance to change. It was felt that the concept of sustainable behaviour might betoo aspirational and that, by default, humans would choose not to behave in asustainable manner for reasons of pure selfishness:

We are all greedy selfish people; it aint going to affect us.

Its the way that evolution works.

People resent [. . .] the change in their behaviour.

Another view was that humans focus on problems at hand and find it difficult to relateto problems that might affect future generations:

Itll be somebody elses [future generations] problem.

They see these kinds of things as [. . .] restrictions.

It is evident that these were widely held views and enabled receivers of the message tobelieve that they did not have to respond. The director of the sustainability core teamdescribed such attitudes as forming part of a wider disassociation from nature, yetthis clearly illustrates the gulf in understanding between the sender and receivers ofthe sustainability message:

A lot of the sustainability problem [. . .] is the product of a process of disassociation, ofdisassociation from reality, of disassociation from nature, and disassociation from self.

Again, this idea of academics as somehow resistant to embedding sustainability hasbeen noted in previous research. Previous studies including Dawe et al. (2005),

IJSHE12,4

388


9/14

Velazquez et al. (2005) and Lozano (2006) have identified lecturers beliefs and attitudesas barriers to implementation of sustainability initiatives in HE, and this will clearlyinfluence the way in which messages are perceived by the receiver.

Another issue which arose from this research concerned the dominance of short-term

thinking in HE. Transience is a key characteristic of the HE population, with studentspassing through in cycles and moving on after relatively short periods of time:

It [the population of the University] is a shifting thing.

Sustainability, however, is a long-term concept in which immediate visible results areuncommon. Deep-rooted values and less visible manifestations of behaviour can beeasily overlooked by some of transient population of a university, and this mayinfiltrate thinking more widely. Theme 3 illustrates quite clearly the potential impact ofperceptual filters on the message received. It is clear that the sender and receiver in thiscontext place different value on the message transmitted, and therefore interpret it indifferent ways.

4.4 Theme 4: needs and expectationsAnother example of perceptual filters at work arose in relation to sending out messagesto different groups of staff in the organisation. In HE, employees generally fall into twocategories: academic and professional support staff, and the divide between thosetwo groups is well known within the sector. However, staff members fall intodifferent groups in many other ways: those who teach and work with students and thosewho do not; those who work in faculties and those who work in central services.Subject-specific groups and their associated territories are another area of staffdivision, as described by Becher and Trowler (2001). Each of these groups has theirown specific needs and expectations, and they engage with different aspects ofsustainability. If they are targeted with messages that do not relate to their needs,

tensions may arise:

They [academic staff from specific subject groups] basically wanted this to be a project whichfitted in with their view of sustainability (Director of the sustainability team).

[In one of Faculties] whether you like it or not you adhere to the principle and its got to be thesame with this.

[In one of central departments] if you use the word sustainability they would think aboutsustainable bottom line.

Again, this illustrates some specific difficulties concerning communicationaround sustainability. Whilst the search for an agreed definition remains a seeminglyunattainable goal, recipients of sustainability communications express a need for tailored

messages which recognise their individual context. To what extent these two aims can bereconciled is unclear. The notion of sustainability has developed a rhetorical ambiguitywhich, whilst it has some benefits in apparently enabling diverse interest groupsto converge (Stables and Scott, 2002), also raises some problematic issues forcommunication.

Participants had very concrete suggestions about what kind of communication andinitiatives they thought would be welcome. They expressed a need for messages whichtook into account the difficulties they faced at work on a daily basis. However, what

Thesustainability

message

389


10/14

they actually received was, in the main, generic communication, intended for all staffand frequently containing utopian, inaccessible suggestions for action:

I need some guidance as to which of these things do I do because Im either going to miss thistarget or miss that target and I cant decide with my limited decision making capacities andfreedom for movement; yet Ive got to choose.

They should have people alongside us and to actually engage and see what we do on aday-to-day basis.

Really brief, really accessible documents.

Participants generally felt that staff in the sustainability unit were not in touch withthe reality of their daily work, and this had an impact on the way in which messageswere decoded. They also felt that they needed their voice to be heard and listened to asthey could offer a contribution towards solutions:

Some of the environmental things that weve had imposed upon us have been bad for us and

difficult for us to deal with.

There is no one place where everybody feels welcome and interested and curious [aboutsustainability] to come along to.

This suggests that communication about sustainability should be much more of a twoway process, and that messages should be adapted much more specifically to the intendedaudience.

5. Reported impactsThe themes described above and the reported barriers to communication give aninsight into the difficulties of communicating sustainability messages within a large

and complex organisation. Whilst some are specific to the HE context, others are ofpotentially wider concern within organisations. It is clear that the impacts of thesustainability message were constrained, owing both to factors relating to the messageitself and also to the channels of communication which were used.

Nonetheless, staff did report a range of behaviour change outcomes that had comeabout at least in part because of the communication around sustainability. These included:

. More people turning their computers off at night.

. More people recycling and using recycling bins.

. Empowerment of some staff members to change their work practices.

. People starting to challenge the way things are done. An example was given ofthe research practice which encourages academics to fly around giving papers,and how some colleagues have started to openly question this approach.

The organisation was seen as effecting policy change on the institutional level bybringing about the university Sustainability Policy and Strategic Action Plan, as wellas getting the University through the process of obtaining the ISO14001 QualityAssurance Certificate. However, influencing individuals behaviour is an on-goingchallenge, and the changes that were made were often related to resource use ratherthan changes to the curriculum or pedagogies.

IJSHE12,4

390


11/14

6. ConclusionsAlthough there were a number of examples of successful communication of messagesand ensuing behaviour change, the research also identified the following keycommunication barriers:

. Message sent is too complex and is not sufficiently contextualised for therecipient. Recipient therefore perceives that the message does not apply to him/her. This may be exacerbated where the sender is very knowledgeable about thetopic, or where they hold strong views, which may not align with their intendedaudience.

. Sender and receiver do not share the same understanding about the meaning orvalue of sustainability, meaning that the recipient will not act on thecommunication.

. The sender lacks authority with a group of recipients (perhaps due to differingdisciplinary origins). Perceptions of the ESD unit in some cases reduced theimpact of messages, as did the perceived lack of institutional support.

. Noise in the channel, associated with the sheer number and range of messagescoming from the university leading to information overload. In thesecircumstances, selectivity and perceptions of the receiver can result indistorted messages or communication failure.

. Overly top-down approach to communication by the institution, failure to engagein dialogue with staff.

. Excessive focus on electronic communication channels, rather than face-to-faceinteractions.

The research findings indicate that there are many barriers to effective communicationaround sustainability in HE. Applying the model of communication by Huczynski and

Buchanan (2007) to sustainability, it is clear that the process of encoding the message isdifficult due to the complexity of the issues, while the process of decoding the messageis also problematic, due to the perceptual filters of the receivers. In particular, the lackof an agreed definition or shared understanding of sustainability, together with theindividual differences in values and attitudes are problematic. For example, in thiscontext, the message senders (largely originating from the ESD centre) tended to haverather complex multi-faceted views of what changes with respect to sustainabilitymight look like (for example in terms of curriculum or pedagogic transformation),whereas recipients often viewed appropriate changes to be more along the lines ofturning off lights and using less paper in printing. The integrity of the message islikely to suffer significantly in these circumstances, and this will limit the impact ofany intended changes to behaviour.

In the context of a large organisation, the research also emphasizes the importanceof alignment of institutional strategies, in order to provide a coherent view of what theorganisation expects from employees. Arguably, this should be supported by staff atthe highest level, in order for it to have the maximum impact although the difficultiesof imposing organisational change top-down within an academic context should not beunder-estimated. Whilst a survey of senior staff in European universities by Leal Filho(2000) indicated strong support for sustainability in general terms, it is less clear howthis engagement led to action in many contexts. Our research also suggests that,

Thesustainability

message

391


12/14

despite stringent attempts to engage a wide range of stakeholders, sustainability wasrarely seen in the light of a dialogue. This seems crucial in respect of the potentialdiversity of views on sustainability, and the need for a democratic approach. Furtherconsideration of how staff in widely differing contexts can be engaged in sustainability

discussions seems to be needed.

7. RecommendationsThe key practical recommendations arising from this study can be outlined as follows:

. Sustainability messages must be clear, precise and coherent, yet tailored to thedifferent contexts of recipients. Despite its widespread use, it is still necessary toprovide a working definition of sustainability in order to enable staff andstudents to understand the concept. We would recommend avoiding theapproach of simply adding sustainability to current communications.

. In order to promote wide-scale changes, high level support is necessary but notsufficient. Dialogue and a democratic approach are also essential, and a message

for university managers appears to be that developing a distinctive niche fortheir institution rather than trying to communicate and embed a wide range ofstrategic agendas is more likely to be successful.

. In a context where work pressures are increasingly severe, there needs to be ahighly consistent and clear communication strategy in order to engender change.Communications which are supportive (offered help or guidance) and work froman understanding of the contextual issues are more likely to be successful thanattempts to impose changes.

In addition, we would recommend that further research into this issue is conducted.The limited scope of this project means that its findings and recommendationsare necessarily tentative. We would strongly recommend that a larger-scale study be

undertaken, in order to see whether the opportunities and barriers identified here aremore widely applicable.

References

Arbuthnott, K.D. (2009), Education for sustainable development beyond attitude change, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 152-63.

Becher, T. and Trowler, P. (2001), Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and theCultures of Disciplines, 2nd ed., Open University Press/SRHE, Buckingham.

Berg, B.L. (2001), Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, Allyn and Bacon,Needham Heights, MA.

Brassington, F. and Pettitt, S. (2007), Essentials of Marketing, Pearson Education, Harlow.

Conroy, H. (2007), Skills for the information age, Perspectives: Policy and Practice in HigherEducation, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 18-24.

Cornelissen, J. (2008), Corporate Communication: A Guide to Theory and Practice , Sage, London.

Corner, J. and Hawthorn, J. (Eds) (1993), Communication Studies: An Introductory Reader,Edward Arnold, London.

Cotton, D.R.E., Bailey, I., Warren, M. and Bissell, S. (2009), Revolutions and second-bestsolutions: education for sustainable development in higher education, Studies in Higher

Education, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 719-33.

IJSHE12,4

392


13/14

Cotton, D.R.E., Warren, M.F., Maiboroda, O. and Bailey, I. (2007), Sustainable development,higher education and pedagogy: a study of lecturers beliefs and attitudes, Environmental

Education Research, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 579-97.

Dawe, G., Jucker, R. and Martin, S. (2005), Sustainable development in higher education: current

practice and future developments, A Report for the Higher Education Academy, availableat: www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/ourwork/tla/sustainability/sustdevinHEfinalreport.pdf (accessed 18 February 2011).

Dyer, A., Selby, D. and Chalkley, B. (2006), A centre for excellence in education for sustainabledevelopment, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 309-14.

Forum for the Future & HEPS (2004), Communicating for Sustainability: Guidance for Higher Education Institutions, Forum for the Future and HEPS, London.

Fowler, A. (1991), How to keep employees informed, Personnel Management Plus, October,p. 25.

Franz-Balsen, A. and Heinrichs, H. (2007), Managing sustainability communication on campus:experiences from Luneburg, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education,Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 431-45.

Gough, S. (2002), Right answers or wrong questions? Towards a theory of change forenvironmental learning, Trumpeter, Vol. 18 No. 1, available at: http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/index.php/trumpet/article/viewArticle/122/132 (accessed 18 February2011).

Hammersley, M. (1998), Reading Ethnographic Research: A Critical Guide, Longman, London.

Hitchcock, D. and Willard, M. (2006), The Business Guide to Sustainability: Practical Strategiesand Tools for Organizations, Earthscan, London.

Huczynski, A. and Buchanan, D.A. (2007), Organizational Behaviour, Pearson Education,Harlow.

Jankowicz, A.D. (2005), Business Research Projects, Thomson Learning, London.

Krueger, R. (1998), Developing Questions for Focus Groups. Focus Group Kit 3, Vol. 3, Sage,

Thousand Oaks, CA.

Leal Filho, W. (2000), Dealing with misconceptions on the concept of sustainability,International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 9-19.

Lozano, R. (2006), Incorporation and institutionalization of SD into universities: breakingthrough barriers to change, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14, pp. 787-96.

McGuire, W.J. (1999), Constructing Social Psychology: Creative and Critical Processes, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

McKenzie-Mohr, D. and Smith, W. (2006), Fostering Sustainable Behavior: An Introduction toCommunity-based Social Marketing, New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island.

MGonigle, M. and Starke, J. (2006), Planet U: Sustaining the World, Reinventing the University,New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island.

Patton, M.Q. (1990), Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd ed, Sage, Newbury, CA.Rollinson, D. (2002), Organisational Behaviour and Analysis: An Integrated Approach, Pearson

Education, Harlow.

Roorda, N. (2004), Developing sustainability in higher education using AISHE, in Corcoran, P.Band Wals, A.E.J. (Eds), Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustainability: Problematics,

Promise, and Practice, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp. 305-18.

Sharp, L. (2002), Green campuses: the road from little victories to systemic transformation,International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 128-45.

Thesustainability

message

393


14/14

Silverman, D. (2005), Doing Qualitative Research, 2nd ed, Sage, London.

Stables, A. and Scott, W. (2002), The quest for holism in education for sustainable development, Environmental Education Research, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 53-60.

Stake, R.E. (1995), The Art of Case Study Research, Sage, London.

Sterling, S. (2004), Higher education, sustainability, and the role of systemic learning,in Corcoran, P.B. and Wals, A.E.J. (Eds), Higher Education and the Challenge ofSustainability: Problematics, Promise, and Practice, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht,pp. 47-70.

UNESCO (2004), United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development 2005-2014: Draft International Implementation Scheme, UNESCO, Paris.

Velazquez, L., Munguia, N. and Sanchez, M. (2005), Deterring sustainability in higher educationinstitutions: an appraisal of the factors which influence sustainability in higher educationinstitutions, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 6 No. 4,pp. 383-91.

Further readingReid, A. and Petocz, P. (2006), University lecturers understanding of sustainability, Higher

Education, Vol. 51, pp. 105-23.

About the authorsA. Djordjevic worked for the University of Plymouth as Centre Manager in the Centre forSustainable Futures from 2005 to 2010. During her time in Plymouth, she researchedsustainability communication as part of her Master in Business Administration course. She iscurrently Education for Sustainability Project Co-ordinator at the University of Exeter, whereshe is involved in several interdisciplinary student-facing projects.

D.R.E. Cotton has a doctorate from St Annes College, Oxford, where she researchedenvironmental education in UK secondary schools. She has subsequently published widely onenvironmental and sustainability education, as well as on e-learning and student experiences offieldwork. She is currently Head of Educational Development at the University ofPlymouth, where she is responsible for educational enhancement and pedagogic researchacross the institution. D.R.E. Cotton is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:[email protected]

IJSHE12,4

394

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Communicating The

Documents

Transcript of Communicating The