The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-6474.

htm

Fostering organizational sustainability through dialogical interaction

Arjen E.J. Wals and Lisa Schwarzin
Education & Competence Studies, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to introduce and investigate dialogic interaction as a key element of achieving a transition towards sustainability in people, organizations and society as a whole. Furthermore sustainability competence as a potential outcome of such interaction is to be introduced, referring to the capacities and qualities that people, and the organizations and communities of which they are part, need in order to address (un)sustainability. Design/methodology/approach The argument of the paper is grounded conceptually in emergent thinking among scholars preoccupied with learning-based change and sustainability in organizations and communities. Empirically, the paper uses two case studies carried out by the authors to ground the argument in real efforts by communities to create a (more) sustainable way of living. Findings The main results include: a post-normal understanding of sustainability highlighting uncertainty, complexity, normativity, controversy and indeterminacy; a framework facilitating dialogic interaction; and a number of key competences that appear conducive to both dialogic interaction and a transition to sustainability. Research limitations/implications Although the two case studies are quite extensive and rigorous, the conceptual nature of the paper and the word limitation did not allow for a more detailed discussion of the methodology used in the case studies and the contexts in which the two case studies are located. Originality/value The paper adopts a post-normal perspective of organizational transitions towards sustainability and focuses on dialogue and dialogic interaction as a key learning-based mechanism for facilitating such a transition. Furthermore the framework for dialogic interaction allows for a more holistic approach toward such a transition and the development of competences needed to accelerate its realization. Keywords Sustainability competence, Dialogic interaction, Post-normal science, Learning systems, Sustainable development, Change management, Society Paper type Conceptual paper

Fostering sustainability

11

Introduction We live in turbulent times. Changes occur at an accelerating speed. Information is everywhere but wisdom appears short in supply when trying to address some of the key inter-related challenges of our time, such as runaway climate change, the loss of biodiversity, the depletion of natural resources, homogenization of culture, and so on. These challenges appear illustrative of the poignant sustainability impact of our increasingly consumption-dependent lifestyles around which a globalizing economy is built. Some scholars argue that we are currently living in post- normal times: times loaded with uncertainty, contested (scientic) knowledge and high levels of complexity (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1993). In such times conventional routines and systems no longer seem to work whether this is in business, governance, resource management,

The Learning Organization Vol. 19 No. 1, 2012 pp. 11-27 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0969-6474 DOI 10.1108/09696471211190338

TLO 19,1

12

science, communication, education or in any other domain or eld. A rethinking of these routines and systems and a creative co-creation of alternative ones appears essential in moving towards a more sustainable world. In this contribution, organizational sustainability has a normative underpinning that considers an organization or a community sustainable when it contributes to a more sustainable world as can be understood with our current knowledge and understanding of what sustainability might entail. In other words, a sustainable organization does not refer to an organization that succeeds in keeping itself going by maintaining, for instance, protability, but rather to one that, given what we know today, successfully balances people, prosperity and planet by searching for a dynamic equilibrium between these 3Ps. Ultimately such a balancing act may require a shift altogether from the maximization of prot to something completely different such as the maximization of meaning. This is a different vantage point from so-called green economist perspectives, which tend to argue that there is little wrong with the principles of (neo)capitalism, but that businesses and industries need to adopt production methods that are more efcient (World Bank, 2000). This call for increased efciency and environmental mindfulness tends to be coupled with the belief that technological advancement can put off the exceeding of the Earths carrying capacity. Furthermore, green economists tend to see a tremendous potential for growth in the greening of production and consumption (i.e. green as a growth industry) (Makower and Pike, 2008). While the green economy appears to be booming these days, there is a modest but growing undercurrent that suggests that ultimately a transition towards sustainability will not be the result so much of doing things better by optimizing our current hegemonic systems but rather demands that we do better things. The latter requires more fundamental changes in the manner in which we live, work and spend our leisure time, et cetera, and on the kinds of values that we pursue. In other words, sustainable development concerns system innovations that require an integrated redesign of products, lifestyles, processes and structures. This paradigmatic whole system redesign perspective (Sterling, 2004) is increasingly supported by economists (McKibben, 2007), as well and by emerging strands within economic sciences such as industrial ecology and ecological economics. In this article we are particularly occupied with the question of how to engage people, organizations and communities in these more fundamental transitions, while recognizing that there is still much to gain from doing things better. In what follows, we will briey outline the wickedness and complexity of sustainability concerns, and then draw on insights from two case studies of sustainable communities to enable us to understand how groups and organizations might come to utilize the uncertainty and controversy around sustainability in their efforts to create a learning system and become reexive communities of learners. In this context, we will outline the practice of dialogic interaction as a key mechanism for supporting group learning processes, and provide a framework for understanding factors that inuence dialogic interaction. Furthermore, we will highlight a range of sustainability competences that are necessary to practice dialogic interaction and to address sustainability concerns in organizations. The wicked nature of sustainability issues Much has been written about the meanings of sustainability and sustainable development. We will not repeat the many denitional discussions that have been held

elsewhere (see, for example, Jabareen, 2008) but we will highlight certain aspects that are particularly relevant from an organizational learning perspective. If there is any agreement on sustainability it is clear that there is neither a single denition on what it actually is nor an agreed upon process that will condently realize its achievement. Determining the meaning of sustainability is a process involving all kinds of stakeholders in many contexts, i.e. people who may not agree with one another. In dealing with conicts about how to organize, consume and produce in responsible ways, learning does not take place in a vacuum but rather in rich social contexts with innumerable vantage points, interests, values, power positions, beliefs, existential needs, and inequities (Wals and Jickling, 2002). The nature of sustainability challenges seems to be such that a routine problem-solving approach falls short, as transitions towards a more sustainable world require more than attempts to reduce the world around us into manageable and solvable problems. Instead, such transitions require a more systemic and reexive way of thinking and acting, bearing in mind that our world is one of continuous change and ever-present uncertainty. This suggests that we cannot think about sustainability in terms of problems that are out there to be solved or in terms of inconvenient truths that need to be addressed. Instead, we need to think in terms of challenges to be taken on in the full realization that, as soon as we appear to have met the challenge, things will have changed and the horizon will have shifted once again. In line with this realization, Peters and Wals (n.d.) list ve distinctive features of sustainability: (1) indeterminacy the impossibility of knowing in advance what the best course of action is; (2) value-ladenness/normativity the crucial position of values in affecting behaviors, lifestyles and systems; (3) controversy the lack of, and impossibility of full agreement or consensus among and even within all stakeholders; (4) uncertainty not being able to predict the exact or even near exact impact of a chosen strategy or action; and (5) complexity the messy interactions between a whole range of variables operating at different intertwined scales. This is further complicated by competing claims about what is, what should be and what needs to be done (Peters and Wals, n.d.; Flyvbjerg, 2001). Each of these ve features and competing claims represent a challenge for learning and capacity building in people, organizations, communities and, ultimately, society as a whole. Grounding the conceptual: from Culemborg to Auroville Much of what has been written so far comes from scholars concerned about the wellbeing of the planet and/or the changing interface of science and society in a rapidly changing world. The concepts we have briey introduced can be seen as both input for the analytical frameworks we have used in our own empirical studies of communities seeking to become more sustainable, and as emergent from those same studies. We now briey introduce two case studies of sustainable community development to ground some of the ideas put forward in this paper and to further develop them: the Dutch case study of Eva-Lanxmeer a sustainable neighborhood in the town of

Fostering sustainability

13

TLO 19,1

Culemborg and the Indian case study of Auroville an international sustainable city in the South of India. For an in-depth description of these two cases, we refer to Wals and Noorduyn (2010) and Schwarzin (2011). Culemborg The Netherlands In 1994, a group of Dutch citizens with different backgrounds but with similar concerns and interests met in a series of workshops that focused on creating a sustainable urban neighborhood from scratch, using partially self-determined principles of sustainable living (i.e. a community garden owned, designed and maintained by all members), as well as those put forward by the government (i.e. with regards to the building materials used, double water system, solar energy, triple-pane glass, etc.). During the workshops the idea of an exemplary development project emerged which combines ecological construction, organic design and architecture with active citizen participation. The group was given seed money by the town of Culemborg to organize themselves and to hire a process facilitator. The early plans called for development of an area consisting of 24 hectares with 200 houses and apartment buildings along with a number of businesses, ofces and ateliers (which all has been realized). Furthermore, a green conference center (not yet realized) and an ecological city farm (realized) were envisioned. The plan also called for a socio-economically integrated neighborhood consisting of a mix of social or public housing (30 percent), middle-income level rental and private property (20 percent) and upper middle/higher income level private homes (50 percent). The process of reaching agreement about what a sustainable neighborhood actually means as well as and the designing and implementing of the generated plans required a lot of interaction and mutual learning among the various stakeholders. In a retrospective study involving key stakeholders, the making of a sustainable neighborhood was reconstructed as a social learning process of civic engagement (Wals and Noorduyn, 2010). Data collection involved interviews with key informants, focus group discussions with inhabitants, and the analysis of secondary documents (e.g. minutes of meetings, newsletters, and email correspondence). The study zoomed in on the process of interaction that took place when the rst people who moved in collaboratively designed the community garden that forms the heart of the neighborhood. Here we will highlight some of key learning principles of the Culemborg experience that might have some transfer value in other organizational and community learning contexts. Auroville India The second study that is of relevance here involved an exploratory qualitative case study of interactive processes in the intentional community of Auroville in India (Schwarzin, 2011). Auroville is a community of around 2,200 people from 49 different countries, which was established by the French spiritual leader Mirra Alfassa and the Indian sage Sri Aurobindo[1]. The vision of the community is to act as the bridge between the past and the future by engaging in experimental research and practices to foster collaboration, human unity, and unending education. The community is actively involved in improving the sustainability of its bioregion through very successful reforestation efforts and by developing sustainable living technologies, such as solar, wind, and biogas energy production. Auroville also engages in an extensive array of

14

outreach projects that target cultural, environmental and social issues in India. Auroville has also been internationally recognized by UNESCO as an international cultural township designed to bring together the values of different cultures and civilizations in a harmonious environment[2]. This study explored the practice of dialogic interaction, which was dened as reexive conversation and engagement among a heterogeneous group of people, who attempt to explore a diversity of potentially incompatible perspectives in a mutually respectful, trusting and collaborative way, and which can be considered as a type of interaction that carries considerable potential in community and organizational learning towards sustainability. The study pointed towards complexities of practicing dialogic interaction that arise from Aurovilles historical, cultural and political context, and identied factors that inhibit and support the practice of dialogic interaction at group gatherings. Data collection involved ethnographic participant observation, including techniques such as direct observation of interaction processes, and in-depth informal unstructured interviews with community members. Furthermore, secondary documents were studied to reveal recorded observations of interaction processes (Stake, 2005), and an ethnographic diary was used to record ongoing observations (Lindlof, 1995). Highlighted here will be the framework of grounded dialogic interaction that emerged from this study, as we believe it can help organizations in becoming reexive communities of learners with sustainability in mind. Learning systems In both cases the researchers were particularly interested in capturing the learning taking place within and in between people and groups of people but also in the communities as a whole. According to Fritjof Capra, one essence of sustainable development can be found in the manner in which eco-systems are organized and can deal with disruptions (Capra, 1994, 2007). It is not about the individual principles and elements, but rather about the system as a whole that is constantly in motion and developing and that, as a whole, makes up more than the sum of its parts. Capra suggests we can learn a lot from eco-systems in our quest for sustainability. Eco-systems are based on networks, mutual dependency, exibility, resilience and, if we add it all up, sustainability. Systems thinking seeing connections, relating functions to one another, making use of diversity and creating synergy, creating and utilizing feedback loops is considered a key competence in moving towards sustainability (see also Barth et al., 2007; Willard et al., 2010a, b; Wals, 2010). The creating and utilizing of feedback loops refer to the learning capacity of systems. In a sense, healthy eco-systems are actually learning systems. The question is whether people too are capable of forming a learning system that can cope with the challenges that we as a society face within the scope of sustainable development. How can organizations and communities become learning systems in which people learn from and with one another and collectively become more capable of withstanding setbacks and dealing with insecurity, complexity and risks? From both the Culemborg and Auroville cases it appears that such learning requires that we not only accept one anothers differences but are also able to put these to use. It is one thing to say that organizations should become reexive communities of learners, but it is a whole different question is how they might manage to achieve this. When a

Fostering sustainability

15

TLO 19,1

(management) team decides to take a community and learning-oriented approach, we cannot assume that the people who make up the organization or community will be able to simply put on their reexive hats. Groups actually need to learn to become a learning community. In both Auroville and Culemborg this learning to become a learning community has been challenging as, this depends on the ability and willingness of its members to reect. Dialogic interaction One practice that can help create a learning community is to have some form of facilitation that encourages, trains and supports groups to apply dialogic interaction. Dialogue or dialogic interaction is a concept that has been afforded some centrality in the elds of social and transformative learning for quite some time. For instance, Paulo Freire (2007), Moacir Gadotti (1996), and Bell Hooks (1994), see dialogue as central to raising what Haigh (2008) calls planetary citizens a next generation of members of society who act as stewards of the earth and its communities. Dialogue is seen as a catalyst for new understanding, insight and action (Martin, 2005), and for bringing about individual and collective shifts in mindset, behavior and organization. Furthermore, dialogue is often advocated as a means of raising awareness, encouraging collaboration, and enhancing collective actions (Roper et al., 2004; Heymann and Wals, 2002). This notion of dialogue has been a central concept in both the Auroville case and the Culemborg case. In the Culemborg case, the municipality allocated funds for professional facilitation of (dialogic) interaction throughout the planning, design and implementation of Eva-Lanxmeer. In the Auroville case, several of the observed group interaction processes made explicit use of dialogic interaction principles. But what exactly is dialogue? Ideally, it can be described as an interactive effort to co-create novel ideas and understandings through a balanced process of inquiry, advocacy and reection (Bronn and Bronn, 2003). Importantly, a group that wishes to engage in dialogic interaction should include people who represent a diversity of perspectives on the collective task, as a central practice of dialogue is for participants to critically examine their own and each others assumptions and perspectives (Gunnlaugson, 2007). A vital element in this process of dialogic interaction is an atmosphere of mutual respect, trust and cooperation (Buber, 1964; Van Gorder, 2007). However, as mentioned before, the conicts and disruptions that may emerge from peoples diverse opinions and perspectives can actually play a key role in stimulating transformative insights (Gadotti, 1996, Wals et al., 2009), if they lead to participants broadening, shifting, or transcending their perspectives (Wilhelmson, 2006). One might say that this dual emphasis on both conict and cooperation is somewhat paradoxical however, we need to remind ourselves that interaction is never static, but tends to move through a range of different modes. Sometimes, groups are engaged in polite discussion, while at other times, debates may erupt and if groups have a genuine motivation to reect and generate shared insights, they may reach dialogic modes of interaction (Senge, 1994, Scharmer, 2009). Importantly though, if we view dialogic interaction again as a learning system, it becomes easier to understand that phases of conict and instability may alternate with periods of calm and collected engagement (c.f. Hurst, 1995).

16

A framework for facilitating dialogic interaction A question that emerged in the Auroville case was how dialogic interaction can be understood and facilitated. Out of this, a framework for dialogic interaction emerged, which takes as a basic assumption that interaction is inuenced by the whole environment, our previous and current relationships, our past, as well as the process of communication itself (see also Burton and Dimbleby, 1995). Informal rules for interaction emerge through the interactions of people within a collective, and can thus not be planned. These social norms are embedded into culturally determined scripts, which in turn serve as subconscious guides for our behavior and interaction patterns (Bicchieri, 2006). In other words, our ways of interacting reect the characteristics of the societies in which we nd ourselves (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2010, p. 12). Hence, dialogic interaction occurs in a setting that is determined by a specic historical, cultural and political context, as well as the discourses and traditions that emerge from it (Rule, 2004). This is particularly evident in the development of Auroville, which spans several generations of people co-creating a sustainability-oriented community. These contexts and discourses create certain complexities (the outer circle in Figure 1), which affect the broader interaction patterns and communication culture of communities and organizations (Roper et al., 2004). The examination of community complexities in both Culemborg and Auroville produced some insights that can be interesting in the context of organizational learning, as they point to certain characteristics of an organization that might affect its potential for dialogic interaction. Community characteristics that seemed to inhibit dialogic interaction were, for instance, the tendency to avoid dealing with conict, and the presence of (hidden) hierarchies where some saw themselves as pioneers, while others were marginalized. On the other hand, what appeared to foster collaboration was a collective aspiration and intention to relate to each other in respectful ways, which was shared by most community members, even if this did not always transpire into practice.

Fostering sustainability

17

Figure 1. A framework for dialogic interaction

TLO 19,1

18

While community complexities are difcult to manipulate, it is possible to identify a range of more concrete factors that may inuence how (dialogic) interaction is shaped. These factors can be grouped as emerging from three different spheres of inuence: personal characteristics of participants which shape an individuals dialogic interaction capacity; interaction dynamics that become established within a group; and contextual factors that inuence a groups interaction environment. In Figure 1, the corners of the central triangle represent these spheres. Naturally, there is some level of overlap between these spheres, but it is nevertheless useful to differentiate between them in order to develop a conceptual framework of the range of inuences on dialogic interaction processes. In the personal sphere, factors that are of importance are certain attitudes in fostering dialogic interaction, such as openness, trust (OHara, 2003), and an individuals intention to dialogue (Martin, 2005), i.e. her or his motivation and ability to adhere to dialogic interaction principles. Furthermore, a person wishing to become a procient dialogic practitioner needs to be willing to engage in a certain degree of personal growth in order to become conscious of and tame competitive and egotistic drives (Prewitt, 2011). This is necessary to become genuinely open to embracing the views and experiences of others, and to develop an inner observer stance of heightened awareness during interactive encounters (Scharmer, 2009). Certain elements of group dynamics can also foster dialogic interaction, which is described by the inter-personal sphere. For instance, as was quite apparent in the Culemborg case, the presence of a joint vision or goal that captures the imagination of many, inspires, challenges, combines energy and starts from a shared frame of reference (Wals et al., 2009, p. 22) can aid group cohesiveness. Another factor that can be supportive of dialogic interaction is a groups tendency to practice symmetric conversation styles, in which marginalized voices are encouraged or even given priority while people in dominant positions engage critically with their own perspective (Wilhelmson, 2006). However, animosity between group members, as well as intercultural misunderstandings, power imbalances and the contested nature of sustainability issues can make it difcult for symmetric conversation patterns to emerge (Burton and Dimbleby, 1995; Putnam, 2001). Importantly though, groups can learn to overcome tendencies destructive to dialogue through a process of maturation (cf. Kell and Corts, 1980), as they grow in their ability to move from either/or comparisons to yes-and thinking (Gerard, 2005), and develop group cohesiveness and a joint vision (Wals et al., 2009). Here, it is especially benecial if a group shares a joint awareness of this process of maturation and its inherent difculties, as this can help to approach challenges in a positive, joyful and humble manner. Of course groups do not operate in a vacuum, and so we need to also consider some factors emerging from the context in which people interact. For instance, spatial design inuences how people interact, and the physical environment can be designed to foster dialogue through non- hierarchical (i.e. circular) furniture arrangements (Wang, 2009, Prewitt, 2011). Furthermore, the creation of a hospitable and comfortable space alike environment (Brown, 2002) can support creative and integrative thinking to a cafe (McCoy and Evans, 2002). However, as the above-mentioned need for personal growth and group maturation indicates, it is not an easy feat for a group to engage in dialogue. However, the presence of a skilled facilitator, as was the case in the Culemborg case, can assist participants in the use of dialogic interaction principles and appropriate

communication tools. The latter include for instance talking sticks (Wang, 2009), visualization aids (Brown, 2002), and improvisation games (Gerard, 2005), as well as nonviolent communication (Rosenberg, 2003), open space technology (Owen, 1997), and methodology (Brown, 2002). A word of caution, however: such tools the World Cafe should not be regarded as panaceas, as they are unlikely to suit every type of group, and may be inappropriate in a given cultural, political or social context. Furthermore, it is important to note that while skilled facilitation is important when a group is beginning to practice dialogue (Roper et al., 2004, Ellinor and Gerard, 1998), facilitators should train groups to interact dialogically without expert assistance (Roper et al., 2004) and encourage individuals to become increasingly aware of how their own and others actions shape interaction patterns. Another element of the framework in Figure 1 are the three axes that connect the corners of the triangle, which represent the interplay between the three spheres of inuence, and highlight that the factors in each sphere do not operate in isolation, but inuence each other. For instance, a high degree of openness can enable constructive use of communication tools, while a comfortable and trusting atmosphere can motivate participants. Furthermore, such an atmosphere can facilitate positive group dynamics, which in turn enhance group receptiveness to communication tools. Finally, we can say that positive relations amongst group members affect, for example, their willingness to respect fundamentally different opinions, while the personal growth of individual participants can enable them to deal with group dynamics in a constructive way. We can then say that the spheres of inuence and their interplay along the three axes create a certain eld in which dialogic interaction may emerge. Hence, when it comes to encouraging dialogic interaction in an organization, it is important to recognize these inuences and try to create a eld of interaction that is supportive rather than inhibitory to dialogue. However, the framework highlights also the fact that dialogic interaction is a slowly emerging process, which in Figure 1 is represented by the central spiral that is shaped by the constantly changing communication environment, shifting group dynamics, and evolving dialogic interaction capacities of the individuals involved. This process-oriented perspective to dialogic interaction is important, because it enables us to recognize that celebrating and integrating a diversity of perspectives and worldviews is something that does not come easy to most people. A process of learning and maturation is required to overcome non-dialogic interaction patterns that are situated within a historical, cultural and political context. Hence, we need to acknowledge the critical role of patience, commitment, and intentionality when it comes to learning to transcend personal, collective and contextual barriers to dialogic interaction. Sustainability competences for organizations In this emphasis on learning processes, we use the term sustainability competence to refer to the capacities and qualities people, and the organizations and communities of which they are part, need in order to address (un)sustainability. Sustainability competence is needed to adequately deal with the ve features presented earlier: indeterminacy, value-ladenness, controversy, uncertainty, and complexity. At the same time such competence is needed to develop more resilient and reexive communities that are better equipped to anticipate change and to respond to emergent crises.

Fostering sustainability

19

TLO 19,1

20

Dialogic interaction has been put forward as a key mechanism to help develop such communities. There are several central principles of dialogic interaction that groups and organizations could adopt to develop a more learning-oriented approach towards sustainability. For instance, group participants should practice empathic listening the ability to hear and engage in discourses fundamentally different from ones own (Heath et al., 2006, p. 363). Empathic listening can also be practiced through a range of communicative strategies, such as perception checking, active listening, [. . .] feedback aiming at clarifying the effects of actions, [and] the utterance of non-aggressive and non-evaluative assertions (Baraldi, 2006, p. 62). A second principle of dialogic interaction is suspension, which refers to participants developing the capacity to adopt an inner observer stance (Scharmer, 2009), which enables them to put judgment and emotional or automatic reactions on hold (Bohm, 1996), and contribute to the conversation only when it is relevant and helpful. To enable group members to practice suspension, another principle of dialogic interaction should be observed, namely a concerted effort to slow down conversation and interact in as calm a manner as possible (Scharmer, 2009), which also helps the groups ability to reect. Practically, this means that group members should try to pause before speaking, and refrain from interrupting others (Roper et al., 2004). Along with these rst three principles of empathic listening, suspension, and slowing down, however, it is also important that group members are assertive (but not aggressive) in voicing their opinion and perspective, and that they examine critically their own and others contributions (Wilhelmson, 2006). Hence, the practice of dialogic interaction requires group members to nd balance between standing your own ground while being profoundly open to the other (Buber, 1970; cited in Heath et al., 2006, p. 345). Another capacity that individuals and organizations need to adopt to be able to address the urgent need for change is the capacity to deal constructively with the often complex and conicting standpoints and perspectives on (un)sustainability issues. A central idea in social learning is that we can learn more from each other if we do not all think alike or act alike (Wals et al., 2009, p. 11). Bringing people with a variety of perspectives together can enable a group to co-create novel and innovative solutions. At the same time, when people are exposed to alternative ways of knowing and doing, conict, disruptions and dissonance can emerge. The crux is how conict is dealt with. If it leads to heated debate it is likely to serve only to further ingrain individually held views. However, dissonance can play a more enlightening role if it is addressed as oppositional discourse, in which participants embrace tensions between different positions and seek to uncover and probe paradoxes and contradictions while respecting their integrity as knowledge claims (Putnam, 2001). Constructive approaches to conict have long been shown to play a key role in individual learning and perspective transformation (Berlyne, 1965, Festinger, 1957, Piaget, 1964), and on the collective level they can be said to be just as important. In his book Critical Transitions in Nature and Society, ecologist Marten Scheffer (2009) refers to the role of tipping points in creating drastic shifts in ecosystems, and points out that this can also be the case in human societies, for instance in terms of the recent crash in stock markets. Perhaps we can draw the analogy here of a tipping point in thinking: When dissonance is introduced carefully and dealt with in a proactive and reective manner, it can lead participants to re-consider their views and adopt or

co-create new ways of looking at a particular issue. Such tipping points appear necessary in order to generate new thinking that can unblock patterns of mind and break with entrenched systems and routines. However, the role of conict in stimulating social learning is by no means straightforward. Too much conict may result in group participants blocking interaction, as their comfort zone is breached, while too little of it is just as likely to prevent any signicant learning from happening. The trick seems to be to learn on the edge of peoples individual comfort zones with regard to dissonance: if the process takes place too far outside of this zone, dissonance will not be constructive. If facilitators of interactive processes manage to strike a balance between comfort and tension, creating optimal dissonance by skillfully stretching comfort zones as needed (Wals, 2010, p. 27), transformative disruptions can occur that push participants away from the comforting bubbles of their own (potentially privileged) position and perspective, and challenge them to view the world from the vantage point of (perhaps marginalized) others (Van Gorder, 2007, p. 38). Other competences that seem important to help reorient people and the organizations and communities to which they belong towards sustainability include Gestaltswitching (Wals, 2010) and anticipatory or forward thinking (Michelsen and Adomssent, 2007). Gestaltswitching is a concept derived from the German term Gestalt, which in this context can be understood as mind-set or worldview. Gestaltswitching then refers to a persons ability to move back and forth between different mind-sets or perspectives (e.g. the local-global, past-present-future, anthropocentric-biocentric). Gestaltswitching is related to empathic listening but also to the systems thinking mentioned earlier, in that it can help view issues more holistically from a range of vantage points. Anticipatory thinking refers to the ability to think in a forward-looking manner, to deal with uncertainty, and with predictions, expectations and plans for the future. Final remarks In light of the emergent risk society (Beck, 1992, 2008) with its existential sustainability challenges, some environmental and sustainability educators and, indeed, policy-makers, are emphasizing that people will need to develop capacities and qualities that will allow them to contribute to alternative behaviors, lifestyles and systems both individually and collectively. In this article we have tried to combine the insights that have emerged from two on-going experiments by citizens to put sustainability into practice with some thinking of scholars seeking to develop learning-based transitions with, ultimately, the well-being of the planet in mind. A framework for dialogic interaction and some key competences have been introduced to help understand and facilitate such transitions. We have used the term learning somewhat liberally without trying to dene or describe it in much detail. Peters and Wals (n.d.) refer to a whole range of emerging associated forms of learning that all appear to have merit in transitional learning in the context of (organizational) sustainability, including transdisciplinary learning (e.g. Klein, 2000; Somerville and Rapport, 2000), transformative learning (e.g. Cranton, 2006; Mezirow and Taylor, 2009), cross-boundary learning (e.g. Levin, 2004), anticipatory learning (e.g. Tschakert and Dietrich, 2010) action learning (e.g. Marquardt, 2009; Cho and Marshall Egan, 2009) and social learning (e.g. Pahl-Wostl and Hare, 2004; Keen et al., 2005; Wals, 2007).

Fostering sustainability

21

TLO 19,1

22

These forms of learning show a high family resemblance in that they (see also Wals et al., 2009; Peters and Wals, n.d.; Wals, 2010): . consider learning as more than merely knowledge-based; . maintain the quality of interaction with others and of the environment in which learning takes place as crucial; . focus on existentially relevant or real issues essential for engaging learners; . view learning as inevitably transdisciplinary, transperspectival and transboundary, meaning that it cannot be captured by a single discipline and by a single perspective, and that it requires boundary crossing (Blackwell et al., 2009); . regard indeterminacy as a central feature of the learning process, in which it is not and cannot be known exactly what will be learnt ahead of time, so that learning goals are likely to shift as learning progresses; and . consider such learning as cross-boundary in nature, meaning that it cannot be conned to the dominant structures and spaces that have shaped education for centuries. Both the Culemborg and Auroville cases appear to support the notion that learning in a risk society requires hybridity and synergy between multiple actors and the blurring of formal and informal learning. Opportunities for this type of learning expand with an increased permeability between units, disciplines, generations, cultures, institutions and sectors. Through this hybridity and synergy, new spaces might open up that will allow for dialogic interaction and transformation to take place. More research needs to be done on the design and facilitation of hybrid learning congurations (Wals et al., 2012) that are conducive to dialogic interaction and the emergence of sustainable organizations. Finally, we have touched upon the notion of sustainability competence, which we have linked to dialogic interaction. We realize that there are other competences in play here that we have not mentioned (see, for example, Barth et al., 2007a, b; de Haan, 2010; Segalas et al., 2009; Wiek et al., 2011; Willard et al., 2010b) and that many of them appear rather generic in the sense that they do not seem sustainability specic competences. This is why it is important to continuously ask the To what end? question, as it allows the normative underpinnings of people and the values they live and work by to be brought to the table as well. Without doing so many of these competencies can just as well be used to make us, in the words of David Orr (2003), more effective vandals of the Earth.
Notes 1. See Sri Aurobindo, available at: www.auroville.org/vision/sriauro.htm 2. See Statements of support from UNESCO, available at: www.auroville.org/organisation/ supp_satements_unesco.htm References Baraldi, C. (2006), New forms of intercultural communication in a globalized world, The International Communication Gazette, Vol. 68, pp. 53-69.

Barth, M., Godemann, J., Rieckman, M. and Stoltenberg, U. (2007a), Developing key competences for sustainable development in higher education, International Journal Sustainability Higher Education, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 416-30. Barth, M., Godemann, J., Rieckman, M. and Stoltenberg, U. (2007b), Developing key competences for sustainable development in higher education, International Journal Sustainability Higher Education, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 416-30. Beck, U. (1992), Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, Sage Publications, New Delhi. Beck, U. (2008), World at Risk, Polity Press, Cambridge. Berlyne, D.E. (1965), Curiosity and education, in Krumbolts, J.D. (Ed.), Learning and the Educational Process, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, pp. 67-87. Bicchieri, C. (2006), The Grammar of Society: The Nature and Dynamics of Social Norms, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. Blackwell, A.F., Wilson, L., Street, A., Boulton, C. and Knell, J. (2009), Radical innovation: crossing knowledge boundaries with interdisciplinary teams, NESTA report, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, available at: www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR-760. pdf Bohm, D. (1996), On Dialogue, Routledge, London. Bronn, P.S. and Bronn, C. (2003), A reective stakeholder approach: co-orientation as a basis for communication and learning, Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 291-303. : A Resource Guide for Hosting Conversations that Matter, Brown, J. (2002), The World Cafe Pegasus, Williston, VT. Buber, M. (1964), Between Man and Man, Collins, London. Buber, M. (1970), I and Thou, Scribner, New York, NY. Burton, G. and Dimbleby, R. (1995), Between Ourselves: An Introduction to Interpersonal Communication, 2nd ed., Arnold, London. Capra, F. (1994), Ecology and community, Center for Ecoliteracy, Berkeley, CA, available at: www.ecoliteracy.org/publications/pdf/community.pdf Capra, F. (2007), Foreword, in Wals, A.E.J. (Ed.), Social Learning towards a Sustainable World, Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, pp. 13-17. Cho, Y. and Marshall Egan, T. (2009), Action learning research: a systematic review and conceptual framework, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 431-62. Cranton, P. (2006), Understanding and Promoting Transformative Learning: A Guide for Educators of Adults, Wiley, San Francisco, CA. de Haan, G. (2010), The development of ESD-related competencies in supportive institutional frameworks, International Review of Education, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 315-28. Ellinor, L. and Gerard, G. (1998), Dialogue: Rediscover the Transforming Power of Conversation, Wiley, New York, NY. Festinger, L. (1957), A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Harper & Row, New York, NY. Flyvbjerg, B. (2001), Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How it Can Succeed Again, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. Freire, P. (2007), Education for Critical Consciousness, Continuum, London, (rst published 1974). Funtowicz, S.O. and Ravetz, J.R. (1993), Science for the post-normal age, Futures, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 739-55.

Fostering sustainability

23

TLO 19,1

24

Gadotti, M. (1996), Pedagogy of Praxis: A Dialectical Philosophy of Education, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY. Gerard, G. (2005), Creating new connections: dialogue and improvisation, in Banathy, B. and Jenlink, P.M. (Eds), Dialogue as a Means of Collective Communication, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press, New York, NY, pp. 335-56. Gunnlaugson, O. (2007), Shedding light on the underlying forms of transformative learning theory: introducing three distinct categories of consciousness, Journal of Transformative Education, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 134-51. Haigh, M. (2008), Internationalisation, planetary citizenship and Higher Education Inc., Compare, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 427-40. Heath, R.L., Pearce, W.B., Shotter, J., Taylor, J.R., Kersten, A., Zorn, T., Roper, J., Motion, J. and Deetz, S. (2006), The process of dialogue: participation and legitimation, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 341-75. Heymann, F. and Wals, A.E.J. (2002), Cultivating conict and pluralism through dialogical deconstruction, in Leeuwis, C. and Pyburn, R. (Eds), Wheelbarrows Full of Frogs: Social Learning in Resource Management, Van Gorcum, Assen, pp. 123-41. Hooks, B. (1994), Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom, Routledge, New York, NY. Hurst, D.K. (1995), Crisis & Renewal: Meeting the Challenge of Organizational Change, Harvard University Press, Boston, MA. Jabareen, Y. (2008), A new conceptual framework for sustainable development, Environment, Development and Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 179-92. Keen, M., Brown, V.A. and Dyball, R. (2005), Social Learning in Environmental Management. Towards a Sustainable Future, Earthscan, London. Klein, J.T. (2000), Integration, evaluation and disciplinarily, in Somerville, M. and Rapport, D. (Eds), Transdisciplinarity: Recreating Integrated Knowledge, EOLSS Publishers, Oxford. Kell, C.I. and Corts, P.R. (1980), Fundamentals of Effective Group Communication, Macmillan, New York, NY. Levin, M. (2004), Cross-boundary learning systems integrating universities, corporations, and governmental institutions in knowledge generating systems, Systemic Practice and Action Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 151-9. Lindlof, T.R. (1995), Qualitative Communication Research Methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. McCoy, J.M. and Evans, G.W. (2002), The potential role of the physical environment in fostering creativity, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 14 Nos 3/4, pp. 409-26. McKibben, B. (2007), Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future, Times Books, New York, NY. Makower, J. and Pike, C. (2008), Strategies for the Green Economy: Opportunities and Challenges in the New World of Business, McGraw-Hill, Irvine, CA. Marquardt, M.J. (1999), Action Learning in Action, Davies-Black, Palo Alto, CA. Martin, D. (2005), Dialogue and spirituality, in Banathy, B. and Jenlink, P.M. (Eds), Dialogue as a Means of Collective Communication, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press, New York, NY, pp. 123-36. Mezirow, J. and Taylor, E.W. (Eds) (2009), Transformative Learning in Practice: Insights from Community, Workplace, and Higher Education, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Michelsen, G. and Adomssent, M. (2007), Education for sustainable development strategies in German universities, in Wals, A.E.J. (Ed.), From Cosmetic Reform to Meaningful Integration: Implementing Education for Sustainable Development in Higher Education Institutes the State of Affairs in Six European Countries, DHO, Amsterdam, pp. 21-4. OHara, M. (2003), Cultivating consciousness: Carl R. Rogers person-centered group process as transformative androgogy, Journal of Transformative Education, Vol. 1, pp. 64-79. Orr, D.W. (2003), Walking north on a southbound train, Conservation Biology, Vol. 17 No. 2. Owen, H. (1997), Open Space Technology: A Users Guide, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA. Pahl-Wostl, C. and Hare, M. (2004), Processes of social learning in integrated resources management, Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 14, pp. 193-206. Peters, S. and Wals, A.E.J. (n.d.), Learning and knowing in pursuit of sustainability: concepts and tools for transboundary environmental education research, in Krasny, M. and Dillon, J. (Eds), Transboundary Environmental Education Research, Springer, Frankfurt. Piaget, J. (1964), Development and learning, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 2, pp. 176-86, 348-51. Prewitt, V. (2011), Working in the cafe: lessons in group dialogue, The Learning Organization, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 115-30. Putnam, L.L. (2001), Shifting voices, oppositional discourse, and new visions for communication studies, Journal of Communication, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 38-51. Roper, J., Zorn, T. and Weaver, C.K. (2004), The communicative properties of science and technology dialogue, Ministry of Research Science and Technology, Wellington, available via: www.morst.govt.nz/publications/a-z/s/science-dialogue-2004/ (accessed July 30, 2011). Rosenberg, M.B. (2003), Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life, Puddle Dancer Press, Encinitas, CA. Rule, P. (2004), Dialogic spaces: adult education projects and social engagement, International Journal of Lifelong Education, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 319-34. Scharmer, C.O. (2009), Theory U: Leading from the Future as it Emerges The Social Technology of Presencing, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA. Scheffer, M. (2009), Critical Transitions in Nature and Society, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Schwarzin, L. (2011), Dialogic interaction for sustainability: exploring complexities and factors that shape interactive processes a qualitative case study in the intentional community of Auroville, MSc thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, available at: http://library. wur.nl/WebQuery/theses?vrijetekstschwarzin (accessed August 1, 2011). Segalas, J., Ferrer-Balas, D., Svanstrom, M., Lundqvist, U. and Mulder, K.F. (2009), What has to be learnt for sustainability? A comparison of bachelor engineering education competencies at three European universities, Sustainability Science, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 17-27. Senge, P.M. (1994), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Currency/Doubleday, New York, NY. Somerville, M. and Rapport, D. (Eds) (2000), Transdisciplinarity: Recreating Integrated Knowledge, EOLSS, Oxford. Stake, R.E. (2005), Qualitative case studies, in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 443-66. 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 of Sustainability: Problematics, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.

Fostering sustainability

25

TLO 19,1

26

Tschakert, P. and Dietrich, K.A. (2010), Anticipatory learning for climate change adaptation and resilience, Ecology and Society, Vol. 15 No. 2, p. 11. Van Gorder, A.C. (2007), Pedagogy for the children of the oppressors: liberative education for social justice among the worlds privileged, Journal of Transformative Education, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 8-32. Wals, A.E.J. (Ed.) (2007), Social Learning Towards a Sustainable World, Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen. Wals, A.E.J. (2010), Message in a bottle: learning our way out of unsustainability, paper presented upon accepting a Professorship and UNESCO Chair in Social Learning and Sustainable Development, Wageningen, Wageningen, May 27, 2009, accessible at: http:// groundswellinternational.org/2010/12/14/message-in-a-bottle-learning-our-way-out-ofunsustainability/ (accessed August 3, 2011). Wals, A.E.J., Van der Hoeven, N. and Blanken, H. (2009), The Acoustics of Social Learning: Designing Learning Processes that Contribute to a More Sustainable World, Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen. Wals, A.E.J. and Jickling, B. (2002), Sustainability in higher education: from doublethink and newspeak to critical thinking and meaningful learning, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 221-32. Wals, A.E.J. and Noorduyn, L. (2010), Social learning in action: a reconstruction of an urban community moving towards sustainability, in Stevenson, R. and Dillon, J. (Eds), Engaging Environmental Education: Culture, Agency and Learning, Sense, Rotterdam, pp. 59-76. Wals, A.E.J., Lans, T. and Kupper, H. (2012), Blurring the boundaries between vocational education, business and research in the agri-food domain, Journal of Vocational Education & Training, Vol. 64 No. 1, DOI: 10.1080/13636820.2011.586129. Wang, Y.H. (2009), Open space learning circle and active learning in English communication class, European Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 477-85. Wiek, A., Withycombe, L. and Redman, C.L. (2011), Key competencies in sustainability: a reference framework for academic program development, Sustainability Science, Vol. 6, pp. 203-18. Wilhelmson, L. (2006), Dialogue meetings as nonformal adult education in a municipal context, Journal of Transformative Education, Vol. 4, pp. 243-56. Wilkinson, R. and Pickett, K. (2010), The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone, Penguin Books, London. World Bank (2000), Greening Industry: New Roles for Communities, Markets and Governments, Oxford University Press/World Bank, Oxford. About the authors Arjen E.J. Wals is a Professor of Social Learning and Sustainable Development. He is also a UNESCO Chair in the same eld. Arjen has worked at Wageningen University since 1992 in various departments. His research focuses on learning processes that contribute to a more sustainable world. Arjen obtained his PhD in 1991 with a Fulbright fellowship at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. A central question in his work is how to create conditions that support new forms of learning that take full advantage of the diversity, creativity and resourcefulness that is all around us, but so far remains largely untapped in our search for a world that is more sustainable than the one currently in prospect. Popular books include Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustainability (Kluwer Academic, 2004) and Social Learning towards a Sustainable World (Wageningen Academic, 2007). Arjen E.J. Wals is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: Arjen.wals@wur.nl

Lisa Schwarzin was the coordinator of the Initiative for Transformative Sustainability Education at Wageningen University, where she recently completed her MSc. She has a keen interest in facilitating and conducting research into processes of transformative learning for societal change in both formal and non-formal education settings. She is also co-founder of an international sustainability learning institute that promotes human development and innovative action, and is soon to be established in Croatia.

Fostering sustainability

27

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints