The evaluation selleckchem of this approach would require examination of the programs as a whole, including the progression of the program throughout the degree period and the actual teaching methods employed. Disparity between program curricula and literature on sustainability We have shown that there

is a discrepancy between what is being offered in sustainability programs in higher education and how sustainability as an academic field is described in the literature (Clark and Dickson 2003; Komiyama and Takeuchi 2006; Hansmann 2010; Bacon et al. 2011), particularly in integrating natural and social sciences. The disciplinary gaps and omissions we have identified create limitations for graduates of these programs to fully engage in sustainability problem-solving. We are not suggesting that sustainability degrees should converge on a specific, precise curriculum. Rather, we suggest that intentionally designing the content of sustainability education using fundamental disciplinary building blocks from the natural and social sciences and arts and humanities would help ensure the diversity of the field while promoting coherence. We believe that some shared foundations between programs are necessary for sustainability to develop into a mature scientific program that is recognizable

across universities and understood by academics, employers, and civil society. Further, the development, redevelopment, and continuation of programs

in sustainability Napabucasin form an important part of its institutionalization as an academic field, because to a certain extent, what counts in society as legitimate knowledge within a field is defined by the curricular content of programs in that field (Meyer 1977). We argue that education programs in sustainability would benefit from somewhat increased alignment and a more closely shared vision, following the literature on the scholarly practice of sustainability. However, we recognize why that some may be critical of the idea of a narrowly prescribed field, preferring that sustainability continues to be open to diversity and adapted to specific contexts. A middle ground would be for programs to explicitly articulate what their vision of sustainability is to engage in valuable debate and discussion about the content and motivation of sustainability education. Barriers and recommendations There are several possible explanations for the current program structures in sustainability, with their lack of natural science at the master’s level and a neglect of the arts and humanities and critical social sciences such as sociology, anthropology, and psychology at both GW 572016 levels. One explanation could be related to the developmental history of these programs, particularly whether they arise from a natural science, social science, or arts and humanities department.