The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1467-6370.

htm

Communicating the sustainability message in higher education institutions

A. Djordjevic
Education for Sustainability Project, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK, and

The sustainability message 381

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

D.R.E. Cotton
Teaching and Learning Directorate, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to explore the possibilities and problems with engaging in effective communication about sustainability in higher education (SHE) institutions. Design/methodology/approach Using a case study of a new (post-1992) university in the UK, the research investigated the ways in which sustainability issues were communicated with staff across the institution, and any barriers encountered. Semi-structured interviews and a focus group with selected staff led to the development of four key themes related to different aspects of the communication strategy, and it is these which are explored in this paper. Findings This research suggests that there are some particular difculties with regard to communicating messages about sustainability successfully. These relate to the lack of an agreed denition or shared understanding of sustainability, and also to potential individual differences in values and attitudes which may act as a perceptual lter of the message. Research limitations/implications This is a small-scale project so ndings should be treated with caution. However, the lack of previous research in this area gives this interest as an exploratory study. 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 the organisation expects from employees. This needs to be supported by staff at the highest level, in order for it to have the maximum impact. Originality/value This paper is the rst to use a model of organisational communication to analyse and evaluate the effectiveness of communication around SHE context. Keywords United Kingdom, Universities, Communication management, Sustainability, Higher education, Marketing Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction There has been a growing awareness in national and international policies of the need to integrate sustainability into both business and educational arenas. As one of the largest industries in the world, and one in which [. . .] the specialists of most industries in this economy 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 of increasing importance in HE, steadily infusing the campus, curriculum, community and culture of many institutions (Dyer et al., 2006). According to UNESCO, ESD is a process of 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-wide issue, sustainability has the potential to become a gateway to a different view

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

IJSHE 12,4

382

of curriculum, of pedagogy, of organizational change, of policy and particularly of ethos (Sterling, 2004, p. 50), drawing together campus changes, curriculum development and pedagogic reform. Specic changes which have been made in successful sustainable universities include: teaching and learning and research policies with sustainability as a key theme; changes to core processes such as course validation and monitoring to enhance sustainability content; sustainable procurement ofces to manage the institutions day to day business; and campaigns to change behaviours of staff and students regarding electricity, paper use and recycling. A report by Forum for the Future & HEPS (2004) describes communication as crucial in engaging universities and colleges with the sustainable development (SD) agenda (p. 15). However, communication of sustainability messages (such as campaigns to increase recycling or more controversially to include sustainability in the curriculum) is problematic in the HE context underlying belief structures intrinsic to HE (such as independence of thought and critical thinking) may conict with the attitudinal implications of the sustainability message (Cotton et al., 2007). Yet, effective organisational communication conveying meaning from sender to receiver is a key part of the move towards more sustainable universities, and this can be explored using a model of the interpersonal communication process offered by Huczynski and Buchanan (2007). This model positions the message-sender as a transmitter who encodes the message, which then travels through communication channels to the receiver(s), who then decode it. During both coding and decoding, perceptual lters can distort the meaning of the message. The process is completed by feedback travelling in the opposite direction, telling the transmitter if the message has been received and how it was decoded. In a potentially contested area such as sustainability, perceptual lters are a key element in the communication process. The attitudes of both sender and receiver play a central role in inuencing the message and its reception, and the communication will be ineffective if it is not received or not fully understood. Where the aim of communication is a change in knowledge, attitude or behaviour, a shared understanding of the message is even more important; communication is essentially a social affair (Corner and Hawthorn, 1993). In this sense, messages cannot be seen as dened entities, separate from the context and the worldview of the recipient. If we apply the communication model by Huczynski and Buchanan (2007), then the reality is that these perceptual lters continuously intervene between sender and recipient. An underlying assumption of much research into communication is that receiving new information leads to changes in attitude or behaviour. However, the evidence in support of this link is, at best, scanty and predicting an individuals behaviour from their knowledge or attitudes is unreliable leading McGuire to describe low attitude-behaviour correlation as the scandal of social psychology (McGuire, 1999, p. 326). Arbuthnott (2009) echoes this nding in the context of sustainability, noting that habits, social norms and environmental factors may intervene between attitudes and behaviours. It is clear that whilst awareness-raising campaigns, which are commonly used in the public sector, may be successful in transmitting information, they often fail to make a difference to behaviour (McKenzie-Mohr and Smith, 2006). Nonetheless, communicating information effectively is an essential rst stage. Barriers to effective communication include lack of clarity in message formulation; inaccurate preconceptions on the part of the sender about the recipient; lack of shared

understanding between sender and receiver; and use of jargon or symbolic language which is open to differential interpretations (Rollinson, 2002). Noise in the channel is another widespread communication barrier: the message changes while travelling from sender to receiver because of intervening inuences, such as perceptions, motives and emotions (Huczynski and Buchanan, 2007, p. 181). Use of electronic communication channels may add to the problems of noise, since messages are more easily misread than in face-to-face communication, and are less effective at conveying honesty, integrity and trustworthiness (Rollinson, 2002, p. 623). Moreover, information overload in many organisations leads to incoming e-mail trafc being widely ignored, and a reduction in the capacity of recipients to decode even those messages which are relevant and important (an issue identied and discussed in higher education institutions (HEIs) by Conroy (2007). For this reason, face-to-face communication around sustainability is recommended as a primary approach by Sharp (2002). Nonetheless, electronic communication is increasingly prevalent in organisational settings, due to its exibility and efciency. It may also be valued from the sustainability point of view, since it does minimum harm to the environment and saves paper use. Effective internal communication is a key issue for HEIs, as in other organisations, as a way of enhancing employee commitment, performance, motivation and empowerment. In addition to these basic functions, internal communication is an important tool in enhancing the understanding of corporate strategy, mission and values, strengthening corporate culture and enabling change (Fowler, 1991; Brassington and Pettitt, 2007). According to Cornelissen (2008), effective internal communication is present in organisations where employees are well-informed about the future directions of the organisation and at the same time have inuence on decision-making processes. This combining of upward and downward communication is especially important during processes of organisational change 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 a point of major importance in communicating issues relating to sustainability, given the democratic ideals of many sustainability advocates. Literature on communication about sustainability is mostly found in the area of social marketing. McKenzie-Mohr and Smith (2006) apply the standard marketing strategy of analysing target behaviour, segmenting the target audience and designing communication strategies for target audiences. When developing a strategy for social marketing, they aim to remove barriers to behavioural change and at the same time to offer incentives for the desired behaviour. Suggestions for effective communication include: . use captivating information (grab attention by using vivid, personal and concrete 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 one another); and . provide feedback (show effectiveness of new behaviour).

The sustainability message 383

IJSHE 12,4

384

Applying the Huczynski and Buchanan (2007) communication model to this concept, it is noteworthy that these suggestions are aimed at the removal of communication barriers: the message is likely to suffer less distortion through encoding and decoding if 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 tricky business: Sustainability is a complex eld so it can be very difcult to frame messages so they dont just confuse people (Hitchcock and Willard, 2006, p. 200). It is clear 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 show that communication about sustainability is, without any exception, a main point for improvement. Particular issues identied include poor communication between management and staff, and between the university and its students. This is problematic given the key role played by staff and students in embracing sustainability and integrating it in core activities. Communication is clearly essential to effective change management and organisational learning. Lozano (2006) uses innovation theory to help understand the process of incorporation of SD into HE. His recommendation is that organisations provide the necessary information and skills to all the stakeholders through different media (such as internet, education, etc.), with a special focus on educating the educators. (Lozano, 2006, p. 793). Change towards sustainability requires buy-in from a wide range of individuals and groups within the organisation, and effective communication in this area is likely to be complex. This study grew from a desire to investigate further the potential communication issues in a HE setting. 2. Context This research was carried out at a new university (designated post-1992) in the UK. The institution is widely regarded as having strong sustainability credentials and communication of the sustainability agenda is undertaken using a range of strategies: . A newsletter about sustainability at the university and across the HE sector distributed three times per year. Contributors are mostly staff and students, with occasional external partners or visitors. It is available electronically, on-line and in paper form (available on campus and on request). Target audiences are predominantly staff, but contents are relevant to present and prospective students, alumni, the local community and HE sector generally. A web site based on open-source web 2 technology, developed by a team of staff and students, is maintained by students on industrial placement in the team. The web site is dynamic, 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 a Development Activities Programme in order to explore the concept of sustainability in a university context, and enable the use of interactive approaches. . An Occasional Paper Series presents research about different aspects of sustainability in the university and HE sector in general. It is signicant that

the rst issue in this series looked at how the university could use its sustainability credentials in its marketing policy. One of the recommendations in this study was that the university should review the internal marketing of sustainability 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 way for a university to communicate with its staff, students and the local community. It is powered by low energy LEDs.

The sustainability message 385

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 interesting context in which to investigate the effectiveness of communication around sustainability. 3. Methodology This study used an instrumental case study approach (Stake, 1995) to explore the issue of communication about sustainability in a single HEI. The HEI selected was considered to provide strong possibilities for exploring sustainability, since it is considered a leader in this area, and has been nationally recognised for its achievements in sustainability. The case study approach, using qualitative methods, was felt to provide strong potential to explore a complex, multi-layered issue such as sustainability; to capture the essence and ambience of the context, the meanings, concepts, denitions, 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 a range of stakeholders, in order to explore their understandings of sustainability and, in particular, their views on the effectiveness of different communication methods in this area. Key informants ( Jankowicz, 2005) were selected for interview, including the director of 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 of respondents. Criteria for selection of respondents included the following: . members of staff at the university with some experience or interest in sustainability; . 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 close links to the ESD centre were interviewed (the director of the centre, a centre fellow and a steering group member), and a further seven members of staff with less close connection to the centre took part in a focus group discussion. Whilst this is not a large

IJSHE 12,4

386

number of respondents, those selected offered a range of different perspectives on the effectiveness of communications around sustainability, and the discussions were lengthy 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. All participants were informed about the purpose of the research and that interviews would be digitally recorded and transcribed. The participants had an option to withdraw from the research at any time and request that their data be removed from the data set. They were also told that their names would not be used in this project, and participants in individual interviews were offered the opportunity to read transcripts of their interviews and check them for accuracy. The questions were developed following recommendations by Krueger (1998). The interviews started with an opening question about the background of the participant, followed by introductory questions about the centre for ESD. The key questions about effectiveness of communication and behavioural change followed, concluding with an open-ended question eliciting further suggestions or any points missed. The key-informant interview was more comprehensive and in-depth, and also included a question about evaluation of the centres communication. Data were analysed using the constant comparative method to draw out cross-cutting themes (Silverman, 2005), an iterative process of reading and re-reading data, looking for similarities and differences between accounts, and specic references to communication strengths and weaknesses. Clearly, the degree of generalisation which can be made from such a sample is limited. However, it is possible to use the data collected to theorise about the possible wider applicability of the ndings about communication of sustainability issues, by using theoretical inference (Hammersley, 1998). Any theoretical understanding thus produced should be considered provisional in nature and would benet from further investigation. 4. Findings When answering questions participants talked about their perceptions of the sustainability team, their activities, and their communication management. They also discussed the integration of sustainability messages with communication about other university agendas. Four themes emerged across all interviews: (1) the contested denition of sustainability; (2) conict 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 rst two themes focus primarily on the message content and how it is encoded and decoded in the light of noise in the communication channel, whilst the last two themes are concerned mainly with perceptual lters at work in this context. 4.1 Theme 1: the contested denition of sustainability This issue was of concern to the sustainability team right from the start, and the tension between imparting a simple message, but without oversimplifying to the point of making the concept entirely meaningless was a matter of some debate. The director noted:

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

The sustainability message 387

However, the success of this approach was somewhat questionable, since he also comments that:
Despite our holistic rendition of sustainability, I am sure there are thousands of people across this University who have not bothered to listen because they think sustainability is about the environment and thats not for them.

This illustrates an underlying difculty with communicating the sustainability message itself. Irrespective of communication channels, if the sender and receiver are not clear about the content of the message, it is unlikely to be acted upon. One focus group discussion offered a clear account of how difcult it was for individuals to engage with the 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 get hold of it. That is a turn-off. The lack of denition doesnt help.

This issue has been noted in much previous research, leading Reid and Petocz to coin the phrase, denition dementia to describe the varied range of understandings of sustainability. It is clear that the longstanding failure to agree on a denition of sustainability limits the potential for successful communication. Gough (2002) notes that: [. . .] a eld incapable of establishing agreed denitions of its most basic terminology seems unlikely to make any other sort of progress. Without a clear delineation of the content of the message, the communication between sender and receiver is unlikely to be effective. There is some evidence that the interpretation of sustainability by the core team was simply too complex to be easily understood by the majority of recipients. 4.2 Theme 2: conict with university mission This 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 of respondents felt that there was a lack of commitment from the top: the perceived low priority given to sustainability by senior managers (and, in some cases, departmental heads) was a common theme across all interviews, with a general consensus that in such 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 widely publicized commitments to sustainability. One would anticipate that this might be even more of a limiting factor in universities where sustainability is not seen as a key issue. However, it should also be noted that previous research indicates that strong

IJSHE 12,4

388

institutional support in this area can be a double-edged sword: Cotton et al. (2009) state that, one risk arising from strong leadership is that sustainable development may be viewed as another imposed agenda and that resistance to change may actually be increased in these circumstances. Alongside the perceived lack of support from senior managers, participants also expressed concerns about the apparent limited alignment of sustainability with other institutional priorities: . The [university] strategy documents do not talk to each other they are saying different things. . The university is on loads of initiatives all over the place. The message about sustainability was seen by many staff as being disjointed from the university mainstream, its policies, structure and institutional culture despite the potential for linking the sustainability agenda with other current issues such as employability, 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 this context sustainability was frequently not viewed as the number one priority. Crucially, noise from other strategic documents and statements appeared to be a key element in reducing the impact of communications about sustainability. 4.3 Theme 3: resistance to change On numerous occasions during interviews, participants talked about human nature, and resistance to change. It was felt that the concept of sustainable behaviour might be too aspirational and that, by default, humans would choose not to behave in a sustainable manner for reasons of pure selshness:
We are all greedy selsh 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 nd it difcult to relate to 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 to believe that they did not have to respond. The director of the sustainability core team described such attitudes as forming part of a wider disassociation from nature, yet this clearly illustrates the gulf in understanding between the sender and receivers of the sustainability message:
A lot of the sustainability problem [. . .] is the product of a process of disassociation, of disassociation from reality, of disassociation from nature, and disassociation from self.

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

Velazquez et al. (2005) and Lozano (2006) have identied lecturers beliefs and attitudes as barriers to implementation of sustainability initiatives in HE, and this will clearly inuence 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 students passing through in cycles and moving on after relatively short periods of time:
It [the population of the University] is a shifting thing.

The sustainability message 389

Sustainability, however, is a long-term concept in which immediate visible results are uncommon. Deep-rooted values and less visible manifestations of behaviour can be easily overlooked by some of transient population of a university, and this may inltrate thinking more widely. Theme 3 illustrates quite clearly the potential impact of perceptual lters on the message received. It is clear that the sender and receiver in this context place different value on the message transmitted, and therefore interpret it in different ways. 4.4 Theme 4: needs and expectations Another example of perceptual lters at work arose in relation to sending out messages to different groups of staff in the organisation. In HE, employees generally fall into two categories: academic and professional support staff, and the divide between those two groups is well known within the sector. However, staff members fall into different groups in many other ways: those who teach and work with students and those who do not; those who work in faculties and those who work in central services. Subject-specic groups and their associated territories are another area of staff division, as described by Becher and Trowler (2001). Each of these groups has their own specic needs and expectations, and they engage with different aspects of sustainability. If they are targeted with messages that do not relate to their needs, tensions may arise:
They [academic staff from specic subject groups] basically wanted this to be a project which tted 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 the same with this. [In one of central departments] if you use the word sustainability they would think about sustainable bottom line.

Again, this illustrates some specic difculties concerning communication around sustainability. Whilst the search for an agreed denition remains a seemingly unattainable goal, recipients of sustainability communications express a need for tailored messages which recognise their individual context. To what extent these two aims can be reconciled is unclear. The notion of sustainability has developed a rhetorical ambiguity which, whilst it has some benets in apparently enabling diverse interest groups to converge (Stables and Scott, 2002), also raises some problematic issues for communication. Participants had very concrete suggestions about what kind of communication and initiatives they thought would be welcome. They expressed a need for messages which took into account the difculties they faced at work on a daily basis. However, what

IJSHE 12,4

they actually received was, in the main, generic communication, intended for all staff and 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 this target or miss that target and I cant decide with my limited decision making capacities and freedom for movement; yet Ive got to choose.

390

They should have people alongside us and to actually engage and see what we do on a day-to-day basis. Really brief, really accessible documents.

Participants generally felt that staff in the sustainability unit were not in touch with the reality of their daily work, and this had an impact on the way in which messages were decoded. They also felt that they needed their voice to be heard and listened to as they could offer a contribution towards solutions:
Some of the environmental things that weve had imposed upon us have been bad for us and difcult for us to deal with. There is no one place where everybody feels welcome and interested and curious [about sustainability] to come along to.

This suggests that communication about sustainability should be much more of a two way process, and that messages should be adapted much more specically to the intended audience. 5. Reported impacts The themes described above and the reported barriers to communication give an insight into the difculties of communicating sustainability messages within a large and complex organisation. Whilst some are specic to the HE context, others are of potentially wider concern within organisations. It is clear that the impacts of the sustainability message were constrained, owing both to factors relating to the message itself and also to the channels of communication which were used. Nonetheless, staff did report a range of behaviour change outcomes that had come about 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 of the research practice which encourages academics to y 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 by bringing about the university Sustainability Policy and Strategic Action Plan, as well as getting the University through the process of obtaining the ISO14001 Quality Assurance Certicate. However, inuencing individuals behaviour is an on-going challenge, and the changes that were made were often related to resource use rather than changes to the curriculum or pedagogies.

6. Conclusions Although there were a number of examples of successful communication of messages and ensuing behaviour change, the research also identied the following key communication barriers: . Message sent is too complex and is not sufciently contextualised for the recipient. Recipient therefore perceives that the message does not apply to him/ her. This may be exacerbated where the sender is very knowledgeable about the topic, or where they hold strong views, which may not align with their intended audience. . Sender and receiver do not share the same understanding about the meaning or value of sustainability, meaning that the recipient will not act on the communication. . The sender lacks authority with a group of recipients (perhaps due to differing disciplinary origins). Perceptions of the ESD unit in some cases reduced the impact of messages, as did the perceived lack of institutional support. . Noise in the channel, associated with the sheer number and range of messages coming from the university leading to information overload. In these circumstances, selectivity and perceptions of the receiver can result in distorted messages or communication failure. . Overly top-down approach to communication by the institution, failure to engage in dialogue with staff. . Excessive focus on electronic communication channels, rather than face-to-face interactions. The research ndings indicate that there are many barriers to effective communication around 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 is difcult due to the complexity of the issues, while the process of decoding the message is also problematic, due to the perceptual lters of the receivers. In particular, the lack of an agreed denition or shared understanding of sustainability, together with the individual differences in values and attitudes are problematic. For example, in this context, the message senders (largely originating from the ESD centre) tended to have rather complex multi-faceted views of what changes with respect to sustainability might look like (for example in terms of curriculum or pedagogic transformation), whereas recipients often viewed appropriate changes to be more along the lines of turning off lights and using less paper in printing. The integrity of the message is likely to suffer signicantly in these circumstances, and this will limit the impact of any intended changes to behaviour. In the context of a large organisation, the research also emphasizes the importance of alignment of institutional strategies, in order to provide a coherent view of what the organisation expects from employees. Arguably, this should be supported by staff at the highest level, in order for it to have the maximum impact although the difculties of imposing organisational change top-down within an academic context should not be under-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 how this engagement led to action in many contexts. Our research also suggests that,

The sustainability message 391

IJSHE 12,4

despite stringent attempts to engage a wide range of stakeholders, sustainability was rarely seen in the light of a dialogue. This seems crucial in respect of the potential diversity of views on sustainability, and the need for a democratic approach. Further consideration of how staff in widely differing contexts can be engaged in sustainability discussions seems to be needed. 7. Recommendations The key practical recommendations arising from this study can be outlined as follows: . Sustainability messages must be clear, precise and coherent, yet tailored to the different contexts of recipients. Despite its widespread use, it is still necessary to provide a working denition of sustainability in order to enable staff and students to understand the concept. We would recommend avoiding the approach of simply adding sustainability to current communications. . In order to promote wide-scale changes, high level support is necessary but not sufcient. Dialogue and a democratic approach are also essential, and a message for university managers appears to be that developing a distinctive niche for their institution rather than trying to communicate and embed a wide range of strategic agendas is more likely to be successful. . In a context where work pressures are increasingly severe, there needs to be a highly consistent and clear communication strategy in order to engender change. Communications which are supportive (offered help or guidance) and work from an understanding of the contextual issues are more likely to be successful than attempts 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 ndings and recommendations are necessarily tentative. We would strongly recommend that a larger-scale study be undertaken, in order to see whether the opportunities and barriers identied here are more 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 the Cultures 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 Higher Education, 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-best solutions: education for sustainable development in higher education, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 719-33.

392

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, available at: www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/ourwork/tla/sustainability/ sustdevinHEnalreport.pdf (accessed 18 February 2011). Dyer, A., Selby, D. and Chalkley, B. (2006), A centre for excellence in education for sustainable development, 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 for environmental learning, Trumpeter, Vol. 18 No. 1, available at: http://trumpeter. athabascau.ca/index.php/trumpet/article/viewArticle/122/132 (accessed 18 February 2011). Hammersley, M. (1998), Reading Ethnographic Research: A Critical Guide, Longman, London. Hitchcock, D. and Willard, M. (2006), The Business Guide to Sustainability: Practical Strategies and 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: breaking through barriers to change, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14, pp. 787-96. McGuire, W.J. (1999), Constructing Social Psychology: Creative and Critical Processes, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. McKenzie-Mohr, D. and Smith, W. (2006), Fostering Sustainable Behavior: An Introduction to Community-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.B and 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.

The sustainability message 393

IJSHE 12,4

394

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 of Sustainability: 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 education institutions: an appraisal of the factors which inuence sustainability in higher education institutions, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 383-91. Further reading Reid, A. and Petocz, P. (2006), University lecturers understanding of sustainability, Higher Education, Vol. 51, pp. 105-23. About the authors A. Djordjevic worked for the University of Plymouth as Centre Manager in the Centre for Sustainable Futures from 2005 to 2010. During her time in Plymouth, she researched sustainability communication as part of her Master in Business Administration course. She is currently Education for Sustainability Project Co-ordinator at the University of Exeter, where she is involved in several interdisciplinary student-facing projects. D.R.E. Cotton has a doctorate from St Annes College, Oxford, where she researched environmental education in UK secondary schools. She has subsequently published widely on environmental and sustainability education, as well as on e-learning and student experiences of eldwork. She is currently Head of Educational Development at the University of Plymouth, where she is responsible for educational enhancement and pedagogic research across the institution. D.R.E. Cotton is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: dcotton@plymouth.ac.uk

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