Encouraging critical thinking in the context of sustainable development

In 2015, the United Nations formulated 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with 169 associated targets that were intended to sustainably address the world's economic, environmental, and social challenges. Globally, the SDGs have largely been adopted as positive ideals, and they are expected to inform environmental education (EE) and education for sustainable development (ESD). However, some EE and ESD scholars argue that SDGs should not be accepted as inherently positive and that critical thinking in the context of sustainable development is necessary in EE and ESD. This study investigated how the SDGs can be taught to encourage students to use empirical and ethical evidence to evaluate the sustainable development framework and form educated and nuanced perspectives.

The author outlined arguments that dispute the three commonly used terms in the SDG framework: economic growth, inclusion, and resilience. Some scholars argue that sustainable development is an oxymoron. The ideal of infinite economic growth is inevitably incompatible with the ecological limits of the planet, and it is improperly framed as a solution to many global challenges, such as poverty and global health. The concept of inclusion is founded on the goal of sharing the fruits of economic development with vulnerable communities and developing nations. However, some scholars believe that it excludes non-humans and thereby reinforces an anthropocentric view of nature, in which nature is seen only as a utility for economic growth. Additionally, development aid can perpetuate inequality and have other negative impacts. Finally, some scholars believe the concept of resilience devalues the non-human because it only focuses on the ability of humanity to recover from disturbances. Some believe that the concept of resilience reduces the urgency of addressing climate change by detracting attention and resources from climate change mitigation.

In this study, the author conducted case studies in three sustainability-related university courses she taught in the Netherlands. The courses were: 1) The Sustainable Business minor program at The Hague University of Applied Sciences, 2) Environment and Development at the Leiden University College, and 3) Environment and Development at the Leiden University in a Master of Anthropology program. The courses respectively had 22 students (21-24 years old, 12 males, 10 females); 17 students (21-24 years old, 5 males, 12 females); and 8 students (23-29 years old, 1 male, 7 females). Each course had a variety of international students enrolled. Course lectures were given between September through December 2015. The course material included literature, films, and excursions, which were supplemented by written assignments, lectures, in-class discussions, and student-led discussions. The author analyzed written assignments, student course evaluations, and notes from in-class observation for themes.

Data collected at the beginning of the courses demonstrated that students did not have much knowledge about the SDGs, but that they tended to perceive them as positive objectives. By the end of the courses, student assignments and in-class observation reflected an awareness of—and at times adoption of—critical and/or cynical perspectives of economic growth, inclusion, and resilience. Many students believed that the SDGs were not sufficient for addressing sustainability challenges, and that different economic structures that prioritize environmental and social well-being over perpetual growth were more appropriate ways to address the lack of sustainability. Students identified population growth and anthropocentric ethical views as the primary obstacles to sustainability.

The study also found differences among students. Usually, American and European students participated fluidly in confrontational discourse in class, whereas Asian students found it more difficult to be outwardly critical. Students with an academic background in business tended to be more resistant to critical perspectives of sustainable development than students in sustainability-oriented fields. In course evaluations, many students said that their perspectives on sustainable development had been altered, and that their tendency to think critically generally increased.

This study has several limitations. Coursework, such as in-class discussions or written assignments, may not be a precise representation of student beliefs. The researcher who conducted this study was also the professor who taught the course. Students may have been motivated to align with the professor's opinions to secure better grades, resulting in data that presents a higher adoption of cynical or critical perspective of SDGs. Additionally, the critiques of sustainable development and its core principles depend on their definition and the language employed.

The author recommends that EE and ESD educators find a balance between providing expert instruction and facilitating open discussion. Educators should indicate their personal biases and encourage students to reflect on and share their own perspectives. Students should be encouraged to dispute the instructor's opinions, and educators must allow space for alternate viewpoints. Students can and should be made aware of how sustainable, inclusive, and resilient economic growth are not necessarily inherently good or possible. Ideally, educators should work to enable critical thinking, and inform students of alternate mechanisms for attaining a more sustainable world (e.g., economic systems that value well-being over growth).