Shared Perspectives on the Purpose of Environmental Education between Practitioners

EE can be a valuable tool for positively impacting both social and environmental challenges. However, the field has a long history of debate and conflict pertaining to its definition, goals, and priorities. In attempts to reconcile scholarship and practice, studies have been conducted to evaluate the varying perspectives of EE practitioners. Failing to understand EE perspectives may have negative impacts including decreased perceived value of EE, reduced funding for EE work, and limited innovation in the field. Past research on EE perspectives focused on college students rather than a diverse audience of EE practitioners. This study analyzed the perspectives of a wider range of EE practitioners in an attempt to discover common values and goals within EE educators.

To identify and understand the varying perspectives of EE practitioners, this study used Q Methodology. This approach involved creating a set of statements about a topic—in this case, the definition of EE. Then, study participants were asked to sort the statements based on how much they believe in each statement. The Q Methodology analyzes the numerous “sorting” statements, also known as Q sorts, to then determine certain patterns and social perspectives on the topic.

In this study, a group of four researchers first attempted to collect as many EE definitions as possible from a range of sources, including conferences, websites, and scholarly articles. A total of 110 statements were compiled. After identifying gaps, repetitive ideas, and opportunities to make the statements more concise, the researchers refined 110 statements to 35 statements. The final 35 EE statements were classified into 10 subcategories: 1) Environmental sustainability, 2) Place-based, 3) Spirituality, 4) Cognitive, 5) Collectivist, 6) Agency, 7) Individualist, 8) Problem-solvers, 9) Moral responsibility, and 10) Life Skills.

Once the statements were finalized, 41 environmental educators from a range of states within central and eastern U.S., and in urban, suburban, and rural areas, were selected to complete the Q sorts. The study participants were selected based on having clear opinions on the field of EE. These participants had apparent opinions on the field of EE, based on their direct and active involvement in advancing EE. Participants were identified via professional networks, referral from direct contacts, and participants referred others who had contrasting viewpoints of EE. The study participants represented a range of occupations (student, university faculty, non-profit staff, government official, religious), and the audience that participants worked with ranged in age from young children to youth and adults.

A total of 41 Q sorts were completed; of these, 23 were conducted by a researcher, 15 individually and 8 in a group setting, and 18 were conducted through written instruction. After the Q sorts, the participants were asked to complete one interview or written reflection about their rationale behind the sort after its completion. Both the interviews and reflection were used to support and further explain the results of the Q-sorts. During the initial data analysis, the study authors were concerned that a group of EE practitioners, who may not self-identify as EE practitioners, had been left out of the study group. This was addressed by recruiting 7 new study participants from the identified group of “community educators” and adding their responses. The data from the Q sorts were analyzed using statistics.

The study revealed 5 distinct perspectives of EE: 1) fundamental coexistence, 2) spiritual instrumentalism, 3) moral stewardship, 4) skilled community activism, and 5) social-ecological ethicists. Fundamental coexistence was characterized by a focus on sustainable life systems for human and non-human beings, with less focus on the academic learnings and instrumental philosophy on EE. Spiritual instrumentalism was characterized by value in creating a deep emotional/spiritual connection between humans and the natural world, shared by both faith-based and non-faith-based EE practitioners. Moral stewardship was characterized by the view that EE is a viable path to developing a virtuous character. Skilled community activism was characterized by the emancipatory potential of EE, in terms of building capacity for local activism through environmental work. Social-ecological ethicists was characterized by cognitive development in terms of morality, connection between different groups of people, and an understanding of natural systems.

Although these are 5 distinct perspectives, the data also suggested that the participants differed in their perspectives due to personal values instead of irreconcilable philosophical differences. The data suggested that the definition, purpose, and value of EE may differ in various corners of the academic world, but EE practitioners have shared beliefs. The inclusion of “community educators” in the secondary data collection emphasized that civic ecology programs, such as community gardening, are valuable methods for engaging youth to increase appreciation and connection to nature, improve well-being, and develop capacity for local change. One of the core beliefs highlighted in this study was the value in sustainable coexistence between humans and non-human life, which can be used as a platform to foster collaboration and reach common goals within EE.

The study participants were mainly English-speaking from the Midwest and East Coast of the U.S. Therefore, the study and results may not reflect regional or global perspectives on EE. Additionally, the change in language from “environmental education” to “community education” in the second round of data collection may have influenced the results. The results in this study differ from the results of a similar study conducted 20 years ago, which may be due to the differences in sampling and the changes in the EE field within the 20 years between studies.

The authors recommend that practitioners and scholars engage in discussion about their shared values, and the diverse contexts within which those values function, instead of focusing on defining the purpose of EE. Awareness of the varying perspectives of EE, along with a multi-disciplinary and diverse approach to EE, is necessary to optimize collaboration while ensuring that programming goals are met. Defining the purpose of the EE field may distract from the shared values.