1. Discipline and Methodology in ESD / ESC Research Declan Doyle Mariana Calheiros Lobo Institute of Technology Carlow, Ireland This paper sets out to assess 1. the current position of ESD / ESC research and the pathways to its future discipline development. 2. whether a discrete discipline is being established or if ESD / ESC are fields of study researched from a number of disciplinary perspectives.

2. Defining Education for Sustainability In broad terms, the understanding of Sustainable Development can be divided in two camps, favoring either anthropocentric or eco-centric views of the relation between nature and human society. UNESCO state that “Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) equally addresses all three pillars of sustainable development—society, environment and economy—with culture as an essential additional and underlying dimension. By embracing these elements in a holistic and integrated manner, ESD enables all individuals to fully develop the knowledge, perspectives, values and skills necessary to take part in decisions to improve the quality of life both locally and globally on terms which are most relevant to their daily lives.” Although Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) as a concept has been introduced since Rio (1992), the acceptance and use of the term was accelerated only after the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg in 2002.

3. The debate – origins and impact The World Commission on the Environment and Development Report (1987), the publication of the Brundtland Commission (1988) report ‘Our Common Future’ and the Rio Earth Summit’s Agenda 21 (UNCED, 1992) The concepts of sustainability were discussed and debated in the literature through the 1990’s Yet in spite of this debate and discourse there is little agreement on what constitutes ‘sustainability’. Interdependencies and relationships not included In fact what has happened is that the debate about definition has introduced new dilemmas of methodologies, measurement and boundaries.

4. The debate – origins and impact In the early years of the decade for Education for Sustainable Development (DESD) UNESCO itself stated in a 2006 report that “it must be hard to find something more multi – and trans – disciplinary that sustainable development.” Stone (2003) posited that instead of a grand theory of sustainability instead an industry of sustainable development has emerged. Mebratu (1998) states that this variety of definitions and interpretations has skewed the debate towards institutional prerogatives rather than capturing the whole spectrum. The result has been major conceptual flaws with current terminology representative of three major groups (Mebratu, 1998) the institutional, the ideological, and the academic. The lack of consensus as to what constitutes ESD can be partly explained by the complex, contested and constantly evolving nature of this concept (Landorf et al., 2008).

5. Methodological Development The development of distinctive methodology for ESD research lags behind. Since the research on ESD is a comparably new direction, scholars still probe for relevant approaches, trying to adapt and design the research instruments. An analysis of publications proves the assumption that the lack of coherent key concepts, pronounced contextuality and urgent need for social and individual changes could lead to the dominance of qualitative approach using interviews, case studies, and action research, etc. (Salıte et al., 2007; Winter and Firth, 2007; Tormey et al., 2008).

6. Conclusion Debates about how EfS, EE, ESD and ESC are conceptualised remain highly relevant, not just to academic work itself, but also to wider international discussions regarding both the current and potential relationships between conceptual understanding, policy and practice. ESD is a vague and debated concept, an operational definition on how to measure it will be a matter of interpretation. Need to conceptualise the discipline at a meta theory level to unite the ‘two camps’ and also to integrate the role of values which Kale et al (2006) propose as a potential unifying factor that could see SD understood as a concept combining values for what to sustain with values for what to develop