Creating spaces for interdisciplinary exchange in higher education: A case study

Introduction

Some may argue that formal programmes within higher education (HE) have been slow to respond to demands for sustainability. Though there are ground-breaking initiatives in education for sustainable development (ESD) at HE across the globe and in the UK, much of the formal learning in HE today is still centred in function and information within individual disciplines and as such cannot meet the challenges of a changing world, proposed by sustainability thinking. As posed by Stephen Sterling, ‘real life problems call for an awareness of complexity, interdependence and blending of systems, organizations and disciplines’ (2011: 10). On the other hand, transformative learning calls for an ecological worldview, rooted on humanistic education traditions; a ‘whole systems thinking’ that ‘seeks to foster an integrative awareness of the needs of people and environment’ (Sterling, 2011: 13).

Wide sustainability issues are grounded in environmental concerns and acknowledge cultural and social dimensions, as well as economics, ethics, politics, law, technology, enabling links with a comprehensive range of disciplines (Jones et al., 2010; Winter and Cotton, 2012). Hence, the interrelationships of sustainability call for interdisciplinary approaches. In policy, for example, the Brundtland report (WCED, 1987) recognised that environmental issues, such as loss of biodiversity, could not be compartmentalised and isolated from its human dimensions. This need has also been acknowledged by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE, 2009) regarding ESD in HE. However, in spite of increasing rhetoric on the importance of interdisciplinarity in HE, in practice, very substantial barriers remain, and most formal HE programmes continue to work within traditional disciplinary boundaries. This is often seen as an obstacle to the integration of sustainability-connected issues in HE (Cotton and Winter, 2010; Winter and Cotton, 2012). As real-world problems require a systemic, integrated approach, it is imperative that we find ways to foster integrative, multidisciplinary approaches in ESD.

The intrinsically multidisciplinary and mission-oriented discipline of Conservation Biology offers an example of both the progress and the problems in building interdisciplinary approaches to environmental problem solving. Conservation Biology emerged in the 1980s as an attempt to target and arrest the global decline in biodiversity (Newing, 2010a, 2011). Due to the nature and urgency of the problems faced by biodiversity, it was recognised that a new ‘metadiscipline’ was needed that would build on field biology – the traditional disciplinary home of biodiversity conservationists – to equip a new generation to work on the ‘human dimensions’ of conservation. This was to be achieved, through training that spanned the different disciplines – particularly the natural sciences and the social sciences such as politics and economics – developing not only academic but also practical competences and skills. However, bridging the gap between different disciplines has been slow and not without obstacles (Newing, 2010b). In terms of teaching, these include a lack of people with sufficient expertise to teach such a challenging array of knowledge and skills, and also, perpetuating this problem, the institutional barriers to the development of truly interdisciplinary programmes within a formal education setting. Similar barriers have been reported in multidisciplinary teamwork in professional practice, and one important recommendation that has emerged is the importance of supplementary learning through the creation of spaces for informal exchange and discussion between academics from different disciplines and practitioners.

In this paper, we will use an interdisciplinary conference as a case study to discuss the value of an informal exchange as a promoter of sustainability pedagogies in HE. Within the context of ESD, the conference brought together experiences in formal and informal curriculum development and the use of diverse pedagogies to explore biodiversity issues. The aims of this interdisciplinary conference were to enhance awareness about the different ways people relate to wildlife, enhance knowledge about the different values of biodiversity, bridge the gap between different disciplines regarding people's relationships with wildlife, promote holistic thinking and consideration for biodiversity issues. We will present qualitative data from discussions at the conference itself and also data from a subsequent survey of participants in order to explore (i) experiences and perspectives on interdisciplinarity in biodiversity teaching in HE and (ii) the potential impact of the conference itself on teaching practice.

Interdisciplinary cooperation and biodiversity

Whilst the early development of the ‘metadiscipline’ of conservation biology focused on the natural sciences and social sciences, studies of the relationships between people and the environment are carried out within a great variety of disciplines spanning all three of the major faculties: the natural sciences, the social sciences and the humanities. However, whilst there is a certain degree of information exchange between disciplines, successful cooperation in the form of integrated training programmes or research projects remains relatively uncommon (Newing, 2010b). Interdisciplinary cooperation is notoriously challenging, both because institutional barriers, discussed above, and also because of deeper theoretical differences in the way that different disciplines are framed. In theoretical terms, different disciplines ask different kinds of questions, use different vocabularies and value different kinds of ‘knowledge’, to such a degree that researchers may find each other's work ‘opaque and impenetrable’ (Marzano et al., 2006). This is perhaps most problematic in communications between the quantitative natural sciences and qualitative social sciences or humanities, where there are fundamental differences in the underlying epistemological and ontological premises (Newing, 2011). In addition, in institutional terms, in spite of regular one-off funding schemes emphasising interdisciplinary collaboration and in spite of the increasing emphasis on ‘impact’ in research, the vast majority of universities, research councils, academic journals and professional bodies are still structured to reward theoretical excellence according to each disciplinary tradition, and researchers who attempt to combine aspects of different disciplines – or who move to far into applied issues – frequently find themselves marginalised in terms of funding and broader career opportunities (Newing, 2010b). Indeed, there are entrenched interests in maintaining disciplinary boundaries; thus, Geertz has characterised academic disciplines as tribal in terms of their allegiances and territorial defences. Interdisciplinarity is a place where researchers, teachers and practitioners cross the ‘no man's land’ between the disciplines, making their way across the ‘academic demilitarised zone’ (Klein, 1990: 78).

On the other hand, interdisciplinary cooperation is essential in addressing real-world problems that do not fit comfortably within the confines of any single discipline. As described above, the biodiversity crisis is one such set of problems, and much effort has been expended on the challenge of integrating natural and social science approaches to biodiversity conservation (Newing, 2010a, 2011). The humanities are likely to play an increasing role as well as the Convention on Biological Diversity – CBD's characterisation of conservation as a matter of societal choice comes to the fore; conservation has an important moral and aesthetic component, and whilst it has been extensively critiqued from various disciplinary perspectives, there has yet been little theoretical discussion of ethical issues from within the institutional structures that inform conservation professionals (though for some exceptions, see Sagoff, 2007; van Houtan, 2006).

The limited progress in developing interdisciplinary approaches to conservation has in large part been attributed to the lack of a cohort of trained professionals with the skills to cross-disciplinary boundaries. The introduction of interdisciplinarity into teaching about biodiversity is a key element in addressing this shortcoming, yet there are limits in the extent to which this has successfully been addressed within formal training programmes. Moreover, interdisciplinarity is by definition dynamic, consisting of the shifting meeting points between a multitude of disciplines. Conferences and events such as the one reported in this paper therefore have great potential value in raising awareness of interdisciplinarity in current teachers and practitioners, both in general and also by providing a space to exchange information on new interdisciplinary areas of theory and practice as they emerge. This could be an important step in building the necessary expertise to introduce interdisciplinary perspectives comprehensively into formal degree curricula.

Biodiversity and sustainability

Biological diversity (biodiversity) refers to the variety of living organisms, their genes and habitats, and it is intrinsically connected with the functioning of ecosystems and their products and services our survival depends on (IUCN, 2013). Biodiversity is an integral part of the Life Sciences curriculum in HE. However, biodiversity is more than the sum of its parts; the value of biodiversity is interpreted at many levels and encompasses many dimensions. As the IUCN puts it, ‘we depend on it for our security and health; it strongly affects our social relations and gives us freedom and choice’ (IUCN, 2013).

Knowledge of biodiversity drivers and threats within an ecological context alone does not necessarily foster understanding of its many dimensions or of sustainability. One aspect of this is that links between biological diversity and cultural diversity have become clearer as studies in human ecology and ethnobiology have recognised the vital role traditional use has played in environmental conservation (Arruda, 2000; Diegues, 2014; Newing, 2011). In 2010, this dimension has been acknowledge by the CBD (ICBCD, 2010), which included effectively integrating biological and cultural diversity into development cooperation strategies and programmes amongst its Global Objectives.

Concomitantly, sustainability thinking centred solely on so called green issues has been criticised for lacking consideration of the wider social context. Since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005), there has been increased awareness of the multifaceted dimensions of people's relationship with biodiversity and holistic approaches to conservation have been favoured. The way people relate to the living world around them shapes their identity, their livelihood and has strong connections to their well-being as it guides their notions of quality living within an ecological context (Milner-Gulland et al., 2014).

Links between loss of biodiversity and other aspects of sustainability are well illustrated by Jones et al. (2010: 19) who state:

As sustainability issues raise further up the national and international agendas (…) the systemic links between (say) energy consumption, climate change, loss of biodiversity and poverty become more evident and the need for multiple perspectives and integrative approaches to issues becomes more accepted.

In HE, different aspects of environmental sustainability, including biodiversity conservation, have been identified as suitable for being unified through the lens of ESD (UNESCO, 2012). Following the same principles, the Wildlife and Society Conference exposed an audience of staff and students to a range of approaches to addressing environmental issues, blurring boundaries between diverse disciplines and organisations. Wild animals elicit a variety of sometimes conflicting responses in people, ranging from fear – due to conflicts arising from territorial proximity and competition for the same resources, threat to the well-being or predation – to fascination (Consorte-McCrea, 2011; Fascione et al., 2004; Gittleman et al., 2001; Woodroffe et al., 2005). Our relationships with wildlife are mediated by cultural constructs as well as by urban/rural divides, people/state and people/people conflicts (Bath, 2009; Hill, 2004; Knight, 2000). Hence, the multifaceted nature of our relationship with wildlife results in a complexity that is suited to multidisciplinary approaches.

Sustainability pedagogies and biodiversity

The HE context offers students an optimal opportunity to engage with sustainability concepts, as ‘this is the arena for significant encounters with critical thinking, provocative questions and alternative ideas about our current patterns of development and our potential to devise new ways of living’ (Ryan and Tilbury, 2013: 2). Like other challenges faced by ESD, the complexities of biodiversity issues can benefit from a pedagogy that fosters investigation of diverse viewpoints and critical thinking. Furthermore, the sometimes controversial nature of biodiversity issues is well suited for innovative pedagogies that favour interaction and discussion. There is a Cartesian tradition in sciences education to adhere to facts, rationality and neutrality. However, some argue that when dealing with complex and potentially value laden problems, a better approach in HE may involve encouraging critical awareness of bias, questioning, analysing opposing arguments, their routes and implications (Cotton and Winter, 2010; Oulton et al., 2004).

As we come to the last year of the UN Decade of ESD (2005–2014), an increase in new and alternative forms of teaching and learning has been observed, focussing on innovation, participation and connections between diverse subject areas (UNESCO, 2012). Pedagogies that focus on collaboration and dialogue applied to problem solving are central to ESD (Tilbury, 2011: 20) as innovative approaches that promote dialogue and community problem posing and problem solving, and critical thinking are at the heart of interdisciplinarity (Klein, 2006: 115). However, while changes to the formal curriculum are recognised as a major obstacle to ESD (Ryan and Tilbury, 2013), the development of informal curriculum activities may offer opportunities to foster an infiltration of sustainability discussion into existing modules, by providing opportunities for reflection and dialogue about key sustainability issues and for making new connections. Indeed, the speakers from diverse research areas in the Wildlife and Society Conference provided the audience with a wide range of pedagogies that meet the sustainability criteria and are grounded on the key processes that underpin ESD: facilitating investigative and participatory learning; whole system thinking; multidisciplinary and multi stakeholder dialogue and collaboration and providing innovative experiences that stimulate curricular changes (Tilbury, 2011). These are illustrated in Table 1 (see Winter and Cotton review of sustainability pedagogies, 2010, 2012 and UNESCO, 2012).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Sustainability pedagogies presented during Wildlife and Society Conference.

Pedagogy	Benefits	Conference speakers presenting this pedagogical tool
Fieldwork ESD has borrowed from the environmental sciences tradition the use of such approaches to investigate and discover when focusing on building knowledge about the environment (Cotton and Winter, 2010). The practice of learning in the environment is also traditionally used by environmental education to stimulate discovery through interaction and enquiry.	• Speakers introduced the audience to the possibilities of using such pedagogy when working with biodiversity issues. • Learning in the environment facilitates discovery learning, where ‘learners are immersed in a rich context where they encounter some element of mystery; they become curious and begin to make sense of their experience through their own exploration’ (UNESCO, 2012: 25). • It offers opportunities for experimental learning through direct contact with biodiversity in a holistic set up, away from the classroom constraints. • It allows us to experience urban biodiversity as ‘campus-based’ curriculum and creates ‘a unique identity and sense of place’ (Peter Vujakovic, Wildlife and Society 2013: 11; Jones, Selby and Sterling, 2010). • Experiential pedagogy that can affect emotion (Sivek, 2002; Cotton and Winter, 2010) as well as encouraging critical thinking • Connecting theory with a hands-on approach, it allows students to experience the living world.	Denise Taylor, Education 4 Conservation; Bridget Somers, Senior Lecturer, Department of Childhood Studies, Faculty of Education, CCCU; Peter Vujakovic, Head of Geographical and Life Sciences, CCCU; Joe Burman, Ecology Research Group, Department of Geographical Life Science, CCCU
Case studies The case studies presented allowed consideration for many dimensions of the experiences presented, raising awareness of unforeseen connections between biodiversity and well-being, sense of place, communication and expression, among others.	• Case studies can encourage participatory/collaborative and problem-based learning ‘focused on solving real or simulated problems, to better understand the issue or find ways to make real-life improvements’ (UNESCO, 2012: 26). • They encourage holistic thinking and working together towards finding solutions. • They facilitate transformative activities such as reflection, research, participation and action (Junyent and de Ciurana, 2008; Winter and Cotton, 2012). • Case studies can be used to bring together students and the wider community. • They enable students to experience varied and contrasting stakeholders’ perspectives on biodiversity issues, stimulating multistakeholder social learning, defined by UNESCO (2012: 26) as ‘bringing together people with different backgrounds, values, perspectives, knowledge and experience, from both inside and outside the group initiating the learning process, to set out on a creative quest to solve problems that have no ready-made solutions’. • In situ (see Fieldwork), they provide a direct, multilayered contact with the environment, affect all senses and provoke emotional responses, adding multiple dimensions to the understanding of biodiversity.	Denise Taylor, Education 4 Conservation; Bridget Somers, Senior Lecturer, Department of Childhood Studies, Faculty of Education, CCCU; Peter Vujakovic, Head of Geographical and Life Sciences, CCCU; Nicola Triscott, Director, The Arts Catalyst

Pedagogy	Benefits	Conference speakers presenting this pedagogical tool
Critical reading and writing The Creative Writing workshop proposed an opportunity to engage members of the audience directly with writing about their relationship with biodiversity, providing a space for creative reflexion on the morning sessions (April Doyle, Wildlife and Society 2013: 13).	• It offered an opportunity for reflection and exploration of the audience's own experiences, which is akin with active, productive and discovery learning. • Opportunity for self-learning (UNESCO, 2012)	April Doyle, Community Arts and Education
Stimulus activities Other talks illustrated and offered the opportunity to initiate reflection about biodiversity issues from challenging starting points – a statement, a film, art installations.	• Facilitates discovery learning • Common practice in the arts • Encouraged the audience to make new connections through reflection • Opportunity for exploring values and philosophical enquiry (UNESCO, 2012) • Encouraged the audience to use them as a pedagogical tool across the curriculum	Jeremy Law, Dean of Chapel, Department of Theological & Religious Studies, CCCU; Nicola Triscott, Director, The Arts Catalyst; Andrew Butler, Department of Media, Art & Design, CCCU
Critical thinking Some of the talks explored a wide range or arguments and proposed discussion points that question the nature of knowledge, definitions of biodiversity, and how disciplines respond to these challenges.	• Inviting the audience to think critically about the issues explored along the day. • Critical thinking-based learning is effective in ‘exposing the assumptions and values people, organizations and communities live by and challenging their merit from a normative point of view (…) to encourage reflection, debate’ (UNESCO, 2012: 26) and rethinking.	Helen Newing, Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology (DICE), University of Kent; Jeremy Law, Dean of Chapel, Department of Theological & Religious Studies, CCCU; Ian Bride, DICE, University of Kent

Within the context of ESD, the conference facilitated further opportunities for interdisciplinary learning –‘taking issues or problems as a starting point, then exploring them from different disciplinary angles to arrive at an integrative perspective on possible solutions or improvement’; for systems thinking-based learning – ‘looking for connections, relationships and interdependencies to see the whole system and recognize it as more than the sum of its parts; and to understand an intervention in one part affects other parts and the entire system’ (UNESCO, 2012: 26); and for the emergence of new ideas and connections. ¹

As lecturers and practitioners from diverse areas and backgrounds discussed the relationships between wildlife and society, the audience experienced an unveiling universe of meaning, values, emotions, cultural constructs, interdependence, spiritual searching. We know that the key for change from unsustainable to sustainable behaviour is not solely ‘learning about environmental issues’ (Sterling, 2011), and although knowledge about ecosystem function and drivers of the biodiversity crisis is necessary, it is not sufficient in the context of sustainability education. It is also clear that often staff and students may feel disempowered by some knowledge of the depth of the global crisis. Therefore, education must also indicate alternatives as well as forging opportunities to bridge disconnects. The multidimensional approach provided by multidisciplinarity illustrated the vast array of connections that may be forged between people and biodiversity, including ways in which people may care for nature. These may be valid points of entry for ESD in HE.

Participants' perspectives on the impact of the conference

The conference ended with a plenary session, which aimed to facilitate reflections on some of the main issues raised and to channel participants' thoughts towards ways of embedding biodiversity values into their own disciplines and practices. Using evidence from the plenary session and from two subsequent feedback questions, this section explores experiences and perspectives on interdisciplinarity in teaching and the potential impact of the conference itself on teaching practice.

The plenary session lasted 75 minutes and consisted of an open discussion between speakers, as well as students and lecturers who attended the conference. Introductions were followed by a conversation about two questions: one related to embedding biodiversity into teaching practice and one about the key reflections that emerged during the day. Twelve people participated. Seven HE lecturers and two students (from the disciplines of education, geography, life sciences and environmental conservation, including one head of department); one was from the arts sector, and four were involved in practice related to environmental education. The participants in the plenary were also asked for further comments by e-mail, and nine of them completed this task. The plenary discussion was transcribed, and both the transcription and the e-mail responses were analysed using a grounded theory approach to identify key themes and issues, which are summarised in the rest of this section.

Overall, participants were enthusiastic about the potential value of interdisciplinarity in teaching at all levels within the formal education system (primary, secondary, higher) and also in informal education. The diversity of disciplinary perspectives provided by the formal talks was recognised as immediately relevant to teaching: ‘The interdisciplinary nature of the debate made it richer, more rounded and more relevant. They also have implications for curriculum suggesting that genuine cross curricular collaborations between geography and science, science and art, science and geography and music’ (Lecturer in Primary Education).

Several participants commented on how unusual and valuable it was to have a chance to exchange ideas professionally with others from other disciplines, even within the same institution, and on the potential it offered to develop new cross-disciplinary collaborations:

I've worked on and off [here] since 2000 and some of the people I met [at the Conference] I had never met before, even though many have been working here for at least as long as I.

I have already engaged in cross-over events with arts and sciences, but see this as an area for further engagement. I am especially interested in bringing some practices from the social sciences into the sciences, for example, working on the individual biographies of trees and the understanding of tree-time. (Head of Department of Geographical and Life Sciences)

I have been discussing with [a colleague] a plan for PGLT bringing both Ecology and Education together. As ecologists we tend to work in isolation with invisible things that no one cares about … There is scope for interacting with children to conduct experiments … (Lecturer in Life Sciences)

I am meeting up with colleagues in my department in the next few weeks to work on validation of a new course in outdoor learning. I shall now be including ideas about wildlife and society – we are going to call it ‘Nature and Society’. (Lecturer in Education)

A second pedagogical factor that was perceived to be linked to interdisciplinarity was the use in teaching of hands-on engagement with nature, whether by means of field trips or simply holding classes in a natural setting (a ‘Woodland Classroom’). These kinds of approaches were perceived as providing opportunities for more holistic approaches than conventional classroom teaching and also catering for different learning styles through student-directed learning:

Each child will have different strengths and different passions. Therefore they learn best in contexts where a wide range of possibilities is open to them … this is especially true of outdoor settings and with wildlife … a place where it is easy for the child to set the agenda for learning – their interests can lead, the teacher can follow with appropriate information, questions, and their own interests … (Lecturer in Primary Education)

Conclusions

This paper has demonstrated the high potential of one-off cross-disciplinary events such as the Wildlife and Society Conference to inform teaching on conservation and sustainability issues. The perceived linkages between interdisciplinarity, creativity and on-hands engagement with nature were striking, and several specific pedagogical tools were highlighted, both for teaching within the environmental disciplines and also for wider integration of sustainability principles in any discipline. The discussions highlighted considerable potential for mutual learning between formal HE and primary/secondary/informal education practices. Moreover, the opportunity provided for networking stimulated several concrete proposals for new cross-disciplinary collaborations. Thus, the added value of this kind of event is clearly very high. However, in spite of ample rhetoric on the importance of interdisciplinarity and sustainability in teaching, events such as this remain scarce, and their funding and implementation face some of the same institutional barriers as interdisciplinary teaching in itself. We believe that HE institutions will benefit substantially by creating spaces for regular theme-based interdisciplinary events of this kind that devote a day to a combination of formal presentations with informal networking opportunities.

A recurring issue raised by the conference participants was the need for a new paradigm that can accommodate fundamental changes to the ways HE approaches biodiversity and sustainability as a whole. The need for a ‘more whole state implied by a systemic view of sustainability’ (Sterling, 2004) became evident as discussions progressed towards the practicalities of implementing the pedagogies illustrated by different speakers across disciplines, both into existing modules and in reference to planning new ones. However, as suggested by Peter Blaze Corcoran (in Jones et al., 2010), if transformation is not in immediate reach, reformation is an attainable goal by the infusion of biodiversity concepts, issues and case studies into a multitude of subject areas, as illustrated by the feedback of the conference participants. Obstacles such as time and curriculum constraints were discussed in the plenary, as well as possible strategies to counteract them. Ensuring sufficient theoretical underpinning in ESD modules; a compulsory module for learning from our outside environment, combining health, education, ecology, arts, business, etc.; extending experiences of engaging with the environment to other projects involving students; pitching ESF modules at the right time when students are ready to engage with them; using creativity to open opportunities for critical thinking within disciplines were all ideas raised during the plenary discussion in response to the challenge.

It has been said that the skills developed through ESD pedagogies are also useful skills for a sustainable work market and are considered a vital national asset (DfES, 2003: 8). Students who are engaged in transformative, constructive and transformatory ESD education are not only being prepared to participate in a changing world but are being developed to take part in shaping it (Sterling, 2011). However, barriers remain formidable to the full integration of interdisciplinarity into formal curricula. We believe that events such as the Wildlife and Society Conference offer an essential supplementary space to allow academics and practitioners to reflect and update on interdisciplinary principles and practice. Overall, talks at the conference exposed the HE audience to a rich array of ways in which biodiversity issues have been incorporated into varied disciplines. As feedback suggests, both the talks and the discussions initiated by them instigated new connections and consolidated pre-dispositions towards multidisciplinary approaches to biodiversity issues and towards interdisciplinarity. Furthermore, as suggested by Winter and Cotton (2012), evidence from the plenary session and feedback indicate that such exposure has helped teaching staff to engage with such issues and to consider embedding them into their own practice.

While participants may have been inspired by the ideas and approaches debated during the Wildlife and Society Conference, they may still face obstructions to take them into their practice. Funding, time allocation, need for planning and preparation, group sizes are common constraints to the HE system and must be circumnavigated through innovative thinking. While embedding sustainability-related issues in the formal curriculum has been hindered by many difficulties, there are suggestions that informal learning may be an important tool in empowering individuals to challenge their perspectives and engage in critical thinking about biodiversity (Winter et al., 2012). Sustainability-focused events, such as the Wildlife and Society Conference, are an integral part of informal learning for sustainability.

Though formal and informal learning are interdependent in the HE context, lecturers may struggle to create the links between focus events and disciplinary content. A further outcome of the conference that may help with this process is a website (being re-structured at present), which offers conference-related resources and a discussion forum to allow participants and newcomers to communicate their ideas and to interact across disciplines within a neutral space (Cotton and Winter, 2010: 51). The website, like the conference, aimed to contribute to the formation of a community of practice, promoting links between different organisations around a common interest. One year on, although the resources have been utilised and links to the talks have been visited, the Discussion Forum was not a successful tool to further the space for discussion. We all seem to be too busy, which reinforces some of the points made about barriers to interdisciplinary exchange in HE and the need to create spaces away from the normal working routine.

The conference met its aims to make connections between different disciplines regarding people relationships with wildlife and to promote holistic thinking and consideration for biodiversity issues. Moreover, feedback from participants suggests that paradigms have been challenged as they observed new relationships between fields. Rather than experiencing a one person multidisciplinary overview of biodiversity, participants benefited from the different perspectives of each discipline, which inevitably provokes creative responses creating an opportunity for creative thinking and imagination (Lecturer in Primary Education). Even with the existing HE constraints, it functions as a space where interdisciplinary, reflective, transformative learning has been encouraged and new links have been forged. The formation of partnerships and networks can foster the development of ESD competences, and such opportunities to motivate practitioners to perform change are necessary for effective transformation in the educational environment (UNECE, 2012).

Time is short to exert change in educational structures, so ESD benefits from a multiple approach, which includes structured initiatives to further interdisciplinary connections, reflection and awareness of sustainability issues. These will then foster personal changes that facilitate paradigm shifts towards a new sustainable education framework. Informal ESD events are powerful tools for engaging and enlisting new supporters, as they facilitate participative learning within a safe environment where people can test new ideas and connections. As well as fostering creative thinking in sustainability, they provide an entry point for deeper understanding of sustainability and for personal change that in turn affect learning and teaching practice.