Sustainability education and community development in higher education using participatory and case based approaches in India

2.1 Higher education institutions and social innovation

In recent years, HEIs have integrated the SDG agenda into their missions worldwide. They have been increasingly committed to higher social responsibility and engagement with their community (Kennedy, 1999; Vasilescu et al., 2010; Khovrak, 2020). Depending on contexts, their involvement in SD can span from “curriculum greening”, which has minimal implications for SD, to a higher-level commitment, where HEI implements concrete actions (Leal Filho, 2011). Because of its immediate impact, field involvement focused on addressing the communities’ real challenges which can be considered as an advanced level of HEI involvement with SD.

Over the past two decades, more and more HEIs have started offering courses related to SD, particularly focusing on SI (Miller et al., 2012; Nakao and Nishide, 2020). SI gives importance to social relations and empowering people (Hulgård and Shajahan, 2013). It is recognised as a more inclusive approach to innovation with a higher probability of benefiting the people (Chataway et al., 2014). At the core of SI is the notion of generating socially innovative ideas to address challenges from the people experiencing them, and inclusively developing these ideas (Guidi and Moriceau, 2019). By contributing to social well-being and addressing some of the most pressing development needs, the capacity of SI to generate sustainable and inclusive community development has been largely acknowledged (Chataway et al., 2014; Fressoli et al., 2014; Baker and Mehmood, 2015; Pansera and Owen, 2018). SI programmes now exist in many HEIs such as Stanford University, Oxford University, Cambridge University and others (Ayob et al., 2016). It is often included in the Sustainable Development Policy of HEI. Students are usually sent to the field to study how SI could help communities from South America, Africa, or Asia (Pérez‐Foguet et al., 2005; Brower, 2011; Bhattacharjya et al., 2019).

SI has a long history in the Indian subcontinent. The Khadi movement led by Mahatma Gandhi in the 1930s is an example of engaging vulnerable communities in collective experimentation (Prasad, 2005). In India, SI has been largely approached from a technological perspective. The development of technical solutions using scientific advances has often been channelled to address social needs (Bhaduri and Kumar, 2011; Gupta, 2012; Lele and Goswami, 2017). Lately, Indian HEIs have developed their own programmes to address the challenges faced by the less fortunate segment of society (Ramesh et al., 2016; Bhattacharjya et al., 2019), and ultimately contribute to the UNSDGs. As for the rest of Asian HEI, there is a gap in how Indian HEI implement such SD initiatives (Leal Filho et al., 2022).

2.2 Education to sustainability

The pedagogical approach of such programmes is critical for their success, as the primary mission of HEI is to educate future generations. Sustainability education scholars have long called for novel approaches to teach SD in HEI (Wals, 2010; Backman et al., 2019). Conventional pedagogical practices are considered responsible for global problems (Leal Filho, 2011). There is an assumption that education for sustainability has to be different. Instead of reproducing past models, it should open the students to new ways of seeing and being (O’Sullivan, 2003). It must be transformative (Wals, 2010; Molderez, 2021).

This can be achieved through different teaching approaches, such as inter and transdisciplinary learning, participatory action research (Cebrián, 2017; Cornet and Barpanda, 2021), active and experiential learning (Dieleman and Huisingh, 2006; Kolb, 2014), service learning (Brower, 2011), and problem-based learning (Ryan and Cotton, 2013; Sipos et al., 2008; Thomas, 2009) among others. The common limitation to all these approaches is the way in which they have been applied so far and that they mostly remain campus-based. They were conducted with the students confined to the campus and the classroom. While this is largely understandable in terms of practicality, it does not capture the wider impact of the engagement that HEI could have both on the students and communities.

A participatory approach is one relevant alternative to make sustainability education more transformative (Wals, 2010). This is especially relevant in the context of HEI engaging in SI programmes with communities. SI is intrinsically participatory and collaborative (Cornet and Barpanda, 2021). The participatory approach is a democratic process that involves all participants throughout the project’s life cycle, and which is by nature, oriented towards SD (Titterton and Smart, 2008). The essence of the participatory approach when engaging with communities is to learn from them: it acknowledges the relevance of local knowledge, apart from the scientific knowledge that is usually considered valid in conventional approaches (Keough, 1998). Embedding SI in the community’s culture is key to creating economic and social value (Guidi and Moriceau, 2019) and ensuring long-term positive impact (De Beer and Marais, 2005).

Research on participatory methods highlights their efficiency on SD at the community level (Titterton and Smart, 2008; Gutberlet et al., 2013). In contrast, their use in HEI, especially in sustainability programmes and their impact on the students’ learning is not well documented (Disterheft et al., 2015). Existing studies focus on the implementation within campuses (Coronado et al., 2020) for faculty development (Cebrián, 2017) or are limited to specific courses (Savage et al., 2015).

Another alternative way to teach sustainability is to take the students out of the classroom (Pérez‐Foguet et al., 2005; Brower, 2011; Ramesh et al., 2016). This is contradictory to the traditional pedagogical approach that reproduces the real world in the classroom (Thomsen et al., 2019). While it seems easier, as everything can be under control in a class environment, one could argue that it does not prepare students for the real world, where nothing can be totally controlled. This approach of learning-by-doing relates to the experiential learning theory (ELT) of Kolb (2014), which has four stages: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualisation and active experimentation. This theory has become largely accepted in educational institutions, especially at the project level. Having students involved outside of the classroom is beneficial for the students and the communities (Brower, 2011; Thomsen et al., 2019). However, evidence on how HEIs have used experiential learning to teach sustainability is limited, requiring more empirical research.

HEI engaging in SI programmes with communities as part of their commitment to SD could be expected to use participatory methods, which are recognised as more inclusive. However, there is a gap in research as to how participation is integrated into this type of programme. Besides, there is a lack of empirical evidence on how HEI conducts community development programmes involving students. Similarly, experiential learning is a well-accepted pedagogical approach, but there is limited evidence of its use for teaching sustainability in that context. Hence, in the context of HEI-led SI programmes focusing on community development outside of the classroom, we propose to explore two important research questions in this paper. Firstly, we explore how the participatory approach is integrated into these programmes, and to what extent it is beneficial to students and communities. Secondly, we investigate if experiential learning is an effective pedagogical approach to teaching sustainability.

4.1 Case 1: Valaramkunnu, Kerala

This community is nestled in the mountains of Kerala, southwest India. The community members belong to three tribes and share a small territory in a dense forest area. They have been living a reclusive life for generations. Their contact with the outside world is mainly for purchasing daily necessities. Men leave the village to work as daily labourers, whereas women stay back to take care of their children. Their low socio-economic condition enables them to avail government social services.

The Live-in-Labs® program has been involved with the community since 2014 (Robert et al, 2016; Ragula et al., 2016). The most pressing need of the community was to diversify their income source. There is no economic activity in the community. Repeated interactions with them helped identify the preferred activities that can be conducted near their homes. Senior community members mentioned that until the late 1970s, they used to earn a living out of distilling lemongrass essential oil. However, they had to stop this because forest regulations prevented them from accessing firewood. Lemongrass still grows abundantly around the community but is not used anymore.

With the community’s approval, a Live-in-Labs® project team composed of faculty and students from the School of Engineering started developing a sustainable lemongrass distillation unit that would use only renewable energy (Ragula et al., 2016). As per the Live-in-Labs® phased approach (Ramesh et al., 2016), a prototype was deployed in the community. Four community women volunteered to be trained in operating it. For two years, the prototype was tested in real conditions. Its technical performance and impact on the community were also monitored. The feedback collected pointed out some design improvements. These were cross-checked by a student team, using human-centric participatory tools.

The team travelled and stayed among the villagers for a week in August 2019, to conduct a participatory assessment of the project and the community, using ethnography, participant observation and PRA. Participatory workshops helped them understand the context and culture of the community. All community members openly shared their concerns, suggestions, perceived advantages and suggested improvements for the distillation unit. The distillation unit was redesigned to simplify its operating process based on the findings of the team.

4.2 Case 2: Barapita, Odisha

This rural community is nestled in the dense forest of Odisha, East India. A canal originating from a nearby dam crosses the village and irrigates the fields. Rice cultivation is their primary source of income, though seasonal. All working people have to leave the community searching for daily wage work during the off-season. The community’s low socio-economic level makes them eligible to access government social services and subsidies, such as rationed food. As part of the Government of India’s nationwide programme, Swachh Bharat Abhiyan or Clean India Mission launched in 2014, toilets were constructed in the community around the year 2016 to reduce open defaecation and improve waste management practices.

In July 2018 a group of Live-in-Labs® students visited the community for a week. In line with the human-centric approach, they conducted PRA workshops complemented with ethnography, participant observation and informal interviews. It was identified that the village had an ample number of public toilets. However, these were not in working condition. Villagers still largely practised open defaecation (Vineeth et al., 2020). Access to water was another challenge that emerged from the participatory interactions (Akshaya et al., 2020). The village canal is used for all purposes, including bathing, washing dishes and laundry. Several villagers were seen with skin rashes, probably caused by poor water quality. The water from the community’s hand pumps was tested in the university laboratory and was found to be contaminated with pesticides.

The research team could only partially understand the problem during this first visit. Therefore, six months later, they returned to the community with the objective of going deeper and identify solutions using co-design (Cornet and Barpanda, 2021). This revealed that villagers were well informed of the advantages of using toilets and the inconveniences of open defaecation. However, they did not use the toilets, as they lacked electricity or a water connection. In India, as a predominant sanitation practice, water is used instead of toilet paper and hence not having water connectivity will deter anybody from using the toilet. Once this problem was understood, collaborative discussions reached a consensus on a proper community water distribution system. The appropriate technical parameters were discussed (Rengaraj et al., 2021). A water filtration system was considered essential. With these key requirements, the team returned to the university campus to develop a complete solution, integrating the community’s requirements.

4.3 The students’ perspective

The students’ field journals documented their experience using ethnography and participant observation. Thematic analysis, summarised in Table 2, identified three main themes summarising the multiple pedagogical benefits of the field experience. First, students can apply what they have learned in the education system. Learning takes a new dimension when it becomes practical and aims at solving a real-life problem.

Secondly, students learn beyond classroom knowledge. Field experience puts students in real and potentially unpredictable situations. It nudges them to think outside the box, be responsible and adapt to situations out of their comfort zone. Field journals show that students learned to work as a team, address unforeseen difficulties such as language barriers and lack of knowledge in specific areas and go beyond what they were instructed to do. Students therefore have to explore multiple alternatives and think in a multidisciplinary manner.

Finally, field exposure is an eye-opener to the reality of rural communities. A majority of students come from urban middle-class backgrounds. Sharing the same facilities and living conditions as villagers was a first-time experience for many of them which changed their perspective of life.

5.1 An essentially participatory process

The cases illustrate a process of SI development that is largely field-based, bottom-up and based on human-centric participatory principles. The cases highlight the participatory tools used at each phase of the interactions with the communities and their outcomes.

This study shows how community development programmes led by HEI (Cebrián, 2017; Coronado et al., 2020) can integrate participatory approaches. It is consistent with the literature that community members must be fully involved from the start, in developing inclusive and socially relevant solutions. It makes it easier to identify solutions that truly answer their needs, capabilities and knowledge (Keough, 1998; Guidi and Moriceau, 2019). The rural communities studied in these cases were actively involved at all stages of the process. Through this process, communities can reflect on their difficulties and collectively discuss how to solve them. In line with Chambers (1994), we observe that the communities’ voice is at the heart of this collective approach and can ultimately consolidate the community bonding and empower them.

The other contribution of this study is to provide evidence that the participatory approach can be part of alternative pedagogies for teaching sustainability. In these cases, tools such as PRA, co-design and ethnography are taught and applied for the students to understand rural communities and develop solutions along with them. Through field-based community engagement programmes, using a participatory approach ensures meaningful engagement of students with the community. It maximises interactions with the community members and ensures that the students make the most out of the experience (Chambers, 1994).

The students’ field journals further show that students learn at multiple levels in return for their commitment. They get multiple benefits that can be useful for their future careers. The first benefit is to gain more experience by putting classroom knowledge into practice to solve real challenges. Field exposure further pushes them to learn beyond classroom teaching and explore knowledge immediately relevant to their projects. They develop problem-solving skills, social responsibility and self-confidence through field-based learning, as Brower (2011) also identified in earlier research.

Students learn about themselves as much as they learn about life in rural areas. The Live-in-Labs® learning experience stands out from other programmes studied in the literature (Brower, 2011; Thomsen et al, 2019), for it is directly embedded in the communities (Ramesh et al., 2016). As illustrated in the cases, projects involve important time on the field, which leverages the advantages of both participatory and field-based learning.

This immersive experience engages heads, hands and hearts, ultimately making learning truly transformative (Sipos et al., 2008). Beyond academic and practical learning, it contributes to the students’ personal growth. Exposure to life in rural communities can be life-changing, illustrating what Sipos et al. (2008) called transformative sustainability learning. It provides not only education for a living but also education for life.

5.2 Participatory approach with experiential learning: conceptual considerations

The case studies illustrate a participatory process, which is embedded in an experiential learning approach to teaching sustainability, loosely based on Kolb (2014). The first two stages of Kolb’s theory revolve around feeling and watching actions, which relates to the earlier stages of community engagement when PRA is used. The next two stages identify the requirements and design a solution, which in these cases was achieved through co-design (Figure 1) following Varma et al. (2021) methodology.

According to Kolb (2014), the learning process happens through the acquisition and transformation of experience. The two case studies went through the four stages of Kolb’s ELT. In the second case, the initial field experience based on PRA found that villagers still practised open defaecation despite having many toilets available. Several hypotheses were explored with co-design until an agreement was found with the community on a preferred solution for this challenge. These case studies show the way Kolb’s ELT (Kolb, 2014) can offer a relevant framework to explain how knowledge is built up through interactions and across time in a given community. ELT can explain how in this type of programme, one can learn both within the cases and at the programme level from the experience of a case, to improve on the other.

The cases illustrate that the participatory approach enhances the benefits of experiential learning. The participatory process based on experiential learning illustrated in Figure 1 can serve both as a framework for structuring community engagement and to teach sustainability for the students engaged in the programme. The case studies illustrate that it can benefit communities, students and researchers.

The process schematised in Figure 1, though based on experiential and collaborative learning, remains primarily based on a human-centric approach. As such, it remains adaptable to the context of every rural community. Keeping enough flexibility is essential to create a space for creativity and exchange of information, in which relevant solutions centred on the needs of communities, can emerge. This means that priority is given to the community’s needs and requirements over theoretical models. As a result, not all cases may follow Kolb’s model. The process discussed in the present study may be one among many others.