Gendered citizenship and the individualization of environmental responsibility: evaluating a campus common reading program

Abstract

Campus common reading programs are intended to stimulate critical thinking and dialogue across disciplines yet scarce evidence exists to evaluate the success of such programs. We assess the extent to which engagement in an environmentally-themed common reading program is related to (1) concern for waste-related issues, (2) beliefs that addressing waste is an individual responsibility, and (3) individual behaviors intended to reduce personal waste. Results are drawn from a sample of undergraduate students (n = 398) with varying levels of engagement in the common reading program. Students who participated in the common reading program have higher levels of concern for waste than those who did not, are more likely to locate responsibility for addressing the problem of waste on the individual, and self-report higher frequency of engagement in individual efforts to reduce waste. We conclude with recommendations for further developing the critical thinking capacity of campus common reading programs.

Keywords:

• Common reading
• environmental citizenship
• environmental concern
• individualization
• waste
• transformative learning

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Michael Lengefeld for research assistance and Karen Weathermon from the campus common reading program for her support at the outset of this project.

Notes

1. The authors did not play a role in the common reading program and were not asked to evaluate the program by the university.

2. The term ‘environmental citizenship’ is derived from a normative theoretical project that aims to articulate what the role of the citizen should be, vis-à-vis sustainable development (Dobson 2003), discussed in greater detail in the subsequent section.

3. Mezirow (2003, 58) defines transformative learning as, ‘learning that transforms problematic frames of reference – sets of fixed assumptions and expectations (habits of mind, meaning perspectives, mindsets) – to make them more inclusive, discriminating, open, reflective, and emotionally able to change.’

4. We have not included a summary of environmental education pedagogy, presuming that the reader is, to some extent, familiar with this literature. However, those requiring further information on this topic may wish to consult the thorough International Handbook of Research on Environmental Education (R.B. Stevenson, M. Brody, J. Dillon and A.E.J. Wals, Eds).

5. For more information on the WSU common reading program or books, see the university website: http://commonreading.wsu.edu

6. Roots of Contemporary Issues (HISTORY 105), is a required course for WSU undergrad students. The course focuses on five themes including: Humans and the environment, our shrinking world, roots of inequality, diverse ways of thinking and roots of contemporary conflicts.

7. Readers interested in receiving a copy of the survey instrument may contact the lead author.

8. Our hope was to include a measure of public-oriented waste-reduction behaviors in addition to the private-sphere behaviors described below. However, only 16 individuals in the sample reported engaging in public-oriented behaviors (e.g. talking to others, researching institutional waste).

9. Although the survey asked questions about engagement targeted at community organizing and institutional reform, so few participants self-reported involvement in these collective activities (4%) that we were not able to use these items in analyses.