Textbooks and action competence for sustainable development: an analysis of Swedish lower secondary level textbooks in geography and biology

Abstract

This article examines the affordances and limitations of textbooks for promoting action competence for sustainable development. Based on a content analysis of Swedish lower secondary level textbooks in geography and biology, we investigated how content about sustainable development is organised and formulated, the ways its multidimensional character is described, and how conflicts relating to achieving sustainability are addressed. We found that for both subjects, textbooks provided a fair amount of content about sustainable development, but that relations between its ecological, economic and social dimensions and between different subjects are routinely underdeveloped. We also found that the content about sustainable development obscures complexities and conflicts that are crucial for understanding the challenges involved with achieving sustainability, and taking action. In conclusion, we argue that such textbooks substantially limit the potential for promoting action competence for sustainable development, i.e. through cross-curricular approaches and critically assessing problem-oriented actions at collective and individual levels.

Keywords:

• Action competence
• sustainable development
• education for sustainable development
• textbooks
• biology
• geography
• lower secondary school

Introduction

Because of its inherent goal of creating change, the action competence approach (Mogensen and Schnack 2010) has been of key importance for education for sustainable development (ESD). Influenced by critical theory and the notion of ‘Bildung’, the action competence approach constitutes a complex and dynamic educational ideal. It is critical towards moralistic tendencies in education and based on democratic and participatory ideals. It aims to provide learners with new capabilities to act in relation to complex problems (Almers 2009). Currently, there is also consensus – supported through the UN’s Agenda 2030 (UN 2015) – that sustainable development (SD) needs to be understood in multidimensional terms across the ecological, economic and social dimensions (Jabareen 2008; Giddings, Hopwood, and O’Brien 2002). A holistic and integrated view of all dimensions is therefore needed also in ESD (Borg et al. 2012). Acknowledging that complexity and societal conflicts are involved in working for SD, the action competence approach suggests that ESD should be cross-curricular, but also problem-oriented while not losing interest in academic knowledge, and that it should be focused on action (Mogensen and Schnack 2010). ESD should, in other words, be about making connections between problems and acting in relation to this. It aims to develop abilities for taking sustainable and democratic action in relation to complex problems (Almers 2009).

In recent decades, ESD has been an important part of educational policy developments in Sweden (Regeringen 2003, 2004, 2006), and Sweden is generally considered as progressive regarding the implementation of ESD (Breiting and Wickenberg 2010) as well as research about ESD (Laessøe and Öhman 2010). Guided by UNESCO documents, ESD and action competence ideals have been adopted and integrated formally in Swedish curriculas and educational practices (Olsson, Gericke, and Chang Rundgren 2016). It has even been argued that Sweden has influenced more than it has been influenced by international ESD developments (Cars and West 2015). Over time, Swedish curriculas have come to focus more on individual responsibilities for global environmental issues (Hillbur, Ideland, and Malmberg 2016), and the 2011 curriculum states as a goal that pupils are able to acquire ’knowledge about the conditions for […] sustainable development [and] an understanding for the ways in which lifestyle impacts on health, environment and society’ (Skolverket 2015, 14). Although not employing the term ’action competence’ the curriculum points out ’readiness to act’ and the ’abilities for taking individual standpoints, and acting with responsibility taken both in relation to oneself as well as others’ as learning goals, in addition to the general calls for education that will help create SD. It furthermore states that schools need to provide overarching and cross-curricular perspectives on complex subjects such as SD, such that students are given the opportunity to develop abilities for making individual decisions.

Some scholars argue that policy visions have only little, or even negative, impact on school practices (Almers 2009; and regarding outcomes of ESD, see Olsson and Gericke 2016; 2017; Olsson, Gericke, and Chang Rundgren 2016). The implementation of environmental policy ideals in the context of formal schools is generally not an entirely straightforward process, and the gap that often exists between classroom practices on the one hand and government and curriculum intentions on the other has been labeled the ’Stevenson Gap’ (Stevenson 2007; Barratt Hacking, Scott, and Barratt 2007). This gap might be related to a fundamental conflict between mainstream school practices, focused on conveying individualistic goals aimed at competition, independence and achievement – that is, the reproduction of the societal structure – and the goals and visions associated with SD. Following Öhman’s (2006) argument that empirical investigations into the actual content of ESD are needed, this study aims to bring further insights into the gap between policy visions and classroom realities. We draw in particular on previous research by Kowasch (2017), Andersen (2018), and Ideland and Malmberg (2014) focusing on the role of textbooks in ESD. Considering the allegedly progressive character of Sweden as regards ESD, we argue that it is a relevant context for this study. The analysis presented here also complements the observations presented in Biström and Lundström (forthcoming) about the role of Swedish textbook content for promoting action competence for gender equality in ESD.

The role of textbooks for promoting action competence in ESD

The promotion of action competence in ESD does not depend on textbooks alone. Rather, it is a multifaceted and dynamic process in which a wide range of classroom practices and relations intersect with subjective experiences of learners over time. Nevertheless, a key argument guiding this analysis is that textbooks can be important for the ways in which such processes may, or may not, develop. Textbooks, arguably, are an important part of education. They are widely used (Blumberg 2008) and are crucial for outlining disciplinary boundaries (Issitt 2004). While textbooks are used in different ways by different teachers (Moulton 1994) they are an important resource for both students and teachers (Wynes and Nicholas 2017). Textbooks have a legitimizing role in teaching as learning outcomes are often evaluated in relation to their content (Molin 2006) and as teachers sometimes believe that curriculum requirements are met by following textbooks (Englund 2011). In short, textbooks ’fall, organizationally, between generalized educational policy agendas and the actual instructional patterns to be found in classrooms. They are core features of the intended curriculum’ (Meyer, Bromley, and Ramirez 2010, 113).

Textbooks can also be seen as indicators of the current social and political climate, and markers for how groups and/or ideas carry weight in official knowledge (Schrader and Wotipka 2011). Research investigating changes in textbooks over time has accordingly observed increased focus on human rights (Meyer, Bromley, and Ramirez 2010; Skinner and Bromley 2019), individual agency (Lerch et al. 2017) and environmental issues (Bromley, Meyer, and Ramirez 2011). Changes in policies and visions do not always generate desired changes in textbooks however (Svensson 2011), and textbooks sometimes reproduce biased knowledge (Molin 2006). In relation to this, it is important to note that students tend to read textbooks as neutral descriptions rather than the ’social instrument masterfully crafted to achieve a social end’ (Wineburg 1991, 502) that they ultimately are. This makes it even more important for textbooks to provide insights into the complexities regarding socially contested areas.

For these reasons, it is of key importance to investigate textbook content critically, and there are perhaps especially good reasons to investigate content about SD. As the concept of SD is vaguely defined, and there is limited consensus as to how it should be transferred into practice (Jabareen 2008), teachers may have a fussy sense of what they are supposed to teach (Chatzifotiou 2006). Additionally, teachers perceive a range of obstacles – theoretical, pedagogical and logistic – to teaching environmental issues in science (Chankook and Fortner 2006). The political and personal consequences of such teaching can pose a problem for teachers (Henderson et al. 2017), and the controversial character of the subject might introduce further challenges (Borg 2011). These circumstances, in combination with the discrepancy between the conventional tendency in education to focus on reproducing knowledge and the desire to foster action competence in ESD, could render textbook content particularly influential in this field. If teachers are to be expected to be able to teach for sustainability as detailed by curriculums, broad knowledge of the field is required. This has been suggested to be a problematic area (Borg et al. 2014) and two of the most common barriers teachers encounter when teaching in ESD are the lack of inspirational examples and lack of expertise. As pointed out by Reiss (1998), well written textbooks have the potential to do a great amount of good in areas where teachers have trouble explaining.

Disciplinary traditions also condition teachers’ education on SD, and the social science tradition seems to be the one most in line with the ESD approach (Borg et al. 2012). As it has been argued that traditions of a discipline may introduce obstacles for implementing ESD (Sund and Wickman 2008), the role of textbooks for promoting action competence in ESD may also be different across different disciplines. While there is consensus regarding the importance of inter-/cross-/multi-disciplinary teaching for ESD (Eilam and Trop 2010), it is also known that it is not common for teachers to engage with interdisciplinary work (Borg et al. 2012), Therefore, textbooks can be important for introducing such perspectives as well. Since the development of action competence is a complex process, requiring broad knowledge of complex and contested fields and interdisciplinary perspectives, textbooks need to provide such support to teachers and learners in ESD.

Aims, data and design

This article presents an analysis of content about SD in textbooks in geography and biology for Swedish lower secondary school (grades 7–9, i.e. ages 13–15). The overarching aim of this article is to examine the affordances and limitations of textbooks for promoting action competence for sustainable development. In line with the arguments outlined above, we argue that textbooks should provide insights into the multidimensional character of SD, as well as insights into the complex character of relations between different dimensions of sustainability, in order to promote action competence for SD. Following Lundegård and Wickman’s argument that ’[a] prerequisite for students to acquire action competence is that they have the capacity to become aware of the controversy and conflicts that underlie the problems’ (2007, 3), we also argue that they should also provide insights into the potential controversies and conflicts relating to processes of achieving SD. Therefore, we focus in particular on these aspects of content about SD. In relation to the observations of Kowasch (2017) and Andersen (2018) that a lack of action-oriented content about SD in textbooks constitutes a potential challenge for their ability to promote action competence, our analysis also directs attention to the ways in which these themes are integrated into tasks and exercises. Considering the acknowledged merits of multidisciplinary teaching in ESD (Eilam and Trop 2010), we furthermore direct attention to the ways in which connections between content about SD are created across the two subjects in textbooks, and if the themes of multidimensionality and conflicts are introduced this way. With these arguments in mind, our analysis is guided by the following questions:

• How is content about SD presented and organised in textbooks? How is it related to other topics and themes in the titles?

• How is SD constructed in multidimensional terms? How are relations between different dimensions discussed? How are conflicts related to achieving SD presented?

• How does content about SD in geography and biology compare and relate to each other?

In Sweden, there are four dominant publishers producing textbooks for lower secondary level teaching.¹ Our analysis is based empirically on the newest editions of the latest textbooks in geography and biology currently marketed by these publishers. The data set includes four titles in biology (Henriksson 2015; Kukka et al. 2012; Andréasson 2011; Fabricius, Holm, and Nystrand 2013) and four titles in geography (Ahlberg, Isaksson, and Åse 2015; Thorstensson et al. 2011; Andersson and Windirsch 2013; Lindberg and Mårtensson 2012). The sample thus aims to include up-to-date editions of the currently most commonly available textbooks in Sweden. Selecting textbooks written for lower secondary education includes content that allows for higher complexity while still being part of compulsory education. Geography and biology textbooks are selected because these are the two subjects in which SD can be expected to be the most developed (see also Borg 2011). The concept of SD is mentioned more often and seems to be the most central in the syllabuses of these two disciplines.² Comparing textbook content across these two disciplines allows not only an analysis of relations between textbook content across two different subjects, but also across natural and social sciences.

The analysis was conducted employing a thematic analysis approach (Braun and Clarke 2006; 2019), moving between deductive and inductive modes of analysis, in a ’a multi-stage process of categorizing and coding’ (Kuckartz 2014, 69) common to qualitative empirical studies. In this process, themes – constituting key, although not necessarily all, patterns of meaning, manifest as well as latent in character, within and across texts, which can also be described as ’central organising concept[s]’ (Clarke and Braun 2017, 297) – are ‘generated’ by the researchers (Braun, Clarke, and Hayfield 2019). While themes are centred around a core, they may also have different facets and therefore also be overlapping in character. In this study, we first identified content explicitly about SD in all of the selected textbooks. Second, both authors analysed this content guided by the research questions listed above, initially focusing on the presentation and organisation of content about SD, and then moving on to look more closely at the content about multidimensionality and conflicts. Third, we conducted a comparative analysis of the results for all titles in geography and biology respectively, focusing on the common and dominant, as well as the more unique and specific, observations across the included titles. Fourth, in a similar way we compared the main differences and commonalities between the two subjects. The identified themes were contextualised in relation to political and academic discussions in SD and ESD literature. This is an important step since it allows for analysing the ways in which multidimensionality and conflicts are represented in textbooks, and how this may, or may not, promote action competence. This is also important for discussing what is absent in the textbooks. Finally, we summarised the overarching results and insights following from these steps for each research question respectively analysing how the observations made in the analytical process described above relate to the ways in which textbooks may create affordances, or limitations, for promoting action competence in ESD.

Findings

The presentation of our findings will start by discussing how content about SD is presented and organised. After this, we turn to describe three key themes regarding how the topics of multidimensionality and conflicts are developed in and across the analysed titles. We then move on by discussing our observations in relation to the role of textbooks for promoting action competences for SD.

Presentation and organisation of content about sustainable development

Looking at the general presentation and organisation of content about SD in the textbooks, it can be noted that almost all titles provide readers with clearly labeled content about SD, that also covers a fairly substantial amount of pages. In this sample there is only one textbook, in geography (Thorstensson et al. 2011), without any specific section or chapter explicitly devoted to SD in its list of contents. It does however include SD in its index word list and some content about SD. Only one of the titles (Henriksson 2015), a biology textbook, claims on its cover to have a particular focus on sustainability. This textbook also stands out here by having content about SD integrated in almost all of its chapters, in the form of subsections and spreads, linking other themes in the book to SD. By contrast, the other three biology textbooks (Kukka et al. 2012; Andréasson 2011; Fabricius, Holm, and Nystrand 2013) organise content explicitly about SD into specific subsections. In these titles, there is commonly no or very little content about SD featured in any other parts. This way of compartmentalising content about SD into specific parts is common also for textbooks in geography, among which three (Ahlberg, Isaksson, and Åse 2015; Andersson and Windirsch 2013; Lindberg and Mårtensson 2012) include specific chapters focusing on sustainability, while the other parts feature no or very little content explicitly about SD.

Looking closer at the themes and topics that SD is connected and related to in the textbooks, also reveal similarities across most titles. In biology textbooks SD is commonly placed as a subsection under the topic of ecology. Sustainability aspects of other topics, such as health and sexuality for example, are generally not developed or even mentioned in these titles. The biology textbook in which content about SD is not compartmentalised (Henriksson 2015) by contrast includes content relating sustainability issues for most of its featured topics. While this way of continuously bringing the issue of SD to the attention of readers explicitly throughout the different chapters of a textbook isn’t a necessary requirement for teachers to introduce SD in relation to a wider range of topics in teaching, it arguably provides more support for doing so than the other textbooks do. Providing this support in textbooks does appear preferable compared to not doing so, primarily because it supports the integration of SD in and across a wider range of topics.

However – and as we will return to discuss in further detail below – the non-compartmentalised organisation of content about SD isn’t necessarily linked also to more developed content about multidimensionality. In fact, looking at content explicitly highlighting the multidimensionality of SD in the biology textbooks, reveals that while SD is indeed defined as multidimensional in all titles, there is commonly no content in which the economic, and especially not the social, dimensions of SD are explained in further detail, and this includes Henriksson (2015). A particularly striking example of this is a section introduced with the heading ’[E]cological, economic and socially sustainable future’ in one of the biology textbooks (Kukka et al. 2012, 369), in which only the economic and ecological dimensions are described and related to each other in the following text, while the social dimension is not mentioned at all.

As a consequence, SD is discussed predominantly in terms of ecological sustainability in the biology textbooks. This is sustained further also by the fact that SD in the biology titles commonly is presented with reference to the ‘Environmental Goals’ that the Swedish Government formulated in 1999 (MJU 1999), which focus primarily on ecological sustainability.³ While this observation is in line with the previously noted strong connections between the tradition of environmental education and biology in Sweden (Sandell and Öhman 2010), it is at the same time striking to note how underdeveloped the other dimensions actually are in biology textbooks.

Although the focus on the ecological dimension is particularly strong in the biology textbooks, this marks titles in geography too. In these, we see that SD is commonly introduced in relation to the topic of resources, which directs attention to the economic dimension, but predominantly retains a focus on the ecological dimension. Turning focus more specifically to the ways in which the multidimensionality of SD is discussed in geography textbooks, we note that while two of the titles (Thorstensson et al. 2011; Lindberg and Mårtensson 2012) are limited with regards to content that explicitly relates to the multidimensional character of SD, the other two (Ahlberg, Isaksson, and Åse 2015; Andersson and Windirsch 2013) do provide content in which all three dimensions of SD are discussed in relation to each other.

Analysing the presentation and organisation of content about SD shows that while all titles feature clearly presented content about SD, this is commonly organised into clearly delimited subsections, rather than integrated more widely across and into a wider range of topics. The economic and particularly social dimensions of SD are commonly underdeveloped, and textbooks commonly do not include more nuanced descriptions and/or discussions of the multidimensional character of SD. Among these observations, the lack of more developed content about multidimensionality arguably appears to be the most problematic. While the dominant focus on content about the ecological dimension of SD doesn’t necessarily impact negatively on the development of action competence, not providing content by which insights and reflections about links to other dimensions does constitute a limitation in this regard. Besides reproducing the notion that SD exclusively concerns the natural environment, textbooks missing such content provide very limited support for teaching and learning about relations between different dimensions of SD.

A related observation concerns how tasks and exercises are used in relation to content about SD in the textbooks. These are commonly featured on specific pages, or spreads, at the end of chapters, or sections. Predominantly, they are based on questions in relation to which answers can be found in the previous sections of text. More rare, and in many titles not occurring at all, are open-ended tasks and exercises encouraging readers to look for information elsewhere than the textbook itself and to go beyond the concepts and perspectives provided by the textbooks. Even more uncommon are tasks and exercises inviting students to discuss and expand on relations, and also potential conflicts, between different dimensions of SD.

While it could be argued that such forms of tasks and exercises are too complicated for textbooks at this level, an illuminating exception to this general pattern is provided by one of the geography textbooks (Andersson and Windirsch 2013). Re-occurring throughout this textbook are sections presenting tasks and exercises and in the chapter about SD there is an example of this with the subheading ’Ecological, economic and social sustainability’ covering page 47. This exercise features a map of a city and information about a fictive municipality, described as considering banning private car traffic to ’meet their climate goals’. Students are asked to answer if this is a good suggestion from a social, economic and ecological perspective. They are invited to reflect on the social consequences for commuting parents with small children, retired people, and youths in school. The exercise also asks students to consider not only changing costs for individuals and the municipality, but also how trade might be affected and if the situation will be better or worse for companies. It also asks questions about the environmental effects of decreased exhaust emissions and which streets will be used by what kinds of vehicles. The final question is ’Who wins, and who loses on the proposal in the long and short term respectively?’ Furthermore, on page 49, another example introduces questions with the statement that ’In Sweden there is a proposal to deploy wind power plants in the mountains of Jämtland. But far from everyone thinks this is a good idea’. Here, students are asked to consider which groups may have opinions about this, and to explain why. Setting these examples apart from tasks and exercises in other textbooks, is how they encourage reflections regarding the complexity of relations, and potential conflicts, between different dimensions of SD. Because of this, they could arguably be part of promoting action competence by encouraging a complex, critical and independent assessment process, taking multiple dimensions of SD into consideration.

What is furthermore also characteristic of Andersson and Windirsch (2013), is that tasks and exercises are not placed exclusively at the end of sections or chapters, but dispersed throughout the text and also allowed to take up more space in comparison to the other titles, sometimes entire pages (see for example page 47 and page 54) and spreads (pages 68–69). As noted above however, most textbooks by contrast organise tasks and exercises at the end of chapters and sections, primarily in the form of questions that can be answered simply by repeating content provided in the preceding pages, that does not encourage readers to look for information elsewhere, or to go beyond the concepts and perspectives already provided. Tasks and exercises marked by such traits appear to support ways of teaching and learning that runs counter to the action competence ideal. As pointed out by Luke, De Castell, and Luke (1983), they reinforce the neutral character of textbook content and preclude critical perspectives. Here, this ‘neutralises’ also the delimiting of SD to its ecological dimension, as well as the lack of multidimensional perspectives and integration of SD into a wider range of topics, and thus constitutes a particular problem in this context.

Obscuring complexity

Turning to the ways in which multidimensionality of SD is presented and discussed in the textbooks, we observe that introductory definitions of SD in textbooks tend to follow the Brundtland report’s (WCED 1987) definition of SD. Introductions to SD similar to the one in the following quote, from a biology textbook, are provided in all titles:

At a UN conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, it was concluded that sustainable development means that all now living people should be provided what they need. At the same time we must not ruin things for future generations. There has to be fairness between generations, fairness for all humans on earth, and ecological balance between humans and nature. Sustainable development is about keeping the ecosystems functioning, but also about good social and economic conditions for people (Andréasson 2011, 130).⁴

In this quote, the multidimensional character of SD is highlighted, as is an explicit focus on human ’needs’. Common to textbooks, as this general way of defining SD is never questioned or explicitly discussed, is thus the reproduction of anthropocentric perspective on SD (Littig and Griessler 2005). While this is not surprising to find, since ESD is commonly regarded as anthropocentric (Sund and Wickman 2008), it might, from an action competence perspective, constitute a problem that it is reproduced without reflection. This way, textbooks hide rather direct attention to, one of the key conflict lines regarding SD, namely the one between anthropocentrism on the one hand, and biocentrism (or ecocentrism) on the other. In fact, this conflict has been identified as the ’great axe of debate’ with regards to environmental ethics (Bonnett 1999, 315). For example, Meijers and Kopnina (2014) argue that anthropocentrism in ESD makes it incompatible with effective environmental education, and Kopnina (2012) suggests that an increased focus on multidimensionality may render environmental concerns invisible in ESD. Conversely, Gough (2002) argues that biocentrism in ESD may conceal the essential role of humans in achieving sustainability, and Foster (1999) argues that those promoting ecocentrism risk dividing the environment and society into opposing spheres, and he instead advocates focusing on the interaction between society and its natural environment. Based on our observations, it is not necessarily the case that anthropocentric perspectives go hand in hand with a neglect of ecological and environmental issues in textbooks. As textbooks are dominated by a focus on ecological issues, our observations do not support the concern that anthropocentric discourse on SD renders the environmental dimension invisible. We do observe however, that ecological aspects of sustainability in general are portrayed from an anthropocentric perspective. From an action competence perspective, it is problematic that the anthropocentric perspective is allowed such a dominant role in textbooks, and it is perhaps even more problematic that the relationship and difference between anthropocentric and ecocentric perspectives is not discussed or elaborated.

Looking further at how SD is discussed in multidimensional terms, and how relations between different dimensions are discussed, we find that textbooks to a large extent obscures, rather than highlights, complexity also in more ways than this. In fact, sometimes SD is described in ways that render complexity and contradictions between dimensions of SD more or less invisible. The quotes below, the first two from biology textbooks, and the third from a geography textbook, all represent examples of the theme of obscuring complexity:

Sustainable development is demanding. We have to mitigate the environmental problems, combat poverty, and work for democracy and justice. Still, it’s all common sense (Fabricius, Holm, and Nystrand 2013, 217)

A sustainable future means that we use the earth’s resources economically. It’s obvious that society needs to follow the rules of the economy, instead of spending all the resources at once. It’s equally obvious that society needs to keep within the earth’s limits and follow the laws of nature. There are also a number of social rules we need to follow if we want resources distributed equally between people and between generations. Increased inequality and lack of resources can cause violent conflicts (Kukka et al. 2012, 351).

Sustainable development means that we humans need to live our lives today in such a way that the possibilities for future generations to live a good life are not ruined. The earth’s resources need to be used and recycled, not consumed or wasted. Currently, about a billion people are living on less than 10 SEK a day. They are so poor that they can’t get enough food for themselves and their children. All sensible individuals realize that these inequalities need to decrease (Lindberg and Mårtensson 2012, 298).

These quotes all illustrate how contradictions and complexities regarding achieving SD across multiple dimensions are placed out of focus. In these particular quotes, the unambiguous legitimacy of concepts such as democracy and justice, and the struggle against poverty, obscures potential complexities and contradictions between achieving both ecological and social sustainability. Importantly, presentations like these provide no understanding for why unsustainable outcomes have developed in the first place, how and why they persist, and the conflicts and problems involved with changing them. These quotes also illustrate how the economic logic sometimes merges with, and dominates, biological perspectives (Svalfors 2017). This can be noted in the second quote above, in its call for society to follow ’the rules of the economy’, and relating this to following ’laws of nature’, thus rendering current social structures and relationships unchangeable. When framing SD this way, textbooks can be argued to take part in ’the historical labour of dehistoricisation’ (Bourdieu 2001) and the symbolic reproduction of dominant structures in ways that obscure that they are a product and result of history. This way of portraying the present immutable is highly problematic for supporting action competence. It is hard to imagine, much less taking part in, transformation in a stable and fixed state of affairs. This is also a challenging finding in relation to the observation that teachers consider the abilities of students to understand the changing character nature of knowledge to be an important qualification in ESD (Hasslöf, Lundegård, and Malmberg 2016). Furthermore, it could also be argued that naturalising ’the rules of the economy’ this way also does not encourage students to engage critically with the role of growth, or de-growth (Martínez-Alier et al. 2010; Kerschner 2010), for SD.

Obscuring conflicts

We now turn to the topic of conflicts relating to achieving SD. Here, we note that the observations discussed above are closely related to another commonly occurring form of obscuring observed in the textbooks, namely the practice of portraying relations between groups, and interests of groups, as consensual, when they in reality often are in conflict. This, the theme of obscuring conflicts, is interesting because while there is a general political consensus regarding the need for achieving SD, conflicts about the ways in which SD can and should be achieved permeate the current political landscape (Sumner 2008). At the most general level, sustainability governance has been marked by conflicts regarding the capacities of the established institutions and actors for ‘ecological modernisation’ and ‘technological fixes’ on the one hand, and those proposing more radical interventions, often calling for a more critical engagement with the impact of capitalist production, on the other (Bailey and Caprotti 2014). A common argument for ‘ecological modernisation’ is that technological progress enables sustainable production. Another argument is that increased wealth will make people willing to spend more on environmental protection. Economic growth could also be seen as a fix for environmental problems, theorized in terms of an ’environmental Kuznets curve’ (Dinda 2004) for which empirical support is inconclusive but some observations point to reductions being linked to social indicators, particularly income equality (Magnani 2000). Proposing a more critical perspective, Foster (1999, 379) argues that the cause of environmental problems is rooted in a ’metabolic rift’, describing how capitalism allows for production that withdraws natural resources without restoring them. Ecological modernisation and reform that does not challenge the dominant economic logic, will thus not be able to achieve SD. According to this perspective, capitalism may thus provide for technical developments of production, but does not support social relations that are compatible with sustainability. Clark and York (2005), along similar lines, argue that Jevons paradox – that increased efficiency in resource use is not necessarily followed by decreased consumption – suggests that SD is not a technological issue but rather related to the metabolic relationship between humans and nature. Altvater similarly argues that ’the societal relation of man to nature … is conflict-prone’ (2007, 38) since access to natural resources are unequal. The economy affects the environment, but since the economic logic is not able to take these effects into consideration, more profound changes of societal structures are needed in order to make SD possible.

With these arguments taken into consideration, it is interesting to note how textbooks tend to frame political and social relations in ways that render this general line of conflict invisible. The quote below shows a text from a geography textbook introducing the environmental goals formulated by the Swedish Government in 1999 (MJU 1999) mentioned above, in a section discussing SD in relation to the use of natural resources in industries. Here, relations between broadly defined and generalised groups of actors, such as politicians, scientists, companies and organisations – between and within which a multitude of potential conflict lines exist – are portrayed as characterised by consensus and cooperation:

Human exploitation of natural resources has negative effects since it impacts on and disturbs the natural environment. Ecosystems can be disturbed or destroyed, the number of animals and plants are reduced. Nature’s ability to function (and produce what we need) is decreased. A lot of people are working to make things better: politicians, scientists, an increasing number of companies, organisations and many citizens are doing what we can do to contribute to a more sustainable society (Thorstensson et al. 2011, 159).

Similarly, in the following quote from a biology textbook section describing the impact of humans on biodiversity in Sweden, relations that could be described as conflictual are portrayed as consensual:

The authorities (for example county administrative boards) who are responsible for the environmental programs cooperate with landowners, farmers, forestry companies and others who impact on the future survival of species. Landowners can receive financial support for preserving natural environments that some species are dependent on (Henriksson 2015, 20).

In both quotes, relations between actors are portrayed in terms of unproblematic cooperation, and overarching agreement is presented as more ubiquitous than it in reality often is. Processes of resolving and negotiating conflicts are also portrayed as win-win solutions, by which political and economic power relations are maintained rather than transformed. Through representations like these, through which conflict lines are obscured, the issue of sustainability is de-politicised – as it has been argued to be in Sweden (Dahl 2014) – and the relationship between political agency and sustainability is rendered invisible. In relation to the arguments outlined above, it is also striking to note here how textbooks obscure the effects of the social structure on ecological systems, and thus provide support for the ecological modernisation perspective without explanation or argumentation.

It could be argued that these textbooks exhibit limitations especially with regards to fostering competence for taking democratic and political action for SD. This is interesting to note, as it has been observed elsewhere (Stagell et al. 2014) that teachers sometimes find it inappropriate to discuss precisely such action in ESD. As the quotes discussed above illustrate, the observed forms of obscuring complexities and conflicts are primarily related to the ways in which the social dimension often remains underdeveloped in textbooks. This echoes the argument that the Swedish curriculum favours a natural science understanding of sustainability, obstructing “an equally thorough understanding of the social and economic dimensions of sustainable development”, and undermining a multidimensional understanding (Svalfors 2017). It also supports Littig and Griessler (2005) and Lehtonen (2004) who point out that the social dimension remains unclear and difficult to define, being less theoretically and analytically developed than the other dimensions. Considering that our analysis is based on biology and geography textbooks only, further empirical investigations into the subject of social studies may provide complementing insights (see also Biström and Lundström, forthcoming).

Ecological modernisation and utopia

It has been pointed out that solutions to conflicts between economic and ecological sustainability are often constructed in ‘win-win’ terms in sustainability discourse in general, and that those dimensions are commonly prioritised over social aspects (Littig and Grießler 2005). While the social dimension of sustainability often remains unmentioned, or underdeveloped, relations between ecological and economical concerns are mentioned and developed more often in textbooks, especially in geography. Sometimes, they are also presented as conflictual. The two quotes below, the first is from a biology textbook, and the second is an image caption from geography textbook, both illustrate how conflicts between ecological and economical concerns can be described:

Economy and ecology are connected. It is often the case that the economy collides with the ecology (Kukka et al. 2012, 369).

This is old-growth forest which is very ecologically sustainable. But forestry companies are losing money by not felling (Andersson and Windirsch 2013, 45).

Looking further at the ways in which solutions to conflicts between economic and ecological dimensions of SD are presented, we find that that quite naïve and optimistic formulations – very much in line with so called ’ecological modernisation’ arguments (Bailey and Caprotti 2014) – are common, and that complexities that could be related to such solutions are not mentioned. The following two quotes, the first from a biology and the second from a geography textbook, represent examples of this:

In general, technology as well as resources and knowledge to create a good life for all is available. More often, difficulties arise because those who have the power and the resources are not willing to share. It can be related to dictators and elite groups in different countries, but it can also be because of us, who live in the richest part of the world and are responsible for 80% of all consumption (Fabricius, Holm, and Nystrand 2013, 217).

It’s easy to become disheartened reading about all the environmental problems the world is facing. What will happen in the future, is there any hope? Even if things are looking pretty bad in some ways, we have to remember that all environmental problems are caused by us humans and that we can make things right.

A lot has already happened too. Acidification is decreasing, emissions from cars are becoming cleaner, a lot of environmental toxins have disappeared or decreased, water purification has become better […] Garbage recycling has been introduced in many EU countries and will be introduced in more countries. Many countries have also set clear environmental goals like the ones the Swedish Government introduced as early 1998 (Lindberg and Mårtensson 2012, 324).

In the first quote, while acknowledging that social and political inequalities constitute challenges for achieving SD, the first line nevertheless asserts that the technology required for its realisation is already in place. In the second quote, a similar reasoning directs attention to the actions and policies already taken up by governments, claiming that ’a lot has already been done’ and suggesting that we have already come a long way in the process of achieving SD. These formulations, illustrative of ecological modernisation discourse, are reminiscent of how Karl Mannheim (1939) described utopianism of the liberal-humanist kind, grounded in the notion that progress is moving in the right direction and will eventually lead to the realisation of utopian goals, in this case a sustainable society (see also Jimenez 2019 for a critical discussion about the use of progress narratives in history textbooks). On a more general level, it could also be argued that this form of utopian reasoning here goes hand in hand with how anthropocentric discourse constitutes a part of the ’human-exemptionalist paradigm’, i.e. the idea that humans alone are exempt from environmental constraints because of our technological advances (Foster 2012, 212). Thus, there is a connection between the reformist bias and anthropocentrism in textbooks. Taken together with the fact that discussions about SD in textbooks sometimes contribute to its dehistoricisation (Bourdieu 2001), these observations are problematic from an action competence perspective. What can be noted also in relation to the quotes discussed in this section – illustrative of a theme that we may label utopianism – is that reforms already initiated are presented in ways that blurs the ways in which unsustainable arrangements still prevail. In other words they illustrate what Bourdieu (2001, 91) describes as “permanence in and through change” and that the dominant order can be maintained even though it is marked by continuous changes of superficial character.

Concluding discussion

A key observation following from this analysis is that textbooks tend to obscure, rather than provide insights into, complexities and conflicts relating to SD. In particular, this relates to the complex relationships between the ecological, economic and social dimension of SD, and the political conflicts and controversies relating to achieving SD. In relation to these findings, it is important to acknowledge that the task of producing textbook content about SD – taking complexities, conflicts, contexts, and histories into consideration across multiple dimensions, such that students can take it to heart and reflect critically about their own role in its realisation – arguably is not easy. However, textbooks that obscure the circumstances under which unsustainable developments are continuously created and reproduced conceal to readers how achieving SD poses challenges to the current organisation of political order and economic system. Most importantly, such textbooks fail to provide readers with a basic understanding of the conflicts and complexities involved with achieving sustainability. Considering Wineburg’s (1991) claim that, for students, authority is located in the text and not in their own questions to the text, it is difficult to see how this will help them develop the abilities to reflect on their own relationship to the project of achieving SD. The observations presented here thus support previous research suggesting that ESD sustains rather than challenges the global life-chance divide and divisions between the rich and the poor (Hellberg and Knutsson 2018). Our analysis also supports Ideland and Malmberg (2014) observation that the seemingly transformative agenda of ESD is compatible with reproducing distinctions between ‘us’ and ‘them’. We find that obscuring conflicts and complexities plays into a similar discursive logic as ‘othering’, by which a collective ‘us’ is constructed as being characterized by progression and consensus, and critical reflections regarding the interventions of established actors are made unnecessary. We also find that textbooks can be argued to reproduce utopian and de-politicising discourse on SD in ways that are similar to the observations of Ideland and Malmberg (2015). The findings presented here are furthermore largely in line with the insights presented in Biström and Lundström (forthcoming), detailing an investigation into the role of textbook content about gender equality in ESD. On a more general level, our analysis provides further insights about the challenges involved with, as well as the need for, creating spaces for the political dimension in environmental and sustainability education (see Van Poeck and Östman 2018; Håkansson, Kronlid, and Östman 2019).

Our analysis identifies a number of additional features in textbooks that we argue halt rather than support the promotion of action competence. Content about SD is often organised into clearly delimited sections and/or chapters, rather than integrated across a wide range of topics throughout textbooks. A focus on the ecological dimension of SD tends to dominate, especially in the biology titles, with less space and attention devoted to the economic, and particularly the social, dimensions (see also Svalfors 2017 for similar findings). Content about SD is permeated by anthropocentric perspectives, and our analysis thus supports the critique against the concept of SD, and ESD, for being anthropocentric and constructing humans as the center of moral attention (Sandell and Öhman 2010, 125). The ’arrogant instrumentalism’ (Bonnett 1999, 317) that characterises the ways in which humans have related to nature, and that can be seen as the cause of unsustainable developments, is also very much a part of textbooks.

Taken together, these findings suggest that the fact that the implementation of ESD does not always produce the desired outcomes (see Olsson and Gericke 2016; 2017; Olsson, Gericke, and Chang Rundgren 2016) may in part relate to textbook content. The findings presented here, based on a sample of textbooks produced in a country which is considered to be at the forefront of ESD, importantly also echoes previous research, conducted in other countries, pointing out that textbooks often do not provide content that supports action orientation in sustainability education (Kowasch 2017; Andersen 2018). However, we have also pointed to examples of tasks and exercises found in our sample that may indeed provide such support. Directing future research engagement towards identifying and analysing such content in textbooks, and how it can be used in teaching, could produce much needed contributions to the field. Further research into the ways in which textbooks interact with other materials in the classroom, and how teachers can make use of different kinds of textbook content, is also needed. Particularly relevant here, this analysis suggests, is research investigating the conditions under which teaching and learning about the multidimensionality of SD can take shape, and how this is experienced subjectively by individual students. As pointed out by Hellberg and Knutsson (2018), comparisons between the ways in which ESD is enacted in different settings for different groups, suggests a potential way of conducting such research, by which the future development and progression of ESD may benefit greatly.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 These are Gleerups, Natur & Kultur, Liber, and Sanoma.

2 Syllabuses for Swedish school subjects are available online at: https://www.skolverket.se/undervisning/grundskolan/laroplan-och-kursplaner-for-grundskolan/kursplaner-for-grundskolan. We searched for ’hållbar’ (‘sustainable’) and counted the number of times it was mentioned in the syllabuses for all subjects. We also analysed how central the concepts seemed to be by looking at where in the text, in what context, and in what way, they were mentioned.

3 https://www.sverigesmiljomal.se/miljomalen/

4 All quotes from textbooks are translated by the authors.