Pluralistic environmental and sustainability education – a scholarly review

Abstract

In this scholarly review we critically discuss the last 30 years of research on pluralism in environmental and sustainability education (ESE). Pluralism has been a focal point for a vast amount of theoretical and empirical studies in the research field. Since the journal Environmental Education Research (EER) was established, 158 articles have been published that to some extend refer to pluralism or pluralistic ESE. In this review we analyse the state-of-the-art of pluralism in relation to current societal changes and challenges. By placing three decades of research on pluralism in relation to key challenges that face democratic society and education, we outline prospects for future research and discuss what role pluralism can, and should, take in ESE research.

Keywords:

• Pluralism
• ESE
• polarization
• scholarly review
• teaching

Introduction

There is no doubt that pluralism as an educational approach has made, and is still making, lasting impact on environmental and sustainability education (ESE) research. At a general level, pluralistic ESE can be described as an educational approach where different views and opinions on environmental and sustainability are open for discussion in educational practices (Öhman and Östman 2019). As ESE researchers interested in the topic, we have been puzzled by some important tendencies in our contemporary society that bring about major challenges for a pluralistic educational approach and that raise fundamental questions regarding whether we may have to reconsider pluralistic ESE. This inspired the development of this article, in which we critically engage with three decades of literature on pluralism in ESE and with the questions whether the issue needs to be revisited in the face of current societal evolutions as well as what future research on the topic is required.

During the last three decades, pluralism has been used in a variety of ways and been given different meanings. The ideas of pluralism as an educational approach in ESE has been contested, criticized, and defended from a myriad of different positions within the research field. At the same time, pluralism has been comprehensively studied in empirical research and been developed theoretically within the field. A search on the website of Environmental Education Research (EER) reveals that, since the journal’s establishment, ‘pluralism’ and ‘pluralistic’ has been used in 173 of the journal’s currently published articles, editorials, and reviews. Some articles mention it briefly, others explore it more deeply, and some others debate and discuss it.

While pluralism has been addressed in ESE research for thirty years, we have witnessed three major changes that challenge pluralism as an educational approach. First, we have seen fierce polarization of public debate and the rise of post-truth politics that fuels political disagreements over descriptive questions, such as ‘is the climate changing due to human activity?’. Second, there has been an increased instrumentalization of education that has brought forth a culture of accountability and a focus on educational achievement in terms of measurable outcomes that can be compared and competing on an international scale. Third, the environmental situation and the ongoing climate change on this planet has come with an accentuated urgency for action, to put it mildly. The current societal, educational, and environmental situation, which we discuss in more detail below, puts pressure on pluralism as an educational approach to such an extent that one could wonder whether now is the right time for an educational approach that frames teaching and learning as an open-ended endeavour of growth and freedom.

The reason for us to take a step back from our daily research and undertake this scholarly review is that we consider it an urgent and unavoidable task to revisit pluralism in ESE. Urgent, as we experience a changing political climate for researchers and science. And as scholars who are largely involved in ESE research on pluralism it is also unavoidable for us to critically reflect on whether our concepts, theories and findings still hold in evolving societal contexts. With our overarching hope to see vibrant and flourishing ESE taking shape in practice, we must turn our gaze toward how our own research field has examined pluralism and discuss what it can mean in relation to current societal, educational, and environmental challenges we face. The aim of this article is therefore to critically reflect on the development of pluralism in ESE research. In order to do so, we have scrutinized three decades of research literature, going back to the early research articles on pluralism published in the early 1990s, and critically engaged with these writings in the light of present societal challenges and associated requirements for future research. The following questions guided our scholarly review: ‘How has pluralism developed theoretically during the last 30 years?’, ‘What empirical findings about pluralism have been important during the last 30 years?’, and ‘Does pluralistic ESE need to be revisited in the light of current societal, educational, and ecological evolutions?’.

After discussing, in the next section, the relevance of pluralism as an educational approach today in relation to the three challenges outlined above, we explain the methodology of this scholarly review which is based on collective reflection. Subsequently, we present our findings about the theoretical development of pluralism in ESE research and, next, findings about empirical research in pluralism in practice. We conclude the paper with a discussion of these findings in relation to societal polarization, educational instrumentalization, and environmental urgency.

The relevance of pluralism today

The relevance of revisiting pluralism must be understood in relation to considerably changing societal, educational, and ecological conditions. As to the societal conditions, the polarization of public debate and the rise post-truth is utmost noticeable when it comes to sustainability issues, and especially the question of climate change (Aasen 2017; Bolsen and Shapiro 2018; McCright and Dunlap 2011). On the one hand, we have seen the rise of a global youth movement mobilizing millions of people to protests current climate policy; on the other hand, a president of the United States publicly mocking this movement’s proponent Greta Thunberg and setting the tone for the debate in social media (Bryson Taylor 2019). The aggressiveness and threats directed to Greta Thunberg exemplifies the polarization.¹ Current public debate seems to have pushed the normative question what to do about climate change to the background, front staging another question that now divides the public: whether or not anything should be done at all.

This shift in public debate is closely intertwined with the rise of post-truth politics (Higgins 2016). Here, too, climate change is the example par excellence. When the Oxford Dictionaries announced post-truth as Word of the Year in 2016, it was defined as an adjective ‘relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief’ (Oxford University Press 2016). Post-truth has been a key referent in describing contemporary politics. Traditionally, politics has been characterized by disagreements on normative questions, such as ‘What should we do about climate change?’. With post-truth, politics shifts focus from disagreement on normative questions to disagreement on descriptive questions, turning questions such as ‘Is the climate changing?’ into a matter of opinion. Even if politics always has included disagreements about facts, the disagreement has primarily been about which facts should be considered most important in relation to normative questions. Traditionally, the construction of arguments in democratic politics could not easily totally ignore facts or just let emotions trump facts. Post-truth politics changes this. It turns facts into just one available rhetoric figure alongside other without any particular role or weight in the construction of arguments. Despite the prevailing scientific consensus regarding the descriptive question whether the climate is changing due to human activity, post-truth politics turns this question into a political disagreement. Thus, the polarization of public debate, and the rise of post-truth politics, puts ESE in a societal context characterized by sharp and volatile disagreements over descriptive questions. This new situation puts the core assumptions and ideas of pluralism in a new light and re-actualizes several questions: What perspectives should be included in a pluralistic ESE? What level of polarisation and disagreement can be handled, and what kind of arguments should be seen as valid when students discuss sustainability issues in the classroom? These and other similar questions become crucial to address in a polarized, post-truth society. We will return to them in our reflection and discussion.

While increased polarization and the rise of post-truth characterizes the societal change that challenges pluralism, the educational change is characterized by an increased instrumentality. During the last decades, there has been a global trend toward more standards-based curricula which puts focus on efficacy and outcomes of educational systems. This policy trend can be characterized in terms of knowledge measurements, accountability, and a stronger legislative control of teachers’ autonomy (Biesta 2019; Grek 2020; Lawn 2011). Moreover, the measurement of students’ knowledge has become a site for international comparison and competition, with different educational systems being compared and ranked against each other, which increases the pressure on both policymakers and schools to deliver an outcome that stands the international competition (Alvunger 2018; Ball 2003). These findings from general educational policy research are in line with the findings from ESE policy research highlighting how education in the global North has become predominantly instrumental and deeply affected by neo-liberal policy regimes (Aikens, McKenzie, and Vaughter 2016; McKenzie, Bieler, and McNeil 2015). For teachers, the instrumental logic of education comes with a culture of performativity were their actions become subject to targets, quality indicators, and evaluations (Ball 2003; Bergh 2015).

Given this increased instrumentality it seems like the notorious gap between the aspiring ideals of ESE and the educational system is developing into an unsurmountable rift valley, and where pluralism is found on the idealistic side of that valley (cf. Stevenson 2007; Tryggvason, Sund, and Öhman 2022). So, when we as researchers insistently promote pluralism as ‘the desirable approach’ for a vital ESE, one needs to ask whether pluralism is an option at all for teachers in an increasingly instrumentalized educational system. And, even if we consider pluralism desirable and possible, the present educational system requires us to ask whether striving for pluralism is worth the toll and effort it takes to actualize within an instrumentalized educational system (cf. Gruenewald and Manteaw 2007). But, on the other hand, if we find it worthwhile, it may lead us to questioning the desirability of current educational systems.

As if the societal and educational changes were not enough, the manifested urgency of the environmental crisis certainly does challenge pluralistic approach to ESE. There is an obvious tension between the urgency of the crisis we face, the effect of it on (young) people’s well-being, and the ideals of a pluralistic education where diverging opinions are discussed again and again (Affifi and Christie 2019; Bergdahl and Langmann 2022; Ojala et al. 2021). As Block, Goeminne, and Van Poeck (2018, 1428) formulate it: ‘When urgency increases, the time and space for democracy – a ‘painfully slow’ process (Wals and Peters 2018, 39) – seems to shrink’. Within pluralistic approaches, education is not seen as an instrument for delivering sustainable citizens – for the simple reason that education is not seen as an instrument at all (Säfström and Östman 2020; Van Poeck and Östman 2020). But as the environmental crisis comes roaring through ever-increasing storms, floods, and droughts, the question is raised more and more whether education really shouldn’t be deployed as effectively as possible as an instrument in this vital environmental struggle.

As our – brief and perhaps a bit gloomy – description of the above societal, educational, and environmental changes shows, the polarisation of public debate accompanied by post-truth politics, the instrumentalization of education, and the environmental crisis raise several questions about and challenges for pluralistic approaches in ESE. If we subscribe to democracy as a normative ideal of education, a crucial question is whether pluralism holds any relevance today and, if so, in which forms and under which conditions.

Methodology

The method in this review can be labelled as a collective scholarly reflection on literature about pluralism in ESE. It differs from a systematic review of literature in the sense that we, rather than systematically mapping, describing, and analysing the existing literature, critically review and reflect on previous work on the topic guided by the specific concern how the societal challenges outlined above may require us to thoroughly revise (research on) pluralistic ESE. In doing so, careful and in-depth engagement with the body of literature was as vital as our collective reflection on it in order to realise this paper’s purpose. Searching, screening, selecting, and scrutinizing articles on pluralism that have been published the last three decades not only provided us with a thorough scientific ground and substantial material for our reflection; the process of doing this collectively was also an integral and fruitful part of the reflection process.

In this methodology section, we first describe the key characteristics of our process of critically reflecting on the development of pluralism as an educational approach in ESE. Thereafter, we describe more closely our process of searching and selecting articles.

A scholarly review – critically reflecting on 30 years of ESE research

For our reflection, we went back to the early articles on pluralism published in the early 1990s and followed different paths that have emerged during three decades. Although our ambition was not to exhaustively and quantitatively trawl all that has been published on pluralism, our approach was not without structure and organization. The three research questions mentioned above consistently guided our analytical focus and our reflection. In order to further operationalize this overall interest, we formulated more detailed analytical questions that helped us in searching, screening, selecting, scrutinizing, and discussing literature. In order to find out and reflect upon how pluralism has theoretically developed, for instance, we were guided by questions such as what different positions on pluralism exist within the field, what theories are used, what problems relating to pluralism are addressed, how the discussion has changed over time, whether the evolving societal, educational, and ecological context is reflected in these changes, etc. In engaging with the question what empirical findings about pluralism have been important, our analytical work focused on what themes have been investigated in the empirical studies, which settings and practices have been investigated, whether there is empirical evidence for strengths and pitfalls of pluralistic ESE, whether these are related to the evolving societal, educational, and ecological context, etc. And as to the overarching question whether pluralistic ESE needs to be revisited in the light of current societal, educational, and ecological evolutions, we were particularly interested in whether and how existing literature on pluralism in ESE addresses the issues of polarization, post-truth, instrumentalization, and the accentuated urgency of the ecological crisis, or raise questions, concerns, approaches, or ideas that deserve to be further explored in the light of this changing context. Our search for articles, the snowballing through lists of references (which is described in more detail below), and the screening and selection process have always been intertwined with critical discussion between us three authors. In that sense, there has not been a sharp distinction between the search for articles and our collective reflection. One way to describe the process, is to see the researcher as a curator, who for a moment closes the exhibition in order to dwell in the backrooms and archives. However, in contrast to the lone curator, we are three different researchers, at three different stages in our academic life. This means that we see and perhaps judge things differently. Johan Öhman has been in the field since the pluralism first became a key concept, Katrien Van Poeck has since the last decade been involved in both empirical and theoretical research on pluralism in ESE, and Ásgeir Tryggvason, based in civics education research, has recently entered the field with a curiosity of what all this fuzz about pluralism is about. A guiding principle for our collective reflection was to make use of our own differences to facilitate a critical analysis of pluralism. Thus, we have neither just relied on our preestablished familiarity with earlier research, nor entered the field as novices with a purely inductive approach. Instead, we have used our differences to critically engage with the literature and balance established knowledge with critical curiosity.

As described in the introduction, our involvement in the field is also a reason for us to undertake this scholarly review. This implies that some of our own articles are among those selected and discussed. This reinforces the importance of collectively and critically using our different perspectives and knowledge as a resource when undertaking the scholarly review. By discussing the articles together, we have been able to critically reflect on our own contributions to the field. Moreover, in our method of collective reflection, we consistently committed to two key principles: transparency and fair-mindedness (cf. Rosenquist 2011). As to the former, we explicitly addressed our previous knowledge of positions and scholars in the field when we discussed the articles as a matter of addressing our own prejudices and perceived knowledge in a hermeneutic process (Gilje and Grimen 2007). In striving for fair-mindedness, we tried to read and understand the perspectives of others on their own terms, doing justice to their argument before critically reflecting on it. Thus, these principles as allowed us both to address our own position and to step out of it for a moment in order to understand the perspective of others. It is in relation to these principles and process that the search, selection, and analysis of articles should be understood. Rather than the systematic search and screening of articles, the primary method in this scholarly review is the collective reflection. The selected and analysed articles constitute a solid starting point for such a reflection on pluralism in challenging times.

Searching and selecting articles

In this section we describe our approach to searching and scrutinizing articles in the ESE research field and discuss some of its limitations.

Instead of starting in a broad database search, we choose a strategy where we started by searching one of the main journals in the field: Environmental Education Research (EER). As the research field’s dominant journal with 28 volumes, it provided a solid gravitational point for finding the key discussions and findings on pluralism from the last 30 years. Being involved in the academic discussion on pluralism, we knew on beforehand that the volumes of EER contain key articles on pluralism. In limiting the initial search to just one of the main journals implies that we cannot claim exhaustiveness. However, as we did not aim to systematically trawl the entire research field, but instead aimed at having a substantial starting point for our collective scholarly reflection, we found it reasonable (and manageable) to start in one of the main journals in the field. Moreover, even if EER is ‘just’ one journal, it is closing in on its 30th anniversary and therefore covers a lot of ground from the last three decades of ESE research on pluralism. To expand our scope beyond EER we made three additions. First, we added articles outside of EER that can be characterized as key publications in the debate on pluralism in the field (e.g. Jickling 1991, 1994; Jickling and Spork 1998). These articles are marked with a single * in the list of references. Second, reading through the screened EER articles and key publications, we encountered references that made important contributions on pluralism in ESE research (e.g. Borg et al. 2012). These are marked with a double ** in the list of references. This process of snowballing introduced us to articles that were new to us. Third, after identifying the different themes described below, we added articles that we knew were important in each theme. For instance, in the theoretical development of pluralism there has been an intrinsic critique from a postcolonial perspective. To describe this critique more thoroughly, we went back to some additional literature that addresses these themes (such as Sund and Pashby 2020). These added articles are marked with a triple *** in the list of references. In total this process added nine more publications to the 65 articles we had from the screening of EER.

The screening of environmental education research 1995–2022

We searched the EER web page for ‘pluralis*’ to include both pluralistic and pluralism, (and to exclude post that mentions ‘plural’ or ‘plurality’). This search resulted in 173 hits (June 17^th 2022). The web page of EER is not ideal for systematic searches as it contains a very limited advanced search option. However, as our initial focus was on the 28 volumes of EER we found that the web page was the most suitable alternative. For instance, a search on the database EBSCO of pluralis* [anywhere] and ‘environmental education research’ [journal title] resulted in just 20 posts.

The 173 items included peer-reviewed articles, book reviews and editorial. Scanning through the posts we excluded 15 items that were not peer-review articles. This left us with 158 peer-reviewed articles to screen. We lacked access to two of them. The screening process consisted of three steps. The first step was to read title, abstract, and keywords and search the text for ‘pluralis*’. In this first step we excluded 54 articles that mention pluralism or pluralistic somewhere in the text but do not touch upon the issue of pluralism in ESE (e.g. Cincera et al. 2020). Secondly, we read the sections of the article on ‘pluralism’ or ‘pluralistic’ and decided whether the article was relevant for describing the state-of-the-art of pluralism in ESE. In this step we excluded 24 articles. In the third step we read the full article to assess whether its focus was on developing pluralism theoretically or investigating it empirically. In this step we excluded 13 articles. This screening process left us with 65 articles that we see as important articles in EER to describe, and critically reflect on pluralism in ESE (see supplemental material for a list of screened and included articles).

Theoretical development of pluralism

This section on the theoretical development of pluralism is divided in three parts. First, we describe how pluralism developed theoretically in relation to the external problem of normativity by addressing the history of pluralism and how it emerged from concerns about the prevailing normativity in ESE. Then we turn to how pragmatist philosophy has contributed to the development of pluralism by addressing the problem of relativism. The third section turns to recently introduced theoretical perspectives that formulated an immanent critique of pluralism: (i) posthumanism, (ii) postcolonialism, and (iii) political theory. We end the section with some concluding comments on the theoretical development of pluralism.

Pluralism as a response to normativity

The rise of pluralism as a topic of interest in ESE research during the early 1990s largely grew out of a critique of normative approaches. In two classic texts, ‘Why I don’t want my children to be educated for sustainable development’ and ‘Environmental education, problem solving, and some humility please’, Bob Jickling (1991, 1994) developed a substantial critique of the strong normativity that was dominant. A keystone in his and Helena Spork’s critique was the notion ‘for’ in concepts ‘education for the environment’ and ‘education for sustainability’ (Jickling and Spork 1998).

The critique formulated by these authors highlights two problems. First, that the very idea of education for a pre-defined normative end, is oxymoronic. In that sense it is not education at all, but instead instruction, or perhaps indoctrination. As Jickling (1994) puts it: ‘The very idea is contrary to the spirit of education’ (6). Instead of being educated for sustainable development, he prefers his children to be educated so that they can participate intelligently and critically in the debate about sustainable development. The problem with ‘education for…’ is that it forecloses the discussions about sustainable development and hinders the students to examine the different arguments, and ultimately hinders them to make up their own mind. ‘Is it the job of education to make people behave in a particular way?’ (5–6), he rhetorically asks. The second problem is that the notion education for sustainable development conceals conflicts and contestation over the concept sustainable development, as it is no societal or general consensus about what sustainable development means or how we can achieve it.

However, this position did not pass without critique or discussion. Fien and Trainer argued that this understanding of education conceals that all education is built upon values and also ‘ignores fundamental questions of power and social reproduction in the formation of individual identity and personal decision making’ (Fien and Trainer quoted in Jickling and Spork 1998, 318). In response to this, Jickling and Spork pointed out that they agree that all education is value-laden, and therefore the question becomes ‘what should constitute an appropriate response to the value-laden nature of education[?]’ (Jickling and Spork 1998, 319).

In retrospect, it is possible to see how pluralistic approaches took shape out of this debate as a ‘response to the value-laden nature of education’. The contours of a pluralistic approach to ESE can be seen in Jickling and Spork (1998) argument that students need to be able to examine, discuss and critically investigate different perspectives on sustainable development:

The point we are trying to make here is not that aiming for a contextual vision is more right than aiming for one that is universal, but rather that we just do not know which approach is preferable. While in the midst of debate about the relative merits of each approach we should not, in the name of education, foreclose that discussion (321).

The relation between normativity and pluralism is further discussed within the field during the early 00s. In 2002, Stables and Scott formulated a critique of holism in ESE and its normative underpinnings. They oppose to ‘a holistic approach to SDE [ESE] that assumes we should be aiming for a single and uncontested set of understandings and for complete consensus concerning future action’ (Stables and Scott 2002, 54). In their critique of normativity and the ‘false consensus’ surrounding sustainable development, they put forward an idea that we interpret as pluralistic by emphasizing how education (and research) can scrutinize the underlying worldviews, ontologies and discourses that surround and establish ‘sustainable development’. Thus, instead of promoting a single (normative) understanding of sustainable development, education can put the different ideas that underpin sustainable development on the table. Yet another illustrative example of how the interest in pluralistic ESE arose from the critique of normativity.

A pluralistic environmental education was further developed theoretically in relation to concrete teaching practice by Susanne Lijmbach et al. (2002). In their article ‘‘Your View of Nature is Not Mine!’: Learning about pluralism in the classroom’ they outlined a theoretical ground for a pluralistic classroom practice and developed teaching models that aim ‘to promote a respect for pluralism in the classroom with different conceptualizations of nature as a focal point’ (130). Their conceptualization of pluralism underscores the students’ critical reflection on both their own and others’ views. A keystone in their teaching modules is to enable students to see how opinions and views of nature are not just subjective opinions, but are embedded in a wider social and political context of interests and stakeholders. Moreover, they formulate a theoretical distinction between pluralism and relativism. Respect for pluralism as a willingness to let different perspectives meet, they argued, ‘should be distinguished from relativistic indifference. Respect implies a serious interest into other views, and a willingness to discuss them’ (126).

Reading these articles two or three decades later, provides a perspective on our own time and the current discussions within the field. What strikes us in our reading is the absence of a discussion of relativism. Even if Lijmbach et al. (2002) make a distinction, relativism is not an issue nor a problem that is further discussed. Instead, the main concern during the 1990s seems to have been the question whether ESE can and should aim for certain normative ends. One side of the fence argues that it should not, but instead open up for students to make up their own mind (Jickling and Spork 1998; Lijmbach et al. 2002) while on the other side claims that education is always embedded in normativity and to position oneself in a ‘neutral’ position is to conceal one’s own normative and ideological position (i.e. liberal).

Questions that are not discussed are whether all positions should be seen as valid in pluralistic classroom discussion or where we find the borders of pluralism. For instance, would a ‘flat earth’ also be a valid perspective on nature for Lijmbach et al. (2002)? In short, it is clear that the early theoretical development of a pluralistic ESE has not yet been hit by the currents of post-truth society.

The problem of relativism and the pragmatist response

While by the mid and late-00s, the pluralistic critique of normative ESE can be described as a solid and established position within the research field, during that period the discussion of pluralism also starts to relate to the problem of relativism more thoroughly (Lotz-Sisitka 2009, 2010; Öhman 2006; Payne 2010; Wals 2010). This could be seen as a slight shift in focus of the theoretical debate. However, rather than being an external critique against pluralistic approaches (cf. Wals 2010), the problem of relativism is used to further develop and improve pluralism as an educational approach in ESE. Primarily inspired by the pragmatist philosophy of John Dewey, and others, an understanding of pluralism was formulated that can withstand the problem of relativism (Öhman 2006; Öhman and Östman 2007; Van Poeck 2019).

The latter can be phrased in different ways. A general characteristic of this problem is that pluralism in ESE risks opening up to an ‘anything goes’ approach to the notion of sustainable development and to underlying moral and political values. This problem can be seen as two folded. First, it is the practical question of relativism in teaching – should the teacher treat all values and perspectives as equally relevant within a pluralistic teaching approach. Wals (2010) points to this with the following question: ‘Are all outcomes of learning in the context of sustainability equally valid as long as the underlying learning processes engaged the learners in all the perspectives that are particularly relevant for sustainability? (Wals 2010, 145). Second, it is a theoretical problem whether all perspective and values are equally good or bad, and if not, on what grounds should we prioritize them (see Kopnina 2012; Öhman 2006; Van Poeck 2019).

The pragmatist answer to relativism is developed by Öhman (2006) who highlights that even if the relativism could be seen as a theoretical problem that pluralism faces, it is hardly a practical problem for pluralistic ESE. Drawing on Rorty and the later Wittgenstein, Öhman writes: ‘In practice, the question of whether a theory is philosophically grounded is generally not something we really give much thought to, although we do care about ‘the various concrete advantages and disadvantages it has’ (Öhman 2006, 159, citing Rorty). From a practical, didactical perspective, the challenge for a teacher is thus, rather than to avoid relativism, to highlight diversity, support free will formation, but at the same time encourage a strong commitment. If that succeeds, ‘one cannot find anybody who says that two incompatible opinions on an important topic are equally good’ (Rorty 1982/2003, 166). The pragmatist response to relativism is further developed by Van Poeck (2019) who draws on Öhman and Östman (2007) pragmatist work on a transactional theory of ESE and on Latour’s ‘matters of concern and argues for moving beyond the dualism of relativism and objectivism and its educational non-productiveness. She formulates a position where pluralism is not seen as a new objective position from which all other perspectives are to be judged, instead Van Poeck draws on Latour and argues for a pluralism that ‘is a time and space where, […], a multiplicity of standpoints can be explored while switching perspective from one to another. ‘The great thing about a standpoint’, Latour (2004b, 65) argues, ‘is, precisely, that you can change it!’. (Van Poeck 2019, 487–488, citing Latour).

The pluralism that emerges from these encounters with relativism can be understood as a pluralism that on the one hand turns to practice by emphasizing that relativism is not a problem for practice. On the other hand, it theoretically specifies pluralism as an approach that enables students to explore different standpoints without falling into formulating a new objectivism (Van Poeck 2019).

Immanent critique from new theoretical perspectives

During the last decade, new theoretical perspectives have become a part of the theoretical development of pluralism in ESE. These are posthumanism, postcolonialism, and political theory (e.g. deliberation and agonism). The perspectives are new in the sense that they are new to the development and discussion of pluralistic approaches in ESE, even if the theories have a longer history within other fields of social science. In this section we frame these new theories as an immanent critique of pluralism. Their common ground is that they share the pluralistic value premise that humans do not possess or have access to an objective authority to determine what is ethically, aesthetically, or politically good. Following this, there is no objective meaning to sustainable development practices, and therefore ESE researchers need to assess and discuss different perspectives on sustainable development.

The critique that is formulated from these theoretical strands is immanent in the sense that it is not a critique of pluralistic approaches per se, but a critique of the presuppositions, the epistemologies, and the implicit values that follow from pluralistic approaches as they are formulated in ESE research. Thus, it targets the taken-for-granted perspectives that pluralistic approaches relies on in their mission to open for a multitude of perspectives on sustainable development.

Posthumanism as immanent critique

During recent years post-human and more-than-human perspectives have opened a new discussion of pluralism as an educational approach (Harmin, Barrett, and Hoessler 2017; Kopnina and Cherniak 2016; Lindgren and Öhman 2019). Ideas of a more inclusive and radical pluralism are put forward to overcome narrow anthropocentrism. Kopnina and Cherniak (2016) formulate an immanent critique how pluralism in ESE is bound up within a neoliberal discourse where students are presented choices between different positions on sustainable development which are ‘only [choices] between different shades of anthropocentrism’ (832). Instead, they put forward a notion of a more inclusive pluralism that challenges the anthropocentric position and the hegemony of the ‘one-species only pluralism ‘(cf. Lindgren and Öhman 2019, 1200). The kind of pluralism that Kopnina and Cherniak outline contains substantial normative elements in the sense that it an education for nature and nonhumans (as well as humans we suppose). The strength of pluralistic communication is here seen as a tool to achieve the pre-defined goals of an education for nature. ‘Thus, we are for pluralism as a working process that can serve education, environmental thinking, and decision-making; but against pluralism as an end in and of itself’ (836). Thus, the inclusive pluralism that Kopnina and Cherniak formulates approaches the problem of relativism by using pluralism instrumentally to achieve established normative goals (831).

Kopnina and Cherniak (2016) pluralism is further discussed and problematized from a post-human standpoint by Lindgren and Öhman (2019). Lindgren and Öhman agree with the problems that anthropocentrism brings into ESE, but instead of suggesting an eco-centric position that aims to be more inclusive as a remedy to anthropocentrism, they argue for a more critical pluralism. Thus, instead of substituting anthropocentrism with ecocentrism, they formulate a pluralism that is critical in the sense that it ‘pays attention to our already existing (and often abusive) entanglement with the more than human world’ (1210). This is a pluralism that does not aim to expand humanism in order to be more inclusive, but a pluralism that aims to be more critical (and reflective) about the anthropocentric position we are bound up in. Instead of seeing pluralism as a mean for normative ends, Lindgren and Öhman argue that a pluralistic ESE should highlight the conflictual aspect in human-nonhuman relationships and the agential force of nonhuman animal in education. For instance, such a pluralism could pay attention to students’ moral reactions and use these reactions as a starting point for ethical reflection and pluralistic discussion over human-nonhuman relationships. In contrast to Kopnina and Cherniak (2016), the pluralism that Lindgren and Öhman suggest does not see pluralistic communication as a means for normative (moral) ends, instead they see the moral reaction (and agential force of nonhumans) as a starting point and means for developing a critical pluralistic communication in the classroom.

Post/decolonial theory as immanent critique

Another strand of immanent critique underscores that pluralistic approaches are not as plural as they set out to be. The ideas undergirding pluralistic approaches are, according to critics, deeply embedded in modernity and Western-centric perspectives of knowledge, development and progress, for instance. These are seldom made explicit, but instead function as implicit and ‘neutral’ starting points when different perspectives on sustainable development are up for discussion. Drawing on decolonial theory, Sund and Pashby (2020) point to this problem and argue that such discussions can easily reproduce modern narratives and ‘unintentionally get caught up in consolidating a humanistic and uncomplicated analysis rather than challenging unfair life-chances around the world, thus reproducing modern narratives’ (Sund and Pashby 2020, 166). They formulate suggestions on how teachers can develop their (pluralistic) teaching practice by ‘delinking’ global sustainability issues from the dominant narratives of modernity. For instance, they suggest that teachers in their practice can: (a) recognize how coloniality relates to pressing environmental issues and (b) denaturalize the modern narratives of development that tend to dominate ESE by highlighting how concepts such as development are not neutral but have a social and political history.

Moreover, as Sund (2016) argues, addressing the global equality issues in ESE is not only about adding complexity, but ‘[i]t should also direct attention to and offer a deeper understanding of how historical processes, issues of power and different forms of knowledge and knowing influence people’s views of the world’ (789). Her research shows how teachers stress the political dimension of global sustainability issues by emphasizing both the global power relations, and the role of political agency. Thus, both the unequal power relations that stem from coloniality, and the students’ own political agency needs to be stressed in a pluralistic ESE that addresses global issues.

This line of reasoning is similar to Peter Sutoris’ (2019) argument for a politically charged ESE. Building on the work of Sund and Öhman (2014), as well as political theory of Arendt and postcolonial theory of Spivak, Sutoris (2019) argues for a politicization of ESE that is about ‘enabling pluralistic deliberation and political action’ (602). However, a problem is that ESE practices that aim to empower and develop students’ political agency, can instead end up reproducing depoliticized understandings of sustainability when they only provide ‘individual ‘politically neutral’ actions such as recycling and planting trees without giving attention to the underlying causes of unsustainable material practices […]’ (602). In order to strengthen students’ political agency, ESE should not constrain students’ political imagination but, from a postcolonial perspective, address critical questions such as ‘who does the imagining. How much agency do subaltern groups have in defining the notions of sustainability and development they are expected to follow? Whose development is being promoted?’ (Sutoris 2019, 608). Hence, the postcolonial perspective does not only question the perspectives on sustainable development that are on the table, but also critically examens who ‘we’ are in those discussions.

Two conclusions can be drawn on how the post/decolonial critique further develops pluralistic approaches. First, the critique is not primarily about adding additional perspectives to a pluralistic approach but rather about denaturalizing the taken for granted starting points that constitute many pluralistic practices, such as progress and development. Second, pluralistic approaches cannot stop at denaturalizing modern narratives and just leave the students to handle whatever is left after every perspective has been denaturalized. What also is also needed, is enabling students’ political agency to avoid the risk that the critique and denaturalization will lay the ground for political apathy.

Political theory as immanent critique

The third strand of immanent critique takes its starting point in political theories, primarily drawing on the deliberative theory of Jürgen Habermas and the agonistic theory of Chantal Mouffe (Håkansson, Kronlid, and Östman 2019; Håkansson and Östman 2019; Kowasch and Lippe 2019; Lundegård and Wickman 2012; Öhman and Öhman 2013; Sund and Öhman 2014). This immanent critique warns for the risk that pluralistic ESE practices, if embedded in a post-political ideal, neglect the conflictual and emotional aspects when discussing different perspectives on sustainability (e.g. Håkansson, Kronlid, and Östman 2019; Sund and Öhman 2014). In other words, it points to overlooking ‘the political’ nature of letting different perspectives clash against each other in a classroom discussion (Tryggvason and Öhman 2019). If pluralistic ESE leads to a prevailing culture of consensus in classroom discussions, it can, both, supress the number of perspectives that are brought up for discussion, and conceal existing conflicts between perspectives (see Öhman and Öhman 2013; Håkansson, Kronlid, and Östman 2019). Hence, Sund and Öhman (2014) argue for ‘repoliticizing’ ESE and for a pluralistic approach that opens up for political passions in classroom discussion. Thus, rather than treating sustainability issues merely as rational or intellectual problems for students to encounter and analyse, ESE must acknowledge the ethical and political dimension of sustainability issues and how they are rooted in students’ passions as political and ethical subjects. Sund and Öhman (2014, 654) therefore argue for ‘confronting moral problems in real life, since the majority of moral problems can neither be avoided by rational planning nor solved by intellectual process of consideration’.

Drawing on the political (and agonistic) theorist Arendt as well as empirical findings, Lundegård and Wickman highlight how students’ political subjectivity should not be understood as something fixed and defined before the discussion. Instead, when students enter a discussion, they form their political subjectivity in relation to others. Thus, conflicting political perspectives in the classroom should not be understood as a clash between already fixed positions and subjectivities but, instead, it is in the political classroom discussion that political subjectivity is shaped while encountering others. It emerges ‘in the same moment as the other outlines a human conflict of interest for an individual to take a stand against’ (Lundegård and Wickman 2012, 165). Moreover, pluralistic classroom discussions do not only offer opportunities to encounter others’ views and perspectives, but students can also encounter their own perspective. Drawing on Habermas theory of deliberative democracy and with reference to Wals (2010), Kowasch and Lippe (2019) argue for a pluralistic approach that includes ‘self-confrontation’ which demands that students confront how they ascribe meaning to their ideas, knowledge, values and interests (Wals 2010, 144)’ (Kowasch and Lippe 2019, 1075–1076).

A further step in this direction is taken by Olsson, Gericke, and Boeve-de Pauw (2022) who suggests that deliberative theory and agonism should not just inform teachers’ approaches their classroom. These political theories, Olsson, Gericke, and Boeve-de Pauw (2022) argues, could also provide students with a meta-perspective on unity and disunity.

Such meta-perspective is perhaps particularly important these days since many democracies are characterized by divisive political polarization (Guan, Liu, and Yang 2021; Müller et al. 2017; Oberhauser, Krier, and Kusow 2019), which puts both democracy and sustainable development at risk (981).

In short, the immanent critique stemming from political theories deepens the understanding of what it means when different perspectives clash in classroom discussions. A take-away messages is that pluralism in classroom discussions should not be understood as a plurality of already fixed political positions and identities, instead it is exactly in these discussions that students shape their political perspectives and subjectivity when they encounter each other (and themselves). Moreover, deliberative theory and agonism could be seen as two different classroom strategies within a pluralistic approach but could also be utilized as perspectives on democracy and sustainable development that students are presented with.

Concluding comments about the theoretical development

Above we have tried to show how the idea of a pluralistic ESE emerged from the critique of normativity that underpinned EE and ESD and how the theoretical focus has shifted during the past 30 years from normativity to relativism and multiple strands of immanent critique. In this evolution, we can distinguish a return to the question of normativity within the field. The post-human discussion of pluralism takes up the question of normativity, where Kopnina and Cherniak (2016), for instance, argue for a pluralism that is ‘utilized for moving towards established goals’ (831). Moreover, in the light of the rise of the post-truth era, Van Poeck (2019) outlines how ESE faces pressing challenged with regard to, both, relativism and normativity. While this can be seen as a return to the problem of normativity within theoretical development of pluralism, the discussion differs from that which was dominant in the 90s (e.g. Jickling 1994) in two crucial aspects. First, it draws on other theoretical grounds such as post-human theory, ecofeminism and critical animal studies (see Kopnina and Cherniak 2016; Lindgren and Öhman 2019). Second, it is set within the above described societal conditions of a post-truth and populism. Thus, it is a new discussion of normativity that contains new (theoretical) positions within a changed societal context.

Pluralism in practice – empirical findings

In this section we turn to empirical studies and findings about pluralism in ESE that have been important during the last 30 years. Two key findings need to be mentioned initially. First, a pluralistic teaching tradition is not merely a visionary desktop idea developed by ESE researchers but is a teaching tradition that is actually practiced in classrooms (Borg et al. 2012; Lijmbach et al. 2002; Lundegård and Wickman 2012; Öhman 2004; Sund 2015). Secondly, the question of normativity and relativism that characterize the theoretical research does not appear as a practical teaching problem in the empirical studies. Instead, the empirical studies show that a pluralistic ideal of vibrant classroom discussions cannot be reduced to wishful thinking as its educational and democratic potential is part of the empirical findings.

The relation between ESE teaching traditions

At the turn of the millennium, a, survey-based study led by Leif Östman and Johan Öhman and the Swedish Education Agency in 2001 investigated how teachers teach sustainable development to their students (Öhman 2004). The survey on how teachers, from pre-school to adult education, handled environmental issues in their teaching was based on questionnaires (n = 568) and qualitative interviews with teachers and principals. It identified three selective traditions in environmental education: the Fact-based, Normative and Pluralistic tradition. Of these three, the normative teaching tradition was the most dominant (52%) followed by the pluralistic (34%) and fact-based (14%) tradition. Two conclusions can be made. First, this study showed that the above mentioned debate over normativity and pluralism was not just a philosophical exercise but reflected the division between actual teaching approaches in 90s classrooms. Jickling’s critique thus addresses the actual practice of 52% of Swedish teachers. Secondly, the study’s categorisation of three different teaching traditions, and the theoretical elaboration of them, provided a conceptual framework with lasting impact on ESE research. During the last 20 years, it has inspired many studies (Andersson 2017; Borg et al. 2012; Rudsberg and Öhman 2015; Sund and Wickman 2011a, 2011b), also outside Sweden (Van Poeck et al. 2020).

In a quantitative study of 3229 teachers in upper secondary schools, Borg et al. (2012) identified a difference between science teachers and social science teachers when it comes to the teaching traditions. The result shows that science teachers teach sustainable development within a fact-based tradition to a higher degree than social science teachers who mostly belong to a pluralistic teaching tradition. The relationship between different teaching traditions of ESE has also been investigated within higher education. In a systematic policy review of how sustainable development has been implemented in Turkish higher education, Katayama, Örnektekin, and Demir (2018) found that an absolute approach to sustainable development was dominant in contrast to a pluralistic approach. The absolute approach that Katayama, Örnektekin, and Demir (2018) identified is in many ways similar to the normative teaching tradition that Östman and Öhman found to be dominant in Swedish education.

Pluralistic discussions

The role of the teacher and peers

In investigating how teachers stimulate a pluralistic meaning-making in classroom practices, Rudsberg and Öhman (2010) analysed 13 video-recorded lessons on sustainability in Swedish upper secondary schools. Their main finding was that teachers develop and support a pluralistic meaning-making in the classroom by engaging in students’ discussions in with questions that have certain functions, so-called ‘teacher moves’. Teachers deepened the students’ arguments and made the discussions more diverse by performing generalizing, specifying, comparing or testing moves. These nurtured a pluralistic meaning-making where students openly explored values and facts, as well as moral and political positions in sustainability issues. By identifying these in practice Rudsberg and Öhman (2010) conclude that pluralism should be understood ‘not only as a policy principle but as manifested in tools developed in teachers’ own practice in order to stimulate a specific kind of meaning-making process’ (107).

Students’ meaning-making of sustainability issues is, however, not restricted to just classroom discussions. In an analysis of young people’s meaning-making in discussions on an Internet-forum, Andersson and Öhman (2017) found that these online discussions were characterized be being ‘argumentative, sophisticated, elaborative and competitive’ (Andersson and Öhman 2017, 478). When young people engaged in online-discussions they made ‘epistemological moves’ (cf. ‘teacher moves’ above), i.e. certain posts that had the function of clarifying, guiding, confirming and supporting statements made by other participants and, thus, ‘allow for critical reflection and communicative learning’ (478).

These empirical findings show that it is possible to establish high quality pluralistic discussions. Given our above elaborated concern about how public debate has been affected by political polarization and the logics of post-truth, these empirical findings provide us with much-needed knowledge on how to unlock the educative and democratic potential of pluralistic discussions. We will return to this below.

The role of knowledge

While the section above highlighted the role of the teacher and the peers in pluralistic discussions, we now turn to the role of knowledge in pluralistic ESE. In a study of how preschool teacher students discuss ESE practices, Hedefalk et al. (2021) highlight the didactical dilemma between teaching the predefined learning content of the curriculum or to teach the learning content created by the children themselves. As Hedefalk et al. frames it, a pluralistic approach enables preschool teacher students to oscillate between these two alternatives: ‘Pluralistic teaching does not exclude facts, but it also includes other knowledge sources as well as allowing children to form their own opinions about issues, in this case about sustainable development ‘(Hedefalk et al. 2021, 45). The teacher students’ reasoning and discussions about ESE avoided both the Scylla of normative behaviour modification as well as the Charybdis of relativistic of ‘anything-goes’. For instance, when presented with a (fictional) case of preschool children exploring garbage in a forest, the teacher students did not decide beforehand what should count as garbage. Instead, their didactical aim was to open up children’s conceptions of garbage as a starting point for discussion. This pluralistic approach did not lead to an ‘anything goes’-relativism, instead it led the teacher students to see that facts about garbage would be a suitable learning content for preschool children. Hedefalk et al.’s study can be seen as an example of how a pluralistic approach is not incapacitated by normativity or relativism. Instead, the teacher students were able to use their emerging professional judgment to navigate between normativity and relativism. In this way, the study highlights how facts and knowledge are not at the side-line in pluralistic discussions but, instead, embedded in the pluralistic approach (see also Olsson, Gericke, and Boeve-de Pauw 2022).

Moreover, studies of students in upper-secondary schools reveal that knowledge is not only embedded in but is also developed in and through pluralistic classroom discussions. In a study of the role of knowledge in pluralistic classroom discussions, Rudsberg and Öhman (2015) identified how students use their knowledge from many different subjects to construct their claims and, by doing this, they simultaneously develop their subject knowledge in discussions with others. When students use their previous knowledge in a classroom discussion the knowledge acquires new meaning. Thus, their previous knowledge is not just a passive component that is brought into the discussion, instead the meaning of their previous knowledge expands as it is re-actualized in a discussion (Rudsberg and Öhman 2015, 969). Another term for such an expansion of meaning is learning.

The role of emotions and aesthetics

Even if pluralistic classroom discussions are not ‘anything goes’, they are neither merely an intellectual exercise in developing knowledge and arguments. In a study of students’ discussions of sustainability issues, Håkansson and Östman (2019) highlight the bodily, affective, and emotional aspect that such discussions can bring forth. When students encounter sustainability issues, their meaning-making can start in their affects, in what they call a ‘political moment’. As Håkansson and Östman (2019) put it: ‘The inexplicable ‘gut’ reactions unintentionally set the stage for students to explore why and how they reacted to a poignant experience’ (596). Håkansson and Östman show how students’ discussions of sustainability issues are intertwined with affects, emotions and cognitive aspects. Furthermore, empirical studies of Caiman and Lundegård (2014) and of Gelinder, Hjälmeskog, and Lidar (2020) both point to how there is an aesthetic dimension present in pluralistic ESE practices. This means that a pluralistic ESE touches upon many different layers of human existence and students’ relations to sustainable development.

Pluralistic discussions and conflicts

Based on a quantitative study of students’ views on sustainable development, Berglund and Gericke (2016) argue that ESE should include both conflictual and congruence/harmony perspectives. A pluralistic teaching that includes both conflicts and consensus, and where different dimensions of sustainable development are integrated, they argue, can be a fertile ground for students’ learning and critical thinking of sustainability. However, even if there is empirical support for the value of ESE that includes both conflicts and consensus, empirical findings also point to of the fact that conflictual approaches are not common. For instance, a study by Öhman and Öhman (2013) illuminates how students successfully can identify and analyse societal conflicts over sustainability. However, these conflicts function merely as a content for the students’ analyses, rather than conflicts in which they were committed themselves by having specific opinions. Even if it is difficult to observe conflictual classroom discussion, some empirical findings reveal how conflicts exists under the surface of consensus-oriented classroom discussions. Håkansson and Östman (2019) analysed classroom discussions and found a prevailing consensus, but when students individually responded to a questionary afterwards, they found examples that ‘demonstrate that the class discussion gave rise to emotionally strong experiences of a conflictual situation’ (Håkansson and Östman 2019, 589).

Thus, on the one hand empirical studies point to the need for both consensus and conflictual perspectives in ESE practice (Berglund and Gericke 2016), and on the other hand empirical research reveals the dominance of consensus-oriented discussions in ESE classrooms (Håkansson and Östman 2019; Öhman and Öhman 2013; see also Olsson, Gericke, and Boeve-de Pauw 2022). Given this, a relevant question for pluralistic ESE practice is how teachers can bring conflictual perspectives to the fore.

In a study of ESE practice in Belgium, Van Poeck and Östman (2018) show in a detailed micro-analysis of teaching how educators can bring forth conflictual aspects of sustainability by making certain politicizing moves. The study also shows how educators’ moves can have a depoliticizing effect that downplays the conflictual, such as steering the students away from ‘emotionally invested concerns’ and instead underscore sustainability in terms of ‘predetermined and rationally calculated facts and behaviour guidelines’ (1418).

An example of how teachers actively can steer the students away from consensus can be found in Kopnina’s (2018) case study of her own teaching in higher education. Kopnina identified how the facilitation of an open pluralistic deliberation led the students toward an ‘undesirable consensus’ (1279). By combining a pluralistic teaching approach with an instrumental approach, Kopnina actively challenged the students’ consensus. For instance, with an instrumentalist approach she disclosed her own (political) position on the issues that the students discussed, but also encouraged students to dispute her position. Given these empirical studies, the consensus and conflictual aspects, which Berglund and Gericke (2016) argue are both needed in a pluralistic ESE, are something that teachers’ activity can regulate and govern through their didactical actions (moves). These empirical studies are in this way providing concrete support for teachers who want to develop their pluralistic teaching practices.

Furthermore, Lundegård and Wickman (2012) study, mentioned above, empirically showed how students develop their political subjectivity by discussing sustainability issues with others. They point to how the students’ political subjectivities emerge in conflictual discussions where they have to take a stand (Lundegård and Wickman 2012, 165).

The relation between pluralism and complexity in ESE

Another theme of empirical findings that is a crucial for understanding pluralistic approaches concerns the relation between pluralism and complexity in ESE. One aspect that empirical studies have explored is the relation between complexity, pluralism and holism relating to the three dimensions of sustainable development (social, environmental, and economic dimension) (Berglund and Gericke 2016, 2022; Rouhiainen and Vuorisalo 2019; Sinakou et al. 2021). Rouhiainen and Vuorisalo (2019) studied the relation between higher education teachers’ understanding of these dimensions and the premises of pluralistic teaching. A key finding from their qualitative study is that teachers’ understanding of social and environmental aspects of sustainability is well consistent with pluralistic teaching. However, the teachers revealed a ‘underdeveloped understanding’ (1725) of economic sustainability which Rouhiainen and Vuorisalo point to as problematic in relation to pluralism. The qualitative results from Rouhiainen and Vuorisalo’s study is in line with Borg et al. (2014) quantitative study with 3229 teachers in Swedish upper secondary schools that reveals a prevalent uncertainty when it comes to teaching the economic dimension of teaching sustainability (see also Boeve-de Pauw et al. 2022).

What these empirical studies point to is that pluralism seem to be limited to certain dimensions of sustainability, rather than being a general, all-inclusive, pluralism. Put differently, perhaps some dimensions are treated more plural than others in ESE teaching practice. A reason for this could be the uncertainty (Borg et al. 2014) or underdeveloped understanding (Rouhiainen and Vuorisalo 2019) that teachers show in handling the economic dimension as a part of sustainable development. In contrast to the theoretical discussions within the field about the boundaries of pluralism, or whether pluralism is prone to a problematic ‘anything goes’-relativism these empirical studies show something else. The boundaries of pluralism does not appear as a normative question, but as an issue that is dependent on teachers’ conceptualizations and relation to the teaching content (see Rouhiainen and Vuorisalo 2019; Boeve-de Pauw et al. 2022; Borg et al. 2012, 2014).

In empirical studies, complexity is also found as a concept that teachers use and relate to in their ESE practice. In a qualitative interview study of experienced ESD teachers, Sund (2015) identified complexity as a key concept for teachers within the pluralistic tradition. Experienced teachers see complexity as ‘a starting point for their answers as to why sustainability issues are important’ (38) and complexity is used by them as an approach to open for diverse perspectives in their teaching. For these teachers, the complexity of sustainability issues is not an obstacle but is instead seen as a resource in their teaching.

The qualitative results from Sund’s (2015) and Rouhiainen and Vuorisalo (2019) studies can be seen in relation to the quantitative results of Andersson’s (2017) study of pre-service teachers’ views on sustainable development teaching. Andersson investigates how participating in an ESD course affected pre-service teachers’ views on how sustainable development should be taught in schools. One of the main findings from the study was that participating in an ESD course changed the pre-service teachers’ views towards a more pluralistic teaching tradition ‘where approaches for teaching are based on active reflection and discussions among pupils and not on telling them what’s right or wrong’ (Andersson 2017, 443). Taken together, one way to interpret the results from Sund (2015), Rouhiainen and Vuorisalo (2019), Borg et al. (2014) and Andersson (2017) is to say that when teachers are experienced and have a complex understanding of sustainable development, which they can develop through courses, then they are better prepared to conduct pluralistic teaching.

Furthermore, complexity has also been conceptualized in terms of unstructured and wicked problems. By drawing on empirical and theoretical research on wicked problems, Block, Goeminne, and Van Poeck (2018) explore how teachers can approach wicked sustainability problems in their teaching. They argue that it is this characteristic of sustainability problems that require a pluralistic ESE:

Structured problems allow more or less to teach and learn the proper solutions or to define and strive for desirable attitudes and competences. However, wicked sustainability problems demand educational practices that leave room for uncertainties and a plurality of normative perspectives (1434).

The argument is that pluralistic teaching is seen as a necessity when the teaching content consists of complex sustainability problems. A similar line of reasoning is put forward by Rouhiainen and Vuorisalo (2019) who highlight how pluralistic teaching has been seen as a ‘one solution to the lack of a consensus definition of sustainable development’ (1713).

Thus, the notion of complexity is a two-sided in relation to pluralism. On the one hand researchers argue that it is because sustainability issues are complex that pluralistic teaching is needed in ESE (Block, Goeminne, and Van Poeck 2018; Borg et al. 2014). On the other hand, empirical studies show that teachers within a pluralistic tradition see the complexity as a resource in their teaching about sustainability (Sund 2015, cf. Rouhiainen and Vuorisalo 2019).

Concluding comments on the empirical findings

A main conclusion that can be drawn from the empirical studies is that there is a significant gap between the theoretical discussions in the field and the issues that are raised by the empirical findings about pluralism. What is clear is that the discussions about relativism in the theoretical studies of pluralism, is not dominant in the empirical studies. For instance, when relativism is discussed in relation to pre-school education, it was clear that the pre-school teacher students were able to navigate between an ‘anything goes’-relativism and normativity of predefined meanings (Hedefalk et al. 2021). The empirical studies do neither extensively discuss relativism nor describe it as something that they identify in teaching practices. For instance, Öhman and Öhman (2013) address this in their empirical study of student discussions.

When it comes to misgivings about relativism in participatory approaches (see Wals 2010), this seems to be more of a theoretical problem than a practical one. In our study, there is nothing to indicate that an open-ended discussion would lessen the students’ involvement and commitment (336).

Thus, the theoretically formulated critique that a pluralistic ESE opens up for a problematic relativism is not supported by the empirical studies in the field. A reason for this could of course be negligence in empirical research to highlight the problem of relativism. However, given its omnipresence in the theoretical discussion in the field, it is doubtful that empirical researchers would collectively fail to identify problems of relativism if they regularly occurred in pluralistic ESE classrooms. When it comes to the problem of normativity the issue is slightly different. Even if the empirical studies do not discuss problems with normativity, they highlight how students deal with normative questions in classroom practice. Thus, in the empirical findings normativity is not a problem for a pluralistic ESE, on the contrary, normative problems are the very core of the discussion in pluralistic ESE practices.

Another main conclusion from these empirical findings is that pluralistic classroom discussions hold educational and democratic potentials. The educational potential can be seen in empirical studies of how, teachers, students and young people are able to establish a communicative culture that is both elaborative and sophisticated (Andersson and Öhman 2017) and where values, facts and political positions are jointly explored (Rudsberg and Öhman 2010). The educational potential can also be seen in how students re-actualize their previous knowledge and expand it when they make use of it in classroom discussions (Rudsberg and Öhman 2015). The empirical studies also underscore the educational potential in teachers’ actions. Teachers can highlight and enhance the political dimension by politicizing sustainability issue (Van Poeck and Östman 2018) and actively steer students away from a consensus that limit the scope of pluralism (Kopnina 2018). Thus, even if students (and young people) are capable of establishing suitable communicative patterns in which they also learn something (Andersson and Öhman 2017; Rudsberg and Öhman 2015), the teacher still plays an irreplaceable role in a pluralistic teaching approach (Kopnina 2018; Rudsberg and Öhman 2010; Van Poeck and Östman 2018;).

Taken together, these findings are not only valuable for their empirical contribution but can also provide a significant contribution to the discussion of what role pluralistic teaching can and should have in times of societal, educational and environmental challenges.

Discussion

Building on our review of the theoretical and empirical development of pluralistic approaches in ESE we will now discuss our findings in relation to the societal, educational, and environmental challenges facing ESE. For each of these challenges, we outline some pathways for future ESE research on pluralism.

The societal polarization

The immanent critique of pluralism, described above, has clearly deepened our understanding of pluralistic ESE. These paths and theoretical perspectives can of course be pursued further but given the current polarization of the political landscape we see that pluralistic approaches would specifically benefit from both theorization and empirical studies of the boundaries of pluralism. For instance, it is clear that pluralistic approaches do not embrace an ‘anything-goes’-relativism. However, this raises the question: Which moral and political perspectives should count as legitimate – and, thus, which not – within pluralistic ESE? In ESE research the theory of agonistic pluralism (García-Puchades and Martos-García 2022; Håkansson, Kronlid, and Östman 2019; Lundegård and Wickman 2012; Olsson, Gericke, and Boeve-de Pauw 2022; Sund and Öhman 2014; Sutoris 2019; Tryggvason and Öhman 2019) is one theoretical strand that outlines such boundaries and does it in terms of liberty and equality for all (cf. Mouffe 2005). The deliberative perspective that stems from the work of Habermas formulates the boundaries of pluralism in terms of communicative rationality (see Håkansson, Kronlid, and Östman 2019; Lundegård and Wickman 2012; Olsson, Gericke, and Boeve-de Pauw 2022). Given the current societal polarization, questions about where and how the boundaries of pluralistic ESE should be drawn becomes more urgent to answer. In relation to the societal polarization, ESE research could explore how pluralistic approaches use, and could use, scientific consensus as a boundary for what counts as legitimate position in classroom discussions. In other words, how can pluralistic approaches rely on scientific consensus as guide to decide what is up for discussions, without foreclosing diverging opinions in moral and political issues? For instance, by relying on scientific consensus, perspectives such as ‘flat-earth’ and ‘climate change denial’ would not count as legitimate positions in pluralistic classroom discussions, while questions, such as ‘how should society organize energy production?’ would be open for conflicting positions. A pluralistic ESE could in that way embrace the scientific consensus over descriptive issues, while open for political conflicts over normative issues. This is perhaps easier said than done in educational practices, but ESE research could develop theoretical perspectives and discover empirical finding that support teachers in using scientific consensus as an educational tool to draw the boundaries of pluralism in ESE.

Another path forward for ESE research is to renew the perspectives on normativity in pluralistic approaches. As described above, the post-humanist immanent critique has to some extend renewed the discussion on normativity (see Kopnina and Cherniak 2016; Lindgren and Öhman 2019). The normativity that the immanent critique brings can be seen as valuable resources for developing a more critical pluralistic approach. Post-humanist perspectives, as well as de-colonial perspectives, have the potential to help students to put into question the starting points and positions that are taken for granted in pluralistic ESE. Furthermore, the perspectives presented by post-humanist and de-colonial scholars can also be perspectives that are up for discussion in the classroom. They can be presented to students as one of many available tools to use when dealing with environmental and sustainability issues.

In a wider sense, a pluralistic teaching approach is normative. It is normative in the sense that sustainability issues are important issues and that they should be discussed and taught in education. Given the changing societal context we are in, where for instance climate deniers have entered the public debate, it is important to highlight both the brute facts concerning the environmental state of the planet, and the normative stance that these facts should be discussed in classrooms. Thus, a pluralistic tradition is substantially grounded in both facts and normativity. However, a pluralistic approach does not promote any specific normative stance in sustainability issues, such as how society should organize energy production or wealth distribution. Instead, one could say that pluralism is a specific approach to the unavoidable normative questions that sustainability issues raise in education. A prospect for future studies would be to formulate a more detailed understanding of what role normativity should have within pluralistic approaches. Such a development could, for instance, outline how the value premise and the educational premise that undergirds pluralism relates to each other.

Empirical studies of pluralistic ESE practice have shown how students’ both use and expand their knowledge when engaging in pluralistic classroom discussions (Rudsberg and Öhman 2010). Studies also highlight how teachers can strengthen pluralism in the classroom by politicising sustainable development issues. In that way the teacher can counter-act forms of consensus that otherwise would limit the scope of pluralism (Kopnina 2018; Van Poeck and Östman 2019). Moreover, we also know that the way in which pluralism is played out differs between school subjects and depends on teachers’ subject knowledge (Borg et al. 2012; Katayama, Örnektekin, and Demir 2018). Against this background, there is a need for empirical studies that investigate how pluralistic discussions can be achieved in different educational settings and cultures. For instance, we know quite well how pluralistic discussions of environmental issues are conducted in upper secondary schools and in preschools in the Nordic countries.

What is lacking are empirical classroom studies of pluralism from a broader range of educational settings and countries. For instance, even if we are seeing a political polarization of public debate, we are also seeing countries where the polarization is perhaps not the main problem, but instead the lack of plural and conflicting perspectives in public debate. In countries where governments are becoming more authoritarian, and where independent media are being restricted or attacked, the polarization is perhaps not the challenge that a pluralistic teaching approach faces. It would be highly valuable for ESE research to gain empirical insight in classroom discussions conducted in such contexts and perhaps address questions like: What characterizes classroom discussions in countries that are experiencing an increased authoritarian public debate, and what challenges does a pluralistic approach face in this context?

Educational instrumentalization

In our review of ESE research, one theoretical strand emphasizes the role of students’ subjectivity in classroom discussions (e.g. Lundegård and Wickman 2012; Sutoris 2019). For instance, the notion of ‘political moves’, developed by Van Poeck and Östman (2018) points to how teachers can make certain actions in their teaching that enables students’ political subjectivity to emerge. In sharp contrast to the instrumentalization, this strand emphasizes the need to re-politicize ESE (Sund and Öhman 2014; see also Kopnina 2018; Sutoris 2019) and open up for ‘the political’ to emerge in ESE practices (Lundegård and Wickman 2012; Van Poeck and Östman 2018). Given these studies, we know how teachers can enable and stimulate political subjectivity to emerge in low stake teaching, such as field trips and classroom discussions, but we do not have theoretical concepts or models on how teachers can enable political subjectivity in high stake teaching settings where educational instrumentalization is strong. In other words, how can teachers enable political subjectivity and pluralism in settings where grades and high-stake tests are the students’ main concern? Such contribution would preferable, as we see it, be based on empirical investigations. The theoretical development that is need here is a better conceptualization of the relation between instrumentalization of ESE and its possibility to support students’ political subjectivity and person-formation. As we see it, such a theoretical development needs to bring in political and democratic theory. However, political and democratic theory cannot simply be used to deduce educational outcomes or teaching practices. Instead, theories and concepts from political science must be seen as tools used to serve the development of ESE.

Beside the need for empirical studies that can lay the ground for theoretical conceptualization of the relation between instrumentalization and political subjectivity, we identify a need for further empirical studies on complexity. What is needed are empirical studies on how teachers’ content knowledge relates to educational instrumentality. For example, previous studies indicate that teachers’ complex understanding of the content lays the ground for pluralistic teaching (Rouhiainen and Vuorisalo 2019). Future empirical studies could investigate whether teachers’ complex understanding of the teaching content also mean that they are better in handling the complex demands of educational instrumentalization. In short, are teachers who are able to handle the complexity of the teaching content also able to navigate the complex demands of instrumentalization? Empirical based answers to questions like these could be valuable, not only for in-service teachers, but also for teacher education.

Environmental urgency

In our reading and scanning of articles on pluralistic approaches in ESE we have only come across four articles where the temporal aspect is substantially discussed and theorized (Block, Goeminne, and Van Poeck 2018; Lambrechts, Van Liedekerke, and Van Petegem 2018; Mélard and Stassart 2018; Wildemeersch 2018). As these articles relate temporality and urgency to the notion of pluralism in different ways, they could be a steppingstone for future research. However, in many ways the research field is wide open when it comes to questions on how pluralistic approaches relate to temporality and urgency. As pluralistic approaches can be criticized for being time-consuming (see Öhman and Östman 2019, 79–80) the ESE field would benefit from further development that addresses how pluralistic approaches relates to urgency more precisely. For instance, is it reasonable to compare the time-consumption of a pluralistic approach with the time-consumption of a normative approach when they clearly have different aims and goals? Within a pluralistic approach it is important that students are enabled to develop sustainable standpoints based on solid arguments (see Rudsberg and Öhman 2010, 2015). This development takes time, and it would be valuable to gain more detailed insight on what this development takes time from – the mere fact that something takes time may not necessarily a problem.

Insights from empirical studies on urgency could provide new research questions about the relation between urgency and pluralism. For example, in an article about environmental issues as public concerns, Wildemeersch (2018) provides an empirical case of a citizenship initiative that promotes spaces for slowness and silence in order to open up for social transformation. Such spaces tend to resist simple answers and fixated aims, and instead invoke moments of hesitation and uncertainty in the face of environmental issues. This raises questions on how urgency is taught and studied in school settings, and how slowness, pluralism and urgency can be handled in education. Furthermore, research on pluralism would benefit from studies on whether teachers and students really experience pluralistic approaches as time-consuming, and investigate whether they do so in relation to ecological urgency or in relation to a stuffed curriculum. One could ask: If pluralistic approaches are experienced as time-consuming, how do teachers and students navigate between this slow and time-consuming pedagogy and the urgency of the environmental crisis? Research contributions that address questions like these could help teachers to constructively teach sustainability issues under current situation.

Final remarks

When Bob Jickling (1991, 1994) formulated his critique of the normativity embedded in education for sustainable development it opened up a new direction for EE/ESD/ESE research. Without the discussions of normativity that followed during the 1990s there would not have been such a comprehensive development of the pluralistic approach. From a more personal perspective it seems clear that our own research would have looked a lot different without the 1990s discussion about normativity. Even if perspectives and theories about pluralism have changed since then, Jickling’s (1994) underlying premise about the relation between pluralism and education is still valid:

For us the task is not to educate for sustainable development. In a rapidly changing world we must enable students to debate, evaluate, and judge for themselves the relative merits of contesting positions. There is a world of difference between these two possibilities. The latter approach is about education; the former is not (7).

In the context of polarization, instrumentalization and urgency it becomes more difficult to adhere to this premise and, at the same time, more important. We therefore find it essential to revisit pluralistic ESE in the light of current societal, educational and environmental challenges. However, our concern and interest in the future of pluralistic ESE is not primarily related to our own investment in the field but relates to an understanding of how pluralistic education and democracy are unavoidably intertwined. We have outlined challenges facing pluralistic ESE, but we have not addressed the democratic risks that can arise if a transition of society is not anchored in pluralistic forms of communication. Without pluralistic forms of communication, where different opinions are allowed to be both criticized and cherished, many will experience that they are left out from democratic participation. Here, the intertwined relation between pluralism and democracy should not be understood as a relation between means and ends, but as a moral ideal. As John Dewey (1939/1988) formulated it:

For to get rid of the habit of thinking of democracy as something institutional and external and to acquire the habit of treating it as a way of personal life is to realize that democracy is a moral ideal and so far as it becomes a fact is a moral fact (228).

The role and future of pluralistic approaches in ESE can in that sense not be reduced to a technical question on how to teach environmental and sustainability issues but must be understood as a wider question about the role and future of education and democracy.

Acknowledgment

We would like to thank the reviewers for valuable comments and suggestions. We would also like to thank the research group ESERGO for helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Note on Contributor

Ásgeir Tryggvason, PhD, is a senior lecturer in education at Örebro University’s School of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences. He is a member of the research group ESERGO (Environmental and Sustainability Education Research Group Örebro). His research focuses the political dimension in education, and he has previously written about agonism and deliberation in relation to environmental and sustainability education. Ásgeir has an interest in the role of emotions/passions, identities and conflicts in classrooms. Currently he is working within the research project DecoPrax that aims to empirically investigate the possibilities and challenges of incorporating a decolonial praxis in the teaching of global justice issues.

Johan Öhman is professor of education at Örebro University’s School of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences and is the scientific leader of the research group ESERGO (Environmental and Sustainability Education Research Group Örebro). His area of research is ethical and democratic perspectives on education, often based on John Dewey’s pragmatic philosophy and concept of transaction. His work has been published in several international research papers, book chapters and books, latest “Sustainable Development Teaching: Ethical and Political Challenges” (Van Poeck, Östman & Öhman, 2019, Routledge) and “Deweyan transactionalism in education – Beyond self-action and inter-action” (Garrison, Öhman & Östman, 2022, Bloomsbury Academic).

Katrien Van Poeck is associate professor at Ghent University’s department of Political Sciences where she coordinates the Centre for Sustainable Development’s research line on sustainability education. Theoretically, her work has been largely inspired by pragmatist didactic theory. Methodologically and empirically, she builds on transactional analytical frameworks. She leads research projects on facilitating learning in the context of sustainability transitions, sustainability teaching in higher education, and challenge-based teaching on real-world sustainability problems. Katrien has a special interest in the relation between sustainability education research and practice and engages in initiatives to foster the co-creation of better sustainability education in collaborative settings with researchers and practitioners. She is also part-time affiliated to Uppsala University (Sweden) and is a co-founder of the research group TePlab - The Laboratory for Teaching Practices.

Notes

1 According to the NGO Global Witness, over 200 environmental activists got murdered during 2020 (Global witness 2021). Thus, highlighting the threats against environmental activists is not just a concern over “the tone” in public debate.