Conference Agenda

The XXI century waked up with the acknowledgment that University institutions needed a major change both for loosing the monopoly on knowledge and the ability to guarantee of employability (Carnoy & Castells, 2001). It has been argued that this requires a review of meaning of University as an institution of creation and transmission of knowledge in our concrete socio-historical moment (Manzano-Arrondo, 2011).

The stress of the third decade of the XXI century falls into the ecosocial crisis. If we analyze the role that University has Historically played as an institution of science and specialist training, we can see a twofold part, which we should analyze to glimpse our following path.

From one side, it is obvious that our understanding of climate change, loss of biodiversity and other phenomena of ecosocial crisis is dependent of science. Aside, the technological, political and cultural strategies to deal with these problems are also reliant on science and the science-informed professionals.

Nevertheless, it has also been argued that science has generally agreed with a scope of progress that identifies it with continuous unlimited growth of wealth and material comfort, which is consensually identified as the root of ecological progress (Taibo, 2020). The historical framework in the ethics of productivity has entailed that western science has contributed to exceeding the natural limits of the planet, both by helping the effectiveness of technology that allows predator and (neo)colonial projects, and by releasing to the job market specialized workers with no reflection on sustainability (García-Romero and Salido-Herba 2022).

This has been amplified by the fact that University has contributed to de-legitimize any other epistemological paradigm different from positivist western science. Southern epistemologies, that usually focus more on sustainability in community-territory relation, have been silenced. Also, erasing the possibility of using the historically transmitted knowledge about the managing of territories of peripheral societies (Acciardi, 2020). Finally, the de-legitimization of knowledge of peripheral populations contribute to their de-humanization, allowing processes of colonization with the entailed damage to territory (Paraskeva, 2020).

In this scenario, it is urgent that University, with the responsibility that carries, tries to “make piece with territory” and enters in dialogue (avoiding idealization) with other epistemologies, from which might learn sustainability both in the way of thinking in the human-territory relation and concrete management of land (Herrero, 2014). These ways of relation are being put into practice through use of local and ancestral knowledge specially in the global south, but also in rural communities around the world.

If we are facing systemic changes, we need to create processes of expansive learning (Engeström & Sanino 2001), and therefore promote the hybridization between University and these rural communities practicing social innovation (Bisquert & Meira, 2020; Quiroga et al, 2018).

We therefore constitute the structure of a Community of Practice (Wenger, 1998) named Community of Actions and Knowledge About Rural Environments (ComAK from now on) where we try to articulate and research about this epistemological dialogue and the systemic changes it entails. The ComAK shares the educational practices of Service-Learning and Community Founds of Knowledge and Identity as dual spaces (McMillan et al, 2016) where professors, students and activist can dialogue. Following them several loops of action-research are articulated in a flexible way as the objectives emerge in the community.

Here we share the main work of the three first loops, that addressed the research objectives of:

• Exploring the motives, opportunities and limitations that the collaboration between rural civil society and University.

• Identifying the hegemonic social representation of rural environments in the educational system.

• Analyzing the impact of the participation in hybrid educational practices in students´ identity path.

The study of sustainability transitions (STs) has been a flourishing field for some years now in the wider realm of sustainability research. Here, 'learning' has been identified and posited as an important factor for a successful transitions (van Mierlo et al., 2020). However, this attention has also been critiqued for lacking conceptual clarity on what is meant with 'learning' and a lack of empirical studies to evidence "that, what and how people are learning in practices striving for STs" (Van Poeck et al., 2020, p.303). To open up this black-box of learning, methodologies based upon Dewey (1934)'s transactional pragmatist philosophy (Van Poeck & Östman, 2022) have been elaborated. In particular these transactional approaches allow for the in action study of how people create educational settings and learn in concrete sustainability practices (Plummer & Van Poeck, 2021; Van Poeck & Östman, 2021). Particularly, the transactional model of learning (Östman et al., 2019) describes how the disturbance of a habit may trigger an inquiry to re-establish, i.e. ‘learn’, a functional habit. In so doing, the model enables us not only to investigate what (habits) get learned, but also scrutinise how the process of disturbance and inquiry led to this particular outcome.

The most recent research agenda for transition studies (Köhler et al., 2019), mentions so-called 'place-specific factors' as another important aspect in the unfolding of STs. However, simply identifying that there exist place-specific differences doesn't tell us why and how places and their specificity come to matter in transitions (Hansen & Coenen, 2015). Furthermore, Köhler et al. suggest future research to explore urban transitions and transitions in developing countries. This has been criticised by Binz et al. (2020) who fear that this agenda reduces the geography of transitions into diversifying the locations of empirical settings without delving into the intricacies of how place-specificity is made to matter. To go beyond such a static conception of place, geographers have proposed to work with theories of 'place-making' (Murphy, 2015; Håkansson, 2018; Lai, 2023). Herein places are thought to be continually and relationally reproduced through 'place-frames', which are partial representations of what a place is, ought to or can be (ibid.). Most commonly, these place-frames are thought to be constructed around the place aspects found in Agnew's (1987) widely accepted definition of place as consisting of a location (i), a locale (ii) and a sense of place (iii). Places need to be located, in either an absolute (i.e. coordinates) or relative sense (e.g. near the border) (i). They are constituted by materially, bounded objects (e.g. trees, houses, a highway) (ii). And they are sensorily available through the meanings we have attached, either personally or mediately to them (iii) (Murphy, 2015).

Similarly as in the case of learning, many of these place-framing processes remain black-boxed and require further inquiry into "how place-frames initially come into being, how processes of place-making unfold over time, and how, for example, the changing materiality of places matter" (Håkansson, 2018, p.36). A transactional approach serves a purpose here as it enables the study of place-framing in action. By reconstructing and repurposing transactional methods and the model of learning (Östman et al., 2019), this paper investigates how place-frames get disturbed and how collective inquiries may lead to their reconstruction. In other words, a transactional methodology allows us to observe learning and change in action. We use it to address the following questions:

• what types of place-frames exist in transitions?
• how do these place-frames co-evolve with a transition’s unfolding?
• how do collective learning patterns and place-framing mutually influence each other?

University is considered as a social institution, highlighting its role in promoting sustainable development, improving quality of life, and advancing human rights while reducing inequality. The full engagement of students, faculty, staff, local communities, and external partners is necessary to meet the expectations associated with university social responsibility (Vasilescua et al., 2010). Through collective efforts, universities can contribute effectively to building a sustainable future and ensuring the well-being and dignity of individuals. The concept of social responsibility has gained increasing significance globally, including within the United Nations, as it relates to discussions on competitiveness, sustainability, and the impact of globalisation.

In 2015, the United Nations Member States adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which includes 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), divided into three categories: social, environmental and economic sustainability. These goals encompass various aspects of sustainability, focusing on people well-being quality education, gender equality, work and economic growth, ecosystems, healthcare and others. This categorisation helps to address a wide range of challenges and promotes a holistic approach to sustainable development (Suryanto et al., 2021). Achieving the SDGs requires collaboration among governments, civil society, businesses, and academia to bring about meaningful and long-lasting change (Filho, 2023).

In achieving the SDGs, universities, being a part of the education sector, plays a crucial role. They partake in advancing the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by serving as hubs for knowledge creation, innovation, and critical thinking. Through integrating the SDGs into their teaching, research, and campus operations, universities inspire and equip students to be agents of change. They also contribute through partnerships and engagement with local communities and industries to drive sustainable development practices. Universities equip the next generation with skills and knowledge to address sustainability challenges and lead by example. Some researchers stick to the fact that, for effective contribution, universities should fully commit to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Junior et al., 2019) to maximize their impact on the SDGs. This means integrating the SDGs into their curriculum and research, as well as aligning their campus operations and policies with sustainable practices.

University’s charters of social responsibility are essential guidelines that shape the conduct and activities of educational institutions. These charters serve as a compass, directing universities to manage their operations sensitively and responsibly while considering the impact on the environment and society. They aim to strike a balance between growth and sustainability, ensuring that universities contribute positively to their communities and the broader world.

This study focuses on the significance of university charters of social responsibility and their implementation. By examining it, the research aims to understand how universities integrate and uphold the principles to promote ethical behaviour, support students and employees, engage with the community, protect the environment, and prioritise health and safety.

City universities emphasize social responsibility to a greater extent and implement the third mission through the interaction with local communities that is aimed at improving all spheres of life, solving current local and global challenges, and increasing the well-being of the region (Milyaeva et al., 2023).