The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1467-6370.htm

Agile social learning – capacity- Agile social

learning
building for sustainable
development in higher education
Johan Bolmsten and Momoko Kitada
World Maritime University, Malmo, Sweden
Received 2 July 2019
Revised 26 January 2020
3 May 2020
22 May 2020
Abstract Accepted 22 May 2020
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to understand the usefulness of an agile social learning method in
higher education to build capacity for sustainable development at the community level. Social learning
methods intend to empower students (and instructors) to work together in connection with real-life issues –
combined with acquiring a conceptual understanding – to analyze issues at hand and work out solutions. The
agile format of the method was aimed at a subject that is adaptive and responsive to change to empower the
students to take action toward sustainable development.
Design/methodology/approach – This study was based on a case study methodology where the
running of the subject was documented and analyzed for two years. The target student group was maritime
professionals who had an interest or were in a position to work with developing sustainable solutions in their
home organizations (mostly in developing countries).
Findings – The results of the analysis indicate how the students learned about environmental, social and
economic spheres of sustainable development and their linkages; how the subject format stimulated the
students to develop different “learning paths” between the three spheres of sustainable development, which
enabled a multi-faceted understanding of sustainable development issues; and, finally, how the students were
able to design evolvable sustainable development solutions.
Originality/value – The results indicate both the novelty and usefulness of the agile social learning
method to build capacity for sustainable development through the subject designed for higher education.
Keywords Social learning, Agile, Sustainable development, Participatory processes,
Capacity-building, Higher education
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) set out the framework of 17
priority areas that all need to work together for their achievement by 2030. These ambitious
goals can be complex but need to be actioned – now (Wallace-Wells, 2019). Education is
positioned as the foundation of acting upon all the sustainability goals and needs to
encompass the social, environmental and economic spheres of sustainable development. The
aspiration of sustainable development requires us to resolve common problems and tensions
and to recognize new horizons, including how unsustainable patterns of economic
production and consumption contribute to global warming, environmental degradation and
an upsurge in natural disasters. This challenges us to continuously learn throughout life in a
complex and rapidly changing world (UNESCO, 2015).
Among many stakeholders, educational institutes are challenged with developing
educational methods to prompt learning processes to understand sustainable development
issues at hand and to lead actions to solve them. This is true, especially in higher education International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education
institutions, such as universities, where theoretical knowledge has traditionally been © Emerald Publishing Limited
1467-6370
emphasized. This paper, therefore, evaluates a new educational method that the authors DOI 10.1108/IJSHE-07-2019-0212
IJSHE have come to relate to as “agile social learning.” Social learning approaches are commonly
connected to education for sustainable development (ESD). Social learning approaches
empower students (and instructors) to work together in connection with real-life issues –
combined with acquiring a conceptual understanding – to understand issues at hand and
working out solutions. What is new with this subject is the agile format of the social
learning proposition. Agility is defined as the ability to create and respond to change,
especially in dealing with uncertain and turbulent environments [1]. In ESD, agile methods
are novel and can be positioned as a way to combine the benefits of social learning in a
responsive and adaptable format (Bates, 2015; L
opez-Alcarria et al., 2019). The specific
research question in this study is, how can an agile social learning method be used in higher
education to learn about the different spheres of sustainable development in building
capacity for achieving sustainable development?
This research study reports and analyses the learning outcome of the design and
delivery of a subject called “Capacity-Building for Sustainable Development” targeted at
maritime professionals at the World Maritime University (WMU), during 2017–2018. WMU
is a specialized UN university operating under the International Maritime Organization
(IMO) with the mandate to carry out capacity-building through education and research in
the maritime and ocean sectors. WMU was established in 1983 by IMO as a postgraduate
university targeting mid-career maritime professionals in developing countries.
Section 2 presents related work concerning ESD and social learning, and positions the
agile proposition of this research. Section 3 describes the educational method by which the
Capacity-Building for Sustainable Development subject was locally implemented at WMU.
Section 4 outlines how this educational method was researched and how the research
method was refined through deductive and inductive qualitative analysis, to enable an
understanding of how to link the spheres of sustainable development in social learning.
Section 5 reports on the results of the analysis, which is followed by a discussion and
conclusion in Section 6.

2. Related work
2.1 Education for sustainable development in higher education
ESD aims to develop competencies that enable individuals to participate in socio-political
processes and, thereby, move their society toward sustainable development (Barth et al.,
2015). Among the educational sectors, “universities as research and teaching institutes are
playing an important role since they not only generate and transfer knowledge, but they can
also educate future decision-makers to enable them to contribute to a (more) sustainable
future” (ibid). Concerning ESD in higher education, Albareda-Tiana et al. (2018) highlight
several common considerations, including the need to relate practice to theory, and the
importance of holistic learning and teaching approaches that integrate the three
sustainability spheres relating to social, environmental, and economic dimensions. Also
highlighted is the need for a participatory process, linking research, teaching and practice, to
learn from real problems and to anticipate and prepare for future sustainability challenges
in academia (Albareda-Tiana et al., 2018; also Kolland et al., 2015; Finn, 2015).
ESD aligns with the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the 17 SDGs. In
policy guidelines for education, UNESCO and its institute for life-long learning stress the
key role of education in finding ways of responding to sustainable development challenges,
where education needs to encompass the social, environmental and economic spheres of
sustainable development (UNESCO, 2015; Jin et al., 2015; Wahlgren, 2015; UIL, 2018;
UNESCO, 2017) [2]. A participatory learning process is recognized to foster cooperation and
integration among stakeholders in adapting to changing circumstances, and also to build
stakeholder ownership (Bolmsten and Kitada, 2018; UNESCO, 2015). This requires open and Agile social
flexible approaches to learning that are both lifelong and lifewide, and that takes into learning
account multiple world views and alternative knowledge systems.
According to Franco et al. (2018), although many higher education institutions are
working proactively to translate the sustainable development goals and policy guidelines in
local contexts, such as policy, curriculum and practice, there remain significant challenges.
Based on a review with a regional focus on advancements of sustainable development in
higher education in the Americas, Asia, Africa and Europe, it is recognized that education
needs to be sensitized to gaps, target areas, commonalities and differences across regional
agendas. In Europe, a criticism is that education about sustainable development is often
limited to teaching about the concepts and theories, whereas in Africa, for example, there is
a lack of localizing knowledge about sustainable development based on African traditions,
values, practices and relationships with nature. Furthermore, there are different focuses on
the spheres of sustainable development across different regions, where, for example,
environmental sustainability is a focus in the Americas, Asia and Europe, whereas in Africa,
social considerations are comparably prominent (Franco et al., 2018).
The challenges of sustainable development in higher education can be understood
through the classification of ESD in three stages that involve progressive levels of learning:
first-order, second-order and third-order learning. These levels correspond to education
about sustainability, education for sustainability and education as sustainability (Lucas,
1979; and Sterling, 2009, cited by Mochizuki and Masaru, 2015): “The first form is an
essential first step which aims at deepening awareness, knowledge and understanding of the
concerns of sustainability. The second form is vital to individual and social change, as it
involves the questioning of the usual frame of reference to responses to the challenges of
sustainability. The third form involves epistemic change and leads to cultivating a culture of
sustainability” (Mochizuki and Masaru, 2015).

2.2 Social learning and community capacity-building

Social learning and community capacity-building approaches provide ways for higher
education institutes to incorporate a participatory process of sustainable development that
is sensitized to local agendas and contexts, which is called for in the aforementioned ESD
literature and policy guidelines.
Social learning emphasizes how learning processes take place individually and
collaboratively in social interactions with networks of people, learning from situated actions
as well as learning from formal concepts and frameworks (Blackmore, 2010). The
importance of social learning approaches in higher education is recognized in general and in
connection to higher education and sustainable development (MacGillivray, 2017; Barth and
Rieckmann, 2012; Hansmann, 2010).
Wals et al. (2015) provide an example that develops a social learning approach connected
to innovation in higher education to create sustainable societies. The fuzziness of learning is
emphasized in how different people in different contexts conceptualize sustainable
development in different manners from a socio-ecological point of view. There is, thereby, a
need to approach the development of solutions toward sustainable development from an
evolutionary and open-ended viewpoint without set boundaries. Wals et al. (2015) point out
how important it is to create a praxis-oriented learning process that supports learners to
“walk the change” and that learners become “empowered for sustainability.”
Social learning processes in higher education are not, however, necessarily easy to
achieve. Social learning is at the core of community-based capacity-building approaches
(Blackmore, 2010), which according to Franco and Tracey (2019), are a common way to
IJSHE pursue ESD in higher education. To gain an educational perspective that is considerate of
local aspirations and skills, higher education institutes set out to work with long-term
processes of communities of people and organizations in sustainable development. However,
based on a review of such engagements in regions around the world, Franco and Tracey
(2019) find that these initiatives appear to have achieved little impact on the achievement of
community development aspirations, and where it is difficult for higher education
institutions to move beyond their institutional perspective. Hence, new practical, social
learning approaches are called for that align with the sustainable development goals.

2.3 An agile social learning proposition

Agile approaches are signified by adaptiveness and responsiveness to change [3]. Agile
approaches are established in socio-technical development, and are characterized by holistic
approaches where requirements and solutions evolve through the collaborative effort of self-
organizing and cross-functional teams (Hohl et al., 2018). Industry applications of agile
approaches related to sustainable development include, for example, the study by Clark
(2007), that an energy system based on community-based partnerships was created that was
flexible and effectively and efficiently adapted to change for economic, environmental and
social benefits. Another example is a case study by Vinodh (2010) of an “agile
manufacturing” organization through which it was found to be important for a modern
business to respond to the need to rapidly evolve environmentally friendly products.
There is a developing body of literature on agile approaches in educational methods, in
which common traits and potentials are identified. Bates (2015) describes agile educational
approaches related to social learning in education about new technologies, which are
characterized by educators and learners collaboratively, iteratively and incrementally
understanding problems and working out solutions (also see Bertram, 2013). Bates (2015)
targets education about new technologies, where an agile design makes it possible to be
consistent in the basic instructional design principles that give a subject coherence and
shape, but where each instance of the subject can appear on the surface very different. The
benefit, according to Bates (2015), of an agile educational method is that it focuses directly
on preparing students for a volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous world. Cubric (2013)
reviews an agile method in business education, where the incremental and iterative nature of
an agile educational design is highlighted as below:
 concrete experience – forms the basis for reflection;
 reflective observation – reflecting on previous experience;
 active conceptualization – transforming reflections into domain knowledge
concepts; and
 active experimentation – formulating new questions and planning new experiences.

This design proposed for agile learning is related to the Experiential Learning Theory (ELT)
of Kolb et al. (2001) and Kolb (2014), which provides a model of the learning cycle consisting
of concrete experience; observation and reflection; forming abstract concepts; and testing in
new situations. Furthermore, according to Cubric (2013), agility in education is
distinguished by acting quickly to support students’ learning progress, adjusting learning
content to address the needs of learners and providing regular and frequent assessment
points with the emphasis on formative feedback. Cubric (2013) finds that these provisions of
an agile approach are beneficial in preparing students for life-long learning. Salza et al.
(2019) reviewed multiple applications of agile approaches in education and found that they
can be effective when active and project-based learning is applied. A strength of agile
methods, they conclude, is the transformation of learning and teaching from knowledge Agile social
transfer to knowledge generated from rich collaboration and experience, where instructors learning
assume a facilitating and coaching role for self-directed learners (Salza et al., 2019). L
opez-
Alcarria et al. (2019) carried out a systematic review that reveals how core competencies
associated with ESD are shared with core competencies in which agile education is rooted,
as shown in Table 1.
A contribution of this research study is to relate an agile educational method to learning
about the social, environmental and economic spheres of sustainable development. As
described earlier in this section, social learning and community-based methods provide a
way to incorporate ESD in higher education, but there are challenges to realizing them in
practice. The responsive and adaptable format of an agile educational method can, in this
respect, be positioned as a way to work with ESD in practice in higher education. The
following sections report the empirical research and the results of this paper.

3. An agile social learning method in practice

This research study examines how an agile social learning method can be applied in
building capacity for sustainable development in higher education. The evaluation of
the agile social learning method proposition in this paper is based on the design and
delivery of a subject called “Capacity-building for Sustainable Development” at WMU,
as delivered for the classes of 2017 and 2018. The following subsections describe the
subject delivery plan and the learning activities and resources. This is followed by a
short description of the setting and profiles of the students taking the course. It should
be noted that the subject was not created for the purposes of research. References are
inputted in the footnotes that indicate sources that guided the practical design of the
subject. In Sections 4 and 5, the research methods and results of analyzing the delivery
of the subject are presented.

Key ESD competencies Key agile education competencies

Coping with uncertainty Agile provides tools to allow adaptation to change processes
Working creatively and Agile favors innovation by fostering creative solutions based on collaborative
innovation work. Combines efficiently with other innovation methodologies, e.g. design
thinking
Dialog Agile interaction processes are based on dialog to create knowledge and
increase cohesion of members
Critical thinking Agile promotes critical thinking from a continuous reflection process
Self-motivation and Agile empowers individuals to contribute to find solutions and feel valuable
motivating others within the team
Planning and Agile provides long-life and multipurpose project management skills
implementation
Table 1.
Interdisciplinary work Agile teams are typically composed of multidisciplinary members Link between key
Manage emotions and Agile favors the pursuit of consensus to reach efficient solutions from the ESD competencies
concerns opinions of all stakeholders and key agile
Responsibility Agile fosters both individual and group responsibility education
Systemic thinking Agile faces issues and tasks as part of a complex and interconnected system, competencies (L
opez-
not as isolated individual elements Alcarria et al., 2019)
IJSHE 3.1 Subject and delivery plan, learning activities and resources
The Capacity-building for Sustainable Development subject is based on the following
synopsis:
To understand key conceptual and practical aspects of sustainable development in the maritime
and ocean industries. To analyze the needs of developing countries and apply maritime and ocean
knowledge to localize the agenda and to develop and implement strategies. To understand the role
of WMU alumni for capacity-building through financing, mobilizing resources, and developing
professional networks and partnerships in the industry.
The subject is developed as a four European Credit (EC) system subject, which equals
around 100 study hours. As indicated in the synopsis of the subject, the combination of
developing a conceptual and practical understanding of the subject topics is highlighted.
The subject is initiated with a series of traditional classroom lectures and classroom
exercises with these topics:
 Introduction to sustainable development: the concepts of sustainability and
development; UN sustainable development goals; and capacity-building in the
maritime and oceans industries.
 From theories to practices for capacity-building: global partnership and governance;
goal-based planning and resource mobilization.

The second part of the subject delivery relates the agile social learning method, as described
in the previous sections, which is the main topic and focus of analysis of this paper. This
second part was delivered in a three full-day workshop mode. The rationale at WMU of
adding this second part of the subject was to support those students, having gained
theoretical knowledge through traditional lecture-based learning, to be able to apply theories
to practical cases for innovative solutions in complex situations related to sustainable
development.
The delivery of the second part of the subject used a process-model called the “Double
Diamond,” as shown in Figure 1, to select and link learning activities and resources that the
students worked with during the workshop. The Double Diamond process model is based
on the recognition that professional designers across disciplines share similar approaches to
analyzing problems as a base for creating solutions. In the first phase, the designers begin

Figure 1.
Double Diamond
process model [4]
 Agile social
Time % [7]:
Phase 2017/2018 Activity
learning
INTRO 8/4 Orientation
– Objectives and the workshop plan is explained
– Setting the scene, topic (climate change is explained)
DISCOVER 6/7 Ice-breaking: “Good learning happens when . . ..”
Open brainstorming about what is important to consider for “good” learning to
take place, with a focus on everybody participating, on the theme of: Lean in!,
you get what you give, Everybody is right – but only partially, Be here – and
have fun
DISCOVER 14/8 Team-building
Instructor assigning students into groups (four to six students in each group)
with the aim of diversified groups (based on data in Table 3)
Bringing the group members together by thinking about a common name, e.g.
“Republic of xxx”; “Kingdom of zzz”
Creating a basic assumption about the project and its context, e.g. the country’s
geographic and material features
Group presentation to the whole class. Questions and answers
DISCOVER 8/8 A strategic direction
Exploring the first direction for the project by drafting and agreeing on a
common short slogan that brings together the features of the country and what
the project would like to achieve
Group presentation to the whole class. Questions and answers
DISCOVER 14/21 Identifying local problems and needs
Open brainstorming promoting divergent thinking where the participants are
asked to individually write down as many ideas for problems as possible on
post-it-notes based on the features of the country and the strategic direction
identified and post them on a common surface
Collaboratively cluster problems and find priorities and patterns [8]
DEFINE Mapping the problem and analyzing the causes and negative impacts;
understand problems in depth; diagnostic mapping to allow the participants to
map a problematic situation together. The mapping is done on a large sheet of
paper where the understanding of the problems identified is defined through
answering a three-part question: What is the problem? What is causing the
problem? What are the negative impacts of the problem? [9]
Stakeholder analysis: Organize stakeholders in a power/interest grid to
critically reflect on how they can support the project (2018) [10]
Group presentation to the whole class. Questions and answers
DEVELOP 16//22 Innovation workshop
Development of a scenario with a coherent vision for change, linking the
identified domain, problem, solution and its use. The solution is illustrated with
a mock-up/horizontal prototype, in the form of a freehand drawing/collage. A
freehand drawing and collage is a representation on a large sheet of paper that
offers a lively tangible image that answers questions such as what, how, why
and by whom? [11]
Group presentation to the whole class. Questions and answers
DEVELOP/ 16/13 Innovation workshop (cont’d), also including revisiting problems and needs
DELIVER Based on the test evaluation of the prototype, make changes
DELIVER 8/8 Sustainability
Discuss how to ensure the sustainability of the project during and after the Table 2.
project’s period. Draft a sustainability plan, reflecting the evolution of the Overview of
(continued) workshop
IJSHE
Time % [7]:
Phase 2017/2018 Activity

project to ensure sustainability. Aided by thinking about how the project can
be continuously funded and implemented in phases
SUM 8/4 Wrap-up
– Summary of the workshop
– Quick reflections by the students
– Instruction for presentations. Non-presenting groups will act as judges
PRESENT – An informal presentation where the outcome of all activities are posted on the
Table 2. wall and participants gather in a half-circle around the group that is presenting

with an idea that stems from a discovery process. In the second phase, the designers
interpret and select problems to create a focus. In the third and fourth phases, an idea for a
solution is developed and tested.
With reference to UN policy guidelines about the need for a participatory approach
related to ESD, the learning activities and resources used within the Double Diamond
process model were based on Participatory Design (PD). PD methods, tools and techniques
are used in a variety of fields including software design, architecture, urban design,
education, sustainability and medicine, and support processes of investigating,
understanding, reflecting upon, establishing, developing and supporting mutual learning
between multiple participants in collective “reflection-in-action” [5].
Table 2 outlines the main delivery of the agile social learning activities of the Capacity-
Building for Sustainable Development subject at WMU. The learning resources that support
each learning activity were intentionally simple, with no specific formalisms. Avoiding
formalisms such as data-driven modeling or diagrams is aimed at creating a level-playing
field that makes it easy for participants to contribute with their knowledge on equal terms
[6]. Figures 2 and 3 provide examples of an in-depth problem mapping and a freehand
drawing/collage from the subject delivery.
As outlined in Overview of the final presentation as follows:
Activity:
(1) Final check of group presentations:
 Discuss in the group about who does what during the presentation.
 A final touch on their project.
(2) Presentations (20 min  number of groups):
 An informal presentation where the outcome of all activities is posted on the
wall and participants gather in a half-circle around the group that is presenting.
The final component was a presentation where the student group presented the complete
outcome and process to the class.
The Double Diamond process model and the participatory learning activities
presented here are not a static proposition, but should be understood as one possible
way to work with a social learning approach for sustainable development in practice.
As indicated in the references in the notes above, there is a rich set of learning
activities that can be used to appropriately design for different topics and contextual
specificities.
 Agile social
learning

Figure 2.
Group 4 presentation
1 – United States of
Pilipe (2018)

Figure 3.
Group 8 – 2017,
Westeros
IJSHE 3.2 Setting and the students’ profile
To help the reader to understand the applicability of the agile social learning
proposition of this paper, this section gives a short description of the setting and
profiles of the students taking the Capacity-building for Sustainable Development
subject at WMU, 2017 and 2018.
All the students taking the subject were professionals already working for the maritime
industry, administration or educational institutes. They were attending one of WMU’s seven
specialization programs in a 14-month Master of Science program in Maritime Affairs,
including Maritime Education and Training (MET); Maritime Energy Management (MEM);
Maritime Law and Policy (MLP); Maritime Safety and Environmental Administration
(MSEA); Ocean Sustainability, Governance and Management (OSGM); Port Management
(PM); and Shipping Management and Logistics (SML). Based on the United Nations
capacity-building mission of the university, upon the completion of their study program,
they are expected to return to their home organization to support building capacity within
their areas of specialization.
The subject that is reported in this paper was offered as an elective subject at the end of
the students’ study program. Table 3 gives an overview of the students’ profiles.
Table 3 indicates the diversity of students. Being in their mid-thirties, the students
were typically progressing on career paths in their respective occupations.
Furthermore, even though gender was not an explicit consideration in the analysis in
this research study, it is relevant to note in a maritime context that the subject and
study programs at WMU are relatively gender-balanced. As will be described in the
analysis that follows in Section 5, the diversity of countries, country income groups and
student professions were a contributing factor in creating a dynamic in the agile social
learning method.

4. Research approach
The research approach in this paper is a qualitative case study of the higher education
subject called “Capacity-building for Sustainable Development,” designed and taught
for two classes in 2017 and 2018, as described in the previous section. To be able to
argue for the trustworthiness of the results when using a case study research design, it
is important to systematically document the empirical materials and triangulate
several perspectives in the analysis (Yin, 2013). This section gives an overview of how
the case study was carried out, how it was documented for research and how the
documented materials were analyzed.

2017 2018

No. of students 46 27
Average age 37 35
Gender balance Women 43%/Men 57% Women 30%/Men 70%
No. of countries 18 18
Top three countries Philippines, Ghana, Honduras Philippines, Vietnam, Nigeria
Country income economy Lower middle (68%), Upper Lower middle (61%), Low-
group by % [12] middle (14%), Low-income income (13%), Upper middle
(11%), High-income (8%) (13%), High income (13%)
Table 3. Top three types of student Private shipping, maritime Private shipping, maritime
Student profiles professions administration, port authority administration, coast guard
4.1 Data collection Agile social
The data collection was based on documentation through participant observation learning
(Robson, 2002, p. 284) and follow-up focus group interviews (Robson, 2002, p. 314).
The first author worked as a participant–observer to document the delivery of the
subject. The students’ work with the subject learning activities was continuously
documented with a mobile camera. All the students’ presentations were video- and
audio-recorded using a mobile or professional camera and all artifacts produced were
saved. Immediately after finishing the final group presentation of the subject, the
majority of students volunteered to participate in focus group interviews (where
artifacts produced during the subject and recorded materials were used to remind
interviewers and interviewees of the learning experience). The students were divided
into two groups for the focus group interviews for each delivery of the subject.

4.2 Data analysis

The documented empirical materials were coded and analyzed with a combined
inductive and deductive approach using the qualitative research software, NVIVO [13].
The research process using NVIVO started with importing and referencing source
materials. In this case study, source material included video, audio, image and rich-text
media. The sources were then coded in nodes and cases to gain insights about the
empirical material. The analytical process in NVIVO supports querying the coded
nodes and cases, as well as the uncoded source materials. In the analysis for this case
study, text search, word frequency and matrix coding queries were used. In addition,
the coded materials were explored using hierarchy charts and individual and
comparison diagrams. Nodes, cases and source materials were also exported to Excel to
further aid the analysis and visualization of results. NVIVO supports an iterative
coding and analysis process, where new insights lead to additional coding of source
materials and existing codes [14].
The coding began with coding the students and their assigned workgroups into cases.
To start with, 74 cases were created with 713 coding references in the source materials. In
addition, case classifications were created for the students’ Name, Specialization, Class of
Year, Gender, Country, Type of Employer, Type of Position and Type of Education. To
find an analytical focus to answer the question about the merits of an agile and social
learning method for the Sustainable Development Goals, a sample of the source material
was coded using an inductive approach, where 67 nodes were created with 129 coding
references in the source material. Based on a first analysis, where the coded cases of
students and their workgroups were analyzed in relation to the coded nodes, it was
discovered that a relevant analytical focus was how the social learning approach resulted
in students (and instructors) learning about the different spheres of sustainable
development, and their linkages. To further this analysis, a framework of nodes was
coded in NVIVO with the Social, Environmental and Economic sustainability spheres,
and the linkages between these spheres, social–environmental, environmental–economic,
social–economic and social–environmental–economic. The complete source materials
were then deductively coded within this analytical framework. In this process, to
maintain sensitivity for new insights in the source materials, new nodes were also
inductively coded within the analytical framework. To additionally maintain sensitivity
to new insights in the source materials, the “richest” empirical materials were coded first,
and the more structured but “narrow” empirical materials were coded second (see
Figure 4 for an example and explanation).
IJSHE

Figure 4.
An example of how a
presentation of a
collage was coded
before (top) the
collage in-itself
(bottom)

In the first complete coding of the source materials, 1,219 coding references in 845 new
nodes were coded in the analytical framework (see the left sunburst in Figure 5). In a
second coding, the focus was on aggregating codes to support the analysis. A total of
60 new nodes were added to aggregate the previous nodes in the analytical framework
(see the right sunburst in Figure 5). As an example, in the social sphere of the
analytical framework, 43 nodes were found to relate to education, training and
research and were therefore aggregated under one new node. During the analysis, in
this way, it was both possible to be sensitive to the individual story of the empirical
material as well as to understand common denominators. In total, the aggregation of
codes was increased by 47% in the second coding operation. A total of 60 new nodes
were added to support the aggregation. In addition, to further detail the analysis, the
structure of the subject was coded in 21 new cases with 577 coding references.
 Agile social
learning

Figure 5.
Left and the right
sunburst export of
nodes shows the
difference in the
aggregation of nodes
before and after the
second iteration of re-
coding

In summary, the comprehensive coding of the empirical source materials, using

deductive and inductive techniques and carried out in iterations, supports triangulation.
Triangulation is important when analyzing qualitative research to gain several
perspectives of the phenomena under study to report on in the empirical material.

5. Analysis
This section reports the result of analyzing the documented empirical materials from
running the Capacity-building for Sustainable Development subject during 2017 and 2018.
As was described in the research approach in Section 4, the analytical focus is on how the
agile social learning approach resulted in students (and instructors) learning about the
different spheres of sustainable development, and their linkages. The analysis is subdivided
into how the students developed basic assumptions of the spheres of sustainable
development, how they linked these spheres and built multifaceted learning paths and how
they understood the evolution of sustainability planning. The result of the analysis answers
the research question of how well the agile social learning method of the subject can be used
to build capacity for sustainable development in higher education.

5.1 Spheres of sustainable development

The analysis shows that a basic consideration was that the educational method gave the
students the freedom to create a relevant focus as to how they related the three spheres of
sustainable development. The capacity-building subject did not define what sustainability
spheres that needed to be considered, or how they needed to be considered. The only
requirement was for the students to critically reflect on their choices individually when
discussing amongst the groups, and when getting feedback from the instructor. Figure 6
IJSHE

Figure 6.
Coded references to
the spheres of
sustainable
development in the
combined 2017 and
2018 delivery of the
subject

shows how references coded about the social, environmental and economic sustainable
development spheres distribute in the empirical material.
 The social: The most prominent coding reference was the social sustainable
development sphere with 180 coding references (48%). The inductive coding of
nodes within the social sphere indicates how the categories of “education and
training,” “people and community” and “policy and politics” were the main focus of
the students’ ideas. Furthermore, the students’ reflections included, on the one hand,
a bottom-up focus where, for example, the need for education and training was
emphasized to build awareness and capacity for local people. On the other hand, it
was also indicated how education and training were needed to build capacity to
strengthen weak institutional frameworks and to improve policy implementation.
 The environmental: The environmental sustainability sphere was the second most
coded reference, with 162 coding references (43%). The inductive coding of the
nodes within the environmental sphere indicates how the students zoomed in and
out between grand climate change issues, such as reducing biodiversity and rising
sea levels, and practical issues, such as selection of fuels and what can be done to
reduce CO2 emissions for different types of shipping and ships.
 The economic: The economic sphere with 35 coding references (9%) was the least,
standalone, referenced sustainability sphere. But as is visible from the further
analysis in the following sections, the economic sphere gained in prominence when
understood as an auxiliary sphere in linking the other spheres.

The outcome of giving the students the freedom to choose how to relate to the sustainability
spheres became a learning experience also for the authors of this paper. An assumption
when initiating the analysis was that the focus on the environmental sphere would outweigh
the other spheres. One explanation of the resulting distribution between the sustainability
spheres when analyzing the case and node coding of the empirical materials is how the
subject offered an “inside” perspective on sustainable development. One theme in the coded
nodes was how, for example, the support of NGOs was important but often inefficient. The
majority of the students were from developing countries [15]. They described how NGOs Agile social
often have a focus on funding individual projects about sustainable development, but lack learning
the focus on how to sustain the results. The students, in this case, showed a long-term focus
on building capacity for sustainability for their respective countries, where sustainable
social processes and structures, thereby, became important to, in turn, sustain
environmental solutions. In this way, both from a students’ and instructors’ perspective, the
comparative focus of the different sustainable development spheres gives insights into
assumptions about sustainable development, which formed the base for the rest of the
learning experience.

5.2 Linkages between sustainable development spheres

Further insights into the students’ learning experience are offered by how the Capacity-
Building for Sustainable Development subject prompted an understanding of the linkages
between the spheres of sustainable development. These were deductively coded in the
analytical framework in the nodes of the social–environmental, environmental–economic,
social–economic or social–environmental–economic. The result is shown in Figure 7. In
total, 586 references (61%) were coded in the nodes related to linkages, whereas 377 coded
node references (39%) were related to the sustainable development spheres, as described in
the previous section. In the linkages between the sustainability spheres, different
sustainable development considerations emerged. For example, the linking to economic
sustainability issues gained prominence, where an issue such as corruption was the main
social–economic coding reference. The students’ reflections, for example, gave evidence of
not only the economic implications of corruption but also how corruption negatively links to
the effectiveness of enforcing legal frameworks and the equal opportunities of citizens.
The social–environmental–economic coding references relate linkages between all the
sustainability spheres and give evidence of the students’ encompassing integrated
sustainability problems and solutions, ranging from national and international regulations
and conventions to practical considerations. One such example was how one group created a
recycling and waste management solution linking to the SDG 2030 agenda and the
development of national legislation. The group identified how poor waste management was

Figure 7.
Linkages between the
sustainability spheres
IJSHE a marine as well as a land-based environmental issue that linked to the local population and
tourism. The proposed recycling solution was based on market incentives to incentivize the
local community to deal with the issue, resulting in both better environment and job
opportunities. Furthermore, this example shows how the subject design prompted critical
joint student reflections. Part of the recycling solution involved the procurement of garbage
trucks and how they would link community and private market-based waste management.
When presenting the solution, the feasibility was contested by a member from another
group. In the discussion that followed, yet another student voiced that:
May I add, that idea is already being done in the Philippines, like the local taxation whatever
transportation or whatever, people coming in, they pay tax, spending, especially those that go
along, touring, swimming, picnic, they collect local tax, then the funding [inaudible], we are
recipient of the, in fact in our local city, I can show you pictures of the garbage collector trucks,
which are really high tech, so that is not, if you are looking for the proof, we have the proof.
This is one illustrative example of how the collective reflection between the students moved
between problems, solutions, concepts and practical experiences.
As this instance illustrates, the analysis indicates how a main learning outcome of the
capacity-building for sustainable development subject was achieved through the students’
critical and collective reflections on linkages between the sustainable development spheres.
The evidence of this fact is further strengthened with the analysis in the following section
about learning paths linking the different sustainability spheres.

5.3 Learning paths between linked spheres of sustainable development

The analysis shows how the student groups learned about capacity-building for sustainable
development by creating different lines of reasoning that linked multiple sustainable
development spheres. Based on the analysis, the authors refer to this occurrence as the
students creating different learning paths in making linkages between the spheres of
sustainable development. Figure 8 shows one mapping of learning paths in the analytical
framework, which indicates how the students made different linkages between (P)roblems–
(C)auses–(I)mpacts. Different colors indicate different groups. As Figure 8 shows, the
student groups linked sustainable development problems to the sustainability spheres of

Figure 8.
Learning paths
linking the spheres of
sustainable
development
environmental or social–environmental. Their analysis of causes and impacts, then, Agile social
unfolded both within these spheres but also linking the other sustainability spheres of learning
economic, economic–environmental, social and social–economic in a variety of ways.
Group 2 – 2018 (yellow), for example, started their analysis with the environmental–
economic problem of being dependent on fossil fuel. Their analysis then targeted multiple
causes including the economic cause of cheap supply and monopoly of fossil fuels and the
social–environmental cause of climate denial groups, and finally how this problem
environmentally impacted CO2 emissions and social health-care problems. Group 3 – 2018
(green), on the other hand, started their analysis in the socio-environmental problem of a
lack of policy enforcement, their analysis then looked into the socio-economic cause of
corruption and, finally, made a linkage to how this problem environmentally impacted
pollution from shipping.
Even when targeting the same issue, the students linked at it differently. For example,
both Group 1 – 2017 (yellow) and Group 7 – 2017 (orange) looked into the issue of
overfishing. Group 1 identified how overfishing because of social and environmental
reasons was causing the socio-environmental problem of food security. Group 7, on the other
hand, related to how overfishing as an environmental problem was caused by social–
economic corruption and social–political instability issues.
Here the positive dynamics of how the diverse background of students’ profiles and of
the previous study influenced the learning paths was also observed. The geographical and
professional differences of students’ origins were beneficial in the subject design, where an
open platform was created for sharing best practices and challenges and finding solutions
reflecting diverse work and life experiences.
There is no fixed causal relationship between how sustainable development issues link
together. It can be recognized that the students, in this way, creating different learning paths
linking the spheres of sustainable development reflect the reality of sustainable
development. This enriched the learning experience, in combination with that the students
collectively and critically reflected (together with the instructors) on the learning paths that
they had created.

5.4 Evolution of sustainable development solutions

The sustainability solutions and problems that the students developed, linking the
sustainability spheres, were not static, but evolving in their nature. The agile social learning
method evaluated in this paper was based on the Double Diamond process model and the
PD learning activities, as described in Section 3. In line with the incremental and iterative
nature of an agile educational method design (Bates, 2015; Cubric, 2013), the students were
prompted, on the one hand, to explore and define problems and, on the other hand, to
develop and deliver solutions. The educational method was based on four connected phases
of deliberations, where each phase entailed a number of participatory learning activities that
guided the students. In this sense, it is important to note how the educational method was
primarily focused on the process, and not on a particular way to understand the sustainable
development goals. It was up to the students themselves, working in groups, to identify and
negotiate concrete sustainability issues and solutions of relevance to themselves. The role of
the instructors was to guide them through the process.
Furthermore, the educational method was not designed as an isolated instance within the
confined walls of the educational institution of WMU. Instead, the students were encouraged
to work with sustainability problems and solutions based on their experiences and
understanding of sustainable development from their professional domains and home
countries. This included how the students developed sustainability plans and budgets for
IJSHE their projects to aid the understanding of how stakeholders need to come together to,
overtime, evolve both the sustainability solutions and issues.
Two additional layers were coded in the analytical framework linking the sustainable
development spheres. One layer concerned the evolution of the projects, with 65 coded node
references, and the other layer concerned stakeholders, with 182 coded node references.
Common themes when analyzing these two layers were how “bottom-up” and “top-down”
evolution and stakeholder involvement were required and combined in short-, mid- and
long-term strategies. Bottom-up initiatives primarily took their stance in community
involvement of, for example, local fishermen and citizens. Top-down initiatives, commonly,
involved the need for government and legislative initiatives. One example is shown in
Figure 9, which displays the complete priorities/line of thinking of the Group 3 – 2018
presentation, with a focus on the evolution and stakeholders’ involvement: it is shown how
the group (top-left) started with defining general country characteristics and a strategic
direction, together with identifying local problems and needs; then, they carried out a
stakeholder analysis (top-right) in the context of a problem statement elaborating problem/
cause/impact (bottom-left); following this, they proceeded with a budget and sustainability
plan priorities (bottom-left); and, finally, they elaborated a solution in a freehand/collage
(bottom-right).

Figure 9.
Group 3 – 2018 final
presentation of
sustainable
development
problems and
solutions illustrating
how the students
linked the outcome of
the different learning
activities
In the case of this group, this enabled the dynamic and multifaceted exploration of Agile social
stakeholder linkages to mitigate the problem of policy enforcement (and development) to learning
solve sustainable development issues. In this case, the government was put in the middle,
and the order was explored of how different stakeholders, such as shipowners, NGOs and
societal groups, could work best with the government to develop and enforce policy for
sustainable development.
A focus on the evolution of sustainable development solutions and issues contributed to
the students’ development of realistic and grounded problems and solutions, where it is
recognized that everything cannot be defined from the beginning. Both the understanding of
the solutions and issues need to unfold over time. In this way, the students developed an
understanding of not only a sustainable development issue but also the need to sustain the
development of solutions to the issue.

5.5 Summary
The analysis of the empirical material, documented when running the Capacity-building for
Sustainable Development subject in 2017 and 2018, shows how the students (and
instructors) progressively learned about linkages of the sustainable development spheres:
from a basic understanding of social, environmental and economic sustainable development
considerations (where it was evident how the students put a relative emphasis on social
considerations); to the main learning outcome of the students’ understanding of linkages
between the sustainability spheres; and how learning about these linkages became further
evident in understanding how the students created different learning paths by linking to
multiple sustainability spheres; finally, the students were prompted to understand the
evolution of sustainable development solutions.

6. Discussion and conclusion

This paper has reported on an agile social learning subject design to build capacity for
maritime and ocean professionals to work with actioning the sustainable development goals.
The paper started by describing related work about sustainable development as well as the
need for a social learning approach, including how social learning has been concretized in
this subject using learning tools and techniques influenced by PD. The merits of a social
learning method are recognized in ESD to build capacity for sustainable development (Barth
and Rieckmann, 2012), but at the same time are recognized to be challenging to implement in
practice (Franco et al., 2018; Franco and Tracey, 2019). Furthermore, the research approach
was described that investigated how an agile social learning approach can be educationally
designed for professionals to learn about how to lead action for achieving sustainable
development. The agile method of the educational design is a novel way to work with social
learning in education, with responsive and adaptable qualities (Bates, 2015; Cubric, 2013).
The analysis of running the subject over two years shows how the primary merits of the
subject are in enabling students to make multi-faceted linkages between the social,
environmental and economic spheres of sustainable development. This included how the
students constructed learning paths between multiple sustainability spheres to understand
problems and solutions, which were then used for collective reflection. This empirical case
study supports the existing literature on using social learning methods in learning
sustainable development. The novelty of this study is that it has proven the usefulness of
the agile social learning method to build capacity for sustainable development through the
subject designed for higher education. This relates to how Cubric (2013) describes active
conceptualizations and experimentation based on a reflection on experience as a framework
of agile social learning. In relation to the challenges of implementing social learning in
IJSHE practice, the agile approach can be understood as a structured format allowing for the
“fuzziness” of an open-ended and evolving learning approach (Wals et al., 2015). The
discussion of the results relates to how this subject expands beyond the instances reported
on, including the future potential for research and development with a new blended-learning
delivery mode and expansion on various media channels for communication.
A contribution of the result of the agile social learning method for ESD in this paper
is to present an explicit linkage to the three sustainability spheres that form the
sustainable development goals: the social, the environmental and the economic
(UNESCO, 2015). The detailed analysis in Section 5 highlighted how the students were
able to create a multifaceted understanding of sustainability problems and ideas for
sustainable development solutions based on making linkages between these spheres.
As accounted for in the analysis section, it was revealing also for the instructors how
the students put relative weight on the social sphere, in relation to the environmental
sphere in the understanding of sustainability issues and solutions. It was also revealing
how the students linked the economic sphere as an important auxiliary, based on
concrete and critically evaluated suggestions, such as working with market-based
incentives to get the community engaged in reducing marine litters. In this case study,
the subject had a global outreach where students came from 29 countries and 24
different professions. In this way, it is shown how it was possible not to impose a
regional and institutional bias on how to interpret and prioritize the sustainability
spheres and the understanding of sustainable development – a challenge highlighted
by Franco et al. (2018) when universities design and deliver ESD.
The contribution as well as the potential to further develop the agile social learning
method presented in this paper can also be discussed through Mochizuki and Masaru’s
(2015) classification of three ESD stages. The first stage concerns education about
sustainability, where the Capacity-building for Sustainable Development subject
started with providing the students foundational knowledge about sustainability
challenges and how to work with sustainable development. The second stage concerns
education for sustainability, where the educational method focused on the students
collaboration working together to question their frames of reference and identify and
understand the cause and impact of sustainability issues, and how to come up with
ideas of responding to these issues. The analysis, for example, shows how the students
concretely and critically reflected on the different causal relationships of waste
management and overfishing. These and the other examples from the analysis in
Section 5 also illustrate how the students not only focused on learning about issues
facing them but also on the innovation of solutions. For the third stage concerning
education as sustainability, it is recognized that there is potential for further
development of the agile social learning method, where the adaptability of the agile
social approach of the subject gives the potential for additional lifelong learning
applications.
The students taking the Capacity-building for Sustainable Development subject
were all professionals, and it was clear that they brought their professional and life
experiences into the subject. In this sense, the design of the subject is part of a grander
social learning cycle, where the students brought concrete issues into the subject;
reflected on these together; and were empowered to design and implement new
solutions for sustainable development in their professional settings. This can be
recognized as a benefit of social learning whereby students have the ownership of
learning. However, one limitation of the subject from a social learning point of view is
the opportunity for the students to connect back to concrete and situated issues in a
local setting already during the subject. Although the students brought concrete issues Agile social
into the subject, they were still abstracted from their real-life domains. learning
It is worth mentioning that this study contributes to realizing the applied sustainability
science framework specified in UNESCO’s policy paper: methods–outputs–outcomes
(UNESCO, 2017). The presented case study uses the agile social learning method, which
corresponds to, for example, stakeholder engagement, social inclusion and equitable
development, community resilience and social transformation, with outputs from a policy-
relevant, problem-focused and solution-oriented project design, to produce outcomes as
capacity-building (pp. 7–9). In the context of maritime and ocean fields, the agile social
learning method will help the IMO member states to train their future leaders to deal with
complex sustainability issues in their local settings.
It is important to note that the agile social learning method, as evaluated in this paper
through the Capacity-building for Sustainable Development subject, should not be
understood as a fixed proposition. Instead, it should be understood as an adaptable way to
map competences which are the key to ESD and agile education (L
opez-Alcarria et al., 2019)
in a practical educational method. In the same way, as described in Section 3, the learning
activities in this case were modified between the two years of delivering the subject. The
aspiration has been to give the reader enough information to provide an understanding to
tailor the agile social learning method to other needs.
For future research, data is being collected on how the outcome of the subject is
implemented in local settings. One example of a report that the authors have received is
from a previous student who is working in the Bangladesh shipping industry and who
has developed the agile social learning method in his local context when teaching about
ocean sustainability. The authors are also exploring a blended-learning delivery
approach using e-learning technologies. A proposed delivery mode is that the students
learn about the fundamentals of sustainable development through distance-learning
mode; that they work in their local professional setting with elaborating a concrete case;
and that they bring this case into a blended-learning mode to evaluate issues and come
up with solutions with fellow students, industry experts and academics, across national
and professional boundaries.

Notes
1. www.agilealliance.org/
2. The UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning offers several programs, including lifelong learning
policies and strategies, adult learning and education, literacy and basic skills. See more details at
http://uil.unesco.org/lifelong-learning/policies-database/role-higher-education-promoting-lifelong-
learning
3. www.agilealliance.org/agile101/
4. https://innovationenglish.sites.ku.dk/model/double-diamond-2/
5. See Schön (1985) and Bødker et al. (2004, p. 195-321) for a description of PD and linked
participatory tools and techniques.
6. Bødker et al. (2004, p. 58, 252) discusses this as a core principle of PD called “genuine user
participation”.
7. Indicative time in percentage of time planned for learning activity and resource.
8. https://innovationenglish.sites.ku.dk/fase/ideate/
IJSHE 9. Freely adapted from Bødker et al. (2004, p. 280) Diagnostic Maps.
10. www.revolutionlearning.co.uk/stakeholder-analysis-the-powerinterest-grid/
11. Freely adapted from Bødker et al.’s (2004) Developing Scenarios (p. 299), Experimentation with
Prototypes and Mock-ups (p. 294), and Freehand Drawings and Collages (p. 256 and 259).
12. https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-
lending-groups
13. www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo/home
14. For a description of an iterative coding technique based on three phases coding: 1. Initial Coding;
2. Line-By-Line Coding; 3. Categorization, see for example https://medium.com/@projectux/
themes-dont-just-emerge-coding-the-qualitative-data-95aff874fdce
15. http://datatopics.worldbank.org/world-development-indicators/the-world-by-income-and-region.
html

References
Albareda-Tiana, S., Vidal-Raméntol, S. and Fern
andez-Morilla, M. (2018), “Implementing the
sustainable development goals at university level”, International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 473-497.
Barth, M. and Rieckmann, M. (2012), “Academic staff development as a catalyst for curriculum change
towards education for sustainable development: an output perspective”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 26, pp. 28-36.
Barth, M., Michelsen, G., Rieckmann, M. and Thomas, I. (2015), Routledge Handbook of Higher
Education for Sustainable Development, Routledge.
Bates, T. (2015), “Teaching in a digital age”, Open Textbook, available at: http://opentextbc.ca/
teachinginadigitalage/
Bertram, J. (2013), Agile Learning Design for Beginners, Bottom Line Performance, New Palestine, IN.
Blackmore, C. (2010), Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice, Springer, London.
Bødker, K., Kensing, F. and Simonsen, J. (2004), Participatory IT Design: designing for Business and
Workplace Realities, MIT Press, London.
Bolmsten, J. and Kitada, M. (2018), “Cultivating networked innovation: tools and techniques for
innovation in Maritime clusters”, Advances in Human Factors, Business Management and
Leadership, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Springer International
Publishing, pp. 490-502.
Clark, W.W. (2007), “Partnerships in creating agile sustainable development communities”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 294-302.
Cubric, M. (2013), “An agile method for teaching agile in business schools”, The International Journal of
Management Education, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 119-131.
Finn, J.W. (2015), “Cultivating a culture of practitioner research in university lifelong learning: some
critical reflections”, in Field, J., Schmidt-Hertha, B. and Waxenegger, A. (Eds), Universities and
Engagement, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 37-47.
Franco, I. and Tracey, J. (2019), “Community capacity-building for sustainable development: effectively
striving towards achieving local community sustainability targets”, International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 691-725.
Franco, I., Saito, O., Vaughter, P., Whereat, J., Kanie, N. and Takemoto, K. (2018), “Higher education for
sustainable development: actioning the global goals in policy, curriculum and practice”,
Sustainability Science, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 1621-1642.
Hansmann, R. (2010), “Sustainability learning: an introduction to the concept and its motivational Agile social
aspects”, Sustainability, Vol. 2 No. 9, pp. 2873-2897.
learning
Hohl, P., Klünder, J., van Bennekum, A., Lockard, R., Gifford, J., Münch, J., Stupperich, M. and
Schneider, K. (2018), “Back to the future: origins and directions of the ‘agile manifesto’ – views of
the originators”, Journal of Software Engineering Research and Development, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 1-27.
Jin, Y., Schneller, C. and Roche, S. (2015), The Role of Higher Education in Promoting Lifelong Learning,
UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning, Hamburg.
Kolb, D.A. (2014), Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, 2nd
ed., F. T. Press.
Kolb, D.A., Boyatzis, R.E. and Mainemelis, C. (2001), “Experiential learning theory: previous research
and new directions”, Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles, Vol. 1 No. 8,
pp. 227-247.
Kolland, F., Ludescher, M. and Waxenegger, A. (2015), “Research–practice partnership: improving
links between research and professional practice in lifelong learning”, in Field, J., Schmidt-
Hertha, B. and Waxenegger, A. (Eds), Universities and Engagement, Routledge, New York, NY,
pp. 48-60.
L
opez-Alcarria, A., Olivares-Vicente, A. and Poza-Vilches, F. (2019), “A systematic review of the use of
agile methodologies in education to foster sustainability competencies”, Sustainability, Vol. 11
No. 10, p. 2915.
Lucas, A.M. (1979), Environment and Environmental Education: Conceptual Issues and Curriculum
Implications, College of Education, OH State University, Columbus, OH.
MacGillivray, A.E. (2017), “Social learning in higher education: a clash of cultures?”, in McDonald, J.
and Cater-Steel, A. (Eds), Communities of Practice, Springer, Singapore, pp. 27-45.
Mochizuki, Y. and Masaru, Y. (2015), “Education for sustainable development and sustainability
science: re-purposing higher education and research”, in Barth, M., Michelsen, G., Rieckmann, M.
and Thomas, I.G. (Eds), Routledge Handbook of Higher Education for Sustainable Development,
Routledge, pp. 35-48.
Robson, C. (2002),. Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner-Researchers,
Blackwell, Oxford.
Salza, P., Musmarra, P. and Ferrucci, F. (2019), “Agile methodologies in education: a review”, in
Parsons, D. and MacCallum, K. (Eds), Agile and Lean Concepts for Teaching and Learning,
Springer, Singapore.
Sterling, S. (2009), “Sustainable education”, in Gray, D., Colucci-Gray, L. and Camino, E. (Eds), Science,
Society and Sustainability: Education and Empowerment for an Uncertain World, Routledge,
New York, NY and London, pp. 105-118.
UIL (2018), “UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning: annual report 2017”, UNESCO Institute for
Lifelong Learning, pp. 1-44.
UNESCO (2015), Rethinking Education, UNESCO Publishing, Paris.
UNESCO (2017), Practical Guidelines to Apply Sustainability Science Frameworks: science-Policy-Society
Interface Policy Paper, UNESCO, Jaka.
Vinodh, S. (2010), “Improvement of agility and sustainability: a case study in an Indian rotary switches
manufacturing organisation”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 18 Nos 10/11, pp. 1015-1020.
Wahlgren, B. (2015), “The parallel adult education system”, in Jin, Y., Schneller, C. and Roche, S., (Eds),
The Role of Higher Education in Promoting Lifelong Learning, UNESCO Institute for Lifelong
Learning, Hamburg, pp. 164-175.
Wallace-Wells, D. (2019), The Uninhabitable Earth: Life after Warming, Random House LCC, New
York, NY.
IJSHE Wals, A., Tassone, V., Hampson, G. and Reams, J. (2015), “Learning for walking the change: eco-social
innovation through sustainability-oriented higher education”, in Barth, M., Michelsen, G.,
Rieckmann, M. and Thomas, I.G. (Eds), Routledge Handbook of Higher Education for Sustainable
Development, Routledge, pp. 25-40.
Yin, R.K. (2013), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage publications.

About the authors

Johan Bolmsten is an Academic Information Manager and Lecturer in Maritime Education and
Training (MET) at the World Maritime University (Sweden). He holds a Masters in Science in
Information Systems from the Blekinge Institute of Technology and a PhD in participatory design
and socio-technical infrastructure development from the IT-University of Copenhagen.
Bolmsten is developing curricula and teaching Knowledge Management and the use of e-learning
and learning management systems in curriculum design, delivery and assessment. He has experience
from research and development projects in maritime knowledge clusters, including coordinating
projects with the International Association of Maritime Universities (IAMU) and International
Maritime Lecturers Association (IMLA). Bolmsten’s research interests include user-oriented
development of information communication technologies with high-requirements of usefulness and
usability, sustainable information infrastructures and end-user development. He is also coordinating
an e-learning lab for state-of-the-art education and research applications in MET.
In addition, Bolmsten has extensive experience from managing the development of e-learning and
learning management systems in support of both blended and distance-learning delivery approaches.
He is coordinating the development of pedagogical designs and materials, and their technical
architectures, for master, executive and professional and research programs and courses. Johan
Bolmsten is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: jb@wmu.se
Momoko Kitada is a former seafarer and joined WMU in 2011 and serves as an Associate
Professor as well as in the Secretariat of the WMU Women’s Association (WMUWA). Her research
interests lie in capacity building for sustainable development as well as gender and diversity issues
in shipping. Dr Kitada teaches subjects in maritime education and training (MET) as well as social
and human element of maritime energy management (MEM). She coordinates and teaches the subject
of Research Methodology and Study Skills for MSc students as well as a distant learning: PgDip in
Maritime Energy – Module 1 “Maritime Energy and Sustainable Development.”
She leads WMU’s collaboration efforts with the IMO in terms of women’s integration in the
maritime sector and assists WMUWA in connection with other IMO regional support networks. Dr
Kitada is also a co-principle investigator of the project on Empowering Women in the Decade of
Ocean Science for Sustainable Development.
Dr Kitada has a good track record of academic publications in peer-reviewed journals, edited
books, book chapters and conference papers. Her edited works include “Trends and Challenges in
Maritime Energy Management” (2018, Springer); “Maritime Women: Global Leadership” (2015,
Springer); and the WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs: Special Issue on Empowering Women in the
Maritime Community (2019).

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com