Running Head: FACULTY ATTITUDES
Faculty Attitudes and Intentions Regarding Sustainability on Campus
Julia B. Corbett
Daren C. Brabham
Clair Canfield
Jason Carlton
Jennifer Hill
Debra Jenson
Adam Kuban
Paul Parkin
University of Utah
Correspondence to:
Julia B. Corbett
Department of Communication
University of Utah
255 S. Central Campus Dr., Rm. 2400
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
USA
(801) 581-4557
[email protected]
Julia Corbett is a professor and all other authors are graduate students in the Department
of Communication at the University of Utah.
This paper is dedicated to the memory of Dr. Craig Forster. As Director of the Office of
Sustainability at the University of Utah, Dr. Forster was the impetus for this study and a leader
and visionary for sustainability on the University of Utah campus.
Biographical note: Julia Corbett is a Professor in the Department of Communication at
the University of Utah. Her research interests include science and environmental communication,
both at a macro-sociological level and an individual psychological level. Of particular interest
are theories of social conflict and social control, including the role of mass media in social
change. She is the author of Communicating Nature: How We Create and Understand
Environmental Messages (Island Press, 2006).
Keywords: Theory of Planned Behavior; Sustainability; Faculty Attitudes
Paper type: Research paper
Faculty Attitudes and Intentions Regarding Sustainability on Campus
Abstract
An important part of sustainability in higher education is integrating it fully into the campus
community, including classrooms and research setting. To assist in this endeavor, we conducted
a survey of faculty at a large U.S. university to see how likely professors were to incorporate
sustainability concepts and issues into their teaching and research. We utilized the theory of
planned behavior (TPB) to design our survey, which has found that a variety of factors can
predict an individual’s intention to behave in a certain way. We found that personal norm
(believing sustainability was an important thing) and perceived behavioral control (the control
you believe you have over a behavior) predicted over half of the variation in intention to
incorporate sustainability into teaching. Faculty members had generally positive attitudes about
sustainability, though women were more positive than men. The biggest barrier to incorporating
sustainability mentioned by faculty was a perceived lack of relevance to their teaching and
research. This study provides practical guidance for universities to integrate sustainability into
the classroom and academic research, including the most and least desirable behavioral choices
for integration.
1. Introduction
The influence and impact that Institutions of Higher Learning (IHLs) have on local and global
communities mean that their efforts to promote sustainable behaviors are critical. Seen as
“models for society in the pursuit of sustainable development” (UNESCO 2004, para. 3), IHLs
function as cities within cities, consuming a variety of resources. For example, the IHL at which
the present study was conducted produced nearly 450,000 metric tons of CO2 during the 20052006 fiscal year. Given their large ecological footprints on local and global communities, IHLs
have a responsibility to prepare students to be aware of and accountable for the environment.
Many IHLs across the U.S. are reviewing and revitalizing their civic mission in a way
that connects them to the communities they serve and helps prepare students for active
participation in a democratic society (Checkoway 2001). IHLs have expanded the context of
their traditional missions of scholarship, teaching, and service through “civic engagement” (Weis
et al. 2007), which has included commitments to campus sustainability.
Although a commitment to sustainability is the first step, research is needed to help IHLs
put their commitment into practice. For example, what barriers might faculty perceive to
incorporating issues of sustainability into their teaching and research, and what factors might
help predict their intentions to incorporate sustainability? Addressing these questions is vital in
order for IHLs to better assist instructors and students in civically engaged scholarship with a
commitment to sustainability.
Given the growing emphasis on sustainability in IHLs, the present study seeks to
understand faculty attitudes about sustainability and perceived barriers of integrating
sustainability in teaching and research. Using Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behavior, this
study surveys faculty at a large, public, research-intensive university in the American West.
2. Literature in Sustainability and Theory of Planned Behavior
2.1 Sustainability
University campuses in the U.S. have become involved in sustainability and climate change in
various ways, including Focus the Nation (a coordinated, nationwide effort to bring climate
change education into campus classrooms during one week each February), and the American
College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) (Grasgreen 2008). The
latter is a program to engage IHLs in significant efforts to reduce their climate impacts on
campus. After University presidents sign the pledge, each campus develops a comprehensive
plan to become climate-neutral in a specified timeframe (White 2008). According to ACUPCC,
“Colleges and universities must exercise leadership in their communities and throughout society
by modeling ways to eliminate global warming emissions, and by providing the knowledge and
the educated graduates to achieve climate neutrality”
(http://www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org/). As of November 2009, 662 universities had
become signatories, including the campus where this research was conducted. However,
successfully integrating issues of sustainability on campuses requires attention and dedication by
all parts of a university system.
Sustainability, while easy to define, can be difficult to implement on campuses.
Effectively addressing issues of sustainability requires knowledge and action by administrators,
staff, teachers, and students. Educators are one of the major channels of knowledge
dissemination to multiple audiences. Professors have the ability to share information with other
instructors, administrators, and students, and to contribute to bodies of research in general.
One way professors can influence the implementation of sustainability is by engaging in
research related to sustainability. However, conducting sustainability research may be difficult
for professors because of academy pressures and dissimilar areas of expertise. Faculty members
are under tremendous pressure to research and publish in order to receive awards, grants,
promotions, and tenure (Zencey 1996). If topics involving sustainability seem unrelated and do
not clearly complement their own research topics and areas of expertise, faculty may be reluctant
to engage in sustainability-related research (Kempton, Boster, and Hartley 1999).
A second way in which professors can influence the implementation of sustainability is
through teaching. Educators can promote awareness and understanding of sustainability issues
within the classroom. Halbersleben (2008) suggests engaging students in the decision-making
process and implementation of changes on campus and in the community. With their direct
involvement, students can draw conclusions and have a better understanding of sustainability,
therefore affecting their futures as well as those around them. Students need a space in which to
absorb the necessary information and understand the need to prevent or reduce the chances of
further environmental crises (Grasgreen 2008).
Ultimately, in order for a campus to be fully involved in sustainability efforts, an IHL
needs to enlist the support of its professors. Research is needed to understand how a faculty
perceives sustainability as well as potential barriers to incorporating it into academic work. The
present study examines faculty views of sustainability with regard to teaching and research
through the lens of the theory of planned behavior at a large, public university in the American
West. This university is a doctoral degree-granting institution that has a “very high” level of
research activity according to the Carnegie Foundation classification system.
2.2 Theory of Planned Behavior
The theory of planned behavior (TPB) (Ajzen 1991) has been one of the most successful
theories in predicting behavior (Smith et al. 2008). The model has been well tested in a variety of
contexts, including health behaviors, such as smoking cessation (Kim 2008), vegetable
consumption (Gratton, Povey, and Clark-Carter 2007), and organ donation (Park and Smith
2007). The model also has been used to predict environmental behaviors, such as recycling
(Knussen and Yule 2008), water conservation (Trumbo and O’Keefe 2000), and transit use
(Bamberg 2006). TPB studies have predicted 30-50% of the variance in behavioral intention in
several meta-analytic studies (e.g., Armitage and Conner 2001; Trafimow et al. 2002).
The original TPB model included three independent variables (attitude, subjective norm,
and perceived behavioral control) that predicted behavioral intention and, by extension, behavior
(Conner and Sparks 2005). Conceptually, attitudes measure an individual’s evaluation of a
specific behavior, or whether the behavior is viewed as favorable or unfavorable. Specifically,
the present study is interested in whether faculty consider sustainability important or unimportant.
“Subjective norm” is a measure of an individual’s perception of his or her referent group’s views
of the behavior in question. In essence, this variable is tapping into the social pressures behind
engaging in a behavior. “Perceived behavioral control” (PBC) is an individual’s perceived belief
of the ability and ease of performing a behavior. Researchers have suggested that PBC is
comprised of two dimensions, controllability and self-efficacy or confidence (Conner and Sparks
2005). Controllability is the amount of control one believes to have in engaging or not engaging
in a behavior. Self-efficacy is the belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the course
of action required for a behavior (Bandura 1995). In other words, self-efficacy is the confidence
one has in the ability to perform a behavior successfully. The more control and ability one
perceives, the more likely one is to engage in the behavior. Perceived barriers to performing the
behavior also have been considered part of PBC.
In 2005, Connor and Sparks reported that in the 14 years since its conception, the TPB
theoretical framework was tested in more than 490 studies. Within this time and since, studies
have attempted to extend the original TPB model to include other predictor variables, such as
habit (Verplanken et al. 1998), fear (Poliakoff and Webb 2007), and personal moral norms
(Corbett 2005). Personal moral norms are an individual’s perception of the moral or ethical
correctness in performing or not performing a behavior (Ajzen 1991). In an examination of
young offenders’ intentions to re-offend, Kiriakidis (2008) found that personal moral norm
predicted a small but significant amount in the intention to re-offend. Personal moral norms also
have been conceptualized as an individual’s perceived personal responsibility to engage in
environmentally responsible behavior (Corbett 2005). Several studies have found that personal
moral norms contributed significantly to the explained variance in the intention to engage in a
behavior (e.g. Harland, Staats, and Wilke 1999; Nordlund and Garvill 2002). Because
sustainability involves personal responsibility toward engaging in behaviors that help the
environment, this study examines personal moral norms in addition to the TPB variables.
Another independent variable addition to the TPB model is past behavior (Conner et al.
2000). Results from Conner and Armitage’s (1998) meta-analysis revealed that past behavior
explained on average an additional 7% of the variance in intention and an additional 13% of the
variance in behavior. This suggests that past behavior can be an important factor in predicting
behavior and a useful addition to the model (Haggar, Chatzisarantis, and Biddle 2002; Norman
and Conner 2006; Corbett 2002). Many researchers support the use of past behavior as an
independent predictor of behavior (Conner and Armitage 1998; Ouellette and Wood 1998). Past
behavior is important to examine in relation to sustainability because instructors who have
previously participated in teaching or researching sustainability are more likely to have favorable
attitudes about it and may be more likely to engage in those behaviors again.
Based on this literature, a two-part hypothesis is proposed:
H1a: The TPB variables, with the addition of personal norm and past behavior, will be
significant predictors of faculty intention to incorporate sustainability into teaching.
H1b: The TPB variables, with the addition of personal norm and past behavior, will be
significant predictors of faculty intention to incorporate sustainability into research.
The present study also extends the current literature on sustainability by examining
potential desirable choices and barriers associated with integration. In his Reasonable Person
Model of environmentally responsible behavior, Kaplan (2000) notes the importance of allowing
individuals to choose from various options or routes toward the desired behavior in a way that
coincides with self-interest. Here, desirable choices are specific behavioral options that a faculty
member views most favorably when integrating sustainability in the classroom and in research.
This information can be helpful in promoting various behaviors related to sustainability.
Similarly, there is limited research on the perceived barriers in integrating issues of sustainability
in the classroom and in research. This study endeavored to gather faculty sentiments about what
might be preventing them from engaging in these activities.
RQ1: What do faculty members consider to be desirable behavioral choices toward
integrating sustainability into teaching and research?
RQ2: What do faculty members consider to be barriers in integrating sustainability into
teaching and research?
3. Method
3.1 Design and Participants
An online survey was administered to the regular faculty of a large, public, research-intensive
university in the American West. “Regular faculty” are those in tenured or tenure-track positions
and do not include faculty appointed for limited contracts. We surveyed faculty engaged in
teaching and research, not those in research appointments who did not also teach. Faculty
members in the university’s medical school and library also were not included in this study.
The list of regular faculty was created by the university’s personnel office, which sent the
first e-mail solicitation and its follow-up; researchers did not view or have access to the list. The
e-mail invitation included a hyperlink to the online survey. The survey remained active gathering
data for 21 consecutive days in October 2008. A reminder e-mail was sent to the faculty listserv
with one week remaining for data collection. Both e-mails explained the importance of the
survey, measures taken to ensure confidentiality and anonymity, and the chance to win a prize
for participation. Incentives were offered to increase participation with a random drawing at the
end of the survey for a small-value gift certificate.
In all, 173 participants completed a survey from a population of 1010 regular faculty,
representing a response rate of 17.1%. Regarding faculty rank (N = 164), 35.4% were assistant
professors, 31.1% were associate professors, and 33.5% were professors. In addition, 45% were
female, and 55% were male (N = 171). The average age was 49.7 years old (SD = 10.65).
Respondents represented a variety of disciplines in the university; 26.9% were from traditional
sciences (e.g., engineering, health sciences, earth sciences and mining) and 73.1% were from the
social sciences, humanities, and fine arts.
The survey included five open-ended questions; responses from these questions were
coded into categories developed from emergent themes (Strauss and Corbin 1998).
3.2 Measures
Survey questions operationalized attitude, perceived behavioral control, social norms, past
behavior, and personal norms with relation to sustainability.
Attitude. Five questions measured attitude toward promoting sustainability on campus.
Two questions used a six-point scale from “important” to “unimportant” (e.g., Promoting
sustainable behavior and practices at the university is ___), and three questions employed a six-
point scale from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” (e.g., Sustainability efforts at the
university really have little overall impact on the quality of life in the region [reversed]). The five
questions were scaled to create a single attitude measure (α = 0.79).
Perceived behavioral control (PBC). Four questions were asked relating to PBC, each
measured on a six-point scale from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” Two questions
examined barriers, one each for teaching and research (e.g., For me, there are many barriers to
integrating issues of sustainability in my classes [reversed]); and two examined relevance, one
each relating to teaching and research (e.g., Sustainability issues are relevant to my current
research interests). The questions were scaled to create a single measure for PBC (α = 0.77).
Social norms. One question with a six-point scale, from “strongly agree” to “strongly
disagree,” measured social norm: I would gain the respect of my colleagues if I incorporated
sustainability into my academic work.
Past behavior. One question used a six-point scale, from “completely true” to
“completely false,” to measure past behavior regarding sustainability and teaching: I have not
previously integrated information about sustainability in any of the classes I teach (reversed).
Personal norms. One question examined personal norms regarding sustainability, which
was measured on a six-point scale from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”: Incorporating
issues of sustainability into my academic work would make me feel like I was doing the right
thing.
4. Results
4.1 Descriptive Results
There were no significant differences by age or faculty rank for any of the independent or
dependent variables. However, there was one significant difference by sex; females had more
positive attitudes about sustainability than males (t = 3.63, p = .00). There also was a significant
difference in attitude by a collapsed measure of college; those in social sciences, humanities, and
fine arts had a more positive attitude about sustainability (t = 3.63, p = .000) than those in the
traditional sciences.
4.2 Correlations
Table 1 displays correlations between variables tested as part of the TPB. All independent
variables were significantly correlated with attitude, and with the exception of personal norm
(research), all were significantly correlated with PBC (research and teaching). The strongest
positive correlations occurred between attitude and personal norm (do the right thing) (r = .65, p
< .01); intent to incorporate into teaching and personal norm (do the right thing) (r = .59, p
< .05); and intent to incorporate into teaching and PBC (research and teaching) (r = .56, p < .01).
There also were additional moderately strong positive correlations.
4.3 Results from Hypotheses
H1a predicted that perceived behavioral control, attitude, and subjective norms, along with
personal norms and past behavior, would predict intent to incorporate sustainable issues into
teaching. All independent variables were entered into a hierarchical regression model (using the
“enter” method in SPSS), with the dependent variable of intention to incorporate sustainability
into teaching. The amount of variance in intention explained was 52%. However, only two
variables contributed significantly to the model: personal moral norm (β= .311, t=3.73, p=.000)
and perceived behavioral control (β =.344, t=3.75, p=.000). Thus, H1a is supported, though
attitude, subjective norms, and past behavior did not contribute significantly.
H1b, which predicted that the same independent variables would predict intention to
incorporate sustainability into research, also received support. Almost 39% of the variance in
intention was explained, though only personal norm (β= .185, t=1.96, p=.05) and PBC (β=.321,
t=3.08, p=.002) contributed significantly.
Research question one asked faculty what they considered to be desirable behavioral
choices toward integrating sustainability into teaching and research. As shown in Table 2, setting
personal goals and considering sustainability as a topic of service were the most desirable
choices. Least desired choices were attending a workshop and considering sustainability as a
topic or element of research.
Research question two concerned faculty barriers to integrating sustainability into their
teaching and research. Table 3 shows that the most frequent response was a lack of relevance or
appropriateness, with almost 55% citing this as a barrier to teaching and 71% mentioning it as a
barrier to research. The next most important barrier to teaching was a lack of knowledge (15%)
and for research, a lack of resources (14%).
5. Discussion
5.1 Theoretical Implications
This study provided partial support of the theory of planned behavior in testing faculty attitudes,
PBC, and social norms – as well as personal norms and past behavior – as predictors of intent to
incorporate sustainability into their teaching and research. Of the three traditional, independent
variables identified in the TPB, only perceived behavioral control significantly contributed to the
faculty’s intent. However, the addition of personal norms – recommended by previous research –
also was a significant predictor of intent.
One possible reason why attitude lacked a connection to behavioral intention might have
been question wording. All five attitude questions concerned sentiments toward sustainability on
this campus and its importance to students as part of their education. However, the questions did
not ask about a respondent’s attitudes regarding incorporating sustainability into his or her own
classroom and research. Thus, the level of specificity may have differed too greatly from
behavioral intention, which TPB researchers have noted as a concern (Ajzen and Fishbein 2005).
Perhaps the descriptive findings and knowledge of the nature of academic life can shed
some light on these results. First, academics tend to be fairly autonomous and to a certain extent
are able to exert control over research topics and course content. It makes sense that a professor
with a strong sense of perceived control over her behavior would be more likely to incorporate a
potentially new topic into teaching or research. It also is reasonable that if professors hold
personal beliefs that sustainability is “the right thing to do,” they would be more likely to
incorporate sustainability into their academic work.
It was interesting that faculty members in colleges of social sciences, humanities, and
fine arts were more likely to incorporate sustainability in teaching and research than those in
traditional sciences. First, respondents in our sample were heavily weighted toward social
sciences, humanities, and fine arts (73% of respondents), which may have heightened this
difference. Nevertheless, traditional scientists would be more likely to have knowledge of the
limits and carrying capacities of biological and physical systems that are highly relevant to
principles of sustainability. However, as noted on a few open-ended comments, several
respondents claimed that sustainability was “disputable” science and instead a matter for politics
and policy.
It’s true that common definitions of sustainability are framed in human terms -- meeting
the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
needs. Though biological systems play a foundational role in meeting those human needs, the
concept of sustainability highlights the human decision-making role regarding resource use. Such
policy decisions might involve the application of scientific knowledge but seem removed from
the practice of “pure” research. On the other hand, the social sciences and humanities – such as
psychology, communication, political science, or philosophy -- are accustomed to a prominent
human role in their fields and may therefore be more open to a concept like sustainability. These
fields also have higher proportions of women than the traditional sciences, and in this study,
women held more favorable attitudes toward sustainability than men.
There may be several reasons why social norms were not significant predictors of
incorporating sustainability. First, a single question was used to tap social norm – whether
colleagues would respect an individual’s incorporation of sustainability into his or her academic
work. The original questionnaire included additional measures of social norms, but after pretesting the survey instrument had to be significantly shortened. The large number of questions
required to adequately tap all TPB variables has been noted by other researchers as problematic.
Second, while it is reasonable to assume that social pressures are relevant to what a professor
chooses to teach or research, the role of such pressures may be multidimensional.
A couple of post-hoc tests examined this reasoning. The promotion and tenure process
might lead assistant (untenured) professors to be less likely to incorporate sustainability (and
unsure whether such a focus would be rewarded), while senior (tenured) scholars might be more
likely to incorporate new ideas or issues into their work. However, there was no significant
difference between professor rank and social norm, nor any difference between rank and
response to a question about the value for tenure and promotion of incorporating sustainability
into teaching or research. This lack of difference may be due to what Everett (2008) concluded,
that senior faculty members become entrenched and “deeply invested in the traditions of the
disciplines” and thus may find it even more difficult “to imagine what a different form of
education” might look like and how to embrace it (p. 246). For sustainability, it may be that
support from colleagues – or lack of it – is less important than individual perceptions of control
and relevance (as measured by PBC).
5.2 Professional and Practical Implications
Every year, thousands of students enter IHLs, which makes the role of higher education in
creating a sustainable future a crucial one (Cortese 2003). The United Nations (2002) declared
2005-2014 as the “Decade of Education for Sustainable Development,” and an increasing
number of institutions have signed climate commitments. Still, faculty members must contribute
to this change. Results here indicate that certain barriers must be addressed -- namely, the
perceived relevance of sustainability to some academic disciplines and secondarily a lack of
knowledge about it.
From our data, failure to discern relevance was the most prominent barriers for faculty to
incorporate sustainability into their teaching and research. Nevertheless, faculty members still
generally believe sustainability is important, as noted above. This suggests that if IHL
sustainability administrators and faculty leaders can effectively demonstrate the connection of
sustainability to each academic field, faculty may be more likely to incorporate the topic.
Possible tactics in this vein include suggested lesson plans or outlines for each discipline relating
to sustainability. A pottery class could discuss sustainable sources of clay and the energy used
by kilns. Students in a rhetoric class could construct persuasive arguments for university
communities to support sustainability. Philosophers and biologists could debate whether the
relocation of species affected by climate change contributes to sustainability or threatens it.
In addition, concerted efforts to advertise possible research collaborations and grant
opportunities in sustainability could persuade faculty who may not see it as relevant to their work
or lack knowledge about it to give it a second look.
Finally, it is important to emphasize that faculty may be willing to engage sustainability
outside the classroom or lab. In the list of “desirable choices,” the most desirable were not
related to teaching or research: consider sustainability as a topic of service, set personal goals for
sustainability, and encourage sustainability goals in one’s department. Within the classroom,
faculty members were most inclined to contact the university’s Office of Sustainability for
assistance and to invite a guest lecturer on sustainability.
5.3 Limitations
Due to an administrative delay in approval of the faculty-wide e-mail, the first survey
solicitation was sent on the eve of the university’s week-long fall semester break. This may have
greatly attenuated our response rate and therefore the representativeness of our results.
Nevertheless, because no differences were found by rank or other factors, the respondents may
be a fairly representative sample. In addition, those who responded to the survey were not the
“choir,” for almost two-thirds of the respondents had previously incorporated very little or no
information about sustainability into their classes.
Another limitation (noted briefly above) is that a full testing of TPB variables requires a
lengthy survey, which may both decrease response rate and constrain variable operationalization
and testing.
References
Ajzen, Icek. 1991. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes 50: 179-211.
Ajzen, Icek, and Martin Fishbein. 2005. The Influence of Attitudes on Behavior. In Handbook of
Attitudes and Attitude Change: Basic Principles, edited by D. Albarracín, B.T. Johnson,
and M.P. Zanna, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 173-221.
Armitage, Christopher J. and Mark Conner. 2001. Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behavior: A
Meta-analytic Review. British Journal of Social Psychology 40: 471-99.
Bamberg, Sebastian. 2006. Is a Residential Relocation a Good Opportunity to Change People’s
Travel Behavior?: Results from a Theory-driven Intervention Study. Environment and
Behavior 38: 820-40.
Bandura, Albert. (Ed.). 1995. Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Checkoway, Barry. 2001. Renewing the Civic Mission of the American Research University.
Journal of Higher Education 72(2):125-47.
Conner, Mark and Christopher J. Armitage. 1998. Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior: A
Review and Avenues for Further Research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 28:
1429-64.
Conner, Mark, Paschal Sheeran, Paul Norman, and Christopher J. Armitage. 2000. Temporal
Stability as a Moderator of Relationships in the Theory of Planned Behaviour. British
Journal of Social Psychology 39: 469-93.
Conner, Mark and Paul Sparks. 2005. Theory of Planned Behaviour and Health Behaviour. In
Predicting Health Behaviour, edited by M. Connor and P. Norman. Buckingham, UK:
Open University Press, 170-222.
Corbett, Julia B. 2002. Motivations to Participate in Riparian Improvement Programs: Applying
the Theory of Planned Behavior. Science Communication 23(3): 243-63.
Corbett, Julia B. 2005. Altruism, Self-interest, and the Reasonable Person Model of
Environmentally Responsible Behavior. Science Communication 26(4): 368-89.
Cortese, Anthony. 2003. The Critical Role of Higher Education in Creating a Sustainable Future.
Planning for Higher Education 31(3): 15-22.
Everett, Jennifer. 2008. Sustainability in Higher Education: Implications for the Disciplines.
Theory and Research in Education 6(2): 237-51.
Grasgreen, Allie. 2008. Humanities Professors Match ‘Green’ Efforts of Colleges in Class.
Chronicle of Higher Education 26(September): A11.
Gratton, Lucy, Rachel Povey, and David Clark-Carter. 2007. Promoting Children’s Fruit and
Vegetable Consumption: Interventions Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour as a
Framework. British Journal of Health Psychology 12: 639-50.
Hagger, Martin S., Nikos L.D.Chatzisarantis, and Steward J.H. Biddle. 2002. A Meta-analytic
Review of the Theories of Reasoned Action and Planned Behavior in Physical Activity:
Predictive Validity and the Contribution of Attitudinal Variables. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology 24: 3-32.
Halbersleben, Karen I. 2008. Presidents in Action: Infusing Sustainability into Campus Life.
The Presidency 11(1): 38-40.
Harland, Paul, Henk Staats, and Henk A.M. Wilke. 1999. Explaining Pro-Environmental
Intention and Behavior by Personal Norms and the Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology 29: 2505-28.
Kaplan, Stephen. 2000. Human Nature and Environmentally Responsible Behavior. Journal of
Social Issues 45: 59-86.
Kempton, Willet, James S. Boster, and Jennifer A. Hartley. 1999, Environmental Values in
American Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kim, Sun S. 2008. “Predictors of Short-term Smoking Cessation Among Korean American Men.
Public Health Nursing 25: 516-25.
Kiriakidis, Stavros P. 2008. Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior to Recidivism: The
Role of Personal Norm in Predicting Behavioral Intentions of Re-offending. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology 38: 2210-21.
Knussen, Christina and Fred Yule. 2008. “I’m Not in the Habit of Recycling”: The Role of
Habitual Behavior in the Disposal of Household Waste. Environment and Behavior 40:
683-702.
Nordlund, Annika M. and Jorgen Garvill, J. 2002. Value Structures Behind Pro-environmental
Behavior. Environment and Behavior 34: 740-56.
Norman, Paul and Mark Conner. 2006. The Theory of Planned Behaviour and Binge Drinking:
Assessing the Moderating Role of Past Behaviour within the Theory of Planned
Behaviour. British Journal of Health Psychology 11: 55-70.
Ouellette, Judith A. and Wendy Wood. 1998. Habit and Intention in Everyday Life: The Multiple
Processes by which Past Behavior Predicts Future Behavior. Psychological Bulletin 124:
57-74.
Park, Hee Sun and Sandi W. Smith. 2007. Distinctiveness and Influence of Subjective Norms,
Personal Descriptive and Injunctive Norms, and Societal Descriptive and Injunctive
Norms on Behavioral Intent: A Case of Two Behaviors Critical to Organ Donation.
Human Communication Research 33(2): 194-218.
Poliakoff, Ellen and Thomas L. Webb. 2007. What Factors Predict Scientists’ Intentions to
Participate in Public Engagement of Science Activities? Science Communication 29: 24263.
Smith, Joanne R., Deborah J. Terry, Anthony S.R. Manstead, Winnifred R. Louis, Diana
Kotterman, and Jacqueline Wolfs. 2008. The Attitude-Behavior Relationship in
Consumer Conduct: The Role of Norms, Past Behavior, and Self-Identity. Journal of
Social Psychology 148(3): 311-33.
Strauss, Anselm and Juliet Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research Techniques and
Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Trafimow, David, Krystina.A. Finlay Paschal Sheeran, and Mark Conner. 2002. Evidence That
Perceived Behavioural Control is a Multidimensional Construct: Perceived Control and
Perceived Difficulty. British Journal of Social Psychology 41: 101-21.
Trumbo, Craig and Garrett O’Keefe. 2000. Understanding Environmentalism and Information
Effects in Water Conservation Behavior: A Comparison of Three Communities Sharing a
Watershed. Paper presented at Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication (AEJMC) Conference, Phoenix, AZ, August 2000.
UNESCO. 2004. Higher education for sustainable development, United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization, available at:
http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/files/34793/11105587073brief_Higher_Education.p
df/brief%2BHigher%2BEducation.pdf (accessed 17 December 2008).
United Nations. 2002. United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development,
Resolution No. A/RES/57/254, United Nations General Assembly, available at:
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/556/12/PDF/N0255612.pdf?OpenEleme
nt (accessed 17 December 2008).
Verplanken, B., H. Aarts, A. van Knippenberg, and A. Moonen. 1998. Habit Versus Planned
Behaviour: A Field Experiment. British Journal of Social Psychology 37: 111-128.
Weis, Lois, Yoshiko Nozaki, Robert Granfield, and Nils Olsen. 2007. A Call for Civically
Engaged Educational Policy-related Scholarship. Educational Policy 21(2): 426-433.
White, Stacey S. 2008. Early Participation in the American College and University Presidents’
Climate Commitment. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education
10(3): 215-227.
Zencey, Eric. 1996. The Rootless Professors. In Rooted in the Land: Essays on Community and
Place, edited by W. Vitek and W. Jackson. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 15-9.
Table 1
Correlations of the Variables
Variables
1. Attitude
2. PBC (research & teaching)
3. Social norm
4. Personal norm
5. Self-interest
6. Past behavior
7. Intent to incorporate in teaching
8. Intent to incorporate in research
Note: N = 173. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01
1
.26**
.37**
.65**
-.26**
-.18*
.47**
.33**
2
3
4
5
6
7
.42**
.41**
-.24**
-.67**
.56**
.52**
.39*
-.33*
-.26*
.40*
.28*
-.19
-.30*
.59*
.44*
.08
-.19
-.19
-.46*
-.44*
.10
Faculty Attitudes
23
Table 2
Desirable Behavioral Choices Regarding Integrating Sustainability into Teaching and Research
Desirable Choices (1=most desirable)
Include sustainability as a topic or unit in a class
Attend a workshop to learn how to incorporate sustainability in my classes
Set personal goals regarding sustainability practices on campus
Invite to my class a guest lecturer on sustainability
Encourage others in my department to set goals regarding sustainability
practices on campus
Consider sustainability as a topic or element of my research
Contact the university’s Office of Sustainability for ideas or assistance
Consider sustainability as a topic of service
Note: N = 173. 1 = most desirable, 5 = least desirable.
M
3.06
3.39
2.33
3.16
3.15
SD
1.75
1.75
1.38
1.81
1.62
3.48
3.18
2.66
1.80
1.63
1.48
Faculty Attitudes
Table 3
Perceived Barriers in Integrating Sustainability into Teaching and Research
Perceived Barriers
Teaching
Lack of relevance or appropriateness
Lack of knowledge about sustainability
Resistance from others
Lack of time
Opposed to the concept of sustainability
Research
Lack of relevance or appropriateness
Lack of knowledge about sustainability
Resistance from others and constraints
Lack of resources
Note: N = 173
%
N
54.7
15.1
13.2
11.3
5.7
58
16
14
12
6
71.3
6.9
7.9
13.9
72
7
8
14
24