The scientific literature on the role that higher education institutions –HEI- should play in the context of sustainability has increased considerably since the second decade of the 21st century (Hallinger and Nguyen, 2020), showing the interest and concern that this field of study arouses. Previous works have analysed how HEI is a key element in the sustainability paradigm being education for sustainable development -ESD the pedagogical approach that has more acceptance in the literature (Grosseck et al., 2019) and that has become one of the international frameworks of reference when including the sustainability and the Sustainable Development Goals -SDGs- in research and teaching in HEI (Lukas, 2018). However, according to Wamsler et al. (2021), facing this situation from HEI in an adequate way will not be possible only by applying technical and/or technological innovations (Wals, 2014). Feeney et al. (2023) emphasize that a deeper social and cultural transformation is still lacking. Additionally this emerging social paradigm (Loorbach & Wittmayer, 2023) also reinforces the need for a new model of HEI that ensures the transmission of knowledge and tools needed to address the sustainability dilemma, but also the development of internal skills and capacities of students (Lilja et al 2022) and teachers (Zguir et al., 2021; Wiek et al., 2011), facilitating opportunities for participation to all involved in the teaching-learning process through new pedagogical approaches or teaching and learning models. In this research, we present the results of an experiential and experimental educational project of master degree co-created by multidisciplinary and international educators in order to deploy knowledge, values, principles and competences for sustainability in the framework of the Inner Development Goals -IDG- and adding value to SDG 4.7. Taken as reference the framework of Transformative Learning for Sustainability (Sipos et al., 2008), the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe UNECE 2012 framework, Theory U (Scharmer, 2017) and Systemic Thinking (Senge, 1993, 2006) we apply action research (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988; Kemmis, 1983) as a systematic learning process where students have conducted critical analysis of the experiential learning situations in which they have been immersed through metacognitive reflections. We also present evidence about the impact that this pedagogical approach has had on students (individually and collectively), on their professional context and on the system levels. Based on our research results, head, hands and heart approach, collectively, can enable perspective and possibly behavioural transformation (Sipos et al., 2008). Regarding the metacognitive reflection it can assist students explore critical thinking and developing the skills that will allow them to address sustainability dilemmas (Singel-Brodowski et al., 2022). In addition, experiential learning can help students to understand what they learn by reconceptualizing it and applying it to their daily life (Bianchi, 2020).

Good conversations are central to (transformative) learning, problem-solving, and change-making; to the general well-being of humans; and to the well-functioning of society and democracy at large. However, in our divided cultural climate, the focus is often on polarized debate, aimed at winning the argument, rather than on generative dialogue, which I define as conversations that foster a respectful exchange of perspectives, enhance relationships, and produce novel insights. In this paper I present the design of a practice called stream-of-consciousness dialogues, which aims to create conducive conditions for such conversations. In this practice, learners take turns spontaneously speaking in response to prompts, and deep listening. I tested this practice in the period 2020-2021 in both Bachelor and Master’s sustainability courses at our University, using qualitative student evaluations (n = 360). Analyzing the data using a grounded theory approach, I coded ten distinct learning outcomes, which I grouped into three major categories: 1) learning how to dialogue more meaningfully; 2) experiencing interpersonal connection and/or personal expansion; and 3) coming to new insights and perspectives. Though further research is needed, the data suggest that this practice creates conducive conditions for generative dialogues to emerge and may therefore be of support in ameliorating societal polarization and existential alienation, while also holding potential for fostering positive social-systemic change. Because the practice is simple in format and easily usable in group settings, I argue it may be widely applied in a diversity of collective learning, change-making, and other group contexts.

Transition scholars are increasingly confronted with overwhelming emotions in and around transformative change. Be this in class, when students express eco-anxiety and how this freezes their ability to engage in sustainability transitions (Pihkala 2020a), emotions related to researching climate change up until traumatic experiences (Pihkala 2020b), or emotions of the societal groups they are engaging with (Bogner et al. 2024, Quigley 2023). It becomes clear that we shape transformations as much as we are shaped by them (Vaughn et al. 2021), which is why the sustainability transitions research (STR) community increasingly calls for investigating ‘transitions in everyday life’ (Köhler et al. 2019), where emotions are an undeniable part of meaning-making (e.g., Bogner et al. 2024, Feola and Jaworska 2019, Coops et al. 2024, Martiskainen and Sovacool 2021).

However, our current ways of researching, teaching, and living in and with transformations might not be sufficiently explored to engage with the emotional dimensions of these transformations beyond researching discrete emotions from a distance. One of the reasons is the active academic disengagement with transformations, that is, approaching and researching them as if we were not part of society or unfolding transformations, closely related to Haraway’s god trick of “seeing everything from nowhere” (Haraway 1988, p. 581).

Explicitly embracing this, in this project, we argue that the only way of understanding and acting within these transformations is by acknowledging our deep entanglements with transformations, which is what Blanche Verlie (2022) calls ´living-with´. This means paying attention to the intimate ways we are enmeshed with transformations (Verlie 2022) and cultivating the emotional capacities and affordances required for ‘living-with’ transformations. Living-with involves "the cultivation of appropriate ways of relating to and engaging that world" (p. 114) - and "continuing to act for a future which is desirable despite being different" (p. 114). Describing transformations as ‘living-with’ allows us to see and experience them as “patterns of affect; as flows of feeling; as repertoires of relating; as a sensational phenomenon; as multispecies enmeshment” (Verlie 2022, p. 6). To cultivate collective action, we need to understand how we as humans are ‘living-with’ transformations. And for this, we need to afford emotions.

That´s why we ask:

How do we, as transition and transformation scholars in our varieties of roles, experience emotions when ‘living with’ transformations? How do these emotions move or stop us from ‘acting-with’ transformations?

In order to explore these questions, we engage in a collective auto-ethnographic process (Chang et al. 2016) for encountering, witnessing and storying transformations individually and collectively with stakeholders. From this study, we develop a ‘cultural probe for engaging with emotions in transformative change’, that is a toolbox for scholars, students and societal stakeholders that can help them to collectively afford their emotions and meaning-making of the deep changes, thereby ‘living-with’ climate change.

This paper presents a critical examination of the contemporary academic environment, highlighting the profound disconnection between the foundational aspirations of academia and the prevailing systemic challenges that undermine its potential for societal transformation. Drawing from a survey sent to 100 ITD scholars working across Europe, it presents deep insights into the world of concerns of academics who are deeply committed to leveraging their work for societal betterment yet find themselves constrained by a neoliberal academic system characterized by precarious working conditions, unrealistic workloads, and a counterproductive emphasis on quantitative metrics of success.

The paper underscores the urgent need for academia to realign its practices with its core values of curiosity, freedom, and societal impact, advocating for a paradigm shift towards inter- and transdisciplinary collaborations that transcend traditional academic boundaries and foster meaningful engagement with societal stakeholders. It proposes educational pathways that prioritize creativity, curiosity-driven research, and the holistic valuation of teaching and learning processes. The envisioned transformation calls for abandoning the prevailing publish-or-perish mentality, rejecting extractivist knowledge production, and cultivating long-term, transformative partnerships with societal actors. This paper argues that such a shift is not only critical for revitalizing the academic vocation but is also essential for addressing the complex challenges facing our world today, ultimately suggesting that the future of academia—and by extension, societal progress—depends on our collective ability to foster a more inclusive, collaborative, and impact-oriented academic culture.

The results of this work are presented in a transformative transdisciplinary way.

In 2020, the University of Auckland | Waipapa Taumata Rau’s strategic plan, Taumata Teitei, emphasised the importance of complementing students’ deep engagement in the discipline of their choice, with enriched and expanded knowledge and skills to enable them to be transdisciplinary, innovative, and entrepreneurial in their thinking. To bring this plan to fruition, Professor Jaime King and Dr. Marie McEntee led the development and now implementation of a university-wide, transdisciplinary learning requirement in all undergraduate degree programmes at the University of Auckland | Waipapa Taumata Rau, in Aotearoa New Zealand. This presentation provides an overview of the development of a broad transdisciplinary undergraduate offering that at scale will serve 7000 undergraduate students each year and offer key lessons and insights to help guide other universities considering incorporating transdisciplinary pedagogy at the undergraduate level. The Transdisciplinary Futures courses are a suite of twelve foundational courses that will enable students to engage with a complex societal issue from diverse and novel perspectives. Each Transdisciplinary Futures course draws together staff and students from different faculties across the University as well as community expertise and perspectives to examine the complex societal issue in depth.

Like many new initiatives, transdisciplinary learning does not always fit neatly into typical university structures of disciplinary faculties, schools, and departments. Its goals are not easily aligned with university funding systems, which allocate funds for course enrolments to a single faculty or department and enable them to be used to cross-subsidise other courses, faculty members, or faculty needs. Nor do its goals always resonate with traditional norms of disciplinary education and the academic staff that teach within a single discipline. This presentation will explore the challenges faced and the lessons learned at three different phases of development: 1) Blue Sky - establishing the context for change and initial ideation; 2) Hard Yards – aligning administrative and academic structures; and 3) Brass Tacks - individual course development and implementation.

Professor Jaime King and Dr Marie McEntee bring understanding and insights from their experience establishing this transformational change across all programmes at the University of Auckland. They share their learning on how to build momentum and deliver implement impactful change within financial, administrative, and human resource constraints.