1

Strategic questioning, agency and reflection: a project report

Michael Chew

This paper documents a pilot project that used strategic questioning to provide a critical reflective space for exploring questions of personal agency and social change. Section 1 presents the project’s theoretical context, outlining the importance of transformational learning for environmental education, together with reflection, future visioning, and commitment making. Section 2 outlines the project’s methodology through an action-learning process within a community of practice. Section 3 discusses the project’s key findings, and Section 4 present’s future directions for the project.

"What are you most concerned about in your community?"

"What do you see?" "What do you hear?"

"What have you heard and read about this situation?"

"Which sources do you trust and why?"

"What effects of this situation have you noticed in people, in the earth?"

"What do you know for sure and what are you not certain about?"

"What sensations do you have in your body when you think or talk about this situation?"

"How do you feel about the situation?"

"How has the situation affected your own physical or emotional health?"

"How could the situation be changed to be just as you would like it?"

"What about this situation do you care so much about?"

"What is the meaning of this situation in your own life?"

"How would you like it to be”

"What will it take to bring the current situation towards the ideal?"

"What exactly needs to change here?"

"Who can make a difference?"

"What are changes you have seen or read about?"

"How did those changes come about?”

"What other ways could you imagine meeting your goal of change?"

"Yes, maybe that does sound like a crazy idea, but what is the wisdom in that alternative?"

"What are the consequences of each alternative you see?"

"How might those changes come about? Name as many ways as possible."

"What would it take for you to participate in the change?"

"What do you like to do that might be useful in bringing about these changes?"

"Tell me what is special about you."

"What aspects of the situation interest you the most?"

"What support would you need to work for this change?"

"Who do you need to talk to?"

"How will you get an introduction to them that will establish your credibility?"

"How can you get others together at a meeting to work on this?"

2 Contents

SECTION 1 – PROJECT CONTEXT AND CRITICAL ISSUES IN ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION ...................................................................................................................................3

Limitations in traditional environmental education ............................................................................................................................ 3

Alternative approaches ............................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Transformational learning ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Reflective thinking.................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Imaginative futures thinking .................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Taking action and Commitment ............................................................................................................................................................ 6

SECTION 2 - PROJECT METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................7

Project overview – strategic questioning interviews ............................................................................................................................ 7 The strategic questions ........................................................................................................................................................................... 8

Project Development ................................................................................................................................................................................. 9 Action learning process .......................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Planning cycles .................................................................................................................................................................................. 9 Action cycles...................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Reflection cycles.............................................................................................................................................................................. 10

Participants ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 11 Analytic method.................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Community of practice ......................................................................................................................................................................... 12

Learning community ....................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Training ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 12

SECTION 3 - KEY FINDINGS AND LEARNING’S........................................................................14

Participant-led.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Communication styles: talking/thinking ............................................................................................................................................. 14 New vs. existing ideas .......................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Transitional points ................................................................................................................................................................................ 16 Perspectives on vision .......................................................................................................................................................................... 16

Individual vs collective ................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Difficulty of articulating vision ...................................................................................................................................................... 17

Facilitator-led – my learnings ................................................................................................................................................................ 18 Facilitation as scripted vs adaptive ...................................................................................................................................................... 18

Time length ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Facilitator ‘ego’ involvement.......................................................................................................................................................... 19

Facilitator as empathetic peer vs detached listener ............................................................................................................................ 20 Interviewer as Peer .......................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Interviewer as detached listener...................................................................................................................................................... 20

Facilitator as creating the space vs getting the outcome .................................................................................................................... 21

SECTION 4 - FUTURE PROJECT DIRECTIONS .........................................................................23

CONCLUDING DISCUSSIONS.....................................................................................................24

APPENDIX A.................................................................................................................................26

APPENDIX B.................................................................................................................................31

REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................32

3

Section 1 – Project context and critical issues in

environmental education

At its core, this project asks its participants – ‘What is your relationship to

making positive change in the world?’ This question is fundamental to

environmental education; and as such it is useful to contextualise it with

respect to the latter’s conceptual basis. I discuss briefly here concepts such

as transformative learning, critical reflection, futures thinking and commitment-

making.

Limitations in traditional environmental education The above concepts represent approaches that have the potential to go

beyond the limitations of two dominant strands in traditional environmental

education - fact-based approaches and social marketing. Fact-based

approaches tend to see personal or social change as being ultimately

precipitated by providing compelling scientific evidence in its favour.

Unfortunately evidence indicates that information alone is usually insufficient

for change – in addition its provision can actually disempower people -

generating the ‘everything is doomed, why should I bother’ response (Cohen

& Murphy 2001). Underpinning this fact-based approach is the assumption of

the self as an independent rational individual – neglecting powerful emotional

and social influences.

The social marketing approach was developed to include these

influences, and generally engages people based on their inferred values and

extrinsic motivations, generating change by encouraging people to adopt

specific behaviours or purchasing decisions consistent with the former.

However, this approach typically reduces the complexities of human

behaviour to individual self-interested behaviour (e.g. status seeking, ego-

fulfillment). While it has been successful in encouraging the short term take

up of individual actions, it has largely failed to consistently translate the latter

4

small steps into the larger ones that are required for transformational

structural change (Crompton 2008, Thøgersen 1999).

Alternative approaches The above theories tend to limit their horizon of change to people reducing

their individual environmental impact – their ‘ecological footprint’. However,

this fails to address the broader environmental impacts caused by systemic

economic and political structures, which would require people to make

positive broader changes in the world outside their own backyard. This

requires instead the questioning of the assumptions and norms behind these

societal structures, and our relationship to them. I discuss below several

possible approaches.

Transformational learning Transformative learning theory was developed by the educational theorist

Jack Mezirow based on research with adult learners, exploring the types of

learning experiences that fundamentally changed the way they saw both

themselves and the world around them. This theory locates the act of critical

reflection on one’s lived experiences as the basis for transformative learning

(Cranton 2006).1 Through this critical reflection, a learner can perceive and

subsequently transform her habits of mind – the complex meaning structures

that continually filter an individual’s way of seeing the world.

This theory goes beyond the earlier frameworks for environmental

education, emphasising a deeper approach in which an individual’s frames of

perception of the complex human-society-environment relationship are

critically re-engaged and challenged – and with it the development of healthier

and more balanced human engagement of the planet. Importantly, this theory

also connects with other components of critical environmental education,

explored below.

1 Although these concepts have remained core to the theory, it has evolved considerably over the last two decades in light of numerous critiques (Kitchenham 2008).

5

Reflective thinking Critical and reflective thinking – the backbone of transformative learning, is

recognised as one of the key skills within Education for Sustainable

Development in Higher Education Institutions (Dawe et al, 2005).

Environmental issues today and the human processes that contribute to them

are highly complex and interconnected; they frequently challenge existing

disciplinary boundaries and the common instrumental assumptions that are

typically mobilized to deal with them. In this context, a critically reflective

approach can illuminate unspoken assumptions and shed new light on a

difficult situation. Tilley (2009) suggest three successively deeper levels to

critical reflection; the first of direct facts and observations, the second of

meanings and subtexts, and finally of the transformation of deeper thought in

themselves or others.

Reflective approaches are fundamentally very open-ended processes –

and as such they benefit from having focused aims, such as with futures

thinking.

Imaginative futures thinking Environmental educators have long been adept at producing visions of

apocalypse in the hope of inducing action. Yet this has seldom had

widespread effectiveness in inducing change (Kollmuss & Agyeman 2002);

using fear all too frequently induces instead defensiveness and denial. This

‘all stick’ approach needs to be tempered/balanced with the ‘carrot’ of positive

futures thinking that is inspiring and empowering (Blincoe 2009). As Hicks

and Holden (1995, p. 24) note: The images we hold of the future motivate and influence what we choose to do in

the present... If life today is not to our satisfaction, for ourselves or others, we may

strive to create a better a fairer world in the future.

Of course, there are many different ways of looking at the future, from

technical modeling approaches to fictional narratives. On the project’s

personal level, imaginative approaches present a crucial opportunity, giving

‘…the power which allows us to… creatively envision a reality different to the

one we are immersed in’ (Ebenreck 1996, p. 16). Imagination need not be

limited to ‘innovation’ – creativity harnessed to limit our impact on nature,

6

within the same assumptions which originally caused the damage. Rather it

can include ‘…new possibilities for human societies in their forms of

interaction with the natural world… fresh ways of seeing’. (Ebenreck 1996, p.

16). It is these new possibilities that can form the springboard for concrete

and specific action.

Taking action and Commitment Taking action, or creating ‘behaviour change’ is a crucial dimension of

environmental education. In the context of the mainstream behaviour change

approaches, having participants articulate a specific commitment to take

action can positively influence behaviour change (De Young 1993). This

process may reflect a transformational shift in the participant. For instance,

Pardini and Katzev, when reflecting upon why their commitment intervention

in a recycling program produced durable behaviour change, suggested that

the participants may have found ‘…their own reasons for recycling, to begin to

even like doing so, and, as a result, to continue to perform these behaviors on

their own’ (Pardini & Katzev 1984, cited in De Young 1993:499). From this

perspective, commitments have the potential to decouple behaviour change

from existing transactional, reward-based incentives, causing the locus of

change to move to the internal, transformative, value-based level.

7

Section 2 - Project methodology

In this section, I give an overview of the project’s process – its development,

methodological context, engagement, and participants.

Project overview – strategic questioning interviews

This project ran as a series of one-on–one interviews that employed a

strategic questioning approach developed to assess the key research

questions:

- How can the strategic questioning approach generate an authentic

space for reflection on the participant’s ability to make positive

environmental change?

- How can the strategic questioning approach generate specific

commitment(s) around advancing positive environmental change?

In addition, I had the following learning goals:

1. To develop my competence and ability in using the technique of

strategic questioning in the context of individual empowerment.

2. To provide a positive, inspiring and empowering experience for

participants.

3. To develop, implement and evaluate the project through a critical

action learning process where I self-reflexively engage and modify the

project’s development in light of ongoing insights and feedback.

4. To explore and develop greater acceptance with the process of the

engagement through strategic questioning (rather than simply the end

result)

The strategic questioning technique used in the project was developed from

an interviewing process that activist and facilitator Fran Peavey systematised

and refined. This process represents ‘communication of the second kind’

(Peavey 1997, p. 2), a deeper and more powerful means of communicating

8

than ‘communication of the first time kind’ - the transmission of information

alone that defines singular ‘truth’. In contrast, with ‘the second kind’ there is

less about the messages and their truth content, and more about fertile

context. It is within the supportive questioning context that the participant has

the opportunity to find their own answers within a realm of possibilities.

Key elements of communication of the second kind that underpin strategic

questioning are:

1. New information is synthesized from that which is already known.

2. Ownership of the new information is with the person who is answering

the question.

3. Energy for change is generated in the communication process.

4. The answer to a powerful question is not always immediately known

but will emerge over time.

5. Emotion sometimes accompanies the answering of a powerful question

and this is part of releasing the blocks to new ideas.

6. Communication between members of a society in a dynamic and

visionary sense releases forces into the human organism as a whole

that are complex, consensual and co-creative.

(Peavey 1997, p. 2)

The strategic questions

The four central questions in the interview represent four sequential

discussion and reflection stages:

1. Focus – What particular issue are you interested in?

2. Vision – If this issue could be resolved perfectly in an ideal future

world, what would this world look and feel like?

3. Change – For us to collectively arrive at this world, what are the key

changes that need to happen?

4. Action – Within these changes, is there a particular action that you

would like to take to advance this change?

9

Project Development

Action learning process

The action learning cycle, with its interlinked and ongoing cycles of planning,

acting and reflecting (Hill 2003), formed the central process in the project’s

methodology.

Planning cycles

First Cycle It was initially difficult to settle on a project topic as I was

involved in several initiatives that were potential choices at the

time of running the project – see Appendix B. I made the

decision based on the simple pros/cons listed in Appendix B.

Second Cycle This cycle followed my own strategic questioning interview in

the first reflection cycle and involved me developing a plan for

a trial interview to test out the process.

Third Cycle This followed on from the trial interview and involved

developing a publicity plan to recruit participants and a

schedule of potential interview times, locations and

mechanisms.

Fourth Cycle This involved the careful structuring of this report.

Action cycles

First Cycle Begun after project selection, this involved contacting a former

Social Ecology student skilled in strategic questioning (Wendy

Hopkins), to ask her to train me in the technique. The training

provided the general four-part framework for the interview

process.

Second Cycle This was the trial interview with my partner Hilda, conducted

remotely over Skype because of geographic necessity, and

tested a 45 min format with the four main sections – Focus,

Vision, Change and Action, and a debrief to collect feedback.

10

Third Cycle This involved recruiting and running the interviews. I initially

publicised to University of Melbourne students via their

lecturers, while simultaneously canvassing my friends. Despite

many lecturers passing on the information, no responses were

received in the narrow time window, so I decided to conduct

the interviews largely with people I knew.

Fourth Cycle Writing up this report.

Reflection cycles

First Cycle This emerged as part of the strategic questioning training,

where I was interviewed by Wendy Hopkins. For my ‘issue’ I

used my relationship with the project itself – and reflected upon

my current feelings, ideal visions, and actions. My key

concerns were:

1. My perfectionism regarding running and writing up the

project, which I feared may unbalance my life –

particularly as my leaving for Bangladesh during the

writing stage put considerable time pressure on the

project.

2. My emphasis and anticipation on the project inspiring

the participants’ to make commitment for action, rather

than simply creating valuable reflection time.

3. My vision was for the project to be done in a

sustainable, life-balancing way, with me being equally

open to the project reflective process and action

outcome.

Full details can be found in Appendix A.

Second Cycle This was my reflection on the trial interview with Hilda. A

noteworthy point was the resistance I encountered in

emphasising the action part of the project – which underscored

my own bias and reminded me of my former goal of

process/outcome balance.

11

Third Cycle This consisted of the analysis of the final interviews and the

distillation of key themes and results.

Participants Several factors influenced the choice of participants for the interviews:

a) Demographics. Being motivated by my own observations and

reflections about my peer group and colleagues in various social

change movements, I was primarily interested in ‘young’ people

(approx age 20-30) who self-identified as change agents.

b) Social connection. The great majority were all people I knew personally

to varying degrees. Having an existing relationship was useful in terms

of building rapport and encouraging straightforward disclosure. While

this similarity of social, cultural, political and economic background to

me severely limited the diversity of participants and hence wider

applicability of results, this needs to be balanced with the potentially

greater ethical issues in comprehending and speaking for people who

were radically outside of this background.

c) Time/situational factors. As no university students were able to be

recruited due to the narrow time constraint, my friends became the

alternative recruitment option.

Eight participants were interviewed, including the trial session with my partner

Hilda.

Analytic method The process for analysing the interviews to distill common and contrasting

themes from the responses drew on a variety of methods. There is some

similarity with analytic methods from grounded theory approaches described

by Starks (2007). These include open coding (examining, comparing,

conceptualising, and categorising responses); axial coding (reassembling

responses into groupings based on relationships and patterns within and

among identified categories); and selective coding (identifying and describing

the central phenomenon, or ‘core category’, in the responses sets). I make no

claims of universality as resulting from this analytic method and limited

12

sample, rather it is intended to illuminate clusters of local(ised) meaning, from

which a broader connections may arise.

After initial scanning for the interview notes, a full analysis of four of the

eight interviews was done that were broadly representative of the emerging

themes.

Community of practice

As I developed and implemented this pilot project largely by myself, it was

important to engage with communities of practice to help provide perspective,

support and critical feedback along the way.

Learning community

Since commencing my Social Ecology studies in 2010, I have been conscious

to maintain connection with the handful of other students who live in

Melbourne. This connection has been relatively small – some phone calls

and a few meetings and dinners – yet the importance is not limited to this

sporadic contact itself but rather the effect of the latter - as a reminder that

others are going through the same, often challenging learning journey.

A secondary component of the learning community was the vUWS

online forum, where students could share ideas and solicit feedback about

their projects. It’s usefulness was reduced as only a minority of students are

active on it – I myself have been largely non-active during the process, and

my posts received little feedback. Nonetheless, it has been useful for me as a

space to articulate my project ideas.

Training

I drew upon the extended community of practice when I undertook the

strategic questioning training with Wendy Hopkins, who had experience

running questioning sessions as a trainer at the youth empowerment

organisation OzGreen. This training was crucial to get a deeper, personal

connection to the theory. As the trainer was part of this extended learning

community I was introduced to strategic questioning as part of a shared

platform of key social ecology ideas.

13

Participants It is important for me to have friends who share similar views on social

change, and it was from this community that I ended up drawing most of the

participants from, with the social ecology class itself providing the last

participant. While these relationships increased the quality of engagement,

they also biased the interviews – and given the potential to scale up the

interviews to achieve greater change, this is a substantial limitation. There

remains a tension between this style of peer-to-peer interviewing and

engaging strangers; in the latter, my community of practice would have been

engaged differently, limited to the planning stages.

14

Section 3 - Key findings and learning’s

In this section I sketch out the key themes arising from the interviews, split

into two sections: participant-led and facilitator led. The former emerge

primarily from the participant - themes that describe the content and context of

their responses. The latter are primarily themes that emerge out of the

experience of facilitating itself. The participants names have been changed in

this report.

Participant-led

Communication styles: talking/thinking

Participants’ communication styles varied immensely, with one key difference

being expressed through a talking/thinking spectrum. Participants such as

Boris, Eleanor and Glenda showed a pattern of thinking through talking; that is

generating or synthesising ideas simultaneous with speaking. This contrasted

with participants such as Eugene or Hilda who tended to think first then

articulate the ideas. An implication for these differences is around interviewer

involvement – it may be easier for the interviewer to guide or facilitate a

conversation with the dynamic thinking-through-speaking style. However, this

is balanced by the thinking-then-speaking response being potentially more

likely to induce insights post-interview as it has a more reflective emphasis.

New vs. existing ideas

There is a tension between the interview being a creative space where new

ideas (or ‘blocks’ to existing ideas) emerge, and a space where the participant

articulates what they already think and know. The interviews were a dynamic

process that involved both new and existing ideas, however participants tend

to lean on the latter side of the spectrum.

15

Within our sample group it’s instructive to compare Boris with Eleanor.

Both contributed much in the interview, however generally I asked fewer

questions in Boris’ – he spent most of the time explaining his well-developed

ideas and opinions, less on new ideas (apart from a specific section

discussed subsequently). Eleanor’s interview had generally less exposition

and more questioning, allowing for a larger space for active self-reflection.

We can view this (distinction) in terms of transformative learning, in

which the process of ‘...examining, questioning, validating, and revising our

perspectives’ (Cranton 2006, p. 23) is crucial. These perspectives form a

largely invisible filter to our experiences, determining what we evaluate,

judge and believe subsequently based on them the experiences. Mezirow’s

theory outlines various key stages in this process, the initial two being a

‘disorienting dilemma’ – an experience presents itself as challenging to the

subject’s assumptions, and secondarily ‘self-examination’ - the subject’s

subsequent reflection on her assumptions.

Interviews in which the questions themselves can pose a ‘disorienting

dilemma’ have thus potentially more chance to have genuinely

transformational moments. For example, Boris reflected that: The process of me talking about all this makes me feel my philosophical

justifications for my ideas around social change are actually flimsy… But I guess I

could be releasing myself to no longer think that you need to have logical basis for

social change…

Likewise for Eleanor’s post-interview evaluation: I'd never really thought about my social agency in this way… I made a lot of

discoveries and connections in my own mind during the interview which I had not

made before.

It is important to stress however that it is not only the points of tension that

can be beneficial in promoting transformational change. Providing the space

to for participants to reaffirm themselves their own decisions or thoughts can

be useful/effective also, as Glenda noted in her feedback: It was generally good, and made me realise how important it was to aim for these

different jobs, affirming my decisions.

16

Transitional points

Another spectrum differentiating participants described how they situated

themselves on their journey towards their vision for change. Specifically, two

types became clear – those at transitional points in their journey – changing

jobs, homes, areas of focus (Janis, Glenda, Matilda and Eleanor), and those

already on a more specific direction (Eugene, Boris and Hilda). Critical

reflection was useful for both, in potentially different ways.

The participants in transition had generally thought extensively about

questions of vision and direction, often due to the forced reflection inherent in

change processes. The interviews represented an opportunity to articulate

these reflections to a third party, and in some cases, to synthesise meanings.

While this was also true of ‘non-transitional’ participants, the latter

directed their reflections more on their current situation. Although there were

no direct epiphanies regarding changes in direction, some after reflection

expressed affirmation and increased certainty in their current choices and

situation.

Perspectives on vision

The vision section yielded two interesting observations, discussed below.

Individual vs collective

My assumption going into the interviews was that the participant’s ‘vision’ was

their own individual ideas. While this was generally true of most participants,

several stressed the importance of collective visions such as Boris and

Glenda. Glenda in her capacity as an architect was highly critical of the

modernist conception of the architect having a singular vision; instead, her

visions were for innovative processes of inclusion that could allow participants

to share their own visions in the design process. In the context of film

production, Boris had spoken about ideal creative visions as emerging

seamlessly and collectively from collaborative teams, rather than from a

Godlike artist/creator.

17

These differences can be compared to what Marshall describes as the

poles of agency and communion: Agency is an expression of independence through self-protection, self-assertion

and control of the environment. Communion is the sense of being ‘at one’ with

other organisms or the context, its basis is integration, interdependence, receptivity.

Marshall (2008, p.457)

In the context of environmental education, specifically with respect to

humanity’s relationship to nature, this latter aspect of communion is a crucial

alternative to the dominant control-based relationship with nature. Similarly

with the vision process, Boris and Glenda’s conceptions expand the idea of

‘vision’ by providing an important collective dimension.

Further insights can be gleaned through examining the situation

through the lenses of transformative learning theory. Firstly, collective

visioning process can be interpreted as the fourth stage of the

transformational process, ‘Relating discontent to the similar experiences of

others-recognizing that the problem is shared’ (Cranton 2006, p.20); where

the problem is an invitation to generate solutions collectively.

Secondarily, the tension between individual and collective can be

located through the concept of habits of mind - our key framework of

assumptions that form a largely invisible filter to our experiences,

determining what we evaluate, judge and believe. Transformational learning

occurs when these implicit habits of mind are self-reflectively called into

question. Boris’ tension between individual and collective-centric creativity

can be read as a tension between two differing epistemological habits of

mind. This tension brings the implicit assumptions to the fore, allowing

them to be critically reflected upon during the interview.

Difficulty of articulating vision

The second observation was the difficulty that participants had with

articulating their vision. I never voiced my vision because I think it’s really idealistic – I’m uncomfortable sharing it as I don’t have the numbers to back it up…

(Clarence) I find it a challenge of balancing realism with idealism – it can hinder dreaming.

(Matilda)

18

As articulated above, contemporary strong preferences for rationality over

idealism in sustainability discourse make it harder share one’s vision – as the

IUCN puts its in their report, The Future of Sustainability, ‘In the past

sustainability has engaged the mind, but the future demands an engagement

with the hearts as well’ (IUCN 2006, p. 14) In addition, as theorists such as

Wayman (2009) write, another barrier to positive visioning is the present

global context of environmental risk and dystopic thinking.

Difficulties such as these underscore the need for the visioning section

of the interview to be handled particularly carefully and supportively, while at

the same time reinforcing the importance of this section in offering a space for

articulating the vision(s). Support was also needed in the sessions to

encourage people to put themselves more into their visions – most saw them

as outside of themselves.

Facilitator-led – my learnings

The following observations emerge from my role as facilitator.

Facilitation as scripted vs adaptive

This describes the tension between following the ‘flow’ of the four successive

stages of strategic questioning, or following wherever the participant goes in

their responses, independent of this structure. These two positions are

extremes on a spectrum – most of the interviews were found to fit somewhere

in between, with an amount of flexible meandering to be responsive to what

arises spontaneously, together with guidance to bring back the participant to

key questions.

There was a consensus that the level of questioning and structure was

good, summarised by responses such as: The probing questions were good as they pushed it along (Glenda)

Good trajectory of questions guiding through (Janis)

In addition, Glenda also thought more structure would be useful:

19

The questions were a nice natural flow – but I did often diverge from them -

perhaps more critical probing would be better so it wasn’t as free flowing?

(Glenda)

This point suggests that more structure or probing may be useful for people

such as Glenda who have already spent time reflecting on these ideas.

Two other factors related to these questions of structure:

Time length

Interview length related to how much the conversation stayed to the structure

– generally those that did more so were shorter. Most people felt the

interview duration was a good length. There were two notable exceptions: I really enjoyed it, could have gone much deeper, the interview was a bit truncated.

(Boris)

45 minutes is long enough time – any longer may risk losing focus.

(Eugene)

Time duration thus forms another spectrum of engagement in which there is

not necessarily one ideal but instead a working range that is participant-

specific. Implications are sketched out in the next section.

Facilitator ‘ego’ involvement

This is important to note as being the facilitator I was in an elevated power

position that affected my ego in both the planning and the interviews

themselves. For instance during the planning stage, I adopted the four

questioning sections from Wendy’s technique, I was disappointed that I had

not designed the questions myself. During the interview stage, I observed this

controlling effect manifesting in myself unconsciously constructing the concept

of a ‘good interview’ – one where I was able to get them to articulate new

insights which I would (vicariously) take credit for. I found reflecting on the

key principles of strategic questioning useful in these moments, to bring

myself back to be participant-focused.

20

Facilitator as empathetic peer vs detached listener

During the interviews, I felt a near-constant see-sawing between being a

friend chatting to another friend, and the detached interviewer. This was no

real surprise given all but one participant were friends of mine. Like the

structure/adaptive spectrum above, the peer-interviewer distinction also sits

on a spectrum, with the poles described below:

Interviewer as Peer

This was the background relationship I had with most of the participants and

the way I tended to relate to them. It was characterised by shared life

experience (past and/or future), interest, or demographics. For instance

during the interview with Eleanor when she was speaking about herself

grappling with leaving Australia for a year, I was able to use the fact that I was

in the same program and was also leaving the country to bring in how my

feelings related to hers.

Using this similar background to build rapport and relate to a person’s

issues connects with the fourth stage of transformative learning, Relating

discontent to the similar experiences of others-recognizing that the problem is

shared (Cranton 2006, p. 20). In this capacity it can assist with the critical

agency-expanding journey, and points to the possibility of using the

questioning technique as a peer-to-peer process.

I observed a different means of connecting with as Boris’ interview, not

based on shared experience but rather with shared interest. There was a

segment where we spoke in great depth specifically around his ideas of

creativity and its origins. This stood out to me as the segment that

meandered away from the question structure but was the most powerful

through its depth and close interpersonal engagement – I felt to be less of an

interviewer drawing out ideas and more of a co-creator that helped energise

the conversational process that we were both creating.

Interviewer as detached listener I had less chance to experience this crucial other end of the spectrum as most

of the people I already knew. The detached listener’s role was much closer to

21

the core questioner role, not bringing his or her views or experience into the

interview.

I was closest to this role in Eugene’s interview, which stood out from

the others as he was the only participant that I did not know personally. He

was also a different generation to me, (although sharing the common

background of both doing social ecology), and mainly concentrated on the

topic of technical change in his workplace – a much more focused area for

change than the other participants. This was where his interview most

differed from the others – as I did not know him, I felt less comfortable to

delve outside of this workplace context, and so generally focused my

questions around the latter.2 This focus was a key distinction – by

meandering less in the interview, Eugene was able to express ideas more

specific to his vision and action for change in the workplace. The downside

was that the conversation did not get to explore his personal beliefs behind

the latter.

The fact that this was the only interview featuring a participant I did not

know beforehand was a major limitation of the study. As I have identified

above, there is great need for strategic questioning in our current

environmental education and social change approaches. As Fagan (2009, p.

3) writes in his chapter on new forms of education for sustainability, ‘Learning facilitators have a critical role to play in this new ‘education of the future’… It seeks a learner’s involvement in a new power relationship to their subject and towards their co-learners’.

To limit the technique to peer-to-peer approaches alone would diminish the

great potential in developing better strategic questioning approaches with the

broader community.

Facilitator as creating the space vs getting the outcome

This is the final of the three facilitator-role spectrums identified. By ‘spectrum’,

I do not mean to imply that they are mutually exclusive – indeed the staged

questioning process relies on creating the appropriate space to support the

participant to make a commitment to action. However, generally participants

2 A number of other factors also contribute to this – he was at his workplace during the interview, and it was over also over Sypke.

22

did not make specific actions – which was disappointing, given this action-

commitment was one of the project’s key research questions.

A key factor attributed to this was my lack of sustained emphasis on it

as a facilitator. Although I did cover the action part in each interview – my

concern of being too 'pushy' getting them to set an action meant that I did not

generally cover it as thoroughly as other sections. Another relevant factor

were the type of participants – most were people who were already involved

in social change in a number of different contexts, and were hence hesitant to

commit to new actions (my prior knowledge of this affected how I facilitated

this stage). Finally, it could also be argued that the previous sections had not

been transformational or meaningful enough for people to be inspired to

nominate actions – though most of the positive feedback seemed to suggest

this would be a minor factor.

However, the project’s broader goal of advancing positive

environmental change may have been furthered even without specific actions.

For instance, Boris showed in his interview that it can be a false

dichotomy between the space and the action – for him the dialogic process

itself of getting to his (re)realisation about the importance of stepping back

from one’s ego was a reminder of what he wanted to act on:

I’d like to get to this feeling of the dissolution of ego state more regularly.

This serves to re-emphasise the importance of creating appropriate mental

spaces – such as self-reflection, or in the latter case, connecting to a larger

self, as an action in itself. As Walters (1990, p. 7) writes about deep listening

practices, this can also be a spiritual process: It’s also a profound spiritual experience, because when you listen in this way, what

you’re willing to do is let go of who you are and not be so attached to your own ego.

Another key factor is the principle that realisations, answers and responses to

the questions often are not known at the time. As Peavey (1990, p. 1) writes

in her strategic questioning manual:

The answer to a powerful question is not always immediately known but will

emerge over time.

There was some indication in the feedback around participant’s continuing to

reflect post-interview. However limited feedback was received so it remains a

23

challenge for subsequent exploration.

Section 4 - Future project directions

This pilot project set about to test the strategic questioning methodology on a

small scale, exploring its potential to empower participants to make positive

environmental change. To expand this potential there are a number of

possible future directions that the project may take.

Scaling up. The scale of change could be magnified if the number of

participants were scaled up. This could be done through developing an

ongoing stand-alone program, or integrating the process into existing

programs. In addition, further development of remote options such as Skype

could be investigated. The key issues would be making sure that the quality of

the questioning was maintained, and that questionings were tailored to

addressing strangers rather than peers.

Peer-to-peer iteration. Another way of scaling up while keeping the close

connections of peer-to-peer interviews would be to design an iterative

interview process where people who have been interviewed would then

interview their own friends and so forth. Maintaining the core values of the

strategic questioning would be a key challenge, which could be addressed by

post-interview training.

Including personal assets. The interviews focus on vision and action alone –

by including questions on personal qualities, strengths, and assets the

participants may feel more empowered to take action. However, this would

need to be carefully managed for time constraints.

Different modes of engagement. By expanding the interview from being

verbal only to inviting the participants to draw or move to express their visions

or actions could encourage alternatives to rational or self-critical thinking.

24

Careful attention would need to be made of participants preferred modes of

engagement.

Concluding discussions At this crucial juncture in the planet’s history, there is an urgently growing

need for new ways of empowering people to create positive change and to

accelerate what Joanna Macy calls the ‘great turning’. The four approaches

of transformational learning, reflective thinking, imaginative futures thinking

and commitment making each provide critical dimensions to environmental

education. When combined in the process of strategic questioning, deep

opportunities for sustained engagement are created.

The project explored through an iterative action-research spiral two key

research questions:

The first explored how strategic questioning can generate an authentic

space for reflection. This space was found to be created and shaped by a

complex combination of participant-led and facilitator-led influences,

predominantly in the form of a range of different influences occurring across a

polar spectrum.

For participant-led influences, these included thinking vs. talking

communication styles, transitional vs. non-transitional life junctions,

discussing new vs. existing ideas, and individual vs. collective visions.

Although some of these factors – such as having new ideas in the session –

seemed to indicate more potential for transformation, generally they did not

indicate any ‘magic formula’ for engagement, consistent with the complexities

of social change and self-identity. Instead, it is a greater awareness of these

factors that can help a facilitator be more sensitised to the nuances of the

interview, and be a better support to the participant in creating her own ideas.

The facilitator-led influences included the balance between a tight

focus on the strategic question stages and a more fluid questioning approach

– this affected the time length, and to a lesser extent my own ego-

involvement. A secondary balance point was around identifying with the

participant and interacting as a peer, in contrast to maintaining a ‘professional

25

distance’ as interviewer. Despite only one participant being not known to

myself as interviewer, there were enough fertile key differences to observe in

these two approaches that there seems potential in developing two distinct

processes of questioning based on each. Just as with the participant-led

approaches, a deeper understanding of the interview dynamics is crucial for

effectively holding the space for the participant. Indeed these factors may

even be more important as they illuminate some of the tacit assumptions

behind the facilitator’s role that shape the process.

The second research question explored the potential for the process to

inspire a commitment to take action. This was largely unsuccessful for two

main reasons – firstly the fact that most of the participants were already

occupied with existing social change activities. Secondarily, I intentionally did

not push this stage due to my concern of pressuring participants had I done

so.

Although I was disappointed with the lack of concrete actions, the

positive feedback on the interviews as reflection spaces has demonstrated

their merit. As my final learning goal was to have greater acceptance with the

questioning process itself, I feel that the project has deepened this

acceptance. This and my other learning’s took place within a community of

practice that in many ways supported the project’s development from the

inception stage, to interview development and participant involvement.

In these days, as environmental awareness increases alongside our

destructive planetary impacts, we hear the term ‘empowerment’ frequently.

Yet all too often it refers in the narrow sense to be empowered regarding

personal choice alone. Strategic questioning instead opens up the potential

for people to be empowered to act beyond their self-interest – not from guilt or

fear, but from a sense of inner power and connectedness.

26

Appendix A Participant Name

Boris Eleanor Glenda Eugene

Medium material Material material Skype

Time 90 90 60 45

Passion/Focus Ssocially equality – expanding the middle class with it possibilities– high level education, dif choice of living, civic participation Increases connections between people. strong sense of own identity as connected, getting larger than yourself/clan Writing a (new?) common story reconstructing the metanarrative… how did it feel? Being in activism when battling against – bill kunstler, felt feelings – connected to people around, not connected before… Connecting with neighbours

Climate change Refugees Lao teaching English Education = have made small changes here, more in expanding a small number of people’s potential Lao Homework club – positive learning environment – local connections environment. Refugee youth – found you could offer a lot of useful info that otherwise didn’t think she had!! Have more agency that she thought without special training. Direct had some to give -> interest in TEFL- could give English. Guilty tension with being privileged – give chance to close that gap CMY – you can too project. Mentoring role – sharing experiences with refugee on bus – talking about everyday life The personal contact has been much more useful than the uni theories

public space interventions, multidisciplinary groups, connections between people through process of working through projects PT

Workwise – understanding waste? Dif types material, time, energy, emotion waste Personally - Carbon tax – makes me think of what can I do at home… reducing waste. Tax isn’t right way… better to create education programs Directness with waste – you can see it, begs question of how can I reduce it? Industrial waste is the area which I see at work

Vision Colourful world – seeing intimacy, everything becomes possible – you don’t have to explicitly trust people – it is already there. Taking the locks of the city – life as a big confest. Work/play contrast dissolves Things are orientated towards the common good instead of private individual Hard to imagine – like the 4th dimension Some art being the narrow chink through which to see the new world… Currently the number of people who can have education+$$ to actually make change is very small-> expand these people, connect, diversity. What happens when you combine the individual efforts – embed them in

Homework club – 2yrs, core group of kids that have been coming along. Ideal world – would love to see these kids being really successful in their lives – uni etc. to have opportunities that they don’t have now – uni, tavel, grow and learn. Chance at greater fulfillment in their lives. Seeing them at uni, off the estate state – getting them off the poverty cycle

As architect you are supposed to have a Vision. Modernist conception. Struggled with this – my passion is participation - vision is framesworks for participation, to harmess other participants visions. Tension between my own vision and participants Hub first core team of 8 drive vision forward, then its changed now, leaving because of differences with chauvistic leadership vs my style. But with PT I have more actual dreams – maybe because I didn’t train as a tranport expert… As child mored around lots with parents, used to saving bye, constant change. Because of this now its easy for me, when things get messy – to just leave.

Looking at where the waste is occurring – reduce its volume, changing it content. Metal press, machine parts. Waste oils, cardboard boxes. Equipment that’s closed loop with lubricants etc – reusing, materials environmentally friendly. Goal – look holistically at how to parts come and go- minimize packaged. Culturally based. How can a factory become more enviro friendly? What is it like? Workplace can be changed to be more environmentally friendly + better for workers. Where does the power come from – PV, clean nuclear? Building design maximum light. Open plan offices. When you finish the day, it’s

27 institutions – possibilities expand Noticed that other people may stay

more. Phase of transition at moment – looking at new opportunities. Stop being the leader at and pushing, everyhint beitng a o(collaborative) battle), start learning more, from more wise people.

been great, integrate the admin, office shopfloor. Australian manufacturing

Change Making films (eg utopia) exploring peoples visions for better world- Inspire ours people to see possibilities Film the magic medium –holding attention for 1hr etc, using full gamut of experience. Saw in Mike Moore films the potential to inspire masses of people Would film still function as magic in vision world? Would be possibly more important – art would still perform a function - need to keep sustaining the vision May take some of the anger out of it – activism, change Blocks? -time – hard to make time for the visionary films as Medium – high energy/cost – healout of writers . Film a Team – money logistics , if I could work by myself I world… but some of best is intimately working together. Noise in the world – so much out there that’s amazing – competing with others Confused at the monet – your ego in making the film vs life creative energy being channeled. Fundamental tension. Personal cost very high – but then don’t get credit - a sacrifice to the gods? Creative artifacts like official history of buildings (architects/mayors etc) vs workers histories (we laid these bricks ourselves). Who is the agent? Best film making when people all together and through

Lao Homework club – started 5yrs ago, has grown. These clubs could be connection points with the wider community. Mentors important, outside of family. Structural – more education funding, affordable fees. Free education!Real mix of different kids cultures, utiopia harmony of this all. end racism. Fear of a brown planet. Local: Building on existing in volunteer work there. More literacy projects to build on exiting, more time for mentoring – as at moment there’s only limited contact with their lives – but balance between them living their own lives not being more domineering… more contact with families better, to see where they live. Opening them up to different opportunities that they haven’t seen. Good them to experience good adult relationships. Tension – you’re there and helping, but then you’ll go away and leave them… so social change a lots of small steps over a long period of time. Big changes don’t just happen Lao- going away for a year. But a genuine helping experience – can resonate for a long time. May stay longer, keep in contact in some way. AYAD idea – wanted to be there for some part. Takes long time to build up connection – then to leave!!! How will we be received? Advice – don’t think you can save the world. Be realistic about it, be genuine. In past I’ve kept up with relationships overseas… <but you can only have so many carrying on?> After I come back? Simon’s story at AYAD plenary-marry a local! Will prob have strong connection with lao, hard to leave. Build upon it here?

Seeding a lot of projects, but dif to follow through sometimes, not so strategic conflicts. Would be great to work for organistion that has more structure… Excited about TAXI job, more stucture focus on Herestudio Ammon PhD, Glenda masters, critical Been tiring/inspiring with trying to projects with 2 people

Education – you want to get people to want to improve, get people to share the vision. Look at the whole life-cycle – analyse the whole cycle to have an impact. Getting suppliers to downstream and upstream to be more environmentally aware. Needs to be cost based to make traction My company is just starting this journey (others may think it’s further along). Bold steps vs chipping away? Bold steps are possible and desirable. Networking processes – very important. Will be joining the LEAN network soon, learn from others I’m currently the only one banging on about it here, get other voices to join in. Other staff who care – a few around, but not many. It’s like Transformative learning – you don’t really know who are working with – need to open up to the whole sides of people… be interested in who they are as people… give people an excuse to care more than their tasks and job.

28 away the script-channelled. A craving for meaning a hunger fir reaskust Creativity is just higher order logics? A pattern that’s crunched by our brains subconsciously, too complex for consciousness But what is creative? Push into the sub conscious, see what comes out. Making a big stew - but is that me.

studying? Personally exploring meditation to explore more in lao Personal inner journey is very important – “world peace need personal peace” If everyone can find that peace, then massive change. <John Seed story> At a junction point in life. I feel like a Nomad –like traveling b/c don’t save sense of place. Not too sure if I’ll be aust long term… journey to find a sense of place. Don’t stay in places too long. Eventually find a place – strong sense of sense of community valued. Don’t want to be that person who always leaves. Restless utopia. I Do spend a lot of time keeping connections open… Like the new other cultures, languages ways of seeing the world. Lots of things in aust culture that I struggle with, other cultures that can be closer… but when will I give it up. Listening to their stories… loves the simplicity of other lives (vietnam etc). Drawn to difference – being the Other, outside perspective, freedom to move around, relies independence <But here you are staying in one spot and other people’s lives moving through?> yes yes

Action What can emerge out of the quagmire… The process of me talking about all this make me feel my philosophical justications for program of social change are flimsy… But could be released to no longer think that you need to have logical basis for change Reached emotional state to feeling write Great art makes you feel outside of it . like process of speeling. Feels wondrous Regularly of the getting to this feeling of the dissolution of ego state…. Remembering the cavemen around the fire.

AYAD about moving change from volunteer work to professional context. How to deal with ‘what do I want to do with my life?’ . focused on passion for education. Finding a job that she’s passionate about after ayad. Parents met in PNG on mission station… but worked as economist for 25yrs in unhappy job - don’t want to end up like him! Doing something in Short term window of time before going? Reconnecting with people in this time… but there must be something wrong with here as the fact that I’m running away… existential agnst?? Try to be in present. Strange sense of saying goodbyes for

Transition space – strengthen resolve to apply for jobs Secondment – learning from other organisations how they do things, learning, instead of driving. Having mentors is crucial to have around me, want to have this more. [fundamentally I’m a driver, couldn’t work for people… moving to Adelaide tricky … made all these connections Melbourne. Blogging or documenting – heaps of stuff around hub, would like to find a gome for that. (ammon reflects through phd). Reflection on conflict, giving time for this, so it doesn’t just end up emotions/anger

Steps/actions – recycle boxes, reduce rag waste – get rid of them/challenge the habit of having big bits of cloth there soaking up oil. Reducing paper – I’m the worst offender! Greenoffice -organise records/stationary etc to have paperless office – there was one guy here who just had a laptop - amazing Staff training – cultural change, not invested in much here… gov opportunities for involved – he’s applying to a few. How does it feel to consider change: exciting – opportunity for leadership - cultural change programs. Old adage: Does the customer pay for xxx? (could expand to include for the waste)

29 Utopia film – another basis for argument – show/experience rather than tell

ever… Letting people know why we’re doing it – a clean company… education Leading by example -

Participant Debrief

Really enjoyed it, could have gone much deeper, truncated unlike the vision Probing was good as it pushed it along

Brought up lots of things!! Not much of thinker on the spot – lots came out though Good length, casual good Improvements – learning background?

Generally good, made her realise how important it was to aim for these different jobs, affirming track. Reflections – questions were a natural flow –I diverged from questions- perhaps more critical probing so it wasn’t as free flow? – (need more probing for people who are very reflective vs less reflective) Description of project clearer perhaps?

Sypke much better than phone call. Glad didn’t know the questions – spontaneous vs ‘the right/clever answer’. Easy/relaxed – not threatening, personal. Interesting informative – reflection. 45 long enough time. Improvements Informal.

My Debrief feeling of completeness at end, of the contour of conversation arriving full-circle having gone through depth. Tension between guiding through questions and depth. Boris very articulate, saying lots of stuff he’s thought of before, more difficult to get the transformational moment in the session. Need to contact afterwards? My own pressures for results – reflecting and learning from his answers myself – the stew!

She paused a bit to stop and think… I would offer suggestions that she would pretty much agree with and use and a launching pad to say other things – was a little worried that I was guiding but not much Often mentioned ‘I haven’t really thought about this before’ Did it on her bed as housemate came home (were in kitchen) intimacy space good effect? Session interesting junction point in her life – time to reflect on lots of stuff – but little room for agency?? Compared to Boris – more original thinking being done in interview, less straightforward flow of conversation, My role as acquaitance rather than friend (re Boris)… cf

Appreciative inquiry – I didn’t ask her what it was – myself still holding to expert status She had reflected so much on her journey and practice so far – more difficult to get the depth - associative mind/conception of change that links things together - breadth Is it as effective when it is affirming their path – am I expecting them to get new insights… due to me (ego)…?

Current context

at junction point in her life, calm before going to Laos for a year. Also between restless travel and settling, but no where to settle…

In transition space - from independent -> job

starting out in social ecology, exploring these ideas. Confident and experienced staff member of metalwork company.

Other Comments

he offered to interview me-would be good part of process- to do (imo?)

it was clear that she'd been thinking about these issues for some time by the enthusiasm and engagement

challenged my idea of singular, modernist 'vision', instead a process

Interview details

at his girlfriend's house, living room, informal across table, tea

ideal scenario: in person, intimate space (on her bed), long duration, relaxed.

Spoke a lot without much prompts, meandered through arc. At Hub, busy, background noise, we both had interuptions.

sypke at hubspace (lots going on), hearing was hit and miss sometimes.

Influences we had had history of these kind of conversations before. When writing up I can literally fill in bits of sript as they are close to what I think -> makes big dif for someone that has opposing views. More skill to affirm

had only met recently but part of same AYAD cohort so sharing common understandings of transition point before going overseas-often interview morphed into shared validation of this. She is a calm person.

Eugene stood out from others - only participant that I didn’t know, older, male. my deference to older male, especially over remote connection. Skipped the closing eyes grounding start. He spoke in certainties and 'what

30 we should be doing' in a specific workplace area

Questioning bring out feeling more than head experienced dilemma of choosing more to probe and follow his ideas in dialogue, vs to affirm and clarify in straight interview style

questions muh more 'from the same side of the table' based on shared experiences.

often to draw him out a bit more - as he provided short and to the point responses, rather than talking as a thinking process. Perhaps should have focussed more on the human parts of change rather than him explicitate the technical parts

Misc processof reading through and reconstructing interview in my mind inspiring -recreating the visions

Interesting – I made a pledge at the pledge stall about a community space event this was it!

challenged my key concepts such as change agent and vision distributed re Glenda. Substitute 'change' for 'creativity' and get to the essence of this project

31

Appendix B Context Project Details/notes Pro Cons Dhaka Perceptions of

agency amongst AYADs at trip commencement

interview AYADs pre-trip, and post arrival.

agency in development work question

is it doing anything in the world?

Dhaka Supporting AYADs to create an ongoing relationship to their placement country post-trip

??? lasting change

dif to achieve in required timeframe

MEFL Barriers and opportunities for non-personal action for climate change

check timing identified program gap

timing?

Online Change the world: opportunities for creating a self-replicating modal for developing individual's agency

creating an online based action system and testing it out.

continuing agency theme

dif to achieve in required timeframe

interviews Change the world: the influence of futures thinking on the development individual agency

go an interview a view people about their future visions and perceptions of agency

learn strategic questioning, feasible

limited impact?

interviews Change the world: exploration of a one-on-one model of self-replicating agency development

go and interview 5 people about their capacities to create change and how it can be replicated.

replication essential

dif to achieve in required timeframe

32

References

Anderson-Wilk, M 2009, ‘Changing the engines of change: Natural resource conservation in the era of social media’, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, vol. 64, no. 4, p. 129 – 131. Blincoe, K 2009, ‘Re-educating the person’, in A Stibbe (ed.) The Handbook of Sustainability Literacy. Totnes, Green Books. Chew, M 2010a, The Pledge Project, viewed March 22nd 2011, <http://thepledgeproject.blogspot.com> Chew, M 2010b, Changing the world: a case study of transformation, agency and social change, Transformative Learning project for Master of Social Ecology Chew, M 2010c, Ecopsychology research project: The unseen world – myopia, phenomenology, and ecology, Transformative Learning project for Master of Social Ecology Cohen, M & Murphy, J (eds) 2001, Exploring Sustainable Consumption: Environmental Policy and the Social Sciences, Pergamon, Oxford. Cranton, P 2006, Understanding & promoting transformative learning, Jossey Bass, San Francisco. Crompton, T 2008, Weathercocks and Signposts. viewed March 11th 2011, <http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/weathercocks_report2.pdf> Dawe, G., Jucker R., & Martin S 2005 Sustainable development in higher education:current practice and future developments, A report for the Higher Education Academy, York. De Young, R 1993, ‘Changing Behavior and making it stick’, Environment and Behavior, vol. 25, no. 4, p. 485-505. Ebenreck, S 1996, ‘Opening Pandora's Box: Imagination's Role in Environmental Ethics’, Environmental Ethics, vol. 18, pp. 3-18. Fagan, G 2009, ‘Citizen engagement’, in A Stibbe (ed.) The Handbook of Sustainability Literacy. Totnes, Green Books. Freire, P 1972, Pedagogy of the oppressed, Penguin, London. Hicks, D. & Holden C 1995, Visions of the future: why we need to learn for tomorrow, Stoke-on-Trent, Trentham Books. Hill, L. & Clover, D. (eds) 2003. Environmental adult education: ecological learning, theory and practice for socioenvironmental change, San Francisco, Jossey Bass.

33

International Union for the Conversation of Nature 2006, The Future of Sustainability Re-thinking Environment and Development in the Twenty-first Century, IUCN, New York. Kincheloe, J 2008, Critical pedagogy primer, Peter Lang, New York. Kitchenham, A 2008, ‘The Evolution of John Mezirow's Transformative Learning Theory’, Journal of Transformative Education, vol. 6, p. 104-123. Kollmuss, A & Agyeman, J 2002, ‘Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?’, Environmental Education Research, vol. 8, no. 3, p. 239-260. Marshall, J 2008, ‘Self-reflective inquiry practices’, in P Reason, H Bradbury, (Eds.) Handbook of action research participative inquiry and practice. Sage Publications, New York. Pardini, A. U., & Katzev, R. D 1984, ‘The effects of strength of commitment on newspaper recycling’, Journal of Environmental Systems, vol. 13, p. 245-254. Peavey, F 1994, ‘Strategic Questioning’, in By Life's Grace, New Society Publishers, Philadelphia, p. 83-111. Peavey, F & Hutchinson, V 1997, Strategic Questioning: An approach to creating personal and social change, viewed March 12th 2010 at <www.thechangeagency.org/_dbase_upl/strat_questioning_man.pdf> Starks, H & Brown, S 2007, ‘Choose Your Method: A Comparison of Phenomenology, Discourse Analysis, and Grounded Theory’, Qualitative Health Research, vol.17, p. 1372–1380. Thoogersen J 1999, ‘Spillover processes in the development of a sustainable consumption pattern’, Journal of Economic Psychology, vol. 20, no. 1, p. 53-81. Tilley F, Marsh C, Middlemiss, L & Parrish B 2009, ‘Critical and reflective thinking’, in A Stibbe (ed.) The Handbook of Sustainability Literacy. Totnes, Green Books. Vansteenkiste, M 2007, ‘Understanding the impact of intrinsic versus extrinsic goal framing on exercise performance: The conflicting role of task and ego involvement’, Psychology of Sport and Exercise, vol. 8, p. 771–794. Walters, H 1990 ,‘Adventures in Listening’, Annual meeting address Quaker Universalists Fellowship November 10th, 1990, n.p. Wayman, S 2009, ‘Futures Thinking’, in A Stibbe (ed.) The Handbook of Sustainability Literacy. Totnes, Green Books.