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

www.emeraldinsight.com/1467-6370.htm

Flemish higher
Lock-ins and opportunities for education
sustainability transition system

A multi-level analysis of the Flemish higher

education system 1109
Maarten Deleye
Received 29 September 2018
Department of Education, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, and Revised 18 January 2019
Accepted 18 February 2019
Katrien Van Poeck and Thomas Block
Department of Political Sciences, Centre for Sustainable Development,
Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to provide an overview of sustainability in Flemish higher education (HE) by
using the multi-level perspective (MLP) on sustainability transitions for a comprehensive empirical analysis
of how sustainability is embedded in Flemish HE.
Design/methodology/approach – MLP was used as analytical framework to study the case and allow a
focus on the interplay between innovative experiments in niche-practices, the characteristics of the prevailing
regime (dominant structures, cultures and practices) and macro-trends at the landscape level. The data were
collected through document analyses, surveys, in-depth interviews and a focus group. The empirical analysis
was complemented with an extensive literature study.
Findings – In all, 9 landscape trends, 21 regime characteristics and 5 types of niches are identified.
Furthermore, the multi-level analysis revealed 5 important lock-ins in the dominant regime that impede the
upscaling of sustainable niches, 5 internal contradictions that destabilise the regime and can thus create
windows of opportunity for niches to become viable alternatives and 16 opportunities for further embedding
sustainability in HE.
Originality/value – The paper gives an original insight into the complexities of integrating sustainability
in HE, highlights the important role of policy entrepreneurs to grasp emerging opportunities and offers them
insight into how to create momentum and identify and fruitfully address windows of opportunity for a
sustainability transition. It shows the potential and limits of the MLP for research on HE and outlines
prospects for future research.
Keywords Sustainability, Higher education, Transition, Policy entrepreneurs,
Multi-level perspective
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Higher education institutions (HEIs) are increasingly called upon to contribute to tackling
socio-ecological challenges (Bankole and Fidelis, 2017; Mickwitz and Melanen, 2009;
Stephens and Graham, 2010). This raises several questions, such as how HEIs can integrate
sustainability, what barriers and challenges need to be overcome and what opportunities can
be addressed. This article presents a study carried out for the Flemish Government (Belgium)
which was aimed at studying how Flemish HEIs are heeding this call for more sustainability: International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education
Vol. 20 No. 7, 2019
pp. 1109-1124
The research presented in this paper was funded by the Ecocampus programme of the Flemish © Emerald Publishing Limited
1467-6370
Government. DOI 10.1108/IJSHE-09-2018-0160
IJSHE in what way and to what extent is sustainability currently integrated into higher education
20,7 (HE) and what elements of the HE system facilitate or impede this integration?
Earlier research has shown that HEIs integrate sustainability into their operations in
diverse ways. Wright (2002), for example, identified eight recurrent themes in sustainable
HE (SHE) declarations and policies: ecological literacy, an interdisciplinary curriculum,
sustainable research, sustainable physical operations, public outreach, inter-university
1110 cooperation, partnerships, and a moral obligation. Out of this diversity of practices, SHE
emerges as a highly ambiguous concept. Its meaning ranges from mere practical greening-
the-campus initiatives (Beringer and Adombent, 2008; Lauder et al., 2015) to a focus on
“shaping pro-environmental behaviour in students” (Chakraborty et al., 2017, 1291) and
giving future leaders new competences to create a more sustainable society (Wiek et al.,
2011; Rieckmann, 2012; Disterheft et al., 2012). However, several authors advocate a more
comprehensive integration of sustainability into HEIs (Ferrer-Balas et al., 2010; Fadeeva and
Mochizuki, 2010). This also implies the necessity for research to examine how sustainability
is embedded in HE systems in their totality. The present study therefore aims to provide this
for one specific setting: Flemish HE.
Attention for sustainability in Flemish HE comes in many shapes and sizes, and there
has been an ongoing evolution from greening-the-campus initiatives, through normative
approaches to transformative ones with a focus on democratic values (Lambrechts et al.,
2017). This has generated an amalgam of individual practices with little to no overview,
which is also reflected in the literature on Flemish SHE primarily taking the form of case
studies. These case studies analyse ecological footprints (Lambrechts and Van Liedekerke,
2014), or they explore sustainability reporting (Ceulemans et al., 2017) or examine how
‘competences for sustainability’ may be integrated (Lambrechts et al., 2013). Complementing
these Flemish case studies, the present study aims to provide an overview of sustainability
in Flemish HE by using the multi-level perspective (MLP) on sustainability transitions for a
comprehensive empirical analysis of how sustainability is embedded in Flemish HE.
The paper continues with an elaboration of our analytical framework and research
methods. First, we will briefly describe what characterises the landscape, regime and niche
level of the Flemish HE system. This is the basis for our analysis of the multi-level dynamics
in which we present an overview of lock-ins and internal contradictions in the studied regime.
Next, we will identify opportunities to further integrate sustainability into HE. In the final
section, we will discuss our findings as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the MLP to
study this topic, and we will conclude by outlining needs and prospects for further research.

A multi-level analysis of sustainability in Flemish higher education

Analytical framework: the multi-level perspective
This study aims to complement the literature described above by painting the bigger picture
of sustainability in Flemish HE. This implies an analysis of the HE system, including its
potential radical change. To this end, we turned to the academic field of sustainability
transition studies by using the MLP on sustainability transitions.
Transitions are to be understood as long-term processes that change deeply anchored
structures, practices and cultures. These transitions result in a profound transformation of a
system in multiple dimensions – technology, economy, actors involved, regulation, science,
production patterns, consumer preferences, policies, infrastructures, markets, power relations,
discourses on problem definitions and solutions, institutions and cultural meanings, to name
but a few (Grin et al., 2010). The interconnectedness of all these elements keeps the current
system dominant and stable but also functions as a lock-in mechanism, making any system
change hard and complex and thus difficult to steer towards a sustainable future.
 The MLP is one way to make sense of these transitions. It is considered a middle-range Flemish higher
theory (Merton, 1968a) and is most commonly used for studying historical long-term education
transition processes in complex sociotechnical systems such as transport, energy and agro-
food systems (Geels, 2005 and 2011; Geels and Schot, 2007). In this study, however, the MLP
system
was used for a static system analysis. This entails an analysis of a system at one specific
time: the current Flemish HE system, which to some extent has already incorporated some
sustainability concerns (in other words, our system analysis is based on the left half of
Figure 1). It is important to note that, although some frameworks from the field of transition
1111
studies have already found their way into SHE research (Ferrer-Balas et al., 2009; Stephens
and Graham, 2010), to our knowledge, the MLP has not been used to study SHE yet.
The MLP takes into account the complexities of sociotechnical systems and change
processes. It views transitions as non-linear processes that are the result of an interplay
between three analytical levels: landscape (macro), regime (meso) and niches
(micro). The sociotechnical landscape refers to a rather stable exogenous environment
encompassing deep cultural patterns, macro-political developments and
macroeconomics that influence the regime and niches. The sociotechnical regime is of
primary interest in the MLP. It refers to “the semi-coherent set of rules that orient and
coordinate the activities of the social groups that reproduce the various elements of
socio-technical systems” (Geels, 2011, p.27). A transition is to be seen as a shift from one
regime configuration to another, profoundly different one. The niches refer to the
emergence of radical sociotechnical novelties in what can be understood as incubation
rooms (Geels and Schot, 2007).

Figure 1.
MLP on
sustainability
transitions
IJSHE The MLP describes sociotechnical transitions as an interplay between these three levels (see
20,7 Figure 1), which are interrelated as a nested hierarchy: niches are embedded within regimes,
which in turn are embedded within landscapes (Paredis, 2013). There is also a significant
difference in stability: the higher levels are more stable than the lower ones (Geels, 2011),
implying that niches are very instable yet also flexible, adaptable and able to experiment
with technologies, rules and practices. The MLP emphasises the importance of these niches
1112 in sociotechnical transitions (Geels, 2005; Geels and Schot, 2007). The possibility for niche
innovations to become mature, combined with pressure on the regime from the landscape
and a destabilisation of the regime by internal contradictions, can create a momentum or
window of opportunity for radical change towards a new regime configuration (Geels and
Schot, 2007). The focus of this paper lies on the potential of these multi-level dynamics
between landscape, regime and niches, as this is what is assumed to make transitions come
about (Geels and Schot, 2007). However, most transition scholars argue that it is almost
impossible to plan transitions, as the processes are too complex for straightforward
management. Nevertheless, influencing may be possible, particularly when actors (e.g.
researchers, lecturers and the faculty) succeed in dealing with lock-in mechanisms as well as
in grabbing opportunities that may open up due to the interplay of the three levels.
In this study, the existing regime is the mainstream Flemish HE system, which pays
attention to sustainability through incremental changes that remain faithful to currently
dominant structures, cultures and practices. At the niche level, we focus on small-scale yet
radical novelties in terms of sustainability carried by dedicated actors and driven by
experimentation in the margins of the dominant HE regime. Both niches and the regime are
affected by the sociotechnical landscape: a series of large, overarching societal trends and
developments such as globalisation, the ecological crisis and growing inequality.
By using the MLP to study the Flemish HE system, we specifically aim to fathom the
complexity of the HE system and of a potential transition to SHE in a clear and comprehensible
way. Because of its specific focus, the MLP allows us to see things we arguably would not see
with a different analytical framework. Especially the focus on multi-level dynamics can help us
identify important aspects of a transition. Furthermore, the MLP is a valuable communicative
tool that contributes to making transitions tangible for those involved, which was
demonstrated during a focus group (see below). It allows people to situate themselves and the
practices in which they are involved within the bigger picture. As such, we aim to deliver
relevant research outcomes that can be used by policy entrepreneurs in the pursuit of a
transition towards SHE. Policy entrepreneurs are committed and creative actors that “hook
solutions to problems, proposals to political momentum, and political events to policy
problems” (Kingdon, 1984, p.182). Without the presence of such entrepreneurs, the different
levels and processes may not be linked. They play a crucial role in transitions: they can locate
the necessary funds, know important actors and build networks, they know where, when and
by whom decisions are made, and they know how they can put pressure on the existing regime.
Furthermore, by explicitly concentrating on lock-ins and opportunities for change from an MLP
point of view, we aim to complement previous research on drivers and barriers for the
integration of sustainability into HE (Hoover and Harder, 2015).
This study met with several challenges, the first of which involved making and
maintaining an analytically clear distinction between the three levels. Especially
analytically separating regime sustainability practices and niche sustainability practices
proved to be challenging. A second challenge concerned the continuous nature of the
difference between regime and niches: from what point onwards is a practice radically
innovative? Third, our study was further complicated by the double role of many actors.
Many researchers and lecturers, for example, are part of the regime while at the same time
taking part in niche experiments. Finally, the scope of the study commissioned by the Flemish higher
Flemish Government was limited to practices within conventional HEIs. The challenges education
posed by this limitation will be discussed below.
system
Research methods
Our study consisted of four phases, in which the landscape, regime, niches and multi-level
dynamics were consecutively analysed (Table I). We used a mixed-method design,
employing varied methods to tap into different aspects of the same problem. This allowed us
1113
to answer broader, deeper and more comprehensive research questions than a mono-method
design, and it is specifically suitable for complex phenomena, such as sustainability in a HE
system (Greene, 2007).

No. Research method

1. Analysis of the landscape:

[1] Explorative literature study on sustainability, HE, research in HEIs and SHE
[2] Content analysis of relevant policy documents (on HE and sustainability) at the European and
transnational level (EU, UNESCO, UN)
2. Analysis of the regime:
[1] Literature study on HE, SHE, research in HE and HE policy with a focus on what is relevant for
Flemish HE as a regime
[2] Content analysis of policy documents on HE at the Flemish level with a focus on documents on
HE and on sustainability in HE
[3] Explorative content analysis of the websites of all Flemish HEIs with a focus on vision and
mission texts on education, research, services to society and sustainability (if available), on the one
hand, and a comparison of the number of hits on “sustainability” and “sustainable” in the websites’
search engines, on the other hand
[4] Two surveys: one for teachers and researchers and one for university staff with a general view
on the integration of sustainability into their institution, with 393 and 85 respondents, respectively
[5] Nine in-depth semi-structured interviews with a selection of respondents from the surveys:
three teachers, three researchers and three respondents with an administration or management
function. Participants formed a maximum variation sample (Patton, 2012) based on institution,
type of institution (university vs university college), geographical location of the institution,
academic field, place in the organisational chart, and participation in sustainability practices
within the regime. The interviewees were selected based on the respondents of the surveys and
recommendations by key informants. The interviews were aimed at further deepening the insights
from the surveys
3. Analysis of the niches:
Twelve in-depth semi-structured interviews with researchers, educators, administrative staff,
members of management and students who are strongly engaged with sustainability in small-
scale, experimental settings. The selection of the respondents was based on maximum variation
sampling (Patton, 2012) with the same criteria as mentioned above, but focussing on respondents
involved in radically innovative sustainability practices
4. Analysis of the multilevel dynamics:
[1] Meta-analysis entailing the integration of the results of the analysis of landscape, regime and
niches with an explicit focus on lock-ins, internal contradictions of the regime, instigators and
opportunities for sustainability
[2] Focus group with 12 regime and niche actors: practitioners who are involved in SHE practices Table I.
and who participated in the interviews or were recommended by other participants. In this focus Overview research
group, the outcomes of the meta-analysis were presented and discussed methods
IJSHE The Flemish context
20,7 This study focuses on sustainability in Flemish HEIs. In Belgium, education falls under the
jurisdiction of the community governments. This implies that all HEIs in Flanders and the
Dutch-speaking HEIs in Brussels fall under the jurisdiction of the Flemish government.
Eighteen HEIs[1] are officially recognised: 13 university colleges offering practice-oriented
professional bachelor programmes and 5 universities offering academic bachelor, master
1114 and PhD programmes. Flemish university colleges are similar to universities of applied
sciences or vocational universities abroad but do not offer any master programmes. The
HEIs are clustered in associations of one university and several university colleges. The
total student population of universities and university colleges is approximately equal[2].

Three levels
To use the MLP, it is vital that we gain insight into the three separate levels. Only after
understanding the landscape, regime and niches can we delve deeper into how they
influence each other in the context of a sociotechnical transition (see multi-level dynamics, as
visually represented in Figure 1). We will briefly present the three levels[3] here by
describing the identified landscape trends (LT), regime characteristics (RC) and types of
niches (N) and by highlighting major results relevant to the multi-level dynamics in the
fourth section.

Landscape
We identified and described nine LT that have an important influence on Flemish HE and its
attention for sustainability (see Table I). These trends put pressure on the regime, as
depicted in Figure 1. However, as they do not form a homogenous unity, they also put
pressure on the regime in varied ways. The first trend, global ecological challenges, for
example, can put sustainability issues on the agenda of HEIs, while neoliberalism (LT7) and
the focus on economic growth (LT8) might just strengthen some of the forces behind these
ecological challenges. Furthermore, LT4 (individualisation) can confirm and strengthen
certain characteristics of the regime (see below), while also questioning and pressuring
others. Managerialism (LT6), for example, is clearly linked with the importance of quality
care and bureaucracy (RC8) but problematizes the heterogeneous nature of HEIs (RC7).
Gaining insight into how these trends impact sustainability in HE is important in the sense
that the regime is not an island and is influenced by larger societal trends and global events
(Table II).

Regime
The analysis of the regime allowed us to identify and describe 21 RC (see Table III). These
provide a comprehensive overview of important aspects of the HE system that affect, enable
or constrain the incorporation of sustainability.
Some of the characteristics in Table III create opportunities for sustainability to gain
importance (e.g. RC9), while others act as a lock-in preserving the status quo (e.g. RC4).
These opportunities will be presented in the discussion of the multi-level dynamics below.
RC do not form a homogenous unity and in some cases even contrapose each other. For
example, RC8 (quality care and bureaucratisation) and RC17 (freedom of teachers and
researchers) are opposites. This can generate internal contradictions (see below) that can
play an important role in destabilising the regime and opening windows of opportunity.
As explained in the introduction and shown in Figure 1, the MLP approaches transitions
as profound transformations of a system in multiple dimensions. The identified RC reveal
that what affects the incorporation of sustainability into the dominant structures, practices
No. Landscape trend
Flemish higher
education
1. Global ecological challenges. Topics such as climate change and loss of biodiversity influence the system
dominant research topics, students’ interests and campus life
2. Inequality within and between countries. This strengthens the view of HE as an equaliser and
influences research and students’ interests
3. Globalisation. Puts pressure on HE through the rising importance of internationalisation and the
dominance of English, for example 1115
4. Individualisation. Puts pressure on HE by shifting the focus to the individual student, for example
through individual trajectories
5. Complexity. The challenges we face are becoming increasingly complex (e.g. they are normative and
unstructured, there are many stakeholders)
6. Managerialism. A strong belief in the value of management structures, with a growing impact on how
HEIs are managed
7. Neoliberalism. A deep faith in the logic of the free market. Influences both the role of HE in society
and educational content
8. Focus on economic growth. A dominant belief in the ultimately beneficial characteristics of economic
growth. This is often reflected in educational content as well as policies of HEIs Table II.
9. Belief in technological solutions. A framing of societal challenges as technological problems requiring Nine landscape
technological solutions. Influences how societal challenges are approached in HE settings trends

and culture is, indeed, multidimensional. The specific configuration of the contemporary HE
regime in Flanders is shaped by several elements: its economy (e.g. financial scarcity,
market logic between institutions and competition between researchers), culture (e.g. the
grammar of schooling, quality care and bureaucracy and academic freedom), epistemology
(e.g. monodisciplinarity and positivism), policy (e.g. internationalisation, juridification and
the three functions of HE), discourses (e.g. employability, student-centredness, societal
relevance, education as a problem solver), and technologies/tools (e.g. competences and
innovative teaching methods).

Niches
The analysis of niches revealed five broad types. In the following, we will examine how
these niches differ from the studied regime: they either counter characteristics of the
dominant regime or interpret RC in an extreme way. It is important to note that the five
types of niches overlap, as some types may focus on several aspects or levels of the same
practices.
(1) The first type of niche encompasses practices that radically focus on greening the
campus. These are greening-the-campus projects that go against the status quo
and thus encounter much resistance. Their main focus is on making campus
operations more sustainable, and to achieve this, they go beyond the “low-hanging
fruit” and aim to fundamentally rethink current practices. Their radical nature is
essentially what defines them as niches.
(2) The second type of niche refers to practices that clearly frame sustainability issues as
complex and normative issues. This type of niche mainly tackles RC6 and RC19 (i.e.
monodisciplinarity and positivism). Some of the lecturers we interviewed, for example,
described experiments with systems thinking, framing sustainability issues as
political issues. They argue that, due to a lack of certainty on knowledge and
consensus on values and norms, these issues are often “unstructured” or “wicked”
problems posing specific challenges for science and education (Block et al., 2018). Some
IJSHE No. Regime characteristic
20,7
1. Research-education-services to society. These three functions of HE determine the focus of HEIs in
the regime, with services clearly being regarded as less important
2. Expansion of HE. The increasing number of (PhD) students is not accompanied by an equally
growing number of professors and teaching staff
3. Financial scarcity. Cutbacks and unequal growth between funding and the student population
1116 4. Market logic and competition between institutions. Institutions compete for students, funding and
prestige
5. Competition between researchers. Researchers compete for a limited amount of funding and
positions
6. Monodisciplinarity. Approaching one topic from one discipline at a time prevails
7. Heterogeneous nature of HEIs. Many differences between institutions themselves (e.g. between units)
8. Quality care and bureaucracy. Continuing dominant strive for quality and excellence through
bureaucratic means
9. Societal relevance. Together with societal valorisation, important in the discourse on education and
research
10. Education as a problem-solver. Education as a way to solve collective societal problems by framing
these problems as individual learning problems
11. Competence-oriented education. The main goal of education is to provide students with competences,
while defining these and designing teaching practices in view of achieving them is considered to be the
starting point of decent education
12. Student-centred education. Education is directed at the wants and needs of (individual) students
13. Employability. Delivering employable students as an important outcome of the educational process
14. Entrepreneurship. The skills and values of entrepreneurs as key features of educational content
15. The grammar of schooling. The historically constant form of education despite numerous reforms
16. Innovative teaching methods. The tendency to replace ex cathedra teaching with more interactive
(digital) teaching methods
17. Academic freedom. The freedom of university teachers and researchers to define the contents of
their teaching and research
18. Innovation in research. (Technological) innovation as the ideal outcome of scientific research
19. Positivism. A dominant (implicit) view on research and education as objective and value-free
20. Internationalisation. A continuing pursuit of more international students, researchers, and
Table III. cooperation
21 regime 21. Juridification. A tendency to redefine conflicts in an educational context juridically, with juridical
characteristics consequences

explicitly linked this with working inter- and transdisciplinary: for example, one
lecturer asked students to invite friends from other disciplines to class for discussions.
This type of niche was also noticeable in research: interviewed researchers explicitly
addressed sustainability issues as complex and normative issues in their work and
mentioned collaborations with other disciplines and non-academic stakeholders.
(3) The third type of niche refers to “role-shifting” practices that address students as
equal partners. This takes RC12 (student-centred education) and RC16 (innovative
education) to the extreme and questions the dominant teacher-student hierarchy
(as part of RC15, the grammar of schooling). Examples are lecturers who discuss
and solve problems together with students without maintaining the classic
teacher-student hierarchy, who involve students as researchers in research
projects.
(4) A fourth type of niche involves viewing and using higher education as a space for
experimenting on sustainability issues. This refers to a broad array of experimental
approaches to education and learning in which students study sustainability
 issues in an educational setting and look for ways to address these issues. An Flemish higher
example can be found in “living lab” projects in which real-life sustainability education
issues are tackled in an educational setting without any clear ideas of the potential
outcome.
system
(5) As a fifth and final type of niche, some practices specifically address sustainability
challenges in a local context (e.g. the local neighbourhood, the city). These niches are
extreme interpretations of RC9 (societal relevance) and RC10 (education as a problem- 1117
solver) but also sharply contrast with the dominance of internationalisation in HE
(RC20). An important aspect in many of these practices is their transdisciplinarity:
local problems are approached from different disciplines and in cooperation with local
actors.

Multi-level dynamics
In this study, our analysis of the multi-level dynamics was a meta-analysis of outcomes at
the landscape, regime and niche level that identified (1) lock-ins impeding the upscaling of
sustainable niches, (2) internal contradictions, and (3) opportunities for sustainability
transitions. To this end, the results of the first three phases were combined and integrated.
For example, to identify lock-ins, we first analysed what difficulties niche actors struggled
with in integrating SD and then linked this with dominant RC and relevant LT to see how
the different levels were intertwined. To test the results and deepen our insights, our desk
research on the multi-level dynamics was presented to and discussed with the focus group.

Lock-ins
Lock-ins play a crucial role in the preservation of a regime and make it hard to destabilise it
(Grin et al., 2010; Paredis, 2013). They are configurations of the regime which complicate
fundamental change. Our analysis of the multi-level dynamics revealed five important lock-
ins, which will be described below.
(1) The first lock-in refers to the Matthew effect of accumulated advantage (Merton, 1968b)
in which young and innovative research lines, research projects, education
programmes, or research units receive fewer opportunities because the more
established ones tend to dominate and receive more (financial) means. This
phenomenon involves several aspects. First, these stronger entities have a competitive
advantage for obtaining new funding, making them even stronger. With more
publications, more impact and more researchers, it is easier to plead for the importance
of your research line and thus claim more funding. Second, the internal power of more
established entities is also related to this lock-in, as was mentioned by several
interviewees. One researcher, for example, referred to the power of a department in the
exact sciences, and how they are able to obstruct calls for more inter- and
transdisciplinary research, as they would not benefit from this. Third, this lock-in can
be linked with another issue that arose during the interviews and was confirmed by
earlier publications (Wals, 2013): the academic publication and funding system focuses
on what is already known, well established and accepted. Because this “safe” research
tends to get published more easily, innovative and more daring research is given fewer
opportunities.
(2) The second lock-in pertains to the compartmentalisation of HEIs into groups,
faculties, departments, research units, and programmes. Besides impacting on the
contents of research and education, this compartmentalisation has major spatial,
IJSHE hierarchical and financial repercussions. Broadly stated, because researchers and
20,7 lecturers work in different locations, have different hierarchical superiors and
benefit from different institutional streams of funding, cooperation between
different entities is difficult or sometimes even impossible. Interviewed researchers
often mentioned that this problem impedes collaboration with colleagues in
different fields and entities. We can relate this to RC6 (monodisciplinary research).
1118 The compartmentalisation can be seen as the result of monodisciplinary research
as well as impeding non-monodisciplinary research itself. It contrasts sharply with
the first type of niche, in which sustainability issues are approached as complex
and normative issues and which often coincides with interdisciplinary and
transdisciplinary research. Because of this strong compartmentalising structure of
HEIs, radical innovation becomes near impossible.
(3) The third lock-in, a focus on technological innovation in HE institutions’ research
policy, is closely linked with two RC: focus on innovation in research (RC18) and
dominance of a positivistic view on research and education (RC19). It is also deeply
related to the LT to have a strong belief in technological solutions (LT9). Many
HEIs concentrate intensely on this aspect in defining the aims of their research
activities (e.g. to find new technologies that boost efficiency or efficacy).
Interviewees, for example, referred to the role that innovation plays in how
institutions profile themselves and described how technological projects seem to
get funding more easily. It can be argued, however, that a limited focus on
technological innovation has a narrowing effect: all too often, it leads to more of the
same (Goeminne, 2011). This focus on eco-technological innovation fits in the
broader discourse of ecological modernisation (Hajer, 1995), in which socio-
ecological challenges are not regarded as the result of fundamental, structural
societal problems (see LT9). Instead, ecological modernisation is characterised by a
belief in technological solutions for sustainability problems, and in a trickle-down
effect of economic growth (Bina, 2013).
(4) As a fourth lock-in, competition between HEIs manifests itself as a race for
students. This lock-in has a clear link with the financial scarcity in the sector (RC3),
creating a dominant market logic (RC4) which implies competition between HEIs.
The impetus behind this lock-in is the pressure on HEIs to grow more than their
competitors to attain the necessary funding. This race for students appears to
result in a very conservative outlook on the educational offer: institutions seem to
be reluctant to engage in pioneering educational projects on SD as they fear this
will not get them more students. This problem was often mentioned during the
interviews: the dominant market logic appears to have a conservative effect.
Several interviewees added that competition at the institutional level impedes
cooperation, and that cooperation therefore only occurs between institutions in
different regions.
(5) Finally, the last lock-in is a result of competition between individual researchers
(RC5) in a context of financial scarcity (RC3). It is referred to as survival of the
fittest, as this stresses researchers’ struggle to keep their jobs as well as the aspect
of adaptation. To survive, researchers have to concentrate on what matters for their
survival: publications. This functions as a lock-in in several ways. First, it leaves
only little time to deal with other things, such as providing services to society or
cooperating with other disciplines or stakeholders on complex sustainability
issues. Second, it focuses on the number of publications and less on ground-
 breaking academic work that evidently takes more time. Thirdly, this competition Flemish higher
impedes any culture of cooperation between researchers. Finally, it is near education
impossible for individual researchers to counter this lock-in without risking their
own career. One interviewee specifically mentioned this and stated that he was
system
jeopardising his career by investing that much time and energy in education.

Internal contradictions 1119

We also identified a series of internal problems and contradictions within the regime:
“mismatches and tensions which (can) lead to loosened up connections and instability”
(Paredis, 2013, p.20). As regimes are never flawless, they can have internal contradictions,
which may be minor aspects without much impact but can also be major issues disrupting
the normal functioning of the regime (e.g. increasing traffic jams in our mobility system). By
destabilising the regime, internal contradictions can create windows of opportunity for
niches to mature and become viable alternatives (Geels and Schot, 2007), which is why they
are so relevant to study. Five internal contradictions could be found:
(1) Increasing student population vs. limited investments. This first internal
contradiction comes down to an irreconcilability of three elements concerning
education. The increasing student population (RC2) holds a clear challenge for
academic personnel but contrasts sharply with the limited investments in HE
(RC3), a tension that in turn collides with the dominance of quality care (RC8).
Many interviewees referred to this contradiction: if the number of students is not
reflected in the means available to teach them, the quality of education is
inevitably reduced, with less interaction with students and more ex cathedra
teaching.
(2) Quality care as a goal in itself. As mentioned before, the dominant role of quality
care and bureaucracy (RC8) is an important RC. Notions such as ‘quality’ and
‘excellence’ are omnipresent in the analysed HEI websites. However, this
characteristic is also part of the second internal contradiction, namely that quality
care as a bureaucratic process may become a goal in itself. In this case, time-
intensive control mechanisms gain importance and, ironically, reduce the time that
educators and researchers can spend on actually enhancing the quality of their
educational and research activities. Eventually, this might have a perverse effect
on the quality of their work. For researchers, since they are evaluated based on the
number of PhDs, the amount of financing that they obtain or their number of
publications, these numbers may become a goal in themselves.
(3) Monodisciplinary structures vs. acknowledging complexity. A third internal
contradiction refers to the dominance of monodisciplinary structures in research
and education (RC6), which contrasts sharply with a growing acknowledgment of
the complexity of the world in general, and of sustainability issues more
specifically (LT5). The key aspect of this contradiction is that mono-disciplinary
research, albeit the norm, cannot tackle some of the more complex societal
challenges that we face today (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 2003; Block et al., 2018).
Nonetheless, the current HE regime impedes alternative forms of research (multi-,
inter- and transdisciplinary). Interviewees mentioned, for example, that researchers
from different disciplines speak a different “language”, that cooperation is very
time-consuming, and that there are many organisational difficulties such as
funding structures and publication norms.
IJSHE (4) Job preservation as job content. This refers to a very important and above all time-
20,7 consuming aspect of a researcher’s life in a HE institution: the preservation of one’s
own job by writing research proposals or grant applications. An interviewed
researcher stated that “it’s still the case that, if you want to keep your job as an
academic, you have to be part of a regime in which you have to get funding and
write papers.” This continuous quest for job security takes up much time which
1120 cannot be spent on research itself. An interviewed research director also talked
about the frustration among researchers about this system: interesting projects are
declined too.
(5) Research institution vs education institution. This last contradiction relates to the
tension within HEIs between the two main functions of HE: education and
research. Respondents often referred to a tension between time spent on education
and time spent on research and also mentioned a striking difference in willingness
towards activities between universities and university colleges. For example,
whereas a researcher/lecturer at a university stated that “a lot of colleagues just
teach because they have to”, a manager from a more practice- and education-
oriented university college said that many teachers were afraid to engage in
research activities.

Opportunities for sustainability transitions

As a third part of the analysis of the multi-level dynamics, we identified 16 opportunities for
a further integration of sustainability into HE (Table III). These are based on the outcomes
of the interviews but also on the focus group discussions, during which the participants
deliberated, modified and supplemented a preliminary list of opportunities. The 16
opportunities conceptually build on the above-mentioned lock-ins and internal
contradictions. They shed light on potential starting points and pathways to foster a
transition of the HE system but should not be interpreted as clear-cut solutions or recipes for
success. As mentioned, transitions do not proceed neatly in causal stages or linear phases.
They are messy and several processes need to be coupled to move items up the agenda and
create real opportunities or “policy windows” (Block and Paredis, 2013). In this regard, the
role of policy entrepreneurs, as discussed above, cannot be underestimated. These
opportunities should therefore be seen as a helpful device for policy entrepreneurs to create
the aforementioned policy windows and respond to them (Table IV).

Discussion and conclusion

The present study offers insight into the LT, regime elements and types of niches that
characterise the Flemish HE system as well as the lock-ins that impede profound
transformation and opportunities for sustainability transition. The results of this study
mirror many aspects of previous studies on the integration of sustainability into HE. For
example, we found similar obstacles, such as a general resistance to change, a lack of
support from management, and a lack of financial resources (Larran et al., 2015). On a more
abstract level, our results also confirmed those of Hoover and Harder (2015), in terms of the
importance of organisational culture, the tension between conflict and collaboration, the
interplay between people and structures, and the importance of individuals. Compared to
previous studies, the novelty of the present study lies mainly in its capacity to focus on the
systemic aspects of integrating sustainability into HE. The use of the MLP and specifically
the focus on the multi-level dynamics allowed us to get an overview of a multitude of aspects
of (sustainability in) a HE system and to understand how these aspects interrelate in a
No. Opportunity
Flemish higher
education
1. Giving space for personal motivation. It can be undesirable to force people to work on sustainability system
issues, but it is of utmost importance to allow and encourage motivated people to do so by giving them
the necessary means and trust
2. Playing the sustainability card in inter-institution competition. Profiling an institution as sustainable
can be seen as a major opportunity to attract new students and thus fits into the market logic of HE
3. Utilising the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The SDGs can be seen as “multitools”. Despite 1121
their limitations (e.g. they foster a top-down approach and maintain the status quo), they are a great
communication instrument, can mobilise students and refer to an international context
4. Utilising internationalisation. As an important RC, it has many resources and personnel at its disposal,
which can be used to address international sustainability issues
5. Sustainability as a quality criterion. The dominant quest for quality in HEIs offers bureaucratic means
to integrate sustainability into HE by adding sustainability as one of the quality criteria
6. Involving students in transition movements. Students can be very enthusiastic and more radical in
their opinions, have more freedom than staff, and they can put pressure on management, as it is
sensitive to their wants and needs
7. Responding to the needs of labour market and businesses. Because of the importance of employability,
businesses can have a major impact on the attention for sustainability in HE
8. Stimulating sustainability competences. Implementing sustainability in education through
competences can be an effective way to structurally embed sustainability in curricula
9. Utilising sustainability rankings and labels. Because competition between HEIs is so important,
sustainability rankings and labels may be a way to advocate sustainability in HE
10. Going for societal relevance and valorisation. Emphasising the societal relevance of sustainability
issues can put sustainability more firmly on the agenda
11. Connecting with academic counter movements (e.g. slow science movement). Although these
heterogeneous movements do not address sustainability per se, they can form an ally in tackling some of
the internal contradictions
12. Implementing sustainability education through educational innovation. Approaching the integration
of sustainability into curricula from a framework of educational innovation can be a way to achieve
funding and personnel
13. Implementing sustainability research through research innovation. New research methods such as
citizen science can be a way to put sustainability on the research agenda and achieve funding
14. Research-based education. Introducing sustainability in education as a research topic can bridge
research and education and address sustainability in all its complexities
15. Addressing local challenges. Many institutions aim to gap the bridge between their campuses and the Table IV.
neighbourhood. Addressing local sustainability issues can be a way to achieve this 16 opportunities for
16. Addressing sustainability as an ethical matter. Framing sustainability as an ethical matter holds sustainability
potential for implementing it in various courses (e.g. ethics courses) transitions

concrete system. This overview can be very useful for policy entrepreneurs to navigate
through the complexity of HE and to strategically guide their actions.
It is important to note that the present study used the MLP for a static analysis, meaning
that we are unable to examine evolutions and patterns throughout time. We cannot identify
any changes over time, nor make claims about the existence, emergence or absence of an
ongoing transition. In this sense, our study acts as a zero-measurement and is complementary
to studies that have investigated change over time in Flanders (Lambrechts et al., 2017).
An important criticism on the MLP concerns a bias for bottom-up change: the importance
of niches in transition processes is often overemphasised in MLP studies (Berkhout et al.,
2004; Geels, 2011). We attempted to overcome this by focussing mainly on the dynamics
between all three levels and by specifically involving managers and other high-ranking
individuals in the empirical study. We see a parallel between this criticism on the MLP and
the abundance of case studies in SHE literature. This tendency to concentrate on concrete,
IJSHE special cases (e.g. niche experiments, good practices, lessons learned) can lead to less
20,7 attention for the systemic aspects of transition processes. Understanding niche experiments
is crucial, but the same applies to the bigger picture (i.e. systemic change). Both are
necessary to unravel the complex interactions and to start to understand the multi-level
dynamics. In this light, our study showed that the MLP is useful for researching
sustainability in HE. We therefore hope to see similar studies in different contexts, which
1122 would complement our findings by putting them in an international perspective, deepening
insights into what enables or constrains sustainability transitions, and identifying
challenges that transcend the local context.
Finally, an important difficulty that we faced during our study was the lack of a clear
image of what SHE can or should be. This lack of a clear and generally accepted endpoint
was also something that many of the interviewees and focus group participants struggled
with in their own practices. SHE as a goal is ambiguous and broad (see introduction). As
defining a desirable endpoint for the transition was explicitly beyond the scope of the
commissioned study, we believe that it is necessary to further study different possible
conceptualisations of SHE and how they deal with sustainability in such a specific context.
This could be accomplished through an extensive literature review of SHE literature and
how it is conceptualised there. The undertaking would also benefit from empirical research,
for example through participatory research with practitioners who could map a number of
potential scenarios (i.e. explorative scenarios) to get an idea of what SHE might look like
(Börjeson et al., 2006). An overview of these explorative scenarios might facilitate a
discussion on what is desirable. This ties in with another opportunity, the development of
normative scenarios, which is also often used in transition trajectories. These scenarios can
show how long-term goals or desirable futures can be reached and are thus complementary
to the explorative scenarios. In our view, it is also vital that this is integrated into a broader
perspective and that the (potential) role of HE in a broader societal transition is studied. By
analysing what societal role HE plays or can play in relation to sustainability issues, we
may be able to open up the discussion on what SHE should be.

Notes
1. Some HEIs consist of two institutions in terms of administration but form one coherent
institution in practice. In this study, we concentrated on actual practice.
2. In 2017, the total student population of universities and university colleges was approximately
120,000 each.
3. The extensive report of the original study (in Dutch) presents all results in detail and can be
provided by the corresponding author.

References
Bankole, A. and Fidelis, E. (2017), “Promoting sustainable development implementation in higher
education: Universities in South Africa”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 1176-1190, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-09-2016-0167
Berkhout, F., Smith, A. Stirling. and A. (2004), “Socio-technological regimes and transition contexts”, in
Elzen, B., Geels, F.W. and Green, K. (Eds), System Innovation and the Transition to
Sustainability: Theory, Evidence and Policy, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 48-75.
Beringer, A. and Adombent, M. (2008), “Sustainable university research and development: inspecting
sustainability in higher education research”, Environmental Education Research, Vol. 14 No. 6,
pp. 607-623, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620802464866
Bina, O. (2013), “The green economy and sustainable development: an uneasy balance?”, Environment Flemish higher
and Planning C: Government and Policy, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 1023-1047.
education
Block, T., Goeminne, G. and Van Poeck, K. (2018), “Balancing the urgency and wickedness of
sustainability challenges: three maxims for post-normal education”, Environmental Education
system
Research, Vol. 24 No. 9, pp. 1424-1439.
Block, T. and Paredis, E. (2013), “Urban development projects catalyst for sustainable urban
transformations: the need for entrepreneurial political leadership”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 50, pp. 181-188. 1123
Börjeson, L., Höjer, M., Dreborg, K.H., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G. (2006), “Scenario types and scenario
techniques: towards a user's guide to scenarios”, Futures, Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 723-739.
Ceulemans, K., Stough, T. and Lambrechts, W. (2017), “Pioneering in sustainability reporting in
higher education: experiences of a Belgian business faculty”, Handbook of Theory and
Practice of Sustainable Development in Higher Education Pages, Springer International
Publishing, pp. 1-20.
Chakraborty, A., Singh, M. and Roy, M. (2017), “A study of goal frames shaping pro-environmental
behaviour in university students”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education,
Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 1291-1310, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-10-2016-0185
Disterheft, A., da Silva Caeiro, S.S.F., Ramos, M.R. and de Miranda Azeiteiro, U.M. (2012),
“Environmental management systems (EMS) implementation processes and practices in
European higher education institutions – top-down versus participatory approaches”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 31, pp. 80-90.
Fadeeva, Z. and Mochizuki, Y. (2010), “Higher education for today and tomorrow: university appraisal
for diversity, innovation and change towards sustainable development”, Sustainability Science,
Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 249-256.
Ferrer-Balas, D., Buckland, H. and de Mingo, M. (2009), ” “Explorations on the university’s role in
society for sustainable development through a systems transition approach: case-study of the
technical University of Catalonia (UPC)”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 17 No. 12,
pp. 1075-1085.
Ferrer-Balas, D., Lozano, R., Huisingh, D., Buckland, H., Ysern, P. and Zilahy, G. (2010), “Going beyond
the rhetoric: system-wide changes in universities for sustainable societies”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 607-610.
Funtowicz, S. and Ravetz, J. (2003), “Post-normal science”, International Society for Ecological
Economics, Internet Encyclopaedia of Ecological Economics.
Geels, F.W. (2005), “The dynamics of transitions in socio-technical systems: a multi-level analysis of the
transition pathway from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles (1860-1930)”, Technology
Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 445-476.
Geels, F. (2011), “The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: responses to seven
criticisms”, Environmental Innovations and Societal Transitions, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 24-40.
Geels, F.W. and Schot, J.W. (2007), “Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways”, Research Policy,
Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 399-417.
Goeminne, G. (2011), “Has science ever been normal? On the need and impossibility of a sustainability
science”, Futures, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 627-636.
Greene, J. (2007), Mixed Methods in Social Inquiry, Jossey-Bass, San Fransisco, CA.
Grin, J., Rotmans, J., Geels, F.W., Loorbach, D. and Schot, J.W. (2010), Transitions to Sustainable
Development: New Directions in the Study of Long Term Transformative Change, Routledge,
New York, NY.
Hajer, M. (1995), The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy
Process, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
IJSHE Hoover, E. and Harder, M. (2015), “What lies beneath the surface: the hidden complexities of
organizational change for sustainability in higher education”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
20,7 Vol. 106, pp. 175-188.
Kingdon, J.W. (1984), Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, Little, Brown and Company, Boston,
MA.
Lambrechts, W., Mulà, I., Ceulemans, K., Molderez, I. and Gaeremynck, V. (2013), “The integration of
competences for sustainable development in higher education: an analysis of bachelor programs
1124 in management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 48, pp. 65-73.
Lambrechts, W. and Van Liedekerke, L. (2014), “Using ecological footprint analysis in higher education:
campus operations, policy development and educational purposes”, Ecological Indicators,
Vol. 45, pp. 402-406.
Lambrechts, W., Van Liedekerke, L. and Van Petegem, P. (2017), “Higher education for sustainable
development in Flanders: balancing between normative and transformative approaches”,
Environmental Education Research, doi: 10.1080/13504622.2017.1378622.
Larran, M., Herrera, J. and Calzado, Y. (2015), “An approach to the implementation of sustainability
practices in Spanish universities”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 106, pp. 34-44.
Lauder, A., Fitri Sari, R., Suwartha, N. and Tjahjono, G. (2015), “Critical review of a global campus
sustainability ranking: GreenMetric”, Journal of Greener Production, Vol. 108, pp. 852-863. pp;
Merton, R.K. (1968a), Social Theory and Social Structure, Free Press.
Merton, R.K. (1968b), “The Matthew effect in science”, Science, Vol. 159 No. 3810, pp. 56-63.
Mickwitz, P. and Melanen, M. (2009), “The role of co-operation between academia and policymakers for
the development and use of sustainability indicators e a case from the Finnish Kymenlaakso
region”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 17 No. 12, pp. 1086-1100.
Paredis, E. (2013), A Winding Road: Transition Management, Policy Change and the Search for SD,
Ghent University, Belgium.
Patton, M.Q. (2012), Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks,
CA, London, New Delhi.
Rieckmann, M. (2012), “Future-oriented higher education: which key competencies should be fostered
through university teaching and learning?”, Futures, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 127-135.
Stephens, J.C. and Graham, A.C. (2010), “Toward an empirical research agenda for sustainability in
higher education: exploring the transition management framework”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 611-618.
Wals, A. (2013), “Blog: publish or perish”, available at: https://transformativelearning.nl/tag/publish-or-
perish/ (accessed 22 August 2018).
Wiek, A., Withycombe, L. and Redman, C. (2011), “Key competencies in sustainability: a reference
framework for academic program development”, Sustainability Science, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 203-218.
Wright, T. (2002), “Definitions and frameworks for environmental sustainability in higher education”,
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 203-220.

Corresponding author
Maarten Deleye can be contacted at: maarten.deleye@edu.uu.se

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