Although this contribution aims at development of participatory oriented ESD, it will do so by contesting two widespread dogmas regarding participation and ESD:

The first of these dogmas is the idealization of participation. At the principal level it is often put forward as a much stronger and reasonable way to conduct ESD than the more informative and behavior modificating approaches. As a matter of approach I will subscribe on that, but as a matter practice I find research on what actually happens in such participatory processes highly needed and, as part of that, to take closer look at the socio-psychological dynamics characterizing the participatory ESD processes and the learning outcome of these. To step down from the level of ideals and understand these dynamics and how to cope with them is, I would assert, key to a further development of theory on participatory ESD. The way it has been done in the field of development theory has primarily been focused on power relations (e.g. Cooke & Kothari 2001) which is obviously also of high relevance in relation to participatory ESD. However, this contribution will apply another optic, which has to do with the second dogma.

The second dogma refers to the one-sided positive ascriptions to the concept of engagement in theoretical contributions on participatory ESD. No doubt that engagement to some extend is a prerequisite for participation and that it may be strengthened by the participatory process. However, based on examples from my own empirical research on participatory non-formal ESD, I will state that strong engagement also risk influencing the participatory process in ways that impede or change the learning outcome. It is especially the socio-psychological dynamics related to this statement that I will further explore in the paper.

Participatory ESD is often planned and conducted by teachers or change agents with a strong engagement in sustainability. Furthermore, non-formal ESD does often attract voluntary participants with a similar strong engagement. In the Nordic languages we use to call them ‘fiery souls’. In some cases this concept is also used in English, but I will apply the more common used concept ‘enthusiasts’ for these strongly engaged agents.

Coffey, A. & Atkinson, P. (1996): Making sense of qualitative data, Sage, Thousand Oaks, London & Greater Kailash. Cooke, B. & Kothari, U. (Eds) (2001): Participation – The new tyranny? , Zed books, New York. Horn, K. (Ed) (1973): Gruppendynamik und der ‘subjektive Faktor’, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main. Lewin, K. (1948): Resolving social conflicts, Harper, New York. Læssøe, J. (1991): Borgerdeltagelsen i projekt Grøn Kommune i Ballerup, Danmarks Tekniske Højskole. Læssøe, J. ; Breiting, S; Lysgaard, J.G. (2010): Klimaundervisnings på professionshøjskoler – mellem kampagne og deltagelse, Working paper, Department of Education, Aarhus University. Richter, H.E. (1974): Solidaritet, Fremad, København