Governance processes in educational and sustainability policies in general are well researched. Nevertheless still little is known about the governance of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) or related educational concepts like Climate Change Education (CCE) (Kolleck, Jörgens, and Well 2017: 4). The educational governance perspective aims at understanding how the different actors involved in policy processes of multi-level political systems coordinate their action in the process of developing or realising certain policies (Altrichter and Heinrich 2007; Abs et al. 2015). The implementation process of ESD in Germany takes place within such a process with diverse actors and multiple levels. It is coordinated by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research and further implemented by ESD committees, that consist of heterogeneous stakeholders. In 2017, a jointly developed National Action Plan was adopted, setting 130 goals for structurally implementing ESD in Germany (National Platform on Education for Sustainable Development 2017). The process is accompanied by an independent research group to carry out an ESD-monitoring, that has been conducting qualitative research on the governance of ESD since 2015. Based on the insights of a first study (see below), an action-oriented follow-up study is aiming to both foster transformative action of the different stakeholders and to deeper understand different strategies to foster such action within multi-stakeholder-networks. The underlying assumption of the study is that reflection on one's positioning, strategies and communication preferences is crucial to increase the ability to cope with ambiguity, to broaden one's scope of action, and to strengthen the intersectoral process of understanding and action in the sense of a relational agency (Edwards 2009). Reflexivity is approached as a vital quality for bringing about systemic change and innovation (Sol et al. 2018). For this reason, the focus of the study lies upon stimulating the reflection, communication and learning processes between German ESD actors. Following the approach of “Reflexive Monitoring in Action (RMA)” (van Mierlo 2010a), we thus pursue two intertwined interests:

1: The practical interest is to enhance reflection. For this reason we implement the RMA throughout workshops within the German ESD bodies to stimulate learning and reflection processes and readjust project goals within the German implementation process (van Mierlo et al. 2010b). The RMA uses different interactive methods for this purpose: While the Timeline and Eye Opener methods for example are designed to create a common working path between new and existing participants, the Actor Analysis method aims to identify and involve missing actors in the implementation process (van Mierlo 2010a). Other methods such as the System Analysis and the Interactive Learning Agenda are meant to broaden the actors' understanding of the systemic implementation framework and to focus on thinking in terms of possibilities instead of (structural) barriers (van Mierlo 2010a).

2: The epistemological interest focuses on understanding the situationally embedded rules, practices, and relationships that prevail in a network of actors (Arkesteijn, van Mierlo, and Leeuwis 2015; van Mierlo et al. 2010b). By analysing the reflection and learning processes that are stimulated among the participants, it will be examined whether these are connected to potential changes in the ESD implementation process, how such ambitions for change arise and are further developed among the ESD actors within the RMA workshops. The central research interest of this study is therefore to explore which and how changes within the (supported) actions of the participants in the RMA workshops are emerging.

The first study (Singer-Brodowski et al. 2020) used an analytical governance perspective to examine how the ESD actors involved in the Global Action Program (GAP) deal with specific limitations in their daily work. Inter-sectoral communication dynamics were examined based on six focus group discussions with actors from different sectors (policy makers, administrative staff, researchers, representatives from civil society, educational practitioners) and analysed using qualitative content analysis (Kuckartz 2014). In the current study, the RMA is used as the guiding methodology for action to support the ESD actors. Due to the current pandemic situation, RMA workshops for the ESD bodies are conducted digitally from November 2020 onwards and audio-visually recorded. The guiding methodology for capturing and analysing the social interaction during the workshops is videography (Tuma, Schnettler, and Knoblauch 2013). This method aims to understand and explain social action in a meaningful way (ibid., p. 7 building on Weber 1972), since interaction is understood as the mapping of social communication and interacting action (ibid., building on Mead 1910). Videography is composed of components of video analysis as well as focussed ethnography (Knoblauch 2001). Central aspects are, for example, sectional field visits as well as analysis process through group work (ibid.). Applied to the study described, this means that the interaction within the monitoring process is understood as focused field visits as well as the results that have emerged so far as central knowledge about the field. Video sequences of the RMA workshops will be selected through a deductive orientation based on literature and the research question and subsequently discussed in the research group.

In our contribution, the results from the first study (Singer-Brodowski et al. 2020; von Seggern and Singer-Brodowski 2020) as well as the research design and preliminary results of the current study will be introduced and discussed critically regarding its potentials and limitations. The results of the focus group discussions gave insights into the coordination of action of the actors involved in the GAP ESD in Germany and pointed to a heuristic of different communication patterns in their coordination of actions (Singer-Brodowski et al. 2020; von Seggern and Singer-Brodowski 2020). Within the negotiation processes of the actors the patterns in their coordination of action were not only strongly related to the organisational sector in which the individual actors are active, i.e. educational practice, administration, academia, and civil society but also hinted at patterns of how they fulfilled their respective roles. On the one hand, some actors were closely aligned with their organisational mandate (structure-immanent). On the other hand, patterns of interaction were found that were strongly oriented towards changing organisational structures, networking, and cooperation between the different organisational sectors to implement ESD (structure-transcending). In the context of the ongoing implementation of the current RMA study, we will continue to develop and deepen these insights. Specifically, we will primarily provide a descriptive summary of the RMA workshop process and discuss initial findings. Besides, we will reflect on our evaluation method of videography and present the first analytical approaches.

Abs, Hermann Josef, Thomas Brüsemeister, Michael Schemmann, and Jochen Wissinger, eds. 2015. Governance im Bildungssystem: Analysen zur Mehrebenenperspektive, Steuerung und Koordination. Educational Governance 26. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Altrichter, Herbert, and Martin Heinrich. 2007. “Kategorien der Governance-Analyse und Transformationen der Systemsteuerung in Österreich.” In Educational Governance: Handlungskoordination und Steuerung im Bildungssystem, edited by Herbert Altrichter, Thomas Brüsemeister, and Jochen Wissinger. 1. Aufl., 55–103. Educational Governance 1. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften | GWV Fachverlage GmbH Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90498-6_3. Edwards, Anne. 2009. “Relational Agency in Collaborations for the Well‐being of Children and Young People.” Journal of Children’s Services 4 (1): 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1108/17466660200900004. Knoblauch, Hubert. 2001. “Fokussierte Ethnographie: Soziologie, Ethnologie und die neue Welle der Ethnographie.” Sozialer Sinn 2 (1): 123–41. Kolleck, Nina, Helge Jörgens, and Mareike Well. 2017. “Levels of Governance in Policy Innovation Cycles in Community Education: The Cases of Education for Sustainable Development and Climate Change Education.” Sustainability 9 (11): 1966. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9111966. Kuckartz, Udo. 2014. Qualitative Text Analysis: A Guide to Methods, Practice & Using Software. Los Angeles: SAGE. http://lib.myilibrary.com/detail.asp?id=617246. Mead, George Herbert. 1910. “Social Consciousness and the Consciousness of Meaning.” Psychological Bulletin (7): 397–405. National Platform on Education for Sustainable Development. 2017. “National Action Plan on Education for Sustainable Development: The German Contribution to the UNESCO Global Action Programme.” https://www.bne-portal.de/sites/default/files/downloads/publikationen/BMBF_NAP_BNE_EN_Screen_2.pdf. Singer-Brodowski, Mandy, Janne von Seggern, Anika Duveneck, and Nadine Etzkorn. 2020. “Moving (Reflexively Within) Structures. The Governance of Education for Sustainable Development in Germany.” Sustainability 12 (7): 2778. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072778. Sol, Jifke, Merel M. van der Wal, Pieter Jelle Beers, and Arjen E.J. Wals. 2018. “Reframing the Future: The Role of Reflexivity in Governance Networks in Sustainability Transitions.” Environmental Education Research 24 (9): 1383–1405. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1402171. Tuma, René, Bernt Schnettler, and Hubert Knoblauch, eds. 2013. Videographie. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. van Mierlo, Barbara. 2010a. Reflexive Monitoring in Action: A Guide for Monitoring System Innovation Projects. Wageningen [etc.]: Wageningen UR, Communicatie en Innovatiestudies [etc.]. van Mierlo, Barbara, Mariëtte van Amstel, Marlèn Arkesteijn, and Boelie Elzen. 2010b. “Keeping the Ambition High. The Value of Reflexive Monitoring in Action for System Innovation Projects: SISA Workshop; International Workshop on System Innovations, Knowledge Regimes, and Design Practices Towards Sustainable Agriculture.”. von Seggern, Janne, and Mandy Singer-Brodowski. 2020. “Why Context Matters for Educational Policy – Analysing Interactive Practice in the Governance of Education for Sustainable Development in Germany.” Zeitschrift für internationale Bildungsforschung und Entwicklungspädagogik (4): 25–29. https://www.waxmann.com/index.php?eID=download&id_artikel=ART104329&uid=frei. Accessed January 19, 2021. Weber, Max. 1972. Wirtschaft Und Gesellschaft. Grundriss Der Verstehenden Soziologie. (1921). Tübingen: Mohr.