The proposed contribution is intended to respond to the network call, particularly with regard to the following questions: “How can we maintain our identity and curate the knowledge from many years of work in this space, whilst also achieving the goal of every education being an environmental education? Is this even a desirable goal?”

The contribution will not provide a response to the call and the questions in terms of, for example, disciplinary politics or discourse theory, as the call might suggest. Instead, an approach informed by the philosophy of science (Godfrey-Smith 2021; Rosenberg & McIntyre 2020) is chosen.

The argument has two basic components. The initial component will address the rationale for the utilisation of a philosophy of science framework in addressing the posed inquiries for environmental and sustainability education research (ESER). The subsequent component will address the methodology for accomplishing this objective.

About the initial component:

The argument will put forward “the object’s preponderance” (Adorno 1973, p. 183ff) as a valid theoretical standpoint. In this context, the term ‘the object’s preponderance’ signifies the necessity to prioritise the advancement of the theorisation of ESER.

In the contemporary context, this also entails collaborative efforts with colleagues from other sub-disciplines of educational science on ESER theory. Within this paradigm, the term ‘collaborative efforts’ is employed to denote both the development of theories through collaborative efforts and the process of delineating and critiquing the alternative positions, thereby highlighting its strengths and limitations. The term ‘ESER’ is understood to encompass a broad spectrum of related approaches, some of which may operate under different labels (for example, ESD or Planetary Thinking).

Consequently, collaborative theorising should take precedence, as it is through theorising that scientists can contribute to the desired socio-ecological transformation - if at all. However, it is important to note that this does not imply an exclusive approach to addressing the issues at hand. Instead, this approach serves to counteract the potential loss of focus on theorising as a central concern (compare as well, Prange 2001), which can occur when attention is narrowly focused on self-interest.

About the second component:

This is not asserted that no theory formation has occurred within the field of ESER and its network to date (compare, just for example, Tryggvason et al. 2023).

However, it is proposed that a particular supplement to theory formation is necessary in order to maintain the possibility of systematic (!) advancement in knowledge and understanding of the subject of ESER. This supplement would take the form of a formal meta-theory of ESER that is both comprehensive and empirically grounded and informed by philosophy of science (compare, for example, Rosenberg & McInyre 2020).

The term meta-theory is used because the aim is not to limit the plurality of ESER theories.

Instead, in line with a meta-theory, the aim is to systematically reflect on the concepts, logical structure, and relationships of ESER theory; also, to check their consistency, completeness, contradictions, and the possibility of proving all true statements. This can mean, for example, scrutinising theoretical contributions (for example, Lönngren & van Poeck 2021) for alternative conceptualisations (for example, Jickling 1992; critical regarding Jickling: author 1) or for their empirical assumptions, as well as, conversely, scrutinising empirical contributions (for example, Olsson, Gericke & Boeve-de Pauw 2022) for the plausibility of their theoretical background assumptions.

A meta-theory of ESER would establish a relationship between the body of research on ESER and other sub-disciplines of educational science. This would identify desiderata and discrepancies to inform research. This emphasises absorbing relevant ideas from other sub-disciplines for ESER and using existing ESER research.

In terms of scientific theory, the argument of the contribution is based on Hoyningen-Huene’s (2013) position and his approach of “systematicity theory”. Hoyningen-Huene’s position on the theory of science is characterised by two features, which have emerged from a critical examination of well-known positions in 20th-century philosophy of science (especially those of Popper, Kuhn and Lakatos). Firstly, the theory in question is notable for its recognition of not only the natural sciences as sciences, but also the social sciences and humanities. It is my unquestioned assumption that the ESE network primarily belongs to the latter two categories, even if it builds up own the diagnoses of natural science about the state of our planet. Secondly, the theory accepts the theoretical plurality of the social sciences and humanities, as well as recognising other scientific systems outside of science. The distinction between knowledge systems from the sciences from knowledge systems outside the sciences is that the former are more systematic than the latter. In this way, Hoyningen-Huene does not reproduce the no longer tenable thesis that only (western-traditional) scientific knowledge has dignity. ‘More systematic’ is concerned by Hoyningen-Huene with the dimensions of (i) descriptions, (ii) explanations, (iii) predictions, (iv) defence of knowledge claims, (v) critical discourse, (vi) epistemic interconnectedness, (vii) ideal of completeness, (viii) increase of knowledge and (ix) representation of knowledge. In this context, the focus is on philosophical reflection, which addresses the concrete necessity and possibility, as well as the limitations of definitions, conventions, assumptions, hypotheses, postulates and argumentations (as apodeixis and epideixis), along with the formation and dynamics of theories. An example will be used to illustrate the insights that can be gained from such an analysis. For this analysis, a German-language text from the field of psychoanalytic pedagogy that refers to the climate issue is used: Vogel 2023. On the basis of the exemplary analysis, an existing model of a meta-theory of ESER (compare, author 2 and author 3) is developed abductively and put up for discussion.

As a direct result, the model also provides a tool that not only contributes to the identity building of the ESER community in a direct manner. At the same time, it is not only possible to draw on one’s own research successes in a structured way. Furthermore, it will be possible to analyse thematically relevant contributions from outside the ESER community in terms of their plausibility and, if applicable, their novelty. In the latter case, so if (well) justified, the initially external contributions would have to be integrated into the ESER community and thus made internal. This allows, at least in principle, a comparison-oriented value judgement of these contributions that is oriented towards the issue at hand - namely the formation of an ESER theory as a third element in addition to the first element of internal research contributions within the ESER community and the external contributions as a second element. Such an analytical approach avoids, on the one hand, an ‘anything goes’ approach that discredits one’s own achievements and, on the other hand, the insistence on, and thus the reproduction of, confirmation biases. This approach proposes a new research approach that, based on the new developments, promises to deal with the subject matter in an objectively adequate way. This is also justified by the fact that this model is used to work on the problem of the fundamental production of knowledge in educational science (compare Lüders & Meseth 2018; Prange 2001). This problem is characterised by the creation of genuinely new knowledge and not by the reinvention of old pedagogical ideas. It is also characterised by the need to outline educational research (compare, Tenorth 2017)- as opposed to, for example, psychological research on pedagogical issues - and to design and justify it in a methodologically appropriate way.

Adorno, Th. W. (1973/1966). Negative Dialectics. London: Routledge. Author 1: anonymised. Author 2: anonymised. Author 3: anonymised. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2021). Theory and reality: an introduction to the philosophy of science. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press. Göppel, R. (ed.) (2023). Aufwachsen zwischen Pandemie und Klimakrise: pädagogische Arbeit in Zeiten großer Verunsicherung. Gießen: Psychosozial-Verlag. Hoyningen-Huene, P. (2013). Systematicity: The Nature of Science. New York: Oxford University Press. Jickling, B. (1992). Viewpoint: Why I Don’t Want My Children to Be Educated for Sustainable Development. The Journal of Environmental Education, 23(4), 5–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1992.9942801 Lönngren, J. & Van Poeck, K. (2021). Wicked problems: A mapping review of the literature. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 28(6), 481–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2020.1859415 Lüders, M. & Meseth, W. (ed.) (2018). Theorieentwicklungen in der Erziehungswissenschaft: Befunde - Problemanzeigen - Desiderata. Verlag Julius Klinkhardt. Olsson, D., Gericke, N. & Boeve-de Pauw, J. (2022). The effectiveness of education for sustainable development revisited – a longitudinal study on secondary students’ action competence for sustainability. In: Environmental Education Research, 28:3, 405-429, DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2022.2033170 Prange, K. (2001). Fehlanzeige: Pädagogische Systematik. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 47(3), 375–387. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:4290 Rosenberg, A. & McIntyre, L. (ed.) (2020). Philosophy of science: a contemporary introduction. New York, London: Routledge. Rucker, T. (ed.). (2017). Erkenntnisfortschritt (in) der Erziehungswissenschaft: Lernt die Disziplin? Verlag Julius Klinkhardt. Tenorth, H.-E. (2017). "Erziehungswissenschaft" - oder: Der Ort der Erkenntnisfortschritts im pädagogischen Denken. In: Rucker (ed.) (2017), p. 35-52. Tryggvason, Á., Öhman, J. & Van Poeck, K. (2023). Pluralistic environmental and sustainability education – a scholarly review, Environmental Education Research, 29:10, 1460-1485, DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2023.2229076 Van Poeck, K., Östman, L., & Block, T. (2020). Opening up the black box of learning-by-doing in sustainability transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 34, 298–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.12.006 Vogel, Th. (2018). Gier und Verzicht in Krisenzeiten. Sozialpsychologische und psychoanalytische Erklärungen eines möglichen Scheiterns. In: Göppel, R. (2023), p. 191-218.