The topic of the advertised theoretical-argumentative contribution pursues (i) an argumentative-normative goal and (ii) the processing of a question that arises from it.

About (i) and the theoretical framing and justification of the goal:

The aim is to present a strong and convincing argument that justifies the thesis that scientific discourse in the field of Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER) should expand and sharpen critical debates within the discourse ‘for the sake of the matter’. By ‘for the sake of the matter’, it is meant that it is assumed and axiomatically set that all ESER researchers, however heterogeneous their positions may be, pursue the goal of contributing to the desired social-ecological transformation with their research, and that mutual criticism of each other works towards this goal and personal profiling should not be the purpose.
It is important to consider what the term ’expand and sharpen critical debates within the ESER discourse for the sake of the matter’ might signify. This is particularly pertinent when considering the current state of affairs within the ESER discourse, where it appears that the majority of approaches and representatives do self-identify as critical. This self-description is well-reasoned, provided that a broad term of criticism is employed. Because the ancient Greek term ‘critique’ [κριτική /τέχνη / kritikē / téchnē] is defined as ‘making a distinction’. It is evident that every ESER approach and contribution makes a distinction. Consequently, all approaches and contributions can be considered critical in nature.
However, if one adopts a narrower concept of critique and critical pedagogy, then it becomes normatively controversial which approach should and may call itself critical and which should not (see, for example, author 1 and Jaeggi, 2013). The decisive factor here is the different background theories and methodologies of the approaches. With reference to the ESER discourse, for example, it can be said that:
The competence-oriented approach functions independently of a background theory, thus eliminating the need for justification and the associated challenges of substantiation (compare, for instance, UNESCO, 2017). However, it perceives itself as critical, given its objective of promoting critical thinking through pedagogical strategies. Furthermore, a plethora of research approaches have been developed, drawing upon a wide range of reference and background theories. These approaches require justification and the associated challenges of substantiation. These include environmental and animal ethics (compare, for instance, Kopnina, 2020), de- and postcolonial studies (compare, for example, Stein et al., 2022), and, as another example, build up the convivialism school of thought (compare, for example, Prouteau & Wallenhorst, 2024).
Consequently, the structure of ESER remains ambiguous, as there is not the one and only approach to ESER – or paradigm (Kuhn, 1966), if you will.
The question that arises from this is: what form could such a critical examination of colleagues’ contributions take and what benefits could such an examination bring?

About (ii):

In order to provide a satisfactory response to the aforementioned question, it is first necessary to define the purpose of conducting criticism. In relation to this question, it is this author’s considered opinion that the most compelling reason for conducting criticism would be to further develop the ESER theory.
It is submitted that, in the event of there being no wish to claim unilateral ownership of the theoretical framework, a standpoint which is arguably untenable in the contemporary era, the utilisation of immanent critical analysis may be a viable alternative.
However, such a critique cannot be justified in the abstract, but only on the basis of specific contributions to the ESER discourse. Two contributions (Holst et al., 2025 & Olsson et al., 2022) will be discussed in this contribution.

About the method: The objective of the immanent critique is to undertake a comparison between – in our case – the assertion presented in an article and the argumentation employed therein. A critique of this nature, which discloses the discrepancy between assertion and reality, harbours the capacity to further the development of respective scientific approaches/contributions by highlighting the deficiencies and gaps in their respective arguments. For further information on the concept of immanent critique, see for example: Antonio, 1981; Jaeggi, 2013; Romero, 2014; Stahl, 2013. The normative goal mentioned above, in connection with the question developed, requires that the possibilities of immanent critique be shown by means of concrete examples. This has to be shown concretely, because only in this way can the own claim be fulfilled. Otherwise it is a matter of postulates hanging in the air. In the context of the talk, of course, this can neither be shown in every detail nor comprehensively for the entire ESER discourse. Two examples will be used to outline what an immanent critique might look like. About the sources: The first example is the study by Olsson et al. (2022). The longitudinal study is dedicated to the whole institution approach, which can probably be considered as a particularly prominent approach in the ESER discourse at present. The study aims to show “that it is possible to develop students’ action competence, which is affected by their experience of ESD” (ibid., p. 405). However, for example, it is questioned why the possible difference between the students’ self-described and actual action competences is not discussed. It is also questioned whether the reported study results can be understood as a result of social developments. Fridays for Future was at its peak during the survey period. The second example is the contribution of Holst et al. (2025). They are also committed to the whole-institution approach and want their contribution to have a practical impact. With regard to this contribution, the question is raised as to how transparent research should be in the course of ‘third mission’ with regard to the unresolved questions of science. Specifically, the question raised by Holst et al. (ibid.) – ‘How does a school succeed in motivating social participation?’ (translated by the author) – and their answers will be questioned. For example: How plausible is it to answer the question by dispensing with content and merely providing methodological tips for promoting communication?

The contribution concludes with the thesis that the ESER discourse should be conducted in a much more self-critical way – this continues a demand made by Jickling (1992) –, proposing that mutual criticism of colleagues on their respective contributions is precisely one condition for further developing the quality of scientific discourse. This is not a new thesis itself. For example, it was already advocated in general educational discourse almost 20 years ago: “[M]any on the left are likely reluctant to criticize (supposed) allies for fear of weakening the [own] camp […]. […] I believe […] that it behooves the Left to question its camp […], and all our hope rests in the expansion of this reflexivity to all aspects of life and politics such that a deep, rich, and radical democracy and solidarity might flourish in all spheres of living, as opposed to the ubiquitous ›Wrestlemania‹ of […] ideological […] fundamentalisms” (Haiven, 2007, p. 87f). The conclusion further posits that only such further development is the condition for the possibility of contributing to the desired socio-ecological transformation by means of research on the further development of pedagogical practice. This form of self-criticism is necessary in order to uncover confirmation biases and thus – in the course of the will to transform – contribute to the real reproduction of conditions (compare also Adorno, 1973). The follow-up question that arises from this, namely why – if the thesis of this contribution is correct – the educational science discourse is characterised by little detailed self-criticism, can only be raised in this contribution. This represents a limitation of the contribution, as does the fact that the contribution itself cannot make any material-positive contribution to the development of the ESER theory.

Adorno, Th. W. (1973/1966). Negative Dialectics. London: Routledge. Antonio, R. J. (1981). Immanent Critique as the Core of Critical Theory: Its Origins and Developments in Hegel, Marx and Contemporary Thought. In: The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 330-345. http://www.jstor.org/stable/589281 Author 1: anonymised. Haiven, M. (2007). Privatized Resistance: AdBusters and the Culture of Neoliberalism. In: The Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies 29, S. 85-110. Holst, J., Brock, A., Schlieszus, A.-K., & Grund, J. (2025). BNE: mehr als ein "Add-on". Zukunftsbildung: Wie gelingt Schule, die zu gesellschaftlicher Mitgestaltung motiviert? Friedrich BildungSPEZIAL(1), 26–31. Jaeggi, R. (ed.). (2013). Was ist Kritik? Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. 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 Kopnina, H. (2020). Education for Sustainable Development Goals (ESDG): What Is Wrong with ESDGs, and What Can We Do Better? Education Sciences, 10(10), 261. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10100261 Kuhn, T. S. (1966). The structure of scientific revolutions. In Phoenix books (4. impr.). Univ. of Chicago Press. 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, Environmental Education Research, 28:3, 405-429, DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2022.2033170 Prouteau, F., & Wallenhorst, N. (2024). Une pensée convivialiste d’une éducation politique en Anthropocène. Penser l’éducation, 54, 105–122. https://doi.org/10.4000/121bz Romero, J. M. (ed.) (2014). Immanente Kritik heute: Grundlagen und Aktualität eines sozialphilosophischen Begriffs. Transcript. Stahl, T. (2013). Immanente Kritik: Elemente einer Theorie sozialer Praktiken. Campus-Verlag. Stein, S., Andreotti, V., Suša, R., Ahenakew, C., & Čajková, T. (2022). From “education for sustainable development” to “education for the end of the world as we know it”. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 54(3), 274–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1835646 UNESCO. (2017). Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning objectives. UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54675/CGBA9153