Sustainability in higher education is often framed through narratives of individual responsibility or through a binary lens that contrasts individual versus collective responsibility (Salovaara & Hagolani-Albov, 2024). Both approaches overlook the relational and material dimensions through which responsibility is co-constructed in educational contexts. This study critically examines how undergraduate and master’s students at the University of Bucharest conceptualize responsibility in the context of climate change and sustainability. Drawing on a posthumanist and feminist theoretical framework (Bozalek et al., 2020; Hoppe, 2019; Buikema & Thiele, 2020), the research integrates concepts of response-ability (Haraway, 2016), intra-action (Barad, 2007 ), and diffractive reading (Barad, 2014) to explore how students’ discussions reveal tensions, contradictions, and emergent possibilities within sustainability education.

Guided by the research question -  How do students in higher education articulate their responsibility toward sustainable development, and how do collective and individual interpretations interact in this process? - the study employs focus group discussions analyzed through a diffractive methodology. This approach explores how students engage with sustainability discourses in participatory learning environments, examining how responsibility is conceptualized both individually and collectively. Additionally, it investigates how educational spaces, pedagogical tools, and collaborative activities shape students’ sustainability awareness. Through diffractive reading, the study traces the interplay between students’ reflections and theoretical concepts, highlighting tensions, contradictions, and emergent patterns.

Grounded in posthumanist thought, this study moves beyond traditional human-centered ethics to conceptualize responsibility as a relational, emergent process rather than an individually assigned duty (Taylor, 2020). Drawing on the concept of response-ability (Haraway, 2016; Hoppe, 2019), responsibility is approached as a co-constituted practice by entanglements between human and non-human agents. In alignment with these, diffractive reading (Barad, 2007; Braidotti et al., 2020) is employed as an analytical technique that places students’ reflections in dialogue with theoretical texts.

Key concepts such as becoming-with (Haraway, 2008) and entangled world-making highlight that responsibility is not something individuals "have" but something they "do together" with others, including non-human actors and institutional infrastructures. Notably, the diffractive analytical framework was not pre-established at the outset of this research but emerged organically through ongoing engagement with both the data and posthumanist theories. This reflects the nature of diffractive inquiry, which views knowledge as relational and emergent, developing in dialogue with the data to highlight how meanings and responsibilities in sustainability education are co-constructed (Jackson& Mazzei, 2022; Bozalek & Zembylas, 2020) .

In this study, diffractive reading is not only a method for analyzing focus groups but also a way to understand how responsibility itself emerges. Placing students’ reflections in dialogue with concepts like response-ability (Haraway) and intra-action (Barad) is both a diffractive practice and a theoretical exploration of how ideas are generated through these entangled interactions.

The study explores how students articulate responsibility as both a personal commitment and an institutional dimension, investigating whether and how students’ discourses reflect tensions between individual actions and institutional structures designed to support sustainability efforts. While Haraway (2016) conceptualizes response-ability as an emergent collective practice, this research seeks to understand how that conceptualization resonates with or is challenged by students' reflections. The analysis examines if and how responsibility is simultaneously individualized and collectivized within educational contexts, thereby extending theoretical understandings of sustainability responsibility.

This research aligns with global sustainability education goals, contributing to European higher education policy discussions on sustainability integration. It supports the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the European Green Deal, offering insights into how participatory pedagogies can enhance sustainability education. By examining students' perceptions of responsibility within an Eastern European context, the study adds a valuable regional perspective to the broader discourse on sustainability in higher education.

This study engages with focus group discussions as sites of intra-action, embedded within the participatory learning environment of the Climate Fresk activity. Climate Fresk is a science-based, pedagogical tool designed to foster climate literacy through the co-construction of knowledge. Rather than framing it as a linear educational process, we approach Climate Fresk as an assemblage of human and non-human actors, where learning emerges through entangled interactions between participants, materials, and discourses. The activity unfolds in three phases: - Construction Phase – Participants collaboratively engage with 42 cards representing climate change causes, and effects based on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. These cards act not as static information units but as material-discursive agents that mediate meaning-making processes. - Creative Phase – Groups personalize their Fresk using drawings and messages, fostering affective and embodied engagements that open new relational pathways for thinking with climate issues and talk about it. - Debriefing Phase – Facilitated discussions function, where students reflect on emotions, knowledges, and potential actions, allowing tensions and contradictions to surface as part of the learning process. While Climate Fresk has been widely implemented in educational and organizational contexts, its relational potential in higher education remains underexplored. However, its participatory methodology aligns with experiential learning approaches that emphasize co-construction of knowledge, embodied engagement, and collective sense-making (Burns & Briley, 2015; De Welde et al., 2021). Our study involved five focus groups (30 students) from educational sciences programs at the University of Bucharest. Focus groups are viewed here as as intra-active spaces where meanings are co-produced through the dynamic interplay of participants, facilitators, material artifacts, and institutional contexts (Krueger, 2000; Breen, 2006 ). The focus groups were taking place during the debriefing phase of the Climate Fresk. Rather than treating reflections as static data points, this study conceptualizes them as material-discursive intra-actions (Barad, 2007), exploring how responsibility emerges relationally through entanglements with educational spaces, pedagogical tools, and collective dialogues (Jackson& Mazzei, 2022). We employ diffractive reading (Barad, 2007) not as an analytical technique to categorize data, but as a method of thinking-with, where students’ narratives are placed in dialogue with theoretical concepts. This approach foregrounds entanglement, emergence, and relationality, attending to tensions, contradictions, and affective intensities in students’ evolving understandings of sustainability.

Through a diffractive analytical reading, this study explores how students conceptualize responsibility within intra-actions with institutional settings while also reflecting on how the research process itself contributes to responding as composing (Hoppe, 2019). It remains open to understanding both the actions and language necessary to articulate response-ability, revealing potential tensions, negotiations, and transformations in students’ sustainability perspectives (Jackson& Mazzei, 2022). Since the analysis is ongoing, definitive results are not available. We anticipate the emergence of tensions, contradictions in students' discourses, which will serve as entry points for deeper understanding. We expect that the diffractive analysis will help us to understand how responsibility is dynamically shaped through the interaction between students’ reflections and theoretical concepts like response-ability (Haraway, 2016). We also expect the analysis to uncover relational networks that shape responsibility, involving not just human actors but also material, institutional, and technological factors. Responsibility will thus be explored as an entangled phenomenon, emerging from complex interactions rather than as an isolated individual choice. Additionally, the study may reveal affective and material dimensions, illustrating how emotions, educational spaces, and technologies influence students’ perceptions of environmental responsibility. Ultimately, this research aims to open new a reflections rather than offering definitive conclusions. Diffraction functions as a catalyst for new questions, allowing for an evolving understanding of responsibility in sustainability education. The findings seek to contribute to ongoing educational conversations and practices, fostering spaces for rethinking pedagogical approaches that promote relational responsibility, critical engagement, and collective sustainability action. Rather than providing prescriptive models for policy, the study engages with the entangled dynamics of education, inviting dialogue and the emergence of alternative possibilities within curricula and institutional practices. This study also contributes to European and international dialogues on sustainability education in higher education, aligning with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the European Green Deal.

Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press. Barad, K. (2014). Diffracting diffraction: Cutting together-apart. Parallax, 20(3), 168–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/13534645.2014.927623 Bozalek, V., & Zembylas, M. (2020). Practicing reflection or diffraction? Implications for research methodologies in education. In R. Braidotti, V. Bozalek, T. Shefer, & M. Zembylas (Eds.), Socially just pedagogies: Posthumanist, feminist and materialist perspectives in higher education (pp. 47–62). Bloomsbury Academic. Bozalek, V., Bayat, A., Gachago, D., Motala, S., & Mitchell, V. (2020). A pedagogy of response-ability. In R. Braidotti, V. Bozalek, T. Shefer, & M. Zembylas (Eds.), Socially just pedagogies: Posthumanist, feminist and materialist perspectives in higher education (pp. 97–112). Bloomsbury Academic. Breen, R. L. (2006). A practical guide to focus-group research. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 30(3), 463–475. Buikema, R., & Thiele, K. (2020). Feminism and feminist studies in neoliberal times: Furthering social justice in higher education curricula. In R. Braidotti, V. Bozalek, T. Shefer, & M. Zembylas (Eds.), Socially just pedagogies: Posthumanist, feminist and materialist perspectives in higher education (pp. 31–46). Bloomsbury Academic. Burns, H. L., & Briley, J. (2015). Going deep: Reflections on teaching deep ecology in Costa Rica. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching and Learning Journal, 8(2). De Welde, K., et al. (2021). Grounded in place: Strategies for teaching sustainability in cross-cultural learning communities. In K. Leone, S. Komisar, & E. M. Everham III (Eds.), Making the sustainable university: Education for sustainability. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4477-8_7 Haraway, D. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the Chthulucene. Duke University Press. Hoppe, K. (2019). Responding as composing: Towards a post-anthropocentric, feminist ethics for the Anthropocene. Journal of Feminist Philosophy, 35(2), 187–204. Jackson, A. Y., & Mazzei, L. A. (2022). Thinking with theory in qualitative research. Routledge. Krueger, R. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Sage. Salovaara, J. J., & Hagolani-Albov, S. E. (2024). Sustainability agency in unsustainable structures: Rhetoric of a capable transformative individual. Discover Sustainability, 5, 138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00341-z Taylor, C. A. (2020). Each intra-action matters: Towards a posthuman ethics for enlarging response-ability in higher education pedagogic practice-ings. In R. Braidotti, V. Bozalek, T. Shefer, & M. Zembylas (Eds.), Socially just pedagogies: Posthumanist, feminist and materialist perspectives in higher education (pp. 81–96). Bloomsbury Academic.