In a world shaped by ecological change, mass extinction, digital integration, and socio-technological upheaval, how can education be conceived without considering the complex interconnections between the natural, social, technological, and intrapersonal realms? Given these interconnected challenges, the field of environmental education (EE) may provide insight. Yet the prevailing EE literature is dominated by neoliberal narratives prioritising economic growth by promoting green technologies and scientific knowledge, reinforcing human exceptionalism and a disconnect from ‘nature’ (Aikens et al., 2016; Dunlop & Rushton, 2022). 

Moreover, although we–at least in the European context–live in a time when our lives have become increasingly entangled with advanced technologies, there is little exploration in EE scholarship of how technology entangles with/in nature, especially in formal contexts. Most pedagogical approaches focus on teaching about the ‘natural’ environment without exploring the onto-epistemological questions surrounding how we exist or should exist within these entanglements. Thus, EE faces a challenge rooted in our habitual modes of existence (Stein, 2019) and has an opportunity to reimagine ways of being that disrupt neoliberal, assessment-driven systems and engage with the world in transformative ways that do not perpetuate social, ecological or technological violence. 

Therefore, this paper asks: What might constitute pedagogies for ecological multiplicity that include human, other-than-human, and cyber technologies? And how might they be envisioned for teachers working within formal educational settings? I am particularly interested in exploring how educators can act within the current educational landscape to envision pedagogies that can transform EE and educational practice more broadly. To that end, I situate this paper within a critical pragmatist philosophy, which promotes forward-looking, action-based philosophical endeavours while also acknowledging present constraints (Stengel, 2017).  

This presentation describes a ‘real utopian’ methodological approach based on Ruth Levitas' (2013) Utopia-as-Method (UAM) framework. UAM provides a structured yet imaginative framework for engaging with issues of educational reimagination. A critical-pragmatic utopian approach, as developed in UAM, provides a structured yet imaginative framework for engaging with these complex issues. Grounded in critical and decolonial traditions (Barad, 2007; Braidotti, 2019; Tuck & Yang, 2012), the particular UAM approach used for this paper resists both naïve idealism and paralyzing cynicism, offering a way of thinking about the future while remaining critically engaged with present constraints. The tension between speculation and pragmatism is especially relevant in education, where institutional norms often appear immovable. Utopian methods may open up possibilities for rethinking the purpose, structure, and impact of education, moving beyond deficit-based reform models.

This paper frames UAM as a critical methodological and theoretical tool for rethinking EE.  I will describe its three-staged UAM approach to explore how formal education can envision and engage with pedagogical practices to move towards an EE that enacts ontological (or onto-epistemic) change.  I will outline how the UAM approach can challenge dominant neoliberal and Eurocentric paradigms, creating space for new forms of relation, justice, and ecological responsibility. The first two stages of this approach have been completed, and I will summarize their results and discuss their implications for the ongoing final stage. 

This paper thus explores one way that UAM can contribute to new social imaginaries in education—ones that foreground relationality, ecological responsibility, and epistemic plurality. By tracing the intersections between utopian thought, decolonial critique, and educational futures, the paper will demonstrate how utopian methods can help dismantle Eurocentric epistemologies and foster pedagogies that respond to planetary crises in more justice-oriented ways.

This paper utilizes Utopia-as-Method (UAM) to examine how pedagogies can account for the entangled relations between humans, non-humans, and technologies in formal educational settings. The methodology unfolds in three interconnected stages: Stage 1, Archaeology, describes a critical unpacking of the status quo to look carefully at what is implicit in current conceptions of EE and then lay it open for critique. This Archaeological stage requires one to dig up what is underfoot, to reveal underlying assumptions that lurk behind this growing field of research. This stage was guided by the question, What assumptions and metanarratives underlie the claims, recommendations, and frameworks that current scholarship and practice around environmental education set forth? I will detail the decolonial critical-hermeneutic literature review I conducted to this end, and summarise the results, which serve as a basis for envisioning transformative alternatives. Building on the work of Stage 1, Stage 2, Ontology, is grounded on an exploration of alternative ways of being and possibilities for the future. Having critically considered the status quo in Stage 1, the Ontology stage opens the possibility of imagining alternative ways of being, guided by the question: What does living, thriving and dying well on a damaged planet ask from education? The ontological task here is one grounded on decolonial perspectives, informed by critical posthuman (post-qualitative) inquiry through diffractive reading (Bozalek & Zembylas, 2017; Fox & Alldred, 2023). I explore seemingly different material-discursive phenomena in relationship with one another and pay attention to the patterns of difference generated. These patterns of difference (or findings) will be briefly summarised and discussed. Finally, Stage 3, Architecture, focuses on bridging the theoretical and practical aspects of the UAM approach. Where the Ontology stage refers to the philosophical exploration of principles, values, and ideals that may underpin a new vision for education, the Architectural stage translates those ideas into practical and implementable forms. In this case, it includes reimagining alternative ways formal education might look, feel, and be like in relation to EE, given what I encountered in the previous stages. Here, I ask, what pedagogies, practices, and structures might support the ontological shifts called for in Stage 2? While Stage 3 is still ongoing, I will discuss how the findings of Stage 1 and 2 inform this final stage. I will detail my creative writing as research-creation methodological approach, which utilises arts-based practices (Kitchin, 2023; Loveless, 2019).

This paper argues that Utopia as Method offers a powerful methodological and theoretical tool for rethinking formal education and pedagogy in an era of ecological, technological, and social crisis. By critically interrogating the neoliberal, Eurocentric, and human-exceptionalist narratives that dominate EE, this approach creates space for more plural, relational, and justice-oriented pedagogies. Through its three stages—Archaeology, Ontology, and Architecture—UAM provides a structured yet imaginative framework for dismantling entrenched assumptions while simultaneously envisioning new ways of learning and being within formal education. Situated within a European and United States context, this approach is particularly relevant given the pressing need for educational institutions across the entirety of the Western world to respond to planetary crises in ways that transcend normative boundaries. As we grapple with environmental degradation, technological acceleration, and ongoing colonial legacies in knowledge production, EE must move beyond technocratic solutions and toward pedagogies that engage with epistemic diversity, ecological responsibility, and social transformation. Moreover, the methodological insights from this study have broader implications for education within the West, offering a critical-pragmatic utopian lens through which to cultivate new forms of praxis that resist reductive sustainability discourses and instead foster a more interconnected, ethical, and imaginative engagement with the world.

Aikens, K., McKenzie, M., & Vaughter, P. (2016). Environmental and sustainability education policy research: A systematic review of methodological and thematic trends. Environmental Education Research, 22(3), 333–359. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press. Bozalek, V., & Zembylas, M. (2017). Diffraction or reflection? Sketching the contours of two methodologies in educational research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 30(2), 111–127. Braidotti, R., Jones, E., & Klumbytė, G. (2022). More posthuman glossary. Bloomsbury Academic. Dunlop, L., & Rushton, E. A. C. (2022). Putting climate change at the heart of education: Is England's strategy a placebo for policy? British Educational Research Journal, 48(6), 1083–1101. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3816 Fox, N. J., & Alldred, P. (2023). Applied research, diffractive methodology, and the research-assemblage: Challenges and opportunities. Sociological Research Online, 28(1), 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/13607804211029978 Kitchin, R. (2023). Arts-based methods for researching digital life. In J. Ash, R. Kitchin, & A. Leszczynski (Eds.), Researching digital life: Theory, methods and application. Sage. [Pre-print version] Levitas, R. (2013). Utopia as method: The imaginary reconstitution of society. Palgrave Macmillan. Loveless, N. (2019). How to make art at the end of the world. Duke University Press. Stengel, B. (2017). From the editor: Staying alive. Educational Theory, 67(2), 123–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12231 Tuck, E., McKenzie, M., & McCoy, K. (2014). Land education: Indigenous, post-colonial, and decolonizing perspectives on place and environmental education research. Environmental Education Research, 20(1), 1–23.