Students' Influences on Sustainability Education - Going Beyond Listening to Students' Voices - Kth Diva ...
←
→
Transkription von Seiteninhalten
Wenn Ihr Browser die Seite nicht korrekt rendert, bitte, lesen Sie den Inhalt der Seite unten
Degree Project in Industrial Ecology
Second Cycle, 30 Credits
Students’ Influences on
Sustainability Education
Going Beyond Listening to Students’ Voices
SILVIO NIEßNER
Stockholm, Sweden 2022
Abstract
While many actors agree that higher education plays a key role for a sustainability trans-
formation of our society, there is no consensus on how higher sustainability education
should look like. In this discourse, the students’ perspectives are currently underrepre-
sented and their participation rarely goes beyond passive consultation, which means that
they cannot have any real influence. Although some authors emphasize the importance
of students’ active participation in shaping higher education, little in-depth insights on
their perspectives and wishes exist.
This study draws on participatory action research and invited students from around dif-
ferent universities and different parts of the world to a collective exchange in online focus
groups. Primary data was gathered in the form of audio and video recordings, students’
notes on a digital whiteboard and the provided answers in the registration form. A
subsequent thematic analysis and relevance classification of the identified themes yielded
valuable insights that can enrich the entire sustainability education discourse with diverse
student perspectives. In addition, the relations made to industrial ecology and industrial
ecology education throughout the study demonstrate, how the findings can be applied
to a specific discipline. Lastly, the study provides some methodological contributions to
conducting online focus groups.
The key findings include that sustainability education is often treated as a side topic
which is rarely connected to existing subjects of study. However, the students noted that
sustainability topics are gaining importance at their universities. They also pointed out
that the engagement of the higher education institutions, their leaders and their teachers
plays a key role and can either enable or stand in the way of student oriented higher
sustainability education.
In addition, students collected thoughts on the importance and manifold ways of student
engagement, as well as hurdles and possible enablers for a lively student engagement. The
students further discussed about current hegemonies at higher education institutions and
the need to share power equally among students, staff and university leaders. Finally, sev-
eral suggestions were collected on how higher sustainability education should be shaped
in the future. The qualitative nature of the study allows for an in-depth understanding of
the students’ perspectives as an antithesis to the superficial evaluation forms commonly
used and offers a critical basis for a shift of paradigms in higher education.
i
Abstract - German
Während sich viele Akteure einig sind, dass die Hochschulbildung eine Schlüsselrolle
für die Nachhaltigkeitstransformation unserer Gesellschaft spielt, gibt es keinen Kon-
sens darüber, wie die Nachhaltigkeitsbildung an Hochschulen aussehen sollte. In diesem
Diskurs sind die Perspektiven der Studierenden derzeit unterrepräsentiert, und ihre Beteili-
gung geht selten über eine passive Konsultation hinaus, was bedeutet, dass sie keinen
wirklichen Einfluss nehmen können. Obwohl einige Autoren die Bedeutung der aktiven
Beteiligung von Studierenden an der Gestaltung des Hochschulwesens betonen, gibt es
nur wenig vertiefte Erkenntnisse über ihre Perspektiven und Wünsche.
Diese Studie nutzt Ansätze der partizipativen Aktionsforschung und lud Studierende aus
unterschiedlichen Universitäten und verschiedenen Teilen der Welt zu einem gemeinsamen
Austausch in Online-Fokusgruppen ein. Es wurden Primärdaten in Form von Audio-
und Videoaufzeichnungen, Notizen der Studierenden auf einem digitalen Whiteboard,
sowie den gegebenen Antworten im Anmeldeformular der Fokusgruppen gesammelt. Eine
anschließende thematische Analyse und Relevanzklassifizierung der identifizierten The-
men lieferten wertvolle Erkenntnisse, die den Diskurs um die Nachhaltigkeitsbildung an
Hochschulen durch vielfältige studentische Perspektiven bereichern können. Darüber hi-
naus zeigen die in der Studie hergestellten Bezüge zur Industrieökologie bzw. zur Indus-
trieökologie Bildung, wie die Ergebnisse auf eine spezifische Disziplin angewendet werden
können. Abschließend liefert die Studie einige methodische Beiträge zur Durchführung
von Online-Fokusgruppen.
Zu den wichtigsten Ergebnissen gehört, dass Nachhaltigkeitsbildung oft als Nebenthema
behandelt wird, welches nur selten mit bestehenden Studienfächern in Verbindung steht.
Die Studierenden merkten jedoch an, dass Nachhaltigkeitsthemen an ihren Hochschulen
grundsätzlich an Bedeutung gewinnen. Außerdem wiesen sie darauf hin, dass das En-
gagement der Hochschulen, ihrer Leiter und ihrer Lehrkräfte eine Schlüsselrolle spielt und
diese eine nachhaltigkeits- und studierendenorientierte Bildung sowohl ermöglichen als
auch behindern können.
Darüber hinaus sammelten die Studierenden Gedanken über die Bedeutung und die
vielfältigen Möglichkeiten des studentischen Engagements, sowie über Hürden und Er-
leichterungen für ein lebendiges studentisches Engagement. Außerdem wurde über die
derzeitige Hegemonie an den Hochschulen diskutiert und die Notwendigkeit einer gleich-
berechtigten Machtverteilung zwischen Studierenden, Mitarbeitern und Hochschulleitung
betont. Schließlich wurden mehrere Vorschläge gesammelt, wie die Nachhaltigkeitsbil-
dung an Hochschulen in Zukunft gestaltet werden sollte. Der qualitative Charakter der
Studie ermöglicht ein tiefgehendes Verständnis der studentischen Perspektiven als Gegen-
pol zu den üblicherweise verwendeten oberflächlichen Evaluierungsbögen und bietet eine
kritische Grundlage für einen Paradigmenwechsel in der Hochschulbildung.
ii
Abstract - Swedish
Även om många aktörer är överens om att högre utbildning spelar en nyckelroll för en håll-
barhetsomvandling av vårt samhälle, finns det ingen konsensus om hur högre utbildning
för hållbar utveckling bör vara utformad. I denna diskurs är studenternas perspektiv för
närvarande underrepresenterade och deras deltagande begränsas ofta till passivt samråd,
vilket innebär att de inte kan ha något egentligt inflytande. Även om vissa författare be-
tonar vikten av studenternas aktiva deltagande i utformningen av högre utbildning finns
det få djupgående insikter om studenters perspektiv och önskemål.
I denna studie, som baseras på participatorisk aktionsforskning, bjöds studenter från
olika universitet och olika delar världen in till ett kollektivt utbyte i fokusgrupper online.
Primärdata samlades in i form av ljud- och videoinspelningar, studenternas anteckningar
på en digital whiteboard och frågor i ett registreringsformulär. En efterföljande tematisk
analys och klassificering av de identifierade temana gav värdefulla insikter som kan berika
den övergripande diskursen om hållbarhetsutbildning med studenternas perspektiv. Hur
resultaten kan tillämpas på en specifik disciplin demonstreras för utbildning i industriell
ekologi. Slutligen ger studien några metodologiska bidrag till genomförandet av fokus-
grupper online.
De viktigaste resultaten är bland annat att studenter upplever att hållbarhetsutbildning
ofta behandlas som ett sidoämne som sällan har någon koppling till respektive ämnesom-
råde, även om studenterna påpekade att ser förbättringar. Studenterna påpekade också
att engagemanget hos de högre utbildningsinstitutionerna, deras ledare och lärare spelar
en nyckelroll och kan antingen möjliggöra eller stå i vägen för studentorienterad högre
hållbarhetsutbildning.
Dessutom identifierades och dokumenterades studenternas tankar om betydelsen av att
och olika sätt att engagera studenter, samt hinder och möjliga faktorer som kan bidra
till ett aktivt studentengagemang. Studenterna diskuterade vidare de nuvarande hege-
monierna vid högre utbildningsinstitutioner och behovet av att dela makten jämnt mellan
studenter, personal och universitetsledare. Slutligen samlades flera förslag in om hur högre
hållbarhetsutbildning bör utformas i framtiden. Studiens kvalitativa och participatoriska
karaktär möjliggör en djupgående förståelse av studenternas perspektiv som en motpol
till de ytliga utvärderingsformulär som vanligtvis används och erbjuder en kritisk grund
för ett paradigmskifte inom högre utbildning.
iii
Acknowledgements
A very big thank you goes to my supervisor Anders Rosén. He accompanied the whole
project with his outstanding passion for research, education and sustainability and in-
vested an extraordinary amount of time in the supervision. I enjoyed the collegial atmo-
sphere of our collaboration and his openness for critical and controversial perspectives.
In addition, I appreciate the way Anders guided me from the beginning in developing my
own research question until the submission of my final report. He always gave me the
necessary freedom to guide my own research, while at the same time providing construc-
tive feedback and valuable impulses without imposing them on me or the project. In this
way, the research project itself became an exemplary model of emancipatory education.
Even beyond supervising the thesis, Anders offered me great opportunities to increase the
impact of my research and make sure it gets attention. I really appreciate having such
a committed and engaged supervisor and I am very grateful to be able to complete my
studies with such a positive experience - looking forward to our continued collaboration!
My thanks also go to Monika Olsson, my examiner and programme coordinator, who
gave me valuable feedback and supported me in realising my self-designed research project.
Furthermore, I am grateful to all the people who made this study possible by supporting
me in pilot testing the focus group sessions, recruiting participants, and taking part in
the study itself. I would also like to thank all interview partners who provided insights
into their activities, as well as all the people who provided feedback and contributed their
perspectives and ideas to this work.
I am also very grateful for the support from my partner and family who always stood
behind me and my aspirations. They continuously provided a loving, encouraging and
safe environment for me and my personal development and thereby contributed to the
successful completion of my studies.
Finally, I want to thank the German Academic Scholarship Foundation (Studienstiftung
des deutschen Volkes) for providing a scholarship for my studies and thus enabling me to
take the challenge of completing this master programme abroad.
iv
Contents
Abstract i
Abstract - German ii
Abstract - Swedish iii
Acknowledgements iv
List of Figures vii
List of Tables viii
Abbreviations ix
1. Introduction 1
2. Background 3
2.1. Streams of Sustainability Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Industrial Ecology and Sustainability Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Research Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Methods 8
3.1. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.1. Considerations for Doing Focus Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.2. Ethical Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.3. Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2. Focus Group Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.1. General Focus Group Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.2. Digital Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.3. Development of Focus Group Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3. Conducting the Focus Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3.1. Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3.2. Running the Focus Group Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3.3. Follow-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.4. Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.4.1. Analysis Procedure of Gathered Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.4.2. Evaluating the Relevance of Identified Themes . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4. Findings from the Student Focus Groups 26
4.1. Overview of Conducted Focus Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.2. Very Relevant Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.2.1. Sustainability as Side Topic with Growing Relevance . . . . . . . 29
4.2.2. Designing Sustainability Education - Content and Pedagogy . . . 32
v
Contents
4.2.3. Higher Education Institutions - Between Stagnation and Progression 39
4.2.4. Teachers in Sustainability Education - Between Enabling and Per-
sistence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.2.5. Students’ Engagement for Sustainability Education - Between Driv-
ing Change and Resignation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.3. Relevant Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.3.1. Students and Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.3.2. Adequate Funding for Sustainability Education . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.3.3. Mandatory Sustainability Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4.3.4. Regional Differences and Sustainability Education . . . . . . . . . 58
4.4. Unique Insights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.4.1. Accessability of Sustainability Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.4.2. Regenerative Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5. Validity and Implications of the Results 61
5.1. Reliability and Validity of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.2. General Implications of the Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.3. Industrial Ecology Specific Implications of the Findings . . . . . . . . . . 62
6. Lessons Learned from Conducting the Focus Groups 64
6.1. Online Recruitment and Focus Group Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
6.2. Moderation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
6.3. Background Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
7. Conclusion 66
Literature 67
A. Checklist Focus Groups 75
B. Informed Consent 76
C. Background Information Materials 79
D. Recruitment Materials 81
vi
List of Figures
3-1. Frame on the digital whiteboard with introductory question . . . . . . . 19
3-2. Frame on digital whiteboard with first key question . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3-3. Frame on the digital whiteboard with second key question . . . . . . . . 20
3-4. Frame on the digital whiteboard for feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3-5. Frame on the digital whiteboard to leave contact details . . . . . . . . . 22
4-1. Overview of the students’ different study backgrounds . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4-2. Overview of the number of semesters studied by the students . . . . . . . 27
4-3. Students’ connection to sustainability through their studies . . . . . . . . 28
4-4. Students’ connection to sustainability through their private engagement . 28
B-1. Informed consent - page 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
B-2. Informed consent - page 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
C-1. Background information material for participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
D-1. First version of the invitation letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
D-2. Latest version of the invitation letter - page 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
D-3. Latest version of the invitation letter - page 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
vii
List of Tables
3-1. Outline of the focus group process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3-2. Overview of the items used for conducting the focus groups . . . . . . . . 17
3-3. Relevance categories for the identified themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4-1. Overview of the conducted focus groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
viii
Abbreviations
EE Environmental Education.
ESD Education for Sustainable Development.
FG Focus Group.
HE Higher Education.
HEI Higher Education Institution.
HSE Higher Sustainability Education.
IE Industrial Ecology.
IEE Industrial Ecology Education.
LCA Life Cycle Assessment.
PAR Participatory Action Research.
SD Sustainable Development.
SDG Sustainable Development Goal.
SE Sustainability Education.
ixChapter 1 Introduction
There is ample empirical evidence that humans are putting massive and unprecedented
pressures on the earth system and that drastic changes are required to e.g. limit global
warming to 1.5°C and avert severe consequences for humanity and nature (IPCC, 2015;
Rockström et al., 2009). This calls for an urgent transformation in all aspects of our
society as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) show (UN, 2015). In this light,
the role of education is emphasized by the UNESCO (2017), the UN (2015), the OECD
(2018) and other authors (e.g. Getzin, 2019; Wals, 2012). However, the topic of Sustain-
ability Education (SE) and its role in sustainability transformations is highly debated in
the scientific community (Getzin, 2019) and plays a key role in the political discourse (e.g.
OECD, 2018; Thürer et al., 2018; UNESCO GAP, 2018). Leading organisations such as
the United Nations have described SE as “[...] a key enabler for sustainable development”
(UN, 2021) which further emphasises its international importance. In this regard it can
be noted that although most societal stakeholders agree, that SE is an important means
to achieve a sustainability transformation (e.g. Jickling and Wals, 2008; Michelsen and
Wells, 2017), there is ample disagreement on how SE should be designed and practiced
(e.g. Getzin, 2019; Jickling and Wals, 2008).
In this discourse, the students’ voices often remain underrepresented (Barth and Timm,
2011; Pleasance, 2016), even tough it was found that student participation can lead to
“[...] improvements in organizations, teaching practices, teacher-student relationships,
communication and learning [...]” (Pleasance, 2016). Furthermore, many sources point
out the relevance of participation practices - especially student participation - to enhance
the Higher Education (HE) system and better contribute to Sustainable Development
(SD) (e.g. Brooman et al., 2015; Cook-Sather, 2002; Pleasance, 2016). Despite these find-
ings and some practical examples of active student participation in HE (e.g. at CEMUS -
Sweden (Hald, 2011) or Summerhill School - United Kingdom (Neill, 1960)), several stud-
ies have identified a lack of student participation in the current HE system (Campbell
et al., 2007; Cook-Sather, 2002; Pleasance, 2016) and even describe drawbacks for SD,
when old educational paradigms with little to no student participation are maintained
(Pleasance, 2016).
Generally, much theory exists around the role of students’ voices in HE (e.g. Brooman
et al., 2015; Cook-Sather, 2002; Goff and Knorr, 2018; Ho, 2017) and some more specific
literature on students’ perception of SE can be found (e.g. Barth and Timm, 2011; Jickling
and Wals, 2008; Pleasance, 2016; Wals, 2012). There are also studies and publications
made by student organisations which, like this study, are intended to reflect the students’
perspectives (Netzwerk-n et al., 2017; SOS International, 2021). However, students often
remain to be the study objects (Thürer et al., 2018) whose passive perception of SE is
studied through pre-defined surveys or similar narrow approaches (e.g. Barth and Timm,
2011; Brooman et al., 2015; Campbell et al., 2007; Yuan and Zuo, 2013). They are rarely
involved as subjects in actively designing their vision of a successful and engaging SE and
they seldom have a say or the power to influence the way in which SE is carried out (e.g.
Cook-Sather, 2002, 2006).
11. Introduction
This study intends to contribute to the discourse around SE with diverse and still unerrep-
resented student perspectives and gives impulses on how a more student oriented SE could
look like in future. The results are intended to underpin the still general calls for greater
student participation in Higher Sustainability Education (HSE) with concrete insights
into what students are demanding. Based on this aim, the following research questions
can be formulated:
What perspectives do students in different countries have on current
sustainability education?
What suggestions and demands do they have for future sustainability
education?
In addition, the findings are related to the discipline of Industrial Ecology (IE) and In-
dustrial Ecology Education (IEE) as a special case of SE. Therefore, the third research
question can be formulated:
What implications do the insights from the students have for industrial
ecology education?
Focus Groups (FGs) were chosen as qualitative research method to investigate diverse
student perspectives in depth. The target participants were students around the world,
who study at different universities and have a connection to sustainability either through
their studies or their private engagement. The report is structured in six parts. Chapter 2
provides some background to the study e.g. on the used terminology, different streams in
SE and IEE as a special case of SE. Chapter 3 describes the qualitative research method of
FGs, used in this study and the data analysis approach. Chapter 4 presents and discusses
the findings from the FGs and connects them to IEE. Chapter 5 provides perspectives
on the validity of the results and formulates implications for SE in general and IEE
specifically. Chapter 6 presents some lessons learned from working with online FGs, before
Chapter 7 connects back to the research questions and draws conclusions from the study.
2Chapter 2 Background
This chapter provides some background information on the study and begins with a
discussion of the concept of Sustainability Education (SE) in contrast to Education for
Sustainable Development (ESD) and continues with the presentation of different streams
in the SE discourse (section 2.1). Subsequently, Industrial Ecology Education (IEE) is
introduced as a special case of SE (section 2.2), before some remarks on the general
research approach are made (section 2.3).
2.1. Streams of Sustainability Education
The terminology connected to sustainability and education includes among others Edu-
cation for Sustainable Development (ESD), Environmental Education (EE) and Sustain-
ability Education (SE), whereby ESD is the most commonly used term (Cockerill, 2013;
Getzin, 2019). Some authors criticise ESD, to be strongly connected to a pradigm of
economic growth (Berryman and Sauvé, 2016) and thereby “blocking transitions towards
genuine sustainability” (Huckle and Wals, 2015).
Furthermore, the inflationary use of the ‘development’ term in SD, ESD etc. comes with
the danger that it is not being reflected upon potential underlying biases coming with
it, such as “a one-dimensional understanding of development as technology driven to pro-
duce economic growth” (Acosta and Martínez Abarca, 2018). Dividing the world into
developed and developing countries is also fatal considering the following statement:
“The concept of development does not exist in many indigenous systems of
knowledge. They do not espouse a linear vision of life, such as the path lead-
ing from underdevelopment to development. This western dichotomy – as a
necessary path to be followed in order to achieve welfare – is alien to many
indigenous societies. [...]. From this perspective, conventional development is
seen as a western cultural, colonial imposition.” (Acosta and Martínez Abarca,
2018)
Considering these conflicts which are coming with the term of ‘development’ and the
calls to distance oneself from it (Acosta and Martínez Abarca, 2018), this study refrains
from the ESD term. Instead SE is used throughout this study in the attempt to take
a more neutral and unbiased perspective. It is understood as educational activities that
are connected to sustainability. Thereby sustainability is considered as a holistic concept
which is not limited to the usual three pillars (environmental, social, economic), but also
includes aspects like politics, culture, justice etc.
The discourse around SE differentiates among others between two concepts, an instrumen-
tal and an emancipatory education approach (Getzin, 2019). The instrumental approach
is oriented towards “changing human environmental behaviour in predetermined and more
or less agreed upon directions” (Wals, 2012) and it considers education more as “an instru-
ment for installing the educator’s message or ‘agenda’ in the learner’s minds” (Getzin,
2019). An example for such an instrumental perspective can be found at UNESCO (2017):
32. Background
“Education for Sustainable Development – a key instrument to achieve the
SDGs”
This heading shows, that SE is considered as an instrument or tool to achieve some
pre-defined goals, in this case the SDGs. When following the instrumental approach,
students are more passive and rather receive education as consumers (Jickling and Wals,
2008; Pleasance, 2016), so that it can be affiliated with transmissive education practices
(Getzin, 2019). Generally, such instrumentalising education approaches are considered to
rather support a ‘weak’ sustainability concept (Getzin, 2019).
The emancipatory approach on the other hand aligns more with a ‘strong’ sustainability
concept (Getzin, 2019) and should allow students to become ‘democratic practicioners’,
who not only go to the polls but actively participate “in ongoing decision-making pro-
cesses” (Jickling and Wals, 2008). In other words, emancipatory SE is oriented to
“strengthening people’s capacities and confidence to enable them to help determine how
to live together in ways that do not further undermine the carrying capacity of the earth”
(Wals, 2012). Thus, it is much more oriented on enabling students to make their own as-
sessments and draw independent conclusions (Wals, 2012). With this, emancipatory SE
refrains from “authoritatively prescribing alternative norms, behaviours, and lifestyles”
(Jickling and Wals, 2008), which are proclaimed to be more sustainable. Instead, emanci-
patory SE involves students actively in the learning process by co-constructing knowledge
and providing a “space for autonomy and self-determination” (Jickling and Wals, 2008).
If enabling a real sustainability transformation is desired, instead of maintaining the sta-
tus quo, the publications of Getzin (2019), Jickling and Wals (2008), and Wals (2012)
indicate that it is necessary to realise SE which follows the principles of emancipatory
education. This study contributes to students’ emancipation by encouraging them to co-
construct knowledge and understanding in the FGs (Jickling and Wals, 2008; Krueger,
1998a) and act as ‘democratic practitioners’ (Jickling and Wals, 2008) by raising their
voice in the discourse around SE. Therefore, this study itself can be seen as a practical
implementation of emancipatory education.
2.2. Industrial Ecology and Sustainability Education
This section provides some background on Industrial Ecology (IE) and Industrial Ecology
Education (IEE) as a special case of SE, to better understand their relation and see
where students’ perspectives can come in. Cockerill (2013) gives an insight on the history
of IE and mentions the article “Strategies for Manufacturing” written by Frosch and
Gallopoulos (1989) which increased the interest in IE. While there are different attempts
to define IE (see for instance Cockerill (2013), Frosch (1992), Gallopoulos (2006), and
Graedel and Allenby (2010)), Liu and Côté (2021) mention that “its scope is still being
defined”, which shows that it is not a settled concept yet but the subject of continuous
change. However, common features of IE are the focus on industrial systems and the use
of inspirations from ecological ecosystems. Furthermore, it usually maps and optimizes
material and energy flows by taking a cradle to grave perspective when assessing industrial
activities. The concept also recognises the interconnectedness of industrial systems with
the natural surrounding and sometimes, it is also referred to the attempts of reducing
negative environmental impacts.
As a relatively new discipline, IE is taught for about 20 years as own courses or whole
programmes (Finlayson et al., 2014; Liu and Côté, 2021). Nevertheless, the attention to
42. Background
IEE is still lower compared to ESD or Environmental Education (EE) (Cockerill, 2013;
Liu and Côté, 2021). With an increasing formalisation, IEE could benefit from a closer
connection to ESD and EE by getting inspirations on education approaches (Cockerill,
2013; Liu and Côté, 2021). Besides that, many authors see a close connection between
IEE and the area of engineering education or other technical programmes (Ausubel, 1992;
Cockerill, 2013; Graedel and Allenby, 2010; Starr, 1992), which often make use of IE
tools and principles (Cockerill, 2013). However, with its focus on industrial systems and
the aim to reduce environmental burdens (Cockerill, 2013; Gallopoulos, 2006), it is just
covering a niche in SE. Even though Graedel and Allenby (2010) mention the relevance
of e.g. social issues for IE, it is rather handled as a side topic and thus does not give a
holistic picture of sustainability (as e.g. defined by the SDGs (UN, 2015)) and leaves out
political or justice aspects for instance. In addition, IE is considered to deliver tools and
approaches to achieve some pre-set goals, instead of reflecting upon the challenges we face
ourselves and draw conclusions for the own behaviour. This shows that IEE would rather
follow an instrumental than an emancipatory education paradigm (see also section 2.1).
The following quote shows exemplary this applied nature of IE:
“Industrial ecology arose as an applied attempt to address environmental con-
cerns and meet sustainability goals.” (Cockerill, 2013)
While it can be admitted that there is a need to practically execute the defined goals in
order to reach them, it is as important that one is able to challenge and question the set
goals and assess if they are actually able to meet the challenges we face (see for instance
Wals, 2012). To give a practical example, there could be the goal to produce a certain
amount of electrical cars in order to make transportation more sustainable. When being
educated with the concept of IE, one will be able to fulfil this goal with a minimum
of resources and energy input, limiting the impact from the car production, use and
disposal to a minimum. At the same time, it is not questioned whether the production
of electric cars is the right path to more sustainable mobility at all, so that improved
public transport or even abandoning travel is not considered as an option. Thus, it can
be argued that IE is focussed on optimising systems or processes within an established
system, but it is not looking on the bigger picture beyond the industrial sector, to lead to
socio-ecological transformations. Such a shift from optimization to transformation is also
described in literature (Lotz-Sisitka et al., 2015). Related to that, the quote from Jickling
and Wals (2008) points out two different kinds of an ‘educated’ citizen, where IE and an
instrumental education paradigm can rather lead to the first kind of ‘educated’ citizen,
while an emancipatory education paradigm can lead to the second kind of ‘educated’
citizen:
“If social reproduction is the inherent expectation, then citizens should work ef-
ficiently within existing frameworks. Taking this view of the ‘educated’ citizen,
we expect to see individuals well prepared to accept their role within society
and the workforce. They are obedient, deferential, and compliant as they take
their place within hierarchical and authoritative social structures and power
relationships. From this vantage point, individuals are content to participate
in democratic processes at electoral intervals while daily choices are made by
decision-makers and their supporting bureaucracies.
If enabling social transformation is the inherent expectation, then we would ex-
pect to find ‘educated’ citizens who are active participants in ongoing decision-
52. Background
making processes within their communities. They would be democratic practi-
tioners in the sense that democracy is more than selecting a government [...]”
(Jickling and Wals, 2008).
Current IEE is closer linked to the first education paradigm that makes people fit in
and keep running the unsustainable status quo in the attempt to make it somewhat
more environmentally friendly. This underlines the narrow perspective of IEE on only
certain sustainability aspects. Furthermore, IE and IEE lacks reflection upon the bigger
picture by for instance promoting the decoupling of resource use from economic growth
(Graedel and Allenby, 2010), while ignoring that an absolute decoupling can fail due to
rebound effects or similar (Getzin, 2019). Thus, overarching and underlying problems of
an unsustainable world, such as a prevailing growth paradigm, likely remain untouched
by IEE so that is misses the chance to lead to the urgently needed transformation of
our society. Therefore, it is important to broaden the perspective of IEE which could
succeed by getting inspirations from ESD and EE (Cockerill, 2013; Liu and Côté, 2021).
Furthermore, this study can enrich IEE with new perspectives and diverse impulses which
are gathered from students around the world who are passionate for sustainability.
2.3. Research Approach
What is special about this study is, that both the researcher and the participants are
students. As colleagues, the researcher and the participants meet on an equal eye level,
which creates an atmosphere of trust and prevents the participants from being treated as
mere objects of study. On the other hand, the perspectives and opinions of the researcher,
being a student himself, could influence the data collection and analysis. Drawing on the
suggestions of Krueger (1998a), measures were taken to counteract the influence of possible
bias by making the process of data collection and analysis as transparent as possible (see
chapter 3), by following a FG protocol (see Table 3-1) and by having the researcher take
a neutral stance. The latter was also echoed by the participants in the feedback rounds,
where they commented positively on the neutrality of the researcher, through comments
such as:
“I like the neutral stand the moderator takes.”
The researcher’s personal involvement in the topic, the dissolution of hierarchies between
the participants and the researcher, and the desire to bring about real change through
the study are features of Participatory Action Research (PAR) (Kindon et al., 2007),
from which this study is inspired. The study desires to address the deficit in student
participation at Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) (see chapter 1), which is achieved
in mainly two ways. Firstly, the FG method provides a platform for collegial exchange
and collaborative learning (Wibeck et al., 2007; Krueger, 1998a), so that students can
inspire each other on how to strengthen their voices in universities. Secondly, the study
enriches the discourse around SE with still underrepresented student perspectives, which
can result in a more student oriented SE.
The FG method allows to investigate different standpoints without trying to find consen-
sus (Morgan, 1998b). Thus, this research does not seek a single truth on how SE can be
realised best, but acknowledges multiple perspectives. In addition, there are many more
stakeholders besides the students who have demands on SE. In this light, the study ac-
knowledges, that other stakeholders may have different opinions. The openness to diverse
62. Background
‘truths’ shows the close connection of this research to emancipatory education, which is a
more open ended approach and allows for multiple perspectives, understandings and solu-
tions (see section 2.1). Furthermore, a connection can also be made between emancipatory
education and PAR (Kindon et al., 2007). Finally, this self-designed study, conducted as
a Master’s thesis, is itself part of HE and thus presents a ‘living example’ of emancipatory
education.
7Chapter 3 Methods
This chapter begins with a description of the qualitative research approach and a reasoning
for using FGs in this study (section 3.1). Subsequently, the FG design (section 3.2) and
conduction process (section 3.3) are outlined. The last section points out how the gathered
data was analysed (section 3.4).
3.1. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research Method
The study follows an inductive research approach since little is known about students’
perspectives on current HSE and their demands for future HSE (see chapter 1). For
exploring all facades of students opinions and perspectives in depth, FGs are used as
qualitative research approach. Morgan (1998b) describes FGs as a qualitative method
which is suitable to get a deep understanding of a topic and which is used in different
contexts - including academic research.
“Rather than generalizing to larger populations, you may need an in-depth
understanding of a particular setting or circumstance. This is where focus
groups and other qualitative methods excel.” (Morgan, 1998b)
From the variety of qualitative methods, FGs are used because the group setting allows to
get a holistic perspective on a topic from different viewpoints (Morgan, 1998b; Wibeck et
al., 2007). The participants can bring in their individual and diverse backgrounds (Mor-
gan, 1998b) and can build on each others comments (Krueger, 1998a). Thus, FGs can be
a space of collective learning (Krueger, 1998a; Wibeck et al., 2007) and the redundancy
of the collected data can be reduced compared to individual interviews for instance (Mor-
gan, 1998b). Furthermore, data from the interactions between the participants can be
collected (Krueger, 1998a; Wibeck et al., 2007). Morgan (1998b) also provides a checklist
to assess whether FGs are a suitable method for the respective research project. Going
through this checklist indicates as well, that FGs are an appropriate method for this study
(see also Appendix A). Even though there is no clear definition of FGs, Morgan (1998b)
provides three characteristics of FGs:
“They are a research method for collecting qualitative data, they are focused
efforts at data gathering, and they generate data through group discussions.”
(Morgan, 1998b)
Since this study intends to get an in depth understanding of students’ perspectives and
thus seeks for qualitative data, it is focused on the topic of HSE and uses the interaction
of the group participants as data source, all three criteria are met. While FGs excel
in getting a deep understanding of a topic, they lack generalisability (Morgan, 1998b).
However, it could be assessed whether the findings are transferable to other contexts
(Krueger, 1998a).
83. Methods
3.1.1. Considerations for Doing Focus Groups
When running FGs, it can be challenging for the participants to establish a “common
communicative ground” (Hydén and Bülow, 2003) and work out how they can “add their
contributions to the common ground” (Hydén and Bülow, 2003). To ease the formation of
a ‘common ground’, it should be assured in the group composition, that the participants
share some prior experiences (Hydén and Bülow, 2003). In this study, this ‘common
ground’ is the participants’ prior knowledge and connection to the topic of sustainability,
which is also described in subsection 3.3.1 as the homogeneity among the participants.
A further challenge can be the domination of the discussion by some participants, which
leads to a situation where others, e.g. more silent or reserved participants, do not get
sufficient space to talk (Krueger, 1998c; Smithson, 2000; Wibeck et al., 2007). In such
situations the moderator can intervene to make space for other participants and include
more opinions and perspectives in the discussion (Barbour, 2007; Krueger, 1998c; Wibeck
et al., 2007).
Another challenge for the FG moderator is, for example, the need to find a balance between
the degree of guidance and the freedom given to the FGs and their discussions (Savin-
Baden, 2003; Wibeck et al., 2007). If the guidance is too weak, participants might start
exploring what is expected of them during the FG instead of discussing the actual topic
under study (Wibeck et al., 2007). A too strong guidance, on the other hand, can bring
in the moderator’s agenda into the discussion and limit the gathered results (Krueger,
1998c). Thus, the moderator needs a good intuition to successfully facilitate FGs (Wibeck
et al., 2007). Finally, one should keep in mind that there are some study ethics that need
to be considered when doing FGs which are explained further in subsection 3.1.2.
3.1.2. Ethical Considerations
When doing FGs and working with individuals, study ethics play an important role and
need to be addressed in the study design (Morgan, 1998b; Barbour, 2007). Since this
study is targeted to adult students no special considerations in regards to the partici-
pant’s age are needed. Morgan (1998b) points out, that it is key to not put participants
of FGs “at risk” by disclosing personal information for instance. This could have nega-
tive effects for the participants, especially when considering that international students
are recruited for this study and not all countries around the world apply the freedom of
speech. In such cases the disclosure of personal information could lead to negative effects
for the participants. Therefore, a careful handling of personal data is important.
Another aspect that needs to be considered is the risk of over-disclosure by participants,
which means that participants disclose information that they later wish they had not
shared (Morgan, 1998b; Barbour, 2007). The risk of over-disclosure is particular high
in situations where participants do not know each other and only meet for a single oc-
casion (Morgan, 1998b). Additionally, people tend to share more openly in digital FGs
(Liamputtong, 2011). Since all these conditions are given in this study, the informed
consent points out that the participants should be careful on what they share in order
to prevent them from over-disclosing sensitive personal information. In addition, partic-
ipants were reminded at the beginning of the FGs to be mindful of what they want to
share. This should ensure that sufficient safeguards are put in place while providing the
participants with the freedom to make their own decisions on what they want to share
(Barbour, 2007) without patronizing them.
93. Methods
Handling of Personal Data
Personal data is collected through an online registration form as well as during the FGs.
The following list provides an overview of the collected data:
• Name
• Email address
• Study subject
• Number of studied semesters
• Location of their university
• If they study in the field of sustainability
• How the studies are connected to sustainability
• If they engage in sustainability topics outside the university and what they do
• Audio and video recording of the FGs
• Personal notes from the moderator
• Workshop results on a digital whiteboard
The data collected through the survey and the digital whiteboard remains in the online
tools and is downloaded to a local computer with password protection. The audio and
video recordings as well as the moderator’s notes are also stored on the same password
protected computer to ensure that only the researcher has access to the non-anonymised
data. All personal data is deleted after the completion of the project.
Informed Consent and Confidentiality
To ensure that all participants are comprehensively informed about the study and the
handling of their personal data, every participant was asked to sign an informed con-
sent prior to the FG sessions, as suggested by Morgan (1998b). The informed consent
included information about the purpose of the study, how the study will be conducted,
how the gathered data will be handled, what the data will be used for and what rights
the participants have. Furthermore, it is stressed that the participants can freely decide
on “[...] what they want to share and what they wish to keep private.” (Barbour, 2007).
This should reduce the risk of over-disclosing personal information. The informed consent
used in this study can be found in Appendix B.
In addition to the informed consent, the moderator informs the participants in the be-
ginning of each FG that they are recorded and that they can drop off if they do not
want to be recorded. Furthermore, the participants are reminded to keep all personal and
sensitive information which they obtain from other participants confidential as suggested
by Barbour (2007).
3.1.3. Limitations
The study is limited to voluntary participants, since no direct benefits are granted for par-
ticipation. Thus it can be assumed that only such students participated in the FGs who
are interested in the topic. Furthermore, the study is limited to students who can speak
English, have enough free time to participate and feel comfortable to join an unfamiliar
group of people in an online setting. Rezabek (1999) describes that a fear of technology
103. Methods
can be an obstacle for some students. However, this was more than 20 years ago and is
probably no longer an issue today, as online conferences are now part of students’ every-
day study routines.
From a practical point of view only those who have an internet connection can partici-
pate in the study since it is conducted online (Edmunds, 1999). Additionally, the internet
connection must be stable and a sufficient bandwidth is needed, so that all participants
can equally participate in a fluent group discussion. The participants also need the tech-
nical equipment to participate, namely a computer, a video camera and a microphone.
While all participants had the equipment to participate in the FGs, there were still some
difficulties to understand some participants due to a weak internet connection or a low
microphone quality. However, such difficulties occurred rather seldom.
Another limitation is that students can drop off at any time, which is a necessity accord-
ing to the FG research ethics. Regardless of whether the reason for participants dropping
out is a weak internet connection, data security concerns, other technical problems or a
personal desire to drop out, it may affect the group discussion and dynamics. While no
participant dropped out permanently from the FGs, some turned off their audio and video
for a short while during the FG sessions. As they were not fully involved in the group
discussions during these times, this might have had an impact on the group dynamics.
However, the moderator could not detect any such effects.
3.2. Focus Group Design
In this section the design of the FGs will be explained in depth. It starts with the general
setup which will expand on the group size, duration etc. and continues with a description
of the specialities of the online format. Lastly, the development process of the FG sessions
is explained.
3.2.1. General Focus Group Setup
The FGs were conducted synchronously in digital format, using a conferencing tool with
audio and video transmission. The FGs were audio and video taped and a digital white-
board was used for remote collaboration during the FGs. A group size of four to six
participants was aimed for and the FGs were planned and announced for taking place
on a single occasion for a duration of two hours. Both, the FG size and duration are
typical variables which can be found in FG literature (Barbour, 2007; Krueger, 1998b;
Liamputtong, 2011; Morgan, 1998b; Wibeck et al., 2007). This group size and duration
should ensure that all participants have sufficient time to express their thoughts. In ad-
dition, Wibeck et al. (2007) describe, that smaller groups are beneficial for more focussed
discussions. During the FGs, a short break was taken to allow participants to regain
concentration and energy for the rest of the session. At the end of the FGs, the recording
was stopped and an open space with no time limit was offered to allow participants to
socialise.
It was not intended to find a group opinion or consensus on the topic under investigation,
instead a wide range of opinions was aimed for, as also suggested by Morgan (1998b).
The sharing of the participants’ unique perspectives was encouraged by valuing their
contributions and not declaring answers as right or wrong (Wibeck et al., 2007).
113. Methods
3.2.2. Digital Format
There are various forms of digital FGs, ranging from text based chat rooms, to the recon-
struction of live discussions with a conferencing tool (Liamputtong, 2011). The use of a
conferencing tool with audio and video transmission in this study helps to overcome some
limitations of digital FGs, such as the “lack of verbal and visual interaction” (Liamput-
tong, 2011). This however is only true, if all participants have turned their audio and
video on and the bandwidth and internet stability allow transmission.
In general, digital FGs became more popular with increasing technological advancement
and they are now often used as a quicker and cheaper alternative to analogue FGs, al-
lowing participation from different distant locations (Liamputtong, 2011). In addition,
almost all computers nowadays have build in cameras and microphones so that the use of
conferencing equipment for doing digital FGs does not demand a substantial investment
any more, as it was described by Rezabek (2000) some 20 years ago.
The use of a conferencing tool makes it possible to record the FGs without any special
recording equipment as it is needed for analogue FGs (Barbour, 2007). When a session
is recorded, participants can feel discomfort (Barbour, 2007) which could be lower when
recording an online FG, because there is no physical equipment that constantly reminds
the participants of being recorded. The recording quality of digital FGs depends mainly
on the bandwidth, a stable internet connection and the microphone and camera quality
of the participants’ equipment, which cannot be influenced by the researcher. That is
different in analogue FGs where challenges such as the correct positioning of the camera
and microphone (Barbour, 2007), can be controlled by the researcher.
Literature suggests, that people could feel more comfortable with participating in digital
FGs e.g. because of an increased feeling of anonymity (Liamputtong, 2011). This could
encourage participants to also share critical comments (Liamputtong, 2011), which can
deliver deep and interesting insights. However, this can come with the ethical issue of
over-disclosing personal information, which is discussed in subsection 3.1.2. Generally
the data quality from digital FGs is expected to be similar compared to analogue FGs in
terms of the amount of data and the identified themes (Barbour, 2007).
3.2.3. Development of Focus Group Sessions
Based on the research questions of the study (see chapter 1) and considering additional
literature on formulating questions for FGs (Krueger, 1998b), a brainstorming on po-
tential questions for the FGs was done by the researcher. The gathered questions were
grouped into similar themes and condensed into about a dozen questions. Subsequently,
the gathered questions were ordered and adapted to the structure of Krueger (1998b),
who categorises the FG questions in opening, introductory, transition, key and ending
questions. By doing this, the first version of a FG structure was set up. For conduct-
ing the FGs, different formats were planned, such as group discussions and anonymous
brainstorming sessions on a digital whiteboard. This should ensure that all participants
can share their opinions freely, which is important for running FGs (Krueger, 1998a) and
which is also a particular strength of digital FGs (Liamputtong, 2011).
As Krueger (1998b) and Morgan (1998b) suggest, the developed structure was pilot tested.
This was done with people from the researcher’s personal network who were invited to
a FG test round. The intention was to try out the structure, get feedback and generate
insights on how to improve the FG structure. Furthermore, the pilot was intended to get
123. Methods
some routine in conducting the FGs before starting data collection. As expected, the first
pilot yielded valuable experiences which were incorporated in the FG structure. Main
changes include a further reduced number of questions, an increasing use of stimulus ma-
terials and the digital whiteboard as well as detaching the structure from the suggested
order by Krueger (1998b) by removing the question category of transition questions. This
improved structure went in a second iteration of pilot testing which again yielded some
insights, including a sharper framing of the questions and a slightly reduced use of the
digital white board. Besides the pilot testing the FG structure was also discussed several
times with the supervisor of this study to get additional feedback.
3.3. Conducting the Focus Groups
This section elaborates on the preparations for the FGs, it explaines in detail how they
were performed and describes some follow-up tasks which were dealt with once the FGs
were finished.
3.3.1. Preparation
Some preparation was needed to perform the FGs including the recruitment of partici-
pants, composing the groups for the FG sessions and handle some pre-workshop commu-
nication. These aspects are explained in more detail below.
Recruitment
No spatial boundaries were set for recruiting participants. By inviting students form all
over the world, they can enrich the gathered data with their diverse backgrounds and
perspectives. In this respect it is important to note, that this work explicitly does not
aim to identify regional differences but tries to capture a diverse perspective on the topic
from various angles.
Participants were recruited mainly by reaching out to the personal network of the author
and supervisor of this study, asking for forwarding an invitation letter for the FGs. The
first version of the invitation letter asked students to fill in an online registration form and
state their time preferences for the conduction of the workshop. Since the arrangement of
a date based on the students’ preferences turned out to be challenging, this was changed
later, so that a set of pre-defined dates was suggested, which the students could select
from. Further improvements of the invitation letter were done in multiple iterations
based on the feedback from the pilot testing, the supervisor and comments gathered
during the distribution of the invitation. Major changes include an optical redesign (see
Appendix D) and the shift to call it ‘workshop’ instead of ‘focus group’, to make it more
understandable and attractive for the participants. Besides sending the invitation letter
to existing contacts, different sustainability student initiatives were contacted and asked
to forward the invitation to their members. The author also joined some online meetings
to shortly present and ‘advertise’ the workshops in person.
The recruitment started in June 2021 but yielded only few registrations which could
be traced back to the approaching summer time where students are either on vacations
or busy with examinations. A further possible reason could be the fatigue of students
to participate in another online event, as for many students their education has been
133. Methods
completely digitalised during the ongoing pandemic. Due to the difficulties in recruiting,
some groups were offered to hold a workshop within their existing group, even though the
research aimed to compose diverse groups with students from different study locations
around the world. In addition, the recruitment was paused for the summer and restarted
in August 2021, once students returned to the universities and thus were easier to access.
Group Composition
The goal of capturing as many different perspectives on HSE as possible should be achieved
through the most diverse group composition possible with regard to different study loca-
tions and study semesters. FG literature states as well, that a heterogeneity of background
experiences of the participants can be beneficial for the FG discussion and the generated
data (Liamputtong, 2011; Kitzinger and Barbour, 1999). However, it turned out to be
a challenge to steer the group composition as the number of registrations for the FGs
was low. This led to a situation where selecting only certain participants was nearly
impossible when aiming for a group size of four to six people, considering the need for
over-recruitment (Barbour, 2007), to compensate for participants who do not show up or
decide to drop out during the FGs. However, it was possible to gather diverse groups
nonetheless by directing the recruitment efforts to diverse target groups at the same time.
Despite aiming for heterogeneity, literature also suggests that there should be a certain
degree of homogeneity among the FG participants (Kitzinger and Barbour, 1999; Krueger,
1998c; Liamputtong, 2011). Therefore, care was taken to ensure that the participants have
at least one characteristic in common, as suggested by Barbour (2007). In the context of
this study this characteristic is their connection to the sustainability topic through their
university education and/ or their extracurricular activities, which was asked for in the
registration form.
Pre-Workshop Communication
Once the students had registered and the groups were composed, the participants were
contacted by email to express my gratitude for their participation and inform them about
the date, time and meeting place (in this case a link to join the conferencing tool) for the
FG. They were also asked to read some attached materials before the FG, to get on the
same level of background knowledge (see Appendix C). Moreover, it was requested to sign
the attached informed consent and send a signed copy via email to the researcher. It was
stressed that without signing the informed consent, they will not be able to participate
in the FG (for more information about the informed consent see subsection 3.1.2). A
reminder to sign the informed consent was sent out latest one day before the respective
FG session to those participants who have not yet signed it. In addition, all participants
received a reminder for the FG session usually one day before the meetup. For groups
with participants form different time zones, the number of hours until the start of the FG
was stated in the email to avoid confusions due to time differences.
3.3.2. Running the Focus Group Sessions
The previously described development process in subsection 3.2.3 led to a FG structure
that is oriented on the question categories proposed by Krueger (1998b) which entail
opening, introductory, transition, key and ending questions. Solely a transition question
14Sie können auch lesen
