The need to better understand sustainability and the environment has long been recognized; there is a history of environmental concern beginning in the 1940s and extending to today. In recent decades the focus has shifted from “environment” to “sustainability” as we realize planetary limitations. Universities have developed programs and degrees in environmental studies, environmental science, and sustainability, yet student uptake remains low. This is a concern, given the critical – and genuinely existential – need for all people to understand sustainability. This chapter addresses this need through the lens of leadership and university barriers and challenges faced by individuals and institutions seeking to broaden the scope and impact of sustainability scholarship and education. Individual barriers include disciplinary identity, time to commit, and a rewards/recognition system that disincentivizes interdisciplinary work. Individual barriers also include knowledge of pedagogy and “permission” to embed sustainability into a curriculum. Institutional barriers are those related to budget, organizational structure, governance, and culture. Budget models can determine failure or success of initiatives. Universities remain organized into disciplines, and governance layers limit curricular innovation. Academic culture also often fails to recognize or value applied or engaged scholarship. To address these barriers, it will be necessary to support individuals in their efforts, to budget for more than operational sustainability, and to include sustainability prominently in all aspects of university planning and decision-making. <!----> <!----> <!----> <!---->

Most non-profit organizations emerge through the collective action of individuals who seek to work together for a common purpose or fill a perceived need. Considerable research has explored the commonalities of structure, membership, leadership, organizational behavior, and life histories of such organizations. In this article, we provide a brief look at the origin of the Partnership for Undergraduate Life Sciences Education (PULSE), highlighting its characteristic features in the framework of organizational theory and life histories of organizations. PULSE is distinctive among STEM higher-education organizations because (1) it was formed by education program officers who did not become members of the organization; (2) its members are academic leaders in a broad range of institutional types with diverse student audiences; (3) its organizational and communication structure was built around the principles of sociocracy; and (4) it has a rich, inclusive culture. For this project we conducted interviews with program officers at the National Science Foundation (NSF), Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH); workshop facilitators from Knowinnovation (KI); organizational change network (OCN) researchers; and founding PULSE Fellows to gain their perspectives on how PULSE was formed and developed. The formal stages of PULSE’s development are described, based on Austin and colleagues’ study (2025) of STEM Education OCNs, using their model to highlight PULSE’s successes, unique features, and challenges. These insights may be helpful to policymakers, higher-education leaders, and change agents as they consider new ideas and approaches in building, growing, and institutionalizing networks.

Every self-governing organization needs a structure that ensures it can make the decisions necessary for its operation and preservation. These structures can range from a centralized authority entrusted with all decisions to a consensus-based model whereby all interested parties must agree before a decision is reached. This article describes why PULSE chose sociocracy, an inclusive form of governance based on consent of the governed. We describe the key features of sociocracy and explain how it has been valuable not only for ensuring a collegial atmosphere and effective decision-making among PULSE Fellows, but how it has affected the ways in which PULSE Fellows operate in their own spheres of influence. We propose that this form of governance can be used in a variety of settings to foster community, collaboration, and shared decision-making.

Campus sustainability has been an important goal for colleges and universities across North America in the past several decades; however, the extent to which this pursuit leads to authentic and las...

Preparing students for an increasingly uncertain and complex world has become one of higher education’s defining challenges. Successfully engaging with complex issues requires more than disciplinary knowledge; it also demands the capacity to navigate uncertainty, multiple perspectives, and emotionally challenging realities. However, relatively little is known about how these capacities are experienced during the early undergraduate years. This exploratory qualitative study examined how first- and second-year undergraduate students described their approaches to learning about, processing, and engaging with difficult issues within a sustainability-focused program. Open-ended question responses were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis, followed by a cross-cohort comparison. Four dimensions of engagement emerged: how students approached difficult realities, processed challenging information, learned through dialogue and multiple perspectives, and connected their learning to possible action. While both cohorts expressed a willingness to engage with difficult issues, first-year students emphasized emotional preparation and structured support, whereas second-year students highlighted dialogue, reflection, multiple perspectives, and agency. The findings reveal different patterns of engagement across the two cohorts and point to the importance of intentionally supporting the inner curriculum—the developmental capacities that enable students to engage complexity, uncertainty, and social change throughout higher education, thereby strengthening universities’ capacity to contribute to long-term social change.

The introduction to the Transformative Dialogues special issue outlines the context in which the Partnership for Undergraduate Life Sciences Education (PULSE) organization emerged and evolved. This essay briefly summarizes each contribution in this special issue featuring PULSE’s programs and impact on department-level organizational change.