About the Further Development of a Metatheoretical Analysis Grid for the Field of Education and (Non-)Sustainability

Abstract

In light of the current polycrisis and the perceived lack of theoretical development in education for sustainable development (ESD), this article considers how ESD can enhance its theoretical understanding. Against the backdrop of debates in the philosophy of science and long-standing concerns about limited progress in educational paradigms, this study aims to further develop a metatheoretical analysis grid for ESD (MAG-ESD). Methodologically, the study is theoretical and philosophical, situated in the ‘space of reasons’. It makes the case for the necessity of a metatheory, clarifies core concepts, and systematically builds on and expands the existing MAG-ESD framework. The grid distinguishes between four fundamental questions and incorporates additional dimensions of scientific systematicity to differentiate scientific knowledge from everyday knowledge. To illustrate its analytical potential, the MAG-ESD grid is applied to a case study examining a theoretical contribution to ESD. This example demonstrates how an analytical examination of the selected article using MAG-ESD can reveal weaknesses in its argumentation. While it does not replace existing approaches, the article concludes that MAG-ESD offers an additional meta-theoretical instrument with which to organise discourse, foster critical reflection, and stimulate more coherent and cumulative theory development within ESD.

1. Introduction

According to current assessments, humanity is in serious danger. Various terms and concepts are used to describe this situation, including “wicked problem” (Lönngren & Van Poeck, 2021), “aporia” (Kminek, 2023), the socio-ecological "sustainable unsustainability" (Blühdorn et al., 2020) or “polycrisis” (M. J. Albert, 2024). For the purposes of this article, I will use the term “polycrisis”, introduced in 1993 (Morin & Kern, 1993). This is because the article that forms the focus of the analysis in the second part of this paper uses the concept of polycrisis.

The term polycrisis expresses the idea that different crises are interdependent, and that specific solutions may be neither promising nor possible. These crises include, for instance, the loss of biodiversity (cf., e.g., Pörtner et al., 2021), climate change (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2023), chemical pollution (Sylvester et al., 2023), exploitative and colonial practices (Hamouchene & Sandwell, 2023), disinformation and misinformation and fake news (Mann, 2021; Rider & Hyvönen, 2023) as well as conspiracy theories (Compton et al., 2021), all of which disrupt social cohesion (Deitelhoff et al., 2020) and by that undermine our ability to act collectively to solve the polycrisis. While the situation of a polycrisis is not historically new for human societies (Cline, 2014; Galaitsi et al., 2025), this time it is affecting all societies on the planet. Typically, it is the societies that have contributed the least that are most severely affected.

In consideration of the scientific basis of this diagnosis, it is evident that educational science in general, and education for sustainable development (ESD1) in particular, must deliberate on the role of Bildung2/education—both historically and in the present day—in contributing to the current polycrisis, and whether and how it can facilitate a successful and desirable “socio-ecological transformation” (Feola, 2015) or “sustainable development” (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2025), even if it is unclear what is meant by “desirable socio-ecological transformation” or “sustainable development” exactly, because there are very different concepts and theories on this subject (Hopwood et al., 2005).

The practical question of how education can contribute to the positive management of the polycrisis stems from science’s responsibility to society (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993; Gibbons et al., 2010). The view that such normative aims and claims to contribute to desirable socio-ecological transformations or sustainable development do not necessarily contradict the requirement for science to be free of value judgements is nowadays also (widely) held in contemporary philosophy of science (Nagatsu et al., 2020).

However, this normative orientation does not mean that scientific standards should be abandoned, nor that immediate conclusions or demands for educational practice should be drawn. Conversely, educational science will only be able to contribute to successfully handling the polycrisis if it is conducted in a scientific manner. It goes without saying that academic work involves mutual criticism.

But does this culture of objective, mutual criticism exist within ESD discourse? Dillon (2012) has criticised the lack of such a culture in our field:

“One editor, who should, perhaps, remain nameless, once told me that he thought that the book review section was the only part of the journal where any academic discourse took place. The point he was making is that while papers always acknowledge the literature, few authors actually develop or challenge arguments made by other people. As a result, the process of publishing research is like making a papier-mâché model with articles being chewed rather than digested before being layered on top of each other”.

Dillon’s point remains valid today. This is surprising, given the complexity of the polycrisis. Furthermore, given the diversity of theoretical positions within the ESD discourse—see Section 3.1.1—the absence of direct discussion serves to prove Dillon’s point.

From the provided outline, the following starting point emerges, with the axiom and premises now being further developed. Even in the face of dramatic assessments of the polycrisis, academic discourse on ESD must not abandon academic standards. Rather, it must apply these standards in order to contribute to the successful scientific addressing of the polycrisis (axiom 1). However, given the diverse theoretical positions within ESD discourse, there is no shared understanding of what ESD as a science would entail (premise 1). Furthermore, these diverse theoretical positions simultaneously mirror the complexity of ESD as both a research subject and object (premise 2; see also Section 3.1.2). Direct, cross-paradigmatic critical discourse is virtually non-existent in ESD discourse yet is regarded as necessary (premise 3; see also Section 3.1.3).

Against this backdrop, the aim of this article is to initiate and structure cross-paradigmatic debates within the ESD discourse by further developing a metatheoretical analysis grid for ESD (MAG-ESD). This will hopefully contribute to the scientific development of ESD theory, and consequently to the successful management of the polycrisis.

The paper is structured as follows: Section 2.1 sets out the article’s methodological approach. Section 2.2 gives hints regarding the literature used in the theoretical section, and explains the key concepts of theory and metatheory to provide an initial understanding.

This is followed by the central section of the results (Section 3), which justifies the development of the MAG-ESD from historical (Section 3.1.1), object-theoretical and subject-theoretical (Section 3.1.2) perspectives, as well as in terms of the current state of metatheoretical structuring of the ESD discourse (Section 3.1.3) and general educational reflections on a metatheory of education (Section 3.1.4). The second part of the results section (Section 3.2) presents and describes the MAG-ESD (Section 3.2.1) and illustrates its application using an example (Section 3.2.2). The Discussion (Section 4) and Conclusions (Section 5) sections conclude the paper.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. About the Methodological Approach of This Article

This study is situated within the ‘space of reasons’ (McDowell, 2003) and adopts a theoretical–philosophical approach. Rather than relying on empirical data collection, this approach proceeds through the systematic construction of clear arguments.

Therefore, the validity of this approach is not determined by empirical verification, but by internal theoretical criteria, such as conceptual clarity, coherence, explanatory scope and analytical usefulness. This applies even though, philosophically speaking, it is clear that all arguments are characterised by the fact that they either break off arbitrarily, lead to an infinite regress or become circular at some point (H. Albert, 2010).

This theoretical article aims to construct a metatheoretical grid by applying the criteria of clarification, integration, and systematic organisation of concepts (Jabareen, 2009). This includes the criterion of conceptual clarity and rigour. Building on Moore’s argument about open questions (Moore & Baldwin, 2002), the paper seeks to provide a thorough explanation of the key concepts. Secondly, the paper aims to achieve internal coherence, meaning that the terms used form “a network […] of interlinked concepts” (Jabareen, 2009, p. 51), providing a structured understanding when considered together. If successful, this will give rise to the explanatory and interpretative power of the MAG-ESD in order to meaningfully advance the discourse on ESD by resolving conceptual fragmentation and contributing to cumulative knowledge (cf. Solinger et al., 2024). However, this would not mark the end of ESD research. Rather, as will be demonstrated in the course of this article, the MAG-ESD could open up new avenues for research.

More specifically, the development of the MAG-ESD follows a structured theoretical procedure guided by three core principles:

First, conceptual clarification: central concepts (e.g., theory, metatheory, ESD) are analysed and specified in order to avoid ambiguity and ensure analytical precision.

Second, systematic integration: existing theoretical elements from the philosophy of science and ESD discourse are not merely juxtaposed, but deliberately related to one another to form a coherent analytical framework.

Third, heuristic structuring: the derivation of the MAG-ESD—including the four fundamental questions—is understood as a theoretically grounded heuristic. Its adequacy is not assumed a priori, but evaluated in terms of its explanatory scope, internal coherence, and analytical usefulness when applied to concrete cases.

2.2. About the Materials of This Article

Drawing on structural considerations and a wide range of academic literature from the discourse on ESD, the following section of this article explains why a MAG-ESD could be a valuable addition to academic discussions on ESD. To more clearly position the contribution of this article within the existing body of research, it is important to distinguish the proposed MAG-ESD from prior metatheoretical and theory-analytical approaches in education and ESD.

Existing contributions in the field can broadly be grouped into three strands:

(1) general metatheoretical frameworks within educational science,

(2) philosophy-of-science-oriented analyses of educational knowledge production,

(3) conceptual and normative frameworks within ESD itself.

While these approaches provide valuable insights, they tend to either remain tied to specific theoretical traditions, focus on particular dimensions of theory (e.g., empirical validation, normative orientation), or lack an integrative structure that enables systematic cross-paradigmatic comparison. The MAG-ESD proposed here seeks to address this gap by offering a deliberately non-paradigmatic analytical grid. Its contribution lies not in replacing existing approaches, but in structuring their comparison along a shared set of metatheoretical questions and criteria of scientific systematicity. In this sense, the novelty of MAG-ESD is relational and integrative rather than substitutive.

The MAG-ESD will then be presented and explained in the second step.3

The third part of the article illustrates the potential of an advanced MAG-ESD. It demonstrates how the MAG-ESD developed in the second part can enhance the analysis of specific ESD research contributions. To this end, the recently published theoretical article by Sterling (2025), Truly Transformative? Why ESD Falls Short in Epochal Times, will be analysed using the grid.

2.3. About the Terms Metatheory and Theory and Their Use in This Article

The definition of theory is a question in itself (Abend, 2008). In this article, the term theory is used in a broad sense. Accordingly, a theory is defined as a structured, explanatory and often formally modelled set of statements that systematically organise and explain phenomena, and generally claim to make those phenomena predictable.

Regarding the term ‘metatheory’, I adopt the definition set out by Ritzer (1990) and Lakatos (2014): a theory about theories, intended to improve our understanding of them through the analysis, organisation and evaluation of scientific theories. This is a first sketch of how the term is used within the article; compare Section 3.1.4 for more detailed considerations.

This article aims to provide a MAG-ESD that can be used for all theoretical and empirical approaches. I will now present the results of my work, beginning with the question of why developing a MAG-ESD might be important.

3. Results

3.1. About the Theoretical Justification for the MAG-ESD

3.1.1. About the Historical Development and Complexity of the ESD Discourse

This section will now provide a more detailed justification for the first premise set out at the beginning: namely, that the ESD discourse is characterised by a diversity of theoretical positions. Taking a broad view of the term ESD, as I have done in this article (see additional arguments in Section 3.1.2), rather than defining it as anything labelled as such, raises the question of when one should set the starting point for educational research into ESD historically. This is a discussion in its own right. However, it is certain that, even if environmental issues are placed at the heart of ESD, ESD in the broad sense has been part of pedagogy and education since at least the nineteenth century. This raises the question of whether, nowadays, this amounts to ‘old wine in new bottles’ (Feige & Lieb, 2026), particularly in the case of normative theories of ESD that prescribe how it should be practised (cf. also: Holfelder & Kminek, 2026). Therefore, it is no surprise that the ESD discourse has also been accused of ‘historical amnesia’ (Bentele & Rohstock, 2025).

However, there is no doubt that the discourse on ESD has become much more dynamic and expanded in scope in recent years. The breadth of the ESD discourse is reflected in the large and rapidly growing body of literature, spanning policy, empirical, and theoretical work, as well as diverse philosophical and disciplinary traditions. A Scopus search using the term ‘education for sustainable development’ on 1 April 2026 yielded 59,098 results. Searching using the related terms (see Note 1), linked with ‘or’, yielded 409,546 documents on the same day. These research findings highlight the extensive nature of the field of ESD research and practice. Across, for example, and citing just a few publications in each case, policy documents (UNESCO, n.d., 2017, 2020), empirical studies (Böse, 2023; Holst et al., 2024; Van Poeck et al., 2020) and conceptual contributions (Pettig & Singer-Brodowski, 2024; Vare & Scott, 2007), ESD addresses a wide range of questions concerning the role of education in responding to the polycrisis.

This extensivity has resulted in an expanding body of knowledge and theories, characterised by a variety of theoretical traditions, normative orientations and methodological approaches. For example, these include competence-based approaches (Hastedt et al., 2026; Olsson et al., 2022, 2025), approaches rooted in different general schools of philosophy (Engel & Terstegen, 2024; Prouteau & Wallenhorst, 2024; Quirl et al., 2025), and approaches that argue for ESD in relation to, again for example, decolonial theory (Stein et al., 2022), political education (Slimani et al., 2021), art (Heddon, 2016) or ethics (Kopnina, 2013).

These different approaches are also linked to a wide range of theoretical perspectives. This can be illustrated as follows: The contributions and approaches to competence-based education outlined above (Hastedt et al., 2026; Olsson et al., 2022, 2025) aim to foster the development of competences in individuals that are considered essential for addressing the polycrisis successfully. These are underpinned by various theories, for example, theories of the subject, learning theories, ontologies, and social theories. It is precisely these background theories that the other cited approaches assess as being incorrect or ineffective. They then put forward alternative theories. For instance, Quirl et al. (2025) contend that competence-oriented approaches are founded on the concept of subjects being separate from their environment. However, they contend that this construction is ontologically inappropriate. For this reason, the competence-oriented approach is also deemed ineffective in successfully addressing the polycrisis. Quirl et al. (2025), in turn, advocate considering education in ‘radically relational’ terms, conceptualising individuals as connected to their environment. In doing so, they—at least for the time being—run the risk of criticism from competence-based approaches regarding the empirical determination of what ‘radical relation’ might mean in terms of operational, empirical assessments.

3.1.2. About the Complexity of ESD as a Research Subject and Object

In order to maintain the consistency and logical coherence of the argument in this article, I will now justify my thesis that the various theoretical positions on ESD mirror the complexity of ESD as both a research subject and object. The nature and relationship between the research subject and object is a philosophical issue in its own right (Carnap, 2017; Husserl & Ströker, 2009; Meinong & Werle, 1988; Popper, 1998; Schnädelbach, 1999). Given that I am not approaching this question from a strictly philosophical angle, I will state the assumption on which my argument is based for the sake of the discussion that follows.

In this context, I use the term ‘object’ to refer to the real entity in question. In our case, this entity is the relationship between education—understood as an umbrella term encompassing, in particular, Bildung, education in the narrow sense, teaching, and learning—and the polycrisis. A key question can be formulated for this relationship, which can be broken down into four fundamental questions.

The key question is:

How should ESD be practised, how is ESD practised, what are the effects of ESD, and what might ESD become?

This key question poses a problem from a scientific theoretical standpoint. This is because the question contains both normative–prescriptive and empirical–descriptive elements, and combining the two is controversial from a scientific theoretical standpoint (Ritsert, 2003). The general consensus is that normative–prescriptive statements cannot be derived from empirical–descriptive statements. The reverse conclusion—deriving empirical–descriptive statements from normative–prescriptive statements—is problematic within educational science and is known as the ‘pedagogical indicative’ (Gruschka, 2019). On the other hand, however, it could be argued that normative–prescriptive statements and questions are inseparable from their empirical–descriptive counterparts, and vice versa. These two contradictory statements raise the issue of value judgements (Douglas, 2009). I will not address this issue in depth here, but I will assume that it is possible to break down the key question analytically into four fundamental questions. The derivation of the four fundamental questions should not be understood as an arbitrary assumption, but as a theoretically motivated reduction of the broader guiding question of ESD.

The four fundamental questions are:

A. Should ESD be practiced in education?

B. How should ESD be practiced in education?

C. How is ESD practiced in education?

D. What effects does ESD have?

This differentiation is not claimed to be exhaustive in an absolute sense. However, it is argued to be sufficiently comprehensive to capture the central orientations of ESD discourse while remaining analytically manageable.

It is precisely this analytical distinction, or rather these four fundamental analytical questions, that I will use later to highlight the weaknesses in the reasoning of a key ESD article. This will provide an illustrative example of how the developed MAG-ESD can be applied.4

By ‘research subject’, I mean the differing underlying theories that bring things into sharp focus. With regard to the key question and the four fundamental questions, this means that a competence-oriented position, for example the approach taken by Olsson et al. (2022, 2025), treats the object as a research subject differently to the position taken by Quirl et al. (2025), as discussed in Section 3.1.1.

The decisive point for the further argument is twofold.

Firstly, I assume that a common scientific discourse is possible in principle, despite the differing perspectives of various colleagues complicating matters due to their differing background assumptions.5

Secondly, drawing on Zima’s (2004) approach of dialogical theory formation, I argue that cross-positional scientific discourse constitutes a necessary condition for knowledge production in the social sciences and humanities, including the discourse on ESD.

Zima fundamentally rejects theoretical approaches that claim to provide unequivocal or exhaustive explanations of reality. In the present context, this critique applies to positions that adhere dogmatically either to competence-oriented frameworks or to notions of radical relationality (see above). Such approaches risk epistemic closure by privileging a single explanatory logic while marginalizing alternative perspectives.

Central to Zima’s argument is the epistemological distinction between the natural sciences and the social sciences. Unlike natural scientists, social scientists are unavoidably implicated in the very phenomena they investigate. Their analytical perspectives are shaped by biographical experiences, socio-cultural positioning, and normative orientations. Consequently, claims to complete objectivity are untenable; all theoretical contributions in the social sciences—including those within ESD—are inherently perspectival and, in a broad sense, ideologically inflected.

From this premise follows a crucial methodological implication: the mitigation of bias cannot be achieved solely through individual reflexivity or methodological rigor. Rather, it requires structured engagement between divergent theoretical positions. Dialogical scientific discourse—particularly among proponents of competing approaches—functions as a corrective mechanism by exposing the implicit assumptions, blind spots, and limitations of each perspective.

Accordingly, the formation of theory should be conceived as an open, dialogical process within theoretical traditions, positions and paradigms, but also—and this is especially important—between and across them. It is precisely through trans-positional discourse that the epistemic limits of individual approaches become visible. Making these limits explicit constitutes a necessary precondition for their critical reflection and, where possible, their systematic revision. In this sense, dialogical engagement is not merely a communicative ideal but an epistemic necessity for approximating a more comprehensive and differentiated understanding of complex social phenomena.

Before I present my approach to MAG-ESD, one final step is required to lay the theoretical groundwork. It must be demonstrated that there are no cross-position frameworks for the ESD discourse of the kind I am about to propose here. This topic will be addressed in the following two sections.

3.1.3. About Attempts to Bring Some Order to the ESD Discourse

Although the article by Fischer et al. (2022) focuses on teacher training in the field of ESD, the assessment can be applied more broadly to the discourse on ESD: Fischer et al. suggest that ESD is characterised by multiple distinct strands of enquiry rather than a unified theoretical progression.6

Hence, despite the considerable expansion of ESD research, the literature reveals a persistent lack of an integrative foundation capable of systematically organizing the field’s internal diversity.

A central feature of this fragmentation is the well-documented plurality of perspectives within the field. Even if we narrow our thematic focus, the following can also be said: As Lucie Sauvé observes, ESD is based on different “conceptions of environment, education and sustainable development” (Sauvé, 1996, p. 28). These currents are not merely variations within a shared paradigm but reflect fundamentally different epistemological and ontological assumptions.

The lack of integration is further reinforced by the presence of competing educational purposes within the field. Vare and Scott (2007) highlight that ESD encompasses “different, and sometimes conflicting, conceptions of learning” (p. 194). Their distinction between ESD 1 (instrumental, behaviour-oriented) and ESD 2 (critical, reflexive) illustrates not only pedagogical diversity but also deeper paradigmatic tensions. While such typologies are useful for analysis, they do not provide a comprehensive framework that systematically links different approaches. In the case of the contribution by Vare and Scott (2007), for example, the distinction between ESD 1 and ESD 2—or additionally ESD 3, as proposed by Pettig and Singer-Brodowski (2024)—merely establishes a distinction regarding the normative–prescriptive question of how ESD should be practised, not with regard to fundamental, (meta)theoretical underlying assumptions.

Attempts to structure the field conceptually have also underscored its fragmentation. For example, Jabareen (2012) explicitly notes that “there is no conceptual framework to organize these themes” (p. 2250), referring to the wide range of sustainability-related educational approaches. He further argues that key concepts in the field are “vague, overly broad and highly variable” (p. 2250), which complicates efforts toward theoretical consolidation. This diagnosis aligns with broader concerns that ESD lacks cumulative knowledge development due to the absence of integrative structures and integrative theory building (Kminek et al., 2026).

This argument can also be supported by an analysis of the publication “Education and Learning for Sustainable Futures: 50 Years of Learning for Environment and Change” (Macintyre et al., 2024). This publication by Thomas Macintyre, Daniella Tilbury, and Arjen Wals addresses the question of the historical development of the field of ESD discourse, as well as the history of theoretical development. They take the reader through the last five decades, highlighting the approaches, perspectives and theoretical proposals that have been developed during this period. However, the text barely touches upon how these different theoretical approaches relate to one another. Hence, this publication should not be confused with a ESD metatheory or a metatheoretical framing of the discourse.

This thesis is supported by the analysis of subsequent review articles (Scheunpflug & Costa, 2025), as well as existing and forthcoming handbooks and entries in handbooks on ESD (Barth et al., 2018; Carrapatoso et al., 2026; Höttecke et al., 2025; Kminek & Singer-Brodowski, 2027; Rieckmann et al., 2026; Wallenhorst & Wulf, 2024). All these contributions present different approaches or thematic focuses of ESD. However, what is missing is a link to shared research questions in order to ascertain whether there is a universally accepted state of research, where research needs arise due to gaps or divergent findings across paradigms.

Taken together, these findings highlight a gap in the ESD discourse: a lack of structured dialogue between and across the various theoretical positions, approaches and paradigms.

The absence of a cross-paradigm research discourse and a tool such as the MAG-ESD (see below) is evident from the fact that publications do not refer to either. Overall, these findings suggest that ESD is a heterogeneous field characterised by a lack of discourse and systematic integration across paradigms.

The following final preparatory step of the argument demonstrates that more recent contributions also support the line of argument set out below.

3.1.4. About Metatheories in Education Science

Within the broader discourse on educational science, there have also been, and continue to be, debates concerning a metatheory of education.

I generally share the understanding of metatheory set out in the recently published anthology by Binder and Oelkers (2026), entitled Arbeiten zu einer Metatheorie der Erziehungswissenschaft [‘Works on a metatheory of educational science’], without going into details that can be disregarded in this context.

Accordingly, metatheory is a level of reflection that is not confined to a single theory7, but relates different theoretical levels to one another. Such metatheory is supra-theoretical, mediating between theories, and reflexive in relation to them. It provides a space for reflecting on theoretical issues and is explicitly recognised as a tool for addressing these issues: “Through the clarifying generalisation and examination of theoretical issues in educational science […] an orienting space for reflection […] is to be made possible” (p. 8—trans. H. K.).

This type of metatheory is therefore not a finished system, but rather a workspace for theoretical development. This simultaneously rejects the notion of a ‘super-theory’ and the associated accusations of authoritarianism and universalism. In accordance with this understanding of metatheory, plurality and heterogeneity are not merely accepted but regarded as prerequisites for forming theories and acquiring knowledge.

Assuming the argument of this article is correct so far, the question arises as to how such a plural and heterogeneous ESD discourse might be stimulated and structured.

As mentioned at the beginning of this paper, the answer to this question, in the form of a thesis, is that a MAG-ESD might help to structure discourse and stimulate cross-paradigm debate. I will now move on to a description of a more recent development of the MAG-ESD and its illustrative, schematic application.8

3.2. About the Description of the MAG-ESD and an Illustrative Example in Practice

3.2.1. About the Description of the MAG-ESD

The argument presented so far should have set out the following two requirements of an ESD metatheory as clearly as possible. Firstly, an ESD metatheory should preserve the complexity of ESD as an object, as well as the various definitions of its subject matter (cp. Section 3.1.2). These definitions arise from and express different theoretical paradigms, such as the approaches mentioned above: the competence-oriented approach and the approach of ‘radical relationality’ (cp. Section 3.1.2). Secondly, it should stimulate cross-paradigmatic ESD discourse. What follows is not an outline of an ESD metatheory, but a metatheoretical ESD grid (MAG-ESD) designed to meet these two requirements, as announced. The present status of the MAG-ESD is shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Tabular representation of MAG-ESD (own representation).

ESD Theory n+1
Key Question of ESD		How Should ESD Be Practised, How is ESD Practised, What Are the Effects of ESD, and What Might ESD Become?				Scientific Dimensions (Hoyningen-Huene, 2016)
Fundamental Questions of ESD		A. Should ESD Be Practiced in Education?	B. How Should ESD be Practiced in Education?	C. How is ESD Practiced in Education?	D. What Effects Does ESD Have?
Underlying Theories
Social theory: Which theory of society is assumed?							Descriptions
							Explanations
Theory of the subject: Which theory of the subject is used as a basis?							Predictions
							The Defense of Knowledge Claims
Developmental theory I: Which theory of ontogenetic development is assumed?							Critical Discourse
							Epistemic Connectedness
Development theory II: Which theory of phylogenetic development is assumed?							Ideal of Completeness
							The Generation of New Knowledge
							The Representation of Knowledge
Earth System Science: State of Earth system knowledge (climate, biodiversity, etc.)?
Core metatheoretical questions	What is (social) reality? [(Social) ontology]		What counts as valid knowledge? [Epistemology]?	How should we proceed to generate knowledge? [Methodology]?	What is the aim of theory formation?

The formal designation of the theory as ‘ESD Theory N₊₁’ at the top of the table indicates that this MAG-ESD is intended for analysing one theory. The idea is that several ESD theories will be analysed individually first in future. In a second step, the contents of the different theories’ categories could be compared to reveal similarities, additions, and scientific controversies that raise questions.

The common ground to which the discourse should refer is the key question introduced in Section 3.1.2 and the fundamental questions outlined there. This is because all contributions to the ESD discourse implicitly work within and contribute to these questions, regardless of the theoretical background assumptions of the positions represented and the area of education on which they focus (formal, non-formal and informal learning, education in the early years, primary, secondary or tertiary sectors). Therefore, these questions form the core of any ESD theory.

Assuming that ESD always relates to the key question and the four fundamental questions, both as a science and in educational practice, the MAG-ESD cannot yet distinguish between science and practice. The right-hand column is designed to facilitate this distinction.9

It is proposed here to draw on the position and argumentation of Hoyningen-Huene (2016) and his analysis of what distinguishes scientific knowledge and theories from everyday knowledge and theories, and to make use of these. Hoyningen-Huene states: “Scientific knowledge differs from other kinds of knowledge, in particular from everyday knowledge, primarily being more systematic” (Hoyningen-Huene, 2016, p. 14).

According to Hoyningen-Huene, scientific–systematic knowledge is characterised by the following nine dimensions: descriptions, explanations, predictions, the defence of knowledge claims, critical discourse, epistemic connectedness, knowledge generation, and the representation of knowledge (compare, Hoyningen-Huene, 2016, p. 27). It is not possible to explore these nine dimensions in depth within the scope of this article. However, Appendix A of this article contains brief descriptions of all nine dimensions.

The addition of these nine dimensions provides a structured approach to analysing contributions to ESD, evaluating whether they extend beyond everyday knowledge. Furthermore, these nine dimensions will enable future examination of scientific contributions to ESD to establish whether they are qualitatively appropriate for science in relation to these dimensions.

The same applies to the other categories and their associated questions on the left of the figure, especially those relating to social theory, subject theory, developmental theory and the current state of Earth system science.

The answers to these questions coincide with those to the key metatheoretical questions (see the bottom of Table 1). The difference is that the answers to the key metatheoretical questions are fundamentally philosophical in nature, delving into fundamental questions of scientific and epistemological philosophy. By contrast, the questions on the left are social scientific and thus more concrete. However, the social sciences have made decisions regarding the philosophical questions.

This article does not permit a thorough analysis of one ESD theoretical approach, let alone a comparison of several. However, the following section will illustrate how the MAG-ESD can be applied through an example. For the purposes of this example, I will restrict myself to the four fundamental ESD questions.

3.2.2. About an Illustrative Example of the MAG-ESD in Practice

The following case study is not intended to provide a comprehensive validation of the MAG-ESD. Rather, it serves as an illustrative application designed to demonstrate how the grid can be used to structure the analysis of an ESD contribution. Accordingly, the analysis focuses on selected aspects of the case that are particularly suitable for illustrating the analytical dimensions of the MAG-ESD. A more comprehensive and comparative application to multiple cases remains a task for future research.

To illustrate how the MAG-ESD can be applied, I turn to Stephen Sterling’s article, Truly Transformative? Why ESD Falls Short in Epochal Times (Sterling, 2025), which was recently published.

In his contribution, Sterling advances a critical appraisal of ESD, structured around ten interrelated issues that together form a combined normative and diagnostic argument. His central thesis asserts that ESD, as it is currently conceptualised and practised, lacks sufficient transformative capacity to respond adequately to the contemporary polycrisis. Building upon this claim, the article develops a layered critique that focuses in particular on several key dimensions: (i) the diagnosis of global conditions, including (ii) polycrisis and (iii) ecological breakdown; (iv) a critique of prevailing ESD practices and (v) paradigms; (vi) a normative call for a transition towards an ecological worldview; and (vii) a prescriptive orientation towards whole-system transformation in education.

Sterling begins his critique by evaluating what he deems to be the most prevalent ESD practice. He characterises this practice as “not sufficiently radical” (Sterling, 2025, p. 235) and consequently “insufficiently transformative to address these volatile times” (Sterling, 2025, p. 236). From a MAG-ESD perspective, this initial move can be understood as simultaneously addressing fundamental questions C (how ESD is practised) and D (its effects). The analytical lens provided by MAG-ESD thus enables a more fine-grained reconstruction of the argument and opens up critical questions regarding its underlying assumptions.

Although the text does not explicitly organise itself according to the four fundamental ESD questions (A–D; see Table 1), this omission is neither unexpected nor problematic. On the contrary, the absence of an explicit structuring around these questions makes it possible to demonstrate the analytical potential and added value of the MAG-ESD framework.

The answers to these questions can, however, be reconstructed from the flow of argumentation. When examined through this analytical lens, it becomes apparent that Sterling’s reasoning implicitly interweaves the four dimensions: fundamental question C (how ESD is practised) is deployed diagnostically; fundamental question D (the effects of ESD) is invoked evaluatively; fundamental question A (whether ESD should be practised) is addressed implicitly; and fundamental question B (how ESD should be practised) emerges in normative form.

A central analytical challenge addressed by the MAG-ESD concerns the relationship between normative and empirical claims.

The MAG-ESD does not assume a strict separation between the normative and empirical domains. Instead, it allows for the identification of transitions, overlaps, and implicit inferences between them. For instance, normative claims about what ESD should achieve may implicitly rely on empirical assumptions about human learning or social transformation, which are not always made explicit. By systematically locating such claims within the grid, the MAG-ESD enables a more precise analysis of where normative arguments depend on empirical premises—and where such dependencies remain underdeveloped or unexamined.

With regard to question A—whether ESD should be practised in education—Sterling does not reject ESD outright. Rather, he conditionally reframes its legitimacy. The argument suggests that ESD should indeed be practised, but only if it becomes “truly transformative” (Sterling, 2025). In its current forms, ESD is considered inadequate and potentially even counterproductive. Importantly, however, this conclusion is not argued explicitly. Instead, it is inferred from the broader claim that existing ESD is “philosophically flawed” and “insufficiently transformative” (Sterling, 2025, p. 236). This gives rise to an implicit normative leap: the inadequacy of current ESD (questions C and D) is used to justify a redefinition of what ESD ought to be (questions A and B). This effectively rules out the possibility of education, and consequently any form of ESD ever contributing to the transformation of societies (Bernfeld, 2022; Proske, 2002). However, if the ESD discourse is to live up to its claim of scrutinising its own underlying assumptions, this question must be addressed (Kminek, 2025b). In my view, this is indispensable for philosophical reasons.

In relation to question B—how ESD should be practised—this constitutes the most elaborated dimension of Sterling’s argument. He advocates a shift towards an “ecological or relational worldview” (Sterling, 2025, p. 235) and calls for whole-system transformation rather than incremental “embedding” (Sterling, 2025, p. 241). Furthermore, he emphasises collective learning processes, systems thinking, and “alternative development models” (Sterling, 2025, p. 243). These prescriptions emerge cumulatively across the ten issues, particularly in discussions concerning worldview (issue 2), systemic change (issues 6–7), development models (issue 9), and educational purpose (issue 10). From a critical standpoint, however, this prescriptive framework is normatively rich yet analytically underdetermined. It rests heavily on the assumption that an ecological paradigm is inherently superior—an assumption that is asserted rather than rigorously justified. Moreover, the transition from critique (questions C and D) to prescription (question B) often lacks explicit argumentative mediation.

Turning to question C—how ESD is practised—this descriptive dimension forms the backbone of Sterling’s critique. According to his analysis, ESD is frequently “instrumental” (Sterling, 2025, p. 239f) and aligned with policy agendas such as the Sustainable Development Goals. It tends to be accommodative rather than transformative, often focusing on individual behavioural change (cf. Sterling, 2025, p. 242) while neglecting structural dimensions. Furthermore, it remains embedded within dominant neoliberal and mechanistic paradigms (cf. Sterling, 2025, p. 238ff).

With regard to the underlying theory of society, Sterling does not explicitly anchor his argument in a specific social theory. Nevertheless, his diagnosis implies a conception of contemporary society as a crisis-ridden and potentially collapsing system, grounded in what he describes as a dominant Western worldview: “Our shared Western worldview (or episteme) is mechanistic, anthropocentric, technocentric, materialist, dualist, positivist, reductionist, objectivist and rationalist, and this way of perceiving, thinking and engaging both infuses and shapes accepted educational norms” (Sterling, 2025, p. 238). This implicit theoretical positioning further reinforces the normative urgency of transformation.

With respect to question D—the effects of ESD—Sterling contends that the overall impact of education, including ESD, may be negative insofar as it contributes to the reproduction of unsustainable systems. He argues that ESD has failed to catalyse the necessary societal transformation and may inadvertently sustain “unsustainable development” (Sterling, 2025, p. 243). These claims form the evaluative core of his critique. This criticism, once again, rests on the assumption that education exerts a significant causal influence—an assumption that itself is open to doubt (see the discussion four paragraphs above). It appears that Sterling must rely on this premise; otherwise, his argument risks collapsing into triviality. For, under such conditions, the claim would amount to little more than the assertion that any transformation successfully addressing the polycrisis is, by definition, attributable to education. Yet this line of reasoning entails an exceedingly expansive conception of education—one that encompasses processes such as socialisation and politicisation. Defined in this manner, the proposition becomes unfalsifiable: it would invariably hold true, not because of its explanatory power, but because the concept of education has been broadened to such an extent that it is no longer meaningfully distinguishable from adjacent or overlapping concepts.

I would like to reiterate the criticisms of Sterling’s argument and expand on them slightly. A closer analytical examination reveals several instances of logical slippage, most notably in the implicit conflation and transition between questions C and D, and between A and B.

First, there is a recurring movement from description (C) to normative judgement (A) without explicit justification. For example, ESD is described as “accommodative” (Sterling, 2025, p. 241) and “instrumental” (Sterling, 2025, p. 239f) (C), which then leads to the conclusion that it is inadequate (A). Yet these descriptive characteristics are not inherently negative; their evaluation depends on normative criteria that are not consistently articulated.

Second, the argument frequently moves from effects (D) to prescriptions (B) without an intermediate step. The claim that ESD fails to produce transformation (D) is used to justify the adoption of an ecological paradigm (B), although the causal link between problem and solution remains assumed rather than demonstrated. Alternative explanations—such as deficiencies in implementation rather than conceptual flaws—are not systematically considered.

Linked to this diagnosis is also a particular theory of the subject, according to which contemporary individuals are shaped by neoliberal logics, leading to “the dominance of a neoliberal view of education, stressing a narrow individualism” (Sterling, 2025, p. 242). Sterling contrasts this with a relational conception of the subject as embedded in ecological systems. However, the assumption that such a reconceptualisation would necessarily lead to transformative outcomes remains largely asserted rather than systematically demonstrated.

Finally, the diagnosis of a global “polycrisis” is used to justify radical educational transformation (B). While this diagnosis may be plausible, the inference that only systemic transformation can address it is not logically necessary, thereby introducing a potential false dilemma in which incremental reform is prematurely dismissed.

From a philosophy of science perspective, this raises the question of whether elements of Sterling’s argument risk functioning as ad hoc hypotheses. As Karl R. Popper has argued, theoretical modifications that serve primarily to shield a theory from falsification are problematic (Popper, 1994). If the lack of transformative effects is attributed solely to deficiencies in current ESD practice, without sufficiently considering the possibility of limitations inherent in the concept itself, the argument may risk becoming immunised against critique.

This does not invalidate Sterling’s critique, nor his call for more transformative forms of ESD. However, it underscores the need for more rigorous examination of whether education in general—and ESD in particular—can function as a sufficient driver of societal transformation, or whether it primarily contributes to the reproduction of existing structures (Kminek, 2025b).

Overall, Sterling’s article represents a powerful and intellectually ambitious critique. It is characterised by a coherent overarching thesis, a strong integration of systems thinking and paradigm critique, and a clear normative commitment to transformative change. However, from a strictly analytical perspective, the argumentation exhibits a systematic blurring of descriptive, evaluative, and prescriptive levels. Key weaknesses include implicit argumentative transitions—particularly from question C to A and from question D to B—the insufficient explicit justification of normative premises, and the limited empirical grounding of strong evaluative claims.

4. Discussion

With regard to the sub-discipline of educational science, this article implicitly raises a more fundamental epistemological question, namely how knowledge in this field progresses and under which conditions such progress can be considered scientific (Oelkers & Tenorth, 1991; Rucker, 2017; Wigger, 1992). In doing so, it deliberately advances a provocative thesis: that the discourse on ESD not only predates the emergence of the term itself, but is also characterised by a remarkable degree of conceptual, normative, and theoretical heterogeneity. This heterogeneity manifests in a plurality of paradigms that coexist with limited systematic engagement, thereby impeding cumulative knowledge development. The absence of sustained cross-paradigmatic dialogue is particularly striking given the field’s explicit normative ambitions and its reliance on interdisciplinary integration.

Against this backdrop, the present contribution identifies a fundamental tension. On the one hand, the plurality of theoretical approaches within ESD may be embraced as an expression of epistemic openness and intellectual diversity. On the other hand, such plurality risks devolving into fragmentation if paradigms cease to engage in meaningful scientific discourse. If theoretical positions become insulated from one another, the very criteria that distinguish scientific inquiry—namely the critical comparison, evaluation, and potential falsification of competing claims—are undermined. In such a scenario, the field would risk drifting towards relativism, where paradigmatic coexistence replaces argumentative contestation, and where the question of epistemic or normative superiority is no longer systematically addressed.

For this reason, the position advanced here rejects an unqualified acceptance of pluralism. Recognising heterogeneity must not entail epistemic indifference. Rather, it necessitates a reinvigoration of scientific discourse that is capable of mediating between competing paradigms without collapsing their differences. Scientific progress, particularly in the social sciences and humanities, depends on the continuous exposure of theoretical assumptions to critical scrutiny. This includes both the refinement of internal coherence and the interrogation of foundational premises.

Therefore, academic discourse should not be stifled by the recognition of plurality and the goal of jointly arriving at knowledge. The idea that the better argument should prevail is, today, almost a trivial normative requirement (Habermas, 1995).

The MAG-ESD approach extended in this article is intended as a methodological instrument to facilitate precisely such dialogical engagement. By offering a structured framework for the systematic analysis and comparison of ESD research, it aims to render implicit assumptions explicit and thus open them to critical examination. Given the inherent complexity and multidimensionality of ESD, such a tool is not merely desirable but necessary if the field is to achieve a more coherent and cumulative form of knowledge production.

At the same time, several limitations of the present article must be acknowledged. First, the application of the MAG-ESD remains preliminary. A comprehensive analysis would require the systematic inclusion of all nine dimensions associated with the framework, as well as their integration with the criteria proposed by Hoyningen-Huene (2016) for distinguishing scientific–systematic knowledge from everyday knowledge, alongside core categories of social science and metatheoretical inquiry. The present study therefore represents only an initial step towards a more exhaustive operationalisation.

Second, the conceptual architecture of the MAG-ESD itself warrants further refinement. Future research should explore whether additional differentiation of existing categories is required, or whether new categories should be introduced to capture dimensions of ESD discourse that are currently underrepresented. Such refinement is essential if the framework is to remain sensitive to the evolving complexity of the field.

Third, the heuristic value of the MAG-ESD can only be fully realised through its systematic application to a broad corpus of ESD literature. This includes both theoretical and empirical contributions. Their comparative analysis would enable the identification of convergences, divergences, blind spots, and points of contention across approaches. Such an endeavour holds the potential to map the internal structure of the field more precisely. In doing so, it may help delineate distinct paradigms or—drawing on Imre Lakatos’ terminology—emergent research programmes within ESD. Whether this, in turn, can stimulate sustained cross-paradigmatic dialogue remains an open empirical question, but it represents a promising avenue for future investigation.

Finally, it must be acknowledged that the MAG-ESD itself is not immune to bias. As with any theoretical construct, it is shaped by implicit assumptions and normative orientations that may not be fully transparent to its author. The identification and correction of such biases depend on the very form of dialogical critique that this article advocates. Accordingly, the framework presented here should be understood as provisional and open to revision. It is offered not as a definitive solution, but as an invitation to the scholarly community to engage in a critical and constructive discourse on the epistemological foundations and future trajectory of ESD research.

5. Conclusions

This article has advanced and elaborated an expanded rationale concerning the significance and purpose of MAG-ESD. Its conceptual contribution lies in clarifying the epistemic role that MAG-ESD may assume within the broader landscape of ESD research.

The potential insights afforded by MAG-ESD—and, by extension, its added value—were illustrated through a practical application. In this context, its utility became evident in enabling a more nuanced reconstruction and critical examination of the arguments articulated in the selected ESD contribution. Rather than merely reiterating existing positions, MAG-ESD facilitates a deeper level of analytical transparency, thereby rendering underlying assumptions and argumentative structures more accessible to systematic scrutiny.

Importantly, MAG-ESD is not intended to supplant established approaches within ESD research. Instead, if its heuristic potential proves fruitful, it should be understood as a complementary theoretical contribution: a metatheoretical grid designed to enrich, extend, and stimulate scholarly inquiry within the educational sub-discipline of ESD. From the perspective advanced here, research grounded in MAG-ESD remains intrinsically dependent on empirical and theoretical work in ESD while simultaneously offering a reflexive lens that such work alone cannot provide. Consequently, MAG-ESD cannot replace concrete ESD research; rather, it derives its relevance precisely from its capacity to engage with, support, and critically illuminate it.

The findings of this article should be understood as a preliminary conceptual proposal rather than a fully validated framework. While the MAG-ESD demonstrates potential as a metatheoretical tool for structuring discourse and enabling systematic critique, its analytical value requires further testing across a broader range of ESD contributions. Future research should therefore focus on applying and refining the grid in different contexts, as well as critically examining its assumptions and limitations.