Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) Analysis: A template for addressing the social dimension in the study of socio- scientific issues

0
460

Tasos Hovardas is an Adjunct Lecturer at the Department of Primary Education, University of Thessaly, Greece, and at the Department of Education, University of Cyprus, Cyprus. email: [email protected] Recent research has stressed the particularities and importance behind the social component in the study of socio-scientific issues (SSIs). However, teachers face difficulties when they have to develop pedagogical plans for dealing with the social dimension of SSIs, which mainly relate to the lack of relevant materials and the need to provide students with decisionmaking heuristics. The objective of the current paper is to respond to these calls by presenting the template of ‘Strengths and Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats’ (SWOT) analysis as a tool for addressing the social component in the study of SSIs. A pilot implementation of the template is presented, which involved pre-service primary teachers and concentrated on bear conservation in three NATURA 2000 sites in Central Greece. Implications for environmental education and education for sustainability are examined, including the contrast between the instrumental and emancipatory approaches in environmental education and a procedural conceptualization of sustainability. K E Y W O R D S (in alphabetical order): Social heterogeneity; Socio-scientific issues; Stakeholders; Sustainability; SWOT analysis Introduction Socio-scientific issues (SSIs) usually appear in the form of social dilemmas, which are characterized by a predominant linkage to science (Sadler 2004). Many SSIs reveal a focus on environment/nature and these are most frequently dealt with in environmental education and education for sustainability (Klosterman et al. 2012; Laws et al. 2004; Robottom 2012; Tomas and Ritchie 2012; Van Weelie and Wals 2002). Despite the fact that the study of SSIs has to be built on a solid scientific knowledge base (Lewis and Leach 2006; Robottom 2012), there is a series of ethical questions that arise in SSIs due to multifaceted interactions between science and society (Hovardas and Korfiatis 2011; Sadler 2004;). Therefore, among the core learning goals in studying SSIs is the learners’ ability to form reasoned judgments which integrate multiple knowledge claims, stakeholder positions and moral implications (Bell 2004; Boerwinkel et al. 2014; Carleton-Hug and Hug 2010; Lundblad et al. 2012; Sadler and Zeidler 2004; Zemplén 2007). Recent research has stressed the particularities as well as the importance of the social Tasos Hovardas, SWOT analysis of the social dimension in socio-scientific issues 2 component in the study of SSIs. Taking the social context into account is seen as a prerequisite for a comprehensive exploration of SSIs (Robottom 2012). The social framing of SSIs unravels their constructedness within particular communities of interest and the appropriation of scientific knowledge to serve interests of social groups engaged in SSIs (Simonneaux and Simonneaux 2009a). In this direction, Robottom (2012) argued that the scientific dimension in addressing SSIs within environmental education or education for sustainability discourses will always remain insufficient as long as the social embededness of SSIs is not properly approached. SSIs can provide a vehicle for unraveling the heterogeneity of the multiple, diverging or converging, perspectives present in a society (Bell 2004; Dobson 2003; Klosterman et al. 2012; Wals et al. 2008) and for promoting tolerance for all possible outcomes of a radically indeterminate democratic deliberation process, which may result in either reaching consensus or a respectful disagreement (Bell 2004; Jickling and Wals 2008). Such an approach to the study of SSIs is expected to foster public involvement in environmental governance (Ferkany and Whyte 2012; Simonneaux and Simonneaux 2009b). Previous research has shown that teachers face difficulties when they have to develop pedagogical plans for teaching SSIs, which mainly refer to the social dimension of SSIs (Ekborg et al. 2013; Lee and Witz 2009). Educators highlighted the unavailability of relevant materials as one of the prime obstacles hindering a comprehensive appreciation of the social implications of SSIs (Kara 2012). There is also a need to provide students with decisionmaking heuristics, which could structure and scaffold inquiry in the social dimension of SSIs (Lee 2007; Levinson 2006), especially the heterogeneity of the social field in dealing with SSIs (Acar et al. 2010). The objective of the current paper is to respond to these calls by presenting the template of ‘Strengths and Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats’ (SWOT) analysis as a tool to address the social component in the study of SSIs. The social dimension in the study of socioscientific issues The prefix ‘socio-’ in SSIs might refer to a variety of topics, for instance, nature of science (Lederman et al. 2014), the contingent character of scientific knowledge and uncertainty in science (Schinkel 2009; Wals et al. 2008). Another aspect of the social dimension in SSIs addresses the development of argumentation and decision-making skills in value-based reasoning (Acar et al. 2010; Lee 2007; Wu and Tsai 2007). In this direction, learners have the opportunity to follow the pathways through which the scientific knowledge is selectively used and recontextualized in order to serve non-scientific ends (Robottom 2012). An additional facet of the social dimension in the study of SSIs refers to inter-group relations in cases of conflict or deliberation concerning natural resources management (Levinson 2006; Simonneaux and Simonneaux 2009a, b). This latter topic focuses on the way different stakeholder groups take position in environmental controversies or change their position in accordance to the social dynamics displayedat play (Hovardas 2013). A pedagogical strategy which would focus on social heterogeneity and social actor dynamics in SSIs seems able to account for the contextAEJES (2015) 1, 1-12 3 specificity of sustainability. In this regard, sustainability is to be conceived of as a democratic deliberation process rather than a given end-state of society to be attained (Van Weelie and Wals 2002; Wals and Jickling, 2002; Wals 2010). This conceptualization aims at fostering skills of ‘how to think’ instead of ‘what to think’ in a top-down fashion (Day and Monroe 2000; Dobson 2003; Schinkel 2009). At this point, two contrasting perspectives are distinguished in environmental education and education for sustainability. On the one side, the instrumental perspective (teaching ‘what to think’), which embodies transformative objectives and directs learners’ reasoning and behavior towards pre-determined ways of preferred thought and action (Hailwood 2005; Keene and Blumstein 2010; Mitchell and Mueller 2011; Orr 1994); on the other side, the emancipatory perspective (teaching ‘how to think’), which wishes to respect learners’ autonomy and it abstains from fostering certain values or attitudes and propagating certain types of behavior (Wals et al. 2008; Zemplén 2007). The study of the social dimension of SSIs within the frame of the emancipatory perspective in environmental education and education for sustainability, rests on not imposing certain values, attitudes or behaviors on learners. However, formulating learning goals as well as orchestrating and scaffolding learning activities has to develop on an affirmative background. The question here is how could educators formulate learning goals and structure learning activities without privileging certain values, attitudes or behaviors (see for instance Hovardas and Korfiatis 2012a). Another important question relates to a potential relativism which could be latent in the emancipatory approach: if we were not to select desired values, attitudes and behaviors as intended outcomes in environmental education and education for sustainability, then we might end up in a situation where ‘anything goes’ or where we would not know what could come after identifying different stakeholder positions. In the next section of the paper we will present and discuss an adjusted version of SWOT analysis which may help us accounting for the aforementioned implications and structuring the social component in the study of SSIs. SWOT analysis as a template for addressing the social dimension in SSIs SWOT analysis is frequently used in environmental management as a diagnostic method to identify key factors influencing the success or failure of an organization’s project (Masozera et al. 2006; Geneletti et al. 2007; Lozano and Vallés 2007). The standard application of SWOT analysis is based on a template, which provides the necessary heuristics to examine the future prospects of an organization. This investigation is structured in terms of potential that may promote, or barriers that may hinder, the achievement of the organization’s goals. A distinction is made between the characteristics of the organization itself and the elements which are attributed to the organization’s environment (Table 1). In this regard, the organization’s potential to accomplish its objectives is judged against both inner (i.e., that pertain to the organization itself) as well as outer (i.e., environmental) aspects that may be mobilized in order to accomplish the goals of the organization. Inner aspects are termed ‘strengths’, while outer aspects are called Tasos Hovardas, SWOT analysis of the social dimension in socio-scientific issues 4 ‘opportunities’. In an analogous manner, barriers can be found within the organization (termed, ‘weaknesses’) or in the environment surrounding the organization (,‘threats’). The result of the SWOT analysis offers insights concerning the trajectory of the organization categorized in ‘strengths’ that should be supported (i.e., inner potential), ‘opportunities’ that have to be sought (i.e., environmental prospects), ‘weaknesses’ that must be overcome (i.e., inner barriers), and ‘threats