These differences suggest that master’s and bachelor’s programs may be, in general, approaching sustainability from fundamentally different perspectives. Less than a quarter of core sustainability courses check details shared any PARP inhibitor one text in their reading material, suggesting that there is currently no widely agreed upon

foundational literature for teaching sustainability. In particular, it is striking that, of the most widely used texts (Table 3), several are more than 40 years old, and only two include the word “sustainable” or “sustainability” in their titles (although four of the eight texts include “resilience”). Further, none of the more recent literature widely cited within the scholarly field of sustainability (e.g., Kates et al. 2001; Clark and Dickson 2003) is currently being widely used in teaching sustainability. This divergence between the scholarly literature Q-VD-Oph supplier and the texts being used in educational programs shows that the field is taking a diverse set of content and institutional approaches under the heading of sustainability. While this may benefit the creativity of the

field, there may be a useful role for a foundational text for education in sustainability to ensure some coherence between programs. One option is presented by the reading lists supplied in the Ruffolo Curriciulum on Sustainability Science (Andersson et al. 2008). Disciplinary vs. interdisciplinary content Overall, courses within the applied sustainability, applied work, and research categories are more prevalent in master’s programs than in bachelor’s programs, which contain more disciplinary courses in the natural sciences, and arts and humanities (Fig. 4). This disparity may explain the lack of stand-alone courses in natural sciences, arts and humanities, and critical social sciences at the master’s level, with these approaches being covered

in these interdisciplinary, more generalist courses. Moreover, it raises the question of how best to integrate the diverse fields that contribute to sustainability education. The approach in master’s programs appears to favor the integration of disciplines in interdisciplinary and applied or research courses, while bachelor’s programs service Dehydratase the interdisciplinary nature of sustainability through existing disciplinary courses. Though the varying approaches taken may reflect the nature of these degrees in general, in both instances it must also be appropriate to the specific requirements of sustainability education. It remains unclear whether discipline-based bachelor’s programs can adequately meet the requirements of sustainability education. More broadly, this analysis raises the question as to what is the appropriate approach to disciplinary content.