Approach to teaching and analysis for sustainable development

Our approach to teaching and analysis for sustainable development is broadly sociological and also focused on teaching health promotion and related risk management principles for use in commercial, government, community or related geographic settings, with small or large levels of complexity. It seeks to prepare people to openly plan, undertake and evaluate competitively directed projects to promote health and to develop healthier environments. This self-preparation may be done alone with Google or with others, under the critical primary guidance of relevant international scientific and regulatory conventions, related definitions and other evidence, which must be well documented.

Sociologists often try to establish the relationship between what happens to individuals, and the larger historical processes of cultural, economic, political or related environmental change which may explain their situation. The sociological imagination tries to understand how our personal socialization may distort our observations, so as to be more aware and fair in regard to any account of phenomena or events and recommendations for action aimed at solutions. Communication and/or collaboration with those groups and individuals most relevant to improving the general situation is usually a vital part of the evidence gathering and recommendation process related to any matter under consideration. Openness ideally improves learning and development for all involved. Protective privacy requirements are considered in a context where openness is highly valued for its benefits. Openness promotes education, accountability and appropriate cost cutting.

The aim of health promotion is attainment of population health. It is ideally focused on preventing illness, understanding its causes, evidence based practice, and community participation in decisions which affect health. The WHO Declaration of Alma-Ata stated that primary health care ‘involves, in addition to the health sector, all related sectors and aspects of community development, in particular agriculture, animal husbandry, food, industry, education, housing, public works, communications and other sectors; and demands the coordinated efforts of all those sectors’. It called for ‘a better use of the world’s resources, a considerable part of which is now spent on armaments and military conflicts’. It claimed a genuine policy of independence, peace détente and disarmament could and should release additional resources devoted to peaceful aims and in particular to the acceleration of social and economic development of which primary health care, as an essential part, should be allotted its proper share. Our educational and policy development aim is to help.

The sociological, health promotion and risk management approaches are all consistent. Risk management is familiar in many Australian workplaces as a result of occupational health and safety requirements. Risks to the health of workers, clients, surrounding communities and environments may arise as a result of production or related environmental factors such as poor land, air, water, housing or food quality, or as a result of natural disasters or related environmental degradation. Environmental risks to human health may also interact with personal life-style risks such as smoking, alcohol abuse, over-eating, too little exercise or unsafe sexual practices.

In order to undertake the risk management process a person must normally consult with relevant others and establish the work context for the undertaking. They then identify the risks, which appear to exist in that work context. The risks are analysed and prioritised in terms of their likely severity and frequency. Strategies to treat the risks are then devised, implemented and monitored. The outcome of these strategies is then evaluated. This process is broadly consistent with the basic requirements of quality management and environment management as they are outlined in international standards (ISO 9004.1 and ISO 14004).

There is ideally an ongoing interaction between planning and implementation. This process seeks to question any apparent dogma from more broadly scientific as well as closer individual perspectives, so as to obtain more evidence to help reduce related future problems. Processes are ideally open to provide room to deal with problems or flaws in original plans, to allow for different circumstances or concerns, and to gain greater commitment and understanding. Who are the ideal judges and who should be made accountable for decisions, are questions which are asked often.