Short Summary Example

Derr, T. S. 2000. Global Eco-Logic. First Things, February, 9-12.

http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft0002/opinion/derr.html
This text examines the differences of the UNs and Earth Charters world-views on sustainable
development. In the authors opinion, they are irreconcilable as the UN proposes that
environmental protection should serve human needs. Earth Charter, in other hand, proposes a
reinvention of society centered on ecological conservation, religion, and sustainable living. The
Earth Charter members have the wish to share human needs with the Earth itself, which they
understand as a living entity and regard it as more relevant than saving humanity.
Analyzing the changes made to Earth Charter's second draft, the author remarks this as an
attempt at reconciliation between the world-views, but even so, he still takes them as
irreconcilable. He concludes with a personal forecast that the Earth Charter Movement (and its
documents) will drop to oblivion unless the members resolve to dismiss the quasi-mystical
perspective of their propositions.

Full Summary Example

Burford, G., Hoover, E., Velasco, I., Janoukov, S., Jimenez, A., Piggot, G., Podger, D., Harder,
M. 2013. Bringing the Missing Pillar into Sustainable Development Goals: Towards
Intersubjective Values-Based Indicators. Sustainability, Vol. 5. pp. 3035-3059.
http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/5/7/3035/htm
The authors argue that, in the post-2015 moment, it will be interesting to work with indicators
based on intangible values. They declare that the UN excludes, from their documents, many
concepts relevant to the missing fourth pillar of sustainability because they regard them as
immeasurable. In this sense, the paper elaborates on why and how these intangible values
can be measured if they are intersubjectively conceptualized within clearly defined practical
contexts (Burford et al., 2013, p. 3035).
First, the authors examine the claims at the fourth pillar of sustainability and highlight three
of them:

Cultural- aesthetic, as proposed by Hawkes (2001) and on the works by UNESCO;

Political-institutional, where institutional is a wide concept, including
organizations, norms, and institutional mechanisms. They explain that this is
considered as a fourth pillar by many actors;
Religious-spiritual, a much lesser-known claim, rooted in the concept of an
awakening global ethical and spiritual consciousness that underpins
sustainability transitions (Burford et al., 2013, p. 3036-3037).

They propose that a common virtue is present in them, the concern with human values and
how they are manifested in peoples personal and professional lives (Burford et al., 2013, p.
3038). For the sake of simplicity, the authors suggest the term ethical values, representing
principles or standards of behavior. They claim that this could be a fourth pillar of
sustainability, encompassing the other claims by the means of a common concept. They also
present a small discussion on the term fourth pillar, relativizing its use, since ethical values
should encompass all the other pillars, being something transcendental. However, they observe

that, as a fourth pillar, they are equalizing the relevance of the pillars of sustainability, i.e.,
ethical values pillar is as important as the other three (Burford et al., 2013, p. 3038-3039).
Afterward, they remark the lack of references to ethical values in Rio +20 outcomes report and
that an absence of references on upcoming SDG is probable. The authors understand this as a
sign that the discussions - on the international level - regarding ethical values are fading away
(Burford et al., 2013, p. 3038-3039). This fading away effect is credited to the logic presented
in Figure 1:

Figure 1. A logical argument that values enactment cannot be measured

(the immeasurability argument). Extracted from: Burford et al., 2013, p.

3044).
OBS: Values Enactment are the ethical values in practice, when a person acts according to a
principle or a set of standards. Oppositely, Values Spousal are configured when someone
declares agreement or disagreement on a set of principles when asked (on a survey, for
instance).
According to the paper, the logic presented in Figure 1 is the argument used to exclude ethical
values from international discussions. The authors argue that Premise 1 is correct, but Premise
2 is not because they consider that Values Enactment can be measured if they are:
intersubjectively defined in relation to a specific, bounded practical context and that the
intersubjective definition is accepted by the individuals involved as a useful, if incomplete,
working definition (Burford et al., 2013, p. 3046).
Therefore, they suggest an alternative to the logic imposed by Figure 1. Figure 2 presents the
new logic:

Figure 2. The context-specific measurability argument. Extracted from: Burford

et al., 2013, p. 3046.
The text presents a discussion about the need for measuring Values Enactment because: if they
are hard to measure, why should they be measured? In a reference to Bell and Morse (2011),
they show that indicators help people perceive what is relevant and, in that way, indicators tend
to define what is important. Considering this as the truth, it is important measuring what
should be measured and not what can be measured. Naturally, they advocate on the need
for measuring ethical values (Burford et al., 2013, p. 3042).
On section 3, they show an application of Figure 2 logics on a project in the context of ESDinds
and advocate that the projects results are evidence on Values Enactment measurability. This
project aimed to assess the presence of specific ethical/spiritual values on a sustainability
leadership online course (Burford et al., 2013, p. 3046-3048).
[Comment: Section 3 describes every step of the project and this is hard to summarize in a useful
way. The content is on pages 3046-3049.].
From the case analysis, the authors infer that the empirical findings of the case support Figure
2 theoretical argument: named ethical and spiritual values can be measured in a useful and
locally valid way, through further dialogic processes of devising appropriate data collection and
analysis strategies and establishing benchmarks where necessary. According to the
requirements of the situation, these strategies may be qualitative, quantitative, or mixed in
nature, and may involve a combination of standard methods (e.g., survey questionnaires) and
innovative context-specific methods (in this case, content analysis of comments left on the
intrinsic feedback mechanism built into the online course platform) (Burford et. al., 2013, p.
3049).
In Section 4, the authors assert that you need ethical values that are intersubjectively
conceptualized within clearly defined practical contexts to be able to measure them. This
means we cannot have universal indicators for ethical values. Alternatively, you need to use a
bottom-up approach that considers local, regional and maybe national realities. To explain
this, they present an interesting metaphor: While this process would almost certainly benefit
from some degree of global coordination, it is imperative to avoid mistranslating our call for a
global quest for values-based indicators as aquest for global values-based indicators
(Burford et al., 2013, p. 3050).

Later on, they warn about the perverse effects that can emerge when working with
intersubjectively defined values like political use, data manipulation, selective communication
of results based on private interests, and so on. They argue that strict methodological
requirements can help to mitigate those effects, especially if a methodology mix is enforced.
Lastly, they recommend some policy actions, but most important:
Establishing a consultation process with key stakeholder tasked with developing SDGs, to
ensure that appropriate indicators and assessment tools relating to ethical values (as a key
element of the missing pillar of sustainability) are formulated in parallel with the goals
themselves (Burford et al., 2013, p. 3053).