UEF//eRepository
DSpace https://erepo.uef.fi
Rinnakkaistallenteet Filosofinen tiedekunta
2021
Sustainability in Finnish craft
education: United Nations Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030
Agenda as a frame for an overview
Väänänen, Niina
Edgar Elgar
Artikkelit tieteellisissä kokoomateoksissa In copyright 1.0
https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/gbp/handbook-on-teaching-and-learning-for-sustainable-development-9781839104640.html
https://erepo.uef.fi/handle/123456789/25596
Downloaded from University of Eastern Finland's eRepository
Sustainable craft in Finnish craft education: file to fit model
Niina Väänänen
Junior Researcher, University of Eastern Finland, Philosophical Faculty, School of Applied Educational Science and Teacher Education, Joensuu
niina.vaananen@uef.fi
Sinikka Pöllänen
Professor, University of Eastern Finland, Philosophical Faculty, School of Applied Educational Science and Teacher Education, Joensuu
sinikka.pollanen@uef.fi
University of Eastern Finland Joensuu Campus
Yliopistonkatu 2, FI-80100 Joensuu, Finland P.O.Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland
Sustainable craft in Finnish craft education: file to fit model
Abstract
In Finland, sustainability has been for decades one of the leading themes in the national core curriculum. In crafts, learning by doing has been the distinctive feature of the implementation of the core curriculum since the Finnish school system was established. However, changes in culture, production and consumption have challenged craft education. Learning, living, and working in a changing world challenges us to redesign our educational contents and practices to extend the boundaries of traditional learning but also to maintain the traditions and skills that have travelled with humanity for many millennia. Today, craft is a combined, single compulsory subject for all students.
The curriculum emphasizes holistic craft process, multi-materiality, co-creation and participatory learning but more importantly stresses also aspects of critical consumerism and sustainable development. In practice, there are various practices within craft education because teachers have autonomy to implement the curriculum. Thereby, this article will present applicable practical solutions how to teach sustainability through craft in light of recent theories of sustainable craft and the UN Sustainable Development Goals 2030. In crafts sustainability begins from materials and environment but can ultimately turn into holistic understanding of crafting as a lifestyle and a viable alternative for sustainable future.
Keywords SD goals 2030, sustainable craft, craft education, craft, sustainable development
11 Sustainable Craft in Finnish Craft Education: File to Fit Model
Niina Väänänen and Sinikka Pöllänen
Abstract
In Finland, sustainability has been for decades one of the leading themes in the national core curriculum. In crafts, learning by doing has been the distinctive feature of the implementation of the core curriculum since the Finnish school system was established. Learning, living, and working in a changing world challenges us to redesign our educational contents and practices to extend the boundaries of traditional learning but also to maintain the traditions and skills that have travelled with humanity for many millennia. As a result, changes in culture, production and consumption have challenged also craft education. Thereby, this article will present applicable practical solutions how to teach sustainability through craft in light of recent theories of sustainable craft and the UN Sustainable Development Goals 2030. In crafts sustainability begins from materials and environment but can ultimately turn into holistic understanding of crafting as a lifestyle and a viable alternative for sustainable future.
Niina Väänänen
University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland Email: niina.vaananen@uef.fi
Sinikka Pöllänen
University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland Email: sinikka.pollanen@uef.fi
1 Sustainable Craft in Finnish Craft Education Introduction
In Finland, sustainability has been for decades one of the leading themes in the national core curriculum and also as a distinctive feature of craft education in the implementation of learning by doing. Today, the curriculum discusses the holistic craft process and common craft, which includes technical work (e.g., wood, metal, plastic, electronic work) and textile work (e.g., sewing, knitting, crochet, weaving, embroidery, textile printing, felting). However, in reality, there are various practices within craft education because teachers in Finland have autonomy to implement the multi- material craft curriculum. The situation has also created confusion and tension among teachers because of the historical background of textile craft and technical craft as separate school subjects (Pöllänen 2019; Marjanen and Metsärinen 2019). In the end, however, learning, living, and working in a changing world means changes also in culture, production and consumption that challenges us to
redesign our educational contents and practices to extend the boundaries of traditional learning but also to maintain the traditions and skills that have travelled with humanity for many millennia. On the other hand, in today’s technologically advanced urban society, the strong tradition of handicraft education in general education is being reassessed (Karppinen, 2008, pp. 87, 90). Eventually, sustainability is integrated into crafts with materials and environment but it can ultimately turn into holistic understanding of crafting as a lifestyle and co-crafting a viable alternative for sustainable future. Thereby, the aim of this article is to describe craft education and present applicable practical solutions how to teach sustainability through craft.
Perspectives on Craft education in Finland
In crafts, learning by doing has been a distinctive feature of the implementation of the core curriculum since the Finnish school system was established in 1866. Crafts were integrated in general education to harness the pupils’ hands, head, and spirit as a re-energizing force for educating moral citizens (Cygnaeus, 1910a). In the 1800’s hard times, it was convinced that hands-on learning, playfulness and creativity, would ultimately bring independence and entrepreneurship particularly the individuals and societies can prosper (Marjanen 2012; Kraatari 2016). Crafts were divided gender-based into mens’s and women’s crafts while it was important and valued that men and women were able to prepare those tools and artefacts needed in daily life (Pöllänen & Kröger, 2000). As the old parallel school system was transferred to the comprehensive school system for all, craft education was modernized into textile work and technical work as separate school subjects. At those days, increasing wealth also brought new patterns of purchasing goods from international production, and this led gradually to the need for consumer education (Komiteanmietintö, 1952).
Clearly, craft education in Finland has responded on the societal and individual needs through the subject matter teaching from teaching practical and technical skills to produce products for home living, and later to choose freely contents and support gender equity within the subject (Kokko 2007;
Kraatari 2016). Marjanen and Metsärinne (2019) identified the following four eras of the Finnish craft education that aptly illustrate the focus of craft education over the past decades: Craft for home well-being (1866-1911), Craft for civic society (1912-1945), Craft for independent and hard-working citizens (1946-1969), Toward equality craft (1970-1993), and Unlimited craft (1994-2014). Today, the emphasis is on envisioned based exploratory production (Marjanen and Metsärinne 2019, 64), meaning that the students aim is to explore different materials, methods and innovate something during the creative hands-on process.
Currently in Finland, craft is a combined, single compulsory subject for all students. The curriculum emphasizes holistic craft process, multi-materiality, co-creation and participatory learning. It stresses still aspects of critical consumerism and sustainable development (FBNE 2016; Porko-Hudd, Pöllänen and Lindfors 2018) which are considered as central themes to well-being, poverty alleviation, democracy, equality, participation, cultural knowledge (cf. Marjanen and Metsärinne 2019; Väänänen 2020). The curriculum discusses the holistic craft process, that the craft process is holistic, including ideation, design, manufacturing, and reflection and evaluation (Pöllänen 2019). In contrast, ordinary craft the processes are divided (e.g. ready-made patterns for the making process) and therefore they do not develop the individual skills needed for the holistic process (Rönkkö 2012). It is remarkable that this kind of model imitation should not be confused to traditional crafts that are usually based on making and repeating cultural shapes, patterns, motifs, even values with the materials (Walker 1989). Multi-material craft is a concept and approach to teach crafts in education. Conceptually, multi-material craft combines technical and textile crafts (Lepistö and Lindfors 2015) as one concept that does not make dichotomies between them or between genders
(Pöllänen 2019). The mixed materials and visualization and making methods can be used together or separately, which works best for the intended product (Pöllänen 2019). They should not be perceived something forced together if there is no functional need for it. More importantly, it could be understood as a learning environment for creative, innovative and usable combining and experimenting with materials and techniques to ground the learning experiences for new ways of thinking and doing in a sustainable way (cf. Binkley et al. 2012).
Sustainable craft
Sustainable craft requires consideration and reflection of product properties and effects of practice.
Väänänen, Pöllänen, Kaipainen and Vartiainen (2017) identified that sustainable craft is a system of practice, products and immaterial craft that each have characteristics on their own but effect, shape and motivate each other in an intertwined system (see Figure 1). Sustainable craft can be approached through these elements or holistically meaning that all the aspects and elements are carefully considered in the making process (Väänänen et al. 2018). The approach depends on the level of commitment to the process – the more involved one is in the process, the more reflective is the dialogue with the environment as a whole (cf. Bayliss and Dillon 2016; Bennet 2015). Sustainable craft differs from concepts of conventional craft, design-craft and art-craft (see Ihatsu 2002) with the conscious reflection of these elements during the involvement with materials in the process and circular life cycle (Väänänen and Pöllänen 2020). However, the system of practice, products and immaterial can be included as a conscious process also into them.
Values attached to craft have a relationship to sustainability that are extrinsic or intrinsic by their nature (Zhan & Walker 2018, 1252). Extrinsic values are in relation to the environment and the economy, for instance, eco-friendly materials, production process, consumption, or increasing income. The intrinsic values are social, local-cultural and spiritual. These values connect with, for instance, social equality, community building, local distinctiveness, self-identified culture instead of cosmopolitan culture, and spiritually sense of being and self-fulfilment through making.
Figure 1. System of sustainable craft (modified from Väänänen et al. 2017).
2 The Sustainable Development Goals 2030 through craft
The 17 United Nations Goals for 2030 (UN 2015) comprise a more detailed framework for sustainable development to support the tri-vision of environment, economy and equity (Brundtland 1987). The 17 goals with 169 targets can be concluded to handle issues that comprise people, planet, prosperity, peace and partnership (UN 2015, 1-2). Sustainability and sustainable development are considered as broad views and a goal with future orientation (Leal Filho and Pace 2016). Sustainability aims for sustaining living conditions in planet Earth for present and future generations through cultural change (Ehrenfeld 2008), education (Leal Filho et al. 2015; Wals 2009), and by safeguarding cultural traditions (Unesco 2003; Kokko & Dillon 2011) or by renewing them (Nugraha 2012).
Closely attached to sustainability are eco-friendly production methods and consumption patterns on a material level (Fry 2009; UN 2015). The viewpoint has changed from singular aspects towards holistic thinking (Salonen 2010; Ceschin and Gaziulusoy 2016), which at the same time makes it more complex to realize (cf. Norton 2015). A consortium of independent researchers (UN 2019) highlighted that there are entry points where to begin with and levers, i.e. mechanisms, how things can be done to thrive for a systemic change. This will help understanding the systemicity and complexity of the task more clearly (Wals 2009; Leal Filho et al. 2015; Ceschin and Gaziulusoy 2016;
Salonen 2019). Therefore, the socio-economic-environmental can be viewed separately, but they need to be understood as connected for actions to take place (UN 2019, xxi).
Salonen (2019) explains that there are weak and strong responses to sustainability. Weak responses focus on desires and wants, standards of living, on products and services, linear and market economies, fossil energy and consumer citizenship and individualism. While strong responses emphasize quality of life, human needs, local products and services, circular economy with true costs, clean energy, active citizenship and belonging. These dichotomies describe material and post-material worldviews, and suggests we need to move on to the post-material – quality of life values. This is somewhat problematic, not all societies are ready to move to post-material level, only those societies that already have reached a good level of well-being. However, we need to start from something very basic and concrete to understand the complexity and reach the immaterial level, as Bayliss and Dillon (2016) remind. Although by doing so, we might lose sight of the big picture, if we focus too much on the details (Fletcher 2009; Salonen 2019). These Goals 2030 and targets are specific action points, and still, they may seem remote to understand on a concrete level. This article has taken the liberty to explore these 17 goals through studies of craft that brings out the connections of craft in the system.
Participation levels: People, Peace and Partnership
The Goals 2030 intersect with crafts with most of the themes. For instance, craft has been considered to reduce issues of poverty in creating employment (Thomas 2006). Because craft develops people holistically from skills to know how and shape our attitudes and values (Väänänen et al. 2017), sustainable craft can be a viable source for incomes and entrepreneurship (Luckmann 2015; Bouette and Magee 2015). Historically, craft has been a means of providing the basic necessities for life, providing shelter, food and jobs (Pöllänen and Kröger 2004; Moran 2004; Väänänen 2020). Today, craft offer different kind of well-being and with reported health benefits. Craft can be applied as therapy (therapeutic action) or in therapy (method used in rehabilitation) (Pöllänen 2009). The well- being aspect can be viewed from individual perspective providing quality of life, sense of control, going through emotions, and recovering stress (Pöllänen 2015; Riley et al. 2013; Huotilainen 2019;
cf. Salonen 2019), but craft can be used for healing from eco-catastrophes (Maidment et al. 2019).
In quality education, the emphasis is usually given to literacy and numeracy education (UN 2015).
This is important because educating, for instance, girls, many related problems, for instance, gender equity and health can be educated also (cf. Nussbaum 2011). However, crafts role in education should be emphasized more, because of its developmental aspect of our embodied cognitions (Groth 2017;
Huotilainen et al. 2018) and because it offers a hands-on learning environment to incorporate the abstractions of learning, for instance, mathematics and other STEAM subjects (Kokko et al. 2015;
Kangas 2014; Pöllänen and Pöllänen 2019). For instance, in felting wool we can witness chemical and physics phenomena in biological materials. Layering wool in cross, adding soapy water and circular pressure motion the natural fibres twist and form a structure that has great properties against cold. Or measurements and mathematical equations are needed in transforming a 2D blueprint to 3D product. Craft precedes concretely computational thinking that is needed for logical thinking in our ever-sophisticated society (Pöllänen and Pöllänen 2019). Crafts is also noticed to be effective learning context to learn language in situations when the craft maker might be illiterate or language incompetent (Belaram 2010; Lappalainen 2014).
Gender equity in crafts has been a topic in Finnish craft education. Craft has had gender specific division in history, also in education, and thereby, methods and techniques were divided to girls/women’s ‘soft’ materials and textile techniques and boys/men’s ‘hard’ materials and technical methods (Kokko 2007; Marjanen 2012; Lepistö and Lindfors 2015; Kraatari 2016). This division was supported by the official national curriculum until 1985, when gender was not a criteria to choose
among techniques and materials in crafts in basic education. Since 2004, craft has been a combined, single compulsory subject for all pupils (Fnbe, 2004) but only the most recent curriculum from 2014 is describes crafts as one multi-material school subject where projects will realized with various visual, material, technical, and manufacturing solutions (Fnbe, 2014). This is to ensure that the pupils may choose the methods attractive to them without a ‘stigma’ attached to gender specific craft.
However, there are still variation in perceiving gendered craft in practice (Parts et al. 2011). Luckman (2015) sees a potential danger of home-based craft production and entrepreneurship – that may tie women at home, instead of seeking employment elsewhere. Yet, at the same time it may empower women for own incomes, control over time-management and ‘me-time’ (Pöllänen and Voutilainen 2018) and break gender barriers in interdisciplinary or multicultural projects at school and adult education (Fernaeus, Murer, Tsaknaki and Belenguer 2014; Lappalainen 2014).
Peace, justice and strong institutions – Ensure craft education in formal education on national and local level from early childhood to higher education. Because sustainable development is a political issue, seeing to the Goals 2030 to be met is a governmental responsibility (Nussbaum 2011), policy making needs to support peace, justice and strong institutions. Sustainable craft has the potential for holistic understanding, healing and intervention for healthier future on personal, societal and cultural levels (Väänänen 2020). The concentric framework of sustainable craft (ibid.) includes all aspects of craft and sustainability, and therefore should be included at a minimum of every society’s formal education system as a part of the nature of humankind (cf. Dissanayake 1995). Once it is in balance with the system, it reduces inequalities between people, animals, or nature.
When arriving to realize all the Goals 2030, there needs to be collaboration with multiple stakeholders and craft industry needs to rely on collaboration for the business strategies (Väänänen and Pöllänen 2020). Although crafts purpose in Finnish education system has been to develop individual skills, but within the education for 21st century skills (Binkley et al. 2012) maker culture, co-design and co- crafting can harness acquirements to work in collaboration with various visual, material, technical, and manufacturing solutions (Härkki et al. 2018; Vartiainen 2014) aiming to partnership for the Goals 2030.
Action points: Planet and Prosperity
Materials are an indispensable condition for making; in craft processes, we interact with materials, natural or manmade, from close by or shipped from far away, with methods that are techniques altering the materials into purposeful function. These methods and materials are cultivated, harvested, and extracted from nature. These processes in small scale local craft production are closely in the makers hands (Fletcher 2008). But purchased and utilized from global markets, the maker cannot be certain that the methods used in collecting the materials are in accordance to the makers values (Väänänen et al. 2017).
The manufacturing of craft materials poses a risk for life below water and life on land. First of all, water is needed for cultivating natural fibres, cellulose or animal, second, it is needed on the processes modifying those materials into usable form (Fletcher 2008). We need legislation and education of safe use of water and sanitation (Le et al. 2016), for example, in craft production there is a need to make sure nothing is being dumped straight into the water that affect life below water. In regards to affordable and clean energy, craft process and tools can be the most affordable and cleanest form of energy used in producing an item, for example, with traditional methods (Dissanayake et al. 2017;
Divakala and Muthian 2017). However, education and infrastructure should be provided for self- sufficiency and maintenance to ensure that craft-based processes are not as pollutive as any given production methods.
Craft as a field industry and as an occupation can provide work and economic growth when it is based on freedom to choose (Nussbaum 2011). Freedom to choose in craft production means that individuals are not forced to labour that not provide decent working conditions or salary. Many people are globally working in production of natural materials, also for craft production: buttons, yarns, threads, zippers, paints, minerals, clay, metals, wood, etc. All of these have a source and producer.
This chain should become standard as transparent as possible by the workforce used, the conditions, and the payment to start with.
Artisanal craft production offer an alternative for the old industry, innovation and infrastructure (Aakko 2016). In spite, craft industry has had ups and downs, there are signals that craft production has a new becoming (Gauntlett 2011; Parts et al. 2011) but at the same time is needing mentoring support for craft start-ups and build strong collaboration networks within the cottage industry (cf.
Schwarz and Yair 2011; Luutonen 2013; Kraatari 2016). Although recycling on its own is not enough to turn around the systems of material flows (Ceschin and Gaziulusoy 2016), sustainable cities and communities could be effective recycling centres open for givers and takers of materials, efficient recycling for upcycling, circular economy, social collaboration. Circularity and social responsibilities can be promoted more effectively through already existing practices (e.g. Darby and Jenkins 2006;
Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2013; Pantsar and Herlevi 2016).
Ehrenfeld (2014) calls for cultural change from having to being, meaning to reduce our consumption and owning things as short-term hedonistic satisfaction. Instead, crafting can preserve eudaimonic well-being and personal agency through quality and value reflections, and through embodied interaction with the material world (Pöllänen and Weissmann-Hanski 2019). Meaningful making by hands may offer an alternative to the emotional void being filled with shopping (Kasser 2002) that can turn into addictive behaviour (Maraz et al. 2016; Majuri 2019). Understanding through crafts how things are made could work as a mechanism for valuing and handling things we possess on a sustainable basis, and turn into responsible consumption and production as steps for climate action to take place.
3 Sustainable craft education – practical solutions
This chapter describes applicable practices found in Finnish educational context based on the theories of sustainable craft and craft education. Because education in general has moved on to educating 21st century competencies (Voogt et al. 2013) that address themes of ways of thinking and working, with tools for working and living in the world (Binkley et al 2012), the themes discussed below are some suggestions to begin a craft intervention in education. Leal Filho and Pace (2016) remind that we also need to prepare students for the unknown. The unknown can be a challenging negative feeling, frightening, and can trigger fight-or-flight mechanism (Huotilainen et al. 2018). The positive aspect of craft is that it can reduce this fight-or-flight stress reaction and turn it into a flow (Csikszentmihalyi 2014; Pöllänen 2015).
Early childhood education and elementary school
In early childhood education and elementary school, education could benefit from three main principles: material encounters, rehearsing skills, and holistic craft process (Yliverronen and
Seitamaa-Hakkarainen 2016). Material encounters, leftover textiles and anything to be recycled can be upcycled to children’s creative rethink and redesign-based learning to reduce and reuse items. A recycling centre in classroom makes children learn which material goes to which bin. The most important task in early childhood is to rehearsing skills and to come acquainted with a variety of materials and tools. This will shape the neural connections through senses and brain (Huotilainen 2019) and support the child’s diverse development. Holistic craft will stimulate the learner’s cognitive, sensorimotor, emotional and social resources and make the pupils’ learning meaningful and enjoyable problem-solving (Pöllänen 2019).
Upper elementary school
In upper elementary school craft education or in education in general, the easiest way is to include life cycle education in small tasks, information seeking, videos, portfolio learning with participatory learning method and holistic craft education. Four main themes in sustainable craft education may be material knowledge, ethical and ecological choices, human development aspect, and frugality.
These can be communicated to pupils through life cycle and levels of participation. Open and holistic craft-based learning tasks can be constructed on the principle of user-centred design and selecting appropriate materials and techniques to create a workable solution to the problem or design challenge (Pöllänen 2019). Material knowledge is about recognizing, getting a haptic sense of materials and gaining knowledge of appropriate materials. Ethical and ecological questions could be introduced into these discussions. The idea is that knowledge of different materials and
techniques and a process acquired through authentic experience creates a sense of commitment and responsibility (Ihatsu 2002). Because large areas of our brains are reserved for hand activities (Huotilainen 2019) the holistic craft process with material considerations implies being bodily, emotionally and cognitively active in developing the requisite skills for creativity and innovation, but also strengthening close eye-hand and hand cooperation (see Huotilainen 2019) for the most demanding professions for future (e.g., surgeon or dentist).
Secondary school, occupational training, higher education
The framework of sustainable craft (Figure 1) may be used as a basis of designing (Väänänen et al.
2017). The illustrated system can be dismantled into its elements and then viewed individually, so that the whole picture is reassembled again. It can also be used as a base for analysis as a visual culture analysis and designing sustainable fashion but also or as an assistant for evaluation of ones’
design and crafting process (Aakko and Koskennurmi-Sivonen, 2013). Beginning from hands-on learning tasks and connecting concept mapping and development (Schön 1988; Bennet 2015) may deepen understanding and reflection, and, thereby, the diversify their conceptions. flipped classroom can provide the opportunity to use active learning approaches in the classroom, because students can engage with the pre-studied materials using higher- order intellectual skills such as analysis, synthesis and evaluation The more familiar students are with the subject, the deeper and abstract the reflection is (Bayliss and Dillon 2010).
Flipped learning is proven to deepen learning outcomes (lähteet) and it could also utilized in craft education. Verbalizing learning and theories through essay writing, learning cafés, peer-teaching – there are no limits in the ways of passing information. ks tallennettu 23.1 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10984-019-09281-2
https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/2003452460_Ritva_Koskennurmi-Sivonen 4 Conclusions
In crafts, sustainability begins from materials and environment but can ultimately turn into holistic understanding of crafting as a lifestyle and a viable alternative for sustainable future. Craft education in Finland has responded to the societal needs of development before sustainability was an imperative.
Today, when the culture has changed from physical necessity of goods that enable life, we should return to view craft education essential for sustainability. We should advance knowledge from micro level on our neurological connections to global scale in appreciating the ‘craft-DNA’ coded within our own natural systems (cf. Dissanayake 1995; Moran 2006; Sennett 2008; Groth 2017; Huotilainen et al. 2018). Whole Earth needs a craft intervention to heal from the stress caused by desire-driven societies. We need to remind ourselves with the equilibrium that has been discussed for two millennia (cf. Aristotle 1989). Because craft is something inherently human, the human action and practices in the circular life cycle should be understood something quite natural to human beings, and should not be outsourced to industrial production although it provides us fast-fulfilment of needs.
References
Aakko, M. (2016). Fashion In-between. Helsinki: Aalto University.
Anttila, P. (1999). Katso käsillä tunteaksesi [See with you hands to feel]. Kuopio: Kuopion käsi- ja taideteollisuusakatemia.
Aristotle. (1989). Nikomakhoksen etiikka [Ethica Nicomachea]. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.
Bayliss, P. & Dillon, P. (2010). Cosmologies and Lifestyles A Cultural Ecological Framework and Its Implications for Education Systems. Anthropological Journal of European Cultures, 19 (2), 7-21.
Belaram, S. (2010). Thinking Design. EBSCO: eBook Collection: Sage Publications.
Bennett, J. (2015). Trends in craft education and the value attached to craft. Making Futures Journal, 4.
Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ribley, M., Miller-Ricci, M. & Rumble, M. (2012). Defining Twenty-First Century Skills. In P. Griffin, B. McCaw & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and Teaching of the 21st Century Skills, 17-66. Dordrecht: Springer.
Bouette, M. & Magee, F. (2015). Hobbyists, artisans and entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 22(2), 337-351.
Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burns, J., Gibbon, C., Rosemberg, C. & Yair, K. (2012). Craft in an Age of Change. Crafts Council.
Ceschin, F. & Gaziulusoy, I. (2016). Evolution of design for sustainability: From product design to design for system innovations and transitions. Design Studies (47), 118-163.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Flow and Foundations of Positive Psychology: The Collected works of Mihaly Csiskzentmihalyi. ProQuest Ebook Central: Springer Netherlands.
Darby, L. & Jenkins, H. (2006). Applying sustainability indicators to the social enterprise business model.
International Journal of Social Economics, 33(5/6), 411-431.
Dillon, P. (2018). Making and its Cultural Ecological Foundations. In S. Walker, M. Evans, T. Cassidy, J.
Jung & A. T. Holroyd (Eds.), Design Roots, Culturally Significant Designs, Products and Practices, 71-82. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Dissanayake, D. G., Perera, S. & Wanniarachchi, T. (2017). Sustainable and ethical manufacturing: a case study from handloom industry. Textiles and Clothing Sustainability, 3(2), 1-10.
Dissanayake, E. (1995). Homo Aestheticus: Where Art Comes From and Why. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Divalakala, M. & Muthian , V. (2017). Temple cloth to textile craft: The progression of Kalamkari (Vraatapani) of Srikalahasti. Craft Research, 8(1), 79-99.
Dormer, P. (1994). The Art of the Maker. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd.
Ehrenfeld, J. R. (2014). The real challenge of sustainability. In K. Fletcher & M. Tham (Eds.), Routledge handbook of sustainability and fashion, 57-63. London and New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2013). Towards the circular economy - Opportunities for the consumer goods sector. Available at:
https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/publications/TCE_Report-2013.pdf:
Ellen MacArthur Foundation.
Finnish National Board of Education. (2014). Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet [National core curriculum for basic education]. Helsinki: Finnish National Agency for Education. Available at:
https://www.oph.fi/download/163777_perusopetuksen_opetussuunnitelman_perusteet_2014.pdf Fletcher, K. (2008). Sustainable Fashion & textiles. London: Earthscan.
Fletcher, K. (2009). System change for sustainability in textiles. In R. S. Blackburn (Ed.), Sustainable textiles: Life cycle and environmental impact, 369-380. Oxford: Woodhead Publishing Limited.
Fry, T. (2009). Design Futuring: sustainability, ethics and new practice. Oxford: Berg.
Gauntlett, D. (2011). Making is Connecting: The social meaning of craftivity, from DIY and knitting to YouTube and Web 2.0. Cambridge: Polity.
Groth, C. (2017). Making Sense Through Hands - Design and Craft Practice Analysed as Embodied Cognition. Helsinki: Aalto University.
Hughes, P. (2011). Towards a post-consumer subjectivity: a future for the crafts in the twenty first century?
Craft + Design Enquiry, 1-18.
Huotilainen, M. (2019). Näin aivot oppivat [This is how brains learn]. Helsinki: PS-Kustannus.
Huotilainen, M., Rankanen, M., Groth, C., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. & Mäkelä, M. (2018). Why our brains love arts and crafts: Implications of creative practices on psychophysical well-being.
FormAcademisk, 11(2), 1-18.
Härkki, T., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. & Hakkarainen, K. (2018). Hands on design: comparing the use of sketching and gesturing in collaborative designing. Journal of Design Research, 16(1), 24-46.
Ihatsu, A.-M. (2002). Making sense of contemporary American craft. Joensuu: University of Joensuu.
Jakob, D. (2012). Crafting your way out of the recession? New craft entrepreneurs and the global economic downturn. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society(6), 127-140.
Jayawickreme, E., Forgeard, M. J., & Seligman, M. E. (2012). The Engine of Well-Being. Review of General Psychology, 16(4), 327–342.
Kangas, K. (2014). The Artifact Project Promoting Design Learning in the Elementary Classroom. Helsinki:
University of Helsinki.
Kasser, T. (2002). The High Price of Materialism. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Kojonkoski-Rännäli, S., Kokko, S., Kröger, T., Pöllänen, S., Räisänen, R. & Syrjäläinen, E. (20. 9 2018).
Käsityön opetus suomalaisessa peruskoulussa [Craft education in Finnish basic education].
Available at: Elävä perintö:
https://wiki.aineetonkulttuuriperinto.fi/wiki/K%C3%A4sity%C3%B6n_opetus_suomalaisessa_perus koulussa
Kokko, S. (2007). Käsityöt tyttöjen kasvatuksessa naisiksi [The road to womanhood through gender-specific crafts]. Joensuu: University of Joensuu.
Kokko, S. (2018). The Role of Higher Education in Sustaining Culturally Significant Crafts in Estonia. In S.
Walker, M. Evans, T. Cassidy, J. Jung & A. T. Holroyd (Eds.), Design Roots Culturally Significant Designs, Products, and Practices, 252-263. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Kokko, S. & Dillon, P. (2011). Crafts and craft education as expressions of cultural heritage: individual experiences and collective values among an international group of women university students. Int J Technol Des Educ, 487–503.
Kokko, S., Eronen, L.& Sormunen, K. (2015). Crafting Maths: Exploring Mathematics Learning through Crafts. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 20(2), 22-31.
Kraatari, E. (2016). Domestic Dexterity and Cultural Policy: The Idea of Cottage Industry and Historical Experience in Finland from the Great Famine to the Reconstruction Period. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
Kuhmonen, P. L., Lindfors, L., Ruuskanen, K. & Toivonen, L. (1988). Peruskoulun opetuksen opas:
yläasteen tekstiilityö [Guide for basic education: elementary textile crafts]. Helsinki: Kouluhallitus.
Lappalainen, E-M. (2014). Effective multicultural learning in iterative cycles: Language learning breaking gender barriers in doing crafts. Techne serien - Forskning i Slöjdpedagogik och Slöjdvetenskap, 21(1), 1-16. Available at: https://journals.hioa.no/index.php/techneA/article/view/764
Le, T. H., Tran, V. T., Le, Q. V., Nguyen, T. P., Schnitzer, H. & Braunegg, G. (2016). An integrated ecosystem incorporating renewable energy leading to pollution reduction for sustainable development of craft villages in rural area: a case study at sedge mats village in Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Energy, Sustainability and Society, 2(21), 1-12.
Leal Filho, W. & Pace, P. (2016). Teaching Education for Sustainable Development: Implications on Learning Programmes at Higher Education. In W. Leal Filho & P. Pace (Eds.), Teaching Education for Sustainable Development at University Level, 1-6. Springer International Publishing Switzerland.
Leal Filho, W., Manolas, E., & Pace, P. (2015). The future we want. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 16(1), 112-129.
Lepistö, J. & Lindfors, E. (2015). From Gender-segregated Subjects to Multi-material Craft: Student Teachers' Views on the Future of Craft Subject. FORMacademisk, 8, 1-20.
Lith, P. (2017). Käsityöalan suhdanne- ja toimialaraportti 2017 [Craft industry’s trade report 2017].
Helsinki: Taitoliitto.
Luckman, S. (2015). Women's Micro-Entrepreneurial Homeworking. Australian Feminist Studies, 30(84), 146-160.
Luutonen, M. (1999). Merkillinen tuote [Meaningful product]. In A.-M. Ruonio & P. Seitamaa-Hakkarainen (Eds.), Liitteitä - Attachments, 73-82. Kuopio: Kuopion käsi- ja taideteollisuusakatemia.
Luutonen, M. (2013). Käsityö- ja muotoilualan yrittäjä 2013 [Craft and design entrepreneur 2013].
Helsinki: Käsi- ja taideteollisuusliitto Taito ry.
Maidment, J., Tudor, R., Campbell, A. & Whittaker, K. (2019). Women’s place-making through craft in post-earthquake Christchurch. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 31(1), 17-30.
Majuri, J. (2019). Dopamine, opioid and serotonin neurotransmission in behavioural addictions. Turku:
University of Turku.
Maraz, A., Griffiths, M. D. & Demetrovics, Z. (2016). The prevalence of compulsive buying: a meta- analysis. Addiction (111), 408-419.
Marjanen, P. (2012). Koulukäsityö vuosina 1866-2003: Kodin hyvinvointiin kasvattavista tavoitteista kohti elämänhallinnan taitoja. Turku: Turun yliopisto.
Marjanen, P. & Metsärinne, M. (2019). The Development of Craft Education in Finnish Schools. Nordic Journal of Educational History, 6(1), 49-70.
Moran, E. F. (2006). People and nature. Blackwell Publishing.
Niedderer, K. & Townsend, K. (2014). Design Craft Research: Joining Emotion and Knowledge. The Design Journal, 17(4), 624-647.
Norton, B. G. (2015). Sustainable values, sustainable change a guide to environmental decision making.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Nugraha, A. (2012). Transforming Tradition. Helsinki: Aalto University.
Nussbaum, M. (2011). Creating Capabilities - Human Development Approach. Harvard: UP.
Pantsar, M. & Herlevi, K. (2016). Kierrolla kärkeen Suomen tiekartta kiertotalouteen 2016-2025 [Circular to top Finnish roadmap for circular economy]. Helsinki: Sitra.
Parts, P.-K., Rennu, M., Jääts, L., Matsin, A. & Metslang, J. (2011). Developing sustainable heritage-based livelihoods: an initial study of artisans and their crafts in Viljandi County, Estonia. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 17(5), 401-425.
Porko-Hudd, M., Pöllänen, S. & Lindfors, E. (2018). Common and holistic crafts education in Finland.
Techne Series A, 25(3), 26-38.
Pöllänen, S. (2009). Contextualizing Craft: Pedagogical Models for Craft Education. The International Journal of Art and Design Education, 28(3), 249-260.
Pöllänen, S. H. (2019). Perspectives on Multi-Material Craft in Basic Education. IJADE, 1-16.
Pöllänen, S. H. & Pöllänen, K. M. (2019). Beyond Programming and Crafts: Towards Computational Thinking in Basic Education. Design and Technology Education: an International Journal, 24(1), 13-32.
Pöllänen, S. & Kröger, T. (2004). Näkökulmia kokonaiseen käsityöhön [Aspects for holistic craft]. Available at: http://sokl.joensuu.fi/verkkojulkaisut/tutkivaope/pdft/polla_kroger.pdf
Pöllänen, S. & Weissmann-Hanski, M. K. (2019). Hand-made well-being: Textile crafts as a source of eudaimonic well-being. Journal of Leisure Research.
Pöllänen, S. & Voutilainen, L. (2017). Crafting Well-Being: Meanings and Intentions of Stay-at-Home Mothers' Craft-Based Leisure Activity. Leisure Sciences, 1-17.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2017.1325801
Riley, J., Corkhill, B. & Morris, C. (2013). The benefits of knitting for personal and social wellbeing in adulthood: findings from an international survey. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 76(2), 50-57.
Risatti, H. (2007). Theory of Craft: Function and Aesthetic Expression. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Salonen, A. O. (2010). Kestävä kehitys globaalin ajan hyvinvointiyhteiskunnan haasteena [Sustainable development as a challenge for global welfare society]. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto.
Salonen, A. O. (2019). Transformative Responses to Sustainability. In W. Leal Filho (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Sustainability in Higher Education, 1-8. Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63951-2_501-1
Schwarz, M. & Yair, K. (2010). Making Value: craft & the economic and social contribution of makers.
London: Craft Council.
Schön, D. (1988). Educating the reflective practitioner. Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Sennett, R. (2008). The Craftsman. London: Penguin books.
Shiner, L. (2012). "Blurred Boundaries"? Rethinking the Concept of Craft and its Relation to Art and Design.
Philosophy Compass, 7(4), 230-244.
Thomas, A. (2006). Design, Poverty, and Sustainable Development. Design Issues, Volume 22(4), 54-65.
Unesco 2003 / Valtioneuvoston asetus 47/2013. (2003 / 2013). Yleissopimus aineettoman kulttuuriperinnön suojelemisesta / Convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage. Helsinki:
Suomen säädöskokoelman sopimussarja.
Unesco. (2018). Basic Texts of the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, 2018 Edition. Paris: Unesco. Available at:
https://ich.unesco.org/doc/src/2003_Convention_Basic_Texts-_2018_version-EN.pdf United Nations. (2015). A/RES/70/1 Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. United Nations.
United Nations. (2019). The Future Is Now - Science for Achieving Sustainable Development. United Nations. Available
at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/24797GSDR_report_2019.pdf United Nations. (2019). The Sustainable Development Goals Report. United Nations. Available at:
https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2019/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2019.pdf Walker, J. A. (1989). Design History and the History of Design. London: Pluto Press.
Wals, A. (2009). Review of Contexts and Structures for Education for Sustainable Development. Paris:
United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD, 2005-2014).
Voogt, J., Erstad, O., Dede, C. & Mishra, P. (2013). Challenges to learning and schooling in the digital networked world of the 21st century. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (29), 403-413.
Väänänen, N. (2020). Sustainable craft dismantled and reassembled. Joensuu: University of Eastern Finland.
Väänänen, N. & Pöllänen, S. (accepted). Conceptualizing Sustainable Craft: concept analysis of literature.
The Design Journal.
Väänänen, N., Pöllänen, S., Kaipainen, M. & Vartiainen, L. (2017). Sustainable craft in practice - from practice to theory. Craft Research, 8(2), 257-284.
Väänänen, N., Vartiainen, L., Kaipainen, M., Pitkäniemi, H. & Pöllänen, S. (2018). Understanding Finnish student craft teachers' conceptions of sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 19(5), 963-986.
Yliverronen, V. & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. (2016). Learning craft skills Exploring preschoolers' craft- making process. Techné Series A, 23(2), 1-15.
Zhan, X. & Walker, S. (2018). Value Direction: Moving Crafts toward Sustainability in the Yangtze River Delta, China. Sustainability, 10(1252), 1-20.
Åhlberg, M. (1998). Ecopedagogy and Ecodidactics: Education for Sustainable Development, Good Environment and Good Life. Joensuu: University of Joensuu.
