Headnote
ABSTRACT
Objective: To reflect on the current orientation given to the social function in universities and how University Social Environmental Responsibility (USSR) models emerge as alternatives to guide the University-Society relationship.
Theoretical framework: The social participation of the universities analyzed was more important in terms of the articulation between extension, academic training and research and good relations with external actors for the development of social and environmental projects. This seems to indicate that extension is being carried out with an eco-social approach, in accordance with the social and environmental aspects described in this article.
Method: To determine the opinion of teachers from Agricultural Universities in Latin America and the Caribbean in the field of USSR, research was carried out using a survey-type instrument. This instrument was developed based on François Vallaeys' (2014) proposal for University Social Responsibility (USR), with a complementary conceptual vision of University Social Environmental Responsibility (USSR) (Victorino and Flores, 2004) to observe its achievements and scope, but also the pending challenges of its social environment.
Results and discussion: It is concluded that the USSR together with the evaluation of the quality and impact of each project, especially by the beneficiary party, is a matter of utmost importance that remains pending for the IEAS.
Implications of the research: The results obtained in the research highlight that Higher Agricultural Education (HSE) and in particular universities are questioned by the fulfillment of their social function, in relation to University Social Environmental Responsibility.
Originality/value: Reflecting on the current orientation of the social function in agricultural educational institutions in Latin America is essential to understand how the models of University Social Environmental Responsibility guide the university-society relationship, and this was achieved through the opinion of teachers.
Keywords: University Social Environmental Responsibility, Teaching, Research, Knowledge Management, Social Environment.
RESUMO
Objetivo: Refletir sobre a orientação atual dada à função social nas universidades e como os modelos de Responsabilidade Socioambiental Universitária (URSS) surgem como alternativas para orientar a relação Universidade-Sociedade.
Marco teórico: A participação social das universidades analisadas foi mais importante em termos de articulação entre extensão, formação acadêmica e pesquisa e boas relações com atores externos para o desenvolvimento de projetos sociais e ambientais. Isso parece indicar que a extensão está sendo realizada com uma abordagem ecossocial, de acordo com os aspectos sociais e ambientais descritos neste artigo.
Método: Para determinar a opinião dos professores de Universidades Agrícolas da América Latina e Caribe no campo da URSS, a pesquisa foi realizada usando um instrumento do tipo survey. Este instrumento foi desenvolvido com base na proposta de François Vallaeys (2014) para a Responsabilidade Social Universitária (RSU), com uma visão conceitual complementar da Responsabilidade Social Ambiental Universitária (RSU) (Victorino e Flores, 2004) para observar suas realizações e escopo, mas também os desafios pendentes de seu ambiente social.
Resultados e discussão: Conclui-se que a URSS juntamente com a avaliação da qualidade e impacto de cada projeto, especialmente pela parte beneficiária, é uma questão de extrema importância que permanece pendente para o IEAS.
Implicações da pesquisa: Os resultados obtidos na pesquisa destacam que o Ensino Superior Agrário (ESA) e em particular as universidades são questionadas pelo cumprimento de sua função social, em relação à Responsabilidade Social Ambiental Universitária.
Originalidade/valor: Refletir sobre a orientação atual da função social nas instituições educacionais agrícolas na América Latina é essencial para entender como os modelos de Responsabilidade Social Ambiental Universitária orientam a relação universidade-sociedade, e isso foi alcançado por meio da opinião dos professores.
Palavras-chave: Responsabilidade Socioambiental Universitária, Ensino, Pesquisa, Gestão Do Conhecimento, Ambiente Social.
RESUMEN
Objetivo: Reflexionar sobre la orientación que actualmente se le da a la función social en las universidades y cómo es que los modelos de Responsabilidad Social Ambiental Universitaria (RSAU) surgen como alternativas para orientar la relación Universidad-Sociedad.
Marco teórico: La participación social de las universidades analizadas fue más importante en cuanto a la articulación entre extensión, formación académica e investigación y las buenas relaciones con actores externos para el desarrollo de proyectos sociales y ambientales. Lo que pareciera indicar que se está realizado extensión con enfoque eco-social, de acuerdo con los aspectos sociales y ambientales descritos en este artículo.
Método: Con la finalidad de determinar la opinión de docentes de Universidades Agrícolas de América Latina y el Caribe en el ámbito de la RSAU, se realizó una investigación utilizando un instrumento tipo encuesta. Este instrumento se desarrolló a partir de la propuesta de Responsabilidad Social Universitaria (RSU) de François Vallaeys (2014), con una complementación de visión conceptual de Responsabilidad Social Ambiental o Socioambiental Universitaria (RSAU) (Victorino y Flores, 2004) para observar sus logros y alcances, pero también los retos pendientes de su entorno social.
Resultados y discusión: Se concluye que la RSAU junto con la evaluación de la calidad e impacto de cada proyecto especialmente por la parte beneficiada, es un asunto de suma importancia que queda pendiente para las IEAS.
Implicaciones de la investigación: Los resultados obtenidos en la investigación resaltan que la Educación Agrícola Superior (EAS) y en particular las universidades se ven cuestionadas por el cumplimento de su función social, en relación con la Responsabilidad Social Ambiental o Socioambiental Universitaria.
Originalidad/valor: Reflexionar respecto a la orientación que se da actualmente a la función social en las instituciones educativas agrícolas de América Latina es imprescindible para conocer cómo es que los modelos de Responsabilidad Social Ambiental Universitaria orientan la relación universidad - sociedad y ésta se logró mediante la opinión de los docentes.
Palabras Clave: Responsabilidad Social Ambiental Universitaria, Docencia, Investigación, Gestión Del Conocimiento, Entorno Social.
1 INTRODUCTION
Higher Agricultural Education (EAS) and universities in particular are being questioned about the fulfilment of their social function. It is therefore necessary to reflect on the direction currently given to this in universities and how University Social Environmental Responsibility (RSAU) models emerge as alternatives to guide the University-Society relationship.
In the case of Higher Agricultural Education Institutions (IEAS), these reflections require urgency given the close relationship they have with society, due to the orientation of the knowledge of their functions, such as: food production and the social and environmental impact that this activity has.
In order to determine the opinion of teachers from Agricultural Universities in Latin America and the Caribbean in the field of RSAU, a research was carried out using a surveytype instrument. This instrument was developed from the RSU proposal of François Vallaeys (2014), with a complement of the conceptual vision of University Social Environmental Responsibility (RSAU) to observe its achievements and scope, but also the pending challenges of its social environment.
1.1 SOCIAL FUNCTION OF THE UNIVERSITY
Faced with the problems and needs that afflict society today, the university has been assigned the function of providing answers and permanently seeking the advancement of knowledge in science, technology, humanities and the arts (Guillaumín, et al. , 2003). Thus, the social function of education is made up of different levels: academic, research, economicoccupational, sociocultural and political-ideological (Villaseñor, 2003). However, recently, the link between the university and economic development, through the use, transmission and creation of knowledge; preparation for work and civic life are discourses that various bodies and sectors assign as priorities for HE (Gaete, 2012) (Villaseñor, 2003).
There are significant expectations regarding IEAS given their relationship with global problems, including: extreme poverty (almost 80% of the extremely poor live in rural areas, where the majority depend on agriculture), food security (efficient agricultural systems are required to produce healthy food), water availability (crops and livestock use 70% to 95% of total water withdrawals), energy use (food systems consume 30% of the world's energy), sustainable food production (agriculture has negative environmental impacts such as loss of soil, water and nutrients, greenhouse gas emissions and ecosystem degradation), ecosystem and forest conservation (combating desertification, stopping and reversing land degradation and halting the loss of biological diversity), among other important aspects (FAO, 2016).
Undoubtedly, the IEAS has a strong commitment to society and in particular to the agricultural sector and the rural environment. However, teaching and therefore the professional training of agronomists, due to changes and trends in professional practice, is guided by two models: the dominant social paradigm and an emerging paradigm called environmental. The first is characterized by values oriented towards market forces, by large-scale production, and by perceiving nature as something inexhaustible and neutral. The environmental paradigm advocates an economy with a human face, with a participatory and democratic political structure, and promotes actions of social and environmental interest (Victorino and Flores, 2004).
Research developed at IEAS tends to be "applied" to the agricultural sector, but the complex relationship between human beings and the physical environment of which they are a part is ignored (Muro-Bowling, 2007). Furthermore, as is the case with teaching, research is subject to multiple external influences, for example: changes in disciplinary fields, the world of work, industry and business; the strict and growing regulation of postgraduate studies; the evaluation systems for productivity, research and researchers; among the most important (Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, 2009).
The extension or service provided by the IEAS is defined from different perspectives and according to different criteria according to the degree of participation of the rural social actor in the process and ranges from simple information to political action. Recently, the extension approach is being promoted from the eco-social or environmental paradigm (Mejía, 2011).
The many and profound global problems of modern civilization make necessary another logic whose propositions are being postulated from different areas; from education, ecopedagogy is proposed (Delgado, 2005), this is not only about environmental education, but about an interaction between education for the environment, economic development and social progress, it is not about preserving the landscape, but life and the best living conditions for all (Mallart, 2007). Linked to this type of initiatives, proposals have also been developed for HE, where the social commitment of the University is reformulated in light of current expectations, such is the case of RSU in which it is sought to have a greater connection and relevance of the substantive functions of the university.
1.2 UNIVERSITY SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND UNIVERSITY ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
In the construction of the concept of USR and its evaluation, we can find different ways of understanding it given the multiple reference framework that exists on the subject. However, these notions have still been little studied and developed by groups of researchers at universities or study centers (Ramallo, 2015). In the literature related to this subject, the concept is oriented towards dissimilar elements or aspects, orientations in which different emphases are made, but above all they try to replicate almost exactly the SR model developed for companies, highlighting elements such as: social commitment, values, sustainable development, training of competent professionals and responsible citizens, just to mention a few important concepts (Gaete, 2012) . Arana and collaborators (2008) define USR as "the commitment of the institution to disseminate and put into practice a set of knowledge and values in professional training, in the processes of research, innovation and social projection, functions that must be focused on the solution of social problems."
Gaete (2011) encompasses the different proposals of CSR in three theoretical approaches: a) the managerial approach is concerned with analyzing the impact of university work on society, especially through accountability of its actions and decisions to its stakeholders; b) the prospective approach is oriented to review the contribution of university work to the necessary debate and reflection to achieve a more sustainable and fair society ; and c) the normative approach focuses on the development of value frameworks from the university as a normative axis to do the right thing in life in society, through the establishment of national or global university networks around social responsibility.
CSR is already practiced in many universities. For example: the AUSJAL network (Association of Jesuit Universities of Latin America) is made up of 31 universities from 15 Latin American countries (Red RSU, 2014); the Universidad Construye País project is promoted by Corporación Participa and Fundación Avina, and is made up of thirteen Chilean universities (Pérez, et al ., 2009) (Fernández, et al. , 2006); 28 universities from around the world participate in the Talloires Network.
Other universities have carried out SR activities that could be classified as such without being made official. It is common to find interdisciplinary research or chairs that include community actions within their pedagogical projects and work with project-based learning methodologies. What is observable is that these proposals are isolated, disjointed and, in most cases, unknown to the entire university community and, what is worse, they do not constitute an institutional policy (Pérez, et al. , 2009). The SRU approaches and the strategies undertaken are very valuable since they have allowed us to become aware that the university has a commitment to society (social function) and therefore has worked towards it, although it is necessary to have an approach for the entire organization.
Bernal and Rivera (2011) identify three trends in the way the University assumes SR:
* The pragmatic model is given by the inertia inherent to university extension programs, when in addition to training students, institutions provide a social service that in some way contributes to solving problems suffered by the populations in which they operate.
* The axiological model justifies the investment of universities with financial resources and dedication of professors and students in the provision of social services, from an ethical missionary perspective. Given the differences in values, some institutions assume that USR only occurs when the institution works for the transformation and modification of social structures.
* The management model is based on the possibility of returning the benefits that universities receive to society, in such a way that not only short-term results are supported, but social impacts are managed so that their products are useful for current society and generations to come.
The RSU approach developed by Professor Vallaeys on impact management is more comprehensive and has been taken up in whole or in part by many theoretical and practical approaches in recent years. The model consists of four axes: ethical and environmental management of the institution; training of responsible and supportive citizens; production and dissemination of socially relevant knowledge; and social participation in promoting more humane and sustainable development (Vallaeys, 2008). For our part, the complement of university environmental social responsibility highlights a fundamental aspect due to the productive function of these institutions; we emphasize the environmental with an agroecological orientation as an emerging and necessary paradigm for the environmental health of human life. For this reason, we incorporate the conceptual vision of University Environmental Social Responsibility (USER).
2 METHODOLOGY
In order to carry out the exploratory analysis of the Agricultural Universities of Latin America and the Caribbean regarding their activities around the USR, the perception of these activities in the academic community was evaluated through a survey-type instrument. The following process was applied to design the instrument: (i) the objectives of the research were taken as a starting point, (ii) the instrument was developed based on the topics proposed by Vallaeys (2008) in his USR model. This tool consisted of 50 reagents, five of which correspond to identification questions and the remaining 45 to positive statements that describe activities that add to the USR. The latter were distributed in a battery according to the USR axes as follows: Responsible Campus 1-12, Professional and citizen training, 13-21, Social management of knowledge 22-34 and Social participation 35-45, (iii) a Likert-type response format was proposed to measure the reaction of the participants, whose options ranged from 1 to 20. From 1: never to 5: always, (iv) a pilot test was carried out to verify the behavior of the instrument, (v) adjustments were made, and finally (vi) the instrument was sent to the teachers.
Since this study is exploratory, the survey was sent to professors from ten universities with a farming tradition in Latin America and the Caribbean, who were identified on the websites of these universities and in IICA databases. The survey was answered by 138 professors, who completed the online survey using the Google Forms tool during the period from June 13 to 27, 2016.
There was a response from all the universities, with obvious breadth of those of larger size (Autonomous University of Chapingo, Mexico: 27; Antonio Narro Agrarian University, Mexico: 25; National Agrarian University la Molina, Peru: 23; Agrarian University of Havana, Cuba: 12; Agrarian University of Colombia, Colombia: 12; National Agrarian University of la Selva, Peru: 12; etc.). Regarding the academic program to which the teachers belong, there was also representation according to the demand of said programs (Agricultural: 38; Zootechnics: 29; Food Agroindustry: 27; Agribusiness: 27; among others).
Regarding the type of appointment of the teachers surveyed, 93.5% are permanent; as for the length of service at the university, 76.8% have been there for more than ten years, 11.6% for between five and ten years, and 11.6% for less than five years. 78.6% are male.
The information collected was processed by counting, grouping data, using percentages and graphs to analyze the results. A minimum response of 60% was set so that actions that are carried out positively (almost always and always) were considered as actions that the universities studied carry out in favor of their CSR. On the contrary, for actions that are rarely carried out (almost never and never) a 30% response was set to be considered as priority actions to strengthen the CSR of the universities studied and therefore the corresponding recommendations are made.
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Regarding the organization of internal campaigns to promote the RSU approach, the perception of most teachers was that they are carried out on a regular basis (item 1). That is, there is no clear trend in carrying out RSU campaigns, which could be due to the fact that although activities considered socially responsible are carried out, they are not declared or promoted as such.
3.1 RESPONSIBLE CAMPUS
The distribution of perceptions of aspects related to Responsible Campus is represented in Figure 1. The perception of university management in terms of human rights, gender equity and non-discrimination (items 2-4) was positive, although the pursuit of gender equity in university positions and activities is less favorable (item 3). Regarding these issues, HEIs have made combined efforts in recent decades, and in addition to gender and disability criteria, they have recognized the circumstantial needs for participation of some social groups based on economic need, religion, ethnicity, race, language, culture, among others (Aponte-Hernández, 2008).
Pacheco (2014) and Mora (2013) highlight that although progress has been made in terms of gender equity in the EAS with women's access to higher education for a century now, the proportion of female professors and researchers is still lower, since gender inequality does not automatically change with women's access to formal education (Vásquez and Zapata, 2005). Both in their role as students and professors, women are concentrated in traditionally feminine disciplines and obtain fewer doctorates than men. As academics, women are overrepresented in part-time positions, earn lower salaries and do not occupy positions of power and prestige.
Personal and professional development, a good working environment and the application of labour rights (items 5-6) are aspects that were mostly perceived to be carried out almost always. The issue of union participation in improving the degree of job satisfaction was of mixed opinions, although mostly positive, which could be due to the fact that not all the universities studied have unions (as is the case of the private universities: Escuela de Agricultura de la Región Trópico Húmedo, Universidad Agraria de Colombia and Instituto Superior de Agricultura) or their participation is minimal.
The management of an environmentally responsible campus (items 7-8) was perceived as average, however, the application of social and environmental responsibility criteria in the selection of suppliers is scarce. Caring for the environment is a topic that has been integrated not only in the curricula of HEIs, but also in the practices of university life through environmental projects and programs, and increasingly there is a search for a lesser impact on the environment in each activity developed; in such a way that it will be possible to value not only the activities within the university but also those generated in the relationship with the outside: as is the case of suppliers.
The perception of good government (items 9-10) had a positive trend, favored by the democratic election of government bodies.
Responsible communication and publication (items 11-12) are aspects that were perceived to be carried out almost always, because the institutional communication material is in line with the values and principles of the university, although advertising campaigns that promote social issues of public utility are mainly carried out on a regular to non-existent basis.
3.2 PROFESSIONAL AND CITIZENSHIP TRAINING
The distribution of the perception of aspects related to professional and civic training is represented in Figure 2. In professional training, the presence of civic and SR themes in the curriculum (items 13-16) was perceived mostly regularly and almost always, favored by the approach to Sustainable Development (SD) topics and affected by the lack of training of teachers in topics of civic education, social responsibility and ethics.
The approach to SD issues, with all its paradoxes and contradictions, demonstrates a capacity to respond to the environment and a high capacity for analysis, initiating reflection and action in favor of SD (Gutiérrez and Martínez, 2010). However , without detracting from this favorable situation, it must be considered that the SD issue is polysemic, since it is possible to identify three conceptual approaches focused on agriculture: in technical and economic terms, that is, in terms of the capacity of supply to expand and respond to demand through agricultural means in increasingly favorable terms. A second, as a problem of imbalance in the ecological balance in relation to the natural system. A third, in terms of an alternative agriculture, emphasizing the sustainability not only of physical resources, but also community values; this group, naturally, is inspired by approaches from an agroecological perspective (Bejarano, 1998). Consequently, and in accordance with the RSU, this last DS approach should be the one addressed in the training courses of agronomists.
Regarding the social and civic training of the agronomist, it must be recognized that values are transmitted in the EAS -even without intending to- through what is known as the hidden curriculum, or in the Central American vision as the invisible curriculum, hence the importance of training teachers to integrate this type of topics into their areas of knowledge (Zepeda and Lacky, 2003).
The perception of the articulation between professionalization and solidarity volunteering (item 17) was mostly an aspect that is almost always carried out.
Professional learning based on social projects (items 18-20) was perceived mostly as an aspect that is almost always carried out. It is mainly favoured by the linkage that is made with external actors and development projects to improve the social relevance of teaching. The linkage, in addition to favouring the harmonious relationship between the three substantive functions of the faculties and enriching the training process of professionals by allowing the integration of theory with practice, produces a commitment of the university students with the producers. In addition, it gives the students the guarantee of applying in the field the knowledge acquired in the classrooms, communicating bidirectionally with the farmers through different methods of rural extension (Zepeda and Lacky, 2003).
The integration of external social actors in the design of curricular meshes (item 21) was perceived as an aspect that is almost always done, which could be a consequence of the implementation of social and linkage projects.
3.3 SOCIAL KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
The distribution of the perception of aspects related to Social Knowledge Management is represented in Figure 3. The promotion of inter and transdisciplinarity in knowledge management (items 22-25) was perceived as an aspect that is almost always carried out; this aspect is favored by the formation of interdisciplinary research teams, and the aspect that most affects is the lesser analysis of the epistemological budgets of each career. The analysis of the epistemological budgets of each career is a very important aspect that must be carried out, since as Segura (2012) warns: the absence of debate on the epistemological nature of the disciplines favors an educational offer more in terms of the market than of a scientific development based on the needs of the rural environment, and consequently, the indiscriminate creation of university offers without planning or orientation leads to reproducing inequality and social fragmentation (Pérez, et al ., 2009).
The integration of external social actors in research and the design of research lines (items 26-27) were perceived as an aspect that is mostly carried out almost always.
The perception of the dissemination and transfer of socially useful knowledge to disadvantaged audiences (items 28-30) was an aspect that is almost always carried out. Although in this aspect the publication of documents for scientific dissemination to disadvantaged sectors is lower, they focus more on action.
The promotion of applied research on development issues (items 31-34) was perceived as an aspect that is mostly carried out almost always, favouring projects in collaboration with public administrations rather than with other universities.
3.4 SOCIAL PARTICIPATION
The distribution of the perception of aspects related to Social Participation is represented in Chart 4. The integration of academic training with social projection (items 35-38) was perceived as an aspect that is mostly carried out almost always, favored by the incentive of the articulation between extension, academic training and research; although disadvantaged by the lack of educational programs for development in open and distance modalities.
The existence of educational programs for development in open and distance learning mode brings and/or facilitates access to knowledge both inside and outside universities, although care must be taken to ensure that they are not considered the only or main means of training. The offer of online courses puts to the test the very meaning of what we call and value as a university. Although we can read in this trend a profound democratization of knowledge, we can also consider it as a fierce commercialization and uprooting of education, reduced to standardized knowledge for anyone anywhere (Vallaeys, 2014).
The fight against welfare and paternalism in university services (items 39-41) was perceived as an aspect that is mostly carried out more or less because the quality and impact of the projects is rarely evaluated, neither by the university nor by the "benefited" counterpart.
The promotion of social networks for development (items 42-43) was perceived as an aspect that is mostly carried out almost always, due to having good relations with external actors for social and environmental development.
Participation in the local and national development agenda (items 44-45) was perceived as an aspect that is mostly carried out almost always, favored by good relations with local and regional governments and ministries for the promotion of social and environmental development, although dissemination activities in the media were perceived to be lower.
Although these aspects were perceived as very favourable, it is advisable to review them with caution, since the term social subject includes different actors, such as government, companies, NGOs, educational institutions, etc., and these in turn may have different interests. Therefore, the integration of social actors in the research and activities carried out in agricultural universities should have as its main objective the promotion of sustainable development from an agroecological perspective.
4 CONCLUSIONS
The management of the RSAU in the agricultural higher education institutions studied was generally perceived by their teachers as positive. Among the axes of RSAU, greater activity was perceived in Professional and Citizen Training and in Knowledge Management, which is favorable because they are the substantive university functions (teaching and research) to which most resources are allocated. However, a number of challenges remain open to act responsibly and environmentally from management and service or university extension.
Regarding professional and civic training, the aspects that were very favorable were the approach to sustainable development issues in the career courses and the link with external actors and development projects to improve the social relevance of teaching, which seems to indicate that the training of agronomists is being transformed towards an environmental paradigm according to what was described by Victorino and Flores (2004), although the training of teachers in issues of civic education, socio-environmental responsibility and ethics will have to be increased.
In Knowledge Management, more significant actions were perceived: formation of interdisciplinary research teams, integration of social actors external to research, actions for the transfer of knowledge and technologies to disadvantaged social sectors and permanent research on priority topics and axes for social and environmental development. The above could indicate that the relevance, dissemination and transfer of research results from the universities studied is improving. However, the analysis of the epistemological budgets of each degree program is still pending in order to respond to social needs and not only those of the labor market.
The social participation of the universities analyzed was more important in terms of the articulation between extension, academic training and research and the good relations with external actors for the development of social and environmental projects. This seems to indicate that extension is being carried out with an eco-social focus, in accordance with the approaches described in this work . However, the evaluation of the quality and impact of each project, especially by the beneficiary party, is a matter of utmost importance that remains pending for the IEAS.
The most significant perceptions regarding the universities studied being a responsible campus were good practices in terms of equity and non-discrimination and the democratic election of university government bodies.
The RSAU should be considered as a university management policy to respond to the impacts of each university, prompting them to question their epistemic assumptions and their hidden or invisible curriculum. The implementation of the RSAU is not easy, since it forces institutional self-criticism, which in itself represents a challenge to respond to the expectations of university socio-environmental responsibility.
References
REFERENCES
Aponte-Hernández, E. (2008). "Desigualdad, inclusión y equidad en la educación superior en América Latina y el Caribe: tendencias y escenario alternativo en el horizonte 2021", en Gazzola, Ana Lúcia y Axel Didriksson (eds.) Tendencias de la Educación Superior en América Latina y el Caribe, Caracas: Instituto Internacional de la UNESCO para la Educación Superior en América Latina y el Caribe/ Ministerio de Educación Superior de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela/ Asociación Colombiana, pp. 113-154.
Arana, E. M. H.; Duque, C. P.; Quiroga, P. M. C. y Vargas, J. F. (2008). Una aproximación a la responsabilidad social en la formación del trabajador social desde los estudios de ciencia, tecnología y sociedad. Tabula Rasa, enero-junio, (8):2 pp. 211-234.
Bernal, A. H. y Rivera, S. B. (2011). Responsabilidad Social Universitaria: aportes para el análisis de un concepto. Documentos Responsabilidad Social Universitaria. Asociación Colombiana de Universidades. Pensamiento Universitario (21), pp. 7-17.
Bejarano, A. J. (1998). Desarrollo sostenible: Un enfoque económico con una extensión al sector agropecuario. Colección de documentos IICA: Serie Competitividad N° 4.
Buendía, E. A. (2011). Evaluación y acreditación de programas en México Más allá de los juegos discursivos. Diálogos sobre Educación. Año 2(3).
Delgado, L. S. (2005). Ecopedagogía y cultura depredadora. Revista Cubana de Educación Superior (59), La Habana, Cuba.
FAO (2016) La FAO y los 17 Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible. Consultado el 16 de abril del 2016 en: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4997s.pdf.
Fernández, C. Delpiano, C. y Ferari, J. M. (2006). Responsabilidad Social Universitaria, una manera de ser Teoría y práctica en la experiencia chilena. Santiago de Chile: Proyecto Universidad: Construye País.
Gaete Q. R. (2011). La Responsabilidad Social Universitaria como desafío para la gestión estratégica de la Educación Superior: el caso de España, Revista de Educación, (355), pp. 109-133.
Gaete Q. R. (2012). Responsabilidad Social Universitaria: una mirada a la relación de la universidad con la sociedad desde la perspectiva de las partes interesadas. Un estudio de caso. Tesis de doctorado Universidad de Valladolid. Barcelona, España.
Guillaumin, T. A., Canal, M. M., Ochoa, C. O., Pineda, L. M. R. y Berlin, S. T., et al. (2003). Planeación estratégica aplicada a unidades académicas universitarias. México: Universidad Veracruzana.
Gutiérrez, B. B. E. y Martínez, R. M. C. (2010). El plan de acción para el desarrollo sustentable en las instituciones de educación superior: Escenarios posibles. Revista de la educación superior, ANUIES, 39 (154), pp.111-132, México.
Mallart N., J. (2007) "Es la hora de la ecopedagogía. La década de la educación para un futuro sustentable" en Encuentros Multidisciplinares (25). Recuperado en 15 de junio de 2016, de http://www.encuentrosmultidisciplinares. org/Revistan%C2%BA25/Indice_n%C2%BA_25_2007.htm
Mejía G. M. (2011). Efecto de la extensión agrícola en el desarrollo local cantón San Nicolás, Apastepeque. El Salvador: Universidad del Salvador.
Mora P. M. G. (2013). Los estudios de género en la Universidad Autónoma Chapingo. Proceso de construcción de un espacio académico. En: Seminario Internacional Fazendo Gênero 10 (Anais Eletrônicos), Florianópolis, del 16 al 20 de septiembre del 2013.
Muro-Bowling, P. (2007). Por otra investigación en Desarrollo Rural. Agricultura, sociedad y desarrollo (4): pp.69-81.
Pacheco, T. G. (2015). Mujeres en contravía: pioneras de las ciencias agrícolas en Venezuela y Colombia (1914-1974). Tendencias & Retos, 20(2) pp. 65-78.
Pérez, D. A., Lakonich, J. J., Cecchi, N. H. y Rotstein, A. (2009), El compromiso social de la universidad latinoamericana del siglo XXI: Entre el debate y la acción, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, IEC-CONADU.
Ramallo, M. (2015). La evaluación de la Responsabilidad Social Universitaria. Debate Universitario Revista Académica Electrónica Semestral (4):7, pp. 25-37.
RED RSU. (2014). Políticas y sistema de autoevaluación y gestión de la responsabilidad social universitaria en AUSJAL. Asociación de Universidades Jesuitas de Latinoamérica, AUSJAL. Córdoba: EDUCC- Editorial de la Universidad Católica de Córdoba.
Segura, G. J. G., (2012). La educación agrícola superior: ¿rehén del mercado o actor de un proyecto para el campo mexicano? Revista: Artículos y Ensayos de Sociología Rural (12), pp. 129-145, UACh, México.
Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, (2009). Plan de Desarrollo Institucional 2009-2025. México: UACh.
Vallaeys, F. (2008). Responsabilidad social universitaria: una nueva filosofía de gestión ética e inteligente para las universidades. Educación Superior y Sociedad. (13):2, pp. 195-220.
Vallaeys, F. (2014). La responsabilidad social universitaria: un nuevo modelo universitario contra la mercantilización. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación (12), pp. 105-117, Loja, Ecuador.
Vallaeys, F., de la Cruz C., y Sasia, P. M. (2009). Responsabilidad Social Universitaria: Manual de primeros pasos. México, D.F.: Mc GRAW-HIL.
Vázquez, V. y Zapata, E. (2005). Mujeres en universidades agronómicas y programas de estudios de la mujer en México y Estados Unidos. Un estudio comparativo. La Ventana (21), pp. 252-280.
Victorino, R. L. y Flores L. G. J. (2004). Pertinencia social, evaluación y acreditación del agrónomo mexicano. Revista: Tiempo de Educar (5): 10, pp 113-134, Toluca, México.
Villaseñor, G. G. (2003). La función social de la educación superior en México. La que es y la que queremos que sea. México: UAM/CESU-UNAM.
Zepeda V. J. M. y Lacki P. (2003). Educación Agrícola Superior: La Urgencia del Cambio. México: Segunda Edición. Dirección de Centros Regionales. Universidad Autónoma Chapingo.
