Review Article
Are
Academic Libraries Doing Enough to Support the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs)? A Mixed-Methods Review
Israel Mbekezeli Dabengwa
Research and Internationalisation Office
National University of Science and Technology
Bulawayo, Zimbabwe
Email: israel.dabengwa@nust.ac.zw
Received: 28 Aug. 2023 Accepted: 23 June 2024
2025 Dabengwa. This
is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
Data Availability: Dabengwa, I. (2023). A thematic synthesis of sustainability literacy
in academic libraries using the Global Indicator Framework for the Sustainable
Development Goals, Mendeley Data, V1, https://doi.org/10.17632/mpgfpd5cbt.1 The paper is also available as a preprint on Qeios. However, the preprint version differs significantly
from this version: Dabengwa, I. M. (2024). Are academic libraries doing enough
to support the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)? A state-of-the-art review.
Qeios. https://doi.org/10.32388/CTF03V
DOI: 10.18438/eblip30551
Abstract
Objective – The goal of this study was to assess global academic libraries' role
and activities aimed at achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The
paper highlights the enablers and barriers encountered in SDG programming and
identifies future directions of SDG research in academic and other types of
libraries.
Methods – A
mixed-methods review was conducted to address the research question: How do
academic libraries contribute to the attainment of SDGs? The methodology
included literature searches conducted in Scopus, Web of Science Core
Collection, EBSCO’s Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts
(LISTA), and hand-searching. The selected timeframe, 2017-2024, encompasses the
introduction of the SDGs and extends to the present body of evidence.
Results – The
study found 25 relevant articles with data from 164 academic libraries
worldwide. The evidence base indicates limited awareness and examples of
sustainability literacy, suggesting the need for new initiatives. Instances of
"SDG washing" were identified where librarians exaggerated the impact
of their SDG-related programs, mislabeled routine activities as SDG
contributions, or used SDG terminology superficially without meaningful action.
This study suggests that SDG attainment is influenced by leadership, organizational
culture, personal initiatives, and partnerships.
Conclusions – Academic libraries simultaneously address multiple SDG targets,
indicating a comprehensive sustainability approach. Positive correlations
between specific targets imply synergies that libraries can exploit to
strengthen their sustainable development roles. Future research should
investigate the impact of institutional factors on SDG implementation in
academic libraries and identify strategies to overcome the common challenges in
SDG initiatives. Specific SDG targets and indicators should guide
context-specific recommendations. It is also advised to develop standardized
tools for measuring and comparing academic libraries' SDG contributions.
Introduction
The United Nations’ (UN) 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development, themed "leaving no one behind”, is
anticipated to bring about heightened peace and prosperity for the global
population (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs [UNDESA], 2018). The
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), also referred to as the Global Goals, are
enshrined in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development document (see Appendix
A). Despite the establishment of the SDGs in 2015, it was not until two years
later that nations set objectives for each SDG. The all-encompassing framework,
which is the 2030 Agenda, incorporates 17 SDGs alongside a staggering total of
248 targets and indicators intended to measure progress towards achieving these
goals (United Nations, 2017). All components including SDGs, targets, and
indicators form part of the overarching 2030 Agenda. In envisioning its
development process, greater partnerships among stakeholders were deemed
necessary by UN officials, and libraries were included among the partners
(IFLA, 2015a).
As part of the SDGs development
process, academic libraries play a crucial role in providing decision-makers
with essential information for socio-economic advancement. Libraries are
inherently positioned to support the SDGs because of their capacity to offer
access to resources and information, facilitate learning and education, and
promote community involvement. This aligns with the traditional humanistic
objective of libraries, which focuses on transforming society by delivering
pertinent information that meets the needs of communities (Cyr & Connaway, 2020). Furthermore, librarians across various
sectors have emphasized that the right to information access is integral to
achieving the SDGs. Consequently, librarians worldwide endorsed the Lyons
Declaration on Access to Information and Development (International Federation
of Library Associations and Institutions [IFLA], 2014). Initially, the IFLA
(following the Lyons Declaration) believed that library contributions to the
SDGs could be identified in Target 16.10 (social justice and freedom of
information), Target 11.4 (cultural and natural heritage) and Target 5. b
(investment in infrastructure development), Target 9.c (enhancing financial
cooperation), and Target 17.8 (strengthening the statistical capacity for
monitoring progress) (IFLA, 2015b). Librarians from member states were then
encouraged to urge their respective countries to integrate the Lyons
Declaration and information access, along with the necessary skills, into the
localization of SDGs (Garcia-Febo, 2015). Nevertheless, the role of libraries
within the SDGs goes beyond the IFLA's conceptualization of these five targets.
Consequently, libraries are
expected to strive towards achieving four fundamental pillars of sustainability
in their operations: environmental sustainability, economic stability, social
sustainability, and cultural vibrancy (see Figure 1).
Figure 1
Four pillars of sustainability
(the author’s concepts).
The four pillars of
sustainability represent the interplay between sustainable methodologies in
library infrastructure and activities, resources, services, and procedures.
Consequently, libraries embody the four pillars of sustainability and the SDGs
through the application of “sustainability literacy.” According to the United
Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA, 2018),
sustainability literacy is defined as ‘the knowledge, skills, and mindsets that
enable individuals to wholeheartedly contribute to the creation of a
sustainable future and facilitate making well-informed and impactful
decisions.’ Sustainability literacy holds significance as it empowers
individuals to take action towards the realization of SDGs.
Academic libraries can significantly
advance the SDGs through various strategies. Unlike routine activities, SDG
programming is specifically aligned with the SDG agenda, which aims to enhance
sustainability literacy. Routine activities lack intentional alignment with the
SDGs or the 5Ps (people, planet, prosperity, peace, partnership). Academic
libraries are particularly effective because they focus on research and
education, offer extensive resources on SDGs, serve diverse user populations,
uphold a tradition of collaboration, and often function as health science,
national, and public libraries in regions with less-developed library systems.
These roles underscore their contributions to social inclusion, gender
equality, and community engagement, extending their reach beyond traditional
boundaries.
An illustrative example of
library contributions to the SDGs can be seen in the findings of a policy
analysis carried out by Chowdhury and Koya (2017), which revealed that the Agenda 2030 framework encompasses 34 information-related themes
that are interwoven through numerous goal statements, declarations, and
indicators. While the Lyons Framework may not encompass all targets, it is
crucial to emphasize that it motivates librarians and information professionals
to disseminate their awareness of the SDGs.
The literature
on library contributions to SDGs is fragmented and lacks focus. While evidence
of academic library contributions to the SDGs exists, no cross-case comparisons
between libraries exist. IFLA (2018; 2023) has collected examples of SDG
stories (e.g., self-reflective practice) from various types of libraries
worldwide that demonstrate how libraries contribute to achieving these goals.
IFLA measures this programming using the following measures:
a.
SDG-related activities conducted by
patrons at the library or librarians within the library building;
b.
community engagement outside the library
walls;
c.
organizational culture (library-specific
sustainability policies linked to the SDGs);
d.
library partnerships; and
e.
key performance indicators used to
measure the SDGs (IFLA, 2018; 2023).
However, the IFLA SDG stories are subtle on issues
such as individual agency of academic librarians (e.g., librarians’
conceptualization of sustainability literacy), attitudes and perceptions of the
SDGs (e.g., intentions to share SDG information and practices), and library
leadership (characteristics of academic library management). Furthermore,
library SDG stories are not holistic. For example, they do not show all library
activities and their impact. These are constructed using voluntary submissions;
hence, there are a small number of academic libraries. In some cases, certain
library activities that spill into more than one goal have not been reported,
and there has been no mention of the specific SDG targets and indicators
achieved. SDG stories are also limited because of reporting from the
perspective of the library that writes the report and may miss out on primary
studies, such as surveys and document analyses, which may also provide valuable
information.
Another strand of evidence on library SDG
contributions employs literature searches to evaluate how libraries in general
contribute to sustainability and sustainable development to increase
information access to several of the SDGs (e.g., Mathiasson
and Jochumsen, 2022). However, sustainability and
sustainable development are not synonymous with an SDG framework.
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development consists
of 17 SDGs, 169 targets, and 231 unique indicators; however, sustainability
generally refers to meeting present needs without compromising future
generations' ability to meet their own needs. Although the SDG Agenda includes
sustainability principles, sustainability extends beyond the specific goals
outlined. The SDG Agenda should be seen as a specific, attainable, measurable,
and time-bound (SMART) framework, whereas sustainability is broad and has no
time-bound measurements. Insufficient collated evidence exists on how academic
libraries contribute to the SDGs and the entire Agenda 2030 framework. This is
not to say that there is no evidence; however, the current focus of some
literature synthesis reviews scratches the topic at the surface and does not
relate to specific SDGs, targets, and indicators that have been attained by
academic libraries. Furthermore, there is no evidence of a study that
systematically makes cross-comparisons between various academic libraries’
contributions to the SDGs and the methodologies used in the studies. Comparing
academic libraries provides a much richer analysis as they have common
characteristics, rather than comparing them with other types of libraries.
Aims
This mixed-methods review aims to explore how
academic libraries contribute to the SDGs by systematically comparing SDG
design and programming and proposing strategies to align library missions with
the SDGs for a more significant impact. In doing so, this review aims to bridge
the existing gap in the literature. This review seeks to answer the overarching
research question: How do academic libraries contribute to the attainment of
SDGs?
The main research question was further explored
using the following secondary questions.
· How
do library activities, such as collection development, programming, and
outreach, contribute to the achievement of the SDGs?
· How
do the actions of individual librarians and library staff contribute to
achieving the SDGs?
· How
does the organizational culture of a library support or hinder its ability to
achieve the SDGs?
· How
does library leadership play a role in achieving SDGs?
· How
can libraries partner with other organizations to achieve SDGs?
· How
can libraries use key performance indicators to improve their efforts to
achieve the SDGs?
· What
are the future directions for SDG research in academic libraries and other
types of libraries?
Methods
Mixed-Method Review
A mixed-method review combines data from
quantitative and qualitative studies to streamline what is known for future
analysis. The mixed-methods review approach involves a sensitive search that
retrieves both qualitative and quantitative studies. According to Booth et al.
(2016), the synthesis for a mixed-methods review can be narrative (e.g., the
usage of the thematic synthesis) or can be tabular with frequencies and
percentages applied to the codes and takes a statistical turn to examine the
relationships between the study’s characteristics (e.g., codes). This
mixed-methods review is an entry point for library and information science
professionals to find possible directions for additional SDG research in academic
libraries as it covers the scope and salient features of the topic. The author
conducted a mixed-methods review to report diverse, measurable outcomes and
contextual nuances of SDG programming from different regions, triangulating
data from various papers to enhance the reliability and validity of the
findings, and to improve the generalizability of the evidence.
Database Searches
The author gathered data from literature searches in
Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection. These interdisciplinary databases
were selected because they include LIS concepts. Outside these
interdisciplinary databases, EBSCO’s Library and Information Science &
Technology Abstracts (LISTA) were searched. A test search was performed for the
term sustainability literacy, and it was found that the literature was quite
small. Revisions were made to the search string to include the library,
sustainability literacy, and SDGs in order to retrieve relevant results. Tables
1 through 3 show the sample search strategies used in this study and their
translation to other databases. The title, abstract, and keyword fields were
searched using Scopus. The syntax from the other databases was searched in All
Text (TX) in LISTA, and All Fields (ALL) were searched in WoS. The expected outcomes were not included in
the search strings, but these concepts were later exploited to select relevant
articles. Boolean operators (AND and OR) combined the search terms, while
the NEAR proximity operator was added in LISTA and Web of Science to certain
terms to increase the relevance of the results in selected databases. The
January 1, 2017, to February 15, 2024, date limit was selected because the SDG
targets and indicators were published in 2017. It was then necessary to audit
the literature from 2017 to the current year, 2024. The searches were
translated according to the function of each database.
The SPICE (setting, perspective,
intervention/interest, comparison, evaluation) framework was used to frame the
main research question to develop the search terms for the database searches
(Booth et al., 2016). The following was used as the framework:
a.
The setting was determined as the terms
related to the SDGs.
b.
Perspectives were considered as academic
libraries and related terms.
c.
The intervention included literacy,
training, and education terms.
d.
Comparison was not needed in this study.
e.
The impact of academic libraries on SDG
was evaluated.
Table 1
Search for Scopus
|
# |
Search
strings |
Results |
|
S1 |
TITLE-ABS-KEY
(“sustainable development goal*” OR “Agenda 2030” OR “sustainab*”
OR “SDG*” OR “United Nations”) |
1,272,008 |
|
S2 |
TITLE-ABS-KEY
("libra*") |
621,209 |
|
S3 |
S1
AND S2 |
6,239 |
|
2017-present |
4,071 |
|
|
English
only |
3,520 |
|
NOTE: Last search conducted on
15 February 2024.
Table 2
Search for Library, Information
Science & Technology Abstracts
|
# |
Query |
Results |
|
S6 |
English Language |
611 |
|
S5 |
Limit to Academic Journals |
755 |
|
S4 |
Limit 2017-Present |
1,101 |
|
S3 |
S1 AND S2 |
2,940 |
|
S2 |
TX "librar*" |
1,085,280 |
|
S1 |
TX “sustainable development NEAR/5 goal*” OR “Agenda
NEAR/5 2030” OR “sustainable*” OR “SDG*” OR “United NEAR/5 Nations” |
6,588 |
NOTE: Last search conducted on
15 February 2024.
Table 3
Search for Web of Science
|
# |
Search Query |
Results |
|
S1 |
ALL= (“sustainable development N5 goal*” OR “Agenda N5
2030” OR “sustainable*” OR “SDG*” OR “United N5 Nations") |
718,514 |
|
S2 |
ALL=("librar*") |
657,787 |
|
S3 |
S1 AND S2 |
4,788 |
|
S4 |
ALL= (“literacy" OR "educat*"
OR "train*" OR "information access" OR "curricul*" OR "teach*" OR
"learn*" OR "course*") |
7,682.885 |
|
S5 |
S4 AND S3 |
1,467 |
|
S6 |
#4 AND #3 and 2024 or 2017 or 2018 or 2019 or 2020 or
2021 or 2022 or 2023 (Publication Years) |
1,156 |
|
S7 |
#4 AND #3 and 2024 or 2017 or 2018 or 2019 or 2020 or
2021 or 2022 or 2023 (Publication Years) and English (Languages) |
1,108 |
NOTE: Last search was conducted
on 15 February 2024.
Hand searching (manually
searching for additional journal articles not included in the databases that
are not indexed in scholarly databases) was performed using Google Scholar and LitMaps (https://www.litmaps.com/about) to avoid
publication bias. A hand search retrieved literature on similar concepts, such
as green literacy and environmental literacy, while keeping in mind that these
concepts had to be applied to the SDGs. LitMaps uses
artificial intelligence (AI) to identify similar articles. Relevant articles
were “seeded” (chain searching) to find matching articles, and the results were
reviewed for relevance. Reference lists were also read to identify potentially
relevant articles.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
The following criteria were
used to obtain high-quality articles to build an evidence base:
1.
Peer-reviewed
journal articles representing primary research using written research methods.
2.
Articles
exploring individual SDGs, targets, or indicators within the realm of academic
libraries, encompassing academic library staff, policymakers, and the
communities they serve.
3.
Articles that
include elements of sustainability literacy, regardless of whether the concept
is fully or partially explained.
4.
Investigations of
sustainability literacy within the context of the United Nations Agenda 2030
framework, including information literacy on sustainability to reduce
information poverty.
5.
Library
activities focusing on sustainability and sustainable development.
6.
Applications of
library concepts and practices in the context of sustainability literacy.
7.
All research
designs (e.g., qualitative and quantitative)
8.
Publications from
1 January 2017-15 February 2024.
9.
Only English
language publications.
10. Full-text PDFs.
The following criteria were used to exclude articles:
1.
Articles that
discuss sustainability within libraries or LIS without linking the concept to
the United Nations SDG/Agenda 2030 framework.
2.
Broad LIS
concepts, such as knowledge management, open access, and semantic web are not
specifically applied to libraries or library settings’ contribution to the
SDGs.
3.
Bibliometric
studies, conceptual papers, news opinion pieces, and systematic reviews.
4.
Articles on other
types of libraries including school libraries, public libraries, national
libraries, museums, galleries, and archives.
5.
All other kinds
of reviews.
Selection of Articles
In total, 5,282 records were found (Scopus = 3,520,
Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts = 611 and Web of
Science = 1,108) using database searches and hand searching (manually searching
for literature that is not covered in database searches =43). The results were
imported into Mendeley [https://www.mendeley.com] to identify duplicates. In
total, 510 duplicates were removed, leaving 4,772 records for screening in their
titles and abstracts. Rayyan [https://www.rayyan.ai], a web-based tool for
screening and selecting studies, was then applied. The artificial intelligence
features of Rayyan were used to sort the data by keywords, including
Sustainable Development Goals, SDGs, global goals, academic library, college
library, and university library. These terms were also searched with variations
on sentence cases as Rayyan cannot retrieve these terms in sentence cases,
lower case, or if each term has been capitalized. Rayyan picks up the
identified keywords within the titles and abstracts, sorts them, and highlights
where they appear, making it easier to quickly identify relevant articles. A
human reviewer was involved in the selection process of all articles. A total
of 4,314 records were excluded, and 59 Full-Text PDF were assessed for
eligibility, of which 25 articles met the inclusion criteria.
Critical Appraisal
The Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) (McGowan, et
al., 2018) was used to appraise the selected studies critically. Critical
appraisal is used to evaluate published research using transparent methods that
cover the whole paper (Booth et al., 2016). For example, the MMAT tool covers
the following categories: appropriateness of the aim, clarity of the research questions,
methodological quality, data quality, analysis adequacy, and conclusions'
appropriateness. Therefore, each paper was read and then scored as poor,
moderate, or satisfactory. The results of the MMAT tool show that although most
of the studies had only a moderate score on their methodological quality, the
aims, research questions asked, analysis, and conclusions were satisfactory in
most cases (see Table 4). Hence, all 25 papers were synthesized.
Table 4
Critical Appraisal of the Selected Papers Using
the MMAT Tool (N=25)
|
Category |
% Articles Scored as Satisfactory |
% Articles Scored as Moderate |
|
Appropriateness of the aim |
88% |
12% |
|
Clarity of the research questions |
88% |
12% |
|
Methodological quality |
12% |
88% |
|
Data quality |
44% |
56% |
|
Analysis adequacy |
64% |
36% |
|
Conclusions' appropriateness |
80% |
20% |
Data Analysis
The PDF articles were imported
into MaxQDA 20 (VERBI Software, 2021.), a qualitative
data analysis software package, for thematic synthesis. This process involved
both deductive (a predetermined schema for codes) and inductive coding (open
coding). The thematic synthesis was conducted by the researcher. The software
aided in identifying the frequency of codes, themes, and cross-case analyses.
Meanings in context were based on interconnections between the SDGs, targets,
and indicators. This method of analysis enables the identification of both the
catalyst and co-dependent relationships in SDG programming. Statistical
inferences were made for some data using MaxQDA 20 as
the software package can transform qualitative data into quantitative data.
Thematic Synthesis
Thematic synthesis analysis is
a qualitative research method that is known for its flexibility, systematic
approach, and transparency (Thomas and Harden, 2008). It involves the
combination of evidence from multiple studies to produce new insights and
findings. Unlike summary, thematic synthesis requires the
"translation" of original texts into meaningful themes through the
development of descriptive and analytical themes (Thomas & Harden, 2008).
Translation occurs when passages have the same meaning but do not express their
content in exact words. Similar codes were then grouped into categories, which
were used to develop overarching themes and subthemes. To summarize this
information effectively, tables, models, graphs, and charts are often utilized.
Additionally, examples such as quotes and references from these studies are
incorporated to demonstrate how the findings are grounded in the data (Thomas
& Harden, 2008). Overall, thematic synthesis analysis provides an effective
means for synthesizing qualitative data across multiple studies while
maintaining rigour and transparency. The thematic
analysis was conducted as follows:
1.
Translation
of original texts: The coders analyzed and deciphered data
from the selected studies, transforming raw findings into more generalized
concepts.
2.
Identification
of themes:
As the coders analyzed the translated texts, they identified recurring patterns
or ideas that emerged across multiple studies.
3.
Interconnection
analysis:
The method was used to identify relationships between various SDG programs and
their outcomes, seeking connections that individual studies might overlook.
4.
Synthesizing
the findings: The completed synthesis identified themes,
interconnections, and patterns to formulate a comprehensive understanding of
the SDG programs and their impacts.
Deductive Coding
The SDGs mentioned in the selected articles were
deductively coded using a Global Indicator Framework (GIF) (United Nations,
2017). GIF was selected because it covers all 248 indicators and targets. A
combination of metrics (scales and their dimensions) and narrative (anecdotal
evidence) was used to map statements to SDGs/targets/indicators using the SDG#
Mapping Tool (Ochôa & Pinto, 2020). The SDG#
mapping tool works by moving from the right to the left:
· The
author of the work is noted (sources and notes)
· Verbatim
quotations from the article are selected to reflect work done on the SDGs
(Indicators/other)
· The
research design of the article is noted (Research design), and the sector in
which the SDG is relevant is noted
· The
relevant SDGs or targets are noted for each statement
The coder can return to the Sources and Notes to
write any observed analytical memos. In some cases, the IFLA (2019) document
and SDGLinked app
(https://linkedsdg.officialstatistics.org/#/) were used to explore
SDGs/targets/indicators.
For this study, two coders independently coded the
selected articles and subsequently shared their findings to establish a mutual
understanding. Each article was read by both coders, and selected passages were
translated in line with the SDGs/targets/indicators. As part of this process, a
codebook was developed to inform coders of the inclusion and exclusion criteria
to be used when there was an instance of translating passages within the texts.
Inductive Coding
The coders kept an open eye on new codes that
emerged as passages were read. Each new code was placed in a bin (e.g. code,
sub-theme, or theme) referring to the sentences in which it occurred. The
codebook was updated to capture new codes used in subsequent instances where
there were similar behaviours, passages, and patterns.
Data Transformation
The qualitative codes generated from thematic
analysis were transformed into categorical data, which were used to run
statistical tests to predict the interaction of one or more variables.
Cronbach’s Alpha
Cronbach’s alpha was calculated across the codes to
determine the inter-rater agreement on the coding of the SDGs, targets, and
indicators. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.810, which means that there was strong
agreement between the codes used in the studies.
Results
This
study consists of 25 papers with data from academic libraries. Most of the
academic libraries were located in Asia (26.32%), Africa (21.05%), North
America (5.26%), Europe (10.53%), Oceania (5.26%), and International (15.79%, a
paper including data from Australia, North America, South Africa, United
Kingdom). MapChart (https://www.mapchart.net/world.html) was
used to visualize the selected literature on a world map (see Figure 2). The
retrieved articles contain evidence on SDG programming from academic libraries,
academic library employees, academic library policymakers, and communities that
use academic libraries.
Figure
2
Global
map showing the origins of the selected literature. (Study results were drawn
using MapChart.)
Thematic Synthesis
The data in this review show
that academic librarians achieve the SDGs through these themes: SDG-related
library activities, interaction of sustainability awareness, organizational
culture, library leadership, culture and policies, partnerships, and key
performance indicators (see Table 5).
Table 5
An Overview of the Codes Used
in the Study
|
Themes |
Sub-themes |
Sources |
|
SDG-related library activities |
Mapping SDG-related activities and their interconnections
using the GIF |
All articles |
|
Community engagement |
VosViewer exploration of the citations of selected articles Examples of community projects conducted by academic
libraries |
All articles |
|
Interaction of sustainability awareness |
Definitions of sustainability awareness Training as a means of raising sustainability awareness |
Atta-Obeng and Dadzie 2020; Awodoyin and Ojo, 2021; Datta & Chaudhuri, 2019; Dei
and Asante, 2022; Hauke, 2020; Gunasekera
& Samarakoon, 2020; Mbagwu et al., 2020; Tribelhorn, 2022 |
|
Organizational culture |
Supportive government policy on SDGs |
Anasi et al., 2018; Atta-Obeng & Dadzie, 2020, Awodoyin and Ojo, 2021, Datta & Chaudhuri, 2019; Dei
& Asante, 2022; Hamad & Al-Fadel, 2022; Hauke,
2020; Gunasekera & Samarakoon, 2020; Gupta,
2020; Ma & Ko, 2022; Nhamo & Malan, 2021; Omekwu
et al., 2021; Tribelhorn, 2022; Yap and Kamilova, 2020 |
|
Library leadership |
Strategic direction |
Awodoyin and Ojo, 2021; Halim and Sari, 2023 |
|
Culture and policies |
Government policies Organizational culture |
Anasi et al., 2018; Awodoyin and Ojo,
2021; Datta & Chaudhuri, 2019; Dei & Asante, 2022; Ma & Ko, 2022;
Nhamo & Malan, 2021; Omekwu et al., 2021; Tribelhorn, 2022; Yap & Kamilova,
2020 |
|
Partnerships |
Partnerships and collaborations for mobilizing
resources |
Bangani & Dube, 2023; Bangani, 2023; Hauke, 2020 |
|
Key performance indicators |
Monitoring and evaluating SDG implementation |
All articles |
The themes can be categorized
as global factors, national factors, community factors, organizational level
factors, and individual level factors (see Figure 3). Library activities went
beyond teaching information literacy on the SDGs all the way to conducting
activities that impacted one or more targets and indicators. The sections that
follow explore each of the themes identified in Table 5 in more detail.
Figure 3
How libraries attain
sustainability literacy centred on the SDGs (study
results).
Community Engagement
An analysis of the papers from
an overall perspective shows that the work conducted by academic libraries had
a great impact on community engagement (see Figure 4). Bangani
(2022; 2023), Bangani and Dube (2023), and Halim and
Sari (2023) are typical examples of library SDG community engagement. Halim and
Sari (2023) discuss the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives of
the Tengku Anis Library (PTA), an academic library at UiTM Kelantan, Malaysia.
Halim and Sari (2023) include activities such as the following: initiating
reading programs, distributing books, organizing gatherings, establishing
mini-libraries, conducting literacy drills. Bangani
(2023) observed that South African academic libraries are engaged in activities
such as imparting information literacy skills to schools and librarians from
other sectors (e.g., school librarians and public librarians), promoting
reading and writing for all ages, library visits by school learners, donating
school shoes and uniforms to learners, donating computers, and teaching digital
literacy training to schools.
Figure 4
VosViewer keyword concurrence found in the selected
literature (van Eck & Waltman, 2010).
Library Activities With
an Impact on SDG Targets/Indicators
At a broad level, Figure 5
shows the SDGs reported in the selected studies. SDG 4 (23.5%) was ranked the
highest, followed closely by SDG 16 (18.6%) and SDG 12 (9%). No data were found
for SDG 14. Most libraries mapped their activities to broad SDGs rather than
specific targets or indicators. In some cases, authors selected goals they
wanted to map. For example, Missingham (2020) mapped
the activities of academic research libraries from various countries to four
SDGs (SDGs 4, 5, 9, and 11), and Thorpe and Gunton (2022) mapped the activities
of the University of Southern Queensland, Australia, to eight of the 17 SDGs.
The mapping applied in this review found instances of interconnectedness,
whereas the original studies did not. For instance, Missingham
(2020) maps library activities addressing gender violence to SDG 5. Yet this
review connects these activities to Target 5.2 (ending violence against women
and girls) and to Target 16.10 (information access). Additionally, increasing
women’s employment opportunities can be found in Target 5.5 (promoting women's
leadership and equal participation), Target 8.5 (employment and decent work for
all by 2030) and Target 10.2 (promoting social, economic, and political
inclusion for all by 2030).
Figure 5
Overall SDGs found in the
papers.
The most commonly reported
targets in the papers follow:
·
1.2 poverty
reduction, inclusive growth
·
3.3 health
services accessibility, epidemic control
·
3.7 universal
health coverage, healthcare access
·
4.7 quality
education, sustainable development
·
5.5 gender
equality and women's empowerment
·
6.5 water
resource management, water scarcity
·
7.3 renewable
energy, energy access
·
16.10 information
access, transparency, accountability
·
17.9 financial
services, infrastructure development
·
17.16 global
partnership, cooperation, aid effectiveness
·
17.17 data
sharing, knowledge exchange
The common indicators in this
paper were 5.5.2 legal framework, discrimination prevention, 6.5.1 water
resource efficiency, sustainable practices, 5.2 elimination of violence, gender
equality, 7c renewable energy adoption, infrastructure investment, 9.c
infrastructure development, and technology access.
SDG washing was observed in some cases where librarians
reported activities as contributing to the SDGs, but the activities may not
have been relevant. Dei and Asante (2022) reported an instance where librarians
thought general information literacy activities (e.g., tutorials on reference
managers) were the same as delivering sustainability literacy on SDG 4. Another
case is Mbagwu et al. (2020), who provided an example
of an SDG program that was conducted by the Makerere University Library in 2011
(four years before the SDGs were established).
Figure 6
Interconnection of SDG targets
and indicators. Drawn using MaxQDA 20.
Figure 6 shows an analysis of
the data showing interconnecting relationships. The figure was generated using MaxQDA 20 by interconnecting the coded SDGs in each
article. The rule of mapping in Figure 6 is that the larger the line connecting
an item or a set of items, the stronger the association. Target 4.4 (human
capital development) had the most associated codes, followed by 16.10
(information access), 4.7 (global citizenship), 17.17 (partnerships), and 12.8
(sustainable lifestyles). The difference between Targets 4.4 and 16.10 was
quite small.
The qualitative data were
transformed into quantitative categories (the number of times a code appears)
to conduct data reduction. Figure 6 shows that the interactions between the
codes are quite complex. Therefore, transforming the qualitative data into
categories helped to simplify the analysis and examine the strengths of the
associations between the codes. A Pearson correlation R test was
conducted on the entire dataset using MaxQDA 20 (see
Table 8). Target 4.4 had positive linear relationships with 4.7, 16.10, and
17.17, seven moderately weak relationships, 15 weak relationships, and 39 weak
downhill linear relationships with other SDGs/targets/indicators. Target 16.10
seems to be a reinforcer, a key target that leads to the attainment of other
goals/targets or indicators. This is shown by the thick line that joins with
Target 16.10.
Table 6
Sample ANOVA Conducted on
Targets 4.4 and 16.10
|
|
Sum of squares |
Df |
Mean square |
F |
p-value |
Eta squared |
|
Between groups |
171.52 |
7 |
24.50 |
18.68 |
0.00 |
0.91 |
|
Within groups |
17.05 |
13 |
1.31 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
188.57 |
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
Homogeneity of variance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Levene |
2.89 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
p-value |
0.05 |
|
|
|
|
|
Sustainability Awareness
Academic librarians' awareness
of sustainability extends beyond their familiarity with the SDGs to encompass
the practical implementation of sustainable practices within library
environments. This encompasses cognizance of how library activities, services,
and resources can support sustainability objectives and disseminate information
to patrons regarding these critical topics. Furthermore, librarians' approaches
to incorporating sustainable practices into their professional roles and
responsibilities may be significantly influenced by their perceptions and
conceptualizations of sustainability literacy. The findings that follow
elucidate these issues with greater depth. Only Tribelhorn
(2022) defined sustainability literacy within the context of the participants’
quotations, describing it as an initiative that supports student learning and
strongly links it to environmentalism, social equity, and economic activities. Tribelhorn (2022) observed academic librarians’ low
awareness of sustainability literacy. The author further argued that academic
librarians should be given more information on sustainability literacy to
understand the concept holistically.
Other variations of
sustainability literacy found in the papers are “sustainable information” (Gunasekera & Samarakoon, 2020), “sustainable library”
(Datta & Chaudhuri, 2019; Gunasekera &
Samarakoon, 2020; Tribelhorn, 2022), and “green
library” (Hauke, 2020). Gunasekera and Samarakoon
(2020) understood sustainable information to “consist of two distinct parts:
information for sustainable development (e.g., seen as a resource for the
project of sustainable development) and development of sustainable information
(e.g., creating sustainable information and communication technologies)” (p.
50). Although Datta and Chaudhuri (2019) mention the term “sustainable library
corner,” they do not properly define it. Rather, it appeared in their
questionnaire as a substitute term for “green library” or “eco-friendly
library.” Gunasekera and Samarakoon (2020) define a
“sustainable library corner” as a one-stop shop space within the library where
users can access information on sustainability programs around campuses and SDG
reference information. An example of a sustainable library corner was found at
Makerere University in Uganda (Mbagwu et al., 2020). Tribelhorn (2022) considered the sustainable library an
initiative that shows the “library’s commitment to environmental stewardship,
economic feasibility, and social equity” (p. 3). Hauke (2020) conceptualized a
green library as both an ecological building and a social role (information
provision) that libraries play in raising sustainability awareness.
Although the term sustainability
literacy is not explicitly stated in certain publications, the authors
emphasize the significance of literary initiatives and information
accessibility in promoting sustainable objectives. Programs aimed at enhancing
literacy skills, fostering a culture of reading, and offering educational
resources to communities align with broader sustainability objectives and the
SDGs. These programs promote lifelong learning, bolster critical thinking
abilities, and empower individuals to tackle social, economic, and
environmental issues.
Awareness of Sustainability and SDGs
Awareness of the concept of
sustainability and SDGs is closely linked to their
conceptualization. Hence, this
study determined the level at which participants from various studies were
aware of sustainability or the SDGs and the reasons behind their level of
awareness. The results showed mixed reactions across different continents. For
instance, Datta and Chaudhuri’s (2019) study in India found that 56.25% of
librarians were unaware of sustainable development, and 31.25% were unaware of
the SDGs. Datta and Chaudhuri (2019) explained that their participants were
unaware of sustainable development because they were unsure if they could
engage in activities such as “promotion of local and cultural practices” and
“supporting the local economy” (Datta & Chaudhuri, 2019). It was not surprising
that 87.5% of these participants agreed that “inadequate awareness, knowledge,
and expertise” was the largest barrier to transforming an academic library into
a sustainable one. Similarly, Atta-Obeng and Dadzie
(2020) and Dei and Asante (2022) found that Ghanaian librarians’ knowledge of
SDG 4 (the studies considered this to be the most basic goal) was at a broad
goal level, and they were not familiar with the targets and indicators.
Atta-Obeng and Dadzie (2020) also found that academic
librarians’ low knowledge is caused by a lack of participation in SDG advocacy
campaigns and a lack of awareness of their social responsibility (Dei &
Asante, 2022).
Training as a Means of Raising Awareness of the SDGs
Tribelhorn (2022) surveyed academic librarians in the
United States and found that sustainability and SDGs were not attained because
of a lack of training opportunities. These librarians had a negative attitude
towards sustainability and the SDGs because they associated the concepts with
environmentalism (a sociopolitical movement to protect and preserve the natural
environment and its resources) rather than holistically relating them to the
four pillars of sustainability. In contrast, Omekwu
et al. (2021) found that 65% of Nigerian academic librarians were fully aware
of sustainability and SDGs because they thought it could solve national human
development problems. In a separate Nigerian study, Awodoyin
and Ojo (2021) found an acute awareness of the SDGs,
especially SDG 2 (end hunger, achieve food security, improve nutrition and
promote sustainable agriculture).
Culture and Policy
Anasi et al. (2018), Omekwu
et al. (2021), and Awodoyin and Ojo
(2021) identified the lack of supportive government policy on SDG monitoring
and evaluation as one of the barriers to SDG localization in libraries. Both
Indian and Nigerian librarians felt that their governments had a bad track
record of delivering inaccurate and misleading information (Datta &
Chaudhuri, 2019; Omekwu et al., 2021). This mistrust
eventually resulted in the low usage of government-related SDG information in
academic libraries. Another related challenge is the lack of institutional policies
that support sustainability and the SDGs (Atta-Obeng & Dadzie,
2020; Dei & Asante, 2022; Hamad & Al-Fadel, 2022; Tribelhorn,
2022). In turn, this meant that sustainability/SDG programs were not funded.
Furthermore, the lack of funding is the largest reason why SDG efforts are not
implemented.
Of the 164 libraries reported
in the studies, four have won the IFLA Green Library Award, namely, the Chinese
University of Hong Kong Library (CUHKL) (Ma & Ko, 2022), Rangsit University, Thailand (Gupta, 2020; Hauke, 2020),
the University College Cork Library, and the Library of the United States
International University-Africa (Hauke, 2020). There are good examples where
library SDG activities are part of an institutional mandate that fits into
national development plans, such as Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs). These
good examples include the Chinese Hong Kong Library (Ma & Ko, 2022), the
University of South Africa Library (Nhamo & Malan, 2021), and the Library
of Buddhist and Pali University of Sri Lanka (Gunasekera
& Samarakoon, 2020). However, other studies have mentioned the lack of
national policies to support SDG implementation in libraries as a key
challenge. In North America, Tribelhorn (2022)
reported that libraries practicing sustainability/SDGs often include this in
their mission statements, policies, and in-house training and have a library
committee to oversee implementation. In Europe, Yap and Kamilova
(2020) observed that there are instances where libraries face competing or
shifting priorities that cause sustainability/SDG initiatives to be shelved.
Other reasons for the low uptake of sustainability/SDGs were mostly related to
the lack of training, interest among academic librarians, community
involvement, and resources (Yap & Kamilova,
2020). African libraries with SDG policies relied on the GIF (United Nations,
2017) as a guide (Dei & Asante, 2022).
Leadership
Data from the selected papers
show that library leadership is a key component in developing successful SDG
programs. Academic library leadership was seen to provide strategic direction
that could influence policies, provide resources, and advocate for government
and partners to buy into library activities. A good example is Halim and Sari
(2023), who discuss how the library's leadership was instrumental in planning,
preparing, implementing, and evaluating the CSR program. Interestingly,
participants from the study by Awodoyin and Ojo (2021) noted that sustainability/SDG programs were
hindered by library leaders who misappropriated funds for training and
acquiring resources.
Partnerships to Achieve the 2030
Agenda
Partnerships were encouraged
and initiated when academic libraries did not have adequate resources. Target
17.17 has received considerable attention in the codes, showing that
partnerships and collaborations are important for mobilizing resources to carry
out sustainability literacy efforts. The partnerships discussed were both on
campus and with external institutions at the local and global levels. A typical
example is the library of the United States International University-Africa in
Nairobi, Kenya, which was able to run green library initiatives because of its
partnership with North America (Hauke, 2020). The partnerships formed by the
academic libraries and local high schools in Bangani
and Dube (2023) and Bangani (2023) were possible
because they were undersigned with memorandums of understanding (MOUs).
Key Performance Indicators for
Measuring Sustainability Literacy in Libraries
Key performance indicators
(KPIs) are needed to monitor and evaluate the extent to which a library has
implemented sustainability/SDGs. KPIs are mostly measured using qualitative
approaches, such as self-reflective SDG stories (16 papers) and survey tools (9
papers). See the scales in Appendix B Scales for measuring sustainability
literacy in the context of the Agenda 2030. SDG
stories are usually obtained using participatory approaches, such as those in
Nhamo and Malan (2021). SDG stories may allude to metrics like the number of
people participating in library-driven SDG activities, the degree of community
engagement, the quality of services rendered, or the degree to which the
initiatives aid in the accomplishment of SDGs.
There is a similarity in some
SDG activities at libraries as they are aligned with one or more SDGs. Of
particular note is Missingham (2020), who used ISO
16439 to evaluate four international libraries; Nga and Pun (2022), who mapped
scholarly output from Macao in terms of SDG research throughput relative to the
world; and Nhamo and Malan (2021), who reported the number of hits on a library
web page dedicated to sustainability resources and their reliance and conducted
user satisfaction surveys. However, there are no uniform survey tools used
across different countries, and each author adapts their questions according to
the context and needs.
The most common dimensions of
the tools include the following: information sources used to gain knowledge of
the SDGs, requirements to actualize the SDGs, awareness of sustainability/SDGs,
perceptions of SDGs, relevance of the SDGs in libraries,
requirements/strategies to achieve the SDGs, and challenges in achieving the
SDGs (Awodoyin & Ojo,
2021; Datta & Chaudhuri, 2019; Hamad & Al-Fadel, 2022; Omekwu et al., 2021). The authors vary the contents of the
listed items in each dimension. In some instances, sustainability or SDGs are
used interchangeably. In addition, evaluating the quality of each tool in
meeting sustainable development and the SDGs is beyond the scope of this paper.
Among the authors who conducted
surveys, Igbinovia and Osuchukwu
(2018) adapted a tool from Tohidinia and Mosakhani (2010) to study academic librarians’ SDG
knowledge-sharing behaviour. Tribelhorn
(2022) developed a tool to assess the library’s key performance indicators on
sustainability and the SDGs while linking these activities to mission
statements, structures needed to support sustainability and the SDGs, and the
means of measuring these. Although librarians in Tribelhorn’s
(2022) study were not aware of how to measure KPIs for sustainability, they had
positive attitudes toward the process (80%). Hence, they felt that
certification was an excellent incentive, as it could frame library policies
toward the SDGs and raise support from university administrators. Nhamo and
Malan (2021) and Gunasekera and Samarakoon (2020)
mentioned that participatory awareness-raising and support workshops are needed
before the implementation of SDG initiatives to reinforce. Both studies showed
that it is critical to discuss key performance indicators of SDG implementation
from the onset.
Discussion
Although the number of
retrieved publications fitting into the inclusion criteria was not high, this
review found more academic libraries reporting on achieving the SDGs than those
found by IFLA (2023). The number of reporting libraries alone is not a clear
demonstration of representation. It does, however, suggest that more libraries
are reporting their use of SDGs in 2024 than in 2023. In addition, the study
presents real-world examples of work done in academic libraries rather than
theorizing about it. The discussion that follows amplifies the available
evidence on the attainment of SDGs in academic libraries.
Four Pillars of Sustainability
There is a sufficient
indication from bibliometric studies that sustainability efforts are already
practiced but have not been categorized according to types of libraries (Mathiasson and Jochumsen (2022).
This gap in the research literature suggests that the evidence has not tied
academic library activities with the SDGs and their targets or indicators.
Hence, Mathiasson and Jochumsen
(2022) highlight the need for libraries to be explicit about how their
activities connect with sustainability, sustainable development, or the SDGs to
adequately measure the four pillars of sustainability. This level of reporting
has been attempted and fulfilled in the current review.
The current study found that
many African academic libraries are taking part in the SDG agenda compared with
other regions. This may be attributed to the fact that there is a high
diffusion of the SDGs in Africa because the SDGs are rooted in the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs), which were targeted at developing countries, mostly
found in Africa (UNESCO, 2017). From the onset of the establishment of the
SDGs, some African libraries received high-level political buy-in from their
governments, thereby fitting library contributions into national development
plans (IFLA, 2015b). This trend is also found in other regions, such as Asia,
and may be attributed to the history of the MDGs and the IFLA guidelines (IFLA,
2018, 2019). The evidence from this study is valid because three of the
identified libraries (one in Africa and two in Asia) have been awarded the IFLA
Green Library Award (Hauke, 2020), which signifies a library’s commitment to
environmental sustainability and environmental education.
Library Activities With an Impact on SDG Targets/Indicators
In attaining the SDGs, academic
libraries concentrate more on the activities linked to Target 4.4 (human
capital development), 16.10 (information access), 4.7 (global citizenship),
17.17 (partnerships), and 12.8 (sustainable lifestyles). These targets can be
considered as pillars for any sustainability literacy program. For instance,
Target 4.4 is closely tied to the university’s mission, which is to develop
persons with skills that can fit into different industries. Hence, academic
libraries can build on Target 4.4 to achieve other targets and indicators if
their programing is focused on the SDGs. However, this must be closely
connected with obtaining Target 16.10. The interlinkage shows that public
access to information on educational resources, job opportunities, and skill
development programs reinforces the attainment of Target 4.4. This means that
sustainability literacy activities often have a symbiotic relationship if these
targets are conjoined, thereby leading to other targets and indicators.
However, Pearson’s test indicates that this interconnectivity does not work in
some circumstances. Figures 4, 5, and 7 highlight the fact that targets and
indicators may have better synergies depending on the organizational culture
and policies, library activities pursued, sustainability awareness, library leadership,
partnerships, and the key performance indicators being sought. This means that
the results of this study cannot be generalized without taking these points
into account.
Possibly, the differences
between this study’s findings and the targets and indicators found in the Lyons
Declaration could be that the former is empirical, collecting data from
academic libraries, while the latter was a conceptualization with no particular
library and SDG programming in mind. Target 16.10 is common in both instances;
whereas targets related to quality education (Target 4.4 and 4.7) are not found
in the Lyons Declaration but are needed for Education for Sustainable
Development. Although Target 11.4 and indicators 5b, 9c, and 17.8 are found in
this study, they have weak relationships with other indicators and targets.
This may show that the implementation of the Lyons Declaration did not have
clear outcomes. Unfortunately, no further comparisons can be made because there
is a lack of empirical literature on the declaration, although 600 libraries
have given their signature to date.
The review found that most
academic libraries map their activities to broad SDGs rather than specific
targets or indicators. While some libraries claim to have achieved all 17 SDGs,
mapping these activities using target and indicator levels has provided a more
accurate picture and uncovered cases of SDG washing. A rule from systems
thinking is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, yet many parts
(targets and indicators) remain unattained for every goal. Reporting at the
goal level may be thought of as SDG washing, which is when institutions put up
an image that they are engaged in all the SDGs, often to please a funder or the
government, but have no full commitment (Heras-Saizarbitoria
et al., 2022). Another related problem is that libraries are selective in what
they report instead of taking a holistic approach to the process. Bangani (2023) encourages academic libraries to be explicit
about their contributions to the SDGs so that they are relevant to both the
public and the authorities.
Academic Librarians’ Sustainability Awareness
Although there is a low usage
of the term sustainability literacy in the papers, where it is employed,
its conceptualization is similar to that in Hauke (2018). Quite notably,
academic libraries have a low interest in green libraries in the pursuit of
SDGs. Instead, they adopted a holistic approach, as demonstrated by the complex
interconnection of several SDG targets/indicators. Green libraries are
appropriate if the library is defined as a place that does not lead to SDG
attainment, whereas a holistic approach looks at the library as a place that
provides services. Mathiasson and Jochumsen
(2022) argue that library activities with a holistic understanding of
sustainability and sustainable development recognize SDGs as complex problems
that require complex solutions. In this sense, academic librarians are
attempting to solve complex societal problems vis-à-vis the SDGs.
Conversely, there are mixed
results on the awareness of sustainability literacy and SDGs among libraries.
Some librarians are aware of the two concepts, but some have reported a low
level of awareness and lack of clarity about the library’s involvement. This
finding is not relative to a particular region but occurs across different
continents. The level of awareness cannot be viewed in a vacuum because it is
influenced by the complexity of factors such as the availability of resources,
organizational culture, overarching government policies, library leadership,
and library activities (using sustainability literacy centred
on the SDGs). In this manner, the academic librarian is embedded within the
nexus of these issues and has to navigate each of them in a much more complex
manner. Dabengwa et al.’s (2019) model, which attributes academic librarians'
agency at various levels of embedding information literacy programs, can be
adopted to explain why there are various levels of awareness in practising sustainability literacy for the SDGs. Dabengwa
et al. (2019) posited that academic librarians embed information literacy in
four stages (aspiring, intermittent, partially, and transcending blended
librarians) because of the degree of access to resources, organizational
culture, and library activities. While Dabengwa et al.’s (2019) model is
generalized and was not constructed for any particular course, it can show that
embedding SDG information literacy is both an evolutionary and revolutionary
process.
There could be instances where
librarians evolve into any stage, or this could happen through revolutionary
processes when there is a need to do so. For instance, the SDG implementation
at the CUHKL and UNISA saw existing library programs being transformed to align
with the SDGs while adding new programs as well (Ma & Ko, 2022; Nhamo &
Malan, 2021). In other instances, there are differences between SDG
implementation in the reported academic libraries, even from the same country
or region. However, it is beyond the scope of this paper to categorize each
academic library’s SDG implementation according to the model because there is
insufficient evidence to make such a distinction from the retrieved studies.
However, it is important to note that an academic librarian’s level of
awareness is not binary but can have different levels, each with unique
characteristics.
Organizational Culture and Policy
The lack of resources and
supportive policies for sustainability and the SDGs shows the low uptake of
sustainability thinking. In some cases, this is part of a larger national
problem in which academic libraries are not included in national development
plans, such as VNRs. Additionally, librarians may not play an active role in
contributing to policy development and advocacy regarding the SDGs. In the
literature, Balôck (2020) decries the lack of a
supportive national framework in support of SDG localization among Cameroonian
libraries. As a result, there are no identified strategic objectives
(implementation plan), general objectives (summary of the overall activities),
or operational objectives (day-to-day activities aligned with the SDGs) that
integrate libraries into the GIF. Islam et al. (2022) found that policymakers
failed to include libraries in the SDG agenda because of a lack of awareness,
misunderstanding of the importance of libraries, negative attitudes, and
general unwillingness. When libraries do not have policies closely linked to
the SDGs, the use of the GIF has been encouraged to link library activities
(Dei & Asante, 2022).
Leadership
The role of library leadership
is central in guiding policy and advocating and liaising with government
agencies responsible for SDG localization. However, it is unfortunate to note
that there are cases where library leaders misappropriate resources that are
critical for SDG attainment (Awodoyin & Ojo, 2021).
Partnerships to Achieve the 2030 Agenda
Partnerships are essential to
achieve the 2030 Agenda framework because no one library can afford to perform
the activities needed to contribute to the SDGs. In some cases, academic
libraries may lack the capacity to advocate for the SDG agenda. Good
partnerships then provide resources and lobbying, especially at national forums
in which the SDGs are discussed, such as SDG steering committees and VNRs.
Although partnerships are critical, the data show that there must be mutual
trust between the library and potential partners. It is possible that MOUs can
support such trust, e.g., Bangani (2023).
Key Performance Indicators for Measuring SDGs in Libraries
Most studies used SDG stories
to determine key performance indicators. Thorpe and Gunton (2022) stated that
mapping approaches are more appropriate than measurement or assessment approaches
in determining library contribution to the SDGs. Perhaps mapping studies are
preferred because there is no standardized tool to measure the SDGs in
libraries. The current tools lack content validity because they do not measure
the same statements, although some may have similar dimensions. Hence, there is
a need to construct a standardized tool that can be applied to academic
libraries or perhaps any type of library. This tool should include information
sources used to gain knowledge of the SDGs, requirements to actualize the SDGs,
awareness of sustainability/SDGs, perceptions of SDGs, relevance of the SDGs in
libraries, requirements/strategies to achieve the SDGs, and challenges in
achieving the SDGs.
Whether an academic library
uses a mapping approach or survey tool, it is important to keep in mind that
its mission statements should be aligned with achieving sustainability/SDGs.
Business-as-usual activities should align with sustainability/SDGs, and
appropriate structures must be established (e.g., dedicated staff, library SDG
committees, and resources).
Positioning the Study in the Current
Landscape
This mixed-methods review
brings in new insights that have not been explored in previous research—for
example, mapping SDG targets to library programs and services and leveraging on
sustainability literacy and developing key performance indicators. The usage of
the SDG targets to measure library activities instead of the overall goal is
more systematic. This strategy may be used by academic libraries to develop
specific programs that focus on sustainability or the SDGs rather than relying
on business-as-usual activities. Potentially, academic libraries can use the
SDG targets to evaluate the weaknesses in their SDG programming to come up with
more robust services. Sustainability literacy is shown as a strategy that can
be used to teach or reinforce knowledge, skills, and attitudes about the SDGs.
Just like traditional
information literacy, sustainability literacy can be imparted using information
sources, tutorials, workshops, and awareness campaigns. Finally, key
performance indicators are exposed as a monitoring and evaluation tool that
should be used by academic libraries to expose success or failure in SDG
programming. The review highlights this as a growing area that does not have
well-defined tools. It is then up to academic library administrators to develop
their tools, perhaps by looking at the best practices from the cited literature
or combining the various tools found in this study.
Limitations of the Study
This study endeavoured
to review the existing peer-reviewed literature regarding the implementation of
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in academic libraries as comprehensively
as possible. Nevertheless, the process of coding SDG activities is intricate
and not entirely precise, as a single activity may align with multiple goals,
targets, or indicators (Thorpe & Gunton, 2022). It is plausible that
certain sentences may have been overlooked or assigned codes that were not
entirely appropriate. Such limitations are inherent in all qualitative
syntheses.
Another limitation pertains to
the number of studies identified in comparison to works such as Mathiasson and Jochumsen (2022).
Nonetheless, this disparity can be attributed to the study's exclusive focus on
academic libraries, as opposed to other library types, to facilitate result
comparisons. This approach can be likened to comparing similar entities rather
than dissimilar ones. Additionally, Mathiasson and Jochumsen (2022) have examined articles on sustainability
alongside those on the SDGs, even though these two concepts, albeit interconnected,
are not synonymous. Notably, Mathiasson and Jochumsen (2022) had fewer studies specifically dedicated
to the SDGs in comparison to the present study. Despite the limited number of
libraries analyzed, the inclusion of academic libraries from various regions
and sociocultural backgrounds aims to enhance the generalizability of the
findings on a global scale.
Although the evidence
originates from 164 libraries worldwide, it is crucial to proceed with caution.
All of these libraries may not be fully representative of the practices of
other academic libraries omitted from this study.
Future Research
Future studies ought to make
decisions on whether these intricate relationships can be integrated into
specific narratives related to SDGs or if survey tools complemented by
narratives would be more suitable for evaluation purposes. These decisions
should be made after thorough consideration. Notably, reporting on library
initiatives using the Global Impact Framework (GIF) provides a more accurate
assessment of progress towards achieving SDGs compared to assessments at the
goal level, which are susceptible to underreporting or SDG washing. Given the
apparent complexity of implementing an effective contribution plan while
maintaining regular operations in an academic library setting, GIF-based
solutions become even more crucial. Or better still, future studies can use the
selected papers to develop a standardized tool to measure the extent to which
academic libraries contribute to the SDGs.
Conclusions
This mixed-methods review has
answered the overarching research question In
what ways do academic libraries contribute to the attainment of the SDGs?
by demonstrating diverse ways in which academic libraries contribute to the
achievement of the SDGs. This review highlights that academic libraries
contribute significantly to SDG 4 (Quality Education) by enhancing access to
educational resources and supporting lifelong learning. Targets 4.4, 16.10,
4.7, 12.8, and 17.17 were found to be the most influential in SDG programming
within academic libraries. A Pearson correlation R test showed positive
correlations between Target 4.4 and both Targets 16.10 and 17.17. These
contributions can be seen through a variety of programs and services that
include access to information resources on the SDGs, such as encouraging
sustainability literacy and participating in outreach initiatives in the
community and partnerships.
However, the review found
limited references to sustainability literacy in the context of the SDGs. While
some papers mention sustainable library corners and green library activities to
promote environmental awareness, their scarcity does not undermine the argument
presented in this paper but rather reflects the current situation in a select
group of academic libraries. This may indicate that there are few instances in
which these academic libraries raise awareness about sustainability and the
SDGs despite the increasing importance of the concepts in higher education. The
paper also uncovers that some academic librarians lack awareness of SDGs and
are hesitant to incorporate them into their library operations.
Nevertheless, this should not
deter other libraries that are more familiar with SDGs and have related
programs from pursuing their objectives. The reality is that challenges related
to the adoption of SDGs exist among the academic libraries included in the
study, posing both a challenge and an opportunity to bring about significant
change within communities through awareness campaigns and strategic implementation
by institutions committed to making a positive impact in line with
sustainability's four core principles. In conclusion, academic librarians must
meticulously evaluate the complex interrelationships among various factors,
including organizational culture/policy, partnerships, KPIs, and leadership
roles, when assessing their contributions to the SDGs.
Acknowledgments
In memory of Patricia Munemo (Arrupe Jesuit University,
Harare, Zimbabwe), who assisted in the screening process and coding of the
articles. Rest in power.
References
Anasi, S. N., Ukangwa,
C. C., & Fagbe, A. (2018). University
libraries-bridging digital gaps and accelerating the achievement of sustainable
development goals through information and communication technologies. World
Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development, 15(1),
13–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/WJSTSD-11-2016-0059
Atta-Obeng, L., & Dadzie,
P. S. (2020). Promoting Sustainable Development Goal 4: The role of academic
libraries in Ghana. International Information & Library
Review, 52(3), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572317.2019.1675445
Awodoyin, A. F.,
& Ojo, O. (2021). Sustainable Development Goals attainment: Examining librarians awareness and perception in selected
university libraries in Ogun State, Nigeria. Samaru
Journal of Information Studies, 21(1), 24–37.
Balôck, L. L. (2020). Public libraries
and goal 16 of the SDGS in Cameroon: Which actors for a national policy? Global
Knowledge, Memory and Communication, 69(4/5), 341–362. https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-06-2019-0068
Bangani, S. (2022). Academic libraries’
contribution to gender equality in a patriarchal, femicidal
society. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 1993,
1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006221127023
Bangani, S. (2023). Academic libraries’
support for quality education through community engagement. Information
Development, 2016, 026666692311528. https://doi.org/10.1177/02666669231152862
Bangani, S., & Dube, L. (2023).
Academic libraries and the actualization of Sustainable Development Goals two,
three and thirteen. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science,
096100062311746. https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006231174650
Booth, A., Papaioannou, D.,
& Sutton, A. (2016). Systematic approaches to a successful literature
review (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications Inc.
Chowdhury, G., & Koya, K. (2017). Information
practices for sustainability: Role of iSchools in
achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Journal of the
Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(9), 2128–2138. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23825
Cyr, C., & Connaway, L. S.
(2020). Libraries and the UN Sustainable Development Goals: The past, present,
and future. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and
Technology, 57(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.237
Dabengwa, I. M., Raju, J., & Matingwina,
T. (2019). Academic librarian’s transition to blended librarianship: A
phenomenology of selected academic librarians in Zimbabwe. The Journal
of Academic Librarianship, 45(4), 343–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.04.008
Datta, A., & Chaudhuri, S. K.
(2019). The awareness and understanding of sustainability by the academic
library administrators: A micro level investigation in Kolkata, India. Library
Philosophy & Practice. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/2938/
Dei, D.-G. J., & Asante, F. Y.
(2022). Role of academic libraries in the achievement of quality education as a
sustainable development goal. Library Management, 43(6/7),
439–459. https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-02-2022-0013
Emezie, N. A.,
& Igwe, K. N. (2017). Delivery of community information service as
corporate social responsibility by librarians in Nigerian tertiary institutions.
Information Impact: Journal of Information and Knowledge Management, 8(1),
76. https://doi.org/10.4314/iijikm.v8i1.9
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A.
(2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated
methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2),
91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Gunasekera, D., &
Samarakoon, M. (2020). The reflective practice for sustainable future. International
Journal of Librarianship, 5(2), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.23974/ijol.2020.vol5.2.171
Gupta, S. (2020). Green library: A
strategic approach to environmental sustainability. International
Journal of Information Studies and Libraries, 5(2), 82–92. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3851100
Halim, Y. A., & Sari, D. K. (2023). Social inclusion
of academic library in realising Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through
corporate social responsibility (CSR) Program: A case study in Tengku Anis
Library UiTM Kelantan. International Journal of Information &
Knowledge Management, (22318836), 13, 35–46.
Hamad, F., & Al-Fadel, M. (2022). Advocacy of the
Sustainable Development Goals in Jordanian academic libraries. IFLA
Journal, 48(4), 492–509. https://doi.org/10.1177/03400352211038300
Hauke, P. (2018). From information literacy to green
literacy: Training librarians as trainers for sustainability literacy. IFLA
WLIC 2018 – Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia – Transform Libraries, Transform Societies,
Session 116 - Library Theory and Research with Information Literacy, 1–10. International
Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA). https://library.ifla.org/id/eprint/2147/
Hauke, P. (2020). Academic libraries of the world:
Exemplars, educators, enablers for sustainable development. Proceedings
of the 9th Eurasian Academic Libraries Conference (EALC), Nazarbayev
University Library. https://nur.nu.edu.kz/handle/123456789/4994
Heras-Saizarbitoria, I., Urbieta, L., & Boiral, O.
(2022). Organizations’ engagement with sustainable development goals: From
cherry-picking to SDG-washing? Corporate Social Responsibility
Environmental Management, 29(2), 316–328. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2202
IFLA. (2014). The Lyon Declaration on Access to
Information and Development.
https://www.ifla.org/past-wlic/2014/ifla80/node/522.html
IFLA. (2015a). Libraries and implementation of the UN
2030 Agenda. https://www.ifla.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/assets/hq/topics/libraries-development/documents/libraries-un-2030-agenda-toolkit.pdf
IFLA.
(2015b). Cape Town Declaration.
IFLA. (2018). Access and opportunity for all: How
libraries contribute to the United Nations 2030 Agenda. Bibliotekovedenie
[Library and Information Science]. https://doi.org/10.25281/0869-608x-2016-65-4-445-450
IFLA. (2019). Access and
Opportunity for All: How Libraries contribute to the United Nations 2030
Agenda. https://www.ifla.org/publications/node/10546?og=7409
IFLA.
(2023). Sustainable Development Goals &Libraries. https://librarymap.ifla.org/stories
Igbinovia, M. O., & Osuchukwu, N. P. (2018). Predictors of knowledge sharing
behaviour on Sustainable Development Goals among library personnel in
Nigeria. IFLA Journal, 44(2), 119–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0340035218763445
Islam, M. A., Sultana, R., & Widén,
G. (2022). Ascertaining the place of UN sustainable development goals in public
libraries: How much progress have public libraries made in Bangladesh? Global
Knowledge, Memory and Communication, 73(3), 354–374. https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-03-2022-0072
Ma, L. F. H., & Ko, L. Y. (2022). Supporting the
Sustainable Development Goals: The role of the Chinese University of Hong Kong
Library. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 48(4), 102562.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2022.102562
Mamtora, J., Ovaska,
C., & Mathiesen, B. (2021). Reconciliation in Australia: The academic
library empowering the Indigenous community. IFLA Journal, 47(3),
351–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0340035220987578
Mathiasson, M. H., & Jochumsen, H. (2022). Libraries, sustainability and
sustainable development: A review of the research literature. Journal
of Documentation, 78(6), 1278–1304. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-11-2021-0226
Mbagwu, F. C., Lyaka, M., Nyantakyi-baah, L.,
& Holmner, M. (2020). Achieving Sustainable
Development Goals two and three: Role of academic libraries. Library
Philosophy & Practice, https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/3995/
McGowan, J., Sampson, M., Salzwedel, D. M., Cogo, E., Foerster, V., & Lefebvre, C. (2018). Mixed
methods appraisal tool (MMAT) version 2018 User guide. McGill University.
Missingham, R. (2020). Sustainable
Development Goals: Insights from research libraries. International
Journal of Librarianship, 5(2), 13–25. https://doi.org/10.23974/ijol.2020.vol5.2.167
Nga, P., & Pun, I. (2022).
Building sustainability and open science in academic libraries through
alliances: The case of Macao SAR sustainability in libraries. 87th IFLA
World Library and Information Congress (WLIC), Dublin, Ireland from 26-29 July
2022, July, 22–23.
Nhamo, G., & Malan, M. (2021).
Role of libraries in promoting the SDGs: a focus on the University of South
Africa. In G. Nhamo, M. Togo, & K. Dube (Eds.), Sustainable
Development Goals for Society Vol. 1 (Vol. 1). Springer International
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70948-8
Ochôa, P., & Pinto, L. G. (2020).
Gathering evidence for sustainable development goals: An alignment
perspective. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 15(1),
164–169. https://doi.org/10.18438/EBLIP29638
Omekwu, C. O., Ugwu, F. N., & Ejikeme, A. N. (2021). Access to information for
sustainable development in the digital age: Librarians’ perspectives in two
Nigerian universities. Information Development, 39(3), 624-637. https://doi.org/10.1177/02666669211056292
Owusu-Ansah, S. (2021). Reshaping strategies of
University Libraries in Ghana towards Sustainable Development Goal 4. Mousaion, 39(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.25159/2663-659X/7126
Renner, A., Muller, J., & Theissler,
A. (2022). State-of-the-art on writing a literature review: An overview of
types and components. 2022 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference
(EDUCON), 2022-March, 1895–1902. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON52537.2022.9766503
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the
thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC
Medical Research Methodology, 8, 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45
Thorpe, C., & Gunton, L. (2022). Assessing the United
Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals in academic libraries. Journal
of Librarianship & Information Science, 54(2), 208–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006211005528
Times Higher Education. (2022). How to participate
in Times Higher Education rankings. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/how-participate-times-higher-education-rankings
Tohidinia, Z., & Mosakhani,
M. (2010). Knowledge sharing behaviour and its predictors. Industrial
Management & Data Systems, 110(4), 611–631. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571011039052
Tribelhorn, S. K. (2022). Key
Performance Indicators for Assessing Sustainability in Academic Libraries.
University of Southern California.
UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA).
(2018). Raising awareness and assessing sustainability literacy on SDG 7. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdinaction/hesi/literacy#:~:text=%22Sustainability
Literacy%22
UNESCO. (2017). Unpacking Sustainable Development
Goal 4 Education 2030: Guide. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000246300
United Nations. (2017). SDG Indicators: Global
indicator framework for the Sustainable Development Goals and targets of the
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/indicators-list/
United Nations. (2024). United Nations. Sustainable
Development Goals. https://sdgs.un.org/goals#icons
VERBI Software. (2021). MAXQDA 2022 [Computer
software].
Yap, J. M., & Kamilova, Y.
(2020). Toward becoming an inclusive library: Integrating Sustainable
Development Goal 5 in the library agenda. Library Management, 41(2/3),
53–66. https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-08-2019-0057
Appendix A
United
Nations Resources
Table 1
Global Indicator Framework for
Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2024)
|
Goal |
Number of targets per goal |
|
Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere |
7 |
|
Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved
nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture |
8 |
|
Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for
all people of all ages |
13 |
|
Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality
education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all |
10 |
|
Goal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women
and girls |
9 |
|
Goal 6. Ensure the availability and sustainable
management of water and sanitation for all |
9 |
|
Goal 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable,
sustainable, and modern energy for all |
5 |
|
Goal 8. Promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable
economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work |
12 |
|
Goal 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote
inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and foster innovation |
8 |
|
Goal 10. Reduce inequality within and among countries |
11 |
|
Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive,
safe, resilient, and sustainable |
10 |
|
Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production
patterns |
1 |
|
Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change
and its impacts |
5 |
|
Goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use oceans, seas, and
marine resources for sustainable development |
10 |
|
Goal 15. Protect, restore, and promote sustainable use
of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat
desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and biodiversity loss |
12 |
|
Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for
sustainable development, provide access to justice for all, and build
effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels |
12 |
|
Goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and
revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development |
19 |
Appendix B
Scales for Measuring
Sustainability Literacy in the Context of the Agenda 2030
Table 1
Survey Tools
|
Authors |
Response options |
Context |
Test |
SDGs\ Targets/Indicators |
Country |
|
Anasi et al., 2018 |
4-point Likert scale on 3: 1. Awareness of
sustainability, 2. SDG activities, 3. Use of ICTs in the SDGs and 3-point
Likert scale on 1 dimension: Challenges of implementing the SDGs |
Usage of ICTs in academic libraries to contribute to
the SDGs 77 academic librarians |
Means and standard deviations (SDs) |
SDG 4\Target 4.7 SDG 9\Target 9.5 |
Nigeria |
|
Awodoyin & Ojo, 2021 |
1. Awareness of sustainability (5-point Likert scale),
5 dimensions with a 4-point Likert scale: 2. Perceptions of SDGs, 3.
Relevance of libraries, 4. Challenges and 5. Strategies to achieve SDGs |
Librarians’ awareness and perception of SDG
attainment60 academic librarians |
Means and standard deviations (SDs) |
SDG 4\Target 4.4 \Target 4.7 SDG 5 SDG 9\Target 9.5 SDG 16\Target 16.10 SDG 17\Target 17.17 |
Nigeria |
|
Datta & Chaudhuri, 2019 |
3-point Likert on 2 dimensions: 1. Awareness of
sustainability, 2. Sources of information and 4-point Likert on 3
dimensions: 3. Perceptions of ideal
activities/relevance of libraries, 4. Challenges and 5. Ideal outcomes |
Academic library administrators’ awareness and
understanding of sustainability16 academic librarians |
Descriptive statistics |
SDG 1\Target 1.4 SDG 3 SDG 4\Target 4.4\Target 4.7 SDG 6\Indicator 6. a SDG 7\Target 7a\Target 7.1.2 SDG 8 SDG 10\Target 10.2 SDG 11\Target 11.4 \Target 11.6 SDG 12\Target 12.8 SDG 13\Target 13.3 SDG 16\Target 16.10\Indicator 16.6.1 SDG 17\Target 17.10\Target 17.7 |
India |
|
Emezie & Igwe, 2017 |
4-point Likert scale on 3 dimensions: 1. Social
responsibility on the SDGs, 2. SDG services for rural communities and 3.
Challenges in implementing the SDGs |
The study explores how librarians' views of community
information centres relate to corporate social
responsibility for achieving the SDGs. Involves 57 academic librarians |
Spearman rank order correlation technique at 0.05 level
of significance |
SDG 1\Target 1.4 SDG 2\Target 2.1 SDG 3\Target 3.8 SDG 4\Target 4.4 SDG 8\Target 8.2 SDG 10\Target 10.2 |
Nigeria |
|
Hamad & Al-Fadel, 2022 |
A 3-point Likert scale with the following dimensions:
1. requirements to achieve the SDGs, 2. Awareness of sustainability/SDGs,
perceptions of SDGs, 3. Relevance of the SDGs in libraries, 4.
Requirements/strategies to achieve the SDGs, and 5. Challenges in achieving
the SDGs |
Assessing librarians’ perceptions of the library’s role
in the achievement of the SDGs. 233 academic librarians |
Multiway analysis of variance (ANOVA) and F tests
between the responses based on different variables (gender, job title,
educational level, years of experience, and specialization) |
SDG 4\Target 4.4 SDG 4\Target 4.7 SDG 9\Indicator 9.c.1 SDG 10\Target 10.2 SDG 11\Target 11.3 SDG 16\Target 16.10 SDG 17\Target 17.17 |
Jordan |
|
Igbinovia & Osuchukwu, 2018 |
The Knowledge Sharing Behaviour
Scale (KSBS) consists of 22 items and uses a 5-point Likert scale with the
following: 1. Willingness to share knowledge related to SDGs, 2. Initiative
to share knowledge related to the SDGs, 3. Frequency of sharing knowledge
related to the SDGs, 4. Quality of shared knowledge related to the SDGs, 5.
Perception of organizational support for sharing knowledge related to SDGs |
Determining the status of knowledge-sharing behaviour among library personnel regarding SDGs72
academic librarians |
Multiple regression analysis |
SDG 3 SDG 4\Target 4.4 SDG 5 |
Nigeria |
|
Omekwu et al., 2021 |
Oral interviews; 4-point Likert scale containing four
clusters. Dimensions: 1. Awareness of sustainability, 2. Contributions to the
SDGs, 3. Sources of information, 4. Strategies to improve information access,
5. Challenges in accessing SDG Information |
Examining librarians’ views on the contributions of
access to SDG information93 academic librarians |
Means and standard deviations (SDs) |
SDG 1\Target 1.4 SDG 2\Indicator 2.1.2\Indicator 2.b.1\Target 2.4 SDG 3\Target 3.3\Target 3.7 SDG 4\Target 4.4\Target 4.7\Indicator 4.b SDG 5\Target 5.1\Target 5.2 SDG 6\Target 6.1.1\Target 6.2 SDG 7\Target 7a SDG 8\Target 8.3\Target 8.4\Target 8.6 SDG 10\Target 10.2 SDG 11\Indicator 11.b SDG 12\Indicator 12. a SDG 13\Target 13.1\Target 13.3 SDG 16\Target 16.10\Target 16.2 SDG 17\Target 17.17 |
Nigeria |
|
Tribelhorn, 2022 |
3-point Likert scale; 6 dimensions; open-ended
questions |
Assessing key performance indicators for sustainability
and the SDGs used in academic libraries12 participants ranging from large
private research and PhD awarding institutions, state colleges, and smaller
private colleges to community colleges awarding associate degrees |
Factor analysis |
SDG 4\Target 4.4\Target 4.7 SDG 6\Target 6.1.1 SDG 7\Target 7.3 SDG 11\Target 11.2\Target 11.7 SDG 12\Target 12.5\Target 12.8 SDG 15\Indicator 15.a |
United States |
|
Yap & Kamilova, 2020 |
5-point Likert scale; 5 dimensions; open-ended
questions and multiple choice |
Evaluating whether events and services held in
libraries are dedicated to increasing women’s rights67 participants including
moderators, resource persons, regular attendees, or volunteers—for example,
invited moderators were faculty members who are experts in their field |
Descriptive statistics and rich descriptions |
SDG 4\Target 4.4 SDG 5\Target 5.1\Target 5.2\ Indicator 5.c\ SDG 8\Target 8.5 SDG 10\Target 10.2 SDG 11\Target 11.4 SDG 16\Target 16.10\Indicator 16.b SDG 17\Target 17.17 |
Kazakhstan |
Table 2
Mapping Tools
|
Authors |
Response options |
Context |
Data analysis |
SDG\Targets\Indicators |
Country |
|
Atta-Obeng & Dadzie, 2020 |
Open-ended interviews |
Investigating the role of academic libraries in
promoting knowledge and skills for lifelong learning opportunities |
Content analysis |
SDG 4\Target 4.4\Target 4.7 SDG 5 SDG 9\Target 9.5 SDG 16\Target 16.10 SDG 17\Target 17.17 |
Ghana |
|
Bangani, 2022 |
Open-ended interviews |
Academic librarians’ awareness and practices of SDG 5 |
Thematic analysis |
SDG 3\Target 3.4\Target 3.7 SDG 4\Target 4.4 SDG 5\Target 5.2\Target 5.6\Indicator 5.c SDG 8\Target 8.5\Target 8.6 SDG 10\Target 10.2 SDG 12\Target 12.8 SDG 16\Indicator 16.a\Target 16.10\Target 16.2 |
South Africa |
|
Bangani, 2023 |
Online interviews and focus discussions |
Contribution of CE initiatives in South African public
university libraries to SDG 4 |
Thematic analysis |
SDG 1\Target 1.4 SDG 4\Target 4.4\Indicator 4.6 SDG 5\Target 5.6 SDG 9\Indicator 9.b\Indicator 9.c.1 SDG 10\Target 10.2 SDG 11\Target 11.3\Target 11.7 SDG 16\Target 16.10\Target 16.7 SDG 17\Target 17.7 |
South Africa |
|
Bangani and Dube, 2023 |
Online interviews and focus discussions |
Contribution of CE initiatives in South African public university
libraries to SDGs 2, 5, and 13 |
Narrative analysis |
SDG 1\Target 1.4 SDG 2\Indicator 2.1 SDG 3\Target 3.4 SDG 12\Target 12.5\Target 12.8 SDG 13\Target 13.3 SDG 17\Target 17.17 |
South Africa |
|
Dei & Asante, 2022 |
Open-ended interviews. 16 academic librarians. |
Academic librarians’ awareness and practices of SDG 4 |
Content analysis |
SDG 4\Target 4.4 SDG 9\Indicator 9. c.1 SDG 16\Target 16.10 SDG 17\Indicator 17.8.1 |
Ghana |
|
Halim & Sari, 2023 |
Observations in the field and interviews with program recipients |
Discussing the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
program implemented by the Tengku Anis Library at UiTM Kelantan |
Self-reflective practice/ Document analysis |
SDG 4\Target 4.1\Indicator 4.1.1 SDG 17\Target 17.17 |
Malaysia |
|
Hauke, 2020 |
Document analysis |
Examining an Outstanding Sustainable Library |
Document analysis |
SDG 4\Target 4.7 SDG 7\Target 7.3 SDG 12\Target 12.5\Target 12.8 SDG 15\Indicator 15.a SDG 17\Target 17.17 |
International |
|
Gunasekera & Samarakoon, 2020 |
Key performance indicators: 1. Physical and mental
fitness of the university community. 2. Sustainable environment |
Highlighting Sri Lankan librarians’ actions to achieve
SD goals |
Self-reflective practice |
SDG 3\Target 3.8\Target 3.9 SDG 4\Target 4.4\Indicator 4.a\ Target 4.6\Target 4.7 SDG 6\Target 6.1.1 SDG 9\Target 9.5 SDG 11\Target 11.4 SDG 12\Target 12.2\Target 12.8 SDG 13\Target 13.3 SDG 15\Indicator 15.2.1\Target 15.1 SDG 16\Target 16.1\Target 16.10 |
Sri Lanka |
|
Ma & Ko, 2022 |
Document analysis |
Documenting how the Chinese Hong Kong Library attains
the SDGs |
Self-reflective practice/Document analysis |
SDG 3\Target 3.8 SDG 4\Target 4.4\Target 4.7 SDG 8\Target 8.4 SDG 9\Target 9.5 SDG 12\Target 12.8 SDG 16\Target 16.10\Target 16.7 SDG 17\Target 17.17 |
China |
|
Mamtora et al., 2021 |
Document analysis |
Role of the academic library in contributing to the
reconciliation process in Australia through the lens of James Cook University |
Self-reflective practice/Document analysis |
SDG 4\Target 4.4 SDG 10\Target 10.2 SDG 11\Target 11.4 SDG 16\Target 16.7\Target 16.10 |
Australia |
|
Mbagwu et al., 2020 |
Document analysis |
Exploring the contributions of academic libraries in
achieving SDGs 2 and 3 in Ghana, Nigeria, and Uganda |
Document analysis/Content analysis |
SDG 1\Target 1.4 SDG 2\Target 2.5 SDG 3\Target 3.3\Target 3.4\Target 3.5\Target 3.6 SDG 4\Target 4.4 SDG 8\Target 8.2 SDG 9\Target 9.3\Indicator 9.b\Indicator 9.c.1 SDG 12\Target 12.8 SDG 15\Indicator 15.a SDG 16\Indicator 16a\Target 16.7\Target 16.10 SDG 17\Target 17.6\Target 17.17 |
Ghana, Nigeria, and Uganda |
|
Missingham, 2020 |
Case study |
Evaluating 4 SDGs across the International Alliance of
Research Universities network using ISO 16439 |
Document analysis/Content analysis |
SDG 1\Target 1.4 SDG 3\Target 3.4 SDG 4\Target 4.4\Target 4.7 SDG 5\Target 5.1\Target 5.5 SDG 8\Target 8.5 SDG 9\Target 9.5 SDG 10\Target 10.2 SDG 11\Target 11.4 SDG 16\Target 16.1\Target 16.10 |
International |
|
Nhamo & Malan, 2021 |
Participatory research and document analysis |
How UNISA libraries are achieving SDGs |
Self-reflective practice/Document analysis/Content
analysis |
SDG 1\Target 1.4 SDG 3 SDG 4\Target 4.4\Target 4.7 SDG 9\Indicator 9.c.1\Target 9.5 SDG 11\Target 11.4 SDG 12\Target 12.8 SDG 16\Target 16.10 SDG 17\Target 17.17 |
South Africa |
|
Nga & Pun, 2022 |
Document analysis |
Evaluating how open science initiatives lead to SDGs |
Document analysis |
SDG 4\Target 4.4 SDG 9\Target 9.5 SDG 11\Target 11.4 SDG 12\Indicator 12. a SDG 17\Target 17.6\Target 17.17 |
China |
|
Owusu-Ansah, 2021 |
Interviews and observations |
The role of university libraries in Ghana in
contributing to Sustainable Development Goal 4 |
Document analysis/Narrative analysis |
SDG 1\Target 1.2\Target 1.4 SDG 3\Target 3.8 SDG 4\Target 4.1\Target 4.4\Target 4.6 SDG 5\Target 5.5 SDG 8\Target 8.3 SDG 9\9.c SDG 10\Target 10.2 |
Ghana |
|
Thorpe & Gunton, 2022 |
Mapping |
Mapping library activities and business-as-usual
project outcomes and performance to the SDGs |
Document analysis |
SDG 4\Target 4.7 SDG 16\Target 16.10 SDG 17\Target 17.17 |
Australia |