higher education for sustainable development a systematic review

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, higher education for sustainable development: a systematic review.

International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education

ISSN : 1467-6370

Article publication date: 5 September 2016

This study aims to provide a complete understanding of academic research into higher education for sustainable development (HESD).

Design/methodology/approach

This study utilizes a systematic review of four scientific literature databases to outline topics of research during the UN’s Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD).

This study compares research trends and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO’s) strategic perspectives, worldwide topics and the number of studies. The results show that the research trends did not match UNESCO’s perspectives well and that researchers’ focus on popular events led to the variation between the numbers of articles each year. In summary, the findings indicate that most researchers base their topics on environmental issues, and research trends indicate the need for the integration of HESD.

Practical implications

This study provides a systematic review of higher education for academic research into sustainability, and it has implications for researchers and educators by identifying the gaps between the research conducted and the UN’s policies during the DESD.

Originality/value

This study attempts to offer an integrated view of HESD and to understand the bias of research trends during the DESD.

• Sustainability
• Higher education
• Systematic reviews

Acknowledgements

The authors greatly appreciate reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions. This work is jointly supported by Ministry of Science & Technology, Taiwan (MOST 103-2511-S-003-059 & MOST 104-2511-S-003-031 -MY3).

Wu, Y.-C.J. and Shen, J.-P. (2016), "Higher education for sustainable development: a systematic review", International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education , Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 633-651. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-01-2015-0004

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2016, Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

People also looked at

Original research article, academic identity and “education for sustainable development”: a grounded theory.

• Higher Education Development Centre, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

The research described in this article set out to explore the nature of higher education institutions’ commitment to teaching for social, environmental and economic justice in the context of the SDGs and to develop a theory of this phenomenon to support further research. The research used grounded theory methodology and took place over a two-month period in 2023. Cases were collected in four universities in New Zealand, India and Sweden and included interviews with individuals, participation in group activities including a higher education policy meeting, seminars and workshops, unplanned informal conversations, institutional policy documents and media analyses in the public domain. Cases were converted to concepts using a constant comparative approach and selective coding reduced 46 concepts to three broad and overlapping interpretations of the data collected, focusing on academic identity, the affective (values-based) character of learning for social, environmental and economic justice, and the imagined, or judged, rather than measured, portrayal of the outcomes or consequences of the efforts of this cultural group in teaching contexts. The grounded theory that derives from these three broad interpretations suggests that reluctance to measure, monitor, assess, evaluate, or research some teaching outcomes is inherent to academic identity as a form of identity protection, and that this protection is essential to preserve the established and preferred identity of academics.

1. Introduction

Many higher education institutions (HEIs) around the world have made some form of commitment to support the achievement of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals agreed by most of the nations on this planet in 2015. 1 For example, more than 1,500 universities from more than 100 countries have submitted portfolios to the 2023 Times Higher Education Impact Rankings ( Times Higher Education, 2023 ). The SDGs and the concept of sustainability relate equally to notions of social, environmental, and economic justice (sometimes described as the triple bottom line of people, planet and profit). It is to be noted that these current commitments built upon long-standing prior HEI commitments related to international agreements following on from the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development 1992, including in particular Agenda 21 ( United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, 1992 ). Institutional commitments to sustainability generally relate to institutional research, teaching and to university campuses (or “campus as role model”). It is also to be noted that, in the context of teaching, some commitments have been made at the individual institutional level; for example, those institutions whose leaders commit via the Talloires Declaration ( Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future, 1994 ) to “educate for environmentally responsible citizenship.” Some commitments occur at a national level, including for example Sweden’s commitment made in 2006 that all of its educational institutions will promote sustainable development explored by Finnveden et al. (2020) . The broad field of inquiry known as Education for Sustainable Development (ESD, sometimes as HESD in higher education contexts) provides the disciplinary focus to explore these commitments and, as with all disciplines in higher education, diverse perspectives on how it operates are inherent to its practices. Even so, that education should be for sustainable development and not simply about sustainable development is fundamental to its mission.

ESD practitioners are well aware of many of the challenges involved in utilising the social construct of higher education for social change, substantially reviewed in Barth et al. (2015) . Higher education has had to manage massification (increased registration without similarly increasing funding), its broadly middle-class and privileged nature (potentially undermining its efforts towards social justice), and the market-driven ethos of higher education nowadays. Universities also attract students with a wide range of personal ambitions and expectations. Some students choose to study in academic areas to which sustainability concepts make a natural and compelling contribution. Some students even choose to study programmes designed to educate sustainability professionals. But many students, perhaps most, study subjects for which sustainability has a more challenging or transient contribution. Higher education commitments and societal expectations, however, apply to all students, not only to those who express commitment to sustainability before they arrive. And, naturally, some academics in all disciplines are highly motivated towards sustainability and likely to ensure that their teaching addresses sustainability-related topics; but some less so.

Much effort has been expended by ESD practitioners to develop educational outcomes that may in some way align to institutional contributions to the achievement of the sustainable development goals with focus recently on the development of ESD competencies ( Brundiers et al., 2020 ); competencies that may allow those who learn them to operate in a sustainable society. Relatively little emphasis however has been placed on monitoring, measuring, assessing, evaluating or researching the educational outcomes achieved by university graduates. One of the first research-based indications that higher education was finding the mission of ESD problematic came from institutional research in the USA. The University of Michigan is an institution with a renowned sustainability focus. Using both quantitative and qualitative research approaches directed at student learning, this research found; “… no evidence that, as students move through [the University], they became more concerned about various aspects of sustainability or more committed to acting in environmentally responsible ways, either in the present moment or in their adult lives” ( Schoolman et al., 2016 , p. 498). Research that reflects similar concerns was reviewed by Brown et al. (2019) . Other than these expressions of concern, there is little evidence in the public domain that the mission of ESD is on track in our universities.

The author of the current article has explored institutional efforts and outcomes in the broad contexts of environmental education (EE) and ESD over several decades in several institutions and nations. No doubt all academic researchers believe that their research and their research questions are rather important. The current author is no different but emphasises here an observation that dictates choice of research methodology and the author’s personal role within the research. How humans interact with each other and with other life on our shared planet, and with the physical planet itself, has become in recent years an existential matter for humans and for many other species. Given the extent to which our universities teach people on our planet (for example, high proportions of young people in many nations pass through higher education. India is home to one sixth of the world’s human population and more than 25% of its young people pass through its higher education sector), and the accepted vital role of education in achieving the SDGs, their role needs to be seen as an important contributory factor. In this context, the institution of higher education does need to consider its role in the context of whether higher education teaching is predominantly leading to solutions or is, perhaps, more contributing to the problems that need solutions. This research addresses not the research that universities do, but rather the research that universities might not do, or are reluctant to do, involving the consequences of what they teach on what their students learn. The research described in this article set out to explore the nature of higher education’s commitment to teaching for social, environmental and economic justice in the context of the SDGs and to develop a theory of this phenomenon to support further research. The research occurred in four universities in New Zealand, India and Sweden. Analysis drew from Bourdieusian social theory ( Bourdieu, 1993 ), Kahan’s exploration of the measurement problem in climate-science communication incorporating identity protection ( Kahan, 2015 ) and psychological theories that link experience and affect to behaviour.

2.1. Methodological underpinning

Given the complex nature of the SDGs and of higher education teaching, research in this broad area is unlikely to have an existing and explanatory theoretical foundation, laying as it does at the intersection of many fields of higher education enquiry. Many factors are likely involved in this situation without necessarily being clearly and widely understood or necessarily related to one another. The research needs to consider the relevance of its lines of questioning to these constituent factors and even if the institution of higher education, gatekeeper to our shared conceptualisation of scholarship, is open to such lines of questioning.

Grounded theory developed in the social sciences, whose main epistemological interest is in explaining and predicting behaviour in social interactions. The overarching goal of grounded theory is to develop theory in such circumstances, with an implicit orientation towards action, but an explicit expectation that new theory will emerge though cycles of data collection, inductive analysis and speculation on theory. The constant comparative approach ( Corbin and Strauss, 2008 ) where new data always requires the researcher to compare current inductive imaginations with past theory-building to reassess its utility, is an abiding feature of grounded-theory research. Nevertheless, the extent to which theory emerges from the analysis, or is dependent on the prior knowledge and theoretical grounding of the researcher, is a contested point. Glaser and Strauss (1967) , the two main originators of grounded theory, originally stressed the importance of the researcher developing theoretical sensitivity, so as to be mindful of theoretical possibilities as cases are considered, but not to be highly dependent on prior understanding. Strauss and Corbin (1990) , in later manifestations of grounded theory, emphasised the inevitability of the researcher using their own personal and professional experience as well as knowledge gained from the relevant literature to build new theory. The research described here used grounded theory as perhaps the only research methodology capable of addressing the research question in the complex environment of international higher education and celebrates the past professional experiences of the researcher in international higher education, not to limit possibilities of new theoretical insights but to bring awareness of multiple discourses, incorporating already-rich explanatory insights, to the task. Charmaz and Bryant (2010) emphasise that modern, constructivist interpretations of grounded theory enable researchers to explore tacit meanings and processes in complex social systems and to challenge established explanations of social functioning.

Data contributing to grounded theory in social contexts is, unlike many other qualitative research methods, not based solely on interviews. Each datum is a “case” and may give rise to an individual “concept” that represents a unit of interest. As Corbin and Strauss (2015) emphasise; “ … it is concepts and not people, per se, that are sampled” (p. 135). Cases may include, as examples, interviews with people, interviews with groups, listening or participation in group activities such as conferences, seminars and workshops, informal conversations whether planned or not, publications, fieldnotes incorporating memoranda and reflective commentaries, webpages and press releases. Cases are collected by a process of “theoretical sampling” and are developed by the researcher recording and reflecting on planned and unplanned experiences. Cases are sampled continuously and included in the analysis as planned events, as accidental or coincidental happenings, and as the consequence of further development and refinement of a developing theory needing further and focussed clarification. Importantly, cases are not necessarily built from reoccurring themes or quantifiable circumstances. An individual conversation with a single discussant can have a powerful impact on a developing grounded theory. The iterative processes of data sampling, data analysis and theory development are, theoretically, ongoing until new data ceases to contribute to the development of theory, a situation known as theoretical saturation. As a constructivist approach, data are undoubtably influenced by the researcher’s personal perspectives, experiences, values and geographical settings and the researcher’s developing understanding is essentially reflexive in nature. To some degree, grounded theory must also be somewhat unplanned and opportunistic. It is not possible to describe in advance what sources will be involved, what lines of questioning in interviews or other forms of data collection will be involved, or what experiences will be influential in developing theory. In addition, as this is research based in more than one nation, individual national or individual institutional ethics authorities are not directly applicable. Internationally recognised ethical research principles of research have been adopted in this research, as described by the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council ( UKRI, 2021 ): minimising risks and maximising benefits for individuals and societies; respecting the rights and dignity of individuals and groups; ensuring that, wherever possible, participation is voluntary and appropriately informed; being conducted with integrity and transparency, with clearly defined lines of responsibility and accountability, making conflicts of interest explicit, and maintaining the independence of research. In this study, initially each case description in the author’s field notes included institution and nation, to contextualise the developing concept within it, but after the early stage of iterative data collection and analysis, the process of refining and amalgamating concepts stressed their educational, rather than geo-political contexts and allowed for a high degree of anonymity to be developed and maintained in their further analysis. Concepts described below protect the anonymity of their source, as individual, institution and nation, focusing on the author’s conception of the issue within, rather than its origin. In all cases concepts in this article are written in the author’s words, summarising each case as understood by the author, rather than as quotations attributable to groups, individuals, institutions or nations.

Data analysis starts by considering each case as a potential concept and allocating a code to it. Often a case needs to be broken into smaller constituent parts, each of which can be deeply analysed both as a possible contribution to new theory but also in the light of existing theory identified and understood by the researcher. Similar cases may be labelled with the same code. Coded elements become concepts and multiple concepts may be amalgamated or combined in some way as a higher-order category or phenomenon ( Strauss and Corbin, 1990 ). Although many different ways of exploring the relationships between concepts and categories have been described, Corbin and Strauss (2015) simplified the coding process to the three main features of conditions/circumstances, actions/interactions, and consequences/outcomes, and this simplified coding sequence was used in the research described here. Concepts are initially compared based on the conditions or circumstances in which they occurred. Subsequently concepts are related by their actions or interactions that occurred between them. Only then are concepts compared on the basis of their outcomes or consequences. The final element of grounded theory production is generally identified as “selective coding” and results in combinations of categories, where more than one category exists, to create one cohesive theory, or grounded theory.

Although a wide range of processes can be applied to research to evaluate its quality, the quality of qualitative research and in particular grounded theory is not evaluated according to measures of objectivity and significance, but according to criteria that stress utility and trustworthiness in the context within which the grounded theory has been developed. With reference to Guba and Lincoln (1989) four general types of trustworthiness in qualitative research, it is hoped that the credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability of this analysis would be reasonable, given the diverse nature of the discussants and places, the past experience of the researcher in HE and ESD, and the ethical processes involved in analysis and reporting. Notably the grounded theory developed in this research takes cases from diverse sources in three different nations and abstracts these to the institution of higher education internationally. Its applicability in any particular nation or institution is necessarily limited. Limitations based on the happenstance of experiencing cases, and therefore of concepts, are inevitable in grounded theory research. Nevertheless, and in line with Thomas (2006) , the credibility of the grounded theory to arise from this analysis is being tested using diverse approaches of peer review and international public debate, including this publication, with expectations that academic readers of this article will look for resonance between it and their own experiences. Transferability and dependability of the analysis are tested, to a degree, by comparison with international literature within this article. Confirmability, in particular, has not been tested but may come later, as others work with, and within, similar groups of higher education people in these and in other nations.

2.2. Data analysis: cases, concepts, categories, and a grounded theory

Case collection for this article took place over a two-month period in 2023. Cases were collected in three nations and four universities. Case collection started in the author’s own institution, a research-intensive public university in New Zealand. Case collection continued in India, initially in a research-intensive public Indian Institute of Technology, involving participation in a policy workshop to which academics interested in India’s higher education expansion programme and university contributions to the Sustainable Development Goals were invited to contribute, and subsequently in a small, private university, with a known focus on equity and related social purposes. The final stages of case collection occurred in Sweden, in a research-intensive university. Reflection on cases and data analysis continued after this two-month period once the author had returned to New Zealand.

Beyond starting in the author’s own institution and nation, choice of nation in which to conduct this research was purposeful.

India has a population of over 1.4 billion and 25% of its young people attend universities. India has more than 1,000 universities, 42,000 higher education colleges, and more than 1.5 million academic staff. India’s 2020 National Education Policy (NEP) expresses an intention to raise its gross enrolment ratio to 50% by 2035, to restructure its education system to match India’s commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals, and to use higher education as a tool for social change, in particular in the context of equity and social justice. India implemented quota-based policies to address caste-based differences in university recruitment in the 20th Century (Reservation) and policies to address gender differences in university participation. Much more is planned.

… “The global education development agenda reflected in the Goal 4 (SDG4) of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by India in 2015 – seeks to “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all” by 2030. Such a lofty goal will require the entire education system to be reconfigured to support and foster learning, so that all of the critical targets and goals (SDGs) of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development can be achieved ( NEP, 2020 , p. 3). … The National Education Policy lays particular emphasis on the development of the creative potential of each individual. It is based on the principle that education must develop not only cognitive capacities – both the “foundational capacities” of literacy and numeracy and “higher-order” cognitive capacities, such as critical thinking and problem solving – but also social, ethical, and emotional capacities and dispositions ( NEP, 2020 , p. 4). … 11.8. Towards the attainment of such a holistic and multidisciplinary education, the flexible and innovative curricula of all HEIs shall include credit-based courses and projects in the areas of community engagement and service, environmental education, and value-based education ( NEP, 2020 , p. 37).

Sweden is one of very few nations that has historically legislated that its universities are to educate for sustainable development. Since 2006, higher education institutions (HEIs) in Sweden, should according to the Higher Education Act, promote sustainable development (SD). In 2016, the Swedish Government asked the Swedish Higher Education Authority to evaluate how this role was proceeding. An academic article based on the study’s final report suggested that “Overall, a mixed picture developed. Most HEIs could give examples of programmes or courses where SD was integrated. However, less than half of the HEIs had overarching goals for integration of SD in education or had a systematic follow-up of these goals. Even fewer worked specifically with pedagogy and didactics, teaching and learning methods and environments, sustainability competences or other characters of education for SD. Overall, only 12 out of 47 got a higher judgement” ( Finnveden et al., 2020 , p. 1). The author’s enquiries focus in particular on exploring incidences of the systematic follow-up referred to by Finnveden et al. (2020) .

Arguably, the scale of India, and of its higher education system, suggests that, globally, what happens there in the context of ESD is somewhat more important than what happens in most other individual countries. It seems likely that more than 20% of the world’s academics and higher education students are Indian. Sweden’s historical commitment to promoting sustainable development via its education system makes it internationally recognised as a case of special interest. Despite its scale, New Zealand also has significant aspirations in the context of social justice, its colonial past, and waves of immigration. Although each of New Zealand’s eight universities has significant independence, a range of government measures directs many of their actions, for example, processes aimed at improving Māori and Pacific Islands student enrolment, retention and success (See for example TEC, 2023 , on equity funding). At present, attendance at university does not reflect either Māori aspirations for partnership, endorsed by the nations’ Treaty of Waitangi, or the aspirations of Pacifica people for equitable access to higher education, to the professions, to jobs, and to health care, social support and social inclusion in general. A key issue for Aotearoa New Zealand in the context of its Treaty of Waitangi and notions of partnership is the place of mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge) in formal education. Seven professors from one New Zealand university recently questioned parity for mātauranga Māori with other bodies of knowledge, initiating considerable debate within the sector. Another university is addressing claims of institutional racism in these contexts. New Zealand also takes academic freedom seriously. It is legislated for in its Education Act, as is the principal aim of tertiary education of developing intellectual independence ( Shephard, 2020 , 2022 ). New Zealand may be a small nation, but these issues are directly relevant to discourses of ESD and are of international relevance.

Data collection and analysis proceeded in an iterative manner, within the constraints of a journey from New Zealand through India to Sweden and back to New Zealand. Elements of grounded theory methodology, particularly that involving constant comparison between data and developing theory, are difficult to delineate as method and result. Much that relates to method, therefore is interpreted in this analysis as result.

Initially, at a surface level, in each country, cases simply revealed known barriers to ESD, such as academics “ … keeping their heads down” (perhaps resulting in them not teaching for social, environmental or economic justice as anticipated in national and institutional policies) and suggestions by university academics, of schoolteachers “ … not being prepared or trained to teach sustainability” (perhaps as a consequence of university education departments’ practices but resulting in newly recruited HE students perhaps needing more learning than otherwise anticipated). These were initially coded as barriers, but as more cases were added they could be coded with more insight as, for example, lack of research into higher education practices and outcomes. At an early stage, however, in each nation, many cases needed to be coded as relating to values and attitudes, rather than to knowledge and skills. For example, an observation by a discussant who teaches in Development Studies, that students are good at critical thinking in the classroom but do not use their critical thinking skills to overcome typical prejudices. A different discussant confirmed that “Employers think our students are critical thinkers but may not be empathetic to disadvantaged people . ” Another discussant emphasised that “The State cannot legislate for attitudes … . ” Many such cases emphasised that ESD is inherently a quest for affective learning or values, attitudes and dispositions, rather than just for cognitive learning for knowledge and skills.

At particular stages in this enquiry, key events occurred that forced this researcher to re-evaluate the coding on previously assessed cases. For example, one discussant (who was personally highly active in promoting social purposes in their own institution) suggested that (in their experience) some university teachers simply did not identify with, or teach, a social purpose even though they may be, in other respects, very effective academics within their own disciplines. This same discussant confirmed that some institutions did not apply drivers or incentives to direct their academics towards the social purposes espoused by that institution, and (most meaningfully for the researcher) doubted that such academics should feel obliged to be directed by these drivers, even if they existed. This discussant felt strongly that teachers should teach as their conscience directs them to, and that institutions should encourage this to happen. This discussant was verbalizing a concept relating to the behaviours of individual academics and of institutions that appears to stem from the professional identities of individual academics, and the organisational behaviours of academic institutions, that prioritises academic freedom. As a result of this case, many other cases needed to be re-examined and recoded to include aspects of academic identity and academic freedom. School teachers not being prepared or willing to teach sustainability becomes a possible consequence of the expression of academic freedom by academics in education departments (where schoolteachers are trained or educated) and of the organisational behaviour of institutions charged with the responsibility to train or educate schoolteachers. This case also interacted with others to emphasise the complexity of related circumstances in higher education. While this discussant perhaps emphasised the academic freedom of academics and of institutions to teach as they thought fit, other cases emphasised that university teachers or groups of university teachers should not be allowed to teach as they see fit. Some discussants in a group conversation suggested that other academics in their institution were strongly opposed to that group’s experimental and experiential approaches to teach “for” sustainable development and in particular expressed doubt that it was the role of higher education to encourage students to become emotionally attached to ideas such as sustainability, social justice or sustainable development. Discussants in this conversation, on the other hand, felt strongly that becoming emotionally, or affectively, involved with sustainability issues was at the heart of their nation’s commitment to sustainable development and to their institution’s obligations to educate for sustainable development. Supporting this case, other discussants in other institutions shared concerns that academics who become emotionally involved in their teaching are subject to burn-out, and that such academics who teach broader educational objectives, such as sustainability, are highly vulnerable in higher education. Many such conversations implicitly addressed the roles that academics, academic groups and institutions should have and the internal and external drivers that enable, limit or maintain these roles, and collectively identified diverse viewpoints in these regards.

Noticeable within this data was that while many, perhaps most, discussants were happy to reflect on what HE should be doing, and how HE should operate, and what it should achieve, this was generally based on deeply-held beliefs about HE, personal experience within HE, and perceptions of academic and disciplinary identity held by academic people, rather than on particular knowledge of the sustainability-related outcomes or consequences of HE, either in particular circumstances, relating to particular teachers or courses, or collectively, relating to whole institutions. Implicit within concepts such as “Academics in this university simply do not want to learn how best to teach students to be for sustainability” is not a sound evidence base of knowledge that higher education students are not learning to be for sustainability, but a deeply held belief that they should be for sustainability, a concern that at present and on balance they may not be, and an experience-based inference that academics in general do not wish to apply themselves to this end. Implicit within concepts such as “What can higher education give to society in the future? Transmission of information is no longer enough . ” is not a sound evidence base of knowledge that higher education is not currently delivering something more than “Transmission of information” but a strong and personal feeling that this is what is currently, and on balance, happening now. Of course, much within this interpretation depends on how knowledge is perceived in this context. Notably, expressed concerns about: “increasing inequality,” “racism, discrimination, and bullying” ; “ [being] disadvantaged by language, lack of cultural capitol, lack of preparation, lack of support” ; “Higher education need [ing] a substantial and broad change to perform a social purpose” ; and “It [being] difficult to measure or monitor change in values” relate not in particular to individual courses or programmes where sustainability might be a predetermined focus, and where students have elected to study and learn in this context, but to higher education experiences in general.

In some contexts, perhaps knowledge can be contextualised as what personal experience suggests might be the case, but in most HE contexts knowledge claims have higher levels of accountability. In all disciplines, for example, knowledge claims are based on and develop from scholarly research that builds on prior knowledge, contributes to future interpretations through knowledge-based discourse, and is circulated in peer-reviewed publications. Different disciplines have different means to develop disciplinary knowledge and different ways to describe knowledge, but no disciplines base their knowledge claims solely on the deeply held beliefs of practitioners. Advances in knowledge within the disciplines is hard-won. Higher education is not, of course, simply a collection of disciplines, but differences in how the institution of higher education conceptualises its own development, from how it conceptualises the development of disciplines that exist within it, are strongly evident in the concepts that contribute to the present research. A core element of the grounded theory developing here is that much relating to outcomes and consequences within this broad ESD context is not based on knowledge, but on hopes, aspirations, good intentions, assertions, and beliefs about what should happen, and on diverse expressions of the academic identity and mission of individual academics and of universities relating to how these things should come about.

The process of selective coding therefore started with three broad and overlapping interpretations of the data collected. The first focuses on academic identity, or the cultural identity of higher education academics, and perceptions of what people in this cultural group think they or others should do, think they should not do, and think that they actually do and achieve, particularly as these things relate to learning in the affective domain. The second identifies affect and emotion as a central feature of the concepts addressed in this research and of the nature of ESD. The third addresses the imagined, or judged, rather than measured nature of the outcomes or consequences of the efforts of this cultural group, or application of this academic cultural identity, in teaching contexts. Nowhere within this research was an assertion of academic or institutional identity based on a sound knowledge base of what graduate outcomes were being achieved, on balance, in the name of social, environmental and economic justice. Even expressions of lack of sustainability-related achievements were based on assumption, supposition and expressions of barriers to ESD. Expressions of higher education quality in these contexts are based on inputs rather than outcomes. The grounded theory that derives from these three broad interpretations suggests that reluctance to measure, monitor, assess, evaluate or research teaching outcomes (or the consequences of the expression of academic identity in the context of teaching), so as to give expression to ESD, is inherent to this identity as a form of identity protection, and that this protection is essential to preserve the established identity of academics in the face of threats imposed by learning in the affective domain. The grounded theory suggests that academic identity in the context of sustainability focuses on achieving cognitive outcomes, not affective outcomes, and that protection of this identity-ideal requires academics to minimise their engagement with educational outcomes that stress emotional engagement with concepts or ideas (other than those that enhance or protect academic identity itself or, to a degree, that are explicit within particular disciplines or professions), even to the point of being unwilling to explore the emotional or affective outcomes of their teaching, individually or at an institutional level. As a consequence, the institution of higher education is unable to report its teaching-related contribution to sustainability outcomes, at the same time as being able to pronounce its positive contributions to sustainability through its very genuine research and campus-sustainability efforts. Table 1 lists concepts that arose from the cases experienced in this research and upon which the developing grounded theory rests, and the final stage of selective coding, emphasising the three dominant ideas to come from this analysis. Table 1 represents, in effect, one step in a pathway to an integrated set of conceptual hypotheses developed from empirical data (as described by Glaser, 1998 ).

Table 1 . Development of a grounded theory to explain the nature of HEI’s commitment to teaching for social, environmental and economic justice in the context of the SDGs.

4. Discussion

Selective coding of the concepts developed in this research emphasises three concepts that together say much about the nature of HEI’s commitment to teaching for social, environmental and economic justice in the context of the SDGs; academic identity, concerns about affect and emotion as central features of social, environmental and economic justice, and the imagined, or judged, rather than measured nature of the outcomes or consequences of university teaching in this context. Grounded theory seeks to find commonality between these concepts and to progressively develop a theory with explanatory power that could potentially suggest action. The theory that has emerged from this research suggests that reluctance to measure ESD is inherent to the academic identity dominant in higher education as a form of identity protection, essential to preserve the established identity of academics in the face of threats imposed by teaching, and learning, in the affective domain.

It is demonstrably the case that higher education teaching is undertaking ESD and achieving outcomes in this context. An abundance of higher education research and institutional contributions to international collaborations such as the AASHE STARS programme ( STARS, 2023 ) make it clear that many higher education institutions and many individual academics in these institutions are using their teaching to achieve significant sustainability-related outcomes. In addition, an abundance of guidance (see for example, UNESCO, 2017 ) and commitments from academic leaders in higher education institutions (see for example Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future, 1994 ) confirms that such actions are significantly promoted and supported in and by the sector. But the concepts explored in this study point to some significant limitations in these efforts and in these outcomes. Concepts such as “Employers think our students are critical thinkers but may not be empathetic to disadvantaged people” and “Teaching students to have empathy is an aspiration that we may not achieve” reinforce the message that ESD is a quest for affective outcomes ( Shephard, 2008 ). “It is difficult to measure or monitor change in values , ” suggests that such affective outcomes are difficult to realise ( Craig et al., 2022 ). “The state cannot legislate for attitudes and values . ” and “Apparently, it’s not the role of higher education to engender emotional attachment to an idea . ” point not only to the challenges of teaching in the affective domain, but also to perceptions of what might be missing in the context of a functional conceptualisation of ESD.

A significant body of research and analysis nowadays suggests that affective attributes provide the link between what people know, what skills people learn to put their knowledge to effect and what people choose to do with the knowledge and skills that they have learned ( Shephard et al., 2015 ). Fishbein and Arjen’s Theory of Reasoned Action and Arjen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour emphasise the extent to which affective attributes contribute to decision making (see Madden et al., 1992 for a comparison). Harari, summarising much academic progress in psychology, suggests that “most human decisions are based on emotional reactions and heuristic shortcuts rather than on rational analysis” ( Harari, 2018 , p. 222). In this context, much ESD research in the last decade has focused on teaching students a range of competencies that explicitly link cognitive and affective attributes, in the hope that those with appropriate competencies will behave in appropriate ways. As defined by Rieckmann (2011) “ Competencies may be characterised as individual dispositions to self-organisation which include cognitive, affective, volitional (with deliberate intention) and motivational elements; they are an interplay of knowledge, capacities and skills, motives and affective dispositions. Consequently, these components are part of each competency, not having to be regarded independently, but in their interaction. Competencies facilitate self-organised action in various complex situations, dependent on the given specific situation and context (p. 4).” ESD practitioners do not agree on the definitions of “disposition” ( Shephard, 2022 ) but few would argue with its essential affective nature or that those who do not successfully learn to be disposed to particular actions are unlikely to perform these actions in challenging circumstances. The concept “Students are good at critical thinking but do not use their critical thinking to overcome typical prejudices” points to academic success in the cognitive domain but academic failure (in the context of education for sustainable development) in at least one conceptualisation of the affective domain of learning. Graduates becoming disposed to particular (sustainability-related) actions is inherent to the difference between education about sustainability and education for sustainability. Recent and more historical research supports this assertion. Recent research on links between academic development support for university teachers and university teachers’ perspectives on how such support affects their teaching, suggested “Educators clearly express that they understand the concept ‘about’ SD, but there are only vague expressions of a developed teaching repertoire to address education ‘for’ SD in their teaching practice” ( Persson et al., 2023 , p. 197). A recent survey of 58,000 schoolteachers conducted by Education International and UNESCO suggests that “Teachers understand the importance of the cognitive, behavioural and socio-emotional learning dimensions across all four themes. However, teachers feel more confident teaching cognitive skills, and less confident and knowledgeable about behavioural learning and socio-emotional perspectives, especially in ESD” ( UNESCO, 2021 , p. 13). Back in 2012, Shephard and Furnari explored what university teachers think about education for sustainability. They identified four significantly and qualitatively different viewpoints, only one of which advocates for sustainability. The other three viewpoints did not, and each had “distinct characteristics that prevent those who own them from using their position within the university to encourage students to act sustainably” ( Shephard and Furnari, 2013 , p. 1,577).

Links between affect, emotion and university learning are embedded in this discourse. The concept “Apparently, it’s not the role of higher education to engender emotional attachment to an idea . ” provides one helpful interpretation of the role of higher education and of issues that higher education teachers may have with not only teaching in the affective domain (a long-standing element of ESD discourse, reviewed by Shephard, 2008 ) but also distinctions between teaching students in general and teaching students to become professionals ( Shephard and Egan, 2018 ). Few will doubt the interplay between affect and emotion (indeed emotion provides a key element of some definitions of affect) or the explicit role of affect in professional learning. Key attributes of all professions are lists of professional values that underpin the profession and, for example, professional medical educators openly teach and assess professional values in medical schools throughout the world (reviewed by Shephard and Egan, 2018 ). The concept “Apparently, it’s not the role of higher education to engender emotional attachment to an idea.” clearly has no hold on medical educators. Medical educators have no issues in role modelling and teaching these professional values, or emotional attachments to ideas, because they are, often, professionals themselves and these ideas are accepted facets of professional identities that need to be taught and managed ( Howe, 2003 ). Similar arguments can no doubt be made with respect to the identities of professional schoolteachers and professional engineers. Perhaps the same arguments apply to sustainability professionals ( Wiek et al., 2011 ), with respect to sustainability values, but not to students in general, most likely enrolled in non-professional courses ( Shephard, 2015 ). Teaching affective outcomes to professional students to whom particular professional values are an accepted attribute of the profession appears to be unproblematic. Teaching sustainability values to non-sustainability professionals is likely as problematic as it appears to be for students in general.

The idea of academic identity is, therefore, important to this analysis. Much research in recent years has focused on academic identity in the context of professional roles and professional identity. The research suggests that who we think we are influences what we do, and that people also become what they are because of what they do and what they experience while doing it. “The relationship is thus complex, reciprocal, unfixed and open to change” ( Watson, 2006 , p. 510). Although this identity discourse emphasises the diversity of academic identity ( Drennan et al., 2017 ) research has tended to focus on situations where identities are under threat, challenging to maintain, or influential in directing action. McCune has studied the issues involved in sustaining identities that encompass deep care for teaching in research-led universities; suggesting that “maintaining engagement with teaching in contemporary higher education is likely to involve identity struggles requiring considerable cognitive and emotional energy on the part of academics … ” ( McCune, 2021 ). McCune’s study identified considerable tensions as academics endeavoured to undertake their diverse academic roles. Participants in that research “ often described considerable stress and talked about putting a lot of thought and effort into understanding and working with these tensions (p. 29).” Nixon (2020) explored the impact of the UK’s higher education’s market-driven order on academic identities to claim that “ Academic identity is now bound into this new order. It is almost impossible to opt out given what is at stake—not just personally and professionally, but institutionally. The stakes are high: increased government funding, increased and enhanced staffing levels, more research students, enhanced facilities and resources, higher national and international profile , etc. Not to compete for these stakes appears to be at best self-defeating and at worst plain perverse: to be ‘professional’ is to enter wholeheartedly into the game; to stay on the sidelines is to be ‘unprofessional.’ For anyone who questions the premises upon which the competitive game is being played the space for maneuverability is highly restricted. The orderly identity denotes ‘professionalism’ and is commensurate with professional advancement and institutional loyalty. It would appear—within the current UK context—to be the only identity available (p. 13).” Nixon summarises some research that suggests that this increasingly conforming identity leads to less time on teaching, poorer quality teaching and research outputs focussed on particular formats, audiences, and outlets. Nixon’s analysis looks beyond the UK to suggest “… the focus on global university rankings is occasioning a more extensive drift towards international conformity (p. 18).” Yang et al. (2022) explored how multiple and fragmented identities of academics are integrated in a culture of performativity. It is necessary, therefore, to reflect on the concept “Apparently, it’s not the role of higher education to engender emotional attachment to an idea . ” through a lens ground by increasing conformity to a competitive market-driven academic identity and the interplay of cognitive and emotional tensions of the academics involved. Clegg and Rowland (2010) examined the interplay between reason and emotion in higher education in the context of an exploration of kindness. They rejected “ the dichotomy between emotion and reason and the associated gendered binaries (p. 719)” but accepted the subversive nature of what they proposed. They suggested that “ what is subversive in thinking about higher education practice through the lens of kindness is that it cannot be regulated or prescribed (p. 719)” but concluded that universities make it hard for academics to be kind ( Clegg and Rowland, 2010 ). Although kindness itself was not a core feature of the concepts explored in the current research, links between emotion, or affect, and academic regulation, or prescription, were.

Academic identity also relates strongly to academic accountability and rationales for academics and their institutions to monitor, measure or research their academic outcomes, rather than simply state what they aim for or what they hope they will be. Although the concepts explored in the current research point to academic unwillingness to embrace this culture of accountability in the context of teaching, there is no doubt that incentives to be impactful, and to measure this impact, are extant also in the context of research. For example, research impact has been an important measure in the UK’s Research Excellence Framework since 2014. Impact contributes to an overall assessment of an institution’s research, and considerable funding and prestige is attached to it. In 2021 impact was assessed using case studies submitted by institutions to demonstrate the nature of the impact that each institution valued. Watermeyer and Tomlinson (2022) extend an international discourse on neoliberal, market-driven rationales for producing evidence of economic and societal impact. These authors suggest that although a designation of being impactful may support a sense of self-worth and be advantageous to an individual academic’s own professional profile, it may also lead to identity dispossession and a sense of being exploited by their universities, which appropriate their impact for positional gain. They identify a culture of competitive accountability and the privileging of “appearance” in rationalisations of the value of publicly funded research ( Watermeyer and Tomlinson, 2022 ).

Some research points specifically to tensions in maintaining an academic identity in sustainability teaching contexts. Hegarty (2008) argues that the identity of academics hinges on them being accepted as “knower with status” (p. 684) and that this runs contrary to their inevitable and challenging position as co-learner in our collective exploration of the relatively new academic enquiry of sustainability. Hegarty also emphasises the collective and individual values, beliefs, traditions and structures inherent to the academic role and contributory to status and hierarchy. To that we should add the demands and power of a profession that has long cherished and promoted peer review as the arbiter of quality. Only the most determined and committed would risk being different in the face of review by peers. Nixon’s diagnosis of “the only identity available” ( Nixon, 2020 , p. 13) is all the more powerful once the expectations of ESD are added to the mix. Conformity to an established academic order is also a conclusion from recent research exploring university teachers’ perspectives on gender, caste, merit and upward social mobility in university functioning, and staffing, in India. Dhawan et al. (2022) propose the presence of a hegemonically created status-quo focused on elitist social control rather than social justice.

The concepts explored in this research, therefore, converge on the nature of ESD as a quest for affective learning outcomes, on the problematic position of affect in an increasingly limited academic identity, and on the reluctance of the academy to research its own teaching practices to discover the extent that ESD learning in the affective domain could be understood and communicated. All three phenomena are well documented in disparate higher education discourses but their convergence in this study has led to the grounded theory proposed here. The grounded theory to emerge from this research suggests that academics’ reluctance to research their teaching practices in ESD contexts is not simply a dislike of being held accountable, but a protective response to circumstances that might otherwise compromise an idealised academic identity. An idealised academic identity neither acknowledges a role in teaching their students whether or not to behave in accordance with social, environmental and economic justice, nor accepts a responsibility to monitor, assess, evaluate, measure or research the impact that their teaching has on these learning outcomes. For individuals to do so would undermine their preferred identity. Not researching their teaching practices, in ESD contexts, could be seen as an abrogation of their academic responsibility in the context of the many promises made by academic leaders on their behalf, but academic reasoning, in their world of high status maintained by peer-review, reasonably identifies such outcomes as inconsequential in comparison with losing credibility within their own academic social domain.

Two inter-related current theories provide support for the grounded theory that holds identity protection as a core element of HEI’s commitment to teaching for social, environmental and economic justice in the context of the SDGs.

Bourdieusian social theory suggests that social groups construct social fields within which social interactions, often of the competitive kind, occur ( Bourdieu, 1993 ). Players or agents in the field are characterised by particular habitus (or combinations of dispositions) and the possession of various forms of capital which are exchanged in social interactions. Dominant players in the field possess the most capital and so are able to direct the rules of the field and are often invested in maintaining the status quo by devising rules that favour them. Insurgents generally have less capital and seek to change the rules, mostly unsuccessfully. As with all hegemonic systems, the rules favour dominant players, but subordinate players enable dominants by accepting the rules as culturally appropriate. Most fields are subject to larger fields which have some capacity to change the rules. (Higher education, as a social field, can be significantly destabilised by government action). Bourdieusian social theory provides a general commentary on education’s tendency to reproduce the values and structures of the society that sponsors it and suggests that harnessing the power of university teaching for social, environmental and economic change will not be easy. Government intervention may change the rules or destabilise the currencies of academic capital but expecting academics to do this themselves appears to be irrational.

While Kahan’s analysis of climate-change denial does not reference Bourdieu, there are commonalities. Kahan asks why intelligent and rational people deny climate change and proposes a form of identity protection as rationale. Kahan’s analysis explores beliefs and suggests that they reflect not only individual’s need to relate to science but also to “enjoy the sense of identity enabled by membership in a community defined by particular cultural commitments” ( Kahan, 2015 , p. 1). In these contexts, Kahan suggests that climate-change deniers rationalise their relative sense of belonging to wider society and to more immediate social groups. They reasonably rationalise that their individual impact on climate change is insignificant, but standing out from their immediate cultural community would have very significant impacts on them as individuals and on their own cultural community. Climate-change denial in this analysis is a highly rational response to protect an individual and collective identity. In the current study, academic disinclination to measure, monitor, assess, evaluate or research the impacts of teaching on the affective, sustainability-related attributes of graduates is similarly a highly rational response to protect individual and collective academic identity. Even so, the theory does suggest that academics make a choice. By this theory most academic people find it more reasonable to mislead their societal sponsors about the impact of their sustainability-related efforts rather than to threaten their own academic identity. By this theory, academic leaders who commit their academic institutions to “educate for environmentally responsible citizenship” or to “create an institutional culture of sustainability,” without establishing evaluative procedures to check that their institution is on track, are particularly implicated in an identity choice far more heinous than climate change denial. Only those on the margins of established academic communities, those with little to lose, and those with extraordinary personal drive towards social, environmental and economic justice will have the personal resources to challenge established academic identity. Even so, attempts to enlighten academia via peer-reviewed analysis in a professional community dominated by peer review appears to be quixotic.

5. Conclusion

The research described in this article set out to explore the nature of higher education’s commitment to teaching for social, environmental and economic justice in the context of the SDGs and to develop a theory of this phenomenon to support further research. The research produced three broad and overlapping interpretations of the data collected; involving the cultural identity of higher education academics, the position of affect as a central feature of ESD, and the imagined rather than measured outcomes of the efforts of this cultural group in teaching contexts. The grounded theory to emerge from this research suggests that academics’ reluctance to research their teaching practices in ESD contexts is a protective response to circumstances that might otherwise compromise their idealised academic identity and personal position within their academic community.

It is to be stressed that this grounded theory is, at this stage, no more than a theory, based on a particular interpretation of data gathered in a far from quantitatively representative manner. It specifically does not suggest that higher education institutions are not meeting teaching-based objectives in the context of the SDGs, but rather emphasises that they cannot know what their impact is, in general, and on balance, so cannot know if their impact is broadly positive, or broadly negative. The theory has significant explanatory power, but whether it can lead to action remains to be seen. According to this grounded theory, progress depends on whether members of the academic community continue to choose to protect their idealised academic identity or decide to address the question of whether our teaching contributes more to the world’s sustainability problems or to their solution.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics statement

Ethical approval was not required for the studies involving humans because the studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent for participation was not required from the participants or the participants’ legal guardians/next of kin in accordance with the national legislation and institutional requirements. Internationally recognised ethical research principles have been adopted in this research, as described by the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council ( UKRI, 2021 ) and as described in detail within the article.

Author contributions

KS: Writing – original draft.

The author declares that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article other than through the Author’s own university, the University of Otago, and the hospitality provided by the other universities visited.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to acknowledge the support of numerous colleagues in the universities and nations involved in this research. Everyone who spoke with me has contributed to my developing understanding, whether they advocate for sustainable development, or research the impacts of universities in their roles, or not. Few would have been in a position to predict what the results of this research would be, and I hope that it does not disappoint them. I also acknowledge helpful suggestions from two independent reviewers.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

1. ^ https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/

Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future. (1994). The talloires declaration 10 point action plan, updated version . Available at: http://www.ulsf.org/pdf/TD.pdf .

Google Scholar

Barth, M., Michelsen, G., Rieckmann, M., and Thomas, I. (Eds.). (2015). Routledge handbook of higher education for sustainable development . Routledge: London.

Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production . Cambridge, Polity Press.

Brown, K., Connelly, S., Lovelock, B., Mainvil, L., Mather, D., Roberts, H., et al. (2019). Do we teach our students to share and to care? Res. Post-Compuls. Educ. 24, 462–481. doi: 10.1080/13596748.2019.1654693

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Brundiers, K., Barth, M., Cebrián, G., Cohen, M., Diaz, L., Doucette-Remington, S., et al. (2020). Key competencies in sustainability in higher education—toward an agreed-upon reference framework. Sustain. Sci. 16, 13–29. doi: 10.1007/s11625-020-00838-2

Charmaz, K., and Bryant, A. (2010). Grounded theory, future directions international encyclopedia of education (Third Edition). Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080448947015815 .

Clegg, S., and Rowland, S. (2010). Kindness in pedagogical practice and academic life. Br. J. Sociol. Educ. 31, 719–735. doi: 10.1080/01425692.2010.515102

Corbin, J., and Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Sage.

Corbin, J., and Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.

Craig, C. A., Petrun Sayers, E. L., Gilbertz, S., Karam, R., and Feng, S. (2022). The role of STEM-based sustainability in business and management curricula: exploring cognitive and affective outcomes in university students. J. Manag. Educ. 46, 656–684. doi: 10.1177/10525629211056316

Dhawan, N. B., Belluigi, D. Z., and Idahosa, G. E.-O. (2022). “There is a hell and heaven difference among faculties who are from quota and those who are non-quota”: under the veneer of the “new middle class” production of Indian public universities. High. Educ. 86, 271–296. doi: 10.1007/s10734-022-00932-7

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Drennan, J., Clarke, M., Hyde, A., and Politis, Y. (2017). “Academic identity in higher education” in Encyclopedia of international higher education systems and institutions . eds. J. C. Shin and P. Teixeira (Netherlands: Springer), 1–6.

Finnveden, G., Friman, E., Mogren, A., Palmer, H., Sund, P., Carstedt, G., et al. (2020). Evaluation of integration of sustainable development in higher education in Sweden. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 21, 685–698. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-09-2019-0287

Glaser, B. G. (1998) Doing grounded theory – issues and discussions . Mill Valley CA. Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. G., and Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research . New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

Guba, E., and Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Harari, Y. N. (2018). 21 lessons for the 21st century . New York: Speigel and Grau.

Hegarty, K. (2008). Shaping the self to sustain the other: mapping impacts of academic identity in education for sustainability. Environ. Educ. Res. 14, 681–692. doi: 10.1080/13504620802464858

Howe, A. (2003). Twelve tips for developing professional attitudes in training. Med. Teach. 25, 485–487. doi: 10.1080/01421590310001605624

Kahan, D. M. (2015). Climate-science communication and the measurement problem . Polit. Psychol. 36, 1–43. doi: 10.1111/pops.12244

Madden, T. J., Ellen, P. S., and Ajzen, I. (1992). A comparison of the theory of planned behavior and the theory of reasoned action. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 18, 3–9. doi: 10.1177/0146167292181001

McCune, V. (2021). Academic identities in contemporary higher education: sustaining identities that value teaching. Teach. High. Educ. 26, 20–35. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2019.1632826

NEP. (2020). National education policy. Available at: https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/NEP_Final_English_0.pdf .

Nixon, J. (2020). “Disorderly identities: university rankings and the re-ordering of the academic mind” in World class universities . eds. S. Rider, M. A. Peters, M. Hyvönen, and T. Besley (Singapore: Springer Nature), 11–24.

Persson, C., Einarson, D., and Melen, M. (2023). Educating the educators to be a driving force in higher education towards sustainable development. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 24, 197–212. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-10-2022-0332

Rieckmann, M. (2011). Future-oriented higher education: which key competencies should be fostered through university teaching and learning? Futures 44, 127–135. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2011.09.005

Schoolman, E. D., Shriberg, M., Schwimmer, S., and Tysman, M. (2016). Green cities and ivory towers: how do higher education sustainability initiatives shape millennials’ consumption practices? J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 6, 490–502. doi: 10.1007/s13412-014-0190-z

Shephard, K. (2008). Higher education for sustainability: seeking affective learning outcomes. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 9, 87–98. doi: 10.1108/14676370810842201

Shephard, K. (2015). Higher education for sustainable development . Palgrave Macmillan: UK.

Shephard, K. (2020). Higher education for sustainability: seeking intellectual Independence in Aotearoa New Zealand . Springer: Singapore.

Shephard, K. (2022). “On the educational difference between being able and being willing” in Competences in education for sustainable development . eds. P. Vare, N. Lausselet, and M. Rieckmann (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 45–52.

Shephard, K., and Egan, T. (2018). Higher education for professional and civic values: a critical review and analysis. Sustainability 10:4442. doi: 10.3390/su10124442

Shephard, K., and Furnari, M. (2013). Exploring what university teachers think about education for sustainability. Stud. High. Educ. 38, 1577–1590. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2011.644784

Shephard, K., Harraway, J., Lovelock, B., Mirosa, M., Skeaff, S., Slooten, L., et al. (2015). Seeking learning outcomes appropriate for “education for sustainable development” and for higher education. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 40, 855–866. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2015.1009871

STARS. (2023). The sustainability tracking, assessment & rating system. Available at: https://stars.aashe.org .

Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques . Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

TEC. (2023). Tertiary education commission, equity funding. Available at: https://www.tec.govt.nz/funding/funding-and-performance/funding/fund-finder/equity-funding/ .

Thomas, D. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. Am. J. Eval. 27, 237–246. doi: 10.1177/1098214005283748

Times Higher Education. (2023). Impact Rankings. Available at: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/impactrankings .

UKRI. (2021). Framework for research ethics. Available at: https://www.ukri.org/councils/esrc/guidance-for-applicants/research-ethics-guidance/framework-for-research-ethics/our-core-principles .

UNESCO. (2017). Education for sustainable development goals: learning objectives. Available at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247444 .

UNESCO. (2021). Teachers have their say: motivation, skills and opportunities to teach education for sustainable development and global citizenship. Available at: https://www.ei-ie.org/en/item/25552:teachers-have-their-say-motivation-skills-and-opportunities-to-teach-education-for-sustainable-development-and-global-citizenship .

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. (1992). Agenda 21. Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf .

Watermeyer, R., and Tomlinson, M. (2022). Competitive accountability and the dispossession of academic identity: haunted by an impact phantom. Educ. Philos. Theory 54, 92–103. doi: 10.1080/00131857.2021.1880388

Watson, C. (2006). Narratives of practice and the construction of identity in teaching. Teach. Teach. 12, 509–526. doi: 10.1080/13540600600832213

Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., and Redman, C. L. (2011). Key competencies in sustainability: a reference framework for academic program development. Sustain. Sci. 6, 203–218. doi: 10.1007/s11625-011-0132-6

Yang, S., Shu, D., and Yin, H. (2022). “Teaching, my passion; publishing, my pain”: unpacking academics’ professional identity tensions through the lens of emotional resilience. High. Educ. 84, 235–254. doi: 10.1007/s10734-021-00765-w

Keywords: education for sustainable development, higher education for sustainable development, higher education for sustainability, sustainable development goals, social purposes of universities, social change, roles and responsibilities of universities

Citation: Shephard K (2023) Academic identity and “education for sustainable development”: a grounded theory. Front. Educ . 8:1257119. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1257119

Received: 12 July 2023; Accepted: 10 August 2023; Published: 30 August 2023.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2023 Shephard. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Kerry Shephard, [email protected]

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

How Higher Education Institutions Walk Their Talk on the 2030 Agenda: A Systematic Literature Review

2 Department of Management & Yunus Social Business Centre, University of Bologna, Via Capo di Lucca, 34, 40126 Bologna, Italy

Khatereh Ghasemzadeh

1 Department of Management, University of Bologna, Via Capo di Lucca, 34, 40126 Bologna, Italy

Angelo Paletta

Associated data.

Not applicable.

Universities are rethinking their teaching and research programs and their whole third mission in response to the framework provided by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). But how do universities walk the talk? What are the main strategies and activities undertaken by universities to implement the 2030 Agenda? While the higher education literature has documented the growing number of practices and strategies around SDGs, there have been few attempts to synthesize these scholarly resources. Moreover, the knowledge base revolves around an array of activities, which makes the literature seem fragmented. To fill this gap, the present paper conducts a systematic literature review and derives a method of categorizing activities that can support further knowledge growth. We classified 130 selected papers based on the type of university activities considered (research, teaching, third mission, and managing operations) and the level of the implemented action (macro, meso, and micro). Subsequently, we identified the main gaps in the literature and discussed future research avenues for addressing higher education’s role in accomplishing SDGs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1057/s41307-022-00277-x.

Introduction

A mounting number of higher education (HE) institutions are embracing sustainability as a core value in response to the Agenda 2030. Equipped with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) framework, universities are rethinking teaching, research programs, and even the so-called third mission as part of their effort to navigate sustainable development (SD). But there is an open question as to how universities walk the talk: What are the main strategies and activities that universities have implemented so far to address the 2030 Agenda? While there is a growing literature around the activities that universities are undertaking in this regard (Chankseliani and McCowan, 2021 ), few literature reviews synthesize these scholarly resources. Reviews of this topic have mostly focused on: business schools (García-Feijoo et al., 2020 ); a single nation (Owusu-Agyeman, 2020 ); a single university mission (e.g., teaching and not research) (Alonso-Garcia et al., 2019 ; Chiba et al., 2021 ; Weiss and Barth, 2019 ); specific SDGs and issues like safe drinking water (Daly et al., 2021 ), or as a component of Education for Sustainable Development (and specifically SDG 4.7) (Ferrer-Estévez and Chalmeta, 2021 ). 1 While they highlight important issues, these reviews do not provide a systemic perspective on current approaches and strategies that HEs have adopted to implement the Agenda 2030. Another stream of systematic reviews strictly focused on HE and SD without specifically referring to the Agenda 2030 (Findler et al., 2019 ; Vaughter et al., 2013 ). Findler et al.’s ( 2019 ) review provides a complete picture of HEIs’ SD strategies at multiple levels: “education, research, campus operations, outreach, campus experiences, institutional framework, and assessment and reporting” (p. 25). Meanwhile, the review by Vaughter et al. ( 2013 ) classifies the current literature on SD and HEIs according to three streams: institutional curricula, operational policies, and a measurement approach to sustainability. Other studies see SD through a fragmented environmental lens: for example, by emphasizing energy-saving activities, reducing greenhouse emissions, etc. (Amaral et al., 2015 ; Blanco-Portela et al., 2017 ). Taking these initial systematic reviews as a foundation, we specifically focus on current analyses of how HEIs are implementing the Agenda 2030.

We believe there are two reasons to run a complete review of current knowledge on the topic. First, a review of existing strategies allows us to monitor the activities that universities have implemented, which can help inform leaders, policymakers, and practitioners (Tranfield et al., 2003 ). Second, a systematic review can categorize extant research and thereby produce a complete picture of the theories, concepts, or methods circulating in the HE literature, which should support future research.

Therefore, we reviewed the current literature through a systemic approach (see Cao et al., 1999 , 2004 ). We first categorized all extant research according to the type of SDG-related actions investigated: research, teaching, third mission, or management operations. Then, we further classified the selected articles through a three-level approach: micro, meso , and macro . This systemic framework permits us to assess whether current literature effectively captures the multi-level nature of the phenomenon. First, we summarize the main findings for each type and level of university activity investigated; second, we identify the main gap in the literature and discuss future research trajectories.

The remainder of the paper unfolds as follows: In Section 2, we present the methodology adopted to select the relevant literature, which is based on a replicable, scientific, and transparent three-step research process. In Section 3, we present the descriptive results. Section 4 depicts the framework used for clustering our results. In Section 5, we conclude by discussing future research directions for this topic.

Methodology

We adopted a systematic review method (Denyer et al., 2008 ; Tranfield et al., 2003 ) to discern relevant patterns in HEs’ strategies toward the Agenda 2030. Following a general scope, we conducted our research in the Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) databases in order to capture a higher number of scholarly contributions. We chose those databases due to their reliable indexing (Martínez-López et al., 2018 ; Stahlschmidt and Stephen, 2020 ). We applied the following keywords to a search of titles, abstracts, and keywords: (Agenda 2030 OR SDG OR sustainable-development-goal*) AND (university OR higher-education OR college OR business-school*). We restricted the search to peer-reviewed articles, which are deemed to have a higher quality with respect to other contributions (Ramos-Rodríguez and Ruíz-Navarro, 2004 ). We also focused on the areas of Economy, Business, Management, Social Sciences, and Education and Educational Research in order to find articles that would better fit our emphasis on HEIs’ strategy toward and management of SDGs. This procedure resulted in 635 hits in Scopus and 171 hits in WoS. After removing duplicate articles, we achieved a final sample of 698 papers. Furthermore, we excluded articles dealing with general sustainability issues, which entailed removing all articles published before 2015 (to match the year the Agenda 2030 was launched). Accordingly, the search period spanned from January, 2015 until March 31, 2021. We ignored off-topic journals that do not deal with the HE literature on SDGs (e.g., Social Indicators Research, Journal of Water Sanitation and Hygiene for Development, Library Management). Similarly, we did not consider papers that discussed SDGs outside the context of HE: for example, contributions to firms and Non-Governmental Organization (NGOs). Lastly, we ignored papers dealing with educational levels other than HE (e.g., general education, informal education, and primary and secondary school education). By applying these general inclusion criteria, we narrowed the sample to 175 articles. We then proceeded to read the articles and used some specific criteria to further limit the sample and excluded those that aligned with these criteria: (a) papers focusing on universities’ strategies for improving education quality in specific reference to SDG 4 targets; (b) papers evaluating students and teachers' perceptions about SDGs without referring to any teaching strategy; (c) papers concerning HE policymaking and planning at the national level. With these boundaries, we achieved a final set of 130 articles. Figure ​ Figure1 1 represents the iterative process of selecting the sample.

Data selection procedure

In the second step, we analyzed and coded the 130 articles regarding the type of paper (conceptual or empirical); the method adopted (qualitative or quantitative); the context of the studies (the countries and higher education institutions (HEIs) analyzed); and whether they address a single SDG, a group of SDGs, or the entire profile of Agenda 2030 (which we labeled as overall). Moreover, we coded the articles according to the university activities they addressed: teaching, research, third mission (i.e., public engagement activities), and management operations. The first three types mirror universities’ three missions, while the fourth category encompasses all the activities related to governance processes and management strategies related to fulfilling Agenda 2030.

Next, we used a multi-level perspective to further code the literature according to the HEI’s level of implementation: macro, meso, micro . 2 The macro - level collects the strategies and practices implemented at the general university level, i.e., in key organizational structures (such as dedicated units, offices, committees, and university-level programs) and processes (planning, budgeting, evaluation, and reports/rankings). The meso-level captures the more decentralized strategies and practices of departments or intra-departments (e.g., department-, campus-, and school-level activities/projects, intra-departmental activities and initiatives, etc.). The micro-level includes strategies and practices carried out by researchers (such as single/particular research projects or third mission activities), students' specific activities within a program, or specific course designs (i.e., single specialized courses or fields of study). All three authors separately applied the content analysis and coding procedure to the full text of each article. We resolved any disagreements through iterative discussion sessions. Note that we classified articles that analyzed multiple activities at multiple levels as belonging to more than one category.

Descriptive Results

The sample contains articles published from 2017 to 2021 that followed an increasing trend: 6% (7) in 2017, 9% (12) in 2018, 32% (42) in 2019, 45% (59) in 2020, and 8% (10) in the 2021. 3 We assume that there was a time lag between the launch of Agenda 2030 in 2015 and subsequent efforts to study the phenomenon.

Regarding the publication source, the largest contributors were “Sustainability” (featuring 41% of the papers or 54) and the “International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education” (18% or 23), while other HE-focused journals (such as “Higher Education”, “Education Sciences”, and “International Journal of Management Education”) collectively housed 9% (12) of the selected papers. “Sustainability” is not directly connected to the HE literature, which suggests that HE-specific journals have not been the primary targets for sustainability research on HE. Moreover, given the recency of our investigated topic, it may simply be that journals with a lower time-to-publication obtained a higher number of articles.

Regarding the articles’ adopted methodology, 90% (118) were empirical, 7% (9) were conceptual, and 2% (3) were literature reviews. Among the empirical studies, 72% (85) adopted qualitative methods, 19% (22) used quantitative methods, and 9% (11) applied a mix of both. Meanwhile, 54% (63) of the studies followed a single- or multiple-case study approach, 16% (20) adopted a survey method, 9% (12) utilized content analysis, and 12% (15) followed a mixed-method approach. The rest of the studies applied various other methods (e.g., focus groups, experiments, etc.). Papers employing the case study method applied a single case study at the national level or multiple case studies at the cross-national level. Spain and United States were the most frequently studied context for researches related to HEIs’ strategies towards SDGs.

Regarding HEIs' orientation toward SDGs' (namely, whether the actions implemented by HEIs address a single SDG, a group of SDGs, or the entire profile of Agenda 2030), 44% (58) of the papers have a broad focus (the overall range of SDGs), 39% (51) have a narrow focus (i.e., a single SDG), and 17% (21) focus on some selected SDGs (see Fig. ​ Fig.2 2 ).

Frequency of the SDGs' orientation

Regarding the different universities’ activities, the vast number of studies (56%, or 73 papers) focus on teaching activities, 32% (42) address the management operations required to implement the SDG-related strategies, 9% (11) concentrate on third mission activities, and only 3% (4 papers) focus on research activities related on SDGs (see Fig. ​ Fig.3 3 ). 4

Frequency of the type of activities

Regarding the perspective level adopted, a significant part of the literature (51% or 67 papers) corresponded to a macro perspective, while 37% (49) focused mainly on the micro-level . Only 9% (12) of the studies predominantly addressed the meso-level , while 2% (2) of papers in the whole dataset scrutinized the three levels simultaneously (see Fig. ​ Fig.4 4 ).

Frequency of the level of implemented actions

By adopting a systemic approach (see Cao et al., 1999 , 2004 ), we captured the main aspects of change that have driven HEIs’ efforts as they relate to the Agenda 2030 (for the detailed classification of areas and activities, see Table A1 in the online Appendix). Note that the number of articles in this table exceeds the total number of papers since some papers contribute to more than one area of intervention.

Figure ​ Figure5 5 provides a map of the 130 articles with respect to the type of activities, levels, and focus. Teaching is the activity that attracted the most scholarly publishing. Of those, most studies (45% or 34 papers) analyzed micro-level activities such as specific course designs or extracurricular activities that address SDGs. At the macro-level , 16% (22) of papers analyzed policies for reorienting curriculum and creating interdisciplinary and interdepartmental strategies. Only 4% (6) of the sampled papers addressed the issue at the meso - level , i.e., of curriculum settings and interventions for campuses, departments, and schools. Teaching activities primarily concerned a single SDG at almost all levels, followed by the overall profile of SDGs and multiple SDGs.

Prevalent areas of interventions within studies corresponding to levels and SDGs’ scope

Studies only marginally concentrated on the research activities; when addressed, they focused on the macro-level (overall goals). Only a few articles covered research activities at the micro-level , in the form of course modules and research opportunities to address a single SDG or the overall Agenda.

Of the studies that correspond to third mission activities, most concerned macro-level initiatives (9 papers or 80%) that involve a multitude of organizational actors (Knudsen et al., 2021 ). Generally, third mission activities are managed from the top so as to leverage the university's image in initiatives geared toward the educational and cultural development of society. Therefore, most of these studies (7 papers or 63%) deal with all 17 SDGs. By contrast, there are very few occurring at the micro-level (e.g., addressing researchers' engagement with non-academic stakeholders, such as the general public and local communities).

Of the studies addressing management operations , 83% (35) of them occupied the macro-level , with an emphasis on the organizational structures and processes needed to incorporate sustainable goals. At this level, 29 articles (69%) focused on HEIs' comprehensive strategies toward Agenda 2030 rather than focusing on a single SDG. Meanwhile, about 9% (6) of studies in this area targeted the meso-level , usually regarding efforts to nurture SDGs through governance processes, management strategies, planning, and infrastructure at the campus and department levels. Moving from macro to meso-level the strategies focus more on single SDG or multiple ranges of SDGs.

Content Analysis

In the following, we summarize the literature for each type of activity while also considering the level of intervention and the focus on SDGs. 5 Our goal is to discuss which streams of literature feature the most publications and derive the main takeaways of each stream. Also, takeaways table (Tables ​ (Tables1, 1 , ​ ,2, 2 , ​ ,3, 3 , ​ ,4, 4 , ​ ,5, 5 , ​ ,6, 6 , ​ ,7, 7 , ​ ,8, 8 , ​ ,9 9 and ​ and10 10 permits to have a clear visual idea of research gaps which can be addressed in future researches.

Takeaways teaching literature at macro-level

Takeaways teaching literature at meso-level

Takeaways teaching literature at micro-level

Takeaways research literature at macro-level

Takeaways research literature at micro-level

Takeaways third mission literature at macro-level

Takeaways third mission literature at micro-level

Takeaways management operations literature at macro-level

Takeaways management operations literature at meso-level

Takeaways management operations literature concerning all levels

Teaching-macro

The stream of research on teaching activities at the macro-level focuses on single SDGs, and particularly on SDG 4—"ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all". For example, Ferguson and Roofe ( 2020 ) analyzed HEIs’ efforts to target 4.3 which explicitly refers to universities: “By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university”. These efforts include the attempt to establish internal collaborations and external partnerships for a wide array of program to expand access to tertiary education Moreover, Greig and Priddle ( 2019 ) emphasized the need to adopt an interdisciplinary and transformative approach in teaching and learning in order to address target 4.7—“By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development”. Consequently, sustainability should be a core objective of teaching and assessment procedures, learning practices, and program contents. In this vein, teaching staff need to have the personal and professional capabilities to stimulate students' awareness of economic development, inclusion, and resilience issues (Kopnina, 2018 ). As evidenced by the COVID-19 crisis, teachers' digital and interactive capabilities are critical to universities' teaching strategy (O'Keeffe, 2020 ) and the fulfillment of target 4.4: “By 2030, substantially increase the number of youth and adults who have relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship”. Notably, this stream of literature illustrates that achieving SDG 4 indirectly contributes to many or all other SDGs. For example, target 4.5 aligns with SDG 5 (gender equality) by emphasizing gender parity, while target 4.3 contributes to not only SDG1 (no poverty) through the provision of equal access to education for all, but also SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth) through the provision of vocational and technical education and scholarship.

A different stream of literature considers macro - level teaching strategies toward all 17 SDGs through a prevailing focus on curricula planning decisions (Aleixo et al., 2020 ). Some of these studies stress the importance of implementing an extensive reorientation of curriculum and pedagogical strategies across all degree programs. For example, universities need to develop a culture of sustainability that suffuses departments and degree programs, especially for students who are nearing entry to the job market (Albareda-Tiana et al., 2018 ). Similarly, Elmassah et al. ( 2020 ) suggested that HEIs establish standards for propagating SD values in the curricula of different majors, providing new SD-based courses (both singular and integrated), and forming a specialized ESD faculty community that can share experiences and best practices. Other conceptual studies falling in the macro category deal with student competencies, inclusive teaching practices, professors' abilities and ethics, and alliances among universities and organizations that are crucial for integrating SDGs into teaching programs (del Olmo Fernández et al., 2020 ; Zamora-Polo and Sánchez-Martín, 2019 ). Moreover, Zamora-Polo et al. ( 2019 ) argued that students generally lack background knowledge on SDGs, and thus universities need to suffuse all disciplines with both specific and transversal abilities that can be adapted to students’ needs. The literature also stresses the importance of assessment tools that can measure a program’s success in cultivating students’ SDG-related competences (Kioupi and Voulvoulis, 2020 ). In this vein, Paletta and Bonoli ( 2019 ) advanced a framework for analyzing how universities are redesigning activities to achieve SDGs through a unified strategic planning and social reporting. Beyond theoretical discourse, Leal Filho et al. ( 2019a , b ) produced a first quantitative mapping of myriad universities across 17 countries on 5 continents. The authors found that around 30% of the sampled universities fully applied SDGs in their teaching programs, while 40% of them only reached partial inclusion due to the transversal, interdisciplinary, and vague nature of SDGs. To conclude, these pieces of evidence on macro-level teaching strategies indicate a need for more scholarship on best practices and comparatives case-studies. Such evidence could then be shared among universities to bolster their SD strategies. Table ​ Table1 1 summarizes the main takeaways from the literature on teaching and SDGs at the macro-level.

Teaching-meso

A few papers analyze teaching issues at the campus, department, or school levels, while generally focusing on all SDGs. This niche debate covers the advantage of adopting cross-curricular approaches ( meso-level ) rather than stand-alone course initiatives ( micro-level ). Lovren et al. ( 2020 ) extended the discussion to the department level by introducing four elements for a successful program: (1) interdisciplinary educational courses, (2) improving teachers' skills, (3) enhancing active learning, and (4) setting institutional policies at the faculty level. The literature at teaching meso-level generally agrees that academics can leverage the trans-disciplinary approach—through cross-field collaboration—in order to integrate sustainability into teaching programs. This way, teachers gain insights into the sustainability concerns of various majors and the decisions that are made within each discipline (Argento et al., 2020 ). For example, the University of Toronto has developed three inventories—covering courses, community-engaged learning, and sustainability co-curricular and extracurricular opportunities—to raise students' awareness of and their involvement in sustainability-oriented projects (Brugmann et al., 2019 ).

Table ​ Table2 2 summarizes the main takeaways from the literature on teaching and SDGs at the meso-level .

Teaching-micro

A different stream of studies concentrates on the teaching and learning practices that address a single SDG (primarily SDG 4 and its targets) in specific course programs.

In the last few years, higher education has increasingly incorporated ICT technologies, such as social media, in order to improve access to quality education (Chin and Jacobsson, 2016 ; Labonté, 2016 ). In fact, social media can increase people’s knowledge of sustainability, regulate students’ engagement with the SDGs, and create alliances among stakeholders (Killian et al., 2019 ). Likewise, Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCS) are handy tools that facilitate continuous learning by providing low-cost, open materials that can be turned into lesson plans about SDGs in various subject areas (Ortega-Sánchez and Gómez-Trigueros, 2019 ). Such platforms allow both students and educators to engage in interactive learning around multi-faceted sustainability goals. The most significant hurdles to using said platforms, for both students and teachers, involve a lack of digital competences, low-quality materials, and insufficient access to digital resources (Gallagher, 2018 ).

Moreover, any courses designed around SDGs need to consider the nature of different study fields. For instance, the field of geography encompasses both physical and human environments, which necessitates methods that support all four aspects of sustainability education as defined in the Agenda 2030 framework (environmental, social, economic, and cultural) (Yli-Panula et al., 2020 ). Meanwhile, the field of engineering emphasizes problem-solving methods that require students to develop trans-disciplinary skills (Orozco-Messana et al., 2020a , b ). To foster these methods, engineering courses are often turning to new technologies—such as mobile devices and videos—to facilitate interdisciplinary projects and industry collaborations (Desha et al., 2019 ; Alonso-Garcia et al., 2019 ; Schina et al., 2020 ).

Fewer studies at this level deal with multiple SDGs and/or the overall profile of SDGs. Those in the former group concentrate on balancing the environmental, social, and economic dimensions of sustainability in course planning. They often prioritize the dominant SDGs based on the different field/courses and future job profiles, as well as incorporate general sustainability concerns (e.g., gender equity and poverty) into coursework (Baena-Morales et al., 2020 ; Castro et al., 2020 ; Gómez-Llanos and Durán-Barroso, 2020 ; Manolis and Manoli, 2021 ; Orozco-Messana et al., 2020a , b ; Perales Jarillo et al., 2019 ). The studies that consider all SDGs involve the application of innovative solutions and technologies (i.e., course-tailored and scaffolded methods), along with the redesign of majors and courses to integrate SDGs (Adach-Pawelus et al., 2021 ; Ashraf and Alanezi, 2020 ; Ličen and Jedlicka, 2020 ; Priyadarshini and Abhilash, 2020 ; Useh, 2021 )

Table ​ Table3 3 summarizes the main takeaways from the literature on teaching and SDGs at the micro-level .

Research-macro

This literature stream focuses on reframing research priorities around SDGs, planning new research infrastructures, and creating research groups devoted to addressing societal challenges related to SDGs (Sonetti et al., 2020 ). Accordingly, a considerable number of studies at the macro-level investigate the role of research alliances, scholarships, and research centers in relation to the overall Agenda 2030 (Goodall and Moore, 2019 ; Sonetti et al., 2020 ).

The Agenda 2030 explicitly refers to the urgent need for SDG-related scientific research—from vaccine development to water management. As emphasized by UNESCO, research is a key lever for prompting innovation around sustainability and incorporating SDGs into all university activities (García-Feijoo et al., 2020 ). As such, it is important to increase research funding, target fields that can help resolve global problems, and enhance professional research capacity—all of which requires a constant, dynamic collaboration among universities, governments, and multilateral agencies (Owens, 2017 ). On this point, scholars have shown that establishing specialized SD research centers is a crucial means of involving all university stakeholders in the overall institutional vision (Elmassah et al., 2020 ).

To fully undertake the Agenda 2030, universities must establish specific goals for different areas of interventions, along with the respective measurement and reporting systems (García-Feijoo et al., 2020 ). In this vein, the University of Bologna developed tailored measures to assess its own research activities, ranging from using internal keywords to count the number of publications concerning SDGs, monitoring citations on databases (e.g., Scopus), and creating national and international benchmarks. Likewise, the university regularly reports the research products, financed research projects, and financial amounts dedicated to research-based courses and research facilities (Paletta and Bonoli, 2019 ).

Table ​ Table4 4 summarizes the main takeaways from the literature on research and SDGs at the macro-level .

Research-micro

A few studies analyze research activities at the micro-level , tackling single SDGs as well as the overall Agenda 2030. One best practice for universities is to open laboratories of social innovation: optimized spaces where participants (internal and external stakeholders) can collaborate to experiment with ideas, raise concerns, and share best practices (Zermeño and de la Garza, 2020 ). This stream also outlines other specific actions that can reorient higher education toward sustainable development. For instance, Eppinga et al. ( 2020 ) proposed a course module in which students have the opportunity to design and conduct sustainability research, which ultimately increases students' knowledge about SD and their willingness to support university campus and third mission activities. Trott et al. ( 2018 ) highlighted that participatory action research allows various stakeholders to work alongside community-engaged scholars to address critical social and environmental problems linked to Agenda 2030. Lastly, (Priyadarshini and Abhilash, 2020 ) advanced that multi-disciplinary and cross-linked SDG research can help inspire sustainable propensity among students and scholars. Table ​ Table5 5 summarizes the main takeaways from the literature on research and SDGs at the micro - level .

Third Mission

Third mission-macro.

Most studies tackle the third mission activities at the macro-level and thus deal with all 17 SDGs. These studies highlight that external stakeholders are central to universities’ sustainability transformation (Lozano, 2006 ). It is clear that HEIs cannot effectively address the SDGs by themselves; instead, they need to engage societal actors in collaboration and co-creation. Accordingly, in their move toward sustainability, university leaders should emphasize their institution’s interdependence with society (Purcell et al., 2019 ). The societal demand for such efforts is reflected in universities integrating strategic perspectives into their visions and missions (Knudsen et al., 2021 ).

In general, universities realize their third mission activities through various policy levers: knowledge transfer, training, outreach/extension services with governments and policymakers, local community engagement, and creating spaces devoted to such activities (Neary and Osborne, 2018 ). Universities pull these levers in both formal and informal ways: collaborative research and consulting, licensing, ad hoc advice and networking, technology transfer centers and spin-offs, etc. (Etzkowitz, 2013 ; Neary and Osborne, 2018 ). Among third mission activities, nurturing the connections between research and practice is useful for fostering sustainability solutions at all levels (García-Feijoo et al., 2020 ). In this regard, business schools are valuable in forming synergies, partnerships, and collaborations that can deliver sustainable management practices and boost the required competences (Kolb et al., 2017 ).

However, universities are less adept at integrating their third mission policies in their public engagement and suffer from the lack of well-explained documentation (Neary and Osborne, 2018 ). HEIs can enhance their accountability in this regard by regularly reporting data on spin-offs, start-ups, patents, public engagement events, cooperation initiatives, orientation activities, and cooperation and social engagement projects (Paletta and Bonoli, 2019 ). Table ​ Table6 6 summarizes the main takeaways from the literature on third mission and SDGs at the macro - level .

Third Mission-Micro

A few studies evaluate third mission activities at the micro-level . For instance, Castro et al. ( 2020 ) researched methods of establishing collaborations and improving communication skills in specific courses. In their case, the authors analyzed an engineering courses that established partnerships with various entities in order to help students learn competences and values beyond their basic program. Another means of enhancing collaboration in a standalone course (such as sustainability science) is promoting cross-country research collaborations to tackle environmental and social issues (Priyadarshini and Abhilash, 2020 ). Additionally, the literature illustrates that participatory action research—taking the form of short-term programs for students—is a flexible and scalable method for realizing the vision of SDGs in HEIs, allowing students to establish relationships with key community members and local scientists (Trott et al., 2018 ). Table ​ Table7 7 summarizes the main takeaways from the literature on the third mission and SDGs at the micro - level .

Management Operations

Management operations-macro.

Management operations encompass the organizing procedures, actors, structures and governance that HEIs utilize to manage and coordinate around their sustainability agenda (Cicmil et al., 2017 ). Management operations ensure that all university bodies adopt the Agenda 2030 and integrate sustainability principles into their vision and mission (Blanco-Portela et al., 2017 ; Ferrer‐Balas et al., 2008 ). Accomplishing those goals requires long-term strategic planning (Moon et al., 2018 ), which entails defining objectives, resources, policies, and organizational processes (Leal Filho et al., 2019a , b ; Kestin et al., 2017 ). To that end, universities need to perform structural and cultural adjustments if they want to secure external financing, improve their internet presence and increase their internationalization rate (Blasco et al., 2021 ). Such adjustments may create tensions due to conflicting institutional goals, cultural inclinations, and individual and organizational drivers. However, shared leadership (i.e., with the involvement of all stakeholders) can alleviate these issues (Purcell et al., 2019 ) while fostering a collaborative governance approach that provides clearer communication, high-level accountability, and better funding opportunities (Franco et al., 2019 ).

The literature on this topic also describes the value of developing ethical codes and reporting tools for SD, which can foster the dissemination of SD projects in local communities and the larger territory (Di Nauta et al., 2020 ; Mion et al., 2019 ). Likewise, international ranking systems (such as Times Higher Education and Green Metrics) are gaining relevance due to their growing impact on higher education policies, governance strategies, and institutional practices. However, such ranking systems sometimes fail to accurately reflect the SDGs and may neglect to consider the leadership skills and mindsets needed to promote a transition to sustainability (Dyllick and Muff, 2020 ; Perović and Kosor, 2020 ; Torabian, 2019 ). Table ​ Table8 8 summarizes the main takeaways from the literature on management operations and SDGs at the macro - level .

Management Operations-Meso

Studies that focus on how to achieve SD and community engagement on single and networked campuses tend to emphasize a specific SDG or multiple SDGs. For example, the University of Bologna created "Unibo Green" as part of an effort to implement government-created initiatives at the campus-level, such as creating living labs and adopting innovative technologies (Paletta and Bonoli, 2019 ). Similarly, in response to SDG 11, the University of Passo Fundo in Brazil (through the collaboration of four departments and university staff) designed a campus-level mobility plan at campus level consisting of four departments and university staff. This systematic mobility plan identifies campus mobility behavior and recommends sustainable actions that can improve traffic suitability and accessibility in line with the Agenda 2030 (Scheffer et al., 2019 ). The same campus adopted energy efficiency practices aligned with the targets of SDG 7, such as efficient lightening, Photovoltaic Solar Power Generation; The university also goes to free Energy Market to enhance energy efficiency, increase the share of renewable energy in the global mix, and ultimately improve access to reliable and affordable energy (Rebelatto et al., 2019 ). Other universities have applied management operations—corresponding to the targets of SDG 12 and 9—to tackle the problem of hazardous waste management and create campus zero-energy infrastructures and projects (Saralegi et al., 2020 ; Wubah et al., 2020 ). Interestingly, we found no articles that have analyzed management operation initiatives for overall SDGs at the meso-level . This is particularly noteworthy when considering the utility of departmental units that can coordinate sustainability initiatives and facilitate communication with researchers and students. In any case, Table ​ Table9 9 summarizes the main takeaways from the literature on management operations and SDGs at the meso - level.

Management Operations—All Levels

A scant number of studies have scrutinized SDG-related management operations at all three levels.

The largest of such studies, (Domínguez-Fernández et al., 2020 ), analyzed the following: at the macro-level, the necessity of establishing cross-university relationships and research networks, boost social inclusion and pursue their mission with social responsibility; at the meso-level, the obligation to coordinate and review the collaborations across faculties and review the organization internally by processes in to adjust to the new situations of macro networking and at the micro-level, the teaching/learning processes and social integration, employability, and promotion of students is of crucial importance. Meanwhile, Sonetti et al. ( 2020 ) mapped the implementation of SDGs in Italian universities based on a top-down/bottom-up approach. The authors showed that the universities mostly focused on creating an organizational unit dedicated to sustainability and overseen by the rector, but they lacked a consistent and collective strategy for entrenching SDGs in university curricula. Table ​ Table10 10 summarizes the main takeaways from the literature on management operations and SDGs that concerns all levels.

We performed a systemic review of the current literature to better understand how universities walk their talk on SDGs. To this end, we considered the main governance processes, strategies, and actions that researched universities 6 have implemented so far to fulfill their commitment toward the Agenda 2030.

Our first observation is that the literature appears fragmented, representing a kaleidoscope of approaches and issues. According to a systemic perspective, fragmentation and differentiation are the natural evolutions of systems (French et al., 1985 ). Thus, the current state of the literature on SDGs and universities (as far as we encountered it) mirrors the evolution of this phenomenon. In short, researched universities are pursuing a growing variety of strategies at different organizational levels in order to meet the goals of the Agenda 2030.

Amidst all this activity, we thought it is critical to systematically evaluate the literature in order to identify the main traits of this phenomenon and define further research trajectories. Therefore, we analyzed and mapped the patterns of practices and strategies according to four areas of activity (research, teaching, third mission, and management operations), three levels of interventions ( macro, meso, micro ), and their degree of focus on SDGs (single, multiple, overall). The studies we reviewed made clear that HEIs are primarily addressing teaching followed by management operations, while third mission and research efforts have gained less attention.

Among teaching -oriented papers, the prevailing strategies at the micro- and macro- levels were respectively about designing specific courses and reorienting overall curricula to address SDG 4. Research has concentrated on SDG 4 (which provides a direct reference to education) since the early 2000s when the UN established the agenda for ESD in 2002: "the academic sector has been playing a strategic role as change agents, educating the managers of today and tomorrow, incorporating the values of responsible corporate citizenship into their education activities" (Escudero, 2006 ). The researched HEIs have invested enormous effort into responding to this goal, which was only exacerbated by the Agenda 2030 with its emphasis on SDG 4 (as ESD is an integral element of this SDG). At the micro-level , the literature has investigated the role of ICT and MOOCs in delivering single courses that contribute to either the overall Agenda or to single SDGs. At the macro-level , it seems important to build a culture of sustainability around the overall Agenda. In fact, many studies report cases of teaching initiatives aimed at spreading shared standards and competences among faculty members, staff, and students: for example, by introducing new learning methods, reorienting the curriculum toward SDGs, and utilizing technologies on a large scale.

Here, we want to draw attention to the scant literature on universities’ teaching strategies at the meso - level , which would include inter-departmental programs devoted to achieving SDGs. There may be empirical difficulties with analyses at this level, such as needing more time to collect data; nonetheless, we hope to see future publications address this gap. In this context, the literature on teaching —at all levels—would benefit would benefit from studies that explore the tensions between sustainability goals and implemented solutions. The issue of tensions has been widely investigated in hybrid organizations (see among others: Smith et al., 2013 ; Smith and Lewis, 2011 ); future research could leverage this body of work to uncover meaningful similarities and differences.

Meanwhile, we found that the literature oriented toward research mainly focused on macro-level interventions, such as the planning of complex research programs that address the whole Agenda and are managed at the university level. These efforts reflect the importance of research for generating new ideas and solutions that benefit society; nonetheless, future studies should review research practices at the meso - and micro - levels in order to comprehensively evaluate research programs’ contributions to SDGs. In addition, the literature has largely studied research activities in tandem with teaching strategies; there might be value in concentrating on the research aspect to discern its unique strategies and practices.

We observed a similar trend among the third mission activities: The literature has mainly focused on the macro - level , highlighting that top university officials primarily organize the efforts to transfer knowledge to society and engage stakeholders in SDG-related-projects. Furthermore, researched universities’ actions toward SDGs enter the management level as a matter of resource planning: for example, by prioritizing third mission efforts in the vision and mission, creating shared governance processes, licensing, networking, launching platforms, and helping to navigate cultural changes related to achieving the Agenda.

In this context, researched universities tend to adopt one of two approaches when enacting a sustainability strategy—strategic or constitutive (Sacconi, 2006 )—and need to be aware of the trade-offs. On one hand, universities' reputations and funds depend on sustainability achievements; hence, universities can adopt a strategic (or push ) approach that responds to the “sustainability demand”, such as incorporating a few green practices into their activities. On the other hand, universities can be constitutionally compelled to undertake activities that benefit stakeholders, which would constitute an intrinsic commitment (or pull approach) toward SD. Future research could strive to provide a clearer picture of universities’ strategic approach by categorizing different SDG-related initiatives.

Lastly, the stream of literature on management operations has usefully illustrated the administrative path needed to support the achievement of SDGs across the three university missions (teaching, research, and the third mission). With respect to the macro - level actions, research has concentrated on the need to improve the university culture around SDGs at the level of leadership and governance—primarily by sharing best practices, building shared-governance patterns through stakeholder dialogue, and integrating sustainability into the core of decision-making, procurement practices and strategic planning. Future research should strive to build a stronger base of evidence about the impact of certain macro-level conditions in order to inform university leaders.

Based on our review of 130 selected articles, this paper usefully illustrates the changes that Agenda 2030 is galvanizing within and among researched HEIs. This analysis leads us to make two general conclusions.

The first is that researched universities' strategies towards SDGs are still developing and do not show uniform patterns. In general, their multi-level, multi-action strategies take the following forms: (i) the result of strategic and planning programs at the university level, or (ii) as a pilot case on single courses, research programs, and research-in action projects involving external actors, or (iii) because of an administrative activity aimed at monitoring and communicating the image toward SDGs at the level of departments or the whole university.

Moreover, researched universities have adopted very different strategies to implement these actions: from micro initiatives that only address one area (e.g., teaching or research) and a single SDG, to macro-level strategies that consider all SDGs at once. The first category of papers reflects scattered, niche initiatives; the second type encompasses more integrated strategies that combine a broad focus on SDGs at the macro-level with the management of different micro-level initiatives. However, the growing number of studies at the micro-level signals a bottom-up dynamic driven by student-focused initiatives, which signals their role as the game-changers of today and tomorrow. Given the aggregate potential of micro-level initiatives, future researchers should explore the role of such niches in driving changes toward SD. That said, the current literature has devoted meager interest to the meso - level , which captures the strategic initiatives at the departmental and campus levels. There is a lack of scholarship on research and third mission activities in relation to the meso-level, which is reflected in HEIs’ general lack of implementation at this level. Here, we advance a methodological explanation: the meso-level case study requires more effort to not only collect data, but also organize and implement initiatives. Indeed, inter-department or inter-school projects face more hurdles due to departments’ different leadership and orientations. Accordingly, future research should strive to circumvent these challenges in order to fill the current knowledge gaps on meso-level initiatives.

Additionally, this review underscores the different maturity levels of researched universities’ SDG-related strategies. Future research will need to renew our understanding of the field as the phenomenon evolves. For instance, studies could seek to explain universities’ different patterns in transitioning toward sustainability. Moreover, given current growth trends, we expect to see a surge in publications as the 2030 deadline approaches. Therefore, we think it would be worthwhile to evaluate the literature in five-year intervals (e.g., 2021–2025, 2026–2030, and 2031–2035) in order to account for any substantial changes.

The second conclusion is that various researched universities lack a common framework for implementing their Agenda 2030 strategies. Extant studies do not explicitly position a given action within a multi-level and multi-action framework; this unstructured approach makes it difficult to translate the experience into policy that can advance the university’s goals. As a result, knowledge seems fragmented and best practices are harder to identify and replicate. Future research could address this gap by framing their contributions in line with our proposed framework. Greater structure would add clarity to the debate and provide a more complete understanding of HEIs’ efforts to implement the Agenda 2030.

To conclude, while our approach aligns with other systematic literature reviews (i.e., Findler et al., 2019 ; Ferrer-Estévez and Chalmeta, 2021 ), it features some notable limitations. First, we focused on peer-reviewed articles and excluded studies published as book chapters, conference proceedings, grey literature and books, and in languages other than English. Second, we limited our review to the WoS and Scopus databases; future studies could extend this scope. Third, while we applied a broad spectrum of keywords in the search string, our Boolean operators may not have captured works that are implicitly related to SDGs. Hence, future research might consider casting a wider net with more sustainability-related keywords.

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Availability of data and materials

Declarations.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and the University of Bologna Ethical Code of Behaviour.

We have read and We understand the provided information and have had the opportunity to ask questions. We understand that our participation is voluntary and that we are free to withdraw at any time, without giving a reason and without cost.

We give our consent for the publication of identifiable details, which can include photograph(s) and/or videos and/or case history and/or details within the text (“Material”) to be published in the “Higher Education Policy” Journal. Therefore, anyone can read material published in the Journal.

1 In more detail, some reviews have a narrow focus. For example, the review on HE and SDGs provided by García-Feijoo et al. ( 2020 ) focuses on business schools and highlights the need for interdisciplinary and collaborative work in order to open universities to the outside environment, as well as promote the use of active methodologies such as student mobility and study tours, flipped classroom, and different initiatives within teaching, research, and management processes to achieve the SDGs. Similarly, Owusu-Agyeman ( 2020 ) undertakes a systematic review of SD and HE in the context of Ghana, showing that the adoption of an “ecosystem” composed of research networks, national SD activities, institutional structures and leadership—coupled with the adoption of the UN’s 2030 Agenda concepts in the curricula—enhance the understanding of ESD. Another review carried out by Alonso-Garcia et al. ( 2019 ) focuses on articles concerning the application of technology Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) and Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) in teaching practices to embrace SDGs within HEIs. In a similar vein, the review of Chiba et al. ( 2021 ) points out the positive outcomes of participatory learning, promoting curricula based on students’ interests and motivations as effective teaching and learning methods to foster SD. Similarly, Weiss and Barth ( 2019 ) scrutinized current research on the implementation of sustainability in curricula across countries. Lastly, Daly et al. ( 2021 ) honed in on a particular sustainability issue—safe drinking water (SDG 6)—by tracking the research on multiple water source use for drinking water in low- and middle-income countries. To conclude, the recent literature review conducted by Ferrer-Estévez and Chalmeta ( 2021 ) adopted a broader focus by analyzing contributions that investigated the implementation of ESD and SDGs at different educational levels: from primary school to HEIs. Specifically, their review focuses on how SDGs have been incorporated at the curricular and extracurricular levels, on the strategies and managerial procedures adopted to integrate the SDGs, and on the teaching approaches and educational methods for implementing the SDGs.

2 The multi-level perspective has been adopted in the innovation literature to describe the complex dynamics of changes (see Geels and Schot, 2007 ; Rip and Kemp, 1998 ) and the interplay between landscape (macro), socio-technical structures (meso), and practices (micro). The macro-meso-micro approach has also been adopted in the Business Ethics literature (see McDonald and Nijhof, 1999 ) to describe different implementations of ethical values within organizations: at the strategic governance level (macro), the organizational level (meso), and individual ethics (micro). Here, we adopt this framework to describe the changes in the context of university sustainability practices.

3 Consider that we collected data between February and March 2021.

4 The papers that deal with more than one area of intervention have been categorized based on the primary area.

5 We obtained the following categories due to their pervasiveness in the literature: Teaching-Macro Single & Overall; Teaching-Meso Overall; Teaching-Micro Single; Research-Macro Overall; Research-Micro Single & Overall; Third Mission-Macro Overall; Management Operations-Macro Overall; Management Operation-Meso Single & Multiple (see the Table A1 in the online appendix for more details).

6 Note that we refer to researched universities to clarify that our discussion relates to our sampled universities. Namely, we refer to those that have been object of scholarly research from January 2015 to March 2021 and entered our review.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Magali Fia, Email: [email protected] .

Khatereh Ghasemzadeh, Email: [email protected] .

Angelo Paletta, Email: [email protected] .

• Adach-Pawelus K, Gogolewska A, Górniak-Zimroz J, Kiełczawa B, Krupa-Kurzynowska J, Paszkowska G, Szyszka D, Worsa-Kozak M, Woźniak J. A new face of mining engineer—international curricula to sustainable development and green deal (a case study of the Wrocław University of Science and Technology) Sustainability. 2021; 13 (3):1393. doi: 10.3390/su13031393. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Adomßent M, Grahl A, Spira F. Putting sustainable campuses into force: Empowering students, staff and academics by the self-efficacy Green Office Model. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2019; 20 (3):470–481. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-02-2019-0072. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Albareda-Tiana S, Vidal-Raméntol S, Fernández-Morilla M. Implementing the sustainable development goals at University level. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2018; 19 (3):473–497. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-05-2017-0069. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aleixo AM, Azeiteiro UM, Leal S. Are the sustainable development goals being implemented in the Portuguese higher education formative offer? International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2020; 21 (2):336–352. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-04-2019-0150. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alonso-Garcia S, Aznar-Diaz I, Caceres-Reche M-P, Trujillo-Torres J-M, Romero-Rodriguez J-M. Systematic review of good teaching practices with ICT in Spanish Higher Education. Trends and Challenges for Sustainability. Sustainability. 2019; 11 (24):7150. doi: 10.3390/su11247150. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amaral LP, Martins N, Gouveia JB. Quest for a Sustainable University: A Review. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2015; 16 (2):155–172. doi: 10.1108/ijshe-02-2013-0017. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Argento D, Einarson D, Mårtensson L, Persson C, Wendin K, Westergren A. Integrating sustainability in higher education: a Swedish case. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2020; 21 (6):1131–1150. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-10-2019-0292. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ashraf MW, Alanezi F. Incorporation of sustainability concepts into the engineering core program by adopting a micro curriculum approach: A case study in Saudi Arabia. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (7):2901. doi: 10.3390/su12072901. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ávila LV, Beuron TA, Brandli LL, Damke LI, Pereira RS, Klein LL. Barriers to innovation and sustainability in universities: an international comparison. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2019; 20 (5):805–821. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-02-2019-0067. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Badea L, Șerban-Oprescu GL, Dedu S, Piroșcă GI. The impact of education for sustainable development on Romanian economics and business students’ behavior. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (19):8169. doi: 10.3390/su12198169. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baena-Morales S, Jerez-Mayorga D, Fernández-González FT, López-Morales J. The use of a cooperative-learning activity with university students: A gender experience. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (21):9292. doi: 10.3390/su12219292. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barros MV, Puglieri FN, Tesser DP, Kuczynski O, Piekarski CM. Sustainability at a Brazilian university: developing environmentally sustainable practices and a life cycle assessment case study. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2020; 21 (5):841–859. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-10-2019-0309. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blanco-Portela N, Benayas J, Pertierra LR, Lozano R. Towards the integration of sustainability in Higher Education Institutions: A review of drivers of and barriers to organisational change and their comparison against those found of companies. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2017; 166 :563–578. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.252. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blasco N, Brusca I, Labrador M. Drivers for universities’ contribution to the sustainable development goals: an analysis of Spanish public universities. Sustainability. 2021; 13 (1):89. doi: 10.3390/su13010089. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brugmann R, Côté N, Postma N, Shaw EA, Pal D, Robinson JB. Expanding student engagement in sustainability: Using SDG-and CEL-focused inventories to transform curriculum at the University of Toronto. Sustainability. 2019; 11 (2):530. doi: 10.3390/su11020530. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buil-Fabrega M, Martínez Casanovas M, Ruiz-Munzón N. Flipped classroom as an active learning methodology in sustainable development curricula. Sustainability. 2019; 11 (17):4577. doi: 10.3390/su11174577. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Campbell AC, Mawer M. Clarifying mixed messages: International scholarship programmes in the sustainable development agenda. Higher Education Policy. 2019; 32 (2):167–184. doi: 10.1057/s41307-017-0077-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cao G, Clarke S, Lehaney B. Towards systemic management of diversity in organizational change. Strategic Change. 1999; 8 (4):205–216. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1697(199906/07)8:4<205::AID-JSC417>3.0.CO;2-R. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cao G, Clarke S, Lehaney B. The need for a systemic approach to change management—a case study. Systemic Practice and Action Research. 2004; 17 (2):103–126. doi: 10.1023/B:SPAA.0000018906.16607.cc. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Castro PM, Ares-Pernas A, Dapena A. Service-learning projects in university degrees based on sustainable development goals: proposals and results. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (19):7940. doi: 10.3390/su12197940. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chang Y-C, Lien H-L. Mapping course sustainability by embedding the SDGs inventory into the university curriculum: a case study from National University of Kaohsiung in Taiwan. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (10):4274. doi: 10.3390/su12104274. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chankseliani, M., & McCowan, T. (2021). Higher education and the sustainable development goals. Higher Education , 81 (1), 1–8. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Chapman GR, Cully A, Kosiol J, Macht SA, Chapman RL, Fitzgerald JA, Gertsen F. The wicked problem of measuring real-world research impact: Using sustainable development goals (SDGs) and targets in academia. Journal of Management and Organization. 2020; 26 (6):1030–1047. doi: 10.1017/jmo.2020.16. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chiba M, Sustarsic M, Perriton S, Edwards DB. Investigating effective teaching and learning for sustainable development and global citizenship: Implications from a systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Educational Development. 2021; 81 :102337. doi: 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2020.102337. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chin A, Jacobsson T. TheGoals. org: mobile global education on the sustainable development goals. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2016; 123 :227–229. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.061. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chisingui AV, Costa N. Teacher education and sustainable development goals: a case study with future biology teachers in an Angolan higher education institution. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (8):3344. doi: 10.3390/su12083344. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cicmil S, Gough G, Hills S. Insights into responsible education for sustainable development: The case of UWE, Bristol. The International Journal of Management Education. 2017; 15 (2):293–305. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2017.03.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Collazo Expósito LM, Granados Sánchez J. Implementation of SDGs in university teaching: A course for professional development of teachers in education for sustainability for a transformative action. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (19):8267. doi: 10.3390/su12198267. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cottafava D, Cavaglià G, Corazza L. Education of sustainable development goals through students’ active engagement. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal. 2019; 10 (3):521–544. doi: 10.1108/SAMPJ-05-2018-0152. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crespo B, Míguez-Álvarez C, Arce ME, Cuevas M, Míguez JL. The sustainable development goals: An experience on higher education. Sustainability. 2017; 9 (8):1353. doi: 10.3390/su9081353. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Daly SW, Lowe J, Hornsby GM, Harris AR. Multiple water source use in low-and middle-income countries: A systematic review. Journal of Water and Health. 2021; 19 (3):370–392. doi: 10.2166/wh.2021.205. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Daniela L, Visvizi A, Gutiérrez-Braojos C, Lytras MD. Sustainable higher education and technology-enhanced learning (TEL) Sustainability. 2018; 10 (11):3883. doi: 10.3390/su10113883. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• de Assumpção MR, Neto MPM. State-of-the-art practices being reported by the PRME champions group: A reference to advance education for sustainable development. The International Journal of Management Education. 2020; 18 (2):100369. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2020.100369. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Décamps A, Barbat G, Carteron J-C, Hands V, Parkes C. Sulitest: A collaborative initiative to support and assess sustainability literacy in higher education. The International Journal of Management Education. 2017; 15 (2):138–152. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2017.02.006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• del Olmo Fernández MJA, Villalba MJS, Olivencia JJL. Perceptions of professors of educational inclusion: Diversity, cooperation and commitment. Universal Journal of Educational Research. 2020; 8 (8):3562–3569. doi: 10.13189/ujer.2020.080832. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Denyer D, Tranfield D, Van Aken JE. Developing design propositions through research synthesis. Organization Studies. 2008; 29 (3):393–413. doi: 10.1177/0170840607088020. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Desha C, Rowe D, Hargreaves D. A review of progress and opportunities to foster development of sustainability-related competencies in engineering education. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education. 2019; 24 (2):61–73. doi: 10.1080/22054952.2019.1696652. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Di Nauta P, Iannuzzi E, Milone M, Nigro C. The impact of the sustainability principles on the strategic planning and reporting of universities. An exploratory study on a qualified Italian sample. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (18):7269. doi: 10.3390/su12187269. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dlouhá J, Heras R, Mulà I, Salgado FP, Henderson L. Competences to address SDGs in higher education—A reflection on the equilibrium between systemic and personal approaches to achieve transformative action. Sustainability. 2019; 11 (13):3664. doi: 10.3390/su11133664. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Domínguez-Fernández G, Prieto-Jiménez E, Backhouse P, Ismodes E. Cybersociety and university sustainability: The challenge of holistic restructuring in universities in Chile, Spain, and Peru. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (14):5722. doi: 10.3390/su12145722. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dyllick T, Muff K. A positive impact rating for business schools: case study. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (22):9551. doi: 10.3390/su12229551. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Edwards S, Ashida A. Higher education in Japan: internationalization, the Sustainable Development Goals and survivability. International Journal of Comparative Education and Development. 2020; 23 (2):104–119. doi: 10.1108/IJCED-09-2020-0061. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elmassah S, Biltagy M, Gamal D. Engendering sustainable development competencies in higher education: the case of Egypt. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2020; 266 :121959. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121959. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eppinga MB, Lozano-Cosme J, de Scisciolo T, Arens P, Santos MJ, Mijts EN. Putting sustainability research into practice on the university campus. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2020; 21 (1):54–75. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-03-2019-0131. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Escudero M. Global corporate citizenship and academia: A global convergence. Concept Paper. New York: United Nations; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Espada-Chavarria R, Moreno-Rodriguez R, Jenaro C. Development of Vocational maturity in university students with disabilities to access, obtain an internship and complete university studies. Education Sciences. 2020; 10 (12):386. doi: 10.3390/educsci10120386. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Etzkowitz H. Anatomy of the entrepreneurial university. Social Science Information. 2013; 52 (3):486–511. doi: 10.1177/0539018413485832. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferguson T, Roofe CG. SDG 4 in higher education: Challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2020; 21 (5):959–975. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-12-2019-0353. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferrer-Estévez M, Chalmeta R. Integrating Sustainable Development Goals in educational institutions. The International Journal of Management Education. 2021; 19 (2):100494. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100494. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferrer-Balas D, Adachi J, Banas S, Davidson CI, Hoshikoshi A, Mishra A, Motodoa Y, Onga M, Ostwald M. An international comparative analysis of sustainability transformation across seven universities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2008; 9 (3):295–316. doi: 10.1108/14676370810885907. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Findler F, Schönherr N, Lozano R, Reider D, Martinuzzi A. The impacts of higher education institutions on sustainable development: A review and conceptualization. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2019; 20 (1):23–38. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-07-2017-0114. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Finnveden G, Friman E, Mogren A, Palmer H, Sund P, Carstedt G, Lundberg S, Robertsson B, Rodhe H, Svärd L. Evaluation of integration of sustainable development in higher education in Sweden. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2020; 21 (4):685–698. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-09-2019-0287. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fleacă E, Fleacă B, Maiduc S. Aligning strategy with sustainable development goals (SDGs): Process scoping diagram for entrepreneurial higher education institutions (HEIs) Sustainability. 2018; 10 (4):1032. doi: 10.3390/su10041032. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Franco CP, McCowan T. Rewiring higher education for the Sustainable Development Goals: the case of the Intercultural University of Veracruz, Mexico. Higher Education. 2020; 81 (1):69–88. doi: 10.1007/s10734-020-00525-2. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Franco I, Saito O, Vaughter P, Whereat J, Kanie N, Takemoto K. Higher education for sustainable development: actioning the global goals in policy, curriculum and practice. Sustainability Science. 2019; 14 (6):1621–1642. doi: 10.1007/s11625-018-0628-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frandoloso MA, Rebelatto BG. The participatory process of planning social and environmental responsibility at a Brazilian university. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2019; 2 (5):917–931. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-01-2019-0017. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• French, W. L., Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1985). Understanding human behavior in organizations. Harper & Row.
• Fuertes-Camacho MT, Graell-Martín M, Fuentes-Loss M, Balaguer-Fàbregas MC. Integrating sustainability into higher education curricula through the project method, a global learning strategy. Sustainability. 2019; 11 (3):767. doi: 10.3390/su11030767. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Galán-Casado D, Moraleda A, Martínez-Martí ML, Pérez-Nieto MÁ. Sustainable environments in education: results on the effects of the new environments in learning processes of university students. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (7):2668. doi: 10.3390/su12072668. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gallagher S. Development education on a massive scale: evaluation and reflections on a massive open online course on sustainable development. Policy and Practice: A Development Education Review. 2018; 26 :121–140. [ Google Scholar ]
• García-Feijoo M, Eizaguirre A, Rica-Aspiunza A. Systematic review of sustainable-development-goal deployment in business schools. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (1):440. doi: 10.3390/su12010440. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• García AC, Gil-Mediavilla M, Álvarez I, Casares M, d. l. Á. The influence of social networks within educational and social fields: a comparative study between two generations of online students. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (23):9941. doi: 10.3390/su12239941. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Geels FW, Schot J. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy. 2007; 36 (3):399–417. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gómez-Llanos E, Durán-Barroso P. Learning design decisions in massive open online courses (MOOC) applied to higher education in civil-engineering topics. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (20):8430. doi: 10.3390/su12208430. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodall M, Moore E. Integrating the Sustainable Development Goals into teaching, research, operations, and service: A case report of Yale University. Sustainability: the Journal of Record. 2019; 12 (2):93–96. doi: 10.1089/sus.2018.0038. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greig A, Priddle J. Mapping students’ development in response to sustainability education: a conceptual model. Sustainability. 2019; 11 (16):4324. doi: 10.3390/su11164324. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Habron G. Scaffolding applied learning and sustainable development goals in the Furman University sustainability science program. Sustainability: the Journal of Record. 2019; 12 (2):115–118. doi: 10.1089/sus.2018.0036. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hajdukiewicz A, Pera B. Education for sustainable development—the case of massive open online courses. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (20):8542. doi: 10.3390/su12208542. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hauser C, Ryan A. Higher education institutions, PRME and partnerships for the goals: retrofit labeling or driving force for change? Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal. 2021; 12 (6):1268–1288. doi: 10.1108/SAMPJ-03-2020-0069. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hernández-Barco M, Sánchez-Martín J, Blanco-Salas J, Ruiz-Téllez T. Teaching down to earth—service-learning methodology for science education and sustainability at the university level: a practical approach. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (2):542. doi: 10.3390/su12020542. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hirst N. Education for sustainability in higher education; Early Childhood Studies as a site for provocation, collaboration and inquiry. Education 3-13. 2019; 47 (4):381–394. doi: 10.1080/03004279.2018.1476566. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hossain SFA, Xi Z, Nurunnabi M, Anwar B. Sustainable academic performance in higher education: a mixed method approach. Interactive Learning Environments. 2019; 25 :1–14. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ibáñez ME, Cid IVL, Muñoz LVA, Claros FM. Environmental education, an essential instrument to implement the sustainable development goals in the university context. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (19):1–23. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jamison A, Madden M. Developing capacities for meeting the SDGs: exploring the role of a public land-grant institution in the civic engagement of its African alumni. Higher Education. 2021; 81 (1):145–162. doi: 10.1007/s10734-020-00638-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kester K. Whiteness, patriarchy, and peacebuilding in UN higher education: some theoretical and pedagogical implications from one case institution. Irish Educational Studies. 2019; 38 (4):481–499. doi: 10.1080/03323315.2019.1645722. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kestin, T., Van den Belt, M., Denby, L., Ross, K., Thwaites, J., & Hawkes, M. (2017) Getting started with the SDGs in universities: A guide for universities, higher education institutions, and the academic sector , Sustainable Development Solutions Network. https://ap-unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/University-SDG-Guide_web.pdf . Accessed April 9, 2022.
• Killian S, Lannon J, Murray L, Avram G, Giralt M, O'Riordan S. Social media for social good: student engagement for the SDGs. The International Journal of Management Education. 2019; 17 (3):100307. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2019.100307. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kioupi V, Voulvoulis N. Sustainable development goals (SDGs): assessing the contribution of higher education programmes. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (17):6701. doi: 10.3390/su12176701. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Knudsen MP, Frederiksen MH, Goduscheit RC. New forms of engagement in third mission activities: a multi-level university-centric approach. Innovation. 2021; 23 (2):209–240. doi: 10.1080/14479338.2019.1670666. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kolb M, Fröhlich L, Schmidpeter R. Implementing sustainability as the new normal: responsible management education–From a private business school's perspective. The International Journal of Management Education. 2017; 15 (2):280–292. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2017.03.009. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kopnina H. Teaching sustainable development goals in The Netherlands: a critical approach. Environmental Education Research. 2018; 24 (9):1268–1283. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2017.1303819. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Labonté R. Health promotion in an age of normative equity and rampant inequality. International Journal of Health Policy and Management. 2016; 5 (12):675–682. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2016.95. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lafuente-Lechuga M, Cifuentes-Faura J, Faura-Martínez Ú. Mathematics applied to the economy and sustainable development goals: a necessary relationship of dependence. Education Sciences. 2020; 10 (11):339. doi: 10.3390/educsci10110339. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lai Y-C, Peng L-H. Effective teaching and activities of excellent teachers for the sustainable development of higher design education. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (1):28. doi: 10.3390/su12010028. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leal Filho W, Pallant E, Enete A, Richter B, Brandli L. Planning and implementing sustainability in higher education institutions: an overview of the difficulties and potentials. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology. 2018; 25 (8):713–721. doi: 10.1080/13504509.2018.1461707. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leal Filho W, Shiel C, Paço A, Mifsud M, Ávila LV, Brandli LL, Molthan-Hill P, Pace P, Azeiteiro UM, Vargas VR. Sustainable Development Goals and sustainability teaching at universities: Falling behind or getting ahead of the pack? Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019; 232 :285–294. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.309. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leal Filho W, Skanavis C, Kounani A, Brandli LL, Shiel C, do Paco A, Pace P, Mifsud M, Beynaghi A, Price E. The role of planning in implementing sustainable development in a higher education context. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019; 235 :678–687. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.322. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ličen S, Jedlicka SR. Sustainable development principles in US sport management graduate programs. Sport, Education and Society. 2020; 546 :1–14. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lovren VO, Maruna M, Stanarevic S. Reflections on the learning objectives for sustainable development in the higher education curricula–three cases from the University of Belgrade. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2020; 21 (2):315–335. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-09-2019-0260. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lozano R. Incorporation and institutionalization of SD into universities: breaking through barriers to change. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2006; 14 (9–11):787–796. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.12.010. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Manolis EN, Manoli EN. Raising awareness of the sustainable development goals through ecological projects in higher education. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2021; 279 :123614. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123614. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martínez-López, F. J., Merigó, J. M., Valenzuela-Fernández, L., & Nicolás, C. (2018). Fifty years of the European Journal of Marketing: A bibliometric analysis. European Journal of Marketing .
• Maruna M. Toward the integration of SDGs in higher planning education: Insights from integrated urbanism study program in Belgrade. Sustainability. 2019; 11 (17):4519. doi: 10.3390/su11174519. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mawonde A, Togo M. Implementation of SDGs at the university of South Africa. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2019; 20 (5):932–950. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-04-2019-0156. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCowan T. The University as Engine of Development? Philosophical Inquiry in Education. 2018; 25 (2):188–204. doi: 10.7202/1070741ar. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McDonald G, Nijhof A. Beyond Codes of Ethics: An integrated framework for stimulating morally responsible behaviour in organisations. Leadership Organization Development Journal. 1999; 20 (3):133–147. doi: 10.1108/01437739910268406. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Melles G. Survey study on attitudes to multi-dimensional sustainable development with UK MSc students. Social Sciences. 2019; 8 (3):75. doi: 10.3390/socsci8030075. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Milton S. Higher education and sustainable development goal 16 in fragile and conflict-affected contexts. Higher Education. 2021; 81 (1):89–108. doi: 10.1007/s10734-020-00617-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mion G, Broglia A, Bonfanti A. Do codes of ethics reveal a university’s commitment to sustainable development? Evidence from Italy. Sustainability. 2019; 11 (4):1134. doi: 10.3390/su11041134. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miotto G, Polo López M, Rom Rodríguez J. Gender equality and UN sustainable development goals: Priorities and correlations in the top business schools’ communication and legitimation strategies. Sustainability. 2019; 11 (2):302. doi: 10.3390/su11020302. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moon CJ, Walmsley A, Apostolopoulos N. Governance implications of the UN higher education sustainability initiative. Corporate Governance: the International Journal of Business in Society. 2018; 18 (4):624–634. doi: 10.1108/CG-01-2018-0020. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mori Junior, R., Fien, J., & Horne, R. (2019) 'Implementing the UN SDGs in universities: challenges, opportunities, and lessons learned', Sustainability: The Journal of Record , 12(2): 129-133.
• Ndubuka NN, Rey-Marmonier E. Capability approach for realising the Sustainable Development Goals through Responsible Management Education: The case of UK business school academics. The International Journal of Management Education. 2019; 17 (3):100319. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2019.100319. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Neal M. Learning from poverty: Why business schools should address poverty, and how they can go about it. Academy of Management Learning & Education. 2017; 16 (1):54–69. doi: 10.5465/amle.2014.0369. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Neary J, Osborne M. University engagement in achieving sustainable development goals: a synthesis of case studies from the SUEUAA study. Australian Journal of Adult Learning. 2018; 58 (3):336–364. [ Google Scholar ]
• O'Keeffe P. The case for engaging online tutors for supporting learners in higher education in refugee contexts. Research in Learning Technology. 2020; 28 :2428. [ Google Scholar ]
• Orozco-Messana J, de la Poza-Plaza E, Calabuig-Moreno R. Experiences in transdisciplinary education for the sustainable development of the built environment, the ISAlab workshop. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (3):1143. doi: 10.3390/su12031143. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Orozco-Messana J, Martínez-Rubio JM, Gonzálvez-Pons AM. Sustainable higher education development through technology enhanced learning. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (9):3600. doi: 10.3390/su12093600. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ortega-Sánchez D, Gómez-Trigueros IM. Massive open online courses in the initial training of social science teachers: experiences, methodological conceptions, and technological use for sustainable development. Sustainability. 2019; 11 (3):578. doi: 10.3390/su11030578. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Owens TL. Higher education in the sustainable development goals framework. European Journal of Education. 2017; 52 (4):414–420. doi: 10.1111/ejed.12237. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Owusu-Agyeman Y. Formation of a sustainable development ecosystem for Ghanaian universities. International Review of Education. 2020; 67 (3):333–362. doi: 10.1007/s11159-020-09857-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paletta A, Bonoli A. Governing the university in the perspective of the United Nations 2030 Agenda. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2019; 20 (3):500–514. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-02-2019-0083. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peña Miguel N, Corral Lage J, Mata Galindez A. Assessment of the development of professional skills in university students: Sustainability and serious games. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (3):1014. doi: 10.3390/su12031014. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Perales Franco C, McCowan T. Rewiring higher education for the Sustainable Development Goals: the case of the Intercultural University of Veracruz, Mexico. Higher Education. 2020; 81 (1):69–88. doi: 10.1007/s10734-020-00525-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Perales Jarillo M, Pedraza L, Moreno Ger P, Bocos E. Challenges of online higher education in the face of the sustainability objectives of the united nations: carbon footprint, accessibility and social inclusion. Sustainability. 2019; 11 (20):5580. doi: 10.3390/su11205580. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Perović LM, Kosor MM. The efficiency of universities in achieving sustainable development goals. Amfiteatru Economic. 2020; 22 (54):516–532. [ Google Scholar ]
• Portuguez Castro M, Gomez Zermeno MG. Challenge based learning: innovative pedagogy for sustainability through e-learning in higher education. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (10):4063. doi: 10.3390/su12104063. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Priyadarshini P, Abhilash PC. From piecemeal to holistic: introducing sustainability science in Indian Universities to attain UN-Sustainable Development Goals. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2020; 247 :119133. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119133. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Purcell WM, Henriksen H, Spengler JD. Universities as the engine of transformational sustainability toward delivering the sustainable development goals: “Living labs” for sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2019; 20 (8):1343–1357. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-02-2019-0103. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ramos-Rodríguez AR, Ruíz-Navarro J. Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: A bibliometric study of the Strategic Management Journal, 1980–2000. Strategic management journal. 2004; 25 (10):981–1004. doi: 10.1002/smj.397. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rebelatto BG, Salvia AL, Reginatto G, Daneli RC, Brandli LL. Energy efficiency actions at a Brazilian university and their contribution to sustainable development Goal 7. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2019; 20 (5):842–855. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-01-2019-0023. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Renta-Davids A-I, Camarero-Figuerola M, Tierno-García J-M. Assessment of the quality education awareness competence of pre-service educators using vignettes. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (23):10203. doi: 10.3390/su122310203. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rip A, Kemp R. Technological change. Human choice and climate change. 1998; 2 (2):327–399. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodríguez-Abitia G, Martínez-Pérez S, Ramirez-Montoya MS, Lopez-Caudana E. Digital gap in universities and challenges for quality education: a diagnostic study in Mexico and Spain. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (21):9069. doi: 10.3390/su12219069. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodriguez-Domenech MA, Bello-Bravo J, Pittendrigh BR. Scientific animations without borders (SAWBO): an innovative strategy for promoting education for sustainable development. Sustainability Science. 2019; 14 (4):1105–1116. doi: 10.1007/s11625-018-0624-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sacconi L. A social contract account for CSR as an extended model of corporate governance (I): rational bargaining and justification. Journal of Business Ethics. 2006; 68 (3):259–281. doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9014-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sáez de Cámara E, Fernández I, Castillo-Eguskitza N. A holistic approach to integrate and evaluate sustainable development in higher education. The case study of the University of the Basque Country. Sustainability. 2021; 13 (1):392. doi: 10.3390/su13010392. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saitua-Iribar A, Corral-Lage J, Peña-Miguel N. Improving knowledge about the sustainable development goals through a collaborative learning methodology and serious game. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (15):6169. doi: 10.3390/su12156169. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saralegi A, Rojo N, Alvarez J, Encinas L, Amurrio J. Strategies to improve hazardous waste management at the Faculty of Engineering Vitoria-Gasteiz UPV/EHU. European Journal of Sustainable Development. 2020; 9 (4):22. doi: 10.14207/ejsd.2020.v9n4p22. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scheffer AP, Cechetti VP, Lauermann LP, Porto ER, Dalla Rosa F. Study to promote the sustainable mobility in university. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2019; 20 (5):871–886. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-01-2019-0031. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schina D, Esteve-González V, Usart M, Lázaro-Cantabrana J-L, Gisbert M. The integration of sustainable development goals in educational robotics: a teacher education experience. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (23):10085. doi: 10.3390/su122310085. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sierra J. The potential of simulations for developing multiple learning outcomes: the student perspective. The International Journal of Management Education. 2020; 18 (1):100361. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2019.100361. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sisto R, Sica E, Cappelletti GM. Drafting the Strategy for sustainability in universities: a backcasting approach. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (10):4288. doi: 10.3390/su12104288. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Slocum SL, Dimitrov DY, Webb K. The impact of neoliberalism on higher education tourism programs: Meeting the 2030 sustainable development goals with the next generation. Tourism Management Perspectives. 2019; 30 :33–42. doi: 10.1016/j.tmp.2019.01.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith WK, Gonin M, Besharov ML. Managing social-business tensions: A review and research agenda for social enterprise. Business Ethics Quarterly. 2013; 23 (3):407–442. doi: 10.5840/beq201323327. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith WK, Lewis MW. Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review. 2011; 36 (2):381–403. [ Google Scholar ]
• Snyder K, Koustas S, Jillson C. Sustainability Reporting at Universities with Multiple Platforms. Sustainability: the Journal of Record. 2020; 13 (5):218–224. doi: 10.1089/sus.2020.0039. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sonetti G, Barioglio C, Campobenedetto D. Education for sustainability in practice: a review of current strategies within Italian universities. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (13):5246. doi: 10.3390/su12135246. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sosa-Díaz MJ, Fernández-Sánchez MR. Massive open online courses (MOOC) within the framework of international developmental cooperation as a strategy to achieve sustainable development goals. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (23):10187. doi: 10.3390/su122310187. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stahlschmidt, S., & Stephen, D. (2020). Comparison of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions databases . KB Forschungspoolprojekt; DZHW: Hannover, Germany.
• Strachan SM, Marshall S, Murray P, Coyle EJ, Sonnenberg-Klein J. Using Vertically Integrated Projects to embed research-based education for sustainable development in undergraduate curricula. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2019; 20 (8):1313–1328. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-10-2018-0198. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Straková Z, Cimermanová I. Critical thinking development—A necessary step in higher education transformation towards sustainability. Sustainability. 2018; 10 (10):3366. doi: 10.3390/su10103366. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tejedor G, Segalàs J, Barrón Á, Fernández-Morilla M, Fuertes MT, Ruiz-Morales J, Gutiérrez I, García-González E, Aramburuzabala P, Hernández À. Didactic strategies to promote competencies in sustainability. Sustainability. 2019; 11 (7):2086. doi: 10.3390/su11072086. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Torabian J. Revisiting global university rankings and their indicators in the age of sustainable development. Sustainability: the Journal of Record. 2019; 12 (3):167–172. doi: 10.1089/sus.2018.0037. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management. 2003; 14 (3):207–222. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.00375. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trott CD, Weinberg AE, Sample McMeeking LB. Prefiguring sustainability through participatory action research experiences for undergraduates: Reflections and recommendations for student development. Sustainability. 2018; 10 (9):3332. doi: 10.3390/su10093332. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Useh U. Sustainable development goals as a framework for postgraduate future research following COVID-19 pandemic: a new norm for developing countries. Higher Education for the Future. 2021; 8 (1):123–132. doi: 10.1177/2347631120972064. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vatalis KI. Training sustainability through role playing in higher education. Progress in Industrial Ecology, an International Journal. 2017; 11 (4):361–372. doi: 10.1504/PIE.2017.092723. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vaughter P, Wright T, McKenzie M, Lidstone L. Greening the ivory tower: A review of educational research on sustainability in post-secondary education. Sustainability. 2013; 5 (5):2252–2271. doi: 10.3390/su5052252. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weiss M, Barth M. Global research landscape of sustainability curricula implementation in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2019; 20 (4):570–589. doi: 10.1108/ijshe-10-2018-0190. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Winfield F, Ndlovu T. Future-proof your Degree. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2019; 20 (8):1329–1342. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-10-2018-0196. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Withycombe Keeler L, Beaudoin FD, Lerner AM, John B, Beecroft R, Tamm K, Wiek A, Lang DJ. Transferring sustainability solutions across contexts through city–university partnerships. Sustainability. 2018; 10 (9):2966. doi: 10.3390/su10092966. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wubah D, Steuer C, Brown G, Rice K. Funding community sustainable development using zero energy buildings. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2020; 22 (1):29–43. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-10-2019-0312. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xiong W, Mok KH. Sustainability practices of higher education institutions in Hong Kong: a case study of a sustainable campus consortium. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (2):452. doi: 10.3390/su12020452. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yli-Panula E, Jeronen E, Lemmetty P. Teaching and learning methods in geography promoting sustainability. Education Sciences. 2020; 10 (1):5. doi: 10.3390/educsci10010005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zamora-Polo F, Sánchez-Martín J. Teaching for a better world. Sustainability and sustainable development goals in the construction of a change-maker university. Sustainability. 2019; 11 (15):4224. doi: 10.3390/su11154224. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zamora-Polo F, Sánchez-Martín J, Corrales-Serrano M, Espejo-Antúnez L. What do university students know about sustainable development goals? A realistic approach to the reception of this UN program amongst the youth population. Sustainability. 2019; 11 (13):3533. doi: 10.3390/su11133533. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zermeño MGG, de la Garza LYA. Open laboratories for social innovation: A strategy for research and innovation in education for peace and sustainable developmentSustainable development is an issue of high relevance for all countries, and universities play a fundamental role in promotin. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2020; 22 (2):344–362. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-05-2020-0186. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhu B, Zhu C, Dewancker B. A study of development mode in green campus to realize the sustainable development goals. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2020; 21 (4):799–818. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-01-2020-0021. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Open access
• Published: 29 March 2023

Mapping ethical issues in the use of smart home health technologies to care for older persons: a systematic review

• Nadine Andrea Felber   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8207-2996 1 ,
• Yi Jiao (Angelina) Tian   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2969-9655 1 ,
• Félix Pageau   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4249-7399 2 ,
• Bernice Simone Elger   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0857-0510 1 &
• Tenzin Wangmo 1  

BMC Medical Ethics volume  24 , Article number:  24 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

6095 Accesses

7 Citations

17 Altmetric

Metrics details

The worldwide increase in older persons demands technological solutions to combat the shortage of caregiving and to enable aging in place. Smart home health technologies (SHHTs) are promoted and implemented as a possible solution from an economic and practical perspective. However, ethical considerations are equally important and need to be investigated.

We conducted a systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines to investigate if and how ethical questions are discussed in the field of SHHTs in caregiving for older persons.

156 peer-reviewed articles published in English, German and French were retrieved and analyzed across 10 electronic databases. Using narrative analysis, 7 ethical categories were mapped: privacy, autonomy, responsibility, human vs. artificial interactions, trust, ageism and stigma, and other concerns.

The findings of our systematic review show the (lack of) ethical consideration when it comes to the development and implementation of SHHTs for older persons. Our analysis is useful to promote careful ethical consideration when carrying out technology development, research and deployment to care for older persons.

Registration

We registered our systematic review in the PROSPERO network under CRD42021248543.

Peer Review reports

Introduction/background

Significant advancements in medicine, public health and technology are allowing the world population to grow increasingly older adding to the steady rise in the proportion of senior citizens (aged over 65) [ 1 ]. Because of this growth in the aging population, the demand for and financial costs of caring for older adults are both rising [ 2 ]. That older persons generally wish to age in place and receive healthcare at home [ 2 ] may mean accepting risks such as falling, a risk that increases with frailty [ 3 ]. However, many prefer accepting these risks rather than moving into long term care facilities [ 4 , 5 , 6 ].

A solution to this multi-facetted problem of ageing safely at home and receiving appropriate care, while keeping costs at bay may be the use of smart home health technologies (SHHTs). A smart home is defined by Demiris and colleagues as “ residence wired with technology features that monitor the well-being and activities of their residents to improve overall quality of life, increase independence and prevent emergencies” [ 7 ]. SHHTs then, represent a certain type of smart home technology, which include non-invasive, unobtrusive, interoperable and possibly wearable technologies that use a concept called the Internet-of-Things (IoT) [ 8 ]. These technologies could thereby remotely monitor the older resident and register any abnormal deviations in the daily habits and vital signs while sending alerts to their formal and informal caregivers when necessary. These SHHTs could permit older people (and their caregivers) to receive the necessary medical support and attention at their convenience and will, thereby allowing them to continue living independently in their home environment.

All of these functions offer benefits to older persons wishing to age at home. While focusing on practical advantages is important, an equally important question to ask is how ethical these technologies are when used in the care of older persons. Principles of biomedical ethics, such as autonomy, justice [ 9 ], privacy [ 10 ], and responsibility [ 11 ] should not only be respected by medical professionals, but by technology developers and build-into the technologies as well.

The goal of our systematic review is therefore to investigate whether and which ethical concerns are discussed in the pertinent theoretical and empirical research on SHHTs for older persons between 2000 and 2020. Different from previous literature reviews [ 12 , 13 , 14 ],, which only explored practical aspects, we explicitly examined if and how researchers treated the ethical aspects of SHHTs in their studies, adding an important, yet often overlooked aspect to the systematic literature. Moreover, we present how and which ethical concerns are discussed in the theoretical literature and which ones in empirical literature, to shed light on possible gaps regarding which and how different ethical concerns are developed. Identifying these gaps is the first important step to eventually connecting bioethical considerations to the real world, adapting policies, guidelines and technologies itself [ 15 ]. Thus, our systematic review is the first one to do so in the context of ethical issues in SHHTs used for caregiving for older persons.

Search strategy

With the guidance of an information specialist from the University of Basel, our team developed a search strategy according to the PICO principle: Population 1 (Older adults), Population 2 (Caregivers), Intervention (Smart home health technologies), and Context (Home). The outcome of ethics was intentionally omitted as we wanted to capture all relevant studies without narrowing concerns that we would classify as “ethical”. Within each category, synonyms and spelling variations for the keywords were used to include all relevant studies. We then adapted the search string by using database-specific thesaurus terms in all ten searched electronic databases: EMBASE, Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, SocIndex, SCOPUS, IEEE, Web of Science, Philpapers, and Philosophers Index. We limited the search to peer-reviewed papers published between January 1st, 2000 and December 31st, 2020, written in the English, French, and German languages. This time frame allowed us to map the evolution to SHHTs as a new field.

The inclusion criteria were the following: (1) The article must be an empirical or theoretical original research contribution. Hence, book chapters, conference proceedings, newspaper articles, commentary, dissertations, and thesis were excluded. Also excluded were other systematic reviews since their inclusion would duplicate findings from our individual studies. (2) When the included study was empirical, the study’s population of interest must be older persons over 65 years of age, and/or professional or informal caregivers who provide care to older persons. Informal caregivers include anyone in the community who provided support without financial compensation. Professional caregivers include nurses and related professions who receive financial compensation for their caregiving services. (3) The included study must investigate SHHTs and their use in the older persons’ place of dwelling.

First, we carried out the systematic search across databases and removed all duplicates through EndNote (see supplementary Table  1 in appendix part 1 for a list of all included articles). One member of the research team screened all titles manually and excluded irrelevant papers. Then, two authors screened the abstracts and excluded irrelevant papers, and any disagreements were solved by a third author. She then also combined all included articles and removed further duplicates.

PRISMA 2020 Flowchart

Final inclusion and data extraction

All included articles were searched and retrieved online (and excluded if full text was not available). Three co-authors then started data extraction, where several papers were excluded due to irrelevant content. To code the extracted data, a template was developed, which was tested in a first round of data extraction and then used in Microsoft Excel during the remaining extraction process. Study demographics and ethical considerations were recorded. Each extracting author was responsible for a portion of articles. If uncertainties or disputes occurred, they were solved by discussion. To ensure that our data extraction was not biased, 10% of the articles were reviewed independently. Upon comparing data extracted of those 10% of our overall sample, we found that items extracted reached 80% consistency.

Data synthesis

The extracted datasets were combined and ethical discussions encountered in the publications were analyzed using narrative synthesis [ 16 ]. During this stage, the authors discussed the data and recognized seven first-order ethical categories. Information within these categories were further analyzed to form sub-categories that describe and/or add further information to the key ethical category.

Nature of included articles

Our search initially identified 10,924 papers in ten databases. After the duplicates were removed, 9067 papers remained whose titles were screened resulting in exclusion of 5215 papers (Fig.  1 ). The examination of remaining 3845 abstracts of articles led to the inclusion of 374 papers for full-texts for retrieval. As we were unable to find 20 papers after several attempts, the remaining 354 full-texts were included for full-text review. In this full-text review phase, we further excluded 198 full-texts with reasons (such as technologies employed in hospitals, or technologies unrelated to health). Ultimately, this systematic review included 144 empirical and 12 theoretical papers specifying normative considerations of SHHTs in the context of caregiving for older persons.

Almost all publications (154 out of 156) were written in English, and over 67% [ 105 ] were published between 2014 and 2020. About a quarter (26%; 41 papers) were published between 2007 and 2013 and only 7% (10 articles) were from 2000 to 2006. Apart from the 12 theoretical papers, the methodology used in the 144 empirical papers included the following: 42 articles (29%) used a mixed-methods approach, 39 (27%) experimental, 38 (26%) qualitative, 15 (10%) quantitative, and the remaining were of an observational, ethnographical, case-study, or iterative testing nature.

The functions of SHHTs tested or studied in the included empirical papers were categorized as such: 29 articles (20.14%) were solely involved with (a) physiological and functioning monitoring technologies, 16 (11.11%) solely with (b) safety/security monitoring and assistance functions, 23 (15.97%) solely promoted (c) social interactions, and 9 (6.25%) solely for (d) cognitive and sensory assistance. However, 46 articles (29%) also involved technologies that fulfilled more than one of the categorized functions. The specific types of SHHTs included in this review comprised: intelligent homes (71 articles, 49.3%); assistive autonomous robots (49 articles, 34.03%); virtual/augmented/mixed reality (7, 4.4%); and AI-enabled health smart apps and wearables (4 articles, 1.39%). Likewise, the remaining 20 articles (12.8.8%) involved either multiple technologies or those that did not fall into any of the above categories.

Ethical considerations

Of the 156 papers included, 55 did not mention any ethical considerations (See supplementary Table  1 in appendix part 1). Among the 101 papers that noted one or more ethical considerations, we grouped them into 7 main categories (1) privacy, (2) human vs. artificial relationships, (3) autonomy, (4) responsibility, (5) social stigma and ageism, (6) trust, and (7) other normative issues (see Table  1 ). Each of these categories consists of various sub-categories that provided more information on how smart home health technologies (possibly) affected or interacted with the older persons or caregivers in the context of caregiving (Table  2 ). Each of the seven ethical considerations are explained in depth in the following paragraphs.

This key category was cited across 58 articles. In theoretical articles, privacy was one of the most often discussed ethical consideration, as 9 out of 12 mentioned privacy related concerns. Among the 58 articles, four sub-issues within privacy were discussed.

(A)The awareness of privacy was reported as varying according to the type of SHHT end-user. Whereas some end-users were more aware or privacy in relation to SHHTs, others denoted little or a total lack of consideration, while some had differing levels of concerns for privacy that changed as it is weighed against other values, such as access to healthcare [ 17 ] or feeling of safety [ 18 ]. Both caregivers and researchers often took privacy concerns into account [ 19 , 20 , 21 ], while older persons themselves did not share the same degree of fears or concerns [ 22 , 23 , 24 ]. Older persons in fact were less concerned about privacy than costs and usability [ 23 ]. Furthermore, they were willing to trade privacy for safety and the ability to live at home. Nevertheless, several papers acknowledged that privacy is an individualized value, whereby its significance depends on both the person and their context, thus their preferences cannot be generalized [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 ]. Lastly, there were also some papers that explicitly stated that there were no privacy concerns found by the participants, or that participants found it useful to have monitoring without mentioning privacy as a barrier [ 29 , 30 , 31 ].

The second prevalent sub-issue within privacy was (B) privacy by choice. Both older persons and their caregivers expressed a preference for having a choice in technology used, in what data is collected, and where technology should or should not be to installed [ 32 , 33 ]. For example, some spaces were perceived as more private and thus monitoring felt more intrusive [ 34 , 35 , 36 ]. Formal caregivers were concerned about monitoring technologies being used as a recording device for their work [ 37 , 38 ]. Furthermore, older persons were often worried about cameras [ 39 , 40 ] and “eyes watching”, even if no cameras were involved [ 41 , 42 , 43 ].

The third privacy concern was (C) risk and regulation of privacy, which included discussions surrounding dissemination of data or active data theft [ 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 ], as well as change in behavior or relationships due to interaction with technology [ 48 , 49 ]. Researchers were aware of both legal and design-contextual measures that must be observed in order to ensure that these risks were minimized [ 45 , 50 , 51 ].

The final sub-issue that we categorized was (D) privacy in the case of cognitive impairment. This included disagreements if cognitive impairment warrants more intrusive measures or if privacy should be protected for everyone in the same way [ 52 , 53 ].

Human versus artificial relationships

54 articles in our review contained data pertinent to trade-offs between human and artificial caregiving. Firstly, (A) there was a general fear that robots would replace humans in providing care for older persons [ 28 , 54 , 55 , 56 ], along with related concerns such as losing jobs [ 40 , 57 ], disadvantages with substituting real interpersonal contact [ 17 , 46 ], and thus increasing the negative effects associated with social isolation [ 41 , 58 ].

Many papers also emphasized (B) the importance of human caregiving, underlining the necessity of human touch [ 26 , 47 , 50 , 59 ] believing that technology should and could not replace humans in connections [ 17 ], love [ 33 ], relationships [ 60 ], and care through attention to subtle signs of health decline in every in-person visit [ 57 ]. Older persons also preferred human contact over machines and had guarded reactions to purely virtual relationships[ 31 , 61 , 62 ]. The use of technology was seen to dehumanize care, as care should be inherently human-oriented [ 27 , 48 ].

There was data alluding to (C) the positive reactions to technologies performing caregiving tasks and possibly forming attachments with the technology[ 47 , 49 , 58 ]. Furthermore, some papers cited participants reacting positively to robots replacing human care, where the concept of “good care” could be redefined [ 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 ]. Solely theoretical papers also identified possible benefits of tech for socialization and relationship building [ 67 , 68 ].

Finally, many articles raised the idea of (D) collaboration between machine and human to provide caregiving to older persons [ 69 ]. These studies highlighted the possible harms if such collaboration was not achieved, such as informal caregivers withdrawing from care responsibilities [ 70 ] or the reinforcement of oppressive care relations [ 71 ]. Interestingly, opinions varied on whether the caregiving technology, such as a robot should have “life-like” appearance, voices, and emotional expressions, while recognizing the current technological limits in actually providing those features to a satisfactory level [ 46 ]. For example, some users preferred for the robot to communicate with voice commands, while others wanted to further customize this function with specific requests on the types of voices generated [ 65 , 72 ].

40 papers mentioned autonomy of the older person with respect to the use of SHHTs. The first sub-theme categorized was in relation to (A) control, which encompassed positive aspects like (possible) empowerment through technology [ 25 , 26 , 73 , 74 ] and negative aspects such as the possibility of technology taking control over the older person, thus increasing dependence [ 55 , 75 ] or decreasing freedom of decision making [ 48 ]. Several studies reported the wishes of older persons to be in control when using the technology (e.g. technology should be easily switched off or on) and be in control of its potential, meaning the extend of data collected or transferred, for example [ 17 , 30 , 70 , 76 ]. Furthermore, they should have the option to not use technology in spaces where they do not wish to, e.g., public spaces [ 35 ]. The issue of increased dependency was discussed as a loss or rather, fear of the loss of autonomy due to greater reliance on technology as well as the fear of being monitored all the time [ 28 , 48 ]. In addition, using technology was deemed to make older persons more dependent and to increase isolation [ 77 ].

The second sub-category within autonomy highlighted the need for the technology to (B) protect the autonomy and dignity of its older end-users, which also included the unethical practice of deception (e.g.[ 46 , 49 , 54 , 78 ], infantilization [ 31 , 60 ], or paternalism [ 17 , 27 , 57 ], as a way to disrespect older persons’ dignity and autonomy [ 79 , 80 , 81 ]. Also reported was that these users may accept technology to avoid being a burden on others, thus underscoring the value of technology to enhance functional autonomy, understood here as independent functioning [ 52 , 82 , 83 ]. Other studies mentioned this kind of trade-off between autonomy and other values or interests as well. For example, between respecting the autonomy of the older persons versus nudging them towards certain behavior (perceived as beneficial for them) through the help of technology [ 32 ], or between autonomy and safety [ 24 ].

Two sub-issues within autonomy primarily discussed in the theoretical publications were (C) relational autonomy [ 27 , 41 , 49 , 58 ] and (D) explanations on why autonomy should actually be preserved. The former emphasized the fact that older persons do not and should not live isolated lives and that there should be respect and promotion of their relationships with family members, friends, caregivers, and the community as a whole [ 27 , 47 ]. The latter described the benefits of respecting autonomy, such as increased happiness and well-being [ 65 , 67 ] or a sense of purpose [ 84 ], and thus favoring the promotion of autonomy and choice also from a normative perspective.

Responsibility

This theme included data across 25 articles that mentioned concerns such as the effect of using technologies on the current responsibilities of caregivers and older persons themselves. Specifically, the papers discussed (A) the downsides of assistive home technology on responsibility. That is, the use of technology conflicted with moral ideas around responsibility [ 58 ], especially for caregivers [ 57 , 59 ]. Its use also raised more practical concerns, such as the fear of shifting the responsibility onto the technology and thus, diminishing vigilance and/or care. Related to this thought was also a fear of increased responsibility on both older persons [ 60 ] and their caregivers, who were worried about extra work time was needed to integrate technology into their work, learn its functions, analyze data, and respond to potentially higher frequencies of alerts [ 18 , 35 , 36 , 53 , 85 ].

Additionally, studies reported (B) continuous negotiation between (formal) caregivers’ (professional) responsibilities of care and the opportunities that smart technologies could provide [ 26 , 47 , 55 , 70 , 82 ]. For example, increased need for cooperation between informal and formal caregivers due to technology was foreseen [ 81 ] and fear expressed that over-reliance on female caregivers was exacerbated [ 71 ]. Nevertheless, the use of smart home health technologies was often seen to (C) reduce the burden of care, where caregivers could direct their attention and time to the most-needed situations and better align the responsibilities of care [ 5 , 18 , 49 , 74 , 80 , 81 ]. This shift of burden onto a technology was also reported by older persons as freeing [ 48 ].

Ageism and stigma

24 articles discussed ageism and stigma, which included discussions about fear of (A) being stigmatized by others with the use of SHHTs [ 73 , 86 ]. Older persons thought acceptance of such technologies also alluded to an admission of failure [ 82 ], or being perceived by others as frail, old, forgetful [ 77 , 87 ], or even stupid [ 26 , 33 , 88 ]. This resulted in them expressing ageist views stating that they did not need the technology “yet” [ 84 , 89 ]. Some papers reported the belief that the presence of robots was disrespectful for older people [ 52 , 85 , 90 ] and technologies do little to alleviate frustration and the impression of “being stupid” that older persons may have when they are faced with the complexities of the healthcare system [ 73 ]. Furthermore, older persons in a few studies did express unfamiliarity with learning new technologies in old age [ 42 , 66 , 91 ], coupled with fears of falling behind and not keeping up with their development, and feeling pressured to use technology [ 62 , 89 ].

Within ageism and stigma, (B) social influence was deemed to cause older persons to believe that the longer they have been using technology, the more their loved ones want them to use it as well, creating a sort of reinforcing loop [ 27 ]. Other social points were related to self-esteem, meaning that older persons needed to reach a certain threshold first to publicly admit that they need technology [ 85 ], or doubts by caregivers if they were able to use the devices [ 36 ]. This possibly led older persons to prefer unobtrusive technology and those that could not be noticed by visitors [ 22 , 55 , 88 ].

Lastly, (C) two theoretical articles raised concerns in regard to technology exacerbating stigmatization of women and migrants in caregiving. Both Parks [ 47 ] and Roberts & Mort [ 71 ] suggested that caregiving technology which does not question the underlying expectation that women give care to their relatives will worsen such gendered expectations in caregiving.

We identified 18 articles that mentioned some aspect of trust. For both older persons and caregivers, there was often (A) a general mistrust with technologies compared with existing human caregiving [ 33 , 42 ]. Therefore, caregivers became proxies and were relied on to “understand it” and continue providing care [ 48 ]. For caregivers the lack of trust was associated with the use of technologies, for example, leaving older persons alone with technology [ 81 ], worrying that older persons would not trust the technology [ 29 , 32 ] or that it could change their professional role [ 23 ]. One paper even reported that using technology meant caregivers themselves are not trusted [ 92 ]. Surprisingly, some studies found that older persons had no problem trusting technology, even considering it safer and more reliable than humans [ 58 , 70 ].

The second sub-theme concerned (B) characteristics promoting trust. That is, the degree of automation [ 30 ](, the involvement of trusted humans in design and use [ 34 , 93 ], perceived usefulness of the technology and spent time with the technology all influenced trust [ 59 , 72 , 94 ]. For robots specifically, they were trusted more than virtual agents, such as Alexa [ 60 , 65 ]. Taking this step further, studies discovered that robots with a higher degree of automation or a lower degree in anthropomorphism level increased trust [ 30 ].

There were several miscellaneous considerations not fitting the ones already mentioned above, and we categorized them as follows. Firstly, two theoretical articles mentioned (A) considerations related to research. Ho, [ 27 ] pointed out that empirical evidence of the usefulness of SHHTs is lacking, which therefore may make them less relevant as a possible solution for aging in place. Palm et al. (2013) suggested that, if research would consider the fact that many costs of caregiving are hidden because of non-paid informal caregivers, the actual economic benefits of SHHTs are unknown. Lastly, two articles alluded to (B) psychological phenomena related to the use of SHHTs. Pirhonen et al., [ 58 ] suggested that robots can promote the ethical value of well-being through the promotion of feelings of hope. The other phenomenon was feeling of blame and fear associated with the adoption of the technology, as caregivers may be pushed to use SHHTs in order to not be blamed for failing to use technology [ 18 ]. This then also nudged caregivers to think that using SHHTs cannot do any harm, so it is better to use it than not use it.

Our systematic review investigated if and how ethical considerations appear in the current research on SHHTs in the context of caregiving for older persons. As we included both empirical and theoretical works of literature, our review is more comprehensive that existing systematic reviews (e.g.[ 12 , 13 , 14 ], that have either only explored the empirical side of the research and neglected to study ethical concerns. Our review offers an informative and useful insights on dominant ethical issues related to caregiving, such as autonomy and trust [ 95 , 96 ]. At the same time, the study findings brings forth less known ethical concerns that arise when using technologies in the caregiving context, such as responsibility [ 97 ] and ageism and stigma.

The first key finding of our systematic review is the silence on ethics in SHHTs research for caregiving purposes. Over a third of the reviewed publications did not mention any ethical concern. One possible explanation is related to scarcity [ 98 ]. In the context of research in caregiving for older persons, “scarcity” can be understood in a variety of ways: one way is to see the available space for ethical principles in medical technology research as scarce. For example, according to Einav & Ranzani [ 99 ] “Medical technology itself is not required to be ethical; the ethics of medical technology revolves around when, how and on whom each technology is used” (p.1612). Determining the answers to these questions is done empirically, by providing proof of benefit of the technology, ongoing reporting on (possibly harmful) long term effects, and so on [ 99 ]. Given that publication space in journal is limited to a certain amount of text, the available space that ethical considerations can take up is scarce. Therefore, adding deliberations about the unearthed values or issues in our systematic review, like trust, responsibility or ageism, may simply not fit in the space available in research publications. This may also be the reason why the values of beneficence and non-maleficence were not found through our narrative analysis. While both values are considered crucial in biomedical ethics [ 9 ], the empirically measured benefits may be considered enough by the authors to demonstrate beneficence (and non-maleficence), leading them to not mention the ethical values explicitly again in their publications.

Another interpretation is the scarcity of time, and the felt pressure to “solve” the problem of limited resources in caregiving [ 2 ]. Researchers might be therefore more inclined to focus on the empirical data showing benefits, rather than to engage in elaborations on ethical issues that arise with those benefits. Lastly, as researchers have to compete for limited funding [ 100 ] and given that technological research receives more funding than biomedical ethics [ 101 ], it is likely that the numbers of publications mentioning purely empirical studies exceeds those publications that solely mention the ethical issues (as our theoretical papers did) or that combine empirical and ethical parts. Further research needs to investigate these hypotheses further.

It is not surprising that privacy was the most discussed ethical issue in relation to SHHTs in caregiving. The topic of privacy, especially in relation to monitoring technologies and/or health, has been widely discussed (see for example [ 102 , 103 , 104 ]. A particularly interesting finding within this ethical concern was related to privacy and cognitive impairment. While discussions around autonomy and cognitive impairment are popular in bioethical research (see e.g. [ 105 , 106 ], privacy, on the other hand, has recently gained more attention for both researchers and designers [ 107 ]. The relation in the reviewed studies between cognitive impairment and privacy seemed to be reversely correlated –intrusions into the privacy of older persons with cognitive impairments were deemed as more justified [ 35 , 53 ], which necessarily does not mean that its ethical, but a practical fact that such intrusions become possible or necessary in the given context. A possible explanation lies in the connectedness of autonomy and privacy, in the sense that autonomy is needed to consent for any sort of intrusions [ 108 ].

Surprisingly, more research papers mentioned the topic of human vs. artificial relationships as an ethical concern than autonomy. Autonomy is often the most discussed ethics topic when it comes to use of technology [ 96 ]. However, fears associated with technology replacing human care has recently gained traction [ 109 , 110 , 111 ].The significance of this theme is likely due to the fact that caregiving for older persons has been (and is) a very human-centric activity [ 112 ]. As mentioned before, the persons willing and able to do this labor (both paid and unpaid caregiver) are limited and their pool is shrinking [ 113 ]. The idea of technology possibly filling this gap is not new [ 114 ], but is also clearly causing wariness among both older persons and caregivers, as we have discovered [ 56 , 61 ]. Frequently mentioned was the fear of care being replaced by technology. This finding was to be expected, as nursing is not the only profession where introduction of technology caused fears of job loss [ 115 ]. Within this ethical concern, the importance of human touch and human interaction was underlined [ 110 , 111 ]. Human touch is an important asset for caregivers when they care for older patients, particularly those with dementia, as it is one of the few ways to establish connection and to calm the patient with dementia [ 116 ]. Similarly, human touch and face-to-face interactions are mentioned as a critical aspect of caregiving in general, both for the care recipient and the caregiver [ 117 , 118 ]. While caregivers see the aspect of touching and interacting with older care recipients as a way to make their actions more meaningful and healing [ 90 , 117 ], for care recipients being touched, talked and listened to is part of feeling respected and experiencing dignity [ 118 , 119 ]. Introducing technology into the caregiving profession may therefore quickly elicit associations with cold and lifeless objects [ 59 ]. Future developments, both in the design of the technologies themselves and their implementation in caregiving will require critical discussion among concerned stakeholders and careful decision on how and to what extent the human touch and human care must be preserved.

A unique ethical concern that we have not seen in previous research [ 120 , 121 ] is responsibility, and remarkable within this concern was SHHTs’ negative impact on it. As previously mentioned, the human being and human interaction are seen as central to caregiving [ 117 , 118 ]. This can possibly be extended to concepts exclusively attributable to humans, such as the concept of moral responsibility [ 122 ]. Shifting caregiving tasks onto a technological device, which, by being a device and not a human carer, cannot be morally responsible in the same way as a human being can [ 123 ], may introduce a sense of void that caregivers are reluctant to create. Studies have shown that a mismatch in professional and personal values in nursing causes emotional discomfort and stress [ 124 ], therefore the shift in the professional environment caused by SHHTs is likely to be met with aversion. Additionally, the negative impact of SHHTs on caregiving responsibility was also tied to practical concerns, like not having enough time to learn how to use the technology by the caregivers [ 35 ], or needing to have access to and checking the older person’s health data [ 36 ]. Such concerns point to the possibility that SHHTs can create unforeseen tasks, which could turn into true burdens, instead of alleviating caregivers. Indeed, there are indications that the increase in information about the older person through monitoring technologies causes stress for both caregivers and older persons, as the former feel pressure to look at the available data, while the latter prefer to hide unfavorable information to not seem burdensome for their caregivers [ 125 ]. Another consequence of SHHTs that emerged as a sub-category was the renegotiation of responsibilities among the different stakeholders. In the field of (assistive) technology, this renegotiation is an ongoing process with efforts to make technology and its developers more accountable, through new policies and regulations [ 126 ]. In the realm of assistive technology in healthcare, these negotiations focus on high-risk cases and emergencies [ 127 ]. Who is responsible for the death of a person if the assistive technology failed to recognize an emergency, or to alert humans in time? Such issues around responsibility and legal liability are partially responsible for the slow uptake of technology in caregiving [ 128 ].

Another important but less discussed ethical concern was ageism and stigma. Ageist prejudices include being perceived as slow, useless, burdensome, and incompetent [ 129 ]. Fear of aging and becoming a burden to others is a fear many older persons have, as current social norms demand independence until death [ 130 ]. Furthermore, the general ubiquitous use of technology has possibly exacerbated the issue of ageism, as life became fast paced and more pressure is placed on aging persons to keep up [ 131 ]. While this would call for more attention to studying ageism in relation to technology, our findings indicate that, it does not unfortunately seem at the forefront of concerns that are prevalent in the literature (and thereby the society).

Related to ageism, is the wish of older persons to not be perceived as old and/or in the need of assistance (in the form of technology) explains the prevalent demand for unobtrusive technology. Obtrusiveness, in the context of SHHTs, is defined as “undesirably prominent and or/noticeable”, yet this definition should include the user’s perception and environment, and is thus not an objectively applicable definition [ 132 ]. Nevertheless, we can infer that by “unobtrusive”, users mean SHHTs that is not noticeable by them or, mostly importantly, by other persons to possibly reduce stigma associated with using a technology deemed to be for persons with certain limitations. Further research will have to confirm if unobtrusive technology actually reduces stigma and/or fosters acceptance of such SHHTs in caregiving.

Lastly, the sub-theme of stigmatization of women and immigrants in caregiving and possibly exacerbating their caregiving burden through technology was only discovered in two theoretical publications [ 47 , 71 ]. While it is well known that caregiving burden mostly falls upon women [ 133 , 134 ], many of them with a migration background when it comes to live-in caregivers [ 135 , 136 ]. It is surprising that we found no redistribution of burden of care with technology. This is likely due to the fact that caregiving – be it technologically assisted or not – remains perceived as a more feminine and, unfortunately, low status profession [ 137 ]. The development of technology, however, are still mostly associated with masculinity This tension between the innovators and actual users of technology can lead to the exacerbation of stigma for female and migrant caregivers, as the human bias is conserved by the technology, instead of disrupted through it [ 137 ].

Finally, trust was an expected ethical concern, given that it is a widely discussed topic in relation to technology (see for example, [ 123 , 138 ] and also in the context of nursing [ 95 , 139 ]. Older persons were trusting caregivers to understand SHHTs [ 48 ], while caregivers feared that older persons would not trust the used technology, even though said persons did not express such concerns [ 32 ]. A possibility to mitigate such misunderstandings and put both caregivers and care recipients on an equal understanding of the technology are education tools [ 140 ]. Another surprising finding was that some older persons were inclined to trust SHHTs even more than human caregivers, as they were seen as more reliable [ 70 ]. This trust in technology was increased when a physical robot instead of an only virtual agent was involved [ 60 , 65 ]. Studies in the realm of embodiment of virtual agents and robots suggest that the presence of a body or face promotes human-like interactions with said agents [ 51 ]. Furthermore, our systematic review discovered other characteristics which promote trust in SHHTs, such as perceived usefulness [ 94 ] or time spent with the technology [ 59 ]. Another important aspect is the already existing trust in the person introducing the technology to the user [ 34 , 93 ]. In combining these characteristics in the design and implementation of SHHTs in caregiving, researchers and technology developers need to find creative mechanisms to facilitate trustworthiness and foster adoption of new technologies in caregiving.

Limitations

While we searched 10 databases for publications over a span of 20 years, we are aware that older or newer publications will have escaped our systematic review. Relevant new literature that we have found when writing our results have been incorporated in this manuscript. Furthermore, as we specifically refrained from using terms related to ethics in our search strings to also capture the instances of absence of ethical concerns, this choice may have led to missing a few articles as a consequence, especially in regards to theoretical publications. Lastly, due to lack of resources, we were unable to carry out independent data extraction for all included papers (N = 156) and chose to validate the quality of extracted data by using a random selection of 10% of the included sample. Since there was high agreement on extracted data, we are confident about the quality of our study findings.

SHHTs offer the possibility to mitigate the shortage of human caregiving resources and to enable older persons to age in place, being adequately supported by technology. However, this shift in caregiving comes with ethical challenges. If and how these ethical challenges are mentioned in the current research around SHHTs in caregiving for older persons was the goal of this systematic review. Through analyzing 156 articles, both empirical and theoretical, we discovered that, while over one third of articles did not mention any ethical concerns whatsoever, the other two thirds discussed a plethora of ethical issues. Specifically, we discovered the emergence of concerns with the use of technology in the care of older persons around the theme of human vs. artificial relationships, ageism and stigma, and responsibility. In short, our systematic review offers a comprehensive overview of the currently discussed ethical issues in the context of SHHTs in caregiving for older persons. However, scholars in the fields of gerontology, ethics, and technology working on such issues would be already (or should be) aware that ethical concerns will change with each developing technology and the population it is used for. For instance, with the rise of Artificial intelligence/Machine Learning, new intelligent or smart technologies will continue to mature with use and time. Thus, ethical value such as autonomy will require re-evaluation with this significant content development as well as deciding, if the person would/should be asked to re-consent or how should this decision making proceed should he or she have developed dementia. In sum, more critical work is necessary to prospectively act on ethical concerns that may arise with new and developing technologies that could be used in reducing caregiving burden now and in the future.

Data Availability

All data generated or analyzed during this systematic review are included in this published article and its appendices. Appendix part 1 contains all included articles and their characteristics. Appendix part 2 contains the search strategy and all search strings for all searched databases, as well as the PROSPERO registration number.

Hertog S, Cohen B, Population. 2030: Demographic challenges and opportunities for sustainable development planning. undefined [Internet]. 2015 [zitiert 11. Juli 2022]; Verfügbar unter: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Population-2030%3A-Demographic-challenges-and-for-Hertog-Cohen/f0c 5c06b4bf7b53f7cb61fe155e762ec23edbc0b

Bosch-Farré C, Malagón-Aguilera MC, Ballester-Ferrando D, Bertran-Noguer C, Bonmatí-Tomàs A, Gelabert-Vilella S. u. a. healthy ageing in place: enablers and barriers from the perspective of the elderly. A qualitative study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(18):1–23.

Article   Google Scholar  

Cuvillier B, Chaumon M, Body S, Cros F. Detecting falls at home: user-centered design of a pervasive technology. Hum Technol November. 2016;12(2):165–92.

Fitzpatrick JM, Tzouvara V. Facilitators and inhibitors of transition for older people who have relocated to a long-term care facility: a systematic review. Health Soc Care Community Mai. 2019;27(3):e57–81.

Lee DTF, Woo J, Mackenzie AE. A review of older people’s experiences with residential care placement. J Adv Nurs Januar. 2002;37(1):19–27.

Rohrmann S. Epidemiology of Frailty in Older People. In: Veronese N, Herausgeber. Frailty and Cardiovascular Diseases: Research into an Elderly Population [Internet]. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020 [zitiert 10. Februar 2022]. S. 21–7. (Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology). Verfügbar unter: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33330-0_3

Demiris G, Hensel BK, Skubic M, Rantz M. Senior residents’ perceived need of and preferences for “smart home” sensor technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care Januar. 2008;24(01):120–4.

Majumder S, Aghayi E, Noferesti M, Memarzadeh-Tehran H, Mondal T, Pang Z. u. a. Smart Homes for Elderly Healthcare-Recent advances and Research Challenges. Sens 31 Oktober. 2017;17(11):E2496.

Google Scholar  

Holm S. Autonomy, authenticity, or best interest: everyday decision-making and persons with dementia. Med Health Care Philos 1 Mai. 2001;4(2):153–9.

Trothen TJ. Intelligent Assistive Technology Ethics for Aging Adults: Spiritual Impacts as a Necessary Consideration | EndNote Click [Internet]. 2022 [zitiert 12. Juli 2022]. Verfügbar unter: https://click.endnote.com/viewer?doi=10.3390%2Frel13050452 &token=WzMxNTc3MzUsIjEwLjMzOTAvcmVsMTMwNTA0NTIiXQ.zGm-wqWo8mCI5L8GIchNEsUCQjg

Cook AM. Ethical issues related to the Use/Non-Use of Assistive Technologies. Dev Disabil Bull. 2009;37:127–52.

Demiris G, Hensel BK. Technologies for an aging society: a systematic review of „smart home“ applications.Yearb Med Inform. 2008;33–40.

Liu L, Stroulia E, Nikolaidis I, Miguel-Cruz A, Rios Rincon A. Smart homes and home health monitoring technologies for older adults: a systematic review. Int J Med Inf Juli. 2016;91:44–59.

Moraitou M, Pateli A, Fotiou S. Smart Health Caring Home: a systematic review of Smart Home Care for Elders and Chronic Disease Patients. In: Vlamos P, editor. Herausgeber. GeNeDis 2016. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2017. pp. 255–64. (Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology).

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Klingler C, Silva DS, Schuermann C, Reis AA, Saxena A, Strech D. Ethical issues in public health surveillance: a systematic qualitative review. BMC Public Health 4 April. 2017;17(1):295.

Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rogers M. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic Reviews. A Product from the ESRC Methods Programme. Version 1 | Semantic Scholar [Internet]. 2006 [zitiert 15. September 2022]. Verfügbar unter: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Guidance-on-the-conduct-of-narrative-synthesis-in-A-Popay-Roberts/ed8b23836338f 6fdea0cc55e161b0fc5805f9e27

Draper H, Sorell T. Ethical values and social care robots for older people: an international qualitative study. Ethics Inf Technol 1 März. 2017;19(1):49–68.

Hall A, Wilson CB, Stanmore E, Todd C. Implementing monitoring technologies in care homes for people with dementia: a qualitative exploration using normalization process theory. Int J Nurs Stud Juli. 2017;72:60–70.

Airola E, Rasi P. [PDF] Domestication of a Robotic Medication-Dispensing Service Among Older People in Finnish Lapland | Semantic Scholar [Internet]. 2020 [zitiert 6. September 2022]. Verfügbar unter: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Domestication-of-a-Robotic-Medication-Dispensing-in-Airola-Rasi/c8a 84330af2410efdc0c6efcf56fbaf3490a8292

Aloulou H, Mokhtari M, Tiberghien T, Biswas J, Phua C, Kenneth Lin. JH, u. a. Deployment of assistive living technology in a nursing home environment: methods and lessons learned. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 8 April. 2013;13:42.

Bankole A, Anderson M, Homdee N. BESI: Behavioral and Environmental Sensing and Intervention for Dementia Caregiver Empowerment—Phases 1 and 2 [Internet]. 2020 [zitiert 6. September 2022]. Verfügbar unter: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1533317520906686

Alexander GL, Rantz M, Skubic M, Aud MA, Wakefield B, Florea E. u. a. sensor systems for monitoring functional status in assisted living facility residents. Res Gerontol Nurs Oktober. 2008;1(4):238–44.

Cavallo F, Aquilano M, Arvati M. An ambient assisted living approach in designing domiciliary services combined with innovative technologies for patients with Alzheimer’s disease: a case study. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen Februar. 2015;30(1):69–77.

Hunter I, Elers P, Lockhart C, Guesgen H, Singh A, Whiddett D. Issues Associated With the Management and Governance of Sensor Data and Information to Assist Aging in Place: Focus Group Study With Health Care Professionals. JMIR MHealth UHealth. 2. Dezember 2020;8(12):e24157.

Cahill J, Portales R, McLoughin S, Nagan N, Henrichs B, Wetherall S. IoT/Sensor-Based infrastructures promoting a sense of Home, Independent Living, Comfort and Wellness. Sens 24 Januar. 2019;19(3):485.

Demiris G, Hensel B. Smart Homes” for patients at the end of life. J Hous Elder 20 Februar. 2009;23(1–2):106–15.

Ho A. Are we ready for artificial intelligence health monitoring in elder care? BMC Geriatr Dezember. 2020;20(1):358.

Kang HG, Mahoney DF, Hoenig H, Hirth VA, Bonato P. Hajjar I, u. a. In situ monitoring of Health in older adults: Technologies and Issues: ISSUES IN IN SITU GERIATRIC HEALTH MONITORING. J Am Geriatr Soc August. 2010;58(8):1579–86.

Arthanat S, Begum M, Gu T, LaRoche DP, Xu D, Zhang N. Caregiver perspectives on a smart home-based socially assistive robot for individuals with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementia. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2 Oktober. 2020;15(7):789–98.

Erebak S, Turgut T. Caregivers’ attitudes toward potential robot coworkers in elder care. Cogn Technol Work Mai. 2019;21(2):327–36.

Meiland FJM, Hattink BJJ, Overmars-Marx T, de Boer ME, Jedlitschka A, Ebben PWG. u. a. participation of end users in the design of assistive technology for people with mild to severe cognitive problems; the european Rosetta project. Int Psychogeriatr Mai. 2014;26(5):769–79.

Bedaf S, Marti P, De Witte L. What are the preferred characteristics of a service robot for the elderly? A multi-country focus group study with older adults and caregivers. Assist Technol 27 Mai. 2019;31(3):147–57.

Epstein I, Aligato A, Krimmel T, Mihailidis A. Older adults’ and caregivers’ perspectives on In-Home Monitoring Technology. J Gerontol Nurs 15 März. 2016;42:1–8.

Chung J, Demiris G, Thompson HJ, Chen KY, Burr R, Patel S. u. a. feasibility testing of a home-based sensor system to monitor mobility and daily activities in korean American older adults. Int J Older People Nurs. 2017;12(1):e12127.

Niemelä M, van Aerschot L, Tammela A, Aaltonen I, Lammi H. Towards ethical guidelines of using Telepresence Robots in Residential Care. Int J Soc Robot 1 Juni. 2019;13(3):431–9.

Robinson EL, Park G, Lane K, Skubic M, Rantz M. Technology for healthy independent living: creating a tailored In-Home Sensor System for older adults and family caregivers. J Gerontol Nurs Juli. 2020;46(7):35–40.

Barnier F, Chekkar R. Building automation, an acceptable solution to dependence? Responses through an Acceptability Survey about a Sensors platform. IRBM Juni. 2018;39(3):167–79.

Birks M, Bodak M, Barlas J, Harwood J, Pether M. Robotic Seals as Therapeutic Tools in an aged care facility: a qualitative study. J Aging Res 1 Januar. 2016;2016:1–7.

Bertera E, Tran B, Wuertz E, Bonner A. A study of the receptivity to telecare technology in a community-based elderly minority population. J Telemed Telecare 1 Februar. 2007;13:327–32.

Mahoney D. An evidence-based adoption of Technology Model for Remote Monitoring of Elders’ Daily Activities. Ageing Int 1 September. 2010;36:66–81.

Boissy P, Corriveau H, Michaud F, Labonte D, Royer MP. A qualitative study of in-home robotic telepresence for home care of community-living elderly subjects. J Telemed Telecare 1 Februar. 2007;13:79–84.

Bradford DK, Kasteren YV, Zhang Q, Karunanithi M. Watching over me: positive, negative and neutral perceptions of in-home monitoring held by independent-living older residents in an australian pilot study. Ageing Soc Juli. 2018;38(7):1377–98.

Cohen C, Kampel T, Verloo H. Acceptability Among Community Healthcare Nurses of Intelligent Wireless Sensor-system Technology for the Rapid Detection of Health Issues in Home-dwelling Older Adults. Open Nurs J [Internet]. 17. April 2017 [zitiert 6. September 2022];11(1). Verfügbar unter: https://opennursingjournal.com/VOLUME/11/PAGE/54/

Boise L, Wild K, Mattek N, Ruhl M, Dodge HH, Kaye J. Willingness of older adults to share data and privacy concerns after exposure to unobtrusive in-home monitoring. Gerontechnology 22 Januar. 2013;11(3):428–35.

Li CZ, Borycki EM. Smart Homes for Healthcare. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2019;257:283–7.

Moyle W. The promise of technology in the future of dementia care. Nat Rev Neurol Juni. 2019;15(6):353–9.

Parks JA. Home-Based Care, Technology, and the maintenance of selves. HEC Forum Juni. 2015;27(2):127–41.

Essén A. The two facets of electronic care surveillance: An exploration of the views of older people who live with monitoring devices | Request PDF [Internet]. 2008 [zitiert 6. September 2022]. Verfügbar unter: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5457066_The_two_facets_of_electronic_care_surveillance_An_exploration_of_the_views_of_older_people_who_live_with_monitoring_devices

Preuß D, Legal F. Living with the animals: animal or robotic companions for the elderly in smart homes? J Med Ethics Juni. 2017;43(6):407–10.

Geier J, Mauch M, Patsch M, Paulicke D. Wie Pflegekräfte im ambulanten Bereich den Einsatz von Telepräsenzsystemen einschätzen - eine qualitative studie. Pflege Februar. 2020;33(1):43–51.

Kim JY, Liu N, Tan HX, Chu CH. Unobtrusive monitoring to Detect Depression for Elderly with Chronic Illnesses. IEEE Sens J September. 2017;17(17):5694–704.

Barrett E, Burke M, Whelan S, Santorelli A, Oliveira BL, Cavallo F. u. a. evaluation of a companion robot for individuals with dementia: quantitative findings of the MARIO project in an irish residential care setting. J Gerontol Nurs 1 Januar. 2019;47(7):36–45.

Kinney JM, Kart CS, Murdoch LD, Conley CJ. Striving to provide Safety assistance for families of Elders: the SAFE House Project. Dement 1 Oktober. 2004;3(3):351–70.

Baisch S, Kolling T, Rühl S, Klein B, Pantel J, Oswald F. Emotionale Roboter im Pflegekontext: Empirische Analyse des bisherigen Einsatzes und der Wirkungen von Paro und Pleo. Z Für Gerontol Geriatr. Januar 2018;51(1):16–24.

Bobillier Chaumon ME, Cuvillier B, Body Bekkadja S, Cros F. Detecting falls at home: user-centered design of a Pervasive Technology. Hum Technol 29 November. 2016;12:165–92.

Lussier M, Couture M, Moreau M, Laliberté C, Giroux S, Pigot H. u. a. integrating an ambient assisted living monitoring system into clinical decision-making in home care: an embedded case study. Gerontechnology 15 März. 2020;19:77–92.

Klein B, Schlömer I. A robotic shower system: Acceptance and ethical issues. Z Gerontol Geriatr Januar. 2018;51(1):25–31.

Pirhonen J, Melkas H, Laitinen A, Pekkarinen S. Could robots strengthen the sense of autonomy of older people residing in assisted living facilities?—A future-oriented study. Ethics Inf Technol Juni. 2020;22(2):151–62.

Kleiven HH, Ljunggren B, Solbjør M. Health professionals’ experiences with the implementation of a digital medication dispenser in home care services - a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 16 April. 2020;20(1):320.

Görer B, Salah AA, Akın HL. An autonomous robotic exercise tutor for elderly people. Auton Robots 1 März. 2017;41(3):657–78.

Berridge C, Chan KT, Choi Y. Sensor-Based Passive Remote Monitoring and Discordant Values: Qualitative Study of the Experiences of Low-Income Immigrant Elders in the United States. JMIR MHealth UHealth.25. März 2019;7(3):e11516.

Frennert S, Forsberg A, Östlund B. Elderly People’s Perceptions of a Telehealthcare System: Relative Advantage, Compatibility, Complexity and Observability.J Technol Hum Serv. 1. Juli2013;31.

Huisman C, Kort H. Two-year use of Care Robot Zora in dutch nursing Homes: an evaluation study. Healthc Basel Switz 19 Februar. 2019;7(1):E31.

Libin A, Cohen-Mansfield J. Therapeutic robocat for nursing home residents with dementia: preliminary inquiry. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen April. 2004;19(2):111–6.

Marti P, Stienstra JT. Exploring empathy in interaction: scenarios of respectful robotics. GeroPsych J Gerontopsychology Geriatr Psychiatry. 2013;26:101–12.

Wang RH, Sudhama A, Begum M, Huq R, Mihailidis A. Robots to assist daily activities: views of older adults with Alzheimer’s disease and their caregivers. Int Psychogeriatr Januar. 2017;29(1):67–79.

Mitzner TL, Chen TL, Kemp CC, Rogers WA. Identifying the potential for Robotics to assist older adults in different living environments. Int J Soc Robot April. 2014;6(2):213–27.

Kelly D. Smart support at home: the integration of telecare technology with primary and community care systems. Br J Healthc Comput Inform Manage 1 April. 2005;22(3):19–21.

Woods O. Subverting the logics of “smartness” in Singapore: Smart eldercare and parallel regimes of sustainability. Sustain Cities Soc Februar. 2020;53:101940.

Jenkins S, Draper H, Care. Monitoring, and companionship: views on Care Robots from Older People and their carers. Int J Soc Robot 1 November. 2015;7(5):673–83.

Roberts C, Mort M. Reshaping what counts as care: older people, work and new technologies. Alter April. 2009;3(2):138–58.

Lee S, Naguib AM. Toward a sociable and dependable Elderly Care Robot: design, implementation and user study. J Intell Robot Syst April. 2020;98(1):5–17.

Bowes A, McColgan G. Telecare for Older People: promoting independence, participation, and identity. Res Aging Januar. 2013;35(1):32–49.

Morris ME. Social networks as health feedback displays. IEEE Internet Comput September. 2005;9(5):29–37.

Milligan C, Roberts C, Mort M. Telecare and older people: who cares where? Soc Sci Med 1982 Februar. 2011;72(3):347–54.

Sánchez VG, Anker-Hansen C, Taylor I, Eilertsen G. Older people’s attitudes and perspectives of Welfare Technology in Norway. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2019;12:841–53.

Faucounau V, Wu YH, Boulay M, Maestrutti M, Rigaud AS. Caregivers’ requirements for in-home robotic agent for supporting community-living elderly subjects with cognitive impairment. Technol Health Care 30 April. 2009;17(1):33–40.

Ropero F, Vaquerizo-Hdez D, Muñoz P, Barrero D, R-Moreno M. LARES: An AI-based teleassistance system for emergency home monitoring. Cogn Syst Res. 1. April2019;56.

Naick M. Innovative approaches of using assistive technology to support carers to care for people with night-time incontinence issues. World Fed Occup Ther Bull 3 Juli. 2017;73(2):128–30.

Obayashi K, Kodate N, Shigeru M. Can connected technologies improve sleep quality and safety of older adults and care-givers? An evaluation study of sleep monitors and communicative robots at a residential care home in Japan. Technol Soc 1 Juli. 2020;62:101318.

Palm E. Who cares? Moral Obligations in formal and Informal Care Provision in the light of ICT-Based Home Care. Health Care Anal Juni. 2013;21(2):171–88.

Korchut A, Szklener S, Abdelnour C, Tantinya N, Hernández-Farigola J, Ribes JC. u. a. challenges for Service Robots-Requirements of Elderly adults with cognitive impairments. Front Neurol. 2017;8:228.

O’Brien K, Liggett A, Ramirez-Zohfeld V, Sunkara P, Lindquist LA. Voice-Controlled Intelligent Personal Assistants to support aging in place. J Am Geriatr Soc Januar. 2020;68(1):176–9.

Londei ST, Rousseau J, Ducharme F, St-Arnaud A, Meunier J, Saint-Arnaud J. u. a. An intelligent videomonitoring system for fall detection at home: perceptions of elderly people. J Telemed Telecare. 2009;15(8):383–90.

Melkas H. Innovative assistive technology in finnish public elderly-care services: a focus on productivity. Work Read Mass 1 Januar. 2013;46(1):77–91.

Peter C, Kreiner A, Schröter M, Kim H, Bieber G, Öhberg F. u. a. AGNES: connecting people in a multimodal way. J Multimodal User Interfaces 1 November. 2013;7(3):229–45.

Rawtaer I, Mahendran R, Kua EH, Tan HP, Tan HX, Lee TS. u. a. early detection of mild cognitive impairment with In-Home sensors to monitor behavior patterns in Community-Dwelling Senior Citizens in Singapore: cross-sectional feasibility study. J Med Internet Res 5 Mai. 2020;22(5):e16854.

Gokalp H, de Folter J, Verma V, Fursse J, Jones R, Clarke M. Integrated Telehealth and Telecare for Monitoring Frail Elderly with Chronic Disease. Telemed J E-Health Off J Am Telemed Assoc. Dezember 2018;24(12):940–57.

Holthe T, Halvorsrud L, Lund A. A critical occupational perspective on user engagement of older adults in an assisted living facility in technology research over three years. J Occup Sci 2 Juli. 2020;27(3):376–89.

Wright J. Tactile care, mechanical hugs: japanese caregivers and robotic lifting devices. Asian Anthropol 2 Januar. 2018;17(1):24–39.

Mitseva A, Peterson CB, Karamberi C, Oikonomou LC, Ballis AV, Giannakakos C. u. a. gerontechnology: providing a helping hand when caring for cognitively impaired older adults-intermediate results from a controlled study on the satisfaction and acceptance of informal caregivers. Curr Gerontol Geriatr Res. 2012;2012:401705.

Snyder M, Dringus L, Maitland Schladen, Chenall R, Oviawe E. „Remote Monitoring Technologies in Dementia Care: An Interpretative Phe“ by Martha Snyder, Laurie Dringus[Internet]. 2020 [zitiert 13. September 2022]. Verfügbar unter: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol25/iss5/5/

Suwa S, Tsujimura M, Ide H, Kodate N, Ishimaru M, Shimamura A. u. a. home-care professionals’ ethical perceptions of the Development and Use of Home-care Robots for older adults in Japan. Int J Human–Computer Interact 26 August. 2020;36(14):1295–303.

Torta E, Werner F, Johnson D, Juola J, Cuijpers R, Bazzani M. Evaluation of a Small Socially-Assistive Humanoid Robot in Intelligent Homes for the Care of the Elderly. J Intell Robot Syst. 1. Februar2014

Dinç L, Gastmans C. Trust and trustworthiness in nursing: an argument-based literature review. Nurs Inq September. 2012;19(3):223–37.

Moilanen T, Suhonen R, Kangasniemi M. Nursing support for older people’s autonomy in residential care: an integrative review. Int J Older People Nurs März. 2022;17(2):e12428.

Doorn N. Responsibility ascriptions in technology development and engineering: three perspectives. Sci Eng Ethics März. 2012;18(1):69–90.

Kooli C. COVID-19: public health issues and ethical dilemmas. Ethics Med Public Health Juni. 2021;17:100635.

Einav S, Ranzani OT. Focus on better care and ethics: are medical ethics lagging behind the development of new medical technologies? Intensive Care Med 1 August. 2020;46(8):1611–3.

Bahl R, Bahl S. Publication pressure versus Ethics, in Research and Publication. Indian J Community Med Off Publ Indian Assoc Prev Soc Med Dezember. 2021;46(4):584–6.

Pratt B, Hyder A. Fair Resource Allocation to Health Research: Priority Topics for Bioethics Scholarship - Pratt – 2017 - Bioethics - Wiley Online Library [Internet]. 2017 [zitiert 2. September 2022]. Verfügbar unter: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/ https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12350

Malin B, Goodman K. Section editors for the IMIA Yearbook Special Section. Between Access and privacy: Challenges in sharing Health Data. Yearb Med Inform August. 2018;27(1):55–9.

Martani A, Egli P, Widmer M, Elger B. Data protection and biomedical research in Switzerland: setting the record straight. Swiss Med Wkly 24 August. 2020;150:w20332.

Price WN, Cohen IG. Privacy in the age of medical big data. Nat Med Januar. 2019;25(1):37–43.

Brady Wagner LC. Clinical ethics in the context of language and cognitive impairment: rights and protections. Semin Speech Lang November. 2003;24(4):275–84.

Sharkey A, Sharkey N. Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics Inf Technol März. 2012;14(1):27–40.

Berridge C, Demiris G, Kaye J. Domain experts on Dementia-Care Technologies: mitigating risk in design and implementation. Sci Eng Ethics 18 Februar. 2021;27(1):14.

Greshake Tzovaras B, Angrist M, Arvai K, Dulaney M, Estrada-Galiñanes V, Gunderson B. u. a. open humans: a platform for participant-centered research and personal data exploration. GigaScience 1 Juni. 2019;8(6):giz076.

Ienca M, Lipps M, Wangmo T, Jotterand F, Elger B, Kressig R. Health professionals’ and researchers’ views on Intelligent Assistive Technology for psychogeriatric care. Gerontechnology 8 Oktober. 2018;17:139–50.

Ienca M, Schneble C, Kressig RW, Wangmo T. Digital health interventions for healthy ageing: a qualitative user evaluation and ethical assessment. BMC Geriatr 2 Juli. 2021;21(1):412.

Wangmo T, Lipps M, Kressig RW, Ienca M. Ethical concerns with the use of intelligent assistive technology: findings from a qualitative study with professional stakeholders. BMC Med Ethics 19 Dezember. 2019;20(1):98.

Caregiving AARP. NA for. Caregiving in the United States 2020 [Internet]. AARP. 2020 [zitiert 31. August 2022]. Verfügbar unter: https://www.aarp.org/ppi/info-2020/caregiving-in-the-united-states.html

McGilton KS, Vellani S, Yeung L, Chishtie J, Commisso E, Ploeg J. u. a. identifying and understanding the health and social care needs of older adults with multiple chronic conditions and their caregivers: a scoping review. BMC Geriatr 1 Oktober. 2018;18(1):231.

Sriram V, Jenkinson C, Peters M. Informal carers’ experience of assistive technology use in dementia care at home: a systematic review. BMC Geriatr 14 Juni. 2019;19(1):160.

Schwabe H, Castellacci F. Automation, workers’ skills and job satisfaction. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(11):e0242929.

Huelat B, Pochron S. Stress in the Volunteer Caregiver: Human-Centric Technology Can Support Both Caregivers and People with Dementia. Medicina (Mex). 26. Mai 2020;56:257.

Edvardsson JD, Sandman PO, Rasmussen BH. Meanings of giving touch in the care of older patients: becoming a valuable person and professional. J Clin Nurs Juli. 2003;12(4):601–9.

Stöckigt B, Suhr R, Sulmann D, Teut M, Brinkhaus B. Implementation of intentional touch for geriatric patients with Chronic Pain: a qualitative pilot study. Complement Med Res. 2019;26(3):195–205.

Felber NA, Pageau F, McLean A, Wangmo T. The concept of social dignity as a yardstick to delimit ethical use of robotic assistance in the care of older persons. Med Health Care Philos März. 2022;25(1):99–110.

Ienca M, Wangmo T, Jotterand F, Kressig RW, Elger BS. Ethical design of intelligent assistive technologies for dementia: a descriptive review. Sci Eng Ethics. 2018;24(4):1035.

Zhu J, Shi K, Yang C, Niu Y, Zeng Y, Zhang N. Ethical issues of smart home-based elderly care: A scoping review. J Nurs Manag [Internet]. 22. November 2021 [zitiert 15. September 2022];n/a(n/a). Verfügbar unter: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/ https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13521

Talbert M. Moral Responsibility. In: Zalta EN, Herausgeber. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [Internet]. Winter 2019. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University; 2019 [zitiert 1. Juli 2020]. Verfügbar unter: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/moral-responsibility/

DeCamp M, Tilburt JC. Why we cannot trust artificial intelligence in medicine. Lancet Digit Health Dezember. 2019;1(8):e390.

Dall’Ora C, Ball J, Reinius M, Griffiths P. Burnout in nursing: a theoretical review. Hum Resour Health 5 Juni. 2020;18(1):41.

Madara Marasinghe K. Assistive technologies in reducing caregiver burden among informal caregivers of older adults: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016;11(5):353–60.

Shah H. Algorithmic accountability. Philos Transact A Math Phys Eng Sci 13 September. 2018;376(2128):20170362.

Fiske A, Henningsen P, Buyx A. Your Robot Therapist will see you now: ethical implications of embodied Artificial Intelligence in Psychiatry, psychology, and psychotherapy. J Med Internet Res 9 Mai. 2019;21(5):e13216.

Scott Kruse C, Karem P, Shifflett K, Vegi L, Ravi K, Brooks M. Evaluating barriers to adopting telemedicine worldwide: a systematic review. J Telemed Telecare Januar. 2018;24(1):4–12.

Chasteen AL, Horhota M, Crumley-Branyon JJ. Overlooked and underestimated: experiences of Ageism in Young, Middle-Aged, and older adults. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 13 August. 2021;76(7):1323–8.

Svidén G, Wikström BM, Hjortsjö-Norberg M. Elderly Persons’ reflections on relocating to living at Sheltered Housing. Scand J Occup Ther 1 Januar. 2002;9(1):10–6.

McLean A. Ethical frontiers of ICT and older users: cultural, pragmatic and ethical issues. Ethics Inf Technol 1 Dezember. 2011;13(4):313–26.

Zwijsen SA, Niemeijer AR, Hertogh CMPM. Ethics of using assistive technology in the care for community-dwelling elderly people: an overview of the literature. Aging Ment Health Mai. 2011;15(4):419–27.

Jeong JS, Kim SY, Kim JN, Ashamed, Caregivers. Self-Stigma, information, and coping among dementia patient families. J Health Commun 1 November. 2020;25(11):870–8.

Mackinnon CJ. Applying feminist, multicultural, and social justice theory to diverse women who function as caregivers in end-of-life and palliative home care. Palliat Support Care Dezember. 2009;7(4):501–12.

Ha NHL, Chong MS, Choo RWM, Tam WJ, Yap PLK. Caregiving burden in foreign domestic workers caring for frail older adults in Singapore. Int Psychogeriatr August. 2018;30(8):1139–47.

Morales-Gázquez MJ, Medina-Artiles EN, López-Liria R, Aguilar-Parra JM, Trigueros-Ramos R, González-Bernal. JJ, u. a. migrant caregivers of older people in Spain: qualitative insights into relatives’ Experiences. Int J Environ Res Public Health 24 April. 2020;17(8):E2953.

Frennert S. Gender blindness: on health and welfare technology, AI and gender equality in community care. Nurs Inq Dezember. 2021;28(4):e12419.

Starke G, van den Brule R, Elger BS, Haselager P. Intentional machines: a defence of trust in medical artificial intelligence. Bioethics. 2022;36(2):154–61.

Ozaras G, Abaan S. Investigation of the trust status of the nurse-patient relationship. Nurs Ethics August. 2018;25(5):628–39.

Berridge C, Turner NR, Liu L, Karras SW, Chen A, Fredriksen-Goldsen K. u. a. Advance Planning for Technology Use in Dementia Care: Development, Design, and feasibility of a Novel Self-administered decision-making Tool. JMIR Aging 27 Juli. 2022;5(3):e39335.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the information specialist of the University of Basel who advised us on our search strategy.

Open access funding provided by University of Basel. This study was supported financially by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF NRP-77 Digital Transformation, Grant Number 407740_187464/1) as part of the SmaRt homES, Older adUlts, and caRegivers: Facilitating social aCceptance and negotiating rEsponsibilities [RESOURCE] project. The funder neither took part in the writing process, nor does any part of the views expressed in the review belong to the funder.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute of Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Bernoullistrasse 28, 4056, Basel, Switzerland

Nadine Andrea Felber, Yi Jiao (Angelina) Tian, Bernice Simone Elger & Tenzin Wangmo

Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, 1050 Av. de la Médecine, G1V0A6, Québec, QC, Canada

Félix Pageau

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Creation of the search strategy and data extraction was a joint effort of NAF and AT. FP and TW extracted data and prepared it for analysis. AT contributed majorly to the data analysis, together with NAF who is the first author of this manuscript. TW and BE provided final comments and edits. All authors read and approved the manuscript before submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nadine Andrea Felber .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Additional File 1: PRISMA 2020 checklist

Additional file 2: appendix part 1, additional file 3: appendix part 2, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Felber, N.A., Tian, Y., Pageau, F. et al. Mapping ethical issues in the use of smart home health technologies to care for older persons: a systematic review. BMC Med Ethics 24 , 24 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-023-00898-w

Download citation

Received : 15 September 2022

Accepted : 02 March 2023

Published : 29 March 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-023-00898-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Biomedical ethics
• Older persons
• Health technology

BMC Medical Ethics

ISSN: 1472-6939

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Preventing Sexual Harassment in Higher Education: A Framework for Prevention Science Program Development

• Open access
• Published: 13 April 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Cindy A. Crusto 1 ,
• Lisa M. Hooper 2 &
• Ishita S. Arora   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8550-8396 1  

1 Altmetric

Sexual harassment is an intractable problem that harms the students, community, culture, and success of institutes of higher education (IHEs). The alarming prevalence of sexual harassment at IHEs highlights the urgent need for effective prevention programs. However, there are few empirically supported preventive interventions that effectively target the factors that most impact the determinants, trajectory, and short- and intermediate-term effects of sexual harassment. In this paper, we overview the problem of sexual harassment and propose an organizing framework to help IHEs develop effective interventions to prevent sexual harassment. Guided by prevention science, we propose a framework—modified from SAMHSA’s (2019) guidelines for prevention practitioners—that underscores the criticality of trauma- and equity-informed characteristics in prevention programs. We offer a discussion on how IHEs must consider and evaluate the empirical evidence of effectiveness, flexibility, cultural competency, and sustainability when developing and adapting prevention programs to reduce and—ultimately—ameliorate sexual harassment. We conclude with recommendations that can provide a roadmap for higher education stakeholders and researchers to prevent this urgent public health concern.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Sexual harassment remains an intractable problem in institutions of higher education (IHEs) in the United States. Although sexual harassment is an epidemic and a public health problem, research detailing the prevalence of, the causes of, and empirically supported prevention-intervention strategies for sexual harassment remains inadequate (Basile et al., 2020 ; Bloom et al., 2021 ; Bonar et al., 2022 ; Dills et al., 2016 ). This lack of research limits institutional efforts to prevent sexual harassment. The purpose of this paper is three-fold: (a) to highlight the need for sexual harassment prevention (to reduce its prevalence, limit negative effects, and identify practical gaps), (b) to overview prevention science for higher education stakeholders (e.g., institutional leadership, faculty, community members), and (c) to provide an organizing framework to enable IHEs to implement effective sexual harassment prevention programs. We assert that prevention science principles are instrumental in key-decision making to identify, adopt, adapt, or develop sexual harassment prevention frameworks and programs within the IHE context. We contend that the comprehensive, evidence-based, and culturally sensitive nature of the proposed framework will aid in adopting, adapting or innovating prevention efforts with diverse stakeholders at IHEs (e.g., staff, students, faculty, and community members; Wong et al., 2017 ). We conclude with recommendations that can provide a roadmap for higher education stakeholders and researchers to prevent this urgent public health concern.

Nature of the Problem

Sexual harassment is located on the spectrum of gender-based violence and discrimination and can range from gender slurs, sexist insults, and bullying to sexual assault or threatening professional consequences if sexual favors are unmet. Sexual harassment encompasses three categories of behavior: gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, and sexual coercion (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM], 2018 ). Gender-based harassment comprises of behaviors, both verbal and non-verbal, directed at members of one gender to convey “hostility, objectification, exclusion, or second-class status” (NASEM, 2018 ), including offensive remarks about bodies, insults to working mothers, unwanted sexual discussions, and more. Gender-based harassment, the most common form of sexual harassment (Bondestam & Lundqvist, 2020 ; Swedish Council of Higher Education [ACHE], 2020; Aycock et al., 2019 ), happens more often in environments that condone it. Unwanted sexual attention entails unwelcome sexual advances and sexual assault targeted at an individual, and sexual coercion occurs when favorable treatment towards an individual is a condition of their engagement in sexual activity.

The aftereffects of sexual harassment in IHEs can be pernicious and deleterious, leading to mental health challenges, substance use, decreased academic performance, impaired career trajectory, isolation, and helplessness for individuals (Marine & Hurtado, 2021 ). It also has negative impacts on workplaces, including substantial financial costs/damages; decreased employee motivation, satisfaction, and productivity; increased concerns about inequities; a hostile organizational climate; legal costs; and high personnel turnover (Bondestam & Lundqvist, 2020 ). A systematic analysis of research of students and staff at IHEs worldwide (1966–2017) shows that globally 11-73% of heterosexual women and 3-26% of heterosexual men in IHEs are exposed to sexual harassment, and these numbers are assumed to be far higher for people living with marginalized identities (e.g., age, race, ethnicity, sexuality, gender, dis/ability, immigration status, and prior victimization; Bondestam & Lundqvist, 2020 ). While approximately 45% of all students at IHEs in the U.S. experience sexual harassment, among the undergraduate students living with marginalized identities 31.3% of women and 46.3% of non-binary, transgender, and gender questioning individuals report experiencing sexual harassment (Cantor et al., 2019 ). Some scholars contend that the prevalence of sexual harassment at IHEs is significantly underestimated due to numerous factors (Burn, 2019 ; Cantor et al., 2019 ). These include underreporting due to stigma, sample size and heterogeneity, societal norms, legal context, and differences in research methodology such as conceptual frameworks, operational definitions, and measurement. Compared to other workplaces in the U.S., women in academia experience sexually harassing behaviors (58%) more than any other workplace except the military (69%; Ilies et al., 2003 ). Importantly, meta-analytical studies suggest that the prevalence of sexual harassment in IHEs has not declined over time (Bondestam & Lundqvist, 2020 ; Fnais et al., 2014 ).

Limitations in Sexual Harassment Research and Practice

Most research on sexual and gender-based harassment is fraught with substantive limitations. The existing sexual harassment prevention frameworks tend to be more limited in scope than our proposed model. The existing models focus on sexual assault and violence (Dills et al., 2016 ) rather than the full spectrum of sexual harassment (and on short-term individual level outcomes rather than long-term individual behavioral change or system level change within IHEs (Bondestam & Lundqvist, 2020 ). Additionally, existing frameworks tend not to stress the evaluation of their efforts or the experiences of marginalized individuals, who tend to be at higher risk of sexual harassment (Guilbeau, et al. 2021 ; Coulter et al., 2017 ; Kafonek & Richards, 2017 ).

The existing gaps in sexual harassment prevention research and practice include, but are not limited to (a) data drawn from homogeneous student samples, (b) a focus on individualistic rather than systemic factors, (c) a lack of standardized measurement (d) a lack of understanding of risk and protective factors, (e) a lack of evidence of prevention programs and their effectiveness and sustainability, and (f) a lack of culturally responsive and trauma-informed implementation (McCauley & Casler, 2015 ). Additionally, most research conceptualizes and defines sexual harassment from a legal perspective and theorizes gender as simplistic and binary; these definitions are insufficient to grasp the full complexity of sexual harassment in IHEs. This insufficient theorization further constrains research questions and research methodology. For example, research on sexual harassment frequently fails to examine the underlying causal mechanisms of sexual harassment, the characteristics of the person causing the harm, and the people who are at the most risk of causing harm and/or experiencing sexual harassment (Anderson & Whiston, 2005 ; Vladutiu et al., 2011 ).

Similarly, several barriers hinder an effective institutional response to prevent and reduce sexual harassment at IHEs. These barriers include a lack of understanding of the root causes of the problem, overreliance on the idea that sexual harassment is an individual problem rather than an institutional problem, overreliance on fast fixes and simplistic solutions that fail to grapple with contextual depth and history of exclusion in academia, overemphasis on legal procedures, ill-informed and generic trainings, and lack of diverse leadership and stakeholders in the design of solutions to prevent sexual harassment (Bloom et al., 2021 ; Chambers et al., 2021 ; Clancy et al., 2020 ; Linder et al., 2020 ; Lisak & Miller, 2002 ). There is an urgent need to radically redesign sexual harassment prevention and response systems in IHEs (Clancy et al., 2020 ).

Solution – Prevention Science: from Theory to Application

Prevention science can be effective in stopping or delaying sexual harassment from occurring with a specific focus on vulnerable populations, reducing the negative consequences of sexual harassment on a target community and promoting policies and practices to enhance well-being at the individual, organizational, and community levels (American Psychological Association [APA], 2014 ). The transdisciplinary science of prevention synthesizes empirical knowledge from the biopsychosocial sciences, including sociology, psychology, behavioral science, economics, medicine, epidemiology, and neurology. This synthesis approach can help determine the multi-level ecological conditions that lead to sexual harassment at IHEs and can help identify strategies, policies, procedures, and practices to reduce the incidence of sexual harassment (Bell et al., 2002 ). Prevention has a two-pronged goal – (a) to systematically study the “precursors of dysfunction or health, called risk factors and protective factors, respectively” (Coie et al., 1993 , p. 1013), and (b) to develop, implement, and evaluate evidence-based practices that can decrease said risk factors and increase protective factors. Taken together, focusing on these two goals can reduce sexual harassment victimization and promote healthy higher education communities and organizations (Bell et al., 2002 ; Coie et al., 1993 ; Magley et al., 2013 ). In the context of higher education, Kafonek and Richards ( 2017 ) outlined the utility and transportability of six of nine principles of effective prevention programs (Nation et al., 2003 ) described below, toward reducing gender-based violence in higher education.

Principles of Effective Prevention and a Proposed Needed Extension

Identifying underlying principles that guide prevention frameworks and programs can help in the successful development, adoption, adaptation of sustainable multi-level prevention strategies for sexual harassment that can transform the culture of IHEs. Bonar and colleagues ( 2022 ) emphasized that, “prevention from a public health perspective involves a set of coordinated multi-component strategies that address risk and protective factors across the social ecology, that complement and reinforce each other with consistent messaging from multiple sources across multiple contexts, including addressing the diverse student population” (p. 145–15). Rooted in these guidelines, six core principles of prevention science can inform the development and implementation of effective prevention programs (Nation et al., 2003 ). Research investigating the adherence of the six principles of prevention programs in diverse IHEs show that adherence to these principles is low in most IHEs and that this adherence often excludes a focus on perpetrators and on the populations that are at the highest risk of experiencing sexual harassment: racial, ethnic, gender, or sexual minority students, staff, and faculty (Kafonek & Richards, 2017 ).

Here, we incorporate nine characteristics of effective prevention programs introduced by Nation and colleagues ( 2003 ) and further expounded upon by Bonar and colleagues ( 2022 ) to propose a comprehensive list of principles for effective prevention targeting sexual harassment in IHEs (Table  1 ). Specifically, our recommendations add to previously established core principles by incorporating cultural competence, sustainability, and the trauma-informed and equity-informed nature of prevention and address limitations evinced in the literature about IHEs. Cultural competence is defined as “the ability of an individual or organization to understand and interact effectively with people who have different values, lifestyles, and traditions based on their distinctive heritage and social relationships” (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2019 , p. 4). Sustainability is “the process of building an adaptive and effective system that achieves and maintains desired long-term results” (SAMHSA, 2019 , p. 4). The trauma-informed nature of prevention focuses on the “contextual features of environments and institutions that give rise to trauma, maintain it, and impact posttraumatic responses” (Goldsmith et al., 2014 , p. 118). Trauma-informed principles can include trauma-specific assessment, interventions and treatment, and structures supporting posttraumatic growth and recovery post-trauma. Equity-informed principles focus on mitigating system- and societal-level inequities that increase the risk of sexual harassment, such as historical disadvantage and structural inequalities (Shapiro et al., 2024 ).

Ecological Systems Approach to Prevention

Prevention efforts can be directed at multiple levels within the ecology of an IHE, either at each level individually or simultaneously across different levels of a system (see Fig.  1 ; individual, relational, organizational, community, and societal; APA, 2014 ; Dahlberg & Krug, 2002 ; Shapiro et al., 2024 ). For a sustained and meaningful reduction of sexual harassment, a multi-level, multi-pronged, and multi-determined approach to prevention is warranted (Clancy et al., 2020 ; Dills et al., 2016 ). The most effective way to achieve this is through an ecological systems approach which comprises of nested, overlapping and bidirectionally intersecting levels of the ecological system (Bronfenbrenner, 1976 ; Shapiro et al., 2024 ). Primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention strategies can target the varied risk and protective factors at each of the different levels simultaneously as part of an ecologically valid, culturally competent, and sustainable prevention framework. For such an approach to be effective, it is important to consider the unique ecological context of the IHE (e.g., comprehensive universities, Historically Black Colleges and Universities [HBCU], and community colleges) where the intended prevention program is being implemented by using the ecological systems approach (Fig.  1 , adapted from SAMHSA, 2019 ), including identifying the community in which the IHE is embedded and assessing the needs, existing strengths, resources, and limitations of the IHE (Dills et al., 2016 ; DeGue et al., 2014 ).

Ecological systems approach. SOURCE: Adapted from SAMHSA ( 2019 )

Multi-Level Risk and Protective Factors for Sexual Harassment in IHEs

Prevention programs can reduce or prevent sexual harassment by targeting empirically supported risk and protective factors at multiple levels of an IHE’s ecology. As the name denotes, risk factors are evidence-based variables/factors that increase the likelihood of sexual harassment occurrence at IHEs. On the other hand, protective factors are proven to reduce the likelihood of incidence of sexual harassment. These factors can exist at different levels of an IHE’s ecology (see Fig.  1 ): individual, organizational, community, and societal levels (Dahlberg & Krug, 2002 ). These risk and protective factors can act alone or interact with each other to increase risk for or protect from sexual harassment at IHEs.

Examination of risk and protective factors is integral and preliminary to prevention efforts. Such examination can help identify several points of intervention where we can develop programs to reduce risk and increase prevention. Most of the prior research in this area (Bondestam & Lundqvist, 2020 ) has been conducted to determine individual risk factors for a traditional undergraduate college population. Research that includes staff and faculty and determines both risk and protective factors at higher levels of an IHE’s ecology is scarce (Bell et al., 2002 ; Wood et al., 2018 ). Protective factors that have been associated with lower incidents of sexual harassment at organizations are diverse leadership and its commitment to decreasing sexual harassment, zero tolerance policies, bystander intervention training to prevent and intervene sexual harassment (Mujal et al., 2021 ) specifically targeting the majority culture (e.g., men), and regular assessment of organizational climate and culture (Bell et al., 2002 ). The following paragraphs provide a summary of risk factors that have been identified at the four levels of IHE ecology.

At the individual level , U.S.-based students, trainees/learners, staff, and faculty who identify as cis-gender women, ethnic minority, sexual minority (LGBQIA), gender minority (transgender, non-binary, genderqueer, non-conforming, or questioning), and who are living with disability are at a higher risk of experiencing sexual harassment (Cantor et al., 2015 ; Klein & Martin, 2019 ; Wood et al., 2018 ). People in the U.S. who are younger in age, spend more time on campus, have insecure employment, consume alcohol in social settings, and have a history of experiencing prior sexual victimization, domestic violence, and bullying are also at a higher risk of experiencing sexual harassment (Abbey, 2011 ; Campbell et al., 2017 ; Clear et al., 2014 ; Clodfelter et al., 2008 ).

At the community level , there is limited research that identifies the risk factors for sexual harassment at.

IHEs. Some U.S.-based studies show that undergraduate students, students attending two-year colleges, students who participate in extracurricular activities, and students involved in sororities and fraternities are at an increased risk of experiencing sexual harassment (American Association of Community Colleges, 2020 ; Cantor et al., 2019 ; Howard et al., 2019 ; Klein & Martin, 2019 ; Minow & Einolf, 2009 ). However, it is unknown what contributes to this difference of experiences. Future research highlighting how sexual harassment incidents differ based on the nature of members of IHEs, for example commuter versus residential students, would be beneficial in recognizing the community-level factors and the specific impact of community settings that lead to difference in experiences of sexual harassment for diverse members of IHEs (Howard et al., 2019 ; Potter et al., 2020 ).

For prevention at organizational and systems level , one must explore organizational aspects such as varied structures, institutions, and inter-relations. Studies from the U.S. show that the environments where sexual harassment is established and normalized are characterized by higher gender-power differentials, unequal gender ratios, hierarchical and dependent structures, contempt and scorn for femineity, culture of silence around sexually harassing behaviors, male-dominated workplaces, isolating learning and training environments, and passive and ineffective leadership (Clancy et al., 2020 ; Dzau & Johnson, 2018 ; Ilies et al., 2003 ). Environments with normalized sexual harassment also tend to have organizational structures that decrease employment engagement, satisfaction, and belongingness at work; are characterized by employment instability; lack transparent communication about discrimination and sexual harassment; and lack investment in efforts to recruit and advance women’s careers and to promote bystander intervention trainings (Bell et al., 2002 ; Bowes-Sperry & O’Leary-Kelly, 2005 ).

Further, organizational tolerance of sexual harassment and institutional betrayal have been identified as systems-level trauma-informed risk factors for sexual harassment. Organizational tolerance of sexual harassment includes organization’s failure of making sexual harassment grievances easy to report, taking serious actions against complaints of sexual harassment, sanctioning the perpetrators (Fitzgerald & Cortina, 2018 ). Institutional betrayal occurs when IHEs cause harm to those dependent on them for protection and safety, for example failure to investigate sexual harassment allegations (Smith & Freyd, 2014 ).

Determining the Focus of Prevention: Universal, Selective, and Indicated

Informed by the discipline of public health, prevention programs can have universal (primary), selective (secondary) , or indicated (tertiary) focus (Gordon, 1983 ; Institute of Medicine, 1994 ; Reiss & Price, 1996 ). Prevention programs with universal focus consist of proactive primary prevention strategies to identify the root causes of sexual harassment to ensure its prevention before it begins (Bell et al., 2002 ). These universal or primary prevention efforts involve efficient and time-limited strategies delivered to all individuals in an organization in large group formats. Examples of existing primary prevention programs include organization-wide trainings during orientation that impart knowledge on the attitudes, beliefs and behaviors that constitute sexual harassment. Such trainings are shown to have only short-term positive effects on participants, but people who participate in these trainings are more prone to identifying sexually harassing behavior than those who do not participate in such trainings. It is important to note that having an awareness of sexually harassing behaviors does not guarantee that an individual will take actions to stop or prevent such behaviors from occurring.

In their systematic review of sexual harassment in higher education, Bondestam and Lundqvist ( 2020 ) summarize the characteristics of effective primary prevention sexual harassment programs in IHEs. These characteristics include sensitivity to the sex of the training instructor and to the gender composition of participants; challenging normative assumptions about gender roles; highlighting sexual harassment prevention strategies that are rooted in organizational needs and culture; targeting resistance to changing the organizational culture; directing support from leadership and management in a top-down manner; and using pedagogical methodology to impart knowledge that combines learning in both affective and reflexive ways.

Prevention with a secondary or selective focus is designed to target vulnerable populations in IHEs who are at a higher risk of perpetrating or experiencing sexual harassment. Some examples of secondary prevention methods include formal grievance procedures and case management structures that focus on reparations, redressal, and restorative justice for survivors (Koss et al., 2014 ). There is a lack of evidence of effectiveness of the secondary prevention methods such as case management procedures and formal mechanisms of complaint of sexual harassment in IHEs (Bondestam & Lundqvist, 2020 ). This lack of evidence is compounded by the data that shows that most sexual harassment incidents go underreported (only 5-30% of all cases are reported), and less than 1% of the reported cases use legal process of redressal (McDonald, 2012 ). Identifying this challenge, Bondestam and Lundqvist ( 2020 ) noted that these compounding challenges have remained intact over the years, hence emphasizing the need for investing in evidence-based secondary prevention methods.

Indicated or tertiary prevention programs are designed to target individuals who are either perpetrators or survivors of sexual harassment. Tertiary prevention is closest to after-the-fact intervention strategies and is designed with the aim of mitigating the deleterious consequences of sexual harassment as well as reducing the likelihood of future sexual harassment occurrence, for example restorative programs that focus on reintegrating individuals causing harm back into the community (Koss, 2014 ). Tertiary prevention programs involve “systematic establishment of accountability for the perpetrators’ own violent actions” (Bondestam & Lundqvist, 2020 , p. 408). Although primary prevention is considered the preferred point of intervention for sexual harassment, it may lack the essential dosage and timing to have a long-lasting impact (Weissberg et al., 2003 ), thus it is essential to also invest in secondary and tertiary prevention programs (Bell et al., 2002 ).

Adoption, Adaptation, and Innovation: Pathways Leading to Program Implementation

Once the principles, approach, and focus of prevention have been realized and the risk and protective factors of sexual harassment in the target IHE have been determined, it is crucial to identify the pre-existing evidence-based prevention programs (EBPPs) that can guide the adoption, adaptation, or innovation of a prevention program. A comprehensive review of existing prevention programs guided by the evidence of their effectiveness and their conceptual/practical fit with the target IHE is a good first step in this direction (SAMHSA, 2019 ). It is also crucial to determine whether the evidence-based program is a good fit with (a) the specific institutional need of the problem (e.g., underreporting, organizational tolerance), (b) the target population at the IHE (e.g., undergraduate students or professional students, students with marginalized backgrounds or intersectional identities), and (c) the type of institution. For example, an EBPP that has evidence of increasing leadership investment in diversity and inclusion and in decreasing organization’s tolerance would be a good conceptual fit for an IHE where systems-level risk factors such as institutional betrayal and lack of transparent communication about discrimination and sexual harassment are the main barriers to sexual harassment prevention.

The result of the comprehensive review to find the best-fit EBPP could lead in one of three directions toward implementation: (1) adopting the program as-is if it represents the best-overall-fit; (2) adapting the program to the target IHE needs and population if it is an imperfect yet viable fit; or (3) developing a new program altogether if no viable pre-existing program is available. An IHE that finds an EBPP that is the best fit for the IHE population, culture, and unique needs can adopt the program. Here, implementation fidelity and effectiveness are key. The adoption of the chosen model should be followed with strict adherence to the original design of the pre-existing program to ensure that it is implemented at the target IHE with fidelity. In real-world settings, however, it is rare to find a pre-existing program that represents a best fit to the target IHE’s unique needs and can be implemented with absolute fidelity. In these cases, carefully planned and executed adaptation can produce desirable outcomes. This requires retaining the core components of the EBPP that are established to be directly responsible for creating positive prevention outcomes. SAMHSA ( 2019 ) recommends preserving the setting, maintaining the dosage (e.g., number, length, and frequency of prevention sessions), adding new content as required, and making adaptations with care by working with the original developers of the EBPP and with members of the target IHE. When there is no best-fit or good-fit EBPP for adoption or adaptation, then being innovative and developing a new evidence-informed prevention program may be the best route. This innovation should be guided by existing research in the field and by an assessment of the target IHE population, identifying the optimal culture-based real-world practices to meet the needs of diverse communities and consulting with experts at the local and international levels who can help inform the development of a new prevention program.

In summary, researchers have failed to uncover the root cause of sexual harassment and sexual violence on college and university campuses in the United States. Currently, there is a lack of evidence on who perpetuates sexual harassment, risk and protective factors, prevention programs that work, an identification of factors that are implicated in the effect size (e.g., moderator variables; Linder et al., 2020 ) culturally responsive implementation and trauma-informed (McCauley & Casler, 2015 ) methods, and the evaluation and sustainability of prevention and intervention programs. Bonar and colleagues ( 2022 ) offer the most comprehensive and inclusive recommendations for prevention science programs for researchers and practitioners to consider. In the context of their recommendations is the importance of ecological validity (e.g., the inclusion of community- and societal-level factors to build multi-level strategies that transform the system and climate that impact and are sustained over time). A Guide to SAMHSA’S Prevention Strategic Framework (2019) is a sound option to inform prevention and intervention programs among diverse IHEs (Bonar et al., 2022 , Botvin, 2004 ; Kafonek & Richards, 2017 ).

There are few empirically supported prevention interventions and programs that effectively target the factors that impact the trajectory, determinants, and short- and intermediate-effects and outcomes of sexual harassment (Bonar et al., 2022 ; Clancy et al., 2020 ; Kafonek & Richards, 2017 ; Walsh et al., 2021 ) in diverse higher education contexts (e.g., comprehensive universities, Historically Black Colleges, and Universities, community colleges). Many IHEs have a focus on evidence-based prevention practices, policies, and programs (Botvin, 2004 ). Recommendations for the use (or uptake) of empirically-supported prevention programs ought to be flexible and transportable given the diversity of IHEs and the diverse population who they serve and employ. We contend A Guide to SAMHSA’S Prevention Strategic Framework (2019) fits the recommendations proffered by Botvin ( 2004 ) and others (e.g., Clancy et al., 2020 ) and can serve as an exemplar that can be culturally tailored and ecologically valid for diverse IHEs. Another benefit of the proposed adapted SAMHSA’S Prevention Strategic Framework (2019) is the recognition of the criticality of systems. Sexual harassment is a systems problem which negatively impacts both the system itself and all of its constituents (Bell et al., 2002 ). The next section outlines steps to our proposed adapted SAMHSA’S Prevention Strategic Framework (2019) that can be used in IHEs and that affords an approach and process that addresses the limitations in the literature base.

Proposed Framework for Prevention of Sexual Harassment in IHEs

A framework can be described as a road map that informs the step-by-step process or a prescriptive series of steps that guides how the prevention program should be implemented (Bauer et al., 2015 ; Meyers et al., 2012 ). Our proposed framework (see Fig.  2 ) is adapted from SAMHSA ( 2019 ) and is guided by evidence-based prevention principles, focus, approach, and examination of risk and protective factors as described in Table  2 . The following paragraphs highlight the five key steps of our proposed framework: assessment, capacity building, planning, implementation, and evaluation. It is important to note that these steps, although presented linearly, can also be implemented iteratively; for example, it may be necessary to return to step 1 (assessment) if the expected outcomes of the prevention program are not achieved.

Proposed framework for preventing sexual harassment in higher education. SOURCE: Adapted from Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration ( 2019 )

Step 1: Assessment

Assessment entails determining the scope of sexual harassment in the target IHE, identifying the vulnerable populations most impacted by sexual harassment, examining risk and protective factors, conducting needs assessment, identifying gaps in existing data, and including previously ignored diverse voices related to sexual harassment. Other key data to gather during the assessment phase include (a) the aspects of sexual harassment that are a priority, (b) the frequency of different types of sexual harassment, (c) the people most vulnerable to experiencing sexual harassment, (d) the key characteristics of the perpetrators of sexual harassment among students, learners, staff, faculty, and administrative leaders, and (e) the magnitude, severity, and trends of sexual harassment. It is also crucial to regularly assess the organizational culture, climate, and context. Organizational culture may include an organization’s languages, attitudes, beliefs, values, and experiences, as well as those of its key stakeholders and target population. Annual institution or department-wide climate surveys that assess individual, community, organizational, and systems level risk and protective factors at an IHE can both direct the priority-based efforts of the prevention program and can demonstrate evidence of effectiveness of the prevention program.

Step 2: Capacity Building

Capacity building entails determining the extent to which the organization has the necessary infrastructure (e.g., financial and human resources, leadership “buy-in”), knowledge, tools, resources, and trained individuals (i.e., trauma- and equity-informed) to provide the appropriate prevention services (e.g., cultural and linguistic competence and cultural humility training, implicit bias training, and trauma-informed practices). Other critical aspects of the capacity building step are engaging diverse stakeholders, raising organizational awareness about the priority problem, and assessing the organization’s readiness and capacity to adopt, adapt, or develop an effective prevention program based on the strategies described above.

Step 3: Planning

Planning involves engaging IHEs’ diverse stakeholders and building consensus regarding the priority problems related to sexual harassment that need to be addressed first. Receiving input from and building consensus among diverse stakeholders ensures cultural and ecological validity of the prevention program. A logic model can play a crucial role at this step since it highlights the inputs, activities, resources, outputs, and the outcomes (short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term; Lawton et al., 2014 ). Incorporation of diverse organizational and community voices and the use of logic model would also help identify if a prevention program needs to be adopted (i.e., use all aspects of a prevention program), adapted (i.e., use the primary aspects of a prevention program and make some changes to culturally fit the organization and population), or developed anew.

Step 4: Implementation

Implementation entails implementation of the planned prevention program with cultural compatibility, fidelity, and flexibility. Proper implementation ensures successful adaptation of the prevention program to meet the unique needs of an organization and its community. SAMHSA ( 2019 ) contends that evidence-based programs are effective when most of the components of empirically supported programs are retained and implemented with fidelity. SAMHSA recommends that adapting pre-existing prevention programs should be advanced with caution and care to culture-fit. Although cultural adaptations may be needed, knowledge experts in the target IHE’s culture should be consulted before implementing adapted programs and cultural adaptations should be documented.

Step 5: Evaluation

An empirically supported evaluation of the prevention program can help establish its effectiveness and can identify any changes that might improve its implementation. Here, evaluation is defined as “the systematic collection and analysis of information about prevention activities to reduce uncertainty, improve effectiveness, and facilitate decision making” (SAMHSA, 2019 , p. 20). This step includes both process and outcome evaluations. Process evaluation determines whether the prevention program activities have been implemented as intended. Outcome evaluation determines the extent to which the prevention program has impacted the outcomes of the program as intended. Both process and outcome evaluation consider the prevention program’s utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy in accordance with the desired program outcomes. SAMHSA also recommends that any adaptions made during the adaptation phase be documented (SAMHSA, 2019 ) and follow-up interviews and data collection regarding the prevention program be conducted to ensure comprehensive and inclusive evaluation.

The dearth of evidence-based sexual harassment prevention programs in IHEs highlights the critical need to develop preventative and protective measures (Walsh et al., 2021 ). An empirically supported prevention science framework can guide the development of evidence-informed interventions that can help determine stakeholders, outcomes, mechanisms of change, and evaluation protocols for continued improvement. These evaluation protocols will in turn, guide and inform what you do, with whom, how, what you are trying to accomplish at what level, and how you evaluate the intervention. A focus on prevention science-based programs and evaluation will help the field move beyond fragmented solutions which have not been shown to be effective (e.g., sexual harassment grievance procedures, environmental assessment for prevalence of sexual harassment, and compliance with federal legislation), toward comprehensive and sustainable ways of preventing sexual harassment at IHEs (Dobbin & Kalev, 2019 ; Kafonek & Richards, 2017 ).

Sexual harassment is an intractable problem that harms the students, communities, climate/culture, and success of institutes of higher education. Currently, there are few empirically supported prevention interventions and programs that effectively target the factors that impact the trajectory, determinants, and short- and intermediate-effects and outcomes of sexual harassment (Bonar et al., 2022 ; Clancy et al., 2020 ; Kafonek & Richards, 2017 ; Walsh et al., 2021 ) in diverse higher of education contexts (e.g., comprehensive universities, Historically Black Colleges, and Universities, community colleges). Additionally, many prevention programs and evaluation methods lack rigor, consistency, and an organizing framework (Biglan et al., 2003 ; Magley et al., 2013 ). Given the diversity among IHEs, we outlined a framework based on prevention science that can be culturally tailored and scaled up with varied IHEs and diverse stakeholders (e.g., staff, students, faculty, and community members; Wong et al., 2017 ). Our framework begins with theory from the literature (SAMHSA framework, prevention science, ecological systems) to hypothesize about how to prevent, delay, or minimize the impact of sexual harassment in IHEs. Next, our framework helps to identify the variables (sexual harassment risk and protective factors at multiple levels of an individual’s and system’s ecology) to manipulate and measure through group assignment to understand root causes of sexual harassment and develop interventions to target those root causes. Finally, an empirical study would be conducted based on experimentation to understand how to prevent sexual harassment (i.e., effectiveness of effectiveness of interventions). Findings from the experiment can strengthen and refine sexual harassment prevention theory, which would help us better understand how to prevent or delay sexual harassment or minimize its negative effects. Thus, our framework takes a positivistic ontological approach to science and aligns with the hypothetico-deductive method (Park et al., 2020 ).

More specifically, this paper proposed an updated, empirically supported organizing framework for the prevention of sexual harassment in IHEs guided by prevention science. The transdisciplinary nature of prevention science is ideal to undergird the prevention of sexual harassment programs in IHEs. Additionally, Botvin ( 2004 ) asserted that “culturally competent prevention is the only type of prevention worth doing—and sustaining” (p. 30). We concur with Botvin ( 2004 ) that recommendations for prevention programs should be simple, flexible, easy to use, culturally competent, trauma-and-equity-informed, and sustainable. Our framework addresses the spectrum of gender-based violence, including gender-based harassment, the most common form of harassment (Bondestam & Lundqvist, 2020 ). We also focus on change at multiple levels of IHEs, and marginalized groups, and the need for systematic, on-going evaluation efforts. Our proposed framework places an explicit focus on a limitation described by Kafonek and Richards ( 2017 ). They contended few IHEs have prevention programs focused on IHE targeted populations who often are at the greatest risk for harassment (e.g., racial, ethnic, gender, or sexual minority students). An additional benefit of the proposed framework addresses a limitation discussed in the literature: attention to individual- and systemic-level risk and protective factors that ought to be considered in the prevention and intervention efforts of sexual harassment programs in IHEs. Sexual harassment is a systems problem, which Bell and colleagues ( 2002 ) described as “dysfunctional organizational behavior…with negative consequences for others in an organization and for the organization itself” (p. 161). Taken together, although we are uniquely focused on IHEs in this paper, it is likely that this framework could be used in other organizations and systems.

Our proposed five-step framework for preventing sexual harassment in IHEs is based on evidence-based prevention principles and approaches. These steps provide the roadmap to targeting sexual harassment prevention at the primary, secondary, and tertiary levels at both the individual and organizational levels embedded in IHEs’ unique socio-cultural contexts. Future research on the application and translation of this framework as well as evidence-based evaluation of prevention programs can help guide researchers, practitioners, IHE leaders, and policymakers toward the most effective sexual harassment prevention programs – their conceptualization, development, implementation, outcomes, and evaluation. There is no doubt that more research is needed to determine what prevention programs—and thus ingredients—work for whom (e.g., perpetrator, survivor, university community), in what context (e.g., type of university, student population, and community characteristics) at what level or levels (Bronfenbrenner, 1976 ) on short- and long-term outcomes (DeGue et al., 2014 ).

In conclusion, we recognize that our proposed framework is informed by a dearth of accumulated research specific to IHEs. Marine and Hurtado ( 2021 ) contended: “most research conducted on sexual violence and sexual harassment in higher education to date draws data and inferences from problematically homogeneous student samples: White, cisgender, and heterosexual women” (p. 9). On the other hand, the benefit of using prevention science and principles to undergird the proposed framework is a strength. Specifically, the benefit of prevention science in reducing problems, increasing wellness, and promoting positive outcomes across separate and overlapping levels to reduce sexual harassment in IHEs has promise (APA, 2014 ; Kafonek & Richards, 2017 ). Because evidence-based prevention policies, programs, and practices to prevent sexual harassment would be consistent with a mission of promoting inclusion, well-being, and a safe environment, IHEs can adapt, adopt, or develop and implement programs based on these guidelines (Botvin, 2004 ).

Abbey, A. (2011). Alcohol’s role in sexual violence perpetration: Theoretical explanations, existing evidence, and future directions. Drug and Alcohol Review , 30 , 481–489. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3362.2011.00296.x

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

American Association of Community Colleges (2020). Fast facts 2020 American Association of Community Colleges. https://www.aacc.nche.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/AACC-2020-Fact-Sheet-Final-1_web.jpg

American Psychological Association. (2014). Guidelines for prevention in psychology. American Psychologist , 69 (3), 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034569

Article   Google Scholar  

Anderson, L. A., & Whiston, S. C. (2005). Sexual assault education programs: A meta-analytic examination of their effectiveness. Psychology of Women Quarterly , 29 (4), 374–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00237.x

Aycock, L. M., Hazari, Z., Brewe, E., Clancy, K. B. H., Hodapp, T., & Goertzen, R. M. (2019). Sexual harassment reported by undergraduate female physicists. Physical Review Physics Education Research , 15 (010121), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.010121

Basile, K. C., D’Inverno, A. S., & Wang, J. (2020). National prevalence of sexual violence by a workplace-related perpetrator. American Journal of Preventive Medicine , 58 (2), 216–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2019.09.011

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bauer, C., Hofer, J., Althaus, H., Duce, A. D., & Simons, A. (2015). The environmental performance of current and future passenger vehicles: Life cycle assessment based on a novel scenario analysis framework. Applied Energy , 157 , 871–883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.019

Bell, M. P., Quick, J. C., & Cycyota, C. S. (2002). Assessment and prevention of sexual harassment of employees: An applied guide to creating healthy organizations. International Journal of Selection and Assessment , 10 (1–2), 160–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00203

Biglan, A., Mrazek, P. J., Carnine, D., & Flay, B. R. (2003). The integration of research and practice in the prevention of youth problem behaviors. American Psychologist , 58 (6–7), 433–440. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.6-7.433

Bloom, B. E., Sorin, C. R., Wagman, J. A., & Oaks, L. (2021). Employees, advisees, and emerging scholars: A qualitative analysis of graduate students’ roles and experiences of sexual violence and sexual harassment on college campuses. Sexuality & Culture , 25 , 1653–1672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-021-09841-w

Bonar, E. E., DeGue, S., Abbey, A., Coker, A. L., Lindquist, C. H., McCauley, H. L., Miller, E., Senn, C. Y., Thompson, M. P., Ngo, Q. M., Cunningham, R. M., & Walton, M. A. (2022). Prevention of sexual violence among college students: Current challenges and future directions. Journal of American College Health , 70 (2), 575–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2020.1757681

Bondestam, F., & Lundqvist, M. (2020). Sexual harassment in higher education–a systematic review. European Journal of Higher Education , 10 (4), 397–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2020.1729833

Botvin, G. J. (2004). Advancing prevention science and practice: Challenges, critical issues, and future directions. Prevention Science , 5 (1), 69–72. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:prev.0000013984.83251.8b

Bowes-Sperry, L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (2005). To act or not to act: The dilemma faced by sexual harassment observers. The Academy of Management Review , 30 (2), 288–306. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20159120

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1976). The experimental ecology of education. Teachers College Record , 78 (2), 1–37.

Burn, S. M. (2019). The psychology of sexual harassment. Teaching of Psychology , 46 (1), 96–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628318816183

Campbell, J. C., Sabri, B., Budhathoki, C., Kaufman, M. R., Alhusen, J., & Decker, M. R. (2017). Unwanted sexual acts among university students: Correlates of victimization and perpetration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 36 (1–2), NP504–NP526. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517734221

Cantor, D., Fisher, B., Chibnall, S., Harps, S., Townsend, R., Thomas, G., Lee, H., Kranz, V., Herbison, R., & Madden, K. (2019). Report on the AAU climate survey on sexual assault and sexual misconduct Westat.

Cantor, D., Fisher, B., Chibnall, S., Townsend, R., Lee, H., Bruce, C., & Thomas, G. (2015). Report on the AAU climate survey on sexual assault and sexual misconduct Westat.

Chambers, K., Romsa, B., & Romsa, K. (2021). Prevention of sexual misconduct on college campuses: A qualitative analysis. College Student Affairs Journal , 39 (1), 28–42. https://doi.org/10.1353/csj.2021.0002

Clancy, K. B. H., Cortina, L. M., & Kirkland, A. R. (2020). Opinion: Use science to stop sexual harassment in higher education. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 117 (37), 22614–22618. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2016164117

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Clear, E. R., Coker, A. L., Cook-Craig, P. G., Bush, H. M., Garcia, L. S., Williams, C. M., Lewis, A. M., & Fisher, B. S. (2014). Sexual harassment victimization and perpetration among high school students. Violence against Women , 20 (10), 1203–1219. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214551287

Clodfelter, T. A., Turner, M. G., Hartman, J. L., & Kuhns, J. B. (2008). Sexual harassment victimization during emerging adulthood. Crime & Delinquency , 56 (3), 455–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128708324665

Coie, J. D., Watt, N. F., West, S. G., Hawkins, J. D., Asarnow, J. R., Markman, H. J., Ramey, S. L., Shure, M. B., & Long, B. (1993). The science of prevention: A conceptual framework and some directions for a national research program. American Psychologist , 48 (10), 1013–1022. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.10.1013

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Coulter, R. W. S., Mair, C., Miller, E., Blosnich, J. R., Matthews, D. D., & McCauley, H. L. (2017). Prevalence of past-year sexual assault victimization among undergraduate students: Exploring differences by and intersections of gender identity, sexual identity, and race/ethnicity. Prevention Science , 18 , 726–736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-017-0762-8

Dahlberg, L. L. & Krug, E. G. (2002). Violence: A Global Public Health Problem. In: Krug, E. G., Mercy, J. A., Dahlberg, L. L., & Zwi, A. B. Lozano R., eds. (2002). World Report on Violence and Health . Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; p. 1–21. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/about/social-ecologicalmodel.html

DeGue, S., Valle, L. A., Holt, M. K., Massetti, G. M., Matjasko, J. L., & Tharp, A. T. (2014). A systematic review of primary prevention strategies for sexual violence perpetration. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 19 , 346–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.05.004

Dills, J., Fowler, D., & Payne, G. (2016). Sexual violence on campus: Strategies for prevention . National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/campussvprevention.pdf

Dobbin, F. (2019). A. Kalev (Ed.), The promise and peril of sexual harassment programs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116 25 12255–12260 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1818477116

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Dzau, V. J., & Johnson, P. A. (2018). Ending sexual harassment in academic medicine. New England Journal of Medicine , 379 , 1589–1591. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1809846

Fitzgerald, L. F., & Cortina, L. M. (2018). Sexual harassment in work organizations: A view from the 21st century. In C. B. Travis, J. W. White, A. Rutherfors, W. S. Williams, S. L. Cook, & K. F. Wyche (Eds.), APA Handbook of the Psychology of Women: Vol 2. Perspectives on Women’s Private and Public Lives (pp. 215–234). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000060-012

Fnais, N., Soobiah, C., Chen, M. H., Lillie, E., Perrier, L., Tashkhandi, M., Straus, S. E., Mamdani, M., Al-Omran, M., & Tricco, A. C. (2014). Harassment and discrimination in medical training: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Academic Medicine , 89 (5), 817–827. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000200

Goldsmith, R. E., Martin, C. G., & Smith, C. P. (2014). Systemic trauma. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation , 15 (2), 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2014.871666

Gordon, R. S. Jr. (1983). An operational classification of disease prevention. Public Health Reports , 98 (2), 107–109. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4627374

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Guilbeau, J., Linder, C., Stewart, D. L. and Sun, J. (2021). Association for the study of higher education (ASHE) response to the department of education’s May 2020 regulations on title IX of the higher education act of 1972 (Nondiscrimination on the basis of Sex in education programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance).

Howard, R. M., Potter, S. J., Guedj, C. E., & Moynihan, M. M. (2019). Sexual violence victimization among community college students. Journal of American College Health , 67 (7), 674–687. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2018.1500474

Ilies, R., Hauserman, N., Schwochau, S., & Stibal, J. (2003). Reported incidence rates of work-related sexual harassment in the United States: Using meta‐analysis to explain reported rate disparities. Personnel Psychology , 56 (3), 607–631. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00752.x

Institute of Medicine. (1994). Reducing risks for mental disorders: Frontiers for preventive intervention research . National Academies Press (US. https://doi.org/10.17226/2139

Kafonek, K., & Richards, T. R. (2017). An examination of strategies for the prevention of gender-based violence at four-year institutions of higher education. Journal of School Violence , 16 (3), 271–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2017.1318576

Klein, L. B., & Martin, S. L. (2019). Sexual harassment of college and university students: A systematic review. Trauma Violence & Abuse , 22 (4), 777–792. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838019881731

Koss, M. P. (2014). The RESTORE program of restorative justice for sex crimes: Vision, process, and outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 24 (9), 1623–1660. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513511537

Koss, M. P., Wilgus, J. K., & Williamsen, K. M. (2014). Campus sexual misconduct: Restorative justice approaches to enhance compliance with title IX guidance. Trauma Violence & Abuse , 15 (3), 242–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838014521500

Lawton, B., Brandon, P. R., Cicchinelli, L., & Kekahio, W. (2014). Logic models: A tool for designing and monitoring program evaluations. (REL 2014–007). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Pacific. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/rel/Products/Region/northeast/Publication/3670

Linder, C., Grimes, N., Williams, B. M., Lacy, M. C., & Parker, B. (2020). What do we know about campus sexual violence? A content analysis of 10 years of research. The Review of Higher Education , 43 (4), 1017–1040. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2020.0029

Lisak, D., & Miller, P. M. (2002). Repeat rape and multiple offending among undetected rapists. Violence and Victims , 17 (1), 73–84.

Magley, V. J., Fitzgerald, L. F., Salisbury, J., Drasgow, F., & Zickar, M. J. (2013). Changing sexual harassment within organizations via training interventions: Suggestions and empirical data. In C.L. Cooper (Ed.), The Fulfilling Workplace , (1st ed., pp. 245–266). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315557953

Marine, S. B., & Hurtado, S. S. (2021). Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE) response to the Department of Education’s May 2020 regulations on Title IX of the Higher Education Act of 1972 (Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance). Association for the Study of Higher Education , 1–43. 2021.03 ASHE Response to ED’s May 2020 regulations on Title IX of the Higher Education Act of 1972.pdf.

McCauley, H. L., & Casler, A. W. (2015). College sexual assault: A call for trauma-informed prevention. The Journal of Adolescent Health , 56 (6), 584–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.03.012

McDonald, P. (2012). Workplace sexual harassment 30 years on: A review of the literature. International Journal of Management Reviews , 14 , 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00300.x

Meyers, D. C., Durlak, J. A., & Wandersman, A. (2012). The quality implementation framework: A synthesis of critical steps in the implementation process. American Journal of Community Psychology , 50 , 462–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-012-9522-x

Minow, J. C., & Einolf, C. J. (2009). Sorority participation and sexual assault risk. Violence against Women , 15 (7), 835–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801209334472

Mujal, G. N., Taylor, M. E., Fry, J. L., Gochez-Kerr, T. H., & Weaver, N. L. (2021). A systematic review of bystander interventions for the prevention of sexual violence. Trauma Violence & Abuse , 22 (2), 381–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838019849587

Nation, M., Crusto, C., Wandersman, A., Kumpfer, K. L., Seybolt, D., Morrissey-Kane, E., & Davino, K. (2003). What works in prevention: Principles of effective prevention programs. American Psychologist , 58 (6–7), 449–456. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.6-7.449

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018). Sexual harassment of women: climate, culture, and consequences in academic sciences, engineering, and medicine. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24994

Park, Y., Konge, L., & Artino, A. R. (2020). The positivism paradigm of research. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges , 95 (5). https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000003093

Potter, S. J., Fox, N., Smith, D., Draper, N., Moschella, E. A., & Moynihan, M. M. (2020). Sexual assault prevalence and community college students: Challenges and promising practices. Health Education & Behavior , 47 (15), 7S–16S. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198120910988

Reiss, D., & Price, R. H. (1996). National research agenda for prevention research: The national institute of mental health report. American Psychologist , 51 (11), 1109–1115.

Shapiro, V. B., Eldeeb, N., McCoy, H., Trujillo, M., & Jones, T. M. (2024). Where’s the BIPOC blueprint for healthy youth development? The role of scientific omissions in our struggle for science translation and racial equity in the United States. Journal of Prevention , 1–19.

Smith, C. P., & Freyd, J. J. (2014). Institutional betrayal. American Psychologist , 69 (6), 575–587. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037564

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA] (2014). SAMHSA’s concept of trauma and guidance for a trauma-informed approach . (HHS Publication No. (SMA) 14-4884). SAMHSA’s Concept of Trauma and Guidance for a Trauma-Informed Approach (hhs.gov).

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2019). A Guide to SAMHSA’s strategic prevention framework https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/20190620-samhsa-strategic-prevention-framework-guide.pdf

Swedish Council of Higher Education (2020). Efforts to prevent sexual harassment in academia. An international research review . (1). https://www.uhr.se/globalassets/_uhr.se/publikationer/2020/uhr-efforts-to-prevent-sexual-harassment-in-academia.pdf

Vladutiu, C. J., Martin, S. L., & Macy, R. J. (2011). College- or university-based sexual assault prevention programs: A review of program outcomes, characteristics, and recommendations. Trauma Violence & Abuse , 12 (2), 67–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838010390708

Walsh, K., Sarvet, A. L., Khan, S., Choo, T., Wall, M., Santelli, J., Wilson, P., Gilbert, L., Reardon, L., Hirsch, J. S., & Mellins, C. A. (2021). Socio-ecologically constituted types of sexual assault. Psychology of Women Quarterly , 45 (1), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684320964452

Weissberg, R. P., Kumpfer, K. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2003). Prevention that works for children and youth: An introduction. American Psychologist , 58 (6–7), 425–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.6-7.425

Wong, Y. J., Vaughan, E. L., & Klann, E. M. (2017). The science and practice of prevention from multicultural and social justice perspectives. In M. Israelashvili, & J. L. Romano (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of international prevention science (pp. 107–132). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316104453.007

Wood, L., Hoefer, S., Kammer-Kerwick, M., Parra-Cordona, J. R., & Busch-Armendariz, N. (2018). Sexual harassment at institutions of higher education: Prevalence, risk, and extent. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518791228

Download references

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Office for Women in Medicine and Science, Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA

Cindy A. Crusto & Ishita S. Arora

Center for Educational Transformation, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa, USA

Lisa M. Hooper

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ishita S. Arora .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval, conflicts of interest.

The authors declare that there exists no competing financial interest or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Consent to Participate

Additional information, publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Crusto, C.A., Hooper, L.M. & Arora, I.S. Preventing Sexual Harassment in Higher Education: A Framework for Prevention Science Program Development. J of Prevention (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-024-00780-4

Download citation

Accepted : 31 March 2024

Published : 13 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-024-00780-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Institutions of higher education
• Sexual harassment
• Prevention science
• Program development
• Prevention framework
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research