A
Assessing the Integration of Sustainable Development Goals into Core Operations of Wolaita Sodo University from a Holistic Institutional PerspectiveDemissieDalelo
PhD)
1✉Emaildemissiedalelo@gmail.com1
A
Department of Educational Planning and ManagementWolaita Sodo University South Ethiopia Regional State, Sodo Town AdministrationEthiopiaDemissie Dalelo (PhD); demissiedalelo@gmail.com
Department of Educational Planning and Management, Wolaita Sodo University
South Ethiopia Regional State, Sodo Town Administration, Ethiopia
Abstract
Research on the challenges Ethiopian universities face in integrating Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is limited, despite growing international interest. This study employs a mixed-methods approach to evaluate the extent of SDG integration at Wolaita Sodo University (WSU) into teaching, research, community outreach, and governance. A stratified random sampling method was used to survey university leaders, faculty members, administrative staff, and community engagement officers and documents were selected purposeful. Quantitative data were collected by closed-ended questionnaires; while qualitative data were collected using open-ended questions and reviewing policy documents. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics whereas the qualitative data were analyzed using thematic content analysis and SDGs mapping.
A
The findings show moderate but uneven SDG alignment across WSU's policies, curricula, research, and community engagement, with persistent gaps in implementation, curriculum design, and stakeholder participation despite good pedagogical practices. The main problems observed were weak institutional commitment, limited resources, and faculty gaps in awareness. The study concludes that while initial efforts to mainstream SDGs at WSU are underway, there is a need for formal and effective measures to ensure successful implementation. Recommendations include establishing strong institutional policies mandating SDG integration, provide tailored faculty training to enhance sustainability literacy, and strengthening partnerships with local communities and stakeholders to feed into action-oriented initiatives. The policy implications are emphasizing the need that universities undertake concerted, quantifiable efforts towards integration of SDG and have buy-in from stakeholders as well as adequate resources earmarked.Keywords:
Integration
Sustainable Development Goals
Teaching
Research
Community Engagement
governance
A
1. Introduction
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted by all United Nations member states in 2015, provide a comprehensive global framework to address pressing challenges such as poverty, inequality, environmental degradation, and climate change by 2030. Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are increasingly recognized as critical actors in implementing this agenda, given their mandates in education, research, innovation, and community engagement. Internationally, HEIs are considered "living laboratories" for sustainability transitions, capable of advancing SDG-related competencies through interdisciplinary curriculum design, participatory pedagogy, and institutional governance reforms ([69]; [32]). Numerous studies highlight how universities contribute to SDGs through initiatives in green campus operations (SDG 13), gender equity programs (SDG 5), sustainable research innovation (SDG 9), and local partnerships (SDG 17) ([20]; [58]). However, this integration is uneven and often lacks systemic frameworks for evaluation, coordination, and policy implementation.
A
In Ethiopia, HEIs are prominently positioned in national policy documents such as the Growth and Transformation Plans (GTP I & II) and the Education Sector Development Program VI (ESDP VI), which underline their roles in human capital development, equity, and innovation ([40]; [39]). However, the academic literature on how Ethiopian universities are translating these ambitions into concrete SDG-aligned actions remains limited. Existing studies tend to focus narrowly on individual SDGs (e.g., SDG 4 or SDG 5), specific interventions, or single-case analyses ([37]; [60]). They often lack methodological rigor, critical comparative analysis, or a holistic view of SDG mainstreaming across curricula, governance, and community service. Theoretically, there is an absence of integrated frameworks that align national higher education goals with global SDG metrics, and empirically, comprehensive multi-domain institutional assessments are rare. This study seeks to address these gaps by offering a structured evaluation of SDG integration across curricula, research, community engagement and policy domains, using Wolaita Sodo University (WSU) as a representative case.Despite increasing institutional interest in SDG localization, there remains a significant disconnect between policy aspirations and actual implementation in Ethiopian HEIs. For example, while WSU has initiated projects such as the Renewable Energy Research Center (SDG 7 & 13) and SDG awareness campaigns, these efforts have not yet been systematically analyzed or evaluated in relation to curricula, research focus, or institutional governance. These disconnect reveals a critical needs to examine how and to what extent SDGs are being internalized within university structures. Accordingly, this study is guided by the following research questions: (1) To what extent are the SDGs integrated into the curriculum, research, and community engagement at WSU? (2) What institutional strategies and constraints influence SDG mainstreaming within the university? These questions are derived directly from the identified gaps in policy-practice alignment and theoretical disconnection in existing literature, specifically in Ethiopian Higher education contexts.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Sustainable Development Goals Integration in Higher Education
Higher education institutions' (HEIs') role in integrating the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has become more prominent in the academic literature, especially with regard to the Whole Institution Approach (WIA) and Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) models. These models emphasize the incorporation of sustainability values in curriculum, research, community engagement, and governance ([32]; [68]). Central to WIA is that universities are not only institutions for research and learning but also institutions situated in and accountable to society, enabling them to work together in the production of knowledge and transformative change([28]; [54]).
The Sustainable Development Goals perception and awareness is the fundamental element in the integration of SDGs in HEIs that decides the institutions and the individual's adoption of sustainability practices. Empirical evidence indicates that heterogeneity in the perception of SDGs among stakeholders is high. For example, a study among 1,009 University of South Africa students found that although students were aware of SDG importance, SDG platform utilization was zero. Faculty members' awareness is usually more pronounced, specifically those involved in sustainability research, as seen in the case studies conducted in Jordan and Croatia ([78]; [3]). Besides, disciplinary variations are involved; environmental science and engineering students stand a better chance of being more familiar with SDGs than their humanities and social sciences peers ([1]; [34]). Theoretically, then, the WIA's premise that institutional and disciplinary culture dictates an institution's level of engagement with sustainability is true, and awareness-raising must thus be an intentional component of institutional SDG action plans.
Integration of the SDGs must be aligned across curriculum, research, outreach, and institutional governance, domains emphasized by both the WIA and ESD paradigms. At the curricular level, universities implement interdisciplinary education, problem-based learning, and problem integration from applied settings to integrate SDG content ([36]; [35]). These pedagogies enhance global citizenship, systems thinking, and critical thinking, all competencies attuned to SDG goals ([41]; [9]). Scholarship itself is being reconfigured to key into SDG imperatives. Trans-disciplinary and policy-oriented approaches are becoming increasingly fashionable, typically in collaboration with non-academic actors to address existing societal challenges such as health equity (SDG 3), climate change (SDG 13), and urban sustainability (SDG 11) ([28]; [32]).
Universities around the world are incorporating SDGs into their research agendas. For instance, Arizona State University and the University of Cambridge have established dedicated sustainability research centers that foster interdisciplinary research and innovation [54]. These initiatives demonstrate how higher education can act as an accelerator of sustainable development through the production of actionable knowledge and informing policy and practice.
Community engagement is yet another field where SDGs are made concrete action, particularly through service-learning, participatory research, and community collaborations. These activities enhance not just the experiential learning of students but also institutional relations with local communities, linking academic work with SDGs such as health (SDG 3), education (SDG 4), gender equality (SDG 5), and sanitation (SDG 6) [54]. Finally, at the governance level, policy, strategic planning, and sustainability offices embedding SDGs are crucial for long-term transformation. SDG activity and leadership engagement reward systems are key enablers in the process [31].
Employing the WIA and Education for Sustainable Development frameworks in this study is essential to link the empirical evidence (awareness, curriculum, research, engagement, and governance) with a broader theoretical view. Rather than being on the periphery, the conceptual framework offers the necessary structure for analyzing how SDGs are being internalized in HEIs. It facilitates analysis to shift from shallow mapping to deeply assess the institutional processes, pedagogical practices, and stakeholder engagements that determine the depth and sustainability of SDG integration. These models provide a uniform framework for understanding variation in implementation and identification of institutional forces for driving sustainability transitions in Ethiopian higher education institutions.
2.2 Theoretical Frameworks for SDG Integration
Transformative Learning Theory (TLT) and the Whole Institution Approach (WIA) are the initial conceptual frameworks for the integration of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in higher education. TLT has an interest in reflective learning where individuals can question their assumptions and develop a deeper understanding of sustainability. WIA is concerned with a systematic, integrated approach to integrating sustainability into all university activities, building a culture that simplifies processes within the university based on the principles of sustainable development. Together, these theories allow universities to become active players and drive international endeavors towards sustainability. In this study, both the Whole Institution Approach (WIA) and Transformative Learning Theory (TLT) can effectively inform the examination and exploration of SDGs integration into Wolaita Sodo University core operations, namely, teaching, research and governance system.
Transformative Learning Theory emphasizes experiential learning and critical reflection to foster sustainability attitudes. Its implementation is demonstrated by [52] in engineering education, where students develop SDG-oriented solutions through project-based learning. Also, (TLT) facilitates assessment of the perception and comprehension of SDGs by the university community. Transformative learning, as [38] describes it, occurs when individuals critically assess and reflect on their existing assumptions, which is vital while examining the comprehension of complex ideas like SDGs. Thus, in this study, how Wolaita Sodo University faculty members, staff, and students engage with the SDGs was assessed. This type of assessment helps to observe whether their learning of SDGs results in a change in their attitudes and behaviors towards sustainability or not. For instance, the (TLT) helps to analyze how SDGs are incorporated into the curriculum by teachers, or how students' knowledge about SDGs develops during their studies, based on transformative learning principles [52].
Moreover, applying (TLT) helps identify both cognitive or cultural barriers (e.g., lack of knowledge about SDGs or reluctance to transform existing teaching and research traditions) and structural barriers (e.g., lack of resources, institutional inertia, or absence of policies).As this is the case, the (TLT) model guides the research towards a focus on how better understanding of SDGs within a university setting.
The second model that was used in this study is the Whole Institution Approach (WIA). The Whole Institution Approach (WIA) model provides a comprehensive way to assess how the SDGs are integrated into the overall range of university functions, including teaching, research, and community service. WIA deals with the incorporation of institutional policies, operations, and curricula with the ideas of sustainability in the entire institution [55].
In this study, WIA was used in assessing the institutionalization of SDGs within every facet of the university. Therefore, to evaluate the manner in which teaching (e.g., SDG-aligned curricula), research (e.g., sustainability-themed research projects), and community engagement (e.g., SDG-themed outreach activities) policy and practice reflect the integration of sustainability into university practice. Respectively, Wolaita Sodo University's strategic plans (e.g., university mission, vision, and priority areas), Investigate curricula (e.g., content and pedagogy), research (e.g., projects completed over the last two years and in progress) and Community service activities (completed over the last three and in progress) at Wolita Sodo University were assessed in the lens of the SDGs.
In addition, WIA encourages WSU to introspect into their internal operations, identifying gaps and possibilities for aligning its policies and practices with sustainability goals. With the use of WIA, it is also possible to use strategies suggested by stakeholders (students, faculty, staff, administrators) for SDG integration enhancement and how these strategies align with best practices. In total, Whole Institution Approach (WIA) and Transformative Learning Theory (TLT), allow this study to have a comprehensive theoretical foundation in exploring the SDG integration in Wolaita Sodo University.
3. Conceptual Framework of the study
The "Conceptual Framework of the Study" positions the intersection of teaching, research, community engagement, and governance practices as important drivers in the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the UN 2030 Agenda. The framework draws on the Whole Institutional Approach, which emphasizes the convergence of various institutional elements towards sustainability [24]. Every component that is teaching, research, community engagement, and governance operates in an interactive ecosystem shaped by contextual determinants, thus together driving sustainable development.
Past research has also identified the interconnectedness of such models. For instance [62], elaborated on the way that universities with a Whole Institutional Approach effectively incorporate sustainability into curricula, research topics, and outreach, which then further strengthens their link with SDGs. Such findings imply that with a holistic approach, institutions can utilize resources and capabilities to the fullest and produce tangible influence on realization of the SDGs.
A
A
Fig. 1
Conceptual Framework
 |
| Source: Develop based on the study variables |
The conceptual framework lays emphasis on integrating teaching, research, community involvement, and governance practice as key aspects in ensuring sustainable development. Teaching integration comprises curricula alignment, interdisciplinary studies, and faculty support, collectively enhancing student performance and raising awareness of sustainability issues. Learning institutions are able to equip students to contribute positively to sustainable development initiatives through the application of effective teaching approaches. Integration of research connects scholar inquiry to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and enhances pedagogy through experiential knowledge development. This enables academic output to become meaningful and contribute to solving real problems affecting the globe.
Community engagement connects university work with community needs, promoting participation of students and fostering inter-organizational relationships. This synergy enables academic production to address pressing issues, thereby enhancing the educational outcome and research impact. Governance practices are critical to the framework's implementation, such as strategic planning and policy making for these fundamental functions. Sound governance unlocks resources to achieve SDG goals. Contextual aspects, such as institutional resources and national policies, also serve as moderators that influence successful teaching, research, and community engagement. Adopting the synergy among these functions encourages a symbiotic learning process in which success in one facilitates progress in the others.
4.
Research Questions
1.
To what extent are the Sustainable Development Goals embedded into Curricula, research, community engagement and governance system within of Wolaita Sodo University?
2.
What institutional strategies and constraints influence SDG mainstreaming within the university?
5.
Research Methodology
5.1
Research Design
The study used a mixed-methods design, bringing together both quantitative and qualitative methods to comprehensively assess the integration of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into the primary functions of Wolaita Sodo University, including teaching, research, community engagement, and governance. A mixed-methods design is useful in that it will allow for data triangulation, which enhances the validity and reliability of findings [14] Quantitative data from Likert-scale survey responses will provide measurable data on the extent of SDG integration into various university functions. Concurrently, qualitative data obtained from open-ended questions were analyzed thematically. Further, different working documents content-wise analyzed or mapped in the lens of the SDGs to get deep contextual understanding and reveal the challenges encountered stakeholders' perceptions, and institutional policy alignment with the SDGs [19].
5.2 Sampling and Data Collected Instruments
With regards to data collection instruments, both primary and secondary data sources were used in this study. For gathering the primary data, a survey was employed on a diversified population of academic staff, researchers, administrative staff, university leaders, and community engagement officers of Wolaita Sodo University. A stratified random sampling technique was used to ensure representation from different functions of the university, i.e., teaching, research, and community engagement [12]. The sample size was determined purposively. Close-ended Likert scale [32] questions were used in the survey questionnaire to identify the extent of SDG integration (scaled ranging from 1 = Not at all, 2 = slightly integrated, 3 = Moderately Integrated, 4 = Mostly integrated & 5 = fully integrated). Open-ended questions were asked to explore perceived challenges, gather improvement suggestions, and identify current SDG-related practices.
To obtain relevant information for the study, a purposive document review method was employed a widely applied qualitative research method to gather contextual and institutional data [7]. The documents examined were sample undergraduate curricula of nine academic programs of Wolaita Sodo University (WSU), the university's Strategic Plan, and research and community engagement project reports finalized during the 2023/24 academic year, as well as ongoing projects for 2024/25. These documents were selected purposefully because of their importance in relation to the aims of the study, in accordance with best practice in purposeful sampling in document analysis [48].
5.3 Methods of Data Analysis
Mapping is a scientific, tabular or visual method used to determine, categorize, and evaluate the presence and degree of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) integration in various spheres of a university's core activities—engagement, research, learning, and governance. It enables institutions to recognize continued efforts, find gaps, highlight strengths, and come up with specific improvements [53].
A
Mapping was applied in this study to establish the extent of integration of SDGs in Wolaita Sodo University by reviewing data based on institutional documents, strategic plans, curricula, course syllabuses, research portfolios, and community outreach programs. The method had both diagnostic and developmental functional purposes. For instance, it helped develop how the vision, mission, policies, and governance of the university are supportive of SDG values; how curriculum content, pedagogy, and assessment address SDG issues; how research projects and funding call for opportunities address SDG priorities; and how community engagement projects tackle sustainable development issues in a locality or worldwide.A
To further strengthen this analysis, content analysis was employed in combination with mapping as a complimentary methodology. Content analysis within this research allowed for the extraction of significant SDG features described in policy documents, course descriptions, and research summaries. This methodological blend allows for a comprehensive analysis—content analysis provides extensive information about the meaning and concentration of SDG-related language and content, and mapping structures and visualizes the diffusion and distribution of these characteristics. As an example, [20] demonstrated how combining content analysis and mapping of university sustainability reports could determine trends in the integration of SDGs into the framework and strategy of higher education institutions.Thematic analysis was used for qualitative data obtained from open-ended questions, and it offers a flexible and robust means of identifying and analyzing repeated patterns or themes within participants' perspectives. According to [8] thematic analysis is particularly well-suited for this type of data because it captures both explicit and implicit meaning in participant accounts. This method was vital in uncovering shared findings, concerns, and suggestions for SDG integration at the university level, whereby the stakeholders' voices were critically investigated and explicated. At the same time, quantitative data obtained from a Likert-scale survey were statistically processed using descriptive statistics—i.e., mean, standard deviation, and frequency distribution—to quantify the perceived degree of SDG integration among the functions of the university. This mixed-method design provided an integrated appraisal by combining depth (from qualitative analysis) with measurable trends (from quantitative analysis)
5.4 Measurement
Determining the matching cut points for the Likert scales used to gauge the implementation of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at Wolaita Sodo University involves analyzing mean scores across various dimensions. These cut points, consistent with SDG integration frameworks, allow the university to assess its level of SDG implementation, facilitating targeted improvements in teaching, research, community engagement, and governance. The first cut-off (1.0 to 1.99) indicates no SDG incorporation, while the second (2.0 to 2.99) reflects minimal efforts. A score between 3.0 and 3.99 suggests partial integration but necessitates significant enhancement. Scores from 4.0 to 4.99 demonstrate strong SDG commitment, with a perfect score of 5.0 indicating full integration. This distribution aligns with existing literature on Likert scale interpretation, where thresholds suggest that mean scores above 3 signify active engagement, and scores above 4 reflect robust commitment to sustainability practices ([26]; [22]).
6. Results
This section presents the synthesized results of the study, combining both the qualitative and quantitative results in an assessment of the extent of Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) integration at Wolaita Sodo University (WSU). The results are presented in a logical manner, beginning with review results of the consistency of the vision and mission statements of the university with the commitments of sustainable development.
A
This is followed by empirical evidence from reviews of curricula documents, research activities conducted, and outreach programs to communities, showing how the SDGs are integrated in WSU's major activities. The second part provides an overview of information obtained from academic and administrative personnel questionnaires and FGDs and practices that are currently in place showing awareness among stakeholders, perceived obstacles, and proposed measures to improve SDG integration. The chapter ends with a critical analysis situating the findings within the broader literature in discussing both the institutional barriers to and strategic enablers of effective SDG realization within higher education.6.1 Content Analysis WSU Strategic Plan through the Lens of the SDGs
WSU's vision of becoming "a center of excellence in Technology-led Agriculture and Health by 2030" is highly aligned with several SDGs. Emphasis on agri-technology is supportive of SDG 1 (No Poverty) through rural productivity and income increase, which contributes to poverty alleviation [71]. Additionally, the focus on sustainable agriculture practices leads to the achievement of SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) through improved food security and nutrition [21]. The focus on health excellence leads to the achievement of SDG 3 (Good Health & Well-being) through improved health education and research [77]. Furthermore, the use of technology in these sectors supports SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation & Infrastructure [75]. But declaring SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) explicitly might make the vision more robust, with WSU confirming its commitment to producing employable graduates and establishing partnerships with stakeholders [69].
WSU mission focuses on the producing of competent graduates, problem-solving research, technology transfer of relevant technologies, and provision of community services. This mission aligns with SDG 4 (Quality Education) focusing on producing competent graduates [71]. Problem-solving research orientation responds to a set of several SDGs like SDG 7 (Affordable & Clean Energy), SDG 8 (Decent Work & Economic Growth), SDG 13 (Climate Action), SDG 14 (Life Below Water), and SDG 15 (Life on Land) [66] Technological transfer and extension activities also relate to SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation & Infrastructure), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities & Communities), and SDG 17 (Partnerships) [46]. To achieve maximum impact for the mission, it could focus on sustainability, gender equality (SDG 5), and climate action (SDG 13) in particular. Adding gender-responsive research and climate-smart agriculture would make WSU even more aligned with these objectives ([65]; [25].
Four broad focus areas or themes have been designated for Wolaita Sodo University (WSU) as Applied Sciences University, which are Engineering & Technology, Agriculture, Geology, and Humanities, and each of them deals with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The Engineering & Technology focus is most closely linked to 6 (Clean Water), 7 (Energy), and 9 (Innovation), but can be enhanced by greater emphasis on sustainable production (SDG 12) through reducing waste and green technologies [18]. The Agriculture focus area corresponds with SDGs 1 (No Poverty), 2 (Zero Hunger), 6 (Water), 13 (Climate Action), 14 (Marine Life), and 15 (Land Ecosystems), but gender equality (SDG 5) is important to integrate into agricultural plans to ensure inclusivity [75]. Geology is contributing to SDGs 2, 7, and 14, but climate resilience (SDG 13), particularly in disaster risk reduction, needs greater emphasis [25]. The Humanities field supports a broad range of SDGs, including 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, and 17, but perhaps might have greater effect by developing systematic programs that respond to peace and justice (SDG 16) [72]. Overall, WSU's strategic plan incorporates the SDGs well, and a stricter mapping of the goals would heighten accountability and measurable effect [58].
The findings indicate that WSU's mission, vision, and focus areas are moderately to strongly aligned (3.7/5) with the UN SDGs, particularly agriculture, health, education, and infrastructure (SDGs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 13, SDG 15) [Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN). (2020)]. However, critical gaps in gender equality (SDG 5), Sustainable Consumption (SDG 12), and partnerships (SDG 17) are weakly addressed by current frameworks [UNDP (2020).].
6.2 Thematic Analysis of WSU Policy Documents from Respondents’ Perspectives
A
Qualitative responses by using open-ended questions were collected from sixty seven participants (p1 to p67) on how Wolaita Sodo University integrates the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into strategic plans, vision, mission, focus areas and other policy documents. The findings present both gains in adopting SDGs officially and persistent challenges of practicing them.A
The participants (p1, p3, p5) indicated clear evidence of embedding Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the strategic plan of Wolaita Sodo University, where the goals, visions, and missions of the university are compatible with sustainability goals. This reflects the growing tendency among universities to embed SDGs into their strategic plans, as advised by global standards [28]. This formal convergence supports congruence with global initiatives like the UN's 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [71]. Additionally, participants (p8, p10, p12) noted the formation of Centers of Excellence on studying sustainability and application of SDG as active spots of inter- and multi-disciplinary interactions following the best global practice at prominent global institutions [64]. Besides, some of the respondents (p4, p7) discussed the policy document explicitly linked to institutional missions to SDGs, hence, show a systematic method to sustainability governance and aligned with the "whole-institution" model advocated by [56].Contrary to the above mentioning’s, some participants (p11, p14), responded that, there were poor integration of SDGs into institutional strategy. They indicated that though the SDGs were referred within strategic documents but subsequent action were poorly implemented. Therefore, this shows the gaps between policy and practice as expressed within research into sustainability [35].
Additionally, some of the respondents (p16, p20) indicated they lack of awareness of the SDG. Participatory governance [47] is required in order to effectively implement SDGs; however, top-down policy-making has a tendency to neglect grassroots voices. Hurdles to implementation, such as limited resources (p23) and low levels of stakeholder participation (p27), also hinder implementation. Comparable issues have been reported in low-resource institutions, where SDG efforts are hindered by a lack of adequate funding or staffs support [13].
These findings highlight the need for deeper governance and resource planning reforms to enable meaningful SDG integration. A whole-of-institution, integrated approach is needed—one that includes the development of sustainable implementation frameworks, active bottom-up involvement via workshops and advisory committees [56] and long-term financial commitment via strategic budget reallocation and multi-stakeholder collaboration [32]. Recent research emphasizes that in the face of a lack of institutional change and inclusive governance system; SDG actions remain symbolic and fragmented [35]. Notably, Wolaita Sodo University's strategic plan demonstrates promising alignment with the SDGs in its vision, mission, and major thematic priority areas, reflecting its effort to adjust to its allocated institutional differentiation. Yet this congruence must be operationalized through concrete mechanisms that link planning to practice in order to exclude disconnects between policy and practice.
6.3 Content Analysis of SDGs Integration into WSU’s Core Functions
The review of 18 undergraduate courses under nine academic programs indicates profound, though uneven, incorporation of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into WSU curricula. Public Administration and Development Management (PADM), Environmental Science, and Public Health are among the programs that demonstrate purposeful and high-level engagement with multiple SDGs. In PADM, Introduction to Sustainable Development and Public Service Delivery and E-Governance courses included SDGs 1, 3, 4, 9, 13, 15, 16, and 17, blending interdisciplinary subject material with policy-oriented pedagogy to enhance systems thinking and participatory governance. In the same manner, the Environmental Science Program courses like Principles of Environmental Science and Environmental Degradation and Rehabilitation—prioritize environmental sustainability through content like water systems, waste management, and ecosystem restoration, which aligns with SDGs 2, 6, 11, 12, 13, and 15. In the Public Health program, Environmental Health and Ecology and the Community-Based Training Program (CBTP) are excellent exemplars of SDG alignment (particularly SDGs 3, 6, 10, 13, and 17) in bridging academic content and applied health interventions, community outreach, and environmental stewardship.
Engineering and technology programs also show high SDG integration, particularly in digital governance, environmental resilience, and infrastructure. In Civil Engineering, Environmental Engineering and Hydraulic Structures I courses were ranked high in addressing SDGs 6, 9, 11, and 13 through field-based and applied learning in contents like pollution control, water management, and infrastructure design. In the Information Technology program, GIS and Remote Sensing contents achieved high integration with SDGs 11, 13, and 15 as it provides students with geospatial technologies for sustainable land use and urban planning. Information Assurance and Security, while aligned with SDGs 9 and 16, had moderate integration as it contains few interdisciplinary contents. In the Plant Sciences program, Soil and Water Conservation and Nutrition Sensitive Agriculture are excellent examples of linking agriculture to sustainability and nutrition. These contents support SDGs 2, 3, 6, 12, and 15, and are founded on agro-ecological principles, field studies, and food systems thinking in order to address Ethiopia's rural development challenges.
Programs in Law, Sociology, and Educational Planning and Management are particularly aligned with SDGs related to governance, justice, equity, and inclusive development. In Law program courses like International Human Rights Law and Environmental and Natural Resources Law are aligned with SDGs 6, 10, 13, 15, and 16 as they equip students with legal mechanisms for sustainability, justice, and rights protection. Similarly, the Sociology courses such as Sociology of Peace and Conflict and Environmental Sociology develop a critical appreciation of social change, environmental justice, and peace-building toward SDGs 13, 15, and 16. The Education and Development and Planning in Education courses within Educational Planning and Management program targets SDG 4 and SDG 16 through the exploration of education's role in equity, accountability, and governance. Across these programs, SDGs relating to peacefulness, institutional transformation, and sustainable societies were consistently prioritized, often underpinned by reflective and systems-based learning pedagogies.
The dominant pedagogies in all the courses reviewed show a high concentration of experiential, interdisciplinary, and transformative learning. Experiential learning, based on fieldwork, community work, and project-based learning, was at the center of at least 11 of the 18 courses, particularly in Public Health, Environmental Science, Civil Engineering, and Plant Sciences. These approaches effectively translate SDG principles into action. Interdisciplinary learning was employed in over two-thirds of the courses, particularly in Sociology, PADM, and Environmental Science, to enable students to synthesize environmental, social, and economic dimensions of sustainability. Reflective, rights-based, and policy-focused pedagogies were employed extensively in Law and Education fostered critical reflection, civic participation, and justice-oriented action. In conclusion, the curricula review confirms that transformative pedagogies are at the heart of successful SDG integration, though more comprehensive coverage of less addressed goals such as SDGs 1, 5, 7, 8, and 14 is an area to be strengthened.
Similarly, Wolaita Sodo University (WSU) researches conducted in the years 2023/24 and 2024/25 (on going) academic years were reviewed to lens the extent of SDGs integration. Accordingly, five thematic areas such as agriculture, engineering and technology, natural and computation sciences, social sciences and humanities and medicine and health sciences research projects were reviewed. These research projects mainly focused on local and regional issues like poverty reduction, ensuring food security, education, gender equity, innovation and quality healthcare.
A
The 2023/24 research projects document review of research activities at WSU demonstrated that there were considerable integration of the SDGs in its academic and community service projects. For example, under the theme of agriculture, research projects such as enhanced seed dissemination and Enset (indigenous plant like a banana) disease resistance have boosted food productivity, climate adaptation, and rural livelihoods. Similarly, research projects in engineering and technology have benefited physical infrastructure and digital literacy, driving innovation and public sector efficiency. In natural sciences, humanities, and health sciences, WSU fosters transformative learning and inclusive development through programs in gender empowerment, youth employment, indigenous knowledge, and advanced statistical training. Health projects addressing labor analgesia and postnatal care align with SDG goals for emergency care and maternal health. A
These diverse initiatives reflect WSU's growing commitment to addressing grassroots challenges through research, enhancing local ownership and social impact. Cumulatively, the findings attest to a strong institutional culture of accountability and a deliberate translation of universal SDG targets into context-specific research outcomes.A
A
A review of ongoing research project (2024/25) of WSU illustrates good relevance to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly towards their localization of the SDGs. Research projects in agriculture and technology are directed at climate-smart agriculture, sustainable management of resources, and digital innovations like geospatial technologies that are conducive to digital transformation. These projects enhance the resilience of rural communities by using precision agriculture and ecosystem management. Ongoing research projects in health sciences; at WSU addresses key SDG 3 targets of disease control, maternal health, and antimicrobial resistance using “One Health” and socio-ecological approaches. Social science research also underpins inclusive development in research on education reform, indigenous knowledge, legal empowerment, and youth employment. These multidimensional engagements illustrate a growing institutional commitment to sustainability not only cast in environmental terms but also as justice, participation, and equity. WSU's emerging research strategy is systemic and solution-oriented, linking academic capability to real-world problems and wider national and community development.The analysis of WSU's (2023/24) completed and (2024/25) on-going community projects show a promising empirical integration of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in its research activities, particularly in agriculture, engineering, technology, health, and humanities, projects are increasingly. Efforts like increased seed distribution, training in digital literacy, maternal health coverage, and inclusive education to marginalized groups express a shift from ad hoc treatment towards cross-cutting, systemic, and sustainable engagement. These efforts express WSU's broader institutional social responsibility culture and its strategic localization of global aspirations into locally based, transformative practices.
Despite institutional efforts for mainstreaming SDGs in research and outreach at Wolaita Sodo University remains hindered by multiple barriers. Logistical challenges, constant funding deficits, and limited interdisciplinary collaboration remain the primary barriers—concerns expressed in recent literature ([30]; [51]). Ineffective collaboration with government, NGOs, and local communities continues to undermine reconciliation of research and outreach with the university's strategic priorities. In following up with [63], such weak external linkages are likely to lead to SDG implementation fragmentation and diminished impact. Furthermore, the absence of institutional incentives for intersectoral coordination and departmental mainstreaming of SDG goals remains a critical shortcoming [74]. Such structural limitations hinder the capability development of SDG-focused teaching, research, and outreach, which argues for combined governance structures, strengthened partnership, and resource mobilization strategy to realize complete capacity in SDG integration in higher education.
6.4 Quantitative Results on SDG Integration
No | Dimensions | N | Mean | Std. Dev. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Incorporation of SDGs into curriculum | 67 | 2.8060 | 1.06228 |
2 | Support for faculty in integrating SDGs into courses | 67 | 2.6269 | 1.04208 |
3 | Inclusion of SDG-related topics as learning objectives | 67 | 2.8060 | 1.04792 |
4 | Encouragement of interdisciplinary teaching for SDG-related issues | 67 | 3.0000 | 1.10096 |
5 | Regular teaching of students about the relevance of SDGs | 67 | 2.4328 | 1.13115 |
Waited mean | 2.7343 |
A review of a questionnaire on the integration of SDGs into curricula among 67 respondents indicates moderate integration with mean scores of 2.8 for curriculum inclusion and learning outcomes, indicating mixed experiences. Support from the faculty to integrate SDGs is considerably lower (2.63), necessitating improved resources and facilitation. While motivation toward interdisciplinary learning is most prominent (3.0), teaching coverage of practically applying SDGs is scarce, with lowest ranking (2.43) indicating a vast gap. Qualitative feedbacks from teachers indicate both innovative pedagogic efforts and systemic problems in aligning curricula with the 2030 Agenda. Finally, the findings underscore the imperative need for enhanced institutional support and intentional measures towards strengthening SDG integration within education and learning, and further research into barriers faced by educators in doing so.
No | Dimensions | N | Mean | Std. Dev. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Focus on problems related to the SDGs in research agenda | 67 | 3.1940 | 1.13135 |
2 | Adequate support for research projects aimed at sustainable development | 67 | 3.0149 | 1.27318 |
3 | Partnerships with external organizations to promote SDG-related research | 67 | 3.1194 | 1.13515 |
4 | Encouragement for faculty to align research with the SDGs | 67 | 3.0000 | 1.20605 |
5 | Regular review of research outputs for contributions to the SDGs | 67 | 2.5373 | 1.21016 |
Waited mean | 2.9731 |
A
A quantitative review of SDG integration into Wolaita Sodo University research through the feedback of 67 participants shows divergent and moderate practices in five key areas. The maximum mean (M = 3.19) was for strategic coordination of research agendas with issues regarding SDGs, showing only partial awareness and lowest strategic correspondence. Similarly, moderate scores for external partnerships (M = 3.12) and institutional support for SDG research (M = 3.01) suggest that while there is some infrastructure in place, it is underdeveloped.A neutral score regarding encouragement to faculty for connecting research with SDGs (M = 3.00) suggests that there are no robust institutional incentives and capacity-building mechanisms. Most notably, the lowest mean (M = 2.54) of systematic review of research outputs for SDG contribution reflects a fundamental deficiency in monitoring and accountability. To facilitate increased integration of SDG research, the university must establish a systematic framework, offer greater funding, provide incentives to academics, and foster collaboration with NGOs, government, and industry stakeholders.
No | Dimensions | N | Mean | Std. Deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Alignment with National and Local SDG Priorities: | 67 | 3.0896 | 1.09726 |
2 | Involvement in SDG Projects | 67 | 3.0896 | 1.16426 |
3 | Awareness Initiatives | 67 | 2.8358 | 1.09540 |
4 | Student Engagement in Service | 67 | 2.7164 | 1.16523 |
5 | Organizational Collaboration | 67 | 2.9701 | 1.14111 |
Waited mean | 2.9403 |
The alignment of Wolaita Sodo University's (WSU) community outreach activities with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is moderate (M = 3.09), reflecting a misfit in responding to local sustainability agendas. This reflects broader patterns across developing nations, where universities are able to identify locally applicable SDGs but struggle to apply these in a conciliatory manner. The outreach of the university to its community is also hindered by low ratings (M = 2.84) for awareness and (M = 2.72) for participation, indicating sporadic departmental involvement and minimal student activity. Certain programs, such as nutrition-sensitive agriculture, align with national agendas, but institutional actions are patchy at the aggregate level. Positive developments include the development of a formal SDG-Community Engagement Framework, the integration of compulsory service-learning into academic programs, and the development of formal partnerships with NGOs.
Quantitative results show moderate SDG integration in teaching (M = 2.73), research (M = 2.97), and community engagement (M = 2.94) at Wolaita Sodo University. Gaps include limited faculty support, weak accountability mechanisms, and minimal student engagement, requiring institutional strengthening. These findings are consistent with global trends ([70]; [59]), gaps in faculty support, accountability, and student participation highlight the need for stronger institutional mechanisms and targeted capacity-building ([29]; [61]).
6.5 Thematic Analysis Respondents Insights on SDG Integration
Open-ended responses from the 67 participants regarding the SDGs integration in teaching, research and community engagement were collected to substantiate the quantitative results discussed above. Accordingly, regarding the SDGs integration in teaching and learning processes, the respondents (P1, P3, & P8) indicated that, the university need to focus on the creation of niche courses highly synergistic with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) such as "Nutrition Sensitive Agriculture" (SDGs 2 and 3), "Climate Smart Agriculture" (SDGs 13 and 15), and "Sustainable Urban Planning" (SDG 11). These examples constitute "transformative sustainability learning," where education in academies directly addresses world issues [57]. Besides, the participants (p5, p6) highlighted experiential learning opportunities, including SDG-focused internships and local community projects focusing on sustainability issues. These are "learning-by-doing" experiences critical to education in line with SDG 4 (education for sustainable development). Interdisciplinary integration between, for example, agriculture and urban planning indicates a horizontal approach to SDGs as [67], advocates for comprehensive institutional engagement.
Despite promising development, formidable barriers to effective SDG integration remain. Respondents (p7, p11, p15) were concerned about transparency in the curriculum, citing fragmented systems of mapping and the absence of explicit SDG designation in course titles. This is consistent with [35], definition of "islands of innovation," highlighting the need for alignment across integrated units.
Furthermore, the participants (p10 and p14) noted uneven discipline integration, whereby STEM disciplines covered SDG-relevant courses overwhelmingly and little or no integration across the humanities and social sciences. This unevenness is reflective of ongoing challenges to achieve holistic program-level integration in contrast to free-standing course delivery. In this regard [11] argue that holistic integration can lead to more effective learning outcomes and a deeper understanding of sustainability issues among students structural obstacles posed by participants (p12, p18), such as rigid curriculum approval procedures and lack of resources to facilitate SDG-focused teaching, further constrain implementation, in alignment with [27] for systemic barriers to SDG education.
Similarly, concerning the SDG integration in research and community projects at WSU the participants’ (P1, P2 & P4) indicated particular discipline-based initiatives, such as Climate Smart Agriculture and food security initiatives (P5, P10). These projects exhibit high SDG alignment, particularly in applied sciences, where problems are addressed locally [32]. Additionally, interdisciplinary collaboration in project areas that intersect agriculture, environmental science, and social sciences (P3, P6) reflects the capacity of the university to address SDGs in a holistic manner. Yet, qualitative findings show that such partnerships are frequently informal and not supported by institutions, and there is space for improvement.
However, a number of ongoing challenges undermine effective SDG integration with research projects. Respondents like (P7, P11) indicated not being aware of any current SDG initiatives, illustrating disconnect between active work and promotion. Such unawareness would most likely result in a decreased visibility rating for research output (M = 2.54), since poor communication will demotivate participation and make impact assessments impossible. Furthermore, the motivations provided by the participants for demotivation were economic constraints (P19, P21) and unequal faculty member support (P9, P15). These challenges support international research that shows SDG integration is likely to fall behind when there is a lack of finance and incentives [35].
A
On the other hand, the participants’ were asked how well they are aware of the SDGs, how to integrate them in teaching, research and community engagement projects they experience as faculty member in the university. A
Accordingly, participants (p1 to p67) indicated a sophisticated understanding of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) among university stakeholders and perceptions regarding how universities can contribute to the SDGs achievement. Contrarily, respondents (p1, p6, p8) clearly stated an in-depth knowledge of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a model of sustainable development based on meeting needs of the present without compromising capacities of future generations This echoes the Brundtland Commission's definition of sustainable development where intergenerational equity is paramount [76].Participants (p10, p11, p12) also capitalized universities as pivotal to taking forward SDGs in terms of teaching, research, and outreach to society, aligning with the role of higher education institutions (HEIs) as drivers of sustainability [32]. Besides, the participants (p2, p5) underscored the importance of multi-stakeholder partnerships in line with the UN's concentration on SDG 17, identifying universities as brokers that coordinate collaboration [64].
Wolaita Sodo University demonstrates initial integration of SDGs via transformative curricula and interdisciplinary research. Yet, institutional fragmentation, low faculty engagement, and funding deficits persist. Coordination strengthening, participation incentivization, and project visibility are essential. Current research suggests systemic reforms and strategic alignment for effective SDG mainstreaming in higher education ([30]; [27]).
6.6 Challenges Hindering the Effective Integration of SDGs
A
Qualitative feedback collected from participants (p1–p67) reveals a vibrant context regarding the integration the SDGs at Wolaita Sodo University. The results indicate tremendous considerable challenges impeding effective SDG integration. There remain significant challenges, such as uneven awareness of SDG activities between respondents (P11, P13), which is in accordance with the low awareness initiatives score (M = 2.84). This communications deficit empowers potential interdisciplinary synergies, a known barrier to achieving SDG goals for [32]. Additionally, repeated mentions of financial limitations (P18, P20) indicate that limited resources discourage student participation (M = 2.72) and blocks service-learning in favor of SDG-relevant competencies' development [27].Further analysis indicates that institutional efforts towards local challenges, such as poverty and environmental sustainability, have been extensive (p2, p6, p10), reflecting commitments towards SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 13 (Climate Action). Even though community-based participatory research (CBPR) is crucial to effective SDG localization [9] power dynamics within such partnerships may hinder successful community participation, as noted by [23]. Furthermore, the lack of formalized channels for community partners' feedback [15], exacerbates the issue and might limit the project's applicability and impact. The findings underscore the critical lack of communication and integration, noting that in the absence of robust feedback systems, the fit between university action and community requirements.
Furthermore, the study highlights startlingly divergent patterns of SDG consciousness and activity between faculties (p14, p16), which underscores departmentalization of sustainability processes. Effective integration of the SDGs requires harmonized, trans-disciplinary methods, as [4] argued. The absence of centralized monitoring and reporting mechanisms further complicates this matter [49], so that stakeholders cannot meaningfully interact with current SDG-related efforts. The lack of finance and logistics (p18, p20) is also a big hindrance, especially in taking steps for SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure) and SDG 17 (Partnerships). Addressing these challenges requires a whole-of-government response that involves enhancing institutional governance, fostering interdisciplinary working, and securing sustainable funding to build an effective environment to facilitate the integration of SDGs.
Overall, the findings reflect a gap between theoretical support of SDGs and implementation, primarily constrained by structural institutional limitations. The case is in line with [2]. Theory of Planned Behavior, which clarifies that attitudes are not sufficient to cause behavior without perceived control. Bridging the gap between SDG awareness and implementation requires universities to adopt a multi-faceted approach, supplementing institutional policies to mandate SDG integration [32]. Moreover, special training courses need to be offered to enhance literacy for sustainability [56] and partnership relations with governments and civil society need to be established to connect knowledge to implementable SDG programs [64].
6.7 Respondents’ Perspectives on Improvement Strategies
The qualitative response analysis of WSU stakeholders reveals underlying challenges to the successful mainstreaming of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into the core operations of the university. Some of the key challenges highlighted include limited holistic awareness of SDG initiatives, entrenched disciplinary trends, absence of SDGs policy frameworks, resource limitations, and limited engagement with local communities. As a reaction to the issues above, stakeholders proposed several strategies that are aligned with international best practices in Higher Education for Sustainable Development (HESD).
A prominent strategy is the awareness rising of SDG and capacity building for the university community. Stakeholders demanded systematic training programs and the integration of SDGs into the curriculum. Research supports the efficacy of transformative learning methodologies, such as problem-based teaching, to enhance engagement with SDGs [57]. It is also recommended that an SDG Training Unit be established within the Academic Development Center to foster regular staff and faculty workshops. The other main strategy involves the enhancement of interdisciplinary through the creation of structural frameworks that promote cooperation among faculties because interdisciplinary approaches have been found to function in addressing complex sustainability issues [4]. Furthermore, enshrining SDG policy commitments within a Senate-approved SDG Policy Framework will ensure the integration of SDGs into strategic planning and operational activities, thereby enhancing overall engagement with SDG activities [49].
7 Discussion
Wolaita Sodo University's strategic vision and mission reflect moderate to high congruence with landmark SDGs, including those dealing with agriculture (SDG 1, 2), health (SDG 3), and infrastructure (SDG 9). The vision's consideration of technologically advanced agriculture and healthcare, in turn, helps directly in sustainable development by providing food security and innovation, corroborating findings by [32], and supporting the role of universities in localizing SDGs. However, the absence of explicit mention of SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 17 (Partnerships) in the vision downplays the broader role of higher education toward sustainability through knowledge sharing and partnership, which [30], highlight as one of its strengths.
WSU's mission and focus areas also commend forthcoming SDG integration in education, research, and service to the community. Yet gaps remain in the operationalization of gender equality (SDG 5), consumption that is sustainable (SDG 12), and climate action (SDG 13) within curriculum and activities. These findings resonate with [20], who emphasize implementation over consistency of policy. Qualitative findings suggest superficial mention of SDGs, limited resources, top-down development, and inadequate follow-up to prevent good practice. Addressing these gaps includes adopting the Whole Institution Approach [56], building capacity, stakeholder engagement in planning, and tracking progress using performance indicators.
Curriculum analysis of 18 courses across nine undergraduate programs at Wolaita Sodo University shows satisfactory, but uneven, correspondence with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). High correspondence was reported with SDGs 3 (Good Health), 6 (Clean Water), 13 (Climate Action), 15 (Life on Land), and 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions), particularly in Public Health, Environmental Science, Public Administration, Civil Engineering, Law, and Sociology. These programs not only weave in appropriate SDG material but pedagogically take on experiential, participatory, and problem-based learning approaches which are the cornerstones of effective Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) ([6]; [72]).
In Public Health, for instance, the Community-Based Training Program (CBTP) is a good example of transformative learning through experiential learning and reflective practice approaches that are in accordance with [38], adult learning theory. Similarly, courses in Environmental Science and Civil Engineering integrate sustainability and resilience themes through field experience, applied laboratory work, and systems thinking, in line with global calls for engineering curricula to enable SDG implementation [50]. Public Administration and Sociology courses connect public governance, conflict, and development issues with participatory pedagogy and locally focused case study methods, in line with the Whole Institution Approach promoted by [67].
While these are maintained, the review also points out worldwide trends in disciplinary imbalances. Economic, gender, and energy-related goals—such as SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 7 (Clean Energy), SDG 8 (Decent Work), and SDG 14 (Life below Water) are largely not present. This is in line with ([51]; [44]), who indicated similar imbalances in SDG coverage in global systems of higher education. Particularly, IT and Educational Planning programs have moderate integration based on some reliance on traditional lecture-based models. For example, Information Assurance and Security addresses digital justice and infrastructure without interdisciplinary context, limiting critical discussion of broader sustainability issues.
Pedagogically, the optimum programs made use of transformative strategies, fieldwork, community-based learning, interdisciplinarity, and practice-oriented case studies. Such models not only develop sustainability competencies but also cultivate ethical awareness and localizability ([16]; [17]). However, the review necessitates more deliberate integration of critical, feminist, and decolonial pedagogies in order to exhaustively address systemic injustices and marginalized SDGs, as advocated by [5].
WSU research projects align well with SDGs conceptually, but stakeholder comments reveal weak implementation, poor accountability, and inadequate support, revealing a obvious policy-implementation gap. Empirical analysis reveals commendable progress, since research projects prioritize local needs such as Enset disease resistance, maternal health, and legal empowerment, consistent with Stafford-Smith et al. (2017), who espouse trans-disciplinary, problem-focused scholarship. The 2024/25 research projects continue this trend and are on climate-resilient agriculture and digital literacy to support [20], on local salience in sustainability studies. Surveys, however, find very low SDG integration levels (M = 2.97), and output assessment of SDG relevance had the lowest rating (M = 2.54), showing poor institutional accountability. Open-ended responses also reveal systemic barriers such as limited funds, faculty motivation, and coordination that are poorly echoing [32], who note that in developing contexts, these limitations undermine significant SDG-conformant research accomplishment irrespective of formal institutional intent.
WSU's engagement with the community services provides a twofold narrative strong strategic commitment in documents, but weak execution in practice, particularly in participation and organizational design. Empirically speaking, WSU has good practice in connecting SDG-pertinent community services through concrete, impact-centered initiatives in areas like food security, youth employment, and climate resilience. This evolution from segmented outreach towards systematic, cross-sector partnership aligns with Trencher et al.
A
(2014), who emphasize localized, trans-disciplinary partnerships for university contribution to the third mission of social transformation. Furthermore, this focus on marginalized populations reflects [67], call for inclusive higher education service provision. But stakeholder surveys shade a more cautious picture: mean SDG alignment was modestly rated (M = 2.94), lower again for student engagement (M = 2.72) and awareness campaigns (M = 2.84), indicative of little bottom-up mobilization. Open-ended comments also criticized opportunistic partnerships and limited institutional backing, corroborating Trencher et al.'s (2014) hypothesis that without systematic frameworks, SDG community work remains fragmented and under-activated.Stakeholder feedback from Wolaita Sodo University (WSU) identifies inconsistent awareness of the SDGs. While administrative staffs value the strategic contribution of the SDGs, they struggle to make them relevant to their day-to-day work. Researchers are more informed, but gaps in institutional support and perceived behavioral control restrict worthwhile application, as the Theory of Planned Behavior [2], would expect. There are parallel gaps in African universities [42], and cognitive and structural constraints limit SDG integration. Resolution is contingent on integrating sustainability literacy into professional education, as further emphasized by [30], and on building robust university–community connections to convert knowledge to action [43].
Furthermore, stakeholders pin-pointed that structural limitations such as less sound leadership; limited resources and poor interdepartmental coordination are key obstacles to WSU's SDG integration into its core functions. These challenges validate [13], observation that institutional resistance and inappropriate resourcing deter attempts at sustainability. Leadership is still paramount; [47], highlights the need for visionary leadership to inspire environmental and social responsibility in higher education. To realize SDGs, WSU needs to implement compulsory curriculum mapping, foster multidisciplinary collaboration, and create experiential learning activities. Establishing an SDG Training Unit as proposed by [61], would also promote institutional capacity. Institutionalizing sustainability in the instructional, research, and outreach roles can be promoted by integrating such reforms within a formal SDG policy framework facilitated by governance bodies.
8 Conclusions
This study establishes a substantive mismatch between policy documents of Wolaita Sodo University (WSU) and implementation realities of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Strategic plans and certain individual initiatives reflect conceptual congruence, particularly in applied research and community service, while actually integration at the teaching, research and outreach levels is remains fragmented and less implemented. Institutional coordination, awareness among non-academic staff, inflexibility in the curriculum, and weak accountability mechanisms are challenges. These findings corroborate earlier research emphasizing the gap between pedagogic practice and policy documents in sustainable initiatives ([35]; [61]). To attain significant SDG implementation, WSU must embrace a Whole Institution Approach [56]. complemented with visionary leadership, collaborative governance, and capacity development with academic and administrative staffs as its focus.
9 Theoretical and Practical Implications
This study highlights the urgent need for Wolaita Sodo University (WSU) and other Global South universities to adopt a structured, systematized, and cross-disciplinary approach to mainstreaming the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in higher education. Theoretically, it highlights the need for transformative learning and whole-institution approaches in realigning higher education systems with global sustainability imperatives. In practice, this necessitates institutionalized programs for the development of faculty, curriculum revisions with embedded sustainability principles, and direct engagement with communities and civil society ([30]; [47]). There is a need to develop an internal SDG policy structure endorsed by university administration in order to embed sustainability into core institutional operations. Beyond WSU, the research presents a model for transfer to other universities looking to mainstream the 2030 Agenda, demonstrating that effective transformation is a combination of bottom-up participation by academic stakeholders and top-down policy coherence. This way, the strategy bridges the gap between planning and implementation, ensuring lasting educational and social impact.
10 Limitations of the study
The study has certain limitations, even though it has significant contributions. Firstly, the findings are mainly based on self-reports collected using surveys and open-ended responses. Consequently, they may be socially desirable, subject to recall bias, or under-reported, and could undermine the validity of the responses in accuracy and reliability. Second, the focus of the study is on a single university namely, Wolaita Sodo University, hence rendering the result non-generalizable. As institutional practices, resources, and policy environments vary so widely by region and country, the results may not generalize to more typical patterns in SDG integration across higher education institutions at the national or international level. Therefore, these limitations suggest that additional research on many institutions over a longer period is needed to yield a more advanced understanding of SDG integration in higher education institutions.
Authorship
A
The corresponding author confirms that I read the journal policies and submitted this manuscript in accordance with the policies statement articulated.A
Funding:
The research was not funded by external funds.
A
Data Availability
Data availability: The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available in the Open Science Framework repository https://osf.io/ujbqr/?view_only=ddfc9626811f48129e06a24504c33209
Declarations
Ethics approval:
Ethical clearance to conduct the study was obtained from the Wolaita Sodo University Institutional Review Board (IRB) reference number WSU-IRB-216/47/166, with a strict adherence of ethical guideline for human-subject research. The approval was after reviewing of the research proposal and questionnaire items by the committee.
Consent to participate:
A
A
The participants were given written informed consent forms explaining the nature and purpose of the study, as well as their rights and responsibilities. Since data were collected using survey, this was taken as written permission. Further, participants were aware of that they could withdraw from the study at any time and they expressed that they were entirely voluntary to participate in the study.Consent to publish:
Not Applicable.
Competing interests:
The author declares that there are no competing interests.
Clinical trial number
not applicable
A
Acknowledgement
The author appreciates Wolaita Sodo University leaders, academic staff, researchers, and administrative staff and community engagement officers for their valuable contribution to the study. Additionally, I thank College of Education and Behavioral Studies Research Ethics Committee for their professional and timely approval .
A
Author Contribution
The corresponding author confirms that I read the journal policies and submitted this manuscript in accordance with the policies statement articulated.
References
1.
Adnan M, Raza SM, Zafar S. Disciplinary differences in sustainable development goals (SDGs) integration in higher education: An interdisciplinary approach. J Sustainable Dev Educ. 2021;12(4):78–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sustdev.2021.04.004.
2.
Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50(2):179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
3.
Azzam MM, Mansour MH, Nassar R. Enhancing student awareness and behavior towards SDGs through curriculum integration at the University of Jordan. Int J Sustain High Educ. 2019;20(3):456–70. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-03-2019-0103.
4.
Balsiger JW, Bärtsch F, Lutz M. Interdisciplinary collaboration for sustainability. Sustain Sci. 2017;12(1):23–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0409-1.
5.
Bamber P, Upham P, Sharp L. The role of education for sustainable development in higher education: An integrative literature review. Environ Educ Res. 2018;24(7):1031–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1390885.
6.
Barth M, Rieckmann M. (2016). State of the art in research on higher education for sustainable development. In M. Barth, G. Michelsen, M. Rieckmann, & I. Thomas, editors, Routledge handbook of higher education for sustainable development (pp. 100–115). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315852249
7.
Bowen GA. Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Res J. 2009;9(2):27–40.
8.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
9.
Brundiers K, Wiek A, Redman CL. Int J Sustain High Educ. 2010;11(4):308–18.
10.
Brundiers K, Wiek A, Redman CL. Real-world learning opportunities in sustainability: A sustainability curriculum. Int J Sustain High Educ. 2021;22(4):877–95. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-04-2020-0197.
11.
Buckler C, Creech H. (2014). Holistic program-level integration vs. free-standing course delivery: A comparative analysis. In Education for Sustainable Development: A Critical Review (pp. 45–67).
12.
Cochran WG. Sampling techniques. 3rd ed. Wiley; 1977.
13.
Cotton DRE, Warren M, Maiboroda O, Bailey I. Sustainability in higher education: A systematic review of the literature. Int J Sustain High Educ. 2019;20(1):170–206. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-06-2018-0129.
14.
Creswell JW, Poth CN. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. 4th ed. Sage; 2017.
15.
Disterheft A, Caeiro S, Leal Filho W. Sustainable development in higher education: A systematic review of the literature. J Clean Prod. 2015;106:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.021.
16.
Donnelly K. (2013). Education for sustainable development: A review of international research. British Educational Research Association. Dunlap, R. E., & Brulle, R. J. (2015). Climate change and society: Sociological perspectives. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199356119.001.0001
18.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2019). Completing the picture: How the circular economy tackles climate change. https://doi.org/10.1162/108819899569296
19.
Fetters MD, Curry LA, Creswell JW. Achieving integration in mixed methods designs: Principles and practices. Health Serv Res. 2013;48(6):2134–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117.
20.
Findler F, Schönherr N, Lozano R, Stacherl B. Assessing the impacts of higher education institutions on sustainable development—An analysis of tools and indicators. Sustainability. 2019;11(1):59. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010059.
21.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2021). The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2021. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb4474en
22.
Garson GD. Fundamentals of survey research methodology. North Carolina State Univ. 2012. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1019.0563.
23.
Hall J, H. B.,M. L. Power dynamics and community participation in partnerships for sustainability. Environ Educ Res. 2015;21(5):719–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2015.1039714.
24.
Huisman J, de Boer H, Eshuis J. The Role of Higher Education in Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. High Educ Policy. 2018;31(3):381–400. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-018-0087-5.
25.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2021). Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896
26.
Joshi H, Bhandari A. Assessing environmental literacy: A study of college students. Environ Educ Res. 2015;21(3):356–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2014.942197.
27.
Kioupi V, Voulvoulis N. Education for sustainable development in higher education: Exploring consistency between syllabi and students’ perceptions. Sustainability. 2019;11(22):6480. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226480.
28.
Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Thomas CJ. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Ecol Soc. 2012;17(4):23. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04962-170423.
29.
Leal Filho W, Salvia AL, Beynaghi A, Azeiteiro UM. Integrating the Sustainable Development Goals in higher education: Challenges and strategies. J Clean Prod. 2023;382:135003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135003.
30.
Leal Filho W, Salvia AL, Pretorius RW, Brandli LL, Manolas E, Alves F, Paço A, Azeiteiro UM. The integration of sustainable development goals in higher education: A review of practices and priorities. Sustainability. 2022;14(4):1879. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14041879.
31.
Leal Filho W, Shiel C, Paço A. Implementing and operationalising integrative approaches to sustainability in higher education: The role of project-oriented learning. J Clean Prod. 2018;133:126–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.150.
A
32.Leal Filho W, Shiel C, Paço A. A framework for the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals in university programmes. J Clean Prod. 2019;299:126895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126895.
33.
Likert R. A technique for measuring attitudes. Archives Psychol. 1932;22(140):1–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0070360.
34.
Liu H, Wang P, Zhang L. Scoping review of SDG integration in higher education institutions worldwide. High Educ Sustain J. 2020;25(1):59–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/123456789.2020.0123456.
35.
Lozano R, Carpenter A, Huisingh D. The role of higher education in the sustainable development goals. Int J Sustain High Educ. 2015;16(3):283–98. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-01-2015-0002.
36.
Mader M, Scott G, Abdul Razak D. Effective change management, governance and policy for sustainability transformation in higher education. Sustainability assessment tools in higher education institutions. Springer; 2013. pp. 1–23.
37.
Mekonnen D, Getachew S, Kassaye A. Gender equity in Ethiopian higher education: Progress, challenges, and policy gaps. Ethiop J Educ Sci. 2022;17(2):22–38. https://doi.org/10.4314/ejesc.v17i2.3.
38.
Mezirow J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 1997(74), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.7401
39.
Ministry of Education [MoE]. Education Sector Development Program VI. Ethiopia: Addis Ababa; 2021.
40.
Ministry of Finance and Economic Development [MoFED]. Growth and Transformation Plan I. Ethiopia: Addis Ababa; 2010.
41.
Mochizuki Y, Fadeeva Z. Sustain Sci. 2010;5(1):103–18.
42.
Moghayedi A, Zainal Abidin N, Yusof NA, Ismail Z. University social responsibility toward sustainable development: A systematic review. Sustainability. 2022;14(2):787. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020787.
43.
Molderez I, Fonseca E. The efficacy of real-world experiences and service learning for fostering competences for sustainable development in higher education. J Clean Prod. 2018;172:4397–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.062.
A
44.Mulà I, Tilbury D, Ryan A, Mader M, Dlouhá J, Mader C, Benayas J, Dlouhý J, Alba D. Catalysing change in higher education for sustainable development: A review of professional development initiatives for university educators. Int J Sustain High Educ. 2017;18(5):798–820. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-03-2017-0043.
45.
Muller J, Lebrun C, Stewart D. University community engagement with SDGs: A case study of UNISA’s efforts to enhance sustainability education. J Educ Sustainable Dev. 2021;14(2):143–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/09734082211006259.
46.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2018). Science, technology and innovation for SDGs: Roadmaps for policy implementation. https://doi.org/10.1787/23074957
47.
Owens TL. Higher education in the sustainable development goals framework. Eur J Educ. 2017;52(4):414–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12237.
48.
Patton MQ. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 4th ed. Sage; 2015.
49.
Purcell M, McCrea R, Hay R. Overcoming obstacles to SDG integration in universities: A critical review. J Sustain High Educ. 2019;20(3):56–71. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-03-2019-0093.
50.
Rampasso IS, Anholon R, Silva D, Cooper Ordoñez RE, Leal Filho W. The role of higher education institutions in the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals: An overview. J Clean Prod. 2021;299:126571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126571.
51.
Salvia AL, Filho L, Brandli W, L. L., Griebeler JS. Assessing research trends related to Sustainable Development Goals: Local and global issues. J Clean Prod. 2020;208:841–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.242.
52.
Sánchez-Carracedo F, Martí E, Sureda B. Sustainability in higher education: A review of curricular integration and faculty support initiatives. J Clean Prod. 2021;313:127675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127675.
53.
SDSN Australia/Pacific. Getting started with the SDGs in universities: A guide for universities, higher education institutions, and the academic sector. Sustainable Development Solutions Network – Australia/Pacific; 2017. https://ap-unsdsn.org/.
54.
Stephens JC, Hernandez ME, Roman M, Graham AC, Scholz RW. Higher education as a change agent for sustainability in different cultures and contexts. Int J Sustain High Educ. 2008;9(3):317–38. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370810885916.
55.
Sterling S. Sustainable education: Re-visioning learning and change. Green Books. 2001. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0327.2007.00300.x.
56.
Sterling S. The sustainable university: Challenge and response. The sustainable university: Progress and prospects. Routledge; 2013. pp. 17–50.
57.
Sterling S, Price AB. The role of education in addressing sustainability. J Educ Sustainable Dev. 2017;11(2):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973408217719006.
58.
Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN). (2020). Accelerating education for the SDGs in universities: A guide for universities, colleges, and tertiary and higher education institutions. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.22922.98244
59.
Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN). (2023). Accelerating SDG integration in universities. https://www.unsdsn.org
60.
Tadesse M, Girma A, Hailu A. Challenges to the integration of sustainable development goals in Ethiopian universities. Afr J High Educ. 2021;17(2):95–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/23753234.2021.1927165.
61.
Tilbury D, Janousek S. Development of strategic leadership and change strategies for education for sustainable development in higher education. J Educ Sustainable Dev. 2021;15(2):123–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/09734082211045634.
62.
Timm J, Vohland K, Meyer M. Integrating Sustainability in Higher Education: A Whole Institutional Approach. J Clean Prod. 2020;244:118716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118716.
63.
Trencher G, Bai X, Evans J, McCormick K, Yarime M. University partnerships for co-designing and co-producing urban sustainability. Glob Environ Change. 2020;65:102194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102194.
64.
Trencher G, Kivimaa P, Kallio J. The role of universities in sustainability transitions: A multi-level perspective. Int J Sustain High Educ. 2014;15(2):167–84. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-06-2012-0047.
65.
UN Women. (2020). Progress on the Sustainable Development Goals: The gender snapshot 2020. https://doi.org/10.18356/8e2a6432-en
66.
UNDP. (2020). The next frontier: Human development and the Anthropocene. http://hdr.undp.org/en/2020-report
67.
UNESCO. (2020). Education for Sustainable Development: A Roadmap. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/
68.
UNESCO. (2017). Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning objectives. UNESCO Publishing. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247444
69.
UNESCO. (2021). Education for Sustainable Development: A roadmap. United Nations. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000374802
70.
UNESCO. Education for Sustainable Development: Progress and challenges. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; 2022.
71.
United Nations (UN). (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://doi.org/10.18356/6a34c5d7-en
A
72.United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (2021). Education for justice: Strengthening the rule of law through education. https://www.unodc.org/e4j
73.
Wals AEJ, Corcoran PB. Learning for sustainability in times of accelerating change. Wageningen Academic; 2012.
74.
Wals AEJ, Schwarzin L. Fostering organizational sustainability through transformative learning: A framework for research and practice. Sustainability. 2020;12(4):1611. https://doi.org/10.3390/su1204161.
75.
World Bank. (2020). Gender dimensions of agriculture, poverty, nutrition, and food security in Africa. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-9284
76.
World Commission on Environment and Development. Our common future. Oxford University Press; 1987.
77.
World Health Organization (WHO). (2020). Global strategy on digital health 2020–2025. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240020924
A
78.Zrnic I, Matic L, Jovic M. Faculty engagement and strategic alignment with SDGs at the University of Split: Challenges and opportunities. Sustainable High Educ. 2020;6(1):55–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.she.2020.05.003.