How Can “Community Voices” from Qualitative Research Illuminate Our Understanding of the Implementation of the SDGs? A Scoping Review

Abstract

In 2015, the United Nations committed to 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to drive global development policy and practice. Six years into the implementation of the 15-year agenda, the SDGs are subject to extensive monitoring and research at the national, regional, and global levels using quantitative data sets. In contrast, this scoping review considered the contribution of qualitative research studies published in 2021, utilizing data collected from local, place-based community participants. Qualitative research with community participants connects global policy with place-based experience, thus potentially offering a valuable perspective on SDG implementation. Searches were carried out using the Scopus database to identify studies that explicitly linked their aims and objectives to the SDGs. Fifty-four papers met the criteria for inclusion in the review and were charted, mapped, and analysed. For the majority of studies, data collection was carried out in lower-middle income and low-income countries. The “voices” of community participants highlight tensions and challenges affecting the implementation of the SDGs. Reviewing this body of research as a whole identified opportunities to strengthen future qualitative research that will further illuminate progress towards the SDGs.

1. Introduction

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) officially came into force on 1 January 2016. The goals—the cornerstone of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Agenda 2030)—direct all countries to mobilize efforts to end poverty, fight inequalities, and tackle climate change [1].

It has been argued that the drafting and ratification of Agenda 2030 marked a sea change in international governance. The addition of three new goals to the domains covered by the preceding Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) brought a new emphasis to the interaction of humans with the environment. The SDGs also differ from the MDGs in their global focus: “these are universal goals and targets which involve the entire world, developed and developing countries alike. They are integrated and indivisible and balance the three dimensions of sustainable development” [1] (p. 3). Agenda 2030 is committed to inclusion and social justice, with the avowed intent to “leave no one behind”. While each of the 17 goals stands alone, they are closely interwoven. Progress towards one goal can result in both synergies and trade-offs with other goals [2].

At the time of carrying out this scoping review in December 2021, we were coming to the end of the first 5 years of implementing the 15-year agenda, one-third of the way through. While there were signs of progress in some areas, early gains had generally been wiped out by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic [3]. As new coronavirus variants continue to emerge, it is hard to predict whether lost ground can be made up and progress resumed. However, the global policy discourse remains optimistic: the stated theme for the 2022 meeting of the United Nations High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development is “Building back better from the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) while advancing the full implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”.

Despite the unanticipated chaos and suffering driven by COVID-19, it is an opportune moment to reflect on progress so far and to consider what can be learnt to take forward into the next ten years. Significant financial and human resources have been directed to developing indicators and collecting statistical data against which to measure progress towards SDG implementation, with USD 693 million of official development assistance (ODA) allocated to “data and statistics” in 2018 [3] (p. 27). In contrast, we turned our attention to whether and how recently published qualitative research studies could illuminate progress towards the implementation of the SDGs. In particular, we were interested in learning from the experiences of people in local, geographically based communities who contributed their “voices” to these studies. If we are indeed to ‘build back better’, it is important to look to research that can illuminate what is happening on the ground, at the local level.

Following the framework set out by Arksey and O’Malley in 2005 [4], this paper presents the findings of a scoping review of the relevant literature. In particular, this review focuses on qualitative research studies from all disciplines published in 2021 that explicitly linked their aims and objectives with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (“Agenda 2030”). Papers published in 2021 will typically be reporting on data collected two or three years earlier, just as the SDGs were gaining momentum in policy and practice. In undertaking this review, we sought to address two key questions:

i.

What can the findings of individual studies tell us about challenges and opportunities in implementing the SDGs?

ii.

What can be learnt from an overview of this body of literature as a whole to maximise the future contribution from qualitative research?

2. Methods

A cornerstone of scoping reviews is that the process should be documented in sufficient detail to be replicated by others. To this end, Arksey and O’Malley [4] set out a set of steps that provide the framework for such a review:

• Stage 1: identifying the research question
• Stage 2: identifying relevant studies
• Stage 3: study selection
• Stage 4: charting the data
• Stage 5: collating, summarizing, and reporting the results

The search for this scoping review (Stage 2) was carried out using the Scopus database in December 2021, concluding on 31 December. Scopus was selected as it offers broad coverage of inter-disciplinary databases, indexing more than 25,000 active titles and 7000 publishers.

For the first search of the database, we used the search terms “sustainable development goals” and “qualitative research” (mentioned anywhere in title, abstract, or keywords and limited to papers published online and/or in print in 2021). While this strategy excluded the work of authors who chose to use a broader phrase or keyword such as “sustainable development”, we were looking for a degree of intentionality in linking their publications to the “sustainable development goals”. However, on reviewing the results of the first search, we considered that the search term “qualitative research” was probably narrowing down the scope of the study too far as not all authors would choose to label their publications in this way. We, therefore, carried out additional searches using the terms “sustainable development goals” and “focus groups” or “qualitative interviews” or “ethnography” or “photovoice” (again, mentioned anywhere in the title, abstract, or keywords and focussing on papers published in 2021). As Arksey and O’Malley observe, “The process is not linear but iterative, requiring researchers to engage with each stage in a reflexive way and, where necessary, repeat steps to ensure that the literature is covered in a comprehensive way” [4] (p. 22).

To facilitate Stage 3 (study selection), the studies were reviewed against the following inclusion and exclusion criteria, first by title and abstract, and then through reading the full paper where necessary.

Inclusion criteria:

• Papers must include primary data collected through qualitative methods
• Papers must include “community voices”—data collected from local, geographically based community participants

Exclude papers if:

• They do not report on empirical qualitative research, including primary data
• They only include data from academics, policy makers, practitioners, etc.

The included papers were read in depth and then “charted” according to Stage 4 of the scoping review framework. Arksey and O’Malley suggest that charts should include the following information: author(s), year of publication, study location, intervention type, study population, aims of the study, methodology, outcome measures, and important results. We adjusted this list for the current review as we were looking for qualitative research studies rather than interventional research. We also added the geographical location for data collection, author affiliations, and funding sources to Arksey and O’Malley’s suggested headings, speculating that this information might contribute to the overall mapping of the body of literature. Therefore, the Stage 4 charting categories for this review were as follows:

• Author(s)
• Title of study
• Data collection method(s)
• Study location(s) (by country)
• Economic classification of country in which study was located (according to World Bank)
• First and last author affiliations
• Funding source(s) for study
• Links to SDGs

In the case of this review, there was no need to chart the “year of publication” as all included studies were published in 2021.

3. Results

3.1. Study Characteristics

The first search on “sustainable development goals” and “qualitative research” in title, abstract, or key words published in 2021 identified 62 records, of which 22 were suitable for inclusion in this review. Forty studies were excluded on the basis of abstract and title (n = 31) or reading of the full paper (n = 9). Reasons for exclusion were as follows:

• Data was collected from experts, policy makers, practitioners, or students (n = 25)
• Studies were based on secondary data (n = 7)
• Studies claimed to be qualitative research, but no data was presented (n = 5)
• Studies used quantitative/survey methods (n = 3)

The second search was designed to complement the first, as not all researchers would use “qualitative research” in the title, abstract, or key words of their paper. The phrase “focus groups” was selected as the search term for this second search as this is a frequently used method in qualitative studies working with community participants. A search for “sustainable development goals” and “focus groups” in the domains of title, abstract, and key words published from 2021 identified 61 records, from which 18 additional papers were suitable for inclusion in the review. Further searches substituting the phrases “qualitative interviews”, “ethnography”, and “photovoice” yielded an additional 14 papers that met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. The total number of papers included in this review was, therefore, 54.

The 54 studies were closely reviewed, with relevant information extracted and recorded in a detailed chart as recommended by Arksey and O’Malley [4]. Table S1 includes information on the data collection methods, study location, author affiliations, and funding sources.

3.1.1. Methods Used

Forty-three of the fifty-four included studies were solely qualitative in their approach to data collection, with methods described as follows:

• Combination of individual interviews and focus groups (n = 16)
• Individual interviews (n = 13)
• Ethnographic fieldwork (observation, individual, and group interviews) (n = 8)
• Focus groups (n = 4)
• Photovoice (n = 2)

Eleven studies employed mixed quantitative and qualitative methods to collect data, usually a questionnaire survey or other quantitative data set complemented by qualitative interviews and/or focus groups or photovoice.

3.1.2. Study Location

The majority of the single-country studies were located in Sub Saharan Africa (n = 29), with the remaining 17 single-country studies were distributed across Asia, the Pacific Islands, South America, the Caribbean, and Europe. Eight studies included data collected from two or more countries, six of which were located within Sub Saharan Africa (a further study collected data jointly from India and Ghana and the final study from Nordic countries).

3.1.3. Economic Classification

The World Bank reviews data each year in order to assign the world’s economies to four income groups: low, lower-middle, upper-middle, and high-income countries. The classifications are updated each year and are based on calculations related to the previous year [5]. The majority of the studies included in this review (n = 48) drew on data collected from lower middle-income countries (LMICs) and lower-income countries (LICs), as can be seen in

Table 1. Classification of locations of included studies according to income [5].

Country Income Classification	Number of Studies
High Income	3
Upper Middle Income	3
Lower Middle Income	37
Low Income	7
Mixed locations: Lower Middle Income & Low Income	4

.

3.1.4. Author Affiliations

Whereas 48 of the included studies collected data in countries classified by the World Bank as LMICs or LICs, the picture that arose from analysing author affiliations was rather different. Of the 54 studies, only one was single authored while five studies listed 10 or more authors. We chose to classify authorship according to the institutional and national affiliations of the first and last authors of each paper, reflecting the academic convention that these positions reflect the perceived contribution and seniority of the authors. Where the author was affiliated to more than one institution, we recorded the institution listed first. We found that 46% of first authors (n = 25) and 43% of last authors (n = 23) were affiliated with institutions in high income countries (HICs). The United Kingdom was most heavily represented, with 15 authors listed first or last on the included publications.

3.1.5. Sources of Funding

Of the 54 included studies, 30 (56%) were supported by grants awarded from funders in the Global North, while 3 further studies were funded from Chinese and South African research programme budgets. The remaining 21 studies stated that the researchers received institutional funding (n = 3), no external funding (n = 8), or did not provide any information on funding sources (n = 10).

3.2. Mapping the Included Studies to the SDGs

Mapping the included studies to the SDGs was not always straightforward. While some researchers linked their papers to specific SDGs, others mentioned the SDGs in general. Many studies mapped to several SDGs. In order to classify the studies included in this scoping review, we agreed on the SDG target to which the stated aims of the paper most closely aligned. We then mapped each study to varying numbers of secondary SDG targets, aiming to build up a picture of which SDGs were most represented (or underrepresented) in this body of literature. We were able to assign 52 of the 54 included studies to a single SDG in this way. However, two papers defied classification because they focussed on the Water-Energy-Food (WEF) nexus, with SDGs 6, 7, and 2 equally represented [6,7].

Table 2. Mapping the included studies to the SDGs.

SDG	Number of Studies Where SDG Was Primary Focus	Number of Times SDG Appeared as a Secondary Focus
1—no poverty	4	41
2—zero hunger	5 (plus 2 WEF nexus)	3
3—good health and well-being	23	12
4—quality education	1	2
5—gender equality	3	16
6—clean water and sanitation	5	4
7—affordable and clean energy	1 (plus 2 WEF nexus)	2
8—decent work and economic growth	5	6
9—industry, innovation, and infrastructure	1	5
10—reduced inequalities	0	21
11—sustainable cities and communities	1	14
12—responsible consumption and production	0	12
13—climate action	1	5
14—life below water	1	1
15—life on land	3	6
16—peace, justice, and strong institutions	0	2
17—partnerships for the goals	0	2

presents the findings of the mapping exercise.

The included studies were charted according to the SDG of primary focus in Table S1. The following sections present a narrative review of the findings of the included studies under the categories that emerged from repeated reading of the published papers:

• good health and well-being
• tripwires and trade-offs
• the bottom of the chain
• outliers

3.2.1. Good Health and Well-Being

Nearly half of the included papers target SDG 3, with 21/23 SDG 3-focussed papers based on data collected from LICs or LMICs. In the majority of studies, data was collected from extremely poor rural locations or city slums. Not surprisingly, many research participants reported difficulties in accessing health care, including financial barriers, drug shortages and lack of transport [8,9,10,11,12,13]. Six studies also cited shortages of health-care workers and unfriendly interactions with health-care providers as barriers to accessing health care [11,14,15,16,17,18]. Masong et al. [19] found that marginalised community members experienced a lack of trust in government-backed schistosomiasis treatment and prevention programmes, a further barrier to accessing health care and achieving SGD 3.8 (“access to quality essential health-care services”).

It seems that enduring patterns of stigma and shame are influencing the uptake of health-care services and impacting on participants’ experiences, from tuberculosis patients in Nigeria [20] to menstruators in Vanuatu [21]. Odo et al. [22] (Nigeria) and Jain et al. [23] (Northern India) reported that participants believe family planning services are taboo for the unmarried and that even married couples experience shame that prevents them from accessing modern contraceptives.

Several papers reported on the continuing negative influence of “traditional” beliefs and customs on progress towards the SDGs, with women in rural Benin preferring the advice of their elders on infant feeding to health education sessions [24] and women in rural Nigeria preferring to use the services of traditional birth attendants to skilled professionals [17]. In Uganda, epilepsy is reported to be socio-culturally linked to bewitchment and family curses [12], while some patients with chronic diseases in Ghana and India continue to rely on traditional medicines [16]. On the other hand, a study from Sri Lanka suggested that the practice of female genital mutilation/cutting is declining dramatically due to increased education and awareness, although there is still a need for legislation to completely eradicate the practice [25].

One paper presented an interesting analysis of the unintended consequences of a change in socio-cultural mores. Webb et al. looked at the experiences of postpartum women in a region of Zimbabwe where numbers of home births remain high [13]. In general, the policy to promote delivery at health facilities has been successful at the national level, with maternal and child mortality rates improving (SDGs 3.1 and 3.2) and cultural attitudes shifting in favour of delivery in health facilities to such an extent that mothers who deliver at home face community opprobrium. However, Webb et al.’s findings suggested that most of the women recorded as delivering “at home” had been trying to reach a health facility but were unable to do so. The women’s narratives show how vulnerabilities intersect, including material (food insecurity, available household assets, and access to transportation), social (isolation, distance, and lack of agency for decision-making), and individual-level vulnerabilities (knowledge of signs of labour leading to delays). The women experienced shaming and stigma for delivering at home, making them even more vulnerable to adverse health impacts [13]. The experiences of the women participating in this study illustrate that pursuing progress towards meeting SDG targets at the level of national statistics can lead to negative side effects in some communities, undermining the promise of Agenda 2030 to “leave no one behind”.

The paper by Dowhaniuk et al. [26] was of particular interest, in that the researchers used photovoice methods with participants in rural Uganda to identify the community’s own priorities for public health. Alcohol-use disorders emerged as the community’s priority, with the photovoice findings subsequently confirmed by quantitative data obtained through a survey of 327 local respondents. The researchers highlighted the ethical and practical benefits of partnering with communities in public health programmes, with the local community selecting the neglected health issue of alcohol-use disorders. The researchers concluded that “by augmenting current donor-driven agenda setting with a bottom-up agenda setting approach like the one outlined in this paper, the divide between local realities and global priorities could be further bridged” [26] (p. 18).

While all the studies with a primary focus on SDG 3 highlight the enduring challenges to achieving health-related SDG targets, many of the studies are descriptive with broad, somewhat naive recommendations that “more should be done”. Other studies are clearly well-resourced and authoritative, and thus, have the potential to influence policy, future research, and service development, for example, [8,25,26].

3.2.2. Tripwires and Trade-Offs

There is a burgeoning amount of literature on the implementation of the SDGs illustrating that progress towards one goal can have a negative impact on progress towards others [2,27]. Several of the studies included in this review addressed this theme, employing qualitative methods in the service of critical analysis. For example, a multi-country study accessing rural populations in Kenya, Malawi, Zambia, and Zimbabwe found that replacing traditional grain stores with metal grain silos improved grain storage post-harvest and reduced food waste [28]. However, while achieving progress in relation to SDGs 2 and 9, there was a negative impact on the power and financial agency of many women in the communities as ownership of the shiny new silos passed to the men. In other words, the new silos were found to trade improvements in relation to SDGs 2 and 9 for a decline in relation to SDG 5.

While some studies report an unexpected finding or trade-off between SDGs, other studies begin with the explicit intention to highlight “tripwires and trade-offs” in the journey towards implementation of Agenda 2030. For example, a study of ecotourism in the Komodo National Park, Indonesia [29] exposed tensions in relation to the targets set out in SDG 8.9 (“implement policies to promote sustainable tourism that creates jobs”). In setting out to critically examine the claim that an ecotourist-driven economy offers a sustainable future for local communities, the authors concluded that tourism development has only helped a few families who were already socially advantaged. On the contrary, most people were unable to generate enough income to cope with the “seasonality and unpredictability of tourism industry” [29] (p. 16). For the participants in this study, a critical evaluation of the progress towards SDG Target 8.9 suggests such “progress” may actually undermine the possibility of achieving Target 10.2 (“empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all”).

There were three other insightful papers on trade-offs among the included studies, where community perspectives illustrated the complexity of the journey towards realising the SDGs. Li et al. explored the impact of development on communities in Ghana and Malawi that are located downstream from reservoirs and lakes that are liable to flood [6]. Dams were constructed to generate hydro-electric power, resulting in improvements to energy supply (SGD 7). However, when the lakes and rivers flood, they contaminate drinking water supplies downstream. Improved agricultural productivity (SDG 2) further exacerbates the impact of the flooding on drinking water supplies because increased animal waste pollutes the water table. Like so many of the qualitative studies in this review, the quotes from local people graphically illustrate the horrific impact of the flooding: “What we do is to use something to tie a sieve on the mouth of the borehole and then we pump the water and sieve out the maggots” [6] (p. 10). In this case, the trade-off for progress towards SDG 7 (“affordable and clean energy”) was negative impact on progress towards SDGs 2 and 6 (“end hunger” and “clean water and sanitation”).

Leuenberger et al. reported on a large-scale research project exploring the impact on community health of living adjacent to industrial mining sites [30]. Data was collected through 83 focus groups among communities located in Mozambique, Burkina Faso, and Tanzania. The researchers concluded that local communities were benefitting in some ways from their proximity to the mines: for example, through improved access to health-care facilities. However, community members were also suffering from the loss of their agricultural lands and generally did not have the education or skills to benefit from employment with the mining companies. This study found that the gap in health equity was widening rather than the mines bringing better health to the surrounding communities, thus progress towards SDGs 8 and 10 was clouded by negative impacts on progress towards SDGs 1 and 3.

Similarly, Bersaglio et al. critically examined the construction of an East African “development corridor” (road) on the roadside communities [31]. Although development corridors bring benefits such as easier access to markets, they also bring challenges such as the destruction of homes and increases in sexually transmitted diseases. The authors concluded that investment in SDG 9 (“industry, innovation and infrastructure”) was being prioritised over investment in other SDGs in East Africa, reflecting the focus of investment in infrastructure among overseas governments, especially China: “donors and investors are also contributing to the prioritisation of Goal 9 over other goals, such as those that promote environmental protection or social equity. The implication is that local and national authorities are left to accept or mitigate trade-offs without adequate resources, as the same level of finance is not made available for SDGs with lower returns on investment” [31] (p. 14).

3.2.3. The Bottom of the Chain

As previously discussed, most of the included studies were based on data collected from disadvantaged communities, in some cases “the poorest of the poor” within the least affluent countries. Several studies focussed on such communities by using qualitative methods to explore participants’ experiences at the “micro level” of supply chains or informal urban settlements.

From their research with artisanal gold miners in Tanzania, Pedersen et al. [32] argued that while attention has been given to large scale-mining, there has been very little focus on small-scale artisanal mining, even though millions of people across Sub Saharan Africa depend on this trade. Based on their findings, the authors recommended that initiatives promoting SDG 12 (“sustainable use of resources”) should also address the challenges of livelihood diversification and exit strategies for communities whose livelihoods are dependent on non-renewable resources. On the other side of the continent, researchers looking at small-scale fish farming in Nigeria contended that the scientific literature on global supply chains (SDG 12) ignores the local, domestic markets in favour of higher levels in supply chains [33]. However, supporting and developing local value chains offers great potential for the reduction of poverty and gender inequality (SDGs 1 and 5). In coastal Bangladesh, the local knowledge of small-scale farmers was better able to address the challenges of increased salinisation than the official agricultural advice [34].

Two studies used ethnographic fieldwork methods, including observation and interviews, to highlight the agency of disadvantaged communities and their ability to self-organise, even in the absence of basic municipal services. Research into water infrastructure in informal settlements of Dar es Salaam [35] explored how people manage when there is no formal infrastructure for the circulation of drinking and bathing water. The study found that there is a complex system whereby people living in the slum areas obtain water despite the absence of government provision, concluding that more attention should be paid to supporting “everyday ingenuities” in under-served communities. Similarly, the findings of a study of faecal sludge management in low-income settlements in Nairobi highlighted the need to address the challenges along the chain of waste management by involving non-state actors as well as state actors [36]. There is a further sense of this ingenuity and agency among disadvantaged young people facing a shortage of “decent work” (SDG 8) in Uganda [37]. Many young people are living in economic contexts where there is little demand for their labour, so they are undertaking voluntary work or jobs wherever they can them, described as “getting by”. The researchers found that young people continued to hold high hopes for their futures, despite awareness of the structural barriers to obtaining work.

The authors of these studies argued that if the aspiration of Agenda 2030 is “to leave no one behind”, then it is necessary to get into the micro-level to understand how things work and how infrastructure can be improved for the poorest. A critical examination of urban governance and migrant communities in Kolkata [38] suggested there is a long way to go for such aspirations to be realised. Migrant communities were not included in the urban governance process and therefore resorted to extra-legal means to secure their position in the city. The quality of life in the development-induced “resettlement colonies” was found to be poor, with people living in shacks adjacent to drains flowing with faecal sludge. The authors concluded that Kolkata is unlikely to achieve SDG 11.3 by 2030 (“enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization”). Other studies suggested that improvements in governance are needed as well as infrastructure. For example, Idike et al. [39] found that the distribution of agricultural aid to farmers in rural Nigeria was damaged by corrupt practices at higher levels in the supply chain, undermining the intended progress towards SDG 1 (“no poverty”).

3.2.4. Outliers

In this scoping review of qualitative research studies linked to implementation of the SDGs, the majority of the included studies had a focus on disadvantage, poverty, or inequality. However, there were six studies that did not follow this trend. Four studies used qualitative methods to explore forms of cultural understanding and indigenous knowledge that could contribute towards the achievement of the SDGs [40,41,42,43]. Wilson [40] explored the potential contribution of Akan mythology towards gender mainstreaming in Ghana, while Berno et al. [41] collected local “food stories” that could contribute to the development of sustainable tourism in Timor Leste. Ali et al. [42] and Dasgupta et al. [43] advocated for the contribution of indigenous knowledge to disaster risk reduction and sustainable agriculture, respectively.

While collecting data from research participants living in a monetarily poor community, Otake and Hagenimana’s ethnographic study conducted in post-genocide Rwanda described a rich “gift economy” whereby community members exchanged goods and services in a form of circular economy [44]. The authors concluded that subjective well-being can be achieved through gifting and sharing, especially when communities have access to resources such as an abundant natural environment, social cohesion, cultural identity, and spirituality. Otake and Hagenimana claim that the findings of their ethnography contribute to “understanding the detailed process and mechanisms of why and how people can be happy without money” [44] (p. 939), and that subjective well-being can be realised even in communities that are financially impoverished and have experienced disruptive change. Arguably, there is a need for more studies such as Otake and Hagenimana’s ethnography, which reveals a positive pathway towards achieving the SDGs while balancing the needs of the environment and economy.

The paper by Sovacool et al. [45] also stood out among the included publications for being the only study that accessed “community voices” from the Global North to illuminate progress towards Agenda 2030, in this case SDG 7 (“affordable and clean energy”). The study explored energy and climate impacts of existing and proposed data centres in Greenland, Iceland, and Norway, noting that internet and online services currently account for about 10% of global energy demand. Data centres, with their huge servers, are located in the countries of the north because of the cool climates, stable governments, tax incentives, and abundant energy supplies. However, many of the data centres do not adhere to best practice in relation to energy use, emissions, construction, or the disposal of waste. Sovacool et al. addressed the community impact of the data centres through six focus group discussions. Participants indicated their support for further data centre development in their communities but expressed concerns about energy consumption and cryptocurrency mining. They were positive about ideas such as waste heat recycling in order to power district heating systems and the possibilities for local employment, suggesting that such factors should be high on the agenda when planning future data centres.

4. Discussion

It can be seen that SDG-related qualitative research studies published in 2021 covered a wide terrain of geographical locations and communities. Reading these papers together as a “body of literature” affords powerful insights into how communities are navigating challenges and barriers, often with few external resources but with their own “everyday ingenuities” [35]. The papers captured and shared a wide range of voices in the form of vivid quotes, from the 14-year-old girl from the Gaza Strip who described her marriage as “suffocation” [14] to the worker from Ghizou, China who wryly observed “If you don’t have money don’t take the bus. It’s humiliating to be thrown off” [46] (p. 193).

However, the charting and mapping of the included studies also revealed some surprising findings. We did not anticipate the extent of the dominance of SDG 3, with 43% (n = 23) of the papers mapping primarily to health-related targets. It is possible that the use of qualitative methods has gained more acceptance in health research than other fields, or perhaps that a qualitative dimension is more often sought to illuminate the experiential nature of health challenges. Several health-related studies illustrated commonalities in the participants’ experiences that do not appear in the goals and targets of SDG 3, for example, the significance of health-care providers’ attitudes in facilitating access to health services. While progress towards the SDGs is measured against “hard” targets, the relational dimensions of service delivery are also important.

It was also, perhaps, unexpected that 89% (n = 48) of the included studies were reporting on data collected in lower middle-income or low-income countries given that the SDGs are held to be universally relevant to all countries. Indeed, only one of the included studies from a high-income country acknowledged that poverty can also be a fact of life for some communities in affluent nations [47]. Of course, other qualitative studies are likely to have been published in 2021 that emanate from high or higher middle-income countries and are relevant to the implementation of the SDGs. However, the authors of such studies have not intentionally linked their papers to Agenda 2030 by including the phrase “sustainable development goals” in their title, abstract, or key words.

For many of the included studies, the voices of the participants provided a vehicle to critically examine progress towards Agenda 2030, whether explicitly or implicitly. Arguably, the finding of this review that the majority of the participants were from disadvantaged communities in LMICs and MICs speaks to the commitment in Agenda 2030 to “reach the furthest behind first” [1] (p. 3). Many of the studies in this review “give voice” to communities that are struggling to satisfy even the most basic of human needs such as food, water, and sanitation. However, in considering this body of literature as a whole, we were left with some lingering questions regarding the representation of such “community voices”.

Perhaps the most obvious question is “what next”? Nearly all the included studies ended with the rallying cry that “more must be done” but, like the television series ending on a cliff-hanger, there is no closure and no way of knowing what actually happens as a result of the research. It is not clear whether those with the power to implement the recommendations read the published studies, and whether the study findings will have any impact on decision-making. Many of the included studies were of high quality and reflected the investment of significant resources in the underpinning research projects and programmes. For example, Bersaglio et al.’s research into the interaction between the construction of development corridors and the SDGs collected data from 167 focus group participants [31]. The findings of the study were striking, with participants reporting livelihood benefits from the new roads but also negative impacts such as the loss of customary land and sacred sites for which no compensation was provided. Bersaglio et al. recommended that communities be given more chance to collaborate in the planning and construction of development corridors. However, who will listen to search research and truly “hear” the voices of the community participants? A recent newspaper article reported that 40,000 slum dwellers in Nairobi lost their homes with virtually no notice as they were demolished to make way for the construction of a new toll road [48]. Such disconnections illustrate the apparent lack of traction between research recommendations and decisions taken by governments and businesses.

A further question that arose from this review was how the research participants themselves will gain access to the findings of the research through which they have shared their perspectives. Representing the voices of research participants was generally treated as unproblematic within the included papers. Only one paper problematised the imposition of external research agendas on the communities studied and reported on a participatory approach to determining community research priorities [26]. No other included study described returning to the communities to continue the research journey or outlined plans to do so. The majority of the included studies were more descriptive than participatory, in that they were attempting to trace the impact of development on marginalised populations or to examine barriers to achieving the SDGs. While the intent of these studies seemed to lean towards critical qualitative scholarship that stands for equity and would be transformative [49], the question of the communication of the research findings to the communities involved was given little critical attention. Although knowledge dissemination strategies are increasingly required by funders, accountability should perhaps extend beyond the publication of research findings to proactive “taking-it-back” events in the communities from which the data was gathered as a mark of respect for the research participants [50]. This would enhance the building of partnerships with the researched communities, congruent with the ethos of Agenda 2030. However, informal reports from researchers collecting data in the Global South for research projects based in the universities of the Global North noted a growing frustration among research participants: “So basically, you just come here to waste our time collecting our opinions—and then that’s that: you disappeared!” [51].

As previously noted, data collection for 48 of the 54 included studies took place in LMICs and LICs (89%). In contrast, 45% (n = 48) of first and last authors were affiliated with institutions located in high income countries (HICs) and nearly all research funding was awarded by institutions in the Global North. At one level, this may be interpreted as a positive sign of the flow of research expertise and funding from the Global North to the Global South. However, the unequal playing field for research institutions in the Global South has long been noted, with the requirement for “excellence” from funders leading to the concentration of resources in “a particular set of institutions in a particular set of countries” [52] (p. 2). The intentions of HIC researchers in aligning their research programmes with progress towards the SDGs were no doubt progressive and this review does not seek to impugn their motives. However, none of the included studies offered an insight into how or why the lead authors situated in the Global North ended up working with marginalised communities from some of the poorest countries, or whose careers and which universities were benefitting the most from the accompanying publications and grants.

Reading qualitative research through the lens of postcolonial theory, Tuck and Yang adopted a critical stance, suggesting that “the stories that are considered most compelling, considered most authentic in social science research are stories of pain and humiliation” [53] (p. 812). For Tuck and Yang, to present only those voices from qualitative research that highlight poverty or need is akin to the “poverty porn” for which the aid sector has come under scrutiny in recent years. It is true that few of the studies included in this review offered stories of success or empowerment. On the other hand, a number of the included studies offered insights into the agency of marginalised community members and their ability to self-organise, suggesting studies at the micro-level have much to offer in developing “grass roots” strategies to accelerate progress towards the implementation of the SDGs. It would be helpful to access similar studies among disadvantaged communities from the Global North to find common strategies and enhance the sense of universality in relation to the SDGs. It would also be valuable to increase research that explores community voices among relatively affluent communities, following the example of Sovacool et al.’s study investigating community perceptions of data centres and energy use in Nordic countries [45].

Finally, we are aware of the time lag between research planning, data collection, and publication. The impact of COVID-19 will no doubt feature heavily in studies to be published in 2022 and beyond. There are other changes in the global zeitgeist too: for example, the increased focus on climate justice following COP 26 and the growing awareness of planetary boundaries as a limit to growth. Scientists are highlighting conflicts inherent in Agenda 2030, for example, between SDG 8 (“sustainable growth”) and SDG 11 (“responsible consumption and production”). The arguments for climate justice suggest there is an imperative for richer countries to accept limits to growth (or even to abandon growth) in order to enable “levelling up” among developing economies [54]. Gaffney and Rockström argued that, for such a radical step to happen, there would need to be an acceptance of the “household management” model in global governance where the finite nature of planetary resources is recognised at all levels [55]. This would call for a huge change in mindset, politics, and governance. It is possible that qualitative studies published in the coming years will interrogate whether planetary awareness is emerging among communities of both the Global North and the Global South, and perhaps identify more success stories in the endeavour to “build back better” from which transferable learning can be derived.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

This scoping review of SDG-related qualitative research published in 2021 identified 54 publications suitable for inclusion. Limitations of the review are acknowledged, including the limited time span, reliance on a single database, and restriction to published studies in the English language. However, mapping this body of research proved to be an interesting exercise, crossing disciplinary boundaries to create a shared space for the community voices gathered through qualitative methods. The included studies addressed a broad range of SDGs, albeit with particular emphasis on the social domain of sustainable development. Individual studies illuminated challenges to the implementation of the SDGs, highlighting the persistent and pernicious challenges of poverty and marginalisation, and the way in which progress towards one SDG can undermine progress towards another. The studies also illuminated opportunities to “build back better” through examples of everyday ingenuities and success stories.

When considering the body of literature as a whole, the included studies successfully drew on community voices to connect global policy with place-based experience, offering rich and varied insights into the implementation of the SDGs. However, the review also raised questions regarding the overwhelming focus on research with poor communities in LMICs and LICs; feedback to research participants; policy impact; and the opaque role of researchers from the Global North.

In terms of the recommendations from this review, we concluded that it would be helpful for future qualitative researchers, grant-makers, and publishers in the following points:

• When carrying out place-based community research, be explicit about the reach and scope of policy recommendations and include details on how the research findings will be shared with the participants;
• Increase expectations of, and provide forums for, follow-up reports in relation to the implementation of research recommendations;
• In qualitative research with communities in the Global North, include the relevant SDGs in the publication key words (a simple move towards global solidarity);
• When working with participants living in poor and marginalised communities, respect and report on participants’ agency and survival strategies;
• Develop programmes of research with more affluent communities, where poverty is less of a focus but where changes in practices, behaviours, and mindsets are still needed to make progress towards the SDGs;
• Design studies that address the difficult questions facing communities experiencing trade-offs between SDGs and the need to respect planetary boundaries, focussing on strengths and opportunities as well as challenges;
• Researchers from the Global North could consider offering insights into their own identities and experiences when working with communities and researchers from the Global South so their own voices are no longer a silent presence.

This review highlighted the important role for qualitative research in illuminating opportunities and challenges in the implementation of the SDGs. Where appropriate, attending to the above recommendations would strengthen both individual studies and enhance the body of qualitative research evidence as a whole.