Objectives:

In recent years, sustainable development (SD) has gained wider appeal in Norwegian educational research and several voices from various professional environments are now exploring sustainability issues (Kvamme & Sæther, 2019b). We therefore see the need for a systematic literature review, i.e. a transparent and thorough review of the research in the field where high demands are placed on being explicit in the choice of method and selection criteria (Newman & Gough, 2020). The review consists of two parts, one for each of the following research questions:

RQ:

1. What characterises research on sustainable development in Norwegian research?
2. How does the research relate to the concept of sustainable development?

The first part of the study describes what is being researched (such as subjects, levels and participants). This is useful for identifying main patterns and tendencies in the research, and for pointing out any gaps that need to be filled with more research in the future. The second part of the study stems from our recognition that the SD concept comprises tensions and we are interested in investigating how these tensions are expressed in the research field. The tension between continued economic growth and greater protection of nature and the environment is often highlighted as the strongest (Purvis et al., 2019; Sinnes, 2015). Also, the debate about whether economic growth leads to more or less social inequality and whether social justice should take precedence over environmental concerns are additional expressions of tensions within the term (Connelly, 2007).

Theoretical framework

The first part of the review uses a descriptive approach where overviews are made of what subjects, levels (primary, secondary, teacher students, etc.), and focuses of attention are. In the second part we make use of Hopwood et. al.’s model of placing articles within a model balancing socio-economic vs ecological considerations, and what level of change is considered needed. Is it sufficient to make changes within the status-quo? Are larger changes required but within the system? (Reform) Or do we need to change the whole system? (Transformation). This framework is used to be able to get a holistic impression of the research field and where centres of gravity are.

Methods/methodology We have chosen to review what Persson (2021, p. 44) calls the “research front”, i.e. the latest research in a field. Overall, we see 2015 as a natural starting point for this literature review. In 2015, the UN's sustainability goals were adopted, and at about the same time, sustainable development was presented as an interdisciplinary theme in the work on new curriculum work in Norway (Meld. St. 28 (2015-2016); NOU 2015: 8). In the same year, Astrid Sinnes (2015) also published the first book on sustainable development in Norwegian education. Although research on sustainable development in Norwegian education is a fairly new field, we have had to make some limitations on the selection. The research must explicitly mention sustainability or sustainable development. This implies that educational research on relevant and related topics such as global citizenship, climate education, environmental education, ecocriticism (and more) that do not consistently/explicitly use the concept of sustainability will not be included in this review. At the same time, we relate to research that is peer-reviewed, which, among other things, excludes master's theses. Chapters and books that have an introductory function, often textbooks for student teachers, are generally not included either, as they present little new research. These nevertheless constitute entrances to the field and must thus be considered important contributions (see e.g. Klein, 2020; Sinnes, 2020; Sinnes, 2021; Straume, 2017) The review will look at research done in primary school (grades 1-4), middle school (grades 5-7), secondary school (grades 8-10), secondary education and teacher training. SD in the kindergarten is a large field of research in and of itself with quite different approaches to the topic. Considering space-constraints, it will be challenging to combine these research fields in this review (for more on sustainability in kindergartens, see e.g. Bergan & Bjørndal, 2019; Kasin & Haugen, 2019).

Expected outcomes/results (up to 300 words) The first part of the study indicates that there are most articles addressing the social science- and the natural science subjects, but with the renewal of curriculum there is growing attention within subjects such as Norwegian language, arts and handicrafts, music and physical education. A majority of the research focuses on secondary education, with less focus on primary education. Students and teachers are main focus in terms of participant focus. In the second part of the study results indicate that socio-economic issues receive less attention than ecological issues. A majority of the articles are placed within the status-quo and reform fields, with a larger part in the former of the two. A few articles are in transformation.

References Bergan, V. & Bjørndal, K. E. W. (Red.). (2019). Bærekraft i praksis i barnehagen. Universitetsforlaget. Connelly, S. (2007). Mapping Sustainable Development as a Contested Concept. Local environment, 12(3), 259-278. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549830601183289 Kasin, O. & Haugen, A. S. (Red.). (2019). Bærekraftig utvikling: pedagogiske tilnærminger i barnehagen. Fagbokforlaget. Klein, J. (2020). Bærekraftig utvikling i skolen. Pedlex. Kvamme, O. A. & Sæther, E. (2019b). Bærekraftdidaktikk: Spenninger og sammenhenger. I O. A. Kvamme & E. Sæther (Red.), Bærekraftdidaktikk (s. 15-43). Fagbokforlaget. Meld. St. 28 (2015-2016). Fag, fordyping, forståelse – En fornyelse av kunnskapsløftet. Kunnskapsdepartementet. https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/e8e1f41732ca4a64b003fca213ae663b/no/pdfs/stm201520160028000dddpdfs.pdf Newman, M. & Gough, D. (2020). Systematic Reviews in Educational Research: Methodology, Perspectives and Application. I O. Zawacki-Richter, M. Kerres, S. Bedenlier, M. Bond & K. Buntins (Red.), Systematic Reviews in Educational Research: Methodology, Perspectives and Application. Springer VS. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27602-7 NOU 2015: 8. (2015). Framtidens skole, fornyelse av fag og kompetanser. Kunnskapsdepartementet. https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/nou-2015-8/id2417001/?ch=1 Persson, M. (2021). Hvordan skrive en litteraturgjennomgang : En praktisk guide. Universitetsforlaget. Purvis, B., Mao, Y. & Robinson, D. (2019). Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins. Sustainability Science, 14(3), 681-695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5 Sinnes, A. (2015). Utdanning for bærekraftig utvikling: Hva, Hvorfor og Hvordan. Universitetsforlaget. Sinnes, A. (2020). Action, Takk! Gyldendal. Sinnes, A. T. (2021). Utdanning for bærekraftig utvikling - hva, hvorfor og hvordan? Universitetsforlaget. Straume, I. (2017). En menneskeskapt virkelighet : klimaendring, sosiale forestillinger og pedagogisk filosofi. Res publica.