1 Introduction

This part of the edited volume explores how conceptualizations of transdisciplinary knowledge development processes, guided by transformative visions, materialize in engaged research practices. In this context, researchers grapple with navigating diverse roles and reflecting on their positionality. In addition, a reflexive, situated research practice demands a careful assembly and application of a wide variety of competencies to effectively implement and navigate these roles. By connecting theory-based approaches with empirical examples drawn from various transdisciplinary projects, this part of the book aims to cultivate a nuanced understanding of how roles and competencies contribute to shaping the emerging profile of the ‘transformative transdisciplinary researcher’. It will address the following questions:

  • What different roles may a transformative transdisciplinary researcher assume and how do these roles relate? (Chapter 14)

  • What are different ways for transformative transdisciplinary researchers to foster role awareness and role reflexivity? (Chapter 15)

  • What competencies are key for transformative transdisciplinary researchers and how may these be obtained? (Chapters 15–17)

  • How to train and foster transformation in universities? (Chapters 16 and 17)

The chapter commences by delineating the role landscape of transdisciplinary researchers with a transformative orientation, and acknowledges the complexities involved in navigating these roles. Although we recognize the inconsistencies and ambiguities in the terminology and descriptions of actors’ roles in the scientific literature, we will attempt to present a comprehensive role landscape. Subsequently, we delve into the competencies needed to conduct transdisciplinarity for transformation, the acquisition of these competencies, and the role of universities in training and fostering these.

2 Navigating Different Roles

To understand the roles that transdisciplinary researchers may adopt in transformative settings, we distinguish three modes of research that can be considered part of transdisciplinarity for transformation (see also Chapter 1, this volume): conventional research, research through participation and transformative research. Each type of research comes with its own distinct conceptualizations of roles for researchers. If we adopt the view that the relation between these three modes is nested rather than distinct, the number of roles expands from conventional to transformative research, reflecting the changing goals and priorities. The evolving nature of these roles underscores the dynamic relationship between research and its interaction with society. We explain the roles in more detail below.

2.1 Conventional Research

The primary role attributed to academics is the collection and analysis of data, pattern recognition and the presentation of evidence to explain a certain phenomenon or causal relation, translating individual data points into general statements. ‘Good’ research is to be conducted at a distance from society, featuring a clear subject-object division and following the ontology, epistemology and methodology of a certain discipline (Fazey et al., 2018). Even if direct intervention in social processes is aimed for, it is to take place in a rather artificial reductionist context to answer knowledge questions considered appropriate from a disciplinary perspective, and/or to reduce the number of variables so as to be able to draw causal inferences—thereby trying to maintain objectivity and minimizing biases with the aim of uncovering generic patterns about the natural and social world. This role is often called the ‘traditional researcher’ (e.g. Bulten et al., 2021).

When the traditional researcher assumes a normative stance, aiming to achieve direct social impact, the role of ‘engaged academic’ is adopted (Bauer & Kastenhofer, 2018). The role of an engaged academic differs from that of the traditional researcher, as the former actively engages in advocating and lobbying for a specific normative direction, while the latter keeps a more detached stance, claiming a neutral position.

In both roles, scientists communicate knowledge to social actors who may or may not act upon it. In society, academics adopting these roles typically assume the position of ‘expert’—elucidating issues, scrutinizing existing solution pathways and offering advice. This guidance is grounded in the perceived superiority of scientific knowledge over other forms of knowledge, such as practical, experiential or indigenous knowledge. However, in practice this type of knowledge and knowledge transfer has limited actionability for developing and implementing solution pathways to address the highly complex problems societies are facing, such as climate change and non-communicable diseases, which is often referred to as the ‘implementation gap’ (e.g. Damschroder et al., 2009).

Initial attempts to counter this lack of impact by better communicating scientific knowledge to society—an approach called the ‘deficit model’ (Irwin & Wynne, 1996)—have not been successful. A growing number of evaluation studies showed that an important cause of the implementation gap is that knowledge and innovations that science produces are often not sufficiently aligned with the problem context and complexities related to realizing transformative change. Social actors require not just more information, but other, more actionable, knowledge and innovations (e.g. Broerse & van de Sande, 1995; van der Wilt & Reuzel, 2012).

2.2 Research Through Participation

In response to the observed implementation gap, research in the field of science and technology studies began to focus more on the research and innovation process itself. Within the positivist and empiricist paradigm, innovation processes had mainly been perceived as developing in a linear fashion; processes that run in a chronological order from fundamental and monodisciplinary research via applied research to product development, production and use (Godin, 2006; Sismondo, 2011). Another perspective on research and innovation processes was developed, which recognized that these processes are comprised of very complex social activities of variation and selection of innovations, in which different factors play a role and various actors interact with each other (Rip et al., 1995). Concomitantly, research that better provides actionable solutions to complex social challenges was understood to actively involve a wider variety of scientific disciplines and engage the people who are affected by the research—the so-called stakeholders. It was argued that the active involvement of stakeholders can result in a win-win situation for both science and society. The introduction of Part II of this volume provides details on the four main arguments for including a wide variety of actors in research and innovation processes. In addition, this shift to multi-stakeholder participation signals not only the transgressing of boundaries between different types of knowledge but also their reordering, where different types of knowledge are integrated and co-created (Regeer & Bunders-Aelen, 2003).

In this mode of research, researchers fulfil different types of roles. The participatory researcher needs to be a ‘process facilitator’ and ‘knowledge broker’. As process facilitator, researchers select participants and locations, initiate and facilitate (short-term) actions, and design social engagement processes (Fazey et al., 2018), ‘based on respect, openness and deliberation’ and ‘oriented towards a common understanding of situations and collective action, as part of a learning process’ (Pohl et al., 2010, p. 277). The process facilitator maintains participants’ attention on the designated task for the engagement process while guarding the quality of the process, thereby ensuring that every participant is afforded an equal chance to articulate their knowledge and express their opinions and ideas (Bauer & Kastenhofer, 2018). As knowledge broker, the participatory researcher mediates between the different knowledge and perspectives that, as process facilitator, they elicit, by giving voice to the wide variety of stakeholders, and ‘provides space for critical reflection’, while enabling participants to learn from one another, thereby realizing knowledge integration (Wittmayer & Schäpke, 2014, p. 488).Footnote 1

However, as also highlighted in Chapter 1 (this volume), research through participation has a tendency to emphasize process over purpose. This is due to the attention to procedural criteria for ‘good’ participatory research in relation to collaboration, co-creation, social learning, reflexivity, and related political and power dimensions (Turnhout et al., 2020). This emphasis can inadvertently transform the exploration of these processes into being an end in itself, rather than a means to an end, thereby diluting the transformative essence of this type of research regarding its contribution to addressing complex social challenges.

2.3 Transformative Research

The pressing imperative to make a meaningful impact amidst escalating health and sustainability challenges necessitates a strong focus not only on process but also on realizing radical change (‘transformation’)—i.e. fundamentally different ways of thinking, organizing and doing. Specifically, this entails the imperative to engaging in systemic experimentations, not merely with isolated interventions, but rather with innovative practices along with their corresponding cultures and structures. It is important to (1) monitor the experiments closely and regularly reflect on the results, (2) identify systemic barriers, synergies and trade-offs, and (3) strategize and make adjustments accordingly. This creates so-called action-learning spirals (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2007, p. 278). The role of the transformative researcher in these learning-by-doing processes is that of a ‘reflexive facilitator’ (Fazey et al., 2018) or ‘reflexive monitor’ (Van Mierlo et al., 2010). The reflexive facilitator/monitor enhances reflexive practices of others by ‘using new knowledge from research as it emerges and by asking critical and challenging questions to keep ambitions for transformative change high’ (Fazey et al., 2018, p. 64, see also Chapter 3).

In addition, to further support transformative change, researchers need to ensure that new practices are anchored in new cultures (e.g. mental models, paradigms) and structures (e.g. regulation, procedures and incentives) by taking on the role of ‘capacity builder’ (Sarkki et al., 2013). This involves actively networking to keep participants engaged in the change process and expanding the network by attracting additional stakeholders, thus cultivating and strengthening social capital that will result in the emergence of a ‘critical mass’ driving the transformation process. It also involves enhancing the participants’ competencies, encompassing professionals, citizens and researchers, in the principles and methodologies of transdisciplinarity for transformation. This includes fostering an understanding of systemic change processes and cultivating the skills of reflexive learning.

Shifting the emphasis of transdisciplinary researchers towards a more (en)activist stance, they adopt the role of a ‘change agent’ (Schuijer et al., 2021). Change agents prioritize more radical transformations and are willing to actively participate in political or policy processes to exert influence not only through the enrichment of knowledge but also through lobbying, campaigning or applying pressure in policy and political spheres—all aimed at steering transformative change in alignment with the normative direction supported by the transformative researcher.

Scholars also identify the role of ‘project worker’ (Schuijer et al., 2021) or ‘project manager’ (Fazey et al., 2018). In the current knowledge economy—rooted in bureaucratic, short-term logic—research and innovation projects are increasingly expected to demonstrate ‘measurable impact’ according to predetermined goals, which leads to a phenomenon called ‘projectification’ (Felt, 2009; Godenhjelm et al., 2015). Project workers/managers are tasked with establishing effective relationships with other project partners, ensuring timely achievement of project milestones and deliverables, reporting on project outcomes, and demonstrating responsible and effective use of funding. Project workers/managers, however, tend to prioritize short-term project goals over long-term ambitions.

2.4 Eight Ideal-Typical Roles in a Role Landscape

Above, we outlined in total eight ideal-typical roles that transdisciplinary researchers may concurrently adopt or switch between over the course of a transdisciplinary project aiming at transformation: traditional researcher, engaged academic, process facilitator, knowledge broker, reflexive monitor, capacity builder, change agent and project worker. In practice, however, researchers experience the boundaries between the roles as blurry, and there are moments when a researcher may opt to emphasize one role more prominently than others depending on the situation. Schuijer et al., (2021, p. 174) refer to the latter as ‘dynamic positioning in a role landscape’. Drawing inspiration from the work of Schuijer et al. (2021), we have positioned these roles within a landscape across two axes: socio-political orientation within the normative intervention context and the level of transformative change sought (see Fig. 13.1).

Fig. 13.1
A quadrant has axes labeled clockwise as radical, policy and political action, incremental, and academic knowledge. The quadrant labels are as follows. 1. Transformative. 2. Analytical engaged. 3. Analytic consultative. 4. Pragmatic.

Ideal-typical role landscape of the transdisciplinary researcher (adapted from Schuijer et al., 2021)

Full size image

The horizontal axis pertains to the kind of contribution associated with a distinct role. At one end of the spectrum, roles are primarily concerned with contributing to academic knowledge production. At the opposite end, roles ambitiously strive to actively influence policymaking, and seek political involvement, while the contribution to the scientific body of knowledge receives comparatively less emphasis. The vertical axis concerns the nature of the change sought—whether it is more incremental or more radical. The incremental end of the change axis involves a focus on pragmatic changes leading towards transformation, occurring gradually and with a relatively short-term perspective. At the opposite end of the spectrum, a more radical and ambitious approach is indicated; this entails a pronounced emphasis on challenging and reimagining the entire existing social system. Together, the two axes result in four different dimensions in the transdisciplinary research role landscape: (1) the analytic-engaged dimension, (2) the analytic-consultative dimension, (3) the transformative dimension and (4) the pragmatic dimension (Schuijer et al., 2021).

It is important to acknowledge that the distinctions between roles are not precisely defined, and the boundaries between dimensions are fluid—each influencing the other. Furthermore, researchers are not completely ‘free’ in selecting a role. Roles are inherently relational and personal; one may be attributed a role in interaction with stakeholders or fellow researchers and some roles ‘fit’ a researcher’s personality and skills better than others (Vinke-de Kruijf et al., 2022).

How to position oneself at what moment in the development of any (transdisciplinary) research project is far from straightforward. It requires a proper understanding of what is needed when in complex and continuously evolving contexts, and self-reflection that does not shy away from engaging with one’s own personality and normative stance. Many of the learning questions of early-career transformative transdisciplinary researchers revolve around this complexity (see Chapter 1; this volume). Furthermore, when adopting multiple roles, some of the roles are synergistic, while others may give rise to conflict. Schuijer et al. (2021) analysed the dynamics of synergies and conflicts among roles within the context of their public engagement-related endeavour. Perhaps predictably, roles positioned in close proximity within the role landscape were observed to exhibit less conflict (such as the knowledge broker and the capacity builder, or the capacity builder and the change agent), and to often work synergistically. Other roles introduced tension (for instance, the process facilitator and the change agent, or the project worker and the engaged academic), because of their different normative orientation. However, Schuijer et al. (2021, p. 184) warn that

the precise benefits and trade-offs of role integration cannot be determined in the abstract but should be assessed and accounted for within the specific context in which the [researcher] operates (…). This requires role awareness and reflexivity.

Chapter 14 (Den Boer, this volume) aims to offer additional insights into the role synergies and conflicts that may arise for a transdisciplinary researcher when integrating multiple roles within a specific context focused on transformative change towards a sustainable food system. In this chapter, Alanya den Boer reflects on her experiential learning as the coordinator of the so-called City Lab Amsterdam, one of the eight Labs in the EU-funded FIT4FOOD2030 project (https://fit4food2030.eu/). She subsequently delves into the roles she assumed and the corresponding synergies and tensions she encountered during the project. Rather than anticipating or reflecting on role adoption along the way, she analysed it afterwards. Consistent with Schuijer et al. (2021), den Boer advises transdisciplinary researchers, who are likely to assume various roles, to cultivate role awareness and role reflexivity from the outset. This approach will enable them to navigate role dilemmas more effectively, rather than simply muddling through.

Callum Gunn and his co-authors (Chapter 15, this volume) reflect on different ways to foster such role awareness and role reflexivity in relation to the positionality of the transformative transdisciplinary researcher. Although ideal-typical frameworks are valuable for comprehending the overall role landscape, they argue that these frameworks fall short in addressing the actual process of negotiating, shaping and reinventing these roles in practical scenarios. After all, in a research process already characterized by openness and emergence, can one adequately prepare for knowing how and when to adopt diverse researcher roles? In specific situations, one might even choose to abstain from adopting a particular role or opt to distribute conflicting roles among multiple individuals within a project consortium or transdisciplinary team (as outlined by Wittmayer & Schäpke, 2014; Vinke-de Kruijf et al., 2022). These complexities pose particularly challenging dilemmas for early-career researchers, given the absence—and perhaps impossibility—of formal training or substantial experience in transdisciplinary research practices. However, navigating the multitude of roles that may be assumed, adopted, resisted or otherwise dealt with appears to be inherent in transdisciplinary research.

The contribution of Gunn et al. (this volume) aims to highlight how different roles, positions and identities manifest in the intricate role landscape of transdisciplinary research practice. They offer reflective guidance for researchers grappling with the complexities of positionality in transdisciplinary settings, concluding that it is acceptable ‘to experiment and not know exactly what you are doing,’ provided there is a ‘safe and reflexive space’ (p. 419). This type of environment empowers transdisciplinary researchers to manage the consequences arising from the tendency of transdisciplinary practices to challenge established identities and roles, and make room for both learning and unlearning.

3 Acquiring Competencies

In this section, we highlight the diverse array of competencies essential for transformative transdisciplinary researchers and explore ways for acquiring these competencies. A competency can be defined as an interlinked set of knowledge, abilities, skills, experiences and behaviours that enable effective performance and problem solving (Spady, 1994). Concerning the various roles outlined earlier, it becomes evident that proficiency in one role, such as being a good ‘engaged academic’, does not necessarily translate into effectiveness in another role, such as that of a ‘knowledge broker’. Excelling as an engaged academic involves mastering competencies related to data collection, analysis, pattern recognition, etc. However, the role of a knowledge broker comes with an additional set of tasks, such as orchestrating and enhancing dialogical processes among diverse stakeholders to foster mutual social learning and respectfully explore conflicting positions. These tasks require competencies that include an understanding of knowledge-integration processes and proficiency in organizational communication and mediation, which are unfortunately less frequently addressed in academic curricula compared to conventional disciplinary competencies (Escobar et al., 2014). It is crucial to recognize that new competencies are not merely required in relation to performing tasks associated with specific roles. Equally important is the ability to discern which role to assume when, how to seamlessly integrate various roles, and effectively manage tensions that may arise between them (Levin, 2012). Vinke-de Kruijf et al. (2022) that ‘being reflective and self-reflexive is a key competence’ for any researchers who is involved in transdisciplinary projects (p. 403).

Scholars have observed that most education on transdisciplinarity and transformation closely adheres to the existing status quo (e.g. Barrett et al., 2019; Redman & Wiek, 2021), predominantly emphasizing the roles of engaged academic, process facilitator and knowledge broker, while largely overlooking more transformative roles. Consequently, graduates from these programmes are primarily equipped to make incremental improvements rather than serving as capacity builders and change agents capable of driving substantial transformations (Gordon et al., 2019). To enhance the effectiveness of transdisciplinary researchers in transformational settings, it is crucial to gain comprehensive insights into the diverse competencies required, particularly those related to the transformative aspect of transdisciplinarity, and how these competencies can be acquired through both formal education and informal education.

The literature on competencies for transdisciplinary researchers in transformative settings has expanded significantly over the past two decades, with a predominant focus on contexts related to sustainability transformations. This often takes the form of long lists of competences related to certain tasks and roles. Here we will refrain from such an approach, because it lacks coherence and tends to overlook meta-competencies. In this part of the volume, we build on the valuable work of Redman and Wiek (2021), who developed a comprehensive competency framework by systematically reviewing 272 relevant publications on sustainability learning objectives spanning 1997–2020. Their framework outlines eight key competencies deemed crucial for graduate students in sustainability science: systems thinking, futures thinking, values thinking, strategies thinking, as well as implementation, interpersonal, intrapersonal and integration competences (see Box 13.1 for definitions). They also identified general competencies such as critical thinking and creativity, along with professional competencies like responsive project management. Although Redman and Wiek’s framework primarily centres around ‘sustainability science’, it has garnered significant interest from designers of transdisciplinary courses who have incorporated (some of) these competencies as intended outcomes.

Box 13.1 Eight sustainability-specific key competences and their definitions (quoted from Redman & Wiek, 2021: Table 1)

.

  • Systems-Thinking Competence: Ability to apply modelling and complex analytical approaches: (1) to analyse complex systems and sustainability problems across different domains (environmental, social, economic) and across different scales (local to global), including cascading effects, inertia, feedback loops and other system dynamics; (2) to analyse the impacts of sustainability action plans (strategies) and interventions (how they change systems and problems).

  • Futures-Thinking Competence: Ability to carry out or construct simulations, forecasts, scenarios and visions: (1) to anticipate future states and dynamics of complex systems and sustainability problems; (2) to anticipate how sustainability action plans (strategies) might play out in the future (if implemented).

  • Values-Thinking Competence: Ability to identify, map, specify, negotiate and apply sustainability values, principles and goals: (1) to assess the sustainability of current and/or future states of complex systems; (2) to construct sustainability visions for these systems; and (3) to assess the sustainability of action plans (strategies) and interventions.

  • Strategies-Thinking Competence: Ability to construct and test viable strategies (action plans) for interventions, transitions and transformations towards sustainability.

  • Implementation Competence: Ability to put sustainability strategies (action plans) into action, including implementation, adaptation, transfer and scaling, in effective and efficient ways.

  • Interpersonal Competence: Ability (1) to collaborate successfully in inter-disciplinary and inter-professional teams and (2) to involve diverse stakeholders, in meaningful and effective ways, in advancing sustainability transformations.

  • Intrapersonal Competence: Ability to avoid personal health challenges and burnout in advancing sustainability transformations through resilience-oriented self-care (awareness and self-regulation).

  • Integration Competence: Ability to apply collective problem-solving procedures to complex sustainability problems: (1) to develop viable sustainability strategies (action plans) and (2) successfully implement them, in collaborative and self-caring ways.

In this part of the volume, Wolfgang Stark and Hussain Zeidan and colleagues explore some of these competencies and their interconnection in greater depth, suggest additional competences and discuss implications for positionality and role shifting/integration. They also reflect on the role of universities in developing and fostering these competences.

In Chapter 16, Wolfgang Stark underscores the importance of intertwining ‘head, hand, and heart’ to effectively address and transform real-world problems (Scharmer, 2009). He emphasizes the need to blend rational knowledge, experiential understanding, and creative thinking and action in innovative ways. Beginning with the essential ‘System-Thinking Competence’, Stark introduces the additional general competency of ‘Artistic Thinking’. A robust systems approach necessitates fostering agile relationships among diverse actors, worldviews and disciplines, leveraging creativity, intuition and the art of improvisation. The ‘Artistic-Thinking Competence’ pertains to the ability to apply creativity and intuition to ‘pattern recognition’ within complex systems, combining identified patterns into a cohesive ‘pattern language’. Stark draws parallels with jazz as a relevant art form, highlighting its continuous re-designing and re-arranging of implicit and explicit procedural patterns based on experiential (implicit) knowledge. This approach is not only vital for comprehending system dynamics but also for exploring innovative avenues to navigate uncertainty and ambiguity in complex transformative settings. To creatively redesign patterns and structures, Stark underscores the significance of ‘improvisation’, which he characterizes as ‘a technique which allows us to integrate serendipity as a learning process and involves proactive learning’ (this volume: p. 441).

Stark explicitly does not exclude rational analysis; on the contrary, the performative aspect of learning takes centre stage. Improvisation heavily relies on experiential knowledge—learning by doing—and may result in the development of ‘practical wisdom’ (Schwartz & Sharpe, 2010), ‘deep smarts’ (Leonard & Swap, 2005) or ‘phronesis’ (Loeber, 2007). The awareness of others’ and one’s own practical wisdom is a crucial prerequisite for innovation processes in transformative change, according to Stark. Rather than providing a conceptual or theoretical overview of innovation processes and associated tools, success factors and strategies are deconstructed into individual patterns of action. Unlike a linear and rigid guideline, improvisational actions can be flexibly selected, combined and applied based on the specific transformational setting.

In Chapter 17, Hussain Zeidan Sarju Raj and Marjolein Zweekhorst delve into competencies and their development through the dual perspectives of (1) positionality, which explores the interplay between an individual and the external environment, and (2) the internal synergies and tensions arising from shifting roles within transformative settings. Using the framework of Redman and Wiek (2021; see also Box 12.1), they try to link the different competencies to the various roles that have been identified in relation to transdisciplinary research for transformation, specifically referring to the personal reflections provided in Chapters 14 and 15 (this volume). Based on this analysis, they identify that a specific competence is lacking. Navigating the role landscape and dynamically balancing various commitments, attitudes, dilemmas and tensions necessitate what Zeidan et al. (this volume) term ‘Navigation Competence’. This implies that transdisciplinary researchers need skills to effectively express, debate, convey and communicate the perspectives of different stakeholders as well as their own perspective, coupled with a mindset of ‘epistemic humility’ and ‘self-reflexivity’ to reflect on own positionality and normativity while navigating a highly dynamic environment and varied role landscape to facilitate transformative change.

Both Chapters 16 and 17 reflect on educational approaches and formats of transformative and lifelong learning, which are considered essential for nurturing the development of transdisciplinary research competencies. Traditional linear models of knowledge transmission, where teachers impart knowledge to students, are viewed as inadequate. Instead, approaches focusing on experiential learning or learning by doing are considered more pertinent. These novel methods immerse students in real-life complex problems and establish physical or virtual spaces for articulating and integrating various types of knowledge and experiences, such as community service learning (CSL) and challenge-based learning. Annemarie Horn and Marjoleine Van der Meij (Chapter 18, this volume) provide an inspiring practical example of a tool they developed to enhance reflexivity in Master’s students during an inter- and transdisciplinary course—called Frame Reflection Lab (FRL). The FRL tool facilitates the cultivation of awareness regarding both one’s own perspectives on science and those of others and hence stimulates reflection on one’s own and other’s academic identity (Horn et al., 2022). The tool enhances discussions about diverse viewpoints on science by incorporating ‘identity-first language’, thereby fostering a more personal and less cognitively oriented discourse. Following the viewing of video portraits featuring four distinct types of researchers addressing climate change, students are carefully led through interactive workshops designed to be both playful and safe. Noteworthy advantages observed include heightened awareness of one's positionality and enhanced reflexivity on academic identities, beliefs and roles within the realm of inter- and transdisciplinary research.

Nevertheless, the multitude of competencies can be overwhelming for any student embarking on a transdisciplinary journey, especially for those aspiring to master transdisciplinarity for transformation. Zeidan et al., therefore, assert that educators should transcend the design of isolated courses purporting to instil transdisciplinary and transformational competencies, as this is inherently unattainable. Instead, educators ought to perceive their courses as integral components within a broader chain or scaffold of diverse courses. Such an approach leverages students’ normative learning and competency development while fostering a lifelong learning attitude. Although this seems to be an ‘open door’ in relation to learning ‘disciplinary’ competencies, such a scaffolding is surprisingly rare in the case of learning relevant competencies for ‘transdisciplinary research for transformation’.

From an institutional standpoint, this evolution means that universities will have to transform into what Stark (this volume) terms ‘Resonance Spaces’, bridging research and learning, civil society, policy and business. Universities should establish an ecosystem wherein innovative ideas and improvisational patterns, identified in academia, civil society, policy or business, resonate and persist, fostering the requisite reflection for sustainable innovations addressing social challenges. Through such a transformative approach, universities play a pivotal role in shaping a future where research, learning and social impact seamlessly intertwine. In doing so, universities can become dynamic agents of positive change, addressing complex social issues. At the same time, we should not forget that, as Zeidan et al. argue, universities should first and foremost equip students to create their own identity and self-learning capacity in order to develop their own path to becoming an experienced transformative transdisciplinary researcher, and to develop their own ‘compass of a sense of purpose’ (this volume, p. 469).