1 Introduction

Real-world Labs are increasingly used to catalyse systemic change by creating experimental spaces in which knowledge co-creation is stimulated among actors from the domains of research, business, policy, and civil society, known as the quadruple helix (Schäpke et al., 2018, p. 86). However, relatively little attention is given to the challenge of facilitating such transformative Labs as a transdisciplinary researcher. The normative orientation of these Labs and the use of participatory and creative methodologies as part of their transdisciplinary research approach mean that these researchers need to go beyond the boundaries of scientific disciplines and become part of the transformation process by adopting different actor roles in addition to their traditional role as scientist (Loorbach et al., 2011; Turnhout et al., 2013; Wittmayer & Schäpke, 2014).

In the literature, the terms and the descriptions of actor roles are not always used consistently and unambiguously. For instance, the terms ‘knowledge broker’ and ‘intermediary’ are both used to describe someone who makes diverse perspectives explicit and mediates between them. Because of differences in terminology and overlapping role descriptions, we designed our own role framework for this study (Table 14.1), which includes the roles of scientist, change agent, capacity builder, process facilitator, reflexive facilitator, knowledge broker, and project worker. Although some scholars refer to the self-reflexive scientist as an additional actor role (e.g. Fazey et al., 2018; Wittmayer & Schäpke, 2014), which could be defined as ‘being reflexive about one’s positionality and normativity, and seeing oneself as part of the dynamic that one seeks to change’ (Wittmayer & Schäpke, 2014, p. 489), in this chapter, (self)reflexivity is seen as an inherent competence of TD researchers rather than as a separate role. Adopting these actor roles means that TD researchers become involved in different types of activities, which requires different sets of competences.

Table 14.1 Potential role framework for transdisciplinary researchers
Full size table

For Lab-facilitating transdisciplinary researchers, adopting roles can lead to tensions or even conflicts between them (Bulten et al., 2021; Fazey et al., 2018; Hilger et al., 2021; Wittmayer & Schäpke, 2014). For example, tensions might arise because a researcher is expected to take a descriptive–analytic, neutral, and objective position, consistent with the role of scientist, but the same researcher may wish to adopt a role as a reflexive facilitator or change agent, which would mean taking on a normative or even activist position (Bulten et al., 2021; Wittmayer & Schäpke, 2014). Especially for early-career researchers, adopting and mediating between these roles is challenging (Sellberg et al., 2021). Currently, little is known about the tensions and potential trade-offs that transdisciplinary researchers face when adopting various roles in practice (Bulten et al., 2021). This chapter therefore presents a reflexive study in order to gain a better understanding of the challenges that transdisciplinary researchers face when adopting and mediating between different roles and how they navigate these in relation to their ambitions to contribute to transformative change. In doing so, this study seeks to acquire a better understanding of learning in the context of transformation processes. Learning is considered essential for stimulating transformative change, but is also poorly understood (e.g. Van Poeck et al., 2020). It is important to better understand learning processes to guide and support actors who aim to stimulate transformative change more effectively, and to further advance support mechanisms, especially for early-career and future transdisciplinary researchers (Jaeger-Erben et al., 2018; Sellberg et al., 2021).

In this chapter, I reflect on my learning journey as a PhD researcher who conducted transdisciplinary research in the field of food system transformation. As a transdisciplinary researcher, I coordinated the so-called City Lab Amsterdam, which was one of the Labs of the EU-project FIT4FOOD2030. In the next section, I describe the project and its City Labs and go on to outline in brief the methodological approach adopted. Subsequently, I present my personal learning journey before elaborating on the roles I adopted and the role synergies and conflicts that I faced over the course of the project. The chapter ends with a critical discussion and a set of recommendations for the design and architecture of future projects that aim to stimulate system transformation via transdisciplinary Real-world Lab approaches.

2 The European FIT4FOOD2030 Project and Its City Labs

The FIT4FOOD2030 project was a three-year Coordination and Support Action (CSA) that was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation (R&I) programme (EC, 2021), and was led by the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. The project aimed to stimulate transformation towards ‘future-proof’ food systems (i.e. sustainable, resilient, responsible, diverse, competitive, and inclusive food systems) through R&I. Its main objective was to establish the FOOD 2030 platform: a sustainable and multi-actor platform aiming to (1) strengthen R&I policy coherence and alignment; (2) build R&I competences among current and future food system professionals; and (3) raise awareness of the need for transformation of the food system (EC, 2021; Kok et al., 2019). These objectives were to be realized through three interlinked structures—an EU Think Tank, 11 Policy Labs, seven City Labs and seven Food LabsFootnote 1 (see EC, 2021). Since this chapter focuses on my experiences as a transdisciplinary researcher who coordinated one of the City Labs (CLs), I elaborate upon the specific activities of the CLs below.

The formal mandate of the CLs was to stimulate the development of competences for Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) among (future) food system professionals and to stimulate awareness of the need for transformation of the food system. The CLs’ work was based on the need to use a systems approach to this and the need to strengthen RRI. Within the proposed RRI framework, the purpose of R&I is to actively contribute to solving real-world problems in responsible ways, which includes ethical reflection and stakeholder involvement (Stilgoe et al., 2013). Building on the notion of the need for a systems approach to R&I to achieve food system transformation, the CLs were expected to engage a diverse set of actors and to stimulate knowledge co-creation processes during the project’s four phases (FIT4FOOD2030, 2019):

  • Phase 1 (started November 2017)—Actor identification and mobilization, visioning, and system understanding: CLs identified and engaged with food system stakeholders to build or connect to a diverse multi-stakeholder network. The CLs organized multi-stakeholder workshops to co-develop an understanding of the local food system and a vision of a ‘future-proof’ food system, including the role of R&I in achieving it.

  • Phase 2 (started August 2018)—Developing roadmaps: Built on the visions arising from Phase 1, roadmaps were co-developed. These roadmaps comprised identification of the competences required for contributing to that vision, audiences that would then need educational modules, the design of educational modules, and—optionally—the development of local–regional food-related R&I and/or policy agendas. The educational modules could be based on either a ‘light’ or a ‘deep’ learning approach (Fenollosa & Paca, 2018), the latter referring to transdisciplinary approaches.

  • Phase 3 (started February 2019)—Action planning and experimentation: CLs prototyped and piloted their educational modules and developed generic educational tools from these for others to use.

  • Phase 4 (started December 2019)—Scaling-up and continuity: CLs developed strategies to further scale up, embed, and/or translate their efforts so as to make these ‘sustainable’.

The Lab coordinators’ learning processes were stimulated via four two-day training sessions and a set of webinars. In addition, Lab coordinators were encouraged to formulate specific learning questions concerning major challenges that they had faced in order to create a dynamic learning agenda (DLA) (Regeer et al., 2009). Finally, Lab coordinators were supported through tailored tools that had been developed by the project’s consortium partners (EC, 2021; Kok et al., 2019).

Four CLs were embedded in science museums, and the other three, including the CL Amsterdam, which is the focus in this chapter, were based in research institutes. More specifically, the CL Amsterdam was embedded in the ‘Science Shop’ of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, which meant that it was particularly suitable for the development of ‘deep-learning’ modules.

3 Methodological Approach

The study used a self-reflective approach that was inspired by autoethnography,Footnote 2 which is a combination of autobiography and ethnography (Ellis & Bochner, 2000; Ellis et al., 2011). Other (early-career) transdisciplinary researchers have also used such self-reflective autoethnographic approaches (see, for example, Patterson et al., 2013; Sellberg et al., 2021). Part of autoethnographic approaches involves retrospectively analysing personal experiences and making use of storytelling techniques. This enables them to provide readers with opportunities for vicarious experiences and learning (Ellis & Bochner, 2000). In order to follow a structured approach to reflection, I used the reflective journal that I kept during the three years of the project as a basis for developing my personal learning journey (next section) as well as four narratives. To further enrich and structure these narratives, a number of in-depth reflection sessions were held after the project had ended with the ‘sounding board’, which comprised three experienced transdisciplinary researchers who were all engaged in the project. Over the course of the project, they adopted the role of ‘critical friend’ with regard to the CL Amsterdam. During reflection sessions, the sounding board asked me critical questions that stimulated me to be introspective and to make explicit the emotions and tensions that I had felt as a transdisciplinary researcher and Lab coordinator. After the narratives were co-constructed, I analysed them to identify which roles I had adopted and which synergies and tensions had arisen. The quotes included in Sect. 14.6 come from the narratives.

It is important to note that I differentiate between functions and roles. Besides my formal function as a transdisciplinary researcher and lecturer and my formal function as CL coordinator, I had two other formal functions, including that of FIT4FOOD2030 project manager during the project’s first eighteen months and a supporter of the project’s EU Think Tank. The functions of transdisciplinary researcher/lecturer and Lab coordinator called for different roles (see Table 14.1). These functions and associated roles form the main focus of the study (Fig. 14.1).

Fig. 14.1
An illustration of the formal functions carried out during the project and the object of the study. Latter includes transdisciplinary P h D researcher and lecturer acting as a change agent, a lab coordinator as the process facilitator, and the former includes project manager and supporter.

Overview of the four formal functions carried out during the project and the focus of this study

Full size image

4 Personal Learning Journey: Sketching the Starting Position

The personal learning journey set out below is a brief story that highlights my starting position and significant moments of learning. It gives the relevant background information for the rest of the chapter.

When I started working within the FIT4FOOD2030 project, I had just graduated in Applied Communication Sciences, with a specialization in Health and Society (Wageningen University and Research). Because of this background, I knew that it is important to adopt a holistic perspective in the context of health, and had a basic understanding of the importance of interdisciplinary research. During the first 18 months, I was rather absorbed by the functions of project manager, supporter of the EU Think Tank, and lecturer. I had no experience of project management and teaching. Fortunately, mid-way through the project an experienced project manager was taken on, which I was incredibly happy about.

In parallel to the project management and education-related activities, I tried to think about what we meant when we said that the project was going to support ‘the urgently needed transformation of R&I on food and nutrition security (FNS)’. I was aware of disciplinary knowledge gaps, but frequently thought about questions such as ‘What do we actually mean by “the R&I system”?’ and ‘What do we mean by “a food systems approach”?’ In the autumn of 2018, I wrote down: ‘Make crystal clear to yourself why “the R&I system” needs to be transformed. This is what the EC is saying, but why exactly?’. Initially, I thought the problem with R&I was ‘simple’: R&I funds were just unevenly distributed, meaning that certain topics and disciplines received less funds than others. But why did we design interactive workshops with Post-its and other colourful materials? Was that part of our idea about ‘the role of R&I in stimulating food system transformation’? Or was it just our way of working in the project and the institute?

As part of my role as Lab coordinator, I had to follow four training sessions with the other Lab coordinators. This training was helpful in that it provided the space in which to learn about and practise using participatory methodologies. However, I also felt that this training and the DLA sessions were often not applicable to my situation and ambition. For instance, several other CLs were based at science museums, which meant that their context, objectives, and challenges were different from mine.

Although the training with other coordinators did prepare me to coordinate my Lab, it did not answer my questions about why R&I has an important role to play in system transformation. Because of my function as a PhD researcher and my involvement in the entire project, I gradually started to learn about concepts, terms, and/or fields of research, such as sustainability transitions research, sustainability science, and transdisciplinarity, and the importance of related participative methodologies. I taught myself what was meant by terms such as knowledge co-creation. I remember coming across some documents from a food-related research project that was not connected to our project, which showed pictures of researchers working with Post-its and other materials, just like we were doing! This was an eye-opener, since that was the moment when I realized that this way of working was an integral part of research.

Although my undergraduate and Master’s degrees were a good basis for my function as a researcher and Lab coordinator, I was not trained in transdisciplinarity nor in systems thinking. However, at a certain point, I clearly understood that this type of research—transformative transdisciplinary research—could be seen as an intervention in itself. Moreover, I started to realize that not only are there challenges associated with ‘doing’ this type of research, but also with creating the space to facilitate it, which is strongly linked to how R&I is funded.

5 Transdisciplinary Researcher and Lab Coordinator: Actor Roles Adopted

During the course of the project, I adopted all of the roles as introduced, except for that of reflexive facilitator. In this section, I give examples, using an overview of the main activities of the CL Amsterdam (Fig. 14.2) and quotes from the four co-constructed narratives.

Fig. 14.2
A timeline of the main activities in the E U FIT 4 FOOD 2030 project. It includes the establishment of policy network, Food Council M R A in 2018, establishment of Academic Workplace Food by the municipality of Amsterdam in 2020, and pre-formation of Amsterdam Food Council in 2021.

Overview of the main activities of the City Lab Amsterdam as part of the EU FIT4FOOD2030 project

Full size image

As scientist, I performed a stakeholder analysis, which quickly showed that there were already many food initiatives in the Metropolitan Region Amsterdam (MRA). Moreover, the analysis showed that two food policy networks (FPNs) were emerging—the Food Council MRA and Food Connects (‘Voedsel Verbindt’)—both aiming to work at the metropolitan level. Food Connects was co-initiated by the two provinces of the MRA and was still in its pre-formation stage when the CL started. As scientist, I also performed academic work which taught me, for instance, about underlying theories and methodologies with regard to stimulating system transformation.

As change agent, I aimed to link to these emerging FPNs in the region (upper part of Fig. 14.2) by developing a transformative food-related R&I agenda, as illustrated below:

Whereas the development of educational modules was obligatory, the development of an R&I agenda was not. However, I thought that such an agenda would offer most opportunities to create mutual benefits. […] I hoped the CL could stimulate the adoption of a so-called food systems approach in the MRA, both by the process of developing such an R&I agenda as well as with the R&I agenda itself. […].

Moreover, as change agent, I aimed to strengthen the connection between those FPNs and the educational system at the Vrije Universiteit, for which I considered the R&I agenda to be a major link (lower part of Fig. 14.2). I reasoned that the development of an extracurricular deep-learning module would be possible, but it would probably not be sustainable in the long term given the already overloaded curricula and the opportunities within existing courses. Therefore, I aimed to transform university courses by integrating community service learning (CSL). CSL is a pedagogical approach that stimulates experiential learning in which students ‘can achieve real-life experiences in and with the surrounding community’ (Tijsma et al., 2020, p. 391). One of the activities that was used to connect one of the main actors of the FPNs to the university is described below:

Through my connection to FPN ‘Food Connects’ as well as to a large CSL project within the institute, we came up with the idea of asking the programme manager of Food Connects to record a video in which the need for food system transformation and the ambitions of Food Connects would be explained. I supported the programme manager with writing the script. We showed this video to lecturers […] to motivate them to integrate food-related CSL in their courses. One person […] became enthusiastic […] and contacted me.

As capacity builder, I was active regarding both the upper part and the lower part of Fig. 14.2. For instance, I connected individual stakeholders in the region where possible (upper part):

Through our conversations with the municipality and some citizen food initiatives, I was able to inform one of the food initiatives about the possibility to pitch their ideas to the alderperson. This stakeholder was happy to learn from us about this opportunity and contacted me a few weeks later to tell me that they had been invited by the municipality and were working towards partnership.

As capacity builder, I also supported other actors in designing their own multi-stakeholder workshops (upper part of Fig. 14.2), as illustrated here:

‘Even before the multi-stakeholder workshop took place, the relevant official of the provincial government we had spoken with earlier asked me whether I was willing to support other working group leaders of Food Connects as well.

Moreover, I adopted the role of capacity builder in the educational context (lower part of Fig. 14.2), as shown in the following extract:

I noticed that the lecturers were not yet familiar with the concept [of CSL], and, therefore, not necessarily enthusiastic. After some time, they asked me to give them a ‘lecture’ about CSL. I was happy [with this question], because that meant they were willing and open to learn more about the concept. […] Because of this experience, I realized that the entire process of redeveloping a university course was interesting in itself.

As process facilitator, I designed and facilitated several workshops (upper part of Fig. 14.2). For instance, I had the opportunity to not only facilitate but also to design a workshop for Food Connects (workshop 2):

The programme manager said that they aimed to develop an ‘action agenda’ within Food Connects. I suggested enriching this agenda with relevant underlying R&I questions. She was fine with that. Moreover, I suggested co-designing a visioning workshop (workshop 2) for the first meeting of the working group leaders of Food Connects. The programme manager was happy with [this] suggestion […] and let me design it.

Also, when we organized a multi-stakeholder workshop in collaboration with the municipality of Amsterdam (workshop 4), I adopted the role of process facilitator, as did some of my colleagues:

Early in 2020, my promotor came into contact with the chief science officer of the city of Amsterdam. This officer […] was planning to initiate the so-called Academic Workplace Food (AWF) […]. Because of this contact, the CL got the opportunity […] to co-design and facilitate the first (online) multi-stakeholder visioning workshop (workshop 4) of the AWF […]. We were happy […]: finally, there was momentum to work further on the aspiration to develop a transformative food-related R&I agenda with the municipality […]. We developed an interactive workshop script that we revised and refined with the members of the AWF […]. During the workshop, we, as process facilitators, tried to make sure everyone had the opportunity to speak […]. We also asked participants whether they thought any aspects were missing in the vision of the future food system and/or in the R&I agenda that was co-developed.

An important moment occurred when I adopted the role of knowledge broker and tried to ensure that the outcomes of workshop 4 (upper part of Fig. 14.2) became ‘actionable’:

It was unclear how our workshop was going to influence the municipal food strategy […] it seemed to me as if the municipality was just ticking the box regarding stakeholder involvement. […] However, I soon realized I had a role to play. I tried to stay in close contact with the relevant municipal officer who was responsible for writing the food strategy. I made detailed suggestions about where I thought the strategy could be enriched based on our workshop. I presented this to him and he reacted enthusiastically. In that moment it really felt that I had made an impact.

Moreover, also with regard to connecting to university courses (lower part of Fig. 14.2), I adopted the role of knowledge broker:

I contacted the relevant municipal officer whom I had already collaborated with. I explained the idea concerning [this] course. Initially, the officer was […] not interested in becoming engaged. However, as soon as I pointed to the opportunity to link some of the research topics of the municipal food strategy and/or the AWF to this course, the officer became very enthusiastic […]. The municipal officer and I formulated an assignment around healthy and sustainable food consumption.

Finally, as project worker, I wrote and submitted reports on the multi-stakeholder workshops that we facilitated, and wrote the educational modules that had to be submitted.

As the above shows, I did not adopt the role of reflexive facilitator, which would have required me to be intensively involved over a longer period of time in food networks such as Food Connects, Food Council MRA, and/or the AWF. It would have required me to monitor these networks and their processes and activities closely and to stimulate learning and reflexivity among actors over a period of time. Although this is an essential role in the context of transformation, an important reason why I did not adopt this role is that I had a mandate to develop educational modules. In addition, these networks were in their early stages. Therefore, it seemed to me that they were not necessarily open (yet) to external persons becoming involved over a longer period of time. Moreover, it felt as if I would need to be more ‘senior’ to have the authority to create the space for adopting the role of reflexive facilitator.

6 Synergies and Tensions Between Actor Roles

In this section, I present synergies and tensions that I experienced when adopting and mediating between the roles. Figure 14.3 gives an overview, highlighting the tensions between the need to fulfil academic requirements as a scientist, the need to fulfil project requirements as project worker, and the need and ambition to contribute to transformation by adopting transformative action-oriented roles, namely the roles of change agent, capacity builder, process facilitator, and knowledge broker.

Fig. 14.3
A flow diagram of the synergies and tensions between actor roles in the FIT 4 FOOD 2030 project. It includes the synergies between scientist, change agent, and knowledge broker and the scientist and capacity builder and the tension between the scientist and the project worker.

Overview of identified synergies and tensions between actor roles adopted as TD researcher and Lab coordinator of the City Lab Amsterdam of the EU FIT4FOOD2030 project

Full size image

6.1 Synergies

First, I experienced an important synergy between the roles of change agent and capacity builder. As capacity builder, I supported actors in designing their multi-stakeholder workshops. This felt valuable from a change-agent perspective.

Second, I experienced synergy between the roles of knowledge broker and scientist. It was necessary to use my analytical and reflection skills as a scientist when making a comparison between the multi-stakeholder workshop results (workshop 4) and the draft municipal food strategy in order to make the workshop outcomes ‘actionable’ for the municipal officer in my role as a knowledge broker. Moreover, as a scientist, I was aware of the importance of adopting a holistic perspective, for instance with regard to the importance of looking at both health and environmental sustainability aspects of food consumption. As knowledge broker, I brought different perspectives together and created space for critical reflection:

To my surprise, it was clear that the lecturers for the course did not think that the link between health and environmental sustainability was important. I decided to organise a call with the relevant municipal officer and the lecturers so that they could meet each other and the lecturers could learn about the importance not only of focusing on healthy but also on environmentally sustainable food consumption.

Third, I experienced synergy between the ambitions of a change agent and those of a scientist, since connecting to emerging FPNs in the region and developing a transformative food-related R&I agenda was interesting from a change-agent perspective, but was also a process that I was aiming to write about as a scientist.

Fourth, I felt synergy between the roles of process facilitator, capacity builder, and scientist. Since I was a PhD researcher, the role of scientist was an important one. For instance, through my role as scientist, I learnt about the importance of developing a compelling transition vision early on in the process. As process facilitator and capacity builder, this knowledge was essential to design and support the multi-stakeholder visioning workshops as part of the FPNs in the region:

The working group leader [of Food Connects] was happy with my suggestion for collaboration and organizing a workshop (workshop 3), and she let me design it. It felt as if they (again) saw me as someone who had experience with designing such multi-stakeholder workshops based on participatory methodologies and tools.

6.2 Tensions

I also experienced tensions between roles. First, between the roles of project worker and change agent, because of different logics and timelines. As a project worker, I had to comply with the project’s deadlines, which was important to be able to show the funder what was happening and to reach our impact objectives. However, as change agent, I was willing to immediately anchor the multi-stakeholder workshops to emerging FPNs in the region, which meant the timeline of the project did not match the real-world dynamics:

To comply with the project requirements, we organised and facilitated our first multi-stakeholder visioning workshop in June 2018 (workshop 1). Although this was an interesting workshop from a project perspective, the workshop was not connected to any of the food governance developments in the MRA. […] it just felt like ticking a box, and I wondered if it had any additional value.

This was also the case with regard to the development of educational modules, for which there was a specific timeline. As change agent, I aimed to transform courses, since the development of a ‘separate’ course would be difficult to integrate into or add to the existing curriculum without support from a higher institutional level. Moreover, I aimed to transform some of the courses in which I was involved as a lecturer, since doing so required me to first ‘know’ the course. However, the process of trying to start a collaboration with other lecturers was more time-consuming than I expected. It also meant that I had to deal with the timeline of the teaching system. One of the lecturers from a course on which I taught was open to the suggestion of integrating CSL provided I was able to formulate student assignments and could arrange and take care of the stakeholders who were going to commission the assignments. This resulted in an enthusiastic commissioner and an assignment. However, I soon experienced resistance, which hindered me as project worker who had to develop and submit an educational module before a rather tight deadline:

According to the lecturers, there was almost no flexibility to make adjustments to the course planning and set-up. However, without the integration of assignments that stimulate reflexivity, I was afraid it would just turn into a superficial consultancy project […]. It showed me that the ability to influence […] the lecturers around me was essential for me as TD researcher […] Although this process was interesting from a scientist’s perspective, it did not help me to fulfil my requirements as project worker with regard to producing educational modules that were suitable to be piloted in other contexts.

When I started collaborating with other lecturers at the university who were more interested and willing to change one of the courses, the project was near its end, which meant it was interesting from the perspectives of a change agent and capacity builder, but not from that of a project worker:

Together with three [lecturers …] I worked on the redevelopment of a bachelor’s course. This was the result of the video that we had recorded earlier. It was an enlightening experience that they were fully open to integrating elements of CSL and RRI and were aware of the links between health and environmental sustainability. […] However, the FIT4FOOD2030 project was in its last phase […], so as project worker I did not have the mandate or incentive to put substantial time into [this]. Moreover, although [they] were enthusiastic, they did ask me to actually do the work.

Second, the roles of project worker and scientist resulted in tensions for the same reasons. Also, from a scientist’s perspective, connecting to ongoing developments in food governance and making use of opportunities (such as the initiation of the AWF by the municipality of Amsterdam) was more interesting than following the strict project timeline as project worker.

Third, although my ambitions as change agent and scientist were aligned in relation to connecting to ongoing developments, I also experienced tensions between those roles. For example, as change agent, I aimed to follow up on how—if at all—the municipal officer was going to use my detailed analysis (as knowledge broker), which was given to him after workshop 4 (see above). However, I refrained from doing so from a scientist’s perspective. As a scientist, I was supposed to write academic papers, for which there was little available time and which was possible regardless of whether the municipal officer was really going to do anything with the workshop results. In addition, I felt that the municipal officer might not appreciate my following up on this issue for a longer period of time (as change agent). Moreover, as scientist I had several ideas about the aspects about which I wanted to write academic papers. However, as change agent, I first had to start a collaboration with significant FPNs in the region, which took a substantial amount of time. For example, the first multi-stakeholder visioning workshop as I envisaged it (workshop 4) took place in May 2020. Because of these real-life dynamics, I had to follow a different timeline as a scientist. On several occasions, I changed the focus of the academic papers. Although this is part of transdisciplinary research, it felt tense since I was constantly thinking about how I would be able to maintain the proper scientific rigour of these papers.

Fourth, there was a major tension between the roles of capacity builder versus scientist and project worker. From a change-agent perspective, supporting the FPNs in designing their multi-stakeholder workshops as capacity builder was relevant (see synergies above). However, as scientist and project worker this was not desirable:

I was contacted by several actors who participated in our workshops. They were so enthusiastic that they asked me to support their workshops as well. However, my roles of scientist and project worker were already demanding and this was not something I was going to write about as scientist or deliver products on as project worker. […]

7 Discussion and Conclusion

This reflexive study sought to gain a better understanding of the challenges that transdisciplinary researchers face when adopting and mediating between roles and how they navigate those challenges in terms of their ambitions to contribute to transformative change. This study showed that I adopted all roles presented in Table 14.1 except that of reflexive facilitator. It is important to note that my interpretation of the role of change agent explicitly includes the efforts to anchor solutions in the institutional context. This anchoring aspect is not made explicit in the transdisciplinary literature on actor roles as shown in Table 14.1, although it has been explicitly highlighted by De Haan and Rotmans (2018), who point to the importance of ‘transformative change agents’ for stimulating transformation. One of these transformative change agents has been referred to as the ‘connector’, which they describe as a person who ‘(1) connect[s] solutions to systems—be they emerging or incumbent—by embedding or anchoring them in the institutional context […] and (2) connect[s] actors with other actors’ (p. 279). This description includes elements of the roles of change agent and capacity builder, and highlights the activity of trying to anchor solutions to systems. The analysis of my role as transdisciplinary researcher and Lab coordinator showed that I had to continually combine and switch between the different roles, which resulted in synergies but also tensions.

The tensions experienced reflect the broader observations of early-career transdisciplinary researchers of the trade-offs between aspirations and requirements with regard to Science (scientific rigour and excellence), Society (societal impact and engagement), and Self (self-care and reflexivity in terms of a researcher’s own role and position) (Sellberg et al., 2021), or the challenges of simultaneously having to deal with the logic of the science system and that of the political-administrative system (Jaeger-Erben et al., 2018). Strikingly, three of the five tensions were related to the role of project worker, which shows that navigating between Science, Society, and Self became especially complicated because of problems associated with a dominant project logic, which refers to the project’s time-bound character with its specific timeline requirements. Although the project was the basis for conducting transdisciplinary research since it provided time, resources, and ‘status’, its logic also substantially hindered me in terms of adopting the more transformative action-oriented roles, those of change agent and capacity builder in particular. The project required all CLs to organize a number of multi-stakeholder workshops according to a specific timeline and to develop and pilot two educational modules, without substantially taking into account the Labs’ specific institutional contexts and the regional dynamics. In my case, the Lab was hosted by a university, which provided different opportunities than those hosted by science centres and museums. For instance, the municipality of Amsterdam was eager to work with the CL and its scientists in relation to their ambition to develop a food strategy (workshop 4). As noted by Bansard et al. (2019), scientists do indeed have important roles to play in supporting local governments to develop sustainability plans. However, timelines and requirements were the same for all CLs and left little room for manoeuvre based on an assessment of what is most relevant in the local situation. It became clear to me that the project logic did not value how important it was for me as a change agent and capacity builder to first connect to emerging regional FPNs to develop a food-related R&I agenda and to start motivating university lecturers around me to integrate pedagogies that are characterized by experiential learning in order to sustainably stimulate competence development (the ultimate objective of the CLs). As a consequence, the project logic also hindered me as a scientist who was aiming to write about this process. Moreover, the need to adhere to the project logic as project manager during the first 18 months further hindered me both as a scientist and as a change agent, giving me the feeling that I had moved from the ‘ivory tower’ of science to the ‘iron cage of the project rationality’ (Maylor et al., 2006, as cited in Felt, 2021, p. 5). The tensions between scientist, project worker, and change agent might have been made worse because the project was not a research project but a Coordination and Support Action, which is characterized by its focus on, for example, mobilization, communication, and dissemination. This is in line with previous findings of Schuijer et al. (2021), who highlight the challenge of integrating research activities within a project that is primarily focused on action.

Based on this reflexive study, I would make three key recommendations in relation to the realization of an enabling environment for future transdisciplinary researchers who aim to engage in challenging transformative transdisciplinary practices.

1. Flexibility:

To reduce tensions caused by a dominant project logic, it is important that future projects (and funders) allow for a certain degree of flexibility with regard to the timeline and type of ‘products’ that Labs have to deliver. This would allow Labs to have the space to try to align their activities with the institutional context and relevant regional dynamics. Such flexibility is in line with the recommendation of Torrens and Von Wirth (2021) regarding paying more attention to the qualitative evaluation of experiments rather than only focusing on outputs that are easy to measure. As it is desirable that the roles of change agent and capacity builder are also adopted by non-academics, such as policymakers, which was indeed the ambition within the FIT4FOOD2030 project, such flexibility is also relevant for projects that work only with Labs that are hosted by non-scientific institutes.

2. Training:

This study highlighted the intensive learning trajectory of an early-career transdisciplinary researcher and pointed to the importance of effectively guiding researchers who have no prior experience in transdisciplinarity or systems thinking through training programmes. According to Schneider et al. (2019), learning and competence building within transdisciplinary Communities of Practice (CoP) is considered an important mechanism for generating impact, since this can stimulate the development of ‘reflective leadership’ among the participants. However, to activate this impact mechanism, researchers themselves need to develop competences so that they are able to adopt the necessary roles to stimulate social learning and competence-building processes. In line with Loorbach et al. (2011), who argue that training of researchers should be explicitly integrated into transition research processes, and with the experiences outlined in this chapter, I recommend that training programmes are integrated into the architecture of future transformation projects and that these training programmes are tailored as much as possible. Although a training programme was integrated into the FIT4FOOD2030 project, an empirical analysis of learning among Lab coordinators within the project (Svare et al., 2023) highlighted the importance of allowing and supporting such coordinators to develop their own learning paths in order to meet their individual learning needs that change over time and are highly context-dependent.

Moreover, I recommend that such training programmes are explicit about the different roles that one might adopt in practice, and the possible tensions between them, which may give rise to feelings of uncertainty among researchers (Bulten et al., 2021). Moreover, such training should stimulate the development of ‘navigation skills’ (Schuijer et al., 2021, p. 186). I agree with Redman and Wiek (2021) that such training programmes should pay attention to intellectual and emotional development. Explicit emphasis on the development of intrapersonal competency, which refers to the ability ‘to avoid personal health challenges and burnout in advancing sustainability transformations through resilience-oriented self-care (awareness and self-regulation)’ (Redman & Wiek, 2021, p. 6), and emphasis on the development of reflexivity with regard to a researcher’s own role and position, both reflected in the Self (Sellberg et al., 2021), is of crucial importance as both aspects affect the ability to fulfil the different types of requirements described above. In addition, it is important to facilitate joint learning spaces for early-career and more experienced transdisciplinary researchers who work in the same or similar institutional environments.

3. Teamwork:

Although competences and personality traits are important for individual researchers’ ability to combine and switch between roles (Bulten et al., 2021), I agree with Raven et al. (2010) that ‘probably a team of transition practitioners is practically more realistic than a single “superman” transition practitioner with all necessary competences’ (p. 13). Moreover, a team approach is important in order to divide conflicting roles between different persons (Bulten et al., 2021) and to allow for ‘role flexibility’ (Sol, 2018, p. 116), which requires critical reflection. I would argue that such a team should also include more experienced transdisciplinary researchers who have already gained a certain degree of credibility to guide and support young researchers and to be present at important points, and thus to actively be part of the team. This is especially important given the time-consuming and challenging tasks of network building and at the same time seeking to align the objectives and strategy of a Lab and the objectives and input of actors working on change processes in the region. This important and challenging phase is what Horcea-Milcu et al. (2022) have referred to as Phase 0 of a transdisciplinary process, that is, the phase before the actual transdisciplinary collaboration starts. This phase requires leadership (Horcea-Milcu et al., 2022), and, therefore, the engagement of more experienced transdisciplinary researchers. Moreover, as highlighted by Schneidewind et al. (2018), the reputation and credibility of scientists and their institutes are of great importance when starting to engage with power structures, which is the case during Phase 0. The findings of this study confirm this, as I found that I was involved in Phase 0 for a substantial amount of time. I faced several challenges during this phase. My promotor’s active engagement with municipal food developments immediately gave the Lab a prominent role in designing and facilitating a visioning workshop that was meant to provide input to the municipal food strategy, and this gave me the opportunity to continue with the development of a transformative food-related R&I agenda.

As most early-career scientists are highly committed to contributing to transformative change—but also face significant trade-offs—it is important to act on these recommendations as a matter of urgency. Otherwise, we might end up with academics writing papers about how they were hindered while trying to adopt transformative action-oriented roles rather than about how the actual adoption of these roles supported transdisciplinary practices in contributing to much-needed transformation. Given the importance of thinking about the transferability of findings, and, most importantly, to support and empower early-career researchers, I end by sharing my most important lessons learnt. Although these are aimed at junior researchers, some of them clearly highlight the importance of the active engagement of senior transdisciplinary researchers:

  1. 1.

    Take care of yourself, because only then you will be able to contribute to transformation and make academic impact.

  2. 2.

    Make use of the authoritative power in your environment at important points, especially when you start to connect to established governance networks and/or powerful actors in the region (‘Phase 0’).

  3. 3.

    Regularly reflect with experienced transdisciplinary researchers on the entire process, especially when you are involved in a large, ambitious, and complex transformative project, and be explicit about the tensions that you experience so that you can determine a strategy together.

  4. 4.

    Be aware of, and keep in mind, that transformation processes are slow and may meet with resistance from actors in your environment so that you do not become too stressed or frustrated when the process takes longer than you expected or hoped. Moreover, remember that these dynamics might be interesting in themselves when viewed from a scientist’s perspective.

  5. 5.

    Collect data, but try to take it easy. Make (extensive) reflexive notes after meetings, calls, workshops, etc., but do not try to capture everything, because that is exhausting. Engaging in transdisciplinary research also means that you need to develop another perspective on the questions of ‘what is data?’ and ‘what is scientific rigour?’ Keep notes about your experiences and actions so as to stimulate awareness about your own role and position (reflexivity).

  6. 6.

    Keep in mind that your research objective or question might evolve because of unexpected contextual developments. That is part of research, but even more so in transdisciplinary research. However, make sure to frequently reflect upon the process with senior transdisciplinary researchers.