1 Introduction

Transdisciplinarity has been discussed in academic circles since its introduction back in the 1970s (Bernstein, 2015), and scholars have subsequently explored and established diverse approaches to apply it in research and academic work. These diverse approaches are typically informed by various philosophies and the conceptualization of transdisciplinarity. Julia Thompson Klein is among those who have devoted their academic careers to conceptualizing and actively engaging with transdisciplinarity. She distinguishes three major discourses of transdisciplinarity based on the underlying and prevailing elements that shape its comprehension and affect its practice: transcendence, transgression, and the ability to solve complex problems (Klein, 2015). First, the element of ‘transcendence’ challenges reductionist disciplinary perspectives and promotes the integration of diverse perspectives from various cultural, national and ethical backgrounds to support a holistic view. Second, ‘transgression’ encourages collaboration between academic institutions and society towards a more inclusive approach incorporating socially relevant knowledge. And third, the problem-solving element is viewed as vital in guiding the efforts of the various stakeholders to solve social problems.

More recently, however, the limitations of transdisciplinarity as being able to make a meaningful impact on social issues (Brandt et al., 2013; Lang et al., 2012) have been acknowledged, alongside the potential benefits of offering additional guidance that aims to catalyse transformation and change. This has led to a growing tendency to foster a discourse of a transdisciplinarity that is purposeful and transformative, achieves an impact, and is radical, with the power to bring about profound change (e.g. Holm et al., 2013; Mitchell et al., 2015; Schneider et al., 2019).

Although this chapter will not delve into the distinctions among these proposed attributes of transdisciplinarity and attempt to identify their shared characteristics, it is nevertheless important to note that these discussions and the range of proposals converge in aiming to define transdisciplinarity through desired outcomes rather than treating it only as a foundational meta-method. The discourse surrounding ‘transformation’ and related concepts (purposeful, radical, etc.) therefore suggests additional criteria to complement, refine and further develop the earlier definitions. Mitchell and colleagues (2015) identified three key elements that distinguish purposeful transdisciplinarity: (1) improving the current situation; (2) generating and making knowledge from diverse sources accessible; and (3) enabling mutual and transformational learning among all actors involved. In a similar vein, Schneider et al. (2019) explored ways to promote transdisciplinarity that will achieve an impact and made three key suggestions:

  • Decision-making processes should be informed by fostering a descriptive and explanatory understanding of the problem situation (system knowledge), defining desired future development through norms and values (target knowledge), and understanding how to make the transformation from the current to the desired state (transformation knowledge).

  • Social learning should be encouraged to promote collective action among all actors involved.

  • Competencies for reflective leadership should be enhanced to ensure that all stakeholders can critically reflect on their actions and make informed decisions towards achieving their goals.

It is noteworthy that although the discourse surrounding transformation places significant emphasis on the term ‘change’, this concept remains unclear, which also underscores the lack of precise definitions of related concepts like ‘impact’, ‘meaningfulness’, ‘purposefulness’, and ‘transformative’. Despite this, academic discourses converge in regarding transformative research as being more value-driven than transdisciplinary research. To put it differently, transformation is centred around effecting change, an aspect less emphasized in transdisciplinary work. These differences are apparent in the roles that researchers assume in the two processes. In transdisciplinarity, researchers typically adopt a more passive role, acting as facilitators, with considerable engagement in reflection. Conversely, advocates of transformation see researchers as more proactively involved, taking an active stance and exerting pressure on systems to bring about change (e.g. Doring, 2002; Massingham, 2014). This change can materialize, for instance, through activism, lobbying, and campaigning (Jessani et al., 2022).

The discussions on transformation and transdisciplinarity offer distinct perspectives on the conduct expected of researchers, which in turn determines the understanding of what higher education should aim to teach and informs the teaching strategies to equip students with what is considered to be necessary. The readiness of individuals, especially university students, for active participation in transdisciplinary collaboration has been the subject of discussion in the scholarly literature. We have synthesized these discussions elsewhere (Zeidan et al., forthcoming), with a view to understanding the design of transdisciplinary courses, their learning approaches, and anticipated outcomes. Notably, to realize their objectives, many transdisciplinary courses focus on competencies such as reflectivity, communication, and teamwork. Likewise, Wiek et al. (2011) synthesized a substantial body of literature on sustainability with a focus on creating a comprehensive competency framework, which highlighted five essential competencies that graduate students should possess: systems thinking, futures thinking (anticipatory), values thinking (normative), strategic thinking, and interpersonal collaboration (see Box 13.1; this volume). While the framework primarily centred around ‘sustainability’, it captured a significant level of interest from those who design transdisciplinary courses, and who structured them around these competencies as intended outcomes (Zeidan et al., forthcoming).

However, the evolution of the ‘transformation’ discourse began to approach preparing students from a different angle, aiming to empower them as ‘change agents’ and engaged researchers (Kay et al., 2010). This calls for a change agent mindset and also elicited a specific set of competencies perceived as essential for the next generation, emphasizing the role of higher education in preparing these competencies. Redman and Wiek (2021) revisited and upgraded the framework in the light of the transformation discourse 10 years after their initial framework. The upgraded framework suggested three new competencies complementing the initial sustainability competencies and advancing a more transformational aspect: intrapersonal, implementation, and integration competencies (see Box 13.1; this volume).

There are growing academic discussions on preparing individuals to engage effectively in transdisciplinarity and/or collaborative transformation. Researchers are delving into specific instances, highlighting the competencies that align with the unique problem contexts, themes, roles, methods employed, and more. Despite the advantages these approaches offer, the literature has become overwhelmed with lists of competencies. This presents challenges in terms of understanding their convergence, equilibrium, the feasibility of mastering such an extensive array of skills, and the dynamic trade-offs involved in possessing various competencies simultaneously.

These aspects and challenges have been acknowledged in earlier chapters, particularly concerning the positionality of researchers and the shifting of roles. As these chapters drew insights from practical experiences, we recognize the significance of re-examining the discourse on competency development in conjunction with these practical experiences and reflections. We aim to address the question of ‘what’ are we preparing individuals for, which involves revisiting, challenging, and questioning the practice of continually adding new competencies to the list of prerequisites of both transdisciplinarity and transformation. We go on to explore ‘how’ higher education is expected to nurture these competencies. Lastly, we contemplate an element that is missing from these discussions by suggesting that instilling a sense of purpose in students could be more significant in empowering them to proactively engage in their own trajectory and have ownership of their development in transformation processes. This, in turn, would equip them to better position themselves and adeptly navigate the complexities of real-world challenges.

2 Transformational Preparation and Transdisciplinarity

In recent decades, there has been significant attention devoted to exploring approaches for preparing (under-)graduate students in the realms of transdisciplinarity. The lack of a consensus on the meaning of ‘transdisciplinarity education’ has created a fertile ground for diverse perspectives and interpretations. Consequently, university faculties have developed various approaches and curricula, each offering a unique perspective on how to prepare students to be able to work in these complex and interconnected realms.

In our research, we found that the curriculum designed to cultivate transdisciplinarity can be classified according to three distinct aspects: cross-disciplinary collaboration, social engagement, and problem-solving (Zeidan et al., forthcoming). These aspects align with Klein’s (2015) categorization of transdisciplinarity into three types: transcendence, transgression, and problem-solving. Some courses aim to develop students’ ability to navigate and integrate diverse disciplinary and non-disciplinary forms of knowledge (Zeidan et al., forthcoming). Others prioritize to equip students with the skills necessary for participatory approaches to social engagement, or emphasize problem-solving, focusing on equipping students with the tools to address complex challenges. Similarly, ‘transformation’ has received its fair share of scholarly attention. However, a clear distinction between ‘education for transdisciplinarity’ and ‘education for transformation’ remains elusive, beyond the latter’s emphasis on creating a meaningful impact. The question, then, is how the educational approach ensures that individuals will indeed contribute to a making meaningful impact. Some scholars have perceived transdisciplinary approaches as being effective in promoting learning for transformation among students in higher education, valuing and recognizing the capacity of transdisciplinary education to expose them to a wide range of knowledge and perspectives, thereby facilitating a profound comprehension of complex real-life issues (Baumber, 2022; Leal Filho et al., 2018). Furthermore, transformation, which transdisciplinarity also endorses, emphasizes the cultivation of reflexivity rather than mere knowledge transfer. This empowers students to critically assess their own biases and facilitate the connection with various forms of knowledge.

Nonetheless, the focus of ‘transformation’ on achieving desired change and generating significant social impact highlights the importance of individuals playing the role of ‘change agent’, who are able to participate effectively in the process of change and help bring about its realization (e.g. Doring, 2002; Massingham, 2014). In this regard, the crucial distinction between education for transformation and education for transdisciplinarity revolves around equipping individuals to serve as effective change agents, capable of assuming responsibility, reconciling tensions and dilemmas, and fostering the creation of new values (OECD, 2018).

In a similar vein, Popa and colleagues (2015) argue that transformative and meaningful transdisciplinarity involves deliberating on the normative and epistemic orientation of research, framing problems in socially relevant ways, generating reflexivity on values and norms in problem-solving, and the ability to reflect on normative commitments and ideological orientations in processes of social transformation. Similarly, scholars have recognized that the specificity of transformation necessitates emphasizing certain competencies to address the roles required in these processes. For instance, the notion of a self-reflexive scientist as an additional actor in the transformation process highlights the need for individuals to be competent in reflecting on their own positionality and normativity while navigating a dynamic environment in order to facilitate change (see Fazey et al., 2018; Wittmayer & Schäpke, 2014). Others recognized the need for a comprehensive or umbrella competency, such as ‘co-productive agility’, which involves the ability to bridge knowledge and action, embrace diverse perspectives, adapt to changing goals and information, and effectively navigate inherent tensions in collaborative settings (Maas et al., 2022). These lists of competencies differ in their framing and terminology, but essentially they are in alignment. To facilitate our discussion, we will draw on the work of Redman and Wiek from both 2011 and 2021.

In relation to training and preparing, umbrella competencies are tricky to cater for as they involve a complicated and intertwined range of skills, knowledge, and attitudes. These overarching competencies may benefit being broken down into trainable aspects. However, should education solely prioritize teachable competencies, or should it—particularly within the realm of transformation—emphasize instilling in students a set of guiding principles on which they can depend to supervise and take ownership of their competency development? This is an important question this chapter addresses.

3 Revisiting Competencies Through a Practical Lens

In this section, we aim to enrich the scholarly discourse by connecting these conceptual discussions with practical insights from researchers who have engaged in transformative collaborations. Rather than starting from scratch, we draw on the personal accounts and experiences of some of the contributions to Part III of this volume to redirect, refine, and channel their experiences to tackle and address the question of what prepares an individual for transformational processes in a meaningful manner. To give a solid foundation for our exploration, we project these personal accounts onto the influential competency framework proposed by Redman and Wiek (2021). Chapters 14 and 15 explored two significant aspects that researchers encounter in transformational collaborations: the researchers’ positionality and the dynamic shift in roles they experience in these collaborations. We first examine the interplay and the tensions arising from positionality and the required competencies, before going into analysing how role shifting, with its accompanying synergies and tensions, interacts with the proposed competencies.

3.1 Competencies vis-à-vis Positionality

Despite the extensive discussions surrounding transformation processes, there is still no consensus regarding the definition of ‘successful’ transformation and the key factors that contribute to it. Furthermore, the lack of a clear definition contributes to the ambiguity of the criteria and guidelines required for achieving successful transformations. This creates a space that permits agendas to be moulded by the perspectives, values, positions, and expertise of the individuals or groups engaged in these transformation processes.

The chapter by Gunn, Hoffmann, Sager, Wittmayer, and Zuiderent-Jerak (this volume) presented a reflective account of how the complex interplays of different forms of knowledge could challenge researchers’ perspectives and positionalities. Their chapter highlights the fact that transformative processes are not value-neutral but ‘normatively charged’. This normativity is rooted in the influences of ethical, moral, social, and cultural values and judgements that arise during the process (Copp, 1995). These elements inform decision-making throughout the transformative process alongside empirical evidence. Furthermore, political ideologies, cultural and religious beliefs, as well as disciplinary epistemology, all contribute to shaping the ‘epistemic commitment’ that is evident in individuals’ actions in collaborative spaces (Frodeman, 2011; Granjou & Arpin, 2015). Thus, positionality is displayed as the embodiment of the intertwined layers of normative and epistemic characteristics.

By delving into the interplay between positionality and competencies, we perceive potential and valuable insights to effectively equip individuals to navigate transformative processes. From the literature, we observed a subtle distinction between preparing students for ‘transdisciplinarity’ and preparing them for ‘transdisciplinarity for transformation’. Training for transdisciplinarity comes across as rather passive regarding the direction of the change and deliberating on what is valuable and meaningful. The literature on transdisciplinary education highlights equipping individuals with problem-solving, communication, collaboration, and teamwork skills to enable them to participate in transdisciplinary collaborations (e.g. Acevedo-Osorio et al., 2020; Balsiger, 2015; Barrett et al., 2019; Dlouha & Burandt, 2015). There is also a notable emphasis on improving higher education curricula and crafting innovative courses to cultivate students’ reflective competencies, allowing them to critically assess their perspectives, disciplinary expertise, and inherent biases (e.g. Barret et al., 2019; Fortuin & Van Koppen, 2016). Furthermore, there is a growing recognition of the value of instilling epistemic humility as a fundamental competency (e.g. Lake et al., 2016).

While acknowledging the need for the skills mentioned above, there remains a gap in covering the specific ideals that advocates of transformation endorse. Transformation revolves around meaningful changes and perceives researchers as key contributors in shaping the course of this change, actively involving their values in the processes. In the previous chapter, Wolfgang Stark argues that while transdisciplinarity embodies the intellectual aspect (head), it must also be complemented by practical skills (hand) and the translation of passion and values into behaviour (heart) (see also Sipos et al., 2008). This classification places greater emphasis on the translation of individual values into attitudes and behaviour, alongside normative elements such as comprehending sustainability and fostering global citizenship to facilitate transformational processes.

Redman and Wiek (2021) emphasize ‘values-thinking’ competencies, which prioritize an individual’s normative values over general norms. That highlights the significance of considering positionality and recognizing the interplay between normative and epistemological perspectives when shaping competencies. ‘Values-thinking’ competencies emphasize the ability to identify, map, assess, negotiate, reconcile, and reflect on the variety of norms and knowledge of the diverse participants’ portfolios; supporting them in understanding the conflicts and trade-offs that they will be facing (Redman & Wiek, 2021). Although the ‘values-thinking’ competency may appear to be the most critical for positionality and addressing normatively and epistemically charged spaces, competencies are interconnected and they ‘need to be integrated for advancing sustainability transformation’ (Redman & Wiek, 2021, p. 5).

Based on the experiences described by Gunn and colleagues in Chapter 15, it is evident that in transformational processes, it is also crucial to empower researchers to identify and actively enact their positionality. It is essential to equip them with the necessary skills and knowledge to effectively navigate the inherent tensions that arise in (1) ambiguous settings, and (2) normatively and epistemologically charged spaces, while recognizing how their positionality (3) is not solely determined by the narrow confines of their areas of expertise but also by their values, beliefs, culture, ideologies, etc. Suggested competencies such as reflexivity and humility have the potential to encompass these three aspects by empowering individuals to contemplate their own and others’ values and biases. However, they do not directly cater for preparing individuals to formulate a sense of positionality and effectively communicate their perspectives, values, and commitments in the context of transformation and change. These attributes are ‘must-haves’ for ‘change agents’ and need to be supported by competencies, such as decision-making, self-confidence, self-expression, and a sense of responsibility (Akin et al., 2017). Likewise, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) acknowledges the importance of individuals functioning as change agents, and that in order to navigate contemporary complexities and uncertainties, they must actively exercise agency. This involves cultivating transformative competencies, including the capacity to establish values, address tensions and dilemmas, and assume responsibility (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2018).

Therefore, within transformational collaboration, the competencies that hold value and significance are those that enable individuals to contribute effectively to the change they aspire to achieve. This goes beyond merely facilitating transdisciplinary participation; it involves incorporating the person’s values and envisaging change that is influenced by a significant reservoir of personal knowledge, beliefs, and traits.

3.2 Competencies and Roles

In response to the ongoing transformation processes, some academics are departing from their conventional roles to embrace the more active roles that are influenced by the discussions surrounding transformation. This shift challenges the conventional expectations of academics, as the transformational processes enable them to assume varied roles, based on the phase and nature of the transformation. Our colleague Alanya den Boer (this volume) explored these roles and shared insights from her experience of participating in a transformational Living Lab. Below, we seek to understand competencies in relation to the roles that scientists assume in the transformation process. We explore the interplay between competencies and shifting roles of scientists in transformation processes; and how the transformation framework adopted shapes roles and the required competencies.

Recently, there has been a surge in attention being paid to the roles academics assume in transformative processes, highlighting both the synergies and tensions involved (e.g. Bulten et al., 2021; Fazey et al., 2018; Gisler & Schicktanz, 2009; Sarkki et al., 2014; Schuijer et al., 2021; Wittmayer & Schäpke, 2014). Scholars have made significant efforts to explore the conflicts and trade-offs inherent in these roles, aiming to bring clarity to the expectations placed on researchers when contributing to transformation. This includes a quest to identify the specific activities that researchers should undertake and the corresponding responsibilities they should assume to effectively contribute to transformative endeavours.

It is beyond the scope of this chapter to explore the intricacies of why and how role shifts take place, but our subsequent discussion acknowledges that the transformation of roles in transformative processes is influenced by various factors. These factors include, among others, the project level, the project’s nature and theme, the specific working packages in which academics are engaged (project activities, etc.), and the identities of other actors involved. Moreover, the role shifts are connected to academics’ individual characteristics, such as their background and expertise. These differences have resulted in a lack of consensus on the specific typologies and roles that academics should assume. This is not the consequence of a shortage of people to fulfil the necessary tasks, but rather stems from academic integrity motivating researchers to willingly take on responsibilities and conscientious work (Levin, 2012). This is evident in den Boer’s account in Chapter 14, in which she recognizes the need to shift from a primary focus on problem-solving and project work to a more critical examination and reflective research on practices, to ensure that she maintains a high level of integrity in her work.

To facilitate the discussion in this chapter, we use the typology adopted by den Boer (Table 14.1, this volume), which enables us to entertain the competencies required for specific roles. Den Boer’s reflective account highlighted the interplay of synergies and tensions she encountered as she assumed different roles—the scientist, change agent, capacity builder, process and reflexive facilitator, knowledge broker and project worker—in the transformation process in a Living Lab. In her reflective account, it became apparent that roles cannot be neatly separated with clear boundaries or considered in isolation. Rather there are significant overlaps and interconnections between them (Chilvers, 2013). Thus, it might be difficult to assert that each role requires a distinct set of competencies. Yet, certain roles still dominate in specific competencies, each displaying varying levels of proficiency and expertise.

To illustrate this, let us consider the roles that den Boer adapted to portray the diverse requirements within a Living Lab. Within this context, there emerges a need for individuals to take on the responsibilities of capacity builders and knowledge brokers throughout the process in order to facilitate the acquisition of specific skills or knowledge among participants through training and the exchange of expertise. When projected onto the early framework of Wiek et al. (2011), it seems that to undertake these roles individuals will heavily rely upon normative competencies. In this scenario, they will be engaged in sharing knowledge and providing training to participants on concepts such as sustainability, justice, responsibility, harm, among others. However, these competencies appear somewhat obscured and less evident in the updated iteration of the framework (2021). Equally, the roles of process facilitator and project worker primarily focus on overseeing the logistical and practical aspects of the project, which encompass tasks like arranging work sessions and coordinating activities. For these roles, we highlight the significance of implementation and integration competencies from Redman and Wiek’s framework (2021). Conversely, reflexive facilitators expect to foster reflexivity ‘both from 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). This role can benefit from individuals with ‘value-thinking’ and ‘system-thinking’ competencies as defined in Redman and Wiek’s 2021 framework. The significance of interpersonal and intrapersonal competencies cannot be ignored as they play a supportive role in bolstering the other competencies.

Scholars consider certain roles to be crucial in driving transformation processes, particularly those of change agent and capacity builder (e.g. Massingham, 2014; Stephens et al., 2008). Wittmayer and Schäpke (2014) highlight that change agents have the agency to exercise control over their level of involvement and how they define their self-concept in relation to their roles and contributions. Their role involves cultivating a sense of importance and inspiring and empowering participants to address problems, while also becoming an active part of both defining the problem and its solution (Wittmayer & Schäpke, 2014). Empowering participants involves building their capacities. Yet, the sense of importance and purpose is intricately tied to the researcher’s own beliefs and values, and thus may not be easily compartmentalized as a competency.

Examining Redman and Wiek's competency framework in conjunction with the role of change agent, it becomes hard to pinpoint a specific competency that defines a change agent. Nonetheless, all the competencies included are in one way or another relevant to supporting change agents in their roles. The competencies of system thinking, future thinking, values thinking, and strategic thinking are unquestionably essential for supporting research throughout transformation processes. Researchers can draw on these competencies to establish a significant connection with the subject of transformation, thereby fostering meaningful engagement. Similarly, implementation and integration competencies can support the change agent in navigating the logistics in the transdisciplinary and transformation set-ups. Furthermore, interpersonal and intrapersonal competencies can help change agents deal effectively with other people and with themselves. However, we are concerned that Redman and Wiek’s competency framework is somewhat limiting in addressing the specificity of change agent competencies, as it depicts individuals as static facilitators who are not actively contributing their own values to the transformation processes. Conversely, we envisage change agents as drawing on their own values and worldviews to leverage effectively their diverse competencies, using them to drive the anticipated change and achieve transformative outcomes.

The previous points highlight that certain competencies may have a more dominant role in specific roles. However, to emphasize the synergies in shifting roles and mitigate the accompanying tension, Schuijer et al. (2021) proposed the need for ‘navigation skills’ that can assist researchers in moving between roles, while also complementing role-specific competencies. We are particularly intrigued by the term ‘navigation’, especially in view of the metaphorical significance of relying on a compass for effective navigation.

Considering the above, the current challenge lies in defining the competencies that are essential for distinct roles, when these roles are not static but rather dynamically influenced by factors such as the situation, context, project emphasis, the individual’s characteristics, and other variables. This complexity makes it problematic to assert that a specific competency exclusively dictates one’s capability to function in a specific role in a transformational context. Thus, we recognize the importance of adopting a lifelong learning approach, wherein individuals can cultivate the skills they need to effectively navigate the dynamic landscape of transformation.

3.3 Roles as a Reflection of a Framework

In the realm of transformation, scholars have presented substantial frameworks to guide or inspire change. The diverse frameworks discussed in the broad literature used varied terminology and assume distinct interpretations of ‘meaningfulness’, yet, they all converge on the central notion of effecting change with society. Each framework is constructed on a specific comprehension of what constitutes meaningful change, which governs the processes, steps, and dimensions to be considered in achieving this change. These processes, in turn, determine the specific roles that participants must assume in order to facilitate the change. While this chapter does not delve into an exhaustive assessment of the effectiveness of these frameworks, this section highlights the fact that different frameworks require unique blends of skills to effectively accommodate their various phases. Below we will illustrate that by using two frameworks as examples.

We start with Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI)Footnote 1 as one of the influential concepts on ‘meaningful’ transformations. We have adopted the RRI framework proposed by Stilgoe et al. (2013), which comprises four interconnected phases: anticipation, inclusiveness, reflexivity, and responsiveness. To effectively incorporate these phases into practical transformation processes, it is crucial to translate them into actionable tasks and define specific roles. In den Boer’s case (Chapter 14), we observed how she deconstructed the various phases of an RRI-oriented Living Lab into tasks and assigned them to the different roles that she fulfilled. However, it is important to note that specific phases may require a variety of roles. For instance, inclusiveness stresses the involvement of diverse stakeholders in the different stages while addressing power imbalances. If we were to apply this to the roles that den Boer undertook, she would need to function as a project worker by planning the various milestones, facilitating the process through organizing the necessary work sessions and inviting participants, building the capacity of stakeholders to contribute to the co-production exercises, mediating between different perspectives as a knowledge broker, and serving as a reflexive facilitator who encourages reflexive practices. Similarly, the other phases of RRI would benefit from a different combination of roles. Thus, the roles required to enact RRI in practice are determined by its various phases, and den Boer’s account highlights how assuming different roles involves both synergies and tensions.

For the effective implementation of the inclusivity aspect in RRI, the roles of project worker, process facilitator, knowledge broker, capacity builder, and reflexive facilitator are considered essential. When examining these roles through the lens of the competencies framework by Redman and Wiek (2021), the project worker and process facilitator roles require strong interpersonal and intrapersonal competencies, while the knowledge broker and reflexive facilitator roles are grounded in the integration competency and the ability to think in systems. Capacity building ensures the transfer of these competencies to other actors and players in the project, thereby empowering them. Den Boer’s active participation in the Living Lab also entailed assuming the role of a change agent. This role is characterized by positionality, embodying normative and epistemic aspects, assisting in tackling relevant problems and working towards transformation. Therefore, in this case, it is hard to view the change agent as a distinct and independent role. Rather, it is more of a mindset and set of values that inform and shape the way an individual approaches each role without compromising their specific boundaries and requirements. A change agent can gain substantial advantages through the synergistic combination of competencies such as future-oriented thinking, values, and strategic reasoning.

Despite our attempts to simplify and categorize the roles and competencies required for RRI, it remains difficult to disentangle them into distinct and compartmentalized categories. This is because these roles and competencies are interconnected and intertwined, with synergies and tensions emerging between them. Thus, it may be more effective to approach RRI as a holistic and integrated practice, recognizing the interdependence of its derived roles and competencies.

Examining an alternative framework for transformation, we encounter the ‘four collaboration pathways’ developed by Chambers et al. (2022). This framework outlines the sequential steps towards achieving transformation as follows: (1) elevating marginalized agendas in ways that maintain their integrity and broaden struggles for justice; (2) questioning dominant agendas by engaging with power in ways that challenge assumptions; (3) navigating conflicting agendas to actively transform interlinked paradigms, practices, and structures; and (4) exploring diverse agendas to foster learning and mutual respect for a plurality of perspectives. While both the ‘four collaboration pathways’ and RRI encompass similar aspects in a holistic sense and ultimately converge towards the same direction, they exhibit notable structural disparities that can influence their practical implementation. When translating the phases into tangible roles, the initial stage of the ‘four collaboration pathways’ involves elevating marginalized agendas and empowering them in their quest for justice. This step surpasses mere inclusivity and incorporates normative and epistemic deliberations. The vocabulary used is different for RRI and has an epistemic direction that is of value. Thus, it urges and requires the researchers to play mainly the role of change agent while relying on their normative and epistemic stance to guide the other roles (facilitator, project worker, etc.).

To translate this into Redman and Wiek’s competencies framework (2021), we would need to emphasize competencies in values thinking to inform strategy, future thinking, as well as systems thinking. Moreover, the successful implementation of this step would depend on strong competencies in integration, interpersonal and intrapersonal communication. However, the scholars who developed the ‘four collaboration pathways’ framework identified ‘co-production agility’ as a main competency that supports their approach. Co-production agility involves being open to different viewpoints, responsive to changing objectives or new knowledge, and able to constructively navigate tensions that arise in co-productive processes. It also emphasizes that knowledge and action are intertwined, recognizing that outcomes of co-productive processes go beyond formal knowledge, thus, incorporating pluralism and humility (Maas et al., 2022).

These brief examples serve to illustrate that the competencies essential in transformative processes cannot be rigidly predefined as static elements. The dynamic interplay of tensions and synergies is something that individuals involved in these processes must continually navigate. From that perspective, higher education plays a crucial role in establishing the essential foundation of knowledge and skills. It is important for students to have agency in developing their competencies, aligning them with their values, aspirations, and their envisaged impact on society. At the same time, it is vital for higher education to provide a platform for students to engage with real-world problems, encouraging them to scrutinize and question their own biases and values through interactions with a wide range of diverse knowledge and experiences. Nonetheless, higher education institutions also have to recognize the limitations of their role in fostering these competencies. Transformative processes demand the ability to embrace uncertainty and navigate through it, and while higher education does have a part to play in nurturing some of these skills, it occupies a specific niche within students’ broader character development. There are numerous other factors—both direct and indirect—that contribute to shaping students’ character. These include their parents, peers, the environments they inhabit, the ideologies they embrace, their values and beliefs, and their ways of making sense of and interpreting the world around them.

4 Piecing It Together

In the preceding section, we extended the discourse on competencies to our colleagues’ experiences, seeking insights into ‘what’ are the competencies needed for individuals engaged in such transformative endeavours. We now want to revisit ‘how’ higher education is training and preparing individuals for transdisciplinarity and transformation.

In the endeavour to prepare students for transdisciplinarity, transdisciplinary education is assuming diverse forms. New approaches have been suggested by scholars that embed in courses learning activities that aim to expose students to both mirror real-life complex problems and also create spaces, either virtual or physical, where diverse types of knowledge and experiences can interplay (Zeidan et al., forthcoming). Approaches such as problem-based learning, challenge-based learning, and community service learning (CSL) are being proposed as viable options. These approaches are shifting higher education courses away from the traditional model of transmitting knowledge from teacher to students, and emphasizing experiential learning or learning by doing. In this new model, students actively engage with real-life problems, seeking to interact and acquire the knowledge that supports them in addressing these challenges (McGregor, 2017). In these courses, learning not only draws from disciplinary knowledge but also can thrive on interactions among students from diverse ethnicities, religions, cultures, ideologies, socio-economic classes, and academic backgrounds.

Regardless of the specific learning approach adopted in transdisciplinary education, we consistently observe the creation of diverse knowledge spaces and inputs to which students are exposed. According to Sabina Hoffman (in Chapter 15), these spaces provide the opportunity to embrace vulnerability, ask questions, and learn to be comfortable with the tension and ambiguity of the transformation process. They serve as ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can accept not knowing and support learning from each other and nurture new forms of reflexive scholarship and knowledge production. These spaces can serve as valuable environments for individuals to learn how to comfortably navigate uncertain situations and effectively leverage their diverse competencies to confront the challenges posed by uncertainty. Moreover, these spaces encourage students to recognize that in a transdisciplinary environment, their expertise must expand beyond their specific disciplinary training. They must also embrace the uncertainty surrounding their identity, as a transdisciplinary identity is rooted in the capacity to harness both external (such as situations) and internal (such as competencies) resources to enhance the transdisciplinary process.

While these courses may intend to benefit from this mirroring real-life environment, they often overlook the fact that it is an uncontrollable space that can yield varying outcomes in shaping students’ growth and competencies. Thus, students entering a classroom do not necessarily emerge with the predefined set of competencies outlined in the course objectives. While it can be difficult to measure the cultivation of competencies such as critical thinking in these uncontrolled and unpredictable environments, it is important to recognize that competencies evolve over an extended period and through diverse inputs (Bajis et al., 2020).

The narrative of ‘safe spaces’ in transdisciplinary education mostly describes an inclusive and contained ‘conflict zone’ in which the participants are keen on working towards shared values. Thus, the predominant set of competencies that are usually suggested revolves around soft skills like communication, teamwork, empathy, humility, flexibility, and adaptability. While these competencies have some significance, they often correspond more with the role of a facilitator rather than that of a change agent, and they alone may not adequately equip individuals to effectively navigate the complex and multifaceted nature of transformation processes. For these competencies, scholars have suggested various approaches that have proved beneficial (e.g. Acevedo-Osorio et al., 2020; Balsiger, 2015; Barrett et al., 2019; Dlouhá & Burandt, 2015; Fortuin & Van Koppen, 2016; Lake et al., 2016).

The accounts of practical experience by den Boer and Gunn et al. (this volume) highlighted that transformation processes can be characterized as spaces filled with tension. These tensions arise because the spaces are imbued with normative and epistemic significance, while also stemming from the trade-offs in the shifting roles that researchers perform. Nonetheless, these tensions represent an integral aspect of transformation and are closely linked to personal values and worldviews, rather than mere technical or soft skills. Consequently, the preparation of individuals to navigate these tensions should focus on empowering them to express, debate, convey, and communicate their perspectives effectively. Simultaneously, it necessitates fostering a mindset that maintains one’s values while remaining receptive to understanding, interacting, and negotiating with other ideas and viewpoints. These competencies represent a distinct set that need to be harmonized with transdisciplinary ones.

The significance of moving to a better understanding of individuals’ development is in tapping into their reservoir of past experiences and knowledge, enabling them to develop new competencies, swiftly generate ideas, seamlessly adjust to unfamiliar circumstances, and decisively respond with action. Over time, this evolution will manifest in the form of ‘improvisation’ as discussed by Wolfgang Stark (this volume). Improvisation arises from the accumulation of a broad range of experiences and exposure to various situations over time, allowing a person to act spontaneously and instinctively (Berk & Trieber, 2009). This ‘intuition’ typically does not entail a sudden realization that occurs after a brief period of knowledge incubation or reflection. Rather, it emerges as a manifestation of the implicit, tacit, multifaceted learning experiences the individual has undergone (Shirley & Langan-Fox, 1996). Moorman and Miner saw that improvisation is built on a repertoire of know-how more than on know-what (1998), which supports individual ‘to deal with a circumstance for which no script appears to be immediately to hand’ (Mangham & Pye, 1991, p. 41).

When considering a transformation, it is important to explore how improvisation can be harnessed to support transformational goals. Reflecting on our discussion about positionality and role shifting, we realize that the transformation realm requires substantial incorporation of normative and epistemic knowledge and learning. This type of improvisation can be referred to—in the management terminology—as ‘deep smarts’, which represent a form of ‘gut knowledge’ that experts have developed over time (Leonard & Swap, 2004). At this level of mastery, individuals can apply their skills, attitudes, mindsets, experiences, and knowledge effortlessly and without conscious thought. This would make it difficult to classify improvisation into specific categories within the Redman and Wiek framework. Rather, we view improvisation as a manifestation of an individual's ability to unconsciously leverage their various competencies to tackle specific situations.

This once again prompts the question of what is the ideal blend of competencies to accommodate transformation. It is important to acknowledge that there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ blend of competencies that guarantees success in transformation processes. Numerous factors determine the required competencies, starting with the transformation framework that dictates the necessary roles and respective competencies to accommodate them. Moreover, factors like context, the theme of the transformation, the stakeholders involved, etc., determine the competencies. For instance, engaging with Indigenous knowledge demands a different skill set than collaborating with technical experts or government institutions. Therefore, education for transformation should embrace and capitalize on an adaptable blend of competencies, achievable only through a commitment to continuous development and lifelong learning. That requires individuals to have ownership over the development of their own competencies’ development. To foster this ability, educators should move beyond designing standalone courses that claim to instil transdisciplinary and transformational competencies, but rather view their courses as integral components of a larger chain or scaffolding for various courses that tap into students’ normative learning and competency development while promoting a lifelong learning attitude. This approach involves connecting courses and blocks of knowledge and competency development to work collectively towards achieving the overarching goal. Within the realm of transformation, we observe the significant value of constructing basic knowledge blocks, enabling individuals to cultivate confidence in an uncertain world, while stimulating a perspective that is comfortable in pursuing the skills that enable them to navigate these uncertainties. To cultivate this mindset, it is essential not to perceive it as a static skill but rather recognize that it is connected to and driven by the individual’s own sense of importance and purpose.

Second, we find it difficult to view competency development as being concentrated only in the realm of higher education. Much of the scholarly discourse on competencies stems from frameworks designed to facilitate transdisciplinarity, emphasizing the necessary competencies for effective engagement in such processes. However, these discussions often overlook the intricate interplay between competency development and an individual’s normative, epistemic, institutional, social, cultural, religious, and ideological identities, among others. These aspects are developed beyond the university and are crucial elements of how individuals are shaped. While transdisciplinarity aims to incorporate the knowledge and experiences of diverse stakeholders, paradoxically to date it has failed to accommodate the complexity and challenges inherent to individuals involved in these processes. Consequently, it seems to treat students as rather passive entities whose behaviour can be predicted once they acquire the recommended set of competencies.

5 Moving Forward

This chapter showed that most literature on competencies tends to look at transdisciplinary and transformational processes in an ideal-typical way and propose generic competencies, overlooking the significant influence of individual factors such as education, background, culture, ideology, religion, living circumstances, and socio-economic class. These factors profoundly shape individuals, including their perceptions and values, as well as their actions and positions. Therefore, we argued that there is a vital aspect missing that guides individuals' epistemological commitment, channelling their efforts towards transformation.

Advocates of transformation emphasize the action towards change and the preparation of change agents. The sole difference in preparing a transdisciplinary individual versus a change agent lies in instilling in the latter the capacity to effectively use their competencies to bring about change and transformation. While the discussion of what is ‘desirable change’ and ‘positive impact’ is beyond the scope of this chapter, the concept of positive impact aligns with the aspiration to make a meaningful difference in society and contribute to the greater good, which is how ‘sense of purpose’ is defined (Staples & Troutman, 2010). A sense of purpose also sparks individuals’ motivation and persistence, enabling them to overcome barriers and challenges on their path of learning and development (Sharma & Yukhymenko-Lescroart, 2018). And, ultimately a sense of purpose is perceived as the guiding force behind an individual’s goals, reflecting their dedication and aspiration for achievement (Bronk, 2011).

Similarly, taking a closer look at the metaphorical implications of the term ‘navigation’ commonly used in discussions on transformation, it is interesting to explore the ‘direction’ we are navigating to and the ‘compass’ we are using to direct us. The notion of direction revolves around determining what constitutes desirable change, while the compass represents the guiding tool and the skill of interpreting it. Therefore, it is crucial for educational approaches to recognize students’ own values and experiences, facilitating their ability to channel these experiences, critical thinking, and interactions with other learners. This aligns with Merizow’s notion of transactional education, wherein sense-making serves as a guiding spark for transformative learning that students can employ throughout various phases of growth (1985). That extends beyond the classroom to the transformational spaces and projects, encompassing learning through interactions among diverse actors and their implicit knowledge.

Rather than viewing the development of competencies for transformative transdisciplinary research in isolation, we embrace the idea that it is an integral part of the evolution of a person’s identity. The aim is to equip individuals with the tools and skills necessary to ‘progress from a novice to independent, confident and agential individuals’ who are ‘adaptive, articulate and able to build a well-attuned portfolio that sets them up for building reach, impact and influence’ (Debowski, 2022, pp. 10–12). This calls for a deeper insight into the role of higher education in nurturing and developing individuals. Acknowledging the involvement of other actors and factors in the process, it is important to emphasize that tertiary education is not the only way to achieve such nurturing but rather a part of a broader network of contributory factors. Training for transformation should be viewed as a dynamic interaction between values and worldviews, guided by the ‘compass’ of a ‘sense of purpose’. In this context, higher education should accommodate students who are taking control over the cultivation of the competencies they deem valuable, and that enable them to effectively navigate transformative processes.