Structuring Design & Evaluation in Transdisciplinarity for Transformation

Abstract

While transdisciplinary knowledge production is increasingly gaining traction in academic and policy environments, initiating and guiding such approaches is not straightforward and comes with challenges. These challenges concern, among other things, methodological and practical difficulties that arise in the ‘fuzzy reality’ of doing transdisciplinary research. In this chapter, we elaborate on the different ways that the literature has dealt with design and evaluation of transdisciplinarity. We highlight a number of challenges in applying frameworks in the ‘real’ fuzzy work of transdisciplinary, look into three ideal-typical conceptualizations of transdisciplinary research and propose a number of ‘non-negotiables’ in doing design and evaluation. 

1 Introduction

While transdisciplinary knowledge production is increasingly gaining traction in academic and policy environments, initiating and guiding such approaches is not straightforward and comes with challenges. These challenges concern, among other things, methodological and practical difficulties that arise in the ‘fuzzy reality’ of doing transdisciplinary research (Brandt et al., 2013; Lang et al., 2012). An overarching challenge for transdisciplinary research design and evaluation relates to the emergent nature of transdisciplinary efforts. Because such approaches aim to bridge the gap between knowledge and action, they should be designed and enacted to accommodate flexibility for, adaptation to and anticipation of emergent local needs and contextual developments (Fazey et al., 2018; Lux et al., 2019; Van Veen et al., 2014). Or, as Defila and Di Giulio eloquently phrase it in their chapter in this volume (Chapter 5, p. 140): there is the ‘inevitability of the non-plannability’ but also, from, among others, a funders’ perspective, ‘the necessity of having a reliable and robust research plan’ (see also, e.g., Dahl Gjefsen et al., Chapter 4, this volume).

Given that transdisciplinarity can be characterized as deeply practice-based (West et al., 2019), situated (Zuiderent-Jerak, 2015), and highly contextualized (Caniglia et al., 2021; Norström et al., 2020), it is hard to imagine standardized procedures or a fixed body of methods, since these would very much depend upon the goals of the project and the background of those involved (see also Defila & Di Giulio, Chapter 5, this volume). The plurality of normative frameworks and the diverse ways of knowing and doing embodied by those involved pose challenges one would not encounter in more homogeneous collaborative (research) projects. Moreover, scholars emphasize that transdisciplinary co-production processes can also be understood as involving political practices (Kok et al., 2021; Turnhout et al., 2020), requiring those managing and facilitating transdisciplinarity to reflexively engage with, navigate and steer the political dynamics of co-production, while recognizing that it is challenging to do this from a neutral stance.

In the context of transdisciplinary research, such a manifestation of certainty is what transdisciplinary scholars, early-career researchers and novel transdisciplinary practitioners have advocated for, and developed, in the form of (methodological) guidelines, standards or frameworks supporting co-production processes (cf. Lang et al., 2012; Lux et al., 2019). Such guidelines or standards support teams in ‘doing transdisciplinarity’, and are particularly helpful at the planning and design stages of transdisciplinary projects, for instance when research proposals need to be submitted to PhD supervisors or to funders. Similarly, funding agencies are increasingly tasked with assessing or evaluating (the transformative impacts of) transdisciplinary research projects; the increasingly detailed evaluation frameworks or models (e.g. Kok et al., 2023; Lawrence et al., 2022; Luederitz et al., 2017; Lux et al., 2019; Schäfer et al., 2021; Schneider et al., 2019a; Walter et al., 2007) bear witness to this. While frameworks are of paramount importance in guiding transdisciplinary practice, they require necessary simplification and condensing of complex processes, thereby risking to not do full justice to the hugely entangled and messy character of transdisciplinarity. Simplification and reification are amplified by the schematic representation of transdisciplinary research design by means of models depicting a phased process with clearly delineated steps, or evaluation frameworks with a comprehensive set of criteria with which transdisciplinary research projects should comply (e.g. Belcher et al., 2016).

As the examples of learning questions in Chapter 1 show, this is where tensions arise: How to do justice to the emergent and situated nature of transdisciplinary practices, while there is also a need to plan and budget research and other activities? And subsequently, how can guidelines or standards be designed in a way that they provide guidance, while simultaneously embracing uncertainty and the open-ended nature and the fuzzy and political practice of ‘doing’ transdisciplinarity?

In Part I of this volume, we introduce chapters that variously seek to provide answers to the questions above. They aim to contribute to providing ‘just enough structure’ to those working in transdisciplinary research, from the level of ‘micro-scale’ interactions in inclusive spaces (Chapter 7), to supporting transformation-oriented research processes in the course of managing projects ex durante (Chapter 6) and designing (Chapter 4) and evaluating (Chapter 5) larger transdisciplinary projects. In this introductory chapter, we set the scene by elaborating on the different ways that the literature has dealt with design and evaluation of transdisciplinarity. We highlight a number of challenges and ‘non-negotiables’ in doing design and evaluation. Before exploring the challenges in applying frameworks in the ‘real’ fuzzy work of transdisciplinarity, let us look into a number of ideal–typical conceptualizations of transdisciplinary research.

2 Design and Evaluation Frameworks: Ideal–Typical Depictions of Messy Practices

Frameworks are deliberate simplifications of a phenomenon, process or situation; they are often constructed by decontextualizing situated complexities into more generic overviews. Frameworks are crucially important in transdisciplinarity, as they help researchers and practitioners to design, monitor and evaluate transdisciplinary processes. For instance, the much-cited ‘conceptual model of an ideal–typical transdisciplinary process’ (e.g. Jahn et al., 2012; Lang et al., 2012) is built up of years of experience with transdisciplinary research processes e.g. in the context of the Institute for Social-Ecological Research and the Leuphana University in Germany. It is qualified as ‘ideal–typical’ as it amplifies certain characteristics that are considered common in the pluriform practice of transdisciplinary research. The common characteristics are, first, the three phases that have formed the core of the model since its inception (Jahn & Keil, 2006); and, second, a set of generic design principles, linked to the three phases (see Table 3.1). Phase A focuses on framing the problem and team building; phase B on the co-creation of solution-oriented transferable knowledge and phase C on the (re-)integration and application of the created knowledge. Throughout the process, the emphasis is on bringing together actors from social and scientific practice and ensuring that what happens and is produced in the process is relevant for all involved. Feedback loops from both practices are seen as informing the transdisciplinary research process, which is therefore problem-oriented, integrative, and context-situated (Jahn et al., 2012). Together, these characteristics, collated into a model (see Fig. 3.1), aim to provide experience-based guidelines to practitioners and researchers alike.

Table 3.1 Design principles for transdisciplinary research in sustainability science

Fig. 3.1

(Lang et al., 2012, p. 28, with reference to Bergmann et al., 2005; Jahn, 2008; Keil, 2009; Bunders et al., 2010)

Conceptual model of an ideal–typical transdisciplinary research process

A second example of a framework for transdisciplinary research is the Interactive Learning and Action (ILA)¹ approach, which was developed 30 years ago (Bunders, 1994) in the context of involving small-scale farmers in decision-making on biotechnological innovations, agricultural research and development in low- and middle-income countries.² This process of prototyping, evaluating and adjusting the approach in a large number of fields over many decades has resulted in a robust framework for a multi-stakeholder, multi-phased, dialogical process. It revolves around four key interrelated factors (Betten et al., 2013):

• Articulation of experiential knowledge, especially of groups normally not engaged in research and innovation practices, such as citizens, patients or end-users;

• Knowledge co-creation, integrating social stakeholders’ experiential and professional knowledge with researchers’ scientific knowledge, taking into account real-life complexities and the myriad views, perspectives, needs and wishes that come with this complexity;

• Embedding or anchoring new ways of thinking about, organizing and doing research in the research system through realizing ‘quick wins’, and creating a support network of people with key positions in the ‘system’ for advice and support (Broerse, 1998); and

• Process facilitation to facilitate the above, while working to increase levels of trust between stakeholders with typically high-power differentials.

While the approach is characterized by an interactive and iterative emergent action-learning process, it is often described as roughly following five phases (see Box 3.1).

Box 3.1: The phases of the ILA approach (based on Swaans et al. [2009] and Betten et al. [2013]).

Phase 1: Exploratory phase

Establishing a research team, obtaining a preliminary overview of developments in the problem context through literature review and exploratory interviews, engaging with the local community and reaching agreement between stakeholders on general issues and procedures for collaboration.

Phase 2: In-depth phase

Identifying and analysing the problem perceptions, opinions, needs and ideas of the different stakeholders, including researchers. Because of asymmetry in power and knowledge between different stakeholder groups, in this phase stakeholders are consulted separately.

Phase 3: Integration phase

The perspectives of the different stakeholders are compared and, as much as possible, integrated by means of multi-stakeholder dialogue.

Phase 4: Priority setting and action planning

Stakeholders address conflicts and seek consensus on priority issues, common goals and plan of action.

Phase 5: Implementation phase

Participants determine and take action, monitor progress and evaluate results through continuous multi-stakeholder learning-action spirals.

After the first three phases, a spiral of activities keeps recurring: plan-act-observe-reflect-(re)plan, etc. (see Fig. 3.2).

Fig. 3.2

(Regeer et al., 2011)

Action-learning spiral

A third example we highlight here originates from an in-depth analysis of 16 transdisciplinary research projects, with the aim of identifying elements in approaches to transdisciplinary research that systemically strengthen the potential for social effectiveness (Lux et al., 2019). The elements identified together constitute the TransImpact approach, which provides guidance for the adaptive shaping of transdisciplinary research processes. They are not structured according to specific phases, but rather according to areas of prime importance in transdisciplinary research for transformation (see Fig. 3.3). It first states that awareness of the context in which the project takes place is key (left-hand side): this is about recognizing and understanding (a) the history of the given problem including the causes and dynamics behind it, and previous relationships between actors; (b) the environmental context more broadly; (c) the heterogeneity between and among different actor groups, in terms of their interests, expectations, institutional mindsets and organizational settings; and (d) the funding conditions. It secondly provides recommendations to clarify, observe, assess and adapt (a) all aspects that facilitate a better understanding of the problem situation and the application context; (b) connectivity to action contexts to enable uptake of results; (c) roles and responsibilities of each of the partners, in particular regarding knowledge integration and supporting knowledge transfer; (d) the plural interests, concerns, normative frameworks, hidden agendas or unshared objectives of those involved; and (e) a positive and inspiring collaboration culture.

Fig. 3.3

(from Lux et al., 2019)

TransImpact approach to foster potential for effectiveness in TDR

All three example frameworks have value by condensing and structuring hugely entangled and messy processes. They guide the building of transdisciplinary research as a profession (Hoffmann et al., 2022) and provide credibility and legitimacy to different modes of research (Verwoerd et al., 2020). It is interesting, in this regard, that early-career researchers, in the context of a transdisciplinary doctoral programme, noted that developing attachments to transdisciplinarity at an epistemic level was experienced as difficult, particularly because of a lack of adequate methodological or theoretical repertoire (Felt et al., 2013). As such, frameworks can become a ‘point of reference’ (Timmermans & Berg, 2010, p. 24, cited in Erisman, 2024) for those practising or evaluating transdisciplinary research projects.

While some authors express caution regarding the straightforward application of condensed models or frameworks (e.g. Erisman et al., 2024; Lawrence et al., 2022), others value exactly that. By definition, ideal types are not meant to mirror ‘reality’, but rather by highlighting certain common characteristics they tend to become prescriptive (Pohl et al., 2021). Belcher and colleagues (2016), for instance, constructed a comprehensive framework setting out principles and criteria for assessing the quality of transdisciplinary research, based on a systematic review, and stated that such a framework should be ‘versatile’: ‘it should be useful to researchers and collaborators as a guide [emphasis added] to research design and management, and to internal and external reviews and assessors’ (2016, p. 8). It is also in view of this need for guidance in conducting, but also for evaluating the impact of, transdisciplinary research, that scholars articulate challenges that find their origin in the tension between systematization and open-endedness (e.g. Kok et al., 2023; Lawrence et al., 2022).

3 Challenges

Based on the literature and our own experience, we see three types of challenges in the application of design and evaluation principles or frameworks as guidelines transdisciplinary practice. We elaborate on these challenges, not as a critique on existing frameworks and guidelines, but as a starting point to formulate strategies to best make use of such frameworks in practice. The first is that principles as such do not provide practical guidance if you do not know how to put them into practice. The second is that dealing with many principles can be overwhelming. The third one, that is particularly present in transdisciplinary research aimed at transformation, is that there is a tendency in the frameworks to focus mostly on process-oriented aspects of transdisciplinary research.

With regard to the first challenge, working according to the principles requires experience and acquired sensitivities. It is one thing to say that there are power imbalances of which the researcher should be aware and enhance trust and equitable relations. It is another to facilitate processes of empowerment and balance power differences (see also Part II of this volume). Further, it is one thing to say that historicity is important, and another to be sensitive to the difference between spending too much time and resources, or conversely too little, on preliminary investigation of path-dependency and the causes of lock-in. This also applies to principles that might seem contradictory. For instance, it is widely acknowledged that in transdisciplinary research we need to explicitly recognize the multiple ways of knowledge and doing (Norström et al., 2020), while we need to ensure that the process is goal-oriented by ‘articulating clearly defined, shared and meaningful goals that are related to the challenge at hand’ (ibid., p. 5). We can then yet again formulate a principle to that effect, such as balancing diversity and directionality (Kok et al., 2021) or balancing opening up and closing down (van Mierlo et al., 2020). This would, however, still require an idea of how to select participatory, inclusive and integrative methods and concepts and whom to include in what way in the project. How could one be sure that the selected methods are applied in an effective manner?

Second, many principles could be perceived to be too ambitious and thus do not seem realistic. We often read that transdisciplinary research means including all relevant stakeholders in all phases of the process. In most cases it is quite impossible to involve all stakeholders and various studies have indeed shown different kinds of involvement of a selection of stakeholders across phases (e.g. Enengel et al., 2012; Pohl et al., 2021). Do we demarcate the scope of stakeholders’ involvement through the roles they may take (e.g. Defila & Di Giulio, this volume)? Or can we think about having some unusual relationships between different types of actors? Another example, to which we alluded above, is the emphasis on contextualization. Lux and colleagues (2019), for instance, emphasize that the environment of a problem shapes the possibilities and limits for projects that achieve an impact—and without understanding this context, projects may ‘fail’ or fall short of their potential. But what does that mean? There are so many different levels, so many developments that may seem relevant. The question is then, what would constitute smart or targeted contextualization? A final example of a principle that is often mentioned as essential but seems out of reach to most, even experienced, transdisciplinary practitioners is the emphasis on reflexivity. Whether understood as critical reflection of underlying assumptions and contextual conditions with the aid of various reflective exercises and tools (e.g. Van der Meij et al., 2018) or the ability of a transdisciplinary project to change both internal and external interdependencies, guiding rules and discourse (Beers & van Mierlo, 2017), the common idea is that the deeper the level of reflection, the more effective the (learning for) change will be (see also Part III). Moreover, reflection is often phrased as having to take place continuously. It may be clear that endless and continuous reflection to increase reflexivity is not only unrealistic, but also has its downsides, such as a show of confessional virtues, or strong constructivism leaving nothing ‘real’ upon which to act (Pels, 2000).

And third, frameworks tend to be oriented more to processes, while putting less emphasis on the contents and realization of desired future visions, ideas about solutions and the like: this can be suggesting that many frameworks might be more about ‘transdisciplinarity’ than about ‘transformation’. Though this is understandable, as many frameworks are developed to guide transdisciplinary research, for those aspiring to contribute to transformation this could pose a challenge. Frameworks place an emphasis on the need for knowledge co-creation, for mutual learning, for addressing power dynamics, and for reflection. However, it is difficult, if not impossible, to guarantee that even if all these elements are in place, practices are changing, social situations are even improved in the experience of those affected, let alone that we are able to make tangible the transformative effects of the transdisciplinary intervention (Erisman et al., 2024; Kok et al., 2023; Lux et al., 2019; Schneider et al., 2019b). With a growing body of literature studying the dynamics of (and approaches to) transdisciplinary research practices comes the risk of understanding processes of collaboration, co-creation, social learning and reflexivity becoming ends in themselves, rather than a means to an end (see also the concluding Chapter 19 of this volume). Process criteria and outcome criteria are often treated as both important, but also separate (e.g. Swaans et al., 2009; Walter et al., 2007). Conceptualizing transdisciplinary research designs and evaluation schemes in such a way that a relationship with the aspired (short-, midterm- or long-term) transformation is integrated throughout, is still in its infancy (Lux et al., 2019; Williams & Robinson, 2020; see also Regeer et al., Chapter 1, this volume).

4 Outlook: Towards Just Enough Structure

In a recent overview of the field, and after highlighting challenges in transdisciplinary research, Lawrence and colleagues (2022, p. 58) state that ‘evaluation frameworks such as those described previously need to be flexible enough for researchers to adapt them to their own context, while nevertheless being rigorous enough and retaining sufficient structure to allow a thorough analysis of the results and especially for comparing results across cases’. In our view, this recognition of inherent challenges associated with transdisciplinary research, and the fact that transdisciplinary practices, by definition, do not take place in splendid isolation, therefore calls for reflecting upon how frameworks can best provide guidance to practice. More precisely, we believe it calls for research design and evaluation frameworks that provide ‘just enough structure’.³

One avenue to advance the debate is to further specify design and evaluation frameworks by connecting them to emerging research on different modes of transdisciplinary research. One could argue that every transdisciplinary practice is unique and contains so much variation, that a straightforward design or blueprint is not possible. A more nuanced take stresses that transdisciplinary comes in a number of forms and shapes, or in fact patterns or ‘modes’: Chambers and colleagues (2021), based on an analysis of 32 co-production initiatives to address complex sustainability challenges, identify six modes of co-production: (1) researching solutions; (2) empowering voices; (3) brokering power; (4) reframing power; (5) navigating differences; and (6) reframing agency. Similarly, Jahn and colleagues (2022) on the basis of 59 sustainability-oriented projects identify five (transdisciplinary) research modes: (1) purely academic research; (2) practice consultation; (3) selective practitioner involvement; (4) ideal–typical transdisciplinary research; and (5) practice-oriented research. One may be able to identify specific, or more tailored, process characteristics and guiding principles for each of the modes of co-production that may reduce the discrepancies between framework and actual practice.

Where further specification and focusing on different modes of transdisciplinary research is one appropriate strategy, another option is to zoom out and identify non-negotiable principles to which one must always adhere, regardless of the mode of transdisciplinarity, the setting, context or empirical domain. Such non-negotiables can complement existing frameworks, and help to reflect upon how these can provide guidance in practice. We—the authors—followed this strategy in a panel discussion on the topic at the Interdisciplinary Transdisciplinarity Conference 2021. In the panel, we explored how ‘just enough structure’ could be provided for transdisciplinary practices. Building on our shared exploration, in this section, we thus articulate four non-negotiables that we consider provide just enough structure for the practice of transdisciplinarity.

4.1 Non-negotiable 1: Acknowledging Situatedness of Transdisciplinary Practice

One important remedy in addressing the uncomfortable relationship between the messiness of practices and the neatness of ideal–typical depictions that we can recognize in all three examples above is the emphasis each approach places on the situatedness of transdisciplinary research (cf. Norström et al., 2020; Zuiderent-Jerak, 2015). This is also extensively recognized by the authors of the discussed frameworks themselves. For instance, Lux and colleagues (2019) speak about awareness and understanding of the historicity of the problem field, and Lang and colleagues (2012) emphasize the need for a phase of joint understanding and definition of the sustainability problem to be addressed. This is also articulated in work by Horcea-Milcu et al. (2022), who elaborate on the use of a ‘phase 0’ in transdisciplinarity. In the ILA approach, the first three phases are dedicated to the same issue, delving into both separate consultations of problem understandings of stakeholder groups, because of asymmetry in power (phase 2) and multi-stakeholder dialogues about these different understandings (phase 3). Furthermore, while Lux and colleagues (2019) discuss the importance of understanding and connecting to the context of action to ensure uptake, Lang and colleagues (2012) emphasize two-dimensional integration through targeted products and deliverables for the realms of society and of science, and the ILA approach integrates the notion of embedding or anchoring. In terms of including situatedness in the way the frameworks are presented, we see that Lang and colleagues (2012) attempt to ‘breathe life into the principles through illustrative examples of challenges to comply with them […] as encountered in transdisciplinary projects’ across the globe (Lang et al., 2012, p. 27) and that articles on the ILA such as Swaans and colleagues (2009) on promoting food security and well-being among HIV/AIDS-affected households in South Africa and Broerse and colleagues (2010) on including burn survivors in setting research agendas, are appreciated because they provide worked examples of transdisciplinary research in action.

4.2 Non-negotiable 2: Acknowledging Pluralities of Knowing—A Mindset of Curiosity

The second non-negotiable is the acknowledgement of plurality of knowledges, understandings and normative frameworks. And this is not a matter of just knowing, or writing about it. It goes much deeper and is far more a matter of being, or a mindset. It involves putting ourselves into other people’s shoes (see also Schön & Rein, 1994) and trying to understand and value different ways of knowing. When we acknowledge the depth of the intertwinement between knowing and being (following Wittgenstein, 1953), it becomes evident how devious a recommendation this is. And, as outlined in Chapter 1 of this volume, our shared social and professional practices constitute our ways of being and knowing. So, while transdisciplinarity might be partly about creating transformative spaces, offering room to experiment without having to be accountable, in those spaces, to the rules of our professional or disciplinary homes, at the same time this poses tensions, because of other attachments, which might frustrate participants if unaddressed (Regeer & Bunders, 2009; Regeer et al., 2011).

Furthermore, some of us are considered, or consider themselves, as experts, which adds to the inherent epistemological challenge of being able to put ourselves into other people’s shoes and view the world through their perspectives. Box 3.2 presents an illustrative example that we take from a transdisciplinary approach that has been referred to as Human Capacity for Response (HCfR), or the Community Life Competence Process (CLCP) (Zachariah et al., 2023). To acknowledge the plural ways of knowing and understanding, curiosity from a position of humility seems a good point to start. This might be harder for those who need to unlearn being an expert than it is for those new to the work (Zachariah et al., 2023).

Box 3.2: On the challenge of being an expert

The transdisciplinary Human Capacity for Response (HCfR) approach was first developed as a working model for AIDS competence by Jean-Louis Lamboray and colleagues in the 1990s (Campbell & Rader, 1995; Lamboray & Skevington, 2001), when HIV/AIDS was still a leading cause for death in many countries across the globe. It radically rejects earlier responses, whereby peer educators would go to a community and teach. In What Makes Us Human, in which Jean-Louis Lamboray reflects on decades of experience with the approach, he cites Toussaint, one of the facilitators in the Democratic Republic of Congo, who remembers: ‘On any given day, I would go to a community, where I was invited as an expert. Installed at the high table, I would unpack my stuff and start my speech: “Pan, pan, pan, this is how you catch HIV. Pan, pan, pan, this is how you do not catch it. Pan, pan, pan, this is what you must do to avoid it.” Then I would invite people to ask questions, and I’d answer them. If there were no more questions, I would pack my things and leave until the next meeting’ (Lamboray, 2016, chapter 3). The HCfR framework reflects the belief that people have the capacity to care, change, hope, lead, and belong as a community, and that communities can harness these capacities to collectively address challenges (Lamboray, 2016). It uses the wisdom generated from people’s experiences rather than from experts’ knowledge and opinions. Toussaint continues: “Now […] I come as a friend, I sit, and I ask questions. I let people talk about what they have done since my last visit, and I listen. And what do the communities do? They get the information they need to take action, they go en masse to get tested for HIV, and they visit families affected by AIDS” (Lamboray, 2016, chapter 3). Lamboray speaks of another facilitator, Antoine: ‘Antoine likes to remind us that old habits die hard, and it is easy to resume the role of an expert. “The old man is asleep in us. He can wake up at any moment!” But when we have tasted the joy of sharing, and when we choose to appreciate the strengths of each person, of each family, of each community, then we progressively lose the desire to resume that role’ (Lamboray, 2016, chapter 3).

4.3 Non-negotiable 3: Keeping Aspired Transformation Centre Stage

The third non-negotiable in the context of transdisciplinary project focusing on sustainability transformations is the need to not only focus on process criteria or process characteristics but to ensure a continual focus on the aspired change itself. There are legitimate reasons to concentrate primarily on input, process criteria and direct outputs (rather than aspired outcomes and impacts) in designing and evaluating multi-stakeholder approaches to complex societal problems. For one, there is the so-called ceiling of accountability (Bemme, 2019), which draws a line at what professionals can be held accountable for when conducting a programme or project. Due to the complex interplay of a multitude of factors in the context of ‘wicked’ problems—there are so many unforeseen reasons why a programme might or might not contribute to an aspired change and longer timeframes (sometimes decades) are needed to start seeing aspired outcomes—that it only seems fair to draw this line. However, with the ceiling of accountability having moved in the direction of increasingly tangible activities and outputs, aided by efforts to break down the complexity of transdisciplinary research into seemingly manageable activities (e.g. Belcher et al., 2016 define 27 criteria, or pointers for action, divided over four themes), the connection with the intended impacts risks of getting lost in the actual practice of transdisciplinarity (Schäfer et al., 2021). At the same time, there is an increasing awareness that moving the aspired change from beyond the ceiling of accountability, back to centre stage, may change the dynamics within the entire process, and between actors and organizations, and hence create more effective and lasting impacts.

4.4 Non-negotiable 4: Stimulate Action-Learning Spirals

Each of the approaches emphasizes the importance of iterative formative evaluation (Lang et al., 2012), action-learning spirals (Betten et al., 2013) and increasing reflexivity through a process of clarification, observation, assessment and adaption (Lux et al., 2019) in order to support the doing in action rather than the designing of transdisciplinary research. There are several promising developments that can aid in this process, because, in parallel to the (re)emergence and development of the idea of transdisciplinary research since the beginning of the century, the idea of accompanying this challenging practice with research to support its conduct has also emanated. It has gone under different names, ranging from the Interactive Learning and Action (ILA) monitoring approach (Regeer et al., 2009), transition monitoring (Taanman, 2012), Reflexive Monitoring in Action (RMA) (Van Mierlo et al., 2010) and accompanying research (Defila & Di Giulio, 2018; Schäpke, this volume).

The reasoning behind ILA monitoring was that ‘if [transdisciplinary] approaches to persistent problems are so difficult to conduct, and if scholars of [these] approaches have indeed acquired relevant knowledge about these processes, then how can we contribute to accommodating these difficulties through our research? Where does theory meet practices?’ (Regeer, 2010, p. 30). Or, as Taanman puts it, transition monitoring ‘functions as a boundary object in the ongoing social learning and agenda setting between transition management in research and practice’ (2012, p. 251).

In Reflexive Monitoring in Action (Arkesteijn et al., 2015; van Mierlo et al., 2010), for instance, one or several reflexive monitors are dedicated to supporting a diverse group of actors that aims to work on a collectively articulated aspired system change, which serves as a frame for reference for everyone involved and informs the kind of support and interventions of the monitor. Support is provided by stimulating recurring collective reflection on the results of actions in relation to the aspired system change as well as developments in the context that provide unexpected hindrances and also opportunities. While facing the everyday struggles of an ongoing transformative change process, these groups are stimulated to identify and experiment with solutions and ultimately change their practices, relationships and rules. Depending on the challenge at a specific moment, this happens by sparring in informal conversations, in interviews or with the aid of specific tools like the Dynamic Learning Agenda, a Collective System Analysis, or the Learning Mirror (de Wildt-Liesveld et al., 2015; van Mierlo, 2015; van Mierlo et al., 2010) that have been developed for keeping the focus on system change; stimulating learning, agenda setting and adaptation of activities or chosen direction of change; providing innovative forms for reporting; and allowing the group to carry it out collectively with the support of a reflexive monitor. The complexity and uncertainty associated with working on system change is fully acknowledged but also bounded because the locus of group action is supposed to be at the boundaries of the group and its direct social and institutional surroundings (Beers & van Mierlo, 2017). Similarly, it was found that questions on the learning agendas of specific cases reveal relevant boundaries (in terms of constraining conditions in the environment of the system) and help identify possible courses for action (Regeer et al., 2009).

4.5 Engaging with Non-negotiables in Practice

How can we engage with these non-negotiables in practice? First, through taking up the additional role of ‘reflexive monitor’ or ‘accompanying researcher’, besides project leaders and project participants in transdisciplinary research projects, building the capacity of these practitioners is supported. Training for prospective and upcoming monitors starts with urging them to start doing reflexive monitoring right away in a relevant project, programme or initiative in order to gain experiences of articulating aspired system change, and defining what monitoring activity would fit with a challenge at a specific moment in time. The provision of generic input about the foundations of, and principles for, the practice of reflexive monitoring as well as the abundant amount of possible monitoring activities are thus closely connected to training participants’ own actual experiences as well as their earlier experiences and developed competences, while this training set-up also stimulates comparing and learning from each other’s experiences.

This type of learning-by-doing is also supported in emerging structures such as Real-world Laboratories (RwLs) (Bergmann et al., 2021; Schäpke et al., 2018) or Living Labs (Erisman et al., 2024; Kok et al., 2023), which allow for open-ended processes within some kind of structure, and may provide an example of ‘just enough structure’ to implement and learn about conducting transdisciplinary research at the same time. Besides learning and reflecting on the job, small capacity-building workshops, for transdisciplinary researchers as well as partner collaborators, city administrators and civil society actors, could be part of this process.

At the same time, we believe that a small number of non-negotiables, combined with a spirit of action-learning, might speak to early-career researchers—especially those working on their own, or in small teams, on relatively small transdisciplinary research projects—who find it hard to identify with the more comprehensive frameworks because they suggest a rather large set-up, with a longer time horizon, and a large number of activities to generate and factors to take into account (see also Enengel et al., 2012; Van Breda et al., 2016).

Non-negotiables can easily also be applicable to micro-moments or single encounters between researchers and societal partners. For instance, when conducting an in-depth interview, the non-negotiables invite the researcher to:

• tailor the encounter to fit the specificities of the project, but also to invest in understanding the ‘context of action’, the historicity, and the multiple associations (Hallin et al., 2021, following Latour, 1986), through empiricizing work (Grijseels et al., 2024b);

• practise and enact a mindset of curiosity and openness, by also reflecting on, and putting to the test, their own assumptions, values and positionality, and supporting frame reflection by bringing insights from one interview into the conversation in the next interview;

• wonder ‘what’s in it for them’ in order to refrain from extractive thinking and practice ‘being alongside’ (Grijseels et al., 2024a; Latimer, 2013), but also to solicit the interviewees’ wisdom in co-creating responses to identified challenges or innovative options that help realize aspired changes.

All of which is supported by

• a spirit and process of action-learning, placing the interview and interviewee in the context of a larger, emerging, collaborative process of inquiry.

Transdisciplinary doctoral students in South Africa reflected on their process and observed that ‘it was not so much the methods per se, but the philosophy and guiding principles underpinning the transdisciplinary approach which were most useful in navigating their individual research processes’ (Van Breda et al., 2016, pp. 160–161). Incorporating the non-negotiables into regular research methods—such as interviews, participant observation, focus group discussions, document analysis—breathes into them the underlying philosophy of transdisciplinarity for transformation, and turns them into what we could call ‘transformative methods’. In the same vein, non-negotiables can also be applicable to one-off events, such as a focus group discussion, a multi-stakeholder event or a dialogue session. Chapter 7 in this volume shows examples of ways in which non-negotiables were enacted in dialogical space making.

5 Concluding Remarks

We started this chapter by asking ‘How can guidelines or standards be designed and used in a way that they do justice to open-ended nature of transdisciplinary processes, the fuzzy and political practice of doing transdisciplinarity, and provide guidance, while simultaneously embracing uncertainty?’. We have seen that guidelines or frameworks cannot be separated from the context in which they are employed. Scholars have argued for practice-based approaches or taking a ‘praxeological perspective’ (e.g. Lang et al., 2012, p. 27). Hence, paraphrasing Schön: ‘rather than asking how those practising transdisciplinary research might make better use of frameworks for such research, or how scholars of transdisciplinary research might make their theories and models more palatable to those practising it, we can consider these practitioners as causal inquirers in their own right and ask how a different kind of research might enhance the types of causal inquiry they conduct in their efforts to support transformation’ (1995, p. 96, cited in Laws & Hajer, 2008, p. 419). This has become a very relevant question for the practice of transdisciplinary research, especially since those new to the practice cannot be expected to have the required set of competences. And, more importantly, experience has shown that ‘sensitivity and experience are at least as important as methodological skills and competences’ (Regeer et al., 2011, p. 161): sensitivity to the fuzzy and cyclical nature of the transdisciplinary research, to the intangible aspects of the process, to the surrounding ecosystems and communities, to the chances and the obstacles that are specific to the situation, and to the project partners’ viewpoints.

We have seen that the ability of standards, or frameworks, to reduce uncertainties, create transparency and travel across different (academic or transdisciplinary) spaces is valued, but at the same time they are criticized for their simplification of reality. Used in a prescriptive manner, a linearity is presumed whereby transdisciplinary practices are designed according to the model, executed according to plan and hence evaluated. At the same time, we have illustrated that scholars have tried to incorporate the messiness of reality and the emergent nature of transdisciplinary approaches in multiple ways in design and evaluation frameworks. We have stressed that this is not enough; there is a need for ex durante reflexive governance of transdisciplinary practice providing in situ guidance to practitioners. This, we believe, also means that ex ante design frameworks and ex post evaluation frameworks, and the assumptions and values inscribed in them, themselves become an actor in the conversation (Martinell Barfoed, 2018, cited by Erisman, 2024); they are a materiality and as such are part of the messy entanglements that characterize transdisciplinary research practices.

In this chapter, we have introduced four non-negotiables that could help researchers by providing ‘just enough structure’: (1) acknowledging situatedness of transdisciplinary practice; (2) acknowledging pluralities of knowing: a mindset of curiosity; (3) keeping aspired transformation centre stage; and (4) stimulating action-learning spirals. We argued that engaging with these non-negotiables in practice requires capacity building, and we stressed that these non-negotiables can be deployed both in large consortia and demarcated spaces (such as Labs), as well as in one-off events and smaller research projects. We hope our work can provide guidance to researchers, and stimulate reflection on the role of design and evaluation frameworks.

5.1 Outline of Part I

Each of the chapters in this part, from the authors’ own experience, addresses one or more of the challenges outlined above. One common factor is that regardless of the ‘scale’ of the transdisciplinarity that is being practised, it is crucial to reflexively navigate the frameworks, so that these ‘structures’ help to realize the transformative and inclusive ambitions at play. All of these chapters also unravel the relationships between design and evaluation frameworks, and the intricate challenges and balancing acts transdisciplinary work poses for practitioners (see also Part II), as well as the roles and competences involved (see also Part III).

As we will see in all chapters, transdisciplinary practices are demarcated in one way or another, either by being defined as fundable projects (Gjefsen et al., this volume Chapter 4, Defila & Digiulio, this volume Chapter 5), or as real-world laboratories (Schäpke, this volume Chapter 6), or as communication spaces (Bruhn et al., this volume Chapter 7). Transdisciplinary practices can thus be seen as space making, which goes hand in hand with boundary setting. This boundary setting is amplified by funding requirements. With research endeavours (transdisciplinary or otherwise) being increasingly dependent on obtaining external, competitive funding, especially in Western Europe, much of transdisciplinary work takes place in the context of funded projects. While some funding requirements are becoming more favourable towards transdisciplinary research (Schneider et al., 2019a), the challenge of ‘predicting’ which activities to conduct during the duration of the project at the proposal stage is inherent to project funding, and specifically challenging for transdisciplinary research endeavours which are characterized by non-linearity and hence benefit from an emergent design approach. Moreover, project funding may lead to the so-called projectification of transformation efforts (e.g. Luger et al., 2023; Torrens & Von Wirth, 2021), leading to short-termism and undermining of transformative potential.

In Chapter 4, Gjefsen and colleagues reflect on the question of the plannability of transdisciplinary research processes from the perspective of participating in projects on research and innovation landscapes in relation to food and agriculture. They describe how considerations about fundability shaped project formulations and created path dependencies within the projects, affecting the transformation trajectories that were, or were not, pursued. The question then arises of how to plan ahead (at the project proposal stage) for transformative ambitions. They explore opportunities for a more ‘authentic and honest engagement with “transdisciplinarity for transformation” within the structures afforded by project-based funding’ and make the case for carving out more unstructured spaces for transdisciplinarity. From Chapter 4, it becomes clear that funding bodies play significant and powerful roles in driving the formation and ‘societal relevance’ of transdisciplinary projects (see also Fritz & Binder, 2020). Gjefsen and colleagues conclude that, transdisciplinary projects with transformative ambitions might not be ‘a matter of “planning then doing”, but rather a matter of “planning by doing”’. They make several recommendations to project coordinators and funders, as well as researchers and graduate students involved in transdisciplinary projects.

The observations in Chapter 4 beg more insight into funding practices, particularly the practices of setting assessment criteria and the conduct of review panels. This is exactly what Defila and Di Giulio set out to do in Chapter 5, where they present results of three case studies of the process of evaluating transdisciplinary research from a funders’ perspective (in particular Federal State Funding, and a corporate foundation). They make a plea to the scholarly community of transdisciplinary researchers to move from debating and designing increasingly sophisticated design/evaluation frameworks and focus instead on the process of evaluation itself and how this process could be designed. As ‘accompanying researchers’ they were tasked with contributing to developing quality criteria and improving the evaluation process.

In Chapter 6, Schäpke further elaborates on the role of accompanying research: research that researches and supports other research, for instance in Real-world Labs. Based on work of Defila and Di Giulio (2018), Schäpke sets out the different types of contributions that accompanying them can provide to other researchers, such as generating and integrating knowledge generation, as well as process-oriented contributions, for instance supporting research teams through counselling. If accompanying research seeks to contribute to transformative knowledge production, it subsequently also requires a ‘dynamically balanced, appropriately related and reflexive design’ (Schäpke, this volume). In Chapter 6, the complex relation between accompanying research and ‘evaluation’ also becomes apparent: though accompanying research supports reflexivity and self-assessment of those being supported through accompanying research, it does not provide a traditional evaluation, but it could serve as a ‘critical friend’. Through an empirical example on involvement in a co-creative reflection and dialogue space, this chapter highlights several balancing acts for accompanying researchers, and stresses the need for reflexivity in designing and doing accompanying research.

This relates, finally, to Chapter 7, in which Bruhn and colleagues reflect on their experiences with hosting Co-Creative Reflection & Dialogue Spaces at the 26th United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties (COP26) in Glasgow, inviting all COP26 participants to (spontaneously) engage in joint reflection and mutual learning on a range of topics. We learn about designing and hosting spaces for dialogical exchange and trust-building in a tense environment in which it is difficult for participants to openly engage with each other, which privileges one-way dissemination of knowledge and which is experienced as cold and unsafe. Chapter 7 provides an overview of specific challenges that hosts encountered when trying to provide and maintain a ‘safe enough’ atmosphere; that is, an atmosphere that allows participants to engage in conversation outside their usual comfort zone and disclose potential learning edges or vulnerabilities. Principles that were enacted include ‘listening to each other with compassion and curiosity’; ‘staying aware of the impact of our contributions to the circle’; and ‘suspending judgements, assumptions, and certainties’. Based on these hosting experiences and reflections, Chapter 7 gives concrete recommendations on how to design and host inclusive, safe enough spaces in not (yet) conducive contexts.