ITD24 Archive: Sessions 001-030

by Sierra Deutsch, Micah McCarty, C Ryan Qualls, Greg Urquhart, Annina Helena Michel, Rose Cecile Nelson, Anna Billeter, Norman Backhaus, Bettina Gutbrodt, Karina Liechti

How can transdisciplinary transformative change initiatives (TTCIs) be adapted to better address the global polycrisis of biodiversity loss, climate change, and intensifying social inequality? We suggest operationalizing critical social theory and centering Indigenous understandings of relationality and responsibility in co-productive collaborations aimed to (re)visibilize human interdependencies with each other and the rest of nature. We are a team of Indigenous stewardship specialists, academics, and Swiss nature conservation practitioners working on the coproduction of a novel adaptive transformative change approach that combines sustainability science, political ecology theory, and Indigenous and practitioner knowledge.

Although designed to initiate a “fundamental, system-wide reorganization across” society, “including paradigms, goals and values” (IPBES, 2019, p. XVIII), TTCIs rarely achieve the paradigmatic effects needed to address the polycrisis and two major critiques have been leveraged at practitioners and academics to explain why. The former are accused of creating apolitical solutions without incorporating theoretical lessons on the core causes of the polycrisis (Abson et al., 2017; Turnhout and Lahsen, 2022), while the latter are criticized for failing to translate theoretical knowledge into practical solutions (Chambers et al., 2022; Deutsch et al., 2023). Additionally, while some TTCIs have had success with redefining human-nature relations, the focus is usually on ‘reconnecting’ with (an external) nature (West et al., 2020), rather than on (re)visibilizing the inherent interdependencies emphasized by holistic worldviews. Finally, other TTCIs have engaged Indigenous perspectives, but often without an understanding of ontological politics, within the confines of conventional Western funding schemes, and/or too late in the process, resulting in problematic knowledge extraction or ancillary positioning of such perspectives (Lam et al., 2020; Latulippe and Klenk, 2020).

In our project, we counteract potential shortcomings of TTCIs by employing a project design that is groundbreaking in at least 3 ways: it (1) pairs the experiences and knowledge of Indigenous and non-Indigenous academics and practitioners from the outset to co-design practical solutions that address the polycrisis; (2) invites the intervention of Indigenous peoples in Western lands and practices, rather than the other way around (‘flip it’); and (3) aims to center holistic understandings of the world in dichotomous contexts (e.g. nature/culture) in order to reverse both the colonial flow of power/knowledge and the (imagined) disconnection among humans and the rest of nature (‘reverse it’). The project is carried out in three phases (Lang et al., 2012):

• Problem framing and team building

• Coproduction of generalized methods, practices, and protocols (MPPs) for (re)visibilizing socioecological connections, and a contextually adaptable prototype and assessment methods based on these MPPs for testing in a Swiss context in a follow-up stage

• Analysis and (re)integration and application of created knowledge

In this (ITD24) workshop, we present our initial findings from our first project workshop held in Switzerland in May 2024. We will explain our progress towards creating MPPs for (re)visibilizing socioecological connections, as well as our process of ‘flipping’ the intervenor/intervened relationship, and ‘reversing’ the colonial flow of knowledge and the disconnection of humans and the rest of nature. We will then work with participants to apply our lessons-learned to specific cases brought to us by participants.

Additionally, for sessions, workshops and trainings

Workshop objectives

• Testing methods, practices, and protocols (MPPs) for (re)visibilizing socioecological connections

• Exploring what it means to decolonize ITD research in different contexts, using specific cases

• Thinking through what it means to ‘(re)visibilize’ humans’ connections among each other and the rest of nature, and how this might change approaches to ‘reconnecting’ with nature

Proposed schedule

1. (0’-15’)  Introduction to the project/concept

2. (15’-30’)  Group designations and project selection

3. (30’-60’)  Application of concepts to the selected project

4. (60’-85’)  Plenary and synthesis

5. (85’-90’)  Wrap-up

Detailed Description

1. Introduction to the project/concept. We will provide information on the background of the project and the concept of (re)visibilizing human interdependencies with each other and the rest of nature through decolonizing transdisciplinary transformative change initiatives (TTCIs). We will then introduce the MPPs we developed in our May 2024 project workshop.

2. Group designations and project selection. Participants will be asked to form groups of 4-5 and share their current projects with each other. Each small group will then decide on one of their projects to use as a case study for the rest of the workshop.

3. Application of concepts to the selected project. Each group will then be instructed to apply the MPPs to help them think about what practical steps would be needed to ‘decolonize’ the chosen project, as well as to shift from a goal of reconnecting with nature to one of (re)visibilizing inherent interdependencies among humans and the rest of nature.

4. Plenary and synthesis. We will bring everyone back together in a plenary to discuss their experiences with applying the MPPs/concepts. For this discussion, we will offer guided questions such as:
   
   a. To what extent did you find the MPPs useful for your particular project? How could the MPPs be improved?
   b. What was a key realization for you during the workshop?
   c. To what extent do you think your plan to decolonize the project would be effective?
   d. What do you think are the key differences in approaches to ‘reconnect’ vs '(re)visibilize’ human connections with each other and the rest of nature?

5. Wrap-up. We will summarize the main findings and thank participants for their participation and insights.

Key readings (optional)

• Smith, C., Diver, S., Reed, R., 2023. Advancing Indigenous futures with two-eyed seeing: Strategies for restoration and repair through collaborative research. Environ. Plan. F 26349825221142292. https://doi.org/10.1177/26349825221142292

• Theriault, N., Leduc, T., Mitchell, A., Rubis, J.M., Jacobs Gaehowako, N., 2020. Living protocols: Remaking worlds in the face of extinction. Soc. Cult. Geogr. 21, 893–908. 10.1080/14649365.2019.1619821

• Whyte, K.P., Brewer, J.P., Johnson, J.T., 2016. Weaving Indigenous science, protocols and sustainability science. Sustain. Sci. 11, 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0296-6

• References cited

• Abson, D.J., Fischer, J., Leventon, J., Newig, J., Schomerus, T., Vilsmaier, U., Von Wehrden, H., Abernethy, P., Ives, C.D., Jager, N.W., 2017. Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio 46, 30–39. 10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y

• Chambers, J.M., Wyborn, C., Klenk, N.L., Ryan, M., Serban, A., Bennett, N.J., Brennan, R., Charli-Joseph, L., Fernández-Giménez, M.E., Galvin, K.A., 2022. Co-productive agility and four collaborative pathways to sustainability transformations. Glob. Environ. Chang. 72, 102422. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102422

• Deutsch, S., Keller, R., Krug, C.B., Michel, A.H., 2023. Transdisciplinary transformative change: An analysis of some best practices and barriers, and the potential of critical social science in getting us there. Biodivers. Conserv. 1–26. 10.1007/s10531-023-02576-0

• IPBES, 2019. UN Report: Nature’s Dangerous Decline ‘Unprecedented’; Species Extinction Rates ‘Accelerating.’ https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/nature-decline-unprecedented-report/ https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/nature-decline-unprecedented-report/

• Lam, D.P.M., Hinz, E., Lang, D., Tengö, M., Wehrden, H., Martín-López, B., 2020. Indigenous and local knowledge in sustainability transformations research: A literature review. Ecol. Soc. 25. 10.5751/ES-11305-250103

• Lang, D.J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., Swilling, M., Thomas, C.J., 2012. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain. Sci. 7, 25–43. 10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x

• Latulippe, N., Klenk, N., 2020. Making room and moving over: Knowledge co-production, Indigenous knowledge sovereignty and the politics of global environmental change decision-making. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 42, 7–14. 10.1016/j.cosust.2019.10.010

• Turnhout, E., Lahsen, M., 2022. Transforming environmental research to avoid tragedy. Clim. Dev. 1–5. 10.1080/17565529.2022.2062287

• West, S., Haider, L.J., Stålhammar, S., Woroniecki, S., 2020. A relational turn for sustainability science? Relational thinking, leverage points and transformations. Ecosyst. People 16, 304–325. 10.1080/26395916.2020.1814417

by Giulia Sonnetti

The complex challenges of today's world, including climate change, social inequality, and rapid urbanization, necessitate innovative educational approaches that transcend traditional disciplinary boundaries. This presentation explores a groundbreaking educational model implemented in the Interdisciplinary Project module for the 4th semester of the 2nd Undergraduate Degree in Design at IED, facilitated by Giulia Sonetti. It reflects on the integration of inter- and transdisciplinary (ITD) methods to cultivate future designers equipped to address these multifaceted challenges.

The Interdisciplinary Project module serves as a pioneering platform where students engage in design projects through an inter/transdisciplinary lens. This approach not only broadens their perspective but also enhances their capacity for creative problem-solving within complex socio-environmental contexts. The module's structure is informed by the principles of design thinking, emphasizing a process that is both a tool for creative thinking and a framework for organizing the design process.

A significant aspect of the module involves collaboration with external stakeholders, such as NGOs and industry partners, to work on real-world challenges. This collaboration is exemplified in the partnership with Schwalgien Yacht Design & Waterproof Consulting and Open Arms, aiming to introduce an NGO into the superyacht industry to foster awareness and long-term cooperation. Through this engagement, students learn to navigate the dynamics of client-supplier-collaborator relationships, thereby gaining insights into the practical aspects of design beyond the confines of the classroom.

The module's learning outcomes are directly aligned with the skills required for sustainability and design leadership, including market, societal, and technological analysis; strategic and innovative thinking; and the application of inter/transdisciplinary design projects. The methodology employed in the module—ranging from experiential exercises to creative prototyping and feedback incorporation—embodies the essence of ITD education by fostering a deep understanding of the interplay between design, society, and sustainability.

Drawing on insights from the ITD Alliance Workshop, this presentation will highlight the effectiveness of incorporating ITD methods in design education. The workshop underscored the critical need for academic structures that support the development of integration experts who can lead, monitor, and assess ITD projects. Through the lens of the Interdisciplinary Project module, we will explore practical interventions and strategies that facilitate the integration of ITD competencies in higher education, thereby preparing students to contribute meaningfully to sustainable development.

This case study exemplifies a transformative educational approach that not only equips students with the necessary skills to engage in ITD projects but also instills a sense of responsibility towards sustainability and social inclusion. By embedding ITD methods into the curriculum, the Interdisciplinary Project module at IED represents a forward-thinking model that bridges the gap between disciplinary silos, fostering a new generation of designers capable of addressing the complex challenges of our time with creativity, empathy, and a transdisciplinary mindset.

In conclusion, the presentation will propose recommendations for further integrating ITD methods into design education, inspired by the successes and lessons learned from the Interdisciplinary Project module. These insights are invaluable for educators, administrators, and policymakers aiming to enhance the relevance and impact of design education in addressing global sustainability challenges.

by Fátima Delgado Medina, Lina Paola Garzón, Juana Perlaza, Angela M. Díaz Marquez, Camilo Benítez Ávila

Abstract: This research delves into the challenges and potential of decolonial practices in transdisciplinary research, emphasizing the necessity to enhance the foundations of inter- and transdisciplinary and grow the capacity for such methodologies. It critically examines power dynamics and the opportunity for decolonial praxis within engineering and research. It advocates for equitable collaborations that engage diverse knowledge systems on the same foot and promote sustainable practices.

Scientific and Societal Problem: The structural unsustainability and power imbalances rooted in traditional engineering and research paradigms are critically evaluated. Decolonial thinkers argue that such paradigms perpetuate coloniality insofar as design and research practices exclude or undermine "ways of being" outside Western epistemological norms (Escobar, 2018; Quijano, 2000) This exclusion extends to indigenous populations and marginalized communities, often disregarding their self-determination and rights in the name of development (Smith, 2021).

Purpose: To develop a decolonial framework to address the power imbalance between different knowledge systems for equitable collaboration towards sustainable practices between the Global South and Globa Norht research projects.

Workshop Goals:

1. Understand decolonial narratives through storytelling.

2. Implement decolonial practices across different levels of research: researcher positionality, project/research agenda, and community reciprocity.

Research Process and Methods:

Employing participatory design methodologies, this research will empower marginalized communities to co-create solutions. It integrates decolonial theories with practical engineering approaches, challenging existing power structures and advocating epistemic justice through a conceptual framework addressing relationality and positionality in Global South research projects.

This involves critically examining and transforming the researcher's positionality and developing a conceptual framework for decolonial practices at four levels of relationality and positionality: researcher, research project/research agenda, community, and society in the Global South.

Expected Findings:

The workshop will showcase the transformative potential of decolonial practices for research projects in the Global South, highlighting case studies of community-engaged projects that have enhanced sustainability, social justice, and community empowerment.

Expected contribution:

The workshop will emphasize the importance of shifting researcher ontology and perception toward communities, highlighting the necessity of engaging with communities as research subjects and partners in a decolonial research process. It will call for a commitment to decolonial practices within engineering and research to align with social and environmental justice principles.

Description of the Session/Workshop Design:

The "Learnings from the South to North: The Decolonial Transdisciplinary Research Process in Latin America" workshop is a 90-minute interactive session to engage participants in critical discussions and practical exercises. It will feature a brief presentation on decolonial theory and case studies, followed by group activities encouraging participants to apply decolonial lenses to their work. The session aims to facilitate a profound reflection on personal and institutional practices, enabling the development of actionable strategies for incorporating decolonial approaches in engineering and research.

The workshop design is based on the following theories:

• a. Decolonial Options and Challenges: This chapter explores the "Buen Vivir" philosophy as a foundational shift in societal values towards communal well-being and environmental stewardship. It challenges traditional development paradigms and advocates a socio-biocentric development model (Gudynas, 2011; Walsh, 2010).

• b. Unveiling the Impact: It addresses the need for a better balance between community visions and academic research agendas, advocating for systemic change within academic and professional institutions to recognize and support decolonial practices.

The workshop structure is as follows:

• 1. Part 1 - Dancing Icebreaker (5 minutes): Expand the narrative connection between Ghana and Colombia, and by extension, Africa and Latin America, through a storytelling session that explores the shared colonial history and the role of slave trade triangulation. Introduce music as a symbol of unity and resistance, inviting participants to share their cultural experiences or songs representing their history or current social struggles. This sets a tone of shared humanity and interconnected histories.

• 2. Part 2 - Presentation of Workshop & Case Studies Videos (10 minutes): Dive deeper into the conceptual framework by linking decolonial theory directly to practical examples from the case studies. For each case (Colombia, Galápagos, MOVE Gaming Project – Ecuador & Costa Rica), provide a brief overview of the community engagement process, the challenges faced, and the decolonial strategies applied. Use multimedia elements such as videos or interactive maps to give a vivid sense of the communities and landscapes involved.

• 3. Part 3—Group Activity: Scanning the Room (Individual Mind mapping) (5 minutes): Use an interactive silent activity to scan and observe the experiences with traditional and participatory research methods. After gathering responses, facilitate a quick reflection on the diversity of practices and the potential gaps between researcher intentions and community perceptions.

• 4. Part 4 - Decolonial Lenses Exploration - Free Group Work (30 minutes): Break down this session into smaller, focused discussions on each level of decolonial transdisciplinary lenses (Mindset, Project, Community Relationship, and Systems of Knowledge). Use case studies as a base for participants to identify and discuss specific instances where decolonial practices could be integrated or where colonial dynamics were challenged. Encourage the unrestricted use of different materials (e.g., flip charts, painting, modeling clay, magazines, mindmaps, free writing techniques, music, poetry) to articulate and embody the free expression of emotions, thoughts, and statements to answer each praxis level. Decolonial lens exploration operates at three levels; groups will choose only one level for discussion.

• 4.a. The praxis reflection exercise at the individual level is "First level – Decolonial Mindset": What is my level of decolonial perspective in these case studies regarding my mindset and positionality as a researcher, and how do I become aware of this? (i.e., When social research is applied, I view the other not as a subject but as an object of research. When I work with a community and think of it as an object of research, I need to quantify it by categories. Be conscious of ingrained prejudices that dismiss others as "less developed" in your concept of progress).

• 4.b.The praxis reflection exercise at the project level is: Second level – Decolonial Project: What are my decolonial lenses on these case studies regarding my positionality and predominant system knowledge towards the project? (i.e., when I designed "here in the Netherlands," it led to asymmetrical relations or disregarded locals' best interests. Acknowledge that knowledge is for "someone" and is not free from interests/historical circumstances.)

• 4.c.The praxis reflection exercise at the community level is the third level—Decolonial Community Relationship: What are my decolonial lenses on these case studies regarding my positionality and predominant system knowledge regarding my relationship with the community? ( i.e., I take seriously the knowledge and ways of living of people, local communities, and local professionals. Self-implicate (also in harm) in participatory design processes with the knowledge and life of the (historically colonized) other).

• 5. Part 5—Discussion Round and Wrap-Up (20 minutes): Implement a meditation closure by guiding participants through a reflective exercise centered on empathy, understanding, and commitment to action. Prompt participants to think about how they can carry the insights from the workshop into their research practices. Conclude with a collective affirmation or commitment statement crafted by the group, emphasizing the move towards more equitable and just research methodologies.

• 6. Part 6 - Conclusion (10 minutes): Summarize key insights and encourage participants to consider how they can apply decolonial perspectives in their work. Discuss the concept of permeable positionalities and the importance of engaging with communities as research subjects and partners. Highlight the necessity of challenging one's positionality and power structures within academia and research. Invite participants to commit to one action or change they will implement in their work to support decolonial practices.

This enriched workshop design aims to create a dynamic and participatory experience that imparts knowledge and empowers participants to critically engage with and apply decolonial methodologies in their research practices.

Key Readings:

• Castro-Gómez, S., & Grosfoguel, R. (2007); Escobar, A. (2015); Smith, L. T. (2021).

by Kristina Bogner, Femke Coops, Jonas Torrens, Timo von Wirth, Joost Vervoort, Timothy Stacey, Caroline Hummels, Josephine Chambers, Erin Quigey, Jesse Hoffman, Flor Avelino, Julia Wittmayer, Barbara Kump, Carien Mossdorff, Dan Lockton

Transition scholars are increasingly confronted with overwhelming emotions in and around transformative change. Be this in class, when students express eco-anxiety and how this freezes their ability to engage in sustainability transitions (Pihkala 2020a), emotions related to researching climate change up until traumatic experiences (Pihkala 2020b), or emotions of the societal groups they are engaging with (Bogner et al. 2024, Quigley 2023). It becomes clear that we shape transformations as much as we are shaped by them (Vaughn et al. 2021), which is why the sustainability transitions research (STR) community increasingly calls for investigating ‘transitions in everyday life’ (Köhler et al. 2019), where emotions are an undeniable part of meaning-making (e.g., Bogner et al. 2024, Feola and Jaworska 2019, Coops et al. 2024, Martiskainen and Sovacool 2021).

However, our current ways of researching, teaching, and living in and with transformations might not be sufficiently explored to engage with the emotional dimensions of these transformations beyond researching discrete emotions from a distance. One of the reasons is the active academic disengagement with transformations, that is, approaching and researching them as if we were not part of society or unfolding transformations, closely related to Haraway’s god trick of “seeing everything from nowhere” (Haraway 1988, p. 581).

Explicitly embracing this, in this project, we argue that the only way of understanding and acting within these transformations is by acknowledging our deep entanglements with transformations, which is what Blanche Verlie (2022) calls ´living-with´. This means paying attention to the intimate ways we are enmeshed with transformations (Verlie 2022) and cultivating the emotional capacities and affordances required for ‘living-with’ transformations. Living-with involves "the cultivation of appropriate ways of relating to and engaging that world" (p. 114) - and "continuing to act for a future which is desirable despite being different" (p. 114). Describing transformations as ‘living-with’ allows us to see and experience them as “patterns of affect; as flows of feeling; as repertoires of relating; as a sensational phenomenon; as multispecies enmeshment” (Verlie 2022, p. 6). To cultivate collective action, we need to understand how we as humans are ‘living-with’ transformations. And for this, we need to afford emotions.

That´s why we ask:

How do we, as transition and transformation scholars in our varieties of roles, experience emotions when ‘living with’ transformations? How do these emotions move or stop us from ‘acting-with’ transformations?

In order to explore these questions, we engage in a collective auto-ethnographic process (Chang et al. 2016) for encountering, witnessing and storying transformations individually and collectively with stakeholders. From this study, we develop a ‘cultural probe for engaging with emotions in transformative change’, that is a toolbox for scholars, students and societal stakeholders that can help them to collectively afford their emotions and meaning-making of the deep changes, thereby ‘living-with’ climate change.

by Ina Opitz, Sorka Tzschabran

Co-design in transdisciplinary research projects (Jahn et al. 2012) is associated with various challenges for the actors involved. The different interests and perspectives of the scientific actors as well as the practitioners should be uncovered and integrated to develop a common transdisciplinary research question. Here, Pearce and Ejderyan (2020) distinguish between (a) content-oriented and (b) process-oriented challenges.

As support to meet challenges at the beginning of a transdisciplinary collaboration, such as (a) inclusion and visualization of different perspectives on a topic or (b) establishing a good quality of communication, we, the TD-Lab of the Berlin University Alliance, have developed the TransImpro workshop format. This applies improvisational theater techniques to reveal and integrate the plurality of perspectives, expertise, personal references and values of the participants. Using exercises adapted from improvisational theatre, participants are encouraged to draw out their respective implicit knowledge through associations and enter into lively interaction with each other. Central to this is the positive reference to others inherent in improvisational theatre through the basic attitude and application of the initial sentence "Yes, and ..." (Richter 2022). This communication emphasizes and acknowledges the strengths of each other while building onto another person’s storytelling. Besides, improvisation requires active listening and can thereby enhance collaborative working.

Our 90-minute training at ITD 2024 will introduce the TransImpro workshop format with its aims, methods and results. Above all, participants will be given the opportunity to experience the potential of improvisational theatre for transdisciplinary by means of a practical exercise.

After a short introduction to the TransImpro workshop format, the participants will get to know and use the improvisation technique collaborative storytelling with "Yes, and ...". After this, participants will reflect on their experiences in relation to the question of what improvisational theatre can achieve in the co-design phase of transdisciplinary research and on conclusions they can draw for their own research.

• Jahn, T. / Bergmann, M./ Keil. F. (2012) Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization. In: Ecological Economics, 79, 1-10.

• Pearce, B.J./ Ejderyan, O. (2020): Joint problem framing as reflexive practice: honing a transdisciplinary skill. In: Sustainability Science, 15, 683 – 698.

• Richter, D. (2022): Improvisationstheater. Band 1: Die Grundlagen. Theater der Zeit, Berlin.

by Michael Y. Schakelaar, Annemieke Maas, Floris A. Valentijn, Marco van Brussel, Maria A. Hegeman, Willemijn D. Schot, Wim J.A.G. Dictus, Emma W. Pijnappel, Heggert G. Rebel, Jan Meeldijk, Thijs Koorman, Sandra Crnko, Florian Verbeek, Roos de Jonge, Toine ten Broeke, Gonul Dilaver, Stefan M. van Geelen, Annet van Royen-Kerkhof, Niels Bovenschen

Challenge

Translational medicine (TM) is an interdisciplinary branch of biomedicine that bridges the gap between (fundamental) biomedical research and patients from bench-to-bedside1,2. The goal of TM is to improve global health by combining disciplines, resources, expertise, and techniques in biomedicine. Fundamental TM skills include interdisciplinary collaboration, communication, critical thinking, and creative problem-solving (so-called 4C’s)1,2. TM is currently limited in undergraduate (bio)medical education programs -which are mainly designed towards educating future professionals- with limited opportunities for collaboration between disciplines. In this study, we aimed to develop a novel interdisciplinary challenge-based educational concept, grounded in the theoretical framework of research-based education, to implement TM in undergraduate (bio)medical education.

Methods

Medicine and biomedical students were introduced to an authentic clinical problem through an interdisciplinary session with patients, medical doctors, scientists and other (extra-)academic stakeholders. Next, students collaborated in mixed groups to design unique laboratory-based research proposals addressing this problem. Finally, the best proposal was executed hands-on by mixed student teams in a consecutive interdisciplinary laboratory course. For this, we founded the Bachelor Research Hub, a dedicated wet laboratory within the UMC Utrecht where students can do biomedical research together with researchers, medical doctors, and patients. Written questionnaires and focus groups were used to evaluate the efficacy of the educational concept on student perception on learning, especially regarding the 4C’s and student motivation.

Results

Evaluation results revealed that students found that they developed 4C skills and acquired a 4C mindset. Working on an authentic patient case positively contributed to communication, critical thinking and creative problem-solving skills. Working in an interdisciplinary setting helped students to develop collaboration and communication skills. Furthermore, students were motivated by (i) the relevance of their work that made them feel taken seriously and competent, (ii) the patient involvement that highlighted the societal relevance of their work, and (iii) the acquisition of a realistic view of science.

Discussion

We have showcased a widely applicable challenge-based undergraduate (laboratory) concept fostering TM in education that positively stimulates the development of 4C skills. Students find working on an authentic patient case and interdisciplinary working motivating because they feel competent, they feel taken seriously, and they understand the social relevance better. Additionally, in the laboratory course, medical students were motivated by the technical skills and biomedical knowledge of biomedical students, while biomedical students valued the clinical perspective of the medicine students. The concept allows further upscaling towards a Student Research HUB network with larger variety of disciplines and students.

References

• Bovenschen N, et al. Towards Bachelor Research Hub networks to foster transdisciplinary challenge-based education in Translational Medicine | Nature Portfolio Bioengineering Community. (2021)

• https://bioengineeringcommunity.nature.com/posts/towards-bachelor-research-hub-networks-to-foster-transdisciplinary-challenge-based-education-in-translational-medicine

• Drost RH, et al. How a four-year-old boy connects healthcare, biomedical research and undergraduate education. Nat Biotechnol. 2019;37(9):1092‐1095. doi:10.1038/s41587-019-0245-5

by Vermeire Zwoi, Jessica Oudenamosen and Jael Draijer

In this session we will discuss how an interdisciplinary culture is reflected among the students, teachers and staff at Utrecht University. Three separate empirical research projects will be presented, and a discussion will be facilitated to compare and contrast these findings with other (monodisciplinary) educational contexts. For this discussion, we have invited several experts in the research field as a discussion panel, including Katrine Lindvig. With this session we aim to facilitate an insightful exchange that will help attendees understand how interdisciplinary educational cultures develop at Utrecht University and other higher education institutions.

Although Utrecht University has a longer history of creating interdisciplinary education, it has only recently again been fore fronted as an important strategical goal. Reasons mentioned for desiring ‘more and better’ interdisciplinary education include, for example, how it might aid students in addressing complex societal problems, such as climate change and migration. In line with this strategic aim, Utrecht University has endeavoured to promote the development and maintenance of interdisciplinary education through funding programmes for educational innovation and professionalisation. However, for a university with a mostly disciplinary organisational structure and tradition, setting up interdisciplinary education necessitates major changes in the following areas:

• governance structures,

• teaching roles and skills,

• student expectations and learning.

Research has shown that in order to achieve sustainable interdisciplinary education, a holistic cultural change is required, with recognition and appreciation of interdisciplinary education in many aspects (Cai, 2017; Klein, 2009). In other words, we adopt this idea of an ‘interdisciplinary culture’ in an attempt to go beyond research that looks at a shift towards interdisciplinary education as one course, minor or degree and its impact on either teachers, students or managers. Instead, we want to take a broader perspective on how interdisciplinary education is (not) developed and sustained within a university at these different levels. Moreover, by examining what an interdisciplinary culture entails, we hope to understand how Utrecht University aims to change its educational structure in such a way that interdisciplinary education can become more than a trendy buzzword of the 2020s but an integral part of the university’s educational structures. This session will explore this cultural shift from three perspectives: organisational perspective, teacher perspective and student perspective.

To study interdisciplinary culture from a governance perspective within the broader organisation, Zowi Vermeire conducted an organisational ethnography of three projects within Utrecht University that aim to implement (more) interdisciplinary education. She specifically looked at these projects through the lens of pedagogical governance: the ways in which the university structures, recognizes and values education. Such a perspective has enabled us to analyse how social relations and infrastructures are or are not changing around a cultural transition towards (more) interdisciplinary education. At the same time, this perspective has enabled us to look at who is (held) responsible and given power for such (lack of) changes. In other words, this research maps a cultural shift towards (more) interdisciplinary education by paying specific attention to the underlying, normative ideas about the educational role of the university.

To explore teachers’ perspectives on interdisciplinarity and to investigate the facilitators and barriers teachers perceive in obtaining an interdisciplinary culture among their colleagues and within their discipline, Jessica Oudenampsen conducted a vignette study at Utrecht University. Based on an exploratory survey study several vignettes have been created, to study; 1) What stimulates or hampers teachers to teach or develop interdisciplinary education at UU, 2) What actions or changes would help to overcome these barriers, and 3) What actions or changes would help to make the interdisciplinary culture more prevalent among colleagues. By analysing the results, Oudenampsen was able to map what is needed for teachers to be able to implement interdisciplinary education and to create an interdisciplinary culture amongst colleagues and within their discipline.

To explore students’ perspectives on interdisciplinarity, Jael Draijer has interviewed students from diverse disciplinary backgrounds at Utrecht University about their views on interdisciplinary education. At Utrecht University, much of the interdisciplinary education is set up as optional minors and courses (i.e., electives), which means that students have to actively choose to pursue this type of education in their elective spaces. Most of the students that were interviewed had no previous experience with interdisciplinary education and had different interpretations of the term. While some were interested in the idea of interdisciplinarity, most explicitly linked their choice of minor to their future educational choices (i.e., which minor will I need to get into my chosen Masters programme?) and hence did not prioritise interdisciplinary education in their choices.

Bringing together the insights from these three separate empirical studies, we present overarching themes relating to the development of an interdisciplinary culture, e.g., commonalities and differences in the way interdisciplinarity is understood at different levels in the organisation. Furthermore, we have identified key opportunities and barriers towards creating and sustaining an interdisciplinary educational culture at a traditionally disciplinary organised university. By providing a discussion with participants from different backgrounds and different universities, using our research results obtained from different perspectives, we aim to place our results in a broader context so that both we and the participants will obtain useful insights about developing and sustaining interdisciplinary cultures at traditionally disciplinary-organised universities.

Session design

During the session, the researchers will present their research in an integrated way, by highlighting themes that emerged from the three studies (15 min). After that, the panellists will react on the results from their own (interdisciplinary) perspectives (15 min). After these introductions, we will start a discussion about fostering interdisciplinary cultures at universities across the globe, and possible consequences that emerge from the results (30 min).

by Flore Nonchez, Maryline Crivello

Aix-Marseille University is a multidisciplinary university, with a variety of interdisciplinary programs and projects in research and education supported since 2012. Despite a series of successes and achievements supported by the "excellence initiative" label awarded to our University, in 2020 the newly-elected governance came to the realization that pushing interdisciplinarity further required a more proactive and encompassing approach to promote lasting change. Indeed, a political and strategic undertaking still lacked to give substance to this cross-cutting priority as a whole, through a genuine mainstreaming approach enabling Aix-Marseille University to capitalize on its multi-disciplinary potential in interdisciplinary production and community of practices.

Therefore, on the basis of an in-depth inventory and consultation with the actors, together with an international comparative analysis of governance models, a new Mission for Inter- and Transdisciplinarity was launched in 2021 with four strategic objectives. We will present this benchlearning, the Mission’s four objectives and their applications at this conference, in an attempt to identify the (replicable) keys to success of an institutional strategic approach to interdisciplinarity. We believe our prime ambition to address these four complementary objectives simultaneously at an institutional level, down to the operational level, i.e. from supporting implementation to gaining visibility (far from buzzwords and interdisciplinary washing) makes our approach quite relevant and efficient.

This is a pilot mission and a unique initiative among French universities, launched and carried out with the support of CNRS and IRD, two national research organizations at the forefront of interdisciplinary approaches and sustainability sciences. Aix-Marseille University therefore works together with these partners and benefits from their expertise in inter- and transdisciplinary research, while also tackling the challenges of interdisciplinarity in higher education. The level of achievement of the Mission’s goals is measured yearly, with a more detailed review after 3 years, in a "reflexive" perspective inspired by the quality approach. The Mission for Inter- and Transdisciplinarity thus aims to transform reality as much as to produce and disseminate knowledge about these transformations, thanks to its evaluative workstream. As Kurt Lewin wrote: "If you really want to understand something, try to change it." The issue of structural obstacles to interdisciplinarity is indeed as complex as it is fundamental: addressing it demands willpower, boldness, creativity and resources (in terms of time, HR and funding).

Thanks to the "learn by doing" approach enabled by this full-scale implementation, we will share with the conference’s audience how the Mission boosted interdisciplinary change in the last 3 years, what challenges we faced (trying to distinguish between those linked to the particularities of French universities and those that are generic obstacles to interdisciplinary transformation) and how we intend to overcome them in the coming years, in order to further support cultural change and spread interdisciplinary innovation within our University.

By Brian Murray Belcher

Appropriate definitions and measures of quality are needed to guide research design and evaluation. Traditional disciplinary research is built on well-established methodological and epistemological principles and practices. Disciplines have their own evaluation criteria and processes in which research quality is often narrowly defined, with emphasis on scientific excellence and scientific relevance. Emerging transdisciplinary approaches are highly context specific and problem oriented, they integrate disciplines and include societal actors in the research process. Standard research assessment criteria are simply inadequate for evaluating change-oriented transdisciplinary research (TDR), and inappropriate use of standard criteria may disadvantage TDR proposals and impede the development of TDR. There is a need for a parallel evolution of principles and criteria to define and evaluate research quality in a TDR context.

In 2015, we developed a TDR quality assessment framework consisting of twenty-five criteria organized under four principles. Since that time, the literature on TDR and TDR assessment has grown, other TDR research assessment frameworks have been published and tested, and we have further tested and refined our own assessment framework. This talk will present the underlying principles and approach of the TDR Quality Assessment Framework and review lessons learned from testing the framework in evaluations of several completed research for development projects. It will then review two other frameworks in use: RQ+ and the CGIAR Quality of Research for Development Framework.

Based on this, we have developed a revised version of the assessment framework and the scoring system. The revised principles are:

1. Relevance. The importance, significance, and usefulness of the research problem(s), objectives, processes, and findings to the problem context (6 criteria);

2. Credibility. The research findings are robust and the sources of knowledge are dependable (12 criteria).

3. Legitimacy. The research process is perceived as fair and ethical (4 criteria).

4. Positioning for Use. The research process is designed and managed to enhance sharing, uptake, and use of research outputs and stimulates actions that address the problem and contribute to solutions (7 criteria).

The main changes from the original version are in: the definition and naming of the fourth principle (from “Effectiveness” to “Positioning for Use”); filling gaps, eliminating overlap and refining definitions in individual criteria; replacing rubric statements with guidance notes. The QAF is designed for a range of users, including: research funders and research managers assessing proposals; researchers designing, planning, and monitoring a research project; and research evaluators assessing projects ex post. We present the key components of the revised framework and describe how to apply it.

by Lukas Guyer, Christian Erik Pohl

The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that processes of knowledge exchange between researchers and policymakers present various challenges (i.e., lack of institutions, routines and trust). These challenges partially result from the nature of wicked societal problems such as pandemics or climate change that involve a lot of scientific uncertainty, expert disagreement and political contestation. Professionals who design and implement science-policy interactions face the challenge of selecting suitable formats to facilitate knowledge exchange under those conditions. Despite the acknowledged need for innovative co-productive formats to address wicked societal problems, linear formats persist in practice.

The study systematically categorizes science-policy interaction activities into distinct formats. The proposed typology differentiates between different actor constellations (Who is involved?), the function of the format (What is the aim?), the degree of co-production and transparency (How is the process?). For each format we describe aspects relevant for carrying it out, including specific strengths, resources needed, sub-activities, possible impact pathways and considerations for implementation.

The systematization helps to structure these activities, identify recurring patterns among them and foster cross-learning among organizers of different formats. Another aim of the systematization is to make innovative approaches available to a broader audience. For practitioners at the science-policy interface, the systematization serves as a tool for evaluating and optimizing existing formats or developing new ones.

We draw on cases of science-policy activities in Switzerland and Finland, covering diverse formats such as round tables, workshops, fora, fellowship programs and funding programs. Desktop research and semi-structured interviews with the organizers are used to analyse those activities.

The presentation addresses the enhancing the theoretical foundations of inter- and transdisciplinary stream of the conference. We present our framework, the systematized formats as well as first learnings from our own piloting of those formats. We thereby aim to share both theoretical as well as practical insights into the specific challenges and possible methodological solutions of the science-policy interface to the ITD community.

by Stefania Munaretto, Arvid van Dam, Lisa Andrews, Raül Glotzbach, Caro Mooren

The inherent complexity of sustainability challenges calls for the collaboration among scientific disciplines and between science and society to co-create knowledge and solutions. Inter- and transdisciplinary (ITD) research methods and tools have gained significant attention as a means to bridge disciplinary boundaries and foster collaboration within research processes aiming for societal impact. However, organizing impact-driven ITD research programs remains a challenge, due to the complexity of the sustainability problems and the need of integrating different types of knowledge and disciplines. One tool often employed in ITD research is the Theory of Change (ToC). Traditionally used for ex-post impact evaluation, a ToC has the potential to guide the design of impact-driven ITD programs, yet its application in this context is relatively unexplored. This paper illustrates and reflects on the process of collaboratively designing an ITD research program using a ToC, thus contributing to the theory and practice of ITD research. The ToC approach was implemented in the Joint Research Program of the Dutch and Flemish drinking water sector for the period 2024-2029. The drinking water sector increasingly faces societal responsibilities encompassing a broad range of interconnected sustainability challenges associated with drinking water production. In response, Dutch water utilities and one Flemish utility have been transitioning towards more impact-oriented research. In 2021, a two-year co-creation process involving ITD researchers, program managers and water utility professionals was initiated to redesign the Joint Research Program, which undergoes renewal every six years. The result of the process is a program ToC with short and long-term outcomes and pathways to 7 types of impact (health; environmental; economic; scientific and technological; political; social and cultural; and educational) that inform the identification of the program’s research themes and research lines. In our presentation, we will illustrate the iterative co-creation process, reflect on its challenges and lessons learned, and discuss future developments for monitoring and evaluation of the program. In so doing, we present a comprehensive approach to using ToC, how it can contribute to impact-driven ITD research, and the process of fostering impact-awareness among researchers and professionals.

by Isabel Fletcher, Giovanna de Moura Rocha Lima, Doireann Wallace

The Horizon 2020 funded SHAPE-ID project (Shaping Interdisciplinary Research in Europe) addressed the challenge of how to strengthen the integration of the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences in inter- and transdisciplinary research. In June 2021, the project’s online toolkit was launched. This web-based toolkit was designed to provide guidance for those engaged in or supporting inter- and transdisciplinary research: researchers, research performing organisations, research policymakers and funders, and societal partners.

SHAPE-ID’s funding ended in October 2021 but interest in our toolkit remains high, and project members continue to use its resources in their daily work to help grow the capacity for inter- and transdisciplinarity, including through the work of the ITD Alliance Toolkits and Methods Working Group. The continuing use of our resource illustrates the importance of institutionalising inter- and transdisciplinary research within universities and other higher education institutions.

In this short video we focus on the vital role that research professionals play in capacity building and talk to two former project members, Dr Doireann Wallace, Senior Interdisciplinary Research Funding Specialist, Trinity College Dublin and Dr Giovanna de Moura Rocha Lima Impact Officer at Eramus University, Rotterdam. We ask them about the ways in which they promote best practice in the conduct of inter- and transdisciplinary research using the Toolkit, and what further resources are needed to improve the support they provide to researchers and other research professionals.

by Benjamin Hofmann, Ueli Reber, Priska Ammann, Julia Doetzer, Jennifer Mark, Chloe McCallum, Milena Wiget, Lucca Zachmann

Studying complex sustainability transformations on multiple levels (Abson et al., 2017; Geels, 2002) requires interdisciplinary research as “a mode of research by teams or individuals that integrates perspectives/concepts/theories, and/or tools/techniques, and/or information/data from two or more bodies of specialized knowledge or research practice” (Porter, 2006, p. 189). A persistent challenge in collaborative interdisciplinary research is that researchers need to understand how their own disciplinary research connects to research in other disciplines less familiar to them in terms of concepts and methods (Klein, 2005). Mixed methods literature has outlined possible combinations of qualitative and quantitative research methods (Johnson et al., 2007; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004), which have been specified and applied in fields such as agri-food research (Akimowicz et al., 2018; Strijker et al., 2020). Inter- and transdisciplinary research literature has identified integrative methods at different research stages, from conceptualization to synthesis (Bergmann et al., 2013; Hoffmann et al., 2017). More recently, scholars have explored the space in between these two streams with respect to systematizing interdisciplinary method combinations and collaborations in the research process (Kinnebrew et al., 2021).

In this paper, we develop a typology of interdisciplinary collaborations at different stages of the research process that shall support the implementation of such collaborations on project level. The typology seeks to systematize the thinking about interdisciplinary collaborations by identifying options for combining research from different disciplines to achieve interdisciplinary integration throughout the research process. We propose a parsimonious typology distinguishing three types of interdisciplinary collaborations: (1) common base, (2) common destination, and (3) sequential link. Common base refers to an interdisciplinary collaboration at one stage (e.g., data collection) that separates into parallel disciplinary work at the next stage (e.g., analysis). Common destination denotes a collaboration where separate disciplinary work at one stage (e.g., analysis) feeds into joint interdisciplinary work at the next stage (e.g., interpretation). Sequential link means that one completed stage of disciplinary research (e.g., analysis) provides the basis for a research stage in another discipline (e.g., operationalization).

We empirically illustrate the typology with a case study of interdisciplinary collaborations in a four-year research project that studies the potential for an evidence-based sustainability transformation of pesticide governance and use in the agri-food sector. The researchers in this project, who come from seven natural, health, and social science disciplines, developed a process that has supported formation and continuity of interdisciplinary collaborations to investigate interactions between evidence, actor preferences, and policy/practice decisions. We present selected examples of different types from a total of five interdisciplinary collaborations in the project, explaining their practical implementation, contribution to overall research goals, and challenges encountered. Our empirical examples show that the typology can be a starting point for critical reflection about interdisciplinary research design and implementation that could be valuable for other project contexts too. We conclude that the typology allows for deriving lessons that can inform future interdisciplinary projects aimed at delivering new insights into transformation processes in the agri-food sector and beyond.

by Christian Pohl, Philipp Lischer, Tim Geiges, Silvia Tobias

The project “Juarpark Aargau as a Real-world lab for Sustainable Development” is funded by ETH domain to strengthen engagement and dialogue of ETH domain researchers with partners from civil society, the private and the public sector. The project’s aim is that residents of Jurapark Aargau and ETH domain researchers jointly identify sustainability challenges and explore measures to address them in real-world experiments. We understand “experiments” in a broad sense as “jointly developing and exploring measures to strengthen sustainable development of the Jurapark region”.

The Jurapark Aargau is a regional nature park in a peri-urban and rural area. Regional nature parks must balance nature conservation and regional economic development. In the Jurapark Aargau, 55’000 residents live on an area of 299 km2, organised in 31 municipalities. Municipali-ties become members of the Jurapark by public vote.

We used the first year of the three-year project exclusively for joint problem framing. The first challenge was to identify topics to start with. Suitable topics had to match (a) ETH domain’s ex-pertise, (b) the strategic planning of Jurapark and (c) Jurapark residents’ interest. Based on Ju-rapark’s survey among community mayors, intensive discussions in the project team and with the project’s Steering Board, we selected “Water management”, “Climate adaptation”, “Sus-tainable development of municipalities” and “Circular economy” as starting topics.

For each topic, we have used our approach to joint problem framing. It takes residents and re-searchers in three workshops of 2h over a period of 4-6 months from the first encounter to teams that want to explore real-world experiments. Workshops usually bring together 15-25 participants, a mix of researchers and municipal councils, farmers, local companies, NGO repre-sentatives, and cantonal authorities. To make residents feel safe, we schedule the workshops on workdays between 16-18h after work and before dinner and in local facilities. We offer coffee and cake for those who come early and end the workshop with an Apéro with regional products. In the workshops we combine methods of soft systems methodology, design thinking and knowledge co-production. The first workshop served to develop rich pictures of the current situation and to identify points to intervene within the pictures. In the second workshop these points for interventions were developed into concrete measures, which were then ranked. In the third workshop, highly ranked measures were developed to real-world experiments.

We will present and discuss (a) the design of the overall problem framing approach and of the three workshops, (b) pathways that topics took over the process and (c) our underlying theory of change and our measures of success. Furthermore, we will link the pathways that the topics took over the process of problem framing with the expertise and interest of researchers and residents who worked on them.

by Nepantlera G. Amaris

This paper presents a critical examination of the contemporary academic environment, highlighting the profound disconnection between the foundational aspirations of academia and the prevailing systemic challenges that undermine its potential for societal transformation. Drawing from a survey sent to 100 ITD scholars working across Europe, it presents deep insights into the world of concerns of academics who are deeply committed to leveraging their work for societal betterment yet find themselves constrained by a neoliberal academic system characterized by precarious working conditions, unrealistic workloads, and a counterproductive emphasis on quantitative metrics of success.

The paper underscores the urgent need for academia to realign its practices with its core values of curiosity, freedom, and societal impact, advocating for a paradigm shift towards inter- and transdisciplinary collaborations that transcend traditional academic boundaries and foster meaningful engagement with societal stakeholders. It proposes educational pathways that prioritize creativity, curiosity-driven research, and the holistic valuation of teaching and learning processes. The envisioned transformation calls for abandoning the prevailing publish-or-perish mentality, rejecting extractivist knowledge production, and cultivating long-term, transformative partnerships with societal actors. This paper argues that such a shift is not only critical for revitalizing the academic vocation but is also essential for addressing the complex challenges facing our world today, ultimately suggesting that the future of academia—and by extension, societal progress—depends on our collective ability to foster a more inclusive, collaborative, and impact-oriented academic culture.

The results of this work are presented in a transformative transdisciplinary way.

by Hernán Bobadilla, Chris Hesselbein, Federico Lampis, Silvia Peppoloni, Giuseppe Di Capua

The ‘EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change’ has four main objectives: to make adaptation smarter, faster, more systemic, and to step up international actions for climate resilience. However, there is a tension between the necessity for fast adaptation and the challenge of implementing systemic changes, which require slower, more deliberative negotiations, and debate. This tension is particularly pertinent for the integration of local knowledge into adaptation strategies, which has only recently been acknowledged by the latest IPCC reports and EU climate policies. The integration of local knowledge in policymaking has a direct impact on epistemic justice, which is a principle that ensures fair and equal representation and participation in processes of knowledge production among diverse stakeholders.

In this paper, we propose and justify a process indicator for integrating local knowledge into EU policymaking that seeks to advance epistemic justice in processes of climate adaptation. The indicator is designed to overcome weaknesses in the EU Adaptation Strategy and to close gaps in the European Commission Better Regulations Toolbox through coordination with territorial and local stakeholders. The indicator aims to advance epistemic justice along three main dimensions, namely distributive, participatory, and recognitional epistemic justice. As a regulatory tool, the indicator consists of a checklist to assess and evaluate critical ex-ante (problem framing) and ex-post (appraisal of the policy’s initial design) aspects of epistemic justice in policymaking. In addition, the indicator also enhances political accountability, facilitates the implementation of more just policies, and fosters efficient management, thus facilitating more successful climate change adaptation. Currently, the indicator prototype consists of approximately 30 questions for assessing policy design and implementation.

This paper brings together a diverse range of scholars from geoethics, geological risks, philosophy, science and technology studies, and political science. We have put together this interdisciplinary team to identify and assess - from multiple conceptual and methodological perspectives – the key components of epistemic justice that are relevant for implementing local knowledge into adaptation strategies. Based on this process, we have established an interdisciplinary consensus to substantiate our claim that epistemic justice and local knowledge are mutually dependent factors that underpin fair, actionable, and efficient climate adaptation policies. Two disparate, yet related, bodies of literature guide our policy recommendation, namely i) transdisciplinary research on local, traditional, and indigenous knowledge, and ii) philosophical research on epistemic justice. In addition to this theoretical knowledge, we use our combined experiences in the field in terms of i) direct engagement with local communities, especially in terms of communication and management of geological hazards, ii) the development of practical geoethical principles to guide interactions with local communities, iii) involvement in policymaking processes at the EU level, and iv) political lobbying.

by Lisa Bossenbroek, Sierra Deutsch , Donata Dettwiler, Franziska Ehnert, Livia Fritz, Benjamin Hofmann and Alexandra Lux

With the ‘polycrisis’ looming, humanity is facing unprecedented social-ecological challenges at planetary scale, which demands transformation of unsustainable societies. But who gets to define what a “good transformation” is? In line with power and justice scholars (Bennett et al. 2019; Cousins 2021; Massarella et. Al 2021; Newell et al. 2021; Sovacool et al. 2023), we argue that a “good transformation” cannot be pursued without considering issues of power, agency, and justice. For example, the way in which the problem is defined, by whom, and with what interests already shapes the thinking about the problem’s causes and how to tackle them. Thus, power relations shape the problem framing with fundamental consequences for the process and outcome of the transformation. In so doing, power relations influence from the start which actors and interests will be considered, which reinforces unjust structures and conditions instead of transforming them. Such insights from research on power in sustainability transformations offer important learnings also for the design of transdisciplinary research (e.g., Avelino et al. 2019; Avelino, 2021; Newell et al., 2021; Turnhout & Lahsen 2022).

In order for academic research to be part of a larger societal transformation, it is widely understood that the scientific community needs to go beyond traditional research approaches (Fougères et al. 2022). In this context, transdisciplinary approaches have been identified as a particularly promising research mode. Many methods, approaches and tools exist to support transdisciplinary research processes. For instance, methods for problem framing, mutual learning, scenario development, and actor analysis have greatly improved transdisciplinary research practices in the last decades. Transdisciplinary research methods and tools are meant to help shape collaboration between experts and stakeholders from science, policy, and practice in knowledge co-production processes in heterogeneous groups. They help bridge different thought styles and allow jointly producing knowledge and research outcomes.

Considering the fundamental importance of power and agency in all stages of the transdisciplinary research process, we—the contributors to this workshop—see a need to reflect on, and potentially improve, the ability of existing transdisciplinary research tools to address power imbalances explicitly (Chambers et al. 2022; Deutsch et al. 2023; Fritz & Meinherz 2020). Transdisciplinary research builds on the assumption that it is possible to shift and share power. A central idea is the empowerment of marginalized actors through capacity-building and involvement in knowledge coproduction processes, which, however, may lead to unintended disempowerment effects (e.g., by creating new dependence relationships) (Avelino 2017; Avelino et al. 2019).

With the exploration of particular transdisciplinary research tools in a workshop format, we want to enhance reflexivity and identify how power and agency can be better considered in transdisciplinary research practice.

Additionally, for sessions, workshops and trainings: description of the session/workshop design

The objectives of the workshop are:

• To enhance reflexivity on power and agency in transdisciplinary research practice

• To improve critical social science skills of transdisciplinary researchers

• To foster exchange on transdisciplinary research tools that address power and agency

To achieve these objectives, the workshop consists of three elements: (1) introduction to power and agency concepts relevant for transdisciplinary research, (2) exploration and discussion of transdisciplinary research tools in breakout groups, and (3) plenary synthesis.

(1) Introduction to power and agency concepts in transdisciplinary research: We briefly introduce different conceptions of power over, power to, and power with and illustrate how these can be applied to transdisciplinary processes. We argue that unveiling the often tacit ways in which power affects TD processes and outcomes provides a first step towards dealing with them in a constructive manner.

(2) Exploration and discussion of transdisciplinary research tools in breakout groups: In the workshop, and depending on the number of participants, we want to explore three to four transdisciplinary research tools in depth with respect to their ability to address issues of power and agency:

• actor constellation

• emancipatory boundary critique

• multi-stakeholder discussion group

• principled negotiation to deal with differences in interests

For this, participants split into breakout groups facilitated by the contributors. In the beginning, each breakout group is asked to take 15 minutes to familiarize themselves with the tool (one for each group) and briefly discuss it based on material and guidance provided by the contributors. Next, participants are given 30 minutes to discuss the following questions with respect to their tool:

• To what extent does the tool encourage reflection in transdisciplinary research, e.g., regarding the origins of the transformation concept, embeddedness in a system that might be problematic, and different problem framings?

• To what extent does the tool help decolonize established knowledge production systems and empower actors with different voices who previously might not have been heard?

• What are you struggling with when linking the tool to a context of transdisciplinary research, and how can the tool be enhanced to better engage with agency and power?

The contributors facilitate the group discussion around these questions and encourage participants to think about how to adapt the tool to a specific situation and context, particularly concerning power relations. Supported by the contributors, each group will prepare a very short embodied intervention on how to improve the chosen tool (e.g., a short scene from their discussion or on an applied example) to be presented in the plenary synthesis.

(3) Plenary synthesis on tool exploration: In the final phase, we want to bring together the group discussions and synthesize their reflections in the plenum. The breakout groups will present their short embodied intervention on how to enhance their chosen tool to better consider agency and power. Afterwards, the other participants can share their thoughts in view of their personal experiences with the tool or generally with power and agency in transdisciplinary research.

Indicative schedule:

• Introduction (0:00 – 0:05)

• Presentation on power and agency in sustainability transformations (0:05 – 0:20)

• Explanation of the tasks for the break-out groups (0:20 – 0:25)

• Break-out groups: familiarization with one transdisciplinary research tool (0:25 – 0:40)

• Break-out groups: reflection on power and agency issues regarding this tool (0:40 – 1:10)

• Synthesis (1:10 – 1:30)

by Catarina Isidoro, Helena Guimarães

The Theory of Change is a recognised approach in transdisciplinarity, known for its ability to facilitate transformative learning processes. Recognizing serious games as effective tools for navigating transitions toward sustainability, the Theory of Change Game applies its principles to transdisciplinary projects dedicated to sustainable development. The game combines elements of both board and card games and is centred around collaborative discussions.

Acknowledging the game's potential, we have customised its application in a real-world situation. In this context, 22 participants utilised the game to plan the future of Tertúlias do Montado—a long term and permanent problem framing platform that aims to contribute to the sustainability of the Montado silvo-pastoral system.

To discern any variances, we implemented an experimental approach, where the participants rotated between the Theory of Change Game and two other tools, all addressing a common overarching question. Consequently, all three tools aimed to foster discussions about the future actions of Tertúlias do Montado.

The results show that the three tools made it possible to achieve the objective proposed. However, despite some similarities in the topics discussed, each tool led to different approaches regarding the future of the Tertúlias.

The Theory of Change Game tool prompted a more comprehensive discussion regarding both the societal problem to be addressed—the decline of the Montado—and the primary objective of the initiative, which is to serve as a dialogue platform in tackling this challenge. Proposals for the future are strongly associated with the creation and transfer of knowledge, either as an expected result that the initiative intends to achieve, or as a way to strengthen the capacity of those involved to solve problems related to the Montado.

In the case of the other two tools, one induced a reflection in operational terms and very specific actions were suggested. Most actions focus on improving the management and information sharing. Meanwhile, in the other tool, the discussion focused almost exclusively on the proposal of themes that should be tackled in the Tertúlias.

Although the participants evaluation of all tools was positive, the Game Theory of Change, in particular, drew interest for introducing a novel concept and facilitating visual exploration of diverse perspectives. Nevertheless, it faced criticisms about the perceived ambiguity in the rules and a sense of monotony.

From our experience in implementing these tools and the outcomes achieved we conclude that the circular dynamics embedded in the Theory of Change Game will have contributed to an in-depth discussion and a constant review of the fundamental objective of the initiative, and helped to counteract a common tendency to seek simplistic and immediate solutions to complex problems. Ultimately, the Theory of Change Game elicited a collaborative approach to co-construction of solutions, which can encompass the measures identified in the other tools.

Future empirical studies using a similar design should consider the cognitive burden of participants and decrease the number of tools used or plan the engagement on different days, since participants show some tiredness related to the engagement using three different tools.

by Jessica Oudenampsen, Timothy Bland, Esther Slot

Relevance

In designing interdisciplinary education, teachers often struggle with what pedagogical approach(es) and which design propositions to choose in order to guide students in attaining the learning outcomes as foreseen (Spelt et al., 2015). Interdisciplinary teaching can indeed take many different forms, based on the motivation that teachers have for their teaching (e.g. societal relevance), the level of integration they aim for and the disciplines that are combined (Klein, 1990).

Interdisciplinary education, whether a course or a whole bachelor or masters’ curriculum, when designed properly, is student-centered and guides students in their development towards becoming ‘integrators’, possessing both the cognitive and affective skills needed to integrate insights and perspectives in their future studies and jobs (Hoffmann et al., 2022). Learning outcomes associated with interdisciplinary learning environments are, however, diverse and can range from lower order thinking to higher order thinking levels. Moreover, learning outcomes can be both cognitive, affective and adaptive. Recently an overview of outcomes associated with the interdisciplinary learning process has been published (Oudenampsen et al., 2024), however in most cases interdisciplinary education is still designed based on its’ pedagogy instead of the possible learning outcomes (Oudenampsen, 2024).

As discussed in Spelt et al. (2015), it would therefore help teachers to focus on designing outcome-based interdisciplinary education, based on the principles of constructive alignment (Biggs & Tang). This is why we are developing a teacher tool at Utrecht University that can support teachers in designing constructively aligned interdisciplinary learning environments. The tool guides teachers in the designing process by providing information, good practice examples and tailored assignments in answering questions like: what are the intended learning goals I would like students to achieve? What assessment as well as teaching and learning elements are needed to guide students towards these intended goals? The tool brings together the existing (empirical) literature on interdisciplinary education, best practices in the educational field and the resulting design principles. It, therefore, provides the so-needed guide for teachers to develop interdisciplinary education.

Content tool

Teachers who are developing, or implementing a multi- inter or transdisciplinary course can use the tool to attain their goals. At the same time, educational professionals who want to evaluate and improve existing interdisciplinary education can use the tool to redesign their education and educational professionals who seek inspiration are also welcome to use the tool.

The tool consists of 5 ‘building blocks’/ steps for designing interdisciplinary learning environments:

1. Preparing for design: what is interdisciplinary education and why is it relevant?

2. Design step 1: Learning outcomes of interdisciplinary education

3. Design step 2: Learning activities in interdisciplinary education

4. Design step 3: Assessment forms for interdisciplinary education

5. Design step 4: Completing the interdisciplinary learning environment for my course

Teachers who are (re)designing a course go through the steps in a sequential manner, thereby being guided through the constructive alignment process, but it is possible to go back and forth in the tool in order to allow it to be an iterative process.

Furthermore, it is also possible to navigate to a desired section of the tool, for teachers with a specific question or specific interest concerning the design of interdisciplinary education.

For each building block, the following components are provided:

• Each building block starts with background information on this particular section, with the possibility to proceed to more extensive information with associated literature references. Special attention is paid to existing empirical research in the research field.

• Thereafter, the user is presented with questions regarding the design of interdisciplinary education concerning this building block, following from the background information provided earlier. This challenges the user to become aware of the design principles regarding their interdisciplinary education, to make choices regarding the design process, and to reflect on existing education.

• Furthermore, each building block contains examples of best practices that can inspire users for their own interdisciplinary education.

Workshop design

During the workshop, we will provide a presentation of 10-15 minutes to demonstrate the content of the educational design tool. In this introduction to the tool, we will provide information about the design-process of the tool, we explain the design choices that we made in the tool, and we will clarify the scientific basis of the tool. Furthermore, we will demonstrate the tool so that participants will be able to actively test the tool in the next part of the workshop.

Afterwards, participants will be able to actively test the tool (in pairs)(45 minutes). For that, they can use an existing or fictitious course. Participants will be able to go through the tool in a sequential manner, starting from the beginning, or search for specific information regarding specific design principles for interdisciplinary education. The workshop leaders will be available for guiding through the tool and answering questions.

In the final half hour, we will gather feedback about the design and content of the tool itself, and answer questions with the entire group of participants. Participants can save the results of this test session and use them in their teaching practice.

References

1. Spelt, EJH., Luning, PA., van Boekel, MAJS., Mulder, M. (2015) Constructively aligned teaching and learning in higher education in engineering: What do students perceive as contributing to the learning of interdisciplinary thinking? European Journal of engineering education, 40(5):459-475.

2. Klein, JT. (1990) Interdisciplinarity: History, theory and practice. Wayne State University Press (23).

3. Hoffman, S., Deutsch, L., Klein, JT. & O’Rourke, M. (2022) Integrate the integrators! A call for establishing academic careers for integration experts. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9(147).

4. Oudenampsen, J., Das, E., Blijlevens, NMA., van de Pol, MHJ. (2024). The state of empirical evidence for interdisciplinary learning outcomes in higher education: a systematic review. The Review of Higher Education, ahead of print. 10.1353/rhe.0.a920416

5. Oudenampsen, J. (2024) Unraveling interdisciplinarity. Changing perspectives on interdisciplinary education, learning and learning outcomes. Radboud University.

6. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2020) Constructive alignment: An outcomes-based approach to teaching anatomy. In: Chan, LK., Pawlina, W. (eds) Teaching Anatomy. Springer, Cham.

by Theresa Margarete Tribaldos, Minna Kaljonen, Iryna Herzon, Rachel Mazac, Flurina Schneider, Johanna Jacobi, Caroline Ouko, Rashid Suleiman, Aymara Llanque

Our societies face deadlocks at several scales when it comes to transitioning to more sustainable food systems. These deadlocks manifest, to mention a few, in the inability to effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change, or to change power structures and path dependencies hindering the transformation of our currently unsustainable food systems. Underlying causes for this, are grounded in persisting inequalities in terms of wealth and influence on decision making between and within societies. This is also seen in challenges to implement the UN Agenda 2030, where indicators show that we are not on track in implementing many of the Sustainable Development goals.

Promoting structural changes in our societies becomes a central theme. How can we re-enchant the earth? What are the economic, ecological, political, and therapeutic tools to recompose a system broken by the concentration of power? Perspectives of indigenous peoples and their movements remind us of the value of traditions, thought, and the cultural, political, and historical wealth of peoples coexisting with multiple systems of life (McNee 2021). These perspectives provide important alternatives to Western ontologies and ways of living through appealing to values such as diversity, integrity, co-dependency, and associability.

Addressing deadlocks in food systems demands deep reflections about the underlying structures and normative assumptions of unsustainable systems. Disruptions in such systems are required to change course (Benton 2023). The leverage points framework highlights points to intervene in systems. The framework defines deep leverage points as those targeting the design and intent of systems, whereas shallow leverage points address parameters and feedback (Abson et al. 2016). Deep leverage points include aspects of power (ways of knowledge distribution, governance, and interfering with system structures) and normative assumptions (goals of a system, underlying paradigms influencing the system structures, and the power to transcend these paradigms). Thus, the leverage points framework presents an entry point to the demanded deep reflection.

Furthermore, deep reflection opens space for creative narratives that respond to the required changes and proliferate images of care for a world that nourishes us and that we nourish.

In this workshop, we want to exchange among different epistemic communities and cultures from different world regions about beneficial ways of disrupting food systems for transformation. With a focus on the deep leverage points, we want to explore ways of working in different systems. The discussions will address such topics as normative assumptions of the different communities, scientific frameworks and paradigms in dealing with existing deadlocks, and the collaboration with societal actors in transdisciplinary transformative research. More specifically, we will work with the following guiding questions:

• What are the normative traditions, assumptions, worldviews that guide your research?

• What scientific frameworks and paradigms have you found to be particularly useful when working with complex sustainability problems and societal deadlocks in food systems?

• Which approaches have helped you in addressing these deadlocks in policies, markets or civic action?

• In what ways would you frame these approaches as levers for change?

The workshop applies a combination of mapping assumptions and research traditions in a first step to get an overview of the normative landscape of the involved participants; and the nomadic concepts method in a second step to more deeply reflect on different understandings of the participants.

Workshop design

First, the workshop starts off with 2-3 short input talks addressing the above-mentioned guiding questions. We strive for a variety of research and cultural traditions to open up the discussion. Second, we will collect the participants’ views on these questions on individual post-its and map them on a white board. Third, we will divide into 2-3 sub-groups depending on the number of participants and discuss the different understandings of key concepts such as the meaning of disrupting a system, role of research in and for sustainability transitions/transformations, influence of research in and its relations with societal processes. A short summary of each of the groups in the plenary will conclude the workshop.

by Iago Otero, Roger Keller

There is a growing need to assess the transformative potential of transdisciplinary research on biodiversity, with a specific focus on the role of value pluralism. In this contribution, we assess the potential effects of the inter-/transdisciplinary research project “ValPar.CH – Values of the ecological infrastructure in Swiss parks” on Switzerland’s biodiversity. We use a self-reflexive approach focusing on how the project's team thinks about the potential impact of its research. To do so, we collected data through semi-structured interviews and workshops held with the project's researchers and stakeholders. These data were analysed based on two complementary frameworks used in the international biodiversity and sustainability debate: the theory of change and the values-centred leverage points. We identified 11 pathways linking the project outputs to potential outcomes in a theory of change. Most of the statements about ValPar.CH's potential effects on Swiss biodiversity targeted intermediate levels of leverage, in particular the embedding of plural valuation in decision-making. Our results show that the team's way of thinking is largely based on the knowledge deficit model, which assumes that communicating better information to stakeholders will make their decisions more sustainable regarding biodiversity. However, other ways of thinking are also present that highlight the importance of competence building and social learning to address biodiversity loss, as well as the politicized nature of ValPar.CH. Based on our results, we ask what priority actions could be designed to realize the potential outcomes. For this, we consider stakeholders with both favourable and unfavourable positions regarding biodiversity conservation. We also launch some ideas to turn potential outcomes into measurable impacts. This reflection can be useful for ValPar.CH researchers, the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment and other stakeholders to design follow-up activities that maximize the project's transformative capacity for Swiss biodiversity.

by Mª Helena Guimarães, Gonçalo Jacinto, Ana Catarina Isidoro, Christian Pohl

Evaluation plays a pivotal role in transdisciplinary (TD) research, often discussed during funding stages or when assessing project impacts. A few studies delve into the participant perspective when examining the quality of transdisciplinarity. Our

work contributes to this area of assessment. Rather than providing a definitive definition of transdisciplinarity, we developed a questionnaire to evaluate a set of TD principles within a specific TD initiative. We collected insights from 100 individuals

out of a pool of 200 participants engaged in a TD initiative since 2016. Given the long-term nature of the case study, our sample included both frequent and occasional participants. Using non-parametric statistical, we concluded that frequent

participants express higher satisfaction with their involvement, identify more outcomes stemming from their participation, and assign greater importance to TD principles. These findings highlight the significant impact of investing in long-term

TD initiatives. Additionally, our questionnaires featured open-ended questions to capture participants’ individual definition of the initiative, along with their perceived benefits and drawbacks. Through content analysis, we identified two distinct

discourses: positivism and postpositivism. The positivist discourse predominantly features male participants over 60 years of age, primarily from the research community. These participants express lower satisfaction with their participation and assign less value to TD principles. We found no association between positivism/postpositivism and participation frequency (i.e., frequent/casual). This suggests that these two discourses can coexist and interact within a TD environment. Nevertheless, the perceived value of TD is not uniform across these groups, indicating that TD may not align with everyone’s objectives, even in complex contexts where the approach is considered essential.

by Nina Vogel, Susanna Sternberg Lewerin, Annsofie Wahlström, Ida Wallin

This workshop invites to discuss applied formats that foster and build inter- and transdisciplinary capacities to offer an inspiration and experience to develop a model/formats for similar work in participants’ organisations. Here the four strategic units, so-called SLU Future Platforms, at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) are one reference frame. They are tasked to strengthen inter- and transdisciplinary (ID & TD) competence to support SLU in taking on complex issues and generate knowledge to contribute to creating sustainable systems and living environments for the future. During the workshop all participants collectively assess and further develop formats using a set of critical questions to strengthen their impact. The four+ formats that will be shared at the workshop are Research Residency, Interdisciplinary Academy, Climate Conversations (themed series), Seed Funding Models, & a Wildcard (an open format to capture emerging ideas during the session).

Workshop Design: The four Future Platforms

The mission of SLU’s four Future Platforms is to strengthen SLU's inter- and transdisciplinary competence, to engage in complex societal questions and knowledge generation to contribute to creating sustainable systems and living environments for the future. Activities are characterised by a focus on complex scientific issues and an interdisciplinary approach. The platforms act as a bridge between subjects, departments, faculties and different SLU activities in a more comprehensive and continuous way than individual project collaborations can do. The overarching goals shared by all SLU Future Platforms are to:

• ascertain where knowledge is needed through synthesis and analysis projects, and operations to generate academic support for societally relevant issues;

• identify and develop new lines of research to support solving future problems through transdisciplinary collaboration with relevant societal partners; and

• develop interdisciplinary working methods by initiating and coordinating cooperation across academic disciplines.

A few of the formats that the Future Platforms offer collectively are listed below. At this workshop we would like to engage in them to explore their value and possible further development to support a strengthened inter- and transdisciplinary belonging at SLU as an agricultural university, which traditionally and historically represents a disciplinary siloed university. This can be used as a model/example for similar work in other organisations.

The workshop design

The workshop starts with a short introduction on the workshop team and their strategic units (A) before engaging participants in an interactive session on different formats (B). Finally, participants will collectively synthesize and reflect on the take aways and novel integration for those and/or new formats (C).

A) Presentation of the overall strategy of the Future Platforms (10min), describing their working model embedded in a context were natural science meets social science and agricultural science is explored in a reflexive modernity.

B) Exploring ID/TD formats in an interactive session (60min) engaging participants to further develop/ think anew platform formats used to introduce, build and anchor inter- and transdisciplinary capacities for the long-term. At this workshop all present will circulate from format to format and co-shape ‘reflection spaces’ with the help of critical questions in different corners/sections in the room. Those questions concern e.g. mandate, ownership, incentives and right encounters for ID/TD:

• How to develop a long-term interest in working ID/TD? (e.g. ownership, identity shaping)

• b. How to better shape a mandate for ID/TD? (e.g. affiliations to the platforms, organizational structures, funding)

• How & when to introduce people to ID/TD (researchers, teachers, students)? (e.g. create right encounters, allow moving beyond the comfort zone, events, shared questions)

• How to create a stable institutional anchoring to target efforts? (e.g. platform responsibilities, incentives through seed funding)

• How to speculate and explore future directions for IT/TD at the organization? (pilots, partnerships, prototypes)

C) Synthesizing collectively (20min) the main take aways on (novel) integration for those and/or new formats

The formats that are offered to be explored are Research Residency, Interdisciplinary Academy, Climate Conversations (themed series), Seed Funding Models, & any Wildcards (formats to capture, emerging ideas during the session) and are described below.

Description of formats that can act as inspiration and offer examples to develop a model/ formats for similar work in different organisations:

Research Residency – is an annual match-making event that has the purpose to strengthen inter- and transdisciplinary research at SLU and to identify new links and research collaborations between SLU’s knowledge fields. The discussions will be focused on sustainability combined with forestry, food production, urban landscapes and One Health. Senior as well as junior SLU researchers can apply and are welcome to inspirational talks and open scientific discussions, while being served good food at a stay in a beautiful environment.

> How can this match-making format impact beyond the meet-up, what are incentives to reconnect?

Interdisciplinary Academy (IDA) - is a programme at SLU where the university's researchers are offered the opportunity to collaborate for 8 months on 20% of their time in interdisciplinary teams across disciplinary boundaries on complex issues in the broad field of green transformation. IDA also arranges open webinars to inspire and promote more interdisciplinary across the university.

> How does/can this long-term collaboration shape mandate and target efforts? Is there a new ownership growing to anchor IT-TD at an organization?

Climate Conversations (CC) – promote cross-disciplinary scientific climate conversations at SLU through webinars and seminars that are open for all and/or inviting SLU staff only. This series with its open and internal dialogues started when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) launched its sixth assessment report in 2021 and 2022 to shape an arena for critical reflections and ways forward.

> How can this series of conversations highlight the ID-TD critical questions of the future?

Seed Funding Models – are used by all four platforms to realize, anchor, support, target ID/TD collaborations, consortium building, applications, research projects, publications, etc. Seed funding models support various multi-/ inter- and transdisciplinary research activities aiming at enhancing sustainable futures in the field of the four future platforms representing relevant foci for SLU.

> How can seed funding stimulate the right incentives and shape encounters that have long-lasting impact?

Wildcard – the opportunity to co-create and identify emerging new formats and new guiding questions that fall into the workshop’s curiosity.

Key readings:

• SLU Urban Futures | Externwebben

• SLU Future Food | Externwebben

• SLU Future Forests | Externwebben

• SLU Future One Health | Externwebben

• Researcher residency at Philipssonska gården | Externwebben (slu.se)

• Interdisciplinary Academy (IDA) | Externwebben (slu.se)

• Climate conversations at SLU | Externwebben

by Machiel Keestra, Stephen Fiore, Paul Hirsch, Basirat Oyalowo, Moory Romero, Jan Schmidt, Ulli Vilsmaier

Universities and other research institutions have been the target of demonstrations, petitions, and occupations in recent years. Citizens, students, and staff alike have called for revision of existing research connections with the carbon industry, with surveillance and AI companies, with warring countries like Russia and Israel and so on. The contents of academic programs have also been scrutinized from this same critical perspective, raising questions about how their contents should be determined and who should be involved. Such concerns about science and academia’s complicity in or resistance against ethically undesirable engagements are becoming louder and more prevalent across the globe.

These developments show a decisive rift from the traditional view of academia and science harboring in their ivory tower. This position seemed more in line with Merton’s influential 1942 analysis of the ‘ethos of science’, it being determined by its universalism, the common ownership of its goods, its organized skepticism and its disinterestedness (Merton 1942). That position had already lost much of its appeal and persuasiveness, due to increasing awareness of the interdependencies between science and societal domains like the military, industry, government, politics and so on. In addition, science’s role in war, in oppression and surveillance, in climate change and other crises has extensively been documented.

In parallel to this increasing awareness of science’s societal position and its ‘dirty hands’, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary (ID/TD) science have become ever more prominent in addressing these crises and other real-world problems. Indeed, their apparent greater societal relevance appears to be a main reason for the attractiveness of these new modes of science (cf. (National Academy of Sciences 2005). This relevance is partly due to the fact that ID/TD projects explicitly foster not only scientific pluralism but also require the integration of social and societal actors. As such, they bolster the integration of the interests, norms and values these actors bring. Yet it remains to be seen whether doing ID/TD projects are by their very nature better placed to respond to the calls against complicity and for resistance, as some suggest.

This panel addresses these issues by elaborating how ID/TD research and education navigate the spectrum between complicity and resistance. Does the explicit integration of societal interests and moral norms and values protect against the complicity in the production of crises or injustices? If not, how could the resistance against these be enhanced in ID/TD projects? Is the integration not often being misunderstood as a form of synthesis or consensus such that it undermines necessary critique? Does the real-world nature of ID/TD projects lead in some cases to losing the bigger -moral- picture of their contribution to crises and injustices? Who should be accepted as stakeholders in such projects, including future generations or natural entities like rivers or species? In other words, what angles and instruments are available to ensure that ID/TD projects don’t ignore their responsibility in navigating explicitly between complicity and resistance?

This interactive workshop aims to explore these questions, leading to an articulation of how ID/TD projects can and should explicitly position themselves on the spectrum between complicity and resistance. What questions should be raised when; what actors and stakeholders should be included; what options for actions are available? The workshop will start with brief presentations by the panelists, who will all present on the following elements:

1. reference to a particular perspective or case (study) from their ID/TD expertise, illustrating their account of this spectrum between Complicity and Resistance

2. indicate how their account addresses particular features of ID/TD research that allows certain decisions or actions regarding this Complicity-Resistance spectrum

3. close with one recommendation for ID/TD projects generally to address and navigate this Complicity-Resistance spectrum.

A plenary and moderated conversation will explore how we can turn the collected positions on the Complicity-Resistance spectrum into an instrument that helps ID/TD researchers to reflect on and articulate their own position.

Workshop presenters are:

• Dr. Machiel Keestra (University of Amsterdam; m.keestra@uva.nl - convener)

• Prof.dr. Steve Fiore (University of Central Florida; sfiore@ucf.edu)

• Dr. Paul Hirsch (SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry; pahirsch@esf.edu)

• Prof.dr. Jan Schmidt (Hochschule Darmstadt; jan.schmidt@h-da.de)

• Prof.dr. Ulli Vilsmaier (Responsive research; vilsmaier@responsiveresearch.org)

• Merton, R. K. (1942). ´The normative structure of science [1942]. The sociology of science. Theoretical and empirical investigations. R. K. Merton. Chicago, Chicago University Press: 267-.

• National Academy of Sciences, E. a. M. N. (2005). Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Washington, DC, Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research: 332.

by Nikola Nölle

Boundary work in academic activities is both useful and obstructive. On one hand, there has been significant practical and theoretical effort to overcome academic boundaries, as demarcations are often ideological and frame a political academic standpoint (cf. Gieryn, 1983). For participatory or interdisciplinary research, it is nearly common sense that boundaries should be reflected upon to facilitate collaborations and deal with different knowledge bases. On the other hand, academia has learned from recent multiple crises that scientific knowledge must be protected against encroachment from phenomena such as ‘fake news’ and ‘alternative facts’. Boundaries delineating academic activities and defining their scope are becoming a necessity to shape science in terms of knowledge transfer and transformation through exchange.

Boundaries are the results of dynamic negotiation processes. They are to be understood more as shared spaces than concrete borders (Susan Leigh Star). Different methodological concepts, ranging from boundary objects (cf. Leigh Star, 1988), travelling concepts (cf. Bal, 2002), to actor networks (Bruno Latour), seek to define the practical interactions between different knowledge bases. These concepts, originating from engaged empirical researchers, aim to understand collaborations between differences and encounters. What do they offer us today in times of crisis of academic knowledge? And when transdisciplinary and participatory research approaches are seen as the future for addressing societal challenges, where do we, as individuals working in and with TDR, have to draw the line? Moreover, where is it essential to create contact zones between academia and non-academic (future) partners?

In my brief theoretical overview, I seek to re-examine various dynamic knowledge concepts from an anthropological point of view: I assume that academic knowledge is confronted with a ‘vote of confidence’ regarding expertise and academic knowledge. Therefore, I aim to expand upon the referenced concepts and identify a space of possibilities between closing and opening knowledge in participatory research requirements. This space delineates a field of negotiation where differences become dynamic and hybrid. Through two practical examples from research projects in Berlin, I would like to illustrate how this space, which lies within different knowledge concepts, can be made fruitful for transdisciplinary approaches.

by Lucy Wenting, Luca Bertolini, Valentina Tassone, Hans Savelberg, Luca Consoli, Klaas Jan Visser

This session aims to dissect and address the enduring challenges and emerging opportunities in implementing inter- and transdisciplinary education across diverse academic landscapes, including financial constraints, capacity limitations, expertise distribution, and commitment inconsistencies. Drawing from recent experiences at the University of Amsterdam, Wageningen University & Research, Maastricht University, Radboud University, University of Twente, and University of Utrecht, this panel discussion seeks to forge a comprehensive understanding of the institutional, cultural, and logistical barriers that hinder interdisciplinary integration in higher education. Emphasizing practical solutions and real-world applications, the session will explore innovative strategies to foster collaborative environments, enhance resource allocation, and solidify institutional commitment across faculties. By expanding the dialogue to include perspectives from various universities, this session aims to cultivate a transdisciplinary approach to education that aligns with contemporary societal and academic needs, promoting a cohesive model for future academic restructuring and collaboration.

Additionally, for sessions, workshops and trainings: The 60-minute session will feature a panel of approximately five members representing the participating universities. Each panelist will present key challenges and opportunities encountered in their respective institutions, followed by a moderated discussion focusing on collaborative strategies for overcoming institutional silos and enhancing inter- and transdisciplinary capacity. Audience engagement will be encouraged through a structured Q&A segment, aimed at facilitating an exchange of ideas, experiences, and best practices across academic and geographical boundaries.

by Stefanie Ypma, Gréta Kálmán, Jonas Torrens, Annisa Triyanti, Charlotte Ballard, Maarten Hajer, Heleen Mees, Emmy Ruiter, Vanessa Timmer

The sustainability crisis is one of the greatest challenges of our times. At Utrecht University, the strategic theme 'Pathways to Sustainability' aims to foster the radical innovation needed to address this societal challenge in the university's practices, of research, education, public engagement, and operational affairs. For this, a transdisciplinary approach is fundamental. To facilitate academics, staff, and graduate students in navigating this transdisciplinary journey and to cultivate capacity, the Transdisciplinary Field Guide has been developed. Serving as a compendium of valuable resources, training opportunities, funding avenues, and toolkits, it also endeavours to foster a sense of community; a place where experiences, both good and bad, are shared through field stories and where peers can act as guides.

During this presentation, we aim to elucidate our process in establishing the guide, focusing on two primary challenges pertinent to the conference stream 'Growing the Capacity for Inter- and Transdisciplinarity'.

First, we will address the question on how to reach all those who might wish to use (or those that should be using) the field guide. Although many academics are involved in transdisciplinary research, not all recognise the requisite competences required to do so successfully. Often the wheel is reinvented, one is unaware of the available support and the project objectives overshadow the importance of the process itself. Merely existing as a website, the field guide has proven insufficient in addressing this challenge. It needs to be taken one step further; by thoroughly embedding and connecting the community behind the guide with the community of practice within the university though the existing communication channels, support structures, such as the research support office, and educators.

Second, we address the challenge on how to grow this community of practice and on how to strengthen the connectivity between theorists and practitioners. We will share examples from the field stories we have created that highlight important lessons learned during transdisciplinary research projects taking place at our university.

This presentation also serves as a call for feedback on our field guide, aiming to refine its content, invite innovative ideas, and enrich available resources with initiatives from the inter- and transdisciplinarity community.

by Hemström Kerstin, Merritt Polk, Johan Holmen, Tom Dedeurwaerdere

It goes without saying, that the challenges faced by societies in transforming into more sustainable and resilient futures affect and engage a variety of stakeholders across multiple decision-making levels and sectors, including various knowledge domains and scientific disciplines. There is an urgent need for better collaborative spaces for the transformative science partnerships that are needed for solving large-scale sustainability challenges, so called ‘wicked’ problems. Wicked sustainability problems defy resolution because they are characterized by very heterogeneous problem features. For example, they are highly contested and often politically explosive, engaging a diverse array of societal values and actors. They have a high degree of knowledge complexity, that not only transcends disciplines and areas of expertise, but also have no temporal or spatial limits/boundaries, resulting in multiple causalities and effects and making future trends highly uncertain. To capture and address such features requires multi-scalar, multi-generational and multi-sectoral transformation processes across a diversity of disciplines, sectors, organizations, stakeholder groups and locations.

Many innovative projects have been undertaken to address the systemic nature of sustainability problems and to develop different types of collaborative processes to address them. However, less systematic knowledge has been gathered on how science itself can be better positioned to support transdisciplinary processes on a wider scale, to impact societal transformations more effectively.

This workshop will focus on building a better understanding of the support functions and mechanisms that create the institutional conditions needed for supporting, legitimizing, and scaling up transdisciplinary and co-production research and practice within both academia and practice. The underlying motivation is the need for universities and research institutions to develop a diversity of functions for involving a heterogeneous set of societal actors, values, and knowledge in collaborative research, incentivize participation, and create the skills and competencies needed to systematically address sustainability challenges.

A 20-minute introduction will exemplify existing support structures within a transdisciplinary platform – The Centre for sustainable urban futures in Gothenburg, Sweden – and associated success factors, challenges, and perceived gaps. The Centre for sustainable urban futures is a collaborative partnership between eight organisations in West Sweden, representing both research and practice. It is tasked to address complex social challenges in the context of urban development, and to facilitate the building of integrated knowledge and capacity that can transform cities and communities in a sustainable manner. Examples will also be given from associated attempts to facilitate transdisciplinary co-production in project settings.

Following, participants of this workshop will be invited to co-reflect on existing support mechanisms and how these fit into the idea of a “TD ecosystem”, based on the following questions:

1. The university's role and responsibility in contributing to societal change:
   a) What characterizes a university that contributes to positive/sustainable development in the surrounding society?
   b) To what extent and how is TD collaboration one of the activities that universities should be undertaking?

2. Mapping and reflecting on existing support mechanisms for transdisciplinary collaboration and co-production:
   a) What experiences do you have with different types of TD support?
   b) What already existing mechanisms can we build on?

3. Exploring future support mechanisms:
   a) What functions or mechanisms should a TD support structure have?
   b) What could a 'TD ecosystem' bring?

We will look to harvest the experiences in the room through a co-creation method consisting of individual reflection, beehive discussions and open space. Building upon the experiences and competences within the group, we will seek to explore the potential design of elements and mechanisms that appear to be missing. The outcome will be a co-designed preliminary outline of a TD ecosystem prototype, designed to capture the diversity of functions that a local support system for need to involve.

We welcome all participants interested in developing support functions for capacity building in and for inter- and transdisciplinarity, and in achieving learning for societal transformation. Particularly, we reach out to those who have experiences from linking such functions in a composed system, conceptually as well as in practice.

by Michael Facius

Tokyo College is an institute for advanced studies and academic think tank that was founded as a new and independent unit at The University of Tokyo, Japan in 2019.

Its three missions are transdisciplinary research, international network building, and public engagement. Its overarching research theme "The Earth and Human Society in 2050" is broken down into six transdisciplinary research themes surrounding digitization, sustainability, Japan's role in the world, the future of knowledge, the value of life, and identity.

Currently, the College is comprised of between fifty to sixty members with two directors, four tenured faculty, five project assistant professors, five project researchers, fifteen postdocs, ca. ten senior invited members, ca. five visiting scholars, and twelve staff members, as well as number of affiliated researchers inside the university and abroad.

As one of the first persons to join the College and its first tenured member, I aim to share and discuss in this contribution my experience and challenges in setting up a transdisciplinary institute and experimenting with transdisciplinary forms of collaboration.

The presentation will introduce five aspects of the transdisciplinary work at Tokyo College:

• fostering a culture of transdisciplinarity

• hiring for transdisciplinarity

• innovating transdisciplinary formats

• transdisciplinary teaching

• enhancing conceptual foundations and skills for transdisciplinary research

The presentation equally aims to share an example of good practice for capacity building for transdisciplinarity while also inviting a discussion with other practitioners and academic managers about challenges and limitations of a transdisciplinary basis for an institute of advanced studies on the institutional, practical, and conceptual levels.

by Stephanie Briers, Bianca Vienni-Baptista

Capacity for transdisciplinary approaches in integrated assessment modelling (IAM) teams is largely lacking and if addressed, such capacity could tackle the many criticisms and challenges IAMs face at a systemic level. IAMs are computer simulations showing complex interactions between human systems and natural systems and their results increasingly inform sustainable development and climate policies (van Beek et al. 2020). This major role explains why IAMs encounter growing scepticism and criticism (Skea et al. 2021) about lack of transparency on limitations and assumptions (Royston et al. 2023), and not adequately considering the complexity and uncertainty of societal dynamics (Beckage et al. 2020). To address these criticisms, participatory modelling has underscored the importance of stakeholder participation to legitimise model results and increase their uptake (Doukas et al. 2018) for the last two decades. However, the degree of participation has been limited, and mostly entails engaging stakeholders to validate results and research questions (Braunreiter et al. 2021), therefore not addressing criticisms systemically. Additionally, IAMs commonly integrate diverse knowledge (van der Sluijs 2001) and modelling teams often span institutions, disciplines, countries and fields of interest. Therefore, not only does stakeholder participation need to be more in-depth to address criticisms of IAMs, but effective integration of diverse teams and their knowledge is also needed. This raises the question, what transdisciplinary principals and processes could be introduced to IAM teams build the capacity to address these challenges at a systemic level?

The DIAMOND project–Delivering the next generation of open integrated assessment models for net zero, sustainable development– aims to design and implement a transdisciplinary approach to develop IAMs to better inform decision-making around achieving net zero emissions and sustainable development. Taking the DIAMOND project as a case study, this paper presentation delves into how to build transdisciplinary competences among modellers, researchers and stakeholders in creating more open, robust and relevant IAMs, and what highlights which competencies are vital. With these principals and processes in mind, the paper presents the first phase of the DIAMOND’s transdisciplinary approach that focused on building transdisciplinary capacity using joint problem framing, focus groups, online workshops and surveys. Ethnography was also used to make observations on what challenges and barriers to adopt transdisciplinary principles and processes were present during the first phase.

The paper shows how capacity for transdisciplinarity is being reached in the DIAMOND case to achieve more effective stakeholder engagement, and successful acquisition and integration of diverse knowledge into model development. I will elaborate on how the team is expanding the scope of participatory modelling to implement a transdisciplinary approach into IAMs, as DIAMOND’s main goal is to develop models that are codesigned, coproduced and co-owned by the consortium and stakeholders alike. The paper underpins what key transdisciplinary principles and processes are important for IAM teams to build capacity around, concluding that such transdisciplinary capacity could improve the quality, societal robustness and practical relevance of IAMs to inform sustainable development policies.