By Thomas Bruhn.
In developing a conference, what does it take for people to leave their comfort zones to co-design something new? What possibilities does this open up for more meaningful conference designs? What are the broader lessons for transformative research?
In 2023–2024, I worked with the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research to develop a conference format for the German sustainability research community – something to help re-establish connection after the isolating COVID pandemic years, and to strengthen interdisciplinary exchange. The Ministry wanted something new and innovative.
Early in the conversation, I sensed hesitation when unconventional, interactive conference formats were suggested. It seemed too far from what many were used to. So I took a different approach: I spent a great deal of time in co-design workshops and informal conversations simply meeting with everyone who had a stake in the event; listening to their perspectives, needs and priorities; and asking the central questions: Why? Why was this event important? Why was it worth bringing people together for two and a half days?
A lot of the essential effectiveness of the eventual conference—in my view—actually happened in this preparation through establishing a different, more collaborative, communication culture among the different groups within the ministry and related agencies.
A more meaningful conference design
The design for the conference guided all participants through different group settings for different conversation foci. Early in the conference each participant was assigned to two separate small group “containers” (5-7 people each):
- “travel groups,” which brought together participants who were as diverse as possible in terms of topical fields and sectors. These groups focused on personal reflection, self-efficacy and specific implementation in research practice, helping to digest and contextualize the discussions during the conference.
- “peer groups,” which brought together participants around specific topics (eg., mobility, climate, finance). Each peer group was guided through a pre-structured workflow, gradually moving from initial problem discussion towards mutual learning and later strategic implications and potentially action planning.
Every participant would meet with their travel and peer groups repeatedly throughout the event.
In addition, there were:
- some sessions in random groups for cross fertilization and overarching inspiration (eg., story-based discussions about the impact of research and communication with stakeholders, and open space where participants suggested topics).
- short plenary sessions, especially for collecting and exchanging high-level insights relevant for everyone.
The setting consisted of 40 circles of 5-8 chairs with one big free space in the middle for the plenary gatherings (standing). All circles were numbered, with participants in random groups directed to specific numbers, and with travel and peer groups meeting in the same circle throughout the conference. There was no time when any of the participants could move into a passive role unless he or she decided to leave the setting.
The organisation of the meeting is shown in the figure below.
The entire process was supported with a reflection journal (travel journal) in which the participants could consider pre-defined guiding questions. The staff members of the ministry and related agencies had a special journal with specific guiding questions that supported them in “listening” to the research community to better understand their needs and develop ideas for potential future funding strategies.
Two challenges and their accompanying advantages
The first challenge was that the format of the gathering and the exact guiding questions were not finalised until shortly before the conference, as ideas and boundary conditions kept changing. Thus, the preparation process was slower and more open-ended than usual.
Yet, by not committing to a fixed design early on, surprising possibilities emerged – things no one could have planned for in advance, for instance an ad-hoc separate harvesting session for the participants from the ministry and related agencies while the research participants were finalizing their project plans.
Another challenge was that the ministry needed to announce the event and open registration at a time when we were far from a concrete notion of the conference flow. The agenda did not feature any specific named contributors (all participants were considered contributors), so we simply announced dates and times and provided information about the “style” of the sessions and the guiding questions of the event, while wondering: would anyone sign up for an event of this size without any “high-level speakers” and such a vague agenda?
Our worries were unfounded. The event was heavily overbooked. Participant feedback clearly appreciated an event in which all participants actually engaged so deeply with each other. As someone wrote: “Finally all the people who travelled so far actually get to talk and work with each other.”
The conference as an illustration of the transformative power of not having a plan
None of us organising the conference could have imagined such an event in the early stages of our collaboration. It was only through taking so much time for getting deeper into the “Why” behind the conference that we discovered this format. In my view, it was worth holding the tension of insecurity for so long. Any plan that we would have agreed on in the early stages of our collaboration would have been far less innovative and far less inspiring.
This experience illustrates something essential: transformative research thrives when we engage stakeholders in ways that allow existing behavioural patterns, relationships, and systemic dynamics to shift. A fixed plan can give the comforting illusion of certainty, but it also closes doors.
Resisting the urge to plan too early opens up a shared journey of discovery. In our case, we spent 50–60% of the preparation time exploring the deeper purpose of the event together. This was not wasted time; it was the heart of the transformative process.
Holding the open space also unlocks something powerful: curiosity and playfulness. In a trusting environment, the unknown stops being a threat and becomes a field for exploration – almost a child-like scientific spirit that reconnects us with the original impulse behind research itself.
From this experience, I offer four general lessons for those engaging in transformative research:
- Allocate time and resources for relationship-building – and make these an explicit, funded part of the project structure.
- Fund a purpose and process logic, not a fixed plan – the plan will emerge naturally from the shared work.
- As a facilitator, serve the creativity of the collaboration, not just expectations – remain open to evolving goals, allowing the unexpected to expand what’s possible.
- Recognise that there is no universal way to develop the trust required to work without a predetermined plan. It must be rediscovered in each context, every time humans choose to embark on truly innovative and transformative collaborations.
Concluding questions
Do you have similar experiences or insights to share, especially of how you worked without a plan and invited the unknown into your transformative research endeavours? How have you managed the tension between such co-creative processes and the requirement of many administrative organisations for a clear plan before committing to funding or collaboration?
To find out more:
Event Website: FONA-Forum 2024. FONA Forum 2024 Conference (October 9th-11th: Berlin, Germany) website. (Online): https://www.fona.de/de/fona-forum-2024
Bernert, P., Arends, L., Beyers, F., Lange, U., Lawrence, M., Martin, L., Sasse, R., Schönwitz-Palm, T. and Bruhn, T. (2024). FONA-Forum: Ein ko-kreativer Ansatz für Transformation. GAIA-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 33, 4: 409-410. (Online – open access): https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/oekom/gaia/2024/00000033/00000004/art00014
Bruhn., T. (2025). Daring to do scientific conferences differently. Research Institute for Sustainability (RIFS) Potsdam blog. (Online – open access): https://www.rifs-potsdam.de/en/blog/2025/05/daring-do-scientific-conferences-differently
To see all blog posts from the partnership with the journal GAIA: https://i2insights.org/tag/partner-gaia-journal/
Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Statement: Generative artificial intelligence (ChatGPT) was used to analyze the first draft and identify potentials for shortening of the overall text, as well as to suggest alternative formulations and options for more concise language. (For i2Insights policy on generative artificial intelligence please see https://i2insights.org/contributing-to-i2insights/guidelines-for-authors/#artificial-intelligence.)
Biography: Thomas Bruhn PhD leads the transdisciplinary research group “Transformative Spaces and Mindsets” at Research Institute for Sustainability (RIFS) at the Helmholtz Center for Geosciences (GFZ) in Potsdam, Germany. His research focuses on the design of communication processes that enable transdisciplinary groups of experts to build trustful relationships and navigate complex challenges together. He is a trained facilitator in various group formats (including Art of Hosting, Agile Leadership, Design Thinking), as well as in psycho-dynamic leadership. He is an expert in collective learning and co-creativity and is particularly interested in the role of mental models and mindsets like compassion and mindfulness.
What a timely piece! I am working with some colleagues right now to write an article where we reflect on our past roles as program conveners for interdisciplinary team science initiatives. The section I am drafting now relates to balancing the formal activities with the more informal parts in a program–considering what the ‘sweet spot’ is for pace, timing, etc. Our programs span many months, so it adds an additional layer of program design decision making. I appreciated the even earlier consideration you made related to co-planning the purpose and agenda for your event.
I will be sure to cite this post, though I will be looking to see if you have other publications on this topic (I would be happy for your recommendations as this is a new field for me).
Hello,
How nice to read about your resonance. Admittedly I have not been a very strong writer on this topic so far but am also working on this at the moment. Please feel free to reach out to me by mail and I can send you some resources.
Cheers
Thomas
(thomas.bruhn@rifs-potsdam.de)
Thanks for sharing! I still recall many moments from this conference months later, and I can confirm from the participants’ perspective how powerful the format was. The travel groups, peer groups, and open sessions created space for real connection and learning. Holding the space without a fixed plan allowed unexpected insights and connections to emerge. I hope there will be many more conferences in that style!
Dear Thomas, thank you very much for sharing this inspiring idea. I wonder if you could give us an idea about the outcomes for the ministry in terms of new ideas for funding strategies. Have there been any new funding schemes and themes resulting from the conference? In short: was the ministry happy with the results in the end? Thank you!
Hi Emilia,
Hmm, I am not sure whether I am the best person to answer this…
The short version: Yes, the ministry was very happy with the process and the results. Therefore we continued collaborating after the conference and also developed online formats of a similar style.
Regarding funding schemes etc. I really cannot say much concrete. But your question reminds me to ask my partners about this.
An unplanned but highly valued outcome was rather of cultural nature, i.e. regarding the relationships and communication culture among different departments or sections.
Thank you for your answer! One must not underestimate the value of improved relationships and communication among different departments or sections. 🙂 There are plenty of possible effects that may follow from enhanced relationships.
Fully agreed! ☺️
Dear Thomas
Thank you for sharing this inspiring experience. I’m curious to know: How important was facilitation in the success of the event? Did the teams have trained facilitators, and was there any specific guidance used to support the group discussions?
Hi Reza,
Thanks for bringing this up. Balancing between self-organization and facilitated guidance was an important issues for us in the facilitation team.
The overall size of the conference was quite large (~200 people) and we were 3 facilitators (myself included). So the small groups did NOT have their own facilitators. On the one hand this gave the small groups free space for self-organization and relationship building around their own sense of focus which was also very much appreciated. At the same time we were aware that this would reduce our influence on the workflow within the groups. So we provided a set of clear guiding questions for the conversation in each of the small group work phases, e.g., on a pin board, on which the groups could work together. Also, we provided a booklet (“travel journal”) in which all participants were guided through a certain flow of guiding questions so that each participant could harvest each group phase also individually.
In hindsight I would say that this worked well without facilitators in the small groups BECAUSE we could rely on the participants’ willingness and ability to engage constructively with each other. In a more conflict loaded context this would certainly have been a very different story…
Hope this is helpful to you.
Thank you for your clear explanation. It was very helpful.
What I forgot to mention:
For the BIG group of course facilitation was crucial! We were moving flowingly between small and big group so that we as facilitators could contain the overall process well. There is LOTS to be said about this dimension of the process and I hope we will write it up one day.
But in short: through the facilitation in the big group the small groups were framed carefully enough so they could flow without their own separate facilitators.
Cheers
Thomas
Dear Thomas
Thank you for your clear explanation. It was very helpful.
That sounds great Thomas – I wondered if you had any observations about disciplinary backgrounds and career stages the format worked better or less for? I wish I could have seen it myself!
Hi Stefan, thanks for your comment and question. Actually the career stages of the participants were very diverse, from young students to retired professors, and my impression was that this created a special creativity to the format. While some of the “older” participants seemingly were less familiar with such interactive formats they very clearly enjoyed it and “went with the flow” which was sometimes more easily accessible for the younger participants. Several participants explicitly gave the feedback that they appreciated the exchange on eye-level with participants much younger or much older because it allowed seeing topics from a different angle.
In some of the small groups it did happen that some people in more advanced career stages dominated the conversation and fell into the habit of “lecturing” the younger participants but apparently that was very rare. Also, the regular rotation between different groups helped counteract this habit in some way.
In terms of disciplinary backgrounds I have no sense in this direction. I cannot say anything about for whom it worked better or less.
I hope these reflections are helpful to you.