Developing a conceptual framework to support communication, collaboration and integration

By Hanna Salomon, Jialin Zhang and Sabine Hoffmann.

How can the process of developing a conceptual framework in an inter- and transdisciplinary research project itself create valuable space for reflection, alignment, and learning?

What we have found when developing a project-specific conceptual framework is that the process is as important, if not more important, for the research team than the emerging conceptual framework itself. The process provides space and time to discuss and deep-dive into concepts and terms used within the research team leading to much needed discussions and insights for the individual researchers.

A structured, iterative and collaborative approach

Our approach, shown in the figure below, consists of 3 phases incorporating 10 steps:

1. Defining boundary concepts (Steps 1-4)
2. Developing a conceptual framework as a boundary object (Steps 5-7)
3. Using the conceptual framework as boundary object (Steps 8-10).

We have used this approach to develop a conceptual framework in one project over the period of roughly two years. The process was led by two or three integration experts, who were an inherent part of the project team. There were around 13 other researchers at any one time, with some personnel changes during the project.

Phase 1

The first phase was all about identifying, compiling, clarifying, and organizing boundary concepts, which are concepts or terms that help researchers think about and communicate complex issues across disciplines.

In the first step, the integration experts asked all team members to individually send definitions of terms and concepts they considered central to their discipline and important for the whole research team to understand in order to pursue integration.

During the second step, the integration leaders compiled and contrasted those integrative terms and concepts by merging overlapping definitions and formulating open questions where definitions differed. This built the basis for clarification of the definitions.

During the third step, the whole team gathered for a workshop during which the open questions were addressed and definitions for the integrative terms and concepts were discussed.

The fourth step was then again carried out by the integration experts. They organized the now set definitions of the integrative terms and concepts into thematic clusters.

Phase 2

Phase 1 built the basis for the second phase during which a first draft of a conceptual framework was developed.

As part of the fifth step, disciplinary sub-groups of researchers were guided through a comparative analysis to give input on what a conceptual framework could look like. More concretely, they were asked by the integration leaders to develop their own conceptual frameworks based on the thematic clusters from step four.

These suggestions were then taken up by the integration experts and merged into the first draft of a conceptual framework which they then aligned with existing frameworks (in our case from social-ecological systems) in the sixth step.

In the seventh step, the integration leaders collected feedback from the team members to make further adjustments to the initial conceptual framework.

Phase 3

The third phase was all about using the conceptual framework as a boundary object to develop it further by aligning it with literature and fitting it to the project specifics needs.

During the eighth step, the conceptual framework was used in a workshop during which team members were asked to locate their core contributions to achieving the project’s overarching goal within the framework. This helped to uncover visualisation or content issues that needed to be resolved for the framework to fit the project’s needs.

The ninth step comprised the integration leaders incorporating elements from existing related visualizations in the literature (in our case visualizations of social-ecological systems resilience) in the framework.

The tenth step concluded the initial development and testing of the conceptual framework by further adjusting the framework based on feedback or workshops conducted with sub-groups or the whole research team.

As the conceptual framework is a “living document” (and the research project ongoing), the development process is not finished after the three phases and ten steps but continues to be adapted to changes in the project.

Concluding questions

What are your experiences with developing project specific conceptual frameworks in your research team? Do you see value in going through (some) phases and steps to develop a project-specific conceptual framework within your team? How could our approach be adapted to include stakeholders from outside of academia?

To find out more:

Zhang, J., Salomon, H., Huber, M. N., Bugmann, H., Dölker, J. E., König, L., Krähenbühl, J., Lieberherr, E., Logar, I., McArdell, B., Molnar, P., Quatrini, S., Schick, V., Schlunegger, F., Schmidt, C., Zabel, A. and Hoffmann, S. (2025). Developing a conceptual framework for interdisciplinary communication, collaboration, and integration: A structured approach. Ambio, 54: 2118–2134. (Online – open access) (DOI): https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-025-02210-z

References:

Hoffmann, S., Pohl, C. and Hering, J. G. (2017). Methods and procedures of transdisciplinary knowledge integration: Empirical insights from four thematic synthesis processes. Ecology and Society, 22: 1. (Online – open access) (DOI): https://doi.org/10.5751/es-08955-220127

Krütli, P., Stauffacher, M., Flüeler, T. and Scholz, R. W. (2010). Functional‐dynamic public participation in technological decision‐making: Site selection processes of nuclear waste repositories. Journal of Risk Research, 13, 7: 861-875.

Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Statement: Generative artificial intelligence was not used in the development of this i2Insights contribution. (For i2Insights policy on generative artificial intelligence please see https://i2insights.org/contributing-to-i2insights/guidelines-for-authors/#artificial-intelligence.)

Biography: Hanna Salomon is a doctoral candidate at Eawag, the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, in Duebendorf and ETH Zurich, both in Switzerland. Her research interests include researchers’ roles and interdisciplinary integration in inter- and transdisciplinary research projects over time.

Biography: Jialin Zhang is a postdoctoral research fellow at Eawag, the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, in Duebendorf, Switzerland. Her research primarily focuses on the exchange of knowledge between science and society, participatory research methods, and the interplay between interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. She is particularly interested in developing methods to measure research impacts and strategies to enhance the societal impact of scientific research.

Biography: Sabine Hoffmann PhD is group leader of inter- and transdisciplinary research at Eawag, the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, in Duebendorf, Switzerland. Her research focuses on integration and integrative leadership in large inter- and transdisciplinary research programs.