By Hanna Salomon, Jialin Zhang and Sabine Hoffmann.
2. Jialin Zhang (biography)
3. Sabine Hoffmann (biography)
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:
- Defining boundary concepts (Steps 1-4)
- Developing a conceptual framework as a boundary object (Steps 5-7)
- 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.
Thanks for this post – the 10 steps are very useful and match with my experience of developing a shared conceptual framework. One thought and one question on this:
(1) Which part of this process should already take place in the development of research ideas and grant proposals, and which steps can/should be left to the research process itself?
(2) Regarding the involvement of stakeholders, I am unsure whether a conceptual framework is the most useful boundary object. Maybe joint problem framing or a collection of practice examples (related to the framework) could help facilitate the exchange with the stakeholders, without requiring them to engage with the world of scientific concepts.
Looking forward to your thoughts on this – best wishes, Benjamin
Dear Benjamin,
We are happy to hear that the 10 steps match with your experience in other projects!
(1) While developing research ideas and writing grant proposals, if it is done in an interdisciplinary research team as was the case for TREBRIDGE, we argue that it is important to build a common ground on terms and concepts and clarify differences. This corresponds to the overarching goal of Phase 1 as we describe it in the paper. Further, it might be required by the funders that a framework is provided showing how the project with its different components comes together. This would correspond to the overarching goal of Phase 2. We argue that it is worth going through all three phases (again) in more detail and with the full team once all project members are recruited. In practice, the process is often iterative, and teams may move back and forth between phases as new insights emerge. As colleagues in our research team noted, the process of jointly developing the framework supports communication and integration even more than the framework itself.
(2) Thank you for your comment regarding the stakeholder involvement. As our contribution stems from work in an interdisciplinary research team, we haven’t tested how these phases translate to transdisciplinary settings with external stakeholders and how useful it could be. We would argue that it depends on the involvement of the stakeholders, but also on what purpose the framework is meant to serve. In case stakeholders are consulted or involved only at certain points in time we agree with you that jointly developing or engaging with a conceptual framework might not be the most useful boundary object. We do however see potential for it to be valuable when stakeholders are involved in a project where co-creation happens and researchers and stakeholders jointly develop the conceptual framework.
We’d be very interested to hear whether this matches your experience.
Thanks for this! I very much like the stress on clarifying shared understandings of key concepts early on. (I am guessing that the group already knew its main research question?)
I am guessing (And Google’s AI agrees!) that a conceptual framework involves some sort of visual map of the relationships among key concepts. Could you say a bit more about this? Do you focus on causal relationships?
And would you agree that we could also speak of this sort of boundary object as “common ground?”
You say that the conceptual framework helped group members identify their core contributions. Are you also finding that it helps them see how their contribution fits with others?
Dear Rick,
Yes, the TREBRIDGE project already had a main research question formulated when we started to develop the conceptual framework. However, as Benjamin Hofmann commented above, the overarching goal of Phase 1 and 2 and a “light” version of certain steps (e.g. Step 1, 2, 3 and 5) could also be applied when developing a research idea or question.
When visually depicting the relationship between concepts we did indeed mostly use causal relationships. For example, in the case of TREBRIDGE, justice aspects and risks & opportunities are explored based on Nature’s Contributions to People (NCPs) (see Fig. 3 in the publication). There is also a temporal relationship when it comes to the concept of “Transformation” as part of the resilience landscapes (again, see Fig. 3). Further, one can also see compositional relationships as the TREBRIDGE research team placed “Actors & Institutions” where the three dimensions of environment, economic and social overlap. While we don’t describe those relationships in detail, we expand on the reasoning behind specific placement choices in the results section of the paper.
In the publication we explicitly write that Phase 1 is about “finding common ground”, but of course, the whole process and the boundary object itself can be seen as “common ground” that might still evolve over time as it is adaptable to changes in the project.
Regarding your last point, as the empirical synthesis is still ongoing, we can’t yet say to what extent the framework is being used to connect contributions between the different disciplines in the project. We’d be happy to report back once the synthesis is further along.