Integration and Implementation Insights

The ontologies of restricted and general complexity

July 7, 2026

By Jean Boulton.

What is a useful way to clarify the underpinning ontological ground of complexity? What can we learn from the work of Edgar Morin (2006), who distinguishes between those working within the frames of restricted and general complexity? And how are these frames relevant to practice?

Morin makes a distinction between:

a framing of complexity that sits within the ontology of classical science, which he calls ‘restricted complexity’
the ‘general complexity’ of the ‘real world,’ where general complexity is more paradoxical, more integrating, more challenging, ambiguous and uncertain – but also ripe with potential.

Restricted complexity emanates from the world of models, maps and mathematics. The aim is to find ways to represent the complexity of the real world, by finding a good map.

General complexity, by contrast, starts further back into the primordial mud, and champions the attainment of knowledge through wandering the ‘territory’.

Three dimensions of context

July 7, 2026June 30, 2026

gabriele-bammer_nov-2021 — Gabriele Bammer (biography)

By Gabriele Bammer.

In research tackling complex societal and environmental problems, what is involved in taking context into account when aiming for more comprehensive understanding of a problem, as well as research support for policy and practice change so that the problem is better dealt with?

As outlined in my work developing Integration and Implementation Sciences (i2S), considering context involves dealing with circumstances at three levels:

social or big picture, eg., the historical, political, economic, cultural, geographical and other circumstances
organizational, especially the structure and culture of the research and stakeholder organisations involved
individual, especially the positionality or identity of researchers and stakeholders.

Each of these dimensions of context has widespread ramifications, affecting:

how a problem manifests and is understood, including what is studied and how, as well as the unknowns considered to be pertinent
what actions are likely to be considered and to have a chance of being successful.

Four lessons for pursuing participatory action-oriented PhD research inside the university system

June 23, 2026June 23, 2026

By Raymond Hyma and Javier García Martínez.

authors_raymond-hyma_javier-garcia-martinez — 1. Raymond Hyma (biography)
2. Javier García Martínez (biography)

What happens when participatory, relational, and action-oriented inquiry meets the institutional architecture of the PhD: tight timelines, individual authorship, and demands for methodological certainty? What does it mean to pursue participatory and action oriented research as a PhD project inside the university system?

We are PhD candidates in a university alliance connecting Australia and the UK, navigating participatory and action-oriented commitments across two institutional contexts. We noticed that much of the literature about participatory doctorates is written retrospectively, once the thesis is submitted and the mess has been tidied into a coherent story. Our contribution is different: we write from the middle, while decisions are still being negotiated, while constraints are still shaping the work, while we are still learning how to stay accountable to participatory values in real time.

So, what are we learning so far?

Navigating polarities: Fostering both/and mindsets in team science

June 16, 2026

By Gemma Jiang and Joanna Kaniewska.

authors_gemma-jiang_joanna-kaniewska — 1. Gemma Jiang (biography)
2. Joanna Kaniewska (biography)

How can teams develop a mindset that makes differences productive, such as disciplinary differences in work processes, communication styles, underlying assumptions, behavioral norms, and more? In particular, how can teams move from an either/or mindset, which often leads to defensiveness driven by the need to prove that “I am right; you are wrong” to a both/and mindset, which fosters a learning culture in which differences become sources of generative tension that can propel creativity and collective insight?

One practical way to cultivate a both/and mindset is through working with polarities which are opposing yet interdependent tendencies. By integrating both tendencies, teams can move beyond either/or thinking and draw on a wider range of perspectives. We argue that developing the capacity to navigate polarities helps teams navigate differences more effectively overall.

In this i2Insights contribution, we describe three limiting beliefs drawn from our experience with team science coaching and show how they can be transformed through polarity thinking.

Building trust in researching about and engaging with underserved communities

June 9, 2026June 9, 2026

By Katrina Messiha.

How can we ensure that the many people whose lives are shaped by homelessness, migration, poverty, trauma, mental illness, caring responsibilities, social isolation and other contributors to marginalisation are adequately represented and well engaged with in relevant research?

This is important because if some lives are missing from the evidence base, they may also be missing from the services, policies and practices built upon it. But what happens when researchers try to engage people whose previous encounters with healthcare, welfare, housing, immigration or other public systems, including research, may have been difficult, exhausting or even harmful?

The usual language used to describe such people is “hard to reach,” “seldom heard” or “difficult to engage.” These phrases may be commonly used and well intended, but they can hide a pressing question: Where does trust already exist and how can research begin there?

Cultivating epistemic humility in research teams

June 2, 2026

By Faye Miller.

faye-miller_2025 — Faye Miller (biography)

What makes it so challenging for research teams to be truly receptive to being wrong? And what can teams do to make doubt expressible and useful?

Being aware that knowledge is always situational, incomplete, and prone to error, as well as the willingness to hold opinions tentatively, be receptive to change, and recognise the boundaries of understanding, are all components of epistemic humility. Humility about what one knows and can know is an intellectual quality in individual researchers. Yet epistemic humility also has a structural dimension: which doubts get expressed, whose knowledge is heard, and how teams handle what they don’t yet know, are challenges that go beyond the individual researcher to shape how research teams function.

This i2Insights contribution is an attempt to highlight two challenges that need to be addressed:

the confidence trap, built on the pressure to exude certainty, and
the silence trap, arising from the social dynamics that can suppress productive doubt.

Tinkering workshops: Exploring children’s perceptions of problems and potential solutions

June 2, 2026May 26, 2026

By Ina Opitz, Melanie Kryst, Pia von den Benken and Audrey Podann.

authors_opitz_kryst_benken_podann — 1. Ina Opitz (biography)
2. Melanie Kryst (biography)
3. Pia von den Benken (biography)
4. Audrey Podann (biography)

How can children’s everyday experiences and perceptions of problems and solutions be made accessible for potential inclusion in transdisciplinary research? How can these processes also be used to familiarise children with the fundamentals of transdisciplinarity?

We have developed a three-hour “tinkering workshop,” based on design science principles, to encourage children to think about their environment and identify problems and solutions in a playful and creative way.

Our tinkering workshop is suitable for children aged between 9 and 12 years. We have tried it out in four workshops with a total of 56 children, focusing on the problem of plastic waste.

Modifying the Delphi method with continuous real-time data analysis

May 19, 2026May 19, 2026

By Benedikt Steiner.

How can the Delphi method be modified to provide data aggregation and visualisation in real time? Which aspects of the Delphi method are preserved and which are changed? How does such a modified method work best?

A brief overview of the Delphi method

The Delphi method is a structured elicitation process that invites experts to explore complex, uncertain or contested topics. It aims to make the assumptions, expectations, and uncertainties of the experts involved explicit.

Key characteristics include:

anonymity of participants, reducing social pressure and dominance effects
iterative assessment, allowing experts to reflect and revise their judgments
controlled feedback, showing aggregated group responses
aggregation, rather than forced agreement.

Transdisciplinarity in education: Aligning conceptualisation, configuration and competencies

June 2, 2026May 12, 2026

By Hussein Zeidan.

How can we move from broad visions of transdisciplinarity to concrete educational practices that students can meaningfully engage with? What kinds of course designs genuinely support learning in complex, real‑world settings? And how do we ensure clarity, for both students and educators, about what these courses are meant to achieve?

These questions sit at the heart of many conversations among educators seeking to bring transdisciplinarity into their teaching practice. We want students to learn how to navigate complex problems, draw on multiple ways of knowing and develop the mindsets that allow them to work across boundaries with confidence. Yet the very flexibility that makes transdisciplinarity appealing can also make it difficult to design courses that are clear, supportive and aligned.

The essential conditions for, and characteristics of, complexity

May 5, 2026May 5, 2026

By Jean Boulton.

What are the underpinning necessities or conditions—the essential ingredients—that lead to and engender the qualities or characteristics of the complex world, especially its processual and emergent nature?

Three conditions for complexity: the essential ingredients

A watch or intricate machine is not complex. Nor is a saucer of water. So, when do we regard something as complex? What are the necessary conditions for complexity fully to be realised?

These are:

open boundaries
diversity
reflexive inter-relationships among constituents.

Let’s look at each of these in more detail.

A communication framework for public engagement and impact

April 28, 2026April 28, 2026

By Judith Friedlander and Tania Leimbach.

authors_judith-friedlander_tania_leimbach — 1. Judith Friedlander (biography)
2. Tania Leimbach (biography)

How can researchers cut through ‘the infoglut’ to share their findings with communities? What communication strategies help raise the agenda of critical issues to drive impactful advocacy and action?

As researchers and practitioners, we want to better understand how to effectively frame critical issues in a hybrid media system, facilitate media uptake and engage the public in scalable change-making. To this end, we developed the MAVEN communication framework, which consists of:

Meta-frames (developing overarching concepts);
Actions and Applications (supporting local pilots and scalability);
Values (identifying shared community values and news values);
Evidence and Ethos (messaging from reputable stakeholders), and
News media (disseminating information within a hybrid media system).

Five structural levers to reopen feedback loops that are resistant to external evidence

May 12, 2026April 21, 2026

By Lachlan S. McGill.

lachlan-mcgill — Lachlan S. McGill (biography)

When feedback loops have become resistant to external evidence, what are some potential ways of intervening to reopen them?

This i2Insights contribution builds on my previous post which covers understanding why feedback loops can become resistant to external evidence and how to diagnose such a structural problem.

Here I introduce five structural ways to intervene in such a closed feedback loop. These are structural levers, each targeting a different aspect of how signals flow, how authority is allocated, and how evaluative standards are defined.

One practical note before beginning. Applying the interventions below often requires institutional authority, coalition building, or regulatory support, so that isolated actors may not be able to deploy them fully, leaving the problematic dominant structure intact. The five levers describe what structural intervention looks like but are not a guarantee that it will succeed.