Concepts – Integration and Implementation Insights

Four negotiation areas at junctions between context, format and methods in transdisciplinary research

October 13, 2026

By Nina Maria Frölich and Melanie Mbah.

authors_nina-maria-frolich_melanie-mbah — 1. Nina Maria Frölich (biography)
2. Melanie Mbah (biography)

How can transdisciplinary researchers bring together context, format and methods in a way that recognises their interdependence and their dynamic nature?

Much existing guidance on transdisciplinary research treats context as one design task, and the choice of format and methods as another, separate task. However it is more realistic to see them as interdependent, and that the relationship between them keeps shifting throughout a project.

By context we mean the organisational, political, socio-economic, socio-ecological, cultural, hierarchical, spatial, and temporal structures that frame a transdisciplinary project, as well as the team dynamics and types of knowledge involved.

By format we mean the overall structure that carries a project through its phases, from framing the problem together, through generating new knowledge, to feeding results back into practice―for example a real-world laboratory, a Theory of Change process, an arts-based approach or a step-by-step guide.

Why research needs complexity entrepreneurs

October 6, 2026October 6, 2026

By Gabriele Bammer and Jean Boulton.

authors_gabriele-bammer_jean-boulton — 1. Gabriele Bammer (biography)
2. Jean Boulton (biography)

What is required to improve the understanding of research teams about the complexity encountered when investigating real life situations? How can they effectively embrace the paradoxical, elusive dance―the irreconcilable, intrinsic tension―between order and disorder, form and formlessness, and certainty and uncertainty? What is involved in research better supporting those intent on, or tasked with, acting skilfully in this complex world? Would a new research role―that of complexity entrepreneur―help?

We have coined the term “complexity entrepreneur” as a shorthand way to describe the attributes required to respond effectively in a world that is complex: ie., systemic, patterned and particular to context, and where newness often emerges in ways that cannot be predicted.

In this i2Insights contribution, we outline the key attributes of a complexity entrepreneur, based on Jean’s work. We then briefly describe the contributions of complexity entrepreneurs to research teams tackling complex problems, combining Gabriele’s and Jean’s work. Our aim is to test the water to see if others would also find benefit in distinguishing this newly-coined role of complexity entrepreneur.

Participatory countermapping

October 13, 2026September 15, 2026

By Moné Vasquez Ladron de Guevara and Pablo Mansilla Quiñones.

authors_mone-vasquez-ladron-de-guevara_pablo-mansilla-quinones — 1. Moné Vasquez Ladron de Guevara (biography)
2. Pablo Mansilla Quiñones (biography)

How can Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendant and peasant communities, as well as others, co-create maps that capture their memories, practices, and territorial knowledge, especially in contexts marked by territorial or environmental conflict, and in histories and geographies shaped by coloniality? How can territorial representations and the spatial organization imposed by extractivist processes that dispossess people of their land be challenged? How can the scientific-technical rationality underlying conventional mapmaking―rationality that often erases multiple, subaltern forms of territoriality and knowledge embedded in these territories―be questioned?

Countermapping can also be considered to be a participatory action research process that supports territorial struggles through the production of maps grounded in local knowledge.

There is no universal methodological formula for this tool. Rather, a situated methodology is required that can be adapted to each context and the ways in which people live and connect to their territories. We propose a five-stage process and then discuss ethical considerations, as well as strengths and challenges.

Fulfillment, balance and process: Co-active coaching principles for team science

August 18, 2026

By Joanna Kaniewska and Gemma Jiang.

authors_joanna-kaniewska_gemma-jiang — 1. Joanna Kaniewska (biography)
2. Gemma Jiang (biography)

What is Co-Active Coaching and how can it be applied in teams?

Co-Active Coaching (Kimsey-House et al., 2018) is a coaching method built on the premise that people are naturally creative, resourceful, and capable of finding their own answers. Rather than acting as an expert or trainer who gives solutions, the coach partners with coachees in a collaborative process that helps them gain clarity, make intentional choices, and create meaningful change.

In this i2Insights contribution, we focus on the three core principles of Co-Active Coaching—fulfillment, balance, and process—and show how they can be used in teamwork.

Fulfillment: reconnecting people to their purpose

Fulfillment coaching is about connecting work to meaning. It can be particularly useful when team members are disengaged, anxious, or questioning the value of their work.

How could research ethics governance better support participatory, transdisciplinary, and transformation-oriented research?

August 25, 2026August 11, 2026

By Ying-Syuan (Elaine) Huang and Julia Wittmayer.

authors_ying-syuan-huang_julia-wittmayer — 1. Ying-Syuan (Elaine) Huang (biography)
2. Julia Wittmayer (biography)

How can we design an ethics governance system that can better respond when ethical dilemmas emerge after institutional approval has been granted?

This question is increasingly pressing for researchers engaged in participatory, transdisciplinary, and transformative work. Ethical concerns often arise in-situ where partnerships evolve, power dynamics shift, community expectations change, and research begins to have effects beyond the original project design.

These concerns do not fit neatly into conventional ethics review procedures at universities, which still tend to be organised around upfront review: researchers submit an application, a committee assesses it, and approval is granted before the research begins. This model matters for safeguarding participants, researchers, and institutions.

Accountability in two different teamwork environments: The jigsaw puzzle and the collage

August 25, 2026July 28, 2026

By Allison Dalton, Yvonne Pelling and Gaetano R. Lotrecchiano.

authors_dalton_pelling_lotrecchiano — 1. Allison Dalton (biography)
2. Yvonne Pelling (biography)
3. Gaetano R. Lotrecchiano (biography)

How can teams demonstrate accountability in two different collaborative environments?

Accountability refers to the ways, both tangible and intangible, of showing up for ourselves and the rest of the team throughout a collaborative project. It gives rise to trust and forward momentum which impacts team functioning and ultimately the outcome of the work.

Here we look at accountability in two different collaborative environments, which we refer to using the metaphors of the jigsaw puzzle and the collage.

A team tasked with assembling a jigsaw puzzle deals with a finite set of clearly distinguished pieces, each to be fitted together in one correct way, and a reference image to demonstrate what the outcome will look like. Jigsaw puzzle teams work in unchanging environments with clearly measurable success criteria.

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.

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.

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.

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.