GAIA_Frameworks_Titel_E3_lv 03.02.20 14:25 Seite 1

9 FRAMEWORKS –A COMPILATIONECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES FOR SCIENCE AND SOCIETYÖKOLOGISCHE PERSPEKTIVEN FÜR WISSENSCHAFT UND GESELLSCHAFT

FRAMEWORKS FOR TRANSDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH
The series Frameworks for Transdisciplinary Research published open-access between mid-2017 and end-2019 highlights existing ways of approachingtransdisciplinary research. Five frameworks focus on transdisciplinary research as a whole and four concentrate on significant parts of the transdisciplinary
research process.

FRAMEWORKS FOR THE WHOLE PROCESSFRAMEWORKS FOR PART OF PROCESS

Framework #1: Principles for designing transdisciplinary research.
By Christian Pohl and Gertrude Hirsch Hadorn.
GAIA 26/3: 232. DOI: 10.14512/gaia.26.3.3.

Framework #4: Four building blocks of systems thinking.
By Derek Cabrera and Laura Cabrera.
GAIA 27/2: 200. DOI: 10.14512/gaia.27.2.3.

Framework #2: A model for the transdisciplinary research process.
By Matthias Bergmann and Thomas Jahn.
GAIA 26/4: 304. DOI: 10.14512/gaia.26.4.3.

Framework #5: Knowledge co-production: An analytical framework.
By Andreas Muhar and Marianne Penker.
GAIA 27/3: 272. DOI: 10.14512/gaia.27.3.3.

Framework #3: Outcomes spaces: Designing for impact in transdisciplinary
research.
By Cynthia Mitchell, Dena Fam and Dana Cordell.
GAIA 27/1: 112. DOI: 10.14512/gaia.27.1.3.

Framework #6: Context in the interaction between research andgovernment policy.
By Vanesa Weyrauch and Leandro Echt.
GAIA 27/4: 344. DOI: 10.14512/gaia.27.4.3.

Framework #8: What makes a researcher transdisciplinary?
A framework to identify expertise.
By Gabriele Bammer.
GAIA 28/3: 253. DOI: 10.14512/gaia.28.3.2.

Framework #7: Ten essentials for contributing more directly totransformational change.
By Ioan Fazey.
GAIA 28/1: 8. DOI: 10.14512/gaia.28.1.3.

Framework #9: Grounded action design – Transdisciplinary co-creation for
better transformative processes.
By Thomas Bruhn, Jeremias Herberg, Giulia Molinengo, Daniel Oppold,
Dorota Stasiak and Patrizia Nanz.
GAIA 28/4: 336. DOI: 10.14512/gaia.28.4.3.

Frameworks focusing on transdisciplinary research as a whole emphasise
different aspects. Choosing among them is not a matter of right or wrong,but of each being more or less helpful for a particular research problem ina particular context. And of course, different frameworks can also be usedin combination. One way to link the frameworks is to start with:
Framework #2 which distinguishes the scientific and societal processes
and then specifically concentrates on the integration between them.
Framework #3 nicely expands this by focusing on research outcomes –both scientific and societal – specifically improving the problematic
situation, generating knowledge stocks and flows, and producing
mutual and transformational learning.
Framework #1 provides guiding principles for the process, including
designing implementation as real world experiments and developing
reflexivity through recursiveness.
Framework #8 highlights the expertise that is required for all phases of
the research and implementation.
Framework #9 hones in on expertise required to help decision-makers
work with relevant experts and stakeholders to understand the problem
space before setting change in train.
Of the frameworks for part of the process:
Framework #4 provides guidance to key elements for taking a systems
approach.

Framework #5 takes a deep dive into knowledge co-production, teasingout the complexity involved in recognising the diversity of stakeholders,the different phases of research in which their involvement is useful,the need to clarify goals and expectations, and recognising important
knowledge types.
Framework #6 provides insights into one aspect of context, namely circumstances and factors which influence the uptake of research into policy. As a whole, context is often overlooked in transdisciplinary research.
Framework #7 concentrates on research that aims to lead totransformational change, highlighting ten essential processes.
Some cautions are required in using these frameworks. The descriptions,and often the accompanying diagrams, are necessarily truncated. The aim
is to provide an accessible overview that invites further exploration. And, ofcourse, there are many additional frameworks that could have been included. This compilation should be seen as a start, rather than a comprehensive
collection.
The companion compilation – the Toolkits for Transdisciplinarity series published in GAIA between mid-2015 and mid-2017 – provides useful concepts
and methods for applying the frameworks in practice in research projects andprograms: www.oekom.de/publikationen/zeitschriften/gaia/toolkit/c-168.
Commissioning Editor: Gabriele Bammer, Australian National University@journal_GAIA#I2Sresources@GabrieleBammer

228_232_Magazin 28.01.20 09:51 Seite 232

FRAMEWORKS FOR TRANSDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH

FRAMEWORK #1

Principles for Designing Transdisciplinary ResearchThis framework consists of a set of principles from the td-net (Network
for Transdisciplinary Research) of Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences.
A series of case studies in the Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research(Hirsch Hadorn et al. 2008) shows how these principles can be implemented. The principles are general guidelines for addressing key challenges of transdisciplinary research. The aim is to help transdisciplinary
researchers plan and implement their investigations.
The principles are structured along the three phases of transdisciplinary research (see figure 1):
1. problem identification and structuring;
2. problem analysis;
3. “Bringing results to fruition”, in other words, implementing researchin practice-oriented solutions for the common good.
Problem Identification and Structuring
The main principles for phase 1 are to reduce complexity by specifying
the need for knowledge and identifying those involved. The latter requires
involving all those concerned in developing the research question; including participants from the research world and the “life-world”, the latterencompassing public agencies, the private sector and civil society.
Specifying the need for knowledge means clarifying which of threeinterdependent forms of knowledge – systems, target, transformation
knowledge – are required to reach the project’s goals. These are described in more detail in table 1.
Problem Analysis
This covers the approach to the research question, collaboration and integration. Approaching the research question generally involves dividing
it into sub-questions, keeping these sub-questions interrelated while addressing them and integrating the sub-answers. A key principle concerns
integration. The research team has to decide what form of collaboration(common group learning, negotiation among experts, integration byleader) and what method of integration (e. g., boundary object, developing a glossary, mutually adapting concepts) will be used. A further key
principle for integration is recognizing the value of other perspectives.
Bringing Results to Fruition
Key principles of this phase are to design implementation as real-world
experiments, to clarify and test the project’s underlying impact model,
and to recognize that impacts are numerous and can occur at many levels, as well as being intended or unintended. A further principle is to

TABLE 1: Overview of interdependent forms of knowledge.
SYSTEMSKNOWLEDGE

How the problem is structured and could
develop and how it is perceived by thoseconcerned.

TARGETKNOWLEDGE

Norms and values in relation to desired
goals, both making them clear and deliberating about conflicting values, using thecommon good (e. g., sustainable development) as a regulatory principle.

TRANSFORMATIONKNOWLEDGETechnical, cultural, social, legal and otherways of achieving the desired change.

achieve effectiveness through contextualization, i.e. understanding needs,interests, practices, power relations and related issues for those who are
key to changing the life world, as well as ensuring the research results
are relevant for these groups. Finally, the results need to be embeddedin the research environment, contributing to the store of research knowledge and linking to research policy goals.
Recursiveness or Iteration
Cutting across these three phases of transdisciplinary research is the principle of developing reflexivity through recursiveness. This means that thethree phases above are not a linear set of steps to be followed sequentially. Instead the complexity and interdependence of the phases means thatwhat is learnt and decided in one phase affects the process of the otherphases, so that the research process also involves revisiting earlier decisions and reshaping them in light of additional knowledge and insights.
Iteration allows targeted learning and helps avoid stalling in the face ofcomplexity.
References
Hirsch Hadorn, G. et al. (Eds.). 2008. Handbook of transdisciplinary research.
Dordrecht: Springer.
Pohl, C., G. Hirsch Hadorn. 2007. Principles for designing transdisciplinary research.Proposed by the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences.Munich: oekom.
Christian Pohl and Gertrude Hirsch Hadorn, ETH Zurich.
Commissioning editor: Gabriele Bammer, Australian National University

FIGURE 1: Phases of transdisciplinary research (from Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn 2007, p. 42).

This is the first column in a series that aims to alert GAIA readers to useful frameworks for conducting transdisciplinary research.
If you would like to contribute a framework description, please contact gaia@oekom.de.
https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.26.3.3@journal_GAIA#I2Sresources@GabrieleBammer

FW2 28.01.20 13:18 Seite 1

FRAMEWORKS FOR TRANSDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH

FRAMEWORK #2

A Model for the Transdisciplinary Research ProcessThis model aims to guide researchers through the challenging tasks ofproblem constitution, knowledge integration, and the participation ofsocietal actors. It was developed at the Institute for Social-Ecological Research (ISOE) in 2004 and subsequently refined. The model (see figure 1)
builds upon a basic proposition: developing solutions for complex societal problems requires linking these problems to gaps in the existing bodies of knowledge, that is, to scientific problems. This proposition allows
one to conceptualize the contributions of research to societal and scientific progress as the two epistemic ends of a single integrative process. Thisconsists of three tasks (problem constitution, knowledge integration, participation of societal actors) across three consecutive phases (A to C).
Problem Constitution (Phase A)
Starting with the identification of a societal problem (figure1, upper left),the process of problem constitution comprises several important conceptual steps (not shown in the figure):
identifying the required scientific and societal expertise andknowledge;building a research team of scientists and experts from the problem
field (societal actors) who can provide the required knowledge;
developing a common understanding of the societal problem andrelated scientific problems;
translating the societal problem into an epistemic object;formulating research questions that are problem-oriented (and notdiscipline-oriented).
Decisions taken here substantially influence the quality, efficiency, andimpact of the research results. They often cannot be revised during the
research process and thus have to be made carefully.
Knowledge Integration (Phases A to C)
Knowledge integration is a task in all three phases of the research process, and its products are described in the middle column of figure 1.
This requires methods of knowledge, social and communicative integration to be applied (or developed if relevant methods do not exist).
In Phase A the knowledge integration aim is to formulate problem-oriented research questions as the prerequisites for producing socially robust results. Problem-specific knowledge requirements have to be identi-

fied before integration can be attempted. It is therefore critical to distinguish who owns which expertise in science and society, respectively, andto develop a concept for how and when to integrate it. This is often accomplished by establishing sub-teams, which represent the relevant
disciplines and societal expertise.
In Phase B the knowledge integration aim is to produce new connectable and solution-oriented knowledge. This can involve disciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research processes, depending on whichknowledge is needed and has to be connected with other knowledge elements. In this phase knowledge from very diverse epistemic cultures has
to be merged, specifically specialist knowledge arising from applicationof the scientific method and the situated knowledge of those who have
day-to-day experiences related to the societal problem under investigation. This requires specific methods for knowledge integration.
In Phase C transdisciplinary knowledge re-integration takes place. The
new knowledge generated in Phase B is evaluated for how efficiently it
contributes both to the solution of the initial societal problem and toscientific progress. This evaluation involves all project partners.
Participation of Societal Actors (Phases A to C)
Participation allows the societal experts to contribute to the problem constitution, to gain access to the generation of new, socially robust knowledge, and to support its implementation. Participation provides direction
to the processes and results of transdisciplinary research and, therefore,
is an important precondition for its efficiency and impact. The societal
experts expect an added value for their living and/or working environment.
The scientists gain access to practical knowledge and appreciate the desirability of solutions in the field of action. Moreover, they may receive
momentum for new research questions.
Reference
Jahn, T., M. Bergmann, F. Keil. 2012. Transdisciplinarity: Between
mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecological Economics 79: 1–10.
Matthias Bergmann and Thomas Jahn, ISOE – Institute forSocial-Ecological Research, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Commissioning editor: Gabriele Bammer, Australian National University

FIGURE 1: Model of the transdisciplinary research process (modified from Jahn et al. 2012; detailed version: www.isoe.de/en/research/transdisciplinarity ).

https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.26.4.3@journal_GAIA#I2Sresources@GabrieleBammer

FW3 28.01.20 13:20 Seite 1

FRAMEWORKS FOR TRANSDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH

FRAMEWORK #3

Outcome Spaces: Designing for Impact in Transdisciplinary ResearchStarting with a richly articulated picture of where we would like to be atsome defined point in the future has powerful consequences for any human endeavour, and especially for transdisciplinary research. Over thelast two decades at the Institute for Sustainable Futures (ISF) at the University of Technology Sydney, Australia, we devised, then used and evolved,
a simple framework – the Outcome Spaces Framework (Mitchell et al. 2015,
see figure 1) – to guide the conception, design, implementation, and evaluation of our transdisciplinary research.
We discern three essential outcome spaces as:
improving the situation,
generating relevant stocks and flows of knowledge, andmutual and transformational learning by the researcher(s) andinvolved participants.
We see these outcome spaces as distinct but overlapping, which can leadto tensions, especially about where to focus efforts when resources suchas time and budgets are constrained. On the plus side, the overlaps canalso be mutually reinforcing.
Improving the Situation
Language matters, and our choice of the term “situation” is deliberate because it helps us and our partners recognise and engage systemically withmess and complexity whilst avoiding implicit notions of one-shot solutions to problems. Instead, we are seeking a discernible difference – a tangible and articulable improvement in institutional or physical conditions
at whatever level (such as strategic, tactical, or operational levels) is appropriate.
Generating Stocks and Flows of Knowledge
Flows of knowledge are as important as stocks of knowledge when thegoal is to create change. Stocks include tangible and accessible knowledge artefacts, from peer-reviewed publications and reports to blogs, apps,
and social media. Flows relates to how knowledge moves, for example,
between disciplines, between academic and professional practice, fromwithin the project to outside – it is about designing in mechanisms bywhich memes of transdisciplinary research insights are transported andtransferred between people of shared and different worldviews. Thatmeans paying attention to the form and placement of knowledge artefacts, matching them with audiences in accessible ways at the rightpoints. All of this raises questions about what and whose knowledges
are valid.
Mutual and Transformational Learning
In the best of all transdisciplinary research worlds, everybody learns – researchers and participants learn from and with each other in an environment that enables the depth of reflection necessary to achieve deeper conceptual change associated with transition and transformation, allowing
the goals that govern decision-making to be redefined. This level and quality of learning leave a legacy on the strategies and actions of the individuals, project participants and organisations involved.
Conclusions
Collaboratively identifying the preferred outcomes in these distinct spaces
ahead of time can provide discernable benefits. A significant contribution
is the potential to reveal, categorise, articulate, and evaluate the impactof research.
For the research team, articulating the project-specific outcome spaces provides a set of guiding principles for process decisions throughout
the project life-cycle: defining the purpose of improving the situation atconception influences who is involved and how they are engaged, for example. For research clients, collaborators and participants, the framework
can help to ameliorate assumptions about the rarefied nature of research,
potentially changing stakeholders’ perceptions about what research is,and assumptions about how to fund and manage research.
Reference
Mitchell, C., D. Cordell, D. Fam. 2015. Beginning at the end: The outcome
spaces framework to guide purposive transdisciplinary research.
Futures 65: 86–96.

Cynthia Mitchell, Dena Fam and Dana Cordell,Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology,
Sydney, Australia
Commissioning editor: Gabriele Bammer,
Australian National University
This series aims to alert readers to useful frameworks for
conducting transdisciplinary research.
If you would like to contribute a framework description,please contact mickler@oekom.de.

FIGURE 1: Conceptual map of the three outcome spaces situation,knowledge, and learning. The transdisciplinary project is embedded
within a field of vision, which is limited by the experiences, knowledge
and worldviews of the research team. Beyond the field of vision is
the unknown, which can also be thought of as future persistentuncertainty. An example is future shocks (Mitchell et al. 2015).
https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.27.1.3@journal_GAIA#I2Sresources@GabrieleBammer

FW4 28.01.20 13:23 Seite 1

FRAMEWORKS FOR TRANSDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH

FRAMEWORK #4

Four Building Blocks of Systems Thinking
Transdisciplinary research generally treats problems as systems, but has
few ways of making that systems approach explicit. Derek and Laura Cabrera at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY, describe four building blocks ofsystems thinking, along with ways in which these building blocks can beeffectively combined.

Mix R, D, and S: after identifying
relationships, “zoom into them” bydeconstructing them into part-wholesystems;

The Building Blocks
Distinctions (Identity-Order )An essential element of systems thinking ismaking distinctions (identity-other) between
and among things and ideas. How we draw
or define the boundaries of an idea or a system of ideas is an essential
aspect of understanding. Whenever we draw a boundary to define athing, that same boundary defines what is not the thing (the “other”).
Systems thinkers consciously use distinctions to challenge existingnorms, labels, and definitions and to identify biases in the way information is structured.

Mix S and R: see the organization of parts
and the relationships between them innovel ways;

Systems (Part-Whole)
Systems thinkers organize things and ideas into part-whole systems to
make meaning. They know that changing the way ideas are organizedchanges meaning itself. The act of thinking is defined by splitting things
up or lumping them together. Systems thinkers
constantly consider context by asking “Whatis this a part of?” in order to see how things fit
into larger wholes than is the norm.
Relationships (Action-Reaction)
Systems thinkers identify relationships (actionreaction) between and among things and ideas.
We cannot understand much about anything,including a system, without understanding how parts and wholes are related. Relationships come in all types: causal, correlation, direct/indirect,
etc. Systems thinkers use relationships to show dynamical interactions
between things and ideas, including feedback loops to show reciprocal
relations.
Perspectives (Point-View)
Systems thinkers look at ideas from different
perspectives (point-view) and understand thatevery time we make a distinction (including
identifying relationships and systems), we are always doing so from aparticular perspective. Systems thinkers use perspectives to rethink distinctions, relationships, and/or systems. They move beyond human or
animal perspectives (i. e., “perspectives with eyes”) by taking conceptual perspectives (i. e., seeing a phenomenon from the perspective of an
idea or thing).
Mixing and Matching the Building Blocks
Even though the four patterns distinctions (D), systems (S), relationships (R),and perspectives (P) are very simple, the brain is very complex so it can dothese four things simultaneously and in combinations that create amazing patterns of thought. Systems thinkers mix and match as follows:
Mix R and D: make a relationship a
distinction, which means to define
relationships as ideas or things
rather than just noting connections
between objects;
https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.27.2.3

Mix S and R: compare the relationship between two wholes by comparing the relationships between theirparts (i. e., a “Relationship Channel”
or “R-channel”);
Mix P and S: Break down perspectives
into sub-perspectives in order to avoid thehomogenous perspective thinking error(i. e., assuming any group is characterized
by a single perspective);
Mix P, S, R, and D: see that distinct
objects and ideas can be grouped/related
in various ways according to a perspective,
thereby avoiding thinking errors brought
about by categorizing;
Mix P, S, R, and D: realize every complex topic or phenomenon
is a massively relational, perspectival network where
1. every relationship can bemade a distinction, and
2. where every element must
be made a distinction, could
be a system in and of itself,
could be a perspective (point
or view), and could be related
to or the relationshipbetween other elements.
Reference
Cabrera, D., L. Cabrera. 2015. Systems thinking made simple: New hope forsolving wicked problems. Ithaca, NY: Odyssean.
Derek and Laura Cabrera developed a visual modeling language andsoftware called Plectica.
Derek Cabrera and Laura Cabrera,
Cornell University, Cabrera Research Lab, Plectica
Commissioning editor: Gabriele Bammer,
Australian National University
This series aims to alert GAIA readers to useful frameworks for
conducting transdisciplinary research. If you would like to contributea framework description, please contact mickler@oekom.de.
@journal_GAIA#I2Sresources@GabrieleBammer

FW5 28.01.20 13:25 Seite 1

FRAMEWORKS FOR TRANSDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH

FRAMEWORK #5

Knowledge Co-Production: An Analytical Framework
This framework addresses the question: Who can contribute what kindof knowledge in which phase of a transdisciplinary project and why? It canbe implemented ex-ante to design future projects and ex-post, as originally developed by Enengel and colleagues (2012), for analysis of knowledge co-production in transdisciplinary research processes.
Four main elements form the core of the framework; the internal differentiation within each element will depend on the organisational and thematic context of an individual research project.
WHO (Actors and Roles): A simple distinction between researchers andstakeholders is not sufficient to describe the complex reality of a transdisciplinary research project. In particular, the diversity of stakeholders needs
to be considered. It can be helpful to consider stakeholders at three levels, as they will have different roles and resources. First, practice experts
often work in public agencies or non-government organisations and arevery familiar with the practical and political aspects of the issues investigated, but not necessarily with the specific local case. Second, on the caselevel, strategic case actors hold formal or informal responsibilities (local
politicians, local leaders, regional managers). Third, local case actors represent all the other actors either affected by, or involved in, the local case.
WHEN (Research Phases): Knowledge co-production and other communication among participants have different intensities in the various phases of a project. Practice experts and strategic case actors are typically involved in the definition of the research questions and in the discussionof results, sometimes also in the data collection, but rarely in data analysis and in publications. An often neglected aspect is the problem history, that means the interaction among stakeholders that had occurred before a research project starts.
WHY (Objectives): The goals of stakeholder involvement can vary for theactor groups and in the different research phases. For example, while stra-tegic case actors are often involved in co-defining the research question,
local case actors are usually informed about the question afterwards. Methods selection tends to be the researchers’ task, with or without consultation with relevant stakeholder groups. The different goals of stakeholder
involvement need to be clarified in order to avoid unrealistic expectations,in particular when it comes to decision-making for implementation, which
in many cases is outside the scope of a research project.
WHAT (Knowledge Types): Complementary to the differentiation between
systems, target and transformation knowledge (see Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn 2017), the knowledge contributions of different actor groups at various stages of the project can be described by using the following three
dimensions:
Scale: Context-specific knowledge refers to the concrete setting of the individual case. Generalised knowledge claims to be universally valid andis expressed in a systematic way, free from context-specific conditions
and constraints.
Function: Phenomenological knowledge addresses (local) social and environmental phenomena and their description, for example, local fauna andflora. Strategic knowledge focuses on connections and interrelations ofsystem elements. It often addresses organisational, functional and network issues for changing the system, and is essential for implementation phases.
Epistemology (Cognition): Experiential knowledge is derived from one’s
own life experience or from traditional knowledge, and is often tacit or
implicit and therefore usually not formalised or systemised. Scientificknowledge is based on empirical evidence or scientifically acknowledged
theories; it is systematic, formalised and explicit. There is no hierarchy between these types of knowledge in the sense of superiority or inferiority,
instead they need to be negotiated and integrated.
References
Enengel, B., A. Muhar, M. Penker, B. Freyer, S. Drlik, F. Ritter. 2012.
Co-production of knowledge in transdisciplinary doctoral theseson landscape development: An analysis of actor roles andknowledge types in different research phases. Landscape and
Urban Planning 105/1–2: 106–117.
Pohl, C., G. Hirsch Hadorn. 2017. Frameworks for transdisciplinary
research: Framework #1 – Principles for designing transdisciplinary research. GAIA 26/3: 232.
Andreas Muhar and Marianne Penker,
BOKU – University of Natural Resources andLife Sciences, Vienna
Commissioning editor: Gabriele Bammer,
Australian National University

FIGURE 1: Framework for designing and analysing transdisciplinary research
projects (adapted from Enengel et al. 2012, p. 108).
https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.27.3.3

This series aims to alert GAIA readers to useful frameworks for
conducting transdisciplinary research. If you would like to contributea framework description, please contact mickler@oekom.de.
@journal_GAIA#I2Sresources@GabrieleBammer

FW6 28.01.20 13:27 Seite 1

FRAMEWORKS FOR TRANSDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH

FRAMEWORK #6

Context in the Interaction between Research and Government Policy
This framework can inform transdisciplinary research on how best to influence change in government policy. The framework:
strategically identifies potential areas of change for different typesof interventions,focuses specifically at the institutional level, andembraces the importance of politics in achieving change.
Drawing on extensive academic literature, as well as interviews with morethan 50 policy makers in Africa, Asia and Latin America, the framework illustrated in figure 1 uses a systemic approach and embraces the complexity of the policy-making process, rather than using linear recipes.
Six main dimensions allow users to identify entry points to makestrategic decisions about knowledge use at governmental institutions:
1. macro context: the overarching forces (structural and circumstantial)at the national level that establish the “bigger picture” in which policy
is made.
2. intra- and inter-relationships with state and non-state agents:
although part of macro context, these warrant special mention. They
are the internal relationships between the public institution and otherrelated government agencies and the interaction with relevant users
and producers of knowledge who can affect or be affected by policy
design and implementation.

3. culture: the set of values and assumptions accepted as “the norm”.
4. organizational capacity: the ability of an organization to use its
resources to perform.
5. management and processes: ongoing processes and policies,
and how routine decisions are made.
6. core resources: include budget, time, infrastructure andtechnology.
Each dimension breaks down into several critical sub-dimensions which
can be interactively explored at www.politicsandideas.org/contextmatters.
For example, item 3, culture, is explained in detail and divided into four
components which are also expanded upon. These are:beliefs and values (of both the policy makers and the organizations),
incentives (the external rewards for achieving policy change),
openness to change (what are the facilitators and barriers to
introducing policy change), andmotivations (the personal drivers of the policy makers involved).
The links among the dimensions can change as circumstances change.
The framework allows users to systematically and comprehensively assess where the potential for change in government policy is greatest,
as well as where the most significant barriers are.
The framework was developed by a collaboration between the think net Politics & Ideas
and the International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publications (INASP).
References
Politics & Ideas. 2016. Knowledge into context:
A framework to understand context.
www.politicsandideas.org/contextmatters
Weyrauch, V., L. Echt, S. Suliman. 2016.
Knowledge into policy: Going beyond“Context matters”.
www.politicsandideas.org/wp-content/
uploads/2016/07/Going-beyond-contextmatters-Framework_PI.compressed.pdf
Weyrauch, V., L. Echt, S. Suliman. 2016.
Starting from context: How to make strategic
decisions to promote a better interaction
between knowledge and policy.
www.politicsandideas.org/wp-content/
uploads/2016/07/Going-beyondcontext-matters-Practical-paper_PI.
compressed.pdf
Vanesa Weyrauch and Leandro Echt,
Politics & Ideas
Commissioning editor: Gabriele Bammer,
Australian National University

FIGURE 1: The six main dimensions of context defining the interaction between knowledge
and policy.

This series aims to alert GAIA readers touseful frameworks for conducting
transdisciplinary research. If you would like tocontribute a framework description,please contact mickler@oekom.de.

https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.27.4.3#I2Sresources@journal_GAIA@GabrieleBammer

FW7 28.01.20 13:30 Seite 1

Ten essentials for contributing more directly to transformational change
Frameworks for transdisciplinary research # 7
Ioan Fazey | University of Dundee | i.fazey@dundee.ac.uk
This framework presents ten essentials needed for transdisciplinary research to achieve a greater action and solution orientation in relation
to complex and urgent problems (figure 1). It emerged over a two-year
period from individual and collective reflection (Fazey et al. 2018).
The framework is underpinned by rejection of the assumption that researchers can or should be independent from what they observe. This
opens up possibilities for other kinds of research (especially transdisciplinary research) and places greater responsibility on researchers to
be more explicit about personal, social and cultural influences on thenature and way knowledge is produced.
The first three of the essentials relate to the focus of the research, while
the rest are concerned with research practice.
1. Focus on transformations: Research needs to directly focus on transformative rather than incremental or marginal forms of change. This
includes addressing underlying structures and systems, such as
governance, power, values, cultures and technology.
2. Focus on solution processes: Greater focus is needed on solutions
and processes for change, expanding beyond simply understanding the problem. This includes focus on aspired outcomes and how
these are expected to be achieved.
3. Focus on “how to” practical knowledge: Research must engage morewith practical knowledge as well as epistemic knowledge and practice must play a more direct role in informing research. Practicalknowledge includes “know how” as well as morally defensible outcomes and paths towards achieving them.
4. Approach research as occurring from within: Research needs to beapproached as occurring from within the system being intervened in.
This assists researchers to recognise they are influenced by and partof the problems they seek to address or understand. Researching

ref

lex

ive

ns.
n
us o atio
Foc nsform
tra

10

Be

ESSENTIALS

Tak
app e a muroac lti-f
h to acetcha ednge.

4Approach research as
occurring from within.
W
as orkpe w
cts ith
.
n

end
ansc
to tr kingSeek nt thin ches.
curre approa
andthe ivege rnat ers.
d
e
l e h
ow alt arc
kn of seAc lue of reva les
ro

8

3

o” .
w t geho wled“on knocus alFo acticpr.

Encourage second
order experimentationand change.
9

Foc
proc us on sesse oluti
s.
on

2
1

or

5

m

at

ive

from within encourages approaches where action and learning are
more closely intertwined, enhancing innovation, learning and change.
5. Work with normative aspects: Research needs to find ways to workin the messy real world of politics, values and change and to incorporate ethical and aesthetic considerations as part of the processof knowledge production.
6. Seek to transcend current thinking and approaches: Many contemporary problems cannot be addressed by the same kinds of thinking that created them. New forms of thinking are required that open
up space for new questions, insights and solutions that can transcend current paradigms and disciplines.
7. Take a multi-faceted approach to change: Different paradigms, methodologies and methods affect the interpretation of phenomena andthe way in which subsequent actions are prescribed. Multiple perspectives, knowledge and ways of knowing therefore need to be taken into account.
8. Acknowledge the value of alternative roles of researchers: Enhancing learning about how to foster change often requires greater flexibility in the roles undertaken by the researchers involved. Researcher
roles may include facilitating interactions, mediating between different frames, acting as knowledge brokers or guiding action.
9. Encourage second-order experimentation and change: Developing
action-oriented knowledge requires experimenting with change processes, such as through local and context-specific actions, projects
and initiatives. It also requires as much focus on learning from theaction as generating tangible and actionable outcomes.
10. Be reflexive: Reflexivity is the critical exploration of how perceptual,
cognitive, theoretical, linguistic, political and cultural circumstances
influence interpretations, approaches and learning. This includes
engendering scepticism concerning one’s knowledge and value
stances as well as the views of others and making explicit underlying values and assumptions. Actively incorporating reflexivity into
research and action processes is critical for supporting the otheressentials.
Each of these essentials is effective on its own, but the greatest impacts
will be achieved when the essentials are applied together. This will create a much more adaptive, reflexive, collaborative and impact-oriented
form of research, as well as intellectual depth that enables integrationof knowledge with normative considerations of what is considered to
be good.
Reference
Fazey, I. et al. 2018. Ten essentials for action-oriented and second orderenergy transitions, transformations and climate change research.
Energy Research and Social Science 40: 54 –70.
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629617304413(accessed January 24, 2019).
Commissioning editor: Gabriele Bammer, Australian National University

6

7

FIGURE 1: Ten essentials for transdisciplinary research to have greater
impact (Fazey et al. 2018).

This series aims to alert GAIA readers to useful frameworks for
conducting transdisciplinary research. If you would like to contributea framework description, please contact gaia@oekom.de.
© 2019 I. Fazey; licensee oekom verlag. This is an Open Access article distributed under the termsof the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0).
https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.28.1.3@journal_GAIA#I2Sresources@GabrieleBammer

FW8 28.01.20 13:32 Seite 1

What makes a researcher transdisciplinary? A framework to identify expertise
Frameworks for transdisciplinary research # 8
Gabriele Bammer | Australian National University | gabriele.bammer@anu.edu.au
Integration and Implementation Sciences (i2S) provides a framework to
identify the core elements of expertise required for research to be transdisciplinary in addressing complex societal or environmental problems.
Expertise is required in three foundational domains (figure 1):
Synthesizing knowledge: Identifying and synthesizing relevant knowledge from various disciplines and stakeholders to develop a morecomprehensive understanding of the problem.
Knowledge includes not only “facts”, but also epistemologies, values, interests and world views. It can be formally defined in disciplines or gleaned from stakeholders, who can be usefully thought ofas those affected by the problem and those in a position to do something about it.
Managing unknowns: Comprehensively reviewing unknowns and developing strategies for dealing with them to reduce the risk of adverse
unintended consequences.
Unknowns include known unknowns, unknown knowns and unknown unknowns. Manifestations include error, incompleteness,vagueness, distortion, uncertainty, deception, taboo, suppression,and undecidability.
Supporting improvement: Providing the best possible evidence-based
support to those in a position to address the problem to maximize
the chances of effective action.
The evidence base integrates the results of the knowledge synthesis
and the strategies for dealing with unknowns. Those acting on the
problem may be in government, business and/or civil society andmay seek to change policy and/or practice.

The framework also provides five questions, plus prompts, to stimulate
systematic consideration of specific expertise in each of the three domains,in particular for how each question will be addressed.
1. What are the aims and who are the beneficiaries?
2. What is involved in determining relevant knowledge, unknowns andoptions for improvement?
Systems-based approaches to adequately understand the
problem and possible improvements;
scoping to identify all relevant disciplines and stakeholders,
relevant unknowns, and possibilities for action;boundary setting to establish the most important priorities
from the options identified by the scoping process;framing decisions to define the problem and articulate courses
for improvement;
identification of value differences, especially value conflicts;
effective harnessing of different expertise in the research team,plus management of differences that cause irritation and conflict.
3. What methods will be used for synthesizing knowledge, managing
unknowns and supporting improvement?
Knowledge synthesis methods include dialogue, modelling andbuilding a product;
managing unknowns includes established methods to reduce
unknowns (such as experiments, surveys, focus groups),
processes for accepting inevitable unknowns (such as hedging
and building in resilience), techniques to counter suppression
and deception, and means to exploit the benefits of unknowns;
supporting improvement includes methods for communication,
co-production and activism.
4. What circumstances might influence the research or its ability tosupport improvement?
“Big picture” context includes political, economic, historical,
and cultural circumstances;whether and what authorization is necessary;facilitators and barriers imposed by the research and otherorganizations involved.
5. Have the best possible choices been made in addressing each of thefour questions above?
Transdisciplinary research teams need an expert with an overall appreciation of the knowledge, skills and dispositional attributes identified
above. Different team members can also contribute specific elementsof that expertise such as skills in building models or understanding elements of context.
Reference
Bammer, G. 2013. Disciplining interdisciplinarity: Integration and implementation sciences for researching complex real-world problems. Canberra: ANU Press.
DOI: 10.22459/DI.01.2013.

FIGURE 1: Identifying transdisciplinary expertise: the Integration and
Implementation Sciences (i2S) framework.

Commissioning editor: Gabriele Bammer, Australian National University

This series aims to alert GAIA readers to useful frameworks for conducting transdisciplinary research. If you would like to contribute a framework description,please contact gaia@oekom.de.
©2019 G. Bammer; licensee oekom verlag. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0).
https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.28.2.3@journal_GAIA#I2Sresources@GabrieleBammer

FW9 28.01.20 13:34 Seite 1

Grounded action design – Transdisciplinary co-creation for better transformative processes
Frameworks for transdisciplinary research # 9
Thomas Bruhn (corresponding author), Jeremias Herberg, Giulia Molinengo, Daniel Oppold, Dorota Stasiak, Patrizia Nanz |all: Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS) Potsdam | thomas.bruhn@iass-potsdam.de
A government or other political institution wanting to enact change often approaches the problem being addressed with specific perceptions
and understandings. However, their approach is usually insufficient tocapture the complexity of the “problem space”. Grounded action design is a framework for a reflexive and co-creative process where stakeholders, relevant experts and decision makers – guided by researchers
from a scientific advisory organization – explore, map and expand theirunderstanding of the complex problem space before the political institution or decision making body sets transformative change in train (figure 1). This framework is suitable for research organizations acting ina scientific advisory function (Bruhn et al. 2019).
Grounded action design, summarized in the figure, has four phases, eachof which has specific aims and processes. The four phases are describedsequentially, but in practice there will be iterations among them.
1. Problem scoping: An iterative process where all the stakeholders affected by the problem and the decision makers engage in dialogue toensure that all aspects of the problem are considered. Potential con-flicts are identified and commitment of the stakeholders is established.
2. Transformative mapping: A participatory exploration to develop an
overview of stakeholders, their positions, functions, and experiences,and how they are connected.
3. Identifying stakeholder capacities, useful ideas, and possibilities forchange: Detailed inquiry to identify the potential for positive outcomes
for the field of affected stakeholders through transformative change.
4. Developing transformation strategy: Creating a plan to address thecomplex challenge with relevant stakeholders based on the insightsof phases 1 to 3.
Reference
Bruhn, T., J. Herberg, G. Molinengo, D. Oppold, D. Stasiak, P. Nanz. 2019.
Grounded action design: A model of scientific support for processes to address complex challenges. IASS discussion paper. Potsdam: Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS). DOI: 10.2312/iass.2019.054.
Commissioning editor: Gabriele Bammer, Australian National University

FIGURE 1: Grounded action design – a framework for a reflexive and co-creative process.

Guiding questions
1 Problem scoping: What are eachstakeholder’s hopes and expectations? What are their values, normative positions and goals?
How do they perceive the problem
and relationships among different aspects of the problem? What
are the underlying assumptions?
2 Transformative mapping: What
are the roles of those who are
active in the problem space?
What skills, competencies andother attributes do the various
stakeholders have? What are theirinterests and positions? How are
the stakeholders organized andhow are they connected?
3 Identifying stakeholder
capacities, useful ideas, andpossibilities for change: Have
unexplored stakeholder capacities
become visible through the transformative mapping process?
Which synergies among stakeholders and possibilities for
future change can be identified?
4 Developing transformation
strategy: Which measures could
foster stakeholder capacities andpossibilities for change?

This is the last column in this series which aims to alert GAIA readers to useful frameworks for conducting transdisciplinary research.
©2019 T. Bruhn et al.; licensee oekom verlag. This Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0).
https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.28.4.3@journal_GAIA#I2Sresources@GabrieleBammer