A practice framework for transdisciplinary collaboration: insights for sustainability transition research in the Global South

Transdisciplinarity has been extensively increasingly promoted to co-produce “socially robust” knowledge and solutions to complex sustainability challenges (Nowotny et al., 2003), meeting credibility, relevance, and legitimacy requirements for a diversity of perspectives across academic and non-academic sectors. An ethical normative of such co-production is addressing power disparities inherent in North-South collaborations in transition research (Swilling & Annecke, 2012). There have been increasing calls for expanding transitions research to include different perspectives, including greater focus on decolonisation and power dynamics (Hopkins et al., 2021).

While existing sustainability and transdisciplinarity research frameworks have identified the importance of contextualisation to the research setting (e.g. Lang et al., 2012; Luederitz et al., 2017), such frameworks have not sufficiently elaborated on such contextualisation could occur and hence merit further exploration, especially in North-South collaborations. Development and indigenous scholars (Horner, 2020; Smith, 2021) posit that Global South perspectives could yield complementary insights into how transdisciplinarity could unpack complex power dynamics and integrate historically disadvantaged knowledge stakeholders’ contributions. Transitions scholarship, particularly those interested in its ethical aspects, have identified the need for greater reflexivity around distributive, procedural, and recognitional dimensions of justice (Swilling et al., 2016).

The emerging field of planetary health provides a unique lens recognising interlinkages across the environment, health, and development (Whitmee et al., 2015) that could yield such insights. Assembling a breadth of disciplines, sectors, and contexts, planetary health research promotes sustainable transitions and is committed to inclusivity, equity, and scientific rigor in knowledge co-production (Ebi et al., 2020). A practice framework for transdisciplinary collaboration on planetary health was developed following extensive literature review, in-depth case study, and meta-analysis of existing frameworks across environment, health, and development (Wardani et al., 2024). In particular, it draws upon insights on interdependence from collaborative governance to improve clarity on the collaborative process (Innes & Booher, 2018).

This research explores whether there could be complementary insights for the sustainability transitions community, through a comparative analysis of the aforementioned ‘collaborative’ framework to an existing ‘evaluative’ framework in sustainability transitions (Luederitz et al., 2017). What are some similarities and differences between the two frameworks? What are some insights offered around unpacking of power dynamics and localisation to the research context?

Preliminary findings reveal the two frameworks share similar steps in the research process; and a value orientation towards intergenerational equity and improved socio-ecological systems. However, the ‘collaborative’ framework focuses on stakeholder engagement, provides foundational considerations for integration; while the ‘evaluative’ framework focuses on the research, building on the ideal-typical process in the transdisciplinary framework by Lang et al. (2012). The 'collaborative' framework provides more detail on understanding the local context, with considerations for power dynamics, values & ethics, and interdependence as ways to proactively address inequities.

Integrating disadvantaged knowledge systems is crucial if transitions research and governance were to capture the breadth of solutions and mitigate potential exacerbation of systemic inequities. Some practical insights are provided around identifying potential injustices, mapping power dynamics, and engaging reflexively to further social learning and equity objectives, especially in power-diverse, resource-poor contexts.