Codes of Conduct for Collaboration as Social Rule Systems for Transdisciplinary Processes

Scholz, Roland W.; Renn, Ortwin Article — Published Version Codes of Conduct for Collaboration as Social Rule Systems for Transdisciplinary Processes Systemic Practice and Action Research Provided in Cooperation with: Springer Nature Suggested Citation: Scholz, Roland W.; Renn, Ortwin (2023) : Codes of Conduct for Collaboration as Social Rule Systems for Transdisciplinary Processes, Systemic Practice and Action Research, ISSN 1573-9295, Springer US, New York, NY, Vol. 37, Iss. 1, pp. 81-101, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-023-09641-3 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/318091 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Vol.:(0123456789) Systemic Practice and Action Research (2024) 37:81–101 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-023-09641-3 1 3 RESEARCH Codes ofConduct forCollaboration asSocial Rule Systems forTransdisciplinary Processes RolandW.Scholz1,2,3 · OrtwinRenn3,4 Accepted: 2 April 2023 / Published online: 27 April 2023 © The Author(s) 2023 Abstract This paper addresses the need for effective and fair codes of conduct for public-good-ori- ented transdisciplinary processes. These processes are characterized by the production of socially robust orientations (SoROs) through mutual learning and developing better action strategies by merging knowledge from practice and science. We argue that transdisciplinary processes should be governed by an appropriate social rule system that comprises codes of conduct for collaboration (CCC) in transdisciplinary discourses. In our view, participants in a transdisciplinary process must (1) follow rules of mutuality between science and practice (accepting the otherness of the other) and (2) enable the use and integration of knowledge from science and practice (e.g., through responsibility and/or co-leadership at all levels of a project). This requires (3) a protected discourse arena similar to an expanded Chatham House Rule that facilitates the generation of groundbreaking, novel ideas for sustainable transition. In transdisciplinary processes, CCC are based on these three perspectives and can be explicitly introduced yet require cultural and situational adaptations. Many aspects of transdisciplinary processes, such as legal status (e.g., who owns the data generated, whether it is a group or formal organization), are often unclear and need further investigation. Keywords Social Rule Systems· Transdisciplinarity· Action Research· Codes of Conduct for Collaboration· Equal Footing· Knowledge Integration * Roland W. Scholz [email protected] 1 Department forKnowledge andCommunication Management, Danube University ofContinuing Education Krems, KremsanderDonau, Austria 2 Natural andSocial Science Interface, Department ofEnvironmental System Science, ETHZürich, Switzerland 3 Research Institute forSustainability, Helmholtz Center Potsdam (RIFS), Potsdam, Germany 4 Center forInterdisciplinary Risk andInnovation Research (ZIRIUS), University ofStuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany 82 Systemic Practice and Action Research (2024) 37:81–101 1 3 Introduction: Transdisciplinary Codes ofConduct forCollaboration What isUnderstood byTransdisciplinarity? There are many concepts and definitions of transdisciplinarity in the literature (see review in Lawrence etal. 2022). They all agree that dealing with wicked problems require multiple types of knowledge, in particular academic, experiential and practical knowledge, inclusion of stakeholders and integration of academic and practical viewpoints (Scholz etal. 2006); Renn 2021). Transdisciplinarity is understood in this paper as the integration of knowledge from science and practice to better cope with problems of a certain complexity, particularly in the field of sustainability transformations (Häberli and Grossenbacher-Mansuy 1998; Jantsch 1972; Klein etal. 2001; Lawrence etal. 2022; Polk 2015; Renn 2021; Scholz 2020; Scholz etal. 2000, p. 6; Scholz etal. 2006). Different notions of transdisciplinarity exist. The term is sometimes used to refer to the integration of different (scientific) knowledge systems that cannot be easily integrated (Mahan Jr., 1970; Nicolescu 2000, 2011; Piaget 1970; Scholz and Steiner 2015a). This may even involve an inner-disciplinary level; for instance, in physics, theories related to quantum dynamics and particle physics cannot be well-integrated (Hossenfelder 2018; Nicolescu 2007, 2011). This inner-science search for an overarching consistency or unity of knowledge has been called Mode I transdisciplinarity (referring the the destinction Mode I and Mode II science by Gibbons etal. 1994). This paper focuses on transdisciplinary processes (Td processes) that relate and/or integrate knowledge from science and practice. Transdisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity are thus understood as complementary terms focusing on different types of knowledge integration. Transdisciplinarity relates the epistemics of scientists and practitioners. Interdisciplinarity is based on the merging of concepts and methods from different scientific disciplines. However, transdisciplinary approaches rely on (targeted) interdisciplinary cooperation, while interdisciplinarity can be accomplished without transdisciplinary methods or procedures. Transdisciplinarity goes beyond participatory research, meaning an “orientation toward inquiry.” In participatory research, the scientists maintain control of the process. The inputs from practice often merely serve the interests of the science side. Thus, the better understanding and reflection of an (abstracted) scientific topic is the subject of participative or participatory research (Cornwall and Jewkes 1995). Yet participatory approaches are not fundamentally distinct from other empirical social research procedures (Bergold and Thomas 2012). On the contrary, the structuring and formation of jointly developed orientations for a concrete, complex, societally relevant, ambiguous, and usually contested realworld problem (i.e., a real-world case) are elements of a transdisciplinary process. Since Td processes involve research and questions at certain periods, participatory research is a component of these processes. The second variant to address is action research. Compared to many variants of action research, Td focuses on the capacity-building of participants for sustainable action rather than on direct, concrete, practical problem-solving actions (Bradbury 2015). Both approaches are oriented toward addressing real-world problems Yet, typically, action research targets solving problems directly (i.e., takes a solutionist perspective; Bisaro etal. 2016), while Td research includes the search for a common understanding and often reframing of the problem and the exploration of a resolution space rather than a concrete solution. A major difference is that, in action research, the normative values and goals of scientists rule the interaction with practitioners. By contrast, scientists participating in a Td process are fundamentally oriented toward the common good, while practitioners add the necessary 83 Systemic Practice and Action Research (2024) 37:81–101 1 3 experiential and interest-driven knowledge and perspectives required to define the problem and the solution space. To put it in other terms, specific normative aspects of scientists do not guide the Td process. The focus is on the facilitation of conflicts emerging from different values, interests, and worldviews among stakeholders (Baskerville 1997; Scholz 2017b; Wittmayer and Schäpke 2014). The three approaches, participatory research, action research, and transdisciplinarity describe different kinds of science–practice collaboration (Scholz and Steiner 2023a). In a transdisciplinary process, there is, ideally, equal-process ownership and co-leadership by practitioners and scientists. For this reason, we do not use the term “transdisciplinary research,” which indicates that researchers take the lead, but rather Td approach or process. We should note that community-based participatory action research (CBPAR, McTaggart 1991; Whyte 1989, 1991; Wilson 2018) is closely related to our understanding of transdisciplinarity as used in this paper. Often, CBPAR also relies on co-governance, but it is not based on the assumption that science is affected by and benefits from science–practice collaboration, which is the case when applying transdisciplinarity. A transdisciplinary process is conceived as a time-limited process that is jointly initiated, managed, and governed by a social community and newly formed to deal with particularly complex challenges. Participation is voluntary and unpaid, except for a few people responsible for the management of the process. The collaboration is goal-oriented and usually focused on strategic management or finding strategies for action. In practice, membership on a transdisciplinary team is sometimes formalized by a participation or cooperation agreement. Frequently, however, this is informal (as a basis we take here the 40 transdisciplinary processes analyzed by Scholz and Steiner 2015a, 2015c). From an organizational science perspective, a transdisciplinary team may be something between a group and an organization. (the latter requires formal admission and membership). This paper discusses codes of conduct for collaboration (CCC) in Td process as a social rule system (Burns and Dietz 1992) that supports a transdisciplinary team to take agency in sustainable transitioning. The term “sustainable transitioning” is used synonymously with sustainable development (Scholz and Stauffacher 2007). We should note that transition management also denotes a specific collaboration approach between science and practice that may follow an activist “radical” approach (Loorbach 2022; Rotmans etal. 2007). What Does aCode ofConduct Include? There are different understandings of codes of conduct for collaboration, or CCC. Any CCC is a set of values, standards, rules, and principles describing expectations for what members of an organization or participants of a process should do. Yet we find applications of the term that include a code of ethics or even a whole set of objectives that are linked to an organization or process. As indicated by the phrasing in the title “codes of conduct of collaboration,” this paper is largely limited to (1) the rules of interaction and mutuality of collaboration, (2) acceptance of the diversity of roles, and (3) several constraints to allow all participants equal access to the process and to the shaping of the outcomes. Td process, for instance, may take place only in settings that follow an open, democratic, pluralist discourse culture. Thus, interaction among the participants, particularly the social rules agreed upon and followed by scientists and practitioners, are in the foreground. It is important to note that the current practice of transdisciplinarity has been developed over the last three decades in small-, medium-, and large-scale Td projects that aimed to produce socially robust orientations (SoROs; the singular is SoRO) as products of Td processes. SoRos represent results of a co-creation process between academics and practioners 84 Systemic Practice and Action Research (2024) 37:81–101 1 3 on the causes of a problem or potential solutions to a problem. They are based on a process that generates processes of knowledge integration of different types of epistemics (e.g., scientific, and experiential knowledge, utilizing and relating disciplinary knowledge from the social, natural, and engineering sciences; Scholz and Steiner 2015a). The transdisciplinary process primarily serves strategic objectives (how to reach a specific goal, for example in sustainability management) and aims to ensure that, in some way, all stakeholder groups are participating in a balanced manner. This means that “a merger of scientific and practical knowledge” – when following an “orientation toward the common good” (Renn 2021) – is a major general constraint. Thus, transdisciplinarity has also been called a major method of sustainable transition management. We want to note that advocacy-based, solutionoriented transdisciplinarity may call for a different approach as usually certain solutions (such as using nuclear power to address fuel shortages) are principally excluded from the outset. SoROs are the primary outcomes or products of Td processes and are based on multiple triangulations of perspectives (science vs. practice, multidisciplinary and multistakeholder, etc.). As outcomes, they meet the characteristics of (i) knowledge integration, (ii) scientific compatibility (e.g., with state-of-the-art science knowledge, (iii) understandability (of the salient rationale by all participants), and (iv) two characteristics of integrity, i.e., a revelation of the limits of knowledge (related to both its uncertainty and incompleteness) and the full disclosure of interests, financial resources, and other constraints (Scholz 2011). Td processes are costly with respect to time and money; they make sense only for a certain type of problem. Transdisciplinary problems are complex, ill-defined, socially contested, real-world problems with a high degree of ambiguity. They call for multiple trade-offs and cannot be appropriately addressed with disciplinary or interdisciplinary approaches. Transdisciplinary problems exhibit a multiple complexity that can be properly understood only by experts in both science and practice. Therefore, a Td process must be organized in such a way that the collaboration allows for an orientation on how to successfully cope with these types of problem. How this can be achieved from a social interaction perspective has not been thoroughly discussed. Only a few papers have focused on conflicts among participating representatives of stakeholders (Löhr etal. 2017; Siebenhuner 2018). In fact, mitigating between various stakeholders’ legitimate interests may be viewed as a key challenge, and “being contested” is one characteristic of a transdisciplinary problem. Td process require first the willingness of all participants to engage in such a process and, second, a specialized competence in process leadership. Such a process-oriented leadership is provided by facilitators. A facilitator is a kind of process-rule manager who organizes the Td processes, mitigates conflicts (particularly of goals among stakeholders), and assists in integrating different types of knowledge. The concept of the facilitator has been described as a person who can reliably communicate the goals, rules, and constraints of the process (Rasmussen etal. 2010). Facilitators’ roles go far beyond moderating; they must have the capability to structure the content and the process and, thereby, must be literate in the subject matter. The facilitator sets the rules for the discourse in consultation with the organizers and the participants. Facilitators must be able to communicate clearly in the language chosen for the Td process, understand the various interests of participants, and be aware of hidden and personal agendas of participants. Their core mandate is the facilitation of knowledge integration among and between the participating scientists and practitioners. Moreover, facilitators should be able to work together with organizers and process manages for coordinating all subgroups and serving as interface to the public at large in a way that does not disturb or jeopardize the internal process. Given these challenging demands, finding an effective facilitator represents a significant challenge in itself. 85 Systemic Practice and Action Research (2024) 37:81–101 1 3 Yet, likewise, there are conflicts among scientists about which disciplinary processes are needed and which are not. Various scientific approaches may well differ in their mode of justification and/or validation. Here, the art of the facilitator is to support the selection and justification of the theoretical approach that is meaningful. This is linked to the most significant challenge, i.e., to understand the degree to which – depending on the task to be accomplished – science knowledge or practice knowledge is useful in order to reach SoROs. In What Domains doTransdisciplinary Processes Take Place? As previously mentioned, the focused mode of transdisciplinarity is quite similar to CBPAR (Israel etal. 2017; Wallerstein and Duran 2010; Wilson 2018). The main difference here is that CBPAR does not strive to affect or to change/innovate sciences in the same way. Transition management (Schneidewind etal. 2016; Wittmayer 2016) also utilizes Td processes. A comprehensive overview on 15 types of science-practice collaboration is provided by Scholz and Steiner (Scholz etal. 2023a). There are many variations for how to conduct transdisciplinary studies and activities. They can be grouped into transition-oriented (aiming for SoROs; here, action-oriented approaches are subsumed) or reflective transdisciplinary approaches (preparing the groundwork for SoROs). But we may also find approaches including both sides. We have mentioned CBPAR and the Dutch transition management approach (Loorbach 2010) above, but real-world labs (Huning etal. 2021) or variants of participatory research are often subsumed under transdisciplinary approaches. Although the practice of Td processes emerged from small, mostly environmental science case studies (Bergmann etal. 2012; close to 40 small studied are described in Scholz and Steiner 2015b), large-scale studies or Td processes not directly related to the natural environment have been run following the conception of transdisciplinarity presented in this paper. The Digital Data as the Subject of a Transdisciplinary Process (DiDaT) project dealt with unintended side effects of the critical/irresponsible use of digital data (Scholz etal. 2021b). About 150 participants, half from science and half from practice, developed SoROs in a twoyear process, which were published in a white book (Scholz etal. 2021a). The Global Transdisciplinary Processes for Sustainable Phosphorus management (Global TraPs) was organized on a global level with workshops around the world, with more than 250 people from science and practice following most of the rules below presented (Scholz etal. 2014). Codes ofConduct forCollaboration asTools toStabilize aTd Process: Historical Background andObjectives ofThis Paper Although we are looking at an increasing number of Td processes involving practitioners, the conception of transdisciplinarity is generally unknown in practice (Scholz and Steiner 2015a, b, c; Stauffacher and Scholz 2013). Potential affiliating practitioners should be interested in the subject and the process of mutual learning. However, some may fear that economically competitive information may fall into the wrong hands, that they might participate in groups where they represent a minority opinion, or that preliminary thoughts developed to explore unconventional solutions could be used publicly to harm them. These are particularly more likely to happen in an increasingly polarized world. A CCC, thus, should include rules to protect those practitioners who, for example, want to think outside the box when searching for groundbreaking social innovations or who are interested in discussing topics that may be taboo in a transdisciplinary problem. Against this background, the Chatham House Rule is of interest. It was developed by 86 Systemic Practice and Action Research (2024) 37:81–101 1 3 an international think tank (Martin 1995) that brings together people who are interested in open dialogue on issues of a sensitive nature. The Chatham House Rule simply expresses that everything that has been discussed may be conveyed to the public but without revealing the identity of who said it, thereby, protecting open discourse and building trust. Historically, with respect to Td processes, a first significant development was made during a study on transforming a highly contaminated industrial urban area in Zurich. The site owners, producers of large machinery, were very concerned that a Td process would endanger the “permitting process and design plan” negotiated with the city council (Andres 1996, p. 6). However, as expressed by the owners, they and the scientific team succeeded “without any problems” … “to find rules of the game for conducting the study,” e.g., when regulating how and when critical data could be communicated to the public. This allowed “what is sure to be a mutually beneficial dialogue to be established” (1996, p. 7). Sustainability learning between science and practice needs a properly designed learning space and rule systems designed to build trust. The personal dimension is most important in this context. Ideally, the practice and science co-leaders together provide a first draft of the rules. Yet, in the sometimes multi-year collaboration, new problems may continually emerge when linking science and practice needs. This is why the Global TraPs project, a global Td process on sustainable phosphorus use, introduced a facilitator for each group (Scholz etal. 2014, p. 87). A facilitator may be viewed as a pivotal actor at the interface between science and practice (see Fig.1). This position aims to extract basic rules that support knowledge integration, the mitigation and reframing of conflicts, the formation of trust, and other issues needed for open discourse. Under the heading of “Principles of mutual learning sessions,” a first comprehensive CCC can be found in Scholz etal. (Scholz etal. 2014, p. 94). SciencePracce Transdisciplinary Project Leadership Scienst(s) Praconer(s) (From publicinstuons)(From private or public instuons) Transdisciplinary Steering Board ScienstsPraconers (Responsible forscienc adequacy)(Responsiblefor a balanced view and accesstokey knowledge) Knowledge Integraon Groups (Facets, Subprojects, Unseens) Group 1 ScienstsFacilitator(s) (Managing knowledge integraon) Praconers ………… Group NSciensts Facilitator(s)Praconers Management Team SupporngLeaders and Facilitators (Supporng the scienceand thepracce leader(s)) Fig. 1 A standard organizational chart of a transdisciplinary study (adapted from Scholz etal. 2021c, p. 10) for a Td process (Binder etal. 2015) including facilitator(s) as key agent(s) and manager(s) who run a Td process and facilitate knowledge integration 87 Systemic Practice and Action Research (2024) 37:81–101 1 3 Origins ofThe Concept andFunctions ofCodes ofConduct forCollaboration Social Rules are Real andcan be Measured When studying codes of conduct for transdisciplinary research, it is essential to base such a study on generic concepts that have been developed for justifying rules and orientations in a larger societal context. For example, Émile Durkheim (1858–1917), one of the founders of sociology, stressed the importance of social and moral norms and rules for understanding social development. Durkheim considered the sociocultural system to be widely independent from natural resources (Humphrey and Buttel 1982; Rosa and Richter 2008), yet he took a realist, positivist view of the social rules that govern social systems, in the small and large scale (Durkheim 1895/1982; Scholz and Steiner 2023b). He stated that social rules are social facts (that have to be explained by other facts) and considered them real phenomena similar to physical facts since they can be observed by the appropriate methods, scientifically validated, and in most cases, objectively measured (by their impacts on social systems). Similarly, for the new institutional economics approach (North 2005; Williamson 2000), the rules of interaction – or rules of the game – are seen as the basic pillar for governing socioeconomic systems. The above-mentioned Chatham House Rule was developed 100years ago after WWI in Great Britain. The founders of Chatham House were striving toward a new world order to improve international affairs; the objective was the consolidation of a peaceful world. This was believed to be best achieved by promoting “partnership” between “politicians, businessmen … in order to launch a frequently confidential discussion and collaborative study” (Martin 1995, p. 698). The idea was to “develop a completely new working method” to reflect on the causes of war and to support diplomats. The Chatham House founders were targeting capacity-build- ing and avoiding interest-driven politics. Edward Grey, British foreign secretary from 1905 to 1916, stated in 1920 that it is possible to develop rules of practice “that will not interfere with policy, but provide materials from which politicians, statesmen and journalists can form sound opinions in regard to policy” (see Morgan 1979, p. 242). Science was not the main recipient at that time, but the advancement of political science and the development of a sound knowledge base (focusing on building a sound library) were early Chatham House objectives. A CCC is a set of clearly articulated rules of communication between members of a social system. It includes norms, behavioral rules, and responsibilities that all members are expected to follow. CCC are often, but by no means always, related to ethics (moral norms). Cooperation became a common tool of company and industry branches (White and Montgomery 1980). Some CCC also refer to the relationship between the subjects and objects of research, particularly if transdisciplinarity is conceived as practicing science in cooperation with actors from society. Research with Indigenous peoples or disaster-zone research where ethical norms may avoid the presence of hundreds of “onlooker” researchers investigating unequal people (Gaillard and Peek 2019) is another example. Social Rules ofaTd Process Transdisciplinary approaches, at least those that include multistakeholder discourses and the mitigation of conflicts, can be seen in the context of utilizing deliberation and expertise in participatory processes (Renn 2004). Moreover, a common-good-oriented transdisciplinary collaboration is usually based on democratic ideas. The basic principle of collaboration between science and practice on an equal footing or the inclusion of all relevant stakeholder groups 88 Systemic Practice and Action Research (2024) 37:81–101 1 3 when acknowledging the otherness of the other may be seen as key objectives of a Td process. Adequate rules of communication within the Td project team and beyond are required. Here, for instance, when questions of liability emerge, the question arises: Are teams engaged in Td processes considered a group or an organization? Groups have no formal membership and are not legal entities; they are characterized by fluid boundaries of informal membership. Against the general theoretical background above, a transdisciplinary process is related to a (temporary) actor system (or social system) that has to develop a rule system of interaction, appropriate behaviors, and “go / no-go” actions functional for the goal (i.e., major outcomes), e.g., for producing a SoRO. For this to be effective, all actors must accept or negotiate on the rules of collaboration; please note that this depends on the roles assigned to the participants (e.g., you are representing stakeholder group X). Furthermore, the rules of a CCC strongly depend on the sociocultural context. For instance, the rule of equal footing, which in Western culture signals that all members of a transdisciplinary team have the same rights and power, is not applied the same way in the Japanese culture for Td processes (Scholz etal. 2018; Sugiyama etal. 2017), where social hierarchies (Curhan etal. 2014) and elder respect (Scholz etal. 2014) play a larger role. Thus, generally, a transdisciplinary team viewed as a temporary social system develops a kind of collective reasoning, rationality, or mindset (Franck 2002; Pingle 2016; Scholz 2011). The rules for both decision-making and interactions are somewhat negotiated, and values, norms, and ethics are framed in such a way that a functional collaboration becomes possible. We argue that this should not be done implicitly but should become the subject of a Td process, particularly in the preparation and planning phase. We consider Habermas’s speech-act theory and the construction of a protected discourse arena as important elements of a rule system for the CCC in Td processes (Renn 2021). Habermas emphasized the importance of discourse in conflicting arguments and claims of validity (German: Geltungsanspruch, Habermas 1984, p. 131). This requires an undisturbed arena of communication based on equal rights of all participants to make and criticize speech acts if pragmatically rational conclusions are an aspiration (Renn 1999, 2004). Unambiguously clarifying whether a transdisciplinary team is a group or an organization is difficult both formally and legally. Describing the distinction between a Td project and a Td process may help clarify this. We refer to a standard organizational scheme that has been applied in numerous Td studies listed in Scholz and Steiner (2015c) (Binder etal. 2015). Mostly, a Td project needs funding by an external organization (e.g., public agencies, science, or business organizations). The recipients of the project employ scientific and administrative staff who become formal members of an organization (see 1, Fig.1). The staff is usually employed by the universities, companies, or organizations to which the co-leaders belong. In addition, there is often a formal or verbal contract between the science project leaders and the practice partners, for example, a property owner, governmental agent, leader of an association, or head of an indigenous group, etc., at the start of a Td process. Typically, a first draft of the contract of collaboration is negotiated with all stakeholders involved at a very early stage of any Td process. A Td process has six stages: (1) a triggering phase in which the idea for the project emerges; (2) an initiation phase (including creating the idea by a scientist or practitioner and network-building among key actors and stewards); (3) a preparation phase to acquire resources and funding for running a process of mutual learning between and among scientists and practitioners; (4) a planning phase for the process of (5) a core phase for conducting the process; and (6) a post-processing phase (Scholz and Steiner 2015b). It starts with an idea about the need for a Td project, normally initiated by representatives of science or practice. The ideas about the objectives of a Td process and how it might be conducted 95 Systemic Practice and Action Research (2024) 37:81–101 1 3 Rules ofCommunication The building of a protected discourse arena and the rules for maintaining it, including rules for sanctioning and penalizing deviant behavior (e.g., if sensitive data are misused) should be part of the CCC. This supports the formation of trust, a vital component of collaboration (Harris and Lyon 2013). Trust among the participants is an important enabler for collaboration. Td projects should be designed not only for careful analysis but also for exploring new, groundbreaking ideas that often emerge by thinking outside the box, by critical evaluation, or by the unconventional reframing of the transdisciplinary problem. The introduced Chatham House Rule (3.1) is an important means. Sometimes, even preliminary statements made in meetings must be protected. The conception of a protected Habermas discourse arena (Healey 1997, 2009) should be used as a component of transdisciplinary CCC. To preserve this arena of confidentiality and trust, two rules are essential: “Do not cope with day-to-day politics” (but only with issues underlying them; 3.2) and “Stay in the precompetitive domain with respect to businesses, NGOs, and other activities” (3.3). These rules require strict adherence in order to reduce any interest-driven bias in the construction of SoROs. Cundill etal. (2019) reflected on the building of a collaborative space for sustainable transitioning. The authors stressed that “relational features” such as trust formation are most essential, particularly as actors with different powers are collaborating. To avoid conflicts when communication rules and other aspects of the CCC are not followed, participants should sign a document that lays out the most important items of a CCC, given a specific project, thus signifying their agreement. Outcomes The multiple complexity of Td problems makes transdisciplinarity a means of strategic management that does not provide push-button solutions. Moreover, the outcomes are addressed to all stakeholder groups. Thus, orientations rather than solutions (which are a product of consultancy; Mobjork 2010) are the outcomes. SoROs (4.2), as defined some years ago, include features that are directly relevant to how collaboration should be achieved. As stated in the introduction, SoROs are based on a process that “generates processes of knowledge integration of different types of epistemics (e.g., scientific, and experiential knowledge, utilizing and relating disciplinary knowledge from the social, natural, and engineering sciences) (Scholz and Steiner 2015a). This is explicitly presented in 4.2.1 and 4.2.2. These two rules and the request for an understandable language (4.4.3) are the pillars of social robustness. But honest communication of the limits of knowledge (4.4.4) and of the constraints (e.g., how much time and resources are available; 4.2.5) under which a Td process operates is also part of building trust and the successful uptake of results. Discussion Td process include scientists and practitioners with the aim of producing SoROs and action-oriented knowledge for understanding and resolving complex, societally relevant, and poorly understood (ill-defined) problems. For coping with such problems, 96 Systemic Practice and Action Research (2024) 37:81–101 1 3 transdisciplinarity has evolved as a powerful methodology and novel form of practicing science with and within society. A transdisciplinary team may be considered a new type of social entity characterized by specific social rules, norms, and roles. We introduce a CCC that can be used in Td processes as an organizational tool for supporting a transdisciplinary team to reach goal attainment. The proposed CCC in a Td process serves three objectives, products, and outcomes: (1) Capacity-building: The capacity-building of the participants and, subsequently, of science and practice is a major objective. A Td process empowers practitioners to make better and more-sustainable decisions and scientists to generate improved theories for understanding complex real-world dynamics. Both sides learn how they may better benefit from each other. The collaboration, co-design, co-problem transformation, etc. by a group of scientists and practitioners creates, in the sense of Durkheim, social rules of interaction and decision/leadership, rules, norms, and roles as novel social facts. A CCC supports the group process to, in turn, support the construction of groundbreaking SoROs (see Table1, 4), i.e., for sustainable transformations. (2) A functional toolkit: Table1 summarizes the components of a CCC and offers a functional toolkit for knowledge integration. This is done when taking a differentiationist perspective that distinguishes between knowledge, functions, and the roles of scientists and practitioners, leaders, steering boards, working groups, facilitators, etc. All roles have different functions, responsibilities, and liabilities. They include descriptions and directions regarding the roles that each participant is expected to play, resulting in a proper and diverse spread of perspectives of knowledge and values that allow for the construction of SoROs. A special characteristic of the presented type of transdisciplinary is that scientists are viewed as serving the public good. All stakeholders should be empowered to gain access to the best available state-of-the-art knowledge in the respective scientific fields. The participating scientists are challenged to abstain from their normative, advocacy, activist goals – to the extent possible (Scholz 2017b; Scholz and Wellmer 2021). Further, to avoid a Td project simply following the normative ideas from (private or public) funders, sponsorship is the preferred means of funding for Td processes. The new roles, responsibilities, verbal or written commitments on collaboration, access to data, utilization of results, etc. among the participants from practice and science raise many legal questions. This legal aspect has been widely neglected in the practice of Td processes and represents a gap in the literature that future studies should address. We suggest that the CCC toolkit (Table1) for Td processes can be applied in two ways. Table1 can be used as checklist to provide the components of an ideal CCC that should be addressed. But it is also a tool for planning. After choosing a case and knowing the objective of a Td process, one can identify the most important tools, i.e., characteristics of a Td process, to reach the envisioned achievement of the targeted objectives under the given circumstances. (3) Creating a discourse arena: A Td process may be considered an extension of the Chatham House Rule. This refers not only to how ideas and outcomes of the deliberations will be communicated but also includes how sensitive issues (e.g., day-to-day policy or issues relevant to the direct economic competition among participating stakeholders) should be handled. Naturally, the exact rules of any CCC have to be specified, situationally or culturally adapted, and negotiated among the participants of a transdisciplinary process. Yet they should not only be an important part of the practical implementation of a Td project but also a main topic of theoretical reflection about the structure and design of Td processes. 97 Systemic Practice and Action Research (2024) 37:81–101 1 3 Acknowledgements We want to thank Elaine Ambrose for the English-language editing of this commentary. Author Contributions The code of conduct for collaboration (CCC) was jointly developed by both authors, Ortwin Renn and Roland W. Scholz, in the preparation of a large-scale Td project on Digital Data as the Subject of a Transdisciplinary (DiDaT) Process in 2018 (published in the brochure for the DiDaT project). The CCC was steadily refined throughout the three-year experience, which including 150 people, half from science and half from practice. Both authors, Renn and Scholz, acted as science co-leaders (together with two practice co-leaders) for the DiDaT project. The first author, Scholz, took the lead in writing the paper, whereas the second author continuously improved, revised, and supplemented the text. Funding Open access funding provided by Danube University Krems University for Continuing Education. This work was funded by theFederal Ministry of Education and Research, Germany(BMBF) within the DiDaT project (grant number:01UT1950A). Data Availability The source of all data, figures, etc. has been genuinely produced by the authors. Declarations Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate The rules of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) are appreciated and have been applied. Consent for Publication Both authors agree on the content and have the permission to name the institutions to which they have been affiliated when writing this paper. Competing Interests The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. References Andres W (1996) Horizonte für die Zukuft erweitern. In: Scholz RW, Bösch S, Koller T, Mieg HA, Stünzi J (eds) Baskerville RL (1997) Distinguishing action research from participative case studies. J Syst Inf Technol Benighaus C, Kastenholz H, Renn O (2010) Kooperatives Konfliktmanagement für Mobilfunksendeanlagen. Umwelt-und Technikkonflikte:275–296 Berbés-Blázquez M, González JA, Pascual U (2016) Towards an ecosystem services approach that addresses social power relations. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 19:134–143 Berger-Gonzalez M, Stauffacher M, Zinsstag J, Edwards P, Krütli P (2016) Transdisciplinary research on cancer-healing systems between biomedicine and the Maya of Guatemala: a tool for reciprocal reflexivity in a multi-epistemological setting. Qual Health Res 26(1):77–91 Bergmann M, Jahn T, Knobloch T, Krohn W, Pohl C, Faust RC, Schramm E (2012) Methoden transdisziplinärer Forschung. Campus Verlag Bergmann M, Jahn T, Knobloch T, Krohn W, Pohl C (2013) Methods for transdisciplinary research: A primer for practice. Campus, London Bergold J, Thomas SM (2012) Participatory research methods: A methodological approach in motion. Hist Soc Research/historische Sozialforschung 37(4):191–222 Binder CR, Absenger-Helmli I, Schilling T (2015) The reality of transdisciplinarity: a framework-based self-reflection from science and practice leaders. Sustain Sci 10(4):545–562 98 Systemic Practice and Action Research (2024) 37:81–101 1 3 Bisaro A, Swart R, Hinkel J (2016) Frontiers of solution-oriented adaptation research. Reg Environ Change 16(1):123–136 Bradbury H (2015) The Sage handbook of action research. Sage Burns TR, Dietz T (1992) Cultural evolution: Social rule systems, selection and human agency. Int Sociol 7(3):259–283 Chebet A, Nekesa OA, Ng’etich W, Njoroge R, Scholz RW, Julius K (2019) Increased maize yields through the transdisciplinary process with site specific fertilizer recommendation in small holder farms in Uasin Gishu County, Kenya. J Exp Agric Int 1–10. https:// doi. org/ 10. 9734/ jeai/ 2019/ v34i1 30162 Cornwall A, Jewkes R (1995) What is participatory research? Soc Sci Med 41(12):1667–1676 Cundill G, Harvey B, Tebboth M, Cochrane L, Currie-Alder B, Vincent K, Lawn J, Nicholls RJ, Scodanibbio L, Prakash A (2019) Large-scale transdisciplinary collaboration for adaptation research: Challenges and insights. Global Chall 3(4):1700132 Curhan KB, Levine CS, Markus JR, Kitayama S, Park J, Karasawa M, Kawakami N, Love GD, Coe CL, Miyamoto Y (2014) Subjective and objective hierarchies and their relations to psychological wellbeing: A US/Japan comparison. Soc Psychol Pers Sci 5(8):855–864 Dienel PC, Renn O (1995a) Planning cells: A gate to “fractal” mediation. In: Renn O, Webler T, Wiedemann P (eds) Fairness and competence in citizen participation. Springer, pp 117–140 Dienel PC, Renn O (1995b) Planning cells: A gate to “fractal” mediation. In: Webler T, Wiedemann P, Renn O (eds) Fairness and competence in citizen participation, evaluating models for environmental discourse. Springer, pp 117–140 Durkheim, E. (1895/1982). The rules of sociological method. Macmillan. Franck G (2002) The scientific economy of attention: A novel approach to the collective rationality of science. Scientometrics 55(1):3–26 Gaillard JC, Peek L (2019) Disaster-zone research needs a code of conduct. Nature 575:440–442 Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzmann S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The new production of knowledge. Sage Häberli R, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W (1998) Transdisziplinarität zwischen Förderung und Überforderung. Erkenntnisse Aus Dem SPP Umwelt GAIA 7:196–213 Habermas J (1984) Wahrheitstheorien//Vorstudien und Ergänzungen zur Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. In: Vorstudien und Ergänzungen zur Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Suhrkamp, pp 127–183 Harris F, Lyon F (2013) Transdisciplinary environmental research: Building trust across professional cultures. Environ Sci Policy 31:109–119 Healey P (1997) Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. UBC Press Healey P (2009) The pragmatic tradition in planning thought [Review]. J Plan Educ Res 28(3):277–292. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 07394 56x08 325175 Hossenfelder S (2018) Lost in math: How beauty leads physics astray. New York Humphrey CR, Buttel FH (1982) Environment, energy, and society. Wadsworth Huning S, Räuchle C, Fuchs M (2021) Designing real-world laboratories for sustainable urban transformation: addressing ambiguous roles and expectations in transdisciplinary teams. Sustain Sci:1–13 Israel BA, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB, Allen AJ, Guzman JR, Lichtenstein R (2017) Critical issues in developing and following CBPR principles. In Minkler M, Wallerstein N (Eds) Community-based participatory research for health, vol 3. Adv Soc Health Equity, pp 31–46 Jantsch E (1972) Towards interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in education and innovation. In: Berger G, Briggs A, Michaud G (eds) Apostel L. Problems of teaching and research in universities. University of Nice, Interdisciplinarity, pp 97–121 Klein JT, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Häberli R, Bill A, Scholz RW, Welti M, (Eds.). (2001) Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem solving among science, technology, and society. In: An effective way for managing complexity, Birkhäuser Krütli P, Stauffacher M, Flueler T, Scholz RW (2010) Functional-dynamic public participation in technological decision-making: site selection processes of nuclear waste repositories. J Risk Res 13(7):861– 875. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13669 87100 37032 52 Lawrence MG, Williams S, Nanz P, Renn O (2022) Characteristics, potentials, and challenges of transdisciplinary research. One Earth 5(1):44–61 Löhr K, Hochmuth C, Graef F, Wambura J, Sieber S (2017) Conflict management programs in trans-disci- plinary research projects: the case of a food security project in Tanzania. Food Secur 9(6):1189–1201 Loorbach D (2010) Transition management for sustainable development: a prescriptive, complexity-based governance framework. Governance 23(1):161–183 Loorbach D (2014) To transition! Governance Panarchy in the new transformation. Inaugural address. Erasmus University Rotterdam: Faculty of Social Science 99 Systemic Practice and Action Research (2024) 37:81–101 1 3 Loorbach D (2022) Designing radical transitions: a plea for a new governance culture to empower deep transformative change. City, Territory Archit 9(1):1–11 Mahan JL Jr (1970) Toward transdisciplinary inquiry in the humane sciences (Publication Number 70–20,145). United States International University, San Diego Martin L (1995) Chatham House at 75: the past and the future. Int Aff 71(4):697–703 McTaggart R (1991) Principles for participatory action research. Adult Educ Q 41(3):168–187. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00018 48191 04100 3003 Mobjork M (2010) Consulting versus participatory transdisciplinarity: A refined classification of transdisciplinary research [Article]. Futures 42(8):866–873. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. futur es. 2010. 03. 003 Moewaka Barnes H, Harmsworth G, Tipa G, Henwood W, McCreanor T (2021) Indigenous-led environmental research in Aotearoa New Zealand beyond a transdisciplinary model for best practice, empowerment and action. AlterNative: Int J Indigenous Peoples 17(2):306–316 Morgan R (1979) To Advance the sciences of international politics Chatham house’s early research. Int Aff (Royal Ins Int Aff 1944-) 55(2):240–251 Nicolescu B (2000) Transdisciplinarity and complexity: levels of reality as source of indeterminacy. Bulletin Interactif du Centre International de Recherches et Études Transdisciplinaire 2014(November, 29) Nicolescu B (2007) Transdisciplinarity: Basarab Nicolescu talks with Russ Volckmann. Integral Review 4:73–90 Nicolescu B (2011) Goedelian aspects of nature and knowledge. In: Altmann G, Koch WA (eds) Systems. De Gruyter, pp 385–403 Nicolescu B (2014) Methodology of transdisciplinarity. World Futures 70(3–4):186–199 Njoroge R, Birech R, Arusey C, Korir M, Mutisya C, Scholz RW (2015) Transdisciplinary processes of developing, applying, and evaluating a method for improving smallholder farmers’ access to (phosphorus) fertilizers: the SMAP method. Sustain Sci 10(4):601–619 North DC (2005) Economic sociology and new institutional economics. In: Menard C, Shirley MM (eds) Handbook of new institutional economics. Springer, pp 21–31 Parsons T (2017/1951) The social system. In Toward a general theory of action (pp 190–233). Routledge Piaget J (1970) Genetic epistemology. Columbia University Press Pingle M (2016) Boundedly rational decision-making under certainty and uncertainty: Some reflections on Herbert Simon. In: Minds, models and milieux. Springer, pp 91–109 Polk M (2015) Transdisciplinary co-production: Designing and testing a transdisciplinary research framework for societal problem solving. Futures 65:110–122 Rasmussen B, Andersen PD, Borch K (2010) Managing transdisciplinarity in strategic foresight. Creat Innov Manag 19(1):37–46 Renn O (1999) Ethische Anforderungen an den Diskurs. In: Grunwald A, Saupe S (eds) Ethik in der Technikgestaltung. Springer, pp 63–94 Renn O (2004) The challenge of integrating deliberation and expertise: Participation and discourse in risk management. In: Small MJ, MacDaniels TL (eds) Risk analysis and society, An interdisciplinary characterization of the field. Cambridge University Press, pp 289–366 Renn O (2021) Transdisciplinarity: Synthesis towards a modular approach. Futures 130:102744 Renn O, Scholz RW (2018) The unintended side effects of digitalization. In: DiDaT: The responsible of use digital data as the focus of a new transdisciplinary project (https:// www. iasspotsd am. de/ sites/ defau lt/ files/ 2018- 12/ IASS_ DiDaT. pdf). IASS. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2312/ iass. 2018. 016 Renn O, Wachinger G, Kinn U, Altendorf-Bayha U (2011) Lessons learned aus Stuttgart 21. Spektrum der Mediation, p 42 Rosa EA, Richter L (2008) Durkheim on the environment - Ex libris or ex cathedra? Introduction to inaugural lecture to a course in social science, 1887–1888. Organ Environ 21(2):182–187. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10860 26608 318740 Rotmans J, Loorbach D, Kemp R (2007) Transition management: origin, evolution, critique Schneidewind U, Singer-Brodowski M, Augenstein K (2016) Transformative science for sustainability transitions. In: Bauch CT, Oswald Spring U (eds) Handbook on sustainability transition and sustainable peace. Springer, pp 123–136 Scholz RW (2011) Environmental literacy in science and society: From knowledge to decisions. Cambridge University Press Scholz RW (2012) Transdisziplinäre Krebsforschung mit den Mayas. Das Macocc Projekt - Body-Mind Komplementaritäten auf der Ebene der Zelle, des Patienten und der therapeutischen Allianz. EANU Special 7:1–38 Scholz RW (2017a) Managing complexity from visual perception to sustainable transition management. Contributions of Brunswik’s Theory of Probabilistic Functionalism. Environ Syst Decisions 37(4):381–409. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10669- 017- 9655-4 100 Systemic Practice and Action Research (2024) 37:81–101 1 3 Scholz RW (2017b) The normative dimension in transdisciplinarity, transition management, and transformation sciences: New roles of science and universities in sustainable transitioning. Sustainability 9(991). https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su906 0991 Scholz RW (2018) Ways and modes of utilizing Brunswik’s Theory of Probabilistic Functionalism: New perspectives for decision and sustainability research? Environ Syst Decisions 38(1):99–117. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10669- 018- 9678-5 Scholz RW (2020) Transdisciplinarity Science for and with society in light of the university’s roles and functions. Sustain Sci 15:1033–1049. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11625- 020- 00794-x Scholz RW, Stauffacher M (2007) Managing transition in clusters: area development negotiations as a tool for sustaining traditional industries in a Swiss Prealpine region. Environ Plan A 39(10):2518–2539 Scholz RW, Steiner G (2015a) The real type and ideal type of transdisciplinary processes: Part I—Theoretical foundations. Sustain Sci 10(4):527–544 Scholz RW, Steiner G (2015b) The real type and the ideal type of transdisciplinary processes. Part II - What constraints and obstacles do we meet in practice. Sustain Sci 10(4):653–671. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11625- 015- 0327-3 Scholz RW, Steiner G (2015c) Supplementary information of the paper The real type and the ideal type of transdisciplinary processes. Part II - What constraints and obstacles do we meet in practice? Sustain Sci 10(4):653–671. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11625- 015- 0327-3 Scholz RW, Steiner G (2023a) Reflections on types of science–practice collaborations: The special role of transdisciplinarity in sustainable transitioning. Sustain Sci. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11625- 023- 01291-7 Scholz RW, Steiner G (2023b) Science–practice collaborations and role of transdisciplinarity and process ownership in the light of complex societal challenges.Sustain Sci Scholz RW, Tietje O (2002) Embedded case study methods: Integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge. Sage Scholz RW, Wellmer F-W (2021) Endangering the integrity of science by misusing unvalidated models and untested assumptions as facts: General considerations and the mineral and phosphorus scarcity. Sustain Sci 16. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11625- 021- 01006-w Scholz RW, Koller T, Mieg HA, Schmidlin C (1994) Perspektive "Grosses Moos" - Wege zu einer nachhaltigen Landwirtschaft. vdf Scholz RW, Bösch T, Koller T, Mieg HA, Stünzi J (1996) Industrieareal Sulzer-Escher Wyss: Umwelt und Bauen: Wertschöpfung durch Umnutzung. vdf Hochschulverlag Scholz RW, Häberli R, Bill A, Welti M (eds) (2000) Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem-solving among science, technology and society. An effective way for managing complexity. Mutual learning sessions; Haffmans Sachbuch Verlag, Workbook II Scholz RW, Lang DJ, Wiek A, Walter AI, Stauffacher M (2006) Transdisciplinary case studies as a means of sustainability learning Historical framework and theory. Int J Sustain Higher Educ 7(3):226–251 Scholz RW, Roy AH, Hellums DT (2014) Sustainable phosphorus management: A global transdisciplinary challenge. Scholz Scholz RW, Roy AH, Brand FS, Hellums DT, Ulrich AE (2014b) Sustainable phosphorus management: A global transdisciplinary roadmap, Springer, pp 1–129 Scholz RW, Yarime M, Shiroyama H (2018) Global leadership for social design: theoretical and educational perspectives. Sustain Sci 447–464. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11625- 017- 0454-0 Scholz RW, Beckedahl M, Noller S, Renn O (Eds.) (2021a) DiDaT Weißbuch: Verantwortungsvoller Umgang mit Daten - Orientierungen eines transdisziplinären Prozesses. Nomos. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5771/ 97837 48924 111. Scholz RW, Beckedahl M, Noller S, Renn O (2021b) Einführung zum DiDaT Weißbuch: Sozial Robuste Orientierungen für einen verantwortungsvollen Umgang mit digitalen Daten: Zielsetzung, Vorgehen, Ergebnisse und Perspektiven. In: Scholz RW, Beckedahl M, Noller S, Renn O (eds) DiDaT Weißbuch: Verantwortungsvoller Umgang mit Daten —Orientierungen eines transdisziplinären Prozesses. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, pp 1–68. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5771/ 97837 48924 111-E Seligman AB, Weller RP (2020) David Martin and the Sociology of Hope. Society 57:180–184 Shinn T (2005) New sources of radical innovation: Research-technologies, transversality and distributed learning in an postindustrial order. Soc Sci Inf 44(4):731–764 Shiroyama H, Yarime M, Matsuo M, Schroeder H, Scholz R, Ulrich AE (2012) Governance for sustainability: knowledge integration and multi-actor dimensions in risk management. Sustain Sci 7:45–55. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11625- 011- 0155-z Siebenhüner B (2018) Conflicts in transdisciplinary research: Reviewing literature and analysing a case of climate adaptation in northwestern germany. Ecol Econ 154:117–127. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ecole con. 2018. 07. 011 101 Systemic Practice and Action Research (2024) 37:81–101 1 3 Stauffacher M, Scholz RW (2013) HES-based transdisciplinary case studies: the example of sustainable transformation of leisure traffic in the city of Basel. In: Mieg HA, Töpfer K (eds) Institutional and social innovation for sustainable urban development. Routledge, pp 25–43 Stauffacher M, Flueeler T, Krueli P, Scholz RW (2008) Analytic and dynamic approach to collaboration: A transdisciplinary case study on sustainable landscape development in a Swiss prealpine region. Syst Pract Action Res 21(6):409–422. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11213- 008- 9107-7 Sugiyama M, Deguchi H, Ema A, Kishimoto A, Mori J, Shiroyama H, Scholz RW (2017) Unintended side effects of digital transition: perspectives of Japanese Experts. Sustainability 9(12). https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su912 2193 Vilsmaier U, Brandner V, Engbers M (2017) Research in-between: The constitutive role of cultural differences in transdisciplinarity. Transdiscipl J Eng Sci 8 Wallerstein N, Duran B (2010) Community-based participatory research contributions to intervention research: The intersection of science and practice to improve health equity. Am J Public Health 100:S40–S46. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2105/ ajph. 2009. 184036 White BJ, Montgomery BR (1980) Corporate codes of conduct. Calif Manage Rev 23(2):80–87 Whyte WF (1989) Advancing scientific knowledge through participatory action research. Sociol Forum 4(3):367–382 Whyte WF (1991) Participatory acikon research. Sage Williamson OE (2000) The new institutional economics: taking stock, looking ahead. J Econ Lit 38(3):593– 613. http:// www. jstor. org/ stable/ 25654 21 Wilson E (2018) Community-based participatory action research. In: Liamputtong P (ed) Handbook of research methods in health social sciences. Springer, pp 1–15 Wittmayer JM (2016) Transition management. Understanding local sustainability transitions Erasmus University Rotterdam. Rotterdam, Action research and actor roles. http:// hdl. handle. net/ 1765/ 94385 Wittmayer JM, Schäpke N (2014) Action, research and participation: roles of researchers in sustainability transitions. Sustain Sci 9(4):483–496 Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.