1.1.1 Defining a practice framework

A practice framework, as drawn from the field of social work, commonly combines formal theoretical knowledge, and knowledge accumulated through repeated practice (Healy, Reference Healy2014, pp. 226–332) In social work, a practice framework ‘integrates empirical research, practice theories, ethical principles, and experiential knowledge in a compact and convenient format that helps practitioners use the knowledge and principles to inform their everyday work.’ A practice framework is a mapping out of the rationale for practice, and is often devised at a scale where values, theories, and practice are clearly linked. Its purpose is to provide schematic guidance for improving, analyzing, and reforming practice (Stanley, Reference Stanley2016). While most existing TD research frameworks describe the ideal-typical research process, a practice framework considers higher-level principles and institutional and cultural contexts driving action-oriented practice; conversely, it creates synergies in individuals' practices to be formalized into knowledge and institutionalize improvements in practice (Connolly, Reference Connolly2007; Healy, Reference Healy2014). Another point of difference is explicit consideration of values, inclusion, and equity, as social work is a values-driven field serving disadvantaged communities.

1.1.2 Focus on stakeholder collaboration

The proposed framework aims to bridge theory and practice by focusing on the praxis of collaboration among stakeholders, providing guidance for practice and a tool for restructuring current institutional contexts of knowledge production (Giddens, Reference Giddens1984). As mentioned earlier, existing frameworks do not specifically elaborate on the stakeholder collaboration process e.g. Lang et al. (Reference Lang, Wiek, Bergmann, Stauffacher, Martens, Moll, Swilling and Thomas2012); Luederitz et al. (Reference Luederitz, Schapke, Wiek, Lang, Bergmann, Bos, Burch, Davies, Evans, Konig, Farrelly, Forrest, Frantzeskaki, Gibson, Kay, Loorbach, McCormick, Parodi and Westley2017); Newell and Proust (Reference Newell and Proust2012); hence our framework aims to address this gap. The framework is intended to be inclusive, bringing together diverse stakeholders, serving as a ‘boundary object’ (Star & Griesemer, Reference Star and Griesemer1989) to enable collaboration. To encourage mutual exploration and understanding, the framework is developed through a bricolage of concepts broadly accepted in the EHD fields, an emergent construction fitted and combined with findings from the literature review of recent practice and planetary health priorities. In qualitative research, bricolage is an interpretive piecing together of concepts, methods, and representation fitted to the specifics of a complex situation in an emergent fashion (Denzin & Lincoln, Reference Denzin and Lincoln2011). While some may argue the fallacy of achieving consensus amidst stakeholder diversity (Nogueira et al., Reference Nogueira, Bjørkan and Dale2021), consensus is not expected in all situations but the process would be actively facilitated to orchestrate and navigate diverse contributions, interests, and power dynamics towards mutual respect and benefit (Touati et al., Reference Touati, Denis, Grenier and Smits2019).

1.1.3 Audience

The intended audience of the practice framework would be the stakeholders of research as a process of knowledge production. A broad definition of the term ‘stakeholders’ is used to signify actors with an interest in and are affected by the governance decisions and sustainability challenge being addressed, including those with relevant knowledge and other resources to contribute, and those who benefit from or are adversely impacted (Deverka et al., Reference Deverka, Lavallee, Desai, Esmail, Ramsey, Veenstra and Tunis2012). Such a diverse stakeholders setting is expected to be of considerable contestation and unequal power dynamics, requiring a high degree of stakeholder engagement (Schneider & Buser, Reference Schneider and Buser2018). Nevertheless, such diversity is crucial for the knowledge produced to pass the credibility, relevance, and legitimacy (CRL) criteria (Clark et al., Reference Clark, van Kerkhoff, Lebel and Gallopin2016b), and reflects the breadth of stakeholders in planetary health or sustainable development. Ideally, the audience of the framework would be all research stakeholders, i.e. funders in the public and private sectors, academic institutions and researchers, government, civil society organizations, and communities. This inclusive definition adds a transparency and legitimacy towards a common vision by forming a picture of the whole process for all stakeholders to perceive their potential roles.

1.1.4 When and how to use the framework

We define transdisciplinarity as a research approach involving academic and non-academic stakeholders with a view towards societal application, including action research that simultaneously integrate policy, physical or health innovations. Application to solving societal challenges is needed to accelerate progress towards the SDGs, especially action research by iteratively adapting the intervention through experimentation and reflexivity (Wiek et al., Reference Wiek, Kay, Forrest and Niki Frantzeskaki2017). Application of the research could involve developing a novel community infrastructure, or a cross-cutting environment, health, and equity policy (Ebi et al., Reference Ebi, Harris, Sioen, Wannous, Anyamba, Bi, Boeckmann, Bowen, Cisse, Dasgupta, Dida, Gasparatos, Gatzweiler, Javadi, Kanbara, Kone, Maycock, Morse and Capon2020; ISC, 2023; West et al., Reference West, van Kerkhoff and Wagenaar2019).

Hence, the practice framework could be used by stakeholders to provide guidance for reflexivity and co-learning: (1) during the design and inception stage, (2) at multiple points during the process as a continuous monitoring tool, and (3) as a post-mortem evaluation tool to identify refinements and lessons for future TD collaborations, especially in LMICs. Lessons learned could include elements that have worked better than others, and potential reasons for unrealized or unintended outcomes. However, as elaborated in Section 4, the framework would be most effectively applied at the pre-development and co-design phase by process initiators and funders assessing TD research proposals for potential funding.

3.1.1 Phase 1: Pre-development & Initiation (Co-design)

Reflections on the Foundational Considerations (Section 3.2.1), Structural Factors (Section 3.2.2), and Input Factors (Section 3.2.3) should ideally take place during Phase 1, to inform an analysis of stakeholders to be engaged in setting the agenda and priorities for the research, their institutional and other contexts, and potential contributions. Through meaningful stakeholder engagement and analysis using the reflexive practice questions in Table 3, this phase should also result in a shared understanding of the local context within which the research should be firmly embedded, the current system and sustainability challenge to be addressed, and a broad, inclusive vision of the future transformed system (see Figure 2).

3.1.2 Phase 2: Implementation (Adaptive Co-Management)

As previously mentioned, this practice framework encourages integrated action and research to accelerate impact through direct intervention and experiential learning, as commonly practiced in ‘Living Labs’ (Wiek et al., Reference Wiek, Kay, Forrest and Niki Frantzeskaki2017). An adaptive, emergent approach is recommended in LMIC or other highly fluid and complex contexts (van Breda & Swilling, Reference van Breda and Swilling2018), which requires high degree of flexibility and adaptability while maintaining vision alignment (Bos et al., Reference Bos, Brown and Farrelly2013). Open-endedness is also important for innovation (Norström et al., Reference Norström, Balvanera, Cvitanovic, Löf, West, Bednarek and Österblom2020). An integrated approach can allow iterative and incremental reflection on stakeholders' perspectives, interests and contributions through the foundational considerations, and reveal other structural issues that could present challenges later.

In conditions of contested values, a high degree of stakeholder engagement is necessary (Schneider & Buser, Reference Schneider and Buser2018). Intensity of stakeholder engagement was found to be a heavy burden due to steep learning curves in developing new relationships and repeated back-and-forth communication required (Wardani et al., forthcoming). However, creating the conditions, space, and time for authentic dialog and mutual understanding is critical to ensure meaningful engagement and equity in agenda- and priority-setting, especially in a power-diverse collaborative process (Littman et al., Reference Littman, Bender, Mollica, Erangey, Lucas and Marvin2021; Pratt et al., Reference Pratt, Merritt and Hyder2016). Integrating research and action stakeholders from the start can influence Phase 1: Predevelopment & Initiation (Co-Design) and Phase 2: Implementation (Adaptive Co-Management), by creating spaces for all contributions to be equally valued through a shared learning agenda exploring perspectives and mutual interdependence (Bos et al., Reference Bos, Brown and Farrelly2013; Pineo et al., Reference Pineo, Turnbull, Davies, Rowson, Hayward, Hart, Johnson and Aldridge2021). These would likely have an effect on the Process Factors around Stakeholder Integration, as described in Section 3.2.4 below.

3.1.3 Phase 3: Monitoring & Refinement (Co-Monitoring)

During this phase, a monitoring of outputs and outcomes could take place, along with ongoing reflection on previously identified priorities and objectives, to identify possible reasons for unmet or unintended outcomes. Stakeholder outputs and outcomes (Sections 3.2.5 and 3.2.6) could be distinguished from but are no less important than research outputs, such as a conceptual framework, publications, and the policy or practice solution. Although co-monitoring is not one of the co-concepts identified by Hakkarainen et al. (Reference Hakkarainen, Mäkinen-Rostedt, Horcea-Milcu, D'Amato, Jämsä and Soini2022), it is included in the practice framework as an important element identified in PAR (Crane & Richardson, Reference Crane and Richardson2000) to ensure outcomes and changes in reality are observed and monitored, and the proposed improvement or solution is continually refined through ongoing translation as suggested TD frameworks in public health (Pineo et al., Reference Pineo, Turnbull, Davies, Rowson, Hayward, Hart, Johnson and Aldridge2021; Stokols et al., Reference Stokols, Hall, Vogel, Haire-Joshu and McBride2013). Such a co-monitoring approach, when carried out involving diverse stakeholders, could be useful in combining different knowledge systems, including local ecological knowledge, indigenous knowledge, and scientific knowledge and lead to a more effective, equitable, and inclusive monitoring (Peacock et al., Reference Peacock, Mavrot, Tomaselli, Hanke, Fenton, Nathoo, Aleuy, Di Francesco, Aguilar, Jutha and Kafle2020).

3.2.1 Foundational considerations | stakeholder engagement

Following collaborative governance literature, preconditions underlying collaboration require reflection prior to Phase 1: Predevelopment & Initiation (Co-Design), but these Foundational Considerations (Figure 2 in purple, including all elements therein) should be applied continuously throughout the process, e.g. when additional stakeholders are engaged. These Foundational Considerations provide a set of principles that guide process design on a philosophical level, which are necessary to reach in-depth value and power differences among stakeholders. Along with questions in Table 3, these are considerations for stakeholder engagement especially in relation to the Local Context and Vision Alignment, and can influence the framing of the Sustainability Challenge being addressed. Process initiators would need to maintain openness and flexibility in their vision of the transformed system to adapt particular research questions, methodology, and desired outputs to meet all stakeholders' interests. In LMIC and resource-poor contexts, these considerations are especially pertinent to safeguard against unintended consequences of asymmetrical power dynamics. The Foundational Considerations are: Local Context; Values & Ethics; Power Dynamics; Diversity & Interdependence; Boundary Spanning; and Aligned Vision.

• • Local context: Depicted in darker peach in Figure 2, the socio-cultural, political, economic, geographic and historical context of the research setting is of paramount importance to ensure relevance and legitimacy of the knowledge or solution produced (Capon, Reference Capon2017). Lack of deep and nuanced understanding of the local context, including administrative and legal barriers and operational conditions could present severe structural constraints, such as risks of failure and increased costs due to uncertainties, ambiguities, and constant changes (Cundill et al., Reference Cundill, Harvey, Tebboth, Cochrane, Currie-Alder, Vincent, Lawn, Nicholls, Scodanibbio, Prakash, New, Wester, Leone, Morchain, Ludi, DeMaria-Kinney, Khan and Landry2018; Pineo et al., Reference Pineo, Audia, Black, French, Gemmell, Lovasi, Milner, Montes, Niu, Perez-Ferrer, Siri and Taruc2020; White et al., Reference White, Lawless, Vivoni, Mascaro, Pahle, Kumar, Coli, Castillo, Moreda and Asfora2018). LMIC stakeholders also provide specific local and indigenous knowledge systems, research and societal priorities, and knowledge on political and power dynamics (Corburn & Gottlieb, Reference Corburn and Gottlieb2005). Power and resource differences especially among HIC and LMIC partners need to be acknowledged so as to avoid marginalization of indigenous knowledge and stakeholders (Littman et al., Reference Littman, Bender, Mollica, Erangey, Lucas and Marvin2021; van Breda & Swilling, Reference van Breda and Swilling2018). Moreover, nuances in power dynamics and other complexities within and among LMICs which can influence outcomes (Pratt et al., Reference Pratt, Merritt and Hyder2016; Reidpath et al., Reference Reidpath, Allotey, Barker, Clasen, French, Leder, Ramirez-Lovering, Rhule and Siri2022). LMIC stakeholders' priorities and interests need to be central in the co-design for equitable outcomes and to meet relevant needs (Pratt & Hyder, Reference Pratt and Hyder2017); hence LMIC stakeholders need to be engaged in research agenda setting, leadership, and decision-making (Clark et al., Reference Clark, Tomich, van Noordwijk, Guston, Catacutan, Dickson and McNie2016a; Littman et al., Reference Littman, Bender, Mollica, Erangey, Lucas and Marvin2021; Peters et al., Reference Peters, Adam, Alonge, Agyepong and Tran2013).

• • Values & ethics: Consistent with planetary health priorities for intergenerational justice and equity (Ebi et al., Reference Ebi, Harris, Sioen, Wannous, Anyamba, Bi, Boeckmann, Bowen, Cisse, Dasgupta, Dida, Gasparatos, Gatzweiler, Javadi, Kanbara, Kone, Maycock, Morse and Capon2020; Zeinali et al., Reference Zeinali, Bulc, Lal, van Daalen, Campbell-Lendrum, Ezzine, Fagan, Germann, Guinto, Lakhani, Neveux, Ngendahayo, Patil, Singh, Timilsina, Udeh and Whitmee2020), TD collaborations must equally value and include relevant actors, sectors, and scales (Pongsiri & Bassi, Reference Pongsiri and Bassi2021) through open listening, dialog, and respect for different perspectives (Newell & Proust, Reference Newell and Proust2012). These values of equity and inclusivity are compatible with indigenous and decolonizing principles and methodologies (Chilisa, Reference Chilisa2011; Smith, Reference Smith2021). These values are also central in social work and PAR approaches and in health which recognize the co-production of values and relations in collaborations (Corburn & Gottlieb, Reference Corburn and Gottlieb2005; Filipe et al., Reference Filipe, Renedo and Marston2017).

  Intergenerational stewardship values are implicit in environmental sustainability frameworks (Lang et al., Reference Lang, Wiek, Bergmann, Stauffacher, Martens, Moll, Swilling and Thomas2012; Luederitz et al., Reference Luederitz, Schapke, Wiek, Lang, Bergmann, Bos, Burch, Davies, Evans, Konig, Farrelly, Forrest, Frantzeskaki, Gibson, Kay, Loorbach, McCormick, Parodi and Westley2017), and in producing ‘target knowledge’ about the normatively desirable future (Schneider & Buser, Reference Schneider and Buser2018). Likewise, environmental sustainability explicitly recognize personal values as intertwined with authentic leadership (McIntosh & Taylor, Reference McIntosh and Taylor2013) and social learning and innovation processes (Bos et al., Reference Bos, Brown and Farrelly2013; Bos & Brown, Reference Bos and Brown2012). These latter processes are inherently value-laden, requiring higher order or ‘double-loop’ and ‘triple-loop’ learning (Tosey et al., Reference Tosey, Visser and Saunders2012) asking the questions ‘are we doing the right things’ and ‘how do we decide what is right?’, in contrast to single-loop learning which focuses on efficiency and maintaining the status quo by asking ‘are we doing things right’. Social learning, through opening up perceptions of diverse possibilities, thus facilitates a fundamental questioning of the status quo with the potential to transform power relations, ways of knowing, and underlying values.

  It is important to note that sustainability challenges would require collaboration among stakeholders with diverse values; however, as suggested by collaborative governance scholars, values alignment is not always necessary (Forester, Reference Forester2006). Nonetheless, it may be a challenge to reconcile deep-seated differences, as reflected in epistemological differences among HASS and STEM, quantitative and qualitative methodologies, and disciplinary cultures and values (Becher, Reference Becher2001). For example, Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) as a public health ‘gold standard’ methodology stem from positivist epistemology which views knowledge as objective and value-free (Bryman, Reference Bryman2016, p. 24). Such ontology and axiology contrast with social constructivism or critical epistemologies where individual and collective values are made explicit in the co-construction of knowledge, e.g. in addressing social justice among marginalized groups (Creswell & Poth, Reference Creswell and Poth2018, pp. 34–35). In natural resource management, opposing environmental values among conservationist and economic use stakeholders are both necessary for longevity of the solution (Zietsma & Lawrence, Reference Zietsma and Lawrence2010). Sustainability science scholars have proposed four perspectives to address differences in values, to enable moving beyond general importance-of-values discussions; reflect on the positionality of one's values; and the contextual operationalization of values (Horcea-Milcu et al., Reference Horcea-Milcu, Abson, Apetrei, Duse, Freeth, Riechers, Lam, Dorninger and Lang2019).

• • Power dynamics: Consistent with values of intergenerational equity and commitment to ‘Leave No One Behind’, TD collaborations in LMIC settings need to be cognizant of power dynamics for the proactive avoidance of potential negative impacts including inadvertent erasure of existing knowledge systems (Littman et al., Reference Littman, Bender, Mollica, Erangey, Lucas and Marvin2021; Reidpath & Allotey, Reference Reidpath and Allotey2019). Mapping and making sense of power dynamics has been suggested to increase the transformative potential of TD research as suggested in natural resource management (Hakkarainen et al., Reference Hakkarainen, Mäkinen-Rostedt, Horcea-Milcu, D'Amato, Jämsä and Soini2022), in sustainability transitions (de Geus et al., Reference de Geus, Avelino, Strumińska-Kutra, Pitzer, Wittmayer, Hendrikx, Joshi, Schrandt, Widdel, Fraaije, Iskandarova, Hielscher and Rogge2023), in global health consortia (Pratt & Hyder, Reference Pratt and Hyder2017), and in PAR approaches (Littman et al., Reference Littman, Bender, Mollica, Erangey, Lucas and Marvin2021). As posited in collaborative governance and other fields, knowledge is emancipatory in uncovering reified power relations and unacknowledged assumptions (Innes & Booher, Reference Innes and Booher2018), which are critical for shifting power dynamics (Avelino & Wittmayer, Reference Avelino and Wittmayer2016). Unequal power dynamics may also arise from persistent hierarchies among academic disciplines, and among HIC academic and local or indigenous knowledge (MacMynowski, Reference MacMynowski2007; Moser, Reference Moser2016). Critical self-reflection and collective power reflexivity are important in encouraging equal valuing of diverse epistemologies and knowledge systems (Forester, Reference Forester2013; Pineo et al., Reference Pineo, Turnbull, Davies, Rowson, Hayward, Hart, Johnson and Aldridge2021) while offering greater variety of knowledge produced (Hopkins et al., Reference Hopkins, Kester, Meelen and Schwanen2020).

  Power is not simply a force one holds over others, but intersubjectively co-constructed within social and relational contexts, as demonstrated in the intersectionalities of power, privilege and disadvantage (Avelino, Reference Avelino2021; Crenshaw, Reference Crenshaw1989; Severs et al., Reference Severs, Celis and Erzeel2016). Considering intersectionality is one way of mapping power dynamics and inequalities related to personal, professional, and social identities and the myriad discrimination that individuals and groups may face (Hankivsky et al., Reference Hankivsky, Reid, Cormier, Varcoe, Clark, Benoit and Brotman2010; Larson et al., Reference Larson, George, Morgan and Poteat2016). Internal factors, e.g. agency, knowledge and skills, and access to and control over resources and opportunities; and external factors, e.g. laws and policies, and social norms and exclusionary practices mediate stakeholders' ability to shift structural power through everyday practices (Avelino & Wittmayer, Reference Avelino and Wittmayer2016; Sovacool & Brisbois, Reference Sovacool and Brisbois2019). Explicitly acknowledging stakeholders' values, positionality, and contributions can help ensure meaningful engagement and equal valuing of all interests and contributions.

  Conducting research in LMIC settings is subject to a different set of power and resource conditions than in HICs. Most TD frameworks have emerged from well-resourced, HIC academic institutions in largely formal and legitimized contexts where societal and academic stakeholders can engage on equal footing, e.g. van Breda & Swilling (Reference van Breda and Swilling2018). Transnational and development studies scholars argue such resource and power differences are manifest in deeply uneven geographies of knowledge production, with HIC theories often universalized and flowing unidirectionally towards LMIC settings (Roy, Reference Roy2009; Reference Roy2016; Sassen, Reference Sassen2014; Reference Sassen2019; Sillitoe, Reference Sillitoe2018). These views are echoed in public and global health and justice research (e.g. PAR approaches), which question notions of expertise and thus usually conducted by and for communities (Corburn & Gottlieb, Reference Corburn and Gottlieb2005; Littman et al., Reference Littman, Bender, Mollica, Erangey, Lucas and Marvin2021), and in health where principles of equality of partners and primacy of end-user could safeguard against exploitation and ‘trickle down science’ (Heaton et al., Reference Heaton, Day and Britten2016; Reidpath & Allotey, Reference Reidpath and Allotey2019). Our literature review of practice also revealed such unevenness in division of labor, with HIC partners involved in high-level agenda setting and research design, while LMIC partners tend to be involved in data collection (Gunasekara, Reference Gunasekara2020; Pryor et al., Reference Pryor, Kuupole, Kutor, Dunne and Adu-Yeboah2009).

• • Diversity and interdependence: Following collaborative and environmental governance scholarship, collaboration necessarily serves diverse and interdependent stakeholders who contribute relevant and complementary knowledge and resources, but also rely on other stakeholders to achieve common and respective interests (Innes & Booher, Reference Innes and Booher2018; Moser, Reference Moser2016). Diversity and inclusion help ensure relevance and legitimacy, including those who benefit and those potentially harmed, stronger and weaker interests, deal makers and deal breakers, and contrarian and disadvantaged stakeholders (Forester, Reference Forester2006). Collective reflexivity can feed the potential for creativity and innovation, reciprocity, and discovery of mutual benefits (Wittmayer & Schäpke, Reference Wittmayer and Schäpke2014).

  Recognizing interdependence was identified as a way to equally value LMIC stakeholders' knowledge and contributions, who generously supported the research despite relative lack of resources (Wardani et al., Reference Wardani, Bos, Ramirez-Lovering and Capon2023). Research field workers, community, and government stakeholders contributed local contextual knowledge and resources crucial to intervention design, and facilities, time, and moral support for household surveys and data and sample collection. Interdependence was also found to be a key ingredient underlying stakeholders' motivation to engage. Case study participants' responses to the meaning of collaboration, such as ‘you can't do it alone,’ ‘all stakeholders need each other’ and ‘they won't engage if they don't perceive to get something out of it’ underlined such interdependence, where diverse participants must rely on each other to achieve a common goal (quotes from Wardani et al., Reference Wardani, Bos, Ramirez-Lovering and Capon2023). Likewise, interdependence is reflected in the collaborative governance and co-production of public services literature (Innes & Booher, Reference Innes and Booher2018; Ostrom, Reference Ostrom1996).

• • Boundary spanning and communication: Upon reflection of diversity in values, power dynamics, epistemologies, and local contexts, the collaboration must consider the resources needed for boundary spanning. Used in the sustainability transitions field and drawn from institutional theory (Zietsma & Lawrence, Reference Zietsma and Lawrence2010), boundary spanning include ‘strategies that connect different worlds,’ such as facilitating dialog, negotiation of interests, and reconciliation of potential tensions (Smink et al., Reference Smink, Negro, Niesten and Hekkert2015). Water sustainability scholars have also proposed the T-shaped concept highlighting three core group of skills to be developed by boundary spanners, including technical and functional understanding of one's own and collaborators' disciplines; organizing and management; and influence leadership (McIntosh & Taylor, Reference McIntosh and Taylor2013). Such efforts can be a time- and resource-intensive endeavor and individuals acting as boundary-spanners tend to be underappreciated, but are necessary to build mutual understanding, acceptance, and trust in relationships (Brown et al., Reference Brown, Werbeloff and Raven2019; Clark et al., Reference Clark, van Kerkhoff, Lebel and Gallopin2016b; Harris & Lyon, Reference Harris and Lyon2013; Innes & Booher, Reference Innes and Booher2018; Moser, Reference Moser2016; Schneider & Buser, Reference Schneider and Buser2018). Deep and meaningful engagement and respect for diverse stakeholders' perspectives and interests, are essential to collaborations (Hakkarainen et al., Reference Hakkarainen, Mäkinen-Rostedt, Horcea-Milcu, D'Amato, Jämsä and Soini2022), and should not be avoided at the expense of efficiency (Littman et al., Reference Littman, Bender, Mollica, Erangey, Lucas and Marvin2021). These represent transaction costs of facilitating a process from complexity towards mutual understanding, which need to be built into budgets and timelines, especially when working across multiple scales and diverse geographies (Brown et al., Reference Brown, Werbeloff and Raven2019; Moser, Reference Moser2016; Wardani et al., Reference Wardani, Bos, Ramirez-Lovering and Capon2023).

  In power-diverse settings, individual and collective reflexivity, itself a form of boundary spanning, is required to encourage mutual learning and accountability, yielding and wielding of power, and using values and vision alignment as a guide (Brown et al., Reference Brown, Werbeloff and Raven2019; Hakkarainen et al., Reference Hakkarainen, Mäkinen-Rostedt, Horcea-Milcu, D'Amato, Jämsä and Soini2022; Littman et al., Reference Littman, Bender, Mollica, Erangey, Lucas and Marvin2021; Tawake et al., Reference Tawake, Rokotuibau, Kalpokas-Doan, Illingworth, Gibert and Smith2021). Integration of diverse knowledges require boundary spaces, conducive for social interactions, multi-way communication, relationship building knowledge exchange, and social learning (Bos et al., Reference Bos, Brown and Farrelly2013; Marzano et al., Reference Marzano, Carss and Bell2006).

• • Aligned vision: Another form of boundary spanning, an alignment of vision redraws an inclusive boundary and drives stakeholders towards a common direction and purpose (Brown et al., Reference Brown, Wong and Deletic2015; Brown et al., Reference Brown, Werbeloff and Raven2019). It is an essential part of collaboration bringing together diverse stakeholders towards ‘a common aim’ alongside ‘different classes of outcomes’ (Wardani et al., Reference Wardani, Bos, Ramirez-Lovering and Capon2023). This is reflected in recent TD practice in EHD fields, which identified a shared vision, common ground, group safety and transparency as enabling factors (Black et al., Reference Black, Scally, Orme, Hunt, Pilkington, Lawrence and Ebi2018). Forging a shared mission requires visionary leadership in engaging stakeholders in Phase 1: Predevelopment & Initiation (Co-Design), but also facilitative co-leadership in Phase 2) Implementation (Adaptive Co-management) phase to encourage transparent governance and for others lead and develop the process (Wardani et al., forthcoming).

3.2.2 Structural factors | stakeholder contexts

Structural factors may be difficult to change, but may also be assets to the collaboration. With stakeholders as the focus of collaboration, structural factors relate to stakeholders' disciplinary, institutional, and cultural contexts. Not least important are funding institutions at the fulcrum of change with financial and knowledge resources as leverage to institutionalize collaboration (Abson et al., Reference Abson, Fischer, Leventon, Newig, Schomerus, Vilsmaier, von Wehrden, Abernethy, Ives, Jager and Lang2017; Wardani et al., Reference Wardani, Bos, Ramirez-Lovering and Capon2022). Funders play an important role in the evaluation, design and mechanisms of international TD collaborations; reflexivity is required to explicitly map values and power held by global funders vis-à-vis recipients of funding and communities benefiting from an intervention.

Disciplinary and institutional contexts of stakeholders can affect propensity towards collaboration, epistemological and axiological standpoints, and power dynamics within and across HIC and LMIC settings. Disciplines considered academic purists may view interdisciplinarity as risky, while those more applied and practical or formed at the boundary of two disciplines may be more encouraging of inter- and transdisciplinarity (Becher, Reference Becher2001; Klein, Reference Klein1996). Institutions that identify as ‘boundary organizations’ at the interface of science, policy and practice, such as policy think-tanks and applied research centers may be more experienced with facilitating interactions and mutual understanding among diverse epistemological and values perspectives (Gustafsson & Lidskog, Reference Gustafsson and Lidskog2018; Kivimaa et al., Reference Kivimaa, Boon, Hyysalo and Klerkx2019). Within HIC academic settings, institutional ranking and traditional hierarchies (e.g. HASS vs. STEM) may create power dynamics that require reflexivity to identify and address proactively for balanced engagement (MacMynowski, Reference MacMynowski2007). LMIC settings are not homogenous, with geographical, resource and training disparities across countries and complex power dynamics within each context (Gunasekara, Reference Gunasekara2020).

Relational contexts can also predetermine power dynamics and value clusters among stakeholders. Process initiators may draw from existing networks and prior collaboration in identifying partners, as a preference over the steep learning curve required for establishing new relationships amidst managing funding uncertainties (Moser, Reference Moser2016). Prior collaboration may mean sufficient mutual understanding and trust, while little prior knowledge and shared experience requires greater intensity and facilitation of interactions (Harris & Lyon, Reference Harris and Lyon2013; Schneider & Buser, Reference Schneider and Buser2018). Existing relationships may bear significant power and values clustering that may be a barrier for ‘newer’ partners, while complementarity and interdependence should be considered in balance, i.e. some stakeholders are critical, while others may add value but also complexity (Wardani et al., Reference Wardani, Bos, Ramirez-Lovering and Caponforthcoming).

3.2.3 Input factors | stakeholder contributions

Consideration of inputs is iterative with that of stakeholder engagement and structural contexts. Additional stakeholders may be required to provide relevant knowledge and as such prompt reflection on foundational considerations and structural contexts. Different stakeholders may also have different understanding of the societal challenge being addressed and different concepts depending on disciplinary and cultural backgrounds. Facilitating exploration of such differences and coming to a shared understanding is important in the initiation stage (Moser, Reference Moser2016). Further, openness and ability to adapt to changes must be maintained throughout, as stakeholders may contribute differently than initially expected. In the framework diagram (Figure 2), this is reflected in the lighter shading of Phase 1: Predevelopment & Initiation (Co-Design) and in the need for an adaptive approach to co-management (Hakkarainen et al., Reference Hakkarainen, Mäkinen-Rostedt, Horcea-Milcu, D'Amato, Jämsä and Soini2022; Norström et al., Reference Norström, Balvanera, Cvitanovic, Löf, West, Bednarek and Österblom2020).

As found in the empirical case study, collaboration depended on a variety of stakeholder contributions, including tangible and intangible contributions (Wardani et al., Reference Wardani, Bos, Ramirez-Lovering and Capon2023). Tangible contributions, such as funding and material resources, were typically contributed by HIC funders and researchers, while intangible ones, such as time, commitment, moral and political support, existing relationships and use of existing facilities for gatherings, sampling events, and laboratories were typically contributed by LMIC academic, government, and community stakeholders. Scientific and technical knowledge and skills tend to come from HIC stakeholders, while LMIC stakeholders contribute locally relevant applications, and contextual knowledge that may not be easily identified, described, and valued. Nonetheless, due to interdependence, without LMIC stakeholders' contributions, by completing surveys, providing biological and environmental samples, and providing community land tenure information, the research could risk implementation failure. Highlighting such interdependence could help equalize power dynamics (Wardani et al., Reference Wardani, Bos, Ramirez-Lovering and Capon2023).

3.2.4 Process factors | stakeholder interactions

Strategically incorporating foundational considerations into process design and management can help enable collaboration, as the project level can span structural, relational, and individual factors and offer multi-level opportunities (Wardani et al., Reference Wardani, Bos, Ramirez-Lovering and Capon2022). Organizational conditions, for example, can be established to encourage follow-on effects in stakeholder interactions (Process Factors), for example by forging common vision, values, and identity which also develops commitment and ownership (Brown et al., Reference Brown, Werbeloff and Raven2019). Likewise, creating a culture of openness and transparency in decision-making, listening and respect for diverse perspectives, and group psychological safety which help ensure equity in negotiating power dynamics (Black et al., Reference Black, Scally, Orme, Hunt, Pilkington, Lawrence and Ebi2018; Edmonson, Reference Edmonson2019; Littman et al., Reference Littman, Bender, Mollica, Erangey, Lucas and Marvin2021).

Another example of a structural Process factor that can be established include clear and equitable division of roles and responsibilities, institutional support for dedicated staffing and a base for a Project Management Unit (PMU), clear rules and policies, and information and communication technology (ICT) (Bark et al., Reference Bark, Kragt and Robson2016). Clear roles and responsibilities were highly cited as enabling, an absence of which creates ambiguity and confusion leading to misunderstanding, tension and conflict (Nix et al., Reference Nix, Paulose, Shrubsole, Altamirano-Medina, Belesova, Davies, Khosla and Wilkinson2018). Equitable division of roles means LMIC stakeholders' involvement is not limited to data collection, but should include representation in governance, agenda -setting, co-design, data analysis and authorship (Gunasekara, Reference Gunasekara2020; Pratt et al., Reference Pratt, Merritt and Hyder2016).

Strong facilitative leadership is likely to enable collaboration (Wardani et al., forthcoming), along with power-reflexive co-governance structure including sectoral and HIC-LMIC representation (Littman et al., Reference Littman, Bender, Mollica, Erangey, Lucas and Marvin2021). Co-governance helps ensure relevance and legitimacy and lack of engagement of societal stakeholders could compromise dissemination and impact (Heaton et al., Reference Heaton, Day and Britten2016). Processes of governance, team building, learning, and innovation must be established, to effectively orchestrate stakeholder interactions. These processes are pivotal in creating the conditions, space and time for authentic dialog, boundary spanning, and build trust, understanding and relationships (Hakkarainen et al., Reference Hakkarainen, Mäkinen-Rostedt, Horcea-Milcu, D'Amato, Jämsä and Soini2022; Harris & Lyon, Reference Harris and Lyon2013). Facilitative leadership helps encourage the sharing of power with leaders showing willingness to step back and yield to emerging leaders, allowing them to take greater ownership (Tawake et al., Reference Tawake, Rokotuibau, Kalpokas-Doan, Illingworth, Gibert and Smith2021). Facilitation can help with developing consensual theoretical, methodological, and evaluation frameworks, establishing common language for shared understanding (e.g. evolving text for negotiation) (Innes & Booher, Reference Innes and Booher2018).

Facilitation can help build team cohesion by providing semi-formal spaces for social interactions, social learning, and creative cross-fertilization. This helps build trust through familiarity and repetition (Wardani et al., Reference Wardani, Bos, Ramirez-Lovering and Caponforthcoming), which helps achieve the conditions for authentic dialog where stakeholder interactions are mutually comprehensible, accurate, sincere, and inclusive (Bracken & Oughton, Reference Bracken and Oughton2006). Social learning can be facilitated by encouraging reflexivity, listening, openness, and valuing of different perspectives (McIntosh & Taylor, Reference McIntosh and Taylor2013) to achieve triple-loop learning and systemic change (Bos et al., Reference Bos, Brown and Farrelly2013). Creative cross-fertilization is necessary for innovation, producing knowledge and solutions through bricolage, borrowing of concepts, and looking at problems through complementary lenses (Klein, Reference Klein1996).

In addition, facilitation can help stakeholders have equal access to knowledge, and that their knowledge and interests are being equally valued. High complexity, as proxied by degree of contestation and diversity requires careful design, planning and facilitation, and sound knowledge of power dynamics and stakeholder interests for knowledge exchange and production to happen (Schneider & Buser, Reference Schneider and Buser2018). Sustaining engagement through shared understanding, trust, and relationships is important due to the inherent uncertainties and ambiguities (Harris & Lyon, Reference Harris and Lyon2013). Collaborative governance scholarship note stakeholders may engage initially for instrumental reasons, but over time sustain their motivation for learning complementary viewpoints and personal friendships (Innes & Booher, Reference Innes and Booher2018).

3.2.5 Output factors | stakeholder integration

Through facilitated interactions, the collaboration may start to see intermediate outputs within Phase 2: Implementation (Adaptive Co-Management) and into Phase 3: Monitoring & Refinement (Co-Monitoring). Occurring in conducive boundary spaces, social learning and creative cross-fertilization can bring stakeholders to discover reciprocity and interdependence amongst their interests, and innovative problem-solving beyond initial expectation, which may snowball into greater motivation and cohesion for mutual support and accountability (Innes & Booher, Reference Innes and Booher2018). Repeated social interactions build familiarity, mutual understanding, trust and acceptance, which eventually develop into team cohesion, and social and political capital (Putnam, Reference Putnam2000; Sabatier, Reference Sabatier2005). Experiencing the initial uncertainties of the collaborative process together may build stakeholders' adaptive capacity to solve future problems, a sign of transformative triple-loop learning whereby stakeholders recalibrate their perspectives through collective decision-making.

These Output Factors are expected in parallel with specific knowledge outputs which may be the formal ‘deliverables’ of the project, including physical and policy innovation for the societal challenge at hand, a jointly developed conceptual framework, and academic co-publications. Innovative solutions and heuristics serve as boundary objects relevant and legitimate to all stakeholders, held together by ‘communicative rationality’ (Innes & Booher, Reference Innes and Booher2018). For research equity, LMIC stakeholders should be involved in governance, leadership, coordination, and analysis activities, including co-authorship of research outputs (Gunasekara, Reference Gunasekara2020; Pryor et al., Reference Pryor, Kuupole, Kutor, Dunne and Adu-Yeboah2009). Building trust and shared heuristics, like achieving conditions for authentic dialog, requires formidable effort, time and resources (Innes & Booher, Reference Innes and Booher2018). However, diversity should not be foregone in the interest of efficiency (Littman et al., Reference Littman, Bender, Mollica, Erangey, Lucas and Marvin2021), and excluding certain stakeholders may create obstacles later on in the process (Wardani et al., Reference Wardani, Bos, Ramirez-Lovering and Capon2023).

3.2.6 Outcomes | stakeholder & system transformations

As TD action research seeks to address a societal challenge, a litmus test for success is sustained improvements in human health, the environment, and social equity – a whole system transformation (Abson et al., Reference Abson, Fischer, Leventon, Newig, Schomerus, Vilsmaier, von Wehrden, Abernethy, Ives, Jager and Lang2017) or systems adaptation through innovation (Innes & Booher, Reference Innes and Booher2018; Luederitz et al., Reference Luederitz, Schapke, Wiek, Lang, Bergmann, Bos, Burch, Davies, Evans, Konig, Farrelly, Forrest, Frantzeskaki, Gibson, Kay, Loorbach, McCormick, Parodi and Westley2017). Co-creation of solution-oriented knowledge (Lang et al., Reference Lang, Wiek, Bergmann, Stauffacher, Martens, Moll, Swilling and Thomas2012) towards nature- and health-supportive development involves a shift in the power dynamics in decision making. A systematic shift in power dynamics is crucial in upending deeply entrenched legacies of colonialism and reification and imposition of ‘universalized’ HIC values, knowledge and cultures to LMIC contexts (Odora Hoppers, Reference Odora Hoppers and Harding2011; Tawake et al., Reference Tawake, Rokotuibau, Kalpokas-Doan, Illingworth, Gibert and Smith2021). Sustainability scholarship and PAR approaches emphasize the reflexive role of HIC researchers and stakeholders in not only recognizing the different thought styles and power dynamics (Christian Pohl et al., Reference Christian Pohl, Zimmermann, Fry, Gurung, Schneider, Speranza, Kiteme, Boillat, Serrano, Hadorn and Wiesmann2010), but also in yielding power and centering LMIC interests in such collaborations (Littman et al., Reference Littman, Bender, Mollica, Erangey, Lucas and Marvin2021). Power reflexivity can help avoid inadvertent exclusion of certain stakeholders' interests and subsequently, the knowledge or resource they contribute. Socio-economic wellbeing and intra- and intergenerational equity are expected (Luederitz et al., Reference Luederitz, Schapke, Wiek, Lang, Bergmann, Bos, Burch, Davies, Evans, Konig, Farrelly, Forrest, Frantzeskaki, Gibson, Kay, Loorbach, McCormick, Parodi and Westley2017).

Sustained benefits in health and environment include socio-ecological integrity, resource maintenance and stewardship (Luederitz et al., Reference Luederitz, Schapke, Wiek, Lang, Bergmann, Bos, Burch, Davies, Evans, Konig, Farrelly, Forrest, Frantzeskaki, Gibson, Kay, Loorbach, McCormick, Parodi and Westley2017; Sabatier, Reference Sabatier2005), and a more integrative appreciation of the interdependence between nature and health for all stakeholders (Boyden, Reference Boyden2016). Examples of development mechanism meeting health, environmental, and social objectives include the Green New Deal, prioritizing renewable energy, with positive health impact through improved air quality, reduced carbon emissions, and investments in inclusive upskilling centered on traditionally disadvantaged communities (Calhoun & Fong, Reference Calhoun and Fong2022).

Knowledge produced collaboratively is hoped to meet the CRL criteria the notion of ‘socially robust knowledge’ (Clark et al., Reference Clark, Tomich, van Noordwijk, Guston, Catacutan, Dickson and McNie2016a; Nowotny et al., Reference Nowotny, Scott and Gibbons2003) – or knowledge transformation. Adoption and sustainability of the intervention are important outcomes to monitor, as suggested by implementation science (Peters et al., Reference Peters, Adam, Alonge, Agyepong and Tran2013) and attests to knowledge CRL. Legitimacy implies that all stakeholders' interests are satisfactorily communicated, listened to and addressed, even if they were not fully met; otherwise, long-term sustainability is compromised. Transformation of the current system towards the desired state needs to abide by the CRL and equity (CRL + E) criteria if we are to avoid decision making by a powerful elite at the disadvantage of certain groups; and such decision making rely on a transformation of praxis described below.

With increased collective capacity for problem solving and social learning, collaborative experience is hoped to bring about transformation of praxis, a change in the system and practices of knowledge production. Following Giddens' structuration theory (1984), our practice framework centers upon stakeholders as agents of change, and knowledge production and innovation practices conceived and embedded within its socio-political context, are more likely to yield transformative solutions and lead to the institutionalization of new norms for sustained systemic transformation. Power reflexivity, and centering historically marginalized and LMIC interests, need to be core to praxis to reverse and avoid further harm caused by colonialism and neoliberalism with enduring negative systemic effects (Littman et al., Reference Littman, Bender, Mollica, Erangey, Lucas and Marvin2021; Pratt & Hyder, Reference Pratt and Hyder2017).