How context affects transdisciplinary research: insights from Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Transdisciplinary research (TDR) has been developed to generate knowledge that effectively fosters the capabilities of various societal actors to realize sustainability transformations. The development of TDR theories, principles, and methods has been largely governed by researchers from the global North and has reflected their contextual conditions. To enable more context-sensitive TDR framing, we sought to identify which contextual characteristics affect the design and implementation of TDR in six case studies in Asia, Latin America, and Africa, and what this means for TDR as a scientific approach. To this end, we distinguished four TDR process elements and identified several associated context dimensions that appeared to influence them. Our analysis showed that contextual characteristics prevalent in many Southern research sites-such as highly volatile socio-political situations and relatively weak support infrastructure-can make TDR a challenging endeavour. However, we also observed a high degree of variation in the contextual characteristics of our sites in the global South, including regarding group deliberation, research freedom, and dominant perceptions of the appropriate relationship between science, society, and policy. We argue that TDR in these contexts requires pragmatic adaptations as well as more fundamental reflection on underlying epistemological concepts around what it means to conduct "good science", as certain contextual characteristics may influence core epistemological values of TDR. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11625-022-01201-3.

Factors enhancing the level of utilisation of research knowledge on ecosystems.

The significant resource investment in research on ecosystems for development of the Global South does not necessarily result in high levels of research knowledge utilisation (RKU). Understanding the factors associated with various levels of RKU can inform funding agencies and researchers developing new projects. We applied a combination of a questionnaire survey and follow up interviews with members of research teams of multiple, broadly comparable projects to make an assessment of achieved RKU levels using a combination of quantitative statistical hypothesis testing and narrative description of survey responses. Research knowledge dissemination by members of the project team who work for non-academic institutions or champions, e.g. particularly motivated people that promote and facilitate implementation or adoption of the project results, and via television was associated with higher research knowledge utilization. By contrast, dissemination by members of the project team working for academic institutions and via peer-reviewed journals was associated with lower RKU. The achieved level of RKU was consistently lower than the targeted level of RKU across spatial scales. The discrepancy between the perceived level of RKU and the evidence provided by survey respondents indicates the need for better monitoring the utilisation of research knowledge in development pathways. Our results further suggest that three years project duration is too short to achieve high levels of RKU in socio-ecological systems. We recommend involvement of non-academic members of the project team in project design, leadership and dissemination for increasing RKU.