In this community project, students and teachers at Utrecht University work together with a non-profit foundation, TheBridge2Hope in a transdisciplinary team to help integrate survivors of human trafficking into the Dutch society. TheBridge2Hope is dedicated to aiding survivors of human trafficking, particularly those who have been sexually exploited and brought to the Netherlands from foreign countries. It aims to empower survivors to rebuild their lives with dignity and independence. TheBridge2Hope Academy offers digital literacy courses within their curriculum, which aim to equip participants with crucial skills for reintegration into society. However, it has been established by the foundation that there is a need for a digital literacy program within the curriculum to address the specific learning challenges faced by this population that often suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, limited attention spans, and cognitive difficulties. In addition, there are significant cultural differences between their home cultures in the Global South and the Dutch culture. This project aims to bridge this gap by creating a curriculum that empowers participants at TheBridge2Hope with the technological skills necessary for independent living.

The project explores the intersection of participatory action research (PAR) and community-engaged learning (CEL) to redesign a digital literacy curriculum. It is based on a mutual partnership between TheBridge2Hope and Utrecht University. The university offers its expertise in educational sciences and TheBridge2Hope provides expertise in the field and an understanding of the impact of trauma as a result of the trafficking experience. In the PAR, stakeholders create a democratic and mutual learning community in which participants learn from each other and together to make a positive impact in their community. This approach allows us to work closely with the stakeholders to ensure that the curriculum is not only effective but also sensitive and responsive to the diverse needs of learners. PAR emphasizes action and reflection which is particularly valuable in this project, where the goal is not just to create a curriculum but to make a meaningful impact on the lives of survivors.

The community engagement function of TheBridge2Hope is a vital aspect of its efforts to support survivors of human trafficking and exploitation. By fostering a sense of community and creating opportunities for survivors to engage with one another, the organization helps survivors build a support network and develop a sense of belonging. The safe and inclusive space allows participants to feel comfortable expressing themselves, fostering a sense of community and shared purpose which is critical for learning and healing.

This project demonstrates the cross-fertilization between PAR and CEL in the following ways: (1) engages actively stakeholders and fosters an environment of co-creation in a transdisciplinary team of experts, including criminal psychologists, educational scientists, volunteers and employees working at the organization and participants of the Academy; (2) it empowers survivors to take ownership of their learning journey; (3) the iterative nature of PAR allows for continuous refinement based on participant feedback, ensuring the curriculum remains relevant and responsive to participants needs.

Scientific projects are increasingly expected to create societal impact. These expectations are particularly present in transdisciplinary research (TDR), where it is assumed that different bodies of knowledge and perspectives need to be integrated as to be able to create societal impact (Hessels et al., 2009; Hoffmann et al., 2019). Recently, the notion of impact practices has been introduced to better understand how researchers create societal impact in research projects (De Jong & Balaban, 2022). Nevertheless, there is a deficiency in understanding how impact practices emerge and potentially facilitate integration processes, which are considered essential for impact creation in TDR. In this study, we advance the theoretical framework of impact practices in the context of TDR and empirically study the emergence and facilitative role of impact practices in integration processes.

The contribution of our study is twofold. First, we add to conceptualizing impact practices, building upon a constructivist notion of impact, which implies that scientific and societal impact are actively constructed by knowledge producers and evaluators in highly related networks (Smit & Hessels, 2021) and practices (Brenninkmeijer, 2022). Second, we adopt a process ontology to study the emergence of impact practices in a longitudinal study. Consequently, we understand impact practices not as stable ‘things’, but as the embodiment of a process through which researchers continuously aim to create societal impact. Adopting such a process ontology thus allows to focus on the mechanisms of impact creation by researchers. To our knowledge adopting a process ontology is new to the impact studies and TDR literature.

Empirically, we followed the emergence of impact practices over two years in a large-scale TDR project, and studied how these practices facilitate integration processes. We show that different impact practices emerge during a research project, of which some become collectively shared. Besides, we observe that some impact practices become less important during a research project. Collectively shared impact practices can facilitate or obstruct integration processes, and hence are important to understand in TDR projects.

Furthermore, we observed that the emergence of impact practices is driven by combinations of values of knowledge producers and evaluators (what impact is important), strategies (what should be done), and exchanges between actors (which interactions are needed) (Brenninkmeijer, 2022). Thus, knowledge producers shape impact practices in a deliberate process in which they, driven by their values, pursue different strategies and interactions. Consequently, starting from different values, we observe that knowledge producers strive for different impact practices grounded in different scientific disciplines, which can obstruct the integration processes necessary in TDR. Concluding, in our study we further theorize the concept of impact practices, and show the importance of impact practices in understanding the creation of societal impact and integration processes in TDR projects. Through this, we facilitate the understanding of scientific and societal impact of collaborative research.

Sustainability science aims to bring together different disciplines and non-academic stakeholders to support transformative change. As a relatively new field without established methodological norms, there is a need to explore the role of different research modes in realizing transformative change. Action research and transdisciplinary research are two main emerging research modes in sustainability science. Both value the societal impact of research and invite non-academic knowledge-holders into the research process. However, it is unclear how these research modes are distinct from one another. We aim to provide a better understanding of the differences between these research modes in the context of sustainability science to better understand how they can be best employed for transformative change. We conducted a comparative systematic literature review of over 1,400 scientific articles to explore aims, areas of use, influential ideas, and main methodological approaches in action and transdisciplinary research. We found that, aside from using different terminology, action and transdisciplinary research modes are overwhelmingly similar in terms of the processes they employ. Differences between the two include that action research emphasises action and transdisciplinary research knowledge production. The transdisciplinary literature was also found to be much more coherent than the diffuse action research contributions. This difference can be traced to their theoretical and methodological development. Transdisciplinary research developments have been contained largely within sustainability science, whereas action research has roots in a wide range of disciplines. Our review shows how siloed thinking, even within the same field, can lead to duplication of efforts and the development of parallel scholarly communities working in the same way but using different vocabulary. There is a need for reorganization within sustainability science to promote sharing and learning between scholars using these modes. We suggest that re-evaluating how research is conducted, and its impact evaluated is needed to allow for more care-full, thorough inquiry in which scholars can engage with the unfamiliar. We also discourage scholars from developing strong semantic attachments and advocate for openness to alternative and diverse linguistic expression. Through these means, greater sharing and learning between action and transdisciplinary researchers may be possible in order to realise the transformative potential of their work.

In the coming decades, global society is anticipated to weather multiple protracted polycrises stemming from a changing climate, disruptive technologies, and social, economic, and political instability. There is a consensus that universities are vital in preparing individuals to navigate these future challenges and contribute their knowledge and capabilities to foster thriving communities. This involves graduates developing transdisciplinary capabilities such as systems thinking, knowledge integration across disciplinary domains and change-making, among others (UNESCO, 2017; Jordan et al., 2021; Kligyte et al., in progress).

Transdisciplinary education is underpinned by an assumption that acquiring transdisciplinary capabilities equips graduates with the skills and tools necessary to achieve positive social and environmental impact. Yet, research into the outcomes and impact of this type of education remains lacking. While it is reasonable to assume that transdisciplinary capabilities may enhance graduates’ capacity to innovate, integrate knowledge across disciplines, and span boundaries across industries and professions, the link between these capabilities and graduates’ ability to achieve social and environmental impact in their professional settings is not well-established (Lewis et al., in progress).

In this presentation, we share preliminary findings from a study on alumni perceptions of the value of transdisciplinary capabilities gained by completing undergraduate transdisciplinary degrees at an Australian university. These alumni, with 1-6 years of workplace experience, were invited to reflect on: (1) the capabilities enabling them to address complex problems and create positive social and environmental impact in their professional lives; and (2) their conceptualisation of this impact. In Phase 1 of the study, graduates were invited to share their perspectives on transdisciplinary capabilities through an alumni survey. Phase 2 delved deeper into the survey themes through focus groups, offering insights into the value of these capabilities in organisational contexts and identifying barriers and enablers to their application.

The survey results (n=121) validated the importance of transdisciplinary capabilities, highlighting graduates' recognition of the significance of relational skills and the capacity to engage with and integrate diverse perspectives for achieving impact in practical contexts. Interestingly, practical and technical expertise were perceived as less significant, with ethical and socially responsible practices not being encouraged in many organisational settings. In the focus groups, participants provided rich accounts of the organisational challenges encountered by graduates seeking to create positive social and environmental impact and drive systems change. A notable disparity was revealed between graduates' aspirations to prioritise societal needs and narrow organisational priorities, often centred on profit and improved efficiency, with less emphasis on broader social responsibility.

These findings can enhance our understanding of the impact of transdisciplinary future-oriented capabilities and inform the development of transdisciplinary university programs. We invite more critical empirical examination and rigorous analysis of the practical impact of transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary education initiatives. Gaining more nuanced insights into the outcomes of these capabilities in fostering broader systems transformation will build the evidence base necessary to support our transdisciplinary education efforts.