ALBERT

Description: Current research and innovation (R&I) systems are not equipped to fully serve as catalysts for the urgently needed transformation of food systems. Though research on food systems transformation (first order: ‘what?’) and transformative research (second order: ‘how to’) are rapidly gaining traction in academic and policy environments, current efforts fail to explicitly recognize the systemic nature of the challenges associated with performing transformative second-order research. To recognize these manifold and interlinked challenges embedded in R&I systems, there is a need for a coupled-systems perspective. Transformations are needed in food systems as well as R&I systems (‘how to do the “how to”’). We set out to conceptualize an approach that aims to trigger double transformations by nurturing innovations at the boundaries of R&I systems and food systems that act upon systemic leverage points, so that their multisystem interactions can better support food system transformations. We exemplify this coupled-systems approach by introducing the FIT4FOOD2030 project with its 25 living labs as a promising multilevel boundary innovation at the cross-section of R&I and food systems. We illustrate how this approach paves the way for double systems transformations, and therefore for an R&I system that is fit for future-proofing food systems.

Description: Unsustainability in health care comprises diminishing returns and misalignment between the health care regime and the needs of the population. To deal with complex sustainability problems, niche solutions can be collaboratively designed and implemented through reflexive methods. For second-order sustainability, however, the institutionalization of the reflexive element itself is also needed. This paper aims to provide insight into the possibilities of embedding reflexivity into institutions to support second-order sustainability by reporting on two consecutive participatory research programs that sought to address unsustainability in terms of misalignment and diminishing returns. The first case study reflexively monitored the system’s innovation toward an integrated perinatal care system. Reflection within the project and implementation was supported successfully, but for stronger embedding and institutionalization, greater alignment of the reflexive practices with regime standards was needed. Building on these lessons, the second case study, which was part of the IMI-PARADIGM consortium, collaboratively built a structured tool to monitor and evaluate “the return on engagement” in medicine development. To institutionalize reflexivity, the creation of “reflexive standards” together with regime actors appears to be most promising. Broader and deeper institutionalization of reflexive standards can be attained by building enforcement structures for reflexive standards in the collaborative process as part of the reflexive methodologies for addressing complex sustainability problems.

Description: Transdisciplinary research and innovation (R&I) efforts have emerged as a means to address challenges to sustainable transformation. One of the main elements of transdisciplinary efforts is the ‘inclusion’ of different stakeholders, values and perspectives in participatory R&I processes. In practice, however, ‘doing inclusion’ raises a number of challenges. In this article, we aim to contribute to re-politicizing inclusion in transdisciplinarity for transformation, by (1) empirically unraveling four key challenges that emerge in the political practice of ‘doing inclusion’, (2) illustrating how facilitators of inclusion processes perform balancing acts when confronted with these challenges, and (3) reflecting on what the unfolding dynamics suggests about the politics of stakeholder inclusion for societal transformation. In doing so, we analyze the transdisciplinary FIT4FOOD2030 project (2017–2020)—an EU-funded project that aimed to contribute to fostering EU R&I systems’ ability to catalyze food system transformation through stakeholder engagement in 25 Living Labs. Based on 3 years of action-research (including interviews, workshops and field observations), we identified four inherent political challenges to ‘doing inclusion’ in FIT4FOOD2030: (1) the challenge to meaningfully bring together powerful and marginalized stakeholders; (2) combining representation and deliberation of different stakeholder groups; (3) balancing diversities of inclusion with directionalities implied by transformative efforts; and (4) navigating the complexities of establishing boundaries of inclusion processes. We argue that by understanding ‘doing inclusion’ as a political practice, necessitating specificity about the (normative) ambitions in different inclusion settings, facilitators may better grasp and address challenges in transdisciplinarity for transformation.