Synthesis

INTRODUCTION

Within sustainability science, transdisciplinary research (TDR) is a mode of research considered suitable for developing socially relevant solutions by facilitating co-production processes between academic and societal actors (Jahn et al. 2012, Lang et al. 2012). TDR serves as an umbrella term, encompassing various approaches to co-producing knowledge among different ways of knowing while being faced with the challenges of unequal power relations (Turnhout et al. 2020). The term co-production refers to knowledge not being exclusively produced by researchers but jointly with social actors, thus diversifying the ways we come to “know” something (Yua et al. 2022, Stirling et al. 2023).

TDR implies collaborations between academic and societal stakeholders to co-produce both knowledge and solutions together. Although it has been argued that TDR is relational by definition (McClure 2024), this position can be contested. Chilisa and Mertens (2021) point out that power relations between different knowledge holders participating in TDR are often unequally distributed, favoring those with academic backgrounds. Moreover, exchanges often take place as mere one-off events framed from a dominant non-relational onto-epistemology, thus leading to “extracting” knowledge as the main outcome of the collaboration (Igwe et al. 2022). This is not surprising given that scientific research has evolved in tandem with the priorities of economic and political elites, offering the knowledge and tools to optimize resource extraction (Turnhout 2024). One possible solution might be to embrace relationality more strongly in TDR, particularly by those coming to TDR from Euro-Western academic backgrounds (Chilisa 2017, Manuel-Navarrete et al. 2021). We use the term “Euro-Western,” following Chilisa (2020) and Mignolo (2011), to describe research paradigms that favor Eurocentric epistemologies and power relations.

A growing body of TDR scholarship advocates ways of incorporating diverse knowledge systems and non-Western onto-epistemologies and methodologies (Chilisa 2020, Llanque Zonta et al. 2023, Reed et al. 2023). The abbreviation “onto-epistemologies” refers to contextually-specific ways of being, doing, relating, and knowing together. Perspectives rooted in relationality are essential for understanding Indigenous knowledge systems, as seen in the Canadian Mountain Assessment (McDowell et al. 2023) and Indigenous-based methods like Yarning circles (Walker et al. 2014). Integrating multiple evidence bases enhances ecosystem governance by combining diverse knowledges, offering a more inclusive framework (Tengö et al. 2014). Decolonizing research through relational perspectives, as Day et al. (2020) argue, involves reconciling how we relate to natural resources, fostering sustainable and just practices that respect Indigenous ontologies (Vásquez-Fernandez and Ahenakew 2020). The goal is not that everyone adopts Indigenous or relational onto-epistemologies, but rather building on them as a means to reflect on one’s own onto-epistemological assumptions without falling onto either-or, or right-wrong dichotomies (Reano 2020). The process of decolonization aims at long-term, reciprocal relationships between knowledge holders. However, these relationships cannot be merely instrumental (i.e., at the service of external goals), they must also be personal, involving introspection into participants’ inner-worlds to realize that we do not exist outside of our relations.

Failures in co-production are not just due to shortcomings in individual projects; they also result from systemic and institutional barriers. For example, research ethics board requirements and academic norms often favor linear, traditional methodologies, making it difficult for researchers to employ the flexible, relational approaches required for meaningful co-production (Lemos et al. 2018). Institutional incentives and funding models also tend to prioritize extractive knowledge production over collaborative, community-engaged research (Marshall et al. 2018). However, institutional barriers and incentives are also embedded in academic cultures that in turn condition the subjectivities and intentionality of researchers (Vásquez-Fernandez and Ahenakew 2020, Manuel-Navarrete et al. 2021). Therefore, inclusive TDR requires a dual transformation: changing both academic norms and institutional culture, while also fostering deep shifts in researchers’ inner worlds and mindsets. This paper explores practices that may offer guidance for engaging in the latter. We asked ourselves: How can we support TDR researchers in cultivating inner transformations that improve their relational capacities?

Our main argument is that inner work is a key leverage point to help TDR researchers challenge their Euro-Western conditioning (Marshall et al. 2018, Ives et al. 2020), reversing their gaze (Searle and Muller 2019), or starting to embody and practice two-eyed seeing (Bartlett et al. 2012). All this points to embracing onto-epistemological pluralism, which we see as a precondition for engaging in truly inclusive TDR projects (Muller et al. 2019). In this vein, Manuel-Navarrete et al. (2021) examined the attitudes and intentions of a team of Ecuadorian biologists toward knowledge co-production with Indigenous communities during fieldwork. They found that those with less field experience held negative views on horizontal forms of co-production and did not recognize colonial biases in scientific practices even though they recognized these biases in Ecuadorian culture. These findings suggest that key barriers to inclusive co-production likely include disciplinary formal education, lack of diverse onto-epistemological perspectives in curricula, and productivist pressures to engage in extractive research (Manuel-Navarrete et al. 2021).

In sustainability science, inner work is often defined as the personal and transformative processes individuals undertake to cultivate the awareness, empathy, compassion, values, and capacities necessary for fostering meaningful interconnections, which are essential for collaborative efforts toward sustainability (Ives et al. 2020). In psychology, inner work has been defined as expanding our limited views of self toward a greater realization of what it is to be human (Welwood 1984). We propose that inner work can contribute to sustainability research by helping TDR researchers to revise entrenched ontologies and make room for diverse and often contradictory ontological claims (Chaves et al. 2016, Datta 2018, Vásquez-Fernandez and Ahenakew 2020). We see inner work as a powerful lever for changing attitudes and intentions toward different forms of knowledge and assumptions about the nature of reality.

We begin by outlining the conceptual background that informs our understanding of inclusive TDR. We then introduce the three case studies that inform our findings, as well as the reflexive cycle to inclusive TDR. In the Discussion section, we present the challenges and solutions regarding relational aspects of co-production in each case study.

CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND

Knowledge co-production in TDR

TDR as a mode of research responds to the need of combining different forms of knowledge to better address societal real-world problems. TDR emphasizes knowledge co-production and incorporates the viewpoints and interests of different societal actors, thus challenging traditional academic modes of knowledge production (Gibbons et al. 1994, Max-Neef 2005). Knowledge co-production serves as a key design principle of TDR and a main quality criterion (Jahn et al. 2012, Lang et al. 2012). However, there is no uniform definition of co-production, making it difficult for researchers to identify the conditions that support effective co-production (Yua et al. 2022).

In practice, implementing co-production requires reflexivity in order to recognize the different forms of knowledge and ontological or epistemological perspectives of participants (Nikulina et al. 2019, Horcea-Milcu et al. 2022). Popa et al. (2015) encourages researchers to move beyond rigid frameworks and instead engage in continuous reflexivity so that they can align with the evolving nature of real-world problems. There are several systematic approaches to help researchers engage in critical and reflexive processes of co-production. For instance, Norström et al. (2020:183) suggest that these processes should be (1) context-based, (2) pluralistic, (3) goal-oriented, and (4) interactive. Another widely cited example is the six modes of co-production for sustainability proposed by Chambers et al. (2021) as a heuristic tool for researchers and societal actors. The modes are: (1) researching solutions, (2) empowering voices, (3) brokering power, (4) reframing power, (5) navigating differences, and (6) reframing agency.

Systematic approaches for reflexive co-production emphasize the critical role of power imbalances inherent in collaborations between different social actors (Turnhout et al. 2020, Vincent et al. 2020, Minna et al. 2024). Muhl et al. (2023) highlight the role of researchers’ motivations, identities, positionality, and values in power relations affecting co-production. However, a significant gap exists in understanding the inner worlds’ dynamics within scientists who are expected to implement these guidelines. An underlying assumption is that researchers conventionally trained in extractive, non-relational modes of knowledge production, often based on substantialist onto-epistemologies, can seamlessly practice TDR and co-production without intentionally activating inner changes. This overlooks the reality that prevalent institutional barriers, academic disincentives, and ingrained mindsets must be consciously resisted, confronted, and eventually overridden, which may require inner qualities that are not conventionally included in academic training, such as, for instance, non-judgmental awareness, courage, resilience, or compassion.

This paper not only discusses overarching guiding principles but also offers a practice to cultivate the internal dimensions necessary for horizontal co-production in sustainability research. Central to this approach is the understanding that a disposition toward onto-epistemological diversity is an essential leverage point, which cannot be expected to arise naturally within the current contexts of TDR. Rather, these capacities must be intentionally fostered by researchers and supported by institutions (Manuel-Navarrete et al. 2019). Our focus here is on the former, with the aspiration that these intentional efforts will eventually inspire broader institutional transformation in research contexts.

Multi-science ways of knowing nature

Inclusive TDR recognizes that science is always culturally biased. Modern science and academia are no exception as they are historically rooted in Eurocentric cultures and in Western Educated Industrialized Rich and Democratic (WEIRD) populations (Gould et al. 2025). As a consequence, modern science privileges WEIRD psychological traits, including self-enhancement, overconfidence, or independence. It also prioritizes ways of knowing, such as analytical and noun-based thinking, where both knowledge and the known are treated as objects separate from the knower (Aikenhead and Ogawa 2007). WEIRD biases also support impersonal pro-sociality, such as trusting strangers and cooperating with anonymous individuals, which run opposite to relationality (Gould et al. 2025).

As Aikenhead and Ogawa (2007) argue, modern science arose in a specific sociopolitical context that emphasizes control over nature, linear time, and individualism. In contrast, verb-based, relational epistemologies rely on direct, experiential learning through observation, storytelling, and ritual, which foster a deep sense of place and relationship with the land as a process of “coming to know” (Aikenhead and Ogawa 2007:575). Relational ways of knowing are often associated with Indigenous groups and societies, but they are found in the sciences of many other cultures that have been differentially influenced by Western colonization and modernization, including a wide variety of Eastern, African, post-colonial, and post-development knowledge systems (West et al. 2024).

Inclusive TDR entails a “multi-science” approach that recognizes the legitimacy of a multiplicity of systems of knowledge and cosmologies, including Indigenous, neo-Indigenous, and non-Western epistemologies (Ogawa 2002). This is consistent with the growing interest in relational approaches within sustainability science (Nutton et al. 2020, West et al. 2020, Helne 2021). Additionally, as the global sustainability crisis can be understood as a relational crisis (Milgin et al. 2020, Whyte 2020), there is the need for sustainability science to learn from relational ontologies while acknowledging that the responsibility for our current predicament falls squarely on the predominance of non-relational ontologies (Goodchild 2021, Williams 2023). Yet in practice, much TDR continues to reflect the values and assumptions of WEIRD societies, which often leads to marginalizing or distorting other knowledge systems.

Gould et al. (2023) criticize what West et al. (2020) have deemed a “relational turn” for sustainability science, arguing it does not adequately include Indigenous scholars’ works and thus lacks “epistemological diversification” (Gould et al. 2023:1). Similar criticism is brought forward by Gallegos-Riofrio et al. (2022), who point out the necessity to include Latin American scholarship when discussing the potential of relationality for sustainability science. This coincides with Indigenous scholars’ criticism of the still-dominant form of knowledge production, which often takes place in academic institutions in the Global North and draws on established methods characterized by an ongoing inequality, including processes of co-production that are often approached from transactional, utilitarian mindsets (Deloria et al. 2012, Milgin et al. 2020, Wehi et al. 2023).

Although there is no uniform definition of relationality, we understand it as a way of perceiving and knowing the world as rooted in a relational ontology. Relational ontologies entail ways of acting, living, and being that center community and kinship while being context-sensitive as well as in deep relationship and balance with the non-human world (Simpson 2014, Snow et al. 2016). They lead to understanding every part of the world as connected to everything else, providing an alternative view to the predominant substantialist worldview associated with the human-nature dichotomy and the assumption of humans’ superiority over nature (Kealiikanakaoleohaililani and Giardina 2016, Tynan 2021). We do not reject or claim any particular ontology for ourselves, but we argue that the persistence of non-relational onto-epistemological supremacy within academia in favor of substantialism and materialism justify excessively reductive forms of TDR that prioritize objectivity, competition, and abstraction over wisdom, care, and relational accountability, and that fall short of contributing to sustainability transformations (Nicolescu 2012, Rigolot 2022, Williams 2023). In turn, this supremacy supports and incentivizes extractive approaches to research and consolidates power asymmetries in knowledge production (Latulippe and Klenk 2020, Igwe et al. 2022).

We see onto-epistemological pluralism and the adoption of inclusive TDR as inextricably connected and mutually reinforcing. So: How can we end onto-epistemological supremacy? The obvious answer is by encouraging researchers to embrace and practice onto-epistemological diversity. However, this is a complex ask as it may require, amongst other things, breaking with supremacist habits and inertias, renouncing privileges, rebelling against the status quo, or developing capacitates to engage in ontological politics (Chaves et al. 2016, Caniglia et al. 2021, Turnhout 2024). Overcoming these inertias is not only a methodological challenge (Mancilla Garcia et al. 2024), but also a deeply personal and cultural one. Western-trained researchers seeking to become more inclusive must develop the inner capacities necessary for authentic collaboration across difference. This is what the Inner Development Goals (IDGs) term “being” and “relating,” which include cultivating humility, listening, reflexivity, and openness to discomfort (Ankrah et al. 2023).

Our modest proposal is to examine inner work leading to inner shifts that could help diminish persistent onto-epistemological supremacist tendencies in TDR. Inclusive TDR acknowledges that no single onto-epistemology can capture the full extent of reality and that other beings access aspects of reality that lay beyond human cognition (Kimmerer 2013, Nicolescu 2014, Reid et al. 2024). Thus, relationships with non-human beings, such as for instance animal companions or microorganisms essential to human life, may lead to revealing cognitive blind spots humans might overlook (Simpson 2014, Tàbara 2023). Extractive approaches are reductive and prioritize a singular, dominant way of knowing. In opposition, the radical inclusiveness we are advocating highlights that every onto-epistemology relies on culturally bounded and species-bounded protocols for observing reality and encoding the observations (Whyte et al. 2016, Mancilla Garcia et al. 2024).

Inclusive TDR requires inner work not only because it encourages researchers to be more self-reflexive and to recognize their own cultural biases. It also invites them to embrace the equal legitimacy and validity of every model of reality, while assessing each model’s merits in the context of its own onto-epistemological framework. For instance, the Potawatomi people approach the act of harvesting as a sacred interaction rooted in gratitude, care, and the understanding that all beings are interconnected (Kimmerer 2013). This model is more useful to support sustainable and regenerative harvesting practices than to maximize short-term chrematistic profit. An important point, though, is that embracing onto-epistemological plurality does not imply that all claims should be treated as valid knowledge. Models that are self-referential and disconnected from direct observation or actual experience, such as conspiracy theories, are not useful and generally to be excluded from TDR.

Inner work for inclusive TDR

Inner work has been linked to wider systems transformations in the context of sustainability (Woiwode et al. 2021). It is also increasingly recognized as essential for advancing relational approaches, moving away from individualism and toward an extended self-awareness leading to a deeper sense of care and connectedness (Walsh et al. 2020, Artmann 2023).

Consciously exploring subjective dynamics, including emotions, thoughts, identities, and beliefs, may activate deeper leverage points, holding greater potential for transformation (Horlings 2015, Manuel-Navarrete and Pelling 2015). However, the dominance of substantialist-materialist ontologies supports the modern belief that consciousness and awareness emerge from brain activity (Kastrup 2019). From this assumption, the inward turn in sustainability can be misconstrued as reinforcing individualism and separation (e.g., Boda et al. 2022). Thankfully, Indigenous scholars understand that the inward movement does not take us to our brains (Wilson 2008, Kovach 2021). Instead, it links us back to our whole being, the planet and cosmos, and to realizing that we are our relationships (Manuel-Navarrete et al. 2024). Arguably, modern societies have stopped communicating and relating meaningfully with other beings (i.e., beyond extraction) because of the supremacy of substantialist and materialist ontologies (Kastrup 2019, Tassell-Matamua et al. 2023). In other words, although our materiality differentiates us, our internality unites us. Thus, inner, also referred to as inner-outer, transformations are often assumed in sustainability literature as means to relationally grounding TDR (Ives et al. 2020, West et al. 2020).

In alignment with these ideas, we propose a reflexive cycle consisting of five iterative inner work practices, leading to inner shifts, as a teaching and learning tool. This cycle is consistent with Ives et al.’s (2023) IMAGINE sustainability framework in several ways. First, the cycle engages Ives et al.’s proposed three inner sustainability dimensions (namely, ontological, epistemological, and praxis). Each dimension contains two core characteristics of inner-outer transformations (Ives et al. 2023:2778): ontological dimension: “interdependence of inner/outer phenomena” and “multiple latent human potentials”; epistemological dimension: “expansion of knowledge systems” and “inclusion of diverse knowledges”; praxis dimension: “activation of inner dimensions” and “generation of transformative capacities.” Second, the IMAGINE framework directly links to our suggestion of diversifying TDR ontologically as it also frames sustainability challenges as relational crises with deep roots that require solutions “grounded in an ontology of interdependence and human potential and supported by expansive knowledge systems” (Ives et al. 2023:2783).

Our reflexive cycle invites individuals to engage inner worlds with a specific focus on discovering the potential of ontological diversity. This aligns with West et al. (2020), who suggest that engaging relational ontologies holds the potential of initiating cognitive shifts, encouraging a deeper recognition of the interconnectedness between humans and nature, while also extending agency to non-human entities. These shifts represent crucial learning processes that move away from dualistic cosmologies.

RESEARCH APPROACH

Our research explores ways of supporting Western-educated TDR researchers to cultivate inner work toward onto-epistemological flexibility. We organized a workshop focusing on three case studies, which we present in detail after outlining the workshop design. The results, the reflexive cycle, are presented in the subsequent section.

Context and positionality

A collaboration hosted by the tdAcademy project (Seidel 2022) brought together three German researchers specializing in TDR for sustainability, and three scholars based, respectively, in the Americas, Asia, and Africa, with experience in relational approaches to TDR. Drawing on Shawn Wilson’s (2008) Indigenous research paradigm for reshaping co-production, we organized a five-day workshop at Leuphana University in Lüneburg, Germany, to explore how relationality could enhance context-sensitive TDR. Wilson (2008) emphasizes that knowledge is created through relationships, not just between people, but also with the environment, ancestors, and spiritual forces. This paradigm fosters mutual respect and interconnectedness, ensuring that research is not extractive but instead rooted in reciprocal, community-driven processes that honor multiple ways of knowing.

The visiting scholars presented case studies from Ecuador, Botswana, and Malaysia, offering diverse perspectives on relational approaches. One of the scholars, a member of the Bantu people, served as Principal Investigator on a TDR project in Botswana that emerged from a collaboration between North American and African universities. The Ecuadorian case was shared by a scholar originally from Europe, now based in North America, who has spent the last six years supporting a partnership with the Kichwa and Waorani people in Ecuador with the goal of co-producing sustainability solutions that generate income for rainforest defenders. The case from Malaysia was presented by the Director of the Sejahtera Centre for Sustainability and Humanity at the International Islamic University of Malaysia, where "Sejahtera," an Indigenous Malay concept, refers to a state of balance, well-being, and prosperity. German researchers had limited experience working with Indigenous communities, but they valued onto-epistemological diversity and aimed to learn from those who had applied relational approaches in both teaching and research.

We acknowledge that the workshop was conducted within institutional settings that inherently uphold certain power asymmetries, such as its location within a Western academic context. Moreover, although this article reflects the collective contributions of all participants, the writing was led by Western-educated researchers, who had access to more time and institutional resources because of their positions at Western universities. As a result, this text is primarily addressed to non-Indigenous researchers who are genuinely interested in understanding how embracing diverse ontologies can enhance reflexivity within TDR.

Our reflexive cycle serves as a guide for Western-educated researchers, educators, and students who wish to advance horizontal forms of co-production in TDR by overcoming onto-epistemological supremacy through relational approaches.

Explorative workshop and the five inner shifts

The workshop did not aim to achieve any predetermined outcome. We began with a session to meet each other beyond our roles as academics and to create room for narrating significant relations in our lives. Other activities included a reflexive forest walk and a visit to a farmers’ market as both conscious departures from the seminar room and exercises in relating to each other. Reflexive forest walks combined walking together in a forest with a mindful practice where we engaged with nature while simultaneously reflecting on our inner experiences and relationships.

Overall, participants reflected on their histories and positionalities as relational beings and shared them with the goal of developing collective understandings of inclusive TDR through inductive reasoning (Fig. 1). Inductive reasoning is a process of starting from a set of qualitative data to look for commonalities, patterns, and parallels (Denzin and Lincoln 1998, Ketokivi and Mantere 2010).

A key part was the presentation of the three TDR case studies. After each case presentation, we explored the meaning of context and the significance of relationality in each case through an iterative, inductive process. We enriched the discussions by presentations of a study on the role of context in TDR by the study’s leader (Tolksdorf et al. 2025) and on TDR practitioners’ capacity-building, based on Seidel (2022). We used comparative case study (CCS) by focusing on a phenomenon of interest, approaches to co-production, which is considered across different temporal, spatial, and socio-political dimensions (Bartlett and Vavrus 2017). In this method, context is relationally constructed, meaning it is more than the geographic and socio-political frameworks. We also explored the case studies in a way that researchers’ interpretations and reflections became part of the inquiry (Creswell 2014). To support capturing all voices, in addition to their recordings, parts of the workshop were accompanied by a graphic designer. This proved helpful for visualizing our creative thinking about the potential of inclusive TDR in Euro-Western academic settings.

Over the five days, we evolved emerging key themes into a reflexive cycle of five inner shifts toward inclusive TDR as most of us were interested in developing a tool to guide our TDR teaching and research activities. In the weeks following the workshop, participants proceeded with an iterative process of reflection and deeper engagement. During this process, the illustrations, case studies, and the minutes and notes from our workshop discussions served as data for subsequent analyses of how to best link this with the existing literature on onto-epistemological diversity, relationality, and inner transformations, and how to formulate the reflexive cycle in a way that becomes inviting and accessible to TD researchers and learners.

Case studies

A REFLEXIVE CYCLE FOR FOSTERING INCLUSIVE TDR

The reflexive cycle consists of five iterative inner shifts seeking to foster inclusive TDR among researchers, practitioners, and other societal stakeholders from diverse backgrounds (Fig. 2). These shifts represent an iterative, cyclical process occurring in steps that loosely support and inform each other when continuously repeated, thus representing a relational cycle. Although we speak of a cycle, the shifts do not need to take place in a fixed order or build on each other. Below, we elaborate on the inner work supporting each shift by connecting them to our case studies and workshop findings.

Recognizing the value of building relationships for inclusive TDR

A key shift in inclusive TDR involves “stepping down” from personal identifications and “jumping” into the shared context of a TDR process (Fig. 3). Participants come into the process from different angles and must be ready to face vulnerability, discomfort, and risks while avoiding the temptation of trying to control or completely know the TDR space (Haider et al. 2018). Although TDR researchers and practitioners are mostly aware of the importance of relationships within the TDR context, relationality is often foreign to people schooled in Euro-Western ways of knowing. The idea of opening to diverse onto-epistemologies may give rise to feelings of unease or even fear associated with facing and exposing oneself to the unknown.

As university-trained scientists, we are used to established conventions regarding which methods to use, and to evaluate what counts as knowledge (Mancilla Garcia et al. 2024). Overcoming these established ideas as well as opening to discovering new methods, bodies of knowledge, and ways of being requires inner work to build courage and the readiness to experience initial confusion. Though challenging, this inner work is a prerequisite of a transformative learning journey (Selby 2015). If we are serious about contributing to paradigm shifts toward inclusive TDR, it requires the (at times painful) process of leaving established ways of doing research behind, letting ourselves open up toward the new (Kovach 2021), and creating learning environments where all participants feel welcome and safe enough to enter processes that may be troubling or painful (Mälkki 2019, Singer-Brodowski 2022).

Although it may require courage and emotional intelligence, embracing the contradictions and instabilities that normally emerge from allowing a diversity of onto-epistemologies holds the potential to spark processes of un- and relearning from other, non-Western ways of perceiving reality and knowing and value systems. This is what we did during our workshop when we jumped into the first session, aiming to explore ourselves through relational aspects of our being, rather than solely encountering each other as independent learners in an academic workshop setting.

It also occurred in all three case studies; for instance, when U.S. students encountered Kichwa communities for the first time, it felt to many like jumping into local communities’ ways of life and worldviews quite unprepared. Although this may initially be accompanied by stress, insecurity, and not-knowing, these kinds of experiences are a starting point for exploring one’s own ontological and epistemological bias (Tuck and Yang 2012). Malaysian students, too, had to take a risk, or jump, when beginning to collaborate with students from other disciplines and community members in their project work for the first time, being ready to question and overcome existing concepts and prejudices.

Reflexive questions: What is my point of departure? What makes me feel uncomfortable when “jumping in” into the TDR experience? Why is that the case? Which kinds of feelings do I have about other participants? Why? What do I have to lose? What blind spots become visible?

Creating internal conditions for participating in TDR learning

The second inner shift involves the realization of how the “I” relates to everything else, meaning we need to take a deep dive into our inner worlds to enable us to go beyond the supremacy of Euro-Western onto-epistemologies. This is intertwined with the first shift, as both depend on one another.

Shift two can manifest inner transformation and the embodiment of relational attitudes (Wamsler et al. 2021, Ives et al. 2023). We become aware of our inner values, needs, and beliefs and how these connect us as individuals with the society around us and inanimate nature (Fig. 4). These can be developed through transformative learning approaches, such as art-based and place-based pedagogies that seek to foster a sense of connection between inner and outer worlds (Pacini-Ketchabaw 2013, Burns 2015). This, too, requires a learning setting in which participants relate to each other and thus experience an engagement with inner worlds that is at first introspective but eventually serves to enhance our understanding of our entire lives as being made up of relations (Ives et al. 2023).

Engagement with inner worlds was visible in the Botswana case, where researchers socialized in Euro-Western contexts tended to describe themselves as individuals being trained in a certain discipline, whereas many individuals socialized in one of the Bantu societies in southern Africa would likely draw on the principles of the Ubuntu relational ontology and introduce themselves through their relations to other living and nonliving beings related to their home community. This is why in the workshop we consciously chose an exercise during which we introduced ourselves through the kinds of relations that form us as individuals, rather than solely through our academic resume. Especially for those among us who came from Euro-Western non-relational backgrounds, this was difficult at first, but proved valuable as we discovered how manifold the relations are that we navigate throughout our lives.

The Botswana case describes an event where researchers were taking a deep dive to acknowledge, confront, and seek to reverse deep asymmetries of knowledge and power and colonial prejudices by mapping out researchers’ and societal stakeholders’ relationships with knowledge structures, each other, and the environment or ecosystem. This included an awareness of how ethics review boards from academic funders are characterized by colonial structures, such as neglecting the voices and perspectives of those researched, and therefore the possibility that individual prejudice could undermine relational existence and accounting to all relations.

Reflexive questions: Which kinds of relations have been forming me as a person? How do I relate to others: people, plants, animals, places, etc.? What elements, events, etc., have shaped my perception of relationships so far?

Recognizing the diversity of knowledge in interpersonal relationships

Shift 3 helps us recognize the diversity of knowledge in interpersonal relationships symbolized by the twirls that are situated differently while being connected with each other (Fig. 5). Inner work is needed to consciously reach out to others and recognize that there are different kinds of knowledge and knowledge systems, many of which are marginalized in today's academic landscape (Chilisa 2020). This links back to the first inner work/shift addressing researchers’ uncertainty and unfamiliarity with non-traditional research approaches and the knowledge they generate. It also links to Gould et al.’s (2023) argument that a relational turn requires Western-trained researchers to more closely engage with Indigenous epistemologies, which directly translates into doing research differently and adds to our existing methodological tools.

The Botswana case shows how Western-trained researchers learned to combine academic methods (such as surveys) with Indigenous approaches to knowledge production (such as listening to stories told about local history). In the Malaysia case study, students are brought together with people from local communities to help them understand that sustainability problems need to be defined and solved together and through mutual understanding rather than through forming assumptions about specific groups without involving them.

Reflexive questions: Why do I consider relevant what I am proposing to work on? How can I take a step back and learn about others’ perspectives on a certain topic or problem? What am I irritated about in the process, and why? How might stakeholders from other disciplines/contexts/social strata, etc., approach these processes of co-production?

Strengthening the connection with all beings

Shift 4 strengthens the connection with all beings by replacing the instrumental and transactional approaches to sustainability science, which characterize nature as a means to narrowly-defined ends, and in turn create manifold externalities (Fig. 6). A core aspect of inclusive TDR is the accountability of researchers, practitioners, and other actors in TDR for all relationships that involve the non-human. Expanding our ability to engage with diverse onto-epistemologies makes it possible to recognize the dependencies and interdependencies between all beings, and to recognize that we all hold valid knowledge and developing emotional relationships. Milgin et al. (2020) argue that this promotes a holistic understanding of sustainability based on an ethics of care for all elements of the world. Furthermore, it helps recognize how sustainability problem definitions in co-production spaces are still often derived from Western-based scientific thought (Wehi et al. 2023).

Inner work holds the potential to help researchers to integrate in their inquiry insights from human history, stories, and participation in events, as well as visions and experiences of spiritual insight in their relations with non-humans (birds, animals, rivers, mountains). Spirituality and the sacred can be seen as a connection to the cosmos; therefore, any practice that strengthens connections or builds relationships is spiritual and ceremonial (Williams 2023). Recognizing spirituality allows researchers to explore the connections between the experience of the researcher and the researched on the one side, and with both the sacred and the practical aspects of research on the other side.

This was a constant theme in the Botswana case; for instance, when a local community refused to use a health facility that was planned for on an area of the community considered sacred ground. It would thus have been a mistake for researchers to ignore this and dismiss local actors as merely ignorant. Instead, they took the concern seriously and the community was involved in finding an alternative site for the facility. Similarly, in Ecuador, it has been vital for researchers and other non-Indigenous stakeholders to understand the significance of the forest for Kichwa communities. Here, the forest is not just a collection of trees. Rather, it is part of everyone's existence. It is a teacher and the source of life, without which people can no longer exist.

Reflexive questions: How do I relate to my surroundings? Which living and non-living beings in my life have a special meaning to me and why?

Recognizing the cyclic nature of knowledge co-production

The fifth inner shift, which also forms the starting point for continuing the iterative reflexive cycle, highlights the long-term, circular, and repetitive process that may involve perplexity, resistance and even pain when one realizes that one needs to break away from linearity (Fig. 7). These are the characteristics of a transformative learning journey, which cannot be planned, but happens at its own pace (O’Brien et al. 2013, Walsh et al. 2020). The progression of TDR is a non-linear, chaotic, endless cycle with interruptions and the unpredictable back and forth between shifts.

Reflexive questions: In what way might my research benefit from fostering an attitude of inclusive TDR? What are one or two concrete starting points for initiating such a process within my own academic (or other) practice(s)?

DISCUSSION

We discuss how the five inner work practices and associated shifts relate to key theoretical aspects of relationality and inner transformation. Then we compare the central challenges of the three cases regarding each reflexive practice and the context-specific solutions. Finally, we critically summarize the main implications of our findings for inclusive TDR.

Aligning the five shifts with our conceptual background

We argue that known challenges to co-production in TDR, including ongoing unequal power relations between knowledge holders from different societal backgrounds, might be approached through inclusive TDR. Analyzing three case studies revealed the challenges and potential solutions inherent in fostering relational attitudes.

Common challenges to co-production in TDR, including ongoing unequal power relations between knowledge holders from different societal backgrounds, can be partially approached through inclusive TDR. Analyzing three case studies revealed the challenges and potential solutions inherent in fostering onto-epistemological diversity. Our main argument is that applying and adopting plural-relational approaches to TDR requires fundamental inner shifts across the five dimensions noted in Table 1.

Opening ourselves to ontological diversity requires shifting our focus away from the autonomous individual, such as the researcher or practitioner, toward integrating our autonomy with our multiple relationships between actors and their environments (Datta 2018, Reed et al. 2023). This implies acknowledging an ethical responsibility to the environment, as one’s survival is not autonomous, but tied to the survival of other animate and inanimate elements (Lange 2018, Riechers et al. 2021). It also implies adhering to principles of reciprocity, sharing, and questioning the supremacy of any onto-epistemological perspective (Smith 1999). For Western-educated researchers it also includes paying attention to what Gram-Hanssen et al. (2022) have deemed “right relations” in order to overcome persisting colonial power relations and marginalization of Indigenous worldviews and knowledges. Developing “right relations” includes taking a step back by listening deeply and creating space while collaborating with all beings, taking action to amplify their voices, and also practicing constant self-reflexivity (Gram-Hanssen 2022:678).

Accordingly, we argue that co-production that aims to overcome contemporary conditions shaped by the colonial past and persistent power inequalities requires that those involved undertake inner work toward making room for a relational stance, away from approaches incentivizing data or knowledge extraction and toward embracing onto-epistemological diversity. This, Indigenous scholars argue, enables non-Indigenous researchers to reflect on their conditioning by Western onto-epistemologies and thereby develop a relational understanding and attitude for engaging in co-production (Bartlett et al. 2012, Tynan 2021). We call this inclusive TDR.

Comparing solutions to TDR challenges in the case studies

Although the case studies come from different contexts they share similarities, as highlighted in Table 2. These include the persisting utilitarian and individualist perception of individuals as being separate from nature, which dominates Euro-Western thinking; the persistence of power inequalities; and the overall lack of self-reflexive approaches fostering inner transformations in formal education.

Many of the challenges arose from researchers and students having been schooled in education institutions built on extractive approaches privileging Euro-Western onto-epistemologies, as a result of which they struggled to fully recognize the relational connections and ontological narrowness (Chilisa 2020, Manuel-Navarrete et al. 2021). One example is the Euro-Western approach to nature as a means to an end as opposed to the Indigenous Ecuadorian meaning of the forest as being a partner and an inextricable part of human beings’ existence. Although we can consciously address this as Western-educated researchers and students, it also requires a continuous effort in reflecting on our deeply ingrained values regarding our position as individuals within the wider environment if we seek to overcome the supremacy of Euro-Western onto-epistemologies (Escobar 2018, Mignolo 2018).

A second example is the ongoing challenge of unequal power relations, present in all three cases, which often characterizes TDR contexts. In their exhaustive review, Turnhout et al. (2020) point out that even projects that consciously address power inequalities can only be effective to a limited extent given their embeddedness in wider contexts characterized by power imbalances. The example of the Botswana case study offers insights into one possible strategy to address this issue, while demonstrating the difficulties associated with a context characterized by unequal distributions of power. Even though Indigenous and Western-educated researchers had agreed to assign the role of PI to an Indigenous researcher, the co-production process still required ongoing and conscious actions to address unequal power dynamics within the research team, and between researchers and local communities. This included stakeholder mappings and constant negotiations and (self-)reflection within the research team, including openness to allow for the inclusion of Indigenous research paradigms. It has been suggested that Euro-Western trained researchers may find it difficult to embrace Indigenous methods and accept the quality of Indigenous knowledges (cf. Kovach 2021). Yet, without this readiness, a more equal approach to co-production may not be possible (Chilisa 2020).

Although the reflexive cycle may be applied to a variety of contexts, the idea to develop it emerged from the need to have a teaching aid helping learners to explore the meaning of relationality for their own learning and research practice. The Malaysia case presents the Usrah in Action (UIA) curriculum as one recent effort to change higher education curricula in a way that they embrace principles of inter- and transdisciplinarity by drawing on local Indigenous ontologies such as Sehjatera (Abdul Razak et al. 2021). Yet, even those students who were raised in Malaysian society experience this as challenging because contemporary formal education, influenced by Euro-Western non-relational rational and disciplinary thinking, has shaped their ideas about learning. UIA thus presents a challenge for many students because its emphasis on enhancing a relational attitude requires them to unlearn disciplinary thinking and established notions of knowledge production (cf. Woiwode et al. 2021). As with individual projects having limited impact when consciously addressing issues of power (see above), single curricular approaches such as UIA may only have a limited impact if the overarching values and goals of the education system do not correspond to this, i.e. are still not relational and focus on universalist metrics of quality and success (Sterling et al. 2018).

The case studies thus serve to illustrate possible starting points for inner work. Our reflexive cycle, aiming at inclusive TDR, seeks to engage with our relationship to all beings and the values we associate with them, and invites questioning the power relations in which we find ourselves, including overcoming disciplinary boundaries. There is much more to this, as the case studies show. For us, however, these were essential starting points for developing the reflexive cycle through which we want to connect to the work of scholars suggesting that transformation and decolonization need to go hand in hand (Gram-Hanssen et al. 2022), because both aim to overcome the negative consequences caused by colonialist and capitalist structures (Sultana 2022, Turnhout 2024). Our proposed reflexive cycle for inclusive TDR in teaching and research thus seeks to cultivate the kind of self-reflexivity that can lead to inner transformations that make room for embracing onto-epistemological diversity and making co-production more equal (Norström et al. 2020, Chambers et al. 2021).

The potential of inclusive TDR for learning and capacity-building

Inclusive TDR cannot be taught through purely cognitive approaches to learning (Wamsler et al. 2021, Ives et al. 2023). Cultivating onto-epistemological openness involves feeling and embodying our human-nature connectedness, and continuous reflection of how individuals are embedded in a variety of social and natural networks. Similarly, Gram-Hanssen et al. (2022), addressing non-Indigenous researchers, argue that fostering relationality in the context of sustainability transformation requires fostering an attitude of embodying relationality, and consciously seeking out one’s own non-relational blind spots.

It is possible that this approach alienates rather than inspires those it is aimed at (that is, those coming from long and rigorous processes of Western-European conditioning). Furthermore, transformative learning generally involves enduring loss or distress (Mälkki 2019). Yet, as Indigenous researchers have argued time and again, alienation is what numerous Indigenous researchers, students, and research participants have been and still are experiencing when confronted with Western-European research that is based on knowledge extraction and continues to marginalize their Indigenous worldviews and knowledge systems (Gallegos-Riofrio et al. 2022, Yua et al. 2022, Wehi et al. 2023, Stirling et al. 2024). Moreover, given the ubiquity and pervasive supremacy of Euro-Western onto-epistemologies (Chilisa 2020), achieving more inclusive approaches to co-production requires researchers to take both a step in and a step back (and out) to allow for more deep listening and meaningful engagement with marginalized onto-epistemologies (Kovach 2021, Gram-Hanssen et al. 2022).

We hope that our reflexive cycle becomes an ally to the multiple ongoing and emerging efforts by Indigenous scholars to help Western-trained scientists engage with a wider reality in more relational ways. For instance, David-Chavez et al. (2024) propose a relational science model for decolonizing research that emphasizes relational accountability, reciprocity, and relational ethics. Similarly, Stein et al. (2024) argue that Western-trained scientists need to unlearn exceptionalism and develop epistemic humility. Not only does this involve respecting differences in ways of knowing, but it also requires actively valuing and appreciating those differences, while humbly acknowledging that all human knowledge is inherently partial, context-dependent, and limited (Stein et al. 2024).

However, our proposal comes with limitations. First, we acknowledge that research processes continue to occur within systems that are essentially non-relational (Latulippe and Klenk 2020). While we are convinced that fostering reflective approaches to research that target researchers’ inner worlds, seeking to engage them with relationality, individuals still are part of wider social networks and systems that may limit the impact of such transformative approaches (Lemos et al. 2018, Marshall et al. 2018). Second, as scientific research continues to take place in the context of unequal access to resources and career prospects (Chilisa 2020), engaging with marginalized approaches to knowledge production may entail professional risks. Third, we wish to reiterate that we are aware of the danger of turning inclusive TDR into a mere academic or policy buzzword, thus institutionalizing and taking away its transformative potential (Gallegos-Riofrio et al. 2022). This is related to the danger of merely appropriating Indigenous knowledge and methodologies that is generally associated with the colonial tradition of extractive research (Smith 1999, Thambinathan and Kinsella 2021).

CONCLUSION

Inclusive TDR requires not only continuous investments in deep listening and trust-building with non-academics, but also inner work toward onto-epistemological pluralism. When there is reciprocity between diverse ways of knowing and being, relationships can thrive despite the inevitable challenges, difficulties, and periods of inactivity (Buzinde et al. 2020). These relationships hold equal value to incommensurable contributions, emphasizing the importance of seeing knowledge as something that arises from interconnected relationships between "knowers." In this inclusive framework, TDR is co-produced through a dialogue with both animate and inanimate beings, recognizing their cognitive interdependence.

Our work aims to benefit those interested in promoting horizontal co-production and context-sensitive TDR, contributing to the decolonization of academic knowledge production (Stein et al. 2024). We argue that the global metacrisis of today is fundamentally relational and propose that inclusive TDR can contribute to the development of "better knowledge" (Reid et al. 2024, Turnhout 2024). However, we recognize that our reflexive cycle is not a comprehensive solution but an invitation for researchers and educators to explore the potential of fostering inner work toward a more relational and pluralistic approach to knowledge. We encourage adapting and expanding upon our reflexive cycle, using it as an inward journey into the core of a fractal; the deeper one goes, the more one finds that each layer unfolds into infinite patterns of connection, revealing that the center of our being is intertwined with the totality of existence.

LITERATURE CITED

Abdul Razak, D. 2021. Leading for Sejahtera: humanising education. IIUM Press, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Aikenhead, G. S., and M. Ogawa. 2007. Indigenous knowledge and science revisited. Cultural Studies of Science Education 2:539-620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-007-9067-8

Ankrah, D., J. Bristow, D. Hires, and J. A. Henriksson. 2023. Inner development goals: from inner growth to outer change. Field Actions Science Reports, Special Issue 25:82-87.

Artmann, M. 2023. Human-nature resonance in times of social-ecological crisis – a relational account for sustainability transformation. Ecosystems and People 19(1):2168760. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2023.2168760

Bartlett, L., and F. Vavrus. 2017. Comparative case studies: an innovative approach. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education 1(1):5-17. https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.1929

Bartlett, C., M. Marshall, and A. Marshall. 2012. Two-Eyed Seeing and other lessons learned within a co-learning journey of bringing together Indigenous and mainstream knowledges and ways of knowing. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 2:331-340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-012-0086-8

Boda, C. S., D. O’Byrne, D. Harnesk, T. Faran, and E. Isgren. 2022. A collective alternative to the inward turn in environmental sustainability research. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 12(2):291-297.

Burns, H. L. 2015. Transformative sustainability pedagogy: learning from ecological systems and Indigenous wisdom. Journal of Transformative Education 13(3):259-276. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344615584683

Buzinde, C. N., D. Manuel-Navarrete, and T. Swanson. 2020. Co-producing sustainable solutions in Indigenous communities through scientific tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 28(9):1255-1271. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1732993

Caniglia, G., C. Lüderitz, T. von Wirth, I Fazey, B. Martín-López, K. Hondrila, A. König, H. von Wehrden, N. A. Schäpke, M. D. Laubichler, and D. J. Lang. 2021. A pluralistic and integrated approach to action-oriented knowledge for sustainability. Nature Sustainability 4(2):93-100. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00616-z

Chambers, J. M., C. Wyborn, M. E. Ryan, R. S. Reid, M. Riechers, A. Serban, N. J. Bennett, C. Cvitanovic, M. E. Fernández-Giménez, K. A. Galvin, et al. 2021. Six modes of co-production for sustainability. Nature Sustainability 4(11):983-996. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00755-x

Chaves, M., T. Macintyre, G. Verschoor, and A. E. Wals. 2016. Towards transgressive learning through ontological politics: answering the “call of the mountain” in a Colombian network of sustainability. Sustainability 9(1):21. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9010021

Chilisa, B. 2005. Educational research within postcolonial Africa: a critique of HIV/AIDS research in Botswana. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 18(6):659-684.

Chilisa, B. 2017. Decolonising transdisciplinary research approaches: an African perspective for enhancing knowledge integration in sustainability science. Sustainability Science 12(5):813-827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0461-1

Chilisa, B. 2020. Indigenous research methodologies. Second edition. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.

Chilisa, B., and D. M. Mertens. 2021. Indigenous made in Africa evaluation frameworks: addressing epistemic violence and contributing to social transformation. American Journal of Evaluation 42(2):241-253. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214020948601

Coral-Guerrero, C. A., F. García-Quero, and J. Guardiola. 2021. What is Sumak Kawsay? A qualitative study in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Latin American Perspectives 48(3):35-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582X211004913

Creswell, J. W. 2014. Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Fourth edition. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.

Datta, R. 2018. Decolonizing both researcher and research and its effectiveness in Indigenous research. Research Ethics 14(2):1-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117733296

David-Chavez, D. M., M. C. Gavin, N. Ortiz, S. Valdez, and S. R. Carroll. 2024. A values-centered relational science model: supporting Indigenous rights and reconciliation in research. Ecology and Society 29(2):11. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14768-290211

Day, L., A. Cunsolo, H. Castleden, A. Sawatzky, D. Martin, C. Hart, C. Dewey, and S. L. Harper. 2020. “The Legacy Will Be the Change”: reconciling how we live with and relate to water. International Indigenous Policy Journal 11(3):1-23. https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2020.11.3.10937

Deloria Jr, V., D. Wildcat, and D. Wilkins. 2012. The metaphysics of modern existence. Fulcrum Publishing, Lakewood, Colorado, USA.

Denzin, N. K., and Y. S. Lincoln. 1998. Strategies of qualitative research. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.

Escobar, A. 2018. In the background of our culture. Rationalism, ontological dualism, and relationality. In Designs for the pluriverse: radical interdependence, autonomy, and the making of worlds. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina, USA. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822371816-004

Gallegos-Riofrio, C. A., E. Zent, and R. K. Gould. 2022. The importance of Latin American scholarship-and-practice for the relational turn in sustainability science: a reply to West et al. 2020. Ecosystems and People 18(1):478-483. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2108499

Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, USA. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446221853

Goodchild, M. 2021. Relational systems thinking: that’s how change is going to come, from our earth mother. Journal of Awareness-Based Systems Change 1(1):75-103. https://doi.org/10.47061/jabsc.v1i1.577

Gould, R. K., D. E. Martinez, and K. R. Hoelting. 2023. Exploring Indigenous relationality to inform the relational turn in sustainability science. Ecosystems and People 19(1):2229452. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2023.2229452

Gould, R. K., Y. Jimenez Naranjo, and P. Balvanera. 2025. Relationality is not WEIRD: the importance of relational thinking in the majority of the planet’s societies. Ecosystems and People 21(1):2427810. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2024.2427810

Gram-Hanssen, I., N. Schafenacker, and J. Bentz. 2022. Decolonizing transformations through ‛right relations.’ Sustainability Science 17(2):673-685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00960-9

Gray, K., and D. Manuel-Navarrete. 2021. Leveraging inner sustainability through cross-cultural learning: evidence from a Quichua field school in Ecuador. Sustainability Science 16(5):1459-147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00980-5

Haider, L. J., J. Hentati-Sundberg, M. Giusti, J. Goodness, M. Hamann, V. A. Masterson, M. Meacham, A. Merrie, D. Ospina, C. Schill, and H. Sinare. 2018. The undisciplinary journey: early-career perspectives in sustainability science. Sustainability Science 13:191-204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0445-1

Helne, T. 2021. Well-being for a better world: the contribution of a radically relational and nature-inclusive conception of well-being to the sustainability transformation. Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy 17(1):221-231. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2021.1930716

Horcea-Milcu, A.-I., J. Leventon, and D. J. Lang. 2022. Making transdisciplinarity happen: Phase 0, or before the beginning. Environmental Science and Policy 136:187-197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.05.019

Horlings, L. G. 2015. The inner dimension of sustainability: personal and cultural values. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14:163-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.006

Igwe, P. A., N. O. Madichie, and D. G. Rugara. 2022. Decolonising research approaches towards non-extractive research. Qualitative Market Research 25(4):453-468. https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-11-2021-0135

Ives, C. D., R. Freeth, and J. Fischer. 2020. Inside-out sustainability: the neglect of inner worlds. Ambio 49:208-217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01187-w

Ives, C. D., N. Schäpke, C. Woiwode, and C. Wamsler. 2023. IMAGINE sustainability: integrated inner-outer transformation in research, education and practice. Sustainability Science 18:2777-2786. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01368-3

Jahn, T., M. Bergmann, and F. Keil. 2012. Transdisciplinarity: between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecological Economics 79:1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.017

Kastrup, B. 2019. The idea of the world: a multi-disciplinary argument for the mental nature of reality. John Hunt Publishing, UK.

Kealiikanakaoleohaililani, K., and C. P. Giardina 2016. Embracing the sacred: an indigenous framework for tomorrow’s sustainability science. Sustainability Science 11:57-67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0343-3

Ketokivi, M., and S. Mantere. 2010. Two strategies for inductive reasoning in organizational research. Academy of Management Review 35(2):315-333. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2010.48463336

Kimmerer, R. 2013. Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge and the teachings of plants. Milkweed editions, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.

Kovach, M. 2021. Indigenous methodologies. Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. Second edition. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Lang, D. J., A. Wiek, M. Bergmann, M. Stauffacher, P. Martens, P. Moll, M. Swilling, and C. J. Thomas. 2012. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science 7(Suppl 1):25-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x

Lange, E. A. 2018. Transforming transformative education through ontologies of relationality. Journal of Transformative Education 16(4):280-301. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344618786452

Latulippe, N., and N. Klenk. 2020. Making room and moving over: knowledge co-production, Indigenous knowledge sovereignty and the politics of global environmental change decision-making. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 42:7-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.10.010

Lemos, M. C., J. C. Arnott, N. M. Ardoin, K. Baja, A. T. Bednarek, A. Dewulf, C. Fieseler, K. A. Goodrich, K. Jagannathan, N. Klenk, et al. 2018. To co-produce or not to co-produce. Nature Sustainability 1:722-724. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0191-0

Llanque Zonta, A., J. Jacobi, S. M. Mukhovi, E. Birachi, P. v. Groote, and C. R. Abad. 2023. The role of transdisciplinarity in building a decolonial bridge between science, policy, and practice. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 32(1): 107-114. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.32.1.7

Mälkki, K. 2019. Coming to grips with edge-emotions: the gateway to critical reflection and transformative learning. Pages 59-73 in T. Fleming, A. Kokkos, and F. Finnegan, editors. European perspectives on transformation theory. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19159-7_5

Mancilla García, M. M., C. Abunge, S. O. Bandeira, C. Cheupe, D. J. Combane, T. Daw, E. M. Drury O’Neill, T. Hertz, M. Mubai, N. Muthiga, T. Sonetti González, and H. Shauri. 2024. Exploring a process-relational approach to qualitative research methods for sustainability science. People and Nature 6:1512-1523. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10667

Manuel-Navarrete, D., and M. Pelling. 2015. Subjectivity and the politics of transformation in response to development and environmental change. Global Environmental Change 35:558-569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.08.012

Manuel-Navarrete, D., C. Morehart, B. Tellman, H. Eakin, J. M. Siqueiros-García, and B. H. Aguilar. 2019. Intentional disruption of path-dependencies in the Anthropocene: gray versus green water infrastructure regimes in Mexico City, Mexico. Anthropocene 26:100209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2019.100209

Manuel-Navarrete, D., S. DeLuca, F. Friso, and M. Politi. 2024. Ayahuasca ceremonies, relationality, and inner-outer transformations to sustainability. Evidence from Takiwasi Center in Peru. Ecosystems and People 20(1):2339227. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2024.2339227

Manuel-Navarrete, D., C. N. Buzinde, and T. Swanson. 2021. Fostering horizontal knowledge co-production with Indigenous people by leveraging researchers’ transdisciplinary intentions. Ecology and Society 26(2):22. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12265-260222

Marshall, M., A. Marshall, and C. Bartlett. 2018. Two-eyed seeing in medicine. Pages 44-53 in M. Greenwood, S. de Leeuw, and N. M. Lindsay, editors. Determinants of Indigenous Peoples’ health, second edition: beyond the social. Canadian Scholars, Toronto, Canada.

Maximo, Y. I., M. Hassegawa, P. J. Verkerk, and A. L. Missio. 2022. Forest bioeconomy in Brazil: potential innovative products from the forest sector. Land 11(8):1297. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11081297

Max-Neef, M. A. 2005. Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecological Economics 53(1):5-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.01.014

McClure, A. 2024. Enablers of transdisciplinary collaboration for researchers working on climate risks in African cities. Sustainability Science 19(1):259-273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01426-w

McDowell, G., M. Stevens, S. Marshall, E. Higgs, A. Jacob, G.M.J. Johnson, L. Johnson, M. Dicker, D. Inkpen, M. Koppes, K. Lightning, et al. 2023. Canadian mountain assessment: walking together to enhance understanding of mountains in Canada. University of Calgary Press, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.8816123

Mignolo, W. D. 2011. The darker side of Western modernity: global futures, decolonial options. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina, USA. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822394501

Mignolo, W. D. 2018. What does it mean to decolonize? In W. D. Mignolo and C. E. Walsh, editors. On decoloniality: concepts, analytics, praxis. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina, USA. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822371779

Milgin, A., L. Nardea, H. Grey, S. Laborde, and S. Jackson. 2020. Sustainability crises are crises of relationship: learning from Nyikina ecology and ethics. People and Nature 2(4):1210-1222. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10149

Minna, K., J. Jacobi, K. Korhonen-Kurki, J.P. Lukkarinen, A. Ott, J. Peltomaa, F. Schneider, T. Tribaldos, and J. G. Zaehringer. 2024. Reflexive use of methods: a framework for navigating different types of knowledge and power in transformative research. Sustainability Science 19(2):507-521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01431-z

Muhl, E.-K., D. Armitage, K. Anderson, C. Boyko, S. Busilacchi, J. Butler, C. Cvitanovic, L. A. Faulkner, J. A. Hall, G. Martynuik, K. Paul-Burke, T. Swerdfager, H. Thorpe, and I. E. van Putten. 2023. Transitioning toward “deep” knowledge co-production in coastal and marine systems: examining the interplay among governance, power, and knowledge. Ecology and Society 28(4):17. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14443-280417

Muller, S., S. Hemming, and D. Rigney. 2019. Indigenous sovereignties: relational ontologies and environmental management. Geographical Research 57(4):399-410. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12362

Muwanga-Zake, J. W. F. 2009. Building bridges across knowledge systems: Ubuntu and participative research paradigms in Bantu communities. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 30(4):413-426. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596300903237198

Nicolescu, B. 2012. Transdisciplinarity and Sustainability. Edited by Basarab Nicolescu. TheATLAS Publishing, Lubbock, Texas, USA.

Nicolescu, B. 2014. Methodology of transdisciplinarity. World Futures 70(3-4):186-199. https://doi.org/10.1080/02604027.2014.934631

Nikulina, V., J. Larson Lindal, H. Baumann, D. Simon, and H. Ny. 2019. Lost in translation: a framework for analysing complexity of co-production settings in relation to epistemic communities, linguistic diversities and culture. Futures 113:102442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2019.102442

Norström, A. V., C. Cvitanovic, M. F. Löf, S. West, C. Wyborn, P. Balvanera, A. T. Bednarek, E. M. Bennett, R. Biggs, A. de Bremond, et al. 2020. Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nature Sustainability 3(3):182-190. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2

Ntseane, P. G., and B. Chilisa. 2012. Indigenous knowledge, HIV, and AIDS education and research: implications for health educators. Pages 76-89 in L. M. English, editor. Adult education and health. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Nutton, J., N. Lucero, and N. Ives. 2020. Relationality as a response to challenges of participatory action research in Indigenous contexts: reflections from the field. Educational Action Research 28(1):100-111. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2019.1699132

O’Brien, K., J. Reams, A. Caspari, A. Dugmore, M. Faghihimani, I. Fazey, H. Hackmann, D. Manuel-Navarrete, J. Marks, R. Miller, et al. 2013. You say you want a revolution? Transforming education and capacity building in response to global change. Environmental Science and Policy 28:48-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.11.011

Ogawa, M. 2002. Nature of indigenous science: a stratified and amalgamated model of knowledge and cosmology. In 33rd Annual Meeting of the Australasian Science Education Research Association, 11-14 July, Townsville, Australia.

Pacini-Ketchabaw, V. 2013. Frictions in forest pedagogies: common worlds in settler colonial spaces. Global Studies of Childhood 3(4):355-365. https://doi.org/10.2304/gsch.2013.3.4.355

Popa, F., M. Guillermin, and T. Dedeurwaerdere. 2015. A pragmatist approach to transdisciplinarity in sustainability research: from complex systems theory to reflexive science. Futures 65:45-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.02.002

Pryor, J., A. Kuupole, N. Kutor, M. Dunne, and C. Adu‐Yeboah. 2009. Exploring the fault lines of cross‐cultural collaborative research. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 39(6):769-782. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057920903220130

Reano, D. 2020. Using Indigenous research frameworks in the multiple contexts of research, teaching, mentoring, and leading. The Qualitative Report 25(11):3902-3926. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2020.4317

Reed, M. G., J. P. Robson., M. Campos Rivera, F. Chapela, I. Davidson-Hunt, P. Friedrichsen, E. Haine, A. B. D. Johnston, G. Lichtenstein, L. S. Lynes, et al. 2023. Guiding principles for transdisciplinary sustainability research and practice. People and Nature 5(4):1094-1109. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10496

Reid, A. J., D. A. McGregor, A. K. Menzies, L. E. Eckert, C. M. Febria, and J. N. Popp. 2024. Ecological research ‛in a good way’ means ethical and equitable relationships with Indigenous Peoples and Lands. Nature Ecology and Evolution 8(4):595-598. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02309-0

Riechers, M., Á. Balázsi, J.-O. Engler, G. Shumi, and J. Fischer. 2021. Understanding relational values in cultural landscapes in Romania and Germany. People and Nature 3(5):1036-1046. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10246

Rigolot, C. 2022. Transdisciplinarity as a way of being: a new perspective on personal engagement for sustainability transformations. Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering and Science 13. https://doi.org/10.22545/2022/00187

Searle, T., and S. Muller. 2019. “Whiteness” and natural resource management: let’s talk about race baby, let’s talk about sovereignty! Geographical Research 57(4):411-424. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12379

Seidel, T. 2022. Context dependencies in transdisciplinary sustainability research: perspectives of practitioners on context and capacity-building for context-sensitive research. Thesis. Leuphana Universität Lüneburg, Germany.

Selby, D. 2015. Thoughts from a darkened corner: transformative learning for the gathering storm. Pages 21-42 in D. Selby and F. Kagawa, editors. Sustainability frontiers. Critical and transformative voices from the borderlands of sustainability education. Barbara Budrich Publishers, Germany. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvdf0h20.5

Sheremata, M. 2018. Listening to relational values in the era of rapid environmental change in the Inuit Nunangat. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 35:75-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.017

Simpson, L. B. 2014. Land as pedagogy: Nishnaabeg intelligence and rebellious transformation. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education and Society 3(3).

Singer-Brodowski, M., R. Förster, S. Eschenbacher, P. Biberhofer, and S. Getzin. 2022. Facing crises of unsustainability: creating and holding safe enough spaces for transformative learning in higher education for sustainable development. Frontiers in Education 7:787490. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.787490

Smith, L. T. 1999. Decolonizing methodologies: research and Indigenous peoples. Zed Books, London, UK.

Snow, K. C., D. G. Hays, G. Caliwagan, D. J. Ford, D. Mariotti, J. M. Mwendwa, and W. E. Scott. 2016. Guiding principles for Indigenous research practices. Action Research 14(4):357-375. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750315622542

Stein, S., C. Ahenakew, C., W. Valley, P. Y. Sherpa, E. Crowson, T. Robin, W. Mendes, and S. Evans. 2024. Toward more ethical engagements between Western and Indigenous sciences. FACETS 9:1-14. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2023-0071

Sterling, S., J. Dawson, and P. Warwick. 2018. Transforming sustainability education at the creative edge of the mainstream: a case study of Schumacher College. Journal of Transformative Education 16(4):323-343. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344618784375

Stirling, K. M., K. Almack, N. Boucher, A. Duncan, A. M. Muir, J. W. D. Connoy, V. S. Gagnon, R. J. Lauzon, K. J. Mussett, C. Nonkes, et al. 2023. Experiences and insights on bridging knowledge systems between Indigenous and non-Indigenous partners: learnings from the Laurentian Great Lakes. Journal of Great Lakes Research 49(Suppl 1):S58-S71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2023.01.007

Sultana, F. 2022. The unbearable heaviness of climate coloniality. Political Geography 99:102638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2022.102638

Tàbara, J. D. 2023. Regenerative sustainability. A relational model of possibilities for the emergence of positive tipping points. Environmental Sociology 9(4):366-385. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2023.2239538

Tassell-Matamua, N., K. M. N. Apatu, T. R. Moriarty, and T. Tahuri. 2023. Indigenous Mâori notions Of consciousness, soul, and spirit. Journal of Consciousness Studies 30(5-6):151-165. https://doi.org/10.53765/20512201.30.5.151

Tengö, M., E. S. Brondizio, T. Elmqvist, P. Malmer, and M. Spierenburg. 2014. Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. Ambio 43:579-591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3

Thambinathan, V., and E. A. Kinsella. 2021. Decolonizing methodologies in qualitative research: creating spaces for transformative praxis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods: 20. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211014766

Tolksdorf, F. L., M. Weiß, A. Jiménez-Aceituno, N. M. Frölich, N. A. B. Amoah, D. P. M. Lam, C. Grauer, J. Baird, C. Ballnat, A.-I. Horcea-Milcu, et al. 2025. Why context matters: understanding transdisciplinary research through the lens of nine context factors. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research: 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2025.2527104

Tuck, E., and K. W. Yang. 2012. Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education and Society, 1(1):1-40.

Turnhout, E. 2024. A better knowledge is possible: transforming environmental science for justice and pluralism. Environmental Science and Policy 155:103729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103729

Turnhout, E., T. Metze, C. Wyborn, N. Klenk, and E. Louder. 2020. The politics of co-production: participation, power, and transformation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 42:15-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.11.009

Tynan, L. 2021. What is relationality? Indigenous knowledges, practices and responsibilities with kin. Cultural Geographies 28(4):597-610. https://doi.org/10.1177/14744740211029287

Vásquez-Fernandez, A. M., and C. Ahenakew. 2020. Resurgence of relationality: reflections on decolonizing and Indigenizing ‛sustainable development.’ Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 43:65-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.03.005

Vincent, K., S. Carter, A. Steynor, E. Visman, and K. L. Wågsæther. 2020. Addressing power imbalances in co-production. Nature Climate Change 10:877-878. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00910-w

Walker, M., B. Fredericks, K. Mills, and D. Anderson. 2014. “Yarning” as a method for community-based health research with Indigenous women: the Indigenous women’s wellness research program. Health Care for Women International 35(10):1216-1226. https://doi.org/10.1080/07399332.2013.815754

Walsh, Z., J. Böhme, B. D. Lavelle, and C. Wamsler. 2020. Transformative education: towards a relational, justice-oriented approach to sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 21(7):1587-1606. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-05-2020-0176

Wamsler, C., G. Osberg, W. Osika, H. Herndersson, and L. Mundaca. 2021. Linking internal and external transformation for sustainability and climate action: towards a new research and policy agenda. Global Environmental Change 71:102373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102373

Wehi, P. M., K. L. Kamelamela, K. Whyte, K. Watene, and N. Reo. 2023. Contribution of Indigenous Peoples’ understandings and relational frameworks to invasive alien species management. People and Nature 5(5):1403-1414. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10508

Welwood, J. 1984. Principles of inner work: psychological and spiritual. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology 16(1):63-73.

West, S., L. J. Haider, S. Stålhammar, and S. Woroniecki. 2020. A relational turn for sustainability science? Relational thinking, leverage points and transformations. Ecosystems and People 16(1):304-325. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2020.1814417

West, S., L. J. Haider, T. Hertz, M. Mancilla Garcia, and M.-L. Moore. 2024. Relational approaches to sustainability transformations: walking together in a world of many worlds. Ecosystems and People 20(1):2370539. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2024.2370539

Whyte, K. P., J. P. Brewer, and J. T. Johnson. 2016. Weaving Indigenous science, protocols and sustainability science. Sustainability Science 11:25-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0296-6

Whyte, K. 2020. Too late for Indigenous climate justice: ecological and relational tipping points. WIREs Climate Change 11(1):e603. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.603

Williams, L. 2023. From Indigenous philosophy in environmental education to Indigenous planetary futures: what would it take? Australian Journal of Environmental Education 39(3):320-335. https://doi.org/10.1017/aee.2023.23

Wilson, S. 2008. Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Fernwood, Halifax, Canada.

Woiwode, C., N. Schäpke, O. Bina, S. Veciana, I. Kunze, O. Parodi, P. Schweizer-Ries, and C. Wamsler. 2021. Inner transformation to sustainability as a deep leverage point: fostering new avenues for change through dialogue and reflection. Sustainability Science 16:841-858. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00882-y

Yua, E., J. Raymond-Yakoubian, R. A. Daniel, and C. Behe. 2022. A framework for co-production of knowledge in the context of Arctic research. Ecology and Society 27(1):34. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12960-270134