Reflecting on Collaborative Research in Sustainability: Insights from a Course at Södertörn University

This post shares my reflections on the role of collaboration in sustainability-focused research based on the literature and lectures from Södertörn University’s online PhD course Collaborative Research Methods.

As sustainability challenges become increasingly urgent, academic inquiries have paid more attention to understanding and addressing the deep connections between ecological, social, and economic systems. In response, collaborative research gained more traction as a critical methodological approach that brings together researchers and societal actors, such as policymakers, practitioners, and communities, to co-produce knowledge, define relevant problems, and develop actionable solutions for sustainability (Dedeurwaerdere, 2024).

Sustainability science emerged around the turn of the 21st century to tackle the unsustainable “nature–society metabolism,” where human activities draw on ecological and social resources without considering long-term or indirect impacts (Vermeulen & Witjes, 2021). Rooted in the recognition of deep connections between ecological and social systems, sustainability science is inherently interdisciplinary, drawing on environmental studies, development studies, and both the natural and social sciences rather than being confined to a single discipline. Increasingly, however, the field extends beyond interdisciplinarity to embrace transdisciplinary research (TDR), which emphasises the collaborative production of knowledge between science and society (Vermeulen & Witjes, 2021). This means bringing together not just researchers, but also community members, policymakers, and other stakeholders to share and co-create knowledge. Such partnerships are more than just a meeting of different expertise—they involve jointly managing how knowledge is combined and applied. This collaborative process encourages social learning, where diverse perspectives are heard and valued, helping us better understand complex social–ecological challenges and work toward more sustainable solutions (Debeurwaerdere, 2023).    

While definitions of transdisciplinary research vary, a common thread, as noted by Keithsch and Vermeulen (2021), is its commitment to integrating pluralistic knowledge systems and responding to urgent societal challenges through collaboration and systemic thinking. This kind of cross-boundary approach is not only a hallmark of transdisciplinary research but also central to the very fabric of sustainability science. Because sustainability challenges are complex, value-laden, and interwoven with both ecological and social systems, bringing together academic and non-academic actors to co-create knowledge and solutions is essential.

The Roles, Challenges, and Practice of Collaborative Research

Collaborative research, particularly in sustainability contexts, demands not only methodological openness but also deep reflexivity about the roles, expectations, and dynamics between researchers and their partners. Indeed, as the number of stakeholders involved in a study grows, the complexity of maintaining a balanced power dynamic among all partners escalates. This increased complexity can give rise to a variety of challenges, such as differing priorities, unequal access to resources, and potential conflicts of interest. Addressing these challenges necessitates a careful consideration of how decisions are made, how contributions are recognised, and how benefits are distributed.

Turnhout et al. (2020) draw our attention to an important point regarding this issue: “Co production processes can end up reproducing, rather than mitigating, existing unequal power relations and that they often do not contribute to societal transformation” (p. 20).  Turnhout et al. (2020) argue that these failures stem from a strong tendency to depoliticise co-production. The authors identify three ways to recognise depoliticisation in co-production projects. First, many projects prioritise science-driven impacts without challenging the existing power dynamics between scientists and other non-scientific knowledge holders, thereby reinforcing the dominance of scientific knowledge. Second, there’s a tendency to seek consensus based on elite perspectives, perspectives from government, large NGOs, or scientists, which can mask significant differences in stakes, power, and vulnerability among other participants. These inequalities become even more evident when co-production involves collaboration between stakeholders and knowledge holders from the Global South and West. Third, depoliticisation is evident when projects focus solely on their internal processes, neglecting the broader political context that can limit their potential for societal transformation. While addressing power dynamics within projects is important, it should not be done in isolation from efforts to challenge existing societal structures, as this could ultimately restrict their effectiveness. Considering all of these power dynamics, as also emphasised throughout the lectures in the course, engaging in collaborative research is as much about how we work together as it is about what we study.

Thus, understanding the politics of co-production in both practices and research necessitates a re-evaluation and repoliticization of these processes (Turnhout et al., 2020), and therefore a reflexive thinking, moving beyond simplistic checklists of dos and don’ts. The elements of (reflexive) research that Malin Gawell highlighted in part of her lecture, in my view, were the dynamics of re-evaluation and repoliticization processes to some extent. These elements, indeed, reflected not only the systematic approaches and methods for executing and clarifying interpretations in a research project but also an awareness of the research’s political and ideological nature, as well as reflection on representation and authority.

While reflexive research entails the critical self-examination of the researcher’s role, positionality, values, and influences throughout the research process in a broad sense, reflexivity, as Finlay (2002) outlines, can be a very dynamic and layered process, emphasising that it’s not a one-size-fits-all concept but something researchers must actively and critically engage with depending on their context and goals. This process involves approaches from introspection, examining researchers’ own identity, experiences, emotions, and assumptions throughout the research process, to mutual collaboration emphasising shared meaning-making and co-interpretation of data between the researcher and participants (Finlay, 2002).

On the other hand, while collaborative research and reflexivity are essential for fostering rich insights and trust, they require significant effort and commitment. Researchers often face conflicts among participants; however, they can work towards establishing common ground through regular and open dialogue. Meetings among stakeholders, for instance, serve not only as logistical necessities but as spaces for negotiation, relationship-building, and shared meaning-making—core tenets of any collaborative effort. By prioritising open communication and mutual understanding, researchers can cultivate a collaborative environment. In doing so, they lay the groundwork for a more resilient and productive collaborative research process, ultimately leading to richer outcomes and deeper insights.

In practice, this means that collaborative research requires researchers to be not only facilitators of knowledge but also mediators, listeners, and learners. Ultimately, the “how” of collaborative research is shaped by purpose and humility: it is about crafting a process where all actors can engage meaningfully, where decisions are co-owned, and where the outcomes serve both scholarly and societal relevance. This reflexive and participative mode of working is not without its difficulties, but it is precisely what makes collaborative research powerful in addressing complex sustainability challenges.

References