Communication tools and their support for integration in transdisciplinary research projects

The paper addresses how communication tools support integration in transdisciplinary research, where scientists from multiple disciplines and practitioners collaborate on complex societal and ecological problems. Integration is conceptualised as an open-ended learning process encompassing social-organisational, cognitive-epistemic, and communicative dimensions. While integration is central to transdisciplinary work, there is limited empirical evidence on which communication tools (CT) support which integration dimensions. The study aims to fill this gap by comparing CT and their perceived support for integration among practitioners, scientists, and integration experts within a 42‑month transdisciplinary project. The core research question is: How do communication tools support the various dimensions of integration among different actor groups in a transdisciplinary research project? The work underscores the importance of transparent, structured, and inclusive communication, eye-level exchange, and the need to consider multiple dimensions of integration beyond knowledge integration.

The state-of-the-art review situates communication tools as enablers of integration by supporting information sharing, mutual understanding, and collaboration in transdisciplinary settings. CT can bridge differing bodies of knowledge when information is provided in accessible formats and everyday language, fostering shared understanding and enabling joint elaboration of research outcomes. The paper adopts Jahn’s (2008) three integration dimensions: (i) social-organisational (process management, orientation, overview), (ii) cognitive-epistemic (recognising and linking scientific and practical knowledge), and (iii) communicative (representing and communicating knowledge in comprehensible, connectable ways). The authors classify CT by direction (one-way/two-way), temporal form (synchronous/asynchronous), semiotic form (auditory/visual/audio-visual/textual), organisational scope (internal/external), participation level (informing, consulting, co-production/empowerment), and support for group identity. Literature highlights the value of visual products, learning platforms, and digital artefacts for participation, transparency, and knowledge management, while acknowledging limits (e.g., tacit knowledge capture, digital access barriers). The role of integration experts—specialists who design and moderate integrative processes and prepare/present results to target groups—is emphasised as key to promoting integration and tailoring CT choices to context and actor needs.

Design: Exploratory multi-methods study embedded in a 42‑month transdisciplinary project (RLC 2040) in the Römerland Carnuntum region (Austria). The project established a deliberative Future Council (n=80 practitioners) and a project team (n=13: 6 scientists from two universities, 4 practitioners from the regional association, 3 integration experts). COVID-19 necessitated dynamic adaptation and extensive use of digital CT. Communication tools: Ten analogue and digital CT were introduced, adapted, and studied. CT were characterised by direction (one-/two-way), timing (syn/asyn), semiotics (auditory/visual/audio-visual/textual), organisational scope (internal/external), participation level (information/consultation/co-production & empowerment), and support for group identity. Examples include project websites, digital videoconferences, digital pinboards, online votings, mailings, minutes, presentations on websites, short films, sketchnotes, and an analogue orientation poster. Data collection: - Online surveys with practitioners: OS1 (~month 16; 8 questions focusing on digital CT use/support and reasons for non-use), OS2 (end of project; 20 mixed questions reflecting on collaboration and CT), OS3 (n=25 practitioners who left; closed questions on reasons for leaving and re-engagement conditions; comments allowed). Surveys were anonymous, open for one month, with email reminders. - Poster assessment at final Future Council: n=46 participants across actor groups rated each CT on a 5-point scale (1=very good to 5=not enough) regarding integration support using four statements mapped to integration dimensions: Q1 overview and orientation (social-organisational), Q2 common group understanding and perception of other perspectives (social-organisational), Q3 bringing together scientific and practical knowledge and fostering learning (cognitive-epistemic), Q4 appropriate presentation and support for information exchange (communicative). Participants self-identified as scientists, practitioners, or integration experts; assessments were anonymous. - Six open interviews (3 practitioners, 3 scientists) following the poster assessment to explain ratings and experiences with CT. - Project documentation: Minutes of 30 project team meetings (M1–M30) and two team reviews (R1, R2) informed CT implementation details and reflections. Analysis: Surveys were analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitative analysis of open responses. Poster assessments were analysed descriptively (frequencies, arithmetic/weighted means controlling for group sizes, medians, ranges) by CT, integration dimensions, and actor groups (visualised in Figs. 4–5). Interviews, reviews, and minutes were analysed via qualitative content analysis to contextualise and interpret quantitative results.

- Overall perception: All 10 CT received good to very good ratings for integration support; a mixed toolkit was appreciated by actors. - Top-performing CT: Orientation poster, sketchnotes, digital videoconferences, and project websites had the highest perceived support across dimensions. These CT combined visual and textual sign systems and conveyed strong group identity. - Central information platform: The project-specific website served as the central, structured information hub for all groups, enabling continuous access to project process, progress, news, and resources. - Dimension-specific results: • Communicative dimension (Q4): Orientation poster performed best (weighted mean ≈ 1.2), then sketchnotes (≈ 1.3), project websites (≈ 1.4), digital videoconferences (≈ 1.5). Visual, concise formats aided orientation and appropriate presentation; websites translated scientific to everyday language. • Cognitive-epistemic dimension (Q3): Digital videoconferences scored highest (weighted mean ≈ 1.4), followed by sketchnotes and the orientation poster (both ≈ 1.6), and project websites (≈ 1.7). Videoconferences excelled in efficient information transfer but were less memorable than face-to-face sessions for transformative learning. • Social-organisational dimension (Q1–Q2): Orientation poster led (weighted mean ≈ 1.4), then sketchnotes and digital videoconferences (≈ 1.5), and project websites (≈ 1.7). The poster provided a quick overview and shared orientation, functioning as a “living document.” • Across all CT per dimension: Communicative weighted mean = 1.8; Cognitive-epistemic = 1.9; Social-organisational = 2.0 (1=very good, 5=not enough). - Lower-rated CT: Mailings, online votings, and minutes were perceived as less supportive of integration; they conveyed low group identity and limited exchange (votings lacked direct interaction despite enabling co-decision making). - Actor group differences: • Practitioners: Digital videoconferences (mean ≈ 1.5) highest, then project websites and orientation poster (≈ 1.7), sketchnotes (≈ 1.9). Many valued digital media for efficiency and accessibility; some faced digital barriers. • Scientists: Preferred orientation poster (≈ 1.4), sketchnotes (≈ 1.5), videoconferences (≈ 1.7), websites (≈ 2.0). Mailings (≈ 2.9), minutes/short films/online votings (≈ 2.4) scored lower. • Integration experts: Highest ratings overall; orientation poster and sketchnotes (≈ 1.1), websites (≈ 1.2), videoconferences (≈ 1.3). Digital pinboards were rated best by integration experts but more difficult for practitioners. - Group identity: Strong support for group identity and the use of visual+textual sign systems correlated with higher perceived integration support. - Hybrid modality preference: Actors recommended combining face-to-face meetings for creative collaboration with digital formats for efficient information exchange.

Findings show that communication tools play a supportive role in integration across social-organisational, cognitive-epistemic, and communicative dimensions in transdisciplinary projects. Visual, concise, and identity-building tools (orientation poster, sketchnotes) enhanced shared orientation and understanding, while digital videoconferences were most effective for knowledge exchange, supporting cognitive-epistemic integration. Project websites ensured transparency, accessibility, and continuity, functioning as the central knowledge and communication platform. Differences across actor groups underscore the need to tailor CT to varying preferences and digital readiness; integration experts’ higher ratings likely reflect their familiarity and role in CT implementation. Results suggest that emotional engagement and group identity substantially influence perceived integration support, motivating the proposal to complement Jahn’s three dimensions with a fourth, emotional dimension. While digital CT facilitate efficient information flow and inclusivity, face-to-face interaction remains critical for transformative learning and knowledge co-production, indicating a both/and approach to CT use. Dynamic, context-specific CT strategies—supported by integration experts with communication and visualisation skills—enhance responsiveness to changing conditions and heterogeneous actor needs.

Communication tools enable and structure interactions in transdisciplinary projects, supporting knowledge exchange, feedback, documentation, and shared learning and decision-making—thereby supporting integration. Comparing ten CT across three integration dimensions identified four especially supportive tools—orientation poster, sketchnotes, digital videoconferences, and project websites—all of which used visual and textual sign systems and fostered group identity. It is beneficial to consider integration beyond cognition, and the study proposes adding and operationalising a fourth, emotional dimension for future research. Practically, projects should provide (1) a central information platform (e.g., a dedicated project website) and (2) an overview tool offering quick, comprehensible orientation (e.g., orientation poster, sketchnotes), designed to evoke emotional involvement. Equipping teams with integration experts who possess communication, visualisation, and technical skills can support adaptive, timely, and transparent CT strategies. Future research should develop robust scales to measure multiple integration dimensions (including the emotional dimension), assess CT support for specific integrative methods (e.g., scenarios, serious gaming), and examine inclusive CT that reach underrepresented actors.

Main limitations include reliance on an ex-post poster assessment at the final meeting, introducing self-selection and recall bias (later CT interactions may be better remembered; long-term tools favoured). Individuals who dropped out of the Future Council were underrepresented in the comparative poster assessment, though surveyed separately (OS3). The complex integration construct was operationalised exploratorily via four brief items (two social-organisational, one cognitive-epistemic, one communicative), limiting measurement depth and validity. Actor group categorisation (scientists, practitioners, integration experts) did not capture within-group diversity. The study did not assess the intrinsic quality of individual CT. Contextual constraints (COVID-19, time/financial resources, digital skills) influenced CT selection and use.