Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity are widely recognized as crucial for research addressing complex societal and environmental challenges. However, expertise in research integration (developing a comprehensive understanding of the problem) and implementation (applying that understanding to improve the situation) is often overlooked. This lack of understanding hinders the assessment of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary efforts at all levels, including grant applications, project evaluations, and institutional assessments. The authors aim to address this gap by exploring three key questions: 1) When is expertise in research integration and implementation required? 2) Where can this expertise be found? 3) What is needed to strengthen this expertise? The authors focus on expertise relevant to any complex problem, not the problem itself, dividing expertise into three components: contributory expertise ('knowing-that' and 'knowing-how'), interactional expertise (ability to work across disciplines), and tacit expertise (often implicit knowledge). The authors emphasize the need to move beyond a reliance on happenstance and build a more systematic understanding and application of this essential expertise. The research focuses on building a foundation for further work, opening a discussion and inviting input from others practicing research integration and implementation.

The paper draws on existing literature on interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, systems thinking, and sustainability science, highlighting the challenges of integrating diverse knowledge and perspectives. It references works by Gibbons et al. (1994) on the new production of knowledge, and the National Academy of Sciences (2005) on facilitating interdisciplinary research, acknowledging the existing literature's emphasis on the need for integrated approaches but noting the lack of explicit focus on the specific expertise required for successful integration and implementation. The authors also cite Collins and Evans (2002, 2007) on expertise, distinguishing between 'knowing-that' and 'knowing-how,' and introducing the concept of tacit expertise. The literature review establishes a foundation for understanding the current state of knowledge and the gaps addressed by the paper’s research questions.

The paper employs a qualitative methodology, drawing primarily on the authors' extensive collective experience and expertise in research integration and implementation. The authors identify three realms where this expertise resides: 1) specific approaches (interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, systems thinking, sustainability science, etc.); 2) case-based experience independent of specific approaches; and 3) research on elements of integration and implementation (e.g., managing unknowns, fostering innovation). The paper systematically examines each realm, providing examples of the types of expertise found within each. This involves detailed descriptions of specific approaches, case studies illustrating the development of tacit and interactional expertise, and examples of research directly focusing on aspects of integration and implementation. This rich empirical base, drawn from the authors’ combined experiences, informs the identification of challenges and the proposal for a knowledge bank. The methodology is primarily descriptive and analytical, aiming to synthesize existing knowledge and identify areas for future development.

The paper identifies five key challenges inherent in addressing complex societal and environmental problems, requiring specific expertise in research integration and implementation: 1) Delimiting the problem (recognizing ill-defined boundaries and multiple causes); 2) Managing contested problem definitions (dealing with differing perspectives on the problem); 3) Managing critical, unresolvable unknowns (accepting inherent limitations in knowledge); 4) Managing real-world constraints on ameliorating the problem (acknowledging political, economic, and social limitations); and 5) Appreciating and accommodating the partial and temporary nature of solutions (understanding that perfect solutions are unlikely). The study identifies three major realms where expertise in research integration and implementation can be found: 1) specific approaches (e.g., interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, systems thinking); 2) case-based experience; and 3) research focusing specifically on aspects of integration and implementation (e.g., managing unknowns and fostering innovation). The authors highlight the fragmentation of this expertise and propose a knowledge bank as a solution, outlining challenges in compiling, indexing, and organizing the expertise and overcoming fragmentation. The findings emphasize the need for a coordinated effort to make this often-implicit expertise more visible and accessible, leading to greater success in addressing complex problems.

The paper's findings highlight a significant gap in the current research landscape: the lack of recognition and systematic development of expertise in research integration and implementation. This gap contributes to the difficulties in addressing complex societal and environmental problems, as evidenced by the challenges identified in managing contested definitions, unknowns, real-world constraints, and the temporary nature of solutions. The proposed knowledge bank directly addresses this gap by bringing together fragmented expertise, making it more visible and accessible, and fostering collaboration. The virtuous cycle envisioned—where the knowledge bank strengthens expertise, leading to greater success in addressing complex problems, which in turn increases demand for and investment in the knowledge bank—suggests a path towards more effective and impactful research in this crucial area. The discussion underscores the importance of valuing and rewarding this expertise to improve research and action on complex societal and environmental issues.

The paper concludes that building a shared knowledge bank is crucial for strengthening expertise in research integration and implementation. This knowledge bank should include various expertise from different approaches and case studies to tackle complex problems. Future research should focus on developing the knowledge bank, addressing challenges in compiling, indexing, and organizing the expertise, and overcoming the existing fragmentation. The successful implementation of this knowledge bank will create a virtuous cycle, leading to greater success in addressing complex issues and strengthening the knowledge bank itself.

The paper's methodology relies heavily on the authors' collective experience and expertise, which may limit the generalizability of findings. A more comprehensive and systematic review of the literature might reveal additional realms or approaches to research integration and implementation. Furthermore, the practicality and feasibility of building and maintaining a global knowledge bank requires further investigation and planning.