Expertise in research integration and implementation for tackling complex problems: when is it needed, where can it be found and how can it be strengthened?

‘Interdisciplinarity’ and ‘transdisciplinarity’ are widely heralded as key to research addressing complex societal and environmental problems, such as reducing the gap between rich and poor, combating illicit drug use, controlling spiralling health care costs and achieving sustainable social-ecological systems. In these situations, the terms indicate that different strands of disciplinary and other knowledge (e.g., from policy makers and affected communities) need to be brought together and acted upon. Implicit, but largely unrecognised, is required expertise in (1) research integration to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the problem and possible ways to address it and (2) research implementation to improve the situation. Poor understanding of expertise needed for research integration and implementation makes assessing interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity difficult at all levels, including tenure and promotion applications, funding proposals, outcomes of research projects, and outputs of inter- and transdisciplinary centres and other institutions. For example, inadequate understanding of what interdisciplinarity involves and how to assess it may explain why interdisciplinary grant applications have lower success rates than discipline-based proposals. It is tempting to blame reviewers for assessment problems. Instead, those researching complex societal and environmental problems must ensure that expertise in research integration and implementation is well articulated, accessible and useable. This article explores three questions: (1) When is expertise in research integration and implementation required? (2) Where can it currently be found? (3) What is required to strengthen it? Our starting point is that complex problems are generally investigated by teams made up of disciplinary experts and increasingly include stakeholders affected by the problem, as well as those in a position to do something about it. Some team members must have expertise in research integration and implementation to effectively harness the contributions of the full team. Our focus is expertise that is not specifically about the problem being tackled, but is relevant to tackling any complex societal or environmental problem. We explore three components of such expertise. Most focus is on contributory expertise, divided into ‘knowing-that’ (e.g., understanding interconnections and contexts) and ‘knowing-how’ (e.g., methods and processes for integration and engagement). Interactional expertise is the ability to understand disciplines, professional practice and community experience without being trained in those areas, enabling effective teamwork. Much contributory and interactional expertise is tacit, often developed through learning-by-doing. Our target audience is researchers who investigate complex societal and environmental problems and who are interested in the integration and implementation role. We aim to kick-start a process of understanding and building expertise that involves newcomers through to established researchers. As an authorship group with common interests in research integration and implementation, we found it challenging to articulate our own expertise and were largely unaware of each other’s contributions until coming together at the 2013 First Global Conference on Research Integration and Implementation. The conference revealed extensive, diverse expertise and highlighted the benefits of drawing on the full range rather than a partial selection. We start by identifying research tasks that lie outside the remit of traditional disciplines and require expertise in research integration and implementation, then identify three realms where such expertise resides, demonstrating fragmentation within and across these realms.

This is a conceptual, synthesis paper that opens a discussion rather than providing prescriptive guidance. The authors explore three questions about expertise in research integration and implementation: when it is required, where it can be found, and how it can be strengthened. The approach includes: - Identifying tasks outside traditional disciplines that require integration and implementation expertise, illustrated with the complex problem of illicit drug use and five generic challenges of complex (‘wicked’) problems (delimiting the problem; managing contested definitions; managing critical, unresolvable unknowns; managing real-world constraints; appreciating partial, temporary solutions). - Mapping three realms where expertise currently resides: (1) specific approaches (e.g., interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, systems thinking, sustainability science, action research, integrated assessment, post-normal science, etc.), (2) case-based experience independent of specific approaches (including illustrative cases and codified tools), and (3) research on elements of integration and implementation (with emphasis on unknowns and innovation). - Compiling illustrative examples via boxes: examples of know-that and know-how from specific approaches (e.g., Toolbox dialogue method; adaptation pathways; boundary critique; ‘three types of knowledge’ tool; group hypothesis modeling), from case-based projects (bioenergy in Australia; air pollution and health in Jakarta; medical tourism policy in Thailand), and from research on unknowns (e.g., social construction of ignorance, taxonomies of unknowns, acceptance strategies, info-gap theory, learning plans) and innovation (e.g., differentiating adoption from use; search strategy and reframing; analogy). - Proposing a strategy to strengthen expertise by building a dynamic, shared knowledge bank, and outlining the challenges of compiling, indexing/organising for access, and addressing causes of fragmentation. The authors draw on their collective experience (including roles in developing several approaches) to assemble the lists (e.g., Box 1 compiled by a sub-group drawing on combined experience and scholarship) and to articulate challenges and positive trends.

- Expertise in research integration and implementation is essential for tackling complex societal and environmental problems but is under-recognised and fragmented. - When it is required: Beyond disciplinary inputs, teams need expertise to integrate diverse perspectives to build comprehensive understandings and to support implementation into policy, practice, business and social innovation. Five pervasive challenges of complexity demand specific know-that and know-how: (1) delimiting problems with evolving, interconnected causes; (2) managing contested problem definitions; (3) managing critical, unresolvable unknowns; (4) navigating ideological, cultural, political, economic and organisational constraints; (5) accepting partial, temporary, least-worst solutions and mitigating unintended consequences. - Where it can be found: (1) Specific approaches (e.g., interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, systems thinking, sustainability science, action research, integrated assessment, post-normal science, operational research, etc.) provide wide-ranging or subset expertise for integration and/or implementation. (2) Case-based experience independent of specific approaches develops tacit contributory and interactional expertise, sometimes codified into tools (e.g., collaboration ‘pre-nuptial’ agreements; alignment-interest-influence stakeholder mapping). (3) Research on elements such as unknowns (e.g., social construction of ignorance, taxonomies of unknowns, acceptance strategies, info-gap, learning loops) and innovation (e.g., adoption vs use; search/reframing; analogy) contributes targeted know-that and know-how. - Fragmentation: Expertise is dispersed across many ‘tribes’ with distinct associations, journals, and vocabularies, and diffused informally through case-based work; combined with high workloads and publication pressures, this hinders discovery, assessment, and uptake. - How to strengthen: Build a dynamic, shared knowledge bank that compiles, indexes and organises expertise to make it visible and accessible, and that is supported by a coalition across the three realms. Key challenges include locating and assessing dispersed/tacit expertise, linking expertise to tasks with guidance on appropriateness and adaptation, constructing an ontology and multiple entry points for diverse users, ensuring governance, incentives, and quality control, and addressing underlying causes of fragmentation. Positive trends include cross-approach handbooks and toolkits, blogs and communities linking tribes, and networks of interdisciplinary/transdisciplinary centres providing leadership. - Anticipated impact: A knowledge bank and accumulating successes in problem-solving can form a virtuous cycle—improving access to effective expertise, creating opportunities for capacity-building and evaluation, facilitating breakthrough innovation, and increasing institutional recognition and support.

The paper addresses its three guiding questions by demonstrating that: (1) integration and implementation expertise is necessary whenever teams synthesize multiple disciplinary and stakeholder perspectives and aim to support action, particularly under the five generic challenges of complexity; (2) relevant expertise already exists but is scattered across specific approaches, tacit case-based practice, and research on key elements (unknowns and innovation); and (3) strengthening requires coordinated compilation and organisation of this expertise. By situating examples of know-that and know-how within tasks (e.g., boundary setting, conflict management, engaging decision-makers, dealing with unknowns, designing implementation pathways), the paper shows how these capabilities directly support better framing, decision-making, and implementation for complex problems. The proposed knowledge bank would increase visibility, accessibility, and evaluability of expertise, improve assessments in funding and promotion, and enable broader uptake and adaptation. The envisioned virtuous cycle links organised knowledge with demonstrated successes, elevating demand, building capacity, and institutionalising support in research and education.

The paper contributes a foundational framework for recognising and organising expertise in research integration and implementation. It clarifies when such expertise is needed, maps where it currently exists across three realms, illustrates its types with concrete examples, and proposes a practical pathway—building a dynamic, shared knowledge bank—to overcome fragmentation. The envisioned knowledge bank would provide structured access to effective know-that and know-how, support capacity building, evaluation, and innovation, and foster a virtuous cycle with growing success in addressing complex societal and environmental problems. Future work should: compile and curate a comprehensive inventory across realms; co-develop an ontology and multiple entry points with information scientists and user communities; establish governance, incentives, and assessment standards; and build a coalition of researchers and institutions to sustain, evolve, and mainstream this expertise.

- The paper is conceptual and illustrative; it does not present a systematic or exhaustive inventory or evaluation of integration and implementation expertise. - Many examples, especially from case-based practice, are tacit or sparsely documented; evidence on strengths, weaknesses, effectiveness, and adaptability is limited. - The lists of specific approaches and examples may be incomplete or contestable; comparison across realms is complicated by differing framings (e.g., of power relations) and vocabularies. - Guidance linking expertise to tasks is preliminary and not yet supported by comprehensive empirical assessment. - The authors note that no single group has broad experience across all realms; comprehensive compilation and assessment will require global, cross-community collaboration over time.