Fostering transdisciplinary research for sustainability in the Global South: Pathways to impact for funding programmes

The paper addresses how research funding programmes can foster transdisciplinary research (TDR) to strengthen science–society–policy interactions and address science inequalities between the Global North and South, with a focus on African contexts. It responds to global policy visions (UN Agenda 2030; AU Agenda 2063) that position science as critical for sustainable development, noting uneven capacities and impacts across regions. The study concentrates on transforming science systems to foster transformative change in African cities and asks how funders can design programmes to both promote TDR and tackle science inequalities through capacity building, focusing on the International Science Council’s LIRA 2030 Africa programme.

The literature identifies TDR as a reflexive, collaborative approach linking scientific knowledge production and societal problem solving through co-production with extra-scientific actors, typically in three phases: problem framing and team building; co-producing solution-oriented, transferable knowledge; and reintegration/application in science and practice. TDR requires conditions different from disciplinary research (time, skills, resources, incentives), and faces funding barriers due to disciplinary structures, review criteria, and coverage gaps for TDR-specific activities. TDR careers, especially for early-career scholars, are precarious because academic metrics undervalue societal contributions (capacity development, policy engagement). Funders can influence TDR via solicitation conditions, proposal review, funding coverage, capacity building, implementation support, and evaluation/learning; involving societal actors in reviews and impact assessment is key. A model by Schneider et al. (2019) describes a funding programme life cycle with 10 key stages requiring attention to foster TDR: programme preparation; proposal elaboration; interactions with applicants; project selection; research activities; joint agenda setting; networking and integration; interactions with participating projects; external communication and transformation; programme conclusion and impact evaluation (Table 1). Research capacity in Africa remains comparatively low due to historical inequalities, underfunding (often <0.5% of GDP), weak institutional structures, dependence on international funding shaping agendas, and metrics that undervalue locally relevant research. Early-career scientists face limited career opportunities, training, mentorship, and funding, contributing to brain drain. Massive investment and targeted support, particularly for TDR, are argued to be necessary to strengthen capacities and address inequalities.

Research questions: RQ1: Through what pathways can a research funding programme foster TDR for sustainable development in Africa? RQ2: How did the LIRA programme shape its design and activities to advance these pathways? RQ3: What were the benefits and challenges of the programme’s design and activities for fostering TDR? Case study: The International Science Council’s LIRA 2030 Africa (2016–2021), funded by Sida and delivered with ISC ROA and NASAC. Goal: increase production of high-quality, solutions-oriented, policy-relevant knowledge on sustainable development in African cities and build a new generation of scientists able to produce and communicate such knowledge. Total funding ~€5 million over six years; >60% allocated to TDR projects; additional training, peer-learning, networking provided. Three calls (2016 energy–health and health–natural disaster nexuses in African cities; 2017 SDG 11 in Africa; 2018 pathways toward sustainable African urban development). Funded 28 projects (three cohorts) up to €90,000 each for two years; each project engaged cities in two African countries with emphasis on including low-income countries. Design and approach: A reflexive learning study embedded in the programme (extended case/reflective practitioner approach), combining independent researchers and programme managers (Africa and Europe). Methods combined interviews (programme management and three scientific advisory committee members), qualitative content analysis of programme documents (calls, proposals, progress reports), participatory observation, post-activity evaluations, programme monitoring, and an end-of-project survey of all grantees (n=27). Analysis mapped programme stages and activities against the Schneider et al. (2019) model and assessed benefits/challenges with qualitative content analysis and descriptive statistics (doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8238102). Limitations: perspectives restricted to grantees and programme representatives; potential interpretive bias due to close engagement. Key process features: Two-stage application (pre-proposal then full proposal) with a five-day TDR training in between; intensive interactions (feedback on pre-proposals). Submissions: 475 pre-proposals, 98 full proposals; 28 projects funded across 22 countries. Review emphasized TDR relevance and feasibility; scarcity of experienced TDR reviewers led to mixed panels (disciplinary experts and practitioners). Monitoring included TDR-focused reporting and structured self-reflection activities introduced for later cohorts. Capacity building included training modules (knowledge integration, science–policy interaction, academic writing), a coaching workshop on theories of change, peer exchanges, and annual research fora.

The programme articulated and advanced three interrelated pathways to foster TDR in Africa. Pathway 1: Enabling African early-career scientists to lead high-quality TDR projects. Design combined collaborative research grants with substantial dedicated funding for co-design/co-production and capacity building across TDR phases. Calls required cross-disciplinary teams (at least one social and one natural scientist), stakeholder co-design, regional collaboration (two African countries), and robust engagement/communication plans. Review focused on relevance, scientific merit (quality over excellence), potential impact, interdisciplinary skills mix, stakeholder collaboration, regional collaboration, adequacy of outreach/engagement, and gender equity. Funding coverage earmarked: up to 35% direct research costs, 25% knowledge co-design/co-production, 15% translation to policy/practice. Application was two-step with a five-day TDR training between stages; 475 pre-proposals led to 98 full proposals; 28 projects awarded in 22 countries. Monitoring embedded TDR reflections; later cohorts implemented team self-reflection prior to reporting. Benefits: grantees reported improved understanding of TDR, enhanced skills in co-design, stakeholder engagement, proposal writing, increased confidence engaging societal actors, and valuable peer learning. Challenges: high expectations versus limited time/resources; insufficient time between training and full proposal in the first call (extended from ~6 to 8–10 weeks in later calls); two-year duration too short for deep TDR and cross-country work; administrative hurdles (procurement, fund disbursement, inter-university transfers); balancing research with heavy teaching loads; scarcity of experienced TDR reviewers. Pathway 2: Supporting early-career scientists to pursue TDR careers. Beyond project-level capacity, the programme targeted career development via institutional mentorship requirements, leadership training (publishing, communication, project/financial management), regular information on opportunities, community building through annual fora, cross-project collaborative grants (€160,000 total for eight projects) to deepen collaborations and co-publishing, and visibility via blogs, videos, and representation at high-level events (e.g., UN STI Forum, IPCC in Cities, HLPF). Benefits: grantees reported increased leadership capacity, self-confidence, recognition within universities, enhanced participation in policy processes, stronger networks (South–South and beyond), and immediate career gains (promotions, contracts) and additional funding successes. Challenges: institutional mentorship sometimes weak due to mentors’ limited TDR experience; difficulty establishing independent TDR careers within existing university structures; some grantees shifted to civil society roles. Advisory committee praised achievements but noted the opportunity-driven nature and limited institutionalization of networks. Pathway 3: Enhancing context conditions for TDR. Activities synthesized and communicated African TDR experiences (joint report, learning study, eight synthesis articles, training guidelines and train-the-trainers integrating African perspectives) and promoted TDR capacity in institutions (inviting university and academy representatives to trainings). The ISC’s Global Forum of Funders (2019, 2021) convened funders to coordinate and scale support for science for the SDGs, particularly in the Global South. Benefits: perceived increased awareness and recognition of TDR among African/international institutions and funders; some universities became more open to TDR through project implementation and student/stakeholder involvement. Challenges: institutional policies still often unfavourable for TDR; realizing systemic change requires long-term, strategic, collaborative action and resources beyond a single programme’s scope. Quantitative highlights: 3 calls; 28 projects (€90,000 each; two years); >60% of ~€5M budget to TDR projects; 475 pre-proposals, 98 full proposals; 22 African countries involved; cross-project grants €160,000 for eight collaborations.

Findings address how a funding programme can foster TDR in Africa by demonstrating that a multi-pathway strategy is needed: combining project-level funding and skills (Pathway 1), career development and visibility (Pathway 2), and systemic context change (Pathway 3). The programme’s design shows that early-stage activities—solicitation criteria tailored to TDR, two-step applications with embedded training and time for co-design, TDR-competent reviewing, and earmarked budgets for co-production and translation—are pivotal for high-quality TDR. Continued implementation support (capacity building, monitoring with self-reflection, peer learning) strengthens project delivery and learning. Career-focused measures (leadership training, networking, visibility, collaborative grants) help early-career researchers build sustainable TDR trajectories and increase their influence in academia and policy. However, broader institutional and funding ecosystems need coordinated, long-term interventions to align incentives and structures with TDR’s characteristics. The study underscores the significance of funders adopting lifecycle-wide, reflexive management of programmes, and collaborating across agencies to scale TDR support.

The study presents LIRA 2030 Africa as a prototype illustrating how funders can foster TDR through three complementary pathways: enabling high-quality TDR projects, supporting TDR careers, and working to enhance enabling environments. Key contributions include demonstrating the value of embedding capacity building throughout the programme lifecycle, tailoring solicitation and review to TDR, and investing in networking and visibility. The results suggest future programmes should allocate sufficient time and resources for co-design, extend project durations, strengthen institutional engagement (including administrative support), and formalize network institutionalization. Further research and experimentation are needed to identify effective programme activities for transforming systemic context conditions (Pathway 3), including sustained collaboration with African institutions and among funders, and to develop standardized TDR capacity-building curricula.

The learning study’s close engagement of researchers and programme managers may introduce interpretive bias and reduce distance from the object of study. Data sources focused on programme documents, interviews with programme representatives, participatory observations, post-activity evaluations, monitoring, and an end-of-project survey of grantees (n=27), limiting perspectives to these groups; broader stakeholder impacts were not assessed. Short project duration (two years) constrained assessment of long-term outcomes. Additional limitations include institutional administrative hurdles, scarcity of experienced TDR reviewers, and the programme’s limited ability to influence systemic context conditions within its time and resource constraints.