The papers in this supplementary issue are reflections on a variety of aspects of integration, demonstrating that integration is inherently messy and requires a highly involved process to deal with difficulties which emerge at all stages.

Abstract Community engagement and integrated research are key approaches to solving complex socio-ecological challenges. This paper describes the experience of bringing together a team of natural and social scientists from Australia and Indonesia in the ‘Gambut Kita’ (translated as ‘Our Peat’) project. Gambut Kita aims to produce new knowledge and support efforts to successfully, and equitably, restore Indonesia’s tropical peatlands and ensure that livelihoods can be maintained on restored (rewetted) landscapes. The paper focuses on experiences of using community engagement for integrated research. It discusses three community engagement approaches used in the project—resilience, adaptation pathways and transformation approach (RAPTA), participatory rural appraisal (PRA), and community-led analysis and planning (CLAP). It also describes the qualitative analysis of 14 interviews with the project team of lessons learned in community engagement for integrated research. ‘Criteria for success’ from the literature on international development projects is used to assess progress. The findings highlight the specific complexities of working across countries and cultures. Successful community engagement is not so much about the ‘tool’ but about the trust, agency, and support to change. The tools do, however, have different strengths. PRA and CLAP can build deep community understanding and relationships. RAPTA has strengths in framing visions and pathways to the future, systems thinking, anticipatory learning, and taking a cross-scale systems view which is required to solve many of the problems manifesting at local or community scales. Similarly, success in integrated research is not just about individuals, but structures (e.g. explicit process) and infrastructure (e.g. access to technology). These findings suggest that integrated research needs special considerations in terms of design, and these relate across scales to individual researchers as well as teams, leaders and organisations. Integrated research projects need careful, inclusive, iterative management with a lot of interaction to learn from each other, build a common vision, achieve clarity of roles, and share emerging findings.

Global sustainability challenges transcend disciplines and, therefore, demand interdisciplinary approaches that are characterized by cross-disciplinary collaboration and integration across disciplines. In accordance with this need for interdisciplinary approaches, sustainability professionals have been reported to require interdisciplinary competencies. Although the necessity of interdisciplinary competencies is generally agreed upon, and there has been extensive research to understand competencies for interdisciplinarity, there is still no comprehensive understanding of how individual competencies shape the ability to integrate knowledge across disciplines. Therefore, based on empirical research and literature review, we propose a novel framework to understand competencies for interdisciplinarity. The empirical data were collected through written reflection and interviews with 19 students in the context of an interdisciplinary master’s course. We describe four typical behaviours—naïve, assertive, accommodating, and integrative. Based on these behavioural typologies, we define two sets of competencies that collaborators require to engage in interdisciplinary knowledge integration: Epistemic Stability (ES) and Epistemic Adaptability (EA). ES competencies are the competencies to contribute one’s own academic knowledge, such as theoretical and methodological grounding in one’s own field and confidence, and EA competencies are the competencies to engage with academic knowledge contributed by others, such as curiosity, openness and communicative skills. Our findings show that interdisciplinary knowledge integration requires ES and EA competencies. Our framework for interdisciplinary competencies offers insights for revising and designing more interventions to prepare (future) professionals for interdisciplinary work on sustainability issues, providing insights on criteria for assessment, management, and training.

Interdisciplinary understanding requires integration of insights from different perspectives, yet it appears questionable whether disciplinary experts are well prepared for this. Indeed, psychological and cognitive scientifc studies suggest that expertise can be disadvantageous because experts are often more biased than non-experts, for example, or fxed on certain approaches, and less fexible in novel situations or situations outside their domain of expertise.

Integration is crucial to interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary work and it therefore deserves perennial attention by scholars and practitioners of such work. Few have thought so carefully, deeply, and tenaciously about integration as Julie Thompson Klein. In this article, we recount the development of Klein’s thinking on integration, from her early stepwise model in 1990 to her current socio-linguistic model. After summarizing Klein’s views, we compare the socio-linguistic model to a more recent view of integration known as the IPO (input-process-output) model. We show how these two models of integration relate to one another, and then we demonstrate their complementarity using an example of integrative argumentation from a Toolbox workshop. We conclude that we can understand instances of crossdisciplinary integration better with both models than with only one or the other. This theoretical stereoscope opens new avenues of research about the types of integrative relations collaborators use, what is involved in social/rhetorical integration, and the extent to which it is feasible to specify all of the parameters in an instance of integration.

International curricular redevelopment and quality improvement efforts include integration within and across disciplines as a focal point. Definitions and applications of the term ‘integration’ vary routinely in health professions education literature, weakening opportunities to enhance our educational practice through collaborative, interprofessional knowledge-sharing. This systematic review examined recent health professions education literature for reported definitions, theories or frameworks, and educational activities around integrated learning, education, curricula, or teaching. A total of 35 articles representing learners from 12 different health professions, between 2017 and 2021, were analyzed through a literature search of seven databases: PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, JSTOR, the Cochrane Library, LGBTQ + Life, and ERIC. Full-text retrieval and data extraction of the included studies were conducted. Of the 35 articles reviewed, 13 included explicit definitions of integration (an additional six alluded to a definition), 19 referred to an educational theory or framework used to guide integration design efforts, and 27 mentioned teaching methods by which integration was implemented. Misunderstanding what is meant by integrated, how others have planned for it, or how others have sought to bring it about practically, all threaten attempts to improve the cultivation of health professionals as integrated thinkers and holistic care providers.

Meeting grand challenges requires responses that constructively combine multiple forms of expertise, both academic and non-academic; that is, it requires cross-disciplinary integration. But just what is cross-disciplinary integration? In this paper, we supply a preliminary answer by reviewing prominent accounts of cross-disciplinary integration from two literatures that are rarely brought together: cross-disciplinarity and philosophy of biology. Reflecting on similarities and differences in these accounts, we develop a framework that integrates their insights—integration as a generic combination process the details of which are determined by the specific contexts in which particular integrations occur. One such context is cross-disciplinary research, which yields cross-disciplinary integration. We close by reflecting on the potential applicability of this framework to research efforts aimed at meeting grand challenges. •Successful responses to grand challenges require cross-disciplinary integration.•Key perspectives on integration in cross-disciplinary theory are analyzed.•Notions of integration in philosophy of biology are closely examined.•An account of integration as a generic process synthesizes insights from these domains.

The paper introduces a heuristic framework for conducting joint problem framing (JPF) processes in transdisciplinary research (TD). JPF is an essential element in confronting real-world problems, especially in the realm of sustainability (Hirsch Hadorn et al. in Ecol Econ 60(1):119–128, 2006; Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn in Principles for designing transdisciplinary research, Oekomm, München, 2007; Rossini in Technikfolgenabschätzung Theor Prax 18(1):117–119, 2009). It is the process of clarifying and prioritizing aspects of a problem situation to ensure its relevance for a diverse collection of stakeholders involved (Kønig et al. in Futures 91:12–24, 2017; Schneider and Buser in Sustain Sci 13(1):129–142, 2017; Stindt et al. in J Bus Log 37(2):113–131, 2016). The goal of this paper is twofold. First, we identify the documented challenges in conducting a joint problem framing process and through personal experience with case studies. Second, we introduce a means to address these challenges in the form of a heuristic framework. This framework is a series of questions which first asks for a description and explanation of the JPF process, based on researcher observations. Then, the framework leads its user to probe for the assumptions behind these observations. Finally, the framework helps its user to derive insights and lessons for conducting future JPF processes based on these responses. This framework is geared primarily towards helping transdisciplinary researchers with varying levels of experience, but can also be used by practitioners.

We develop and apply the concept of ‘insight discovery’ as a key competence for transdisciplinary research and learning. To address complex societal and environmental problems facing the world today, a particular expertise that can identify new connections between diverse knowledge fields is needed in order to integrate diverse perspectives from a wide range of stakeholders and develop novel solutions. The capacity for “insight discovery” means becoming aware of personal mental representations of the world and being able to shape and integrate perspectives different from one’s own. Based on experiences and empirical observations within the scope of an educational programme for Masters students, PhD candidates and post-doctoral researchers, we suggest that insights are the outcome of a learning process influenced by the collective and environment in which they are conceived, rather than instant moments of individual brilliance. The process which we describe, named the insight discovery process (IDP), is made up of five aspects. Within a group setting, a person begins with an “original mental model”, experiences an “insight trigger”, processes new information within the “liminal space”, “formulates an insight” and eventually forms an “adapted mental model”. There is a potential for incorporating such process as a fundamental competence for transdisciplinary curricula in undergraduate and graduate programmes by cultivating specific practices and safe learning environments, focused on the enquiry, exchange and integration of diverse perspectives.

Integration is a key process in transdisciplinary research and knowledge co-production. Nonetheless, it is often used as a buzzword without specifying what exactly it means or what actually happens during integration. We propose conceptualizing integration as a multidimensional interactive process. We characterize it as an open-ended learning process without pre-determined outcomes. Integration designates relations established throughout a transdisciplinary research process between elements that were not previously related. Those elements are participants in the process and their thought-styles and thought-collectives and more specifically pieces of knowledge, ideas, or practices from different thought-collectives as well as views of individual researchers and practitioners. Integration can happen at manifold instances of a transdisciplinary research process. It can take place among two, several, or all participants and can be one-sided or mutual. It might include insights, practices, frameworks, or concepts shared by two, several, or all participants. Consensus is only one along with other ways of retaining plurality of thought-styles and seeing integration as a balance between them that remains subject to continuous revision. To analyse or achieve effective integration, further dimensions beyond the cognitive have to be taken into account including at least an emotional and a social-interactional dimension.