Current research and innovation (R&I) systems are not equipped to fully serve as catalysts for the urgently needed transformation of food systems. Though research on food systems transformation (first order: ‘what?’) and transformative research (second order: ‘how to’) are rapidly gaining traction in academic and policy environments, current efforts fail to explicitly recognize the systemic nature of the challenges associated with performing transformative second-order research. To recognize these manifold and interlinked challenges embedded in R&I systems, there is a need for a coupled-systems perspective. Transformations are needed in food systems as well as R&I systems (‘how to do the “how to”’). We set out to conceptualize an approach that aims to trigger double transformations by nurturing innovations at the boundaries of R&I systems and food systems that act upon systemic leverage points, so that their multisystem interactions can better support food system transformations. We exemplify this coupled-systems approach by introducing the FIT4FOOD2030 project with its 25 living labs as a promising multilevel boundary innovation at the cross-section of R&I and food systems. We illustrate how this approach paves the way for double systems transformations, and therefore for an R&I system that is fit for future-proofing food systems.

Art is increasingly used to engage publics on emerging and controversial technologies, but we still know little about what works in art-based engagement and why. To investigate what art can do for public engagement, we systematically reviewed academic work published from 2000 to 2018 about the effect of art on organized public engagement. We used the dimensions of Responsible Research and Innovation as an analytical framework to identify what outcomes are achieved and what processes contribute to those outcomes. The 30 included studies showed that art mainly supported engagement by (1) reaching wider audiences, (2) fueling individual reflection, and (3) making visible how technologies come into being and interact with the world. With due consideration of the risks of instrumentalization, future research should empirically and reflexively investigate the outcomes and methodologies of art-based engagement, especially concerning collective reflection and change.

A major challenge for interdisciplinary teamwork on complex sustainability issues is the often-conflicting disciplinary perspectives and underlying values and assumptions among collaborators. Interdisciplinary collaboration among researchers and practitioners therefore requires interdisciplinary consciousness (IC): epistemological and metaphysical understanding and appreciation of one’s own and others’ disciplinary views and their differences. Since it cannot be assumed that professionals have IC, there is a need for explicit training, for instance in higher education. We developed Frame Reflection Lab (FRL)—a playful intervention to stimulate the development of IC through frame reflection—and investigated its application among cross-disciplinary student teams collaborating on sustainability issues. We aimed to understand how frame reflection can contribute to enhancing IC, by analyzing the written and oral reflections of 23 Master’s degree students. We found that the FRL intervention contributed to the development of IC as it sparked cognitive, affective, and critical reflection; created a safe space for reflection; helped participants to articulate values and assumptions; and balanced structure and freedom. Our findings demonstrate that to prepare sustainability professionals for interdisciplinary collaboration, deeply rooted and possibly unconscious preconceptions have to be challenged to build awareness and appreciation of disciplinary differences. This calls for explicitly facilitating affective processes, for instance using playfulness, whereas training in reflection and interdisciplinarity usually focuses on cognitive processes. These findings are promising in terms of informing and inspiring future efforts to use playful frame reflection in education, research, and practice to support interdisciplinary collaboration to address complex sustainability issues.

Playfulness supports people in learning. This study synthesizes a framework for playfulness for one particular type of learning: responsible research and innovation (RRI) reflection processes. Playfulness design elements were extracted from literature about playfulness in various learning and reflection contexts, by inductive coding of playfulness conceptualizations, playful tool(s) descriptions and their effects. We extracted four activity principles – narration, imagination, action-reflection and co-creation – and three playfulness process requirements – experimentation space, focus and stimulating guidance. Due to the utilized database search queries, important articles about RRI reflection processes are possibly overlooked. Also, overlaps between the design elements and gamification may exist. Last, their suitability for adults, offline and hybrid reflection processes require further investigation. We translate each playfulness design element into the context of RRI reflection processes and advise on how to use them in designing playful reflection processes, which can prove their anticipated fruitfulness. Nevertheless, due to the utilized database search queries, important articles about RRI reflection processes are possibly overlooked. Also, overlaps between the design elements and gamification may exist. Therefore, their suitability for adults, offline and hybrid reflection processes require further investigation.

Creating impact in labs oriented at sustainability transformations is challenging. Combining the experiences of ten projects and sharing the insights in “Labbing”, gained through engaging in various activities within transformation-oriented Labs from the fields of agriculture, food, and healthcare, the author team established a Community of Practice at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, to identify impact challenges inductively and recommend practical strategies for addressing these.While the issue of creating impact in real-world labs for experimenting with sustainability transformation has been studied, little is known about how to assess and understand impact in practice. Deciding on “what counts as impact” is challenging as problem definitions and solutions are political and contested. In our research projects for sustainability transformations in fields such as agriculture, food, and healthcare, we encountered typical questions of creating impact in real-world labs. We established a Community of Practice to explore the different challenges pertaining to these impact questions. We identified four overarching challenges related to impact: 1. measuring the impact of Labs, 2. dealing with positionality and power dynamics, 3. fostering impact within and beyond projects, and 4. ensuring impact across different contexts. This paper offers practical strategies for responding to these challenges: 1. tailor-made training for Labbing, 2. reflexively engaging with power dynamics, 3. forging rich, translocal learning and impact. Sharing learnings from our experience with Labbing may broaden the repertoire of fellow Lab practitioners in enhancing and strengthening their impact.

Introduction: This study aimed to gain insight into the real-world complexity of the challenges experienced by patients, their significant others, care professionals and the work and education environment concerning rheumatic diseases as well as the interrelation between these challenges; it also aimed to prioritise the identified challenges. Method: Using the Dialog Model, 21 people with various rheumatic diseases, 24 care professionals, 9 significant others, and 3 education and work representatives were asked about rheumatic disease-related challenges and needs in a series of focus groups and interviews. Data were inductively coded and analysed, resulting in a mind map thematically displaying the challenges. The mind map was translated into a survey, and respondents (N = 1802) prioritised themes and challenges. Results: Of the six identified themes, 'physical complaints' was prioritised the most, followed by 'collaboration in healthcare', 'social and mental wellbeing', 'self-management', 'information and options in healthcare' and 'work and education'. Challenges of people with rheumatic diseases appeared to be complexly interrelated. For instance, fatigue and pain affect everyday functioning, but can also heavily impact social and mental wellbeing. To facilitate support for these challenges, which many patients desire, patients and care professionals said that better collaboration between primary and secondary care professionals is needed. Additionally, patients felt that their experiential expertise deserves more acknowledgement from care professionals. Results were similar across different rheumatic diseases. Conclusion: Many patients desire more support to manage life with their disease. To facilitate this, collaboration and communication between healthcare professionals, and between healthcare professionals and individual patients, should be improved.