A new paper published by researchers Rob Byrne, Matias Ramirez, Claudia Obando-Rodriguez, Míriam Acebillo-Baque, Alejandra Boni, and Chux Daniels examines a critical challenge in global policy: how people with vastly different knowledge and experiences can work together to solve complex societal problems.
The paper, “The role of boundary objects in producing multi-perspective relational spaces for co-creating transformative theories of change,” highlights how groups such as university researchers, government officials and local practitioners may work towards shared goals while effectively speaking different professional “languages”. The authors explore the role of boundary objects, such as shared concepts, diagrams and theories, as tools that help diverse groups communicate across their differences and co-create actionable knowledge.
A central focus of the research is the relationship between boundary objects and relationality: the evolving connections between participants, their knowledge and their perspectives. The paper distinguishes between three forms of relationality:
- Plural relationality is characterised by little or no shared perspective.
- Fluid relationality involves some shared language, concepts and mutual understanding.
- Network relationality reflects a more deeply shared perspective, such as that found within an academic discipline or community of practice.
The study concludes that for transformative policy ideas to “travel” successfully across global contexts, they cannot simply be imposed from the top down. The paper argues that the success of global sustainability initiatives depends on the strategic use of boundary objects to bridge different professional “languages” and adapt global theories to local realities.
Learning from South Africa’s Living Catchments Project
To explore this framework in practice, the researchers analysed the Living Catchments Project (LCP), a real-world initiative implemented by the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) between 2019 and 2023. The project’s primary goal was to establish more sustainable water governance across four of South Africa’s strategic water source areas, a mission critical for national water security.
As part of an experimental policy engagement (EPE), practitioners from SANBI collaborated with academics from the Transformative Innovation Policy Consortium (TIPC) to develop a transformative theory of change (TToC): a strategic roadmap designed to guide the project’s contribution to wider system change.
In this context, the paper focuses on boundary objects described as ideal types, including concepts, theories, and statements about the project’s intended future outcome.
At the start of the engagement, the collaboration was marked by plural relationality, a state where a lack of shared language made communication difficult. The authors reveal that the initial introduction of complex theoretical concepts nearly caused the project to collapse, as local practitioners felt their practical experience was being marginalised, leading to an experience that one participant described as being on a “roller-coaster in a thunderstorm”.
A key turning point occurred when participants connected TIPC’s transformative outcomes with the Living Catchments Project’s existing project outcomes. Because the project outcomes were already familiar to the LCP team, the two sets of outcomes could work together as a system of boundary objects. This transformed the unstable relationship into a fluid relationality, allowing for the successful co-creation of the final plan.
Creating the conditions for effective knowledge co-creation
The findings suggest that the choice of boundary objects must match the “information and work requirements” of the group as that boundary objects can either support or inhibit collaboration, depending on how and when they are introduced.
The analysis shows that knowledge co-creation does not necessarily follow a linear path. The relationships between participants can quickly move from fluid to plural and back again as new concepts are introduced.
These findings can help those designing multi-perspective knowledge co-creation processes decide which boundary objects to introduce and at what stage. They may also be relevant to other initiatives that bring together people with different forms of expertise to address societal challenges.
Ultimately, the research suggests that in high-stakes collaborations, less is often more. Starting with simple, unthreatening concepts builds the trust necessary to later tackle the complex potential of abstract theory.
In the context of Transformative Innovation Policy, the paper explores how TIP can travel cognitively — from the academic network space of a particular knowledge domain to the more practice-based knowledge domain. It highlights that TIP cannot simply be transferred from one context to another; its concepts need to remain flexible and be interpreted, adapted and co-created in relation to local knowledge and experience.