Introduction

In contemporary society, complex societal problems such as climate change and the widening gap between the rich and the poor are increasingly recognized as fundamental threats to a sustainable future. Addressing these problems requires new approaches that cross through traditional boundaries of academic disciplines (Guimarães, Pohl, Bina & Varanda, 2019) and a new generation capable of adopting these approaches in order to drive change and influence the future (Horn et al., 2023).

Education serves as an essential building block for knowledge, attitudes, and skills for this new generation (Cross & Congreve, 2021; Jensen-Pennington, 2021). In transdisciplinary education (TDE), students, teachers, and researchers, all coming from different disciplines and societal partners, are learning, working, and researching together on an equal footing on a complex societal problem, in order to provide a response to these challenges (Bernstein, 2015; Mauser et al., 2013). TDE equips individuals with the necessary tools and skills to make informed decisions that positively impact our planet and society (Segalas & Tejedor, 2016), and it is also seen as a way to fulfill universities’ third mission to make direct contributions to society (Campagnucci & Spigrarelli, 2020). During recent years in the Netherlands, a notable increase in interest in TDE has been observed, fueled by a growing societal and political quest for higher education to actively contribute to societal problems (Eimers, 2023; Wolfensberger, 2024).

TDE is part of a broader discourse of transdisciplinary collaboration, which intends to realize real societal impact through collaboration between academics and direct stakeholders on a complex societal problem (Khoo et al., 2019; Visscher et al., 2022; Wolfensberger, 2024). Together with inter- and multidisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity forms “a continuum of involvement of multiple disciplines in problem solving” (Choi & Pak, 2006: 359). On this continuum, transdisciplinarity is distinguished by a high degree of integration of different types of knowledge and the involvement of non-academic societal partners to create new products or knowledge concerning the complex societal problem at hand (Daneshpour & Kwegyir-Afful, 2022; Gero, 2017; Klein, 1990; Menken et al., 2016; Morton et al., 2015).

Despite a growing call in recent years for developing transdisciplinary education in higher education (Evans, 2015; Horn et al., 2023; Tijsma et al., 2022) as well as for cautious growth of TDE initiatives (Vienni Baptista & Klein, 2022), empirical research on the development of TDE has been limited mainly to descriptive case studies of single education projects, as reviewed by Horn et al. (2023). While specific studies do focus on possible education formats (Tijsma et al., 2022), pedagogies (McGregor, 2017) or collaboration practices (Muhar et al., 2006), case transcending research into the actual practice of developing, implementing and executing transdisciplinary higher education is scarce.

This gap is especially important given that, in other areas of educational innovation, research on the process of developing and implementing new educational initiatives seems to provide valuable insights into theory and practice. For example, studies on honors education (Van Eijl & Pilot, 2019; Wolfensberger, 2012), digitalization in higher education (Benavides, 2020; Amhag et al., 2019), and interdisciplinary education (Casey, Doty & Klein, 1990; de Greef et al., 2017; Hannon, Legge & Lugg, 2018; van der Tuin, 2025) emphasize that understanding the challenges and strategies of implementation is essential for effective innovation.

This study is the first key step in filling this gap in transdisciplinary education research by collecting experiences and insights from pioneers in the Dutch higher education context on the development and implementation of TDE initiatives. These pioneers, who have been at the forefront of developing TDE programs, offer a unique and informed perspective. This research aims to answer the following question: What are the goals of pioneers in transdisciplinary education, and which factors did they experience as hindering or helping in achieving these goals? By identifying these goals and factors, teachers and other stakeholders involved in the development of TDE can build upon and be guided by existing insights and lessons learned rather than reinventing the wheel each time they embark on developing such programs.

Methods

Research context

This study aimed to explore and collect a broad array of relevant experiences and opinions on TDE practices. We focused on Dutch transdisciplinary higher education programs in which students from various disciplines collaborate with societal stakeholders on a contemporary complex societal problem.

Dutch context

In the Netherlands, there is a growing interest in TDE alongside interdisciplinary education. Many universities and universities of applied sciences explicitly mention the importance of inter- and transdisciplinary education in their missions and visions. Consequently, TDE initiatives are emerging, and the expansion of research groups on TDE, such as the inter-university research project CONNECTS (https://connects-research.nl/), reflects this development. However, the practical implementation of TDE remains largely on a small scale, experimental, and context-specific, which are characteristic features of innovation (Fidalgo-Blanco, Sein-Echaluce & Peñalalvo, 2015). Therefore, our respondents can be considered pioneers, paving the way for broader adoption and further development of TDE within their institutions.

Case selection

When selecting the cases (as introduced in Table 1), three substantive criteria were used. The criteria followed from the scope of this study and the key characteristics of TDE as defined by the OECD (2021) and Horn et al. (2023).

  1. 1.

    As a first criterion, the project should be involved in/part of higher education in the Netherlands, related to a higher education institute.

  2. 2.

    People from diverse disciplinary backgrounds collaborate in this project.

  3. 3.

    Students, teachers and/or researchers collaborated with partners from outside the university. These include companies, NGOs, governments, and involved citizens.

Table 1 Case study descriptions.
Full size table

Research design

We used a qualitative case study approach, which is appropriate for the exploratory and descriptive nature of our research (Mouton, 2001; via Ponelis, 2015). While the exploratory research design naturally did not involve the formulation and testing of hypotheses (Mouton, 2001, via Ponelis, 2015), existing definitions of TDE and insights from earlier studies (Horn et al., 2023; STEAM-plus, 2023) were used to inform the case selection criteria and a topic list for the interviews.

This study was reviewed and approved by the ethical committee. Written informed consent was obtained before participation.

Data collection: interviews

This study focuses on professionals who are developing and implementing TDE initiatives at their various institutes. Each of them plays a vital role in the realization of innovative transdisciplinary education projects, each not older than 6 years. Therefore, these professionals are referred to in this study as pioneers. The pioneers in this study fulfill the role of coordinator, teacher, coach, or researcher related to one of the described case studies. They come from backgrounds in social work, law, social sciences, educational sciences, design, economics, arts, cultural geography and engineering: a wide range of disciplines that represent the transdisciplinary character of this research. To ensure the anonymity of the pioneers, they are not linked directly to the individual cases.

The pioneers were found through purposive sampling (Suri, 2011), in which a researcher targeted projects based on the selection criteria found through professional networks such as the Comenius Network and our personal network and through conferences such as ‘City Deal Kennismaken’ and the ‘Comenius Festival’. The pioneers were contacted by email, signed the informed consent form, and then an interview was planned online.

Eventually, eleven interviews were conducted, all online. Nine interviews were conducted by the first author, and two interviews were conducted by another researcher. Two interviews involved two pioneers, and two other interviews involved the same educational program. This study thus concerns 10 different TDE projects and collected experiences and insights from 13 pioneers. The interviews lasted between 60 and 90 minutes (average = 75). The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim.

Semi-structured interviews were used as a suitable method for collecting pioneers’ experiences in a structured manner while leaving the possibility open for unexpected answers and follow-up questions (Holloway & Wheeler, 2010; Longhurst, 2003). The interview guide (see appendix) is based on themes from the Trail Tool, an instrument for establishing transdisciplinary talent programs in Higher Education, developed by the European STEAM+ project (Sandler et al., 2024). These themes resulted from a Ka3+ project in which transdisciplinary talent programs and workshops were conducted in 9 countries with 18 partners.

The interview guide includes topics such as the value of TDE and the importance of developing these initiatives. Furthermore, the interview topics focused on what helped and limited the pioneers in developing and implementing TDE in higher education, as well as their reflections on the general process they went through. In-depth questions have focused on collaboration with societal partners and educational design, which are two specific challenging aspects of a transdisciplinary project in higher education (Horn et al., 2023). Depending on the expertise of the pioneer and their project, in-depth questions could vary in focus, such as implementation or collaboration.

Data analysis

We analyzed the interview transcripts thematically to ‘distill’ main themes. Thematic analysis is understood as the identification of patterns and themes in qualitative data (Maguire & Delehant, 2017), for which the commonly used ‘6 steps of analysis’ from Braun & Clarke (2006) were followed.

This analysis process starts with establishing ‘feeling’ with the data, which was performed by checking the transcripts by two researchers. The same researchers also conducted the second step of generating initial codes: first, by double-coding the same transcript and, after confirming agreement on the coding, subsequently having one researcher code the other transcripts, thus creating an initial codebook. These codes were attributed to four themes, which is the third step of Braun & Clarke’s (2006) approach.

The fourth and fifth steps, critical reviewing the themes, sub-themes, and codes, were conducted again by the three researchers together in continuous dialogue. In these steps, specific goals and factors were identified in the experiences of pioneers. Data collection was completed when the research group determined that gathering additional data would no longer contribute to the further development of the codebook.

Results

The pioneers interviewed in this study named a wide variety of (a) goals they wanted to achieve with their transdisciplinary project and (b) factors related to various aspects of the TDE practice that helped or hindered the realization of these goals. In the results chapter, four overarching themes emerged from the interviews. The first three themes are goals that are directly related to TDE: creating societal impact, learning and collaborating. The fourth theme is an overarching goal to embed TDE in the institute: organizability. For each theme, helping and hindering factors to reach that goal are described, as summarized in Table 2.

Table 2 Summary of goals for TDE and helping and hindering factors for reaching these goals.
Full size table

Societal impact

Goal

‘Creating societal impact’ is the first goal mentioned by all respondents. An important motivation to organize TDE programs is to create societal impact, as Pioneer 12 puts it: “We also want to make a contribution as a knowledge institute to society. And in that sense also make an impact.” Pioneers indicate two routes towards creating this impact. First, the final outputs of a TDE program can contribute to working on a societal problem, for example, through delivering prototypes or reports, which can be suggested by a societal partner and could involve direct benefit to them.

Other pioneers see the learning process itself as TDE’s most important contribution to positive societal change. These pioneers value the transformation in thinking and working that has been undergone by students in a transdisciplinary process and by the teachers, researchers and partners involved. This transformation exists, for example, in changes in participants’ understanding of perspectives and ways of thinking.

“Yes, for me, transdisciplinary collaboration is really like a constant co-creation cycle that you want to maintain. Because that way, you truly create knowledge together, learn together, and move more towards transformative learning.” (Pioneer 4)

Another route to impact will be elaborated further as its own theme since learning is not only a medium to create societal impact but also a goal. This position is articulated by the stance that the “process” is an end in regard to making social impact, although working in an indirect manner. Pioneer 5 describes this effect as an ‘oil slick’:

“The best desired result is in the end an oil slick, that people take it [the transdisciplinary way of working] with them. I think, if people take it to their own practice and then try to implement it there as well or to start working in such a way, at least they share their learnings [from TDE]. And in that way, they take others with them as well.” (Pioneer 5)

These two approaches to impact-making are not necessarily mutually exclusive within TDE practice. Direct and indirect impact might evolve in synch from a project, as one pioneer summarizes: “So it’s not their [public ministry] project; it is our challenge, and it might be something that [the public ministry] takes one of these ideas further, or students take another idea further, so it needs to be like if you put a stone in the water, and then different things happen and it’s not only the students and the project outcome that counts.” (Pioneer 13)

The following helping and hindering factors are experienced as influencing the first route of direct impact on a societal problem through knowledge or product creation.

Helping factors

To achieve societal impact, pioneers especially mention the creation of alignment around ‘a clear common goal’ as an essential foundation for building an effective collaboration. To create this common goal, it helps if everyone has the intrinsic motivation to contribute to a complex problem, as illustrated by Pioneer 8: “I think it is really important to know what is, that you’re hoping to get from it. Because people are going to come into these sorts of collaborations with very different needs, very different interests, stakes, and perspectives. And so, I think that is why I’m trying in the work that I do to, at least in my own practices, to be with people that are already there: in the desire to bring about some sort of change or to grow together.”

Another stimulating factor for the realization of societal impact concerns the sustainability of the collaboration between educational institutes and societal partners. Pioneers value these sustainable relations for the development of mutual trust and opportunities for ‘relay learning’, in which transdisciplinary groups build on the outcomes of their predecessors. As illustrated by the quote below, these kinds of collaborations allow for in-depth exploration and ensure that project results maintain societal relevance rather than being overlooked or quickly forgotten: “And when the semester is almost over, and the next one begins, the coordinator checks with the organization again to see if it will be a relay. That’s what we call an extension, where the baton is passed on to another student team. Ideally, the new student team would already be present at the final festival so they can see the prototype and then continue working on it.” (Pioneer 13)

Limiting factors

Often, expectations of societal impact differ between societal and educational partners. The latter has a tendency to regard a course’s learning objectives as a project’s primary focus. When learning outcomes, along with the corresponding learning activities and assessments, take center stage, there is a risk that the needs related to the complex problem and the involved societal partners may be considered of secondary importance. As Pioneer 10 explains: “So there isn’t really a desired outcome. For us, it’s mainly that the process has been a valuable learning experience. But of course, for a stakeholder, they have a very different desired outcome, I think. They want a very concrete solution, something that has already been implemented and is sustainable. But yeah, that’s interesting. That is different for a student, right? And for us as teachers, too, because we also don’t necessarily look at the final product.” (Pioneer 10)

Learning

Goal

The second central goal of TDE for all pioneers concerns the learning process. In the realm of learning, pioneers predominantly focus on the learning process of involved students. Two levels of learning are discussed: inner development and professional development through knowledge and skills.

Inner development concerns the development of what Pioneer 12 defines as “Those 21st century skills, collaboration, personal leadership, dealing with setbacks through peaks and valleys and that, well, if you persevere that you do get to an end goal.” Other skills mentioned are the development of students’ reflectivity and their ability to cope with insecurity. The latter tends to be (too) challenging for some of the students in TDE projects, which is seen as a possible reason for dropout over the course of a project.

Professionally, students gain knowledge about the complex societal question in the project while they learn hands-on in the middle of society. In addition, TDE projects, in which work field partners are involved, prepare students for professional practice related to their education program. As Pioneer 10 explains, these work field collaborations meet the sometimes perceived lack of acting upon theoretical knowledge, which is especially the case for research university students: “They really want to translate what they know into something they can do and act on. Yes, and that is funny, because that is also actually once why we thought we had to do something with this, because exactly the same thing: ‘we really had a head full of theory. But yeah, what do you do with that?’ That is a question that is often asked, and that is often expressed in national student surveys, in which it is said that you are poorly prepared for professional practice.” (Pioneer 10)

Helping factors

Pioneers mention multiple ways to help students learn about both inner and professional development. One way is through offering a combination of activities that focus on delivering knowledge to students, both by sharing specific topic knowledge through academic experts and experts in experience and through activities in which students learn by participating. The latter form includes, for example, students stepping outside the classroom and visiting the environment where the complex societal problem has the most impact. This approach provides more hands-on learning opportunities than does theoretical knowledge development:“You cannot oppose design thinking to people by only explaining it. They need to experience it. They need to work with it, and then they can learn, but not by educating them only. So, there needs to be a project where you can apply it anyway.” (Pioneer 13)

To ensure that participants experience inner development, pioneers mention the benefits of a longer period of time to execute the program; it takes a longer period of time to develop a better understanding of different (new) perspectives: “I mean, a short pressure cooker project works really well too, but a longer project like this forces you to really put yourself in someone else’s shoes and think about how they handle things.” (Pioneer 5) Pioneers also note the benefits of a short pressure cooker format, which can be beneficial for ensuring full focus and delivering output quickly.

Limiting factors

A frequently mentioned limiting factor for inner- and professional development in TDE programs revolves around assessment requirements. According to multiple pioneers, the equality between all participants of a TDE project is a key characteristic of transdisciplinary collaboration. However, most forms of assessment focus only on students; therefore, pioneers observe that students’ focus might shift from contributing to the collaborative project to checking the boxes of the assessment requirements. This puts pressure on students who are not experienced with other participants.

The equality between teachers and students is challenged when the teacher, who is part of the transdisciplinary team, is also responsible for assessing the student: “I think that as a teacher, we often come up against the fact that you are both a process supervisor and that you ultimately have to grade them; what we see is that they try really, really hard, but yes, every now and then you think: ‘, gosh, did this come out?’ Or: ‘I expected more because it went so well.” (Pioneer 10)

Almost all pioneers focus on assessing the inner and professional development of students over the course of the process through qualitative evaluation methods such as conversations and portfolios. This is time-intensive: “I think anyway that you actually prefer to actually follow that student through the course of how does that student develop now, take that initiative—when does, when doesn’t—and is that getting better? And that also requires a lot of feedback moments throughout the course. So, it just takes a lot more time, energy, and smaller groups of students more personal attention.” (Pioneer 4)

Another limiting factor for transdisciplinary learning concerns the often-mandatory formulation of pre-set learning outcomes. For multiple pioneers, this pre-set characteristic fundamentally undermines unpredictability in learning, which they view as an intrinsic part of transdisciplinary learning.

One more limiting factor relates to the role of students and teachers in TDE. Because of the shift to new (combinations of) learning activities, learning outcomes and assessment compared to traditional monodisciplinary education, the role of both the teacher and the student is shifting: the ‘instructor-to-peer’ relation transforms into a more equal relation. Students’ unfamiliarity with shifting roles seems especially challenging: “For the students, this is also exciting and new. They are not used to this either, and they also really want to hear, ‘you have to do this now and that’s what you’re judged on’. So, they also often find it very well, messy or unclear, while that is part of the learning. And also, their expectation management is really key in this education. Because it is different than what everyone imagines with education.” (Pioneer 11)

At the same time, TDE requires a whole different mindset and skillset of teachers. Pioneers admit that this different teacher’s role might not suit all teachers and clearly requires a shift in professionalization and training: “I also think you need to develop training for that or something; I don’t think you can assume that teachers can just do that all at once.” (Pioneer 2)

Collaboration

Goal

Third, collaboration is a fundamental of TDE. In fact, this entails the process by which many of the returns of TDE (both societal and educational) are realized. After all, many of these returns arise through exchanges between various actors, both in the interaction between practice and academia and between academic disciplines themselves.

Gaining and broadening different perspectives from students and other participants is a goal in transdisciplinary collaboration. Pioneer 3 illustrates this ambition more specifically: “If I just look at the world, now I think, everybody just yells and nobody listens. So, if we start with our own students so we can make everybody a little bit more humble when it comes to valuable knowledge, I think we’ve already gained a lot. That to me could already be kind of an outcome of learning together. That we learn that our perspective is also just one among many.” (Pioneer 3)

Helping factors

Helping factors that support the process of gaining diverse perspectives through collaboration are: building strong relationships and creating a safe environment. Building strong relationships focuses on the quality of the relationships between partners. Strong, and to some extent personal, mutual relationships are considered essential for effective collaboration. Pioneers emphasize the importance of dedicating sufficient time to getting to know one another and building trust, noting that informal interactions can play a valuable role in fostering these connections.

Various types of actions are proposed to build a strong relationship between partners to allow collaboration to flourish. It is seen as crucial to pay attention to the process of ‘stakeholder mapping’ by project organizers to find the right cooperation partners and develop an accurate understanding of everyone’s own position toward the problem during further cooperation. Furthermore, expectation management about the nature of the collaboration is key to ensuring that everyone aligns with the expected mindset and feels prepared for the unpredictability of the process. Next, pioneers find it stimulating to actively conduct dialogues where all participants are treated as equal conversation partners. This approach encourages open conversations, leading to mutual appreciation of each participant’s contribution and responsibility. Another helpful condition is the willingness to learn a common language. In other words, the creation of a mutual understanding of the terminology used in the project across diverse backgrounds and disciplines.

An equally fundamental factor reported to foster collaboration in a transdisciplinary collaboration is the creation of a safe environment in which everyone dares to be vulnerable and transparent. As accurately described by Pioneer 8: “That sense of trust and vulnerability that can emerge when you have a really good connection with people and across the, you know, beyond academia. And that is so stunning. Because you can see people working. Yeah, people put a lot of energy and effort into being able to get there to be present with each other.” (Pioneer 8)

Limiting factors

The pioneers mention two main obstacles to realizing fruitful collaboration in which perspectives can be exchanged. The first is the limited involvement of societal partners in the process, which often results in a client-performer relationship instead of an equal collaborative relationship. If an involved partner spends more time on the project, the collaboration will flourish more, as Pioneer 13 explains:

“You need the working field partners that really, really understand and have a stake in a problematic situation as well, because then they put a lot of effort into it and time and resources. So, for instance, the Prosecution Office really thinks that this project is really important for them. So, if students call them, they always reply. They always make time to have a conversation (…), so it’s about the involvement of the working field partners, and I think that that is based on intrinsic motivation. So, they need to feel this problematic situation as well. Otherwise, it is more for the show.” (Pioneer13)

Additionally, pioneers think that hierarchical relationships can complicate the desired equal and open collaboration: “I think the one problem that I would point to, is that I think in a lot of transdisciplinary work and interdisciplinary work, what you see is that there is not always the will to genuinely work together and that has a lot to do(…) with hierarchies of power and extractive relationships. Where certain people feel that they’re more entitled to certain things than others, and so I think that’s a space of real danger when it comes to learning.” (Pioneer 8)

Organizability

Goal

The fourth and last section of this results chapter concerns the overarching challenge of developing and implementing TDE: organizability. To reach the desired outcomes of TDE regarding societal impact, learning and collaboration, all pioneers stress the need to safeguard TDE in the education system. This consists of organizing TDE in a sustainable way at both the course level and a more general level within the higher education system.

Helping factors

According to most pioneers, a pioneer’s intrinsic motivation and enthusiasm for TDE form a key supporting factor for realizing a project. Genuine conviction in the value of TDE from these pioneers, often teachers themselves, creates perseverance, which is often experienced as an essential personal resource for overcoming continuous organizational obstacles: “If we had to ensure that it was embedded in a course, we would take the initiative ourselves, do the research, and have those conversations. That is why we always refer to it as quite a bottom-up initiative because we believe that if we had done it differently and immediately gone to the top, it would never have happened.” (Pioneer 9)

Furthermore, various pioneers credit the regular availability of temporary innovation funds in education as important enablers of their TDE. These funds tend to show an interest in TDE and provide exploration space, which creates the necessary time and means to develop a solid TDE initiative: “Then, we started with an amount of innovation money from the college board. And so, then we could also start trying out, trial and error, what works, what doesn’t work and so on.” (Pioneer 12)

In most cases, TDE is embedded in the university’s educational program as a minor or an elective course (intracurricular, although often still outside of students’ major track) or as an honors-like program that occurs outside of ‘regular’ education (extracurricular). Organizing TDE extracurricular activities significantly fewer organizational limitations related to educational requirements, scheduling, and space management for all participants. A hybrid off- and online learning framework further increases the flexibility of scheduling, making it easier for societal participants to join on a frequent basis. Despite the importance that different pioneers attribute to ‘starting small’ and ensuring enough ‘exploration space’, the majority of these pioneers indicate the value of having a wider support base within the institute to embed TDE in a sustainable manner: “To make sure that we don’t just have a team of five teachers who understand the ethos of the project and what it’s trying to accomplish but also a larger group that we can turn to.” (Pioneer 1) This support also helps convince people to join a TDE initiative and strengthen its base: “If there is even one supervisor team lead or whoever is a senior who says. Let’s at least try this; that space is created for you. It doesn’t have to be much, an opening that also helps a lot, otherwise it’s a lot to ask people working in traditional environments.” (Pioneer 5)

Limiting factors

The scarcity of resources is considered a challenge for all pioneers, although to varying degrees. The most fundamental obstacle to accessing resources is the monodisciplinary character of many education faculties, which one pioneer refers to as ‘mini companies’ within one institute, with their own money supplies. This obstructs collaboration between multiple faculties and a shared feeling of responsibility to fund TDE.

Therefore, because TDE is often not embedded in ‘regular education’, there is a frequent need to acquire external funds. However, external funding also requires “A lot of lobbying, and it’s also a lot of time spent on convincing the people who are funding it and coming up with the results.” (Pioneer 2) The short-term nature of many funds affects the security of TDE initiatives, as illustrated by Pioneer 1: “The challenge will be how to sustain it when the one or two-year project funding dries up.” (Pioneer 1)

Another form of resource scarcity refers to the time TDE requires from higher education teachers, who are generally already short on time and resources. This does apply to the actual teaching and, even more, the organization phase, which requires considerable time-intensive customization and improvisation: “Well, what remains quite difficult is the teachers. The teachers simply have little room, so for those who want to invest time in this—since we have said that this part comes from education—it’s quite challenging for them to actually free up time. Often, it’s an enthusiastic teacher, but not necessarily their supervisor, saying, ‘Sure, just take some extra time to really get this off the ground.’” (Pioneer 11)

Another challenge related to resources revolves around the relationship with partners from outside of academia. Multiple pioneers struggle with sharing financial responsibilities in a fair way: “That is always a discussion, right? What do you do? Should you pay them [the partners]? Should they pay you? If have seen all variants come along” (Pioneer 11). Decisions on this topic not only impact mutual power relations and expectations—although pioneers sometimes find it hard to estimate how these expectations are impacted exactly—but also depend on the type of societal partner involved—for example, NGOs tend to have fewer resources available than commercial companies.

From a broader administration perspective, pioneers see the Dutch higher education system as a mainly standardized and inflexible system. As Pioneer 4 points out, this system entails a focus on educating large groups of students, which becomes challenging in the context of TDE. “If you want a very honest answer, with 200 students in a lecture hall, transdisciplinary learning… Yes, it depends a bit on your definition of transdisciplinary learning. But I would say: that is not possible.” (Pioneer 4) Furthermore, the rigid planning of education in fixed timeslots makes it challenging to schedule TDE that fits all participants and for the proposed project: “What is needed, I think, is a lot more flexibility from the education system. Which isn’t necessarily the case right now; it is quite rigid. Not necessarily within our institute—we are really trying to prepare for it—but in general. It is very fixed in eight-week courses with learning objectives, so it is all quite rigid.” (Pioneer 4)

A final obstacle to implementing TDE across the institute is an experienced general skepticism about the development of TDE, which one pioneer blames on fear: “So I think fear of resistance to change; a lot of people also like to leave things mostly as they are, even though something may not be good, and they recognize it.” (Pioneer 6)

Discussion

This study aimed to answer the following research question: ‘What are the goals of pioneers in transdisciplinary education, and which factors did they experience as hindering or helping in achieving these goals?’. Those pioneers are the people who developed, implemented, coordinated and/or taught transdisciplinary education in research universities and universities of applied sciences all over the Netherlands. Four main goals were distilled. Three goals directly relate to the educational setting itself: contributing to social impact, collaborating with various stakeholders and learning, for which the pioneers mostly focus on the students. The fourth goal, ‘organizability’, relates to the ambition to sustain this type of education within higher education.

For each goal, pioneers identified factors that either hindered or facilitated progress. The distinction between hindering and helping factors should not be viewed too rigidly, as the absence of a helping factor can itself become a limitation, and the removal of obstacles can be seen as a helping action. However, this relationship is not equally applicable to all factors.

Not all facilitating factors are equally critical for achieving TDE goals—some may not become significant obstacles if they are absent. Similarly, not all obstacles have the same fundamental impact on the implementation of TDE. However, further research is needed to assess the relative importance of these factors.

Lessons learned

To ensure that the findings of this study have practical relevance for higher education, the identified helping and hindering factors for achieving TDE goals have been translated into concrete lessons learned at three levels: the micro, meso, and macro levels. Each level includes lessons learned linked to one or more goals of TDE, providing actionable insights for different stakeholders. This layered approach highlights the complex interplay of factors that shape the development and implementation of transdisciplinary education.

The micro level focuses on the classroom context, addressing participants directly involved in TDE programs—such as teachers, coordinators, and coaches.

The meso level pertains to the institutional context, targeting curriculum organizers, educational developers, and managers. Here, the lessons learned provide guidance for shaping organizational practices and structures that support TDE.

Finally, the macro level relates to broader systemic influences on education involving stakeholders such as ministries of education, national educational networks, and other policy-shaping bodies. The lessons at this level emphasize strategic considerations for fostering the adoption and sustainability of TDE across higher education.

Micro (classroom)

Set up a common goal

To improve societal impact

Our study shows that defining a common goal helps in creating societal impact through TDE. This result is in line with previous research that highlights the importance of co-defining goals in TDE (e.g., Horn et al., 2023; Muhar et al., 2006). This process requires time and space for participants to reflect on their interests, reconcile differences, and build a shared vision. A key challenge is balancing community needs, scientific goals, and educational outcomes (Muhar et al., 2006). In order to effectively establish common goals, developing shared mental models can be beneficial. A shared mental model refers to a shared understanding at the team level and can be defined as the awareness of team and task aspects that are necessary for effective collaboration (Fransen, 2011). In this process, team members negotiate how to collaborate and how to interpret complex issues, while identifying their shared values (De Hei & Audenaerde, 2023).

Thus, we suggest taking enough time with the participants of a TDE program to set up a common goal, supported by the development of shared mental models, so everyone is on the same page.

Create a safe environment

To improve collaboration and learning

According to the interview pioneers, the creation of a safe environment fosters effective transdisciplinary collaboration and offers possibilities for learning. These results fit within the concept of psychological safety: a climate in which people feel free to express relevant thoughts, ask questions, seek help, and acknowledge mistakes without fear of negative consequences for their self-image, status, or career (Edmondson, 1999). Psychological safety seems crucial in transdisciplinary teams, as it fosters an environment where all participants—especially students—feel comfortable sharing their perspectives, asking questions, and making mistakes without fear of judgment. The absence of psychological safety hinders creativity and team learning. This underlines the importance of emphasizing the creation of a safe environment to enhance collaboration and learning.

Although there is some research on how psychological safety can be facilitated in interdisciplinary science teams (Jones et al., 2024), studies on psychological safety in transdisciplinary teams involving students are lacking. This research gap highlights the need for further investigation into how fostering psychological safety in TDE can enhance the collaboration and learning of all parties involved.

Be curious about transformative learning

To improve learning

The type of learning described by our pioneers aligns strongly with the characteristics of transformative learning, which is an increasingly emphasized concept in sustainability education and particularly in transdisciplinary contexts (Pearce et al., 2022). Our pioneers mention exposure to real-world experiences as an essential learning activity to trigger transformation. This is in line with multiple calls for transformative approaches for TDE (Chang et al., 2020; McGregor, 2017; Mossman, 2018). Transformative learning is recognized as crucial for catalyzing social transformations toward sustainability by changing mindsets, assumptions and perspectives (Aboytes & Barth, 2022).

Our results show this type of learning could present challenges to teachers. While Veltman et al. (2024) noted that learning with wicked problems requires new teaching strategies and pedagogies, the interviewed pioneers also note that teaching in TDE requires additional training and a shifting mindset. Therefore, to embrace transformative learning approaches in TDE, we suggest further research into the professionalization of teaching staff.

Mind the transdisciplinary assessment

To improve learning

According to the pioneers in this study, assessment in TDE faces several challenges, including the lack of clarity regarding suitable methods and the questions of who is assessed and who is assessing. Traditional assessments often target individual students and are less focused on collectivity and reflectivity. This contrasts with the collaborative and iterative nature of transdisciplinary learning, where mutual learning among all participants—including societal partners—is central (Möbjork, 2010). As highlighted by Swanenberg et al. (2024), an effective assessment framework should align with the “why,” “what,” and “how” of transdisciplinary learning, ensuring that it captures collective contributions and fosters reflexivity. However, little is yet known about the concrete operationalization of these dimensions in practice.

Recent studies have only begun to address them more explicitly. One promising example is the student-devised assessment (SDA) (Meyer et al., 2025), in which students produce an artifact in a chosen medium through which their overarching message is best articulated according to them, accompanied by a written account explaining the conceptual and methodological basis of their work. This form of assessment challenges students to exercise ownership of their education and supports more inclusive, collaborative and meaningful assessment (Meyer et al. 2025). In addition, an approach that could be considered in practice is an assessment that is carried out by a teacher not directly involved in the TDE project. Although we did not find studies on this approach in the context of TDE, it may be relevant for institutions aiming to enhance equity in assessment practices.

To conclude, in TDE it is important to carefully consider the “why,” “what,” and “how” of assessment and to mind the assessment requirements, the guarding of equality and inclusivity between the participants.

Meso (Institute)

Create sustainable relationships between institutes and societal partners

To improve collaboration and sustainable impact

Sustainable collaborations are essential for initiating TDE programs and achieving societal impact, as they can build upon prior results, which solidifies expectation management and knowledge can be carried on. However, as pioneers mention, many TDE initiatives rely on temporary funding and are driven by passionate staff members who, in addition to their research and teaching responsibilities, take on stakeholder management. This increases workload and renders collaborations vulnerable; if a key individual leaves, the entire partnership may be jeopardized. We encourage all TDE partners to cultivate sustainable and mutually beneficial relationships between educational institutions and societal partners.

Soften rigid learning outcomes

To improve societal impact and learning

According to the pioneers, rigid learning outcomes can form a hindering factor for two goals of TDE: creating societal impact and learning. Societal impact through product-related outputs (such as reports, publications, and prototypes) is constrained by pre-defined learning outcomes, as achieving these outcomes may require different activities than those that could result in product-related outputs. Societal impact through process-related output can emerge when participants learn from each other through methodological, organizational, and social experiences (Binder, 2015). Our results show that the latter are unpredictable yet essential for transdisciplinary learning.

However, learning outcomes, rooted in outcome-oriented frameworks on learning and teaching (Budwig & Alexander, 2020), emphasize predefined results and measurable competencies. While enhancing transparency and accountability, this approach limits flexibility and leaves little room for the emergent, process-oriented learning essential to TDE (Bammer et al., 2023; McGregor, 2017). In transdisciplinary contexts, where students work on complex, real-world problems, unanticipated learning moments often arise (Horn et al., 2024)—experiences that predefined outcomes fail to accommodate (Bohm, 2024). At the same time, outcomes that are too generic risk disengagement, as students struggle to see their relevance (St Jorre & Oliver, 2018). The challenge, therefore, is to formulate learning outcomes that acknowledge the unpredictable nature of TDE while remaining concrete enough to provide direction. To better support TDE, we suggest that higher education institutes could benefit from enriching outcome-oriented models with approaches that emphasize the learning process itself.

Connect the institutional silos

to improve the organization of TDE and stimulate collaboration

The often-used metaphor of a ‘siloed higher education system’ (for example: Evans, 2015; Klein, 2013) also reflects the experiences of pioneers in this study. Often, disciplinary units (departments or faculties) from one higher education system function as different—in the words of a pioneer—‘mini-companies’, each with its own budgets, curricula, schedules and responsibilities. Efforts to collaborate and jointly organize programs are often hindered by the structure of higher education, which focuses on disciplinary units, making TDE difficult to organize (Evans, 2015; Klein, 2013). Furthermore, traditional academic departments, organized around specific disciplines, can create silos that hinder collaboration across fields. This results in administrative and logistical obstacles, such as reluctance among departments to take responsibility for and allocate resources to an external transdisciplinary education project. The possibility of starting to make connections between the silos could help to overcome organizational problems and foster collaboration between departments.

Start small, find support

To improve the organization of TDE

The implementation of TDE at the institutional level faces various barriers. Our results show that starting small—with enthusiastic initiators, external funding, and extracurricular activities—proves essential. This approach provides the experimental time and space needed to create a solid foundation for TDE programs. Over time, this foundation can support sustainable integration into the institution with adequate financial and organizational support.

This finding corresponds with the conclusions of Tijsma et al. (2022), who state that bottom-up and top-down commitment are both essential for the sustainable implementation of TDE. It also corresponds to the general literature on educational innovations that underlines the importance of providing time and space for experimentation (Smith, 2012). We suggest starting small while simultaneously building top-down support.

Macro (higher education)

Find space in the cracks of the institutional concrete

to improve the organization of TDE

Our findings concerning barriers to implementing TDE align with the findings of various studies demonstrating how the rigidity of the higher education system obstructs innovative education formats (NVAO, 2024). A recently published report by the Flemish accreditation organization NVAO (2024), ‘Systeembrede analyze futureproof curricula’ (System-wide Analysis of Futureproof Curricula), captures these obstructions with the term institutional concrete. The report specifically highlights how rigid institutional and governmental regulations are experienced as hindering the swift and flexible design of curricula in higher education.

The hindering factors in our study show a similar tension between the need for flexibility to fulfill TDE pioneers’ goals and the metaphorical institutional concrete existing of organizational silo structures, standardized assessment methods and requirements around the formulation of preset learning outcomes.

However, it is crucial not to let this institutional rigidity deter you, as the NVAO (2024) also stresses. An essential step proposed by NVAO (2024) is to map the fundamental conditions for implementing educational innovation, alongside the unchangeable elements within which these innovations must be realized.

Our results provide an initial exploration of these foundational and contextual conditions for transdisciplinary higher education specifically.

A shift in mindset is necessary to reach all the outlined goals of TDE: creating social impact, effective collaboration, learning and implementing this in a sustainable manner.

Ultimately, our findings justify raising fundamental questions, both in research and in practice, about the compatibility of TDE with the existing structures of our current higher education system. While adjusting to current frameworks may help initially, our study suggests that meaningful change requires broader shifts in higher educational cultures. As Horn states, there is a need for wider and deeper changes in organizational (and epistemic) culture (Horn, 2024). Additionally, Budwig and Alexander (2020) state that higher education support systems should promote transdisciplinary education to view higher education as a common good. We invite professionals at the micro, meso-, and macro-level to open the dialogue to critically look at the current role of higher education in these critical times where complex societal problems are increasing.

Limitations and directions for future research

The scope of this study is limited due to our reliance on our own network, the Comenius network, and conferences. Consequently, this approach may have resulted in the omission of potentially significant cases, which could highlight alternative lessons learned. However, the interviewed pioneers aligned most of the goals and hindering and helping factors. Furthermore, the results are derived from a diverse range of TDE projects across both universities and universities of applied sciences throughout the Netherlands. The case studies also shared comparable characteristics—for instance, each project started on a small scale and regarded this as advantageous—so insights from large-scale initiatives or less successful small-scale projects are not represented, which may limit the generalizability of our findings.

The results focus on Dutch higher education, and the findings may not translate directly to other regions or educational systems with different cultural, financial, or institutional frameworks. Our findings provide insights into the goals of TDE and the factors that hinder and help the development and implementation of TDE, as experienced by pioneers who developed these initiatives.

In this research, solely the pioneers, who are educators and organizers of the program, were interviewed. While their insights are highly valuable, students and societal partners might offer additional perspectives on specific enablers and barriers of TDE. For example, regarding the lessons learned: create a safe environment and mind transdisciplinary assessment, the perspective of students would be valuable to understand what they would need to learn in a transdisciplinary environment. In the lesson learned ‘create sustainable relationships between institutes and societal partners’, the perspective of the societal partner could be of great value. Future research could include these perspectives from students and partners outside educational institutes to capture a more comprehensive range of perspectives, which would provide a fuller understanding of the transdisciplinary process. This explorative study is a first step towards developing a framework with factors that help and hinder the development of transdisciplinary higher education. While the results do not provide a theoretical interpretation, the study sets out a reasonable and helpful agenda for future research. A promising next step could involve assessing the relative weight of the various factors, followed by designing activities that address them, ultimately providing a practical guide for leveraging facilitators and managing barriers in TDE initiatives.

Conclusion

This study highlights the goals, helping factors, and barriers experienced by pioneers in implementing transdisciplinary education (TDE) in Dutch higher education. Four central goals emerged: achieving societal impact, fostering collaboration, facilitating learning, and ensuring organizational sustainability. The study presents the hindering and helping factors for achieving these goals at different levels—micro, meso, and macro. These insights provide a foundation for optimizing the implementation of TDE in higher education and contributing to the development of a comprehensive framework for TDE practices.

At the micro level, by setting up a common goal, psychological safety and transformative learning experiences were identified as key enablers, while rigid and traditional assessment practices hindered innovation. At the meso level, sustainable relationships with non-academic societal partners and starting small while searching for top-down support were essential for embedding TDE. However, rigid learning outcomes and institutional silos posed significant challenges. At the macro level, barriers such as rigid governmental regulations limited the sustainability of TDE initiatives.

While challenges remain in developing, implementing, and sustaining TDE in higher education, this study indicates possible approaches to address and manage these challenges.

As TDE is increasingly recognized as a means to address complex global challenges, it prompts a critical dialogue on the role of higher education and the necessary institutional transformations to fulfill this responsibility.