Environmental Science and Policy 105 (2020) 1–10

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Science and Policy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci

Assessing the quality of collaboration in transdisciplinary sustainability T

research: Farmers’ enthusiasm to work together for the reduction of post-
harvest dairy losses in Kenya
Maria J. Restrepoa,*, Margareta A. Leleaa,b, Brigitte A. Kaufmanna,c
a
German Institute for Tropical and Subtropical Agriculture (DITSL), Steinstr. 19, 37213 Witzenhausen, Germany
b
Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, University of Kassel, Nordbahnhofstr. 1a, 37213 Witzenhausen, Germany
c
Social Ecology of Tropical and Subtropical Land-Use Systems, Institute of Agricultural Sciences in the Tropics (Hans-Ruthenberg-Institute), University of Hohenheim,
70599 Stuttgart, Germany

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Transdisciplinary sustainability research (TDR) is characterised by methodologies that support a rich and direct
Transdisciplinary sustainability research interaction between academics and other societal stakeholders. However, it is not to be taken for granted that
Intrinsic motivation societal stakeholders are interested in collaboration, or that researchers have the skills to put participative
Collaborative learning methods into action. While there are several frameworks available to evaluate transdisciplinary research, the
Self-determination theory
quality of participants’ engagement is often neglected during evaluations. The aim of this paper is to empirically
Smallholder dairy farmers
Kenya
assess the intrinsic motivation of participating societal stakeholders to engage in TDR by pairing Self-
Determination Theory with Poggi’s conceptual analysis of enthusiasm. We argue that the quality of collaboration
between academic and other societal stakeholders is reflected by the latter’s enthusiasm to participate, and that
this supports the co-creation of outputs that societal stakeholders can put into practice. Two smallholder dairy
farmer groups in Nakuru County, Kenya, reflected on their engagement in a collaborative learning process (CLP)
that started in 2013. The goal of the collaboration was to co-develop contextualized innovations. We found that
giving more voice and increasing representation and power of farmers in the research process sparked their
enthusiasm, while a sense of progress and success sustained it. The strengthened sense of autonomy, competence
and relatedness associated with intrinsic motivation helped participants invest in co-creating research outputs
that have direct effects on their production systems. Especially for agricultural research for development
spanning between Global North and Global South contexts, sensitivity to encouraging participants’ intrinsic
motivation can contribute towards decolonizing research methodologies and shifting more power towards the
societal stakeholders that these projects are meant to serve. We conclude that assessing participants’ intrinsic
motivation and enthusiasm helps to determine the quality of collaboration. A possible implication could also be
the differentiation between methodological approaches employed in TDR that deeply engage societal stake­
holders for knowledge integration and co-production, and those that do so only at a superficial level.

1. Introduction
As transdisciplinary sustainability research (TDR) entails research
collaborations with multiple stakeholders to deal with complex, socially
relevant problems (Walter et al., 2007:326), it has been put forward as
a research approach to promote sustainable change. The three phases of
TDR, as defined by Lang et al. (2012:27-27) are: (i) joint framing of the
problem and building a research team composed of different kinds of
scientists and societal stakeholders1 ; (ii) co-producing solution-or­
iented and applicable knowledge through collaborative research; and
(iii) (re) integrating and applying the knowledge that had been pro­
duced in both scientific and societal practice. Hence, TDR promotes

Corresponding author.
⁎

E-mail address: m.restrepo@ditsl.org (M.J. Restrepo).

1
We debated using the term "non-academic actors" and also other options to describe participants and other types of co-researchers that are brought together for
knowledge integration and co-creation within TDR. However, defining the co-researchers/participants of TDR by what they are not does not match the argument of
this paper to support the integration of mechanisms within research that support intrinsic motivation and enthusiasm. For this reason, we consistently use the term
“societal stakeholders” in this paper. As academics are certainly also societal stakeholders – the first time we describe it as “researchers and other societal stake­
holders”. The term “societal stakeholders” also maintains congruency with other TDR literature.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.12.004
Received 13 April 2019; Received in revised form 9 December 2019; Accepted 10 December 2019
Available online 18 December 2019
1462-9011/ © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/).
M.J. Restrepo, et al.
sustainable change with methods that give societal stakeholders deci­
sion-making power in the research process and that integrate and ex­
pand their knowledge and capabilities, leading to improved action.
Although the success of TDR is influenced by the participation of
societal stakeholders, the intensity of participants’ involvement varies
between different TDR projects (Höppner et al., 2007; Angelstam et al.,
2013). Moreover, it is not automatic or self-understood that various
societal stakeholders are interested in such collaboration, or that re­
searchers have the skills to encourage and facilitate active participation
(Wiek et al., 2012). Indeed, scholars identify lack of motivation on the
part of participants’ as a limiting factor for project delivery in TDR
projects (Talwar et al., 2011; Lang et al., 2012; Mattor et al., 2014;
Polk, 2014; and Schmidt and Pröpper, 2017).
There are several frameworks available to evaluate TDR (Blackstock
et al., 2007; Walter et al., 2007; Holzer et al., 2018), and meta-analyses
to critically examine its implementation and outcomes (Brandt et al.,
2013; Polk, 2014; Zscheischler and Rogga, 2015). However, partici­
pants’ motivation to engage in TDR is often neglected during evalua­
tions (Höppner et al., 2007; Ferguson et al., 2017). Until now little is
known about the intrinsic motivation that compels societal stakeholders
to participate in TDR.
The aim of this paper is to empirically assess societal stakeholders’
intrinsic motivation to engage in TDR employing the conceptual cate­
gories of autonomy, competence and relatedness. We argue that the
quality of collaboration between academic and other societal stake­
holders is reflected by their enthusiasm to participate, and this in turn is
influenced by the methodological approach used to enact TDR. We use
the following research questions to structure our analysis: i) how does
collaborative learning as a methodological approach enhance the in­
trinsic motivation and enthusiasm of societal stakeholders to collabo­
rate in a TDR, i.e. which methods encourage them to spend energy,
imagination, and ideas to engage? ii) how does the collaborative
learning process create outputs that societal stakeholders can directly
put into practice? We further reflect upon the implications of nego­
tiating positionalities of researchers with societal stakeholders in the
Global South and how this further fuels the necessity for designing TDR
that allows for deep engagement and that leverages power to societal
stakeholders to take on the role as co-researchers.
2. Self-determination theory, intrinsic motivation and enthusiasm
Self-Determination Theory (Deci and Ryan, 1985) is a broad and
widely applied theory of motivation (Ryan and Deci, 2019). It relies on
more than 40 years of empirical research to understand motivational
processes across multiple domains, methods, and levels of analysis
(Vansteenkiste et al., 2010; Ryan and Deci, 2019). In contrast to a be­
haviourist focus on outer sources of motivation, SDT focuses on the
individual, and how their perception of circumstances support or sup­
press an individual’s motivation. Hence, SDT re-frames the way moti­
vation is understood and approached. As explained by Rigby and Ryan
(2018:136), “…in shifting from a focus on external contingencies to internal
experiences, SDT shifts the traditional paradigm of how motivation itself
should be understood. Most approaches to measuring motivation simply
assume someone has “more” or “less” of it, essentially treating motivation as
a unidimensional resource. Instead, SDT describes multiple kinds of moti­
vation based on the various “drivers” or motivational forces underlying a
person’s behaviour”.
As a motivational theory, SDT addresses what energizes people's
behavior and moves them into action. SDT explains human motivation
as arising from either external sources or from oneself (Ryan and Deci,
2000). Extrinsically motivated persons are those that engage in actions
pursuing external rewards, or avoiding punishments, hence they are
motivated by “carrots or sticks”. Intrinsically motivated persons are
those that engage in actions because they are pleasurable or interesting
2
Environmental Science and Policy 105 (2020) 1–10
to them. In relation to agricultural development, Leeuwis and van den
Ban (2004) also explain the reasons for farmer participation as being
driven by both external and internal motivations. For example, farmer
participation can be driven by external incentives (e.g. farm inputs,
access to credit, per diems). Their participation can also be driven by
internal motivations, for instance, when participants want to gain
knowledge and skills or want to network and have contact with others.
As expressed by Ryan and Deci (2000:70), intrinsic motivation reflects
“the inherent tendency to seek out novelty and challenges, to extend and
exercise one's capacities, to explore, and to learn”. SDT specifically argues
that there are three basic psychological needs that underlie intrinsic
motivation: autonomy, competence and relatedness. Autonomy refers
to volition, i.e. the act of willing, choosing, or resolving; competence is
defined as the “propensity to have an effect on the environment as well as to
attain valued outcomes within it” and relatedness as the “desire to feel
connected to others” (Deci and Ryan, 2000:231).
There is not a unified definition of enthusiasm in scientific literature
(Kunter et al., 2011). Indeed, the meaning of enthusiasm is ambiguous,
and it is difficult to measure accurately. However, studies working with
SDT define enthusiasm as an emotional construct in the domain of in­
trinsic motivation (Deci and Ryan, 1985; Deci et al., 1999; Kunter et al.,
2011). Enthusiasm is defined by Russell and Ison (2000) as a desire to
engage with practices that draw on the energy, imagination, and ideas
of an individual or group. In line with this, Poggi et al. (2007:412)
defines enthusiasm as “an emotion of the same family of joy, felt when an
agent believes she will very likely achieve a goal she is pursuing because she
has the necessary internal resources to achieve it. The function of enthusiasm
is to enhance energy and persistence in goal pursuit.” Poggi et al. (2007:15)
also states that the fact “that enthusiasm is felt most often with other people
depends on that the self-attribution of power is higher if we are many of us”.
In fact, the outcome of the conceptual analysis underlying Poggi
et al.ös (2007) definition of enthusiasm shows that the expression of
enthusiasm is also linked to the satisfaction of the three basic psycho­
logical needs. Autonomy is related to pursuing one’s own goals, com­
petence is related to the necessary internal resource, and through re­
latedness enthusiasm can enhance the self-attribution of power.
Therefore, pairing SDT with Poggi’s conceptual analysis of enthusiasm,
we link both intrinsic motivation and enthusiasm to the fulfilment of
the three basic physiological needs. This understanding provides a
useful lens for assessing motivation to engage in TDR.
Within food and farming systems, SDT has been used to assess partici­
pation in (i) the Slow Food movement (Reznickova and Zepeda, 2016); (ii)
Community Supported Agriculture (Zepeda et al., 2013); (iii) a Farmer Field
School (Charatsari et al., 2017); and (iv) sustainable farming initiatives
(Triste et al., 2018). To our knowledge, this research is the first which
employs SDT and the conceptual categories of autonomy, competence and
relatedness to empirically assess the quality of TDR collaborations.
3. Transdisciplinary sustainability research: collaborative
learning process with two farmer groups in Nakuru County
As part of the German-African TDR project, RELOAD, scientists
spanning social-ecological sciences, geography, animal science, and
agricultural engineering, engaged with societal stakeholders involved
in Nakuru County, Kenya’s dairy value chains. The umbrella TDR pro­
ject aimed at increasing the amount and quality of food by reducing
losses and adding value. This paper focuses on an on-going collabora­
tive learning process (CLP) with two dairy farmer groups composed of
20 farmers each. The period between 2013 and 2016 was facilitated by
the first author. The goal of the collaboration was to co-develop con­
textual innovations to reduce milk losses, both in quantity and quality.
The CLP consisted of four interconnected phases: establish the colla­
boration; a process of dialogue; a process of discovery; and applying the
new knowledge (Restrepo et al., 2014). In response to the topics put
M.J. Restrepo, et al. Environmental Science and Policy 105 (2020) 1–10

forward by the participants during the collaboration, different aca­

- Other researchers from the on-going

- Other groups from different villages
- 2 Farmer groups (20 farmers each)
demic and non-academic actors were brought in during various phases

- New cycles of the Collaborative

- Peer-to-Peer exchange sessions

Learning process implemented

of the process (see more details in Restrepo et al., 2018). Table 1 shows

- Competence and relatedness

- Multi-stakeholder platform
how the CLP was enacted as a methodological approach, specifying
activities used, fieldwork duration, actors involved, main outputs, and
Applying new knowledge

- Learning field trips

the psychological needs that were fulfilled in the different phases.
During the phase of establishing the collaboration, the relation be­
tween the two bottom-up initiatives (Lare Livelihoods Improvement

TD project
Community-Based Organisation and Mukinduri Dairy Self-Help Group)
on-going

and researchers was institutionalized. Farmers had the status of co-re­

searchers, i.e. they had voice in the process of defining, designing,
testing, implementing and evaluating sustainable solutions for jointly

increased economic benefits, and a feeling of being better prepared

defined real-world problems (Restrepo et al., 2018).

Associated benefits include healthier cows, reduction in workload,

During the dialogue phase, when knowledge was integrated, group
Innovative farmers making silage, producing fodder, with zero
members and researchers arrived at a shared understanding of con­
textualized sustainability challenges related to dairy production in the area.
- Farmer-led experimentation and monitoring activities

grazing units, and keeping records of farm activities

A collaborative learning process as a flexible methodological approach: methods, fieldwork time-period, actors, and outputs (modified from Restrepo et al., 2018).

The analysis of the problematic situation consisted of (i) participatory

photography2 ; (ii) re-construction of farmers’ rationale when performing
their farming activities based on second-order cybernetics (Restrepo et al.,
- Mid and end of farmer-led experimentation

80 % average increase in milk production

2016); (iii) milk quality analysis; and (iv) milk production and commer­
cialization co-inquiry. On-farm milk losses were defined by all participating
2 Farmer groups (20 farmers each)

actors as the difference between potential and actual milk yield. A joint
Dairy company’s representatives
- Peer-to-Peer exchange sessions

strategy was developed to test different ideas to improve milk quality within
Competence and relatedness
to cope with the dry season

the specific constraints, after which the development of an action plan was
Social-ecological scientist
- Sharing stories of change

facilitated (Restrepo et al., 2018). Groups had the opportunity to apply for
self-managed innovation funds using a video proposal (Richardson-
Ngwenya et al., 2019a, 2019b).
Through the discovery phase, when knowledge was co-created,
Translator

farmers were able to fill knowledge gaps and to develop context-specific

12 months
Discovery

innovations to improve activities associated with their challenges. It

consisted of (i) peer-to-peer exchange sessions about silage making,
-
-
-
-

-
-
-

different types of fodder production, construction and maintenance of

zero-grazing housing units, and keeping records; (ii) farmer-led ex­
application for self-managed innovation funds
- Joint problem formulation, action plan, and

perimentation; (iii) the implementation of participatory monitoring and

- Milk production and commercialization co-

Social-ecological scientists and Geographer

- Re-construction of farmers’ rationale when

- Applying for innovation funds using video

evaluation activities (e.g. keeping milk production records, testing milk

Animal and dairy scientists from local

density, and mastitis incidence); and (iv) sharing stories of change.

2 Farmer groups (20 farmers each)
performing their farming activities

During the phase applying the new knowledge, group members

implemented their contextualized innovations on a wider scale. This
- Participatory photography

phase, led by the farmers’ groups, is on-going. For example, the

Mukinduri group has since applied for a third round of farmer-managed
- Milk quality analysis

innovation funds, and entered into a new discovery phase on resource

use improvement by pilot testing a small biogas digester that turns
universities
Translator-

cows’ manure into cooking gas. Additionally, their new practices are
- Autonomy
proposal
inquiry

expanding to neighbouring groups for broader societal impact.

4 months
Dialogue

-
-
-
-

4. Materials and methods

- Reciprocal selection process of

- 2 Farmer groups (20 farmers

Farmers’ perspectives on the CLP were documented twice during the

- Initiation of partnership for

- Develop clear benefits and

- Autonomy and relatedness

- Social-ecological scientist

- MoU for common action

discovery phase when farmers implemented their own experiments

farmers and researchers
Establish the collaboration

(February and November 2015). Given that SDT has not been used
- Extension officer

before in the assessment of TDR collaborations, we chose an ex­

responsibilities
collaboration

ploratory research design to answer our research questions. To assess

- Translator

the fulfilment of basic psychological needs, we used different qualita­

tive inquiry methods that stimulated group members to narrate events
each)
3 month

that they considered relevant (Sheldon et al., 2001). Overall this ana­
lysis is based on 12 semi-structured interviews using critical incident
questions related to farmers’ own motivation and satisfaction3, 5
Psychological needs fulfilled
Collaborative learning phase

Field work duration

2
Process which allows people to express themselves and “tell stories” through
pictures and words. It gives “some degree of power back to subjects in the sense that
enthusiasm
Assessment of

they could use photography as a means of `telling their own stories’ through the
photographs they took” (Markwell, 2000:92).
Methods

Outputs

3
For instance, farmers were asked to narrate an event from the collaborative
Table 1

Actors

learning process with which they were satisfied and one in which they were not
satisfied.

3
M.J. Restrepo, et al.
narrative interviews4, and two group sessions using the Most Significant
Change technique (MSC) with 33 farmers5 . Additionally we conducted
participatory scoring of benefits from the farmer-led experimentation
process using a five-point scale. The percentage of farmers participating
in each data collection method is shown in Table 2.
The duration of the interviews was between 45 and 90 min, while
the MSC sessions lasted approximately 120 min. With farmers’ per­
mission, each individual interview and group session was audio re­
corded. A total of 18 h of audio recordings were translated and tran­
scribed. Transcripts were read and coded for content analysis using
qualitative data analysis software. Codes were developed deductively
from Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and Poggi et al.ös (2007) con­
ceptual analysis of enthusiasm, and inductively from emergent themes
from the interview data6 (full list of codes in the supplementary ma­
terial).
4.1. Limitations of the analysis
The analysis in this paper focusses on understanding the connection
between the choice of methods in TDR and societal stakeholders’ in­
trinsic motivation to engage in the collaboration. Motivation of an in­
dividual to engage in an activity is driven both by intrinsic and extrinsic
motivators. Activities based on extrinsic motivators usually stop in the
absence of these motivators, hence their contribution to sustainable
change is limited. For this reason, we paid special attention not to offer
external rewards for farmer participation during fieldwork. However,
we cannot guarantee that farmers still did not expect or hope for it. One
limitation in our analysis is that we did not specifically document ex­
ternal factors that hinder participation per se. Such factors can be a lack
of capitals (e.g. health, money, childcare), lack of time, and can result
from institutional rules and norms. Therefore, we cannot definitively
conclude on the importance of external factors and how they might
have influenced farmers’ engagement beyond what they self-reported in
our evaluation sessions. Furthermore, as a supportive and friendly re­
lationship was built between group members and the first author during
fieldwork, there is a likelihood that farmers emphasized positive as­
pects more than aspects that they did not like; despite being asked for
both. We were aware of this and were therefore very careful not to
overlook factors that hindered the satisfaction of the basic psycholo­
gical needs during data analysis (Table 3). Nevertheless, due to the
nature of the study, we cannot rule out the possibility that critical
participant assessments are underrepresented in the results.
5. Results: enthusiasm, intrinsic motivation and the fulfilment of
the basic psychological needs
We found that farmers’ narrations of relevant events were related to
the activities conducted in the four phases of the CLP, and results are
presented below accordingly. Table 3 gives an overview of how
methods and procedures affected enthusiasm during the CLP, and its
relation to the fulfilment of the three basic psychological needs.
4 tion: ‘It’s a lot of power to learn and to practice’ (32-NI), ‘We were
Narrative interviews are characterized by an open question following ex­
tensive space for the free narration of the interviewee (Jovchelovitch and
Bauer, 2000). The question focused on the experience of farmers as group
members. Based on their narration, the first author posed further questions
related to the main narration.
5
MSC is a participatory tool for collecting, discussing, and selecting stories of
impact and outcomes from actors’ own perspectives (Davies and Dart, 2005:8).
6
E.g. autonomy is reflected in statements of independence, self-choice, or
satisfaction; competence is reflected in statements of proficiency, ability or ac­
quisition of knowledge or skills; relatedness is reflected in statements of em­
pathy, friendship, and connection.
4
Environmental Science and Policy 105 (2020) 1–10
5.1. Establish the collaboration: Reciprocal selection process
In establishing the collaboration, a reciprocal selection process be­
tween farmers and researchers7 was a first step in fostering enthusiasm
and fomenting autonomy (Table 3). Once the collaboration was in­
stitutionalized, the researchers and farmers worked on addressing
power relations such that everyone’s knowledge and experiences were
recognized as important, fulfilling the need for relatedness. One farmer
stated, ‘we are all learning and no one is ahead of others’ (32-NI). After
clarifying roles and responsibilities, the size of Mukinduri’s group be­
came smaller. Farmers expecting external rewards (e.g. material sup­
port) left, leaving only those willing to take the risk of embarking on a
learning process. One farmer remarked, ‘we did not know that there is a
way you can learn, even if the person [researcher] does not give you
anything [material]… and you get knowledge’ (39-SSI).
5.2. Dialogue: integrating knowledge
Through the use of participatory photography, farmers could show
their own perspectives on the problematic situation which boosted a
sense of autonomy. One farmer remarked, ‘It was good that we were
capable of talking about our problems… if our government listened to
our problems it could be of great help. Perhaps this could be done using
a camera just like we did’ (39-SSI). An activity and knowledge analysis
to understand how farmers regulate their milk production system
(Restrepo et al., 2016) revealed necessities and possibilities to improve
based on farmers’ perspectives. This also supported a sense of au­
tonomy. The participatory video proposal process triggered enthusiasm
by promoting relevance, ownership, and commitment. One farmer
stated, ‘everyone participated in planning even if they did not appear in
the shoot [video proposal]… we were happy because we knew we are
part and parcel of that. The video brought us all together because we
had to discuss and agree upon what to do’ (29-SSI).
5.3. Discovery: co-creating knowledge
Farmer-to-farmer exchange sessions grounded farmers’ experiments
enhancing autonomy and competence. A farmer stressed, ‘when we
visited his [peer’s] place I was able to learn a lot in making silage practically.
I saw that I can also make mine because he has already done his…’ (25-
SSI). Exchange sessions permitted farmers to see how peers address
similar problematic situations and how different solutions work. In
these exchange sessions, the roles of farmers were redefined as teachers,
as stated by a farmer, ‘When I was going to teach them I was happy that
I was chosen…’ (29-SSI).
Farmers developed their own trials to test practices to improve milk
quality and to buffer seasonality based on different feeding strategies.
Fig. 1a shows a high percentage of participation, whereby farmers had
the freedom to decide what they wanted to test. On average, 75 % of the
farmers participated in the farmer-led experimentations, and 90 % in
the monitoring activities. This created a sense of ownership of the
process of experimenting that also contributed towards sustaining their
autonomy. The high levels of satisfaction expressed by farmers
(Fig. 1b), evince the enthusiasm that was achieved during the experi­
mentation. Farmers emphasised the value of farmer-led experimenta­
discussing what we have learned and found that knowledge is worth
more than money. Because if it was money we would have shared it
amongst us, spent and forgot’ (38-SSI).
Farmers also tried different monitoring tools to enhance their ability
to observe the outcome of their experiments related to milk production:
record keeping, milk quality testing and early-stage mastitis detection
7
Farmers expressed their wish to enter in a long-term process by proactively
engaging and expressing their desire for a letter of agreement.
M.J. Restrepo, et al.
Table 2
Percentage of farmers participating in each data collection method.
Semi-structured interview Narrative interview
Mukinduri SHG 30 % 15 %
(20 farmers)
Lare CBO 30 % 10 %
(20 farmers)
(using the California Mastitis Test - CMT). Implementing these mon­
itoring activities sustained farmers’ enthusiasm by enhancing their own
competence and by providing tangible short-term results. Farmers also
assessed the impact of different feeding strategies. A farmer explained,
‘I have used the lactometer. I wanted to know whether the density [of the
milk] improved; it went from 26 to 29 and even 31. This was after feeding
the cow with the new fodder’ (40-SSI). After learning new cause–effect
relations from their experiments, farmers changed their practices. As
such, monitoring activities served to sustain enthusiasm as farmers
noticed positive progress: ‘If your cow produces low-density milk, the milk
density rises when you add lucerne [alfalfa]. When you deliver your milk, it
will never be rejected and milk traders gain trust in you…’ (38-SSI).
The results from individual experimentations were shared in­
formally during casual meetings, inspiring a sense of relatedness. For
example, a farmer said, ‘through the group, I have many friends, so in
case I have any problem when we meet, I share it and we exchange
ideas. That has helped me a lot’ (43-MSC-L). Results were also shared
formally during group meetings and through the most significant
change sessions, intensifying the sense of competence through a shared
feeling of progress.
Fig. 2 shows farmers’ perceived gains in autonomy (3 impacts, 24
quotations), competence in milk production (11 impacts, 128 quota­
tions), other acquired knowledge and skills (9 impacts, 101 quotations),
and increased relatedness (6 impacts, 86 quotations). This shows that
farmers valued the benefits of experimenting, creating a sense of pride
and confidence to conduct their own experiments. Farmers explained, ‘I
have seen the benefits of trying new things. I will continue experi­
menting’ (37-SSI), ‘the most important thing I have learned is the
passion to test new things’ (19-SSI).
The most significant changes experienced by farmers also show
which outcomes they valued. In Restrepo et al. (2018), we analysed
farmers’ evaluation of the CLP based on a modified version of Kirkpa­
trick‘s (1998) four-level evaluation of training programs: reaction,
learning, change in actions, and impact. We use these evaluation levels to
structure different outcomes achieved in the CLP and to show how the
different outcomes are related to the fulfilment of these psychological
needs (Table 4). Tangible outcomes were observed from the level of
change in practices. Indeed, due to changes in the management system
of participating farms, milk production increased by an average of 80 %
(Restrepo et al., 2018), with associated benefits expressed as healthier
cows, reduced workload, increased economic benefits, and feeling
better prepared to cope with the dry season.
5.4. Applying new knowledge
In the application phase, enthusiasm continues to be sustained as
farmers reaffirm their competence associated with boosted self-esteem.
For instance, with the objective of selling milk as a group, seven farmers
in Mukinduri’s group pilot-tested a local quality guarantee system. They
explained, ‘We… implemented a system for testing milk quality every
2nd week to avoid rejection’ (41-SSI). In Lare’s group, a farmer im­
plemented silage and fodder in higher quantities such that he was able
to share it. He said, ‘I have done so much silage that during this dry
period I was able to share with my father, as he did not have enough
fodder to feed his cows’ (29-SSI). In both areas the dairy farmer groups
have gained a good reputation, as stated by a farmer, ‘The group is
gaining recognition, and we are spreading our roots…’ (45-SSI).
5
Environmental Science and Policy 105 (2020) 1–10
Most Significant Change Participatory scoring of benefits
100 % 100 %
65 % 100 %
5.5. Tensions: factors reducing enthusiasm
When collaborating in a TDR project, the different actors have a
common goal but still different objectives and needs, i.e researchers
strive to produce scientific results, while farmers value practical action
and implementation. Particularly in the phase of establishing the col­
laboration, trade-offs could be observed regarding the importance of
how the activities were judged differently. Inconsistent participation
from farmers during the dialogue phase reduced enthusiasm, and in­
creased the time needed to come to agreements such as on the pro­
blematic situation and strategies to achieve goals. The time needed in
the sessions also affected enthusiasm, such as when the sessions did not
start at the agreed-upon time or took longer than had been agreed upon
by the group. When this happened, it lowered the feeling of relatedness
and autonomy. The issue of time was contentious.
The Mukinduri group perceived the beginning of the project as ex­
tractive, hence not fulfilling the need for autonomy, because the
methods (individual interviews, focus groups and observations) were
less participatory. They also suspected that the researchers had a
hidden agenda as it was their first time working as co-researchers.
During the discovery phase, unsuccessful past experiences (e.g.
making silage) and perceived risks (e.g. drought), weakened the feeling
of competence. Monopolization of cameras and milk quality testing
equipment by some group members, not only reduced the number of
farmers that tested them, but also had an impact on the overall en­
thusiasm of the group affecting the participants’ experiences of au­
tonomy, competence and relatedness.
Finally, when working in a situation where all actors (particularly
the researcher facilitating TDR) do not speak the same language,
communication is more challenging because of the need for a trans­
lator. During the final evaluation, farmers complained about not always
receiving timely information about dates, objectives, and duration of
sessions, hindering autonomy. This happened although the importance
of sharing this information with all group members was explained
several times to the translator by the first author, also during separate
preparatory planning meetings.
6. Discussion
By using Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and Poggi et al.ös (2007)
conceptual analysis of enthusiasm as an analytical framework, this
paper presents how intrinsic motivation and enthusiasm was triggered,
sustained, and diminished during the different steps of a collaborative
learning process (CLP). We found how the methods we used for
knowledge integration and co-creation contributed to the fulfilment of
the three basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence and re­
latedness of the participating farmers.
6.1. Autonomy
A sense of autonomy was strengthened when methods used for
knowledge integration gave farmers active roles, responsibilities, and
decision-making power in the project. In particular, (i) participatory
photography revealed farmers’ views of the problematic situation; (ii)
the re-construction of farmers’ rationale when performing their farming
activities made farmers’ knowledge explicit and revealed their con­
straints and possibilities; and (iii) the participatory video proposal gave
 M.J. Restrepo, et al.

Table 3
Farmers’ perspectives on activities that affected their enthusiasm during the collaborative learning process (Sources: 12 semi-structured interviews, 5 narrative interviews and 2 MSC rounds).
Collaborative learning phase Methods Enthusiasm

Triggered Sustained Diminished

(A) Establish the Reciprocal selection process of farmers and
collaboration researchers
Constitution of collaboration
Balancing power relations
Develop clear benefits, roles and
responsibilities
(B) Dialogue: Re-construction of farmers’ rationale when
Integrating knowledge performing their farming activities
Problem analysis using participatory
photography
Milk quality analysis
Milk production and commercialization co-
Feeling of actual potential to make changes (+autonomy) Long process with no practical actions for
Forming hope (+autonomy) farmers (-competence)
Hidden agendas (-autonomy)
Valuing all actors, respect (+relatedness) Long and extractive process (-autonomy)
Building mutual trust (+relatedness)
A meaningful and rich way to share farmers’ perception of Inconsistent participation (-autonomy)
the problematic situation (+autonomy) Lack of punctuality (-relatedness)
Promoting relevance (+autonomy) Not keeping session on time (-autonomy)
Gaining skills in using equipment (+competence) Power imbalances between peers (-relatedness)
Position(s) of self-gain (-relatedness)
Ineffective communication due to translation

6
inquiry (-autonomy/competence/relatedness)
Applying for innovation funds: action plan Sense of ownership and commitment (+autonomy)
and participatory video proposal Strengthening capacity to act (+autonomy/competence)
Gaining skills in doing own videos (+competence)
(C) Discovery: Peer-to-peer exchange sessions A sense of ‘we can do it’ (+autonomy/competence) Re-defining roles among farmers Ineffective communication due to translation
Co-creating Forming friendship and trust (+relatedness) (+competence/competence) (-autonomy/competence/relatedness)
knowledge Farmer-led experimentation Ownership of experiments and results Unsuccessful past experiences (-competence)
(+autonomy/competence) Perceived risk (-competence)
Monitoring activities Monitoring effects of own ideas for improvement Monopolizing observation tools (-autonomy/
(+competence), e.g. competence/relatedness)
- Milk quantity with records Monopolizing photo and video equipment
- Milk quality with lactometer (-autonomy/competence/relatedness)
Feeling of progress, short term results
(+competence)
Sharing stories of change Sense of pride (+competence) Lack of punctuality (-relatedness)
Forming friendship and trust (+relatedness) Not keeping session on time (-autonomy)
Feeling of progress, sharing perceived benefits Ineffective communication among actors due to
(+competence/relatedness) translation (-autonomy/competence/relatedness)
(D) Applying new Peer-to-peer exchange sessions Increased self-esteem (+competence)
knowledge Sharing results with other farmers
(+competence/relatedness)
Environmental Science and Policy 105 (2020) 1–10
M.J. Restrepo, et al.
Fig. 1. a) number of farmers participating in testing an innovation (n = 40), and b) average level of satisfaction related to a specific innovation by implementing
farmers (5 = excellent to 1 = poor).
farmers decision-making power in the use of farmer-managed funds.
Self-determination theory (SDT) relates the fulfilment of the psycho­
logical need for autonomy to increase involvement, engagement, and
performance (Vansteenkiste et al., 2010). Indeed, when societal stake­
holders have the right to choose an action, they are more successful in
completing it (Reznickova and Zepeda, 2016). For example, sharing
power with farmers from the beginning of the project, i.e. sharing de­
cision-making power over the process, is suggested by scholars working
in transdisciplinary research as a way of addressing sustainability
challenges and enacting change (e.g. Wiek et al., 2012). As described by
Dolinska and döAquino (2016:129), fostering innovation and change
with farmers implies having an “open story for farmers to negotiate, de­
velop or re-write”. Thompson et al. (2017) go beyond sharing power to
highlighting the importance of collaboratively defining and refining
TDR to achieve more empowering co-creative processes.
6.2. Competence
During the steps of discovery and application, when knowledge was
co-created, research methods and tools used enhanced farmers’ com­
petence and thereby sustained farmers’ enthusiasm. In particular, (i)
through Peer-to-Peer exchange sessions, farmers developed a sense of
‘we can do it’; (ii) farmer-led experimentation and monitoring activities
increased their action possibilities; and (iii) sharing stories of change
created a feeling of joint progress. SDT relates the fulfilment of the
psychological need for competence with positive performance feed­
backs during an action (Ryan and Deci, 2000). Indeed, explicitly re­
cognizing the contributions of actors and how they help to achieve
impact sustains and encourages participation (Thompson et al., 2017).
Peer-to-peer sessions, used as an instrument of knowledge co-crea­
tion, represented a way to learn, share, decide, and gain experience.
These sessions allowed farmers to (i) see how peers addressed specific
challenges, (ii) change their own view towards a specific farming
practice, (iii) become more aware of their own knowledge, (iv) witness
their own progress, and (v) exchange information on success. Hence,
they supported farmers’ needs for autonomy, competence and related­
ness. Farmers from both groups particularly valued farmer-led experi­
mentation, and expressed that they will continue with their own ex­
periments. Learning how to use different tools to observe and monitor
the results from their experiments (e.g. through keeping records) was
perceived by farmers as motivating, and enhanced their reflection at
7
Environmental Science and Policy 105 (2020) 1–10
various levels (see Restrepo et al., 2018). Sharing farmers’ observations
in meetings sustained enthusiasm as farmers witnessed the progress of
their experiments and exchanged information. As the knowledge co-
creation methods used in the CLP made use of farmers’ perspectives,
knowledge, and room of manoeuvre, farmers were able to construct
knowledge that answered their contextual problems. They were able to
put this knowledge into practice to improve the management of their
production systems. The relevance and accessibility of practical out­
comes contributed to wider societal impact.
6.3. Relatedness
The need for and importance of relatedness manifested itself at
multiple levels, such as in communication and trust-building between
project participants, and in reflections upon differing positionalities
that shaped negotiations within this TDR project spanning Global North
and Global South contexts.
6.3.1. Communication and trust-building
A sense of relatedness was strengthened when knowledge was ex­
changed in formal and informal settings, which also enhanced farmers’
feeling of togetherness and trust. In the most significant change ses­
sions, farmers reported empathy, friendship, and networking as im­
portant impacts. SDT relates the fulfilment of the psychological need for
relatedness with the feeling of being valued (Ryan and Deci, 2000). In
the CLP, farmers expressed their preference to learn from peers who
shared a similar context. Such opportunities to experience the real-
world of others, together with communication that promoted mutual
trust, was also found to trigger enthusiasm in a different TDR project
focusing on the future of urban and landscape development in Swit­
zerland (Tobias et al., 2019). While the development of trustful re­
lationships is related to less hierarchical patterns of communication,
willingness to collaborate increases with trust (Rist et al., 2006; Ingram,
2008).
6.3.2. Importance of positionality for research relations in TDR
In order to manage and possibly level power relations between
academics and other societal stakeholders, continuous reflexivity is
needed (Wijsman and Feagan, 2019). Knowledge making practices are
filtered through the positionalities of researchers (Rose, 1997), and also
of field assistants/translators (Caretta, 2014). Thus, their positionalities
M.J. Restrepo, et al. Environmental Science and Policy 105 (2020) 1–10

Fig. 2. Perceived impacts from the perspective of non-academic actors engaged in a collaborative learning process as narrated when sharing stories of change
(n = 33, frequency of response with multiple answers per respondent).

need explicit attention through reflexivity, during the field work, data
analysis and writing process (Wijsman and Feagan, 2019).
We were aware of the importance of paying close attention to re­
searcher – field assistant/translator cooperation during the field work.
Such researcher – field assistant cooperation has often been neglected
in critical reflections of knowledge co-produced in TDR. We found that
using a translator can reduce enthusiasm when: (i) communication
takes more time; (ii) translators want to maintain hierarchical relations,
for instance through the use of overly technical language; and (iii)
translations change the message due to lapses and additions. To engage

Table 4
Relating the outcomes of the CLP to the fulfilment of basic psychological needs. Outcomes perceived by farmers are grouped according to Kirkpatrick’s evaluation
levels (modified from Restrepo et al., 2018).
Evaluation level Outcomes as expressed by non-academic actors

1) Reaction Farmers specifically valued (1) their inclusion in planning the approach (+autonomy), (2) farmer-to-farmer exchange sessions
(+autonomy/competence/relatedness), (3) learning from practice (+autonomy/competence), and (4) sharing results from practice
(+competence/relatedness)
1) Learning Farmers constructed contextual knowledge related to (1) production aspects, (2) innovation capabilities, and (3) organizational skills (all +competence)
1) Change in action Farmers changed their practices by (1) implementing corrective actions, (2) learning new cause–effect relations, or (3) changing aims (all
+autonomy/competence)
1) Impact Perception of multiple benefits related to farmers’ (1) change in practice (+competence), and
(2) capacity to act (+autonomy/competence)

8
M.J. Restrepo, et al.
in reflective practices, we recommend that both researchers and field
assistants/translators write and reflect their thoughts in a fieldwork
journal to document their experiences and perceptions related to the
complexities of participation, power, privilege and relationships.
The CLP presented in this paper was organized by researchers
coming from Colombia, California and Germany, working on the same
research Institute. The relationship building with stakeholders in rural
Africa are shaped by different perspectives, positions and power dy­
namics related to western hegemonic influences as well as post-colonial
politics. The positionalities of each of the three authors differed in this
research context. The first author spent 13 months over a period of two
years together with the farmer groups in Kenya. As a female PhD stu­
dent from South America, she added a South-South dimension to this
collaboration. Although this helped to build rapport, there were still
insider/outsider issues to be negotiated. We found resonance with how
Ali (2015:8) explains that researchers are “objectified and manipulated
in the research space, and they have to struggle to find connection
between these power positions as well as their own feelings and emo­
tions while making sense of the lives of the people.” For example, ef­
forts to disrupt hierarchies were made by the first author when she
emphasized that she did not have experience in dairy farming but that
the farmers were the experts. Contrary to how the university was
usually perceived, she reiterated that she was not there to just offer
trainings or ask for questionnaires to be filled, but that she was there to
facilitate a learning process.
To put effort into fostering increased autonomy for societal stake­
holders in knowledge integration and co-production processes is a step
towards decolonizing research methodologies. Smith (1999) advocates
that to decolonize research methodologies new kinds of relationships
for research are required, while respecting, acknowledging, and in­
tegrating diverse knowledges. As Wijsman and Feagan (2019) explain,
bringing in feminist and decolonial considerations shifts the types of
questions that are asked in the process of creating just transformations.
This requires increased sensitivity and openness to ontological differ­
ences.
7. Conclusion
Although TDR institutionalises the collaboration of scientists and
other societal stakeholders, achieving meaningful collaboration cannot
be taken for granted. Assessing societal stakeholders’ enthusiasm to
engage in a CLP allowed us to understand what motivated them to
collaborate and how this influenced TDR processes and the quality of
the results generated. To enhance societal stakeholders’ engagement,
we call for methods and tools that trigger and maintain a sense of au­
tonomy and competence. In the CLP, participants’ autonomy was en­
hanced by giving them more voice, representation, and power. Their
competence was strengthened, mainly in practical sessions, and joint
reflections which highlighted a sense of progress and success. As un­
derstanding actors’ perspectives of TDR informs practice, the CLP with
two smallholder dairy farmer groups in Kenya, serves as an example of
how to initiate, sustain and support enthusiasm through different stages
of TDR.
With regard to the outcomes of TDR, the active engagement of in­
trinsically motivated societal stakeholders allowed for (i) constructing
knowledge that answered their contextual problems; and (ii) strength­
ening their own capacity to act. Thus, the CLP expanded participants’
ability to address sustainability challenges and to enact change. The
outcomes put into practice were related to (i) autonomy as farmers
decided which problems to tackle and the types of solutions to test; (ii)
competence as they perceived an increase in their own capacities and
ability to change their own actions; and (iii) relatedness as it enhanced
trust, strengthened networks, and enhanced collaboration. We conclude
that methodological approaches that strategically reflect on the element
of enthusiasm not only help to improve the quality of collaboration to
9
Environmental Science and Policy 105 (2020) 1–10
generate results that fit within the context but also aid in decolonizing
mainstream methodologies.
Funding
This work was supported by the German Federal Ministry of
Education and Research (BMBF) in cooperation with the German
Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ)
through an initiative for research on the Global Food Supply (GlobE) (#
031A247D).
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Maria J. Restrepo: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation,
Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review
& editing. Margareta A. Lelea: Writing - review & editing, Supervision.
Brigitte A. Kaufmann: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - re­
view & editing, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisi­
tion.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgements
We sincerely thank the members of the Mukinduri Dairy SHG and
the Lare Livelihoods Improvement CBO for inspiring us through their
openness and warmth throughout this collaborative process. We ac­
knowledge Andrew Maina for his work as a field assistant/interpreter.
We extend thanks to the RELOAD team at Egerton University in Kenya
for their collegiality and willingness to share insights about dairying in
Kenya. We thank the organizers of the International Farming Systems
Association Conference at Harper Adams University in 2016 where the
first version of this paper was shared as a conference paper entitled,
“'The most important thing I have learnt is the passion for testing new things':
Sparking small scale dairy farmers’ enthusiasm within a transdisci­
plinary project in Kenya". With the help of the two reviewers and the
editors of the special issue, especially Ulli Vilsmaier and Martina
Schäfer, the paper has now taken the argument to a deeper level. We
appreciate their constructive and encouraging comments.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the
online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.12.004.
References
Ali, R., 2015. Rethinking representation: negotiating positionality, power and space in the
field. Gend. Place Cult. 22, 783–800. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2014.
917278.
Angelstam, P., Andersson, K., Annerstedt, M., Axelsson, R., Elbakidze, M., Garrido, P.,
Grahn, P., Jönsson, K.I., Pedersen, S., Schlyter, P., Skärbäck, E., Smith, M.,
Stjernquist, I., 2013. Solving problems in social–ecological systems: definition,
practice and barriers of transdisciplinary research. AMBIO 42, 254–265. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13280-012-0372-4.
Blackstock, K.L., Kelly, G.J., Horsey, B.L., 2007. Developing and applying a framework to
evaluate participatory research for sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 60, 726–742. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.014.
Brandt, P., Ernst, A., Gralla, F., Luederitz, C., Lang, D.J., Newig, J., Reinert, F., Abson,
D.J., von Wehrden, H., 2013. A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability
science. Ecol. Econ. 92, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04.008.
Caretta, M.A., 2014. Situated knowledge in cross-cultural, cross-language research: a
collaborative reflexive analysis of researcher, assistant and participant subjectivities.
Qual. Res. 15, 489–505. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794114543404.
Charatsari, C., Lioutas, E.D., Koutsouris, A., 2017. Farmers’ motivational orientation to­
ward participation in competence development projects: a self-determination theory
perspective. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 23 (2), 105–120.
M.J. Restrepo, et al.
Davies, R., Dart, J., 2005. The ‘Most Significant Change’ (MSC) Technique: A Guide to Its
Use. Available online:. https://www.betterevaluation.org/en/resources/guides/
most_significant_change.
Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., 2000. The “What” and “Why” of goal pursuits: human needs and
the self-determination of behavior. Psychol. Inq. 11, 227–268. https://doi.org/10.
1207/S15327965PLI1104_01.
Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human
Behavior. Plenum, New York.
Dolinska, A., d’Aquino, P., 2016. Farmers as agents in innovation systems. Empowering
farmers for innovation through communities of practice. Agric. Syst. 142, 122–130.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2015.11.009.
Ferguson, L., Chan, S., Santelmann, M., Tilt, B., 2017. Exploring participant motivations
and expectations in a researcher-stakeholder engagement process: Willamette Water
2100. Landsc. Urban Plan. 157, 447–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.
2016.08.014.
Holzer, J.M., Carmon, N., Orenstein, D.E., 2018. A methodology for evaluating trans­
disciplinary research on coupled socio-ecological systems. Ecol. Indic. 85, 808–819.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.10.074.
Höppner, C., Frick, J., Buchecker, M., 2007. Assessing psycho-social effects of partici­
patory landscape planning. Landsc. Urban Plan. 83, 196–207. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.landurbplan.2007.04.005.
Ingram, J., 2008. Agronomist–farmer knowledge encounters: an analysis of knowledge
exchange in the context of best management practices in England. Agric. Hum.
Values 25, 405–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-008-9134-0.
Jovchelovitch, S., Bauer, M.W., 2000. Narrative Interviewing. Qualitative Researching
With Text, Image and Sound: A Practical Handbook. SAGE Publications, London.
Kunter, M., Frenzel, A., Nagy, G., Baumert, J., Pekrun, R., 2011. Teacher enthusiasm:
dimensionality and context specificity. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 36, 289–301.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.07.001.
Lang, D.J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., Swilling, M.,
Thomas, C.J., 2012. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice,
principles, and challenges. Sustain. Sci. 7, 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-
011-0149-x.
Leeuwis, C., Van den Ban, A.W., 2004. Communication for Rural Innovation: Rethinking
Agricultural Extension. Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Markwell, K.W., 2000. Photo-documentation and analyses as research strategies in human
geography. Aust. Geogr. Stud. 38, 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8470.
00103.
Mattor, K., Betsill, M., Huayhuaca, C., Huber-Stearns, H., Jedd, T., Sternlieb, F., Bixler, P.,
Luizza, M., Cheng, A.S., 2014. Transdisciplinary research on environmental govern­
ance: a view from the inside. Environ. Sci. Policy 42, 90–100. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.envsci.2014.06.002.
Poggi, I., 2007. Enthusiasm and its contagion: nature and function. In: In: Paiva, A.C.R.,
Prada, R., Picard, R.W. (Eds.), Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII
2007) Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4738. pp. 410–421. https://doi.org/10.
1007/978-3-540-74889-2_36.
Polk, M., 2014. Achieving the promise of transdisciplinarity: a critical exploration of the
relationship between transdisciplinary research and societal problem solving.
Sustain. Sci. 9, 439–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-014-0247-7.
Restrepo, M.J., Lelea, M.A., Christinck, A., Hülsebusch, C., Kaufmann, B.A., 2014.
Collaborative learning for fostering change in complex social-ecological systems: a
transdisciplinary perspective on food and farming systems. Knowl. Manage. Dev. J.
10, 38–59.
Restrepo, M.J., Lelea, M.A., Kaufmann, B., 2016. Second-order cybernetic analysis to re-
construct farmers’ rationale when regulating milk production. Syst. Pract. Action Res.
29, 449–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-016-9371-x.
Restrepo, M.J., Lelea, M.A., Kaufmann, B.A., 2018. Evaluating knowledge integration and
co-production in a 2-year collaborative learning process with smallholder dairy
farmer groups. Sustain. Sci. 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0553-6.
Reznickova, A., Zepeda, L., 2016. Can self-determination theory explain the self-perpe­
tuation of social innovations? A case study of Slow Food at the University of
Wisconsin—Madison. J. Commun. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 26 (1), 3–17.
Richardson-Ngwenya, P., Restrepo, M.J., Fernández, R., Kaufmann, B.A., 2019a.
10
Environmental Science and Policy 105 (2020) 1–10
Participatory video proposals: a tool for empowering farmer groups in rural in­
novation processes? J. Rural Stud. 69, 173–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.
2019.02.022.
Richardson-Ngwenya, P., Fernandez, R., Restrepo, M.J., Kaufmann, B.A., 2019b.
Experience with participatory video proposals: assisting community organisations
with innovation project planning. Dev. Pract. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09614524.2019.1590532.
Rist, S., Chiddambaranathan, M., Escobar, C., Wiesmann, U., 2006. “It was hard to come
to mutual understanding …”—the multidimensionality of social learning processes
concerned with sustainable natural resource use in India, Africa and Latin America.
Syst. Pract. Action Res. 19, 219–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-006-9014-8.
Rigby, C.S., Ryan, R.M., 2018. Self-determination theory in human resource development:
new directions and practical considerations. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 20, 133–147.
Rose, G., 1997. Situating knowledges: positionality, reflexivities and other tactics. Prog.
Hum. Geogr. 21 (3), 305–320.
Russell, D.B., Ison, R.L., 2000. Enthusiasm: developing critical action for second-order R&
D. In: Russell, D.B., Ison, R.L. (Eds.), Agricultural Extension and Rural Development:
Breaking Out of Knowledge Transfer Traditions. Cambridge, UP, pp. 136–160.
Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L., 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 55, 68–78.
Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L., 2019. Chapter Four - brick by brick: the origins, development, and
future of self-determination theory. In: Elliot, A.J. (Ed.), Advances in Motivation
Science. Elsevier, pp. 111–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adms.2019.01.001.
Schmidt, L., Pröpper, M., 2017. Transdisciplinarity as a real-world challenge: a case study
on a North-South collaboration. Sustain. Sci. 12 (3), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11625-017-0430-8.
Sheldon, K.M., Elliot, A.J., Kim, Y., Kasser, T., 2001. What is satisfying about satisfying
events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 80, 325.
Smith, L.T., 1999. Decolonizing Methodologies. 2005. Zed Books, London and New York.
Talwar, S., Wiek, A., Robinson, J., 2011. User engagement in sustainability research. Sci.
Public Policy 38, 379–390.
Thompson, M.A., Owen, S., Lindsay, J.M., Leonard, G.S., Cronin, S.J., 2017. Scientist and
stakeholder perspectives of transdisciplinary research: early attitudes, expectations,
and tensions. Environ. Sci. Policy 74, 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.
04.006.
Tobias, S., Ströbele, M.F., Buser, T., 2019. How transdisciplinary projects influence par­
ticipants’ ways of thinking: a case study on future landscape development. Sustain.
Sci. 405–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0532-y.
Triste, L., Vandenabeele, J., Winsen, Fvan, Debruyne, L., Lauwers, L., Marchand, F., 2018.
Exploring participation in a sustainable farming initiative with self-determination
theory. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2018.
1424305.
Vansteenkiste, M., Niemiec, C.P., Soenens, B., 2010. The development of the five mini-
theories of self-determination theory: an historical overview, emerging trends, and
future directions. The Decade Ahead: Theoretical Perspectives on Motivation and
Achievement, Advances in Motivation and Achievement. Emerald Group Publishing
Limited, pp. 105–165. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0749-7423(2010)000016A007.
Walter, A.I., Helgenberger, S., Wiek, A., Scholz, R.W., 2007. Measuring societal effects of
transdisciplinary research projects: design and application of an evaluation method.
Eval. Program Plann. 30, 325–338.
Wiek, A., Ness, B., Schweizer-Ries, P., Brand, F.S., Farioli, F., 2012. From complex sys­
tems analysis to transformational change: a comparative appraisal of sustainability
science projects. Sustain. Sci. 7, 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0148-y.
Wijsman, K., Feagan, M., 2019. Rethinking knowledge systems for urban resilience:
feminist and decolonial contributions to just transformations. Environ. Sci. Policy 98,
70–76.
Zepeda, L., Reznickova, A., Russell, W.S., 2013. CSA membership and psychological needs
fulfillment: an application of self-determination theory. Agric. Human Values 30,
605–614.
Zscheischler, J., Rogga, S., 2015. Transdisciplinarity in land use science – a review of
concepts, empirical findings and current practices. Futures 65, 28–44. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.11.005.