This paper concludes a special feature of Sustainability Science that explores a broad range of social value theoretical traditions, such as religious studies, social psychology, indigenous knowledge, economics, sociology, and philosophy. We introduce a novel transdisciplinary conceptual framework that revolves around concepts of 'lenses' and 'tensions' to help navigate value diversity. First, we consider the notion of lenses: perspectives on value and valuation along diverse dimensions that describe what values focus on, how their sociality is envisioned, and what epistemic and procedural assumptions are made. We characterise fourteen of such dimensions. This provides a foundation for exploration of seven areas of tension, between: (1) the values of individuals vs collectives; (2) values as discrete and held vs embedded and constructed; (3) value as static or changeable; (4) valuation as descriptive vs normative and transformative; (5) social vs relational values; (6) different rationalities and their relation to value integration; (7) degrees of acknowledgment of the role of power in navigating value conflicts. In doing so, we embrace the 'mess' of diversity, yet also provide a framework to organise this mess and support and encourage active transdisciplinary collaboration. We identify key research areas where such collaborations can be harnessed for sustainability transformation. Here it is crucial to understand how certain social value lenses are privileged over others and build capacity in decision-making for understanding and drawing on multiple value, epistemic and procedural lenses.

No abstract

No abstract

Young people living with disadvantage are at elevated risk of a range of negative life outcomes, including social exclusion, impaired health and well-being, and low educational or vocational participation. In this context, the Resilient Futures program was conceptualized and developed as a strength-focused and positive psychology intervention whose design was underpinned by a broad interdisciplinary range of scientific evidence. The program utilizes an ecological framework that sought to target key proximal and distal factors associated with youth social exclusion, disengagement, and disadvantage. The target participant group was 850 disadvantaged young South Australians (aged 16 to 21) drawn from a number of educational, mental health, and youth justice agencies who were project partners in codesigning and supporting the implementation. The intervention was designed to build well-being and resilience skills through explicit (direct teaching) and implicit (mentoring, case management) teaching methods, supported by systemfocused methods that build the capacity of service providers. This article describes the iterative development of the Resilient Futures program, including a significant early program reorientation toward the use of a nonprescriptive and flexible delivery method. This pivot was guided by the implementation science literature, and underpinned by an intentional practice model and approach that was operationalized at both the program design and service delivery layers of the program. We summarize key challenges in delivering a well-being and resilience program across multiple sites for a disadvantaged cohort, and the methods the project team developed to bring focus to implementation quality and rigor. Preliminary qualitative evidence supporting the effectiveness of the program is also provided. What is the significance of this article for the general public?Delivering mental health interventions to young people is challenging and complex. For the last 2 years, the Well-being and Resilience Centre has delivered a largescale evidence-based program called Resilient Futures to build resilience in some of the most disadvantaged young people in South Australia. This article serves as an innovative case study of how the science of well-being and resilience can be translated into practice but also outlines the challenges faced in delivering this project and the new methodologies developed to overcome them.

Reducing the “science-to-practice” gap has gained significant attention across multi-disciplinary settings, including school psychology and student wellbeing, trauma-informed practice, community and human services, and clinically focused health care. There has been increasing calls for complexity and contextualisation to be integrated within the implementation science literature. This includes the design and implementation of interventions spanning “systems” (whole-of-community capacity building initiatives), “programs” (e.g., evidence-based programs, clinical interventions) and “moment-to-moment” support or care. The latter includes responses and communication designed to deliver specific learning, growth or wellbeing outcomes, as personalised to an individual's presenting needs and context (e.g., trauma-informed practice). Collectively, this paper refers to these interventions as “wellbeing solutions”. While the implementation science literature offers a range of theories, models and approaches to reduce the science-to-practice gap in wellbeing solution design and implementation, they do not operationalise interventions into the “moment”, in a manner that honours both complexity and contextualisation. Furthermore, the literature's language and content is largely targeted towards scientific or professional audiences. This paper makes the argument that both best-practice science, and the frameworks that underpin their implementation, need to be “sticky”, practical and visible for both scientific and non-scientific knowledge users. In response to these points, this paper introduces “intentional practice” as a common language, approach and set of methods, founded upon non-scientific language, to guide the design, adaptation and implementation of both simple and complex wellbeing solutions. It offers a bridge between scientists and knowledge users in the translation, refinement and contextualisation of interventions designed to deliver clinical, wellbeing, growth, therapeutic and behavioural outcomes. A definitional, contextual and applied overview of intentional practice is provided, including its purported application across educational, wellbeing, cross-cultural, clinical, therapeutic, programmatic and community capacity building contexts.