An increasing number of research programs seek to support adaptation to climate change through the engagement of large‐scale transdisciplinary networks that span countries and continents. While transdisciplinary research processes have been a topic of reflection, practice, and refinement for some time, these trends now mean that the global change research community needs to reflect and learn how to pursue collaborative research on a large scale. This paper shares insights from a seven‐year climate change adaptation research program that supports collaboration between more than 450 researchers and practitioners across four consortia and 17 countries. The experience confirms the importance of attention to careful design for transdisciplinary collaboration, but also highlights that this alone is not enough. The success of well‐designed transdisciplinary research processes is also strongly influenced by relational and systemic features of collaborative relationships. Relational features include interpersonal trust, mutual respect, and leadership styles, while systemic features include legal partnership agreements, power asymmetries between partners, and institutional values and cultures. In the new arena of large‐scale collaborative science efforts, enablers of transdisciplinary collaboration include dedicated project coordinators, leaders at multiple levels, and the availability of small amounts of flexible funds to enable nimble responses to opportunities and unexpected collaborations.

No abstract

No abstract

Collaborative research requires synergy among diverse partners, overall direction, and flexibility at multiple levels. There is a need to learn from practical experience in fostering cooperation towards research outcomes, coordinating geographically dispersed teams, and bridging distinct incentives and ways of working. This article reflects on the experience of the Collaborative Adaptation Research Initiative in Africa and Asia (CARIAA), a multi-consortium programme which sought to build resilience to regional climate change. Participants valued the consortium as a network that provided connections with distinct sources of expertise, as a means to gain experience and skills beyond the remit of their home organisation. Consortia were seen as an avenue for reaching scale both in terms of working across regions, as well as in terms of moving research into practice. CARIAA began with programme-level guidance on climate hotspots and collaboration, alongside consortium-level visions on research agenda and design. Consortia created and implemented work plans defining each organisation’s role and responsibilities and coordinated activities across numerous partners, dispersed locations, and diverse cultural settings. Nested committees provided coherence and autonomy at the programme, consortium, and activity-level. Each level had some discretion in how to deploy funding, creating multiple collaborative spaces that served to further interconnect participants. The experience of CARIAA affirms documented strategies for collaborative research, including project vision, partner compatibility, skilled managers, and multi-level planning. Collaborative research also needs an ability to revise membership and structures as needed in response to changing involvement of partners over time.

No abstract