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.

Objectives: To evaluate whether introduction of an emergency department (ED) telemedicine system changed patient management and outcome indicators and to investigate clinicians’ perceptions of the impact of the system on care provided and on their work. Design: Before‐and‐after study of use of the Virtual Critical Care Unit (ViCCU), which uses an ultrabroadband connection allowing real‐time audiovisual communication between clinicians at distant sites. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with medical and nursing staff at the end of the study. Participants and setting: The ViCCU intervention commenced on 1 January 2004. Our study was conducted in the EDs of an 85‐bed district hospital and a 420‐bed metropolitan tertiary hospital. It involved all acutely ill patients requiring urgent care (defined by triage category and grouped into critical care, major trauma and moderate trauma) who were treated during the 12 months before (n = 169) and 18 months after (n = 181) the intervention at the district hospital. Thirty‐one of 33 clinicians (doctors and nurses) participating at the two hospitals took part in interviews at the end of the study. Main outcome measures: Changes in patterns of management (disposition [admission, discharge or transfer], treatment times, number of procedures) and outcomes (rapid acute physiology scores, hours on ventilation or in intensive care, length of stay). Results: Patient disposition remained unaltered for major trauma patients. For critical care patients, admissions fell significantly (54% to 30%), transfers increased (21% to 39%), and more procedures were performed. For moderate trauma patients, discharges increased significantly (45% to 63%), transfers decreased (48% to 25%) and treatment times were longer. No significant changes were found in outcome indicators. Clinicians reported that the ViCCU allowed greater support to remote clinicians. Specialists reported increased workloads and feelings of greater responsibility for patients at the district hospital. Nurses at the district site reported reduced stress, but district doctors reported some loss of autonomy. Conclusions: The ViCCU appears most effective for moderate trauma patients, with associated reductions in admissions and transfers. Large‐scale trials of telemedicine systems that include measurements of both patient care and impact on clinicians’ work are required.

Member checking refers to the process of providing research participants with opportunities to check the accuracy of, expand, amend and/or comment on, raw data or research results (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014). It is a well-established and sometimes expected qualitative research technique (Harvey, 2015). Member checking typically involves researchers asking participants to read and provide written comments on transcribed interview data (e.g., see Carlson, 2010), and/or conducting follow-up interviews (Harvey, 2015) or focus group discussions (FGDs; Stringer, 2003) with the same participants, or different participants from the member group (e.g., see Harvey, 2015). Less common approaches include presenting (preliminary) findings to participants in visual leaflets (Caretta, 2016), orally at community meetings (Baylor et al., 2013), or in participatory workshops (Ebersohn & Ferreira, 2011). Member checking has traditionally been conducted with "transactional" aims, that is, to enhance the accuracy and transferability (internal and external validity [Morse, 2015]) of qualitative research results (Cho & Trent, 2006). Aims of Member Checking Member checking is assumed to establish transactional validity in numerous ways. Checking data or findings with members of the participant group may reveal unrecognized researcher biases and/or identify errors of fact (Miles et al., 2014). It enables the researcher to assess the extent to which their findings resonate with and/or are considered reasonable by research participants (Harvey, 2015; Torrance, 2012) and/or further investigate emerging themes or interpretations (Stringer, 2003). It provides researchers an opportunity to develop deeper understandings of their data (Cho & Trent, 2006) and highlights the co-constructed nature of knowledge (Miles et al., 2014). Member checking is also a potentially transformative process (Cho & Trent, 2006) aligned with the goals of community participation and empowerment enshrined in Alma Ata and subsequent international health declarations (Caretta, 2016). The transformative or emancipatory potential arises because member checking provides participants power to shape the research agenda to reflect their priority issues (Stringer, 2003