While both systems thinking and complexity science concern themselves with looking at wholes, they encompass several schools of thought, which are noted for their indifference—at best—and—at worst—animosity to each other. There is not only a gulf between systems thinking and complexity science, but also within different branches of systems thinking. A major challenge would still seem to be to develop key overarching theoretical concepts that throw the commonalities and differences into sharper relief.

The importance of participatory methods is based on recognition that the various stakeholders think differently about the same issue, and that exploring, sharing and synthesizing these different understandings enriches our knowledge about an issue. It can often trigger a new way to look at and contend with an issue. In addition, for some issues, an appropriate way of dealing with uncertainty and imperfection is to give the stakeholders a more direct role in making decisions.

Knowledge management, exchange and implementation is a way of characterising a number of interrelated issues:

The third, operational aspect of Integration and Implementation Sciences is that it has a firm footing in practical application and generally involves large-scale collaboration. As outlined above, this makes Integration and Implementation Sciences similar to disciplines such as statistics and epidemiology. The analogy with statistics, in particular, is drawn out further in examination of where this new specialisation fits in universities.

Although the theory and methods of Integration and Implementation Sciences are developed through engagement with practical problems, there is no home base to which breakthroughs can be reported and where they can be critically assessed. This is an important difference from disciplines such as statistics, in which such home departments play a critical role. The development of the specialisation of Integration and Implementation Sciences is a way of establishing such a home base.

The lack of a specialist or disciplinary core also means that those engaged in Integration and Implementation Sciences lack a unifying identity. As a consequence, researchers mainly characterise themselves either through their area of application (for example, as human ecologists, environmental scientists or management specialists); or through a key approach or method (such as action researcher or system dynamics specialist).

Identity as a specialist in Integration and Implementation Sciences complements, rather than replaces, these existing identities. The difference that a specialisation will make is that specialists in Integration and Implementation Sciences will be able to identify with a broader cadre of researchers and develop more rounded skill sets. For example, while there is considerable overlap in the modes of operation of researchers using soft systems methods and action researchers, there is little crossover between these groups in terms of university coursework, professional associations or even research collaboration. Soft systems researchers often have very polished systems methods, but under-developed participatory skills, with the opposite holding for action researchers. Bringing these two groups together under a unifying umbrella would increase the chances that both would bring a more highly developed set of theory and methods to bear on the problems they deal with.

Figure 6.1 illustrates the relationship between the home base (the central circle) and the key sectors in which Integration and Implementation Sciences are applied and developed. Some researchers will work predominantly in the home base, focusing on the development of theory and methods in Integration and Implementation Sciences and applying them to a broad range of problems. Some researchers (second circle) will build detailed knowledge of a single sector, such as environment or international development and use this as the basis for the development of Integration and Implementation Sciences theory and methods. A third group of researchers will be less interested in the development of theory and methods, but will focus much more on their application (outside circle).

A specialisation will also provide a one-stop shop for researchers seeking access to integration and implementation skills. This will meet a growing demand, as appreciation of the need for these skills increases. Where new researchers gain a foothold currently tends to be arbitrary, as it is extremely difficult to obtain a comprehensive overview of the Integration and Implementation Sciences field, existing knowledge, and key players. Thus, researchers new to the area often spend considerable time searching for resources and key contacts and their early work often involves significant duplication of existing knowledge.

The same holds for policy makers and other practitioners seeking to link with researchers with Integration and Implementation Sciences skills. There is nowhere for them to go to receive an overview of what Integration and Implementation Sciences can offer and to match needs with available approaches. If practitioners contact universities or other public good research organisations, the aspect of Integration and Implementation Sciences they link with, and whether they indeed manage to link with any form of Integration and Implementation Sciences, is largely a matter of chance. Outside universities, there are now a large number of commercial, consultant-based packages available, but most are limited in the approaches they offer and there are no mechanisms for quality control.

This last point is not intended as a criticism of consultants practising approaches that are part of Integration and Implementation Sciences. Indeed, they have largely been responsible for the development of this field. Many have left universities to set up their own businesses because this has given them more freedom to undertake the practice-based research they care about. Further, researchers who survive in universities and other research organisations are often required to be wholly or partially self-funded, often through consultancy work. Commercially-based researchers are not in a position to develop colleges of critical peers, overarching associations, robust and comprehensive theoretical and methodological bases, or curricula for undergraduate and postgraduate education—in other words, they are not in a position to develop a specialisation. That is the role of universities. Thus, the development of a specialisation will also provide a solid underpinning for commercial consultancy practice, a place where consultants can learn new skills, or update existing ones, and where they can feed back lessons from their practice-based experience to invigorate and progress the development of theory and methods. Given that consultants rely on the methods and other intellectual property they develop to make their living, incorporating these into the academy will also be a challenge.

So far, I have dealt with the importance of a home base for Integration and Implementation Sciences. Here I will expand on this idea, using analogies between statistics and Integration and Implementation Sciences.

Statistics is embedded in the academy at three levels. First, there are home-base departments where theory and methods of statistics are developed and advanced. Second, other significant academic departments incorporate statistical training into their core curriculum and have at least some staff with a strong statistical bent. For example, disciplines such as biology, psychology, sociology and geography provide core training in statistics, particularly as it is relevant to the discipline involved, and have staff and research programs with a strong quantitative orientation. In addition, multidisciplinary departments such as public health often employ statisticians who are willing to work on public health problems. Third, there is an expectation that a large proportion of staff and students throughout the academy will have a basic level of statistical competence.

Like statistics, some elements of Integration and Implementation Sciences are already embedded in other significant academic areas. For example, many departments and centres dealing with environmental issues incorporate integrated assessment, other systems approaches and participatory approaches in their teaching and research. Public health departments often have a strong orientation to participation and implementation. However, the incorporation of Integration and Implementation Sciences is largely idiosyncratic, and there is generally little interaction between departments with different content area expertise about core or best methods. Some approaches that are key elements of Integration and Implementation Sciences have become standard in certain established academic areas. For example, most law schools now include principled negotiation (alternative dispute resolution) in their teaching, if not research.

As I have already pointed out, unlike statistics, Integration and Implementation Sciences has no home base or shared understanding of what this area encompasses. Nor is there the same level of individual competence among researchers in Integration and Implementation Sciences as there is in statistics. While many staff and students throughout the academy have basic competencies, such as building trust, thinking laterally, and seeing interconnections, (and some have very advanced abilities), these tend to be seen as personal attributes rather than academic skills. Furthermore, staff and students tend to be left to their own devices in the development of such expertise. Certainly, the building blocks for a solid home base for Integration and Implementation Sciences exist, and establishing home base departments would have positive spin-offs for established disciplines and specialisations, as well as for individual staff and students.

Statistics provides another useful analogy, namely the comfortable co-existence of diversity. Some statisticians are trained predominantly in statistics and work on a variety of problems, while others have training in statistics and another discipline and work largely in a particular area—for example, health. It is easily conceivable that some of those trained in Integration and Implementation Sciences would work on a wide range of problems, while others would work in more depth in areas such as environmental sciences or security.

The relationship between Integration and Implementation Sciences and traditional disciplines might be somewhat different from the relationship of statistics and other traditional disciplines. Those trained in Integration and Implementation Sciences and a traditional discipline might be expected to focus particularly on bringing that disciplinary perspective to the understanding of a complex problem, rather than (or in addition to) advancing the discipline. Certainly, a key task of Integration and Implementation Sciences is to harness and build on disciplinary strengths. The disciplines have developed and continue to elaborate a wealth of theoretical, methodological and content knowledge. Further, the disciplines themselves recognise the importance of building effective ways to draw together their individual strengths. There may be a case here for reinvigorating multi-disciplinary as well as inter- and trans-disciplinary approaches, with a particular focus on different methods for integrating diverse discipline-based knowledge and methods.

Statistics does not, however, provide a complete analogy. Statistics is obviously a well-developed and defined academic area, with a solid mathematical core. There are a range of widely adopted standard techniques and an array of known challenges which stimulate ongoing research. Integration and Implementation Sciences is poorly defined, with no widespread agreement about what the field does or does not encompass. As outlined above, some methods, such as principled negotiation, are relatively well defined and accepted, while others are idiosyncratically developed and applied. Even without a clear framework, the scope of Integration and Implementation Sciences is likely to be considerably broader than that of statistics. It seems unlikely that one core concept will lie at the heart of Integration and Implementation Sciences, in the same way that probability forms the nucleus for statistics. This is where the real developmental challenges for Integration and Implementation Sciences lie.