the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 24 Mar 2026
Climate adaptation game design to foster transdisciplinary and intercultural collaboration
Abstract. Addressing the complex challenges of climate adaptation requires transdisciplinary collaboration that bridges diverse knowledge systems across cultural and disciplinary boundaries. This paper presents insights from the "Climate Action Transdisciplinarity in Education and Research" (CATER) project, which implements game co-creation as an educational tool to foster transdisciplinary and transcultural collaboration on climate adaptation. Through annual schools, participants from diverse scientific, professional, and cultural backgrounds engage in an immersive learning process that integrates theoretical lectures, field visits, and collaborative game design. Participants develop games addressing real-world climate adaptation issues, including agricultural resilience, probabilistic forecast communication, and resource conflicts, thereby translating complex concepts into immersive, educational applications. In this paper we reflect on the co-creative process as it took place during two schools in 2023 (Kenya) and 2024 (Tanzania), and discuss game co-creation as boundary work, how it facilitates mutual learning and applies soft skills, while participants negotiate power dynamics, knowledge integration, and group facilitation challenges. A complementary evaluation using Q-methodology assessed changes in participants' perspectives on transdisciplinarity and co-production, revealing a shift from disciplinary viewpoints toward greater appreciation of collaborative, inclusive approaches in climate adaptation strategies. The findings highlight game design as an effective medium for experiential learning and transdisciplinary boundary work, although challenges remain regarding power imbalances, language barriers, and group dynamics. Importantly, the combination of game co-creation and systematic evaluation with Q-methodology offers a promising approach to enhance and assess transdisciplinary collaboration. Future CATER schools will allow us to refine these methods.
- Preprint
(1338 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1471', Anonymous Referee #1, 31 May 2026
reply
-
EC1: 'Thanks for RC1', David Crookall, 31 May 2026
reply
Many thanks indeed for a thorough and excellent review of the ms. Much appreciated.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1471-EC1 -
CC1: 'Reply on EC1', Jelmer Jeuring, 17 Jun 2026
reply
Dear reviewer #1, thanks for your constructive comments. We await feedback from reviewer #2, and provide a response in due course.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1471-CC1
-
CC1: 'Reply on EC1', Jelmer Jeuring, 17 Jun 2026
reply
-
EC1: 'Thanks for RC1', David Crookall, 31 May 2026
reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1471', Siri Veland, 21 Jun 2026
reply
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript on teaching and evaluation methods through the CATER project. The paper provides an outline and analysis of an international teaching and research course for students and practitioners in the field of climate services. The overview of the game methodology and findings is comprehensive and insightful. The Q-methodology is well explained and seems well suited for the purpose of evaluating the course. The manuscript merits full publication, with some additional considerations.First, the concept of transdisciplinarity is used throughout but the manuscript would benefit from a definition for the purpose of this manuscript, and for the purpose of the paper's analysis. Please provide a brief description of how this term is used in the paper, and how it is applied to teaching and learning. Also, which disciplines were present would also be useful information. The term transcultural is also mentioned, and would benefit from the same definition and application.The overview of power dynamics in the groups is insightful. Could you please add a short description of how the dynamics regarding gender, language, country of origin, and affiliation were handled, or perhaps how they may have influenced discussions?Could you provide a short account of the discourse from which the Q-samples were taken? The samples were taken from expert interviews, and a short account of the key issues may help orient the reader to experts perceive the strengths and challenges. This short presentation could helpfully include some information on how local, traditional, and indigenous knowledge are discussed in the course materials, since this emerges as a finding in the results.The analysis of the findings from the Q-methodology seems sound, but the interpretations can use more robust evidence. From the way results are presented, Factor 2a and 2b seem to be about knowledge systems rather than disciplinary homes (line 439). Their stance on disciplinarity seems more neutral or even supportive (e.g. s19 appendix), while their polar opposite stance on local people leading international projects is perhaps the strongest in the dataset (s15, appendix). The data also seem to show that something in the course design shifted the perspective of at least two participants away from local, traditional, and Indigenous knowledge, and toward more neutral perspectives. While the authors may not be able to account for this shift, it seems to merit mention in the discussion. These matters may only emerge from the way results are presented, but there seems to be a need to link the data results better with the discussion to account for these matters.The style of writing is very clear and engaging. This also means the few uses of colloquial language stand out and I suggest to change this. Line 39 "feed off..." and line 89 "we wrap up...". The paragraph line 414-418 is a repetition, but this might be an opportunity to interpret the impacts of this dynamic. Might it be relevant for the drift from F2a to 3?A final comment is to suggest that in future iterations, the course can opt for in-person Q-sorts since this allows explanation of terms, and capturing how respondents navigate the exercise.Citation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2026-1471-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 455 | 178 | 39 | 672 | 32 | 45 |
- HTML: 455
- PDF: 178
- XML: 39
- Total: 672
- BibTeX: 32
- EndNote: 45
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
This manuscript presents a reflective account of a multi-method approach that combines game co-creation, used as a pedagogical device, with a Q-methodology assessment, used to evaluate how the perspectives of participants on transdisciplinarity evolve during two annual schools of the CATER project (Kenya 2023 and Tanzania 2024). The topic is relevant for the readership of the journal. The empirical material is rich and the limitations are recognised in several places. I appreciated in particular the effort to assess, and not only to describe, the co-production process. However, the paper in its present form have several major weaknesses, which I detail below.
My first concern is that the theoretical framing of the notion of game is underdeveloped. The authors rely almost exclusively on the broad definition of the serious game proposed by Speelman et al. (2018), and they mobilise some other papers, but they do not engage with the foundational theories of play and game (and actual research on games for agriculture and/or environment which are at the heart of the proposed themes). This is a problem because the qualification of the participants' prototypes as serious games is never really interrogated. Some prototypes, for example the role-playing exercise on the relation between farmers and pastoralists, seem closer to a simulation or a role-play than to a game in the strict sense. I would suggest that the authors clarify what they mean precisely by game in their device, and that they position their definition with respect to the existing literature on games and games for agriculture/environment.
Second, I would add that the boundary work framing is mobilised in a rather superficial way. The notion of boundary object is central but the references are limited to Lundgren (2020) and van Bruggen et al. (2019), while the founding text of Star and Griesemer (1989), as well as Star (2010), are not cited. More importantly, the authors do not clarify what exactly constitutes the boundary object in their case, whether it is the finished game, the process of co-design, or the whole pedagogical device. I recommend making this point explicit and detailed.
My third major concern is that the causal link between game co-creation and the change of perceptions is fragile. The research design does not permit isolating the specific effect of the game co-creation from the other components of the school. The lectures, the field trip, which the authors themselves present as the most impactful element according to the participants' feedback, the informal discussions, and simply the experience of spending two weeks in an intense international and multicultural environment, could all contribute to the perception shifts observed in the post-school Q-sorts. The text oscillates between attributing the effect to the game design and attributing it to the school as a whole. This ambiguity should be assumed more clearly. Either the conclusions are reformulated to speak of the global impact of the school, with the game co-creation as an integrating device, or the authors propose, as a perspective, an evaluation design able to better identify the proper contribution of the game. The attribution/contribution of games has been the focus of some recent research.
In the same line, the hypothesis of convergence is not problematised. The hypothesis tested is that divergent perspectives tend to converge after the school, but in transdisciplinarity the preservation of diversity is also a value in itself. A premature convergence could indicate a levelling of viewpoints, or even an effect of social desirability in a group that has shared an intense common experience and that is in relation with its hosts. The authors should discuss to what extent the convergence they observe is desirable, and whether a critical opening that preserves productive disagreements would not be a better indicator of a successful transdisciplinary process.
I note also statistical limits of the Q-method analysis, which are under-discussed. The sample is small, the splitting of Factor2 is statistically very fragile to support the interpretation. The authors should justify this choice more explicitly.
A further important weakness is that the method of analysis of the qualitative data is under-specified. Authors describe well the materials collected (observation notes, daily notes and debriefing notes) but no analysis method is explained. There is no mention of a coding procedure, a thematic analysis or a content analysis with a CAQDAS. As a consequence, the qualitative results presented are narrative without traceability. This weakens the robustness of the observations, in particular the strong claims on power dynamics. I recommend that the authors describe how the qualitative material was treated, how many observers produced the notes, and how the interpretation was triangulated. Connected to this, the reflexivity on the authors' own position remains limited. The authors are at the same time designers of the school, lecturers, facilitators, observers and evaluators, and this multiple position is not really problematised: it is a basis for transdisciplinarity.
Finally, the analysis of the prototypes themselves remains mainly descriptive, and the use of the central framework is partly inaccurate. The authors could use the Triadic Game Design with its components of meaning, reality and play, to analyse how the disciplinary and cultural diversity of the groups translates into the mechanics chosen, and not only into the themes.
In conclusion, I recommend major revisions. The paper addresses a relevant and original question, and the empirical work is valuable, but need substantial revision before the manuscript can be considered for publication.