Typologies of Transformation—Visualizing Different Understandings of Change for Sustainability

Abstract

Transformation as a concept is positioned as a solution to diverse societal and planetary crises; however, increasing diversity in the demands for transformation have led to different interpretations of how transformation should be achieved in practice. This article explores the results of a three-year mixed-methods study, which included a literature review, semi-structured expert and practitioner interviews, and two case studies of transformation in motion. Using inductive analytical processes, two distinct and often conflicting interpretations of transformation emerged, which this article positions as a typology of transformation to visually understand and delineate between interpretations of transformation. Bridging these polarised interpretations is challenging, although a significant portion of the interviewees identified the need for both understandings to be used in practice. It is argued that the lack of visibility regarding these different interpretations of transformation is a major barrier to implementing change in practice; without being clear of what personal definitions of transformation are at play, it is challenging to chart a path forward to create change. Being explicit regarding which interpretations of transformation are at play in varying demands for change will enable more efficient and effective communication, although significant research is needed to bridge these understandings.

1. Introduction

Transformative change has emerged as the answer to complex and diverse planetary challenges such as climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss [1,2,3]. Global policy has shifted from identifying problems to becoming more solution-oriented in pursuing transformation as a pathway for change [4,5]. Calls for change are loudest in environmental spheres. For example, stakeholders in biodiversity policy, such as the Intergovernmental Panel for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, have emerged as clear frontrunners in generating knowledge for transformation and transformative change [6,7]. In global ocean governance, the UN Decade of Ocean Science (2021–2030) emphasises the need for “transformative change” for sustainable development [8]. Similarly, the High-Level Ocean Panel, founded in 2018, represents a coalition of 17 world leaders seeking transformation through a vision of “protection, production and prosperity” [9].

The academic study of transformative change specifically in relation to environmental governance has exploded in recent years, representing a complex web of understanding [10]. Despite this growth in research, it has been continually reinforced that transformation lacks cohesive theoretical understanding [10,11,12]. The understanding and invocation of transformation as both a process and descriptor is constantly growing in use and evolving in character. Academic understanding of transformation is often siloed into opposing ideas of radical versus incremental, which are dependent on the framing of the problem requiring transformative solutions [10].

Efforts to classify, sort, and conceptualise transformative change from a theoretical perspective in the literature are numerous [5,10,13,14]. Despite this, there is limited exploration of how those beyond academia conceptualise and frame transformative change in ocean governance. This understanding is integral given the fact that transformation is already a widely agreed upon policy objective. This article draws upon three years of study exploring and evaluating transformative change in ocean governance, completed in 2023. Although the research focused specifically on ocean transformation through the lens of sustainability, the findings are applicable to the pursuit of sustainability generally. From this research, it was clear that diverse interpretations of transformation existed, with varying depths of patience for different ideas [15]. From the sum of experiences undertaken as part of the research process (detailed in the methodology), it became evident that understanding the diversity of interpretations of transformation would enable more robust and clearer communication regarding transformative change in general. The limitations and barriers these diverse opinions presented were also clearly observed, particularly in practice when discussing transformative change efforts with multiple stakeholders. The aim of this article is therefore to provide clarity regarding interpretations of transformation ‘on the ground’ through the creation of a spectrum of transformative change. While this spectrum has been identified through research specifically focusing on ocean governance, the wider intent of the proposed typology is to portray and conceptually group major clusters of interpretations surrounding transformative processes to allow for easier communication around transformative change processes.

The purpose of the proposed typology is not to further fragment opinions about transformative change but instead to provide clarity in an effort to generate common ground and understanding. It is recognised that efforts to be more ‘specific’ in definition are generally aimed at preventing the concept from becoming greenwashed [16], but the pursuit of specificity risks polarisation and paralysis of movement [17].

2. Materials and Methods

This article synthesises the findings and experiences of a three year project which included three successive methodological phases guided by an inductive, grounded theory research design [18], meaning that findings from each research phase formed the direction and analytical strategies used in the following research phase in a narrowing lens of focus [18]. The first phase of the research was a systematic literature review, published in 2023 [10], which created a heuristic taxonomy of conceptualisations of transformation within academic literature. This literature review identified diverse ideas of transformation that were identified as dependent on where within a system the transformation is idealised, with different characteristics of transformation across general systems thinking, socio-ecological systems, and socio-technical systems ([10]). There was limited understanding, however, as to what extent these different ideas of transformation translated into reality or if similar divergences could be observed. Thus, identifying interpretations informed by diverse real-world experiences and perceptions of transformation and what transformation in ocean governance could look like from practitioners and experts in ocean governance formed the next phase of study.

Following the literature review, 24 semi-structured interviews were held with practitioners and experts in ocean governance [15]. These included consultants, government employees, individuals working in intergovernmental and non-governmental spaces, academics, and individuals working in ocean finance organisations. Interviews were undertaken between January and October 2022. Defining exactly what an expert constitutes in research depends upon the degree of expert knowledge, social power, and trust the expert is believed to have [19]. Thus, an early pool of experts were initially identified by level and amount of relevant experience, status, and reputation, with the remainder of the interviewees identified by ‘snowballing’. ‘Snowballing’ means that interviewees were asked to suggest further individuals or demographics to be interviewed [20]. The sample of interviewees was internationally distributed, with interviewees often sharing insights from international working experiences or collaboration.

The results of this research highlight the need to evaluate transformative change in motion. The final phase of the research therefore consisted of national-level case studies of Seychelles and Bangladesh [21], which explored processes of transformation towards the implementation of the blue economy. Documentary and policy analysis, semi-structured interviews, and informal conversations were used as part of the fieldwork (

Table 1. Overview of methods employed in the research, including documents reviewed, number of formal and informal interviews, and conversations.

	Documents Reviewed	Formal Interviews	Informal Conversations
Seychelles	54	3	8
Bangladesh	71	4	7

). Fieldwork was undertaken in February and March 2023. Both Seychelles and Bangladesh had different national conceptualisations of transformative processes, which gave insight into different priorities and pathways of change. Interviewees included policymakers, government officials, academics and non-governmental organisations, which also illustrated how different conceptualisations of transformation came into synergy or conflict with the national direction and priorities of change given in policy.

The following sections of this article synthesise findings from each research phase as well as general observations from the entire project to construct two distinct typologies of transformation and then explore the spectrum of change that exists between them. To sense check the typologies, 22 interviews from throughout the research project were re-analysed to explore how they aligned to the proposed typology. These interviews were selected to illustrate a range of interpretations of transformations and were then used to characterise and discuss each typology. These interviews also gave an insight into different professional backgrounds and alignment to the typologies.

3. Results

3.1. Setting the Scene

Transformation is a diverse and plural term that means different things to different people. Throughout the interviews and informal conversations held as part of this research, it was noted that these differences were often a function of depth of change and speed of change, often focusing around incremental and radical change. These mirror the attributes of transformation described in the literature [10]. In short, radical change was often perceived to be faster, deeper, and more disruptive compared to incremental change, which was smaller, slower, and less disruptive [15], as will be explored below.

Thus, as depicted in Figure 1, from these axes, a spectrum of understanding of transformation can be distilled, with clear and distinct typologies emerging. On one side of the spectrum is radical change, identified here as Type 1 and Type 2 transformations (further detailed in Section 3.2 and Section 3.3). An additional category titled in between captures those who advocated for both types of transformation due to several interviewees recognising the need to remain flexible within ideas of transformation. For example, one interviewee shared the idea that change should not be a “forced dichotomy” (Interviewee 22), and instead advocated for different types of intervention for a system-wide shift [15]. Labels were chosen as best-fit to the perceived characteristics of the type of change idealised by those aligned with the category, but it is acknowledged that this is a loose continuum. Throughout the research, interviewees in both the semi-structured interviews and in case studies were often aware of the differences and conflicts with defining transformation against both theory and practice. For example, one interviewee stated “I’m an academic, so I use O’Brien’s definition… [but that is] probably not what’s used in practice”. Visualising the differences allows for greater understanding of how these interpretations shape action and attitude.

Idealising these typologies of transformation as a spectrum allows for the identification of points of uncertainty and for understanding fluidity, which was often common when interviewees were asked to define transformation. Thus, while two clear characterisations of change emerged from the research, these must be positioned as opposite ends of a continuum rather than separate to allow for this natural flexibility.

To visualise the interpretations of transformation, continuums of pace and depth were used as diverging axes of transformation (Figure 1). It was clear that interviewees and the literature regarded transformation as fast or slow, or deep or shallow, resulting in the cross-shaped axes in Figure 1. Two clear clusters of interpretation emerged at opposing ends of the typology, with no one advocating for solely fast and shallow change, and no one advocating for solely slow and deep change. We note that such clustering may be a result of the small interviewee sample, yet we note its significance in informing these findings. As such, the following sections characterise the typologies of Type 1 and Type 2 in detail, and what exists as a mix of the two typologies. It is emphasised here that Figure 1 only displays what was idealised as characteristics of transformation by interviewees, with implications regarding translation into reality reflected on in the following sections.

Further, 22 interviews from throughout the research were re-analysed for alignment to the typology. Generally, alignment was evenly distributed with nine aligning to Type 1, seven aligning to Type 2, and six existing in both types. When analysed by profession, typologies tended to be well mixed, but there were slight preferences within profession (Figure 2). For example, those employed by the government (predominantly UK-based) aligned to all typologies, with a slight preference for Type 2. Those with a non-governmental background were mixed across Type 1, Type 2, and both classifications, with a slight preference for the Type 1 interpretation of change. Additionally, those with a financial profession tended to advocate for a more ‘in-between’ approach. Consultants tended to align with a more Type 2 interpretation of change. The exception to this well-mixed trend were those with academic backgrounds, which were mostly aligned to a Type 1 interpretation of transformation.

3.2. Type 1 Transformation

3.2.1. Defining Type 1 Transformation

The first type of transformation to emerge from the research is “Type 1 transformation”. Transformation through this lens was primarily informed by the emerging literature surrounding blue justice [22,23,24] and several semi-structured interviews. Type 1 interpretations of transformation generally centred around ideas of root-level, radical, disruptive change that completely disturbs and reinvents the status quo, beyond addressing symptoms of deeper inequalities. The appeal of transformation is therefore in the “promise of real change”, especially surrounding equity, justice, and sustainability [17,25]. Thus, this interpretation focused transformation at targeting the root causes of problems, which are “are deeply embedded in existing societal structures, practices and values at multiple scales, and manifest in diverse ways” [26].

Identifying root causes remains difficult, relying on the detailed mapping of the system and a comprehensive understanding of the system that is under scrutiny. Little guidance exists regarding how root causes are identified and effectively targeted, but [26] identify capitalism [27,28,29], materialism [30], and asymmetrical power relationships [31,32] as general root causes of climate change. In short, changing root causes of persistent problems require a much more expansive transformation than just in-ocean governance towards an entire reconstruction of social order. Thus, the Type 1 characterisation of transformation regards decolonialist, justice-oriented, and feminist ideologies as essential components of change, as well as inclusivity and empowerment [23,33,34]. A particularly poignant quote from Interviewee 12 summarised this sentiment: “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house”, representing a need to think beyond the ontologies and tools that created the system. Hamilton and Ramcilovic-Suominen [16] agree with this sentiment:

“We believe that only radical reordering of the global hegemony on terms collectively determined and generated is capable of doing justice to a full range of otherwise marginalized experiences, and that such is only possible via methods that are radically collective, relational, power conscious and which maintain an ongoing openness to a complete reformulation.”

In this framing, transformation fundamentally cannot be achieved via incremental processes [10,23,35,36,37]. Incremental processes are regarded as too slow, too linear, and reliant on normative ways of thinking to achieve the deep change idealised as part of transformative change [15,36,38]. Fast action is prioritised, along with ‘innovative’ mechanisms for change). Interviewee 5, who is currently employed by the UK government, summarised the need for radical change by outlining the problems in existing change processes: “…there’s lots of project managers and programme managers in our organisation. You know their idea of transformation is just a plan, to plan it and you check in regularly, and you fix things that aren’t working, and you deliver what needs to be delivered, and then you’ll get from A to B. It never works”. Interviewee 5 went on to suggest that a truly radical and transformative transformation needs to come from a change in the underlying philosophy or morality in decision making.

3.2.2. Type 1 in Practice

Unmaking was identified implicitly as a fundamental part of transformation, along with rethinking processes of change beyond what we believe possible [13]. In this framing, a benchmark of transformation would be how reflexive the tools used to facilitate transformation are—for example, a new policy direction is unlikely to reach the depth of change needed in line with this characterisation of change. Nurturing and empowering alternative value systems, nurturing grass-roots and local level change, and actively challenging dominant paradigms are all part of these (and blue justice) conceptualisations of transformation.

A diverse suite of actions to achieve transformation are included in this Type 1 reimagining of transformation. Through these lenses, transformation can be as diverse as an alchemical reimagining [39] or open creative process [40]. Interviewees aligned with this typology of transformation in Phase 1 identified a need for investment into new technologies, new paradigms to guide decision making in governance, degrowth and shifting away from capitalist societies, and a complete re-working of governance arrangements to distribute power to communities. Some informal conversations in Bangladesh invoked wider interpretations of change than those concerning ocean governance, instead advocating for more holistic political reform. The depths of these interventions vary but are generally aligned with targeting deeper norms and political structures that underpin ocean governance.

The difficulty in defining radical interventions often lies in their ability to be dismissed as vague, idealistic notions that are difficult to implement. Interviewee 3 even stated that the idea of radical transformation was scary: “It scares a lot of people”. As an example of a radical change, one interviewee suggested completely moving away from current economic growth-centric ideas of development such as blue growth and the blue economy to ideas that prioritise social and environmental considerations and active economic de-growth. This would constitute a fundamental break away from the current priorities and values of the blue economy, a concept which is rapidly gaining traction as a development agenda, as evidenced by diverse and widespread institutionalisation of the concept. Continuing with this example, degrowth would directly address issues such as climate change [26] and has previously been explored in ocean governance [41].

3.3. Type 2 Transformation

3.3.1. Defining Type 2 Transformation

Directly contrasting the Type 2 interpretation of transformation is a more practical, slower, and managed process of transformation. This perspective was observed in case studies, several semi-structured interviews, and, to a much lesser extent, transformative literature. The general sentiment of this typology of transformation is “evolution, not revolution” (Interviewee 23). This approach prioritises continuing within the remits of the existing system or decision-making patterns, using interventions that are tried and tested to solve problems rather than target underlying causes of issues. This approach also uses incremental (which is often interpreted as smaller, slower interventions) to create change [15]. A good summary of the spirit of this approach was given by an interviewee in Seychelles, who remarked when asked about what type of future change was needed to facilitate the blue economy: “It’s not radical—I wish I was telling you something crazy…”. The interviewee then detailed the need to improve communication across government to ensure alignment across blue economy focus areas as determined by national policy.

Transformation in this mindset can be perceived more warily as a buzzword, with fear and distrust of the concept [15,16]. This translates to actions and idealisms of transformation conforming to previous ways of thinking and not breaking the boundaries of existing structures, such as using existing logic and tools to create transformation [13]. Instead, actions are reactionary and shallow, with interventions that “do not challenge the hegemony—they are the hegemony” [16]. Thus, this form of transformation strongly aligns with the idea of “reinforcing hegemony”, as detailed by [16]. It was felt by some that this was the only way to achieve change: “When I put my hat on as a practitioner, I know that the reality is…even though I would like it to be radical and fairly immediate I know that it only will happen through incremental change” (Interviewee 21) [15].

What is interesting is that often interviewees or conversations that are more strongly aligned with this typology of transformation would still consider their ideas of change as radical. This was most evident in case study analysis in Seychelles and Bangladesh, where the practical realities of transformative change were most apparent and constituted a daily reality to those in government roles [21]. For example, an interviewee in Seychelles recommended a change in institutional structure to facilitate easier communication across government departments to aid in blue economy implementation and described the impacts of the change as ‘transformational’ [21]. In context, this is a radical shift to those within government, but when compared to the ideas of change presented in Section 3.2, the scope is incremental and still aligned with the values of the overarching system.

3.3.2. In Practice

Concerns for transformation as a concept in general exist, but in particular, these align closely with the Type 2 interpretation of transformation [42]. Key risks include the co-opting of the term to reinforce a business as usual approach and lack of attention to power and politics as part of a transformative process [42]. Both of these risks were identified in the case study research and were attributed to the need to remain ‘practically palatable’ by those charged with delivering change. To a degree, it was felt that the opportunity to be truly radical was restricted by circumstance and context. For example, it was felt by interviewees in Bangladesh that a lot of energy, resources, and capacity in Bangladesh were dedicated to establishing ocean-monitoring programmes and developing technical capacity to measure ocean environments [10]. While these changes are fundamental to long-term transformation, it was felt by interviewees in Bangladesh that these neglected the deeper elements of transformation originally idealised in pursuit of a blue economy approach.

A further example of the differences in interpretation of ‘radical’ change was given by an interviewee in the first phase of the semi-structured interviews. The UK-based interviewee suggested changing a specific sentence in English legislation to create a ‘radical’ change in marine consenting, which would enable stricter environmental standards. A Type 1 interpretation of this change would immediately characterise this as incremental, superficial, and therefore not capable of achieving transformative change. Thus, the impact and subsequent depth of interventions depend strongly on the role within, perspective of, and experience in the system—in this case, the ocean governance system.

Transformation is therefore more often seen as being process-driven, transition-led, and achieved by incremental steps to change the direction of the system, “rarely question[ing] the ability of the present socio-economic structures to address the challenges we face [16]”. This aligns with a strongly socio-technical perspective of change and society where innovation, market-based instruments, and new policy directions are conceived as being ‘enough’ for transformative change. Overall, a linear process of goal, action, and execution was often advocated for (or used in case studies), with little space created for alternative visions or processes. Existing tools and concepts are prioritised to achieve transformative goals, such as marine spatial planning to achieve the blue economy. Additionally, it is noted that the goals proposed within this interpretation of transformation are “presented as the only realistic, viable and scientific options” [16].

3.4. A Mix of Both

Defining a Mix of Both

Two opposing ideas of transformation have been presented so far. As noted in Section 3.1, six interviewees advocated for a mixture of both, which could use approaches from the two divergent interpretations of transformation. However, identifying what exists between these polarised interpretations of transformation is difficult and results in trade-offs regarding depth and pace. Interviewees who tended to discuss this approach outlined the need for a “radical in vision, incremental in approach” format of transformative change, although this approach simultaneously manages to achieve the challenges and limitations of both typologies of change combined. However, identifying practical ways of achieving this balance were limited, in part due to the context-specific nature of the balance that must be struck.

Several interviewees advocated for this approach as a way to maintain flexibility within definitions: “I think if you get too prescriptive, then you have a problem” (Interviewee 5). This approach also recognises the need to remain context-specific in approaches to transformation and remain fluid in how transformative change is implemented. This thinking, however, falls into the common trap that believes that once a plan or direction is in place, change will occur [17]. The findings from the case studies, however, present multiple challenges to this proposition of transformation. Although the case studies revealed much about how change ‘on the ground’ from a national government perspective can be achieved, it was extremely difficult to identify any similarities or overlaps between the practical experiences of Seychelles and Bangladesh, and the Type 1 interpretation of change.

While it is acknowledged that transformation takes time and case studies were in the early stages of change, both Seychelles and Bangladesh align in practice with a Type 2 lens of transformation, as they neglect to consider ‘root’ causes of systemic issues and omit broader conversations regarding power. This was especially true in Bangladesh. The overarching imperative of economic development is marketed and perceived as transformative, especially when considering the transformation oriented Five Year Plans [43,44]. However, the steps employed to reach these transformative goals were limited in innovation and instead further embedded existing power dynamics. When translated into actual implementation and practice, change was process driven by incremental (slow, stepwise) means that perpetuated existing institutions, ideas, and power dynamics, at least in the short term. Disruptive and experimental thinking and innovation take less precedence when confronted with the real pressures these actors face, restricting ‘radical’ interventions.

In summary, this approach seems to gain the weaknesses and barriers of both polarised interpretations of change. For example, if a transformative vision is realised only through incremental action, it is still vulnerable to inertia and being limited to only superficial change. When considering what was observed and identified in case study examples, it must therefore be further questioned whether a ‘best of both worlds’ approach that bridges transformative interpretations in such a way can ever be achieved.

4. Discussion

From the results above, it is abundantly clear that transformation as a concept means different things depending on context, scale, systemic positioning, and experience [45]. While a fairly standard definition of transformative ocean governance has emerged concurrently and parallel to this research [7,23,46,47,48], there has been limited exploration of the diversity of perspectives by practitioners and how this influences the actions taken to achieve change. It is argued here, and elsewhere in the literature [15], that transformation requires both radical and incremental types of change to create enough momentum and pressure across diverse elements of a governance system to sustain change. What is traditionally understood as ‘deep’ change cannot be achieved without ‘shallower’ change to build trust, momentum, and support to address these deeper systemic elements. ‘Shallower’ change is unlikely to create transformation without enabling deeper change. Thus, reflecting on this duality, the typology presented supports the identification of these different types of change, building on the experiences and insights of diverse audiences in ocean governance. From the spectrum outlined above, several considerations arise for transformative change in practice. The following sections argue that this spectrum can also be used to assist in understanding why transformative change has been so slow to date and to suggest further interventions to assist in supporting future transformations.

Throughout Section 3, care has been taken to evidence and ground these interpretations in existing literature and provide examples from practice. However, it must still be asked what the implications of the spectrum are on transformative progress as a whole. It is suggested here that transformative change, in general, is essentially paralysed by this divergence of opinion. A wide and increasingly growing gap exists between what policymakers (those at a national level in formal ocean governance practises), academics, and activists at a grassroots level understand by transformation. This is bridged by a non-uniform and often conflicting middle ground of interpretation which advocates for both types of change, without really being clear about what this looks like. Growing fragmentation of the concept risks polarisation and paralysis of movement [40], and there is a risk of the transformation spectrum growing in scope rather than becoming more unified. The increasing diversity of what transformation is understood as risks the concept becoming useless in practice, with anything potentially being defined or positioned as a transformative intervention [10]. Even if transformation does not require a uniform definition and instead requires a normative and context-dependent definition, tools to assist in achieving clear communication should be used to ensure that misunderstandings are kept to a minimum. The novelty and originality of the proposed typology can support clearer communication by making positionality regarding understandings of transformation explicit from the outset of change processes. For example, when working with diverse stakeholders to outline priority policy objectives, the typology can be used to ‘plot’ how different interventions are perceived.

A further limitation of a spectrum approach to transformation is the significant risk of greenwashing that could arise from recognising that transformation requires multiple depths of change. Greenwashing is a risk inherent to transformation and it is argued that branding an intervention as transformative while it does little in reality to change anything beyond the status quo erodes the power of transformation as a concept. Greenwashing is defined as misleading communication practises, or in short, calling something transformative when it is not. This presents several risks to transformation, including the erosion of trust in institutions to deliver change and the loss of clear boundaries regarding what transformation actually is. It must be noted that in such diversity of definition, anything could be considered transformative, which risks diluting the power of the concept [10]. To mitigate these risks, understanding exactly what is understood by transformation is necessary as it is evident that divergent interpretations are often at play. It is further argued here that the typology proposed could provide a constructive process in which to map these differences in definition and prevent greenwashing at a planning stage.

It is challenging to see how recognising these opposing ideas of change as a spectrum could allow for a coherent journey forward, especially when considering global change agendas such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). A recent analysis identified that while the SDGs have had some political impact, tangible impacts such as resource allocation and legislative change have been rare [49]. When reframed through the spectrum of change outlined above, it seems that the “in between” approach of transformative change advocated for by some is not working, i.e., achieving large-scale transformation through national actions. While the 2030 vision itself is transformative, the incremental, process-led targets are not achieving change. It is recognised that there are many factors that contribute to this lack of progress, but it is suggested here that the baseline understanding of transformation could be strengthened to achieve change in line with the urgency required. Thus, while the SDGs may impact the deeper elements of transformation (e.g., knowledge, ways of working as outlined above), the pace and observable depth of change have been less than expected. Further, [49] recommends four reforms to strengthen the impact of the SDGs, none of which include addressing the underlying confusion regarding what transformation means, which is highlighted in this research as a barrier to change.

When translating the implications of this spectrum of change into a national context, the challenges of these diverging opinions are amplified. Two case studies in Seychelles and Bangladesh [21] found a range of interpretations of transformation identified across the ocean governance system. These different opinions often led to conflicting ideas of the direction of change needed and contrasting opinions regarding the pace and depth of change. For example, in Bangladesh, a difference between how transformation was idealised and held to account by senior political leaders was different to how younger members of the governance system imagined transformative change and its manifestations [21]. Through observational analysis and the results of informal conversations, it is suggested here that these different perceptions contributed to slow, inconsistent change and unclear ideas regarding the direction of change despite a national policy framework and action plan. The lack of clarity in direction ultimately precludes any deeper change from being undertaken, which stops transformation in its tracks.

Finally, there was limited patience by some of those interviewed throughout the research in even discussing or trying to identify the gaps in the interpretation of transformation. This manifested as a lack of patience for the subject or assuming that there was a singular definition that simply required the dictionary definition to be shared to get people on board with the narrative of change required [15]. One interviewee suggested Googling the definition, which implies that the definition itself is static and independent of social construction. However, as argued in this article, the reality is complex, and it cannot be assumed that a single definition is shared. The generation of a spectrum of transformation can assist in dispelling the notion that there is only one type of transformation.

5. Conclusions

Transformation is a concept that has driven global policy and action to solve diverse challenges, ranging from climate change to increasing pollution. This spectrum of transformation could be used to understand several key challenges to transformation in action across different scales. It is proposed here that this spectrum can also play a key role in navigating and understanding future transformations by creating a platform to identify shared understanding. Recognising transformative change is fundamentally people-driven [50] and necessitates ensuring that people are on the same page when planning for transformation. While a lack of patience by some interviewees throughout the research for such positioning questions and exercises has been outlined above, it is argued here that being clear about what exactly is understood by transformation can prevent miscommunication and disappointment, which can lead to a lack of trust in change processes. Additionally, being aware of where we ourselves and others may lie can assist in identifying common ground and possible conflicts. Therefore, it is suggested that this spectrum can be used as a positioning tool to facilitate easier dialogue between change agents.