Dedeurwaerdere, Jahn and Newig make visible a structural contradiction frequently obscured by impact rhetoric: transdisciplinary research is often expected to maximise both actionable societal knowledge and conventional academic publication, although these outputs are produced through partly competing temporalities and practices. Their survey of fifty completed European research projects shows that only a minority achieved high levels of both. Co-design of field research tends to increase actionable knowledge while potentially reducing publication output, yet intermediate levels of co-design combined with relational and reflective-normative trust can mitigate the trade-off. The paper’s conceptual force lies in treating trust not as atmosphere but as a governance mechanism that can coordinate divergent expectations. Methodologically, it turns a familiar anecdotal tension into an empirical organisational problem. The work bridges science policy, research evaluation and transdisciplinary governance by demonstrating that societal impact and academic productivity are not simply parallel targets; their compatibility depends on how research tasks, relationships and institutional incentives are designed.
