Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

There is an increasing emphasis on transdisciplinary research to address the complex challenges faced by health systems. However, research has not adequately explored how members of transdisciplinary research teams perceive, understand, and promote transdisciplinary collaboration. As such, there is a need to investigate collaborative behaviors, knowledge, and the impacts of transdisciplinary research. To address this gap, we conducted a longitudinal realist evaluation of transdisciplinary collaboration within a 5-year National Health and Medical Research Council–funded Center of Research Excellence in Transdisciplinary Frailty Research. The current study aimed to explore researchers’ perceptions and promotion of transdisciplinary research specifically within the context of frailty research using qualitative methods. Participants described transdisciplinary research as a collaborative and integrative approach that involves individuals from various disciplines working together to tackle complex research problems. However, participants often used terms like interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary interchangeably, indicating that a shared understanding of transdisciplinary research is needed. Barriers to transdisciplinary collaboration included time constraints, geographical distance, and entrenched collaboration patterns. To overcome these challenges, participants suggested implementing strategies such as creating a shared vision and goals, establishing appropriate collaboration systems and structures, and role modeling collaborative behaviors, values, and attitudes. Our findings underscore the need for practical knowledge in developing transdisciplinary collaboration and leadership skills across different career stages. In the absence of formal training, sustained and immersive programs that connect researchers with peers, educators, and role models from various disciplines and provide experiential learning opportunities, may be valuable in fostering successful transdisciplinary collaboration.

Keywords

transdisciplinary translational health research collaboration qualitative knowledge translation

Introduction

There is a growing emphasis on collaborative, team-based research to address the complex challenges facing health systems (Archibald, 2023; Austin et al., 2008; Murphy et al., 2011; Sargent et al., 2022). Multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary research are terms relating to scientific activities involving two or more disciplines, representing a continuum characterized by increasing interaction and disciplinary integration (Choi & Pak, 2007; Hall et al., 2019; Kemp & Nurius, 2015). Collaborative teams vary in their degree of disciplinary integration, influenced by project-related factors, such as the scope of the research problem, and team-related factors, such as the recognition and value placed on team members’ diverse contributions (Bergmann et al., 2012). Examining the perspectives of researchers engaged in such endeavors can offer valuable insights into the challenges and benefits they encounter during transdisciplinary collaboration. This is particularly needed given the lack of formal transdisciplinary training for academic research teams. This knowledge can help facilitate common language and understanding regarding transdisciplinary research, identify barriers and facilitators to effective collaboration, and inform the development of resources and strategies to enhance transdisciplinary research practices.

Representing the fullest extent of disciplinary integration is transdisciplinary research—a research practice with a 50-year history and multiple definitions and implementation models (Lawrence et al., 2022). Although there are similarities, transdisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and multidisciplinary research are distinct in their levels of collaboration and integration (Choi & Pak, 2007; Rosenfield, 1992). In multidisciplinary research, independent contributions from different disciplines are made, maintaining disciplinary boundaries, with the goal of combining insights without necessarily creating a unified understanding. Interdisciplinary research actively integrates disciplinary perspectives and methodologies, resulting in a synthesis of disciplinary knowledge. Transdisciplinary research goes beyond interdisciplinary collaboration by integrating diverse perspectives, including those from non-academic stakeholders such as community members and policymakers, with a specific focus on co-creating knowledge and solutions (Belcher et al., 2016; Pineo et al., 2021). Transdisciplinary research aims for deep integration of disciplinary knowledge and non-academic perspectives, transcending traditional disciplinary boundaries and approaches to address complex problems by fostering a shared understanding among all stakeholders (Hall et al., 2012; Rosenfield, 1992; Wickson et al., 2006).

Transdisciplinary research has gained traction across various sectors such as education, urban planning, sustainability, and environmental sciences. However, the literature has primarily focused on participation methods and frameworks rather than how researchers recognize, understand, and promote transdisciplinary collaboration, particularly in the absence of formal transdisciplinary training. Investigating the understandings and behaviors around transdisciplinary collaboration from a pragmatic, practice-based perspective may provide valuable real-world insights and guidance for the many investigators encountering these collaborative approaches.

Participating in a transdisciplinary team offers researchers practical opportunities to apply their academic knowledge and skills to real-world research problems and develop competencies in navigating practical aspects of collaborative research (Guise et al., 2017). Becoming an effective transdisciplinary researcher requires more than mere involvement in a team; it necessitates being cognizant of contextual barriers and opportunities, recognizing how one’s expertise contributes to solving shared problems, and having the confidence to apply this knowledge in a team environment mandated to achieve new visions and solutions (Pineo et al., 2020). Achieving this often requires “sustained immersion” in a collaborative environment that fosters these competencies (Bachrach et al., 2019), yet fostering competencies requires understanding of, and attention to, the unique features of transdisciplinary research. Often, facilitating transdisciplinary collaboration requires opportunities for researchers to build collaborative networks, receive mentorship in transdisciplinary values and skills, and observe and emulate the behaviors of successful transdisciplinary academics. Long-term programs that connect researchers with peers, educators, and role models from various disciplines, and provide experiential and reflective learning opportunities, may be particularly valuable.

Despite its potential, transdisciplinary research, when put into practice, raises several challenges. Beyond a lack of formal training and understanding of its unique features, challenges exist at different levels, including system-level barriers related to policies (e.g., funding structures favoring traditional disciplinary approaches, academic promotion criteria prioritizing discipline-specific work, and limited data-sharing protocols), organizational-level challenges such as lack of incentives for collaboration, and team-level challenges arising from a lack of shared goals, disciplinary integration, and ineffective conflict resolution (Black et al., 2019; Emmons et al., 2008; Harvey et al., 2015; Sargent et al., 2022). The term transdisciplinary is often used interchangeably with interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research, leading to confusion and misuse (Sargent et al., 2022). Health researchers might have different perspectives on transdisciplinary research compared to researchers in disciplines like sustainability and environmental sciences, which have a longer history of engaging in transdisciplinary research (Lang et al., 2012; Zscheischler et al., 2014). This difference can be attributed to the characteristics of health research, such as the complexity of health issues, the applied nature of the research, disciplinary training, and professional culture.

To address the challenges of transdisciplinary collaboration, various strategies have been identified, such as careful team selection, establishing a shared vision, paying attention to relational dynamics, and implementing tailored activities to foster team integration (Cundill et al., 2019; Lotrecchiano, 2011; Mäkinen, 2018). While the importance of leadership in transdisciplinary teams is often overlooked in collaborative research, it plays a critical role in bringing individuals together, building trust, and finding common solutions (Calhoun et al., 2013; Mäkinen, 2018; Pineo et al., 2021). Leading transdisciplinary teams differs from leading unidisciplinary teams as it requires a focus on facilitating teamwork and incorporating diverse knowledge (Twyman & Contractor, 2019). Traditional hierarchical leadership approaches in academia may not be effective in transdisciplinary contexts (Tsoukas, 2017). Transdisciplinary leadership can take on both top-down and collective approaches, negotiated between parties, as well as bottom-up, defined by relationships and collaborative networks (Calhoun et al., 2013; Edelman et al., 2022; Long et al., 2013). Therefore, leadership approaches that foster trust, connect individuals and teams, and manage relationships are often more suitable (Bolden, 2011; Chapman et al., 2017; Van Wart, 2013).

Insights from complexity theory and leadership practice shed light on leadership within transdisciplinary teams (Rosenhead et al., 2019; Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2017, 2018; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). Theoretical frameworks such as complexity leadership theory (Uhl-Bien & Marion, 2009; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007) and the Cynefin framework (Kurtz & Snowden, 2003; Snowden & Boone, 2007) provide valuable insights into understanding and navigating complex leadership challenges. Complexity leadership theory (Uhl-Bien & Marion, 2009; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007) emphasizes the importance of adaptive leadership and the ability to effectively manage and leverage complexity in organizations. The Cynefin framework (Kurtz & Snowden, 2003; Snowden & Boone, 2007) offers a sense-making model that helps leaders categorize problems into different domains and determine appropriate approaches for each. Leadership in this context requires a deep understanding of the dynamic nature of complex systems and the ability to facilitate emergent solutions.

Research exploring how researchers recognize, understand, and promote transdisciplinary research in health contexts is limited (Deutsch et al., 2021; Gaziulusoy et al., 2016; Gray, 2008; Hoffmann et al., 2017). Although previous studies have highlighted the various individual, social, organizational, and environmental factors that can influence these perceptions (e.g., Archibald et al., 2023; Hohl et al., 2022), there remains a need for further investigation into the specific strategies employed by researchers to facilitate successful transdisciplinary research and the effectiveness of leadership approaches. Addressing these knowledge gaps through research will provide valuable insights, enabling the development of evidence-based guidance for researchers, team leaders, and institutions.

The Study Context

This study builds on our prior realist evaluation and longitudinal case study of transdisciplinary research in a 5-year (2015–2020) National Health and Medical Research Council Center of Research Excellence in Transdisciplinary Frailty Research (GNT1102208), reported elsewhere (Archibald et al., 2018, 2023). In Australia, the Centers of Research Excellence scheme provides support for research teams to undertake collaborative research to improve health outcomes and improve the translation of research outcomes into policy and practice. The previous realist evaluation involved three rounds of theory development, refinement, and testing over a 3-year period (February 2017–March 2020), drawing on multiple data sources. Three overarching program theories were developed highlighting that under favorable contextual conditions, researchers can improve their capacity to navigate, negotiate, and mobilize the collaborative network, which was defined in relation to the theoretical literature on networks in complex systems (Kitson et al., 2018; Long et al., 2013).

The current study was conducted after the completion of the Center’s funding and the realist evaluation. While the earlier evaluation concentrated on constructing program theories regarding the reciprocal impact of transdisciplinary collaboration and knowledge translation, this study shifted its focus to exploring the lived experiences and strategies employed by researchers within the Center. The aim of the current study was to investigate how researchers in the Center recognize, understand, and promote transdisciplinary research. Specifically, the objectives were to (1) examine researchers’ ability to recognize and understand transdisciplinary research; (2) identify strategies used by researchers to promote successful transdisciplinary research; and (3) establish priorities for future developments to support transdisciplinary leaders and teams.

Method

A qualitative descriptive design was used, which was deemed suitable for offering a low-inference account of participants’ experiences that remained close to their original words (Neergaard et al., 2009; Sandelowski, 2000). This approach was selected to facilitate a detailed exploration of experiences and phenomena where limited knowledge existed to inform practice and policy. Qualitative description research is characterized by a naturalistic perspective (i.e., examining a phenomenon in its natural context), flexibility in theoretical commitment, and purposeful sampling, with these principles guiding the study design (Kim et al., 2017). The data collection included individual interviews, and the analysis utilized content analysis supplemented with descriptive quantitative data. Qualitative description informed straightforward representation of findings and permitted methodological variations aligned with study goals, including the incorporation of techniques from other qualitative traditions when deemed appropriate (Vaismoradi et al., 2013).

Sample

The sample for this study was purposively drawn from the Center, encompassing chief investigators, associate investigators, international associate investigators, research fellows, and graduate students, representing a range of academic disciplines and specialties including geriatric medicine, gerontology, general practice, nursing, demography, orthopedic surgery, pharmacy, geography, knowledge translation, and health economics. Over the funding lifespan of the Center (2015–2020), team members participated in activities aimed at promoting effective collaboration and capacity building in transdisciplinary teamwork, including management meetings, advisory group meetings, and mentoring events. Consequently, team members were familiar with transdisciplinary research and were encouraged to reflect on their experiences and learning.

The research team, comprising the authors (AK, MA, ML, and MAPP), were involved as a knowledge translation chief investigator (AK) and research fellows (MA, ML, and MAPP) in the Center. Our role within the team involved offering consultation, collaboration on grants and publications, and facilitating knowledge translation capacity building for team research activities. This involved conducting inward-facing research into the mechanisms of transdisciplinary team functioning, aligned with the Center’s knowledge translation research program (Archibald et al., 2023). Post-funding, the research team continued to engage with Center members to gather insights and perspectives relevant to the current study’s objectives. Purposive sampling was employed across sub-groups to ensure a comprehensive representation of roles, responsibilities, and career stages. The first author (ML) approached potential participants by e-mail and provided them with an information sheet. The participants included chief investigators (n = 9), associate investigators (n = 3), international associate investigators (n = 4), and funded research fellows (n = 8). Ultimately, a total of 13 researchers participated in the study, representing diverse roles, disciplines, and locations. Reasons for non-participation included time constraints and time zone differences.

Data Collection

Data collection took place from September 2021 to December 2021. Given the pre-existing professional relationships between the research team and participants, reflexive strategies were employed to enhance transparency and mitigate potential biases. These strategies included reflexive journaling—maintaining a journal to document thoughts and assumptions during the research process—regular team reflections to assess roles and potential biases, and member checking involving sharing preliminary findings with participants to validate data accuracy and interpretations. Data collection involved semi-structured interviews conducted via Microsoft Teams (Microsoft, Washington, PA). An interview schedule (Appendix 1) was developed focusing on understandings of transdisciplinary research; sources of knowledge about transdisciplinary research; perceived barriers and enablers to transdisciplinary research; and suggestions for how team members and leaders can promote transdisciplinary research. The questions were informed by the literature on transdisciplinary research, discussions within the research group, and findings from our longitudinal study (Archibald et al., 2023). Interviews were conducted by an experienced qualitative researcher (MT), and with the participants’ consent, they were recorded and transcribed. Field notes were taken during the interviews to capture additional observations. Participants were given the opportunity to review their transcripts and provide clarifications before the analysis and reporting of their data.

Ethical Considerations

The Flinders University Human Research Ethics Committee (project number 4491) approved this study. Principles of anonymity, informed consent, and the right to withdraw were maintained throughout the study. Given the internal relationships of the research team and participants, all participants were assured that their responses would be treated confidentially and would not impact their role or future collaboration opportunities.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed independently by two experienced qualitative researchers (ML and MT) in Microsoft Excel and NVivo 12 (QSR International). The analysis drew on qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis techniques (Neergaard et al., 2009; Vaismoradi et al., 2013). To ensure accuracy, both analysts repeatedly read the transcripts to remove transcription errors and gain a comprehensive understanding of the data. Initial coding involved creating a deductive framework of 32 categories based on the interview questions and study aims. This framework guided subsequent transcript analysis, with additional codes generated inductively from participants’ responses. Codes were then grouped into categories, and the entire sample underwent analysis. Qualitative data were open-coded, and numerical codes were tabulated for patterns using descriptive statistical analysis, including frequency counts to identify similarities and differences between sub-groups—an approach common in qualitative descriptive studies (Kim et al., 2017). These themes were subsequently discussed within the research team, and consensus was achieved through deliberation and referencing supportive data.

Criteria for credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability were considered to ensure trustworthiness. Credibility was established by gaining familiarity with the data, through independent data analysis, and through meetings to examine data interpretation. To ensure confirmability and dependability, an audit trail was maintained throughout the research process. Transferability was ensured by reporting details about the study participants, the setting in which the research was conducted, and a detailed description of the research process and key findings (Nowell et al., 2017).

Results

Thirteen participants, including chief investigators (n = 7), associate investigators (n = 2), and research fellows (n = 4), took part in the study. The duration of the interviews ranged from 21:30 to 50:36 min (mean = 34:18 min). Twelve participants were based in Australia, specifically in South Australia, New South Wales, and Victoria, while one participant was based in Canada. The participants represented various disciplines, including gerontology, geriatric medicine, geography, rehabilitation medicine, demography, nursing, general practice, epidemiology, health economics, pharmacy, occupational therapy, public health, and psychology. Of the participants, seven (54%) were female and six (46%) were male. Most participants (77%) had experience working in the health sector; several (46%) held senior research leadership roles.

Four themes were developed from the analysis: (1) transdisciplinary research is regarded as a collaborative and integrative approach to tackling complex problems, but it lacks a shared definition; (2) researchers believe that transdisciplinary research can generate comprehensive solutions that benefit all stakeholders involved; (3) structural, social, and cognitive factors present barriers to successful transdisciplinary collaboration; and (4) research leaders can foster transdisciplinary research by encouraging connectivity and a collaborative mindset (Appendix 2).

Transdisciplinary Research Is Regarded as a Collaborative and Integrative Approach to Tackling Complex Problems, but It Lacks a Shared Definition

Most chief investigators, associate investigators, and research fellows (77%) defined transdisciplinary research as a collaborative approach involving individuals from various disciplines and non-academic partners, such as service users/patients, clinicians, and policymakers, to address complex problems. Understandings were informed by participants’ prior research experience (69%), disciplinary background (46%), clinical experience (38%), and professional training (31%). Over half (54%) highlighted the importance of collaborating with people outside their discipline (e.g., “working with people from different professional disciplines in a collaborative way”; chief investigator, P6). In addition, participants discussed integrating diverse perspectives to develop innovative solutions:

So, it might be a merger. Like when you put red with yellow, what colour do you get kind of thing? So rather than red and yellow in a line with a little bit of zigzagging, but actually to have a uniformly new colour. (Chief investigator, P1)

Some participants (e.g., P2 and P13) stated that transdisciplinary research can address complex problems to create comprehensive solutions that might otherwise go unexplored. Specifically, transdisciplinary research was viewed as an approach to manage or facilitate the movement of knowledge within complex social systems. For example:

Transdisciplinary is what you have to do to be able to manage complexity. And I think my experience in the team is about negotiating the movement of knowledge. And, in trying to do that, you have to understand the different paradigms that people are coming from. For me, transdisciplinarity is the ability to interpret and translate different ways of seeing the world into something that is more cohesive and integrative. And ultimately, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. (Chief investigator, P13)

Many participants (46%) did not distinguish between transdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and interdisciplinary research and instead used the terms interchangeably depending on the context. Although participants were generally familiar with the term “transdisciplinary,” they often described it in subjective terms with a degree of uncertainty, reflected in the repeated use of phrases such as “to me,” “I would guess,” and “is perhaps.”

Some participants (38%) regarded transdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and interdisciplinary research as distinct categories defined by the research question, investigators’ roles, and the degree of disciplinary integration. The terms used to describe collaborative approaches differed between disciplines or practice settings (e.g., “Interdisciplinary, I use the term but to me, it’s not as clearly defined”; associate investigator, P6). However, transdisciplinary research was generally viewed as more integrative and comprehensive than multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary research. As one associate investigator expressed:

I think transdisciplinary is perhaps meant to be progressing a little beyond just that interdisciplinary understanding, where you’re bringing different disciplines together and working out problems, whereas transdisciplinary is perhaps reforming ideas around the synthesis of knowledge to create a new model, a new way of thinking about something. So I think it’s a little bit deeper in some respects. (P9)

While some participants (31%) felt that other members of the Center shared a similar understanding of transdisciplinary research, others (31%) were unsure whether there was a shared understanding. Participants attributed the lack of a shared understanding to individuals’ varying experiences and disciplinary backgrounds, as well as a lack of opportunities for explicit dialogue about the definition and operationalization of transdisciplinary research.

Researchers Believe That Transdisciplinary Research Can Generate Comprehensive Solutions That Benefit All Stakeholders Involved

Participants emphasized the importance of transdisciplinary collaboration, with one chief investigator stating its increasing adoption as the standard research approach, moving away from isolated silos (e.g., “I think it’s almost like the standard now ... we can’t work in silos anymore, it’s the way to do research nowadays”; associate investigator, P8). The reasons mentioned for the importance of transdisciplinary research were gaining a better understanding of the research problem (46%), incorporating diverse perspectives and skills (46%), and acknowledging complexity and providing strategies for managing it (38%). Participants observed that compared to research within a single discipline, transdisciplinary research provides a more comprehensive and holistic understanding of the research problem due to the multiple perspectives involved. As one research fellow explained:

I almost feel like with disciplinary work, we’re putting on a particular set of binoculars or glasses in terms of looking at this terrain, but the terrains out there, whether we’re doing that or not. And so, to my mind, the more perspectives that you come to bear on that problem … the better you’re able to understand the nature of whatever it is, the phenomenon. (P3)

Several participants (38%) highlighted that transdisciplinary approaches can enable teams to address complex problems that are meaningful and relevant to service users, clinicians, and policymakers. One research fellow (P7) stated that transdisciplinary research is critical, as problems in the “real world” tend to transcend artificial disciplinary boundaries. According to one participant, such problems are “discipline-agnostic” and exist as “landscapes” or “terrains” independent of specific disciplines (research fellow, P3). Another research fellow (P10) pointed out that a transdisciplinary approach can maximize the benefits to the community and minimize the risk of unintended negative consequences, particularly when working with vulnerable populations:

They obviously want research that’s going to benefit knowledge translation and improve communities. It’s these kinds of things where research really has to be useful and relevant and have meaningful outcomes for those people that are going to end up using it. That’s why it’s just so important that we keep talking to end users and be sensitive to our approaches and the way we work with different groups and our communication with them, like I was saying privileging their voice and enabling them and even capacity building. (P10)

Participants recognized that a collaborative, transdisciplinary approach facilitates the uptake and utilization of research findings, with some participants (31%) specifically referring to this process as “knowledge translation.”

It’s fairly obvious to me, is that you can’t solve the difficult problems without a broad-based transdisciplinary team. It’s too complex. And things like aged care and what the—and with the [Center], I think it’s worked very well across the structures, across the different strengths. You can’t develop a model to implement without taking the whole set of views together to find the best model. (Chief investigator, P5)

Participants expressed that transdisciplinary research provides opportunities for learning and challenging assumptions or established ways of thinking (e.g., “it allows me to approach the problem differently, having taken onboard other people’s skill. So, it allows me to learn something new”; chief investigator, P1). Participants highlighted additional benefits of transdisciplinary collaboration for researchers, such as access to equipment, infrastructure, and funding opportunities, and opportunities to share their research with a wider audience (e.g., research fellow, P12). Research fellows were more likely to mention the personal benefits they perceived from transdisciplinary collaboration compared to chief or associate investigators.

Structural, Social, and Cognitive Factors Present Barriers to Successful Transdisciplinary Collaboration

Participants identified various barriers to transdisciplinary research, including contextual, social, and cognitive factors. Common contextual barriers present in various research teams, such as time constraints (38%) and geographical distance (23%), were frequently mentioned. Geographical dispersion was particularly challenging, highlighting the practical and logistical challenges faced by transdisciplinary teams operating in different locations and time zones. These barriers were perceived as obstacles to team members’ engagement and commitment to collaborative teamwork, complicating communication and coordination, and hindering the necessary level of interaction and integration required to create shared understandings. As one chief investigator commented:

I suppose that time pressure is always an issue. These are people who are not part of the core team; therefore, they’re maybe not as engaged as yourself in the project so they don’t assign it maybe as much priority. (P7)

Time constraints were a common issue for chief and associate investigators due to conflicting pressures from their academic, administrative, and clinical roles. This challenge was particularly evident for clinician-researchers or senior university leaders, who faced competing demands, making it difficult to dedicate sufficient time and resources to transdisciplinary collaboration. Contextual barriers often limited opportunities for interpersonal connection and interaction between team members.

Research fellows highlighted the importance of informal dialogue for fostering connections and shared understandings within the team (e.g., P16 and P14). Conversely, formal meetings, including videoconferences on platforms like Zoom, were seen as providing fewer chances for spontaneous and informal dialogue and for building relationships. The lack of informal communication channels and the reliance on standard meeting formats hindered the development of strong interpersonal connections and a sense of camaraderie among team members. In the context of transdisciplinary research, the challenges related to communication via online channels and the limitations of formal meetings become particularly relevant due to the intensive nature of transdisciplinary collaboration. Developing tailored strategies that address the specific communication and relational dynamics inherent in transdisciplinary teamwork was therefore seen as critical:

It’s those conversations at afternoon tea or lunch with someone that are more valuable than sitting in a Zoom meeting, where you build that connection and get that understanding and, I guess, a shared sense of what people are working on and how your work fits with them, and theirs with yours and others. (Research fellow, P11)

Some chief investigators acknowledged that traditional academic institutional structures, funding models, and standard research classification systems, like the Australian field of research codes, might contribute to researchers being confined within disciplinary silos. One chief investigator noted, “funding flows through those [field of research] codes that you attach to your projects and your papers. And so, if your department wants funding, then it sets up this vicious cycle of siloing research” (P2). This had the potential to restrict researchers to predefined categories, limiting opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration and innovative research approaches. Participants also highlighted administrative challenges. Delays in obtaining ethical approvals, challenges in recruiting staff with the necessary skill mix, and insufficient funding were identified as administrative hurdles that may impede the timely initiation and progress of transdisciplinary projects. Although these challenges are not exclusive to transdisciplinary teams, participants emphasized their particular impact and pressures within the context of funding structures supporting transdisciplinary research.

Over half of the participants (54%) identified psychological and social factors as barriers to transdisciplinary research. These factors included closed-mindedness and a culture of individualism that prioritizes individual expertise over teamwork (e.g., “In some of these disciplines, individuality, and almost to the point of isolation, is valued because you’re the expert, you’re valued for your opinion, not everybody else’s opinion”; research fellow, P3). Managing narrow perspectives was seen as particularly challenging, requiring researchers to invest time and resources in facilitating shared understandings and objectives. As one chief investigator expressed:

The closed minds is probably the hardest one to manage … I think, not having a closed mind [can] stop you from doing what you know is necessary, but then having to generate a negotiated position that you can still be a team member but still do what you need to do. (P13)

Narrow perspectives were associated with the established collaboration patterns within research teams and academic departments (e.g., “The major challenge is that individual teams already have the traditional approach of focusing on their own research [or] thematic area”; P17, research fellow). Some participants acknowledged that not everyone may be suited to transdisciplinary work, suggesting that certain personality traits may be more conducive to effective collaboration (e.g., P3, research fellow). Understanding personality differences among team members was considered essential for overcoming barriers to transdisciplinary teamwork.

Research Leaders Can Foster Transdisciplinary Research by Encouraging Connectivity and a Collaborative Mindset

Participants highlighted the importance of effective leadership strategies in promoting transdisciplinary research, but awareness of specific strategies varied. While some participants (38%) were familiar with such strategies, an equal proportion (38%) were unaware, while the remaining 24% were unsure. Despite the differing levels of familiarity, most participants acknowledged the value of general principles to foster collaborative teamwork. These principles included establishing a shared vision and goals, identifying common research questions, and building trust among team members. As one chief investigator stated:

If you’re starting to try to create a transdisciplinary team, I guess firstly, you must have a shared vision. So, you must have a common problem you’re working on, and at least a common end direction … Then maybe I guess, people who trust each other, so trust between the grouping. Because basically, you have to kind of trust that you’re going to go somewhere, but you don’t really know how to start to get to there either. So, it’s a journey. (P1)

Participants’ understanding of strategies to promote transdisciplinary collaboration was influenced by their prior academic experiences and professional experiences beyond academia. Many participants emphasized that their strategies were intuitive, arising “naturally” from their inclination to collaborate with colleagues from different disciplines. Rather than adhering to a specific strategy, they highlighted the importance of experiential knowledge and their intuitive understanding of how to assemble and manage collaborative teams (e.g., “It’s just natural, trying to work with colleagues, not a specific strategy”; associate investigator, P8).

Most participants (62%) believed that research leaders can promote transdisciplinary research by enhancing opportunities for interaction and connectivity across different disciplines. They suggested that in the early stages of collaboration, research leaders should seek funding models that support transdisciplinary approaches and select team members with a suitable mix of skills (e.g., “it’s important to choose the right members of the team, so that they’re able to have a transdisciplinary perspective”; chief investigator, P6).

Several participants suggested that research leaders could promote transdisciplinary work by sharing contacts and brokering relationships with individuals and organizations based on mutual interests or shared goals (e.g., “just promoting or sharing contacts of your colleagues with other people”; research fellow, P11). Considering the various perspectives involved, some participants (e.g., associate investigator, P8; chief investigator, P5) emphasized the importance of taking time to learn to understand different disciplinary terminologies to work together successfully as a transdisciplinary team. As one associate investigator stated:

It’s spending time, I think. It truly is like spending time with people, talking and listening to them and asking questions. To be open to hear what they’re saying. Basically, you understand that when you start with someone from a different discipline, it’s possible that 50 percent of the things they will say, it’s not clear to you what exactly they mean. (P8)

Participants considered setting clear expectations and implementing effective systems and structures for collaboration, such as regular meetings, advisory groups, shared protocols, and communication technologies, as valuable for transdisciplinary research. Many participants (46%) emphasized the importance of creating an inclusive environment that welcomes diverse perspectives and personal views. As one chief investigator stated, “If you don’t have that mindset yourself at the very beginning, you’re not going to think to widen your invitation to who sits at the table” (P2).

Some suggestions from participants included fostering an open and collaborative mindset through shared planning, learning, and decision-making and implementing a formal induction process for new team members (research fellow, P3). Institutional leaders and funders could encourage transdisciplinary research by offering incentives, such as making transdisciplinary collaboration a criterion for funding success (e.g., research fellow, P12). Early identification of challenges and opportunities, including recognizing and consolidating existing areas of strength, was also highlighted (e.g., chief investigator, P4). Several participants emphasized the involvement of PhD students and early-career researchers in the collaboration. Furthermore, research leaders could promote transdisciplinary research by serving as role models for collaborative behaviors, values, and attitudes. As one chief investigator expressed, “everyone has a responsibility, I guess, to try to be as transdisciplinary as they can ... like any other leadership question, the best they can do is try to model it themselves” (P1).

Discussion

Building on a longitudinal realist evaluation of transdisciplinary collaboration in a 5-year Center of Research Excellence, this study aimed to explore how researchers perceive and promote transdisciplinary research in the context of frailty research. Participants perceived transdisciplinary research as a collaborative and integrative approach that involves individuals from multiple disciplines working together to solve complex problems. However, there was a lack of a shared understanding of transdisciplinary research, and many participants used related terms, consistent with previous research (e.g., Hall et al., 2012; Sargent et al., 2022). Barriers to transdisciplinary collaboration included lack of time, geographical distance, and established patterns of collaboration. Participants recommended strategies such as fostering a shared vision, selecting team members carefully, establishing effective collaboration systems, and involving PhD students and early-career researchers through training, collaborative projects, and mentorship programs. Research leaders can model collaborative behaviors by actively participating in transdisciplinary projects, facilitating learning opportunities, promoting creative problem-solving, and integrating diverse perspectives while breaking down disciplinary barriers (Cundill et al., 2015; Mumuni et al., 2016). Our findings highlight a practical knowledge gap in terms of building transdisciplinary collaboration and leadership capacities across career stages.

Effective transdisciplinary research requires a shared understanding among team members (Bergmann et al., 2012). Without this, team members may have different expectations and assumptions about collaborative processes and outcomes, leading to misunderstandings, conflict, and ultimately less effective collaboration. Our findings emphasize the importance of establishing a shared working definition of transdisciplinarity within teams to facilitate the development of competencies for its effective execution. Beyond intentional planning of team composition based on disciplinary background, having the right mix of technical and relational skills, along with context-specific knowledge, was identified as critical in collaborative cross-sectoral work (Archibald, 2016). Creating foundational opportunities to cultivate and identify a shared vision and goals for team collaboration is an imperative first step for transdisciplinary health research teams.

Our findings suggest that cultivating a shared vision and goals for transdisciplinary collaboration should include explicitly defining transdisciplinary research and determining the strategies required to promote it. Identifying team understandings of the concept can assist in recognizing misalignments in the core tenets of transdisciplinary research (e.g., integration of disciplinary knowledge, collaboration with non-academic stakeholders, and orientation toward application of knowledge), allowing for the development of tailored strategies to address these misunderstandings. To varying degrees, teams will require foundational preparation, guided by training models, to prepare researchers at various career stages to function effectively in transdisciplinary teams (Fiore et al., 2019). Supporting researchers’ development as transdisciplinary scholars may benefit from a structured approach with appropriate pedagogical, institutional, and interpersonal scaffolding (Kemp & Nurius, 2015), and tailored resources and tools to support individuals and teams (Bammer, 2018). Examples of such tools include the Knowledge Co-production Toolbox (Pohl, 2020), the Change Management Tool Book (Nauheimer, 1997), and the Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide developed by the National Institute of Health (Bennett et al., 2018). Transdisciplinary teams and leaders could benefit from individual-level and team-level training, support, and capacity building in collaborative and integrative strategies to prepare them for their roles and anticipate the challenges and opportunities that might arise (Hoffmann et al., 2022).

The current findings and our previous realist evaluation highlight a common misconception that simply assembling transdisciplinary teams results in successful research outcomes (Twyman & Contractor, 2019). This mirrors integrative practices in other fields, such as mixed-methods research, that require dialogical openness and attention to divergence (in perspectives, findings, and so forth) (Archibald, 2023). Transdisciplinary research involves diverse knowledge forms, methodologies, disciplinary upbringings, and sectors—including, often, persons with lived experiences or affected by a particular social challenge. Such breadth often exceeds individual investigators’ previous exposures and skill sets (Archibald, 2016; Archibald et al., 2023). As such, active facilitation of integrating various ways of knowing and disciplinary knowledge is essential to achieving the collaborative and integrative mandate that transdisciplinary research embodies (Archibald et al., 2023; Hoffmann et al., 2022). Such facilitation strategies should not only move teams toward shared objectives and conceptual frameworks (Deutsch et al., 2021; Salazar et al., 2019) but be grounded in an understanding that they may be wholly unfamiliar and challenging to teams with minimal transdisciplinary research experience.

While many concepts discussed in this study have general applicability to large teams, transdisciplinary research teams present unique considerations for both leaders and team members. These include the need to integrate knowledge and methodologies from multiple disciplines, necessitating a nuanced understanding of diverse perspectives, methodologies, and terminologies. Transdisciplinary research often requires flexible and adaptive strategies to address the varied expertise, perspectives, and logistical challenges within the team. Collaborating with large teams more generally involves managing organizational structures, coordinating numerous individuals, and facilitating communication across sub-groups. Although principles of effective communication and coordination are shared between transdisciplinary and large-team contexts, transdisciplinary research distinguishes itself by emphasizing the integration of diverse disciplines, adopting a holistic approach, establishing a unified understanding, and fostering flexibility. This study explores the internal dynamics of one diverse, geographically dispersed transdisciplinary team, focusing on researchers’ experiences and specific strategies for successful collaboration. This nuanced understanding contributes to the broader discourse on transdisciplinary research by highlighting features beyond the structural and procedural aspects typically associated with studies of large teams.

With the shifting health research landscape, researchers should be adequately prepared to participate in and lead transdisciplinary teams. This includes understanding the principles and practical strategies to promote and coordinate transdisciplinary research while developing the necessary skills to work across epistemic and pragmatic boundaries (Hoffmann et al., 2022; Salazar et al., 2019). Investing in building the necessary skills, infrastructure, and support systems for transdisciplinary research can help avoid misguided actions and the costs associated with poorly executed transdisciplinary research, including wasted resources, missed opportunities for innovation, and reduced collaboration. Integrative leadership capabilities, such as visioning, reflexivity, perspective-taking, conflict management, and coordination, have been highlighted as valuable in bridging intellectual divides and enabling knowledge sharing and integration within transdisciplinary teams (Crosby & Bryson, 2010; Salazar et al., 2012; Van Wart, 2013). To support the development of these skills, a combination of formal education, training, professional development, and experiential, practice-based learning, including involvement in transdisciplinary projects and peer networks, could be employed (Fiore et al., 2019; Mascaranhas et al., 2021; Westberg & Polk, 2016).

Various training programs have been developed for health researchers and providers, often with a distinct approach and focus. Pineo et al. (2020) and Tait and Williamson (2019) highlight diverse teaching methods, emphasizing the importance of practical, skills-building opportunities in transdisciplinary training. Pineo et al. (2020) specifically highlight the use of interactive, problem-based discussions and hands-on learning experiences. Tait and Williamson (2019) note a lack of rigorous evaluation in the literature concerning knowledge translation and partnership research training programs, suggesting a need for further research. In the United States, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Clinical Scholar Program (https://clinicalscholarsnli.org) was designed to empower health providers through mentoring, networking, and leadership training. The Aged Care Research and Industry Innovation Australia (ARIIA) Innovator Training Program (https://www.ariia.org.au/programs/innovator-training-program) similarly equips individuals and teams with skills for collaborative problem-solving, adapting evidence-based solutions, planning implementation, and measuring outcomes. Training programs should explicitly address collaboration and leadership capabilities, providing researchers with essential knowledge and skills for effective engagement in transdisciplinary research.

As more teams embark on the complex journey of transdisciplinary research without formal institutional and practical training, adopting an experiential learning approach that integrates team dynamics with tailored strategies from the literature over time is likely to enhance team functioning (cf. Kayes et al., 2005; Kolb & Kolb, 2009). The gaps identified in shared understandings of transdisciplinary research, facilitating integration of diverse knowledge, and transdisciplinary leadership development present opportunities for further research. Future investigations could explore innovative approaches to build shared understandings within teams; develop experiential learning opportunities that link leadership behavior to knowledge translation competencies; examine facilitation strategies for problem identification, knowledge synthesis, and co-production; and assess the impact of leadership on transdisciplinary research processes and outcomes. Addressing these research directions has the potential to strengthen the effectiveness and impact of transdisciplinary collaboration in tackling complex healthcare challenges.

Strengths and Limitations

The current study has some limitations that should be acknowledged. The study was based on interviews conducted with an established network of researchers within a single Australian-based research center. We contend that there are likely parallels between this team and many others who have varied experiences, but likely low levels of training, with transdisciplinary team research. As such, the extent of transferability of study findings should be considered in relation to team composition, previous transdisciplinary team experiences including facilitation, and training. Although efforts were made to include participants from different sub-groups, our findings may not fully represent the views of team members at different career stages or those who interacted less frequently with local points of contact, including interstate and international collaborators. However, our findings are broadly consistent with previous studies conducted internationally on perspectives on transdisciplinary research collaboration and leadership (e.g., Frescoln & Arbuckle, 2015; Thompson et al., 2017).

Conclusion

The study highlights the importance of supporting team understanding and behaviors around transdisciplinary research from a pragmatic and practice-based perspective. It emphasizes the importance of establishing a shared understanding and commitment to transdisciplinary concepts among team members. Adequate preparation, frameworks, and training may be valuable for equipping researchers at different career stages with the necessary skills and knowledge to function effectively in transdisciplinary teams. This includes communicating across disciplines and incorporating diverse epistemologies and methodologies. This study also underscores the relevance of integrative leadership capabilities for successful transdisciplinary research. Applying integrative and complexity leadership principles and strategies in complex and unpredictable transdisciplinary research environments can enhance team effectiveness. Future research will compare findings with leaders from other transdisciplinary research centers to identify a broader range of perspectives and competencies required for leading transdisciplinary teams. As transdisciplinary research approaches gain prominence, there is a need for further research on leadership capabilities that promote collaboration and communication in transdisciplinary teams. This will contribute to the evidence on effective strategies and practices for transdisciplinary research, maximizing the potential for impactful outcomes in addressing complex societal challenges.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - From Promise to Practice: How Health Researchers Understand and Promote Transdisciplinary Collaboration

Supplemental Material for From Promise to Practice: How Health Researchers Understand and Promote Transdisciplinary Collaboration by Michael T. Lawless, Matthew Tieu, Mandy M. Archibald, Maria Alejandra Pinero De Plaza, and Alison L. Kitson in Qualitative Health Research

Footnotes

Author Contributions

ML, MT, MA, MP, and AK made substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data. ML, MT, MA, MP, and AK were involved in drafting the manuscript and revising it critically for important intellectual content. All the authors have given final approval of the version to be published. ML, MT, MA, MP, and AK participated sufficiently in the work and took public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content. ML, MT, MA, MP, and AK agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research is supported by the National Health Medical Research Council Centre of Research Excellence grant “Frailty Transdisciplinary Research to Achieve Healthy Ageing” (GNT 1102208).

Ethical Statement

ORCID iDs

Michael T. Lawless

Maria Alejandra Pinero De Plaza

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Archibald

(2016). Investigator triangulation: A collaborative strategy with potential for mixed methods research. The Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(3), 228–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815570092

Archibald

M. M.

(2023). Virtual special issue on “collaborative practices in mixed methods research”. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 17(2), 126–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898231163434

Archibald

M. M.

Lawless

Harvey

Kitson

A. L.

(2018). Transdisciplinary research for impact: Protocol for a realist evaluation of the relationship between transdisciplinary research collaboration and knowledge translation. BMJ Open, 8(4), Article e021775. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021775

Archibald

M. M

Lawless

Pinero de Plaza

M. A.

Kitson

(2023). How transdisciplinary research teams learn to do knowledge translation (KT), and how KT in turn, impacts transdisciplinary research: A realist evaluation and longitudinal case study. Health Research Policy and Systems, 21(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-023-00967-x

Austin

Park

Goble

(2008). From interdisciplinary to transdisciplinary research: A case study. Qualitative Health Research, 18(4), 557–564. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732307308514

Bachrach

Robert

S. A.

Thomas

(2019). Training for interdisciplinary research in population health science. In Strategies for team science success: Handbook of evidence-based principles for cross-disciplinary science and practical lessons learned from health researchers (pp. 455–467). Springer International Publishing.

Bammer

(2018). Strengthening community operational research through exchange of tools and strategic alliances. European Journal of Operational Research, 268(3), 1168–1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.09.041

Belcher

B. M.

Rasmussen

K. E.

Kemshaw

M. R.

Zornes

D. A.

(2016). Defining and assessing research quality in a transdisciplinary context. Research Evaluation, 25(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv025

Bennett

L. M.

Gadlin

Marchand

(2018). Collaboration team science: Field guide. US Department of Health & Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute.

10.

Bergmann

Jahn

Knobloch

Krohn

Pohl

(2012). Methods for transdisciplinary research: A primer for practice. Campus Verlag.

11.

Black

Scally

Orme

Hunt

Pilkington

Lawrence

Ebi

(2019). Moving health upstream in urban development: Reflections on the operationalization of a transdisciplinary case study. Global Challenges, 3(4), Article 1700103. https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201700103

12.

Bolden

(2011). Distributed leadership in organizations: A review of theory and research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(3), 251–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00306.x

13.

Calhoun

W. J.

Wooten

Bhavnani

Anderson

K. E.

Freeman

Brasier

A. R.

(2013). The CTSA as an exemplar framework for developing multidisciplinary translational teams. Clinical and Translational Science, 6(1), 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.12004

14.

Chapman

van Amersfoort

Watson

(2017). What works in public service leadership: Exploring the potential. https://whatworksscotland.ac.uk/publications/what-works-in-l

15.

Choi

B. C.

Pak

A. W.

(2007). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 2. Promotors, barriers, and strategies of enhancement. Clinical and Investigative Medicine, 30(6), E224–E232. https://doi.org/10.25011/cim.v30i6.2950

16.

Crosby

B. C.

Bryson

J. M.

(2010). Integrative leadership and the creation and maintenance of cross-sector collaborations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(2), 211–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.01.003

17.

Cundill

Harvey

Tebboth

Cochrane

Currie-Alder

Vincent

Lawn

Nicholls

R. J.

Scodanibbio

Prakash

New

Wester

Leone

Morchain

Ludi

DeMaria-Kinney

Khan

Landry

M. E.

Landry

M. E.

(2019). Large-scale transdisciplinary collaboration for adaptation research: Challenges and insights. Global Challenges, 3(4), Article 1700132. https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201700132

18.

Cundill

Roux

D. J.

Parker

J. N.

(2015). Nurturing communities of practice for transdisciplinary research. Ecology and Society, 20(2), art22. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-07580-200222

19.

Deutsch

Belcher

Claus

Hoffmann

(2021). Leading inter-and transdisciplinary research: Lessons from applying theories of change to a strategic research program. Environmental Science & Policy, 120, 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.02.009

20.

Edelman

Clay-Williams

Fischer

Kislov

Kitson

McLoughlin

Skouteris

Harvey

(2022). Academic health science centres as vehicles for knowledge mobilisation in Australia? A qualitative study. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 11(6), 840. https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2020.247

21.

Emmons

K. M.

Viswanath

Colditz

G. A.

(2008). The role of transdisciplinary collaboration in translating and disseminating health research: Lessons learned and exemplars of success. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2), S204–S210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.009

22.

Fiore

S. M.

Gabelica

Wiltshire

T. J.

Stokols

(2019). Training to be a (team) scientist. In Strategies for team science success: Handbook of evidence-based principles for cross-disciplinary science and practical lessons learned from health researchers (pp. 421–444). Springer.

23.

Frescoln

L. M.

Arbuckle

J. G.

Jr. (2015). Changes in perceptions of transdisciplinary science over time. Futures, 73, 136–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2015.08.008

24.

Gaziulusoy

A. I.

Ryan

McGrail

Chandler

Twomey

(2016). Identifying and addressing challenges faced by transdisciplinary research teams in climate change research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 123, 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.049

25.

Gray

(2008). Enhancing transdisciplinary research through collaborative leadership. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2), S124–S132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.03.037

26.

Guise

J. M.

Winter

Fiore

S. M.

Regensteiner

J. G.

Nagel

(2017). Organizational and training factors that promote team science: A qualitative analysis and application of theory to the National Institutes of Health’s BIRCWH career development program. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 1(2), 101–107. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2016.17

27.

Hall

K. L.

Vogel

A. L.

Croyle

R. T.

(Eds.) (2019). Strategies for team science success: Handbook of evidence-based principles for cross-disciplinary science and practical lessons learned from health researchers, Springer.

28.

Hall

K. L.

Vogel

A. L.

Stipelman

B. A.

Stokols

Morgan

Gehlert

(2012). A four-phase model of transdisciplinary team-based research: Goals, team processes, and strategies. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 2(4), 415–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-012-0167-y

29.

Harvey

Marshall

R. J.

Jordan

Kitson

A. L.

(2015). Exploring the hidden barriers in knowledge translation: A case study within an academic community. Qualitative Health Research, 25(11), 1506–1517. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315580300

30.

Hoffmann

Pohl

Hering

J. G.

(2017). Exploring transdisciplinary integration within a large research program: Empirical lessons from four thematic synthesis processes. Research Policy, 46(3), 678–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.01.004

31.

Hoffmann

Weber

Mitchell

(2022). Principles for leading, learning, and synthesizing in inter-and transdisciplinary Research. BioScience, 72(10), 963–977. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biac057

32.

Hohl

S. D.

Neuhouser

M. L.

Thompson

(2022). Re-orienting transdisciplinary research and community-based participatory research for health equity. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 6(1), Article e22. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2022.15

33.

Kayes

A. B.

Kayes

D. C.

Kolb

D. A.

(2005). Experiential learning in teams. Simulation & Gaming, 36(3), 330–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878105279012

34.

Kemp

S. P.

Nurius

P. S.

(2015). Preparing emerging doctoral scholars for transdisciplinary research: A developmental approach. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 35(1–2), 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2014.980929

35.

Kim

Sefcik

J. S.

Bradway

(2017). Characteristics of qualitative descriptive studies: A systematic review. Research in Nursing & Health, 40(1), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.21768

36.

Kitson

Brook

Harvey

Jordan

Marshall

O’Shea

Wilson

(2018). Using complexity and network concepts to inform healthcare knowledge translation. International Journal of Health Policy and management, 7(3), 231. https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2017.79

37.

Kolb

A. Y.

Kolb

D. A.

(2009). Experiential learning theory: A dynamic, holistic approach to management learning, education and development. In The Sage handbook of management learning, education and development, 7 (p. 42). Sage.

38.

Kurtz

C. F.

Snowden

D. J.

(2003). The new dynamics of strategy: Sense-making in a complex and complicated world. IBM Systems Journal, 42(3), 462–483. https://doi.org/10.1147/sj.423.0462

39.

Lang

D. J.

Wiek

Bergmann

Stauffacher

Martens

Moll

Swilling

Thomas

C. J.

Thomas

C. J.

(2012). Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science, 7(S1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x

40.

Lawrence

M. G.

Williams

Nanz

Renn

(2022). Characteristics, potentials, and challenges of transdisciplinary research. One Earth, 5(1), 44–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.12.010

41.

Long

J. C.

Cunningham

F. C.

Wiley

Carswell

Braithwaite

(2013). Leadership in complex networks: The importance of network position and strategic action in a translational cancer research network. Implementation Science, 8(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-122

42.

Lotrecchiano

(2011). Complexity leadership in transdisciplinary (TD) learning environments: A knowledge feedback loop. International Journal of Transdisciplinary Research 5(1), 29–63.

43.

Mäkinen

(2018). Complexity leadership theory and the leaders of transdisciplinary science. Informing Science: The International Journal of Emerging Transdiscipline, 21, 133–155. https://doi.org/10.28945/4009

44.

Mascarenhas

Langemeyer

Haase

Borgström

Andersson

(2021). Assessing the learning process in transdisciplinary research through a novel analytical approach. Ecology and Society, 26(4), art19. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-12631-260419

45.

Mumuni

Kaliannan

O’Reilly

(2016). Approaches for scientific collaboration and interactions in complex research projects under disciplinary influence. The Journal of Developing Areas, 50(5), 383–391. https://doi.org/10.1353/jda.2016.0064

46.

Murphy

Wolfus

Lofters

(2011). From complex problems to complex problem-solving: Transdisciplinary practice as knowledge translation. In Converging disciplines: A transdisciplinary research approach to urban health problems (pp. 111–129). Springer.

47.

Nauheimer

(1997). The change management toolbook. A collection of tools, methods and strategies. Available online at: https://www.change-management-toolbook.com

48.

Neergaard

M. A.

Olesen

Andersen

R. S.

Sondergaard

(2009). Qualitative description–the poor cousin of health research? BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-52

49.

Nowell

L. S.

Norris

J. M.

White

D. E.

Moules

N. J.

(2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1609406917733847. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847

50.

Pineo

Moore

Rowson

Aldridge

R. W.

Turnbull

(2020). Training the next generation in transdisciplinarity. European Journal of Public Health, 30(Suppl_5), ckaa166.299. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckaa166.299

51.

Pineo

Turnbull

E. R.

Davies

Rowson

Hayward

A. C.

Hart

Johnson

A. M.

Aldridge

R. W.

Aldridge

R. W.

(2021). A new transdisciplinary research model to investigate and improve the health of the public. Health Promotion International, 36(2), 481–492. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daaa125

52.

Pohl

(2020). Toolbox dialogue approach. td-net toolbox profile (12). Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences: td-net toolbox for co-producing knowledge. www.transdisciplinarity.ch/toolbox. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3717505

53.

Rosenfield

P. L.

(1992). The potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining and extending linkages between the health and social sciences. Social Science & Medicine, 35(11), 1343–1357. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(92)90038-r

54.

Rosenhead

Franco

L. A.

Grint

Friedland

(2019). Complexity theory and leadership practice: A review, a critique, and some recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(5), 101304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.07.002

55.

Salazar

M. R.

Lant

T. K.

Fiore

S. M.

Salas

(2012). Facilitating innovation in diverse science teams through integrative capacity. Small Group Research, 43(5), 527–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496412453622

56.

Salazar

M. R.

Widmer

Doiron

Lant

T. K.

(2019). Leader integrative capabilities: A catalyst for effective interdisciplinary teams. In Strategies for team science success: Handbook of evidence-based principles for cross-disciplinary science and practical lessons learned from health researchers (pp. 313–328). Springer.

57.

Sandelowski

(2000). Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing & Health, 23(4), 334–340. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-240x(200008)23:4<334::aid-nur9>3.0.co;2-g

58.

Sargent

Slattum

Brooks

Gendron

Mackiewicz

Diallo

Waters

Winship

Battle

Ford

Falls

Chung

Zanjani

Pretzer-Aboff

Price

E. T.

Prom-Wormley

Parsons

iCubed Health and Wellness in Aging Transdisciplinary Core . (2022). Bringing transdisciplinary aging research from theory to practice. The Gerontologist, 62(2), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnaa214

59.

Snowden

D. J.

Boone

M. E.

(2007). A leader’s framework for decision making. Harvard Business Review, 85(11), 68–149. https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making

60.

Tait

Williamson

(2019). A literature review of knowledge translation and partnership research training programs for health researchers. Health Research Policy and Systems, 17(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-019-0497-z

61.

Thompson

M. A.

Owen

Lindsay

J. M.

Leonard

G. S.

Cronin

S. J.

(2017). Scientist and stakeholder perspectives of transdisciplinary research: Early attitudes, expectations, and tensions. Environmental Science & Policy, 74, 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.006

62.

Tsoukas

(2017). Don’t simplify, complexify: From disjunctive to conjunctive theorizing in organization and management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 54(2), 132–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12219

63.

Twyman

Contractor

(2019). Team assembly. In Strategies for team science success: Handbook of evidence-based principles for cross-disciplinary science and practical lessons learned from health researchers (pp. 217–240). Springer.

64.

Uhl-Bien

Arena

(2017). Complexity leadership: Enabling people and organizations for adaptability. Organizational Dynamics, 46(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2016.12.001

65.

Uhl-Bien

Arena

(2018). Leadership for organizational adaptability: A theoretical synthesis and integrative framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.009

66.

Uhl-Bien

Marion

(2009). Complexity leadership in bureaucratic forms of organizing: A meso model. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(4), 631–650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.04.007

67.

Uhl-Bien

Marion

McKelvey

(2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 298–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.002

68.

Vaismoradi

Turunen

Bondas

(2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences, 15(3), 398–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048

69.

Van Wart

(2013). Lessons from leadership theory and the contemporary challenges of leaders. Public Administration Review, 73(4), 553–565. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12069

70.

Westberg

Polk

(2016). The role of learning in transdisciplinary research: Moving from a normative concept to an analytical tool through a practice-based approach. Sustainability Science, 11(3), 385–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0358-4

71.

Wickson

Carew

A. L.

Russell

A. W.

(2006). Transdisciplinary research: Characteristics, quandaries and quality. Futures, 38(9), 1046–1059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2006.02.011

72.

Zscheischler

Rogga

Weith

(2014). Experiences with transdisciplinary research: Sustainable land management third year status conference. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 31(6), 751–756. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2274

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.21 MB