View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Transdisciplinary and Interdisciplinary Programmes for Collaborative Graduate Research Training

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Transdisciplinary and Interdisciplinary Programmes for Collaborative Graduate Research Training
Language: English
Authors: Aishwarya Ramachandran, Klara Abdi, Amanda Giang (ORCID 0000-0002-0146-7038), Derek Gladwin (ORCID 0000-0002-0053-4745), Naoko Ellis (ORCID 0000-0002-1241-1259)
Source: Educational Review. 2024 76(4):996-1013.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Interdisciplinary Approach, Research Training, Graduate Students, Student Attitudes, Teacher Attitudes, College Faculty, Program Evaluation, Foreign Countries, Research Universities, Research Skills, Cooperation
Geographic Terms: Canada
DOI: 10.1080/00131911.2022.2134312
ISSN: 0013-1911
1465-3397
Abstract: This paper documents a case study examining collaborative transdisciplinary (TD) and interdisciplinary (ID) graduate programmes at the University of British Columbia (a large, public, research-intensive university in Canada) -- serving as a model for other universities globally. TD and ID programmes in higher education can ultimately create a new generation of researchers who are capable of contending with complex problems by equipping them with a broad range of research competencies and expertise. This study used open-ended surveys and semi-structured focus groups and interviews to understand how students, faculty members, and programme coordinators experienced these programmes, focusing on specific competencies (e.g. values, knowledge, interpersonal skills). We then highlighted how programmes may be preparing students to engage in collaborative applied research (i.e., TD and ID) in real-world contexts. Our findings suggest that "breadth" programmes exposed students to a wide range of disciplinary perspectives, while "depth" programmes focused on a specific research problem in fewer disciplines. TD and ID co-supervision and thesis committee membership emerged as rich avenues for students to receive mentorship from faculty members. Lastly, respondents wanted more applied research and opportunities to connect with potential employers outside academia.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1425061
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFyf0tqTO7P-YjZpt9mzIeHAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDPSElPZZIDNPcFfRjwIBEICBm-YQBBxbnt5EXW5BMoqKtik97SXoRXV1AdWsin-PMLzEHu1GJ3ujVyEPFXqLYUVY0-iTh235EsVvwfE4XBsYg7FNd0IiT9-6D3mpgIHuqk24IRnqIx76QjYfYhLEv6MPIEOy_R3-3kcB9HEK3lJclBIIdaP4j1GeH7FsZsTvNAI-e5WYDtGBLM2RddHMYRJEcxvquRkmhGbXeWtP
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0177319909;edi01may.24;2024May21.06:40;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0177319909-1">Transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary programmes for collaborative graduate research training </title> <p>This paper documents a case study examining collaborative transdisciplinary (TD) and interdisciplinary (ID) graduate programmes at the University of British Columbia (a large, public, research-intensive university in Canada) – serving as a model for other universities globally. TD and ID programmes in higher education can ultimately create a new generation of researchers who are capable of contending with complex problems by equipping them with a broad range of research competencies and expertise. This study used open-ended surveys and semi-structured focus groups and interviews to understand how students, faculty members, and programme coordinators experienced these programmes, focusing on specific competencies (e.g. values, knowledge, interpersonal skills). We then highlighted how programmes may be preparing students to engage in collaborative applied research (i.e., TD and ID) in real-world contexts. Our findings suggest that "breadth" programmes exposed students to a wide range of disciplinary perspectives, while "depth" programmes focused on a specific research problem in fewer disciplines. TD and ID co-supervision and thesis committee membership emerged as rich avenues for students to receive mentorship from faculty members. Lastly, respondents wanted more applied research and opportunities to connect with potential employers outside academia.</p> <p>Keywords: Transdisciplinary approach; interdisciplinary approach; collaborative research; graduate education; higher education</p> <hd id="AN0177319909-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The world has recently experienced several environmental, global health, and sociopolitical crises that are highly complex and lack finite solutions (Chang et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref1">7</reflink>]). Shifts in public perception and (dis)trust of certain forms of science and expertise have accompanied increasingly urgent calls-to-action by global organisations with warnings of catastrophic climate impacts and alerts about the mutation and spread of several variants of COVID-19 (Collins et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref2">8</reflink>]). These complex problems are impossible to address using a single disciplinary approach; rather, they require interdependent strategies of social, technical, educational, and scientific intervention (Klenk & Meehan, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref3">26</reflink>]; Rozance et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref4">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>In these "postnormal" times, we are confronted with a need for new approaches to co-create knowledge and enable change collaboratively (Funtowicz & Ravetz, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref5">15</reflink>]; Porter, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref6">36</reflink>]). Creating a new generation of complex systems thinkers who can contend with these sorts of problems involves equipping researchers with a broad range of interdisciplinary (ID) and transdisciplinary (TD) research competencies and expertise. This not only involves cross-disciplinary collaboration within higher education, but also engaging with diverse non-academic stakeholders throughout the research process to co-produce feasible and practical solutions (Lang et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref7">28</reflink>]; Chang et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref8">7</reflink>]; Vienni Baptista & Klein, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref9">48</reflink>]). Establishing ID and TD approaches are especially important given the growing desire among graduate students to develop transferable competencies and skills (e.g., communication, managerial, synthesis) required by non-academic employers in industry, government, or non-governmental organizations (Manathunga et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref10">30</reflink>]; Glass et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref11">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>Using a detailed case study of programmes offered at the University British Columbia (UBC), which is a large, public, research-intensive university in Canada, this paper examines some of the opportunities for TD and ID collaborative research and scholarship. We identify how different programme design choices support the development of related competencies (e.g., values, knowledge, interpersonal skills) among students and faculty members. We were interested in understanding how they perceived their programmes, the competencies (i.e., skills, knowledge, attitudes, and mindsets) the programmes sought to cultivate, opportunities for research collaboration among students and faculty, and career preparation. This research draws training insights that may be relevant to other research around the world investigating innovative programme design to support collaborative research. We ultimately emphasise the need for creating the next generation of researchers through the use of TD frameworks to address complex scenarios, while also considering some of the successes and challenges of developing and sustaining such programmes.</p> <hd id="AN0177319909-3">Literature review</hd> <p>Mainstream awareness of and interest in TD and ID research date back to the post-war period in North America, fueled by the considerable funding offered by organisations, such as the National Science Foundation and Carnegie Foundation, to tackle problems ranging from atomic weapons production to environmental quality, etc. Paralleling this period was also the growth of ID research arenas, such as cultural and women's studies, as well as environmental and urban studies (Bernstein, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref12">2</reflink>]; Klein, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref13">24</reflink>]). TD and ID approaches further accelerated in the 1990s and 2000s, focusing on social and academic cooperation and collaboration towards complex challenges, including climate change, health epidemics, and global political crises (Klein, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref14">24</reflink>]; Klein et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref15">25</reflink>]). Fostering these integrated approaches to knowledge production underscored the need for multiple disciplinary perspectives to investigate a given topic (i.e. multidisciplinarity), as well as bridging and synthesising often artificial disciplinary boundaries to achieve cohesive understandings of complex phenomena (Stock & Burton, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref16">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>Nurius and Kemp ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref17">34</reflink>]) characterised TD research as moving beyond disciplinary divisions to collaborations between researchers and non-academic stakeholders to address collectively-identified problems. Although there remains considerable overlap in the definitions of ID and TD research, Stokols ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref18">44</reflink>]) acknowledged that TD approaches require a "combination and synergy among certain collaborative values, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors" (p. 60), along with multilevel conceptual and theoretical research about societal problems and strategies to address them. Building on North American researchers' contributions to an increasingly wide-ranging literature on organisational, epistemological, conceptual, and methodological approaches to TD and ID, Vienni Baptista and Klein ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref19">48</reflink>]) proposed institutionalising TD and ID in higher education, without which they remain "marginal" and "ephemeral" (see Klein, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref20">24</reflink>]; Bernstein, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref21">2</reflink>]; and Knapp et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref22">27</reflink>] for a comprehensive history of ID and TD).</p> <p>The structure of higher education institutions needs to adapt to the constantly changing global landscape. Fam et al. ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref23">12</reflink>]) underscored that universities over the last century have been staffed by specialised faculty who train students in disciplinary expertise. Although a growing desire to work at the intersections of disciplines and focus on collaboration and problem-based learning exists, they noted that such research remains relatively marginal and ad-hoc within the university setting. Cooke et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref24">10</reflink>]) noted that strategic plans could foster a greater ID culture at universities, but they often fail to deliver actionable results. As graduate students increasingly find employment outside academia, complaints from employers that PhDs are educated too narrowly (lacking important collaborative, team, organisational, or managerial skills) should be of particular concern to how universities educate (Nerad, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref25">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>At the same time, there is a growing number of TD and ID research training opportunities at post-secondary institutions. Borrego et al. ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref26">3</reflink>]) found that the cultural practice of ID graduate education on campus raised awareness over time, and initiated institution-level policy changes through the multiple Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) grants in the United States. In Europe, policymakers, funding agencies, and academic institutions are increasingly calling for more TD and ID research to address complex societal challenges and instituting new funding opportunities to encourage more disruptive research on the human and social factors in global challenges (Vienni Baptista et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref27">47</reflink>]). Tejada et al. ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref28">45</reflink>]) examined collaborative research projects in Europe and reported on ways of dealing with the established organisational structure and leveraging institutional support. In a Canadian context, Gillis et al. ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref29">16</reflink>]) reported that the number of TD and ID awards paid per year increased by approximately 55% between 2005 and 2015, facilitating the development of cross-disciplinary hubs in universities.</p> <p>As a growing number of higher education institutions across the globe are making renewed commitments to collaborative applied research to tackle complex challenges (e.g., climate emergency), it becomes particularly important to consider how university programmes promote the development of TD and ID orientations among students and faculty. In particular, Hedberg et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref30">20</reflink>]) and Kelley et al. ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref31">21</reflink>]) highlighted how existing opportunities for TD and ID at universities may serve as initiatives to grow into alternative models of research and training.</p> <hd id="AN0177319909-4">Theoretical framework</hd> <p>Competencies that enable individuals to succeed in collaborative, problem-based research at universities range from the individual (e.g. Stokols, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref32">44</reflink>]; Nurius & Kemp, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref33">34</reflink>]) to the team (Fiore et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref34">13</reflink>]). Applying the analytical framework for TD research, Tejada et al. ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref35">45</reflink>]) listed twelve design principles, including "building a collaborative problem framing and research team" and "co-creating solution-oriented and transferable knowledge" (based off Lang et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref36">28</reflink>]). Kemp and Nurius ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref37">22</reflink>]) illustrated the importance of: (i) critically engaging, reflecting on, and integrating one's own and others' disciplinary languages, perspectives, and worldviews; (ii) collaborating with others from a wide range of disciplines and sectors; (iii) communicating (and understanding) research beyond one's discipline; and (iv) conducting research using theories, concepts, and methods from multiple disciplines. Furthermore, a T-shaped professional is a metaphor for someone with both disciplinary depth and boundary-spanning competencies (Tranquillo, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref38">46</reflink>]; Nurius & Kemp, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref39">34</reflink>]), generally classified as: (i) values, attitudes, and beliefs; (ii) habits of mind; (iii) knowledge-based competencies; and (iv) interpersonal competencies.</p> <p>A team-based, problem-focused pedagogical model was developed to train scholars who can combine their depth of knowledge in one domain with a practical and epistemological understanding of their teammates' research areas (Bosque-Pérez et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref40">5</reflink>]). The emphasis on interactional expertise led to training models that require students/scholars to collaborate with experts from other fields on practical research problems (Collins & Evans, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref41">9</reflink>]; Gorman, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref42">18</reflink>]; Wiek et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref43">50</reflink>]).</p> <p>Building on these models, we classify competencies into three broad categories, with some competencies being connected to two categories rather than one, as shown in Figure 1. "Values, attitudes and beliefs" represent the commitments, proclivities, and worldviews that individual researchers might bring to a collaborative research endeavour. "Interpersonal" competencies include various communication, relational, and interpretive skills researchers need to effectively collaborate with others in and outside academia. Lastly, "knowledge and skills-based" competencies refer to the conceptual skills and knowledge needed to understand complex research problems reflexively and critically and address them in an integrative and holistic manner. To support the design of effective TD research training, we apply this framework to examine collaborative graduate programmes at the University of British Columbia (UBC).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Summary of three broad categories of transdisciplinary competencies.</p> <hd id="AN0177319909-5">Aim and research questions</hd> <p>This paper examines a selection of collaborative graduate programmes being offered at UBC through the experiences of students, faculty members, and programme coordinators. Through this study, we uncovered the way programmes were constructed to be a part of collaborative TD and ID research environments. While TD is primarily the focus, enough influential ID programmes exist that paved the way for TD models. This paper ultimately contributes to a limited yet growing body of literature on the institutionalisation of TD programming in higher education globally (Vienni Baptista & Rojas-Castro, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref44">49</reflink>]; Vienni Baptista & Klein, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref45">48</reflink>]). Specifically, we explored the following research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How does the design of graduate education programmes facilitate the development of TD competencies among students and faculty, and which programme attributes or features are particularly effective?</item> <p></p> <item> What are the implications for working across disciplines and/or outside academia?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0177319909-6">Methods</hd> <p>This study employed a mixed-method case study approach to investigate linkages between programme design and the development of TD competencies among students, faculty members and programme coordinators at UBC. Case studies are particularly useful for conducting in-depth explorations from multiple perspectives of a bounded system like a university or academic programme (Simons, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref46">41</reflink>]). Although focused on a particular context, which is also of "intrinsic" interest to the authors of this study (Stake, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref47">42</reflink>]), this case study can also serve as an illustrative model for other academic programmes globally. The highly detailed and context-dependent knowledge produced during case study research is vital for gaining a more holistic understanding of participants' views of and experiences in particular programmes (Flyvbjerg, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref48">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>We developed and administered an anonymous open-ended survey to 400 students and faculty members whose contact information was publicly available on the websites of collaborative graduate programmes. The questions for the surveys and focus groups/interviews were developed by the researchers for this study and pilot tested with 4 students and 3 faculty members after which we debriefed and revised the questions for both. N = 118 completed survey responses (67 students and 51 faculty members) were received (see schedules in Appendix A, in the Supplementary Material [SM]). As our aim was to examine programmes across the university, a survey was deemed appropriate for the first round of data collection, with the understanding that focus groups would be used to conduct a deeper investigation of any important themes brought up in the surveys.</p> <p>While we initially intended to conduct focus groups only, we discovered that many respondents (particularly faculty members) could not coordinate their schedules to participate. We thus pivoted to a hybrid format conducting both interviews and focus groups (approved by the university's ethics board). We used Qualtrics to collect survey data, and Zoom videoconferencing technology to conduct, record and transcribe interviews and focus groups. We used closed categorical and Likert-scale survey questions to inquire about supervision and collaboration, and the responses to these were quantitatively summarised in Figures 2 and 3.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Survey responses on student collaboration with peers. (A) How often students collaborated with peers. Respondents (n = 67) picked one option. (B) How students collaborated with their peers. Respondents (n = 64) could pick one or more options.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 3. Survey responses on student collaboration with faculty. (A) How often students collaborated with faculty members. Respondents (n = 67) picked one option. (B) Which faculty members students collaborated with. Respondents (n = 47) could pick one or more options. (C) How students collaborated with faculty members. Respondents (n = 48) could pick one or more options.</p> <p>We then used NVivo software to analyze the open-ended survey responses with an inductive, open-coding approach to analyze data (Saldaña, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref49">39</reflink>]). The preliminary analyses of the surveys generated further exploratory questions for two focus groups (with 7 students total) and 12 individual interviews with students, faculty members, and programme coordinators, which were then coded in NVivo using the themes generated from the surveys and grouped into categories or "themes" based on their similar substantive content (Braun & Clarke, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref50">6</reflink>]). This approach was useful because thematic analysis is not anchored in a particular theoretical tradition and can thus be applied across ontological and epistemological positions. At the end of the survey, participants could choose to provide their contact information if they were interested in participating in an interview or focus group, with the knowledge that this would mean that their participation in the study would no longer be anonymous (but their confidentiality would remain safe-guarded). Those who participated were informed that they could withdraw from the study at any time prior to publication (see Appendix C in SM).</p> <hd id="AN0177319909-7">The case</hd> <p>The University of British Columbia is a large, public, research-intensive university in Canada with over 70,000 students, and lessons from this case may be transferrable to other international academic institutions with strong research and teaching missions, divided up by faculties/schools and departments. This study looked at highly visible enrichment Master's and Doctoral programmes (that do not grant degrees to students but are associated with departments/faculties granting thesis/course-based degrees). These programmes are designed to supplement existing graduate programmes and require partnerships with non-academic stakeholders (e.g., through internships, partnered group/individual projects) and collaboration with students and/or faculty members from multiple disciplines through networking/socializing events, shared spaces, and/or teamwork on group projects. We excluded several programmes that had either already ended and/or could not be found easily online. Institutes or departments that allow students to undertake collaborative research in partnership with non-academic stakeholders but did not have them built in as requirements of the programme were also omitted. Of the identified programmes online, we found 9 that publicly listed the names and contact information of associated students (current and alumni) and faculty members (see Table 1).</p> <p>Table 1. Identification for TD programmes at UNIVERSITY.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>ID</td><td>Programme Type</td><td>Programme Description</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>P1</td><td>University-Wide Programmes</td><td>The programme provides an annual cohort of doctoral students with funding and other resources (for up to two years) to work on complex, socially relevant research problems through engaging diverse non-academic partners and perspectives. These projects are intended to make up part of the students' dissertation and be produced in a non-traditional format.</td></tr><tr><td>P2</td><td>Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council's (NSERC)<sup>1</sup> Collaborative Research and Training Experience (CREATE) Programmes</td><td>Federally funded programmes typically centred around advanced TD training in a specific research problem or area. The seven programmes that form part of this study include: Designing for People, Biodiversity Research: Integrative Training and Education, Ecosystem Services, Commercialization Platforms and Entrepreneurship, Nanomaterials Science and Technology, Ocean Leaders, Sustainable Synthesis, and Multidisciplinary Applied Geochemistry Network.</td></tr><tr><td>P3</td><td>Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)<sup>2</sup> Strategic Training Programmes</td><td>P3 was a multidisciplinary graduate fellowship programme focused on developing strategies to solve public, environmental, and occupational health problems.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 1: NSERC is a Canadian federal funding agency with a mandate to support research in the natural sciences and engineering.</p> <p>2 2: CIHR is a Canadian federal funding agency with a mandate to support health research.</p> <hd id="AN0177319909-8">Results</hd> <p>In examining programmes that include explicit collaboration among different academic disciplines and/or outside academia, we organised the results of our surveys, focus groups, and interviews into two broad themes: (a) the development of competencies to facilitate TD and ID academic collaboration and (b) the development of competencies to facilitate collaboration with non-academic stakeholders and groups. In this section, we differentiate responses from students (S), faculty members (F), and programme coordinators (C), and refer to programmes by their IDs in Table 1. Focus groups are identified as "FG", surveys as "S", and interviews as I (e.g. student focus group response in P1 is P1,S,FG). Due to the volume of results, we provide some responses as examples; the complete set of data can be found in the Supplementary Material (SM).</p> <hd id="AN0177319909-9">A. Collaboration within academia</hd> <p>The programmes were organised into two categories. "Breadth" programmes focus on exposing students to peers from a broad range of disciplines across the university and provide them with opportunities to socialise and network. "Depth" programmes, which are usually framed around a specific research topic or problem, are designed to bring students and faculty from relevant disciplinary backgrounds (usually a smaller number of departments and/or research areas) to work in tandem on group/team projects. We discuss below how both programmes facilitate the development of different competencies among students, as well as outlining the main strengths and challenges identified by participants.</p> <hd id="AN0177319909-10">a. "Breadth"</hd> <p>Our survey and focus group results suggest that breadth programmes, which include students from across the natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and arts, are particularly effective in exposing students to a wide range of curricula. Students engage with their cohort of peers through semi-regular social events (e.g., networking lunches), as well as seminars and workshops organised by the programme. It is worth reiterating that breadth programmes such as P1 are somewhat unique in their inclusion of students from the humanities and arts, particularly as these disciplines are typically less involved in collaborative, TD research than the natural and social sciences at many universities (Vienni Baptista et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref51">47</reflink>]; Sebastian et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref52">40</reflink>]). Some students recognised the value of connecting with students across campus through "a community and network" (P1,S,S) or being introduced to the research methods and perspectives of other disciplines. Others described the importance of having a cohort or community of scholars in a large and sometimes isolating university environment.</p> <p>Some student respondents also acknowledged that they had learned to be reflective about the limitations of their own disciplinary training, became humble about disciplinary limitations, and found that their views were influenced or restructured through engaging with other disciplines. These students developed communication, relational, and collaborative competencies through learning the (sometimes vastly different) language and methods of other disciplines sufficiently to work with peers with diverse disciplinary backgrounds, drawing connections across varied concepts, theories, or research methods. As a result, one student even described developing a "deep belief that disciplines are made up and artificially constrain our thoughts and approaches, thus stifling creative projects" (P1,S,S) (SM Table 1).</p> <p>Speaking specifically of the ID programme P1, several respondents noted it was too broad. This hindered connections with other students or the development of collaborations, particularly in a large cohort (see SM, Table 2). Students were not instructed or advised on <emph>how</emph> they could transform their casual conversations with peers about their research interests (usually at networking/social events) into more substantial research collaborations (as this was not the goal of the programme).</p> <p>Maximising opportunities for TD and ID encounters and providing the structure and supports for deep collaboration arose as another possible tension. As a breadth programme, P1 is novel in bringing students from a diverse selection of departments and faculties into ongoing contact (and conversation) with one another through networking and professional development opportunities. It creates a TD and ID environment where collaborative interactions and research focused on public scholarship may potentially flourish.</p> <p>While the faculty responses reveal the diverse student network offered by breadth programmes as a distinct benefit for their students, they might be overstating or overestimating students' abilities to initiate TD and ID collaborations with their peers due to siloed home disciplines or departments. Faculty members reported not being particularly involved in P1, even though they could assist students with ongoing mentorship around TD collaboration (see SM Table 2). Their experience and understanding of the programme emerged from the involvement of their students, but despite the desire to support students, many faculty members acknowledged lacking incentive to invest the necessary time.</p> <hd id="AN0177319909-11">b. "Depth" programmes</hd> <p>Our study revealed several examples of "depth" programmes at UBC (P2 and P3), which are usually centred around a specific research problem or topic. These involve sustained interaction and collaboration among students and/or faculty members through team or group work, shared office spaces, lab rotations, research clusters, and so on. They include a smaller number of students than programmes such as P1 and draw on fewer disciplines whose areas of expertise are deemed appropriate and relevant to addressing the shared research topic. Depth programmes at UBC are frequently funded by NSERC CREATE grants, which are conducive to organising TD research opportunities at universities, though there is less emphasis on diverse forms of collaboration or joint dissertations (Porter, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref53">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>While students in breadth programmes like P1 described the benefits they gained from being exposed to students from different disciplines during social and networking events, depth programme respondents often described developing a substantial working understanding of, and appreciation for, different disciplinary perspectives because of ongoing teamwork. Several respondents said they developed meaningful professional connections with their peers and faculty. A few even mentioned staying in contact with them after the programme, especially "if [they] needed input from a different area of research" (P2,S,FG).</p> <p>Consistent engagement with peers from other disciplines allowed one respondent to develop a much deeper understanding of their own discipline, including its underlying assumptions, as well as learning to see the contingency and specificity of their knowledge, particularly the "connotations" that are "missed because of being trained in different disciplines" (P2,S,FG). Another described how participating in group projects allowed their understanding of the core theories and methods from other disciplines to move from the abstract (as they were taught in courses) to the real world, as well as being able to draw connections between concepts, theories, or research methods from different disciplines.</p> <p>These responses illustrate how depth programmes used teamwork and group projects to successfully encourage the development of critical thinking skills among students, and awareness about their biases in collaborations, withholding immediate judgment of students from other disciplines, carefully taking multiple perspectives into consideration when problem solving, and re-evaluating their own perspectives and approaches when necessary. One respondent described the process of forming these connections to " ... feel really slow at first but once you get more and more cohesive ... people will start to notice that there is some kind of group that's thinking and feeling things together and then that becomes exponential" (P2,S,FG).</p> <p>Despite the many benefits gained from participating in teamwork, students revealed various challenges around incompatible team dynamics, particularly when trying to navigate the methods and theories of several disciplines at once (P2,S,S). Because students tended to gravitate to others with disciplinary connections, certain disciplinary areas were overrepresented and could derail the TD or ID collaboration process. These findings demonstrate the importance of carefully considering the distribution of teams ahead of time, representing a variety of disciplines (see SM, Table 4).</p> <p>Faculty members from these programmes discussed similar positive experiences about the learning process of the students. As they were more involved in teaching or mentoring students in these programmes, as compared to the breadth model, their survey and interview responses tended to be more specific about the competencies students were developing. Faculty members also recognised some issues associated with engaging in TD programmes, particularly pertaining to the significant time commitment and lack of institutional support or resources through funding or course buyouts (see P2, F & C; P1 + P3,F). These findings are consistent with Moore et al. ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref54">31</reflink>]), who reported that despite spoken support and encouragement for TD collaborations, TD research was not well understood, supported, or valued at the discipline or institutional level, and with Lenhart and Bouwma-Gearhart ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref55">29</reflink>]) and Cooke et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref56">10</reflink>]), showing challenges of time restraints in combination with tenure and promotions and funding mechanisms.</p> <hd id="AN0177319909-12">B. Collaboration among students and faculty</hd> <p>The summary of survey results shown in Figures 2 and 3 suggest that students in the programmes we surveyed were collaborating more often with their peers than with faculty members. They often collaborated with their peers through ongoing meetings and social events organised by their programmes (Fig. 2B), and often wrote journal articles with their supervisor(s) or thesis committee members (Fig. 3C).</p> <p>Our results indicate that facilitating TD and ID connections between students and faculty members through mentorship in programmes presents challenges because faculty are often over-stretched in their time commitments. Many faculty respondents were, however, positive about their experiences co-supervising students or participating in TD and ID thesis committees, suggesting that these were potentially rich avenues for interaction and collaboration. Bardecki ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref57">1</reflink>]) and Cooke et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref58">10</reflink>]) described supervision across disciplinary areas as an extremely effective way to expose students to and train them in multiple methodologies, theories, and disciplinary approaches to research. Rocha et al. ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref59">37</reflink>], p. 720) acknowledged that co-supervision with other scholars and/or practitioners with diverse backgrounds allow researchers to build "trustful relationships that allow for epistemic dependence".</p> <p>Our findings suggest that co-supervision and thesis committee membership were perceived as providing students with broader mentorship and collaborative opportunities from faculty members who bring "different areas of expertise and pedagogical approaches that complement each other" (P1,F,S). They also suggested that the co-supervised students "became 'translators' between the two disciplines" (P2,F,S) (SM, Table 4). Furthermore, they revealed how these opportunities allowed faculty members to work outside their own comfort zones, meeting and working closely with colleagues from other disciplines, whose "disciplinary languages" they eventually learned (P1 + P3,F,S).</p> <p>Faculty members admitted that multi-department or faculty thesis committees, in particular, can be difficult, for various reasons, including varied logistical and administrative approaches associated with communicating across departments or universities, or due to varied administrative requirements of graduate programmes (P1,F,S; P3,F,S). Newswander and Borrego ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref60">33</reflink>]) similarly found that students in ID programmes were often faced with incompatible programme requirements or advice from faculty. Other respondents raised concerns about finding committee members or co-supervisors who had compatible research interests (P2,F,I), which emphasises the importance of supervisor selection (P1 + P3,F,S)</p> <hd id="AN0177319909-13">C. Collaborating outside academia</hd> <p>When asked what they valued or appreciated most about their involvement in a TD programme, most student respondents described the importance of working on immediate, "real world" problems faced by different groups of stakeholders. These responses fell into one of two broad categories. While some respondents described how they learned to present or translate their research to non-expert, non-academic audiences, others described changing, reshaping, or tailoring their research at a deeper level in order to understand and meet the needs of diverse, non-academic stakeholders.</p> <p>As an illustration of the first category, one respondent noted, "this program helped me to translate my research into impact formats for the general public" (P1,S,S). Responses in this vein suggest that the students were able to cultivate rudimentary interpersonal competencies, such as identifying groups of stakeholders associated with a particular project, understanding their needs, and explaining their research to non-experts. This entails being willing and able to explicate tacit knowledge of one's own discipline and translate it for those not belonging to the same community (Di Giulio & Defila, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref61">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>Some respondents also reported going a step further by transforming or rethinking their research in line with stakeholder interests. One respondent described the importance of "creating outcomes that have tangible relevance" for their stakeholders, "rather than just creating literature for academic audiences" (P1,S,S). Another stated that working with non-academic stakeholders was "powerful" because it opened their eyes to "the whole world that exists outside of our little grad bubble" (SM, Table 6).</p> <p>These comments suggest a view of stakeholders as not just sources of information, data, or feedback, but as important contributors to the research (Collins & Evans, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref62">9</reflink>]). Faculty respondents largely echoed students' views. One respondent claimed these programmes involved the most "real world relevant activities" they could engage in at academic institutions (P1 + P3,F,S). Some faculty respondents also suggested they were able to strengthen their own collaborative competencies through their involvement. One programme faculty member described learning "professional development skills along with the students, and also became far more adept at engaging with people in the community to develop projects" (P2,C,I), while another stated that they were able to build and strengthen relationships with industry partners (P2,C,I).</p> <p>The findings also show that students value these opportunities to network and make professional connections outside academia, particularly because it connects them to potential employers and non-academic career paths (SM, Table 7). One student realised that "networking works 99% of the time in securing a job as opposed to blindly filling out several applications" (P2,S,S), while another noticed how "graduate students are surprised by how different the real workplace is outside of academia" (P2,S,S). Indeed, a recent UBC graduate student survey report by Glass et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref63">17</reflink>]) illustrated that graduate students (particularly in the humanities) must be aware of and have access to career paths outside academia. Others valued having access to professional networks through their internships understanding what it meant to do research in a real-world context. Many respondents noted that their internship or work experiences often resulted in long-term employment.</p> <p>Respondents expressed valuing collaborations with stakeholders outside academia through internships or partnered group projects. Despite stating that work experience is one of the biggest advantages of participating in a TD programme, students reported experiencing considerable obstacles balancing programme and degree requirements (P2,S,S;P1,S,FG), primarily because the work experience extended their graduate school timeline (see Newswander & Borrego, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref64">33</reflink>]; Graybill et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref65">19</reflink>]). This manifested as a larger concern for Masters' students, who have shorter programmes and larger funding constraints, which might incentivize seeking additional employment (see SM, Table 7). These challenges might be compounded if programmes do not offer enough concrete support to students learning <emph>how</emph> to collaborate with non-academic partners in a way that is meaningful for everyone involved.</p> <p>Some students admitted that there were difficulties trying to communicate with stakeholders, either because they did not receive much support or guidance from them, or because the partners had unrealistic or inappropriate expectations of them. As Wiek et al. ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref66">50</reflink>]) noted, initiating and maintaining contact with stakeholders provides important collaborative competencies that students need to develop to effectively organise and execute TD projects. Not knowing how to collaborate with stakeholders in a respectful and mutually beneficial manner can be especially concerning in instances where historically marginalised communities are involved (e.g. P1,S,S).</p> <hd id="AN0177319909-14">Discussion</hd> <p>In what follows, we interpret the findings in the context of the outlined theoretical framework and subsequent findings, concluding with some practical recommendations regarding TD and ID programmes moving forward.</p> <p>When collaborating within academia, our findings show that within "breadth" programmes, initial exposure to a broad swath of research areas and approaches allowed students to cultivate certain core values, attitudes, and beliefs essential for collaborative TD research. These included intellectual "curiosity", "openness" to learning about different disciplines, and "tolerance" towards different perspectives and approaches. Faculty members associated with breadth programmes similarly recognised that students gained opportunities to be exposed to applied or public-facing scholarship across and beyond the university, develop professional relationships with peers outside their department or lab groups, and become part of a community or network of like-minded scholars.</p> <p>In disciplines where collaboration is not the norm, "common ground creation" (Öberg & Campbell, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref67">35</reflink>], p. 238) is particularly challenging without explicit guidance. Understanding <emph>how</emph> to identify and create shared language across disciplines and knowing <emph>how</emph> to translate that into collaborative research are important skills that graduate students can be taught explicitly. Killion et al. ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref68">23</reflink>]) and Stokols ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref69">44</reflink>]) have stated the importance of providing students with training opportunities to practice their team-science skills, particularly by improving integrative research outcomes.</p> <p>In "depth" programmes, through engaging in consistent conversation during group projects and coursework, several respondents described developing communication skills crucial to teamwork: learning to understand, respect, and engage different disciplinary languages and worldviews, and navigating conflicts. Borrego and Newswander ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref70">4</reflink>]) described this ability to communicate across disciplinary differences as essential to being prepared for collaborative cross-disciplinary work (SM, Table 3).</p> <p>When collaborating outside of academia, students are not only learning to make their research intelligible to others, but are also exercising the self-awareness and sensitivity necessary to collaborate respectfully and effectively with partners and stakeholders. They understand how academic research can be shaped to effectively inform problems in the real world by generating research questions or hypotheses jointly with their stakeholder partners, creating shared visions or models for the research project, or modifying their approach based upon stakeholders' requirements.</p> <p>For external collaborations, faculty supervisors or thesis committee members might serve an important and useful advisory role within the programme, particularly to draw upon their own experiences as academics working with non-academic stakeholders. At the same time, faculty members and programme coordinators also described the logistical and relational challenges associated with managing student-stakeholder engagement and the time commitment associated with such research.</p> <p>Returning to the theoretical framework, it is evident how programmes encourage "values, attitudes and beliefs" such as openness and curiosity toward different disciplinary perspectives, promote humility and reflexivity about students' disciplinary training, synthesise multiple approaches creatively when addressing a research problem, and foster adaptive thinking. For the "interpersonal" component, TD programmes may train students to clearly communicate their perspectives to other disciplines and non-academic partners, carefully listen to, understand, and find ways to complement other views and approaches, deal with certain tensions or conflicts that may arise during collaboration, and translate knowledge for different groups where needed. There are many "knowledge and skills-based opportunities" offered by TD programmes that aim to prepare students for careers outside academia, including networking opportunities with potential employers, and courses, seminars and workshops to both gain an understanding and appreciation of non-academic contexts and develop crucial communication and business skills not otherwise offered in the university.</p> <p>Based upon the analysis of the findings through the theoretical framework, we recommend some of the following practical interventions for TD and ID programmes:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Provide institutional infrastructure to maximise opportunities for TD and ID encounters and collaborations beyond faculty member supervision, such as training in team skills and integrative research</item> <p></p> <item> Cultivate a variety of disciplinary backgrounds among students and faculty teams</item> <p></p> <item> Commit enough resources for faculty members to support TD and ID collaborative programmes, such as teaching or service relief, funding mechanisms for cross-faculty collaboration, support staff, or PhD programme admissions open to multi-faculty supervision and collaboration</item> <p></p> <item> Create a unified set of degree requirements for TD and ID programmes that allow space and time to pursue different forms of graduate work</item> <p></p> <item> Build TD and ID programmes with stakeholders to support integrative graduate research that has relevance outside of academia by scaffolding a number of smaller group projects, retaining a greater sense of continuity in their peer and stakeholder relationships</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0177319909-15">Conclusions</hd> <p>Our findings reveal two broad types of programmes designed to foster TD competencies: "breadth" programmes targeting departments and faculties across the university and "depth" programmes funded by one-off funding focused on a specific research question and drawing from a few disciplines. Several respondents appreciated how breadth programmes expose students to peers from a wide range of disciplinary perspectives, even though this did not necessarily translate to collaborations across disciplines, particularly as some respondents reported not knowing <emph>how</emph> to collaborate in more in-depth ways with their cohort members. Nurturing collaborations between students who do not have similar backgrounds may require guiding them on how to transition from having TD and ID conversations to thinking about specific research problems together. Students in "depth" programmes reported building long-lasting professional connections with their peers and faculty members through group projects, but also struggled to navigate challenging team dynamics and project deadlines. An important aspect of developing strong competencies necessary to engage in meaningful TD and ID collaboration among graduate students requires building in enough time for group members in a programme to get to know each other before working on a project either through taking courses together or sharing an office space.</p> <p>This study also has certain limitations. We were unable to examine the full breadth of TD and ID offerings at UBC as they did not make their student and faculty member contact information publicly available. Our survey respondents were skewed towards some programmes, with less representation from others. Also, our choice to examine supplementary graduate programmes precluded us from administering the survey to a wider breadth of graduate students who might be conducting such research in departmental units, schools, institutes, or centres at the university. One other limitation, which is unavoidable given the parameters of publication, involves providing a larger, comparative international study of various TD and ID programmes. Such an expansive study would involve multiple publications and not allow for the specificity needed to underscore a variety of data results.</p> <p>Overall, this study underscores some of the successes and challenges when building programmes to support dynamic forms of TD and ID in higher education. As a case study that focuses on a university resembling many others, the results of TD and ID programing are translatable and applicable globally. Despite the various obstacles, the prognosis indicates that an appetite for building more TD and ID programming and increasing support for it remains strong.</p> <hd id="AN0177319909-16">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <hd id="AN0177319909-17">Ethical approval</hd> <p>Institutional ethical approval for the use of the data and the direct approaching of individuals for follow-up conversations or interviews was sought and formally granted. Approval number is: H21-02363.</p> <ref id="AN0177319909-18"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref57" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2022.2134312.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0177319909-19"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Bardecki, M. (2015). Developing and managing integrated [interdisciplinary/transdisciplinary] graduate programs in environmental science and management in a collaborative context. In W. Leal Filho, L. Brandli, O. Kuznetsova, & A. M. F. do Paço (Eds.), Integrative approaches to sustainable development at university level: Making the links (pp. 197 – 209). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10690-8_14</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref12" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bernstein, J. H. (2015). Transdisciplinarity: A review of its origins, development, and current issues. Journal of Research Practice, 11 (1), R1 – R1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref26" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Borrego, M., Boden, D., Pietrocola, D., Stoel, C. F., Boone, R. D., & Ramasubramanian, M. K. (2014). Institutionalizing interdisciplinary graduate education. In M. O'Rourke, S. Crowley, S. Eigenbrode, & J. Wulfhorst (Eds.), Enhancing communication & collaboration in interdisciplinary research (pp. 335 – 355). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483352947.n16</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref70" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Borrego, M., & Newswander, L. K. (2010). Definitions of interdisciplinary research: Toward graduate-level interdisciplinary learning outcomes. The Review of Higher Education, 34 (1), 61 – 84. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2010.0006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref40" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bosque-Pérez, N. A., Klos, P. Z., Force, J. E., Waits, L. P., Cleary, K., Rhoades, P., Galbraith, S. M., Brymer, A. L. B., O'Rourke, M., Eigenbrode, S. D., Finegan, B., Wulfhorst, J. D., Sibelet, N., & Holbrook, J. D. (2016). A pedagogical model for team-based, problem-focused interdisciplinary doctoral education. BioScience, 66 (6), 477 – 488. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw042</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref50" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77 – 101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref1" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Chang, H., Granek, E. F., Ervin, D., Yeakley, A., Dujon, V., & Shandas, V. (2020). A community-engaged approach to transdisciplinary doctoral training in urban ecosystem services. Sustainability Science, 15 (3), 699 – 715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00785-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref2" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Collins, H., Evans, R., Durant, D., & Weinel, M. (2020). Experts and the will of the people: Society, populism and science. Palgrave Pivot. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26983-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref41" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2002). The third wave of science studies. Social Studies of Science, 32 (2), 235 – 296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312702032002003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cooke, S. J., Nguyen, V. M., Anastakis, D., Scott, S. D., Turetsky, M. R., Amirfazli, A., Hearn, A., Milton, C. E., Loewen, L., Smith, E. E., Norris, D. R., Lavoie, K. L., Aiken, A., Ansari, D., Antle, A. N., Babel, M., Bailey, J., Bernstein, D. M., Birnbaum, R., & Woolford, A. (2020). Diverse perspectives on interdisciplinarity from members of the college of the royal society of Canada. FACETS, 5 (1), 138 – 165. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2019-0044</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Di Giulio, A., & Defila, R. (2017). Enabling university educators to equip students with inter- and transdisciplinary competencies. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 18 (5), 630 – 647. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-02-2016-0030</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fam, D., Leimbach, T., Kelly, S., Hitchens, L., & Callen, M. (2018). Meta-considerations for planning, introducing and standardizing inter- and transdisciplinary learning in higher degree institutions. In D. Fam, L. Neuhauser, & P. Gibbs (Eds.), Transdisciplinary theory, practice and education: The art of collaborative research and collective learning (pp. 85 – 102). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93743-4_7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fiore, S. M., Gabelica, C., Wiltshire, T. J., & Stokols, D. (2019). Training to be a (team) scientist. In K. L. Hall, A. L. Vogel, & R. T. Croyle (Eds.), 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 International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20992-6_33</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12 (2), 219 – 245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25 (7), 739 – 755. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gillis, D., Nelson, J., Driscoll, B., Hodgins, K., Fraser, E., & Jacobs, S. (2017). Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research and education in Canada: A review and suggested framework. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 10, 203 – 222. https://doi.org/10.22329/celt.v10i0.4745</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glass, G., Lines, S., Rennert, H., & Sy de Jesus, A. (2020). Graduate student survey report. University of British Columbia. https://publichumanities.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2020/10/PHH-Graduate-Survey-Report.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gorman, M. E. (2010). Trading zones and interactional expertise: Creating new kinds of collaboration. MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graybill, J. K., Dooling, S., Shandas, V., Withey, J., Greve, A., & Simon, G. (2006). A rough guide to interdisciplinarity: Graduate student perspectives. Bioscience, 56 (9), 757 – 763. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2006)56[757:ARGTIG]2.0.CO;2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hedberg, R. C., Hesse, A., Baldwin, D., Bernhardt, J., Retchless, D. P., & Shinn, J. E. (2017). Preparing geographers for interdisciplinary research: Graduate training at the interface of the natural and social sciences. The Professional Geographer, 69 (1), 107 – 116. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2016.1184985</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelley, L. C., Clifford, K. R., Reisman, E., Lea, D., Matsler, M., Liebman, A., & Malone, M. (2018). Charting a critical physical geography path in graduate school: Sites of student agency. In R. Lave, C. Biermann, & S. N. Lane (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of critical physical geography (pp. 537 – 557). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71461-5_25</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Killion, A. K., Sterle, K., Bondank, E. N., Drabik, J. R., Bera, A., Alian, S., Goodrich, K. A., Hale, M., Myer, R. A., Phung, Q., Shew, A. M., & Thayer, A. W. (2018). Preparing the next generation of sustainability scientists. Ecology and Society, 23 (4), https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10395-230439</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klein, J. T. (1990). Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, and practice. Wayne State University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klein, J. T., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Häberli, R., Bill, A., Schlotz, R. W., & Welti, M. (2001). Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem solving among science, technology and society. Birkhäuser.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klenk, N. L., & Meehan, K. (2017). Transdisciplinary sustainability research beyond engagement models: Toward adventures in relevance. Environmental Science & Policy, 78, 27 – 35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.09.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knapp, C. N., Reid, R. S., Fernández-Giménez, M. E., Klein, J. A., & Galvin, K. A. (2019). Placing transdisciplinarity in context: A review of approaches to connect scholars, society and action. Sustainability, 11 (18), 4899. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11184899</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., Swilling, M., & Thomas, C. J. (2012). Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science, 7 (1), 25 – 43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lenhart, C., & Bouwma-Gearhart, J. (2022). Engaging students around the complex socioscientific issue of sustainability: Affordances and tensions of faculty working across disciplines to develop transdisciplinary curricula. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 21 (2), 1 – 18. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.21-03-0075</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Manathunga, C., Pitt, R., & Critchley, C. (2009). Graduate attribute development and employment outcomes: Tracking PhD graduates. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34 (1), 91 – 103. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930801955945</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore, M., Martinson, M. L., Nurius, P. S., & Kemp, S. P. (2018). Transdisciplinarity in research: Perspectives of early career faculty. Research on Social Work Practice, 28 (3), 254 – 264. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731517708033</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nerad, M. (2004). The PhD in the US: Criticisms, facts, and remedies. Higher Education Policy, 17 (2), 183 – 199. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300050</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Newswander, L. K., & Borrego, M. (2009). Engagement in two interdisciplinary graduate programs. Higher Education, 58 (4), 551 – 562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9215-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nurius, P. S., & Kemp, S. P. (2019). Individual-level competencies for team collaboration with cross-disciplinary researchers and stakeholders. In K. L. Hall, A. L. Vogel, & R. T. Croyle (Eds.), Strategies for team science success: Handbook of evidence-based principles for cross-disciplinary science and practical lessons learned from health researchers (pp. 171 – 187). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20992-6_13</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Öberg, G., & Campbell, A. (2019). Navigating the divide between scientific practice and science studies to support undergraduate teaching of epistemic knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 41 (2), 230 – 247. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1548044</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Porter, S. D. (2021). Postformal learning for postnormal times. In R. Barnacle, & D. Cuthbert (Eds.), The PhD at the end of the world: Provocations for the doctorate and a future contested (pp. 67 – 81). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62219-0_5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rocha, P. L. B. D., Pardini, R., Viana, B. F., & El-Hani, C. N. (2020). Fostering inter- and transdisciplinarity in discipline-oriented universities to improve sustainability science and practice. Sustainability Science, 15 (3), 717 – 728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00761-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rozance, M. A., Krosby, M., Meadow, A. M., Snover, A., Ferguson, D. B., & Owen, G. (2020). Building capacity for societally engaged climate science by transforming science training. Environmental Research Letters, 15 (12), 125008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abc27a</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). SAGE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sebastian, I., Fam, D., & Prior, J. (2022). The rise of transdisciplinary "boundary organizations" within the Australian tertiary education sector: Beyond the disciplined university. In B. Vienni Baptista, & J. T. Klein (Eds.), Institutionalizing interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity: Collaboration across cultures and communities (pp. 89 – 106). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003129424-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simons, H. (2009). Case study research in practice. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446268322</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stock, P., & Burton, R. J. F. (2011). Defining terms for integrated (multi-inter-trans-disciplinary) sustainability research. Sustainability, 3 (8), 1090 – 1113. https://doi.org/10.3390/su3081090</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stokols, D. (2014). Training the next generation of transdisciplinarians. In M. O'Rourke, S. Crowley, S. Eigenbrode, & J. Wulfhorst (Eds.), Enhancing communication & collaboration in interdisciplinary research (pp. 56 – 81). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483352947.n4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tejada, G., Cracco, M., Bouleau, C. R., Bolay, J. C., & Hostettler, S. (2019). Testing analytical frameworks in transdisciplinary research for sustainable development. Sustainability, 11 (16), 4343. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164343</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tranquillo, J. (2017). The t-shaped engineer. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, 30 (4), 12 – 24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vienni Baptista, B., Fletcher, I., Maryl, M., Wciślik, P., Buchner, A., Lyall, C., Spaapen, J., & Pohl, C. (2020). Final report on understandings of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research and factors of success and failure. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3824839</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vienni Baptista, B., & Klein, J. T. (2022). Institutionalizing interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity: Collaboration across cultures and communities. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003129424</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vienni Baptista, B., & Rojas-Castro, S. (2020). Transdisciplinary institutionalization in higher education: A two-level analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 45 (6), 1075 – 1092. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1593347</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wiek, A., Bernstein, M., Foley, R., Cohen, M., Forrest, N., Kuzdas, C., Kay, B., & Withycombe Keeler, L. (2016). Operationalizing competencies in higher education for sustainable development. In M. Barth, G. Michelsen, M. Rieckmann & I. Thomas (Eds.), Routledge handbook of higher education for sustainable development (pp. 241 – 260). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Aishwarya Ramachandran; Klara Abdi; Amanda Giang; Derek Gladwin and Naoko Ellis</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref68"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1425061
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Transdisciplinary and Interdisciplinary Programmes for Collaborative Graduate Research Training
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Aishwarya+Ramachandran%22">Aishwarya Ramachandran</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Klara+Abdi%22">Klara Abdi</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Amanda+Giang%22">Amanda Giang</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0146-7038">0000-0002-0146-7038</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Derek+Gladwin%22">Derek Gladwin</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0053-4745">0000-0002-0053-4745</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Naoko+Ellis%22">Naoko Ellis</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1241-1259">0000-0002-1241-1259</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Educational+Review%22"><i>Educational Review</i></searchLink>. 2024 76(4):996-1013.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interdisciplinary+Approach%22">Interdisciplinary Approach</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Training%22">Research Training</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Graduate+Students%22">Graduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Evaluation%22">Program Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Universities%22">Research Universities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Skills%22">Research Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cooperation%22">Cooperation</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Canada%22">Canada</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/00131911.2022.2134312
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0013-1911<br />1465-3397
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This paper documents a case study examining collaborative transdisciplinary (TD) and interdisciplinary (ID) graduate programmes at the University of British Columbia (a large, public, research-intensive university in Canada) -- serving as a model for other universities globally. TD and ID programmes in higher education can ultimately create a new generation of researchers who are capable of contending with complex problems by equipping them with a broad range of research competencies and expertise. This study used open-ended surveys and semi-structured focus groups and interviews to understand how students, faculty members, and programme coordinators experienced these programmes, focusing on specific competencies (e.g. values, knowledge, interpersonal skills). We then highlighted how programmes may be preparing students to engage in collaborative applied research (i.e., TD and ID) in real-world contexts. Our findings suggest that "breadth" programmes exposed students to a wide range of disciplinary perspectives, while "depth" programmes focused on a specific research problem in fewer disciplines. TD and ID co-supervision and thesis committee membership emerged as rich avenues for students to receive mentorship from faculty members. Lastly, respondents wanted more applied research and opportunities to connect with potential employers outside academia.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1425061
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1425061
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/00131911.2022.2134312
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
        StartPage: 996
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Interdisciplinary Approach
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Training
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Graduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Universities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cooperation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Canada
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Transdisciplinary and Interdisciplinary Programmes for Collaborative Graduate Research Training
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Aishwarya Ramachandran
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Klara Abdi
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Amanda Giang
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Derek Gladwin
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Naoko Ellis
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0013-1911
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1465-3397
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 76
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Educational Review
              Type: main
ResultId 1