ABSTRACTThe complexity of social and public health challenges has led to burgeoning interest and investments in cross-disciplinary team-based research, and particularly in transdisciplinary (TD) team-based research. TD research aims to integrate and ultimately extend beyond discipline-specific concepts, approaches, and methods to accelerate innovations and progress toward solving complex real-world problems. While TD research offers the promise of novel, wide-reaching, and important discoveries, it also introduces unique challenges. In particular, today's investigators are generally trained in unidisciplinary approaches and may have little training in, or exposure to, the scientific skills and team processes necessary to collaborate successfully in teams of colleagues from widely disparate disciplines and fields. Yet these skills are essential to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of TD team-based research. In the current article, we propose a model of TD team-based research that includes four relatively distinct phases: development, conceptualization, implementation, and translation. Drawing on the science of team science field, as well as the findings from previous research on group dynamics and organizational behavior, we identify key scientific goals and team processes that occur in each phase and across multiple phases. We then provide real-world exemplars for each phase that highlight strategies for successfully meeting the goals and engaging in the team processes that are hallmarks of that phase. We conclude by discussing the relevance of the model for TD team-based research initiatives, funding to support these initiatives, and future empirical research that aims to better understand the processes and outcomes of TD team-based research.

Over the past several decades, there has been burgeoning interest and investment in large transdisciplinary (TD) team science initiatives that aim to address complex societal problems. Despite this trend, TD training opportunities in the health sciences remain limited, and evaluations of these opportunities are even more uncommon due to funding constraints. We had the unique opportunity to conduct an exploratory study to examine the potential outcomes and impacts of TD training in a National Cancer Institute-supported initiative for TD research and training-the Transdisciplinary Research on Energetics and Cancer I (TREC I) initiative. This study used a retrospective mixed-methods approach leveraging secondary analysis of existing data sources to learn about TREC trainees' experiences with TREC training, TD research competencies, changes in scholarly productivity, and the associations among these domains. Results indicated that, on average, TREC trainees were satisfied with their TREC mentoring experiences and believed that TREC training processes were effective, in general. Participation in TREC training was associated with TD research competencies, including TD research orientation, positive general attitude toward TD training, development of scientific skills for TD research, and intrapersonal/interpersonal competencies for collaboration. There was also a significant increase in trainees' scholarly productivity from before to after starting in TREC training, as indicated by average annual number of publications and presentations and average number of coauthors per publication. Perceived effectiveness of TREC training was positively correlated with change in average annual number of research presentations from before to after starting in TREC training (r = 0.65, p < 0.05, N = 12), as well as TD research orientation (r = 0.36, p < 0.05), general attitude toward TD training (0.39, p < 0.05), scientific skills for TD research (r = 0.45-0.48, p < 0.05), and perceived collaborative productivity at one's TREC center (r = 0.47, p < 0.01). Finally, a significant positive correlation was observed between multi-mentoring experiences and both TD research orientation (r = 0.58, p < 0.05) and perceived collaborative productivity at one's TREC center (r = 0.44, p < 0.05). This exploratory study had methodological constraints including the absence of a comparison group and cross-sectional rather than longitudinal data related to TD research competencies. Despite these limitations, the study provided an opportunity to use existing data sources to explore potential outcomes and impacts of TD training and inform development of future rigorous evaluations of TD training. Overall, findings suggest that TD training in the context of a TD research initiative can provide satisfying training opportunities that support the development of TD research competencies and promote scholarly productivity.

Background

Large cross-disciplinary scientific teams are becoming increasingly prominent in the conduct of research.

Purpose

This paper reports on a quasi-experimental longitudinal study conducted to compare bibliometric indicators of scientific collaboration, productivity, and impact of center-based transdisciplinary team science initiatives and traditional investigator-initiated grants in the same field.

Methods

All grants began between 1994 and 2004 and up to 10 years of publication data were collected for each grant. Publication information was compiled and analyzed during the spring and summer of 2010.

Results

Following an initial lag period, the transdisciplinary research center grants had higher overall publication rates than the investigator-initiated R01 (NIH Research Project Grant Program) grants. There were relatively uniform publication rates across the research center grants compared to dramatically dispersed publication rates among the R01 grants. On average, publications produced by the research center grants had greater numbers of coauthors but similar journal impact factors compared with publications produced by the R01 grants.

Conclusions

The lag in productivity among the transdisciplinary center grants was offset by their overall higher publication rates and average number of coauthors per publication, relative to investigator-initiated grants, over the 10-year comparison period. The findings suggest that transdisciplinary center grants create benefits for both scientific productivity and collaboration.