Introduction

Transdisciplinary research is a type of interdisciplinary research that not only integrates knowledge, methods, and theories from multiple disciplines, but creates "new conceptual frameworks, hypotheses, theories, models, and methodological applications that transcend their disciplinary origins…." (Hall et al., 2012, p. 416). Transdisciplinary approaches in the sciences and humanities are essential to solve

Literature Review

The majority of research on graduate student training is embedded in the disciplines and disciplinary ways of knowing. This review, however, draws from research literature in the emerging areas of transdisciplinary team science to describe intended outcomes for students at both the course and program levels. We start with related research on integrative/cross-disciplinary learning in undergraduate education, which may form part of the developmental process of transdisciplinary thinking for graduate students. We then discuss the existing literature on graduate education for transdisciplinary approaches to training and socialization, which encompasses a wide range of disciplinary perspectives and is often scattered, lacking an integrated set of research questions or shared body of evidence-based practice.

The Cross-Disciplinary Continuum

Cross-disciplinary research can be thought of as existing on a continuum. Uni-disciplinary research is conducted entirely within a single discipline. Cross-disciplinary research is a broad term including varying degrees of integration, as described by Hall et al. (2012). Multidisciplinary research is "the sequential or additive combination of ideas or methods drawn from two or more disciplines." (pp. 415-416) Interdisciplinary research goes further by integrating "perspectives, concepts, theories, and methods from two or more disciplines," and transdisciplinary research creates "fundamentally new conceptual frameworks, hypotheses, theories, models, and methodological applications that transcend their disciplinary origins…. " (p. 416).

The goals of LinDiv are to "produce scholars and future leaders who have the transdisciplinary expertise needed to translate research outcomes into solutions that alleviate social and economic disparities." (Linguistic Diversity Across the Lifespan, 2024) The LinDiv program attracts students with transdisciplinary and translational interests. Thus, students entering the program do not have to be convinced that it is worthwhile to collaborate across disciplines and to do research that will improve human well-being. However, students vary in their prior experience with these endeavors and their understanding of how translational, transdisciplinary research is conducted.

In the context of undergraduate education, interdisciplinarity is embedded in the civic mission of general education programs, with a particular emphasis on integrative learning, which emphasizes how students can draw upon knowledge across disciplinary domains to address complex global issues (Hanstedt, 2018;Huber et al., 2007;McCune et al., 2021;Sill, 1996). For students at this level, integrative thinking has been modelled as a progression from simple recognition, e.g., a student sees a connection across disciplinary domains, to application, e.g., a student applies knowledge from one disciplinary domain to another; and, finally, synthesis, e.g., a student blends perspectives to generate new knowledge (Barber, 2014;Cruz et al., 2021;Leonard, 2012). The exact scaffolding of integrative learning remains a contested issue, with some scholars arguing that achieving synthesis is not likely to occur until a student is nearing the end of a four-year degree program, while others suggest that it can occur, perhaps in more limited forms, as early as the first year of college (Rust & Korstange, 2018). However, the continued development of integrative learning after graduation, including into graduate school, has not been studied; and the next steps of the process have not been identified. In other words, it is simply unknown how interdisciplinary thinking develops within and beyond undergraduatelevel synthesis.

Our is not the first graduate level course to aspire to achieve transdisciplinarity nor is it the first study to be done that focuses on the socialization of graduate students as transdisciplinary researchers. A handful of studies, largely in the fields of health professions and environmental sustainability, have sought to identify key competencies (and related outcomes) for such courses or related degree programs (Kemp & Nurius, 2017;Neuhauser & Pohl, 2015). Derry and Fischer (2005), for example, emphasize what they call distributed intelligence, collaborative reflection, and conducive sociotechnical environments as critical components for future-oriented graduate education, regardless of disciplinary base. Reme et al. (2015) focus on the modality of instruction in such courses, with particular emphasis on collaborative knowledge sharing and the fostering of interdisciplinary and/ or interprofessional teams in health care. O'Neill et al. (2019) establish cross-disciplinary communication skills as a primary outcome in STEM disciplines; while those in environmental fields often emphasize translational communication, such as bridging academic science and public policy (Roux et al., 2017;Zanotti & Palomino-Schalscha, 2016). To date, however, almost no studies focus on the process(es) by which graduate students learn transdisciplinary thinking, i.e., how, and in what ways, future researchers may develop the skills, tools, and dispositions that enable them to effectively navigate the wicked problems of the world.

The National Research Council (National Research Council, 2015) published a report on the state of team science. The report identified seven key features of science teams. Deep knowledge integration is especially important-and especially challenging-for interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary teams (Hoffmann, 2024). The individual members of the team and the team as a whole must be willing and able to distance themselves from their own disciplinary cultures in order to create new ways of understanding and addressing complex problems. Transdisciplinary teams typically include non-scientist stakeholders. Thus, team-building requires flexible and sensitive communication that is not constrained by disciplinary expectation (Salazar et al., 2012).

Transdisciplinary team science is a fundamental component of translational research, which brings theory and evidence from basic science to bear on problems of human well-being (National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, 2024). Translational research is often discussed in the context of health care, but can be more widely applied. In the present study, the theme of LinDiv is linguistic diversity in human-technology interaction. An example of translational research resulting from the grant is refinement of a speech-language therapy app to make it useful for bilingual patients. Such projects require deep knowledge integration from several stakeholder groups, all placing a high priority on translational impact.

The Course

The course in which the present data were collected was a professional development seminar developed specifically for LinDiv. The instructor, who is also the principal investigator, developed the course and was teaching it for the second time in the semester when data were collected. The students were the second cohort of trainees to take the course, and were enrolled during their second semester as LinDiv trainees. It was the first class that the entire cohort had taken together, although they had interacted as a group in other contexts. The learning objectives for the course and the corresponding activities were chosen to align with training goals of LinDiv. Table 1 shows the course learning objectives and the required assignments and activities associated with each one. The assignments used as data in the present study are indicated with boldface. Students completed the first reflection in the second week of the semester, the networking presentation in week 7, and the "blueprint for a career" in week 8. The science communication assignment and the second reflection were due in week 9. Students completed the final reflection in the last week of the semester.

The reflection activity consisted of responses to three prompts, completed at the beginning, middle, and end of the semester. The reflection prompts are given in full in Appendix A. For the first and third reflections, students were asked to imagine what they would be doing professionally in 5 years, and to describe how translational and transdisciplinary research fit into their plans. They were also asked what aspects of translational or transdisciplinary research they found most surprising and challenging, and what aspects they were most curious about. Another prompt asked what problems they thought could benefit most from translational research. The second reflection prompt was different, in order to avoid excessive repetition. It asked students to write a message to their future self in one year, when they would be doing their transdisciplinary team project for LinDiv, and in 5 years.

The science communication writing assignment directed students to create a science communication product about their research, intended for a non-specialist audience of their choice. The networking assignment asked them to identify a scholar (or scholars) they would like to consult with, and develop a plan to visit that person's laboratory, or meet them at a conference. Students gave a presentation to the class about their chosen scholar(s), goals of the networking interaction, and plans to make the visit or conference maximally meaningful. In the "blueprint for a career" assignment, students identified an influential interdisciplinary researcher with work : article for a non-specialist audience 6. interpret and apply principles of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility with an emphasis on linguistic diversity 6. Presentation: DEIA analysis of a case study 7. evaluate professional ethics in a broad range of settings 7. In-class exercise (case study) and CITI training 8. plan how to benefit from mentoring and how to be a good mentor 8. In-class exercise: Mentoring map 9. apply principles of intellectual property and entrepreneurship to a business proposal 9. In-class exercise: Tech transfer proposal 10. discuss how to maintain mental health, manage stress, and maintain work-life balance 10. In-class exercise: Stress management strategies

published in a range of outlets across language science and technological sciences, or across academic and non-academic outlets, and/or whose product(s) has had notable translational impact. They presented to the class the background of their chosen scholar, and described three key papers or products created at different points in the individual's career. The full instructions that students received appear in Appendix B.

The Study

This is an exploratory, qualitative study that integrates a grounded theory approach to the analysis of student artifacts related to their development as transdisciplinary researchers through participation in the LinDiv program at Penn State. It should be emphasized that the goal of the study is not to measure the effectiveness of the pedagogy used in the course or the LinDiv program as a whole, rather, the intention, or research goal, is to gain deeper insights into how graduate students navigate the shift from disciplinary, even multi-disciplinary, thinking towards transdisciplinary ways of knowing.

Overview

The present study takes a constructivist lens to explore how graduate students enrolled in the program experienced the transition to transdisciplinarity and transdisciplinary thinking (Mills et al., 2006b). Their individual and collective experiences were recorded through a series of artifacts, generated as part of their coursework, in which they were directed to reflect on, apply, and integrate transdisciplinary ways of thinking into their professional practice. The evidence base for the study draws upon six primary artifacts: a set of three reflective essays, a networking presentation, a career blueprint project, and a scientific communication (see Table 1). This resulted in a total of 36 artifacts, 6 for each of 6 participating students. We selected these artifacts based on their relevance to the research topic of development of transdisciplinary thinking.

Recruitment and Data Collection

Penn State's institutional review board (IRB) approved the study at the exempt level.

As per IRB guidelines, participating students were recruited by a person outside of the research team and recruitment and consent took place when the instructor (and program co-lead) was not present. All enrolled students consented to participate in the study, for a final n of 6 and a participation rate of 100%. Artifacts were extracted at the end of the semester, after final grades had been submitted, and identifiers, such as names, replaced with study codes by a member of the research team who is not associated with the program. In some cases, individual characteristics that did not affect the analysis were further stylized to protect anonymity.

Methodology

Because little is known about the process by which individuals become transdisciplinary practitioners, the study integrates a multi-round, grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 2006(Charmaz, , 2008(Charmaz, , 2015)). In grounded theory methodology, "the researcher is granted the freedom to enter the field and discover the main concern of participants and to identify participant approaches to resolving the problems experienced" in a particular context (Mediani, 2017). In the case of the present study, transdisciplinary thinking serves as the shared challenge and focus of the analysis. Because transdisciplinary thinking is known to be described, discussed, and valued differently across the disciplines, the researchers adopted Charmaz's model of constructivist grounded theory (CGT) (2006,2015), which emphasizes that knowledge or insight is constructed by individuals in ways that are likely to differ based on personal characteristics and epistemological context (Burns et al., 2022;Mills et al., 2006aMills et al., , 2006b;;Singh & Estefan, 2018;Thornberg, 2017).

Data Analysis

Formal analysis of the student artifacts was conducted in three rounds, in keeping with best practices in grounded theory research. The multiple rounds enabled deep reading of the artifacts, multiple opportunities for discussion among the research team members, and space for reflective and reflexive thinking. A team consisting of the course instructor and an educational researcher, the latter of whom has no formal ties to the program or the students enrolled in it, coded the artifacts and developed the model presented here. The inclusion of the educational researcher served as a check on potential instructor bias in the analysis, as did periodic member checks.foot_0

• In the first round, both researchers read the corpus individually and independently, using an open coding approach aligned with the constructivist approach used throughout the study (Mills et al., 2006b). The team chose to read the artifacts in two ways: across each individual student, to gain insight into how their thinking developed over time, and across each artifact, to invite a comparative perspective. At the end of this phase, each researcher identified potential items for inclusion in the study codebook, which were then reconciled, through peer interviewing, into a single draft codebook (6 parent, 12 child codes). • In the second round, both researchers again read the corpus individually and independently, across individuals and artifacts, with the goal of testing the draft codebook that emerged from the first round (e.g., selective coding). Based on this second reading, the team revised and formalized the codebook. Drawing further on Charmaz's model of abductive analysis (Charmaz, 2008;Singh & Este-fan, 2018), the team co-created a draft developmental model of transdisciplinary thinking, based on the coded segments, which would be tested in the third and final round of analysis. • In the third round, the researchers further refined the model (see Fig. 1), comparing the artifacts, generated by each individual student across the stages (e.g. axial coding). Each case reflects the different pathways each student took through the larger development process of transdisciplinary thinking (i.e., the model derived through grounded theory)

The Findings

The following are waypoints that illuminate the journey that each student (or case) in the course followed on their individual pathways towards transdisciplinary thinking. The authors recognized that the use of the terms "case" or "case study" is often contested and closely monitored (Gerring, 2004), as they are closely aligned with rigorous methodological and pedagogical processes. For the purposes of this study, we use the term "case" in its broadest sense, i.e., "an intensive analysis of an individual unit (as a person or community) stressing developmental factors in relation to the environment" (Flyvbjerg, 2011, p. 301). The labels "vignette" and "scenario" were rejected, as both terms are most often used to describe heavily stylized constructions (Skilling & Sylianides, 2020); as was "use case", which is commonly associated with a more tangible focus, such as a product or service, rather than a complex cognitive process. Cases are identified only with a single letter, e.g., Student A. Identifying information has been either omitted or obscured. For reporting Note: Image created by the authors using Canva. purposes, the cases are distributed thematically across the major sections of the transdisciplinary thinking model.

Stage 1: Building on Prior Knowledge and Experience

Student D came to the course with the most prior experience in interdisciplinary (not transdisciplinary) work and expressed a strong commitment not only to interdisciplinary knowledge building, but also to translating that knowledge to "a project that solves real-life problems as well as delivers academic implications". Student D articulated transdisciplinary challenges primarily in binary terms, e.g., "when I articulate [discipline 1] phenomena I aim to address through [discipline 2], individuals from [discipline 2] may not fully grasp the underlying theories explaining these phenomena…while I find the [discipline 1] concepts easy to understand, it is not always the case for my collaborators").

Students A, F, and B each had prior experience with transdisciplinary approaches in previous graduate courses or projects, but with mixed outcomes. Student A wrote that the prior course "was marketed as a transdisciplinary course that would encourage students to learn more about how their research could improve/be improved" but expressed disappointment that classmates and the instructor showed little interest in the connections they were most interested in making. Student F expressed utilitarian views of transdisciplinary and translational research, noting how these perspectives strengthen outcomes such as funded research applications and business plans. They also indicated an awareness of practical concerns that may affect such research, as a prior project in which they were involved "ended up going nowhere due to all the red tape involved." Unlike students A and F, student B saw their prior class experience as highly transformative, e.g., "tons of facts have blown my mind." Student B explained that it was especially challenging to become accustomed to reading papers in a different field and understand "the type of research questions the field intends to answer and how."

Students C and E expressed the least prior experience with translational and transdisciplinary work. Student C described the scope of their research in broadly transdisciplinary terms. Student E expressed recognition that there may be facets of other disciplines in their research and curiosity about working across disciplines ("I heard from one of my friends that after they started collaborating with different people some new research questions were raised which they never thought of, which is very exciting") but limited awareness of what that might entail.

Stage 2: Constructing Transdisciplinary Networks

At the start of the course, student D, who expressed a primary interest in an academic career, had identified practitioners as an audience for their work, but in their networking and communication plans remained focused on disciplinary peers and potential mentors whose research interests were closely aligned. Similarly, Student A entered the course aspiring to an academic career, with cross-disciplinary training as a way to enhance the translational value of their research. In their networking plan, however, they selected scholars, albeit from an external discipline, but whose work was explicitly tied to application in the context of student A's discipline. Student A's communication project also focused largely on communicating with others whose work might intersect in intra-disciplinary settings.

Student C expressed a strong interest in learning how to communicate about science, within interdisciplinary teams and to the general public. They observed that scientists who communicate well with the public are sometimes criticized by colleagues for oversimplifying and made networking choices that would enable them to identify role models who overcame this and other criticisms. While Student C did generally tend to network within the same or similar fields (e.g., "science"), they used the skill of public communication, rather than disciplinary knowledge, as the basis for making connections. Student E, too, expressed interest in potential careers outside of academia, and, for their communication project, selected a public-facing blog post aimed at researchers and practitioners from multiple disciplines and identified a multi-disciplinary scholar as a potential role-model.

Student B came to the course expressing a desire to do research that will positively impact a specific community and an interest in exploring career paths either in academia, with a non-governmental organization, or industry. Their networking plans often focused on identifying other researchers who either identified as members of that community, or whose work focused on that community, which at times meant sticking close to the student B's own discipline, but at other times meant venturing much further afield. Student F also took a broader community into consideration and expressed concern about how transdisciplinary or translational research might be negatively perceived as "yet another buzzword that corporations come up with driven by the sole purpose of profit." Student B's career blueprint and networking plans focused on role models who integrated academic research with entrepreneurship and community engagement-largely outside of the United States.

Stage 3: Embarking on Individual Journeys (The Refraction)

Student D framed their growth primarily in terms of concrete skills they learned that they can take back to their primary disciplinary context, e.g. "I learned several guidelines for how to make teamwork productive and effective. Shared vision, building team connection and expertise, and psychological safety all matter in this process". There is little evidence in their early and mid-course artifacts to suggest that they have wrestled with the challenges of transdisciplinary work beyond a conventional pedagogical perspective. Indeed, they indicate that the course provided little new knowledge because "I have done one interdisciplinary [sic] project before". In describing career plans, they even stated "This course didn't change my thinking in a way to switch my plan." Student A's work also reflected little outward changes. They reiterated their initial research interests at multiple points across the semester, as well as their continued interest in an academic career. That said, Student A did acknowledge the existence of alternative career paths, deepen their examples of translational applications of their research to education and highlighted the significance of the process of communicating research to a non-specialist audience.

Student E indicated several areas that could be described as a mixture of personal and professional growth, e.g., "[I learned that] I should share my ideas without thinking that they might be dumb or useless because sometimes I just keep my ideas to myself. This is not a good habit because other people might see different advantages or usefulness of it." In general, Student E demonstrated an increased openness to personal and professional risk-taking. Student B made similar gains. At mid-semester, they elaborated the theme of communication across disciplines by describing a conversation with their LinDiv peer mentor. At first, they struggled to understand each other's research but were able to find "common ground." By the end of the semester, they felt prepared to share their expertise with others in an understandable way, and also to listen and learn from colleagues in other fields. In terms of career path, they had learned that it is possible to move between industry and academia. Despite previous concerns about fitting into an industry position, Student B now said they understood how to conceptualize and communicate their transferable skills into that setting.

Student C also demonstrated considerable growth, albeit in different ways than Students B and E. At the beginning of the semester, Student C indicated a preference for an academic career, but was also considering industry employment. By the end of the semester, their interest in becoming an entrepreneur was increased, and they noted that academia and entrepreneurship may not be mutually exclusive, referring to a class presentation by leaders from the university's innovation center. In discussing transdisciplinary research, Student C described it as assembling teams with different "specialties" that are able to "tackle more complex questions." They wrote about translational research as important, but in general terms, e.g., "I think that any problem or topic could benefit from translation [sic] approaches at least in some way."

In their mid-and end-of semester reflections, Student F indicated expanded curiosity regarding transdisciplinary approaches to their research, e.g., "What is it that makes it so easy for you to…? How do the models….? Perhaps that is a project that can harness the skills of the team to answer…." In contrast to the language of constraint and cynicism that characterized their prior experiences, Student F expressed increasing self-efficacy regarding the initiation of transdisciplinary projects, even with an academic degree program, e.g., "What if students are also given the choice of being able to work on a research project that relates to an existing problem in a company? Or that one of the requirements is to engage community members (through an existing pathway)? That could help make the research that we do more relevant to the greater world outside of academia. It could also spark considerations of perspectives and voices not yet taken into account and open up other research avenues."

Stage 4: Moving Towards Transdisciplinarity

By the end of the course, Student A showed an interest in multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary research in service of translational goals but had only started to peek through the transdisciplinary lens. The primary challenge for Student A was not necessarily thinking across disciplines but across professional contexts, e.g. why knowledge developed for or by people in one setting might be useful to those in another.

Student C came into the course with an interest in entrepreneurship coupled with concerns about the risks. The course showed them how an emerging mastery of science communication and a broadening view of what a career in science can be could enable them to channel these risks in a productive and collaborative way.

Student B demonstrated insight into both the benefits and challenges of transdisciplinary research, and how it can support their personal and professional translational goals. They noted one of the challenges of transdisciplinary research: "…to figure out what are the major questions or problems that the field is trying to tackle. It is quite a challenge to see where could I support or where can my knowledge be useful." [italics in original] They described how they seek out courses that will help answer these questions. Student B showed signs that they are beginning to synthesize concepts and methods for deep knowledge integration. Student E's case reflects a mixture of low initial awareness with a relatively high openness to understanding new audiences and integrating new perspectives, which they perceived as essential both to their present research and future career. Their final reflection suggested that they had not yet reached the transdisciplinary threshold but were aware that they have started on that pathway, i.e. "I think I need to learn more about psychology and linguistics by taking more classes and maybe doing actual collaboration with people from those domains."

For Student F, creating space for curiosity and open inquiry, unencumbered by logistical or affective constraints, enabled their transition through the transdisciplinary lens. Before that transition could occur, however, their prior acculturation into research as a largely transactional, potentially risky or negatively perceived, activity had to be shaken loose and replaced with one in which research could be harnessed to achieve outcomes that were personally and socially meaningful.

Throughout the course, Student D remained the most tied to disciplinary ways of knowing, but it seemed they found an epiphany at the end of the course. In their final reflection, they began to demonstrate a deeper awareness of the challenges inherent in transdisciplinary ways of knowing. As they stated, "The difficulty lies not just in the articulation of ideas but in fostering a communal language. If I am the sole bearer of this knowledge, and others are unaware, how can we possibly cultivate a shared vision? This is where the theory meets the pavement, where shared understanding must be actively built, not just envisioned." Their concept of a communal language indicates an emerging awareness of a distinct transdisciplinary space that is co-created by those who inhabit it.

The Model

The model that emerged through this study suggests that graduate students follow complex pathways towards transdisciplinarity that are informed by their prior experiences, socialization, and disciplinary orientation (stage 1); mediated through their reflexive practice (stage 2), and ultimately refracted through transdisciplinary ways of knowing and creating knowledge (stage 3).

We found that as students critically reflected on their journey toward transdisciplinarity, several themes, representing key skills and dispositions, emerged in the artifacts they generated during the course. These themes, with illustrative quotes, are described in Table 2.

The students navigated these skills and dispositions differently-at different times and in different ways, which is why these skills and dispositions are depicted in a circular rather than a linear or progressive form in the model. Their experiences were mediated through the lens of reflexive practice, or the constant questioning of their personal, academic and professional beliefs, in light of the challenges brought to them by transdisciplinary and translational mindsets (Boyce et al., 2022;Bruno et al., 2011).

This reflexive practice led some students to begin perceiving themselves and their research differently. The researchers conceptualize this difference as a transdisciplinary prism that "refracts" one's perspective (the blue triangle in the model). Through that prism, the foundations of transdisciplinary research come into focus. These include deep knowledge integration (National Research Council, 2015), cross-disciplinary networks, and translational communication and impact (stage 4).

Limitations

This is a small-scale qualitative study, the findings of which are intended to be insightful rather than generalizable. The conceptual model proposed here requires further testing before it can be advanced as a potential framework for graduate student development, pedagogy, or curricular revision. It should further be acknowledged that the model emerged from a sample of relatively privileged students matriculating at a relatively privileged research university located in a highly privileged geo-political context (the United States). Further, a known limitation of constructivist grounded theory (CGT) is the need for further testing across multiple contexts (Burns et al., 2022) For these reasons, our model would need to be replicated across other student populations, institutional contexts, and locations before it could be considered a reliable reflection of a broader developmental process.

Finally, the study relied on student artifacts that were presented for the purposes of classroom assessment. As such, the researchers recognize that there may be discrepancies between student's authentic developmental processes and what they choose to represent in these artifacts. The latter was partially controlled through member checks and artifact triangulation, both completed after final grades for the course had been submitted. In addition, the diminished emphasis on grades in most graduate education settings, including this course, is believed to reduce this risk. That said, there is no known method for closing the gap completely.

Table 2 Themes with definitions and sample quotes Transdisciplinary Practice Definition Sample Quote Humility Recognizing the limits of one's one intellectual and/or cultural perspectives (de la Garza, 2021; Porter et al., 2022) I realize my research topics need more collaboration because toxic language such as hate speech, abusive language and racism are subjective in nature and I struggle to define them Curiosity Being open to different ideas and approaches and, by extension, willing and able to follow through on learning from those ideas. (Carroll et al., 2014; Papendieck & Clarke, 2024) What if students are also given the choice of being able to work on a research project that relates to an existing problem in a company? Or that one of the requirements is to engage community members (through an existing pathway)? That could help make the research that we do more relevant to the greater world outside of academia. It could also spark considerations of perspectives and voices not yet taken into account and open up other research avenues Risk-taking Trying new things, such as taking a class in an unfamiliar discipline, or introducing oneself to a senior scholar, was important for moving toward a transdisciplinary shift of perspective (Augsburg, 2014) Let me remind you [future self] that a good research project is like a recipe -you start with a few basic ingredients, add some spice and creativity, and hope it doesn't turn out like a kitchen disaster Mattering Making a positive social impact was a motivation for other parts of the cycle, e.g. curiosity, risk-taking (White & Nonnamaker, 2008) The most surprising aspect of translational or transdisciplinary research is the ability to ground research within a real-life problem. I often feel that academic problems are too abstract, I like the idea of translating these concepts into things that can actually create social benefit Dexterity Moving across and between disciplines, which some students had prior experience with, while others were realizing the need for it (Kearns et al., 2018;Rowe et al., 2021) Establishing regular interdisciplinary training sessions, adopting shared communication platforms, and engaging in vision-building workshops could greatly enhance our collaborative efforts. These strategies not only deepen individual expertise but also fortify the team's overall synergy

Career self-efficacy Reflecting on their evolving (and often expanding) career goals and the steps necessary to achieve them (Cavallo et al., 2023;Leong et al., 2024) I would like to stay in academia and collaborate with other scholars, but I can definitely see a space for me in the industry…one of my biggest fears of leaving academia is the feeling of "not fitting in" or being perceived as the "mega super expert" on the field given how my background has more influence from academia. However…I have learned that typically, when you enter a nontraditional job or an alternative job it is important to make your transferable skills clear

Discussion and Implications

As the findings of this study illustrate, the pathways through multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary to transdisciplinary ways of knowing vary considerably in scope, trajectory, complexity, and duration. Rather than presenting the individual journeys of each student separately, we chose to show how they move through each waypoint of the journey (as represented in the model) collectively, which more closely replicates the cohort experience. Indeed, our analysis of the collective data from a cohort of 6 graduate students in the LinDiv training program suggests that for almost all students, a significant experience, or group of experiences, will be central to the process of becoming transdisciplinary. Student B, who came closest to deep knowledge integration, described transformative experiences. Students A and F had less positive experiences which were beginning to be dislodged by new knowledge; however, we predict that a successful interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary experience is needed to help them see through the transdisciplinary lens (see Fig. 1). Student D had positive experiences but was beginning to realize that those experiences were not as transformative as they could be. We predict that this student will learn more from their next opportunity to engage in transdisciplinary collaboration.

Our findings further indicate that the deep knowledge integration associated with transdisciplinarity (represented as a destination in our model) is perhaps best not described as a competency, or even a set of competencies, that can be readily identified and mastered as part of a single graduate course, which is how this process has typically been studied previously (noted in the literature review above). While there are skills and dispositions associated with transdisciplinary ways of organizing, producing, and disseminating knowledge, the process involves deeper transformations in students' personal and professional orientation to their work (Augsburg, 2014;Darbellay, 2015;Rigolot, 2020). This insight has implications for teaching and mentoring practice, as it suggests that graduate students will need to be given the space and the autonomy to pursue their own transdisciplinary pathways. Indeed, in the case of LinDiv, the instructor intends to bring the conceptual model from this research study into the next iteration of the course as a compass, or way-finding guide, for the next cohort of students (Beyes & Holt, 2020). In many ways, the transdisciplinary model that has emerged from this study suggests a de-centering of the conventional more hierarchical instructor/mentor model of graduate student socialization and the re-distribution of both disciplinary and pedagogical expertise.

Such redistribution of expertise, by which instructors and mentors demonstrate the dispositions of humility, curiosity, and risk-taking, is consistent with collaborative knowledge sharing and engagement in team science (Reme et al., 2015). These outcomes, as well as flexible communication skills across disciplines and audiences (O'Neill et al., 2019;Roux et al., 2017;Zanotti & Palomino-Schalscha, 2016), are objectives of the LinDiv program. It should be noted, too, that the transdisciplinary journeys taken by these students did not end neatly at the close of the regular academic semester, which is why the model shows multiple arrows pointing in different directions (the refraction). By the time the course ended, these six students found themselves in very different places, from Student D's late epiphany about communal language to student B's steady determination to fill in the missing parts of their current knowledge in the near future. The dispositions associated with the transition to transdisciplinary ways of knowingcuriosity, mattering, humility, risk-taking, dexterity, career self-efficacy-are all considered to be lifelong practices, part of an on-going cycle of reflexive practice that does not end with a particular course, project, or, for that matter, degree program. Because of their highly contextualized and individualized nature, there are unlikely to be common benchmarks for these practices that can be readily assessed, suggesting the possibility of alternative practices, such as collaborative grading or, perhaps, even displacing grading altogether (Taylor & Huckle, 2024).

Although the students took individualized pathways towards transdisciplinarity through the LinDiv program, they did not do so alone, which, again, is why we represented their journeys collectively in our findings. Rather, they were immersed in a relational ecosystem, consisting not only of their instructor, their peers, and a host of guest speakers, mentors, and a growing network of external contacts. There are multiple indications that the support system is working to enable students' transitions. For example, the external evaluator for the LinDiv grant surveyed the cohort that entered one year prior to the students in the present study. The report indicates that, from their entry into the training program to the end of their first year (after taking the course described in the current paper), that cohort's mean ratings of selfconfidence in transdisciplinary abilities increased from "somewhat" to between "to a good extent" and "to a great extent." (Chang et al., 2024). That said, for the students in the present study, the collaborative heart of their transdisciplinary experience will be the work they do in their project teams the following semester. It should prove interesting to see how the students' experience in this preparatory phase are refracted through the more intensive experience of real-world project work.

The increasing importance of transdisciplinary research for solving wicked problems motivates universities and funding agencies to train graduate students to become transdisciplinary researchers. Our model suggests that training must go well beyond adding a course or two; rather, the model challenges the sociology of disciplinarity that is characteristic of higher education. If, as we suggest, transdisciplinary research is not a competency but a continual practice, then universities must create opportunities for students to engage in that practice, not once but many times, in varying contexts. These opportunities must be embedded within organizational and incentive structures that are quite different from what currently exists (Crow & Dabars, 2019). Evaluating students and awarding their degrees within traditional academic departments reinforces adherence to disciplinarity. Students cannot emulate transdisciplinarity if it is not being practiced by their teachers, advisors, and mentors. Students will not accept the effort and risk of creating transdisciplinary science unless they believe that it will result in positive evaluation of their work, timely progress to graduation, and increased employment opportunities. As Crow and Dabars (2019, pp. 479-480) put it, "Novel transdisciplinary configurations represent institutional experiments that can recalibrate the course of inquiry and enhance both discovery and the application of research." Reimagining the transdisciplinary university, and with it graduate student development, promises great challenges and great rewards.