Translational Behavioral Medicine

, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 415–430 | Cite as

A four-phase model of transdisciplinary team-based research: goals, team processes, and strategies

  • Kara L. Hall
  • Amanda L Vogel
  • Brooke A Stipelman
  • Daniel Stokols
  • Glen Morgan
  • Sarah Gehlert


The 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.


Transdisciplinary Cross-disciplinary Team science Team-based research Research process 


  1. 1.
    Adler NE, Stewart J. Using team science to address health disparities: MacArthur network as case example. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2010; 1186:252-260. The Biology of Disadvantage: Socioeconomic Status and Health.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Altman DG. Sustaining interventions in community systems: on the relationship between researchers and communities. Heal Psychol. 1995; 14:526-536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amason AC. Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: resolving a paradox for top management teams. Acad Manag J. 1996; 39(1):123-148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Austin JR. Transactive Memory in Organizational Groups: The Effects of Content, Consensus, Specialization, and Accuracy on Group Performance. J Appl Psychol. 2003; 88(5):866-878.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Best A, Stokols D, Green LW, Leischow S, Holmes B, Buchholz K. An integrative framework for community partnering to translate theory into effective health promotion strategy. Am J Heal Promot. 2003; 18(2):168-176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boix Mansilla V, Duraisingh ED. Targeted assessment of students' interdisciplinary work: an empirically grounded framework proposed. J High Educ. 2007; 78(2):215-237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Börner K, Contractor N, Falk-Krzesinski HJ, Fiore SM, Hall KL, Keyton J, Spring B, Stokols D, Trochim W, Uzzi B. A multi-level perspective for the science of team science. Science Translational Medicine. 2010; 2(45).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Borrego M, Newswander LK. Definitions of interdisciplinary research: toward graduate-level interdisciplinary learning outcomes. Rev High Educ. 2010; 34(1):61-84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Breslow L, Johnson M. California's proposition 99 on tobacco, and its impact. Annu Rev Publ Health. 1993; 14:585-604.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brown V, Harris JA, Russell JY. Tackling Wicked Problems Through Transdisciplinary Imagination. London: Earthscan; 2010.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Campbell DT. Ethnocentrism of disciplines and the fish-scale model of omniscience. In: Sherif M, Sherif CW, eds. Interdisciplinary Relationships in the Social Sciences. Chicago: Aldine Press; 1969:328-348.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen G, Kanfer R. Toward a systems theory of motivated behavior in work teams. Res Organ Behav. 2006; 27:223-267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cooperrider DL, Witney D. Appreciative Inquiry: a Positive Revolution in Change. San Francisco: Berrett-Kohler Publishers; 2005.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cummings JN, Kiesler S. Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Soc Stud Sci. 2005;35:703-722.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cummings JN, Kiesler S. Coordination costs and project outcomes in multi-university collaborations. Res Policy. 2007;36:1620-1634.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    De Dreu CKW, West MA. Minority dissent and team innovation: the importance of participation in decision making. J Appl Psychol. 2001; 86:1191-1201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    De Wit FR, Greer LL, Jehn KA. The paradox of intragroup conflict: a meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol. 2012; 97:360-390.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Edmondson A. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm Sci Q. 1999; 44(2):350-383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eigenbrode SD, O’Rourke M, Wulfhorst JD, Althoff DM, Goldberg CS, Merrill K, Morse W, Nielsen-Pincus M, Stephens J, Winowiecki L, Bosque-Perez NA. Employing philosophical dialogue in collaborative science. BioScience. 2007; 57(1):55-64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fiore SM. Interdisciplinarity as teamwork—how the science of teams can inform team science. Small Gr Res. 2008; 39(3):251-277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fiore SM, Smith-Jentsch KA, Salas E, Warner N, Letsky M. Toward an understanding of macrocognition in teams: developing and defining complex collaborative processes and products. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science. 2010; 11(4):250-271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Frumkin H, Frank L, Jackson R. Urban Sprawl and Public Health: Designing, Planning, and Building for Health Communities. Washington: Island Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gebert D, Boerner S, Kearney E. Fostering team innovation: why is it important to combine opposing action strategies? Organ Sci. 2010; 21(3):593-608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gehlert S, Coleman R. Using community-based participatory research to ameliorate cancer disparities. Heal Soc Work. 2010; 25(4):302-309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hall KL, Stokols D, Moser RP, Taylor BK, Thornquist MD, Nebeling LC, Ehret CC, Barnett MJ, McTiernan A, Berger NA, Goran MI, Jeffery RW. The collaboration readiness of transdisciplinary research teams and centers: findings from the National Cancer Institute TREC baseline evaluation study. Am J Prev Med. 2008; 35(2S):161-172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hall KL, Stokols D, Stipelman BA, Vogel A, Feng A, Masimore B, Morgan G, Moser RP, Marcus SE, Berrigan, D. Does team science add value? A bibliometric study comparing the productivity of NIH-funded Team Science Center Grants with single Investigator Driven Grants. Am J Prev Med, 2012; 42(2):157-163.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hays TC. The science of team science: commentary on measurements of scientific readiness. Am J Prev Med. 2008; 35(2):S193-S195.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hirsch Hadorn G, Hoffman-Riem H, Biber-Klemm S, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Joye D, Wiesmann U, Zemp E, eds. Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research. Dordrecht: Springer; 2008.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hulsheger UR, Anderson N, Salgado JF. Team-level predictors of innovation at work: a comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. J Appl Psychol. 2009; 94(5):1128-1145.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Israel BA, Schultz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB. Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu Rev Publ Health. 1998; 19:173-202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kahn RL, Prager DJ. Interdisciplinary collaborations are a scientific and social imperative. Scientist. 1994; 12.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kerner JF, Hall KL. Research dissemination and diffusion: translation within science and society. Res Soc Work Pract. 2009; 19:519-530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Keyton J, Beck S. Team attributes, processes, and values: a pedagogical framework. Bus Commun Q. 2009; 71:488-504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Keyton J, Beck SJ, Asbury MB. Macrocognition: a communication perspective. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science. 2010; 11(4):272-286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Khoury MJ, Gwinn M, Yoon PW, Dowling N, Moore CA, Bradley L. The continuum of translation research in genomic medicine: how can we accelerate the appropriate integration of human genome discoveries into health care and disease prevention? Genet Med. 2007; 9(10):665-674.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Klein JT. A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In: Frodeman R, Klein JT, Mitcham C, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010:15-30.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kozlowski SW, Ilgen DR. Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 2006; 7:77-124.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lawrence R, Despres C. Introduction: futures of transdisciplinarity. Futures. 2004; 36(4):397-405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lim B, Klein KJ. Team mental models and team performance: a field study of the effects of team mental model similarity and accuracy. J Organ Behav. 2006; 27:403-418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mason R, Mitroff I. Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions: Theory, Cases and Techniques. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1981.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mathieu J, Maynard MT, Rapp T, Gilson L. Team effectiveness 1997–2007: a review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. J Manag. 2008; 34:410-476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mathieu JE, Heffner TS, Goodwin GF, Salas E, Cannon-Bowers JA. The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. J Appl Psychol. 2000; 85(2):273-283.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mesmer-Magnus JR, DeChurch LA. Information sharing and team performance: a meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol. 2009; 94(2):535-546.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Miller TR, Baird TD, Littlefield CM, Kofinas G, Chapin FSI, Redman CL. Epistemological pluralism: reorganizing interdisciplinary research. Ecol Soc, 2008; 13(2):46.
  45. 45.
    Mohammed S, Ferzandi L, Hamilton K. Metaphor no more: a 15-year review of the team mental model construct. J Manag. 2010; 36(4):876-910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Osbeck LM, Neressian NJ, Malone K, Newstetter WC. Science as Psychology: Sense-Making and Identity in Science Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2011.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Paulus PB, Dzindolet MT. Social influence, creativity and innovation. Soc Influ. 2008; 3(4):228-247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rosenfield PL. The potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining and extending linkages between the health and social sciences. Social Science and Medicine. 1992; 35:1343-1357.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Shen B. Toward cross-sectoral team science. Am J Prev Med. 2008; 35(2S).Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Shrum W, Genuth J, Chompalov I. Structures of Scientific Collaboration. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2007.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Simons T, Pelled LH, Smith KA. Making use of difference: diversity, debate, and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams. Acad Manag J. 1999; 42(6):662-673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Stokols D. Toward a science of transdisciplinary action research. Am J Commun Psychol. 2006; 38(1):63-77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Stokols D. Training the next generation of transdisciplinarians. In: O’Rourke M, Crowley S, Eigenbrode SD, Wulfhorst JD, eds. Enhancing Interdisciplinary Communication. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2012. In press.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Stokols D, Fuqua J, Gress J, Harvey R, Phillips K, Baezconde-Garbanati L, Unger J, Palmer P, Clark M, Colby S, Morgan G, Trochim W. Evaluating transdisciplinary science. Nicotine Tob Res. 2003; 5(S-1):S21-S39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Stokols D, Hall KL, Taylor B, Moser RP. The science of team science: overview of the field and introduction to the supplement. Am J Prev Med. 2008; 35(2S):S77-S89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Stokols D, Hall KL, Vogel AL. Transdisciplinary public health: definitions, core characteristics, and strategies for success. In: Haire-Joshu D, McBride TD, eds. Transdisciplinary Public Health: Research, Methods, and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2012. In press.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Stokols D, Misra S, Hall K, Taylor B, Moser R. The ecology of team science: understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration. Am J Prev Med. 2008; 35(2S):96-115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Tannenbaum SI, Mathieu JE, Salas E, Cohen D. Teams are changing: are research and practice evolving fast enough? Ind Organ Psychol. 2012; 5(1):2-24.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Viswanathan M, Ammerman A, Eng E, Gartlehner G, Lohr KN, Griffith D, Rhodes S, Samuel-Hodge C, Maty S, Lux L, Webb L, Sutton SF, Swinson T, Jackman A, Whitener L. Community-based participatory research: assessing the evidence. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 99 (Prepared by RTI–University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-02-0016). AHRQ Publication 04-E022-2. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2004.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Vogel AL, Stipelman BA, Feng A, Stokols D, Hall KL, Nebeling L. Strategies for facilitating and supporting cross-disciplinary team science on cancer: lessons from the National Cancer Institute's TREC initiative. Oral presentation at the 139th Annual Meeting and Exposition of the American Public Health Association, Washington, DC, October 29–November 2, 2011.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Wagner CS, Roessner JD, Bobb K, Klein JT, Boyack KW, Keyton J, Rafols I, Börner K. Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): a review of the literature. J Informetr. 2011; 5(1):14-26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Warnecke RB, Oh A, Breen N, Gehlert S, Paskett E, Tucker KL, Lurie N, Rebbeck T, Goodwin J, Flack J, Srinivasan S, Kerner J, Heurtin-Roberts S, Abeles R, Tyson FL, Patmios G, Hiatt RA. Approaching health disparities from a population perspective: the National Institutes of Health Centers for Population Health and Health Disparities. Am J Public Health. 2008; 98(9):1608-1615.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Weingart LR, Behfar K, Bendersky C, Todovora G, Jehn KA. What's said and done: the directness and intensity of conflict expression. Working paper, draft June 6, 2012; 2012.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    West M, Dawson J, Admasachew L, Topakas A. NIH staff management and health service quality results from the NHS staff survey and related data. Accessed on June 27, 2012, at, 2011.
  65. 65.
    West MA, Lyubovnikova J. Real teams or pseudo teams? The changing landscape needs a better map. Ind Organ Psychol. 2012; 5(1):25-55.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Wickson F, Carew A, Russell A. Transdisciplinary research: characteristics, quandaries and quality. Futures. 2006; 38(9):1046-1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science. 2007; 316:1036-1038.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Behavioral Medicine 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kara L. Hall
    • 1
  • Amanda L Vogel
    • 2
  • Brooke A Stipelman
    • 1
  • Daniel Stokols
    • 3
  • Glen Morgan
    • 1
  • Sarah Gehlert
    • 4
  1. 1.Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthRockvilleUSA
  2. 2.Clinical Research Directorate/CMRP, SAIC-Frederick, Inc.NCI-FrederickFrederickUSA
  3. 3.School of Social EcologyUniversity of California-IrvineIrvineUSA
  4. 4.George Warren Brown School of Social WorkWashington University in St. LouisSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations