Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42164805›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

Thinking transdisciplinarily: Question-Collaboration Workshop to ideate across disciplines.

Mayla R Boguslav, Kayla de la Haye, Jennifer E Cross

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mayla R BoguslavSouthern California Clinical and Translational Science Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
Kayla de la HayeSouthern California Clinical and Translational Science Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
Jennifer E CrossDepartment of Sociology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Addressing "wicked problems"-complex societal challenges without clear boundaries or solutions-requires deep integration of knowledge across disciplines and sectors (transdisciplinary collaboration). While existing frameworks and toolkits support transdisciplinary collaboration, most interventions focus on established teams rather than the ideation stage. Methods and materials: This study introduces the Question-Collaboration Workshop, designed to stimulate transdisciplinary thinking and foster new research teams through collaborative question generation. The workshop includes four activities: (i) the Knowledge Creation Framework to make the scientific processes explicit; (ii) Buzzword Networking to build trust and a shared language; (iii) Four Layers of Questions to iteratively combine research questions across disciplines; and (iv) the Known-Unknown Matrix to identify knowledge gaps and actionable next steps. Two workshops were implemented at U.S. land-grant universities with researchers from diverse fields. Pre- and post workshop surveys and facilitator observations were analyzed qualitatively. Results: Both workshops seemed to successfully generate novel transdisciplinary questions and initiate new collaborations. Participants reported greater awareness of disciplinary perspectives and enthusiasm for future engagement. Challenges included time constraints, scaling activities for larger groups, and clarifying the Known-Unknown Matrix. Feedback emphasized the need for extended sessions, broader disciplinary representation, and follow-up activities to operationalize ideas. Discussion: Findings suggest that research questions can serve as a powerful catalyst for transdisciplinary collaboration. The workshop supports team science competencies such as trust-building, shared language, and co-creation of ideas. Limitations include small sample size and lack of longitudinal follow-up. Future work should refine activities, assess scalability, and evaluate long-term impacts on team formation and knowledge production. Conclusion: The Question-Collaboration Workshop demonstrates promise as an intervention to foster transdisciplinary thinking at the ideation stage. By leveraging researchers' intrinsic curiosity, this approach can help assemble diverse teams to address complex societal challenges.

Indexed as

ideationknowledge integrationresearch collaborationresearch question generationteam sciencetransdisciplinarityworkshop design

Identifiers

PMID42164805
PMCPMC13183573

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.