Hannah Gooding

Despite increasing interest in transdisciplinary engineering (TE), how to evaluate transdisciplinary (TD) working remains unclear. Moreover, the " right " balance of competencies of researchers, teams, and collaborators (including academic and societal actors) who form the TD team remains broad. This paper aims to enhance clarity by presenting a model that differentiates the individual and team-level competencies required to work in a multidisciplinary (MD), interdisciplinary (ID) and TD way. To construct the model, we conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) which identified key competencies required to engage in TD research. The competencies were qualitatively extracted, inductively analysed and thematically grouped to describe skills attributes and development in the progression towards TD work. The model illustrates that MD competencies focus on goal achievement (which in themselves may be discipline-targeted or distributed), ID competencies focus on integrating ideas from different disciplines, with an explicit appreciation of non-disciplinary and non-academic perspectives on technical advancement, and TD competencies focus on the synthesis of new ideas, solutions or approaches through collaborative skills and common high-level motivational drivers. We characterise the progression of such cross-disciplinary working as emergent, emphasising that a combination of individually held, and team-held competencies in addition to a researcher's disciplinary background, influence TD work effectiveness. When working in a TD way, the individuals involved in the research do not need to be knowledgeable in all the disciplinary knowledge held by all group members. Instead, individuals within the TD team provide insights into how their discipline sees or understands a particular problem.

A variety of skill sets need to be developed during the transition from engineering product to customer service. Service may be defined as the application of competencies for the benefit of another. To facilitate the realisation of value (benefit), those working in servitizing firms must maintain the specialist competence of manufacturing, whilst developing new generalist competencies that involve understanding customer value, management, integrative abilities and openness. Transdisciplinary Engineering (TE) is the ability to transcend a single discipline to deliver value by drawing upon multiple competencies from across the disciplines. This study argues servitization is an intrinsically transdisciplinary process. Despite the need for broader service competencies, a lack of knowledge surrounding competencies needed for transdisciplinary servitization persists. Difficulties arise due to TE being a developing knowledge area. TE processes will already exist in servitization, but because the concept is poorly understood, formalisation has not yet taken place. The study seeks to open a new line of research into TE competencies required for servitization and their development. To frame the TE field in the servitization context, generalist lessons from TE working are used.

Engineering disciplines are paying increasing attention to transdisciplinary (TD) working. The terminology of single, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary lacks clarity. Consequently, there is currently no consensus on what defines a TD research approach. This makes it difficult to implement and measure the impact of TD and TD working. Clear definition of the approach and understanding of where TD is most applicable is needed because the education of tomorrow's engineers can only be realised if researchers build upon coherent theoretical frameworks. This paper draws on theory to define TD and then aims to reduce confusion and instill clarity by identifying when TD as a research approach should or should not be used. This is achieved by answering the research question: when might it be beneficial to take a TD rather than single, multi or interdisciplinary research approach? Survey responses from twenty-eight authors (50%) who presented papers at the 28 th ISTE International Conference on Transdisciplinary Engineering (TE2021) were qualitatively analysed. Findings show institutional barriers to TD adoption may prevent the benefits of TD engineering research from being realised. Rather than the research approach itself, it is the environment in which we do our research, one which is decided long before our work begins, that will determine if any meaningful benefits from TD are realised.

Despite increasing attention and calls for transdisciplinary (TD) working in engineering, a lack of clarity surrounding what constitutes a TD research approach persists. This paper aims to reduce ambiguity by characterising TD and identifying when the TD approach should or should not be used. Specifically, the research answers the question: when might it be beneficial to take a TD rather than a single, multi or interdisciplinary research approach? Survey responses from twenty-eight authors (50%) who presented papers at the 28 th ISTE International Conference on Transdisciplinary Engineering (TE2021) were qualitatively analysed. Findings show a TD approach to research is beneficial for complex problem-solving. New understanding reveals that TD could be used to evidence scientific and social impact, and that context determines the appropriateness of TD adoption. However, even where TD adoption is deemed appropriate, institutional barriers to adoption may exist. In other words, the work environment (culture) in which we do our research, may determine if any meaningful benefits from TD are, or are not realised. Lessons from engineering education are used to discuss how to institutionalise TD, future transdisciplinary engineers and researchers might be taught and socialised in the competencies needed for transdisciplinary research.