(PDF) Setting parameters for developing undergraduate expertise in transdisciplinary problem solving at a university-wide scale:

ARTICLE https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01709-8 OPEN Setting parameters for developing undergraduate expertise in transdisciplinary problem solving at a university-wide scale: a case study 1234567890():,; Gabriele Bammer 1 ✉, Chris A. Browne Nicholas Neales6, Terhi Nurmikko-Fuller 2,3, Chris Ballard 4, Natalie Lloyd 5,11, Alison Kevan3, 7, Sean Perera8, Isha Singhal 2,9 & Lorrae van Kerkhoff10 As part of a curriculum reform process, The Australian National University (ANU) is introducing a universal undergraduate requirement that responds to decades-long calls for universities to take seriously the development of expertise in the transdisciplinary problem solving required to address the major challenges facing society. Described here are the process and outcomes of the deliberations of the working group tasked with setting parameters for the implementation of this expertise. The working group identified relevant context, including that the requirement has to work for all of the University’s 13,000 undergraduate students, allowing them to tailor coursework in transdisciplinary problem solving according to their disciplinary choices, personal interests and career aspirations. The expertise is to be developed in existing and new courses, featuring small classes with flexible interactive delivery and should build on the University’s comprehensive coverage of academic disciplines and fields, along with the university’s strong track records in transdisciplinary research and education. The working group developed an ANU framework for transdisciplinary problem solving, focused on the following six characteristics: change-oriented, systemic, context-based, pluralistic, interactive and integrative. How these characteristics can be translated into learning outcomes is demonstrated, along with relevant ways of teaching. The working group highlighted two key challenges that those involved in the mechanics of the implementation will have to deal with and proposed a way forward for the first of them. One is for students to be able to readily identify relevant courses. The working group proposed a tag-and-points system, with the ‘tag’ identifying courses relevant to transdisciplinary problem solving and ‘points’ indicating the number of characteristics covered and the depth of that coverage. The second challenge is coordination across courses to minimise duplication and maximise the opportunity to keep building skills. The paper concludes by summarising key areas that may be useful to others deliberating on the expertise required for university graduates to effectively contribute to addressing societal challenges, as well as how universities can best foster the development of that expertise. *A list of author affiliations appears at the end of the paper. HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:208 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01709-8 1 ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01709-8 Introduction ddressing problems faced by governments, businesses and civil society often involves identifying and bringing together perspectives from different relevant disciplines and sectors, those affected by the problem and appropriate decision-makers. The aim generally is to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the problem and new ideas for tackling it, which may be implemented as policy improvements, updated services or business innovations. Such transdisciplinary problem solving requires expertise in finding, managing and integrating different knowledge and experience, as well as shepherding change that takes into account the systemic and contextspecific nature of the problem. In recognising the societal importance of developing expertise in transdisciplinary problem solving, there have been calls for more than six decades (commonly identified as starting with Jantsch, 1970) for universities to overcome the dearth of attention paid to it in their research and education (Bammer, 2013; Bammer et al., 2020; Gibbons et al., 1994; Jacob, 2015; Ledford, 2015; National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medicine, 2005; National Research Council, 2014; we note that these calls use various other terms to describe such expertise, including integration and implementation sciences (i2S), mode 2, interdisciplinary, team science and convergence). For maximum impact in enhancing the expertise of leaders and employees across a range of sectors involved in transdisciplinary problem solving, the relevant skills need to be introduced at the undergraduate level. There is growing evidence of individual undergraduate courses taking up this challenge (e.g. Baumber et al., 2020; Biberhofer and Rammel, 2017; Crosby et al., 2018; Pohl et al., 2020). However, very few universities have attempted to develop a universal undergraduate curriculum organised around expertise in transdisciplinary problem solving. Leuphana University in Lueneberg, Germany, includes an orientation to “inter- and trans-disciplinary studies” in a common introductory semester for all undergraduate students and develops this further as part of the “Complementary Studies” program in the undergraduate degree. This caters for 3500–4000 student per semester (Adomβent, 2022). The University of Technology Sydney (UTS), is also introducing transdisciplinarity at a university-wide scale (https://www.uts.edu.au/study/transdisciplinary-innovation/ undergraduate-courses/td-electives-program). From 2025, all 33,000 undergraduate students at UTS will be required to undertake the Bachelor of Creative Intelligence and Innovation or one of eight transdisciplinary electives in the second year of their degree. University-wide initiatives are particularly important, but we are not aware of any published descriptions of the process of development of such transdisciplinary problem-solving initiatives, even though others could benefit from the lessons learnt. Here we describe the process of developing an implementation plan at The Australian National University (ANU). In 2021, a curriculum reform process was initiated by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) (equivalent to a VicePresident in the US university system, in this case responsible for education across the university), including the resolution to introduce the “Capability to Employ Discipline-based Knowledge in Transdisciplinary Problem Solving” across the full breadth of ANU’s undergraduate cohort. The outcome sought is that: A “ANU graduates are adept at working with others to understand and creatively address the amorphous, complex problems that face our world. They are capable of critically engaging with—and integrating—diverse discipline-based, stakeholder and Indigenous knowledges for values-driven problem solving. They produce powerful, systemic, 2 transdisciplinary solutions to address problems in local, national and global contexts” (ANU, 2022, unpublished description of the graduate attribute). The authors of this paper are the multidisciplinary working group of ANU staff and students who were tasked with setting parameters for the implementation of this capability. While we are all interested in transdisciplinary education and research, most of us were at best vaguely aware of what was proposed at our university. In this paper, we describe how we responded when an unexpected opportunity arose to influence the roll-out of the ANU’s plans. When we started all options were on the table. Our task was to ascertain what was feasible in the ANU context. We begin with a detailed description of context, concentrating on both what ANU is seeking to achieve and on some key characteristics of ANU. We then describe our process and a framework that we developed to guide both thinking about, and implementation of, transdisciplinary problem solving. This is followed by the vision we proposed to guide the implementation, as well as examples of learning outcomes and relevant aspects of pedagogy. We then review two particular challenges of universitywide implementation: how to cover all of the characteristics of transdisciplinary problem solving and how to coordinate coverage across different courses. Of course, our process was messier than this description portrays. Although tailored to the ANU context, the conceptual thinking described and the plan we developed may also be useful for others contemplating greater emphasis on developing expertise in transdisciplinary problem solving in their undergraduate curricula. In the conclusion, we provide key lessons from our process that may be useful for others, particularly issues to consider in developing an implementation plan. The ANU context What makes the ambition of ANU exciting is its universal nature and scale—by graduation all 13,000 undergraduates are to demonstrate expertise in transdisciplinary problem solving. Further, the ANU aim is to avoid large class sizes and instead to develop an implementation strategy in line with the ambitions of the ANU Strategic Plan 2021–2025 (https://www.anu.edu.au/ about/strategic-planning/anu-strategic-plan-2021-2025), especially “Deliver academically rigorous, inspiring courses that are enriched by world-leading research and distinguished from other universities by their small classes, quality teaching and flexible, interactive delivery.” Key here are “small classes” and “flexible, interactive delivery.” Some additional contextual factors are also useful to bear in mind. ANU was established following the Second World War (1939–45), as Australia’s only national university (the others are state- or territory-based). It was the first research-led institution, with undergraduate teaching introduced in 1960. There are just under 3000 academic staff and 6000 postgraduate students, with ANU enrolment data showing that, in 2022, the University had: ● ● ● almost 13,000 undergraduate students (down from 15,000 in pre-COVID-pandemic 2019) 10,000 full-time and 3000 part-time students 11,000 domestic students and 2000 international students (down from 3400 in 2019). Approximately half of the undergraduate student cohort undertakes a single degree, and half undertakes a “flexible double degree.” Introduced in 2013–14, the flexible double degree allows students to combine any two single degrees, typically with one HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:208 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01709-8 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01709-8 additional year of study. This provides a structure that enables great flexibility for degree choice, although it constrains the students’ ability to take additional elective courses. Further, there are generally no courses or other ways of formally integrating the two degrees. In addition to alignment with the ANU Strategic Plan to 2025, three contextual issues are foundational for the university’s ambition to introduce the “Capability to Employ Discipline-based Knowledge in Transdisciplinary Problem Solving” across the entire undergraduate cohort: ● ● ● its comprehensive coverage of disciplines and fields a track record in transdisciplinary and related research a track record in transdisciplinary and related education. The university provides a comprehensive (but not universal) coverage of disciplines and fields housed in seven colleges, each with a number of schools and research centres. The Colleges are: ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Arts and Social Sciences Asia and the Pacific Business and Economics Engineering, Computing and Cybernetics Health and Medicine Law Science. This comprehensive coverage is relevant for research and education. In particular, in 2022, the university’s undergraduate students were classified by field of education codes as shown in Table 1. The field of education codes is an Australian standard classification of education (https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/ classifications/australian-standard-classification-education-asced/ 2001). The association between the field of education codes and ANU Colleges is also shown. The university’s experience in transdisciplinary and related research can be seen in many schools within the ANU Colleges that purposefully set out to be inter- or trans-disciplinary. Three examples are the School of Regulation and Global Governance (RegNet) in the ANU College of Asia and the Pacific, the School of Cybernetics in the ANU College of Engineering, Computing and Cybernetics, and the Fenner School of Environment and Society in the ANU College of Science. ANU has also established inter- or trans-disciplinary institutes and centres, and at any time has several externally-funded research programs and projects with inter- or trans-disciplinary foci. From 2017 to 2019 ANU also funded a number of inter- or trans-disciplinary research programs through a Grand Challenges Scheme (https://www.anu. edu.au/news/all-news/anu-grand-challenges-scheme-%E2%80% 93-we-want-your-projects). Although ANU claims a track record in inter- and transdisciplinary education, the evidence for it is anecdotal and relies ARTICLE on highlighting individual courses. Developing an evidence base became one of the tasks of the working group. The working group context and process The working group was formed as part of a curriculum reform process at ANU. The aim of the curriculum reform is to create a distinctive new model of undergraduate education that “delivers academically rigorous, inspiring courses that are enriched by world-leading research” (ANU, 2022, ANU Undergraduate Curriculum Framework, unpublished). Part of the curriculum reform involves implementing three graduate attributes, which identify expertise that all undergraduates should have acquired by the end of their degrees, and with which ANU seeks to differentiate itself from other universities. The graduate attributes are: ● ● ● Insight into Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ knowledge and Indigenous peoples’ perspectives Capability to employ discipline-based knowledge in transdisciplinary problem solving Expertise in critical thinking. Separate working groups were formed to develop a way forward for the implementation of each graduate attribute, in addition to a fourth working group focused on the curriculum reform overall, including making room in the curriculum for the graduate attributes to be achieved. Our working group’s terms of reference were to develop: ● ● ● ● Best practice principles for curriculum design Standards for approving and evaluating courses Case studies of good practice Professional learning to support academic staff in implementing this graduate attribute. A chair was appointed to lead our working group (GB), who then liaised with the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) and her team to select the other working group members (the other authors). The chair was also designated as the primary author of the working group report. Three members were drawn from ANU academic staff (CBa, TN-F, LvK), one was a College Associate Dean of Education (NL), and one was a representative of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) (CBr). There were two student representatives (NN, IS, with a third participating in a small number of meetings). There was also a highly qualified professional staff member who provided project support (AK) and an academic observer (SP), who was working on a separate report (independent from ours) on student and academic staff perspectives of transdisciplinary curriculum content. From the time of the chair’s appointment, the working group had five months to assemble, complete its deliberations and provide a final written report. It was also noteworthy that we had Table 1 Discipline-based distribution of ANU undergraduate students. Field of education code Percentage of undergraduate students Association with ANU College Society and Culture 51 Natural and Physical Sciences Management and Commerce Information Technology Engineering and Related Technologies Creative Arts Agriculture, Environmental and Related Studies Health 14 14 8 7 3 2 ANU Colleges of Arts and Social Sciences, Asia and the Pacific, and Law ANU College of Science ANU College of Business and Economics ANU College of Engineering, Computing and Cybernetics ANU College of Engineering, Computing and Cybernetics ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences ANU College of Science 1 ANU College of Health and Medicine HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:208 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01709-8 3 ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01709-8 a standing start, i.e. there was no lead-up or opportunity to clear our workloads, and we were all juggling other commitments throughout this process. Only three of us had substantial time to devote to the process and that was still considerably less than fulltime. The working group met online for an hour each fortnight, with nine meetings in total. Early deliberations were enhanced by written ‘homework’ which allowed us to get to know each other (i.e. we provided descriptions of our experience with transdisciplinary research and education, as well as of how we conceptualised transdisciplinarity). We established a reference group of academics and students across the university, inviting submissions that could include any of the following: ● ● ● ● ● the reference group member’s experience with transdisciplinary research and education examples of good practice in teaching students the required capability in courses at ANU or elsewhere what core capabilities students should be expected to demonstrate to show that they had achieved the graduate attribute challenges to implementing the graduate attribute other suggestions or comments. Seventeen submissions were received. An audit of undergraduate education at ANU and elsewhere was beyond the working group’s brief and resources. Instead, we concentrated on examples of good practice based on our own experience and reference group submissions. In the end, we focused only on courses at ANU and we invited the conveners of those courses to complete a template that described the expertise of the academic teaching staff; the areas from which students were attracted; learning outcomes; the real-world problem addressed; practical experience provided; knowledge, skills and dispositions addressed; pedagogy and assessment; transdisciplinary (and related, eg interdisciplinary, systems thinking, team science) scholarship and research drawn on. Eighteen templates were completed, 17 for existing courses and one for a proposed course. Thirty-one additional courses that are likely to be examples of good practice were identified with input from education leaders within the ANU Colleges. Together these courses covered all Colleges and we expect that there will be further suitable courses. This information gave the working group confidence that there were likely to be a substantial number of courses to build on in achieving the graduate attribute and they provided the basis for our report. The most salient results are also described in this paper. This was not meant to rule out the development of new courses, which was also strongly encouraged in our report. The reference group and those who produced templates were also invited to comment on a draft of the final report. A pragmatic approach to transdisciplinary problem solving The University’s aim in choosing “Capability to Employ Discipline-based Knowledge in Transdisciplinary Problem Solving” as a graduate attribute was “to focus on the problems, issues and concerns of life itself” drawing on “a deeper and more authentic engagement in the relevant disciplines” (ANU, 2022, Working group terms of reference, unpublished). The working group focused on transdisciplinary problem solving, rather than transdisciplinarity more generally, and identified two key aspects: 1. addressing inherently complex challenges such as climate change, refugee crises, environmental degradation, social inequalities, racism, rising healthcare costs and genderbased violence, and 4 2. producing innovations to improve well-being, prosperity and sustainability. Rather than developing an ideal form of transdisciplinary problem solving, we set out to provide a clear, straightforward approach that would work across the university and that would work for all students, allowing them to tailor coursework in transdisciplinary problem solving according to their disciplinary choices, personal interests and career aspirations. We recognised that a student setting out to be a public servant tackling climate change has different requirements from a student aiming to be an industrial chemist or a student seeking to be an art historian, even though all will engage in transdisciplinary problem solving throughout their careers. Our working definition was: Simply put, transdisciplinary problem solving involves identifying and bringing together a range of relevant perspectives from disciplines and key groups in society to develop a more comprehensive understanding of a multifaceted issue and to determine the best possible way forward, as well as the most appropriate and effective implementation strategy. We took the following stance on terminology: The major terms used for research and education that combine disciplinary insights and engage with key groups in society in a problem-focused context aiming to support positive change are multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary, systems thinking, post-normal science, action research and, for specific types of problems, sustainability science. In this report we use the term “transdisciplinary.” Finally, we developed an ANU framework for transdisciplinary problem solving, shown in Fig. 1. We defined six characteristics of transdisciplinary problem solving: ● ● ● ● Change-oriented Transdisciplinary problem solving is used to improve understanding for improved action. This change-oriented approach requires effective decision-making, which accommodates diverse perspectives and is based on a shared vision and research evidence. It also takes into account unknowns that might lead to adverse unintended consequences and nasty surprises. In addition, change orientation requires an appreciation of the complexity of change processes, such as the different roles for social movements, choice architecture and individual change. Systemic Transdisciplinary problem solving is unnecessary for simple cause-and-effect-type problems but is instead required for problems that are systemic, including where components are interdependent and interact, where feedback and leverage points come into play, where boundary-setting is crucial and where switching between views of wholes and parts is essential for understanding and action. Such systems may be, but are not necessarily, complex adaptive systems, where properties such as emergence become particularly important. Context-based The way problems manifest, as well as options for addressing problems, depend on historical, political, cultural and other big-picture circumstances. Pluralistic Effectively understanding and addressing systemic and context-based problems requires recognition that there are HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:208 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01709-8 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01709-8 ARTICLE Fig. 1 The ANU framework for transdisciplinary problem solving. The framework is focused on six characteristics of transdisciplinary problem solving, which are: change-oriented, systemic, context-based, pluralistic, interactive and integrative. Design credit: The figure was designed by Alice Wetherell from the Population Health Exchange (PHXchange) in the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health at ANU. ● ● multiple ways of seeing the world and that for any problem there will be different ways of understanding and responding to it. Interactive Key to transdisciplinary problem solving is finding ways to engage a diverse array of expertise and perspectives. This includes, but is not restricted to, teamwork and stakeholder engagement. The ability to communicate effectively is critical. Integrative Developing a shared approach to defining and acting on the problem requires synthesis of diverse perspectives, while also recognising that there will generally be outliers that cannot be comfortably integrated. We proposed that the six characteristics are equivalent in importance, even though they differ markedly in breadth and content. The sources for the framework were: societal and environmental problems used to index contributions to Integration and Implementation Insights (i2Insights) blog and repository (https://i2insights.org/ index/additional-information-about-the-index/). The framework crystallised when we reviewed the first figure “Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research” in Norström et al. (2020). The underlying vision for developing undergraduate expertise in transdisciplinary problem solving at a universitywide scale The working group envisioned that all ANU undergraduate students would be: ● ● ● ● ● ● the experience of the working group in crossing disciplinary boundaries and working with members of society (stakeholders) additional insights provided by the reference group submissions key concepts from transdisciplinary research, especially the Principles for Designing Transdisciplinary Research— proposed by the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences (Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn, 2007) key concepts from integration and implementation sciences (i2S), especially 11 key areas for addressing complex ● ● ● equipped with a basic understanding of the six characteristics of the ANU framework for transdisciplinary problem solving and different ways these elements can be applied in transdisciplinary problem solving exposed to transdisciplinary problem solving, even if limited, in their first year able to recognise synergies with the other two graduate attributes: “Insight into Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ knowledge and Indigenous peoples’ perspectives” and “Expertise for critical thinking” given the opportunity in their coursework to learn alongside, and develop networks with, students from all of the sciences, social sciences, humanities and the arts given the opportunity in their coursework to address societal problems that concern them and/or innovations that they would like to see developed HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:208 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01709-8 5 ARTICLE ● ● HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01709-8 able to tailor courses to their interests, choosing from a range of courses with different emphases on the six characteristics of transdisciplinary problem solving and with different pedagogy guided in integrating their insights across different courses, not least when undertaking flexible double degrees. We also envisioned that it should also be possible for students to undertake advanced training in transdisciplinary problem solving, which would deal with the characteristics of the ANU framework in greater depth. Building on a solid base: Learning outcomes The education systems of many countries, including Australia, use “learning outcomes” to codify the expertise that students should acquire in a course. A major consideration in the working group’s deliberations was therefore to provide diverse examples of learning outcomes based on the ANU transdisciplinary problem solving framework. We developed hypothetical learning outcomes for each of the six characteristics and also found examples from the templates course conveners provided, of which a subset are presented (Tables 2–7). Applying the ANU transdisciplinary problem solving framework to existing learning outcomes was a way to test both the framework and the claims of course conveners that their courses contributed to transdisciplinary problem solving. The working group concluded that (a) the framework was likely to be a useful way of approaching transdisciplinary problem solving and (b) the claims of course conveners were substantiated. We also concluded that the framework could help course conveners hone their learning outcomes to make their contributions to transdisciplinary problem solving expertise clearer. The exercise of matching the ANU transdisciplinary problem solving framework with existing learning outcomes also highlighted that the distinctions between the elements of transdisciplinary problem solving are not hard and fast. For example, a learning outcome about understanding critical systems heuristics (Ulrich, 2005) could be linked to the “systemic” or “pluralistic” elements of transdisciplinary problem solving. Similarly, the learning outcome from CBEA3070/6070 ANU College of Business and Economics Internship Program “engage critically with the information and evidence to generate best solutions to the problem and of value in the decision-making by the employer/placement/community” which is linked to “integrative” could equally be linked to “change-oriented.” Building on a solid base: Pedagogy The working group also reviewed how existing courses approached the method of teaching transdisciplinary problem solving and helping students develop their expertise. Based on the templates, we could see that courses employed one or more of the following: ● ● ● ● ● in-depth engagement with the students student-led teaching working on real-world problems hands-on work teamwork. These are illustrated using a small sample of quotations from the templates. Table 2 Examples of learning outcomes for Transdisciplinary problem solving is … change-oriented. Upon successful completion, students will have the knowledge and skills to… Hypothetical example 1 … identify differences between rational decision-making and decision-making based on cognitive biases Hypothetical example 2 … differentiate between known unknowns, unknown knowns and unknown unknowns and select key strategies for accepting unknowns Hypothetical example 3 … identify the main strategies used to block change and to conserve the status-quo Actual example 1 SCNC2201 Optimism and Agency in Times of Change • understand the hierarchy of actions from personal choices up to mobilising positive change across society • analyse the connections between their lives and large scale changes in society and our environment • develop an action plan for an active and constructive social engagement and to commence implementation Actual example 2 CBEA3001 ANU College of Business and Economics Special Industry Project • research, analyse, evaluate and propose practical solutions to the business problem encountered by the client organisation • work effectively and professionally within a team to develop practical solutions to a specified business problem Actual example 3 HUMN2001/6001 Introduction to Digital Humanities and Public Culture—Tools, Theories and Methods • prototype digital humanities projects Table 3 Examples of learning outcomes for Transdisciplinary problem solving is … systemic. Upon successful completion, students will have the knowledge and skills to… Hypothetical example 1 … recognise reinforcing and balancing feedback loops, along with leverage points, and the contributions they make to a problem Hypothetical example 2 … apply critical systems heuristics to appreciate how boundary judgments around transdisciplinary problems are made Hypothetical example 3 … describe complex adaptive systems and emergent properties Actual example 1 VCUG3001/VCPG6001/LAWS4001 Unravelling Complexity • identify and generalise behaviours of complex problems • design, research and defend a major work unravelling a complex problem Actual example 2 ENGN3013 Engineering for a Humanitarian Context • apply appropriate technology and system design principles to humanitarian contexts incorporating social, economic and environmental factors Actual example 3 PROPOSED: Making: The Craft of Problem Solving • appreciate design and/or systems thinking in problem solving and ideation 6 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:208 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01709-8 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01709-8 ARTICLE Table 4 Examples of learning outcomes for Transdisciplinary problem solving is … context-based. Upon successful completion, students will have the knowledge and skills to… Hypothetical example 1 … analyse key aspects of cultural context and apply them in transdisciplinary problem solving Hypothetical example 2 … identify how different contextual factors affect problems Hypothetical example 3 … describe political context in Australia and its relationship with a specific complex problem Actual example 1 COMP2410/6340 Networked Information Systems • discuss how network applications and their components work in real-life socio-economic, ethical, and legal contexts and evaluate their risks Actual example 2 ENGN3013 Engineering for a Humanitarian Context • discuss significant aspects of Australia’s international and domestic aid and development sector, including its history, geopolitical context and contemporary approaches Actual example 3 ARTV2801/ARTV6811 Socially Engaged Art Practice: Authorship, Dialogue and Community • make artworks that critically engage with the politics of participation and authorship in contemporary art contexts • conduct research into practices and discourses around social art practice and apply findings to research and creative production within a specific context Table 5 Examples of learning outcomes for Transdisciplinary problem solving is … pluralistic. Upon successful completion, students will have the knowledge and skills to… Hypothetical example 1 … articulate how applying their disciplinary expertise differs from the contributions made by a discipline with a different epistemology Hypothetical example 2 … identify stakeholders and their interests in a given problem Hypothetical example 3 … provide examples of at least six sources of difference and how they affect the way people see the world and deal with problems— taken from gender-identity, age, race and ethnicity, ability, mental models, power, values, interests, culture, personality Actual example 1 LAWS4289/PHIL2289 Leviathan, Art and Law: Constituting the Body Politic • define and critically analyse keywords and contemporary debates shared across the disciplines of law, critical legal theory, and philosophy • engage across multiple areas of knowledge including art, politics, philosophy, law and society Actual example 2 VCUG3001/VCPG6001/LAWS4001 Unravelling Complexity • analyse and construct arguments from multiple perspectives, supported by evidence and with intellectual independence Actual example 3 CBEA3070/6070 ANU College of Business and Economics Internship Program • identify the theoretical knowledge and skills from relevant area(s) of academic study as applicable to the problem identified in the ‘real work’ environment • acquire evidence and information from complex sources as relevant to the problem in the ‘real work’ environment Table 6 Examples of learning outcomes for Transdisciplinary problem solving is … interactive. Upon successful completion, students will have the knowledge and skills to… Hypothetical example 1 … reflect on the effectiveness of applying one formal team-building skill Hypothetical example 2 … predict different causes of conflict in teams Hypothetical example 3 … communicate complex issues effectively Actual examples 1 VCUG2002/VCPG6003 Leadership and Influence in a Complex World • demonstrate skills in collaboration and coordination towards common goals in formal and informal settings Actual example 2 ENVS3040 Complex Environmental Problems in Action • understand and apply effective stakeholder engagement practices Actual example 3 MEDN2222 Exquisite Corpse—Insight into the Human Body • apply visual arts processes to communicate their understanding of anatomy to a range of audiences Table 7 Examples of learning outcomes for Transdisciplinary problem solving is … integrative. Upon successful completion, students will have the knowledge and skills to… Hypothetical example 1 … combine different approaches to understanding a societal problem Hypothetical example 2 … develop a joint conceptual model of a solution to a problem by synthesising team members’ ideas Hypothetical example 3 … apply nominal group technique to promote discussion and consensus on a given problem Actual example 1 CBEA3070/6070 ANU College of Business and Economics Internship Program • engage critically with the information and evidence to generate best solutions to the problem and of value in the decisionmaking by the employer/placement/community Actual example 2 COMP1720/COMP6720 Art and Interaction Computing • apply knowledge of visual and physical interaction with a computer interface Actual example 3 ENVS3040 Complex Environmental Problems in Action • apply problem-solving skills in environmental studies and environmental science, including problem framing, synthesis and critical reflection In-depth engagement with the students. Lindell Bromham (BIOL3206/6206 Evolution of Biodiversity) summarised the indepth student engagement that is a key attribute of many courses: Anyone can access wonderful books, online lectures, multimedia materials etc. The one thing you can only get as a university student is the intellectual exercise of face-toface discussion and debate in a supportive, educational environment. So that is what we emphasize in our course— the magic transformation that a class discussion, guided by expert teachers but driven by students’ brainpower and openness to intellectual challenge, can achieve. HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:208 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01709-8 7 ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01709-8 Desmond Manderson and Fiona Jenkins (LAWS4289/ PHIL2289 Leviathan, Art and Law: Constituting the Body Politic) described their dialogic way of lecturing: Lecturing is taught in an actively dialogical way throughout the course, with each class involving the two convenors in conversation, interpellation, and discussion. In this way we monitor the transdisciplinary attributes we wish to foster— listening, learning, and critique. Alexandra Webb, Krisztina Valter and Elisa Crossing (MEDN2222 Exquisite Corpse—Insight into the Human Body) described a related form of interaction among the three of them: The course is co-taught by the 3 academics in an interactive and collaborative way, where the academics discuss topics from their diverse points of view. We do this to introduce students to the fundamental knowledge and skills of each discipline and demonstrate that the integration of the disciplines enhances the knowledge and learning of both, and takes the learner beyond the limits of these fields. Student-led teaching. Kylie Catchpole (SCNC2201 Optimism and Agency in Times of Change) highlighted: Agency is encouraged throughout the course, through student-led design and execution of projects, and through seeking out conversations with people who are further down the path they wish to take. And The course is designed to help students to become proactive in identifying and pursuing what is important to them, with a particular focus on the contribution they can make to global challenges. Students can choose any societal challenge that fits their skills and interests. The intention is that this course provides a transformational educational experience for students at ANU. Chris Browne (VCUG2002/VCPG6003 Leadership and Influence in a Complex World) has similar aims: Students bring their own real-world leadership project to the course, and the course is largely scaffolded around providing students with tools to advance their project, and space to develop their project. Working on real-world problems. Katerina Kormusheva (CBEA3001 ANU College of Business and Economics Special Industry Project) highlighted: The Special Industry Project course mimics the real-world consulting environment, where students will take on a consulting role and work in teams to devise the best solutions to a business case presented by an industry client. Examples of industry clients that have been engaged in this course so far include: NAB Bank, SolarShare, Twofold Aboriginal Corporation, MLA [Meat and Livestock Australia], The Royal Mint, Unilever, CSIRO. Lorrae van Kerkhoff (ENVS3040 Complex Environmental Problems in Action) highlighted the use of three real-world case studies: ● ● ● ANU Below Zero, identifying roadblocks and ways to progress implementation Indigenous Land Management in the context of changing Native Title Water Futures—various projects proposed by partner organisations with the Institute for Water Futures. Adding: In all case studies, students have an opportunity to engage with practitioners grappling with real-world complex environmental problems, and make a genuine contribution to the practitioners’ ability to address those problems. They use different tools along the way: problem framing, knowledge synthesis, stakeholder analysis, theory of change, etc. All case studies incorporate guided reflection to support deeper learning. These tools are applied to the real-world problems to gain experience in how to systematically approach problems in a robust, problem-oriented and transdisciplinary way. Hands-on work. Sean Dockray (ARTV2801/ARTV6811 Socially Engaged Art Practice: Authorship, Dialogue and Community) described both hands-on work and engagement with real-world problems: This studio course gives students hands-on experience with using different artistic methods to work with people, communities, and real-world situations. Sometimes, we provide a real-world problem, such as effective signs and banners for protests, like the School Strike for Climate. Mostly, students identify a problem themselves that they want to work on, such as gentrification in Braddon; drought in Orange; building beekeeping communities in the ACT; combatting toxic masculinity; and effectively communicating the experience of dyslexia or social disadvantage. Hands-on work is also central to John Debs’ proposed course (Making: The Craft of Problem Solving): The overarching philosophy of this course is to motivate students to “learn by doing,” and from diverse peers. This will be achieved by giving students a set of defined (complex) problems to choose from, but with completely undefined solutions. By choosing a problem, their intrinsic motivation will help drive their own learning of new knowledge and skills, while working in diverse teams encourages students to share knowledge with others. Supported by their teachers, the ANU MakerSpace and its staff, students can design, build, and showcase a solution to their problems in a hands-on environment with permission to fail. In this way, such a course overlaps with the concept of Students as Partners. Similarly, Hanna Suominen (COMP2410/6340 Networked Information Systems) advised: Teamwork. Terhi Nurmikko-Fuller (HUMN2001/6001 Introduction to Digital Humanities and Public Culture—Tools, Theories and Methods) reported: The main real world problem addressed in the course targets putting Personal Health Information securely “on the Internet”…. However, many more real world problems are explored as mini-cases during tutorials, lectures, and computing labs, as well as on the discussion forum. The course does require coursework in teams that are internally diverse in terms of the demographic, national, and linguistic background of the students, as well as having representatives from more than one degree program. This diversity seeks to remove the sense of homophily in the 8 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:208 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01709-8 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01709-8 groups, and to ensure students encounter different perspectives. Finally, Lindell Bromham (BIOL3206/6206 Evolution of Biodiversity) highlighted: At the start of the class when we tell students the major assessment item is a creative group project there are groans of despair – everyone knows what it’s like to be in a group where some people don’t pull their weight or where participants disagree. But we insist that being able to work in groups, manage contributions, balance strengths is one of the major real-world skills we can deliver in this course. We don’t just expect groups to work without intervention, we teach group working skills and constantly check in with groups to see how they are working together. By the end of the course, most students (even those sceptical at the start) cite the group project as one of the highlights of the course. In our deliberations, the working group emphasised the following pedagogical issues: ● ● ● ● the importance of a problem focus and the uncertainties (as well as richness) that this can bring, especially when working with partners who are external to the university the importance of enabling interactions among students with different disciplinary interests and perspectives and helping them mine the richness of such interactions the potential for creativity, experimentation and emergence in helping students learn about the different elements of transdisciplinary problem solving, as well as to appreciate what they have learnt the necessity of familiarising students with the pedagogical differences described above, especially those students who are accustomed to a highly structured discipline-based environment. The challenges of university-wide implementation While the solid educational base described in the previous two sections on learning outcomes and pedagogy is important, there are also associated limitations and challenges. Two issues are discussed here: how to cover all the characteristics of the ANU framework for transdisciplinary problem solving and how to coordinate coverage across different courses. How to cover all the characteristics of the ANU framework for transdisciplinary problem solving. One of the immediately evident challenges is that very few of the courses for which we had templates covered all of the characteristics of the ANU framework for transdisciplinary problem solving. Indeed, it is not feasible for any ANU course (of six “units” with 130 hours of expected student workload) to cover all elements of transdisciplinary problem solving in any reasonable depth. The challenge in getting multiple small class-size courses to work effectively to allow students to achieve the graduate attribute “Capability to Employ Disciplinebased Knowledge in Transdisciplinary Problem Solving” was therefore to enable students to easily identify which courses provide education relevant to the graduate attribute, as well as the volume of learning (breadth and depth of coverage) provided. To this end, we developed a ‘tag-and-points’ system that could be used to identify relevant ANU courses and the extent of their contributions to delivering the graduate attribute. The first element is tagging. Courses addressing characteristics of the ANU framework for transdisciplinary problem solving would be tagged as such. Each tagged course would also be given a number of points to indicate the number of characteristics of transdisciplinary problem solving covered and the depth of that coverage. ARTICLE Students would then be able to select from among the tagged courses to achieve a required minimum number of points. Ideally, they would be able to select courses that best meet their disciplinary choices, personal interests and career objectives. A different working group had the task of ‘making space’ in the undergraduate curriculum for the transdisciplinary problem solving graduate attribute to be achieved and their deliberations were proceeding in parallel with ours. Our working group was not, therefore, in a position to determine how much ‘space’ would be available and therefore how many points an undergraduate student would be required to obtain to meet the graduate attribute. However, to explain the ‘tag-and-points’ system, we assumed that over the three years of their undergraduate degree, a student is required to accumulate nine points in tagged courses. The maximum number of points that can be allocated to any six-unit course is six. These are courses that focus on transdisciplinary problem solving where most or all characteristics of the ANU framework are covered, with some characteristics dealt with in depth. At the other extreme are courses that address one characteristic of transdisciplinary problem solving at a limited depth, with such courses allocated one point. Other courses would fall in between these two options. A student could then, for example, choose a tagged course worth one point in the first year, a tagged course worth three points in their second year and a tagged course worth six points in the third year, accumulating a total of ten points, one more than the minimum required. Our aim was to provide a concrete basis for deliberations, which could then be modified as possibilities for including this graduate attribute in the curriculum became clearer. Given what we knew about available courses, student numbers and the desire for small classes, we were keen to establish whether our proposal was likely to be feasible. We were reassured by backof-the-envelope calculations undertaken by two physicist reference group members who teach a course on quantification. Nevertheless, the working group could see a major challenge in implementing a tag-and-points system, as it cannot be easily accommodated in the processes and technology underpinning the administration of undergraduate education at ANU. We did not have time to consider other options but instead highlighted practical issues that have to be resolved as part of the subsequent implementation process, including: ● ● ● ● undertaking an audit to determine the full array of suitable courses, including discipline-based courses that cover characteristics of transdisciplinary problem solving, such as insights of psychology into individual differences (pluralistic in the ANU framework) and teamwork (interactive), sociology into change (change-oriented), and physics into quantification for decision-making (change-oriented) determining how many characteristics of the ANU framework for transdisciplinary problem solving will be required, and at what depth, to achieve the graduate attribute, which would flow on to a more accurate assessment of how many courses will be required and how many students they would need to cater for associated issues such as budgetary implications, quality control, assessment of new course proposals, advertising of courses, and timetabling maintaining a healthy and appropriate balance between discipline-based courses and courses focused on transdisciplinary problem solving. How to coordinate coverage across courses. A second major limitation is the lack of coordination across existing courses. Unlike courses in a discipline where the extent and depth of HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:208 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01709-8 9 ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01709-8 coverage are harmonised among courses, there is no mechanism for ensuring that this happens for courses teaching characteristics of transdisciplinary problem solving. As a working group, we did not attempt to address this issue, beyond recognising it, and recommending that it be dealt with as the process of curriculum reform progressed. Considerations include that: ● ● ● Students should be provided with an overview of the ANU framework for transdisciplinary problem solving, as well as the opportunity to learn more about the characteristics most relevant to them. Attention needs to be paid to coverage of the same characteristic of transdisciplinary problem solving in different courses in order to minimise duplication and maximise the opportunity to keep building skills. For example, many courses require teamwork and ideally, students would learn (and apply) different concepts and methods about effective teamwork in different courses, building a more sophisticated set of skills over time. Transdisciplinary problem solving requires theory and practice. For example, as well as introducing students to different theories about how change happens, courses must also provide opportunities for students to undertake projects focused on producing some kind of change, with encouragement to reflect on the interplay between the theories and their practical experience. Coordinating coverage across courses would also be enhanced by providing opportunities—currently lacking—for academic staff to learn from each other in developing content, pedagogy and assessment. Much could be gained by academic staff and students trading lessons across courses, in time leading to more standardised guidelines for all aspects of education in transdisciplinary problem solving. The working group also proposed that opportunities for professional development of academic staff could both enhance their expertise in transdisciplinary problem solving and crossuniversity collaboration and learning. In addition to standard techniques such as seminars, a visitors’ program and mentorship, the working group suggested cross-campus development of teaching resources for transdisciplinary problem solving, for example developing a series of texts and primers addressing topics such as change, stakeholder engagement and integration which are central to the ANU framework for transdisciplinary problem solving. Ideally, these would incorporate perspectives from a range of disciplines and sectors where students might subsequently find employment. The working group also suggested that coordinating coverage across courses would be facilitated by bringing relevant academic staff together in a community of practice, which could eventually be formalised into a structural component of the university, such as an Institute of Theory and Methods for Transdisciplinary Problem Solving. Conclusion The main outcome for ANU from our working group was the determination that it is feasible to develop trans-disciplinary problem-solving expertise by building on a mixture of existing and new courses and featuring small classes with flexible interactive delivery. It is worth noting that the working group’s contribution to the curriculum reform process has now ended. Our deliberations initiated the implementation phase and although the working group is not involved in developing the fine detail, two members (CBr and AK) are. The reformed educational program, including ensuring that all undergraduates develop the capability to employ their discipline-based knowledge in transdisciplinary problem 10 solving, will be rolled out to undergraduate students starting in 2025. There is much to do from encouraging the development of new courses, to strengthening the capacities and capabilities of the teachers, to developing an administrative system that provides a designation for suitable courses. We conclude by reflecting on key lessons from our process that may be useful for others, particularly issues to consider in developing an implementation plan. We envisage a landscape where different universities take different approaches, based on their specific context. Nevertheless, based on our experience, we suggest it is important to consider: ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● How interest in developing expertise originated. For example, was it developed by university leadership, academic staff and/ or students? Was there pressure from outside forces? The distinctive features of the university. For example, how many students and academic staff are there? Does it have a particular mission, such as a focus on specific disciplines or problems or regions? What parameters are set by the strategic plan? The foundations of expertise and experience available to work with. For example, is there a strong research and/or education base for the development? Who is available to shape a proposal and what expertise do they bring to the table? Is capacity building for academic staff required? The focus for developing expertise. For example, would it cover a range of characteristics as outlined in the ANU framework for transdisciplinary problem solving or a subset or would it focus on different characteristics? Decisions made about terminology. For example, would there be more focus on differentiating multi-, inter-, and trans-disciplinarity, as well as systems thinking, action research and other relevant areas? Key considerations for an underpinning vision. For example, is the vision to provide all students with a uniform experience or to encourage them to tailor their learning to their interests? How feasible is the interaction among students from all of the sciences, social sciences, humanities and the arts? Key process issues. For example, is the process managed top-down or is it co-produced with relevant academic staff and student representatives? Administrative feasibility. What can be easily accommodated in current administrative processes? What appetite is there for changing those processes if necessary? We have described how ANU addressed those questions, recognising that a working group with different members may have done things differently. While we hope that some of what we developed, such as the ANU framework for transdisciplinary problem solving, might be useful for others, our key purpose in sharing our experience is to foster ongoing discussion about how universities can help build expertise so that all graduates, no matter their chosen career, can effectively contribute to addressing the major challenges facing society. There are no established guidelines to follow and each university has to chart its own path, but we can learn from, and build on, each other’s experiences. Data availability Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. Received: 16 November 2022; Accepted: 19 April 2023; HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:208 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01709-8 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01709-8 References Adomβent M (2022) Taking interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity to eye level with scientific disciplines. Teaching and learning in complementary studies at Leuphana College, Lüneburg, Germany. In: Vienni-Baptista B, Klein JT (eds) Institutionalizing interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity: collaboration across cultures and communities. Taylor and Francis, pp. 27–42 Bammer G (2013) Disciplining interdisciplinarity: integration and implementation sciences for researching complex real-world problems. ANU Press, Canberra. https://doi.org/10.22459/DI.01.2013 Bammer G, O’Rourke M, O’Connell D, Neuhauser L, Midgley G, Klein JT, Grigg NJ, Gadlin H, Elsum IR, Bursztyn M, Fulton EA, Pohl C, Smithson M, Vilsmaier U, Bergmann M, Jaeger J, Merkx F, Vienni Baptista B, Burgman MA, Walker DH, Young J, Bradbury H, Crawford L, Haryanto B, Pachanee C, Polk M, Richardson GP (2020) Expertise in research integration and implementation for tackling complex problems: when is it needed, where can it be found and how can it be strengthened? Palgrave Commun 6:5. https:// doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0380-0 Baumber A, Kligyte G, van der Bijl-Brouwer M, Pratt S (2020) Learning together: a transdisciplinary approach to student–staff partnerships in higher education. Higher Educ Res Dev 39(3):395–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019. 1684454 Biberhofer P, Rammel C (2017) Transdisciplinary learning and teaching as answers to urban sustainability challenges. Int J Sustain High Educ 18(1):63–83. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-04-2015-0078 Crosby A, Fam D, Mellick Lopes A (2018) Transdisciplinarity and the “Living Lab Model”: food waste management as a site for collaborative learning. In: Fam D, Neuhauser L, Gibbs P (eds) Transdisciplinary theory, practice and education: the art of collaborative research and collective learning. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 217–231 Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage, London Jacob WJ (2015) Interdisciplinary trends in higher education. Palgrave Commun 1:15001. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2015.1 Jantsch E (1970) Inter- and transdisciplinary university: a systems approach to education and innovation. Policy Sci 1:403–428 Ledford H (2015) How to solve the world’s biggest problems. Nature 525:308–311. https://doi.org/10.1038/525308a National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering & Institute of Medicine (2005) Facilitating interdisciplinary research. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/11153 National Research Council (2014) Convergence: facilitating transdisciplinary integration of life sciences, physical sciences, engineering, and beyond. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/19007 Norström AV, Cvitanovic C, Löf MF, West S, Wyborn C, Balvanera P, Bednarek AT, Bennett EM, Biggs R, de Bremond A, Campbell BM, Canadell JG, Carpenter SR, Folke C, Fulton EA, Gaffney O, Gelcich S, Jouffray J-B, Leach M, Le Tissier M, Martín-López B, Louder E, Loutre M-F, Meadow AM, Nagendra H, Payne D, Peterson GD, Reyers B, Scholes R, Speranza CI, Spierenburg M, Stafford-Smith M, Tengö M, van der Hel S, van Putten I, Österblom H (2020) Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nat Sustain 3:182–190. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2 Pohl C, Hirsch Hadorn G (2007) Principles for designing transdisciplinary research —proposed by the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences. oekom Verlag, München, Summarised in ‘Principles for designing transdisciplinary research’ by Christian Pohl and Gertrude Hirsch Hadorn GAIA 26(3):232; 2017 Frameworks for Transdisciplinary Research Framework #1. https://doi.org/10. 14512/gaia.26.3.3 ARTICLE Pohl C, Pearce B, Mader M, Senn L, Krütli P(2020) Integrating systems and design thinking in transdisciplinary case studies. GAIA 29(4):258–266. https://doi. org/10.14512/gaia.29.4.11 Ulrich W (2005) A brief introduction to critical systems heuristics (CSH). ECOSENSUS project, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK, https://wulrich. com/downloads/ulrich_2005f.pdf Acknowledgements The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic), Grady Venville, leads the ANU curriculum reform and the development of the graduate attributes. The following reference group members and course conveners contributed to the working group’s deliberations: Ken Baldwin, Lindell Bromham, Alessandra Capezio, Kylie Catchpole, Tom Cliff, Eliza Crossing, John Debs, Sean Dockray, Paul Francis, Iain Gordon, Timo Henckel, Fiona Jenkins, Kirsty Jones, Katerina Kormusheva, Roald Maliangkaij, Desmond Manderson, Charles Martin, Alex Richardson, Anthea Roberts, Wendy Russell, Jeremy Smith, Hanna Suominen, Katerina Teaiwa, Nghia Tran, Krisztina Valter, Isla Walford and Alexandra Webb. Beatrice Tucker, Education Officer of the ANU Students’ Association, contributed to four of the working group meetings. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Ethical approval This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors. Informed consent Informed consent was not required, as the article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors. Additional information Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to Gabriele Bammer. Reprints and permission information is available at http://www.nature.com/reprints Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/. © The Author(s) 2023 1 National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, ANU College of Health and Medicine, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia. 2ANU College of Science, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia. 3Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) Portfolio, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia. 4School of Culture, History and Language, ANU College of Asia and the Pacific, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia. 5ANU College of Engineering, Computing and Cybernetics, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia. 6ANU College of Asia and the Pacific, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia. 7Centre for Digital Humanities Research, ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia. 8ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia. 9ANU College of Business and Economics, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia. 10Fenner School of Environment and Society, ANU College of Science, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia. 11Present address: Office of the PVC Science and Engineering, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia. ✉email:

HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:208 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01709-8 11