The past two decades have seen a growing interest and investment in transdisciplinary research teams and centers. The Transdisciplinary Tobacco Use Research Centers (TTURCs) exemplify large-scale scientific collaborations undertaken for the explicit purpose of promoting novel conceptual and methodological integrations bridging two or more fields. Until recently, few efforts have been made to evaluate the collaborative processes, and the scientific and public policy outcomes, of such centers. This manuscript offers a conceptual framework for understanding and evaluating transdisciplinary science and describes two ongoing evaluation studies covering the initial phase of the TTURC initiative. The methods and measures used by these studies are described, and early evaluative findings from the first 4 years of the initiative are presented. These data reveal progress toward intellectual integration within and between several of the TTURCs, and cumulative changes in the collaborative behaviors and values of participants over the course of the initiative. The data also suggest that different centers may follow alternative pathways toward transdisciplinary integration and highlight certain environmental, organizational, and institutional factors that influence each center's readiness for collaboration. Methodological challenges posed by the complexities of evaluating large-scale scientific collaborations (including those that specifically aspire toward transdisciplinary integrations spanning multiple fields) are discussed. Finally, new directions for future evaluative studies of transdisciplinary scientific collaboration, both within and beyond the field of tobacco science, are described.

Previous research has established hardiness as a dispositional factor in preserving and enhancing performance and health despite stressful circumstances. The present four studies continue this construct-validational process by (a) introducing a shortened version of the hardiness measure and (b) testing hypotheses concerning the relationship between hardiness and repressive coping, right-wing authoritarianism, innovative behavior, and billable hours (a measure of consulting effectiveness). Results of these studies suggest the adequate reliability and validity of the Personal Views Survey III-R, which is the shortened, 18-item measure of hardiness. Further, results support the hypothesis that the relationship of hardiness is negative with repressive coping and right-wing authoritarianism and positive with innovative behavior and billable hours. Hardiness also appears unrelated to socially desirable responding.

No abstract

This paper explores plausible reasons why some students report having more difficulty learning online, predominantly in Zoom synchronous classes, and suggests strategies that students can do to optimize their learning. During anonymous classroom observations, approximately 80% of 350 college students polled indicated it was harder to focus their attention and stay present while taking classes online. They also reported experiencing more isolation, anxiety, and depression compared to face-to-face classes, although much of this may be due to COVID-19 social isolation. Students often appear nonresponsive when attending online synchronous Zoom classes that negatively impacts the nonverbal dynamics of student-instructor interactions. Communication issues includes internet challenges, lack of facial expressions, body appearance, and movement. Students also report that it is more challenging to maintain attention, especially when they are multitasking. Suggested strategies are to optimize learning that includes arranging the camera so that you are visible, using active facial and body responses as if you are communicating to just one person face-to-face, configuring your body and environment (sitting upright and creating unique cues for each specific task), reducing multitasking and notifications, and optimizing arousal and vision regeneration.

The complexity of public health problems, including the problem of tobacco use behaviors, calls for formal efforts to train transdisciplinary scientists. These scientists can approach problems by using new conceptual frameworks and methodological tools that integrate different disciplinary perspectives. Transdisciplinary training focuses on developing strong scientists with superb core skills while protecting against creating scientists who are "jack of all trades, master of none." Transdisciplinary training is relatively new, with no accepted training model in place. In this paper, we provide a general framework for transdisciplinary training at the advanced graduate and postgraduate levels, with particular reference to tobacco use behaviors. We identify the core attitude, knowledge, and skills competencies that are essential to conducting tobacco use research with a transdisciplinary approach. We outline the structural components of transdisciplinary training that allow for the development of the competencies and discuss what facilitates the transdisciplinary training process. We also discuss the numerous challenges and obstacles to transdisciplinary training. These include the readiness of early-career trainees to undergo transdisciplinary training, professional development risks taken by trainees, administrative and budgetary obstacles inherent in traditional academic institutional structures, and the limited opportunities established scientists have for transitioning their research programs in a transdisciplinary direction. If these obstacles can be overcome, the potential exists for a new generation of transdisciplinary scientists to be trained and be well positioned to make important and unique advances in our understanding of tobacco use and other public health problems.