The challenge of building sustainable and secure food, energy, and water systems (FEWS; D’Odorico et al., 2018; Jones et al., 2017) requires a new generation of leaders trained in interdisciplinarity and innovation (Ledford, 2015). The FEWS nexus epitomizes “wicked problems”; i.e., those that resist definitive formulation and clear-cut solutions and whose complexity demands new modes of inquiry (Rittel and Webber, 1973). Addressing wicked problems requires deep integration across fields and transcendence of disciplinary boundaries (Harris et al., 2010; Irwin et al., 2018). FEWS are multiscale and interdependent, and they combine biophysical and social sciences, engineering, humanities, and other disciplines. Transformational leaders are needed to envision innovative and cross-disciplinary solutions in partnership with other stakeholders (Burns and Rechy, 2004).
Graduate education continues to be critiqued, however, for its shortcomings in developing STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) professionals who can offer solutions for complex, multidisciplinary problems (Gropp, 2018; Hancock and Walsh, 2016; NASEM, 2018; NSB, 2014). Similarly, traditional STEM graduate education is seen as being mismatched with workforce demands, in part because it trains students for academia despite evidence that most graduate students pursue non-academic and/or non-research careers (Lautz et al., 2018; NSF, 2018). Other disruptors also pose challenges to traditional models of graduate STEM education, including shifts in demographics and in the nature and availability of work, a broader set of occupations demanding STEM expertise; and the ongoing, substantial changes in technologies and methods for STEM research (NASEM 2018). Graduate education must therefore adapt in order to prepare students for multiple career pathways, emphasizing interdisciplinary and experiential learning that includes a mix of core competencies, broad technical literacy, and deep specialization (NASEM 2018). Further, preparing students for a range of career pathways requires career-related experiences, project-based learning, and understanding of the ethical issues of their work and of their ethical responsibilities as STEM professionals (NASEM, 2018).
In this paper we identify and examine core elements of interdisciplinary and experiential graduate education aimed at developing leaders with specific skills and proficiencies necessary to address environmental challenges, including but not limited to those at the FEWS nexus. We provide several specific examples of how these skills could be integrated into graduate education. We also review several of the key barriers to interdisciplinary and experiential graduate education. Finally, we suggest that building a community of practice, wherein new leaders share learning and mentorship, is necessary to transform graduate student training and, ultimately, effect a sea change in FEWS management and sustainability (Figure 1). We recognize that implementing lofty plans for educational transformations outlined in journal manuscripts may be stymied by the realities of time, financial, and institutional constraints. Academic breadth and depth can be at odds, faculty and graduate students are already typically overextended, and solving wicked problems at the FEWS nexus will depend on more than innovative graduate training programs. Nevertheless, our own efforts to achieve the vision we propose here, as students, faculty, and staff who have participated in U.S. National Science Foundation Research Traineeships (NRTs) focused on Innovations at the Nexus of Food, Energy, and Water Systems (INFEWS; NSF, 2020), not only inform our proposals but also underpin our optimism that innovative, interdisciplinary graduate training programs can be realized.
Next-generation sustainability leaders must be able to:
In an increasingly complex and interconnected world, future FEWS leaders must address problems that transcend a single discipline and have profound societal implications (Randle and Stroink, 2018). A foundational competency required to address these challenges is systems thinking (Bazilian et al., 2011; Garcia and You, 2016). Although definitions vary (Buckle Henning and Chen, 2012), systems thinking is generally identified as a cognitive paradigm emphasizing holism, whereby one recognizes how phenomena emerge from a collection of dynamic, often complex, interactions between interdependent components (Ballew et al., 2019; Lezak and Thibodeau, 2016; Randle and Stroink, 2018). Systems thinking acknowledges that systems are constantly changing, yielding outcomes that are not always intuitive or predictable (Lezak and Thibodeau, 2016; Randle and Stroink, 2018).
The benefits of systems thinking have been documented in many disciplines, including agriculture and public health (Bawden, 1991; Leischow et al., 2008). Systems thinking is often viewed as fundamental to addressing multifaceted global environmental problems (NRC, 2012), especially climate change (Ballew et al., 2019), sustainable development (Martin, 2005), and FEWS challenges (Gunda and Tidwell, 2019). The FEWS nexus is inherently interdisciplinary and demands innovative problem solving that spans resource sectors, often across large spatial and temporal scales. As such, it is vital to recognize and understand the connections, feedbacks, and concomitant effects between interdependent resource systems. Systems thinking is required to address the biophysical and technological aspects of these problems in a way that is integrated with the social, economic, and political components of the system (Ballew et al., 2019).
While the value of systems thinking for FEWS leaders is clear, most people have a limited understanding of systems thinking (Dawidowicz, 2012). Fortunately, it is a teachable skill (Lezak and Thibodeau, 2016; Sterman, 2010). FEWS-related systems thinking can be advanced by teaching skills that integrate social and biophysical data and methods, including social-ecological systems dynamics modeling, agent-based modeling, integrated hydrological and economic optimization, science-policy analyses, and life-cycle analysis (Fiksel, 2006). Applying concepts such as cross-scale linkages, boundary effects, and tradeoffs to specific case studies provides an understanding of the relationships between physical, biological, and social components of particular system. Case studies on wicked problems at the FEWS nexus provide opportunities for students to apply these concepts and skills (Box 1).
Box 1: FEWS case-study examples
Below are two examples of interdisciplinary challenges at the FEWS nexus that demand systems thinking. These examples provide current, real-world scenarios and are useful subjects for case studies, thought exercises, or activities for graduate courses aiming to advance FEWS-related systems thinking.
Drought adaptation on rangelands in the western United States: Agricultural producers are particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts, such as increases in the frequency and severity of drought (Thornton et al., 2014). On rangelands, drought can result in expansion of invasive plants, novel shifts in vegetation, altered fire regimes and soil water availability, and decreased forage production and quality (Briske et al., 2015). In response to these changes, ranchers can employ a range of strategies, including reducing herd size, adopting more efficient grazing systems, developing new water sources, restoring rangelands, and diversifying incomes streams. Ranchers’ decisions about drought adaptation are influenced by both the specific biophysical changes occurring on their rangelands as well as social and economic processes, including commodity prices, trade policy, government drought relief programs, family finances, risk perception, available technology, and social norms. In some cases, experiences with past drought, skepticism about climate projection, risk aversion, and social norms interact in ways that reduce investments in long-term adaptation (Yung et al., 2015). Understanding drought adaptation on rangelands requires examining the ways that biophysical, economic, and social processes interact across multiple scales to both enable and constrain decisions about drought adaptation, which can be facilitated by asking the following questions: How do past ecosystem responses to drought influence the assumptions that producers make about future change? How can climate projections and ranchers’ local knowledge be integrated to provide actionable information that agricultural producers trust and utilize? In what ways do political economic processes at non-local scales discourage drought adaptation on farms and ranches?
Nutrient management scenarios in the Upper Mississippi River watershed: Nitrogen (N) and phosphorous (P) loads in the Upper Mississippi River watershed drain to the Gulf of Mexico where they drive formation of a low-oxygen dead zone (“Gulf hypoxia”) unable to support aquatic life (Turner and Rabalais, 1994). Nutrient pollution is linked to the heavy use of fertilizer in corn and soybean production, a large fraction of which is used for ethanol production mandated by the Renewable Fuel Standard (Donner and Kucharik, 2008), in states like Iowa and Illinois (Goolsby et al., 2000; Jones et al., 2018). Global shifts toward high-protein diets have also intensified animal agriculture (e.g., pigs) in the region, generating N- and P-rich manure that is applied as fertilizer and can contribute, even more significantly than commercial fertilizers in some cases, to nutrient pollution of waterways (Jones et al., 2019). Opportunities for sustainable nutrient management must integrate fundamental understanding of nutrient transport and storage processes; systems-scale modeling of nutrient flows linking changes in land use to water quality; more efficient approaches to manure management [e.g., pre-application analysis of crop N availability in soil and manure; Jones et al., 2019)] and development of on-farm technologies (e.g., anaerobic digesters for resource recovery) that incentivize limiting manure application; broader adoption of practices including cover crops and edge of field controls (e.g., bioreactors, wetlands, and riparian buffers) for non-point source pollution; and a deeper appreciation for how policies and programs for food and energy production influence water quality. Example discussion questions include: How can modeling and mass balance be used to better understand sources, sinks, and transformations of nutrients across watersheds that differ in land use, population (urban vs. rural), and size? What does an integrated food, energy, and water policy framework look like that promotes more sustainable agriculture and biofuel production while more proactively protecting water quality?
Creating effective interdisciplinary research teams has boldly been called the solution to solving the world’s most complex problems (Ledford, 2015), and there has been a specific call for increased interdisciplinarity to solve FEWS problems (Albrecht et al., 2018; Rodríguez et al., 2019). Interdisciplinary team science is collaborative research by two or more scientists that integrates data, techniques, and perspectives from two or more disciplines to solve problems whose solutions are beyond the scope of a single discipline (NAS et al. 2005). There is evidence that interdisciplinary team science is more innovative, productive, and impactful than discipline-specific science — both within and across specific disciplines (Hall et al., 2012; Uzzi et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2015). Systems thinking requires interdisciplinarity, and even more powerful is transdisciplinary research, which transcends disciplinary boundaries to develop wholly new and unprecedented frameworks for novel science (Choi and Pak, 2006). Here, we focus on interdisciplinary training and research, although the ultimate goal is transformative, transdisciplinary solutions.
Innovative graduate training is recognized as central to increasing interdisciplinary research capacity (Borrego and Newswander, 2010). Graduate education should provide students with in-depth, applied team-science experiences (Box 2, Box 3) as well as targeted training in relevant interpersonal and team-related skills (Committee on the Science of Team Science et al., 2015; Hall et al., 2018). Training should include:
Box 2: Co-labs: Interdisciplinary laboratory experiences
Participation in co-labs – collaborative, interdisciplinary, product-driven research efforts among students that are formed, guided, and mentored by faculty from different disciplines (Bosque-Pérez et al., 2016) – are effective means of providing experience in conducting team science. For example, a co-lab could entail faculty and students from biophysical (e.g., geosciences) and social (e.g., economics, sociology) science disciplines working together to review relevant research, discuss disciplinary assumptions, define a shared gap in the literature, and combine data to produce a review paper on an interdisciplinary FEWS topic such as prediction of how changes in hydrology may affect working agricultural landscapes.
Box 3: Experiential learning for innovative solutions
Experiential learning provides particularly important opportunities for students to develop skills in innovation (Neck and Greene, 2011) and actionable science (Evans et al., 2015). Getting students out of the laboratory and into the field provides opportunities to interact directly with FEW practitioners and systems. Client-based and use-inspired FEWS training exercises can be particularly effective, leveraging opportunities to engage with decision makers, practitioners, and innovators, both on and off campus. These experiences promote learning and application of key FEWS concepts, as well as professional development and networking. Local field trips to FEWS-related locations are a simple approach that can spur new thinking. There are also existing organizations that provide deeper opportunities to expose students to entrepreneurialism; for example, students could participate in NSF’s I-Corps program or intern with small businesses involved in the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program.
By honing their science communication skills to share their science with non-scientists, leaders can better use science to inform decision-making and policy (NASEM, 2017; Smith et al., 2013). Many decisions rely on scientific knowledge; there is a need for scientists to serve as “honest brokers” in discussing the pros and cons of policy alternatives (Pielke, 2007). Furthermore, when science is communicated well, the public’s appreciation and understanding of science can increase (NASEM, 2017). In contrast, poor or ineffective communication can be costly to both science and society, as continued scientific progress relies on public support (Fischhoff and Scheufele, 2013). Finally, emerging leaders can become recognized experts more quickly through building buzz around their research – an additional benefit of effective science communication.
Research to improve the efficacy of science communication is needed (NASEM, 2017), and many evidence-based best practices for science communication and training are emerging. Science communication training should start with the science of science communication and a review of effective techniques, which are sometimes counterintuitive (Fischhoff and Scheufele, 2013; Jamieson et al., 2017). For example, people’s perceptions and use of science are influenced by their beliefs and ideologies (Eveland and Cooper, 2013; Fiske and Dupree, 2014). FEWS leaders must therefore practice refining key messages for specific audiences (Cooke et al., 2017; Mercer-Mapstone and Kuchel, 2017) and selecting communication frames that resonate with the belief systems of the intended audience (e.g., Dixon et al., 2017). Other key elements of science communication training include using the principles of narrative storytelling (Dahlstrom, 2014); crafting a clear, pithy message without jargon and focused on the “so what” (Baron, 2010); effectively communicating uncertainty (Friedman et al., 2012); employing a diverse portfolio of communication approaches (Cooke et al., 2017), such as policy briefs, public lectures, science cafes, and elevator pitches; and maintaining clarity and scientific rigor (Brossard and Scheufele, 2013; Klahr, 2013).
Further, scientists often envision that they are educating the public (Dudo and Besley, 2016). However, the “knowledge-deficit model” – the assumption that non-scientists would integrate scientific information into decision-making if they simply knew more – has been largely refuted (Simis et al., 2016). Instead, people’s perceptions and use of science are influenced by their beliefs and ideologies (Eveland and Cooper, 2013; Fiske and Dupree, 2014). FEWS leaders must therefore learn to target messages to specific audiences (Cooke et al., 2017; Mercer-Mapstone and Kuchel, 2017) and to select communication frames that resonate with the belief systems of the intended audience (e.g., Dixon et al., 2017). Perhaps the most underdeveloped skill in training good science communicators is building trust and relationships (Kearns, 2012). Two-way dialogue is essential to science communication, and that requires listening and humility, cultural competency, and ethics and empathy (Priest et al., 2018), themes that we echo in the stakeholder and community engagement section below.
Decision-making in linked ecological and social systems, such as FEWS, demands the inclusion of diverse stakeholder interests. Stakeholder participation can lead to more innovative, decision-relevant results and publicly accepted solutions (Caves et al., 2013; Johnson et al., 2013). Critically, stakeholder engagement precipitates social learning — individuals learning through social interactions leading to societal change (Reed et al., 2010) — which results in greater consensus and likelihood of concerted action toward a solution (Collins and Ison, 2009). Stakeholder engagement relies on dialogue rather than one-way communication of research results to stakeholder groups (Jolibert and Wesselink, 2012). Building relationships allows stakeholders to invest personally and professionally, sustains complex projects over time, and better incorporates the science built by stakeholders and communities into planning and policy.
Although there is no single method for engaging stakeholders, Talley et al. (2016) identify five features of engagement that benefit both stakeholders and researchers. Engagement must: 1) set clear objectives, 2) systematically represent stakeholders, 3) use relevant methods (such as public meetings, focus groups, advisory panels), 4) create opportunities for co-ownership of process and knowledge, and 5) reflect on processes and outcomes. Key elements of stakeholder engagement also include creating physical and mental space for interaction; aligning motivations through understanding of values, goals, and benefits; and building trust (Schoonover et al., 2019).
Training in research ethics, intellectual property agreements, cultural competency, power dynamics, and group negotiation can prepare students for effective stakeholder engagement. Students should understand how to engage non-academics in setting research objectives, discussing and assisting with data collection and analysis, dissemination of research results, and how each role differs (Phillipson et al., 2012). Targeted training in working with regionally important, but often underrepresented cultures or populations – such as indigenous groups – can improve understanding of different knowledge systems and help build new partnerships. Students should understand the concepts of implicit and confirmation bias, the effects of worldviews on understandings of and participation in science, and the tools and methods to address these challenges (McInerny et al., 2014). Students must also acknowledge that there are tradeoffs for stakeholders — their participation is time consuming and they may not be compensated for their intellectual property (Garnett et al., 2009). Knowing when not to engage is as important as knowing when and how to engage (Reed et al., 2018). Training in effective stakeholder engagement can be advanced by having a diverse student cohort and faculty, promoting insight from and access to diverse knowledge bases and philosophies.
Actionable, decision- and policy-relevant science must define the coming decade of sustainability science (Miller et al., 2014; Rose et al., 2018). Leaders who know how to create and apply innovative, solutions-oriented information can help society adapt technologies toward more sustainable FEW systems. Universities and graduate education are key to training leaders in innovation and entrepreneurship toward solutions for the world’s most complex issues (Thorp and Goldstein, 2013). The ability to connect science to solutions is the culmination of the skills discussed above.
Policy- and decision-relevant science must be timely, trusted, and rigorous, both in the eyes of researchers and decision makers (Cook et al., 2013). This means scientists need to work closely with decision-makers (Box 4) to build trust and ensure that research responds to the needs of end-users (Pannell and Vanclay, 2011). In addition, FEWS leaders must not only consider whether their science is locally relevant and culturally appropriate, but also envision FEWS sustainability from local to global scales (Blewitt, 2010).
Box 4: Co-production for actionable science
Co-production of knowledge is perhaps the most intensive but effective means of developing policy-relevant science (Beier et al., 2017). Co-production involves collaboration between diverse actors, including scientists and practitioners, who connect science and other types of knowledge with specific decisions and visions of the future, and then co-design a process to formulate questions, methods, and outputs. Ideally, co-production advances the kinds of societal transformations required by wicked FEWS problems by shifting the relationships between science institutions, sustainability governance, and society at large (Wyborn et al., 2019). Students should understand the time commitment required for co-production specifically as well as the greater likelihood that co-produced research will be used by decision-makers (Reed et al., 2018). Ultimately, co-production can be best taught by doing and requires faculty support and patience throughout the research project.
To effectively produce actionable science, FEWS leaders need to recognize that they are working within 1) complex systems – requiring that they negotiate tradeoffs between ecological, social, and economic needs; 2) adaptive systems – giving rise to new social and technological innovations; 3) innovation systems – such that new research can generally only be translated to useable solutions when it can be integrated with existing technologies and local and social norms for a given place and problem; and 4) political systems – because “power is knowledge” and research results are often viewed as supporting some and threatening others, understanding and accepting the political context is key (Clark et al., 2016). To account for these realities, students should be trained to create science that is both useable and used by collaborating and engaging with a range of stakeholders, fostering social learning by prioritizing learning as much as knowing, as well as recognizing how their research is situated within a broader knowledge governance system where social norms and political processes influence how information is produced and decisions are made (Clark et al., 2016).
Novel, innovative solutions may be as important as decision-relevant ones when tackling wicked problems. Innovative solutions arise when scientists believe innovation is appreciated, are given a safe space to discuss ideas without judgement, and are provided with a diverse intellectual community with whom to discuss the ideas further (Anderson and West, 1998). Training leaders to innovate requires exposure to the systems-thinking skills described above and to the detailed complexities of FEWS problems, such as spatio-temporal disconnections between food, energy, and water systems at local to regional scales, as well as being fully fluent in the input/output and tradeoffs of food-energy-water interactions (Helmstedt et al., 2018).
Effecting transformative change in FEWS will require leaders that excel at the five skills listed above. But they must also combine those skills with effective and transformative leadership. Further, that leadership must permeate research, engineering, management, and policy-making. As such, graduate education should seek to provide the skills, knowledge, and competencies to pursue and succeed in a range of STEM careers. Many non-academic employers find that employees straight out of graduate school lack necessary skills for job success (CGS and ETS, 2012). Employer-identified skills for job success include professionalism and work ethic, teamwork and collaboration, critical thinking and problem solving, ethics and social responsibility, oral and written communication, and leadership (TCB, 2006). Only about one-quarter of employers found that 4-year college graduates were proficient in the first four skills, and about one quarter thought graduates were deficient in the last two (TCB, 2006).
Developing leaders ready to tackle difficult FEWS problems from within the varied organizations in which they will make their careers requires a broader view of what graduate education entails (St. Clair et al., 2017). Graduates who enter the workforce with professional and leadership skills are more valuable than employees who must learn these skills on the clock. Indeed, several of the critical skills we highlight above are necessary for transformational leaders — innovation, communication, and engagement; FEWS inherently provides the other key ingredient — conflict (Burns and Rechy, 2004). As such, conflict-resolution skills are another critical element for developing leaders across the career spectrum.
Interdisciplinary, experiential, and career-based training in FEWS transcends the traditional organizational and incentive structure associated with most universities. Thus, institutional change and buy-in is necessary to overall program success (Box 5). Barriers to such change may be 1) structural, such as challenges working across discipline-specific departments, lack of support for interdisciplinary team teaching, or lack of incentives for interdisciplinary or community-based research; 2) cultural, such as biases about specific disciplines, lack of experience with and knowledge about effective interdisciplinary or experiential teaching, or lack of long-term planning to institutionalize the courses and opportunities for altered graduate education; and/or 3) financial, in particular insufficient resources (Blanco-Portela et al., 2018; Coops et al., 2015; Marchesi and Rolls, 2016).
Box 5: Programmatic actions to overcome barriers
The initial nine NRT programs identified the following actions for gaining and growing institutional support for FEWS training programs:
The conventional disciplinary structure of higher education both reinforces and is reinforced by a culture that privileges discipline-specific research (IoM, 2000). Most institutions lack guidelines and incentives for research and training across units including how to navigate disciplinary differences related to publishing, teaching, or team-teaching outside of the faculty’s home unit and co-advising and/or training students from other departments. As noted above, many STEM programs are designed for future academics, and there is a lack of support for experiential-learning or career-planning.
A final barrier specific to interdisciplinary FEWS training is that very few universities have training programs focused on food, energy, and water systems, and new programs must be created from scratch, even when supported by the NSF NRT program. Published literature regarding examples, evidence, and best practices for teaching FEWS is limited. There are few turnkey FEWS training resources available, and nearly all FEWS courses require new preparation by faculty.
Effecting transformative and lasting changes to FEWS requires more than just rethinking graduate education, or even developing a cadre of future leaders. Lasting changes to FEWS will also require a framework to grow and sustain a critical mass of leaders who can drive global change. The next generation of FEWS leaders will need an ecosystem of mentors and peers to foster life-long learning in FEWS and innovation throughout their careers. These needs can be met by developing a FEWS-focused Community of Practice (CoP), which will act as a network of people with a shared passion for FEWS who learn from and support each other through regular interactions (Box 7).
Box 6: Strategic FEWS training from plan to evaluation to outcomes
Beginning with a “Theory of Change”, whereby planning includes a clear statement of objectives and an explicit and detailed explanation of how those objectives will be reached, is an effective means for building a new program. Objectives can be tied directly to core skills, but also to more intangible goals such as whether the new training program is effecting institutional or community change, increased STEM diversity, or the creation of actionable science. A Theory of Change can also provide a framework for a formal assessment plan, linking training activities to intended outcomes through iterative evaluation and program improvement (Figure 2).
Box 7: A budding FEWS Community of Practice
A FEWS-inspired CoP can maximize the return on investment for NSF and FEWS-focused NRTs. The workshop that served as the impetus for this paper kicked off a new FEWS CoP. This budding CoP seeks to share resources for improved interdisciplinary FEWS training as well as create the intellectual and career network for a cadre of new FEWS leaders. Methods for sustaining a FEWS CoP include informal time to build relationships through meet-ups at conferences, with opportunities for students, as well as virtual events through video conferencing and webinars. Developing a CoP will also be advanced by sharing of resources, including infrastructure to house shared datasets and methods toolboxes; coordinated internship opportunities across universities and partnerships; job and funding opportunity lists; teaching materials, case-study examples, and turnkey training modules; alumni-profiles and contacts for career networking; and a publication clearing house. Opportunities for collaboration on proposals, publications, and trainings can also help build, and arise from, a CoP.
Communities of Practice provide ideal landscapes for sharing information and data, disseminating best practices, brainstorming and commenting on new ideas, and identifying existing knowledge and knowledge gaps (Wenger and Snyder, 2000). Within graduate training programs, CoP offer opportunities for universities to leverage their relative strengths, find synergies, and disseminate information across different campuses (Pharo et al., 2014). For example, through a CoP, participating students could select from a suite of FEWS-related workshop modules all of which a single campus could not offer because of limited resources. Sharing of syllabi, FEWS case studies, grading rubrics, and evaluation materials would obviate the necessity of creating new programs from scratch at budget-limited institutions.
Beyond training, CoP can provide a career and support network for innovative FEWS research and leadership. CoPs are essential in supporting interdisciplinary approaches to innovative solutions (Cundill et al., 2015). A FEWS-focused CoP would address the need to move from theory to practice in operationalizing FEWS nexus goals (Leck et al., 2015). A broader-scale CoP can be facilitated through virtual infrastructure, allowing widespread connectivity and participation among members (Ardichvili, 2008). This type of virtual community would provide a place where FEWS leaders at any stage in their career from around the globe could gather not only for mentoring, support, and continuing education, but also to use their collective expertise for solving wicked problems at the FEWS nexus (Mohtar and Lawford, 2016). A broad FEWS-focused CoP may also be better positioned to collaborate and engage with diverse stakeholder communities to identify, analyze, and solve problems (Mohtar and Lawford, 2016). Moreover, because there is the expectation of continued participation in the CoP over time, participants can also create new partnerships for learning and knowledge generation that help grow the CoP and make it self-sustaining (McDonald and Cater-Steel, 2017).
Strategic training of FEWS leaders is needed to produce lasting change in FEWS sustainability. Students who can think in complex systems, thrive in interdisciplinary teams, and communicate effectively with diverse stakeholders and communities will be prepared to connect science to solutions and address wicked problems throughout their careers. Future FEWS leaders must recognize and address the structural, cultural, and financial barriers to achieve these goals. Joining forces across universities, institutions, and stakeholders will enhance this training and create a much-needed FEWS CoP.
The concepts and themes identified in this paper reflect several of the U.S. National Science Foundation’s 10 “Big Ideas”, which focus research investments and address emerging opportunities and challenges (NSF, 2019). For example, the ideas presented here directly address “transforming education and career pathways to help broaden participation in science and engineering.” Indeed, FEWS-issues tend to attract diverse students — from different disciplines, political perspectives, and nationalities — creating a broader research community. Additionally, NSF is committed to “growing convergence research,” recognizing that tackling grand challenges, including those at the nexus of FEWS, requires:
“the merging of ideas, approaches and technologies from widely diverse fields of knowledge to stimulate innovation and discovery…. Convergence builds and supports creative partnerships and the creative thinking needed to address complex problems (NSF, 2019).”
Convergence research will require not only an interdisciplinary, but ultimately a diverse, transdisciplinary community of practice that can envision creative solutions for emergent issues. Innovative graduate training programs, such as NRTs, are essential for preparing a new generation of leaders to tackle present as well as future global challenges. Society demands a new cadre of leaders, and graduate training programs must rise to these demands.
The ideas presented here arise from a 2018 workshop in Missoula, MT where over 100 faculty and trainees from nine institutions came together to develop a Collaborative Vision for Training FEWS Leaders. C. Wyborn of the Luc Hoffman Institute provided indispensable facilitation of the meeting. Reviews by A. Illes, W. Hemker, and one anonymous reviewer greatly improved the clarity of the manuscript.
Support for this work was provided by the National Science Foundation Division of Graduate Education under Grant Nos. 1735235 (Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University; AA), 1633740 (University of California, Berkeley; SK), 1633098 (University of Iowa; AG, RS, DC), and 1633831 (University of Montana; AAW, ACW, LY, KS).
The authors have no competing interests to declare.
Albrecht, TR, Crootof, A and Scott, CA. 2018. The Water-Energy-Food Nexus: A systematic review of methods for nexus assessment. Environ Res Lett 13(4): 043002. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/aaa9c6
Anderson, NR and West, MA. 1998. Measuring climate for work group innovation: development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior 19(3): 235–258. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199805)19:3<235::AID-JOB837>3.0.CO;2-C
Ardichvili, A. 2008. Learning and Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Communities of Practice: Motivators, Barriers, and Enablers. Advances in Developing Human Resources 10(4): 541–554. DOI: 10.1177/1523422308319536
Ballew, MT, Goldberg, MH, Rosenthal, SA, Gustafson, A and Leiserowitz, A. 2019. Systems thinking as a pathway to global warming beliefs and attitudes through an ecological worldview. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 116(17): 8214–8219. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1819310116
Baron, N. 2010. Escape from the Ivory Tower: A Guide to Making Your Science Matter . 1 edition. Island Press. Available at https://islandpress.org/books/escape-ivory-tower.
Bawden, RJ. 1991. Systems Thinking and Practice in Agriculture1. J Dairy Sci 74(7): 2362–2373. DOI: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78410-5
Bazilian, M, Rogner, H, Howells, M, Hermann, S, Arent, D, Gielen, D, Steduto, P, Mueller, A, Komor, P, Tol, RSJ and Yumkella, KK. 2011. Considering the energy, water and food nexus: Towards an integrated modelling approach. Energy Policy 39(12): 7896–7906. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.09.039
Beier, P, Hansen, LJ, Helbrecht, L and Behar, D. 2017. A How-to Guide for Coproduction of Actionable Science: Coproducing actionable science. Conservation Letters 10(3): 288–296. DOI: 10.1111/conl.12300
Blanco-Portela, N, Pertierra, L, Benayas, J and Lozano, R. 2018. Sustainability Leaders’ Perceptions on the Drivers for and the Barriers to the Integration of Sustainability in Latin American Higher Education Institutions. Sustain Sci Pract Policy 10(8): 2954. DOI: 10.3390/su10082954
Blewitt, J. 2010. Higher education for a sustainable world. Education + Training 52(6/7): 477–488. DOI: 10.1108/00400911011068432
Borrego, M and Newswander, LK. 2010. Definitions of Interdisciplinary Research: Toward Graduate-Level Interdisciplinary Learning Outcomes. The Review of Higher Education 34(1): 61–84. DOI: 10.1353/rhe.2010.0006
Bosque-Pérez, NA, Klos, PZ, Force, JE, Waits, LP, Cleary, K, Rhoades, P, Galbraith, SM, Brymer, ALB, O’Rourke, M, Eigenbrode, SD, Finegan, B, Wulfhorst, JD, Sibelet, N and Holbrook, J. 2016. A Pedagogical Model for Team-Based, Problem-Focused Interdisciplinary Doctoral Education. Bioscience 66(6): 477–488. DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biw042
Briske, DD, Joyce, LA, Polley, HW, Brown, JR, Wolter, K, Morgan, JA, McCarl, BA and Bailey, DW. 2015. Climate-change adaptation on rangelands: linking regional exposure with diverse adaptive capacity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 13(5): 249–256. DOI: 10.1890/140266
Brossard, D and Scheufele, DA. 2013. Social science. Science, new media, and the public. Science 339(6115): 40–41. DOI: 10.1126/science.1232329
Buckle Henning, P and Chen, W-C. 2012. Systems Thinking: Common Ground or Untapped Territory? Syst Res 29(5): 470–483. DOI: 10.1002/sres.2155
Burns, JM and Rechy, J. 2004. Transforming Leadership: A New Pursuit of Happiness . Grove Press.
Caves, J, Bodner, G, Simms, K, Fisher, L and Robertson, T. 2013. Integrating Collaboration, Adaptive Management, and Scenario-Planning: Experiences at Las Cienegas National Conservation Area. Ecol Soc 18(3). DOI: 10.5751/ES-05749-180343
CGS (Council of Graduate Schools), ETS (Educational Testing Service). 2012. Pathways Through Graduate School and Into Careers. Educational Testing Service . Report No.: Report from the Commission on Pathways Through Graduate School and Into Careers. Available at http://pathwaysreport.org/rsc/pdf/19089_PathwaysRept_Links.pdf.
Choi, BCK and Pak, AWP. 2006. Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clin Invest Med 29(6): 351–364.
Clark, WC, van Kerkhoff, L, Lebel, L and Gallopin, GC. 2016. Crafting usable knowledge for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113(17): 4570–4578. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1601266113
Collins, K and Ison, R. 2009. Jumping off Arnstein’s ladder: social learning as a new policy paradigm for climate change adaptation. Env Pol Gov 19(6): 358–373. DOI: 10.1002/eet.523
Committee on the Science of Team Science, Board on Behavioral C and Sensory Sciences, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. 2015. 5, Professional Development and Education for Team Science. In: Cooke, NJ and Hilton, ML (eds.), Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science . National Academies Press (US). Available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK310380/.
Conley, SN, Foley, RW, Gorman, ME, Denham, J and Coleman, K. 2017. Acquisition of T-shaped expertise: an exploratory study. Social Epistemology 31(2): 165–183. DOI: 10.1080/02691728.2016.1249435
Cook, CN, Mascia, MB, Schwartz, MW, Possingham, HP and Fuller, RA. 2013. Achieving Conservation Science that Bridges the Knowledge-Action Boundary: Achieving Effective Conservation Science. Conserv Biol 27(4): 669–678. DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12050
Cooke, SJ, Gallagher, AJ, Sopinka, NM, Nguyen, VM, Skubel, RA, Hammerschlag, N, Boon, S, Young, N, Danylchuk, AJ. 2017. Considerations for effective science communication. FACETS 2(1): 233–248. DOI: 10.1139/facets-2016-0055
Coops, NC, Marcus, J, Construt, I, Frank, E, Kellett, R, Mazzi, E, Munro, A, Nesbit, S, Riseman, A, Robinson, J, Schultz, A and Sipos, Y. 2015. How an entry-level, interdisciplinary sustainability course revealed the benefits and challenges of a university-wide initiative for sustainability education. Int J Sustainability Higher Educ 16(5): 729–747. DOI: 10.1108/IJSHE-04-2014-0059
Costley, C and Pizzolato, N. 2017. Transdisciplinary qualities in practice doctorates. Studies in Continuing Education 1: 1–16. DOI: 10.1080/0158037X.2017.1394287
Cundill, G, Roux, D and Parker, J. 2015. Nurturing communities of practice for transdisciplinary research. Ecol Soc 20(2). DOI: 10.5751/ES-07580-200222
Dahlstrom, MF. 2014. Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111(Suppl 4): 13614–13620. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1320645111
Dawidowicz, P. 2012. The person on the street’s understanding of systems thinking. Syst Res 29(1): 2–13. DOI: 10.1002/sres.1094
Dixon, G, Hmielowski, J and Ma, Y. 2017. Improving Climate Change Acceptance Among U.S. Conservatives Through Value-Based Message Targeting. Sci Commun 39(4): 520–534. DOI: 10.1177/1075547017715473
D’Odorico, P, Davis, KF, Rosa, L, Carr, JA, Chiarelli, D, Dell’Angelo, J, Gephart, J, MacDonald, GK, Seekell, DA, Suweis, S and Rulli, MC. 2018. The Global Food-Energy-Water Nexus. Rev Geophys 56(3): 456–531. DOI: 10.1029/2017RG000591
Donner, SD and Kucharik, CJ. 2008. Corn-based ethanol production compromises goal of reducing nitrogen export by the Mississippi River. PNAS 105(11): 4513–4518. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0708300105
Dudo, A and Besley, JC. 2016. Scientists’ Prioritization of Communication Objectives for Public Engagement. PLoS One 11(2): e0148867. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148867
Evans, J, Jones, R, Karvonen, A, Millard, L and Wendler, J. 2015. Living labs and co-production: university campuses as platforms for sustainability science. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 16: 1–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.005
Eveland, WP, Jr and Cooper, KE. 2013. An integrated model of communication influence on beliefs. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110(Suppl 3): 14088–14095. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1212742110
Fiksel, J. 2006. Sustainability and resilience: toward a systems approach. Sustain Sci Pract Policy 2(2): 14–21. DOI: 10.1080/15487733.2006.11907980
Fischhoff, B and Scheufele, DA. 2013. The science of science communication. Introduction. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110(Suppl 3): 14031–14032. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1312080110
Fiske, ST and Dupree, C. 2014. Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111(Suppl 4): 13593–13597. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1317505111
Friedman, SM, Dunwoody, S and Rogers, CL. (eds.) 2012. Communicating Uncertainty . 0 ed. Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781410601360
Garcia, DJ and You, F. 2016. The water-energy-food nexus and process systems engineering: A new focus. Comput Chem Eng 91: 49–67. DOI: 10.1016/j.compchemeng.2016.03.003
Garnett, ST, Crowley, GM, Hunter-Xenie, H, Kozanayi, W, Sithole, B, Palmer, C, Southgate, R and Zander, KK. 2009. Transformative Knowledge Transfer Through Empowering and Paying Community Researchers. Biotropica 41(5): 571–577. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2009.00558.x
Goolsby, DA, Battaglin, WA, Aulenbach, BT and Hooper, RP. 2000. Nitrogen flux and sources in the Mississippi River Basin. Science of The Total Environment 248(2): 75–86. DOI: 10.1016/S0048-9697(99)00532-X
Gropp, RE. 2018. Preparing Graduate Students for Success. Bioscience 68(7): 471–471. DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biy079
Gunda, T and Tidwell, VC. 2019. A Uniform Practice for Conceptualizing and Communicating Food-Energy-Water Nexus Studies. Earth’s Future 13: 133. DOI: 10.1029/2019EF001150
Hall, KL, Vogel, AL, Huang, GC, Serrano, KJ, Rice, EL, Tsakraklides, SP and Fiore, SM. 2018. The science of team science: A review of the empirical evidence and research gaps on collaboration in science. Am Psychol 73(4): 532–548. DOI: 10.1037/amp0000319
Hall, KL, Vogel, AL, Stipelman, B, Stokols, D, Morgan, G and Gehlert, S. 2012. A Four-Phase Model of Transdisciplinary Team-Based Research: Goals, Team Processes, and Strategies. Transl Behav Med 2(4): 415–430. DOI: 10.1007/s13142-012-0167-y
Hancock, S and Walsh, E. 2016. Beyond knowledge and skills: rethinking the development of professional identity during the STEM doctorate. Studies in Higher Education 41(1): 37–50. DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2014.915301
Harris, J, Brown, VA and Russell, J. 2010. Tackling Wicked Problems: Through the Transdisciplinary Imagination . Taylor & Francis. Available at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19390459.2011.604553. DOI: 10.4324/9781849776530
Helmstedt, KJ, Stokes-Draut, JR, Larsen, AE and Potts, MD. 2018. Innovating at the food, water, and energy interface. J Environ Manage 209: 17–22. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.12.026
IoM (Institute of Medicine). 2000. 3. Barriers to Interdisciplinary Research and Training. In: Pellmar, TC and Eisenberg, L (eds.), Bridging Disciplines in the Brain, Behavioral, and Clinical Sciences . National Academies Press (US). Available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44876/.
Irwin, EG, Culligan, PJ, Fischer-Kowalski, M, Law, KL, Murtugudde, R and Pfirman, S. 2018. Bridging barriers to advance global sustainability. Nature Sustainability 1(7): 324–326. DOI: 10.1038/s41893-018-0085-1
Jamieson, KH, Kahan, D and Scheufele, DA. (eds.) 2017. The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication (Oxford Library of Psychology) . 1 edition. Oxford University Press. Available at https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190497620.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780190497620. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190497620.001.0001
Johnson, TL, Bielicki, JM, Dodder, RS, Hilliard, MR, Kaplan, PO and Miller, CA. 2013. Advancing sustainable bioenergy: evolving stakeholder interests and the relevance of research. Environ Manage 51(2): 339–353. DOI: 10.1007/s00267-012-9884-8
Jolibert, C and Wesselink, A. 2012. Research impacts and impact on research in biodiversity conservation: The influence of stakeholder engagement. Environ Sci Policy 22: 100–111. DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.06.012
Jones, CS, Drake, CW, Hruby, CE, Schilling, KE and Wolter, CF. 2019. Livestock manure driving stream nitrate. Ambio 48(1143). DOI: 10.1007/s13280-018-1137-5
Jones, CS, Nielsen, JK, Schilling, KE and Weber, LJ. 2018. Iowa stream nitrate and the Gulf of Mexico. PLOS ONE 13(4): e0195930. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195930
Jones, K, Magliocca, NR and Hondula, K. 2017. An Overview of Conceptual Frameworks, Analytical Approaches, and Research Questions in the Food-Energy-Water Nexus. DOI: 10.13016/M2BK10
Kearns, FR. 2012. From science communication to relationship-building: contemplative practice and community engagement in the environmental sciences. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 2(3): 275–277. DOI: 10.1007/s13412-012-0083-y
Klahr, D. 2013. What do we mean? On the importance of not abandoning scientific rigor when talking about science education. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110(Suppl 3): 14075–14080. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1212738110
Lautz, LK, McCay, DH, Driscoll, CT, Glass, RL, Gutchess, KM, Johnson, AJ and Millard, GD. 2018. Aug 20. Preparing Graduate Students for STEM Careers Outside Academia. Eos 99. DOI: 10.1029/2018EO101599
Leck, H, Conway, D, Bradshaw, M and Rees, J. 2015. Tracing the Water–Energy–Food Nexus: Description, Theory and Practice. Geography Compass 9(8): 445–460. DOI: 10.1111/gec3.12222
Ledford, H. 2015. How to solve the world’s biggest problems. Nature 525(7569): 308–311. DOI: 10.1038/525308a
Leischow, SJ, Best, A, Trochim, WM, Clark, PI, Gallagher, RS, Marcus, SE and Matthews, E. 2008. Systems thinking to improve the public’s health. Am J Prev Med 35(2 Suppl): S196–203. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.014
Lezak, SB and Thibodeau, PH. 2016. Systems thinking and environmental concern. J Environ Psychol 46: 143–153. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.04.005
Marchesi, M and Rolls, N. 2016. Overcoming institutional barriers to interdisciplinary education for sustainability. 2016. Proceedings of the 16th International Australasian Campuses Towards Sustainability (ACTS) Conference. Available at https://www.acts.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2016ACTSCONF_Overcoming-barriers-to-interdisciplinary-sustainability.pdf.
Martin, S. 2005. Sustainability, Systems Thinking and Professional Practice. Systemic Practice and Action Research 18(2): 163–171. DOI: 10.1007/s11213-005-4156-7
McDonald, J and Cater-Steel, A. (eds.) 2017. Implementing Communities of Practice in Higher Education: Dreamers and Schemers . 1st ed. Singapore: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-10-2866-3
McInerny, GJ, Chen, M, Freeman, R, Gavaghan, D, Meyer, M, Rowland, F, Spiegelhalter, DJ, Stefaner, M, Tessarolo, G and Hortal, J. 2014. Information visualisation for science and policy: engaging users and avoiding bias. Trends Ecol Evol 29(3): 148–157. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2014.01.003
Mercer-Mapstone, L and Kuchel, L. 2017. Core Skills for Effective Science Communication: A Teaching Resource for Undergraduate Science Education. International Journal of Science Education, Part B 7(2): 181–201. DOI: 10.1080/21548455.2015.1113573
Miller, TR, Wiek, A, Sarewitz, D, Robinson, J, Olsson, L, Kriebel, D and Loorbach, D. 2014. The future of sustainability science: a solutions-oriented research agenda. Sustainability Sci 9(2): 239–246. DOI: 10.1007/s11625-013-0224-6
Mohtar, RH and Lawford, R. 2016. Present and future of the water-energy-food nexus and the role of the community of practice. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 6(1): 192–199. DOI: 10.1007/s13412-016-0378-5
NAS (National Academy of Sciences), NAE (National Academy of Engineering), IoM (Institute of Medicine). 2005. Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. DOI: 10.17226/11153
NASEM (National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine). 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. DOI: 10.17226/23674
NASEM (National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine). 2018. Graduate STEM Education for the 21st Century . Leshner, A and Scherer, L (eds.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. DOI: 10.17226/25038
Neck, HM and Greene, PG. 2011. Entrepreneurship Education: Known Worlds and New Frontiers. J Small Bus Manage 49(1): 55–70. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-627X.2010.00314.x
Nielsen-Pincus, M, Morse, WC, Force, JE and Wulfhorst, JD. 2007. Bridges and barriers to developing and conducting interdisciplinary graduate-student team research. Ecology & Society 12(2): 1–14. DOI: 10.5751/ES-02082-120208
NRC (National Research Council). 2012. Science for Environmental Protection: The Road Ahead . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. DOI: 10.17226/13510
NSB (National Science Board). 2014. Revisiting the STEM Workforce: A Companion to Science and Engineering Indicators 2014 (NSB-2015-10). National Science Board . Available at https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2015/nsb201510/nsb201510.pdf.
NSF (National Science Foundation). 2018. 2016 Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities. National Science Foundation . Available at https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsf18304/static/report/nsf18304-report.pdf.
NSF (National Science Foundation). 2019. NSF’s 10 Big Ideas – Special Report. Available at https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/big_ideas/.
Pharo, E, Davison, A, McGregor, H, Warr, K and Brown, P. 2014. Using communities of practice to enhance interdisciplinary teaching: lessons from four Australian institutions. Higher Education Research and Development 33(2). DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2013.832168
Phillipson, J, Lowe, P, Proctor, A and Ruto, E. 2012. Stakeholder engagement and knowledge exchange in environmental research. J Environ Manage 95(1): 56–65. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.10.005
Pielke, RA. 2007. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics . Cambridge University Press. Available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/honest-broker/A41AD4D7D14077165807DBE057B5FAF9.
Priest, S, Goodwin, J and Dahlstrom, MF. 2018. Ethics and Practice in Science Communication . University of Chicago Press. Available at https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/E/bo27760792.html. DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226497952.001.0001
Randle, JM and Stroink, ML. 2018. The Development and Initial Validation of the Paradigm of Systems Thinking: Development and Validation of Systems Thinking. Syst Res 35(6): 645–657. DOI: 10.1002/sres.2508
Reed, M, Evely, A, Cundill, G, Fazey, I, Glass, J, Laing, A, Newig, J, Parrish, B, Prell, C, Raymond, C and Stringer, L. 2010. What is social learning? Ecol Soc 15(4). DOI: 10.5751/ES-03564-1504r01
Reed, M, Vella, S, Challies, E, de Vente, J, Frewer, L, Hohenwallner-Ries, D, Huber, T, Neumann, RK, Oughton, EA, Sidoli del Ceno, J and van Delden, H. 2018. A theory of participation: what makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work? Restor Ecol 26: S7–S17. DOI: 10.1111/rec.12541
Rittel, HWJ and Webber, MM. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4(2): 155–169. DOI: 10.1007/BF01405730
Rodríguez, LF, Marshall, A-M, Cotton, D, Koelsch, R, Koziel, J, Meyer, D, Steward, D, Heemstra, J, Padmanabahn, A, Classen, J, Meyer, NJ, Ruddell, BL, Ryan, SM, Cai, X, Habib, E and Saundry, PD. 2019. The Development of the INFEWS-ER: A Virtual Resource Center for Transdisciplinary Graduate Student Training at the Nexus of Food, Energy, and Water. Front Environ Sci Eng China 7: 38. DOI: 10.3389/fenvs.2019.00038
Rose, DC, Sutherland, WJ, Amano, T, González-Varo, JP, Robertson, RJ, Simmons, BI, Wauchope, HS, Kovacs, E, Durán, AP, Vadrot, ABM, Wu, W, Dias, MP, Di Fonzo, MMI, Ivory, S, Norris, L, Nunes, MH, Nyumba, TO, Steiner, N, Vickery, J and Mukherjee, N. 2018. The major barriers to evidence-informed conservation policy and possible solutions. Conserv Lett 11(5): e12564. DOI: 10.1111/conl.12564
Schoonover, H, Grêt-Regamey, A, Metzger, M, Ruiz-Frau, A, Santos-Reis, M, Scholte, S, Walz, A and Nicholas, K. 2019. Creating space, aligning motivations, and building trust: a practical framework for stakeholder engagement based on experience in 12 ecosystem services case studies. Ecol Soc 24(1). DOI: 10.5751/ES-10061-240111
Simis, MJ, Madden, H, Cacciatore, MA and Yeo, SK. 2016. The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication? Public Underst Sci 25(4): 400–414. DOI: 10.1177/0963662516629749
Smith, B, Baron, N, English, C, Galindo, H, Goldman, E, McLeod, K, Miner, M and Neeley, E. 2013. COMPASS: navigating the rules of scientific engagement. PLoS Biol 11(4): e1001552. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001552
St. Clair, R, Hutto, T, MacBeth, C, Newstetter, W, McCarty, NA and Melkers, J. 2017. The “new normal”: Adapting doctoral trainee career preparation for broad career paths in science. PLoS One 12(5): e0177035. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177035
Sterman, JD. 2010. Does formal system dynamics training improve people’s understanding of accumulation? Syst Dyn Rev 26(4): 316–334. DOI: 10.1002/sdr.447
Talley, J, Schneider, J and Lindquist, E. 2016. A simplified approach to stakeholder engagement in natural resource management: the Five-Feature Framework. Ecol Soc 21(4). DOI: 10.5751/ES-08830-210438
TCB (The Conference Board). 2006. Are They Really Ready to Work? Consortium for Workforce Readiness. Available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED519465.pdf.
Thornton, PK, Ericksen, PJ, Herrero, M and Challinor, AJ. 2014. Climate variability and vulnerability to climate change: a review. Global Change Biology 20(11): 3313–3328. DOI: 10.1111/gcb.12581
Thorp, H and Goldstein, B. 2013. Engines of Innovation: The Entrepreneurial University in the Twenty-First Century . Second edition. The University of North Carolina Press. Available at https://www.uncpress.org/book/9781469609843/engines-of-innovation/.
Turner, RE and Rabalais, NN. 1994. Coastal eutrophication near the Mississippi river delta. Nature 368(6472): 619–621. DOI: 10.1038/368619a0
Uzzi, B, Mukherjee, S, Stringer, M and Jones, B. 2013. Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science 342(6157): 468–472. DOI: 10.1126/science.1240474
Wang, J, Thijs, B and Glänzel, W. 2015. Interdisciplinarity and impact: distinct effects of variety, balance, and disparity. PLoS One 10(5): e0127298. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127298
Weiss, CH. 1995. Nothing as Practical as Good Theory: Exploring Theory-Based Evaluation for Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families. In: New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives . Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
Wenger, EC and Snyder, WM. 2000. Communities of Practice: The Organizational Frontier. Harvard Business Review . Available at https://hbr.org/2000/01/communities-of-practice-the-organizational-frontier.
Winowiecki, L, Smukler, S, Shirley, K, Remans, R, Peltier, G, Lothes, E, King, E, Comita, L, Baptista, S and Alkema, L. 2011. Tools for enhancing interdisciplinary communication. Sustain Sci Pract Policy 7(1): 74–80. DOI: 10.1080/15487733.2011.11908067
Wyborn, C, Datta, A, Montana, J, Ryan, M, Leith, P, Chaffin, B, Miller, C and van Kerkhoff, L. 2019. Co-Producing Sustainability: Reordering the Governance of Science, Policy, and Practice. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 44(1). DOI: 10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033103
Yung, L, Phear, N, DuPont, A, Montag, J and Murphy, D. 2015. Drought Adaptation and Climate Change Beliefs among Working Ranchers in Montana. Wea Climate Soc 7(4): 281–293. DOI: 10.1175/WCAS-D-14-00039.1