Breaking the cycle of limited time and financial support for ECRs to upskill in diverse research disciplines is crucial for fostering innovation and adaptability in academia. One solution involves providing scholarships and grants for PhD candidates to pursue formal training in new fields, allocating dedicated time during their candidature for this purpose. Embracing a model akin to industry accreditation programs that mandate continual professional development hours could be implemented for ECRs. This might entail including time in their contracts for skill development or providing a leave allowance for professional development. Additionally, time allowances could be made for ECRs to sit in on lectures held at their hosting institute to upskill in different fields. Many research institutions offer discipline specific courses such as field-specific statistics, hypothesis testing, grant writing, or programming, but here we are suggesting that courses be made available to ECRs in disciplines outside of their core area of expertise. The evolving landscape of academia, marked by the rise of double degrees, industry partnerships, placements, academic consultancy, and non-academic research institutes is reshaping how transdisciplinary research is perceived and supported.

ECRs can benefit greatly from mentorship, especially when coming from under-represented or marginalised groups (Gardiner et al., 2007; Ransdell et al., 2021). Given that transdisciplinary research has not been as prominent in traditional academia, and therefore senior transdisciplinary mentors may not exist, it is important that ECRs ‘pave the way’ for postgraduates and emerging postdoctoral research fellows by taking on mentorship roles where possible (Merga and Mason, 2021). While little can be done to bridge the transdisciplinary gap between ECRs and senior academics, positive peer relationships can foster increased research outputs and thus career success (Merga and Mason, 2021). It is also important for supervisors with more ‘siloed’ research skills to recognise when they cannot provide the full spectrum of skills required for transdisciplinary ECRs, and instead connect them to mentors in other disciplines

There is an opportunity for transdisciplinary researchers to translate research between fields, allowing single-field experts to understand and utilise research not previously available to them. For example, Twomey et al. (2022) published a paper highlighting how seagrass interacts with waves and sediment to reduce/cause erosion. While this is obvious for coastal engineers, the authors broke down the equations and explained in detail (using figures) how these coastal dynamics evolve for a non-engineering audience, typically ecologists, environmentalists, and managers. While this can be viewed as ‘reinventing the wheel’, novel conclusions can still be drawn when explaining the implications of the synthesised science for a new field. We suggest that ECRs embrace a translational approach by breaking down complex field-specific knowledge so that it may be utilized by broader audiences. Journal editors could encourage and facilitate transdisciplinary contributions by inviting papers that translate key concepts for different fields. Additionally, special issues or research topics could be developed that highlight transdisciplinary research.

We cannot change the entire metrics of success across fields overnight, however, the development of novel classifications for transdisciplinary research is vital to distinguish these researchers from traditional single-discipline experts. In Australia, all publicly funded science is classified into unique ‘Field of Research’ or FoR codes. However, the onus is often on the researcher to select the appropriate FoR codes in grant applications, despite their research being less or not-at-all specific to any pre-existing FoR codes, which are then critically evaluated by reviewers. The lack of direct alignment of transdisciplinary research to research codes can therefore be a detriment during grant selection. For example, the research of AT can be placed into with ‘Ecological Applications, ‘Environmental Engineering’, ‘Other Engineering’, and ‘Oceanography’, yet these do not encapsulate the work of an ‘Ecological Coastal Engineer’. Similarly, the terms ‘Climate change science’ and ‘Econometrics’, ‘Climate change impacts and adaptation’, all describe the research of MK, while any term individually does not offer a comprehensive description. To mediate this, past work has developed simple methods of identifying transdisciplinary research (see Kiatkoski Kim et al. (2022)), but such tools have yet to be widely adopted.

In addition, when finding reviewers for transdisciplinary grants it can be very difficult to find personnel with the right mix of expertise. For example, one reviewer might be able to review an ‘engineering’ project but not understand the ‘ecology’. Whereas another reviewer could be an ecologist with no engineering knowledge. Both reviewers might fail to grasp the topic and give the grant a low score, regardless of its actual merit. Therefore, we need reviewers to understand that there are no FoR codes that encapsulate the expertise of transdisciplinary ECRs, especially when we are often required to only provide three FoR codes to describe our position.

Addressing the lack of clear career paths and senior academic positions within transdisciplinary research requires multiple changes to traditional institutional structures. Firstly, establishing departments or research centres specifically aimed at transdisciplinary research and collaboration would highlight the importance of transdisciplinary studies and foster a greater sense of collaboration and mentorship within conservation science. Creating tenure-track positions specifically aimed at transdisciplinary scholars within these structures may also help incentivize this type of research and would deliver mentoring pathways for ECRs and HDR students alike. Additionally, revising promotion and tenure criteria to value and reward collaborative, cross-disciplinary work is crucial. This could be achieved through a greater recognition of the challenges in publishing transdisciplinary research within the ‘research opportunity’ and ‘performance evidence’ sections of promotion applications. Finally, establishing funding initiatives and grants specifically for transdisciplinary research projects and collaborations would further encourage researchers to explore and be exposed to diverse fields. Grant assessments often lack transparency, and it is unfair for proposals to be rejected because assessors’ area of expertise do not align with all of the disciplines in the proposal. Aligning assessors’ expertise with the specific disciplines in the grant and publicly reporting their areas of expertise in the feedback could help address this issue. By removing and altering these structural barriers for transdisciplinary science, universities would be providing a more supportive ecosystem that acknowledges and values transdisciplinary contributions to conservation science. In turn, universities that provide strong research environments benefit from opening the gate to industry funding and student placement opportunities that are more common in transdisciplinary research than in single-discipline, blue-skies fields (Scholz, 2020).

While transdisciplinary ECRs are already recognised for their valuable contributions by industry (Scholz, 2020), academic employers need to consider metrics other than traditional research outputs (citation count, h-index, prestigious grants) when assessing candidates for postdoctoral positions. Frequently, the outputs of transdisciplinary ECRs extend beyond conventional academic metrics, emphasising practical applications and real-world relevance (Belcher et al., 2016). It is also important to note research outputs from non-academic organizations or co-authors have been shown to frequently not be recognised by large scientific databases such as Web of Science (Koier and Horlings, 2015). To better appreciate the value of research, particularly in applied conservation, academic institutions may need to shift their focus from prestige-centric metrics to those reflecting the tangible and meaningful impacts achieved by transdisciplinary scholars. Future metrics that better encapsulate the quality of transdisciplinary research may be focused on relevance, credibility, legitimacy and effectiveness as has been outlined in proposed assessment frameworks (Belcher et al., 2016).

Addressing the lack of trust between fields in transdisciplinary research involves proactive measures to bridge communication gaps and foster mutual understanding. To overcome disciplinary language barriers, initiatives such as interdisciplinary training programs or workshops can be implemented, encouraging researchers from different fields to engage in shared learning experiences. Establishing interdisciplinary teams early in the research process, comprising experts from diverse backgrounds, can help build trust through collaborative problem-solving. Between academia and stakeholders, participatory workshops and co-participation can help nurture trust and thus produce more effective conservation solutions that bridge science and traditional ecological knowledge (Turnhout et al., 2020; De La Rosa et al., 2024). However, power asymmetries must be considered and mitigated (Kareem et al., 2022; Strumińska-Kutra and Scholl, 2022; De La Rosa et al., 2024). Finally, creating platforms for regular and open communication and collaboration, such as interdisciplinary seminars or conferences, allows researchers and stakeholders to exchange ideas and build familiarity with each other’s perspectives (Kareem et al., 2022).

Transdisciplinary researchers must balance the perspectives on risk observed by the two (or more) fields and manage them effectively across fields (Section “Ecological engineering”). Here, we are referring to ‘on the ground projects’ such as infrastructure development or restoration projects, and ‘risk’ refers to the ‘risk of project failure’ that may be associated with environmental, societal, financial or reputational losses. Different stakeholders on a project will have different tolerable levels of risk. Improving the integration of diverse perspectives and approaches, especially when dealing with risk and uncertainty in conservation or restoration projects, requires a collaborative and inclusive framework. In coastal restoration for example, establishing transdisciplinary project teams that include social scientists, ecologists, and engineers both from academic and non-academic backgrounds can facilitate a holistic understanding of the challenges and potential solutions. Developing standardized risk assessment protocols that incorporate input from all disciplines involved can help align expectations.

Academic engineers who have worked in consultancy typically have a solid understanding of how to ‘get projects done’ and can leverage this knowledge to improve the likelihood of ecological and environmental projects getting ‘over the line’. For example, coastal engineering projects typically have anthropocentric goals, such as reducing flooding and erosion in coastal communities, while coastal ecology projects often aim to advance eco-centric goals such as conserving biodiversity (Mitsch, 2014). Merging coastal engineering and coastal ecology into the transdisciplinary role of an Ecological Engineer allows the ECR to progress an ecological project through the delivery of coastal engineering objectives. Ecological engineering not only bridges the engineering-science divide (Dunlop et al., 2023), but by combining industry project know-how with good ecological research often fills the gap to produce impactful research through project delivery.

The processes of climate change are firmly rooted within the natural sciences (Arias et al., 2021) and yet, climate change is the result of one of the largest-scale market failures (Stern, 2007) and has numerous implications across different economic sectors (Carleton and Hsiang, 2016). As such, climate change is inherently a transdisciplinary topic which is increasingly demanding transdisciplinary approaches, for example to evaluate the economic consequences of physical climate impacts and their policy implications (Burke et al., 2016). Attempts from separate disciplines to address such transdisciplinary questions often mis-apply or mis-interpret methods from across the disciplinary-divide (Auffhammer et al., 2013), but ECRs in this area can strongly benefit from both physical climate science and economics. In particular, opportunities to bridge perspectives and methods, while identifying unique research questions can bring high-impact research outcomes and assist in career progression. Moreover, demand for information on climate risks is rising within institutional bodies and the private sector, presenting unique opportunities for those able to translate the physical risks of climate change into the language of economics. For example, collaboration between climate scientists and the European Central Bank brought access to new data, methods, perspectives and unique opportunities for the dissemination of research outcomes when assessing the impact of heat extremes on food inflation (Kotz et al., 2023).

Environmental managers work at the intersection of complex social and ecological systems to find solutions with positive outcomes for people and nature. For instance, managing the global impacts of mining is critical to sustainable development and a clean energy future (Ali et al., 2017). However, in recent years, the mining industry has become far less attractive to young people (Abenov et al., 2023). Environmental management researchers who work with the mining industry have an opportunity to have real-world conservation impacts, considering that over half of the world’s mining projects remain undocumented (Maus and Werner, 2024), new mines for clean energy threaten biodiversity (Sonter et al., 2020), and the first deep-sea mining operations could begin this decade (Hyman et al., 2022). Early career researchers, especially those with experience in both mining engineering and environmental sciences, have a unique opportunity to inform ecologically responsible measures to avoid, minimise, restore, and offset the impacts of the current and future mines (Sonter et al., 2023). Interdisciplinary research efforts could transform the future trajectory of the mining industry to re-balance the sustainable use and conservation of natural resources.

The core of conservation actions and interventions is almost always the environment. Focusing solely on the environment, without looking deeper into the needs of the community surrounding it, can create public backlash against conservation policies and limit their effectiveness (Turnhout et al., 2020). Following the concepts of total economic value (Plottu and Plottu, 2007) and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (McLeod, 2007), individuals are more likely to care for the environment when their core needs are fulfilled. Merging management efforts with a focus on the social aspect of conservation can greatly benefit conservation impact and provide more socially robust programmes (Turnhout et al., 2020), as the focus then becomes more about how protection of the environment can contribute (or become an incentive) to fulfilling these core needs. Only then will communities care to protect their surrounding environments. This in turn changes human-environment interactions from one of exploitation to stewardship, as it would be more beneficial to protect the environment than to exploit it. Ignoring the social aspect of conservation management, such as through blanket bans, is generally ineffective (Cooney and Jepson, 2006), and wildlife protection can cause backlash (Indraswari et al., 2020; DeMotts and Hoon, 2012), while proper implementation can create beneficial impacts. Proper management remains essential. Communities often are more willing to protect an area when there are clear benefits to wildlife protection (Tisdell and Wilson, 2002) and environmental protection (Marlina and Astina, 2020).