By Gabriele Bammer
As more and more researchers, educators, universities and research organisations, funders, and policy makers become interested in interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity, the demand for clear unequivocal definitions of these terms grows. Why is agreeing on such definitions so hard? And what’s the way forward?
The late Julie Thompson Klein’s work tracking typologies of interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity over time (Klein, 2017) is revealing and provides the basis for this i2Insights contribution.
Klein pointed out that in the latter half of the twentieth century, the classification of the Western intellectual tradition “into specialized domains within a larger system of disciplinarity” was “supplemented and challenged” by an increasing number of activities that involved disciplinary interactions. The terms interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity were part of the first major classification of these disciplinary interactions in 1970.
Various typologies of these terms have followed, using different ways of classifying activities that involve disciplinary interactions. As Klein pointed out “[t]ypologies are neither neutral nor static” and their construction involves political decisions about what is included and excluded, the groupings that are made, “and how narrow or wide the field of vision is in a spectrum ranging from small academic projects to society at large.”
Here I provide a brief summary of Klein’s review of typologies and their links to understandings of interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity. The different types of interdisciplinarity presented each include varying numbers of typologies, described in more detail by Klein, whereas the review of transdisciplinarity can be seen as a useful typology in itself. I then seek to open up an exploration of what this means for defining interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity.
Interdisciplinarity
Klein described five major ways in which interdisciplinarity has been explored.
1. Scope, which can range “from narrow to wide or broad ID [interdisciplinarity] depending on the number of disciplines involved and the compatibility of epistemological paradigms and methodologies.”
2. Methodological transdisciplinarity [this should be interdisciplinarity – mistake noted on 28 May 2025] involves the borrowing of a method or concept from another discipline, to “test a hypothesis, to answer a research question, or to help develop a theory.”
3. Theoretical interdisciplinarity “connotes a more comprehensive general view and epistemological form embodied in creating conceptual frameworks for analyzing particular problems, integrating propositions across disciplines, and synthesizing continuities between models and analogies.” It tends to be used when “[c]ore issues and questions lack a compelling disciplinary basis, and critique of disciplinary understanding is often implied.”
4. Another form of exploration is bridge building versus restructuring. “Bridge building occurs between complete and firm disciplines, while restructuring detaches parts of several disciplines to form a new coherent whole” (often the formation of a new interdisciplinary field). “A third possibility occurs when a new overarching concept or theory subsumes theories and concepts of several disciplines… .”
5. Instrumental versus critical is the final aspect of interdisciplinarity Klein covered. “Methodological ID [interdisciplinarity] is “instrumental” in serving the needs of a discipline or field.” Other kinds of instrumental interdisciplinarity serve “the needs of the marketplace and the nation.” “In contrast, critical ID [interdisciplinarity] interrogates the dominant structure of knowledge and education with the aim of transforming it, raising questions of value and purpose silent in instrumental ID [interdisciplinarity].”
Transdisciplinarity
Klein described four major trendlines in current manifestations of transdisciplinarity.
1. A “contemporary version of the epistemological quest for systematic integration of knowledge” which has a long history. The current view, often labelled the French school of transdisciplinarity, requires “critical, philosophical and supra-scientific reflection” and is “informed by the worldview of complexity in science.”
2. The idea of “synthetic paradigms” that “transcend the narrow scope of disciplinary worldviews. Leading examples include general systems, structuralism, poststructuralism, Marxism, phenomenology, feminist theory, and sustainability.” Klein also suggested that the Clinical and Translational Science Award program of the National Institutes of Health fits into this grouping as it aims to create “new methodological and theoretical frameworks for analyzing social, economic, political, environmental, and institutional factors in health and wellness.”
3. A link to “antidisciplinarity,” which rejects “disciplinarity in whole or in part, while raising questions of sociopolitical justice. Examples include women’s, native/aboriginal, cultural communications, regional, northern, urban, and environmental studies.”
4. Prioritising problem solving, which is often labelled the Swiss and German school of transdisciplinarity. “The core premise is that problems in the Lebenswelt – the lifeworld – need to frame research questions and practices, not disciplines.” Furthermore, “[c]o-production of knowledge with stakeholders in society is a cornerstone of this trendline, realized through mutual learning and a recursive approach to integration.” This approach intersects with post-normal science and mode 2 knowledge production.
New forms of interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity
The variety of disciplinary interactions also continues to evolve. In particular, Klein highlighted “convergence” which is promoted by the US National Science Foundation as representing “a new stage in bringing together bodies of specialized knowledge” to advance “basic research but it also leads to new inventions, treatment protocols, and forms of education and training while fostering partnerships among academic researchers and stakeholders in private and public sectors. In prioritizing product development and speeding up translation of findings … convergence does not just blur the boundaries of the academy, industry, and government. It erases them, while aligning ID [interdisciplinarity] and TD [transdisciplinarity] with academic capitalism.”
Implications for definitions and practice
The variety of forms of interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity and their continued evolution as covered in Klein’s analysis indicate why a single and straightforward definition of interdisciplinarity and/or transdisciplinarity is not possible. It is worth asking if it is even desirable.
My experience of researching complex societal and environmental problems is that better understanding and ways forward require many different types of disciplinary interactions – and interactions with those affected by the problem as well as decision makers (both referred to as stakeholders). More recently, in looking to improve “transdisciplinary” education on a whole-of-university basis, it has become clear that teaching also needs to encompass multiple ways in which disciplines and stakeholders can interact.
What then is the way forward? How can researchers and educators be helped to clearly describe the forms of practice that they favour without marginalising other forms of practice?
My approach has been to use interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity as general terms for research that involves disciplinary interactions (interdisciplinarity) and interactions of both disciplines and stakeholders (transdisciplinarity). Such interactions are also inherent in other research categorisations, including systems thinking, action research, post-normal science, implementation science, complexity science and more.
I have tended not to focus on different kinds of practice, but instead on concepts, methods, processes and other “tools” that can support various kinds of disciplinary and stakeholder interactions, as described in a recent i2Insights contribution on Integration and Implementation Sciences (i2S) as a framework and discipline for fostering expertise for tackling complex societal and environmental problems.
Indeed, as an aside, i2Insights seeks to include contributions from the full range of different kinds of interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity, illustrated by Lindell Bromham’s example of interdisciplinary tool swapping and borrowing across evolutionary biology and language evolution and Vladimir Mokiy’s call for systems transdisciplinarity as a metadiscipline.
What do you think?
How do you think the tractability of interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity can be improved while also respecting and embracing a plurality of perspectives and practices? What is useful for your work in Klein’s typologies? What definition/s have you found helpful and why? How have definitions enhanced and restricted your research and education practice? What would you like to see happen to support research and education practice involving various kinds of disciplinary and stakeholder interactions?
Reference:
Klein J.T. (2017) Typologies of interdisciplinarity: The boundary work of definition. In R. Frodeman (editor-in-chief), J.T. Klein (associate editor) and R.C.S. Pacheco (associate editor) The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity 2nd Edition Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 21-34.
Biography: Gabriele Bammer PhD is Professor of Integration and Implementation Sciences (i2S) at the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health at The Australian National University in Canberra. i2S provides theory and methods for tackling complex societal and environmental problems, especially for developing a more comprehensive understanding in order to generate fresh insights and ideas for action, supporting improved policy and practice responses by government, business and civil society, and effective interactions between disciplinary and stakeholder experts. She is the inaugural President of the Global Alliance for Inter- and Transdisciplinarity (2023-25).
I’ve now also published a version with more emphasis on next steps in Future Campus, a “weekly newsletter and website that brings key analysis and insights about higher education” for an Australian audience. See “Why defining inter- and trans- disciplinarity is hard… why it matters… and what to do about it” at https://futurecampus.com.au/2024/07/02/why-defining-inter-and-trans-disciplinarity-is-hard-why-it-matters-and-what-to-do-about-it/
Adding a kudos here for this recently published review of “crossdisciplinarity”, also a useful covering term for modes of disciplinary interaction: O’Rourke, M., Mennes, J., & Rinkus, M. A. (2024). Crossdisciplinarity. In F. Darbellay (Ed.), Elgar Encyclopedia of Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity (pp. 129–134). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035317967.ch28
Thanks Bethany. Unfortunately this chapter is behind a paywall.
The concluding paragraph reads:
This entry is a contribution to the “boundary work of definition” (Klein, 2017) associated with complex, collaborative research and practice; although some disparage this work as “mere semantics”, the clarity and precision it brings help facilitate the funding, organization, and management of these modes of research and practice and enable us to know what we’re talking about so that we do not talk past one another (cf. Epton et al., 1983). Our work highlights the fact that a single term need not be defined once and for all – it can begin with one definition and acquire additional definitions at later times as interests and purposes change. We provide a snapshot of the meaning of “crossdisciplinarity” at this moment in time, identifying two dominant senses – the “Jantsch” sense that evokes crosspollination, and the “generic” sense that evokes boundary crossing – and locating them in conceptual constellations with related terms, such as “multidisciplinarity” and “interdisciplinarity”. Both of these senses are still in play, stripped of some of the nuances they had when initially introduced, with the generic sense being common across many literatures, including organizational management, group psychology, education, sustainability, and the science of team science.
Thank you for this thought provoking blog and responses. I am coming very late to this discussion (my excuse is that I am a student again and have assignments due!). My contribution is also quite a pragmatic one. In the paper that I contributed to, which was led by Dr Bianca Vienni-Baptista (ETH Zurich) and based on the work of the SHAPE-ID project (https://www.shapeidtoolkit.eu), we concluded that there was no one “right” answer and that, as ITD scholars and researchers we need to learn to “embrace this heterogeneity”: Vienni Baptista, B., Fletcher, I., Lyall, C. and Pohl, C. (2022) “Embracing Heterogeneity: Why plural understandings strengthen inter- and transdisciplinarity”, Science and Public Policy, Published 29 June 2022 https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scac034
Indeed thanks Catherine – this is a different take on different definitions for different purposes, raised by others.
My thoughts around your title question are that it’s hard to agree on such definitions because there are so many varied circumstances under which definitions are needed/provided, and by whom.
Initially, it would perhaps be helpful if there was more clarity about the varied purposes of a definition, rather than a focus upon a definition per se? Questioning whether definitions are even desirable is a great provocation. I would say they are desirable under some circumstances. In other cases, they can become an unnecessary distraction. Definitions can serve a purpose of being descriptive, rather than prescriptive, akin to how dictionaries evolve, which is why Klein’s thoughtful summary of explorations and trendlines for interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity is such a valuable anchor to date.
Just three examples of the value of definitions for different purposes:
1. Communication
Definitions can help people to communicate on similar terms – in that respect, the definitions do not need to be judged as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, but can be an agreed basis for a progressive discussion, even if verging on the arbitrary. This is where our personal preferences for some form of exactitude may in effect be holding us back from moving on? I see this as a fallacy of precision that should be exposed. Under these circumstances, a notion of “good-enough working definitions” may be helpful. I’ve witnessed many would-be discussions getting stuck at trying to establish definitions, which can sometimes completely miss the point of definition-as-departure-point for a fruitful discussion.
2. Cataloguing
Definitions need to facilitate a more formal structure for cataloguing and positioning alongside everything else, making the significance of this huge variety of human endeavour accessible, rather than invisible. I see this as akin to throwing a cloak over the invisible man. Under these circumstances, a notion of “contextual definitions for cataloguing” may be helpful. Where to find something in a library is hugely important. In this case, any definition needs to make reference to its positioning amongst other disciplines. I would say this is definitely worth pursuing with appropriate advice.
3. Funding and policy
Definitions are much needed that are short, non-technical, even verging on the populist, to help communicate with potential funders and policy makers. To ask a broader question: In some situations, the varied terms of interdisciplinarity etc. perhaps just add to the difficulties of finding an identity/profile for i2S (Integration and Implementation Sciences)? This is a challenge, but I have found in the practice of inter-agency working that a mantra of ‘connect and simplify’ can be helpful without an associated risk of dumbing down research. People seem to have a hunch that making these new connections will make things too horribly complicated and impossible to deal with, yet that doesn’t have to be the case: it can work the opposite way. Silos have created their own complications and, no longer represent ‘safe ground.’ Morin’s remarks about restricted complexity and general complexity are very supportive in this respect, in being aware that our aptitude for separating is over-developed, and our aptitude for connecting is under-developed. Would it be too populist to describe the intentions of i2S along the lines of “the applied science(s) of disciplinary connectivity”, with an extended definition of “the applied science(s) of disciplinary connectivity to help address this generation’s complex priorities more effectively”. This would see the gamut of inter/trans/crossdisciplinarity, complexity, systems thinking, operational research, action research, action learning and so on as potential allies (rather than competitors) within this significant context of complex, problematic situations.
It has also been a practical help to me to consider problem structuring, rather than problem-solving as a focus, as our subsequent actions and learning are then conducted from a broader, more sophisticated basis. Although two disciplines can fruitfully come together to achieve something different (for example, the WHO’s HPSR Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research); unless historical framings can be questioned in order to change more authentically, this can result in progress within restrictive tramlines, rather than a more desirable approach of presenting an opportunity to be more open and creative.
It is so much more fruitful to think about finding similarities and common ground rather than building walls of difference around professions, yet we are all tethered by disciplinarity because it has been dinned into our education and funding systems so, if a strategy is needed for ‘disciplining interdisciplinarity’, then so be it. I love and often refer to the phrase used by McMichael (1999) in the context of epidemiology, that we are in the process of loosening the constraints of being ‘prisoners of the proximate’.
Inevitably as I have read your blog and its comments, it made me think more about the operational principles I developed for my Adaptive Learning Pathway for Systemic Leadership, which are reflected in the discussions. This pathway of learning grouped a variety of approaches drawn from complexity, systems thinking and operational research within operational principles of collaborative learning (thinking differently): critical appraisal (addressing assumptions): dynamic diagnostic (constantly evolving wider contexts): participation (engaging people) and clarity of purpose (systemic effectiveness). Perhaps these operational principles could serve a wider purpose?
It also occurred to me while thinking about this that what is needed is some form of high level but simple diagram to be able to communicate to funders and policy makers how the inter/transdisciplinarity of i2S fits around the disciplinary sciences that they will already be more aware of. I envisage a yin/yang diagram that simply marks up disciplinary sciences and i2S interdisciplinarity, which crucially marks out a (maybe disciplinary…) space for the latter! You may have already done something like this? Any other thoughts about potential diagrams to depict this ‘high-level’ relationship?
This really takes us back to Smuts’ struggles almost a hundred years ago with holism, and his descriptions of where nineteenth century science went wrong, being dominated by a hard and narrow concept of causation, and in wiping out indefinite surrounding “fields”. Smuts believed that, by eliminating such indefinite surrounding fields, where creative inter-mingling takes place, our understanding of real connections and interactions has been rendered impossible. This brings me to another thought: how do you define an area that is actually indefinite? Could i2S itself be defined as an applied science that is positioned within an indefinite field where disciplines interact in the real world? I have a slightly stubborn niggle here that the connected world actually comes first, yet i2S is having to work from the basis of the disciplines that have proved to be an inadequate framing and managing of our being in the world. To me, i2S is the starting point!
I do find these differing reasons for needing beneficial definitions (or not needing them at all) rather compelling. This has been my convoluted way of suggesting that it may be easier to find agreement around definitions if there can first be some thinking and agreement around the varied purposes of those definitions, and indeed, whether we need them or not in certain circumstances. i.e. to simply ask, why do we need this definition at all; if so, what do we want the definition to achieve, who is it for? Definitions need to operate effectively at different ‘levels’ and for different audiences. Otherwise, ditch them. A definitions chart with phrase/sentence/paragraph (or whatever) along one axis and peer group allies/disciplines/policy or funders (or whatever) along the other could be a way of starting to frame the need for definitions, around which launchpad there could – just perhaps – be more agreement?
What all this discussion around the value of interdisciplinarity/transdisciplinarity/crossdisciplinarity demonstrates is that the mature i2S framework v3.0 has built up a significant head of steam, and these varied terms can thus perhaps be perceived as a positive rather than a negative for i2S, which is surely getting ready to fledge as a sophisticated discipline for integrative applied research?
Bravo Gabriele for encouraging us to think about this both individually and together. The challenge of how we can give a much-needed profile to the endeavour of creating the human capacity to be more effective at addressing inter-connected complex priorities is, surely, the primary challenge that is unique to our generation.
References
Morin, E. (2006). Restricted complexity, general complexity. Worldviews, science and us: philosophy and complexity. Singapore: World Scientific: 1-25.
McMichael, A. J. (1999). Prisoners of the Proximate: Loosening the Constraints on Epidemiology in an Age of Change. American Journal of Epidemiology,149(10), 887–897.
Smuts, J. C. (1927). Holism and Evolution. London: MacMillan.
Thanks Cathy for this rich set of comments. The point about the value of definitions for different purposes is well-taken, as is the challenge of finding the short, non-technical definition. That’s going to need some work! I also really enjoyed the wide-ranging connections you made. Thanks – lots to think about and discuss!
Interesting article and observations, raising questions in view of the different possible uses and purposes of the distinctions. Lending respectability, authority for work to be the ‘right’ category? Acceptability and funding of proposed projects? This could depend on researchers ‘membership’ in one of the diffferent types — which directs the validity question on the funding and certification institutions and therir reviewers, as well as the general organization of research. Coming from the study of design and planning discourse, I have found it useful to point at the different types of premises of what I call the typical ‘planning argument’ people raise in discussing whether a plan proposal should be adopted for implementation: The Proposal to Adopt Plan A is supported or attacked with arguments that could be stated or translated into some standard template —e.g.
«Plan A ought to be adopted’
because
1 Implementing A will result in outcome B, given conditions C
and
2 Outcome B ought to be pursued;
and
3 Conditions C are present (or will be when A is implemented)»
Of course, all three premises are not always spelled out but one or more are left out as ‘taken for granted’ but then must be evaluated in order to arrive at a sense of its ‘argument weight’ among all the arguments (‘pros and cons’) that call for due consideration in coming to a decision.
Looking at the premises, it should become obvious that they rely on concepts, criteria and assessment tools from many different kinds of research.
First, differences and disagreements in their assessment could be due to different meanings, attributed by a person to any of the concepts used to explain what A, B, and C, and their relationship (resulting, causing etc ?) ‘mean’. The first premise then looks like a claim that should properly be supported and validated like a (factual) scientific hypothesis, by what loosely may be called the ‘scientific method’ and its logical apparatus. Some would call it a ‘factual’ claim, whose role and merit in the argument depends on its ‘truth’ or at least ‘probability’. However: the ‘observation’ criterion of scientific method makes its truth or probability judgments applicable to just past and present observations, while the whole planning discourse is concerned with the future, by definition. So this premise must be seen as an estimate (with values of probability or reliability of its future occurrence, not the probability driven by random process, for example.
The second premise is a ‘deontic’ claim to which the label ‘truth’ or falsity does not apply like it does to factual claims. It may be called ‘morally true’, for example, to support its truth-authority .But isn’t this acknowledging that it cannot be supported by the same ‘logic’ as the scientific claims of premise 1? Even the branches of logic that try to deal with modal or deontic reasoning can make it fit ‘formal logical’ validity only by limiting its meaning to already established claims (that cannot or should not be further questioned) such as general ‘laws’ or previous decisions that logically imply the respective deontic property. So the discussion supporting or attacking such premises will be very different (and use different tools) than those of the first premise. (It will rely, in essence, on arguments of the same kind, that are not deductively valid and conclusive from the formal logic point of view.) A key resulting aspect is that while scientific arguments and logic aim at ‘conclusions’ that all participants should come to agree upon, there is no such requirement for the outcome of discussions of deontic claims. A simple example is that a specific outcome such as the ‘maintenance cost’ of implemented plan provisions may be seen as ‘cost’ to some affected parties but as ‘benefit’ (potential profits) for others.
The third premise about the ‘conditions C — under which the effects of A of outcome B can be assumed, — again looks like a ‘factual’ claim that we should all come to agree upon. But again, once it becomes the subject of discourse scrutiny, things quickly become difficult. The main distinction is that the premise refers to different situations, the first being the ‘current state of things’ which at least some people feel are undesirable (‘problem’ and thus undesirable) so ‘something should be done about them — or that ‘if nothing is done’, the current situation will become undesirable in the future. Both such descriptions now include not only assumptions about future conditions and their probability of emerging as a result the causal relationships among the elements of situations (which has become the prime concerns and valuable work of ‘systems thinking’ disciplines) but also assumptions about future ‘affected’ groups (stakeholders and their victims?) and their current and future desirability (i.e. deontic) assessments.
Just these few observations about any research that bases its claims of usefulness to society on potential results becoming significant parts of human planning discourse should make it clear that a considerable degree of inter- and trans-disciplinarity will be called for in any moderately thorough discourse about societal plans and policies. So what difference do these terms make?
Many thanks for your detailed comment. If I understand your opening correctly, you are saying the necessity and value of a definition depends on its planned use – is that right? I am sorry to say that I can’t grasp the point of the rest of your argument though. What am I missing? I suspect there’s an underlying assumption or mental model that I don’t have. If you have the time and energy to clarify, I’d be grateful.
I guess my comment, briefly, is that from the planning/policy-making perspective, the need for trans, cross, inter, multi- disciplinary etc. work and communication is obvious, but the desire to use the classification of ‘using’ or ‘belonging’ to one of these definitions for validation or significance purposes is questionable; as my last question suggests. But note it’s still a question, I’m curious and open to better answers. I apologize for the lengthy attempt to explain that perspective, that I feel is not shared and understood widely enough.
Ah – thanks! Restating your closing remarks: “… any research that bases its claims of usefulness to society on potential results becoming significant parts of human planning discourse should make it clear that a considerable degree of inter- and trans-disciplinarity will be called for in any moderately thorough discourse about societal plans and policies. So what difference do these terms make?” This is a good question. I think Cathy Hobbs gets to some of the key aspects with her suggestion that we look at defining for what purpose.
I would add that it is important – for those doing the work – that a definition does not become a straight-jacket eg ‘I am doing transdisciplinarity therefore I must… and I must not…’ . As an example, co-production with stakeholders is not always possible in some forms of transdisciplinarity and there’s nothing wrong with a well-performed consultative process. Further, just because a project is labelled transdisciplinary does not mean that a discipline-based component should not be welcome if it provides insights.
Interested to hear what others think!
The thoughtful reasoning of colleagues always provokes interesting thoughts. Reading these arguments, I thought that in them, in my opinion, there is a substitution of arguments on the topic of “definitions of transdisciplinarity” for arguments on the topic of “possible forms of transdisciplinarity and ways of transdisciplinary interactions”…
Let’s recall the catch phrase: “Don’t feel sorry for the dead, Harry, feel sorry for the living. And especially those who live without love!”
What image of “love” and what definition of “love” arose in Harry’s brain at this parting words from an authoritative professor? I am sure that Harry (and you and I) have thought about the one and only definition of love and about many ways to realize it. In this case, the only definition of “love” gives all subsequent actions associated with love the area of “homeostasis of love”. Going beyond this homeostasis turns many ways of showing love into dislike. Transdisciplinarity without a one and only definition is interdisciplinary interactions without the field of homeostasis. So: ” Don’t feel sorry for the disciplinarians, Harry, feel sorry for the transdisciplinary researchers. And especially those who live without one and only definition of transdisciplinarity, which removes the straitjacket, but gives transdisciplinarity the domain of homeostasis”.
Thanks for those reflections!
Great post and interesting discussion. I wonder where would ‘multidisciplinarity’ be placed in this classification. After being associated with the Multidisciplinary Water Management group at University of Twente (https://www.utwente.nl/en/et/cem/chairs/mwm/), I feel somewhat left out. Is multidisplinarity now out of fashion and we should change our name?
On a more serious note, I do feel confused sometimes about the proliferation of terms in science, which in many cases seem to be very close and where the nuances are becoming difficult to identify. It almost seems like we are starting to speak different languages in different disciplines or domains. Coming from the field of participatory modeling, I’ve been always wondering why there are so many terms used instead (‘collaborative modeling’, ‘shared vision planning’, ‘facilitated modeling’, ‘companion modeling’, etc. etc.), while in all cases we are talking about more or less the same – modeling with stakeholders. How important are the subtle differences? Does it really make sense to come up with a new term? Or it becomes rather a sort of trademark, that is introduced just as a an identifier for a certain group or trend?
Wonder if something similar is now happening with trans-, cross-, inter-, multi- disciplinary work.
Myself, I’ve always thought that transdisciplinarity is used when disciplines not just talk to each other but also involve stakeholders in that discussion. The rest did not seem to matter. Sounds like this is not quite right and there are other issues also involved. But it remains unclear to me to what extent those small nuances really matter?
Thanks Alexey – there’s a lot in your comment. First to multidisciplinary. I left it out a) because the blog post was already more than the maximum length we aim for and b) because in Klein’s analysis it’s pretty straight-forward ie Defining multidisciplinarity is relatively unproblematic. It involves juxtaposing disciplines to foster “wider scope of knowledge, information, and methods” and plays a valuable role expanding “the knowledge base for a given project or program.” Klein points out that “disciplines remain separate, retain their original identity, and are not questioned.” The general view of multidisciplinarity is that “integration is lacking.” Interestingly Klein also reports that multidisciplinarity “has even been deemed a characteristic of contemporary disciplines because of their plurality of practices.”
In my experience, multidisciplinarity is often dismissed because of the perceived lack of integration. Further, rather than the use of the full strengths of disciplines being applauded, this is often seen as undesirable. Adding to this, I would make a special plea not to dismiss multidisciplinarity, because “integration is lacking.” As I argue in https://i2insights.org/2016/08/02/in-praise-of-multidisciplinarity/, integration happens at the individual level in those exposed to the multidisciplinary work. They/we integrate insights from that work into their understanding and actions, and, further, group integration can be added in a final step to a multidisciplinary process.
I think your point about nuances is different from the point I was trying to make here. The typologies Klein describes are more than nuances and can involve very different forms of practice. Indeed I share your frustration about the proliferation of terms. I think it’s partly a characteristic of young areas of practice and partly a lack of authoritative top-down leadership from professional associations, who help a field sort out terminological differences.
I wonder what others think? Thanks again.
PS I would also add that modelling is a great integrative tool, as I am sure you know better than I!
Hi, Gabriele,
Great post and discussion.
From my time in this space, I have been heavily influenced by your approach to not get buried in definition and instead the value of using the terms (inter/trans/cross/multi/pan/ante) as a general waypoint to describe the ideas of working with and across difference (disciplinary and otherwise).
More recently as I’ve been working on the implementation of TD Problem-Solving in our curriculum at ANU (which is perhaps more a version of the i2s 3.0) I have increasingly been borrowing the idea of “duck typing” from computing to help describe whether a particular course or collaboration is “transdisciplinary enough”, and maybe this frame might be useful for others…
“Duck typing” is a viewpoint in programming that is along the lines of “if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it (surely!) must be a duck”. Rather than having to declare or label it a ‘duck’, without testing whether it has these characteristics.
The test criteria for “TD” in my case (the education setting) are more along the lines of including ‘intentional collaboration across difference’, ‘engaging with a broader (disciplinary) context’ and ‘development of (TD) problem-solving skills’.
This approach has helped (I think!) colleagues recognise that there are multiple instances, versions, varieties of how to implement TD, and to not sweat the small differences between whether a learning experience is TD enough. (Are the students collaborating in some way across difference? Are they engaging with a problem in a broader context? Are they developing transferable skills?)
Interested to know about how other Institutions might be setting the bar around TD/ID programs, and helping their colleagues to get on the same page.
Chris.
Many thanks, Chris. For readers it may be useful to know that Chris is leading the implementation of the university-wide program described in an earlier i2Insights contribution, see: https://i2insights.org/2023/08/08/transdisciplinary-expertise-framework/.
(As an aside: Your post is an example of the pragmatic approach that you’ve taken to implementation and it would be great to hear more from you and from others about how you have tackled the implementation of transdisciplinary coursework.)
Your comment, plus Bruce’s below, as well as several on LinkedIn, suggest that teaching and research programs can mange just fine without a definition, but a point I was trying to make in the post is that that wont work for the field as a whole.
Just one example of why it’s important:
At the moment, libraries don’t have a way of cataloguing transdisciplinary materials, but as the field grows and becomes embedded in universities and research organisation, libraries are going to have to grapple with the cataloguing issue. We as a field need to be involved in how this cataloguing happens. In fact, it may be that bringing the information science skills of librarians to bear may help transdisciplinarians find a way though.
I suspect both Vladimir’s distinction of general versus specific will be helpful, as well as Rick’s notion of key characteristics. Indeed, I surmise that key characteristics also underpins duck typing.
Look forward to further comments and discussion.
Hi again Gabriele!
Ah yes – my apologies for forgetting that it’s winter now in your part of the world! I discovered Klein’s late adoption of the term “crossdisciplinary” while I was writing a tribute text for a special section in Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies. Michael O’Rourke and colleagues also have adopted the term. For a quick, cursory summary, the following may be helpful:
Augsburg, T. (2023). Beyond interdisciplinary teaching and Research: Remembering Julie Thompson Klein during
the early days of Text-generating AI,” Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies 41 (1): 15-30.
Indeed, “trandisciplinarity” in many aspects is eclipsing “interdisciplinarity” – as the prefix “trans” has by and large replaced “inter” as a descriptor for emergent terms in recent times, so gaining more clarity (and critical/scholarly consensus) about what exactly “transdisciplinarity” means is crucial, especially within academia, research, and education.
Many thanks for that elaboration!
Dear colleagues!
Let me congratulate Professor Gabriele Bammer on her election as the first President of the Global Alliance for Inter- and Transdisciplinarity! We wish her success in her upcoming work in this position!
Since 2019, I have been fortunate to be in active correspondence with the late Julie Thompson Klein in discussing possible definitions of interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity while working on the book “Institutionalizing Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity Collaboration across Cultures and Communities. Edited by Bianca Vienni Baptista, Julie Thompson Klein (2022)”. This communication continued on the i2Insights website. Therefore, I can safely assume that the potential of the review of the typologies of interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity, which was compiled by Julie Thompson Klein, contributes to the formation of an “unambiguous definition” of transdisciplinarity.
Within the framework of philosophy (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/definitions /) The “definition” itself is a complex object of research. Therefore, I suggest using a simplified approach to the formation of definitions, which is often used by philosophers themselves. We are talking about the formation of two types of definitions – generic and specific. Generic is used to indicate the general characteristics of a certain class of objects. Species definitions denote the properties and purpose of specific groups of this class of objects. For example, a generic definition: a car is a designation for technical means of transportation that perform a variety of useful functions. Specific definition (1): a fire truck is a vehicle designed to deliver personnel, fire–fighting equipment and equipment to the place of fire. An EMS vehicle is a vehicle for transporting people who need emergency medical care to a hospital. Etc. Please note that such a logic of definitions does not cause difficulties with the perception of automotive technology among the organizers of higher education, heads of industrial enterprises, sponsors of technical and technological ideas in the field of automotive industry. Perhaps we should consider taking advantage of the obvious advantages of this logic.
Following this logic, I propose to summarize the main trends of transdisciplinarity, which Julie Thompson Klein writes about, and to form a generic and specific definition of transdisciplinarity. In this case, we will be able to destroy the negative stereotype of “unambiguous definition” and create a stereotype of “generic and specific definition”.
It is important to say that the generic definition will allow us to establish a general context for the perception of transdisciplinarity. In this case, the creators of the specific definitions of transdisciplinarity will have the opportunity to develop and clarify the meaning of the term transdisciplinarity without leaving the boundaries of such an original context.
As a generic definition of transdisciplinarity, I suggest using the following definition:
Transdisciplinarity is a designation for the intensification of intellectual activity in the field of interdisciplinary interactions, contributing to the maximum expansion of the horizon of scientific worldview, as well as the search for effective solutions to complex multifactorial problems of modern society.
In the context of this generic definition, two of its original species definitions organically clarify the meaning of transdisciplinarity.
(1). Transdisciplinarity is the coordination of all disciplines and interdisciplinary interactions in the education/innovation system based on generalized axiomatics and an emerging epistemological model (Jantsch).
(2). Transdisciplinarity is interdisciplinary interactions within the framework of specialized research projects, in a common system without any clear boundaries between disciplines (Piaget).
Both initial species definitions turned out to be so highly potential that in some cases, each of them can play the role of a generic definition for independent groups of interdisciplinary interactions among 50 stereotypes of transdisciplinarity: in cognition of the world, in the formation of a scientific worldview, in the creation of new forms of teaching students at universities, in conducting comprehensive scientific research and finding effective solutions to complex problems etc.
Please note that the generic definition is just a designation of the contextual boundary of intellectual activity. Practical users of the results of transdisciplinarity are primarily interested in its conceptual, methodological and technological capabilities. In other words, they hope to see her “standard disciplinary portrait”, or to get her described as a theoretical or practical approach. Therefore, I am sure that in addition to generic and specific definitions of transdisciplinarity, it is necessary to form definitions of a transdisciplinary approach (approaches). It is possible that one of the variants of the generic definition may look like this: The transdisciplinary approach is a group of unique methods for expanding the horizon of the scientific worldview within the framework of the philosophical picture of the Whole world through the integration and synthesis of disciplinary knowledge.
I apologize for such a large text. But let me add one more small fragment in conclusion. We must not forget that transdisciplinarity has an equivalent competitor. This competitor, as Gabriele Bammer correctly noted, is systems thinking, a systems worldview and a systems approach combined by one term – systems research. However, as in the case of transdisciplinarity, systemic research does not have an unambiguous (generic) definition. This is hindered by more than a hundred definitions of “system”. In such a situation, we will be forced to help our competitors with forcing generic and specific definitions of systemic research. It will be more useful if we expand the scientific worldview as much as possible by including strong conceptual and methodological features of systems thinking in the field of transdisciplinary context. This will allow not only to streamline the structure of generic and specific definitions of transdisciplinarity, but also to transfer transdisciplinarity itself to a new, systems transdisciplinary stage of development.
I hope these discussions will be useful for organizing the upcoming collective intellectual work.
Many thanks, Vladimir, for this thoughtful reply. Your suggestion of general and specific definitions may well provide a good way forward. I’d be interested to hear what others think.
The idea that the systems thinkers may also provide valuable lessons for inter- and transdisciplinarians is also valuable. I’d add though that I’d hate to see the systems thinkers as “competitors.” I think we are natural allies – we just haven’t cemented the alliance yet.
Thanks Gabriele for revisiting this perennial question we are often expected to answer in conversations with sponsors of our work, Universities, Governments or Communities. Also thank you Rick for articulating some options. I approach this situation from a more pragmatic perspective. Like you Gabriele I focus mainly on complex social and environmental issues and believe it is essential to draw on the diverse insights available through different disciplinary worldviews and theoretical explanations of our shared ‘lifeworld’. The combination of disciplines I incorporate in any program is shaped by the question ‘does it have anything different to contribute to understanding the issue of concern?’ My understanding of the value of transdisciplinary studies is based on the often used adage in working with complexity ‘everyone knows something, no one knows everything’. I then argue that single disciplinary approaches to complexity are epistemologically flawed. Hence I see this is the message that has to be transmitted to administrators of research/problem solving programs. My definition of transdisciplinary study is ‘a combination of disciplinary theories, concepts, methods that together create a richer picture of a complex issue than any single disciplinary approach. Further, the rich picture generated creates an opportunity to emerge new insights to leverage improvement in the complex issue of concern. Yes I am very pragmatic, if it helps use it!
Thanks Bruce those are useful reflections. I think your approach works for individual practitioners, but not for the field as a whole. In my experience, not having agreed definitions invites those new to interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity to come up with their own. And because the literature is hard to find and people are very busy, they tend not to take the existing definitions and typologies into account. Further, because they have come up with it, they get wedded to their definition. So the field goes round and round, rather than forward. It may be that the field is not ready to coalesce yet, but it may be time to test the water…
Thanks for asking the big question Gabriele!
I in turn have a question for you and readers of this blog: (How) Can we encourage university administrators, granting agencies, and policy makers to take interdisciplinarity seriously, and introduce good institutions and programs, if we as a community cannot agree on how to define interdisciplinarity, much less how to pursue it? My answer is no, but I would love to be convinced otherwise.
Also, a counterexample: I can easily identify dozens of different things that economists do, but I am also able fairly easily to give a definition of the field and identify a set of practices that the vast majority of economists pursue.
And a reminder that Wittgenstein warned us decades ago about the futility of seeking perfect definitions. He recommended providing lists of examples.
I still think consensus in definition of interdisciplinarity is both necessary and possible. (If I am wrong I think I will just devote myself to pickleball from now on).
But let me, in the spirit of Wittgenstein (and consensus), float a few statements we might agree on:
1) The vast majority of (instrumental) interdisciplinary scholars pursue the integration of insights from different authors/disciplines
2) The vast majority of interdisciplinary scholars investigate relationships among things (phenomena) usually studied in different disciplines
3) Interdisciplinary scholars usually (especially in social science and humanities) grapple with different understandings of concepts across authors/disciplines
4) Interdisciplinary scholars usually see value in methods favored by different disciplines
5) More controversially but importantly, the sort of instrumental practices listed above build upon the insights of specialized research within disciplines, but are nevertheless symbiotic with the practice of critical interdisciplinarity which questions the nature of disciplines
I could go on, but I hope we can agree on some central tendencies in the field of interdisciplinary studies, and then shout these to the world. [I will let others address transdisciplinarity.]
Thanks again. This is a crucial conversation.
Thanks Rick. That’s a useful set of considerations. Some responses:
1. There’s been a tendency to consider interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity together and your remarks make me wonder if it’s more useful to keep them separate.
2. We might need a common focal point eg tackling complex societal and environmental problems, that then allows the “central tendencies” of interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, and – I would argue – systems thinking, action research, post-normal science etc to be laid out side by side. One of the challenges is that most of these have uses other than for complex problems.
3. It’s certainly the relative newness of interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity and the relevant professional associations and networks that means we don’t yet have definitions sorted out. Although the time is right for the relevant professional associations and networks to get together to work on this, most are small-scale and not yet in a position to really invest in such an important exercise. Another key consideration is how broad to try to make the definitional work. Should we keep it “in-house’ eg Global Alliance for Inter- and Transdisciplinarity (ITD Alliance), Association for Interdisciplinary Studies, Finnish Interdisciplinary Society (FINTERDIS), td-net: Network for Transdisciplinary Research, Academy of Transdisciplinary Learning and Advanced Studies (The ATLAS) or expand out to systems thinking, action research etc professional societies and networks (see: https://itd-alliance.org/resources/professional-associations-and-networks/ for a list).
Hello Gabriele,
Great post! What are your thoughts about Julie Thompson Klein’s late adoption of the term crossdisciplinary (without the hyphen)? It seems to be the term she was increasingly preferring late in her life, and some of the scholars you tagged also seem to be increasingly using the term. Thanks and Happy Summer! Tanya Augsburg
Many thanks for alerting me to this, Tanya, I wasn’t aware of it. Most interested to also hear from others favouring the term “crossdisciplinary.” Regardless, “transdisciplinarity” seems to have taken on a life of its own and is popping up increasingly, so we also have to deal with that.
Thanks for the summer wishes – another 6 months to wait in my part of the world… I do wish you a happy summer though!