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).