By Ulli Vilsmaier.
How can we best recognise and value linguistic and conceptual pluralism in naming what we do when we work in international environments? What are the limitations of descriptors such as transdisicplinarity, participatory action research and co-creation?
Terminology is really an issue when working across linguistic, disciplinary and professional boundaries. Working internationally we are now accustomed to using the hyper-centralized language, English; we tend to delegate translation more and more to machine-based algorithms; and we easily forget the consequences of working in a language that is not our mother tongue nor anchored in our cultural and social environment.
A hyper-centralized language has great benefits, but also major weaknesses. For example, it allows us to communicate in this virtual space of i2Insights, while at the same time we may lose the subtle connotations of words that we translate from different languages, as well as the politics of naming unique to places.
The challenges were highlighted when colleagues and I ran a workshop series on transdisciplinarity in five world regions (Krebs and Vilsmaier, 2025). Already when designing these workshops, the term “transdisciplinarity” seemed too narrow to gather insights into all the relevant training needs of interest. In particular, the term “transdisciplinarity” represents a research mode that has developed in a specific world region and from selected languages, but similar research practices have emerged in different world regions and linguistic universes under different names.
To tackle this challenge, the term “engaged research” was used, as it is more open in meaning and has a strong connotation of practice and purpose. In the workshop, participants were asked what word or phrase they use to describe an approach that enables collaboration among researchers and societal actors to frame and develop solutions.
The top three terms used by workshop participants according to region are:
- Latin America: participatory/collaborative action research; participatory/collaborative research; co-design, co-construction and co-creation (translated from Spanish)
- US, Canada and Oceania: transdisciplinary; co-creation; action research
- Europe: transdisciplinary; co-creation; co-production
- Sub-Saharan Africa: participatory research; collaboration; transdisciplinary
- Asia: transdisciplinarity; co-creation; interdisciplinary.
These results show both the variety of terms and that there is no consistency in terminology either across regions or within regions. And the workshops were in English or Spanish (in the Latin American workshop), with no attempt to work interlingually. Participants pointed out that there are many languages with no equivalent to “transdisciplinarity,” which doesn’t come as a surprise given the Latin roots of the term and that many languages do not have such roots.
What the results indicate is that international discourses need to be sensitive regarding language and terminology. They call on us to reflect on the paradoxical and political character of words:
- Words are paradoxical because they can unite and divide, include and exclude, and enable communication while concealing differences at the same time
- Words are political because of the co-creational feature of language. A word such as “transdisciplinarity” creates visibility, not only for certain practices, but also for scholars, for institutions, for communities while over-shadowing other terms for similar kinds of research.
Let’s face the challenges of linguistic and conceptual pluralism in international discourses (on transdisciplinarity and related terms). Let’s make inter-cultural and inter-lingual difference visible and actively mobilize the potential of bringing together diverse languages and conceptual variety (plus the corresponding research traditions), instead of simply trying to get rid of them. Such efforts will enrich the advancement of research by bridging different ways of knowing, acting and being.
Specifically, let’s:
- conduct polylogues that put language at centre stage and enable intercultural learning – with international research partners, students and in professional associations. The concept and practice of polylogues was developed by intercultural philosopher Franz Wimmer who formulated the “minimal rule,” namely “Wherever possible, look for transcultural […] philosophical concepts, since it is probable that well-founded ideas have developed in more than one cultural tradition” (Wimmer 1998:11).
- critically reflect on the use of language and concepts in everyday professional life. When working on transdisciplinarity, action research, participatory action research or with co-design, co-creation, or co-production practices, consider the similarity of research practices that have developed under different terms. Such consideration can enrich the advancement of research through epistemic pluralism and does justice to scholars from different linguistic and conceptual communities. For more on epistemic pluralism and cognitive justice see the i2Insights contribution, Decolonising research capacity development by Maru Morima and Romina Istratii.
- be sensitive when using the hyper-centralized language, English. Its great potential is that it connects all of us speaking different mother tongues, while at the same time, a major weakness is the loss of the particularities of language-specific thinking, styles of expression, subtle connotations and political meanings unique to a place. Bear in mind that the current communicative confluence in English reduces the full potential of research developed in other languages. Being an English native speaker, bear in mind that your colleagues or audiences may not have the same language skills. Speaking slowly is a simple strategy to foster communication.
- be aware that language can be a tool to exert cultural hegemony and to create unequal opportunities for the majority of humankind when participating in international discourses. Three relevant i2Insights contributions are those by:
- Tilo Weber in Language matters in transdisciplinarity, who argued that “It is a truism that language is—or can be—used, intentionally and strategically, as an instrument to exert power over others“
- kate harriden in Decolonising your writing, who describes the effects of hegemonic and colonial writing
- Livia Fritz and colleagues in Can cultural hegemony explain resistance to transdisciplinarity?, who provide insights into cultural hegemony.
In conclusion: What kind of struggles have you experienced with linguistic and conceptual pluralism? Do you have experiences to share of successfully dealing with conceptual or linguistic pluralism working in international teams or communities? Have you ever felt marginalized in international collaboration due to your mother tongue or working language? Do you have experiences to share of tackling language challenges or marginalization because of your mother tongue or working language? How do you think should we face the dark side of the hyper-centralized language, English?
A video covering this topic is available at: https://youtu.be/KkwcXauWwwc (5 minute YouTube video).
References:
Krebs, M. and Vilsmaier, U. (2025). Advancing engaged research globally – region by region. Final summary report, TD Training Collaboratory at Stanford University and Global Alliance for Inter- and Transdisciplinarity (ITD Alliance). (Online – open access): https://itd-alliance.org/resources/advancing-engaged-research-globally/
The workshops referenced in this i2Insights contribution were facilitated by Ana Corbacho, Ria Lambino, Jacqueline Melvold, Varvara Nikulina, Connie Nshemereiwe and Mariana Pereyra.
Wimmer, F. (1998). Introduction. Intercultural philosophy. Topoi: An international review of philosophy, 17, 1: 1-13.
Further reading:
Bachir Diagne, S. (2024). De langue à langue: L’hospitalité de la traduction. Albin Michel: Paris, France.
Vilsmaier, U., Klein, J. T., Keestra M. and Merçon, J. (2025). Inter- and transdisciplinarity. In, R. Breeze, J. Engberg and T. Roelcke (Eds.), Handbook of specialized communication, De Gruyter Mouton: Berlin, Germany, pp: 87-106.
Vilsmaier, U. (2017). A space for taking a culturally sensitive look at transdisciplinarity. Report of the ITD Conference 2017, GAIA, 26, 4: 352 – 354.
Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Statement: Generative artificial intelligence was not used in the development of this i2Insights contribution. (For i2Insights policy on generative artificial intelligence please see https://i2insights.org/contributing-to-i2insights/guidelines-for-authors/#artificial-intelligence.)
Biography: Ulli Vilsmaier PhD is a member of the Responsive Research Collective and adjunct professor at Leuphana University Lüneburg in Germany. She has long-term experience with inter- and transdisciplinary research, higher education and university transformation in different world regions. In conducting international conferences as well as workshops, summer schools, training courses and evaluations on inter- and transdisciplinarity in Latin America, Europe, Africa and the Caucasus region, she has encountered many linguistic challenges that lead to an engagement with linguistic and conceptual pluralism.
Thanks for your reflexion! There is always a tension between particulars and universals… both of them are necessary. As a self-critical anthropologist, I also like to think about the escalability of the small concepts that can open up entire worlds of significance! Best regards, Ana Gretel
The constant use of names or labels, colloquially known as ‘science by noun’, is riddled with problems. It is an inferior type of communication best replaced by simple descriptions of what each of those names or labels actually do. These amount to operational definitions which are easier to comprehend across various barriers and leave less room for ambiguity. They also have much greater explanatory power.
Thank you, Emery, for pointing to the importance of descriptions and operational definitions. It is an important reminder to be as precise as possible in using terms conceptually. Working internationally, intercullturally and interdisciplinary, this may be the main challenge of collaborative research and at the same time the very particular contribution of those boundary crossing or integrative forms of research. Conceptual work should definitely get more attention to do justice to the role of concepts in research, but likewise strategies to deal with ambiguity are needed. I have experienced many collaborative research endeavours where ambiguity remains and the entire research suffered of imprecision. However, Machiel (below) highlights the importance of emphasising difference when working internationally and interlinuistically and this is also what drives my work. Difference seems to be the main source of inter- and transdisciplinary research. Do you have experiences with the elaboration of descriptions and operational definitions in working in heterogeneous research teams? It would be great to learn more about it.
Thanks for adressing this important topic, Ulli! When working in international contexts, chances are that translation challenges represent more fundamental differences between the language-dependent conceptual frameworks. As many words (cf. consciousness, health, honor, fact, etc.) have also ontological, epistemological and normative associations, linguistic pluralism implies pluralism at those other dimensions as well. So don’t you think that especially when doing inter- and transdisciplinary research in an international context we should be prepared to include more systematic analysis of these dimensions of relevant terms than is now common, before trying to map concepts from different languages onto each other?
For example, in our recent article on epistemic injustice & resistance, Hans Dieleman (Mexico) describes how ‘sustainability research’ starts from specific western scientific and metaphysical assumptions that are so much at odds with indigenous reflections on ‘Buen Vivir’ that collaborations failed ( https://interdisciplinarystudies.org/vol42-resisting-the-imperative-of-integration-epistemic-injustice-resistance-and-openness-in-inter-and-transdisciplinary-research/ ). That example also shows why indeed we need to be sensitive to linguistic pluralism because of these associated – and more fundamental – differences.
Dear Machiel, many thanks for emphasising this important dimension of linguistic pluralism and for bringing up the issue of epistemic injustice and the integration imperative in this context. I fully agree that making the effort to explore concepts that name what we do more in depth – as you indicate – is crucial. The praxis of polylogues as developed in intercultural philosophy is exactly one that allows for in depth explorations, not only of semantics of terms, but also of discursive trajectories. It is not an integrative approach, but one that explores differences with the aim to gain mutual understanding. In my response to Bob Williams (below) I mention an experience translating a document on transdisciplinarity from English into Spanish which caused serious discomfort and resistance of those involved in the translation from Mexico. Similar to the work on sustainability research that you mention, colleagues highlighted that transdisciplinarity is a concept that developed in European contexts and that it has the power to overshadow the rich tradition of participatory action research which has emerged in Latin America since the 1970s.
Dear Ulli, thank you for a beautiful contribution! Now that I work in the public sector, primarily in one language, the issue of conceptual pluralism became even more pronounced. It is really important that we talked about the same things, otherwise there is a risk of failing the society.
Thank you for raising this important issue. When I was a community worker I helped set up a translation and interpretation service for a local municipal authority, and have been sensitive to these issues ever since. Yet, whenever I raise it in my subsequent work, the response is often one of surprise. It is not just an issue of translation, but interpretation. There are concepts in all cultures that lack equivalents, often even near equivalents, in other cultures. I recall a close friend (with a mixed US and Guatemalan heritage), for whom the distinction between output and outcome was critical to his work. Hence, his confusion when hired to work in an Eastern European country, to discover that a distinction so critical to his professional identity had no meaning in that culture. I’ve worked in Latin American contexts and have struggled to convey the meaning of ‘stake,’ which is not surprising given the English word’s complex etymology. Even within the same language, there are important differences. I recall, when editing a journal with contributors from South Asia, being asked the authors to re-edit their contribution because the South Asian form of English had less prestige than the US style. They were not just talking about swapping out the s for a z, but the entire grammatical construction.
An important contribution and I hope the start of a conversation rather than the end of one.
Thank you for sharing your experience, Bob. The examples illustrate very well how important it is to pay attention to language. The output-outcome example is particularly instructive in this regard. It would be great to learn more about why there was no such distinction in the Eastern European country where your friend was hired. Last year, I worked with colleagues from Mexico to translate a document on transdisciplinarity from English into Spanish. From a Latin American perspective, the literal translation promoted a hegemonic discourse that many colleagues who gave us feedback rejected. We had a lot of discussion how to deal with the problematic. During this time, I found a book of Souleymane Bachir Diagne, who speaks of the hospitality of translation as the “capacity and power to create a relationship of equivalence and reciprocity between identities, to make them appear to be on an equal footing, and so that from language to language we speak and understand each other” (Bachir Diagne 2024: 14, own translation from French). To think of translation as an act of hospitality really changed my perspective. And it is so important in times of automatisation of translation as hospitality is a human attitude, one that cannot be reproduced by a machine.