By Hussein Zeidan.
Do you sense a growing gap between the promise of transdisciplinarity and the way it is often practised? Have you recognised instances where a paper praises integration, yet treats it as little more than a symbolic gesture, instead of a serious intellectual and ethical commitment?
How did we get here, and how can we reclaim transdiscipinarity from superficial habits that weaken its potential?
How did we get here?
The rise of transdisciplinarity has been remarkable. Funding agencies promote it. Universities showcase it. New centres and programmes are built around it. This visibility has helped many people experiment with new forms of collaboration.
But it has also created a new problem: the more transdisciplinarity is celebrated, the more its core ideas risk becoming diluted.
Several patterns contribute to this drift:
- repeated claims that disciplines are trapped in “silos”
- simplified diagrams that promise easy integration
- buzzwords that signal openness without explaining what it requires
- pressure to demonstrate collaboration rapidly, even when the work is complex, thus encouraging quick wins rather than deep engagement.
This “pop transdisciplinarity” is the upbeat, optimistic, highly marketable version of the field. It is built on good intentions, but it often avoids the difficult questions that make transdisciplinary collaboration meaningful.
It tends to:
- treat integration as a matter of “bringing more people to the table”
- assume that participation automatically improves knowledge
- overlook who carries the burden of translation and adjustment
- ignore power differences between knowledge systems
- celebrate inclusivity without asking what is being included, and on whose terms.
In this version, integration becomes a gesture rather than a practice. It signals openness but rarely challenges the deeper structures that shape how knowledge is produced.
The claims around disciplinary silos and the tendency to superficial integration are particularly problematic.
Why is framing disciplines as silos problematic?
Many accounts start with the idea that disciplines are rigid, isolated or incapable of addressing complex challenges. This makes transdisciplinarity look like the obvious solution. But this framing is misleading. Disciplines are not static. They evolve, interact and critique themselves. They also provide the methodological rigour that transdisciplinary work often depends on. When disciplines are reduced to caricatures, the argument for transdisciplinarity becomes shallow, and the practice that follows tends to be shallow as well.
Why does superficial integration matter?
At first glance, inviting more voices into research seems unquestionably positive. But when integration is treated as a quick fix, several problems emerge.
- It reduces knowledge to interchangeable pieces
Different ways of knowing are treated as if they can be easily combined, without recognising their depth, history or internal logic.
- It hides power dynamics
Those who set the agenda often remain unchanged, while others are expected to adapt, translate or justify their contributions.
- It rewards appearance over substance
Projects can appear collaborative without engaging in the slow, demanding work of learning across differences.
- It weakens the field itself
When integration becomes symbolic, transdisciplinarity risks losing credibility among the very people it hopes to influence.
What might a more serious approach look like?
A more grounded transdisciplinarity would begin by recognising that:
- different knowledge systems are not simply “inputs”
- integration requires time, humility and intellectual labour
- collaboration is not neutral; it is shaped by history, culture and power
- learning across epistemologies is a moral responsibility, not a procedural step.
This approach shifts the focus from adding more chairs to asking what it means to learn from others in ways that change us.
It also invites us to revisit the deeper philosophical and historical roots of knowledge, including traditions that have long been marginalised or appropriated. Doing so strengthens transdisciplinarity by giving it a richer foundation and a clearer sense of purpose. This theme is also taken up in other i2Insights contributions, such as Ulli Vilsmaier’s piece on Recognising and valuing linguistic and conceptual pluralism, as well as the contribution by David Ludwig and Charbel El‑Hani on Moving from epistemic paternalism to transformative transdisciplinarity.
Where do we go from here?
Transdisciplinarity still holds enormous promise. But realising that promise requires consideration not of how to make transdisciplinarity more popular but how to make it more meaningful.
So I invite you to reflect:
Does the argument made here resonate with you? Have you identified other issues with “pop transdisciplinarity?” What other ways forward do you see?
To find out more:
Zeidan, H. (2026). It’s time to call transdisciplinarity’s bluff. Global Social Challenges (awaiting volume assignment; online publication date: 12 Jan 2026). (Online – open access): https://doi.org/10.1332/27523349Y2025D000000066
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: Hussein Zeidan MA is a PhD candidate at the Athena Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands. His research examines how transdisciplinarity is translated into educational practice and how it is used to cultivate competencies that support student learning and development.