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.
Dear Hussein,
You’re exploring an interesting and practically useful topic, and you’ve already come close to rethinking it.
You’ve shown an example of how a loose (lightweight) approach to understanding complex problems can be effective. However, if you allow me, I’d like to warn you about some of the peculiarities of this approach.
One of the main characteristics of a loose (lightweight) approach is the forced use of stereotypes. Such stereotypes are usually conditioned by personal associative perceptions of the meaning of terms. Rick Szostak was the first to point this out. He immediately asked you what you mean by the term “integration.”
In turn, I’d like to know your opinion on what specific operational actions the term “integration” encompasses? Do you distinguish between the terms “interdisciplinarity” and “interdisciplinary interaction”? To what type of transdisciplinarity do you attribute the term “popular transdisciplinarity”: to TD – as a scientific approach; To TD – as a cultural approach; to TD – as a way of thinking; to TD – as an art; to TD – as a “gray zone” between science, culture, and tradition? And finally, can interdisciplinary interaction be built solely on integration, or, in certain cases, is it necessary to use other foundations, such as the unification and generalization of knowledge?
As can be seen from the posts on this excellent blog, as well as from the substantive comments that accompany them, many experts have well-founded answers to these questions. I think that if you, as a graduate student, are interested, I and other experts would be happy to share our opinions or information on these issues with you.
Sincerely,
Vladimir.
Dear Vladimir,
Thank you very much for taking the time to engage with my reflections and for raising such thoughtful conceptual questions. These are exactly the kinds of conversations I hoped to spark when I wrote “It’s time to call transdisciplinarity’s bluff” and began contributing to this blog.
I fully agree with you that clarifying what we mean by terms such as integration, interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinary practice is essential. This is precisely what I tried to highlight: the literature often struggles with these concepts and rarely addresses them explicitly. Much of the discussion proceeds by assuming shared meanings, which leaves important distinctions underdeveloped. So I share your view on the need for a more precise understanding of the terminology we rely on (complex problems, collaboration, integration, and so on). My intention is not to impose definitions, but to raise the questions that the field itself often leaves unanswered.
This is precisely the space in which I see what I call “pop‑transdisciplinarity” emerging. I use the term to describe the quick, project‑driven forms of TD that are becoming increasingly common initiatives where actors from different domains are brought together for short exercises aimed at producing rapid solutions to complex problems, often without seriously engaging with questions of power dynamics or epistemic positioning. These efforts tend to rely heavily on the rhetoric of transdisciplinarity while bypassing its deeper methodological and epistemological commitments. This is the phenomenon I am trying to draw attention to, particularly because it is beginning to act as a gatekeeper that constrains more flexible, contextual, and situated forms of transdisciplinary engagement.
I appreciate your invitation to continue this exchange. These discussions are genuinely valuable to me, and I look forward to learning from your perspective and deepening the dialogue. Your work on transdisciplinarity as a metadiscipline is genuinely thought‑provoking, and your proposals for training in TD offer a helpful way of tracing how the concept has evolved and how shared familiarity can be cultivated. Still, having the chance to hear your thoughts directly (rather than only engaging with your work from a distance) feels like a wonderful opportunity to learn more.
Thank you again
Hussein
Dear Hussein,
In fact, transdisciplinarity is a special kind of intellectual activity. Every activity is like the light of the Sun. Refracted in raindrops, it decomposes into seven colors – from red to purple. Reflecting on complex interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary problems, transdisciplinarity is decomposed into 51 shades of color (stereotype). It is important to note that each type of activity is interested in fully covering all possible options. The results of each stereotype make it possible to meet the needs of the same diverse “spectrum” of people with different views and worldviews.
Such a “color” alignment can be observed in various fields of activity. For example, you can cure a sore tooth in various ways. You can contact a dentist, a pharmacy pharmacist, a psychic, an herbalist, an omniscient taxi driver, or bus passengers. It is ok. However, only a dentist will initially bear legitimate moral, material and legal responsibility for the results of dental treatment. The basis of such responsibility is the availability of a specialized discipline, textbook and curriculum at the university. That’s why doctors have an unspoken rule: “if you don’t know what to do, read it in a textbook.” The organizers of science took this fact into account. For example, in solving complex problems in biology, physics and chemistry, they have taken measures to create specialized disciplines: biophysics, biochemistry, etc., as well as to create textbooks on these disciplines. It is the availability of disciplines, textbooks, and curricula at universities that makes it possible to train specialists. Such specialists are able not only to comprehend a complex problem, but also to ensure scientific rigor in the search for its solution.
If we are not talking about the problem of a sick tooth, of which we have 32, but about the planet, which we have in one copy, or the world order, which will ensure the conflict-free sustainable development of the entire modern society, then I prefer that such complex multifactorial problems be rethought and solved by “transdisciplinary specialists.” Unlike political and economic experts, who begin their phrases with the words: “I think so,” it is important that transdisciplinary specialists begin solving these problems with the words: “from the perspective of a specialized scientific discipline.”
Thus, we do not seek to hinder the development and stereotypical perception of transdisciplinarity. Our goal, one step away from our practical solution, is to take all the necessary steps to formalize transdisciplinary activities as a specialized scientific discipline. Thus, it will be possible to abandon the services of political and economic experts who make irresponsible decisions and train transdisciplinary specialists who will initially lay the foundation for moral, economic and legal responsibility for the results of their theoretical and practical activities to ensure the preservation of a single world, a single planetary organism, a single society of the anthropocene, mental and physiological health of every person.. The goals are well-known. But no one has ever tried to achieve them with the help of specially trained specialists. Should we try to achieve these goals together?
With respect.
Vladimir
Thank you for your response and for opening with a metaphor. I appreciate the intention behind it. However, I must respectfully disagree with the premise and the parallel you draw. The phenomenon of light decomposing into colors carries several logical issues when applied to knowledge production.
Your metaphor assumes:
– a single unified source (light),
– a neutral decomposer (raindrops, standing in for frameworks or methods),
– and a harmonious spectrum of complementary colors.
None of these assumptions hold when we shift to epistemic and ontological realities. We do not share a single ontology or metaphysics. Even within shared ontologies, epistemologies diverge significantly. And the various ways of knowing and doing do not naturally complement one another like colors in a spectrum; more often, they compete, obscure, or even attempt to invalidate one another.
While I value metaphors, they can sometimes dilute the very “special kind of intellectual activity” you describe. I want to take that phrase in a positive spirit, yet when I read it alongside your earlier comments, I sense a proposition for a model of gatekeeping through trandisciplinarity. This is troubling in a field whose starting point was precisely to problematize how modernist and positivist science excluded other voices and forms of knowing.
This brings me to your second analogy, which seems to grant the doctor full moral authority over what constitutes “good practice” in tooth removal. Of course, expert authority matters. But transdisciplinarity exists to bring other forms of expertise (that are sometime not well highlighted by authorative expertise) into the conversation:
– Has the psychological toll on the patient been considered?
– Is the hospital accessible to those who need it?
– Do the medications have wider social or bodily effects?
– Are there alternative or complementary approaches worth understanding?
When the problems become more complex, we cannot simply assign blame to the doctor. Responsibility becomes networked (Timmermans’ work is insightful here https://www.sciencedirect.com/org/science/article/abs/pii/S2040802117000293).
What I find particularly interesting is how, within transdisciplinary work, we sometimes take on roles traditionally associated with politics or economics. This is precisely what made me curious about what we, as transdisciplinarians, genuinely bring that is distinct. We certainly contribute valuable insights and open space to rethink our ways of knowing and doing. But this does not inherently protect us from the same slippery slopes that political and economic actors face.
One example is how easily “pop‑transdisciplinarity” sit comfortably with a neoliberal celebration of multiculturalism often without engaging seriously with underlying power dynamics. From this perspective, I remain cautious about distrusting one elite only to replace it with another, especially when the replacement is framed through the same technocratic idealism that shaped the economic and political expertise we critique. This strikes me as a strong claim, especially when we still have substantial work ahead to unravel and understand the entangled problems confronting our societies.
Regarding your generous suggestion “should we try to achieve these goals together?” my first reading made me nod enthusiastically. On a second reading, I felt more cautious. I hesitate to agree to a preset agenda without first creating space to explore the problem at hand, to understand how our diverse ways of knowing and doing shape it, and to discuss how we want to work together toward change. For me, that deliberative, co‑creative process is the essence of transdisciplinarity, and if that is what we are aiming for and we are willing to sit with the trouble of these converations and exercises, then I wholeheartedly say yes.
Once again, I sincerely appreciate your thoughtful comment. Thank you.
Hussein
Great post, thank you. I have witnessed transdisciplinary teams genuinely motivated by making a difference to address wicked problems, while co-learning from each other’s different perspectives. This is always inspiring (and miraculous)! On the other hand, I think there is a need to guard against the potential misuse of transdisciplinarity as a buzzword and instrument for serving research impact agendas and institutional metrics. When research problems or agendas are set by universities and senior researchers, rather than transparently negotiated between groups of people who are directly impacted by the problem, there are rising chances of this misuse. Although, I recognise that researchers can be genuinely problem-focused and need to meet funding requirements.
Since my early research training I have thought it important to study a problem that was originally raised by research participants, consulting with groups within and beyond universities that were directly affected. I have carried this approach into most of my post-PhD research projects. As I wrote in my book Producing Shared Understanding for Digital and Social Innovation (2020), even though I was doing transdisciplinary work, I tried not to strongly advocate for transdisciplinary approaches, because for us (the research team, participants, supporters), at the time, this was the most suitable approach for the problem across contexts that organically unfolded in its early stages. The participants from a broad range of disciplines coalesced around a shared vocabulary, the term ‘knowledge ecosystem’ (which later resonated across many disciplines outside my own who cited the research), but they did not mention the t-word even though its meaning is represented and embedded in social-ecological systems thinking.
In other words, transdisciplinarity is often invisible and intertwined in related concepts and practice; as the practice is humble and invisible by nature, it is particularly vulnerable to being captured and renamed by institutional forces that reward visibility and assertiveness. Its community-centred ethos can disrupt the hierarchical power structures that are deeply ingrained in academic-centered contexts. When academics use the term ‘transdisciplinary’ alongside more assertive language often used in competitive research grant applications, it sometimes works against the humility, openness, creativity and fluidity that gently guides coevolution into increasingly complex futures.
Beautifully articulated, Faye. One thought kept circling in my mind, both personally and in those informal coffee‑corner conversations: we were practising transdisciplinarity long before we knew the word for it. And now that the term exists, and we are trying to formalise it into a requirement for academic rewards and merit systems, it has somehow become harder to understand and even harder to enact.
To be honest, that tension is what pushed me to write the provocation. The gatekeeping around transdisciplinarity feels fundamentally at odds with humility and openness, the concept is supposed to embody. At the same time, the gatekeeping seems more invested in terminology than in the actual substance of the work. We can see it in the walls now being built between concepts that share a similar spirit, transdisciplinarity, responsible research and innovation, participatory action research, and so on.
What troubles me most is that some “transdisciplinarians” tend to problematise disciplines without really acknowledging the generative processes within them. Their organic evolution, their internal critiques, the way they renew and correct themselves. That narrative makes it easier for transdisciplinarity to drift into becoming a discipline of its own. And once that happens, the transformative potential of Transdisciplinarity becomes diluted, and it risks turning into yet another gatekeeper.
It sometimes feels that we can see parallels with Foucault’s critique of the humanitarian reforms that followed the era of physically isolating the “madman”. In his critique, he sees that those reforms didn’t truly liberate anyone. They simply replaced physical chains with a kind of moral imprisonment, making the individual responsible for their own “abnormality.”
Hi Hussein, thank you for this very interesting piece. As I was reading your post, I immediately began to think about ‘the projectification’ of TD as you so aptly put it in another comment, and also about Regeer et al., 2024’s recent book on Transdisciplinarity for Transformation and their broad conceptualisation of TD. I began to struggle again with the definition, meaning and/or principles of TD. On the one hand, we want TD to be a meaningful process, but indeed, in projects we can see that different TD approaches are used to bring different disciplines and actors together to ‘find solutions to complex problems’, but these are often lacking project partners with the adequate skills, knowledge, and time to implement TD meaningfully. Do you think there is a way to reconcile this in projects? Do you think TD and integration could exist on a spectrum, while still remaining meaningful? Curious to hear your thoughts!
Thank you, Lisa, for raising this point. I agree with you. There is sometimes a trade‑off between focusing on the transformation and the notion of meaningful processes. In some contexts, we even need to ask whether transdisciplinarity is the right approach to drive these transformations forward. Or simply, if integration equals transformation
At the same time, we tend to equate “meaningful process” with simply bringing more people to the table, without really confronting how our processes enable (or fail to enable) people to participate meaningfully. And this includes questioning whether people even see themselves as participants, or whether they prefer to delegate their role to a representative (whether that’s a politician or a scientist) who speaks on their behalf. or also the negotiation of role, responsibility, and accountability within these networks.
Once we start highlighting these questions, we inevitably become a bit uncomfortable with the vague and generic definitions we often encounter in the pop-transdisciplinarity literature. Terms like collaboration and integration are used frequently, but rarely with a clear explanation of what they actually entail in practice. To try to answer your valid question, I would say that we need to think beyond the how (the practicalities) and first clarify the why and the what. Doing so will help us position the different versions of transdisciplinarity in relation to the contexts in which they operate.
Beautifully said! I couldn’t agree with you more. I also feel that your answer above to Faye is also aligned with this one – we are becoming trapped in definitions and best practices – when TD can take many different shapes and forms and can be called (and known previously) as different concepts. We can focus more on bringing together interested parties who can first clarify the why and the what of the problem to be addressed, and then along the way find the best approaches for the how, drawing upon approaches from across broad ranges of literature and practice that suit the needs best. I already feel a bit more liberated thinking of it like a more organic process rather than trying to pin down a perfect TD approach! 😉
Thanks for the thoughtful article. I have found great value in Edgar Morin’s idea of Complex Thought, particularly his emphasis on conjunction and distinction. It recognises that understanding comes not from collapsing differences, but from holding things together while also preserving what makes them distinct.
Nelson Goodman’s Worldmaking also points to different composition or ordering processes. Things may hang together, conflict or complement one another. This kind of tension is part of a healthy multiplicity that allows richer understanding and more generative forms of practice.
Thank you for this beautiful comment. I think that when we talk about integration, we often end up simplifying the issue, treating it as a matter of simply merging things together. That usually turns into an obsession with consensus, as if the goal were to smooth out all differences within a complex situation.
What I appreciate in Morin’s work is precisely his insistence that conjunction without distinction leads to confusion, while distinction without conjunction leads to fragmentation. Even when we acknowledge that reality is made of interdependencies and that we must understand relationships and interactions, we still need to mark boundaries so we can respect the specificity of phenomena. Otherwise, we fall into a new kind of reductionism.
I also really like your turn to Goodman. It highlights how, in our enthusiasm for “integration,” we sometimes end up weighting and championing integration itself, treating it as if merging everything were the only thing that matters. Yet, distinguishing is just as crucial as connecting. Without distinction, integration becomes a flattening gesture rather than a genuinely productive one. It also risks turning into a hegemonic gesture, one that imposes unity rather than genuinely fostering it.
Thanks for provoking this important conversation, Hussein! One additional provocation regarding the state of transdisciplinarity: We also need to think beyond the “imperative of integration.” Of course, integrating diverse knowledge systems can be very fruitful. But if integration is our only mode of transdisciplinarity, the road to assimilation is short. Not everything needs to be integrated and not everyone needs to integrate everywhere. Sometimes, refusing to integrate is important. Sometimes, transdisciplinarity needs to be about understanding, respecting, and coordinating differences.
Thank you, David, for this provocation. I agree with you. To be honest, I see far more room for transdisciplinarity in spaces where we genuinely try to understand, respect, and coordinate differences. Yet this sits uncomfortably with the growing culture of projectifying transdisciplinarity when we compress it into short timeframes and rushing toward consensus, often through a simplified notion of democratisation.
I recently enjoyed reading a piece from the philosophy of science that challenges this rush toward alignment and merging. It invites us to consider the value of emphasising differences as a way of making non‑epistemic values visible throughout the process. The author uses a compelling analogy to show that such alignment only makes sense in narrow and commissioned contexts (being hired on project ;)) and is not a general requirement for legitimate or democratic science.
John, S. Against alignment: the value of non-democratic science. Euro Jnl Phil Sci 15, 48 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-025-00680-2
Thanks for the contribution Hussein! I agree that there are dangers of transdisciplinarity (or indeed interdisciplinarity) becoming a buzzword. I also agree with you that integration is important, doable, and challenging.
I wonder what you mean by integration? My sense at the ITD conference in Utrecht in 2024 was that transdisciplinary scholars tended to use the word to talk about getting teams to function well together, while interdisciplinary scholars focused more on integrating ideas into a more comprehensive understanding. I think we need to do (at least) both of these things.
Thank you, Rick. I agree with you: we need both elements, teams that function well together and a comprehensive grasp of the different ideas we’re trying to integrate. But I also think that “integration,” when it’s understood as merging everything into a single direction for the team, can sometimes dilute the value of divergence. As I mentioned in my comment on Steven’s post, Morin reminds us that conjunction without distinction leads to confusion, while distinction without conjunction leads to fragmentation.
And sometimes, I wonder whether simply juxtaposing ideas (Placing and judging them within a moral framework) might be more productive than trying to integrate them outright. Just saying, to provoke a little ;).