Navigating inter- and transdisciplinary PhD supervision: Practical questions for students and supervisors

7 thoughts on “Navigating inter- and transdisciplinary PhD supervision: Practical questions for students and supervisors”

1. Dear colleagues, thank you for your interesting and helpful message.

   The topic you mentioned is important. Therefore, let me add a few suggestions to what you have already said.
   I understood from your message that “Navigating inter- and transdisciplinary PhD supervision: Practical questions for students and supervisors” is a “big” problem. Philosopher and mathematician V. V. Nalimov (1910-1997) discovered that in most cases researchers do not try to solve a big problem, but prefer to divide it into many small, but also difficult to solve problems. At the same time, outside the context of solving a big problem, these small problems remain unresolved. However, such a peculiar “division process” of a big problem creates the illusion of a “solution process.” It seemed to me that the list of questions that you propose to solve for a graduate student and his/her supervisor resembles the very process of dividing a large problem into many small problems.

   I will give you a specific example of negative situations that may arise in the absence of a context for solving a “big” problem – the lack of definitions of the terms used. In the comments to Hussein Zeidan’s previous post, we modeled the virtual interaction between a “potential” graduate student and a “potential” supervisor. In the absence of a strict definition of the terms for the “potential” supervisor, the “potential” graduate student had to use a colorful metaphor to demonstrate the essence of his/her proposals. The “potential” supervisor did not like this metaphor. Moreover, the use of an “unsuccessful” metaphor in the dialogue almost destroyed the planned organization of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary scientific guidance for “potential” graduate students. This example demonstrates the inevitable dominance of the scientific worldview of a “potential” supervisor over the newly formed scientific worldview of a “potential” graduate student.

   This allows me to ask the question – is it possible to replace the process “differentiation process” of the problem of “Navigating inter- and interdisciplinary PhD supervision: Practical questions for students and supervisors” towards the “process of its integration”?

   It follows from the above that in order to limit the dominance of the worldview of a “potential” supervisor and fully unleash the possibilities A “potential” graduate student needs to accept a logically sound set of the following definitions:

   INTEGRATION is a set of specific factors that enable a researcher to form a holistic image of the object under study.
   The main factors of integration of disciplinary knowledge are: diffusion, expansion, consolidation and synthesis.

   DIFFUSION is the mutual and/or unidirectional penetration of a certain amount of disciplinary knowledge between complementary disciplines. An example of the diffusion of disciplinary knowledge is the description of the circulatory system of a biological object, using the parameters and characteristics of the pipeline system of a technical object.

   EXPANSION is the transfer of methodological approaches and terminology from a leading discipline to the subject areas of subordinate complementary disciplines. An example of the expansion of methodological techniques is the active introduction of economic theory into related subject areas of social studies, the use of economic and mathematical methods and models in search of answers to questions in the social sciences, in anthropology and psychology, demography, ecology, biology, etc.;

   CONSOLIDATION is the use of knowledge and methodological tools from a certain discipline to contextualize (determine the general meaning) and interpret research results performed using a given set of complementary disciplines. An example of consolidation is the use of historical discipline to inform readers about the development of a particular field in philosophy.;

   SYNTHESIS is the process of purposefully combining the knowledge and methodologies of complementary disciplines to form a holistic image of the object under study. Examples of synthesis can be observed in the framework of such sciences as regional studies (when forming a holistic image of certain countries within certain regions), science studies (when forming a holistic image of science as a form of intellectual activity of humankind), etc.

   Depending on the complexity of the problem (the topic of scientific research), the graduate student can choose one of the four main integration factors.

   Next, a potential graduate student should clarify to what level of complexity the topic of his/her scientific research belongs – is it a low-threshold problem, a medium-threshold problem or a high-threshold problem.

   Depending on the level of complexity, the graduate student must determine exactly which approach should be used in his/her scientific work: interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary or transdisciplinary.

   INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH is a method of broadening the scientific worldview of disciplinary specialists, enabling them to explore an object and its subject areas through the use of methods, knowledge, and languages of both the leading and subordinate complementary scientific disciplines.

   MULTIDISCIPLINARY APPROACH is a way to expanding the scientific worldview horizon of disciplinary specialists, enabling them to explore an object and its subject areas through the use of methods, knowledge, and languages of a given set of complementary scientific disciplines.

   TRANSDISCIPLINARY approach is a method of broadening the scientific worldview of disciplinary specialists, enabling them to explore an object and its subject areas through the use of methods, pre-disciplinary and disciplinary knowledge, and the languages of a given set of complementary and non-complementary scientific disciplines.

   Further, having decided on the choice of approach, the “potential” graduate student should justify the choice of “leading discipline” and “guided disciplines” in his/her research:
   LEADING DISCIPLINE is a discipline that determines the problematics, sets the context and goals of interdisciplinary research, and provides the methodological framework for the final interpretation of its results.
   SUBORDINATE DISCIPLINE is a discipline that provides its methodological framework for interdisciplinary research.
   Then it’s even more interesting!

   Many “potential scientific supervisors” are unaware that in parallel with interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches, a systematic approach is actively developing in the scientific world. Moreover, within the framework of the systems approach, the idea of creating a transdiscipline, an analogue of the general theory of systems, is maturing. It is likely that for comprehensive scientific research within the framework of a doctoral thesis, it would be advisable to use a systems interdisciplinary, systems multidisciplinary, or systems transdisciplinary approach:
   SYSTEMS INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH is a method of correctly identifying and modeling an object or problem as a local interdisciplinary system, which allows for the application of complementary systems disciplinary methodologies to their investigation and resolution.
   SYSTEMS MULTIDISCIPLINARY APPROACH is a method of correctly identifying and modeling a complex object or a complex multifactorial problem as an integral multidisciplinary system, enabling the application of an appropriate set of systems disciplinary methodologies for its investigation and resolution.
   SYSTEMS TRANSDISCIPLINARY APPROACH is a method of correctly identifying and modeling a complex object or a complex multifactorial problem as a transdisciplinary system, which allows for the application of a universal systems transdisciplinary methodology to their investigation and solution.

   You can get acquainted with the definitions of other terms in the glossary (http://td-science.ru/index.php/glossary).
   It is possible that after reading the definitions of these terms, you will agree with your entire group to join us and participate in the compilation of the second version of “Navigating inter- and transdisciplinary PhD supervision: Practical questions for students and supervisors”.

   In the first version of Navigating inter- and transdisciplinary PhD supervision: Practical questions for students and supervisors, you describe in detail a process based on an intuitive perception of the content of fundamental scientific terms. The second version will describe in detail the process based on the actual content of scientific terms. Depending on the specific situation, the potential of the participants, the complexity of the problem and the need to comply with a given level of scientific rigor, the graduate student and his/her supervisor will be able to use the first or second version of this important document.

   This joint work with your group and with other interested people who want to join you can be organized and carried out within the framework of an informal “Center for Advanced Innovative Technologies of Higher Education”.

   I hope you will be interested in my brief analysis of your document and my suggestions.
   With respect.
   Vladimir Mokiy

   Reply

   • Dear Vladimir,

     Thank you for taking the time to engage so thoroughly with our work and for sharing your detailed reflections.

     We appreciate the perspective you bring, particularly your emphasis on conceptual clarity, definitions, and integrative frameworks, as well as your effort to articulate different modes of integration and levels of complexity.

     At the same time, we sense that your reading approaches our contribution from a somewhat different set of assumptions than those that guided its development.

     Our intention was not to outline or simulate a “solution process,” nor to provide a structured or prescriptive methodology. Rather, we deliberately proposed a set of reflective questions designed to open space for ongoing dialogue between supervisor and supervisee throughout the PhD journey – especially in contexts where expectations, assumptions, and understandings often remain implicit.

     In this sense, our approach does not seek to replace integration with differentiation, but rather to make visible the conditions under which integration in practice can emerge. We are particularly concerned with how differences in assumptions, expectations, and understandings shape supervision processes, and how these can be made explicit and discussed over the course of the PhD journey.

     Your contribution highlights a more formalized pathway toward integration, grounded in definitions, classifications, and structured methodological choices. We see value in this perspective, especially in contexts that require a high degree of conceptual precision and formal coherence.

     At the same time, our work is oriented toward supporting practice in situations where such structures are not given in advance, but must first be articulated and negotiated between actors.

     We also appreciate your invitation to explore a potential collaboration and the idea of developing a further version of this work. While we cannot commit to a specific format at this stage, we value the opportunity for continued exchange and will keep this in mind as the discussion evolves.

     We appreciate the effort behind your contribution and the perspectives you bring, even where our approaches diverge. We believe that engaging across these differences can be productive for advancing the broader conversation on PhD supervision in interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary contexts.

     Reply

     • Dear colleagues,

       Thank you for your reply and willingness to continue the discussion.

       I highly appreciate your ability to compliment someone who doesn’t fully share your point of view.

       This technique can lead to success in dialogue with a certain group of scientists, teachers and specialists who need a high third-party assessment of their concepts and theories (That’s how smart I am!). Constructive discussion is not important to them.

       There is a second group of scientists, teachers, and specialists who use the dialogue to “publish” their concepts and theories again (That’s how important I am!). They are not interested in constructive discussion.

       The third category of scientists, teachers, and specialists consider it their duty to “smash to smithereens” any theory and concept that does not agree with their worldview (That’s how brave I am!). They are not interested in constructive discussion.

       And finally, the fourth group of scientists, teachers and specialists, do not pay attention to compliments. It is important for them to understand, analyze, and evaluate the potential of other people’s theories and concepts in order to suggest ways that will achieve their goals more effectively. Constructive discussion and its positive outcome are fundamentally important to them.
       In this case, it is important to take into account Michael Smithson’s remark about “Meta-ignorance”. The graduate student and his/her supervisor have a disciplinary worldview. Only the supervisor from the fourth group can recognize the existence of objective meta-ignorance. This recognition will contribute to two areas of scientific research in the postgraduate student’s work.

       The first direction sends him to the “gray zone”, the concept of which is described by Mariana Thieriot (CIRET). The “grey zone” is a space of non—violent transformation of opposing opinions, assumptions and doubts based on the pluralism and tolerance of the participants. In this case, the supervisor and the graduate student share responsibility for the success or failure of scientific research, for its high or low level of scientific rigor, and for the risk of practical implementation of the graduate student’s research results. In the context of today’s religious holiday, I remembered the quote: “if a blind man leads a blind man, then they will fall into a pit together…”.

       The second direction involves organizing a scientific search for a graduate student, based on a “comprehensive conceptual framework for relevant unknown factors and uncertainties in a research project.” In the methodology of scientific research, this basis is determined by the choice of the CONTEXT METHOD.

       CONTEXT METHOD answers the question “what is the objective essence of the object?”, i. e., it correctly objectifies (expresses in an objective, perceptible form) the object of investigation. In this case, the object of investigation is perceived as a strictly defined real object, distinguished from other objects by its objective purpose.

       It is the method-context that allows you to choose a reasonable APPROACH METHOD, TECHNIQUE METHOD and PROCEDURES.

       APPROACH METHOD answers the question “what to study?”, i.e., it forms a theoretical conception of the object under study. A clear understanding of the object under study allows perceiving it as a prototype of a real object, as well as identifying its subject areas (main functional elements).

       TECHNIQUE METHOD answers the question “how to study?”, i.e. it forms a general strategy for studying an object. It defines
       – whether to explore the object as a whole or its specific subject areas;
       – whether to explore an object in its natural state or to use its theoretical or mathematical model;
       – whether to preserve the integrity of the object during the study, or it can be destroyed, etc.

       PROCEDURES are cognitive tools that answer the question “how to obtain the results of study?”
       Therefore, in the second area, the supervisor assumes responsibility for the above criteria. He explains to the graduate student that he has to explore the “unknown known,” initially being in a state of meta-ignorance. In order to successfully avoid all the “pitfalls”, it is necessary to use the traditional chain of the above-mentioned scientific research methods as a “guiding beacon” in the space of “unknown unknowns” and meta-ignorance. Moreover, the supervisor should prepare the graduate student for the fact that a project that uses the classical chain of scientific research methods will inevitably “expand his/her understanding of previously unknown factors.”

       Are the information “on two directions” and “on the responsibility of the supervisor” interesting for continuing our constructive discussion?
       With respect.
       Vladimir Mokiy

       Reply

       • Dear Vladimir,

         Thank you for your continued engagement and for elaborating further on your perspective.

         We appreciate the additional reflections you share, particularly regarding questions of uncertainty and the role of supervisors in navigating complex research processes.

         At this stage, the exchange has clearly highlighted the different assumptions and orientations underlying our respective approaches. Our contribution remains focused on supporting dialogue in supervision practice through reflective questions, while your contributions develop a more formalized and structured framework.

         Given this, we believe that the key points of difference and potential complementarity have been made visible in the discussion. We will therefore leave it here, with appreciation for the exchange and the perspectives you have brought into the conversation.

         With best wishes,

         Anna Hajdu

         Reply

2. I appreciate and like the guidelines that the authors have provided, and I would like to suggest an addition to their advice that “Inter- and transdisciplinary research requires negotiating different ways of knowing.” I’d recommend extending it to “Inter- and transdisciplinary research requires negotiating different ways of knowing and dealing with unknowns.” I have two reasons for this suggestion.

   First, disciplines differ not only on standards of evidence and validation, but also on how to conceptualize and deal with unknowns and uncertainties. Even what appears to be a shared term, such as “risk”, may be construed differently across disciplines. Likewise, what is taken to be known or knowable in one discipline may be considered unknown or unknowable in another, especially when it comes to making predictions, constructing explanations, and identifying causes.

   Second, transdisciplinary research is more likely than single-discipline research to reveal meta-ignorance. Meta-ignorance is not knowing what we don’t know (or “unknown unknowns”). Its crucial epistemic property is that we cannot be aware of it in our here-and-now selves. Only other people can detect it in us. People in our own discipline will tend to be meta-ignorant in the same ways that we are. They will be less likely to detect our meta-ignorance than people in other disciplines with knowledge and ways of thinking that differ from our own. This is both a challenge and an advantage for transdisciplinary research.

   Adding epistemic concerns about how ignorance and uncertainty are dealt with in different disciplines should generate additional questions for discussion. Two that occur to me are:
   1. How will we develop an encompassing conceptual framework for relevant unknowns and uncertainties in this project?
   2. How can we best prepare for the possibility that the project will expand our awareness of previously unconsidered unknowns?

   Reply

   • Thank you for your insightful comments and valuable additions to this set of considerations. We would greatly welcome further reflections like these, as they help create space for meaningful conversations between supervisor and supervisee, enabling them to navigate the uncertainties of the journey while remaining mindful of its boundaries.

     Reply

   • Dear Michael,

     Thank you very much for this thoughtful and constructive suggestion – we really appreciate the way you build on the idea of negotiating different ways of knowing.

     Your point about differences in how disciplines conceptualize and deal with unknowns and uncertainties resonates strongly with our intention to make implicit assumptions more visible in inter- and transdisciplinary work. We also find your emphasis on meta-ignorance particularly insightful, especially in highlighting how differences across disciplines can both reveal and reproduce blind spots.

     We agree that these epistemic dimensions could usefully enrich the kinds of questions that are discussed between supervisors and PhD researchers. The questions you propose point precisely to the kinds of conversations that our contribution aims to encourage – particularly around how uncertainty is framed, what is considered knowable, and how new unknowns may emerge during the research process.

     Thank you again for this valuable addition – we will keep this perspective in mind as we continue developing this line of work.

     Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.