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.