From 2016-2018 I worked at the UTS Transdisciplinary School, and I am still affiliated with the school as an adjunct fellow. It is easily the most inspiring workplace where I have ever worked. The only reason I left the school was that it is located in Australia and we wanted to live closer to our family in the Netherlands. On this page, I explain what transdisciplinary collaboration is, why it matters, and which competencies are required to work in transdisciplinary ways.
Working in a context where people have shared values and different knowledges and expertise can be incredibly inspiring because you are constantly presented to ideas that are new. My background is in design, but in TD school I worked with researchers, students, and teachers with expertise ranging from arts, science, business, law, and tech to writing, fashion, medicine, education, land management, and many other ways of knowing including indigenous and spiritual ways of knowing. Working across such diverse perspectives is not only personally inspiring and interesting, it is also of essential value to working in a complex and dynamic world.
“Everyone will always be a newbie”
John Seely Brown
In this rapidly changing, hyper-connected world, we are facing increasingly complex and dynamic problems, including climate change, increasing levels of conflict, mass-migration, polarisation, and mental health problems caused by pressures of work and social media. A more optimistic view is that new technology offers many opportunities to contribute to society such as the application of robotics in aged care, the potential of AI in for example medical diagnosis, and the accessibility of education in remote places through online learning. Regardless of your viewpoint, we live in changing times that will keep impacting us one way or another. As John Seely Brown explains in this fantastic lecture, things are changing so fast that it is almost becoming impossible to become an expert in anything and ‘everyone will always be a newbie’. According to him, the best way to deal with this is through adaptation and creating ‘knowledge flows’ by learning from each other. We cannot afford to stay within the comfort zones of our individual disciplines and practices, but need to keep learning, come together, and look for new ways to address these complex issues. We need transdisciplinarity.
Transdisciplinarity – what is it?
The term ‘transdisciplinarity’ (TD) has been around since the early seventies when it was discussed at a seminar on interdisciplinarity in universities in Nice, organized by the OECD [1]. The goal of the event being to explore the “innovations required in universities to meet the intellectual and social demands of the present time” (ibid, p1). The term ‘transdisciplinarity’ has evolved since the seminar in Nice and many definitions of the term exist. All definitions share a focus on socially relevant issues, and an approach that transcends and integrates disciplinary paradigms [5]. The term transdisciplinarity is still becoming increasingly popular and was recently promoted by the OECD as an approach that “offers a practical way to address issues that are highly contested, and where stakes are high.”[2, p9]. At the same time, knowledge and expertise about TD research integration and implementation is fragmented and dispersed across different fields [3].
Three perspectives on transdisciplinarity
In a recent paper for the DRS conference [4], I introduced three perspectives on transdisciplinarity, based on similar categorizations as presented by Pohl [5] and by Thompson Klein [6]. Please note that these categorizations do not focus on the difference between multi-, inter- , cross- and trans-disciplinarity, which I explain in this blog post.
Each of the three perspectives has a different view on which ways of knowing are integrated, and how these ways of knowing are related to each other (figure 1). We can distinguish 1) knowledge as generated by academic disciplines, 2) real-world situated and experiential knowledge in relation to the complex challenge at hand, and 3) other non-academic ways of knowing such as indigenous and spiritual ways of knowing.
Disciplines include the traditional disciplines of the natural sciences, social sciences and humanities, but can also refer to the fine and performing arts and applied and professional fields. Real-world situated and experiential knowledge in relation to the complex challenge at hand is knowledge of citizens, users, and stakeholders such as industry partners with regard to the complex problem situation from which the challenge emerges. Finally, TD research also includes programs that reduce the gap between Western and non-Western traditions as well as esoteric knowledge and indigenous knowledge [7].
The three domains of knowledge described above are integrated in different ways in three perspectives on transdisciplinarity. These perspectives are based on the three groups of definitions of transdisciplinarity presented by Pohl [5], which I define as: 1) multilevel, purposive transdisciplinarity, 2) participative transdisciplinarity as interaction between academic and non-academic stakeholders, and 3) transdisciplinarity as complex, emergent and embodied, supported by a social learning practice. I will next explain each of those three perspectives.
Multi-level, purposive transdisciplinarity
The first perspective is the model developed by Jantsch [8] at the OECD seminar in Nice in 1970. Jantsch developed a multi-level model of transdisciplinarity which was further refined by Max-Neef [9]. The model shows how disciplines each have a different purpose in a multi-level, multi-goal hierarchical innovation system aimed at a common human and social purpose.
The levels in the multi-level, purposive model of transdisciplinarity build up from a practical empirical level (what exists), via a pragmatic (what we are capable of doing) and normative level (what we want to do), to a purposive or value level: the level of meaning. Transdisciplinarity here considers integration across all levels: a multi-level, multi-goal co-ordination toward a common system purpose [8]. Max-Neef categorised disciplines according to the four levels, see figure 3.
The levels are not strict categorizations, as many disciplines bleed into other layers, for example it could be argued that architecture does not just sit at the pragmatic level as Max-Neef suggests. Jantsch [8]furthermore describes how the four hierarchical levels are further subdivided into a fine structure of hierarchical sub-levels. What is essential is that these levels are coordinated and that “transdisciplinary concepts and principles for the whole system change significantly with changes in the ‘overall system purpose’” (ibid, p105). The framework is also useful to position disciplines in relation to each other, and to raise awareness about epistemic differences.
Participative transdisciplinarity
While the multi-level perspective predominantly focuses on the relationship between and integration of academic disciplines, a more recent type of transdisciplinarity is focused on the relationship between academia, society and technology, and highlights the need for participation across sectors. This type of transdisciplinarity is based on the premise that societal problems need to frame research questions and practices instead of academic disciplines [6]. Different practices have been proposed to promote participation of non-academic stakeholders, often referred to as ‘participatory research’ (Pohl, 2011).
Participative practices can be found in multiple disciplines and professions (figure 4). In a previous study we, a group of colleagues from TD school, investigated what role participation plays across academic disciplines and fields of practice, what differences and similarities we can identify across these participatory practices, and what we can learn from each other’s participatory practices [10]. These participatory practices include for example ‘co-management’ in environmental management [11], ‘socially engaged art’ in the arts [12], ‘students as partners’ in education [13], ‘citizen science’ in the sciences [14], and ‘participatory design’ in design [15]. Aspects on which these different disciplinary participation practices differ include for example the level of agency of the participating audience, the level of reciprocity in learning, the required expertise of participants (e.g. language and technology), context and setting of engagement with the audience, and the level of activism in participatory practices [10]. For example, in the article (ibid) I shared a reflection on how the agency of participants in participatory design tends to be restricted to the design phase and their power in synthesizing solutions is low, while for example co-management in natural resource management emphasizes ongoing co-management in which stakeholders (e.g. farmers) have high agency in adopting certain innovative management practices.
Transdisciplinarity as a social learning process
The third conception of transdisciplinarity does not start from particular combinations of disciplines and ways of knowing (i.e. multi-level and academic versus non-academic), but from the idea that transdisciplinary knowledge can be characterized as complex, emergent, and embodied, based on Nicolescu’s perspective on transdisciplinarity [16]. It includes people with any type of real-world, academic and/or non-academic knowledge (figure 5).
The complex and emergent perspective draws our attention to the continuous nature of tackling complex challenges. As we explain in a preceding article [17], complex challenges cannot be solved with quick fixes, but instead require an ongoing engagement and experimentation with the complex context from which the challenge emerges, in an attempt to guide that context or ‘system’ into a desired direction. This ongoing transdisciplinary work also includes a continuous social learning practice in which knowledge and innovations co-evolve with the actors and practices involved in the work (ibid.). “The resultant TD knowledge is open and alive because the wicked problem the knowledge addresses is alive, emerging from the life world”[18].
The embodied perspective of Nicolescu on transdisciplinarity is explained by McGregor (2014) as follows: “TD methodology assumes that everything is complexus – woven into a web, where the focus is on the relationships, not on the separate parts. Emergence refers to novel qualities, properties, patterns, and structures that appear from relatively simple interactions among people in this web. [..] The resultant knowledge is characterized as embodied, a part of everyone who co-created it, rather than discipline-bound or sector-bound.”[18]. The outcomes of transdisciplinary research and innovation are therefore not just externalized and generalizable knowledge and improvements in the problem situation, but also include personal and mutual learning [19], and changes in human relationships [20].
Transdisciplinarity as complex, emergent, and embodied includes a focus social learning [21]. Collins and Ison [22] explain the difference between social learning and participation as follows: “the roles, responsibilities and purposes of those involved [in tackling complex challenges] have to be re-conceptualized, not as simply participation, “but as a process of social learning about the nature of the issue itself and how it might be progressed” (p369).
Competences for TD collaboration
In a complex and dynamic world, all three conceptions of TD are relevant. Addressing complex challenges requires social learning across a wide variety of ways of knowing, depending on the challenge at hand. Effective collaboration across different ways of knowing is challenging. It therefore requires specific competences.
The transdisciplinary competences that I will present in this section include: epistemic intelligence, worldview awareness, power literacy, and reflexive and dialogic skills. I will illustrate these competences with examples from my own experience working in TD education and TD research.
Epistemic intelligence
As outlined in the multi-level perspective on transdisciplinarity, such collaborations include integration of knowledge across all four disciplinary levels. An important challenge to overcome here is dealing with epistemological differences between disciplines across and within the four transdisciplinary levels. Crotty [23] defines epistemology as the theory of knowledge that defines what kind of knowledge is possible and legitimate. The large variety in what is considered ‘legitimate knowledge’ across disciplines challenges collaboration across epistemologically different disciplines. For example, the credibility of design research and practice in science-based disciplines tends to be low. TD collaboration therefore requires what I define as ‘epistemic intelligence’, the ability to recognize epistemological differences between disciplines and fields of practices, to accept and respect those differences and be able to explain those epistemological differences to others.
An example of how to start developing such epistemological intelligence is confronting students from different disciplines with each other’s epistemologies. In the UTS Bachelor of Creative Intelligence and Innovation, we asked students to develop a 20-minute learning activity for students of other degrees to learn about the unique ways in which their discipline contributes to research and innovation. They then participated in each other’s learning activities, but before doing that we asked them to draw caricatures of professionals from the other disciplines, forcing them to make their preconceptions about other disciplines explicit. After participating in the learning activity, students showed each other their caricatures and engaged in dialogue about their preconceptions and what they had learned (figure 5)
Worldview awareness
To continuously address complex challenges requires ‘inner work’ and development of self-awareness “to work with people around issues that touch upon our deepest aspirations and our most deeply held beliefs” [24]. A particularly important aspect of self-awareness in TD collaboration is how our personal worldview is continuously determining how each of us feel, think and act [25]. De Witt, de Boer [26] explain that worldviews are the fundamental ‘lenses’ through which humans see and filter reality. “Worldviews not only tend to shape how individuals perceive particular issues and their potential solutions, they also tend to influence their willingness to partake in, or politically support, such solutions” (ibid, p.101). An awareness of worldviews in TD contexts where collaborating people might have fundamentally different worldviews in relation to the challenge at hand is therefore essential to promote productive dialogue and collaboration. This is relevant in any of the three conceptions of transdisciplinarity introduced above. For example, in a TD project about public health (transdisciplinarity as complex, embodied, and emergent) we were confronted with the individualistic nature of our Western worldviews of health and medicine when working with Australian Aboriginal representatives who adopted a holistic and collective perspective on health and wellbeing [17].
One of the ways in which I have started to teach about worldviews in my practice as TD educator in both higher education and professional practice is the worldview workshop, developed together with Katie Ross, based on the work of de la Sienra, Smith [25]. In this workshop, participants experience two different worldviews in two different games: the world as a machine, and the world as networked reality. The world as a machine game is based on the Cartesian-Newtonian paradigm and as such reflects competition, reductionism, and determinism, while the ‘world as networked reality’ game reflects a more systemic worldview and is characterized by connection and emergence. By combining the plays with the worldview test [26], and collective reflections on the experience and test, participants become more aware of world views, their impact on collaboration in complex contexts, and develop a respectful attitude towards others’ worldviews.
Power literacy
Another aspect of inner work required to tackle complex challenges is an understanding of positionality, privilege, and power both within oneself and within group dynamics [24]. This is particularly relevant in the context of participative transdisciplinarity. Power literacy plays a role in transdisciplinarity as power and knowledge are tightly interrelated [27]. In a recent publication, we argued that this requires designers to adopt a ‘power literacy’, as researchers and designers often lack awareness of, sensitivity to, and understanding of how power dynamics and differentials affect stakeholders, the relations between them, and the social issues addressed in transdisciplinary work [28].
Reflexive & dialogic skills
Reflexivity is often presented as an important social practice in transdisciplinary studies [19, 21, 29]. It is particularly relevant to the third conception of transdisciplinarity – ‘transdisciplinarity as social learning’ – which highlights the complex and ongoing nature of TD work. Such TD work has many moving and evolving parts, including continuous change of knowledge about the problem space and possible intervention, the actors participating in the collaboration, the way they relate to each other, the research and innovation methods and practices they adopt, and the vision and purpose of the project or program [17]. In such fluid and evolving innovation work, reflexivity can provide a structure for learning. Reflexivity can be defined as an “on-going scrutiny of the choices that are made when identifying and integrating diverse values, priorities, worldviews, expertise and knowledge” [29, p114]. Epistemic intelligence, worldview awareness, and power literacy can inform this reflexive practice. While reflexivity can be performed by individuals, it becomes particularly powerful in a TD context when reflexivity is executed as a collective inquiry, a creative process that generates new meanings, rather than being a ‘passive reflection on the assumptions and values implicit in one’s own understanding’ [21]. A well-considered method is required to facilitate these types of reflexive processes; it does not simply emerge by completing project tasks [20].
Reflexive skills need to be integrated with dialogic skills. Dialogue is fundamentally different from a debate, presentation, or pitch, which is only aimed at transferring information from one person to another. Instead, dialogues are productive and creative. Participants in a dialogic conversation do not assume that they already know what the answer is, but they understand that the conversation can lead to new insights that none of them had before that conversation started. “The purpose of dialogue is to go beyond any one individual’s understanding.” [30]. Dialogue therefore also requires specific skills, including questioning and listening. In this blog post I wrote about the importance of such dialogic skills and ‘why being smart is not enough’.
In [20] we describe how we applied such a reflexive and dialogic method in an innovation project aimed at improving student wellbeing, working in a team with students and staff with different disciplinary backgrounds. The method included regular reflexive team dialogue sessions. The reflexive sessions entailed discussions of shared readings, reflections on the challenge we were working on, and an analysis of our experiences of our collaboration. To inform the team dialogues we would write reflective statements about our personal learning and experiences, and share these with each other [see for examples 20]. Reflexivity helped us to surface and deliberate on our assumptions and values, including divergent perceptions of power dynamics within our team. For example, through this process, unproductive power dynamics between students and staff were confronted and dealt with early on.
Other TD competences
The above-mentioned TD competences are required to collaborate in complex contexts with people with different values, worldviews, perspectives, epistemologies and aspirations. Such ‘boundary-spanning’ TD competences need to be complemented with other skills, knowledge and attitudes to work in complex contexts. In addition to ongoing learning and integrating knowledge, TD practices include an action-orientation, ethical considerations, future-focus and holistic and systemic way of addressing complex challenges [31]. This requires additional TD competences including creative skills towards action; moral sensitivity and creativity; skills to develop visions for alternative futures; and an understanding of and ability to work with complexity and systems.
The challenges of transdisciplinarity
In my work at UTS and in later TD collaborations at TU Delft, I started to experience what transdisciplinarity meant through learning about systems thinking, complexity, and more generally about how we can get the most out of a group of diverse people. I have also come to realise that there are many challenges to transdisciplinarity, some external, some more internal and personal.
- A major external challenge is that we live in a society that likes to put things in boxes. So many of us work in siloed organisations that make it very difficult to adapt or collaborate. In a university context this for example means that:
- Most academic funders don’t like it (yet) > national research councils put academics in boxes, which defines which mono-disciplinary panel assesses your research proposal
- A system based on competition does not promote it, and incentivises academics to publish in mono-disciplinary boxes called top journals.
- A system based on accountability does not promote to adapt to external changes by putting our tasks in boxes called work plans and key performance indicators.
- We still don’t really know how to do it. Particularly transdisciplinary collaboration is really hard. So often do we put a group of diverse people in the room around a complex problem, add a bit of design thinking and other creative tools, and then we go back to what we were doing before.
- Most people don’t like complexity and uncertainty. Not knowing where you are going and dealing with constant change can be exhausting.
- It requires humbleness and an open mindset. When I worked at TD school I came to realise how many things we claim to be unique to our design expertise, but in reality, are skills that colleagues of other disciplines also obtain or are even better at. Design with empathy? My anthropologist and sociologist colleagues understand empathy much better than I do. Human-centeredness? Most of my colleagues engage in a human-centred practice in one way or another. Storytelling? Well, that’s of course not a design expertise at all (ask my journalism and creative writing colleagues).
Transdisciplinarity is transformative, uncomfortable and at times embarrassing: we need to put effort into understanding each other’s approaches and value systems. We need to step towards each other and be courageous enough to leave the ‘safety net’ of our own disciplines. Despite these challenges, working in a transdisciplinary context is an amazing experience. Working in a diverse group of curious and open-minded people, facing complex challenges, the learning curve is very steep.
Want to know more?
If you would like to learn more about TD do not hesitate to contact me. In addition, some useful resources about TD are:
- i2insights platform and blog: https://i2insights.org
- TD lab at ETH Zurich provides a range of TD tools and resources: https://tdlab.usys.ethz.ch
References
1. Apostel, L., et al., Interdisciplinarity, problems of teaching and research in universities. 1972, Paris: OECD publications.
2. OECD, Addressing societal challenges using transdisciplinary research. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, 2020(88).
3. Bammer, G., et al., Expertise in research integration and implementation for tackling complex problems: when is it needed, where can it be found and how can it be strengthened? Palgrave Communications, 2020. 6(1): p. 5.
4. van der Bijl – Brouwer, M., Design, one piece of the puzzle – a conceptual and practical perspective on transdisciplinary design, in DRS2022. 2022, Design Research Society: Bilbao.
5. Pohl, C., What is progress in transdisciplinary research. Futures, 2011. 43(2011): p. 618-626.
6. Thompson Klein, J., The transdisciplinary moment(um). Integral Review, 2013. 9(2): p. 189-199.
7. Thompson Klein, J., Prospects for transdisciplinarity. Futures, 2004. 36(2004): p. 515-526.
8. Jantsch, E., Towards interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in education and innovation, in Interdisciplinarity, problems of teaching and research in universities, L. Apostel, et al., Editors. 1972, OECD Publications: Paris. p. 97-121.
9. Max-Neef, M.A., Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecological economics, 2005. 53(1): p. 5-16.
10. Baumber, A., et al., Learning together: A transdisciplinary approach to student-staff partnerships in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 2019. 39(3): p. 395-410.
11. Berkes, F., Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management, 2009. 90(5): p. 1692-1702.
12. Helguear, P., Education for Socially Engaged Art. 2011, New York: Jorge Pinto Books.
13. Mercer-Mapstone, L., et al., A systemic literature review of students as partners in higher education.International Journal for Students as Partners, 2017. 1(1): p. 1-23.
14. Mitchell, N., et al., Benefits and challenges of incorporating citizen science into university education. PLoS ONE, 2017. 12(11): p. 1-15.
15. Gregory, J., Scandinavian approaches to participatory design. International Journal of Engineering Education, 2003. 19(1): p. 62-74.
16. Nicolescu, B., Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity. 2002, Albany: State University of New York press.
17. van der Bijl – Brouwer, M., G. Kligyte, and T. Key, A Co-evolutionary, Transdisciplinary Approach to Innovation in Complex Contexts: Improving University Well-Being, a Case Study. She ji: The Journal of Design, Economics and Innovation, 2021. 7(4): p. 565-588.
18. McGregor, S.L.T., Transdisciplinarity and Conceptual Change. World Futures, 2014. 70(3-4): p. 200-232.
19. Mitchell, C., D. Cordell, and D. Fam, Beginning at the end: The outcome spaces framework to guide purposive transdisciplinary research. Futures, 2015: p. 86-96.
20. Kligyte, G., et al., A Partnership Outcome Spaces framework for purposeful student–staff partnerships.Teaching in Higher Education, 2021: p. 1-19.
21. Popa, f., M. Guillermin, and T. Dedeurwaerdere, A pragmatist approach to transdisciplinarity in sustainability research: From complex systems theory to reflexive science. Futures, 2015. 65(2015): p. 45-56.
22. Collins, K. and R. Ison, Jumping off Arnstein’s Ladder: Social Learning as a New Policy Paradigm for Climate Change Adaptation. Environmental Policy and Governance, 2009. 19: p. 358-373.
23. Crotty, M., The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. 1998, New South Wales: Allen and Uwin.
24. Birney, A., et al., Systems change education in an innovation context. 2019.
25. de la Sienra, E., T. Smith, and C. Mitchell, Worldviews, a Mental Construct Hiding the Potential of Human Behaviour: A New learning Framework to Guide Education for Sustainable Development. Journal of Sustainability Education, 2017. 13(March 2017).
26. De Witt, A., et al., A new tool to map the major worldviews in the Netherlands and USA, and explore how they relate to climate change. Environmental Science & Policy, 2016. 63(September 2016): p. 101-112.
27. Avelino, F., Theories of power and social change. Power contestations and their implications for research on social change and innovation. Journal of Political Power, 2020. 14(3): p. 425-448.
28. Goodwill, M., M. van der Bijl – Brouwer, and R. Bendor, Beyond Good Intentions: Towards a Power LIteracy Framework for Service Designers. International Journal of Design, 2021. 15(3): p. 45-59.
29. Polk, M., Transdisciplinary co-production: Designing and testing a transdisciplinary research framework for societal problem solving. Futures, 2015. 65(January 2015): p. 110-122.
30. Senge, P.M., The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. 1990: Doubleday.
31. McPhee, C., M. Bliemel, and M. van der Bijl – Brouwer, Editorial: Transdisciplinary Innovation. Technology Innovation Management Review, 2018. 8(8): p. 3-6.