{"id":291,"date":"2019-10-27T16:15:33","date_gmt":"2019-10-27T16:15:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/miekevanderbijl.com\/?page_id=291"},"modified":"2025-04-18T09:59:32","modified_gmt":"2025-04-18T08:59:32","slug":"transdisciplinary-innovation","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/miekevanderbijl.com\/index.php\/transdisciplinary-innovation\/","title":{"rendered":"Transdisciplinary research and innovation"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

From 2016-2018 I worked at the UTS Transdisciplinary School<\/a>, 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

“Everyone will always be a newbie” <\/p>\nJohn Seely Brown<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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<\/a>, things are changing so fast that it is almost becoming impossible to become an expert in anything and \u2018everyone will always be a newbie\u2019. According to him, the best way to deal with this is through adaptation and creating \u2018knowledge flows\u2019 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Transdisciplinarity \u2013 what is it?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The term \u2018transdisciplinarity\u2019 (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 \u201cinnovations required in universities to meet the intellectual and social demands of the present time\u201d (ibid, p1). The term \u2018transdisciplinarity\u2019 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 \u201coffers a practical way to address issues that are highly contested, and where stakes are high.\u201d[2, p9]. At the same time, knowledge and expertise about TD research integration and implementation is fragmented and dispersed across different fields [3].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Three perspectives on transdisciplinarity<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

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<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
Figure 1: Three domains of knowledge that can be included in transdisciplinary research<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Multi-level, purposive transdisciplinarity<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
Figure 2: multi-level, purposive transdisciplinarity is aimed at integration across the empirical, normative, pragmatic, and value level toward a common system purpose<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

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 \u201ctransdisciplinary concepts and principles for the whole system change significantly with changes in the \u2018overall system purpose\u2019\u201d (ibid, p105). The framework is also useful to position disciplines in relation to each other, and to raise awareness about epistemic differences. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
Figure 3: Example of how disciplines come together in a multi-level knowledge innovation system,  adapted from Max-Neef [9]<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Participative transdisciplinarity<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

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 \u2018participatory research\u2019 (Pohl, 2011). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
Figure 4: Participative transdisciplinarity is aimed at collaboration between the real world with experiential knowledge of citizens and other stakeholders, and researchers from academic disciplines. Different disciplines include different participative practices.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s participatory practices [10]. These participatory practices include for example \u2018co-management\u2019 in environmental management [11], \u2018socially engaged art\u2019 in the arts [12], \u2018students as partners\u2019 in education [13], \u2018citizen science\u2019 in the sciences [14], and \u2018participatory design\u2019 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Transdisciplinarity as a social learning process<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s perspective on transdisciplinarity [16]. It includes people with any type of real-world, academic and\/or non-academic knowledge (figure 5).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u2018system\u2019 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.). \u201cThe resultant TD knowledge is open and alive because the wicked problem the knowledge addresses is alive, emerging from the life world\u201d[18].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The embodied perspective of Nicolescu on transdisciplinarity is explained by McGregor (2014) as follows: \u201cTD methodology assumes that everything is complexus<\/em> \u2013 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.\u201d[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].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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: \u201cthe roles, responsibilities and purposes of those involved [in tackling complex challenges] have to be re-conceptualized, not as simply participation, \u201cbut as a process of social learning about the nature of the issue itself and how it might be progressed\u201d (p369).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
Figure 5: Transdisciplinarity as complex, emergent and embodied social learning includes people across all knowledge domains.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Competences for TD collaboration<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Epistemic intelligence<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

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 \u2018legitimate knowledge\u2019 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 \u2018epistemic intelligence\u2019, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An example of how to start developing such epistemological intelligence is confronting students from different disciplines with each other\u2019s 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\u2019s 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)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
Figure 6: Students of different disciplines engage in dialogue after participating in each other\u2019s learning activities<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Worldview awareness<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

To continuously address complex challenges requires \u2018inner work\u2019 and development of self-awareness \u201cto work with people around issues that touch upon our deepest aspirations and our most deeply held beliefs\u201d [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 \u2018lenses\u2019 through which humans see and filter reality. \u201cWorldviews 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\u201d (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].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u2018world as networked reality\u2019 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\u2019 worldviews.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Power literacy<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

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 \u2018power literacy\u2019, 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]. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reflexive & dialogic skills<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

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 – \u2018transdisciplinarity as social learning\u2019 – 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 \u201con-going scrutiny of the choices that are made when identifying and integrating diverse values, priorities, worldviews, expertise and knowledge\u201d [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 \u2018passive reflection on the assumptions and values implicit in one\u2019s own understanding\u2019 [21]. A well-considered method is required to facilitate these types of reflexive processes; it does not simply emerge by completing project tasks [20].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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. \u201cThe purpose of dialogue is to go beyond any one individual\u2019s understanding.\u201d [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 \u2018why being smart is not enough\u2019<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other TD competences<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The above-mentioned TD competences are required to collaborate in complex contexts with people with different values, worldviews, perspectives, epistemologies and aspirations. Such \u2018boundary-spanning\u2019 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The challenges of transdisciplinarity<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n