Transdisciplinarity

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:Articleissues

Overview

In scientific contexts the term 'transdisciplinarity' is used in various ways. In the German speaking countries the term is most often used for integrative forms of research (Mittelstrass 2003). This meaning is in contrast to understanding 'transdisciplinarity' as a principle for a unity of knowledge beyond disciplines (Nicolescou 2002, see below). Transdisciplinarity as a principle of integrative forms of research comprises a family of methods for relating scientific knowledge and extra-scientific experience and practice in problem-solving. In this understanding, transdisciplinary research addresses issues of the real world, not issues of origin and relevance only in scientific debate. A further important feature in understanding transdisciplinary research is whether and to what extent an integration of different scientific perspectives is addressed. This aspect is often used to distinguish between trans-, inter- and multidisciplinarity. Because of these different and to some extent inconsistent concepts and terminologies, the field of transdisciplinary research is difficult to structure. In the German speaking research, a 2003 conference held in Göttingen made the attempt to show the wide range of different understandings of multi-, inter- and transdisciplinarity and made suggestions for converging them without eliminating present usages (see Brand/Schaller/Völker 2004). For an overview of terminology see as well Pohl & Hirsch Hadorn (2007), who also propose a more systematic usage of key terms.

Transdisciplinarity as integrative forms of research

Often knowledge about issues in the knowledge society is uncertain, the nature of the problems is under dispute, and stakes of actors involved are high (Funtowicz & Ravetz 1993). Such situations are calling for transdisciplinary research because in such a situation it is not obvious what the most relevant problems are and how they can be structured and transformed into fruitful research questions. A first type of important research questions relate to empirical processes which have given rise to the present problems and also might influence a problem’s future development (system knowledge). Another important type of research questions is about values and norms that are acceptable as basis to determine the proper goals of the problem-solving process (target knowledge). A third important type of questions relates to whether and how a given problem situation can actually be transformed and improved (transformation knowledge). Requirements for addressing these research question in a transdisciplinary way include that the complexity of problems is adequately addressed, the diversity of life-world and of scientific perceptions of problems is taken into account, that abstract and case-specific knowledge are linked, and that knowledge and practices are developed that promote what is perceived to be the common good (Hirsch Hadorn et al. 2008, Jaeger & Scheringer 1998).

A transdisciplinary style of research can only arise if the participating experts interact in an open discussion and dialogue, accepting each perspective as of equal importance and relating the different perspectives to each other. Working together in a transdisciplinary way is difficult because participating scientists are often overwhelmed by the amount of information in everyday’s practice and because of incommensurability of specialized languages in each of the fields of expertise. Therefore people with the competence of moderation, mediation, association and transfer are needed to initiate and promote a critical and still constructive dialogue. For these individuals it is crucial to have own in-depth knowledge and know-how of the disciplines involved.

Transdisciplinarity as a principle for a unity of knowledge beyond disciplines

A different approach of transdisciplinarity was developed and described in 1987 by the 163 researchers of the International Center for Transdisciplinary Research (CIRET). A Charter of Transdisciplinarity was adopted at the 1st World Congress of Transdisciplinarity (Convento da Arrabida, Portugal, November 1994). In the CIRET approach, transdisciplinarity is radically distinct from interdisciplinarity. Interdisciplinarity concerns the transfer of methods from one discipline to another. Like pluridisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity overflows the disciplines but its goal still remains within the framework of disciplinary research. As the prefix "trans" indicates, transdisciplinarity (a term introduced in 1970 by Jean Piaget) concerns that which is at once between the disciplines, across the different disciplines, and beyond each individual discipline. Its goal is the understanding of the present world, of which one of the imperatives is the overarching unity of knowledge. The transdisciplinarity is defined by Basarab Nicolescu through three methodological postulates : the existence of levels of Reality, the logic of the included middle, and complexity. In the presence of several levels of Reality the space between disciplines and beyond disciplines is full of information. Disciplinary research concerns, at most, one and the same level of Reality ; moreover, in most cases, it only concerns fragments of one level of Reality. On the contrary, transdisciplinarity concerns the dynamics engendered by the action of several levels of Reality at once. The discovery of these dynamics necessarily passes through disciplinary knowledge. While not a new discipline or a new superdiscipline, transdisciplinarity is nourished by disciplinary research; in turn, disciplinary research is clarified by transdisciplinary knowledge in a new, fertile way. In this sense, disciplinary and transdisciplinary research are not antagonistic but complementary. As in the case of disciplinarity, transdisciplinary research is not antagonistic but complementary to multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity research. Transdisciplinarity is nevertheless radically distinct from multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity because of its goal, the understanding of the present world, which cannot be accomplished in the framework of disciplinary research. The goal of multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity always remains within the framework of disciplinary research. If transdisciplinarity is often confused with interdisciplinarity and multidisciplinarity (and by the same token, we note that interdisciplinarity is often confused with multidisciplinarity) this is explained in large part by the fact that all three overflow disciplinary boundaries. This confusion is very harmful, because it hides the huge potential of transdisciplinarity.

Transdisciplinarity in Arts and Humanities

Transdisciplinarity can also be found in the arts and humanities. One example in art and design can be found in the research approach of the Planetary Collegium, which seeks "the development of transdisciplinary discourse in the convergence of art, science, technology and consciousness research".

Transdisciplinarity in Human Sciences

[Excerpt from Medicus 2005, with the authors permission:]

The range of transdisciplinarity becomes clear when the four central questions of biological research ((1) causation, (2) ontogeny, (3) adaptation, (4) phylogeny [after Niko Tinbergen 1963, cf. Aristotle: Causality / Four Major Causes]) are graphed against distinct levels of analysis (e.g. cell, organ, individual, group; [cf. "Laws about the Levels of Complexity" of Nicolai Hartmann 1940/1964, see also Rupert Riedl 1984]):

Causation Ontogeny Adaptation Phylogeny
Molecule
Cell
Organ
Individual
Group
Society

In this “scheme of transdisciplinarity”, all anthropological disciplines (paragraph C in the table of the pdf-file below), their questions (paragraph A: see pdf-file) and results (paragraph B: see pdf-file) can be intertwined and allocated with each other [for examples how these aspects go into those little boxes in the matrix, see e.g. the table "The Framework of Anthropological Research" (pdf).]. This chart includes all realms of anthropological research (no one is excluded). It is the starting point for a systematical order for all human sciences, and also a source for a consistent networking and structuring of their results. This “bio-psycho-social” orientation framework is the basis for the development of the "Fundamental Theory of Human Sciences" and for a transdisciplinary consensus. (In this tabulated orientation matrix the questions and reference levels in italics are also the subject of the humanities.)

References

  • Jaeger J., Scheringer M. 1998. Transdisziplinarität. Problemorientierung ohne Methodenzwang. GAIA 7(1): 10-25.
  • Max-Neef, Manfred A. "Foundations of Transdisciplinarity" Ecological Economics 53(2005) 5-16.
  • Mittelstrass, J.: Transdisziplinarität - wissenschaftliche Zukunft und institutionelle Wirklichkeit. 2003 ISBN 387940786X
  • Nicolai Hartmann: Der Aufbau der realen Welt, Berlin, 1939 (2nd Ed. 1964), de Gruyter
  • Nicolescu, Basarab, "Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity", State University of New York Press, New York, USA, 2002, translation from the French by Karen-Claire Voss.
  • Rupert Riedl: The Biology of Knowledge. Chichester, 1984, John Wiley
  • Witzany, Guenther (ed) (2007). Biosemiotics in Transdisciplinary Contexts. Proceedings of the Gathering in Biosemiotics 6, Salzburg Helsinki: Umweb.
  • Niko Tinbergen: On Aims and Methods in Ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 1963, 20: 410-433

See also

External links

Sources

de:Transdisziplinarität it:Transdisciplinarità lt:Transdiscipliniškumas

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidoc.org/index.php?title=Transdisciplinarity&oldid=727454"