The title of this article signals increasing collaboration across boundaries aimed at understanding and solving complex scientific and societal problems. The article is a reflective analysis of five ...intersecting keywords in discussions of sustainability and boundary crossing. This genre of discourse studies interprets language use, drawing in this case on a representative sample of authoritative definitions, case studies, and state-of-the-art accounts. The Introduction situates the discussion around the increasing number and size of teams as well as research across both academic disciplines and other sectors, followed by the five keywords that structure the overall argument. Section 2 examines the first of the five keywords, defining interdisciplinarity by marking its alignment with integration, confluence, interdependence, interaction, and balance. Section 3 considers the second keyword—transdisciplinarity—by tracing evolution of a problem-focused connotation, links to sustainability, inclusion of stakeholders, the imperative of critique, and transdisciplinary action research. Section 4 brings together insights on inter- and trans-disciplinarity in a composite “crossdisciplinary” alignment with collaboration, factoring in the nature of teamwork, public engagement, and translation. Section 5 then turns to learning, noting the difference between education and training then emphasizing transformative capacity, double- and triple-loop learning, reflexivity, and a transdisciplinary orientation. Section 6 takes up the final keyword—knowledge—by calling attention to inclusion, indigenous and local perspectives, nomothetic versus idiographic perspectives, the question of fit, and the nature of crossdisciplinary knowledge. The article concludes by identifying future research needs.
In defining values and skills for grappling with complex societal challenges, this article builds on Daniel Stokols' generic model of the 4 Ts of training for transdisciplinary, team-oriented, ...translational, and transcultural research. Whether explicit or implicit, the 4 Ts thread
throughout this exploration of learning and teaching in transdisciplinary contexts. Stokols' focus was educating social ecologists, but his call to close the gap between rhetoric of endorsement and limited responsiveness of academic institutions is widespread. Learning for sustainability
is a case in point. Although increasingly prioritized as an imperative, it is often confined to special programs rather than assimilated across the academy and its relations with other sectors of society. This contribution builds further on remarks in a panel at the 2021 International Transdisciplinarity
Conference: by synthesizing insights into inter- and trans-disciplinarity and subthemes of teaching and learning while embellishing Stokols' other three Ts of team-based approaches, translation of knowledge across sectors, and a shift from uni- to transcultural outlooks. In the course
of discussion the contribution also clarifies differences between inter- and trans-disciplinarity, though treats them as emphases, not sharp boundaries.
•Empirical studies show a persistent ‘project-to-science-and-practice-at-large-gap’.•The field of knowledge utilization offers promising insights to address this gap.•Jahn’s model of ...transdisciplinary research prompts our revised conceptual model.•Our model broadens the interactive and iterative nature of transdisciplinary research.
Recent empirical studies show a persistent gap between ‘socially robust’ knowledge produced by transdisciplinary research projects and its ability to promote change on a large scale. Current discourses about the ‘project-to-science-and-practice-at-large gap’ have focused mainly on exploring various conditions that need to be fulfilled to produce ‘socially robust’ knowledge. Yet, those discourses have rarely built on the broader literature of knowledge utilization, which Greenhalgh and Wieringa (2011) emphasize acknowledges ‘the fundamentally social ways in which knowledge emerges, circulates, and gets applied in practice.’ Their insights are helpful in advancing our understanding of why transdisciplinary research projects do or do not contribute to sustainability on a large scale. Expanding Jahn et al. (2012)’s model of transdisciplinary research, we present a revised conceptual model of an ideal-typical, interactive and iterative transdisciplinary research process that adds two new phases from the field of knowledge utilization to their original three-phase model and accounts for the social and relational nature of knowledge utilization. The revised model includes five phases through which transdisciplinary projects operate in different order: (i) defining sustainability problems, (ii) producing new knowledge, (iii) assessing new knowledge, (iv) disseminating new knowledge in realms of both science and practice and (v) using new knowledge in both realms.
Abstract
Integration is often considered the core challenge and the defining characteristic of inter- and trans-disciplinary (ITD) research. Given its importance, it is surprising that the current ...system of higher education does not provide permanent positions for integration experts; i.e., experts who lead, administer, manage, monitor, assess, accompany, and/or advise others on integration within ITD projects or programs. Based on empirical results of an ITD 2019 Conference Workshop entitled “Is there a new profession of integration experts on the rise?” held in Gothenburg, Sweden, and our own experience in leading and studying ITD integration, the present article sheds light on the overarching question, “What are integration experts?”, thus contributing to the emerging literature on integration and integration expertise. We use direct quotes from participants to substantiate workshop results and triangulate them with recent literature on ITD research as well as Science of Team Science (SciTS) and Science and Technology Studies (STS). We conclude our article by discussing possible unintended consequences of establishing academic careers for integration experts, and suggest four complementary ways to support them, while mitigating potentially negative consequences: (a) establishing an international Community of Practice (CoP) to foster peer-to-peer exchange among integration experts, create greater visibility, and develop ideas for transforming academic structures; (b) studying academic careers of integration experts to provide empirical evidence of “successful” examples and disclose different ways of establishing related academic positions; (c) funding respective positions and aligning metrics for ITD research to foster integration within ITD projects or programs; and (d) engaging in collaborative dialog with academic institutions and funding agencies to present empirical results and lessons learnt from (a) and (b) to support them in establishing and legitimating careers for integration experts. If academia is to be serious about addressing the most pressing environmental and societal problems of our time, it needs to integrate its integrators.
Interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR) extends and challenges the study of science on a number of fronts, including creating output science and engineering (S&E) indicators. This literature ...review began with a narrow search for quantitative measures of the output of IDR that could contribute to indicators, but the authors expanded the scope of the review as it became clear that differing definitions, assessment tools, evaluation processes, and measures all shed light on different aspects of IDR. Key among these broader aspects is (a) the importance of incorporating the concept of knowledge integration, and (b) recognizing that integration can occur within a single mind as well as among a team. Existing output measures alone cannot adequately capture this process. Among the quantitative measures considered, bibliometrics (co-authorships, co-inventors, collaborations, references, citations and co-citations) are the most developed, but leave considerable gaps in understanding of the social dynamics that lead to knowledge integration. Emerging measures in network dynamics (particularly betweenness centrality and diversity), and entropy are promising as indicators, but their use requires sophisticated interpretations. Combinations of quantitative measures and qualitative assessments being applied within evaluation studies appear to reveal IDR processes but carry burdens of expense, intrusion, and lack of reproducibility year-upon-year. This review is a first step toward providing a more holistic view of measuring IDR, although research and development is needed before metrics can adequately reflect the actual phenomenon of IDR.
The study of culture in the American academy is not confined to a single field, but is a broad-based set of interests located within and across disciplines. This book investigates the relationship ...among three major ideas in the American academy—interdisciplinarity, humanities, and culture—and traces the convergence of these ideas from the colonial college to new scholarly developments in the latter half of the twentieth century. Its aim is twofold: to define the changing relationship of these three ideas and, in the course of doing so, to extend present thinking about the concept of “American cultural studies.” The book includes two sets of case studies—the first on the implications of interdisciplinarity for literary studies, art history, and music; the second on the shifting trajectories of American studies, African American studies, and women’s studies—and concludes by asking what impact new scholarly practices have had on humanities education, particularly on the undergraduate curriculum.
Interdisciplining Digital Humanities sorts through definitions and patterns of practice over roughly sixty-five years of work, providing an overview for specialists and a general audience alike. It ...is the only book that tests the widespread claim that Digital Humanities is interdisciplinary. By examining the boundary work of constructing, expanding, and sustaining a new field, it depicts both the ways this new field is being situated within individual domains and dynamic cross-fertilizations that are fostering new relationships across academic boundaries. It also accounts for digital reinvigorations of “public humanities” in cultural heritage institutions of museums, archives, libraries, and community forums.
•The three major discourses of transdisciplinarity are transcendence, problem solving, and transgression.•The epistemological problem of unity lies at the heart of the discourse of transcendence.•The ...claim of transcendence overlaps increasingly with problem solving and a methodological orientation.•The discourse of transgression is heightened in critiques of existing structures of knowledge and education.•Emphasis has shifted from traditional epistemology to problem solving and from universality to contextuality.
The current ascendancy of transdisciplinarity (TD) is marked by an exponential growth of publications, a widening array of contexts, and increased interest across academic, public and private sectors. This investigation traces historical trends, rhetorical claims, and social formations that have shaped three major discourses of TD: transcendence, problem solving, and transgression. In doing so, it also takes account of developments that have emerged or gained traction since the early 21st century when a 2004 issue of Futures on the same topic was being written.
The epistemological problem at the heart of the discourse of transcendence is the idea of unity, traced in the West to ancient Greece. The emergence of transdisciplinarity was not a complete departure from this historical quest, but it signalled the need for new syntheses at a time of growing fragmentation of knowledge and culture. New synthetic frameworks emerged, including general systems, post/structuralism, feminist theory, and sustainability. New organizations also formed to advance conceptual frameworks aimed at transcending the narrowness of disciplinary worldviews and interdisciplinary combinations of approaches that did not supplant the status quo of academic structure and classification.
The discourse of problem solving is not new. It was fundamental to conceptions of interdisciplinarity in the first half of the 20th century. Heightened pressure to solve problems of society, though, fostered growing alignment of TD with solving complex problems as well as trans-sector participation of stakeholders in society and team-based science. The discourse of transgression was forged in critique of the existing system of knowledge and education. TD became aligned with imperatives of cultural critique, socio-political movements, and conceptions of post-normal science and wicked problems that break free of reductionist and mechanistic approaches. It also became a recognized premise in interdisciplinary fields, including cultural studies, women's and gender studies, urban studies, and environmental studies. And, calls for TD arrived at a moment of wider crisis in the privileging of dominant forms of knowledge, human rights accountability, and democratic participation.
Even with distinct patterns of definition, though, discourses are not air-tight categories. Transcendence was initially an epistemological project, but the claim of transcendence overlaps increasingly with problem solving. The imperatives of transgression also cut across the discourses of transcendence and problem solving. Broadly speaking, though, emphasis is shifting from traditional epistemology to problem solving, from the pre-given to the emergent, and from universality to hybridity and contextuality.
The number of individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) who enter secondary school settings and access the general education curriculum continues to grow. Many educators may find they are not ...prepared to adapt their instruction to meet both state standards and the diverse needs of the full spectrum individuals with ASD, which has implications for postsecondary success. In this article, we present an overview of current knowledge around academic instruction for this population, specifically (a) how characteristics associated with ASD can impact academic performance, (b) academic profiles of individuals with ASD across content areas, and (c) interventions that have been successful in improving academic outcomes for this population, including special considerations for those individuals who take alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards. We conclude by offering suggestions for future research and considerations for professional development.
PDF
