The History of Transdisciplinarity
Aim of this session
The aim of this session is to introduce the development of transdisciplinarity as a form of knowledge production, which gained conceptual and practical importance over the last decades. The first session is meant to present a clear and well-structured introduction to faculty members of the participating Universities for whom this integrative process of knowledge production and dissemination is new. Therefore the main focus is on the differences between transdisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity as well as multidisciplinarity, which, although differently, combine different approaches and disciplines to problem solving. Furthermore, the two understandings of transdisciplinarity are explained: transdisciplinarity as a new principal for research and science, and transdisciplinarity as an operational modus of research. The latter will be explained further in session three. The provision of knowledge about these different understandings is necessary to lay the foundation for further discussions and reflections about the ‘new’ approach. By the end of this session, the participants should be able to summarize the main features of transdisciplinarity.
Links to transdisciplinary research and teaching
The presentation based on the reading provides a theoretical overview over transdisciplinarity and is meant as a first introduction into the topic. The intent is to initiate a process of thinking about and discussing the possibilities of a transdisciplinaryapproach in the participants’ areas of teaching and research. This will provide a starting point for them to reflect on their own approaches and discuss possible interfaces.
Summary of main points
To give an idea about the development of transdisciplinarity as a knowledge framework
To enable participants to distinguish between different frameworks (like multi-, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinarity)
An understanding about the two understandings of transdisciplinarity
To provide an overview over the main theoretical features of transdisciplinarity
Use of reading material
The article by Bernstein, Jay H. 2015: Transdisciplinarity: A Review of its original, development and current issues. In: Journal of Research Practice 11(1) 1-16provides an overview over the origin of the term transdisciplinarity as well as the contexts in which transdisciplinarity was developed and discussed historically. Another focus is on current issues, which are discussed in the literature concerning transdisciplinarity. The last section of the article deals with knowledge integration, the main feature of transdisciplinarity at least with regard to research. These are as well the main focuses of the presentation, and thus the article should be read as a background material to understand the presentation by all participants. The presentation also goes further and expands on the issues dealt with in the article, especially on the different knowledge frameworks and how they differ from each other.
The reading of the Bernstein article should take place before the session, and should be compulsory. A reading beforehand will be helpful in following the presentation. With regard to the discussion of the different knowledge framework the article by Choi, Bernard & Anita W.P. Pak 2006: Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity, in: Cin Invest Med 29(6), 351-364is advised.
Additional comments to the presentation
The PowerPoint can only be fully understood if the participants have read the article provided, thus, reading the article should be made mandatory. Depending on the time allocated for the presentation, it could be helpful for participants to be given half an hour before the presentation to read the article. As far as the presenter is concerned, it might be helpful if the article by Choi and Pak is studied as a preparation to explain the table provided on slides 19 to 21. Furthermore, the very short paper by Mittelstraß (2000) Transdisciplinarity – New Structures in Science, which can be found on the following page: https://web.archive.org/web/20070709092930/http://xserve02.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/ringberg/Talks/mittels%20-%20CHECKOUT/Mittelstrass.html may be used for preparation.
Concluding remarks
On the last slide, additional literature is mentioned which covers the different topics in the presentation.
Reflections
The PowerPoint is very dense, especially if presented to an audience that might not be familiar with the concept of transdisciplinarity. Thus, it is important to plan enough at least 1,5 hours for the presentation, including Q&A as well as the two exercises. The exercises are of special importance and must be worked into the scheduling.
The first exercise (slide 3) should lead to a collection of ideas and terms the participants have in mind when they think about transdisciplinarity. This can be done in small groups by giving them 5 minutes to make a list of the ideas and terms they associate with transdisciplinarity and have them present this list. Then slide 4 will be shown. When discussing the terms (slide 4), it is important to highlight that the terms tackle different dimensions which will discussed throughout the following sessions (not just in this presentation). The first column contains terms, which indicate what the objects, and the aims of transdisciplinarity are (e.g. transformation, innovation, discovery or strategic research). The second column hinds already to the main feature or what it implies (e.g. integration, synergy, multiple perspectives or connection). The third focusses on what is needed when transdisciplinarity as a strategy is applied (e.g. networks, partnerships, diversity, engagement or cultural shifts).
The second exercise (slide 18) is a group work. In groups of three or four, the various integrative approaches should be discussed between them. The participants should be told to bring in to the discussion the experiences they have had with their own disciplines and disciplinary approaches, assuming that all of the participants have worked with different disciplinary approaches or with researchers from other disciplines. At least 10 minutes for discussion should be given, after which they will share their ‘results’ or experiences before slides 19 to 21 will be presented. Since the question of what is different between these integrative approaches comes up after each slide, room for questions and a discussion should be provided. The clarity of these differences will be important for the other presentations.
The last two slides summarize main aims and objectives. It should be made clear that how these objectives will be reached will be discussed in the next presentations.
There should also be enough time for a Question & Answer round!!!!
This session gives a lot of input and is not very interactive. However, it is the foundation for the following sessions. Thus, it is important to have enough time allotted to implement this first presentation. It should be pointed out throughout the presentation that there is no roadmap on how to implement transdisciplinarity - neither for research nor teaching – but, that it is process as shown above. The aim is to develop a new framework for knowledge production.