Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Five Dimensions of Applied Transdisciplinarity
Five Dimensions of Applied Transdisciplinarity
Transdisciplinary Reflections
2012-08-20 10:08:57 Alfonso Montuori
Alfonso Montuori
Theres an emerging literature arguing for the importance of a transdisciplinary
approach, outlining its philosophical roots, and articulating the need for
transdisciplinarity in our present situation. Transdisciplinarity is already branching
out in many different forms and on many different levels, from the highly theoretical
to the more applied. In the following pages Id like to explore an over-arching
framework for applied transdisciplinarity. In other words, its one way to get started
doing transdisciplinary inquiry, and getting a sense of what it actually might involve.
I want to propose five dimensions that constitute the basis of transdisciplinarity.
These dimensions are the foundation for transdisciplinary work as I see it. I certainly
dont want to give the impression that they are the dimensions of transdisciplinarity,
the generally agreed on dimensions, necessary but not sufficient, or anything like
that. Simply that I have found them useful in the practice of transdisciplinarity, in my
own experience researching and teaching. They emerge from my immersion in the
research on inter- and transdisciplinary approaches, drawing from Morin to Klein,
Nicolescu to Newell, Augsburg to Leavy. They are not so much theoretical
dimensions as practical dimensions: they represent aspects and moments of
research. Together they form a heuristic for transdisciplinary work, and are intended
as an opportunity to open up dialogue about the process of inquiry itself.
coming issues.
1) Inquiry-Based rather than Discipline-Driven: What are the characteristics of the
phenomenon we want to understand? Based on these characteristics, why does
our research need to be transdisciplinary? What are the limitations of existing
disciplinary perspectives? What do disciplinary perspectives leave out that in our
view is important in order to develop rich and complex understanding of the
phenomenon? At this stage we need to be able to give an extensive description of
the issue we want to explore. This should preferably happen through a narrative, a
story, an incident, anything that connects the issue to the real world. Then we can
articulate the various aspects of our inquiry, and show why it cannot be contained
within the boundaries of only one discipline. Inquiry based means we look at our
subject matter without the restrictions of a disciplinary lens. We look at a
phenomenon, and describe it. Then we see what the issues are we want to
understand, and draw from appropriate disciplines.
2) Trans-paradigmatic rather than Intra-paradigmatic: Once we step outside the
confines of disciplinary knowledge, what does the available research literature have
to say about our subject? What disciplinary perspectives already exist? What is
Dominant Disciplinary Discoursein others words, in what discipline might we find
most of the work on our topic, even if there is no research specifically on our topic?
How are various perspectives constructed, using what fundamental assumptions?
Traditionally knowledge is of course organized by disciplines. Within those
disciplines there are different frames, different perspectives on the issues being
studied. Most researchers work within the confines of one particular perspective,
and apply that perspective but do not necessarily question it. A Trans-paradigmatic
perspective involves an awareness of the many different ways a particular question
can be framed, and an understanding of the underlying assumptions of those
perspectives, both within specific disciplines and across them, in the sense that
different disciplines may address a specific topic such as leadership from different
theoretical perspectives. It also means that while we cannot know every individual
piece of research ever done about our topic, we can still have an understanding of
the many ways in which the topic has historically been approached. Key literature
here is found in the philosophy of social science. Brian Fays Contemporary
Philosophy of Social Science (Fay, 1996) provides a very useful framing of key
questions. Of particular interest is the fact that Fays book is influenced by, and
draws extensively on, Robert Kegans work and presents a dialectical, postformal
approach.
3) Complex thinking rather than Reductive-Disjunctive thinking: How are we thinking
about our topic? What is our unit of analysis or system definition? Are we
separating and abstracting, or distinguishing and connecting? The Transparadigmatic dimension asks us to reflect on the plurality of ways that our topic has
been framed in the context of its larger ecology. This dimension asks us to look at
our own thinking, introducing a metacognitive and systemic/complex approach.
(Particularly as outlined by Morin 2008a, 2008bcomplex thought is closely
related to postformal thought. This will be the topic of a future column.) Our
traditional way of thinking focuses on analysis, simplicity, and abstraction. This way
References
Fay, B. (1996). Contemporary philosophy of social science. New York: Blackwell
Publishers.
Tweet
Facebook
LinkedIn