Talk:Transdisciplinarity

Explanation of NPOV tag

This article (to the extent that it makes any sense at all) advocates a narrow perspective that derives, I think, from a fringe scientific movement, and makes a classic non-NPOV claim: "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." This can be fixed quite simply: say "According to so-and-so,..." Bryan 13:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

like saying 'according to the dictionary definition found in most encyclopedias'? because that is pretty much the definition that i've seen in various encyclopedias. --Buridan 14:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Reallly? I don't think the phrase "the present world" would get past a competent editor. I think what is meant is this: "... because of its goal, the understanding of pressing challenges to humanity that the disciplines have thus far failed to solve..." (I'm ready to sign off on that!) Bryan 00:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

perhaps not the 'present world part' that is true. but for the most part, the rest is fine, actually i think the present world bit is likely from the french school of transdisciplinarity. --Buridan 01:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added citation needed tags to relevant sentences, and removed the NPOV tag as it seems clear this is the position of Nicolescu. - RoyBoy 02:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

This article contains substantial plagiarism

Much of the main entry is plagiarized verbatim from pp. 44-47 of Nicolescu's _Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity_. The examples of plagiarism I found all occurred in the section heading beginning "Transdisciplinarity as a principle..." --jbardzel 22:31, 13 August, 2008

Explanation of CleanupConfusing tag

Let me apologize in advance if my tone sometimes verges into sarcasm. I am actually trying to be helpful. Please try rewriting this article so that it makes some sense. There are interesting ideas here - they just need to be explained in comprehensible terms! If there are language problems, get some assistance.

Currently, the article states:

"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."

Reading the preceding discussion (in the article), it's no wonder why people are confused! And by the way, what is the "huge potential of transdisciplinarity"?

DEFINITIONS

Multidisciplinary: the juxtaposition of disciplines in an additive rather than integrative and interactive fashion, producing an encyclopedic alignment of multiple perspectives. (Klein 2002)

Interdisciplinarity: several unrelated academic disciplines are involved in the research project in a way that forces them to cross subject boundaries. The concerned disciplines integrate disciplinary knowledge in order to create new knowledge and theory and achieve a common research goal.(Tress et al. 2006) (unrelated means they have contrasting research paradigms)

Transdisciplinarity: a research project that involves academic researchers from different unrelated disciplines as well as non-academic participants to create new knowledge theory and to research a common question. transdisciplinarity combines interdisciplinarity with a participatory approach.(Tress et al. 2006)

So in short (and my own terms): Multidisciplinary is the SUM of knowledge of diverse disciplines. (1+1=2) Interdisciplinarity is the sum of knowledge of diverse disciplines PLUS the creation of extra knowledge because of the interaction between the disciplines. (1+1>2) Transdisciplinarity is the same as interdisciplinarity, only also non-academic participants (stakeholders in the society like farmers, civilians, entrepreneurs) share their knowledge. (1+1+1>3) Melissa88 14:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

LEAD PARAGRAPH:

Transdisciplinarity in scientific research has been defined (and contrasted with interdisciplinarity and multidisciplinarity) in many different ways. Still, most definitions take as their starting point the prefix trans, which means "across". For example, transdisciplinarity could be defined as a research strategy that crosses many disciplinary boundaries to find an appropriate mix. Transdisciplinarity could also be said to apply to research efforts focused on problems that cross the boundaries of two or more disciplines, such as the need to create effective information systems for biomedical research (see bioinformatics). Still another definition focuses on concepts or methods that were originally developed by one discipline, but are now used by several others, such as ethnography, a field research method originally developed in anthropology but now widely used by other disciplines.

SECTION:

==Transdisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and multidisciplinarity==

Efforts to define transdisciplinarity typically address the question of how transdisciplinarity relates to two closely related concepts, interdisciplinarity and multidisciplinarity, which are similarly subject to varying definition. Some of these efforts develop principles of sufficient complexity that they could be seen as de novo developments in the philosophy of science.

OK? Now the next sections should discuss some of the alternatives:

===The Charter of Transdisciplinarity===

In 1987, 163 researchers (in what fields?) of the International Center for Transdisciplinary Research (CIRET) (did what?)

A Charter of Transdisciplinarity was adopted (by whom? why? Too much port?) at the 1st World Congress of Transdisciplinarity (Convento da Arrabida, Portugal, november 1994).

Plenty of manifestos are issued. Very few of them matter. Does this one?

In the CIRET approach, transdisciplinarity is radically distinct from interdisciplinarity.

well, HOW?

===Johann Mittelstraus===

In his work On Transdisciplinarity, Jürgen Mittelstrass argues that interdisciplinarity is actually transdisciplinarity:

"Interdisciplinarity properly understood does not commute between fields and disciplines, and it does not hover above them like an absolute spirit. Instead, it removes disciplinary impasses where these block the development of problems and the corresponding responses of research. Interdisciplinarity is in fact transdisciplinarity."

I must confess that, despite having read the above quotation three times, I have absolutely no idea what Mittelstrauss is talking about. It doesn't commute? You mean, you walk between the buildings instead of taking the bus? I like the idea of hovering above the disciplines like an absolute spirit, though -- can't we do that? Man, I could really fix some things at my university! And how does all of this add up to showing that interdisciplinarity is in fact transdisciplinarity? Is this good? Bad?

Following, this is NOT the correct way to insert a reference - please see Citing Sources/Example Style

The paper can be found at this link: this link - it is near the end of the document.

===Basarab Nicolescu===

(Please tell us who this is.)

(According to Nicolescu),

transdisciplinarity (word introduced in 1970 by Jean Piaget) concerns that which is at once between the disciplines, across the different disciplines, and beyond all discipline.

Whoo boy, I like that. Now I know what you're talking about. At my university, we have grass, sidewalks, and trees between the disciplines. Across the disciplines, we have arrogance. And unfortunately quite a few of our faculty seem to be beyond all discipline -- still showing up drunk to class, etc.

But do you mean "beyond all discipline" or do you really mean "beyond all disciplines?" The latter, I think.

Its goal is the understanding of the present world,

As opposed to, say, the absent world? The future world? The past? You mean historians can't use this?

of which one of the imperatives is the unity of knowledge.

You are saying, "Unity of knowledge is one of the imperatives of the present world."

What do you mean, "unity of knowledge"? That all knowledge should be unified by one, underlying, horrifyingly reductionistic principle? Probably. Well, what is it? Love?

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.

Please deal with these like this: 1, 2, and 3, and define what is meant by these terms.

In the presence of several levels of Reality the space between disciplines and beyond disciplines is full of information.

It seems to me it would be full of noise. What sort of information? Stray television broadcasts?

Why is Reality capitalized? To mean some special reality? All of reality? Or this author's reality?

transdisciplinarity concerns the dynamics engendered by the action of several levels of Reality at once .

OK, I know what you're talking about now! I've had several levels of reality get dynamic on me, I think. Once, I had a little too much to drink (Biophysical Reality) and, later, fell off my bicycle (Geophysical Reality). It didn't occur to me at the time that I wasn't being transdisciplinary! Actually, I felt like an idiot. --But, anyway, what the heck does Nicolescu mean?

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.

I really like "nourish." Wow, it has been a really long time since I felt nourished by my colleagues. Of course I try to clarify things for them, but they won't listen. Wait -- by nourish, you're not talking about, like, a feeding tube?

Could you please give an example?

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.

The above paragraph has me thinking that the time has come to abandon all three of these terms.

Look, you're writing this as if it is a Great Truth Handed Down from On High. Instead, make it clear that this is Nicolescu's view.

Incidentally, this material hasn't been copied verbatim from anything copyrighted... has it?

Bryan 12:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm that this material has indeed been plagiarized verbatim from Basarab Nicolescu's _Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity_. Many of the quotes you (Brian) write and ask for clarification of are pulled literally off pages 44-7, including the eccentric capitalization of "Reality" and the confusing distinctions among multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, but I felt I needed to do so because there is undeniable plagiarism all over this entry. --jbardzel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbardzel (talk • contribs) 02:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Wow, what a pile of narrow-minded agressivity I read from this "Bryan"!! If you are so interested in this notion of transdisciplinarity, why are you unable to find out who Nicolescu is, instead of rhetorically and arrogantly asking who he is on this discussion page?... Very sad attitude, definitely nowhere near an inter- or trans-disciplinary attitude! And by the way, the proposed definitions from Tress et al. are really lousy and inaccurate - so they'd better not be put in the Wikipedia article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.143.98.165 (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of No Original Research Tag

Wikipedia isn't the appropriate place to publish original research. However, this material could be summarized as a subsection of the above section ("Transdisciplinarity, Interdisciplinarity, and Multidisciplinarity"), but it is going to need a LOT of work.

First of all, who are these people? Where are they from? What do they do? Are they crackpots? Are they respected scientists?

The framework for those anthropological sciences and disciplines that deal with the functions of the nervous system has a simple basic structure:

What do you mean, "framework for" ? Do you mean that this OUGHT to be the framework, but isn't? Do you mean that this is generally accepted (which it isn't)?

It becomes clear

What is "it"? The framework, the structure, or an object from outer space?

It becomes clear when, based on the matrix with the four central questions of biological research (causation, ontogeny, adaptation, phylogeny [compare Aristotle: Causality / Four Major Causes]), one asks and at the same time takes the levels of complexity (e.g. cell, organ, individual, group) at which the questions are aimed into account. According to Gerhard Medicus an orientation matrix can be prepared based on he central questions (Table / Columns) and reference levels (Table / Lines):

With apologies, this simply isn't comprehensible. I think what you mean is that the nature of transdisciplinarity becomes clear when the four central questions of biological research are graphed against four distinct levels of analysis.

HOWEVER, you do NOT explain just HOW this makes everything clear. Could you please give an example of what goes into those little boxes in the matrix? And, please forgive me if I am dense, but how do I see the nature of transdisciplinarity here? Let's take, for example, a chicken. Let's suppose that Dave is interested in the ontogeny of the chicken, while Alice, bless her, is interested in the cause of the chicken. Where is the transdisciplinarity? In the chicken?

In this “scheme of transdisciplinarity”, all anthropological disciplines, their questions and results can be intertwined and allocated with each other. 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 "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.)

Well, they're not in italics. And, for all of the above, you mean "These guys say that..." And just out of curiosity, has anyone responded by suggesting that their scheme is reductionistic and totalizing?Bryan 13:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The following sentence: "The framework for those sciences and disciplines that deal with `life sciences´ (e.g. Anthropology / Human Sciences) becomes clear when, based on the matrix with the four central questions of biological research (causation, ontogeny, adaptation, phylogeny) one asks and at the same time takes the levels of complexity (e.g. cell, organ, individual, group) at which the questions are aimed into account." is (almost wordly) already standard in the following (at least four) encyclopedias (tree printed between 1999 and 2004 in Heidelberg by publisher: Spektrum Verlag; e.g. head words like "Interdisziplinarität" and "Transdisziplinarität"): (1) "Lexikon der Biologie" (15 volumes), (2) "Lexikon der Neurowissenschaft" (4 volumes), (3) "Lexikon der Psychologie" (5 volumes) and (4) in print in an encyclopedia in several languages (English, French, German) by Armin Heymer (from Brunoy in France).

Read article Julie Klein

Instead of editing this article, it might be wise to read "Unity of knowledge and transdisciplinarity: Context of definition, theory and the new discourse of problem solving" (2002, Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems) by Julie Thompson Klein. The article gives a historical overview of the major definitions of transdisciplinarity. An extended summary of this article could easily (and understandably) replace present article here on Wikipedia. Most definitions and important persons (like presented in Wiki-article) will be explained.Melissa88 14:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Inter Vs. Trans

Could we please merge transdisciplinary with interdisciplinary ? Thank you. Settdigger (talk) 09:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Let the scholars argue between and betwixt, and the difference between the word "between" and the word "across." If I am a biophysicist, am I working "between" (inter) biology and physics or "across" (trans) biology and physics? Yeah, it's a thinker all right. But: a common sense reader will regard them as virtually identical. Thanks - Settdigger (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You can not merge inter and trans. inter (between) stays with categories (e.g. disciplins) while trans(beyond) tries to dissolve them. It is a huge difference: In trying to dissolve fixed Categories (e.g. disciplines) transdisciplinarity respects the infinity of Human beings. This includes CrackHeads, Mothers and many more. If you think they do not have a discipline (and thus are irrelevant to transdisciplinarity): It is easy to create one for them.)

Transdisciplinarity is not merely a scientific endeavour but a chance to include and dissolve borders around the globe. A great chance to move Common Sense from idiocy to the 21st century. Every perspective is unique. We do not know a thing. Therefore every perspective is absolutely relevant to discuss what "good"-life is about or how limited commons should be used. Check transtitut.org (only in german -- sorry) - a crackhead from Hamburg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:47C0:331C:1418:5E5E:52B2:B768 (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Link in "External links" found to be malicious

According to one of the engines ("BADWARE.INFO") used in VirusTotal scans, the first site linked in the "External links" section (titled "Integral Research Center") is a malicious destination. AndrewOne (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

2021 summary of article issues

I'm just getting my head into the maintenance template and the discussions here, I was considering removing the maintenance template, but I believe it should remain. I am summarising the status of the article and talk pages as of 19/05/21, I may be able to edit later, but hope this might also be useful for others.

1. This article possibly contains original research. (August 2007) - I think the issue here is that some sections appear to be very close to the original source text.
2. This article has an unclear citation style. (April 2013) - I think the two issues here are (1) inline citations are...of a brief format, and (2) there's a 'sources' list of sources not clearly cited in the body of the article.

Of the other sections on this Talk as of today:

1. Explanation of NPOV tag - resolved, no action needed
2. This article contains substantial plagiarism - related to issue 1 above, although I think these are paraphrased
3. Explanation of CleanupConfusing tag - no idea
4. DEFINITIONS - elements of this are useful but the discussion indicates this is verbatim from source, so needs adapting (and ideally reference to a secondary source)
5. Explanation of No Original Research Tag - I assume this is notes on draft text? They are not signed, and so it is hard to understand the structure. Assume no action needed.
6. Read article Julie Klein - A suggested reading to modify the page (great, feel free to make such edits)
7. Inter Vs. Trans - A request to merge (which I think can be ignored)

Sjgknight (talk) 04:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)