But academic disciplines are themselves artificial constructions - and partly a consequence of the organisation and financing of Universities, right? So disciplines, are responding to a mixture of institutional managment needs and imperatives (like lab space and dedicated infrastructure) as well as constantly changing research frameworks. The main point is that if you are working on these complex problems outside of an academic context (the case for more and more scientists), all these definitions amount to a rather rigid, artificial view of interactions between individuals working on a question.
I've been on both sides (academic, non-academic) and I think these disciplinarity concepts get in the way of the research by adding extra labels which ultimately only reinforce and benefit those persons inside Universities. There is nothing about them that ensures new ideas will be worked out, or that solutions will be found. Academic research institutions in their organisation and with their rules of function, including self-evaluating their own research, continue to strenthen disciplinary barriers. When they launch initiatives about "X-disciplinarity" it mostly amounts to saying officially "yes, you can go in another building" :)
On the other hand, underlying the rise of all the "X"-disciplinarity concepts is the dematerialisation of large swaths of scientific work. This has meant that individuals from different "disciplines" formerly separated by their tools (and institutions), are now using very similar methods (e.g. network analysis, Bayesian reasoning, image analyses, ...). For example, when humanities became the "digital humanities", as a theoretical ecologist I can share data and analyse problems with historians, archeologists, anthropologists and economists etc. all using very similar mathematical and statistical tools. This means research frameworks of concepts are merging too. IMO, the disciplinary divides that remain are slowly being transformed into "those who need access to instruments and objects" (materials analysis) and "those who do not".
Ultimately, IME, the research progress depends on the specific skill sets and compatibility of the individuals involved in a group, along with a dose of good will and some luck. :)
Thanks for your in-depth comment. Love hearing different perspectives! For your first point, I guess I'd push back in saying that we all have to learn a disciplinary skillset first. We have to hone our craft in order to become experts in a particular area. But to me, it's when these come together is when the magic happens. We can't all be experts in everything, but a range of expertise can combine to do great things.
I hear your points regarding adding another label. However, I also think it's useful because to do something truly transdisciplinary requires a certain set of methods. This is different from interdisciplinarity and even more different from just multiple people doing independent work on a shared topic (multi). So, I differ in my opinion in that sense. Where I struggle is when the terms get thrown around in the wrong way. Transdisciplinary is overused as a term and rarely achieved.
Thanks again for your perspective. Great to have this discussion!
I think you will like these words by John Maynard Keynes, Jonathan, describing what the master economist is:
“The master-economist must possess a rare combination of gifts. He must reach a high standard in several different directions and must combine talents not often found together. He must be mathematician, historian, statesman, philosopher—in some degree. He must understand symbols and speak in words. He must contemplate the particular in terms of the general, and touch abstract and concrete in the same flight of thought. He must study the present in the light of the past for the purposes of the future. No part of man's nature or his institutions must lie entirely outside his regard. He must be purposeful and disinterested in a simultaneous mood; as aloof and incorruptible as an artist, yet sometimes as near the earth as a politician.” — Keynes, 1924
I do indeed, Lazaros! Thanks for sharing. I particularly like this bit: "He must be purposeful and disinterested in a simultaneous mood; as aloof and incorruptible as an artist, yet sometimes as near the earth as a politician." 🤣
This was a very interesting article and reminding me of a book I borrowed off you called, Consilience The Unity of Knowledge written by Edward O. Wilson in 1998. He talked about the linking together of different disciplines to form strong conclusions and I think he was on the money. Your article explained disciplinarity in a way that non academic people can relate to and understand. We need a wide variety of people tackling the world's big problems but we also need more academic people like yourself explaining the complicated stuff to the general public and getting those important messages out there. The artwork was great too!
Thanks very much, Kim! I'd forgotten about that. Consilience is a super creative book, particularly focused on combining science with the humanities. The term originally meant "jumping together". Really appreciate the feedback -- it's nice to know it's readable and not just academic mumbo jumbo! :)
Not meaning to sound boastful but transdisciplinary thinking (I call it "lateral thinking" ) is what I've been doing since my twenties. When looking at either a problem to be solved or a phenomenon to be understood, I marshal all the knowledge I have from as many disciplines as I'm aware of. I think of things very remotely related and apply biological principles to geology, astrophysical nomenclature to geophysics insect behavior and so forth. My approach relies on forming connections and analogies in seemingly disparate fields. I do this automatically and at great speed and I suspect I'm not the only one. It seems a productive and useful way to approach analysis. Cabining human knowledge into disciplines is an amazingly effective approach, but using mathematics with its multiple subdisciplines as a model, some of the greatest breakthroughs have been when researchers imported ideas from one subdiscipline into illuminating problems in another.
Thanks for the comment, Michael. This is great! Now imagine the power of having multiple disciplinary experts from multiple unique fields together in a room with an expert transdisciplinary facilitator. This opens the door to solving pretty complex problems.
But academic disciplines are themselves artificial constructions - and partly a consequence of the organisation and financing of Universities, right? So disciplines, are responding to a mixture of institutional managment needs and imperatives (like lab space and dedicated infrastructure) as well as constantly changing research frameworks. The main point is that if you are working on these complex problems outside of an academic context (the case for more and more scientists), all these definitions amount to a rather rigid, artificial view of interactions between individuals working on a question.
I've been on both sides (academic, non-academic) and I think these disciplinarity concepts get in the way of the research by adding extra labels which ultimately only reinforce and benefit those persons inside Universities. There is nothing about them that ensures new ideas will be worked out, or that solutions will be found. Academic research institutions in their organisation and with their rules of function, including self-evaluating their own research, continue to strenthen disciplinary barriers. When they launch initiatives about "X-disciplinarity" it mostly amounts to saying officially "yes, you can go in another building" :)
On the other hand, underlying the rise of all the "X"-disciplinarity concepts is the dematerialisation of large swaths of scientific work. This has meant that individuals from different "disciplines" formerly separated by their tools (and institutions), are now using very similar methods (e.g. network analysis, Bayesian reasoning, image analyses, ...). For example, when humanities became the "digital humanities", as a theoretical ecologist I can share data and analyse problems with historians, archeologists, anthropologists and economists etc. all using very similar mathematical and statistical tools. This means research frameworks of concepts are merging too. IMO, the disciplinary divides that remain are slowly being transformed into "those who need access to instruments and objects" (materials analysis) and "those who do not".
Ultimately, IME, the research progress depends on the specific skill sets and compatibility of the individuals involved in a group, along with a dose of good will and some luck. :)
Thanks for your in-depth comment. Love hearing different perspectives! For your first point, I guess I'd push back in saying that we all have to learn a disciplinary skillset first. We have to hone our craft in order to become experts in a particular area. But to me, it's when these come together is when the magic happens. We can't all be experts in everything, but a range of expertise can combine to do great things.
I hear your points regarding adding another label. However, I also think it's useful because to do something truly transdisciplinary requires a certain set of methods. This is different from interdisciplinarity and even more different from just multiple people doing independent work on a shared topic (multi). So, I differ in my opinion in that sense. Where I struggle is when the terms get thrown around in the wrong way. Transdisciplinary is overused as a term and rarely achieved.
Thanks again for your perspective. Great to have this discussion!
I think you will like these words by John Maynard Keynes, Jonathan, describing what the master economist is:
“The master-economist must possess a rare combination of gifts. He must reach a high standard in several different directions and must combine talents not often found together. He must be mathematician, historian, statesman, philosopher—in some degree. He must understand symbols and speak in words. He must contemplate the particular in terms of the general, and touch abstract and concrete in the same flight of thought. He must study the present in the light of the past for the purposes of the future. No part of man's nature or his institutions must lie entirely outside his regard. He must be purposeful and disinterested in a simultaneous mood; as aloof and incorruptible as an artist, yet sometimes as near the earth as a politician.” — Keynes, 1924
I do indeed, Lazaros! Thanks for sharing. I particularly like this bit: "He must be purposeful and disinterested in a simultaneous mood; as aloof and incorruptible as an artist, yet sometimes as near the earth as a politician." 🤣
Yeah haha. Not an easy balance to achieve!
This was a very interesting article and reminding me of a book I borrowed off you called, Consilience The Unity of Knowledge written by Edward O. Wilson in 1998. He talked about the linking together of different disciplines to form strong conclusions and I think he was on the money. Your article explained disciplinarity in a way that non academic people can relate to and understand. We need a wide variety of people tackling the world's big problems but we also need more academic people like yourself explaining the complicated stuff to the general public and getting those important messages out there. The artwork was great too!
Thanks very much, Kim! I'd forgotten about that. Consilience is a super creative book, particularly focused on combining science with the humanities. The term originally meant "jumping together". Really appreciate the feedback -- it's nice to know it's readable and not just academic mumbo jumbo! :)
Not meaning to sound boastful but transdisciplinary thinking (I call it "lateral thinking" ) is what I've been doing since my twenties. When looking at either a problem to be solved or a phenomenon to be understood, I marshal all the knowledge I have from as many disciplines as I'm aware of. I think of things very remotely related and apply biological principles to geology, astrophysical nomenclature to geophysics insect behavior and so forth. My approach relies on forming connections and analogies in seemingly disparate fields. I do this automatically and at great speed and I suspect I'm not the only one. It seems a productive and useful way to approach analysis. Cabining human knowledge into disciplines is an amazingly effective approach, but using mathematics with its multiple subdisciplines as a model, some of the greatest breakthroughs have been when researchers imported ideas from one subdiscipline into illuminating problems in another.
Thanks for the comment, Michael. This is great! Now imagine the power of having multiple disciplinary experts from multiple unique fields together in a room with an expert transdisciplinary facilitator. This opens the door to solving pretty complex problems.
No doubt LLMs will eventually play a part with their high correlation speeds. Until that day, I completely agree with you.
Yes! In fact, I was considering a future post on the utility of LLMs as a transdisciplinary partner. I posted about this on twitter last year: https://x.com/jdtonkin/status/1693417795814674548