Institutionalizing Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity

Collaboration across Cultures and Communities

Bianca Vienni-Baptista, Julie Thompson Klein, Bianca Vienni Baptista, Julie Thompson Klein

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2022
• ISBN:
  9781000570588
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Research in Education

Institutionalizing Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity fills a gap in the current literature by systematizing and comparing a wide international scope of case studies illustrating varied ways of institutionalizing theory and practice.

This collection comprises three parts. After an introduction of overall themes, Part I presents case studies on institutionalizing. Part II focuses on transdisciplinary examples, while Part III includes cross-cutting themes, such as funding, evaluation, and intersections between epistemic cultures. With expert contributions from authors representing projects and programs in Asia, Africa, Australia, Europe, Russia and South Caucuses, Latin and North America, this book brings together comparative perspectives on theory and practice, while also describing strategies and models of change. Each chapter identifies dimensions inherent in fostering effective and sustainable practices. Together they advance both analysis and action-related challenges. The proposed conceptual framework that emerges supports innovative practices that are alternatives to dominant academic cultures and approaches in pertinent disciplines, fields, professionals, and members of government, industry, and communities.

Applying a comparative perspective throughout, the contributors reflect on aspects of institutionalizing interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity as well as insights applicable to further contexts. This innovative volume will be of great interest to students, scholars, practitioners, and members of organizations promoting and facilitating interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research.

1 IntroductionInstitutionalizing interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity: Cultures and communities, timeframes and spaces

Julie Thompson Klein, Bianca Vienni Baptista, and Danilo Streck

DOI: 10.4324/9781003129424-1

Increased interest in interdisciplinarity (ID) and transdisciplinarity (TD) has heightened calls for institutionalizing structures and strategies that cross boundaries of expertise. A state-of-the-art account of Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research reported interest is being driven today by four major factors: “the inherent complexity of nature and society, the desire to explore problems and questions that are not confined to a single discipline, the need to solve societal problems, and the power of new technologies” (NASEM, 2005, p. 40). Interest in transdisciplinarity, in turn, stems from not only traditional focus on unity of knowledge but also new synthetic paradigms and theories in addition to trans-sector co-production of knowledge with stakeholders aimed at solving complex problems (Klein, 2021). The 1972 volume entitled Limits to Growth (Meadows et al., 1972), Machiel Keestra recalled, was one of the earliest reports highlighting the need to prioritize complex and wicked problems requiring both inter- and trans-disciplinary solutions (pers. comm., 5 June 2021). That same year results of the first international seminar on interdisciplinary teaching and research in universities, co-sponsored by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), drew insights from challenges of institutionalizing in universities across OECD countries (Apostel et al., 1972). Seminar participants predicted research contexts and societal problems would become increasingly complex, requiring greater institutional synergy. Yet, shortfalls in support curbed prospects for transformative change. As scholars of both ID and TD, we are keenly aware of both mounting momentum for change and continuing limits in not only our own countries but across the world, leading us to invite other researchers and educators engaged in reform efforts to advance understanding dynamics of institutionalizing (Clark, 1995). By the early 21st century, interest in both interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity had spawned a burgeoning literature spanning organizational, epistemological, conceptual, and methodological approaches (Frodeman et al., 2017; Klein, 2010; Holley, 2009). However, possibilities and limits in particular contexts are not fully understood.

All parties in this book’s audience – including educators and researchers, administrators and funders, as well as educational and science-policy bodies – will benefit from informed awareness of dynamics and structures elsewhere. Given the heterogeneity of practices, we do not impose a universal definition, though recognize consensus on core traits. Interdisciplinarity is conventionally defined as integration of approaches from two or more existing disciplines or bodies of knowledge with the aim of advancing a new understanding of or solution to a complex problem, question, or topic that cannot be handled from a single perspective. In contrast, transdisciplinarity connotes an overarching synthesis and a trans-sector collaboration, with the aim of transcending and even transgressing traditional boundaries. Both ID and TD, then, interrogate the existing structure of knowledge and education, but they are confronted by a gap between widespread endorsements and continuing impediments. Nothing less than a culture change is needed to elevate both interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity to a norm within the academic system (after Klein, 2010). The importance of doing so is reinforced by a growing belief that they are essential for tackling complex societal problems, including the COVID pandemic and other diseases, climate change, and social and political inequalities, as well as conflict and war. Talk of transformation rings hollow, however, when the regulatory power of established rules, procedures, policies, and protocols continues to narrow prospects for transformative change (Gardner, 2004). Furthermore, institutionalizing both interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity are not without risks.

Programs dedicated to both forms of research and education are often marginalized in the discipline-dominated system of higher education and, following suit, individuals often face obstacles to career advancement. Russell et al. (2008) further cautioned that consolidation around selected strengths and priorities runs the risk of creating “mega-silos” that marginalize other areas. As a result, attempts to institutionalize transdisciplinarity, and we add interdisciplinarity, can actually inhibit flexibility and openness while diminishing values often associated with boundary crossing, such as creativity, interconnection, complexity, and systems thinking. Nevertheless, as this volume demonstrates, prospects for change depend in no small part on institutionalizing new and alternative practices into systems of higher education. Otherwise, they remain marginal and even ephemeral. Since embedding is a process, not a pre-determined formula, we treat institutionalizing as a verb rather than the static connotation of a noun associated with buildings, organizational charts, and fixed objectifications of ideas and goals. In doing so, we adopt Davidson and Goldberg’s (2009) definition of institutions as mobilizing networks. Their focus was the future of learning in the digital age, but the concept can extend to inter- and trans-disciplinary research and education. The metaphor of mobilizing heightens awareness of dynamic processes of change, not fixed structures and policies and protocols that reinforce them. For that reason, case studies in this book address both temporal and spatial dynamics of institutionalizing, accounting for history and context. By focusing on the concept as a verb, not a static noun, the book also considers challenges of capitalizing on strategies aimed at improving research and teaching across higher education. A dynamic view of institutionalizing across countries calls, as well, for understanding the nature of a comparative approach.

Comparative study

Comparative study examines phenomena in two or more entities of the same type (after Morlino, 2018). It is key to comprehending similarities and differences across contexts, including the countries featured in this book. It also fosters a richer and more nuanced understanding of ID and TD, mutual learning in collaborative work, and decision- and policy-making. As a social science methodology, Schriewer (2018, p. 51) explained, comparative study entails establishing interconnectedness in “relations of relations” or “systems of relations”, rather than differentiation of isolated facts. In contrast to constitutive, causal, or etiological explanations, Keestra also noted, comparative explanation aims to explain and predict a phenomenon by comparing different stages or varieties of the phenomenon (pers. comm., 5 June 2021). Moreover, following Simon et al. (2018), interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, and comparative studies are all intellectual projects and scientific-political programs that require dialogue across academic disciplines and institutions. ID and TD cannot be dissociated, either, from policies and practices across the global landscape of higher education. Hence, interculturality is an added focus of comparative studies, as well as micro, meso, and macro levels of organization (per Morlino, 2018). And finally, comparative analysis can build on while contributing to Phillips and Schweisfurth’s (2014) tri-part framework of purpose:

1. (a) Providing an adequate morphology for global description and classification of various forms of institutionalization,
2. (b) Determining relationships and interactions between different factors within and among institutions and between institutions and society in their practices,
3. (c)Identifying underlying conditions and conceptual developments for institutionalizing.

To further aid in comparing individual experiences with institutionalization we gathered insights from a questionnaire sent to all authors in this volume, based on four dimensions:

1. a) Personal and professional: including cultural factors (e.g., kind of commitment, focus, and origin, as well as personal abilities in the form of professional/technical competencies).
2. b) Academic and epistemological: intellectual factors (e.g., conceptual frameworks, fields of knowledge such as sciences or humanities) and pertinent themes (e.g., ecology/sustainability/organizational development).
3. c) Institutional (e.g., national policies, university/research structures, organizational cultures, budgets, and funding).
4. d) Socio-political: values and actions (e.g., responses to societal needs and interests as well as policy considerations).

With particular regard to the first personal and professional dimension, most contributing authors acknowledged the relevance of self-learning and learning-by-doing while conducting research projects and designing programs that were subsequently institutionalized. These traits also intersect, Keestra added, with the academic and epistemological dimension (pers. comm., 5 June 2021). In a few cases, authors were able to learn how to perform collaborative research and teaching from their workplace experiences. Yet, researchers, lecturers, and practitioners all invest a great deal of effort in “reinventing” successful organizational structures that are usually supported only in the short term due to lack of long-term funding, other forms of support, legitimation, and narrow criteria of evaluation. Even successful initiatives are not systematized or their lessons shared through publications reaching wider communities. We also found some researchers became interested in inter- and trans-disciplinary research and teaching because they had a mentor or supervisor who motivated them to do so. However, in a recent book, Catherine Lyall (2019) reported their influence is not always sufficient. Many early career researchers confront strong obstacles to embarking on an inter- or trans-disciplinary career path, even though new generations have possibilities to participate in capacity-building opportunities such as inter- or trans-disciplinary degrees, summer or winter schools, and PhD programs.

Chapters in this book document these and other opportunities. Maik Adomßent (Chapter 3), for example, presented an undergraduate and graduate program in Germany. Sebastian et al. (Chapter 7) cited an example of students invited to work together with representatives from industry in Australia. Keryan et al. (Chapter 11) reported an effort is underway in Armenia and Georgia aimed at a more transdisciplinary approach to research and teaching. And Villa-Soto et al. (Chapter 4) identified institutional policies catalyzing interdisciplinary graduate programs in Mexico. Furthermore, despite constraints, responses to the questionnaire revealed the academic and epistemological dimension incentivizes researchers to participate (see also Boix Mansilla et al., 2016; Callard and Fitzgerald, 2015). Personal and professional motivations also appear in chapters by Ulrike Felt (Chapter 14), Jack Spaapen (Chapter 15), and Paulo Nuno Vicente and Margarida Lucas (Chapter 13). And, beyond individual sites, networks and communities of practice illustrate institutional and socio-political dimensions, ranging from informal to formal associations and communities of practice, including the Network for Transdisciplinary Research, the Association for Interdisciplinary Studies, the International Network for the Science of Team Science, and the Global Alliance for Inter- and Transdisciplinary Research and Education. In addition, they include regional efforts such as Nodo de Estudios Sobre Interdisciplina and Transdisciplina (Nodo ESIT) representing eight Latin American countries, the Leading Integrated Research for Agenda 2030 (International Research Council), and Oceania’s Global Leaders of Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Research Organisations.

Together, the chapters and aforementioned examples question traditional structures that have unsuccessfully institutionalized ID and TD. The challenge then becomes how to inspire and to support newcomers and early career researchers, especially to promote and foster transformative inter- and trans-disciplinary initiatives. One respondent to the questionnaire commented:

The reason I developed a scholarly interest in “ID” as an object of study in its own right was because we used the term to describe our work but did not reflect on what that meant and – importantly – did not consider what that meant for the academic careers of the several young researchers who had been employed by the centre.

(Questionnaire N°3, 2020)

Paradigmatic examples and best practices also have implications for the socio-political dimension. It highlights values and actions in relation to societal needs and interests as well as policy considerations.

Furthermore, successful means of consolidating organizational structures include actions, values, and social commitments such as resolving social problems afflicting vulnerable populations and promoting emancipation of hegemonic discourses. See, especially, chapters by Litre et al. (Chapter 5), Vladimir Mokiy and Tatiana Lukyanova (Chapter 9), and Beatrice Akua-Sakyiwah (Chaper 8). A comparative approach also reveals actions do not promote ID and TD in isolation. One researcher emphasized “Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity allow us to understand the pliability and transversality that keeps disciplinarity moving; it helps protect disciplinarity from isolation, division, separation and fixity” (Questionnaire N° 8, 2020). Yet, as another informant put it, individualistic and self-centered postures persist in a competitive rather than collaborative spirit (Questionnaire N° 11, 2020).

Subthemes and guiding questions

Institutionalizing operates on multiple levels and across local, regional, national, and international scales. Based on literature reviews and insights from conference presentations on institutionalizing, this book’s co-editors defined five cross-cutting subthemes translated into guiding questions for authors. Instead of imposing all of them on every chapter, we let authors select the most relevant ones for their particular cases:

1. Historical and geographical contexts that shape institutional po...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Endorsements
• Half-Title
• Series
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• List of contributors
• Acknowledgments
• Foreword
• 1 Introduction: Institutionalizing interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity: Cultures and communities, timeframes and spaces
• PART I Interdisciplinary institutional spaces and timeframes
• PART II Transdisciplinary institutional spaces and timeframes
• PART III Intersections between cultures and communities
• Index