integral leadership review

8/15/2019 Integral Leadership Review

1/21

Articles from Integral Leadership Review

6/16 – The Nicolescuian and Zurich Approaches toTransdisciplinarity2015-06-11 09:06:21 Sue L. T. McGrego r

Sue L. T. McGregor PhD Professor Emerita (MSVU)

Sue McGregor

Introduction

Despite a “pluralit y of t ransdisciplinary models” (Nicolescu, 2008c, p. 13), thefull r ange of t ransdisciplinarity has not yet been fully grasped and tabulated(du Plessis, Sehume, & Mart in, 2013; Jahn, 2012). However, two approaches t ot ransdisciplinary tend to prevail: (a) the Nicolescuian approach and (b) t heZurich approach (Klein, 2004, McGregor, 2014, 2015; Nicolescu, 2006, 2008c;Nowonty, 2003). People t end to cite one or the ot her of the two approaches(readily evident from reading their reference list). Familiarity with bothapproaches is recommended because each one yields dif ferent insights intothe complex problems facing humanity.

To that end, this art icle is an inaugural at tempt to provide a detailedexplanat ion of the f undamental dif ferences bet ween these two approaches. As a caveat , ot hers have thoroughly documented the evolut ion of the

concept of t ransdisciplinarity, st art ing with the Organizat ion for EconomicCooperat ion and Development’s (OECD) conference in 1970, where t he termwas first coined by Jean Piaget (Nicolescu, 2006) (see Augsburg, 2014;Bridgeman & Brooker, 2004; Klein, 2003, 2004, 2014; McGregor, 2010; Segalàs &Tejedor, 2013).

Nicolescuian Approach

The Nicolescuian approach was developed and is espoused by Professor Dr.

Basarab Nicolescu, a Romanian quantum physicist based in Paris, France.Start ing in the late sevent ies, he ‘worked out ’ a methodology of t ransdisciplinarit y (with three axioms) and t hen st rategically arranged for itsdissemination in a series of books and congresses. Although the methodologydid not emerge at these events (i.e., it already existed), an internat ionalcommunity of transdisciplinary researchers did emerge, and cont inues t o do

http://integralleadershipreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/image004.jpghttp://integralleadershipreview.com/13135-616-the-nicolescuian-and-zurich-approaches-to-transdisciplinarity/http://integralleadershipreview.com/13135-616-the-nicolescuian-and-zurich-approaches-to-transdisciplinarity/http://integralleadershipreview.com/13135-616-the-nicolescuian-and-zurich-approaches-to-transdisciplinarity/http://integralleadershipreview.com/http://integralleadershipreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/image004.jpghttp://integralleadershipreview.com/13135-616-the-nicolescuian-and-zurich-approaches-to-transdisciplinarity/http://integralleadershipreview.com/


2/21

so (Nicolescu, 2008a).

The art iculation of this methodology began with his 1985 book entit led Nous,la particule et le monde (Us, the Particle and the World ) (Nicolescu, 1985). Twoyears later (1987), he established CIRET in Paris (the Internat ional Center f or Transdisciplinary Research). Members are now referred to as “the scientistsof CIRET, Paris” (Bertea, 2005, p.2), with a very inclusive understanding of scientists. Nicolescu helped formulate the Charter of Transdisciplinarity at t he

First World Congress of T ransdisciplinarit y held in Portugal in 1994 (de Freitas,Morin, & Nicolescu, 1994). The President of Portugal at tended along with 83other participants, representing academics, civil society, industry, andgovernments. He t hen helped organize t he 1997 Locarno InternationalCongress of T ransdisciplinarit y (focused on universit ies) as well as t he 2005Second World Congress of T ransdisciplinarit y (Brazil) (Nicolescu, 2008a,b).

His approach to transdisciplinarity continues to evolve, witnessed by hisrecent book on t ransdisciplinarit y and cosmodernit y (Nicolescu, 2014). Butfundamentally, Nicolescu’s conceptualization of transdisciplinarity is groundedin the tenets of metaphysics, quantum physics, and complexit y science. It

comprises a new methodology f or creat ing knowledge to understand theworld, replete with three axioms: ontology (Multiple Levels of Reality, withmovement among them mediated by t he Hidden Third); the Logic of theIncluded Middle; and, epistemology (knowledge as complex and emergent) (t obe discussed later).

Zurich Approach

The other dominant approach to t ransdisciplinarity stems f rom a March 2000

congress in Zurich, Switzerland, co-organized by Roland Scholz. Klein et al.’s(2001) book contains t he congress proceedings. Called t he Zurich approach,nearly 800 people f rom more t han 42 count ries at tended, including indust ry,government , and academics (nearly 40 disciplines) (Klein, 2003). Nicolescu wasinit ially involved with t he Scient if ic Council for t his conference (2008a). Thegoals of the conference were to develop t ransdisciplinary pract ice, promotet ransdisciplinary research, and create favourable inst itut ional st ructures andpower incentives. This has been described as “the latest transdisciplinaryapproach” (Segalàs & T ejedor, 2013, p. 13). At the Zurich meet ing, “theintegrat ion of the imperat ives of science, democracy, humanities andeconomy was promot ed” (du Plessis et al., 2013, p. 55). Just as CIRET evolvedout of Nicolescu’s earlier ef forts, the Swiss-based Network for Transdisciplinarity Research (known as td-net ) emerged subsequent to theZurich meet ing, in 2002. It is now considered to be the primary Swiss contactpoint for researchers and f unders in the f ields of inter- and t ransdisciplinaryresearch and teaching who follow the Zurich approach.

Contributors t o t he 2000 Zurich congress drew on Gibbons et al.’s (1994) Mode2 approach to knowledge production and their definition of transdisciplinarityand, to a lesser ext ent, Ravet z and Funtowicz’s (1999) concept of post normalscience (to be discussed short ly) (Klein et al., 2001). During t his t ime f rame,

the discussion and discourse around t ransdisciplinarit y was mainly fuelled byMode 2 knowledge production and postnormal science (Jahn, 2012). Gibbonsand his colleagues “generalized [the] key features of transdisciplinarity –heterogeneity, social responsibility and contextuality – into a new [way t oproduce scientif ic knowledge]” (Jahn, 2012, p. 2).


3/21

Awareness But Different Paths

As an aside, bot h init iat ives were aware of each ot her, but opted to advancediff erent approaches t o t ransdisciplinarity. At the 1994 First World Congressof Transdisciplinarity, attendees recognized Gibbons et al.’s (1994) Mode 2def inition of t ransdisciplinarity as relevant (subsequent ly embraced at the2000 Zurich congress) but opt ed instead to f ollow Nicolescu’s approach (Klein,1994). Klein et al. (2001) described the Zurich congress as a pivotal event inthe evolut ion of discourse about t ransdisciplinarity, acknowledging Nicolescu’scontribut ions as fundamental to t ransdisciplinary epistemology (p.40), but theZurich approach did not want a met hodology. In a telling move, while at tendingthe Zurich congress, advocates of the Nicolescuian approach prepared aformal statement for the Zurich attendees, urging them to consider the meritsof both approaches (Brenner et al., ca. 2000). This statement was partiallypublished in the book that emerged f rom the conference as an Appendix t itledManifesto: A broader view of transdisciplinarity (Klein et al., 2001, see pp. 131-132).

Diversity in approaches t o t randisciplinarit y is desirable. In his discussion of the views expressed at the Zurich congress, Nicolescu (2003, 2006) describedhis approach to t randisciplinarit y as theoret ical and t he Zurich approach asphenomenological (and he ident if ied experimental transdisciplinarit y as a t hirdavenue, that being data collection across disciplines and topical fields). Heardent ly believed that “the huge potential of t ransdisciplinarit y will never berealised if we do not accept the simultaneous and rigorous considerat ion of the three aspects of t ransdisciplinarit y” (p. 145). du Plessis et al. (2013)concurred that “all three approaches are of equal importance, should bet reat ed as such and should be applied simultaneously” (p. 136). Nicolescurespected t he Zurich approach, which he said is “characterised by t he ref usalto f ormulate any met hodology” (2006, p. 144). As noted above, the Zurichcongress acknowledged Nicolescu’s approach but opt ed instead f or a newapproach to science, research, and polit ics instead of new methodology(axioms) for creat ing knowledge. The Zurich approach uses Gibbons et al.’s(1994) conceptualization of transdisciplinarity (Klein et al., 2001). Beforeprof iling t he main dif ferences and any similarities bet ween these twoapproaches, each will be described in detail, including t heir respect ive rationales f or each approach and an overview of their maincomponents.

Nicolescuian Approach toTransdisciplinarity

In most of Nicolescu’s papers, books or in interviews with him, he explainswhat drove him to formulate his approach to transdisciplinarity (i.e., his threemain concerns). First and f oremost , he had issues with Modern Science, whichwas founded on the idea of totally separat ing humans (the Subject) fromreality (the Object ). Realit y is assumed to be completely independent f romthe person who is observing it. This assumption is evident in the scientificmethod, characterized as a value neut ral, object ive approach to producingknowledge t o underst and mat erial (physical) realit y. Modern sciencedeveloped independently of theology, philosophy, art, and culture (meaningthere was no room for s iritualit , meanin of lif e, aesthetics, beaut , social


4/21

lif e, wisdom, tradit ions and customs). Nicolescu had deep issues with theforced separat ion of the mat erial world and t he human-lived world, and withthe sacred. He believed t hat the extreme consequences of this division,incarnated in the ideology of scient ism, has led t o t he looming disaster of theself -dest ruct ion of the species (Nicolescu, 2005, 2014).

Second, Nicolescu was concerned with t he rate at which disciplinary-boundknowledge was being produced with no connect ion to t he world. Janz (1998)

described this “as context less and meaningless knowledge” (p. 5). du Plessis(2012) referred to “the helplessness of the application of a proliferat ion of knowledge and knowledge syst ems” (p. 43). Nicolescu expressed deepmisgivings about the plethora of disciplines, not ing t hat around t he t ime of hisfirst book (1985), there were more than 8,000 definable, separate fields of knowledge. Klein (1994) at t ributed “this st aggering number [to] bot h increasingspecializat ion and interdisciplinary overlaps” (p. 2). Nicolescu maintained that“8,000 disciplines mean 8,000 ways t o look for reality. It means a cat ast rophefor knowledge in some sense because it means there is no unity of knowledge” (2007, p. 77).

In more detail, because the intent of t ransdisciplinarity is to understand theworld , there has t o be a way t o ensure unity of knowledge f rom disparatesources. By understand, Nicolescu (2007) meant “connect ing knowledge withbeing” (p. 74); that is, connect ing t he Object (science) with the Subject(humans). When knowledge is creat ed using his t ransdisciplinary met hodology,“it is new knowledge t hat you cannot reduce t o old knowledge” (p. 84). Hespoke of the perpetual evolut ion of knowledge, with this new knowledgereflecting unity of Object and Subject , what he called the coherence of theworld (Giosan & Florian, 2002).

Third, ref lecting the previous t wo issues, Nicolescu sought to address t heproblem of f ragmentat ion that plagues contemporary life. He proposedt ransdisciplinarit y as a way t o propel us beyond f ragmentary dualism(either/or thinking), which caused the antagonisms that produced the complexproblems now faced by humanity (Nicolescu, 2001; Voss, 2002). Inspired byNicolescu’s rat ionale f or a new met hodology, Berni (2010) shared an int riguingdiscussion of the longstanding “antagonism between science and t radit ion”(p.3). Voss explained that “approaching problems in a t ransdisciplinary wayenables one t o move beyond dichotomized thinking, into t he space t hat liesbeyond” (2002, p. 114).

Nicolescu’s three main concerns stem f rom his f ormal t raining and life work. Heis a quantum physicist , not a classical physicist . From a young age, he alsoread widely and deeply t he ideas of key philosophers like Husserl, Heidegger,and Cassirer. The combination of quantum physics and this particular strandof philosophy (with it s f ocus on the life world, lived meaning, and livedphenomena) deeply informed his approach to t ransdisciplinarity. Whilecrediting scientif ic methodology, he insists it has it s limitat ions; a newmethodology is required t o understand the interact ions bet ween the Subjectand the Object so we can ultimately understand the present world (Nicolescu,2014). Instead of viewing societ y as the main concern of t ransdisciplinarity (likethe Zurich approach), Nicolescu believed that “above all the human being is (or ought to be) in the center of any civilized society” (2008c, p. 12). Further, hebelieved t hat t ransdisciplinarity is about the interact ion between humans andthe sciences (Subject and Object ) and not just about producing bet ter hardscience (Object), as espoused by t he Zurich approach.


5/21

Many people inf luenced Nicolescu’s journey toward ‘working out’ a newmet hodology of t ransdisciplinarity, as shared in his interview with RussVolckmann (Nicolescu, 2007); see Giosan and Florian (2002) and Nicolescu(2008a) for ot her interviews. Nicolescu’s approach is grounded in a marriage of met aphysics (philosophy) and quantum physics. He credit ed Heisenberg f or the notion of levels of realit y, Lupasco for his invent ion of the logic of theincluded middle, and Boehme f or his original t hinking about complexity. Hecredited Piaget with invent ing t he word t ransdisciplinarity as a way t o

accommodat e t he new knowledge created when people work toget her atfluctuating boundaries.

“Transdisciplinarit y t ook many years to f ormulate” (Nicolescu, 2007, p. 79), buthe wove t his all toget her and created a t ransdisciplinary methodology (not thesame as met hods). He did t his during an era when people were suspicious of metaphysics and resistant to quantum physics (see also Janz, 1998). Despitethis climate, Nicolescu explored what beyond the disciplines really means. In his1985 book, he first postulated t he three axioms that const itute his approachto t ransdisciplinarit y:

Axiom one – t he existence of mult iple levels of reality (ontology), wit hmovement among them mediated by t he Hidden Third (the quantumvacuum); Axiom t wo – the Logic of the Included Middle; and, Axiom t hree – knowledge as complexity (epist emology); the Principle of Universal Interdependence.

Nicolescu (2007) commented that “the three axioms were revolutionary whenthey were formulated three centuries ago” (p.84), intimating hist ransdisciplinary met hodology is an extension of a long-standing convent ion

around knowledge creat ion: epistemology, logic, ontology, as well as axiology.Just as modern science has three axioms (i.e., one level of realit y (mat erial),the logic of the excluded middle, and knowledge generated using t he scient ificmethod), transdisciplinarity has its own twist on these axioms (see above andbelow). What is new is his assert ion that t ransdisciplinarit y identif ies with anew knowledge about what is between, across and beyond disciplines (themeaning of trans). Further, while modern science is value neutral (axiology),t ransdisciplinarit y involves values, namely humanist ic values, which aregenerated by t he interact ion of the three ot her axioms (Nicolescu, 2007).

Reality (Ontology)This ment ion of humanistic values leads t o a discussion of why he felt such apressing need for transdisciplinarity. Nicolescu (1985) felt that the mostimportant part of his t ransdisciplinary met hodology was his approach toontology (reality), with it s f ocus on t he Subject (i.e., human beings). Withmodern sciences’ focus on the Object (value neut ral), he f elt t hat t he answer to what is beyond the disciplines? is the Subject (i.e., subject ive feelings,percept ions, interpretat ions, meanings, intuit ions, experiences). “It ’s nomyst ery. What is beyond any discipline? It is, of course, ourselves, t he human

being” (Nicolescu, 2007, p. 78). He explained that, with transdisciplinarity, “theSubject comes back” (p. 83) f rom t he sidelines where modern sciencerelegat ed it for so many years. Transdisciplinarity is in fact “about theinteraction between the Subject and the Object ” (2007, p. 83, emphasis added).With this insight, he “worked out ’” (Nicolescu, 2008a, p.193) that there are t hree


6/21

components t o t ransdisciplinary ontology (reality), “Subject, Object , and theinteract ion term” (Nicolescu, 2007, p. 83), with the lat ter called the mediat ingHidden Third.

In more detail, Nicolescu proposed that transdisciplinary (TD) ontologyencompasses at least 10 dif ferent Realit ies (disciplinary and sectoralperspect ives and view points), aside f rom just the physical, material reality of conventional science. Per his convent ion, this paper capitalizes t he word

Reality when referring t o his approach. These 10 Realities are organized alongthree levels. Level one is t he internal world of humans, where consciousnessand perspectives f low – t he T D-Subject (comprising f our Realt ies: polit ical,social, historical, and individual). Level two is t he ext ernal world of humanswhere information f lows – the TD-Object (comprising three dif ferent Realit ies:environmental, economic, and cosmic/planetary). Interact ion and movementamongst the previous t wo levels are mediated by the Hidden Third level.Peoples’ experiences, intuitions, interpretations, descriptions,representations, images, and formulas meet on this third level. As well, threeaddit ional Realit ies exist in this intuit ive zone of non-resistance to ot hers’ideas, this mediated interface: culture and art, religions, and spiritualities(Nicolescu, 1985, 2002), see Figure 1.

Figure 1

Paramount to his approach is his premise that every level of reality of the

Subject , the Object , and the interact ion term is what it is because all of thelevels exist at the same time. No one level of realit y (perspect ive, discipline,world view) constitutes a privileged place f rom which to understandeveryt hing. Instead, while each of the 10 Realit ies is charact erized by it sincompleteness, in unity , they generate new, infinite t ransdisciplinary

http://integralleadershipreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Figure-1-McGregor2.jpg


7/21

knowledge (Nicolescu, 2005). Nicolescu (1985, 2011) posit ed that the HiddenThird is a way t o conceive of people moving t o a place where they becomeopen to ot hers’ perspect ives, ideologies, value premises and belief syst ems,inherently (temporarily) lett ing go of aspect s of how they current ly know theworld. The Hidden Third (the quantum vacuum) refers to a zone of non-resistance to others’ views on Realit y that plays the mediat ing role of a thirdbetween informat ion (Object) and consciousness and percept ions (Subject).For clarif ication, the quantum vacuum is not empt y; rather, it is at its lowest

level of energy, ripe with potential and possibilities.

In ef fect , Nicolescu creat ed a new Subject and a new Object , dif ferent f romthat used by modern science. The Transdisciplinary (TD) Object refers to theunity of levels of reality and its complementary zone of non-resistance. TheTransdisciplinary (TD) Subject refers t o t he unit y of levels of perceptions andits complementary zone of non-resistance to others’ ideas. What is necessaryis that t he two zones of non-resistance must be ident ical in order to havemeet ings of the minds around cont radictory ideas. The Hidden Third act s likea secretly included middle agent t hat allows for temporary unif ication of, whatis normally, cont radictory ideas (Nicolescu, 2005). This lat ter not ion leads us toa discussion of the Logic of the Included Middle, prefaced with theint roduct ion of his at tempt to context ualize his axiom of realit y.

Nicolescu (2002) viewed his three levels of reality as a starting point for thediscovery of a series of other levels. He felt his tert iary st ructure of ‘levels of Reality, levels of percept ion and the Hidden Third’ needed t o becontextualized so it is of value in application in the real world. With that inmind, he deduced a collection of other levels deemed useful for analyzing andsolving concret e problems and situat ions, such as global warming and naturaldisasters. He referred to t his as t he contextualizat ion of his t ransdisciplinary

axiom of ontology, made possible by placing it “in the midst of real problemsof human life, with all of their complexity” (Nicolescu, 2008b, p. 21). Normally,he presents t hem in a list of seven, like so: Levels of organization – Levels of structuring – Levels of integration, followed with the next triad. His additionallevels are presented here in chart form (see Table 1) so t hey can be readhorizontally (by row, to see progression) or vert ically (by column, to appreciatethree main cat egories).

Table 1: Nicolescu’s addit ional, secondary levels needed to context ualize T D ontology


8/21

He viewed t hese secondary ternaries as very useful tools for understandingand interpreting the real world. He maintained that the simultaneousconsiderat ion, in a given situation of human life, of the basic ternary (seeFigure 1) and one or several secondary ternaries (see Table 1) constitutest ransdisciplinary hermeneutics (Nicolescu 2008b). Hermeneutics refers t o t hesystemat ic exposit ion of what happens in the act of someone understandingsomet hing, everything f rom everyday life t o scient ific endeavours (van Breda,2008). Hermeneutics yields knowledge and t ruth that are f ocussed on the practical (du Plessis et al., 2014). A focus on the practical, on real worldapplicat ions, situations and context s, was why Nicolescu formulated thesesecondary ternaries (levels comprising t hree parts each). He explained: “in our t imes, the area of hermeneutics is that of human life and existence”(Nicolescu, 2008b, p. 21). This means people need to understand how peoplecome t o understand their existence as humans and t his cannot be achievedunless t he f ocus shift s t o t he T D Subject (humans) and its interact ion with theTD Object (science).

LogicModern science was able to reconcile setting the Subject (humans) on thesidelines because it employs t he deduct ive Logic of Exclusion. It is calledexclusive because it negates the possibility of co-existing cont radict ions; thatis, there is no room f or opposing ideas t o get toget her. This logic makes itnearly impossible f or people with dif ferent view points (operat ing on diff erentRealit ies) to come to an agreement. That means scient ists cannot hear Indigenous peoples, governments cannot hear cit izens, indust ry cannot hear ecologist s. This exclusive logic precludes inclusive solutions t o humanity’scomplex problems, the mandate of t ransdisciplinarit y.

In cont rast , the Logic of the Included Middle st rives t o overcome this hangover of separat ing t he Subject and the Object . It is called included middle becausetransdisciplinarity assumes knowledge is created in the quantum vacuum, themiddle ground (see Figure 1).

Inclusive logic assumes “t hat which appears to be disunited is united, and thatwhich appears t o be contradictory is perceived as noncontradictory”(Nicolescu, 2008c, p. 7). “Opposing aspect s of a phenomenon that aregenerally considered independent can thus be underst ood as being in dynamic

relationship” (Brenner, 2005, p. 3).In more det ail, t ransdisciplinary quantum logic assumes that when atemporary state of agreement emerges in the included middle, a contradictionis resolved at a higher level of complexit y (realit y). This new state duringcomplex problem solving represents the result of two contradictory ideas,concepts, assertions et cetera interacting and coming to a temporaryresolution (Ramadier, 2004) (e.g., a scient ist accept ing insights f rom anindigenous wisdom t radit ion). This inclusive logic best describes atransdisciplinary picture of reality, where solutions emerge in the fecundmiddle, the quantum vacuum. The result is new knowledge, layered and

layered with complexit y, emergent f rom cross fert ilizat ion of so manyperspectives.

Knowledge (Epistemology)


9/21

Nicolescu (1985) formulated t he axiom of complexity, by which he meantepistemology (what counts as t ruth and knowledge). Nicolescu (2007)explained that in his t ransdisciplinary approach, insights and new knowledgeare not gained f rom put t ing diff erent realit ies t ogether but from connecting them. He believed t hat complexit y is a modern form of the ancient principle of universal interdependence, in that “everything is dependent on everythingelse, everything is connected, nothing is separate” (Nicolescu, 2004, p. 48). He

elected t o use Morin’s (2006) not ion of generalized complexity , claiming t hat itcomes t he closest to what is needed t o deal with transdisciplinary problems.This is likely because Morin viewed complexit y t hrough an epistemological lensthat respects chaos, disorder, uncertainty, (re)organizat ion, and emergence,rather than within the epistemology of classical science, which privilegesorder, certainty, stability, and predictability.

Disciplinary science isolates disciplines from each other and isolates themfrom their environments. The breaking up of knowledge into separatedisciplines “prevents [knowledge] from linking and contextualizing” (Morin, 2006,p. 14). To confound mat ters, modern science has persistent ly separated t he

Object and the Subject, assuming they are incommensurable, meaning theyalso remain isolated and unconnected. It goes without saying t hat creat ingt ransdisciplinary knowledge is all about connecting , all about complexity,emergence, and t he intellectual fusion of disparate world views into newintegral knowledge (McGregor, 2004).

Complex t ransdisciplinary knowledge is created in the fert ile middle groundbet ween the mediated Mult iple Levels of Reality, using inclusive logic. Indeed,Nicolescu (2010) described the t otalit y of all of the levels of Realit y as acomplex structure, which necessitates a non-classical understanding of theterms complexity and knowledge. Those engaged in transdisciplinary workmust learn to embrace complexit y t hinking, based on a collect ion of powerfulassumptions: (a) people and syst ems can adapt and reorganize; (b) complexbehaviour can emerge f rom a f ew simple rules applied locally; (c) order canemerge without central control, (d) small changes can leverage big ef fect s;(e) events are unpredictable meaning people must t rust that things willemerge; and, (f) co-evolut ion of lif e proceeds t hrough constant t ension,chaos, and balance (McGregor, 2012).

Transdisciplinary knowledge is emergent, complex, embodied, and cross-fert ilized. The process of emergence manifests when people pass through

the zone of non-resistance (accept ing t here are many Realit ies) and enter thefertile, t emporary middle ground to problem-solve using inclusive logic. Theresultant t ransdisciplinary knowledge is characterized as embodied, a part of everyone who co-created it , rather t han discipline-bound or sect or-bound.This new knowledge is open and alive because the complex problems theknowledge addresses are alive, emerging f rom t he life world (Nicolescu, 2005).

Yes, transdisciplinary problems are wicked. They must be solved, but they areso messy that doing so can make t hings worse. Yet , people feel they must dosomething (McGregor, 2012). T ransdisciplinary problems include povert y andinequalit ies, unsustainability, uneven growt h and development, human

aggression, uneven income and wealth dist ribut ion, populat ion growt h, thehuman condition, and any issue with global implications (McGregor, 2009).“Trandisciplinarity starts of with complex societal problems” (Jahn, Bergman,& Keil, 2012, p. 2), which cannot be solved with disciplinary perspectives.Transdisci linarit is needed a when humans interact with natural s stems


10/21

(agriculture, forestry, industry, and megacities); (b) in fields of major technicaldevelopment (nuclear and-biotechnology, genet ics); and, (c) where social,technical and economic development interacts with elements of values andculture (aging, energy, housing, health care, waste management, land, food,wat er) (Häberli et al., 2001).

Zurich Approach to Transdisciplinarity

In the years leading up t o t he 2000 Zurich conference, there was a growingconcern that the problems being addressed by higher educat ion (academicdisciplines) were stemming from science and not from the real world. Thebasic premise of the Zurich conference was t hat problems no longer emanatef rom science. The cent ral quest ion at this gat hering was “How can researchbe organized t o solve real-world, pract ical problems as ef fect ively andcheaply as possible?” (Häberli et al., 2001b, p. 20). Those in attendancewanted to know how to do science differently ; how to do t ransdisciplinaryresearch. The Zurich congress concluded t hat t ransdisciplinary research is just

another type of research that f alls within the spect rum of research; that is, itis not a met hodology with axioms. Key t o t he Zurich approach is t heassumption that , without quest ion, “the science system is the primaryknowledge system in society.” Transdisciplinary research simply serves therole of making sure science “increases its unrealized intellect ual pot ent ial”(Häberli, Grossenbacher-Mansuy, & Klein, 2001a, p. 4).

Wondering ‘Where is the common ground that holds everything together?,’they concluded that the world needs a science t hat can live up to the need for universality and that can effectively manage complexity (Klein et al., 2001). Tothat end, the Zurich conference dealt with new forms of mutual learning

involving science, technology, and society t o ef f iciently meet the complexchallenges of the 21st century. There was general agreement that the worldneeds a conscious merger and symbiosis of the perspect ives of science,economics, t echnology, and polit ics (Mitcham & Frodeman, 2003). Complexchallenges of the real world would become the f ocus of research quest ionsand pract ices, instead of disciplines being the focus (Klein, 2014).

Those in at tendance believed that mutual learning is f acilitat ed by buildingpartnerships between academics and non-academics, leading t o f uturetransdisciplinary research. There was a dist inct concern about the ideal focus

of research, with the belief that it should be more oriented t o stakeholdersand end users in each of science (nat ural and social), the marketplace, and ingovernment. Mitcham and Frodeman (2003) observed that what is “missingfrom this ménage à trois are the humanities” (p. 182), taken to mean theclassics, history, literature and philosophy as well as the arts. They arguedthat a transdisciplinarity that resorts to science’s historic tenet of reduct ionism cannot do just ice to the problems of complex systems. Uponref lection, they advocat ed f or a wider disciplinarit y (which they said is veryrare) that “would st ep across t he divide between the sciences and thehumanities and thus at once infect , if not t ransform, economics and polit ics”(p. 183).

Succinctly, the Zurich approach concentrates on “joint problem-solving of problems pertaining t o t he science-t echnology-society t riad [and reduces themeaning of] ‘beyond disciplines’…to the interaction of disciplines within socialconst raints” (Nicolescu, 2006, p. 144). Despite t hat the Zurich approach entails


11/21

trans-sector transdisciplinary problem solving, acting within t he constraints of something is a perplexing approach, given that trans means across, beyond,and into another space. Mitcham and Frodeman (2003) also observed thatthose at the Zurich conference “used t he t erm t ransdisciplinary t o cover aspect rum of interact ions that are of ten more f inely dist inguished asinterdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, cross-disciplinary, and transdisciplinary ”(p. 181).They insisted t hat this conceptual slippage muddied how those at the Zurichconference act ually understood t he term t ransdisciplinary, thereby

compromising future use of the outcomes of the conference. In fairness,adherents to the Zurich approach did confirm they were using Gibbons et al.’s(1994) not ion of Mode 2 knowledge product ion and its def init ion of transdisciplinarity. Mode 2 has five characteristics, one of them beingtransdisciplinarity.

Mode 1 and Mode 2 Knowledge

Mode 1 knowledge is the t erm Gibbons (2000a) used to ref er to t he

longst anding t radit ional way of creat ing knowledge within disciplines, withproblems shaped by t he interests of the academic community, largelydivorced from the world (aka t he ivory tower syndrome). Science was built upona model of knowledge production that has a disciplinary basis, and thisdisciplinary structure defined what counted as good science and sound, validand reliable knowledge. Mode 1 is disciplinary; created using homogeneousskills (all the same kind); has st rict hierarchies and st ructures, replete withspecializations; and, depends upon blind peer review to determine the qualityof the knowledge (Gibbons, 2000a,b). Mode 1 includes “discipline-bound areasof specializat ion, where t he scientist /researcher is of ten viewed as anindependent (and isolated) agent of knowledge, with no need to consult

outside t he f ield of his specialized interest ” (du Plessis, 2012, p. 42).

Mode 2 knowledge is the antithesis of Mode 1, and has six characteristics(Gibbons, 2000a,b; Gibbons et al., 1994). First , Mode 2 is produced in thecontext where it will be applied. Second, the knowledge t hat emerges in thecontext of application has it s own dist inct characterist ics, mainly that it ist ransdisciplinary (beyond disciplines), with four distinguishing feat ures. (a) Theevolving framework for addressing problems emerges in the context of applicat ion (not bef ore hand) and entails genuine creat ivit y and t heoret icalconsensus. (b) The solut ion to t he problem is a genuine cont ribut ion to

knowledge (beyond disciplinary knowledge), with said knowledge creat ionviewed as a cumulative process beyond disciplinary maps. (c) The diffusion of result s and new knowledge is accomplished in the process of their production,and newly formed net works and relat ionships serve t o ensure ongoingcommunicat ions. (d) Transdisciplinarit y is dynamic because it is “problemsolving on the move” (Gibbons et al., 1994, p. 5). “Communications in ever newconf igurat ions are crucial to t ransdisciplinary” (p.5) because the newknowledge and new discoveries lie outside t he confines of any one disciplineor sector.

Third, Mode 2 knowledge is heterogeneous in terms of the skills, viewpoints.

and experiences people bring to it because so many diff erent sect ors areinvolved in its creat ion. Fourth, those engaged in Mode 2 knowledgeproduct ion prefer t ransient st ructures and f latt er hierarchies than Mode 1. Although not planned, t he composit ion of the group addressing the problemchanges over time as requirements evolve. Fifth, the resultant knowledge is


12/21

socially robust, socially accountable, and reflexive. Everyone must try tooperate f rom the standpoint of all act ors involved, which can be challengingwhen ideas t ouch values and preferences of diff erent people comprising theresearch team.

And, sixt h, the crit eria and procedures t o ensure quality knowledge areextended beyond peer review to a broader social composit ion of the reviewsyst em. Is t he knowledge useful? Is it socially acceptable (Gibbons, 2000a,b)?

It should also meet the criteria of ef f iciency and just ice and provide a solut ionto a specif ic problem. “Knowledge that meet s the diverse criteria for aspecific sit uat ion [or context ] is socially robust” (Smith, 2003, p. 4). To continuewith the qualit y control criterion of Mode 2 knowledge, “the part icipat ion of awider range of non-scient ific act ors in the knowledge production processenhances its reliability” (Hessels & van Lente, 2008, p. 742). This expandednot ion of reliabilit y is possible because of a “shift f rom a ‘culture of autonomy’to a ‘culture of accountabilit y’” (Nowotny, Scot t , & Gibbons, 2003, p.180).Indeed, Nowotny (2003) added an interesting twist, suggesting that in additionto value-added qualit y, we should st art to speak of the value-integrated qualityof Mode 2 knowledge. “There is something of a societal value t hat needs t obe integrated into the def inition of good science… to produce bet ter science”(p. 50).

Brief ly and t o t he point , in Mode 2, multidisciplinary teams are brought together for short periods of t ime to work on specif ic problems in the real world togenerate applicable findings f or t he real world. No longer would science work inisolat ion f rom the world. The Zurich approach called f or context -driven,problem-focused work involving some combinat ion of existing disciplinaryknowledge in concert with pract itioners who would use t he results of thetransdisciplinary research. Klein (2001) explained it thus: “a synthetic

reconf igurat ion and recontextualization of available knowledge” (p. 49.emphasis added).

Postnormal Science

The approach to t ransdisciplinarity used at the Zurich conference is alignedwith post normal science (Klein et al., 1994, p.40). Because Mode 2 was a “newsocial organisation in science” it needed a postnormal approach (Ravetz,1999, p. 648). Normal, positivistic science refers to the long establishedapproach to producing knowledge that st rives t o f igure out how the worldworks, using knowledge generated f rom the scient ific method to inform judgements (McGregor, 2012). Postnormal science was developed as a line of inquiry to accommodat e a reassessment of the role of scient ific research in public policy . Given the complexity of current policy issues, “[t]here is a needfor a scientific practice which can cope with uncertainty, with value pluralityand with the decision-st akes of the various stakeholders of the problem athand” (Hessels & van Lente, 2008, p. 744).

Interest ingly, although post normal science shares some charact erist ics withMode 2 knowledge product ion, “post -normal science is only relevant for policy-

supporting research, it does not deal with the university- industry interact ions”(Hessels & van Lente, 2008, p. 745).

Post normal science is concerned with “the public function of research”(Hessels & van Lente, 2008, p. 745) in situat ions where “f act s are uncert ain,values in dispute, stakes high, and decisions urgent” (Funtowicz & Ravet z,


13/21

1993, p.744 ). Nonetheless, t hose employing t he Zurich approach t end t oassume postnormal refers to industry-universit y-policy-society interact ions.

Hessels and van Lente (2008) actually maintained t hat postnormal sciencehas a st ronger f it with the revised not ion of Mode 2 than with the originalversion explicated by Gibbons et al. (1994). The second rendit ion of Mode 2 isset out in the follow up book ent itled Re-thinking Science (Nowot ny, Gibbons, &Scot t , 2001). Only t he 1994 version of Mode 2 knowledge product ion exist ed

during the 2000 Zurich congress. A year later, Gibbons’ t eam (comprisingNowot ny et al., 2001) ext ended Mode 2 to include t he idea of thecontextualization of problems requiring part icipat ion in the agora (public openspace) of public debat e (see also Nowotny, 2003, and the Minerva art icle atNowot ny et al., 2003). They proposed t he not ion of contextualized science andcontextualized research that yields socially robust knowledge because “societynow ‘speaks back’ to science” (Nowotny et al., 2001, p. 50).

Nowotny et al. (2003) further argued that t he great subsystems of state,market , culture, and science are “becoming increasingly t ransgressive” (p.190), meaning there is now movement bet ween boundaries. This f uzziness

between boundaries creat ed f our new characterist ics of society and sciencethat they tried to accommodate with a revised Mode 2: (a) uncertaint ies; (b)self-organizat ion (t ied to growth of ref lexivity); (b) new forms of economicrat ionalit y measured by its immanent, inherent value instead of inst rumentalvalue; and, (d) a reconstitut ion of t ime and space deeply af fect ing humanrelationships, shaped especially by information and communicationtechnology. Despite these conceptual innovations, most scholars referencingthe Zurich approach to transdisciplinarity refer only to the 1994 document(Gibbons et al., 1994). Eschewing t he ext ended not ion of Mode 2 meansnot ions of t ransdisciplinarity are t runcated.

Zurich Definition of Transdisciplinarity

In conclusion, the Zurich congress “highlighted the convergence of t ransdisciplinarit y, complexit y, and t rans-sectorality in a unique set of problems” (Klein, 2004, p. 516). Zurich transdisciplinarity “invites the society to join the world of research as a valuable contributor t o t he growt h of knowledge” (du Plessis, 2012, p. 44). Based on their use of Mode 2’sconcept ualizat ion of t ransdisciplinarit y (Gibbons et al., 1994),t ransdisciplinarit y was def ined as f ollows, reported in the Zurich conferencesynopsis:

Transdisciplinarity is a new form of learning and problem solvinginvolving cooperation among different parts of society.Transdisciplinarity research starts f rom t angible, real-world problems.Solut ions are devised in collaborat ion with multiple st akeholders. Apract ice-oriented approach, transdisciplinarit y, is not confined to aclose circle of scient ific experts, professional journals and academicdepartments where knowledge is produced. Ideally, everyone whohas something to say about a particular problem and is willing to

part icipat e, can play a role. Through mutual learning, the knowledgeof mult iple part icipants is enhanced, including local knowledge,scientific knowledge and the knowledge of industries, businesses,and NGO’s. The sum of this knowledge will be great er than theknowled e of an sin le artner. In the rocess the bias of each


14/21

perspect ive will also be minimized. (Häberli et al., 2001, pp. 18-19)

Discussion

The main goal of t his paper was to compare, for the f irst t ime in any detail,the t wo main approaches to t ransdisciplinarity espoused by BasarabNicolescu and by those in at tendance at the 2000 Zurich Internat ional

Transdisciplinary Conference, as shared in Klein et al. (2001). Table 2 shares arudimentary analysis of the main diff erences bet ween the two approaches. Although they are bot h concerned with science (disciplines), societ y, and t hecomplexit y of the today’s world, they bot h understand transdisciplinarit y atfundamentally dif ferent levels.


15/21


16/21

Table 2: Comparison of Nicolescuian and Zurich Approaches t o T ransdisciplinarit y

First, Nicolescu ‘worked out’ a totally new and unique methodology for creat ing new knowledge to address complexity (with three axioms: ontology,logic, and epistemology). The Zurich group focused on how to do science andresearch dif ferent ly so it can accommodat e complexit y, mainly by disciplinesworking t oget her within the constraints placed on them by t he context withinwhich the knowledge would be applied. Second, Nicolescu’s approach is

theoret ical in nat ure and the Zurich approach is phenomenological. Theoret icaldeals with higher order principles and philosophical axioms whilephenomenological deals with applicat ion in context . Third, not surprisingly, theZurich approach focused heavily on research compared to Nicolescu.Research is t he syst emat ic invest igation of somet hing in order to est ablishfact s, meanings or insights and reach new conclusions. At Zurich, they claimedthat t ransdisciplinarity was just another type of research that f alls within thespectrum of existing research while Nicolescu did not conceptualizetransdisciplinarity as research but as a methodology f or producing knowledgethat could be used when conducting research.

Fourth, Nicolescu was deeply concerned with the proliferat ion of disciplinesthat were creating knowledge in isolation from the world at large. Zurichpart icipants, instead, lauded the many disciplines t hat at tended thegathering, viewing this as st rength of t he conference and their interpretat ionof t ransdisciplinarit y. Fift h, while Nicolescu clearly diff erent iated bet weent ransdisciplinarit y and its companion approaches (mono, mult i, inter), therewas conceptual slippage at the Zurich meet ing, with less at tention given todistinguishing among the four different disciplinary modes.

Sixth, the Zurich approach borrowed a conceptualization of transdisciplinarity

f rom Gibbons et al. (1994), about how Mode 2 knowledge production def inest ransdisciplinarit y. Nicolescu ‘worked out ’ a unique def init ion of t ransdisciplinarit y grounded in metaphysics and quantum physics (albeit healso borrowed initially f rom f ellow scholars f or dif ferent elements in hisapproach). Seventh, Nicolescu understood transdisciplinarity to be at oncebetween the disciplines, across t he dif ferent disciplines, and beyond alldiscipline. The Zurich approach narrowed it s def init ion, claiming thatt ransdisciplinarit y refers to t he interact ion between disciplines within socialconstraints. The lat ter st ill focuses on disciplines while the former expands totranscend disciplines, moving to another space entirely.

Eight, although both approaches are concerned with addressing the complexproblems facing humanity, they dif fer on the type of knowledge required to doso. The Zurich approach st rives to reconf igure and recontextualize existing and available knowledge into a form that is socially robust, accountable, andref lexive. In cont rast , Nicolescu holds that new t ransdisciplinary knowledge iscomplex, emergent, embodied, and cross-f ert ilized; this new knowledgecannot be reduced t o its old f orms. T ransdisciplinary knowledge is createdusing the Logic of the Included Middle. This logic enables disparate ideas t obe connected, made possible because of his unique conceptualization of realit y (Mult iple Levels of Reality mediat ed by the Hidden Third). The Zurich

approach did not concern it self with the axioms of logic, epistemology,ontology or axiology because it did not conceive of t ransdisciplinarit y as amethodology f or creat ing knowledge.

On a f inal note, t he Zurich approach focuses on joint problem solving at thescience-t echnology-society t riad, while the Nicolescuian approach st rives to


17/21

understand the world by respect ing the interact ions bet ween humans andscience, necessitating the unity of knowledge. Arguing that classical sciencerelegat ed humans (the Subject) to t he sidelines in the name of object ivit y (theObject), Nicolescu maintained that understanding the world means connect ingthe knowledge of humans with the knowledge f rom the sciences; that is, theTD Subject with the T D Object. Nicolescu bemoaned the fallout of dualismand fragmentation. He saw a place for specializations, disciplinary, and multiand interdisciplinary knowledge in concert with t ransdisciplinary boundary work

at the interface bet ween the academy and the rest of the world.Specializations and disciplines are needed, but they just are not enoughanymore. The Zurich approach also values disciplines, respect ing t he need f or them t o work in the context where t he knowledge would be applied. But , thereis no express concern for the Subject and the Object. Indeed, science (theObject ) is st ill deemed to be t he primary knowledge system in society.

Conclusion

This paper prof iled two approaches to t ransdisciplinarity, Nicolescu’sapproach and t he Zurich approach. They are fundamentally dif ferent despitetheir shared concern for t he complex problems shaping today’s world. Theworld is bet ter for having bot h approaches t o t ransdisciplinarity, and assuggest ed by Brenner et al. (2001), people should “engage in an ongoingdialogue on both of them” (p. 3). This paper contributes t o t he pot ential of that dialogue; there is much to learn f rom the nuances of bot h approaches t otransdisciplinarity.

References

Augsburg, T . (2014). Becoming t ransdisciplinary: The emergence of thet ransdisciplinary individual. World Futures, 70 (3/4), 233-247.

Berni, L. E. V. (2010). The t ransdisciplinary connect ion: An introduct ion to t heepistemological approach to improve t he dialogue bet ween science andtradition. The Rose+Cross Journal, 7 (1), 1-12.

Bertea, M. (2005, September 5-9). Transdisciplinarity and education. Paper presented at the Second World Congress of Transdisciplinarity. Vitoria, Brazil.

Retrieved from http://cetrans.com.br/artigos/Mircea_Bertea.pdf Brenner, J. E. (2005, September 19-22). Knowledge as systems: A logic of epistemology . Paper presented at 6th European Systems Science Congress.Paris, France: French Associat ion of Systems Science. Ret rievedfrom http://www.afscet.asso.fr/resSystemica/Paris05/brenner.pdf

Brenner, J. E., Kulikauskas, P., de Mello, M., Raju, K. V., Sommerman, A., &Sundin. N-G. [ca. 2000]. Statement contemplating the International Transdisciplinary Conference held in Zurich 2000 . Ret rieved f romhttps://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/society-of-cosmic-

anthropologists/WgfgCID6Gsg

Bridgeman, G., & Brooker, G. (2004, January). Transdisciplinarity: History, theory and practice. Paper presented at the Internat ional Associat ion of SocialWorkers conference. Auckland, New Zealand.

http://www.afscet.asso.fr/resSystemica/Paris05/brenner.pdfhttp://cetrans.com.br/artigos/Mircea_Bertea.pdf


18/21

de Freitas, L., Morin, E., & Nicolescu, B. (1994). Charter of t ransdisciplinarity. InG. Tanzella-Nitti (Ed.), Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science.Rome, Italy: Pontif ical Universit y of the Holy Cross. Ret rieved f romhtt p://www.inters.org/Freitas-Morin-Nicolescu-T ransdisciplinarity

Dincă, I. (2012). The ontological axiom. Sigla T Journal, 2 ,http://www.moisenicoara.ro/the-ontological-axiom/#main

du Plessis, H. (2012, January 10-12). Communicat ing science in Af rica: Shif t ingboundaries of percept ions. In Pre-Conference Proceedings of the International Conference on Science Communication for Scientific Temper (pp. 34-46). NewDelhi, India: NISCAIR and Vigyan Praser.

du Plessis, H., Sehume, J., & Mart in, L. (2013). The concept and application of trandisciplinarity in intellectual discourse and research. Johannesburg, South Af rica: Real Af rican Publishers.

Funtowicz, S., & Ravetz, J. (1993). Science in the postnormal age. Futures,25 (7), 735-755.

Gibbons, M. (2000a). Appendix: Some at t ributes of knowledge product ion inmode 2. In A. Kraak (Ed.), Changing modes (pp. 113140). Pretoria, South Africa:HSRC Press.

Gibbons, M. (2000b). Universities and the new production of knowledge: Somepolicy implicat ions for government. In A. Kraak (Ed.), Changing modes (pp. 34-44). Pretoria, South Africa: HSRC Press.

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scot t , P., & Trow, M.(1994). The new production of knowledge. London, England: Sage.

Giosan, L., & Florian, R. (2002). Interview with Basarab Nicolescu. Ad Astra, 1(1),1-6.

Häberli, R., Bill, A., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., & Klein, J. T. (2001a). Summary.In J. T. Klein, W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, R. Häberli, A. Bill, R. Scholz, & M. Welt i(Eds.), Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem solving among science, technology, and society (pp. 3-5). Berlin, Germany: Birkhäuser Verlag.

Häberli, R., Bill, A., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Klein, J. T., Scholz, R.,& Welt i, M.(2001b). Synthesis. In J. T. Klein, W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, R. Häberli, A. Bill,

R. Scholz, & M. Welt i (Eds.), Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem solving among science, technology, and society (pp. 6-22). Berlin, Germany: Birkhäuser Verlag.

Hessels, L. K., & van Lente, H. (2008). Rethinking new knowledgeproduction. Research Policy, 37 (1), 740-760.

Jahn, T. (2012, Feb 28-Mar 3). Transdisciplinarity as a research practice toapproach sustainability challenges: A social-ecological perspective. Paper presented at the Leuphana Sustainability Summit, Lunenburg. Retrieved fromhtt p://www.isoe.de/uploads/media/jahn-sustainabilit y-summit-lueneburg-2012-en.pdf

Jahn, T., Bergmann, N., & Keil, F. (2012). Transdisciplinarity: Betweenmainst reaming and marginalizat ion. Ecological Economics, 79, 1-10.

Janz, B. B. (1998, May 7-10). Transdisciplinarity as a model for post/disciplinarity .

http://www.moisenicoara.ro/the-ontological-axiom/#main


19/21

Paper presented at the Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in the Liberal Arts conference. Banf f , BC. Ret rieved f romhtt ps://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~janzb/papers/transdisciplinarit y.pdf

Klein, J. T. (1994). Notes toward a social epistemology of transdisciplinarity . Paper presented at the First World Congress of T ransdisciplinarit y. Convento da Arrábida, Portugal. Ret rieved f rom http://ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/bulletin/b12c2.php

Klein, J. T . (2001). Interdisciplinarit y and t he prospect of complexity: The test sof theory. Issues in Integrative Studies, 19, 43-57.

Klein, J. T. (2003). Unity of knowledge and transdisciplinarity: Contexts of def init ion, theory and t he new discourse of problem solving. In G. H. Hadorn(Ed.), Unity of knowledge (in transdisciplinary research for sustainability) (Vol 1)(pp. 35-39). Paris, France: UNESCO EOLSS.

Klein, J. T. (2004). Prospects for transdisciplinarity. Futures, 36 (4), 515-526.

Klein, J. T. (2014). Discourse of transdisciplinarity: Looking back to thefuture. Futures, 63, 68-74.

Klein, J. T., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Häberli, R., Bill, A., Scholz, R., & Welti,M. (Eds.). (2001). Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem solving among science,technology, and society . Berlin, Germany: Birkhäuser Verlag.

McGregor, S. L. T . (2009). Integral leadership’s potential to posit ion povert ywithin transdisciplinarity. Integral Leadership Review, 9(2). Ret rieved f romhttp://integralleadershipreview.com/4758-feature-article-integral-leadership%E2%80%99s-potential-to-position-poverty-within-

transdisciplinarity1McGregor, S. L. T. (2010). Historical notions of transdisciplinarity in homeeconomics. KON FORUM, 16 (2), http://www.kon.org/archives/forum/16-2/mcgregor.html

McGregor, S. L. T. (2012). Complexity economics, wicked problems andconsumer education. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 36 (1), 61-69.

McGregor, S. L. T . (2014). TDMeme: A t ransdisciplinary meme. Integral Leadership Review , 14(2), http://integralleadershipreview.com/11271-331-

transdisciplinary-meme/McGregor, S. L. T. (2015). Transdisciplinary knowledge creat ion. In P. T . Gibbs(Ed.), Transdisciplinary professional learning and practice (pp. 9-24). New York, NY: Springer.

Mitcham, C., & Frodeman, R. (2003). Ext ending science, technology, andsociet y interdisciplinarity. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 28 (1), 180-183.

Morin, E. (2006). Restricted complexity, general complexity (C. Gerhenson,Trans.). Paper presented at the Intelligence de la complexité: Épistémologie

et pragmat ique colloquium. Cerisy-La-Salle, France. Ret rievedfrom http://cogprints.org/5217/1/Morin.pdf

Nicolescu, B. (1985). Nous, la particule et le monde [We, the particle and theworld]. Paris, France: Le Mail.

http://www.kon.org/archives/forum/16-2/mcgregor.htmlhttp://ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/bulletin/b12c2.php


20/21

Nicolescu, B. (2002). Manifesto of transdisciplinarity [Trans. K-C. Voss]. New York,NY: SUNY.

Nicolescu, B. (2003, May 21). Convergence and differences between the twoapproaches of transdisciplinarity . Ret rieved September 16, 2008 fromhttp://www.interdisciplines.org/interdisciplinarity/papers/5/22#_22

Nicolescu, B. (2004). Gurdjief f ’s philosophy of nature. In J. Needleman & G.

Baker (Eds.), Gurdjieff (pp. 37-69). New York, NY: Continuum InternationalPublishing Group.

Nicolescu, B. (2005, June 4-8). Towards transdisciplinary education and learning .Paper presented at the Metanexus Institute conference on Science andreligion: Global perspectives. Philadelphia, PA. Retrieved fromhtt p://www.met anexus.net/archive/conference2005/pdf /nicolescu.pdf

Nicolescu, B. (2006). Transdisciplinarity: Past, present and future. In B.Haverkort & C. Reijnt jes (Eds.), Moving Worldviews – Reshaping sciences, policies and practices for endogenous sustainable development (pp. 142-166).

Leusden, Net herlands: COMPAS Edit ions.Nicolescu, B. (2007). T ransdisciplinarity: Basarab Nicolescu t alks with RussVolckmann. Integral Review, 4, 73-90.

Nicolescu, B. (2008a). International congresses of transdisciplinarity: Their importance for the emergence of a t randisciplinarity [interview given toProfessor Augusta Theresz Dealvarenga]. Transdisciplinarity in Science and Religion, 3, 193-202. Ret rieved f rom ht tp://basarab-nicolescu.fr/Docs_articles/InterviewAlvarengaENG.htm

Nicolescu, B. (2008b). Transdisciplinarity: History, methodology,hermeneutics. Economy, Transdisciplinarity, Cognition, 11(2), 13-23. Ret rievedfrom http://www.ugb.ro/etc/etc2008no2/ks1%20(2).pdf

Nicolescu, B. (Ed.). (2008c). Transdisciplinarity: Theory and practice. Creskill, NJ:Hampt on Press.

Nicolescu, B. (2010). Disciplinary boundaries – What are they and how they can betransgressed? Paper prepared for the International Symposium on Research Across Boundaries. Luxembourg: Universit y of Luxembourg. Ret rieved f romhtt p://basarab-nicolescu.f r/Docs_articles/Disciplinary_Boundaries.htm

Nicolescu, B. (2011). Methodology of t ransdisciplinarity-Levels of reality, logicof the included middle and complexit y. In A. Ertas (Ed.), Transdisciplinarity:Bridging science, social sciences, humanities and engineering (pp. 22-45). Austin,TX: TheAt las Publishing.

Nicolescu, B. (2014). From modernity to cosmodernity . Albany, NY: SUNY.

Nowot ny, H. (2003). The pot ent ial of t ransdisciplinarit y. In Rethinking interdisciplinarity (pp. 48-53). Paris, France: Interdisciplines Project . Ret rievedfrom http://www.helga-nowotny.eu/downloads/helga_nowotny_b59.pdf

Nowonty, H., Scot t , P., & Gibbons, M, (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in and age of uncertainty . Cambridge, England: Polity.

Nowotny, H., Scot t . P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). Mode 2 revisited: The newroduct ion of knowled e. Minerva, 41, 179-194.

http://www.helga-nowotny.eu/downloads/helga_nowotny_b59.pdfhttp://www.ugb.ro/etc/etc2008no2/ks1%20(2).pdf


21/21

Ramadier, T. (2004). Transdisciplinarity and its challenges: The case of urbanstudies. Futures, 36 (4), 423-439.

Ravetz, J. R. (1999). What is post-normal science? Futures, 31(7), 647–653.

Ravetz, J. R., & Funtowicz, S. (1999). Post -normal science: An insight nowmaturing. Futures, 31(7), 641-646.

Segalàs, J., & Tejedor, G. (2013, September 16-20). Transdisciplinarity: A must for sustainable education. Paper presented at the 41st European Societ y f or Engineering Educat ion (SEFI) Conference. Leuven, Belgium. Ret rievedfrom http://www.sefi.be/conference-2013/images/keynote_segalas.pdf

Smith, M. J. (2003). Producing and consuming knowledge: The relevance of the“new production of knowledge debate” for disciplinary and transdisciplinary social science [working draf t ]. Ret rieved f rom Lancast er University website:htt p://www.lancast er.ac.uk/ias/events/general07/docs/interdisc/interdisc-Smith-Knowledge.pdf

van Breda, J. (2008). Overcoming the disciplinary divide: Towards thepossibility of a transdisciplinary hermeneutics. In M. Burns & A. Weaver (Eds.), Exploring sustainability science: A Southern African perspective (pp. 91-134). Stellenbosch, South Africa: African Sun Media.

Voss, K-C. (2002). Review essay of Basarab Nicolescu’s ‘Manifest o of Transdisciplinarity.’ Esoterica, 4, 114-116.

About the Author

Sue L. T. McGregor, PhD is a Canadian home economist (40 years) at MountSaint Vincent University, Canada (ret ired) . She was a Professor in the Facultyof Educat ion. She is Associate Editor for the Integral Leadership Review with afocus on T ransdisciplinarit y. Her intellect ual work pushes t he boundaries of consumer studies and home economics philosophy and leadership towardsintegral, t ransdisciplinary, complexity and moral imperat ives. She is Docent inHome Economics at the Universit y of Helsinki, a Kappa Omicron Nu ResearchFellow (leadership), an The ATLAS Transdisciplinary Fellow, and an AssociateMember of Sustainabilit y Front iers. Af f iliated with 19 professional journals, she

is Associate Editor of two home economics journals and part of the EditorialTeam for Integral Leadership Review . Sue has delivered 35 keynotes andinvited talks in 15 count ries and published over 150 peer-reviewedpublications, 21 book chapters, and 9 monographs. She publishedTransformative Practice in 2006. Consumer Moral Leadership was released in2010. With Russ Volckmann, she co-published Transversity in 2011 and, in 2012,she co-edited The Next 100 Years: Creating Home Economics Futures. Her prof essional and scholarly work is available athttp://www.consultmcgregor.com

Tweet

FacebookLinkedIn
http://www.sefi.be/conference-2013/images/keynote_segalas.pdf

integral leadership review

Documents