Advertisement

Complex Systems of Knowledge Integration: A Pragmatic Proposal for Coordinating and Enhancing Inter/Transdisciplinarity

  • Ana Teixeira de MeloEmail author
  • Leo Simon Dominic Caves
Chapter
Part of the Emergence, Complexity and Computation book series (ECC, volume 35)

Abstract

Humanity’s biggest challenges call for organised collective action, informed by the most complex forms of thinking. Different forms of knowledge and practices of knowing operate at different levels of organisation within society. Scientific knowledge is one form of knowing, but the development of science under a culture of disciplinisation and increasing specialisation has led to its fragmentation and blinded it to the possibilities offered by the integration of knowledge. Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity are privileged routes for rich knowledge construction and integration. There is a pressing need for efforts directed toward the intentional construction of a culture where interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary practices may flourish. However, we believe significant change will only occur through the orchestration of a set of activities that attend to the complexity of knowledge construction and integration as emergent outcomes of a complex network of processes and relations that constitute an evolving inter and transdisciplinary ecosystem. In this paper we present a proposal for the organisation of an Alliance for Knowledge Integration and of Inter/Transdisciplinary Hubs aimed at coordinating collaborative actions and contributions from a diversity of agents and systems from different levels of organisation of society towards richer and more integrated practices of knowing.

Keywords

Knowledge integration Interdisciplinarity Transdisciplinarity Complex systems 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Prof. Susan Stepney, from the York Cross-Disciplinary Centre for Systems Analysis of the University of York for the many enriching and stimulating conversations that have supported us and provided the motivation for the development of the ideas presented in this paper.

The first author was funded by FCT—Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, Portugal (REF DL57/2016/CP1341/CT0011).

References

  1. 1.
    Andersen, T.: The Reflecting Team: Dialogues and Dialogues about the Dialogues. Borgmann, Broadstairs (1990)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Athena SWAN [Equity Charter for Gender Equality in Higher Education Institutions]. https://www.ecu.ac.uk/equality-charters/athena-swan/
  3. 3.
    Bammer, G.: Disciplining Interdisciplinarity. Integration and Implementation Sciences for Researching Complex Real-World Problems. Australian National University, Canberra (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bammer, G.: Strengthening interdisciplinary research: what it is, what it does, how it does it and how it is supported. Report for the Australian Council of Learned Academies (2012). http://www.acola.org.au
  5. 5.
    Beutler, L.E., Clarkin, J.F.: Systematic Treatment Selection: Toward Targeted Therapeutic Interventions. Routledge, New York (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boden, M.A.: What is interdisciplinarity. In: Cunningham, R. (ed.) Interdisciplinarity and the Organisation of Knowledge in Europe, pp. 13–23. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boden, M.A.: The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms. Routledge, London (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Börner, K., Contractor, N., Falk-Krzesinski, H.J., Fiore, S.M., Hall, K.L., Keyton, J., Spring, B., Stokols, D., Trochim, W., Uzzi, B.: A multi-level systems perspective for the science of team science. Sci. Transl. Med. 2(49), 1–5 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Borrelli, A., Grieser, A.: Recent research on the aesthetics of knowledge in science and in religion. Approach. Relig. 7(2), 4–21 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    British Academy: Crossing paths: interdisciplinarity, institutions, careers, education and applications. London (2016). https://www.britac.ac.uk/news/british-academy-launches-interdisciplinarity-report. Accessed 15 Feb 2018
  11. 11.
    Bronfenbrenner, U.: The Ecology of Human Development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (1979)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brown, J., Isaacs, D., The World Cafe: The World Café: Shaping Our Futures Through Conversations That Matter. Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bruun, H., Hukkinen, J., Huutoniemi, K., Klein, J.T.: Promoting interdisciplinary research. The case of the academy of Finland. Academy of Finland, Helsinki (2005). http://www.aka.fi/globalassets/awanhat/documents/tiedostot/julkaisut/8_05-promoting-interdisciplinary-research_-the-case-of-the-academy-of-finland.pdf
  14. 14.
    Caves, L., Melo, A.T.: (Gardening) Gardening: a relational framework for complex thinking about complex system. In: Walsh, R., Stepney, S. (eds.) Narrating Complexity, pp. 149–196. Springer, London (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Collini, S.: Speaking of Universities. Verso Books, New York (2017)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Costanza, R., Daly, L., Fioramonti, L., Giovannini, E., Kubiszewski, I., Mortensen, L.F., Pickett, K., Ragnarsdottir, K.V., De Vogli, R., Wilkinson, R.: Modelling and measuring sustainable wellbeing in connection with the UN sustainable development goals. Ecol. Econ. J. Int. Soc. Ecol. Econ. 130, 350–355 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Darbellay, F., Moody, Z., Sedooka, A., Steffen, G.: Interdisciplinary research boosted by serendipity. Creat. Res. J. 26(1), 1–10 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Duncan, B.L., Miller, S.D., Wampold, B.E., Hubble, M.A. (eds.): The Heart and Soul of Change: Delivering What Works in Therapy, 2nd edn. American Psychological Association, Washington DC, USA (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Elliott, R.: Psychotherapy change process research: realizing the promise. Psychother. Res. J. Soc. Psychother. Res. 20(2), 123–135 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fann, K.T.: Peirce’s Theory of Abduction. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Funtowicz, S.O., Ravetz, J.R.: Uncertainty, complexity and post-normal science. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. SETAC 13(12), 1881–1885 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., Trow, M.: The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Sage, London (1994)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Haack, S.: Defending Science—Within Reason: Between Scientism and Cynicism. Prometheus Books, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hall, K.L., Feng, A.X., Moser, R.P., Stokols, D., Taylor, B.K.: Moving the science of team science forward: collaboration and creativity. Am. J. Prev. Med. 35(2 Suppl), S243–S249 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hall, K.L., Stokols, D., Moser, R.P., Taylor, B.K., Thornquist, M.D., Nebeling, L.C., Ehret, C., Barnett, M.J., McTiernan, A., Berger, N.A., Goran, M.I., Jeffery, R.W.: The collaboration readiness of transdisciplinary research teams and centers findings from the National Cancer Institute’s TREC Year-One evaluation study. Am. J. Prev. Med. 35(2 Suppl), S161–S172 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hall, K.L., Vogel, A.L., Stipelman, B., Stokols, D., Morgan, G., Gehlert, S.: A four-phase model of transdisciplinary team-based research: goals, team processes, and strategies. Transl. Behav. Med. 2(4), 415–430 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hardon, G.H.: Unity of Knowledge (in Transdisciplinary Research for Sustainability), vol. II. EOLSS Publications, Oxford (2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Huutoniemi, K., Klein, J.T., Bruun, H., Hukkinen, J.: Analyzing interdisciplinarity: typology and indicators. Res. Policy 39(1), 79–88 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
    Jakubik, M.: Exploring the knowledge landscape: four emerging views of knowledge. J. Knowl. Manag. 11(4), 6–19 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Klein, J.T.: A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In: Frodeman, R., Klein, J.T., Mitcham, C. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, pp. 15–30. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2010)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lissack, M.: Second order science: examining hidden presuppositions in the practice of science. Found. Sci. 22(3), 557–573 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lyall, C., King. E.: International good practice in the peer review of interdisciplinary research. Report of a scoping study conducted for the RCUK Research Group by Catherine Lyall and Dr. Emma King, The University of Edinburgh. https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/files/23461807/Lyall_and_King_Interdisciplinary_Peer_Review.pdf. Accessed 28 Feb 2018
  34. 34.
    Lyall, C., Bruce, A., Marsden, W., Meagher, L.: Identifying key success factors in the quest for interdisciplinary knowledge. Report to NERC (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lyall, C., Bruce, A., Tait, J., Meagher, L.: Interdisciplinary Research Journeys. Practical Strategies for Capturing Creativity. Bloomsbury, London (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mansilla, V.B.: Learning to synthesize. The development of interdisciplinary understanding. In: Frodeman, R., Klein, J.T., Mitcham, C. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, pp. 289–306. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2010)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mansilla, V.B., Feller, I., Gardner, H.: Quality assessment in interdisciplinary research and education. Res. Eval. 15(1), 69–74 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mazzocchi, F.: Western science and traditional knowledge. Despite their variations, different forms of knowledge can learn from each other. EMBO Rep. 7(5), 463–466 (2006)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    McLeish, T., Strang, V.: Evaluating interdisciplinary research: the elephant in the peer-reviewers’ room. Palgrave Commun. 2, 16055 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Melo, A.T.: Abducting. In: Luria, C., Clough; P., Michael, M., Fensham, R., Lammes, S., Last, A., Uprichard, E. (org.) Routledge Handbook of Interdisciplinary Research Methods, pp. 90–93. Routledge (2018)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Melo, A.T.: The family as a complex systems. Contributions to understanding change and resilience. Routledge (in preparation)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Morin, E.: Science avec conscience. Nouvelle édition. Fayard, Paris (1990)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Müller, K.H., Riegler, A.: Second-order science: a vast and largely unexplored science frontier. Constr. Found. 10(1), 7–15 (2014)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nicolis, G., Rouvas-Nicolis, C.: Complex systems. Scholarpedia 2(11), 1473 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.4249/scholarpedia.1473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Nowotny, H., Scott, P., Gibbons, M.: Re-thinking science. Knowledge and the public in the age of uncertainty. Blackwell publishers, Cambridge (2001)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Polk, M.: Transdisciplinary co-production: designing and testing a transdisciplinary research framework for societal problem solving. Futures 65, 110–122 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ravetz, J.R.: Post-normal science and the complexity of transitions towards sustainability. Ecol. Complex. 3(4), 275–284 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Raymond, C.M., Fazey, I., Reed, M.S., Stringer, L.C., Robinson, G.M., Evely, A.C.: Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. J. Environ. Manag. 91(8), 1766–1777 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Reason, P., Bradbury, H.: The Sage Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. Sage, London (2013)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rozenboom, W.W.: Good science is abductive, not hypothetico-deductive. In: Harlow, L.L., Mulaik, S.A., Steiger, J.H. (eds.) What If There Were No Significance Tests?, pp. 366–391. Earlbaum, New Jersey (1997)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Santos, B.S.: The End of the Cognitive Empire: The Coming of Age of Epistemologies of the South. Duke University Press (2018)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Santos, B.S.: Decolonising the University: The Challenge of Deep Cognitive Justice. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Cambridge (2018)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Santos, B.S.: Epistemologies of the South. Justice Against Epistemicide. Routledge, Oxon (2016)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Schwarz, R.M.: The Skilled Facilitator: A Comprehensive Resource for Consultants, Facilitators, Coaches, and Trainers. Wiley, Hobokan, New Jersey (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Seligman, M.E.P., Csikszentmihalyi, M.: Positive psychology: an introduction. In: Csikszentmihalyi, M. (ed.) Flow and the Foundations of Positive Psychology: The Collected Works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, pp. 279–298. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands (2014)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Sprenkle, D.H., Davis, S.D., Lebow, J.L.: Common Factors in Couple and Family Therapy: The Overlooked Foundation for Effective Practice. The Guilford Press, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Stokols, D.: Toward a science of transdisciplinary action research. Am. J. Community Psychol. 38(1–2), 63–77 (2006)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Stokols, D.H.D., Hall, K.L., Moser, R.P., Feng, A., Misra, S., Taylor, B.K.: Cross-disciplinary team science initiatives: research, training and translation. In: Frodeman, R., Klein, J.T., Mitcham, C. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, pp. 471–493. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2010)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Stokols, D., Misra, S., Moser, R.P., Hall, K.L., Taylor, B.K.: The ecology of team science: understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration. Am. J. Prev. Med. 35(2 Suppl), S96–S115 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Strang, V.S., McLeish, T.C.B.: Evaluating Interdisciplinary Research: A Practical Guide. Durham University, Institute of Advanced Studies (2015)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Sutherland, W.J., Gardner, T.A., Haider, L.J., Dicks, L.V.: How can local and traditional knowledge be effectively incorporated into international assessments? Fauna & flora international. Oryx 1–2 (2013)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Weingart, P.: A short history of knowledge formations. In: Frodeman, R., Klein, J.T., Mitcham, C. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, pp. 4–14. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2010)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Whitehead, A.N.: Process and Reality, Corrected edn. The Free Press, New York (1978)Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    YCCSA [York Cross-Disciplinary Centre for Systems Analysis] Summer School. https://www.york.ac.uk/yccsa/activities/summerschool/

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Colégio de S. Jerónimo, Largo D. DinisCoimbraPortugal
  2. 2.Centre for Social Studies of the University of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  3. 3.São Félix da MarinhaPortugal
  4. 4.York Cross-disciplinary Centre for Systems AnalysisUniversity of YorkHeslington, YorkUK

Personalised recommendations