Complex systems of knowledge integration: A pragmatic proposal for coordinating and enhancing inter/transdisciplinarity

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 thought experiment in the form of 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.

Toward a (“Dissolved”) Psychology of Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Relations: A Complexity-Informed Proposal

“…Inter and Transdisciplinarity are sustained in a variety of configurations of relations between and within their different levels of organization (e.g., individuals, teams, organizations, society), processes (e.g., cognitive, emotional, interactional), contents (e.g., concepts, worldviews, methods, tools), timescales, and contexts (Melo & Caves, 2020). Their outcomes depend on the nature and complexity of their relations.…”

“…The interactions involve not only a variety of individuals per se, which can be quite diverse (as may happen in other teams) but also individuals acting as representatives of different organizations, disciplines, and epistemic cultures. With different degrees of disciplinary allegiance, closure, and openness to their own and other’s domain, individuals will “enact” a variety of different types of information, including concepts and frameworks, methods and tools, worldviews, and modes of thinking and communicating, in the context of particular socio-cultural and political norms and pragmatic constraints, that present specific challenges to coordination at a group level (Melo & Caves, 2020).…”

“…refers to a proposal of William Bechtel identifying 5 patterns of disciplinary relations in ID, involving the interaction of methods and concepts which may involve: changing perspectives, creating new categories or levels of organization of knowledge, transferring solutions and techniques, expanding theories to be applied in another domain, or building new frameworks that may integrate different domains. There are many ways by which concepts/theories and methods/tools can interact with each other, within and between disciplines and/or modes of knowing (Melo & Caves, 2020). Nevertheless, the complexity of ID/TD interactions is not simply reducible to any one of these types of interactions, as there is a diversity of interacting dimensions at play, leading to emergence.…”

“…These interventions might be more or less universal, promoting basic general processes, or have a more “therapeutic,” reparative, and a solution-oriented focus. Interventions can be conducted “on-demand” (Melo & Caves, 2020), integrating specific assessments and evaluations to help groups unblock or facilitate specific processes.…”