Guest Editor: Dr.Anne MacCleave, Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education, Mount Saint Vincent University, Halifax, NS, Canada

Objective: To share our experiences about researching across disciplines and subdisciplines inside and outside the field, whether multi, pluri, cross, inter, or transdisciplinary—or some other version. What do we hope to accomplish, what approaches are used, and how do we negotiate differences in paradigm, methodology or method?

Overview: Owing to its history, the field of FCS/human sciences has more experience than many other professional fields with teaching and researching across disciplinary boundaries. The integrative, if not interdisciplinary, nature of the field was one of its defining features historically.

Drawing upon the work of Kocklemans (1979), Brown (1993) clarified a number of approaches to researching across disciplines:

Multidisciplinary: When several disciplines such as psychology, sociology, and anthropology are studied simultaneously. Each is studied independently of the others although their approaches and products may be contrasted.

Pluridisciplinary: When competence in one disciplinary area requires knowledge in another for research, teaching, and learning. Examples include the chemist who needs knowledge in mathematics or the nutrition researcher who needs knowledge of chemistry and biology.

Crossdisciplinary: When different disciplines cooperate to address a particular problem. One example might be economists, social workers, urban planners, nutritionists, and other social scientists who collaborate on issues of poverty. Each discipline or field contributes its knowledge to address the problem but no effort is made to create new patterns of integrated knowledge. The contributions remain separate or parallel.

Interdisciplinary: When knowledge from two or more disciplines is integrated within some larger conceptual framework or pattern. Contributions from different disciplines are not separated but integrated or synthesized within a new and encompassing conceptual pattern. Interdisciplinary work sometimes results in the formation of a new discipline or “interdiscipline” such as social psychology.

Transdisciplinary: When two or more disciplines collaborate to develop an overarching conceptual framework to provide unity to their respective knowledges and world views. Transdisciplinary work entails philosophical inquiry in the form of critical reflection to overcome loss of meaning and “loss of community, fragmentation of knowledge, or domination of thought and action by technical rationality” (p. 241). Compared to other approaches to working across disciplines, transdisciplinary approaches are more wholistic.

Given the evolution of ideas in all fields of study since Kocklemans created his categories 25 years ago, are these ideas still pertinent for research crossing disciplinary boundaries or is the creation of new categories, descriptions, or distinctions warranted?

Discussion: Brown supported interdisciplinary research and teaching in “the genuine sense” of creating new patterns of integrated knowledge and also supported transdisciplinary efforts to integrate separate specializations under a unified framework. Calling for a framework in order to create a common purpose is justifiable and an ideal to strive towards in our research efforts. How might one proceed, however, when working with colleagues outside the field who have no desire to change their identity or practices but who wish to collaborate in an area of shared interest? Within the field, how might one work across subdisciplinary boundaries in situations where there are extensive paradigmatic differences and researchers are operating from meaning systems that are incommensurable. As the old saying goes, “the devil is in the details.”

Among other ideas, articles might address the following questions:

What purposes are served by different approaches of working across disciplines?

What are the best research practices when working across disciplines? What works? What doesn’t?

What benefits were experienced by those engaged in research across disciplines?

How do researchers negotiate common meanings? What, if any meanings were readily shared? or problematic?

To what extent were participants aware of paradigmatic, methodological, or method differences across different research approaches?

How were paradigmatic, methodological, or method differences addressed and with what consequences?

What if any transformations occurred among participants in their research across disciplines?

Information and Deadline: Kappa Omicron Nu FORUM is a refereed publication outlet for both members and nonmembers. Manuscripts will be accepted until further notice. This issue will be an online publication. An introductory article by the Guest Editor explores the work of a fictional collaborative team and the challenges of researching across disciplines. See kon.org/archives/forum/forum16-2.html.

Further information and the “Guidelines for Authors” can be found at kon.orghttps://kon.org/CFP/cfp_gfa.html or contact

Kappa Omicron Nu
PO Box 798
Okemos, MI 48805-0798
(T) (727) 940-2658 ext. 2003
[email protected]

Guest Editor can be contacted at:
[email protected]
(902) 457-6182