|
Kappa Omicron Nu
FORUM
Sue L. T. McGregor
Dr. McGregor is Coordinator, Peace and Conflict Studies Program
Mount Saint Vincent University, Halifax, Nova Scotia
© Sue L. T. McGregor 2004
Contact: [email protected]
Recently I attended a public symposium held by the Canadian Commission/or
UNESCO (May, 2004). The entire focus was on the transdisciplinary
approach. Until attending this symposium, I was happy touting the
merits of the interdisciplinary approach. The insights I took away
from this experience prompted me to write this short paper for other
home economists.
There is a growing trend to forge bridges between disciplines as
people in society attempt to solve complex problems and situations,
Our profession has always advocated multidisciplinary and, rhetorically,
interdisciplinary approaches as ways to solve problems that occur
from generation to generation. In that sense, we were ahead of our
time. But, there is a new approach emerging that merits our consideration
as well, the new trend of transdisciplinary research and practice.
At the crux of this trend is the growing need for new kinds of knowledge,
aside from that generated within one discipline or in temporary
alliances among disciplines. It really is time to move beyond our
penchant for specializations because society’s problems are far
too complex for one point of view.
Mono, multi, and interdisciplinary approaches each generate new knowledge,
and the latter two overflow the boundaries between distinct disciplines,
according to Nicolescu (1997), a Romanian quantum physicist. But,
transdisciplinary takes us beyond disciplines by weaving a
new kind of knowledge. There is a need for all four types of disciplinary
approaches and each will now be discussed. But, the major focus of
this paper will be on transdisciplinary. For many of you, this will
be a “close encounter of the third kind,” with such new concepts at
Copyleft, intellectual outerspace, crossing through veils to different
realities, isomorphies and patterns, metaphors, transversing disciplines,
multiple realities, quantum complexities, honoring imaginations, zones
of resistance, virtual creative commons, nuances of chaos theory,
and living adaptive systems. You are in for an intellectual roller-coaster
ride.
Monodisciplinary
Mono means one. This approach to practice and research means
that only one discipline is brought to bear to solve a societal problem.
Worse yet, it may be that just one branch (deep, fragmented specialization)
within this one discipline is drawn upon. People working in one discipline
(e.g., law, economics, sociology) study the same research objects,
share the same paradigm (world view and set of assumptions about what
is real), use common methodologies, and speak the “same” language
and lingo (Regeer, 2002). Although single disciplinary work has its
place, it is limiting when trying to solve complex societal problems
because only one lens is brought to bear on the dynamics inherent
in complexity.
Multidisciplinary
Multidisciplinary research and practice take us beyond just one discipline involved in the societal problem-solving process into the
realm of several disciplines. From this stance, a root discipline
(e.g., economics) may turn to several other disciplines to help it
solve a problem. Although many perspectives are shared, the intent
it to serve the root discipline that initiated the collaboration.
Once the work is done, all go back to their respective places (Nicolescu,
1997). If we simply mingle disciplines to problem solve, while each
discipline maintains its distinctiveness, we are multidisciplinary
(Colins, 2002). Even though the boundaries come down so information
can flow between the disciplines, when an answer has been found that
serves the needs of the root discipline the walls come back up.
Interdisciplinary
Although the multidisciplinary approach juxtaposes specialists by
sitting them down beside each other at the table, the interdisciplinary
approach coordinates their expertise (Lattanzi, 1998). Inter means between, so interdisciplinary means interaction between two
or more disciplines. Nicolescu (1997) clarifies that, while multidisciplinary
refers to work that remains grounded in the framework of one discipline,
interdisciplinary concerns the transfer of methods from one discipline
to another either for (a) new applications, (b) new analyses, or (c)
the generation of entire new disciplines. For home economics, Ellen
Swallow Richards advocated the interdisciplinary approach as a way
to enable our new discipline to develop over time. It involves integrating
several disciplines to create a unified outcome or perspective that
is sustained and substantial enough to create an entire new discipline
(Colins, 2002). We do have a home economics profession now. But, McGregor
and colleagues (2004) point out the unpleasant fact that, over the
past 100 years, the profession has leaned more toward multidisciplinary
expert specialists than interdisciplinary problem solvers. Perhaps
we can mend this breach in our field by embracing a transdisciplinary
approach.
When solving problems from the interdisciplinary approach, the people
involved offer parallel analyses of parts of a problem. A new synergy
emerges from the transfer of knowledge between disciplines. But, the
intent is not to understand the world (as with transdisciplinary),
just to solve a complex problem in that world. From a transdisciplinary
approach, there is a sharing of approaches and assumptions, in dialogue,
in order to weave together a new approach to complex social issues
(Lattanzi, 1998). We would move from sharing different analyses or
creating new applications to creating a space for shared dialogue,
leading to a joint analysis using new approaches that could not have
existed without the crisscrossing of ideas to weave together a new
web of knowledge. Society loses when we use just the interdisciplinary
approach because we are not able to deal with the profound complexity
of today’s problems including poverty, unsustainability, exploitation
and oppression, corporate led globalization, capitalism and free market
ideology. We need another approach that challenges us to push the
boundaries of our thinking.
Transdisciplinary
Trans has several meanings. It refers to that which is across thedisciplines, between the disciplines,
and beyond and outside all disciplines. It traverses all possible disciplines. To traverse means to crisscross, zigzag,
and move laterally from side to side (Nègre, 1999; Nicolescu, 1997).
The objective of transdisciplinary is to understand the present world,
in all of its complexities, instead of focusing on one part of it
(Nicolescu). Indeed, transdisciplinary research is being conceptualized
as both: (a) a specific kind of interdisciplinary research involving
scientific and non-scientific sources or practice; and, more excitingly,
(b) a new form of learning and problem solving involving cooperation
among different parts of society, including academia, in order
to meet the complex challenges of society. Through mutual learning,
the knowledge of all participants is enhanced and this new learning
is used to collectively devise solutions to intricate societal problems
that are interwoven (Regeer, 2002). Out of the dialogue between academia
and other parts of society, new results and new interactions are produced,
offering a new vision of nature and reality (Nègre).
Creating a Transdisciplinary Knowledge Base
Transdisciplinary knowledge is a new kind of knowledge that complements
traditional, mono-disciplinary knowledge. A new intellectual space is formed. Therein resides a gradual cross-fertilization resulting
from the convergence of different paths in the spirit of conviviality
and celebration (Lattanzi, 1998). This type of knowledge is globally
open and entails both a new vision and lived experiences. It is also
a way of self-transformation oriented toward the knowledge of the
self, the unity of all knowledge, and the creation of a new art of
living (Nicolescu, 1997).
There are four very compelling pillars that underpin this new knowledge:
learning to know, to do, to be with, and to be (Nicolescu, 1997).
Although this may sound very familiar, those advocating for the transdisciplinary
approach define these four pillars differently that we conventionally
understand them. Very briefly, learning to know refers to training
in permanent questioning of assumptions and in building bridges leading
to continually connected beings. Learning to do certainly refers
to acquiring a profession, but doing so within a profession that authentically
weaves together several competencies at the same time as creating
a flexible, inner, personal core. The latter refer to always being
an apprentice of creativity and of creating our potential. Learning
to be with others means that not only do we learn to respect others
but we learn a new attitude that permits us to defend our own convictions.
This new attitude makes a space for both open unity and complex plurality—they
do not have to be in opposition to each other. Finally, learning
to be does not mean the same thing as existing. It means discovering
how we have been conditioned, determining if there is any tension
between our inner self and our social life, and testing the foundations
of our convictions and to question—always question. We have to continually
ask ourselves “Where am I?” because things change and so do we. To
state the obvious, this new knowledge is profoundly different from
the other types of knowledge generated through other approaches to
research and practice.
Lattanzi (1998), writing for UNESCO, suggests that distinct bodies
or autonomous branches of knowledge be referred to as departments
of knowledge, to distinguish them from the holistic knowledge that
forms the base of transdisciplinary. From this stance, Lattanzi argues
that knowledge from distinct disciplines is valuable, first-step knowledge
to understand problems from one perspective and that the transdisciplinary
knowledge base is best for treating problems that benefit from not
treating them in “disciplinary isolation.” Such problems include:
human aggression, harmonious distribution of resources, development
of anthropocentric (human centered) worldviews, and the realization
of human empowerment and potential through education. This is why
transdisciplinarity is described as a process characterized by the
integration of efforts by multiple disciplines to address issues or
problems with global implications. By integration is meant opening
things up to all disciplines so that something new and permanent is
created via synthesis and harmonization of ideas and perspectives.
Indeed, many issues of fundamental importance for our society such
as freedom and self-determinism issues could not even be posed within
the domain of one discipline. Of significance is that Lattanzi believes
that an inquiry into a simple issue should not stop just because a
satisfactory explanation has been found. This approach is not inherent
in the other three approaches for creating knowledge. Transdisciplinary
would have us dig deeper for the underling complexity of daily reality
that creates issues that have global implications: pollution, population
growth, and unsustainability.
Intellectual Outerspace
Also, for those who may fear that the transdisciplinary approach
may eclipse the importance of single disciplines, Lattanzi (1998)
proposes that disciplinary knowledge is intellectual innerspace and transdisciplinary knowledge is intellectual outerspace.
You may be chuckling at this image. But he writes, very convincingly,
that we need both individual disciplines, including the possibility
of new disciplines, and a space for the integration of credible knowledge
into a new “whole” in which new insights can emerge (instead a black
hole where everything gets sucked in—sorry, I could not resist the
metaphor).
Transdisciplinary Concepts, Metaphors, and Patterns
What is really intriguing is François’s (2002) notion that, while
we have interdisciplinary teams, we need transdisciplinary concepts that serve to unify the knowledge being applied from areas that cut
across the trenches that mark traditional disciplinary boundaries.
These concepts become the building blocks of the bridge referred to
in the first sentence of this paper. Developing these concepts will
provide a way to enhance our understanding of the interwoven structures
and functions that are the essence of complex, social issues. François
offers the idea that we need to look for isomorphies. Those
trained in the field of living systems will recognize this term. It
refers to looking for common, predictable patterns instead of separate
ideas. Following this lead, Wheatley (1999) urges us to look for patterns
in nature because nature is replete with similar forms (the Greek
meaning of iso-morph). Patterns help us move away from the disparate
semantics of individual disciplines toward a purer language, a set
of concepts that is not influenced by each discipline’s opinions and
prejudices. These patterns provide a template for us to find similarity
between disciplines that are not alike.
Part of this process involves the use of metaphors as tools to help
us make analogical leaps from the familiar to the unfamiliar. Metaphors
can be conduits or passageways to help people learn new, abstract
concepts. They help us extend our familiar knowledge of the world
to a region that we have not yet experienced. From a transdisciplinary
perspective, this region is very complex, composed of many interconnected
parts and difficult to understand because of its intricacy. Metaphors
simplify and augment our joint learning process, giving us a temporary
common language while we navigate the space between the disciplines.
Metaphors give us new degrees of conceptual freedom, releasing us
from the chains that bind us to our root disciplines. They are useful
tools for conveying very complex ideas (Judge, 1991).
Nourishing the Fertile Middle Ground Between Disciplines
To use a metaphor, we do not want to build a bridge over the
space between disciplines because transdisciplinary holds that everything
happens in the space between the disciplines. This is because
it is seen as full and vibrant rather than empty! It is in this fertile
space that transdisciplinary manifests itself because transdisciplinary
is nourished by disciplinary work and vice versa. Newtonian physics
tells us that the space between disciplines is empty. Classical Aristotelian
logic (dualities) says there is no middle ground. In practice, this
means that there are many instances when people from different disciplines
cannot talk to each other; hence, there can be no integration or generation
of new knowledge. One of the pillars of the transdisciplinary approach
is that there is middle ground (Nicolescu, 1997, 2001) if we
accept that different people have different perceptions of things.
Finding new knowledge in the fertile middle ground is not possible
until everyone’s ideas are heard. For each person, his/her point of
view is his/her truth until it encounters something else, the ideas
from another person or discipline (Enigl, 2003). It is in this fertile
space that transdisciplinary blooms.
A rich example of the transdisciplinary principle of uniting knowledge in the space between the disciplines is the powerful new leadership
theory developed by Andrews, Mitstifer, Rehm, & Vaughn (2001).
They worked in that fertile middle ground between disciplines, crisscrossing
between authentic leadership, quantum physics, chaos theory, and living
systems theory and created a new leadership model for the profession.
They called it reflective human action theory and suggested, for the
first time in home economics, a way to see ourselves as leaders being
shaped by the principles of the new science. As is the intent of transdisciplinary,
this leadership theory helps us confront the educational, political,
social, economic, cultural, and religious arenas with authenticity,
reflection, and an appreciation for the order inherent in chaos. If
people can move about in the middle ground, come in contact with each
other, and get motivated, an energizing force is generated—a synergy
is created. A sense of community and belonging is nurtured—a sense
that we are part of something bigger than each one of us YET a realization
that everyone is a new and different person in each relationship.
The strength and potentialities that emerge are life giving and transformative.
Practicing using this leadership model would mean we are free floating
in intellectual outerspace instead of staying pinned down in
our traditional, safe disciplinary space.
Complexity, Emergence, and Multiple Realities
We can form a space wherein profound new knowledge about the world
can be created (Nicolescu, 2001), if we couple the acceptance of a
viable middle ground between disciplines with a deep respect for complexity
and the acceptance that several realities can coexist (the other two
pillars of transdisciplinary). Transdisciplinary draws its notion
of complexity from the new sciences of quantum physics, chaos theory,
and living, adaptive systems. From this perspective, there is a difference
between a complicated situation and complex situation. A complicated
problem is hard to solve because it is intricate and detailed. A complex
problem has the additional feature of emergence, the process
of deriving some new and coherent structures, patterns, and properties.
These begin to appear as a result of the web of relationships between
people. Imagine how different our work would be if we were dealing
with new insights that materialize because of the dynamics inherent
in persons working together on a problem rather than solving complicated,
static problems. There is a set of constantly adapting relationships
that lie at the heart of what makes solving a complex problem so special.
As well, any information brought to the fertile space will be modified
as it is passed from one person to another within these changing relationships.
Energy and information are constantly being formed, meaning that the
“fertile space between the disciplines” is in constant flux. So, not
only is the space changing but so are the people, their relationships,
the nature of shared information, and the energy flows. Because no
one can operate without being a part of the whole, no one can control
the space (Wikipedia, 2004a).
If we accept that reality is a coherent whole comprising several
layers, then we can agree that we must be constantly aware of all
layers as we look at anyone in particular. This realization prevents
us from ever again looking at just one aspect of a problem. We would
have to entertain the role of the invisible particle layer, the material
layer, the biological (ecological), social and psychological layers,
and the economic, political and technological layers of a complex
problem. We are challenged not to lose sight of the whole as we deal
with complex social issues. From this perspective, it is easy to see
why transversing disciplines are so necessary to problem-solve in
today’s world. A robust intellectual outerspace would consist
of a collection of differing disciplines that nevertheless have found
a way to live and work together to create integrative, embodied knowledge
(Aerts, 2001).
To obtain a deeper understanding of the world (the hallmark
of the transdisciplinary approach) we must pass through a deeper understanding
of these different realities (instead of images) and complexity of
this world (Nicolescu, 2001). This deeper understanding can evolve
if the space within which we operate is nourishing and open to several
realities. One of those realities is “the sacred,” that irreducible,
impossible to simplify, presence in the world. One cannot leave this
out if one embraces transdisciplinary because of the assumption that
there are several layers of reality (Voss, 2004). Nicolescu (2000)
explains that the concept of sacred refers to the zone of nonresistance
to our perceptions, a place where our concept of reality can stretch
beyond our known experiences. We allow ourselves to try to let go
of the bounds of our rationality to cross through the veil to the
real. Imagine the doors that would open if we assume that independent
realities concurrently exist and that they manifest themselves to
us through our interactions with them! We would never cease to wonder
and seek far-reaching solutions to the world’s pressing problems.
Imagine the depth of our understanding of the world if we embraced
this mindset, even when the results are counter to what our common
sense would suggest.
In this state of mind, we would see information as both coming from
outside us and being transformed by us. Our flow of consciousness,
as we step through the veil to other realities, corresponds to the
flow of information from others in this fertile space. We would move
from viewing things in dualities to viewing things in open unity,
more complexly. If we take the quantum world into our mindset, we
can say that solving problems is associated with a substance-energy-information-space-time complex (Nicolescu, 2000). There is nothing simple about this.
But, then, gaining a deeper understanding of the world is not a simple
thing either.
Copyleft in a Virtual Creative Commons
A final example of a very novel concept germane to transdisciplinary
research is that of Copyleft using the Internet (instead of
copyright)! A copyright provides its holder the right to restrict
unauthorized copying and reproduction of an original expression. Copyright
is not a monopoly right to do something, merely a right to prevent
others doing it. Copyleft is the opposite. It refers to the expectation
that all those wanting to modify a work, using an accepted set of
terms, can do so, leading to successive improvement to a concept by
a wide range of contributors. This way, novel ideas, generated in
the fertile space between and beyond disciplines, can be nurtured
and expanded by ensuring continuous feedback and input. The author
grants irrevocable permission for free unlimited use, modification,
and redistribution of new material flowing from the original (called
derivative works). In fact, it is expected that any new works will
be shared and that they, too, will be Copylefted. The result is a
creative, intellectual outerspace commons on the Internet,
wherein useful changes tend to be merged and other changes are maintained
only to the extent that they are useful for solving the complex problems
of the world (inspired by Nicolescu, 1997 & Wikipedia, 2004b).
The Transdisciplinary Charter
In 1994, a transdisciplinary charter was struck at the First World
Congress of Transdisciplinarity in Portugal (15 articles). It says
that transdisciplinary does not strive for the mastery of several
disciplines, but rather to open all disciplines to that which they
share and to that which lies beyond them, emergent as they interact.
What is key to this approach is that new knowledge is generated by
having people crisscross back and forth between disciplines and even
goes beyond where they were when they entered the dialogue. Notions
of zigzagging and going beyond known boundaries are hallmarks of transdisciplinary.
This work cannot be done in isolation. It has to include academia,
the arts, literature, poetry, and spiritual experiences. By association,
this means that education must come to revalue the role of intuition,
imagination, emotional sensibility, and body in the transmission and
creation of knowledge. Shared knowledge through dialogue and discussion
should lead to shared understandings. This understanding is like a
fruit that is ripe with (a) rigor to avoid distortions, (b) openness
and acceptance of the unknown, the unexpected, and the unforeseeable;
and (c) tolerance of ideas and truths different from our own. Inherent
in the transdisciplinary approach is our oneness with nature, an economy
that puts people first, an open attitude toward myth and spirituality,
and Earth as our home (we are all transnational beings instead of
human beings) (de Freitas, Morin, & Nicolescu, 1994).
Transdisciplinary in Practice
If we want to begin to bring transdisciplinary into our practice,
we would start to embrace an exciting, deep mind shift so that we
- accept that our ultimate intent is to understand the world
as a complex whole rather than to understand problems about
parts of the world.
- allow for the understanding that, instead of creating interdisciplinary
“teams,” we would work toward creating new transdisciplinary
concepts, of which patterns are central because they
provide a template for us to find similarity between disciplines
that are not alike.
- create space for persons to reach their potential and find
their hidden possibilities so they can work in dialogue to understand
the world as a complex whole.
- focus on new metaphors as ways to illustrate the complexity
of social problems and as tools to make analogical leaps from the
familiar to the unfamiliar.
- dig deeper through dialogue and perspective sharing rather
than stop at the first satisfactory explanation of a problem.
- acknowledge that the space between disciplines is full and
fertile rather than stagnant and empty.
- respect that although knowledge from separate disciplines is important
first-step knowledge, we must work collaboratively to unite the
knowledge gained from interacting in the fertile margins.
- work to form a new intellectual space in which resides
a gradual cross-fertilization of ideas while still respecting disciplinary
work.
- search for fruitful alternatives rather than an obvious
response.
- strive to create an intellectual space where ideas that appear
to be irrelevant and have nothing in common can be merged together
into new insights.
- reconfigure our collection of concepts to facilitate an
increase in the flow or fluidity of insights that emerge, are cross-fertilized,
and integrated into larger patterns.
- pay new tribute to our imaginations and to things being
in context instead of being enamored by concrete numbers and abstract
analyses.
- acknowledge that simplifying reality to simplify our work is irresponsible.
We need to embrace the complexity of life and put in place
permanent, complex structures and processes to work in intellectual
outerspace (see Nicolescu, 1997 for some ideas of what this would
look like in academia).
- establish studios or workshops (ateliers) of transdisciplinary
research (free of ideological, political, or religious control)
comprising researchers from all disciplines and people from
the arts, music, theater, poets, writers, and dancers.
- build centers of transdisciplinary orientation far above
and beyond this short article.
- establish a virtual creative commons wherein we can begin
to shape outerspace knowledge using Copyleft.
- crave learning and problem solving that involve cooperation among different parts of society, including academia.
Considering this new approach to practice is an intellectual roller
coaster, daunting and exciting at the same time. But, if we really
mean it when we say home economics is about dealing with complex social
problems, and if we really mean it when we say we are interdisciplinary,
then taking this next step to transdisciplinarity is a natural evolution
of the profession. To help each of us take this next step, I offer
a self-orientation tool to aid you in determining where you are in
regard to your growing understanding of the transdisciplinary approach.
Table 1
Transdisciplinary Self-Orientation Tool
Nuances of the transdisciplinary approach
|
I am aware
of it. |
I can explain it to others. |
I have begun to use it in practice. |
The ultimate agenda is to understand the world in all
of its complexities instead of just bits and pieces of it. To
begin to reach this level of understanding, people who know
about the bits and pieces will agree to work and mutually learn
together. |
|
|
|
Someone initiates the collaborative work and explains
that the work will be happening in the fertile space between
and beyond the disciplines. The walls between the disciplines
will have to come down so the fertile space can grow and expand
and so the people coming from different walks of life can also
grow together, moving beyond the separate disciplines to a new,
collective space and mindset. |
|
|
|
People from more than one discipline meet with non-academics
(e.g., dance, music, arts) to solve complex, intricate problems.
This melding of the thoughts of people from different walks
of life is what makes this approach unique. Academic minds
are trained differently than the minds of artists, poets, dancers,
and musicians. They see the world differently and those differences
will be used to come up with patterns of similarities that will
ground the work. The diversity brings eventual unity. |
|
|
|
The nature of this mutual learning is quite unique—it
involves questioning assumptions, building bridges (no separate
paths or roads), and seeking to find out what has conditioned
us to be the way we are. People will continually work on how
to be with others while continually working on finding one’s
own potential and inner core. And, they will always strive for
creativity and sharing rather than selfish retention of “my”
knowledge. |
|
|
|
Conversations and contributions brought to the fertile space
by each person are put forth knowing they will be melded with
all of the others (there can be no ownership of separate bits
of information). People have to know they are going to have
to let go of what they brought to “the table.” To arrive at
a level of comfort with this letting go, people involved in
these initiatives may want to create a website where they can
add and edit their ideas freely as they evolve. This is called
a virtual creative commons, and there is software that
facilitates copylefting. It seems appropriate to call this emerging
knowledge “outerspace knowledge” because it is created in hyperspace! |
|
|
|
The nature of the problems dealt with in this space
is unique—each problem is a rich weave of societal structures
and functions and cannot be seen as a single entity. For example,
pollution, disease, population growth, and lack of peace are
all linked together. Addressing just one of them is not enough. |
|
|
|
Indeed, those working together will know the difference between
a complicated problem and a complex problem, with
that difference being the property of emergence. Simply
put, as people work together, new ideas and insights will continue
to appear and bubble up as conversations simmer and perk over
time. The energy flow changes because people are changing in
this interactive net of relationships. Solutions to the social
problem are emerging, grounded in embodied knowledge. Embodied
means people have made it part of them. They cannot see the
world the same way anymore because they have “put on” new sets
of glasses with new lenses. They have different stories to tell
now, shared stories. They have learned new dance steps, new
patterns. |
|
|
|
The inquiry into the social issue will not stop with the first best answer because everyone present appreciates that
the issue is profoundly complex and linked to other issues that
are also complex. They will continue to dig deeper, dance longer,
in unison, knowing that their collaborative efforts will pay
off. They know that their dialogue about the many layers of
social issues will gradually unfold while never losing sight
of the “wholeness” of the issue. The result will be new, embodied,
outerspace knowledge that can be applied to solve the many layers
of the social problem. |
|
|
|
To aid in this problem-solving process, the people who come
to these “meetings” know that the intent is to create a new
space where everyone’s credible ideas will be integrated into
a new “whole.” In order for this integration to occur, the people
involved have to bravely walk out of their zone of resistance
into a common zone of acceptance. From then on, those
people involved will not see things as “her idea versus my idea”
because they are no longer standing in their safety zones. They
have entered the fertile space that is constantly in flux—their
sound footing is no longer there. They have to learn to work
in uncertainty, knowing that something will emerge that all
can support and that will support all involved. |
|
|
|
If people from different disciplines and from civil society
have no way to talk to each other, then the people at these
meetings will have to respect the power of metaphors and
narratives/stories/dance. They will be open to using these
as tools to create a temporary language to help everyone navigate
the unfamiliar space between their respective disciplines, like
I am doing in this self-orientation tool. |
|
|
|
Everyone attending these problem-solving/posing sessions will
have to learn to accept that what they think is true is only
true until they encounter someone else’s interpretation of the
issue. This open-mindedness to many different realities prepares the way for a shared truth to emerge from the
work being done in the fertile space. |
|
|
|
The people working (dancing) in the fertile space will know
in their hearts that they have to move beyond creating teams that are only temporary and work toward creating concepts that form the foundation of the dance floor. These concepts
(ideas in people’s minds) need to be developed by everyone actively
looking for common patterns to form a common language that helps
people express themselves as they work in the fertile space.
Although the people who develop these concepts came to the fertile
space with ideas from their respective disciplines (or civil
society activities), all of these old ideas will eventually
be altered. |
|
|
|
People working in this fertile space will appreciate the strength
of patterns as grounding concepts. Imagine a pattern for
making a dress. Although many people may make different dresses
using the same pattern, there will be similarities because the
foundation, the basic pattern, is what makes the dresses similar.
A pattern can also be defined as an activity done without thinking.
After working in the fertile space, the people involved will
develop patterns (of relating to each other and mutually learning)
that will become second nature to them, strengthening their
ability to eventually understand the world in all its complexities. |
|
|
|
As people work together in this space, they will be constantly
weaving ideas back and forth until the original yarns (contributions)
are left behind and a new fabric takes shape. This new fabric
will be a richer approach to addressing the social problem and
will bring them closer to understanding the world as a whole.
Many new pieces of cloth will be created and, eventually, even
the yarn being used will be different because people will be
using the new concepts as their starting points! Or, continuing
to use the dance metaphor, as people work in this space, they
will constantly weave back and forth in the dance, changing
partners until their original contributions are left behind
and new patterns and partners emerge. There will be new
dances, with new steps, new patterns that are continually emerging. |
|
|
|
An Example of a Transdisciplinary Experience
Now I will offer my own assessment of my understanding of the transdisciplinary
approach, deeply informed by recent participation in a gathering about
the topic of Spirit Matters - Wisdom Traditions and The Great Work.
See http://tlc.oise.utoronto.ca/conf2004/schedule.html.
It was organized by the Transformative Learning Center of the Ontario
Institute for the Study of Education (OISE), part of the University
of Toronto. Those at this event consciously chose to call it a gathering and not a conference; we were co-learners and active participants,
not passive attendees.
The visionaries who planned this gathering grounded it in Thomas
Berry’s (1999) Great Work. The intent of the gathering was
to celebrate our connection with earth and each other. It was like
no gathering or conference I had ever attended. The event was totally
transdisciplinary, even though the word was never used at the conference
(they used the word transformative). There were academics from many
disciplines, high school, undergraduate, and graduate students, musicians,
poets, videographers, filmmakers, writers, artists, actors, playwrights,
indigenous elders and drummers, journalists, small and medium sized
business and corporations, NGOs, and activists (local and world famous).
It was transdisciplinary because we all eagerly jumped off our disciplinary
or occupational bridges onto the fertile ground between the disciplines
and danced a most awesome dance for four days (literally and figuratively).
I will harken to another principle from quantum physics that played
itself out visibly at the gathering (with deep thanks to Dr. Nancy
Chesworth, personal communication, May 28, 2004). There were many
fuzzy-edged balls of knowledge and ways of knowing brought to this
gathering. When all of these people and their knowledge balls collided
on the fluxing fertile field—the sacred space, fusion occurred
and new outerspace knowledge was created. This fusion happened
because, when the separate bits of knowledge and the people who carried
those balls came together to dance, they moved faster when they were
exposed to each other than when they were alone. It was totally amazing.
There are no words to describe the energy emanating from that gathering.
It was palatable—you could reach out and “feel it.” I went home immersed
in it for days. It enveloped me and held me attached to all of those
people I met and all that we shared and created. I smiled for days
afterwards, at peace with myself yet very intellectually stimulated
(you are reading the results of this energy). I came away with a whole
lexicon of new concepts (patterns) that we worked on together and
that we will all take back to our contribution to getting to know
the world better—a hallmark of transdisciplinary.
- As we walk the earth, we walk on the bones of all our ancestors.
On this walk, we access their stories that are not written down.
- When Aboriginal peoples walk the land, they listen to the earth.
They “hear songs and stories” and when they share what they hear,
these become part of the peoples’ great narrative. People know where
they are geographically when they hear the song or the story! There
are actually song lines in the geography of a land. That is the
essence of indigenous knowledge. We are living in a landscape alive
with stories and these stories are inherently local and rural in
nature, to be spoken, gestured, sung, or danced in that place.
- These stories and songs are a living encyclopedia in an oral culture.
They are place bound and community based. If we try to write down
these stories to preserve them, we take them from their place of
origin and they lose their meaning. Instead, these stories have
to be retold from generation to generation, in the same place, so
they become stored in our bodies. That is, they become embodied.
Stories told using current telecommunication technologies are placeless
so they have less generational, interconnectedness power.
- My skin and color are just a covering. It cannot tell my story.
You have to come inside me and hear my stories and let me be real—experience
my imagination, my mystery, my secrets.
- Our dreams are our souls speaking.
- Imagine God as an underground river—the common waters—and that
each religion or faith drills a well to tap into that common water.
Then, there is no one God but a deep common spiritual
collective lived out through unique rituals and celebrations.
- First Nations’ relationship with the Earth is a way of living,
not an organized religion. They give thanks 24/7 through ceremonies
and rituals while others only celebrate on special occasions. Ceremonies
keep us mindful of our role in the world. But, through organized
religions, we lose consciousness so are not continually mindful.
Religion has swamped the boat of spirituality.
- We need the globalization of spirits—emancipatory spirituality.
And, we need spirituality in public spaces (business, government,
community, schools, marketplace, and NGOs), not just in the private
spheres (self and home).
- Earth and women are our witnesses.
- To trust, we need to touch.
- If you are a free spirit, you have a real understanding
of who you are. Indigenous people believe that “freedom was rampant”
but now we are no longer free because we do not know who we are.
To go is to return to your self (find yourself). To “go”
means to learn, reflect, and critically see. Finding yourself is
an act of worship!
- Your liberation and freedom is bound up with my liberation.
- The purpose of chiefs and visionaries is to keep us off balance
on purpose. So, we have to keep asking ourselves “Who am I?” We
have to keep checking because things and people change.
- It is significant that we call our species human BEings
yet we spend all of our time as humans DOing. We have become
so busy that we cannot think.
- We only know what it means to be human when we are in touch with
other sentient beings. When we lose sight of this connection, we
do not feel alarm when we are harming the earth and other species
because we are not aware of our interdependence. If we think we
are most important and that we know it all, we are unable to be
responsible for our actions because we are simply not aware of others
(they are invisible).
- And, finally, our species is living in a collective dark night
of the soul. This is a sacred place of waiting, learning, and
stillness. Something is waiting to be born in our species—a sense
of hope, a connection to the future.
Imagine many local centers of hope (people connected to the future)
that eventually see themselves connected to each other. THEN, there
is a paradigm shift and a space opens for transdisciplinary work.
References
Aerts, D. (2001). Transdisciplinary and integrative sciences:
Humanity’s mind and potential. Accessed May 19, 2004 at http://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/aerts/publications/2001EncLifeSupSys.pdf
Andrews. F., Mitstifer, D., Rehm, M., & Vaughn, G. (2001). Leadership:
Reflective human action , online supplemental text. East Lansing,
MI: Kappa Omicron Nu.
Berry, T. (1999). The great works. NY: Bell Tower.
Colins, J. (2002). May you live in interesting times: Using multi
disciplinary and interdisciplinary programs to cope with changes in
life sciences. BioScience, 52(1), 75-83. Accessed May 19, 2004
at http://www.msu.edu/user/gradschl/es/pubs/collins.pdf
Enigl, D. (2003). Philosophy of mathematics/logic and cryptology.
Accessed May 18, 2004 at http://home.earthlink.net/~enigl/TL.htm
de Freitas, L., Morin, E., & Nicolescu, B. (2002). Charter
of transdisciplinarity. Accessed May 19, 2004 at http://perso.club-internet.fr/nicol/ciret/english/charten.htm
François, C.O. (2002). Transdisciplinary unified theory. Accessed
May 19, 2004 at http://www.uni-klu.ac.at/~gossimit/ifsr/francois/papers/transdisciplinary_unified_theory.pdf
Judge, A. (1991). Metaphors as transdisciplinary vehicles of the
future. Accessed May 19, 2004 at http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/docs/transveh.php
Lattanzi, M. (1998). Transdiscipliarity at UNESCO. Accessed
May 19, 2004 at http://www.unesco.org/philosophy/en/transdisciplinarity/transdoc.htm
McGregor, S.L.T., Baranovsky, K., Eghan, F., Harman, B., Mitstifer,
D. I., Pendergast, D., Seniuk, E., Shanahan, H., & Smith, F.
(2004). Confessions of recovering home economists. Accessed
May 19, 2004 at http://kon.org/hswp/archive/recovering.html
Nicolescu, B. (1997). The transdisciplinary evolution of the university
condition for sustainable development. Accessed May 19, 2004 at http://perso.club-internet.fr/nicol/ciret/bulletin/b12/b12c8.htm
Nicolescu, B. (2000). Levels of reality as source of quantum
indeterminacy. Accessed May 19, 2004 at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0012/0012007.pdf
Nicolescu, B. (2001). Manifesto of transdisciplinarity. Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press.
Nègre, A. (1999). A transdisciplinary approach to science and
astrology. Accessed May 19, 2004 at http://cura.free.fr/quinq/02negre2.html
Regeer, B. (2002). Transdisciplinarity. Accessed May 19, 2004
at http://www.bio.vu.nl/vakgroepen/bens/HTML/transdiscipliNl.html
Voss, K-C. (2004). Review essay of Brsarab Nicolescu’s manifesto
of transdisciplinarity. Accessed May 19, 2004 at http://www.esoteric.msu.edu/Reviews/NicolescuReview.htm
Wikipedia. (2004a). Complex system. Accessed May 19, 2004
at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system
Wikipedia, (2004b). Copyleft. Accessed May 19, 2004 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft
Wheatley, M. (1999). Leadership and the new science. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler.
Consumer Moral Ambiguity: The Gray Area of Consumption
Sue L. T. McGregor
Peer Review: A Filter for Quality
Dorothy I. Mitstifer
Mentoring Students in Cross-Specialization Teams
Dorothy I. Mitstifer
Consumerism as a Source of Structural Violence
Sue L. T. McGregor
Consumer Entitlement, Narcissism, and Immoral Consumption
Sue L. T. McGregor
A Satire: Confessions of Recovering Home Economists
Sue L. T. McGregor
The Nature of Transdisciplinary Research and Practice
Sue L. T. McGregor
Reflection Matters: Connecting Theory to Practice in Service Learning Courses
Mary E. Henry
What's It All About—Learning in the Human Sciences
Dorothy I. Mitstifer
Leadership Responsibilities of Professionals
Dorothy I. Mitstifer
Categories of Sexual Harassment: A Preliminary Analysis
Catherine Amoroso Leslie, William E. Hauck
Knowledge Management / Keeping the Edge
Dorothy I. Mitstifer
Super Kids Program Evaluation Plan
Nina L. Roofe
The Enigmatic Profession
Nina L. Roofe
The Wilberian Integral Approach
Sue L. T. McGregor
|
