Supradisciplinary research practices: history, objectives and rationale

Abstract

This paper argues that the concept of transdisciplinarity is closely related to Paul Feyerabend’s criticisms of the philosophy of science, which conclude with the famous statement that “anything goes”. This is the case when the statement of Feyerabend is taken in its original sense as the refusal of any dogmatic, scientific approach. The anti-dogmatic intention of the concept of transdisciplinarity is deduced from the principle that transdisciplinarity is a scientific approach with a strong orientation towards societal problems. Hence, at the methodological level, high flexibility is necessary to succeed in a transdisciplinarity practice. The most appropriate description of the methodology of a transdisciplinary research approach is given by the concept of “guide and supply” introduced by Zandvoort and based on the research programs of Lakatos.

Introduction

In 1994, when Gibbons et al. published “The new production of knowledge” [1] they formulated the thesis that beside the traditional disciplinary production of knowledge (which they called mode 1), there is another form which they called mode 2, that can be characterized by its transdisciplinary approach. In addition, their thesis was strengthened by the claim that mode 2 was the forthcoming scientific form of producing knowledge. Their use of the term transdisciplinarity, designated those research problems which emerge in the context of application and which are strongly sensible to social needs and aspirations. This transdisciplinary approach was considered to be the key issue for all future research which deals with problems that are not circumscribed in any existing disciplinary field. Suddenly, any scientific practice only became fashionable as long as it was driven by a transdisciplinary approach.

This thesis, formulated by an international team of sociologists, did not really get to the core of the epistemological debate. The limitations of the argument prohibit talking about what science is and always has been in the past: a practice. In both the 1994 original version, as well as the 2001 interpretation of the original edition edited by Nowotny et al. [2], the conclusion is that “the closer interaction of science and society signals the emergence of a new kind of science: contextualized, or context-sensitive, science” ([2], vii). In both these publications, the authors have mainly based their arguments on the existence of scientific disciplines. However this foundation is rather unstable if we only consider the various perspectives in which a scientific discipline can be described. This has already been discussed by Bechtel in 1986 [3]. Our interpretation of the publications by Gibbons and Nowotny [1], [2] is that both only refer to the institutional setting of science (even if they call it ‘de-institutionalization’). Evidence against at least one fact they argue with is available. To emphasize their main claim, that the former (assumed) strong segregation between science and society has been increasingly turning towards a disintegrative relationship, they apply the mutuality of perspectives. The rather old-fashioned topic of either internal or external perspectives on the whole of science is stressed again, even if we admit that the authors state that it is becoming irrelevant [2] (ibid., 91). However, the argument that mode-2 knowledge production (with its strong element of transdisciplinarity) is increasing, can only be justified if it is based on the institutional setting in which the field of science is circumscribed.

In his criticism of the statement of Gibbons et al. [4], Peter Weingart points out that the underlying epistemological core of the whole debate on the changing relationship between science and society is located much deeper than just at the level of the question about how disciplinary boundaries can be transgressed. According to Weingart, a key question is whether there is a new argument emerging in science to prefer practical reason against the traditional pretension of truth ([4], 349). However, neither Gibbons et al. [1] nor Nowotny et al. [2] consider this key point. It seems to us that their argument is only reproducing the fundamental reasons why the concept of transdisciplinarity has become so popular today: transdisciplinarity is mainly requested by the policy makers of science, but there is no real scientific need for it. Weingart’s claim seems to be supported by empirical evidence. In Switzerland, for example, after the strong impact of the transdisciplinary approach in the frame of a national research program on the environment in the late 1990 one of the current subprograms, titled “Landscapes and the Habitats of the Alps” has completely renounced the requirement for any form of scientific practice where disciplinary boundaries are transgressed (see http://www.snf.ch/en/rep/nat/nat_nrp_48.asp).

Before concluding this introduction there are three different but nonetheless important points which have to be explained for the better understanding of the whole text. First, it deviates from the semantics normally used in the English language, where the term of science explicitly means the natural sciences. In the following text, the word science is based on the German understanding of the term of Wissenschaft. Hence, when using the term of science we always mean the whole of the natural, technical and social sciences as well as the humanities. Second, any “supradisciplinary research practice” [5], either an interdisciplinary or a transdisciplinary one, has its own value. This should be emphasized at the outset, because it has sometimes been claimed that an evolutionary development began with a multidisciplinary approach, followed by an interdisciplinary approach and finally ending with a transdisciplinary approach. It also is often argued that the correct level of the supradisciplinary research practice is dependant on the degree of complexity of a specific problem. In contrast, this article argues that there is neither a teleological nor evolutionary relationship among these practices. In addition, the use of any of these supradisciplinary practices depends on the complexity of the given problem. None of these various practices is a rejection of one of the others. We will discuss more or less independent scientific practices which may be applied to solve a given problem. Third, in contrast to the term of interdisciplinarity, the term of transdisciplinarity has always been used as a scientific term that is not only related to the practice of research. Hence we find in the original publications of the 1970s [6], as well as in recent publications too, a terminological use which beside the field of scientific research also includes the field of (university) teaching. Higher education will not be considered in this article which concentrates on characteristics of research.