Alliances for Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity: A Call for Response

Prompted by William Newell's 2013 call for the Association of Interdisciplinary Studies (AIS) to consider whether to rethink its mission in light of other organizations' interests, this article begins by reflecting on similarities and differences among five of the founding organizations of...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inIssues in integrative studies Vol. 39; no. 1-2; pp. 7 - 35
Main Author Klein, Julie Thompson
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Association for Interdisciplinary Studies 2021
Subjects
Best Practices
College Curriculum
Curriculum Development
Definitions
Educational Practices
Educational Theories
Foreign Countries
Higher Education
Integrated Curriculum
Interdisciplinary Approach
Problem Solving
Universities
Asia
Europe
Africa
Australia
North America
Russia
Latin America
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Prompted by William Newell's 2013 call for the Association of Interdisciplinary Studies (AIS) to consider whether to rethink its mission in light of other organizations' interests, this article begins by reflecting on similarities and differences among five of the founding organizations of a recently formed Global Alliance for Inter- and Transdisciplinarity. In chronological order of their own founding dates they are AIS, the Network of Transdisciplinary Research, the Integration and Implementation Sciences network, the International Network for the Science of Team Science, and the Center for Interdisciplinarity at Michigan State University. Descriptions of the five in Part I account for their emergence, communication venues, keywords of representation, website features, and prominent outputs. Given the centrality of integration in both inter- and trans-disciplinarity, it also describes their stances on this prominent topic. Part II reflects on implications of the current heterogeneity of the core concepts, focusing initially on generalizations including distinctions between Zurich and Nicolescuian approaches to transdisciplinarity followed by the premise of distinct Franco and U.S. traditions of the field of nanomedicine. It then draws further insights from case studies of institutionalizing interdisciplinarity across Europe, Russia and the South Caucuses, Africa, Latin and North America, Australia, and Asia. After commenting on signs of change in AIS, discussion turns to historical precedents for prioritizing problem solving, followed by future horizons for both inter- and trans-disciplinarity with emphasis on implications of their heterogeneity and overlaps with other prominent concepts such as Convergence and Mode 2 Knowledge Production. The closing section presents final reflections for answering Newell's challenge for AIS members to consider expanding its definition of interdisciplinary studies and conception of integrative process in light of other organizations' interests.
ISSN:1081-4760