Key messages

• Three main transdisciplinary discourses about transcendence, transgression and problem solving are analysed critically.

• Conventional research methods are not pertinent for cultivating transcendence and transgression if they ignore cultural, social and psychological predispositions.

• Transcendence and transgression can be cultivated by scaffolding that requires rare competences and skills.

Introduction

Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary projects have increased since the 1990s but often the meaning of these terms is not defined precisely by authors (see von Wehrden et al, 2019; Vienni-Baptista, 2024). Nonetheless, some contributions have presented classificatory frameworks, taxonomies and typologies about these and other discipline-based terms (such as cross-disciplinary, multi-disciplinary, pluri-disciplinary, post-disciplinary) (Hirsch Hadorn et al, 2008; Brown et al, 2010; Alvargonzález, 2011; Stock and Burton, 2011; Bernstein, 2015; Osborne, 2015; Byrne et al, 2016; Frodeman et al, 2017). Some authors explained the need to connect and communicate between those who adhere to transdisciplinarity in different cultures, who publish in diverse languages, and work in various domains (see Morin, 1992; Montuori, 2013). This inclusiveness challenges assumptions, customs and protocols associated with common quantitative and qualitative methods by researchers and practitioners without considering their pertinence in a wide range of situations (Byrne et al, 2016). My aim is to support this reorientation and enlargement of transdisciplinarity by rethinking the purpose of transdisciplinary projects and human-centred practices used to implement them.

This article is based on the author’s inter- and transdisciplinary teaching and research over three decades. The resources include personal research and practice, including many contributions in the field of human ecology, housing, urban planning and urban health (Lawrence, 2021). The research method is a narrative literature review of publications about interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity since the 1990s using Google Scholar. The article begins by summarising three major discourses of transdisciplinarity, named transcendence, transgression and problem solving by the late Julie Thompson Klein following her rhetorical analysis of publications (Klein, 2014). I acknowledge other published discourses on transdisciplinarity have been published; for example, three main and two secondary discourses about transdisciplinarity were analysed by Osborne (2015), but these are not included in this article.

This article discusses common assumptions, claims and limitations of the three discourses identified by Klein (2014). It also presents my position regarding each of them in relation to a core concept named trans-anthropo-logic explained in the next section. This critical review is meant to reorientate future contributions by transgressing conventional research methods to implement transdisciplinary inquiry.

Rethinking transdisciplinarity as human-centred praxis

In 2023, the International Science Council published a position paper describing how transdisciplinary projects extend beyond interdisciplinary contributions by including more than discipline-based scientific knowledge, and accounting for professional know-how, indigenous knowledge and other ways of knowing (Kaiser and Gluckman, 2023). This enlarged interpretation enables a global, inclusive and holistic interpretation of transdisciplinarity that facilitates a broader understanding of complex societal challenges.

This section builds on the contributions of Julie Thompson Klein (2014) and several other authors including Edgar Morin (1992); Margaret Sommerville and David Rapport (2000); Basarab Nicolescu (2002), Paul Stock and Rob Burton (2011); Alfonso Montuori (2013), and Matthias Kaiser and Sir Peter Gluckman (2023).

Since 2000, advances in thinking and practising transdisciplinarity have been published and innovative projects have been completed in all regions of the world (Lawrence, 2021; 2023). Notably, transdisciplinary projects are not necessarily led by scientific researchers or public administrators: many community-led projects have been documented in the Handbook of Transdisciplinarity: Global Perspectives (Lawrence, 2023).

Transdisciplinarity is interpreted as a creative human activity that is cultivated using a trans-anthropo-logic, a concept derived from anthropos which designates what is specifically human; ‘logic’ has origin in the ancient Greek word logos and designates thought, reasoning and discourse; and the prefix trans refers to anything beyond the lifeworld of particular individuals and groups, and what could be similar or different to others (Lawrence, 2001; 2017). The trans-anthropo-logic is derived from a holistic and systemic conceptual framework of human ecology developed and used since the 1980s. In essence, anthropo-logic is different from socio-logic because it defines and is mutually defined by core characteristics of human culture that frame shared attitudes, beliefs, behaviours, preferences, representations and values. These cultural predispositions are expressed in art, architecture, and spoken and written language, and they distinguish humans from other sentient beings that share a socio-logic (Lawrence, 2001).

Transdisciplinary projects accommodate diversity and differences in contrast to calculated averages and medians. Transdisciplinary thinking requires open-mindedness rather than intellectual confinement grounded only in discipline-based thinking and research methods. Transdisciplinary contributions complement and enrich scientific knowledge with fundamentally different types of knowledge and other ways of knowing. Valerie Brown proposed five knowledge cultures including individual knowledge (lived experience, personal reflection, imagination and introspection); community knowledge (contextual, shared and place-based); specialised knowledge (professional and scientific knowledge); organisational knowledge (recorded by private enterprises and public institutions); and holistic knowledge (grounded in the interrelations between all types of knowledge that form a coherent synthesis) (Brown and Harris, 2023). This contribution challenges and transgresses the strong conceptual boundaries commonly used to prescribe and prioritise scientific and expert knowledge.

Transdisciplinary projects are influenced by the positionality of all participants. Positionality denotes how humans perceive, interpret and attribute meanings to being in the world (Holmes, 2020). It includes fundamental cognitive and psychological processes and fundamental values that influence our sense of purpose being in the world (Lawrence, 2023). Positionality also acknowledges inequalities and imbalances of influence and power between individuals and groups of different ethnicity, gender, education, nationality, religion and world views (Dannecker, 2023). Positioning researchers, practitioners, laypeople and other participants in relation to the cultural and political context of any project should be explicit and made known at the outset of each project. The next section critically examines three main discourses on transdisciplinarity that have been cited frequently since 2000.

Reinterpreting three main discourses on transdisciplinarity

Julie Thompson Klein wanted to better understand both similarities and differences between multi-, inter- and transdisciplinary research. Unlike some authors who applied a normative logic rather than accepting diversity and plurality, Julie addressed the contested nature and well-known diversity of various conceptions and interpretations of inter- and transdisciplinarity. In 2014, she published a rhetorical analysis of three major discourses of transdisciplinarity included in publications across two decades. She labelled these three discourses transcendence, transgression and problem solving (Klein, 2014).

‘Transcendence’ is defined in this article as a capability of being able to go beyond normal limits or boundaries. Transcendence is derived from the Latin prefix trans, meaning ‘beyond’, and the word scandare, meaning ‘to climb’. This meaning was extended by Nicolescu (2002) who explained that the word three also has a Latin origin (tres) which denotes going beyond two. He posited that transdisciplinarity both transcends and transgresses common frameworks incorporating binary oppositions to describe extant phenomenon.

Sommerville and Rapport (2000: xv) wrote that ‘transdisciplinarity requires “transcendence” giving up the sovereignty on the part of any one of the contributing disciplines, and the formation, out of the diverse mix, of new insight by way of emergent properties’. Klein (2014) associated the discourse on transcendence with a repeated call to replace the fragmentation and specialisation of scientific knowledge stemming from discipline-based epistemologies and research protocols. One aim of this interpretation is to promote collaboration and combinations between academics and scientists working in and between different disciplines often with the goal of creating a unity of knowledge by integration (Nicolescu, 2002).

Transcendence was interpreted by Rapport (1997) as ‘a creative process whereby a framework for characterizing larger level processes transcends frameworks used to characterize the parts … This activity is the counterpoint of science: to break apart, to reduce’. This interpretation was like that of Jean Piaget (1972) over 25 years earlier. In essence, transcendence does not mean dissolving boundaries; it means intentionally moving across and beyond common conceptual and methodological boundaries using the intellectual capability of being open-minded and a willingness to question and move beyond the customs, norms and practices of discipline-based research and professional practice (Morin, 1992; Nicolescu, (2008); Montuori, 2013). This cognitive capacity involves behavioural choices, ethical principles and fundamental values concerning the purpose of teaching and research (Khoo, 2023; Mascolo, 2023). It can challenge common research methods: are conventional methods developed in disciplinary sciences appropriate for use during inter- and transdisciplinary projects?

‘Transgression’ is derived from the Latin word transgressus and means stepping over and going beyond something. Then, from the 15th century in Old French, transgresser denoted breaking a moral rule or a law, and it was attributed a negative connotation related to disobedience, still common today in French and English. Therefore, I extend the preceding discussion to underline a difference in meanings of transcendence and transgression stemming from the moral dimension of the second when norms, rules and laws are contravened. The key issue is what replaces these legal and social conventions after an individual or group defies them. This interpretation is pertinent here because scientific disciplines and professional associations define codes of conduct for research and practice that should be respected (see Byrne et al, 2016).

Julie Thompson Klein (2014) posited that the discourse on transgression is grounded in critical thinking about the main axioms, assumptions and claims of scientific research and higher education. It not only challenges mainstream views but also provides an alternative one called ‘post-normal’ science (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1993). It challenges conventional epistemic and ontological frameworks; it also rejects linear and reductionist thinking about societal challenges only considered from within disciplinary boundaries (Sommerville and Rapport, 2000). The custom of adhering to discipline-based norms, including research methods, and the decision to transgress them, involves fundamental questions about adhering to moral values. Therefore, participants in transdisciplinary projects should position themselves regarding the purpose of each project and the resources allocated to them (Holmes, 2020). In sum, positioning includes key issues associated with personal identity and the importance and value attributed to all types of knowledge and ways of knowing in relation to scientific knowledge.

‘Problem solving’ was the third discourse identified by Julie Thompson Klein (2014). She explained that problem solving was a common aim shared by those who launched interdisciplinary research in the 1920s. Some pioneers challenged the organisation of academic teaching and research grounded in disciplinary dogma and protocols. Sommerville and Rapport (2000: xv) wrote ‘a transdisciplinary perspective is an essential requirement of real-world problem solving’, the problem-solving discourse often implicitly or explicitly endorsing a techno-scientific rationality that has grown in importance with a complementary discourse on connecting science with society in a knowledge economy (Klein et al, 2001). One driver of this trend has been sustainability science (Felt et al, 2016). Many contributions about sustainability are founded on the assumption that more empirical knowledge, including big data, will help resolve persistent problems in the real world (Lawrence, 2020). Moreover, although a seminal publication about wicked problems is often cited, the fundamental distinction that Rittel and Webber (1973) made between scientific and societal problems – and their axiom that, alone, scientific knowledge cannot resolve societal problems – is rarely included in this discourse (Ison, 2008). Instead, some authors assume that more scientific knowledge is needed to solve persistent problems, but they rarely admit uncertainty and unpredictability. This discourse promotes the science–policy tandem and responds to the call for more evidence-based policies (Giampietro et al, 2012). Therefore, sharing knowledge between scientists, experts and policy makers is meant to support more effective uses of empirical knowledge in policy decision making.

Many recent publications about the co-production of knowledge and collaboration between researchers and stakeholders champion citizen participation in problem definition without understanding the historical and political roots of this social movement since the 1950s in architecture and urban planning (Lawrence, 2021). Some contributions associate the co-production of knowledge with problem solving but authors rarely present a theoretical framework about the nature of the problem in each case (Ison, 2008): is it a bounded problem that simply requires a utilitarian solution? Or does it indicate a larger problematic about a much broader issue that requires a larger field of inquiry (Gross and De Dreu, 2019)?

Moreover, my research indicates that many methods used for collaborative research and the co-production of knowledge are heuristic tools that ignore the intangible yet fundamental ingredients of the trans-anthropo-logic (Lawrence, 2017). Some discourses on transdisciplinarity overlook how transcendence, transgression and problem solving are implemented: whether conventional methods developed in disciplinary sciences are adapted if at all for inter- and transdisciplinary projects is rarely discussed; and how common methods accommodate or exclude the essence of transdisciplinary inquiry is often ignored. The remainder of this article will address this shortcoming. It will explain why conventional research methods are inapt to deal with transcendence and transgression, whereas they may be pertinent for studying certain types of problems.

The alchemy of transdisciplinary inquiry

On practising transdisciplinarity, Sommerville and Rapport (2000: xv) wrote ‘transdisciplinarity is not an automatic process that can be carried out simply by bringing together people of different disciplines’; then they added ‘transdisciplinarity requires transcendence but this “magic ingredient” is difficult to pinpoint’. Two decades later, numerous contributions show that transdisciplinarity is not an abstraction external to human action; on the contrary it is created by intentionality, reflexive thinking and purposeful behaviour (Giri, 2002). It is cultivated by human imagination, innovative ideas and thoughts, and dialogue processes between and beyond the boundaries of scientific research. Giorgio Parisi, the 2021 Nobel Laureat in Physics has explained that although science is founded on creative thinking and intuition, these and other extra-scientific processes are rarely incorporated and discussed in scientific research (Parisi, 2023). Nonetheless, innovative projects show how creative thinking, innovative ideas and original visions can be facilitated by careful scaffolding using competences and skills not found in toolboxes, nor prescribed by conventional research methods, nor acquired by a scientific education (Jordan, 2014; Palmer et al, 2020; Andersson and Palmer, 2023). The next section develops this subject after clarifying an important difference between research and inquiry.

Critical inquiry: asking and answering questions

The arbitrary boundary often used to prescribe and delimit transdisciplinarity as a type of research ignores many published projects that transcend and transgress the research domain (Lawrence, 2021; 2023). The word research commonly denotes the systematic investigation and study of subjects using discipline-based protocols and analytical methods to establish reliable and valid empirical knowledge that provides answers to specific questions or solutions to selected problems (Brew, 2001). In contrast, inquiry denotes processes for individual and shared learning about subjects and situations in the world (Clark, 2006). It includes asking questions and developing new understanding whereas the aim of research is to answer questions. This important distinction has been illustrated by research and practice in the vast field of built environments by authors who cross conceptual boundaries between theoretical understanding and problem solving (Simon et al, 2020; Lawrence, 2021).

Critical inquiry is a practice that incorporates multiple, sometimes conflictual sources of ideas, information, interpretations and meanings that enable broad and inclusive understandings of a specific subject embedded in its societal context (Denzin, 2017). It applies core principles proposed by Charles Wright Mills (1999) in 1959 in The Sociological Imagination. That book helps individuals to better understand their position in a broad social and historical context. Critical inquiry also uses reflexive thinking that admits and accounts for contextual variables that include cultural dispositions of different social groups, and socio-economic and other inequalities including inequitable power relations (Denzin, 2017). Transdisciplinary projects generate individual and shared clusters of meaningful information and socially accepted ways of collaboration that are prescribed by cultural predispositions that should be understood (Dilley, 1999). A major shift from prescribed methods is needed to cultivate transdisciplinary inquiry as a collective practice piloted by trained facilitators.

Scaffolding transdisciplinary inquiry

Transdisciplinarity is a creative human activity that can be cultivated in specific situations (Lawrence, 2023). Cultivation denotes the cognitive and behavioural activities of all individuals and groups in precise situations. These activities define and are mutually defined by beliefs and ideas, knowledge and know-how, language and meanings, norms and rules, and opinions and values that change over time. Jane Rendell (2013) explained the importance of emotional and relational dimensions of research and practice that occur between and beyond common discipline-based practices. The cultivation of transdisciplinary projects should accommodate behavioural, cultural and psychological predispositions (Jordan, 2014). This includes facilitating interpersonal dialogue between participants with divergent sometimes conflicting viewpoints (Palmer et al, 2020; Andersson and Palmer, 2023). However, scientists are rarely trained to pilot projects including multiple stakeholders from different sectors. Using their competences and skills, trained facilitators are needed to pilot transdisciplinary projects. The role of a facilitator is more challenging than that of a ‘knowledge broker’. It enables the empowerment of those whose voices are rarely heard, the expression of divergent viewpoints that may engender conflicts, and piloting negotiations for adhesion to the best alternative to a non-agreement (Rendell, 2013). These competences and skills are not found in a toolbox, nor in sets of research methods. They go beyond prescriptive methods and research protocols.

Scaffolding requires understanding and accounting for cultural, psychological, political and social variables that are characteristic of a specific group of project participants (Rendell, 2013). Consequently, scaffolding used to facilitate transdisciplinary project implementation should be broader in scope and purpose than a narrow focus on research methods. Beyond the careful selection of appropriate tools and methods, many projects illustrate how facilitators guide deliberative processes involving participants who do not necessarily have common knowledge, nor share perceptions, meanings and values about a subject or situation of mutual concern (Lawrence, 2023). These are cases of ‘knowing-in-practice’, a concept that Michael Polanyi (1969) proposed as an evolving and experiential process: it is a socially constructed creation of the collective mind; and it is generated, communicated and applied by both individual and collective thinking. The co-benefits of acknowledging the synergies between combinations of different types of knowledge, know-how and other ways of knowing is a worthy reason for engaging trained facilitators to provide scaffolding to ensure that all viewpoints are considered with fairness.

Synthesis and conclusion

This article has reviewed the assumptions, claims and viewpoints included in three main discourses of transdisciplinarity – transcendence, transgression and problem solving. At the outset, the article noted that transcendence, transgression and problems solving are much more than physical activities. A global and inclusive framework has been used to show that too few authors explain how these discourses are implemented even though they implicitly or explicitly adopt a rational and utilitarian viewpoint. Furthermore, authors rarely explain how research methods transcend and transgress disciplinary borders during collaborative research and the co-production of knowledge involving participants outside academia. The merits and shortcomings of these contributions have been discussed in relation to borrowing and using inappropriate methods. An enlarged interpretation of these three discourses is founded on a radically different interpretation of transdisciplinarity. It is derived from a fundamental distinction between inquiry and research coupled with key principles of a trans-anthropo-logic that incorporates core ingredients of cultural predispositions with psychological and social variables. Effective uses of these intangible and fundamental ingredients require competences and skills acquired by trained facilitators who can nurture cultivation practices. This major reorientation from research agendas to transdisciplinary inquiry will depend on whether individuals, professional groups and scientific institutions are capable of consciously enacting transcendence to transgress the boundaries of conventional discipline-based protocols and research methods and then enact practices that are intentionally transdisciplinary.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.