Wendy Russell
There are an increasing number of research topics which fail to fit within traditional disciplinary boundaries. In fact, in some of these, the whole notion and structural ramifications of disciplinarity represent a limitation to advancement in that area. Such areas of study have been described as multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary. I have chosen trans- to suggest that such areas, rather than falling between disciplines (all too often the case when it comes to funding and resources), or simply involving more than one discipline (as is brought to bear when the research comes to be assessed), genuinely transcend disciplinarity by cutting across disciplines, integrating and synthesising content, theory and methodology from any discipline area which will shed light on the research question/s.
Transdisciplinarity has emerged in response to the imperatives of communication and application. Its expansion has coincided with the broader social distribution of knowledge in increasingly educated societies (1). Specialised knowledge is no longer the restricted domain of academic elites, but is in demand from the public, and also from public organisations and industry. In addition, research organisations are increasingly being asked to provide knowledge-based solutions to an increasing range of material and social problems. This requires not only that the research outcomes are designed and communicated with implementation in mind, but that the research design process is responsive and inclusive of the various parties involved. Moreover, an increasing number of areas that academics are choosing to, or being called to, engage in are topics which simply cannot be adequately addressed by single disciplines. Sustainable development, science and technology policy, public health and climate change are all examples of areas which, by their nature, cut across several disciplines.
Despite this growing popularity, University researchers who set out to conduct transdisciplinary research are still met with a variety of institutional obstacles.
Assessment of transdisciplinary projects by traditional means and structures falls short in a number of ways. Firstly, research across disciplines rarely satisfies the criteria and standards of all of the disciplines involved. Researchers rarely have sufficient time and focus to be fully versed and proficient in more than one discipline. Moreover, transdisciplinary research generally creates its own criteria and standards, because of its unique, emergent qualities. These emergent qualities include the integration of different bodies of knowledge, the synthesis of new approaches and techniques of inquiry and the communication of specialised knowledge across disciplinary boundaries and beyond. In addition, transdisciplinarity requires new modes of collaboration and interaction between researchers. While these qualities and skills of communication, synthesis and teamwork give unique value to transdisciplinarity, they are not explicitly taken into account in current assessment processes. Rather than encouraging these important characteristics, individual researchers may effectively be penalised for them.
The difficulties of assessing transdisciplinary research, particularly in relation to grant applications, have recently been identified in an Australian Research Council (ARC) report (2). Proposals arising from the report include the establishment of either a cross-disciplinary (use of this term is similar to my use of transdisciplinary) panel, or internal advocates for cross-disciplinary research on each disciplinary panel of the ARC. There is also a suggestion that the cross-disciplinary nature of an application be explicitly addressed, either in the application, or by the assessors. These proposals reflect the need to identify and take account of the emergent qualities, as well as the challenges, of transdisciplinary research.
Because Universities are structured around disciplines, the distribution of funds and resources, and the administration of both research and teaching tend to operate within a disciplinary framework. There are obvious disadvantages for transdisciplinary research. However, attempts to institutionalise transdisciplinarity may simply create new disciplines, without the flexibility which is arguably essential for transdisciplinary research, especially in being responsive to new problems. For transdisciplinarity to thrive within the disciplinary structure of the University, contingency must be made for it. This requires flexibility and negotiation in areas such as:
Once again, a commitment to such flexibility is more likely to be made if the emergent qualities of transdisciplinary research are identified as valuable to the institution.
A recent ARC funded workshop brought together postgraduates students involved in interdisciplinary research into ecologically sustainable development (3). They identified the rewarding aspects of such research, which included intellectual challenge, making a contribution, being pioneers, building links and employability. These rewards came with obstacles, such as a lack of equity in relation to scholarship applications, assessment of work and access to space and other resources; administrative difficulties in enrolment and graduation; difficulties in finding appropriate supervisors, mentors and examiners; and additional challenges of fitting such ambitious projects into existing timeframes. In addition, they recognised that transdisciplinary projects are generally more challenging intellectually, with less clear paths to success, less recognition, and more isolation. Ironically, although this type of research training seems to be desirable outside academia, there appear to be few opportunities for jobs within academia for students from transdisciplinary backgrounds, particularly those who want to continue such research. Obviously, these impediments mirror difficulties for established academic researchers, and, of more concern, are reflected in recruitment into academia.
Ultimately, transdisciplinarity is a reality that universities and individual researchers will find an increasing need to accommodate and utilise. This will require that the emergent qualities of transdisciplinary research are identified, valued and rewarded. The changes needed are paradigmatic ones, requiring new modes of thinking, researching and interacting. If embraced, I believe that these changes will ultimately be of enormous benefit to institutions, both in new and traditional fields of research.
1. Gibbons M., Limoges C., Nowotny H., Schwartzman S., Scott P. & Trow M. (1994) The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies., pp. 179. SAGE Publications Ltd, Stockholm.
2. Grigg L. (1999) Cross-disciplinary research. A discussion paper. Commissioned Report No. 61. Australian Research Council
3. Report from ARC Postrgraduate Workshop, University of Wollongong, December, 1999
Dr Wendy Russell is a lecturer in the Department of Biological Sciences at the University of Wollongong. Having completed her PhD in Photosynthesis Research at the University of Queensland, she has now gone sideways and is studying ethical, legal and social aspects of Biotechnology.