“The development of transdisciplinary discourse in the convergence of art, science, technology and consciousness research”
“Transdisciplinarity is also used to signify a unity of knowledge beyond disciplines.”
beyond granica umjetnosti, kulture, a(k)®tivizma, medija, znanosti, … mislim da je ovdje i osnovna razlika koju trazimo kroz NMCB i daljenje projekte: preklazak granica
“transdisciplinarity is radically distinct from interdisciplinarity. Interdisciplinarity, like pluri-disciplinarity, concerns the transfer of methods from one discipline to another, allowing research to spill over disciplinary boundaries, but staying within the framework of disciplinary research.”
dakle kod transdisciplinarnosti nije npr. samo korištenja metoda iz slikarstva i prijenosa ovih u video umjetnost.
“As the prefix “trans” indicates, transdisciplinarity concerns that which is at once between the disciplines, across the different disciplines, and beyond each individual discipline. Its goal is the understanding of the present world, of which one of the imperatives is the overarching unity of knowledge.”
“Transdisciplinarity is nevertheless radically distinct from multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity because of its goal, the understanding of the present world, which cannot be accomplished in the framework of disciplinary research. The goal of multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity always remains within the framework of disciplinary research. If transdisciplinarity is often confused with interdisciplinarity and multidisciplinarity (and by the same token, we note that interdisciplinarity is often confused with multidisciplinarity) this is explained in large part by the fact that all three overflow disciplinary boundaries. This confusion is very harmful, because it hides the huge potential of transdisciplinarity.”
U korak s stremljenjima nas kao pojedinaca i ACTa:
„The starting point for TR is a socially relevant problem field. Within this field, TR identifies, structures, analyses and deals with specific problems in such a way that it can:
a) grasp the complexity of problems,
b) take into account the diversity of life-world and scientific perceptions of problems,
c) link abstract and case-specific knowledge, and
d) develop knowledge and practices that promote what is perceived to be the common good.
Participatory research and collaboration between disciplines are the means of meeting requirements a)–d) in the research process.“ (Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn 2007, 30)
http://www.transdisciplinarity.ch/e/Transdisciplinarity/index.php
“Transdisciplinary Studies are an area of research and education that addresses contemporary issues that cannot be solved by one or even a few points-of-view. It brings together academic experts, field practitioners, community members, research scientists, political leaders, and business owners among others to solve some of the pressing problems facing the world, from the local to the global.”
“Transdisciplinary studies are related to a set of ideas such as interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and integrative studies. What sets transdisciplinary studies apart from the others is a particular emphasis on engagement, investigation, and participation in addressing present-day issues and problems in a manner that explicitly destabilizes disciplinary boundaries while respecting disciplinary expertise.”
is generated within a context of application. This is different from the process of application by which ‘pure’ science, generated in theoretical/experimental environments, is ‘applied’; any technology is ‘transferred’; and knowledge is subsequently ‘managed’. The context of application, in contrast, describes the total environment in which scientific problems arise, methodologies are developed, outcomes are disseminated, and uses are defined.
The second ‘Mode 2’ characteristic is ‘trans-disciplinarity’, by which is meant the mobilization of a range of theoretical perspectives and practical methodologies to solve problems. But, unlike inter- or multi-disciplinarity, it is not necessarily derived from pre-existing disciplines, nor does it always contribute to the formation of new disciplines. The creative act lies just as much in the capacity to mobilize and manage these perspectives and methodologies, their ‘external’ orchestration, as in the development of new theories or conceptualisations, or the refinement of research methods, the ‘internal’ dynamics of scientific creativity. In other words, ‘Mode 2’ knowledge is embodied in the expertise of individual researchers and research teams as much as, or possibly more than, it is encoded in conventional research products such as journal articles or patents.
The third characteristic of ‘Mode 2’ is the much greater diversity of the sites at which knowledge is produced, and in the types of knowledge producted. The first phenomenon, it can be argued, is not especially new. Research communities have always been ‘virtual’ communities that cross national (and cultural) boundaries. But, in ‘Mode 2’, their dynamics have been transformed. Once, interaction within these communities was limited by the constraints, both physical (the ability to meet) and technical (letters and telephones); now, as a result of advances in information and communication technologies, interaction is unconstrained – and instantaneous. The orderly hierarchies imposed by these ‘old’ technologies of interaction are being eroded by this communicative free-for-all. This shift has been intensified by the second phenomenon – the fact that research communities now have open frontiers – which has allowed many new kinds of ‘knowledge’ organizations, such as think-tanks, management consultants, and activist groups, to join the research game.
The fourth characteristic of ‘Mode 2’ knowledge is that it is highly reflexive. The research process can no longer be characterized as an ‘objective’ investigation of the natural (or social) world, or as a cool and reductionist interrogation of arbitrarily defined ‘others’. Instead, it has become a dialogic process, an intense (and perhaps endless) ‘conversation’ between research actors and research subjects – to such an extent that the basic vocabulary of research (who, whom, what, how) is in danger of losing its significance. As a result, traditional notions of ‘accountability’ have had to be radically revised. The consequences (predictable and unintended) of new knowledge cannot be regarded as being ‘outside’ the research process because problemsolving environments influence topic-choice and research-design as well as end-uses.
The fifth characteristic is seen in novel forms of quality control. First, in ‘Mode 2’ knowledge, scientific ‘peers’ can no longer be reliably identified, because there is no longer a stable taxonomy of codified disciplines from which ‘peers’ can be drawn. Second, reductionist forms of quality control can not easily be applied to much more broadly-framed research questions; the research ‘game’ is being joined by more and more players – not simply a wider and more eclectic range of ‘producers’, but also orchestrators, brokers, disseminators, and users. Third, and most disturbingly, clear and unchallengable criteria, by which to determine quality, may no longer be available. Instead, we must learn to live with multiple definitions 188 HELGA NOWOTNY, ET AL. of quality, a fact that seriously complicates (even compromises) the processes of discrimination, prioritization, and selectivity upon
HELGA NOWOTNY, PETER SCOTT and MICHAEL GIBBONS INTRODUCTION ‘Mode 2’ Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge