Search results

During the past decade, patient participation became an important issue in the medical field, and patient participation in biomedical research processes is increasingly called for. One of the arguments for this refers to the specific kind of knowledge, called experiential knowledge, patients could contribute. Until now, participation of patients in biomedical research has been rare, and integration of patients' experiential knowledge with scientific knowledge—in the few cases it takes place—occurs implicitly and on an ad hoc basis. This is illustrated by describing and analyzing the activities of the German patient group on retinitis pigmentosa. The authors argue that to be able to optimize the use of experiential knowledge of patients in biomedical research, a systematic approach is required. Transdisciplinary research provides such an approach, systematically, explicitly, and deliberately integrating knowledge from different scientific and nonscientific sources. In this article, the concept of transdisciplinarity is elaborated upon. The authors propose a possible procedure, identify necessary conditions and skills, and evaluate the feasibility of its implementation and institutionalization. Finally, the authors introduce a recent research project to further investigate and implement transdisciplinary research in the biomedical field.

Transdisciplinarity is based on different levels of reality, in theories of complexity and of the third included, and has strived to exceed the boundaries between disciplines, developing a tool that connects with complex knowledge systems. To be the reason Western the paradigm in which the sciences have developed, adjustments have been made over the last few centuries, while the misfit was tolerable. But in the last decades they clashes irreversibly of environmental culture and the stress has become tangible.

This article analyses Guattari's and Latour's bodies of work as radical developers of a processual and ontological transdisciplinarity. These works impose a definitive break from the history that, in the 1960s, had drawn upon structuralism in order to oppose philosophy with an epistemological revolution from the perspective of a scientific problematization and first transdisciplinary reconfiguration of the sciences de l'homme. It is shown that the second anti-structuralist transdisciplinarity affirms as its raison dêtre "the necessity to return to Pragmatics" (Guattari), to enact the new significance of the transversal constructions liberated by the rhizomatic monism of a hybrid social ontology (Latour). Between Guattari, Latour, and the ecologization they share, a total de-epistemologization and re-ontologization is engaged. It leads to the fall of the 'Ontological Iron Curtain' erected by the philosophical tradition between mind and matter, nature and society. The article concludes by critically addressing the final statements of both Guattari and Latour towards a new aesthetic paradigm and a new diplomacy of institutional forms respectively.

Background: Early career faculty experiences and perspectives on transdisciplinary research are important yet understudied. Methods: Assistant professors at 50 top-ranked social work programs completed an online survey assessing perspectives on the salience of transdisciplinary training in their field, obstacles to or negative impacts of transdisciplinary training, and current environments. Content analysis and descriptive statistics were used. Results: A large majority of all participants ( N = 118) believed that transdisciplinary research is important, that greater training is needed, and that they are relatively well prepared in related skill sets. They are expected to build cross-disciplinary collaborations, yet only a small minority believed that social work researchers are nationally recognized as important collaborators, or that they are prepared to navigate tensions on research teams. Conclusions: We offer a multilevel framework of structural and training supports needed to realize transdisciplinary research in social work with relevance to other disciplines.

What happens when well-defined disciplines meet or are confronted with transdisciplinary discourses and concepts, where transdisciplinary concepts are analytical tools rather than specifications of a field of objects or a class of entities? Or, if disciplines reject transdisciplinary discourses and concepts as having no part to play in their practice, why do they so reject them? This essay addresses these questions through a discussion of the relationship between philosophy – the most tightly policed discipline in the humanities – and what I will argue is the emblematically transdisciplinary practice of feminist theory, via a discussion of interdisciplinarity and related terms in gender studies. It argues that the tendency of philosophy to reject feminist theory in fact correctly intuited that the two defining features of feminist theory – its constitutive tie to a political agenda for social change and the transdisciplinary character of many of its central concepts – are indeed at odds with, and pose a threat to, the traditional insularity of the discipline of philosophy. It argues, further, that feminist theory operates with what we should now recognise as a set of transdisciplinary concepts – including, sex, gender, woman, sexuality and sexual difference – and that the use of these concepts (particularly 'gender') in feminist philosophy has been the most far-reaching continuation in the late 20th/early 21st centuries of the critique of philosophy initiated by Marx and pursued by 'critical theory'. This puts feminist philosophy in a difficult position: its transdisciplinary aspects open it up to an unavoidable contradiction. Nonetheless, this is a contradiction that can and must be endured and made productive. In order to draw out the specificity of the concept of transdisciplinarity at issue the essay begins with a discussion of attempts to define inter- and transdisciplinarity, particularly in gender studies. Arguing for the transdisciplinary origin of the concept of gender, it then suggests one way of ...

In this article I argue for a transdisciplinary approach to the human or social sciences. There is little ontological or epistemological justification for a division among these disciplines. I recommend that sociology stop worrying about policing its disciplinary boundaries and begin to encourage various forms of intellectual transculturation. I then analyze barriers to transdisciplinarity by comparing disciplines to states and comparing the relations among disciplines to different sorts of imperial practice, or interstate relations. The most common interdisciplinary strategies are analogous to the informal, nonterritorial imperialism practiced globally by the United States. Three other forms of interdisciplinarity are discussed: the annexation of one discipline by another — a situation that is analogous to colonialism; nonhegemonized systems of equal disciplines (analogous to the Westphalian state system); and nonimperial `traveling' and transculturation among disciplines (analogous to the practices of members of weak or declining imperial states).

Transdisciplinarity has shaped the development of both conservation science and conservation-restoration. The history of conservation science demands the commitment of all involved specialists to follow a common vision in the field. The present article highlights some key lessons to assist in closing the gap between the promotion of high-level research projects and the development and assessment of proficient professional practice in conservation science and conservation-restoration. The necessary framework conditions should also be brought to the attention of responsible politicians.Reflecting on conservation theory and practice "at the turn of the millennium" I propose to take a closer look at interdisciplinary work devoted to maintenance of Cultural Heritage since the beginning of the 20th century. ; Transdisciplinarity has shaped the development of both conservation science and conservation-restoration. The history of conservation science demands the commitment of all involved specialists to follow a common vision in the field. The present article highlights some key lessons to assist in closing the gap between the promotion of high-level research projects and the development and assessment of proficient professional practice in conservation science and conservation-restoration. The necessary framework conditions should also be brought to the attention of responsible politicians.Reflecting on conservation theory and practice "at the turn of the millennium" I propose to take a closer look at interdisciplinary work devoted to maintenance of Cultural Heritage since the beginning of the 20th century.