Understanding Disciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity

Abstract

This paper aims to explore and understand disciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in the global context. Discipline refers to branches of knowledge emerged in between 1750-1850. It provides shared concepts and language, accreditation to practitioners within their fields and, importantly, the epistemological and ontological security. Three categories of traditional disciplines include the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities. This study is based on a review of a number of key papers which were identified during a literature review on disciplinarity and transdisciplinarity. An effort has been made to explore how transdisciplinarity as an approach came into existence in the academia. The concepts that can be described as an alternative combinations of four characteristic features of transdisciplinarity, namely (a) to relate to socially relevant issues, (b) to transcend and integrate disciplinary paradigms, (c) to do participatory research and, (d) to search for a unity of knowledge. This study incorporates introduction, review of literature, methodology, transdisciplinarity, types of transdisciplinarity, two domains of transdisciplinarity studies, knowledge integration, transdisciplinary education, boundary work and border-work, hybridization, social engagement, tamed and wicked problems, real world problem, life-world problem, complexity of problems and conclusion.

Full text

Journal of APF Command and Staff College (2025), 8(1), 238-287
Understanding Disciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity
Ramesh Raj Kunwara
kunwar.sangla2@gmail.com
Nimesh Ulakb
nimeshulak@gmail.com
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3126/japfcsc.v8i1.77609
Article History:
Received: 1 November 2024
Accepted: 11 March 2025
Published: 20 April 2025
Keywords:
Disciplinarity, transdisciplinarity,
knowledge integration, boundary-
work, real world problems
To cite this article:
Kunwar, R. R. & Ulak, N. (2025).
Understanding disciplinarity and
transdisciplinarity. Journal of
APF Command and Staff College,
8(1), 238-287. https://doi.
org/10.3126/japfcsc.v8i1.77609
To link to this article:
https://doi.org/10.3126/japfcsc.
v8i1.77609
Corresponding Editor
Ramesh Raj Kunwar
kunwar.sangla2@gmail.com
Abstract
This paper aims to explore and understand disciplinarity
and transdisciplinarity in the global context.
Discipline refers to branches of knowledge emerged
in between 1750-1850. It provides shared concepts
and language, accreditation to practitioners within
their fields and, importantly, the epistemological and
ontological security. Three categories of traditional
disciplines include the natural sciences, the social
sciences, and the humanities. This study is based
on a review of a number of key papers which were
identified during a literature review on disciplinarity
and transdisciplinarity. An effort has been made to
explore how transdisciplinarity as an approach came
into existence in the academia. The concepts that
can be described as an alternative combinations of
four characteristic features of transdisciplinarity,
namely (a) to relate to socially relevant issues, (b)
to transcend and integrate disciplinary paradigms,
(c) to do participatory research and, (d) to search
for a unity of knowledge. This study incorporates
introduction, review of literature, methodology,
transdisciplinarity, types of transdisciplinarity, two
domains of transdisciplinarity studies, knowledge
integration, transdisciplinary education, boundary-
© The Authors, 2025. Published by APF Command and Staff College, Nepal. ISSN 2616-0242
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction,
provided the original article is properly cited.

Kunwar & Ulak : Understanding Disciplinarity and... 239
work and border-work, hybridization, social engagement, tamed and wicked problems, real
world problem, life-world problem, complexity of problems and conclusion.
Introduction
“Life is multiple disciplinary. Disciplines are the result of the artificial fragmentation of
knowledge” (Choi & Pak, 2006, p.357; Miller,2016, p.36).
It is necessary to differentiate between ‘studying’ and ‘understanding’. According to the
Collins Paperback English Dictionary (1986), study means: “to investigate or examine, as by
observation, research,” etc.; whereas understand means: “to know and comprehend the nature
or meaning of …” (pp. 860-943; in Du Plessis, 2015).
The origin of the word ‘discipline’ is insightful, deriving from a root that signifies a
disciple or follower. The discipline controls. It quietly establishes a hierarchy within that reflects
the hierarchy without (Goodrich, 2009, p.461). Disciplines are not static but are dynamic. In
addition to competition between individuals seeking academic stardom, internal competition
between subfields and competition between departments over students, resources, faculty
lines, research funding programs, and space on campus generates pressure to innovate (Jacobs,
2017, p.36). Disciplines can be intellectually messy. They have roots in diverse intellectual
traditions, complex internal structures and fuzzy boundaries (Jacobs, 2017, p.38).
The etymology of “discipline,” rather than defining the term, reveals the historical
proliferation of its meanings. The term “derives from an Indo-European root... for both
the Greek pedagogic term didasko (teach) and the Latin (di) disco or ‘discere’ (learn or to
learn); and disciplina itself already has in classical Latin the double sense of knowledge
(knowledge systems) and power (discipline of the child, military discipline)” (Hoskin &
Macve, 1986, p.107; in Shumway & Messer-Davidow, 1991, p.202; Alvargonzález, 2011,
pp. 1-2). In the English language, “discipline” was used in Chaucer’s time (14th century)
to refer to branches of knowledge, especially to medicine, law, and theology, the “higher
faculties” of the new university (Shumway & Messer-Davidow, 1991).
Most of the scientists and scholars in 1970s were found deep concerned with humans’
lives in one way or another. Their objective was to eliminate the ignorance and seeking for
advancement of knowledge. He was Jürgen Habermas (1972; in Russell, 2010, p.31) who
raised the question i.e. ‘How is reliable knowledge possible?’ The question was raised
because the contemporary society was influenced by ignorance. Mahan (1970) distinguished
two types of ignorance: one that comes from the lack of knowledge, a paucity of riches that
exists both at the social and individual level and another comes from embarrassment of
riches whose application of knowledge is thwarted. This type of ignorance is characterized

240 Journal of APF Command and Staff College (2025), 8(1), 238-287
by the expression: “we know more and more about less and less”. The removal of ignorance
surrounding these human problems seems to require not only discovery of new knowledge
but also synthesis of knowledge (Mahan, 1970). Such quest of knowledge gave birth to
alternative disciplines.
The term discipline refers to a particular branch of learning or body of knowledge
(Shumway & Messer-Davidow, 1991; Choi & Pak, 2006; Areekkuzhiyil, 2017; Repko,
2012, p.4; Tribe, 2000, p.810; Kunwar, 2018, p.127). Examples of a discipline include
anthropology, architecture, biology, economics, engineering, history, science, and theology.
Disciplines have contrasting substance and syntax, ways of organizing themselves and of
defining rules for making arguments and claims that others will warrant. They have different
ways of talking about themselves and about the problems, topics, and issues that constitute
their subject matters (Schulman, 2002; in Areekkuzhiyil, 2017). Mary Taylor Huber and
Sherwyn P. Morreale (2002; in Areekkuzhiyil, 2017) remarked that ‘each discipline has its
own intellectual history, agreements, and disputes about subject matter and methods and its
own community of scholars interested in teaching and learning in that field. Each discipline
has its own defining elements phenomena, assumptions, epistemology, concepts, theories,
and methods that distinguish it from other disciplines. A discipline defines boundaries and
establishes the structure for knowledge (Oloruntimilehin, 2020).
As per the Oxford English Dictionary, “discipline” pertained to the disciple or
scholar, while “doctrine” was the property of the doctor or teacher. As a result, “discipline”
has been associated with practice or exercise and “doctrine” with abstract theory. Given
this opposition, we can see why “discipline” might have been chosen to describe the new
science based on empirical methods and claiming objectivity. To call a field as “discipline”
is to suggest that it is not dependent on mere doctrine and that its authority does not derive
from the writings of an individual or a school, but rather from generally accepted methods
and truths. “Discipline” also referred to the “rule” of monasteries and later to the methods of
training used in armies and schools. The concatenation of these two senses suggests that to
be trained in a branch of knowledge is to be disciplined and ultimately to attain discipline,
which is believed to be the quality of self-mastery (Shumway & Messer-Davidow, 1991).
The American Association for Higher Education and Accreditation (AAHEA)
mentions that disciplines have contrasting substance and syntax...ways of organizing
themselves and of defining rules for making arguments and claims that others will warrant.
They have different ways of talking about themselves and about the problems, topics, and
issues that constitute their subject matters (Schulman, 2002, pp. vi-vii; in Repko, 2012).

Kunwar & Ulak : Understanding Disciplinarity and... 241
According to Jacobs (2017), the term discipline is a self-regulating body of researchers
and scholars based in a university. In the liberal arts context, a discipline refers to fields in
which there is a department, a major, and a doctoral degree. A field may be regarded as a
discipline when professors with specified credentials are typically hired to conduct research
and teach students in a particular domain (Jacobs, 2017).
Jacobs’s (2017) question follows why do disciplines exist? The answer is disciplines
are an organizational manifestation of the need for an academic division of labor. There
are currently over 30,000 academic journals that employ peer review, and this total is
growing by about 3% annually due to the creation of online journals and publications
based in countries striving to join the international research community (author’s analysis
of Ulrich Periodical data). There is thus a need to divide the intellectual terrain into fields
of inquiry, even while practitioners know full well that extant dividing lines are fuzzy
and sometimes arbitrary. Jacobs (2017), in the same line, talks about the importance of
the Journal of Economic Literature classification system that divides economics into 20
general categories, which in turn contain over 134 divisions and 811 areas of specialization
(American Economic Association, 2015).
Michael Foucault (1984:118; in Peters & Appel, 1996, p.133) formulated disciplines
as the principle of limitation and defined it as “a domain of objects, a set of methods, a corpus
of propositions considered to be true, a play of rules and definitions, of techniques and
instruments, which together decides what each discipline within its own limits recognizes
as true and false”.
Volgger and Pechlaner (2015, p.86; in Kunwar, 2018), categorized a discipline by
the following criteria: (1) a web of interrelated concepts; (2) a particular logic structure
that blinds the concepts; (3) testability within this web using its particular criteria and
logical structure; (4) irreducibility to other disciplines. According to similar approaches,
disciplines consist of webs of constructs (theories), methods (ways of producing and
testing knowledge), and aims of application domains (Volgger & Pechlaner, 2015, p.86;
Kunwar, 2018). Some authors additionally request the existence of a dedicated community,
means of communication (such as journals), tradition and a set of values (King & Brownell,
1966; in Volgger, & Pechlaner, 2015). Disciplines shape scientific research (field of
inquiry) by forming the primary institutional and cognitive units in academia, on which
the internal differentiation of science into specialized curricula, professions and research is
based (Stichweh, 1992; in Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2008, p.27). Members of a discipline are
specialists who build a scientific community (Kuhn, 1963; in Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2008).

242 Journal of APF Command and Staff College (2025), 8(1), 238-287
Disciplines provide scientists with frame of references, methodological approaches,
topics of study, theoretical canons, and technologies (Petts, Owens, & Bulkeley, 2008; in
Stock & Burton, 2011, p.1091). In addition, they provide shared concepts and language,
accreditation to practitioners within their fields (i.e., recognition of competence by others
within the shared institution), and importantly, the epistemological and ontological security
that is required to progress science without constantly having to question the nature of
science itself (Stock & Burton, 2011; Klein, 2008, p.121).
Mary Taylor Huber and Sherwyn P. Morreale (2002) add that “each discipline has its
own intellectual history, agreements, and disputes about subject matter and methods” and
its own “community of scholars interested in teaching and learning in that field” (p.2; in
Repko, 2012). Disciplines are also distinguished from one another by several factors. These
include the questions disciplines ask about the world, their perspective or worldview, the
set of assumptions they employ, and the methods they use to build up a body of knowledge
(facts, concepts, theories) around a certain subject matter (Newell & Green, 1982, p.25; in
Repko, 2012).
Bardecki (2019) mentions that the “confusion and inconsistency over the use of the
terminology has tended to hinder the development of a common understanding and usage”.
The distinction between these expressions is often unclear–terms are often undefined and/
or used with dramatically different meanings. In some circumstances, they are used as
synonyms, whereas elsewhere significant efforts are made to differentiate their meanings.
These issues occur broadly across academic writing in all disciplines (Bardecki, 2019).
The early universities such as Salerno, Bologna of Italy and Oxford and Cambridge
of England, started with Faculties of Medicine, Philosophy, Theology, and Law. It was
around these four areas that the totality of knowledge was contained. In fact, academics
were versatile and omniscient, legitimate forerunners of the renaissance (the revival of
European art and literature under the influence of classical models in the 15th-16th centuries,
Wikipedia) thinkers and creators (Schulz, n.d.; Max-Neef, 2005, p.6). With the passing of
time, faculties became more and more specialized. Thus arose and multiplied disciplines
and sub-disciplines. According to Schulz (n.d.), there were already 1100 known scientific
disciplines around 1950s, without including the humanities mentioned in a book published
by University of Illinois (Max-Neef, 2005).
The association between disciplines, departments and institutes is a relatively
modern phenomenon that begins to consolidate itself at the end of the XIX century. The
history of academia shows that a disciplinary field is itself still in constant transformation,
including specialization, differentiation, professionalization, disciplinarization and

Kunwar & Ulak : Understanding Disciplinarity and... 243
academization (Blanckaert, 1993; Hofstetter & Schneuwly, 1998; Mucchielli, 1998; in
Hofstetter, 2012) that have renewed its objects, methods and approaches, its relationship
to other fields and its social and institutional context. It observes the actors at work, actors
whose profiles, actions and networks are hybrid (Hofstetter, 2012). Godin (1998; Hessels
& van Lente, 2008, p.751) criticizes the dichotomy between disciplinary research and
interdisciplinary research. According to Godin (1998; Hessels & van Lente, 2008), the
development of disciplines with specializations and hybrid formations is typical of any
scientific practice. Knowledge production never occurs in isolation; it always involves
the employment of elements from other disciplines. Whereas McGregor (2015) argues
that disciplinary science isolates disciplines from each other and isolates them from
their environments (McGregor, 2015, p.18). The breaking up of knowledge into separate
disciplines “prevents (knowledge) from linking the contextualizing” (Morin, 2006, p.14;
in McGregor, 2015). To offset this effect, he urges us to “recognize the inseparability of
the separable” (p.16; in McGregor, 2015).
As Hofstetter (2012) stated, the disciplinary field never ceases to evolve: the
boundaries are moving between researchers and practitioners, between scientific research
and educational and even internationalist militancy, between science and policy, between
different disciplines. Today, disciplinary studies have gained momentum in recognizing
the shift from “internationality to internationalism” (Hofstetter, 2012, p.322) in the field
of knowledge production. The most important role for knowledge production is played by
universities and departments including faculty members and researchers who are likely to
suggest solutions for solving the problems faced by the individuals, communities, nations
and, world. The term studies as mentioned above are plural because of the idea of interaction
between disciplines (Klein, 1996, p.10; in Repko, 2012, p.11).
Academic disciplines are scholarly communities that specify which phenomenon to
study, advance certain central concepts and organizing theories, embrace certain methods
of investigation, provide forums for sharing research and insights, and offer career paths for
scholars. It is through their power over careers that disciplines are able to maintain these
strong preferences (Repko, 2012, p.4).
Discipline, according to Carter (2007; in Munar, Pernecky, & Feighery, 2016, p.344),
the academic discipline emerged in between 1750-1850. Each scientific discipline came to
be regarded as a distinctive field of experience, inquiry and practice sustained by regulatory
systems that identify and authorize the statements which comprise its domain of expertise
and legitimize its practitioners (Holmes, 2001, p.232; in Munar et al., 2016).

244 Journal of APF Command and Staff College (2025), 8(1), 238-287
As far as disciplinary is concerned, Darbellay (2020) mentions that any discipline is
characterized by an institutionalization/standardization of research and teaching practices in
a given scientific community, socially and historically located and governed by a paradigm
that defines the assumptions and the objectives of knowledge to be built. Discipline therefore
implies the institutional juxtaposition of several communities of specialists, divided into as
many faculties, departments and autonomous laboratories (p.237).
According to Repko (2012, p.5; Repko & Szostak, 2017, p.44), there are three broad
categories of traditional disciplines and they are: the natural sciences tell us what the world
is made of, describe how and what it is made of, structure into a complex network of
interdependent systems, and explain the behavior of a given localized system; the social
sciences seek to explain the human world and figure out how to predict and improve it; and
the humanities express human aspirations, interpret and assess human achievements and
experience, and seek layers of meaning and richness of detail in written texts, artifacts, and
cultural practices.
Applied and professional fields also occupy a prominent place in the modern academy.
These include business and its many fields such as finance, marketing and management,
communications (and its various subfields including advertising, speech, and journalism)
criminal justice and criminology, education, engineering, law, medicine, nursing, and
social work (Note: many of these applied and professional fields claim disciplinary status)
(Repko, 2012, pp. 5-6).
Oloruntimilehin (2020) discussed the various disciplines that are available today that
were not in existence in the past. The whole sum of knowledge was considered as a single
unit; however, this sum of knowledge was classified into different disciplines over some
time for different reasons and this classification is continuous and still ongoing. However,
in many discussions, disciplines are still treated critically as monolithic constructs also
called mono-discipline (single discipline and oldest discipline) (Klein, 2008, p.121). The
evolutionary process [according to Repko and Szostak (2017, p.23), the term process is used
rather than method. Process allows for greater flexibility and reflexivity, particularly when
working in the humanities] of disciplines as per Oloruntimilehin (2020) might have gone
through the following phases: knowledge accumulation, specialization and fragmentation
of knowledge, formation of novel disciplines, diversification and further specialization of
knowledge within the discipline, and formation of new disciplines, breaking of disciplinary
boundaries, and emergence of more specialized new disciplines.
They are Lawrence, Williams, Nanz, and Renn (2022, p.46) who highlighted
that 54 disciplines existed in the year 1950 and more than 8,000 disciplines in the year

Kunwar & Ulak : Understanding Disciplinarity and... 245
2000 (Lawrence et al., 2022; Nicolescu, 2014, p.21). In the course of doing disciplinary
research, scholars like Bardecki (2019, p.1180) have identified twelve disciplinaries-
multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, disciplinary, transdisciplinary, cross-disciplinary,
intradisciplinary, subdisciplinary, postdisciplinary, unidisciplinary, pluridisciplinary,
extradisciplinary, and metadisciplinary. It is Darbellay (2020, p.236) who has mentioned
hyperdisciplinarity as coined by Jantsch (1972), ulterdisciplinarity, paradisicplinarity, and
supradisicplinarity. Pickering (1993), Vickers (1998), and Repko (2012) have identified
antidiscipline (Pickering, 1993; Vickers, 1998), and Kelly (2007), and Veiga (2020) have
used indiscipline in their studies.
However, two different disciplines are frequently used in the disciplinarity studies;
they are crossdiscipline and postdiscipline. Crossdisciplinary refers to research and creative
practices that involve two or more academic disciplines working together. This encompasses
multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinarity (Oloruntimilehin, 2020). The benefits of cross-
disciplinary research are widely acknowledged in a variety of disciplines, linking it with
innovation, creative problem-solving, new meanings, and the ability to advance knowledge
with intellectual breakthroughs (Aboelela, Larson, Bakken, Carrasquillo, Formicola, Glied,
Haas, & Gebbie, 2007; Carayol & Thi, 2005; Choi & Pak, 2006; Morillo et al., 2003; Rafols
et al., 2012; in Dellaportas, Xu, & Yang, 2020, p.1). According to Dellaportas et al. (2020),
…cross-disciplinary research is more than bringing together theories or concepts from
distinct disciplines but is constructed on two key dimensions: the ‘integration’ dimension
(theories and methods) and the ‘interaction’ dimension (people and disciplines), in which
scholars from unrelated disciplines work together to create epistemological shifts. Svedin
et al. (1999; in Aagaard-Hansen, 2007) point out terminology as an important element of
assessing cross-disciplinary projects.
The next most frequently used disciplinary type is postdiscipline. The term
postdiscipline (Munar et al., 2016; Pernecky, 2020) is derived from prefix: from the Latin
‘post-‘, expressing and after, not only in space or time but also in some other way a different
new. Without making any value judgment on these approaches, the ‘post-‘particle evokes
its use in the notion of ‘postmodernism’ and ‘post-normal science’ (Funtowicz & Ravetz,
1993; Darbellay, 2020, p.240). Pernecky’s edited book Postdisciplinary Knowledge (2020)
(Part-1-3) includes “Being, Thinking, Doing”, “Doing, Thinking, Being”, “Thinking,
Being, Doing”, “ Making, Remaking, Demaking”(pp. 16-17).
Choi and Pak suggest that the phrase “multiple disciplinary” be used as a general
term “for when the nature of involvement of multiple disciplines is unknown or
unspecified” (2006). The term pluridisciplinary is substituted for multiple disciplinary to

246 Journal of APF Command and Staff College (2025), 8(1), 238-287
avoid confusing multiple disciplinary and multidisciplinary, which represent two distinct
forms of team members’ engagement and interaction. Pluridisciplinary serves not only as a
general term, but also as a rubric under which three forms or stages of teaming-multi, inter-,
and transdisciplinary- are encompassed (p.351)
Many of the methodological and epistemological differences are expressed in
different terms. In the cases where there are distinct jargons, this may pose an additional
hurdle to overcome. More subtly, however, there are sometimes varying meanings of the
same terms within different disciplinary discourses (Aagaard-Hansen, 2007).
Though the study focuses mainly on transdisciplinarity, multidisciplinarity, and
interdisciplinarity have been briefly described and followed the differences between three
different disciplines. Multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity have this in common: they
seek to overcome disciplinary monism (Repko, 2012, p.19). The key concepts that stand
out are multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity (Darbellay, 2005;
Huutoniemy, Thompson Klein, Bruunc, and Hukkinena, 2010; Piaget, 1972; in Darbellay,
2020, p.236).
There are many scholars (Darbellay, 2005; Huutoniemy, Thompson Klein, Bruunc &
Hukkinena, 2010; Mahan, 1970; Jantsch, 1972; Piaget, 1972; in Darbellay, 2020, p.236) who
have recognized the key concepts that stand out are multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity,
and transdisciplinarity. In the process of defining the key concepts of disciplinary studies,
Trees, Trees and Fry (2005a; in Stock & Burton, 2011) proposed such terminologies under
the umbrella of integrated research is used to define the concept, including collaborative,
integral, integrated, complementary, combined, participatory, transepistemic, system-
oriented, transprofessional, comprehensive, problem-oriented, cross-boundary, holistic,
multidisciplinary, cross-disciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary (p.3). The
terminologies as proposed by Trees et al. (2005a; in Stock & Burton, 2011) are widely
acceptable concepts and it attempts to clarify the scope of integrated research.
The following key concepts of disciplinarity as cited by Parker (2016, p.3) and Repko
(2008, pp. 171-178) are: Multidisciplinarity studies a topic from the perspective of several
disciplines at one time but makes no attempt to integrate their insights. Multidisciplinary
approaches tend to be dominated by the method and theory preferred by the home discipline
(Parker, 2016). Interdisciplinarity studies a complex problem by drawing on disciplinary
insights (and sometimes stakeholder views) and integrating them. By employing a research
process that subsumes the methods of the relevant disciplines, interdisciplinary work does
not privilege any particular disciplinary method or theory (Parker, 2016). Transdisciplinarity
concerns that which is at once between the disciplines, across different disciplines, and

Kunwar & Ulak : Understanding Disciplinarity and... 247
beyond all disciplines. Its goal is (a) the understanding of the present world, of which one
of the imperatives is the unity of knowledge, and (b) the solution of mega and complex
problems by drawing on and seeking to integrate disciplinary and stakeholder views on the
basis of some overarching theory (Parker, 2016).
Although the terms multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary are
often used interchangeably, it is worth establishing, as clearly as possible, some differences
in meaning. In order to establish and clarify these differences, the meaning of the prefixes
‘multi’, ‘inter’ and ‘trans’, when applied to the abstract noun ‘disciplinarity’. The words
disciplinary and disciplinarity are interchangeably used; however, disciplinarity should be
understood as an abstract noun (Alvargonzález, 2011, pp. 1-3).
The study of Alvargonzález (2011) shows that the prefix ‘multi’, from the Latin multus,
means ‘many’ (‘multimillion’), ‘much’, ‘multiple’ or ‘more than one’ (‘multiparous’). So,
multidisciplinarity refers to an activity associated with many, multiple, or more than one
existing discipline. The Latin prefix ‘inter’ means ‘among’, as in the word ‘international’,
or ‘together’, ‘mutually’ or ‘reciprocally’, as in the word ‘interchange’. The Latin prefix
‘trans’ means ‘across’, ‘beyond’ (as in ‘transoceanic’ or ‘transilient’), ‘transcending’ (as
in ‘transubstantiation’), ‘through’ (as in ‘transpiration’) and ‘change’ (for instance as in
‘transliterate’) (Alvargonzález, 2011), ‘on the far side of’ (Choi & Pak, 2006).
More than 25 years ago, Hattery (1979; in Porter, Roessner, Cohen, & Perreault, 2006)
observed that “interdisciplinary research has taken on continuously greater significance,
as a function of the complexity of societal and scientific problems insoluble by single
disciplines and single experts”. A few years later, Klein (1986; in Porter et al., 2006) stated
that “interdisciplinarity is an old concept, based as it is on such long-expressed values
as integration, synthesis, the unity of knowledge, and a community of scholars”. Boix
Mansilla (2005) defined the goal of interdisciplinary understanding as:
The capacity to integrate knowledge and modes of thinking in two or more
disciplines to produce a cognitive advancement—e.g., explaining a phenomenon,
solving a problem, creating a product, raising a new question—in ways that would
have been unlikely through single disciplinary means (p.4; in Dezure, 2017, p.559).
Klein (1986; in Porter et al., 2006) noted that there are many interdisciplinary
varieties, including general undergraduate education (core curricula), graduate education
(particular interdisciplinary topics such as systems theory), professional training in
integrative vocational contexts (medical school), and interdisciplinary fields of study
(women’s studies). According to Bernstein (2015), education itself, as a field that brings

248 Journal of APF Command and Staff College (2025), 8(1), 238-287
together all other subjects in the context of organized teaching and learning, must also
come into play in such a project.
In the research arena, interdisciplinary could pertain to problem-oriented studies
(environmental remediation), research centers (materials science), or new fields (highly
specialized—immunopharmacology, or quite broad—biochemistry). Professional attention
to Interdisciplinary Research (IDR) arose in the 1970s and flourished into the 1980s. As
Graff (2015; in Jacobs, 2017) has shown, the interdisciplinary roots of disciplines are evident
in the formation of fields spanning the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities
(Jacobs, 2017). The emergence of the social sciences during the 19th and first half of the 20th
century was influenced by the serious problems experienced by the country workers and
the industrial working class due to major economic, social, and political transformations
(Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2008, p.22). To deal with those problems, interdisciplinary studies
seems to be a process of answering a question, solving a problem, or addressing a topic that
is too broad or complex to be dealt with adequately by a single discipline or profession…
(Klein & Newell, 1997, pp. 393-394; in Zalanga, 2009, p.58).
In the 1950s seem to have been a time of retreat for interdisciplinarity. Elizabeth Bott
(2010) remarked that:
Ten years ago, interdisciplinary research was very much in vogue. But now its
value is often questioned, partly because it has proved difficult to coordinate
interdisciplinary group projects, partly because such projects have not always
produced the spectacular integration of results that was expected. Speaking of her
own experience, both went on to remark that interdisciplinary integration did not
come in the overall results. Further discussion will be followed. We have to know
about the ethnocentrism of disciplines…and fractal distinction (p.35).
Nissani (1995; Austin, Park, & Goble, 2008, p.561) has offered four criteria to rank
interdisciplinary richness: number of disciplines involved, distance between them, novelty
and creativity involved in combining disciplinary elements, and degree of integration.
Interdisciplines are conceptualized as hybridized knowledge fields situated between and
existing disciplines (Frickel, 2004, p.369; in Tanweer & Steinhoff, 2023, p.138) that share
a common objective of study (Darbellay, 2015, p.166; in Tanweer & Steinhoff, 2023).The
distinction between interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary is the integration of knowledge
and unity of knowledge.
Nissani (1995) in an attempt to make clear that three disciplines (monodiscipline or
unidiscipline, multidiscipline, and interdiscipline) are different in their nature. Accordingly,

Kunwar & Ulak : Understanding Disciplinarity and... 249
he develops a concept of ‘salad’. Here in this context, fruit (apple, mango, orange, etc.)
may be served alone (disciplinary), in a fruit salad (multidisciplinary), or blended as a
smoothie (interdisciplinary). Repko (2012, p.17) expanded the concept that the smoothie,
the metaphor of the smoothie, while limited, illustrates four essential characteristics of
interdisciplinary studies: the selection of fruits (i.e., the disciplines and their insights) is
not random but purposeful with the end product clearly in view; the blending of fruits
(i.e., the process of integration) changes the contribution of each fruit (i.e., disciplinary
insight) (Newwell, 1998, pp. 547-548; Repko, 2012, p.17); the smoothie (i.e., the result of
integration), compared to the ingredients used, is something new; and the activity involved
in creating the smoothie (i.e., the interdisciplinary process) is limited in time and space to
the research problem (Repko, 2012).
Extending this metaphor to transdisciplinarity, one might imagine using the smoothie
as the basis for the new dessert (Austin et al., 2008). This concept has been adopted by
scholars like Choi and Pak (2006, pp. 359-360) and Scmalz, Janke, and Payne (2019,
p.391). In considering the three definitions and their respective purposes, Choi and Pak
(2006) and Schmalz et al. (2019) further described the differences using food as an analogy.
In this instance, they likened multidisciplinarity to a salad (where different foods come
together but maintain distinct identity), interdisciplinarity to a melting pot like a stew
(where components are married to create something different but individual ingredients
are still identifiable), and transdisciplinarity to a cake (where ingredients are combined, but
the final product is something completely new and the ingredients are, for the most part,
indistinguishable).
While clarifying the differences between disciplinarity, multidiscipline, interdiscipline,
and transdiscipline, Max-Neef (2005) states that disciplinarity is featured by specialization
in isolation. According to Choi and Pak (2006) and Miller (2016, p.39), multidisciplinary
is attributed to additive that draws on multiple disciplines but stays within disciplinary
boundaries; interdisciplinary is attributed to integrative that analyzes, synthesizes,
harmonizes links into a coordinated coherent whole; and transdisciplinary is attributed
to holistic/transcendent that subordinates disciplines, looks at the dynamics of the
whole system. In the same line, Klein (2017, p.22) has also distinguished between
the the aforementioned three disciplinarities. Accordingly, Klein (2017) focuses on
multidisciplinarity characterized by juxtaposing, sequencing, and coordinating meaning
‘no cooperation’ (Max-Neef, 2005); interdisciplinarity focuses on interacting, integrating,
focusing, blending, and linking, meaning ‘coordination from higher-level concepts’ (Max-
Neef, 2005), ‘communication and collaboration across academic disciplines’ (Jacobs
& Frickel, 2009; p.44; in Tanweer & Steinhoff, 2024, p.137); and transdisciplinarity is

250 Journal of APF Command and Staff College (2025), 8(1), 238-287
attributed to transcending, transgressing, and transforming. In a nutshell, Darbellay (2020,
p.237) distinguishes between interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary which focus on ‘what
is between’ and ‘what is beyond,’ respectively. Likewise, transdisciplinary research occurs
when the collaborative process is taken one step further, often spontaneously emerging
from interdisciplinary research when discipline-transcending concepts, terminology, and
methods evolve to create a higher-level framework and a fundamental epistemological shift
occurs (Max-Neef, 2005; Giri, 2002; in Austin et al., 2008). This step requires mutual
interpretation of disciplinary knowledge (Gibbons, Limoges, Nowotny, Schwartzman,
Scott, & Trow, 1994; Austin et al., 2008) and a coherent reconfiguration of the situation.
Klein (1990; pp. 40–48; in Yazici, 2016) explains interdisciplinarity means
the overt or covert interaction of disciplines to enrich and change their theoretical
frameworks in the face of the complexity of questions. However, transdisciplinarity
means the overt interaction of disciplines for humanitarian ends. Accordingly, it can
be claimed that both approaches are integrative, but their goals are different from each
other (Yazici, 2016, p.223).
The discourse of transdisciplinarity in the twenty-first century has opened up to
consider more intersubjective, participatory, and subjective approaches, from qualitative,
participatory and subjective approaches, from qualitative, ethnographic, and action research
to personal anecdotes, refection, narrative studies and in the case of Montuori (2008,
2012a, 2013), autoethnography (self-theory practice) and personal history (Augsburg,
2014, p.244).
Both disciplinarity and transdisciplinarity has been studied by many different
scholars of different disciplines globally. The question arises that what is disciplinarity
and transdisciplinarity in general? How disciplinarity could be understood as the new
knowledge production in the academia? The main objective of this study is to understand
disciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in better way through the excavation of available
literatures to grasp the knowledge found in global brain. It is firmly believed that the
outcome of this study will be useful to the policy makers, researchers, academics,
government, planners, organizations and students. This study includes introduction, review
of literature, methodology, transdisciplinarity, types of transdisciplinarity, two domains of
transdisciplinarity studies, knowledge integration, transdisciplinary education, boundary-
work and border-work, hybridization, social engagement, tamed and wicked problems, real
world problem, life-world problem, complexity of problems and conclusion. The whole
sub-headings after methodology are included under the umbrella of review of literature.
The authors were highly inspired to work on this subject through the study of Mode 2 and

Kunwar & Ulak : Understanding Disciplinarity and... 251
transdisciplinary approach developed by Gibbons et al. (1994; Kunwar, 2018; Kunwar &
Ulak, 2023, 2024).
Review of Literature
The term review is used to refer to the whole process of bringing together a body of evidence
(literature) that can be drawn from research and other sources (Mays, Pope, & Popay, 2005,
p.7). An effective and well-conducted review of research methods creates a firm foundation
for advancing knowledge and facilitating theory development (Webster & Watson, 2002; in
Snyder, 2019, p.333). It can also help to provide an overview of areas in which the research
is disparate and interdisciplinary. In addition, a literature review is an excellent way of
synthesizing research findings to show evidence on a meta-level and to uncover areas in
which more research is needed (Snyder, 2019). In this study, the present authors adopted
narrative review which is unsystematic in its nature and has no specified search strategy or
specific protocol as such; only a topic of interest has been overviewed. Therefore, this is a
simple review paper that tries to explore disciplinarity and transdisciplinarity domains. The
researchers, however, made attempts to review important literature based on knowledge,
theory, and paradigms (Kuhnian model) within the framework of a review of literature. A
review article can serve as a platform for future research (Paul & Criado, 2020).
“Science as prediction has been distinguished from science as observation here
because public policy generally demands from science prediction rather than observation.
And since science is generally less proficient in predicting than it is in observing, public
policy often asks of science more than science can give” (Weinberg, 1977, p.349). Probably
the best-known, simple and the short definition of public policy has been offered by Thomas
Dye (1972), ‘anything a government chooses to do or not to do’ (p.2; in Howlett & Cashore,
2014, p.17).
According to Pohl, Truffer, and Hirsch Hadorn (2017, p.321), from 1966 until 2014,
450 publications on the transdisciplinarity topic have been traced so far. The search on this
was performed through Web of Science on January 16, 2015 (http://www.transdisciplinarity.
ch/en/td-net/Literatur/Publicationsradar.html).
Mahan (1970) goes further than Jantsch (1972), whom he does not cite, criticizing
both the compartmentalization of the traditional disciplines and ideals of detachment
and aloofness associated with disciplinary inquiry. Mahan’s study of the literature in the
philosophy of the social sciences indicates that although transdisciplinarity may have been
a new term, the concerns giving rise to such a notion were already present as undercurrents
in the writings of the mid-twentieth century scholars he cites. Although he does not provide

252 Journal of APF Command and Staff College (2025), 8(1), 238-287
a concise definition of transdisciplinarity, the following gives a sense of what he thinks it
means and how it can improve the quality of academic work (Mahan, 1970, pp. 194-195;
in Bernstein, 2015).
While reviewing transdisciplinarity, Bernstein (2015) comments that the need for
transdisciplinary research to integrate knowledge has frequently been mentioned as a
goal by those developing theory in this area. In this regard, Burger and Kamber (2003; in
Bernstein, 2015) write of the integration of knowledge at the problem level, the research
level, and the solution level. Given the highly abstract level of these discussions, it is hard
to know how such integration of knowledge would work in practice (p.11).
As far as trasndisciplinarity is concerned, there has been studies made by important
thinkers, especially in recent years (Gibbs, 2015; Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2008; Klein, 2008;
Leavy, 2011; Nicolescu, 2002; in Mylonakou-Keke, 2015, p.1891), thinkers who come
from various disciplines. These studies have contributed significantly to the theoretical
foundation of transdisciplinarity, its epistemological and methodological dimensions, its
research potential, and its practical applications (Mylonakou-Keke, 2015) that is connected
to the key objective of the transdisciplinary research integrating scientific and experiential
knowledge, which is based on the concept “science with society” (khokhobaia, 2018).
There is a shifting knowledge context in contemporary society that implies changing
roles of certain educational institutions such as universities (Apostel et al., 1972; in
Alvargonzález, 2011, p.22). Certain authors suppose that, to respond to new educative
demands, transdisciplinarity has a wide potential: it includes problem focus, evolving
methodology, and collaboration between different people and institutions. The triple
helix relationship, university-industry-government, is an example of a new collaboration
framework between institutions (Etzkowitz et al., 1997; Russell et al., 2008; Alvargonzález,
2011; Kunwar & Ulak, 2023, 2024). As somebody has said, ‘The world has problems,
but universities have departments’. Hence, universities have to evolve and adapt to new
requirements (Brewer, 1999, pp. 329-332; Pohl, 2010, p.66; Alvargonzález, 2011, p.22).
The transdisciplinary approach is a versatile approach that can be applied to any
field of study (Sharia & Sitchinava, 2023). Transdisciplinary approaches are recognized as
effective methods of studying complex issues in modern scientific and educational fields. A
specific research design can be selected based on the specifics of a particular research issue
in different disciplines. This approach is close to the following concepts: case study, citizen
science, cooperative education, critical thinking, design thinking, sustainable development,
indigenous knowledge, knowledge transfer, learning in transformation, participatory
action research, performative knowledge, real-world lab, research integrity, research-based
education, science communication and so on (Khokhobaia, 2018).

Kunwar & Ulak : Understanding Disciplinarity and... 253
They were Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn (2008, p.112) who used a term problem field in
transdisciplinarity research and a starting point for transdisciplinary research which is socially
relevant. Augusburg (2014) mentions that transdisciplinarity as a research approach addresses
complex societal problems such as those related to sustainability. Sustainability as a popular
model has become a part of transdisciplinary studies too. Brandt, Ernst and Gralla et al. (2013)
identified five key challenges to undertaking transdisciplinary approaches to sustainability
science: 1) lack of coherent framing; 2) integration of methods; 3) research process and
knowledge production; 4) practitioners’ engagement; and 5) generating impact (p.1).
Transdisciplinarity offers a different philosophy and approach, both of how to
effectively address issues/problems and how to improve and change difficult situations
that have been experienced in the modern world, in different and multiple levels of
reality and under conditions of complexity and uncertainty. Addressing these problems,
transdisciplinarity achieves dynamic collaboration and integration of disciplines,
epistemologies, and methodologies (Mylonakau-Keke, 2015). Recently, Mylonakau-Keke
published an article shortly entitled “The Emergence of Syn-epistemic Wholeness”…(2015,
pp. 1890-1907), in which dialectic synergy and Syn-epistemic concept are highlighted in
the context of studying transdisciplinary research proposing Syn-epistemic as an alternative
to transdisciplinarity.
The word ‘Synergy’ is comprised of the concepts of: harmonious collaboration,
mutuality, coordination of synchronization, common interest, and dynamic state. The
dialectic synergy involves the dynamics among continuous interactions and collaborations
among situations, such as Functional interaction, Ongoing feedback, Mutual reinforcement,
Co-creation, Collaborative action and “Co-evolution” (Co-development). The dialectic
synergies taking place in the Transdisciplinary Social Pedagogic Model result in Syn-
epistemic Wholeness. This term consists of: (a) the compound word “Syn-epistemic”,
whose prefix syn [a Greek preposition meaning “along with” and is mainly used as a first
component of compound words (‘synthesis’-according to Mays et al. (2005), the term
synthesis is used to refer to the stage of a review when the evidence extracted from the
individual sources is brought together in some way.)] and the adjective epistemic, [the
Greek adjective epistēmikós derives from the Greek word epistḗm(ē): knowledge, science],
thus relating knowledge to science; and (b) the noun wholeness, which means an entirety,
a whole which, according to ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle “the whole is greater than
the sum of the parts” (Metaphysics) (Mylonakou-Keke, 2015, p.1902).
Such a focus on reconceptualizing knowledge for the age of global markets, especially
in terms of how it is produced, including that of Gibbons et al. (1994),
is strengthened

254 Journal of APF Command and Staff College (2025), 8(1), 238-287
by recent statements that a new post-epistemological conceptual framework is needed to
understand knowledge since the conditions taken for granted by traditional epistemologists
no longer apply to today’s networked, globalized, postmodern, neoliberal environment
(Allen, 2004, Harris, 2009, Weinberger, 2011). Post-epistemology and transdisciplinarity
share several characteristics, according to López-Huertas (in Bernstein, 2015, p.12): a)
sensitivity to social demands and social welfare; b) the resurrection of the subject as a
reaction to . . . classical ideas about it and about knowledge (a reification of the subject and
knowledge); and c) the criticism of . . . how nature and reality are conceptualized. (López-
Huertas, 2013, p.403; in Bernstein, 2015).
Recently, Pechlaner and Philipp (2024) have focused on wicked problems through
integrated policy-making approach where a variety of global developments, crises and
trends keep having massive impacts on our world- not only, but particularly since the
beginning of the 21st century (Hill & Prossek, 2012; in Pechlaner & Philipp, 2024,
p.288). Climate change, poverty, health, migration, security, technological developments,
and digitalization are the discussions about the role of artificial intelligence as a current
peak- diverse topics and contexts that are often summarized under the same concise term:
global megatrends. Global megatrends are complex dynamics of change that describe the
development and change of the world and have impacts on society, science, economy,
and politics (Petersen, 2022; in Pechlaner & Philipp, 2024). As a result, wicked problems
are created in different areas and contexts. Wicked problems are now lively discussed in
a wide range of economic sectors, academic disciplines, and political domains (Head,
2022; Pechlaner & Philipp, 2024).
Overall, the study connects to the terms ‘strategic research’ and ‘strategic science’
that appear in a variety of sources. This is very closely related to policy study (Irvine &
Martin, 1984; in Hessels & van Lente, 2008) and the strategic research is defined as: ‘basic
research carried out with the expectation that it will produce a broad base of knowledge
likely to form the background to the solution of recognized current or future practical
problems’ (Hessels & van Lente, 2008).
Research Methodology
This study is based on secondary sources in which the available literatures are reviewed. It is
an extensive unsystematic review of works carried out by research scholars of disciplinarity
and the transdisciplinarity research for the purpose of understanding academic knowledge
in a better way. This study is not a commercial project and the authors decided to work on
their own to understand disciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in a better way.

Kunwar & Ulak : Understanding Disciplinarity and... 255
The majority of the researchers seemed to be following global research methodology
along with disciplinary research-based methodology. As far as transdisciplinary research is
concerned, it is a new integrated disciplinary theory. Transdisciplinarity as a new study in
academia will automatically encourage the researchers to explore whether they have their
own methodological domains or not. In this regard, Nicolescu (2010) wrote, in the absence
of a methodology, transdisciplinary would be just talking and empty discourse and therefore,
a short-term living fashion (p.21). While writing about methodology on transdisciplinary
studies, Nicolescu (2002, p.122; in Leavy, 2011, p.71) writes the transdisciplinary method
does not replace the methodology of each discipline, which remains as it is. Instead of the
transdisciplinary method enriching each of these disciplines by bringing them new and
indispensable insights, which cannot be produced.
This study demands comparing methods for cross-disciplinary research. In this
regard, O’Rourke (2017, p.276) highlights how a survey of the methods of interdisciplinary
and transdisciplinary research supports the suggestion that they are “fragmented,” that is
distributed in unconnected ways across the intellectual landscape (Bammer, 2013a; in
O’Rourke, 2017). Therefore, research is only one mode of cross-disciplinary activity as
many education and training programs are cross-disciplinary in nature as they are based
on the context of practical as well as problem-solving that excludes a research component
and often exhibits cross-disciplinary. Bammer (2013) identifies six categories of concepts
and methods, and they are: “system view, scoping, boundary setting, framing, values, and
harnessing and managing differences” (p.30; in O’Rourke, 2017, p.283).
Leavy (2011) summarizes transdisciplinary as using any number of research
methods designed to address the issue or problem at hand, including traditional qualitative
or quantitative methods, hybrid methods, cross-disciplinary methods, multi-methods,
mixed methods (p.70) including social network analysis, extended case method and
participatory research methods (van Manen, 2001; in Leavy, 2011), ethnomethodology and
action research, problem structuring methods or methodological bricolage (Pohl & Hirsch
Hadorn, 2008; Horlick-Jones & Rosenheads, 2007, p.595).
Transdisciplinarity
Petrie (1992; in Evans, 2014) writes about transdisciplinarity as “the notion of
transdisciplinarity exemplifies one of the historically important driving forces in the area
of interdisciplinarity, namely, the idea of the desirability of the integration of knowledge
into some meaningful whole”. The terms ‘‘transdisciplinary’’ and ‘‘transdisciplinarity’’
have a 50-year history (Jantsch, 1970; Jantsch, 1972; Piaget, 1972; in Lawrence et al.,
2022, p.46). Transdisciplinary endeavors set out to create synthesis between disciplines
(Aboelela et al., 2006).

256 Journal of APF Command and Staff College (2025), 8(1), 238-287
The origins of “transdisciplinarity” can be traced back to the work of education
theorists in the 1960s and 1970s in response to the perceived inadequacy of the terms multi-
and interdisciplinarity in representing new forms of theory and research which transcended
discipline-specific knowledge (Nicolescu, 2002; in Bardecki, 2019). Transdisciplinarity
was first defined during an international conference on interdisciplinarity that took place
in Paris (University of Nice) and was jointly sponsored by the Organization of Economic
Corporation and Development (OECD) (Bernstein, 2015) in 1970 as “a common system
of axioms for a set of disciplines” (Klein, 2004, p.515; Augsburg, 2014, p.233; Apostel et
al., 1972; Kocklemans, 1979; McGregor, 2015, p.10), by psychologist Jean Piaget (1972),
Mathematician André Lichnerowicz (1972), and astrophysicist Erich Jantsch, an Austrian
thinker (1972). Of the three definitions, Jantsch’s became the most influential with much of
the subsequent scholarship on transdisciplinarity.
While defining transdisciplinarity approach, Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn (2007, p.70;
2008, p.29) write that there are about four core concerns which show up in definitions
of transdisciplinarity or related terms: 1) First the focus on life-world problems; 2) the
transcending and integrating of transdisciplinary paradigms; 3) participatory research; and
4) the search for unity of knowledge beyond disciplines.
In transdisciplinarity, the traditional boundaries of disciplinary research are
transcended to converge inherently different disciplines to form a new unified framework
beyond the discipline. The goal of transdisciplinarity is to have an understanding of the
present world through the unifying of knowledge and the solution of mega and complex
problem by drawing on and seeking to integrate disciplinary and stakeholder views based
on some overarching theory (Oloruntimilehin, 2020). Transdisciplinarity “represents the
highest form of integration”; it involves “the application of cross-disciplinary concepts as
well as scholars from multiple disciplines to combine knowledge and skill from diverse
disciplinary domains” (Dellaportas et al., 2022; Oloruntimilehin, 2020). Multidisciplinarity
and interdisciplinarity have this in common: they seek to overcome disciplinary monism.
“Transdisciplinarity is perhaps above all a new way of thinking about, and engaging in,
inquiry” (Bernstein, 2015, p.1). Transdisciplinarity integrates the natural, social, and health
sciences in a humanities context and transcends their traditional boundaries. […] (Choi &
Pak, 2006, p.351, 359). Transdisciplinarity remains “a rather elusive concept that continues
to evolve (Jahn, Bergmann, & Keil, 2012, p.1; McGregor, 2015).
Transdisciplinary research discusses about problem and solution approach. The
starting point for transdisciplinary research is a socially relevant problem field. A problem
field (violence, hunger, poverty, disease, environmental pollution) refers to an issue in the
life world. Problem fields are socially relevant when those involved have a major stake in

Kunwar & Ulak : Understanding Disciplinarity and... 257
the issue, when there is a societal interest in improving the situation, and when the issue is
under dispute (Pohl & Hirsch Hadorn, 2008, p.112). Transdisciplinary research deals with
the problem fields as per Pohl & Hirsh Hadorn (2007, p.20) that it can: grasp the complexity
of the issue, take the diverse perspectives on the issue into account including life-world and
scientific perceptions of problems, link abstract and case-specific knowledge, and develop
knowledge and practices that promote what is perceived to be the common good (Pohl &
Hirsch Hadorn, 2007; Pohl, 2010; Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2008).
Conceived as a concept in the early seventies (Apostel et al., 1972; Kocklemans,
1979; in McGregor, 2015, p.10), it has only just recently gained momentum and grudging
acceptance as a necessary paradigmatic, methodological and intellectual innovation. The
definitions of transdisciplinarity usually propose a progression from multidisciplinarity
through interdisciplinary to transdisciplinarity. In transdisciplinarity, the whole system is
oriented around an overall purpose like “progress” or “ecological balance”. For Rosenfield
(1992; in Pohl, 2010), the progression lies in the shared conceptual framework. The
words transdisciplinarity and transdisciplinary, with their basic meanings involving
transcending the established framework of traditional academic disciplines (Kessel &
Rosenfield, 2008; in Berstein, 2015, p.5; Jantsch, 1970; Jantsch, 1972; Piaget, 1972;
Mahan, 1970; in Lawrence et al., 2022, p.46). Transdisciplinarity definitions included the
roots in the “unity of knowledge” a book written by J.B. Jeffrey (1950; Scholz, 2020; in
Lawrence et al., 2022).
Unity of knowledge was first coined by Nicolescu in 1996. Its goal is the understanding
of the present world. Oloruntimilehin (2020) highlighted four points of transdisciplinarity
which are: crosses disciplinary and scientific/academic boundaries; common goal setting;
integration of disciplines and non-academic participants; and development of integrated
knowledge and theory among science and society (Rainsford, 2009; in Oloruntimilehin,
2020). The quest for unity continued in movements such as Transcendentalism, the unity
of science and theory of consilience (Wilson, 1998; Klein, 2014, p.69). Consilience: The
Unity of Knowledge is a 1998 book that discusses methods that have been used to unite
the sciences and might in the future unite them with the humanities. This book defines
consilience as “literally a jumping together” of knowledge by the linking of facts and fact-
based theory across disciplines to create a common ground work of explanation (Wilson,
1998). Consilience as a theory reflects to the unity of knowledge achieved by connecting
different fields such as natural sciences, social sciences and arts (Wilson, 1998).
Lawrence et al. (2022, p.47) have compiled 16 widely varying definitions from
the literature of the last half century. The whole 16 definitions are grouped into ‘unity of

258 Journal of APF Command and Staff College (2025), 8(1), 238-287
knowledge’ transdisciplinarity and ‘social engagement’ transdisciplinarity (Lawrence et
al., 2022, p.48). Transdisciplinarity is a reflexive research approach that addresses societal
problems by means of interdisciplinary collaboration as well as the collaboration between
researchers and extra-scientific actors; its aim is to enable mutual learning processes
between science and society; integration is the main cognitive challenge of the research
process (Jahn et al., 2012, p.4).
In course of studying unity of knowledge, Lawrence et al. (2022) identified seven key
characteristics, they are: 1) a focus on theoretical unity of knowledge, in an effort to transcend
disciplinary boundaries; 2) the inclusion of multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary academic
research; 3) the involvement of (non-academic) societal actors as process participants; 4)
a focus on specific, complex, societally relevant, real-world situations or problems; 5)
working in a transformative manner, i.e., going beyond the focus on real-world problems
to proactively support action or intervention; 6) an orientation toward the common good
(including the betterment of society and a humanistic reverence for life and human dignity
that qualifies on “social systems, institutions, and environments” as mentioned by Pohl and
Hirsch Hadorn (2007, 2008); and 7) reflexivity, i.e., consciously contemplating the broader
context and ensuring the compatibility of the project’s components and tasks throughout
the course of the project (p.47).
Russell, Wickson, and Carew (2008) noticed that transdisciplinarity “is a practice,
not an institution” (p.470; in Jahn et al., 2012, p.2) and Klein (2004) states that it is
“simultaneously an attitude and a form of action” (p.521; in Jahn et al., 2012). According
to Miller et al. (2008; in Jahn et al., 2012), Russell et al. (2008) and Klein (2004) proposed
their views on transdisciplinarity “epistemological pluralism” which stresses on internal
reflexivity as an essential part of transdisciplinarity research (Jahn et al., 2012).
Basically scholars describe the structure of transdisciplinary research (the research
project is the system build by the collaborative research process (Pohl & Hirsch Hadorn,
2008), project as a system (the element of the system are the problem field, researchers
from particular discipline and actors of governmental and other public institutions, the
private sector, the civil society or another sector of society). In transdisciplinary research,
the order of the phases and the amount of resources dedicated to each phase depend on the
kind of problem under investigation and on the state of knowledge (Pohl & Hirsch Hadorn,
2008, pp. 34-35; Pohl & Hirsch Hadorn, 2008, p.112). Such kind of project is called as
a system. The elements of the system are: the problem field, researchers from particular
disciplines and actors of governmental and other public institutions, the private sector, the

Kunwar & Ulak : Understanding Disciplinarity and... 259
civil society or another sector of society. The term ‘system’ refers to the interaction of these
elements during the research process, namely by discussing what the problem is about,
by investigating the problem, by deliberating about values and goals and by developing
strategies and measures to address the problem (Pohl & Hirsch Hadorn, 2007, p.20; Pohl et
al., 2017, p.324; Pohl & Hirsch Hadorn, 2008, p.143). According to Jantsch (1972, p.103),
the term “system” basically means that the emphasis of an analysis shifts from the elements
to the way they interact (Jantsch, 1972, p.103). Ison (2008, p.247) has added inverted
commas to the verbs such as “discussing”, “investigating”, “deliberating” , & “developing”
to which Ison (2008) has coined the term systems praxeology, including understanding
research practice as a particular systemic dynamic.
Systems thinking as a term introduced by Meadows et al. (1972; Pohl & Hirsch Hadorn,
2008) connected to environmental or sustainability research through the world model. They
modeled the development of the world as interactions between resource usage, population
growth, pollution, and economic and agricultural growth. Checkland (1994; in Pohl & Hirsch
Hadorn, 2008) supplemented this hard systems thinking with soft systems thinking. Both
differ in the way they qualify the model’s relation to the life-world: in hard systems thinking
the models are models of the world; in the soft systems thinking the models are “models
which embody a particular stated way of viewing the world” (Checkland, 1985, p.764; in
Pohl & Hirsch Hadorn, 2008). As a consequence, the challenges of integrating perspectives in
soft systems thinking are different from the challenges of integrating findings from different
disciplines in a model of the world. This invites understanding what system thinking is. In
this regard, Meadows et al. (1972; in Pohl & Hirsch Hadorn, 2008, p.114) introduce systems
thinking to environmental or sustainability research through the world model. Checkland
(1994; in Pohl & Hirsch Hadorn, 2008) categorized system thinking into ‘hard and soft
system’. Both differ in the way they qualify the model’s relation to the life-world: in hard
system thinking the models are models of the world; in the soft systems thinking the models
are “models which embody a particular stated way of viewing the world”.
The way they conduct the research is known as teamwork. According to Lorimer and
Manion (1996; in Chi & Pak, 2006, p.357), ”a team is a small number of consistent people
committed to a relevant shared purpose, with common performance goals, complementary
and overlapping skills, and a common approach to their work”. In this kind of study the
research team may organize its collaboration as common group learning, deliberation among
experts or integration by a sub-group or individual (Rossini & Porter, 1979; in Pohl & Hirsch
Hadorn, 2008, p.115). It is important to know about common group learning which means
that integration takes place as a learning process of the whole group. According to Austin

260 Journal of APF Command and Staff College (2025), 8(1), 238-287
et al. (2008, p.559), ‘teamwork is not magic, and simply ‘getting along’ or communicating
information to one another does not constitute collaboration’ (Hinojosa et al., 2001, p.210;
in Austin et al., 2008). Collaborative research whether multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary
or transdisciplinary, has openness to a multiplicity of perspectives that holds significant
promise for research teams (Austin et al., 2008).
It is noteworthy to highlight three arguments based on collaboration and interface
between disciplinary groups that incorporates both strengths and weaknesses forwarded by
Stember (1990, p.1) and adopted and modified by Manolakelli (2022) that focuses mainly
on intellectual, practical and educational perspectives. From an intellectual perspective,
ideas in many fields can be improved and furthered by theories, concepts and methods from
other fields. From practical perspective, the problems our world is facing at the moment are
not organized according to academic disciplines and continue to be increasingly complex,
messy and interconnected. From educational perspective, interdisciplinary studies are now
mainstream requirements and take many forms. Öberg (2011; in Parker, 2016, p.3) uses
the term transacademic to describe work that involves both academic and non-academic
participants.
Max-Neef (2005) sees “transdisciplinarity, more than a new discipline or super-
discipline is, actually, a different manner of seeing the world, more systematic and more
holistic” (p.15) requiring the breakdown of epistemological (science of science) barriers
not only among disciplines but also at the level of institutional arrangements (Bardecki,
2019, p.1181).
Types of Transdisciplinarity
While studying the transdisciplinarity approach, the scholars have made effort to develop
typology of transdisciplinarity. It is Max-Neef (2005; Stock & Burton, 2011) who classified
transdisciplinarity into two types and three types by Nicolescu (2008). Max-Neef’s (2005)
typology reveals that there are “weak transdisciplinarity” (following traditional method
and logic) and “strong transdisciplinarity” (models of reasoning-rational and relational i.e.,
non-linear). While describing the importance of transdisciplinarity before indicating his
typology, Nicolescu’s (2008) writes, “we can arrive in a formulation of transdisciplinarity
that is both unified and universe; unity in diversity and diversity through unity is inherent to
transdisciplinarity. Nicolescu’s (2008) three typologies are: theoretical transdisciplinarity,
a phenomenological transdisciplinarity, and an experimental transdisciplinarity”(p.12). As
Nicolescu (2008, pp. 12-13) including Michael Gibbons, Helga Nowotny, Jean Piaget and
Edgar Morin emphasizes that a theoretical transdisciplinarity is a concept of the human life-

Kunwar & Ulak : Understanding Disciplinarity and... 261
world and lived meanings. A phenomenological transdisciplinarity emphasizes on “models
connecting the theoretical principles with the already observed experimental data, in order
to predict further results and an experimental transdisciplinarity emphasizes a large number
of experimental data collected not only within the framework of knowledge production, but
also in fields such as education, psychoanalysis, the treatment of pain in terminal diseases,
drug addiction, art, literature, history of religions, and so forth (Nicolescu, 2008). According
to Jacobs (2017), a field may be regarded as a discipline when professors with specified
credentials are typically hired to conduct research and teach students in a particular domain.
This definition focuses on the social organization of a field and makes no direct claims
about its internal coherence or boundaries, although some degree of intellectual integration
is needed before a field can become institutionalized. All fields are intellectual amalgams
with ideas, metaphors, and methods borrowed from other domains.
Two Domains of Transdisciplinary Studies
As far as two domains are concerned, one has been dominated by the French scholars and
another dominated by Swiss, Zurich or German school. The French school of thought is pre-
dominated by physicists Basarab Nicolescu and another philosopher named Edgar Morin
popularly known as the Nicolescuian transdisciplinarity. Nicolescu (2010, pp. 18-19) opined
that the inclusion of the meaning “beyond disciplines” in 1985 and developed this idea over
the years in articles, books, and various official international documents. A key date in this
development is 1994, when the Charter of Transdisciplinarity was adopted by participants at
the First World Congress of Transdisciplinarity (Convento da Arrbida, Portugal).
Nicolescu (2002; in McGregor, 2015) describes transdisciplinarity as multidimensional
and supported by the following three pillars (Philosophical axioms): a) Knowledge as
complex and emergent (epistemology); b) Multiple levels of reality mediated by the Hidden
Third (Ontology); and, c) the logic of the included middle, which contrast with classical
exclusive logic (Nicolescu, 2008; McGregor, 2015). Nicolescuian transdisciplinarity is
complexity (Nicolescu, 2010). He believes that complexity is a modern form of ancient
principle of universal interdependence, in that “everything is dependent on everything else,
everything is connected, nothing is separated” (Nicolescu 2004; in McGregor, 2015).
As far as Nicolescuian theory is concerned, Nicolescu (2005, 2008, 2010, 2012,
2014) has proposed three axioms as a new research methodology. Axioms are understood
as principles or pillars in transdisciplinary studies. Nicolescu (2005, p.5) highlights that
the most important achievement of transdisciplinarity in present times is, of course,
the formulation of the methodology which is accepted and applied by researchers. The

•Transcendent TD Knowledge is complex, emergent, embodied (co-owned
by those who jointly create it) and cross-fertilized
•
TD knowledge is alive, open, always “in-formation” and is created from
intellectual fusion and integrative synergy
•The wicked problem is alive and it and the people change as the try to
jointly solve it using emergent (likely conflicting) understandings
•Logic of the Included Middle- inclusive logic accommodates empty, non-
existent or potentially existent worlds (unlikely integration of realities)
•Included middle is a fertile space in constant flux and regeneration where
new knowledge is co-created as people pass through their resistance to
different perspectives
•Tensions are assumed to hold things together as they emerge through
chaos (order emerging, just not predictably)
•Multiple Realities organized into three levels (TD Subject, TD Object and
the Hidden Third)- no more dualism
•The Integration of these multiple perspectives is mediated by the Hidden
Third; what appears to be contradictory can temporarily be joined for
New TD insights and integrated knowledge
•This perspective integration happens in the quantum vacuum, which is
full of potential and possibilities
262 Journal of APF Command and Staff College (2025), 8(1), 238-287
axiomatic character of the transdisciplinarity methodology is an important aspect. Three
axioms of the transdisciplinarity methodology are: 1) The ontological axiom: There are, in
Nature and in our knowledge of Nature, different levels of Reality and, correspondingly,
different levels of perception; 2) The logical axiom: The passage from one level of Reality
to another is insured by the logic of the included middle; and 3) The complexity axiom: The
structure of the totality of levels of Reality or perception is a complex structure: every level
is what it is because all the levels exist at the same time (Nicolescu, 2005).
Figure 1
Three Axioms of Transdisciplinary Methodology
Source: McGregor (2014, p.207; here the term TD refers to Transdisciplinarity)
The first two get their experimental evidence from quantum physics, but they go well
beyond exact sciences. The last one has its source not only in quantum physics but also
in a variety of other exact and human sciences. All three are in agreement with traditional
thinking, present on the earth from the beginning of historical times. Axioms cannot be
demonstrated: they are not theorems. They have their roots in experimental data and
theoretical approaches and their validity is judged by the results of their applications. If the
results are in contradiction with experimental facts, they have to be modified or replaced
(Nicolescu, 2005).
Nicolescu also wrote frequently about levels of Reality—subjectivity, objectivity,
and what he called “The Hidden Third between the subject and the object” (Nicolescu,
2012; Bernstein, 2015). The Hidden Third is basic apophatic feature of the future unified

Kunwar & Ulak : Understanding Disciplinarity and... 263
knowledge. This is new brain of knowledge (Nicolescu, 2006; in Nicolescu, 2012). The
Hidden Third is an interaction term which allows the unification of the transdisciplinary
Subject and the transdisciplinary Object while preserving their difference (Nicolescu,
2012). Peirce’s (1976; in Nicolescu, 2012) view on Reality totally corresponds to the
transdisciplinary view on Reality.
Nicolescu (2012) as cited by McGregor (2015) identified 10 Realities which are
organized along three levels. Level one is the internal world of humans, where consciousness
and perspectives flow – the TD-Subject (comprising four Realties: political, social, historical,
and individual). Level two is the external world of humans where information flows – the
TD-Object (comprising three different Realities: environmental, economic, and cosmic/
planetary). Peoples’ experiences, intuitions, interpretations, descriptions, representations,
images, and formulas meet on this third level (p.15).
In order to avoid any ambiguity, Nicolescu (1985, 2000; in Nicolescu, 2012) defines
“reality” in a sense which is used by scientists, namely in terms of “resistence” (p.15).
Nicolescu suggests distinguishing between the words “Real” and “Reality”, “Real”
designating which is, while “Reality” is connected to resistance in our human experience.
The “Real” is by definition veiled for ever (it does not tolerate any further qualifications)
while “Reality” is accessible to our knowledge. Real involves non-resistance while reality
involves resistance (Nicolescu, 2012). According to Nicolescu (2012, p.26), a unified
theory of levels of Reality is crucial in building sustainable development and sustainable
futures. The individual level of Reality, the spiritual level of Reality and the cosmic level
of Reality are completely ignored. Reality depends on us. Reality is plastic.
When it comes to Swiss camp, transdisciplinarity was promoted by two initiatives
of environmental research in the early 1990s: The scientific journal GAIA- Ecological
Perspectives for Science and Society launched in 1991 and the “Swiss Priority Program
Environment” (SPPE) initiated in 1992. The German philoshoper Mittel-straß (1992; in
Pohl, 2010) introduced transdisciplinarity as:
[T]ransdisciplinarity refers to knowledge or research that frees itself of its
specialized or disciplinary boundaries, that defines and solves its problems
independently of disciplines, relating these problems to extra-scientific
developments” (Zimmermann, n.d.; in Pohl, 2010, p.68).
The boon of Swiss Zurich or German School is transdisciplinarity as a research
approach to addressing complex societal problems such as those related to sustainability.
Transdisicplinarity is conceptualized as problem focused with an emphasis on joint problem

264 Journal of APF Command and Staff College (2025), 8(1), 238-287
solving at the science, technology, and society interface that goes beyond the confines of
academia (Augsburg, 2014, p.235).
The second International Transdisciplinary Conference was held in Zurich in 2000
(McGregor, 2015; Augsburg, 2014, pp. 234-235). This conference sheds light on the process
of development of transdisciplinary research. The scholars of Switzerland and Netherlands
focused on three different transdisciplinary approaches, the Transdisciplinary Case Study
(TCS) approach, the Institute for Social-Ecological Research (ISOE) model and the
Interactive Learning and Action (ILA) approach. In the development of transdisciplinary
research in the Netherlands, the scholars distinguished academic-theoretical line, a
governmental policy line and an academic-empirical line (Bunders, Broerse, Keil, Pohl,
Scholz, & Zweekerhorst, 2010, p.130).
The Zurich approach of shifting the discourse on transdisciplinarity from science-
theory-driven deliberation to asking what this new way of doing science means in (research)
practice was widely adopted. Russell et al. (2008; Jahn et al., 2012), for example, notice
that transdisciplinarity ‘is a practice, not an institution (Russell et al., 2008, p.470; Jahn et
al., 2012) and Klein (2004; Jahn et al., 2012) states that it is simultaneously an attitude and
a form of action’ (Klein, 2004, p.521; Jahn et al., 2012). The Zurich camp conceptualizes
transdisciplinarity as a new type of research, called Mode 2 research (Gibbons et al.,
1994; Kunwar & Ulak, 2023, 2024). The Mode 2 knowledge is transdisciplinary from a
structural standpoint. Nowotny characterizes Mode 1 science as having a clear separation
between science and society, while in Mode 2 boundaries between science and society are
transgressed (Alvargonzález, 2011). The main proposition of the study is the emergence of
a knowledge production system that is ‘socially distributed’. To clarify this assertion the
authors introduce a distinction between Mode 1 knowledge production, which has always
existed, and Mode 2 knowledge production, a new mode that is emerging next to it and is
becoming more and more dominant (Hessels & van Lente, 2008). According to Gibbons et
al. (1994) and Nowtony et al. (2001) as cited by Hessels and van Lente (2008, p.741) and
Kunwar and Ulak (2023, 2024), five main attributes of Mode 2 summarize how it differs
from Mode 1 are as follows: 1) Mode 2 knowledge is generated in a context of application;
2) Mode 2 is transdisciplinarity; 3) Mode 2 knowledge is produced in a diverse variety
of organizations, resulting in a very heterogeneous practice; 4) Reflexivity- compared to
Mode 1, Mode 2 knowledge is rather a dialogic process, and has the capacity to incorporate
multiple views; and 5) Novel forms of quality control.
Simultaneously, post-normal science as a theory was invented along with Mode 2
research (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993; Nowotny, 2003; Kunwar & Ulak, 2023, 2024). In

Kunwar & Ulak : Understanding Disciplinarity and... 265
order to easily understand post normal science, it is essential to understand what normal
science is. Normal science needs to be liberated from its dogmatic style and, simultaneously
philosophy of science needs recasting (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993, 1994, 1999; in
Alvargonzález, 2011). ‘Normal science’ in the Kuhnian sense is not an adequate mode
of knowledge production in this situation, as it assumes that problems can be divided into
small-scale problems that can be handled without questioning the broader framework or
paradigm (Hessels & van Lente, 2008; Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993).
The next important aspects of transdisciplinary studies is ‘Post-normal science’,
a prescriptive approach (Hessels & van Lente, 2008, p.745; Funtowicz and Ravetz,
1993), but it has led to the development of a research community working on the further
development of the program. The concept originates from policy-relevant science fields
and starts from an acknowledgement of the limitations of rational decision-making. This
theory was derived from their interest in Ecological Economic studies that considered the
epistemological and governance challenges (Hessels & van Lente, 2008). Closely related
to Mode 2 knowledge and post-normal science, there is a new branch of activities called
transdisciplinary research.
Knowledge Integration
One additional term is “integration”. In this regard, Leavy (2011) focuses only on the
integration that is achieved when there is collaboration between disciplines. When there
is “transdisciplinarity, there is collaboration with high levels of integration causing the
development of new conceptual theoretical and methodological frameworks” (2011; in
Mylonakou-Keke, 2015, p.1891).
Integration refers to the process of combining and reconciling research and experience-
based knowledge and perspectives of the academic and non-academic participants.
Integration also means jointly developing a shared theoretical understanding of the issue at
stake (Pohl, 2010, p.70). The English word integration also can be traced back to the Latin
world integrate meaning “to make whole”. As a verb integrate means “to unite or blend into
a functioning whole”. Over the centuries, says Klein (2012; in Repko, 2012, p.262), the
idea of integration was associated with holism, unity and synthesis (Klein, 2012, p.284; in
Repko, 2012).
Knowledge, according to Nicolescu (2012, p.21), is neither exterior nor interior:
it is simultaneously exterior and interior. From environmental perspectives, Raymond et
al. (2010; in Enengel et al., 2011) propose five dimensions of knowledge types: a) local
versus generalized knowledge, b) the level of formal processes used to generate knowledge

266 Journal of APF Command and Sta College (2025), 8 (1), 238-287
(informal–formal), c) extent of expertise (novice–expert), d) extent to which knowledge
is articulated or accessible to others (tacit–implicit–explicit), and e) extent to which
knowledge is embedded in and reects traditional cultural rules and norms (traditional–
local ecological–scientic ecological). Academic discourse is a privileged form of argument
in the modern world, oering a model of rationality and detached reasoning. It is seen
to depend on the demonstration of absolute truth, empirical evidence or awless logic,
representing what Lemke (1995) refers to as the discourse of “Truth” (p.178; in Hyland,
2011, p.194). It provides an objective description of what the natural and human world is
actually like (Hyland, 2011). …every discipline claiming its own truth…and having its
laws, norms and terminology (Nicolescu, 2012). Within each form are unique concepts and
propositions that have tests to validate their truth.
The challenges of wicked problem-oriented research come along with the dierent
types of knowledge transdisciplinary research. Swiss researchers suggested distinguishing
three such types of knowledge (proClaim, 1997; in Pohl, Truer & Hirsch Hadorn, 2017,
p.325; Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2008, p.30; Pohl et al., 2008, p.414; Wiesmann et al., 2008,
p.436; Pohl & Hirsch Hadorn, 2008, p.118; Ison, 2008, p.246: Enengel, Muhar, Penker,
Freyer, Drlik, & Ritter, 2011): knowledge about what is (systems knowledge); knowledge
about what should be (target knowledge); and knowledge about how to come from where we
are to where we should be (transformation knowledge). These three forms of knowledge is
similar to Aristotle’s (2003; in Hirsch Hadorn, 2008) forms of knowledge, namely: science
(epistême); life-world action (praxis); production (poiêsis); and prudence (phronêsis)- now
transformed as goals of transdisciplinary research (Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2008, p.20, 31).
The denition of ‘systems knowledge’ as knowledge of the current status which is
knowledge about the origins and development of problems including their interpretation
‘life-world’; of ‘target knowledge’ as knowledge about a target status which is knowledge
about needs for change, desired goals and better ways of acting. ‘Transformation knowledge’
as knowledge about how to make transition from the current to the target status which is
knowledge about technical, social, legal, cultural and other means of transforming existing
ways of acting in desired directions (proClaim, 1997; in Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn, 2008,
p.118; Pohl, C, van Kerkho, Hirsch Hadorn, & Bammer, 2008, p.414; Hirsch Hadorn et
al., 2008, p.30).
Transdisciplinary Education
Transdisciplinary education as an important concept forwarded by Nicolescu on the activity
of those engaged in transdisciplinarity and the potentialities for transdisciplinary education.
While studying “The Transdisciplinary Evolution of Learning”, Nicolescu (1999; in

Kunwar & Ulak : Understanding Disciplinarity and... 267
Augsburg, 2014) linked the four pillars of a new kind of education forwarded by a report to
UNESCO chaired by Jacques Delors (1996; in Augsburg, 2014, p.236)—learning to know,
learning to do, learning to live together with, and learning to be—to personal characteristics
important to those engaged with transdisciplinarity. Nicolescu (1999; in Augsburg, 2014)
believes that individual creativity plays a critical role, as does permanent inquisitiveness,
adaptability, flexibility, and the capacity to build bridges. Nicolescu (1999) appreciated
the necessity of being grounded in a discipline or profession, but also of being open to
access of another “should it become necessary or desirable” (Augsburg, 2014, p.237).
Khokhobaia (2018) mentions that transdisciplinary approaches have been actively used
in the European education system over the last decade.Various transdisciplinary research
programs and projects have been successfully implemented in different countries, such as
Austria, Germany, Switzerland, etc. These projects were related to various problems such
as regional development, urban mobility, technology management, industrial networks, etc.
Boundary-work and Border-work
The organization of universities into departments ostensibly defined by discipline has
led some to believe that “a discipline is at bottom nothing more than an administrative
category” (Jencks & Riesman, 1968, p.523: in Shumway & Messer-Davidow, 1991, p.208)
that groups certain specialties together for reasons of historical accident and administrative
convenience. This interpretation conflicts with two facts; that disciplines are social forms
that are not contained by single universities and that disciplinary practitioners, who consider
themselves to be members of disciplinary communities, engage in a differentiating activity
called “boundary-work”. Boundary-work entails the development of explicit arguments to
justify particular divisions of knowledge and of the social strategies to prevail in them. As
Thomas F. Gieryn (1983, p.783) observes, “The intellectual ecosystem has with time been
carved up into ‘separate’ institutional and professional niches through continuing processes
of boundary-work designed to achieve an apparent differentiation of goals, methods,
capabilities and substantive expertise” (Gieryn, 1983; Shumway & Messer-Davidow,
1991). Boundary-work is performed for various purposes. When the point is to establish
or protect a discipline, boundaries mark it as a territory to be possessed by its owners, not
appropriated by others, and they indicate the relations it may have with other disciplines.
But these same boundaries may be redefined if the discipline is attempting to expand into
new territory. When the point is to regulate disciplinary practitioners, boundary-work
determines which methods and theories are included, which should be excluded, and which
may be imported (Shumway & Messer-Davidow, 1991).

268 Journal of APF Command and Staff College (2025), 8(1), 238-287
Horlick-Jones and Sime (2004) suggest that a specific form of transdisciplinary
working (‘border-work’) is necessary in order to address the generalizing, decontextualizing
and reductionist tendencies of discipline-based inquiry. Border-work as per Horlick-Jones
and Sime (2004) show the linkages between scholarship and practice, as well as across
disciplinary boundaries. Border-work as a concept, as described by Horlick-Jones and
Sime (2004) is ethnographically-based action research, what they called “border work,”
that could “embody the active ways in which people make sense of their worlds; and to
resist instrumental conceptions of human agents in terms of quasi-mechanical metaphors”
(p.442). McGregor (2004, 2009, 2015, p.20) while reviewing the concept of border-work of
Horlick-Jones and Sime (2004) writes, everyone involved now owns the new knowledge
because it was co-created.
The border-work refers to the intellectual work that occurs when people living on the
borders of the academy (university disciplines) and other sectors (civil society, industry,
government) engage in knowledge generation to address wicked problems. This new
knowledge is open and alive because the wicked problems the knowledge addresses are
alive, emerging from the life world (Horlick-Jones & Sime, 2004; Nicolescu, 2005; in
McGregor, 2015).
Horlick-Jones and Sime (2004, p.445) tentatively propose the name ‘border-work’
for activity, reflecting an awareness of the difficulties of crossing what are, in effect, policed
boundaries. Horlick-Jones and Sime (2004) following different scholars such as Reason
& Bradbury, (2001), Harper, Randall, & Rouncefield (2000), Heath & Button (2002),
Garfinkel (1967), Jagodzinski, Reid, & Culverhouse (2000) and Lioyd & Busby (2001)
accomplished such forms of practice have led to make common cause with a number of
areas of scholarship which are concerned with the specific detail of everyday situations:
1) ‘action research’, in which learning is achieved through engagement with the resolution
of existing real-world problems, 2) ‘workplace studies’, a practice-based literature firmly
rooted in a form of sociology concerned with the modes of practical reasoning deployed
by people in everyday situations by which they interactionally produce ‘social facts’
(ethnomethodology), and 3) design work informed by ethnographic and other insights into
human behaviour (Horlick-Jones & Sime, 2004).
Hybridization
The beauty of transdisciplinarity is hybridity and contextualization that bring together
imperatives of transcendence, problem-solving and transgression (Doucet & Janssens, 2011;
in Klein, 2014, p.73). Transdisciplinarity synthesizes new disciplines and theories to form a
hybrid concept shared equally among the disciplines (Oloruntimilehin, 2020). Hybrids are

Kunwar & Ulak : Understanding Disciplinarity and... 269
“interstitial cross-disciplines” such as social psychology, economic anthropology, political
sociology, bio-geography, culture and personality, and economic history. And, professional
preparation led to new fields with a vocational focus such as social work and nursing (Klein,
2014). Klein (2014) expresses that the general process of development, based on studies of
innovation in social sciences that has been called ‘Hybridization’.
Social Engagement
‘Social engagement’ as a concept under the theme of the definition of transdisciplinarity
came out as one of the important groups after the unity of knowledge forwarded by
Lawrence et al. (2022, p.48). Social engagement has been studied by different scholars of
different disciplines. The question arises what is social engagement?
Social-level engagement, as per Johnston (2018) is defined as a collective state
of engagement that can be represented in behavioral forms (collective action, group
participation), cognitive (shared knowledge), and affective forms (orientation, intention
and experience) and is an outcome of a dynamic socially situated system. The notion of
social engagement is derived from the idea of collective action and outcomes (p.26).
According to Rachmad (2022), social engagement is defined in the theory as the
active involvement of individuals in social activities that benefit both themselves and their
communities. The core principles of the theory emphasize the importance of effective
communication, understanding shared values, and fostering positive interactions to build
strong personal and professional relationships. This, in turn, creates a more cohesive and
supportive community. The theory arises from the observation that many individuals
feel isolated and less involved in their communities, leading to social problems like
decreased participation, lack of solidarity, and mental health issues. By improving social
engagement, these problems can be mitigated, enhancing the well-being of individuals
and communities (pp. 13-14).
Tamed and Wicked Problems
Problem focus and problem-solving are terms frequently used when describing the
transdisciplinary approach. However, these terms are also used for other cross-disciplinary
approaches and for characterizing research in general (Kuhn, 1992/1662; in Mobjörk,
2010). Consequently, a specific definition is required when talking about problem focus/
problem-solving in relation to transdisciplinarity. Transdisciplinarity can be described in
relation to ‘societal problems’ or ‘life-world problems’ (Wickson, Carew, & Russel, 2006;
Schmidt, 2008; in Mobjörk, 2010; Pohl & Hirsch Hadorn, 2008), but these descriptions
of societal or life-world problems inherently reflect a notion of the existence of a ‘pure’

270 Journal of APF Command and Staff College (2025), 8(1), 238-287
scientific problem. Transdisciplinarity defines a research focused on problems that cross
the boundaries of two or more disciplines, aiming at a holistic approach. It also implies
concepts or methods that were originally developed by one discipline, but are now widely
used by others (Zaman & Goschin, 2010, p.7).
While focusing on the problem and its solution, Mylonakou-Keke (2015) proposed seven
key features of transdisciplinarity research, which are: transdisciplinary research is problem/
issue/driven that manifest in the real world; the problem is complex, multidimensional, with
the different dimensions being heterogeneous; to solve the problem the holistic approach,
which combines the integration of different disciplines, epistemologies and methodologies,
is necessary; the primary objective is to improve and change a problematic situation and
solve a problem, through an evolving, dynamic methodology that is iterative and an ongoing
part of the research process; the solution or the improvement of the problem comes from
the production of new knowledge that is a result of interrelated knowledge management
processes and progression of learning; dynamic interaction between theory and practice;
and many and high levels of collaboration between all stakeholders (including researchers)
and the broader community are required (pp. 1894-1895).
By the 1990s, the word began to be used more widely to refer to the use of novel
paradigms and practices beyond those of the traditional disciplines (Schleifer 2002; in
Bardecki, 2019). In a disciplinary research project, the problem is framed by disciplinary
standards, such as the state of knowledge, methods, and theories (i.e., the disciplinary
paradigm in Kuhn’s terminology) (Kuhn, 1996; in Pohl, 2010, p.70). The few existing
methods and approaches to problem framing often have an explorative character.
Transdisciplinarity offers a different philosophy and approach both of how to
effectively address issues/problems and how to improve and change difficult situations
and multiple levels of reality under conditions of complexity and uncertainty. Addressing
these problems becomes precisely effective because of the way transdisciplinary achieves
collaboration and integration among disciplines (Mylonakou-Keke, 2015, p.1890).
Transdisciplinary research is needed when knowledge about a societally relevant
problem field or ‘chronic societal problems’ (Somerville & Rapport, 2002) is uncertain,
when the concrete nature of problems is disputed. Problem-solving research comprises the
phase of problem identification and problem structuring, the phase of problem investigation
and the phase of bringing results to fruition (usually termed “implementation”) (Pohl &
Hirsch Hadorn, 2007, pp. 42-43; Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2008, p.35; Pohl, 2010, p.70) to
which Somerville and Rapport (2002) call it as ‘new solutions’. According to Manderson
(one of the participants in the Colloquium; in Somerville & Rapport, 2002), a solution is

Kunwar & Ulak : Understanding Disciplinarity and... 271
also a mixture in which different particles have been dissolved, creating a new liquid in
which those particles have lost their particularity. A solution is not just a forging together
of different substances; each of the elements losses its original form and character and
transforms itself into something new.
The way scholars of transdiscipline carried out their research on problems is based
on ‘messes’ and ‘difficulties’ (Ison, 2008). The term ‘messy’ and ‘turbulent’ was first
coined by Russell Ackoff in 1974 (Ison, 2008; Head, 2018). Both messy and turbulent
problems include the complex and contested issues that display many of the features
typical of ‘wicked’ intractable problems (Ackoff, 1974; Ansell, Trondal, & Ogard, 2017;
Dunn, 1988; Horn & Weber, 2007; Ney, 2009; in Head, 2018) argued, in proposing his
notion of mess that what decision makers deal with are messes not problems (Ackoff,
1974a, b; in Ison, 2008).
According to Ackoff (1974), every problem interacts with other problems and is
therefore part of a system of interrelated problems, a system of problems…a mess…The
solution to a mess can seldom be obtained by independently solving each of the problems
of which it is composed…efforts to deal separately with such aspects of urban life as
transportation, health, crime, and education seem to aggravate the total situation (p.21; in
Head, 2018, p.3).
Transdisciplinarian scholars have strongly focused on the solution of wicked
problems which later became very popular. Problem studies should go through two types
of problems historically known as ‘tamed’ (well-structured) and ‘wicked’ (ill-structured)
which were developed by Horst Rittel (design theorists) and Melvin Webber (urban designer
and theorist) in 1973. Head (2018) mentions that tamed problem are well-defined and well-
structured, with agreed technical parameters and a relatively solid knowledge base (p.6).
While distinguishing tamed problems from wicked problems, Rittel and Webber (1973,
p.160; Pohl et al., 2017) mention that tamed problems have a clear goal and mission (e.g.,
solving a mathematical equation, analyzing the chemical structure of a compound, building
an atomic bomb or landing on the moon) and proposed solutions which can clearly be
judged as success or failure. A problem is tamed if addressing it does not include questioning
the mission, or whether the problems are solved either by specifying and adapting the
knowledge of the disciplines and fields relevant for the problem at hand or by carrying
out use-inspired basic research if innovation is required. In contrast, addressing societal
problems usually includes deliberating what the problem is about and whether, and how,
and by whom it should be addressed. Camillus (2008) as cited by Head (2008) commented

272 Journal of APF Command and Staff College (2025), 8(1), 238-287
on the pros and cons of wicked problems. The attraction of the ‘wicked problem’ concept
is that it seems to provide additional insights concerning why many policies and programs
generate controversy, fail to achieve their stated goals, cause unforeseen effects, or are
impossibly difficult to coordinate and monitor. Even the business management literature is
rediscovering ‘wicked problems’ as a way of understanding the role of business strategy in
making sense of chaotic economic behavior under conditions of risk and uncertainty.
Head (2018) while working on forty years of wicked problems, reviewed on
‘scientific’ approaches to social policy and planning addressing on complex, and contested,
social problems. This provocative claim, that scientific-technical approaches would not
‘work’ for complex social issues, has engaged policy analysts, academic researchers and
planning practitioners since the 1970s (Head, 2018; Rittel & Webber 1973).
Rittel and Webber (1973, p.155; Pohl et al., 2017) conceptualize such problems
as wicked design problems followed by Buchanan (1992, p.15), Conklin (2005), Abbott
(2010), Brown (2010, pp. 62-63), Bernstein (2015, p.8), and Lawrence et al. (2022). Wicked
problems differ from tamed problems as their nature and scopes are different.
Not all problems are wicked. In contrast, a ‘tame problem’ is one for which the
traditional linear process is sufficient to produce a workable solution in an acceptable time
frame. According to Conklin (2005, p.9), a tame problem: 1) has a well-defined and stable
problem statement, 2) has a definite stopping point, i.e. when the solution is reached, 3) has a
solution which can be objectively evaluated as right or wrong, 4) belongs to a class of similar
problems which are all solved in the same similar way, 5) has solutions which can be easily
tried and abandoned, and 6) comes with a limited set of alternative solutions. Tame does not
mean simple–a tame problem can be very technically complex (Conklin, 2005).
The concept of a wicked problem emerged in the late 1960s and early 1970s based on
experiences with the complex interrelationships between various social and environmental
aspects of city planning (Rittel & Webber, 1973; Lawrence et al., 2022). The term “wicked”
is not intended in the moral sense of being “evil”; instead, it is in the sense of being malignant.
Ten key characteristics of wicked problems were defined in the seminal work and modified
by Rittel and Webber (1973, pp. 161-167) and cited by Lawrence et al. (2022) are: 1) Wicked
problems have no definitive formulation; 2) Wicked problems have no ends to their causal
chains—”no stopping rule” (i.e., one is never completely “done” dealing with the wicked
problem); 3) Wicked problems do not have “true-false” solutions, rather “good-bad” or “better-
worse” ones; 4) Wicked problems offer no “immediate” or “ultimate” tests for a solution; 5)
Wicked problems mean that every attempt at a solution is consequential, i.e., there is no
opportunity to innocuously learn by trial and error since every attempt counts significantly;

Kunwar & Ulak : Understanding Disciplinarity and... 273
6) Wicked problems do not have an “exhaustively describable” set or series of solutions;
7) Every wicked problem is unique—having at least one “distinguishing property that is of
overriding importance”. ; 8) Every wicked problem points to other wicked problems—each
also being a symptom of the other; 9) The discrepancies that characterize a wicked problem
can be explained in multiple ways, and the choice of explanation affects how the wicked
problem will be approached and possibly resolved; and 10) Wicked problems pose particular
difficulties for those aiming to resolve them (or as Rittel and Weber originally stated it: ‘‘The
planner has no right to be wrong’’) (p.44).
The scholars of transdisciplanary research (Lawrence et al., 2022; Jahn et al., 2012;
Horlick-Jones & Sime, 2004; Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2008; Rittel & Webber, 1973) have
gone through wicked problems, complex problems and real world problems in order to
understand solution for human problem faced by people globally and locally. The powerful
fragmenting forces of wicked problems, social complexity and technical complexity; the
confusion, chaos, and blame created by failing to distinguish these forces; the lack of tools
and techniques for ‘defragmenting’ project dynamics (Conklin, 2005). Conklin (2005)
has stressed on the dialogue mapping process as a powerful approach for addressing the
problem of fragmentation, as it allows a diverse group of people to generate coherence
around wicked problems.
The concept of the wicked problem, first identified and defined by the design theorists
Horst W. J. Rittel and Melvin M. Webber (1973), has grown from being a discussion point
in the policy sciences to a focal concern in recent transdisciplinary literature (McGregor,
2015a; in Bernstein, 2015), who also uses another commonly found expression, “wicked
messes”). Wicked problems, including conflict and sustainability, that transcend the
resources for any single disciplinary or even traditional interdisciplinary approach for
solution have become primary sources of material for contemporary transdisciplinary work.
These are pressing problems, even crises, reaching in multiple domains or dimensions and
involving not just academic disciplines and the interplay among them but also practitioners
seeking solutions in the real world outside the academy (Bernstein, 2015). Some projects
on wicked problems involve using multiple prongs of research to solve ever-present yet
multifaceted social justice problems including crime or poverty, and focusing on issues
such as education, health, sanitation, and housing (Lawrence, 2010; in Bernstein, 2015).
Rittel and Webber (1973; Head, 2018, p.1) challenged the conventional assumption
that scientific approaches to social policy and planning provide the most reliable guidance for
practitioners and researchers who are addressing complex, and contested, social problems.
This provocative claim, that scientific technical approaches would not ‘work’ for complex

274 Journal of APF Command and Staff College (2025), 8(1), 238-287
social issues has engaged policy analysis, academic researchers and planning practitioners
since the 1970s. But this has given birth to ongoing debates about knowledge and power
in the policy and planning professions. As Head (2018) argued while reviewing policy
analysis and experience for forty years, it helps scholars to understand policy problems and
their issues and solutions with the help of methods (analytical tools, managerial capacities
and consultative processes) to have more effective policy responses.
Wicked problems are connected to uncertainties (Head, 2014, p.666). There are,
according to Koppenjan and Klijn (2004; in Head, 2014) three different types of uncertainty:
‘Substantive’ uncertainty (gaps and conflicting understandings in the knowledge based);
‘Strategic’ uncertainty (unpredictable perspectives); and institutional (wicked problems are
likely to be messy and uncoordinated). In the same line but in different aspect, Janicke
and Jorgens (1999, pp. 175-176; in Head, 2014) identified four important dimensions of
uncertainty: scientific uncertainty, political uncertainty, uncertainty about the consequences
of specific possible interventions, and uncertainty about the future framework of investment
incentives to support technical innovation (renewable energy, water reuse, green building
in the study of effective environmental policy (p.667).
By contrast, other problems are seen as more enduring and intractable, and thus
more likely to defy resolution. Examples at a national and a local level might include
poverty and inequality, family violence, drug control, criminal behavior and environmental
pollution. At an international level, enduring complex problems might include sustainable
development, climate change policy response, terrorism, international business regulation
and illicit migration (OECD, 2011, 2015; in Head, 2018). These and relate issues, such as
those underline the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations (2015),
have become the central to the policy agenda of international networks.
A wicked problem is a complex issue that defies complete definition for which there
can be no final solution since any resolution generates further issues, and where solutions are
not true or false or good or bad, but the best can be done at the time. Such problems are not
morally wicked, but diabolical (characteristics of devil or evil) in that they resist all the usual
attempts to resolve them (Rittel & Webber, 1973; Brown, Deane, Harris, & Russell, 2010).
Real World Problems
Real world problems are issues and risks that are causing losses or are likely to cause losses
in the near future. This term is commonly used in science, mathematics, engineering, design,
coding and other fields whereby students may be asked to propose solutions to problems
that are currently relevant to people and planet as opposed to theoretical, insignificant or
personal problems (Spacey, 2023).

Kunwar & Ulak : Understanding Disciplinarity and... 275
The features of real world problems are characterized by difficult situations, enduring
issues and global issues. The key concepts of real world problems are life situations and
problem solving approach. Spacey (2023) has identified 104 real world problems and all
104 real world problems are incorporated into eight different subheading which are as
follows: 1) Social issues (problems and risks that impact the quality of life of people and
communities); 2) Environmental problems (destruction of the natural environment of planet
Earth and its eco systems); Economic problems (problems, instability and risks that impact
the economic processes and markets that sustain the quality of life of nations); 4) Education
issues (education systems and institutions that failed to deliver efficient and effective); 5)
Government and political (problems related to government and the political process); 6)
Local issues (problems that are specific to a place such as a city, town or neighborhood
like access to education, aging infrastructure, aging population, air pollution, corruption,
cost of living, crime rates, disaster preparedness, discrimination, economic decline, food
deserts, housing shortages, poor emergency services, inadequate waste management, lack
of green spaces, lack of soft infrastructures, noise pollution, police accountability, public
health crisis, public safety & security, quality of education, quality of life, social isolation,
substance abuse, traffic accidents, traffic congestions, unemployment, walkability, water
quality, youth unemployment); 7) Global problems (problems that require international
cooperation as they span borders); 8) Intractable problems (root problems that appear to
be difficult to solve due to their overall complexity, pervasiveness or entrenchment like,
corruption, crime and violence, discrimination, disease, injustice, pollution, poverty,
racism, war and conflict). These are broad problems that have received much attention
without any clear solution (Spacey, 2023).
As Richard Feynman (n.d.; in O’Leary, 1999) states that “we are the very beginning
of time for the human race. It is not unreasonable that we grapple with problems…Our
responsibility is to do what we can, learn what we can, improve the solutions, and pass them
on”. It was the 2000 Jury Conference on transdisciplinarity that adopted and popularized
a more pragmatic approach. Emphasizing its ties to the context (of a “real world” problem
setting), participants agreed that transdisciplinarity “is an additional and mainly demand
driven form of research” (Klein et al., 2001, p.8; in Jahn et al., 2012, p.2). The scholars
gave emphasis to their studies on real world problems (Spacey, 2023), Repko (2012, pp.
33-38), Horlick-Jones and Sime (2004, p.445), Choi and Pak (2006, pp. 357-358), Jahn
et al. (2012, p.2), O’Leary (1999), Stock and Burton (2011, p.1096), Mylonakou-Keke
(2015, p.1892), and Klein (2017) and Nicolescu (2012) paid attention on complex problem
whereas Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn (2008) gave emphasis on complexity of problem, human
problem and life-world problem.

276 Journal of APF Command and Staff College (2025), 8(1), 238-287
Life-World Problems
According to Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn (2008), life-world refers to the human world prior
to scientific knowledge. While philosophy (led by Edmund Husserl who coined the term)
uses this concept within the framework of both phenomenology and constructivism as a
possibility of critiquing and explaining science, Schütz’s interpretive sociology links ‘life-
world’ with the concept of the everyday world as a system of meaning: ‘Life-world’ can be
described as the structural properties of social reality as grasped by the agent (pp. 428-429).
The term ‘life-world’ is used for what the phenomenologist Edmund Husserl (1859-
1983; in Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2008, p.20; Kunwar, 2021, pp. 103-104) called ‘Lebenswelt’-
meaning the ongoing lived experiences, activities and contacts that make up the world of
an individual or cooperate life. Alfred Schütz (1899-1959; in Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2008)
introduced the term ‘life-world’ into sociology to describe the structural properties of social
reality as grasped by the agent-the agent’s life-world (Schütz & Luckmann, 1973; in Hirsch
Hadorn et al., 2008). Jürgen Mittelstraß used the term in defining ‘transdisciplinarity’ as
a form of research that transcends disciplinary boundaries to address and solve problems
related to the life-world (Mittelstraß, 1992; in Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2008).
The ‘Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research’ focuses on transdisciplinary as a form
of research that is driven by the need to solve problems of the life-world. Transdisciplinary
research develops descriptive, normative and practice-oriented knowledge in order to help
solve, mitigate or prevent life-world problems. A problem-field (e.g., violence, hunger,
poverty, disease, environmental pollution) refers to an issue in life-world (Pohl & Hirsch
Hadorn, 2008).
Complexity of Problems
In transdisciplinary research a problem of the life-world is framed as a node in a web of
heterogeneous factors. Taking into account the complexity of a problem means addressing
interrelations among the social, natural, technical, legal, etc. factors that constitute the
problem and might influence the impact and acceptance of proposed solutions. The situation
is complicated, since interactions among factors may change over time. So, ideally, the
dynamic interdependencies of a range of empirical insights, value orientations and policy
options (such as technologies, economic incentives and regulations) are captured (Pohl &
Hirsch Hadorn, 2008, p.114).
The transdisciplinary challenge with complexity of problems is that of inter relating
the broad range of factors to come up with an integrated understanding of the problem
and integrated suggestions for dealing with the problem. Therefore, Jantsch (1972)

Kunwar & Ulak : Understanding Disciplinarity and... 277
and scholars after him (Bammer, 2005; Robinson, 2008; Pohl & Hirsch Hadorn, 2008)
consider systems thinking, whether hard or soft, to be a constituting conceptual basis of the
transdisciplinary research perspective. As far as systems theory (Midgley, 2003; in Pohl &
Hirsch Hadorn, 2008) (an overview) is considered to be a discipline – namely in the sense
of a formal discipline that can be applied to a wide range of problems– systems thinking is
a disciplinary contribution to the transdisciplinary challenge of integration (Pohl & Hirsch
Hadorn, 2008).
It was Jantsch (1972) who used systems theory while discussing about
transdisciplinarity (pp. 105-106; in Pohl & Hirsch Hadorn, 2008, p.113) when it was being
held forward as a grand synthesis of knowledge (integration of knowledge; Jantsch, 1972;
in Pohl & Hirsch Hadorn, 2008, p.29; Oloruntimilehin, 2020). As far as systems theory
is concerned, Checkland (1995; in Mylonakou-Keke, 2015, p.1897) approaches every
system as a whole; it studies the interactive and interdependent connection of the parts of
its subsystems and acknowledges that different properties from just the some of the parts
emerged from the whole.
Conclusion
Learning by knowing is an impetus for understanding disciplinarity and transdisciplinarity.
Disciplines are not static but are dynamic; however, disciplines can be intellectually
messy. They have roots in diverse intellectual traditions, complex internal structures and
fuzzy boundaries. Disciplines provide scientists with frame of references, methodological
approaches, topics of study, theoretical cannons, and technologies. Though there are many
types of disciplines, Bardecki (2019) has identified twelve disciplines. However, the scholars
seem to be following three key-concepts such as: multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity,
and transdisciplinarity (Darbellay, 2005; Huutoniemy, Thompson Klein, Bruunc, and
Hukkinena, 2010; Piaget, 1972; in Darbellay, 2020, p.236).
The discourse of transdisciplinarity has expanded and shifted since its origins in the
early 1970s. The 1990s brought a landmark in the field of transdisciplinarity as a problem
field that plays the role for solution through collaboration and teamwork of different
academics, researchers, practitioners, non-academics such as civil society, organizations
and other stakeholders from the life sciences, social sciences and humanities (Augsburg,
2014, p.244).
In transdisciplinarity, the traditional boundaries of disciplinary research are
transcended to converge inherently different disciplines to form a new unified framework
beyond the discipline. The goal of transdisciplinarity is to have an understanding of the
present world through the unifying of knowledge and the solution of mega and complex

278 Journal of APF Command and Staff College (2025), 8(1), 238-287
problem by drawing on and seeking to integrate disciplinary and stakeholder views based
on some overarching theory (Oloruntimilehin, 2020). Transdisciplinarity “represents the
highest form of integration”; it involves “the application of crossdisciplinary concepts as
well as scholars from multiple disciplines to combine knowledge and skill from diverse
disciplinary domains” (Dellaportas et al., 2022; Oloruntimilehin, 2020). Multidisciplinarity
and interdisciplinarity have this in common: they seek to overcome disciplinary monism.
“Transdisciplinarity is perhaps above all a new way of thinking about, and engaging in,
inquiry” (Bernstein, 2015, p.1). Transdisciplinarity integrates the natural, social and health
sciences in a humanities context, and transcends their traditional boundaries. […] (Choi &
Pak, 2006, p.351, 359). Hirsch Hadorn et al. (2010), as cited by Enengel et al. (2011) write
more recent contributions emphasized 1) addressing life-world problems, 2) promoting
the common good, and 3) integrating non-academic actors in knowledge generation.
Transdisciplinarity remains “a rather elusive concept that continues to evolve (Jahn et al.,
2012, p.1; McGregor, 2015).
Mode 1 knowledge production, which has always existed, and Mode 2 knowledge
production, a new Mode that is emerging next to it and is becoming more and more dominant.
Mode 2 knowledge consists of: 1) knowledge is generated in a context of application; 2)
transdisciplinarity; 3) knowledge is produced in a diverse variety of organizations, resulting
in a very heterogeneous practice; 4) Reflexivity; and 5) Novel forms of quality control.
Transdisciplinarity concerns that which is at once between the disciplines, across
different disciplines, and beyond all disciplines. Its goal is (a) the understanding of the
present world, of which one of the imperatives is the unity of knowledge, and (b) the
solution of mega and complex problems by drawing on and seeking to integrate disciplinary
and stakeholder views on the basis of some overarching theory (Parker, 2016).
Alfonso Montuori (2008, p.ix; in Bernstein, 2015) writes “Transdisciplinarity is
perhaps above all a new way of thinking about, and engaging in, inquiry”. In fact, there is
no transdisciplinarity without disciplinarity. In spite of this fact, the above considerations
provoked, around 1990, a more or less violent war of definitions. This war is not yet finished
(Nicolescu, 2010, p.20).
Problem field has become one of the integral parts of transdisciplinary studies. For the
first time, Rittel and Webber (1973) invented the concept of tamed and wicked problems. Later
on, the concept of real world problem, complex problem, and life-world problem received
academic platform for research. These problems were studied by several scholars within the
framework of public policy and policy research for problem solution through collaborative
work. This study suggests carrying out further research on the same subject.

Author Introduction
Kunwar & Ulak : Understanding Disciplinarity and... 279
a. Ramesh Raj Kunwar is a professor of Nepalese History Culture and Archaeology,
Tribhuvan University. He is the former Dean of Faculty of Humanities and Social
Sciences, Tribhuvan University. He also served as Dean at Nepali Military Academy,
Kharipati. Currently, he is teaching at APF Command and Staff College, Nepal.
b. Nimesh Ulak is a Ph.D. research scholar of Lumbini Buddhist University, Nepal.
References
Aagaard-Hansen, J. (2007). The challenges of crossdisciplinary research. Social
Epistemology, 21(4), 425–438. https://doi:10.1080/02691720701746540
Abbott, A. (2010). Chaos of Disciplines, The University of Chicago Press.
Aboelela, S. W., Larson, E., Bakken, S., Carrasquillo, O., Formicola, A. J., Glied, S., Haas,
J., & Gebbie, K. M. (2006). Defining interdisciplinary research: Conclusions from
a critical review of the literature. Health Services Research, 42(1p1), 329–346.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00621.x
Alvargonzález, D. (2011). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, and
the sciences. Int Stud Philos Sci, 25(4), 387-403. http:// doi:10.1080/02698595.20
11.623366
Areekkuzhiyil, S. (2017). Emergence of new disciplines. Edutracks, 17(4), 20-22. https://
files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED578910.pdf
Augsburg, T. (2014). Becoming transdisciplinary: The emergence of the transdisciplinary
individual. World Futures, 70(3/4), 233-247. https://doi.org/10.1080/02604027.20
14.934639
Austin, W., Park, C., & Goble, E. (2008). From interdisciplinary to transdisciplinary
research: A case study. Qualitative Health Research, 18(4), 557–564. https://
doi:10.1177/1049732307308514
Bardecki, M. J. (2019). Multi-disciplinarity. In Filho, W. L. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of
Sustainability in Higher Education (pp. 1179–1184). Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-030-11352-0_90
Bernstein J.H. (2015). Transdisciplinarity: A review of its origins, development, and current
issues. Journal of Research Practice, 11(1)1-20. https://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/
jrp/article/view/510/412
Bott, E. (2010). Family and Social Network: Roles, Norms and External Relationships in
Ordinary Urban Families (2nd ed.), Routledge.

280 Journal of APF Command and Staff College (2025), 8(1), 238-287
Brandt, P., Ernst, A., Gralla, F. et al. (2013). A review of transdisciplinary research in
sustainability science. Ecological Economics, 92, 1-15. https://doi:10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2013.04.008
Brewer, G. D. (1999). The challenges of interdisciplinarity. Policy Sciences, 32(4), 327-
337. https://doi:10.1023/a:1004706019826
Brown, V. A., Deane, J. A., Harris, J. A., & Russell, J. Y. (2010). Towards a just and sustainable
future. In Brown, V.A., Harris, J.A., & Russell, J.Y. (Eds.) Tackling Wicked Problems:
Through the Transdisciplinary Imagination (pp. 3-15), UK: Earthscan.
Brown, V. A., Harris, J. A., & Russell, J. Y. (Eds.). (2010). Tackling Wicked Problems:
Through the Transdisciplinary Imagination, Earthscan.
Brown, V. A. (2010). Collective inquiry and its wicked problems. In Brown V. A., Harris, J.
A., & Russell, J.Y. (Eds.) Tackling Wicked Problems: Through the Transdisciplinary
Imagination (pp. 61-83), Earthscan.
Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design, 8(2), 5-21. https://
shorturl.at/ZApb1
Bunders, J. F. G., Broerse, J. E. W., Keil, F., Pohl, C., Scholz, R. W., & Zweekerhorst,
M. B. M. (2010). How can transdisciplinary research contribute to knowledge
democracy? In In’t Veld, R. J. (Ed.) Knowledge Democracy: Consequences for
Science Politics, and Media (pp. 125-152), Springer.
Choi, B. C., & Pak, A. W. (2006). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity
in health research, services, education and policy: Definitions, objectives and
evidence of effectiveness. Clin Invest Med, 29(6), 351-364. PMID: 17330451
Conklin, J. (2005). Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked
Problems, John Wiley & Sons.
Darbellay, F. (2020). Postdisciplinary: Imagine the future, think the unthinkable. In
Parnecky, T. (Ed.) Postdisciplinary Knowledge (pp. 235-250), Routledge.
Dellaportas, S., Xu, L., & Yang, Z. (2022). The level of cross-disciplinarity in cross-
disciplinary accounting research: Analysis and suggestions for improvement.
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 85, 102275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cpa.2020.102275
Dezure, D. (2017). Interdisciplinary edagogies in higher education. In Frodeman, R., Klein,
J. T., & Pacheco, R. C. S. (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity (2nd
ed.), Oxford University Press.
Du Plessis, C., (2015). A conceptual framework for understanding social-ecological
systems. In Burns, M., Weaver, A. (Eds.) Exploring Sustainability Science e a
Southern African Perspective (pp. 59-90), Sun Press, Stellenbosch.

Kunwar & Ulak : Understanding Disciplinarity and... 281
Enengel, B., Muhar, A., Penker, M., Freyer, B., Drlik, S., & Ritter, F. (2011). Co-production
of knowledge in transdisciplinary doctoral theses on landscape development—
An analysis of actor roles and knowledge types in different research phases.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 105(1–2), 106–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landurbplan.2011.12.004
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The triple helix-university-industry-government
relations: A laboratory for knowledge based economic development. EASST review,
14(1), 14-19. https://doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3858-8_452
Evans, J. (2014). What is transdisciplinarity? Purdue Polytechnic Institute blog. https://
shorturl.at/1gMVY
Funtowicz, S. O. & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7),
739-755, https://doi:10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994).
The ew Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in
Contemporary Societies, SAGE Publications.
Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science:
Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological
Review, 48(6), 781. https://doi:10.2307/2095325
Godin, B. (1998). Writing performative history: The new new Atlantis? Social Studies of
Science, 28(3), 465–483. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631298028003004.
Head, B. W. (2008). Wicked problems in public policy. Public policy and Society, 3(2),
101-118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399713481601
Head, B. W. (2014). Evidence, uncertainty, and wicked problems in climate change decision
making in Australia. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32(4),
663–679. https://doi:10.1068/c1240
Head, B. W. (2018). Forty years of wicked problems literature: Forging closer links to policy
studies. Policy and Society, 1–18. https://doi:10.1080/14494035.2018.1488797.
Head, B. W. (2022). Wicked Problems in Public Policy: Understanding and Responding to
Couples Challenges, Palgrave Macmillan.
Hessels, L. K., & van Lente, H. (2008). Re-thinking new knowledge production: A
literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy, 37(4), 740–760.
https://doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.01.008
Hirsch Hadorn et al. (2008). The emergence of transdisciplinarity as a form of research. In
Hirsch Hadorn et al. (Eds.) Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research, (pp. 19-39),
Springer.

282 Journal of APF Command and Staff College (2025), 8(1), 238-287
Hofstetter, R. (2012). Educational sciences: Evolutions of a pluridisciplinary discipline at the
crossroads of other disciplinary and professional fields (20th Century). British Journal
of Educational Studies, 60(4), 317–335. https://doi:10.1080/00071005.2012.729666
Horlick-Jones, T., & Sime, J. (2004). Living on the border: knowledge, risk
and transdisciplinarity. Futures, 36(4), 441–456. https://doi:10.1016/j.
futures.2003.10.006
Howlett, M., & Cashore, B. (2014). Conceptualizing public policy. Comparative Policy
Studies, 17–33. https://doi:10.1057/9781137314154_2
Hyland, K. (2011). Disciplines and discourses: Social interactions in the construction
of knowledge. In Stark-Meyerring, D., Paré, A., Artemeva, N., Horne, M., &
Yousoubova, L. (Eds.) Writing in the Knowledge Society (pp. 193-214), The WAC
Clearinghouse.
Ison, R. (2008). Methodological challenges of trans-disciplinary research: Some systemic
reflections. Natures Sciences Societies, 16, 241-251. https://shorturl.at/68x1Q
Jacobs, J. A. (2017). Sidebar: The need for disciplines in the modern research university.
In Frodeman, R., Klein, J.T. & Pacheco, R.C.S. (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook
of Interdisciplinarity (2nd ed., pp. 35-39), Oxford University Press. https://doi:
10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198733522.013.4
Jahn, T., Bergmann, M., & Keil, F. (2012). Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming
and marginalization. Ecological Economics, 79, 1–10. https://doi:10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2012.04.017
Jeffrey, G. B. (1950). Unity of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press.
Johnston, K. A. (2018). Toward a theory of social engagement. In Johnston, K. A. & Taylor,
M. (Eds.) The Handbook of Communication Engagement, (pp. 19-32), John Wiley
& Sons Inc.
Khokhobaia, M. (2018). Transdisciplinary research for sustainable tourism development.
Journal of International Management Studies, 18(2), 21–26. https://doi.
org/10.18374/jims-18-2.2
Klein, J. T. (2004). Prospects for transdisciplinarity. Futures, 36(4), 515–526. https://
doi:10.1016/j.futures.2003.10.007
Klein, J. T. (2008). Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2), S116–S123. https://doi:10.1016/j.
amepre.2008.05.010

Kunwar & Ulak : Understanding Disciplinarity and... 283
Klein, J. T. (2014). Discourses of transdisciplinarity: Looking back to the future. Futures,
63, 68-74. https://doi:10.1016/j.futures.2014.08.008
Klein, J. T. (2017). Typologies of interdisciplinarity: The boundary work of definition.
In Frodeman, J., Klein, T., & Pacheco, R.C.S. (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook
of Interdisciplinarity (2nd ed., pp. 21-34), Oxford University Press. https://
doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198733522.013.3
Koppenjan J., & Klijn, E. (2004). Managing Uncertainties in Networks: A Network
Approach to Problem Solving and Decision Making, Routledge.
Kunwar, R. R. (2018). Tourism education, curriculum spaces, knowledge production, and
disciplinary pluralism. The Gaze Journal of Tourism and Hospitality, 9(1), 83-155.
https://doi:10.3126/gaze.v9i0.19724
Kunwar, R. R. (2021). Extreme sport: Understanding the concept, recognizing the value.
Journal of Tourism & Adventure, 4(1),89-123. https://doi.org/10.3126/jota.v4i1.40681
Kunwar, R. R., & Ulak, N. (2023). Understanding the triple helix model and capitalization
of knowledge. Journal of APF Command and Staff College, 6(1), 1-34.
https://doi.org/10.3126/japfcsc.v6i01.57573
Kunwar, R. R., & Ulak, N. (2024). Extension of the triple helix to quadruple to quintuple
helix model. Journal of APF Command and Staff College, 7(1), 241-280.
https://doi.org/10.3126/japfcsc.v7i1.67006
Lawrence, M. G., Williams, S., Nanz, P., & Renn, O. (2022). Characteristics, potentials,
and challenges of transdisciplinary research. One Earth, 5(1), 44–61. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.12.010
Leavy, P. (2011). Essentials of Transdisciplinary Research: Using Problem-Centered
Methodology. Walnut Creek:, Left Coast Press.
Mahan, J. L. J. (1970). Toward Transdisciplinary Inquiry in the Human Sciences, (UMI No.
705145). [Doctoral Dissertation, United States International University].
Manolakelli, A. (2022). Inter, multi, cross, trans and interdisciplinary: What is the
difference and why is it important? Archpsych. https://www.archpsych.co.uk/post/
disciplinarities-definitions
Mays, N., Pope, C., & Popay, J. (2005). Systematically reviewing qualitative and
quantitative evidence to inform management and policy making in the health field.
J Health Serv Res Policy, 10(1), 6-20. https://doi:10.1258/1355819054308576

284 Journal of APF Command and Staff College (2025), 8(1), 238-287
Max-Neef, M. A. (2005). Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecol. Econ., 53(1), 5-16.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.01.014lf McGregor, S.L.T. (2014).
Transdisciplinarity and conceptual change. World Futures: The Journal of General
Evolution. 70. https://doi.org/10.1080/02604027.2014.934635
McGregor, S. L. T. (2015). Transdisciplinary knowledge creation. In Gibbs, P. (Eds.)
Transdisciplinary Professional Learning and Practice (pp. 9-24), Springer.
Miller, C. Z. (2016). Towards transdisciplinarity: Liminality and transitions inherent in
pluridisciplinary collaborative work. Journal of Business Anthropology, 1(1), 35-
57. https://doi.org/10.22439/jba.v1i1.4959
Montuori, A. (2008). Foreword: Transdisciplinarity. In B. Nicolescu (Ed.),
Transdisciplinarity: Theory and Practice (pp. ix-xvii). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Mobjörk, M. (2010). Consulting versus participatory transdisciplinarity: A refined
classification of transdisciplinary research. Futures, 42(8), 866–873. https://
doi:10.1016/j.futures.2010.03.003.
Munar, A. M., Pernecky, T., & Feighery, W. (2016). An introduction to tourism
postdisciplinarity. Tourism Analysis, 21, 343-347. https://doi.10.3727/10835421
6X14600320851578
Mylonakou-Keke, I. (2015). The emergence of ‘Syn-Epistemic Wholeness’ from dialectic
synergy of disciplines: A transdisciplinary social pedagogic model. Creative
Education, 6, 1890-1907. https://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2015.617195
Nicolescu, B. (2005). Transdisciplinarity- past, present and future. CETRANS–Centro de
Educação Transdisciplinar, pp. 1-24. https://surl.li/qbzzll
Nicolescu, B. (2008). In vitro and in vivo knowledge: Metodology of transdisciplinarity.
In Nicolescu, B. (Ed.) Transdisciplinarity: Theory and Practice, Cresskill, NJ:
Hampton Press.
Nicolescu, B. (2010). Methodology of transdisciplinarity–levels of reality, logic of the
included middle and complexity. Transdiscip. J. Eng. Sci. 1, 387–398. https://doi.
org/10.22545/2010/0009.
Nicolescu, B. (2012). Transdisciplinarity: The hidden third, between the subject and object,
HSS, 1(2), 13-28. https://doi:10.2478/v10317-012-0002-5
Nicolescu, B. (2014). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, indisciplinarity, and
transdisciplinarity: Similarities and differences. RCC Perspectives, (2), 19-26.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26241230\

Kunwar & Ulak : Understanding Disciplinarity and... 285
Nissani, M. (1995). Fruits, salads, and smoothies: A working definition of interdisciplinarity.
Journal of Educational Thought, 29 (2), 121-128. https://doi.org/10.11575/jet.
v29i2.52385
O’Leary, Z. (1999). Researching Real World Problems: A Guide to Methods of Inquiring,
Sage.
O’Rourke, M. (2017). Comparing methods for cross-disciplinary research. In Frodeman, R.,
Klein, J. T., and Pacheco, R. C. H. (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity
(pp. 276-290), Oxford University Press.
Oloruntimilehin, I (2020). A History of Disciplinarity. Interdisciplinarity, Plymouth.
Parker, K. A. (2016). Interdisciplinary research and problem-solving: A guide for students,
Grand Valley State University.
Paul, J., & Criado, A. (2020). The art of writing literature review: What do we know and
what do we need to know? International Business Review. 29. 101717. 10.1016/j.
ibusrev.2020.101717.
Pechlaner, H. & Philipp, J. (2024). Addressing wicked problems through integrated policy-
making: An ecosystem-based approach. In Phillimayer, P. C., Joppe, M., Scherle,
N.& Pechlaner, H. (Eds.) Tourism Policy Making in the Context of Contested Wicked
Problems: Politics, Paradigm Shifts and Transformation Processes (pp. 287-302),
Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi:10.1108/S1871-31732024000017B017
Pernecky, T. (2020). An introduction to postdisciplinarity. In Parnecy, T. (Eds.) Post
Disciplinary Knowledge (pp. 1-22), London: Routledge.
Peters, M., & Appel, S.(1996). Positioning theory: Discourse, the subject and the problem of
desire. Social Analysis: The International Journal of Social and Cultural Practice,
40, 120-141. http:// www.jstor.org/stable/23171700
Pickering, A. (1993). Antidisciplines or narratives of illusion. In Messer-Davidow, E.,
Shumway, D. R. et al. (Eds.) Hisorical and Critical Studies in Disciplinary (pp.
103-123).
Pohl, C, van Kerkhoff, L., Hirsch Hadorn, K., & Bammer, G. (2008). Integration. In Hirsch
Hadorn et al. (Eds.) Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research (pp. 411-424),
Springer.
Pohl, C., & Hirsch Hadorn, G. H. (2008). Core terms in transdisciplinary research. In
Hirsch Hadorn et al. (Eds.) Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research (pp. 427-
432), Springer.

286 Journal of APF Command and Staff College (2025), 8(1), 238-287
Pohl, C. (2010). From transdisciplinarity to transdisciplinary research. Transdisciplinary
Journal of Engineering & Science, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.22545/2010/0006
Pohl, C., & Hirsch Hadorn, G. H. (2008). Methodological challenges of transdisciplinary
research. Natures Sciences Sociétés/Natures Sciences SociéTéS, 16(2), 111–121.
https://doi.org/10.1051/nss:2008035
Pohl, C., Truffer, B., & Hirsch Hadorn, G. H. (2017). Addressing wicked problems through
transdisciplinary research. In Frodeman, J., Klein, T., & Pacheco, R.C.S. (Eds.) The
Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity (2nd ed., pp. 319-331), Oxford University
Press.
Porter, A. L., Roessner, J. D., Cohen, A. S., & Perreault, M. (2006). Interdisciplinary
research: meaning, metrics and nurture. Research Evaluation, 15(3), 187–195.
Rachmad, Y. E. (2022). Social Engagement Theory, Nurnberger Burg Buch Internationaler
Verlag. https://doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/ksr4v
Repko, A. F. (2012). Interdisciplinary research: Process and theory, Sage Publications.
Repko, A.F., & Szostak, R. (2017). Interdisciplinary Research: Process and Theory (3rd
ed.), Sage.
Rittel, H. W. J. & Webber, M.M. (1973). Dilemmas in general theory of planning. Policy
Sciences, 4, 155-179. https://doi:10.1007/bf01405730
Russell, A. W., Wickson, F., & Carew, A. L. (2008). Transdisciplinarity: Context,
contradictions and capacity. Futures, 40(5), 460–472. https://doi:10.1016/j.
futures.2007.10.005
Russell, J. Y. (2010). A philosophical framework for an open and critical transdisciplinary
inquiry. In Brown, V. A., Harris, J. A., & Russell, J. Y. (Eds.) Tackling Wicked
Problems: Through the Transdisciplinary Imagination (pp. 31-60), Earthscan.
Schmalz, D. L., Janke, M. C., & Payne, L. L. (2019). Multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinary
research: Leisure studies past, present, and future. Journal of Leisure Research, 50.
389-393. http://doi.10.1080/00222216.2019.1647751.
Sharia , M. & Sitchinava, T (2023). The Importance of the Transdisciplinary Approach
for Sustainable Tourism Development. Georgian Geographical Journal, 3(2).
https://doi.org.10.52340/ggj.2023.03.02.12
Shumway, D. & Messer-Davidow, E. (1991). Disciplinarity: An introduction. Poetics
today, 12(2), 201-225. https://doi:10.2307/1772850

Kunwar & Ulak : Understanding Disciplinarity and... 287
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and
guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2019.07.039
Somerville, M. A., & Rapport, D. J. (Eds.) (2002). Transdisciplinarity: reCreating
Integrated Knowledge, McGill Queen’s University Press.
Spacey, J. (2023). 104 examples of real world problems. Simplicable. https://simplicable.
com/world/real-world-problems#google_vignette
Stock, P. & Burton, R. J. F. (2011). Defining terms for integrated (multi-inter-trans-
disciplinary) sustainability research. Sustainability, 3, 1090-1113. https://
doi:10.3390/su3081090
Tanweer, A. & Steinhoff, J. (2024). Academic data sciences: Transdisciplinary and
extradisciplinary visions. Social Studies of Science, 54(1), 133-160.
Volgger, M. & Pechlaner (2015). Interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity and postdisciplinarity
in tourism and hospitality education. In Dredge, D., Airey, D., & Gross, M. J.
(Eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Tourism and Hospitality Education (pp. 85-
102), Routledge.
Weinberg, A. M. (1977). The limits of science and trans-science. Interdisciplinary Science
Reviews, 2(4), 337-342.
Wiesmann, U., Biber-Klemm, S., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., et al. (2008). Enhancing
transdisciplinary research: A synthesis in fifteen propositions. In Hirsch Hadorn et
al. (Eds.) Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research (pp. 433-441), Springer.
Yazici, M. (2016). A tentative research model of transdisciplinarity. In Akçeşme, B., Baktır,
H., & Steele, E.(Eds.) Interdisciplinarity, Multidisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity
in Humanities (pp. 222-232), Cambridge Scholar Publishing.
Zalanga, S. (2009). Interdisciplinary studies and scholarship: Issues, challenges,
and implications for “Third World” development and social change. Human
Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge, 7(3), 57-75. https://surl.
li/mayntk
Zaman, G., & Goschin, Z. (2010). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and
transdisciplinarity: Theoretical approaches and implications for the strategy of
post-crisis sustainable development. Theoretical and Applied Economics, Asociatia
Generala a Economistilor din Romania - AGER, 0(12(553)), 5-20