Transdisciplinarity and Information Science in Earth and Environmental Science Research

Authors

Suzie Allard

University of Tennessee

School of Information Sciences 451 Communications Building Knoxville TN USA 37996-0341

Email: sallard@utk.edu

Grant Allard

Furman University

Greenville, SC USA

Email: grant.allard@furman.edu

This poster addresses the theme of the conference “Thriving on Diversity- Information

Opportunities in a Pluralistic World” by discussing transdisciplinarity and what this paradigm

means to librarians and information scientists. Transdisciplinary research is a means to address

research problems, especially those in complex systems (Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2008). The role of

transdisciplinary research in earth and environmental sciences is explored, with particular

attention to the challenges for information science researchers and professionals. Complex and

global questions such as climate change may be best addressed using a transdisciplinary

approach making the collaboration between scientists and information professionals more

important. This collaboration is explored in relationship to DataONE (Observation Network for

Earth), an NSF funded cyberinfrastructure project that supports the full data lifecycle for scientists

in the diverse domains that are embodied in the earth and environmental sciences.

Transdisciplinarity, Information and Organizations

Understanding the way researchers collaborate to address scientific and societal problems is

fundamental to understanding how we handle the complexity of knowledge that occurs across

disciplines. The following table provides a taxonomy regarding the collaborative integration

between disciplines (Rosenfield, 1992):

As Aagaard-Hansen (2007) notes, the distinction that interdisciplinarity suggests greater

integration than multidisciplinarity is well established (Friedman and Friedman 1985; Gilbert

1998; Kilburn 1990; Kline 1995; Maina-Ahlberg, Nordberg and Tomson 1997; McNeill 1999). The

addition of transdisciplinarity to the taxonomy has also gained acceptance (Albrecht,

Higginbotham and Freeman 2001; Maina-Ahlberg, Nordberg and Tomson 1997; McNeill 1999,

Max-Neef, 2005).

The shared conceptual framework established by the transdisciplinary research approach

provides tremendous value for understanding and addressing complex issues that transcend

traditional disciplinary boundaries (Nicolescu, 2002). However, transdisciplinarity is more than

just a theory base; it can be argued that it is a paradigmatic attitude of building an integrative

worldview (Allard, 2009). One of the first tasks for transdisciplinarity is to provide a perspective of

how we organize our quest for knowledge and from this perspective to shed light on how

disciplinary organization leads to certain interactions between disciplines. Transdisciplinarity or

coordination between and amongst all disciplines leads to a perspective beyond the traditional

disciplines. In this way, transdisciplinarity seeks to create a web of inter-relationships of

disciplines existing in relationships across many “levels of reality and perception” (Nicolescu,

2002). Transdisciplinarity gives us the unique opportunity to allow disciplines to embrace their

uniqueness while coordinating their actions in order to further human knowledge and thereby

civilization. It gives us “both a body of thought and a lived experience,” (Nicolescu, 2002).

Information science has recognized the artifacts of transdisciplinarity for decades, for example,

examining the blurring of boundaries between disciplines (Geertz, 1983) and supporting the

international movement toward more permeable intellectual borders (Borgman, 1990).

 

While transdisciplinary work is valued and has been productive, the mechanics of the information

cycle within these collaborations is difficult both administratively and intellectually (Allard, 2001;

Elzinga, 2008; Messerli and Messerli, 2008). One strategy is for information scientists and

professionals to find and build domain agnostic solutions that can be used to address complex

issues (Michener, 2009). The diagram below illustrates what is meant by a domain agnostic

solution.

Examining an Organization

Much can be learned by studying an organization that is operating in a

transdisciplinary paradigm and is engaged in research of a complex system—earth

and environmental sciences (Rind, 1999). Earth and environmental scientists produce

research that is diverse in terms of scale, discipline, and observation type. Working

with these data is essential to address environmental, social and technological

challenges caused by climate variability, altered land use, population shifts, and

changes in resource availability (e.g., food, water, and oil). An emerging area in this

field is ecological informatics which incorporates both concepts and tools for the

entire data life cycle including generation, processing, preservation, propagation, and

understanding of ecological data, information and knowledge (Michener, 2009).

 

This poster addresses two research questions:

• What does a transdisciplinary organization look like?

Transdisciplinarity exists when there is both cooperation and coordination between

myriad disciplines (Max-Neef 2006). This means that a venture must both include

other ways of thinking and also employ those ways of thinking in a coherent

framework. Assessing an organization’s or entity’s ability to do this is a vital

component of understanding a transdisciplinary organization

• What are the roles for librarians and information scientists in a transdisciplinary

organization?

Studying these roles can help identify points of cooperation and coordination noted

above.

To answer these research questions we examine DataONE (Observation Network for

Earth), an emerging organization that focuses on multi-disciplinary observational data

collected by biological (genome to ecosystem) and environmental (atmospheric,

ecological, hydrological, and oceanographic) scientists, national and international

research networks, and environmental observatories. We believe DataONE has the

potential to be identified as a transdisciplinary organization because of its focus on

the complex set of terrestrial and environmental systems.

The first research question is addressed by examining DataONE using the SEEK

framework (Allard, 2001) and a new tool we are developing that we call the

“transdisciplinary index (TI).” This tool provides a way to gauge whether an

organization has the potential to be transdisciplinary, and if so, to determine if it is

meeting that potential. The TI is still a work-in-progress at the time of this submission

however a preliminary understanding is included in this document.

In developing the TI, we make the assumption that assessment is the organizational

process of self-creating through reflection. This definition takes into account the body

of literature regarding the “learning” (Senge 2006), “knowing” (Choo, 2005) or “living

organizations” (Maturana 1976) which are based upon the concept that

organization’s structures are self-creating or that they are constantly learning and

adapting—thereby changing the structure itself—to their environments (Maturana

1976). In a transdisciplinary organization the emphasis is on the general coherence of

all knowledge, therefore it follows that the organization is constantly learning from its

environment.

We believe many strategies can be developed to assess a transdisciplinary

organization, however the nature of transdisciplinarity suggests that assessment data

may be qualitative, quantitative, or spatial, so that the most complete picture may be

presented. The TI primarily focuses on the quantitative and qualitative data sets as we

have not yet begun to develop a spatial component. Therefore the TI assesses

organizations on categories that approximate, in an empirical representation, the

“pillars” that are the basis of transdisciplinarity. The categories that we feel are

inclusive of the transdisciplinarity “pillars” are leadership/governance,

communication, engagement, purpose, integration, adaptability, and context. Below

are brief notes about each of these categories.

Leadership in transdisciplinary organizations is expected to build consensus and to

empower individuals to set and achieve goals that help both them and the

organization (Capra, 2006; Stead & Stead 2004). Therefore leaders and governing

bodies are not to be seen as dictators or central planners but as “designers, stewards,

and teachers” (Stead and Stead 2004).

Communication is holistic and refers to all communication: both intra-organizational

communication and external communication. Communication should be open and

dynamic (Capra, 2006). Ideas should readily passed within the organizational

community and people should not be afraid to share and receive constructive

feedback from outside the organization—which can then be used to infuse more

communication. In this way there is understanding of the unity of all knowledge and

the organization seeks to promote this through its community (Carroll, 2005)). The

content that is being communicated may be in terms of reports and publications as

well as emotional content such as shared experiences and friendly conversation,

which builds a sense of community.

Engagement in the TI context refers to the ways people are involved in an

organization in its operations, and implementation. It is closely related to

communication since open communication encourages engagement.

The organization is guided by a purpose or raison d’etre that the organization exists.

But purpose should not be static and unchanging even if the artifacts that represent it

are (Capra, 2006). People from all facets should be involved with defining an

organization’s purpose even if it is the governance that helps to coalesce those people

around proximate that imbue the spirit of this purpose. The purpose is something that

is to be clear so that it provides a means of structure that unites people to share

bonds in the organization (Carroll, 2005). Purpose is important because it gives the

organization a distinct sense of uniqueness, which is important in order to develop a

balance between the organization and the world outside of the organization.

We use the term, integration, to describe the way that the organization is connected

into the world surrounding it. Integration in this context examines how well the

organization understands and values the unity of all knowledge—an organization that

does this well will seek out deep relationships with other disciplines in order to foster

and promote both coordination and cooperation.

Adaptability is the ability of the organization to change with its environment and to

adapt across all levels of reality to new situations based on reflection of their

experiences (similar to concepts in Choo’s work). Thus an organization must be open

to change and relish it as an opportunity to learn more about itself—in many ways an

organization should actively seek out experiences that may cause it to healthily

change and mature (Stead & Stead, 2004).

The category we have named context is the most difficult to measure and refers to

how the organization views its sense of self. Context is important because it directly

addresses the issue of how an organization perceives both its history and its future—

or in other words it helps glean the scale that the organization uses to measure the

world. In this way context is extremely important because it deals with how people in

the organization collectively use their imaginative power of the human mind to

envision what the past was like and what they want or don’t want the future to be—

both are possible inspirations behind purpose. Context perhaps can best be thought of

as the organization elucidating upon what it thinks its existence “means.”

We have developed the following definitions for each TI category so that we could

identify specific indicators:

• Leadership/governance: The ability and desire of governing or directing entities and

individuals to help articulate, coalesce, and inspire people to rally around a common

purpose while using resources in a sustainable manner.

• Communication: The means of conveying implicit and explicit messages in order to

share ideas and thoughts with others inside and outside the organization.

• Engagement: The ways people are involved in an organization in its operations,

reflection, and implementation.

• Purpose: shared common vision of why the organization exists.

• Integration: connectivity of disciplines, organizations, and communities including

the capacity for increased engagement.

• Adaptability: the ability of an organization to change with its environment

• Context: the way the organization sees itself fitting into both its “biography” and

broader histories

The second research question is addressed by reviewing how librarians and

information scientists are already engaged in DataONE, and by examining how they

may be further engaged in the process of facilitating information flow so that an

organization can meet its transdisciplinary potential.

 

References

Aagaard-Hansen, J. (2007). The challenges of cross-disciplinary research. Social Epistemology, 21

(4): 425-38.

Allard, G. (2009). Copenhagen: A complex, across-disciplinary affair. Unpublished paper.

Allard, S. (2001). Erasing the Barrier between Minds: Freeing Information, Integrating Knowledge.

American Communication Journal, 4(2). Available at

http://www.acjournal.org/holdings/vol4/iss2/articles/allard.htm

Borgman, C.L. ed. (1990). Scholarly communications and bibliometrics. Newbury Park: Sage

Publications

Capra, F. (2002). The Hidden Connections. New York: Anchor.

Carroll, J.E. (2004). Sustainability and spirituality. New York: State University of New York Press.

Choo, C.W. (2005). The Knowing Organization: How Organizations Use Information to Construct

Meaning, Create Knowledge, and Make Decisions. Oxford University Press.

Elzinga, A. (2008). Participation. In Handbook of Transdisciplinarity. Edited by G. Hirsch Hadorn et

al. Bern: Springer.

Friedman, R. S., & Friedman, R.C. (1985). Organized research units in academe revisited. In

Managing high technology: An interdisciplinary perspective, edited by B. W. Mar, W. T. Newell, and

B. O. Saxberg. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., North-Holland.

Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge: further essays in interpretive anthropology. New York: Basic

Books, Inc., Publishers.

Gilbert, L. E., (1998), Disciplinary breadth and interdisciplinary knowledge production.

Knowledge,Technology, and Policy 11 (1&2): 4–15.

Hirsch Hadorn, G. et al. (2008). The Emergence of transdisciplinary research. In Handbook of

Transdisciplinarity. Ed. G. Hirsch Hadorn et al. Bern: Springer.

Kilburn, A. D. (1990). Creating and maintaining an effective interdisciplinary research team. R&D

Management 20 (2): 131–138.

Kline, S. J. (1995). Conceptual foundations for multidisciplinary thinking. Stanford, CA: Stanford

University Press.

Max-Neef, M.A. (2005). Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecological Economics, 53(1):5-16.

Maina-Ahlberg, B., Nordberg, E. & Tomson, G. (1997). North–South health research collaboration:

Challenges in institutional interaction. Social Science and Medicine 44 (8): 1229–38.

Maturana, H. (1976). The Organization of the Living: A Theory of the Living Organization.

International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 7.3: 313-325.

McNeill, D. (1999). On interdisciplinary research: With particular reference to the field of

environment and development. Higher Education Quarterly 53 (4): 312–32.

Messerli, B.& Messerli, P.(2008). From local projects in the Alps to global climate change

programmes in the ,ountains of the world: Milestones in transdisciplinary research. In Handbook

of Transdisciplinarity. Ed. G. Hirsch Hadorn et al. Bern: Springer..

Michener, W. (2009). Building informatics solutions for multi-decadal ecological research: Re-

envisioning science, technology, and the academic culture. Presentation at the National Center

for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, 12 February, 2009.

Nicolescu, B. (2002) Manifesto of transdisciplinarity. Albany, SUNY.

Rind, D. (1999). Complexity and climate. Science. 284.5411: 105-07.

Rosenfield, P. L. (1992). The potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining and extending

linkages between the health and social sciences. Social Science and Medicine 35 (11): 1343–57.

Senge, P. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization.

Doubleday.

Stead, W.E. & Stead, J.G. (2004). Sustainable Strategic Management. Sharpe: Armonk (NY)