What does it mean to describe psychosocial studies as a ‘transdiscipline’?
What does it mean to describe psychosocial studies as a ‘transdiscipline’?
‘...we human beings are simultaneously creatures of communication, creatures of bio-chemistry, creature of consciousness and, perhaps above all, creature of creativity’ (Stenner 2009, 196).
Beginning to answer such a question necessitates a definition of terms, as both ‘transdisciplinarity’ and the ‘psychosocial’ are contested terrain. This paper will thus begin with an account of differing conceptualisation of ‘transdisciplinarity’. It will proceed thorough a discussion of different approaches to the psychosocial characterised as multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary as a means to highlight a transdisciplinary vision of psychosocial studies. This will be followed by an analysis of the problematic foundations of the discipline of social psychology, its fragmentation and separation from the natural sciences. In this way it will be argued that a transdisciplinary approach to psychosocial studies may offer a means to move beyond disciplinary constraints in a way which is attuned to the complexity and multiplicity of reality.
Conceptualisations of transdisciplinarity can broadly be differentiated into either an essentially practical endeavour or an epistemological challenge (Max-Neef, 2005). Conventionally the term is attributed to Jean Piaget and Erich Jantsch (Klein 2004). Piaget is reported to have coined the term in France in the 1970’s where he described transdisciplinarity as a superior stage of interdisciplinary, not limited to the interactions or reciprocities between specialised research but an approach which locates links inside a total system without stable boundaries between the disciplines (Nicolecu 2007). Erich Jantsch conceptualised it as a multi-level systemic coordination of research, innovation, and education (Klein 2004). However, in recent years use of the term has widened. For Nowotny (2001) transdisciplinarity is a consequence of a contemporary transformation in
‘...we human beings are simultaneously creatures of communication, creatures of bio-chemistry, creature of consciousness and, perhaps above all, creature of creativity’ (Stenner 2009, 196).
Beginning to answer such a question necessitates a definition of terms, as both ‘transdisciplinarity’ and the ‘psychosocial’ are contested terrain. This paper will thus begin with an account of differing conceptualisation of ‘transdisciplinarity’. It will proceed thorough a discussion of different approaches to the psychosocial characterised as multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary as a means to highlight a transdisciplinary vision of psychosocial studies. This will be followed by an analysis of the problematic foundations of the discipline of social psychology, its fragmentation and separation from the natural sciences. In this way it will be argued that a transdisciplinary approach to psychosocial studies may offer a means to move beyond disciplinary constraints in a way which is attuned to the complexity and multiplicity of reality.
Conceptualisations of transdisciplinarity can broadly be differentiated into either an essentially practical endeavour or an epistemological challenge (Max-Neef, 2005). Conventionally the term is attributed to Jean Piaget and Erich Jantsch (Klein 2004). Piaget is reported to have coined the term in France in the 1970’s where he described transdisciplinarity as a superior stage of interdisciplinary, not limited to the interactions or reciprocities between specialised research but an approach which locates links inside a total system without stable boundaries between the disciplines (Nicolecu 2007). Erich Jantsch conceptualised it as a multi-level systemic coordination of research, innovation, and education (Klein 2004). However, in recent years use of the term has widened. For Nowotny (2001) transdisciplinarity is a consequence of a contemporary transformation in
References: Brown, S. D. and P. Stenner. (2009). Psychology without foundations: history, philosophy and psychosocial theory. London: Sage. Burr Fox, D, I. Prilleltensky and S. Austin (Eds). (2009). Critical psychology: an introduction. 2nd ed. London: Sage. Gergen, K Glassman, W. E. and M. Hadad. (2006). Approaches to psychology. 4th ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Goertzen, J. R. (2008). On the possibility of unification: the reality and nature of the crisis in psychology. Theory and Psychology. [Online] Available from: http://tap.sagepub.com/content/18/6/829.full.pdf [4th Dec 2010] Good, J Harris, B. (2009). What critical psychologist should know about the history of psychology. In: D. Fox, I. Prilleltensky & S. Austin. (Eds). Critical psychology: an introduction. 2nd ed. London: Sage. Hamberger, E. (2004). Transdisciplinarity: a scientific essential. New York Academy of Sciences. 1028: 487–496. [Online] Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy.brighton.ac.uk/doi/10.1196/annals.1322.039/pdf [8th Feb 2011] Horlick-Jones, T Max-Neef, M. A. (2005). Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecological economics. 53: 5-16. [Online] Available from: http://www.max-neef.cl/download/Max_Neef_Foundations_of_transdisciplinarity.pdf [2nd Jan 2011] Maires, W Mills, C. W. (2000). The sociological imagination. Fortieth anniversary edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nicolescu. B. (2003). Definition of Transdisciplinarity. [Online] Available from: http://www.caosmose.net/candido/unisinos/textos/textos/nicolescu1.pdf [1st Feb 2011] Nicolescu, B Pancer, S. M. (2001). Social psychology. In: D. Fox and I. Prilleltensky (Eds). Critical psychology: an introduction. London; Thousand Oaks; New Delhi: Sage Publications. Parker, I. (1999). Critical psychology: critical links. Annual Review of Critical Psychology. 1: 3-18. Richardson, F. C and B. J. Fowers. (2001). Critical theory, postmodernism and hermeneutics: insights for critical psychology. In: D. Fox, I. Prilleltensky & S. Austin (Eds). Critical psychology: an introduction. 2nd ed. London: Sage. Stainton-Rogers, W. (2003). Social psychology: experimental and critical approaches. Buckingham: Open University Press. Stenner, P. (2002). Social psychology and Babel. History and Philosophy of Psychology. 4;1: 45-57. Stenner, P. (2009). On the actualities and possibilities of constructionism: towards deep empiricism. Human Affairs. 19: 194-210. Stenner, P Teo, T. (2009). Philosophical Concerns in Critical Psychology. In D. Fox, I. Prilleltensky & S. Austin (Eds). Critical psychology: an introduction. 2nd ed. London: Sage. Willig, C. (2001). Introducing qualitative research in psychology: adventures in theory and method. Buckingham: Open University Press.