2007 Society for Design and Process Science
Printed in the United States of America
TRANSDISCIPLINARITY:
REACHING BEYOND DISCIPLINES TO FIND CONNECTIONS
Azad M. Madni
Intelligent Systems Technology Inc., California, USA
We live in an era in which the world is becoming increasingly more connected or, as Tom
Friedman puts it, “flat.” The inevitable consequence of this interconnectedness trend is that
problems are becoming much too complex to successfully solve by applying methods from within a
single discipline. This recognition is most evident in the growing trend toward multidisciplinary
and interdisciplinary collaboration among traditionally independent disciplines. As such
collaboration intensifies, existing disciplines are being enriched and occasionally new disciplines
are beginning to emerge. At the same time, the knowledge gaps among the disciplines are
beginning to surface. What appears to be lacking is a new way of thinking that strives to harmonize
traditional disciplines by reaching beyond their traditional boundaries to fill the knowledge gaps
not addressed by them. Transdisciplinary thinking promises to reach beyond disciplinary
boundaries to identify and overcome knowledge voids and incompatibilities in the quest for
knowledge unification. Achieving these objectives is key to fostering new relationships among
traditionally independent disciplines and, in so doing, begin to address problems of national and
global significance. This paper discusses the aims of transdisciplinarity, the road to
transdisciplinarity, successes resulting from transdisciplinary thinking, and recommendations for a
research and education agenda embracing trandsdisciplinary thinking.
Keywords: intradisciplinary, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary, biomimicry
1. Introduction
The digital age and netcentricity have succeeded in making the world ever more “flat” (Friedman,
2005) making collaboration among people from different cultures and in different locations a common
occurrence. It is also the case that the world is becoming more nuanced and the problems much too
complex to be dealt with successfully using methods from within a single discipline. This fact has not
escaped the research and business communities as evidenced by the growing trend toward
multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary studies worldwide.
Today there is a growing recognition that such collaboration, while essential, is neither
straightforward nor easy. This is because the gulf between independent disciplines needs to be bridged
before such collaboration can start paying real dividends. Bridging independent disciplines typically
requires extending them, reconciling their differences, and unifying the knowledge associated with
them in new and novel ways. This recognition inevitably leads to the notion of transdisciplinarity, the
quest for and discovery of new connections among disciplines leading to novel approaches for unifying
their knowledge. It is not surprising, therefore, that there is a growing interest in transdisciplinary
thinking to address problems that appear to be intractable when viewed from the perspective of a single
discipline.
Transactions of the SDPS
MARCH 2007, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 1-11
Transdisciplinarity is a global perception of the ultimate connection of multiple (possibly all)
disciplines (Nicolescu, 1997). From this perspective, not only science, but all human activities appear
as a unitary whole, and part of the unity of the universe. According to Rodriguez Delgado, an eminent
Spaniard systemist, unity and diversity (within transdisciplinarity) are not viewed as opposing, but
complementary perspectives.
Despite its obvious allure, transdisciplinarity faces many challenges. To begin with, there is no
single, agreed upon definition of transdisciplinarity. In particular, academic and societal viewpoints
differ. This lack of a common definition is further exacerbated with the formation of new societies,
each promoting their own language for discourse. Fortunately, the academic and business communities
remain undaunted as evidenced by the growing interest worldwide in infusing transdisciplinary
concepts and projects into their educational and research agendas. For example, when it comes to
public health, the National Academies (National Academies, 2002) recommends moving from research
dominated by a single discipline or a small number of disciplines to transdisciplinary research. They
define transdisciplinary research as involving broadly constituted teams of researchers that work across
disciplines to develop significant research questions. In these recommendations, transdisciplinary
research implies the conception of research questions that transcend individual disciplines and
specialized knowledge bases because they are intended to solve applied public health research
questions that are, by definition, beyond the purview of any single discipline. In transdisciplinary
research, different specialties combine their expertise (and that of community members) to collectively
define the health problem and their solutions. The National Academies sum up their position by
pointing out that the one qualitatively different and unique aspect of the transdisciplinary process is the
holistic blending of expert and community inputs to produce greater integration across disciplines.
Transdisciplinary research (Fairclough, 2003, Fairclough 2005) implies a dialogue between the
different disciplines and theories with a view to advancing both methodological and theoretical
developments. This characteristic sets transdisciplinary research apart from some forms of
interdisciplinary research which tend to “assemble” different disciplines around particular themes and
projects without a commitment to changing the boundaries and relations between them.
In light of the foregoing, it is worth clarifying the differences among intradisciplinary,
multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary research. Intradisciplinary research involves
problems that can be successfully tackled from within a single discipline such as engineering or
medicine. Multidisciplinary research involves problems that require cooperation among individuals
from different disciplines. Interdisciplinary research involves cooperation among disciplines leading to
enrichment of one or more contributing disciplines and occasionally resulting in new discipline.
Transdisciplinary research involves looking beyond traditional disciplines to find new connections
among disciplines that facilitate knowledge unification. Table 1 compares and contrasts these various
forms of research initiatives.
It is worth recognizing that transdisciplinarity originates from the increasing demand for relevance
and applicability of academic research to societal challenges (Nicolescu, 2002). Not surprisingly, the
two popular definitions of transdisciplinary research today center around academic research and
societal challenges. The academic research-oriented definition characterizes transdisciplinarity as “a
special form of interdisciplinarity in which boundaries between and beyond disciplines are
transcended and disciplines as well as non-scientific sources are integrated.” The societal challengeoriented definition characterizes transdisciplinarity as “a new form of learning and problem-solving
involving cooperation among different parts of society (including academia) to meet complex societal
challenges. Solutions devised are a result of collaboration and mutual learning among multiple
stakeholders.” As can be seen from the preceding two definitions, there is no standard definition of
transdisciplinarity. What is common to both, however, is the unity of knowledge.
Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science
MARCH 2007, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 2
Table 1. Research typology
Research
Types
Comparison
Factors
Scope
Focus
Key
Characteristics
Intradisciplinary
Multidisciplinary
 Collaboration among
individuals within a
discipline
 One branch of
specialization within the
research field (e.g.,
quantum physics within
physics)
 Generally, study the
same “research objects,”
but not always (e.g.,
multiple branches of
modern physics)
 Tend to have
methodologies in
common
 Tight communications
 Mostly speak a common
language
 Add to the BOK of a
branch/ discipline
 Collaboration among
individuals from
different disciplines
 Complex problem
management and
incompatibility
resolution through
collaboration
 Harmonize multiple,
occasionally
contradictory/
incompatible aspects
 Integration between
disciplines limited to
linking research
results
 Susceptible to
misunderstanding
(“traps”); specialized
languages
 Decision makers can
be left unsure about
final resolution (lack
of coherent view)
Interdisciplinary
 Collaboration among
disciplines
 Creation of integrative
solution resulting in
mutual enrichment of
disciplines
 Development of shared
concepts, methods,
epistemologies for
explicit information
exchange and
integration
 Can produce an entirely
new discipline, e.g.,
software economics
(Tharp et. al., 2001,
Boehm 2001)
 Specialization creates
greater knowledge
fragmentation and
occasionally
contradictory knowledge
Transdisciplinary
 Knowledge
unification across
disciplines
 Finding hidden
connections among
knowledge
elements from
different disciplines
 Challenge the norm
and generate
options that appear
to violate
convention
 Look at problems
from a disciplineneutral perspective
 Employ themes
around which to
conduct research
and build curricula
 Redefine
disciplinary
boundaries and
interfaces among
disciplines
While on the subject of definitions, it is also worth clarifying the subtle differences between system
science and transdisciplinary science. One of the objectives of system science is the unification of
knowledge residing in different “worlds.” In subtle contrast, transdisciplinary science is concerned with
discovering hidden connections between different disciplines with a view to establishing a common
platform for discourse among people from diverse disciplines. Peter Checkland (Checkland, 1981)
offers a practical perspective when he recommends that “what we need is not interdisciplinary teams,
but transdisciplinary concepts; concepts which serve to unify knowledge by being applicable in areas
which cut across the trenches which mask traditional academic boundaries.” Norbert Wiener (1948)
was among the first to write about growingly interconnected complex of concepts and models, and
about ways of interaction among elements and organization of complex situations and systems. These
perspectives lead to the notion of “transdisciplinary synthesis,” potentially a new language of
interconnected concepts and models applied to reasonably accurate descriptions of complex wholes or
“multi-domain ontologies.” However, while being cognisant of the ills of hyperspecialization, it is also
important to be mindful of the fact that a “theory of everything” does not devolve into a “theory of
nothing.” This paper takes a practical view in discussing transdisciplinary thinking and how it can be
infused into research and education.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the movement toward
transdisciplinarity research. Section 3 discusses the transdisciplinary mindset and how to stimulate
transdisciplinary thinking along with specific examples. Section 4 presents strategies for creating a
Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science
MARCH 2007, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 3
transdisciplinary education and research agenda. Section 5, the concluding section, discusses the
changes needed to create a transdisciplinary curriculum and emphasizes the importance of themes in a
transdisciplinary syllabus.
2. Road to Transdisciplinarity
The movement toward transdisciplinary research has been several years in the making as societal
problems continue to grow ever more complex requiring ever-increasing collaboration among the
various disciplines. Intradisciplinary research is characterized by collaboration among individuals
within a single discipline. Multidisciplinary research is characterized by collaboration among
individuals from different disciplines. Interdisciplinary research is characterized by collaboration
among different disciplines. Transdisciplinary research is characterized by interdisciplinary teams
engaged in transdisciplinary thinking to fill knowledge gaps that exist among disciplines. This
movement towards trandisciplinary research is portrayed in Figure 1.
LEGEND:
direction of increasing
problem complexity
Pi
Dj
Pi
Transdisciplinary
Collaboration
: person i
: discipline j
Dj: person i from
discipline j
D1
Intradisciplinary
Collaboration
P1 P 2
P3 PK
among individuals
within a
discipline
P3
D1
D3
P5
P2
P4
D2
D4
D3
D4
new
emerging
discipline
D2
D5
D6
D7
D3
P1
D2
D7
Interdisciplinary
Collaboration
Multidisciplinary
Collaboration
D1
D4
D5
P6
D6
D6
D5
Collaboration
Levels
among individuals
from different
disciplines
among
different
disciplines
between knowledge
elements from different
disciplines (unification)
Fig. 1 Road to transdisciplinarity.
Looking back a few decades ago, problems tended to be relatively well-circumscribed and
amenable to analysis and solution approaches using methods from a single discipline (e.g., mechanical
engineering, electrical engineering). Years later, led by the aerospace industry, the discipline of
systems engineering was born. Systems engineering required people from different disciplines to
collaborate to solve problems that were deemed unsolvable using techniques from within a single
discipline. With the advent of systems engineering, the emphasis shifted from applying the right
technique to solve a problem to identifying and bringing together the right mix of people from different
disciplines to solve complex problems. This was the beginning of multidisciplinary problem-solving
which has its roots in multidisciplinary collaboration.
Collaboration among people from different disciplines led to the recognition that some problems
required extensions to the contributing disciplines thereby enriching the disciplines. Quite frequently,
an entirely new discipline (e.g., electro-magnetics, biomechanics, cognitive engineering, software
economics) with a new set of concepts may emerge from such collaboration, and become an object of
Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science
MARCH 2007, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 4
research in its own rights. For example, electro-magnetics was the result of collaboration between
electricity and magnetism. Researchers collaborating from these two disciplines found that the
movement of a charged object created a magnetic field. When this hidden connection between these
two disciplines was discovered, it created an entirely new field - - electro-magnetics.
Along with cross-fertilization and cross-pollination among disciplines came the recognition that
there were incompatibilities among disciplines arising primarily from differences in underlying
assumptions and theoretical foundations. These differences, in part, stood in the way of knowledge
unification across disciplinary boundaries. It is this recognition that leads to the realization that we
need to transcend (i.e., go beyond) disciplines to fill in knowledge voids and harmonize disciplines.
This new awakening provides the impetus for transdisciplinary research collaboration as a means to
achieve knowledge unification across disciplines and domains.
Transdisciplinary research is conducted by interdisciplinary teams working on a complex problem
requiring expertise in different disciplines and knowledge of different domains. The product of such
collaboration, if successful, is not merely a solution to the complex problem but also unification of
knowledge from different domains and from different disciplines. Ultimately, the goal is unity of
knowledge which includes not only knowledge associated with different disciplines but also knowledge
between and across disciplines. Figure 2 presents a notional depiction of these ideas.
Complex Problem
Characterization
• different perspectives
• different domains
• different disciplines
Interdisciplinary
Team
Collaborative
Problem Solving
Lessons
Learned
Research Results
• new knowledge
• unity of knowledge
• unified ontology
• contributions to individual
disciplines
• lessons learned
Fig. 2 Transdisciplinary concepts emerge from interdisciplinary collaboration on
complex problems.
3. Stimulating Transdisciplinary Thinking
Transdisciplinary research requires a transdisciplinary mindset. A transdisciplinary mindset is one
that is open to questioning disciplinary assumptions, and one that is willing to reach out to other
disciplines to solve problems. In Table 2, I present some of the key characteristics of a transdisciplinary
mindset.
In the following paragraphs, I present examples of transdisciplinary thinking that led to the creation
of new technologies and capabilities needed to satisfy overarching goals.
Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science
MARCH 2007, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 5
3.1. Semantic integration: first responder aiding and training.
The development of first responder aiding and training systems is an object of current interest
within Homeland Security. This problem is rather complex requiring the participation of and
interoperability among a number of disciplines and sub-disciplines (Figure 3).
Table 2. Characteristics of transdisciplinary mindset
 Actively looking for and exploiting synergies among disciplines
– e.g., decision theory and artificial intelligence
 Actively seek out appropriate analogies
– e.g., biological analogy exploitation
– e.g., what do I know about the human immune system that I can apply to cybersecurity
 Frame the problem in a larger context to open up collaboration scope
– e.g., BMW’s concept car patterned after a boxfish has a result of collaboration between engineers and marine
biologists
 Examine the problem as an outsider
– looking beyond entrenched thinking can open up the option space (i.e., possibilities)
 Formulate the problem from different perspectives
– perspectives could include technical, organizational, social, cultural
 Envisioning the outcome or result
– a “reality check” can cause the relaxation of constraints imposed by an entrenched mindset
 Strive for semantic interoperability among disciplines
– develop multi-domain ontologies to smooth out seams among disciplines
– reconcile assumptions and theories across disciplines (to the degree possible)
– create a shared vocabulary to address complex problems
– relax disciplinary boundaries to accommodate new concepts
 Explicitly formulate key tradeoffs
– force team to open “mental locks” and view problem in a new light
First Responder
Aiding and Training
Goal:
Cost-effective
Just-in-Time
Training
New
Capability:
New
Technology:
Participating
Disciplines:
enrichment
Simulation-based
Training
Simulation
Engineering
(physics, computer science)
enrichment
Shared
Ontology
Performance
Support Systems
user aids
synthetic
role players
Cognitive Agents
new
subdiscipline
Learning
Sciences
Human
Performance
Modeling
Intelligent
Agents
(cognitive science)
(behavioral science)
(computer science)
Fig. 3 Knowledge unification for first responder aiding and training.
As shown in Figure 3 starting with a set of base disciplines (e.g., computer science, cognitive
science) and combining subsets of them through collaborative research, we can create new
technologies that either enrich the contributing disciplines or give rise to a new sub-discipline. Further
Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science
MARCH 2007, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 6
combination of new technologies and sub-discipline can give rise to new capabilities (e.g., costeffective just-in-time training, performance support systems). The new capabilities are what enable the
attainment of “first responder aiding and training” capability.
It is important to realize that invariably there will be mismatches in the terminology and key
concepts underlying cost-effective just-in-time training and on demand performance support systems
given the fact that they have different origins. This problem can be overcome through the development
of a shared ontology for aiding and training first responders. This shared ontology is a
“transdisciplinary intervention” that harmonizes the two capabilities and assures proper semantic
interoperability.
3.2. Exploiting Synergy Among Disciplines: Air Intercept Operations
Air intercept operations is a complex planning and decision making problem that requires
continuous context monitoring, threat monitoring, target selection, strike path planning and execution.
This problem is not amenable to being solved by methods from a single discipline (Madni et. al.,
1981a, Madni et. al., 1981b, Madni, 1983). These investigators attacked this problem by combining
methods from different complementary disciplines. The approach taken in this research was to: a)
represent tradeoffs among objectives using multiattribute utility (MAU) models; b) dynamically adapt
the weights of the various objectives in the tradeoff hierarchy based on the prevailing context; and c)
employ “fast-time simulation” to preview downstream consequences (i.e., board configuration) and use
that knowledge for decision making in terms of which targets to pursue; and d) exploit dynamic
programming to optimize the strike path in target prosecution. Figure 4 depicts the transdisciplinary
thinking underlying this approach. A by-product of this research was enrichment of the field of
decision theory and operations research.
contribution
Adaptive Dynamic
Programming
New Technology
Adaptive MAU
Models
Operations
Research
Rule-based
System
Artificial
Intelligence
contribution
Dynamic
Programming
New Technology
Multi-attribute
Utility (MAU)
Model
Fast-time
Simulation
Disciplinary
Contribution
Decision
Theory
Simulation
Theory
Participating
Disciplines
Fig. 4 Context-sensitive strike path determination using transdisciplinary methods.
3.3. Framing the Problem in a Larger Context: DaimlerChrysler’s Automotive Innovation
For all of human ingenuity, humans have much to learn from Mother Nature. This is the
fundamental tenet of biomimicry (Benyus, 2002) which looks to nature as a model, mentor, and
ultimate yardstick for design. Biomimicry, or nature-inspired design, studies nature’s models and
processes and either mimics them or takes inspiration from them to solve human problems.
Biomimicry also views nature as a mentor in that it strives to learn from nature. And finally,
biomimicry uses an ecological standard to judge our innovation. After all, who better than Mother
Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science
MARCH 2007, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 7
Nature to say what works and what lasts after 3.8 billion years of evolution? One of the means of
harnessing this knowledge is to frame problems in a larger context than has traditionally been the case.
This is precisely what DaimlerChrysler did when it undertook the development of a concept car.
Daimler Chrysler achieved convergence among multiple disciplines when it patterned the design of its
concept car after a boxfish. A model of aerodynamic efficiency, this rather squat, snub-nosed, brilliant
incarnation was a result of harnessing biology, aerodynamics, automotive design, and manufacturing
technology. This breakthrough in effective transportation resulted when engineers framed the problem
in a larger context that involved marine biologists in the dialogue. This was a novel insight on the part
of the engineers who recognized that natural selection has been at work for millennia on problems of
mechanical and aerodynamic efficiency. The transdisciplinary bridge in this case was looking to nature
while framing the problem in a larger context that allowed the inclusion of marine biologists in the
design process.
4. Towards a Transdisciplinary Research and Education Agenda
In the foregoing discussion and examples, I have presented several approaches to the creation of
transdisciplinary bridges among disciplines that go beyond merely data exchange, information sharing,
and discipline enrichment. This section provides strategies for creating an agenda for transdisciplinary
research and transdisciplinary education. Some of the earlier work in transdisciplinary education and
research in the engineering disciplines was in relation to design and process science (Ertas et. al., 2000,
Tanik et. al., 1997).
4.1. Transdisciplinary Research Agenda
A research agenda for transdisciplinary research needs to be driven by problems of high complexity
and scale that elude multidisciplinary approaches. Preferably, these problems should be of national and
global significance to garner international attention. Such problems are usually system-of-systems or
complex systems problems that span multiple disciplines, and domains and require translation between
different vocabularies. Examples of such problems are disaster response planning and execution (e.g.,
Katrina response), pandemic and crisis management, and global security and safety. Once the problem
has been formulated from different perspectives, the relevant disciplines that potentially contribute to
the solution need to be identified and researchers from the relevant disciplined appropriately
incentivized to participate. Thereafter, interdisciplinary collaboration among researchers from the
different disciplines working on grand challenge problems needs to begin. This process will typically
require the development of “transdisciplinary bridges” and theory enhancements to fill knowledge
voids and resolve incompatibilities among disciplines. The resultant body of knowledge (BOK), after
due verification and validation, needs to be incorporated into the educational agenda.
4.2. Transdisciplinary Education Agenda
The education agenda, in large part, “flows” from the research agenda. It should begin with the
identification of characteristics of complex problems that elude solution using intradisciplinary and
multidisciplinary approaches. It should harness interdisciplinary research findings to identify new
topics for inclusion in the curriculi of the contributing disciplines. Thereafter, it should discuss the need
for knowledge unification among disciplines, identify potential barriers, and the role of semantic
technologies (e.g., multi-discipline, multi-domain ontologies, and associated reasoning mechanisms) in
potentially overcoming the barriers. Finally, it should create a set of laboratory problems that requires
the creation, use, refinement and deployment of transdisciplinary bridges such as multi-domain
ontologies, and analogical reasoning approaches. Figure 5 presents a conceptual framework for
conducting transdisciplinary research and adding to its body of knowledge.
Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science
MARCH 2007, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 8
Transdisciplinarians
join
create
Body of
Transdisciplinary
Bridges
evolves
Transdisciplinary
Research
Team
given to
Complex Problems
Transdisciplinary
BOK
Transdisciplinary
Courses
informs/updates
available as
reference to
Transdisciplinary
Courses/Curriculum
used to
teach
Fig. 5 Framework for creating and exploiting BOK for transdisciplinary R&E.
5. Conclusions
As science moves deeper into the workings of the universe, we will increasingly develop models
and methods that unite disciplines. Electromagnetics, biostatistics, cognitive engineering,
psychophysiology and medical informatics are but a few examples of this phenomenon. Today, we can
engineer materials atom by atom, working very nearly at the boundary between matter and energy. At
this level, disciplinary distinctions become almost arbitrary as physics, chemistry, biology and
engineering begin to converge upon shared possibilities (Upham, 2006). The “promise of converging
spaces” can be profound and far-reaching. Some of the pressing challenges that can be addressed
through such convergence include: mitigating the damage we inflict on the environment; producing
new materials to support the rapid development of worldwide infrastructure, defending ourselves
against escalating chemical-biological threats; and increasing computing power while reducing size
and cost. Such pressing priorities are beyond the purview of a single discipline, a single institution, or
even a single culture.
This is the essence of the transdisciplinary approach. However, the promise of transdisciplinarity
comes with its fair share of challenges. To begin with, the transdisciplinary approach requires “going
beyond the laboratory” and into the realm of politics. No far-reaching reform or advance is possible
without getting into the realm of politics. Very simply, politics is the process by which humans express
desires, establish priorities, and allocate resources (Upham, 2006). The key question, of course, is
whether politics will advance or hinder the advance of promising technologies. Clearly, while these
type of questions are addressed in the realm of politics, scientists must step forward to represent the
possibilities that may otherwise go unvoiced, unnoticed, or worse yet, misunderstood.
For transdisciplinary research discussions to go beyond the abstract into making a difference to
pressing issues in the realworld, researchers need to initially identify regional problems and issues at
various scales and, after demonstrable successes, elevate their sights to issues of national and global
significance. Regional issues can be identified in a variety of venues such as energy conservation and
use, environment management systems, global climate change management, healthcare, sustainable
development, and educational reform. Once such problems have been identified, an appropriate mix of
disciplinary breadth and depth can be specified based on the theme, issue or problem addressed. It is
almost inevitable that addressing such socio-economic and socio-political problems will require linking
specific scientific disciplines with humanities.
However, realizing a transdisciplinary educational curriculum requires several changes at the
content, instruction, and institutional levels. To begin with, course content needs to be focused on those
Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science
MARCH 2007, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 9
real problems and issues that are not amenable to solution or resolution from within a single discipline
and that require interdisciplinary teams. Second, there is a need for faculty members who can skillfully
discern emergent connections among disciplines and develop new insights. Third, educational
institutions need to not only be accepting of this paradigm shift but in fact create an environment that
attracts and incentivizes transdisciplinary educators and researchers. Fourth, the curricula need to be
viewed not merely from the perspectives of depth and breadth but from a thematic perspective. The
syllabus needs to be theme-focused, integrated with the appropriate disciplines, and at a level of depth
and breadth consistent with the theme. Fifth, since the internet has dramatically facilitated the conduct
of transdisciplinary research (Hunsinger, 2005) it should be exploited in distance learning programs.
Finally, concrete examples of theme-related transdisciplinary solutions and experiences need to be
covered to develop transdisciplinary thinking skills. In conclusion, the time has come for us to begin
for exploiting the “flatness” of this world with open minds and a commitment to transdisciplinary
research and education, the next frontier in the intellectual and societal growth of human kind.
6. References
Benyus, J., Innovation Inspired by Nature, Copyright © Janine M. Benyus, Harper Collins Publishers Inc.,
New York, September 1, 2002.
Boehm, B., Software Engineering Economics (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1981).
Checkland, P., Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Wiley, New York. (Practice and Philosophy of Systemic
Management), 1981.
Ertas, A., Tanik, M.M., and Maxwell, T.T. Transdisciplinary Engineering Education and Research Model,
2000.
Fairclough, N., Analyzing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research, Routtedge, 2003.
Fairclough, Norman, “Critical discourse analysis in transdisciplinary research on social change: transition, rescaling, poverty and social inclusion,” 2005.
Friedman, T.L., The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century, Copyright © Thomas L.
Friedman, 2005.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., Trow, M., The New Production of
Knowledge, The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies (Sage Publications, London,
1994).
Hunsinger, J. “Toward a Transdisciplinary Internet Research,” The Information Society, Vol. 21, Issue 4,
September 2005, pp. 277-279.
Madni, A.M. and Freedy, A. Decision Aids for Airborne Intercept Operations in Advanced Aircrafts,
Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference on Manual Control, JPL Publication 81-95, October 15, 1981a,
pp. 187-210.
Madni, A.M., and Freedy, A. Decision Aids for Airborne Intercept Operations in Advanced Aircrafts,
Proceedings of the International Conference on Cybernetics and Society, Sponsored by IEEE Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics Society, October 26-28, 1981b, pp. 224-234.
Madni, A.M. Integrated Modeling Approaches in Advanced Cockpit Automation, Proceedings of the 1983
SAE Aerospace Congress & Exposition, Long Beach Convention Center, Long Beach, CA, October 1983.
Nicolescu, Basarub, La Transdisciplinariet, Paris, France: Rocker, International Congress. What university
for tomorrow? Towards a transdisciplinary evolution of the university, Locarno, Switzerland, April 30 – May 2.
Nicolescu, Basarub, Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity, SUNY Press, New York, 2002.
Tanik, M.M. and Ertas, A. “Interdisciplinary Design and Process Science: A Discourse on Scientific Method
for the Information Age,” Transactions of the SDPS, Vol., 1, No. 1, pp. 76-94, 1997.
Tharp, T. and Zalewski, J. Economics and Software Engineering: Transdisciplinary Issues in Research and
Education, Proceedings of the Workshop on Global Transdisciplinary Education, Research and Training, pp 6-11,
June 11-13, 2001.
Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science
MARCH 2007, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 10
The Future of Public Health in the 21st Century. Committee on Assuring the Health of the Public in the 21st
Century (2002), The National Academies.
Upham, S., Convergent Technologies and Fundamentalist Ideologies: The Possibilities and Politics of the 21st
Century, Keynote Address, Ninth World Conference of Integrated Design and Process Technologies, June 2006.
7. Appendix
Dr. Azad Madni is the founder and CEO of Intelligent Systems Technology, Inc. His research
interests are in transdisciplinary approaches and their application to systems-of-systems architecting,
planning and decision aiding, and interactive stories as the basis for simulation-based learning. He is
the recipient of several prestigious, international and national awards including the 2006 C.V.
Ramamoorthy Distinguished Scholar Award from the Society of Design and Process Science at the
Ninth World Conference on Integrated Design and Process Technology. He is also the recipient of the
SBA’s National Tibbetts Award for California for excellence in research, technology innovation, and
transition. In 2000 he received the Blue Chip Enterprise Award for entrepreneurship from Mass Mutual
and U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He is a two-time winner of the Developer of the Year Award from
the Software Council of Southern California. He has been a Principal Investigator on more than sixtyfive R&D projects sponsored by approximately thirty different Federal R&D organizations. He has
received special awards and commendations from DARPA, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and
the U.S. Navy for his pioneering R&D contributions in modeling and simulation and for their
application to national “agility” and concurrent engineering initiatives. He is an elected Fellow of the
IEEE, INCOSE, SDPS, and IETE, and an Associate Fellow of AIAA. He is currently serving as the
President of the Society of Design and Process Science, a society of renowned international scientists
and researchers committed to transdisciplinary education and research. He is the Editor-in-Chief of the
Transdisciplinary Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science, a journal devoted to covering
transdisciplinary research and education worldwide. Dr. Madni has been a Visiting Industrial Fellow of
Caltech’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in the Space Microelectronics Center. He received his Ph.D., M.S.,
and B.S. in Engineering from UCLA. He is also a graduate of the Executive Institute at Stanford
University. He is listed in the Marquis’ Who’s Who in Science and Engineering, Who’s Who in
Industry and Finance, and Who’s Who in America.
Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science
MARCH 2007, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 11