Undisciplinarity

John Marshall and Julian Bleecker

The ‘inter_multi_trans_actions’ symposium brought together a number of leading practitioners from the fields of art, architecture and design. The title of this event suggests that these practitioners’ creative practice can be understood as a prepositional relationship between, beyond or across conventional disciplines. The creative work produced by these practitioners can be said to be ‘project-based’ rather than ‘discipline-based’ (Heppell, 2006). In practice, disciplines are constructs that we can choose to adhere to or not. Conversely, in academia, the boundaries of a discipline are important. For example, the distribution of funds and resources, and the administration of both research and teaching tend to operate within a disciplinary framework (Russell, 2000). Previous models of university-based research have amplified the tendency for knowledge to pile up in vertically specialized ‘silos’. However, what might the implications of post-disciplinary creative practice be?

Arias and Fischer (2000) state that when a domain reaches the point where the knowledge necessary for professional practice cannot be acquired in a decade, specialisation will increase, teamwork becomes a necessity, and practitioners will make increasing use of ‘distributed cognition’. Mansilla and Gardner (2003) have identified several challenges to interdisciplinary work. They point out that individual disciplines often adhere to contradictory standards of validation to those of interdisciplinary work that draws upon them. Their research indicates that in the case of new areas of study with no existing precedents that developing validation criteria is part of the investigation process itself. Academics therefore are required to spend more time trying to justify what they do than actually doing it. Nevertheless, there is an increasing amount of extra-disciplinary work being done, particularly in areas pertaining to design and technology in order to answer complex questions and address broad issues (Klein, 1990).

In ‘The new production of knowledge’ Michael Gibbons and his co-authors categorise three types of research beyond standard disciplinarity. These are: ‘inter’, ‘multi’ and ‘trans’ -disciplinarity (See Table 1).

Characterized by the explicit formulation of a uniform, discipline-transcending terminology or a common methodology. The form scientific cooperation takes consists in working on different themes, but within a common framework that is shared by the disciplines involved. Characterized by the autonomy of the various disciplines. Does not lead to changes in the existing disciplinary and theoretical structures. Cooperation consists in working on the common theme but under different disciplinary perspectives. Research is based upon a common theoretical understanding. Must be accompanied by a mutual interpenetration of disciplinary epistemologies. Cooperation in this case leads to a clustering of disciplinary rooted problem-solving and creates a transdisciplinary homogenized theory or model pool. Table 1. After Gibbons et al, 1994, p.28-29.

These three terms indicate a series of relationships between disciplines. The dimension of distinction that separates these is the extent to which there is a “mutual interpenetration of disciplinary epistemologies”. To clarify this we can think of these in terms of everyday objects we are all familiar with (See Table 2).

Zipper “A zipper (British English: zip fastener or zip) is a popular device for temporarily joining two edges of fabric.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zipper Button “…a button is a small plastic or metal disc- or knob-shaped, typically round, object usually attached to an article of clothing in order to secure an opening, or for ornamentation. Functional buttons work by slipping the button through a fabric or thread loop, or by sliding the button through a reinforced slit called a buttonhole.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Button Velcro “Velcro is a brand name of fabric hook-and-loop fasteners. It consists of two layers: a “hook” side, which is a piece of fabric covered with tiny hooks, and a “loop” side, which is covered with even smaller and “hairier” loops. When the two sides are pressed together, the hooks catch in the loops and hold the pieces together.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velcro Table 2. Extra-disciplinarity as everyday objects.

There is an increase therefore from ‘multi’ to ‘inter’ to ‘trans’ –disciplinarity along this axis of “mutual interpenetration”. In multidisciplinary cooperation the ‘button’ and the ‘buttonhole’ are distinct entities. Sometimes this can be purely decorative and in general we see and talk about ‘buttons’ and not ‘buttonholes’. We have been using buttons for 3,000 years. In interdisciplinary cooperation as a zipper we have an entity where two facing rows of teeth are pulled into relation by a third thing - the slider. This slider represents the “discipline-transcending terminology or a common methodology” that temporarily holds the disciplines together. We have been using zippers since 1893. In transdisciplinary cooperation we have a relatively new entity (1948) that consists of two distinct layers that are useless without the other. Multidisciplinarity is additive. Interdisciplinarity is integrative. Transdisciplinarity is transformative. As the most symbiotic of these relationships this latter term bears further examination.

Gibbons, et al. identify a fundamental change in the ways that scientific, social, and cultural knowledge are being produced. The basic qualities of this new mode of knowledge production are: complexity, hybridity, non-linearity, reflexivity, heterogeneity, and transdisciplinarity. This hybridisation reflects the need to accomplish tasks at the boundaries and in the spaces between different communities (Gibbons, et al 1994, p.37). These enable collaboration, integrative problem solving, and development of new hybrid fields. Gibbon’s first mode of research is primarily ‘disciplinary’ in nature whereas the second is characterised as being ‘transdisciplinary’ in nature (See Table 3).

Mode 1 Mode 2 problems set and solved in a context governed by the, largely academic, interests of a specific community knowledge is carried out in a context of application disciplinary transdisciplinary characterised by homogeneity characterised by heterogeneity hierarchical and tends to preserve its form heterarchical and transient quality control less socially accountable, more related to the discipline quality control more socially accountable and reflexive Table 3. After Gibbons et al, 1994, p.2-16.

In ‘Notes Toward a Social Epistemology of Transdisciplinarity’, Klein (1994) informed us that several theorists are credited with coining the term ‘transdisciplinary’ (e.g. Jean Piaget and Andre Lichnerowicz). However, Erich Jantsch (1972) is most widely associated with the idea. Klein indicates that transdisciplinary research requires the development of a common conceptual framework and a common vocabulary among contributors (however, she also warns against the creation of self-imposed borders or the promotion of comprehensive worldviews which she states risk becoming monolithic projects or closed systems).

Russell (2000) stated that transdisciplinary research involves the

​“…integration of different bodies of knowledge, the synthesis of new approaches and ​techniques of inquiry and the communication of specialised knowledge across ​disciplinary boundaries and beyond.”

Foucault (1977, p.113-138) discussed the idea of a ‘transdiscursive position’ - those who are initiators of discursive practices, not just of individual texts. Kerne (2006) argues the use of the prefix ‘trans’ in relation to disciplinarity is still lacking a sense of how processes of disciplinary recombination are a formula for creating new knowledge. Nicolescu (1993) stated that use of the prefix ‘trans’ indicates concerns which are at once between the disciplines, across the different disciplines, and beyond all discipline. Kerne also states that the structures and processes that catalyse this type of integration are still largely undefined and argues for a structure of ‘meta-disciplinarity’ that connects theory and practice and creates hybrid forms. The late Jane Attfield (2000, p.1) went even further in her study of the material culture of everyday life stating that in order to go beyond conventional design studies she takes a ‘post-disciplinary’ approach which allows her to draw upon social history, anthropology, archaeology, sociology, geography, psychoanalysis and general cultural studies.

From the work of the ‘inter_multi_trans_actions’ symposium presenters we see the relationship between art, technology and design is one in which different idioms of distinct and disciplinary practices can be brought together. This has been driven through process and projects – “carried out in the context of application” (Gibbons et al, 1994). Our descriptions of these experiences are that to be beyond disciplinary practice means multiple disciplines engaged in a pile-up, a knot of jumbled ideas and perspectives. This involves lots of different languages and vocabularies and principles, and especially ways of completing things that feels like a cluster of different driving habits converging on a busy road. If then, a ‘transdisciplinary’ approach recognises the boundaries of the problem being addressed, not the artificial boundaries of disciplines this might suggest that the work done in this area can perform as a means of coordination and alignment across disciplines and as a means of translation between them. This work can also act as a reflexive space in which to understand, critique and evolve the dominant discourses of its parent disciplines.

We would like to propose the term ‘undisciplinary’ for this type of work. This term does not play the usual games, according to the usual logics (doing things to serve a specific mode of capital accumulation and capital production - whether knowledge-as-property, culture-as-commodity, objects or other materializations that can be sold for profit). ‘Undisciplinarity’ is as much a way of doing work as it is a departure from ways of doing work, even questioning what ‘counts’ as work. It is a way of working and an approach to creating and circulating culture that can go its own way, without worrying about working outside of what histories-of-disciplines say is ‘proper’ work. It is ‘undisciplined’. You cannot be wrong, nor have old-timers tell you how to do what you want to do. This is a good thing; it means new knowledge is created all at once rather than incremental contributions to a body of existing knowledge. It means new ways of working, new practices; new unexpected processes and projects come to be, almost by definition. This is important because we need more playful and habitable worlds that the old forms of knowledge production are ill-equipped to produce. It’s an epistemological shift that offers new ways of fixing the problems the old disciplinary and extra-disciplinary practices created in the first place.

‘Undisciplinary’ practice is not for everyone. Many if not most people still need to be told how to do what they do. They need discipline and boundaries and steps and rules. They need to know what’s good, and what’s bad. They need to know what the boundaries are and where the limits of the discipline lie. This makes sure that the creation of specific, sensible knowledge is created. However, a worthwhile challenge for creative practitioners is to learn how to learn. It should be expected (if it is not already) that it is not enough for a designer to pay attention only to the surface and appearance of a product. Part of the robustness of design comes from understanding the possibilities of new materials, new processes, new processors or having the language, practice skills and moxy to suggest whole new technologies based on a unique insight that runs not just broad, but deep. This cannot realistically be expected to be done from day one after graduating from a four year undergraduate degree course. It’s a lifetime process to develop a breadth and depth of knowledge and practice that can make new things. This means patience, developing a keen eye, an eager will and an aspiration to learn in every context, not just the classroom.

Gibbon’s (1994) ‘Mode 1’ (see Table 3 above) is concerned with first principles in which questions and problems are dealt with in a context governed by the largely academic interests of a specific community of practice. ‘Mode 2’ research is based on a context of application in response to the demand for solutions to problems from a community of interest. Communities of practice are made-up of practitioners who work in a certain domain doing similar work (Arias and Fischer, 2000). A community of interest involves members of distinct communities of practice coming together to solve a particular problem of common concern (Arias and Fischer, 2000). A community of interest can expect to face more communication problems than a community of practice. Members of communities of interest can learn from others who have a different perspective and perhaps a different vocabulary for describing their ideas and establish a common ground and a shared understanding (Arias and Fischer, 2000).

The advantages of an ‘undisciplinary’ approach are that questions and parameters integral to one’s own perspective get highlighted and discussed – perspectives that specific communities of practice such as engineers, marketers and others have never really been trained to consider relevant. This can lead to find new vantage points from which to create new things – a new community of interest. This is dependent on learning at least a bit about what various domain-based languages have to say about and contribute to common ground in the design process. To the degree that knowledge is shallow or nonexistent is equal to the degree of disadvantage one has. Time spent on the assembly line, in the design studio, in the materials lab and in the clean rooms is necessary to attain this depth. The opportunity to become part of a practice - with all of its history, ideology, languages, norms and values, personalities, conferences - is an invigorating process. Openness to investing time and energy in new practice idioms, especially if it offers the chance to feel the process of learning, is a crucial path toward becoming ‘undisciplinary’. This involves engaging different sorts of practices, ways of working or even disciplines that can shape what it is you do. But this means doing this to the fullest extent, not just as a quick fix. This may mean investing years of learning while making. In this way embodying multiple practices simultaneously is the scaffolding of creativity and innovation. It is what allows one to think beyond the confines of strict disciplinary approaches to create new forms of culture - whether objects, ideas or ways of seeing the world.

One way of establishing this common ground and shared understanding is to make use of ‘boundary objects’ that provide a means to communicate and coordinate between the various communities of practice that make up the community of interest we are talking about. These ‘boundary objects’ perform a brokering role (Arias and Fischer, 2000) involving translation, coordination and alignment between the perspectives of specific communities of practice.

​“Boundary objects are both plastic enough to adapt to local needs and constraints of the ​several parties employing them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across ​sites. They have different meanings in different social worlds but their structure is ​common enough to more than one world to make them recognizable means of ​translation. The creation and management of boundary objects is key in developing and ​maintaining coherence across intersecting social worlds.” (Bowker & Star, 1999, p.297)

‘Boundary objects’ (actual physical objects as art-design-technology projects such as those presented at the ‘inter_multi_trans_actions’ symposium) can bring discourses together as our interstitial ‘undiscipline’ with technology operating as a kind of glue-like ‘Lingua Franca’. Objects are expressive bits of culture. They make meaning, help us understand and make sense of the world. They are also knowledge-making, epistemological functionaries. They frame conversations and are also expressions of possibility and aspiration. In many ways, they are some of the weightiest and expressive forms of culture we have. Being able to make objects and understand them as communicative, as able to tell or start or frame larger conversations and stories about the world is very satisfying. Objects express the cultural, aesthetic, practical knowledge of their making - in their ‘design’, and in their crafting as ‘art’, or in their ‘engineering’. These disparate practices pull together a combination of instrumental and practical skill. If we take a mobile phone and try to understand it, it matters what culture, discipline, or community of practice we study it from. At the same time, making an object, and how it is made, and what it will mean, and when I will know it is finished - all of these things depend on what culture or practice or body of knowledge you choose to look at it from. Put an artist, an engineer and an industrial designer all around a table staring at a phone. What will they see? Where will they agree on what they see and where will they look blankly and wonder what each of them is talking about? How much time is spent negotiating what is seen? What practices fit in the middle? Are those interdisciplinary? What practices run across many? Are those multidisciplinary? Do trans-disciplines work above and beyond? What about ‘undisciplinary’ practices? What way of seeing that object will make it into something new and unheard of? What way of seeing will materialize new objects, innovative ideas and conversations that create new playful, more habitable near future worlds?

Finally, if we return to the previous discussion of extra-disciplinary cooperation in terms of everyday fasteners what would ‘undisciplinarity’ be? Perhaps it is a tangle of staples, rubber bands, hot glue and duct tape accumulated over time? ‘Undisciplinarity’ does processes rather than projects. Multivalent perspectives are the norm. An ‘undisciplinarian’ creates ‘implications’ by explicating these relationships not just as relationships but as intimate bedfellows. We are forced to rely on verbal descriptions that are more like gooey, porous, intertwined and knotted layers. Every layer is intimate to every other one. It is messiness. And messiness is closer to the DNA of the world in which designed objects operate. This is not to say that ‘undisciplinary’ practice is messy, but that it designs for contingency rather than make assumptions that the world is perfect.

 1 John Marshall is a hybrid art and design practitioner, researcher and curator. He is an Assistant Professor in the School of Art & Design at the University of Michigan, USA. He has taught 3D design at Leeds College of Art & Design and sculpture at The Manchester Metropolitan University. He worked in industry as a model maker and designer as part of a collaborative product development team at consumer baby products manufacturer Evenflo Company, Inc. Since 1998, Marshall has worked within rootoftwo (a collaborative partnership with Cezanne Charles) undertaking both self-initiated and commissioned projects. rootoftwo has exhibited in the US, Europe and Australia. rootoftwo also curates exhibitions and urban screenings with practitioner-led groups including Fast-uk, Video In the Built Environment (v1b3) and artcore. Marshall has a Bachelor’s Degree in Fine Art from Glasgow School of Art, Master’s Degrees in Sculpture and Art as Environment from The Ohio State University and Manchester Metropolitan University, and a Ph.D. from Robert Gordon University where his thesis was an exploration of hybrid art and design practice using computer-based design and fabrication tools. Marshall has presented and published his research in China, Denmark, Japan, Netherlands, UK and US.

Julian Bleecker is a designer, technologist and researcher at the Design Strategic Projects studio at Nokia Design in Los Angeles and co-founder with Nicolas Nova of the Near Future Laboratory, their design-to-think studio. He lectures and leads workshops on the intersections of art, design, technology and the near-future possibilities for new social-technical interaction rituals. He has taught interactive media at Parson’s School of Design and the University of Southern California. Julian has given talks and exhibited many of his emerging technology projects, designs and concepts in venues such as SIGGRAPH, LIFT, Xerox PARC, O’Reilly Emerging Technology Conference and Where 2.0 Conference on Location-Based Technology, Ubicomp, Ars Electronica, ACM SIGCHI, ACM Advances in Computer Entertainment, Banff New Media Institute, American Museum of the Moving Image, Art Interactive, Boston Cyberarts Festival, SHiFT, Reboot, Eyebeam Atelier, and SK Telecom’s Art Center Nabi. Bleecker has a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering from Cornell University, a Master’s Degree from the University of Washington, Seattle, in Computer-Human Interaction, and a Ph.D. from the University of California, Santa Cruz where his dissertation was on technology, culture and entertainment.

References

ARIAS, E.G., & FISCHER, G., 2000. Boundary objects: their role in articulating the task at hand and making information relevant to it. Available online at: http://l3d.cs.colorado.edu/~gerhard/papers/icsc2000.pdf [Accessed 30 August, 2007].

BOWKER, G. & STAR, S. L., 1999. Sorting things out: classification and its consequences. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

GIBBONS, M., LIMOGES, C., NOWOTNY, H., SCHWARTZMAN, S., SCOTT, P. & TROW. M., 1994. The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

HEPPELL, S., 2006. RSA Lectures: learning 2016. Available online at: http://www.teachers.tv/video/4957 [Accessed 30 August, 2007].

KLEIN, J. T., 1990. Interdisciplinarity: history, theory and practice. Detroit: Wayne State University.

KLEIN, J. T., 1994. Notes toward a social epistemology of transdisciplinarity. Available online at: http://nicol.club.fr/ciret/bulletin/b12/b12c2.htm [Accessed 30 August, 2007].

MANSILLA, V.B., & GARDNER, H., 2003. Assessing interdisciplinary work at the frontier. An empirical exploration of ‘symptoms of quality’. Available online at: http://www.interdisciplines.org/interdisciplinarity/papers/6 [Accessed 30 August, 2007].

RUSSEL, W., 2000. Forging new paths: transdisciplinarity in universities. WISENET Journal, Number 53, April. Available online at: http://www.wisenet-australia.org/issue53/transdis.htm [Accessed 30 August, 2007].

1