I totally agree with Benjamin Keller and Carlos Maldonado! I have done some interdisciplinary (computer science + neuroscience) projects so far and in all them there was someone coming up with a problem to solve. As Benjamin said, the publications came as well too, and in not bad conferences and journals!

In my case of interdisciplinary projects in which the disciplines are quite far way from each other (computer science and biology), I observed that it is better when a the non-computer scientist comes to the computer scientist with a problem, compare to search for a collaboration as a computer scientist. They have more "real" problems compare to computer scientists' "toy example" problems. However, I find also very useful the inverse situation for example in case if the computer scientist has a problem to solve (such finding out a new bio-inspired technique) and needs expert help.

Inter-disciplinary research is an important way to go for new research questions. Mono-disciplinary research is inclined to be incestuous, always building on it established authorities and foundations. Many important and interesting research questions can only be answered by attacking them with inter-disciplinary research. So, it is a good idea to get involved in inter-disciplinary research.

Interdisciplinary research is not easy, and its difficulties must be faced up to and handled. The choice of disciplines to choose must depend on the research question. Interdisciplinary research does not work by throwing some random disciplines together.

Communication problems will arise. Solving them adds to the value of the research. My current co-author draws trees upside down. So, we have to agree on which way to draw them so that our audience can understand them. I trust her deep knowledge and she trusts mine.

There is really only one standard for research: Honest ethical behaviour, good science etc. The only really difficult problem in practice arises in trying to find a journal, as journals historically are mono-disciplinary. Inter-disciplinary journals are too small in circulation to survive. (Draw a Venn diagram).

Ian, in a similar thread I've got more encouraging responses. International funding agencies foster (or, at least try to) inter/multidisciplinary research projects. See link below.

If your view of real problems is correct, do we need to reshape our (OUR) publishing world - and how could we? Open Access with good quality?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_funding_organizations_enable_or_hinder_interdisciplinary_research_projects

@Michael: Yes. Economy of scale is not so important for the niche journals if they are ON-LINE. They can easily be found, unlike in the "old days".

Dear Atis, in answering your question I can refer only to my field of applied economic research concerning the inter-relations between land-use and transport infrastructural configurations. Thus, no generalization can be made. As far as I know, those who have tried interdisciplinary collaboration have often reported how difficult it is to reach a shared understanding between the different disciplines involved with regard to terms and concepts each of them is using. Then, researchers were wondering whether the costs involved in such ventures outweigh the benefits of doing so. From my experience as editor of an applied economics journal, one of the most interesting and unexpected consequences of such ventures were that interdisciplinary endeavors had the effect of reinforcing existing disciplinary boundaries! But not only that. If I may take this opportunity to intervene in the debate, one of the main ‘upstream’ obstacle to the implementation of an interdisciplinary applied project is associated with the impossibility of ultimate theoretical unification among the disciplines involved, due to the complexities of their various perspectives and concepts which prevent to reach a common understanding. I am aware of the extreme simplification and the ‘apodictic’ characteristic of the statements I am making in relation to an huge and composite literature. However, I believe that – in relation to the topic of knowing the direct as well the indirect inter-relations between transport and land-use - there is still no indication of convincing research results where different disciplines have genuinely tied together and ended the ‘integration process’ of concepts resulting in the development of a common unified ‘spatial-economic’ theory!

In most of cases the projects are interdisciplinary and undertaken by well skilled classified researchers.

@Ian: thank you. However, let me clarify what I meant by "distinct standards of evaluation".

For an example from my field (which, at least nominally, is a single discipline!), take applied computer science, theoretical computer science, and software engineering. The applied CS guys care how well the code is executing on real hardware. The theory guys care how good the asymptotic complexity is and how beautiful the theorems look. SE guys may care about probabilistic measures like the p-value test. Can they agree on a single definition what constitutes a "good" work?

@Gianrocco: thanks! I completely agree that the different perspectives and concepts is an issue.

Could you give an example of "reinforcing existing disciplinary boundaries"?

As a professor of law and of computer science, I agree with most of your comments on difficulty! However, as an individual, and also as part of interdisciplinary teams over the last decades, it does allow for new approaches and applications of alternative disciplinary rigour (straightjackets, sometimes) to a particular problem. These sometimes produce novel and useful outcomes :-)

the best way to progress with an Interdisciplinary research is to have a team which has relevant required BASIC knowledge of other disciplines. If u have the basic knowledge its very easy to extract the information from the internet. In addition to this blogs,websites such as this one helps researchers further to authenticate the information they have grasped from the internet.

If someone doesn't come with a problem to start with, then what is the point of the collaboration?

I have a current collaboration in which I came with an algebraic perspective on a problem while my collaborators were working on an information theoretic perspective. I approached them because I caught a glimmer of something related to my work. It turned out to be like fools gold, but ultimately some of their work was useful to me, I gave them something as well, and together we have found some interesting ideas beyond what I could have imagined. The key is to being able to recognize commonalities, and also to develop the ability to communicate across differences to have the necessary conversations and arguments.

But, you have to have a reason to go through all that work. So, start with the problem. If the work is good from all perspectives, publication will come.

I would like to push the argument a little bit further. There are, indeed, two basic ways of understanding, and working on, interdisciplinary. One is of course the most common one, and it has been mentioned above in several nuances. It is namely the capacity of interacting, profiting from, and exchanging productive research, i.e. work aiming at publishing. This is what we could name the standard interdisciplinary approach.

There is, however, a more challenging one. I would like to stress this: real (= radical) inter or cross-disciplinarity is, besides, the one in which you are accepted with research and publications in a different scientific community. For instance, to put is extremely, if you are a chemist but you get to be published in the real of qualified sociology. Or if you are a philosopher and get to be published in engineering or mathematics.

Standard interdiscplinarity is taken as being capable of actively interacting with other sciences or disciplines. This, I believe, is quite easy. And yet, the most challenging and compelling is you yourself crossing various fields and yes: working on problems that normally stand beyond your natural perspective. Open problems entail both sorts of interdisciplinary.

I totally agree with Benjamin Keller and Carlos Maldonado! I have done some interdisciplinary (computer science + neuroscience) projects so far and in all them there was someone coming up with a problem to solve. As Benjamin said, the publications came as well too, and in not bad conferences and journals!

In my case of interdisciplinary projects in which the disciplines are quite far way from each other (computer science and biology), I observed that it is better when a the non-computer scientist comes to the computer scientist with a problem, compare to search for a collaboration as a computer scientist. They have more "real" problems compare to computer scientists' "toy example" problems. However, I find also very useful the inverse situation for example in case if the computer scientist has a problem to solve (such finding out a new bio-inspired technique) and needs expert help.

The times of disciplnary autarchy are gone. Social disciplines have grown enough not to feel threaten by other fields. As far as Economics are concerned, Amartya Sen put it quite perfectly: "The conclusion I come to is the need for a simultaneous recognition of the conditional importance of investigations of significantly identified partial pictures and of the absolute necessity to understand that they cannot be the endpoint of economics, not even of economic theory".

Dear Atis, in answering your question I can refer only to my fields of applied statistics (multivariate methods), Artificial Intelligence, and Bioinformatics, I would like to refer to the following:

1- First of all, this is a general subject, it is a convenient to say that the first step is very important in such cases.

2- I suggest to start from simple problem going on to solve an interdisciplinary research.

3- I agree with you, there are big problems between team members with different backgrounds, so T think the first step is very important to choose appropriate members of the team to solve this problems.

4- I agree with Gianroco, there is no generation can be made. But still there are outlines in each project one can built and then modify and use them.

5- I don’t agree with Onder that, the disciplines are quit far away from each other (computer science and biology). Because there is a bioinformatics science that connect between them.

6- I agree with Onder that a non-computer scientist comes to the computer scientist , and I would like to add that they should go to statistical scientist too.

Some Ideas to solve your problems

1. The whole idea of interdisciplinary is to open your mind for new ideas and new perspectives. The Interdisciplinary group should be carefully structured so that each person’s expertise is supporting the overall goal. Collaborative work and co-operation are skills and disciplines as such. If you feel uncomfortable in such a situation, you may not be the right person to join interdisciplinary research.

2. Collaborative work is always based on open dialogue. This is also a basic team work skill. Everybody in team should understand this. Different background should be seen as richness not as a burden.

3. This could happen as well in homogenous disciplinary croup. Choose professionals to your group.

4. And 5. I suggest that you divide your research results to be published in several media and always let the writing process being led by correspondent author from each discipline. Correspondent author should take care that the angle of your contribution is suitable for focal journal for example.

Finally:

So, is it a good idea at all to engage in interdisciplinary research? It is if you are ready to put extra effort to collaboration.

What an important question and thoughtful responses provided already. My take is that interdisciplinarity/interdisciplinary research is a complex phenomenon which can occur in different ways and is influenced by a range of socio-political (macro), institutional or organisational (meso), and individual and team (micro) level factors, thus requiring a combination of efforts and solutions.

In my doctoral research, I explored how researchers within the higher education health research domain actually experience and enact interdisciplinarity within their daily practice of ‘doing research’. I found that researchers had an essentially conflicted experience of interdisciplinarity. On one hand they experienced it as enabling, liberating, fulfilling due to its capacity to enhance the rigour, translational value, resilience etc of research processes, practices and outcomes as well as facilitate personal learning and growth. On the other hand, they experienced interdisciplinarity as difficult, frustrating, chaotic, high risk , tokenistic and inconsistent mainly because it did not fit with the normative disciplinary culture within higher education which influences a range of things including how one gets socialised into the sector, establishes an academic profile, gets funded & published and so forth. A specific and critical challenge for many of the researchers in my study was defining and positioning themselves and their research work in a context in which disciplinary conceptions of identity still dominate.

It was also evident in my study that interdisciplinarity was most commonly experienced (and discussed, including here) at the collaborative level where the focus is on the processes, practices and outcomes of working in an interdisciplinary team. However, it was also experienced and enacted at the personal or embodied level where the individual ventured beyond their discipline and worked across discipline boundaries. As identified by Carlos above, this aspect is less well explored and understood (including in the empirical literature).

So, clear identification regarding the level of interdisciplinarity we are talking about or wish to facilitate, seems to be an important first step. This can indicate which empirical and theoretical literature we (as researchers, interdisciplinary team members etc) can consult for help. If the issue is about facilitating interdisciplinary collaboration, then the empirical evidence articulated within the interprofessional practice literature (within health) or the organisational literature can provide a lot of insights about teamwork, communication, relationship building etc across disciplines. If the issue is about how we can support interdisciplinary scholars generally and ways of working and thinking (including about self) that transcend discipline boundaries, then there are benefits to engaging with the literature on identity and identification.

Dear Atis,

I also agree with all the difficulties inerent to interdisciplinary research. Never-the-less, I have always been and I am still fond on it.

You are right when you list difficulties related to different background knowledge of the different areas involved. We work , here in Brazil, in an interdisciplinary research team composed of Computer Science (transdisciplinary also - and this is even more rare in our country: HCI, Robotics, Algorithms and Data Structures, Natural Language Processing, Informatics in Education), Education, Linguistics - pure (Libras - Brazilian Sign Language Analysis) and applied (Reading an writing in Portuguese and Signa Language interpreting) researchers. How we have worked with rather good results:

1) We have first shared references of all areas related to mais concepts of each of them and, then, to the subjects in question;

2) We have done several workshops to consolidate main concepts of the treated subject by the different viewpoints;

3) As our group is geographically distributed, we have promoted virtual meetings every time they were necessary;

4) We have reviewed every piece (and level of maturity) of academic work (master and doctoral) and submitted articles by all researchers. This granted minimal soundness from every prism.

In relation to publishing difficulties, I also (totally) agree. Here in Brazil, we are pressed by publishing regarding a doubtfull - though well intended - classification of conferences and journals. If, from one sie, we need to balance our contributions in order to mantain our space in the Program, we have managed (and this is a big battle too!) to go on doing research with the principles, objectives and audience we want to, and this has brought us much return, since we practice action research in the space of Interaction Design for Social Inclusion and Development.

Last but not least, interdisciplinary reasearch is a good humility trainning and, also, a question of principles and objectives.

Dear Laura,

I understand the perplexities that Atis and some other researches have concerning the interdisciplinary methodology. However, I believe that only an interdisciplinary methodology can bring out the human and cultural meanings emerging from new discoveries, the problems that they raise, contradictions that cause, dangers, risks and possibilities. In this regard, I would like to add my following considerations.

The questions that science and technology pose cannot be experienced and considered as dangerous challenges. If placed in a continuous attention and in a broader framework they may represent occasions on which to base the true humanism for the man of the third millennium, based not on defense, but on the ability of technological advancement to make a methodological structure for the foundation of dignity and human rights. With regard to the increasing techno-scientific interventions on people, species and environment, our RG research group has identified the importance of an ethical discourse centered not on the limits and prohibitions, but on purpose , meanings, values, principles and positive criteria , which enable it to investigate the dynamics of interdisciplinarity towards transdisciplinarity. This may explain the dynamics of anthropological scientific culture and its influence on people and society. In my opinion, it should call attention to the need and desirability of a change in methodology towards interdisciplinarity, multidisciplinarity and – personally – towards transdisciplinarity.

Dear Gianrroco, I agree with your human basis. In fact, I am myself a C.C. scientits, but I work totally on social grounds, since I work for social justice (This could explain the reason for us not being respected by some "hard computer scientists"...) If I should have understood any criticism on my previus post I have not grasped it...

In the debates within our team, the recommending a particular method it appeared that in some cases it is as an act of dogmatic nature. The exchanges of views have revealed that in reality has never treated to assume a similar connotation. It is always kept in mind that - structurally - a methodology is a system of rules having the form of 'hypothetical imperatives' like:' If you are in a situation of type S and R to achieve the result you want, it is recommended to apply on the way to proceed, as it is achieved with R, or at least you are more likely to arise, ie the degree of attainment of the objective is higher, or the costs are lower than with any other method currently known to get that result .

Many are now, the boundaries, restrictions, shortcomings of purely scientific knowledge, brought to light by the analysis and by the methodological and epistemological reflection of the same scientists. Science discovers that it needs to go further, opening the way to new areas which previously had given little importance. For example, the economic impact generated by hostile behavior or conflict between different classes of income earners, which may be generated in a community

For these types of tasks and socio-economic analysis strongly influenced by the level of poverty of the populations in the developing world, it seems to me that a large literature has shown how the thinking on the social sciences in general have developed ways to set up the problems on a more accurate and rigorous basis. Conceptual frameworks, methodological approaches, theoretical paradigms together with instrumental, critical thoughts, epistemological and philosophical assumptions have been elaborated, allowing a renewed vision of scientific activity and its components.

A set of scientific paradigms have represented a set of hypotheses, laws, theories, axioms, methods, tools and applications which a scientific community has used for a given time. It recognized the ability to serve as a basis for further research. A concise definition considered this set as: 'a generic way to set up problems in a particular field of science'. Finally, a critical definition has spoken of a set of beliefs methodologically and theoretically intertwined, that allows the selection, evaluation, criticism'.

It seems to me that the only methodologically correct attitude would be to accommodate acquisitions, assertions and implications anthropological , cultural and humanistic research . This calls for a reflection that contextualizes historically, methodologically and epistemologically scientific data . Only the interdisciplinary exchange can bring out the human and cultural meanings emerging from new discoveries, the problems that they raise contradictions that cause , dangers , risks and possibilities. In this comparison ought to be used - among other things - to philosophy and ethics . ‘Scientificity’, therefore, should not be identified with either a generic strict rationality nor with an objectivity instrumentally controllable. All that following the model of the physical and natural sciences. Moreover, in my opinion – it should not be identified with the emotional component of the human being. Therefore, it can mean only loyalty to specific methodological criteria, clearly aware of the limits, the recognition of partiality and the temporary nature of each claim.

An examination of the methodological assumptions is always important for the structural analysis of science. The choice of method is the distinguishing criterion for disciplines. The classical philosophers looked at the results. Today we look at the path or route that leads to the truth.

Fallen the fundamental postulates of positivism, the proposals for the scientific method increased: new paths for research and discovery of reality; systematic or organization of knowledge. Then, proposal for the preparation of descriptive, genetic, historical, normative, axiomatic, phenomenological and dialectical structures.

By virtue of the science we learn how to behave in front of the behavioral phenomena dictated by emotions such as envy, using a symbolic representation and connecting them with their models formally rigorous, whose severe methodology of science has the principal task of improving. The methodological reflection does not solve the incomprehensibility of the fact and behaviors; on the contrary, it makes more radicalized. Knowledge of the logic of science does not diminish but re-evaluates the importance of philosophy and ethics.

I would like to say that the team of researchers has always kept in mind that a methodological can be descriptive or prescriptive. As for our type of behavioral analysis is concerned, the survey is 'descriptive' when we tried to find out if certain sequences of actions had been observed a specific method, that is, if these sequences might be described or explained in a plausible manner having assumed that a particular method had been used; such an investigation belongs to the field of research belonging to economic and social sciences, psychology and history.

A survey methodology can also be 'prescriptive': rather than illustrate an already existing method, it would be possible to point out, criticize or make recommendations about ways to proceed.

In the debates within our team, the recommending of a particular method could appear as an act of dogmatic nature. The exchanges of views have revealed that in reality has never treated to assume a similar connotation. It is always kept in mind that - structurally - a methodology is a system of rules having the form of 'hypothetical imperatives' like:' If you are in a situation of type S and if you want to achieve R, it is recommended to apply the way to proceed, named A, because R is reached at the same time, or there are major probabilities, i.e. the degree of attainment of the objective is higher, or the costs are lower than with any other method currently known to get that result .

Interdisciplinary research projects must be supervised by experimented experts and scientists who have a general knowledge base of the project issue. A research team from different fields have different semantics and scientific interests. Example on material science subject a team from metallurgy, mechanical, physics, chemist, mathematics, computer science etc... fields have different way of thinking and each could focus on a topic of the field. The supervisor of the team must be able to understand the different fields and to join the relevant knowledge from each to the project. Interdisciplinary projects are projects built on an inverse method approach from real problems or experimental ones to the resolution model, which needs a global approach basis knowledge processing. However publications in those topics are limited compared to the journals based on theoretical or applied mono disciplines.

I take my previous comments on one of the themes of complexity to support my opinion that today the framework of scientific knowledge upon which the cultural reflection rests, appears as a set of conjectures partial, provisional, historically and socio-culturally conditioned and subject to changes, even radical ones. So I think it is also necessary to reflect on its meta-scientific assumptions, results and meanings from other forms of knowledge (philosophy, metaphysics, ethics and history). In turn, it is necessary to resort to other kinds of 'knowledge' and culture, and to their tools with their analytical instruments such as: dynamic inventive, cognitive strategies oriented in a realistic sense and cognitive forms that became more and more suitable for continuous critical reviews.

The dialogue between the various forms of knowledge, therefore, can overcome the formalist worsening to the advantage of the desire for knowledge, spiritual maturity, responsibility, freedom and critical discernment. Some scholars can experience a kind of discomfort to see that, in science, the certainties are reduced to probability, the logic of truth to the logic of error, the securities to what is problematic, the formalisms to imaginative or reflective expressions. They find, however, also the positive aspects. For example, philosophy, metaphysics, ethics and the history of science can offer the foundations and purposes of which it is free, avoiding them endless setbacks and relativistic and skeptical outcomes.

The knowledge redeems the lack of ethical values. Even the philosophical knowledge was pushed to innovate, so that the phenomenology and hermeneutics have reiterated the importance of intentionality and purpose, meanings, and values, that is of the most challenged or marginalized factors by modern thought. Their reappearance has revealed unsuspected depths and thicknesses, which allow to reconnect the scientific knowledge to the themes of the original experience and the additional content of meaning, thus expanding the scope horizontally and vertically.

What has been said so far is the premise in such a way that it is clear what the questions that science and technology pose cannot be considered as dangerous challenges . If placed in a continuous attention and in a broader framework may be there will be occasions on which to base the true humanism for the man of the future, based not on defense but on the ability to pursue the advancement of science and technology, a cornerstone of construction of the dignity and rights of men. With regard to the increasing techno- scientific interventions on people, species and environment , our research group has identified the importance of an ethical discourse centered not on the limits and prohibitions, but on purpose , meanings, values, principles and positive criteria , which will enable it to investigate the anthropological dynamics in a transdisciplinary way of scientific culture and its influence on people and society. It is so called attention to the need and desirability of a change in methodology towards interdisciplinarity , multi-disciplinarity and trans- disciplinarity .

The interdisciplinary approach is a method that definitively enriches those people that agree to put into question the "axioms" of their own discipline, a fruitful exchange between different disciplines that can be simply the result of a long process of integration and construction of a common language. I believe that every scientist is trying to make an effort to render its approach available beyond the narrow disciplinary boundaries.

Relativism since its inception has been the subject of dispute. And this has been expressly or implicitly highlighted by some discussion appeared on RG .

The modern relativism denies the existence of objective truth that human intelligence can know.

We can distinguish five types or degrees of relativism : 1) the ' individualistic relativism ' of the sophists and greek skepticism , so , every single man " is the measure of all things" ( Protagoras ), ie for each individual is true and what is appearances and judgments are various and conflicting ;2) the ' historical relativism ' , which already has a precise formulation (Montaigne), for whom " that there can be no absolute science which is cartain, it is shown by the continuous succession of different physical doctrines , which destroy each other ," while in ethics " all the moral sentiments vary according peoples" ; 3) the ' empiricist relativism ' ( Hume ) and 4) the ' relativism pragmatist ' , according to which the knowledge can only be , respectively , more or less likely and more or less useful ; 5) Kantian relativism , that while admitting that a universally valid knowledge of the sphere of phenomena, guaranteed by the constancy of the a priori forms and categories of the ego , consider the unknowable " thing in itself ", cause of the phenomenon . Among the philosophical ideas that challenge the relativism , even starting from opposite points of view , there is - for example - the spiritualism that appeals to the absoluteness of metaphysical truths and moral principles guaranteed by the Revelation ; Postmodern thought has developed various concepts that are based on relativist positions : for example, the theory of weak thought.

The value characterizing democratic orders have led me to some considerations concerning the relationship between information and knowledge . These brief comments tend to express some personal reflections on how and when the concept of information influences that of knowledge. In my opinion, the relationship that has now developed between information and knowledge leads us to ask a series of questions of different nature , ie if it renders better or worse the quality of our knowledge. In particular , I wonder if this capacity is apt to expand or smother creativity and critical thinking, to enrich or worsen the "quality of life" , whether increases or decreases the heritage of our abilities and operational skills .

The emergence of the communicative dimension - implicit in every human activity - is a significant factor of humanization, humanism and culture? It decreases or increases the distance between different cultures ?

Having the old dialectic: nature-culture disappeared , human society is the result of the relationships created by technology. The relationships between man and technology have become a critical issue. In a society structured by technology; man ultimately depends on it . Even the forms of governance and organization are disrupted by technology and defined by changes in the mass media, by the concentration of the technical means and the growing mass of information , rather than by the " Constitutions " . In the new forms of society , the technical means do not serve man but turn him into a question.

The ethical reflection , just revived between many uncertainties, and the ethics of fundamental techno- scientific activity requires long lead times . This is confirmed by the fact that through the information deriving from the scientific progress, man will never know what he should do and for what purposes he spends his life .At the beginning, it had the purpose to confirm the irreversible end of ethics. On the contrary, It marked a further insurmountable limit of science: its impossibility to solve the problems of “good” and “evil” through the naturalistic, theoretical and experimental instruments. Complex problems can not be hold by sheer necessity in purely mechanistic or random and unpredictable patterns. Historical and cultural models open to events and to contingent difficult circumstances ; planning and information are necessary.

Ethical reflection , just resumed again and the fundamental ethics of the technical activity, as well as of the scientific nature will require a long time. From information derived since the contributions of the scientific studies, man will never know for what purpose to spend his life. Thus, It reveals the impossibility for science itself to solve the problems of good and evil by naturalistic, theoretical and experimental instruments . The demands of an ethics centered on the person will be motivated .

The current debate on the role of telecommunications and information in general can be considered as the expression of controversial issues that distinguish the different cultural paradigms . Such a situation is offset by a vision of the information society related to the category of the' post-industrial ' era which tends to overestimate technology itself and to mitigate the effects of proximity to the limits and the negative consequences of a ' post-modern ' conception tending to put in the foreground the characteristics of the technical elements as a social system .

To choose for comments the topic of the unity of knowledge, necessarily implies an excess of ‘agnosticism resulting in a positive answer to the question of truth and its unity and renouncing the inheritance of Kant about the division between ‘knowing’ and ‘thinking’ or postulation ethics, migrating to the recognition of a reality that is both a source of scientific knowledge and a source of questioning the ethical and proper place for metaphysical meditation. In the search for such a synthesis we must stand in front of the world without separating what the world is what from what the world means; we must stand in front of ourselves without separating the conditions and the rationality of our own knowledge from the responsibility that this entails to know; it is necessary, finally, not to split the search for a correct ‘criteriology’ from what makes a true science , from the conditions that make it good , giving us access to the grounds that , in humans, justify and support his ‘doing science’.

We propose here to investigate the ways in which it is manifested, in the past as in the present, the idea of unity of knowledge , what were and are the main theoretical difficulties it entails, but also the epistemological and cultural pressures that support their research. We will suggest what, in our view, the dynamics of the anthropological foundation that can inspire a meaningful, significant also in the university environment and in the context of scientific rationality, where there is a growing specialization and diversification. We will then consider whether access to a level of wisdom obstacles such unification or, rather, it may favor it . Recognized by reason as a sensible query, the inclusion of such a consistent level eventually becomes a condition required an essential part of speculative thought, without which there would not be any satisfactory synthesis, neither intellectually nor on what is the existence.

I would like to return to the question of ethics to point out that in parallel with the growth of the social consequences of science, we encounter the problem of the responsibility of researchers and of ethical criteria that must address both the decisions of those who run the system-research and the daily decisions of individual researchers

It is a problem that can not find viable solutions outside of an integral vision of man, of his historical task, the full realization of his destiny. Unfortunately, the most widespread tendency, which also contaminates the advisers, is to circumvent the anthropological critical points to draw boundaries and to draw up codes of conduct, in a proliferation of laws, regulations and supervisory bodies in which we are placing vain expectations.

It should be obvious that even a perfect law does not have the power to direct the actions or impose appropriate behaviors; indeed, often it results in a genuine obstacle to freedom of research and the identification of stimulus shortcuts to achieve their goals equally without being subjected to the heavy burden of regulations. The more applications of science predict unintended consequences, instead of raising the threshold and the complexity of regulation, with more force it should raise the question of radical man, the inalienable value of every person and the reasons for that are the basis of human dignity and respect for nature in its different ontological levels. Certainly, it is a duty of the communicator to find exhaustive answers, but there is no reason that he can ask the questions.

Significant is the tendency of some of some works of the new scientist- ommunicator to grip the public pursuant to a plea so far alien to science communication, that is based not so much on catastrophism, as on the undoubted ability to propose and make available background themes as are the origin of the universe and of life, man's place in the universe, the mystery of existence, the final scenarios of the universe, so far reserved to the specialized philosophical reflection. Not infrequently, are the problems on the border with the religious experience to dominate the scene, to become explicit element of retrieval at the level of promotional uses.

The various limits in the diverse landscape of scientific ‘divulgation’, on the one hand they are a manifestation of the continuing ideological positions that tend to present all forms of knowledge according to pre-established models. They are also a result of a defect of the disclosure itself: that of being reduced to the pure transmission of the results of scientific research. Even in the most proper and thorough communication, the tendency is always to convey the outcome of the scientific work, the finish line reached its and its predictable applications.

This is perhaps inevitable, especially in a context like the present dominated by communications, the economic value also represented by the information; and there is nothing more fitting of scientific and technological research to fulfill this desire of news, given the rapid pace of development of innovation and the rate of growth of new knowledge always positive coming from laboratories and research centersThere are no excuses: the public has the right to information and when news becomes of public domain they should be disseminated as much as possible to enable the debate from all points of view and in any context, not only in the academic or between insiders.

The approach based on the transmission of the results, however, presents a number of risks. The main focus is to provide an image of science which is not adequate, negative and, ultimately unattractive. The image of scientific knowledge as an automated process, as inevitable achievement of the solutions only by virtue of the particular method used; a method that is so increasingly proposed as absolute. The image of a learning process that seems free from errors, failures, blind alleys, which leads inexorably to the results presented with the character of safety due to the fact that it exceeded the quantitative measures and experimental tests

Moreover, it is an image that contrasts with the widespread feeling more and more of a science bearer of evil for the environment and continuing threats to humans; thus fueling the attitude of love-hate relationship.

Another risk of disclosure is to amplify the disparity between the actual solutions found by the researchers and the expectations in science as possible solver of the main problems of mankind. Here we enter into the " re-launch effect” of the disclosure, which moves forward the achievable goal, increasing the gap between what is deemed likely fueling expectations and intended to remain dramatically illusions.

To avoid the distortions of images and contradictions arising therefrom , it must therefore overcome the approach to disclosure as a mere transmission of results and ask the prospect to tell us the " genesis " and the "process" of scientific research. This means engaging in an attempt to " communicate an experience " : that is, to pull the audience to the science in order to bring out the human experience of those involved in the variety of expressions and the complexity of motivations and situations , to understand , however, the same results. This setting applies to both the history of science, and the present: in both cases , what should emerge from the communication is the cognitive experience of the researcher, the particular exercise of reason applied to a particular aspect of reality ( natural phenomena ) ; but also the human context that forms the background to the research and often provide elements to understand the setting of certain problems or the unfolding of certain events .

As coming from an industrial background now projects are interdisciplinary by default. Commercial, financial, IT, operations teams have to work together all the time.Having got a PhD in physics a long time ago I see a strong parallel with mutidisciplinary scientific projects.

The project management methods used in our setting divide the work in "specialist products" and determine how the products are dependendt on each other. So think primarily in products, not in activities. Each team delivers from his own specialism but is aware of the features their products must have to meet the needs of another team. From a clear product view the activities needed to get the work done are then easier to define and connect to each other.

You might argue that in my industrial setting the uncertainties are less than in a scientific environment, but then I have to dissapoint you. In the current economic and financial situation the challenges are bigger then ever.Thinking in products and matching the properties gives the most concrete backbonne to your project.

Following the most recent literature, usually, affirmations and evaluations on technology are concerned with the technological culture. This triggers a certain misunderstanding and a number of generalizations. The analysis of technological cultures, remains a real challenge given that the realities and the technological developments are tied to quite complex situations, always new, involving several elements: historical, cultural and social conditions, ideological biases, economical, as well as political interests. I will focus here on the most significant aspects related to this topic, that is to say the technology and the technological culture in their reciprocal relationship. It is important to consider at the same time science and technique, because they can be distinguished but not be separated. Both of them raise complex issues. With respect to the relations between technology and “science”, the latter is understood as a human activity that searches for causes, laws and effects of specific phenomena, through theoretical conceptualizations and experimental studies. However, it is implicit within technology, which is at the same time ‘technical science and science of the technique’ and, nowadays, it is characterized by three specific elements: a) systems that are more and more comprehensive and complex; b) a growing energetic potential; c) an increase in the operational efficiency. These elements and peculiarities, generally speaking, distinguish technique from science. Rather, are the rational procedures which render technique closer to science: defining the problems that can be empirically checked out; strictly analyzing the conditions for their solutions, to be able to come up with the strategies needed to trigger other conditions. But also to coordinating the understanding in order to turn it into strategic and efficient tools

Technology includes reality and specific planning sciences Those sciences called “pure” are also intrinsically technological sciences, just because of their observations. Measurements, calculations and experimentation, also require tools capable of artificially producing those phenomena that need to be observed and to be measured and with which it becomes possible verifying hypotheses and theories. Thus, modern culture is characterized by a science that has become a technical science; and a technique that has become a science (technology). Both the scientist and the technologist cooperate so closely, up to the point of becoming united. Historians have been able to demonstrate that the idea of pure science did not exist in the past, that it is rather a recent invention. Hence, a good technological culture must acknowledge that mankind invented both techniques and sciences for a number of reasons: to produce complex technologies in tune with the complexities of its growing needs, but also to create technological systems that would free mankind from the natural and biological needs, hence to be able to focus on more human tasks. Many interpretations and evaluations can be found about technology, both positive and negative.

The “humanistic-anthropological” interpretation assigns to technique a ‘revealing value’, given that its planning component shows the limitations, the dissatisfactions and the lack of fulfillment that need to be overcome. Rather, it spurs people to face the most painful and decisive struggles, those of the heart and of the moral conscience" Thus, the humanistic-anthropological vision puts an emphasis on the fact that a valid topic about technology cannot be limited to the relationship, the depending nature, and the priority with economic science and production. On the contrary one needs to keep in mind a wider humanistic and sociocultural context, that also includes the liberation of mankind from the limits and the conditioning of its material nature.

With regard to the increasing techno-scientific interventions on people, species and environment, it is noticed the importance of an ethical discourse centered not on the limits and prohibitions, but on purpose, meanings, values, principles and positive criteria, making it possible to investigate the dynamics transdisciplinary, anthropological scientific culture and its influence on people and society.

These notes are widely reflected in the advanced socio-technological cultures, more and more flooded with fears related to many different events.

Rationalism and irrationalism, in the opposite way, have altered the terms of the problem, giving rise to the opposing radicalism of the absolute domination and inviolability. In fact, these concepts wanted man as a superior being of nature, entitled to reduce the amount to anything that is not thinking. Therefore, the indiscriminate exploitation is a consequence of the rationalist fallacy to which quantitative misrepresentation must be offset by a commitment to techno-scientific understood as a responsibility towards creation.

Nature is not isolated, but within the vital circuit of human history n this view, the technology is called upon to bridge the gap between nature and human needs.. For this reason, it finds itself in the absence of an organic and a deep consideration of the problems not yet come to true innovative perspectives.

At this point the question arises of the presence in the global socio-cultural system, of a hierarchy of values and ethical and moral principles, based on a genuine understanding of man and that enjoys operational consensus. It requires the recognition of the role of ethical system, designed to enhance the personal axiological experience, authentic values and specific duties such as respect of the life and persons, his dignity, freedom and responsibility, goodness, , justice, and truth.

Also demands the translation of this recognition into concrete actions with other interactive systems.. However, push in favor of an ethic anthropologically and metaphysically founded the negative consequences derived from the uncoupling of ethics and metaphysics and anthropology from the reliance on scientific data and by what surrounds man. Today there is a growing fear that the lack of fundamentals cancels the positive achievements of modern culture: freedom, responsibility, intention, consciousness, historicity, situational, social, cultural aspect, solidarity, justice, implementation of their abilities and so on. Having helped to give shape and thickness of theoretical moral commitment, it seems reasonable to provide them with a solid foundation both anthropological and ontological.

These problems confirm that the in face of the limitless possibilities techno-scientific and dignity and freedom of the people, the ethic of techno-scientific, can not concentrate on the limits and prohibitions, but on purpose and positive guidance. Therefore, the limitations do not arise from external constraints, but by the demands inherent right recognized by the autonomy and participated theonomy.

The correct understanding of reality demands a common processing of techno-scientific acquisitions, with the assistance of philosophies, cultures, and spiritual traditions, The interdisciplinary dialogue must become an integral part of the techno-scientific activity focused on the needs of an ethical-moral and ethical reflection open to the techno-scientific issues, aimed at serving the whole person.

Therefore, the proposal ethical and systemic confirms the need for openness to transcendence, can not be eliminated from any human speech and an ethic founded on the person.

As examined so far it introduces the dense core elements of moral and ethical values in the critical and complex cultural situations. It makes particularly suited to illuminate the problems of socio-cultural and techno-scientific activities

Of utmost importance is the urgent call for: truth of man, human dignity, freedom and authenticity of consciousness of the moral law and the value of human acts as the foundation of ethics.

Of no less value is the reference to the universality and immutability of the moral laws, including those which prohibit always and without exception intrinsically evil acts.

They are also the pillars of a fundamental ethic of techno-scientific activity. Not by chance, in fact, we are indicating sciences and techniques as examples of tireless research, longing for truth and knowledge and encouragement to the moral questions.

Moral knowledge is deepened in a comprehensive and multi-disciplinary international dialogue that values contributions, problems, doubts and objections of all areas: science, technology, philosophy,

In fact, the main character appears in the constant voltage in a single view

ethics and its foundations, which meets the needs of significant action-oriented.

This is possible only in the recognition of an 'origin and end, which bases the needs and questions about the right to implement the rules to be observed.

From the literature I have examined, and from our discussion within the RG team, there is a large agreement that there can be no single prescribed methodology for transdisciplinary research. Authors agree that the methodologies employed in such a research need to respond to and reflect the problem and context under investigation. A number of theorists do however highlight the issue of methodology in their efforts to distinguish multi- inter- and trans-disciplinary approaches to research.

The descriptions found in the literature suggest multi-disciplinarity is characterized by the unintegrated application of more than one disciplinary methodology.

When it comes to describing interdisciplinary research, the general sense is that this approach involves the development of a shared methodological approach across different disciplinary frameworks

There is broad agreement in the literature that there can be no single prescribed

methodology for transdisciplinary research. There is agreement that the methodologies employed in need to respond to and reflect the problem and context under investigation. A number of theorists do however highlight the issue of methodology in their efforts to distinguish the three approaches to research.

In terms of the methodological approach that characterises multidisciplinary research, we find broad agreement in the literature that this type of research tends to retain disciplinary autonomy.

Multidisciplinarity is characterised by the unintegrated application of more than one disciplinary methodology. In contrast to multi-,and inter- disciplinarity, transdisciplinarity is characterised by an interpenetration of epistemologies in the development of methodology. Authors who describe transdisciplinarity suggest that the dissolution of disciplinary boundaries is necessary for the construction of novel or unique methodologies tailored to the problem and its context.

A subtle but significant variation on this idea of transdisciplinarity as fusion of

disciplinary methodology and epistemology is presented in the literature which refers to the work of Feyerabend, and talks about the need for scientists to refuse methodological reductionism and adopt a pluralistic methodology. He interprets this as legitimating a TD approach. The term ‘‘pluralistic methodology’’ does not necessarily contradict the idea that transdisciplinarity involves the ‘fusion’ or interpenetration of methodologies as described above. This contradiction would only apply if ‘‘pluralistic methodology’’ is interpreted as involving the application of an unintegrated plurality of methodologies. If, however, we see it as a process that involves integrating plural methodologies, or exposing a methodological approach to a plurality of alternative ideas and views as a means to developing a common approach, then there is a call for pluralistic methodology that would be consistent with the characterisation of TD methodology.

While the preceding comment reviewed how transdisciplinarity has been variously defined in the literature, I further work out the concept of transdisciplinarity expresses by F. Wickson et al. (Futures, 98,2006)

presenting some of its important challenges and conceptual quandaries. The specific challenges and quandaries I deal with are those associated with integration, These quandaries are worth exploring because, just like the distinguishing characteristics, they have real implications for the way that researchers might choose to practice transdisciplinarity. Rather than providing a prescriptive account of how TD researchers should address these challenges, our discussion is primarily aimed at highlighting these important conceptual quandaries so as to encourage researchers to explicitly consider the implications of these for their research and develop their own responses to them. Rather than obstacles, I concentrate on difficulties encountered as an interesting new challenges for the TD research community.

TD research offers the potential for many different scales of integration.

Each of these scales of integration pose unique conceptual and practical challenges for TD researchers. The dimensions of integration I discuss in this section relate to integrating epistemologies, theory and practice, and their research context. On one level, TD researchers are required to integrate knowledge from different disciplines. In doing this across the natural and social sciences . Obviously it needs to integrate different epistemologies. Some theorists of transdisciplinarity have developed concepts to help tame some of the challenges involved with this integrative exercise.

What these ideas suggest is that in trying to integrate different knowledge and epistemologies, the TD researcher does not need to aim towards the development of a single unified ‘truth’ but rather, can seek to integrate the different knowledge by looking for coherence, correspondences and ‘ridges’ across the differences, generating knowledge by finding, identifying and communicating patterns across diverse disciplines and discourses.

For those who draw a distinction between theory and practice, drawing these research elements together represents another dimension of the integrative challenge of transdisciplinary research. While theory and practice might be conceptualised as separate bodies of knowledge which the researcher ‘visits’iteratively, the aim of TD praxis would be for the bodies of theoretical and practical knowledge that the researcher engages with to inform each other. In this way, the researcher has the opportunity to reinterpret theory through insights gained in practice and vice a versa. I take this a little further and suggest that, in ‘TD praxis’, the two should co-evolve to a point where they are integrated.How this process proceeds in practice is one of the integrative challenges for transdisciplinary researchers.

Another dimension of reflection required in TD research is that of using different bodies of knowledge and their methodological approaches to critically reflect on one another in a transformative process. In contrast to the process of personal reflection described above, this dimension of reflection can be viewed as a more common because rather than reflecting on how individual frames of reference influence research practice, it is a process whereby different bodies of knowledge are considered comparatively to uncover the underlying values and assumptions incorporated in each Rather than simply accepting a body of knowledge as ‘fact’ and applying it to a research problem, this dimension of reflection requires TD researchers to deconstruct and rebuild bodies of knowledge through

exposure to one another. This more common dimension of reflection will perhaps be most important during the process of developing a TD research methodology.

There is currently no clear consensus on what transdisciplinarity is or how its quality can be evaluated. I wish to clarify my understanding guided and following my previous comments and a line of thought from the most recent literature.

These features are central, evolving methodology and collaboration. In the discussion within my research team I highlight variations in description that have significance for practice. Secondly, I wish to refer three interesting dilemmas that transdisciplinary researchers face (integration, reflection and paradox) discussing how these dilemmas are evident in different dimensions and their potential as both challenge and opportunity for practice. Lastly, I concentrate on the synthesised characteristics and challenges to shape two alternative frameworks for evaluating the quality of transdisciplinary (TD) endeavors. My first framework is based on strategic questioning and is potentially useful to those researchers that seek to improve the quality of their work. My second framework adapts an existing quality schema to the unique challenges of transdisciplinarity and may be more appealing to those seeking to compare TD research projects.

A convergence of inter-related economic, environmental and social drivers is shifting the landscape within which knowledge generation takes place. In the economic sphere, an increasing emphasis on the development of knowledge economies is promoting the generation of knowledge aimed at solving consequential problems.

For instance, from an environmental perspective, the need for sustainability is underpinning a growing demand for research that takes account of complex contexts and interactions between natural and social systems . In the social context, demands for interaction with an increasingly engaged population are driving research in more consultative and deliberate directions . Taken together, these drivers indicate a changing research landscape promoting knowledge production that attempts to solve real world problems through a context specific negotiation of knowledge.

This shifting landscape calls for the development and broader application of research practices that differ from the generalising, and reductionist approach that has traditionally characterised disciplinary approaches to knowledge generation .

Problem focussed, contextualised and consultative research is seen by many knowledge analysts as discordant with the disciplinary framing of research problems and the institutional structures and processes that sustain, regulate and promote disciplinarity. An additional approach that is advanced as an appropriate response to the shifting mandate faced by university-based researchers appears to be that of ‘transdisciplinarity’.

For functional analysis, attentive to the social character of language, it is a social product that has many legitimate uses".

This aspect concerns the meaning of the language linking it to a particular context and detecting errors in usage. We studied relationships between data and mindset of the researcher,

pointing out that the facts are accepted as they are consistent with the conceptual framework.

This is because the most significant experiences, occur mostly unconsciously. The history of culture and science shows that what is considered a "fact" in a given time, in others it is no longer such. Against external experience and refinements Interior of the concepts and knowledge are changing what we consider the facts.

The scientific facts, then, are systematic theories confirmed by experience, organized and placed in a theoretical system developed. They depend on: a) the comparability with the experience; b) the ability and validity of the theoretical formulation.

The difficulties force us to redefine the so-called facts, placing them in new paradigms, in which will have to find more satisfactory comprehension. The scientific language, then, is immersed in linguistic and socio-cultural.

Recent generations of scientific workers appear to be more attentive to the greater

independence of research by the demands of political power, of economic and military environment; the accelerated development of technological innovations; the growing alienation of researchers the results and significance of their work; the commodification of their commitment to interests unrelated to science. These issues concern the role of men of science and the tasks of techno-scientific society. The idea of science, such as search or pure knowledge, neutral, an end in itself, a phenomenon purely cognitive etc., is no longer sustainable. The real problem is the scientific activity, always swinging for purposes unknown to

researchers, or co-shared by them.

These awareness diminish the excessive enthusiasm and make it a duty to

all a really critical reflection. The continuing proliferation of new disciplines

(specializations) necessitates unifying approaches of knowledge. Hence the need for reflections and interdisciplinary research. The most sensitive scientific workers feel the discomfort arising from the immanent logic systems, which use science and technology to dominate people and society, rather than being direct from them. These problems requires the study of science as a human construction, historical, social, cultural, politics, etc.. Hence the need for a critical reading of science and of

techno-scientific time to make them more human and at the service of man

Among our consideration as RG members of researches were those concerning the meaning of culture which is centered on people and their lives balanced and rich, rather than on functions. It seemed to us that the intellectualist and functionalist appearance of knowledge proved insufficient to address the issues raised by the nascent industrial activity, interested in precise and limited skills and training which set the individual to limited and restricted functions.

Since the concept of culture oscillated as a function of production and profits, they thought to culture as "all the ways of life created, learned and transmitted from one generation to another, among the members of a particular society. This vision of "anthropological" and "sociological", was first criticized, then prevailed its advantage "not to favor one way of life over another, in the description of a whole culture.

In this perspective, the conflict between culture and civilization was surpassed.

The civilization became "the set of tools to which a culture has to be preserved, deal with the unexpected situations always new and dangerous, exceed the crisis, innovate and progress. "If a culture can be understood as the answer given by a group of men to the challenge posed by the particular reality of the biological, physical, social, in which they find themselves, it can be said that a civilization is the set of weapons to meet the challenge. The civilization became "the set of tools to which a culture has to be preserved, deal with the unexpected situations always new and dangerous, exceed the crisis, innovate and progress. "If a culture can be understood as the answer given by a group of men to the challenge posed to them by the particular reality of the biological, physical, social, in which they find themselves, it can be said that a civilization is the weapons complex

to meet the challenge. These weapons are made in First of techniques, from the most simple and elementary work manual and primitive to the most complex of the sciences and the arts; in second place by the forces that is symbolic of knowledge, art, morality, philosophy, which condition and at the same time are conditioned by these techniques. These weapons are made by techniques, from the most simple and elementary work manual and primitive to the most complex of the sciences and the arts; in second place by the forces that are symbolic of knowledge, art, morality, philosophy, which condition and at the same time are conditioned by these techniques.

The civilization became "the set of tools which a culture has for the purpose to be preserved, deal with the unexpected situations always new and dangerous, exceed the crisis, innovate and progress. If a culture can be understood as the answer given by a group of men to the challenge posed to them by the particular reality of the biological, physical, social, in which they find themselves, it can be said that a civilization is the complex of weapons

to meet the challenge. These weapons are made in first place of techniques, from the most simple and elementary manual work and primitive to the most complex of the sciences and the arts; in second

place by the forces that are symbolic of knowledge, art, morality, philosophy, which condition and at the same time are conditioned by these techniques.

The weaving and the combination of the techniques and of symbolic forms which in turn can be considered, in this respect, as other techniques, is the basis of the institutions economic, legal, political, educational, to which commonly think of when we talk about culture or civilization.

This broad concept of culture, typical of the human sciences, leading to problem of science as an instrument of culture.

It is clear that because of the incessant change of the conditions that a culture must address and given the unpredictability of these changes, the chances of success of technical-symbolic tools, which constitute a specific civilization or a stage, do not depend on the particular shape they have taken in this phase, but rather on their ability to self-correction that is of their adaptability to new circumstances.

This means that the chances of success of these instruments depend largely on the methodological rules that prescribe and direct their adaptation to different facts and circumstances, allowing each time to structure appropriately in view of such

circumstances or facts in order to maintain and increase its effectiveness.

These considerations already indicate a conclusion: the active and

operating in all fields of scientific research methodology that includes an awareness of the limitations or deficiencies of this methodology in every phase of history, is the index that measures the degree of civilization, that is, the power to which a culture has for its conservation and progress. In summary: 1) the sciences and their

methods depend strictly on the cultural conditions of the time when

arise and in which they operate; 2) scientific statements must be

always read in the context of culture, mentality and problems that precede and

condition them; 3) their meaning, reliability, and validity are limited

restricted by these assumptions, from which they can not disregard.

During our research on interdisciplinary research we could be helped by Cybernetics which was forged as an interdisciplinary framework that would allow humans, animals, and machines to be constituted through the common denominators of feedback loops, signal transmission, and goal-seeking behaviour.

During tha Macy conferences, two constellations formed that were in competition with one another. One of these was deeply conservative, privileging constancy over change, predictability over complexity, equilibrium over evolution. At the center of this constellation was the concept of homeostasis, defined as the ability of an organism to maintain itself in a stable state. The other constellation led away from the closed circle of corrective feedback, privileging change over constancy, evolution over equilibrium, complexity over predictability and interdisciplinarity over single disciplines. The central concept embedded in it was reflexivity, which for our purposes can be defined as turning a system's rules back on itself so as to cause it to engage in more complex behaviour

The history of cybernetics as I have presented it here suggests that the field is moving along a trajectory that arcs from homeostasis to reflexivity to emergence/immersion and to inter, multi and transdisciplinarity. First stability is privileged; then a system's ability to take as its goal the maintenance of its own organization; then its ability to manifest emergent and unpredictable properties. Inscribing the human subject into this trajectory, we can say that in the first stage, the privileged goal is for the human to remain an autonomous and homeostatic subject; in the second stage, to change structurally but nevertheless to maintain his internal organization intact

I have done my MTech in interdisciplinary field. I believe one should break down the problem into different modules according to the expertise needs of the project and then assign each module to the person having those expertise. Finally converge the solution. This is how an interdisciplinary project gets executed.