TERRA ECONOMICUS, , Vol. 14 (no. 2),

The paper presents a review of key publications on Transdisciplinarity (TD), the science and the methodology which active contemporary development is caused by growth of human activity in planetary scales (challenges of the Anthropocen). The review has revealed an eclectic enough collection of projects and new structures created mainly for the task of solving of problems of modern socio-economic development and integrative/transdisciplinary education. At the same time, some concrete projects of development of organizational forms and examples of convergence of socially demanded knowledge, appear rather actual. The paper mainly considers the sources that describe the following TD aspects: genesis (from antiquity up to now; conflicts and struggle of interests), ontology (Levels of Reality, their relations with levels of TD), epistemology (criteria of truth, the types of logic, new modes of education), political economy (a science as a form of public work organization) and ethical appliances (a «regulating ideal» thematic, ethical aspects of scientific research). Following the results of the review the author concludes that TD, presumably, is ready to support that direction of socio-economic, civilizational developments which will be supported by resources of stakeholders. The spectrum of possible basic methodological assumptions of the chosen direction can be wide enough: from «moist robot» to «builder of the lucid future with strong spirit». TD does not aspire to create a general theoretical structure, but, appeals of a wider reflexivity, including – «humility», openness for interaction with others methodologies and experts, contextualization of one’s own knowledge and readiness to give way to other approaches if they are more adequate to modern challenges.

Keywords: transdisciplinarity; genesis; ontology; epistemology; political economy; ethics

  • Arshinov V.I. (1999). Synergy as a phenomenon of a postnonclassical science. Мoscow; IFRAN, 203 p. (In Russian.)
  • Gartman N. (1949). Old and new ontologija. The report on the philosophical congress in Spain (Mendoza, 1949) (http://anthropology.ru/ru/text/gartman-n/staraya-i-novayaontologiya). (In Russian.)
  • Grebenshchikova E.G. (2010). Transdisciplinary paradigm in bioethics. Knowledge. Understanding. Ability, no. 2, pp. 79–83. (In Russian.)
  • Grebenshchikova E.G. (2011). Transdisciplinary paradigm: science – innovations – society. Moscow: The Book House «LIBROCOM», 284 p. (In Russian.)
  • Dinaburg S.R. (2015). Modest maturity of Transdisciplinarity in the bosom of the family and friends. Bulletin of PNIPU. Culture. History. Philosophy. Law, no. 3, pp. 58–67. (In Russian.)
  • Diogen Laertsky (1986). About life, the doctrine and sayings of the well-known philosophers. Moscow, 576 p. (In Russian.)
  • Efremenko D.V. (2006).Ecological and political discourses: occurrence and evolution. Moscow: INION of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 284 p. (In Russian.)
  • Kijashchenko L.P. and Moiseyev V.I. (2009). Philosophy of Transdisciplinarity. Moscow: IF the Russian Academy of Sciences, 205 p. (In Russian.)
  • Kravchenko S.А. and Salygin V.I. (2015). New synthesisof scientific knowledge: formation of an interdisciplinary science. Sociological researches, no. 10, pp. 22–30. (In Russian.)
  • Kuljasov I.P. (2004). Ecological modernisation: the theory and experts. Saint-Petersburg, 154 p. (In Russian.)
  • Michurin I.V. and Baharev A.N. (1936). Remarkable life and workof I.V. Michurina / In: «Results of 60 years’ works», 1855–1935. Moscow: OGIZ,OGIZ, SELHOZOGIZ (http://imichurin.narod.ru/Itogi60/Michurin_1936.htm). (In Russian.)
  • Moky V.S. (2009). Fundamentals of transdisciplinarity. Nalchik (www.anoitt.ru/cabdir/about_td.php). (In Russian.)
  • Moky M.S. (2010). Transdisciplinary methodology in economic researches. The author’s abstract of Dr. dissertation. Moscow. (In Russian.)
  • Nosachev P.G. (2011). Esoterics: high lights of history of the term. Bulletin of PSTGU. I: Divinity. Philosophy, no. 2 (34), pp. 49–60. (In Russian.)
  • «Planetary borders» – zones of safe existence of mankind on the Earth (2015). The Science in the World, no. 19 (2), pp. 9–11. (In Russian.)
  • Savenko J.S. (2003). Nikolay Gartman. Independent psychiatric magazine, no. 3, pp. 45–52. (In Russian.)
  • Stoljarova O.E. (2015). History and science philosophy versus STS. Philosophy Issues, no. 7, pp. 73–83. (In Russian.)
  • UNESCO (2015). UNESCO science report: towards 2030. (In Russian.)
  • Bates P. (2007). Inuit and scientific philosophies about planning, prediction, and uncertainty // Arctic Anthropology, no. 44 (2), pp. 87–100.
  • Bourdieu P. (1988). Homo Academicus, Cambridge: Polity Press (http://www.arasite.org/homoacad.html).
  • Castells M. (2010). The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, vol. I. The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 624 p.
  • Fox W. (1990). Towards a Transpersonal Ecology. Boston: Shambhala Publications, xv + 380 p.
  • Frodeman R., Klein J.T. and Mitcham С. (2010). The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford, 620 p.
  • Funtowicz S.O. and Ravetz J.R. (1994). Uncertainty, complexity and post-normal science. Enviromental toxicology and chemisty, vol. 13, no. 12, pp. 1881–1885.
  • Foucault M. (2008). The Birth of Biopolitics. Picador, New York. Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–1979. N.Y.: Picador. Gilroy, 1993 p.
  • Goeminne G. (2012). Lost in translation: climate denial and the return of the political. Global Environ. Politics, no. 12, pp. 1–8.
  • Heisenberg W. (1942/1984). Reality and its order (http://werner-heisenberg.unh.edu/tOdW-english.htm#seg).
  • Ingold T. (2000). The Perception of the Environment. N.Y.: Routledge (nomadicarts festival.com/wp.../the-perception-of-the-environment.pdf).
  • Klein J. T. (2004). Prospects for transdisciplinarity // Futures, no. 36, pp. 515–526.
  • Klein J.T. (2015). Reprint of «Discourses of transdisciplinarity: Looking back to the future». Futures, no. 65, pp. 10–16.
  • Jeder D. (2014). Transdisciplinarity – the advantage of a holistic approach to life. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, no. 137, pp. 127–131.
  • Klenk N.and Meehan K. (2015). Climate change and transdisciplinary science: Problematizing the integration imperative. Environmental Science & Policy, no. 54, pp. 160–167.
  • Kull C.A., De Sartre X.A. and Castro-Larrañaga M. (2015). The political ecology of ecosystem services. Geoforum, no. 61, pp. 122–134.
  • Kurakow L., Pjastolow S. and Kurakow А. (2016). Die Wissenschaft des Anthropozäns. Sonderdruckaus Hannoverche Jahrbuch, Band 12. Serie Ökologie. Hannover, 36 p.
  • Leopold A. (1949). A Sand County Almanac: And Sketches Here and There (http://www.aldoleopold.org/AldoLeopold/almanac.shtml).
  • Lynch A.J.J., Thackway R., Specht A., Beggs P.J., Brisbane S., Burns E.L., Byrne M., Capon S.J., Casanova M.T., Clarke P.A., Davies J.M., Dovers S., Dwyer R.G., Ens E., Fisher D.O., Flanigan M., Garnier E., Guru S.M., Kilminster K., Locke J., Mac Nally R., McMahon K.M., Mitchell P.J., Pierson J.C., Rodgers E.M., Russell-Smith J., Udy J. and Waycott M. (2015). Transdisciplinary synthesis for ecosystem science, policy and management: The Australian experience. Science of the Total Environment, no. 534, pp. 173–184.
  • Max-Neef M. A. (2005). Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecological Economics, no. 53, pp. 5–16.
  • Millar M.M. (2013). Interdisciplinary research and the early career: The effect of interdisciplinary dissertation research on career placement and publication productivity of doctoral graduates in the sciences. Research Policy, no. 42, pp. 1152–1164.
  • MEA (2005). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC (http://www.maweb.org/en/Reports.aspx#).
  • Milkoreit М., Moore M.-L., Schoon М. and Meek C.L. (2015). Resilience scientists as changemakers-Growing the middle ground between science and advocacy? Environmental science & policy, no. 53, pp. 87–95.
  • Næss A. (1973). The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement. Inquiry, no. 16, pp. 95–100.
  • Nicolescu B. (2012). Transdisciplinarity: the hidden third, between the subject and the object. Нuman & Social Studies. Research and Practice, vol. 1, issue 1, pp. 13–28.
  • Nicolescu В. (2011). The concept of levels of reality and its relevance for non-reduction and personhood. Consciencias, no. 4, pp. 119–130.
  • Pauliuk S. and Hertwich E.G. (2015). Socioeconomic metabolism as paradigm for studying the biophysical basis of human societies. Ecological Economics, no. 119, pp. 83–93.
  • Piaget J. (1972). «L’épistémologie des relations interdisciplinaires». L’interdisciplinarité: problèmes d’enseignement et de recherche dans les universités. Paris: OCDE, pp. 131–144.
  • Роhl C. and Hadorn G.H. (2007). Principles for designing transdisciplinary research. Munich: OEKOM, 169 p.
  • Popa F., Guillermin M. and Dedeurwaerdere T. (2015). A. pragmatist approach to transdisciplinarity in sustainability research: From complex systems theory to reflexive science. Futures, no. 65, pp. 45–56.
  • Prigogine I. (1997). The End of Certainty: Time, Chaos, and the New Laws of Nature. N.Y.: Free Press, pp. viii + 228.
  • Robbins P. (2004). Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction. Blackwell Publishing, 242 p.
  • Rouse J.T. (2002). How Scientific Practices Matter: Reclaiming Philosophical Naturalism. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 383 p.
  • Stirling А. (2014). Transforming power: Social science and the politics of energy choices. Energy Research & Social Science, no. 1, pp. 83–95.
  • Verburg P.H., Dearing J.A., Dyke J. G., van der Leeuw S., Seitzinger S., Steffen W. and Syvitski J. (2015). Methods and approaches to modelling the Anthropocene. Global Environmental Change (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.08.007).
  • Wallerstein I. (1991). Unthinking Social Sciences: The Limits of Nineteenth-Century Paradigms. Cambridge: Polity Pressin association with B. Blackwell, 286 p.
Publisher: Southern Federal University
Founder: Southern Federal University
ISSN: 2073-6606