TRANS-DISCIPLINARITY AND GROWTH: Nature and Characteristics of Trans-disciplinary Training Programs on the Human-Environment Interphase

Smart, sustainable, and inclusive growth is the sine qua non for developed democracies today. At the heart of the growth engines of technology innovation and entrepreneurship fed by the fuel of creativity and invention lies trans-disciplinarity (TD) and beyond-the-box thinking (TB2) not just outside-the-box thinking. TD and TB2 flourish at the nexus of theories, policies, politics, and practices when the encompassing socio-political, socio-technical, and socio-economic ecosystem is endowed with a quadruple and quintuple innovation helix structure (Q2IH) organically and flexibly linking government, university, industry, and civil society within an overarching environmental framework. The increasing demand for trans-disciplinary training programs on the human system-environment interphase dovetail in considerations, including the need for addressing complex problems, in a way which transcends the collection of information from a multitude of disciplines and moving towards integrated, more holistic ways of understanding. This paper analyzes core characteristics of university programs adopting this trans-disciplinary approach. They differ from technical expertise programs in their integrated, innovative, and solution-targeted character in which contributions by and dialogues with stakeholders are essential. As trans-disciplinary approaches reach maturity, it becomes increasingly indicated organizing them as 4-year master degrees, entailing a 2-year multidisciplinary training during the bachelor years, completed with a 2-year training targeted towards integration of data and trans-disciplinary practice. In this latter context, attention for uncertainty, tacit knowledge, inspiring case studies, integrated training methods, and thesis-related practice surface more and more as important elements of the program content. In spite of their intellectual attraction and logical necessity, trans-disciplinary approaches also face weaknesses including their non-mainstream scientific character, the lack of methods allowing the integration of non-homogeneous data, the scientifically premature character of tacit knowledge, and the value-loaded aspect of the issues at stake. The extent to which trans-disciplinary programs will succeed overcoming these limitations will to a large extent determine their future.