What is knowledge, and how do we acquire it? What does it mean to obtain knowledge, and more importantly, why do we seek and produce it? Is it because we are inherently curious beings? Because we are open to personal development? Or because, perhaps, “ignorance is nothingness” in our view?
While these questions ultimately depend on personal reflection, let us think through them together. What was the last piece of information you consciously remember learning? Where might that knowledge have originated? If you were to produce such knowledge yourself, which disciplines would you draw upon? With whom would you engage in conversation to experience moments of intellectual illumination, and where might those discussions lead you?
As in this very moment, our interactions with diverse ideas and fields do more than simply influence or challenge us; they generate entirely new ideas within our sense of self.
Whether we realize it or not, that conversation, that text—whatever we choose to call it—remains somewhere in the mind. It is present in the sentence we later write on our own page; it has not disappeared. When we extend this reflection into social, scientific, and philosophical domains, we find ourselves at the very heart of interdisciplinary thinking. But what does interdisciplinary thinking truly mean?
The platform that has brought you to this text, Crossfield Society, is itself an interdisciplinary organization. As I introduce myself through this essay, let us also become more closely acquainted with Crossfield.
The Horizon of Interdisciplinary Thinking
To work interdisciplinarily is to bring together diverse perspectives within a shared standard and level of rigor, to observe different landscapes from the same window, and to share these insights within a common and ethical framework. As we will discuss, this begins with the willingness to accept different ideas and projects. As the Crossfield Society team, our aim is to demonstrate that collaborative interdisciplinary work can be both intellectually rewarding and highly productive. Let us now examine interdisciplinarity in a more academic sense.
The concept of interdisciplinarity emerged in the 1970s and developed across various intellectual movements responding to distinct communities and contrasting research practices. To characterize these movements and their relationships, several typologies have been proposed.
In one of the most influential typologies, building upon the work of Gibbons and colleagues, Roland W. Scholz and Gerald Steiner distinguish between two modes of interdisciplinarity. Mode 1, largely theoretical, is motivated by a search for the unity of knowledge and corresponds to an “internal scientific activity.” Mode 2, largely practical, is characterized by participatory problem-solving approaches applied to concrete, real-world issues and involving relevant stakeholders.
Mode 1 interdisciplinarity is often associated with the work of Romanian physicist Basarab Nicolescu, who proposed a methodology grounded in three axioms:
- Levels of Reality
- The Included Middle
- Complexity
These axioms have been extensively developed in the literature.
In another prominent typology, Chilean economist Manfred Max-Neef distinguishes between “weak interdisciplinarity,” which follows conventional methods and logic, and “strong interdisciplinarity,” inspired particularly by Nicolescu’s work and characterized by a quantum-like logic that moves beyond the assumption of a single reality. From this perspective, interdisciplinarity is more than a new or overarching discipline; it represents a systematic and holistic way of perceiving the world.
Interdisciplinarity is often described as a promising concept. Yet its capacity to effectively address the world’s most pressing problems remains in need of further development. Although interdisciplinary projects involving non-academic stakeholders have led to meaningful improvements in addressing significant challenges, many initiatives have also resulted in disappointment when the anticipated benefits of participation failed to materialize.
A common response to these limitations has been the call for stronger connections among different types of interdisciplinary approaches, regardless of typological distinctions. According to Scholz and Steiner, one of the central challenges is maintaining high-quality standards while preventing the term “interdisciplinary” from being used indiscriminately to label any interaction between scientists and practitioners. Max-Neef similarly argues that efforts are needed to refine interdisciplinarity as a world vision, integrating weaker forms into stronger, more comprehensive ones.
Nicolescu also emphasizes the necessity of recognizing both the diversity and unity of three forms of interdisciplinarity: theoretical, phenomenological, and experimental. Indeed, does interdisciplinary thinking not already imply such plurality? We hold ideas, and ideas about ideas, in an ongoing expansion. Acceptance becomes the first step in any transformation. We acknowledge existence, comprehend it, and integrate it into life—whether it is an idea, a personal experience, or even the act of trying a new taste. In this sense, interdisciplinarity begins precisely at the moment of integration.
In line with these perspectives, various proposals have sought to better connect different forms of interdisciplinary approaches. For example, Rigolot (2020) suggests that quantum theory may provide conceptual insights capable of narrowing the gap between Mode 1 and Mode 2 interdisciplinarity.
Mode 2: Interdisciplinarity and the Discipline of Integration and Implementation Sciences
The emergence of a new academic discipline requires a broad research community united by a common purpose, collaborating not only at the practical level but also at methodological and theoretical levels. From this viewpoint, interdisciplinarity can be understood through the lens of Mode 2 knowledge production and the field of integration and implementation sciences.
The concept of Mode 2 interdisciplinarity was adopted in 2000 at the Zurich Congress by a large interdisciplinary academic community that later became the Swiss-based TD-net Network for Transdisciplinary Research. The Zurich approach rejected Nicolescu’s axiomatic methodology—later referred to as Mode 1 or theoretical interdisciplinarity—as the defining framework.
Initially, Mode 2 science was characterized by six principles that later formed the foundation of an “ideal-type” Mode 2 interdisciplinarity:
- Mode 2 knowledge is produced in the context of application.
- It possesses distinctive characteristics beyond disciplinary knowledge.
- It is heterogeneous in terms of skills, perspectives, and participant experiences.
- Its structures are temporary and evolving rather than rigidly hierarchical.
- The resulting knowledge is socially robust and relevant to involved actors.
- The quality of produced knowledge is ensured through appropriate criteria and procedures.
Following these principles, Scholz and Steiner define the possible “core” of interdisciplinary processes as mutual learning between scientists and practitioners regarding complex, socially significant problems.
Ultimately, even discussing interdisciplinarity requires multiple disciplines. When experiences, evolving structures, and contextual elements are accepted as wholes and then analytically deconstructed, the constituent parts gain distinct meanings and greater value. In striving to embody these values, do we not ourselves branch into multiple dimensions? In essence, might being human itself be an act of interdisciplinarity?
