Dear Eduardo,

Let me start by saying that I'm thinking here rather than making an 
absolute statement. This thread offers some interesting opportunities 
to think things through in ways that those of use who think about 
such things find helpful. It also illuminates fuzzy areas and unclear 
issues that may benefit from more light and thought.

In terms of the word (and without considering Terry's four steps), 
the word "interdisciplinary" applies to professional disciplines as 
well as to research disciplines. That's what Merriam-Webster's means 
by artistic in the description, "involving two or more academic, 
scientific, or artistic disciplines." Interestingly, there is no 
definition in MW for "multidisciplinary," while a search for the word 
"transdisciplinary" refers the reader to "interdisciplinary."

As I see it, it can refer to professional disciplines. I can think of 
many examples these days of professional practices that cross the 
boundaries of formerly distinct professional disciplines. Many of the 
design professions emerged from guild practices where guild 
regulations strictly guarded the boundaries and prerogatives of the 
profession. Today, a master silversmith or furniture maker might work 
together with colleagues in several fields, learning from them and 
teaching them. This kind of interaction would have been prohibited 
under the rules of many craft guilds when guild knowledge was 
considered the proprietary knowledge of the guild and guild members 
who were enjoined to share their knowledge and art with guild fellows 
but forbidden to share the secrets of the guild to anyone who did not 
belong to the guild.

The same holds true of physicians. Physicians still swear a guild 
oath -- the Hippocratic oath -- that requires them to teach members 
of the physician's guild while sharing the secrets with no one else. 
The early version of the oath required that physicians swear: "I will 
keep this Oath and this stipulation-to reckon him who taught me this 
Art equally dear to me as my parents, to share my substance with him, 
and relieve his necessities if required; to look upon his offspring 
in the same footing as my own brothers, and to teach them this Art, 
if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation; and that 
by precept, lecture, and every other mode of instruction, I will 
impart a knowledge of the Art to my own sons, and those of my 
teachers, and to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath according 
to the law of medicine, but to none others." The key issue here that 
prohibits interdisciplinary practice is _but to none others_.

This restriction has changed in modern medical practice, but many of 
the concepts remain -- including a crisp delineation between 
physicians and others.

Thus, some physicians maintain a disciplinary medical practice, while 
others work in interdisciplinary teams, particularly physicians who 
work in new and emerging fields. Imagine a practice that crosses the 
boundaries of medicine, biochemistry, physics, and computing, for 
example.

There are also cases where different kinds of practice-based research 
bring practitioners into an interdisciplinary both in terms of 
artistic disciplines and research disciplines. I know a 
guild-certified silversmith from Germany who earned a PhD for 
practice-based research. She now works with theoretical research 
issues in one aspect of her work, and she also develops practical 
uses for new forms of silver in another. I know similar people in 
animation, instrument making, and other fields who work in ways that 
would not have been likely a half century ago.

Without getting into the specifics of Terry's four stages, I agree 
that disciplines go through some kind of developmental process. The 
fields that may have been quite remote not long ago merge into single 
fields today. Leah Ceccarelli (2001) offers good examples of this in 
her book Shaping Science with Rhetoric. The cases of Dobzhansky, 
Shroedinger, and Wilson. In this books, she works with the theme of 
interdisciplinary inquiry, writing about interdisciplinary issues in 
a way that crosses boundaries between and among disciplines. What I 
find especially interesting about one case is the way that physicist 
and Nobel laureate Erwin Schroedinger wrote a 1944 book titled What 
is Life? that became an important catalyst for the field of molecular 
biology. Molecular biology has now advanced so far that it influences 
medical practice, and there is a lot of exchange (as I understand it) 
between experiment, experimental treatment, and advanced applications 
that are on the way to becoming routine medicine. Along the way, 
there is a lot of interdisciplinary work that at some point will be 
absorbed into a new and routine professional discipline. Some of the 
interdisciplinary work is at the border of professional practice and 
research -- some of it lies at the borders of differing professional 
practices that meet in addressing a common challenge.

In my view, the distinctions between scientific disciplines and 
design disciplines are as porous as the boundaries between scientific 
disciplines and medical practice or science and engineering. There 
was a time when engineers saw themselves as professional 
practitioners with interests and ways of working that were quite 
remote from science. Herbert Simon gives an example of this in the 
evolution of MIT. Not long before that, medicine and physicians held 
science in low regard, arguing that medicine was an art that had 
little to gain from scientific inquiry. A lot of interesting design 
work takes place where scientific inquiry and advanced design 
practice meet.

I do not say this is the only approach or the best way to proceed. A 
lot of good work that takes places within specific intellectual and 
professional disciplines. As Klaus pointed out -- and I agreed with 
him on this -- disciplinary boundaries also shape problems. This is 
as true in design as anywhere. Dori's case of the developments in 
highway signage are a good example.

Some people work one way, some people work another. In my view, we need both.

Warm wishes,

Ken

--

Reference

Ceccarelli, Leah. 2001. Shaping science with rhetoric. The cases of 
Dobzhansky, Shroedinger, and Wilson. Chicago: University of Chicago 
Press.

--

Eduardo Corte-Real wrote:

>Dear Friends and especially after Terry's post with the Spenglerian 
>four steps of disciplines decay. :-]
>Isn't it a bit dangerous to confuse scientific disciplines with 
>design disciplines.
>I gather that the words Transdisciplinary, Multidisciplinary and 
>Interdisciplinary refer mostly to research disciplines and not to 
>professional disciplines even if some use research methods.
>I guess that all these Trans, Multi and Inter refer not to 
>professional methods but to research methods, or in the limit to 
>diferent world views that some would overcome, accept as diferent, 
>or interconnect.
>Am I right?
>
>Cheers,
>Eduardo