This article examines questions initially raised at a meeting that took place 50 years ago on the topic of the development of knowledge in higher education where Jean Piaget coined the term “transdisciplinarity” and distinguished it from interdisciplinarity. We consider the question of why transdisciplinary scholarship has been so challenging for the field of developmental science. We argue that shifts in the guiding metatheoretical framework of theory and research, away from split-mechanistic paradigms and towards process-relational ones, do not always align with the conceptual frameworks used in educational practice. Using the example considered by Piaget and others at the original conference on higher education and the development of knowledge and also examining the domain of identity development, we find support for ways developmental scholarship has embraced the shift to a relational-developmental metatheory. In contrast, we argue that the relational-developmental paradigm has not been fully adopted by practitioners, with evidence of some using the Cartesian-split-mechanistic paradigm and others using some aspects of the relational-developmental paradigm. We highlight the importance of examining the conceptual frameworks guiding developmental scholarship and practice, suggesting that alignment of conceptual frameworks is an essential ingredient for progress in transdisciplinary scholarship and practice to take place. Conceptualizations at the metatheoretical level condition each and every aspect of theory, research, and practice, giving meaning to both theoretical and empirical activities and guiding practice-based work. Debates often occur at the metatheoretical level, and thus are not open to empirical adjudication. We conclude that metatheoretical alignment between scholars and practitioners is critically important to transdisciplinary efforts in developmental science and therefore more attention to the metatheoretical assumptions of the process-relational paradigm is critical for work with practitioners to succeed.
Since 1988, persecuted people primarily from the Chin state in Burma have fled into India due to large-scale human rights violations. A qualitative study was conducted to understand the narratives of 5 Burmese Chin refugee women retrospectively. Using their drawings as a stimulus, an unstructured interview was employed to help participants recall their life trajectories across 4 temporal periods: (a) preflight, (b) experience of traumatic events, (c) experience of flight, and (d) present status. Results highlighted 2 main concepts—systemic gender inequalities and hope. Participants’ gender-specific experiences of inequalities during their trauma in Burma and postdisplacement lives in India were a result of masculinized ideological frameworks of institutions such as the Burmese military and the Indian police. Simultaneously, they described a sense of hope to return to their home country and work toward its development while also desiring a sense of self-sufficiency through the Burmese model of family economy. Additionally, their means of hope was evident in their continued faith in God. Findings merit the attention of UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), local nongovernmental organizations, policymakers, and government officials in India for proposing gender-specific policies and suggesting initiatives for psychosocial issues related to women refugees’ employment opportunities, vulnerability to sexual abuse, and local xenophobic sentiments in India.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.