Foraging for Transdisciplinary Challenges: Emergent Industrial Themes

Abstract

This paper presents our findings from thirteen industrial interviews, to investigate the significance of transdisciplinarity (TD) in an industrial context. Thus to gain insight into the resilience of industrial manufacturing in rapidly changing environments and establish what enabling or disabling practices may currently exist. The interviews were conducted as an initial part of a wider case study approach being undertaken by the TREND research team and were semi-structured in format. We present the background and research questions being addressed and outline our exploratory research approach. The analysis of interview transcriptions is provided answering our research questions and identifying any emerging themes. Of the industry interviews, only five interviewees had heard of the term TD, the definition of TD varied between companies and did not align with the primordial system of Jantsch’s work. A number of focal enabling and disabling industrial themes emerge from the interviews and related discourse such as the positive and negative human contribution(s) and growing global teams involved in manufacture. For industry to be resilient and meet rapid technological and societal change, these themes should be core for manufacturing solutions. Secondary studies should investigate literature and collaborate with engineering industries to test any potential TD interventions.

Towards a Disciplinary Framework for Engineering and Manufacture

“…Literature hints that distinct and possibly scalar differences exist between approaches and that ID and TD are most difficult to differentiate [4]. Hence there is a real benefit scientifically and industrially to understand how to identify and to apply differing approaches to understand the benefits/pitfalls, but the means to do this does not yet exist [1], [2].…”

“…A conceptual means to objectively define what constitutes one disciplinary approach or another is required [2], [5], [4]. This conceptual framework could then be used to define overarching methods and best practice for conducting design and manufacturing projects, benchmarking both negative and beneficial costs.…”

“…To assist practitioners in assessing the level of disciplinarity required for their project, we need to scientifically establish the core concepts and relations, or "what" we know about disciplinarity [2], [4], [6]. In Figure 1, we specify aspects that potentially contribute to framing the "what" of disciplinarity.…”

“…For many a conceptual framework starts and remains with academic literature [6]. However, due to conflicting opinion and diverse schools of thought when considering levels of disciplinarity [1], [2], [4], deriving a singular representation becomes impossible from literature alone. A mixed-method approach is required to merge mindsets, iteratively validate findings, learn from industry and to make our findings truly useful [2], [6], avoiding academic centered findings [6].…”

“…If this were the case then transdisciplinarity (TD) would be best placed at the highest of levels, where knowledge transactions are paramount to achieve societally focussed successes [1]. Engineering and manufacturing projects have expanded to encompass international working and global challenges [2], increasing costs, in line with rising participants and stakeholders for discipline breadth, incorporating knowledge insights. To meet industry 5.0 challenges, it is claimed that a TD approach is required [3] but a means to ascertain the level of disciplinarity for a project is not yet reported in a meaningful or measurable way [1].…”