Annotated Bibliography: transdisciplinary collaboration

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ascott, R. (2004). Planetary Technoetics: Art, Technology and Consciousness. Leonardo, Vol. 37, No. 2 (2004), pp. 111­116.

Contributions by:

Roger Malina G. Mauricio Mejía Andrés Felipe Roldán Alejandro Valencia­Tobón Paz Tornero Stella Veciana Viviana Molina Osorio Juan José Díaz Infante Ricardo Dal Farra

Cases of Collaboration Agile Collaboration Profiles of Participants Transdisciplinary Research Related References

[Annotation: Paz Tornero]

As the planet becomes telematically unified, the self becomes dispersed. The convergence of dry silicon pixels and biologically wet particles is creating a moistmedia substrate for art where digital systems, telematics, genetic engineering and nanotechnology meet. A technoetic aesthetic not only will embrace new media, technology, consciousness research and non­classical science but also will gain new insights from older cultural traditions previously banished from materialist discourse. In the present post­ 9/11 crisis, collaborative transdisciplinary research is needed if a truly planetary culture is to emerge that is techno­ethical as well as techno etic. In this paper artist and researcher Roy Ascott defends the need of working on collaborative environments in order to find a new technoetic that matches with the new postcontemporary social’s need. I would like to add also the need of researching new aesthetics theories that could help to understand the art­science practices instead of trying to theorized transdisciplinary collaboration under traditional and classic authors of aesthetic in contemporary art.

1/13

Bandelli, A., & Duensing, S. (Ed).

(2015). Studiolab: what has been learned. Dublin, Ireland: Science Gallery Trinity College Dublin.

[Annotation: Paz Tornero]

A European project that supported collaborative science and art initiatives from 2011 to 2014. It is a great book that explains that has been learned from the creative interactions between scientists, artists, designers and students developed in Studiolab.

Barry, A., Born, G., and Strathern, M. (2007). Interdisciplinarity and Society: A critical comparative study: Full research report. ESRC End of Award Report, RES­151­25­0042­A. Swindon: ESRC pp.24­33.

[Annotation: Alejandro Valencia­Tobon]

Andrew Barry, Georgina Born and Marilyn Strathern identify three distinctive modes of interdisciplinary collaboration: 1) The integrative­synthesis mode: it implies the integration of two or more disciplines in symmetrical terms. This implies a dialogical processes and open­ended debates.

2) The subordination­service mode: This is when one or more disciplines are serving other component disciplines. For the authors, the Ethnographic study of the Cambridge Genetics Knowledge Park has this form. This is when social sciences are used to add the “society” to the scientific projects.

3) The agonistic­antagonistic mode: “interdisciplinary collaborations spring from a self­conscious dialogue with, criticism of or opposition to the limits of established disciplines, or the status of

academic research in general” (see page 26).

Barry, A., and Born, G. (2010).

Art­Science. From public understanding to public experiment.

Journal of Cultural Economy. 3 (1), pp.103­119.

[Annotation: Alejandro Valencia­Tobon]

By differentiating between “the logic of accountability”, “the logic of innovation” and “the logic of ontology”, Barry and Born identify that scientists have had a tendency to accompany their academic projects with social studies and art practices in response to a public engagement discourse. This is not a seen as a transdisciplinary collaboration, but instead as a subordination­service mode.

In response to this, Barry and Born argue that art­science should not act as a way of assembling a public for science, but as a public experiment. See also this: Barry, A., Born, G., Weszkalnys, G. (2008). Logics of interdisciplinarity. Economy and Society.

37(1): 20–49. doi: 10.1080/03085140701760841.

Barry, A., and Born, G. (eds.) 2013.

Interdisciplinarity: reconfigurations of the social and natural sciences. New York: Routledge (see pp.1–56 and pp.

257­260).

[Annotation: Alejandro Valencia­Tobon]

In this book Barry and Born collect a diversity of papers that reflect on different modes for having active and true inter/transdisciplinary collaboration. A key example for understanding their perspective is the work of the German artist Beatriz da Costa, specially the

2/13

project PigeonBlog. Besides this, there are two reasons for considering this book: 1) It enacts epistemological problems when discussing asymmetries in collaboration.

2) It offers case studies for addressing the idea of how to train people in art­science.

An instance of this is the “Arts, Computation and Engineering pedagogy”, or ACE (see pp.257­260; and also Simon Penny here http://simonpenny.net/ace/index.html).

This example highlights the “critical importance of inventive pedagogies in catalysing interdisciplinary subjectivities” and the “reflexive sense of the capacity of experimental practices to enroll publics in novel ways” (p. 258).

The discussion about ACE starts with a seminar in which participants address the critique of artificial intelligence (AI) from different points of view: phenomenological notions of embodiment and situatedness; biologically­based simulation; biological concepts as a basis for computation; the design of interactive systems with rudimentary agency as artworks; computer­based generative art —among many others areas. After that, participants draw on “‘human computer interaction’ and its ‘embodied interaction’ paradigm (Husserl, Heidegger and Schutz)” (p.58).

They then think about “‘non­modern’ epistemology and ontology of the early British cyberneticists Beer and Pask and their work on biological computing”. The ACE pedagogy finally “cuts through and destabilises these universes via feminist and critical cultural studies of science and technology” (Fox Keller, Haraway, Martin, Kember)" (p.259).

The ACE pedagogy juxtaposes different methods to address the issue about

artificial intelligence (AI). There is no a singular response, nor a singular theoretical background. Participants should take into account all possible fields for understanding artificial intelligence —biology, design, computation and social sciences (this issue is also related with another paper I reference in here by Thomas Nagel, 1974). The ACE pedagogy suggests an area of overlapping genealogies, bringing things into question. At the end of the debate, even Georgina Born, the ethnographer, participated in the discussion.

Beaubien, J., & Baker, D. (2004). The use of simulation for training teamwork skills in health care: how low can you go? Quality & Safety in Health Care,13(Suppl 1), i51–i56.

[Annotation: Mauricio Mejía]

In this article, the authors criticize a common mistaken assumption that high fidelity simulation is a good training method for transdisciplinary collaboration just because of the realistic visualization of the collaboration scenario. They point out the lack of evidence about how fidelity in simulations predict training outcomes.

The authors discuss these simulations in the context of high risk industries such as health and aviation. In the article there are several recommendations for training planning such as: ­ Tailor needs, goals, content, and evaluation ­ Case study simulations are useful for knowledge and attitudes learning (initial training) ­ Part task trainers are useful for specific skills ­ Full mission simulators for complete skills and scenarios of stress; however, they require higher budgets.

3/13

­ Debrief after simulation.

From the contributions of this article, we can assume that simulations could be a training method for transdisciplinary collaboration. It would be particularly helpful in collaborations that have clear goals with determined outcomes. In more creative tasks with undetermined outcomes, simulation training may limit creativity in post­training performance.

Bourriaud, N., (2002). Relational Aesthetics. (S. Pleasance & F. Woods, Trans.). Dijon: Les Presses Du Reel.

[Annotation: Alejandro Valencia Tobón]

Nicolas Bourriaud introduces the “co­existence criterion” and the idea of “Relational Aesthetics”. This criterion indicates that works of art should be created as a form of sociability and, therefore, a fundamental question should be asked in terms of public participation: does this work allow me to enter into dialogue? (Bourriaud, 2002, p. 109). Along with this, I think a critical review of the concept of “participation” is also needed (what does “participation” mean in relation to creating transdisciplinary collaborations?). For a critical review of the concept, see “Participation.

Documents of Contemporary Art”, edited

by Claire Bishop (MIT Press, 2006).

Brandt, P., Ernst, A., Gralla, F., Luederitz, C., Lang, D. J., Newig, J., ... & von Wehrden, H. (2013). A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecological Economics, 92, 1­15.

[Annotation: Andrés Felipe Roldán] Pending Translation

En este artículo de revisión de bibliografía los autores presentan el análisis cualitativo y cuantitativo realizado frente a las barreras de implementación de los proyectos transdisciplinarios desde tres componentes principales: fases del proceso, tipos de conocimiento y participación de los profesionales involucrados. Se revisaron 236 artículos publicados sobre estudios de caso en los que se habían desarollado procesos de investigación transdisciplinaria, evidenciando las relaciones entre el conjunto de métodos y los tipos de conocimiento generado, las fases de los procesos trasndisciplinario y los tipos de conocimiento, así como la relación entre el nivel de participación y los tipos de conocimiento producidos en los casos de estudio.

Después de realizado el análisis, los autores sugieren fortalecer el enfoque investigativo transdisciplinario desde 5 enfoques fundamentales: ­ La apropiación de marcos de investigación compartidos y coherentes en el campo de la ciencia transdisciplinaria, tipos de conocimiento y fases de procesos. ­ Contemplar la trasndisciplinariedad como un componente fundamental de la ciencia. ­ Procurar una homologación conceptual en relación a los asuntos del enfoque trasndisciplinario que lo haga entendible y clara para todos. ­ Desarrollar una amplia gama de herramientas metodológicas para la transdisciplinariedad normalizadas y aceptadas ­ Fortalecer el empoderamiento de los participantes en los proyectos transdisciplinarios que permita vincularlos a ellos en las diferentes fases del proceso desde su formulación hasta la implementación.

4/13

Los aportes principales que obtenemos de este artículo apuntan a entender las dinámicas crecientes del enfoque transdiciplinario en los procesos de investigación científica, identificando algunos estudios ya realizados y publicados y los métodos utilizados en cada uno de los referentes.

Da Costa, B., and Philip, K. (eds.), 2008.

Tactical biopolitics: art, activism and technoscience. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

[Annotation: Alejandro Valencia­Tobon]

This book addresses how the study of knowledge­making practices connects the macro and micro worlds as a constitutive co­production between micro considerations enacted in scientific practices and the macro structures of political and social thought. It shows why transdisciplinary collaborations should be the result of a dialogue between peoples from different academic backgrounds.

Again, the work of Beatriz da Costa is key for understanding these ideas.

Daisy Ginsberg, A., Calvert, J., Schyfter, P., Elfick, A. Endy, D. (Ed).

(2014). Synthetic Aesthetics.

Investigating Synthetic Biology’s Designs on Nature. Cambridge MA; London, UK: The MIT Press.

[Annotation: Paz Tornero]

As Bruce Sterling at the Wired.com magazine explains: synthetic biologists, artists, designers, and social scientists investigate synthetic biology and design.

The book introduce the science and set the terms of the discussion,

boundary­crossing collaborations between artists and designers and synthetic biologists from around the world, helping us understand what it might mean to ‘design nature.’ These collaborations have resulted in biological computers that calculate form; speculative packaging that builds its own contents; algae that feeds on circuit boards; and a sampling of human cheeses. Should these projects be considered art, design, synthetic biology, or something else altogether?

Engelke, M, 2008. The objects of evidence. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. 14(S1): S1–S21.

[Annotation: Alejandro Valencia­Tobon]

“Evidence” is related to transdisciplinary collaboration in the sense that it provides the tools to think about how disciplines confine their objects of study in relation to different disciplines.

We can link the problem about dominance/asymmetries and the issues about evidence during the panel.

Gilbert, S.F., Sapp, J., Tauber, A.I., 2012.

A symbiotic view of life: we have never been individuals. The Quarterly Review of Biology. 87(4): 325–341.

[Annotation: Alejandro Valencia­Tobon]

This paper develops an argument against the biological understanding of the world merely in terms of individuals and isolated living entities. I see the work of Gilbert as a useful reference in this list because Roger Malina and Mauricio Mejía mentioned that they were looking for

5/13

multiple perspectives of training methods, and they were particularly interested in inspiration from the natural environment.

Gilbert et al. present different symbiotic relationships to argue why we have never been individuals. At the end of the paper, they mention: “this new paradigm for biology asks new questions and seeks new relationships among the different living entities on Earth. We are all lichens” (p.87) [note how powerful this metaphor is].

Scott Gilbert (http://www.swarthmore.edu/profile/scott­g ilbert) is in fact a former student of Donna Haraway —a very significant figure in humanities and social sciences. Haraway works against the idea of “human exceptionalism” (see this https://vimeo.com/15787486).

So considering that Roger Malina and Mauricio Mejía are interested in analysing interspecies communal living and biological relationships to create models for collaborative work, this paper is an important reference to consider. In short, reading this along with the theories about “multispecies ethnography” is key to get specifics theoretical tools for transdisciplinary training on creative projects that bridge the design, arts, and humanities with science.

Hans­Jörg Rheinberger: Experiment, Research, Art Translated transcript of the Jahreskonferenz der Dramaturgischen Gesellschaft https://researchcultures.com/issues/1/e xperiment­research­art.html

[Annotation: Alejandro Valencia­Tobón]

Hans­Jörg Rheinberger presents a philosophical argument for exploring the

“unknown”. The state of non­knowledge is what drives both the artistic and the scientific research. Following this argument, the product of transdisciplinary collaborations should be seen as something unpredictable by definition.

Kirksey, Eben, and Helmreich, Stefan.

(2010). The Emergence of Multispecies Ethnography. Cultural Anthropology 25 (4): 545–76. doi:10.1111/j.1548­1360.2010.01069.x.

[Annotation: Alejandro Valencia­Tobón]

“Multispecies ethnography” is defined as the study of contact zones between humans and other species, where the division of culture and nature is blurred. Thinking about this concept implies combining three areas of knowledge: anthropology, art and science —hence “Multispecies ethnography” offers an insight into the idea of transdisciplinary collaboration. This new theoretical approach was developed to confront the idea of “human exceptionalism”.

Marcus, G. E. (Ed.). (2000).

Introduction. In Para­Sites: A Casebook Against Cynical Reason (pp. 1–14).

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

[Annotation: Alejandro Valencia­Tobón]

For George Marcus, a para­site is a metaphor for the overlapping of academic and fieldwork spaces in contemporary ethnographic projects. It is a site where interpretation occurs within a dialogic model, where experimentation is the key element. This is a core issue in the intellectual and conceptual work around knowledge­production, aesthetics,

6/13

education and, in general, transdisciplinary collaborations.

Martínez Miguélez, M. (2007).

Conceptualización de la transdisciplinariedad. Polis Revista Latinoamericana, 16. In: https://polis.revues.org/4623 [2017, 12 de febrero].

paradigm, the dialectical logic and its hermeneutics and, finally, the relationship between science, art and ethics as constituents of transdisciplinarity concept.

Nowotny, H., Scott, P., Gibbons, M. (2001). Re­thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty.

Cambridge: Polity Press.

[Annotation: Paz Tornero]

Miguel Martínez Miguelez is a PhD. in Pedagogy from the Pontifical Salesian University of Rome, with a specialization in Educational Psychology; Graduated in Philosophy, Psychology and Education, and studied at the Universities of Turin, Rome, Oxford, Munich and the Central University of Venezuela. He is Professor­Researcher, already retired atthe Simon Bolivar University of Caracas and responsible for the research line "Philosophy of Science and Qualitative Methodology specialist in paradigmatic change and philosophy of science, there is a fruitful cause to unveil in the qualitative scope immense scientific production scenarios that may well be equated with the conclusions of the most rigorous studies in the quantitative field.

He also research about arte­science similitudes and lack of communication. For the author, since personal, social and institutional life, in the current world, has become more and more complex in all its dimensions, and that in order to understand it, new concepts are needed, among which that of “transdisciplinarity” outstands, the present article intends to approach the content of this concept through several steps, and growing on difficulty, from the simple to the more complex: difficulty of conceptualization, the epistemic problem, the systemic

[Annotation: Alejandro Valencia­Tobón]

Reading this book is relevant because “collaboration” (public + scientific production of knowledge) is presented as a practice that allows a “participatory engagement” where the human element and the subjective experience of “real people” (non­expert citizens) are taken into account.

Nagel, T., 1974. What is it like to be a bat? Philosophical Review. 83(4): 435–450.

[Annotation: Alejandro Valencia­Tobon]

Thomas Nagel (1974) addresses the mind­body problem in relation to the way we perceive and experience the external world. He uses the metaphor of “what is it like to be a bat?” to argue that we will not be able to understand someone’s experience, if we do not approach it from their particular point of view. I think this is a philosophical inquiry that has a lot to do with the question “what are the best practices for transdisciplinary collaboration?” in the sense that such collaboration should be understood as a “negotiation” of intersubjectivities. We would not be able to understand what is it like to be an artist/designer/scientist if we

7/13

don’t try be one. That’s a key idea behind a transdisciplinary collaboration. I talk about this in here https://goo.gl/dAwZTv

Rasa, S., Raitis, S., Armin, M. (Ed).

(2016). Art and Science Research Practices in the Network Society. Riga, Latvia: RIXC.

[Annotation: Paz Tornero]

The book presents the interwoven histories of art and science in the digital age, by investigating the changing role of art in the network society. I really like the question they address: How can art and other creative practices meaningfully contribute to the environmental, technological and scientific challenges of our time?

Salas, Eduardo, and Michael A. Rosen.

"Building high reliability teams: progress and some reflections on teamwork training." BMJ quality & safety 22.5 (2013): 369­373.

[Annotation: Mauricio Mejía]

Salas and Rosen report a review of evidence about training for collaboration of healthcare professionals. They start by pointing out the rich evidence about the benefits of teamwork such as clinical performance and patient outcomes. Then they synthesize “what we know, what works, what are the insights and what needs to be done about the design, delivery and implementation of team training” (p. 369). The following are the best practices presented: Organizational culture and priorities affect

how staff collaborate. Specifically leadership support is the key driver of effective teamwork.

Learning teamwork may be easy and engaging; however, practice and guided practice are the best didactics to apply knowledge in actual collaborations.

Besides training, two other best practices can improve teamwork: standardised communication protocols (e.g. checklists and handoff protocols) and structural level interventions (e.g. changes in team composition, information systems, role clarification). A combination of practices is better than a single one.

Feedback (causes of effective or ineffective performance) help team members to improve their collaboration We can interpolate these practices to many types of interdisciplinary collaboration beyond health; however, some practices could be negative. For example in art and design, standardised communication could hamper creative production in collaboration.

Ssorin­Chaikov, Nikolai.( 2013).

Ethnographic Conceptualism: An introduction. Laboratorium: Russian Review of Social Research 5 (2): 5–18. http://goo.gl/KiwkFB.

[Annotation: Alejandro Valencia­Tobon]

This paper introduces the idea of “ethnographic conceptualism”, which is a process for thinking about conceptual art as a research method in anthropology. In other words, Ssorin­Chaikov talks about a new kind of ethnography that is conducted, collaboratively, as conceptual art.

8/13

Stokols, Daniel, et al. "Evaluating transdisciplinary science." Nicotine & Tobacco Research 5.Suppl 1 (2003): S21­S39.

[Annotation: Andres Roldan] Pending Translation

El artículo presenta un panorama conceptual para el entendimiento de las actividades transdisciplinarias de carácter científico y sus métodos de evaluación, teniendo como base dos estudios en centros de investigación transdisciplinaria para el tabaco que se encontraban en curso, en los cuales se describen métodos y medidas, comportamientos y valores asociados a los participantes en cuatro años de implementación. Se destaca el aporta al entendimiento de la práctica interdisciplinaria incluyendo los factores ambientales, organizacionales e institucionales. Entre los principales aportes del artículo en el campo de la colaboración transdisciplinar se encuentran: ­ La evaluación a partir de los resultados, su impacto e implementación. ­ Los modelos de evaluación del trabajo transdisciplinario implementados en los casos de estudio. ­ La diversidad de factores vinculados al desarrollo de una herramienta evaluativa para el trabajo transdisciplinar. ­ Los direccionamientos sugeridos para la evaluación del trabajo transdisciplinario.

Podemos incluir los modelos de evaluación de las prácticas de colaboración transdisciplinarias en los planteamientos actuales de investigación, sus potencialidades y los desafíos al estructurar un método válido y reconocible.

Stokols, Daniel, et al. "The ecology of team science: understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration."

American journal of preventive medicine 35.2 (2008): S96­S115.

[Annotation: Mauricio Mejía]

The authors propose a related ecology forming teams from understanding the contextual factors and their influence on disciplinary collaboration. To do so, provide an overview of the implications involved in the transdisciplinary collaborative work mainly in the area of health, conduct a review of empirical research, analyzes complementary to team performance topics (eg social psychology and management research into effective teams). It also addresses issues related to remote computers collaboration, effectiveness allied communities, studies science transdisciplinary and training programs to conclude with the conceptualization of a team of transdisciplinary science and factors for measuring the effectiveness of collaboration.

The proposal of the authors focuses on identifying enablers into four main areas: 1) social and organizational behavior, 2) the cybernetic infrastructure for remote collaboration, 3) Coalitions between scientists and doctors and 4) evaluation studies transdisciplinary research centers and training programs, in contrast to the key contextual factors that influence each of the areas of analysis. As a result of this analysis a map illustrating the effectiveness of collaboration in science transdisciplinary initiatives proposed.

9/13

Since the contributions of the article can relate aspects of context in the effectiveness of transdisciplinary teams applicable to work on remote computer, the size of the equipment in relation to the number of participants, the behavior of members and the preparation and provision of equipment.

Sunstein, C. R., & Hastie, R. (2014, December 1). Making Dumb Groups Smarter. Harvard Business Review.

Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2014/12/making­dumb­gr oups­smarter

[Annotation: Mauricio Mejía]

Sunstein and Hastie present explanations, based on experimental evidence, about how group decisions go wrong. Based on cognitive biases such as overconfidence, planning fallacy, or availability (of information), the authors explain that people in groups are more optimistic and commit to easier and failing scenarios. People may also make errors to adjust to the social norm (bias). Further, groups may polarize if two competing ideas or positions are discussed.

To counter this problems (or make groups wiser), the authors suggest six techniques: Silence the leader, to give voice to unique positions or information Prime critical thinking, leader can encourage disclosure of rare ideas.

Reward group success, not individual success.

Assign roles, to expect that everyone contribute with something (this naturally occurs in transdisciplinary collaboration) Appoint devil’s advocates, to give some people the role of rejecting dominant positions

Establish contrarian teams, similar to previous one, but with the mission of finding vulnerabilities Delphi method, individual decisions with social learning.

The techniques of this article are indeed good practices for teamwork. The majority of them are supported on evidence. They could be tested in transdisiciplinary groups.

Veciana, Stella (2015): Manual para el desarrollo de proyectos transdisciplinarios en el marco del proyecto “Diálogo de Saberes y Conocimientos para el Vivir Bien”.

[Manual for the development of transdisciplinary research projects].

Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), Universidad Indígena Intercultural (UII), Fondo Indígena. Online: http://t1p.de/f6fl (accessed 1.07.2017)

[Annotation: Stella Veciana ]

The manual gives an introduction into transdisciplinarity and its historical background from the perspective of the Global North and the Global South and the integrated social value of transdisciplinarity. It gives a definition and an overview of the stages of transdisciplinary projects with practical advice for the design and development of transdisciplinary projects.

The aim of the project is to foster research the cooperation between indigenous and scientific organizations throughout Latin America. In addition, there is an attempt to create a methodological basis for a higher social impact of transdisciplinary research on the level of cooperation of Global North to the Global South beyond traditional practices of development cooperation.

10/13

SUGGESTED REFERENCES

Aldrich, John H., ed. Interdisciplinarity: Its role in a discipline­based academy.

Oxford University Press, 2014.

Gray, Barbara. "Enhancing transdisciplinary research through collaborative leadership." American journal of preventive medicine 35.2 (2008): S124­S132.

Hall, Pippa, and Lynda Weaver.

"Interdisciplinary education and teamwork: a long and winding road."

Medical education 35.9 (2001): 867­875.

Klein, Julie T. "Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: a literature review." American journal of preventive medicine 35.2 (2008): S116­S123.

Koutsabasis, Panayiotis, et al. "On the value of virtual worlds for collaborative design." Design Studies 33.4 (2012): 357­390.

Rosen, Michael A., et al. "Measuring team performance in simulation­based training: adopting best practices for healthcare." Simulation in Healthcare 3.1 (2008): 33­41.

Sanders, Elizabeth B­N., Eva Brandt, and Thomas Binder. "A framework for organizing the tools and techniques of participatory design." Proceedings of the 11th biennial participatory design conference. ACM, 2010.

Thébault, Elisa, and Colin Fontaine.

"Stability of ecological communities and the architecture of mutualistic and trophic networks." Science 329.5993 (2010): 853­856.

11/13

Thistlethwaite, Jill, and Monica Moran.

"Learning outcomes for interprofessional education (IPE): Literature review and synthesis."

Journal of interprofessional care 24.5 (2010): 503­513.

Weaver, Sallie J., et al. "The anatomy of health care team training and the state of practice: a critical review." Academic Medicine 85.11 (2010): 1746­1760.

https://researchcultures.com/issues/1/e xperiment­research­art.html

http://www.transdisciplinarity.ch/en/td­ net/Methoden.html

Recommended by Viviana Molina:

Kelley, Tom, and Jonathan Littman. The ten faces of innovation: IDEO's strategies for defeating the devil's advocate and driving creativity throughout your organization. Crown Business, 2006.

http://www.tenfacesofinnovation.com/t enfaces/index.htm

Recommended by Ricardo Dal Farra:

Hirsch Hadorn, G., Hoffmann­Riem, H., et al [editores] (2008). Manual de Investigación transdisciplinaria.

Alemania: Springer.

Jaeger, J. y Scheringer, M., 2000. La transdisciplinariedad ­ sólo una palabra de moda? La superación de algunas objeciones populares a Transdisciplinario de Investigación.

Actas de la Conferencia Internacional Transdisciplinaridad 2000. Libro de

Trabajo I: Sesiones de Diálogo y Mercado de Ideas. p 259­262.

Jensenius, A., 2012. Disciplinarities: afluente, cruz, multi, inter, trans [En línea] Noruega. Disponible en: http://www.arj.no/2012/03/12/discipli narities­2/ Max­Neef, M., 2005. Fundamentos de la transdisciplinariedad. Economía Ecológica, 53. p. 5­16.

Wagensberg, J., 1985. Ideas Sobre la Complejidad del Mundo. España: Tusquets Editores.

Recommended by Stella Veciana:

Carrizo, L., Espina Prieto, M, Klein, J. T. (2004). Transdisciplinariedad y complejidad en el análisis social.

Publicado por el Programa MOST, Unesco. París. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013 /001363/136367s.pdf

Centro Latinoamericano de Aprendizaje y Servicio Solidario CLAYSS (2008). “Excelencia académica y solidaridad”. Actas del 11mo.

Seminario Internacional “Aprendizaje y Servicio Solidario”, Buenos Aires. http://www.clayss.org.ar/seminario/acta s/2009_actas_11.pdf

Galvani, P. (2008).

Transdisciplinariedad y ecologización de los saberes. Pasos Operacionales en el CEUArkos (1ra Parte). Visión Docente Con­Ciencia 7 (40), pp. 4­13. http://www.ceuarkos.com/Vision_doce nte/revistas/No.40.pdf

Nicolescu, B. (1996). Manifiesto de la Transdisciplinariedad. Ediciones Du Rocher.

12/13

http://www.ceuarkos.com/manifiesto.pd f

13/13