Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

TRANS-DISCIPLINARITY AND GROWTH: Nature and Characteristics of Trans-disciplinary Training Programs on the Human-Environment Interphase

  • Published:
Journal of the Knowledge Economy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Smart, sustainable, and inclusive growth is the sine qua non for developed democracies today. At the heart of the growth engines of technology innovation and entrepreneurship fed by the fuel of creativity and invention lies trans-disciplinarity (TD) and beyond-the-box thinking (TB2) not just outside-the-box thinking. TD and TB2 flourish at the nexus of theories, policies, politics, and practices when the encompassing socio-political, socio-technical, and socio-economic ecosystem is endowed with a quadruple and quintuple innovation helix structure (Q2IH) organically and flexibly linking government, university, industry, and civil society within an overarching environmental framework. The increasing demand for trans-disciplinary training programs on the human system-environment interphase dovetail in considerations, including the need for addressing complex problems, in a way which transcends the collection of information from a multitude of disciplines and moving towards integrated, more holistic ways of understanding. This paper analyzes core characteristics of university programs adopting this trans-disciplinary approach. They differ from technical expertise programs in their integrated, innovative, and solution-targeted character in which contributions by and dialogues with stakeholders are essential. As trans-disciplinary approaches reach maturity, it becomes increasingly indicated organizing them as 4-year master degrees, entailing a 2-year multidisciplinary training during the bachelor years, completed with a 2-year training targeted towards integration of data and trans-disciplinary practice. In this latter context, attention for uncertainty, tacit knowledge, inspiring case studies, integrated training methods, and thesis-related practice surface more and more as important elements of the program content. In spite of their intellectual attraction and logical necessity, trans-disciplinary approaches also face weaknesses including their non-mainstream scientific character, the lack of methods allowing the integration of non-homogeneous data, the scientifically premature character of tacit knowledge, and the value-loaded aspect of the issues at stake. The extent to which trans-disciplinary programs will succeed overcoming these limitations will to a large extent determine their future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Afonso, O., Monteiro, S., Thompson, M. J. R. (2010). A growth model for the Quadruple Helix innovation theory, NIPE Working Paper 12, Universidade do Minho.

  • Arnkil, R., Järvensivu, A., Koski, P., Piirainen, T. (2010). Exploring Quadruple Helix: outlining user-oriented innovation models, Working Papers 85/2010, University of Tampere.

  • Boon, E., & Hens, L. (Eds.). (2007). Indigenous knowledge systems and sustainable development: relevance for Africa. Delhi: Kamla-Raj Enterprises. 262 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borden, R. (1991). Introduction. In S. Suzuki, R. J. Borden, & L. Hens (Eds.), Human ecology—coming of age: an international overview. Brussels: VUB-Press. 255 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G. (2001). The strategic management of technological learning: learning to learn and learning to learn-how-to-learn as drivers of strategic choice and firm performance in global, technology-driven markets. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2009). ‘Mode 3’ and ‘Quadruple Helix’: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3/4), 201–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2010). Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix and Quintuple Helix, and how do knowledge, innovation and the environment relate to each other? A proposed framework for a transdisciplinary analysis of sustainable development and social ecology. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development, 1(1), 41–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., & Gonzalez, E. (2003). Creativity and innovation = competitiveness? When, how and why? In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The international handbook on innovation (pp. 587–605). Boston: Elsevier Science.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., & Grigoroudis, E. (2012). Linking innovation, productivity and competitiveness: implications for policy and practice. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(2), 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E.G., & Grigoroudis, E. (2015). Using multiobjective mathematical programming to link national competitiveness, productivity and innovation. Annals of Operations Research (accepted).

  • Carayannis, E. G., & Provance, M. (2008). Measuring firm innovativeness: towards a composite innovation index built on firm innovative posture, propensity and performance attributes. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 1(1), 90–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., & Rakhmatullin, R. (2014). The Quadruple/Quintuple Innovation Helixes and Smart Specialization Strategies for sustainable and inclusive growth in Europe and beyond. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 5(2), 212–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E., & Sagi, J. (2001). New vs old economy: insights on competitiveness in the global IT industry. Technovation, 21(8), 501–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., & Sagi, J. (2002). Exploiting opportunities of the new economy: developing nations in support of the ICT industry. Technovation, 22(8), 517–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., & Sipp, C. M. (2010). Why, when and how are real options used in strategic technology venturing? Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1(2), 70–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., Kaloudis, A., & Mariussen, A. (2008). Diversity in the knowledge economy and society: heterogeneity, innovation and entrepreneurship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., Grigoroudis, E., Sindakis, S., & Walter, C. (2014). Business Model Innovation as antecedent of sustainable enterprise excellence and resilience. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 5(3), 440–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2012). RIS3 guide. Brussels: European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2014). Smart specialization and Europe’s growth agenda. Brussels: European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foray, D., & Goenaga, X. (2013). The goals of Smart Specialization: S3 policy brief series, JRC Scientific and Policy Reports. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foray, D., Goddard, J., Beldarrain, X. G., Landabaso, M., McCann, P., Morgan, K., Nauwelaers, C., Ortega‐Argilés, R., & Mulatero, F. (2012). Guide to Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisations (RIS 3). Brussels: European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaia (2014). Ecological perspectives for science and society. Special: TD-award. 23, 253–277.

  • Hausmann, R., & Rodrik, D. (2003). Economic development as self-discovery. Journal of Development Economics, 72(2), 603–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hens, L., & Stoyanov, S. (2014). Education for climate changes, environmental health and environmental justice. Journal of Chemical Technology and Metallurgy, 49, 194–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, R., & Rigling, A. (2014). Commitment to continuous research is a key factor in transdisciplinarity. Experiences from the Mountland project. Gaia, 23, 256–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IMD. (2003). World competitiveness yearbook 2003. Lausanne: Institute for Management Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jahn, T. M., Bergmann, M., & Keil, F. (2012). Transdisciplinarity. Between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecological Economics, 79, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, J. J. P. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation and performance: effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661–1674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, D., et al. (2012). Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles and challenges. Sustainability Science, 7, 25–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L. (2012). The Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix, …, and an N-Tuple of Helices: explanatory models for analyzing the knowledge-based economy. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 3(1), 25–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Midtkandal, I., & Sörvik, J. (2012). What is smart specialisation?, Nordregio News, 5, http://www.nordregio.se/en/Metameny/Nordregio-News/2012/Smart-Specialisation/Context.

  • Nicolopoulou-Stamati, P., Matiatos, I., Kotampasi, C., Stamatis, P., Sasco, A.J., Protopapa, E., Hens, L. (2015). Training in environmental health necessitates tacit knowledge. Environment, Development and Sustainable Development, 17, 299–314.

  • OECD. (2001). Measuring productivity: measurement of aggregate and industry-level productivity growth. Paris: OECD Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paas, T., & Poltimae, H. (2010). A comparative analysis of national innovation performance: the Baltic States in the EU context, Working Paper 78. Tartu: University of Tartu, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paccagnella, B. (1998). Human ecology for sustainable cities. In L. Hens, R. J. Borden, & S. Suzuki (Eds.), Research in human ecology: an interdisciplinary overview. Brussels: VUB-Press. 328pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirez, E., Gibert, M., & Hens, L. (Eds.). (2010). Studies in human ecology. Hanoi: The University Publishing House. 259pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pohl, C. (2010). From transdisciplinarity to transdisciplinary research. Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering and Science, 1, 46–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN—United Nations World Summit on Environment and Development (2002). Johannesburg Plan of Implementation. New York: United Nations. Available online at http://www.un.org/esa/susdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/English/POIToc.htm.

  • UN—United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (1992). Agenda 21: The United Nations Programme of Action for Rio. New York: United Nations. Available online at http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_00.shtm1.

  • WCED—World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 257 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • WEF. (2012). The global competitiveness report 2012–2013. Geneva: World Economic Forum.

    Google Scholar 

  • WHO—World Health Organization (1996). Healthy cities indicators. ICP/HCIT/9401/PB. Genève, Switzerland.

  • Zinstag, J., Perrig-Chiello, P., Paulsen, T., & Tuffer, B. (2014). Best practice in transdisciplinary research—Swiss TD-award winners 2013. Gaia, 23, 253–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA

    Elias Carayannis

  2. Vlaamse Instelling voor Technologisch Onderzoek (VITO), Mol, Belgium

    Luc Hens

  3. National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

    Polyxeni Nicolopoulou-Stamati

Authors
  1. Elias Carayannis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luc Hens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Polyxeni Nicolopoulou-Stamati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elias Carayannis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Carayannis, E., Hens, L. & Nicolopoulou-Stamati, P. TRANS-DISCIPLINARITY AND GROWTH: Nature and Characteristics of Trans-disciplinary Training Programs on the Human-Environment Interphase. J Knowl Econ 8, 1–22 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-015-0294-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-015-0294-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation