Kappa Omicron Nu FORUM

Knowledge Generation in Home Economics Using Transdisciplinary Methodology

Sue L.T. McGregor Mount Saint Vincent University, Cana a

Key !or s: transdisciplinarity, methodology, home economics, family and consumer sciences, complexity, human problems "#stract The purpose of this paper is to describe transdisciplinary (TD) methodology, a developing methodology that has potential for erasing disciplinary boundaries in home economics. A review of the roots of TD methodology in home economics will be followed by an explanation of methodology (especial empirical, interpretive, and critical). The four principles laws axioms of TD methodology will be examined, and the paper will conclude with speculative remar!s on the profession"s readiness to embrace the TD approach. All members of the profession have an abiding obligation to generate new !nowledge to enhance family well#being and $uality of life% TD methodology is the most recent innovation for that tas!. &hen a tipping point is achieved within the profession, the TD methodology can spread widely and profoundly. 'c(regor ()*+*b) described the historical presence of transdisciplinarity (TD) in home economics, reporting on the contributions of ,hristine Daniels (+-.*) from &ales and 'ar/orie 0rown (+--1) from 2nited 3tates. Daniels believed that transdisciplinarity was a way to organi4e home economics curriculum in higher education. 0rown believed transdisciplinarity was both (a) an overarching conceptual framewor! and (b) a context for the unity of worldviews. 0rown ardently maintained that by using a transdisciplinary framewor!, interdisciplinarian home economists would be better able to study more relevant social problems than if they remained constricted by their narrow disciplinary boundaries and siloed speciali4ations. Daniels (+-.*) and 0rown (+--1) started the profession on its /ourney towards transdisciplinarity using contemporary understandings of transdisciplinarity at the time they were writing. 3ince Daniels" and 0rown"s contributions about the potential of transdisciplinarity in home economics, the concept has evolved from being (a) a model for organi4ing higher education and (b) an overarching conceptual framewor! from which to continue to practice interdisciplinarity to (c) a methodology in its own right. 'c(regor ()*+*b) promised a companion paper to provide insights into how evolving

notions of transdisciplinarity could inform home economics in the )+st century. This is that paper. This paper will explain the transdisciplinary methodology and will then follow with an explanation of TD methodology developed by 5icolescu. Attendees at the first world congress on transdisciplinarity (cf. 5icolescu, )**+) generated a manifesto, stating publicly the declaration of principles and intentions of transdisciplinarity. 5either Daniels (+-.*) nor 0rown (+--1) could use 5icolescu"s conceptuali4ations of transdisciplinarity as methodology,because this wor! did not exist at the time. 60ut, home economists practicing in the new millennia have the opportunity to examine this new characteri4ation of transdisciplinarity and consider its implications for professional philosophy, scholarship, and practice7 ('c(regor, )*+*b, p. 8). Met$o o%ogies The word methodology comprises two nouns: method and ology. 'ethod is 9atin methodus for way of teaching or going. :logy is a suffix meaning a branch of !nowledge (;arper, )*+*)% hence, methodology is a branch of !nowledge that deals with the general principles or axioms of the generation of new !nowledge, a way of teaching or going forward intellectually. 'ethodology refers to the rationale and the philosophical assumptions that underlie any natural, social, or human science study, whether articulated or not. 0y contrast, methods are the techni$ues and procedures followed to conduct research (i.e., sampling, data collection, data analysis, and results reporting). 'ethods and theories (as well as conceptual framewor!s, taxonomies, and models) are determined by the methodology. <ven the focus and intent of the research and the actual research $uestions themselves are shaped by the methodology ('c(regor = 'urnane, )*+*).
Axioms and Methodologies

There is an important conceptual distinction between the tools of scientific investigation (methods) and the principles that determine how such tools are deployed and interpreted (methodology) (American ;eritage Dictionary, )*+*). >our branches of philosophy pertain to methodology. (a) 'etaphysics studies the nature of being, existence, and reality. (b) <pistemology is concerned with the nature and scope of !nowledge. (c) 9ogic involves the study of valid argument forms. (d) Axiology is concerned with the role of values and of the researcher in the generation of new !nowledge (?yan = ,ooper, )**@). These four areas are called axioms, self#evident rules, principles and laws (see >igure +). 6(ree! philosophers believed that an axiom is a claim that is true, without any need for proof. The truth of an axiom is ta!en for granted7 ('c(regor = 'urnane, )*+*, p. A)*).

>igure +. >our general axioms. Ta!en together, the four axioms form a methodology. 'ethodologies are concerned with the general principles of the formation of new !nowledge and the application of the principles of reasoning to scholarly in$uiry. There are three well#recogni4ed methodologies: empirical, interpretive, and critical ((ephart, +---% 5iglas, )**+). <ach has different understandings of what counts as !nowledge, reality, logic, and the role of values and of researchers. 0rown (+--1) exclaimed that it is not enough for home economists to solve human problems using /ust empirical scholarship. 3uch problems also concern human values (interpretive) and the need to /udge and criti$ue global resource distribution and resultant power infrastructures (critical). 3he as!ed the profession to apply a combination of all three methodologies to solve the problems of humanityBempirical, interpretive, and critical (see also 'c(regor, Cendergast, 3eniu!, <ghan, = <ngberg, )**.).
Three, Well-Recognized Methodologies

'c(regor and 'urnane ()*+*) provided a detailed discussion of how these three well# recogni4ed methodologies differ. >irst, they related each axiom to, respectively, empirical, interpretive, and critical methodologies, per the following set of $uestions: ,an !nowledge be discovered (is it out there waiting), must it be experienced (created by and among individuals within their cultures), or is it grounded in power and social

practicesD Es reality a given (external from people"s consciousness), a product of individual and collective consciousness, or is it what people are living through, right nowD Are humans determined by their environment or do they create their environment (the nature of reality)D &hat logic is acceptable for forming thoughts, conclusions, opinions, /udgements, revelations, and insightsD &hat principles, systems of rules or processes should guide people"s reasoning so they can meet the demands of thin!ing accurately, meaningfully, or criticallyD >inally, is there a place for researchers and participants in the research or should they remain emotionally detachedD Do their hopes, values, expectations, and feelings have a place in research or should these be totally divorced from the processD (p. A)*) 'c(regor and 'urnane ()*+*) then shared a detailed Appendix outlining each of the three conventional methodologies relative to each of the four axioms. Table + provides a cursory summary as a way for readers to position themselves in familiar territory before launching into a discussion of transdisciplinarity as a new methodology. 'c(regor and 'urnane used the common example of consumer debt to illustrate the profound difference among the three research methodologies. >rom an empirical stance, the intent is to be able to explain or predict why people get in debt so the results of the study can be used to control human behaviour leading to less debt. >rom an interpretive stance, the intent is to understand what is happening (indebtedness), how people who are in debt feel about it, how these conscious and unconscious feelings came to be, and how new, shared meanings affect their lives. >rom a critical stance, the intent is to reveal power relationships in society embedded in existing societal institutions (e.g., consumer society, mar!etplace, lending practices, government policies) and do so by facilitating participation and transactions with and amongst citi4ens in such a way that their consciousness is raised about the fact that they are oppressed, exploited, and marginali4ed. Table +. :verview of well#recogni4ed methodologies (extrapolated from 'c(regor = 'urnane, )*+*) &ositivistic 'mpirica% Scienti(ic Intent Credict, control, explain +. the one truth is out there waiting to be discovered via the scientific method &ost &ositivistic )nterpretive Critica% *+umanistic, 2nderstand *&o!er, <mancipate

Methodology

Four "-)OMS

+. truth is created and +. truth is grounded in there is more than one the context, in social truth% relies on and historical humans" practices interpretations of their

world 'pistemo%ogy (what counts as !nowledge and ways of !nowing (criteria for evaluating !nowledge)% how should we study the world% what is meaningful evidence or insights% how does !nowledge arise) Onto%ogy ). !nowledge is ob/ective (bias free) 1. only !nowledge generated using the scientific method is valid ). !nowledge is sub/ective or intersub/ective and includes perspectives ). !nowledge is emancipatory, created through critically $uestioning the way things 6have always been done7

1. there are many ways of !nowing and 1. !nowledge is about generating !nowledge hidden power aside from the structures that scientific method permeate society

+. reality is out there% +. reality is in here (in +. reality is here and the world is a people"s minds and now collectively (what should be the universe of facts constructed) ob/ect of the study% waiting to be ). reality is shaped by what is human nature% discovered ethnic, cultural, what does it mean to ). social reality is gender, social and be human% what ). there is a single relative to the political values and counts as a reality made of observer% it is mediated by power meaningful statement discrete elements: determined by how relations about reality% how do when we find them all people see themselves people ma!e choices% through the scientific 1. human beings have what is the nature of method, we have a 1. reality is socially the capacity to create reality% how can full picture of reality constructed via the a new reality by reality be lived experiences of exercising control meaningfully 1. true nature of people over social portrayed) reality can only be arrangements and obtained by testing institutions theories Logic +. deductive, +. inductive logic, +. inductive logic, rationale, formal logic attempting to find aimed at various interpretations emancipation and (how do people come of reality and attempt to reveal to their ). goal of research ideologies and power understandings% what informed by this logic recogni4e patterns that govern and guide relationships leading is acceptable as rigour is replication and to self#empowerment and inference in the theory testing leading human behaviour and emancipation development of to control, prediction arguments, and explanations ). goal of research /udgements, insights, informed by this logic ). goal of research revelations, or social is a credible informed by this logic action) representation of the is to reveal power interpretations of relationships leading those experiencing theto changes in the

phenomenon under study ".io%ogy (role of values and perceptions% role of researchers and participants% how is what is studied influenced by the researcher and the participants% what is the relationship between the researcher and the participants) +. values neutral (values are often ignored)Bmoral issues are beyond empirical investigation ). no place for bias, values, feelings, perceptions, hopes or expectations of either researcher or participant 1. relationship between researcher and participant is ob/ective and dualistic (separate with no interchange) +. values laden ). bias, feelings, hopes, expectations, perceptions and values are central to the research process

status $uo and more autonomy, inclusion and /ustice +. values oriented and values driven ). researcher"s proactive values concerning social /ustice are central to the research

1. relationship between the 1. relationship researcher and between researcher participants is intense, and participants is prolonged and dialogic, transactional dialogic (deep and dialectic insights through (transformative) interaction and dialogue)

Trans iscip%inary Met$o o%ogy 0asarab 5icolescu ()**+, )**.b), a ?omanian $uantum physicist, is the leading advocate of the transdisciplinary (TD) methodology. 9i!e 0rown (+--1) did for home economics, 6he see!s to address head on the problem of fragmentation that plagues contemporary life7 (Foss, )**), p. ++A), including binary logic, dualism, value#free !nowledge generation, hyper#speciali4ation, and over#reliance on the old 5ewtonian empirical sciences. &ithin this scientific mindset, generations of home economists became comfortable with being experts, with wor!ing within their own discipline, and especially with being specialists within home economics sub#disciplines (hyper#speciali4ation). They became adept at assuming their picture of family reality is incomplete, made up of many separate parts. Ef they can /ust conduct enough experiments and develop enough theories about this singular reality, they will eventually find all of the parts and complete the picture of reality. To varying degrees, home economists appreciate the merit of a role for values in their research and of critical science in their scholarship ('c(regor, )**@, )**-b). 2nli!e the old sciences, TD methodology is deeply informed by the new sciences of $uantum physics, chaos theory, and living systems theory (5icolescu, )**8). ;e believes

that the innovations of the new sciences radically change what is acceptable as !nowledge, reality, logic and the role of values. To that end, he tendered his own interpretation of the three pillars (axioms) of a transdisciplinary methodology: (a) ontologyBmultiple 9evels of ?eality, (b) the 9ogic of the Encluded 'iddle, and (c) epistemologyB!nowledge as an emergent complexity. 'c(regor ()**-c, )*+*a) and ,icovac!i ()**A, )**-) added axiology as the fourth TD pillar+, which 'c(regor labelled integral values constellation (see >igure )).

>igure ). >our pillars (axioms) of transdisciplinary methodology. As a caveat, what follows is but a map of the vast intellectual territory of transdisciplinary methodology. This brief paper cannot do /ustice to this phenomenally large idea% rather, it serves to whet the appetite for more. Cractitioners are invited to read and engage in wider conversations about what this methodology might mean for home economics practice. All members of the profession have an abiding obligation to generate new !nowledge to enhance family well#being and $uality of life% TD methodology is the most recent innovation for that tas!.
Transdisciplinary Reality (Ontology)

Transdisciplinarity assumes that it is essential to see! multiple perspectives on any human problem (or set of human problems) because the intent is to integrate many levels of truth while generating new !nowledge. Et respects the complex and dynamic relationships among +* different realities organi4ed along three levels of reality: (a) the internal world of humans, where consciousness flows (comprising political, social, historical, and individual realities)% (b) the external world of humans where information flows (comprising environmental, economic, and cosmic planetary realities)% and (c) The Hidden Third. Ceople"s experiences, interpretations, descriptions, representations, images, and formulas meet on this third level. Three realities exist in this intuitive

4one level, this mediated interface: culture and art, religions, and spiritualities. Together, they form TD ontology (see >igure 1). <ach of the +* realities along three levels is characteri4ed by its incompleteness% yet, together, in unity, these realities generate new, infinite !nowledge (5icolescu, )**8).

>igure 1. Three levels and ten types of transdisciplinary reality (ontology) Although this idea may feel similar to human ecology"s concept of reciprocal relationships among levels of environments, it is different in that it deals with the mediated flow of inner consciousness (perceptions) and technical information from different realities leading to a meeting of the minds in a Gone of 5on#?esistance. En this space, people shed their resistance to truth informed by other realities and /oin these realities to generate complex, TD !nowledge.
Transdisciplinary Logic

<ach type of reality and each level of reality is governed by a different !ind of logic (5icolescu, )**.b). 9ogic is concerned with the habits of the mind that are acceptable for inference and reasoning when arguing one"s position on an issue. The tendency in higher education is to predicate !nowledge generation on a mechanistic view that ignores human agency, values, creativity, and evolution (logic of exclusion) and on reductionist#based scientific in$uiry (5icolescu, )**.b). En academic life (and home economics is no exception), this logic manifests as separate departments, /ournals, library holdings, conferences, gatherings, forums, and professional associations.

En contrast to logic of exclusion, a TD methodology embraces Logic of the Included Middle. This inclusive logic enables people to imagine that the space between things is alive, dynamic, in flux, moving, and perpetually changing (rather than separate, empty, and void). Et is in this fertile middle ground that transdisciplinary !nowledge generation manifests itself. TD methodology has people stepping through 4ones of non#resistance (away from one worldview or notion of reality towards other views) onto a fertile, moving floor of the included middle where, together, they generate new transdisciplinary intelligence and !nowledge through intellectual fusion ('c(regor, )**A). The logic of the included middle re$uires the creation of a non#threatening space for dialogue and !nowledge generation. En this intellectual space, attempts are made to reconcile different logics for the sa!e of solving human problems. 2sing the logic of the included middle to move through the +* different types of reality (by ma!ing space for contradictions and discontinuities in the three levels of realities) creates a permanent possibility for the evolution of new, TD !nowledge ('c(regor, )**A, )**8). 'c(regor ()**-c, )*+*a) employed the metaphor of a lava lamp to explain this idea of constant evolution. &hat is especially significant about the logic of the included middle is transdisciplinarity"s focus on what happens at the interface between higher education (academic disciplines) and the rest of the world. The generation of TD !nowledge re$uires academics to connect with members of voluntary civic and social organi4ations and institutions (civil society) as well as with the private and public sectors.
Transdisciplinary Kno ledge (!pistemology)

A TD methodology assumes that what counts as !nowledge has to expand beyond that generated using the scientific method or /ust interpretive or critical methodologies. Et has to include the complex structure of understandings garnered through intricate webs of relations among individuals in the academy, the private and public sectors, and in civil society (on the fertile middle ground). ;orlic!#Hones and 3ime ()**A) coined the phrase border-work to refer to the intellectual wor! that occurs when people living on the borders of the academy (university disciplines) and civil society engage in !nowledge generation to address complex problem solving. TD !nowledge is thus based on cross# fertili4ation, embodiment, complexity, and emergence (see >igure A), comprising the crux of TD !nowledge.

>igure A. >our dimensions of transdisciplinary !nowledge (epistemology) Comp%e.ity. 0ecause TD draws its notions of complexity and emergence from the new sciences, a different understanding of these familiar words is re$uired. ,omplex is 9atin complexus for surrounding, encompassing, and >rench complexe, composed of parts (;arper, )*+*). TD methodology assumes there is a difference between a complex problem and a complicated problem. The most complex problems facing humanity are characteri4ed by high levels of uncertainty, multiple perspectives, and multiple, interlin!ed local and global processesIthey are complex. A prime example is climate change. 3peciali4ed experts are unable to ma!e the necessary connections to deal with this complexity (Apgar, Argumendo, = Allen, )**-). A complicated problem, on the other hand, is characteri4ed as hard to solve because it is intricate, tangled, !notty, and detailed. Et is one thing to untangle the strings of a complicated problem but $uite another to re# weave these freed up strings, along with new strings brought to the fertile middle ground by a collection of sta!eholders, into a whole to achieve a new, integrated solution, one that employs newly generated TD !nowledge. The latter process is an inherent part of solving a complex problem and features the concept of emergence ('c(regor, )*+*a% 5icolescu, )**.a). 'mergence. <merge has 9atin roots, emergere for rise out or up, bring forth, bring to light (;arper, )*+*). Transdisciplinary methodology holds that the process of emergence comes into being as people pass through the 4one of non#resistance (accept that there are many realities, perspectives, and value premises) and enter the fertile middle ground to problem solve using the logic of inclusion. <mergence refers to novel $ualities,

properties, relationships, patterns, and structures that appear from relatively simple interactions among people, $ualities that did not exist when presented in isolation. These new $ualities are, themselves, layered in arrangements of increased complexity ('orin, )**J% 5icolescu, )**.a). <mergence means people assume the problem they are addressing continually changes as people try to /ointly solve it ('c(regor, )**-c). TD !nowledge is created in the fertile middle ground, emerging from gradual cross# fertili4ation% that is, everything is in perceptual motion: all ideas, information, relationships, and people. This motion results from the itinerant convergence of different actors and their ways of !nowing, shaped by their respective expertise or disciplinary axiomatic and value premises (5icolescu, +--@). )ntegration an Cross/(erti%i0ation. TD !nowledge emerges through the process of integration, understood to mean opening things up to all disciplines and to civil societyB !nowing so that something new can be created via synthesis and the harmoni4ation of ideas and perspectives (different realities) (5icolescu, +--@). Those co#creating TD !nowledge would come to welcome chaos, uncertainty, and tension, along with emergence and complexity (5icolescu, )**8). Thus, learning to apply these notions will be re$uired for using TD methodology and generating !nowledge. TD intellectual border wor! leads to personal and disciplinary growth and evolution, necessitating tension and imbalance. Those creating TD !nowledge would not try to maintain the old order but would enter into trustful, sharing relationships with others who have the same vision and relevant information. Through rich processes and exchanges, multiple minds would interact and produce a complex !nowledge containing circular relationships between cause and effect (reflexivity). This !nowledge creation process is rich with value orientations.
Transdisciplinary "al#es (Axiology)

0y its very nature, transdisciplinary dialogue will witness the inescapable value loading of every inference, every opinion% every line of conversation will face a potential clash of values, ethics, and morals (,icovac!i, )**-% 'c(regor, )**-c, )*+*a). 0a4ewic4 ()***) affirmed that TD methodology is concerned with the integration of values. &or!ing together in fluctuating, enriching, and challenging relationships necessitates a concern for values, especially because complexity and emergence (TD epistemology) infer the need for more than a single expert"s perspective and notion of truth. Transdisciplinarity needs value#steered processes to lead to multiple truths% its attendant TD !nowledge generation depends upon it (0urger, )**1). The solutions for complex, emergent human problems re$uire the !nowledge of, and partnerships with, experts from different scientific disciplines, from the private and public sector, and from civil society (e.g., children, elders, indigenous peoples, artisans, labour, faith). The capacity to solve complex, emergent problems in the fertile middle ground using inclusive logic is generated through these relationships, and this compilation and integration of different world views and value orientations must be managed and lead to mitigate conflicts. Summary an 1iscussion

The intent of this paper was to augment Daniels" (+-.*) and 0rown"s (+--1) notions of transdisciplinarity in home economics with a )+st century notion of transdisciplinarity as methodology. To reiterate, methodology is concerned with the application of ta!en#for# granted laws and principles (axioms) of what counts as !nowledge (truth), reality, logic, and values. Table +, which profiles the three conventional methodologies, can be used as a point of comparison for the overview of the TD methodology. >igure J summari4es the four axioms of TD methodology (relative to the general axioms set out in >igure ) and Table +).

>igure J. >our transdisciplinary methodology axioms En summary, if home economists employed a transdisciplinary methodology, they (a) would crisscross disciplinary and sub#disciplinary boundaries with the intent to change (or remove) the borders while integrating theories, policies, and practices emanating from this disciplinary migration and integration. (b) They would recogni4e that leadership for home, families, and humanity happens in the fertile middle ground within the academy and among higher education, civil society, and other sectors. (c) This leadership would be informed by the logic of inclusion and by multiple levels of reality. They would find new respect for tension, chaos, and disorder, (d) especially as they manage the value#laden transdisciplinary dialogue inherent in intellectual fusion and perspective integration. (e) ;ome economists would appreciate that resultant TD !nowledge is complex, emergent, cross#fertili4ed, and embodied. (f) They would integrate the many realms of reality (multiple perspectives and logics) as they wor!ed with other disciplines and members of

civil society in intellectual border#wor! to generate TD !nowledge to address the context of )+st century humanity. The aim of transdisciplinarity is the comprehension of the present world, of which one of the imperatives is the unity of !nowledge. 2sing a TD methodology gives people 6the freedom of thin!ing beyond disciplinary boundaries7 (0erni, )*+*, p. 8). This freedom was curtailed with the birth of 'odern 3cience and the evolution of the sciences independently from theology, philosophy, and culture. 0erni explained that the extreme conse$uences of that division have lead to the current human condition and the self# destruction of the human species and the entire earth ecosystem. A transdisciplinary methodology advocates for reconciliation among science, spirituality, art, and morality. Through the four axiomsBmultiple levels of reality and perceptions, value constellations, emergent and complex !nowledge, and the logic of inclusion (see >igure J)Bhumanity can wor! together to achieve its potential.
Readiness $or T% Methodology

Ef the experience of the author is any example, accepting the four TD axioms as 6ta!en# for#granted7 will be an intellectual stretch but a welcomed addition to how to be a home economist. There are both bridges and obstacles shaping the shift from current ways of !nowing and !nowledge creation to transdisciplinary methodology. >irst, home economics is interdisciplinary% yet, this means wor!ing with other disciplines with no intention of removing the boundaries (>airclough, )**J). &e have historically wor!ed with members of civil society, acting as a buffer between citi4ens and government and business% however, this role often involved technical solutions to symptoms instead of changing policy or other social institutions that support families. A TD methodology as!s us to unite these two things togetherBta!e down the boundaries within university disciplines at the same time we ta!e down the boundaries between the university and the rest of the world. 3econd, we have always had a deep respect for the role of values in solving complicated family problems, and some home economists have internali4ed the concepts of practical, perennial problems and three systems of action, as well as values reasoning (see 'c(regor et al., )**.). A TD methodology as!s us to see values as an integral part of solving complex, emergent problems, in addition to familiar, complicated problems. 3olving complex problems of humanity (with emergent potential) with other sta!eholders is a different twist for us, given our penchant to wor! one#on#one with individual families. ;owever, a values#driven problem solving process should come naturally to us. Third, although the TD methodology values many levels of reality, home economists are most comfortable with the idea of a singular reality, understood by using facts produced from the scientific method. :thers are beginning to endorse the idea (a) that reality is socially constructed by those who are living it (interpretive) and (b) that current reality is shaped by societal power relations, often leading to oppression and marginali4ation (critical methodology). Accepting that there are +* realities that have to be integrated during the solution of complex, emergent problems may be an intellectual stretch for many in the profession. This is a daunting proposition. :n the other hand, as mentioned,

we are very comfortable with a human ecosystem approach with its focus on reciprocal relationships between levels of environments. The environments include family, human built, and natural, and they encompasses labels similar to those set out in >igure 1. A TD methodology further re$uires us to integrate the inner flow of consciousness with the outer flow of information. En this way there can be a meeting of the minds on the fertile middle ground informed by the logic of inclusion (instead of exclusion). >ourth, regarding the logic of exclusion, although home economists are deeply familiar with dualism, speciali4ations, and fragmentation, they also have been taught to value reciprocal relationships, systems thin!ing, and principles of interconnectedness, holism, and integration. 'oving to the logic of inclusion, one that values many voices wor!ing together to solve the pervasive problems of humanity, is not a big intellectual leap. >inally, home economics leans heavily towards the empirical methodology, but more and more it is seeing the merit of interpretive and critical methodologies. A TD methodology, while valuing the contributions of the other methodologies, as!s people to move from prediction and control, from understanding people"s lived experiences, and from emancipation to understanding the world and to do so by addressing problems of humanity, rather than /ust the symptoms. The problems of humanity include: the human condition, issues that have global implications, human freedom and /ustice, self# determinism, harmonious access to and distribution of resources, human and bio sustainability, power relationships, human aggression, human development, human empowerment and potential, and the import of ideologies and paradigms (5icolescu, )**+). Trans iscip%inary Tipping &oint This aspect of TD methodology will be most challenging to home economists who have become comfortable with being technical experts dealing with symptoms ('c(regor et al., )**A) instead of delving into the deeper ideological and paradigmatic underbelly of the human condition. 0ut, it behooves us to try, despite our comfort level with current approaches to generating !nowledge, to help individuals and families. ;istorically, every ma/or scientific brea!through (old or new sciences) began with an idea that threatened to overturn existing beliefs, including what counts as !nowledge, reality, logic, and values. 0ut, eventually the purveyor of the new idea(s) finds believers and the number of believers reaches a critical mass. &hen this happens, perceptions are transformed and a new approach to !nowledge, reality, logic, and values is born. 3uch was the case with each of interpretive and critical methodologies, and such will be the case for transdisciplinarity. Ken &ilber referred to the tipping point to capture this process. ;e asserted that when the leading edge of the development of a new idea reaches +* percent of the population, a transformation occurs, and the idea becomes diffused throughout the entire culture (Folc!mann, )*+*). Ef /ust +* percent of the world"s +*,*** or more home economists were receptive to the idea of transdisciplinary methodology, a tipping point could be achieved in the profession% this e$uates to only +,*** practitioners, e$uivalent to +* in each of +** countries. 6<ven though only about +*L will actually be

embracing Mthe new ideasN, that +*L will profoundly alter social institutions as we !now them, and that impact is going to occur worldwide7 (p. 1). The profession can, and needs to, ma!e this intellectual leap. As our world becomes more interlin!ed, our problems become more complex, and their solutions are more difficult to grasp. This means we have to move beyond interdisciplinarity and the three conventional methodologies towards a transdisciplinary methodology. 6Dealing with complex societal problems re$uires !nowledge across all aspects of society: research disciplines, Mthe private sectorN, communities, civil society, and governments7 (Apgar et al., )**-, p. A). ;ome economists wor! in all of these areasBwe are poised to ma!e profound changes to benefit individuals and families, indeed all of humanity and the planet. &ith a transdisciplinary methodology, we can become 6a weight#bearing pillar that undergirds society7 (;orn, +-.+, p. )+).

Re(erences !merican Heritage "ictionary (Ath <dition). ()*+*). 0oston, 'A: ;oughton 'ifflin ,o. Apgar, H., Argumendo, A., = Allen, &. ()**-). 0uilding transdisciplinarity for managing complexity. International #ournal of Interdisciplinary $ocial $ciences %(J), )JJ#)@*. 0a4ewic4, '. ()***). The axiological foundation of the nature value of information. En ,. ;ofer and (. ,hroust (<ds.), The &'th (uschl )onversation (pp. 8@#@A). Fienna, Austria: Enternational >ederation for 3ystems ?esearch. ?etrieved from http: wwwu.uni# !lu.ac.at gossimit ifsr fuschl f)*** gA gAOipO+Ofinal.pdf 0erni, 9. <. F. ()*+*). The transdisciplinary connection. The *ose )roix #ournal +, ?etrieved from http: www.rosecroix/ournal.org issues )*+* articles vol@O*+O+)Oberni.pdf 0rown, '. (+--1). -hilosophical studies of home economics in the .nited $tates/ 0asic ideas by which home economists understand themselves. <ast 9ansing, 'E: 'ichigan 3tate 2niversity Cress. 0urger, C. ()**1). 5on#epistemic values and scientific !nowledge. En &. 9Pffler and C. &eingartner (<ds.), 12th International 3ittgenstein $ymposium -roceedings 4olume && (pp. 8@#@*). Kirchberg, Austria: Austrian 9udwig &ittgenstein 3ociety. ,icovac!i, C. ()**A). Transdisciplinarity as an interactive method: A critical reflection on the three pillars of transdisciplinarity. T*!5$/ Internet #ournal for )ultural $ciences &6(+). ?etrieved from http: www.inst.at trans +J5r *+O8 cicovac!i+J.htm

,icovac!i, C. ()**-). Transdisciplinarity as an interactive method. Integral Leadership *eview 7(J). ?etrieved from http: www.integralleadershipreview.com archives# )**- )**-#+* )**-#+*#*8#article#cicova!i.php Daniels, ,. <. H. (+-.*). The organi4ational structure of home economics: A consideration of terminology. #ournal of )onsumer $tudies and Home 8conomics %(A), 1)1#11-. >airclough, A. ()**J). ,ritical discourse analysis in trans#disciplinary research on social change. Lod9 -apers in -ragmatics &, 1@#J.. (ephart, ?. (+---). Caradigms and research methods. :nline *esearch Methods (orum % (3ummer). ?etrieved from http: division.aomonline.org rm +---O?'DO>orumOCaradigmsOandO?esearchO'ethod s.htm ;arper, D. (<d.). ()*+*). :nline etymology dictionary. 9ancaster, CA. ?etrieved from ;ttp: www.etymonline.com ;orlic!#Hones, T., = 3ime, H. ()**A). 9iving on the border: Knowledge, ris! and transdisciplinarity. (utures ;2(A), AA+#AJ8. ;orn, '. (+-.+). ;ome economics: A recitation of definition. #ournal of Home 8conomics +;(+), +-#)1. Hantsch, <. (+-@)). Enter#and transdisciplinarity university. Higher 8ducation &(+), @#1@. Koc!lemans, H. (+-@-). &hy interdisciplinarityD En H. Koc!lemans (<d.), Interdisciplinarity and Higher 8ducation (pp.+)1#+8*). 2niversity Car!, CA: Cennsylvania 3tate 2niversity Cress. 'c(regor, 3. 9. T. ()**A). Transdisciplinary research and practice. <appa :micron 5u Human $ciences 3orking -aper $eries. ?etrieved from http: www.!on.org hswp archive transdiscipl.html 'c(regor, 3. 9. T. ()**8). Transformative practice. <ast 9ansing, 'E: Kappa :micron 5u. 'c(regor, 3. 9. T. ()**@). Enternational Hournal of ,onsumer 3tudies: Decade review (+--@# )**8). International #ournal of )onsumer $tudies ;&(+), )#+.. 'c(regor, 3. 9. T. ()**-a). Entegral leadership"s potential to position poverty within transdisciplinarity. Integral Leadership *eview 7()). ?etrieved from http: www.integralleadershipreview.com archives#)**- )**-#*1 )**-#*1#article# mcgregor.php

'c(regor, 3. 9. T. ()**-b). Entegral metatheory: 0eyond speciali4ations, theoretical pluralism and conventional metatheory. (amily and )onsumer $ciences *esearch #ournal ;=()), +A)#+J@. 'c(regor, 3. 9. T. ()**-c). Transdisciplinary consumer citi4enship education. -aper presented at 2th )onsumer )iti9enship 5etwork )onference at Technical .niversity of 0erlin >ermany (pp. +*@#+)+). ;amar, 5orway: ;edmar! 2niversity. ?etrieved from https: www.hihm.no content download +*..+ -.*+A file CapersL)*0erlin,L)*full L)*text.doc 'c(regor, 3. 9. T. ()*+*a). )onsumer moral leadership. The 5etherlands: 3ense Cublishers. 'c(regor, 3. 9. T. ()*+*b). ;istorical notions of transdisciplinary in home economics. <appa :micron 5u (:*.M &2()). ?etrieved from http: www.!on.org archives forum +8#) mcgregor.html 'c(regor, 3. 9. T. ()*+*c). Entegral leadership and practice: 0eyond holistic integration in >,3. #ournal of (amily and )onsumer $ciences &'1(+), A-#J@. 'c(regor, 3. 9. T. (in press). Transdisciplinary consumption. Integral *eview/ ! Transdisciplinary and Transcultural #ournal, 2(A). 'c(regor, 3. 9. T., 0aranovs!y, K., <ghan, >., <ngberg, 9., ;arman, 0., 'itstifer, D., Cendergast, D., 3eniu!, <., 3hanahan, ;., = 3mith, >. ()**A). A satire: ,onfessions of recovering home economists. <appa :micron 5u Human $ciences 3orking -aper $eries. ?etrieved from http: www.!on.org hswp archive recovering.html 'c(regor, 3. 9. T., = 'urnane, H. A. ()*+*). Caradigm, methodology and method: Entellectual integrity in consumer scholarship. International #ournal of )onsumer $tudies ;%(A), A+-#A)@. 'c(regor, 3. 9. T., Cendergast, D., 3eniu!, <., <ghan, >., = <ngberg, 9. ()**.). ,hoosing our future: Edeologies matter in the home economics profession. International #ournal of Home 8conomics, +(+), A.I8.. 'orin, <. ()**J). ?estricted complexity, general complexity. En ,. (ershenson. D. Aerts and 0. <dmonds (<ds.), 3orldviews science and us/ -hilosophy and complexity (pp. J# )-). 9ondon: &orld 3cientific Cublishing. <#chapter retrieved from http: www.worldsciboo!s.com chaos etextboo! 81@) 81@)Ochap*+.pdf 5icolescu, 0. (+--@, 5ovember). The transdisciplinary evolution of the university condition for sustainable development. <eynote delivered at the International !ssociation of .niversities? )ongress on .niversities@ *esponsibilities to $ociety. 0ang!o!, Thailand: ,hulalong!orn 2niversity. ?etrieved from http: perso.club# internet.fr nicol ciret bulletin b+) b+)c..htm

5icolescu, 0. ()**+). Manifesto of transdisciplinarity MTranslated from >rench by Karen# ,laire FossN. Albany, 5Q: 3tate 2niversity of 5ew Qor! Cress. 5icolescu, 0. ()**8). Transdisciplinarity # past, present and future. En 0. ;aver!ott and ,. ?ei/nt/es (<ds.), Moving 3orldviews )onference -roceedings (pp. +A)#+8J). 9eusden, the 5etherlands: <T, ,ompas. ?etrieved from http: www.movingworldviews.net Downloads Capers 5icolescu.pdf 5icolescu, 0. ()**.a, Huly +1). The idea of levels of reality and its relevance for non# reduction and personhood. :pening talk at International )ongress on $ubAect $elf and $oul/ Transdisciplinary !pproaches to -ersonhood. 'adrid, 3pain: 2niversidad Contificia ,omillas. http: www.metanexus.net conference)**. articles Default.aspxD idR+*J*) 5icolescu, 0. (<d.). ()**.b). Transdisciplinarity/ Theory and practice. ,res!ill, 5H: ;ampton Cress. 5icolescu, 0. ()*+*). Disciplinary boundaries # &hat are they and how they can be transgressedD Caper prepared for the Enternational 3ymposium on ?esearch Across 0oundaries. 9uxembourg: 2niversity of 9uxembourg. ?etrieved from http: dica# lab.org rab files )*+* *8 Caper#5icolescu#3pecial#Essue.pdf (password protected). 5iglas, K. ()**+). Caradigms and methodology in educational research. 0ritish 8ducation Index 8ducation-line. ?etrieved from http: www.leeds.ac.u! educol documents ****+.A*.htm ?yan, K., = ,ooper, H. ()**@). Those who can teach. 0oston, 'A: &adsworth ,engage 9earning. Folc!mann, ?. ()*+*). The state of integral: A conversation with Ken &ilber. Integral Leadership *eview &'(J), retrieved from http: www.integralleadershipreview.com archives#)*+* )*+*#+* E9?!enruss.pdf Foss, K#,. ()**)). ?eview essay of 0asarab 5icolescu"s 'anifesto of Transdisciplinarity. 8soterica % ++A#++8.
Footnote2 + 0asarab 5icolescu does not thin! there should be an axiology axiom for TD methodology. ;e believes 6we have to limit the number of axioms (or principles or pillars) to a minimum number. Any axiom which can be derived from the already postulated ones, has to be re/ected7 ()*+*, p.1). En personal correspondence with the author, he explained, 6There is no need for a Ath axiom of TD concerning values. >rom my point of view, the flux of information and the flux of consciousness traversing not only the levels of ?eality of the :b/ect and the levels of ?eality of the 3ub/ect but also the region of the ;idden Third, necessarily engender values. These values collect all the possible information from levels of ?eality and the ;idden Third. The problem is, of course, how the human being becomes conscious about these values. This implies human evolution. Any other values seem to me partial and even against this general trend. &ho will formulate the values for the Ath axiomD 3cientistsD ChilosophersD ?eligious peopleD An ideologyD :f course, all of us believe in humanistic values. &e need a new humanism. E call it Stranshumanism.S Ets values are engendered by Trans#?eality. They are not human#made7 (personal communication, 0asarab 5icolescu, Hune +*, )*+*).

Kappa Omicron Nu Forum Vo%ume 34 No. 5

For further information about manuscripts:

Via E-Mail
Dr. Dorothy I. Mitstifer E!ec"ti#e Director $all for %apers

http: www.!on.org archives forum +8#) mcgregor).html <appa :micron 5u (:*.M, Fol. +8, 5o. ). )SSN2 +JA8#)8@8. <ditor: Dorothy E. 'itstifer. :fficial publication of Kappa :micron 5u 5ational ;onor 3ociety. 'ember, Association of ,ollege ;onor 3ocieties. ,opyright T )**-. <appa :micron 5u (:*.M is a refereed, semi#annual publication serving the profession of family and consumer sciences. The opinions expressed by the authors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the policies of the society. &#rther in$ormation' Kappa :micron 5u, A--* 5orthwind Drive, 3uite +A*, <ast 9ansing, 'E A..)1#J*1+. Telephone: J+@.1J+..11J # >ax: J+@.1J+..118.