INFORMATION STUDIES AND THE QUEST FOR TRANSDISCIPLINARITY - Forthcoming book inWorldScientific.MarkBurginandWolfgangHofkirchner,EditorsTransdisciplinarityseenthroughInformation,Communication,Computation,(Inter-)ActionandCognitionGordanaDodig-Crnkovic1,DanielKade2,MarkusWallmyr2 ,TobiasHolstein2andAlexanderAlmér3Abstract

Similartooilthatactedasabasicrawmaterialandkeydrivingforceofindustrialsociety,informationacts as a raw material and principal mover of knowledge society in the knowledge production,propagation and application. New developments in information processing and informationcommunication technologies allow increasingly complex and accurate descriptions, representationsand models, which are often multi-parameter, multiperspective, multi-level and multidimensional.This leads to the necessity of collaborative work between different domains with correspondingspecialistcompetences,sciencesandresearchtraditions.Wepresentseveralmajortransdisciplinaryunificationprojectsforinformationandknowledge,whichproceedonthedescriptive,logicalandthelevelofgenerativemechanisms.Parallelprocessofboundarycrossingandtransdisciplinaryactivityisgoingonintheapplieddomains.Technologicalartifactsarebecomingincreasinglycomplexandtheirdesign is strongly user-centered, which brings in not only the function and various technologicalqualities but also other aspects including esthetic, user experience, ethics and sustainability withsocial and environmental dimensions. When integrating knowledge from a variety of fields, withcontributions from different groups of stakeholders, numerous challenges are met in establishingcommon view and common course of action. In this context, information is our environment, andinformationalecologydeterminesbothepistemologyandspacesforaction.Wepresentsomeinsightsinto the current stateof theartof transdisciplinary theoryandpracticeof information studiesandinformatics.Wedepictdifferentfacetsoftransdisciplinarityasweseeitfromourdifferentresearchfieldsthatincludeinformationstudies,computability,human-computerinteraction,multi-operating-systemsenvironmentsandphilosophy.

1.Introduction

There is no human today who would possess all knowledge of even one single classicalresearch discipline. In the case of physics,Wikipedia, Outline of Physics, lists 30 differentbranches of whichmany have several important sub-branches. The exact number can ofcoursebedisputed,butitisevidentthattheyarefartoomanyforanindividualresearcherto know in depth. As the amount of knowledge constantly grows, and the process offorgetting and loosing previous knowledge nearly gets completely extinct, but on thecontrary old sources get digitalized and made available, amount of information andknowledgedramatically increases and specialization, branchinganddivision intonew sub-disciplinescontinues.Ontheotherhandaprocessintheoppositedirectionofsynthesisandincreasedconnectivityisbecomingmoreandmoreprominentaswell.Basedoninformationcommunication technologies, humanity is becoming networked through variety ofinteractions and exchanges constantly going on – from information and knowledge, tomoney and things, objects, goods, commodities. Communication and exchanges createglobal society with its global and complex problems – from climate change, pollution,question of resources and other environmental issues that threaten sustainabledevelopment, to complex social topics ofmassmigrations, long-term urban planning and

1ChalmersUniversityofTechnologyandUniversityofGothenburg,Sweden2MälardalenUniversity,Sweden3UniversityofGothenburg,Sweden

healthcare dealing with epidemics prevention or understanding of diseases on multiplelevels of organisation, from molecular to organismic level - to name but a few topics.Complexglobalproblemsarecallingforsystemic,bothbroadanddeepunderstanding.Alsothe developments of new technologies, such as internet of everything, digitalization ofsociety, autonomous vehicles, industrial and social robotics, intelligent cities, homes, andinfrastructures… allmaybe expected to radically changeour civilization, andpresupposedecisionmakingandproblemsolvingbasedonknowledgefrommanytraditionallydisparatedisciplines that range from natural and technical sciences to humanities and arts. Theynecessitate a team work which is real-life problem oriented and has high direct societalvalue that necessitates inclusion of variety of stakeholders – such as governmental,industrial and general public actors. As a response to the demand of complex systemsunderstanding,anticipationofbehavior,andcontrol,newsyntheticknowledgeisconstantlydeveloped by fusion and cross-pollination of existing knowledge. Klein in The OxfordHandbookofInterdisciplinarity(Frodemanetal.2010),differentiatesbetween 'endogenousinterdisciplinarity' with focus on the internal theory building between existing academicdisciplines (which might be identified as 'interdisciplinarity proper', in contrast to'endogenousinterdisciplinarity'drivenbyreal-lifeproblemsknowledgeintegrationandcouldbe identifiedwith transdisciplinarity. Interdisciplinarity in that context presents a tool fortransdisciplinarity,which on topof deep interdisciplinary collaborationbetween academicresearchfieldsaddsthefactorofreal-liferelevanceandstakeholderinvolvement.

2.Transdisciplinarityvs.multidisciplinarityvs.interdisciplinarity

“Somany people today—and even professional scientists—seem tome like someonewhohasseenthousandsoftreesbuthasneverseenaforest.Aknowledgeofthehistoricalandphilosophicalbackgroundgivesthatkindofindependencefromprejudicesofhisgenerationfromwhichmostscientistsaresuffering.Thisindependencecreatedbyphilosophicalinsightis—inmyopinion—themarkofdistinctionbetweenamereartisanor specialistanda realseekeraftertruth.”

A. Einstein to R. A. Thornton, unpublished letter dated Dec. 7, 1944; in Einstein Archive,HebrewUniversity,Jerusalem,asquotedin(Cooperetal.2007)

Beforewestart,webrieflyintroducesomedefinitionsoftermswearegoingtouse.Asourfocus will be on transdisciplinarity, we just briefly outline the difference betweentransdisciplinarity,interdisciplinarityandmultidisciplinarity.

Monodisciplinaryresearch

In our approach we adopt the view of discipline as a part or a subsystem of a biggerarchitectureof theknowledgeproduction.According to (Choi&Pak2008), “Adiscipline isheld together by a shared epistemology. (…) The proposed conceptual framework of theknowledgeuniverseconsistsofseveralknowledgesubsystems,eachcontaininganumberofdisciplines.”UnlikeChoiandPak,wedonotseeknowledgeproductioninthefirstplaceasahierarchy(eventhoughthereisahierarchyoflevelsofscaleorgranularityofdomains),butas a network of networks of interrelated disciplinary fields (Dodig-Crnkovic 2016). Adisciplinecorrespondstoanacademicfieldofresearchandeducationthattypicallyhas itsownjournalsandacademicdepartments.DisciplinaryresearchistermedMode-1(Nowotnyetal.2001),whileMode-2standsfortheproductionofknowledgethroughinterdisciplinaryandtransdisciplinaryresearchclosetoacontextofapplication.

Multidisciplinaryresearch-workingwithseveraldisciplines- impliesthatresearchersfromdifferentdisciplineswork togetheronacommonproblem,but fromtheirowndisciplinaryperspectives. According to the Klein taxonomy, the main characteristics are juxtaposing,sequencingandcoordinatingofknowledge(Klein2010).

Interdisciplinaryresearch-workingbetweenseveraldisciplines,usedtodenotethesettingwhere researchers collaborate transferring knowledge from one discipline to another.According to the Klein taxonomy, the main characteristics are integrating, interacting,linking,focusingandblending.

Transdisciplinary research – From themeaningof the Latinword trans,Nicolescuderivesthedefinitionoftransdisciplinarityasthatknowledgeproductionwhichisatthesametimebetween,acrossandbeyondalldisciplines,(Nicolescu2014).Transdisciplinarityisaresearchapproach that enables addressing societal problems through collaboration betweenresearchdisciplinesaswellasextra-scientificactors. Itenablesmutual learningamongandacrossdisciplinesaswellabetweenscienceandsociety.Themaincognitivechallengeoftheresearchprocess is integrationwhich isbasedon reflexiveattitudebothoriented towardsdifferentactorsintheresearchprocessandtheirmutualrelations,andtowardstheresearchprojectasawholeinitscontext(Jahnetal.2012)Themaindifferencetointerdisciplinarity,apart from thedegreeof interaction, is the involvementofextra-scientific stakeholders intransdisciplinaryresearch. (Frodemanetal.2010)(Hadornetal.2008) Inthecourseoftheresearchprocess,boundariesbetweendisciplinesdissolvethroughintegratedperspectives,knowledge and approaches fromdifferent scientific disciplines andother external sourcesinterfuse, (Flinterman et al. 2001). Transdisciplinarity is often applied to address the realworld complex problems through context-specific negotiation of knowledge that emergesfrom collaboration. (Thompson Klein 1996) Research fields include environmental-,sustainability-,gender-,urban-,cultural-,andpeaceandconflict-,future-,publichealth-andinformation studies, policy sciences, criminology, gerontology, cognitive sciences,informationsciences,materialsscience,artificial intelligence,human-computer interaction,interaction design, ICTs and society studies, etc. From the organizational point of view,“Transdisciplinary research is, in practice, team science. In a transdisciplinary researchendeavor, scientists contribute their uniqueexpertisebutwork entirely outside their owndiscipline.Theystrivetounderstandthecomplexitiesofthewholeproject,ratherthanonepartof it.Transdisciplinaryresearchallows investigatorstotranscendtheirowndisciplinesto inform one another’s work, capture complexity, and create new intellectual spaces.”(Güvenen2015) Involvementofstakeholdersprovidingthecontextforthesolutionofreal-world problems is central for transdisciplinary research. Distinctive characteristics oftransdisciplinaryresearch,accordingtoKleintaxonomyaretranscending,transgressingandtransforming.(Klein2010)

Finally, It is important to realize that disciplinary, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary andtransdisciplinary research present different forms that complement and presuppose eachotherandbynomeansexcludeor replace. There is still howevera lotofuncertaintyandconfusion about the meaning of each form of knowledge production and their mutualrelationships.Withregardtoontologicalstatusoftransdisciplinaryresearch,Brennerargues“transdisciplinarityshouldnotbeseenasyetanotherdisciplinebutasanaidtolegitimizingand insuring a minimum scientific rigor in creative new approaches to on-going issues.”(Brenner&Raffl2011)Tothisday,interdisciplinarityandtransdisciplinarityishardlyseenatuniversities,andtheirslowintroductionhappensindirectlythroughcoursesaddressinge.g.sustainability.However, there is a strong needof introducing this knowledgebroadly andmakingitpartofcurriculasothatthenextgenerationofresearchersgetpreparedforworkin all types of constellations – frommono-disciplinary to transdisciplinary research, being

“vaccinated”againstdisciplinarychauvinism.Theaimofourarticleistocontributetobetterunderstandingoftheexistingknowledgeproductionpracticeandtheorybasedonresearchconnectinginformationcommunication,computation,(inter-)actionandcognition.

3.DiversityofSciences,HumanitiesandArts

Sciences as we know them today are historically new phenomenon. Since the dawn ofwesterncivilizationwithAristotleintheancientGreeceandtothe19thcenturyallstudyofthenaturalworldwasknownasnaturalphilosophy.Newton,LordKelvin,Spinoza,Goethe,Hegel and Schelling were natural philosophers.With the development of specific naturalscienceslikeastronomy,physics,chemistry,biologyetc.naturalphilosophyfadedintonearnonexistence. Other two branches of traditional philosophy, metaphysics and moralphilosophy, continued to this day to study fundamental nature of reality, knowledge,reason, mind, language and values. They contributed and were integrated into thedevelopment of humanities and arts and help us get a broader understanding of humanconditions.Thedevelopmentofearly sciencesproceededby replacing thequestion“why”(is something)? i.e. the question of telos, or the purpose, goal of something, with thequestion“how”(issomethingpossible)?orinwhatwayexactlyithappens–thatisstillthefocusofmodernsciences.Especiallythequestion“why?”asrelatedtoAristotle’sfinalcausewasstrictlyexorcisedfrommodernscience,suchasGalileanandNewtonianphysics,basedonclassical(linear,exact)logic.

However, in last decades it has become apparent that Aristotle’s teleological processescouldbedescribedandscientificallymodeledwithhelpofmemory-basedagencysuchasinlivingorganisms.All livingorganismsmustactively“work”on theirownsurvival–withoutappropriate environment, food and water an organism cannot exist. That makes themsensitivetotheenvironmentwheretheyanticipatefuturepossibilities: theyavoiddangersand choose favorable circumstances. Organisms anticipate probabilistically, based onmemoryofpreviousexperiences.Fromthecontemporaryperspective,Aristotle’sfinalcauseisnothingmystical,asitistheresultoflivingbeingssurvivalstrategies–itisnotbasedonanexactknowledgeofthefuture,butontheprobabilisticexpectationandanticipation.Amonglivingorganisms,humanshavedevelopedthemostsophisticatedstrategiesofanticipationbasedonlearningthatisbothindividualandcollective/cultural.

Kant argues in his three Critiques (the Critique of Pure Reason, the Critique of PracticalReason, and the Critique of the Power of Judgment) that all human understandingwhichshapesourexperienceisteleological,i.e.goaloriented.Heintroducesjudgmentasabasisofdecision and action and a way to unify the theoretical and practical perspective (Hanna2014).Typicallyweknowsomethingbecausewefinditrelevant,importantandinteresting,anduseful foracting intheworld.Allof it isbasedonvaluesand judgment:whatwefindgoodandworthyofourtimeandefforts.Knowledgeandvaluesareinextricablyconnected(Tuana2015).

Withcurrentprominenceofproblem-basedresearch,developmentofincreasinglycomplextechnology and taking into account variety of stakeholders involved – the necessity for abroader understanding by each of participants in such projects is becoming central. Weagainneedtoacquireabroaderviewinwhichsciences,humanities,artsandotherhumanactivitiesformnetworksofnetworksoftightlyinterrelatedparts,aswearebecomingawareof the complexityof thenatural andculturalworldsand ready toapproach it. (Bardzell&Bardzell2015)

Natural sciences (primarily physics with its fields of mechanics, thermodynamics andelectromagnetism)were the basis for the development of technology that has led to themodernindustrialera.Mechanisticidealofphysicshavepermeatedotherfieldsanditsstrictdivisionof labor appeared for centuries as natural necessity. Evenbiggerwas thedivisionbetweennatural sciencesandhumanitiesandarts.Almostsixtyyearsago,Snowfamouslyaddressed thegapbetweennatural sciencesandhumanities inhisbookTheTwoCultures(Snow1959).Amanifestationofadeepschism, in the1990s sciencewars ragedbetweenscientific realistsandpostmodernists,epitomizedbySokalaffair, (Sokal&Bricmont1997).The starting point was Sokal’s hoax article "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards aTransformativeHermeneuticsofQuantumGravity"whichwascaricaturingtherelationshipsbetween postmodernismof humanities and realism of natural sciences. As an attempt tobridgethegap,biologistWilsonwroteabookConsilience:TheUnityofKnowledge,tryingtoreconciliate "the two cultures" in the academic debate (Wilson 1998).Wilson’s proposedsolution was “the third culture”, which would foster deeper understanding betweenhumanitiesandnaturalsciences.Interestingly,theGermantermWissenschaftincludesbothnaturalandsocialsciencesaswellasthehumanities,unliketheEnglishconceptof“science”thatmakesthedistinctionbetweensciencesandhumanities.Intermsofeducation,thereisa “third way” where liberal arts education can include languages, literature, art history,philosophy, psychology, history, mathematics, and sciences such as biological and socialsciences.

However,Snow’smodelofknowledgeproductionmighthaveworkedforafewindividuals,butculture isamassphenomenonandcalls forpublic involvement.Thusthethirdcultureinstead started to emerge as a result of technological development, ICT-revolution anddigitalization of society in virtually all its segments. (Kelly 1998)(Brockman 1996)Computational devices made it possible to visualize, simulate, communicate and discussideasthatwerebeforecompletelyinaccessibletothebroaderaudience.

Thekey for thenewknowledgeproduction capableofbridging varietyof gapswas in thedialog, collaboration, and crowdsourcing. Such examples are “polymath” online crowd-basedmathematicalproblemsolving,andWikipedia,whichshowsthatcrowdsourcingstyleofpublicknowledgeproductioncanworkremarkablywell.Maybethemostradicalnoveltyoftransdisciplinaryresearchisinvolvingordinarynon-scientificpeopleintheco-productionofknowledgetogetherwithscientists.Itisgoodtoremember,asNicolescu(Nicolescu2011)reminds us that given more than 8000 disciplines we can be experts in one but remainequally ignorant as any other common person in all the other thousands of disciplines.Typical real-lifeproblemsarecomplex,often“wicked”,anddemandexpertize invarietyofresearch fields as well as knowledge by acquaintance, experiential knowledge andinvolvementandengagementintheirsolution.Examplesofsuchwickedproblemsareglobalwarming, public health issues or mass migrations. It is necessary to understand kinds ofknowledge and skills necessary in addressing of such problems and the process ofcollaborationandcommonknowledgeproduction.

Todaywehavemanygaps,bigandsmallbetweendifferentdisciplines.Inthisarticlewewillargue that the question is not only how to understand the world but also how to makedecisionsandhowtoact.So inwhatfollowswewillalso indicatetheconnectionbetweenunderstandingandacting inourdifferentresearchprojectsthatbuiltontransdisciplinarity.To start with, we present various projects of unification and synthetic approaches toinformation and knowledge, which differ in their goals and preferences, focus andapplicability.

4. Unity through diversity of information processes and knowledge production.Transdisciplinaryintegrationprojects

The traditional linear notion of knowledge pictured as a tree that grows only in onedirection,fromtheroottothebranches,istodayreplacedbyimagesoffractalstructure,asKleinpointedoutin(Klein2004)oranorganicgrowingrhizomesuchasinDeleuze(Deleuze&Guattari 2005).More thananythingelse,wewould say, knowledgeproduction today isassociatedwithnetworkofnetworksthatunitesfractalswithorganicallygrowingstructures.(Barabasi2007)(Dodig-Crnkovic&Giovagnoli2013)Importantly,digitalspaceenablesnon-lineardialogwhereinformationflowsinalldirectionsanddistributedlearninghappensinallnodes. Not only so that the central node (such as university or research institute) emitsknowledge to the crowds, but crowds more and more actively contribute in knowledgeproduction – as a source of data, opinions, values, preferences and all sorts of otherknowledge that might be useful for both problem identification, solution and newknowledgegeneration.

Atpresentwemeetvarietyofnotionsofinformationthatfocusononesegment,dimensionor level of reality, most often without exactly positioning itself in relation to the otherexisting approaches, frameworksor definitions. In those caseswhere suchpresentation isgiven,ithasaformofargumentwhyone’sownapproachisbetter(forthechosenpurpose)thantheothers.Noattempt ismadetopragmaticallyexamineunderwhichcircumstancessomeotherapproaches,frameworksordefinitionswouldbemoreappropriate.Thusmanyunificationattemptshavebeendoneondifferentgroundsinsearchfortheuniversalideaofinformationthatwouldsuitallitsmanyappearancesandapplications.

Burgin’sunifiedgeneraltheoryofinformation(GTI)

If we want to understand the process of unification of knowledge, the first step is theunificationofinformation.InhisbookTheoryofInformation:Fundamentality,DiversityandUnification, (Burgin2010),Burginbothpresentsthecurrentstateofart inthe informationstudies (Burgin 2010) addressing the most important theories of information such asdynamic, pragmatic, algorithmic, statistical and semantics, as well as presenting his ownproposal for the general theory of information (GTI). Burgin’s unification is based on aparametric definition of information that uses “infological system” type (infological asinformation ontological) as a parameter that distinguishes between kinds of information,such as chemical, biological, genetic, cognitive, personal and social, and in that wayconstructsthegeneralconceptof“information”.Burgin’sgeneral theory of information is a system of principles and there are two groups of such principles: ontological (definesinformationthatexists:innature,inlivingworldincludinghumanmind,insocieties,even in computing machinery with their “virtual reality”, and axiological principles thatexplain evaluation and measurement of information. GTI explicates the relationshipsbetweendata, information,andknowledgewithincommonframework.Withrespecttoitsgoals and values Burgin’s GTI is a pragmatic and encyclopedic work that aims at logicalorganisationofinformationandknowledgewithfocusontheirunityinreality.

Hofkirchner’sunifiedtheoryofinformation(UTI)

In a different project for unification of information Hofkirchner characterizes efforts atunificationintounityofmethods,unityofrealityandunityofpractice,(Hofkirchner1999).

Starting from the observation that information presents a conceptual building block asfundamental as matter/energy, Hofkirchner argues for the necessity of unified theory ofinformation,UTIconceivedasatransdisciplinaryevolutionaryframework.

“UTImaythusberegardedasaspecificproposalofwhattheoreticalfoundationsofanewscience of information could look like, and tries to connect complex systems thinking tosystemsphilosophyandextendittothefieldofinformationstudies.“(Hofkirchner2010)

Constitution of sense in this framework is envisaged as three-level architecture of self-organization: cognition, communication and cooperation levels. Different definitions ofinformation correspond to different domains of applicability, and “none of the variousexisting information concepts/theories should take its perspective absolute but, in away,complementary to theotherperspectives. “Nice illustration is givenbyRiegler: “Supposethatwetakeapieceofchalkandwriteontheblackboard“A=A.”Wemaynowpointatitandask,“Whatisthis?”Mostlikelywewillgetoneofthefollowinganswers.(a)Whitelinesonablackbackground; (b)Anarrangementofmoleculesof chalk; (c)Three signs; (d)Thelawof identity.” (Riegler 2005)According toHofkirchner, information depends on howweseetheobject-subjectrelation. In“hard”sciences, informationisobjective,whilein“soft”sciences it is subjective. UTI is an integrative framework that aims at bridging the gap. Itoffers the solution to the Capurro’s Trilemma which assumes that the solution to theunificationoftheconceptofinformationeithergoesviasynonymy,analogyorequivocation(Capurro et al. 1997). The UTI solution is the fourth option – synthetic or integrativeapproach. (Hofkirchner 2009) This unification does not result in a monolithic body ofknowledge but seeks unity through diversity (systemic integrativism). UTI adopts Praxio-Onto-Epistemology: methods of systems philosophy, philosophy of information, socialphilosophy,philosophyoftechnologyandapplyingofsystemmethods,evolutionarysystemstheory and Science of information methods. With respect to its goals and valuesHofkirchner’sUTIisinterestedinconnectinginformationwithcognition,communicationandcooperationinasystemicframework.

Brier’sCybersemiotics

UnlikeBurginandHofkirchnerwhohave information inthefocus,Brier is inthefirstplaceaddressingknowledge,andhedeclares inhisbookCybersemiotics:why information isnotenough! that information (understood in Shannon’s formulation) lacks meaning that isfundamental for living organisms. (Brier 2008) Cybersemiotic is thus used as a “newfoundation for transdisciplinary theory of information, cognition, meaningfulcommunicationandtheinteractionbetweennatureandculture”.(Brier2013)AccordingtoBrier, phenomenological and hermeneutical approaches are necessary in order to build atheory of signification and interpretative meaning, so he questions the possibility ofphenomenological computation, such as proposed by the adherents of info-computationandcomputingnature(Brier2014).AccordingtoBrier,thebridgefromphysicalinformationto phenomenology requiresmetaphysical framework and goes through the following fiveorganizationallevels:1.Thequantumphysical(information)levelwithentangledcausation.2. The classical physical (information) level with efficient causation based on energy andforce. 3. The chemical informational levelwith formal causation by pattern fitting. 4. Thebiologicalsemiotic levelwithnon-conscious final causation (wheremeaningoccurs)and5.Thesocial-linguisticlevelofself-consciousness,withconsciousgoal-orientedfinalcausation.Brierarguesthatintegrationoftheselevelsmadebyevolutionarytheorythroughemergentproperties is not sufficient, as it lacks a “theory of livedmeaning”. Cybersemiotics that isofferedasasolutionforbridgingthegapisbasedonPeirce’ssemioticphilosophycombinedwith a Luhmann’s cybernetic and systemic view. (Brier 2003) Regarding goals and values,

Briersapproach ismuchmore interested in individual subjective informationwith roots inphenomenologicalandhermeneuticaltradition.

Integrationthroughqualitativecomplexity:ecologyandcognitiveprocesses

Onemoreimportantexampleofatransdisciplinaryunificationprojectisdoneinthedomainof qualitative complexity as described by Smith and Jenks in their book QualitativeComplexity: Ecology, Cognitive Processes and the Re-emergence of Structures in Post-HumanistSocialTheory.(Smith&Jenks2006)TheirbookcanbeseenasadirectanswertoTheTwoCultures(Snow1959)withitscallforunityofknowledge.SmithandJenksshowthewaytomovebeyondtheclassicalirreconcilabledichotomies(withclassicallogicofexcludedmiddle) that leave intractable gaps between nature and culture, structure and agency aswellasbetweenhumanandtechnology.Theyshowhowconnectionscanbemadebetween‘humanist paradigm’ with its emphasis on human traditional notion of “true knowledge”understoodasabsolutecertainty,andempiricallyobservedoscillationsbetween regularityandcontingency,orderanddisorderintheworld.Theirunificationreliesontheinsightthathumansaswellassocialsystemsarespecialcasesofavarietyofformsofcomplexsystems.Asothercomplexsystems,theyarebeststudiedbycross-disciplinaryandtrans-disciplinarymethods.Itisalongwayaheadbeforewereachunification,andworkoutallthedetailsofhow complex systems produce culture from nature and agency from structure and back.Smith and Jenks present complexity theory based on conceptual tools fromthermodynamics, biology and cybernetics, and explore the emergent and probabilisticaspectsofself-organizingphenomena,suchashumanbodies,antcoloniesormarkets.‘Weareatthebeginning[…]ofamulti-dimensionalreunification.’(Smith&Jenks2006)(p.276),Complexity theory as an explanatory framework supports a non-linear and interactiveconceptofcausality,wheresmallcausescanleadtolargeemergentoutcomes.Anavailableenergy ‘informs’ every entity from the non-living to cells, from humans to technologicalassemblages (p. 243). Complexity provides a very productive framework for exploringdynamic interactions of components interacting in emergent ways in social, natural andtechnologicalphenomenadescribedbyself-organisationstartingwith ‘acommonontologyofmatterandinformation’(p.95).Thisapproachhasagoaltobridgethegapbetween“twocultures”andbuildanew“thirdculture”thatconnectsthetwo.

Info-computationalsynthesisthroughdynamicnetworking

While Smith and Jenks approachhas its focuson thebridging the gapbetween the socialand thenatural, there is an evenbigger project that aims at bridging the gap all thewayfromthemicrocosmtomacrocosmandback,throughallimmediateemergentphenomena.Itaimsatgeneratingknowledgeinavarietyofdomainsstartingwiththemostfundamentalprinciplesofphysicsandproducingmoreandmorecomplex.WefindsuchagrandprojectinWolfram’sNewKindofScience(Wolfram2002)andtraceitsideabackto1676Leibnizquestfor Characteristica Universalis, (Leibniz 1966) a universal language that would define thebasisforallknowledge.

Leibniz idea of universal languagewas related to a Calculus Ratiocinator as amethod forgeneration of true statements via logical calculation that is derivation from commonpremises,withaplanforauniversalencyclopediathatwouldcontainallhumanknowledge.Leibniz’s idea furtherdevelopedwithinHilbert’sprogramof formalizationofmathematics,logicandpartsofphysics.Especiallythroughthedevelopmentofcomputingmachineryusedfor processing, storage and communication of information, Leibniz's dream of commonlanguageofreasoningstartedtotakeconcreteandpracticalforms.

Onestepfurther,wecanimaginethatnotonlyrationalreasoningthatcanbearticulatedassomesortof languageandfurtheronexpressedcomputationally,butthewholeofhumancognition,includingemotionsandentiretyofembodiedhumanbehavioraswellcanbeseenascomputationalinnature(vonHaugwitzetal.2015)(Dodig-Crnkovic&Stuart2007)(Dodig-Crnkovic&Müller2011)(Dodig-Crnkovic&Burgin2011)(Dodig-Crnkovic2006).Inthatcasecomputation is not only logical symbolmanipulation but also includes variety of physical,chemical and biological processes going on in humanbody and itsmind (Burgin&Dodig-Crnkovic2015).Humanlogicalreasoningwithsymbolmanipulationisjustasmallsubsetofallnaturalprocessesthataregoingoninhumansandthatcanbedescribedandunderstoodas natural computation, (Ehresmann 2014). Generalizing from Leibniz’s project ofCharacteristica Universalis, we can see not only humans, but also all natural and culturalphenomena,indeed,thewholeofourrealityasmanifestationsofavarietyofcomputationalphenomena. That view is called computationalism, natural computation or computingnature,(Zenil2012)(Dodig-Crnkovic&Giovagnoli2013).

Info-computation is a constructive theoretical framework that connects information as astructure and computation as information processing, developed in (Dodig-Crnkovic2006)(Dodig-Crnkovic 2011)(Dodig-Crnkovic 2009). It synthesizes two approaches:informational structural realism (Sayre1976) (Wheeler1990)(Floridi 2003)(Burgin2010) inwhich the world/reality is a complex fabric of informational structures, and naturalcomputationalism (Zuse 1970)(Fredkin 1992)(Wolfram 2002) (Chaitin 2007), which arguesthat the universe is a computational network of networks. Computation is therebyunderstoodin itsmostgeneralformasnaturaldynamics,fromcomputationalprocesses inquantumphysics,toself-organizing,self-sustainingphenomenasuchaslivingorganismsandeco-systems. Inshort, it iscontinuationandgeneralizationofthesameLeibniziantraditionthataimedat commonunderstandingofhumanbehavior,nownotonly logical reasoning,but its entirety, including human biological, cognitive and social behaviors. Providingmechanismsbasedonnaturalcomputation,fromphysics,viachemistrytoemergentbiologyandcognition,theinfo-computationalframeworkenablesunderstandingofmechanismsofscience on both object level and meta-levels (that is understanding of understanding).Object level ina senseofdescribingdifferentphenomenawithin sciences suchasphysics,chemistry, biology, neuroscience, etc. as manifestations of the same sort of info-computational structures and processes.Meta levels represent understanding of workingmechanisms of cognition and knowledge generation as computation in the info-computationalconceptualspace.

The proposed unification of sciences in knowledge production diversity goes thus viacommon language and computational apparatus, and info-computationalism (Dodig-Crnkovic 2010) provides both, in the spirit of Leibniz. Besides classical scientificmodelingapproaches, it offers additional explorative devices such as simulation, virtual reality andgenerative models, which Wolfram named “a new kind of science”. Emerging info-computationaltoolssuchasinternetofthingsandinternetofeverythingoffernewmeansofunderstanding of the role of human embodiment and embeddedness for production ofknowledgethroughinteractionwiththephysicalenvironment. Info-computingisamethodwithacapacityofprovidingaperspectiveconnectingpresentlydisparate fields intoanewunified framework comprising natural phenomena from elementary particles to cognitiveagents,ecologicalandsocialsystems,fromrationalandemotivecognitionto(inter)actingintheworld.Ofspecial interest istheroleofembodiedexploratoryactivity inrelationtothevirtual and simulated in human-computer interaction, (von Haugwitz & Dodig-Crnkovic2015).

5.Transdisciplinaryworkintechnologicalapplicationsofinformationandcomputation

All theabove-mentionedapproaches (GTI,UTI, Cybersemiotics, qualitative complexity andinfo-computationalism) to the topic of transdisciplinary knowledge unification aretheoreticalinnature.Eventhoughallemphasizeinonewayortheothertheimportanceofpragmatics,agency,embodimentandembeddedness,theydosoonthelevelofdescription.Info-computationalapproachesopenhoweverupforacomputationallanguageapplicationthat directly can connect to physical world through computing systems controlled byprogramming languages and other info-computational structures and processes. Thus thebridgebetween thecodeand theexecution, the languageandaction, thedescriptionandpracticeismade.The practical involvementwith the physical realitymeets open contexts of individual andparticular,throughinteraction.Thusdesignandconstructionofthephysicaldevicesrequirestransdisciplinarity,which gets implemented and tested, evaluated and reinforced throughthe research process. We present three examples of transdisciplinary research projectswhere not only gaps between academic knowledge domains are bridged, but even gapsbetween theoretical and practical knowledge with its aspects of usability, esthetics andotherpropertiesofembodimentandembeddedness.5.1TransdisciplinarityasatoolforinterdisciplinaryteamsinresearchandapplicationsinHCI.Experiencesfromcreatingahead-mounteddisplay

As a consequenceof increasingly complexproducts and services, and increasingly human-centric,stakeholders-awareunderstandingoftechnologicalartifacts, interdisciplinaryteamshave become a common trend within research and technology related to engineeringcompanies.Companieshavediscoveredthatthereisanaddedvalueinbringingtogetherinthedesignoftheirproductsknowledgefromvarietyofprofessionsandareas. Inparticular,the driving force in this trend was the shift in how consumers and society think aboutproducts. Products do not only need to be functional but also look and feel good, besustainablefromenvironmental,social,andeconomicalpointofview,ethicallyproducedandused. For these reasons, researchers look into how collaborations between differentspecializations in research and industry can improve their competences to tackle theseissues.Wewillspecificallyfocusontherelationshipbetweeninteractiondesignresearchersandengineers.

Combiningknowledgefromdifferentprofessionstocollaborativelysolveacommonproblemortodevelopproductsisnecessarywhenproductsandsolutions needtobedevelopedthataresupposedtobeinnovativeanduserfriendly.Insuchcircumstancesinterdisciplinaryteamsare needed that could collaborate to achieve a better outcome by combining theirknowledge.However,thisnewkindofcollaborationisnoteasytoachieve.Onlydistributingwork and accommodating discussions does not allow for an effective interdisciplinary ortransdisciplinaryteam.Ithasbeenshownthatinterdisciplinarityortransdisciplinaritymustbelearnedandgoverned(Gray2008)(Younglove-Webbetal.1999)(Young2000).Theleaderofaninterdisciplinaryor transdisciplinaryteamneedstomoderateproblemswithteammembers,make decisions and suggestmethods to achieve common goals. In research it has beennoticed that therearechallengeswhenbuildingand steeringa successful transdisciplinaryteam,soleaderswiththeskillstomanagecollaborativelymaymakethedifferencebetweensuccessandfailure(Gray2008)

When looking atprojects run in industry that are interdisciplinaryor transdisciplinary, thepracticaldifferences in terminologiesseem toconvergeas it gets harder todistinguish at

whatpointateamwasor is interdisciplinaryortransdisciplinary.Thedifferencemightevengetsmallerwhenoneteammember has transdisciplinaryknowledgeandusesmethods togenerateknowledgeina transdisciplinaryway.

Achallengeforinterdisciplinaryteamscan,asweexperiencedinourproject(Kade2014;Kadeetal.2015)already startwiththetaskdescriptionanditsterminology,oreventerminologiesingeneral.Otherresearchersframedthisbysayingthat“workingonill-structuredproblemsorproblemswithmultipleweakdimensionsrequiresmoredemandinginformationactivities”(Palmer 2006). Inourexample,aproductdesigner,anengineeranda computer scientistcollaboratedoncreatingahead-mounteddisplay (HMD)asanew researchprototype.Thetaskwas to createamodernHMDwithamodern,neatuser-friendlydesign thatmight bedevelopedintoacommercialproduct.

Thetaskdescriptionwasrathervagueandledtoissuesthatneededtobeovercomewhentheinterdisciplinaryteamstartedtoworktogether.Theengineerdirectlythoughtaboutthelatestandgreatesthardwaretoprovideup-to-datefeatures.“Modern”,“neat”and“design”wereinterpretedintermsofhardwaredesignandwhattechnicalfeaturestheHMDshouldhave. The computer scientist was considering the latest software, its structures and howcomponents could communicate in a smooth way. At the same time the designer waswondering what the words “modern”, user-friendly and “neat” couldmean in terms of avisualdesign.Somediscussionstoclarifywhatshouldbedonedidnotsolvethisissue;onlymore questions onwhatwould be needed arose. After a long firstmeeting between thethree participants, only the computer scientist and the engineer came to a betterunderstandingofwhatwouldbeneededtobuildtheHMD,astheirtechnicalunderstandingwasclosertoeachotherintermsoftechnicalproblemsolving.

Thisisonlyoneexampleshowingthatwhenworkinginaninterdisciplinaryteam,acommonlanguageandunderstandingofthetaskorproblemathandisofimportance.Othersalreadystated, “in transdisciplinary projects,misunderstanding and disagreement aremuchmorelikely” (Gray 2008) p.125. Therefore, they need to be resolved or avoided through goodteammanagementandworkstructures.Eventhecommunicationbetweeninterdisciplinaryor transdisciplinary team members would benefit from a common language andunderstanding.

Therefore, it is importanttouseadequatetermsanddescriptions insuchaworksetup. Inourexampleitwouldhavebeenbetter,togiveeachoftheteammembersaseparatetaskdescription in the language they are familiar with. For the engineer and the computerscientist, a requirement list and a description of demanded hardware and softwarecomponentsandfeatureswithtechnicaltermswouldhaveallowedthemtounderstandthestartingpointandwhatworkwasrequiredfromtheirside.Theproductdesignerwouldhavebeenmoredriven,when the terms “modern” and “neat”wouldhavebeenenrichedwithsomemoredetailssuchas“slim”,“simplistic”designwithan”organic”and“head-bandlike”form,allowingforan“ergonomic”and“comfortablefit”.However,sometimesthis levelofdetail is negotiated between team members without mediation of a leader who wouldimposedecisionsinatop-downmanner.

Besides questions of language, and communication in general, an interdisciplinary teamneeds to be lead and governed well to be effective. This means that an effectiveinterdisciplinary teamneeds a skilledmanagerwith a goodunderstandingnotonlyof thedifferentfields,membersoftheteambelongto,butalsoofthedynamics,waysofworkingandresourcesintheteam.

A question in our concrete research project (Kade et al. 2015)was: who should lead theteamwiththetaskofcreatinganewhead-mounteddisplay?Thedesigner,theengineerorthecomputerscientist,ormaybea forthperson, trained inprojectmanagement? Itmightbeanyoftheabove.Apartfromthetaskofmanagingtheprojectandestablishingworkandcommunication flows; issues,misinterpretationsandmisunderstandings resulting fromtheinterdisciplinary setup of the team must be avoided, identified and solved early on.Nonetheless, it is not self-evident if a project management of an interdisciplinary teamshould rely on the manager’s personality and managing skills or if it needs to betransdisciplinarityskillsofamanagerwhocoordinatesaninterdisciplinaryteam.

Wepose thequestion if itwould forexamplehelp tohaveengineers thatunderstand thework processes and language of a product designer. In our example, this would haveimproved the situation, as the communicationproblemsormisunderstandings couldhavebeenavoided.Managingskillsandasuitablepersonalityarecertainlyofimportancetoleada successful interdisciplinary teambut the leadersof such teamsneed togobeyond theirfieldofexpertiseandshouldhaveanunderstandingoftheinvolvedprofessions,theirworktermsandwaysofworking.Agoodcoordinationoftheworkandinteractionsbetweenthedifferentfieldsisneededtoleadinterdisciplinaryteams.Atthepresentstage,itisrarethatresearchersacquirebasiccompetencesininterdisciplinaryortransdisciplinaryresearch,andnewthinking inresearcheducation isnecessarytoremedythisdeficiency,asthefutureofresearch is in collaboration across disciplinary field borders. Our hope is that nextgenerationsofresearchers,educatedintransdisciplinarythinkingwillbebetterpreparedtolistenandlearnandlookcriticallyattheirowndisciplinaryknowledgeindifferentcontextsandinrelationtootherfieldsanddisciplines.

When leading interdisciplinary teams, or teams in general, awell-managed distribution ofwork is a key factor of success of an efficient team. In our specific project, we wereinterestedinthequestionwheredodesignersstoptheirworkandwheredoengineerstakeover.Ingeneral,theanswertothisquestionmightdependonthesetupoftheteamandtheworkdescription.Whendevelopingartifactsordevices,thelooksmightbemoreimportantforauserthanthefunctionalfeaturesandsometimesitmightbetheotherwayround.Thismeansthatdesignersmightbebroughtinfirsttoshapethelooksandtheengineerslaterontointegratethetechnology.Ontheotherhand,itmightevenbetheotherwayroundwhereengineersworkoutthetechnicaldetailsanddesignersshapethelooksafterwards.

An ideal situationwouldbe,especially inamulti-, inter-or transdisciplinary team,whenallinvolved members would participate in the design and development process from thebeginning to the end. This would shape a collaborative atmosphere where designers andengineers could bring in their full potential. Others mentioned that designers should beconstrainedtolimitunwantedinnovationorcreativity(Culverhouse1995)Thismightbetruewhentime is limited,butdoesn’t followthegeneralwayofworkingasadesigner, inwhichcreativityandinnovation isgenerallywantedandsupported. Inatransdisciplinarywork it isimportanttoguideandsteerinnovationintherightwayandframetheworkofdesignerssothat designers knowwhere creativity or rather innovative solutions are needed andwheresimplerorexistingsolutionsmightbebettertouse.

To provide such guidance, again, a well-managed team leadership is needed. This involvesthat structures in a team are given to support a close cooperation between designers andengineers.Methods likerapidprototypingoragileworkmethodsthataregettingmoreandmore common to both engineers and designers present a large potential in facilitatingcollaborationsininterdisciplinaryteams.

Asthequestiononhowtosupportandnourishtheteamworkisofutmostimportance,whenlookingat interdisciplinaryor transdisciplinary teams, it is important tohaveawell-definedworkstructurewithproceduresthatallowforinterwovenproblemsolvingcollaboration.Thismeanstoinvolvemultipleorallteammemberstodiscussissuesandtodecidesolutionsandfeatures.Atthesametime,itisimportanttonotunderestimatethetalentsofindividualteammembers. Therefore, individual tasks and rolls must be clearly defined and distributedaccordingtotheknowledgeandskillsintheteam.

When looking back at our project, in which designers and engineers worked together tocreateahead-mountedprojectiondisplay(HMDP),thesituationgotevenmorecomplicatedwhenother stakeholderswere involved.Forourexample,actorswereselectedasusers forthe HMDP to support and rehearse their performance. This meant that designers andengineers needed to work with actors who are artists and have a very different way ofworkingandthinkingcomparedtodesignersandengineers.Thisnewcompositionofprojectmembers allowed for new possibilities. Generally, new views, ways of thinking and expertknowledgefromatargetedprofessionofthedesignedartifactisbeneficialtointegrateintoateamandtouseasasourceofknowledge.

Actorsaspotentialusersofadesignedartifactareofcourseofcentralimportanceinauser-centricdesign. Tounderstand theneedsof actors andhow todesignanddevelop for theirspecificworkenvironment,withoutspendinglargeamountsoftimeforbackgroundresearchandgainingsuchknowledgewasessential.Actorsinvolvedinaninterdisciplinaryteam,couldnotonlyprovideuser experienceswith theHMPDbut alsoexpert knowledgeand valuableideasandanticipatedsolutionsinacollaborativedesignanddevelopmentprocess.

Havinganinterdisciplinaryteamhasitsbenefitsindiversityofknowledgeandideasbutneedsinterwovenstructuresandconnectionsinordertofacilitateunderstandingandefficientworkamong team members. Both universities and industry have begun looking for T-shapedengineersconceivedbyDavidGuest in1991as“avariationonRenaissanceMan”withbothdeep and broad competences (Guest 1991) and researchers (IFM 2008)(Leonard-Barton1995)(Palmer 1990) but it seems to be an early stage when it comes to exploringtransdisciplinarity as a way to handle interdisciplinary teams successfully. We seetransdisciplinarity as an interesting way of solving interdisciplinary problems but see thattrainedpersonalandresearchersneedtobefoundthatcanleadsuchinterdisciplinaryteams.We have mentioned before that transdisciplinarity teams are not new and have theirchallenges,suchasdisagreeingonmethodologiesthatshouldbeusedtoresearchorworkona certain topics. Nonetheless, we also see a large potential in interdisciplinary teamsconsisting in T-shaped researchers and engineers that are led by skilled transdisciplinaryleaders.5.2Transdisciplinaryresearchforautomotivemulti-operatingsystemenvironments

As practical exploitation of information is rapidly pervading all spheres of societyincluding technology, more and more of control processes are delegated toinformation processing devices (computers) and control applied in automotiveindustry started to transform from classical mechanics-based to information andcomputationbasedcontrol.Over thepast30yearscarshavechanged frompurelyelectro-mechanicalvehicles to increasinglycomplexcomputerizedsystems throughintroductionofmore complex features. This is notonlydrivenby thenecessity toprovide innovations that improvesale rates,butalsodrivenbycustomerdemands

andadvancesintechnology.In2014newfeatureswereupto70%softwarerelated(Bosch 2014). Those can be categorized into different domains: driver assistance(e.g. distance checking, lane assist), comfort (e.g. entertainment, navigation,communication)andsafetyrelatedfeatures(e.g.ASP,ESP).

Car manufacturers use over 100 years of experience and knowledge frommechanical and electrical engineering and about 30 years of experience inembedded software. 30 years ago software was rarely used in cars and the firstelectronic control units (ECU) were independently used for dedicated basic tasks(Broyetal.2007).Today,abasiccararchitectureincludesupto100ECUs(Ebert&Jones 2009), which are interconnected through a sophisticated communicationinfrastructure. Finally, an interface to the driver, the human-machine-interface(HMI),providesaccesstoupto700functionsofacar(e.g.(BMW2014)).Theoveralldevelopmentofcarsismulti-disciplinaryandtransdisciplinary.Manyteamsworkondifferent types of problems and contribute to the subsystems- as well as overallproduct/functions of a car. Introducing new technologies constantly increases theamountofdisciplinesinthisprocess.Thus(Winner2013)states,that“todaysystemsarevirtuallyimpossibletodevelopwithinoneengineeringdiscipline”andrelatestoamanifoldofnecessarydisciplines.

This is reflected in the internal organisation of car manufacturers, where alldepartmentsare createdand separatedbasedon theirowndiscipline:mechanicalengineering, electronics, ergonomics, etc. Software engineering is most often asubdivisionofelectronics.Departmentsproducemodules,whichareintegratedinacommoncarplatform(Pötsch2011).Additionally,complextasks(e.g.subsystemsorspecialized components) are often outsourced and commissioned to suppliers.Departmentsandsuppliers relyon theconceptofmodularity, i.e. theexchangeofstrict sets of requirements and interface descriptions. However, modulardevelopment requires contextual knowledge to interconnected parts. Contrary toearlier expectations of complexity outsourcing, (Cabigiosu et al. 2013) states that“modulardesigndoesnotsubstituteforhigh-powerinterorganizationalcoordinationmechanisms”. This supports the current change, especially in research anddevelopment departments, towards interdisciplinary and transdisciplinarydepartments,suchase.g.conceptdevelopment,whichconsistsoftransdisciplinaryteamsfromthefieldsofdesign,ergonomicsandpsychology.

Guidelinesforuser-centreddevelopmentofaDriverAssistanceSystem(DAS)(König2016)state,that“aprovendevelopmentstrategyistouseaninterdisciplinaryteam(human engineering team)”. It further describes that the members of this team“must at the very least include engineers and psychologists”. But, why arepsychologistssupposedtobepartoftheteam?Inordertounderstandtheanswer,the interconnectionoftheDAScomponenttoothercomponentshastobeknown.TheDASisconnectedtotheHMI,whichisusedbythedriver.“Physiologyandtrafficpsychology is necessary in order to take into account the demands and thebehaviourofdrivers”(König2016).ThisknowledgecontributestothebehaviourandfunctionalityoftheDAS.

There is a shift from multidisciplinary to interdisciplinary to transdisciplinaryresearchanddevelopment.Themoreinterconnectionsexist,themoreknowledgeisnecessary to solve particular problems. Automotive components are highlyinterconnectedwithothercomponents,systemsandservicesandit is inevitabletounderstandalloftheirimplications.However,workinginmulti-orinter-disciplinaryteamsmay cause developers to automatically gain enough knowledge to call thedevelopment trans-disciplinary – depending on the level of integration. The gapbetweeninter-disciplinaryandtrans-disciplinarycollaborationisverynarrow.

Taking an illustrative application example from the automotive industry, wheresoftware developers have to implement prototypes of a new digital instrumentcluster(suchasdigitalspeed/rpmgaugesasseenine.g.(Audi2014),(Audi2016)).ThissoftwarewillbepartoftheHMIusedinarealtest-carinordertoconductuserstudiesandtoproveordisprovecertainfactorsoftheinstrumentcluster.Inordertoimplement this particular piece of software, a developer has to understand thetechnicalpartsofaproblem,e.g.howtoobtainthespeedinformationfromthecarsbussystem,howtoimplementsafetycriticalsoftwareonacertainplatformandhowtouseagraphicalprocessingunit (GPU)andrelatedframeworksto implementthegraphical part of the application. The actual concepts, related story boards anddesigns are usually created by designers, psychologists and/or ergonomists.However, to implement those in software, the developer must be able tounderstandthematerial.Forexample,howtoconvert/transformgraphicalartefactsor certain file formats into a usable piece of code in software. If special userinteractions, such as gestures, are required, the developer also has to implementalgorithms to detect those gestures. Thus in this specific example softwaredeveloper has to collaborate with hardware developers, embedded softwaredevelopers,designersandergonomistsandsynthesizeinformation/knowledgefromvarietyofknowledgedomainssuchascomputerscience,designandergonomicsinatransdisciplinary manner. Mono-disciplinarity in this context provides only thestartinggroundfromwhichacollaborativeprojectdevelops.

Inour researchaboutautomotivemultioperatingsystem(Multi-OS)environmentsevery researcherworks in adifferent interdisciplinary field,whichdependson thecomponent or layer they are working on. Automotive Multi-OS environmentscomposemultiple heterogeneous electronic control units (ECUs) to single ECUs inordertoreducetheamountofhardware,wiringandweight inacar,consequentlyloweringproductioncosts.Thisispossiblethroughnewtechnology,whichprovidespowerful hardware and features for hardware/software virtualization. It allowsmultipleoperating systems (OS) tobeexecutedconcurrentlyona singlehardwareplatform, i.e. an ECU. However, a composition of multiple ECUs or devices is adifficult task and causes problems and challenges on different categorized layers.Lower layers constrain higher layers, while higher layer depend on lower layers(Holsteinetal.2015).

Achangeofhardware inthe lowest layermightcausetheuser-interface(UI)tobeunusable.Aconcreteexample is thechangeof touchscreensizeandresolution.Abiggerscreensizemightbedifficulttousewhiledriving(Rümelin&Butz2013)andahigher resolutionmight texts to be displayed too small and thus difficult to read

(Stevensetal.2002).Bothchangesmighthaveanegativeeffectonuser-experience,which is part of theUI layer. Automotive environments have strong requirementsregarding safety- and security-related software. Therefore, interconnectionsbetween certain components might be restricted or limited. In case of Multi-OSenvironments an OS is confined to its own hardware resources and only certaininterconnectionsbetweenthedifferentOSsareallowed(Holstein&Wietzke2015).A lower layer isresponsibleforthesecurity/safetymechanismsandthetransferofdata fromoneOS to another. AnOSmay have access to internet services or appstores.Thismeansthereisariskofmaliciousthirdpartysoftwareorfaultysoftware,whichincaseofanerrorwouldonlyaffectasingleOS.

Inthepreviousexampletransdisciplinaryknowledgehasbeenusedindevelopment.The latter example of our research shows a more profound usage of trans-disciplinarity. Here, trans-disciplinarity will help to understand the implications ofinter-connectionsbetweendifferentpartsofacomplexsystem:Howdochangesincertain layers affect the overall software architecture? How do restrictions andconstraints in lower layers affect the development of user interfaces? Is theseparation of operating systems through virtualization leading to a more securearchitecture, besides the fact, that a homogeneous user interface requires thepreviously separated parts to be interconnected? In certain projects atransdisciplinary approach might be essential to the outcome and success of theproject.5.3AppliedInteractionDesignResearch–atransdisciplinarypractice.Examplesfromtheinformation-intenseindustrialmachineryDesigningproductsconcernsapplyingtechnologyinaformthatbringsusefulnessandvaluetotheuser.Assoftwaretakesan increasingportionof theproductdevelopment, themoreadvancedproductscanbemadewhilestillprovidingagoodexperience to theuser. In thissection we will exemplify how transdisciplinary teamwork enhance research in productdevelopment, using examples from industry and the connection between industry andacademia,arguingthatitisevenmorebeneficialthemoreweentertheinfosphere.

Designof interactivedigitalsystemsconcerns formingan interactionbetweenhumanusersandthe artefactsusedbythem.Designinthisperspectiveissomuchmorethanvisualformand esthetics, though they are important components. Design thinking refers to cognitiveactivitiesusedwhendesigningsymbolicandvisualcommunication,materialobjects,activitiesandorganized services, and complex systemsorenvironments for living, working,playing,andlearning(Buchanan1992).

Kapor defines design in the Software Design Manifesto: “What is design? It’swhere youstand with a foot in twoworlds - theworld of technology and theworld of people andhumanspurposes-andyoutrytobringthetwotogether.”(Kapor1991).Theabovedefinitionindicatesthatpracticing interactiondesign isa field involving theapplicationofknowledge,fromdomainsoutsideof itsownfield. Itacquires inputfromareassuchashumanbehaviorandpsychology, fromartaswell asmore traditionaldesign fields,suchasarchitectureandtypography. To be able to design for the tasks performed, theremust also be knowledgeabout the application areawhere the task is performed, the technology to apply and thesurroundingeco-system.

ResearchingCreationofproductsfortheinfospheregeneration

Sincetheabovedefinitionswheremade,theimpactofinteractiondesignhasincreasedalotin the intercommunication between humans and the digital domain, such as the buzz andcommercialsuccessfactoridentifiedwith“userexperience”(Kuutti2009).Assoftwarebasedsystems are getting increasingly complex, the availability of computing power, sensors andactuatorsmadesoftwareamuchmore integratedpartofmanyproductsandsystems, thusprovidingmoreandmoreofthefunctionalityandvalue.Intheautomotivespace,upto70%ofallinnovationinproductsiscurrentlysoftwarerelated(Bosch2014).Eventhoughnotallofthisinnovationisrelatedtointeractiondesign,thewaytheuserinteracts,bothinasenseofreceiving information and being able to control thedevice, can be imperative for the userexperience and safe operation of the device. The designer needs to understand how thetechnologyworksincombinationwiththeuser.Thisevolutionofsoftwaresystemsimpactingourlifewilllikelycontinue,forexamplewiththeInternetofThings,whereinnovationsmoveevenfurtherintotheeraofinformationgenerationandinformationprocessingandcreatingwhat (Floridi et al. 2010), (Floridi 2010)call “infosphere” that is informational environmentcorrespondingto“biosphere”.

Creatingsystemsandproductsthatcollect,makeuseofinformationandprovidesaapplicableandcomprehensible result requiresan interdisciplinaryapproachbetweennaturalsciences,social and human sciences and systems theory (Hofkirchner 2013). Such as, that theprocessesandtherealworldneedtobeunderstoodinordertosynthesizethemintomodelsof computation (Wallmyr 2015). Furthermore it involves the integration from informationarchitecturesandmeansofcommunication,totechnicalengineering andfunctionalaspectsof getting the different pieces of the system working together. In this, the interactiondesigner’s roleistomakesenseofthesesystemsandapplicationstotheuser.Itisimportantthat designers understand the application, technology and theory in order to successfullyapply the generalizedmethodsandprinciplesofuser interaction.The interactiondesignerneeds to possess T-shaped competence (Guest 1991) (Boehm & Mobasser 2015) whichmeansdeepknowledgeofatleastonefieldandworkingknowledgeofthecurrentproblemdomains thatmakes it possible to bridge different research fields and approach technicalissueswhenbuildingutilityfortheuser.Throughunderstandingofdifferentfieldsacommonground is found that facilitates improved collaboration and result. As Lindell argues, theinterplaybetween interactiondesignand softwareengineering isproblematicas these twoactivities have different epistemology. But treating information and code as amaterial canbringthetwotraditionaldisciplinesintoacombinedcraftsmanship(Lindell2014).

Building custom solutions from scratch is many times not a viable option; insteaddevelopment is done as integration of sub-parts with necessary adaption. Industrialproductsneedtosustainthesometimesharshenvironment,besturdytowithstandyearsoftoughusage,integratewiththewayofworking,andcomplywithmarketstandardsfore.g.emissionandresistance.Thefinalproductmightthenbeinproductionfortenyears,withasubsequent lifetimeofdecadeswhereserviceandreplacementpart isneeded.Combiningthese criteriamake it nearly impossible useparts from standardof-the-shelf or consumermarket and inmany cases the single industry domain cannot handle the investment anddevelopment themselves. Such an example is the forestry-harvesting sector, where newtypes of interfaces, using head-up-displays, have the potential to increase harvestingefficiency.However,theirmarketaloneistoosmalltosupportdevelopingofthetechnology(Löfgren et al. 2007). Investments are thus distributed, as products are done in layers ofexistingcomponents,softwareandtechnology.Theymustbegenericenoughsothatseveralmarketscanusethesameproduct.

Tosuccessfullyselecttherightpartsandbuildtherightproductformanymarketsneedsateamthat incorporateandexchangeknowledge fromseveralareas,notonly technicalbutalsoondifferentmarketneeds.Productrealizationprojectoftenrequiresamixofdifferentdisciplines, such as mechanical designers, electric engineers, software developers,purchasers,productionrepresentatives,prototypebuildersetc.theseteamsareoften leadbyoneorseveralroles,suchasprojectmanagers,productmanagersorscrummasters.Thiscreates multidisciplinary teams where different professions work together to build aproduct.

Anindustrialexampleoftransdisciplinaryresearchintoinfosphereconstruction

The question is: Is it necessary to have transdisciplinary teams in order to build nextgenerationproducts?Perhaps,asworkingonlyinterdisciplinarytheprojectisconstrainedbythedifferentprofessionsfocusingontheirrespectiveproblemsandsolutions.Thiscanleadto increased integration work, more late adjustments and a final outcome that does notreflectthebiggerpicture. Inthecaseofacompanydevelopinghardwareandsoftwareforindustrialmachineryitwouldmeancleardisadvantages.

Wehavestudiedacompany,thatwasgoingfromasub-supplierroletocreatingproductsoftheir own design, which in this specific case was a display computer. The company hadseveral years of experience in building custom hardware and software. However, inretrospectiveitbecameevidentthatwhenbuildingourownproductweoverfocusedonourin-housedisciplines,ourkeyknowledgethatwasnormallythekeycontributionincustomerprojects.Functionalitywasaddedbecauseitwastechnicallypossible,likeTV,radio,modemandGPS.However,themarketwaseithernotinterestedormatureenoughtoappreciateit,thus leading to an overly complicated and expensive unit. One factor was that thedevelopmentwasnotworking interdisciplinarybetweenelectrical engineering, purchasingand software. Electric components were for example selected that did not have properdriversupport,forthechosenoperatingsystem.Leadingtomassiveeffortsinintegrationofsoftware and hardware. Another example was the industrial design that only coveredmechanicdesign.Theinteractionwiththedisplaybecamemuchmoreofanofficecomputerexperiencethanwhatusersinindustrialmachinerywherenormallyaccustomedto.

To continue the product development case, following display generations showed higherlevelsofinterdisciplinarywork.Suchexampleswhereelectronicdesignandsoftwaredesigndecisions made much more transdisciplinary, resulting in better component choices andeasier integration. Also, a better understanding of customer needs lead to a hardware-software integration layer in software,making itpossible for customers tomovebetweendifferent product families with minimal adaptation of their added application software.Simultaneously, the new industrial designer could incorporate both mechanical andsoftware design, leading to a much more coherent experience for the end user. Otherdisciplines involved were production providing knowledge and experience on efficientproductionandservice.

The above case illustrates how a higher degree of involvement and interaction betweendisciplinesduringproductdesignand realization can result inamore integrated, thought-outandpurposelyfacettedproduct.Thisishowevernottheonlypurposeoftheillustration.The other argument is that transdisciplinarity is something that evolves continuously,(Dorothy Leonard-Barton 1995) as the knowledge transfers between disciplines andindividualswithin theproject.Oneofenablersof thisprocess is continuousdesign reviewwhere different team members not only review the current solution, but also exchangeknowledge on the factors in technology, usage, cost etc. that contribute to the solution

made. As a result, experienced teams that havemore interactionwith other professions,becomemoretransdisciplinaryintegratingtighterwithotherdisciplines,understandingtheirvocabulary,limitationsandpossibilities.Atamanagerialleveltransfercanalsobefacilitatedto share informationandcreatenewcontacts, forexample through informationexchangeeventsorrelocationofpersonnel.AsanexamplewecanmentionCanonthatrelocates itsresearchanddevelopmentcentereverysixmonth(Harryson1997).

Asmentioned,manyindustriesthatwereearliermorefocusedtowardsmechanizationandautomationarenowprogressingintotheinfosphere.Moreunderstandingisneededhowtoefficientlyuseallthisinformationtobenefitusersintheirrespectivedomains.Onefactoristoavoidinformationoverload,inautomotivesystemtothelevelofawarenessneededinvehicleinteractionsolutions,suchasforvisualperceptiongivenin(Wördenweber,B.,Wallascheketal. 2007), p. 48 that explains how vision constructs reality for an observer. Apart fromperceptionandawareness,anotheraspectismakingtheinformationaccessibletotheuserinanunderstandableandattractivemanner.Anexampleofan industrial application sectorofinterest isagriculture. Here information technology provides a vital piecewhen addressinghowtoefficientlyandsustainablytoproducefoodtoagrowingpopulation.Howeverafarmeroramachineoperator isbyprofessionneitheracomputerprofessionalnoran informationanalyst. Thus, the move into more information based production systems centered onsoftware engineers’ preferencesmight be associatedwithobstacles. (Sørensen et al. 2010)mention that even though the use of computers and internet have improved acquiring ofexternal information as well as management and processing of internal information, “theacquisitionandanalysisofinformationstillprovesademandingtask”.Theavailabilityofdatadoesnotwarranttheunderstandingorusefulnessofthedatatotheuser(Chinthammitetal.2014).

Supporting the transformation into information driven applications thus calls for moretransdisciplinary development thatwill provide connection among variety of technologiesand between technology and the user, society and environment. To connect to the priorcase,wearecomingclosertowhatcanefficientlybeinteractedwithusingnormaldisplays.Futuredevelopment,forexamplesee-throughinterfacesthataugmentrealityandinterfacesthat use more-than-human visual perception to exchange information. This developmenthas to include competences in information architecture and information design, datacommunicationnotonlywith local systembutalsocloudcommunicationaswellashapticinteraction with the user. In addition even deeper knowledge of industry domain isnecessary to build the information system and computation models that provide moreautomationaswelltherightinformationtotheuser.

6.Bridgesbetweenacademiaandindustry–educationandtheindustrialPhD

Anotheraspectoftransdisciplinarityistheconnectionbetweenresearchandindustrywhereoneofmanymethods transdisciplinarybridgesbetweenacademiaand industry isbuiltbyindustrial PhD students. Giving a dual direction transfer where the industrial researcherbrings real-world research questions from industrial settings into academia, whilesimultaneouslybringinginformationandresultsfromtheresearchcommunityintoindustry.This ongoing exchange builds information exchange contact points as well as basicunderstandingofdifferent fields, throughpersons thatcanbridgedifferentdisciplinesanddomainsofknowledgeproduction.

Industrialprojectsare toa largeextent limitedbya fixeddescriptionof requirementsanddefined task to realize, within given resource limits, such as initial time estimation. Thustheseprojectscannot in thesamewayasresearchelaborateondifferentwaystoaddress

problems and solutions. Instead the industrial PhD can bring findings and results fromacademia into the industrial projects, building on the research findings and adding theneededpartstodesignanddeveloporimproveanindustrialproduct.

Ontheothersideofthebridge,theresearchside,itisinsteadencouragedtoseeknewandnovel solutions. As researchers we are encouraged to publish our results, makinginformationandfindingsfromourworkavailabletothewiderresearchcommunity.Goingtoconferencesandotherwise seeking information forourown research,give inspirationandinput when observing results from other application domains, thus sharing and receivinginformation.

Interaction design research has though been criticized for counteracting its own purpose,withtheargumentthatdesignscienceshouldnotbeaboutascienceofdesignbutratherascience for design. Instead of being bound by past research it should instead be free tocriticallyexamineandquestionresultsofscientificresearch,withtheaimofenvisioningthefuture (Krippendorff 2007). Simultaneously design research has been questioned for notvaluing application of the science to a specific field as a research result and validcontribution (Chilana et al. 2015), thus perhaps limiting the possibilities for interactiondesignresearcherstoendeavorintointerdisciplinaryresearch.Itcanbearguedthatinorderto foster interdisciplinary research and improved collaboration, possibilities should beoffered that would enable such efforts and results to be published. At present,transdisciplinary research stillmeets difficulty to find its properplace in academia, that istraditionallyorganizedbydisciplines,andpublicationsarebyfarandlargepurelydisciplinarywith a confined viewofwhat constitutes a good contribution. The trendof subdivisionofclassical disciplines into ever more narrow sub-disciplines should be counteracted by thesynthetic approaches of transdisciplinarity that bring cohesion into the otherwisecompletely disconnected islands of knowledge. As scientists we work often withunderstanding of theworldandhowwe can improve it.As such,a fitting conclusion is toreferbacktoKrippendorff:“Designconcernswhatcouldwork inthefuture,a futurethat ismoreinterestingthanwhatweknowtoday.”

6.ConclusionsOne of the central issues of transdisciplinary knowledge production is communication ofinformation and knowledge across the disciplinary and cultural borders. How do weinterpret the same object (boundary object) from the perspective of different disciplines,expressedintheirdomainlanguages?Howcanourresearchwhichrangesfrominterdisciplinaritytotransdisciplinaritycontributeboth to the existing knowledge as well as further development of practice and theoryconnecting information, communication, computation, (inter-)action and cognition? Let usexaminehowsomeofthecharacteristicsoftransdisciplinarityreflectinourresearch.ReflexivityReflexivityrelatesbothtotheinnerrelationshipsbetweenknowledgedomainsaswellastheself-reflectionovertheproposedproblemsolutionanditsmeaningforthestakeholders. Itimpliesaskingboth thequestionswhyandhow, thatmakes relation tovaluesystemsandethicaldeliberationimportant.Thebottomlineofeverydecision-makingisthevaluesystem(whichaffectshowwe seeour goals) and the senseof (feelingandunderstandingof) thecurrentstateoftheworld,thatisunderstandingofwhereweareandwherewewanttogo.

Epistemicandvalue-basistransparencyEthical and epistemic conceptualizations are closely coupled. (Tuana 2015) Epistemictransparency in the research project requires insight in one owns assumptions andknowledge-related choices. Visibility of value grounds, decision-making transparency andanalysisare central to the successofa transdisciplinaryproject.Coupledethical-epistemicanalysis has helped in the past projects identify new and refined research topics, andinformedmodeling formulti-objective, robust decision-making. (Singh et al. 2015)One ofimportant attitudes in knowledge generation over several epistemic domains isattentivenessandrespectforbothknowledgeandignorancegrantedforallstakeholdersUncertaintiesandinadequateknowledgeplayshouldbeidentifiedandcarefullytackled.AddressingthecomplexarchitectureoftheknowledgespaceUnderstanding of the complex architecture of the multi-level and multi-dimensionalknowledgespaceisapartofreflexiverelationtoknowledgeproduction.Therolesofvariousstakeholders must be well understood and benevolent mutual communication based onshared goals secured. For example, in medicine, addressing problem of disease requiresunderstanding processes from molecular to cellular and level of organs, the wholeorganismsandtheirenvironment, includingpsycho-socialfactorsthusknowledgeinsuchatransdisciplinaryprojectisaresultofasynthesisandderivationofknowledgefromallthoseclassical academic domains in conjunction with its “users” medical institutions, societalgroups,etc.InthecaseofourHCIfield-designers,developers,usersandotherstakeholdersareinvolvedintheprocessofknowledgeproduction.Syntacticvs.semanticsvs.pragmaticaspectsofknowledgeAs research operates on different levels of knowledge production, all three layers ofsemioticsareinvolved:syntactic–oftencodingofacomputerprogram,semantics–designofprogramsandotherartifactsforspecificpurposesandpragmatics–studyofthebehavioroftheartifact(design)inpractice–use-casestudies.IntegrationprocessImportantpartofthetransdisciplinaryprocessisintegration,whichpresentsontologicalandepistemological as well as organizational challenges. Riegler (Riegler 2005) mentions thefollowing typesofproblemsmet in transdisciplinary integrationprocess: (P1)unfamiliarityamongdifferentdisciplineswithamutual informationdeficit; (P2)different terminology–different use of the same terms; (P3) different aims of scientific work – prediction vsexplanation;(P4)hardsciencesvs.softsciences;(P5)Basicresearchvs.appliedscienceand(P6) Individual vs. group research. Riegler addresses this topic from the point of view ofconstructivist approach which is interested in how exactly different contributions can beintegrated in a common framework. He emphasizes the importance of the commonworldview, the minimum shared commitment that makes it possible to relate differentpositions,andidentifydifferencesandsimilarities,granularitylevelofknowledgeandothercharacteristics. Experiences from our projects indicate as well that commitment must besharedinorderforaprojecttosucceed.Embodimentandembeddednessofinformation,computation,cognition,communicationOneimportantaspectofresearchthathasanambitiontohaverelevanceforthereallifeisembodiment and embeddedness, which brings the element of sensualizing. Instead ofabstract ideas of solutions, applied research deals with embodied problems that bringsensory qualities to the technological solutions and makes esthetic aspects of designnecessarytoaddress.Herewemeetdecisionsmadebasedonfunction(includingitsethicalaspects) vs. esthetics and experiential dimensions. Human – computer interaction (HCI)

designdoesnotonlydescribeorcontemplatepossiblefutures–itbuildsconcreteartefactsthatsetmaterialconstraintsonourpossiblefutures.AtthisstageICThaveapplicationseveninartsandartisticproduction.(Busch2009)QuestionswewantanswerstoInfo-computational approaches today are in the center of our contemporary knowledgeproduction. Both in literal sense of ICT used to communicate information and computeknowledgeaswellasinasenseofmodelsbasedoninformationandcomputation.Answersfundamental questions: What is reality? What is life? Why do things happen? What isintelligence, mind, and understanding?What will happen next?Why does anything evenexist? – are given in terms of infocomputation, providing new andmore understandableanswersthaneverbefore.Ordinarypeoplecannowadays“see”whatatomsdo,howquarksbehave, how galaxies collide, how universe evolves since the big bang or what possibleconsequencesofglobalwarmingmightbe–allofitviavisualizationsofcomputersimulationresults. In not so distant future we will have similar possibilities to see alternativeconsequencesofourpossiblepolitical,economicandotherchoices.Itwillbringwholenewpossibilities fordemocraticdecision-making.Ashumansweare interestednotonly inhowthingsare,butwealsowanttoknowwhatwecanexpect,whatispossibleandwhataretheconsequences.Thepromiseofnewtheories,discoveries, inventionsanddevelopmentswillbepossibletostudyineverincreasingdetailandinmuchmoresystematicandmultifaceted,multidimensional way. We want to know why and we want to act based on deepunderstandingthattakesintoaccountnotonlylogic,butthetotalityofhumanexperience.TheunderlyinglogicofchangeMostoftenlogicistakenastacitpartofthetheoryconstruction,frameworksforreasoningandaction.However,itshouldbenoticedthatlogicisaresearchfieldonitsownandafastdeveloping too. Nicolescu addressed the question of logic especially with regard to theaxiomofexcludedmiddle, (Nicolescu2010)which states thatnothing canbeat the sametimeAandnonA.ThisaxiomreflectstheinterestofAristotleandancientGreeksingeneralan interest that is still predominant to this day in structures that persist, and not in theprocess of change. Transdisciplinarity on the other hand is centered on change. Itmeansthatthedynamicsofprocess,whenastructureispartlyinthecurrentandpartlyinthenextstate, is vital, where the middle is necessary included, if the process is continuous.Differences in logics implydifferences inwhat canbeexpressedandargued for andhow.One interesting approach in the context of transdisciplinary research is Brenner’s Logic inreality(Brenner2008)especiallyappliedtothedynamicsofinformation.(Brenner2012)Mathematician Chaitin-Chatelin argues in her book Qualitative computing that theAristotle’sclassicallogicistoolimitedtocapturethedynamicsofnonlinearcomputation.Asthe necessary tool for addressing the nonlinear dynamics she proposes the organic logic.This logic will be the core of the “Mathematics for Life” yet to be developed (Chaitin-Chatelin 2012). Yet another logical development was Zadeh’s fuzzy logic where the“excludedmiddle”wasreplacedwithaspectrumofpossibilities.Eventhoughclassicallogicis widely used and considered adequate, for better understanding of the process ofknowledge production, integration and synthesis, logics that put their focus on dynamicalprocessandnonlinearityareofgreatinterest.AddressingtheissueoflearningintransdisciplinaryresearchprojectsThe aim of research is traditionally not only to solve concrete problems, but also tocontribute to the learning, that is to the shared knowledge of the community of practice(research community, knowledge building community, culture). However, being oftenfocusedon specific and real-life problems, transdisciplinary research faces theproblemof

comparativeanalysisoftheresearchfindingsofdifferentgroupswithdifferentapproaches,differentstakeholders,valuesandpreferences.Shouldtransdisciplinaryresearchbeseenasan alternative to free deliberation such as commonly used in political, social or businessdecision-making,basedoncommonsenseandpersonalexperienceofstakeholders?Orcanitbeused tocontribute to thedevelopmentofclassical research fieldsby informing themabouttherealworldcontextinwhichabstractframeworksandacademicdiscoursescanbeplaced in?This two-way learningprocess canbeobtained through individualswhobelongbothtoresearchintheMode1andtheMode2(Gibbonsetal.1994),suchasindustrialPhDstudentsaswedescribed.Theinterdisciplinaryandtransdisciplinaryknowledgeproductionis new in theuniversityworldwith its longandpersistent traditions, and thebestway tocontribute to better understanding of the applicability and the role of differentmodes ofknowledgeproductionistoeducatefuturegenerationsofresearchersandcitizensnotonlyindisciplinaryresearchmethodsbutalsoininterdisciplinaryandtransdisciplinaryresearch.ReferencesAudi,2016.Audivirtualdashboard.online.Audi,2014.Dialoge-DasAudi-Technologiemagazin.Barabasi,A.-L.,2007.Thearchitectureofcomplexity.IEEEControlSystemsMagazine,27(4),

pp.33–42.Bardzell,J.&Bardzell,S.,2015.HumanisticHCI.In:SynthesisLecturesonHuman-Centered

InformaticsSynthesis.,SanRafael,California:Morgan&ClaypoolPublishers.BMW,2014.BMWTechnologyGuide:iDrive.Boehm,B.&Mobasser,K.S.,2015.SystemThinking:EducatingT-ShapedSoftware

Engineers.InIEEE28thConferenceonSoftwareEngineeringEducationandTraining.pp.13–16.

Bosch,J.,2014.ContinuousSoftwareEngineering:AnIntroduction.InContinuoussoftwareengineering.pp.3–13.

Brenner,J.,2008.Logicinreality,Brenner,J.,2012.TheLogicalDynamicsofInformation;Deacon’s“IncompleteNature.”

Information,3,pp.676–714.Brenner,J.&Raffl,C.,2011.IntroductiontothespecialissueICTsandsociety-Anew

transdiscipline?Whatkindofacademicfielddoweneedtomeetthechallengesoftheinformationage?TripleC,9(2),pp.593–597.

Brier,S.,2013.Cybersemiotics:ANewFoundationforTransdisciplinaryTheoryofInformation,Cognition,MeaningfulCommunicationandtheInteractionBetweenNatureandCulture.IntegralReview,9(2),pp.220–262.

Brier,S.,2008.Cybersemiotics:whyinformationisnotenough!,Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress.

Brier,S.,2003.Informationseenaspartofthedevelopmentoflivingintelligence:Thefive-leveledcybersemioticframeworkforFIS.Entropy,5(2),pp.88–99.

Brier,S.,2014.PhenomenologicalComputation?ConstructivistFoundations,9(2),pp.234–235.

Brockman,J.,1996.TheThirdCulture:BeyondtheScientificRevolution.AmericanJournalofPhysics,64(3),p.348.

Broy,M.etal.,2007.EngineeringAutomotiveSoftware.ProceedingsoftheIEEE,95(2),pp.356–373.

Buchanan,R.,1992.WickedProblemsinDesignThinking.DesignIssues,8(2),pp.5–21.Burgin,M.,2010.Theoryofinformation:fundamentality,diversityandunification,

Singapore:WorldScientificPubCo.Burgin,M.&Dodig-Crnkovic,G.,2015.ATaxonomyofComputationandInformation

Architecture.InM.Galster,ed.Proceedingsofthe2015EuropeanConferenceon

SoftwareArchitectureWorkshops(ECSAW’15).NewYork:ACMPress.Busch,K.,2009.ArtisticResearchandthePoeticsofKnowledge.Art&Research,2(2).Cabigiosu,A.,Zirpoli,F.&Camuffo,A.,2013.Modularity,interfacesdefinitionandthe

integrationofexternalsourcesofinnovationintheautomotiveindustry.ResearchPolicy,42(3),pp.662–675.

Capurro,R.,Fleissner,P.&Hofkirchner,W.,1997.Isaunifiedtheoryofinformationfeasible?WorldFutures,49(3-4),pp.409–427.

Chaitin,G.,2007.EpistemologyasInformationTheory:FromLeibniztoΩ.InG.DodigCrnkovic,ed.Computation,Information,Cognition–TheNexusandTheLiminal.NewcastleUK:CambridgeScholarsPub.,pp.2–17.

Chaitin-Chatelin,F.,2012.QualitativeComputing :AComputationalJourneyIntoNonlinearity,Singapore:WorldScientificPublishingCompany.

Chilana,P.K.,Ko,A.J.&Wobbrock,J.,2015.FromUser-CenteredtoAdoption-CenteredDesign.InProceedingsofthe33rdAnnualACMConferenceonHumanFactorsinComputingSystems-CHI’15.NewYork,NewYork,USA:ACMPress,pp.1749–1758.

Chinthammit,W.,Duh,H.B.-L.&Rekimoto,J.,2014.HCIinfoodproductinnovation.Proceedingsoftheextendedabstractsofthe32ndannualACMconferenceonHumanfactorsincomputingsystems-CHIEA’14,pp.1111–1114.

Choi,B.C.K.&Pak,A.W.P.,2008.Multidisciplinarity,interdisciplinarity,andtransdisciplinarityinhealthresearch,services,educationandpolicy:3.Discipline,inter-disciplinedistance,andselectionofdiscipline.Clinical&InvestigativeMedicine.,31(1),pp.E41–E48.

Cooper,S.B.,Löwe,B.&Sorbi,A.eds.,2007.NewComputationalParadigms.ChangingConceptionsofWhatisComputable.SpringerMathematicsofComputingseries,XIII.,Berlin:Springer.

Culverhouse,P.F.,1995.ConstrainingdesignersandtheirCADtools.DesignStudies,16(1),pp.81–101.

Deleuze,G.&Guattari,F.,2005.Athousandplateaus:Capitalismandschizophrenia,Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.

Dodig-Crnkovic,G.,2010.BiologicalInformationandNaturalComputation.InJ.Vallverdú,ed.HersheyPA:InformationScienceReference,pp.1–27.

Dodig-Crnkovic,G.,2009.InformationandComputationNets.InvestigationsintoInfo-computationalWorld,Saarbrucken:VdmVerlag.

Dodig-Crnkovic,G.,2006.Investigationsintoinformationsemanticsandethicsofcomputing,Västerås,Sweden:MälardalenUniversityPress.

Dodig-Crnkovic,G.,2011.SignificanceofModelsofComputation,fromTuringModeltoNaturalComputation.MindsandMachines,21(2),pp.301–322.

Dodig-Crnkovic,G.,2016.TheArchitectureofMindasaNetworkofNetworksofNaturalComputationalProcesses.Philosophies,1(1),pp.111–125.

Dodig-Crnkovic,G.&Burgin,M.,2011.InformationandComputation,Singapore:WorldScientific.

Dodig-Crnkovic,G.&Giovagnoli,R.eds.,2013.COMPUTINGNATURE,BerlinHeidelberg:Springer.

Dodig-Crnkovic,G.&Müller,V.,2011.ADialogueConcerningTwoWorldSystems:Info-Computationalvs.Mechanistic.InG.DodigCrnkovic&M.Burgin,eds.InformationandComputation.Singapore:WorldScientificPubCoInc,pp.149–184.

Dodig-Crnkovic,G.&Stuart,S.A.J.,2007.Computation,Information,Cognition:TheNexusandtheLiminal,Newcastle,UK:CambridgeScholarsPub.

DorothyLeonard-Barton,1995.WellspringsofKnowledge:BuildingandSustainingtheSourcesofInnovation,HarvardBusinessSchoolPress.

Ebert,C.&Jones,C.,2009.EmbeddedSoftwareFacts,Figures,andFuture.Computer,42(4),

pp.42–52.Ehresmann,A.C.,2014.AMathematicalModelforInfo-computationalism.Constructivist

Foundations,9(2),pp.235–237.Flinterman,J.F.etal.,2001.Transdisciplinarity:TheNewChallengeforBiomedicalResearch.

BulletinofScience,Technology&Society,21(4),pp.253–266.Floridi,L.,2010.Information:averyshortintroduction,Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Floridi,L.,2003.Informationalrealism.InJ.Weckert&Y.Al-Saggaf,eds.Selectedpapers

fromconferenceonComputersandphilosophy-Volume37(CRPIT’03).CRPIT’03.Darlinghurst,Australia,Australia:AustralianComputerSociety,Inc.,pp.7–12.

Floridi,L.,Durante,M.&Ward,T.,2010.AlookintothefutureimpactofICTonourlive.JournalofBusiness,pp.17–19.

Fredkin,E.,1992.FiniteNature.InXXVIIthRencotredeMoriond.Frodeman,R.,Klein,J.T.&Mitcham,C.eds.,2010.TheOxfordHandbookof

Interdisciplinarity,Oxford,UK:OUPOxford.Gibbons,M.etal.,1994.Thenewproductionofknowledge,Gray,B.,2008.Enhancingtransdisciplinaryresearchthroughcollaborativeleadership.

Americanjournalofpreventivemedicine,35(2),pp.124–132.Guest,D.,1991.ThehuntisonfortheRenaissanceManofcomputing.TheIndependent,

p.09.17.Güvenen,O.,2015.TransdisciplinaryScienceMethodology.EuropeanScientificJournal,3.Hadorn,G.H.etal.,2008.Handbookoftransdisciplinaryresearch,Hanna,R.,2014.Kant’sTheoryofJudgment.TheStanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy

(Summer2014Edition).Harryson,S.J.,1997.HowCanonandSonyDriveProductInnovationThroughNetworking

andApplication-FocusedR&D.JournalofProductInnovationManagement,14(4),pp.288–295.

vonHaugwitz,R.&Dodig-Crnkovic,G.,2015.ProbabilisticComputationandEmotionasSelf-regulation.InECSA2015ASDSWorkshop.InProceedingsofthe2015EuropeanConferenceonSoftwareArchitectureWorkshops(ECSAW’15).NewYork,NY,USA.:ACM.

vonHaugwitz,R.,Dodig-Crnkovic,G.&Almér,A.,2015.ComputationalAccountofEmotion,anOxymoron?InIS4ISSummitVienna2015,ViennaUniversityofTechnology(online).Availableat:http://sciforum.net/conference/isis-summit-vienna-2015/track-triangular.

Hofkirchner,W.,2009.Howtoachieveaunifiedtheoryofinformation.tripleC,7(2),pp.357–368.Availableat:http://triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/114/138.

Hofkirchner,W.,2013.Transdisciplinarity-by-complexity-thinking.Lecture15-17May.Hofkirchner,W.,2010.Twentyquestionsaboutaunifiedtheoryofinformation:ashort

explorationintoinformationfromacomplexsystemsview,LitchfieldParkAZ:EmergentPublications.

Hofkirchner,W.,1999.WaysofThinkingandtheUnificationofScience.InProceedingsofthe43rdAnnualConferenceofISSS(TheInternationalSocietyfortheSystemsSciences).pp.1–9.Availableat:https://igw.tuwien.ac.at/igw/menschen/hofkirchner/papers/InfoScience/Unification_Science/9945.pdf.

Holstein,T.etal.,2015.CurrentChallengesinCompositingHeterogeneousUserInterfacesforAutomotivePurposes.InM.Kurosu,ed.Human-ComputerInteraction:InteractionTechnologies.SpringerInternationalPublishing.

Holstein,T.&Wietzke,J.,2015.ContradictionofSeparationThroughVirtualizationandInterVirtualMachineCommunicationinAutomotiveScenarios.InProceedingsofthe2015EuropeanConferenceonSoftwareArchitectureWorkshops.ECSAW’15.NewYork,NY,USA:ACM,pp.4:1–4:5.

IFM,2008.IfMandIBM.SucceedingthroughServiceInnovation:AServicePerspectiveforEducation,Research,BusinessandGovernment.Cambridge,UnitedKingdom:UniversityofCambridgeInstituteforManufacturing.Availableat:http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/ssme/.

Jahn,T.,Bergmann,M.&Keil,F.,2012.Transdisciplinarity:Betweenmainstreamingandmarginalization.EcologicalEconomics,79,pp.1–10.

Kade,D.etal.,2015.Head-mountedmixedrealityprojectiondisplayforgamesproductionandentertainment.PersonalandUbiquitousComputing,19(3),pp.509–521.

Kade,D.,2014.TowardsImmersiveMotionCaptureActing-Design,ExplorationandDevelopmentofanAugmentedSystemSolution.LicentiateThesis.MälardalenUniversityPress.

Kapor,M.,1991.Asoftwaredesignmanifesto.Dr.Dobb’sJournal,16(1),pp.62–67.Kelly,K.,1998.TheThirdCulture.Science,279(5353),pp.992–993.Klein,J.T.,2010.Ataxonomyofinterdisciplinarity.InR.Frodeman,J.ThompsonKlein,&C.

Mitcham,eds.TheOxfordHandbookofInterdisciplinarity.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,pp.15–30.

Klein,J.T.,2004.Interdisciplinarityandcomplexity:Anevolvingrelationship.E:COEmergence:ComplexityandOrganization,6(1-2),pp.2–10.

König,W.,2016.GuidelinesforUser-CenteredDevelopmentofDAS.InH.Winneretal.,eds.HandbookofDriverAssistanceSystems.SpringerInternationalPublishing,pp.781–796.

Krippendorff,K.,2007.DesignResearch,anOxymoron?InDesignResearchNow:EssaysandSelectedProjects.Zürich:BirkhäuserVerlag,pp.67–80.

Kuutti,K.,2009.HCIanddesign:Uncomfortablebedfellows?In(Re)searchingthedigitalbauhaus.SpringerLondon,pp.43–59.

Leibniz,G.W.,1966.ZurallgemeinenCharakteristik.HauptschriftenzurGrundlegungderPhilosophie.PhilosophischeWerkeBand1.,Hamburg:FelixMeiner.

Leonard-Barton,D.,1995.WellspringsofKnowledge:BuildingandSustainingtheSourcesofInnovation,HarvardBusinessSchoolPress.

Lindell,R.,2014.Craftinginteraction:Theepistemologyofmodernprogramming.PersonalandUbiquitousComputing,18,pp.613–624.

Löfgren,B.,TinggårdDillekås,H.&Järrendal,D.,2007.Head-updisplaykangelägrearbets-belastningochhögreproduktion.ResultatfrånSkogForsk,16,p.4.

Nicolescu,B.,2014.MethodologyofTransdisciplinarity.WorldFutures,70(3),p.186.Nicolescu,B.,2010.MethodologyofTransdisciplinarity–LevelsofReality,Logicofthe

Included.TransdisciplinaryJournalofEngineeringandScience,1(1),pp.19–38.Nicolescu,B.,2011.THENEEDFORTRANSDISCIPLINARITYINHIGHEREDUCATION.Keynote

talkattheInternationalHigherEducationCongress“NewTrendsandIssues”,Istanbul,Turkey,May27-29,2011.

Nowotny,H.,Scott,P.&Gibbons,M.,2001.Re-ThinkingScience:KnowledgeandthePublicinanAgeofUncertainty,London:PolityPresswithBlackwellPublishers.

Palmer,C.,1990.Hybrids’—acriticalforceintheapplicationofinformationtechnologyinthenineties.JournalofInformationTechnology,5,pp.232–235.

Palmer,C.L.,2006.Weakinformationworkand“doable”problemsininterdisciplinaryscience.InProceedingsoftheAmericanSocietyforInformationScienceandTechnology43.1.pp.1–16.

Pötsch,H.D.,2011.Volkswagen-DrivingForward.Riegler,A.,2005.Inclusiveworldviews:Interdisciplinaryresearchfromaradical

constructivistperspective.InD.Aerts,B.D’Hooghe,&N.Note,eds.Worldviews,scienceandus:Redemarcatingknowledgeanditssocialandethicalimplications.Singapore:WorldScientific.

Rümelin,S.&Butz,A.,2013.HowtoMakeLargeTouchScreensUsableWhileDriving.In

Proceedingsofthe5thInternationalConferenceonAutomotiveUserInterfacesandInteractiveVehicularApplications.AutomotiveUI’13.NewYork,NY,USA:ACM,pp.48–55.

Sayre,K.M.,1976.CyberneticsandthePhilosophyofMind,London:Routledge&KeganPaul.Singh,R.,Reed,P.M.&Keller,K.,2015.Many-objectiverobustdecisionmakingformanaging

anecosystemwithadeeplyuncertainthresholdresponse.EcologyandSociety,20(3).Smith,J.and&Jenks,C.,2006.QualitativeComplexity:Ecology,CognitiveProcessesandthe

Re-emergenceofStructuresinPost-HumanistSocialTheory,LondonandNewYork:Routledge.

Snow,C.P.,1959.TheTwoCultures,London:CambridgeUniversityPress.Sokal,A.&Bricmont,J.,1997.Intellectualimpostures:Postmodernphilosopher’sabuseof

science,London:ProfileBooks.Sørensen,C.G.etal.,2010.Conceptualmodelofafuturefarmmanagementinformation

system.ComputersandElectronicsinAgriculture,72(1),pp.37–47.Stevens,A.etal.,2002.Designguidelinesforsafetyofin-vehicleinformationsystems,ThompsonKlein,J.,1996.CrossingBoundaries:Knowledge,Disciplinarities,and

Interdisciplinarities,Charlottesville:UniversityofVirginiaPress.Tuana,N.,2015.Coupledethical-epistemicanalysisinteachingethics.Commun.ACM,

58(12),pp.27–29.Wallmyr,M.,2015.Understandingtheuserinself-managingsystems.Proceedingsofthe

2015EuropeanConferenceonSoftwareArchitectureWorkshops.Wheeler,J.A.,1990.Information,physics,quantum:Thesearchforlinks.InW.Zurek,ed.

Complexity,Entropy,andthePhysicsofInformation.RedwoodCity:Addison-Wesley.Wilson,E.O.,1998.Consilience:Theunityofknowledge.IssuesinScienceandTechnology,

15(1),p.90.Winner,H.,2013.ChallengesofAutomotiveSystemsEngineeringforIndustryandAcademia.

InM.Maurer&H.Winner,eds.AutomotiveSystemsEngineering.SpringerBerlinHeidelberg,pp.3–15.

Wolfram,S.,2002.ANewKindofScience,WolframMedia.Wördenweber,B.,Wallaschek,J.,Boyce,P.&Hoffman,D.D.,2007.AutomotiveLightingand

HumanVision,SpringerBerlinHeidelberg.Young,K.,2000.Whatmakestransdisciplinaritysucceedorfail?Secondreport.InS.MA&D.

J.Rapport,eds.Transdisciplinarity:recreatingintegratedknowledge.Oxford,UK:EOLSSPublishersLtd.

Younglove-Webb,J.etal.,1999.Thedynamicsofmultidisciplinaryresearchteamsinacademia.RevHigherEduc,22,pp.425–440.

Zenil,H.,2012.AComputableUniverse.UnderstandingComputation&ExploringNatureAsComputationH.Zenil,ed.,Singapore:WorldScientificPublishingCompany/ImperialCollegePress.

Zuse,K.,1970.Calculatingspace.Translationof“RechnenderRaum,”MITTechnicalTranslation.