In ‘Notes Toward a Social Epistemology of Transdisciplinarity’, Klein (1994) informs us that several theorists are credited with coining the term ‘transdisciplinary’ (e.g. Jean Piaget and Andre Lichnerowicz). However, Erich Jantsch (1972) is most widely associated with the idea. Klein points to increasing globalization of economic activities, information technologies and networks as being symptoms of Postmodernism. She indicates that transdisciplinary research requires the development of a common conceptual framework and a common vocabulary among contributors. However, she warns against the creation of self-imposed borders or the promotion of comprehensive worldviews which she states risk becoming monolithic projects or closed systems. There are obviously a plethora of approaches to research that claim to be across, beyond, and over disciplinary boundaries. Mansilla and Gardner (2003) have identified several challenges to interdisciplinary work. They point out that individual disciplines often adhere to contradictory standards of validation to those of interdisciplinary work that draws upon them. Their research indicates that in the case of new areas of study with no existing precedents that developing validation criteria is part of the investigation process itself. So we end up spending more time trying to justify what we do than actually doing it. Wendy Russell of the Department of Biological Sciences at the University of Wollongong states:

“Because Universities are structured around disciplines, the distribution of funds and resources, and the administration of both research and teaching tend to operate within a disciplinary framework. There are obvious disadvantages for transdisciplinary research. However, attempts to institutionalise transdisciplinarity may simply create new disciplines, without the flexibility which is arguably essential for transdisciplinary research, especially in being responsive to new problems. For transdisciplinarity to thrive within the disciplinary structure of the University, contingency must be made for it.”

Arias and Fischer (Arias and Fischer, 2000) state that when a domain reaches the point where the knowledge necessary for professional practice cannot be acquired in a decade, specialization will increase, teamwork becomes a necessity, and practitioners will make increasing use of distributed cognition. This proposes that human knowledge and cognition are not confined to the individual but are rather distributed by placing memories, facts, or knowledge in the environment (e.g., bound up in other people or embedded in media). Stephen Heppell (2006) discussed his vision of learning in the year 2016. He specifically points at education needing to be ‘project-based’ rather than ‘discipline-based’. Educators (like myself) need to address the following questions: What theories underpin this practice? What are the fundamental skills of a foundation course in art-design-technology? How do we teach students to develop a critical, technological awareness? What is an appropriate body of knowledge? Should we be giving the illusion that we can fit it into four years?

Globalization, use of information technologies and networks has led to increasing de-differentiation and hybridization. These tendencies are typical of the contemporary period. In this sense a hybrid, synthetic or pluralist approach is indicative of an expanded cultural field rather than an assault on disciplinary conventions. Basically, all bets are off. There is no teaching any more, only learning. I like your justification of the term “undisciplinary”. It suggests that the work done in this area can perform as a means of coordination and alignment across disciplines and as a means of translation between them. It can also act as a reflexive space in which to understand, critique and evolve the dominant discourses and nature of practice in it’s parent disciplines.