Inter-Disciplinary Communication Rigor1
International Institute of Informatics and Systemics (IIIS, www.iiis.org)
Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics(JSCI, http://www.iiisci.org/journal/sci/EditBoard.asp?var)(Initial Seed/Base Draft)

The purpose of this short article is to trigger an Inter-Disciplinary Dialogic on the Topic of“Inter-Disciplinary Communication Rigor” which may also be called “Inter-Disiplinary
Dialogic Rigor”.
The phrase “Inter-Disciplinary Dialogics” was inspired by Jeremy Horne’s informal
communication (as yet unpublished article), entiled “Unedited notes on interdisciplinary
communications – historical perspective, rigor and current situation,” In this short article,
Jeremy Horne made a very brief historical account of issues related to “Inter-disciplinary
communication”. In this context, he mentions “Aristotle’s Dialogic”. Here we are using the term
“dialogics” in its general meaning (increasing consensus via collective construction of ‘logos’),
which includes “Aristotle’s Dialogic”. In its general sense, Dialogic id the kind ofcommunication that is implemented via Dialogue. Interdisciplinary Communication, as a
dialogue, i.e. as a dialogical inter-disciplinary communication has been presented with moredetails in (Callaos & Horne, 2013)
Wilhelm von Humboldt (1836) was one of the precursors who perceived the necessity of interdisciplinary communication or, more precisely, inter-disciplinary dialogues. He affirmed:“With a clear and immediate sense of his immutable limitations, man is bound to regard
truth as something lying outside him: and one of the powerful means of approaching it,of measuring his distance from it, is social communication with others. All speaking,from the simplest kind onwards is an attachment of what is individually felt to thecommon nature of mankind.” (Humboldt, 1988 edn.: 57)
We might say, via analogical thinking. We might paraphrase Humblodt, suggesting thatdisciplines (or disciplinarians), with “a clear and immediate sense of [their] immutable
limitations” [they are] bound to regard truth as something lying outside [them]: and one of the1

We are using the word “Rigor” in the context of “Intellectual Rigor”: logical and/or methodological rigor,
i.e.subject and complying with logical and/or methodological rules, restrictions and standards.

powerful means of approaching it, of measuring his distance from it”, in inter-disciplinary
communication or dialogs.
Elsewhere, we examined the meaning and the importance of interdisciplinary communication.
(Callaos & Horne, 2013) (Callaos N., 2017) Here we will, very briefly, refer to what is, orshould be, rigorousness in the context of interdisciplinary communication. One frequently
reads, or hears, that interdisciplinary research, education, and/or communication is not rigorous.
This is far from the truth, if the communication is based on rigorous and criticalthinking, and especially if it is based on a previous intra-disciplinary peer review, or theinteraction of several works that have sustained such review, potentially in different disciplines.
We will show that, contrary to what some disciplinarians believe, a rigorous inter-disciplinary
communication could even be more rigorous than intra-disciplinary communication. This isespecially correct in situation C described below, which will be the means with which we will
start the project of interdisciplinary written communication conceived as a complement to theverbal inter-disciplinary communication that the International Institute of Informatics andSystemics (IIIS) has been implementing through its conferences during 23 years.
This is a very short article oriented to communicate the reasoning supporting what we justwrote in order to collect more information, knowledge and opinion (Episteme and Doxa) withregards to this issue. In order to provide a brief context for the following three listed situations,let us mention what highly referenced authors wrote with regards to “inter-disciplinary rigor”.
To the best of our knowledge, the most comprehensive book on Interdisciplinarity was
authored by Julie Thompson Klein (Interdisciplinarity: history, theory, and practice, 1990).
About the 40% of the book consists of her references. With regard to interdisciplinary rigor, shewrote:
Interdisciplinary work is often attacked for lacking rigor. However, rigor is notdiminished. Rather, it is shifted from disciplinary criteria to a new interdisciplinary
objective, to what (Singleton, 1983) call a core sense of “interdisciplinary rigor.” There
are no scholarly defined standards for judging interdisciplinary works but Stephen
Schneider’s three criteria for disciplinary excellence are quite appropriate. Excellence ofinterdisciplinary research can be measured in terms of (1) disciplinary clarity, (2) clarityof cross-disciplinary communications, and (3) the utilization and combination of existingknowledge from many fields to help solve a problem or to raise or advance knowledge
about a new issue (Schneider, 1977).
From a more general perspective, Jeremy Horne2, referring to an achievable rigor (not an ideal
one warranting the Truth), suggests “let's settle for what philosophers uphold as criteria forobjectivity – coherence, correspondence, and consensus. Scientists look to independent
discovery of the same phenomena.” The latter provides the standard of consensus in the2

In the informal and yet unpublished short article mentioned above, Jeremy Horne provides a very brief historicalaccount of “Inter-Disciplinary Communication” in order to identify what rigor is or should be, in the context of interdisciplinary communication. He provides analogies and metaphors to express why inter-disciplinary communication
is a necessary condition for achieving a real rigor.

experimental sciences. But more generally, are we talking here about John Locke’s Consensual
Truth, as C. West Churchman called it? (Churchman, 1971). If so, then let us add SingerChurchman’s Pragmatic Teleological Truth, which is based on means-end logic (nextparagraph). As long as we comply with further rational rules and restrictions, we will have ahigher level of rigor, by definition of intellectual rigor. Hence, if we add to experimental
methodological rules and to inductive logic restriction, the means-end logic, then we certainly
would be increasing the rigor level of our thinking and, hence, the rigor of our communication.
If, on the other hand, the initial artifact belongs in whole or in part, not to the experimental
sciences, but (say) to the formal sciences, then the standards of those disciplines (for example,
formal proof) will have to be considered instead of or in addition to experimental replication.]
Consequently, if we add the restriction of complying with Singer-Churchman’s pragmaticteleological truth (Churchman, 1971), i.e., the Means-End Logic (e.g., achieve a goal, objective,or purpose) to the disciplinary rigor, what we get is more, not less, intellectual rigor. This will
get clear in the below listed Situation C, of interdisciplinary situation, where after, and only after,
disciplinary rigor had been judged via disciplinary peer review, then, and only then, an additional
rigor (restriction, rule) is added. This additional restriction or rigor is to comply with the MeansEnd Logic or the Singer-Churchman’s Pragmatic-Teleological Truth of the Systems Approach(Churchman, 1971). This will have an additional review from researchers, scholars or
professionals from other disciplines.
It is our understanding that interdisciplinary communication is produced, in at least the following
situations:
A. Interdisciplinary research via multi- or cross-disciplinary teams, where multi-disciplinarity
is understood as informal juxtaposition of insights from two or more disciplines and crossdisciplinarity includes some level of knowledge integration among two or more disciplines. Thisrequires a minimum of common knowledge in order to communicate team. We would like tosuggest that multidisciplinary team are related via insights and opinions (Doxa) while crossdisciplinary teams are also related via knowledge (Episteme)
B. Transdisciplinary topics or conceptual structures.
C. Translating3 (partial or total re-writing) of peer reviewed intra-disciplinary research andcommunication with the objective of interdisciplinary communication.
A case combining modes A and C can occur when the underlying research is already effectively
interdisciplinary, but the exposition is placed entirely within a disciplinary framework. In
essence, it then involves reversing the process of placing it in a disciplinary context, while
preserving the results and insights that arose while doing so, while paying full and due attention
to the interaction with other fields that may have been neglected.

3

We are using the term “translation” in it general sense or meaning, which will be briefly described below, i.e. in its
meaning of translating between two Semiotic Systems, not necessarily between two natural languages which are a
special case of two semiotic systems. Meanwhile, let us understand the term as an expressive metaphor referring totranslation between two natural, or non-disciplinary, languages.

Situation A requires disciplinary rigor AND the rigor of strictly solving the problem for which
the team was formed. This problem may by be a technological, methodological or organizationalinnovation, a health issue, an effective medical diagnosis and remediation, a solution of a sociopolitical problem, etc. The best real-life test in meeting the additional rigor, beside the intradisciplinary rigor, is the solution of the problem which can be observed by any peer and evennon-peers. Consequently, effective multi- or cross-disciplinary teams are mor rigorous. The
rigorousness of their interdisciplinary communication can be observed, verified and validated
by peers and, eventually, by non-peers.
Situation B requires general disciplines as, for example, Cybernetics, System Approach,
Philosophy, Mathematics, Logic, Design, critical thinking, etc. and meta-disciplinary
approaches as, for example, meta-science, meta-engineering, meta-research, meta-design, metaeducation, meta-philosophy, meta-logic, meta-history, etc. Consequently, the intellectual rigor
in situation B is the rigor associated to the respective discipline or meta-discipline.
Situation C requires both the disciplinary rigor verified by known and much used peerreviewing processes AND another layer of rigorousness; which is to be restricted to what iscommon to different disciplines; which is, usually, an adequate use of the natural language andqualitative thinking. Both things do not lower the rigor, but increase it. Disciplinary rigor
should not be confused with disciplinary precision. Using natural language may lower the levelof disciplinary precision, but not be an excuse to lower the disciplinary rigor. The author of anarticle based on an intra-disciplinary communication should interpret and translate it into a
more common language, which might be less precise but not less rigorous. More precision may
include referring 1) to an article written for intra-disciplinary communication for those readers
who are interested in more precision and/or 2) to appendixes attached to the same article and/or
3) to footnotes. Frequently, to interpret and translate intra- to inter-disciplinary knowledge
requires comprehension, and not just understanding, of intra-disciplinary knowledge. Who isbetter than the intra-disciplinary article’s author to interpret and translate such a paper with theobjective of making it accessible to other disciplinarians? Notice, please, that this adds anotherlayer of rigorousness which is to be ALSO restricted to the means-end logic without violating
the respective disciplinary logic(s). This requires an additional mental effort and an additional
creativity potential. This brings to mind a Charles Mingus’ famous phrase “Making the simple
complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's
creativity.” Intra-disciplinary precision is frequently achieved with the cost of increasing
complexity in what is being described in an intra-disciplinary communication. This is, in our
opinion, a necessary condition for disciplinary scientific and technological advancement, but it
is not a sufficient condition for relating disciplines, i.e. for any kind of knowledge integration
required 1) for the partial integration needed for a specific real life problem solving or 2) for amore general integration required by the advancement of human beings as human beings.
To finish this very short article, let us use the words of Julie Thompson Klein (1990).
Referencing (Schneider, 1977), she affirms that “excellence is not to be measured in terms of
disciplinary originality but, instead three criteria [mentioned above] that acknowledge theimportance of disciplinary accuracy while allowing the creation of new meaning: disciplinary
clarity, the clarity of cross-disciplinary communications and the combination of the existingknowledge to help solve a problem or to raise or advance knowledge a new issue … Ultimately,then, the [inter-disiplinary communication] depend on the quality of both disciplinary andinterdisciplinary communication, on a fuller reciprocity of “text” and translator” (Thompson
Klein, 1990, p. 94). [Italics added]
In some cases, particularly in Situation B disciplines (to which we would add much ofComputer Science and some aspects of Data Science, there is the possibility of significant
knowledge that is inherently intradisciplinary, even if it has interdisciplinary ramifications. The
results of Goedel, Turing, and other impossibility theorems obviously don't solve problems--in
fact, they constrain the set of problems that can be problems that can be solved. And they arenecessarily posed and demonstrated within the discipline.
This is what we are trying to achieve by means of the above-mentioned situations, especially,
but not uniquely, situation C, with the purpose of working out the initial steps with which
we are planning to continue fostering interdisciplinary communication. For 23 years wehave been trying to foster this kind of communication via conferences in which we tried tointegrate traditional intra-disciplinary with inter-disciplinary presentations.4 The later have,mainly, been done via verbal communications at plenary and conversational sessions, as well
as via interdisciplinary workshops and participative panels, the first day of the conference. In
this new phase we are trying to foster written interdisciplinary communication.
Translation Between Two Different Semiotic Systems:
We frequently used, above, the word “translation”. We are providing, in this section, a very
short description of the specific meaning in which we are using this term. A more detailed
description would require a complete paper by its own, which is planned for the near future.
Disciplinary communication is based on what we might call Disciplinary Semiotic Systems
with their own Syntactics, Semantics, and Pragmatics. Probably, a good example is one of the
aspects of Semiotic Translation in Mathematics Education. Presmeg et. al. (Semiotics inMathematics Education, 2016), for example, affirms that one of these dimensions “is therelationship among sign systems (e.g., natural language, diagrams, pictorial and alphanumericsystems) and the translation between sign systems in mathematics thinking and learning.”(Presmeg, Radford, Roth, & Kadunz, 2016, p. 26) [Italics and emphasis added]. The otherdimensions of Mathematics Education apply as well, but for the sake of simplicity and thebrevity required in this article, let us just mention this dimension as an example of “translation”
between semiotic systems, which is the sense in which we used the word above. This example
in mathematics applies to any discipline or disciplinary research to be delivered, orally or via
written material, for inter-disciplinary communication with a multi-disciplinary audience orreaderships.
In the context of the mentioned dimension of Semiotics of Mathematics Education, any
communication of a disciplinary research oriented to a multi-disciplinary audience is an
educational process, where academics and researchers from one discipline are teaching
4

More details regarding this issue has been posted at (Integrating Different Conceptions of the Notion ofConference, 2015).

academics/researcher/professionals in other disciplines. Academics from a discipline areinforming academics from others, as Robert Hammond would say, (Experts Informing Experts,2017), and often themselves learning through the effort of making the translation.
Consequently, inter-disciplinary communication processes, in face-to-face or virtual groups, arenecessarily collaborative educational processes; which, in turn, are among the main means ofmeta-education, i.e., education in real educational processes where education is not reduced to
one of its means, as it is the case, for example, of instruction.5 An adequate educationnecessarily requires an effective translation between disciplinary and natural language semiotic
systems, at the three semiotic levels: the syntactic, the semantic and the pragmatic levels.
Likewise, in the translation required for inter-disciplinary Communication. Consequently,
effective educators in Higher Education should be well trained to make the additional
intellectual effort required to translate between disciplinary and inter-disciplinary semiotic
systems.
This semiotic translation requires an additional act of creativity, which adds to the originality
required by disciplinary research. Originality requires creativity, but creativity does notnecessarily require originality. Reverse Engineering is one of the many examples of ahigh degree of creativity with no originality because it does not originate new products.
Interpretations of scientific experiments require creativity but not necessarily originality, unlessthey end up in a new experiment that leads to new knowledge. Translation between semiotic
systems necessarily requires understanding in a Semiotic System A, in order to make theintellectual interpretation required for a semiotic construction in the semiotic system B. Bothinterpretation and construction are creative acts. Consequently, an author whose disciplinary
article has already been peer reviewed in the respective discipline requires an additional
creative act to translate it for inter-disciplinary communication. This means that this article isboth: 1) more rigorous, because of what we explained above and 2) more creative when it
is delivered for inter-disciplinary communication.
More rarely, the translation and the creativity may occur in the other direction. It may be usefulor interesting to translate and generalize results of an article in one discipline or even from aninterdisciplinary project using a general discipline (Situation B) into the idiom of that generaldiscipline. For example, social science research may use graph theory to model relationships, so
in a sense already be interdisciplinary, and observed properties of those models might generalize
to interesting (and rigorous) mathematical results.
Consequently, why this kind of articles should not be appreciated in the promotional academic
systems? Why is it that “Interdisciplinary work is often attacked for lacking rigor” as Julie
Thompson Klein (1990) affirms? Does not this unjustified academic belief increase theprobability of intra-disciplinary inbreeding and other forms of academic incest? Isn’t that worse
than the called academic incest when a student takes his/her undergraduate degree, Master and
PhD at the same university? Isn’t that worse that the called academic incest when a PhD
holder teaches in the same university or department in which he/she earned his/her PhD? This
topic requires another article oriented to desirable and, even, necessary (in some situations) of5

A detailed differentiation between Higher Education and Higher Instruction has been posted at (Callaos N. , Higher
Education or Higher instruction?, 2015)

cybernetic relationships between disciplinary and inter-disciplinary6 Some of thesecybernetic loops are co-regulative (via negative feedback or feed-forward) and co-amplificatory
and, hence, synergistic loops (via positive feedback).

References
Callaos, N. (2017). Analogical Thinking, Inter-disciplinary Communication, and Case Studies. International
Institute of Informatics and Systemics, Orlando.
Callaos, N., & Callaos, B. (2015). Integrating Different Conceptions of the Notion of Conference. Orlando:
Intenational Institute of Informatics and Systemics.
Callaos, N., & Horne, J. (2013). Interdisciplinary Communication. (N. Callaos, Ed.) Journal of Systemics,
Cybernetics, and Informatics, 11 (9 ), 23-31.
Churchman, C. W. (1971). The Design of Enquiring Systems: Basic Concepts of Systems and Organization. New
York: Basic Books, Inc. Pub.
Hammond, R. (2017). Experts Informing Experts. (N. Callaos, Ed.) Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics andInformatics, 15 (5), 31-35.
Humboldt, Wilhelm von, 1836. On Language. The Diversity of Human Language-Structure and its Influence on themental Development of mankind. (tr.) P. Heath. Cambridge: Cambridge University press. (1988 edn.)
Presmeg, N., Radford, L., Roth, W.-M., & Kadunz, G. (2016). Semiotics in Mathematics Education (1st ed.).
Springer (ICME-13 Topical Surveys).

6

A related work is in progress. An unfinished and unedited article with regards to intra-disciplinary incest and thecybernetics loops that would avoid it can be solicited to the first author of this article.