Abstract
Background: Interdisciplinarity is a common feature of many research institutions, especially so-called institutes for advanced study. The epistemological reasons for combining insights from various bodies of knowledge differ considerably from situation to situation and depend largely on the purpose of the specific project.
Objectives: The article reflects on the experience of disciplinary collaboration at the Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study (STIAS). Because STIAS supports research in all scientific disciplines, it offers an interesting case study of how the collaboration among natural, life and social sciences unfolded over a period of 25 years.
Method: Being primarily an account of institutional history, the article uses methods of historical research, namely the investigation of historical documents related to the establishment of STIAS; the description of the goals, structure and research approach of the Institute; the analysis of research projects and of exit reports of research fellows at the Institute; and the critical assessment of the kind of disciplinary collaboration that emerged. The conclusion enumerates the ethical values underpinning this kind of research.
Results: The approach of STIAS to cater for all disciplines resulted in a distinctive form of ‘spontaneous’ trandisciplinarity which is eminently suitable for innovative and ground-breaking research, and which is grounded in a specific set of ethical values.
Conclusion: This kind of transdisciplinarity will become more important due to the growing complexity of the challenges facing science and society, requiring the contribution of a wide spectrum of disciplines and perspectives.
Contribution: The introduction of a novel and productive form of transdisciplinarity.
Keywords: transdisciplinarity; interdisciplinarity; multidisciplinarity; institutes for advanced study; innovative research; public benefit contribution of science; spontaneous transdisciplinarity.
Introduction
This article offers a brief institutional history of how a distinctive kind of interdisciplinarity evolved at the Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study (STIAS).1 The first part describes the original goals of the Institute, the social context, the external factors which shaped its organisation and processes, and how an enabling environment was created to ensure the maximum freedom for Fellows, the unrestricted cross-pollination of disciplines, and the generous sharing of ideas and results. The second part provides examples of how Fellows experienced this non-directive approach and how it influenced their own disciplinary research and interdisciplinary development. The third section outlines the contours of the kind of interdisciplinarity which evolved at the Institute. While not suitable for all forms of disciplinary collaboration, it has specific advantages in situations where all disciplines are included. The concluding part focuses on the ethical dimensions of ‘spontaneous’ transdisciplinarity and their implications for scholarship.
Research methods and design
Formative influences
Scientific collaboration and the promotion of interdisciplinary research are prominent features of many institutes for advanced study (Padberg 2020:130).2 In a certain sense, this is a natural outcome when leading scholars from different fields work together for a period of time in the same institution. At Zentrum für Interdisziplinäre Forschung (ZiF) – the Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Bielefeld – it is the main focus, while at others the level and scope of collaboration may differ considerably. This diversity can be the result of internal as well as external factors.
In the case of STIAS (founded in 2000), three formative influences played an important role: The transformation of the system of Higher Education in South Africa at that time, the spectrum of disciplines accommodated by STIAS, and the structural and organisational features of the Institute.
Firstly, the transformation of Higher Education. The transition to an inclusive democracy in South Africa during the 1990s affected all walks of life and practically every public and private institution. The field of Higher Education was one of the areas where a fundamental transformation and restructuring was undertaken (Badat 2010; Mouton 2003; Reddy 2004). Among many other statutory requirements, universities and other higher education institutions were required to re-register each of their academic offerings in order to have their qualifications validated by the newly established South African Qualifications Authority.
What could have been an onerous and purely bureaucratic process was used by Stellenbosch University (SU) to critically examine the contents of each and every academic course and to ask why a specific degree or qualification was composed the way it was. This exercise across 11 faculties yielded valuable insights not only for the future strategic planning of the institution, but also resulted in a deeper understanding of the process of knowledge production. It furthermore provided a clearer picture of the state of the university at that stage, both with regard to what was lacking and to the potential for improvement. Two aspects stood out: Firstly, the considerable amount of overlap in the teaching and research between courses, departments and faculties and secondly, the unused opportunities for rationalisation and cooperation. These findings were, of course, neither new nor unique. The traditional development of academe along different disciplinary trajectories and the resulting fragmentation of knowledge – reinforced by a physical infrastructure which separates disciplines in different buildings, leading to disjointed scientific discourses – are characteristic of most institutions of higher learning. For STIAS, it provided the opportunity to structure the interaction between disciplines in a more productive way.
Secondly, the formative influence was the critical matter of how wide or narrow the disciplinary spectrum should be at STIAS.3 The original Institute for Advanced Study (IAS) at Princeton had as its initial focus the natural sciences and mathematics in particular. The School of Mathematics included physicists as well as mathematicians. Later, a School of Humanistic Studies and a School of Economics and Politics were added. The latter two eventually merged to become the School of Historic Studies.
The IAS was therefore a pioneer not only in being the first institute of this kind but also in prioritising mathematics and the natural sciences. Preceding the establishment of STIAS, the emphasis of most of the other members of the leading group of institutes of advanced study4 was in the humanities. Stanford (behavioural sciences), North Carolina (humanities), Uppsala (social sciences) and the Netherlands (humanities) are prominent examples in this regard. Although many of these institutes did include projects in the natural and biological sciences, these were later developments. There are good reasons for this apparent imbalance. These institutes normally do not have the infrastructure, like laboratories and related facilities, necessary for high-level research in the natural sciences – a prerequisite which is not a requirement to the same extent for projects in the humanities. But what such an institute can offer – and which is especially important for researchers in the natural and life sciences – is the opportunity for theoretical reflection on the results of empirical data and experimental work conducted elsewhere.
At STIAS, a fundamental decision was taken right at the beginning to include all disciplines and research cultures and to support innovative research on an equal basis, regardless of the specific field.
Several considerations led to this decision. The first was a growing awareness of the interconnectedness of science. Söderbergh Widding (Chair of Board of the Nobel Foundation) refers in this regard to science as ‘as a lingua franca of humankind in exploring and expanding the frontiers of human knowledge’ (Söderbergh Widding 2025:3).
We simply did not have the resources to support more than one institute. What initially looked like a drawback turned out to be a blessing in disguise. We were forced to create something new – an environment where all disciplines enter into conversation with one another on an equal footing. Sceptics doubted whether this would be possible. We therefore had to find innovative ways to cater for the specific circumstances and needs of scholars coming from different disciplines and schooled in different research traditions.
Thirdly, the contextual nature of knowledge production implied respect for the diversity of perspectives. Although the search for new insights is a universal quest, the actual breakthroughs take place in a specific place and at a certain time. The location of STIAS, being outside the mainstream of the dominant research conglomerates had besides certain drawbacks also distinct advantages. Observing from the fringes and drawing from alternative experiences opened new possibilities for fresh perspectives and demonstrated the value of contributions from diverse social locations (see Lategan & Kirumira 2025:58–60).
For interdisciplinary research, the implication was a new appreciation for what each discipline and even the most arcane specialisation could potentially contribute to the advancement of science as a whole. In fact, the increasing complexity of science demand the input from diverse disciplines.5
In order to realise these ambitious goals, it became imperative to create a balanced and inclusive environment for all disciplines and to entice laboratory-based and experimental-schooled scientists to come to the Institute.
The first step was to stress the ‘competitive advantage’ STIAS is able to offer: A (temporary) escape from the daily grind of academe, relief from the burden of teaching and administrative duties, the luxury of concentrated, uninterrupted work, the time to reflect and theorise, and the opportunity to write up results or plan the next project. These are, of course, privileges which apply to researchers from all disciplines, but colleagues from the ‘sciences’ had to be convinced that such a ‘retreat’ is not a distraction but could actually enhance the quality of their work.
The second step was to ensure a substantial presence of natural science activity at STIAS, as well as an environment which these colleagues will experience as welcoming and supportive. This was done by forging links with similar institutions and even by inviting some of them to set up shop at Mostertsdrift, the historic farm where STIAS was located.
The first of these additions was the African Institute for Mathematical Sciences (AIMS) in Muizenberg, founded in 2003 by Neil Turok, chair of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge University at the time. The vision of Turok – a South African by birth and renowned physicist – was to enhance the teaching and application of mathematical sciences across Africa.
The African Institute for Mathematical Sciences was developed as a partnership between the Universities of Stellenbosch, Cambridge, Cape Town, Oxford, Paris-Sud and the Western Cape. Its flagship programme is a 10-month structured master’s course in Mathematical Sciences taught by visiting faculty, which includes some of the world’s leading experts in the field. The focus is on both basic and a wider range of applied mathematics. It also has sister institutes in Ghana, Cameroon and Rwanda.
African Institute for Mathematical Sciences became a natural conduit for aspiring STIAS Fellows, especially for the Iso Lomso programme for mid-career scientists. The ties between the two institutions grew even closer when Fritz Hahne, after his stint at STIAS, became the first Director of AIMS.
The second was the South African Centre for Epidemiological Modelling and Analysis. This is one of the national centres of excellence funded by the Department of Science and Innovation and hosted by SU. Founded in 2006, the Centre was looking for a suitable location in Stellenbosch. We offered them the wine cellar at Mostertsdrift, which was renovated and turned into offices and workstations for researchers. From the perspective of STIAS, this move had two advantages: the rent for the wine cellar provided a modest income (we made sure that the rental agreement with the University allowed STIAS to sublet space which we did not use ourselves) but − more importantly – it constituted another building block in our plan to surround STIAS with other high level research institutions and to transform Mostertsdrift into a research ‘mini-campus’.
The South African Centre for Epidemiological Modelling and Analysis presence added a further dimension to the emphasis on the natural sciences. Its mission is to improve health in Africa – and in particular South Africa – through epidemiological modelling and analysis. Trained in mathematics, biology, physics, statistics and epidemiology, its researchers bridge various disciplines to understand disease dynamics in order to achieve real-world outcomes. This involves tackling complex health scenarios and developing tools to assist decision makers in the health sector. Although these skills can be applied to any large dataset, the Institute concentrates on health issues, including human immunodeficiency virus, tuberculosis, vaccine-preventable diseases, emerging infections, cancer and diabetes.
The third member of the ‘cluster’ was the Centre for Complex Systems in Transition (CST), housed in the renovated Old Stables at Mostertsdrift. This is a flagship initiative of SU, which was established in 2015 and funded by both Stellenbosch University and the National Research Foundation. One of its pioneers was the late Paul Cilliers, Professor in Philosophy and internationally renowned expert in complexity theory. Paul, together with Jannie Hofmeyr (Professor in Microbiology), foresaw the growing importance of complexity studies, and they became early advocates for the establishment of such a centre. Both Cilliers and Hofmeyr were also early members of the STIAS Programme and Research Committee, facilitating the synergy which was to follow between the different members of the Mostertsdrift cluster.
The Centre for Complex Systems in Transition brings together complexity theory, sustainability science, and transdisciplinary research methodology. It has become a leading exponent of cross-cutting applied research in the field of food, water, energy and urban systems.
For STIAS, the importance of CST is that it broadened the scope of scientific research by exploring the biological and environmental facets of science while at the same time providing a theoretical framework to deal with the complex nature of the interrelations between these fields.
The fourth member of the cluster − and perhaps the most influential as far as STIAS’s own research programme is concerned − was the National Institute for Theoretical Physics (NITheP). Hendrik Geyer (the second Director of STIAS) was the driving force behind the establishment of the NITheP in 2006. He served as Interim Director of NITheP, which for the first years of its operation was housed in the south wing of the Wallenberg Research Centre at Mostertsdrift. The official opening of its new quarters in May 2008 was attended by the world-renowned physicist Stephen Hawking, Nobel Laureate David Gross and South Africa’s Minister of Science and Technology Mosibudi Mangena, himself a trained applied mathematician. Mangena later became a member of the Board of Directors of STIAS.
In 2017, NITheP was restructured as the National Institute for Theoretical and Computational Sciences to serve a broader spectrum of research fields.
The presence of these four research institutions in proximity to STIAS, and the resulting synergy between them, provided a solid support base for the Institute’s intentions to ensure equal opportunities for research in both ‘cultures’. Because of the diversity of their focus areas, they facilitated access to a wider spectrum within the broad area of ‘science’, like health, biology, environment and sustainability.
The first research projects of STIAS set the tone for this inclusive approach: String theory and quantum physics (natural science), merging the layers of life (biology) and historical memory in Africa (history). More than 800 projects completed during the first 25 years of STIAS continue this diversity from the physical, biological and human sciences.
Care was taken to maintain a healthy balance of disciplines on all levels of the Institute’s operations, including the advisory and programme committees, the successive directors, as well as the composition of the Board of Directors.
The third factor which shaped the kind of interdisciplinarity which developed at STIAS was a policy of minimal interference and maximum facilitation, which involved both structural and organisational aspects.
The Institute learned from an early stage to refrain from directing or trying to manage the research process. Not only did the management lack the high level of expertise which the research Fellows – each a leader in their specific field – have already attained, but interference from the outside was more likely to disrupt than help the process of discovery. We had to learn that our task was to facilitate, to stay in the background and to create the environment in which freedom of thought and creative ideas can thrive. Hence, the motto of STIAS: A creative space for the mind.
Once this basic conviction took root, all the elements of the environment (physical and intellectual) were harnessed to enhance the free flow of ideas and the optimal interaction between Fellows. One example is how the Wallenberg Research Centre was designed with this goal in mind. The building has a ‘public’ and ‘private’ section. In the latter, Fellows are shielded from the bustle of daily life.6 There is only one entrance and no back door, forcing all researchers ‘to cross the floor’ to reach their offices. A closed door signifies privacy, an open one the willingness to engage. There is only one coffee machine in the Fellows’ section – leading to unplanned and informal discussions which often spark off a new train of thought. Fellows lose all titles or indicators or rank during their stay in order to level the playing field and to encourage the free flow of viewpoints in this mini ‘republic of ideas’. Even the garden was revived to provide an atmosphere of tranquillity conducive to deep reflection. The Research Centre is open 24/7 to provide for the individual preferences and work rhythms of Fellows. Their only obligations are to be at lunch every day (more opportunity for discussion) and to present a seminar on their work in non-technical language (optimising cross-pollination). In this way, STIAS became increasingly interested in the creative process itself (not only of knowledge, but of regeneration in general) and artists-in-residence are invited to share their experiences in this regard.
So far, the efforts from the organisational side. But how did the Fellows themselves respond to this ‘minimalistic’ approach? Did it have any real impact on their work? In this regard, the exit reports of Fellows provide valuable information.
Ethical considerations
This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.
Results
Responses from the exit reports of Fellows
Fellows are requested to write a so-called ‘exit report’ at the end of their stay at the STIAS. Besides formal issues like support services, accommodation and the like, Fellows are also invited to reflect on their research experience and specifically how the environment helped or hindered their work. Excerpts from these reports, which refer specifically to the interaction between disciplines, are informative and provide glimpses of how a specific form of transdisciplinarity7 began to evolve at the Institute.
Initially, there was a fair amount of scepticism whether such a wide spectrum of disciplines could be a conducive environment for individual projects. ‘Initially, I was dubious about the intellectual value of discussing research with colleagues from such different and, in many cases, distant disciplines’ (J. Fisher [STIAS exit report] pers. comm., 10 December 2019). ‘I was a bit hesitant to the wideness of the research fields of the STIAS fellows before I arrived at Stellenbosch’ (P.O. Holtz [STIAS exit report] pers. comm., 05 June 2020). In the course of the fellowship, these reservations changed:
I could not have been more wrong. Conversations on numerous occasions made me think about my work from a completely different dimension – something which is perhaps only really possible when engaging with people outside one’s own circular discipline. (J. Fisher [STIAS exit report] pers. comm., 10 December 2019)
‘… The cross-fertilisation of thoughts and ideas in a broad research realm was justified … this environment was indeed ex for creative and innovative thinking’ (P.O. Holtz [STIAS exit report] pers. comm., 05 June 2020).
The wide variety of topics and disciplines led to unexpected convergences:
I have had the privilege of being in the same cohort of Fellows with scholars from as ‘distant’ disciplines as molecular biology and astrophysics to ‘closer’ disciplines like history and anthropology and could see, all through, that, indeed, disciplines are more cross-cutting and complementary than we have commonly assumed them to be. (E.E. Osaghae [STIAS exit report] pers. comm., 22 June 2020)
Attitudes changed from giving to receiving:
The biologists, historians, medical scholars and others have made it possible to learn rather than teach, listen instead of speaking, and at times, I have felt almost like a desiccated plant just after the onset of the long-awaited rains. (K. Knuth [STIAS exit report] pers. comm., 20 June 2022)
Through ‘the wide variety of work done here … we were often able to plot and unexpected convergences or overlaps between our different work projects’ (W. Mbao [STIAS exit report] pers. comm., 17 June 2021). Insights from an unrelated field led to breakthroughs in other areas:
Marlize Lombard showed MRI imaging could detect cortical activity where archers imagined drawing their bow and releasing an arrow … this led to the idea of using NIRS to detect neuroexingation of the initiation of voiding in the anterior cortex. This hypothesis proved correct and we now have a functional NIRS method to study the cortex of the brain. (A. Macnab [STIAS exit report] pers. comm., 23 November 2018)
Enrichment of individual projects came from different sources. The inclusion of renowned authors, visual artists and musicians as ‘artists-in-residence’ proved to be especially valuable as it directed attention to the creative process itself.
Scientific research is enriched through contact with authors and artists, with literature and other art forms. For this reason, STIAS’s policy of appointing writers and artists-in-residence is of crucial importance. (Y. T’Sjoen [STIAS exit report] pers. comm., 13 June 2024)
The transgenerational composition of cohorts allowed not only for informal forms of mentoring across disciplines but also provided the opportunity for a new generation of scholars to challenge existing conclusions and paradigms:
The research fellowships … not only provide an opportunity to meet junior and senior colleagues from diverse disciplines and continents, they also facilitate conversation and allow for pioneering research to be shared across scientific paradigms and discourses. It is a place that stimulates innovative thought – bearing in mind the adage that within those failures characteristic of research lies the seeds of new discoveries. (Y. T’Sjoen [STIAS exit report] pers. comm., 13 June 2024)
The international spread of Fellows and the constant presence of alternative voices and perspectives, especially from the South and from Africa in particular, also had a marked effect on the kind of interdisciplinary work and scholarly cooperation:
I greatly appreciated the multi-disciplinary and international composition of the group of fellows, especially from the African continent. It seems to me that the mixture of junior and senior fellows, and fellows from Africa and other parts of the world provides a unique opportunity to learn and to establish scholarly networks between African academia and the rest of the world. (J. Savelsberg [STIAS exit report] pers. comm., 10 December 2018)
The value of informal, unstructured discussions – especially around the coffee machine and at lunch time8 – is constantly highlighted (J. Bengtsson [STIAS exit report] pers. comm., 13 June 2014; M. Berggren [STIAS exit report] pers. comm., 17 February 2017; N. Kabira [STIAS exit report] pers. comm., 20 June 2020; K. Knuth [STIAS exit report] pers. comm., 20 June 2022). Inevitably, the epistemological assumptions and methodological frameworks with which Fellows arrived were challenged in the process:
My perspective on other disciplines was expanded, allowing me [and sometimes forcing me] to rethink the foundations of my own scientific assumptions. … And the challenges I saw other scientists facing as they conduct their research helped me to think about the way I approach my own methodological challenges. (J. Noyes [STIAS exit report] pers. comm., 13 April 2017)
Interesting enough, the strong emphasis on crossing disciplinary boundaries did not weaken, but rather strengthened the disciplinary identity of individual scholars: ‘One of the surprising consequences of my immersion in the disciplinary maelstrom of the Institute was that it made me feel better as an economist’ (D. Shepherd [STIAS exit report] pers. comm., 02 November 2018).
What also became gradually clear was that a certain attitude is needed to optimise the potential for cross-disciplinary pollination – a willingness to share in the spirit of conviviality – in contrast to the usual competitive atmosphere of academe:
There is something very freeing about being in a cohort of people at the top of their game, mature and seasoned scholars from different disciplines. It was a huge relief not to experience the competitiveness that usually comes with gatherings of this sort. Instead it felt unfailingly supportive. (C. Loveday [STIAS exit report] pers. comm., 02 December 2024)
At stake was not merely the exchange of information and insights among disciplines, but something more encompassing and substantial – ‘where “looking over the fence” of one’s own discipline has become a scientific lifestyle’ (M. Horzinek [STIAS exit report] pers. comm., 13 June 2014). This lifestyle requires maturity (C. Loveday [STIAS exit report] pers. comm., 02 December 2024) and the ability to deal with complexity – an approach to scholarship which is more suitable for dealing with complex multi-dimensional issues. ‘I have found and energy and edginess here that promotes both good thinking leading to gritty, nuanced solutions’ (J. Boulton [STIAS exit report] pers. comm., 01 June 2019). Interdisciplinarity has ethical implications, as will be discussed below.
The majority of exit reports were positive about their experience of the interaction between disciplines. At the same time, some Fellows were critical of how transdisciplinarity was developing, pointing out that opportunities are being missed:
I thought that transdisciplinarity and the dialogue between the disciplinarians and the transdisciplinarians may be more developed. … Thus, one idea might be that a group of transdisciplinarian seniors [e.g. Basarab Nicolescu, Frank Kessel, Dan Stokols, Egon Becker, Thomas Jahn and Roland Scholz] could meet with the group of first-class disciplinarians in order to produce a kind of ‘New Manifesto for Transdisciplinarity’. Of course the dialogue with first-class disciplinarians would be a topping of this venture. (R. Scholz [STIAS exit report] pers. comm., 15 June 2012)
Discussion
The emergence of spontaneous transdisciplinarity
These excerpts from the exit reports of Fellows give an indication of the kind of interdisciplinarity which was taking root at STIAS – a form which can best be described as ‘spontaneous transdisciplinarity’. ‘Spontaneous’ in the sense that it emerged with a minimal amount of external direction. ‘Transdisciplinary’ in the sense of going further or ‘beyond’ in terms of Nicolescu’s well-known distinction between multi-, inter- and transdisciplinarity.9 Each of these concepts needs further explanation.
‘Spontaneous’
As we have already seen, a common feature of all institutes for advanced study – regardless of how they may differ in other respects – is the inclusion of different academic disciplines (Padberg 2014:96–97, 2020:130). The spread of disciplines may be wider or narrower, but all inevitably lead to some form of collaboration between the disciplines they include.
Based primarily on experience at the Centre for Interdisciplinary Research at Bielefeld, Padberg (2014:102–106) offers a valuable typology of the various forms of interdisciplinarity at these institutes. She distinguishes between:
- Egalitarian collaboration (which Padberg values as the ideal form of successful interdisciplinarity). It ‘realises an interactive collaboration between the involved disciplines, in which material and formal object match’ with equal benefits for the involved partners.
- Subordinate interdisciplinarity, where one discipline is used in the framework of another. The collaboration does not take place on an equal level, but both sides can still benefit, and it can even lead to permanent collaboration.
- Interdisciplinary metadiscourse, which often occurs between the sciences and the humanities in an ‘exchange about paradigmatic developments within and between the disciplines’, which brings together natural and social sciences and the humanities without expecting consensual results.10
- Complementary interdisciplinarity where the collaboration between different disciplines adds or completes the focus on a common field of research, ‘even though there is no unity with regard to object and method’.
- Aggregative interdisciplinarity refers to ‘a very wide-spread type of interdisciplinarity’ which brings different disciplines and research traditions to focus on a common material object. ‘They form an aggregate without any connection, are observed alternatively and do not merge’.
- Forced collaboration happens in situations where there are strong incentives for applying for substantial funding. It is in reality a collaboration of different interests, and these temporary communities ‘scatter into their respective disciplines soon after the collaboration’.
For our discussion, an important issue is who initiates and directs interdisciplinarity in each specific case. Is it ‘top-down’ in the sense that an ‘external’ body predetermines the need for and consequently institutionalise interdisciplinary research? So-called ‘university-based’ institutes for advanced study often have to contend with this situation where institutional interests and the research programme of the specific university have a decisive influence. Another example is where national or independent research foundations set the agenda or determine the research priorities of projects which they support.
In the case of ZiF, the Centre has made interdisciplinary research its explicit focus. Through extensive use of organised group projects, it has achieved remarkable success (Padberg 2020:127–128). However, finding sufficient overlap with regard to the object and method(s) of research (the so-called epistemic interfaces) remains a challenge when projects are designed top-down, raising the question whether ‘every form of interdisciplinarity should be institutionalised’ (Padberg 2014:103).
In contrast, STIAS follows a ‘bottom-up’ approach. Facilitating interdisciplinary research remains an important goal, but is mostly self-initiated. The Institute does support group projects,11 but the large majority takes the form of individual projects. A critical selection criterion is whether the proposed research is interdisciplinary in nature or has the potential for interdisciplinary enrichment. The Institute does not support single-discipline proposals, which can best be done in existing university departments. In this way, the interdisciplinary Gestaltung of a project is not prescribed but remains in the hands of the individual researcher, setting the scene for the development of ‘spontaneous’ interdisciplinarity.
This approach provides an important basis for alternative voices to be heard and new perspectives to be introduced – especially in situations of unequal power relations and where dominant epistemic paradigms and research traditions tend to predetermine the framework and the kind of interdisciplinary interaction that is expected.
The Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study therefore prefers not to institutionalise interdisciplinarity ‘top-down’. As far as the dynamic within a specific cohort is concerned, it is closer to the approach of the Princeton IAS, where ‘interdisciplinary collaboration is mainly left to occur by chance’ (Padberg 2020:123).
Transdisciplinarity
Underpinning the freedom to cross disciplinary boundaries is a more ambitious epistemic goal, namely to reach beyond the limits of a single discipline or existing body of knowledge. This remains the primary driver of all innovative research. The current Director of STIAS, Edward Kirumira, likes to challenge Fellows and staff to strive towards an ‘imaginative expression of a creative space for the mind beyond self’ (Lategan & Kirumira 2025:170). This intention resonates well with Nicolescu’s (2005) preference for the concept ‘transdisiplinarity’:
Transdisciplinarity concerns that which is at once between the disciplines, across the different disciplines, and beyond all discipline. Its goal is the understanding of the present world, of which one of the imperatives is the unity of knowledge … there is no opposition between disciplinarity (including multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity) and transdisciplinarity, but a fertile complementarity. (p. 4)
Transdisciplinarity presupposes what multi- and interdisciplinarity contribute to the advancement of knowledge, but reaches further. It accepts the temporality of existing disciplines – realising that the history of each is in fact a record of its own evolution and that each is facing the possibility of ‘creative destruction’ as the frontiers of science irrepressibly move on. Accepting the incompleteness of scientific knowledge and of the scholarly endeavour itself is not an admission of weakness, but a powerful motivation to continue to cross borders and to confront the unknown.
In the course of the development of this kind of collaboration across disciplines, STIAS learned many lessons. One is – ironically enough – not to pursue transdisciplinarity as an end in itself or to value it as a superior form of research. Although it has many advantages and has proved to be especially suitable for the work done at STIAS, it is only one counterpoint in the ongoing process of knowledge generation. Our experience has also reinforced the conviction that there is no contradiction between the deepest form of specialisation and the widest sharing of insights across disciplines. This is in fact a creative tension. Transdisciplinary research, therefore, does not discourage deep specialisation but encourages it.12 It is advances in specific fields and the often minute discoveries in specialised areas at the very edge of existing knowledge which provide the impetus and building blocks for larger tectonic shifts in the progress of science. It is a two-way process – relating partial insights to the full spectrum of existing knowledge while at the same time exposing the latter to specialised findings from even the remotest fields.
The report of Hans Westerhoff of the 2024 cohort describes their experience at STIAS as ‘beyond science as usual’ and provides a succinct summary of how a transdisciplinary experience evolved in their case:
Gradually relinquishing our individualistic, highly specialised and sometimes excessively competitive attitudes common in modern academia, we did our utmost to understand the profound presentations by our fellow Fellows from remote disciplines. We engaged in intensive scientific discussions, which almost always also drifted towards various issues confronting humanity. We ultimately found ourselves examining collectively ways to address and perhaps to resolve apparently unresolvable issues, both scientific and societal, and this by benefitting from all disciplines rather than just our own. (H. Westerhoff [Exit report] pers. comm., 11 June 2024)
This paved the way for a deeper appreciation of this approach to science:
In view of the breadth of most – if not all – scientific or societal challenges and topics, one should begin any scientific analysis by asking which disciplines could and should contribute, rather than just remain in the comfort zone of one’s single discipline or follow a research funder’s perspective. Moreover, a consensus developed among us that scientific activity needs to aim at improving or at least not worsening the human condition. (H. Westerhoff [Exit report] pers. comm., 11 June 2024)13
Because of the complexity and intractable nature of the challenges facing the world today, we need both the deepest forms of investigation and the ability to share and apply these findings across traditional boundaries. Only then can the ‘transformative powers of science’ and their benefits for humankind (Söderbergh Widding 2025:3) become visible.
Ethical implications
As transdisciplinarity evolved over 25 years at STIAS, it became increasingly clear that this process is accompanied and supported by some specific ethical notions. For this kind of inclusive research to succeed, certain principles, attitudes and values are of fundamental importance. Collectively, these form the basis of what has become known as the ‘STIAS ethos’ (Lategan & Kirumira 2025:61–62). This evolving ethos comprises several mutually supportive elements.
The first is generosity and a culture of sharing. The Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study as an institution does not ‘claim’ any terrain or field of expertise as its specific or exclusive domain. It does not own the results of research conducted at the Institute but shares these freely with the research community and the public at large. It believes that the more ideas are exchanged without constraints and conditions, the greater benefit will eventually accrue to science and to society. This approach was an important reason for the Institute’s formal registration as a Public Benefit Organisation.
Furthermore, STIAS understands its role not as competing with, but as complementing the work of existing research institutions. It looks for ways to support the research priorities of other institutions, not merely to promote its own research programme. The Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study has no permanent members, and Fellows come from and eventually return to their home institutions. The aim remains to be of service to the research community, offering an opportunity to retreat, reflect, regroup and, hopefully, prepare the ground for further investigation.
In a situation where commercial interests can restrict the flow of information or where university priorities constrain research agendas, there is a growing need for spaces where researchers can pursue common goals and where information and ideas are shared without impediments.
The Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study, therefore, follows (as already explained) a modus of facilitating and enabling, rather than one of directing or regulating research. It prefers to stay in the background and work behind the scenes to provide the conditions conducive to creative thinking.
Opting for a facilitating role does not mean smoothing over differences or avoiding contestation. The intention is rather to ensure inclusivity and an optimal measure of freedom of thought and expression. No subject or point of view is out of bounds, and no position is barred for political or other reasons. The current state of scholarship is under constant review, and dominant paradigms are continuously challenged and interrogated. The aim is to foster a healthy and robust critical consciousness.
Underlying this approach is the acceptance of incompleteness – the incompleteness of our current knowledge, of the limitations of our different disciplines, of individual perspectives and of established and time-honoured research traditions. This realisation is a positive force which drives our curiosity and emboldens us to cross borders and to venture into unknown territory − which forms the essence of advanced, groundbreaking research.
Incompleteness in its turn engenders inclusivity, which takes on different forms in the context of STIAS. It is the fundamental reason for including all academic disciplines. Bringing the natural sciences, the humanities and the life sciences together under one roof has challenges but yields rich rewards in a new form of transdisciplinarity.
The most fundamental is the defence of the freedom of thought and of scientific enquiry. Harpham makes a forceful argument for the freedom of scholarship, which he considers as fundamental to other forms of freedom. ‘A free discourse that produces freedom, scholarship is free or it is nothing’ (2020:1). There should be room for all alternative points of view, all research traditions, all scientific methodologies without any a priory exclusion – provided that these diversity of perspectives is rationally argued and supported by convincing evidence. The freedom of research has as counterpoint the willingness to submit conclusions and positions to rigorous scrutiny and critical debate.
We were therefore challenged to go a step further by creating an environment where participants feel safe to express their views and opinions without fear of recrimination. The Institute does not adopt certain ‘positions’ on scientific, social or political issues – not because these are not important, but because there are other forums and opportunities to do this. The Institute strives to provide a ‘neutral’ space where all participants can speak their mind freely, openly, but cogently.14 As already pointed out, this does not imply shying away from controversy and debate – just the opposite. It is to provide the optimal context for intense, penetrating and constructive debate to expand the horizons of existing knowledge.
Conclusion
The development of a specific kind of transdisciplinarity at STIAS is still a work in progress, and new cohorts will no doubt explore further aspects of this process. What we are witnessing at this stage is the emergence of a new approach to scholarship with exciting possibilities for the future (Andersson et al. 2025; Lategan & Kirumira 2025:153–161).
Acknowledgements
Competing interests
The author declares that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
CRediT authorship contribution
Bernard C. Lategan: Writing – review & editing. The author confirms that this work is entirely their own, has reviewed the article, approved the final version for submission and publication, and takes full responsibility for the integrity of its findings.
Funding information
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Data availability
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The author is responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.
References
Andersson, M., Beiter, K., Davé, R., Destouni, G., Fendji, J.L., Frevel, C. et al. 2025, ‘Lessons from Africa’s first institute for advanced study’, Nature Africa. https://doi.org/10.1038/d44148-025-00074-9
Badat, S., 2010, ‘The challenges of transformation in higher education and training institutions in South Africa’, Development Bank of Southern Africa 8(1), 1–37.
Harpham, G.G., 2007, ‘Genre and the institution of research: Three American instances’, Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 122(5), 1635–1643. https://doi.org/10.1632/pmla.2007.122.5.1635
Lategan, B.C., 2019, ‘Institute vir gevorderde navorsing. Elitistiese luuksheid of bakermat van die wetenskap?’ [Institutes for advanced research. Elitist luxury or incubators of science?], LitNet Akademies 16(3), n. p.
Lategan, B.C. & Kirumira, E.K., 2025, Evolution of a creative space for the mind, STIAS, Stellenbosch.
Mouton, J., 2003, ‘South African science in transition’, Science Technology and Society 8(2), 235–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/097172180300800205
Nicolescu, B., 2002, Manifesto of transdisciplinarity, Suny Press, New York, NY.
Nicolescu, B., 2005, ‘Transdisciplinarity – Past, present and future’, paper read at the Second Congress of transdisciplinarity, Vila Velha, 6–12 September.
Padberg, B., 2014, ‘The Center for Interdisciplinary Research (ZiF) – Epistemic and institutional considerations’, in P. Weingart & B. Padberg (eds.), University experiments in interdisciplinarity: Obstacles and opportunities, pp. 95–113, Transcript Verlag, Bielefeld.
Padberg, B., 2020, ‘The global diversity of Institutes for Advanced Study’, Sociologica 14(1), 119–161. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1971-8853/9839
Reddy, T., 2004, Higher education and social transformation: South Africa Case Study, Council on Higher Education, Pretoria.
Söderbergh Widding, A., 2025, Opening address at the 2025 Nobel Prize Award Ceremony, Nobel Foundation, Stockholm.
Wesseling, H., 2002, The idea of an institute for advanced study. Some reflections on education, science and art, NIAS, Wassenaar.
Wittrock, B., 2002, ‘Institutes for Advanced Study: Ideas, histories, rationales’, Keynote address at the inauguration of the Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies, University of Helsinki.
Footnotes
1. For the difference between multi-, inter- and trans-disciplinarity, see footnote 9.
2. The nomenclature adopted by these institutions is revealing. The descriptor ‘advanced study’ was first used in 1930 with the establishment of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. The intention was to describe the level and nature of the research promoted by the IAS, namely its innovative, ground-breaking, avant-garde character. In time the concept was misunderstood as a ‘collection of studies’ and led to a flood of ‘institutes for advanced studies’. The choice of name thus reveals much about the self-understanding of the specific institution.
3. Institutes of advanced study share the common goal of promoting innovative research, but differ considerably with regard to their specific focus and structure. This variation is because of a series of choices the institution has to make (some or all disciplines, individual or group projects, university-based or independent, on campus accommodation or in town, and the like – see Lategan 2019; Lategan & Kirumira 2025:46–56).
4. Members of the SIAS consortium (Some Institutes for Advanced Study) are: the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford, the National Humanities Center in North Carolina, the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study in Cambridge, Mass, the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in Amsterdam, the Swedish Institute for Advances Study in Uppsala, the Wissenschaftskolleg in Berlin, the Israel Institute for Advanced Study in Jerusalem, the Nantes Institute for Advanced Study in Nantes, and the Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study. See also Wesseling (2002); Wittrock (2002); Harpham (2007).
5. The Nobel prizes for 2025 demonstrate this growing trend in research across disciplines. The prizes for physics, chemistry, medicine and economics were awarded to groups of three scientists. Each laureate was depended on the work of his or her colleagues to achieve their breakthroughs. Only the prizes for literature and peace went to individuals.
6. Institutes of this kind have been suspected of ‘elitism’ and of being ‘ivory towers’ far removed from reality. This suspicion is partly because of their ‘monastic’ style of operation, shielded from the public eye. It consequently behoves them to remain self-critical and constantly review their alignment with their core mission. However, these suspicions are often based on misinformation and not fully understanding the nature of these institutions. It is therefore important to place their function in a wider context. To illustrate this in the case of STIAS: In the first place, the ‘retreat’ which the Institute offers is always temporary. It is not an escape from reality into a castle in the sky, but an interim hiatus to return to reality with better ideas and alternatives solutions for the challenges society is facing. Secondly, research at STIAS is focused on real-life problems. These problems are often so intractable and difficult that they require deep and concentrated thinking, away from the bustle of everyday life. The aim is engaged research – that is, research flowing from and grappling with reality. Thirdly, the ultimate goal is to facilitate research for the benefit of society at large. STIAS is a registered PBO – a public benefit organization which shares the results of its work freely, unconditionally and without cost with all involved in the universal pursuit of new knowledge. In the words of Söderbergh Widding (2025:5), the aim of innovative science is to ‘transform the world into a better place for humankind’.
7. See footnote 9.
8. This in contrast with the Princeton IAS, where – because of the large number of Fellows and Schools – the attempts to establish a ‘cross-disciplinary mixture at lunch tables have so far failed’ (Padberg 2020: 123).
9. Nicolescu (2005:4), as well as Nicolescu (2002).
10. This is perhaps closest to the kind of transdisciplinarity which developed at STIAS.
11. Prominent examples are Sustainable Agro-Ecosystems, The Effects of Race, The Developmental Origins of Health and Disease Group, and The Future of Human Mobility and Migration.
12. Cf. Nicolescu (2005:4): ‘… there is no transdisciplinarity without disciplinarity’.
13. See also their article in Nature Africa (Andersson et al. 2025).
14. The idea of a ‘neutral’ space can give the impression that institutes of this kind have a negative attitude towards activism. This impression is because of a confusion regarding the appropriate time and place for activism and an intermingling of the different phases of discovery and knowledge generation. The temporary nature of the STIAS sojourn has already been highlighted as well as the ultimate utilitarian goal of research. To achieve this goal, the application of research outcomes assumes many forms – the publication of results, policy proposals, trials in real-life situations, activism and the like. Fellows at STIAS were and are involved in many of these applications, including forms of activism. But successful implementation depends on how successful the preceding phase of discovery is. For the latter (the primary focus of STIAS Fellowships) all options, perspectives and approaches must be included in principle and no voice, opinion or position excluded a priori – also (and especially) those views which challenge currently dominant positions, perspectives and paradigms. Hence the importance of the freedom of research.
| 
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
