With over 30,000 disciplines a simple map as follows doesn’t really do it justice. However, all semiotics are useful but not perfect. When we talk about Transdisciplinarity, what we mean is being able to transverse across these disciplinary categories but also many non-academic disciplines. Indeed, there are just as many Poetic disciplines that can also be added into the mix.

When we look at the discipline of safety we see a long history emerging from Engineering and technical sciences. Indeed, its was only recently the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) changes its name to the American Society of Safety Professionals (ASSP). The ASSE was in name for over 100 years (https://www.assp.org/about/history). Despite the change in name, if one looks at the discourse of the ASSP it remains dominated by engineering. Similarly, when we look at the AIHS Body of Knowledge it remains dominated by the same focus.

Moreso, within each discipline there are a myriad of other disciplines, each with their own focus, language, discourse, politic and culture. For example, the following map shows just the sub-set disciplines within Semiotics.

If someone were to suggest that this is a ‘wicked problem’ they would be right.

How can these disciplines with such different language, values, cultures, worldviews and ethics, work across each other?

This is where experts in Transdisciplinarity like Dr Craig Ashhurst enter the fray and help get things started. One thing is for sure, if a discipline is not even talking about wicked problems or Transdisciplinarity, it has a long way to go before there will be any movement to tackling the wicked problems that it faces.

A good place to start is by starting the conversation, understanding the discourse and why Transdisciplinarity is needed (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282285072_Transdisciplinarity_A_Review_of_Its_Origins_Development_and_Current_Issues). Much of this is related to the dilemma of wicked problems (https://safetyrisk.net/no-taming-or-fixing-wicked-problems/).

One thing is for sure, any simplistic idea that the problems of risk and safety can be ‘fixed’ simply makes things worse (https://safetyrisk.net/making-the-wicked-simplistic-the-safety-way/). Zero is one such discourse/ideology that limits conversation with any other discipline indeed, most disciplines would find the ideology of zero laughable. When this is the language one brings to the table, there can be no movement in conversation or dialectic.  Zero limits any conversation or dialogue because if offers no compromise, no movement for learning (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327368364_Transdisciplinarity_at_the_Crossroads_Nurturing_Individual_and_Collective_Learning).

There is some great research out there in Transdisciplinarity (https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/server/api/core/bitstreams/96d5fb2b-bca8-4273-96a9-a7573083b0ee/content). A good start is becoming familiar with it and what challenges it poses some disciplines that have little room to move.

The best way to get started in safety on Transdisciplinarity is to get the topic into the mix. I wonder where it has been raised in conferences? Is there even a perception that it matters? Or, an idea of what it is? Does safety even know that it has grabbed a wicked problem y the tail? Or, does it think we can just engineer our way out of everything?

The conversation also starts in doubt, when one realises that there are no fixes and more questions than answers. A big challenge when everything that is modelled is about controls and compliance. This language is where the shift must begin, in the realisation that other disciplines can offer conversations and perspectives not considered.