The paper introduces a novel Personal Knowledge Management (PKM) concept and prototype system. The system’s objective is to aid life-long-learning, resourcefulness, creativity, and teamwork of individuals throughout their academic and professional life and as contributors and beneficiaries of organizational and societal performance. Such a scope offers appealing and viable opportunities for stakeholders in the educational, professional, and developmental context. To further validate the underlying PKM application design, the systems thinking techniques of the transdiscipline of Informing Science (IS) are employed. By applying Cohen’s IS-Framework, Leavitt’s Diamond Model, the IS-Meta Approach, and Gill’s and Murphy’s Three Dimensions of Design Task Complexity, the more specific KM models and methodologies central to the PKMS concept are aligned, introduced, and visualized. The extent of this introduction offers an essential overview, which can be deepened and broadened by using the cited URL and DOI links pointing to the available resources of the author’s prior publications. The paper emphasizes the differences of the proposed meme-based PKM System compared to its traditional organizational document-centric counterparts as well as its inherent complementing synergies. As a result, it shows how the system is closing in on Vannevar Bush’s still unfulfilled vison of the ‘Memex’, an as-close-as-it-gets imaginary ancestor celebrating its 70th anniversary as an inspiring idea never realized. It also addresses the scenario recently put forward by Levy which foresees a decentralizing revolution of knowledge management that gives more power and autonomy to individuals and self-organized groups. Accordingly, it also touches on the PKM potential in terms of Kuhn’s Scientific Revolutions and Disruptive Innovations.

This paper identifies areas in the design science research (DSR) subfield of the information systems (IS) discipline where a more detailed consideration of practitioner audiences of socio-technical design artifacts could improve current IS DSR research practice and proposes an initial conceptualization of these audiences. The consequences of not considering artifact audiences are identified through a critical appraisal of the current informing science lenses in the IS DSR literature. There are specific shortcomings in four areas: 1) treating practice stakeholders as a too homogeneous group, 2) not explicitly distinguishing between social and technical parts of socio-technical artifacts, 3) neglecting implications of the artifact abstraction level, and 4) a lack of explicit consideration of a dynamic or evolutionary fitness perspective of socio-technical artifacts. The findings not only pave the way for future research to further improve the conceptualization of artifact audiences, in order to improve the informing power – and thus, impact on practice and research relevance – of IS DSR projects; they can also help to bridge the theory-practice gap in other disciplines (e.g. computer science, engineering, or policy-oriented sociology) that seek to produce social and/or technical artifacts of practical relevance.

The article presents Personal Knowledge Management (PKM) as an overdue individualized as well as a collaborative approach for knowledge workers. Designing a PKM-supporting system, however, resembles a so-called “wicked” problem (ill-defined; incomplete, contradictory, changing requirements, complex interdependencies) where the information needed to understand the challenges depends on upon one’s idea for solving them. Accordingly, three main areas are attended to. Firstly, in dealing with a range of growing complexities, the notion of Popper’s Worlds is applied as three distinct spheres of reality and further expanded into six digital ecosystems (technologies, extelligence, society, knowledge worker, institutions, and ideosphere) that not only form the basis for the PKM System Concept named ‘Knowcations’ but also form a closely related Personal Knowledge Management for Development (PKM4D) framework detailed in a separate dedicated paper. Reflecting back on a United Nations scenario of knowledge mass production (KMP) over time, the complexities closely related to the digital ecosystems and the inherent risks of today’s accelerating attention-consuming over-abundance of redundant information are scrutinized, concluding in a chain of meta-arguments favoring the idea of the PKM concept and system put forward. Secondly, in light of the digital ecosystems and complexities introduced, the findings of a prior article are further refined in order to assess the PKM concept and system as a potential General-Purpose-Technology. Thirdly, the development process and resulting prototype are verified against accepted general design science research (DSR) guidelines. DSR aims at creating innovative IT artifacts (that extend human and social capabilities and meet desired outcomes) and at validating design processes (as evidence of their relevance, utility, rigor, resonance, and publishability). Together with the incorporated references to around thirty prior publications covering technical and methodological details, a kind of ‘Long Discussion Case’ emerges aiming to potentially assist IT researchers and entrepreneurs engaged in similar projects.

Certain trends in scientific research have important relevance to bioethics theory and practice. A growing stream of literature relates to increasing transparency and inclusivity of populations (stakeholders) in scientific research, from high volume data collection, synthesis, and analysis to verification and ethical scrutiny. The emergence of this stream of literature has implications for bioethics theory and practice. This paper seeks to make explicit these streams of literature and to relate these to bioethical issues, through consideration of certain extreme examples of scientific research where bioethical engagement is vital. Implications for theory and practice are derived, offering useful insights derived from multidisciplinary theory. Arguably, rapidly developing fields of citizen science such as informing science and others seeking to maximise stakeholder involvement in both research and bioethical engagement have emerged as a response to these types of issues; radically enhanced stakeholder engagement in science may herald a new maximally inclusive and transparent paradigm in bioethics based on lessons gained from exposure to increasingly uncertain ethical contexts of biomedical research.

Aim/Purpose We establish a conceptually rigorous definition for the widely used but loosely defined term “fitness”. We then tie this definition to complexity, highlighting a number of important implications for the informing science transdiscipline. Background As informing science increasingly incorporates concepts of fitness and complexity in its research stream, rigorous discussion and definition of both terms is essential to effective communication. Methodology Our analysis consists principally of a synthesis of past work in the informing science field that incorporates concepts from evolutionary biology, economics and management. Contribution We provide a rigorous approach to defining fitness and introduce the construct “extrinsic complexity”, as a measure of the amount of information required to predict fitness, to more fully differentiate this form of complexity from other complexity constructs. We draw a number of conclusions regarding how behaviors under low and high extrinsic complexity will differ. Findings High extrinsic complexity environments are likely to produce behaviors that include resistance to change, imitation, turbulence and inequality. Recommendations for Practitioners As extrinsic complexity grows, effective search for problem solutions will increasingly dominate employing recommended solutions of “best practices”. Recommendation for Researchers As extrinsic complexity grows, research tools that rely on decomposing individual effects and hypothesis testing become increasingly unreliable. Impact on Society We raise concerns about society’s continuing investment in academic research that discounts the extrinsic complexity of the domains under study. Future Research We highlight a need for research to operationalize the concepts of fitness and complexity in practice.

Table of contents for Volume 20 of Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 2017.

Aim/Purpose: The authors argue that interdisciplinarity, together with the more recent concept of transdisciplinarity, can be seen as a coherent attempt not so much to reassemble the fragmented structure into a whole, as to create a fruitful collaboration and integration among different disciplines that takes into account their specificity. Background: At the threshold of the Modern Age, a series of paradigm shifts in Western thought caused its fragmentation into a variety of academic subdisciplines. Such diversification can be considered the result of epistemological shifts and changes in the division of intellectual labor. Contribution: Which semantic horizons can this new approach open, and on which theoretical foundations could a dialogue between disciplines be produced? The growing importance of this problem is evidenced by the emergence, during the last decades, of philosophical reflections on the interactions among different research fields. The paper aims to contribute to the contemporary discussion of the need to overcome boundaries between disciplines. Consequently, it has both a methodological and theoretical impact, since all branches of knowledge aspiring to go beyond their traditional theoretical boundaries would benefit from a coherent theoretical perspective which tries to reconceptualize the transfer of knowledge from one field to another. Findings: The possibility of transdisciplinarity in modern science finds its theoretical premise in M. Foucault’s seminal work on the organization of knowledge, The Order of Things, which hinted at the existence of gaps in the grid of knowledge, leading, as a result, to the possibility of creating transdisciplinary connections. Future Research: The authors’ critical discussion of transdisciplinarity aims to revive the French epistemological tradition that in the last decades has often been rejected by researchers as not being rigorous nor analytical. This choice is motivated by the belief that, despite such evident defects, at its bottom lies a genuine theoretical intention that does not take for granted the possibility of transcending the usual division of intellectual work. In addition, the authors offer a brief account of the Russian conception of transdisciplinarity, relatively little studied in the West, which is presumed to integrate and solve the difficulties of other similar models.

Aim/Purpose: In this paper, we discuss how a Transdisciplinary (TD) and a Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) initiative was conceptualized, developed, implemented, and sustained at a small academic institution with limited research infrastructure, emphasizing the role of capacity building. Background: Most examples of the implementation of TD research come from large-scale initiatives in research-intensive institutions or centers with multiple resources to establish collaborations among experts from different disciplines. However less is known about the implementation of TD and CBPR initiatives in small academic settings. Methodology: This paper includes a discussion of the challenges and lessons learned of this process in a teaching-intensive Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI), which included a research component as part of the institutional priorities when it transitioned to a 4-year college in 2001. Contribution: We hope that our experience helps other researchers in similar institutions to engage in this type of research. Findings: In this case, a collaborative TD and CBPR initiative was successfully implemented despite limited resources for capacity building and research infrastructure, as well as diversity among researchers and community members. Recommendation for Researchers: To sustain institutional collaborative capacity in this type of institution, authors recommend continuous capacity building efforts and the development of modules and/or courses to provide formal TD training for junior faculty while encouraging researchers to interact and collaborate. In addition, the importance of the role of the community liaison is highlighted. Impact on Society: Successful TD and CBPR initiatives may have a positive impact on the reduction or elimination of health disparities which involve complex phenomena that requires a broad view from different perspectives. Future Research: Even though capacity building can facilitate the implementation of TD and CBPR, many challenges arise as an inherent result of community engagement and the integration of different disciplines. Thus, the need of continuous reflection to acknowledge them becomes critical for advancing TD and CBPR efforts.

Aim/Purpose: This paper describes the regulatory affairs discipline as a useful case in the study of both inter- and transdisciplinary science and dynamics related to communication across multiple boundaries. We will 1) outline the process that led to the development of transnational competencies for regulatory affairs graduate education, 2) discuss how the process highlights the transdisciplinary character of regulatory affairs, 3) provide implications for how to communicate the influence of this characterization to future healthcare professionals, and 4) draw conclusions regarding how our lessons-learned might inform other programs of study. Background: In the past few decades, the regulatory affairs profession has become more internationalized. This prompted the need for new competencies grounded in the transnational and cross-disciplinary contexts in which these professionals are required to operate. Methodology: A convenience sample of experienced regulatory affairs professionals from multiple disciplines contributed to the development of transnational competencies for a master’s program in regulatory affairs using a transdisciplinary framework. Contribution: An applied exemplar in which to understand how transdisciplinary characteristics can be communicated and applied in higher education. Recommendations for Practitioners: This paper recommends how competencies developed from a regulatory affairs program can serve as exemplars for other applied transdisciplinary higher education programs. Impact on Society: This framework provides a seldom-used reflective approach to regulatory affairs education that utilizes cross-disciplinary theory to inform competence-based formation of professionals.

Aim/Purpose: This paper introduces a Social Machine for collaborative sensemaking that the developers have configured to the requirements and challenges of transdisciplinary literature reviews. Background: Social Machines represent a promising model for unifying machines and social processes for a wide range of purposes. A development team led by the author is creating a Social Machine for activities that require users to combine pieces of information from multiple online sources and file types for various purposes. Methodology: The development team has applied emergent design processes, usability testing, and formative evaluation in the execution of the product road map. Contribution: A major challenge of the digital information age is how to tap into large volumes of online information and the collective intelligence of diverse groups to generate new knowledge, solve difficult problems, and drive innovation. A Transdisciplinary Social Machine (TDSM) enables new forms of interactions between humans, machines, and online content that have the potential to (a) improve outcomes of sensemaking activities that involve large collections of online documents and diverse groups and (b) make machines more capable of assisting humans in their sensemaking efforts. Findings: Preliminary findings suggest that TDSM promotes learning and the generation of new knowledge. Recommendations for Practitioners: TDSM has the potential to improve outcomes of literature reviews and similar activities that require distilling information from diverse online sources. Recommendation for Researchers: TDSM is an instrument for investigating sensemaking, an environment for studying various forms of human and machine interactions, and a subject for further evaluation. Impact on Society: In complex areas such as sustainability and healthcare research, TDSM has the potential to make decision-making more transparent and evidence-based, facilitate the production of new knowledge, and promote innovation. In education, TDSM has the potential to prepare students for the 21st century information economy. Future Research: Research is required to measure the effects of TDSM on cross-disciplinary communication, human and machine learning, and the outcomes of transdisciplinary research projects. The developers are planning a multiple case study using design-based research methodology to investigate these topics.

Aim/Purpose: This paper explores the implications of machine-mediated communication on human interaction in cross-disciplinary teams. The authors explore the relationships between Open Science Theory, its contributions to team science, and the opportunities and challenges associated with adopting open science principles. Background: Open Science Theory impacts many aspects of human interaction throughout the scholarly life cycle and can be seen in action through various technologies, which each typically touch only one such aspect. By serving multiple aspects of Open Science Theory at once, the Open Science Framework (OSF) serves as an exemplar technology. As such it illustrates how Open Science Theory can inform and expand cognitive and behavioral dynamics in teams at multiple levels in a single tool. Methodology: This concept paper provides a theoretical rationale for recommendations for exploring the connections between an open science paradigm and the dynamics of team communication. As such theory and evidence have been culled to initiate a synthesis of the nascent literature, current practice and theory. Contribution: This paper aims to illuminate the shared goals between open science and the study of teams by focusing on science team activities (data management, methods, algorithms, and outputs) as focal objects for further combined study. Findings: Team dynamics and characteristics that will affect successful human/machine assisted interactions through mediators of workflow culture, attitudes about ownership of knowledge, readiness to share openly, shifts from group-driven to user-driven functionality, group-organizing to self-organizing structures, and the development of trust as teams regulate between traditional and open science dissemination. Recommendations for Practitioners: Participation in open science practices through machine-assisted technologies in team projects/scholarship should be encouraged. Recommendation for Researchers: The information provided highlights areas in need of further study in team science as well as new primary sources of material in the study of teams utilizing machine-assisted methods in their work. Impact on Society: As researchers take on more complex social problems, new technology and open science practices can complement the work of diverse stakeholders while also providing opportunities to broaden impact and intensify scholarly contributions. Future Research: Future investigation into the cognitive and behavioral research conducted with teams that employ machine-assisted technologies in their workflows would offer researchers the opportunity to understand better the relationships between intelligent machines and science teams’ impacts on their communities as well as the necessary paradigmatic shifts inherent when utilizing these technologies.

Aim/Purpose: The complexity of scientific problems has spurred the development of transdisciplinary science, in which experts are brought together to collaborate across disciplinary and practice boundaries. These knowledge diverse teams can produce novel solutions, but they often fail to achieve their potential. Background: Leaders have a crucial role to play in enabling effective collaboration among these diverse experts. We propose that a critical predictor of whether a newly formed interdisciplinary team will perform well is the leader’s multidisciplinary breadth of experience, which we define as a leader’s possession of significant experience in multiple areas of research and practice. We suggest that these leaders will have the capability to skillfully manage the interactions within the team. Methodology: We test our prediction in a sample of 52 newly formed interdisciplinary medical research teams. We also observe and examine the communication patterns in a subset of these teams. Contribution: There is a lack of systematic study of the impact leaders have on newly formed interdisciplinary science teams whose members have little or no prior collaborative experience with each other, possess specialized knowledge, and have limited overlapping expertise. This study combines quantitative and qualitative methods to examine the effect of leader multidisciplinary experience on team communication patterns and innovation. Findings: Our study finds that teams are more innovative when their leader has a moderate breadth of multidisciplinary expertise. Exploration of team communication patterns suggests that leaders with moderate multidisciplinary breadth of experience actively stimulated information sharing across expert domains by choosing cross-cutting topics and drew individuals’ attention to the knowledge and approaches of others in the team. Recommendations for Practitioners: Insights from this work can have practical implications regarding how to best select and train leaders to facilitate cross-boundary collaboration in transdisciplinary science. This study elucidates a variety of communication strategies that leaders can to enhance the team innovativeness. Recommendation for Researchers: Further investigation into the underlying psychological states that these communication strategies elicit is needed. Future research should investigate psychological mediators such as knowledge consideration, perspective taking, and cognitive flexibility. Impact on Society: Transdisciplinary science is needed to solve society’s most complex problems. The more insight we gather about factors that can help these knowledge diverse teams to be successful, but more society will benefit. Future Research: More research is needed on team formation, leader experience, and team outcomes in transdisciplinary science teams in a variety of contexts.

Aim/Purpose: Given that leadership has been shown to play a key role in knowledge-producing organizations, leaders of transdisciplinary science have received surprisingly little empirical attention. This study addresses the research gap by examining leadership in the context of a new transdisciplinary research organization. Background: Drawing on complexity leadership theory—a framework developed for identifying behaviors that facilitate creativity, learning, and adaptability in complex adaptive systems—this study examines leadership roles and practices that affect the generation of adaptive dynamics in transdisciplinary science. Methodology: The study is based on a longitudinal, qualitative in-depth case study on a newly formed transdisciplinary research center and its leadership team. The data includes ethnographic observations from leadership meetings and interviews with leaders. Contribution: This unique empirical case contributes to the study of transdisciplinary science by shedding light on the actions of academic leaders as they try to support transdisciplinary conversation, learning, and collaboration in a new center. Findings: The analysis shows that the leaders relied on both enabling and administrative leadership practices in a way that made them the focal point of transdisciplinary knowledge integration and thus jeopardized the creation of adaptive dynamics throughout the organization. Recommendations for Practitioners: The study highlights the importance of having knowledge brokers and hybrid scholars in strategic positions at different levels of the transdisciplinary research organization already in its early stages. Recommendation for Researchers: Longitudinal qualitative case studies that rely on different types of data provide rich information on how new leadership conceptualizations are implemented in organizations and the complex ways in which they relate to knowledge creation processes and outcomes. Impact on Society: Transdisciplinary science has the potential to find cures to complex diseases. Understanding leadership in transdisciplinary science can help in maintaining transdisciplinary research activities in the long run and thus make it more impactful. Future Research: The use of leadership roles and practices will be examined at different developmental stages in the transdisciplinary research process.

Aim/Purpose: Collaborative, interdisciplinary research is growing rapidly, but we still have limited and fragmented understanding of what is arguably the heart of such research—collaborative, interdisciplinary reasoning (CIR). Background: This article integrates neo-Pragmatist theories of reasoning with insights from literature on interdisciplinary research to develop a working definition of collaborative, interdisciplinary reasoning. The article then applies this definition to an empirical example to demonstrate its utility. Methodology: The empirical example is an excerpt from a Toolbox workshop transcript. The article reconstructs a cogent, inductive, interdisciplinary argument from the excerpt to show how CIR can proceed in an actual team. Contribution: The study contributes operational definitions of ‘reasoning together’ and ‘collaborative, interdisciplinary reasoning’ to existing literature. It also demonstrates empirical methods for operationalizing these definitions, with the argument reconstruction providing a brief case study in how teams reason together. Findings: 1. Collaborative, interdisciplinary reasoning is the attempted integration of disciplinary contributions to exchange, evaluate, and assert claims that enable shared understanding and eventually action in a local context. 2. Pragma-dialectic argument reconstruction with conversation analysis is a method for observing such reasoning from a transcript. 3. The example team developed a strong inductive argument to integrate their disciplinary contributions about modeling. Recommendations for Practitioners: 1. Interdisciplinary work requires agreeing with teammates about what is assertible and why. 2. To assert something together legitimately requires making a cogent, integrated argument. Recommendation for Researchers: 1. An argument is the basic unit of analysis for interdisciplinary integration. 2. To assess the argument’s cogency, it is helpful to reconstruct it using pragma-dialectic principles and conversation analysis tools. 3. To assess the argument’s interdisciplinary integration and participant roles in the integration, it is helpful to graph the flow of words as a Sankey chart from participant-disciplines to the argument conclusion. Future Research: How does this definition of CIR relate to other interdisciplinary ‘cognition’ or ‘learning’ type theories? How can practitioners and theorists tell the difference between true intersubjectivity and superficial agreeableness in these dialogues? What makes an instance of CIR ‘good’ or ‘bad’? How does collaborative, transdisciplinary reasoning differ from CIR, if at all?

Aim/Purpose: Transdisciplinarity is considered as a framework for understanding knowledge producing teams (KPTs). Features of transdisciplinary knowledge producing teams (TDKPTs) are provided using a complex adaptive systems (CAS) lens. TDKPT features are defined and linked to complexity theory to show how team participants might develop skills that more truly express complex adaptive conditions. Background: TDKPTs are groups of stakeholder participants tasked with producing knowledge across disciplinary, sectoral, and ecological boundaries. TDKPTs reflect components of complex adaptive systems (CAS) and exemplify how CAS behave and function. Methodology: The paper accesses literature from the Science-of-Team-Science (SciTS), complexity theory, and systems theory to construct a typology of the features of TDKPTs. Contribution: This paper provides a list of features developed from a diverse body of literature useful for considering complexity within TDKPTs. Findings: The paper proposes a series of features of transdisciplinary knowledge producing teams. In addition, the authors identify important skill building aspects needed for TDKPTs to be successful. Recommendations for Practitioners: The paper provides a framework by which team functioning can be considered and enhanced within TDKPTs. Recommendation for Researchers: The paper suggests categorical features of transdisciplinary teams for research on the collaborative processes and outcomes of TD teams. Future Research: Knowledge producing team members need to engage in theoretical, episte-mological, and methodological reflections to elucidate the dynamic nature of TD knowledge producing teams. Understanding how conflict, dissonance, and reciprocal interdependencies contribute to knowledge generation are key areas of future research and inquiry.

Aim/Purpose: This is an introductory paper for the Special Series on transdisciplinary communication. It summarizes the various articles in the special series and raises questions for future investigation.

Table of contents for Volume 21 of Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 2018.

The present paper identifies a variety of conceptual schemes that have emerged within informing science and consider how they might be applied to fake news. The paper begins with a brief overview of fake news. This is followed presentations of various models identified in a two-volume survey of informing science. The models presented include those dealing with extrinsic (i.e., environmental) complexity, informing transitions, and individual resonance. The potential implications for informing science research into fake news are discussed and questions that may warrant future research are raised. The paper then concludes by describing what current informing science may already be telling us about fake news, its spread and its influence. Through its analysis of the fake news and informing science literature, a number of questions are identified where informing science can possibly contribute to our understanding of fake news. These include: • Does fake news need to disinform its clients if it is to be effective? • Why are certain groups of individuals particularly credible when it comes to communicating fake news? • Under what circumstances will the emotional and social motivations to accept fake news exceed our concern for its truth? • How does the nature of the fake news content and objectives impact the disinformer’s choice of channel? • What are the circumstances under which radically transitional fake news might have an impact?

Aim/Purpose: Many disciplines have addressed the issue of “fake news.” This topic is of central concern to the transdiscipline of Informing Science, which endeavors to understand all issues related to informing. This paper endeavors to build a model to address not only fake news but all informing and misin-forming. To do this, it explores how errors get into informing systems, the issue of bias, and the models previously created to explore the complexity of informing. That is, this paper examines models and frameworks proposed to explore informing in the presence of bias, misinformation, disinformation, and fake news from the perspective of Informing Science. It concludes by intro-ducing a more nuanced model that considers some of the topics explored in the paper Methodology: The issue of informing and disinforming crosses many disciplinary perspectives. Each discipline puts on blinders that limit what it can contribute to its understanding of research topics. It is like trying to study a forest by seeing only the trees and not the animals or the animals but not the trees. Research perspectives that cross disciplinary boundaries are needed to more fully understand complex phenomena. This paper lays out some fundamental cross-disciplinary issues including how errors find their way into informing systems, the issue of bias, and the frameworks used to model this phenomenon. Contribution: The paper introduces the competition framework for understanding informing and misinforming. This framework addresses many of the limitation of prior frameworks. Future Research: The concluding framework offers insights into understanding informing and disinforming. But this framework offers no insights into other forms of informing that are less well explored, such as song, dance, physical art, and architecture. Likewise, this framework does nothing to help the un-derstanding of informing via fideism or psychedelic revelation.

Aim/Purpose: This series of papers on Fake News: Bias, Misinformation, and Disinformation examines fake news from an Informing Science perspective. As such, the papers in this special series make novel con-tributions to the field by viewing the issues through the transdisciplinary lens of informing science. This series makes no claim to summarize or review all that has been written on this topic. Rather it provides a glimpse into this immense literature from the perspective of informing science. Background: It is one small step on the 20+ year quest by the editor to explore better ways to inform from an approach that transcends academic disciplines (Cohen, 1998, 1999) and a 20 year quest to under-stand the issues of how we become misinformed and disinformed (Cohen, 2000). The series pro-vided here gains thrust for two reasons. One reason is that the study has become more popular with academicians due to the blathering of politicians and the attacks by national powers on de-mocracy. The second reason is more mundane; without the deadline that the end-of-year affords, the papers would become richer, fuller, and more detailed. Recommendation for Researchers: Taken together, the results brought forth across these papers is truly scary. Due to their biases, when presented with information, people can and do generate their own misinformation. People tend to communicate such misinformation that they self-generated with others in groups sharing their beliefs, strengthening the misinformation by some and silencing those do not share these thoughts. This process creates divisions in society. How can humanity seek wise decisions when we cannot agree even upon the facts. We see the results of this syndrome in Operation SIG and cur-rent divisions within politics in the West.

Aim/Purpose: The year 2020 marks the 50th anniversary of the first official definition of the term “transdisciplinarity.” This paper focuses on a critical analysis of the development of modern transdisciplinarity since its inception. Background: The article presents two main directions for the development of transdisciplinarity. It also shows its identification features, strengths, and weaknesses, as well as the significant role transdisciplinarity plays in science and education. Methodology: The methodology employed in this article is a content analysis of resolutions of international forums as well as articles on transdisciplinarity published from 1970 to 2019. Contribution: For one reason or the other, several of these authors did not quote the opinions of the original authors of transdisciplinarity. The subsequent use of those articles by other authors thus posed some ambiguities about the place and role of transdisciplinarity in science and education. The advent of e-databases has made it possible to access the original forum articles. This further made it possible to refine the original content of the term “transdisciplinarity” and to trace its development without mixing it with vague opinions. Based on these findings, the perception of transdisciplinarity as a marginal trend in science and education could be eliminated. Findings: This paper shows how modern transdisciplinarity is developing into two main directions: transdisciplinarity in science as well as transdisciplinarity in education. These orientations have individual goals and objectives. The transdisciplinarity of scientific research helps to complete the transformation of the potential for interdisciplinary interaction and the integration of disciplines. Whereas, in education, transdisciplinarity (meta-discipline) is about developing an international standard for transdisciplinary education and also describing the content of transdisciplinary competence for students of diverse disciplines at all levels of higher education (bachelor’s, master’s and postgraduate studies). Recommendation for Researchers: Transdisciplinary research involves the interaction of people with disciplinary knowledge plus a degree of scientific outlook. Since disciplinary knowledge domains remain in their disciplinary boxes, it is, therefore, advisable to generalize disciplinary knowledge rather than force them to interact. This is the basis for proposing the systems transdisciplinary approach—which provides a methodology for unifying and generalizing disciplinary knowledge. Future Research: As the research shows, the organizers of modern international forums do not take into account the division of transdisciplinarity development trends. To increase the effectiveness and significance of such forums, it is necessary to return to the practice of organizing special international forums on the transdisciplinarity of science and that of education.

Aim/Purpose: In this paper, we address the theoretical challenges today’s scientific community faces to precisely draw lines between true and false pictures. In particular, we focus on problems related to the hidden wonders of science and the shiny images produced for scientific papers or to appeal to wider audiences. Background: As rumors (hoaxes) and false news (fake news) explode across society and the current network, several initiatives using current technology have been launched to study this phenomena and limit the social impact. Over the last two decades, inappropriate scientific behavior has raised more questions about whether some scientific images are valid. Methodology: This work is not about analyzing whether today’s images are objective. Instead, we advocate for a general approach that makes it easier to truly believe in all kinds of knowledge, scientific or otherwise (Goldman, 1967; Goldman, & Olson, 2009). This need to believe is closely related to social order (Shapin, 1994). Contribution: We conclude that we must ultimately move away from older ideas about truth and objectivity in research to broadly approach how science and knowledge are represented and move forward with this theoretical approach when communicating science to the public. Findings: Contemporary visual culture suggests that our world is expressed through images, which are all around us. Therefore, we need to promote the reliability of scientific pictures, which visually represent knowledge, to add meaning in a world of complex high-tech science (Allamel-Raffin, 2011; Greenberg, 2004; Rosenberger, 2009). Since the time of Galileo, and today more than ever, scientific activity should be understood as knowledge produced to reveal, and therefore inform us of, (Wise, 2006) all that remains unexplained in our world, as well as everything beyond our senses. Recommendation for Researchers: In journalism, published scientific images must be properly explained. Journalists should tell people the truth, not fake objectivity. Today we must understand that scientific knowledge is mapped, simulated, and accessed through interfaces, and is uncertain. The scientific community needs to approach and explain how knowledge is represented, while paying attention to detail. Future Research: In today’s expanding world, scientific research takes a more visual approach. It is important for both the scientific community and the public to understand how the technologies used to visually represent knowledge can account for why, for example, we know more about electrons than we did a century ago (Arabatzis, 1996), or why we are beginning to carefully understand the complexities and ethical problems related to images used to promote knowledge through the media (see, i.e., López-Cantos, 2017).