Introduction

In this paper I discuss the act of academic boundary crossing, of ‘dancing’ across or between the disciplines as I explore the potential role of dance within the relatively new and evolving research paradigm of transdisciplinarity (TD). Along with the idea of boundary crossing, the act of dancing itself—in both its broadest (metaphorical) and discipline specific terms—is central to this paper.

I begin with a brief explanation of the term ‘boundary crossing’ followed by an explanation of transdisciplinarity. I then outline some of dance’s attributes as a research partner and question its readiness or willingness to engage in ‘big picture’ projects, such as sustainability or peace studies (a full discussion of which is outside the scope of this paper) within universities.

Using the University of Otago, New Zealand, as a case in point, I offer insights from various key academic researchers and educators with whom I held informal ‘conversations’.

Boundary crossing is the first step towards transdisciplinarity. A boundary (or border), while it designates some arbitrary line or marker of territory (which might be land, skin, cellular membrane, shoreline or academic discipline area) does not, according to systems theorist Niklas Luhman (2000), mark a break in connections, but requires different conditions for continuance.

"Boundary crossers", he suggests, may have to change their form and structure, their properties and modes of interaction to adjust to the new environment (17). They may need to evolve new methodologies, new languages, new performance markers and new presentational modes and outcomes. In terms of dance new artistic mediums, new modes of presentation and new choreographic processes come to mind as part of this evolution of form.

There is, in fact, some evidence of artistic boundary crossing within recent experimental dance performance, as a move towards more ‘dialogical’ (Lavender 2009) artistic presentation, where the work itself remains in flux as it allows for negotiation between the performed act and the viewer. In the process the boundaries between performer and viewer, between art and life become dissolved or renegotiated.

Recent ‘sociographic’ works by the American dancer and educator Larry Lavender serve as a useful example here, likewise Susan Foster’s (2002a) surreptitious street dances. This shift has major implications for the teaching of choreographic practice within the university, as Lavender (2009) attests. I will return to the characteristic attributes of dance later in this article.

As Luhman (2000) suggests, boundary encounters occur as people interact across boundaries, while boundary crossings involve the flow of ideas, constructs and innovations across boundaries. When a system is fluid, open and responsive to change it is more easily able to cross boundaries and survive. One of the constructs that facilitates academic boundary crossings and encounters is that of transdisciplinarity.

In Polish quantum physicist Basarab Nicolescu’s terms, transdisciplinarity "concerns that which is at once between the disciplines, across the different disciplines and beyond all disciplines" (1997: 1). Its aim is a bringing together of knowledge and its goal is about understanding the world we inhabit. My interest for a number of years has been concerned with dance’s possible contribution to a more interconnected and inter-relational way of understanding and of living in the world.

Within dance cross-disciplinary performance is not unusual and is often cited as a way to describe how the music, dance, sets and words coexist in the space of the stage without disturbing or diluting each other, contributing to a shared thematic idea via their own independent artistic languages. My own artistic rationale, developed since the ’80s and in line with a number of educational and ecological theorists includes:

A desire to play together (Gardner 1994: 164-5); a desire to explore the intersection of discreet disciplinary languages; to make engaged or socially and politically connected or empathic art (Gablik 1991); and to explore those processes of art making that are more participatory (Heshusius 1995), process oriented, co-operative and collaborative with both audience and performers (East 2006).

As Patrick Dillon attests, "Cross-disciplinary creativity might thus be defined in terms of negotiating border crossings" (2008: 261).

While we are familiar with the terms, and know many examples, of cross, inter and multi- disciplinary engagement, these are fundamentally different from transdisciplinarity. Nicolescu (one of the founding fathers of TD) best describes the difference between the various modes of engagement in relation to research when he states

‘Multi disciplinarity concerns studying a research topic not in just one discipline but in several at the same time … [while] Interdisciplinarity concerns the transfer of methods from one discipline to another ... Transdisciplinarity, on the other hand, concerns that which is at once between the disciplines, across the different disciplines, and beyond all disciplines (2008: 2-3).

Its aim is a bringing together of knowledge and its goal is about understanding the world we inhabit. This space between disciplines is not a void—rather it is "alive, in flux, moving and perpetually changing" (McGregor 2008: 4). Nicolescu terms this the "included middle" or the "hidden third" (ibid.) dimension. It allows for fluid or unstable ‘truths’ or the co-existence of differing levels of reality (not unlike the layers of meaning and ‘truths’ portrayed in a theatrical work). This space between the disciplines is the fertile space of unknowing, of creative uncertainty and multiple possibilities. (It is a space akin to that of improvisational dance performance—but more on that shortly).

In fact, TD openly embraces the arts as valid contributors to this kind of research community. Sue McGregor, Director of Graduate Education, Halifax, Canada uses decidedly ‘dancerly’ terms when she describes

people stepping through zones of non-resistance (hidden third) onto the fertile floor of the (included middle), where they generate new transdisciplinary intelligence and knowledge together (McGregor 2008).

Ideas move faster in intellectual fusion (she adds, using Physics terminology). I like McGregor’s rich descriptions that ‘dance’ freely across disciplinary metaphors.

In 1994, at an inaugural world congress in Portugal, a diverse group of key thinkers formulated their ideas on transdisciplinarity into a manifesto called the Charter of Transdisciplinarity. Article 5 (of 15) states:

The Transdisciplinary vision is resolutely open insofar as it goes beyond the field of the exact sciences and demands their dialogue and their reconciliation with the humanities and the social sciences, as well as with art, literature, poetry and spiritual experience. (Nicolescu 2006: 165)

The Charter acknowledges that art opens up new ways of thinking through metaphor, imagery, representations of subjectivities and of knowing at the deepest most intuitive level.

Rosemary Ross-Johnston (2008) states that

It is these meta-cognitive arts of knowing that give 'researchers as artists' the languages to describe their 'knowing' to others (231).

Art (such as choreography) offers a way of reframing knowledge, seeing and presenting it in another way as a reinvestment, a rearrangement of symbols. It can pose questions and resolve problems in one fluid action moment. It can speak several languages at once and yet not demand a singular reading of any one of them. It honours diversity.

In Rosemary Johnston’s words,

The arts construct and bring together ... multiple sites of looking again, multiple sites of reinterpretation, and multiple ways of comprehending the world. They are an example in practice of a transdisciplinary research approach. (2008: 232)

It must be noted here that transdisciplinarity is not anti-disciplinary; rather it is born out of open engagement across disciplines and may even cause the formation of new ones. It draws from a discipline-specific knowledge base in its tackling of global issues and broad subject matter. In an insightful and encouraging move, the convenors of a recent multi/trans-disciplinary conference on Resilience1 invited the participation of renowned US Community Dance facilitator Liz Lerman to add an experiential and artistic dimension to the discussions.

Transdisciplinary conversations: towards a transdisciplinary role for dance in the university

In trying to establish a role for dance within transdisciplinary research, and as an initial foray into boundary crossing, I embarked on a series of informal ‘conversations’ (Luhman 2000) with leading educators and researchers in the diverse fields of molecular chemistry, geography, particle physics, design and marine zoology at the University of Otago in New Zealand.

I was keen to hear these senior academics’ attitudes towards the academic subject of dance and to gauge their response to a possible role for dance as a potential research collaborator. Two overarching questions guided our informal discussions: Firstly, what might the synergies be between my subject and theirs? And secondly, how might the concept of dance contribute to understanding in their discipline?

While our discussions tended to stray from the original questions, the ensuing conversations were extremely stimulating, and useful border crossing exercises in themselves. I will return to them throughout the paper.

The main focus of transdisciplinarity since its inception—the term having been first discussed by Piaget in 1970 (Nicolescu 2008: 2)—has been within the general realm of education. As Article 11 of the Charter states, transdisciplinary education "re-values the role of intuition, imagination, sensibility and the body in the transmission of knowledge" (Nicolescu 2008: 264).

It recognises the education of all of the senses and intelligences; supporting the multiple ways of knowing developed by Howard Gardner (1994), in particular the analytical, the sensory and the physical/corporeal intelligences. However, Nicolescu speaks of "a new type of intelligence" founded upon the equilibrium between mind, body and feeling. This might be termed integral intelligence since he attests that "Transdisciplinary education [is] integral education" (Nicolescu 2006: 155).

Transdisciplinary education is thus orientated towards knowledge of the self, the unity of knowledge, and the creation of "a new art of living" (Nicolescu 1997: 2). It places great stock on educating an individual "conditioned by permanent questioning and permanent integration" (Nicolescu 2006: 154) unhampered by discipline specific boundaries. It is therefore non-vocational in its curriculum structure.

In a discussion with architect Nicholas Laird of the University of Otago Design Studies program in 2010, our conversation turned to the nature of boundary crossing and boundary crossers, as he described the ability of designers to change or adapt in response to the ideas of others, and of designers themselves needing to be

always changing form, moving through divergent processes, shifting position, navigating the realms of possibility, taking leaps of faith, allowing any number of possible outcomes or solutions’.

Laird is signalling a whole new set of necessary skills needed by today’s students if they are to become successful boundary crossers. This description of practice resonates with the transdisciplinary space of the "included middle", a space between disciplines where, as Nicolescu (2008) explains, identities, languages of communication and approaches to problem solving are fluid, intuitive and transformative.

Incidentally, the term transformation ("trans meaning through-forming or forming-through, to emerge in a different form" [Schwarz 1993: 79]) resonates with dance as a moving transitory art of 'forming’ and ‘re-forming’, shape-shifting and patterning where the real (flesh and blood) and the hyper-real (the imaginary) reside together expressing a new liminal ‘reality’. These expressive, communicative and transformative attributes of dance suggest a compatibility with transdisciplinary methodologies.

James Clifford, in his book A Predicament of Culture, suggests that "languages do not exclude, but rather intersect with each other" (1988: 9). An intersection of our very different languages occurred during my ‘conversation’ with Keith Gordon, Professor of Nano Chemistry. An infusion of his language with mine enabled new metaphors to surface as we discussed the ways that vibrating atoms create symmetrical and asymmetrical patterns, attract each other in a sympathetic communal dance or remain aloof.

The use of metaphorical (I might call it choreographic) language is another tenet of transdisciplinarity. My shy professor was somewhat surprised to hear himself using the socio-spatial terminology of choreography but he admitted that it might be useful for his teaching; and, in fact, that his students might benefit from some exploratory time in the dance studio.

Within a transdisciplinary viewpoint ‘conversations’ (Luhman 2000) of this nature are key to the fostering of a vibrant research community. Lakoff and Johnson state that

when the chips are down, meaning is negotiated: you slowly figure out what you have in common, what is safe to talk about, and how you can communicate unshared experience or create a shared vision (1980: 232).

The nano-chemist’s willingness to suggest this kind of learning for his students resonates with the statement by Peace Studies researcher Dieter Senghaas (1976) that inter-disciplinarity depends on academics being willing to "acquire part of the expertise of a neighbouring discipline" (67) (though he adds that a high degree of skill is not required), interdependence being a major axiom of TD.

I pause here, to wonder what this ‘atomic’ choreography of grouping and regrouping chemistry students, searching out and synchronising with each others’ vibrations and rhythms might look like. These across the border encounters, according to Nicolescu, potentially offer up "a new vision of nature and reality" (2008: 262). Likewise, a transdisciplinary research methodology allows us to establish links between persons, facts, images, representations, fields of knowledge and action.

Taking a more ‘person’ centred approach to the notion of disciplinary border-crossing, Janet Stephenson, geographer, planner and director of a major multi-disciplinary research unit (CSAFE2) at the University of Otago, described the idea of ‘disciplinarity’ as an artificial concept in itself, since each individual is in life multi-disciplinary, multi-skilled and with a diverse and ever-evolving set of interests and viewpoints.

Within ourselves we happily accommodate these facets of our identity. Each and every researcher will generally have involvement in a multiplicity of communities of interest from church to sports to some hobby. Therefore we must assume that each researcher will bring his/her diverse sets of experiences, cultural values and history to the research task. To focus on disciplines as if they were separate from the world and from each other is to negate nine tenths of each individual (Stephenson in conversation with East 2010).

This raises the question: Are we as individuals already potentially occupying the included middle/hidden third, or does that space require something more of us? I am of the opinion that successful occupancy of this fertile and highly intuitive realm demands new sets of interactional skills that need to be included as part of any disciplinary curriculum—dance being better equipped than most to cement these skills of interactive engagement, collaborative processes and other forms of interrelationship such as cross-cultural negotiation.

Links with the practice of dance: dance improvisation’s transdisciplinary attributes

If transdisciplinarity is about learning to work in the space across and between, what conversations can we as dancers bring to the table of the included middle? What questions might we pose that could contribute to this research towards a new ‘art of living’ that Nicolescu spoke of?

In the first instance, our ability to render our thoughts into choreographed action will provide another mode of communication for researchers. It is "thinking in movement [as] a way of being in the world, taking it up moment by moment and living it directly in movement, kinetically" (Sheets Johnstone 2009: 35).

Improvised dance provides the ideal seeding ground for practising intuitive response, of allowing for auspicious co-incidence and for responding to stimuli as immediate thought/action. As Sheets Johnstone states, it is about "working with the possibilities of the moment in a world that exists now" (31); "a process of “wondering” the world in movement" (30), of "bring[ing] something into being that never was before" (29).

I once described one of our Shared Agendas improvised dance and music performances at the University of Otago thus:

In these totally improvised events, new structures emerge out of aleatoric processes—form arising from formlessness as a continuum of evolving multiplicity of actions—each ofwhich is responding to the other by changing or adapting in some way. (East 2006: 223)

Susan Foster, in her book Dances that Describe Themselves, comments on a dancer’s ability to "track and evaluate choreographic decisions in the act of dancing" (2002b: 99) and refers to dancers following their psychological impulses until "an ending made itself felt" (76). Some of these more open ended performance approaches, in themselves, suggest a way forward for self-regulated, non-hierarchical interaction of dance as both a metaphor and a tool for TD interaction. They are surely valuable skills for a transdisciplinary researcher.

One of the pillars of TD is a reassessment of the nature of time, such as the relationship between stages of time and that between "stages of time" and "paces of time" (Kulikauskas 2008: 108). Reading relationships between moments of action in and through time/space or clusters of simultaneous activity within one moment is part of a dancer’s necessary expressive tool box.

Further to this, the dancer fine-tunes her own ‘timing’ in the act of dancing across, between and through the space, her somatic intelligence guiding her actions, the conscious and intuitive in continual dialogue. This changes her internal (somatic) and external (viewed) perceptual relationships. This ‘timing’ may be expressed as "the coordinating function of holistic change … the primordial somatic function that is expressed structurally in all neural systems" (Hanna 1976: 33).

The flow of information between the different levels of perception, the notion of knowledge as originating from both internal and external sources simultaneously, is another tenet of transdisciplinarity (Kulikauskas 2008: 110).

Valuing the possibility of multiple solutions and outcomes to a problem is key within the improvisation/choreography classroom. Schupp draws a connection here with responsible citizenship which, she points out, "deals with accountability, the ability to make choices that reflect personal values, the recognition of the larger community, and the skills to be a critical media consumer" (2011: 23).

My own eco-choreography pedagogy (East 2006) provides another example for educating potential boundary crossers. Within the teaching environment direct links are acknowledged between the ecological processes of nature including notions of community, co-operation, spontaneity, interrelationship, recognition of diversity, evolution and acknowledgment of a more porous eco-identity of "self plus other plus environment" (Gablik 1991: 177) as opposed to an ego-centred separate, bounded identity model of art making.

In this model the classroom is considered as a functioning eco-system in which the ideals of a participatory consciousness, of being and participating ‘with’ others and the world (Heshusius 1995) are fostered. Dancers educated via this model will be skilled boundary crossers.

By moving from dancing ‘in’ and ‘for’ to being and participating ‘with’ the incidental witnessing public and the environment, danced events such as those set up by Larry Lavender in galleries, libraries and other public places—including his World Movement Synthesis work (2008)3—attempt to dissolve the customary boundaries of performance altogether.

In their openness to any possibilities and the prioritising of the dancer’s sensibility and decision making, they demand an entire new set of critical parameters and dancer’s skills and redefine the shape and purpose of dance. In their open-endedness, boundary blurring behaviour and spontaneity these new dance research experiments seem to be both posing questions and suggesting new ways of being in the world. They may simply be seen as largely self-organising systems (one of the hallmarks of transdisciplinarity), responding and adapting to the circumstances at hand.

While the university espouses a multi/transdisciplinary research model, we are yet to see real support for dance as part of this practice. Remember, though, that when we presume to work across/between the disciplinary boundaries or when we invite others to cross over we also must be prepared to change our form (i.e. our behaviours, or to learn new languages) ourselves.

Future directions for research

A transdisciplinary approach within the university sees new organisational structures evolving, such as the `cell’ model favoured by Cskzentmihalyi (1993: 286-289) with clusters of people with differing skills and emphases working together, whose brief it is to learn more about some facet of the world.

Similarly, Luhman (2000) suggests adopting a model of networks and clusters of communication (already a feature of the entire cybernetic world), which are able to reproduce and reform themselves continuously—much like any spontaneous dance (my analogy), self-forming (autopoietic) units or aforementioned self-organising systems each seeing and responding to the world from their unique perspective (Maturana & Varella 1998).

There are a few good examples of cross-disciplinary research clusters at the University of Otago such as the CESAFE group. Another inter/transdisciplinary group is convened through The Higher Education Department researching ‘Sustainable Education’ for the university. While this dancer has been a frequent visitor in their discussions, the idea of a formal contribution from Dance has, to date, been viewed as a little unusual.

Proponents of transdisciplinarity, such as those mentioned throughout this article, are all urging university education to fulfil its mandate towards a ‘Unity of knowledge’ (Voss, quoting Nicolescu, 2001: 1) to open up its disciplinary borders, to expand and evolve its knowledge centres and embrace other transdisciplinary alliances in order to address the multidimensional issues facing our planetary survival.

Further research needs to be done regarding the role of dance studies in this inevitable paradigm shift as we move further into the 21st century and confront major global issues. The question of new dance pedagogies has been raised, but there will need to be new curricula and new modes of teaching dance making and presentation to support this.

A paradigm shift also involves aspects of funding, which have traditionally had a prescriptive disciplinary focus. How will these structures deal with a transdisciplinary application that is "beyond any discipline", devoid of any definitive outcome? How will we foster diversity and individual artistry (if this is deemed still relevant) within a convergence of ideas and co-operative creative methodologies? Is the dancing leopard prepared to change its spots in order to join with other knowledge clusters? These considerations are of vital importance if we wish to maintain relevance for dance studies programs in today’s global landscape.

Finally, as a return to the topic of this enquiry—what contribution can the metaphors and tools of dance make to transdisciplinary conversations? Here I will pause to venture a brief response to the final question: By opening ourselves up to new intra-departmental ideas, trusting in our intuition, our spontaneity, our holistic and multi-dimensional viewpoints, our highly developed spatio-temporalphysical languages of expression and our ability to move camp, flow across borders, share someone else’s sensory and perceptual space of knowing—watching (curious, but not needing to know) where this might lead us.

From this dancer’s perspective, we have been excluded from many multidisciplinary research groups as much because we have failed to promote ourselves as anything other than "artistic entertainment" (my conversationalist from Zoology commented that "within the university dance has tended to still be considered as more of a decorative art than as making a contribution to serious research" and because we have failed to venture across discipline boundaries ourselves to engage in the important conversations on the big issues facing the future of life on the planet.

Conclusion

The aim of this paper has been to affirm and validate a place for the subject and art of dance within the university research environment, and to question its motivation in this regard. It suggests that transdisciplinarity is a possible if not necessary path for dance education as we move into the highly complex global society of the 21st century.

This model supports all pedagogies of connection (Dillon 2008) and paves the way for the evolution of new ideas and new configurations of knowledge both within the dance studies area and for university research and teaching and learning in general.

A contribution, from dance, to transdisciplinary research must begin with a genuine desire on our part to move beyond our own disciplinary interests. As well, it must involve a genuine belief, from those both inside and outside the discipline, in the special attributes, knowledge and skill base of dance, and of the dancer’s very particular ways of seeing and critically reflecting on the world.

In moving between/across the disciplinary divide, in order to map new knowledge territories, the hope is for a ‘reenchantment’, to use Gablik’s (1991) term, of our dance discipline in order to create "a broader platform for our creative futures" (McWilliam et al 2008: 247). (Transdisciplinarity, it will be remembered, is not exclusive of disciplinarity).

My own boundary crossings—my informal conversations around campus—have sown seeds for future networking and formed new relationships and new understanding of the sort that are necessary if the university is to keep up with global trends and sustain healthy transdisciplinary research communities.

References

• Adshead, J., Brinshaw, V., Hodgens, P. & Huxley, M. 1988. Dance Analysis, Theory and Practice. London: Dance Books Ltd.
• Clifford, J. 1988. The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art. Cambridge, Mass. & London: Harvard University Press.
• Cskzentmihalyi, M. 1993. The Evolving Self. New York: HarperCollins.
• Dillon, P. 2008. A Pedagogy of Connection and Boundary crossings: Methodological and epistemological transactions in working across and between disciplines. Innovations in Education and Teaching international 45(3): 255–262.
• East, A. 2006. Teaching Dance as if the World Matters: Eco-choreography—a Design for Teaching Dance–Making in the 21st Century. M.PHED. thesis. University of Otago.
• East, A & Rajendren, B. 2009. Trans-locational Dance Study: The educational efficacy and outcomes of a field trip from the University of Otago, New Zealand to South India. Published Proceedings of World Dance Alliance Researching Dance Conference. December 2009: 25–30.
• Eckel, P & Hartley, M. 2008. Developing Academic Strategic Alliances: Reconciling Multiple Institutional Cultures, Policies, and Practices. The Journal of Higher Education 79(6): 613–637. Foster, S. L. 2002a. Walking and Other Choreographic Tactics: Danced Inventions of Theatricality and Performativity. Substance 31(2&3): 125–146.
• Foster, S. L. 2002b. Dances that describe themselves: The improvised choreography of Richard Bull. Middletown CT: Wesleyan University Press.
• Gablik, S. 1991. The Reenchantment of Art. New York: Thames and Hudson Inc.
• Gardner, H. 1994. The Arts and Human Development. NY: Basic Books Harper Collins.
• Hanna T. 1976. The Field of Somatics. Somatics Magazine of Bodily Arts and Sciences 1(1): 31–33.
• Heshusius, L. 1995. Listening to Children: ‘What could we possibly have in common?’ From Concerns with Self to Participatory Consciousness. Theory into Practice 34(2): 117–123. Kulikauskas, P. 2008. Perception of Time and Continuity of Development in Transdisciplinary Perspective of Cultural Heritage. In Transdisciplinarity: Theory and Practice. Edited by
• B. Nicolescu. New York: Hampton Press: 105–113.
• Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we Live By. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.
• Lavender, L. 2009. Dialogical Practices in Teaching Choreography. Dance Chronicle 32(3): 377–411.
• Luhman, N. 2000. Social Systems. Translated by J.Jr. Bednarz and D. Baker. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.
• Maturana, U. R. & Varella, F. J. 1998. The Tree of Knowledge: The biological roots of Human Understanding. Boston, London: Shambala Press.
• McGregor, S. L.T. 2008. Positioning Poverty within Transdisciplinarity. Keynote paper. Malta National Conference on Fight against Poverty. University of Malta European Documentation and Research Centre of Excellence.
• McWilliam, E, Hearn, G & Haseman, B. 2008. Transdisciplinarity for Creative futures: What Barriers and Opportunities? Innovations in Education and Teaching International 45(3): 247–253.
• Naess A. 1973. The Shallow and the Deep: Long-range Ecological Movement. Inquiry 16: 43–45.
• Nicolescu, B. 1997. The Transdisciplinary Evolution of the University Condition for Sustainable Development. Talk at the International Congress ‘Universities’ Responsibilities to Society’, International Association of Universities, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand, November 12–14.
• Nicolescu, B. 2006. Transdisciplinarity—Past, Present and Future. Conference proceedings published in Moving worldviews: Reshaping sciences, policies and practices for endogenous sustainable development. Compas series on Worldviews and Sciences no 4. Edited by B. Haverkort and C. Reijntjes. Leusden: ETC/Compas: 142–166.
• Nicolescu, B., ed. 2008. Transdisciplinarity Theory and Practice. Kresskill, NJ: Hampton Press inc.
• Ross-Johnston, R. 2008. On Connection and Community. Transdisciplinarity and the Arts. In Transdisciplinarity Theory and Practice. Edited by B. Nicolescu. Kresskill, NJ: Hampton Press: 223–236.
• Schupp, K. 2011. Informed Decisions: Dance Improvisation and Responsible Citizenship. Journal of Dance Education 11: 22–29.
• Schwarz, R.L. 1993. Space, Movement and Meaning: Thoughts on a Seminar. With an introduction by Christina Svane and notes by research participants. Contact Quarterly 18(2) (Summer/Fall): 42–52.
• Senghaas, D. 1976. Peace Research and the Analysis of the Causes of Social Violence: Transdisciplinarity. [Online]. Available: http://sdi.sagepub.com [12 April 2011].
• Sheets Johnstone, M. 2009. The Corporeal Turn: An Interdisciplinary Reader. Exeter: Imprint Academic.
• Voss, K. C. 2001. Review Essay of Basarab Nicolescu’s ‘Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity’. [Online]. Available: http://www.esoteric.msu.edu/Reviews/NicolescuReview.htmhttp://www.esoteric.msu.edu=""> [29 April 2010].http://www.esoteric.msu.edu="">

http://www.esoteric.msu.edu="">Notes

http://www.esoteric.msu.edu=""> 1 Resilience 2011 – Resilience, Innovation, and Sustainability: Navigating the Complexities of Global Change Second International Science and Policy Conference, Tempe, Arizona, USA. See http://www.resilience.org

http://www.esoteric.msu.edu="">2  CESAFE (Centre for the Study of Agriculture, Food and Environment), University of Otago: a transdisciplinary research centre directed by Janet Stephenson. See http://www.csafe.org.nz

http://www.esoteric.msu.edu="">3  The World Movement Synthesis project involved Lavender setting up a video camera outside the Dunedin Museum and soliciting movements from members of the public. These were learned by a dancer and synthesised into a dance, which was then performed in the city gallery following a perfect rendering of the learned moves by dancer Sofia Kalogeropoulou.