Doctoral research: narrative, an

intellectual elaboration nuanced by

interdisciplinarity and

complexity

La investigación doctoral: la narrativa una

elaboración intelectiva matizada por la

interdisciplinariedad y la complejidad

Adrián Filiberto Contreras Colmenares*

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6711-3649

San Cristóbal, Táchira State / Venezuela

* Professor Emeritus of the University of Los Andes -Táchira, Venezuela. Senior Category, Retired. Lawyer.

Doctor in Education. Postdoctoral in Research. Email: adrianfilidi@gmail.com

Received: May/11/2023 Reviewed: May/25/2023 Approved: July/21/2023 Published: January/10/2024

How to quote: Contreras, C. A. F. (2024). Doctoral research: narrative, an intellectual elaboration

nuanced by interdisciplinarity and complexity. Revista Digital de Investigación y Postgrado, 5(9), 63-

85. https://doi.org/10.59654/eebne822

Revista Digital de Investigación y Postgrado 5(9), 63-85

ISSN electrónico: 2665-038X

https://doi.org/10.59654/eebne822

Adrián Filiberto Contreras Colmenares

Abstract

The narrative that emerges from the development of a doctoral research, currently has to be

pergeñada of aspects such as interdisciplinarity and complexity. In addition, the importance of

multiperspectivity and multicontextuality must be understood. In view of this preceding criterion,

the intention of this discourse is to reflect on how the researcher should transform the writing

process when reporting findings, based on the approach to the cognizable object. The essay is

based on the examination of valuable literature, combined with documentary research, as well

as the cogitations and maxims of the personal experiences of the person carrying out this in-

tellectual discourse. As a provisional truth: we aspire to continue in this line of thought to deepen

the need to transform the feelthinking of doctoral thesis researchers, tutors (or thesis directors)

and jurors, referees or members of a doctoral tribunal.

Keywords:

narrative, doctoral research, complexity, interdisciplinarity, multi-perspectivity, multi-contextuality.

Resumen

La narrativa que surge del desarrollo de una investigación doctoral, en la actualidad ha de estar

pergeñada de aspectos como la interdisciplinariedad y la complejidad. Aunado a ello, comprender

la importancia de la multiperspectividad y la multicontextualidad. En atención a este criterio pre-

cedente, la intencionalidad de este discurrir es la de reflexionar acerca cómo debe haber una

transformación del proceso escritural por parte del investigador cuando reporte los hallazgos, a

partir del acercamiento al objeto cognoscible. La disertación realizada se ha fundamentado en la

revisión de literatura valiosa, con lo cual se asocia a la investigación documental; así como las co-

gitaciones y máximas de experiencias personales de quien realiza este discurso intelectivo. Como

verdad provisional: se aspira a seguir en esta línea de pensamiento para profundizar sobre la ne-

cesidad de transformar el sentipensar de los investigadores de tesis doctorales, de los tutores (o

directores de tesis) y de los jurados, árbitros o integrantes de un tribunal doctoral.

Palabras clave: narrativa, investigación doctoral, complejidad, interdisciplinariedad, multipers-

pectividad, multicontextualidad.

Preamble

Facing the writing of a doctoral research report often becomes complex and acquires a certain

degree of difficulty. This can be due to several issues, ranging from epistemological simplism, lin-

guistic denotation derived from the limited non-visual information contained in the hippocampus,

to a limited command of writing skills. Regarding this latter aspect, the difficulty is expressed in a

lack of attention to syntax and paragraph development; therefore, ideas are presented without

considering coherence, cohesion, and linkage. Moreover, externally, one is subject to the prevailing

academic dictatorship, either from advisors (thesis directors) or examination committees (doctoral

tribunal members), who are seen as icons of intellectualism, and whose ideas must be accepted

ad litteram. Hence, they do not allow for the construction of creative discourse.

Doctoral research: narrative, an intellectual elaboration nuanced

by interdisciplinarity and complexity

Revista Digital de Investigación y Postgrado 5(9), 63-85

ISSN electrónico: 2665-038X

Such considerations lead to the development of a doctoral thesis with limited vocabulary, very

precise, quite denotative, and without promoting ποίησις (poiesis) as the impulse of connotative

language, emerging from a lexical domain based on conscious and deeply reflected readings.

Its content must be understood and internalized in a way that enables the researcher to write

fluently. Therefore, in this discourse, we aim to delve into aspects related to the elaboration of

a doctoral thesis. These aspects include: what is to be understood by research; the transition

from disciplinarity to interdisciplinarity. Likewise, we have considered multiperspectivity and mul-

ticontextuality as dimensions that allow for a richer understanding of all communicational acts.

We cannot overlook complexity, whose foundational criterion is interdisciplinarity. And, based

on that consideration, the narrative will acquire deeper nuances and cognitive richness that will

turn the characterization of findings into high-quality poetic prose. Finally, it is hoped that those

who engage in research can delve into this academic discourse to transform their way of feeling

and thinking, and thus, leave their mark on the discourse leading to the formality of presenting

a brilliant doctoral narrative.

The research in doctoral theses

The investigative processes in the construction of knowledge in doctoral theses require dif-

ferent approaches, scrutinous attitudes, and new holographic perspectives that lead the re-

searcher to establish connectivity at various levels: macro, meso, and micro, through a

discourse that emerges from encountering the phenomenal. All of this must be grounded in

the intelligibility and understanding that these levels must be perfectly cohesive; therefore,

each of them reveals, shines, and sparkles with an intellectual act, imbued with complexity

due to the interrelation with other levels, elements, and facets that are part of the phenome-

non under study.

In the phenomenal realm, as argued by

Bonil et al. (2004: 5):

Numerous elements converge, and multiple and varied interactions occur in processes

where dynamism is constant. A world in which the interaction between social and na-

tural perspectives has given rise to a model of social organization that reflects a pro-

found crisis

This perspective of relational multiplicity encourages the researcher to find other narratives that

support their discourse after conducting the inquiry and presenting it with a scientific approach

but with an innovative tone or nuance.

To delve into this intellectual act, let's start with the definition of research, which might be con-

sidered commonplace. However, it is valued as relevant, appropriate, in short: necessary. In this

context, researching is a term that can be described as polysemic. Its first association can be

traced back to the Latin term "vestigium" which, according to the Etimologías de Chile (2023: 1),

Our translation:

Numerous elements converge, and multiple and varied interactions occur in processes where

dynamism is constant. A world in which the interaction between social and natural perspectives has given rise to a

model of social organization that reflects a profound crisis.

Adrián Filiberto Contreras Colmenares

“…se refería a la planta o suela del pie, [vale indicar, se vinculaba] con la marca que dejaba el pie

en la tierra y después a la indicación de que alguien había caminado por allí”

. Translatively, it

can be said that from this origin emerges the expression "investigare" This Latin verb, as explai-

ned by Ander-Egg (1995: 57), “…proviene del latín in (en) y vestigare (hallar, inquirir, indagar, se-

guir vestigios) lo que conduce al concepto más elemental de descubrir o averiguar alguna cosa,

seguir la huella de algo, explorar”

. From this eidetic association, the concept of discovery and

exploration can be extracted, using it to refer to the act of research.

With support from the aforementioned, it can be asserted, following Ander-Egg (1995:57), that

when it comes to defining the scope of this term, it can be indicated that, regarding its appli-

cability, it will be found in a sphere, in a context, or an "ambit" with plural actions and practices

that can be carried out “…desde [las actividades que ejecuta] el detective [hasta el acto que re-

aliza] el científico”

. The spectrum of use for the expression "investigar" is broad. In consistency

with this discursive intellectual act, the referentiality is situated in the realm of scientific research.

That is, in the specific case of reflection, it pertains to the act of crafting a doctoral thesis.

In light of these considerations, delving into this act—the inquiry or investigation—it can be

said that it tends to be regarded as a process or a procedure. Under the consideration of a pro-

cedure,

Ander-Egg (1992: 57) states:

...la investigación es un procedimiento reflexivo, sistemático, controlado y crítico que tiene

por finalidad descubrir o interpretar los hechos y fenómenos, relaciones y leyes de un de-

terminado ámbito de la realidad; [es] una búsqueda de hechos, un camino para conocer

la realidad, un procedimiento para conocer verdades parciales, -o mejor-, para descubrir

no falsedades parciales

Reflexivity and systematicity are evident, guiding the researcher in the hermeneutic act of fin-

dings related to the object of knowledge. Based on this hermeneutics conducted by the re-

searcher, supported by the prolific literature found, they will proceed to reveal, through a

exquisitely structured dialogue, the explanatory understanding or the comprehensive expla-

nation of the phenomenon that has been part of the object of knowledge. In doing so, the

cognizant subject approaches this knowable object to explain it, comprehend it, and even

transform it.

Our translation: .. Initially referred to the plant or sole of the foot, indicating the mark left by the foot on the

ground and later evolving into the indication that someone had walked there.

Our translation: ..comes from the Latin in (in) and vestigare (to find, inquire, investigate, follow traces), leading to

the most basic concept of discovering or finding something, following the trace of something, exploring."

Our translation: from the activities performed by the detective to the act performed by the scientist.

Our translation: ...research is a reflective, systematic, controlled, and critical procedure aimed at discovering or

interpreting facts and phenomena, relationships and laws within a specific domain of reality; [it is] a quest for facts,

a pathway to understand reality, a method to uncover partial truths—or rather—to discover not partial falsehoods.

Doctoral research: narrative, an intellectual elaboration nuanced

by interdisciplinarity and complexity

Revista Digital de Investigación y Postgrado 5(9), 63-85

ISSN electrónico: 2665-038X

The reflexivity and systematicity that should assist the researcher in the hermeneutic act of fin-

dings related to the object of knowledge are evident. Based on this hermeneutics conducted

by the researcher, supported by the prolific literature found, they will proceed to reveal, through

an exquisitely structured dialogue, the explanatory understanding or comprehensive explanation

of the phenomenon that has been part of the object of knowledge. This occurs as the cognizant

subject approaches this knowable object to explain it, comprehend it, and even transform it.

Under this guidance, as expressed by Grajales (2000: 2):

…el investigador debe aportar un alto sentido de orden, constancia y cuidado meticuloso

propio de aquellos que han desarrollado un alto grado de responsabilidad. La honestidad

es un valor indispensable en la verdadera investigación dado el esfuerzo y sacrificio que re-

presenta la búsqueda de la verdad y la constante oportunidad para descuidar los detalles

Within the discourse of writing, it is necessary, then, to take the preceding statement as a basis

to record the responsibility that a doctoral thesis researcher has in establishing an order to ar-

ticulate their scientific feelings and thoughts. As

Contreras (2023: 27) maintains:

La investigación, en ciertos niveles académicos, debe trascender lo convencional y el sen-

cillo acto de revelar los hallazgos. La narrativa científica debe estar matizada de comple-

jidad; además, ha de estar guiada por un sintagma problematizador, un sintagma

teleológico y un sintagma ontológico-epistemológico; ellos imbrican una arquitectura

transmetódica y compleja para el descubrimiento del saber

This preceding criterion could be expanded with the assertion focused on it being the realization

of the research; that is: its scientific report, which must go beyond merely denotative and sim-

plifying discourse to delve into the facets of a deeper discourse. A story, a narrative, an appre-

ciative stance that can and should be imbued with ποίησις (poiesis): creation, creativity, a

different way of doing, a poetry. Poetry is creation.

Platón (2016: 34) concurs: “‘Poesía’, en efecto,

se llama tan solo a ésta, y a los que poseen esa porción de ‘creación’, ‘poetas’”

. So, the researcher,

Our translation: ...the researcher must bring a high sense of order, perseverance, and meticulous care, characte-

ristic of those who have developed a high degree of responsibility. Honesty is an indispensable value in true re-

search, given the effort and sacrifice that the pursuit of truth represents and the constant opportunity to overlook

details.

Our translation: At certain academic levels, research must transcend the conventional and the simple act of re-

vealing findings. Scientific narrative should be nuanced with complexity; moreover, it should be guided by a pro-

blematizing syntagma, a teleological syntagma, and an ontological-epistemological syntagma. These elements

interweave a transmethodic and complex architecture for the discovery of knowledge.

Our translation: ...'Poetry,' indeed, is the name given only to this, and to those who possess that portion of 'crea-

tion,' 'poets.'

Adrián Filiberto Contreras Colmenares

in the expressive presentation of their thesis, must anchor themselves in creation. They can har-

ness their imagination, creativity, and poetry.

Therefore, as poiesis, the doctoral thesis must be an intellectual act of transcendence, infused

with creativity and originality, in which the immense responsibility of the researcher as a builder

of their own knowledge must be present. This constructive act must encompass the nuances of

being comprehensive, multiversal, transcontextual, and transcendent. The multiversal aspect

should be understood not only from a philosophical perspective, as in this realm of knowledge,

the multiversal tends to refer to a world that is valued as a world in need of purpose, design,

or predictability but should also be grounded in physics and cosmology. The multiversal is thus

linked to an imaginary, hypothetical group of all possible universes that exist, of which we are

a part.

It is common to observe, in doctoral research, according to the maxims of experience, a journey

through epistemic and gnoseological comfort; that is to say, through cognitive stability based

on a reductionist, simplifying, and hypothesizing paradigm. As

Balza (2020: 52) notes in the

construction of knowledge related to the doctoral spectrum:

…[en] el pensamiento y praxis investigativa de nivel doctoral, en el campo de las Ciencias

Sociales, pareciera (…) [que se navega] en la corriente de lo simple, pues, muchas veces

se ahoga en el análisis de lo efímero y se alindera en el determinismo y reduccionismo

del pensamiento único; el cual, a su vez, empobrece al mínimo toda realidad y toda idea

nueva e iniciativa del investigador

Many times, furthermore, the researcher in training often follows the intentionality and criteria of

their guide rather than their own eidetic formulation, thereby accentuating the academic dictatorship

centered on a methodology typical of inductivism/deductivism. That is why, in the face of new epis-

temological, gnoseological, and methodological realities that allow for a different approach to the

phenomenon, to the quest for an explanation or understanding of the knowledge gap, it becomes

necessary to embrace the onto-implicating doubt

(Balza, 2020) - perhaps it sounds daring, but I will

call it "onto-guiding doubt" - as this doubt becomes the fundamental support for discerning know-

ledge and guiding its construction, development, and realization in a doctoral thesis.

And, as

Contreras (2017: 1) affirms: El desarrollo de una tesis doctoral, muchas veces, en cuanto

reto intelectivo, que concita reflexión, lectura, relectura, escritura y reescritura constante, se ha

tornado en acto agobiante y de preocupación, a veces frustrante, para los participantes e inves-

Our translation: The development of a doctoral thesis, often seen as an intellectual challenge that involves re-

flection, reading, rereading, constant writing, and rewriting, has become a burdensome and worrisome task, so-

metimes frustrating, for participants and novice researchers.

Doctoral research: narrative, an intellectual elaboration nuanced

by interdisciplinarity and complexity

Revista Digital de Investigación y Postgrado 5(9), 63-85

ISSN electrónico: 2665-038X

tigadores noveles”

. This is why it becomes necessary to understand and confront new writing

challenges and new ways of complexifying the narrative in doctoral theses, based on constant

reading and thoughtful reflection on what it means to craft the report of a doctoral research.

As a corollary to this section, it can be indicated that the development of a doctoral thesis, after ha-

ving gone through the process of approaching the knowable object, is an intellectual action that

must be nuanced by feelings, emotionality, and mastery of discourse. This discourse will be grounded

in the multiple readings undertaken by the researcher, allowing them to possess non-visual infor-

mation

(Smith, 1989) that propels an interesting creative act. This information stored in the hippo-

campus is what will guide and facilitate the composition of a distinct, novel, and impactful narrative.

In this context, doctoral research and the narrative that must unfold should be grounded in va-

luing the holistic nature of the phenomenon and, consequently, delving into interdisciplinary

aspects and the complex thought-feeling derivations of the researcher. That is to say, if we think

and feel in a complex manner, our object of knowledge or knowable object, presented to us as

cognizant subjects, as researchers, as knowledge builders, will reflect that complexity rather

than being mere social reproducers of knowledge.

Disciplinarity and Interdisciplinarity

An assumption that the researcher, positioned as a creator of novel and unprecedented know-

ledge, must consider is the appreciation of aspects such as disciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, mul-

tidisciplinarity, and, why not, an exploration of criteria for transdisciplinarity. These guiding

principles are relevant today as doctoral studies are being conducted in various fields, based

on the Sciences of Education and other disciplines, where the researcher associates their object

of knowledge. Disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity are closely linked to multiperspectivity and

multicontextuality, dimensions that will be briefly discussed below.

It is worth noting that, until now, the constructive idea of knowledge by researchers has focused

on presenting the specificity of the object of knowledge, grounded in the fragmentation of

knowledge in each discipline. Each segment explains, understands, and transforms its source

of knowledge. This is disciplinarity. As

Duque (2000: 7) expresses: “Se llama paradigma disciplinar

aquel en donde el conocimiento científico se organiza por disciplinas, las cuales establecen la di-

visión y especialización del trabajo, de acuerdo con los diversos campos de las ciencias”

. In other

Our translation: ...[in] the thought and investigative praxis at the doctoral level, in the field of Social Sciences, it

seems (…) [that one navigates] in the current of simplicity, as it often drowns in the analysis of the ephemeral and

aligns itself with the determinism and reductionism of singular thinking; which, in turn, diminishes to the minimum

every reality and every new idea and initiative of the researcher.

Our translation: The disciplinary paradigm is called such when scientific knowledge is organized by disciplines,

which establish the division and specialization of work according to various fields of the sciences.

Adrián Filiberto Contreras Colmenares

words, the autonomy of each science exists and is recognized; hence, the production of scientific

knowledge about its own true knowable object. However, it is necessary to transcend this au-

tonomy, without considering it as a loss of disciplinary autonomy. Rather, it should be viewed

as an interrelation, aiming for a better understanding of the phenomenon under investigation.

This disciplinarity leads the researcher to develop and foster the conviction to delve deeper

day by day and with greater proficiency into the object of knowledge within their field of study.

While taking this step is important and sometimes necessary for achieving a profound mastery

of disciplinary knowledge, it can “…llevar consigo un riesgo de hiperespecialización del investi-

gador y un riesgo de ‘cosificación’ del objeto estudiado olvidando que tal objeto es una cons-

trucción. El objeto de la disciplina será entonces percibido como una cosa en sí”

(Duque, 2000:

). And, as a master of disciplinary knowledge, it may also lead to having extensive and pro-

found knowledge about the object of study but very little about other fields. The axiom is em-

braced: "knows a lot about very little." This may also imply having an ocean of knowledge with

only an inch of depth. And that needs to be overcome.

Therefore, in the face of this evident and imminent objectifying act of the studied phenomenon,

it becomes appropriate to move towards interdisciplinarity, which becomes the founding point

of complexity. The objectification leads to a symbolic reworking of what thinking beings do

with their materiality. And in this intentionality, one can reach a “conciencia cosificada o cósica”

(Sierra, 2007: 3).

And as

Sierra himself clearly states (2007: 3):

La conciencia cósica o cosificada se presenta de dos modos. Por un lado, la reconstrucción

que los sujetos hacen del mundo social la realizan como si se tratase de objetos inde-

pendientes de sus acciones, como si éstos no estuviesen ligados a los primeros sino como

si tuviesen existencia propia. Por otro lado, esta conciencia atribuye a los objetos sociales

existencia independiente, no los puede concebir como inscritos en el devenir histórico

social, sino que los supone provistos de esencialidades atemporales. [Itálicas en el origi-

nal]

Our translation: ...carry with it the risk of hyper-specialization for the researcher and a risk of 'objectification' of

the studied object, forgetting that such an object is a construct. The object of the discipline will then be percei-

ved as a thing in itself.

Our translation: objectified consciousness

Our translation: Objectified or object-consciousness presents itself in two ways. On one hand, the reconstruction

that individuals make of the social world is done as if it were composed of objects independent of their actions, as

if these were not connected to the individuals but as if they had their own existence. On the other hand, this cons-

ciousness attributes independent existence to social objects, it cannot conceive them as inscribed in the social-

historical process but assumes them to be endowed with timeless essentialities. [Italics in the original]

Doctoral research: narrative, an intellectual elaboration nuanced

by interdisciplinarity and complexity

Revista Digital de Investigación y Postgrado 5(9), 63-85

ISSN electrónico: 2665-038X

Therefore, to transcend that act of "objectified consciousness," it becomes necessary to delve

into interdisciplinarity as the foundation for scientific progress, as a founding criterion, and as

a emphatic support of complexity. Regarding interdisciplinarity,

Pérez & Setién (2008: 1), they

argue that: [Ella] constituye uno de los aspectos esenciales en el desarrollo científico actual. No

se concibe la explicación de los problemas sociales desde una concepción científica sin la inte-

racción de las disciplinas afines”

. And on this foundation, concerning education, a taxonomy

has been created called Educational Sciences (Mialaret, 1985). Through them, in interrelation,

another way of narrating what has been found during the approach to the phenomenon of

knowledge can be conceived, in a more comprehensive manner.

In line with this, it is relevant to present the appreciation of Klaassen, Kothuis & Slinger

(2021: 79-80), who have noted the following:Interdisciplinarity can be understood as

combining two or more disciplines at the level of theory, methods, or solution space,

to form a transcendent and innovative understanding or solution, that in turn can pos-

sibly transform the mono-discipline(s) (Repko, 2007; Menken & Keestra, 2016; Fortuin,

2015). Two interdisciplinary ways of working can be distinguished, namely: within a team

of experts with different disciplinary backgrounds, or an individual using the theory,

methods and solutions from disciplines other than their area of expertise in seeking an

answer to their research or design questions.

As can be read, the idea of interrelation between two or more disciplines is rightly pointed

out, but also when professionals with expertise in different disciplines interact. However, as can

be anticipated, it can be an individual, a researcher, or an expert who applies propositions,

theories, procedures, and solution responses from other disciplines to address a situation re-

garding the phenomenon being questioned.

Regarding this perspective of interdisciplinarity, it is prudent and relevant to understand, as

stated by Nicolescu (2003, as cited in

Balza, 2020: 56), that it is related to the: “…transferencia

de métodos de una disciplina a otra y se puede distinguir por su grado de aplicación, fundaentos

epistemológicos y de concepción de nuevas disciplinas”

. And, in line with this, Balza himself

(

2020: 60) states: “Esta visión de interdisciplinariedad adquiere esa categoría, sólo cuando se

genera un nuevo conocimiento proveniente de una transferencia de métodos, técnicas, teorías

y procedimientos”

. With research under the interdisciplinary criterion, it is possible and ne-

cessary to achieve an interrelation between the various disciplines of knowledge, allowing a

regrouping of these knowledges.

Our translation: It] constitutes one of the essential aspects in current scientific development. The explanation of

social issues from a scientific perspective is inconceivable without the interaction of related disciplines.

Our translation: ...transfer of methods from one discipline to another and can be distinguished by its degree of

application, epistemological foundations, and the conception of new disciplines.

Our translation: "This view of interdisciplinarity attains that category only when new knowledge is generated

from a transfer of methods, techniques, theories, and procedures.

Adrián Filiberto Contreras Colmenares

In this direction, Pérez & Setién (2008: 1) express:

la reagrupación de los saberes. En la ciencia moderna, la preocupación de sus principales

exponentes —Galileo, Descartes, Bacon— por la sociedad científica interdisciplinaria fue

invariable. La diferencia radica sólo en que añadieron a esta agrupación interdisciplinar

la necesidad de una comunicación entre las disciplinas, elemento que retoma la interdis-

ciplinariedad a mediados del siglo XX. Fueron exponentes de estas ideas: Gottfried Wilhelm

Von Leibnitz y Jean Amos Komenski (Comenio). Este último propuso la pansophia, como

pedagogía de la unidad, capaz de eliminar la fragmentación del saber de las disciplinas

So, regarding interdisciplinarity, it is also worth noting that various attempts have been made

to grasp and apprehend the dynamism involved in approaching interdisciplinary activity. As

Peñuela aptly points out (2005: 49):

…se pueden encontrar dos lógicas básicas de constitución: una que usa la palabra interdis-

ciplinariedad como eje central acompañada de un adjetivo que da cuenta del aspecto a re-

saltar (cuando se logra especificar), entre las que están: interdisciplinariedad lineal, estructural,

heterogénea, auxiliar, compuesta, complementaria, unificadora, cruzada, isomórfica, paralela,

temática, metodológica, por método, por teoría, por regla, por objeto. Y otra, que se construye

con base en prefijos (raíces griegas y latinas) y en una jerarquía que busca medir el nivel de

interacción alcanzado. En esta encontramos: multidisciplinariedad (multi–D), polidisciplina-

riedad (poli–D), pluridisciplinariedad (pluri–D), transdisThus, in line with cognitive action, from

and with an interdisciplinary perspective, semiotics must be transformed, guided by a fra-

ming, structuring framework, to tend towards a deconstruction - a method developed by

Derrida in 1960, as cited in Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2022: 1), which was defined as:ciplina-

riedad (trans–D) y metadisciplinariedad (meta–D), entre otras opciones posibles

Our translation: Interdisciplinarity is nothing more than the epistemological reaffirmation and constant regrouping of

knowledge. In modern science, the concern of its main proponents—Galileo, Descartes, Bacon—for interdisciplinary

scientific society was unwavering. The difference lies only in that they added to this interdisciplinary grouping the necessity

of communication between disciplines, an element that interdisciplinarity reintroduced in the mid-20th century. Advocates

of these ideas included Gottfried Wilhelm Von Leibnitz and Jean Amos Komenski (Comenius). The latter proposed pan-

sophia as a pedagogy of unity, capable of eliminating the fragmentation of knowledge across disciplines.

Our translation: ...two basic logics of constitution can be found: one that uses the word interdisciplinarity as the

central axis accompanied by an adjective that accounts for the aspect to highlight (when it can be specified), in-

cluding: linear interdisciplinarity, structural interdisciplinarity, heterogeneous interdisciplinarity, auxiliary interdisci-

plinarity, composite interdisciplinarity, complementary interdisciplinarity, unifying interdisciplinarity,

cross-disciplinarity, isomorphic interdisciplinarity, parallel interdisciplinarity, thematic interdisciplinarity, methodo-

logical interdisciplinarity, method-based interdisciplinarity, theory-based interdisciplinarity, rule-based interdisci-

plinarity, object-based interdisciplinarity. The other logic is constructed based on prefixes (Greek and Latin roots)

and a hierarchy that seeks to measure the level of interaction achieved. In this category, we find: multidisciplinarity

(multi-D), polydisciplinarity (poly-D), pluridisciplinarity (pluri-D), transdisciplinarity (trans-D), and metadisciplinarity

(meta-D), among other possible options.

Doctoral research: narrative, an intellectual elaboration nuanced

by interdisciplinarity and complexity

Revista Digital de Investigación y Postgrado 5(9), 63-85

ISSN electrónico: 2665-038X

From what has been explained, one can infer about the plurality of approaches that are linked,

in principle, to the disciplinary. Now, the approach and cognitive elaboration, from interdiscipli-

narity, are based on the methodological conjunction of the different disciplines involved in said

elaboration, so it is necessary to delve into a contemplation that is not absorbed, but reflective

from and with the transdisciplinarity of the object of knowledge. This dilettante reflexivity involves

taking on a progressive and perfecting commitment to all the limitations bordering on the cur-

tailment of human thought-feeling (

Balza, 2020). This thought-feeling must be strengthened

through emerging epistemologies such as transdisciplinarity and complexity. And this is the

focal point of this cognitive discourse: the trans-D (transdisciplinarity).

So then, consistent with the cognitive process, from and with an interdisciplinary perspective,

semiotics must be transformed, guided by a framing, structuring framework, to tend towards a

deconstruction - a method developed by Derrida in 1960, as cited in

Encyclopaedia Britannica,

2022: 1)

, which was defined as: "...[a] form of philosophical and literary analysis"; furthermore,

with interdisciplinarity - and with the possibility of being grounded in transdisciplinarity - the

resolution of dilemmas that transcends reasoning must be positioned. This reasoning, which

until now has relied on a premise containing a choice between two terms, while other premises

indicate that both cases of the choice lead to the same conclusive outcome, must be overcome

with a foundational transdisciplinary epistemology.

The language used to translate the knowledge and theory achieved, to be shared through a

doctoral thesis, must go beyond denotation to be presented connotatively. It must aim to create

an instructive and illustrative lexicon that redefines and resemantizes the existing. It must draw

on interdisciplinary support from linguistics, philosophy, pedagogy, semiotics, among others,

to achieve this transcendent discourse. Thus, it will draw from semiotics, semantics, lexicography,

grammar, syntax, relational syntagms, free syntagms, and phraseological units, among many

others. This requires a significant and necessary linguistic proficiency on the part of the doctoral

researcher, enabling them to break free from the shackles of intellectual constraints and ensure

a new way of communicating knowledge.

So then, as a creative drive in the art of writing to disseminate the knowledge that has been created,

it must be envisioned with an interdisciplinary perspective. In this way, progress is made in science,

as Morin (1984, as cited in

Peñuela, 2005: 65) states: ): “La ciencia nunca hubiera sido la ciencia…”

Therefore, in the construction of knowledge, and thus science, interdisciplinarity resembles an op-

tion, an epistemology that allows every researcher to interweave and correlate existing disciplines

and their corresponding methods of approaching their respective objects of knowledge.

For this reason, the researcher must be creative, a dreamer, to challenge preconceived frame-

works. With this argumentative foundation, the need to modify the anchors and schemes that

Our translation: The science would have never been the science...

Adrián Filiberto Contreras Colmenares

currently exist in doctoral research should be addressed. This research has a constructive teleo-

logy aiming for disruptive and transformative knowledge. This must be the case, as considera-

tions must be taken into account “…las interconexiones en el sentido del complexus de los

fenómenos”

(Balza, 2020: 63).

In that interconnectedness established in the phenomena, various integrative dimensions of

objects of knowledge can be appreciated. This is how you can find:

…ciertas dimensiones, “niveles de realidad” (Nicolescu, 1996), que exigen una actitud dife-

rente, un encuentro con la fractalidad, “una oscilación entre la práctica teorizada y la teoría

practicada” (Ramírez, 1999b), una dialéctica fractal (Ramírez, 1999c) o partir de una “lógica

arborescente”, o lógica sinfónica (Morin, 1984). (Como fueron citaron en

Peñuela, 2005: 68)

In that orientation, considered as they should be, the multiple interconnections when it comes

to knowledge crafted from a doctoral research, such construction “…nos permite un tránsito

mental y un despliegue argumental para la resemantización de nuevos campos de conocimiento

en absoluta libertad de pensamiento; es decir, sin resistencias epistemológicas, conceptuales y

lingüísticas”

(Balza, 2020: 64).

And this premise that stands as the foundation to advance in science, hence, in understanding

knowledge, from that doctoral research perspective, reflects a deconstructive action of precon-

ceived schemes.

According to

Balza (2020: 66), this scientific progress:

…supone deconstruir el conocimiento preexistente relacionado con las temáticas consi-

deradas, tal y como lo plantea González (2007), cuando deja ver, que una tesis doctoral

debe ir más allá de los marcos teóricos analizados; en tanto, el desafío para el tesista es

ampliar los límites teóricos aceptados hasta el momento

Our translation:...the interconnections in the sense of the complexus of phenomena.

Our translation: ...certain dimensions, 'levels of reality' (Nicolescu, 1996), that demand a different attitude, an

encounter with fractality, 'an oscillation between theorized practice and practiced theory' (Ramírez, 1999b), a fractal

dialectic (Ramírez, 1999c) or starting from an 'arborescent logic' or symphonic logic (Morin, 1984). (As cited in Pe-

ñuela, 2005: 68).

Our translation: ...enables a mental journey and an argumentative deployment for the resemantization of new

fields of knowledge in absolute freedom of thought; that is, without epistemological, conceptual, and linguistic re-

sistances.

Our translation: ...entails deconstructing preexisting knowledge related to the considered themes, as stated by

González (2007), when he suggests that a doctoral thesis must go beyond the analyzed theoretical frameworks;

the challenge for the thesis writer is to expand the accepted theoretical boundaries up to that point.

Doctoral research: narrative, an intellectual elaboration nuanced

by interdisciplinarity and complexity

Revista Digital de Investigación y Postgrado 5(9), 63-85

ISSN electrónico: 2665-038X

Undoubtedly, in this plural thematic discourse, dialectics emerges as a rational necessity for the

development of doctoral research, which unquestionably must be imbued, lacquered, characte-

rized by interdisciplinarity, hence, complexity. Methodological simplism does not entail the ontoe-

pistemological substrate that exudes the argumentative wisdom founded on making connections

in all dimensions of the phenomenon. Through dialectics, questions are formulated and answers

are obtained, which, in turn, provoke new questions. In this way, it is necessary to “…entender que

se está trabajando con construcciones que trascienden lo disciplinar”

(Peñuela, 2005: 73).

And when this criterion is internalized by the researcher, then a discernment of complementarity

is being established. In this way, it advocates and relates to the comprehensive sense of valuing

interconnected scientific knowledge based on the argumentative criteria, reflections, discern-

ment, and judgments elaborated by each discipline.

In this regard, Balza (2020: 68) argues that:

…todo razonamiento y argumentación (…) necesariamente surge de la ontología discipli-

nar y de la concurrencia interdisciplinaria y multidisciplinaria, en tanto la visión de com-

plementariedad traduce una concepción emergente de racionalidad científica que conduce

a superar los límites de las realidades ingenuas desde nuestros pensamientos y de este

modo ensanchar y enriquecer la ciencia

It is a formidable challenge for the academic and scientific community dedicated to building know-

ledge to transcend the archetypes and prevailing criteria of paradigms governed by simplicity and

the denotative nature of language. The pristine idea should be to delve into the interstices of nou-

menal, phenomenal, noospheric, and hologogic reality, which, in principle, are uncertain, unknown,

and advance into the paths of an intriguing, unknown, hallucinatory, and enlightening journey.

It is imperative to recognize the presence of a Supreme Being in our lives to access the intricacies

of knowledge. For He, almighty, through the Holy Spirit, breathes His gifts of Wisdom, Intelli-

gence, and Science into us to understand, explain, transform, and interpret human knowledge,

which is immeasurable. Therefore, it must be acknowledged that knowledge is valuable but

never separates us from God; hence, we must ask the Holy Spirit, -who invites us to experience

great things-, to allow us to live in these constructive processes of interdisciplinary understanding

in humility, fraternity, never in vanity and division.

Our translation: ...understand that we are working with constructions that transcend disciplinary boundaries.

Our translation: ...every reasoning and argumentation (...) necessarily arises from disciplinary ontology and in-

terdisciplinary and multidisciplinary concurrence, as the vision of complementarity reflects an emerging conception

of scientific rationality that leads to overcoming the limits of naive realities from our thoughts and thus expanding

and enriching science.

Adrián Filiberto Contreras Colmenares

Likewise, it is prudent, as a human being, to invoke humility so that we do not boast of things

we do not possess, for it is just to recognize our limitations. Therefore, it is necessary and com-

mendable to acknowledge our ignorance, just as Socrates did, who “…se había dado cuenta de

lo lejos que estaba de ser sabio, de que no sabía nada”

(Popper, 2001: 1). The more we know

or learn, the more we realize how little we know in the universe of science and how much we

are ignorant of many, many things. Therefore,

Popper (2001: 1) will say, “…debemos hoy seguir

construyendo nuestra filosofía del conocimiento sobre la tesis de nuestra falta de conocimiento,

en defensa de la tolerancia, y de principios éticos”

. These issues should be foundational in the

elaboration of a doctoral research.

As a corollary of contingency and provisionality, I must present this reflection: the elaboration

of knowledge today must be permeated by the emerging paradigms of interdisciplinarity and

complexity. There must be an awareness of the impactful importance for science of knowledge

produced through dialectics, even of trialectics or discursive polyangularity, to be truly subs-

tantive in scientific progress. Likewise, the generation of a theory must be grounded in new ca-

tegories, new typologies, and conceptualizations that allow linguistically expressing the relational

syntax in a different way. As

Morin et al. rightly state (2002: 20): “En la perspectiva compleja, la

teoría está engranada, y el método, para ser puesto en funcionamiento, necesita estrategia, ini-

ciativa, invención, arte. Se establece una relación recursiva entre método y teoría. El método, ge-

nerado por la teoría, la regenera”

With regard to what must be considered as the theory emerging in a doctoral research as an

intellectual action of great scope and depth. In this dissertation, I conceive theory as the cate-

gorical and notional elaborations that allow for explaining, understanding, interpreting, and re-

signifying the multirelationality, transparented in reality, whether noumenal, phenomenal,

noospheric, or hologogic, through transtextuality, transdisciplinarity, and resemantization in the

multiperspectivity that characterizes the complex and complexifying thinking of the cognizant

subject: the researcher.

It is imperative - as a digression - to clarify the term 'hologogic'; its semiotic ascription is found

in hologogy. According to

Barrera (2013: 1), he expresses:

Our translation: ...realized how far he was from being wise, that he knew nothing".

Our translation: ...today we must continue to build our philosophy of knowledge on the thesis of our lack of

knowledge, in defense of tolerance and ethical principles.

Our translation: In the complex perspective, theory is interconnected, and the method, to be operationalized,

requires strategy, initiative, invention, and art. A recursive relationship is established between method and theory.

The method, generated by theory, regenerates it.

Doctoral research: narrative, an intellectual elaboration nuanced

by interdisciplinarity and complexity

Revista Digital de Investigación y Postgrado 5(9), 63-85

ISSN electrónico: 2665-038X

La hologogía corresponde a la comprensión del quehacer profesional y educativo vista

como continuum, a partir de la concepción integral, holista del ser humano, en corres-

pondencia con diversos aspectos existenciales a ser tenidos en cuenta, tales como la con-

dición espaciotemporal, el sentido de la vida, la particularidad de cada quien, la

universalidad de los propósitos humanos, los valores...

Having described the disciplinary and multidisciplinary aspects within the framework of com-

municating knowledge generated from the research on the cognizable object, it is now appro-

priate to delve into another element that must be part of the doctoral discourse in the realization

of the investigative report. These are multiperspectivity and multicontextuality.

Multiperspectivity and Multicontextuality

It must be understood that the existence and presence of multiperspectivity and multicontex-

tuality will transform the conventional construction of knowledge. A single perspective, a single

path, reduces and limits a more enriched understanding of the investigated phenomenon. In

this sense, it is necessary to overcome the axiom that one has profound expertise in a specific

area of knowledge, to embrace the commitment and awareness of a plural, extensive knowledge

achieved through the skilled study of interdisciplinarity. Otherwise, if the elaborative processes

of knowledge construction are not reversed through doctoral research, we will continue to be

social reproducers of knowledge; the presented content will always be a reflection of what others

have elaborated, leaving prevailing epistemologies untouched.

In the present times, the term “la multiperspectividad, como una forma de reconocimiento de

las diferencias entre los distintos grupos humanos”

(Souza, 2015: 88). Based on this eidetic

premise, multiperspectivity can be understood as diverse representations aimed at a deep and

complex recreation, providing multiple perspectives on the object of knowledge. This gives rise

to different and complex narratives that can support the researcher in describing the knowledge

constructed about the object of study, as manifested in the investigative report.

Therefore, in the investigative reports of doctoral theses, a multiperspectival narrative should

be encouraged, as expressed by

Fekete (2008:1):

Our translation: Hologogy corresponds to the understanding of professional and educational activities seen as

a continuum, based on the integral, holistic conception of the human being, in correspondence with various exis-

tential aspects to be taken into account, such as spatiotemporal condition, the meaning of life, individual unique-

ness, the universality of human purposes, values...

Our translation: multiperspectivity' is mentioned as a form of recognition of differences among various human

groups.

Adrián Filiberto Contreras Colmenares

…the relationship between narration and perspectivity, or rather the subjectivity of ex-

periencing reality (“Subjektabhängigkeit von Wirklichkeitserfahrung”) is especially clear

in the case of multiperspectival narration, because in these narratives several versions of

the same events are presented side by side, and thus in such multiperspectival narratives,

the emphasis shifts from the narrated events to the mode of experiencing reality.

Multiperspectivity allows the researcher to consider the “dimensiones relacionales, intersubjetivas

y microsociales”

of a specific and given phenomenon (Larkin et al. 2019: 183). Therefore, when

the doctoral researcher has to craft the narrative of their investigation, materialized in the doc-

toral thesis, they must address and, moreover, explain the multiple relationships that have emer-

ged in their approach to the cognizable object. These are the multiple perspectives that they

must grasp, stemming from a reflection on the investigated phenomenon.

This multiperspectivity is linked to multicontextuality. And when crafting a narrative from multi-

plicity, undoubtedly, the counterpart of multiperspectivity must be kept in mind: multicontextuality.

On one hand, multicontextuality involves accounting for the existence of an entity in various en-

vironments; that is, reference is made to different places. These can be situated in the physical,

biological, cognitive, social, historical, linguistic realms, and this cannot be disregarded in the na-

rrative of doctoral elaborations. On the other hand, a multicontextual view calls for developing

an understanding that human beings also possess various perspectives, nuances, circumstances,

or facets in their existence that can intersect and, at times, may appear assumed.

Therefore, from multicontextuality, the elaboration of the doctoral research report should pro-

vide guidance that explains all these circumstances surrounding the findings and the theory

being presented. In this regard, what Ibarra expressed (as cited in Valle & Rodríguez, 2012: 8)

becomes evident: “…explains that multicontextuality is an ability to think and function in multiple

languages and literacies, contexts or cognitive styles, in order to respond to current trends in

economic, civic, and personal spheres”. So, it must be understood that the multicontextual is a

mixture, an integration of diverse and varied contexts that interrelate cognitively to craft a na-

rrative. These two dimensions must be present in the elaboration of a doctoral thesis. Conse-

quently, the discursive vision of this creative act, based on research, will change.

Complexity: Prevalent Criterion in Doctoral Narrative

As an introduction to this aspect, I must mention that the researcher aspiring to obtain a doctoral

degree must undoubtedly modify their cognitive approach to the ontological, epistemological, and

methodological aspects regarding the knowledge gap of the studied phenomenon. This will serve

as the basis for the construction of their subsequent narrative. So, the question arises: How to trans-

cend methodical simplism and linear discursive construction in doctoral-level research?

Our translation: dimensiones relacionales, intersubjetivas y microsociales”

Doctoral research: narrative, an intellectual elaboration nuanced

by interdisciplinarity and complexity

Revista Digital de Investigación y Postgrado 5(9), 63-85

ISSN electrónico: 2665-038X

Firstly, it must be stated that the researcher must detach and free themselves, according to

(Balza, 2020: 55), from:

…una perspectiva epistemológica que obstruye y empobrece todo intento de razón plural

y argumentación trascendente. [Dado que] (…) la mirada disciplinaria luce como una

perspectiva epistemológica restringida e insuficiente para nutrir la ciencia de nuevos va-

lores y poder disfrutar de sus riquezas, pues es un posicionamiento que ahoga los espacios

de comprensión global y de reflexión profunda

So, by consciously, reflectively, and critically unlearning the reductionist patterns of paradigms

and epistemologies that are untouchable, immovable – as intactness, inviolability does not allow

the progress of the scientific status – then, one can have a different approach to knowledge

about the knowable object. Regarding the ontology of the object of knowledge, it must be de-

fined based on categorical pairs, in oppositum.

In line with this,

Contreras (2017: 12) notes: “Una ilustración de los pares categoriales (…) -sin

que se tome como una formulación inalterable- [los cuales permitirán] realizar una precisión on-

tológica del objeto de estudio son los siguientes”

It can also draw support from the categories developed by Immanuel Kant. The crucial aspect is

that, based on this antipodal circumstance, the researcher can choose one category from each

categorical pair and thus define the object of knowledge according to the selected category.

A word of caution: the ontology of the object of knowledge should not be confused with the

ontology of the research.

In this scenario, it will no longer be exclusively about the ontological reference of the object

of knowledge or the object of research – I clarify that I make a distinction between these

Our translation: ...an epistemological perspective that obstructs and impoverishes any attempt at plural re-

asoning and transcendent argumentation. [Given that] (...) the disciplinary view appears as a restricted and insuf-

ficient epistemological perspective to enrich science with new values and enjoy its riches, as it is a stance that

stifles the spaces for global understanding and deep reflection.

Our translation: An illustration of the categorical pairs (...)—without being taken as an unalterable formula-

tion—[which will allow] for an ontological clarification of the object of study is as follows:

Categorical pairs in oppositum

Simple / Complex Abstract / Concrete Finite / Infinite Variable / Invariable

Real / Uneal (or ideal) Dinámic /Static Formal / Informal Possible / Impossible

Permanent / Eventual Continuous / Discontinuous Singular / Plural ... / ...

Adrián Filiberto Contreras Colmenares

meanings regarding the object of study, a term of my own choice and convenience for un-

dergraduate, specialization, and master's levels. Instead, cognitive exploration must focus its

reflective point on the theoretical framework, where the “interproblemáticas (…) [que han de

ser explicadas, comprendidas, resignificadas, y de hacerse] desde la multiperspectividad de po-

sibilidades paradigmáticas y epistemológicas para pensar libremente lo que se desea conocer”

(Balza, 2020: 53).

That is the intellectual task of the researcher that must be applied, first in their approach to the

object of knowledge, and second, in the narrative of their doctoral thesis. It must be, as men-

tioned above, part of the poiesis (of creation), through which they can paint on the cognitive

canvas the theoretical formulation, the falsifiability of a theory, the theoretical comparability, the

formalization of a theory, and, with an interdisciplinary - even transdisciplinary - and complex

criterion, redefine, reinterpret, understand, and/or theoretically explain the phenomenon, the

object of research.

In this perspective, one arrives at the construction of knowledge, with the emerging disruption

of a theory. And, regarding this term, it must be taken into account that:

Una teoría no es el conocimiento, permite el conocimiento. Una teoría no es una llegada,

es la posibilidad de una partida. Una teoría no es una solución, es la posibilidad de tratar

un problema. Una teoría solo cumple su papel cognitivo, solo adquiere vida, con el pleno

empleo de la actividad mental del sujeto (Morin et al. 2002: 20)

In the foregoing, the central and emphatic point is the appreciation seen in the development

of a theory, which will allow the consolidation of knowledge about the object of the doctoral

research. In this way, one will be thinking about having a different perspective on the metho-

dology, which must allow for the reorientation and evaluation, from an interdisciplinary and

complex standpoint, of the approach to the object of knowledge.

Therefore, it is fitting, timely, necessary, and quite significant to prioritize the criterion of under-

pinning all research.“…desde la multirreferencialidad y [desde] la interproblematicidad subyacente

en el sintagma relacional (…) hacia una fusión de horizontes del conocimiento para el encuentro

con lo transdisciplinario”

(Balza, 2010, as quoted in Balza, 2020: 58), so as to allow for an expla-

natory/comprehensive or a comprehensive/explanatory approach, as well as a diatopic and ecosophic

hermeneutics, of the phenomena that are part of the consciousness and interest of the researcher.

Our translation: interproblematics (...) [need to be explained, understood, redefined, and approached] from the

multiperspectivity of paradigmatic and epistemological possibilities to freely think about what one wishes to know.

Our translation: A theory is not knowledge; it enables knowledge. A theory is not a destination; it is the possibility

of a departure. A theory is not a solution; it is the possibility of addressing a problem. A theory only fulfills its cog-

nitive role, only comes to life, with the full engagement of the subject's mental activity (Morin et al. 2002: 20).

Doctoral research: narrative, an intellectual elaboration nuanced

by interdisciplinarity and complexity

Revista Digital de Investigación y Postgrado 5(9), 63-85

ISSN electrónico: 2665-038X

It is supported, reaffirmed, and underscored, then, “…la teoría no es nada sin el método, la teoría

casi se confunde con el método o más bien teoría y método son los dos componentes indispen-

sables del conocimiento complejo”

(Morin et al. 2002: 21). Therefore, the researcher must trans-

cend methodological simplicity and linear discursive construction, which could characterize their

doctoral research work, to navigate new paths, new epistemological and transontological ho-

rizons. This must be reshaped from and within a new transtheoretical, transtheorizing, and even

transdisciplinary phenomenological reality, embracing interdisciplinarity. And it must be so be-

cause, in the current context: “Definitivamente, vivimos atrapados en una cultura investigativa

disciplinaria y monometódica para la construcción de la ciencia…”

(

A.M. Balza Laya, personal

communication, in Transdisciplinary Brushstrokes, October 18, 2022

With these premises, when it comes to a doctoral research, there must be a different intellectual

reconfiguration. In this, the transformative vision and complex thinking that the thesis director

(supervisor) possesses are important to support the ideas of the researcher aspiring to be a

doctor. Therefore, as asserted by

Balza (2020: 54)

…un candidato a doctor, o un doctor en formación debe ser un investigador permanente, un

internauta, un crítico, un hermeneuta dialéctico para abordar (sic) la realidad; transitarla

desde sus pensamientos y, de este modo, poder viajar de lo simple a lo complejo, de lo dis-

ciplinario a lo transdisciplinario, de la certeza a la incertidumbre; es decir, movilizarse desde

la lógica científica formal hacia una nueva lógica cognitiva de naturaleza relacional y recon-

figuracional

Without criticism, without the transformative vision of science, without adherence to dialectics

as a discursive and reflective strategy, there will be no possibility of leaving the confines of a li-

near logic, -whose use is not dislocated-, but serves only as a drive to provoke the emergence

of “una nueva lógica cognitiva de naturaleza relacional y reconfiguracional”

(Balza, 2020: 99).

Therefore, a profound understanding of epistemological transformation and its respective met-

hods must be developed. Morin et al. (2002: 26) will underscore: “El método es también un ejer-

cicio de resistencia espiritual organizada, que como quería Adorno, implica un ejercicio

Our translation: ...from the multireferentiality and the underlying interproblematicity in the relational phrasing

(...) towards a fusion of knowledge horizons for the encounter with the transdisciplinary.

Our translation: ...theory is nothing without method; theory almost merges with the method, or rather, theory

and method are the two indispensable components of complex knowledge.

Our translation: Definitely, we live trapped in a disciplinary and monothematic research culture for the construc-

tion of science...

Our translation: A doctoral candidate, or a candidate in training for a doctorate, must be a permanent researcher,

an explorer, a critic, a dialectical hermeneutic to approach reality; to traverse it from their thoughts and, in this

way, be able to journey from the simple to the complex, from the disciplinary to the transdisciplinary, from certainty

to uncertainty; that is, to move from formal scientific logic to a new cognitive logic of a relational and reconfigu-

rational nature.

Adrián Filiberto Contreras Colmenares

permanente contra la ceguera y el anquilosamiento generado por las convenciones y clichés acu-

ñados por la organización social”

In this approach, the idea of spiritual reconnection related to the method underlies, but it also

needs to be linked with knowledge. In this regard, mention must be made of Bacon's thought

(1625: 1), expressed as follows: "It is true that a little Philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism;

but depth in Philosophy bringeth men's minds about to Religion." Thus, the researcher should

not forget one of the inherent characteristics of being human: the act of reconnecting. This con-

nection or bond with a Supreme Being, whatever the denomination.

Therefore, researchers engaging in doctoral studies and all those who peer through the lattice

of knowledge, using complex, interdisciplinary, and methodical dialectical processes, must have

a disruptive epistemological vision to construct knowledge. In line with this, as Méndez proposes

(2003, as cited in Balza, 2020: 99):

…el aspirante a doctor debe situarse en los limites explicativos, interpretativos o predictivos

de las teorías, paradigmas, metodologías y campos disciplinarios existentes en torno al

problema o problemáticas estudiadas, para que pueda superarlas generándose saltos

cualitativos en el conocimiento científico

And with this perspective, the method must be appreciated as a support and as the work

of an intelligent being that experiments with strategies, grounded in new epistemologies,

so as to respond to the multiplicity of questions that are part of uncertainties. It must, the-

refore, free itself from rigidity, from being overly manual, and from established frameworks

to comprehend and proceduralize it with a new perspective. There is, therefore, not a single

way to understand uncertainty, and even less so if it is thought of as something program-

matic.

En este sentido, reducir el método a programa es creer que existe una forma a priori para

eliminar la incertidumbre. Método es, por (…) tanto, aquello que sirve para aprender y a

la vez es aprendizaje. Es aquello que nos permite conocer el conocimiento. Por todo ello,

como afirmaba Gaston Bachelard, todo discurso del método es un discurso de circuns-

tancias. No existe un método fuera de las condiciones en las que se encuentra el sujeto

Our translation: a new cognitive logic of relational and reconfigurational nature'.

Our translation: The method is also an exercise in organized spiritual resistance, which, as Adorno desired, in-

volves a continuous effort against the blindness and stagnation generated by the conventions and clichés coined

by social organization."

Our translation: The doctoral candidate must position themselves at the explanatory, interpretative, or predictive

boundaries of existing theories, paradigms, methodologies, and disciplinary fields related to the studied problem

or problems, in order to surpass them and generate qualitative leaps in scientific knowledge.

Doctoral research: narrative, an intellectual elaboration nuanced

by interdisciplinarity and complexity

Revista Digital de Investigación y Postgrado 5(9), 63-85

ISSN electrónico: 2665-038X

(Morin et al. 2002: 25)

All of this, with the intentionality of a provisional and contingent thought, can be said to be con-

venient, timely, and necessary to transcend the simplicity in the use of a method and the linear

discursive construction of research at the doctoral level. Therefore, to achieve this transcendence,

science must be approached with an open, reflective mind and cognitive confrontation with and

from the knowing subject. In this way, a disruptive epistemology can be embraced to conduct re-

search that destabilizes the prevailing status in the execution of doctoral investigations. It becomes

necessary to comprehend other relational, discursive, dialectical, complex, and transdisciplinary

syntagms to break through with new discursive forms interwoven in linguistic polyangularity.

Finally, it is imperative to understand the development of a discourse characterized and supported

by interdisciplinarity and complexity. This discourse should also integrate multiperspectivity and

multicontextuality. Moreover, there should be a different assessment of the ontological, episte-

mological, and methodological aspects in line with the requirements of emerging epistemologies.

References

Ander-Egg, E. (1995). Técnicas de investigación social. (24a ed.). Buenos Aires: Lumen.

Bacon, F. (1625). Essay 16: "Of Atheism". http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/EtAlia/bacon16.html

Balza, L. A. M. (2020). Complejidad, transdisciplinariedad y transcomplejidad. Los caminos de la

nueva ciencia. Fondo Editorial Gremial. Asociación de Profesores Universidad Nacional

Experimental “Simón Rodríguez” (APUNESR).

Barrera, M. M. F. (2013). Qué es la hologogía. https://marfibamo.blogspot.com/2013/12/que-es-

la-hologogia.html

Bonil, J., Sanmartí, N., Tomás, C. and Pujol, R. (2004). Un nuevo marco para orientar respuestas

a las dinámicas sociales: el paradigma de la complejidad. Investigación en la escuela Nú-

mero 53, (pp. 5-19). 2004. https://idus.us.es/bitstream/handle/11441/60999/Un%20nuevo

%20marco%20para%20orientar%20respuestas%20a%20las%20din%c3%a1micas%20so-

ciales.%20el%20paradigma%20de%20la%20complejidad.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Contreras, C. A. F. (2017). Objeto de conocimiento en tesis del Doctorado de Pedagogía: Pers-

Our translation: En este sentido, reducir el método a programa es creer que existe una forma a priori para eli-

minar la incertidumbre. Método es, por (…) tanto, aquello que sirve para aprender y a la vez es aprendizaje. Es

aquello que nos permite conocer el conocimiento. Por todo ello, como afirmaba Gaston Bachelard, todo discurso

del método es un discurso de circunstancias. No existe un método fuera de las condiciones en las que se encuentra

el sujeto (Morin, Ciurana y Motta, 2002: 25).

Adrián Filiberto Contreras Colmenares

pectiva Onto-Epistémica. Su problematización. https://www.academia.edu/43980885/

Objeto_de_Conocimiento_en_Tesis_del_Doctorado_de_Pedagog

Contreras, C. A. (2023). La fenomenología social de Alfred Schütz: un aporte desde mirad as

complejas y transmetódicas de investigación. Revista Digital de Investigación y Postgrado,

4(8), 27-43. https://redip.iesip.edu.ve/ojs/index.php/redip/article/view/94

Duque, H. R. (2000). Disciplinariedad, interdisciplinariedad, transdisciplinariedad–Vínculos y lí-

mites–. Semestre económico, 4(7), pp. 1 -10. https://revistas.udem.edu.co/index.php/eco-

nomico/article/view/1412/1544

Encyclopaedia Britannica (2022). Deconstruction. https://www.britannica.com/topic/deconstruction

Etimologías de Chile (2020). Investigar. https://etimologias.dechile.net/?investigar

Fekete, Z. J. (2008). Multiperspectival Narration: The Perspective Structure of Charles Dickens´

“Bleak House” and George Eliot´s “Middlemarch”. [Tesis de Maestría, publicada].

https://www.grin.com/document/177667

Grajales, T. (2000). El concepto de investigación. https://brd.unid.edu.mx/recursos/Metodologia

_de_la_Investigacion/MI07/Concepto_de_investigacion.pdf

Klaassen, R. Kothuis, B. & Slinger, J. (2001). Engineering roles in Building with Nature interdisci-

plinary design. Educational experiences. Research in Urbanism Series. 7, 73-98.

https://rius.ac/index.php/rius/article/view/129

Larkin, M., Shaw, R. and Flowers, P. (2019). Multiperspectival designs and processes in interpre-

tative phenomenological analysis research. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 16(2),

182–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2018.1540655

Mialaret, G. (1085). Introducción a las ciencias de la educacón. Unesco

Morin, E., Ciurana, E. R. and Motta, R. D. (2002). Educar en la era planetaria: el pensamiento

complejo como método de aprendizaje en el error y la incertidumbre humana. Serie: FI-

LOSOFÍA, número 16. Salamanca: Gráficas Varona.

Peñuela, V. L. A. (2005). La transdisciplinariedad. Más allá de los conceptos, la dialéctica. En An-

damios. Año 1, número 2, 43-77. https://www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/anda/v1n2/v1n2a3.pdf

Pérez, M. N. and Setién, Q. E. (2008). La interdisciplinariedad y la transdisciplinariedad en las

ciencias: una mirada a la teoría bibliológico-informativa. ACIMED. Revista Cubana de In-

formación en Ciencias de la Salud. 18(4). http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script= sci_art-

text&pid=S1024-94352008001000003

Doctoral research: narrative, an intellectual elaboration nuanced

by interdisciplinarity and complexity

Revista Digital de Investigación y Postgrado 5(9), 63-85

ISSN electrónico: 2665-038X

Platón (2016). El banquete. https://www.textos.info/platon/el-banquete/pdf

Popper, K. (2001). El conocimiento de la ignorancia. Polis [En línea], 1. Publicado el 30 noviembre

2012. http://journals.openedition.org/polis/8267

Sierra, W. (2007). Cosificación: avatares de una categoría crítica. Revista de Filosofía “Sophia”, Quito-

Ecuador, 1, 1 -17). https://www.flacsoandes.edu.ec/sites/default/files/agora/files/1259788896.

cosificacion_avateres_de_una_categoria_critica_0.pdf

Smith, F. (1989). Comprensión de la lectura. Análisis psicolingüístico de la lectura y su aprendizaje.

Trillas.

Souza, E. (2015). La idea de multiperspectividad en el aprendizaje histórico: una investigación a

partir de películas sobre el nazismo. Clío & Asociados. (20-21), (pp. 84-96).

http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/bitstream/handle/10915/61551/Documento_completo__.pdf-

PDFA.pdf?sequence=1

Valle, F. & Rodríguez, C. (2012). Running head: Multicontextuality. Leading the 21st Century De-

mographic: Multi Context Theory and Latina/o Leadership. 1-18. https://files.eric.ed.gov/

fulltext/ED537728.pdf