The interdomainity that I want to advocate irt traditional academic “disciplines” is practically complemented by cross-pollination among professional schools, which becomes more appealing inasmuch as a given professional school builds stronger bonds with interdomainal work.

For example, imagine a leadership enterprise devoted to advancing higher quality of life in society: research, conceptualization, programmatic piloting, instituionalization issues, and qualitative assessment. That’s a rather lame idea, but I want to make a practical point (and be glad you already know that ‘irt’—'in relation to’— is preferable to ‘vis-à-vis’):

Suppose that such an enterprise engages the following departments and schools:

• public health (irt idealizing integrated health care networks)
• medical humanities (irt idealizing holistic medical arts—again)
• educational psychology (irt the progressive school of education)
• clinical psychology (irt progressive social services)
• public policy (irt progressive social policy)
• occupational psychology (irt innovative business school leadership)
• organizational service science (irt enlightened business systems management)

The point there is just that interdomainal practice across traditional academics and professional schools can be a practical, progressive notion.

Of course, there have been collaborations between business and engineering forever (following upon industrial chemistry and business, etc., etc.), now: integrations of computer science, electrical engineering (which has been married to applied physics for decades), data science (which serves information science), etc., as if one day Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Amazon may become the Singularity that Ray Kurzwell anticipated some years ago (recently alarming Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk). What humanity will the Singularity serve?
(Or what humanity will serve the Singularity?)

This returns me to notions intimated earlier: What is the better scale of enablative leadership? How do we educate persons to become powerfully good? What is the best conception of a healthy regions complex? What global public goods are there? How can best practices be better constellated into progressive projects? How may we most insightfully understand community development as work of art (utropian desire made into actual ecography)?

The public properly winces at the prospect of “surveillance capitalism,” but it’s normal within many professions to be oriented toward population management (because it’s cost-effective): in the health care industry, educational services industry, social services industry, municipal government, environmental engineering, etc.

Data science is in its infancy. Machine learning is developing exponentially (thanks to advnaces in neural network modeling). Though the fads of “artificial intelligence” aren’t really that (it’s 1980s notions of expert systems at last coming to fruit through machine learning), the science fiction will become actual: Bionic humanity will merge with truly intelligent systems (meshed in planetary scale “distributed cognition”) to become something post-human: intelonic, one might call it. Genomics merges with bioengineering with cognitive computing... What are we to do with the species of artifical “life” that we’re eagerly (avariciously?) generating?

What do we want from systems efficacy, relative to humanistic value? Who really wants to advance sustainable community vs. who really doesn’t care; and who is to prevail?

Bring in the philosophers for issues of professional ethics across professions.