Abstract— Acknowledging how disciplinary boundaries helped us to generate definitions throughout the history, today demands a new understanding of the world which is more about the relations rather than divisions. How to understand and acknowledge these relations and what outcomes are to be held by blurring the disciplinary boundaries have become significant in current studies. The approach, in fact, should not be considered only as the method but cogitated as a pivotal part of a research. This study is a critical inquiry on substantialist approach in general, with an aim to discuss `so-called` relational approaches. Comprehending the concept of “relational “and how to actualize a relational approach are crucial for a research, in which a relation might appear as an illusion rather than a connection. The problematique appears when the relations are defined beyond a relational context as if these relations happen outside of fundamentals- which is suggested to be named as “pseudo- relational” through this article. As an example, if we assume that there is a limit separating the fundamentals x and y from each other, both x and y stand as the reason of the other one`s becoming. If relation is defined as a distinctive entity besides x and y, it would only appear as relational while it is essentially substantialist. In other words, when the relation between x and y is considered as a third entity, relation stands in a sort of eclecticism. That sort of inquiries are interpreted as relational, however, they should be addressed as substantialist or outlined as “pseudo-relational”. Hence, what is meant by pseudo-transactional or pseudo-relational is a sort of illusion in which a thing is not what it really is. Within this point of view, this paper is to inquire transactional (relational) approach versus to substantialist one, referring to critical theories in regard to a trans-disciplinary understanding. Keywords— relational approach,t ransactional approach, substantialism, research methods, trans-disciplinary, interdisciplinary. I. INTRODUCTION “No one would be able successfully to speak of the hunter and the hunted as isolated with respect to hunting. Yet it is just as absurd to set up hunting as an event in isolation from the spatio-temporal connection of all the components.” (Dewey and Bentley, 1949, p. 133) HE research is concentrated on hunting as the process rather than what is hunted and who the hunters are. Talking about hunting (the process) is not new, however, is limited whenever hunters and hunted ones are put in relations as like they would exist without the act of hunting. What makes a hunter is the process itself, and there won‟t appear a “hunted” one without Assist. Prof. Dr. Demet Dincer 1 currently works at the Faculty of Architecture, Istanbul Kultur University (e-mail: demetdincer@gmail.com). the subject, the hunter, being hunted. In fact, if there were a researcher making a case study about hunting, how he considers the subject-object relations of this process would generate all the results and lead the whole process. While substantialist approach might be concentrated on hunters and hunted ones, a relational approach would be more about the hunting process. However, it needs to be outlined that substantialism and relationalism should not be considered as opposites in a dualistic way because the contrary understanding leads the definitions into a substantialist consideration. In the following paragraphs, the concept of “relational” will be referred as “transactional” not to create confusion, while “transactional”, as a relatively new concept to describe relations, distinguish the “pseudo” relational ones. II. RELATIONAL APPROACH: BEYOND THE LIMITS OF SUBSTANTIALISM “Beyond the Limits of Substantialism” aims to discuss how substantialism has differed today as if it has become a relational one. The basic assumptions, which beholden to the idea that the fundamentals or substances come first and relations among them subsequently, hold sway throughout the disciplines. The approaches relying on those basic assumptions brought a demand where the process is not subsequent and relational perspective is emphasized (Emirbayer, 1997, p. 281). The concepts need to be acknowledged in relation to the other concepts rather than ontological entities. Thus, transactional or relational methodologies involve “a shift away from thinking about a concept as a singular categorical expression to regarding concepts as embedded in complex relational networks” (Somers, 1995, p. 136; Emirbayer, 1997, pp. 294-295). Substantialism is defined as an approach acknowledging substances of various kinds that constitute the fundamental units of its referred inquiry. It is fundamentally differentiated from transactionalism as transactionalism relies on relations themselves. Today, substantialist approaches also have varieties where fundamentals differ in comparison to what was conceived as a substance in ancient and medieval philosophy. The confusion appears when relations are described through a substantialist point of view. In those cases, substantialist approach exists more into a sort of eclecticism by mentioning that there are fundamentals with relations. In other words, the substances, or previously defined fundamentals are put in relations with each other, as like the relations happen outside of them. Correspondingly, substantialist approach differs, as Inquiring Relational Approach: Beyond the Limits of Substantialism Assist. Prof. Dr. Demet Dincer T International Journal of Humanities and Management Sciences (IJHMS) Volume 5, Issue 1 (2017) ISSN 2320–4044 (Online) http://dx.doi.org/10.15242/ IJHMS.DIRH0517009 47