Cover not available
Part of
Identity Struggles: Evidence from workplaces around the world
Edited by Dorien Van De Mieroop and Stephanie Schnurr
[Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture 69] 2017
► pp. 165–184

Chapter 9
The dynamics of identity struggle in interdisciplinary meetings in higher education

In response to shifts in requirements for research funding, interest in interdisciplinary engagement has burgeoned, but as yet the interactional dynamics of interdisciplinary meetings have received almost no attention. This chapter draws on a data set of over 20 hours of audio-recorded talk from 12 different interdisciplinary meetings involving biologists, mathematicians, bioinformaticians and statisticians. Drawing on a combination of applied conversation analysis and quantitative analysis (using the Interactional Discourse Lab developed by one of the authors), it explicates the ways in which disciplinary identities are deployed in the reconciliation of different perspectives on shared problems. In interdisciplinary engagement, the interactive and contingently accomplished process of identity construction is mediated by reference to epistemic rights associated with disciplinary membership, and while there is assumed parity of disciplinary entitlement, in practice the power of a dominant discipline can be invoked by relevant participants in order to establish epistemic precedence.
Keywords: interdisciplinary identity, disciplinary identity, identity struggle, interdisciplinary, discipline, interdisciplinary engagement, Interactional Discourse Lab, research meeting, conversation analysis, epistemics, Biology, Statistics, Systems Biology, drys, wets
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Disciplinarity, entitlement and epistemics
  • Data
  • The challenge of hybridity
  • Disciplinary identity and epistemic status
    • Wets and dries
    • The balance of contributions
    • Struggling to be heard
  • Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 26 April 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.69.09cho
References (39)
References
Akkerman, Sanne, Wilfried Admiraai and Robert Jan Simons. 2012. “Unity and diversity in a collaborative research project.” Culture & Psychology 18(2): 227–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Choi, Seongsook and Stephanie Schnurr. 2014. “Exploring distributed leadership: solving disagreements and negotiating consensus in a ‘leaderless’ team.” Discourse Studies 16(1): 3–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clift, Rebecca. 2001. “Meaning in interaction: the case of ‘actually’.” Language 77(2): 245–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H., Rob Grootendorst, Sally Jackson and Scott Jacobs. 1993. Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Fasulo, Alessandra and Cristina Zucchermaglio. 2002. “My selves and I: identity markers in work meeting talk.” Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1119–1144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fuller, Steve. 2002. Social Epistemology (2nd edn). Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Gerholm, Tomas. 1990. “On tacit knowledge in academia.” European Journal of Education 25(3): 263–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1987. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 2. Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason (Translated by Thomas McCarthy). Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction. Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Henkel, Mary. 2000. Academic Identities and Policy Change in Higher Education. London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984. “A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement”. In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by John M. Atkinson and John Heritage, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2012a. “Epistemics in action. Action formation and territories of knowlsdge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1): 1–29 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
, 2012b. “The epistemic engine: sequence organization and territories of knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1): 30–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John and Raymond, Geoffrey. 2005. “The terms of agreement: indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction.” Social Psychology Quarterly 68(1): 15–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Housley, William. 2000. “Category work and knowledgeability within multidisciplinary teams.” Text 20(1): 83–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1984. “On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by John M. Atkinson and John Heritage, 192–222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1979. “A technique for inviting laughter and its subsequent acceptance declination.” In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas, 79–96. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Jovchelovitch, Sandra. 2007. Knowledge in Context: Representations, Community and Culture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Katze, Michael G. 2013. “Preface.” In Systems Biology ed. by Michael, G. Katze, v-x. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kogan, Maurice. 2000. “Higher education communities and academic identities.” Higher Education Quarterly 54(3): 207–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lattuca, Lisa R.g 2002. “Learning interdisciplinarity: sociocultural perspectives on academic work.” The Journal of Higher Education 73(6): 711–739. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lingard, Lorelei, Catherine F. Schryer, Marlee M. Stafford and Sandra L. Campbell. 2007. “Negotiating the politics of identity in an interdisciplinary team.” Qualitative Research 7(4) 501–519. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W. 2013. “Defensive mechanisms: I -mean prefaced utterances in complaint and other conversational sequences”. In Conversational Repair and Human Understanding, ed. by Makoto Hayashi, Geoffrey Raymond, Jack Sidnell, 198–233. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mayr, Ernst. 1982. The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Moran, Joe. 2010. Interdisciplinarity (2nd edn). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Morrison, Philip S., Gill Dobie and Fiona J. McDonald. 2003. “Research Collaboration Among University Scientists.” Higher Education Research & Development 22(3): 275–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myers, Greg. 1990. Writing Biology: Texts in the Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor and Sally Jacoby. 1997. “Down to the wire: The cultural clock of physicists and the discourse of consensus.” Language in Society, 26: 479–505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ochs, Elinor, Sally Jacoby and Patrick Gonzales. 1994. “Interpretive Journeys: How Physicists Talk and Travel through Graphic Space.” Configurations, 2(1): 151–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Keefe, Barbara J. and Pamela Benoit. 1982. “Children’s Arguments.” In Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research, ed. by Robert J. Cox and Charles A. Willard, 154–183. Carbondale and Edwardsville IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, Carole L. 1999. “Structures and strategies of interdisciplinary science.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 50(3): 242–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paulus, Tanya M., Marianne Woodside and Mary F. Ziegler. 2010. “’I tell you, it’s a journey, isn’t it?’ Understanding collaborative meaning making in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry 16(10): 852–862. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. “Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by John M. Atkinson and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rowley-Jolivet, Elizabeth and Shirley Carter-Thomas. 2005. “The rhetoric of conference presentation introductions: context, argument and interaction.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 15(1): 45–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation, Vol. 1. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya and Frederico Rossano. 2010. “Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43(1): 3–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strober, Myra H. 2011. Interdisciplinary Conversations: Challenging Habits of Thought. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Tracy, Karen and Julie M. Naughton. 2000. “Institutional identity-work: a better lens.” In Small Talk, ed. by Justin Coupland, 62–83. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
Tully, James. 1999. “To think and act differently: Foucault’s four reciprocal objections to Habermas’ theory. In Foucault contra Habermas: Recasting the Dialogue between Genealogy and Critical Theory, ed. by Samantha Ashenden and David Owen, 90–142. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Hah, Sixian
2020. Valuation discourses and disciplinary positioning struggles of academic researchers—A case study of ‘maverick’ academics. Palgrave Communications 6:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.