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
References
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Clift, Rebecca
2001 “
Meaning in interaction: the case of ‘actually’.”
Language 77(2): 245–291.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Eemeren, Frans H., Rob Grootendorst, Sally Jackson and Scott Jacobs
1993 Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fasulo, Alessandra and Cristina Zucchermaglio
2002 “
My selves and I: identity markers in work meeting talk.”
Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1119–1144.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fuller, Steve
2002 Social Epistemology (2nd edn). Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gerholm, Tomas
1990 “
On tacit knowledge in academia.”
European Journal of Education 25(3): 263–271.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Habermas, Jürgen
2001 On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction. Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Henkel, Mary
2000 Academic Identities and Policy Change in Higher Education. London: Jessica Kingsley.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heritage, John
2012a “
Epistemics in action. Action formation and territories of knowlsdge.”
Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1): 1–29
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heritage, John
2012b “
The epistemic engine: sequence organization and territories of knowledge.”
Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1): 30–52.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Housley, William
2000 “
Category work and knowledgeability within multidisciplinary teams.”
Text 20(1): 83–107.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jefferson, Gail
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jovchelovitch, Sandra
2007 Knowledge in Context: Representations, Community and Culture. London: Routledge.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Katze, Michael G.
2013 “
Preface.” In
Systems Biology ed. by
Michael, G. Katze, v-x. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kogan, Maurice
2000 “
Higher education communities and academic identities.”
Higher Education Quarterly 54(3): 207–216.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lattuca, Lisa R.
g
2002 “
Learning interdisciplinarity: sociocultural perspectives on academic work.”
The Journal of Higher Education 73(6): 711–739.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mayr, Ernst
1982 The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Moran, Joe
2010 Interdisciplinarity (2nd edn). London: Routledge.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Morrison, Philip S., Gill Dobie and Fiona J. McDonald
2003 “
Research Collaboration Among University Scientists.”
Higher Education Research & Development 22(3): 275–296.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Myers, Greg
1990 Writing Biology: Texts in the Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ochs, Elinor, Sally Jacoby and Patrick Gonzales
1994 “
Interpretive Journeys: How Physicists Talk and Travel through Graphic Space.”
Configurations, 2(1): 151–171.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Palmer, Carole L.
1999 “
Structures and strategies of interdisciplinary science.”
Journal of the American Society for Information Science 50(3): 242–253.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sacks, Harvey
1992 Lectures on Conversation, Vol. 1. Oxford: Blackwell.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stivers, Tanya and Frederico Rossano
2010 “
Mobilizing response.
Research on Language and Social Interaction 43(1): 3–31.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Strober, Myra H.
2011 Interdisciplinary Conversations: Challenging Habits of Thought. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by
Cited by 1 other publications
Hah, Sixian
2020.
Valuation discourses and disciplinary positioning struggles of academic researchers—A case study of ‘maverick’ academics.
Palgrave Communications 6:1
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 june 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.