The meaning and value of interdisciplinarity can be described in several, at times even contradictory, ways. Yet, little is known about how these play a role in individuals’ argumentation and everyday thinking. Drawing on Michael Billig's rhetorical psychology, this paper explores how individuals draw on meanings, values, and connotations of interdisciplinarity to construct arguments and counter-arguments about this practice. This approach sheds light on the contradictions that surround interdisciplinarity, and thus on the rhetorical context in which its meaning is constituted. The value of rhetorical psychology for the study of interdisciplinarity is demonstrated through the analysis of the discourse of 27 interviews with researchers and administrators from a large British university. The analysis identifies 12 interpretative repertoires interviewees use to argue and to think about interdisciplinarity. Highlighting these repertoires and the contradictions between them is relevant for stimulating individuals’ reflexivity, critical thought, and decision-making regarding disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity.
BecherT. (1990). Physicists on physics. Studies in Higher Education, 25 (1): 3–19.
5.
BilligM.1991. Ideology and Opinions: Studies in Rhetorical Psychology. London: Sage.
6.
BilligM.1996. Arguing and Thinking. A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology. 2nd ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7.
BilligM.2009. “Discursive Psychology, Rhetoric and the Issue of Agency.” Semen. Revue de Semio-Linguistique Des Textes et Discours27: 1–23. http://semen.revues.org/8930.
8.
BilligM.2012. “Undisciplined Beginnings, Academic Success, and Discursive Psychology.” British Journal of Social Psychology51 (3): 413–424. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02086.x.
CallardF., and FitzgeraldD.. 2015. Rethinking Interdisciplinarity Across the Social Sciences and Neurosciences. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
13.
CeccarelliL.2001. Shaping Science with Rhetoric. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
14.
CentellasK. M., SmardonR. E., and FifieldS.. 2014. “Calibrating Translational Cancer Research: Collaboration Without Consensus in Interdisciplinary Laboratory Meetings.” Science, Technology & Human Values39 (3): 311–335. http://doi.org/10.1177/0162243913505650.
15.
Cuevas-GarciaC. A.2015. “‘I Have Never Cared for Particular Disciplines’ – Negotiating an Interdisciplinary Self in Biographical Narrative.” Contemporary Social Science10 (1): 86–98. http://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2014.974664.
EdleyN.2001. “Analysing Masculinity: Interpretative Repertoires, Ideological Dilemmas and Subject Positions.” In Discourse as Data – A Guide for Analysis, edited by WtherellM., TaylorS., and YatesS. J., 189–228. London: Sage.
FormanP.2012. “On the Historical Forms of Knowledge Production and Curation: Modernity Entailed Disciplinarity, Postmodernity Entails Antidisciplinarity.” Osiris27: 56–97. doi: 10.1086/667823
21.
FrimanM.2010. “Understanding Boundary Work Through Discourse Theory: Inter/Disciplines and Interdisciplinarity.” Science Studies23 (2): 5–19.
22.
FrodemanR.2014. Sustainable Knowledge: A Theory of Interdisciplinarity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
23.
GierynT. F.1983. “Boundary-work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists.” American Sociological Review48 (6): 781–795. http://doi.org/10.2307/2095325.
24.
GilbertN., and MulkayM.. 1984. Opening Pandora's Box. A Sociological Analysis of Scientists’ Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25.
GreenS. E. J.2004. “A Rhetorical Theory of Diffusion.” Academy of Management Review29 (4): 653–669.
26.
HanssonB.1999. “Interdisciplinarity: For What Purpose?” Policy Sciences32 (4): 339–343. doi: 10.1023/A:1004718320735
27.
HolmwoodJ.2010. “Sociology's Misfortune: Disciplines, Interdisciplinarity and the Impact of Audit Culture.” The British Journal of Sociology61 (4): 639–658. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2010.01332.x.
28.
JacobsJ. A.2013. In Defense of Disciplines. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
29.
JasanoffS.2013. “Fields and Fallows: A Political History of STS.” In Interdisciplinarity. Reconfigurations of the Social and Natural Sciences, edited by BarryA., and BornG., 99–118. Abingdon: Routledge.
30.
JournetD.1993. “Interdisciplinary Discourse and “Boundary Rhetoric”: The Case of S. E. Jelliffe.” Written Communication10 (4): 510–541. doi: 10.1177/0741088393010004002
31.
KleinJ. T.1990. Interdisciplinarity. History, Theory & Practice. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
32.
KleinJ. T.1996. Crossing Boundaries. Knowledge, Disciplinarities, and Interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
33.
KleinJ. T.2009. “The Rhetoric of Interdisciplinarity. Boundary Work in the Creation of New Knowledge.” In The SAGE Handbook of Rhetorical Studies, edited by LunsfordA. A., 265–283. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34.
KleinJ. T.2010a. “A Taxonomy of Interdisciplinarity.” In The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, edited by FrodemanR., KleinJ. T., and MitchamC., 15–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
35.
KleinJ. T.2010b. Creating Interdisciplinary Campus Cultures. San Francisco: Wiley.
36.
KrohnW.2010. “Interdisciplinary Cases and Disciplinary Knowledge.” In The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, edited by FrodemanR., KleinJ. T., and MitchamC., 31–49. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37.
LaclauE., and MouffeC.. 2001. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. London: Verso.
38.
LamontM.2009. How Professors Think. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
39.
LattucaL. R.2001. Creating Interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary Research and Teaching Among College and University Faculty. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
40.
LyallC., BruceA., MarsdenW., and MeagherL.. 2013. “The Role of Funding Agencies in Creating Interdisciplinary Knowledge.” Science and Public Policy40 (1): 62–71. http://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs121.
41.
LyallC., and FletcherI.. 2013. “Experiments in Interdisciplinary Capacity-building: The Successes and Challenges of Large-scale Interdisciplinary Investments.” Science and Public Policy40 (1): 1–7. http://spp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/doi/10.1093/scipol/scs113.
42.
MoranM.2006. “Interdisciplinarity and Political Science.” Politics26 (2): 73–83. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9256.2006.00253.x
43.
NAS. 2005. Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
44.
NowotnyH., ScottP., and GibbonsM.. 2001. Re-thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in the Age of Uncertainty. Oxford: Blackwell.
45.
O'RourkeM., EigenbrodeS. D., and WulfhorstJ. D.. 2014. Enhancing Communication and Collaboration in Interdisciplinary Research, edited by O'RourkeM., EigenbrodeS. D., and WulfhorstJ. D.. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
PotterJ.2012. “Discourse Analysis and Discursive Psychology.” In APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology: Vol. 2, Quantitative, Qualitative, Neuropsychological, and Biological, edited by CooperH., Vol. 2, 119–138. Washington: American Psychological Association.
48.
PotterJ., and WetherellM.. 1987. Discourse and Social Psychology. London: Sage.
49.
RabinowP., and BennettG.. 2012. Designing Human Practices. An Experiment with Synthetic Biology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
50.
ReynoldsJ., and WetherellM.. 2003. “The Discursive Climate of Singleness: The Consequences for Women's Negotiation of a Single Identity.” Feminism & Psychology13 (4): 489–510. http://doi.org/10.1177/09593535030134014.
51.
SalterL., and HearnA., eds. 1996. Outside the Lines: Issues in Interdisciplinary Research. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.
52.
SchafferS.2013. “How Disciplines Look.” In Interdisciplinarity. Reconfigurations of the Social and Natural Sciences, edited by BarryA., and BornG., 57–81. Abingdon: Routledge.
53.
SchoolmanE. D., GuestJ. S., BushK. F., and BellA. R.. 2012. “How Interdisciplinary is Sustainability Research? Analyzing the Structure of an Emerging Scientific Field.” Sustainability Science7 (1): 67–80. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0139-z.
54.
StroberM. H.2011. Interdisciplinary Conversations. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
55.
TaylorS., and LittletonK.. 2006. Biographies in talk: a narrativediscursive research approach. Qualitative Sociology Review2 (1): 22–38.
56.
WeingartP.2000. “Interdisciplinarity: The Paradoxical Discourse.” In Practising Interdisciplinarity, edited by WeingartP., and StehrN., 25–41. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
57.
WeingartP.2010. “A Short History of Knowledge Formations. In The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, edited by FrodemanR., KleinJ. T., MitchamC., and HolbrookJ. B., 3–14. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
