Information literacy: conceptions, context and the formation of a discipline

In this article the authors argue that progress in the development of information literacy (IL) has been hindered by tendencies such as: denying that information literacy is even a subject, paying exclusive attention to forces outside the discipline and forming information literacy silos. The authors start by reflecting on formative developments in information literacy outside North America in the late 1990s-early 2000s, and noting that IL has not evolved from that period as much as one might expect. They identify hindrances to information literacy’s formation as a discipline, and relate their discussion to changing notions of disciplinarity. The authors present ‘Information Literacy in the lifecourse’ as an example focus which could stimulate engagement from researchers and practitioners who are currently situated in different information literacy silos. They conclude that taking a disciplinary and lifecourse approach to information literacy would open up opportunities for working in a collegiate way, both within the information literacy community and with those outside it, and provide a more robust foundation for influencing policy

Interdisciplinarity and (dis)integration in postgraduate, applied disciplinary curricula

Interdisciplinarity is widely claimed as a core feature of, and rationale for, the development of postgraduate programmes in applied disciplinary fields. While there is considerable debate about the nature of interdisciplinarity, less consideration is given to the concept of curriculum and what ‘being interdisciplinary’ implies for the selection and organisation of knowledge in a curriculum aspiring to some level of interdisciplinarity. Drawing on sociological analyses of curriculum this paper explores Bernstein’s concepts of integrated-type curricula and recontextualisation and uses these concepts to explore the complexities of attempting to use interdisciplinarity as an integrating logic in a Public Management curriculum. Findings from the analysis of documentary and interview data highlight how interdisciplinarity was difficult to develop and sustain as a curriculum integrating logic over time. Without a strong consensus about the integrating interdisciplinary idea and the knowledge that underpinned it, relationships between the relational idea and curriculum content became increasingly implicit, individually interpreted and disabling for a shared sense of purpose and progression across the degree. Development of programmes that call themselves interdisciplinary requires an understanding of curriculum as selection and organisation of knowledge from within disciplines and, in the case of applied disciplinary fields, from workplace practice

Beginning at the End: Reimagining the Dissertation Committee, Reimagining Careers

In this article, we forward a perspective on interdisciplinarity and diversity that reconsiders the notion of expertise in order to unstick discussions of graduate education reform that have been at an impasse for some fortyfive years. As research problems have become increasingly complex so has demand for scholars who specialize narrowly within a discipline and who understand the importance of contributions from other disciplines. In light of this, we reimagine the dissertation committee as a group of diverse participants from within and beyond the academy who contribute their knowledge and skills to train the next generation of scholars and researchers to be members of interdisciplinary teams. Graduate students, then, are not expected to be interdisciplinary themselves, but to work in interdisciplinary and diverse teams to discover new insights on their research areas and to prepare for careers interacting with a range of academic and non-academic stakeholders

(Post)Modern Asymmetry: Calibrating the Adult Education Philosophy and Practices of Faculty Teaching Interdisciplinary Studies in the Community College

In adult education, the term interdisciplinarity is often treated as an agent for transforming teaching, learning, and research. This appreciation of the concept proliferates despite the fact that its actualization often supports competing interpretations and practices. Many adult educators are unaware of the distinctions made among instrumental, conceptual, and critical interdisciplinarity and the philosophical traditions employed to legitimate their different trajectories. To address these concerns and others, scholars such as Lattuca (2001) have advanced a postmodern conceptualization of interdisciplinarity and introduced a supporting theoretical framework to clarify its character and modes of operation. However, she omitted community college faculty from her study. She also undervalued the asymmetry of power in the postmodern logic used to substantiate the study’s theoretical underpinnings. To address these concerns in Lattuca\u27s innovation, this case study used a mixed methods approach to reveal the ways that faculty members at a large community college in the Midwest contribute to interdisciplinary education and enrich postmodern interdisciplinarity. The findings revealed the following themes and subthemes: philosophy as framework and continuum, alignment of philosophy and practices, purposes of interdisciplinary education, postmodern epistemological sentiments, modern epistemological sentiments, teacher-centered approaches, and student-centered approaches. They also revealed how the participants’ philosophy of adult education and practices interrelated and how they supported instrumental, conceptual, or critical interdisciplinarity and their interstices. Furthermore, the significant ways in which the participants’ praxis signaled the asymmetry of power and value in higher education and beyond were examined. For future consideration, the author introduced Foucauldian architectonics, a postulation on the simultaneity of differences and power, as the kind of postmodern interdisciplinary additive that novice and seasoned adult educators can use to (re)develop their philosophies of education and (re)calibrate their practices as subjects and agents of disciplinarity

Bringing Disciplines Together In Graduate Education: The Mellon Interdisciplinary Fellows Program, Incite @ Columbia University

This is a report and essay to the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation that discusses the Mellon Interdisciplinary Fellows Program, which was housed at Incite @ Columbia University. The program was designed to bring together advanced doctoral students from across the humanities and social sciences to expose them to the concepts, methods and empirical work of disciplines other than their own. Unlike most interdisciplinary programs, this initiative did not shun disciplinary distinctions but built on them to foster cross-disciplinary exchange and collaboration. In these ways, the program implicitly critiqued the intellectual education and training common to doctoral programs. Keywords: Interdisciplinary; Cross-disciplinary; Doctoral education; PhD trainin

Interdisciplinary doctoral research supervision: A scoping review

This scoping literature review examines the topic of interdisciplinary doctoral research supervision. Interdisciplinary doctoral research programs are expanding in response to encouragement from funding agencies and enthusiasm from faculty and students. In an acknowledgement that the search for creative and innovative solutions to complex problems is best addressed through interdisciplinary collaborations, research-intensive universities are increasingly encouraging interdisciplinary projects and programs. The expansion of interdisciplinary research to the context of doctoral research may impact several core components of the doctorate: the enactment of the student–supervisor relationship, the process of forming and working with a supervisory committee, and the process and outcomes of doctoral research. In order to ensure that interdisciplinary doctoral supervision occurs in a positive and effective way, it is necessary to understand the distinct needs and challenges of interdisciplinary students and their supervisors, through scholarship about this phenomenon. Résumé Cet article retrace la recherche existante dans le domaine de l’interdisciplinarité ainsi que l’encadrement de recherches doctorales. Les programmes interdisciplinaires de recherches doctorales répondent à l’incitation des organismes de financement et à l’enthousiasme des professeurs et des étudiants et, de ce fait, deviennent de plus en plus nombreux. Les universités centrées sur la recherche encouragent la création de projets et de programmes interdisciplinaires, car elles sont convaincues que les solutions innovatrices et créatives aux problèmes complexes se réalisent par le truchement de collaborations interdisciplinaires. La demande croissante de recherche interdisciplinaire crée cependant un effet important sur plusieurs composantes centrales du doctorat : la mise en œuvre de la relation étudiantsuperviseur; le processus de formation et de travail du comité de supervision; et les processus et résultats de la recherche doctorale. Pour que l’encadrement doctoral interdisciplinaire se déroule de façon positive et efficace, il est donc nécessaire de comprendre clairement quels sont les différents besoins et défis des étudiants et de leurs superviseurs, en fonction du savoir déjà existant dans le domaine

Barriers and Enablers of Interdisciplinary Research at Academic Institutions

This research study examines the factors that motivate and lead to the success of faculty members who conduct interdisciplinary research. Because a comprehensive study of the research patterns of interdisciplinary researchers has not been conducted, the main intent of this research project was to create an instrument that would measure research habits and attitudes. It is important that such research be conducted using individuals who are interdisciplinary researchers as well as disciplinary researchers. One intent of the research study was to provide comparisons between disciplinary researchers and interdisciplinary researchers. Another intent was to provide university administrators with a better understanding of the factors that motivate and lead to the success of interdisciplinary researchers so that they could make policies that would support and encourage interdisciplinary research at their institution. A national survey was conducted to test the reliability and validity of a research instrument designed to examine different factors that were illuminated in a literature review and focus group study: administrative financial support, graduate training, team work and disciplinary affinity. Demographic data were also examined to determine if there were specific characteristics of interdisciplinary researchers that administrators would benefit from understanding. Purposeful sampling was conducted so that both interdisciplinary and disciplinary researchers were surveyed. This strategy was used so that comparisons between the two groups could be made. No differences were found between the different types of researchers on factors that lead to the success of or motivate faculty to conduct interdisciplinary research. An important finding of the research is that there were no significant differences between the demographic characteristics of individuals who conduct interdisciplinary research and those who do not. This finding is contrary to what is found in the literature. Because of this, administrators cannot make assumptions that an individual faculty member will conduct interdisciplinary research based on presumed demographic characteristics such as race, ethnicity, age or gender. An additional important finding of the research study is that there were no correlations between whether individuals who identified themselves as conducting applied or basic research and how interdisciplinary their research was. This is an important finding because, like demographic characteristics, the literature suggests that interdisciplinary researchers tend to be more applied in their research focus than disciplinary researchers

Disciplinary articulation in rhetoric and composition

This dissertation examines how nomenclature and the act of naming shapes disciplinary identities for scholars and teachers of rhetoric and composition. The discipline is named differently by many of its members, sometimes called composition studies, writing studies, composition and rhetoric, rhetorical studies, or rhetoric and writing. The different conceptualizations of the discipline invoked by the names point to a sense that the field is unstable, although this instability is not inherently negative. I argue that the differences in how we articulate our understanding of the discipline through the names we choose for it show that the disciplinary ground remains unstable and that our disciplinary identities continue to require further (re)defining. However, this disciplinary instability may be the chief strength of rhetoric and composition, making it a field that adapts to changes in epistemological and institutional circumstances. The project, a contemporary disciplinary history, engages in metadisciplinary inquiry by focusing on the development and progression of rhetoric and composition as an intellectual endeavor from the mid-twentieth century to the present. I rely on textual analysis of scholarly and curricular materials such as conference programs, academic journals, program descriptions, and dissertations; these sources enable me to examine how the discipline is articulated in both implicit and explicit ways. Descriptions of doctoral programs, for instance, illustrate different methods of privileging certain perspectives of the field, usually through the core curriculum that program architects have agreed are vital training for incoming members of the discipline. The multitude of disciplinary names suggests a lack of consensus among members of the discipline regarding how the boundaries of the discipline are defined, generating what I call disciplinary identity discomfort, a revision of Massey's notion that our identities are in crisis. I posit that disciplines, and thus disciplinary identity, are formed by a tension between two forces: epistemological and institutional. Epistemological pressure is exerted within the discipline by scholars whose work establishes or challenges the boundaries of research deemed legible to other members of the community. External groups, such as university administrations, accreditation organizations, and legislative bodies, exert institutional pressure that shapes disciplines as well. Institutional pressure is especially important to the historical development of rhetoric and composition because of the continuing perception of literacy in crisis, leading to popular and legislative calls for increased instruction in reading and writing (and to what Mike Rose calls "the myth of transience"). Decisions about the institutional placement of rhetoric and composition (within English departments, independent writing programs, or communications departments, for instance) also inform disciplinary identity, as well as legislation about literacy or funding for research in the humanities. A discipline is thus the product of a complex interaction between scholars and teachers who attempt to create coherent, if varied, intellectual spaces for their work and social and political influences, both local and national

Accounting in history

Recent studies of publication patterns in accounting history portray a myopic and introspective discipline. Analyses reveal the production and dissemination of accounting history knowledge which focus predominantly on Anglo-American settings and the age of modernity. Limited opportunities exist for contributions from scholars working in languages other than English. Many of the practitioners of accounting history are also shown to be substantially disconnected from the wider community of historians. It is argued in the current paper that interdisciplinary history has the potential to enhance theoretical and methodological creativity and greater inclusivity in the accounting history academy. A practical requirement for this venture is the identification of points of connectedness between accounting and other historians. An analysis of publications with accounting content in Historical Abstracts reveals increasing interest among historians in the history of accounting. This substantial literature incorpo­rates sites largely unfamiliar to accounting historians, such as Eastern and Central Europe and Central and South America. Historians also communicate their findings on accounting in a variety of languages. Subjects particularly deserving of interdisciplinary research engaging accounting and other historians include accounting in agricultural economies, the institutions of pre-industrial rural societies and diverse systems of government