Higher Education

, Volume 65, Issue 4, pp 511–524 | Cite as

Growing into what? The (un-)disciplined socialisation of early stage researchers in transdisciplinary research

  • Ulrike Felt
  • Judith Igelsböck
  • Andrea Schikowitz
  • Thomas Völker
Article

Abstract

Over past decades we have witnessed considerable debate questioning the capacity of contemporary research to address the challenges posed by complex societal developments. As a consequence the need for rethinking cultures and practices of knowledge production has moved high on the policy agenda. In this context transdisciplinarity has become one of the key-notions standing for more openness towards and engagement with non-scientific actors all along the process of knowledge production. While there is much debate, little is known about the every-day research practices in such contexts. This paper focuses on early stage researchers and how they manage to reconcile the demands of transdisciplinarity with other normative requirements in contemporary research. Using the concept of ‘epistemic living spaces’, which addresses how researchers see their room for epistemic and social manoeuvre within research, the paper explores the possibilities and limits of contemporary research structures to accommodate this alternative way of producing knowledge. Introducing the concept of ‘transdisciplinary knowledge regime’, the article finally argues that this kind of knowledge production cannot be understood through solely focusing on the specific epistemological and normative prescriptions, but demands close consideration of the complex entanglements between the epistemic, the institutional, the social and the ideological perspectives in contemporary research. All this also raises new issues of responsibility towards early stage researchers.

Keywords

Transdisciplinarity Doctoral education Research socialisation Epistemic living spaces Research governance Knowledge regime 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the editors and the anonymous referees for their valuable comments on the draft of this article, as well as Elizabeth Rosenbaum for her help with final language issues. Our gratitude also goes to those researchers who were so generous as to give us their time, engage with our questions and share their experiences and concerns about their research work with us. This research has been made possible by a grant from the Federal Ministry for Science and Research under the programme proVISION. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the conference “Risky entanglements? Contemporary research cultures imagined and practised”, Vienna 9–11 June 2010.

References

  1. Barry, J., Berg, E., & Chandler, J. (2006). Academic shape shifting: Gender, management and identities in Sweden and England. Organization, 13(2), 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergmann, M., Brohmann, B., Hoffmann, E., Loibl, M. C., Rehaag, R., Schramm, E., & Voss, J. P. (2005). Qualitätskriterien transdisziplinärer Forschung. Ein Leitfaden für die formative Evaluation von Forschungsprojekten. Frankfurt am Main: ISOE-Studientexte, Nr. 13.Google Scholar
  3. Bleiklie, I., & Byrkjeflot, H. (2002). Changing knowledge regimes: Universities in a new research environment. Higher Education, 44(3–4), 519–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clarke, A. E. (2005). Situational analysis. Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Darnhofer, I., & Loibl, M. C. (2007). Experiences from transdisciplinary workshops: Co-learning about the effects of global change on farming and rural areas. Waegeningen: In XXIInd ESRS Congress.Google Scholar
  6. Daston, L. (1995). The moral economy of science. Osiris, 10, 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Duberley, J., Cohen, L., & Mallon, M. (2006). Constructing scientific careers: Change, continuity and context. Organization Studies, 27(8), 1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Felt, U. (Ed.). (2009). Knowing and living in academic research. Convergence and heterogeneity in research cultures in the European context. Prague: Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.Google Scholar
  9. Felt, U., & Stöckelová, T. (2009). Modes of ordering and boundaries that matter in academic knowledge production. In U. Felt (Ed.), Knowing and living in academic research. Convergence and heterogeneity in research cultures in the European context. Prague: Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.Google Scholar
  10. Felt, U., Fochler, M., & Müller, R. (2012). Biography and/or career? Young researchers’ perspectives on knowing and living in contemporary research. Submitted to Social Studies of Science.Google Scholar
  11. Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The New Institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Funtowics, S. O., & Ravetz, J. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Galison, P., & Stump, D. (Eds.). (1996). The disunity of science: Boundaries, contexts, and power. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gardner, S. K. (2007). ‘I heard it through the grapevine’: Doctoral student socialization in chemistry and history. Higher Education, 54(5), 723–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garforth, L., & Cervincová, A. (2009). Times and trajectories in academic knowledge production. In U. Felt (Ed.), Knowing and living in academic research. Convergence and heterogeneity in research cultures in the European context. Prague: Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.Google Scholar
  16. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). New production of knowledge: Dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Gieryn, T. F. (1999). Cultural boundaries of science. Credibility on the line. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hackett, E., & Rhoten, D. (2009). The Snowbird Charrette: Integrative interdisciplinary collaboration in environmental research design. Minerva, 47(4), 407–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge?. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Henkel, M. (2005). Academic identity and autonomy in a changing policy environment. Higher Education, 49(1), 155–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004). States of knowledge. The co-production of science and social order. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures. How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, Massachusetts/London, England: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life. The construction of scientific facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Nowotny, H. (2007). The potential of transdisciplinarity. http://helga-nowotny.eu/downloads/helga_nowotny_b59.pdf. Accessed 31 Jan 2011.
  25. Pickering, A. (Ed.). (1992). Science as practice and culture. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  26. Pohl, C., & Hirsch Hadorn, G. (2008). Core terms in transdisciplinary research. In G. Hirsch Hadorn et al. (Eds.), Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Rafols, I., Leydesdorff, L., O‘Hare, A., Nightingale, P., & Stirling, A. (2012). How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between innovation studies and business & management. Research Policy, 41(7), 1262–1282.Google Scholar
  28. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Swan, J., Bresnen, M., Robertson, M., Newell, S., & Dopson, S. (2010). When policy meets practice: Colliding logics and the challenges of ‘Mode 2’ initiatives in the translation of academic knowledge. Organization Studies, 31(9–10), 1311–1340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Weidman, J. C., Twale, D. J., & Stein, E. L. (2001). Socialization of graduate and professional students in higher education: A perilous passage?. San Francisco: In ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ulrike Felt
    • 1
  • Judith Igelsböck
    • 1
  • Andrea Schikowitz
    • 1
  • Thomas Völker
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Social Studies of ScienceUniversitätsstraße 7 (NIG)ViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations