Theory Development and Application in Higher Education Research: Tribes and Territories

Abstract

This paper examines the idea of tribes and territories, as an example of a theory developed and applied within higher education research of relevance to higher education policy. It traces the origins and meaning of the term, reviews its application by higher education researchers and discusses the issues it raises and the critiques it has attracted. It is concluded that while, like all theoretical frameworks, tribes and territories has strengths and weaknesses, it remains of use for thinking about academics, disciplines, their relations and associated policy areas.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Adams, J., Cochrane, M. and Dunne, L. (eds.) (2012) ‘Introduction’, in Applying Theory to Educational Research: An Introductory Approach with Case Studies, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Adler, N., Hellstrom, T., Jacob, M. and Norrgren, F. (2000) ‘A Model for the Institutionalisation of University-Industry Partnerships: The Fenix Research Programme’, in M. Jacob and T. Hellstrom (eds.) The Future of Knowledge Production in the Academy, Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Askling, B. (2001) ‘Higher education and academic staff in a period of policy and system change’, Higher Education 41 (2): 157–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bailey, F. (1977) Morality and Expediency: The Folklore of Academic Politics, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bamber, V. (2012) ‘Learning and Teaching in the Disciplines: Challenging Knowledge, Ubiquitous Change’, in P. Trowler, M. Saunders and V. Bamber (eds.) Tribes and Territories in the 21st Century: Rethinking the Significance of Disciplines in Higher Education, London: Routledge, pp. 99–106.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bath, D. and Smith, C. (2004) ‘Academic developers: an academic tribe claiming their territory in higher education’, International Journal for Academic Development 9 (1): 9–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Becher, T. (1981) ‘Towards a definition of disciplinary cultures’, Studies in Higher Education 6 (2): 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Becher, T. (1984) ‘The Cultural View’, in B. Clark (ed.) Perspectives on Higher Education: Eight Disciplinary and Comparative Views, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pp. 165–198.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Becher, T. (1987) ‘The Disciplinary Shaping of the Profession’, in B. Clark (ed.) The Academic Profession: National, Disciplinary and Institutional Settings, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pp. 271–303.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Becher, T. (1989a) Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Becher, T. (1989b) ‘Historians on history’, Studies in Higher Education 14 (3): 263–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Becher, T. (1990a) ‘Physicists on physics’, Studies in Higher Education 15 (1): 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Becher, T. (1990b) ‘The counter-culture of specialisation’, European Journal of Education 25 (3): 333–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Becher, T. (1994) ‘The significance of disciplinary differences’, Studies in Higher Education 19 (2): 151–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Becher, T. (1996) ‘The learning professions’, Studies in Higher Education 21 (1): 43–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Becher, T. (1999) Professional Practices: Commitment and Capability in a Changing Environment, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Becher, T. and Trowler, P. (2001) Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines, 2nd edn., Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bessant, J. (2002) ‘Dawkins’ higher education reforms and how metaphors work in policy making’, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 24 (1): 87–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Biglan, A. (1973a) ‘The characteristics of subject matter in different academic disciplines’, Journal of Applied Psychology 57 (3): 195–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Biglan, A. (1973b) ‘Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments’, Journal of Applied Psychology 57 (3): 204–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bird, E. (2001) ‘Disciplining the interdisciplinary: radicalism and the academic curriculum’, British Journal of Sociology of Education 22 (4): 463–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Blackmore, P. (2007) ‘Developing tribes and territories’, Educational Developments 8 (2): 1–4, 10–11 14.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Boffo, S. and Moscati, R. (1998) ‘Evaluation in the Italian higher education system: many tribes, many territories … many godfathers’, European Journal of Education 33 (3): 349–360.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Braxton, J. and Hargens, L. (1996) ‘Variation Among Academic Disciplines: Analytical Frameworks and Research’, in J. Smart (ed.) Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Vol. 11, New York: Agathon Press, pp. 1–46.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Brew, A. (2008) ‘Disciplinary and interdisciplinary affiliations of experienced researchers’, Higher Education 56 (4): 423–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Brint, S., Riddle, M., Turk-Bicakci, L. and Levy, C. (2005) ‘From the liberal to the practical arts in American colleges and universities: organizational analysis and curricular change’, Journal of Higher Education 76 (2): 151–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Carmichael, P. (2012) ‘Tribes, territories and threshold concepts: educational materialisms at work in higher education’, Educational Philosophy and Theory 44 (S1): 31–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Cashin, W. and Downey, R. (1995) ‘Disciplinary Differences in What is Taught and in Students’ Perceptions of What they Learn and of How They are Taught’, in N. Hativa and M. Marincovich (eds.) Disciplinary Differences in Teaching and Learning: Implications for Practice, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 64, pp. 81–92.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Clifford, V. (2009) ‘Engaging the disciplines in internationalising the curriculum’, International Journal for Academic Development 14 (2): 133–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Creswell, J. and Bean, J. (1981a) ‘Research output, socialization and the Biglan model’, Research in Higher Education 15 (1): 69–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Creswell, J. and Bean, J. (1981b) ‘The Biglan studies of differences among academic areas’, Review of Higher Education 4 (3): 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Davies, M., Devlin, M. and Tight, M. (eds.) (2010) Interdisciplinary Higher Education: Perspectives and Practicalities, Bingley: Emerald.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Donald, J. (1995) ‘Disciplinary Differences in Knowledge Validation’, in N. Hativa and M. Marincovich (eds.) Disciplinary Differences in Teaching and Learning: Implications for Practice, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 64, pp. 7–17.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Entwistle, N. (2005) ‘Learning outcomes and ways of thinking across contrasting disciplines and settings in higher education’, Curriculum Journal 16 (1): 67–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Evans, C. (1988) Language People: The Experience of Teaching and Learning Modern Languages in British Universities, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Evans, C. (1993) English People: The Experience of Teaching and Learning English in British Universities, Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Fejes, A., Johansson, K. and Dahlgren, M. (2005) ‘Learning to play the seminar game: students’ initial encounters with a basic working form in higher education’, Teaching in Higher Education 10 (1): 29–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Fuchs, S. (1992) The Professional Quest for Truth: A Social Theory of Science and Knowledge, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Hagstrom, W. (1965) The Scientific Community, New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Hughes, C. and Tight, M. (2013) ‘The metaphors we study by: the doctorate as a journey and/or as work’, Higher Education Research and Development 32 (5): 765–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Hyland, K. (2012) Disciplinary Identities: Individuality and Community in Academic Discourse, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Johnston, R. (1996) ‘Academic tribes, disciplinary containers and the realpolitik of opening up the social sciences’, Environment and Planning A 28 (11): 1943–1947.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kekäle, J. (1999) ‘‘Preferred’ patterns of academic leadership in different disciplinary (sub)cultures’, Higher Education 37 (3): 217–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Kekäle, J. (2002) ‘Conceptions of quality in four different disciplines’, Tertiary Education and Management 8 (1): 65–80.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Klein, J. (1996) Crossing Boundaries: Knowledge, Disciplinarities and Interdisciplinarities, Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Kogan, M. (2005) ‘Modes of knowledge and patterns of power’, Higher Education 49 (1): 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kolb, D. (1984) ‘Learning Styles and Disciplinary Differences’, in A. Chickering (ed.) The Modern American College: Responding to the New Realities of Diverse Students and a Changing Society, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 232–255.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Kolsaker, A. (2008) ‘Academic professionalism in the managerialist era: a study of English universities’, Studies in Higher Education 33 (5): 513–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Kuhn, T. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980/2003) Metaphors We Live By, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Land, R. (2012) ‘Crossing Tribal Boundaries: Interdisciplinarity as a Threshold Concept’, in P. Trowler, M. Saunders and V. Bamber (eds.) Tribes and Territories in the 21st Century: Rethinking the Significance of Disciplines in Higher Education, London: Routledge, pp. 174–185.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Lee, A. and Green, B. (2009) ‘Supervision as metaphor’, Studies in Higher Education 34 (6): 615–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Lindblom-Ylanne, S., Trigwell, K., Nevgi, A. and Ashwin, P. (2006) ‘How approaches to teaching are affected by discipline and teaching context’, Studies in Higher Education 31 (3): 285–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Loads, D. (2010) ‘‘I’m a dancer’ and ‘I’ve got a saucepan stuck on my head’: metaphor in helping lecturers to develop being-for-uncertainty’, Teaching in Higher Education 15 (4): 409–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Lodahl, J. and Gordon, G. (1972) ‘The structure of scientific fields and the functioning of university graduate departments’, American Sociological Review 37 (1): 57–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Malaney, G. (1986) ‘Differentiation in graduate education’, Research in Higher Education 25 (1): 82–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Manathunga, C. and Brew, A. (2012) ‘Beyond Tribes and Territories: New Metaphors for New Times’, in P. Trowler, M. Saunders and V. Bamber (eds.) Tribes and Territories in the 21st Century: Rethinking the Significance of Disciplines in Higher Education, London: Routledge, pp. 44–56.

    Google Scholar 

  60. McCulloch, A. (2013) ‘The quest for the PhD: a better metaphor for doctoral education’, International Journal for Researcher Development 4 (1): 55–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Menter, I. (2011) ‘Four ‘academic sub-tribes’, but one territory? Teacher educators and teacher education in Scotland’, Journal of Education for Teaching 37 (3): 293–308.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Murray, J. and Kosnik, K. (2011) ‘Introduction: academic work and identities in teacher education’, Journal of Education for Teaching 37 (3): 243–246.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Neumann, R. (2001) ‘Disciplinary differences and university teaching’, Studies in Higher Education 26 (2): 135–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Neumann, R., Parry, S. and Becher, T. (2002) ‘Teaching and learning in their disciplinary contexts: a conceptual analysis’, Studies in Higher Education 27 (4): 405–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. (2001) Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in An Age of Uncertainty, Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Pantin, C. (1968) The Relations between the Sciences, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Parker, J. (2002) ‘A new disciplinarity: communities of knowledge, learning and practice’, Teaching in Higher Education 7 (4): 373–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Parry, S. (2007) Disciplines and Doctorates, Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Pinch, T. (1990) ‘The culture of scientists and disciplinary rhetoric’, European Journal of Education 25 (3): 295–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Pirrie, A. (1999) ‘Rocky mountains and tired Indians: on territories and tribes. Reflections on multidisciplinary education in the health professions’, British Educational Research Journal 25 (1): 113–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Shahjahan, R. and Kezar, A. (2013) ‘Beyond the ‘national container’: addressing methodological nationalism in higher education research’, Educational Researcher 42 (1): 20–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Silver, H. (2003) ‘Does a university have a culture?’ Studies in Higher Education 28 (2): 157–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Smeby, J.-C. (1996) ‘Disciplinary differences in university teaching’, Studies in Higher Education 21 (1): 69–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Snow, C. (1959) The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Snow, C. (1964) The Two Cultures: And a Second Look, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Stanley, L. (ed.) (1997) Knowing Feminisms: On Academic Borders, Territories and Tribes, London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Stoecker, J. (1993) ‘The Biglan classification revisited’, Research in Higher Education 34 (4): 451–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Storer, N. (1967) ‘The hard sciences and the soft: some sociological observations’, Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 55 (1): 75–84.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Storer, N. (1972) ‘Relations among Scientific Disciplines’, in S. Nagi and R. Corwin (eds.) The Social Contexts of Research, New York: Wiley, pp. 229–268.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Tight, M. (2007) ‘Bridging the divide: a comparative analysis of articles in higher education journals published inside and outside North America’, Higher Education 53 (2): 235–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Tight, M. (2008) ‘Higher education research as tribe, territory and/or community: a co-citation analysis’, Higher Education 55 (5): 593–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Tight, M. (2012) Researching Higher Education 2nd edn Maidenhead: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Tight, M. (2013a) ‘Discipline and methodology in higher education research’, Higher Education Research and Development 32 (1): 136–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Tight, M. (2013b) ‘Students: customers, clients or pawns?’ Higher Education Policy 26 (3): 291–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Tight, M. (2014a) ‘Discipline and theory in higher education research’, Research Papers in Education 29 (1): 93–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Tight, M. (2014b) ‘Theory Development and Application in Higher Education Research: The Case of Threshold Concepts’, in J. Huisman and M. Tight (eds.) Theory and Method in Higher Education Research, Vol. 2, Bingley: Emerald, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Tight, M. (2014c) ‘Theory development and application in higher education research: the case of academic drift’, Journal of Educational Administration and History. Forthcoming.

  88. Tight, M. (forthcoming) ‘Working in separate silos? What citation patterns reveal about higher education research internationally’, Higher Education.

  89. Tranfield, D. (2002) ‘Formulating the nature of management research’, European Management Journal 20 (4): 378–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Tribe, J. (1997) ‘The indiscipline of tourism’, Annals of Tourism Research 24 (3): 638–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Tribe, J. (2010) ‘Tribes, territories and networks in the tourism academy’, Annals of Tourism Research 37 (1): 7–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Trowler, P. (2009) ‘Beyond Epistemological Essentialism: Academic Tribes in the Twenty-First Century’, in C. Kreber (ed.) The University and its Disciplines: Teaching and Learning within and beyond Disciplinary Boundaries, London: Routledge, pp. 181–195.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Trowler, P. (2012) ‘Disciplines and Interdisciplinarity’, in P. Trowler, M. Saunders and V. Bamber (eds.) Tribes and Territories in the 21st Century: Rethinking the Significance of Disciplines in Higher Education, London: Routledge, pp. 5–29.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Trowler, P., Saunders, M. and Bamber, V. (eds.) (2012a) Tribes and Territories in the 21st Century: Rethinking the Significance of Disciplines in Higher Education, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Trowler, P., Saunders, M. and Bamber, V. (eds.) (2012b) ‘Conclusion: Academic Practices and the Disciplines in the 21st Century’, in Tribes and Territories in the 21st Century: Rethinking the Significance of Disciplines in Higher Education, London: Routledge, pp. 241–258.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Välimaa, J. (1998) ‘Culture and identity in higher education research’, Higher Education 36 (2): 119–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Warhurst, R. (2008) ‘‘Cigars on the flight-deck’: new lecturers’ participatory learning within workplace communities of practice’, Studies in Higher Education 33 (4): 453–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Whitley, R. (1984) The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences, Oxford: Clarendon Press, Second edition published by Oxford University Press in 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Ylijoki, O.-H. (2000) ‘Disciplinary cultures and the moral order of studying: a case-study of four Finnish university departments’, Higher Education 39 (3): 339–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tight, M. Theory Development and Application in Higher Education Research: Tribes and Territories. High Educ Policy 28, 277–293 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2014.11

Download citation

Keywords

  • tribes and territories
  • theory development
  • higher education research