A phenomenographic exploration of course leaders’ understandings of interdisciplinarity

Figures & data

Table 1. Profiles of study participants.

Participant ID	Academic level	Years in academia	Disciplinary area	Years leading interdisciplinary courses
1	Professor	16+	Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences	3
2	Lecturer	6–10	Sciences	2
3	Lecturer	0–5	Business and Law	2
4	Lecturer	11–15	Medicine and Health	4
5	Lecturer	0–5	Engineering and Design	2
6	Lecturer	6–10	Business and Law	3
7	Lecturer	6–10	Engineering and Design	2
8	Professor	11–15	Sciences	2
9	Professor	11–15	Engineering and Design	6
10	Professor	11–15	Medicine and Health	3
11	Lecturer	11–15	Business and Law	3
12	Professor	16+	Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences	4
13	Professor	16+	Medicine and Health	5
14	Lecturer	11–15	Medicine and Health	3
15	Professor	11–15	Engineering and Design	5
16	Lecturer	6–10	Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences	1
17	Lecturer	16+	Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences	4
18	Professor	16+	Medicine and Health	5
19	Lecturer	0–5	Business and Law	2
20	Lecturer	16+	Sciences	4
21	Professor	16+	Sciences	4
22	Professor	16+	Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences	7
23	Professor	16+	Medicine and Health	7

Participants’ anonymity has been protected by removing identifying information and tagging quotations from their interviews with a participant identification number (e.g. P4).

Table 2. Outcome space: course leaders’ understandings of interdisciplinarity and variations between them.

Categories /Dimensions of variation	Category A	Category B	Category C
	In relation to definitions	In relation to knowledge spaces	In relation to knowledge work
	Understandings interdisciplinarity draw on the assumption that a correct understanding and/or definition exists, but is unclear	Interdisciplinarity is understood in relation to spatial terms and the interactions that happen between disciplines, boundaries, diverse knowledges, or systems	Interdisciplinarity is understood in relation to knowledge work
1. Conception	A correct meaning exists	Multiple meanings are possible and acceptable	Meanings are situated in activity
2. Language	Focus on comprehension	Focus on sense-making using spatial words	Focus on authentic meaning-making and acceptance of uncertainty
3. Formation	Knowledge sharing	Knowledge consolidation	Knowledge construction

Table 3. Referential and structural components of course leaders’ understandings of interdisciplinarity.

Referential component Focus on the ‘what’ of understandings	Structural components focus on the ‘how’ of understandings
Understood in relation to definitions Understood in relation to knowledge spaces Understood in relation to knowledge work	Rationalist epistemological position Constructivist epistemological position Pragmatist epistemological position