ABSTRACT
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.
Notes on contributor
Carlos Adrian Cuevas-Garcia is a postdoctoral researcher at the Munich Center for Technology in Society, Technische Universität München, in the Post/Doc Lab Reorganizing Industries. His current research explores discourses and expectations surrounding 3D bioprinting. He completed a Ph.D. in science and technology studies at the University of Nottingham, U.K., in 2015, supervised by Brigitte Nerlich and Alison Pilnick.
ORCID
Carlos Adrian Cuevas-Garcia http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3314-5893