The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Organizational Studies

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Disciplines, Knowledge Territories and Boundaries: Disciplinary Interaction inside Project Teams


Affiliations
1 University of Plymouth, United Kingdom
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


The boundaries between the disciplines have been described as places "where perspectives meet and new possibilities arise" (Wenger 2000:223), and which provide unusual learning opportunities. Furthermore, other writers stress the value of boundary interaction in promoting creation and innovation particularly inside multidisciplinary project teams. Although disciplines are more frequently discussed in the context of higher education, there is little written about the application of boundary concepts in the workplace environment. This paper sets about unraveling some of the concepts surrounding disciplines to see if there is a fit inside the working environment and to provide greater clarity for those organisations wishing to develop increased creativity and learning opportunities for staff. The literature review discusses the nature and territory of disciplines, disciplinary mapping and highlights issues arising from disciplinary interaction. The study took an inductive approach using an ethnographic perspective to data collection and analysis. Interviewing formed the primary data collection method, yielding both qualitative and quantitative data from a cross sectional sample drawn from oil and gas consultancy. The disciplines were mapped to ascertain where the richest learning opportunities lie to underpin the study's conclusion that boundary interaction held benefits for both employees and organisations and consequently, should be proactively promoted within the workplace.

Keywords

Disciplines, Creativity and Innovation, Situated Learning.
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • Amsel, E., Langer, R. and Loutzenhiser, L. 1991. "Do lawyers reason differently from psychologists? A comparative design for studying expertise" In Complex problem solving: Principles and mechanisms, edited by Sternberg, R.J. and Frensch, P.A., (Eds.), 223-250, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Bazeley, P. 2007. Qualitative Data Analysis with NVivo, London: Sage Publications.

  • Becher, T. 1989. Academic Tribes and Territories, Milton Keynes: SRHE and Open University Press.

  • Bergquist, W.H. 1995. Quality through Access, Access with Quality: the new imperative for higher education, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

  • Biglan, A. 1973. "Relationships between Subject Matter Characteristics and the Structure and Output of University Departments." Journal of Applied Psychology 57, 3:204-213.

  • Brand, R. and Karvonen, A. 2007. "The ecosystem of expertise: complementary knowledges for sustainable development." Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 3, Issue 1: 1-11.

  • Brown, J.S., and Duguid, P. 1994. "Organizational learning and communities of practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation." In Tsoukas, H. (Ed.) New thinking in organizational behaviour, 165-187, London: Sage.

  • Bryman, A. 2004. Social Research Methods, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis, London: Sage Publications Ltd.

  • Chubin, D. 1976. "The conceptualization of scientific specialities." Sociological Quarterly, 17: 448-476.

  • Craik, K. 1943. The Nature of Exploration, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Crane, D. and Small, H. 1992. "American Sociology since the Seventies: The Emerging Identity Crisis in the Discipline" In Sociology and Its Publics: The Forms and Fates of Disciplinary Organization edited by Halliday, T.C. and Janowitz, M., 197-234, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Creswell, J.W. 1998. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design Choosing Among Five Traditions, London: Sage Publications Ltd.

  • Geertz, C. 1973. "Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture" In The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, 3-30, New York: Basic Books.

  • Gibbs, G. R. 2007. Analyzing Qualitative Data, London: Sage Publications Ltd.

  • Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: strategies for qualitative research, New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

  • Goulding, C. 2002. Grounded Theory. A Practical Guide for Management, Business and Market Researchers, London: Sage Publications Ltd.

  • Heritage, J. 2011. Territories of Knowledge, territories of experience: empathic moments in interaction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Johnson, S. 2010. Where good ideas come from: the natural history of innovation, New York: Penguin Group (USA) Inc.

  • Kao, John. 1996. Jamming: The Art and Discipline of Business Creativity, New York: HarperCollins.

  • Klein, J.T. 1996. Crossing boundaries: knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities Virginia: University of Virginia.

  • Klein, J.T. 2004. "Prospects for transdisciplinarity." Futures, 36, 4: 515-526.

  • Kolb, D.A. 1981. Learning Style Inventory: Self-Scoring Inventory and Interpretation Booklet, Boston: McGee & Company.

  • Krishnan, A. 2009. "What are Academic Disciplines? Some observations on the Disciplinarity vs. Interdisciplinarity debate" In NCRM Working Paper Series, University of Southampton.

  • Krueger, R.A. and Casey, M.A. 2000. Focus Group: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication.

  • Lave, J. and Wenger, E. 1991. Situated Learning Legitimate peripheral participation, New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • Lazaer, E.P. 2000. "Economic Imperialism." Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115, 1: 99-146.

  • Levorsen, A. I. 1967. Geology of Petroleum, Reprint California: W.H Freeman and Company. Originally published 1954.

  • Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry, California: Sage Publications, Inc.

  • Lovelace, K. 2000. "External Collaboration and Performance: North Carolina Local Health Departments, 1996." In Public Health Reports, 350-57.

  • Lumsdaine, E. and Lumsdaine, M. 1995. Creative Problem Solving, Singapore: McGraw-Hill.

  • Marshall, C. and Rossman, G.B. 1999. Designing Qualitative Research, London: Sage Publications Ltd.

  • Nancarrow, A. S. and Borthwick, M.A. 2005. "Dynamic professional boundaries in the healthcare workforce." Sociology of Health and Illness, 27, 7: 897-919.

  • Oswick, C., Fleming, P. and Hanlon, G. 2011. "From Borrowing to Blending: Rethinking the Processes of Organizational Theory Building." Academy of Management Review, 35, 2: 318-337.

  • Ovretveit, J. 1997. Interprofessional Working for Health and Social Care, London: Macmillan.

  • Remenyi, D., Williams, B., Money, A. and Swartz, E. 1998. Doing Research in Business and Management, London: Sage Publications Ltd.

  • Rogers, J.R. 2005. "More than the sum of the parts: Multidisciplinary Working". Unpublished Masters Thesis, Plymouth: Plymouth University.

  • Rushmer, R. and Pallis, G. 2003. "Inter-Professional Working: the Wisdom of Integrated Working and the Disaster of Blurred Boundaries." Public Money & Management, 23, 1: 59-66.

  • Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. 2003. Research Methods for Business Students, Harlow: Prentice Hall.

  • Seale, C. 1999. The Quality of Qualitative Research, London: Sage Publications Ltd.

  • Senge, P.M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of The Learning Organization, Chatham: Mackays.

  • Shipman, M.D. 1997. The Limitations of Social Research, London: Longman.

  • Sil, R. and Doherty, E. 2000. Beyond Boundaries, Disciplines, Paradigms, and Theoretical Integration in International Studies, New York: State University of New York Press.

  • Sonnenwald, D.H. and Pierce, L. 2000. "Information behaviour in dynamic group work contexts: Interwoven situational awareness, dense social networks and contest collaboration in command and Control." Information Processing & Management, 36, 3: 461-479.

  • Taylor, P.G. 1999. Making Sense of Academic Life, Bucks: SRHE and Open University Press.

  • Trowler, P. 2006. "Academic Tribes: their significance in enhancement processes." Paper presented at Utvecklingskonferensen 2005 i Karlstad, University of Lund.

  • Vgotsky, L.S. 1986. The genetic ischolar_mains of thought and speech. In A. Kozulin Thought and Language, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Wenger, E. 2000. "Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems." Organization, 7, 2: 225-246.


Abstract Views: 159

PDF Views: 0




  • Disciplines, Knowledge Territories and Boundaries: Disciplinary Interaction inside Project Teams

Abstract Views: 159  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Jacqui Rogers
University of Plymouth, United Kingdom
Beryl Ann Badger
University of Plymouth, United Kingdom

Abstract


The boundaries between the disciplines have been described as places "where perspectives meet and new possibilities arise" (Wenger 2000:223), and which provide unusual learning opportunities. Furthermore, other writers stress the value of boundary interaction in promoting creation and innovation particularly inside multidisciplinary project teams. Although disciplines are more frequently discussed in the context of higher education, there is little written about the application of boundary concepts in the workplace environment. This paper sets about unraveling some of the concepts surrounding disciplines to see if there is a fit inside the working environment and to provide greater clarity for those organisations wishing to develop increased creativity and learning opportunities for staff. The literature review discusses the nature and territory of disciplines, disciplinary mapping and highlights issues arising from disciplinary interaction. The study took an inductive approach using an ethnographic perspective to data collection and analysis. Interviewing formed the primary data collection method, yielding both qualitative and quantitative data from a cross sectional sample drawn from oil and gas consultancy. The disciplines were mapped to ascertain where the richest learning opportunities lie to underpin the study's conclusion that boundary interaction held benefits for both employees and organisations and consequently, should be proactively promoted within the workplace.

Keywords


Disciplines, Creativity and Innovation, Situated Learning.

References