IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v99y2018i5p1733-1749.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Emerging Research Communities of Practice Versus the Popular Vision of Interdisciplinarity? Insights From Digital Research in the United Kingdom

Author

Listed:
  • Yupei Zhao
  • Panayiota Tsatsou

Abstract

Objective This article shows how social science and humanities researchers in the United Kingdom who make use of digital tools, resources, and services understand and perceive interdisciplinarity and their related experiences and needs. Methods The study examined 10 cases of U.K.‐based research, two from each of the following social science and humanities disciplines: business/management, education, history, literature, and politics. Data collection employed a qualitative methodology that consisted of nonparticipant observation and semi‐structured interviews. Results The article finds that researchers problematize the meaning and top‐down character of interdisciplinarity and envisage the development of research communities of experience exchange and knowledge sharing that go beyond the imperative of interdisciplinarity. Conclusion The article challenges prevalent assumptions that digital research and interdisciplinarity go hand in hand and that one is a prerequisite for and in need of the other, while it invites institutional and funding bodies to consider working jointly with researchers toward developing the alternative of research communities of practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Yupei Zhao & Panayiota Tsatsou, 2018. "Emerging Research Communities of Practice Versus the Popular Vision of Interdisciplinarity? Insights From Digital Research in the United Kingdom," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 99(5), pages 1733-1749, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:99:y:2018:i:5:p:1733-1749
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.12531
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12531
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.12531?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:99:y:2018:i:5:p:1733-1749. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.