学科学术认同:文理学院的边界与认同工作

IF 1.8 Q2 SOCIOLOGY Social Currents Pub Date : 2021-03-19 DOI:10.1177/23294965211001401
Brandy L. Simula, Tracy Scott
{"title":"学科学术认同:文理学院的边界与认同工作","authors":"Brandy L. Simula, Tracy Scott","doi":"10.1177/23294965211001401","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A large body of scholarship shows that even as interdisciplinarity gains recognition, the disciplines remain core aspects of the organization of modern academic life in the United States. We do not yet know, however, how faculty draw on disciplines and disciplinary boundaries in their academic identity work or how they construct their academic identities and convey those identities to others. We explore these questions through 100 in-depth interviews with faculty from 34 arts and sciences disciplines at a private, Research 1 university. We show how boundary battles over symbolic resources associated with disciplines contribute to faculty identity work. We identify four types of identity work arts and sciences faculty use: foregrounding disciplinarity, resisting disciplinary identities associated with administratively assigned departmental homes, emphasizing scientist identities, and pursuing question-oriented identities. Finally, we show how beliefs that disciplinary differences reflect underlying distinctions between “kinds of people” shore up the importance of disciplinary divisions, even in a university setting that provides material support for interdisciplinarity. We use these results to argue that even in institutional settings that provide support for interdisciplinarity, disciplinary boundaries may remain central by providing important symbolic resources.","PeriodicalId":44139,"journal":{"name":"Social Currents","volume":"8 1","pages":"378 - 397"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/23294965211001401","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Disciplining Academic Identities: Boundaries and Identity Work among Arts and Sciences Faculty\",\"authors\":\"Brandy L. Simula, Tracy Scott\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/23294965211001401\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A large body of scholarship shows that even as interdisciplinarity gains recognition, the disciplines remain core aspects of the organization of modern academic life in the United States. We do not yet know, however, how faculty draw on disciplines and disciplinary boundaries in their academic identity work or how they construct their academic identities and convey those identities to others. We explore these questions through 100 in-depth interviews with faculty from 34 arts and sciences disciplines at a private, Research 1 university. We show how boundary battles over symbolic resources associated with disciplines contribute to faculty identity work. We identify four types of identity work arts and sciences faculty use: foregrounding disciplinarity, resisting disciplinary identities associated with administratively assigned departmental homes, emphasizing scientist identities, and pursuing question-oriented identities. Finally, we show how beliefs that disciplinary differences reflect underlying distinctions between “kinds of people” shore up the importance of disciplinary divisions, even in a university setting that provides material support for interdisciplinarity. We use these results to argue that even in institutional settings that provide support for interdisciplinarity, disciplinary boundaries may remain central by providing important symbolic resources.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44139,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Currents\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"378 - 397\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/23294965211001401\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Currents\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/23294965211001401\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Currents","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23294965211001401","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

大量学术研究表明,即使跨学科获得认可,这些学科仍然是美国现代学术生活组织的核心方面。然而,我们还不知道教师在学术身份工作中是如何利用学科和学科界限的,也不知道他们是如何构建自己的学术身份并将这些身份传达给他人的。我们通过对一所私立研究型大学34个艺术和科学学科的教师进行100次深入采访来探讨这些问题。我们展示了与学科相关的符号资源的边界之争如何促进教师身份认同工作。我们确定了艺术和科学教师使用的四种身份工作类型:突出学科性,抵制与行政分配的系所相关的学科身份,强调科学家身份,以及追求问题导向的身份。最后,我们展示了学科差异反映“不同类型的人”之间潜在差异的信念如何支持学科划分的重要性,即使在为跨学科提供物质支持的大学环境中也是如此。我们利用这些结果认为,即使在为跨学科提供支持的机构环境中,学科边界也可能通过提供重要的象征性资源而保持核心地位。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Disciplining Academic Identities: Boundaries and Identity Work among Arts and Sciences Faculty
A large body of scholarship shows that even as interdisciplinarity gains recognition, the disciplines remain core aspects of the organization of modern academic life in the United States. We do not yet know, however, how faculty draw on disciplines and disciplinary boundaries in their academic identity work or how they construct their academic identities and convey those identities to others. We explore these questions through 100 in-depth interviews with faculty from 34 arts and sciences disciplines at a private, Research 1 university. We show how boundary battles over symbolic resources associated with disciplines contribute to faculty identity work. We identify four types of identity work arts and sciences faculty use: foregrounding disciplinarity, resisting disciplinary identities associated with administratively assigned departmental homes, emphasizing scientist identities, and pursuing question-oriented identities. Finally, we show how beliefs that disciplinary differences reflect underlying distinctions between “kinds of people” shore up the importance of disciplinary divisions, even in a university setting that provides material support for interdisciplinarity. We use these results to argue that even in institutional settings that provide support for interdisciplinarity, disciplinary boundaries may remain central by providing important symbolic resources.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Social Currents
Social Currents SOCIOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Social Currents, the official journal of the Southern Sociological Society, is a broad-ranging social science journal that focuses on cutting-edge research from all methodological and theoretical orientations with implications for national and international sociological communities. The uniqueness of Social Currents lies in its format. The front end of every issue is devoted to short, theoretical, agenda-setting contributions and brief, empirical and policy-related pieces. The back end of every issue includes standard journal articles that cover topics within specific subfields of sociology, as well as across the social sciences more broadly.
期刊最新文献
Coming Out Queer: Sexual and Romantic Exploration and Identity Development of LGBQ+ College Students Returning from Prison to a Changed City: How Does Gentrification Shape the Employment and Housing Opportunities of Returning Citizens? Fight the Power? How Black Adults’ Racial Capital Associates With Their Political Activities Rent Burden and Demographic Change Among Veterans: A Research Brief “A Future for White Children”: Examining Family Ideologies of White Extremist Groups at the Intersection of Race and Gender
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1