Discourses of interdisciplinarity and the shifting topography of academic work: generational perspectives on facilitating and resisting neoliberalism
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generational differences in the way knowledge-makers negotiate shifts in relation to interdisciplinary knowledge-making at one Canadian university are studied. Semi-structured interviews with 20 participants in science, technology, engineering and mathematics disciplines were conducted. Using a Foucauldian approach, transcripts were read to determine how academic identities and subject positions are formed and reformed through time as different discursive spaces are experienced. The historical perspective of older participants revealed the complex interplay between private and public ‘scripts’. Participants demonstrated agency on behalf of themselves and their institution by engaging in practices they thought would provide space for research that ‘really mattered’. Older participants who were administrators promoted instrumental forms of interdisciplinarity that did not challenge the central role of disciplines in the construction of expertise. Younger participants were more likely to resist being ‘disciplined’; they identified strongly with conceptual forms of interdisciplinarity and derived both satisfaction and creativity from working in the margins of knowledge spaces.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it