Navigating towards interdisciplinarity: a grounded theory exploration of a collaborative SoTL boundary experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the intricacies of interdisciplinary collaboration within the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL), a field characterized by its epistemic and methodological diversity. We use constructive grounded theory to analyze the conversations of three experienced SoTL scholars from diverse disciplines, as they worked on a SoTL textbook, framed with the theoretical lenses of Landscapes of Practice and boundary crossing. By analyzing thirteen conversations recorded over eight months, we illustrate a transformative, interdisciplinary collaboration process and identify four key themes in the data: (i) boundary crossing can be explained in two distinct parts: the breadth and depth of expertise, and ontological and epistemological differences; (ii) mediators of successful interdisciplinary boundary work include team relationship, use of metaphors, development of a shared language, reliance on other disciplinary experts, and a focus on audience; and (iii) the need for deep, sustained engagement with each other’s disciplinary contexts in order to (iv) crystallize a new, shared space. This research adds to the literature on interdisciplinary learning and boundary crossing, and makes specific recommendations for those who wish to engage in and facilitate interdisciplinary collaborations.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".