Negotiating the politics of identity in an interdisciplinary research team

Abstract

This article explores the politics of identity in an interdisciplinary health research team that has been engaged in a qualitative research program for over five years. We draw on sociological theories of power and knowledge to explore our experiences of identity conflict, team socialization, and knowledge production. Structurally, our article integrates individual and group perspectives through personal narratives and collaborative critique as we explore the complex negotiations required to realize and maintain our team dynamic. These negotiations take place not only with one another as particularly positioned individuals, but also with the ideological and organizational forces that structure our scholarly worlds. We conclude with articulating `lessons learned' that we hope will enable other interdisciplinary research teams to realize the rich potential of their collaborative qualitative work.

Collaborative Analysis of Qualitative Data

“…• Insider/outsider (Bartunek and Louis, 1996) • Interdisciplinary (Tartas and Muller Mirza, 2007;Lingard et al, 2007) • Different methodological approaches (Frost et al, 2010) • Academic-practitioner (Hartley and Benington, 2000) • Academic-lay person (Enosh and Ben-Ari, 2010;Lamerichs et al, 2009) • International (Akkerman et al, 2006;Arcidiacono, 2007;Bender et al, 2011;Marková and Plichtová, 2007;Tartas and Muller Mirza, 2007) • Senior-junior (Hall et al, 2005;Pontecorvo, 2007;Rogers-Dillon, 2005) In what follows, we first introduce why collaborative data analysis is interesting from a methodological point of view, informed by the epistemological stance of perspectivism. Expanding this discussion, we then explore five potential methodological benefits of collaborative data analysis.…”

“…To realize both the hermeneutic of faith and the hermeneutic of suspicion in a research project, it may be helpful to embody those different perspectives in different collaborators. Insiders to a field may often be more empathic to the local actors, given that they share assumptions and identifications, while outsider-researchers may take up a more suspicious/critical stance (Lingard et al, 2007). However, there is not a fixed relation between insider/outsider status and an attitude of empathy or critique; rather, it will vary according to the context (see the discussion of Cornish and Ghosh's differences below for a counter-example).…”

Defining Terms for Integrated (Multi-Inter-Trans-Disciplinary) Sustainability Research

“…This boundary work, argues Claire Hinrichs [3,34] can serve to help dissolve boundaries or to ensure they stay erect. A politics of identity emerges from disciplinary differences, but also around the types of researchers involved [35,36]. "Creative interdisciplinarity thereby involves establishing mechanisms and instances through which individual disciplinary knowledges can be appropriately 'translated', in order to be 'articulated' both within interdisciplinary research teams and beyond, into heterogeneous policy communities" [33].…”

“INKE-cubating” Research Networks, Projects, and Partnerships: Reflections on INKE’s Fifth Year

“…As a mature collaboration, INKE has a clear working culture articulated both explicitly through its governance documents and planning and reporting processes (L. Siemens & INKE Research Group, 2012c) and implicitly through conduct in formal and informal meetings, emails, conference calls, and work patterns (Lawrence, 2006;Lingard, Schryer, Spafford, & Campbell, 2007). is culture has allowed the project to be highly productive.…”