Liberating Interdisciplinarity From Myth.
An Exploration
of the Discursive Construction of Identities in
Information Studies
Dorte Madsen
Department of Intercultural Communication and Management, Copenhagen Business School, Porcelænshaven
18A, DK-2000 Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark. E-mail: dma.ikl@cbs.dk
Recent research in information studies suggests that
the tradition of seeing the discipline as weak is still alive
and kicking. This is a problem because the discourse of
the weak discipline creates conceptual confusion in
relation to interdisciplinarity. Considering the growth of
the iSchools and what is assumed to be a major institu-
tional redrawing of boundaries, there is a pressing need
to conceptualize interdisciplinary practices and bound-
ary work. This paper explores the “weak” discipline
through a discourse analytical lens and identifies a
myth. Perceiving the discipline as weak is part of a myth,
fueled by the ideal of a unitary discipline; the ideal dis-
cipline has strong boundaries, and as long as the dis-
course continues to focus on a need for boundaries, the
only available discourse is one that articulates the dis-
cipline as weak. Thus, the myth is a vicious circle that
can be broken if weakness is no longer ascribed to the
discipline by tradition. The paper offers an explanation
of the workings of the myth so that its particular way of
interpreting the world does not mislead us when theo-
rizing interdisciplinarity. This is a conceptual paper, and
the examples serve as an empirical backdrop to the
conceptual argument.
Introduction
In 2013, a panel proposal for the American Society for
Information Science and Technology (ASIST), “Crossing the
Boundaries in Information Science: Perspectives on
Interdisciplinarity,” was published. The title of the panel
spurred my interest, but reading the panel description puzzled
me. It was not about interdisciplinarity but an invitation to
“discuss the theoretical boundaries of information science”
(Aparac-Jelušić et al., 2013, p. 1). Contrary to what one
would expect judging from the title, no boundaries appeared
to be crossed, and no perspectives on interdisciplinarity were
Received November 17, 2014; revised July 22, 2015; accepted July 22,
2015
© 2015 ASIS&T • Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/asi.23622
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ••(••):••–••, 2015
offered. What was just as striking was the framing of infor-
mation science as so weak that it is necessary to strengthen its
boundaries. But if boundaries are strengthened, would that
not be exactly the opposite of what boundary crossing is
about—interaction between disciplines? Thus it appears that
not only is the title of the panel misleading, the focus on
strengthening boundaries also runs counter to the very idea of
interdisciplinary research where “boundary crossing” is more
likely to address boundary work such as, for example, nego-
tiation of epistemic standards.
It is tempting to explain a panel discussion of a need for
boundaries with reference to a historical identity discussion
as portrayed by Webber (2003) and Nolin and Åstrøm
(2010), who describe how many diverse interdisciplinary
collaborations, together with vague boundaries, lack of a
clear core, and fragmentation, have traditionally been seen
as weakness (p. 24). Since 2005, we have witnessed the
proliferation of iSchools and the general broadening of the
disciplinary base of information studies as documented by
Wiggins and Sawyer (2012). And as may be implied from,
for example, Dillon’s (2012) account of the rationale of the
iSchools, interdisciplinarity was institutionalized with the
creation of the Information Field. Consequently, what must
be assumed to be a major institutional redrawing of bound-
aries would suggest a need for research into boundary
work and, in general, the development of scholarship of
interdisciplinarity. However, the above panel discussion
(Aparac-Jelušić et al., 2013) and a similar panel in 2014
(Arafat et al., 2014), suggest that the tradition of seeing the
discipline as weak is still alive and kicking, demonstrating
what Day (2005), quoting Frohmann (1994), formulates as
“the constant historical anxiety in information studies over
its own disciplinary status, manifested in an obsession over
creating a uniform sense of theory” (p. 591).
This perceived “weakness” of information studies is
worth exploring because of the conceptual confusion it
creates in relation to interdisciplinarity. This paper shows
that the above discussions are not about interdisciplinarity,
although they appear to be. Seeing the discipline as weak is
part of a myth, fueled by the ideal of a unitary discipline.
Myth is a word usually taken to be the opposite of truth, but
myths can also be seen more broadly as the patterns of
thought that “suggest particular ways of interpreting the
world” (Midgley, 2003, p. 1). The work of myth is to rees-
tablish closure where a social order has been dislocated.
From a discourse analytical perspective, “weakness” is
something we ascribe, and the myth of the weak discipline
works to “reconstitute” the absent unity of the discipline—
the inverted commas indicating the impossibility of recon-
stituting something that never was. This paper offers an
explanation of the workings of the myth so that its particular
way of interpreting the world does not mislead us when
conceptualizing interdisciplinarity.
The paper is organized as follows. First I briefly review
relevant literatures on interdisciplinarity and disciplinary
identity in information studies and point to the need for
further research on interdisciplinarity in an epistemological
sense and for conceptual clarification. Second, the theoreti-
cal framework informing the discourse analysis provides a
baseline understanding of the concepts of interdisciplinarity,
discipline, boundary, and boundary crossing. Next, the dis-
course analytical perspective is outlined, and the method-
ological choices of critical discourse analysis as a
qualitative, interpretivist approach are discussed. Then, the
analysis section examines the two positions outlined by
Webber (2003) and Nolin and Åstrøm (2010) as a discursive
struggle between two different identity discourses. Three
examples of text are investigated in more detail, including
the above, for their ascription of weakness to the discipline.
The examples of the analysis are chosen because they are
particularly indicative of a discursive practice that continues
a historical anxiety over disciplinary status. This is a con-
ceptual paper, and the examples serve as an empirical back-
drop to the conceptual argument. Thus, the discourse
analysis is used primarily as a resource for theorizing. By
developing a conceptual reflection based on the workings of
myth, areas for further research are suggested.
The conceptual argument of this paper takes its point of
departure in “information studies” as the label under which
disciplinary identity is discussed by the discipline itself in its
own literature, and, when referring to this literature, this
paper adheres to the labeling used by the authors in question.
“Information studies” appears to be generally accepted as
the label for what Furner (2010) calls “the aggregate scope
of the group of fields collectively labeled ‘information
studies,’ ” pointing out that there appears to be “a reasonably
stable consensus about the identity of those areas of concern
that collectively form the central core of the field of infor-
mation studies” (p. 167). Similarly, Milojević, Sugimoto,
Yan, and Ding (2011) account for the field as one body of
knowledge, delimited by a selection of the 16 most impor-
tant journals in the field. (cf. table 1, p. 1936), furthermore
offering a summary of disagreements regarding nomencla-
ture. Therefore, to limit the scope of this paper, there is no
detailed discussion of the heterogeneous labeling of the
2 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2015
DOI: 10.1002/asi
field; it should be noted, however, that this paper distin-
guishes between “information studies” and “Information
Field.” This distinction is further elaborated in the discourse
analysis below.
Interdisciplinarity in the Information
Studies Literature
Interdisciplinarity seems to be everywhere in the infor-
mation studies literature. The nature of information studies
is generally regarded as interdisciplinary. Bibliometric
research provides statistical analyses that show increases in
authors’ and the field’s interdisciplinarity, and interdiscipli-
narity is in the DNA of the 65 iSchools. The contexts in
which interdisciplinarity is found are diverse, yet mainly
revolving around the identity of information studies
(Aparac-Jelušić et al., 2013; Arafat et al., 2014; Baradol &
Kumbar, 1998; Bawden, 2007; Buckland, 2012; Cronin,
1995, 2002, 2005, 2012; Druin et al., 2009; Furner, 2010;
Holland, 2008; McNicol, 2003; Nolin & Åstrøm, 2010;
Palmer, 2010; Radford, 2003; Saracevic, 1999; Sugimoto,
Ni, Russell, & Bychowski, 2011; Webber, 2003; Weech &
Pluzhenskaia, 2005; Wiegand, 1999; Wilson, 2003; Winter,
1996), and the iSchools and the Information Field (Beaton,
Jeng, & Champagne, 2014; Bonnici, Subramaniam, &
Burnett, 2009; Bonnici, Julien, & Burnett, 2013; Budd &
Dumas, 2014; Burnett & Bonnici, 2006, 2013; Chu, 2010,
2012; Dillon, 2012; Gunawardena, Weber, & Agosto, 2010;
Madsen, 2012; Madsen & Ho, 2014; Wedgeworth, 2013;
Wiggins & Sawyer, 2012; Wu, He, Jiang, Dong, & Vo,
2011). Despite the ubiquity of interdisciplinarity in the lit-
erature, the importance of interdisciplinarity to the identity
of information studies and the iSchools organization’s com-
mitment to interdisciplinarity, it is noticeable that discus-
sions of what interdisciplinarity is and how it is practiced in
research processes are scarce, and boundary work is largely
ignored in the literature.
Bibliometric studies operationalize interdisciplinarity by
means of various indicators such as, for example, genealogy
network data (Sugimoto et al., 2011), or journals or other
proxies for disciplines (Larivière, Sugimoto, & Cronin,
2012), to reveal the interdisciplinary features of the disci-
pline. For example, Larivière et al. (2012) demonstrate the
high degree of permeability in library and information
science (LIS) through reference and citation practices, and
they examine boundary crossing operationalized as the per-
centage of authors who published in LIS, and in a journal of
another discipline. However, these quantitative measures
cannot identify research that is interdisciplinary in an episte-
mological sense (Huutoniemi, Klein, Bruun, & Hukkinen,
2010, p. 80), and therefore, using information attached to
proxy measures of interdisciplinarity does not help us better
understand interdisciplinarity at a conceptual level. Larivière
et al. (2012) focus on the result of interdisciplinary processes,
meaning that it can be ascertained in retrospect that interdis-
ciplinary processes have taken place but, broadly speaking,
not how or why. To better understand interdisciplinary
processes, and to be able to theorize them, we need to look
into the concepts and the meaning ascribed to concepts in
discourse.
Information Studies’ Identity: Heterogeneous,
Permeable, and Hospitable
Webber (2003), Nolin and Åstrøm (2010), and Furner
(2010) analyze information science, LIS, and information
studies, respectively, in terms of Becher (1994) and Becher
and Trowler’s (2001) matrix that distinguishes between the
“hard pure,” “hard applied,” “soft applied,” and “soft pure.”
Webber (2003, p. 318) indicates that “IS is clearly displaying
the characteristics of an applied discipline, one which has
both hard and soft elements” and concludes that “IS can be
characterized as partly soft-pure and with few hard-pure ele-
ments,” and she addresses this tension between hard and soft
(p. 319) in contrasting the views of those who see the disci-
pline as problematically fragmented and those who envision a
discipline of fruitfully interlinked specialisms. Wilson’s
(2003) comments to Webber (2003) embody the contrasting
and contradictory views: “However, by discipline she has in
mind a multidisciplinary field centred upon common research
problems, rather than a unitary discipline identified by a
common, underpinning theoretical framework” (p. 446).
This tension between hard and soft is also reflected by
Furner (2010, p. 169), who states:
These days, we are more likely to read about information
studies’ hospitality to a plurality of approaches, the implication
being that each of its different subfields can be comfortably
located in different quadrants, or even that each of its topics or
problem sets can be explored using multiple methods originat-
ing in different quadrants. (p. 169)
Nolin and Åstrøm (2010), building on Becher and
Trowler’s (2001) distinction between convergent and diver-
gent research fields, conclude that
There is an interesting dynamic in the current development of
LIS. As we see it, the field seems to be heading in two different
directions simultaneously. One is the tendency towards integra-
tion (convergence) of at least some research areas within the
field. The other is played out through the heterogeneous nature
of LIS. It can be characterised as several divergent turns and is
also evident throughout the history of the field. (p. 20)
In Nolin and Åstrøm’s (2010) analysis of the fragmented
nature of LIS, they describe how many diverse interdisci-
plinary collaborations, together with vague boundaries, lack
of a clear core, and fragmentation, have traditionally been
seen as weakness (p. 24). As they argue (p. 24), this weak-
ness can actually be seen as a source of great strength. They
advance the idea “that there is a choice to be made between
either being open, flexible and weak or closed, rigid and
strong” (p. 16) and that “we can build on the fruitfulness of
interdisciplinary efforts.” Following Nolin and Åstrøm’s
(2010) analysis, considering the interdisciplinary nature of
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2015
information studies, and the growth of the iSchools since
2005, logically, it does not seem possible to not choose to
“build on the fruitfulness of interdisciplinary efforts.” Fur-
thermore, it is interesting to note that in Becher and
Trowler’s (2001) predominantly descriptive research, there
is no ascription of weakness to specific disciplines or spe-
cific constellations of characteristics. It is within the infor-
mation studies literature itself that permeable boundaries
have traditionally been equated with weakness.
If we look at the development of information studies a
broader perspective, it seems that the dynamic of the field
follows the dominant pattern of knowledge growth over the
course of the 20th century, which is the fracturing and
refracturing of disciplines into new specialties, resulting in
both greater fragmentation and greater convergence (Klein,
1993, 1996). Weingart (2000) who scrutinizes the apparent
paradox of an ongoing discourse on interdisciplinarity “in
the face of ever more specialization and fragmentation,”
concludes that interdisciplinarity and specialization are par-
allel. “They are mutually reinforcing strategies, and, thus,
complementary descriptions of the process of knowledge
production” (p. 40). In this light, the choice addressed by
Nolin and Åstrøm (2010) falls within the general pattern and
can be seen to represent an inevitable tension between
complementary descriptions of the process of knowledge
production. This is also supported by their nuanced analysis
of “the heterogeneous nature of LIS” and by Cronin (2012)
who states that “The information studies field is increasingly
fluid and permeable, considerably less unified and homoge-
neous than was once the case” (Shape of the field section,
para. 1), and he invokes import-export data to demonstrate
what he calls “the newfound outer-directedness of the field”
and the growing attractiveness of its research to related
disciplines (cf. Cronin & Meho, 2008).
In the Nolin and Åstrøm 2010 analysis, I assumed that the
opposing views of “unitary discipline” versus “multidisci-
plinary field” was first and foremost a historical identity
discussion. It therefore came as a surprise that recent panel
discussions still frame information science as weak, painting
a picture of an introvert discipline rather than building on the
body of research discussed above. It is not that it is unusual
that disciplinary identity is contested, but it is paradoxical
that, on one hand, these panel discussions focus on strength-
ening the boundaries of the discipline, and on the other hand,
claim “interdisciplinary” and “interdisciplinarity” in their
titles. This suggests that the concept of interdisciplinarity is
taking on a life of its own in these discussions, which calls
attention to a need for conceptual clarification. Meanings are
ascribed through discourse, and discourse analysis can con-
tribute to uncover the mechanisms at work in this apparently
persistent habit of representing information studies as weak.
The analysis below focuses on what this paper identifies
as the discourse of the weak discipline representing the
discourse that constitutes disciplinary identity as “a unitary
discipline”. This discourse is explored on the background of
what this paper labels the hospitality discourse that consti-
tutes disciplinary identity as “a multidisciplinary field”. The
3
DOI: 10.1002/asi
starting point for analysis is a discursive struggle between
the two different identity discourses, building on the
research of Webber (2003) and Nolin and Åstrøm (2010),
which are considered authoritative reviews that give a thor-
ough and nuanced characterization of information studies,
incorporating and discussing the opposing views, supported
by Furner (2010), Cronin and Meho (2008), and Cronin
(2012). It is this body of research—that recognizes the per-
meability of information studies—that forms the foundation
of the discourse analysis below. The rationale is that study-
ing the discourse of the weak discipline will help us disen-
tangle the relations between concepts such as boundaries,
disciplinary identity, and interdisciplinarity and make it pos-
sible to better conceptualize interdisciplinarity in informa-
tion studies. But first, it is necessary to clarify the theoretical
background that informs the discourse analysis.
Bounding of Epistemic Authority
This paper’s analytical framework builds on insights from
the fields of interdisciplinary studies, science studies, and
social epistemology. This section provides a baseline under-
standing of the concepts of interdisciplinarity, discipline,
boundary, and boundary crossing to situate information
studies within a larger context and to support the discourse
analytical approach used in the analysis below. Although it is
beyond the scope of this paper to discuss disciplinary bound-
aries in detail, their properties, the mechanisms they address,
their institutionalization, and so on, it is necessary to dem-
onstrate their importance for disciplines and for boundary
work to situate a discourse analytical perspective.
According to Turner (2000), boundaries describe the
division of labor in science. Repko (2008) describes bound-
ary crossing as the process of moving across knowledge
formations for the purpose of achieving an enlarged under-
standing, and he further states that boundaries between dis-
ciplines “are in a continuous, though imperceptibly slow,
process of breaking down and reformulating” (p. 22).
Boundaries may be fixed or fuzzy, permeable, impermeable,
physical, social, symbolic, cognitive, and so on. Lamont and
Molnár (2002, p. 177) highlight the usefulness of the
concept to understand how professions came to be distin-
guished from one another “experts from laymen, science
from nonscience, disciplines between themselves.” Gieryn
(1983) coined the term “boundary-work” to describe the
discursive practices by which scientists attempt to demar-
cate science from nonscience for the purpose of establishing
epistemic authority. Klein (2014) defines boundary work as
“a composite label for the claims, activities, and structures
by which individuals and groups work directly and through
institutions to create, maintain, break down, and reformulate
[boundaries] between knowledge units.” Siedlok and
Hibbert (2014) note that in interdisciplinary research pro-
cesses, boundaries may become irrelevant or are radically
reshaped (p. 198).
Fuller (2002, p. 191) explains how a discipline “is
‘bounded’ by its procedure for adjudicating knowledge
4 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2015
DOI: 10.1002/asi
claims.” Disciplinary boundaries “provide the structure
needed for a variety of functions ranging from the allocation
of cognitive authority and material resources to the estab-
lishment of reliable access to some extrasocial reality”
(Fuller, 1993, p. 126). If we look at “bounded” disciplines in
terms of Kuhn’s (1996) paradigms, it follows from his
incommensurability thesis that boundaries are almost abso-
lute. However, Galison (1997) denied that scientific para-
digms are as monolithic as Kuhn says and introduced the
term “trading zone” to explain how communication is in fact
possible even when there is a degree of incommensurability
(Collins, Evans, & Gorman, 2007). Thus, on one hand, fol-
lowing Kuhn, we face the problem of incommensurability
between paradigms, and almost absolute boundaries, and on
the other hand, the fact that knowledge is increasingly inter-
disciplinary and boundary crossing commonplace (Klein,
1990, 1996). Klein concludes in 1996 that “boundary cross-
ing has become part of the process of knowledge production,
not a peripheral event” (1996, p. 5).
Klein’s (1996) landmark contribution Crossing Bound-
aries includes a chapter titled “The Permeation of
Boundaries”, in which she accounts for applied disciplines
that are typically associated with such high permeability that
they are often described as “inherently interdisciplinary.”
Permeation is part of their character. The rationale is the
complexity of problems that professionals face in practice,
which creates a sense of interdisciplinary necessity because
“complex problems pull research away from classically
framed disciplinary problems” (Klein, 1996, p. 40). This
paper’s understanding of interdisciplinarity builds on the
following authoritative definition from the National
Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) report Facilitating Interdisci-
plinary Research (2004):
Interdisciplinary research (IDR) is a mode of research by teams
or individuals that integrates information, data, techniques,
tools, perspectives, concepts, and/or theories from two or more
disciplines or bodies of specialized knowledge to advance fun-
damental understanding or to solve problems whose solutions
are beyond the scope of a single discipline or area of research
practice. Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research,
National Academy of Sciences (2004, p. 2)
The definition focuses on the epistemic dimension of
disciplines. As observed by Mansilla, Lamont, and Sato
(2012), by considering “areas of specialization,” this defini-
tion “elegantly overcomes ongoing debates about how dis-
ciplinary boundaries are to be drawn” (p. 4). This
backgrounding of boundaries is an important point in studies
of interdisciplinarity because the focus of interdisciplinary
research practices is to purposefully advance fundamental or
practical understanding. Fuller and Collier (2004), in their
rhetoric of what they call “interpenetrability,” aim to “recast
disciplinary boundaries as artificial barriers to the transac-
tion of knowledge claims. Such boundaries are necessary
evils that become more evil the more they are perceived as
necessary” (p. 31). Fuller and Collier (2004) address the
lack of cross-disciplinary epistemic standards and suggest
that “interdisciplinary exchanges have the potential to
significantly transform the work that disciplines do, espe-
cially by constructing new epistemic standards to which
several disciplines agree to hold themselves accountable” (p.
xxvii). Thus, (re)negotiation of boundaries is a key issue in
boundary work.
It is a basic assumption of this paper that research prac-
tices, for the most part, consist of discourse, and that it is
through discourse that new epistemic standards are con-
structed. It is also through discourse that we ascribe meaning
to boundaries, reformulate and reshape them when integrat-
ing knowledge from different disciplines. But discursive
practices exist in a dialectical relationship with other prac-
tices, which means that research practices are also confined
by, for instance, material facts such as office spaces, avail-
able technology, and organizational structures, just like cog-
nitive authorities are assumed to be institutionalized to
varying degrees within specific disciplinary domains, con-
fined by, for example, funding systems, journals, and con-
ferences.1 For the purposes of this paper, the important point
is that whether boundaries are material, organizational, or
institutional, and so on, the moment we ascribe meaning to
them, for instance, by reformulating them, or as we see in
the examples below, highlighting a need for them, they are
no longer outside discourse. This paper therefore turns to
discourse analysis to study how meaning is ascribed to
boundaries through discourse.
However, before doing so, it is necessary to point out that
little of the above literature on interdisciplinary research,
boundary work, and epistemic standards seem to have found
way into information studies. Information studies address
interdisciplinarity mostly as another characteristic of its
“nature,” and from a discipline-based understanding of inter-
disciplinarity, not as part of developing an interdisciplinary
identity. And with an interdisciplinary identity is meant dis-
cussing and theorizing the “hospitality to a plurality of
approaches” in information studies. How is the hospitality of
information studies put into practice in interdisciplinary
research processes? And how are these practices articulated
in discourses that advance our understanding of information
studies and of interdisciplinarity? A discourse on interdisci-
plinarity is missing. Therefore, the premise for this paper’s
analytical framework is that an interdisciplinary discipline
whose practices are presumably interdisciplinary, and whose
organization is increasingly interdisciplinary, should also be
underpinned by strong theoretical models that incorporate
and conceptualize research processes involving different
bodies of knowledge.
Discourse Analysis—Premises and Methods
The study of discourse is the study of language in use, the
study of human meaning-making. In critical discourse
1
I am grateful to one of the anonymous reviewers for bringing up the
materiality perspective in the construction of boundaries in the practices of
people.
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2015
analysis (CDA) (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999;
Fairclough, 1992, 1995, 2001, 2005b, 2010) it is the links
between language use and social practice, mediated by dis-
cursive practice, that is the focus, not language “in itself.”
The overall premise of CDA is that the discursive and the
nondiscursive worlds exist in a dialectical relationship, each
constituted by and constitutive of the other. This paper com-
bines CDA with Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory
(Laclau, 1990, 1993; Laclau & Mouffe, 2001). Both
approaches have roots in Foucault’s ideas (cf. overview in
Fairclough, 1992). For Foucault’s work in information
studies, see Frohmann (1994), Radford (2003), and Day
(2005).
Another premise of discourse analysis is that our access
to reality is through language. Discourses do not just reflect
or represent social entities and relations, they construct or
“constitute” them (Fairclough, 1992). This means that our
ways of talking and writing do not neutrally reflect our
world, or identities but, rather, play an active role in creating
and changing them. Meaning is something we ascribe
through discourse (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p. 35).
Owing to the fundamental instability of language, meaning
can never be permanently fixed. Different discourses are
engaged in a constant discursive struggle with one another to
achieve hegemony. When a struggle takes place between
particular discourses, it sometimes becomes clear that dif-
ferent actors are trying to promote different ways of orga-
nizing society. At other times, Jørgensen and Phillips (2002)
state, our social practices can appear so natural that we can
hardly see that there could be alternatives. As noted by
Jørgensen and Phillips (2002), discourses are “socially con-
structed meaning-systems that could have been different” (p.
21), and it is therefore an aim of CDA to look into what
appears natural, what is taken for granted.
The domain in which different discourses vie for hege-
mony is an order of discourse, in this case information
studies. As explained by Jørgensen and Phillips (2002), the
order of discourse “constitutes the resources (discourses and
genres) that are available” (p. 72). This means that the order
of discourse delimits what can be said, and one question is to
what extent a discursive practice reproduces the existing
order of discourse or tries to change it. Rear (2013) explains
that “when events occur that cannot be symbolised and
integrated into existing discourses, thus causing their desta-
bilisation” (p. 9) we see the creating of myths. And accord-
ing to Laclau (1990), it is exactly at times of dislocation that
a myth emerges.
Another question that suggests itself with the concept of
order of discourse is its overlap with the concept of disci-
pline. Buanes and Jentoft (2009) use a social constructionist
approach to analyze disciplines, stating that academic disci-
plines “exercise control by defining reality” (p. 449). They
see disciplines as “cognitive systems that control and
develop their own respective knowledge base” (p. 448), a
parallel to discourses as “socially constructed meaning-
systems” (cf. above). Thus, both concepts indicate a
“bounded” domain (cf. Fuller, 2002). How this “bounding”
5
DOI: 10.1002/asi
is done, and to what extent the analytically distinct concepts
of discipline and order of discourse overlap, are important
questions and projects for further research. However, a
couple of points need to be made. First, it is worth noticing
an important control mechanism in the form of peer review,
described by Klein as “one of the most powerful agents of
boundary work” (1996, p. 58).
Second, it is now possible to substantiate the distinction
this paper makes between “information studies” and “Infor-
mation Field”: The iSchools organization is governed by the
iCaucus. It is the iCaucus that controls membership and is
responsible for “advancing the information field in the 21st
Century”, as appears from their collective webpage
(iSchools Organization, 2015). From a constructionist per-
spective, with the foundation of the iSchools organization in
2005, a new control mechanism was created, and thereby a
new order of discourse was made available. Analytically, the
new order of discourse of the Information Field is distinct
from the information studies’ order of discourse that is the
focus of this paper.
Qualitative, Interpretivist Method of Discourse Analysis
CDA is a qualitative, interpretivist approach to social
practice. This paper’s analysis builds on Fairclough’s three-
dimensional analytic framework in which discourse is ana-
lyzed as text, as discursive practice, and as social practice
(Dick, 2004). At the level of text, the key task for the analyst
is to understand what the text is trying to achieve. The next
task is to examine how the text achieves its aims, especially
focusing on statements that are treated as self-evident
“facts” (Dick, 2004). The discursive practice is the analytic
level that examines the context of text production. As
emphasized by Dick (2004), this is a very important level of
analysis, as it is this which “enables the analyst to infer the
types of interpretation that might be made of the text or parts
of the text” (p. 205). The social practice level, in this paper,
is the current disciplinary identity discussions in informa-
tion studies available in the published research of the field
(cf. above review), that is interpreted against the background
of insights from social epistemology, interdisciplinary
studies, and science studies. The following analysis will
focus on how the discipline is discursively constructed as
weak—and eventually, how this discursive construction
obstructs interdisciplinarity.
The examples chosen are from the following three texts:
Wedgeworth (2013), Aparac-Jelušić et al. (2013), and
Arafat et al. (2014). What the texts have in common is that
they contest the identity of information studies as hospitable,
and they frame the discipline as weak. The texts have been
chosen to analyze how weakness is ascribed, to illustrate
how boundaries “become more evil the more they are per-
ceived as necessary” (Fuller & Collier, 2004, p. 31) and,
eventually, to show the conceptual confusion that the dis-
course of the weak discipline creates in relation to interdis-
ciplinarity. Aparac-Jelušić et al. (2013) and Arafat et al.
(2014) are proceedings of panel presentations from ASIST
6 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2015
DOI: 10.1002/asi
2013 and 2014, respectively. The quotes are primarily
drawn from the introductions to the panels because it is the
introduction that frames the panel description. Moreover,
what seems to characterize the discourse of the weak disci-
pline is that, although it cannot be taken to represent the
current status of information studies, the discourse still
appears to be so widely accepted that it continues to be
available within the information studies order of discourse.
The premise of the analysis is that weakness is ascribed in
different ways and at different levels of discourse, either
because the words “weak” or “weakness” appear at the level
of text or because weakness is inferred by interpretation. The
point of departure is that the position as “weak” is only
available through discourses that are premised on the ideal of
disciplinary unity; the ideal discipline has strong boundaries,
and this paper therefore assumes that examining the ascrip-
tion of meaning to boundaries will reveal how the discourse
of the weak discipline is constituted. This is done by means
of Laclau and Mouffe’s concept of floating signifiers. Signi-
fiers are seen as floating because different actors can fill them
with different content, and floating signifiers are therefore
particularly open to different ascriptions of meaning. Rear
(2013) quotes Žižek (1989, p. 97), who characterizes a float-
ing signifier as an “empty signifier, a pure signifer without
the signified.” It only acquires meaning through its position-
ing relative to other signs. Thus, the analysis either concludes
from explicit statements at the level of text, or conclusions
are inferred from reasoning and/or on the basis of evidence
from the literature that informs this paper’s analytical frame-
work. The method of CDA bears some resemblance to the
hermeneutical analysis used by Budd (2001) in his investi-
gation of the incidence of ideology in discursive practice,
stating that “an examination of the content of communication
is necessarily interpretive” (p. 503).
The Discursive Struggle Between Hospitality
and Unity
As stated above, the body of research that recognizes the
permeability of information studies, the hospitality dis-
course, is taken to best represent the status of information
studies. However, since Wedgeworth (2013), Aparac-Jelušić
et al. (2013), and Arafat et al. (2014) contest the identity of
information studies, there has, so far, been no fixation of
meaning in the identity discussion. This is illustrated in
Figure 1, the information studies’ order of discourse.
For each of the examples from the unitary discourse
analyzed below, a figure (Figures 2–5) is included. The
caption of each figure represents the meaning inferred
through the positioning of <boundaries> relative to other
words, to the context of the discursive and/or social practice,
cf. the three-dimensional framework described above. The
floating signifier “boundary” is indicated in <brackets>. The
“+” in the figure indicates the exact wording from the source
indicated, which is the actual vocabulary singled out in the
analysis, which is combined with in-text quotes from the
text examples.
 Order of discourse of Information Studies, based on body of
research of Information Studies <boundaries>

Hospitable Unitary
+ theoretical boundaries
• a discipline of fruitfully • discipline as + gain strength
interlinked specialisms problematically fragmented
+ risk
• open • closed
+ fear

FIG. 1. Identity discourses in information studies. + warned

+ harmful

+ disintegration
<boundaries>

+“ownership” Aparac-Jelušić et al. (2013)

Wedgeworth (2013)
FIG. 4. Danger discourse.

FIG. 2. Ownership discourse.

<boundaries>
<boundaries>
+ frontiers
+ boundaries
+ delineating
+ tension
+ increasing pressures + disciplinary status
+ beset
Wedgeworth (2013)
+ recurrent debates

FIG. 3. Protection discourse. Arafat et al. (2014)

The Hospitality Discourse

The hospitality discourse constitutes disciplinary identity
based on the body of research discussed above which high-
lights information studies’ hospitality (Furner, 2010) and
“newfound outer-directedness” (Cronin, 2012). Webber
(2003), Nolin and Åstrøm (2010), and Furner (2010) address
boundaries with reference to Becher’s (1994) and Becher
and Trowler (2001), which might imply the use of <bound-
aries> as a geopolitical metaphor inspired by these authors’
Tribes and Territories framework. However, if we look at
the context in which <boundaries> occur and the purpose of
achieving an enlarged understanding by means of reviewing
existing literature on information studies’ identity, the use of
<boundaries> rather suggests an objective description of
what delimits “bodies of specialized knowledge” to describe
the division of labor as discussed above. The hospitality
discourse is contested by the unitary discourse. This,
however, seems to reflect different variants of discourse that
the analysis identifies.
Ownership Discourse
Wedgeworth (2013) analyzes “Certain Characteristics Of
iSchools Compared to Other LIS Programs,” but it is the
FIG. 5. Survival discourse.
preoccupation with boundaries that seems to frame the dis-
cussion. He observes that “the level of tension on the cam-
puses of many colleges and universities about the
‘ownership’ of information programs and the boundaries of
those programs is growing” (p. 15) and that “within larger
schools of education or communications there will be
increasing pressures to define the boundaries of the iField”
(p. 16).
Wedgeworth (2013) ascribes meaning to <boundaries> in
a context of “ownership,” “tension,” and “increasing pres-
sures to define the boundaries of the iField” (p. 16). He
constitutes a discipline as something that can be possessed,
which suggests that a geopolitical meaning is ascribed to
<boundaries>. The geopolitical metaphors, including that of
ownership, are well known in the literature of interdiscipli-
narity, and can thus be seen as part of the conventional, yet
antiquated, way of representing disciplines (Klein, 1983,
2000; Krishnan, 2009; Öberg, 2009; Repko, 2008). Thus,
looking at the order of discourse in Figure 1, this ownership

JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2015 7

DOI: 10.1002/asi
discourse reproduces the unitary ideal of information studies
of the existing order of discourse. However, the following
discourses identified seem to move outside the existing order
of discourse.
Protection Discourse
Wedgeworth (2013) further combines the floating signi-
fier <boundaries> with “tension” and “increasing pressures.”
This might indicate that the “ownership” discourse consti-
tuted serves as a basis for new articulations, that is, having
constituted the discipline as something that can be pos-
sessed, must logically entail that it can also be lost and
therefore needs protection from the “increasing pressures.”
The protection discourse reinforces the ownership dis-
course, that is, the protection discourse is rendered possible
because the ownership discourse, also constituted in the text,
serves as the premise. Unlike the ownership discourse,
which reproduces the existing order of discourse of the
unitary ideal of information studies (cf. Figure 1), this
analysis suggests that the meaning ascribed to <boundaries>
by the “increasing pressures” is external to the order of
discourse. The protection discourse can be seen as a dislo-
cation that cannot be integrated into the existing order of
discourse. And unlike the ownership discourse, the meaning
ascribed to <boundaries> is not geopolitical.
Danger Discourse
The discourse of Aparac-Jelušić et al. (2013) reflects a
weak discipline at the same time as it enacts a weak disci-
pline. Choosing “gaining strength” in combination with
“disintegration” and “keeping the field together” implies
that the discipline is seen as so weak that it is perceived as
necessary to strengthen it with “theoretical boundaries.” The
constitution of a weak discipline, and the perceived need for
boundaries, is then combined with “risk” and “fear,” which
means that it is “risk” and “fear” that give strength to and
thus ascribe meaning to <boundaries>. The higher the risk,
the greater the need for boundaries will be. Thus, “risk” and
“fear” are constituted discursively, and this constitution
serves as the premise for a perceived need for boundaries.
This construction is then further reinforced by “we are
‘warned’ that interdisciplinarity may be ‘harmful’ to the
identity of the field.” I read this as interdisciplinarity being
constituted as the threat that is warned against. And based on
that reading, it is suggested that it is the perceived magnitude
of this threat that creates a need for reinforcing the bound-
aries with “theoretical,” which can be seen as a legitimation
for raising the discussion at all.
Thus, the premise of the danger discourse is a weak
discipline that is constituted discursively. This discourse
draws on the unitary ideal of information studies (cf.
Figure 1), but the analysis suggests that it only draws on the
disciplinary identity discourse, and like the protection dis-
course, this discourse dislocates disciplinary identity into
new articulations. That is, this discourse does not reinforce
8 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2015
DOI: 10.1002/asi
the existing disciplinary identity discourse, it contests the
interdisciplinary nature of information studies and thus
externalizes disciplinary identity into a new discourse. This
suggests that the danger discourse is in essence not about
disciplinary identity, although it appears to be. This is
further discussed in the next section.
Survival Discourse
Arafat et al. (2014) ascribe meaning to <boundaries> in a
context of questioning the “disciplinary status” of informa-
tion studies. The motivation appears to be LIS being
“ ‘beset’ by ‘recurrent debates’ as to its ‘disciplinary status’”
(p. 1). Through a discourse analytical lens, the disciplinary
status is questioned because a discourse is constituted to that
effect over and over again. The discourse constitutes “fron-
tiers,” which serve as a premise for a need to “delineate” the
very same frontiers that have just been constituted. Together,
the first constitution of frontiers and the second constitution
of a perceived need to “delineate” them, serve as the premise
for reconstituting the discourse in “recurrent debates” which
means that the discourse is able to keep on feeding on itself.
The perceived need for “delineating its frontiers” is com-
bined with “the interdisciplinary nature of information
science,” which implies that interdisciplinarity is constituted
as the rationale for the perceived need for “delineating.”
Like the danger discourse, the analysis suggests that it is
“interdisciplinarity” that is constituted as the root of all evil.
Dislocation of Disciplinary Identity
What the ownership, protection, danger, and survival dis-
courses have in common is a perceived need for boundaries,
and they construct their reality accordingly. The discourses
are constituted on the basis of the perception of a need. In
the analysis, the floating signifier <boundaries> indicates a
discursive struggle within an order of discourse because one
discourse—the hospitality discourse—has not succeeded in
fixing its meaning, and other discourses are struggling to
appropriate the meaning. This analysis locates the owner-
ship discourse within the existing order of discourse,
whereas the analysis suggests that the protection, danger,
and survival discourses are attempts to dislocate the identity
discourse in that the signifier <boundaries> is positioned
relative to other signs such as, for example, “pressure,”
“risk,” “fear,” and “harmful,” but these are hardly character-
istics that can be ascribed to disciplines. They are products
of human perception and feelings. For the purpose of the
present analysis, my assessment is, on the basis of the theo-
retical framework presented above, that a discipline cannot
be held responsible for feelings or perceptions.
The analysis of the danger and survival discourses above
suggests that it is interdisciplinarity that is seen as the moti-
vation of the perceived need for boundaries. That is, “inter-
disciplinarity” is discursively constituted as the threat that is
warned against. The danger discourse appears to question if
interdisciplinarity is good or bad for information science, but
combining “interdisciplinarity” with “risk” and “fear” con-
stitutes it discursively as the source of danger; this discursive
construction eliminates the possibility that “interdisciplinar-
ity” is good and, thereby, it denies the interdisciplinary
“nature” of information studies. With the order of discourse
(cf. Figure 1) as a point of departure and the discursive
struggle between two different identity discourses, the pro-
tection, danger, and survival discourses can be seen as dis-
cursive strategies to hegemonize the field of information
studies. However, the protection, danger, and survival dis-
courses cannot be integrated into the existing order of dis-
course of information studies for the following reasons:
1. The discourses to some extent reproduce the existing
order of discourse of information studies, but the analysis
suggests that disciplinary identity is dislocated into new
articulations, in that the discourses appear to implement a
“foreign” discourse (such as, e.g., academic identity) into
the information studies identity discourse.
2. The discourses are detached from the general identity
discussion in information studies represented by the body
of literature reviewed above; the discourses do not seem
to build on already existing research within the discipline
itself but seem to construct their own reality despite evi-
dence to the contrary.
3. This reality seems to be unrelated to the reality consti-
tuted by the hospitality discourse, reflecting the growth of
the iSchools organization.
4. Neither do the discourses consider the literature on disci-
plinarity or interdisciplinarity. “Crossing the boundaries”
and “interdisciplinarity” in Aparac-Jelušić et al. (2013)
are empty signifiers with no relation to boundary cross-
ing, boundary work, or boundaries more generally in the
literature.
5. Finally, whereas Weingart (2000), as discussed above,
addresses interdisciplinarity and specialization as parallel
and mutually reinforcing strategies, the discourses ana-
lyzed here do not constitute themselves as representing a
specialization that could be seen as complementary to the
hospitality discourse. They rather attempt to constitute a
totality.
The Myth of the Weak Discipline
The attempt to constitute a totality, together with the
dislocation of information studies’ identity discourse,
FIG. 6. The meaning-system of the myth of the weak discipline. [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at
wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2015
suggests the workings of a myth, which is Laclau’s term for
a floating signifier that refers to a totality (Jørgensen &
Phillips, 2002, p. 39), and the analysis of boundaries as a
floating signifier suggests that the protection, danger, and
survival discourses have the purpose of controlling the
discipline rather than enhancing our understanding of the
disciplinary identity of information studies.
The analysis shows how one constitution can serve as a
premise for the next constitution, as we saw, for example, in
the danger discourse where “risk” and “fear” are constituted,
after which a construction is available as a premise for the
subsequent constitution of a perceived need for boundaries,
which again can be used as a platform for new articulations.
This need is reified, that is, it is the perception of a need for
boundaries that is reified, but the perceived need is premised
on an ideal, which does not make the illusion of the ideal real,
but it makes the reified perception of a need for boundaries
appear as an objective and natural reality. Thus, the reifica-
tion means that the ideal can be kept alive, and the need for
boundaries can be discussed over and over again. The reifi-
cation means that discourse, at one time, has been sedi-
mented in a practice, so that the reified language has become
“the natural way of talking about the world” (Ferraro,
Pfeffer, & Sutton, 2005, p. 15), in other words, a tradition.
The construction of the myth is illustrated in Figure 6.
Myths shape meaning (Midgley, 2003, p. 1), and, as
previously noted, discourses are “socially constructed
meaning-systems that could have been different” (Jørgensen
& Phillips, 2002 p. 21). Figure 6 illustrates the meaning-
system of the myth and the different elements that are iden-
tified in the analysis, indicating how one premise serves as a
platform for new articulations in the meaning system.
Seeing the myth as a meaning-system offers a nuanced
explanation of how weakness is ascribed through discourses
that are based, knowingly or unknowingly, on a false
premise, the unitary discipline.
It could be argued that it is the ideal of the unitary
discipline that is a myth and not the weak discipline.
However, the reason why this paper chooses to see “the
weak discipline” as the myth has an analytical argument.
The work of myth is to reestablish closure where a social
order has been dislocated (Laclau, 1990). The operation of
myth, as explained by Norval (2000), “is nothing other than
an endeavour to reconstitute the absent unity of society . . .”
9
DOI: 10.1002/asi
(p. 329). According to her reading of Laclau, the myth is an perceptions. It is interesting to speculate, however, if the
intermediary analytical concept “aimed at grasping the protection, danger, and survival discourses reflect issues of
process through which the precarious unity of the social is personal academic identity and a presumably lacking sense
established” (Norval, 2000, p. 328), and insofar as the myth of belonging to a particular knowledge community (Henkel,
succeeds, it can be said to have become hegemonic. There- 2000, 2012; Manathunga & Brew, 2012). Do these dis-
fore, in the meaning-system illustrated in Figure 6, bound- courses in fact emanate from an order of discourse on aca-
aries function as the “analytical bridge” between the ideal demic identity? That would be an important topic for further
and the myth, and in this way the discursive construction of research. This might also provide openings for distinguish-
boundaries can uphold the ideal of the unitary discipline. ing more clearly between academic identity of researchers,
disciplinary identity, and interdisciplinarity as research
The Trap of the Myth objects in their own right.
As shown in the examples, attempts are made to recon-
Fuller and Collier (2004) consider disciplinary boundar-
stitute the unitary discipline discursively, but such attempts
ies as “artificial barriers to the transaction of knowledge
are futile if they are divorced from social reality. The analy-
claims” and claim that “boundaries are necessary evils that
sis of the protection, danger, and survival discourses has
become more evil the more they are perceived as necessary”
shown that the discourses cannot be integrated into the exist-
(p. 31). The analysis shows how information studies’ disci-
ing order of discourse of information studies, and are
plinary identity is trapped into the position as “weak” by the
thereby not likely to change social practices within the field.
perceived need for boundaries, because the discourse is pre-
This comes as no surprise because a “reality check” of the
mised on the ideal of disciplinary unity. And the ideal dis-
role of information studies in general rather indicates a
cipline has strong boundaries. The evil is that as long as the
forthcoming hegemonic closure of the hospitality discourse.
discourse continues to focus on a need for boundaries, the
But what is a surprise is that weakness is still ascribed to the
only available discourse is one that articulates the discipline
discipline by tradition. Thus, one contribution of discourse
as weak, and the greater the focus on the perceived weakness
analysis is its focus on the dialectical relationship between
of the discipline, the more strength is given to the boundaries
discourse and social practice. Although discourse may con-
that are perceived as needed. Hence, the myth also works as
stitute social reality, the discourse of the weak discipline
a vicious circle. In the examples analyzed we see an esca-
cannot in itself talk strong boundaries into being, not in an
lation of the perceived need for boundaries from ownership
inherently interdisciplinary discipline.
to protection to danger and survival.
Although more conceptual and empirical work is neces-
The trap of the myth also includes interdisciplinarity. If we
sary to elaborate a framework for theorizing disciplinary
compare the meaning ascribed in the danger and survival
identity, and interdisciplinarity, and for distinguishing
discourses with the titles of the presentations: “Crossing the
between different orders of discourse, a useful starting point
Boundaries in Information Science: Perspectives on Interdis-
has been provided by exploring the discursive construction
ciplinarity” (Aparac-Jelušić et al., 2013) and “Pluri, Multi-,
of identities in information studies. Critical discourse analy-
Trans- Meta- and Interdisciplinary nature of LIS. Does it
sis is a qualitative, interpretivist approach to social practice.
really matter?” (Arafat et al., 2014), respectively, there is a
The approach has been offered as a complement to existing
discrepancy. The contributions appear to be about
quantitative studies based on indicators of interdisciplinar-
interdisciplinarity—like they appear to be about disciplinary
ity. Critical discourse analysis can add a new perspective by
identity—but they are not. They are myth-based appropria-
“getting behind” the indicators and make visible the mean-
tions of interdisciplinarity and disciplinary identity by another
ings ascribed to concepts so that we can better describe and
discourse. The titles of the presentations are deceptive and the
understand interdisciplinarity.
meaning ascribed to “interdisciplinarity” is subjected to a
random purpose beyond the order of discourse. “Interdiscipli-
narity” used as an empty signifier in these discourses has no The Necessity of Liberating Interdisciplinarity
foundation other than the meaning acquired through its posi-
This paper has explored the discourse of the weak disci-
tioning relative to, in this case “risk” and “fear.” “Interdisci-
pline to show how it obstructs our understanding of inter-
plinarity” is used as the motivation of the perceived need for
disciplinarity. The paper has taken issue with a myth that
boundaries and discursively constituted as the threat that is
attempts to uphold the ideal of the unitary discipline. Seeing
warned against. This use of “interdisciplinarity” should not be
the myth as a meaning-system in which boundaries function
confused with interdisciplinarity as understood in the litera-
as an analytical bridge offers an explanation of how weak-
ture of interdisciplinary studies and science studies, with rela-
ness is ascribed to information studies through discourse.
tively well-developed theories, concepts, and models.
The myth traps disciplinary identity into the position as
“weak” because this is the only available discourse as long
Limitations and Potentials of De-Mythologizing
as the discourse continues to articulate a need for boundar-
Information Studies
ies. Like any other meaning-system, the myth could have
Dislocations happen for a reason, and as previously indi- been different, and it will be different if weakness is
cated, a discipline cannot be held responsible for feelings or no longer ascribed to the discipline by tradition. More

10 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2015

DOI: 10.1002/asi
important, the workings of myth allow us to understand in
more depth the necessity of liberating interdisciplinarity.
The moment “interdisciplinarity” and “crossing boundaries”
are drawn into the myth in Aparac-Jelušić et al. (2013), the
concepts become empty signifiers. Thereby they not only
become meaningless but also adverse to theorizing interdis-
ciplinarity.
De-mythologizing disciplinary identity of information
studies is fundamental to exploring boundary crossing in the
Information Field. Future research could profitably identify
existing boundaries and their mechanisms of “bounding”
within and beyond subdisciplines and paradigms in infor-
mation studies, examining, for example, institutional
practices such as ALA accreditation and peer review. Con-
sidering that information studies’ potential for interdisci-
plinary research has increased since 2005 with the
proliferation of the iSchools, there is a need for conceptual
frameworks to systematically study how the hospitality of
information studies is translated into interdisciplinary
research practices, to explore how boundaries are rearranged
and/or transcended, and how new epistemic standards are
negotiated.
Acknowledgments
I especially thank Flemming Georg Meier and Hans
Krause Hansen at Copenhagen Business School as well as
the journal’s anonymous reviewers for their constructive
input on a prior version of this article.
References
Aparac-Jelušić, T., Ibekwe-SanJuan, F., Huvila, I., Ma, L., Jimenez, V.O., &
Warner, J. (2013). Crossing the boundaries in information science: Per-
spectives on interdisciplinarity. Proceedings of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 50(1), 1–3.
Arafat, S., Buckland, M., Feinberg, M., Ibekwe-SanJuan, F., Shaw, R., &
Warner, J. (2014). Pluri, multi-, trans- meta- and interdisciplinary nature
of LIS. Does it really matter? Proceedings of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 51(1), 1–5.
Baradol, A., & Kumbar, S. (1998). Interdisciplinary nature of library
science. Annals of Library Science and Documentation, 45(2), 49–56.
Bawden, D. (2007). Organised complexity, meaning and understanding: An
approach to a unified view of information for information science. Aslib
Proceedings, 59(4/5), 307–327.
Beaton, B., Jeng, W., & Champagne, R. (2014). Exploring the use of
“acknowledgement analysis” to map intellectual diversity and cross-
disciplinary activity within the iSchools. In iConference 2014 Proceed-
ings (pp. 700–707). doi:10.9776/14330.
Becher, T. (1994). The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in
Higher Education, 19(2), 151–161.
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellec-
tual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. Buckingham, UK: Society for
Research into Higher Education.
Bonnici, L.J., Subramaniam, M.M., & Burnett, K. (2009). Everything old is
new again: The evolution of library and information science education
from LIS to iField. Journal of Education for Library and Information
Science, 50(4), 263–274.
Bonnici, L.J., Julien, H., & Burnett, K. (2013). The globalization of the
iSchools movement. [Abstract]. IConference 2013 Proceedings, (2013–
02) doi: 10.9776/13466
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2015
Buanes, A., & Jentoft, S. (2009). Building bridges: Institutional perspec-
tives on interdisciplinarity. Futures, 41(7), 446–454. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2009.01.010
Buckland, M. (2012). What kind of science can information science be?
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technol-
ogy, 63(1), 1–7.
Budd, J.M. (2001). Instances of ideology in discursive practice: Implica-
tions for library and information science. The Library Quarterly, 71(4),
498–517.
Budd, J.M., & Dumas, C. (2014). Epistemic multiplicity in iSchools:
Expanding knowledge through interdisciplinarity. Canadian Journal of
Information & Library Sciences, 38(4), 271–286.
Burnett, K.M., & Bonnici, L.J. (2006). Contested terrain: Accreditation and
the future of the profession of librarianship. The Library Quarterly,
76(2), 193–219.
Burnett, K., & Bonnici, L.J. (2013). Rhizomes in the iField: What does it
mean to be an iSchool? Knowledge Organization, 40(6), 408–413.
Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity.
Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh Uni-
versity Press.
Chu, H. (2010). Library and information science education in the digital
age. Advances in Librarianship, 32, 77–111.
Chu, H. (2012). iSchools and non-iSchools in the USA: An examination of
their master’s programs. Education for Information, 29(1), 1–17.
Collins, H., Evans, R., & Gorman, M. (2007). Trading zones and interac-
tional expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A,
38(4), 657–666. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2007
.09.003
Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, National Academy
of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, & Institute of Medicine.
(2004). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
Cronin, B. (1995). Cutting the Gordian Knot. Information Processing &
Management, 31(6), 897–902.
Cronin, B. (2002). Holding the center while prospecting at the periphery:
Domain identity and coherence in North American information studies
education. Education for Information, 20(1), 3–10.
Cronin, B. (2005). An I-dentity crisis? The information schools movement.
International Journal of Information Management, 25(4), 363–365.
Cronin, B. (2012). The waxing and waning of a field: Reflections on
information studies education. Information Research, 17(3), 529.
Retrieved from http://InformationR.net/ir/17-3/paper529.html
Cronin, B., & Meho, L.I. (2008). The shifting balance of intellectual trade
in information studies. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology, 59(4), 551–564.
Day, R.E. (2005). Poststructuralism and information studies. Annual
Review of Information Science and Technology, 39(1), 575–609.
Dick. P. (2004). Discourse analysis. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.),
Handbook of qualitative methods: The essential guide. London: Sage.
Dillon, A. (2012). What it means to be an iSchool. Journal of Education for
Library and Information Science, 53(4), 267–273.
Druin, A., Jaeger, P.T., Golbeck, J., Fleischmann, K.R., Lin, J., Qu, Y., . . .
Xie, B. (2009). The maryland modular method: An approach to doctoral
education in information studies. Journal of Education for Library and
Information Science, 50(4), 293–301.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, UK: Polity
Press.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Media discourse. London: Arnold Publishers.
Fairclough, N. (2001). The dialectics of discourse. Textus, 14(2),
231–242.
Fairclough, N. (2005a). Discourse in processes of social change: Transition
in central and eastern europe. British and American Studies, 11,
9–34.
Fairclough, N. (2005b). Peripheral vision: Discourse analysis in organiza-
tion studies: The case for critical realism. Organization Studies, 26(6),
915–939.
Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis, the critical study of
language (2nd ed.). Harlow: Routledge.
11
DOI: 10.1002/asi
Ferraro, F., Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R.I. (2005). Economics language and
assumptions: How theories can become self-fulfilling. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 30(1), 8–24.
Frohmann, B. (1994). Discourse analysis as a research method in library
and information science. Library & Information Science Research,
16(2), 119–138. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0740-
8188(94)90004-3
Fuller, S. (1993). Disciplinary boundaries and the rhetoric of the social
sciences. In E. Messer-Davidson, D.R. Shumway, & D.J. Sylvan (Eds.),
Knowledges: Historical and critical studies of disciplinarity (pp.125–
149). Charlottesville: University of Virginia.
Fuller, S. (2002). Social epistemology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Univer-
sity Press.
Fuller, S., & Collier, J.H. (2004). Philosophy, rhetoric, and the end of
knowledge: A new beginning for science and technology studies.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Furner, J. (2010). Philosophy and information studies. Annual Review of
Information Science and Technology, 44, 161–200.
Galison, P. (1997). Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gieryn, T.F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from
non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists.
American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781–795.
Gorman, G.E., & Clayton, P. (1997). Qualitative research for the informa-
tion professional: A practical handbook. London: Library Association
Publishing.
Gunawardena, S., Weber, R., & Agosto, D.E. (2010). Finding that special
someone: Interdisciplinary collaboration in an academic context.
Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 51(4), 210–
221.
Henkel, M. (2000). Academic identities and policy change in higher edu-
cation. (Higher Education Policy; 46). Athenaeum Press, Gateshead,
Tyne and Wear, Great Britain.
Henkel, M. (2012). Exploring new academic identities in turbulent times. In
B. Stensaker, J. Välimaa, & C. Sarrico (Eds.), Managing reform in
universities: The dynamics of culture, identity and organisational change
(pp. 156–176). Palgrave Macmillan.
Holland, G.A. (2008). Information science: An interdisciplinary effort?
Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 7–23.
Huutoniemi, K., Klein, J.T., Bruun, H., & Hukkinen, J. (2010). Analyzing
interdisciplinarity: Typology and indicators. Research Policy, 39(1),
79–88.
iSchools Organization. (2015). About. Retrieved from http://ischools.org/
about
Jørgensen, M.W., & Phillips, L.J. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and
method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Klein, J.T. (1983). The dialectic and rhetoric of disciplinary and interdis-
ciplinary. Issues in Integrative Studies, 2, 35–74.
Klein, J.T. (1990). Interdisciplinarity: History, theory and practice. Detroit,
MI: Wayne State University Press.
Klein, J.T. (1993). Blurring, cracking, and crossing: Permeation and the
fracturing of discipline. In E. Messer-Davidson, D.R. Shumway, & D.J.
Sylvan (Eds.), Knowledges: Historical and critical studies of disciplinar-
ity (pp. 185–211). Charlottesville: University of Virginia.
Klein, J.T. (1996). Crossing boundaries. Knowledge, disciplinarities, and
interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville, VA.: University Press of Virginia.
Klein, J.T. (2000). A conceptual vocabulary of interdisciplinary science. In
P. Weingart & N. Stehr (Eds.), Practising interdisciplinarity (pp. 3–24).
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Klein, J.T. (2014). Interdisciplining digital humanities: Boundary work in
an emerging field. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/dh.12869322.0001.001
Krishnan, A. (2009). What are academic disciplines? Some observations on
disciplinarity vs interdisciplinarity debate. ESRC National Centre for
Research Methods: NCRM Working Paper Series 03/09. Retrieved from
http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/783/1/what_are_academic_disciplines.pdf
Kuhn, T.S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2015
DOI: 10.1002/asi
Laclau, E. (1990). New reflections on the revolution of our time. London
and New York: Verso.
Laclau, E. (1993). Power and representation. In M. Poster (Ed.), Politics,
theory, and contemporary culture (pp. 277–296). Columbia University
Press.
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2001). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards
a radical democratic politics. London, England: Verso.
Lamont, M., & Molnár, V. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social
sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 167–195.
Larivière, V., Sugimoto, C.R., & Cronin, B. (2012). A bibliometric chroni-
cling of library and information science’s first hundred years. Journal of
the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 63(5),
997–1016.
Madsen, D. (2012). Interdisciplinarity in the information field. Proceedings
of the 75th ASIS&T Annual Meeting. Baltimore, 49 1–6.
Madsen, D., & Ho, S.M. (2014). Interdisciplinary practices in iSchools. In
iConference Berlin 2014 (pp. 1180–1184). doi:10.9776/14230.
Manathunga, C., & Brew, A. (2012). Beyond tribes and territories: New
metaphors for new times. In P. Trowler, M. Saunders, & V. Bamber
(Eds.), Tribes and territories in the 21st century: Rethinking the signifi-
cance of disciplines in higher education (pp. 44–56). New York:
Routledge.
Mansilla, V.B., Lamont, M, & Sato, K. (2012, February). The contributions
of shared socio-emotional-cognitive platforms to interdisciplinary syn-
thesis. Paper presented at the 4S Annual Meeting, Vancouver, Canada.
McNicol, S. (2003). LIS: The interdisciplinary research landscape. Journal
of Librarianship and Information Science, 35(1), 23–30.
Midgley, M. (2003). The myths we live by. London, New York: Routledge.
Milojević, S., Sugimoto, C.R., Yan, E., & Ding, Y. (2011). The cognitive
structure of library and information science: Analysis of article title
words. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 62(10), 1933–1953.
Nolin, J., & Åstrøm, F. (2010). Turning weakness into strength: Strategies
for future LIS. Journal of Documentation, 66(1), 7–27.
Norval, A.J. (2000). The things we do with words—Contemporary
approaches to the analysis of ideology. British Journal of Political
Science, 30(2), 313–346.
Öberg, G. (2009). Facilitating interdisciplinary work: Using quality
assessment to create common ground. Higher Education, 57(4), 405–
415.
Palmer, C.L. (2010). Information research on interdisciplinarity. In R.
Frodeman, J.T. Klein, & C. Mitcham (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of
interdisciplinarity (pp. 174–188). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Radford, G.P. (2003). Trapped in our own discursive formations: Toward an
archaeology of library and information science. The Library Quarterly,
73(1), 1–18.
Rear, D. (2013). Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory and Fairclough’s
critical discourse analysis: An introduction and comparison. Unpub-
lished Paper, 1–26.
Repko, A.F. (2008). Interdisciplinary research: Process and theory. San
Diego, CA: Sage Publications.
Saracevic, T. (1999). Information science. Journal of the American Society
for Information Science, 50(12), 1051–1063.
Siedlok, F., & Hibbert, P. (2014). The organization of interdisciplinary
research: Modes, drivers and barriers. International Journal of Manage-
ment Reviews, 16, 194–210. doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12016
Steve, F. (2002). Social epistemology (2nd ed.). Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press.
Sugimoto, C.R., Ni, C., Russell, T.G., & Bychowski, B. (2011). Academic
genealogy as an indicator of interdisciplinarity: An examination of dis-
sertation networks in library and information science. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science & Technology, 62(9), 1808–
1828.
Turner, S. (2000). What are disciplines? And how is interdisciplinarity
different? In P. Weingart & N. Stehr (Eds.), Practising interdisciplinarity
(pp. 46–65). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Webber, S. (2003). Information science in 2003: A critique. Journal of
Information Science, 29(4), 311–330.
Wedgeworth, R. (2013). Certain characteristics of iSchools compared to
other LIS programs. (Doctor of Philosophy, Graduate Program in Com-
munication, Information and Library Studies, Rutgers University-
Graduate School-New Brunswick, NJ).
Weech, T.L., & Pluzhenskaia, M. (2005). LIS education and multidiscipli-
narity: An exploratory study. Journal of Education for Library and Infor-
mation Science, 46(2), 154–164.
Weingart, P. (2000). Interdisciplinarity: The paradoxical discourse. In P.
Weingart & N. Stehr (Eds.), Practising interdisciplinarity (pp. 25–41).
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Wiegand, W.A. (1999). Tunnel vision and blind spots: What the past tells us
about the present; reflections on the twentieth-century history of Ameri-
can librarianship. The Library Quarterly, 69(1), 1–32.
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—•• 2015
Wiggins, A., & Sawyer, S. (2012). Intellectual diversity and the faculty
composition of iSchools. Journal of the American Society for Informa-
tion Science and Technology, 63(1), 8–21.
Wilson, T.D. (2003). Philosophical foundations and research relevance:
Issues for information research. Journal of Information Science, 29(6),
445–452.
Winter, M.F. (1996). Specialization, territoriality, and jurisdiction: Librari-
anship and the political economy of knowledge. Library Trends, 45(2),
343–363.
Wu, D., He, D., Jiang, J., Dong, W., & Vo, K.T. (2011). The state of
iSchools: An analysis of academic research and graduate education.
Journal of Information Science, 38(1), 15–36.
Žižek, S. (1989). The sublime object of ideology. London, England: Verso.
13
DOI: 10.1002/asi