Carlin2016
| Carlin2016 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Carlin2016 |
| Author(s) | Andrew P. Carlin |
| Title | On some limits of interdisciplinarity |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Ethnomethodology, Disciplinarity, Ethnomethodological Indifference, Epistemology, Ethnomethodology, Literatures |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2016 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Social Epistemology |
| Volume | 30 |
| Number | 5-6 |
| Pages | 624–642 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1080/02691728.2016.1172364 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This paper examines the use of “literature” in research projects in Sociology and Library & Information Science and proposes that there are some limits to the programme of interdisciplinarity. The loci of considerations are found in literature review sections of published articles. “The literature” is an arbitrary term that refers to recognized and relevant collections of work according to context. Associating aspects of disciplinary work such as concepts, methods and writings, with Wes Sharrock’s ethnomethodological notion of “ownership”, affords analysis of interdisciplinary research strategies. This in turn facilitates examination of how discipline or field-specific terms are put to use. This paper suggests that the use of sociological and ethnomethodological approaches within some disciplinary and interdisciplinary studies is questionable. The equivocal nature of “literature” use arises from attempts to fit “literature” to research projects, and from misunderstanding the internal logic of research approaches, i.e. that alternate “literatures” address phenomena in different ways.
Notes
