Interdisciplinarity as a political instrument of governance and its consequences for doctoral training

Abstract

UK educational policies exploit interdisciplinarity as a marketing tool in a competitive educational world by building images of prosperous futures for society, the economy, and universities. Following this narrative, interdisciplinary science is promoted as superior to disciplinary forms of research and requires the training of future researchers accordingly, with interdisciplinary doctoral education becoming more established in universities.

This emphasis on the growth of interdisciplinary science polarises scholars’ views on the role of academic research between the production of knowledge on the one hand and knowledge as an economic resource at the other end of the spectrum. This research asks: what is the rationale behind the perceived value of interdisciplinary research and training, and how does it affect graduate students’ experiences of their PhD?

Based on a practice theory perspective for its suitability in generating insights into how university’s social life is organised, reproduced and transformed, the doctorate is conceptualised as sets of interconnected practices that are observable as they happen. This current study, therefore, comprised two stages of data collection and analysis; the examination of documents to elucidate educational policy practices and an educational ethnography of an interdisciplinary doctoral programme.

This study found interdisciplinary doctoral training is hindered by the lack of role models and positive social relationships, which are crucial to the way interdisciplinary students learn. Furthermore, it is argued that interdisciplinarity is sometimes applied to research as a label to fit with funders’ requirements. Specifically, in this case, medical optical imaging is best seen as an interdiscipline as it does not exhibit true interdisciplinary integration. Further insights show that while interdisciplinarity is promoted in policy around promises and expectations for a better future, it is in tension with how it is organisationally embedded in higher education. These insights form the basis for a list of practical recommendations for institutions. Overall, interdisciplinary doctoral training was observed to present students with difficulties and to leave policy concerns unaddressed.