The kaleidoscope of disciplinarity

• Published in: Journal of documentation Vol. 71; no. 4; pp. 775 - 794
• Main Authors: Sugimoto, Cassidy R, Weingart, Scott
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Bradford Emerald Group Publishing Limited 13.07.2015
• Subjects: Computational Linguistics; Criteria; Discourse Communities; Doctoral Programs; Document management; Etymology; Humanities; Interdisciplinary aspects; Knowledge; Library & information science; Modern Languages; Organic Chemistry; Periodicals; Philosophy; Records management & preservation; Resource allocation; Scientometrics; Self Actualization; Synthesis; Teaching Methods; Epistemology; Publishing; Documentation
• ISSN: 0022-0418; 1758-7379
• DOI: 10.1108/JD-06-2014-0082

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify criteria for and definitions of disciplinarity, and how they differ between different types of literature. Design/methodology/approach – This synthesis is achieved through a purposive review of three types of literature: explicit conceptualizations of disciplinarity; narrative histories of disciplines; and operationalizations of disciplinarity. Findings – Each angle of discussing disciplinarity presents distinct criteria. However, there are a few common axes upon which conceptualizations, disciplinary narratives, and measurements revolve: communication, social features, topical coherence, and institutions. Originality/value – There is considerable ambiguity in the concept of a discipline. This is of particular concern in a heightened assessment culture, where decisions about funding and resource allocation are often discipline-dependent (or focussed exclusively on interdisciplinary endeavors). This work explores the varied nature of disciplinarity and, through synthesis of the literature, presents a framework of criteria that can be used to guide science policy makers, scientometricians, administrators, and others interested in defining, constructing, and evaluating disciplines.