Academic Tribes and Territories: the theoretical trajectory

Paul Trowler

1

1989 Book: Research design

221 interviews conducted in the mid-1980s with academics and researchers in universities in the UK and the USA.

• UK : Birmingham; Brighton Polytechnic; Bristol; Cambridge; Chelsea College London; Essex; Exeter; Imperial College London; Kent; London School of Economics; Reading; Southampton; University College London.

• USA: University of California (Berkeley, Los Angeles, San Francisco; Santa Barbara); Stanford.

12 disciplines: Biology: botany and zoology (27); Chemistry (15); Economics (13); Geography (12); History (22); Law (24); Mathematics (13); Mechanical engineering (22); Modern languages: French, German, Spanish, Italian (12); Pharmacy (16); Physics (23); Sociology (22).

Bold = disciplines which provided the central body of data. Others tackled in less depth - subsidiary.

2

Classification

Epistemological core(Territories)

• Cultural characteristics• (Tribes)

• Hierarchies• Gatekeeping• Innovation• Communication Patterns• Careers• Life patterns • Office decoration

Kolb-Biglan Cognitive Dimensionhard/softpure/applied

Plus Becher’s...

Social Dimension: convergent/divergenturban/rural

Key ideasNetworkingValue-ladenParadigmaticLinearityExternal influencePositivism

Criticisms• The level of analysis and the integrity of the model• The trickle-down theory of change• Gender blindness (and other structures)• Blindness to power operation• Problems with the ‘tribes’ metaphor• Teaching not addressed (nor management, QA etc)• Students not mentioned (only research students)• Substantive changes within disciplines and in higher

education globally• Epistemological structures and academic cultures: strength

and limits of connections

4

Strength and depth of causal mechanisms

Disciplinary differences and teaching, learning and assessment…….

• Preferences• Styles• Rituals• Tendencies• Conceptions• Approaches• Practices

Increasing level of determination

2001 book - additions

• Impact of Mode 2 knowledge (applied, transdisciplinary, problem-orientated knowledge).

• The “triple helix” linkages between (1) universities, (2) the state and (3) industry on academic tribes and territories.

• Discipline-related issues about teaching as well as research• Practices in institutions lower in league-table rankings than

those in the first edition.• Trickle-down theory was rejected in favour of a greater

emphasis on contextual contingency. • Gender-blindness was addressed, both the male-centric

language used and substantively, giving attention to the different experiences of men and women.

6

Criticisms of the 2001 book

• Tribes metaphor remained

• Strong essentialism remained– a definable and necessary character, an essential

property or properties which distinguish it from other phenomena

– generative power; that is, their presence significantly affects other phenomena around them

7

2013 book• Social practice approach• Disciplines as open, malleable natural systems

– Contextual contingency– Agency more powerful

• Complexity and other structures– Managerialist ideology– Technologies (materiality)– Power– Identities

8

A Social Practice Perspective

“forms of bodily activities, forms of mental activities, ‘things’ and their use, a background knowledge in the form of understanding, know-how, states of emotion and motivational knowledge.” (Reckwitz, 2002)

9

Defining disciplines (revised)• Disciplines are reservoirs of ways of knowing which, in

dynamic combination with other structural phenomena, can condition behavioural practices, sets of discourses, ways of thinking, procedures, emotional responses and motivations. Together this constellation of factors results in structured dispositions for disciplinary practitioners who, in conjunction with external forces, reshape them in different practice clusters into localised repertoires. While alternative recurrent practices may be in competition within a single discipline, there is common background knowledge about key figures, conflicts and achievements. Disciplines take organisational form, have internal hierarchies and bestow power differentially, conferring advantage and disadvantage.

10

Critiquing the 2013 book• Talked about ‘knowledge’ not ‘knowing’• The power of disciplines over-emphasised still• Not enough about the power of other forces• Still too essentialist

Hence my 2013 paper using Wittgenstein’s notion of family resemblances and applying ‘weak’ essentialism

11

‘Tribes’ in the Future• Periodic attacks on ‘donnish dominion’ from new managerialism.• Push to interdisciplinarity can be seen as part of this.• The significance of technologies (note the socio-material strand in social

practice theory).• Funding regimes changing due to the fiscal crisis – in the UK social sciences

and humanities have had funding withdrawn.• Increasing divisions in terms and conditions of employment within tribes –

short-term contracts, teaching-only contracts versus the ‘flying professors’• Parallel diversification among institutions of higher education.• Technologies may exacerbate this – eg the Ted Talks model. • 3 threats to academics’ daily work: de-skilling; resource degradation; work

intensification.• Global competition in higher education may be significant in the future.......

(but probably not through MOOCS ).• The “evaluative state” and the intrusive state more significant currently.

12

Some issues1. How far is there consistency (discourse, practices,

educational ideology) across different sites in the same discipline?

2. To what extent therefore can we make general statements about any given discipline that always hold true?

3. How far does social construction (“voice”) go, compared to the power of structures, including epistemological structures?

4. How is it that disciplines are apparently so robust, even in the face of challenges (eg from the push to interdisciplinarity)?

5. Even if disciplines are highly diverse – does it matter? (Self-identification and narratives may be more significant, eg in change processes).

13

References• Becher, T. (1989) Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. Buckingham: Open University Press.• Becher, T. (1994) The Significance of Disciplinary Differences, Studies in Higher Education, 19, 2, 151-161.• Becher, T. and Trowler, P. (2001) Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines (2nd edn).

Buckingham: Open University Press/SRHE.• Biglan, A. (1973) The Characteristics of Subject Matter in Different Academic Areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 3, 195-203.• Brew, A. (2002) Book review of Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking Science: Knowledge and the public in an age of

uncertainty. Cambridge, Polity Press. Studies in Higher Education, 27, 3, 353-354.• Clark, B. (1996) Case Studies of Innovative Universities: a progress report. Tertiary Education and Management, 2, 1, 53-62.• Donald, J. (2002) Learning to Think: Disciplinary perspectives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.• Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Newotny, H. ,Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics

of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage Publications.• Hughes, M. (2013) Book review essay: the territorial nature of organization studies. Culture and Organization, 19 (3), 261-274.• Kolb, D. A. (1981) Learning styles and disciplinary differences. In A. Chickering, (ed.) The Modern American College. San Francisco, Jossey

Bass.• Light, D. (1974) Introduction: the Structure of the Academic Professions. Sociology of Education, 47 (Winter), 2-28.• Manathunga, C. and Brew, A. (2012) Beyond Tribes and Territories: New Metaphors for New Times. In P. Trowler, M. Saunders and R.

Bamber (Eds) (2012).Tribes and territories in the 21st-century: Rethinking the significance of disciplines in higher education. London: Routledge, 44-56.

• Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking Science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge, Polity Press.

• Southall, A. (1996). Tribes. Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology. V. 4. New York: Henry Holt and Company.• Trowler, P. (1998) Academics Responding to Change: New Higher Education Frameworks and Academic Cultures. Buckingham: Open

University Press.• Trowler, P. (2008a) Beyond Epistemological Essentialism: Academic Tribes in the 21st Century. In Kreber, C. (ed) The University and its

Disciplines:Teaching and learning within and beyond disciplinary boundaries. London: Routledge• Trowler, P. (2008b) Cultures and Change in Higher Education: Theories and Practices. London: Palgrave Macmillan. • Trowler, P. (2013) Depicting and Researching Disciplines: Strong and moderate essentialist approaches. Studies in Higher Education

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03075079.2013.801431?journalCode=cshe20• Trowler, P., Saunders, M. and Bamber, R. (Eds) (2012).Tribes and territories in the 21st-century: Rethinking the significance of disciplines in

higher education. London: Routledge.14