Boundary work in collaborative inquiry: Framing the contributions

Q1 Social Sciences
T. May
{"title":"Boundary work in collaborative inquiry: Framing the contributions","authors":"T. May","doi":"10.1177/20597991221129783","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article situates the contributions to this special issue. It does so by examining the process of methodological justification and the relations between the content of knowledge and the context of production. Boundary work concerning these dynamics, along with issues applicability and credibility, along with the university as a core site of social research practice, are discussed. Once engagement with communities comes into the process of co-production, there is an ambivalence both among academics and universities concerning the place of such work. This leads to a set of devilish dichotomies in research practice that requires intensive boundary work in a process characterized as active intermediation between varying expectations. Framing the contributions in this way enables an enlargement of the scope of research with different communities in terms of boundaries of practice, whilst also questioning the selectivity that informs the impact and engagement agendas in universities.","PeriodicalId":32579,"journal":{"name":"Methodological Innovations","volume":"15 1","pages":"331 - 340"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Methodological Innovations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20597991221129783","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This article situates the contributions to this special issue. It does so by examining the process of methodological justification and the relations between the content of knowledge and the context of production. Boundary work concerning these dynamics, along with issues applicability and credibility, along with the university as a core site of social research practice, are discussed. Once engagement with communities comes into the process of co-production, there is an ambivalence both among academics and universities concerning the place of such work. This leads to a set of devilish dichotomies in research practice that requires intensive boundary work in a process characterized as active intermediation between varying expectations. Framing the contributions in this way enables an enlargement of the scope of research with different communities in terms of boundaries of practice, whilst also questioning the selectivity that informs the impact and engagement agendas in universities.
合作探究中的边界工作:界定贡献
这篇文章介绍了对这一特刊的贡献。它通过研究方法论论证的过程以及知识内容与生产环境之间的关系来做到这一点。讨论了与这些动态相关的边界工作,以及适用性和可信度问题,以及大学作为社会研究实践的核心场所。一旦与社区的接触进入共同制作的过程,学术界和大学对这种工作的地点都存在矛盾。这导致了研究实践中的一系列魔鬼般的二分法,需要在一个以不同期望之间的积极中介为特征的过程中进行密集的边界工作。以这种方式界定贡献可以扩大不同社区在实践边界方面的研究范围,同时也质疑大学影响和参与议程的选择性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Methodological Innovations
Methodological Innovations Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书