Fri, April 14, 9:50 to 11:20am CDT (9:50 to 11:20am CDT), Radisson Blu Aqua Hotel, Chicago, Floor: 1st Floor, Atlantic E
Abstract
Purpose
Interdisciplinary work is collaborative, with each member bringing different expertise (Murray et al., 2014); each member, also, therefore, brings a lack of expertise in some aspects. In this paper, we examine how agency is distributed in an inclusive and interdisciplinary research lab, guided by research questions:
● How is agency distributed across members of an interdisciplinary lab?
● To what extent do norms mitigate typical research lab power hierarchies?
Theoretical framework
We take a situated learning stance, treating learning as a process of moving from periphery to central roles (Lave & Wenger, 1991). In interdisciplinary settings, the notion of “center” is ambiguous; we argue this ambiguity is an opportunity to interrogate power dynamics, using an intersectional framework (Collins & Bilge, 2020), and attending in particular to the ways cultures mask privilege and how norms preserve or interrupt status quo in the context of a diverse laboratory group. To examine norms, we leverage a discursive approach to agency (Author, 2021). Specifically, we examine how members use, distribute, or offload their agency to frame research problems.
Method & Data sources
We conducted a five-year participant observation in a diverse interdisciplinary research lab (N=16 with approximately seven students at any one time). The members included two Native American students, six Latinx students, one African American student and a majority of students who were first generation college attendees; the gender balance was generally close to even. They majored in various areas, including chemistry, biochemistry, biology and geology.
We documented meetings through audio records and field notes. For the current study, we selected data from multiple years, focusing on sessions of study planning, paper discussion, and data exploration. We analyzed transcripts with attention to markers of agency (Konopasky & Sheridan, 2016; Author, 2021) and power (Collins & Bilge, 2020).
Substantiated conclusions & Scholarly significance
In the first vignette, who is “expert” varies (Figure 2). Faculty member Denise looks to a student, Jeff, as expert, slightly de-centering herself, placing him in a high-agency role. Tania’s more peripheral questions are treated as legitimate and agentive. Aaron responsively addresses her and Denise’s stated lack of knowledge.
In the second vignette, Jeff is the expert, presenting his chosen article (Figure 3). Denise takes a peripheral role, joking about being called on. Evan’s questions display low-agency expectations, met by Denise’s permission to use his judgment, amended by Tania’s advice.
In the third vignette, student Tania shows tentative framing agency as she shares ideas from a talk (Figure 4). Denise treats her idea as legitimate and collaboratively frames potential applications with Tania, making her less peripheral.
This creates an environment where it can be safe to not know something, positioning novice status as endemic to interdisciplinary research, rather than as a deficit. Successful interdisciplinary research depends on members bringing different perspectives and even fundamentally different understandings of problems (Weingart et al., 2008), countering typical power dynamics. Together, these position newcomers not as peripheral, but as sources of alternative perspectives, contributing to an inclusive environment.
