The concept of boundaries, as borders that separate two entities, can be problematic in that those who “belong” within a boundary in a given social world or entity are separated from those who do not, creating binaries. The field of literacy research has had a long history of binarism in which instructional methods, epistemological positions, and paradigms have been pitted against one another. An ontological discussion of the nature of boundaries, combined with a content analysis of journal citations, revealed that current literacy research is characterized more as multidisciplinary rather than interdisciplinary, suggesting that literacy research may be characterized by disciplinary binarism. A situational analysis of the social worlds and arenas present in an interdisciplinary research project illustrates the complexity of interdisciplinary partnerships and the manner in which boundary objects can be created to negotiate boundaries and avoid intellectual, disciplinary, epistemological, and methodological nativism.
AlmasiJ. F. (1995). The nature of fourth graders’ sociocognitive conflicts in peer-led and teacher-led discussions of literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 314–351.
4.
AlmasiJ. F.EdwardsP.HartS. (2011, 12). Waiting for special education: Intended and unintended influences of RTI on literacy instruction. Paper presented at the 61st Annual Meeting of the Literacy Research Association, Jacksonville, FL.
5.
BarsalouL. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.
6.
BhambraG. K.HolmwoodJ. (2011). Introduction: Translation and the challenge of interdisciplinarity. Journal of Historical Sociology, 24, 1–8.
7.
ClarkeA. E. (1991). Social worlds/arenas theory as organizational theory. In MainesD. R. (Ed.), Social organization and social process: Essays in honor of Anselm Strauss (pp. 119–158). New York, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.
8.
ClarkeA. E. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DavisD. S.WillsonA. (2015). Practices and commitments of test-centric literacy instruction: Lessons from a testing transition. Reading Research Quarterly, 50, 357–379.
11.
FreerB. D.HaydenA.LorchE. P.MilichR. (2011). The stories they tell: Story production difficulties of children with ADHD. School Psychology Review, 40, 352–366.
12.
GutierrezK. D. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 148–164.
13.
JiménezR. T. (2000). Literacy and the identity development of Latina/o students. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 971–1000.
14.
LorchE. P.DienerM. B.SanchezR. P.MilichR.WelshR.van den BroekP. (1999). The effects of story structure on the recall of stories in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 273–283.
MalochB. (2002). Scaffolding student talk: One teacher’s role in literature discussion groups. Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 94–112.
17.
MojeE. B.CiechanowskiK. M.KramerK.EllisL.CarrilloR.CollazoT. (2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and Discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 38–70.
18.
National Academy of Sciences. (2004). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nap.edu/catalog/11153.html
19.
PearsonP. D. (2004). The reading wars. Educational Policy, 18, 216–252.
20.
PerryK. H. (2010). Genres, contexts, and literacy practices: Literacy brokering among Sudanese refugee families. Reading Research Quarterly, 44, 256–276.
21.
PopperK. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. New York, NY: Routledge.
22.
ReinkingD.BradleyB. A. (2008). Formative and design experiments: Approaches to language and literacy research. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
23.
RepkoA. F. (2012). Interdisciplinary research: Process and theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
SkerrettA. (2012). Languages and literacies in translocation: Experiences and perspectives of a transnational youth. Journal of Literacy Research, 44, 364–395.
26.
SojaE. W. (1996). Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and other real-and-imagined places. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
27.
StarS. L. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35, 601–617.
28.
StarS. L.GriesemerJ. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420.
29.
StoneC. A. (2007). Interdisciplinary research frontiers: A developmental psychologist’s perspective. The ASHA Leader, 12, 7–8.
30.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2016). Global trends: Forced displacement in 2015. Retrieved from http://www.data.unhcr.org
31.
VarziA. C. (1997). Boundaries, continuity, and contact. Noûs, 31, 26–58.
32.
WengerE. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
