Valuation discourses and disciplinary positioning struggles of academic researchers—A case study of ‘maverick’ academics

The paper investigates how academic researchers construct and account for struggles in positioning themselves and their research relative to disciplines in UK higher education. It frames disciplinary positioning as central to being recognized as a legitimate academic with expertise and asks: (1) What struggles do academics face when positioning themselves and their research in relation to disciplines? (2) What valuation discourses do they draw upon in this positioning? The study focuses on two applied linguistics academics—an early career lecturer and a Professor Emeritus—who resist being pigeonholed in a single discipline. It argues that researchers’ talk evokes tacit valuation discourses about academic practices, and that incongruence between individual and institutional valuations (e.g., recruitment panels, funding agencies, REF) produces positioning struggles. The work is situated in an evolving UK HE context marked by disciplinary organization, expectations of expertise, and growing discourse around interdisciplinarity.

The review conceptualizes discourse following Foucault and Gee, distinguishing small-d discourse (text/talk) from big-D Discourse (socially accepted ways of using language, valuing, acting that index group membership). Academic identity is understood through these discourses, which include valuation of practices (publishing, citations, evaluation, recruitment). Prior work has examined valuation in citations, recruitment/promotion, remuneration, and academic capital. Disciplines are treated as socially constituted organizational structures (Becher & Trowler), shaping identities, norms, and socialization into disciplinary communities (Abbott). Applied linguistics is characterized as a relatively young, heterogeneous field whose boundaries are fuzzy, having expanded beyond language teaching to broader ‘language-and’-oriented real-world problems. Interdisciplinary research is reviewed as variably defined and measured, with mixed institutional support (specialized funding, REF recognition) yet skepticism about evaluation and citations. The literature motivates examining how academics who traverse disciplines position themselves and what valuation discourses they mobilize.

Design: Qualitative, interactional-discursive case study within a larger dataset of 30 semi-structured interviews conducted Jan 2016–Jan 2017 with academics in linguistics and language-related fields at seven UK universities. Participants ranged from PhD students and early career researchers to Professors Emeriti, employed full-time in UK universities at interview time. Recruitment combined departmental outreach, colleague recommendations (8), and known contacts (5). Data were anonymized with pseudonyms for people and institutions. Data collection: Semi-structured interviews (approx. 30–60 minutes) covering biographical background, research, activities, and publications; audio-recorded with consent. Transcription captured selected speech features using conventions adapted from Jefferson (e.g., overlaps, pauses, prosodic emphasis). Analysis approach: Interactional linguistics and pragmatics framing the interview as a co-constructed speech event where utterances enact social action (positioning); attention to discursive acts (justifying, accounting, clarifying), pragmatic resources (voicing/reported speech, humour), and the evocation of tacit/shared discourses. Transcripts coded in MaxQDA; ‘resistance’ and ‘struggles’ emerged as salient codes. A conceptual model (Figure 1) links discursive construction of disciplinary positioning struggles with the production/reproduction of valuation discourses. Case selection and analysis: Two comparative case studies from applied linguistics were selected to bracket career stages: ‘Alf’ (ECR, Lecturer, Eastern University) and ‘David’ (Professor Emeritus, Lakeside University). Close analysis of interview excerpts was triangulated with CVs (publication venues and counts, career trajectories). Focus was on how each constructed struggles around disciplinary positioning and the valuation discourses invoked (e.g., attitudes to disciplinarity, institutional constraints like RAE/REF).

- Both case studies constructed struggles around defining and resisting fixed disciplinary labels, privileging academic autonomy and cross-boundary work. - Alf (ECR) narrated a missed job at an “old school” linguistics department (Rizona) where he was judged “not enough of a linguist” due to a PhD in cognitive science despite prior linguistics degrees and publications. He invoked valuation via publication venues as membership markers (11 of 26 journal articles in linguistics-related journals). He contrasted “traditional” vs “open-minded” departments, framing interdisciplinarity as valuable but risky in recruitment. - David (Professor Emeritus) positioned himself as a “French intellectual” and “maverick,” resisting being “disciplined” by a single field. He recounted moving from European literary studies to linguistics/discourse analysis despite institutional pressures intensified during RAE/REF eras. Career and publications corroborated the shift (while in a literary department he produced 10 literary vs 30 linguistics publications; overall 71 linguistics/discourse publications vs fewer literary ones). He valued originality, creativity, and non-conformity, acknowledging potential costs in prestige and funding. - Discursive resources—comparison of institutions/supervisors, voicing/reported speech, irony and self-deprecating humour, and self-applied labels—were central to enacting positions and surfacing valuation discourses. - The proposed model conceptualizes a cyclical relation: utterances enact positioning struggles, which evoke and reinforce valuation discourses about disciplines; these discourses in turn shape future positioning and institutional interactions. - Core pattern: Incongruence between individual valuation (autonomy, creativity, interdisciplinarity) and perceived institutional valuation (clear disciplinary fit, REF-aligned outputs) produces positioning struggles, especially salient at career entry but persisting across careers.

The findings address the research questions by showing that academics’ disciplinary positioning struggles are discursively constructed through interaction and are tightly intertwined with valuation discourses about academic practices. For Alf, institutional expectations for clear disciplinary fit in hiring conflicted with his self-positioning across linguistics and cognitive science, illustrating how publication venues, degrees, and departmental cultures become valuation proxies. For David, historical shifts in evaluation regimes (RAE/REF) tightened disciplinary boundaries, prompting resistance and a career move aligning with valued autonomy and creativity. Discursive acts—comparisons, voicing superiors’ directives, humour, and self-labelling—function to index and contest institutional valuations. The ECR vs senior comparison suggests that while the form of struggle changes (job acquisition vs prestige/funding recognition), the underlying tension—individual autonomy versus institutional disciplinarity—remains. These dynamics illustrate how positioning talk not only reflects but reproduces field-level discourses about what counts as valuable scholarship, affecting recognition, recruitment, and evaluation.

The paper contributes a discursive account of how academics negotiate disciplinary positions by mobilizing academic categories and valuation discourses, and proposes a model linking positioning struggles to the production/reproduction of these discourses. It shows that individual valuations (e.g., autonomy, creativity, interdisciplinarity) can clash with institutional logics (disciplinary fit, REF-driven metrics), generating struggles that are enacted in talk and consequential for careers. Implications include recognizing the contextual, stakeholder-contingent nature of valuation, and the uneven institutional reception of interdisciplinary work. Future research could compare valuation discourses across teaching- vs research-oriented institutions, examine trajectories predominantly in research vs teaching roles, and broaden samples to test generalizability of positioning patterns and their career outcomes.

- Small, qualitative sample with two focal case studies; not representative of all ECRs or senior academics. - Findings are context-specific (UK, applied linguistics/language-related fields, 2016–2017) and shaped by particular institutional histories (e.g., RAE/REF). - Interview accounts are co-constructed and rhetorical; they reflect situated meaning-making rather than objective histories. - Broader claims require more interviews across institutions, disciplines, and career stages to assess variability in valuation systems and positioning practices.