1 Introduction
Threshold concepts are not something immanently identifiable across disciplines, independent of human meaning-making (Morgan 2015), but rather they are part of the shared repertoire of each community of practice,1 and therefore are negotiated-meaning entities. In that sense, Cousin (2008) claims that “threshold concepts are always epistemologically informed, which is why they are theorised as provisional, contestable, and culturally situated” (p. 263). They are socio-constructed entities or artifacts that represent a situated disciplinary worldview, accepted and legitimized by a specific community of practice (Rattray & Calduch, forthcoming), defining which knowledge is central and which is peripheral to the discipline (Barradell & Fortune, 2020).
Since disciplines are sociocultural constructs (Leeds-Hurwitz, 2009), there are different threshold concepts within disciplines, some of which may be contradictory as they belong to different currents of thoughts, that is, to different epistemological traditions. Beyond the criteria of logical plausibility and the available empirical evidence, the coexistence of different (and even opposite) threshold concepts does not mean that some are better than others, since they belong to different epistemological traditions of the discipline and are incommensurable.2 Both can be considered threshold concepts if they fulfil the constitutive characteristics of threshold concepts, especially if they are potentially transformative (cognitively and affectively), since this has been considered the non-negotiable characteristic of a threshold concept (Baillie et al., 2013; Timmermans & Meyer, 2019).
To support this statement, this chapter presents partial empirical results of a study aimed at identifying the threshold concepts of the educational research field, obtained through a phenomenographic method (Calduch, 2022). All the threshold concepts identified fulfil the eight constitutive characteristics of the threshold concepts, which guarantees their condition, although they belong to different disciplinary and epistemological traditions, which is why some of them are opposed to each other. Based on these results, I propose a distinction between first-order and second-order threshold concepts, and outline the potential of this distinction for critical and reflective teaching of threshold concepts.
1.1
Recognising the epistemological and situated nature of threshold concepts,3 and therefore the various ways of thinking, acting and being a practitioner within a discipline, also opens the debate on what knowledge and ways of knowing we are privileging through threshold concepts. In this sense, threshold scholars should be aware that the identification, selection, and promotion of certain threshold concepts could exert epistemic violence or epistemicide (understood as the delegitimation of certain possibilities of knowing, of other possibilities of knowing).
Most critical approaches advocate intellectual decolonization (Behari-Leak, 2010; de Sousa, 2018; Mbembe, 2016; Moosavi, 2020), which implies breaking the hegemony of the Global North’s knowledge and epistemologies, avoiding the epistemicide, and allowing a plurality of voices to be heard, thus avoiding the testimonial injustice (Fricker, 2007)4 that Higher Education usually allows. In this sense, if threshold concepts are derived, myopically, only from the opinions of experts and the experiences of students from the Global North, there is a risk of making other non-hegemonic disciplinary traditions and epistemes less credible, thus reinforcing epistemic violence within disciplines (Rattray & Calduch, forthcoming).
Similarly, Davies (2016) suggests that threshold concepts sometimes act not as enabling gates, but rather as pervasive threshold guardians of disciplines, self-perpetuating hegemonic epistemes within disciplines. Therefore, if we commit to a counter-hegemonic agenda, a critical approach is necessary also in the identification of threshold concepts, thus avoiding epistemic violence.
1.2 Identifying Threshold Concepts without Epistemic Violence
The identification of threshold concepts is one of the most addressed aspects in the last two decades in the threshold scholarship; however, it is an issue that has not yet been completely resolved. One of the most accepted methods for the identification of threshold concepts is the “Transactional Curriculum Inquiry”, proposed by Cousin (2008, 2009). This method advocates considering the perspective and voice of different actors (students, teachers and educational developers) in a triangulated way in order to identify concepts that fulfil the constitutive characteristics of threshold concepts.
In that line, Barradell (2013) and Barradell and Peseta (2018) suggest that the inclusion of stakeholders should be even broader, thus considering actors outside the academy or educational domain, such as professionals and other community representatives. Furthermore, in other work (Rattray & Calduch, forthcoming), we have pointed out the importance of including an even greater diversity of actors, including disadvantaged actors and people with
Another important consideration is the use of the criterion of consensus. For the identification of threshold concepts, this criteria is usually used (Barradell, 2013), mostly through Delphi studies (Barradell & Peseta, 2018). However, while reaching consensus is valuable and can help reduce the number of threshold concepts identified within a discipline, it often fails to achieve fairness due to the inherent inequity in power distribution among the involved actors. This inequity is particularly pronounced when considering non-privileged or marginalized actors, primarily situated in the Global South, whose voices are particularly vulnerable to be supressed. Consequently, relying solely on consensus as a criterion for identifying threshold concepts may not always be appropriate, as it can perpetuate epistemic violence and reduce diversity of disciplinary knowledge.
Alternatively, it may sometimes be interesting to pay attention to the variation between the actors, otherwise there is a risk of suppressing those non-hegemonic visions held by non-privileged actors, subsuming them in the dominant conceptions and silencing them by using a criterion of consensus (Rattray & Calduch, 2022). In essence, a method to mitigate this risk could involve shifting the focus from the dominant position of people to the transformative potential of ideas themselves, a proposal that has its foundation on decolonizing movement.
2 Method
The results shown in this chapter, which support the subsequent discussion of why it may be useful to reframe threshold concepts as questions, are based on my own thesis dissertation (Calduch, 2022). One of the objectives of this study was to identify the main threshold concepts of educational research field under a transactional and situated approach. In this sense, it is important to point out that there are threshold concepts identified both in the educational field (Timmermans, 2014; Beasy et al., 2020; Rowe et al., 2021; and others) and in doctoral studies (Salmona et al., 2016; Tyndall, 2021; and others), but there were no studies focused on the specific field of educational research.
The identification process was carried out under a “transactional curriculum inquiry” (Cousin, 2008, 2009). However, considering their epistemological
The object of study of the phenomenographic method is the qualitatively different ways in which people experience, conceptualise, perceive, and understand a phenomenon or part of reality (Marton & Pang, 2005; Marton, 2015). Phenomenography’s inherent focus on variability is consistent with the Threshold Concepts Framework and the liminal space itself (Akerlind et al., 2014), since variability is also part of the framework (Meyer et al., 2008). Plus, it helps to expand and preserve a greater number of epistemic voices and perspectives.
Data collection was carried out through semi-structured interviews, between July and September 2020. Due to the pandemic situation, all of them were virtual, using a videoconferencing tool. In total, twelve interviews were conducted (five with students and seven with teachers), with an average duration of one hour. On the one hand, the five students had completed a master’s degree in educational research at the University of Barcelona and, therefore, they would surely have crossed different threshold concepts of the educational research field throughout their academic experience. They were selected by accidental sampling with volunteers, that is, those students who showed a positive disposition to participate in the study were selected. On the other hand, the seven professors selected were from the School of Education (University of Barcelona), with a high dedication to educational research and with an extensive number of scientific publications.
Following the recommendations of the phenomenographic method, in order to maximize the variation in the qualitative ways of experiencing the phenomenon, I took into account the existence of participants with diverse ontoepistemic positions and, therefore, also with heterogeneous approaches to educational research. In this sense, the selection of the seven professors participating in the study was intentional, looking for some variation in terms of the academic department to which they belonged, their academic background and their epistemic-methodological approaches.
The data obtained were analyzed through a content analysis process, based on the “constant comparisons method” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 2015), an inductive analysis method that is articulated around two differentiated but unfragmentable operations: (1) segmentation and coding of relevant fragments; and (2) the identification of categories and metacategories. As a result of this process, as shown in Table 5.1, I identified 515 units of analysis, 12 categories, and 4 metacategories.
| Metacategory | Category |
|---|---|
| Meaning in educational research | Finding personal meaning of research Research as recovering experience Research as a creative relationship Decision-oriented research |
| Emic-etic duality | Emic-etic duality as a relationship that affects and involves both parties Emic-etic duality as a concept-sensitising process |
| The role of subjectivity | Researcher as a subject Subjectivity as the core of meaning generation Objectivity understood as intersubjectivity |
| The notion of paradigm | Paradigmatic incommensurability Paradigmatic coherence Paradigmatic complementarity and integration |
Considering the maximum allowed length of the chapter and its aim, only the results related to the metacategory of “the role of subjectivity” will be presented – full data can be consulted in Calduch (2022).
3 Results
The role given to subjectivity within educational research (and research in general) is a controversial aspect within the scientific community. Thus, although hardly anyone denies its analytical potential within the social sciences and education, its recognition, conceptualization, and approach are conditioned by the ontological and epistemological conceptions that the different communities have. In that sense, it is intertwined with other notions such as the ontological position of the subject or the epistemological neutrality of science.
The results obtained from the interviews show that there are variations in the role that the participants attribute to subjectivity within educational research. Specifically, three different conceptions have been identified, which can be considered threshold concepts since they meet their eight constitutive characteristics: “Researcher as a subject”; “Subjectivity as the core of meaning generation”; and “Objectivity understood as intersubjectivity”. Next, I
4 Discussion
In this study, I have identified some threshold concepts in the field of educational research. These do not refer directly to distinctive knowledge of the discipline, but to the ways of researching within this discipline. In other words, they assume a pivotal role in the constitution of “disciplinary epistemes”, the distinctive ways of knowing of each discipline. Perkins defines disciplinary epistemes as:
(Perkins, 2006, p. 42)
the system of ideas or ways of understanding that allows us to establish knowledge … manners of justifying, explaining, solving problems, conducting enquiries, and designing and validating various kinds of products or outcomes.
However, not all these threshold concepts are complementary to each other – some are even antagonistic, because they belong to different disciplinary and
Researcher as a subject
| Characteristic | Central idea |
|---|---|
| Transformative | Understand that one’s own subjectivity is the condition of possibility of research. We are always involved as subjects and not as mere executing objects. |
| Integrative | There is no conclusive data on this characteristic. |
| Irreversible | When becoming aware of the influence of one’s own presence as a researcher, it is difficult to stop considering it, since we never stop being a subject. |
| Troublesome | Accepting that the researcher’s subjectivity is always present in all research actions is diametrically opposed to the commonly accepted conception of subjectivity as bias. |
| Bounded | This conception is usually associated with narrative research perspectives or, secondly, with interpretive ones. |
| Reconstitutive | Once crossed, students feel more empowered and accept themselves as legitimate producers of knowledge. |
| Discursive | It usually involves speaking in the first person, incorporating one’s own perspective. |
| Liminal | The student usually experiences learning regressions to preliminary positions where subjectivity is discredited. |
Note: Table 5.2 presents the main characteristics that constitute the notion of “Researcher as a subject” as a threshold concept.
Subjectivity as the core of meaning generation
| Characteristic | Central idea |
|---|---|
| Transformative | Understand that the subjective is a central element and not a bias to be avoided, since causality is influenced by interpretation of meanings in the social sciences. |
| Integrative | It helps the student to resignify other central research notions, integrating them (such as teleological explanation, multidirectional causality or complexity). |
| Irreversible | Once crossed, researchers will find it increasingly difficult to overlook the significance of the subjective dimension, particularly when it comes to interpreting scientific literature and evaluating research. |
| Troublesome | “Subjectivity as the core of meaning generation” is troublesome, since it opposes certain preconceptions derived from positivist logic that conceives the subjective as bias. It generates rejection and discomfort. |
| Bounded | This conception is mainly associated with interpretive research perspectives. |
| Reconstitutive | Understanding that social action is mediated by meanings, and that subjectivity is the core generator of meanings, has a certain reconstitutive effect, since it helps students to approach some problems in a different way, glimpsing new ways of understanding them. |
| Discursive | There is no conclusive data on this characteristic. |
| Liminal | It is necessary to get rid of the idea of subjectivity as bias, and that takes time. |
Note: Table 5.3 presents the main characteristics that constitute the notion of “Subjectivity as the core of meaning generation” as a threshold concept.
Objectivity understood as intersubjectivity
| Characteristic | Central idea |
|---|---|
| Transformative | Understanding objectivity as an intersubjective agreement, ceasing to think of the objective as something universal or ideal, but rather as socially constructed. |
| Integrative | There is no conclusive data on this characteristic. |
| Irreversible | Once crossed, relevant research activity will hardly cease to be oriented towards seeking and promoting intersubjective agreements among the scientific community. |
| Troublesome | Understanding the idea of intersubjectivity is complex both because of its conceptual difficulty and because it constitutes an unknown position within the objective-subjective polarization. |
| Bounded | This conception is linked to postpositivist discourse, where the possibility of full objectivity is denied, and therefore to empirical-analytical research positions. |
| Reconstitutive | It helps students who are not comfortable with the ideas of objectivity and subjectivity, and who prefer things more neutral or in-between. |
| Discursive | It is associated with the idea that consensual discourses are objective. |
| Liminal | It usually involves processes of regression towards more objectivist positions, due to the complexity of this conception and its difficult operationalization for novice researchers. |
Note: Table 5.4 presents the main characteristics that constitute the notion of “Objectivity understood as intersubjectivity” as a threshold concept.
All the threshold concepts identified in this research fulfil all or almost all of the eight constitutive characteristics of threshold concepts. In particular, all of them are potentially transformative, a characteristic that is considered non-negotiable within the Threshold Concepts Framework (Baillie et al., 2013; Timmermans & Meyer, 2019). This is because the key aspect of a threshold
However, if a consensus criterion had been followed, as is common in the identification of threshold concepts (Barradell, 2013; Barradell & Peseta, 2018; Morley, 2020), surely such a variety of threshold concepts would not have emerged, but instead they would have been subsumed under a more generic threshold concept. Thus, instead of having “Researcher as a subject”, “Subjectivity as the core of meaning generation” and “Objectivity understood as intersubjectivity”, I would probably only have identified “The role of subjectivity” as a threshold concept in the field of educational research.
At this point, it is interesting to note that in most cases the same threshold concept has been identified by participants who are in the same ontoepistemic position or methodological orientation. Therefore, this contributes to reinforcing its epistemic and situated nature.
It is not that one concept is “more threshold” than another, but rather that they all have the potential to act as portals despite belonging to different disciplinary traditions. That is, they represent different ways of thinking, practicing and being an educational researcher. In this sense, the different threshold concepts identified are incommensurable, and their justification lies in their ontoepistemic rationality. Denying threshold status to any of them, when they fulfil all the constitutive characteristics of threshold concepts, could be considered a form of epistemic violence.
In addition, thanks to the phenomenographic approach used, I have been able to identify metacategories and categories: that is, threshold concepts have emerged at two different levels of abstraction. On the one hand, the identified categories refer to a first level of abstraction, the first-order threshold concepts (for example, “Objectivity understood as intersubjectivity”). This typology of threshold concepts refers to specific ways of understanding transformative aspects of the discipline that belong to a certain disciplinary tradition, that is, to specific ways of thinking, practicing, and being practitioner in that discipline. On the other hand, the identified metacategories refer to a second level of abstraction, the second-order threshold concepts (as, for example, “The role of subjectivity”). This typology of threshold concepts refers to those aspects of the discipline whose conceptions can be transformative for its professionals; however, they do not encapsulate concrete ways of understanding these aspects. Thus, first-order threshold concepts are subsumed under second-order threshold concepts.
This distinction is especially relevant to achieve a way of teaching threshold concepts under a critical approach, as I have argued above. First-order threshold concepts can be useful to show concrete ways of thinking, practicing and being
5 Conclusion
This chapter delves into the epistemological and situated nature of threshold concepts, which appears in the original proposal of the Threshold Concepts Framework (Meyer & Land, 2003, 2005, 2006; Cousin, 2008; Meyer et al., 2010), but some authors have not always taken it sufficiently into account. To this end, I have presented partial results of a study aimed at identifying the threshold concepts of the educational research field (Calduch, 2022) in order to illustrate and reflect on this epistemological and situated nature.
This chapter has provided empirical results on threshold concepts in the field of educational research, obtained through a phenomenographic method. The three threshold concepts presented fulfil the eight constitutive characteristics of the threshold concepts, which guarantees their condition, although they belong to different disciplinary and epistemological traditions, which is why some of them are opposed to each other.
In turn, these three threshold concepts are subsumed in a metacategory with a higher level of abstraction, which corresponds to what I have proposed to call second-order threshold concepts. First-order threshold concepts refer to specific ways of understanding transformative aspects of the discipline that belong to a given disciplinary tradition, that is, to specific ways of thinking, practicing, and being a practitioner in that discipline. Second-order threshold concepts refer to those aspects of the discipline whose conceptions can be transformative for its practitioners, but without encapsulating concrete ways of understanding these aspects.
This last type of threshold concepts allows a greater postliminal variation (Meyer et al., 2008) because it allows students to broaden their worldview in a reflexive way, instead of forcing them to substitute their view for a different one without considering their own subjectivity. In some exceptional cases, this could even lead to unexpected transformations (Calduch & Rattray, 2022), which can contribute to the progress of the discipline.
In short, framing second-order threshold concepts as open-ended questions opens up the possibility of teaching them critically as catalysts or troublemakers, with the power to disrupt the hegemony within disciplines and reduce potential epistemic violence.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported, with the grant FPU16/05663, by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and the Ministry of Universities (Spanish government). I also want to thank the invaluable contributions of my PhD supervisor, Dr. José Luís Medina, and my colleagues, Dr. Julie Rattray and Dr. Gabriel Hervas.
Notes
Communities of practice are formed by practitioners who engage in a process of collective learning within organizations or disciplines. Communities of practice are defined by their mutual engagement, the joint enterprise, and the shared repertoire (Wenger, 1998). The shared repertoire is the meanings and resources that the different members of the community have agreed to accept as legitimate and valid, which they have been elaborating and negotiating through their interactions over time.
Incommensurability is a term used by Kuhn (1962) to challenge the cumulative perspective of science evolution, according to which scientific progress is an improving process to approximate the truth, and the existence of neutral criteria to comparing theories. However, it should not be understood as a claim for an epistemological anarchy, but rather that they cannot always been judged by the same criteria, since they belong to different epistemic coordinates.
Situatedness refers to the fact that the subject and the situational context are a molar unit, mutually self-constituted. In this sense, knowledge cannot be separated from the context and from the action itself, it is always knowledge-in-action. The situated nature of threshold concepts is related to their boundedness, understood as something more than the mere disciplinary demarcation or the borders of academic territories, but to how it has been socioculturally constructed over time.
Testimonial injustice is a notion used by Fricker (2007) that refers to the delegitimization and silencing of certain voices within the creation of knowledge, voices which usually correspond to the non-privileged actors of society or the marginal actors of a certain community. In most cases, due to the current legacy of colonization, the voices of the Global South are
References
Akerlind, G. S., McKenzie, J., & Lupton, M. (2014). The potential of combining phenomenography, variation theory and threshold concepts to inform curriculum design in higher education. In J. Huisman & M. Tight (Eds.), Theory and method in higher education research II (pp. 227–247). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-3628(2014)0000010017
Baillie, C., Bowden, J. A., & Meyer, J. H. F. (2013). Threshold capabilities: Threshold concepts and knowledge capability linked through variation theory. Higher Education, 65(2), 227–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9540-5
Barradell, S. (2013). The identification of threshold concepts: A review of theoretical complexities and methodological challenges. Higher Education, 65, 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9542-3
Barradell, S., & Fortune, T. (2020). Bounded – The neglected threshold concept characteristic. Innovations in Educations and Teaching International, 57(3), 296–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2019.1657034
Barradell, S., & Peseta, T. (2018). Integrating threshold concepts and ways of thinking and practising: Supporting physiotherapy students to develop a holistic view of the profession through concept mapping. International Journal of Practice-based Learning in Health and Social Care, 6(1), 24–37. https://doi.org/10.18552/ijpblhsc.v6i1.419
Beasy, K., Kriewaldt, J., Trevethan, H., Morgan, A., & Cowie, B. (2020). Multiperspectivism as a threshold concept in understanding diversity and inclusion for future teachers. The Australian Educational Researcher, 47(2), 893–909. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00376-6
Behari-Leak, K. (2020). Toward a borderless, decolonized, socially just, and inclusive scholarship of teaching and learning. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 8(1), 4–23. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.8.1.2
Calduch, I., & Rattray, J. (2022). Revisiting postliminal variation in threshold concepts: Issues of unexpected transformation and legitimisation. Studies in Higher Education, 47(7), 1453–1463. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.1910651
Cousin, G. (2008). Threshold concepts: Old wine in new bottles or new forms of transactional inquiry? In R. Land, J. H. F. Meyer, & J. Smith (Eds.), Threshold concepts within the disciplines (pp. 261–272). Sense. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789460911477_020
Cousin, G. (2009). Transactional curriculum inquiry: Researching threshold concepts. In G. Cousin (Ed.), Researching learning in higher education: An introduction to contemporary methods and approaches (pp. 201–212). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203884584
Davies, J. (2016). Threshold guardians: Threshold concepts as guardians of the discipline. In R. Land, J. H. F. Meyer, & M. T. Flanagan (Eds.), Threshold concepts in practice (pp. 121–134). Sense. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-512-8_10
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237907.001.0001
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014
Jarauta, B., Medina, J. L., & Mentado, T. (2016). La transformación del saber en la enseñanza universitaria. Una aproximación desde el estudio del CDC. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 34(2), 471–485. https://doi.org/10.6018/rie.34.2.221711
Marton, F. (2015). Necessary conditions of learning. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315816876
Marton, F., & Pang, M. F. (2006). On some necessary conditions of learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 193–220. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1502_2
Mbembe, A. (2016). Decolonizing the university: New directions. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 15(1), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022215618513
Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving students learning: Improving student learning theory and practice – Ten years on (pp. 412–424). Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.
Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. Higher Education, 49, 373–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6779-5
Meyer, J. H. F., Land, R., & Baillie, C. (2010). Threshold concepts and transformational learning. Sense. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789460912078
Meyer, J. H. F., Land, R., & Davies, P. (2008). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (4): Issues of variation and variability. In R. Land, J. Meyer, & J. Smith (Eds.), Threshold concepts within the disciplines (pp. 59–74). Sense. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789460911477_006
Mignolo, W. D., & Walsh, C. E. (2018). On decoloniality. Concepts, analytics, praxis. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822371779
Moosavi, L. (2020). The decolonial bandwagon and the dangers of intellectual decolonisation. International Review of Sociology, 30(2), 332–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/03906701.2020.1776919
Morgan, P. K. (2015). Pausing at the threshold. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 15(1), 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2015.0002
Morley, C. (2020). Towards the co-identification of threshold concepts in academic reading. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 17(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.17.2.4
Rowe, N., Martin, R., Buck, R., & Mabingo, A. (2021). Teaching collaborative dexterity in higher education: Threshold concepts for educators. Higher Education Research & Development, 40(7), 1515–1529. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1833843
Salmona, M., Kaczynski, D., & Wood, L. N. (2016). The importance of liminal space for doctoral success: Exploring methodological threshold concepts. In R. Land, J. H. F. Meyer, & M. T. Flanagan (Eds.), Threshold concepts in practice (pp. 153–164). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-512-8_12
Timmermans, J. A. (2014). Identifying threshold concepts in the careers of educational developers. International Journal for Academic Development, 19(4), 305–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2014.895731
Timmermans, J. A., & Meyer, J. H. F. (2019). A framework for working with university teachers to create and embed ‘Integrated Threshold Concept Knowledge’ (ITCK) in their practice. International Journal for Academic Development, 24(4), 354–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2017.1388241
Tyndall, D. E., Firnhaber, G. C., & Kistler, K. B. (2021). An integrative review of threshold concepts in doctoral education: Implications for PhD nursing programs. Nurse Education Today, 99, 104786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2021.104786