Sustaining Interdisciplinary Collaboration is a timely book, perhaps even a necessary book, in the now years-long moment of the most recent rise of interdisciplinarity in academia. An audience aware of folklore (including, presumably, the vast majority of JFRR’s audience) will likely recognize the names of two of the authors, as Regina Bendix and Dory Noyes have made enormous contributions to the field for years. Likely less familiar to that audience will be economic policy professor Killian Bizer, although he and Regina Bendix have co-authored before. But that mix of the familiar and unfamiliar is really one of the major points of Sustaining Interdisciplinary Collaboration, which provides another argument for the value of drawing together disparate disciplines for the sake of pushing academia both forward and in new directions.
Sustaining Interdisciplinary Collaboration either sits in an awkward spot or fills a need, depending on the reader’s point of view and experience with interdisciplinary scholarship. When I read through the book for this review, I found myself initially frustrated at the lack of reference to the wide and deep scholarship of interdisciplinary studies. I wanted to see names like Julie Thompson Klein and Allen Repko, some of the must-read authors in the interdisciplinary studies world. What was there instead was reference to scholars within the adjacent fields of anthropology and folklore who have made comment on interdisciplinarity, like Marilyn Strathern and Tim Ingold, along with cultural theorists who are frequently sighted and cited in anthro and folklore research (the Richard Baumans and Victor Turners of the world). As I immersed myself deeper into the narrative of the book, I realized that my frustration was misguided, and that my expectations had been shaped by other titles with the word “interdisciplinary” prominent on the cover. The authors have written a different kind of book about interdisciplinarity.
There are several books out there that attempt to theorize interdisciplinarity as a part of the teaching academic and research spheres. Bendix, Bizer, and Noyes instead give the reader an inside, on-the-ground glimpse of what interdisciplinarity looks and feels like when one is actually doing it. Their portrait is provided, thankfully, with warts and all. While their discussion is focused on the research projects found at large universities, with doctoral students and institutional funding, I recognized many of the struggles and pitfalls of engaging with interdisciplinarity reflected in slightly different forms at my small, primarily undergrad institution. The lessons they learn and questions they raise are broadly applicable. Additionally, because the ground the authors are letting us glimpse is heavily shaped by cultural analysis, they provide some ethnographic insights into the role identity plays in the machinations of academia. Interdisciplinary projects are, through this lens, “revitalization movements in which the goods of an exotic specialty are welcomed on the native disciplinary shores and incorporated into a new synthesis” (1). There is a slight tongue-in-cheek to be heard in the authors’ rhetorical approach, but there is also much value to be gained in applying cultural theories to academia, which “over time does not simply teach scholars how to think but produces a collective disciplinary identity” (21). Turning the tools of cultural theory onto the university in this way is a task near and dear to my heart, as I have been attempting to do so at my own school for several years now. The strength of the current against which one swims when trying this makes me admire the work Bendix, Bizer, and Noyes have done here even more.
One of the traits their narrative has that is both striking and very welcome is an intensely personal approach. As mentioned above, the authors are not shy about showing the warts of interdisciplinarity, and many of those warts are caused by some of the lumpier and uglier aspects of academia. This book presents in a matter-of-fact way some of those realities, from the banality of store-bought hummus at a faculty meeting to the power exerted by the utterly un-academic priorities of some administrative decisions, both of which affect a scholar’s willingness and ability to make the exciting new knowledge that interdisciplinarity tantalizingly offers. The authors never sound bitter or mean-spirited; they simply tell a story that many of us recognize but that often gets ignored in print. It is therefore refreshing to see them tell that side of the story, and it is doubly refreshing because of who the authors are. They are all biggies – eminent and respected scholars within their fields and across academia as a whole. That status gives them a privilege of voice that others on the lower rungs of the university do not have, so it is rewarding to see them use that voice to such a purpose. They are showing us how the wurst is made in interdisciplinary research, and the shortcomings of the academy, of faculty, and of administrators are all made part of the discussion.
The book contains seven chapters, each of which focuses on a particular aspect of interdisciplinary research while walking the reader through an autobiography of a large, grant-funded, multi-institution and multi-discipline research project. The first two chapters apply cultural theories to the act and facts of interdisciplinarity. The third shifts its gaze more to the public and structural understandings that shape research projects, while the fourth and fifth home in strongly on the social aspects (both positive and negative) of doing research with others who don’t necessarily share one’s identity. The sixth chapter brings the story of the large research project to a close, or at least a stopping point for narrative purposes. The seventh chapter provides a thorough list of recommendations for others who find themselves diving into, or caught in, an interdisciplinary tide. The recommendations are thorough, touching on the participation of everyone from the PI and admin to the junior faculty and students. As they bring their book to a close, the authors balance honesty with a familiar rhetorical tone that makes this last full chapter, and the entire book, eminently readable.
--------
[Review length: 996 words • Review posted on November 14, 2017]