Lessons learned on the interdisciplinary corridor
Posted: November 15th, 2009 | Filed under: I'll Learn You |
Here are some things I’ve learned the hard way from the past seven years of mandated interdisciplinarity. (I illustrated these lessons in a presentation here on campus last week. In this form, they might read more as platitudes or koans.)
- Interdisciplinarity is not a worthy end in itself.
- Consider carefully the power dynamics of your hybrid space.
- Don’t invite just any funder to a critique.
- Unorthodox methods delimit access. (This can be a bad thing or a good thing.)
- Be careful whom you trust the accounting to.
- Multiple audiences require multiple legitimations.
- When you operate in shared spaces, expect miscommunication.
- For long-term projects, the audience who first encounters the work should be the one whose approval you count the highest.
- Be prepared for timescales that don’t match the institution’s.
- Different disciplines carry different expectations for acknowledgment of participation.
I wonder whether, in your experience or imagination, these axioms hold in interdisciplinary classrooms, degree programs, or historical events (say, 9 Evenings, perhaps).
I imagine so, Josh - these lessons came from work in and out of the classroom - lecture events, performances, ephemeral artworks, and also experimental courses. Maybe they are too broad to be of use. I presented them here in relation to specific failures I’ve run into, projects I started that didn’t go well.
Hey Kevin, I am struck by the obvious ways you have been burnt in this work, by the negative framing of this list. Rather than “Interdisciplinarity is not a worthy end in itself,” why not, “Respectful communication across differences (social, intellectual, physical…) offers us the chance to gain glimmers of understanding about others’ experiences” and that can create new crucial knowledge (that still may not be valued at the U) ? Of course, “respectful communication” is rather elusive.