Hi all,
When I attended graduate school at the University of Iowa in the 1980s, I
felt limited by traditional disciplinary boundaries, so, through the
Graduate College's Ad Hoc Interdisciplinary PhD provision, I designed a
doctoral program that allowed me to work with faculty in comparative
literature, English, film, performance, multimedia, and video art. After
discovering hypertext and hypermedia writing in the late 1980s, I also
incorporated these emergent genres into my studies. Encouraged to combine
theory and practice, I had the freedom to explore new intellectual and
creative territory, an experience that was exciting and personally
rewarding. Working outside established departments and disciplines had
drawbacks, though, especially in relation to employment (academic and
nonacademic), publishing, and grants. The situation may have changed since I
graduated in 1993, but it seems to me that the academic establishment still
reinforces disciplinary boundaries, which scholars who seek tenure are
expected to respect. Although these constraints may not be an issue for
tenured professors, they do influence how many scholars approach
"interdisciplinary" studies. I think these issues need to be addressed when
formulating models of scholarship. Regarding my own approaches to
interdisciplinary study and practice, which now focus primarily on
autobiography and new media, I draw on all the resources I've explored as a
scholar, a creative writer, an educator, and an archivist. I've continued to
work independently, a choice involving many challenges and rewards.
Best,
Elayne
[log in to unmask]
|