Taking Responsible Risks

Robert fulford’s october 2007 piece in the National Post re-ignited old debates about what kind of scholarly investigation is creditable and worthy of public funding. I am a researcher educated in a critical studies-based communication program, but employed by a professional studies department and experienced in applied communications. With this background and current engagement in multidisciplinary reading research, I am no stranger to these types of debates. Unfortunately, much of the difficulty that I face in communicating the “worthiness” of my investigations comes not from the likes of Fulford, nor from the general public, but, rather, from colleagues within my own program, university, and sshrc -defined “disciplines.” My story of trying to get funding from sshrc will illustrate how hard it is to have sshrc acknowledge interdisciplinary thinking and research.

As anyone who self-identifies as “not fitting” within their discipline knows, research discrimination can be detrimental, not only to one’s sense of place within the academy but also to one’s career. In this essay, I will briefly outline my own experiences in the grant process in order to encourage readers to commit to appreciating the value of research outside of their own areas and in the hope of persuading sshrc itself to rethink its evaluation process for the long term. This kind of commitment calls for a suspension of what I, crudely, call disciplinary fence-pissing.

Much like dogs mark their territory by, well, peeing on fences, scholars are often trained to protect their own disciplines by finding fault in other areas while holding up their own as sacrosanct. I believe that this short-sightedness results in Fulfordesque ignorance which can be detrimental to Canadian social science and humanities research, to our students’ learning, and, ultimately, to our ability to publicly and privately support the likes of Jes Battis, who works in an interdisciplinary field which some in the academy wish to belittle just as much as Fulford does. As my story will show, I’m not going to make an argument for the obliteration of disciplinary boundaries, but rather I’m calling for an openness to the permeability of those borders by readers of this journal, particularly when they are part of the sshrc evaluation process. The result could be enhanced collaboration possibilities, facilitated assessment processes, and research results that could inform both scholarly and public knowledge-making.

Here is my story. After a short career in professional communication, and a subsequent one in university administration, I began my phd studies at Simon Fraser University’s School of Communication. Solidly ensconced as the program is in critical cultural studies, my American graduate-level education and professional role as a co-operative education co-ordinator for the School was a mark against me. Through the grapevine, I was told that my application lacked critical thought and that it was too “corporate-based.” Like many students, I am certain, I was fortunate to find a supportive feminist supervisor who does not privilege one kind of knowledge over another and several like-minded mentors. One was cultural theorist Anthony Wilden. One day, early in my sfu years and much to my horror, Wilden yelled out down the hall, “Sedo, I know just by looking at you that you’re American: you take risks and get things done.”

It was embarrassing, but really, Wilden was right. I do get things done, and I do it by thinking big and taking risks. It took me nearly eight years to finish my phd program while working full-time and teaching on the side. Both my experience and education inform my current research agenda, but I found this difficult to communicate in early promotion and grant applications. Because I was a relatively “new” scholar, I lacked the scholarly experience and language needed to justify research plans. This became painfully evident when I received the results of my first sshrc application.

Along with my current research partner, Danielle Fuller of the American and Canadian Studies program at the University of Birmingham, I decided in 2003 to apply for a sshrc grant. Our three-year project to investigate...