Moreover, the breadth of our interests may not match the depth of our knowledge in these early stages. Collaborative research prevents such academic entrenchment, but when done poorly runs the risk of exacerbating the problem. Working with someone within the same field but with a different disciplinary

background, we may have a collective terminology but disparate criteria for defining it. If this remains unchecked throughout the collaborative process, it can lead to splintered, fragmented research. We need to be mindful of such potential misunderstandings throughout the process of collaborative work if we are to overcome it.

Furthermore, such a multidisciplinary approach leads us to question whether we can really build an established canon for fashion studies.  How can we build one that pulls from each discipline and doesn’t become piecemeal, fragmented, hopelessly scattered or reductive? If we try to rein it in, do we limit ourselves and exclude other approaches? How open should our borders be?            Collaborative work, when performed astutely, may solve the problem by proving those pieces that connect the various questions we ask. This is to say, those pieces which help establish the links between disciplines and which frame our topic from a variety of perspectives complement those pieces rooted within a given discipline and, when taken all together, provide for a more comprehensive and well-rounded canon which is both in-depth and far-reaching.

Conclusion

In the end, fashion studies as a discipline may do well to embrace its collaborative and interdisciplinary strengths—as well as its shortcomings—in establishing its canon. As the inaugural class, we have been shouldered with the task of reconciling many of these issues. Yet as we continue to grapple with a way to present our scholarly identities to those outside of our isolated community, we struggle even to establish a common ground amongst ourselves. In the end, we are left asking simply, where do we go from here? For if we are unable to create mutual understanding between ourselves, how can we transmit our body of research to our undoubtedly diverse readership?

Collaboration, in the end, may prove to be the best avenue for achieving such goals. Working together allows us to see one another’s blind spots and reflect the diversity of our discipline more accurately. However, in establishing our field, we need to be cognizant of the fact that other disciplines have faced similar problems.

Looking to the similarly interdisciplinary field of film studies, we can learn much about the evolution and establishment of a field. Borrowing from popular culture, history and an original body of theory, film studies began to materialize as a discipline in the early twentieth century through a system of calculated collaborative scholarship. Today, over 150 schools nationwide offer majors and graduate degrees in film studies—a future we can to aspire to for our own field. Now firmly canonized under the auspices of academia, the interdisciplinary and collaborative nature of Film Studies is viewed as its strength, not its weakness.

At what point do we stop pandering to others’ questions regarding our academic identity and confidently pursue what it is we’ve set out to do? Perhaps best articulated by one of our professors, Todd Nicewonger, it is our job as scholars of fashion studies to continually ask, “What does fashion make possible?” and to pursue answers through collaborative research. Ultimately we must remember that we are not alone in our pursuit.  Being the first of something is an uneasy station, but having the go-ahead to collaborate in good company makes it even more manageable.

-Lauren Downing and Anya Kurennaya

This article originally appeared in Canon, the only interdisciplinary student-run journal from The New School for Social Research.  Canon provides an open forum for students to explore perspectives from within and beyond academia.  Please follow this link for more information: http://canononline.org/.