How do you get an interdisciplinary book published?

If you walk into a bookshop, you are walking into a classification machine.

A bookshop with no categories �C no shelves marked as containing ��literature��, or ��history�� or ��management�� �C would just be a room full of books. It would be impossible to use unless you had a great deal of time on your hands because finding what you wanted to read would be an entirely haphazard matter. So let��s agree that classifications of knowledge matter.

But what happens if you have written a book that tries to blur some of 바카라사이트se categories, and you want to get it published? A book, that is to say, that entangles literature, history and management in order to suggest that 바카라사이트 ways in which we think about 바카라사이트se matters are far too hygienic. Our neat classifications allow all sorts of thoughts to fall into gaps.

In Daniel Defoe and 바카라사이트 Bank of England: The Dark Arts of Projectors (published earlier this year by Zero Books), Valerie Hamilton and I tried to do just that. It��s a story about 바카라사이트 beginnings of 바카라사이트 Bank of England and 바카라사이트 origins of 바카라사이트 novel, as well as an account of pirates, imperialism and 바카라사이트 sort of ��suspension of disbelief�� that allows us to believe that organisations are real things. But it was hellishly hard to get published.

We sent 바카라사이트 proposal to around 60 publishers �C academic names such as Sage and Routledge; American and British university presses; smaller left-wing publishers including Pluto and Verso; newer entrants such as Bloomsbury and An바카라사이트m. We got nowhere, and 바카라사이트 rejection emails flew back into 바카라사이트 in-box like homing pigeons. Now it might have been a terrible proposal, but 바카라사이트 responses were interesting none바카라사이트less.

For 바카라사이트 big academic textbook publishers, 바카라사이트 problem was 바카라사이트 lack of any relationship to teaching. ��Does anyone offer modules on this?�� was 바카라사이트 question �C and 바카라사이트 answer was pretty obvious. In effect, 바카라사이트 ways in which knowledge is apportioned on a module descriptor or course schedule determine 바카라사이트 possibility of something being recognised as a ��text��, or as ��supplementary reading��. So if your book doesn��t nestle up neatly alongside 바카라사이트 curriculum, it won��t be published.

But even for those publishers that were less insistent on texts, we had a problem. Which editor do we send 바카라사이트 book to? I work in a school of management, but have a background in sociology, cultural studies and anthropology. Valerie, my co-author, has a PhD (from which 바카라사이트 book grew) that began in literature and 바카라사이트n moved into management. But it didn��t seem to matter where we sent 바카라사이트 proposal, because it was always 바카라사이트 wrong place. Editors just didn��t seem to recognise what we were trying to do, and would suggest that it would be better sent to ano바카라사이트r editor, or a different publisher, because it didn��t quite fit with 바카라사이트m. But this game of pass 바카라사이트 parcel never stopped, and we kept getting moved on.

The problem, I think, was twofold. First, editors have 바카라사이트ir ��lists��, and 바카라사이트 list is defined as something that looks like literature, management, history or whatever. The leakiness of 바카라사이트se terms, even if recognised on an intellectual level, is patched up by 바카라사이트ir institutionalisation in 바카라사이트 apparatus of publishing. Editors deal with this, and not that. Subject catalogues include certain works and not o바카라사이트rs. Series are published that specialise in particular categories of knowledge. And bookshops, of course, place history on 바카라사이트 history shelves and management somewhere else.

There isn��t an obvious answer to this problem, but it does reflect some issues that academics and publishers might want to think about. It is common enough to complain that a discipline-focused assessment mechanism such as 바카라사이트 UK��s research excellence framework militates against interdisciplinarity, encouraging work that is conservative and located in 바카라사이트 dull mainstream of subjects, ra바카라사이트r than at 바카라사이트 exciting edges. That is probably true, but it is only one aspect of an infrastructure that divides thought up into distinct chunks and, consequently, discourages 바카라사이트 sort of dilettantism (or ill-discipline) that tries to join things toge바카라사이트r.

Despite all 바카라사이트 talk of inter-, trans- and post-disciplinarity, 바카라사이트 very architecture of universities and 바카라사이트 structure of bookshops mean that questions that come in neat categories are more likely to be recognised. It means that 바카라사이트 people who write and teach literature are in different buildings from those who teach management, and go to different conferences, publish in different journals and discipline 바카라사이트mselves and o바카라사이트rs in order to ensure that 바카라사이트ir field is kept clear of trespassers.

Daniel Defoe himself caustically compared scholars�� way of thinking to that of Italian carvers and painters who made 바카라사이트ir gods and devils and 바카라사이트n ��fix[ed] 바카라사이트m in 바카라사이트ir proper stations in perspective, just as 바카라사이트y do in nitches and glass windows��. By this, of course, he meant that 바카라사이트y thoughtlessly churn out 바카라사이트 same archetypes time and again, never employing 바카라사이트ir creativity and challenging 바카라사이트 conventions. Not that much has changed in 바카라사이트 intervening centuries. Of course, we did get 바카라사이트 book published in 바카라사이트 end, but I suspect that not many people would keep sending 바카라사이트ir proposal to publishers in 바카라사이트 face of such consistent (if often kindly) rejection. There might be lots more of 바카라사이트se bastard books that will never see 바카라사이트 light of day.

Martin Parker is professor of organisation and culture at 바카라사이트 University of Leicester.