Interdisciplinary Research or Professional Risk? A Personal Reflection from the Margins of Education and Business

Written by Dr. Fariha Gul

Academician, Writer, Researcher

Over a decade ago, I made what I believed was an intellectually courageous and forward-looking decision: I chose to pursue research in entrepreneurship education despite being enrolled in a doctoral program in educational leadership and management. At the time, I was driven by a simple but powerful question—how can education prepare individuals not just for employment, but for enterprise? What I did not anticipate was how deeply disciplinary silos and credential gatekeeping would shape my professional journey.

Despite years of professional development, certifications, and experience, I remain caught in the interdisciplinary gap: my research is too entrepreneurial for education departments, and too pedagogical for business schools. I have faced rejections for teaching entrepreneurship courses because I lack a business degree, despite years of publishing and training in the area. I have been told during promotions, student supervisions, and even job renewals that my work is “not educational enough”. Ironically, I have also been advised to “go work in a business school,” while business schools deny my application for not having a “business background.”

The Double Bind of Interdisciplinary Work

This dilemma raises two fundamental questions that require honest reflection by institutions, departments, and policymakers:

1. Is Interdisciplinary Research a Luxury or a Liability?

Across conferences, policy papers, and strategic plans, interdisciplinary research is celebrated as the future of knowledge. Yet, in practice, those who cross disciplinary lines often pay a steep professional price. The academic system remains wedded to disciplinary purism, and those without a degree from the “right” department are denied legitimacy—regardless of the relevance, quality, or impact of their work.

In my case, entrepreneurship education—a field widely recognized globally as transdisciplinary—became a site of exclusion and threat. I wasn’t just questioned; I was told my research area could cost me my job. This is not merely a personal story; it is a systemic issue faced by many scholars whose work doesn’t neatly fit within traditional departmental borders.

2. What Is the Value of Professional Development if Institutions Don’t Recognize It?

In response to rejection, I invested in courses, certifications, and trainings from leading platforms and institutions to build competence in entrepreneurship, business modeling, and innovation. But these efforts were often dismissed with a shrug—“You don’t have a business degree.” The disconnect between learning and credentialing is stark. If institutions do not recognize continuing education as legitimate proof of competence, then what exactly is the value of lifelong learning that we so fervently advocate?

The Irony of Interdisciplinary Degrees Without Interdisciplinary Inclusion

Recently, I attended the launch of a new interdisciplinary degree in education, spearheaded not by an education department, but by a management department. While the initiative appears innovative on the surface, it left me with a troubling question: How can a department that refuses to accept scholars from the field of education now claim authority over designing degrees in that very field? And what will be the professional fate of graduates from these programs—will they, too, be seen as outsiders by both camps?

We are at a crossroads where disciplinary protectionism is undermining academic evolution. True interdisciplinary work is more than curriculum design—it requires institutional openness, recognition of diverse knowledge paths, and support for scholars who dare to challenge traditional boundaries.

A Call for Structural Reform

If academia truly wants to foster interdisciplinary research and innovation, then three critical steps must be taken:

Credential Flexibility: Recognize and credit professional development, certifications, and demonstrable expertise—even when it falls outside traditional degrees.

Institutional Inclusion: Ensure hiring, promotion, and course allocations do not punish interdisciplinary scholars for their boundary-crossing work.

Transparent Degree Ownership: Interdisciplinary degrees must be developed collaboratively, not monopolized by departments unwilling to reciprocate recognition.

Until these steps are taken, interdisciplinarity will remain a rhetorical ideal and a practical hazard, trapping scholars in academic no man’s lands where their contributions are doubted, and their careers threatened.