Jacob Moody (Maastricht University) on social capital in academia and challenges of interdisciplinary work 

I am undecided whether this blog is a guide for future visitors or a personal reflection of my time visiting SCI and Manchester in general. While I will strain away from giving concrete advice, perhaps one can learn from my experiences to then take into consideration for their own research visit. Realising that it will become too long if I also reflect on the city of Manchester – which I thoroughly enjoyed – I will not go into the details of the (sunny!) weather, the interesting phenomenon of ‘studentification’, or the overall atmosphere and aesthetic of the city. 

With this being said, I have narrowed down my reflections into two key themes. These reflections may not be news to those with whom I interacted; they arose in most conversations over coffee/tea, and, in fact, the conversations helped to formulate this blog. The two themes are my building of social and human capital, and a reflection on the challenges of interdisciplinary work in a university with disciplinary borders which I will now discuss.

Building social and human capital

My visit did not have a concrete plan, instead, I wanted to use the time to learn from and connect with SCI members. I hesitated to call this networking, but it was suggested by Mike Hodson, over coffee, that I am building social capital. A better way to frame it in my opinion. I had many coffees, teas and lunches with people such as (and in no particular order) Helen Holmes, Andy McMeekin, Torik Holmes, Dan Welch, Mike Hodson, James Jackson, Claire Hoolohan, Ruth Wood and my mentor during my visit Mat Patterson. It was great to get their reflections on ideas related to transitions, theories of practice, imaginaries, the UK energy system, object interviews, and using the mass observation archive, as well as the more ‘hidden’ side of academia including general life as an academic and the soft skills required for a career in the field. These conversations were valuable because they differed (somewhat obviously) to what you read in papers. Allowing me to propose ideas, think outside the box a little and get advice, or reassurance, on ways to progress. I left every one of these conversations enthused and motivated, so can only thank these people for being generous with their time.

In a more formal setting, I gave an SCI seminar. The relaxed environment felt similar to a coffee scenario in the sense that it provided a space to elaborate on my ongoing PhD research without feeling the time pressure of a conference presentation. I presented my approach of using Strategic Action Field Theory alongside Event Sequence Analysis to investigate the processes of change in the energy provision field in response to the energy crisis; offering thoughts of the potential to connect such processes to social practice change in the household. The presentation was followed by a discussion that was helpful in concretizing these ideas; I am still pondering on some of the comments which could prove fruitful in the future. 

Another memorable moment was my participation in SCI’s events such as the ongoing workshop series on turbulence and polycrisis related to the new research agenda. These workshops were timely considering my own research on the recent energy crisis. Discussions in these seminars centred on conceptualising turbulence and understanding how to situate the context of polycrisis in our research. I left thinking about questions such as does this focus require an ontological shift? Is this the result of more knowledge production associated with turbulence (what one could call epistemological acceleration)? Or is this just the phenomenological experience of researchers, feeling like the polycrisis is inescapable in day-to-day life? There is more to come from SCI on this topic, I believe, so stay tuned. 

Outside of SCI, another highlight was my participation in the Environmental Politics Paper Swap Group. As the name suggests, a group within the politics department oriented around environmental politics prepared drafts of papers which were shared beforehand. Feedback was given during the session by an assigned discussant for each paper, followed by a round of discussion among the group. Although I did not have a paper, and have little experience with environmental politics, this was a great format to have focused discussions; I would like to take this setup back to Maastricht and organise something similar. Paul Tobin has done a great job in creating an inclusive atmosphere where both early career researchers and more established staff benefit from the exchanges. It was a pleasant introduction into the world of environmental politics, experiencing the diverse range of topics within the field. Critical environmental politics, for example, is something that piqued my interest and will no doubt maintain an interest for me.

To wrap this theme up, and as the title of it suggests, shamelessly, this was not only a period of developing social capital but also a period of building Foucauldian human capital. Perhaps a simpler way to put it is that I learnt a lot during all interactions and am thankful for the opportunities.

The challenges of interdisciplinary work in a university with disciplinary boundaries

Coming to Manchester I was somewhat naïve to the importance of disciplines within academia. Being part of an interdisciplinary institute, I was not aware of the division between departments and the influence they have over activities (e.g., determining where to publish etc.). These borders appear to be administrative constructs instead of inherent disciplinary divides: in my view, social science tends to draw from the same history of ideas, albeit with a slightly different orientation. The divide, therefore, feels exaggerated when there are administrative and spatial divisions. A simple example being the separation of office spaces and PhD tracks. There is a caveat that an interdisciplinary institute like SCI has its offices together, but not for the PhDs who are situated in their departments. I don’t mean this as a criticism but more a reflection to life in a university styled like this. While there appears to be a trend away from the disciplinary focus, especially in the sustainability field, it is still a reality and makes me question how to proceed in academia. 

I also raise this considering some underlying points in the research agenda workshops – that is, the role of research in addressing societal problems. Coming from an institute that prioritises a transdisciplinary, problem solving, and action-oriented approach to research, there is a pre-defined role for academics in helping to address problems such as those associated with the polycrisis. This role becomes blurred in a more ‘traditional’, departmental context. A starting question could be: should research try to solve these challenges in the first place? And a whole rabbit hole opens up about science-society relationships. But, if we go with my view that these problems require an interdisciplinary approach, what influence do departmental boundaries (and the requirements of these departments) still have? And how do these boundaries influence the ability for academia to help solve societal challenges? 

I can’t help but tie this point to the tension between theory, or theorizing, and action. I noticed an extra level of depth of (theoretical) knowledge in Manchester which could be related to the departmental divide. I was left in awe at people’s understanding of theory and would describe the environment I was in as a social theoretical heaven – something that I feel myself craving at times in the Netherlands. Nonetheless, is such theoretical depth needed for contemporary challenges? And what should the balance be between theoretically driven and action-oriented research when addressing such challenges? Can you even do both at the same time? These questions might come across as trivial to some, or even easy to answer, but as I pose them instead of answers, my position is still unclear.

Wrapping up

I didn’t have space to acknowledge everything that happened during my three months in Manchester. But I would still like to mention moments such as the PGR conferences (for example presenting at the PGR sociology conference), connecting with other PhD students (who were great people!) and attending a two-day workshop on sustainability in education and research. Reading back on the themes, it appears the interesting conversations were beneficial to me above all else. Whether in an informal environment over a coffee or in a more formalised setting such as a seminar, workshop or paper swap group, I learned a lot from these rich discussions. Sticking to my word at the start, no advice will follow, but I hope this short reflection piece can be beneficial for future visitors nonetheless.

1 Referring to Foucault’s lecture College de France lecture on 14th March 1979 which I read during my visit. Foucault, M., Davidson, A. I., & Burchell, G. (2008). The birth of biopolitics: lectures at the Collège de France, 1978-1979. Springer. Pp. 215-233.

Image copyright:

Photo by Jacob Moody

Related