In‑between on Purpose: Building a PGR Identity Across Disciplines

Daniele‑Hadi Irandoost (PGR), interdisciplinary researcher and author of four books, works at the intersection of intelligence studies, sociology, and democratic accountability.

Several open books stacked together.

My doctoral research examines how civil society actors scrutinise intelligence-driven digital surveillance under the UK’s Investigatory Powers framework. By drawing on comparative lessons from Southern Africa, I explore the gap between formal accountability and civic oversight, asking how surveillance powers come under public scrutiny.

Why I Work Across Fields

My path hasn’t been a straight line through academic disciplines. I didn’t expect to move across so many fields—international politics, intelligence and strategic studies, the philosophy of education, radical geography, sociology, surveillance and parliamentary studies, social movements, and postcolonial thought. Somewhere along the way, I realised I didn’t fit just one box—and that the specialist ivory towers of the last century are giving way to the borderless interdisciplinarity of this one.

When Interdisciplinarity Becomes Necessary

My questions kept pulling me wider with every reading. One field quickly proved too small to answer my research inquiries. The topic simply crossed boundaries, and after reading sociologists, legal scholars, media and communications researchers concerned with public oversight of surveillance in Southern Africa, I found myself immersed in sources beyond my initial specialism in intelligence studies. It reflected the complexity of the topic.

What Interdisciplinarity Gives Me

Links appear where I don’t expect them, such as the geographical origins of digital divides. Switching perspectives opens things up—for example, by researching successful case studies in former colonies (South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Botswana) to decolonising state surveillance. This shift made my thinking more flexible, particularly since my undergraduate assumptions were ingrained in Anglo-American approaches to spying and accountability. It also facilitated my conceptual creativity and methodological clarity, preparing me to communicate with diverse communities: policymakers, lawyers, journalists, and public audiences.

What’s Hard About Being In‑Between

Being between fields can feel unsteady, because the workload required to grasp the essence of each subject area is often high. Expectations clash across disciplines, creating barriers between differing disciplinary cultures and leading to contextual answers being overlooked. I’ve learned to stand confidently, even without a single disciplinary home, by remaining fluent in multiple conceptual frameworks and methods—despite the difficulty of finding conferences that align with my cross-boundary identity.

Anchors and a Clearer Voice

I needed something to anchor the work, particularly through intelligence oversight and democratic accountability. Slowly, the pieces started to fit as I wrote more articles (in E-International Relations), and books (published by Manticore Press), integrating multiple lenses rather than narrowing my scope. Choosing a clearer voice helped me show how these choices emerged imaginatively.

Communicating for Different Audiences

Explaining my work shifts with the audience, something I realised after founding and organising public-facing TEDxLambeth conferences since 2019. Public engagement pushed me to simplify academic findings and bring interdisciplinary work into wider conversation. Different readers need different approaches—a lesson that emerged through University of Glasgow’s Presenting and Communicating Research and my editorial work with E-International Relations, which sharpened my understanding of audiences.

Finding or Building Community

I’ve had to build my own community rather than rely on inherited disciplinary ones. The best support came from unexpected places, like PGR Development’s peer networks, as well as societies such as the Royal Anthropological Institute, the Royal Geographical Society, the Society for Education and Training, and the Royal Asiatic Society, which elected me a Fellow.

Navigating Expectations

I quickly discerned that the academy assumes linear paths for researchers who specialise in one subject area. Training options rarely fit interdisciplinary needs, so I deepened my learning independently. I followed the examples of thinkers who cross boundaries. In time, I became better at advocating for my project by triangulating thesis expectations with my own route map.

Becoming Comfortable With the In‑Between

Uncertainty eventually became a strength. The liminality of respecting conflicting perspectives heightened my reflexivity and deepened my originality. I stopped trying to “fit” and leaned into the in‑between, recognising interdisciplinarity as a career asset in higher education, civil society, policy, and beyond.

Takeaway

Looking back, this journey has shaped everything about my vantage point as an interdisciplinary PGR at the University of Glasgow.  What once felt uncertain now feels strong, since future research on policy-ethical issues like surveillance will demand hybrid thinkers who can creatively synthesise worldviews. This path showed me the value of being in‑between—not as something to survive, but as a distinctive and impactful scholarly voice.

I’d love to hear how others navigate interdisciplinary paths—feel free to leave a comment below.