Mission
About
Archive
Submit
Newsletter
PAST ISSUES:
16. Transformative Fashion Pedagogies
15. Southeast Asia
14. Barbie
13. Fashion & Politics
12. Border Garments
11. Digital Engagement
10. Partnership
9. Fall 2021
8. Mental Health
7. Motherhood
6. Fall 2020
5. The Industry
4. Summer 2017
3. Spring 2017
2. Winter 2016
1. Fall 2016
Dr Julie Gork is a Lecturer in the School of Fashion and Textiles at RMIT University. She holds a PhD (Fashion & Textiles) from RMIT University and an MA (Fashion Studies) from Parsons School of Design. Her research interests include fashion theory, sensory knowledge, and fashion diversity, including disability.
Alla Eizenberg is a Part-Time Assistant Professor in the School of Fashion, Parsons School of Design, New York and a PhD candidate in the Department of Design, Aalto University, Espoo. Her research focuses on the everyday aesthetics and the use of dirt in luxury fashion commodities.
The 15th anniversary of Parsons’ Fashion Studies graduate program (MAFS) marks a significant moment in the institutionalization of fashion as an academic field. It is an opportunity to honor the vision and dedication of the founding scholars who established fashion as a legitimate field of study and to share some of the current concerns that continue to haunt and shape the field. The early writing on fashion was grounded in a variety of traditional academic disciplines that provided clear theoretical frameworks and methodologies, including sociology, anthropology, philosophy, art history, material culture, and cultural studies, among others. However, as fashion studies emerges as a field in its own right, the hybridity of research methods that was invaluable for the development of the innovative and critical approaches necessary to legitimize fashion as a subject of study also poses challenges to the academic rigor of the field.
At this moment, fashion studies faces existential questions: Does its strength in multi-methodological approaches undermine academic legitimacy? And does its ability to draw from many disciplines and fields raise fundamental questions about disciplinary identity? As graduates of the MAFS program who have pursued doctoral studies, we consider this anniversary a fitting moment to examine some of these questions and to join other scholars reflecting on the state of the field. [1] But unlike scholars who entered fashion studies from traditional academic disciplines, we write from the standpoint of the first generation of scholars trained specifically in fashion studies, equipped with its interdisciplinary toolkit but lacking the methodological depth of traditional disciplines. This article draws from our experiences to consider how the varied research practices of fashion studies contribute to its interdisciplinary identity and, by extension, to our own identities as fashion studies scholars.
We started our careers in the fashion industry, albeit on different continents, before discovering the growing field of fashion studies. Alla Eizenberg spent fifteen years as a practicing fashion designer, working in Italy, Israel, and France. In 2006 she founded Maison Rouge Homme, an upscale menswear brand, which she led as a creative director for seven years. During this time she was invited to teach fashion design, which sparked her interest in the academic study of fashion. Julie Gork worked for seven years as a fashion trend forecaster, gaining insight into the cultural phenomena of fashion. While she valued the creative and research aspects of the role, she also felt complicit in the consumption-driven imperatives of the industry. These industry backgrounds, which instigated our desire to critically examine the creative, social, cultural, and economic facets of fashion, illustrate just one of the ways in which people may arrive at the field.
We met as members of the sixth cohort of MAFS at Parsons in 2015, marking our entry into fashion studies, and to academia in a more general sense. The foundation we acquired under our distinguished faculty, including Hazel Clark, Heike Jenss, Francesca Granata, and Christina Moon, among others, provided comprehensive knowledge of fashion studies' theoretical landscape, making us confident in pursuing an academic path. However, our subsequent doctoral studies revealed a critical gap: while we possessed a solid understanding of fashion theory, we lacked the methodological depth that scholars from established disciplines often bring to their fashion research.
These methodological challenges became concrete during the development of our PhD methodologies, attempting to apply research methods without the disciplinary training traditionally associated with those approaches. Julie's qualitative research on the sensory experience of fashion and blindness raised questions about ethnographic competency. She wondered how to apply anthropological methods, like sensory ethnography, without formal anthropological training. As a result, she qualified the methodology as an ethnographic approach to qualitative research to acknowledge disciplinary traditions and definitions. Similarly, Alla encountered challenges when conducting research on designers’ incentives for referencing dirt in high-end fashion commodities. Lacking clear guidelines on qualitative interviews, and insufficient expertise with data analysis, she felt unprepared for the methodological rigor exercised by her peers educated in sociology. These encounters underline a broader challenge facing fashion studies programs, ultimately raising a question: how to prepare scholars who can engage critically with fashion while meeting the methodological standards expected in broader academic contexts.
At this moment, fashion studies faces existential questions: Does its strength in multi-methodological approaches undermine academic legitimacy? And does its ability to draw from many disciplines and fields raise fundamental questions about disciplinary identity? As graduates of the MAFS program who have pursued doctoral studies, we consider this anniversary a fitting moment to examine some of these questions and to join other scholars reflecting on the state of the field. [1] But unlike scholars who entered fashion studies from traditional academic disciplines, we write from the standpoint of the first generation of scholars trained specifically in fashion studies, equipped with its interdisciplinary toolkit but lacking the methodological depth of traditional disciplines. This article draws from our experiences to consider how the varied research practices of fashion studies contribute to its interdisciplinary identity and, by extension, to our own identities as fashion studies scholars.
Discovering Fashion Studies
We started our careers in the fashion industry, albeit on different continents, before discovering the growing field of fashion studies. Alla Eizenberg spent fifteen years as a practicing fashion designer, working in Italy, Israel, and France. In 2006 she founded Maison Rouge Homme, an upscale menswear brand, which she led as a creative director for seven years. During this time she was invited to teach fashion design, which sparked her interest in the academic study of fashion. Julie Gork worked for seven years as a fashion trend forecaster, gaining insight into the cultural phenomena of fashion. While she valued the creative and research aspects of the role, she also felt complicit in the consumption-driven imperatives of the industry. These industry backgrounds, which instigated our desire to critically examine the creative, social, cultural, and economic facets of fashion, illustrate just one of the ways in which people may arrive at the field.
We met as members of the sixth cohort of MAFS at Parsons in 2015, marking our entry into fashion studies, and to academia in a more general sense. The foundation we acquired under our distinguished faculty, including Hazel Clark, Heike Jenss, Francesca Granata, and Christina Moon, among others, provided comprehensive knowledge of fashion studies' theoretical landscape, making us confident in pursuing an academic path. However, our subsequent doctoral studies revealed a critical gap: while we possessed a solid understanding of fashion theory, we lacked the methodological depth that scholars from established disciplines often bring to their fashion research.
These methodological challenges became concrete during the development of our PhD methodologies, attempting to apply research methods without the disciplinary training traditionally associated with those approaches. Julie's qualitative research on the sensory experience of fashion and blindness raised questions about ethnographic competency. She wondered how to apply anthropological methods, like sensory ethnography, without formal anthropological training. As a result, she qualified the methodology as an ethnographic approach to qualitative research to acknowledge disciplinary traditions and definitions. Similarly, Alla encountered challenges when conducting research on designers’ incentives for referencing dirt in high-end fashion commodities. Lacking clear guidelines on qualitative interviews, and insufficient expertise with data analysis, she felt unprepared for the methodological rigor exercised by her peers educated in sociology. These encounters underline a broader challenge facing fashion studies programs, ultimately raising a question: how to prepare scholars who can engage critically with fashion while meeting the methodological standards expected in broader academic contexts.
Illustration by Fangchi LiuMethodology Matters
According to Steiner Kvale, the original Greek meaning of the word method is “a route that leads to the goal.” [2] This definition highlights the importance of mastering a method as a foundational skill for achieving a goal, which in our case is rigorous and sound scholarly work. In many academic contexts—such as group discussions, conference applications, and peer-reviewed publications—the chosen research method signals scholarly identity. Within fashion studies, methodological diversity enables innovation in research design. Yet, as Marco Pedroni warns, "despite its strengths, interdisciplinarity poses challenges for fashion studies" due to potential fragmentation resulting from diverse theoretical and methodological demands. [3] So while interdisciplinary training enables innovative approaches to address the complexity of fashion research, it also invites scrutiny regarding methodological competency and scholarly authority, challenges familiar to other emerging interdisciplinary fields.
Heike Jenss’ edited collection remains one of the most robust contributions to fashion research methods, featuring a wide range of theoretically sound and original studies. [4] However, a close examination reveals that contributors often draw upon disciplinary training in traditional fields, which lends credibility and depth to their analyses. This positioning reflects the value of interdisciplinary contributions made by scholars entering the field from elsewhere. For these scholars, it is a positionality that may create a feeling of being both "in" and "out" of fashion studies, as described by Ben Barry and Alison Matthews David. [5] Their experience of crossing academic boundaries contrasts sharply with our position as scholars who began our academic careers firmly "in" fashion studies. Where Barry and Matthews David describe the "privilege inherent in traversing academic boundaries," we encountered the challenge of defending our disciplinary legitimacy from within an interdisciplinary field that lacks clear methodological criteria.
Our own doctoral experiences revealed that identifying as "fashion studies scholars" carried less academic weight than identification with established disciplines, highlighting the field's ongoing struggle for institutional recognition. What makes matters worse is a certain popularity of fashion as a research subject. In our respective PhD paths, we encountered peers from cultural studies, art history, design, and textile science who, while working on fashion-related topics, possessed training in established research traditions rooted in their home disciplines. More significantly, we met scholars from philosophy, sociology, and history who were producing fashion research while remaining largely unaware of fashion studies' theoretical contributions. This pattern suggests that fashion as a research subject is being claimed by multiple disciplines without necessarily acknowledging fashion studies as a legitimate field of expertise. This distinction is crucial. Scholars who arrive at fashion studies with established disciplinary training bring investigative credibility, while those trained specifically in fashion studies must justify their scholarly competence. So, we wonder if the legacy of fashion as a denigrated subject persists. Does a lack of cohesive research practices reinforce perceptions of fashion studies as a young academic field or a "frivolous academic child"?
From the Periphery
Our experiences highlight both the possibilities and difficulties facing fashion studies as it continues to evolve as an academic field. We are confident that the answer lies neither in abandoning interdisciplinarity nor in the enforcement of a singular "fashion studies approach." For new fashion scholars, the density of interdisciplinary entanglements and possibilities of methods can be overwhelming, so we advocate for a stronger emphasis on methodological literacy within curricula. [6] This includes exposure to diverse research techniques and critical engagement with their appropriate application. Students should learn to assess their own methodological competencies and to recognize when collaboration is essential for constructing a rigorous and coherent research design. Collaborative frameworks can help address the challenges of interdisciplinary inquiry by pooling expertise across different research practices. Instead of placing the burden on individual scholars to master multiple methods independently, such frameworks promote shared methodological competence tailored to the complexities of fashion research.
Nearly a decade ago, Christopher Breward (2016) observed that the field of fashion studies thrived at the periphery with diverse approaches and methodologies to fuel its academic recognition. The questions we raise here reflect the growing pains of an academic field coming into its own. As fashion studies continues to mature, we must balance the vitality of its interdisciplinary foundations with the need for methodological clarity that commands academic respect. The future of the field lies in developing sophisticated, collaborative approaches that uphold both our intellectual heritage and our commitment to scholarly excellence.
Notes: What Makes a Fashion Scholar?
[1] Marco Pedroni, "The Evolution of a Discipline: A Transformative Chapter in Fashion Studies," International Journal of Fashion Studies 12, no. 1 (2025): 3-16; Ben Barry and Alison Matthews David, "A Fashion Studies Manifesto: Toward an (Inter)disciplinary Field," Fashion Studies, special issue "State of the Field," 2, no. 1 (2023): 1-23; Christopher Breward, "Foreword," in Fashion Studies: Research Methods, Sites and Practices, ed. Heike Jenss (London and New York: Bloomsbury, 2016), xvii–xx; Heike Jenss, "Introduction. Locating Fashion Studies: Research Methods, Sites and Practices," in Fashion Studies: Research Methods, Sites and Practices, ed. Heike Jenss (London; New York: Bloomsbury, 2016), 1-18; Francesca Granata, "Fashion Studies In-Between: A Methodological Case Study and an Inquiry into the State of Fashion Studies," Fashion Theory 16, no. 1 (2012): 67-82.
[2] Carol Warren, "Qualitative interviewing," in Qualitative interviewing, eds. J. F. Gubrium and J. A. Holstein (SAGE Publications, 2001), 83-102.
[3] Pedroni, “The Evolution of a Discipline”, 9.
[4] Heike Jenss, ed, Fashion Studies: Research Methods, Sites and Practices, (London; New York: Bloomsbury, 2016).
[5] Barry and Matthews David, "A Fashion Studies Manifesto”.
[6] Jenss, "Introduction. Locating Fashion Studies”, 11.
Issue 15 ︎︎︎
Fashion & Southeast Asia
Issue 14 ︎︎︎
Barbie
Issue 13 ︎︎︎ Fashion & Politics
Issue 13 ︎︎︎ Fashion & Politics