Interview with Seth Bernard and Sarah Murray
Professors Bernard and Murray are frequent collaborators whose research tackles large-scale topics of economic change, social complexity, and cultural exchange. In 2024, they published a co-edited volume entitled Methods and Morality: Assessing Modern Approaches to the Greco-Roman Economy, and they are currently producing the co-edited Oxford Handbook of the Iron Age Mediterranean. We talk to them today about the promise and perils of academic collaboration.
I’d love to know how you first decided to collaborate together.
Sarah: [To Seth] You can correct me if my memory is defective, but my recollection is that it was quite organic. It was after Dan-el Padilla Peralta’s talk, in the fall of 2019. We were at dinner, and we were reflecting on our experience as students. At Stanford, some of the most influential scholars of the economy had trained us to think a certain way. Dan-el’s talk made us think about what the future of that field might look like. How some of the traditions and ways of thinking about the economy were perhaps due for a rethink. We thought we should do a conference on this topic. And that’s how it all started.
Seth: That’s where the Models and Morality project came from. That’s a narrow response; there’s also a broader response, which is that both of us have more experience working in collaborative settings. We also have overlapping interests. At the time, I was working on the Iron Age and Sarah was coming from the Bronze Age. I’ve always enjoyed reading Sarah’s work. The background of collaboration, and a Venn diagram of interests, suggested that that could be a productive [avenue].
What do you think makes a good collaboration?
Sarah: To follow up on what Seth said, we say lots of things in conversation with colleagues, at conferences, lots of ideas are bandied about and then come to nothing. One of the reasons that I really like collaborating with Seth and that this didn’t dissipate into the ether was that I think we’re both very proactive and like to get things done. Great collaborations are some of the most enriching and satisfying parts of an academic career. But bad collaborations can be equally extremely unpleasant. So, I always recognized in Seth that, not only did we have shared interests, but also that it wouldn’t be the case that I’d end up doing 90% of the work, and Seth 10%, or vice versa. That’s really important: to trust your collaborator.
Seth: In both our cases, working with archaeological projects has fostered an idea of what teamwork looks like. I think at this point I have co-authored with or edited maybe fifty people’s work and you’re [referring to Sarah] probably somewhere around there, too. Of that group, I would like to go forward with maybe five of them, because you really do recognize who is responsible, not just who’s a good scholar. One thing I really enjoyed about working with Sarah is not just the shared intellectual goals but the fact that she’s very dependable. If something can’t get done this week, she’ll be very upfront about that, but you know it’ll get done in the future. It’s not this sort of “Oh, I can’t wait do this,” and then two years later you’re like: “Ok, can we do this still?” One thing that’s most telling about a collaboration is a second collaboration. You’ll enter into projects with people all the time, and we’ve both done that. But to do it again requires a certain level of success that’s fairly rare.
How does that next step happen? How does a collaboration go from being a more nebulous idea to something more solid?
Sarah: Well, it has to be a good idea, for one thing. It has to be the sort of thing where the next day, you’re still excited about it, where you think “yes, this a good use of my time.” As one grows more experienced, you realize that once you commit to something like this, it’s a serious commitment. Even though you think it’ll be something quick, like a conference, it’s actually a huge amount of time. The biggest test is do you on second, third, fourth reflection, still want to move ahead with it? With the Models and Morality volume, we really thought it was the right time to be asking that kind of question. I felt excited about it, Seth felt excited about it, so we wrote up this one-page abstract, and that becomes a manifesto in a way, and then everything can build from that.
Seth: You need enough knowledge. You don’t need to know everything that the project will eventually include, but you need a sense of the scope of whatever that problem is. You need to know whom you would ask [to contribute]. I think every collaboration is like that. I don’t know your field, but I know you’re working in your field such that you can input helpful material to this [project]. More nuts and bolts: you need to do all the drafting of emails, and inviting, and fundraising.
Seth: You asked if we’re still collaborating?
Yes!
Seth: We are, hopefully, going to finish an Oxford Handbook of the Iron Age Mediterranean, within the next, God knows when. We’re also supposed to be doing the next, what are they called…?
Sarah: Debates [in Archaeology Symposium]!
Seth: On time and temporality. The greatest proof of collaboration is repetition.
Sarah: We haven’t yet decided that we need to run far in the opposite direction. I feel really lucky, in a Classics department, to have landed somewhere where there’s another archaeologist who’s interested in broader questions of archaeological science, archaeological theory and method. Being in physical proximity makes the collaboration much easier. We can touch base with each other about projects. It’s not every Classics department where you find good collaborators like that from an archaeological point of view. So, it’s cool just to have the opportunity to build this more long-term relationship.
Seth: To stress, it’s not that we always agree. I think some of the best stuff has come out of Sarah saying “No, this is wrong,” or “No, I see it a different way.” [It’s useful to have] someone you can bounce ideas off of, where you are comfortable with them saying “That’s dumb, give me another idea.” Sometimes, you send an email, and you don’t get a reply for two weeks, and you think, “Oh they thought that was dumb, that’s why I haven’t gotten a reply” [but I don’t feel that way with Sarah]. So having someone in the department [like Sarah] has been great.