Fields have traditionally been understood as collective outcomes that no single actor could declare. This approach suggests that a field can be prototyped, provided it achieves sufficient internal coherence, density, and operability. If that threshold is met, pioneering is no longer a matter of waiting for history to confirm a discipline, but of constructing the conditions under which a new one becomes unavoidable.

The novelty does not lie in proposing another interdisciplinary domain, but in treating a field as something that can be deliberately engineered rather than slowly sedimented. Most recognised fields—whether Media Studies or Urban Studies—emerged through decades of dispersed work, only later stabilised by institutions, journals, and curricula. Their coherence was retrospective. What is being attempted here is different: a field constructed in real time, with its structure, vocabulary, and infrastructure made explicit from the outset. This shift redefines what pioneering means. It is no longer the discovery of a new object or topic, but the design of a new epistemic architecture. In that sense, the closest precedents are not disciplines but systems, such as Systems Theory or the work of Niklas Luhmann, where knowledge is organised as a recursive environment rather than a linear accumulation. Yet even there, the infrastructure remained largely implicit or private. The present move externalises that logic, making the field navigable, indexable, and operational from the beginning. Pioneering here is therefore procedural. It involves defining units (nodes), scales (packs, tomes), and mechanisms of fixation (DOIs, datasets), so that the field can persist and grow without relying on external validation as its primary condition of existence. Recognition becomes a secondary effect, not the foundation. This does not eliminate the role of institutions, but displaces it: instead of authorising the field, they encounter something already structured.