This is a great question, especially as fleshed out in the small print here. To that end, my answer speaks less to the "revolutionary" element than simply thoughts on how to pursue less orthodox topics of study in traditional disciplines and departments. When I began my doctoral program in sociology in the antique halls of the University of Chicago, I had no prior degrees in the discipline and maybe two classes under my belt many years earlier that would qualify; neither were foundational or canonical. My initial ideas for dissertation research had no legs at all with most faculty I spoke to, and indeed they changed quickly as I was also exposed to many new literatures and discourses. Before long I was coming up with plans that, while certainly attuned to my interests, were blatantly about fitting in to the norms and expectations of contemporary American sociology - they involved data sets or spatial correlations or survey work, and they built directly on major studies from the recent past. But none of these stuck, and I ended up realizing that I was still really interested in something rather 'theoretical' and 'cultural' that essentially tied back to an element (not exactly the same, but related) of my earlier MA work in a different program and discipline, combined with elements of arguably the least (mainstream) sociological work I had been doing in the current program (stuff on aesthetics, cultural theory, and urban design, for instance). But that was the topic - turns out where the real proper sociology came in was in the way I learned to ask questions, the critical eye I turned to fuzzy claims, statistics, or economic arguments, an understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of different research or theory building methods, and a deep passion for both qualitative research methodology.
I still had (indeed, in some settings very much still have) a long process ahead of me convincing people that my research is "sociologically relevant" or "worth studying" at all. And yes I too had to find the people who were excited about the possibilities, even some with an appreciation for cultural studies and critical theory so that I could hear where those things made sense and where they didn't, and people who accept my interests as valid and my interdisciplinary ambitions as valid.
My first blind-reviewed publication was in The Journal of Urban Design, I've spoken as often at geography conferences as sociology ones, and I have no qualms about my research being of greater "popular" interest than "sociological" interest. BUT I believe in its value for me and for others and - actually thanks to the tough back and forths I had with my committee to get it approved - I have confidence in its design. Hopefully it will turn up something new and interesting too, and contribute to sociology proper as well as the other discourses and disciplines that I look to and borrow from. After a low point of worrying I basically had a better chance getting a job in another type of department altogether, I've recently found that my work meshes increasingly well with some very sociological discourses, I have a publication in a generalist sociology journal, and I have a little bit of faith (job market concerns notwithstanding) that I could very well fit in a sociology department. So, that's not revolutionary, and in fact maybe it means I wasn't that far 'outside the box' in the first place, in which case it doesn't really answer your question, but that's my take anyway.
As for tweaks to technical requirements and departmental expectations (e.g. a duet dissertation?), that's a different story and arguably has as much to do with entrenched bureaucratic assumptions and disciplinary traditions as anything 'academic'... but I've found even the stodgiest departments can show remarkable flexibility once they actually realize something logical is missing.
