Short abstract:

Engaged research holds such promise as a transformative approach. But it assumes basic civic rights. How do collaborative ideals need to be modified, if these are not assured? I discuss lessons from collaborative research in Central Asia, normative assumptions of engagement and necessary adaptations

Long abstract:

Collaborative and engaged methods are becoming mainstream in many anglophone academic environments. They hold such promise as transformative approaches to the global challenges we face. But much of the literature and practice assumes a basic degree of freedom of speech, not experienced by the majority of people in the world. How can the ideals of collaboration and engagement work in such settings?

Amid the deserved enthusiasm for transformative research, openly discussing misjudgments is key to developing more context-sensitivity for living engaged methods. This contribution shares experiences from the ‘sticky bits’ and moments of risk in working with collaborative and arts-based ethnographic methods in post-Soviet Central Asia. I want to share some humbling lessons, as well as the opportunity for collegial support and collectively honing the collaborative toolbox.

If iterative research design principles and co-production of knowledge are the norm, what adaptations in non-‘free’ settings should become a matter of critical attention? How do you make sense of responsibilities, in the wake of townspeople collaborating in Kyrgyzstan, being quizzed by the secret police? What if local hospitality ethics in rural Kazakhstan preclude addressing less-than-respectful relations between older and younger workshop participants? When does collaboration become oppositional politics, needing to learn more from social movements than classic science epistemologies? In addressing especially points 3, 4 and 5 of the panel agenda, I could either contribute a classic paper or use a more personal style and arts-based style of story-telling.