Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Laura Bäumel
(University of Zurich)
Olga Reznikova (University of Innsbruck)
Send message to Convenors
- Chairs:
-
Laura Bäumel
(University of Zurich)
Olga Reznikova (University of Innsbruck)
- Format:
- Panel
Short Abstract:
Our panel critically examines the call to challenge the boundaries between science and activism and the relationship between researchers and the researched. We want to discuss the potential limitations for knowledge production that may accompany unconditional solidarity with the research field.
Long Abstract:
Ethnographic research is well-known for often carrying the risk of distorted and paternalistic portrayals of the field. For decades, discussions around ethnographic writing have addressed the relationship between researchers and their field – from the "writing culture" debate to poststructuralist, postcolonial, and feminist critiques of knowledge production. Increasingly, the question of the relationship between science and activism plays a significant role, especially in research on subaltern groups. There is often advocacy for researchers to take on the role of a voice for those they study and to dissolve the asymmetries between researchers and the researched.
With our panel, we aim to examine the call to challenge the boundaries between science and activism, as well as the relationship between researchers and the researched. In the panel, we seek to rethink collaboration and military action in ethnographic research. Our starting point is twofold: On the one hand, in the tradition of public and political ethnography, we want to advance the critique of the division of labor between science and society and ask again about the social meaning of ethnographic research and cultural analysis. On the other hand, we want to discuss the epistemological limits of solidary and collaborative research in thinking about the political aspect of ethnography which separates the findings from the direct concerns explicitly formulated by the actors So let's take another look at the relationship between science and activism with concepts such as Engaged Science or a Dialectical Perspective on Solidarity on the basis of examples or theoretical considerations.
Accepted papers:
Session 1Paper Short Abstract:
The paper discusses participatory research as a method for critical social research by identifying different practices of critique using case examples. I show how these practices come into conflict with the claim to produce better knowledge through participatory research.
Paper Abstract:
In my contribution, I will explore the claim that participatory research can promote the democratization of knowledge production and at the same time generate better, more empirically appropriate knowledge. To do this, I will use case examples to identify four different practices through which participatory research exercises criticism and works towards change.
The starting point is the debate on the paternalism problem in critical research as formulated by Robin Celikates (2009). Participatory research offers a way out: it makes the co-production of knowledge central to research. I demonstrate that various approaches can be found to implement this claim to critique and change within research. These approaches differ in what they address: first, as a change in certain forms of institutional or professional practice, and second, as a change in the participating actors themselves, by making their knowledge, skills, or self-understandings the subject of research. In each case, two types can be distinguished in pursuing these goals: in the first case, as a critique that is immanent to the practice it studies or as a critique that transcends it. In the second case, as capacity building or as consciousness raising.
Following this, I will identify two problems associated with these understandings of critique: First, through the interest in empowering the actors, an asymmetry between the participants is once again being established. Second, I argue that the two central claims of participatory research, to induce change and to generate more appropriate representations of the social world, come into conflict with each other.
Paper Short Abstract:
This contribution explores the epistemological limits and responsibilities of solidarity-driven ethnography in queer activism research. Advocating for an engaged approach, it connects knowledge production with shared future visions and highlights the transformative potential of queer practices of solidarity. By employing an activist-collaborative methodology, the research investigates how these practices challenge societal norms and power dynamics in diverse settings, such as Prides and queer collectives. It underscores the importance of trust-building and active participation in sensitive research contexts. The study reimagines engaged anthropology by illustrating how queer activist research can reshape research relationships and promote democratic futures. It calls for a reevaluation of participation, reflexivity, and power asymmetries in ethnography, seeking to align anthropological knowledge with the concerns of the researched and fostering a more equitable dialogue between science and society.
Paper Abstract:
This contribution analyses the epistemological boundaries and responsibilities within solidarity-driven ethnography in queer activism research. Drawing from my dissertation, which investigates how queer communities envision caring and solidaristic coexistence (Hark 2021), it explores the potentials and limitations of these elements to challenge societal norms and power structures through ethnographic research. It argues for an engaged approach (Zenker & Vonderau 2023) that leverages the situatedness of knowledge production following a "shared problematisation", which is in turn linked to shared ideas of future and amounts to a "similar process of worlding" (Niewöhner 2019: 32).
Building on an activist framework, it examines how queer practices of solidarity appear in settings like Prides and other movements, queer collectives, and relationships, highlighting their transformative potential of queer utopias as counter-worlds (Muñoz 2009). In such sensitive contexts trust is fundamental, necessitating engaged participation and vulnerability. This paper demonstrates how queer activist research can reshape research relationships (cf. Seeck 2021; Tillmann-Healy 2003) and promote responsible, democratic futures (Puig de la Bellacasa 2017). It argues that queering normativity through care and solidarity in the research process allows ethnography to engage with transformative societal and epistemological paradigms.
The contribution urges a reevaluation of participation and power asymmetries in ethnography, aiming to align anthropological knowledge with the priorities of the researched, fostering equitable dialogue between science and society. This approach seeks to contribute to forming a "different political body" and envisioning a future that supports a good life for all (Sutter et al. 2021: 17f.).
Paper Short Abstract:
This paper examines the tensions and contradictions of developing ethnographic research with social movements while being an activist as well as an academic researcher. It examines the complexities and potentialities of this double role when navigating knowledge hierarchies, extractivism and the constrictions of academia
Paper Abstract:
Ethnographic research with social movements has for long been questioning how researchers relate to the field and to the fights they are studying. However, debates around the positionality of researchers when they are also activists have been scarcer (Álvarez et al, 2020; Gandarias, 2014), leaving ethographers with this profile with a lack of guidelines on how to navigate the tensions and contradictions that arise from this double role and its often contradictory demands. This paper aims to critically examine some of the tensions I have faced while trying to articulate this position in the research field in two different research projects, both in Madrid (Spain) and focusing on violence and repression of social movements.
These tensions, which will be further explored in the paper, can be categorised in three dimensions: knowledge hierarchies, epistemic extractivism and the constrictions of academia when trying to develop engaged science. In particular, they include the decentering of the position of epistemic power that arises from occupying the role of the "scholar" within the activist collective; the overlap between academic and activist contexts, which may facilitate field access but also extractivist practices; and the challenge of reconciling activist and academic agendas, with often contradictory demands. Rethinking the double role of researcher-activist and the contradictions it arises is not only relevant to develop reflexive notions on how to inhabit this positionality, but also conforms an important lens through which to reflect on the relationship between academia and activism in an engaged, solidary and non-extractive way.
Paper Short Abstract:
Based on a series of field situations in ethnographic research, the paper will discuss the chances and limits of a feminist and collaborative methodology in ethnography and ask to what extent the ethnography of the political right is possible at all.
Paper Abstract:
Using a dialectical understanding of solidarity, I will address the methodological challenges and opportunities in ethnographic research and raise the question of the particular character of the relationships between ethnographers and actors in field research. I also analyze empathy and solidarity both as an impossibility in research and as a constitutive part of research that uses relationships to analyze social conditions. The empirical ambivalence and ethical challenges will be discussed in relation to the conditions of knowledge production and epistemology.
The presentation will focus on the conditions of ethnographic knowledge production in which methods of collaboration, intervention and solidarity have become so crucial since the 1980s. Finally, I will consider how we face similar methodological and epistemological challenges in the question of ethnography of the labor strikes and the political right movement.
Paper Short Abstract:
"I believe you." – The concept of (solidary) witnessing as a form of resistance is a foundational principle in feminist practice. Witnessing, in this context, highlights the vital connection between theory and practice within feminist traditions, while also pointing to the unequal and often ambivalent dynamics between the witness and the one being witnessed. In the process of research, this lecture will explore how these contradictions come to a head.
Paper Abstract:
"I believe you." – The concept of (solidary) witnessing as a form of resistance is a foundational principle in feminist practice. Witnessing, in this context, highlights the vital connection between theory and practice within feminist traditions, while also pointing to the unequal and often ambivalent dynamics between the witness and the one being witnessed. In the process of research, this lecture will explore how these contradictions come to a head.
All witnesses, regardless of their circumstances, are dependent on being believed by others, which exposes them to the inherent risk of doubt. However, this risk is not experienced uniformly; it varies in its intensity and manifestation (Gleissner 2024). For instance, the vulnerability of victims of sexualized violence often translates into an unequal and disproportionate risk of not being believed.
This lecture critically examines interview situations within the framework of a dissertation project that investigates concepts of female emancipation and the contradictory legacy of feminist movements for subsequent generations. The tension between unity and difference that often shapes feminist relationships complicates the dynamic between interviewer and interviewee. The papers’s exploration of the intersection between social-theoretical analyses of past feminist visions and contemporary ideas of emancipation underscores the social and historical nature of lived experience (Scott 2020). This requires a reflective consideration of the feminist concept of witnessing and its implications for academic practice.
The goal is to offer a critical re-reading of the feminist practice of witnessing, navigating the tension between fragmentation, vulnerability, and articulation.
Paper Short Abstract:
This study examines the evolving researcher-participant relationship in ethnographic research, focusing on reflexivity and intersubjectivity's role in understanding the friendship closeness in research (Tillmann, 2015). By analyzing the author's ethnographic experiences, the research reveals that friendship closeness can involve emotional aspects, expression, and empathy while maintaining ethical boundaries. It highlights the researcher's ethical responsibilities throughout the investigation and writing processes, including continuous participant consent verification. Applying Bakhtin's dialogic framework, the study argues that the researcher-participant relationship is fluid and emotion-infused, necessitating closeness. It concludes by emphasizing transparency about the research process and limitations and the researcher's obligation to protect participants from harm in ethnographic studies involving friendship closeness.
Paper Abstract:
This study examines the changing nature of researcher-participant relationships in ethnographic enquiries, with a particular emphasis on the scholarly language surrounding this interaction. The study examines the growth of qualitative methods, notably the rising emphasis on reflexivity and intersubjectivity, and how these relate to understanding researcher-participant closeness. Employing Tillmann's "friendship as method" concept, the study examines the author's personal ethnographic experiences, focussing on the established closeness with participants and the unexpected relationship dynamics that emerged. This study demonstrates the possibility for closeness in ethnographic work to include emotional characteristics, expression, and empathy while also recognising the importance of preserving ethical boundaries. It emphasises the necessity of the researcher's ethical perspective throughout the investigative and writing processes, as well as the need for continual consent verification with participants at various stages of the research. Using Bakhtin's dialogic framework, the study posits that the researcher-participant interaction is fluid and emotionally charged, rather than fixed and static, demanding closeness. Finally, the study emphasises the importance of transparency about the research process and its restrictions, as well as the researcher's responsibility to protect participants from harm when doing ethnographic research with friendship closeness.
Paper Short Abstract:
This paper argues for a nuanced reflection on a variety of relational dimensions with the aim of enabling informed choices about how we, as academic knowledge producers, act in and relate to the contested world(s) of which we're a part.
Paper Abstract:
Based on 15 years of engaged ethnographic research on and in migration, border, and social (state) regimes in Germany/EUrope and the US, this paper begins by proposing that: a) knowledge production is a social practice, and thus knowledge producers are never alone (though they can be lonely); and b) knowledge production always has effects in the social world(s) it is part of. Reflecting on how we, as ethnographers and cultural analysts (at least partly based in academia), choose to engage with the world in general and our ‘field’ more specifically, and how we wish to participate in processes of world-making, it is neither particularly helpful to maintain the idea of a strict separation between the spheres of academia and activism, nor to conflate them. Instead, we need to consider a multitude of relational dimensions: How, in which temporal phases, modes, and arenas, do we (want to) impact the world we’re part of? What are our epistemological and political positions? What are our structural, political, and emotional relationships to individuals and (sub-)collectives in the field? Which resources are available, and to whom? The aim of such a nuanced relational reflection is to enable us to make informed and responsible choices about how we, as academics, activists, and social beings, want to relate to the contested world(s) we’re part of.
Paper Short Abstract:
This paper explores how participatory ethnography can amplify the voices of residents in a deindustrialised South Wales community while navigating the epistemological challenges. It examines the tension between solidarity and critical inquiry, reflecting on the expectations of interlocutors who hope for tangible change and the researcher’s responsibility to manage these hopes transparently. By highlighting the co-production of knowledge and the researcher's dual roles of collaborator and observer, the paper contributes to discussions on the intersection of activism and research.
Paper Abstract:
My research explores the lived experiences of residents in a deindustrialised community in South Wales, shaped by decades of economic decline, political marginalisation, and the normalisation of crisis. Designed as a participatory project, it seeks to understand what matters most to my interlocutors—documenting their struggles and resilience while collaboratively exploring potential pathways for change. Through co-producing knowledge, I aim to amplify their narratives of being "left behind" and the strategies they use to endure and adapt.
As an ethnographer with personal ties to the community, I feel a responsibility to give back to a region that shaped my identity and values. My personal investment drives a desire to shed light on systemic inequalities and advocate for meaningful change. However, this also necessitates constant reflection on the limitations of my role. While many interlocutors hope my research will directly transform their circumstances, I must clarify that its impact lies primarily in raising awareness and advocating for their concerns. Managing these expectations requires transparency, trust-building, and the careful navigation of my dual roles as collaborator and observer.
This tension between solidarity and critical inquiry challenges me to resist the paternalistic impulse to “fix” their struggles or provide false hope while remaining deeply committed to highlighting their stories. This paper examines how participatory ethnography can elevate marginalized voices while grappling with epistemological boundaries. It contributes to the panel’s discussion on the intersection of activism and research, exploring how solidarity, collaboration, and reflexivity can enrich ethnographic inquiry without overstating its transformative potential.
Paper Short Abstract:
Drawing on my research with factory workers, I will highlight a key aspect of the research process: While I initially hypothesized the presence of a feminist desire aligned with the 1970s "Wages against Housework" campaign, my findings revealed instead a retronormative longing for a return to the male breadwinner model. Building on this conservative turn, I will advocate for a critical reflection on how we conceptualize solidarity with our research fields.
Paper Abstract:
In my presentation, I aim to outline the trajectory of a research process. At the outset, I formulated a hypothesis based on a few interviews with former colleagues from a factory where I had worked part-time. I proposed that the demands of mothers working in factories, shaped by their challenge of balancing the productive and reproductive spheres, could align with the 1970s ‘Wages against Housework’ campaign. I believed I had identified a feminist desire with potential for political mobilization.
However, as my research progressed—through conversations during participant observation in factories and the interviews I conducted—a different desire emerged: a longing to return to the male breadwinner model and the option of being a housewife exclusively. Drawing on field notes and interview excerpts, I will trace this form of retronormativity.
Building on these findings, I will advocate for preserving epistemic asymmetry as a critically reflective stance inherent to the research process. I will also address the importance of examining our personal ties to research fields. My argument is that attempts to enforce symmetry can diminish the potential for critique. In the context of my research, this would have blurred the distinction between emancipatory and conservative desires.