Send message to Authors

Short abstract

Drawing on a long-term individual and collective ethnographic engagement with plants, this poster concerns methodologies in/of more-than-human worlds and inquires into the processes of undoing, rewriting, and developing methodological approaches within an interdisciplinary research team.

Long abstract

This poster concerns methodologies in/of more-than-human worlds, with a particular focus on plants, and presents the process of developing methodological approaches within an interdisciplinary research team consisting of anthropologists and biologists. There seems to be agreement that ethnographies of more-than-human worlds require breaking down disciplinary boundaries (Tsing, 2010), but the practicalities of transdisciplinary approaches remain ambiguous. In relation to ethnography, concepts such as the 'mode of wonder' (Ogden, Hall, & Tanita 2013) or the 'arts of noticing' (Tsing 2015) speak to our imaginations but tell us little about research methods and strategies. Drawing on a long-term individual and collective ethnographic engagement with plants in Istanbul (Turkey) and Gdańsk (Poland), this poster discusses research methods and strategies and the processes in which they were developed, as well as their limitations and potential outcomes. If undoing and rewriting concern ethnographic practice, this poster aims to bring to light the practicalities of research, with its muddiness, ambiguity and unpredictability.

The poster unfolds as follows. First, it presents the main research 'toolkit': our initial research methods and strategies, which were inextricably linked to personal and professional biographies. Secondly, it discusses the process by which the methodology was developed through more-than-human affective encounters. We argue that research is not only about dialogue, interaction, collaboration, friendship and fun, but also about conflict, friction, ambiguity and frustration. Thirdly, the poster explores the questions of more-than-human agency, representation and genre, and inquires into the practicalities of undoing and rewriting ethnographies with plants.

Send message to Author

Short abstract

This poster explores the ways in which generative artificial intelligence (gAI) is tied to mental processes both in cataloging experiences and in shaping collective memory. It further examines the symbolic construction between individuals and generative software programs.

Long abstract

The research aims to contribute to existing discussions on the discursive perspectives on gAI and human meaning making, emphasizing how technology influences how we think about about space and place, and recreate ‘memories’.

By using lived experiences, I aimed to examine gAI’s role in working with machines to create content by focusing on: 1) the extent generative software influences collective memory and folklore 2) if participants felt that that they retained agentic possibilities and 3) the degree to which participants felt gAI has a future in co-creation and collaboration. . This work is situated was inspired by Herbert Blumer, Nicole Maurantonio, Martin Heiddegger, and Lisa Nakamura, among others.

The telos was to understand how gAI works with mental processes both in cataloging experiences and in forming collective memory. Interviews indicated that gAI assisted students in linking representational practices and narratives, especially when they wrote personal stories. These interviews yielded discursive conversations on AI's capabilities. For example, students who were bilingual or have immigrated stated that this software did not fully capture nuance. Through the process of co-creation the use of gAI resulted in the formation of alternative discourses, for better or for worse. I conclude by pointing out limitations, calling for more work to be done in order to preserve specific symbols, practices, and rituals.

In this way I aimed to encourage a rethinking of symbolic construction as it traditionally occurs.

Send message to Author

Short abstract

Niessen introduced the concept of "deFashion" to describe dress cultures that operate independently of capitalist, growth-driven clothing systems. This poster aims to showcase a typology of mythological garments that embody diverse cultural values, from knowledge sharing to functionality.

Long abstract

The Emperor’s New Dress, the Philosopher’s Cape, the Hair Shirt of the Saint, the Iron Shoes, Nessus’s Shirt, and Dresses that Make the Wearer Invisible – mythologies and popular culture are rich with garments carrying spiritual and ritual significance. These clothing traditions stand in stark contrast to capitalist, self-expression-centered, and trend-driven fashion systems. Sandra Niessen coined the term deFashion to describe such alternative clothing systems.

The aim of this paper is to evoke defining tales from human culture that are connected to clothing and to identify their shared elements. Based on a systematic analysis using the ATU Index, this typology highlights the most recurring motifs associated with garments. Four main categories emerged:

The Essential Dress – a garment inseparable from its wearer, such as Little Red Riding Hood’s red cape or the philosopher’s cloak.

The Superpower Dress – clothing that grants exceptional qualities to its wearer, such as Cinderella’s glass slipper.

The Punishing Dress – garments that torment the wearer as a form of punishment, whether it can or cannot be escaped. Examples include the iron shoes and the cursed red shoes.

The Functional Dress – garments defined solely by their practicality, where their use is central, such as the saint’s hair shirt.

This poster aims to collect visual representations of these ritual garments as they appear in contemporary popular culture, including video games, movies, and television series. By doing so, it seeks to highlight the ongoing presence of alternative clothing systems that challenge the dominance of capitalist fashion.

Send message to Author

Short abstract

How do positionalities oscillate during fieldwork, across multiple [state] fieldsites? How do bureaucratic processes limit the role of the ethnographers and, in doing so, reposition them as an extension of the state? What does this mean for the emancipatory possibilities of anthropological research?

Long abstract

In this poster, I reflect on my current PhD research with claimants of the UK disability benefit 'Personal Independence Payment' (PIP). Conducted as a multi-sited ethnography, my field(s) span across legitimised stages of the PIP process and, simultaneously, extend beyond its officiated bounds to include support groups, preparatory workshops and activist spaces. However, this multi-sited approach has brought with it additional, and unanticipated, consequences: my positionality as a lived-experience researcher has varied significantly across my fields.

In my research with disabled benefit applicants, relating to one another across the intersectional axis of disability and class has been fundamental to co-constructing trust with my interlocutors. This is, in part, aided by the very dynamic of the ‘unofficial’ spaces that relatedness to my interlocutors has taken place. This relatedness has unlocked emancipatory research possibilities (Hartblay, 2020), too. In relating to one another’s circumstances, a level of mutual de-individualisation takes place – a catalyst of undoing internalised ‘deservingness’.

Contrastingly, my ethnographic fieldwork conducted within the PIP system has exacerbated alienation – entangling me within the process. Being restricted to non-participatory observation during my time at the Magistrates' Court gives me little opportunity to foster relationships with applicants. Simultaneously, employees demand, as equally as they ask, claimants’ consent for me witnessing their tribunal hearing. Far from mutual vulnerability, my ethnographic fieldwork within the PIP system has forced one-sided intimacy (Mingus, 2017) reminiscent of harmful disability research practices. In essence, how do we retain emancipatory rigidity within the multi-sited restrictions and limitations of the state?

Send message to Author

Short abstract

This presentation reflects on the unreported aspects of academic life, focusing on my experiences as a mother, migrant, and Russian researcher in Germany while writing my PhD. It explores the intangible — care work, navigating bureaucracy, and the emotions and experiences of living through a war.

Long abstract

This poster presentation explores the potential of drawing as both a method of representation of ethnographic material and a mode of inquiry in the context of an (auto)ethnographic PhD project.

My doctoral work, comprising four articles on themes such as border externalization, subjectivization, migrant resistance, and online misogyny, was developed during a period marked by profound challenges. The process started when my youngest child was 6 months old. The active phase of field data collection coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, followed by the war in Ukraine. These events added layers of complexity to my positionality as a Russian scholar researching, among others, Ukrainian respondents in a German academic context. At the same time, the intersecting demands of motherhood, care work, and migration shaped my scholarly identity in ways that remain largely undocumented in conventional academic discourse.

This poster will seek to visualize and articulate these intersections, drawing on feminist and artistic inspirations, particularly the works of Emma (The Mental Load, 2018) and Nora Krug (Belonging: A German Reckons with History and Home, 2018; Diaries of War, 2023). By engaging with these personal and professional tensions, the poster will highlight the gaps between the reported and unreported dimensions of academic life, as well as the emotions and experiences of living through a war while grappling with the complex perceptions associated with my national identity.

Send message to Authors

Short abstract

We conduct community-based research in an island of Reposaari, just outside Pori, Finland. In our work, we do not so much work to involve local people, but as researchers, our role is to participate in recording, writing or otherwise making known the history of local communities.

Long abstract

We are interested in the history of the local people of Reposaari and the community itself. We are also interested in what kinds of interpretations of the past are considered meaningful by the community and how people understand their past and present, or how they construct their own community identity. We are also interested in how a community's own history can be made accessible, or how interaction between researchers and experts in their own history takes place. We have been doing community-based research with islanders since 2011.

As an example, we use the rock carvings on the Takaranta in Reposaari, which have been carried out on the cliffs from the 1850s to the present day. The rock carvings serve as places of remembrance and commemoration. They help locals to remember and commemorate islanders and their lives who have passed away.

In our experience, interaction with locals produces information that brings to light things that we as researchers might not otherwise have been able to conceptualise. Indeed, the knowledge produced by community-based research has been partly beyond the reach of researchers, because it is local and often experiential, and is rooted in everyday life.