Vulnerable Spaces of Coproduction: Confronting Predefined Categories through Arts Interventions

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33182/ml.v17i2.895

Keywords:

residential migration, residential trajectories, personal networks of migrants, network spatiality, social integration, social relationships

Abstract

Collaboration between researchers and artists is often held as particularly promising to enhance cross-cultural understanding. In this article, two researchers and an artist reflect on the potentials, as well as the pitfalls, of art-based interventions in integration of migrants. Through the performing arts youth project Here I Am, we discuss coproduction methodologies. We emphasize the discomfort in confronting the stereotypes inherent in our perspectives and categories. Exploring how various encounters among the researchers, artist, and participants in the performing arts project challenge the prevailing perspectives, we argue that art interventions have the potential to bring knowledge production beyond predefined categories and explanations. This requires moving beyond our comfort zones and entering vulnerable spaces of improvisation, where new understanding and “grammars” can be coproduced. This article shows how the reflections of such spaces alter the research project and the aims of the art intervention, including our understanding of integration.

Author Biographies

Marit Aure, UIT The Arctic University of Norway

Professor

Anniken Førde, UIT The Arctic University of Norway

Associate professor

References

Amin, A. (2002). Ethnicity and the multicultural city: Living with diversity. Environment and Planning A, 34(6), 959-980.

https://doi.org/10.1068/a3537

Askins, K., & Pain, R. (2011). Contact zones: Participation, materiality, and the messiness of interaction. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 29, 803-821.

https://doi.org/10.1068/d11109

Aure, M. (2013). The emotional costs of employment-related mobility. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift, 67(5), 284-294. https://doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2013.847855

https://doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2013.847855

Barrett, F. J. (1998). Coda-creativity and improvisation in jazz and organizations: Implications for organizational learning. Organization Science, 9(5), 605-622.

https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.5.605

Bergold, J., & Thomas, S. (2012). Participatory research methods: A methodological approach in motion. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research. http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/fqs-13.1.1801

Chambers, R. (1998). Beyond "whose reality counts?" New methods we now need? Studies in Cultures, Organizations and Societies, 4(2), 279-301.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10245289808523516

Fainstein, S. (2010). The just city. London: Cornell University Press.

Førde, A. (2019). Enhancing urban encounters: The transformative powers of creative integration initiatives. Urban Planning, 4(1), 44-52.

https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v4i1.1713

Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575-599.

https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066

Harvey, D. (2008). The right to the city. New Left Review, 53, 23-40.

Hickey-Moody, A. C. (2017). Arts practices as method, urban spaces and intra-active faiths. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(11), 1083-1096.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1350317

Honneth, A. (1992). Integrity and disrespect: Principles of a conception of morality based on the theory of recognition. Political Theory, 20, 187-192.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591792020002001

Jeffery, L., Palladino, M., Rotter, R., & Woolley, A. (2019). Creative engagement with migration. Crossings: Journal of Migration & Culture, 10(1), 3-17.

https://doi.org/10.1386/cjmc.10.1.3_1

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2005). Participatory action research: Communicative action and the public sphere. In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kindon, S., Pain, R., & Kesby, M. (2007). Introduction. In S. Kindon, R. Pain, & M. Kesby (Eds.), Participatory action research approaches and methods: Connecting people, participation and place. London: Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203933671

Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. London: Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203481141

Leavy, P. (2015). Method meets art: Arts-based research practice. New York, London: Guilford Publications.

Nunn, C. (2010). Spaces to speak: Challenging representations of Sudanese-Australians. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 31(1), 183-198.

https://doi.org/10.1080/07256861003606366

Olsen, M. A., Paltiel, L., & Aure, M. (2019). Metodiske lærdommer mellom gatekunst og friluftsmuseum: Et rom for inkludering [Methodical insights between street art and folk museums: A room for inclusion?]. In Inkludering i praksis: Inkluderende museer [Inclusion in practice: Including museums]. The Museum Association. https://museumsforbundet.no/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/3-Perspektivet-inkluderende-museer-1.pdf (last read 23.12.2019)

Pereira, S., Maiztegui-Oñate, C., & Mata-Codesal, D. (2016). "Transformative looks": Practicing citizenship through photography. Journal of Social Science Education, 15(4), 14-21.

Phillips, D., Athwal, B., Robinson, D., & Harrison, M. (2014). Towards intercultural engagement: Building shared visions of neighborhood and community in an era of new migration. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 40(1), 42-59.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2013.782146

Pratt, G. (2007). Working with migrant communities: Collaborating with the Kalayaan Centre in Vancouver, Canada. In S. Kindon, R. Pain, & M. Kesby (Eds.), Participatory action research: Connecting people, participation and place. London: Routledge.

Simonsen, K. P. (2008). Practice, narrative and the "multicultural city": A Copenhagen case. European Urban and Regional Studies, 15(2), 145-158.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776407087547

Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In C. Nelson, & L. Grossberge (Eds.), Marxism and the interpretation of culture. London: Macmillan, 271-313.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-19059-1_20

Tolia-Kelly, D. (2007). Participatory art. In S. Kindon, R. Pain, & M. Kesby (Eds.), Participatory action research: Connecting people, participation and place. London: Routledge.

Valentine, G., & MacDonald, I. (2004). Understanding prejudice. London: Citizenship 21.

Wilson, H. (2013). Learning to think differently: Diversity training and the "good encounter." Geoforum, 45, 73-82.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.10.001

Wilson, H. (2015). An urban laboratory for the multicultural nation? Ethnicities, 15(4), 586-604.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1468796815577703

Published

2020-04-02

How to Cite

Aure, M., Førde, A., & Brox Liabø, R. (2020). Vulnerable Spaces of Coproduction: Confronting Predefined Categories through Arts Interventions. Migration Letters, 17(2), 249-256. https://doi.org/10.33182/ml.v17i2.895