A cartography of the possible: Reflections on militant ethnography in and against the edu‐factory

Abstract

This paper examines militant research through the lens of several challenges the author faced when experimenting with it as part of their PhD research. It engages with ongoing debates about the role and complexity of militant methodologies within‐against‐beyond the university. Specifically it suggests that the political economy of the academy is a challenge to militant research through the growing influence of the law of value within increasingly marketised academic contexts. The paper argues that the academic‐recuperation‐machine has the potential to assimilate what it terms the “minor knowledge” created through militant research within its circuits of institutionalisation and commodification, becoming just another output or tool in the toolbox. Relatedly it suggests these challenges do not simply require a reflection on positionality vis‐à‐vis academia/activism, but a collective struggle around academic labour in against‐beyond the university and how militant researcher might remain “in but not of” the neoliberal university.

Negotiating structural barriers to environmental collaborations in doctoral programmes

“…Despite these ideals, authors have drawn attention to different dilemmas concerning the enactment of collaborative ideals and practices in Geographic doctoral research programmes. For example, the integration of ‘knowledge transfer’ as a priority in a UK studentship programme (Demeritt & Lees, 2005), evaluating the impact agenda and the neoliberal university using insights from radical participatory methodologies (Darby, 2017; Pusey, 2017), and how encounters with different collaborating organisations can result in significant practical, ethical and epistemological ‘dilemmas’ and uneven power relations that inexperienced doctoral researchers must negotiate (Fisher, 2011; Hayes & Manktelow, 2023; Macmillan & Scott, 2003). This commentary seeks to add to this body of work by tracing how structural barriers in the neoliberal HE sector impact socio‐ecological collaborative research at different stages of doctoral studies.…”

“…The problem of how to integrate additional forms of academic ‘best practice’ (such as working collaboratively across disciplines or with external partners) into the policies, procedures and teaching practices of UK Higher Education (HE) is not new (Bhakta et al., 2015; Harris et al., 2009; Macmillan & Scott, 2003). There has been significant criticism in the geography literature of the neoliberal institutional conditions in which these new ways of researching are practiced and the consequences of this for our ethical responsibilities to external partners and the framing of knowledge creation (Mistry et al., 2009; Pusey, 2017; Wainwright et al., 2014; Zielke et al., 2023). Here, the authors use the term ‘neoliberal university’ to refer to the policies of competition and choice that have resulted in a quasi‐market, where academic institutions that resemble businesses compete for research funding and students act as consumers (Ball, 2012).…”

Hope as a practice in the face of existential crises: Resident‐activist research within and beyond the academy

“…We are inspired by and build on writings within geography (e.g., Back, 2021; Gilmore, 2022) and beyond (e.g., Kaba, 2021) that refuse to see such change as impossible and call instead for keeping‐on‐keeping‐on. We join other contributors to Area (e.g., Mason, 2012; Pusey, 2018) in turning to John Holloway's work. Following Holloway (2022), we argue that resisting paralysis in seemingly hopeless times involves starting from ourselves, from where we are and our own capacities, and overflowing that which contains us.…”

Beyond capitalist enclosure, commodification and alienation: Postcapitalist praxis as commons, social production and useful doing

“…At the same time, geographers continue to propose a range of progressive alternatives to articulate a more equal and sustainable world in diverse areas including community and popular education (Motta, 2013; mrs kinpaisby, 2008; Noterman and Pusey, 2012; Pusey, 2017); alternative and community economies (Gibson-Graham and Cameron, 2013; North and Huber, 2004; North, 2014; Cornwell, 2012; Taylor, 2014); food justice and urban agriculture (Ghose and Pettygrove, 2014; Tornaghi, 2014; Heynen, 2010; Crossan et al, 2016); commons and radical democracy (Springer, 2011; Bresnihan and Byrne, 2015); and low-impact housing (Jarvis, 2011; Thompson, 2015).…”