Engaged witnessing: Researching with the more‐than‐human

Abstract

Despite increased recognition of the need to explore the ways in which nonhumans are entangled with the social world, the practicalities of how to use research methods to engage with non-human actors are often overlooked. This paper explores methodologies for researching with and writing about the nonhuman and contributes to literature focusing on the co-fabricated nature of research. Drawing on empirical research conducted in Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park, Australia, we develop the concept of engaged witnessing as a way of attending to the performative and creative nature of encounters with non-humans. We argue that learning to witness and be affected by surroundings and nonhuman actors in order to glimpse the web of human and non-human performances enlivens research engagements with non-human actors. We show how this "learning" can occur, firstly through following the movements and impacts of animals and secondly through practising the Indigenous concept of Dadirri with trees, in order to research with the more-than-human.Australia, Dadirri, methods, more-than-human, movements, witnessing 1 | INTRODUCTION Within human geography, there has been increased recognition of the importance of studying more-than-human actors, with more research aimed at uncovering how humans and non-humans are entangled together in ways that co-fabricate worlds, spaces and encounters. Inherent within these more-than-human geographies is an acknowledgement that non-humans are active in shaping research processes, and a desire to develop methodologies that allow researchers to engage both human and non-human actors. However, the practicalities of "how" to research with the more-than-human are often overlooked. This paper furthers more-than-human methodologies through detailing practices of learning to engage the non-human during fieldwork in Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park, 1 a relatively large park on the northern outskirts of Sydney, Australia. As Crang argues, when we conduct research we are "taking part in the world rather than reflecting it" (1997, p. 360). Therefore, we argue by more directly championing non-human agency in research methods, we shift away from anthropocentric research practices to explore the interconnections between humans, non-humans and place (Hitchings & Jones, 2004).One challenge of more-than-human research is that you cannot survey kangaroos about their thoughts and actions, or ask an angophora tree to describe how it feels when lace monitors scamper up its trunk after being startled by passing bushwalkers. The "how" of more-than-human research is not straightforward and is often not described in detail, or is otherwise rendered a little strange, improper, messy or experimental. Although there have been a number of recent attempts to develop methodological approaches that are appropriate for more-than-human research (see Collard, 2014;Hinchliffe, Kearnes, Degen, & Whatmore, 2005;Hitchings & Jones, 2004;Lorimer, 2010;Pitt, 2015), there is ample scope to build on these approaches and develop a larger range of...

The questionnaire survey as more‐than‐human achievement

“…In this sense, and following Bell et al. (), we have sought to make visible the non‐human agents in the field work of survey delivery while walking. From this perspective, the postal survey may be understood as an embodied weather‐walking action (Edensor, ); the delivery of the survey relies on an ongoing process whereby certain subjectivities and bodily capacities emerge through the interplay between the elements, moving‐on‐foot, infrastructure, non‐human bodies, ideas, emotions, and affects.…”

“…Alongside these “innovative” methods are sensory ethnographies that advocate embodied, mixed‐methods approaches that combine talking with walking and doing, or “knowing‐through‐showing” (Hitchings & Jones, ; Lorimer, ; Pitt, ), or what Bell et al. () term “engaged witnessing.” However, the call for experimentation should not comprise the jettisoning of “conventional” research methods (see Hitchings, for a defence of the interview, and Browne, on focus groups). Rather, what these performative approaches share in their more‐than‐human dimensions is the idea that methodology is no longer simply a choice of method; the research is alive to how the project design itself brings the object of study into being through doing the research.…”

“…Specifically, we illustrate how more‐than‐human agency shapes questionnaire response rate, and argue that the questionnaire survey is always a more‐than‐human achievement. We seek to build on a nascent body of work concerned with the agency of the more‐than‐human world in shaping the research process – as distinct from work examining more‐than‐human research subjects – including research that attends to the roles of weather (Adams‐Hutcheson, ; de Jong, ), daylight (Davies, ), and non‐human animals and plants (Bell et al., ).…”

Fifty years of Area: Taking stock, looking forward

“…The second prompt – which is related, but articulates a still‐wider set of issues – is to repeat and reinforce our call for papers that engage with “Ethics in/of Geographical Research,” in the widest sense (see Kraftl et al., for full details). Already, this regular feature has spawned a number of significant interventions, on issues as diverse as body‐space relations (Wainwright et al., ), researching the more‐than‐human (Bell et al., ), the “privilege” of Western academics working in the Majority Global South (Griffiths, ) and questions of “over‐research” in refugee crisis contexts (Pascucci, ). Recursively, Area continues its (ethical) commitment to being accessible to, and supportive of, early‐career researchers.…”

Negotiating nature's weather worlds in the context of life with sight impairment

“…Across the disciplines contributing to this work, nature is variously conceptualised as wilderness or countryside (thereby externalised as an entity “out there”), green or blue space (where nature is seemingly concentrated in designated urban or rural settings, such as parks, woodlands, gardens and beaches), or deconstructed and critiqued as a false nature–society dualism (Castree, ; Whatmore, ). The latter approach to nature has become particularly apparent with the rising interest in post‐humanism and relational ontologies that recognise the dynamic, often messy entanglements of human and non‐human actors that shape and co‐fabricate the world in ongoing ways (Bell et al., ; Maller, ). This work challenges the merits of conflating all animal and plant species, landscapes and ecosystems into one macro category of nature.…”