Notes from a Hybrid Workshop on Interdisciplinary Methods in Migration Research
After almost exactly a year structured by physical distancing, home office and online communication, it was finally possible to organize a hybrid workshop for immigration scholars.
Hovedinnhold
The scholars at the workshop, which took place in Bergen on 18 and 19 March 2021, were affiliated with the University of Bergen (UiB) and Chr. Michelsen Institute (CMI), as well as partners of the TemPro project. Bergen-based scholars met in person while interacting virtually with academics from a range of countries to discuss the topic of interdisciplinary methods in migration research. Those constrained to participate via Zoom expressed their envy, and reflected upon how much time had passed since they last saw a room filled with academics in eager conversation. Unfortunately, non-local scholars also missed out on the wonderful dinner that was organized at the end of day one, which led many of those present to think about how such gathering in the midst of the pandemic felt so strange and so normal at the same time.
Legal scholar Jessica Schultz (CMI/UiB) and anthropologist Marry-Anne Karlsen (UiB) guided the attendees through an engaging program. Thursday morning kicked off with a short introduction of the participants who were asked to articulate how they relate to interdisciplinary methods in their work. In the following session, a selection of speakers shared their experiences from interdisciplinary projects. Christine Jacobsen (UiB) and Olga Demetriou (Durham University) represented anthropology/ethnography, whereas Cathryn Costello (University of Oxford/Hertie School) and Henriette Sinding Aasen (UiB) spoke from a legal (doctrinal) perspective.
- READ: Christine Jacobsen's presentation
- WATCH: Olga Demetriou's presentation
- WATCH: Cathryn Costello's presentation
In the afternoon, legal scholar Sanne Taekema (EUR/UiB) shared her thoughts on what anthropologists should know about legal methods, whereas anthropologist Mikkel Rytter (Aarhus University) turned the pendulum to address legal scholars with a message on what they should know about anthropological methodology. The afternoon ended with an enthusiastic discussion on how to refine an interdisciplinary approach within the field.
All the invited scholars had some experience with interdisciplinary work, and seemed to be of the opinion that interdisciplinarity is necessary in migration research. Yet, we were also presented with the challenges encountered when trying to work and communicate across disciplinary boundaries. Awareness was raised to how differences are not only experienced across disciplines, but also within them. And whereas a particular distinction was identified between doctrinal and critical legal scholarship, references were also made to internal differences within anthropology/ethnography. Scholars provided personal accounts of feeling uncomfortable and of having experienced rejection when working in interdisciplinary teams. Despite such discomfort, the general message was that also these scholars had returned to their disciplines with new insights and lenses that had eventually brought added value to their own work. For those who had succeeded in implementing interdisciplinary methodologies and perspectives, however, another challenge was for that work to be accepted within their own discipline.
Jacobsen (UiB) reminded us that interdisciplinary work challenges scholars on different levels, since our disciplines rely on not only methodological, but also epistemological and ontological assumptions, which complicates communication and collaboration across disciplines. Several tensions were identified between law and anthropology. Legal scholars’ normative orientation, for example, might seem problematic for an anthropologist whose emphasis is primarily on “thick descriptions”. Moreover, legal scholarship tends to focus on problem solving, which might seem quite distant from the ways in which anthropologists work, as they are primarily preoccupied with unpacking complexity and nuances. Jacobsen further pointed to how these two disciplines tend to approach the notion of the state differently. Explaining the interpretive character of legal scholarship in metaphorical terms, she referred to a comparison of doctrinal legal scholars with theologists; whereas theologists have their law from God, legal scholars have their law from the state. Costello agreed, but added that the idea of authority in law is actually much more pluralistic and fragmented, and pointed out that refugee- and migration regimes have multiple overlapping sources of legal authority.
Another set of metaphors were established and referred to throughout the workshop, visualizing the foundational challenges of cooperation between legal scholars and those who do ethnography. Taekema painted the picture of a fence to explain how doctrinal legal researchers are stuck between practices and discipline. They can look inwards and participate in legal practice or outwards towards academic debates, but the decision they make will have implications for what they do. Karlsen suggested that in anthropology the metaphor would be inverted, since anthropologists would rather be looking inwards towards academic discussion, and outwards towards practice. Referring to Taekema’s metaphor, Rytter pictured the ethnographer not as a person sitting on a fence, but as someone who engages in what Norwegians and Danes would call “runddans [round-dance]”, alluding to how anthropologists dance around the object of research, constantly positioning and repositioning themselves while examining the object from different perspectives and angles. Such open and uncontrolled process might seem unserious, and even unscientific, from the outside, as it represents a radical challenge to positivist ideas of objectivity, acknowledging that knowledge is always partial and situated. But how can ethnographers and legal scholars work together to manage these tensions? The question aligns with the objective of the workshop, as it aimed to search for ways to work past these differences.
Costello directed our attention to how sometimes research questions push scholars into interdisciplinary terrain since certain queries may be impossible to answer without zooming out and taking a more holistic approach to the topic of study. Sinding Aasen argued that sometimes, in order to get the full picture of a phenomenon, interdisciplinary perspectives are necessary. She used the example of irregular migrants, and noted that a legal perspective is imperative in order to understand how law informs their lives and experiences. Demetriou referred to anthropologist Jason De Leon who suggests we grab on to the disciplines we can in order to explain the phenomena we are looking at. These are the tools that we have, and we have no other choice but continue trying. On a different note, Karlsen suggested that it may also be challenging to develop research questions that make sense for all participants of an interdisciplinary research team.
Jacobsen emphasized the importance of building strong interdisciplinary communities, including creating spaces of encounter and training young scholars in interdisciplinary work. Sinding Aasen noted that it takes time to develop these interdisciplinary relationships in which scholars reach mutual understanding, find common ground and are able to have meaningful conversations. She drew the attention to the challenges experienced by PhD-candidates who participate in interdisciplinary environments, who despite the benefits may feel the urge to master a range of different disciplines, an impossible task. One should hence guide young scholars to do interdisciplinary work in a constructive manner that is enlightening, but not overwhelming, she noted. A possible solution would be to remain focused on who the reader is and on the main perspective of the project
Indeed, the topic of the researchers’ own positionality when entering interdisciplinary territory was treated in a less unison way. Some emphasized the importance of being firmly grounded in one’s own discipline and to think of how your discipline can contribute to the group. Taekama highlighted three different approaches to interdisciplinarity: Importing, exporting and the middle ground. As an example of importing, she referred to the legal scholar who works on a legal research problem but borrows from other disciplines. Exporting, on the other hand, was exemplified by how legal concepts are transferred to other realms. The middle-ground, she noted, is more complicated and refers to the act of balancing disciplines by giving them equal importance, which might end up being a fight for dominance. Some of the anthropologists felt less constrained by their own background, and pointed out that anthropology itself is interdisciplinary with a variety of subdisciplines (e.g. social/cultural, linguistic, historical, legal and physical anthropology). Nevertheless, as Jacobsen expressed, interdisciplinarity is positioned rather than from nowhere, and we must acknowledge that researchers from different disciplines do not meet on neutral ground.
The challenge of engagement across contexts – physical and disciplinary terrains
Apart from engaging in interdisciplinary work, it might also be important to look across country contexts. A comparative approach might come more naturally for legal scholars and political scientists, whereas anthropologists are often more skeptical to comparative methodologies. Rytter addressed the pitfalls of comparison, while also acknowledging its potential. Whereas comparison might be impossible and cannot provide exact answers, it can be an excellent way to produce questions, he noted, and added that comparison should be employed with caution, and with great awareness to what may get lost in the translation between contexts.
Scholars from different disciplines often talk past each other even when employing the same concept, and translation is often also required when working in an interdisciplinary group. Costello pointed to how legal concepts are often uncritically adopted in other contexts. She underscored that migration scholarship has done a good job on decentering the idea of illegal immigration, particularly by employing the term illegalized, but pointed to the complexities tied to the label refugee, as well as to problematic usages of the concepts forced labor (legal category) and unfree labor (Marxist concept), which are often employed as if referring to the same phenomenon. Sometimes it might be better to use terms that are not constrained by their institutional genealogy, she noted.
Concepts also travel, change and gain new meanings in different contexts. So, how can we develop concepts that make it easier to communicate across disciplines? Jacobsen encouraged scholars from different disciplines to do conceptual work together. Concepts such as protection, vulnerability, attachment, legal consciousness and legal subjectivities were mentioned as possible concepts for interdisciplinary scrutiny. In some cases, however, instead of struggling with comparing and reproducing legal concepts, the meaning of which is often taken for granted, it might be more fruitful to establish new concepts through a grounded approach, Jacobsen suggested. Moreover, whereas several scholars pointed to law as a text discipline, Rytter referred to legal scholarship as a language game with its own logic that indeed anthropologists can learn. His recommendation, however, was to develop a language through which legal scholars and ethnographers can talk to each other, but which also includes and encompasses refugees and other migrants, as well as their perspectives.
All in all, it was a rewarding day on many levels, especially with the chance to get together physically and virtually to share knowledges and experiences from a variety of disciplines, projects and contexts. The exchanges and discussions provided valuable insights that can contribute to facilitating research across the disciplines that make up the field of migration. They also raised new questions that will be crucial to consider when attending to the challenges migration scholars experience when working in an interdisciplinary environment.
