CALL FOR PAPERS: AAG 2019

Picturing power: Innovative visual methods in critical geographies

Session organizers:

Noelani Eidse (McGill University) [log in to unmask]

Melody Lynch (University of Melbourne) [log in to unmask]

Submission deadline: 20 October 2018

“The very heart of geography—the search for our sense of place and self in the world—is constituted by the practice of looking and is, in effect, a study of images”

-Aitken and Zonn, 1994: 7

For centuries, geography-art relations have shaped the ways in which we imagine and know the world (Hawkins, 2013). Yet, only in recent years have geographers acknowledged the ways in which the discipline depends upon visualities—saturated with power relations—for knowledge production (Rose, 2003). Empirically, visual methods move beyond discursive representations of lived experiences, aiming instead to facilitate collaborative knowledge production, increase participants’ tools for self-representation and balance power in researcher-respondent relationships. Visual methods can lend analytical insight, for example, into the everyday politics of marginalized populations, and can give voices to otherwise unheard groups, thus extending a type of citizenship (Matless, 1996), as done in youth (Jeffrey and Dyson, 2008), queer (Zebracki, 2017; Browne et al., 2017), feminist (Kindon, 2003; McIntyre, 2003), cultural (Cresswell, 2009), and political (Peluso, 1995) geographies.

Since the acceleration of the ‘visual turn’ in the early 2000s, visual methods have become increasingly recognized as powerful tools for both geographical thought and practice (Thornes, 2004). A wide range of visual approaches to geography have been developed, including photovoice (Wang, 1999; McIntyre, 2003; Castleden et al., 2007); film (Kindon, 2003; Garrett, 2010); portraits (Jeffrey and Dyson, 2008); comic strips (Dittmer, 2010); mapping (Elwood, 2011; Kim, 2015); counter mapping (Peluso, 1995); bricolage (Zebracki, 2017); and other visual art forms (Mackenzie; 2006; Crang, 2010). Visual methods not only serve as empirical entry points to conceptual inquiry, but can also offer innovative analytical frameworks to geographical thought and practice. The incorporation of visual tools within research praxis, can likewise contribute to more effective research dissemination across disciplines and beyond academe to engage with policymakers, industry and everyday people.

Submissions: This session aims to explore diverse visual methodologies and their applications for critical geographic thought and practice. Specifically, we encourage submissions that incorporate voices from socially, politically or economically ‘marginal’ populations and explore the use of visual methods as a platform for self-representation and expression. We welcome submissions addressing visual methodologies in relation to the following (and other) themes in global north and/or south contexts:

·      Power relations, identity and positionality

·      Expressions of (shadow) citizenship and belonging (Cresswell, 2009)

·      Everyday politics (Kerkvliet, 1990)

·      Daily survival strategies, subaltern urbanisms and and informality (Roy, 2011)

·      (Im)mobilities

·      Collaborative knowledge production

·      Self-representation and embodied experiences

·      Innovation in knowledge production praxis and the ‘mechanics’ of visual methodologies

·      Reflections on the challenges, limitations and ethics of visual methods

We value contributions from community organizers, practitioners, activists and researchers. We encourage submissions from individuals who identify as members of marginalized communities, including people identifying as LGBT*QI, Indigenous people, people of color, people with disabilities. Building on our AAG session, we aim to put together a special issue on visual methodologies in critical geographies. 

To participate in this session, please submit an abstract by October 20th to both organizers at: [log in to unmask] and [log in to unmask]. Submissions should in PDF or Microsoft Word form, and must include an abstract (maximum 250 words), and should be accompanied by a title, five key words, in addition to author(s) name, affiliation and contact information (including email). Feel free to contact the organizers if you have any questions. All submissions will be acknowledged by email; if you do not receive a response within 48 hours please try sending again.

References

• Aitken, S. and Zonn, L. (1994). Place, power, situation and spectacle: a geography of film. Rowman and Littlefield: Totowa, NJ.
• Browne, Kath, Niharika Banerjea, Nick McGlynn, Sumita B., Leela Bakshi, Rukmini Banerjee & Ranjita Biswas (2017).Towards transnational feminist queer methodologies. Gender, Place & Culture, 24(10), 1376-1397.
• Castleden, H., Garvin, T., and Huu-ay-aht, First Nation (2007). Modifying photovoice for community-based participatory indigenous research. Social Science & Medicine.  
• Crang, M. (2010). Visual Methods and Methodologies. In: The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Geography (Eds: D. Delyser, S. Herbert, S. Aitken, M. Crang, and L. McDowell). London: Sage, 208–225.
• Cresswell, T. (2009). The prosthetic citizen: New geographies of citizenship. In Political power and social theory (pp. 259-273). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
• Dittmer, J. (2010). Comic Book Visualities: A Methodological Manifesto on Geography, Montage and Narration. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 35(2), 222–236.
• Elwood, S. (2011) Geographic Information Science: Visualization, Visual Methods, and the Geoweb.Progress in Human Geography,35(3): 401–408.
• Garrett, B. (2010). Videographic geographies: using digital video for geographic research.
• Hawkins, H. (2013). For Creative Geographies: Geography, Visual Arts and the Making of Worlds. London: Routledge. 
• Jeffrey, C. and Dyson, J. (2008). Telling Young Lives: Portraits in Global Youth. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 
• Kim, A. (2015). Sidewalk City: Re-Mapping Public Space in Ho Chi Minh City. University of Chicago Press.Kindon, S. (2003). Participatory video in geographic research: a feminist practice of looking? Area, 35(2), 142-153.
• Mackenzie, A. Fiona D. (2006). ‘Against the Tide’: Placing Visual Art in the Highlands and Islands, Scotland. Social and Cultural Geography,7(6): 965–985.
• Matless, D., (1996). Visual culture and geographical citizenship: England in the 1940s. Journal of Historical Geography, 22(4), 424-439. 
• McIntyre, A. (2003) Through the eyes of women: Photovoice and participatory research as tools for reimagining place. Gender, Place and Culture, 10(1): 47-66.
• Peluso, N. L. (1995). Whose woods are these? Counter-mapping forest territories in Kalimantan, Indonesia. Antipode,27(4): 383-406.
• Rose, G. (2003). On the need to Ask How, Exactly, Is Geography ‘Visual’? Antipode, 35(2). 212–221.
• Roy, A. (2011). Slumdog cities: Rethinking subaltern urbanism. International journal of urban and regional research, 35(2), 223-238.
• Thornes, J.E. (2004). The Visual Turn and Geography (Response to Rose 2003 Intervention). Antipode, 36(5). 
• Wang, Caroline (1999). Photovoice: A Participatory Action Research Strategy Applied to Women’s Health. Journal of Women’s Health, 8(2). 
• Zebracki, Martin. (2017). Queer Bricolage. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 16(3), 605-606.