Background - How the Conference Came About

This working paper was created following the inaugural interdisciplinary ‘Race’ and Socially Engaged Research: Open and Inclusive Conference for PGRs and ECRs, to provide a much-needed space to share, and receive feedback on, innovative and ‘disruptive’ research with social justice aims.[1] We understand ‘disruptive’ research as that which challenges harmful hegemonic structures, power relations, institutions and epistemological and ontological assumptions. This includes research that disrupts the enduring coloniality of knowledge production; epistemic injustice; colonial structures and power relations; racism; heteronormativity; neoliberalism; ableism; and gendered injustice.

The conference was initiated by the PGR-led Anti Racism Working Group, which was initially founded by masters students based in the Department of Politics at the University of York in May 2020. Set up during the resurgence of the ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement, following the murder of George Floyd by a white police officer, the voluntary group seeks to build a learning community grounded in Angela Davis’ idea that ‘In a racist society, it is not enough to be non-racist, we must also be actively anti-racist’. Our approach is informed and guided by our engagement with anti-racist and anti-colonial scholarship, our work as activists and our lived experiences as a diverse team of PGR scholars who encounter white-centrism, racism and coloniality within our institutions, and the various intersections of power within that.

The motivation for challenging the status quo of academic conferences was, therefore, due to our own personal experiences and knowledge of the harm done within spaces of knowledge production to racially minoritised scholars and scholars working on ‘race’ in a socially engaged and disruptive manner. During a working group meeting, our racially minoritised members reflected upon the challenges they consistently faced at academic conferences, including racist micro-aggressions, difficulties navigating the ‘unwritten rules’ of the conference environment and fierce pushback from senior academics who did not consider their decolonial approaches to research as ‘rigorous’. Simultaneously, white working group members had repeatedly experienced discomfort in these spaces when witnessing such exclusionary practices and racism at conferences and within other academic contexts, including when working closely with racialised scholars and the working group team members. We therefore aimed to create a safe space,[2] whereby often-excluded and -silenced approaches to research were brought ‘from margin to centre’ (hooks, 1984), and delegates from diverse backgrounds could present their work in an inclusive, enriching and supportive environment.

Academic conferences represent central ‘learning sites’ whereby researchers present and receive feedback on their work, increase visibility of their research, initiate collaborations with peers and network with others in their field (Omolabake et al, 2019; Hauss, 2021). However, it is widely acknowledged that these salient spaces for professional development can be unwelcoming and inaccessible for junior and early career researchers (Jackson, 2019; Timperley et al., 2020; Belkhir et al., 2019). Exclusions are further compounded for scholars who are positioned as ‘outsiders’ in western academic environments, which continue to be centred around whiteness and masculinity and mediated by neoliberal values (Oliver and Morris, 2019; Nicolson, 2018; Arday, 2018; Timperley et al., 2020). Researchers from various minoritised backgrounds, especially in postgraduate and early career stages, are regularly harmed in academic spaces. Yet, in the context of western academia, little is done to overcome or transform exclusionary power dynamics that are prevalent in knowledge production.

A key aspect that our team saw as missing - within our specific context of an anti-racism working group within the UK Higher Education sector - was an open and inclusive space for critical and socially engaged research on ‘race’ to be presented by PGRs and ECRs. Scholars have highlighted that the white- and Euro-centric nature of western knowledge production leads racially minoritised researchers to experience alienation, exclusion, mental and physical health conditions and racialised disparities in employment (such as Rollock, 2010). This harm manifests in different ways and can be exacerbated by positionality; both as racialised scholars and in early career stages, whilst conducting disruptive, innovative research that is marginalised by dominant Eurocentric and positivist epistemological and ontological assumptions. As highlighted by Oliver and Morris (2020), 'outsider' bodies in the conference space are expected to inhabit traditional rules, norms and practices, not shatter them. As such, researchers who take a critical, liberatory and anti-colonial approach in their work on ‘race’ - especially those who are also racially minoritised - are often (actively) misunderstood in these traditional settings. Such researchers are viewed as troublesome and/or less academic (Ahmed, 2010), particularly when using anti-racist and decolonial research methods, and become excluded from different types of knowledge production including conferences, as well as book reviews, citations and corridor talk (Bacevic, 2023).

It is evident that academic conferences are exclusionary at a structural level, whereby the conference space and broader socio-political environments reproduce barriers to participation for junior, racially minoritised, women, LGBTQ, migrant, working class, Global South, and disabled scholars (Jackson, 2019; De Picker, 2020; O’Connor, Kirsch and Maestas, 2022; Timperley et al., 2020). Despite the shift to online participation during, and following, the COVID-19 pandemic and global lockdowns from early 2020, many academic conferences continue to be ‘in-person only’ events. Although there are several notable benefits of in-person participation, such as enhanced networking opportunities and more informal networking spaces, a lack of provision for hybrid participation reproduces barriers to participation for scholars from minoritised backgrounds. 

For instance, the securitisation of borders in countries such as the UK, Canada and the USA has increasingly prevented many scholars from the Global South from attending conferences that they have been accepted to present at, due to visa delays and refusals (Nicolson, 2018; Basken, 2023; Bustamante and Rata, 2022; Ehdeed, 2019). This has further reproduced global, colonial and racialised hierarchies as many of the largest, and most highly-regarded, conferences that take place in Global North countries are inaccessible to many scholars from the Global South. Furthermore, traditional conferences also frequently necessitate expensive, long-distance travel and accommodation, and are structured through an intense 9am-5pm programme for ‘formal’ activities and post-5pm for ‘informal’ networking opportunities. This can act as a barrier for researchers who encounter difficulties with access to funding, long-distance travel and proscriptive timings for formal and informal activities such as those with caring responsibilities - often marginalised women - and people with disabilities (De Picker, 2020; Bos, Sweet-Cushman, and Schneider, 2019; Oliver and Morris, 2020; Business in the Community, 2022).

At its core, the ‘Race’ and Socially Engaged Research conference was therefore created to challenge the often-exclusionary set-up, delivery and outcomes of traditional academic conferences at elitist institutions in the Global North. Research with students from underrepresented groups has indeed shown that validating encounters at conferences, where people of diverse backgrounds are welcomed and included and have shared experiences and research approaches with other attendees, can have a very powerful and transformative impact on career aspirations and research skills (O’Connor, Kirsch and Maestas, 2022). Hence, it is clear that relationality and connecting with various communities via conferences - as opposed to the hegemonic exclusionary, neoliberal and individualistic view of academic progression or ‘success’[3] - is crucial to an inclusive and confidence-building experience (and which extends beyond the conference event itself).

At the inaugural conference, our team hoped to encourage transgression, resistance and a departure from colonial, masculine, neoliberal and western expectations and associated ‘performances’ in the conference environment (Oliver and Morris, 2020). This is because, despite all of the aforementioned drawbacks and harms produced at conferences, we believe that the gathering of critical scholars in an inclusive, supportive and anti-colonial environment has strong liberatory potential to make both the academic space and our broader social worlds a better place. For the 2023 event, this took on six key forms: First, our team was made up of postgraduate researchers from diverse backgrounds who led the organisation and running of the conference; including racially minoritised, working class, disabled and PGRs with caring responsibilities. Second, decolonial and disruptive approaches to research were platformed to encourage open and critical discussions pertaining to research projects, approaches and our roles in the academic environment. Third, the team dedicated significant time and energy into creating as safe a space as possible, although recognising we could never fully control the environment. This included the curation of three breakout spaces for decompression, rest and joy throughout the conference, which could be accessed by all attendees. Fourth, we have continued to maintain networks following the conference, including via smaller events throughout the year, social media and launching a blog. Another key aspect of continuing these important networks and discussions is through this working paper, encouraging people from different backgrounds, disciplines and approaches to express their work through whichever method feels best for them and their research. Lastly, the conference was free of charge and delegates were given the option to apply for travel bursaries in the event that they could not access financial support from their institutions. 

Although the 2023 conference aimed to disrupt and challenge longstanding exclusionary practices in traditional academic conferences, it is important to acknowledge our complicity in reinforcing and reproducing barriers to participation. Notable limitations of the inaugural conference included a lack of provision for online participation due to a limited budget; 9am-4pm format for the ‘formal’ conference followed by a post-4pm drinks reception; a traditional ‘lecture theatre’ set-up for paper presenters; and undertones of whiteness in delegate networking spaces. As a conference team, we will continue to critically reflect on our role in reproducing harmful practices with this ever-growing community of dissent, build upon feedback received and strive to create a more disruptive and inclusive space in future years, including extending beyond academic spaces.

Introduction - The Working Paper

The varied contributions of this working paper reflect the interdisciplinary and cross-institutional structure of the conference, as well as the diversity of those in the conference network. At the 2023 conference, there were a myriad of different ideas, conversations and approaches to research which were reflected in the various presentations - posters, three themed panels and a keynote - and the roundtable and Q&A discussions. Although diverse, the content of presenting delegates demonstrated several overlapping themes including centring decolonial approaches; reflecting on intersectionality and positionality; and critical approaches to ‘race’, racialisation and racism.

The poster presentations ranged from topics on ‘race’ and education, to ‘race’ and health/wellbeing, to using disruptive and decolonial methodologies in research. The three panels were themed as Intersectionality, Positionality and Resistance; Disrupting Racism and Eurocentrism in Knowledge Production, Education and the ‘Everyday’; and Challenging Institutional Harm in Governance and the Courts. The keynote was intended to demonstrate the connections between research, and importance of engagement, with community and grassroots work on ‘race’ and anti-racism. Delivered by Haddy Njie (Inclusive Equal Rights UK), the keynote entailed a deep and affective presentation on Haddy’s own anti-racism activism, which prompted a challenging question of ‘what will we do next?’, as researchers, to make anti-racism, inclusivity and radical action our priority.

The roundtable and Q&A discussions related to and built upon these presentations, asking and responding to questions such as how we can avoid trying to “dismantle the Master’s house” with “the Master’s tools” within the context of neoliberal, institutionally-racist-imperial universities; how important interdisciplinary and transformative research is in building communities of dissent; how PGRs and ECRs can challenge dominant western epistemologies and racism within our institutions and “struggle where we are”; and how we can practise self-care and care for others whilst undertaking the significant emotional labour involved in socially engaged scholar-activism, including that centred on ‘race’ (Lorde, 1984; Joseph-Salisbury and Connelly, 2021).

The papers that follow in this working paper, and which are summarised below to conclude this introduction, are strongly connected to the themes drawn out in the inaugural conference. Indeed, these contributions are all written by attendees and presenters at the 2023 event. It is important to note that this working paper, and the summaries below, contain discussions around topics that may be traumatic for some readers including racism, colonialism, abortion, gender-based violence and other potentially triggering subjects.

As noted above with the conference, this working paper - the first of an annual series - contains a range of different topics, disciplinary perspectives and author backgrounds. The first contribution from Sanaa Hyder and Aman Rattan is a co-authored poem on ‘Reflexive Researchers’ which explores themes that were also forefronted in the 2023 conference, including communities of dissent; positionality and culture; the histories and intersectionalities of research; and injustices across institutions.

Izzy Bartley authors a paper, building upon their panel presentation at the 2023 conference, which draws upon a postcolonial lens and participatory action research methodology to highlight how the museum sector and board game industry have dark colonial foundations. Bartley argues that these two industries are in desperate need of more critical reflection to decolonise their processes and practices, particularly as the board game industry is increasing in popularity and being exposed to more people. The research focus is predominantly on the UK.

This paper provides an important contribution to decolonial and disruptive research both conceptually and methodologically: First, the article centres the affective nature of play to explore how the act of playing colonial themed board games, as object-based learning, can be used to provoke discussions around the way knowledge of colonial histories and legacies is constructed. Second, the article considers the potential of these board games to act as decolonising tools in museum environments. In this way, the author also aims to challenge the dominant culture in museums of targeting games only at younger audiences, and instead shifts towards the potential of play to facilitate new and meaningful discussions amongst all age groups.

Throughout, the author reflects upon their own role as both a ‘participant’ - a museum professional and board gamer - but also as a researcher facilitating discussions via play. Through 3 different case studies of colonial board games, the paper illuminates the normalisation of a historic white, Euro-American centric worldview and, within this context, shows how play can be violent towards those outside this culture.

Bernardo Carvalho de Mello, also developing a paper following their panel presentation at the 2023 conference, contributes an intersectional analysis on reproductive justice. This comes after the infamous Roe v Wade case in the US, and the author highlights the strikingly similar Beatriz v El Salvador case, providing an important and much-needed Global Majority perspective to the discussion on women’s reproductive rights. Comparing the US and El Salvador cases, they show that, with different and complex dynamics, both cases exemplified increased control over women’s bodies and reproductive rights, intersecting with race, poverty and education.

This paper hence disrupts Euro-American and white centric research and policy foci - here, regarding reproductive justice - as well as drawing upon an intersectional lens in its analysis to reify that abortion is not a crime but part of the universal human right to health and life. Indeed, the author shows that the journey towards reproductive justice transcends merely accessing abortion but is also closely intertwined with broader socio-economic and cultural challenges. Adopting a reproductive justice framework, Carvalho de Mello argues that the longstanding battle for women’s rights is far from uniform and exposes a complex web of privilege and oppression - both in terms of access to reproductive autonomy but also in facing legal battles when reproductive injustices occur.

This paper argues for viewing reproductive rights not as a luxury and calls for supporting organisations at the forefront of this, engaging with political activism and challenging ourselves and others around us - including the deep-rooted norms and stereotypes in society that perpetuate gender-based violence.

         Iram Zahair similarly utilises an intersectional perspective, in a reflexive paper which was developed following their poster presentation at the 2023 conference. Zahair’s research explores the experiences, practices and everyday beliefs relating to gastrointestinal infections across 38 ethnic minorities in the UK context. The research analysis is centred on intersecting characteristics such as age, gender and class, and how these compound existing health inequalities.

Through exploring the association between ethnicity and stomach bugs, the author argues that pathways generating health inequalities need to be more accurately understood in contemporary academic discourse. Indeed, this paper demonstrates that various social factors impact ethnic inequalities in gastrointestinal infections, and research attempting to understand this must centre questions around reflexivity, ethnicity and positionality – and what these mean in the context of our own research approaches and practices.

The author provides an important reflection on their personal experiences conducting primary qualitative research as a PhD researcher and how this felt for them and their participants: In this research, Zahair aimed to get at the subjective experiences of the participants, rather than pressuring them to answer interview questions in a certain way. In this regard, the paper’s interest in research power dynamics, methodological approaches, and positionality is very much of interest and important to this working paper’s aims. In particular, the paper outlines the researcher’s combined post-positivist and positivist approach and explores insider/outsider perspectives.

         Kevin J Brazant contributes a poster about an initiative they launched in 2021, which seeks to disrupt the dominant discourse of race in the Higher Education sector in the United Kingdom and consider how education can be used to achieve social justice goals. The initiative, using Critical Race Theory, focuses on tackling structural inequality in teaching and practice and the degree-awarding gap. The initiative currently runs at a Higher Education institution in London, UK, and probes uncomfortable, educational conversations about race, drawing upon a team of antiracist scholars, as well as a specific framework and toolkit created by the author, to explore the lived experiences of students and staff.

Footnotes

[1] ‘PGR’ stands for postgraduate researcher and ‘ECR’ means early career researcher.

[2] The organising team are conscious that the topics discussed at the conference were often sensitive and could have adversely impacted attendees in different ways. We also recognised that everyone experiences safety differently and we could not guarantee that the event spaces would be ‘safe’, since we cannot control all of the factors that impact this. We therefore created a statement on safety to acknowledge both our unavoidable complicity in harmful structures that are perpetuated in academic contexts and our inability to guarantee a wholly ‘safe space’. As a conference team, we put in place several measures to enhance the safety of our space including access to decompression, rest and joy spaces; Q and A moderation; and support for delegates. 

[3] The notion of ‘success’ itself is a highly capitalistic and, as Halberstam (2011) highlights, individualistic and heteronormative term, that is overall exclusionary to those who do not conform into what or who is widely perceived to be ‘productive’.

Author Biographies

Melissa Williams is a PhD candidate and Graduate Teaching Assistant in  the  Department  of  Politics at the University of York. Her research examines the role of the post-1962 British immigration regime in shaping the legal status of ‘Windrush Descendants’ of Jamaican heritage, and how a subjective sense of ‘belonging’ may emerge in this context.

Susannah  Williams  is  a  PhD  candidate in  the  Department  of  Politics and a Graduate Teaching Assistant in the Writing Centre at the University of York.  Her  research  focuses on the intersectional gendered dynamics of environmental and human exploitation in garment production in the UK.

Ethics and Funding Statement

No ethical approval was required for this research and no funding is reported by the authors.

How to cite this introduction: Williams, M. and Williams, S.G. (2024). Introduction and Background. ‘Race’ and Socially Engaged Research Working Paper 2023: Contributions from inaugural conference held in York. Volume 1, pp. 5-16, https://sites.google.com/view/raceandsociallyengagedresearch/publications/working-paper/2024-volume-1 

References

Ahmed, S. (2010). Killing Joy: Feminism and the History of Happiness. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 35(3), pp. 571-592 [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1086/648513. [Accessed 4 January 2024].

Arday, J. (2018). Dismantling power and privilege through reflexivity: negotiating normative Whiteness, the Eurocentric curriculum and racial micro-aggressions within the Academy. Whiteness and Education, 3(2), pp. 141-161. [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/23793406.2019.1574211. [Accessed 2 January 2024].

Bacevic, J. (2023). Epistemic injustice and epistemic positioning: towards an intersectional political economy. Current Sociology, 71(6), pp. 1122-1140. [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/00113921211057609. [Accessed 2 January 2024].

Basken, P. (2023). Canada tackles ‘chronic’ visa issues for conference attendees. Times Higher Education, 20 February 2023. [Online]. Available at: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/canada-tackles-chronic-visa-issues-conference-attendees. [Accessed 4 January 2024]. 

Belkhir, M., Brouard, M., Brunk, K.H., Dalmoro, M., Ferreira, M.C., Figueiredo, B., Huff, A.D., Scaraboto, D., Sibai, O. and Smith, A.N. (2019). Isolation in Globalizing Academic Fields: A Collaborative Autoethnography of Early Career Researchers. AMLE, 18(2), pp. 261–285. [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2017.0329. [Accessed 3 January 2024].

Bos, A.L., Sweet-Cushman, J. and Schneider, M.C. (2019). Family-Friendly Academic Conferences: a missing link to fix the ‘leaky pipeline’? Politics, Groups and Identities, 7(3), pp. 748-758. [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2017.1403936. [Accessed 20 December 2023]. 

Business in the Community. (2022). Who Cares? Transforming how we combine work with caring responsibilities. Business in the Community, March 2022. [Online]. Available at: https://www.bitc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/bitc-gender-report-whocares-march2022.pdf. [Accessed 15 December 2023]. 

Bustamante, A. and Rata, M. (2022). No visa, No worries! Making global health conferences accessible for all. BMJ GH Blogs, 27 September 2022. [Online]. Available at: https://blogs.bmj.com/bmjgh/2022/09/27/no-visa-no-worries-making-global-health-conferences-accessible-for-all/. [Accessed 20 December 2023]. 

De Picker, M. (2020). Rethinking inclusion and disability activism at academic conferences: strategies proposed by a PhD student with a physical disability. Disability and Society, 35(1), pp. 163-167. [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2019.1619234. [Accessed 19 December 2023].

Ehdeed, S. (2019). The Impact of Visa Denial in Academia. LSE Blogs, 27 August 2019. [Online]. Available at: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mec/2019/08/27/the-impact-of-visa-denial-in-academia/ [Accessed 20 December 2023]. 

Fakunle, O., Dollinger, M., Alla-Mensah, J. and Izard, B. (2019). Academic Conferences as Learning Sites: A Multinational Comparison of Doctoral Students’ Perspectives and Institutional Policy. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 14, pp. 479–497. [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.28945/4383. [Accessed 4 January 2024].

Halberstam, J. (2011). The Queer Art of Failure. Durham: Duke University Press.

Hauss, K. (2021). What are the social and scientific benefits of participating at academic conferences? Insights from a survey among doctoral students and postdocs in Germany. Research Evaluation, 30(1), pp. 1-12. [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvaa018. [Accessed 2 January 2024].

hooks, b. (1984). Feminist Theory: From Margin to Centre. Pluto Press: Bristol.  

Jackson, L. (2019). The smiling philosopher: Emotional labor, gender, and harassment in conference spaces. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 51(7), pp. 693-701. [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2017.1343112. [Accessed 3 January 2024].

Joseph-Salisbury, R. and Connelly, L. (2021). Anti-Racist Scholar-Activism. Manchester University Press: Manchester.

Lorde, A. (1984). The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House. In A. Lorde (Ed.). Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches. Berkeley: Crossing Press, pp. 110-114. 

Nicolson, D. (2018). For some, borders are now an insurmountable barrier to attending international academic conferences. LSE Blogs, 28 August 2018. [Online]. Available at: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2018/08/28/for-some-borders-are-now-an-insurmountable-barrier-to-attending-international-academic-conferences/. [Accessed 15 December 2023].

O’Connor, B.H., Kirsch, H. and Maestas, N. (2022). “I learned that I don’t have to change”: migrant/seasonal farmworker undergraduates’ experiences at academic conferences. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, pp. 1-17. [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2022.2097746. [Accessed 3 January 2024].

Oliver, C. and Morris, A. (2020). (dis-)Belonging bodies: Negotiating outsider-ness at academic conferences. Gender, Place and Culture, 27(6), pp. 765-787. [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2019.1609913. [Accessed 2 January 2024]. 

Rollock, N. (2012). Unspoken Rules of Engagement: Navigating Racial Microaggressions in the Academic Terrain. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 25(5), pp. 517-532. [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2010.543433. [Accessed 11 December 2023]. 

Timperley, C., Sutherland, K.A., Wilson, M. and Hall, M. (2020). He moana pukepuke: navigating gender and ethnic inequality in early career academics’ conference attendance. Gender and Education, 32(1), pp. 11-26. [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2019.1633464. [Accessed 3 January 2024].