Background and Impacts of the Conference

This working paper was created following the second interdisciplinary ‘Race’ and Socially Engaged Research: Open and Inclusive Conference for PGRs and ECRs to provide an accessible outlet for delegates to share and showcase their reflections, ideas and work.[1] The paper is intended to be disruptive and decentre harmful, hegemonic approaches to research. As the conference organisers highlighted in last year’s Working Paper introduction, for us, ‘disruptive’ research and knowledge exchange is 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.” (Williams and Williams, 2024). We hope this paper goes some way towards challenging hegemonic structures such as these through its different forms and formats of writing, critical and innovative methodologies including artistic approaches, and being used by several authors as an open space for exploration and experimentation.

The 2024 conference - and the works included in this working paper - have built upon the previous year’s inaugural conference and working paper. The Anti-Racism Working Group set up the annual conference in 2023 after finding, from personal experience and discussion with colleagues and friends, that ‘traditional’ conference spaces and their subsequent outputs were too often unwelcoming and daunting spaces for PGRs and ECRs, especially those who are minoritised. Our team was made up of women postgraduate researchers from diverse backgrounds who led the organisation and running of the conference; including people who are racially minoritised, working class, Disabled and have caring responsibilities. As is well-established in anti-racist and anti-colonial literature about western Higher Education and academia, mainstream spaces of knowledge exchange are Euro- and white-centric, resistant to critical research that is focused on social justice, dominated by masculinised norms and extremely inaccessible to Disabled people (Hill-Collins, 1991; Small, 2012; Oliver and Morris, 2022; Smith et al., 2024; Arday, 2018). Witnessing and experiencing this ourselves, we felt compelled to create a space that was as ‘safe’ as possible for critical early career and postgraduate researchers to come together and discuss research, develop their skills and receive peer-feedback on their work.[2] We also hoped to provoke discussions around forming communities in scholar-activist research and going beyond academic institutions, thereby disrupting structural racism and other injustices that are present in academic institutions (Joseph-Salisbury and Connelly, 2021).[3]

Since the inaugural conference in 2023, we have been maintaining and forming radical friendships via social media and email, and holding sub-events throughout the year. Thus, for the second conference in 2024, we doubled the capacity (from 50 to 100 delegates) and length of the event (from 1 to 2 days). Feedback from attendees, funders and invited guests of the 2023 conference highlighted that it provided an affirming and validating space, however, there were some areas of accessibility that needed improvement. For the 2024 conference, we ensured all PGR and ECR panellists were able to present virtually and participate in the conference online, if they wanted to. This meant that scholars from outside the UK - particularly PGRs and ECRs from the Global South - had less barriers to participation (Cheng, 2023; Moosavi, 2024; Ebrahimi, 2022a, 2022b; Chatterjee, 2022; Bustamante and Rata, 2022). We also created additional space for taking meetings and time away as needed, to reduce the pressure to constantly participate. This was particularly important for researchers who encounter difficulties with long-distance and expensive travel and proscriptive timings for formal and informal activities such as those with caring responsibilities - mostly women and, often, minoritised women - and Disabled people (McClurg, 2024; Bos, Sweet-Cushman, and Schneider, 2019; Oliver and Morris, 2020; Rollock, 2012).

We further responded to suggestions that the conference could be more interactive, by including more time for Q&A sessions, having more allocated space to explore the art and poster exhibition, and holding three workshops. Indeed, in organising the 2024 conference, we aimed to forefront community and interaction with our growing network. First, we set up a steering committee of external members, who we meet with every 3-4 months, to support the smooth running of the conference and to gain feedback and guidance throughout the year, acting as a ‘sounding board’ for our different ideas as an organising team. Next, following conversations at the 2023 conference around networking spaces having undertones of whiteness, we co-created with delegates a ‘Manifesto’ on best practice which helped us to form and plan the 2024 conference. Additionally, we contributed to a blog in the Department of Politics at the University of York about our conference and its impacts, and our work was highlighted in the 2024 York St John University Race Equality Charter (REC) progress update. Another core community-building aspect of the conference was creating a blog in November 2023 for our network to have as a publishing outlet throughout the year. As we highlighted last year, “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” (Williams and Williams, 2024). 

Although the 2024 conference continued with the aim 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. This year, we included a fee of £50 to attend the conference which, although a relatively small amount, could be a significant barrier. We were also unable to offer any bursaries for accommodation and travel costs. Both barriers resulted from our limited funding, reflecting the current “financial crisis” of the Higher Education sector in the UK (Leeming, 2024). Such cuts to funding directly affect minoritised people the most, not to mention indirect impacts on marginalised communities such as through decreased sustainability performance (Shaw, 2021; Núnez Chicharro et al., 2024; Sarpong and Adelekan, 2024). However, we did offer fee waivers to those who could not access institutional funding of their own and this enabled several participants to attend. Additionally, having a hybrid option available this year went some way towards reducing the participation barrier derived from accommodation and travel costs, although in future we would hope to also offer bursaries for in-person attendance.

The Anti-Racism Working Group commits to continually engaging in ‘diffraction’ about our role in reproducing harmful, hegemonic structures; reflecting on feedback; and seeking resistance, joy and community in hostile environments. It is widely acknowledged that reflexivity is required within research and knowledge exchange, which is “an attitude of attending systematically to the context of knowledge construction, especially to the effect of the researcher, at every step of the research process” (Cohen and Crabtree, 2006). Yet, ecological feminists have suggested that reflexivity must go further than this to ‘diffraction’ (Doucet, 2018; Calvey, 2018; Code, 1995). ‘Diffraction’ can be defined as “the effort to make a difference in the world”, whilst also taking responsibility for our interventions, being deeply entangled with how knowledges and worlds are made and remade (Haraway, 1997: 16; Doucet, 2018: 81, 74). This is different to ‘reflexivity’ which is where a researcher positions themselves “as connected to, but ultimately still separate from, [their] data and object of investigation” (Doucet, 2018: 81). It is therefore taking (epistemic) responsibility for the researcher’s connection to and influence on their research in relation to positionality but also power; risks and harm; history; knowledge production; methodological practices; and care for participants post-research (Brasher, 2020; Hammersley, 2018; Iphofen and Tolich, 2018).

Connecting the Working Paper to the Conference

This working paper consists of research in many different forms - from posters, to poetry, to papers and essays - and authors from different backgrounds, disciplines and institutions, who have taken varied approaches, reflecting the diversity of the network attached to this ‘Race’ and Socially Engaged Research conference. From our experience at the 2024 conference, along with feedback from attendees, this year’s event and the research included in this working paper really focused on building a community- and joy-centred space, relating to the theme of ‘Resistance, Joy and Community in Hostile Environments’.

There were different modes of learning and presentations at the conference. The atmosphere of the conference was energetic, fuelled by the multiple forms of knowledge exchange and research present, and the diverse, international cohort of presenters and attendees. We had a poster and art exhibition area, displaying art pieces, posters, zines and crafted demonstration banners from the York Palestine Encampment. The themes of the pieces included decolonisation, community and care, and intersections of race with gender, age and emotion. 

Alongside the visual presentations, there were 6 themed panels (3 different sessions over the course of the event, 2 panels running concurrently in each) of verbal presentations from PGRs and ECRs. The themes for these panels were as follows: Arts and Cultural Production; Systemic and Structural Resistance; Anti-Racist and Anti-Colonial Resistance in the Academy and Research Practice; Epistemic Disobedience; Community Building and Healing; and Intersectional and Abolitionist Interventions in Hostile Environments. 

Alongside the work presented by delegates in the art and poster exhibition and panel discussions, we also had 2 roundtable sessions with invited guest speakers. The roundtable and Q&A sessions were intended to build upon PGR and ECR presentations: the first day’s discussion focused on ‘Radical Friendship, Sisterhood and Struggling Where We Are?’. Here, we intentionally switched up the classic roundtable structure by inviting the 4 guest speakers to respond to questions in pairs - about their radical friendship and how they found connection in resistance to harmful structures and/or in spite of hostile environments. Many attendees found this roundtable session to be a highlight of the conference, as it sparked an open, organic conversation for all (not only the invited speakers) to participate in. The second day’s roundtable discussion sought to challenge neoliberalisation in Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) initiatives, themed as ‘Reimagining Anti-Racism Beyond Diversification, Representation and Traditional Approaches to EDI?’. Following a challenging Q&A in the session, deep conversations were sparked and actually spilled over into the break and subsequent activities. Attendees emphasised how important this conversation had been and it catalysed the building and maintaining of a network using spaces such as this conference.

Further to the interactive roundtable sessions, 3 workshops were delivered by external facilitators. On the first day, 2 workshops ran concurrently. Tré Ventour-Griffiths facilitated ‘What’s theory got to do with it? The silly archives, films & TV, and popular trash as cultural revolution’, while Black and Gold Education facilitated ‘Community Empowerment Through Ubuntu: Embracing Scholar Activism for Decolonial Transformation Inside and Outside Academia’. On the second day, York Anti-Racist Collective (YARC) facilitated ‘Talking Objects: an exploration of objects as a tool for storytelling’. The workshops were key, in the feedback of many attendees, for learning but also forming connections with other attendees and using different modes of thinking than in the presentation- and conversation-based conference sessions.

Finally, during the evening reception following the first day of the conference, Sarli Nana (Migrants Organise) delivered a keynote speech on ‘Resisting Hate Crime, Racism and Intolerance’. The evening reception was held in collaboration with York Refugee Week, with Sarli discussing his experiences of the UK asylum system and decades spent fighting for migrants’ rights. In addition to Sarli’s contribution, there was a short roundtable discussion from 4 local community members, organisations and activists who responded and reflected on the keynote. We also had the art and poster exhibition displayed at the reception, drawing connections between resisting hate crime, racism and intolerance, and the work of conference attendees. The evening reception connected with last year’s keynote, where attendees were left with the question of how to make anti-racism, inclusivity and radical action our priority.

The research included in this working paper, and summarised below to conclude this introduction, is from attendees and presenters of the 2024 event and hence is strongly connected to the themes drawn out in the second ‘Race’ and Socially Engaged Research conference, outlined above. 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, militarisation, colonialism and other potentially triggering subjects.

Introduction Summaries of the Work Included in this Working Paper

This working paper - the second of an annual series - contains a range of different topics, disciplinary perspectives and author backgrounds.

The first contribution from Melissa Williams and Susannah Williams is a co-authored research poster, showing how an Ethics of Care framework can disrupt the neoliberalisation of ethics in Higher Education. This piece focuses on themes of care, community and researching with. The poster highlights 3 key areas where an Ethics of Care approach subverts neoliberal institutional understandings of ethics in academia: 1) relationships with the community, 2) project ‘success’ and 3) harm and risk. They argue that careful (re)consideration of ethics in academia is required to make research decisions that align with an Ethics of Care.

Laura Rennie authors a poem criticising Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI). EDI is a core value in many British institutions, particularly within academia. However, she offers a critical perspective on the concept, arguing that EDI has not genuinely fostered inclusivity for Black people but has instead caused further marginalisation. She argues that the Black community still feels unheard, suggesting that EDI initiatives are performative. Rennie asserts that EDI has failed to deliver on its promises, highlighting that Black people are often tolerated rather than respected. She attributes this ongoing marginalisation to the lingering impacts of colonialism.

Zakiyyah Ahmed, highlights the isolation experienced by older South Asian individuals, particularly regarding their exclusion from social activities. She suggests that one way to foster inclusion is through sharing and celebrating their culture. The article emphasises the need for initiatives aimed at reducing isolation, addressing factors such as stigma, stereotypes, and language barriers, which can negatively impact health and mental well-being. Qualitative research was conducted by the author, including interviews and focus groups. Findings indicate that there may be a generational divide, with younger South Asians often placing less value on cultural traditions. To bridge this gap and reduce isolation, the article advocates for community initiatives that promote intergenerational engagement and cultural sensitivity.

Victoria Burgher utilises porcelain pieces as an art form to convey her thoughts and attitudes towards colonialism and white oppression. Porcelain, historically linked to the era of European expansion and the exploitation of enslaved societies, serves as both a symbol of oppression and a reflection of the reality of colonialism. In her work, she introduces the "decolonial dreaming dinner," which she hosts as a safe space designed to confront and heal from the atrocities of colonialism. During the dinner, participants used porcelain plates as a medium to share their experiences, including those related to partition and generational trauma, and were invited to design their own plates, fostering a personal and communal exploration of their histories.

Iman Khan discusses the atrocities occurring in Palestine and advocates for the liberation of Palestine by drawing parallels between Israeli military actions and British colonialism, emphasizing how these dynamics are withheld and overlooked within academia. The author shares personal experiences, noting the prioritisation of STEM fields in universities, even if they employ exclusionary language, over the social sciences. She highlights the historical collaboration between British universities, the government, and military research establishments, arguing that these institutions have long supported oppressive colonial policies. The author further describes how universities in the Occupied Palestinian Territories face routine Israeli military raids. She warns that British universities may be following a similar path of militarization and repression, thereby exacerbating oppression. The essay calls for critical conversations on decolonization, challenging the role of British universities in perpetuating violence and harming innocent lives under the guise of economic benefits.

Harry Strange explores the connection between Frantz Fanon's theories of decolonization and Steve Biko's Black Consciousness movement, focusing on how both of these important figures in anti-colonial and anti-apartheid struggles contributed to the reclamation of Black identity. It examines the interplay between their ideas on race, identity, and liberation, situating them within the broader context of socio-racial theorists and activist groups. The influence of Fanon on Biko is evident, with Biko emphasizing the need to "re-create consciousness" and Fanon addressing the imposition of external forces on individuals. Both discuss themes of Black pride, independence, and the importance of cultural education, such as teaching Arabic and African languages in prisons. Thus highlighting the importance and influence of African history and experiences as a response to white supremacy.

The text also highlights the intersection of feminism and racism, noting that second-wave feminism often excluded voices from different races and sexualities, demonstrating how even revolutionary movements can perpetuate oppression. Black women activists, particularly within the Women’s League of the African National Congress, highlighted the necessity for a more inclusive vision of liberation. While Fanon and Biko’s works remain foundational to the discourse on liberation and decolonization, it is crucial to keep in mind that their experiences are from the male gaze. Incorporating the experiences of women and intersectional perspectives enriches their ideas, making them more inclusive and reflective of the diverse experiences of oppression.

Dr Paula McLean, through a poster, explores the experiences of Black women in prisons, highlighting the struggles faced, including physical and mental abuse. As a form of resilience in response to the systemic neglect they endure, these women support one another, for example, when witnessing abuse by prison staff. This mutual care in a hostile environment serves as a form of resistance. Another form of resistance is mentoring and supporting each other, which helps them build a sense of community. Their shared experiences in such harsh conditions foster solidarity and resilience, creating a powerful network of support within the prison system.

Duha Ceylan's contribution to this re-edited volume is a radical, abolitionist intervention into early childhood education and care (ECEC). Refusing the constraints of traditional academic writing, her paper weaves speculative imagination with empirical research drawn from interviews with Syrian mothers across Belgium, Germany, and the Netherlands. Framed as a method of political refusal, this piece challenges integrationist ECEC policies that uphold institutional whiteness and racial capitalism. Ceylan critiques the myth of liberal multiculturalism, exposes how white childhoods operate as a structuring force, and asks: What would it mean to dismantle—not reform—systems that demand legibility, compliance, and erasure from racialised children? Rather than seeking inclusion within violent systems, Ceylan imagines alternative futures grounded in collective care, multilingual joy, and refusal. Her work is a call to burn the master’s house, not redecorate it. It insists on building worlds that were never meant to be managed, only lived.

Footnotes:

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

[2] By ‘safe’, we mean that our organising team were 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&A moderation; and other support for delegates.

It is also important to note that we do not understand ‘safe’ academic spaces to mean those where thoughts and ideas are unchallenged and everybody agrees. Indeed, the opposite is true. We sought to create a space where peers felt they could discuss, debate and critique in good faith and with understanding, respect and openness from others.

[3] To find out more about why we created this annual conference, please see Williams and Williams (2024).

References

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 2025].

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 2025]. 

Brasher, J.P. (2020). Positionality and participatory ethics in the Global South: critical reflections on and lessons learned from fieldwork failure. Journal of Cultural Geography, 37(03), pp. 296-310. [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/08873631.2020.1760020. [Accessed 15 January 2025].

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 2024]. 

Calvey, D. (2018). The Fear and Fascination of a Methodological Pariah. In R. Iphofen and M. Tolich (Eds.). SAGE Research Methods: The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research Ethics. London: SAGE Publications, pp. 470-484.

Chatterjee, D. (2022). How international conferences fail scholars from the global South. International Affairs, 5 August 2022. [Online]. Available at: https://medium.com/international-affairs-blog/how-international-conferences-fail-scholars-from-the-global-south-fbde14e5d1f1. [Accessed 14 January 2025].

Cheng, Y., Yang, P., Lee, J., Waters, J., & Yeoh, B. S. A. (2023). Migration governance and higher education during a pandemic: policy (mis)alignments and international postgraduate students’ experiences in Singapore and the UK. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 50(5), pp. 1138–1156. [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2023.2279731. [Accessed 15 January 2025].

Code, L. (1995). Rhetorical Spaces: Essays on Gendered Locations. New York: Routledge.

Cohen, D. and Crabtree, B. (2006). Qualitative research guidelines project. [Online]. Available at: http://www.qualres.org/HomeEval-3664.html. [Accessed 14 January 2025].

Doucet, A. (2018). Feminist Epistemologies and Ethics: Ecological Thinking, Situated Knowledges, Epistemic Responsibilities. In R. Iphofen and M. Tolich (Eds.). SAGE Research Methods: The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research Ethics. London: SAGE Publications, pp. 73-87.

Ebrahimi, O.V. (2022a). Sidelined by bureaucracy. Science, 378(6622), pp. 922-922.

Ebrahimi, O.V. (2022b). Visa bureaucracy makes scientific conferences inaccessible for too many researchers. Science Adviser, 23 November 2022. [Online]. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.caredit.adf9304. [Accessed 14 January 2025].

Hammersley, M. (2018). Values in Social Research. In R. Iphofen and M. Tolich (Eds.). SAGE Research Methods: The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research Ethics. London: SAGE Publications, pp. 23-34.

Haraway, D.J. (1997). Modest_Witness@Second_Millenium.FemaleMan©Meets_Oncomouse™: Feminism and Technoscience (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Hill-Collins, P. (1991). Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness and the Politics of Empowerment. London and New York: 1991.

Iphofen, R. and Tolich, M. (2018). Concluding Thoughts: The Virtues of a Reflexive Qualitative Researcher. In R. Iphofen and M. Tolich (Eds.). SAGE Research Methods: The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research Ethics. London: SAGE Publications, pp. 540-541.

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

Leeming, J. (2024). UK universities on the brink. Nature, 633, pp. 969-971. [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03079-w. [Accessed 15 January 2025].

McClurg, U.L. (2024). Conference accessibility should be a universal concern. Nature Cell Biology, 26, p. 309. [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41556-024-01346-6. [Accessed 14 January 2025].

Moosavi, M. (2024). To Catch a Glimpse from Afar: MENA Scholars in US International Conferences. Theatre Topics, 34(1), pp. 95-101. [Online]. Available at: https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/tt.2024.a920481. [Accessed 14 January 2025].

Núnez Chicharro, M., Mangena, M., Alonso Carrillo, M.I. and Priego De La Cruz, A.M. (2024). The effects of stakeholder power, strategic posture and slack financial resources on sustainability performance in UK higher education institutions. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 15(1), pp. 171-206. [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-07-2022-0375. [Accessed 14 January 2025].

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 2025]. 

Oliver, C. and Morris, A. (2022) ‘Resisting the “academic circle jerk”: precarity and friendship at academic conferences in UK higher education’, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 43(4), pp. 603–622. [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2022.2042193. [Accessed 14 January 2025].

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 2024]. 

Sarpong, J. and Adelekan, T. (2024). Globalisation and education equity: The impact of neoliberalism on universities’ mission. Policy Futures in Education, 22(6), pp. 1114-1129. [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103231184657. [Accessed 15 January 2025].

Shaw, A. (2021). Inclusion of disabled Higher Education students: why are we not there yet?’. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 28(6), pp. 820–838. [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.1968514. [Accessed 14 January 2025].

Small, S. (2012). Slavery, Colonialism and their Legacy in the Eurocentric University. Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge, 10(1), pp. 69-80.

Smith, A., Persaud, A., Bhugra, D., Javed, A. and Liebrenz, M. (2024). Restrictive visa policies harm global scientific exchanges. The Lancet, 403(10442), p. 2376. [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00300-3. [Accessed 14 January 2025].

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.