“…Lorimer, 2010). This has become particularly apparent since the 'cultural' and more recent 'affective' turns that have increasingly entrenched contemporary sport and leisure studies discourses (Anderson, 2012;Avner et al, 2013;Pavlidis & Fullagar, 2012;Thorpe & Rinehart, 2010). Social scientists continue to grapple with the challenges of giving a voice and agency to research participants [sic.…”
This paper provides an introduction to the concept of creative participatory mapping of human-environment relations. It is identified that within human geography, artistic practice and urban design, biomapping and similar community mapping tools and methodologies are increasingly being embraced. However, within sports and leisure research the concept has yet to gain academic attention. Consequently, this paper provides a basis for thinking about how researchers and research participants in the fields of sport and leisure research might benefit if mapping human-environment relations was to be embraced and integrated into research design practices. Referencing recent turns to studying space and affect within sport and leisure studies, mapping is argued to offer innovative methodological opportunities for studying how people relate to and understand the urban environments in which they practice physical activity and leisure forms of embodiment. The paper concludes by arguing that, along with offering up new avenues for conceptual research, mapping human-environment relations, if readily embraced, can go a long way to fostering community engagement in: the identification of (un)safe urban routes for sport/leisure practice (e.g. running, cycling), the development and site identification of health/physical activity initiatives and the design of urban landscapes of sport/leisure.
“…Lorimer, 2010). This has become particularly apparent since the 'cultural' and more recent 'affective' turns that have increasingly entrenched contemporary sport and leisure studies discourses (Anderson, 2012;Avner et al, 2013;Pavlidis & Fullagar, 2012;Thorpe & Rinehart, 2010). Social scientists continue to grapple with the challenges of giving a voice and agency to research participants [sic.…”
This paper provides an introduction to the concept of creative participatory mapping of human-environment relations. It is identified that within human geography, artistic practice and urban design, biomapping and similar community mapping tools and methodologies are increasingly being embraced. However, within sports and leisure research the concept has yet to gain academic attention. Consequently, this paper provides a basis for thinking about how researchers and research participants in the fields of sport and leisure research might benefit if mapping human-environment relations was to be embraced and integrated into research design practices. Referencing recent turns to studying space and affect within sport and leisure studies, mapping is argued to offer innovative methodological opportunities for studying how people relate to and understand the urban environments in which they practice physical activity and leisure forms of embodiment. The paper concludes by arguing that, along with offering up new avenues for conceptual research, mapping human-environment relations, if readily embraced, can go a long way to fostering community engagement in: the identification of (un)safe urban routes for sport/leisure practice (e.g. running, cycling), the development and site identification of health/physical activity initiatives and the design of urban landscapes of sport/leisure.
“…When a coconstructed autoethnography becomes criticalthat is, steeped in critical theory, critical pedagogy, and critical race theory-it provides space for the personal elements of formal research to emerge and for collaborating researchers to work across, and teach each other about, differences (Cann & DeMeulenaere, 2012). We adhere to the politics and ethics of Avner et al (2014) who suggest, along with Denison (2010), that co-writing should reflect diverse, complex, entangled, and potentially contradictory experiences.…”
“Mainstream” spaces of movement cultures within settler colonial states invite bodies that are White, cis, able, thin, and heterosexual, just as “mainstream” academic space validates knowledge about the world produced by these very subjects. Such mainstream assemblages are embedded within the broader structure of settler colonialism, mutually buttressed by White supremacy, heteropatriarchy, and (neo)imperialism. In this article, a Collective of scholars who represent voices from the margins writes back to settler colonialism, ableism, anti-Black racism, and other exclusions and harms. We do this to both elucidate relationships between systems of oppression and craft spaces of embodied freedom and to show/demonstrate belonging within decolonial enactments of “elsewheres.” in the field of sociology of sport.
“…Ethnographic methods necessitate openness to the unforeseeable and to incidents of encounter (Smith, 1987), and thus face significant problems in passing (through) the ethical review process. Where “messiness can be an incredibly productive methodological, theoretical and ethical undertaking” (Avner et al, 2014, p. 62), the refusal to sanitise research and instead “find comfort in discomfort” (Broeckerhoff & Lopes, 2020, p. 3) conflicts with the disciplining and tempering logics of institutional ethical review.The interviews are a means of including the voices of animal activists within the research, offering participants a chance to reflect and share their knowledge … The period of multispecies ethnographic research is informed by feminist theory, arguing that “lived experience” is a crucial standpoint. (Ethical Review Application, March 2017)…”
Section: Multispecies Research and Ethical Reviewmentioning
In this paper, I investigate how the development of ethics and methods in beyond human and posthuman research have largely been ignored within institutional ethical frameworks. Specifically, I argue that the ethical review process for research needs critical consideration in light of emerging multispecies methodologies. The inclusion and consideration of animals in geography should go further than “bringing animals in” to the discipline; instead they must seek to rethink geographical theory as with and for non‐humans. The ethics, politics, and practices of animals’ inclusion in research have been differentially attended to across geographical scholarship. To do this, I investigate how institutional ethical review operates as a disciplining and shaping tool in the neoliberal university. In doing so, I contend that ethical review processes shape the narratives and structures of what kinds of research are possible for not only animal geographers, but across the discipline. I then explore how multispecies research specifically is affected by and can affect institutional ethical review, revealing how these processes fall short against the heightened backdrop of species difference. Where posthumanist ethics is in tension with institutional ethical frameworks, I argue that ethical approval does not necessarily indicate that researchers have successfully grappled with complex moral dilemmas. Particularly, the acquiring of ethical approval prioritises outmoded forms of knowledge that prioritise homogenised ethical and methodological practice over ethical innovation and questioning. Finally, I offer three propositions drawing on posthumanist ethics and informed by innovative and exploratory multispecies research: the inclusion of animals as participants in research; the reimagination of multispecies ethical and methodological practice; and the reform of institutional ethical review processes. By exploring how radical ethics might be mobilised in multispecies research, I argue that we can further geographical theory and practice to reconfigure who matters as a geographical and ethical subject.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
