Vulnerable Spaces of Coproduction: Confronting Predefined Categories through Arts Interventions




residential migration, residential trajectories, personal networks of migrants, network spatiality, social integration, social relationships


Collaboration between researchers and artists is often held as particularly promising to enhance cross-cultural understanding. In this article, two researchers and an artist reflect on the potentials, as well as the pitfalls, of art-based interventions in integration of migrants. Through the performing arts youth project Here I Am, we discuss coproduction methodologies. We emphasize the discomfort in confronting the stereotypes inherent in our perspectives and categories. Exploring how various encounters among the researchers, artist, and participants in the performing arts project challenge the prevailing perspectives, we argue that art interventions have the potential to bring knowledge production beyond predefined categories and explanations. This requires moving beyond our comfort zones and entering vulnerable spaces of improvisation, where new understanding and “grammars” can be coproduced. This article shows how the reflections of such spaces alter the research project and the aims of the art intervention, including our understanding of integration.

Author Biographies

Marit Aure, UIT The Arctic University of Norway


Anniken Førde, UIT The Arctic University of Norway

Associate professor


Amin, A. (2002). Ethnicity and the multicultural city: Living with diversity. Environment and Planning A, 34(6), 959-980.

Askins, K., & Pain, R. (2011). Contact zones: Participation, materiality, and the messiness of interaction. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 29, 803-821.

Aure, M. (2013). The emotional costs of employment-related mobility. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift, 67(5), 284-294.

Barrett, F. J. (1998). Coda-creativity and improvisation in jazz and organizations: Implications for organizational learning. Organization Science, 9(5), 605-622.

Bergold, J., & Thomas, S. (2012). Participatory research methods: A methodological approach in motion. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research.

Chambers, R. (1998). Beyond "whose reality counts?" New methods we now need? Studies in Cultures, Organizations and Societies, 4(2), 279-301.

Fainstein, S. (2010). The just city. London: Cornell University Press.

Førde, A. (2019). Enhancing urban encounters: The transformative powers of creative integration initiatives. Urban Planning, 4(1), 44-52.

Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575-599.

Harvey, D. (2008). The right to the city. New Left Review, 53, 23-40.

Hickey-Moody, A. C. (2017). Arts practices as method, urban spaces and intra-active faiths. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(11), 1083-1096.

Honneth, A. (1992). Integrity and disrespect: Principles of a conception of morality based on the theory of recognition. Political Theory, 20, 187-192.

Jeffery, L., Palladino, M., Rotter, R., & Woolley, A. (2019). Creative engagement with migration. Crossings: Journal of Migration & Culture, 10(1), 3-17.

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2005). Participatory action research: Communicative action and the public sphere. In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kindon, S., Pain, R., & Kesby, M. (2007). Introduction. In S. Kindon, R. Pain, & M. Kesby (Eds.), Participatory action research approaches and methods: Connecting people, participation and place. London: Routledge.

Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. London: Routledge.

Leavy, P. (2015). Method meets art: Arts-based research practice. New York, London: Guilford Publications.

Nunn, C. (2010). Spaces to speak: Challenging representations of Sudanese-Australians. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 31(1), 183-198.

Olsen, M. A., Paltiel, L., & Aure, M. (2019). Metodiske lærdommer mellom gatekunst og friluftsmuseum: Et rom for inkludering [Methodical insights between street art and folk museums: A room for inclusion?]. In Inkludering i praksis: Inkluderende museer [Inclusion in practice: Including museums]. The Museum Association. (last read 23.12.2019)

Pereira, S., Maiztegui-Oñate, C., & Mata-Codesal, D. (2016). "Transformative looks": Practicing citizenship through photography. Journal of Social Science Education, 15(4), 14-21.

Phillips, D., Athwal, B., Robinson, D., & Harrison, M. (2014). Towards intercultural engagement: Building shared visions of neighborhood and community in an era of new migration. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 40(1), 42-59.

Pratt, G. (2007). Working with migrant communities: Collaborating with the Kalayaan Centre in Vancouver, Canada. In S. Kindon, R. Pain, & M. Kesby (Eds.), Participatory action research: Connecting people, participation and place. London: Routledge.

Simonsen, K. P. (2008). Practice, narrative and the "multicultural city": A Copenhagen case. European Urban and Regional Studies, 15(2), 145-158.

Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In C. Nelson, & L. Grossberge (Eds.), Marxism and the interpretation of culture. London: Macmillan, 271-313.

Tolia-Kelly, D. (2007). Participatory art. In S. Kindon, R. Pain, & M. Kesby (Eds.), Participatory action research: Connecting people, participation and place. London: Routledge.

Valentine, G., & MacDonald, I. (2004). Understanding prejudice. London: Citizenship 21.

Wilson, H. (2013). Learning to think differently: Diversity training and the "good encounter." Geoforum, 45, 73-82.

Wilson, H. (2015). An urban laboratory for the multicultural nation? Ethnicities, 15(4), 586-604.




How to Cite

Aure, M., Førde, A., & Brox Liabø, R. (2020). Vulnerable Spaces of Coproduction: Confronting Predefined Categories through Arts Interventions. Migration Letters, 17(2), 249–256.