Meersoortige methoden: onderzoek naar de geografie van stadsratten | Amsterdam University Press Journals Online
2004
Volume 29, Issue 1/2
  • ISSN: 1385-1535
  • E-ISSN: 1875-7324

Abstract

Abstract

This article discusses the increasing interest in ‘multispecies methods’ through the example of research on rats in the city, focusing specifically on the possibilities of such methodological approaches within human geography and interdisciplinary urban studies. It provides a brief introduction to geographical and urban research that seeks to explicitly consider other-than-human beings, including animals, sketching the types of concerns and questions articulated within such studies. Next, it discusses the various methodological strategies that such scholars have developed to conduct this research, and the types of data these methods generate. It ends by exploring the implications for research on urban rats, suggesting what questions, methods and data might be particularly generative. Overall, the article draws attention to how qualitative social science methods might be combined with methods from the natural sciences and from the arts and humanities to understand the geographies that produce and are produced by human-animal encounters.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/KWA2024.1/2.008.MAIA
2024-06-01
2024-07-12
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abrahamsson, S. & Bertoni, F. (2014). Compost politics: Experimenting with togetherness in vermicomposting. Environmental Humanities, 4(1), 125–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Angley, L.P., Combs, M., Firth, C., Frye, M.J., Lipkin, W.I., Richardson, J.L., & Munshi-South, J. (2018). Spatial variation in the parasite communities and genomic structure of urban rats in New York City. Zoonosesand Public Health, 65(1): e113-e123.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Anthony, Th. (2016). Rat Film. Documentaire. Available at: https://memory.is/rat-film.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Barua, M. (2023). Lively cities: Reconfiguring urban ecology. University of Minnesota Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Blanchette, A. (2020). Porkopolis: American animality: Standardized life, and the factory farm. Duke University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Buller, H. (2015). Animal geographies II: methods. Progress in human geography, 39(3), 374-384.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Byers, K. A., Lee, M.J., Patrick, D.M., & Himsworth, C.H. (2019). Rats about town: A systematic review of rat movement in urban ecosystems. Frontiers in ecology and evolution7: 13.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Chao, S., Bolender, K., & Kirksey, E. (Eds). (2022). The promise of multispecies justice. Duke University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Desvars-Larrive, A., Baldi, M., Walter, T., Zink, R., & Walzer, Ch. (2018). Brown rats (rattus norvegicus) in urban ecosystems: Are the constraints related to fieldwork a limit to their study?Urban ecosystems, 21(5), 951-964.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Fuentes, A. (2010). Naturalcultural encounters in Bali: Monkeys, temples, tourists, and ethnoprimatology. Cultural anthropology, 25(4), 600-624.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Gandy, M. (2022). Natura urbana: Ecological constellations in urban space. MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Hamilton, L., & Taylor, N. (2017). Ethnography after humanism: Power, politics and method in multi-species research. Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Hodgetts, T., & Lorimer, J. (2015). Methodologies for animals’ geographies: Cultures, communication and genomics. Cultural geographies, 22(2), 285-295.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Hodgetts, T., & Lorimer, J. (2020). Animals’ mobilities. Progress in human geography, 44(1), 4-26.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Howell, Ph. (2021). Historical animal geographies. In: M.Roscher, A.Krebber & B.Mizelle (Eds), Handbookof historical animal studies, (pp. 309-324). Walterde Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Kirksey, S. E., & Springer, A-S. (2015). Art as a multispecies engagement. Interview: The multispecies salon. Beschikbaar op: https://www.multispecies-salon.org/art-as-a-multispecies-engagement/
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Kirksey, S. E., & Helmreich, S. (2010). The emergence of multispecies ethnography. Cultural anthropology, 25(4), 545-576.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kopenawa, D. (2015). A queda do céu: palavras de um xamã yanomami. Companhia das Letras.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Lee, J.H. (2022). Rodent trapping and the just possible. In: S.Chao, K.Bolender & E.Kirksey (Eds), The promise of multispecies justice (pp. 157-178). Duke University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Lestel, D., Brunois, F., & Gaunet, F. (2006). Etho-ethnology and ethno-ethology. Social science information, 45(2), 155-177.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Philo, Ch., & Wilbert, Ch. (Eds.) (2000). Animal spaces, beastly places: New geographies of human-animal relations. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Urbanik, J. (2012). Placing animals: An introduction to the geography of human-animal relations. Rowman and Littlefield.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Vander Velden, F. (2015). Apresentação ao Dossiê. R@U, 7(1), 7–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Veras De Sousa, H. (2017). Galos e quintais: Um estudo do sacrifício na Mina Nagô Paraense. Debates Do NER (August), 173–97. https://doi.org/10.22456/1982-8136.68865.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Whatmore, S. (1999). Hybrid geographies: rethinking the human in human geography. In: D.Massey, J.Allen, & P.Sarre (Eds.), Human geography today (pp. 24-39). Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/KWA2024.1/2.008.MAIA
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error