Panels – University of Copenhagen


In total: 24 panel proposals + 4 Project Workshops (A-D)


1.    Conflict, Contestation, or Collaboration in an Era of Shifting Engagements and new Constellations: The Practices and Politics of Knowledge Production

Lizette Gradén, Chief Curator, Nordic Heritage Museum and Affiliate Associate Professor, University of Washington, Seattle.
Tom O’Dell, Professor, Lund University.
Robert Willim, Associate Professor, Lund University.
Helena Hörnfeldt, Senior lecturer, Stockholm University.
Fataneh Farahani, Associate professor, Stockholm University.

The shifting conditions of knowledge production in academia involve a diversification of ethnographic practices and engagements, as both sensory and digital methods and shifting power relations open new opportunities for scholars, artists, and citizens to participate in and impact/affect the production of knowledge and the cultural world around them. We invite papers that explore the politics and practices of knowledge production from all of these diverse points of entry.

a)    Shifting Institutional Engagements and New Constellations
This theme explores the interaction between creative performers, museums and academic institutions. It asks: What happens when we open our room of study to the general public, and engage them through collaborative modes of knowledge production? How can these processes be examined by using concepts such as rendering culture and composing ethnography? What happens when different traditions of management and curation meet? What role can individual performers and groups play in negotiating creative space within the frameworks of institutional funders.

b)    Revisiting Reflexivity in the Era of Intersectionality
This theme revisits a well-recognized issue regarding the politics of scholarly knowledge production and deals with theoretical and methodological questions concerning the partiality and situatedness of the produced knowledges. Lengthy and extensive discussions on positionality and reflexivity have lately been enriched by debates around intersectionality, and the ethical and moral considerations involved in diverse research practices. How do these circumstances condition the choice of research subjects, methodologies and, ultimately the knowledges produced? What does it mean to position and be positioned in an increasingly divergent field of research practices?

Only papers in English will be accepted.

2.    The Production of Knowledge at the Tradition Archives

Lene Vinther Andersen, Dansk Folkemindesamling / Det Kongelige Bibliotek
Audun Kjus, Norsk etnologisk gransking / Norsk Folkemuseum
Fredrik Skott, Dialekt, ortnamns- och folkminnesarkivet i Göteborg / Institutet för språk och folkminnen
Susanne Österlund-Pötzsch, Folkkultursarkivet / Svenska litteratursällskapet i Finland

The panel welcomes various studies of the cooperation involved in the production of knowledge at the tradition archives. Both historical and contemporary studies are invited.
The tradition archives played a significant role in the history of the Nordic democracies in the first part of the 20th century, in extending historical awareness and the concept of culture to include the experiences of common people and daily life. Building tradition archives was also a means of turning folklore studies and ethnology in to research disciplines and their reservoirs of knowledge still characterize these disciplines against related fields.
In the 1970s – 1990s, the collections at the tradition archives faced extensive critique. A new generation of researchers found them one sided and tendentious. The collected material was considered tainted by bourgeoisie adorations for the good old country life. Today, the old feuds clouding this debate seem to have dissipated, and we may view these knowledge-producing institutions with fresh eyes and find other patterns and characteristics.

Transforming paper based institutions to operate in a world of electronic communication is a major challenge for all Nordic and Baltic tradition archives. However, there is much to be gained: 1) Open access to fundamental historical sources 2) Close encounters with the life and toil of previous generations 3) An inclusive invitation to participate in the documentation of our own time and age. The digital revolution could well mean a renaissance for the tradition archives, and thus for folklore studies and ethnology. How do we face this challenge?

Papers in English as well as in Scandinavian languages are accepted.

3.    'The Good border'. On practices, movement and border management in the EU border system.

Fredrik Nilsson, Centrum for Öresundsstudier, Lunds Universitet.
Marie Sandberg, SAXO Instituttet, Afdeling for Etnologi, Københavns Universitet.
Marlene P. Kristensen, SAXO Instituttet, Afdeling for Etnologi, Københavns Universitet.

The removal of borders as barriers to the movement of people and goods through the elimination of passport and customs controls at internal European state borders is often highlighted as a rather smooth development into a 'borderless Europe' inscribed in discourses of globalization and contrasted with the regime of increased control at the EU’s external borders of 'Fortress Europe'. However, this panel suggests that in order to investigate how borders are continuously made and unmade, bridged and re-instantiated, one needs to go beyond dual perspectives that divide the EU’s internal and external borders into porous versus strengthened borders respectively.
Border collaboration and negotiation take place at multiple levels, involving a variety of actors who perform, reinvent and reconfigure borders. ‘Good borders’ are negotiated and enacted by local government initiatives, borderland inhabitants, border officials, policies, and cross border commuters, but also by border trespassers, in asylum camps and when private companies are outsourced to perform border control.

Understanding the borders of Europe as performed and created through a multiplicity of bordering practices, pivotal questions are: how do different borders co-exist, how does cross border collaboration work, and what kinds of friction arise when collaborating?

In this panel, we invite papers that empirically and theoretically investigate implications of transformations of European space and territory in relation to the changing role and scope of borders. Contemporary as well as historical contributions, including comparisons to non-European contexts are welcome.

Papers in English as well as in the Scandinavian languages are welcome.

4.    COnventions, COnflicts and COntroversies in institutional settings

Anne Leonora Blaakilde, Copenhagen University
Georg Drakos, Stockholm University

Folklorists and ethnologists work in various contexts involving societal institutions such as kindergartens, schools, and nursing homes, to mention the most obvious of its kind. Characterics of such institutions is that they involve many actors; inhabitants/users, family members, volunteers, and professional staff. At play is of course also structural elements: Policies, governance, hierarchies at workplaces, and maybe local interests in promoting these institutions as local lighthouses for the municipality, tourism, local business, etc.
Such institutions represent a multiplicity of encounters between people, objects, structures and ideas. Conventions, conflicts and controversies are at play in the everyday life in institutions. Narratives, conversations, and practices represent all parts involved in these encounters, and folklorists and ethnologists try to mingle in in order to grasp logics of meaning, positioning, and power. The aim of such research is to construe interesting and important analyses of institutions, their plethoric representations, and possible implications of different interests at stake in the course of daily life.
While co-operating in institutions, folklorists and ethnologists interact in daily practices and co-construct processes of meaningmaking, which incorporate also considerations of these processes and the involvement of the collaborative researcher. What are the implications of this consort between researcher and the various people, groups, objects, structures, hierarchies etc, who and which are involved in an institution, and the respective interests represented by all these parts?

Papers in English as well as in Scandinavian languages are accepted.

5.    Contradictions of holiday: The exotic and the ordinary in European recreational spheres.

Sarah Holst Kjær, senior-researcher, Agderforskning
Ella Johansson, professor, Uppsala University
Annie Woube, researcher, Uppsala University

Holiday is a fundamental institution in Europe. This session explores some - at face value - contradictive aspects of the holiday. Holiday is on one hand an extrovert escape and experiences are aimed at ‘the exotic’ and ‘adventurous’. Tourism involves strategies of having other parts of the world coming to experience Europe. Postcolonial and orientalist preferences, together with gazes and tastes from the last 200 years of western travel ways, must – in a global world - be transformed into making Europe the right object for Other tourists. How is this done in e.g. habits, ways, service, foods, rituals and traditions?  
Holiday is also about Europeans making an introvert move towards a quiet, simple and repetitious everyday life of the holiday home. This traditional and conservative world in which Westerners indulge in the extended family´s kinship relations, painstakingly keeping up with traditions and routines, preserving artefacts, etc. Incoherent with the modern European self-image, co-habitations and conviviality involves conflicts between generations, siblings and in-laws. How does this appear in i.e. the holiday home’s economy, holiday project management, property rights, cooking, celebrations and traditions?
The session is aiming at the themes of modernity and tradition and how these are interpreted in terms of Us and Them, Future and Past. We welcome studies where the Other views Us and of studies on how we view ourselves as Others.

Session language Scandinavian and English.


Helene Brembeck, Professor, University of Gothenburg
Niklas Hansson, senior researcher, University of Gothenburg
Anneli Palmsköld, senior lecturer, University of Gothenburg

The last decades have seen an growth of the second hand sector in the form of retro shops, flea markets, vintage and antiquities boutiques as well as in the form of internet barter and trade. Things circulating on this market are re-configured through creative re-use, re-design and re-packaging into marketable goods with ‘heritage value’, while simultaneously mobilizing agents, institutions and sites into entire complexes of circulation. The different re-using and re-design processes often involves a DIY perspective and remaking practices are shown in the virtual world, where creative ideas are shared by others. Not only co-operative practices are common in this context, but also processes of (re-)qualification-valuation in the valuating of objects become important for understanding how value, quality and price are constructed among (market) actors. Circulation thus operates as a generative force that involves things of different kinds, of a variety of age or original functions, and of varying spatial scales, ranging from tiny objects to entire buildings and areas. This socio-spatial phenomenon we call the re:heritage market.

In this panel we want to explore how circuits of exchange, trade and consumption on the re:heritage market are shaping an infrastructure of a heritage not yet fully conceptualized. As a social space straddling public and private spheres, and involving a multiplicity of actors, the session seeks to investigate how the re:heritage market involves transformations of tradition, ‘pastness’ and history and articulate new arenas for their use and consumption through a variety of co-processes (cf. co-operation, co-creation, collaboration etc.)

Panels in English as well as in Scandinavian languages are accepted.


Billy Ehn, Umeå University
Orvar Löfgren, Lund University

The home is crowded with ”co”: co-existence, co-dependence, co-production - but also coercion. It is a striking case of what Doreen Massey has termed throwntogetherness. This session will explore different processes of co-habitation – the ways in which objects, persons, affects, routines and media flows are entangled, mixed or confronted in domestic life. Although ethnologists claim to be masters of everyday life, our understanding of the power of the mundane is still sketchy. We need new hands-on approaches and ethnographic experiments in order to understand how material, sensual and emotional dimensions work together – or not. Co-habitation may hide ways of non-communication, disintegration and out of synch.

Papers in Scandinavian as well as English are welcome.

8.    Förändrade organisationer och professioner: professionellas förhållningssätt till en nyliberal kon-text i arbetslivet

Gabriella Nilsson, Fil. Dr i etnologi, Institutionen för kulturvetenskaper, Lunds universitet
Angelika Sjöstedt Landén, Fil. Dr i etnologi, Institutionen för kultur- och medievetenskaper, Umeå universitet

De förändringar som kännetecknar dagens arbetsliv beskrivs ofta i termer av ökad internationalisering, flexibilisering eller effektivisering. I denna panel vill vi undersöka innebörden av detta i olika organisatoriska kontexter. Vad innebär ”flexibilisering” och ”effektivisering” i en viss rumslig och tidslig kontext? Hur artikuleras en förändring, vilka nya villkor innebär det för de professionella grupper som påverkas och hur tas den emot? I en nyliberal kontext förväntas olika professionella grupper arbeta på sätt som kan göras ”mätbara”. Mätbarheten kan uttryckligen syfta till att uppnå tidsmässig effektivitet och ekonomiska besparingar, men den kan också artikuleras i termer av förväntade hälso- eller kunskapsvinster för den målgrupp som professionen riktar sig mot. Flexibliserings- och effektiviseringsprocesser orienterar sig mot begrepp som ”evidensbaserad”, ”lean” eller ”kundfokuserad”, begrepp som blir ledstjärnor för såväl politiska beslut som verksamheters organisering. Innebär detta förändrade professionella subjektiviteter, identiteter eller ideal? På vilket sätt? Det behövs forskning om de nya villkor som arbetslivet präglas av; hur nya maktstrukturer blir till och hur gamla återuppstår på nya sätt i en nyliberal kontext. Hur påverkas arbetssituationen när olika diskursiva ideal krockar? Här kan etnologiska studier bidra med en beskrivning och teoretisering av hur detaljerna i arbetslivet hänger samman med, påverkar och påverkas av politiska, organisatoriska och samhälleliga förändringsprocesser. Panelen välkomnar empiriska såväl som och teoretiska bidrag där exempel på frågor som kan adresseras är:
Hur införlivas kvantitativa/ekonomistiska modeller i organisationer och professioner? Vad händer i olika organisatoriska och professionella sammanhang när begrepp som ”mätbarhet” osv artikuleras? Hur definieras och legitimeras vad som anses mätbart? Förändrar sådana artikulationer vad som betraktas som ”kvalitet” eller ”etik”? Vad händer i organisationer när ny ”kunskap” eller nya ”arbetssätt” ska implementeras? Förändrar det professionella ideal och arbetsmetoder? Uppstår motstånd? I så fall hur? Hur legitimeras och motiveras motstånd och/eller medgörlighet?

Papers in Scandinavian languages as well as English are accepted.

9.    CO-creating ageing

Anne Leonora Blaakilde, Copenhagen University
Amy Clotworthy, Copenhagen University
Nanna Hilm, Copenhagen University
Kamilla Nørtoft, Copenhagen University
Aske Juul Lassen, Copenhagen University

Ageing is a concept and a category co-constructed and co-created in various contexts by an abundance of stakeholders. Throughout the 20th century, ageing was generally considered to be a phase of life characterised by frailty, decline and degeneration. Today, other conceptualisations of ageing dominate the public discourse; concepts such as active ageing and healthy ageing consider the ageing process to be malleable through lifestyle and societal reorganisation. In this regard, ethnologists and folklorists explore ageing by focusing on everyday life at the intersections with these positive conceptualisations of ageing in order to interpret the heterogeneous meanings of ageing that reflect elderly people’s perspectives. Such studies of ageing can contribute with rich ethnographic accounts that capture ageing people’s voices, practices, perceptions and experiences. But in our attempts to represent ageing people’s everyday lives, we as researchers also co-create ageing.
We invite contributions that reflect and discuss how ethnological and folkloristic perspectives co-create ageing, as well as contributions that engage in this co-creation through empirical studies of ageing people’s everyday practices.

Papers in English as well as in Scandinavian languages are accepted.

10.    Cosmopolitan CONVIVIALITY Contextualized: The (Con)fusion of Contemporary Commemorations and Contestations

Viveca Motsieloa, Department of Cultural Anthropology and Ethnology, Uppsala University, Viveca.
Oscar Pripp, Department of Cultural Anthropology and Ethnology, Uppsala University, Oscar.

What do people do in order to live with difference? This question has interested ethnologists and folklorists alike for a long time. The complexity of the notions of culture and identity are other areas of interest that have followed and gained strength. Socially constructed diversity continues to increase within the Nordic countries and in the world at large. In other words; These issues are more urgent than ever as well as the need for applicable concepts of how to understand or create models of people’s co-existence.
In this panel we will focus on such concepts as Conviviality, the everyday practices in interaction with and living with Others, and Cosmopolitanism, a form of borderlessness; Both have been described as useful methodological and analytical tools which are said to offer alternative approaches to the problematic notions of culture and identity, as the much debated notion of `the multicultural´. (For example the debate concerning how some scholars stress that `the multicultural´ implies that there are existing cultural, ethnic, racial and national categories while neglecting the importance of class, racism and the individual.)  The panel also welcomes papers dealing with other adjacent and alternative concepts than conviviality and cosmopolitanism.
Conviviality and cosmopolitanism do not necessarily require the absolute Other, but rather look into the everyday practices of all human interaction and its contingency. Do these or other alternative notions really solve condemning ways of categorizing people? Do they open up to more harmonic celebrations and commemorations of difference? Or, are conflicts and contestations surfacing within convivial spaces? Could conviviality, cosmopolitanism, etc., become useful tools in an expansion of the concept of the `multicultural´ and other adjacent concepts?
In this panel we wish to critically examine methodological tools and concepts and discuss how to apply these within ethnological and/or folkloristic research. What is the relationship between  cosmopolitanism and conviviality for instance, or other alternative concepts? How do we conduct empiric research in connection to these notions? And how do we grasp its materiality?  
Concepts as conviviality and cosmopolitanism tend to have their point of departure here and now. Is it possible, from an intersectional point of view, to leave out historicity, and in what way would an absence of history affect the various subject positionings?

We welcome empirical, methodological, analytical and theoretical papers with contemporary or historical themes, in English or in the Scandinavian languages.

11.    Co-existence. On relations between humans, animals and plants

Simon Ekström, Department of Ethnology, History of Religion and Gender Studies, Stockholm university.
Lars Kaijser, Department of Ethnology, History of Religion and Gender Studies, Stockholm university.  
Katarina Saltzman, Department of Conservation, University of Gothenburg.
Carina Sjöholm, Department  of Service Management and Service Studies
Within the post-humanities research, people's relationships to other species often come into focus. It is possible to ask how our relationships to animals and plants - or what Donna Haraway called "companion species" is formed and manifested. What similarities or differences exist in our relationships with animals and plants? The importance of materiality is a possible entry into the field human / plant / animal. We feed, nurture and refine them, eat them, sew clothes and build houses out of them, and use materials from them in industrial processes. They are object to our care, artistic ambitions and economic strives, and they are at the same time deeply rooted in our consciousness and our cultural conceptions. Another starting point could be how animals and plants are systematized and understood in different orders in which some belong together and others are clearly separated from one another.

This session welcomes papers (in Scandinavian or English) addressing relations between humans, plants and animals, from different theoretical points of views. We invite problematizations of the various relations between humans and non-human existence or in other words investigations of the fuzzy border between nature and culture. We will focus on COmmunication, CO-existence and beCOming with among plants, animals and humans, but we also invite discussions on COnnectivity as well as COllapsing encounters.   

12.    Interfaced places: co-creation, contestation and space flows creating rural-urban geographies in the 21st Century

Jeppe Høst, Copenhagen University
Cecilia Fredriksson, Lund University, Campus Helsingborg
Maria Vallström, Uppsala University/FoU Söderhamn
Joakim Forsemalm, Gothenburg Research Institute
Elisabeth Högdahl, Lund University, Campus Helsingborg
Rebecka Lennartsson, Stockholms stadsmuseum

This panel invites papers that explore the social and cultural co-production of places, cultural planning and urban/rural anthropology. It is, as many have pointed out, necessary to analyze how the center penetrates the periphery in new ways, how power and subordination has become a matter of place. It is also crucial to investigate our own role in this process. Cultural researchers increasingly engage in the branding, marketing and development of whole cities, suburbs, urban neighborhoods as well as rural dwellings and identities.  
These engagements can easily be accused of commercializing cultural heritage or inducing social changes. The result can be gentrification more than multiculturalism, aesthetization rather than heritage, cultural theming more than diversity. On the other side cities and rural areas compete to “be on the map” and to offer the most attractive destination for tourists, companies or future inhabitants. This is the reality in a global economy and network society, where former spatial logics have been challenged. Many towns and neighborhoods experience ethnic segregation, material decline and social exclusion. The attribution of value of the urban and the rural are changing; stigmatized areas are used and reproduced and former backsides transforms in to new centers. Urban hubs connect or disconnect to suburbs and rural areas in new ways.

We invite for discussion that explore these societal processes, which questions the role of cultural analysis in planning practices, which reflect on the consequences of the many place and event marketing initiatives, or which explores the shifting power relations and social change in cultural place making.  

Papers in English as well as in Scandinavian languages are accepted.  

13.    CO in maritime ethnology

Mattias Frihammar PhD, Stockholm University
Tytti Steel PhD, University of Helsinki (Maritime history studies)

In this panel, we invite ideas and research about both collaboration and contestation within the field of maritime activities and environments. The aim is to explore ways of doing research on maritime interplay and to reflect on how to cooperate as researchers within a maritime context.
Maritime working situations often require collaboration. At sea, in harbours, at yacht clubs and in dockyards people work together. In everyday practices both collaboration and conflicts can come up as effects of hierarchies and different working cultures. Sea traffic is a complicated network of interacting players aiming to keep things rolling smoothly. Onboard a ship or a boat, collaboration and interaction can be a question of life and death.  
Themes for papers include for example the interplay between permanent islanders and summer residents, conflicts between professional fishermen and amateurs, and the interplay of tradition and new styles in renovating and preserving old boats. The juxtapositions between sail and motorboat or wooden and fiberglass boat owners, or advocates of the seashore or inland water are other possible topics.
One aspect of maritime interplay is in defining maritime cultural heritage, for example in connection to traditional vessels, museum collections or guidelines for protecting other maritime heritage. How is maritime cultural heritage validated and opinions legitimated in the interplay of experts, authorities, enthusiasts and others?
Conducting research on maritime issues is often multidisciplinary and thus collaborative in nature. That is why we encourage scholars to present different ways of doing collaborative research within the maritime framework.

Only papers in English will be accepted.
14.    Challenging museum authority? Contestations and co-productions of museum collections and exhibitions

Brita Brenna, University of Oslo.
Anne Folke Henningsen, University of Copenhagen.

Over the past decades the authority position of museums in the dissemination of knowledge to the public has been scrutinized and criticized by researchers in cultural sciences. But in what ways does authority change when the public is invited to participate in collecting and/or curatorial practices, e.g. through the community-inclusive and participatory trend that has been discernible in many museums in recent years? Further, which implications does it have when political parties, interest groups or other engaged citizens publicly voice critique of practices (either in connection to a particular exhibition, collection or institution etc.) in the museum? Which practices and strategies do museums  usanne handle and negotiate contesting voices?
The proposed session will engage with the conference ‘co-’ from two different though intertwined angles: co-productions and public contestations of museum collections and exhibitions.
We welcome papers dealing with these issues on a theoretical and/or empirical basis.

Papers in English as well as in Scandinavian languages are accepted.

15.     Coexistence: Neighbourhood relations in local spaces

Tina G. Jensen, The Danish National Centre for Social Research - SFI
Marianne Holm Pedersen, Copenhagen University

According to the Oxford Dictionary of English, the verb ‘to coexist’ has two meanings: It may refer to phenomena that ‘exist at the same time or in the same place’ and it may imply that people(s) ‘exist in harmony despite different ideologies or interests’. Within studies of urban spaces these dimensions of coexistence have been examined from a number of different perspectives. More recently, there has been a return to neighbourhood studies and the meanings of locality and community. Studies have also investigated everyday practices and habituated  usanne , emphasizing the importance of routine and unreflective forms of daily encounters in public space. A key question seems to be in what settings, contexts or situations the different meanings of coexistence may converge.

This panel explores the interrelating spatial and social dimensions of everyday coexistence in neighbourhoods in a broad sense, including not only residential areas, but also other local public spaces. How do neighbourhood spaces affect coexistence? In what ways are relations among neighbours shaped by forms of housing, shared public spaces or the availability of shared practices? On a mundane level, how do neighbours coexist? What are the social relations and everyday practices of neighbours? What is the role of conflict and how do relations of power and hierarchy come into play? What effect, if any, does ethnic, cultural or social diversity have on coexistence and neighbourhood relations? We invite papers that investigate the analytical and empirical dimensions of coexistence in urban and rural neighbourhoods in historical or contemporary settings.

Papers in English as well as in Scandinavian languages are accepted.

16.    Spatial mobility among professionals – Transnational co-operations

Helena Pettersson, Dept. of Culture & Media Studies, Ethnology, Umeå University
Katarzyna Wolanik Boström, Dept. of Culture & Media Studies, Ethnology, Umeå University
Magnus Öhlander, Department of Ethnology, History of Religion and Gender Studies, European Ethnology, Stockholm University

International cooperation among professionals takes many different forms, e.g. face-to-face meetings, shorter or longer periods of work at a co-company or at a university in another country. For some professionals travelling is a recurring part of the job, e.g. businesspersons or cultural workers. Spatial mobility is not only about professional cooperation; it is also a way to develop networks, learn new things and build experience. In many countries, international mobility is encouraged among highly skilled professionals in order to gain new knowledge benefiting the local industry, cultural sector or research. The other way around, some professionals as engineers, physicians or scientists spend a limited period of time in another country in order to contribute with knowledge and expertise. This panel welcomes papers discussing different types of professions who are transnationally mobile, for shorter or longer periods of time. Primary we look forward to empirical studies analyzing mobility in following aspects:

    as a cultural ideal among professionals and/or policy-makers;
    co-constructions of transnational or mobile cultures among professionals;
    intercultural learning;
    knowledge transfer;
    mobility as a condition of cooperation;
    touring professionals as e.g. cultural workers;
    methodological and theoretical aspects of studying mobility among professionals.

Panel discussion and paper presentation language: English

17.    Co-body: ethnological perspectives on dialects of the body

Åsa Alftberg, Lund University
Kristofer Hansson, Lund University

The body is an established field of research in contemporary ethnology. In relation to modernity and the modern society, research has focused on how some bodies are categorized as “the Others”, perceived as different, disabled, abnormal and even condemned. It has been pointed out that industrialization created a separation between a classified “working-body” and a classified “needy-body”. The “needy-body” then easily becomes a dialectic object that is not only used to define its opposite, a healthy and normal body, but it is also defined as a not needed body. Even from a historical perspective it would seem that the “Other-body” almost always has been important to define what is the “normal-body” or able body. In ethnological research this dialectic perspective between a disciplined working-body and a disordered needy-body has shaped our understanding so that it is based on differences and divides more than correlations and entanglements. Should we rather talk about a historical solid body, or what we want to name a “Co-body”? That is, a symbiosis between the “Other-body” and the able body that is ever-present but comes in different shapes and interpretations.

In this session, we will try to critical examine and challenge the dialectics of able bodies and “Other-bodies” through the concept of “Co-body”. We are interested in historical and contemporary perspectives, in lifeworlds and discourses, and the possibilities to explore “Co-body” as relational, situational and contextual.

Papers in English as well as in Scandinavian languages are accepted.

18.    Not so “New” but still “Nordic”? – Coocking & the Co-production of Food in the Nordic Region

Håkan Jönsson (Lund), PhD, Associate professor in European Ethnology, Trained chef, Institution of Arts & Cultural Sciences, Lund University, Sweden.
Hanne Pico Larsen (Copenhagen), PhD, Adjunct Assistant Professor, Department of Germanic Languages, Columbia University in the City of New York, US.
Yrsa Lindqvist (Helsinki), Ph.Lic., Head Archivist, Swedish Literature Society in Finland.

Food consumption more often than not entails co-production. The process of producing food consists of complex chains of, for example, producers of the basic ingredients (such as farmers, foragers), manufacturers of food items and dishes (such as restaurants, entrepreneurs, factories), food distributors (such as market places, shops, restaurants) and a wide array of different kinds of consumers.  However, food is also used as the theme for various high-profile co-operative events and projects. Noticeably, the attention given the explicit locality of food has made it a favorite in many ventures concerning co-branding of regions. Food has even been used as a basis for cross-national collaboration, as with the “Nordic Food Diplomacy,” launched by the Nordic Council of Ministers and intended to “highlight and strengthen the Nordic countries' unique values at home and abroad”. The New Nordic Food movement is no longer  “new,” but rather established, award winning and world famous, as ever-more chic Nordic eateries pop up at trendy addresses in New York, Singapore and Berlin. The brand value is clear. The stereotyped understanding of the Nordic Food brand: fresh, seasonal, healthy, innovative yet authentic is being used in the production of many a Nordic food product and the COO  is of great importance for the Nordic brand ethos. However, wherein lies the connection with the Nordic terroir, the actual soil, so central to the New Nordic Cuisine, when the product promoted as Icelandic gourmet skyr is produced in Up State New York, USA? The recipe used to make the popular skyr is presumably “old” and “Icelandic.” The milk used for the production is American – So, the product, which gained popularity in the wake of the New Nordic Movement, is not really “new,” but is it still “Nordic”?
One of the most prominent orientations within food production and consumption in the Nordic countries during the last decade has been an emphasis on good quality and locally produced ingredients. The simplified message of this wide and multifaceted movement has been a “back-to-earth” ideology, stressing a rather nostalgic yet “Cool” co-existence with nature. However, it is a very mixed group of professionals, entrepreneurs and grassroots rallying under this banner. One pronounced strand is connected with ethical, sustainable and ecological lifestyles. Eating locally produced food, using seasonal ingredients and paying attention to one’s food choices are issues that engage the general public, as evidenced by, for example, the growing number of lifestyle and food blogs. In the world of haute cuisine and gastronomy very much the same language is used to describe a cooking ideal in which the chef “co-operates” with the ingredients in preparing them into work-of-art dishes. In the wake of the extensive media interest in celebrity chefs, as well as cooking shows and glossy cookbooks, the amateur interest in gastronomy has risen massively. Today, the meaning and status of specific foods and cooking styles seem to be increasingly co-produced by the elite and influential amateur/grassroots actors.  Are the bounders blurring between professional and non-professional cooking?   
This panel welcomes papers dealing with questions and aspects of co-production and collaboration in food consumption, as well as the (co) branding of nations, regions and even islands.

Only papers in English will be accepted.

19.    - Due to many cancellations this panel has been cancelled -
Ethnology 2050 – Futures Fields and Topics in Nordic Ethnology

Doctoral candidate Maija Mäki, European Ethnology, University of Turku, Finland.
Doctoral candidate Anna Kirveennummi, European Ethnology, University of Turku.

We all have already some valuable experiences of using the methodology and principles of time consciousness in the fields of Finnish ethnological research. Also the methods of futures research, such as Delphi-process, future clinique, and backcasting, produce unique and versatile futureoriented material, that is processed, analyzed and interpreted by ethnologists. The futures research is characteristically multidisclipinary, international and politically significant branch of research that creates many new and exciting possibilities to ethnological research in practice and vice versa.
The discussion of the panel will approach the possibilities and challenges of the collaboration of futures research and ethnology. We will discuss the principles, the terminology and the methods of futures research in the context of ethnological research. How to do futureoriented ethnological research? How will this kind of research impact the ethnology and wider, the whole society? What do the results of the research, for example the pictures of future and past futures, actually tell about everyday life in the future? And more importantly – what kind of information they should provide from the ethnological point of view? In this panel we will create a space of togetherness, co-operation and collective wisdom. Our purpose is to consider different aspects of futures research from ethnological perspective and develop collaboratively possible, interesting and creative pictures of ethnological research in the year 2050.

Only papers in English will be accepted.

20.    Collaboration in New Configurations: Ethnologists’ Teaching and Research in Multidisciplinary Settings

Maja Povrzanović Frykman, Professor of Ethnology, Department of Global Political Studies, Malmö University.

Today, the institutional environments in which Nordic ethnologists teach and do research look different from the environments in which most of them were educated. Several ethnology departments in Nordic countries have been clustered together with a number of disciplines, and many of us teach in programmes that did not exist at the time when we were students. Ethnologists cooperate with colleagues from disciplines with which ethnology does not necessarily share epistemological and methodological grounds. Furthermore, answering to the current demand for multi- and interdisciplinary approaches, ethnologists get involved in collaboration with scholars in fields, such as economy and life sciences, with different ways of conducting and evaluating research.

To contribute to an understanding of the current challenges met by Nordic ethnologists, this panel focuses on advantages and disadvantages of cooperation in new institutional and research funding-promoted configurations. Being true to our discipline’s recognition of the empirical realities and emic perceptions, we will discuss concrete examples of the labour invested in collaboration with non-ethnologists we conduct research with—as well as the ‘costs and benefits’ for our discipline and for our personal professional development in relation to teaching students who do not study ethnology.

The panel will be organised as a round table (in English) and focus on the themes emerging from the proposed abstracts. Your abstract should (i) present the multidisciplinary nature of the teaching and/or research setting you work(ed) in; (ii) list the positive and/or negative experiences you would like to discuss.

Only abstracts in English will be accepted.

21.    Cooperation and Conflict in Sápmi. Research on Sámi struggle for cultural survival.

Marianne Liliequist, Professor in Ethnology, Department of Culture and Media Studies, Umeå University, Sweden.
Coppélie Cocq, PhD in Sámi Studies, Research Fellow at HUMlab, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.

This panel aims to bring together research on Sámi struggle for cultural survival, i.e. research that deal with strategies and initiatives going on in Sápmi today in a time of threats and challenges – a time that is also marked by resistance and mobilization. This struggle for cultural survival is characterized by both cooperation and conflict, among Sámi and between Sámi and other groups in the Sámi area.
Recently, the Swedish government has been criticized both by the United Nations’ Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, and by the Swedish Discrimination Ombudsman for an insufficient legislation that failed at ensuring indigenous rights. This criticism was actualized by exploitations in the Sámi area, not least the mining boom that is not restricted to Sweden. Threats and challenges extend to other domains than land rights, for instance language endangerment, limits in participation to political decisions or lack of knowledge in the majority population that leads to misrepresentations and racism.  
The objective of this panel is to investigate the tensions and strategies at play in Sápmi today in a context of revitalization and struggle for empowerment. We are particularly interested in studies that investigate contemporary initiatives and processes by Sámi groups in order to articulate resistance and conflict prevention. Our goal is also to problematize methodological and ethical questions in Sámi Studies from the perspective of indigenous methodologies. We welcome both theoretical contributions and case studies.

Papers in English as well as in Scandinavian languages are accepted.

22.    Collectors and collections

Tove Fjell, Bergen University.
Charlotte Hagström, Lund University.
Lena Marander-Eklund, Åbo Academy.
Susanne Nylund Skog, Uppsala University.

In this panel we invite papers on collectors and collections, including both material and immaterial collections. We welcome discussions ranging from collections of glassware and rare books to the practices of bird watching and train spotting. The intention is to touch on issues such as the relationships between compilation and collection, private collections and museums, the process of acquiring things and the knowledge needed and attained in this process, as well as the aims of collections and where and how they are stored/listed, kept and displayed.  The main question of interest concerns systemizing and normalizing aspects of the practices of collecting.  How do collectors motivate and make their collecting practices meaningful? When and how does collecting and collections cross the borders of normality? What is accepted and what is deemed inappropriate when, why and for whom?

We welcome papers in the Scandinavian languages as well as in English addressing issues of gender, age, ethnicity, economy, cultural capital and so forth, focusing on any or all of the following: the process (the collecting), the individuals (the collectors) and the outcome (the collections).

23.    Heterochronicity and co-timing in/of bodies and spaces  

Anne Eriksen, University of Oslo
Helge Jordheim, University of Oslo
Dorthe Gert Simonsen, University of Copenhagen
Tine Damsholt, University of Copenhagen
Frida Hastrup, University of Copenhagen

This panel explores the work of time by asking how ethnologists, cultural analysts and cultural historians configure temporalities in their work on embodiment and spatial practices. In light of the recent decades’ many “turns”, be they material, spatial, affective, ontological, performative or other, a modernistic idea of time as a given chronological order has been pluralized. Indeed, looking at the temporality of events and practices is not so much a matter of locating them on a seemingly universal timeline; rather, temporalities have become part of the object of study and emerge as asynchrony, emergence, futurity, non-linearity, simultaneity, acceleration etc. Not only do materialities (objects, bodies, spaces) and temporality seem to be co-constitutive; time itself has become heterogeneous by the same token.
If time is no longer seen simply as a given linear and progressive chronology, but as a knot of entangled and often contradictive histories of past, present and futures, how do time and historicity actually participate in our analyses? How do we articulate different, co-present timings of bodies and spaces? Put differently, if heterogeneity of temporality is a precondition for much of our scholarship, how do we then more specifically configure multiple times in ethnology and cultural history?
To address these questions, this session invites papers that focus on how time(s) – multiple, converging or conflicting – contribute to making objects, bodies or spaces and vice versa. Going beyond studies of temporality as an abstract concept, we are interested in exploring concrete materializations of heterochronicity and co-timing in analyses of spatial or embodied practices.  

Papers in English as well as in Scandinavian languages are accepted.

24. Miscellaneous

This panel is presenting abstracts which theme doesn't not fit into any of the other panels.

Project workshops

A.    European transformations: Understanding contradictions and connections within everyday life.

Chaired by Professor Thomas Højrup, Niels Jul Nielsen, Sigrid Leilund & Jeppe Høst, Copenhagen University
Ethnology has a long tradition for studying the way in which European societies are made up by different groups of citizens who’s modes of life are both in contrast to each other as well as connected through the social division of labor. In such a manner ethnologists have studied 19th century society through tenant farmers, smallholders, artisans, traders, nobility and civil servants. Likewise, in the 20th century focus has been on self-employed farmers, blue- and white-collar workers, home-going housewives, manufacturers and public servants among others. Research on these groups was carried out – mainly – within the framework of the nation states, in which they made up both a conflicting and complementary socio-cultural totality.
We wish to continue in this line of research and discuss how recent political, technological and economic transformations – together with the deterioration/reconfiguration of nation states – have challenged the existence of some of these modes of living: wage-earners lose their protection in national labor unions, self-employed are exposed to large-scale competition, civil-servants are put under new contract based management as public possessions are sold out. In other words: some life-modes seem to be disappearing while yet others are entering the social whole – followed by new forms of contradictions and connections. In this session we want to put attention to these new ways of organizing everyday life.
Project Panel: This panel is related to an ongoing project (see and we welcome all contributions that both widen the empirical scope and challenge the theoretical assumptions.
Scandinavian and English contributions are welcome.

B.    Constructing history and constructions in history

Chaired by Doctoral student Aleksi Huhta, Doctoral student Anniina Lehtokari, Doctoral student Antti-Jussi Nygård, Doctoral student Johanna Skurnik, Department of General History, University of Turku, Finland

References to construction abound in scholarly literature. During the past decades, the paradigm of social constructionism has had such a profound effect on humanities and social sciences that there are hardly any aspects of social life that have not been examined as constructions. While novel theoretical advances such as critical realism and new materialism have sought to go “beyond constructionism,” the bell has not yet tolled for construction. If not always as an explicit theory, the notion of constructedness is still very much with us as a ubiquitous metaphor through which we make sense of our research.
Ethnologists have been no exception in their embrace of constructivism. The notion that reality is not an objective state of affairs “out there” but a construct that emerges in a complex process of interpretation and interaction has been widely accepted by ethnologists. Since the notion of construction has, then, had a profound effect on ethnological research, it is of relevance to ponder seriously the analytical work that it performs in our argumentation and analysis.
This session will interrogate the metaphor of construction with an especial focus on historical considerations. Like in ethnology, the constructivist paradigm has had a thoroughgoing influence on historical research. However, the factor of temporal distance and the subsequent complications in interaction between the scholar and the research subject have presented the historian with peculiar conundrums. Through four case studies, the papers of this session will explicate how a historical perspective with due attention to the temporal can help us to move towards a more sophisticated understanding of “construction” as an analytical tool.
Only papers in English are accepted.

C.    Studies in Dress revisited and reinvigorated

Chaired by PhD-student, Cand.philol. Bjørn Sverre Hol Haugen, Oslo University; Assistant Professor, PhD Marie Riegels Melchior, Copenhagen University; Senior Researcher, PhD & DPhil Mikkel Venborg Pedersen, Nationalmuseet

Internationally, the study of material culture has gained renewed focus in scholarly research and writing. This is true for the themes of dress, fashion, costume, and textiles too. Especially two traditions of study have contributed; the new research in consumption and consumer culture in cultural history, and studies focusing on the body, gender, fashion and dress in cultural analytical disciplines. This has led to a reinvigorated collaboration between museum based and university based scholars too. For Ethnology, it may seem as a return to one of the basic empirical themes, however now informed by new theory and ways of approach.

In the project workshop, two anthologies demonstrating this fact will be presented: Fashionable Encounters. Perspectives and Trends in Textile and Dress in the Early Modern Nordic World (2014, presented by Venborg Pedersen) and Fashion and Museums. Theory and Practice (2014, presented by Riegels Melchior). Hol Haugen will take the workshop to the interplay between gender, dress and body immanent in the study of dress(ing) through the paper “Clothes make men”.

These three contributions may form a point of departure for discussions. In addition, we invite conference participants to discuss with us trends and perspectives in this reinvigorated cross museum-university field of research and co-llaborations. Both PhD and post graduate contributions are welcome, either in the shape of discussion points or short papers.

Only papers or discussion points in English will be accepted.

D.  COmpliance? COncordance? COllective and CO-produced standards and health practices

Chaired by Post doctoral student Jonas Winther, Copenhagen University, Research Assistant Aske Juul Lassen, Copenhagen University, Associate Professor Astrid Jespersen, Copenhagen University and Associate Professor Kristofer Hansson, Lund University

Within medicine compliance has traditionally been used to define the extent to which a patient complies with a medical regimen (Haynes & Sackett 1979). The concept, concordance, more congruent with the current emphasis on patient empowerment and doctor-patient-negotiation, has been proposed as a more relevant way to designate the dynamics between healthcare providers, individuals and communities (WHO 2003).
The two notions suggest the possibility of a unidirectional transfer of biomedicine into everyday life and configure lifestyles as measurable, modifiable risk factors (Niewöhner et al. 2011) that can be singled out and correlated in concordance with the prevailing health standards (Cohn 2014). This overlooks, how compliance is made possible through and constrained by heterogeneous compositions of diverse actors (Moreira 2004, Moreira 2010, Jespersen et al. 2013), how everyday life is techno-scientifically saturated and entangled in various ways (Kontopodis et al. 2011) and how health standards themselves are amenable to modifications and re-configurations (Timmermans & Epstein 2010).
Following these lines of thought we wish to explore how ethnological endeavors can bring forward the experiential knowledges (Pols 2014), invisible compliance work (Jonvallen 2009), disease at arm’s length (Lassen 2014) and forms of tinkering (Mol 2010) that patients, citizens, ethnologists, health professionals, governance and health sciences co-produce. We wish to focus on this CO-production as a collective engagement in health practices and health standards.
We welcome contributions that in creative ways bring this collective CO-production to the project workshop. This could be in the form of discussion points, collective or individual papers or short movies. Contributions could comprise discussions about how health standards are co-produced or how to re-conceptualize notions of compliance, concordance and health standards in a collectively engaging way. Once we have received all contributions we will contact the participants about the specific design of the workshop.

Workshop language is English.