Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T18:42:58.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Querying Public Scholarship: An Unfinished List of Questions toward More Meaningful University–Community Partnerships

Part of: Of the Moment (2025)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 November 2024

Harris Kornstein Open the ORCID record for Harris Kornstein [Opens in a new window]  and
Jacqueline Jean Barrios Open the ORCID record for Jacqueline Jean Barrios [Opens in a new window]
Harris Kornstein*
Affiliation:
Department of Public and Applied Humanities, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
Jacqueline Jean Barrios
Affiliation:
Department of Public and Applied Humanities, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
*
Corresponding author: Harris Kornstein; Email: [email protected]

Abstract

How do we do public scholarship? It might seem like a simple question, but as anyone who has attempted to experiment with academic norms—let alone work collaboratively in and through institutional regulations, cultural expectations, and diverse personalities—is well aware, things get complicated quickly. As scholars, practitioners, and educators in the public humanities, the authors offer a set of sticky and thorny questions that are both theoretically minded and practice oriented, as possibilities to consider throughout the process of working on public projects or with community partners. Questions are grouped thematically—Framing, Planning, Partnerships, Institutions, Tools, Outputs and Forms, Documentation, Evaluation and Reflection—though are not meant to be exhaustive or prescriptive. In so doing, the essay insists that public scholarship not be codified into a clearly-defined discipline, but rather acknowledged as both an always already present practice for many scholars and in a constant state of emergence as a field. To that end, the authors also invite direct engagement with these questions, both inside and outside of the space of the text, encouraging readers to generate and share their own questions as well.

Keywords

public humanities praxispublic scholarshipengaged scholarshipcritical university studies
Type
Article
Information
Public Humanities , Volume 1 , 2025 , e18
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that no alterations are made and the original article is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained prior to any commercial use and/or adaptation of the article.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

How do we do public scholarship? As anyone who has attempted to experiment with academic norms – let alone work collaboratively in and through institutional regulations, cultural expectations, and diverse personalities – is well aware, things get complicated quickly. As scholars, practitioners, and educators in the public humanities, we find ourselves energized by the sticky and thorny questions of working in partnership and in the public interest (and they sometimes exhaust us too). Here, we offer a set of questions that we often find ourselves asking, in the hopes that they might guide others’ work – and provoke new queries.

By alighting on questions, we mirror the orientation toward process and open-endedness within public scholarship: we insist that the public humanities, like other forms of engaged research and teaching, not be codified into a clearly defined discipline.Footnote 1 It is both an always already present practice for many scholars and in a constant state of emergence as a field. On the one hand, scholars (especially those marginalized by academic institutions) have long worked from situated positions within and alongside communities and movements as part of their research. Roopika Risam describes this as a form of “academic insurgency,” as she highlights the historical and ongoing contributions of scholars of color in transforming both universities and their local communities through organizing practices of caregiving and generosity – while often not being credited for their contributions to theorizations of public scholarship.Footnote 2 On the other, academic institutions often position public scholarship as a perpetual process of innovation, whether invoking buzzword-filled hype, or in genuine attempts to decolonize, queer, and reimagine institutional norms and structures. While these conditions present many opportunities, navigating the needs of various constituencies remains a strategic challenge: How can we create knowledge that is meaningful and legible to both scholars and community partners while also fulfilling requirements for academic promotion or institutional funders?Footnote 3

Our guide pursues the ethos and relationships of the communities we want to be a part of, creating a collective place for anecdotes and inquiries culled from workshops, readings, collaborations, and daily life.Footnote 4 We are committed to the back-and-forth rhythms needed to find densities and plotlines in our collective work, elaborating something akin to what Stefano Harney and Fred Moten have theorized as an alternate conceptualization of “debt,” in this case, not merely an economic relationship, but “a principle of social life…something that doesn’t resolve itself into creditor and debtor, [and] allows us to say, ‘I don’t really know where I start and where I end.’”Footnote 5 For us, asking these questions offers an opportunity to lean into the nagging provocations that have lodged in our minds, especially when the daily grind of work delays these concerns. In constructing this list, we have paid attention not only to the questions that perhaps felt hostile but also to the ones that drove us to the next level within a project or partnership (or arose from such transitions). We ask the questions we wished we posed when the scene of discussion stewed in toxic positivity, got stuck in the weeds, or became pregnant with possibility. Likewise, using the attributes of list-makers – earnest persistence, orientation toward action, and a sense of urgency – the format allowed us to be specific without devolving into randomness, offering a mode of inquiry-in-tandem rather than an obligatory checklist.

Our format, method, and ideas echo the structures of feeling, to use Raymond Williams’ term, for the emergent world that “public scholarship” is perhaps placeholding.Footnote 6 Attuned to the dominant and residual cultures of academic knowledge production, we want to produce work oriented to more just futures, as limned by Sarah Ahmed’s desire lines, heralded by Michael Warner’s counterpublics, and held in safekeeping by Leeanne Betamosake Simpson’s articulation of the resurgence of Indigenous knowledge of land, to name only a few guiding concepts that have persisted with us.Footnote 7 Similarly, we find inspiration in Ananya Roy’s theorization of research justice as always “concerned with the accumulation of knowledge for the purpose of structural transformation” and “the refusal to participate in the dispossession of knowledge.”Footnote 8 To that point, Eve Tuck warns against the ways that research can be extractive, arguing that it often “functions as yet another layer of surveillance” aimed at communities already damaged by being “overresearched yet, ironically, made invisible.”Footnote 9 To quote her own pointed query: “what questions might we ask ourselves before we allow researchers entry?”Footnote 10

Our questions are also rooted in our own public scholarship, including Harris’s on drag pedagogies and digital cultures in partnership with organizations like Drag Story Hour; Jacqueline’s on literature and the urban humanities via creative placemaking projects like LitLabs in Los Angeles and the Southwest, or documenting community urban memory in Tucson’s Southside; and our recent collaboration with Favianna Rodriguez on her Desert Symphony installation and workshops.Footnote 11 However, as we considered both the form and “content” of questions focused on engaged scholarship, we also turned to a number of examples of, and provocations on, the public humanities for inspiration.Footnote 12 For example, the mapping visualizations of the Spatial Analysis Lab (SLAB) and Anti-Eviction Mapping Project whose respective spatial ethnographies in Ho Chi Minh City and public histories in San Francisco enable new visibilities and desires in urban space.Footnote 13 Or the monumental work of preserving and activating histories of early Black organizing conducted by the Center for Black Digital Research, guided by clearly-articulated principles aimed at social change.Footnote 14 We also find some of our best models from organizers that do not center the university as the origin or destination of their engagement. These projects provide some of the most innovative lessons for how public scholarship is always entangled in public life, intertwining the work of the archivist and the activist, the policy-analyst and creative entrepreneur, the artist and the developer – from the asset mapping of Takachizu, to the Chinese Chorizo Project’s festivals, the incubation of Latine-owned business by Mi Reina Mobile Boutique, and the narrative change driven by Visualizing Palestine.Footnote 15

Ultimately, these questions help us navigate various liminal states, moving between binaries such as specificity and generalizability, reflection and action, or care and harm. Our approach is especially inspired by the What Would an HIV Doula Do? (WWHIVDD) collective, whose thoughtful interrogations on the relationships between HIV and COVID-19 helped us consider how to move beyond some of the seemingly clichéd questions that are often asked in this kind of work (and very rightfully so), allowing ourselves space to ask pointed, messy, or even playful questions toward cooperative action.Footnote 16 Our queries are hardly meant to be exhaustive, and though there are many, we hope they are not exhausting: we encourage readers to consider them a set of provocations and to dig into the ones that feel most curious or challenging, without feeling the need to address them all. We have grouped questions thematically under several headings to reflect various components of the kind of work we do: Framing, Planning, Partnerships, Institutions, Tools, Outputs and Forms, Documentation, and Evaluation and Reflection. Still, we note that many questions could appear in multiple sections – and indeed, warrant asking, often again and again, at various stages of a project or partnership – so we encourage readers to not dwell too heavily on these categories. Instead, please consider our questions more as a database, choose-your-own-adventure, or cut-up poem, rather than a linear list. Finally, we also hope that the provisionality and indeterminacy of these questions will lead readers to ask their own questions as well (Figure 1), and at the end, we will invite you to share your responses with us.

Figure 1. Examples from an early workshop of these questions, written on index cards. The authors invite readers to submit their own questions (http://queryingpublicscholarship.org/).

Framing

  1. 1. In the words of Katherine McKittrick: Where do you “know from?”Footnote 17 What other forms or sources of knowledge might you need to gather and how will you do so? What counts as knowledge (e.g., research, lived experience, “data”) and how is that shaped by existing discourses and biases? How do you honor knowledge that is already present?

  2. 2. How are you defining public, a public, and/or the public?Footnote 18 Who is the you or the we?Footnote 19 What are the differences in the grammar of these constructions?

  3. 3. What desires drive you and the partners you are working with? How is, as Eve Tuck urges to consider, our “theory of change” subtended by a “desire-based framework” over a “damage-centered” one?Footnote 20

  4. 4. What are the questions this work enables you to ask? How does your work reflect and expand on values, methods, and theories of the humanities? What sets this apart from other approaches? Where does it intersect? What are you making visible (palpable, knowable, and interpretable) and why?

  5. 5. What are your (buzz) words and what underlying complexities are they placeholding? In what discursive moments do you deploy the terms “co-creative,” “reciprocal,” “engaged,” or alternatively, “extractive,” “weaponized, “performative,” and why? Are they used to ward off criticism, to virtue-signal, to imply solidarity, or to create common goals and accountability?

Planning

  1. 6. What do you need to plan from the start? What areas will you leave open for improvisation, deviation, or emergence? In the words of Taylor Mac: “what’s going to happen?”Footnote 21

  2. 7. What existing work serves as inspiration? Are there ways to directly connect with that work? How can you avoid recreating the wheel? How do you honor, as Harney and Moten write, “the incessant and the irreversible intellectuality of these activities [that] is already present?”Footnote 22

  3. 8. Where does your timeline start? What pre-histories predate your project? What possibilities might come after? Will this project need to be sustained past a particular deadline or budget cycle, and how? How will the project be archived? What are the benefits of time-boundedness or ephemerality?

  4. 9. In what areas does your project demand complexity? In what areas does it demand concision and clarity? Can you add productive constraints (temporal and spatial) to your brainstorming process?

  5. 10. Where is there urgency in this project? Where is there potential for lasting and systemic change? How do you scope a project to be able to deliver on a promise, rather than aim for something too broad like trying to “change the world?”Footnote 23 How does this not only inform but also shape ongoing public discussion?

Partnerships

  1. 11. What practice, community, and/or movement are you contributing to, amplifying, or sharpening via your training and expertise? What labor, histories, and/or networks might your presence obscure, diminish, or imbalance?

  2. 12. What unexpected roles might people be invited to play? What might they be unfairly coerced into? How does thinking expansively about a range of responsibilities – such as producer, consumer, steward, translator, student, teacher, curmudgeon, and connection-builder – reframe the labor involved?

  3. 13. What intersectional diversities exist within the public your project engages? How are you centering those most impacted? How do you uproot hierarchies without idealizing partners as “innocent” or beyond reproach?Footnote 24

  4. 14. How do you begin relationships, care for them, and set up boundaries? How can they evolve over time? How will you know if they need to end? What happens if someone gets sick? What obligations, in the sense of “debt” invoked above, do you enter into, and pass on?

  5. 15. Who experiences…

    power

    vulnerability

    accountability

    benefit

    harm

    access

    credit

    labor

    need

    risk

    … and in what ways?

  6. 16. How can we think of the above experiences in a multitude of ways: materially, epistemologically, politically, etc.? Where do you fit in? How will you hold vulnerability and interdependence as generative realities rather than liabilities?

  7. 17. How would your partners describe you or the work you are doing? How might a detractor, an ally, a bystander? How do you respond to misreadings of your work?

Institutions

  1. 18. How might existing institutions seek to colonize or profit from your work? What is your plan to negotiate or mitigate these attempts? How do you guard against absorbing the territoriality and inertia of those with power over you?

  2. 19. What do you do when you sense that an institutional barrier is disingenuous (i.e., someone saying they “cannot” help might actually be a matter of they or the institution “will not” support you)? What isn’t affirmed, validated, or made possible by winning the grant, publishing the article, or achieving tenure?

  3. 20. Are you organized in solidarity with the “undercommons” of the institution and community, such as undergraduates, unions, children, and QTBIPOC coalitions? How do you make an effort to build a genuine community across perceived or structural borders?

  4. 21. What institutions are you building? In what situations is institution-building counter-productive?

Tools

  1. 22. What tools and technologies will you use? What values, ideologies, or politics are they enmeshed in? To paraphrase Audre Lorde: can they actually “dismantle the master’s house?”Footnote 25

  2. 23. In what ways is this project embodied? Where is physicalness, or fleshiness, an asset, and where is it a limitation?

  3. 24. In what ways is this project digital? How do mobile devices, algorithms, or QR codes expand access, and how do they preclude it?

  4. 25. How are you building replicable templates and toolkits (e.g., policies, procedures, or protocols) for something greater than this project? Is that infrastructure necessary? How can you remain agile?

  5. 26. What tools do you need to make responsive and equitable decisions under difficult circumstances? What are your decision-making processes and structures? How might they be put to the test, or where might they bend or break?

Outputs and Forms

  1. 27. How will you and your partners make your work legible to different audiences? Does your format or genre of engagement lead the usual suspects to the party? Does the form reproduce dominant publics, or is it aiming to create new ones? How can you build the publics for the work you want to do that does not exist yet?

  2. 28. Why do you value the form – archive, exhibition, digital platform, event, etc. – of the public engagement you are choosing? What are the material, contextual, functional, or critical affordances of that form? How does your focus on form not merely pander to trends, engage superficial aesthetics, or plagiarize other projects? Is your form a gimmick – and when can a gimmick be an invitation?

  3. 29. How attuned and exploratory are you with contemporary, popular, and avant-garde forms of communicating information? How do you avoid being a snob, a gatekeeper, a devotee to form? Alternatively, what are the ways in which your form is a part of caring for everyday life, provides an unexpected amenity or hospitality, or honors the desires of actual users and communities (e.g., providing air-conditioning, a living room, childcare, food, public space, translation, or a sense of belonging)?

  4. 30. How does your work balance wayfinding with the freedom to explore? How might different participants manage their own needs, and will they know how or when to ask for what they need? How will you respond if they try to take an uncharted path?

  5. 31. What are the locations for this project? How are users arriving and departing, and what are the barriers and porosities in these venues? Do people know public transit routes? Where will people park?

Documentation

  1. 32. What data or tools do you need to tell the story of this project? How will you preempt a frantic post-mortem by collecting these, on an ongoing basis, throughout the project?

  2. 33. How can you resist the fetishization or performativity of documentation? What experiences can or should not be documented? Who owns and maintains the archive? Who does documentation ultimately serve (i.e., participants, editors, funders, institutions)?

  3. 34. What does it mean to be credited as an author, creator, or contributor?Footnote 26 How do you distinguish between contributing time, ideas, musings, sweat, jokes, feedback, snacks, and other forms of intellect and labor? How can you preserve a multiplicity of voices?

Evaluation and Reflection

  1. 35. How are feelings forms of information? Must all affects be positive, empowering, or feel-good? What unsettling possibilities do negative, alienated, or ambivalent feelings allow for?Footnote 27

  2. 36. What indicators might suggest a need to re-evaluate your goals or process? What dealbreakers might cause you to pull the plug?

  3. 37. What forms of evaluation feel inauthentic, limited, invisibilizing, or devaluing to you and your partners, and why? What is the intrinsic impact of the work, and how can you allow the project speak on its own terms? How can you resist calls to demonstrate its worth outside of those involved? How do you prevent “success” metrics and instruments from producing clout-chasing, needless labor, redundancies, and power imbalances?

  4. 38. How can you avoid romanticizing your project or the communities involved?Footnote 28 What other types of engagement and evaluation might this invite?

  5. 39. What is your plan for aftercare?Footnote 29

Inconclusion

We hope the above questions will not only support readers in developing hands-on approaches to projects, but also raise new questions – both in practice and in response to our inquiries themselves. We are, after all, but two people, and we know that there are many themes and angles we have not considered. As publicly-engaged scholars, we are eager to hear others’ questions as well. Rather than offer a conclusion, we invite a state of inconclusion in which we hope to buy a bit more time to collectively “stay with the trouble,” in Donna Haraway’s words, in interrogating how we might thoughtfully, creatively, and ethically work in partnership with and service of diverse publics.Footnote 30

To that end, we ask you, the reader, to spend a few moments now generating questions – ones that we hope you might consider sharing with us. We mean this quite literally: inspired by Max Liboiron’s work on and reciprocal intellectual exchange (rather than consumptive reading), we respectfully ask that you take a moment now, before you put down this paper or close your PDF, to jot down at least one question in the space below (or beyond), as a reflection of what ours have raised for you.Footnote 31 It may feel awkward, but please imagine we were in a room together, and this is your chance to write out a sticky note, raise your hand, or start up a conversation.

We encourage you to share your question(s) at http://queryingpublicscholarship.org/.Footnote 32 Our plan is to collate these into a web-based resource as well as a follow-up publication that will not only be grounded in the collective knowledge shared but also acknowledge the collective labor of those who participate.Footnote 33

Ultimately, we look forward to conversations about other pathways to public scholarship that might emerge: What’s going to happen, and what other possibilities might we explore together?

Footnotes

1 While we position our own work within the framework of public humanities, this is just one of many formulations within what might be understood as “public scholarship,” including participatory and/or action research, service and/or experiential learning, and many “public” disciplinary approaches (e.g., public anthropology and public history) – and we hope that these questions are useful to scholars across fields and allegiances. For the sake of casting a wide net (and since a thorough typology of different approaches is beyond our scope), we use “public scholarship” as the broadest framing; this follows the work of Adrianna Kezar, Yianna Drivalas, and Joseph A. Kitchen, who note that public scholarship encompasses traditions of both public intellectualism and engaged scholarship with an orientation toward social justice. Still, the New England Resource Center for Higher Education’s definition of “engaged scholarship” is also useful as a baseline, “defined by the collaboration between academics and individuals outside the academy… for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partnership and reciprocity… [and which] seeks to facilitate a more active and engaged democracy by bringing affected publics into problem-solving work in ways that advance the public good with and not merely for the public” (quoted in Kezar, Drivalas, and Kitchen Reference Kezar, Drivalas, Kitchen, Kezar, Drivalas and Kitchen2023, 7). For additional models, and critiques, of public scholarship, see Holland et al. Reference Holland, Powell, Eng and Drew2010 and Mitchell, Donahue, and Young-Law Reference Mitchell, Donahue and Young-Law2012.

2 Risam Reference Risam2019. Susan Smulyan similarly writes: “Many faculty members in the humanities – in the traditions of African American studies, ethnic studies, women’s studies, American studies, public history, and cultural anthropology, for example – have long conceived, directed, and participated in public humanities projects. We have done them because we felt a special commitment to our communities; because it was part of the mission of our departments; or because such work fit our scholarly interests” (Smulyan Reference Smulyan2022, 128). See also A Third University Is Possible (la paperson 2017).

3 J. B. Barrios et al. Reference Barrios, Kornstein, McAllister, Ruggill, Fisher-Livne and May-Curry2024.

4 In particular, we thank the participants in a session on “Common Study: Making Public Humanities” that we organized for the 2023 Modern Language Association convention, in which we foreshadowed some of these questions: Matthew Bernstine, Romi Ron Morrison, Laura Perry, Shamari Reid, Stephanie Syjuco, and Rhondda Thomas. We also thank members of our department – Public and Applied Humanities at the University of Arizona who served as guinea pigs in workshopping these questions: Brittney Crawford, Murielle Coste, Jonathan Jae-an Crisman, Beatrice Dupuy, Nicholas M. Ferdinand, Sumayya K. R. Granger, Jasmine Linabary, Matthew M. Mars, Kenneth S. McAllister, Suzanne K. Panferov Reese, Judd Ruggill, Stephanie K. Springer, Eddy, White, and Joshua J. Zimmerman.

5 In this way, we worked with each other as we do with our own collaborators and communities of practice, where the notion of boundary keeping is always challenged by the expansive social relation, where “[the debt] that you have is for more than you, it’s not just for you, it passes through you… a generative form of affect between two beings that is precisely valuable because it continues in certain kinds of ways” (Harney and Moten Reference Harney and Moten2013, 154).

6 Williams’ phrase “structure of feeling” signals the process by which new concepts or social structures emerge in often intangible ways before they take on a form of their own; in today’s vernacular, this might be understood as “vibes” that describe how we feel about something before we can articulate it (Williams Reference Williams1961).

7 Ahmed borrows the term “desire lines” from landscape architecture, which describe the emergence of unsanctioned paths (like worn-down dirt trails) that deviate from official walkways – a metaphor for how we might conceive of new forms of collective action (Ahmed Reference Ahmed2006). Warner’s notion of “counterpublics” argues that the notion of a singular, unified community is a myth and suggests that marginalized groups often form sub-communities that engage with culture in divergent and even oppositional ways (Warner Reference Warner2005). Simpson illuminates the ways that Nishnaabeg intelligence and epistemology draw from cultural stories (e.g., the harvesting of sap and making maple sugar) that function as embodied theories of education and politics, especially in bringing about the cultural resurgence of Indigenous communities. As she says succinctly, “if you want to learn about something, you need to take your body onto the land and do it. Get a practice” (Simpson Reference Simpson2017).

8 Roy Reference Roy, Roy and Malson2019, 17.

9 Tuck Reference Tuck2009, 411–12.

10 Tuck Reference Tuck2009, 410.

11 “Drag Story Hour” n.d.; “Favianna Rodriguez – Desert Symphony” n.d.; J. Barrios Reference Barrios2022; Reference Barrios2023; J. J. Barrios and Wong Reference Barrios and Wong2020; Keenan and Hot Mess Reference Keenan and Hot Mess2020; Morales Reference Morales2023.

12 An especially practical tool has been the Humanities for All database, which features more than 1,500 initiatives that informed the synthesizing of the “five overarching goals” of publicly engaged initiatives, goals our questions invoke, but also deviate from, expand or test. They are “informing contemporary debates, amplifying community voices and histories, helping individuals and communities navigate difficult experiences, expanding educational access, and preserving culture in times of crisis and change” (Fisher Reference Fishern.d.). See also Benjamin Reference Benjamin2024; Fisher Reference Fishern.d.; Fisher-Livne and May-Curry Reference Fisher-Livne, May-Curry, Fisher-Livne and May-Curryn.d.; Imagining America n.d.; Kohl-Arenas, Alston, and Preston Reference Kohl-Arenas, Alston and Preston2023.

13 Anti-Eviction Mapping Project n.d.; SLAB n.d.

14 Center for Black Digital Research 2021.

15 Mi Reina Mobile Boutique n.d.; Sustainable Little Tokyo n.d.; The Chinese Chorizo Project n.d.; Visualizing Palestine n.d.

16 What Would an HIV Doula Do? 2020.

17 Rooted in Black feminist thought, and specifically what she calls “a black sense of place,” McKittrick uses this phrasing to encourage us to consider the sources of our knowledge, not merely rooted in our individual identities or geographies but in a more collective sense (McKittrick Reference McKittrick2021, 107). We would like extend our thanks to Leigh-Anna Hidalgo, who introduced us both to this phrase in a lecture on Latinx Digital Humanities. For a take on how to introduce this concept into classroom introductions, see Zuroski Reference Zuroski2020.

18 Warner Reference Warner2005.

19 Throughout the piece, we often speak to you, the reader. However, many of these instances might also be a collective you – encompassing whatever arrangements of partners are at your table. We encourage you to think capaciously and to engage in conversations in partnership whenever possible.

20 In her open letter to communities, Tuck calls for a moratorium on “damage-centered research,” similar to what others call a “deficit model,” defined as “research that operates, even benevolently, from a theory of change that establishes harm or injury in order to achieve reparation” (Tuck Reference Tuck2009, 413). Grounded in experiences of Native and other marginalized communities where such research has led to “long-term repercussions of thinking of ourselves as broken,” Tuck’s letter centers attention on desire serves as an “antidote” to this harm: “exponentially generative, engaged, engorged, desire is not mere wanting but our informed seeking…. It is closely tied to, or may even be, our wisdom” (409, 416, 418).

21 As Mac explains: “‘what’s going to happen’ is more of a mantra to calm you down. It’s an acknowledgment that calamity is going to come into our lives, and that we are going to be able to transform it” (Odyssey Reference Odyssey2019).

22 Harney and Moten Reference Harney and Moten2013, 110.

23 Thanks to our colleague Jonathan Jae-an Crisman for suggesting this line of thinking in an earlier round of feedback.

24 As Donna Haraway writes: “The positionings of the subjugated are not exempt from critical reexamination, decoding, deconstruction, and interpretation; that is, from both semiological and hermeneutic modes of critical inquiry. The standpoints of the subjugated are not ‘innocent’ positions… ‘Subjugated’ standpoints are preferred because they seem to promise more adequate, sustained, objective, transforming accounts of the world. But how to see from below is a problem requiring at least as much skill with bodies and language, with the mediations of vision, as the ‘highest’ technoscientific visualizations” (Haraway Reference Haraway1988, 584).

25 Lorde Reference Lorde2007; Vasudevan Reference Vasudevan2024.

26 We thank our colleague Jasmine Linabary for proposing this line of thinking.

27 Ahmed Reference Ahmed2010; Murphy Reference Murphy2015.

28 Joseph Reference Joseph2002.

29 With thanks to Nayland Blake for drawing attention to the critical practices of aftercare in BDSM communities.

30 Haraway Reference Haraway2016.

31 Similar to Harney and Moten’s work on debt, Liboiron writes of the ethics of reciprocity: “Some people assume that reciprocity means trading: I give you a gift, and you reciprocate by giving me a gift of similar value… But this is a transactional concept of reciprocity, and I wish to highlight the ethics of reciprocity; it is an ethic characterized by obligation, by moral constraints and rules, and it eschews commensurability and focuses on obligation across difference” (Liboiron, Kornstein, and Barrios Reference Liboiron, Kornstein, Barrios and Jungnickel2020, 97).

32 Relatedly, we also look forward to creating a space of real-time conversation around these and reader-submitted questions.

33 We did our best to think through some of our own questions in offering this provocation and cycled through a range of approaches and forms – voice notes! a card deck! postcards! – before landing here. While certainly not the only way, we feel this meets our goals, both respects and slightly expands the norms of academic journals, and allows us to playfully indulge a light sense of gimmick alongside experimentation – while also ultimately allowing us a concluding punctuation on this particular project.

References

Ahmed, Sara. 2006. Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Ahmed, Sara. 2010. The Promise of Happiness. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Anti-Eviction Mapping Project. n.d. “About.” Anti-Eviction Mapping Project. Accessed September 3, 2024. https://antievictionmap.com/about-the-aemp.Google Scholar
Barrios, Jacqueline. 2022. “Book of the City: Exhibiting a Southwest Urban Humanities.” Bookofthecity.Com (blog), October 22. https://www.bookofthecity.com.Google Scholar
Barrios, Jacqueline. 2023. “Novel Wayfinding: LitLabs and the Activism of Place.” Victorian Literature and Culture 51 (4): 613–28. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1060150323000724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrios, Jacqueline B., Kornstein, Harris, McAllister, Kenneth, and Ruggill, Judd E.. 2024. “Strategic Legibility: Making Publicly Engaged Humanities Scholarship Readable.” In The Routledge Companion to Publicly Engaged Humanities Scholarship, edited by Fisher-Livne, Daniel and May-Curry, Michelle, 52–65. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrios, Jacqueline Jean, and Wong, Kenny H.. 2020. “City Analog: Scavenging Sonic Archives and Urban Pedagogy.” Review of Communication 20 (4): 367–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2020.1829687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benjamin, Ruha. 2024. Imagination: A Manifesto. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Center for Black Digital Research. 2021. “#DigBlk Principles.” Center for Black Digital Research (PennState College of the Liberal Arts), September 29. https://digblk.psu.edu/about/principles/.Google Scholar
“Drag Story Hour.” n.d. Humanities for All. Accessed July 14, 2024. https://humanitiesforall.org/projects/drag-story-hour.Google Scholar
“Favianna Rodriguez – Desert Symphony.” n.d. University of Arizona. https://desertsymphony.arizona.edu/.Google Scholar
Fisher, Daniel. n.d. “A Typology of the Publicly Engaged Humanities.” Humanities for All. Accessed January 11, 2022. https://humanitiesforall.org/essays/five-types-of-publicly-engaged-humanities-work-in-u-s-higher-education.Google Scholar
Fisher, Daniel. n.d. “Goals of the Publicly Engaged Humanities.” Humanities for All. Accessed January 11, 2022. https://humanitiesforall.org/essays/goals-of-the-publicly-engaged-humanities.Google Scholar
Fisher-Livne, Daniel, and May-Curry, Michelle. 2024. “Introduction: Public Humanities Scholarship in Practice and Theory.” In The Routledge Companion to Publicly Engaged Humanities Scholarship, edited by Fisher-Livne, Daniel and May-Curry, Michelle, 3–26. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 1988. “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.” Feminist Studies 14 (3): 575–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 2016. Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Harney, Stefano, and Moten, Fred. 2013. The Undercommons: Fugitive Planning & Black Study. Wivenhoe: Autonomedia.Google Scholar
Holland, Dorothy, Powell, Dana E., Eng, Eugenia, and Drew, Georgina. 2010. “Models of Engaged Scholarship: An Interdisciplinary Discussion.” Collaborative Anthropologies 3 (1): 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imagining America. 2024. Public Scholar Conversation Cards. https://marketplace.ucdavis.edu/C21642_ustores/web/product_detail.jsp?PRODUCTID=5440&SINGLESTORE=true.Google Scholar
Joseph, Miranda. 2002. Against the Romance of Community. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, Harper, and Hot Mess, Lil Miss. 2020. “Drag Pedagogy: The Playful Practice of Queer Imagination in Early Childhood.” Curriculum Inquiry 50 (5): 440–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.2020.1864621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kezar, Adrianna, Drivalas, Yianna, and Kitchen, Joseph A.. 2023. “Defining the Evolving Concept of Public Scholarship.” In Envisioning Public Scholarship for Our Time: Models for Higher Education Researchers, edited by Kezar, Adrianna, Drivalas, Yianna, and Kitchen, Joseph A., 3–17. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohl-Arenas, Erica, Alston, Kal, and Preston, Christina. 2023. “Organizing Culture Change: Public Scholar Imagination Guide.” Imagining America. https://marketplace.ucdavis.edu/C21642_ustores/web/product_detail.jsp?PRODUCTID=5441&SINGLESTORE=true.Google Scholar
la paperson. 2017. A Third University Is Possible. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Liboiron, Max, Kornstein, Harris, and Barrios, Jacqueline. 2020. “Exchanging.” In Transmissions: Critical Tactics for Making and Communicating Research, edited by Jungnickel, Kat, 89–107. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lorde, Audre. 2007. Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches. Reprint ed. Berkeley, CA: Crossing Press.Google Scholar
McKittrick, Katherine. 2021. Dear Science and Other Stories. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mi Reina Mobile Boutique. n.d. “Mi Reina Mobile Boutique.” Mi Reina Mobile Boutique. Accessed September 3, 2024. https://www.mireinamobileboutique.com.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Tania D., Donahue, David M., and Young-Law, Courtney. 2012. “Service Learning as a Pedagogy of Whiteness.” Equity & Excellence in Education 45 (4): 612–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2012.715534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morales, Bianca. 2023. “Storytelling & Photography Exhibit Show ‘Rich History’ of El Pueblo Neighborhood Center.” Tucson Sentinel, May 3. http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/arts/report//050323_el_pueblo_center/.Google Scholar
Murphy, Michelle. 2015. “Unsettling Care: Troubling Transnational Itineraries of Care in Feminist Health Practices.” Social Studies of Science 45 (5): 717–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312715589136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Odyssey, David. 2019. “Taylor Mac Delivers 2019 Mitchell Artist Lecture in Houston.” OutSmart Magazine, October 31. https://www.outsmartmagazine.com/2019/10/taylor-mac-delivers-2019-mitchell-artist-lecture-in-houston-this-tuesday/.Google Scholar
Risam, Roopika. 2019. “Academic Generosity, Academic Insurgency.” Public Books (blog), November 27. https://www.publicbooks.org/academic-generosity-academic-insurgency/.Google Scholar
Roy, Ananya. 2019. “Housing Justice: Towards a Field of Inquiry.” In Housing Justice in Unequal Cities, edited by Roy, Ananya and Malson, Hilary, 13–19. Los Angeles, CA: Institute on Inequality and Democracy, University of California, Los Angeles. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4kq1j0df.Google Scholar
Simpson, Leanne Betasamosake. 2017. As We Have Always Done: Indigenous Freedom through Radical Resistance. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smulyan, Susan. 2022. “Why Public Humanities?” Daedalus 151 (3): 124–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spatial Analysis Lab. n.d. “About Us.” Spatial Analysis Lab (SLAB), USC Price. Accessed September 3, 2024. https://slab.today/about-us/.Google Scholar
Sustainable Little Tokyo. n.d. “Takachizu”. Accessed September 3, 2024. http://www.takachizu.org/about.Google Scholar
The Chinese Chorizo Project. n.d. “Story of the Chinese Chorizo.” The Chinese Chorizo Project. Accessed September 3, 2024. https://www.chinesechorizoproject.com/story-of-the-chinese-chorizo.Google Scholar
Tuck, Eve. 2009. “Suspending Damage: A Letter to Communities.” Harvard Educational Review 79 (3): 409–28. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.79.3.n0016675661t3n15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasudevan, Roopa. 2024. Transparency, Hypervisibility, Revelation: On Modalities of Creative Resistance [art zine]. Amherst, MA: Strategic Transparency Press (self-published).Google Scholar
Visualizing Palestine. n.d. “About Us.” Visualizing Palestine. Accessed September 3, 2024. https://visualizingpalestine.org/about/.Google Scholar
Warner, Michael. 2005. Publics and Counterpublics. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
What Would an HIV Doula Do? 2020. “Twenty-Seven Questions for Writers and Journalists to Consider When Writing about Covid-19 and HIV/AIDS.” HIV Doula Work (blog), April. https://hivdoula.work/27-questions.Google Scholar
Williams, Raymond. 1961. The Long Revolution. Ontario: Broadview Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuroski, Eugenia. 2020. “‘Where Do You Know From?’: An Exercise in Placing Ourselves Together in the Classroom.” MAI: Feminism & Visual Culture (blog), January 27. https://maifeminism.com/where-do-you-know-from-an-exercise-in-placing-ourselves-together-in-the-classroom/.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Examples from an early workshop of these questions, written on index cards. The authors invite readers to submit their own questions (http://queryingpublicscholarship.org/).