Co-Exploring Aesthetic Sanctuaries of Journey Experiences: A Study of Image-Making Practice for Alternative Epistemologies in 'Forced Migration'
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research study centers on co-exploring experiences and nuanced meanings of dignity and forceful journeys with Knowledge Holders. The study departs from the problematization of legal labels of "Forced Migration," (FM) such as the 'refugee', the 'asylum seeker' or the 'migrant' and the stigma they impose on people's life experiences. Paying close attention to these epistemological paradigms in "Forced Migration Studies" (FMS), this research study bridges the gap of sedimented epistemologies in the field by offering innovative epistemological mechanism and perspectives to understand people's experiences of FM from an aesthetic angle. Moreover, it actively re-centers the phenomenological aspect of life experiences and shifts the relevance of Knowledge Holders at the center of inquiring processes. At the core of the study there are three main inquiries: 1. How does image-making practice contribute to a better understanding of the human experience of forceful journey and challenges or counteracts the tales of the 'refugee, asylum seeker, migrant' and the one of 'forced migration'? 1.1 How can the exploration of the experience of forceful journey through the image-making practice of knowledge holders, contribute to the introduction of alternative ways of expressing and establishing self-recognition and self-dignity vis-à-vis a dignity dependent on the legal personality in Human Rights Law? 2. How does the image-making approach contribute to challenging pre-established HR epistemologies whilst re-centering them to their aesthetic nature? Thus, to re-center a focus on the epistemic voices of forceful journeys, this study offers a mechanism that encompasses people's making sense of their experiences through the aesthetic practice of image-making. To this end, the study applies a multimethod research design which informs from decolonial approaches based on "Canadian First Nation Literature," and from a varied qualitative method approach, such as visual ethnography, audio-visual elicitation, writing, drawing and image collaging. For analysis purposes of the collected sensibilities, the study combines semiology and semiotics to capture image nuances through signs, as well as discourse analysis with an emphasis on narrative elements. Finally, the study concludes by bringing all the sensibilities of Knowledge Holders into conversation with theories of resistance, cosmopolitanism and conceptual frameworks of aesthetic practice as an act of "claim." From these conversations, this paper establishes that for the HR regime to expand deeper knowledge on FM, it must embrace an aesthetic turn of its epistemological paradigms, placing at the center, the human.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".