Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Critical analysis reveals power asymmetries reproduced by scholar-activist methodologies in crisis borderlands, suggesting a politics of irresolution and militant splitting over methodological fixes.
This paper examines scholar‐activist methodologies in spaces saturated by humanitarian, media and academic attention to migrant mobility. Drawing on research on the Greek migration regime, it demonstrates how commitments to ‘giving voice’, ‘democratising knowledge’ and ‘reflexivity’ can reproduce the very power asymmetries they claim to contest, particularly in ‘crisis’ settings. Engaging traditions of militant research, feminist discomfort, refusal and studying up, I argue that oppositional methods are routinely captured by the political economy of academia in ways that methodological innovation alone cannot resolve. Rather than proposing another methodological fix, the paper advances a politics of irresolution —an orientation that inhabits contradiction without resolving it into methodological closure, ethical tranquillity or political self‐assurance. Instead of seeking seamless fusion between political organising and research, I explore how their strategic differentiation, what I call militant splitting , may at times be necessary to sustain contradiction without collapsing into performative coherence.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Danai Avgeri (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: