Oslo Summer School in Comparative Social Science Studies 2019

Feminist Political  Ecology: New Spaces of Engagement for Environmental Futures

Convenor: Professor Andrea Nightingale, Department of Sociology and Human Geography, University of Oslo

Course dates: 29 July - 2 August 2019

Course credits: 8 ECTS

Limitation: 25 participants

Main disciplines: Human Geography, Feminist Theory, Environment and Climate

Apply now


  • Professor Wendy Harcourt, International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam in The Hague
  • Dr. Rebecca Elmhirst, Department of Geography, University of Brighton, UK


As concern over ecological crises increases and scholars and ordinary people alike are returning to more emotional and affective ways of understanding their connection to the rest of the world, feminist political ecology (FPE) is back on the front line of the social science of environment. FPE theorises the relationships between social difference, environmental change and political economies, with particular attention on how everyday practices cross scales and shape global processes. Conceptually, it theories how power operates to shape societies, cultures, knowledges and ecologies. While early contributions emerged from concerns over women and development, feminist political ecology today contributes to debates at the core of social science debates: the production of difference, inequality and exclusion; the politics of knowledge; and the nature-society nexus. This course offers students an introduction to cutting edge themes within FPE and situates them in relation to current practical concerns about how to respond to social and ecological change.



A paper of 3,000 - 5,000 words (word count does not include references) to be submitted by July 18, 2019. The paper should draw on course themes and readings. It can take the form of a literature review or draft article or PhD chapter. You are encouraged to go beyond the set reading list (although be sure to reference to some of the core reading). Papers will be read by other course participants and the lecturers and discussed in small group sessions during the course. It is expected that you will read and provide constructive feedback on the papers assigned to your small group. Note that texts longer than 5,000 words will not be evaluated beyond the first 5,000 words, please stay within the page limits.

Feminist Political Ecology Summer School Reading List 


  • Elmhirst, R., 2015. Feminist political ecology. In The Routledge handbook of gender and development (pp. 82-90). London: Routledge. (8 pages)
  • W. Harcourt and I.L. Nelson (eds) Practicing Feminist Political Ecology: Beyond the Green Economy London: Zed Books. (selected chapters)
  • Harcourt, W. and  I. L. Nelson (2015)  ‘Introduction: Are We ‘Green’ Yet? And the violence of asking such a question’ in W. Harcourt and I.L. Nelson (eds) Practicing Feminist Political Ecology: Beyond the Green Economy London: Zed Books (1-28). (28 pages)
  • Sundberg, J. (2008). "'Trash-talk' and the production of quotidian geopolitical boundaries in the USA-Mexico borderlands." Social and Cultural Geography 9 (8): 871 - 890. (19 pages).

Intersectionality, Performativity and Relational Environments

Gender does not signal women. Rather, FPE uses intersectional social difference as a way to understand the operation of power. This has contributed to debates on subjectivity and how power is not simply ‘power over’ but also ‘power to’ and ‘power for’. For many FPE scholars, gender is the entry point, but cannot be understood in isolation from other forms of subjection including race, ethnicity, class, age, sexuality, disability and religion. Explorations of gender ask questions about how gender (and masculinities and femininities) emerge and come to matter within resource conflicts. Similarly, intersectional analyses seek to understand how power operates to a.) create differentiation within societies (and therefore inequalities in access to, control over, distribution of, knowledge of resources) and b.) to create differences in who is seen as needing support, vs those with the right knowledge and skills to manage resources. Furthermore, intersectional analyses seeks to show how all resource governance contexts are profoundly shaped by as well as perpetuate social differences. Performativity. Closely related to intersectionality, many FPE scholars (especially in geography) have insisted on a performative understanding of gender and subjectivity. This shifts the debate away from fixed notions of gender to recognise how subjectivities are the ‘effect of power in recoil’ (Butler). As such, people and groups internalise and reinterpret the operation of power to both perform and resist their subjection. It is important not to ascribe this as something that pertains to individuals, however, Butler distinguishes the subject from the ego, so individuals do not have a ‘subject position’ but rather can express multiple (and often contradictory) subjectivities. The contribution to PE from these debates is to focus on the everyday practices through which power is expressed and contested. By looking at intersectional social differences, it offers insights into how power operates to create uneven access, control and use of resources. FPE uses these concepts to think about how subjectivities and environments are coproduced.

Core Reading

  • Carastathis, A. (2014). The concept of intersectionality in feminist theory. Philosophy Compass 9, no 5: 304-14.10.1111/phc3.12129 (10 pages).
  • Elmhirst, R and Darmastuti, A. (2015) Material feminism and Multi-local political ecologies: rethinking gender and nature in Lampung, Indonesia. In Gendered Entanglements: Revisiting Gender in Rapidly Changing Asia. Ed. Ragnhild Lund, Philippe Doneys and Bernadette P Resurreccion. Copenhagen: Nias Press.
  • Hovorka, A.J., (2015) The gender, place and culture Jan Monk distinguished annual lecture: Feminism and animals: Exploring interspecies relations through intersectionality, performativity and standpoint. Gender, Place & Culture22(1), pp.1-19. (19 pages).
  • Mollett, S. and Faria, C., (2018) The spatialities of intersectional thinking: fashioning feminist geographic futures. Gender, Place & Culture25(4), pp.565-577 (12 pages).
  • Probyn, E. (2003). The spatial imperative of subjectivity. In Handbook of cultural geography, eds Anderson, K, Domosh, M, Pile, S and Thrift, N, 290-99. London: Sage(9 pages).

Situated Knowledges and Decolonising Knowledge

An original core concern of FPE scholars was with knowledge. Early contributions focused on how women had different knowledge of environmental issues than men and the inherent masculine biases within western scientific thought. Drawing from Haraway’s insights into situated knowledges, FPE probes how positionality circumscribes knowledge production. Rather than objectivity being achieved by detached observation, objectivity is achieved by recognising the situated and political nature of knowledge making. Taking an explicitly political stance helps feminist scholars build objectivity by acknowledging their own positionality in research. More recent contributions focus on the emotional, affective, more than human relations and processes of subjection through which knowledges of environmental conflicts and change emerge. This is also linked (although not subsumed to or even necessarily equivalent with) the decolonising knowledges project and the overall attention to the more than human within FPE. Decolonising knowledge. Decolonisation does not refer to ‘post colonial’ but rather to attempts at decentering hegemonic western ways of viewing the world. It is embedded within ontological politics debates but should not be understood as subsumed within those debates (there are important points of disconnection). We will explore the implications of a commitment to decolonising knowledge for FPE research.

Core Readings

  • Blaser, M. (2012). Ontology and indigeneity: on the political ontology of heterogeneous assemblages, Cultural geographies, 21(1): 49–58 (9 pages).
  • De La Cadena, M. (2010). Indigenous cosmopolitics in the Andes: Conceptual reflections beyond “politics”. Cultural Anthropology 25, no 2: 334-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1360.2010.01061.x (36 pages)
  • Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies 14, no 3: 575-99.10.2307/3178066 (14 pages).
  • Mohanty, C. T. (2002). Under Western Eyes Revisited: Feminist Solidarity through Anticapitalist Struggles. Signs: Jounral of Women in Culture and Society 28(2): 499 - 535.
  • Radcliffe, S.A. (2015). Geography and indigeneity I: Indigeneity, coloniality and knowledge. Progress in Human Geography 41, no 2: 220-29.10.1177/030913251561295 (9 pages).
  • Sundberg, J. (2014). Decolonizing posthumanist geographies. Cultural Geographies 21, no 1: 33-47 .10.1177/1474474013486067 (14 pages).

Feminist Methodologies

One of the biggest challenges for feminist research is designing methodologies that match commitments to situated knowledges, decolonisation, attention to power and subjectivity AND that can address other dimensions of our research questions. The question of ‘whether women should count’ is one that goes back to the 1980s and has helped to inspire many excellent contributions from feminist thought to critical social science more generally. Here we will just begin an exploration of what a feminist methodology could look like in your projects.

  • Hesse-Biber, S. (2012). Feminist approaches to triangulation: Uncovering subjugated knowledge and fostering social change in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 6, no 2: 137-46. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1558689812437184 (9 pages).
  • Hughes, C. and C. Lury. (2013). Re-turning feminist methodologies: From a social to an ecological epistemology. Gender and Education 25, no 6: 786-99. 10.1080/09540253.2013.82991 (14 pages)
  • Nightingale, A.J. (2003). A feminist in the forest: Situated knowledges and mixing methods in natural resource management. ACME: an International E-Journal for Critical Geographers 2, no 1: 77-90 (23 pages).
  • Tallbear, K. (2011). Why interspecies thinking needs indigenous standpoints. Theorizing the Contemporary: Cultural Anthropology website, no April 24 (4 pages).
  • Valdivia, G. (2009). Indigenous bodies, indigenous minds? Towards an understanding of indigeneity in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Gender, Place & Culture 16, no 5: 535-551 51.10.1080/09663690903148416 (16 pages).


Many FPE thinkers cross into diverse economies and commoning debates. Contributions from FPE include insights into ‘being in common’ (Singh) that connects affective more than human relations with collective governance and use of resources, the embodied politics and subjection of resource users as they move through the different spaces and scales of resource governance that shapes how collective action unfolds. FPE scholars are both interested in ‘nurturing life in common’, focusing on affective and embodied understandings and more than human connections to understand when people are likely to come together in commoning efforts and what might drive them apart. These insights have helped to bridge between Ostrom-inspired approaches to the commons and diverse economies embracing of commoning.

Core readings

  • Sato. C.  and J.M. Soto Alarcon (in press) 'Toward a postcapitalist feminist political ecology approach to the commons and commoning' International Journal of Commons  special issue on Feminist Political Ecology (10 pages)
  • García López, G.A., I. Velicu and G. D’alisa. (2017). Performing counter-hegemonic common(s) senses: Rearticulating democracy, community and forests in puerto rico. Capitalism Nature Socialism 28, no 3: 88-107. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2017.1321026 (19 pages)
  • Gibson-Graham, J.K. and G. Roelvink. (2010). An economic ethics for the anthropocene. Antipode 41, no s1: 320-46. 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2009.00728.x (26 pages)
  • Velicu, I. and G. García-López. (2018). Thinking the commons through Ostrom and Butler: Boundedness and vulnerability. Theory, Culture & Society 35, no 6: 55-73 10.1177/0263276418757315 (18 pages)

Emotional Political Ecologies

FPE scholars have drawn from debates on emotional geographies and subjectivities to think through how subjects are produced in emotional, more than human relations. These insights draw attention to affective relations between humans and more than humans in shaping the character and outcomes of resource conflicts. Further, they have argued that emotional experiences of being part of social movements and violent resource conflicts profoundly shape not only subjectivities, but also what forms of coalitions, collective action, motivations and possibilities for future violence emerge. Many of these scholars are also interested in the commons and commoning.

Core Readings

  • González-Hidalgo, M.a.Z., Christos. (2019). Emotions, power, and environmental conflict: Expanding the 'emotional turn' in political ecology. Progress in Human Geography in press. (15 pages)
  • Morales, M.C. and L.M. Harris. (2014). Using subjectivity and emotion to reconsider participatory natural resource management. World Development 64, no 0: 703-12.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.06.032 (9 pages)
  • Nightingale, A.J. (2013). Fishing for nature: The politics of subjectivity and emotion in scottish inshore fisheries management. Environment and Planning A 45, no 10: 2362-78 (14 pages)
  • Singh, N.M. (2017). Becoming a commoner: The commons as sites for affective socio-nature encounters and co-becomings. ephemera: theory and politics in organisation 17, no 4: 751-76 (23 pages)
  • Wichterich, C. (2015). ‘Contesting green growth, connecting care, commons and enough’, in W. Harcourt and I.L. Nelson (eds) Practising Feminist Political Ecologies: Moving Beyond the ‘Green Economy’. London: Zed Books (67–100). (33 pages)

Additional Suggested Readings (for all topics)

  • Ahlborg, H. and A.J. Nightingale. (2018). Theorizing power in political ecology: The where of power in resource governance projects. Journal of Political Ecology 25, no 1: 1-21
  • Arora-Jonsson, S. (2009). Discordant connections: Discourses on gender and grassroots activism in two forest communities in India and Sweden, Signs 35, no 1: 213-40.https://doi.org/10.1086/599259
  • Arora-Jonsson, S. (2011). Virtue and vulnerability: Discourses on women, gender and climate change. Global Environmental Change 21, no 2: 744-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.005
  • Arora-Jonsson, S., L. Westholm, B.J. Temu and A. Petitt. (2016). Carbon and cash in climate assemblages: The making of a new global citizenship. Antipode 48, no 1: 74-96.10.1111/anti.12170
  • Bee, B.A. (2016). Power, perception, and adaptation: Exploring gender and social–environmental risk perception in northern guanajuato, mexico. Geoforum 69: 71-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.12.006
  • Bee, B.A., J. Rice and A. Trauger. (2015). A feminist approach to climate change governance: Everyday and intimate politics. Geography Compass 9, no 6: 339-50.10.1111/gec3.12218
  • Butler, J., 2002. Gender trouble. London: Routledge.
  • Cantor, A., Stoddard, E., Rocheleau, D., Brewer, J.F., Roth, R., Birkenholtz, T., Foo, K. and Nirmal, P. (2018) Putting Rooted Networks Into Practice. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies.
  • Crenshaw, K. 1991. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and   against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review 43 (6): 1241–1299.
  • Di Chiro, G. (2017) ‘Seaweed, ‘Soul’ar Panels and Other Entanglements’, in Adamson, Joni and Michael Davis (eds), Humanities for the Environment: Integrated Knowledges and New Constellations of Practice. New York: Routledge. (70-87) 
  • Desai, S. and H Smith (2018) ‘Kinship across species: learning to care for nonhuman others (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.’, Feminist Review Vol. 118 (1): 41-60. 
  • Dombroksi, K., S. Healy and K. McKinnon (2019) ‘Care-full Community Economies’, in Bauhardt, C. and W. Harcourt (eds) Feminist Political Ecology and the Economics of Care. London: Routledge.
  • Elmhirst, R. (2011a). Introducing new feminist political ecologies. Geoforum.
  • Elmhirst, R. (2011b). Migrant pathways to resource access in lampung’s political forest: Gender, citizenship and creative conjugality. Geoforum 42, no 2: 173-83.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2010.12.004
  • Elmhirst, R., Siscawati, M., Basnett, B.S. and Ekowati, D., (2017) Gender and generation in engagements with oil palm in East Kalimantan, Indonesia: insights from feminist political ecology. The Journal of Peasant Studies44(6), pp.1135-1157.
  • Elmhirst, R. (2018) ‘Feminist Political Ecologies – Situated Perspectives, Emerging Engagements  (Ecologia Politica No.54. Special Issue on Ecofeminism “Ecofeminismos”, January 2018) http://www.ecologiapolitica.info/?cat=263 
  • Elmhirst, R. and B.P. Resurreccion. (2008). Gender, environment and natural resource management: New dimensions, new debates. In Gender and natural resource management: Livelihoods, mobility and interventions, eds Resurreccion, BP and Elmhirst, R. London: Earthscan.
  • Gonda, N. (2016). Climate change "technology" and gender: Adapting women to climate change with cooking stoves and water reservoirs. Gender, Technology and Development 20, no 2: 1-20.
  • González-Hidalgo, M. (2017). The politics of reflexivity: Subjectivities, activism, environmental conflict and gestalt therapy in southern chiapas. Emotion, Space and Society 25: 54-62.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2017.05.003 (8 pages)
  • González-Hidalgo, M. and C. Zografos. (2017). How sovereignty claims and “negative” emotions influence the process of subject-making: Evidence from a case of conflict over tree plantations from southern chile. Geoforum 78: 61-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.11.012
  • Graddy-Lovelace, G., 2017. Latent alliances: the Women’s March and agrarian feminism as opportunities of and for political ecology. Gender, Place & Culture24(5), pp.674-695.
  • Haraway D. (2015) 'Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene, Chthulucene: Making Kin Environmental Humanities vol 6 159-165 ISSN: 2201-1919
  • Harcourt, W. (2014). The future of capitalism: A consideration of alternatives. Cambridge Journal of Economics 38, no 6: 1307-28.10.1093/cje/bet048
  • Harcourt, W. (2016). Gender and sustainable livelihoods: Linking gendered experiences of environment, community and self. Agriculture and Human Values: 1-13.10.1007/s10460-016-9757-5
  • Harcourt, W. and I. Nelson eds. (2015). Practising feminist political ecologies: Moving beyond the ‘green economy’ London: Zed books.
  • Harris, L. (2009). "Gender and Emergent Water Governance: Comparative Overview of Neoliberalized Natures and Gender Dimensions of Privatization, Devolution, and Marketization." Gender, Place and Culture 16(4): 387 - 408.
  • Harris, L.M. (2006). Irrigation, gender, and social geographies of the changing waterscapes of southeastern anatolia. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 24: 187-213.
  • Harris, L.M. (2012). State as socionatural effect: Variable and emergent geographies of the state in southeastern turkey. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 32, no 1: 25-39.
  • Hesse-Biber, S.N. (2010). Mixed methods research: Merging theory with practice: Guilford Press.
  • Hickcox, A. (2018). White environmental subjectivity and the politics of belonging. Social & Cultural Geography 19, no 4: 496-519.10.1080/14649365.2017.1286370
  • Kaika, M. (2017). ‘Don’t call me resilient again!’: The new urban agenda as immunology … or … what happens when communities refuse to be vaccinated with ‘smart cities’ and indicators. Environment and Urbanization 29, no 1: 89-102.10.1177/0956247816684763
  • Kelly, A.B. (2011). Conservation practice as primitive accumulation. The Journal of Peasant Studies 38, no 4: 683-701 10.1080/03066150.2011.607695
  • Middleton, E. (2010). A political ecology of healing. Journal of Politcal Ecology 17: 1-28
  • Mollett, S. and Faria, C., 2013. Messing with gender in feminist political ecology. Geoforum45, pp.116-125.
  • Nelson, Lise. 1999. “Bodies (and Spaces) Do Matter: The Limits of Performativity.” Gender, Place and Culture 6 (4): 331– 353
  • Nightingale, A.J. (2006). The nature of gender: Work, gender and environment. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 24, no 2: 165-85.
  • Nightingale, A.J. (2011). Beyond design principles: Subjectivity, emotion and the (ir-)rational commons. Society & Natural Resources 24, no 2: 119-32.
  • Nightingale, A.J. (2018). The socioenvironmental state: Political authority, subjects, and transformative socionatural change in an uncertain world. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 1, no 4: 688-711.10.1177/2514848618816467
  • Lloro-Bidart, T. and Finewood, M.H., 2018. Intersectional feminism for the environmental studies and sciences: looking inward and outward. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences8(2), pp.142-151.
  • Resurrección, B. P. (2017) Gender and environment from ‘women, environment and development’ to feminist political ecology ” in S. MacGregor (ed) Routledge Handbook of Gender and Environment. Oxon: Routledge, Part I, Chapter 4 ( 71-85). 
  • Rocheleau, D. E. (2008) ‘Political ecology in the key of policy: From chains of explanation to webs of relation Geoforum Vol 39  (716–727)  
  • Harcourt, W. (2014). The future of capitalism: A consideration of alternatives. Cambridge Journal of Economics 38, no 6: 1307-28.10.1093/cje/bet048
  • Harcourt, W. (2016). Gender and sustainable livelihoods: Linking gendered experiences of environment, community and self. Agriculture and Human Values: 1-13.10.1007/s10460-016-9757-5
  • Harcourt, W. and I. Nelson eds. (2015). Practising feminist political ecologies: Moving beyond the ‘green economy’ London: Zed books.
  • Singh, N.M. (2013). The affective labor of growing forests and the becoming of environmental subjects: Rethinking environmentality in Odisha, India. Geoforum 47: 189-98.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.01.010
  • Sultana, F. (2009). Fluid lives: Subjectivites, gender and water in rural Bangladesh. Gender, Place and Culture 16, no 4: 427-44
  • Sultana, F. (2011). Suffering for water, suffering from water: Emotional geographies of resource access, control and conflict. Geoforum 42, no 2: 163-72.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2010.12.002
  • Sundberg, J. (2004). Identities in the making: Conservation, gender and race in the maya biosphere reserve, guatemala. Gender, Place & Culture 11, no 1: 43-66.10.1080/0966369042000188549
  • Sundberg, J. (2010). Diabolic caminos in the desert and cat fights on the Río: A posthumanist political ecology of boundary enforcement in the United States–Mexico borderlands. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 101, no 2: 318-36.10.1080/00045608.2010.538323
  • Sundberg, J. (2017). Feminist political ecology. International Encyclopedia of Geography.doi:10.1002/9781118786352.wbieg0804 10.1002/9781118786352.wbieg0804
  • Sultana, F. (2015) ‘Emotional Political Ecology’ in R. Byrant The International Handbook of Political Ecology London: Edward Elgar (633-645). 
  • Tsing, A. (2015) The Mushroom at the End of the World On the possibility of life in the capitalist ruins Princeton: Princeton University Press. (Prologue ‘Autumn Aroma’  (1-10) 

On Methodology

  • Mattingly, D., Falconer-Al-Hindi, S.L. Mclafferty, P. Moss, V. Lawson and D. Rocheleau. (1995). Should women count?  A context for debate. Professional Geographer 47, no 4: 427-35
  • Moss, P. (1995). Should women count?  A context for debate. Professional Geographer 47, no 4: 427-35
  • Nast, H.J., C. Katz, A. Kobayashi, K.V.L. England, M.R. Gilbert, L.A. Staeheli and V.A. Lawson. (1994). Women in the field: Critical feminist methodologies and theoretical perspectives. Professional Geographer 46, no 1: 54-66
  • Wolf, D.L. (1996). Situating feminist dilemmas in fieldwork. In Feminist dilemmas in fieldwork, ed. Wolf, DL, 1-55. Boulder: Westview Press.
  • Yaka, Ö. (2017). A feminist-phenomenology of women’s activism against hydropower plants in turkey’s eastern black sea region. Gender, Place & Culture 24, no 6: 869-89.10.1080/0966369X.2017.1340873

Some Classics of Feminist Political Ecology

  • Agarwal, B. (1992). “The Gender and Environment Debate: Lessons from India.” Feminist Studies 18(1): 119-159.
  • Harcourt, W. (ed.) (1993) Feminist Perspectives on Sustainable Development, Zed Books, London.
  • Jackson, C. (1993) ‘Women/Nature or Gender/History—a Critique of Ecofeminist Development’, Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol. 20, No. 3, 389–419.
  • Merchant, C. (1989) Ecological Revolutions: Nature, Gender and Science in New England, The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
  • Mies, M. and V. Shiva (1993) Ecofeminism and the Politics of Identity in the Developing World, Zed Books, London.
  • Plumwood, V. (1993) Feminism and the Mastery of Nature, Routledge, New York.
  • Rocheleau, D., B. Thomas-Slayter and E. Wangari. (1996). Feminist political ecology: Global issues and local experiences. New York: Routledge
  • Seager, J. (1993) Earth Follies: Feminism, Politics, and the Environment, Earthscan, London.
  • Shiva, V. (1988) Staying Alive: Women, Ecology, and Development, Zed Books, London.


July 29: FPE foundations Intersectionality, performativity and relational environments

10.15-12.00 Introduction

12.00-13.30 Lunch

13.30-15.30 Lecture on intersectionality and performativity

Interactive Socratic session with students and staff—all MUST be prepared to ask and answer questions

Small group Paper session


July 30 Situated Knowledges and Decolonising Knowledge

10.15-12.00 Lecture on Situated Knowledges

12.00-13.30 Lunch

13.30-15.30 Lecture on Decolonising Knowledge

Small group Paper session

19.00 Course dinner


July 31 Commoning and Methodologies

10.15-12.00 Small group paper session and coffee break

Lecture on Commoning and FPE

12.00-13.30 Lunch

13.30-15.30 Methodology: how to link FPE theory to research questions and methods


August 1 Emotional Political Ecologies

10.15-12.00 Lecture on Emotional Political Ecologies

Interactive Socratic session with students and staff—all MUST be prepared to ask and answer questions

12.00-13.30 Lunch

13.30-15.30 small group Paper session


August 2 Frontiers of Feminist Political Ecology

10.15-12.00 Concluding lecture Linking the themes, other topics relevant in FPE.

Coffee break

Frontiers of FPE, Interactive session on the possibilities of FPE. Input from students and staff about where the field can go.

12.00-13.30 Lunch

13.30-15.30 Concluding Discussion

Tags: Environment, Power, Scale, Affect, Feminist Theory, Activis, Politics of Environment, Human Geography
Published Sep. 14, 2018 12:40 PM - Last modified July 19, 2019 6:36 PM