This paper introduces claustrophobic field notes as a psychosocial research tool that engages with the emotional and unconscious dimensions of institutional life. Developed in response to the challenges of researching children’s emotion work in educational settings, this approach situates the researcher’s own embodied and emotional experiences as integral to knowledge production. It critically examines how the researcher’s affective responses—discomfort, entrapment, or unease—mirror the hidden emotional demands imposed on children in institutional environments.

Drawing on a two-year ethnographic study conducted across kindergartens and schools in Denmark, this paper demonstrates how claustrophobic field notes function as a methodological intervention. This approach extends psychosocial research by emphasizing the entanglement of the researcher’s subjectivity with the field, where institutional norms regulating emotions impact both children and the researcher’s interpretative lens. By documenting the researcher’s embodied reactions, claustrophobic field notes offer insight into the power structures and unconscious dynamics.

This methodology aligns with psychosocial studies' commitment to understanding the intersection of individual subjectivity, institutional power, and the unconscious. By foregrounding the role of researcher emotion, this approach disrupts conventional notions of objectivity and instead positions the research encounter as a site of emotional negotiation. Findings reveal how children navigate institutionalized emotion work through strategies such as silence, humor, and withdrawal—dynamics that are often echoed in the researcher’s own affective constraints within the field.

This paper contributes to the Psychosocial Studies Association Conference 2025 theme, "Politics, Subjectivity, and the Unconscious in a Fracturing World," by engaging with the politics of research practice and affective entanglement. It argues that claustrophobic field notes offer a vital methodological pathway for exploring institutional power and emotion beyond what is immediately observable, emphasizing how researchers themselves become implicated in the unconscious dynamics they seek to uncover.

by Caron Toshiko Monica (PhD student in Visual Culture, Goldsmiths – University of London)

This study explores the psychosocial dimensions of young people's perspectives and lived experiences regarding Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR) in Indonesia, employing photography as both a therapeutic and narrative tool. Within a socio-cultural landscape where discussions of sexuality remain highly restricted, this research investigates how participatory visual methodologies can serve as an affective and reflexive medium for young people to navigate, articulate, and contest dominant discourses on gender, sexuality, and bodily autonomy.

At the core of this study is What We Don't Talk About When We Talk About Sexuality, a photobook curated and edited by the researcher, developed from therapeutic photography workshops conducted in Kupang and Semarang in collaboration with Institut Hak Asasi Perempuan (IHAP)-Kupang and PILAR Indonesian Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). These workshops provided a safe space for young participants to engage in self-representation, challenging societal silences around SRHR through visual storytelling. The research foregrounds the emotional and psychosocial impact of cultural taboos, gender norms, and systemic inequities on young people’s understanding and experiences of sexuality, reproductive health, and personal agency.

By integrating psychosocial inquiry with participatory photography, this study contributes to broader discussions on affect, memory, and resistance within the field of psychosocial studies. It highlights the intersection of photography and curatorial practices as a means of amplifying marginalized voices and interrogating power dynamics in visual representation. Ultimately, this research advocates for more inclusive and intersectional approaches to SRHR discourse, demonstrating how visual narratives can serve as critical interventions in both psychosocial and social justice frameworks.

In times of deep social and human fragmentation, the practice of dialogue demands more than rational engagement—it calls for an embodied, affective, and spiritual commitment. I critically explore my relationship with dialogue as both a researcher and practitioner engaged in social dialogue and peacebuilding in Colombia, a war-torn country. Through autohistoria-teoría, I examine overlooked dimensions of dialogue—spiritual, affective, and embodied—and their interplay with the more rational, practical, and historical aspects. I reflect on the possibilities, challenges, and limitations of dialogue as an ethical commitment—a form of “spiritual activism,” in Anzaldúa’s words—amidst a world in turmoil.

As an autohistoria-teoría study, I integrate personal reflections (memories, dialogue encounters, journaling, and reflexive writing), theory (critical work on conflict, peacebuilding, and dialogue), and creative writing (storytelling, imaginal and metaphorical thinking). This approach allows me to explore some of the tensions within my identities and experiences: working in peacebuilding while growing up away from conflict-torn areas, or being an economist influenced by modernist paradigms, while embracing relational and spiritual worldviews. My work includes years of experience in peacebuilding and being part of a national dialogue platform bringing together 40+ of Colombia’s foremost leaders across divides.

At a time when stories of fragmentation and othering intensify, dialogue is more necessary than ever—yet difficult to achieve. In this presentation, I reflect on its most intangible aspects, both for practitioners and for anyone experiencing fragmentation. I also critically examine how dialogue, despite its transformative potential, has often been co-opted and instrumentalized in ways that reinforce domination. In the context of our current polycrisis, I explore dialogue’s reparative possibilities—how it offers a path toward collective healing. Through autohistoria-teoría, I seek to write a story where dialogue serves as a ‘light in the dark,’ a road of hope through these turbulent times.

I want to question whether there is such a thing as a psychosocial approach to the study of history.

This paper examines the intersection of psychosocial methodologies and archival historical research, exploring their reciprocal relevance. Psychosocial studies have focused on researching beneath the surface of human interactions through interviews, observations, and the exploration of group processes to uncover unconscious aspects of human experience. At first glance, archives—often consisting of paper documents, or even objects—may seem an unlikely source for exploring the lived reality of the dynamics of human relationships. However, I would argue the study of history is fundamental to our capacity to map the construction of the contemporary social world and the ideas that inform our construction and understanding of that world. Ideas need to be understood not as abstract theory – but ideas also exist in practices, thus perhaps archives that throw light on practice can be an extremely useful tool to help our understanding of the history of ideas that shape that world.

Drawing on examples from archival research on psychosocial practices that were occurring during the social crises of the 1930s, this paper will explore how archival work can help us contemplate a history of ideas giving us insight into the world of practice in ways that the contemplation of theoretical work cannot. At the same time the importance of reflexivity for researchers and an emphasis on the value of a transdisciplinary perspectives, incorporating insights from sociology, politics, philosophy alongside historical analyses can be raised.