Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40200980›Full record

ArticleGeoHumanities2022

Sharing the Field: Reflections of More-Than-Human Field/work Encounters.

Natalie Marr, Mirjami Lantto, Maia Larsen, Kate Judith, Sage Brice, Jessica Phoenix, Catherine Oliver, Olivia Mason, Sarah Thomas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GeoHumanities, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Natalie MarrUniversity of Glasgow, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5736-0232
Mirjami LanttoUniversity of Glasgow, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6726-2799
Maia LarsenUniversity of Glasgow, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1549-3082
Kate JudithUniversity of New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2021-9830
Sage BriceUniversity of Bristol, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6384-150X
Jessica PhoenixLancaster University, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0427-9286
Catherine OliverUniversity of Birmingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5332-0468
Olivia MasonDurham University, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3873-6825
Sarah ThomasUniversity of Glasgow, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1029-1142

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The "field" has long been contested as spatially and temporally bounded. Feminist epistemologies have re-imagined and engaged field/work as shared, messy and co-constitutive, while critical more-than-human methodologies in the transdisciplinary field of the environmental humanities are further expanding our understanding of who and what counts in the production of knowledge in the field. This compendium article orbits around a collective concern for the sharedness of bodily and planetary ecologies through field/work. It brings together cross-disciplinary accounts of field encounters that critically explore what it feels like to do this work and what it entails. With a focus on practice and process, the six contributing authors-researchers, artists, practitioners, writers-consider how nonhumans share in our research, shaping the work we do, the questions we ask and the responses we craft. Together, they offer thoughtful provocations on the troubling and promising ways in which human and non-human bodies become unsettled and rearranged through field encounters.

Indexed as

encounterfeminist epistemologiesfieldworkknowledge practicesmultispecies relations

Identifiers

PMID40200980
PMCPMC11974924

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.