Questions driving the experimentation of my MA research-creation forward:

What could it mean to think with> place? To feel the city?

How might my tactics of practice be employed to subvert and interfere with hegemonies of knowledge production from within the neoliberal university at the graduate level?

How does my participation (as both academic and urban inhabitant) in unruly material and semiotic flows interfere with regulated forms of exchange from within the dominant system?

How might knowledge generated through everyday spatial practices be rendered without being flattened, georeferenced, or vectorized? In other words, how might the effect of interferences be marked while accounting for the apparatus of their production?

Questions articulated in the course of my MA research-creation:

By whom and of whom are publics made? What are the boundary making practices through which publics are constituted as collaborators in the first place?

How might one cite interlocutors more than human while accounting for the apparatuses whereby human and nonhuman are differentially articulated? How might one cite empirical formations while remaining responsive to the entangled state of their existence?

Do different stories render different cities? Or is it, as so exquisitely suggested by Italo Calvino's Invisible Cities (1974), that different framings focus a city differently, evoking a multiplicity of stories, each one rendering some aspects of a landscape intelligible to the exclusion of others?

How are empirics made legible as data by the apparatuses that produce them? How are technoscientific and affective orientations to ‘what counts as data’ co-constitutive of an empirical account of the city?

Questions emerging from my studies and practices the first term of my PhD:

How does research-creation complicate commodities? What might a postcapitalist politics look like that doesn't presuppose the boundary between human and nonhuman? How might materiality be repoliticized within a diverse economy?

What happens when gifted materials intermingle with so-called commodities? What would it mean for a feminist political economy to recognize, as Barad (2007) does, that "Knowing is a distributed practice that includes the larger material arrangement" (342) "(i.e., the full set of practices) that is a part of the phenomenon investigated or produced" (390)? How might we account for hauntings materials inherit as they are discursively refigured?

What might it mean to cultivate an acknowledgement practice for hauntings matters inherit as they undergo physical-conceptual refigurings?

What are the possibilities for interfering with the tyranny of top-down orientations without asserting a counterhegemony—for "elud[ing] discipline without being outside the field in which it is exercised…" (de Certeau 1984, 96)?