The Non-Thematized in Ethnographic Research?! Conference Explores Unseen Dimensions of Social Inquiry

A pivotal conference, "The Non-Thematized in Ethnographic Research?!," convened at the University of Education in Freiburg, Germany, on July 9-10, 2026, bringing together approximately 45 researchers from diverse social and cultural science disciplines. The event, meticulously organized with pre-circulated working papers, delved into the often-overlooked aspects of ethnographic research, aiming to illuminate what is excluded, marginalized, or inherently difficult to capture and articulate within conventional methodological frameworks. The discussions, as detailed in this report, sought to identify and categorize the varied manifestations of the "non-thematized," drawing upon the insights shared through 22 scholarly contributions.

The conference was initiated by a call for papers, published by Kerstin Rabenstein, Georg Riessler, and Florian Weitkämper in 2026, which posed the central question of what remains outside the explicit focus of ethnographic inquiry. This call highlighted the persistent challenge of acknowledging and analyzing elements that are not consciously theorized or deliberately brought into the research process, yet undeniably shape social realities and the researcher’s own engagement with them. The event’s location at the University of Education in Freiburg underscored a growing interest within pedagogical and social science circles in refining ethnographic methodologies to be more inclusive and self-aware.

Unpacking the "Non-Thematized"

The core of the conference revolved around a deep exploration of what constitutes the "non-thematized" in ethnographic research. Participants grappled with questions concerning the researchers’ own positionality, the unspoken dynamics within research relationships, and the tacit knowledge that underpins social interactions. The discussions highlighted how conventional ethnographic approaches, while powerful in their ability to generate rich qualitative data, can inadvertently overlook or minimize phenomena that do not fit neatly into pre-defined analytical categories.

The abstract of the conference report indicates that discussions were structured around identifying instances where "who and what is excluded, marginalized, or difficult to observe and describe through the conventions of ethnographic research." This suggests a critical self-examination by the field itself, acknowledging limitations and striving for greater epistemological transparency. The "non-thematized" was explored not as a void, but as an active, albeit often invisible, force influencing research outcomes. This includes the implicit biases of the researcher, the power dynamics inherent in field interactions, and the cultural assumptions that guide observation and interpretation.

The keywords associated with the conference – ethnography, ethnographic research, reflexivity, non-thematized, research relationships, positionality, and ethnographic writing – provide a clear roadmap to the thematic areas explored. Reflexivity, a cornerstone of modern ethnographic practice, was thus pushed to a new frontier, demanding an examination of what is not being reflected upon. Positionality, the researcher’s social and cultural location, was framed not just as a factor to be declared, but as a lens that actively shapes what can be seen and understood, and crucially, what remains obscured.

The Genesis of the Conference and its Intellectual Underpinnings

The conference itself was a product of evolving academic discourse within qualitative research. The theoretical underpinnings of the event can be traced to a rich tradition of critical social theory and methodological self-reflection. Works by scholars such as Pierre Bourdieu, Michel Foucault, Erving Goffman, and Bruno Latour, all cited in the conference’s reference list, have long emphasized the power of social structures, discourse, and interactions in shaping human experience. More recent scholarship in ethnography, including the referenced work on "co-laborative ethnography" by Bieler et al. (2021) and the explorations of "affective ethnography" by Hünerson (2026) and Thajib (2022), indicates a growing awareness of the subjective and relational dimensions of research.

The very act of circulating working papers in advance was a strategic choice to foster in-depth dialogue rather than superficial presentations. This approach, common in academic workshops and symposia, allows participants to engage with the core arguments and evidence prior to the event, leading to more focused and productive discussions. The timeline of the conference – a two-day intensive workshop in July 2026 – suggests a concentrated effort to achieve tangible outcomes in understanding and articulating the "non-thematized."

The reference list itself provides a valuable context for the conference’s intellectual lineage. It includes foundational texts on ethnography (Breidenstein et al., 2020; Poferl & Schröder, 2022), reflexivity (Breuer, 2003; Breuer et al., 2002; Niewöhner, 2021), and the broader theoretical frameworks that inform qualitative research (Schatzki, 2002; Latour, 2007). The inclusion of works on "Writing Culture" (Clifford & Marcus, 1986) suggests an awareness of the constructed nature of ethnographic texts and the inherent interpretive processes involved. Furthermore, the inclusion of German-language scholarship, such as works by Gernot Böhme on atmosphere and Rahel Jaeggi on critique of life forms, indicates a strong engagement with continental European theoretical traditions.

Key Themes and Discussions

While the full proceedings are not detailed, the abstract and keywords point to several key areas of discussion:

• Exclusion and Marginalization: Researchers explored how conventional ethnographic methods might inadvertently exclude certain voices or experiences. This could relate to marginalized communities who find it difficult to engage with academic research protocols, or to aspects of lived experience that are considered too sensitive or too mundane to be formally documented. Audra Simpson’s concept of "ethnographic refusal" (2007) likely resonated with discussions on how participants might resist full disclosure or engagement, and the ethical implications of such refusals.

• The Difficulty of Observation and Description: The conference grappled with phenomena that defy easy observation or articulate description. This might include subtle power dynamics, unconscious behaviors, or deeply ingrained cultural norms that are so pervasive they become invisible to those within the culture. Erving Goffman’s work on framing (1980) and Stefan Hirschauer’s focus on micro-sociological foundations of practice theory (2016) offer potential analytical tools for these discussions.

• Research Relationships and Positionality: The dynamic between the ethnographer and the researched was a central theme. Discussions likely focused on how the researcher’s identity – their gender, race, class, nationality, and academic background – influences their interactions and interpretations. The concept of "positionality" was explored not just as a demographic fact but as an active element shaping the research process. This aligns with the growing emphasis on ethical and responsible research practices, as seen in discussions on the ethics of "affective ethnography" (Thajib, 2022).

• Ethnographic Writing as a Site of Reflection: The act of writing ethnographic accounts was also examined as a site where the "non-thematized" can either be further obscured or brought to light. The reference to "Reflexivity as a Constructed Practice" by Jörg Niewöhner (2021) and the concept of "Reflexive Description" (Richter & Petrik, 2023) suggest that writing itself can be a tool for uncovering and addressing what is otherwise left unsaid.

Observations of the Conference Itself

The report mentions that observations of the conference itself complemented the account of the discussions. This is a critical element of ethnographic reporting, where the researcher’s own experience within the setting becomes part of the data. It implies that the dynamics of the conference – the interactions between participants, the structure of the sessions, and even the unspoken norms of academic discourse – were themselves analyzed for insights into the "non-thematized." This meta-level reflection is a hallmark of rigorous qualitative research, where the research process is as much an object of study as the phenomenon under investigation.

Implications and Future Directions

The conclusion of the report suggests that the conceptual breadth of the "non-thematized" was found to be "productive," indicating that the conference generated new avenues for research and theoretical development. However, it also identifies a "need for further analytical differentiation." This implies that while the concept is valuable, more precise tools and frameworks are required to effectively analyze and integrate these overlooked dimensions into ethnographic research.

The implications of this conference are significant for the future of ethnographic inquiry. By explicitly addressing the "non-thematized," researchers are being encouraged to move beyond superficial self-awareness towards a more profound engagement with the complexities of knowledge production and social reality. This could lead to:

• More Robust Methodologies: The development of new techniques and analytical frameworks designed to capture and interpret previously unacknowledged aspects of social life.
• Enhanced Ethical Practice: A deeper understanding of how unexamined assumptions and power dynamics can impact research ethics and participant well-being.
• Richer Theoretical Insights: The potential to uncover new social phenomena and challenge existing theoretical paradigms by attending to what has been conventionally overlooked.
• Improved Pedagogical Approaches: A re-evaluation of how ethnographic methods are taught, emphasizing critical self-reflection and the acknowledgment of researcher subjectivity.

The conference’s success in highlighting these critical issues suggests a maturing of the field, one that is willing to confront its own blind spots in pursuit of more comprehensive and nuanced understandings of the social world. The ongoing work of Philipp Illing, one of the featured authors and a researcher in educational science, focusing on the integration of artificial intelligence into teaching and learning, exemplifies the kind of forward-looking research that can benefit from a heightened awareness of the "non-thematized," as the introduction of new technologies often brings with it unforeseen and unarticulated consequences.

The conference report, and the discussions it encapsulates, serve as a testament to the dynamic and self-critical nature of contemporary ethnographic research. By dedicating an entire event to the "non-thematized," scholars are pushing the boundaries of their discipline, promising a richer, more insightful, and ultimately more responsible approach to understanding the intricate tapestry of human social life. The call for further analytical differentiation signals that this is not an endpoint, but a beginning, for a more comprehensive and critically aware ethnography.