Events

4th of June 2026 a seminar was held by Bergen Global (UiB/CMI) & SKOK led by Leti Volpp and Christine M. Jacobsen.

The seminar was organised by the Peder Saether project Native/Immigrant/Refugee: Movement Across Contested Grounds, a collaboration between UiB’s Centre for Women’s and Gender Research (SKOK) and Center for Race and Gender, UC Berkeley. Co-organisers are the ASYKNOW project at the Department of Social Anthropology and IMER Bergen.

About:
Since January 2025, the second Trump administration has implemented an unprecedented array of dizzying and draconian changes to reduce the number of immigrants in the United States.

This talk will describe these changes and then focus on the deliberate spectacularisation of immigration enforcement, through the administration’s dissemination of videos depicting immigrants being deported – often set to music – and through mass enforcement operations in “blue” states.

We can see the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement as a theater of power. Yet immigration enforcement is also characterised by its hidden aspects, suggesting a complex relationship between state power and sight.

The Trump administration’s actions in immigration enforcement (as well as in other domains) raises many questions about what is happening to legality in the United States. Here Volpp will discuss the surge of contemporary interest in the United States in the concept of the “dual state.”

28.-29. of April 2026 ASYKNOW hosted a workshop at University of Bergen giving participants the opportunity to present their work and discuss their findings.

Speakers:
Gregor Noll, Marry-Anne Karlsen, Constantin Hruschka, Kari Anne K. Drangsland, Sofie S. Gregersen, Simon Roland Birkvad and Sarah Scott Ford.

ASYKNOW hosted a two-day workshop on February 11-12, 2025, focusing on ethnography in legal settings and migration law in everyday life. The workshop aimed to generate discussions, form networks and explore future collaborations.

See program here.

Speakers:
Marie-Bénédicte Dembour, Susan B. Coutin, Simon Birkvad, Sofie Gregersen, Olav Børreson Fossdal, Lena Rose, Helge Årsheim, Janina Schmidt, Sarah-Louise Japhetson Mortensen, Kari Anne K. Drangsland, Heatch Cabot and Ann-Cathrin Corrales-Øverlid.

ASYKNOW workshop, November 6-7, 2025, Bergen

In this workshop, we explored how different technologies and experts make bodies and places known and objective for policy and decision-making (both administrative and legal decisions). We acknowledge, however, that these attempts are often fraught with uncertainty and ambiguity, leaving them open to legal and societal contestation as well as academic analysis. Besides presenting individual papers (conducted studies, ongoing or ideas for new), we wanted to reflect on some of these questions collectively:

• How is “objective” knowledge produced and enacted among experts, policymakers and practitioners of law? What makes knowledge objective and what is seen and enacted as non-objective?
• What forms of knowledge are produced in the legal, bureaucratic and policymaking sites we study? How is knowledge formatted across different domains (e.g. from experts to decision-makers and vice versa)? What makes these movements across sites appear smooth and incontrovertible? What causes tension, friction or contestation? In practice, how are these epistemological (even ontological) frictions dealt with (or not)?
• What forms of knowledge do we, as social scientists and academic experts, produce? How do we position our own knowledge production vis-à-vis the knowledge practices among experts, bureaucrats, judges and policymakers? In the encounters between “us” and the knowledge practices we strive to understand, what causes tension, friction and even contestation? How do we deal with these epistemological (even ontological) frictions (or not)?

Speakers:
Mareile Kaufmann, Kari Anne Drangsland, Aurora Terjesdatter Sørsveen, Marry-Anne Karlsen, Kristina Grünenberg, Simon Roland Birkvad, Jasper van der Kist and Sofie Gregersen.

ASYKNOW-panel at the Nordic Migration Research (NMR) conference at the Södertörn University, Sweden on 12-14 August 2026.

Convenors: Kari Anne K. Drangsland and Simon Roland Birkvad 

Deadline to submit paper abstracts is April 15th 2026, via this link  (external link)

More information here (external link)

Panel abstract

Law regulates access to categories of residence, mobility, and social rights, and thus fundamentally shapes the experiences and living conditions of people on the move. At the same time, legal infrastructures and determinations regulating mobility and residence are increasingly informed by extra-legal expertise, such as medical, forensic, and biometric knowledge. The entanglements and co-workings of law and extra-legal expertise are particularly present in asylum adjudication, due to the combination of a difficult evidentiary situation and a “climate of suspicion” surrounding the category of asylum seekers. Increasingly decision-makers rely on expert knowledge to generate evidence about asylum seekers’ identities, health and conditions in their countries of origin. Novel forms of expertise, such as automated facial recognition and speech biometrics, are used alongside “traditional” forms such as country-of-origin information (COI), identity documents and medical expertise. Underlying all these practices, however, is a desire to make the decision-making process less insecure and more “objective.” Yet expert knowledge is increasingly contested inside and outside court rooms, leaving, perhaps even amplifying, room for discretion for decision-makers.

In this workshop we welcome papers that explore the contentious relationship(s) between migration law and expert knowledge both inside and outside the courtroom, and trace how various actors navigate these spaces of uncertainty and risk. We call for papers, empirical and/or conceptual, that touch upon some of these sets of questions (but not limited to):

• What does it mean as migration scholars to take law seriously as an object of study? How do we analytically and methodologically approach law when seeking to explore legal (technical) expertise and knowledge practices? In the encounters between “us” and the knowledge practices we strive to understand, what causes tension, friction and even contestation? How do we deal with these epistemological (even ontological) frictions (or not)? (researcher-law-relations)
• How do law and (other forms of) expert knowledge mutually inform and influence each other in local contexts of decision-making? How does expert knowledge travel in legal spaces and through which practices of translation? (Law-expertise relations)
• How are “high” (e.g. biometrics) and “low” (e.g. documents) tech, machinic (e.g. algorithmic and x-ray) and human vision (e.g. experts, judges, witnesses) used to make bodies and places known and “objective”? (Evidence-relations)
• What does the co-existence of novel and traditional ways of seeing and knowing tell us about hierarchies of knowledge in society at large? (legal knowledge-societal knowledge relations)