Researching as a Commoner: Affect and the Lives of Underprivileged Mobile Youth in Greece

Abstract

This paper examines the role of commons-based activist ethnography in reshaping the dynamics between researchers and underprivileged mobile youth (UMY), focusing on the opportunities and ethical challenges of this approach. Conducted in youth centers in Thessaloniki, Greece, the study explores how trust, affect, and collaborative knowledge creation supported agency among UMY while confronting systemic barriers and power asymmetries. Using qualitative ethnographic methods, the research investigates the role of convivial spaces and the ambiance of the commons in creating meaningful connections and emotional resilience, enabling the participants to articulate aspirations and reclaim agency. The dual role of the researcher as an advocate and observer raised questions about representation and power dynamics. This paper contributes to discussions on activist ethnography by offering insights into its possibilities and limitations in advancing transformative research with marginalized populations.

1. Introduction

In 2015, Europe experienced its largest population movement since World War II, with 856,723 arrivals recorded on the Eastern Aegean islands, resulting in unprecedented displays of solidarity at multiple levels. By 2016, the EU–Turkey agreement and subsequent border closures trapped thousands of people on these islands under harsh conditions, eventually prompting their transfer to major Greek cities (Souzas et al. 2020). This bleak situation placed Greece at the epicenter of youth mobility, highlighting the urgent challenges faced by underprivileged mobile youth.

The term ‘underprivileged mobile youth’ (hereinafter UMY) is preferred in this study as it encompasses the fluid and dynamic experiences of unaccompanied young migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers, resisting rigid legal and technical categorizations while capturing the complexities of their mobility and integration processes. UMY can be defined as young individuals (15–29) who, experiencing economic hardship, displacement, or social marginalization, migrate in search of security, better opportunities, and social mobility (Marchetti et al. 2024).

This paper revisits data collected in 2018 during an ethnographic study of the SLYMS program to explore the dynamics of co-produced research and the challenges of adopting a commons-based activist approach with UMY. Specifically, the research questions of this work are the following:

How does a commons-based activist ethnography influence the researcher–participant dynamic?

What challenges and opportunities arise when engaging in commons-oriented activist research with UMY?

The goal of this paper is to highlight the researcher’s activist orientation, embracing the principles of commoning while recognizing how emotions and affect influence both the participants’ experiences and the research process. These challenges are transforming our understanding of ethnographic research and the researcher’s role, emphasizing the collaborative creation of knowledge within communities (Danley 2021).

Our activist research is at the intersection of several emerging trends in the social sciences, including (a) the ethics of commons promoting care, reciprocity, and conviviality; (b) the experiences of UMY; (c) the term ‘affect’ by Deleuze and Guattari; and (d) the use of qualitative research, particularly ethnography, as a means of engaging with the social world which challenges the traditional understandings of the researcher’s role and improves their ability to pursue social justice. While each trend has its own distinct academic literature, its intersection remains underexplored.

The Section 1 will explore the concept of commons-based activist ethnography, focusing on how the researcher’s role as a commoner and activist reshapes fieldwork dynamics, challenges traditional power structures, and instills collaborative knowledge creation. The Section 2 will shift focus to affective ethnography, highlighting the importance of emotions, bodily experiences, and interpersonal connections in shaping both the research process and social interactions. Building on this foundation, the Section 3 provides a detailed account of how the research was conducted and how the data were systematically examined. The Section 5 explores the themes of trust and affect as well as the researcher–participant dynamic, illustrating how these elements influence the co-creation of knowledge and the broader implications for commons-based activist ethnography.

2. Commoning Ethnography

The model of the ‘commons’ offers an alternative set of values and actions, presenting a different way of viewing the world compared to the dominant discourse of individualization, competition, performance, and hierarchical subordination. It nurtures democratic ideals, equality, creativity, and sustainability. The commons are shared resources collectively managed by communities based on the principles of equitable access, sustainability, and mutual care, outside traditional state or market structures (Ostrom 1990). Furthermore, it is now widely accepted that commons typically exhibit a tripartite structure. Most definitions describe commons as a construct consisting of three main components: (a) common resources or goods, (b) institutions (i.e., commoning practices and rules), and (c) the communities (referred to as the commoners) involved in the creation and maintenance of the commons (Dellenbaugh et al. 2015; Bollier and Helfrich 2015).

In essence, a well-established concept in critical discussions of the commons is that they are not primarily resources or goods, but rather practices of commoning. Commoning is the ongoing social practice of collectively managing shared resources through cooperation, mutual aid, and participatory governance, nurturing community and sustainability while resisting privatization or commodification (Linebaugh 2008). This involves actively creating and sustaining communities of collaboration and action in various aspects of social life and the environment.

Furthermore, through commons, core values such as equality, solidarity, sharing, and caring become embedded in daily practices, reinforcing a community-oriented approach. These principles highlight the potential of commons’ logic to reshape traditional hierarchical structures, promoting inclusive, supportive, and cooperative dynamics that empower people to take ownership of their learning and social experiences. This shift in positionality allows for a more reciprocal research process, where the boundaries between researcher and participant are intentionally blurred to reflect the egalitarian values of the commons (Pantazidis 2024; Pechtelidis and Kioupkiolis 2020).

The broader commons framework aligns with the concept of mobile commons, as both emphasize collective practices and shared resources, demonstrating how marginalized groups create sustainable and equitable structures through shared struggles and knowledge. Mobile commons emerge from the social struggles of subaltern and precarious individuals, both migrants and refugees, who share mobility knowledge such as border crossings, routes, shelters, and anti-surveillance tactics, as well as community resources and social support for those settling in new locations (Trimikliniotis et al. 2015). This concept (Papadopoulos and Tsianos 2013; Trimikliniotis et al. 2015) illustrates collective practices and solidarity among mobile populations, highlighting their capacity to self-organize and engage in political and social resistance, often through acts of spatial disobedience (Tsavdaroglou 2019).

The Nobel Memorial Prize recipient in Economic Sciences, Elinor Ostrom, in Governing the Commons (Ostrom 1990), emphasizes the importance of ethnography in understanding local practices in the management of common resources. Several research programmes, including https://heteropolitics.net/ (accessed on 25 December 2024) (2017–2020, ERC) https://smooth-ecs.eu/ (accessed on 25 December 2024) (2020–2024, HORIZON), and http://slyms.uth.gr/el/%ce%b1%cf%81%cf%87%ce%b9%ce%ba%ce%ae/ (accessed on 25 December 2024) (2018–2021, Erasmus+), have explored the intersection of commons and ethnography to address complex social issues and promote democratic participation. This idea is related to the idea of ethnography commons; however, the link between activist ethnography and the logic and ethics of the commons was not developed theoretically enough and the impact of this research approach on participants was not explored sufficiently.

The ethnography commons methodology offers opportunities for gathering, sharing, exchange, and collaboration, creating environments where we can learn to develop better, more inclusive ethnography together (Elinoff 2018). In the literature, we can distinguish two approaches that are related to commons and ethnography: (a) the habitus of commoning in communities (Elinoff 2018) and (b) the researcher as an activist who has the values of a commoner (Stefan and Exner 2020). In the following, these two approaches are elaborated on through interweaving with the concepts of ‘youth on the move’ and ‘mobile commons’.

In the first approach, participation in actions shared through acts of comobilization reflects shared knowledge, emotional cooperation, mutual support, and care among persons (Sheller 2018). This concept parallels the ethics of research within these communities, focusing on collaborative knowledge creation and mutual respect, as people use and create new trails, paths, or rights while moving. Ethnography examines the habitus of commons, focusing on community-based practices and grassroots change through self-organization (Eckmyn 2024). As Elinoff (2018) states ‘At its most utopic, this is what I envision for the ethnography commons: a space of collective learning that gives fuller support to the project of reconfiguring the world (…).’ (p. 76).

Following the second approach, our methodology combines activist ethnography with the elements of the commons. In general, activist ethnography broadly addresses social injustices across various realms, including social, cultural, and economic issues. It focuses on empowering marginalized communities through active research participation, emphasizing the political dimensions of everyday life, supporting co-existence, and improving the atmosphere and ambiance of daily interactions (rather than prioritizing political institutions or institutional change). The practice of activist ethnography challenges the notion that social scientists must maintain an ‘objective’ and neutral stance in their fieldwork (Grazioli 2021). Activist ethnographies emphasize the inseparability of knowledge and action, which requires a conscious interventionist approach (Routledge 2013).

This approach means that the researcher is dedicated to being intentionally, politically, and ethically responsible throughout the study process. Unlike traditional anthropology and microsociology, which typically discourages political involvement, activist ethnographers take a clear stance against inequality and oppression (Grazioli 2021).

In commons-based activist ethnography, researchers not only serve as ethnographers, but also as commoners, emphasizing values such as caring, sharing, empathy, and affection while respecting and valuing the lived experiences of the people they study. Ethnographers as commoners promote a culture of co-responsibility and caring. These values are not merely tools to make the researcher appear trustworthy; instead, research is viewed as an activist act that can positively impact and contribute to the lives of young people (see Ortiz Casillas 2021). We could argue that the commons-based activist ethnography is linked or belongs to the transformative research tradition, because on the one hand, it is differentiated from the traditional approach according to which intellectuals/researchers produce knowledge and ideology in the service of the ruling class(es), the powerful political and economic elites, and in accord with the maintenance of the existing order. On the other hand, it is also different from the critical intellectual tradition because activist common ethnographers not only produce knowledge in relation to power and political questions but also link this analysis to action and cultivate people’s forms of agency that would create the conditions for critical knowledge to be transformative (Giroux 1988; Gramsci 1971).

Indeed, commons ethnography attempts to link knowledge to power and politics and advance action and political agency and in this sense aligns with the transformative tradition; however, it does not so much emphasize the dividing line between intellectuals or experts and ordinary people, those who know and those who do not know, and highlights the conditions that promote conversation and cooperation on an equal horizontal basis without this meaning that it does not recognize their different perspectives. Moreover, this relationship is based not only on rational deliberation but also on affect, which is often underestimated in the context of the transformative research tradition.

Our ethnographic approach focuses on how individuals and collective bodies, through their daily interactions, engage with social structures and space (see Papadopoulos and Tsianos 2013; Pechtelidis et al. 2023; Pechtelidis and Pantazidis 2020). It emphasizes the importance of the researcher’s perspective, positionality, and subjectivity, which requires a deep, bodily commitment to cooperation for political purposes (Lancione et al. 2018). The body of the researcher—including the mind—is used as a tool to prioritize the ‘voices’ and agency of the participants in the process of knowledge creation and dissemination (Lancione et al. 2018).

This process embeds and correlates with the concept of ‘affect’, highlighting the critical role of emotions, bodily sensations, and preconscious experiences in shaping social interactions, as will be explored in the next chapter. The chapter highlights the importance of convivial and congenial affective engagement, underscoring how collaborative environments nurture interpersonal warmth and a shared sense of purpose between the researcher and young participants.

3. The Role of Affect in Commons-Based Activist Ethnography

‘As a confused idea, the affect is what moves us. It’s a hunch. A visceral prompt. Affect is a starting place from which we can develop methods that are aware of the politics of aesthetics: methods that respond with sensitivity to aesthetic influences on human emotions and understand how they change bodily capacities’ (Hickey-Moody 2013, p. 79).

Affect is central to this ethnographic research, offering fresh perspectives on individual and collective experiences. This perspective is particularly relevant in activist settings, where affect connects to the collective experiences of discomfort, vulnerability, and resistance (Francis 2022). The ‘affective turn’ (Clough 2008) in philosophy and social sciences emphasizes the role of emotions and bodily experiences in shaping social interactions and power dynamics. Affect refers to preconscious embodied sensations that precede emotional awareness and influence how we experience and engage with the world. Deleuze and Guattari (1987), drawing on Spinoza, view affect as the capacity to affect and be affected, representing shifts between bodily states that influence action. In this research, affect is related to the activities and behaviors of the researcher, highlighting its role in political processes within the commons.

Affective ethnography is a valuable anthropological approach that emphasizes the embodied presence of the researcher and how emotions shape both individual and collective experiences (Gherardi 2019). This method deepens the understanding of subjective and intersubjective states, highlighting how researchers’ emotions influence knowledge production (Skoggard and Waterston 2015). The commons-based activist ethnography we applied incorporates key elements of affective ethnography, as it emphasizes the embodied, emotional experiences that shape social interactions and communal practices. Through the lens of the affect, concepts like care and trust, fundamental to the commons, acquire new meanings. Commons spaces are not just about shared physical resources, but also about the collective nurturing of emotional resources such as care and trust. Care, understood as an affective practice, involves emotional involvement and concern for the well-being of others, sustaining communal support. Trust, while often viewed as rational, is deeply rooted in emotional states such as comfort and security. For commons to thrive, trust must be built through affective practices such as conviviality, open communication, and shared rituals.

Incorporating this affective lens into commons-based research reveals how emotional and embodied practices not only sustain collective resources but also fuel activism and social change. The commons spaces become arenas where individuals, especially marginalized groups like UMY, can reclaim agency, express their hopes, and envision futures beyond their current precarious circumstances. In this way, research and the study of these affective transformations are inherently political actions, grounded in what Kioupkiolis (2023) describes as the ‘ambience of the commons’ where the practical aesthetics itself becomes a site of resistance and empowerment.

The ambiance of the commons is closely linked with the concepts of conviviality and congeniality, both of which play a central role in strengthening positive relationships within communities. Conviviality, associated with sharing, openness, and active participation, enhances connections through inclusive social interactions, allowing diverse populations to come together in meaningful ways (Berg and Nowicka 2019; Illich 1973). This concept is often promoted through flexible and inclusive design elements that create spaces that meet diverse needs, encouraging social participation. Congeniality, on the other hand, focuses on cultivating a pleasant, friendly, and harmonious environment where individuals feel emotionally connected, comfortable, and welcomed. Together, these concepts work to build environments of mutual understanding and support, promoting collaboration and shared goals in both social and communal spaces.

In emphasizing affect, conviviality, congeniality, and the ambiance of the commons, the researcher steps into the role of an activist by documenting and advocating for practices that bring people together and sustain deeper emotional bonds. The research critiques systems of exclusion, amplifies marginalized voices, and seeks to transform society through both its findings and the emotional resonance it creates. In doing so, the researcher engages in activism aimed at creating a more inclusive, empathetic, and supportive environment for young migrants and refugees.

4. Materials and Methods

The ethnographic study was conducted in four different centers in Thessaloniki, Greece, operated by ARSIS, a Greek non-governmental organization that supports youth by the researcher Stelios Pantazidis under the scientific supervision of Yannis Pechtelidis. The primary research methods utilized by our ethnographic team included interviews, focus groups, and ethnographic observations in language lessons. All the research tools were applied in the first two centers, while the latter two centers were visited primarily to conduct interviews with employees and young people. A total of twenty-two people participated in the study, comprising seventeen young people and five professionals, including teachers and youth workers. Specifically, three individual interviews and four focus groups were conducted with young participants, with some sessions also involving youth workers and teachers as interviewees. The young people (fourteen males and three females) in this study come from diverse economic, national, ethnic, social, and cultural backgrounds, with varied life trajectories, plans, and pathways.

The lessons observed included courses in Greek, English, and Spanish languages at the ARSIS Youth Support Center (KYN) and courses in Greek language at the Refugee Host Center in Diavata. Of the young participants interviewed, 12 were adolescents aged 15–17 and 5 were young adults aged 18–24. While adolescents engage in education and socialization, young adults often face unemployment and inactivity. Cultural differences, highlighted by tensions between various national groups, further complicate the integration process. The duration of stay also plays a significant role, as long-term residents are generally better integrated than those who have recently arrived. Their duration of stay in Greece ranged from a few days to four years. Some of the young people were well integrated into the local society, while others were still in the process of integrating. Gender disparities were evident, with fewer women participating due to the challenges girls face when traveling, often accompanied by family. Young refugee women were notably underrepresented in the refugee centers where the ethnographic study was conducted.

In each of the four centers, there is a specific and flexible plan of daily activities for young people, adjusted to the constantly changing population. All the centers provide housing except the ARSIS Youth Support Center (KYN), which focuses on mental, social, and educational services. The youth centers of the NGO ARSIS are listed as follows:

C1.

ARSIS Youth Support Center (KYN): Serves children, adolescents, and young adults with creative workshops and lessons to support their integration into the school system. Located near the city center, it aims to mitigate the negative factors impacting young lives, with three classrooms and staff providing educational, mental, and social services.

C2.

Diavata Refugee Hosting Center: Operating since 2017, it has offered temporary accommodation, education, and support services to about 500 refugees and immigrants. Located 10 km from Thessaloniki, it includes a non-formal school focusing on Greek, English, Natural Sciences, and Technology to aid integration into Greek society.

C3.

Lagkadikia Refugee Center: Accommodates around 400 people, with similar services as Diavata. Located 50 km from Thessaloniki, it has a smaller non-formal school focusing on Greek and English, and support for official school lessons. There is a safe zone for 14–18 year olds.

C4.

Pilea Accommodation Center: Houses 30 unaccompanied minors aged 12 to 18, offering safe living conditions and integration support. Services include mental, social, and legal support; vocational guidance; medical services; and cultural activities.

The first step to ensure the viability of the research was to gain access to the field. The NGO ARSIS, which was a partner in the SLYMS program, granted access to all its centers.

The research team made preliminary arrangements with ARSIS representatives to gain access to the field. The interviews with the young refugees were conducted primarily in English, with a mediator assisting with translation from French and Arabic to Greek when necessary. In addition, three individual interviews and a focus group were conducted with ARSIS teachers and youth workers. These participants, aged 25 to 29, included four residents of Thessaloniki and one individual from Spain who had permanently settled in Greece.

Another important step was for the field researcher to present himself as an ally, committed to their cause, and, through the SLYMS program, to build trust and meaningful connections with participants. He shared his personal history as an activist focused on education and supporting underprivileged individuals.

Instead of maintaining a detached, objective distance, the researcher actively engaged in the everyday lives of the young participants, building trust and establishing mutual respect. In all the centers, he established familiarity and congeniality with the young participants through daily ethnographic observation. It was important that he did not adopt the attitude ‘I’m here to study you’ but rather conveyed that ‘I’m here to get to know each other, spend time with you, and understand how you participate in lessons and navigate your daily lives’. The act of ‘getting to know each other’ emphasizes the participatory nature of this research, where the researcher is not a distant authority figure, but an active participant in the community’s daily rhythms.

In this research, the youth participants were not merely subjects or samples for study, but active truth seekers in their own right (Feixa et al. 2022; Robinson and Codina 2024). They did not simply contribute data to be analyzed, but engaged in a mutual process of exploration and understanding. Their voices and experiences were central to uncovering truths about their lived realities, challenges, and aspirations. Rather than being positioned as passive objects of research, the youths co-constructed knowledge, shaping the direction and depth of the inquiry. Their participation went beyond responding to questions; they were involved in critical reflection, offering insights and interpretations that deepened the understanding of their conditions. This approach reinforced the idea that youth were not being investigated in a traditional sense, but were equal collaborators in the search for meaning, and their truths were at the forefront of the research process. This co-creation of knowledge helped to dissolve hierarchical boundaries between the researcher and participants, ensuring that the research honored their perspectives as agents of their own stories.

Each center included key actors such as teachers, social/youth workers, and cultural mediators who acted as liaisons between the researchers, the center, and the UMY. These key actors facilitated the visits and created a safe environment for the participants to share personal information. Additionally, they supported the research process by identifying potential interviewees and fostering an atmosphere in which the UMY felt encouraged to express their experiences. Ethical considerations were prioritized to ensure that the voices of the participants remained autonomous and authentic.

The researcher’s approach was friendly to both the young participants and stakeholders, with whom he developed lasting friendships and continues to contact to this day. The researcher was not there merely to collect data, but to gain a lived experience. This approach aligns with the values of the commons, emphasizing genuine engagement, building trust, and instilling meaningful relationships to better understand and support the communities involved.

Our ethnographic research spurred a friendly environment that promoted transformative outcomes (Kioupkiolis 2023). Immersing in these spaces, we observed and documented how solidarity, democracy, and joy shape meaningful personal and collective shifts. By capturing these lived experiences, our work highlights the power of positive environments to drive change through shared interactions.

In this context, the ethnographic team of the program implemented several particular techniques in their fieldwork, including unstructured or semi-structured interviews with key participants; the creation of a detailed field diary to record observations, reflections, and questions for further inquiry and information to support the interview material; and written records of informal conversations with individuals or groups. All this material was collected in English and in original languages. The transcribed interviews’ documents have been stored in a private database of the program. The participants were fully informed about the program objectives prior to participating in the interview process. They signed consent forms agreeing to participate anonymously in the research.

The interviews and focus groups were conducted between 20 September and 15 December 2018. Our objective was to understand their desires, needs, and requirements, as well as the changes they wish to see implemented. Stories are fundamental to who we are as humans, and we usually share them with an audience that listens passionately and meticulously to our experiences (Mansilla et al. 2024). The analysis of the empirical material regarding UMY was conducted using thematic analysis as outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006). This method allowed for the identification and organization of patterns within the data, aligning them with the research questions. The process began with a close familiarization with the data, which involved repeated readings of the transcripts to highlight key patterns and ideas. The initial coding was performed descriptively, focusing on the sections of the data relevant to the study themes without delving into interpretation. These codes were then organized into broader categories by comparing similarity and difference patterns, ensuring that they directly addressed the dynamics of the researcher–participant relationship and the challenges of participating in activist research.

In the context of the current research presented in this paper, the identified categories were refined to establish cohesive themes that revealed the experiences and perspectives of the UMY, while being attentive to the power dynamics and ethical implications of the research process. Thematic analysis was further enriched by critically engaging these themes and examining their implications for agency, trust, and collaboration within the research context. By reevaluating and reorganizing the themes to align with the research questions, the analysis was refined to better address the dynamics of the researcher–participant relationship and the challenges and opportunities inherent in commons-based activist ethnography. This process, informed by affect theory and the lens of the commons, deepened our understanding of participants’ experiences and their broader implications. Through the analysis, the study identified two key themes: 1. trust and affect in collaboration, 2. a critical examination of researcher–participant dynamics

5. Results

5.1. Trust and Affect in Collaboration

Trust and affect form the foundation of a commons-based activist ethnography, reshaping the researcher–participant dynamic into one of mutual understanding and collaboration. This section explores how trust was cultivated, the role of affect in the promotion of relationships, and how these elements influenced the research process.

Trust was established through the active participation of the researcher in the daily lives of the UMY. Instead of observing from a distance, the researcher immersed himself in the rhythms of the community, participating in activities and sharing experiences. This participatory approach resonated with the participants, who began to view the researcher not as an outsider but as a trusted ally. One accompanied migrant noted, ‘It’s hard to trust people, but with you… I don’t feel like you’re just observing us’. Another echoed this sentiment: ‘You’re learning from us too. You are teaching me every day: about strength, about hope, about community’.

The key actors played a crucial role in this trust-building process, organizing activities such as excursions, sports, creative workshops, and shared meals that encouraged interaction and promoted a sense of belonging. A youth worker explained that ‘We organize excursions to help young people leave the camp and interact with the local community’. These activities extended beyond social events, serving as opportunities to foster conviviality and break down barriers, connecting UMY with both the locals and the researcher. The researcher actively engaged with the supportive atmosphere of the youth centers, which the UMY often described as homes where they felt valued and supported. As one teacher noted, ‘The center feels like a home, teaching them to cope with difficulties’. This nurturing environment enabled the researcher to integrate into the community, creating a safe affective space where the participants felt comfortable sharing their experiences openly.

Affect played a central role in shaping the researcher–participant relationship. Emotional involvement promoted a sense of care and solidarity, transforming interactions into moments of genuine connection. These affective bonds allowed the participants to share deeply personal stories, often marked by trauma and resilience.

Supporting these findings, the research highlights UMY’s remarkable ability to navigate integration challenges despite traumatic experiences (Gatt et al. 2020). Factors such as self-concept and supportive networks significantly influence their coping and adaptation strategies (Sandín-Esteban and Sánchez-Martí 2015). Furthermore, trust and affect, particularly relational trust and hope, are essential in cultivating agency and collaboration within convivial spaces (Minza and Herlusia 2022).

These interactions often dissolved initial skepticism and suspicion, as the participants began to view the researcher as someone who genuinely cared about their well-being. The participants were not just subjects of study, but active contributors to the exploration of their lived realities. A participant, reflecting on their lived experiences, shared, ‘They tortured me in my country. I was a slave because of my ethnic background’. Trust was evident in their willingness to reveal such vulnerabilities, highlighting the depth of the emotional connections built during the investigation.

The presence of the researcher as an active listener further strengthened these bonds. The participants emphasized the importance of feeling understood and supported, which encouraged them to share their challenges and aspirations. For example, a participant remarked: ‘When I came here, I rejected two things: fear and low self-esteem. Why should I have low self-esteem? Because you are black or a refugee? If you want to succeed, you cannot hold on to those feelings’. These conversations reflected the co-created space of mutual respect and trust, where the participants felt empowered to express their truths.

Trust and affect reshaped the researcher–participant relationship within this commons-based activist ethnography. By actively participating in the lives of the UMY and promoting a shared sense of care and conviviality, the researcher created a collaborative space where voices could be heard and experiences were authentically represented. Despite the challenges of balancing emotional intensity and critical analysis, this approach demonstrated the transformative potential of trust and affect in conducting meaningful and impactful research.

5.2. A Critical Examination of Researcher–Participant Dynamics

This theme analyzes how a commons-based activist ethnography impacted the researcher–participant dynamic, highlighting the ethical complexities and opportunities that emerged throughout the engagement process. The convivial spaces and the ambiance of the commons created within the youth centers were critical in encouraging the participants’ agency and self-reflection.

5.2.1. Power Dynamics and Ethical Tensions in Activist Research

These spaces, characterized by shared activities and mutual trust, allowed the UMY to articulate their aspirations and envision futures beyond their precarious circumstances. One of them shared: ‘I want to stay in Greece. I don’t think I need a million euros. I need some money to live, I will help people, and maybe I can help others’. Another reflected on their motivations: ‘My plan is that if I find a good job, I want to support anyone’. This is my good plan, my life plan. Such interactions demonstrate ethnography’s potential as a transformative tool, promoting reflection while supporting empowerment and agency among participants. A youth worker remarked: ‘You see the change in how they talk about themselves and their futures. It’s not just about survival anymore; it’s about what they can build for themselves’.

The researcher’s involvement in the lives of the participants often blurred the boundaries between research and activism. While convivial spaces encouraged trust, they also brought attention to the intricacies of power dynamics, shaped by the researcher’s dual role as both advocate and documenter, raising questions about the influence of the researcher’s authority on the participants’ willingness to share their thoughts and emotions and the ‘authenticity’ of the co-created knowledge. For instance, participation in discussions about the participants’ aspirations sometimes shifted the focus from observation to direct intervention. Although this approach created opportunities for meaningful engagement, it also risked influencing the narratives of the participants and strengthening the researcher’s centrality in the process.

This dual role required ongoing reflexivity and a commitment to ethical rigor. The researcher needed to critically examine his position of power and the potential for unintended consequences, such as creating dependency or constructing the participants’ stories to align with advocacy goals. The observation by a youth worker, ‘The researcher’s presence changes things, it’s not just about what young people share, but how they feel about being heard’, highlights the profound impact of the researcher’s role on the research process and results. By actively engaging with the participants, the researcher promoted a space for critical reflection, allowing the UMY to articulate their experiences of discrimination and exclusion. This engagement also placed the researcher as a conduit of their stories, with the power to frame these accounts for external audiences. This dynamic risked reinforcing the dependence on the researcher to validate their struggles and amplify their voices, subtly perpetuating the hierarchies the research sought to dismantle. Although these narratives highlighted the resilience and aspirations of the participants, they often reflected the structural inequities that the research could document but did not resolve. This challenge illustrates the limitations of ethnography as a tool for systemic change, emphasizing the gap between empowerment at the individual level and broader structural transformation.

Furthermore, the willingness of the participants to discuss systemic discrimination was intertwined with the researcher’s position as an outsider with institutional legitimacy. Although this positionality allowed the researcher to access sensitive narratives, it also reflected the inherent imbalance in the relationship, where the participants may have felt compelled to align their stories with the researcher’s perceived advocacy goals.

The activist approach of the researcher was designed to document and advocate for systemic change, though balancing these dual roles introduced nuanced ethical considerations. By amplifying the aspirations of the participants for stability and agency, the researcher risked framing their experiences primarily through a lens of resilience and hope, potentially overlooking the structural inequities that perpetuated their precarity. For example, while the participants articulated their desire for education and employment, narratives often reflected the constraints imposed by systemic barriers, which the research could highlight but not decompose.

This dynamic reveals a critical challenge: balancing the ethical responsibility of representing the struggles of the participants in a way that reflects them as faithfully as possible with the advocacy-oriented goals of a commons-based ethnography. Although the researcher facilitated convivial and congenial spaces for the UMY to share their aspirations, the act of representation inevitably shaped the narratives, raising questions about whose voice ultimately defined the research outcomes. To mitigate these challenges, the researcher participated in regular meetings with the research supervisor and other members of the laboratory (https://socedu.ece.uth.gr/ accessed on 25 December 2024) of which they are members to discuss and reflect on various issues arising from the fieldwork.

The researcher’s involvement with the vulnerabilities of the participants, such as recounting traumatic experiences, was a defining aspect of this ethnography. The openness of the participants, such as sharing scars from torture or reflections on self-esteem, demonstrated a profound trust in the researcher. At the same time, this trust also indicated the power asymmetry within the researcher–participant relationship. While the participants reframed their self-perceptions, such as seeing themselves as capable of helping others, these transformations often highlighted the role of the researcher in facilitating their narratives and shaping the outcomes.

The researcher’s role as an active listener and advocate placed him in a privileged position, shaping the emotional dynamics of the interaction through their presence and responses. Although the disclosures of the participants were framed as acts of agency, they were also shaped by the researcher’s empathetic position. This dynamic raises ethical questions about whether these interactions truly reinforced the agency of the participants or unintentionally encouraged a dependence on the researcher as a validation figure. A young migrant’s comment, ‘We trust you because you understand what we go through and want to help’, underlines the complexity of this relationship.

Engaging in activist research with the UMY required the researcher to navigate the ethical complexities inherent in the role of an advocate and participant observer. Key actors, such as the youth workers, facilitated access and provided safe spaces for interaction, but their participation also influenced the dynamics of trust and openness. Although these mediators helped mitigate ethical challenges, they also reinforced the researcher’s dependence on institutional structures, complicating the claim of horizontal collaboration. For example, a young migrant remarked, ‘We trust you because you are here with the workers who know us’, highlighting the dual influence of key actors on building trust.

The awareness of the researcher’s activist position likely shaped their narratives, as themes of solidarity and resilience were frequently emphasized. This alignment raises critical questions about the authenticity of co-created knowledge. Were the participants freely expressing their realities or were they responding to the unspoken expectations of the research process? Reflexivity was crucial for the researcher to critically assess his influence on narratives and to acknowledge the limits of his advocacy in addressing deeper systemic inequities. This complexity highlights the dual challenge of supporting the participants while maintaining critical detachment to ‘authentically’ represent their voices.

5.2.2. Balancing Advocacy with Structural Challenges

Despite systemic barriers, the participants expressed their aspirations for education, employment, and a stable future. These expressions of hope highlighted their resilience, but also reflected the limits of research to address the root causes of their precarity. While the researcher’s role as an advocate helped amplify these aspirations, the focus on transformation risks overshadowing the structural inequalities that constrained the agency of the participants.

The activist approach created opportunities for the participants to envision possibilities beyond their immediate circumstances, but also reinforced the tension between advocacy and critical inquiry. Research efforts to sustain hope and empowerment, while valuable, must be critically examined for their potential to inadvertently affect the recipient.

The study highlighted the potential of activist ethnography not only as a tool to increase marginalized voices and promote collaboration, but also as a contributing force within a broader transformative network of struggles for justice and inclusion. While our research alone cannot overcome structural inequalities such as economic instability and social exclusion, it aligns with and supports collective efforts aimed at addressing these systemic challenges. By participating in these broader movements, the study contributes both to academic knowledge and to the ongoing fight against inequalities and exclusion faced by this population.

Although the structural limitations and asymmetries inherent in the research process remain significant, the approach has transformative value by encouraging empowerment and agency at the individual level and by embedding itself in the wider fight for systemic change. Convivial spaces created during the study allowed the participants to reflect on their aspirations and collaborate in co-creating knowledge, emphasizing the dual impact of the research: advancing scientific understanding while actively contributing to the struggle for equality and inclusion. This dual engagement exemplifies the transformative potential of activist ethnography as both a reflective and an actionable practice.

6. Conclusions

The overarching element that connects the themes presented above is the role of the researcher as an activist and commoner within a commons-based ethnography. Research is not just about extracting data, but actively participating in the creation of shared convivial spaces where UMY can experience emotional support, social integration, and hope. By seeking to challenge hierarchical boundaries between the researcher and the participants, the researcher became a collaborator and advocate, engaging with the UMY to understand their lived experiences and amplify their voices in broader social contexts.

Effective communication with the staff responsible for each facility was essential to create an informal caring and supportive environment. This collaborative environment developed solidarity and trust, breaking barriers and allowing the UMY to openly discuss difficult topics such as discrimination, integration, and the challenges they face.

The researcher embodies the principles of affect, conviviality, and congeniality, understanding that social change begins with the promotion of deep emotional bonds and shared spaces of experience. The atmosphere of the commons—whether in a classroom, on a football field, or over a shared meal—becomes a site of activism where UMY can reclaim their agency, voice their aspirations, and envision a future beyond their precarious present. This approach transforms research from a passive act of documentation into a dynamic, collaborative process aimed at creating a more inclusive, empathetic, and supportive environment. In this context, care and trust practices act as forms of resistance against alienation and individualism, fostering alternative ways of being and relating. As a result, commons are understood not only as resource-based but also as spaces that nurture affective relationships.

This shift toward affective ethnography within the commons atmosphere allows for a restorative form of political writing, one that opens up new perspectives for understanding the emotional and psychological trauma experienced by mobile underprivileged youths. It does more than simply document suffering, injustice, or desire; it actively seeks to detoxify the traumas caused by their displacement and interactions with local communities. Rather than focusing solely on representation or the privilege of language, this ethnography emphasizes the unrepresentable and challenges the limits of thought by examining how bodies and subjects are positioned within power relations that constrain them (Moore 2011). This perspective moves beyond ‘ethnomapping’ (Weston 1993) and delves into the complexities of power dynamics and embodied experiences.

Through this understanding, care and trust emerge as not just functional aspects of collective life but as deep emotional practices that sustain and transform communal relations. As researchers, we have come to realize that our role extends far beyond observation and data collection. It requires us to be fully present, to build genuine, affective connections with participants. This approach allows for more meaningful exchanges, transforming the research process into a shared journey rather than a one-sided task, thereby reinforcing the core values of the commons in the research practice itself.

However, adopting an activist stance in this research, while inciting trust and collaboration, also introduced potential biases. The participants may have shaped their responses to align with the perceived advocacy of the researcher, potentially focusing the investigation on topics such as solidarity while sidelining more complex aspects of their experiences, such as frustration or disillusionment. The blurred boundaries between the researcher and participants, while improving empathy, created challenges in maintaining the critical distance necessary for unbiased analysis. This dynamic raised questions about the validity of the conclusions drawn, making ongoing peer reflection crucial to confronting and mitigating these biases.

The researcher’s deep involvement with participants often results in the formation of close bonds, raising ethical questions about how these relationships influence research outcomes and the process of exiting the field. In this study, the mobile nature of the population meant that many participants moved on after a period of time, naturally easing the transition out of the field. However, with some participants, communication has continued through social media, reflecting the ongoing connections forged during the research. This dynamic highlights the importance of balancing relational continuity with the ethical responsibility to maintain professional boundaries and ensure that these relationships do not inadvertently shape the research findings.

Ultimately, the most significant lesson has been that engagement grounded in care and mutual respect is key to creating inclusive spaces where UMY can reclaim their voices and envision hopeful futures. In this way, research becomes not just a study, but a collaborative process of personal and social transformation.