Episode 10 continues the season's regional focus with a conversation grounded in India and the wider Global South, bringing together a scholar of gender, trauma, and displacement and a development researcher working across climate change, migration, and disasters. The episode explores how literature, capability theory, and self-reflective practice reshape how disaster scholars understand resistance, complicity, and care.
Jason von MedingKsenia ChmutinaSneha Krishnan — Professor, O.P. Jindal Global University; interdisciplinary scholar of environment, humanitarian response, and public health, with a focus on gender-sensitive, trauma-informed approaches to displacementClaudia Santos — researcher and practitioner working across climate change, migration, development, and disasters; co-founder of The Upstand, a social impact agency built on relational, community-centered methodsFiction, dissent, and the politics of storytellingCapabilities, freedom, and the construction of vulnerabilityResistance as a condition for justiceComplicity, power, and the "double agent" researcherCare, sensitivity, and knowing when (not) to actInstitutional incentives versus community needsCreative and participatory research methodsHope, courage, and collective responsibilityCore discussion highlights
Sneha Krishnan discusses Arundhati Roy and Amitav Ghosh, arguing that fiction and dissent are central to disaster scholarship — Roy's prosecution for her activism and Ghosh's framing of the climate crisis as a "crisis of imagination" both push the field to reckon with who gets to tell stories about disaster and its long aftermath.Krishnan reflects on reading and creative expression — including poetry and counter-mapping — as forms of solidarity and self-care that resist the narrow evidentiary standards imposed on disaster research.Claudia Santos discusses Amartya Sen's capability approach, drawing on her PhD research in Guinea-Bissau to argue that deprivation of basic freedoms, not climate hazards alone, shapes who is able to move, stay, or survive a disaster.Santos argues that justice in disaster scholarship depends on resistance, describing researcher self-reflection, "double agent" institutional work, and small acts like reframing language in official reports as legitimate forms of activism.The conversation surfaces a recurring tension: institutional funding structures reward quantifiable, depoliticized research, while researchers themselves remain complicit in extractive practices that produce little benefit for the communities they study.Both guests close by expressing hope grounded in creative and participatory methods, courage in the face of institutional pressure, and collective — rather than individual — responsibility for structural change.