Bringing into dialogue the common themes and approaches in the research on student homemaking, a discussion of the relevance of Georges Perec’s works to spatial research, and an experimental empirical study carried out on student homes in Copenhagen, Denmark, this article proposes a Perecquian methodology for the study of the multiscalar phenomenon of temporary homemaking. This methodology revolves around three main empirical reference points: (1) a focus on the infra-ordinary and the everyday, (2) a keen eye for materialities, and (3) the interplays between the domestic and the urban scales. By defining and adopting a detailed set of Perecquian constraints as to how the fieldwork is carried out, recorded, and analyzed, this article broadens the horizon for more multidisciplinary perspectives on creative research and experimental fieldwork within home studies.
AhmedS.CastadaC.FortierA. M.ShellerM. (Eds.). (2003). Uprootings/regroundings: Questions of home and migration. Berg.
2.
AppaduraiA. (1996). Modernity al large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. University of Minnesota Press.
3.
AppaduraiA. (Ed.). (1988). The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge University Press.
4.
BerganT. L.Gorman-MurrayA.PowerE. R. (2021). Coliving housing: Home cultures of precarity for the new creative class. Social & Cultural Geography, 22, 1204–1222. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2020.1734230
5.
BluntA.BonnerjeeJ. (2013). Home, city and diaspora: Anglo–Indian and Chinese attachments to Calcutta. Global Networks, 13(2), 220–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/glob.12006
BoccagniP.Vargas-SilvaC. (2021). Feeling at home across time and place: A study of Ecuadorians in three European cities. Population, Space and Place, 27, Article e2431. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2431
9.
BourdieuP. (2013). Outline of a theory of practice (NiceR., Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1972)
10.
BrassettJ. (1991). The spaced-out subject: Bachelard and Perec. In ShawP.StockwellP. (Eds.), Subjectivity and romantics to the present day (pp. 146–158). Pinter.
ButcherM. (2010). From “fish out of water” to “fitting in”: The challenge of re-placing home in a mobile world. Population, Space and Place, 16(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.575
13.
ChassainA. (2014). « Dis-moi comment tu classes, je te dirai qui tu es » Rhétorique et écriture de soi dans l’œuvre essayistique de G. Perec [“Tell me how you classify, I will tell you who you are” Rhetoric and self writing in the essayistic works of G. Perec]. Le Cabinet d’amateur: Revue d’études Perecquiennes. http://associationgeorgesperec.fr/IMG/pdf/AChassain.pdf
14.
ChowK.HealeyM. (2008). Place attachment and place identity: First-year undergraduates making the transition from home to university. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(4), 362–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.02.011
ClemensJ.WilkenR. (Eds.). (2017). The afterlives of Georges Perec. University of Edinburgh Press.
17.
CollinsF. L. (2012). Researching mobility and emplacement: Examining transience and transnationality in international student lives. Area, 44(3), 296–304. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2012.01112.x
18.
ConstantinD.JolyJ.-L.ReggianiC. (Eds.). (2015). Le Cahier Georges Perec vol. 12: Espèces d’espaces perecquiens [Notebooks on Georges Perec vol. 12: Species of Perecquian spaces]. Le Castor Astral.
19.
de CerteauM. (1990). L’invention du quotidien: 1. arts de faire [The Practice of Everyday Life]. Gallimard.
20.
de CerteauM.de GiardL.MayolP. (1998). The practice of everyday life: Vol. 2. Living and cooking. University of Minnesota Press.
21.
FelskiR. (1999). The invention of everyday life. New Formations, 39, 15–31.
22.
FengD.BreitungW. (2018). What makes you feel at home? Constructing senses of home in two border cities. Population, Space and Place, 24(3), Article e2116. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2116
23.
ForsdickC.LeakA.PhillipsR. (Eds.). (2019). George Perec’s geographies: Material, performative and textual spaces. UCL Press.
24.
GalčanováL.VackováB. (2016). “How to wind the clock of the day?” Solo living phenomena and the various stabilities of home. Home Cultures, 13(3), 225–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/17406315.2016.1258124
25.
GhimireN.BarryK. (2020). Interrupting the middle: Shifting everyday practices of female nepalese students in Australia. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 41(5), 607–622. https://doi.org/10.1080/07256868.2020.1806804
HellerA. (1995). Where are we at home?Thesis Eleven, 41(1), 1–18.
28.
HighmoreB. (2002). Everyday life and cultural theory. An introduction. Routledge.
29.
HighmoreB. (2017). Georges Perec and the significance of the insignificant. In ClemensJ.WilkenR. (Eds.), The afterlives of Georges Perec (pp. 105–119). University of Edinburgh Press.
30.
HoldsworthC. (2006). “Don’t you think you’re missing out, living at home?” Student experiences and residential transitions. Sociological Review, 54(3), 495–519. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467-954X.2006.00627.x
31.
HoltonM. (2016). Living together in student accommodation: Performances, boundaries and homemaking. Area, 48(1), 57–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12226
32.
HoltonM.RileyM. (2016). Student geographies and homemaking: Personal belonging(s) and identities. Social and Cultural Geography, 17(5), 623–645. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2015.1126626
33.
JanningM.VolkM. (2017). Where the heart is: Home space transitions for residential college students. Children’s Geographies, 15(4), 478–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2016.1277183
34.
KenyonL. (1999). A home from home: Student’s transitional experience of home. In ChapmanT.HockeyJ. (Eds.), Ideal homes? Social change and domestic life (pp. 84–95). Routledge.
35.
LeeJ. (2019). ‘Force yourself to see more flatly’: A photographic investigation of the infra-ordinary. In ForsdickC.LeakA.PhillipsR. (Eds.), Georges Perec’s geographies: Material, performative and textual spaces (pp. 218–235). UCL Press.
36.
Ley-CervantesM.DuyvendakJ. W. (2017). At home in generic places: Personalizing strategies of the mobile rich. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 32(1), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-015-9492-z
37.
MarcouxJ.-S. (2001). The refurbishment of memory. In MillerD. (Ed.), Home possessions: Material culture behind closed doors (pp. 69–86). Berg.
38.
MarstonS. A. (2004). A long way from home: Domesticating the social production of scale. In SheppardE.McMasterR. (Eds.), Scale and geographic inquiry: Nature, society and method (pp. 170–191). Blackwell.
39.
MillerD. (1987). Material culture and mass consumption. Blackwell.
40.
MillerD. (Ed.). (2005). Materiality. Duke University Press.
41.
MillerD. (2008). The comfort of things. Polity Press.
42.
MillerD. (2010). Stuff. Polity Press.
43.
MitchellP. (2004). Constructing the architext: Georges Perec’s life a user’s manual. Mosaic: An Interdisciplinary Critical Journal, 37(1), 1–16.
OwenJ. (2022). ‘It became an anchor for stuff I really want to keep’: The stabilising weight of self-storage when moving home and away. Social & Cultural Geography, 23, 990–1006. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2020.1843699
46.
PechurinaA. (2020). Researching identities through material possessions: The case of diasporic objects. Current Sociology, 68(5), 669–683. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0011392120927746
47.
PerecG. (1982). Tentative d'épuisement d'un lieu parisien [An Attempt at Exhausting a Place in Paris]. Christian Bourgois. (Original work published 1975)
48.
PerecG. (1983). Entretien Georges Perec / Ewa Pawlikowska [Interview: Georges Perec – Ewa Pawlikowska]. Littératures, 7(printemps), 69–77. https://doi.org/10.3406/litts.1983.1234
49.
PerecG. (1989). L’Infra-ordinaire [The Infra-ordinary]. Éditions du Seuil.
50.
PerecG. (1990). Les Choses [Things]. Juillard. (Original work published 1965)
PrazeresL. (2018). At home in the city: Everyday practices and distinction in international student mobility. Social & Cultural Geography, 19(7), 914–934. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2017.1323343
57.
RampaziM. (2016). Temporary homes: A case study of young people’s dwelling strategies in northern Italy. Space and Culture, 19(4), 361–372. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1206331215621006
58.
RappoltM. (Ed.). (2001). P is for Perec and Paris [Special issue] (Vol. 45/46). AA Files.
59.
ReggianiC. (2010). L’éternel et l’éphémère: Temporalités dans l’œuvre de Georges Perec [The Eternal and the Ephemeral: Temporality in the Works of Georges Perec]. Rodopi.
60.
RibièreM. (2017). Georges Perec’s enduring presence in the visual arts.’ In ClemensJ.WilkenR. (Eds.), The afterlives of georges Perec (pp. 23–44). University of Edinburgh Press.
61.
SchillingD. (2006). Mémoires du quotidien: Les Lieux de Perec [Memoirs of the Everyday: Perec’s Places]. Presses universitaires du Septentrion.
62.
ShellerM.UrryJ. (2006). The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 38(2), 207–226. https://doi.org/10.1068/a37268
63.
ThomsenJ. (2007). Home experiences in student housing: About institutional character and temporary homes. Journal of Youth Studies, 10(5), 577–596. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676260701582062
64.
TrowellI. (2019). Perecquian fieldwork: Photography and the fairground. In ForsdickC.LeakA.PhillipsR. (Eds.), Georges Perec’s geographies: Material, performative and textual spaces (pp. 200–217). UCL Press.
65.
WalshK. (2006). British expatriate belongings: Mobile homes and transnational homing. Home Cultures, 3(2), 123–144.
