Digital resources in the Social Sciences and Humanities OpenEdition Our platforms OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypotheses Calenda Libraries OpenEdition Freemium Follow us

Explorations, thinking about integrated research questions (multiple methods, multiple disciplines)

Round 1 (30 minutes): The students divide into three groups, each taking a different disciplinary lens:

  • Group 1: Business/Marketing Perspective
  • Group 2: Cultural Studies/Anthropology Perspective
  • Group 3: Urban Studies/Geography Perspective

Task for each group:

  1. Identify one key research question from your disciplinary perspective
  2. List 3 specific aspects from the field report that support investigating this question
  3. Outline potential research methods specific to your discipline
  4. Identify 2-3 key theories or concepts from your field that could frame the research
  5. Note what other cases/examples from Berlin could be comparative reference points

Plenary Discussion (20 minutes):

  • Each group presents their approach (5 minutes each)
  • Class discusses how the different perspectives complement or contradict each other
  • Identify potential for interdisciplinary collaboration

Round 2 (25 minutes): The groups mix so each new group has members from all three original perspectives. Task:

  1. Create an integrated research proposal that combines insights from multiple disciplines
  2. Identify specific ways the different approaches could strengthen each other
  3. Develop a timeline for the research
  4. List potential challenges and how to address them

Final Plenary (15 minutes):

  • Groups share their integrated proposals
  • Discussion of how different disciplinary approaches can be combined effectively
  • Reflection on what was learned about interdisciplinary research design

BUSINESS/MARKETING PERSPECTIVE:

Research Question: How do ethnic restaurants in Berlin strategically balance cultural authenticity and market adaptation to appeal to different customer segments?

Supporting Aspects from Report:

  1. Strategic use of Pan-African imagery rather than Arabic cultural elements
  2. French language prominence over Arabic despite being a Moroccan restaurant
  3. Conscious decision to emphasize certain cultural elements while minimizing others for marketing purposes

Research Methods:

  • Customer surveys and interviews
  • Competitive analysis of other Moroccan restaurants
  • Sales data analysis comparing different menu items
  • Semi-structured interviews with restaurant owners
  • Analysis of marketing materials and social media presence

Key Theories/Concepts:

  • Market positioning theory
  • Cultural marketing and branding
  • Consumer behavior in ethnic dining

Comparative Cases:

  • Der Phönizier (mentioned in another report)
  • Turkish restaurants in Kreuzberg adapting to gentrification
  • Vietnamese restaurants in Prenzlauer Berg

CULTURAL STUDIES/ANTHROPOLOGY PERSPECTIVE:

Research Question: How do immigrant restaurant owners negotiate their cultural identity presentation in Berlin’s evolving culinary landscape?

Supporting Aspects from Report:

  1. Owners speaking Darija Arabic but minimizing Arabic cultural displays
  2. Selection of specific cultural symbols (Tamazigh tapestry, photos of African leaders)
  3. The tension between “traditional” branding and selective cultural presentation

Research Methods:

  • Ethnographic observation
  • Life history interviews with restaurant owners
  • Visual analysis of restaurant decor
  • Participant observation of customer-staff interactions
  • Document analysis of menus and promotional materials

Key Theories/Concepts:

  • Cultural hybridization
  • Strategic essentialism
  • Performance of identity
  • Self-orientalization

Comparative Cases:

  • Lebanese restaurant in Neukölln (from another report)
  • Turkish coffeehouses in Kreuzberg
  • Arab Street (Sonnenallee) restaurants

URBAN STUDIES/GEOGRAPHY PERSPECTIVE:

Research Question: How do ethnic restaurants contribute to the production of transcultural spaces in Berlin’s changing urban landscape?

Supporting Aspects from Report:

  1. Location in Friedrichstadt, an office district
  2. Adaptation to European customer base
  3. Creation of a hybrid cultural space through design and atmosphere

Research Methods:

  • Mapping of ethnic restaurants in the area
  • Analysis of neighborhood demographic changes
  • Documentation of physical space transformations
  • Foot traffic patterns analysis
  • Spatial analysis of restaurant distribution

Key Theories/Concepts:

  • Urban transformation and gentrification
  • Production of space (Lefebvre)
  • Transcultural urbanism
  • Right to the city

Comparative Cases:

  • Restaurant clusters in Kreuzberg
  • Transformation of Sonnenallee
  • Evolution of Markthalle Neun

Each perspective offers different insights into understanding the complex dynamics at play in this case, from business strategies to cultural identity negotiation to urban transformation processes.


Title: “Negotiating Authenticity: Cultural Restaurants as Sites of Identity, Commerce, and Urban Transformation in Berlin”

  1. INTEGRATED RESEARCH COMPONENTS:

Core Research Question: How do ethnic restaurants in Berlin navigate the interplay between cultural authenticity, commercial viability, and urban space-making in an evolving metropolitan context?

Multidisciplinary Components:

  • Business: Market positioning and economic sustainability strategies
  • Cultural Studies: Identity negotiation and cultural representation
  • Urban Studies: Spatial dynamics and neighborhood transformation
  1. STRENGTHENING INTERDISCIPLINARY CONNECTIONS:

Business + Cultural Studies:

  • Economic data can help explain cultural presentation choices
  • Cultural analysis can inform marketing strategies
  • Combined understanding of both customer expectations and cultural authenticity

Cultural Studies + Urban Studies:

  • Spatial analysis provides context for cultural expression
  • Cultural patterns inform understanding of neighborhood changes
  • Combined insight into how space shapes cultural presentation

Urban Studies + Business:

  • Location analysis influences business strategies
  • Economic data helps explain spatial patterns
  • Combined understanding of neighborhood development and market forces
  1. RESEARCH TIMELINE:

Phase 1 (3 months): Preliminary Research

  • Literature review across all disciplines
  • Mapping of research sites
  • Development of research instruments
  • Initial stakeholder contacts

Phase 2 (6 months): Data Collection

  • Business data gathering: customer surveys, sales analysis
  • Ethnographic fieldwork: observations, interviews
  • Spatial analysis: mapping, demographic study
  • Cross-disciplinary team meetings for integration

Phase 3 (3 months): Analysis

  • Individual disciplinary analysis
  • Cross-disciplinary analysis sessions
  • Integration of findings
  • Preliminary conclusions

Phase 4 (2 months): Integration and Writing

  • Synthesis of findings
  • Writing of integrated report
  • Stakeholder presentations
  • Publication preparation
  1. CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS:

Methodological Challenges:

  • Different disciplinary approaches might conflict Solution: Regular cross-disciplinary meetings to align methods and share insights

Language Barriers:

  • Multiple languages involved (German, Arabic, French) Solution: Recruit multilingual research assistants, work with cultural mediators

Access Issues:

  • Restaurant owners might be hesitant to share business data Solution: Build trust through cultural mediators, ensure confidentiality, offer valuable feedback

Integration Challenges:

  • Difficulty merging different types of data Solution: Develop integrated analysis framework early, use mixed methods approach

Time Management:

  • Different research components require different timeframes Solution: Create flexible timeline with clear coordination points

Cultural Sensitivity:

  • Risk of misinterpreting cultural elements Solution: Include researchers from relevant cultural backgrounds, maintain ongoing dialogue with community members

Data Organization:

  • Managing diverse types of data from different disciplines Solution: Create centralized database with clear categorization system

Theoretical Integration:

  • Reconciling different disciplinary frameworks Solution: Regular theory workshops to develop integrated conceptual framework

Explorations, formulating research questions that matter

Round 1 (20 minutes): In your groups, identify 2-3 key research questions emerging from these field experiences. For each question:

  1. Write down specific questions in case the report asks any
  2. Note what sparked these questions in the field report
  3. Evaluate whether you think the research questions are of value, if yes, to whom
  4. List what you would need to know/understand to research one or more of these questions
  5. Identify initial challenges you anticipate

Plenary (25 minutes)

Round 2 (20 minutes): Take one research question your group identified and develop it further:

  1. What methods would you use to investigate this question?
  2. What sources would you need to consult?
  3. Who would you need to talk to?
  4. What theoretical concepts might be helpful?
  5. What practical steps would you take first?”

For the plenary (25 minutes):

  • Each group presents their most developed research question and approach
  • Discussion of common challenges across the different proposals
  • Brainstorming of resources and support needed

Explorations, Beyond Location: Rethinking Cultural Heritage in an Age of Global Flows

When Nefertiti gazes out from her vitrine in Berlin’s Neues Museum, where exactly is she looking? To Egypt, her place of origin? To the thousands of tourists snapping photos? Or perhaps to a future where questions of cultural heritage transcend our obsession with fixed locations? Her presence in Berlin has sparked decades of controversy, yet the very terms of this debate might be outdated in our era of global cultural flows.

For decades, debates about cultural heritage have been stuck in a geographical tug-of-war. Should the Parthenon Marbles return to Athens? Must Nefertiti go back to Cairo? These questions assume that cultural objects belong in specific places – that somewhere, somehow, there’s a “right” location that would resolve complex historical entanglements. This thinking reflects a certain “fetishism of place” – our tendency to bind cultural meaning to fixed geographical locations, even as global flows of people, media, and ideas increasingly challenge such static notions.

Consider Berlin’s Şehitlik Mosque. Is it a piece of Turkey transplanted to Neukölln, or is it creating something entirely new? Men drinking tea in its courtyard, are they preserving a static tradition – or are they actively crafting new forms of religious and cultural practice in a transnational space? Similarly, when manuscripts from Damascus, Baghdad, and Isfahan are digitized in the Qalamos Project, they don’t simply move from physical to digital space – they enter new networks of meaning and interpretation. These spaces exemplify what might be called “cosmopolitan realism” – the recognition that cultural practices and identities are increasingly shaped by global connections rather than local rootedness alone.

Our traditional vocabulary of cultural heritage – focused on ownership, location, and authenticity – emerged in a world of nation-states and fixed boundaries. But today’s cultural flows refuse to respect these neat categories. A Syrian artist in Berlin creates works that are simultaneously local and global. A digital archive in Germany makes Persian manuscripts accessible to scholars in Tehran and Texas alike. The stumbling stones (Stolpersteine) scattered through Berlin’s streets mark absences that connect multiple geographical points into networks of memory. These aren’t just isolated examples but indicators of a fundamental shift in how cultural heritage operates in contemporary society.

The implications are profound. Rather than asking where cultural heritage should be located, we might ask how it moves and transforms. Instead of treating cultural artifacts as fixed objects with single “homes,” we could recognize them as nodes in complex networks of meaning and memory. This shift requires new frameworks for preservation and interpretation that acknowledge the multiply-situated nature of cultural heritage in our interconnected world.

Take the Jewish Museum Berlin, which offers an unexpected model for this new approach. Rather than simply displaying artifacts, it creates spaces that make visitors physically experience displacement and disorientation. Through Daniel Libeskind’s architecture, the museum suggests that understanding cultural heritage might require us to leave behind our comfortable assumptions about place and belonging. The building itself becomes a metaphor for how cultural memory operates in a globalized world – through disruption, connection, and transformation rather than static preservation.

This doesn’t mean ignoring histories of colonialism or dismissing claims for restitution. Rather, it means recognizing that cultural heritage in our globalized world might need new frameworks altogether. Instead of asking “Where does this belong?” we might ask “What connections does this enable?” Instead of “Whose heritage is this?” we might consider “What conversations does this start?” These questions open up new possibilities for how we understand and engage with cultural heritage.

Back in the Neues Museum, Nefertiti’s gaze takes on new meaning. Perhaps she’s not looking in any single direction but rather witnessing how cultural heritage in the 21st century refuses to stay put – flowing across borders, spawning digital copies, generating new meanings, and creating unexpected connections. As global flows intensify, her presence in Berlin becomes less about ownership and more about the possibilities and challenges of cultural heritage in an interconnected world.

The challenge, then, isn’t simply to determine where objects belong, but to understand how they, and the practices they embody, help us navigate a world where meaning and memory flow in multiple directions at once. In this light, Berlin’s memory institutions become not just repositories of the past but laboratories for understanding how cultural heritage works in an age of global flows – sites where we can begin to imagine new ways of preserving and sharing culture that reflect our interconnected reality.


VM