Practising anti-Islamophobic geographies

ABSTRACT

Islamophobia is anti-Muslim racism and a small body of work has developed in geography focusing on spaces of Islamophobia with reference to religion, gender, and politics. I build upon this literature to consider my own attempts at practising anti-Islamophobia through diverse forms of public geographies. including the work of the Cross Party Group on Tackling Islamophobia in the Scottish Parliament and the findings of an inquiry into Islamophobia in Scotland that was facilitated through this group. I conclude by critically reflecting upon anti-racist scholar activism and consider some of the ways in which we should practise anti-Islamophobic geographies.

KEYWORDS:

• Islamophobia
• anti-racism
• Scotland
• activism
• public geographies

Introduction

Islamophobia is a form of racism that ‘targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness’ (APPG, 2018, p. 11) and can be defined as anti-Muslim racism (Elahi and Khan, 2017). The Runnymede Trust (1997) set out the ways in which Islamophobia was a ‘challenge for us all’ as there had emerged a new set of everyday realities that needed naming and acting upon (Vakil, 2010). Although the word Islamophobia has been around for a long time – and there is a long history of Muslims experiencing racism – it was through the publication of the Runnymede Report (1997) followed by the events of 9/11 – and the specific targeting of Muslim communities in the aftermath of this – that led to Islamophobia becoming a more frequently used term as well as being of broader social and political concern. Islamophobia has now ‘escalated to epidemic proportions’ (Shaheed, 2021, p. 3). According to the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Islamophobic content is being shared online, Islamophobia is being practiced through securitization, economic exclusion, restrictions to religious practice, as well as shaping experiences of education, health care and housing. Shaheed (2021, p. 3) expresses serious concern about the ‘frequent, widespread nature of violence targeting Muslims worldwide’. Islamophobia is a serious issue, has been intensifying, and should be of much concern to geographers.

There is a small but growing body of geographical scholarship focusing on Islamophobia with religion, gender and politics being key foci in this work. Geographical research around the turn of the century tended to focus on the experiences of Muslims through discourses connected with race and ethnicity (e.g. Dwyer, 1999, 2000) with matters relating to Islam being seen to be to do with religion and thereby occupying a somewhat marginal position in the discipline (Kong, 2001). This is not surprising as Alexander (1998, p. 440) points to a series of reimaginings of the categories of the Muslim community and Asian identities in the UK context in that they were once considered ‘coloured’ before being viewed ‘politically black’ in the 1960s and 1970s. It was not until the late 1980s and early 1990s that the ‘Asian’ label became key, and it was then the events of 9/11 that firmly established ‘Muslim’ as the key category of concern.

In this paper, I set out the work I have been doing over the last twenty-five years to practise anti-Islamophobic geographies, and to investigate, understand and resist Islamophobia. I set this in the context of a small but growing body of literature on geographies of Islamophobia that pays specific attention to issues of religion, gender, and politics. I consider the ways in which I have sought to engage in different forms of public geographies around this including work to contribute to policy and political debates on Islamophobia, to establish a Cross Party Group on Tackling Islamophobia in the Scottish Parliament, and to then lead on the first inquiry into Islamophobia in Scotland through this group. I then step back from this work to consider how I have engaged in anti-racist scholar activism and conclude by suggesting ways in which we might move towards changing geography into a discipline that is anti-Islamophobic.

Spaces of Islamophobia – religion, gender, and politics

An interest in the political and social geographies of Islamophobia has emerged from three overlapping areas of interest. First, there is scholarship on the geographies of racism, racialization, and migration (e.g. Dunn, 2001, 2005; Gale, 2005; Hopkins, 2004a; Phillips, 2006). Second – and often interconnected with this first body of scholarship – is research informed by feminist geographies about gender inequalities (e.g. Bowlby et al., 1998; Bowlby and Lloyd-Evans, 2009; Dwyer, 1999, 2000; Hopkins, 2004b; Lloyd Evans & Bowlby, 2000; Mohammad, 1999, 2001). Third, there has been the growing interest in geographies of religion (Kong, 2001, 2009) a part of which has brought attention to the geographies of Islam and Muslim identities (Aitchison et al., 2007). Some of the first work in geography to discuss Islamophobia includes research about the transnational connections maintained by Turkish immigrants in Germany (Ehrkamp, 2007; see also Ehrkamp, 2010, in this journal for related work about the media representation of Muslim women), and work in Australia which highlighted that the reproduction of Islamophobia occurred through a process of racialization that reinforced problematic stereotypes about the place of Muslims in Australian society (Dunn et al., 2007).

The construction and location of mosques and religious buildings – and the spatial politics of this – have also been an important focus of work about Islamophobia. Attention has been payed to the planning process and how racist and exclusionary sentiments can be expressed through resistance to mosque development in the UK (Gale, 2004, 2005) as well as how discourses of nationalism are employed in local debates over mosque development in Australia (Dunn, 2001, 2005). Focusing upon the opening of a purpose-built mosque in Copenhagen, Simonsen et al. (2019) observed that strong Islamophobic sentiment was supported by welfare nationalism based on ethnic homogeneity. Focusing upon the public debate about Park 51, an Islamic community centre located close to the World Trade Center in New York City, Ruez (2012) observed several Islamophobic discourses being employed to oppose it being developed. Side-stepping the focus on mosque conflicts, Hancock (2020) has considered contestations over places to pray in local neighbourhoods in Paris and points to the issues that can arise when Islam is seen as a culture rather than a religion. Interconnected with this research has been work that has focused on specific institutional contexts – such as university campuses (e.g. Hopkins, 2010; Jones, 2014; Possamai et al., 2016, 2017). Much of the geographical research about Islamophobia is located within cities where diverse ethnic and religious groups come into regular contact (e.g. Gale & Naylor, 2002; Nagel & Hopkins, 2010). Important work has focused on contexts such as Sydney (Itaoui, 2016; Itaoui & Dunn, 2017), Amsterdam (Shaker, 2021; Shaker et al., 2021, 2023), San Francisco (Itaoui, 2020; Itaoui et al, 2021), Paris (Hancock, 2020; Hancock and Mobillion, 2019), Copenhagen (Koefoed & Simonsen, 2011; Simonsen, 2015), Aligarh (Mehdi, 2023) and London (Najib & Hopkins, 2020), with Najib (2022) producing one of the first book-length explorations of spatialized Islamophobia focusing on Paris and London. Commentaries have also documented Islamophobia in India, Myanmar, China, and Kazakhstan (Koch & Vora, 2020).

Although much research focuses on large diverse cities, a small strand of work has drawn attention to rural or more marginal contexts where issues of Islamophobia resurface. For example, Jones (2012) discusses the visible absence yet physical presence of Muslims in rural Wales and the possible exclusions that result from this. Gorman and Culcasi (2021) observe the convergence of Islamophobia and anti-refugee sentiment in the context of Syrian refugees arriving in West Virginia where discourses of invasion and colonization feed into stereotypical assumptions that their arrival poses an urgent threat to local communities. Related concerns can be seen in the work by Fritzsche and Nelson (2020) in Montana and by Nagel (2016) in South Carolina.

Within research about Islamophobia – and drawing on the important feminist foundations of much of this research – a key focus has been on the gendered nature of Islamophobia and interpersonal racism (e.g. Hancock, 2015; Mehdi, 2023; Mohammad, 2013; Schenk et al., 2022) as much research finds that women are more likely to be victims of Islamophobia than men (e.g. Ali & Hopkins, 2012; Hopkins, 2016). The politics and practices of veiling has been a key focus of inquiry for much research (e.g. Dwyer, 1999; Hancock, 2015; Kwan, 2008; Listerborn, 2015; Mansson McGinty, 2014; Najib & Hopkins, 2019; Soltani et al., 2022) and Mansson McGinty (2020) has advanced an important approach to embodied Islamophobia that pays attention to the emotional and lived experiences of anti-Muslim hatred in everyday life. Moreover, focusing on the experiences of British Muslim women in the cultural and creative industries, Warren (2019, 2022) has documented how they challenge Islamophobia and sexism.

The geopolitics of 9/11 and the ‘war on terror’ were a key catalyst for the emergence of work about Islamophobia with early scholarship pointing to the intensification of Islamophobia after 9/11 (Dunn et al., 2007; Dunn & Hopkins, 2016; Gale, 2004; Hopkins et al, 2007; Kwan, 2008; Najib and Teeple Hopkins, 2020). Not surprisingly, a focus on political matters has been a key feature of research about geographies of Islamophobia. For example, Gökarıksel and Smith (2017) have charted the collective resistance to Trump’s executive actions, including his racist and Islamophobic rhetoric (see also Gökarıksel, 2017 on Trump’s ‘Muslim ban’), Burrell et al. (2016) have considered the ways in which racism and Islamophobia shaped the Brexit vote in the UK (see also Isakjee & Lorne, 2019), and Botterill et al. (2016) have considered the ways in which the Scottish independence referendum threatened the ontological security of ethnic minority groups, including Muslims. Related work has also explored discourses of security and securitization (Botterill et al., 2019; Staeheli & Nagel, 2006), citizenship and belonging (e.g. Mannson McGinty, 2012), and how Islamophobia shaped political participation and engagement (Finlay & Hopkins, 2019, 2020). More broadly, significant geopolitics events – such as the ongoing situation in Palestine – as well as those labelled as ‘terrorist’ incidents always lead to an increase in incidents of Islamophobia around the world. Recent counts have found a tenfold and sevenfold increase in Islamophobic incidents in Australia and the UK respectively, and a 216% increase in the US, since 7th October 2023, compared to the same time last year.

Scholars have often worked collaboratively with Muslim organizations and groups in their work about geographies of Islamophobia. For example, Mansson McGinty et al. (2013) worked with Muslim leaders on the Muslim Milwaukee project and Najib (2022) collaborated with organizations who measure and monitor Islamophobic incidents to map their location. Geographers’ work in this area has often involved working closely with community groups and ant-racist organizations and has included a significant applied element with work seeking to influence policy or contribute to social change and transformation.

Moreover, research in this area – much of it inspired by feminist geographies – has also brought with it a heightened sensitivity to issues of ethics and positionality in research. Mohammad (2001) provides a critical and engaging insight into the complexities of positionality and the multiple positions of insider and outsider she occupied in her earlier research. In my own work, I have considered the complexity of positionality and made the point that whilst it is important to critically reflect on these issues, it is also crucial to think about what we are researching and why (Hopkins, 2009). More recently, Koefoed and Simonsen (2022) reflected upon their work with Danish Muslims to consider issues of emotions and positionality in the field including in relation to concerns such as scepticism and suspicion, mutual prejudices, and anxiety and immersion. Moreover, Kapinga et al. (2022) in work in the Netherlands reflect on the utility of 'positionality meetings' as a way to deepen and enrich appreciations of these issues in research.

Having mapped out the key issues discussed in the literature on spaces of Islamophobia, I now move on to discuss my own research into Islamophobia and my attempts to practise anti-Islamophobic geographies.

Researching Islamophobia to practise anti-Islamophobia

Much of my work over the last twenty-five years has sought to expose and challenge racism and Islamophobia with most of this work focusing upon the Scottish context (e.g. Finlay & Hopkins, 2019, 2020; Gale, 2004, 2007, 2008, 2021; Hopkins et al., 2017). A key issue here has been a tendency to adopt a position of Scottish exceptionalism (Hopkins, 2021) whereby issues of racism and Islamophobia are displaced onto England (Hopkins & Smith, 2008). The implication here is that concerns about racism are assumed to be a problem confined only to multicultural cities south of the border in England, and therefore are either absent from – or of very minimal concern to – Scottish society. Arshad (2020, p. 8) points to the preference to talk about more palatable issues such as ‘culture’ rather than race in Scotland alongside a ‘do not see colour or difference’ approach which promotes the idea that everyone should be treated the same. Moreover, Miles and Dunlop (1987) observed the lack of a racialization of the political process in Scotland compared to England as matters associated with race and racism were rarely discussed in Scotland yet were more commonly a feature of politics in England. Likewise, de Lima (2003) has noted that there is limited evidence of the successful integration of debates on race and ethnicity within social policy in Scotland. Furthermore, the issue of sectarianism between Catholics and Protestants in Scotland is often pointed to a serious issue (Goodall et al., 2015) and something worthy of more attention compared to concerns about racism and Islamophobia.

The inclination to deflect, displace and disengage from the topic of racism in Scotland (Hopkins, 2016) has presented an important set of challenges for me in this work over the last twenty-five years. Much research has documented the problem of racism and Islamophobia in Scotland (e.g. Harris, 2018; Hussain & Miller, 2006; Smith, 1993) so there is already a clear evidence base pointing to this as a serious concern. Plus, like several geographers (e.g. Pain et al., 2011), I have always been committed to different forms of public geographies (e.g. Jones et al., 2023) and to undertaking research that – where appropriate – has relevance for policy and practice. I have always tried to disseminate research findings beyond the academy in a diversity of formats that are meaningful and accessible for the audience they are intended for. Joseph-Salisbury and Connelly (2021, p. 71) discuss the utility and usefulness of academic scholarship and note that ‘work is useful if it helps to empower communities of resistance and if it fuels anti-racism’. This is not always easy to do as some institutions, departments, and heads of departments do not value such an approach and funding for such work is not always easy to come by. For example, early in my career, my first head of department strongly advised me against getting involved in ‘engagement’ or in work with local communities. Yet, activities like this have been a central tenet of my work since my doctoral studies, and over the years, I have become more effective at this work by adopting strategies such as including funds for community organizations in grant applications, producing short accessible reports and summaries of research findings (and including costs for this in funding applications), writing for – and sharing research findings with – non-academic audiences through relevant outlets, or collaborating with organizations or groups to build capacity or contribute to a specific initiative they were working on.

Accessible writing is ‘politically important’ (Joseph-Salisbury & Connelly, 2021, p. 79) and extends the potential readership of our scholarship. Where possible I always produce a short report of project findings that is written in an accessible style with minimal academic jargon to be shared with potentially interested audiences. For example, after conducting a lot of qualitative research with ethnic and religious minority young people in a school in inner-city Glasgow (Hopkins et al., 2017), and in conversation with the Depute Headteacher that we were working with, I collaborated with her class to produce a short guide about involving young people in social research (see Hopkins et al. 2017). The content of the guide was devised by the students, and I secured funding to have the guide designed and printed, and for the class to participate in a residential where they visited Newcastle University, met the ‘designer’ of the guide, and made final decisions about the colour scheme and title. We also collectively shared and presented the guide to the Children’s and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland in Edinburgh, and with the Director of Education for Glasgow City Council including the Council’s Education Services Research Group who review all requests to conduct research in schools in the city. This guide continues to be used by Glasgow City Council where all applicants are encouraged to consult it when applying for approval to conduct research in schools in the city.

Building on my collaborative work, I have frequently sought to contribute research evidence to relevant parliamentary, government, or other inquiries. Evidence from my collaborative research was submitted to the House of Lords (2018, 2020) Review of Citizenship and Civic Engagement and the Select Committee on Democracy and Digital Technologies both of which included reference to our research in their final reports. Also, Katherine Botterill gave verbal evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s Equality and Human Rights Committee inquiry into school bullying drawing upon findings from on our joint research (e.g. Botterill et al., 2016, 2019; Hopkins et al., 2017; Sanghera et al., 2018) and the Education Institute for Scotland (EIS) published guidance about challenging anti-Muslim prejudice based on this too.

In another example, I submitted evidence to the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims (in Westminster) call for evidence to produce a definition of Islamophobia and they referred to our submission especially around the issue of people experiencing Islamophobia as a result of being mistaken for being Muslim. This definition has been adopted by all the political parties in Scotland and most of those in England (but not the Conservative Party) with several local councils, universities, and other organizations also signing-up to the definition (All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims, 2018). Following this, I also worked with a local councillor in Newcastle upon Tyne, who proposed to Newcastle City Council that they adopt the APPG definition of Islamophobia. Those present in the Council Chamber unanimously resolved to adopt the definition. Also focused on the North East of England, based on collaborative research about anti-Muslim hatred in the region (Hopkins & Clayton, 2020), I contacted the MP for Newcastle North, Catherine McKinnell, and suggested she submit written questions to Parliament about what the government is doing to address racism and Islamophobia in general, and racism against Muslim women. These questions were subsequently addressed.

More recently still, the APPG on Religion in the Media opened a call for evidence in early 2020 focused on the challenges of religious literacy. They wanted to know more about this term, what the impacts of a lack of religious literacy has on broadcast and/or print media, and, amongst other things, when, where and how religious literacy is learnt. The final report included points from our submission about the ways in which a lack of religious literacy can lead to harmful stereotypes being reinforced about different religious groups, and how specific religious groups become homogenized and associated with negative practices, attitudes, or beliefs (All Party Parliamentary Group on Religion in the Media, 2021). It also referred to our observations that a lack of religious literacy can lead to specific religions being marginalized and to them receiving little or no attention, which can in turn promote the idea that all minority groups are Muslims and therefore likely to be misrecognized as such (Hopkins et al., 2017)

Other examples were not as successful and some calls for submissions or inquiries that we lodged evidence with did not lead to specific outputs or recommendations. For example, I led on submitting evidence to the UK Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry into Islamophobia as they were seeking evidence on the extent of Islamophobia in British society, the impact of the adoption of a definition of it, and the role of politics. Although this inquiry started to review the evidence and held a couple of evidence gathering sessions, it had to stop as the 2019 election that led to the appointment of Boris Johnston as Prime Minister was forthcoming. The evidence has not been revisited since then leaving the inquiry dormant. I now move on to explore the work I was involved in to establish a new Cross Party Group in the Scottish Parliament on tackling Islamophobia.

Cross Party Group on Tackling Islamophobia

In 2017, Robin Finlay and I visited the Scottish Parliament to meet with Anas Sarwar MSP who represents the Glasgow Region and is one of the leading politicians from a Muslim background in Scotland (and who has since been elected as the Leader of the Scottish Labour Party). We met with him to share the findings of our research about Muslim youth and political participation in Scotland (Finlay & Hopkins, 2019, 2020, 2024; Finlay et al., 2017a, 2017b). We intentionally produced a short, accessible report from the research (Finlay et al., 2017a) with key summary points – with the intention that this might be more likely to be read by non-academic audiences – rather than only writing up journal articles from the research. The report showcases the findings of a study that involved 38 participants (34 of whom were young Muslims) participating in 27 individual interviews and 3 focus groups. Most of those who took part lived in Glasgow and the sample was balanced in terms of gender with 19 men and 19 women participating. A key finding from our analysis focused upon the complex impacts that Islamophobia had on the political engagements of young Muslims’:

Through conceptualising Islamophobia as a form of governmentality ... we demonstrate that when it intersects with political participation, it can discipline and marginalise political agency, but it can also engender political resistance. We argue that its impacts are varied and paradoxical, with some responding and challenging Islamophobia through active political participation; while for others, Islamophobia is a significant barrier to participation that works to marginalise and limit young Muslim political agency (Finlay & Hopkins, 2020, p. 548).

In discussing our findings about Islamophobia with Anas Sarwar MSP, he said he was eager to raise the profile of these issues in the Scottish Parliament and wanted to share a copy of the report with all MSPs. We drafted written questions for submission through Anas Sarwar’s parliamentary office; these focused on the omission of Islamophobia from key initiatives on race; the gendered nature of Islamophobia, and its role in political participation. These questions were subsequently addressed by the Scottish Parliament and Sarwar’s parliamentary assistant ensured that every MSP received a copy of our report.

Following this, I collaborated with Anas Sarwar to set up a Cross Party Group (CPG) on Tackling Islamophobia in the Scottish Parliament. CPGs are not part of the formal processes involved in parliamentary business and so do not have any power to introduce issues formally to the system of government. However, they do provide opportunities for MSPs to engage with external stakeholders and they must be approved by the Standard, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for approval. This group soon became one of the largest and most active in the Scottish Parliament with meetings every 2–3 months for the next three years focusing on key factors shaping Islamophobia in Scotland including: reporting, policing, media representation, educational issues, employment practices, gender issues, and rural and urban experiences.

The CPG prioritized a focus on media issues as the membership of the group highlighted this as a key issue as has also been demonstrated in much research (Saeed, 2007; Zempi & Awan, 2016). Working with an experienced journalist and former BBC Executive Producer, we produced a set of media guidelines about reporting on Islam and Muslims (Mir & Hopkins, 2019) with funding from my department’s ‘Impact Funds’ to support this work. These guidelines were produced for those working in print, broadcast, and digital media, and we were clear that ‘reporting’ could relate to any form of journalism such as a broadcaster, reporter, picture editor, columnist, writer, commentator, blogger, editor, correspondent, or news presenter. The guidelines were organized around the acronym PART – portrayal, accuracy, representation, and terminology. These guidelines were launched through the CPG and endorsed by the National Union of Journalists.

In helping to set up this new CPG, I was able to utilize the findings of research to help shape dialogue about how to tackle Islamophobia in Scotland. Many of the meetings involved members of the Scottish Muslim community – or those involved in equalities work – sharing lived experiences or discussing processes and procedures about how to report, challenge, and resist Islamophobia. There was a strong sense amongst those who participated that the group provided a unique opportunity for the Scottish Muslim community to come together to discuss Islamophobia in the presence of politicians and other representatives, and that it provided a valuable forum for the sharing of lived experiences. It was through these conversations that the idea to conduct the first ever inquiry into Islamophobia in Scotland emerged.

Inquiry into Islamophobia

The idea for an inquiry into Islamophobia in Scotland emerged from discussions within the Cross Party Group on Tackling Islamophobia where there was a strong feeling that there was a need for an overview of the situation regarding Islamophobia in Scotland. There was also a sense from the group that there was clear evidence of Islamophobia being an issue in Scotland given the experiences of the organizations and individuals involved in the CPG but that this evidence was disparate, spread across different groups and lacking in a cohesive narrative. The feeling was that it would be useful to have a comprehensive overview of Islamophobia in Scotland. Off the back of these ideas, I applied for and secured funding to facilitate an inquiry into Islamophobia under the auspices of the CPG.

The inquiry into Islamophobia in Scotland asked individuals and organizations about the nature and extent of Islamophobia, the role of the media, the impact on children, young people and families and what steps could be taken to challenge and overcome Islamophobia. A survey was distributed through the CPG membership and other networks, and written responses were invited from organizations and individuals across Scotland with an interest in tackling Islamophobia. 15 written submissions were received from organizations and agencies in Scotland, and 447 respondents completed the online survey. Of those responding to the survey, 78% identified with the Islamic faith, and of these 57% are male and 43% are female. Just under 60% of respondents had a Glasgow postcode and 16% an Edinburgh postcode, and there were several responses from Aberdeen, Dundee, Falkirk, Kirkcaldy, and Motherwell.

The final report of the inquiry outlined the nature and extent of Islamophobia in Scotland. Overall, 78% of Muslim respondents said that Islamophobia was getting worse, and this increased to 82% of Muslim respondents with a Glasgow postcode. 75% of Muslims said that Islamophobia is a regular or everyday issue in Scottish society, and 83% of Muslim respondents had experienced Islamophobia directly with verbal abuse being the most frequently mentioned form. Over 80% of all Muslim respondents to the inquiry have a friend or family member who has experienced Islamophobia and Muslim women were more likely to experience Islamophobia than men. In terms of the location of Islamophobia, the street was the most referred to, after which it was public spaces such as shops, restaurants, or public transport, then at work and places of education. Of all respondents, 31% recalled experiencing Islamophobia at work, 18% at school and 13% at college or university. For those under 30 years of age, 45% recall incidents of Islamophobia at school, and this falls to 29% at college or university. There were also concerns expressed about experiencing Islamophobia through attacks on mosques and religious buildings.

Less than a quarter of those who recounted experiencing Islamophobia had reported it to the police (22%) and for those who did report, rarely did they feel that their complaint was taken seriously. There was a clear lack of confidence in the police and in the justice system with some pointing to concerns about institutional racism. Many responses to the inquiry held the view that reports of Islamophobia would not be taken seriously due to a lack of evidence, scale, or knowledge, with some noting that it was too subtle or covert to be addressed by police. The inquiry also explored the factors that people felt enabled Islamophobia. Many of the issues identified focused on political issues such as concerns about far-right politics, Brexit, Scottish politics, politicians, and elections, as well as military intervention and counter-terrorism policies, terrorist incidents, and politics and austerity. Nearly nine out of every ten respondents to the inquiry felt that the print and broadcast media promote Islamophobia with social media also being identified as a key agent.

The inquiry findings also pointed to serious concerns about the impact of Islamophobia on Scottish society with around 74% claiming it had an impact on the educational outcomes of Muslims and 88% feeling it shaped the employment opportunities of Muslims in Scotland. In schools, specific concerns were expressed about increasing Islamophobia, both from teachers and from pupils. When it comes to employment, many respondents felt that they were less likely to be shortlisted for jobs or considered for promotion due to their faith. Concerns were also expressed about Islamophobia limiting Muslims’ access to public services, restricting the extent to which they engage in politics, and their general sense of safety and security in their local communities.

Forty-five recommendations were set out in the final report of the inquiry and the launch led to a flurry of coverage in the Scottish press as well as radio interviews. The inquiry was referred to in First Ministers’ Questions in the Scottish Parliament and written questions were addressed too. However, progress against the objectives has been slow. As I write this paper, we have produced an updated version of the inquiry recommendations - focused on education, gender, and the media - in the hope that we might see some actions taken to address Islamophobia in these domains (Hopkins, 2023). Further written questions have been submitted to the Scottish Parliament and a meeting with the Scottish Government and relevant ministers is being planned. I now critically reflect upon some of the issues involved in doing this work and consider how we might move towards a more anti-Islamophobic discipline.

Conclusion: towards anti-Islamophobic geographies

In this paper, I have considered the key contributions to research about spaces of Islamophobia reflecting on the focus on issues of religion, gender, and politics, noting the importance of feminist contributions to this scholarship. I then explored my engagement with public geographies of racism and Islamophobia discussing the diverse ways in which I have sought to engage with different non-academic audiences and reflected upon the work to set up the Cross Party Group on Tackling Islamophobia in the Scottish Parliament and the outcomes of the inquiry into Islamophobia that we established through this group. As I hope this paper makes clear, in seeking to tackle issues of racism and Islamophobia in Scotland, I have never been content to do research, publish from it, and move on to a different project. Instead, I have also always tried to bring about change – often in small ways – using the findings of research. I have often been inspired by Collins (2013, p. 42) who notes that ‘the overarching goal of scholarship in service to social justice is not to explain social inequality or social injustice, but to foster social justice, to bring about some sort of change’. By way of conclusion, I critically reflect upon my position as an anti-racist geographer working in academia and then consider some of the ways in which we could work towards transforming the discipline into one that promotes anti-Islamophobic geographies.

In reflecting upon this work, I recognize that I occupy a somewhat ambiguous position in what Joseph-Salisbury and Connelly (2021, p. 3) refer to as ‘the neoliberal-imperial-institutionally-racist university’. I have rarely thought of myself as an anti-racist scholar activist as this ‘is more usefully thought of as something one does, rather than something that one is’ (Joseph-Salisbury & Connelly, 2021, p. 33). In reflecting upon my practising of anti-Islamophobia, I have come to realize that I have been engaging in what Joseph-Salisbury and Connelly (2021, p. 3) refer to as ‘constructive complicity’ with respect to my position in the university. Although they point to the barriers and challenges presented to those engaged in anti-racist scholar activism, they also note that there ‘remain pockets of contradiction and possibility within the contemporary university’. I have sought to utilize these pockets of possibility and opportunity to undertake work that promotes anti-racism and anti-Islamophobia. Whilst being complicit with institutional regulations, policies, and processes, I have also tried to find ‘the openings that we can exploit; to fighting back; to putting our resources, status, and privileges to work in service to anti-racism’ (Joseph-Salisbury & Connelly, 2021, p. 3).

Added to my constructive complicity, I have also been engaging in what Joseph-Salisbury and Connelly (2021, p. 97) refer to as ‘strategic duplicity’. They note that.

‘academics can secure funds for communities of resistance in a variety of ways including: through the inclusion of payments on (internal and external) research funding applications; by framing activism as/through Research Excellence Framework (REF) Impact activities, and through university community engagement or social responsibility funding streams’ (Joseph-Salisbury & Connelly, 2021, p. 97).

Some of the pockets of possibility where I have practised strategic duplicity include applying for funding initiatives available at different levels within the university for anti-racist and anti-Islamophobic work, through using the REF as a mechanism for doing this work, and through utilizing university engagement priorities to secure additional funding. For example, the Institute for Social Renewal at Newcastle University had a funding stream linked to the vision of Martin Luther King that we used to secure funding to conduct anti-racist research with Muslim youth about political participation. The Faculty in which I work have regular calls for ESRC impact funding and my home subject area of Geography has annual funds available for impact and engagement work which I was able to access easily as I was identified to lead on an impact case study for REF2021.

Joseph-Salisbury and Connelly (2021, p. 140) note that there is a need for a ‘constant critical reflexivity around the gains and concessions of our actions’ and that those engaged in exploiting pockets of possibility need to consider how they are working to ‘(partially) mitigate, offset, and utilize the complicities that arise from affiliating with institutional power for the benefits of anti-racism’ (Joseph-Salisbury & Connelly, 2021, p. 3). A key factor for me here has always been around what I am doing and why I am doing it. This is where Pulido (2008) usefully remind us of the importance of accountability with the key accountability being to anti-racism and anti-Islamophobia. So, alongside engaging strategically with pockets of possibility, I have always kept an eye firmly on the key issue at hand – that is, addressing racism and Islamophobia – and I have found myself asking questions frequently about what my work is doing to challenge racism and to overcome Islamophobia.

When I discuss my research and engagement work about Islamophobia, I am often asked by other researchers and academics what they can do to challenge Islamophobia and to be anti-racist in their own work. I end this article with some thoughts on what we could consider doing to move towards a discipline that challenges Islamophobia and is explicitly anti-Islamophobic. This is even more important given that recent work has pointed to the ‘prevalent, far reaching and evermore emboldened’ nature of Islamophobia on university campuses (Akel, 2021, p. 5). Islamophobia can emerge on our campuses as Muslim students become associated with suspicion and regarded as a threat to security (Guest et al., 2020). Islamophobia can also be perpetuated with the discipline of geography through a wide range of mechanisms, processes, and forums. These can include the ways in which it might feature in the decisions made by hiring committees or job interview panels, whether support is offered for promotion or tenure, what material is included in geography courses, who is admitted onto postgraduate programmes or is awarded scholarships to support their studies, who is invited to speak at conferences or to act as a discussant, or who finds themselves invited into key academic networks. Islamophobia can operate to marginalize and silence those who experience it, leading them to withdraw from engaging with the discipline or perhaps deciding they do not want to be a part of geography. I consider it an urgent issue that we consider ways to make geography more explicitly anti-Islamophobic in order to overcome these exclusionary tendencies within the discipline. However, it is important to note that I am wary of calls to decolonize as there can be a tendency for such initiatives to re-centre whiteness (see Doharty et al., 2021) yet a key challenge for geography remains the decentring of whiteness as Nassar (2023) reminds us. Moreover, I am also wary of approaches that avoid naming the issue at hand (i.e. racism and Islamophobia).

First, we must focus on being anti-Islamophobic and anti-racist. It is important to take up such a position as only being ‘not Islamophobic’ or ‘not racist’ is not enough (Kendi, 2020). This involves being active in our anti-Islamophobic stance and practising anti-Islamophobia rather than adopting a passive approach that assumes there is no problem in our discipline or in our universities or departments. Second, we can promote anti-racism – including work to challenge Islamophobia – in our teaching, such as through our engagement with students in the classroom, on fieldtrips, through their dissertation research, and in who we admit to study on our degrees. Peake and Kobayashi (2002) have already proposed this in their agenda for anti-racism, but we need to include Islamophobia as part of this. This will involve asking difficult questions, raising issues that may be deemed controversial, sensitive, and emotional, whilst adding to the ‘disciplinary fragility’ (Esson & Last, 2020, p. 672) of geography.

Third, we can focus on promoting anti-Islamophobia through our research and wider disciplinary research cultures. Peake and Kobayashi (2002) discussed appointing more scholars of colour as part of promoting antiracist practice in geography. Practising anti-Islamophobia must involve appointing scholars from Muslim backgrounds or from Muslim-majority countries as well as scholars who work on issues connected to Islamophobia. Ideally, this would take place in the context of Anglo-American geography but also in other institutions across the world where geography is taught so as to ensure that such practices are promoted across the globe. Fourth, part of our strategy could usefully be to engage in a strategy of ‘conscientious engagement’ (Mott & Cockayne, 2017, p. 954) when it comes to citation practices. As Mott and Cockayne (2017, p. 955) note:

Building upon bell hooks’ (1984) conception of the ‘neo-colonial white supremacist capitalist patriarchy,’ we use the term ‘white heteromasculinism’ to refer to an intersectional system of oppression describing on-going processes that bolster the status of those who are white, male, able-bodied, economically privileged, heterosexual, and cisgendered.

They point to the significance of citation practices as a way of reinforcing power and control in the discipline and suggest that careful citation practices – including for example, citations to emerging researchers or to scholars from marginalized groups – can promote inclusion and diversity in the discipline. Perhaps it would be useful to practise anti-Islamophobic citation practices rather than those that reinforce the discipline as white, non-Muslim, and Anglo-American. Finally – and crucially – we can be sensitized to – and challenge the presence of Islamophobia in our institutions, within initiatives and policies in our universities, in our departmental meetings, and amongst those we work closely with. We know that racism and Islamophobia are institutionalized and so addressing everyday interpersonal forms of Islamophobia will only get us so far. Change is more likely if we address the structural and institutional factors that promote and maintain Islamophobia.

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Mark Boyle for inviting me to present the Space and Polity lecture at the RGS-IBG Annual Conference in London in September 2023 and to those who asked thought provoking and engaging questions. All of the projects discussed in this paper received ethical approval from the Faculty of Humanities and Social Science Ethics Committee. Many thanks to Heather Smith and two members of the journal editorial team for their constructive and engaging comments on an earlier draft.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The work with Muslim youth about political participation was supported by the Arts and Humanities Research Council [grant number AH/K000594/1] and the Institute for Social Renewal at Newcastle University. The work to develop media guidelines with the CPG was funded by the Geography Impact Fund and both the public inquiry research and research in the North East was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council, Impact Acceleration Account Grant [ES/T501827/1], both Newcastle University. Many thanks to the Leverhulme Trust for the award of a Major Fellowship [MRF-2022-112] which provided me with the time to commit to writing this paper.

Notes on contributors

Peter Hopkins

Peter Hopkins is Professor of Social Geography at Newcastle University where his main research interests focus upon everyday Islamophobia, refugee experiences, and childhood and youth research.