A methodological emphasis on mess can be understood as a critique of what Law and Singleton call “methodological managerialism” (2005: 333). The latter is a form of knowledge production that is attuned to order, but that ironically makes a mess in seeking clarity. Rather than engaging a “nice and regular” world that clearly fits existing academic categories, projects that take the inconveniences and irregularities of mess seriously are able to explore how the object of analysis is enacted in ways that are both complex and multiple (Ibid: 333-334). This challenges managerial accounts that produce neat categories into which people, places, and things must fit. It also challenges the notion of “research design” in the conventional sense (Lobo-Guerrero, Chapter 2), which implies rationalist modes of knowing and a linear or neatly cyclical conception of the research process. Attuning our methodological approach to mess, in other words, can be a way to engage in research around a concrete object, without presuming that we know what we are talking about. In the case of the research that I draw on here, this object was sanctuary.