1 Introduction
Despite its ubiquitous presence in the Western academic literature, the concept of knowledge cultures (KC) has not yet been used in studying community university research partnerships (CURP). As explained in the first chapter, our work across the K4C Consortium makes us particularly interested in understanding KC in the context of CURP. In the mainstream literature, KC is often defined in relation to a unified or single organisational arrangement to indicate, for instance, how organisational culture affects the way knowledge is valued and shared (Mas Machuca & Martínez-Costa, 2012), a set of organising
In the Introduction, we briefly defined KC as the set of formal and informal roles, structures, norms and practices, shared meanings and cultural forms (e.g., language, symbols, rituals), which influence how knowledge is understood, valued, assembled, shared and acted upon in a specific setting. In this chapter, we aim to further elaborate this definition in a manner adequate to capture the intrinsic complexity of KC, and to develop an analytical framework which considers both the role of the CURP context, as well as the different settings in which the BKC project takes place. The overarching goal of the BKC project is to contribute to a transformative change that reconfigures system dynamics and CURP power relationships. Our conceptualisation of KC therefore needs to account for tensions and conflicts that may emerge between partner organisations operating with unequal power while determining how voices, expertise and knowledge are valued and amplified (or lost) in the research process, as well as how decisions are made regarding how, when and to whom research is communicated.
To develop a framework for the analysis of KC in diverse settings and geographical regions, we began with an examination of existing definitions of KC, which is available primarily in the Western academic literature in the organisational context and in cultural and social studies, where the term KC is used productively. We also relied on studies about occupational culture that offer an alternative perspective to the study of KC. In recognising the limitations of looking solely to the Western academic literature, we then review insights from four regional syntheses produced by K4C members involved in the BKC project, which describe knowledge processes based on their respective local literatures and community contexts. Methodologically, this ensures value alignment with the proposed framework being able to address how the diverse ways of knowing in communities, social movements and community organisations are validated, and not seeing higher education institutions (HEI) as the only places where ‘real’ knowledge is created. We conclude this chapter by offering a definition of KC and describing our proposed analytical framework.
2
Western literature provides several theoretical groundings of KC primarily from an organisational perspective and, as such, deals with considerations of KC within a closed or limited system (Dickinson, 2013; Dilmaghani et al., 2015). For example, Oliver and Reddy Kandadi (2006) developed a framework to account for ten factors affecting the KC of an organisation, including organisational structure, leadership, reward systems and time allocation. Their key argument is that effective KC must be nurtured through careful consideration of each of these factors. The authors show that the physical configuration of the work environment can facilitate how knowledge is shared within an organisation. Developing a KC requires sufficient allocation of time for learning, collaboration and sharing, including supporting communication infrastructures. The creation of hybrid positions combining functional role and task-based job responsibilities related to knowledge processes allows for everybody to be involved in the spread of the KC throughout an organisation. The findings of this study are useful to our conceptualisation of KC in that they acknowledge some of the logistical and day-to-day contexts that either support or hinder successful collaboration between research partners in the context of CURP.
Continuing from this argument, Svetlana & Jucevičius (2011) put forth that KC is a multi-level structure, combining “cultural features (culture), typical to organisations (organisational culture) that stress the importance of knowledge and its effective management (organisational knowledge culture)” (p. 533). The authors argue that KC entails attributes at each of these three levels, including artifacts, i.e., the physical environment, creations, rituals, etc.; espoused values, i.e., the settled ways of accepted norms, attitudes and beliefs; and basic assumptions, i.e., the basic values accepted without proof. Svetlana & Jucevičius (ibid.) make a useful contribution to our own conceptualisation of KC, as the co-construction of knowledge in the context of CURP typically involves different structural/institutional levels, and these different spheres are not limited to either ideas and beliefs, or a physical infrastructure.
Mas Machuca and Martínez-Costa (2012) suggest that KC consists of “trust, transparency, flexibility, collaboration, commitment, honesty and professionalism” (p. 30). Specifically, they find that trust is the most relevant value in a KC, followed by transparency and flexibility. The authors observe that groups of values (called ‘cultural factors’) support people to share what they know. The study shows that KC is made up of values that exist not in isolation but those that interact with each other, creating (or not) a trustworthy atmosphere. This is relevant to the study of CURP, where stakeholders – each with their own values, biases and interests – engage with each other in
Among the key global developments of the 21st century is the shift towards knowledge-based economies whose continuous growth depends on generating new knowledge from existing knowledge (Chorev & Ball, 2022). It is no surprise that in this context, knowledge management emerges as a prevalent academic discipline to “explain how it enables organisational learning and innovation” (Syed et al., 2018, p. 2). Over time, KC has become adopted as a key principle of knowledge management by most companies, as well as within the knowledge management literature (Miklosik et al., 2019). KC is equated with business culture in general, where existing KC is deployed as mediator in the implementation of knowledge management systems and routines (Ahmad & Hossain, 2018).
Travica (2013) provides a definition of KC and framework that serves as a useful heuristic to identify requirements for knowledge management processes in organisations. The author proposes the following basic definition: “Knowledge culture is a form of organisational culture that combines elements of individualistic, group and macro-organisational cultures to facilitate a heedful management of the entire knowledge management process” (p. 95). This definition puts emphasis on a combination of micro-, meso-, and macro-cultural aspects that facilitate and represent knowledge production activities (e.g., knowledge generation, validation, diffusion, utilisation and evaluation) and forms of knowledge that correspond to different types of organisation (i.e., bureaucracy, decentralised companies, small business and universities, and project-driven firms). Travica’s work aligns particularly well with our understanding that KC entails values, beliefs and assumptions, while also depending on structural supporting factors. Travica’s approach to KC is, however, less suitable to capture, identify or address the power dynamics inherent in CURP, where at least two partner organisations meet.
Related to knowledge management, the novel notion of knowledge governance proposes that “understanding rules around knowledge-based processes can help navigate complex relationships between science and practice”
Tsouvalis et al. (2000) address the inherent rules of what counts as ‘legitimate knowledge’, which is a contentious aspect within CURP as research partners often have dissimilar epistemological and ontological assumptions. Central to their conceptualisation of KC is the notion that it is not a theoretical or technical form of knowledge, but rather that it “provides a means for the interactions with others that instructs them about the cultural significance [an object, practice, or idea] has for the community of which they are a part” (p. 912). The observation that what counts as knowledge is constantly negotiated is relevant to our own understanding of KC in the context of CURP. We agree with Tsouvalis and her colleagues in that the boundaries between diverse forms of knowledge(s) are fluid or porous, and that the processes of knowledge production are either constrained or enabled by the rules, norms and values in which knowledge is created. At the same time, as those authors also suggest, the extant power relations between Western ‘expert’ knowledge and ‘other’ forms of knowledges are not in balance. It is these power imbalances that to date have remained largely unresolved in CURP, and which we argue require a careful exploration of how a KC is conceived of and understood across and between partners. Relatedly, Somers (1999) argues that “claims to knowledge and truth are […] culturally embedded – that is, mediated through symbolic systems and practices” (p. 125). Cultural structures always interact empirically with the political, social or economic structures, which allow some KC to achieve a degree of imprint onto these structures and the subsequent exclusion of other knowledges or KC.
Finally, Peters and Besley (2006) introduce the term KC in their work on higher education, knowledge and economy. The authors specifically focus on
3 Knowledge Culture as a Community of Practice
Over the years, we have come to value CURP as groups of people bonded together by shared expertise and passion for the same type of work, involving values, norms, identities and common meanings – a perspective also reflected in the notion of occupational communities or communities of practice (Wenger & Snyder, 2000; Kalliola & Nakari, 2007). Relevant to the BKC project, such a community generates, maintains and reproduces a distinctive stock of knowledge – its primary ‘output’ – which provides involved individuals with identities and significant reference groups within and outside their respective ‘home’ organisation, i.e., a CSO or HEI (Gregory, 1983; Wenger & Snyder, 2000). It is reasonable to assume that people doing similar work, such as co-producing knowledge within a CURP, have a common jargon, similar approaches to tasks, and a unique repertoire of routines and procedures, symbols, gestures and stories, which define similar attitudes and expectations related to the work to be performed and the context in which it is carried out (Kwantes & Boglarsky, 2007). A community of practice, such as a CURP, certainly contributes to the development of collective identities and sense-making processes. However, as indicated in the preceding sections, it might also hold the potential for conflict and power struggles between the different contributing groups or individuals of the CURP, given that status and control are negotiated between communities within an organisation and involved partners (Bechky, 2006). One
The lens of occupational cultures helps here to shed light on the existence of sub-cultures within and across organisational boundaries, each of them with their own structures of meanings and different ways of developing and maintaining group identity among its members (Gregory, 1983; Kwantes & Blogarsky, 2007). The inherent values and ideologies, i.e., feelings that are often unconscious and manifested trough practices or cultural forms such as symbols, heroes and rituals, are at the core of any culture (Hofstede et al., 1990; Trice, 1993). In our case, we will refer to these as occupational and organisational (sub)-dimensions of KC s, as they are practiced within the context of a CURP, such as the different K4C hubs contributing in the BKC project.
Practices are of course carried out by individuals or groups of people, and KC may be seen as “a constitutive force that operates in the interface between political-economic efforts and individuals’ agency” (Nerland, 2012, p. 27). KC thus exists through the structures and processes used to organise knowledge and express themselves through shared practices. This observation can be extended to the context of the BKC project, with the organisational member of each K4C hub representing a site of practice where individuals learn as well as replicate and express their respective KC. We believe that fundamental to building trust-based and equitable knowledge partnerships is the recognition by all parties involved in the co-construction of knowledge of the differences in their respective KC. Failure to understand that the ways knowledge is validated and used differ in academic and non-academic settings contributes to a perpetuation of the power imbalances noted above, and places a roadblock on the bridges to working together. The development of an analytical framework for the study of KC in the context of CURP, especially if they involve organised communities (e.g., non-for-profit organisations) with a particular professional/practical expertise and body of knowledge, must thus provide the possibility to also study conflicts, tensions and power inequalities, as they exist in CURP. We argue that the analysis of KC can contribute to a better understanding of the power relations at play in CURP, and eventually lead to transforming and redressing the extant hierarchies imposed on different knowledges. In turn, this will aid organisations operating from different (even conflicting) worldviews to work together more productively and equitably.
4
Our review of the concept of KC thus far has been sourced from Western academic literatures and an overly Eurocentric knowledge base, which provide useful – but limited – perspectives and elements for the development of an analytical framework for the BKC project. To better reflect the reality and environment of the local K4C hubs and to build a more inclusive understanding of what may constitute a KC beyond the preceding literature review, we felt the need to also draw from the vast wisdom of the diverse academic and non-academic communities that work in the BKC project and the global K4C Consortium. To deepen the notion of what we are calling ‘knowledge cultures’, four regional research teams composed of members of the K4C Consortium were created (Latin America, Africa, South Asia, Global North).1 Using academic and so-called grey literature published in local languages, each team produced a regional synthesis on the typical knowledge production processes (creation, validation, dissemination and use) in local academic and community settings, and extant power inequalities in CURP found in their regions.
In our own work, we use the term community knowledges as a shorthand to differentiate from otherwise Western academic knowledge. One of the dangers in talking about community knowledges of course is to assume that they are very much alike across the world, without sufficient consideration of the linguistic, cultural, experiential and regional diversity of peoples and communities. We intentionally use the plural term knowledges to recognise the significant role the millions of Indigenous peoples and local communities hold in sustaining the diversity of the world’s cultural and biological landscape (UNESCO, n.d.).
Based on the information provided by our K4C partners in their regional syntheses, a variety of ways in which knowledge is created, passed on and shared falls under the big umbrella term community knowledges, such as traditional knowledge, Indigenous knowledge, tacit knowledge, and others. What follows are brief outlines without any claim to being able to do justice to their diversity and richness. The different types of community knowledges introduced here will contribute to our understanding of KC and further inform our conceptual framework.
4.1 Traditional Knowledge
Traditional knowledge (TK) has many definitions, but the central theme consists of cultural beliefs and traditions transmitted orally from generation to generation (Hiebert & Van Rees, 1998). TK can be acquired through firsthand experience, has a spiritual component, is mainly of a practical
4.2 Indigenous Knowledges
Indigenous knowledge is a holistic and inclusive form of knowledge, i.e., cultural traditions, values, beliefs, skills, philosophies, and worldviews, that is the product of Indigenous peoples’ direct experience and their long histories of interaction with their natural surroundings (Dei, 1993; Battiste, 2002; Nakashima et al., 2017; Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2013; Odora Hoppers, 2021; Kambon, 2020). Indigenous knowledges contain linguistic categories, rules and relationships unique to each knowledge system, have localised content and meaning and established customs with respect to acquiring and sharing of knowledge (Battiste, 2002). As indicated by L. Little Bear (2000), an esteemed Blackfoot researcher, educator and First Nations advocate, common generalisations comparing Eurocentric and Indigenous epistemologies include binary classifications such as linear versus cyclical, objective versus subjective, secular versus spiritual, industrial versus nature- and context-based, and fragmentary versus integrated and holistic.
4.3 Latin American Ancestral Knowledge
As proposed by Chamorro and Sicard (2021), Latin American ancestral wisdom is re-created and adapted to different contexts through the transmission from one generation to another. Associated with the Spanish word saberes, ancestral wisdom is traditional knowledge that materialises in social interactions and with the environment in which the transmission occurs. People are understood to be actors in complex networks of interactions that involve social relations, relations with nature and relations with the planet, including the social and natural phenomena that surround the experience (ibid, 2020; Mendiwelso et al., 2020).
4.4 African Indigenous Knowledge Systems
A starting point to define African Indigenous knowledge systems (AIKS) is to conceive of it through cultural heritage (Wyk, 2012). AIKS is a systematic body of knowledge produced and acquired by local people strictly based on their lived experiences and through accumulation of experience, informal experiment and understanding of their environment (Tella, 2007; Zhu & Ringler, 2010). AIKS affect several aspects of the African society and the major influence is experienced within the culture domain, including poems (p’Bitek, 1969; Genis, 2019), proverbs (Mvanyashe, 2019), stories and folktales (Iseke, 2013), as well as dance (Nzewi, 2006). The practices appear supported by experiences between the communities to the physical and the metaphysical domains. Within African communities, practice usually creates norms and themes which in turn result in the generation of a new body of understanding, or knowledge. Importantly, once people’s ways of being are based on learned practices, it is impossible to claim that they lack knowledge (Nyerere, 1967). Odora Hoppers (2021) points out that the value of AIKS resides in the understanding that culture is knowledge.
4.5 Tribal Knowledge Systems in South Asia
The diversity of ethnicities, religions, languages and cultures across South Asia has contributed to unique expressions of tribal community knowledges in this region (Gangadharan, 2021). Indigenous knowledge of tribal communities is both tangible and intangible, and concerns a wide range of topics relevant for local people’s survival, well-being, as well as the equitable management of resources (Reddy, 2011). Appointed individuals often hold vast knowledges relevant to their communities, but this knowledge is also shared within a community through, for example, festivals and ceremonies, so as to sustain the connection between culture, daily practices and knowledge (NIRMAN, 2017; Kardooni et al., 2014). Transferring the knowledge systems from ‘people to people’ reflects the principle of a decentralised knowledge system (Gangadharan, 2021). While all natural resources belong to the Creator, community knowledge lives on through the human experience (Kardooni et al., 2014; Saini, 2016).
4.6
Tacit knowledge – as opposed to formal, codified, or explicit knowledge – is difficult to express or extract, and even more difficult to transfer to others by traditional means of writing it down or verbalising it (Polanyi, 1983). This can include personal wisdom, experience, insight and intuition. In the context of the BKC project, tacit knowledge is used to refer, for instance, to the important and valid knowledge possessed by immigrants, obtained in their home countries either formally or informally, which may be lost or not easily transposed through the process of integration and contribution to their recipient countries and their standards of what knowledge should look, feel or sound like. Experiential knowledge captures an individual’s understanding through direct engagement with the physical, social or intellectual world (Borkman, 1976). Also described as lived experience, experiential knowledge can offer a source of practical and usable techniques to others with similar experiences in supporting their quality of life (Pols, 2014).
4.7 Community Knowledges in Perspective
As evident from the above contributions, community knowledges are local knowledges – i.e., knowledges unique to a given culture, group, or society – that form the basis for local-level decision-making in agriculture, health care, food preparation, education, natural resources management, as well as social, economic and political organisation. Their value stems in part from this localness, not only for the culture and context in, and from, which they evolve, but also for scientists and planners striving to improve conditions in local communities (Warren, 1991). The validity of community knowledges is demonstrated by the survival techniques that have been successfully used by countless generations over time within the local space. It does not, therefore, need to be further authenticated by using the criteria of modern occidental science (e.g., academic peer review process).
Another key takeaway relevant to our conceptualisation of KC is that community knowledges are transmitted through a diversity of conduits: poems, proverbs, documents on land ownership and access, music and dance, practices (harvesting, hunting, housing, planting), religion, ceremonies, arts and crafts, governance, sacred sites, local languages, and more. These different channels and media are essential to form a particular KC. They contribute to building collective memory (Genis, 2019), instilling a sense of pride, and helping to establish an identity (Mvanyashe, 2019). They also foster the nurturing of relationships and the sharing of knowledge in ways consistent with traditional worldviews and cosmologies (Iseke, 2013), ensuring minimal livelihoods for
In the context of CURP, community knowledges may be represented in an organised format (e.g., through an Indigenous organisation partnering with a university), or more informally/unstructured (e.g., through the participation of community-based individuals and families in a research project). Either way, their presence introduces a rich diversity and breaks open the notion of CURP as a self-contained, singular organisation or one-dimensional community of practice, rooted in a single KC. While communities around the world have begun to assert “a kind of cultural and intellectual sovereignty” (Marker, 2019, p. 1), community knowledges remain at risk of being appropriated, suppressed, or marginalised by Western academic KC. Addressing this reality is of utmost importance as we develop our analytical framework for KC.
5 A Conceptual Framework for CURP: Knowledge Culture as a Local Practice
5.1 Defining Knowledge Culture
Using the words of Kollmar-Paulenz (2016), one core value of our project is to ensure that non-European knowledge cultures “do not emerge out of their obscurity and come into existence only in their relation and response to the encounter with Europe” (p. 233). Our conceptualisation of KC is thus grounded in the global diversity of understandings of knowledges. We began our work with a broad notion of KC as the ways in which knowledge is understood, valued, assembled, shared and acted upon in diverse settings, within and outside academia. The foregrounding of the environment that facilitates knowledge production allows knowledge and its production to be understood as a set of practices that comprises aspects of the environment, and with it its social, political, and philosophical categories (Knorr Cetina, 2007). This perspective further reveals the existence of diverging epistemic cultures, or practices, connected with creating and verifying knowledge (Knorr Cetina & Reichmann, 2015). Our review of K4C insights on community knowledges in their wide diversity and range powerfully illustrates this.
Our contribution to the understanding of KC in CURP contexts builds on the groundwork of Knorr Cetina, who defines KC as “the set of practices, arrangements and mechanisms bound together by necessity, affinity and[/or] historical coincidence” (2007, p. 363). This view of KC is echoed in Connell’s (2022) notion of a knowledge formation; that is
a set of concepts, information and intellectual procedures that provides the framework for many specific knowledges and applications and knowledge [that is also] a socially realised episteme [that] involves the set of social practices, organisations and institutions through which the episteme is brought into being, sustained, and developed. (p. 3)
Similarly, Somers (1999) identifies different varieties of KC, that could describe certain practices: KC as the narrative structures that arrange relational elements in temporal and location patterns; KC as patterns of distinction or opposition, such as what criteria determine what is natural versus not-natural; and KC as metanarratives, i.e., naturalised cultural forms, no longer accountable to otherwise applied standards of rigor, and thus becoming “more foundational” knowledge than other knowledge(s) (p. 132).
As shown in Chapter 1, one objective of the BKC project has been to identify how to bridge different KC s. Our theoretical framework thus needs to differentiate the key components of a KC and the processes taking place at each level in a KC. The act of bridging assumes distinct enough entities exist, even if the boundary of each entity remains flexible. In the discussion of KC as a concept used in cultural studies, Liebert (2016) identifies that a KC must have inclusion and exclusion criteria, governing not only the belonging of people to a KC, but also technologies, behaviours and objects. This means that, while the boundaries of a KC may transform through interactions, a KC also is clearly demarcated, even temporarily. The author explains that every KC contains axioms and assumptions that are not questioned, and it entails traditions that structure the recognised forms of storing, passing on, teaching and learning, as well as evaluating KC-specific knowledge. A KC thus is both negotiated and self-referential, able to contemplate inwardly and outwardly. Applied to our exploration of extant power structures in the context of CURP, we expect that community partners and universities both bring preconceived understandings of their respective and the others’ KC to the table, but through the process of knowledge co-creation, one or multiple KC may change. Recognising whose KC is valued, and exploring which side’s traditions of legitimising prevail, will make implicit power inequities salient.
Based on the factors and aspects of the various understandings of KC that emerged from the literature review as relevant to the context of CURP, we thus conceptualise knowledge culture as a set of local value-based practices, rules and beliefs, which, in a given organisation, community, area of professional expertise and/or discipline, create and reinforce shared meanings, expectations, identities and generalised rationales about knowledge production processes (creation, validation, dissemination and use). A knowledge culture as it
5.2 Analytical Framework
With our definition of KC in hand, we now shift our attention to formulating an analytical framework suitable to explore the concept in the context of the BKC project. We recap from the preceding pages that a wide variety of sub-cultures – with their own values, ideologies and cultural forms – exists within a CURP. In addition, CURP are not necessarily structured by a singular organisational or occupational culture, nor are they constrained by organisational boundaries. Likewise, CURP members may have an organisational culture in common alongside another unique occupational identity. From this starting point, we thus initiate a shift in emphasis from a holistic view of the organisational culture of CURP to one entailing changing, dynamic and conflicting interrelationships among varied sub-cultures and across different (micro, meso and macro) levels.
We believe our contribution here is suitable to recognise aspects and practicalities entailed in bridging power inequalities and differences in the co-creation of knowledge in the context of CURP. This framework also informed the BKC case studies as well as our subsequent global analyses presented in this book. We conceptualise our knowledge cultures framework according to three basic components that operate at different levels of analysis, as shown in Figure 2.1:
General Knowledge Environment;
Institutional/Organisational Knowledge Environment;
Knowledge Setting/Practice
The three components are nested, reflecting the directionality of influence from the outer and middle to the center sphere. The framework further distinguishes between structural and procedural aspects at each level of analysis. The different levels facilitate and represent both knowledge activities and forms of knowledge (Travica, 2013). This highlights that KC s are both temporally and locally stable and bounded, but are also negotiated, evaluated, and exist through relations and traditions. Each sphere contains both ideas
5.3 Outer Sphere: General Knowledge Environment
The General Knowledge Environment exists at the regional, national, global, as well as local level, given that CURP cannot not be decontextualised from the broader historical and geopolitical places in which they are situated. KC s have real political, economic and social effects that are not neutral with respect to social structures and interests or with respect to economic growth (Knorr Cetina, 2007). The General Knowledge Environment shapes how cultural and political differences are reflected in the way research is set up and conducted (i.e., how one cultural order translates into or influences another) and how expert knowledge is embedded in legal frameworks, schemes of citizen participation, policymaking, and the like. In our framework, this sphere entails two aspects:
- –Structures and policies that sustain or discourage certain epistemic outcomes, which includes for example, national education, science and innovation policies, professional standards, education systems and/or university models (e.g., French, British, German higher education models). These structures and polices determine what counts as legitimate knowledge or meets the social, political, or economic criteria to be prioritised over other forms of knowledge, and influence knowledge production processes.
- –National/Regional science policy-making bodies and funding agencies, which have the political and financial capability to significantly influence the content and approach of knowledge production (i.e., research) at national and
regional levels (e.g., the supranational and national funding bodies of the European Union, like Horizon Europe, or the Tri-Council Agency of Canada).
General Knowledge Environments hold the highest degree of legitimisation power and resemble ‘espoused values’ – i.e., the settled ways of accepted norms, attitudes, and beliefs – and ‘basic assumptions’– i.e., the basic values accepted without proof (Svetlana & Jucevičius, 2011) – about knowledge processes that are ‘naturalised’ and beyond accountability in many instances (Somers, 1999). This core component of KC effectively governs over most other KC s, or at least profoundly impacts the context and practice of CURP (van Kerkhoff & Pilbeam, 2017).
5.4 Middle Sphere: Institutional/Organisational Knowledge Environment
This sphere reflects the institutional arrangements and frameworks that direct co-producing, acquiring, exchanging and using knowledge in collaboration with community-based partners. We reference both, the HEI and the community organisation (formal and informal), to reflect that both ‘sides’ bring their own KC to the CURP.
This sphere is more contained in its format or structure than the General Knowledge Environment, but it is far more difficult to navigate, and a number of considerations are necessary at this level. For one, it often sets specific temporal and local boundaries to how academic and non-academic partners – and their KC s – interact with each other. The Institutional Knowledge Environment, although representative of a hegemonic model of knowledge production, is a site where more active negotiations take place. The ‘artifacts’, i.e., the physical environment and locals, creations, rituals, etc. (Svetlana & Jucevičius, 2011) of KC, and the ‘logistics’ of day-to-day interactions of CURP (Oliver & Reddy Kandadi, 2006) are worked out at this level. The social activities taking place here in and of themselves determine the meaning of those interactions and what significance the co-creation of knowledge has for both the institution and the community partners (Tsouvalis et al., 2000). The framework thus considers the following aspects:
- –Partnership configurations and transformations over time. For example, the partners need to work out the assumptions and purposes of creating the CURP and which norms will be accepted for conducting research in a collaborative way. The role and status of each partner needs to be determined (e.g., who are the ‘experts’), and how relationships will be maintained as the partnership changes in time and space.
- –
Starting assumptions and conditions. This element refers to the points of origin where the partnership was initiated by putting in motion a series of conditions and assumptions that will set the boundaries of the partnership itself. This may be influenced, for example, by previous research projects, participation in grant applications, events (e.g., networking and showcasing conferences), and discourses (e.g., around Sustainable Development Goals). - –Extant knowledge systems. This includes worldviews/epistemological and ontological frameworks that provide the orientation or the set of beliefs on the world or reality (i.e., what is the nature of reality? how can we know what is true and what is not true? how should we act in that reality?); related pedagogies (i.e., ways of knowing and learning); disciplinary approaches; social relationships that inform people’s sense of themselves and their cultural values; and logical relationships that connect the content of knowledge to its value (utility).
- –Temporal frameworks. With this we mean the pace of knowledge creation, which is usually different in community and university settings. For instance, community groups often have tight deadlines for action whereas academics may have years to develop a robust research project. CURP must therefore consider aspects such as temporal requirements to efficiently produce and reproduce knowledge; the temporalities of knowledge and expertise; or simply the conception of time (e.g., cyclical versus linear).
- –Subjects with epistemic roles and functions. Here, we refer to, for example, internal and/or external actors with different roles in the various knowledge production processes (e.g., journal peer reviewers have a validating role that determines what academic knowledge is acceptable for dissemination; boundary-spanners mediate between academics and community and support knowledge translation; Elders act as knowledge holders in Indigenous communities).
5.5 Inner Sphere: Knowledge Setting/Practice
This sphere refers to the whole sets of arrangements, mechanisms, procedures and principles that serve knowledge co-creation and which unfold with its articulation (Knorr Cetina, 2007) within the CURP. Thus, we switch from an understanding of knowledge as the representational and technological product of research to an understanding of knowledge as practice. We therefore recognise the individuals (and groups of individuals) who carry out these practices. Their ‘agency’ enacts and re-creates the wide variety and diversity of KC s (Nerland, 2012). These actions require ‘trust’, ‘transparency’ and a willingness to be open and share with others (Mas Machuca & Martínez-Costa, 2012). At this level, the emphasis is put on the interiorised participatory processes of knowledge
- –Frameworks of meaning. People enact their lives within frames of meaning via the specific constructions of the objects of knowledge, particular ontologies of instruments, and specific models of epistemic subjects. At this level, CURP members establish who or what are the epistemic subjects, – those we traditionally think of as the agents in scientific practice and the authors of scientific findings – and their ways of relating to the objects of knowledge in research. Frameworks of meaning include vocabulary/jargon, generalised rationales, cultural beliefs and shared passions (common meanings). Frameworks of meaning provide the underlying structure and context for sense-making, “a social activity […] suffused by moral judgements and power relations” (Tsouvalis et al., 2000, p. 922).
- –Cultural forms. This aspect contains the rituals, symbols, heroes, ceremonies and stories of success/failure of co-producing knowledge that each member brings to a CURP. In some KC s, knowledge may be primarily produced by experts or authorities following reproducible procedures, while in others, knowledge may be more decentralised and produced by a wider range of individuals and communities in a more informal way.
- –Structural and procedural features. Within CURP, at least two sets of formal and informal hierarchical structure and rules meet, and along with them the (im)personal relations and ways in which knowledge processes are functionally organised and divided within and across partners. In other words, this aspect captures the allocation of tasks and responsibilities in terms of decision-making (e.g., research agenda setting and governance), funding (e.g., application, allocation and management), leadership (e.g., research design and implementation), validation (e.g., in terms of accuracy, usefulness for the partners and the relationship with existing knowledge), influence (e.g., research communication, uptake and adaptation), and impact (e.g., research use).
- –Task requirements. Knowledge practices also require a unique body of knowledge or expertise (e.g., storytelling) to perform the particular sets of tasks and responsibilities related to knowledge production in CURP (e.g., knowledge sharing).
- –Knowledge artifacts. The purpose of using a knowledge artifact is to share and transfer knowledge (Holsapple & Joshi, 2001). According to Newman and Conrad (2000), knowledge artifacts form the linkages between the activities and events that comprise knowledge flow. An artifact can be defined as a medium used to represent meaning and understanding. Knowledge
artifacts come in a variety of forms and shapes, ranging from tangible items such as documents, files and pictures to intangible entries such as nods and thoughts (Abuhimed et al., 2014). - –Spatial arrangements. CURP exist ‘in the real world’ and for members to collaborate they need some form of physical manifestation. This aspect refers to the places where knowledge creation, dissemination and application take place. This might include traditional benchwork laboratories, research centres (i.e., places where resources vital to a whole field come to be located), networks, but also locales within the community/territory or ‘on the land’ itself (Zurba et al., 2019), such as community circles.
6 Conclusion
The rise and development of CURP as a way to contribute to addressing and solving societal problems has neither been easy nor uncontroversial. One of the main challenges associated with this approach to research creation is the lack of strong evidence about how knowledge created in CURP might be translated into policy and actions. Even when the theoretical underpinnings of participatory, community-engaged research emphasise its action-orientation, what constitutes appropriate and sufficient ‘action’ is not always clear, with different partners holding diverse views on what types of outcomes could be described as social action and social change (MacFarlane & Roche, 2018). The claims for the effectiveness of CURP thus tend to be theoretical and/or conceptual, rather than empirical. As a consequence, there is considerable discrepancy between the acclamation and attention CURP receives in the literature, and the lack of empirical knowledge and understanding of the processes and dynamics of the partnerships’ overall functioning (e.g., the process by which certain partnership conditions lead to various partnership-level outcomes). The literature also shows a strong bias that tends to conceive research partnerships as relatively static entities within a linear understanding of research-into-practice, without paying enough attention to the complex reality where such collaborative arrangements must be embedded (Tremblay et al., 2017).
To better explain the intricacies of power dynamics in collaborative research initiatives, in this chapter we have developed an analytical framework for the study of knowledge cultures within CURP that will help address the objectives of the BKC project. First, the offered framework helps explain CURP conflicts and power inequalities by the heterogeneity of co-existing KC s, each with its own system of meanings and identities. Not only do the various CURP members often compete for the same resources, but they also face the imposition of a
In practical terms, our analytical framework offers a way to recognise and manage the diverse KC s inherent in CURP. When CURP members meet for the purposes of knowledge co-creation, considering and understanding the coexisting cultural elements and sub-cultures in the partnership will go a long way toward reducing or resolving conflicts, especially where similar values may still lead to conflicting priorities (Gregory, 1983). Helping CURP members work more effectively across epistemological differences requires sensitivity to the presence of diverging values, beliefs, ideologies and cultural forms at various levels, which may otherwise bring research partners into conflict.
Yet, we do not believe that the task of those leading and coordinating research partnerships is to avoid conflict, but rather to know how to manage conflicts in a productive way. Through the interaction and deliberation with other epistemological actors, ‘productive conflicts’ allow for a more open exploration and evaluation of competing ideas and knowledge claims in order to achieve new ideas, insights and practical solutions (Cuppen, 2012). This does not entail the homogenisation of diverse knowledge (sub-)cultures within the CURP by changing or creating a single dominating mono-culture – something which occurs too often by the imposition of Western academic KC, or the absorption of Indigenous knowledge systems into scientific systems. Rather, our framework suggests the way is to first recognise and embrace cultural differences within the partnership, and then find workable compromises that allow (sub-)cultures to maintain their own identity, while at the same time formulating a distinct KC that aims to achieve a balanced incorporation of diverse knowledges within the CURP. Paraphrasing the suggestions by Kalliola and Nakari (2004, p. 92), the critical task of partnership coordinators and leaders is to build and maintain a sustainable system of shared meanings in the CURP as a whole, without losing sight of the wide variety of KC s – with their own values, ideologies and cultural forms – that exist within the partnership. This is what we succinctly mean by bridging knowledge cultures, admittedly a goal easier stated than realised in daily practice. However, we believe that working on building bridges between KC s can provide more practical benefits than attempting to modify the core organisational culture or KC of each CURP partner, a task that in and of itself is difficult to achieve (Hofstede et al., 1990). We hope that our framework offers a starting point for moving beyond the limiting holistic view of CURP, and for recognising and embracing the changing, dynamic and even
Note
Each research team was led by a K4C partner: Irma Flores Hinojos (U. Andes, Colombia), David Monk (Gulu U., Uganda), Nabiela Naily (UINSA, Indonesia), Maura Adshead (U. Limerick, Ireland). With the support of other members of the Consortium in their regions, the teams collected and analysed secondary data to help us establish a baseline of what we know now about the knowledge cultures of the diverse communities with which the K4C hubs work.
References
Abuhimed, D., Beheshti, J., Cole, C., Alghamdi, M., & Lamoureux, I. (2014). Knowledge artefacts: Lessons learned and stories as a means to transfer knowledge amongst cohorts of high school students working on an inquiry-based project. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 50. https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.14505001146
Ahmad, A., & Hossain, M. A. (2018). Assimilation of business intelligence systems: The mediating role of organizational knowledge culture. In Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture notes in bioinformatics) (Vol. 11195 LNCS). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02131-3_43
Akullo, D., Kanzikwera, R., Birungi, P., Alum, W., Aliguma, L., & Barwogeza, M. (2007). Indigenous knowledge in agriculture: A case study of the challenges in sharing knowledge of past generations in a globalized context in Uganda. World Library and Information Congress.
Battiste, M. (2002). Indigenous knowledge and pedagogy in first nations education: A literature review with recommendations. National Working Group on Education.
Bechky, B. A. (2006). Gaffers, gofers, and grips: Role-based coordination in temporary organizations. Organization. Science, 17(1), 3–21.
Borkman, T. (1976). Experiential knowledge. A new concept for the analysis of self-help groups. Social Service Review, 50(3), 445–456.
Chamorro, M., & Sicard, A. (2021). Las sabidurías ancestrales como tecnologías vivas en diálogos con el diseño. Caminos para vivir la inspiración y el cuidado. In C. Córdoba Cely and M. C. Ascuntar Rivera (Eds.), Investigación + creación a través del territorio (pp. 351–376). Editorial Universidad de Nariño.
Chorev, N., & Ball, A. C. (2022). The knowledge-based economy and the Global South. Annual Review of Sociology, 48(19), 1–21.
Connell, R. (2022). Putting Southern perspectives to work: Paths forward for our practice. In A. Bueno, M. Teixeira, & D. Strecker (Eds.), De-centering global sociology: The peripheral turn in social theory and research (pp. 1–19). Taylor & Francis.
Cuppen, E. (2012). Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue: Considerations for design and methods. Policy Science, 45, 23–46.
Dei, G. (1993). Sustainable development in the African context: Revisiting some theoretical and methodological issues. African Development, 18(2), 97–110.
Dickinson, H. D. (2013). Crossing boundaries: Creating, transferring & using knowledge. In J. Dzisah & H. Etzkowitz (Eds.), The age of knowledge: The dynamics of universities, knowledge, and society (pp. 143–165). Haymarket Books.
Dilmaghani, M., Fahimnia, F., Ardakan, M. A., & Naghshineh, N. (2015). Function of knowledge culture in the effectiveness of knowledge management procedures: A case study of a knowledge-based organization. Webology, 12(1), 1–21.
Four Directions Council. (1996). Forests, Indigenous peoples and biodiversity: Contribution of the four directions council. Submission to the Secretariat for the Convention on Biological Diversity. Four Directions Council.
Fransman, J., Hall, B., Hayman, R., Narayanan, P., Newman, K., & Tandon, R. (2021). Beyond partnerships: Embracing complexity to understand and improve research collaboration for global development. Revue Canadienne D’études Du Développement, 42(3), 326–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/02255189.2021.1872507
Gangadharan, V. G. G. (2021). Local knowledge, social movements & participatory research: Indian perspectives [Webinar]. Participatory Research in Asia.
Genis, G. (2019, January). Indigenous South African poetry as conduits of history. Yesterday and Today, pp. 60–87.
Gregory, K. L. (1983). Native-view paradigms: Multiple cultures and culture conflicts in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(3), 359–376. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392247
Hall, B. L., Clover, D. E., Crowther, J., & Scandrett, E. (2011). Social movement learning: A contemporary re-examination. Studies in the Education of Adults, 43(2), 113–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/02660830.2011.11661607
Hiebert, D., & Van Rees, K. (1998). Traditional knowledge on forestry issues within the Prince Albert Grand Council [Unpublished manuscript]. Prince Albert Model Forest.
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organizational cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2), 286–316. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393392
Holsapple, C. W., & Joshi, K. D. (2001). Organizational knowledge resources. Decision support systems, 31(1), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9236(00)00118-4
Iseke, J. (2013). Indigenous storytelling as research. International Review of Qualitative Research, 6(4), 559–577.
Jendia, C. (2019). The cultural factor in conflict management/resolution: A case study of the Acholi of Northern Uganda. African Journal of History and Culture, 11(2), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJHC2018.0425
Kalliola, S., & Nakari, R. (2007). Renewing occupational cultures—Bridging boundaries in learning spaces. International Journal of Educational Research, 46(3–4), 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2007.09.010
Kambon, Ọ. (2020). Editorial book critique: The origin of the word Amen: Ancient knowledge the Bible has never told. Ghana Journal of Linguistics, 9(1), 72–96.
Kardooni, R., Kari, F. B., Yahaya, S. R. B., & Yusup, S. H. (2014). Traditional knowledge of Orang Asli on forests in peninsular Malaysia. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge, 13(2), 283–291. https://nopr.niscpr.res.in/bitstream/123456789/27915/1/IJTK%2013%282%29%20283-291.pdf
Knorr Cetina, K. (2007). Culture in global knowledge societies: Knowledge cultures and epistemic cultures. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 32(4), 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1179/030801807X163571
Knorr Cetina, K., & Reichmann, W. (2015). Epistemic cultures. In International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed., Vol. 7, pp. 873–880). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.10454-4
Kollmar-Paulenz, K. (2016). Of Yellow teaching and Black faith: Entangled knowledge cultures and the creation of religious traditions. In C. Bochinger & J. Rüpke (Eds.), Dynamics of religion: Past and present proceedings of the XXI World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions (pp. 231–250). De Gruyter, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110450934-013
Kwantes, C. T., & Boglarsky, C. A. (2007). Perceptions of organizational culture, leadership effectiveness and personal effectiveness across six countries. Journal of International Management, 13(2), 204–230.
Liebert, W.-A. (2016). Wissenskulturen. In L. Jäger, W. Holly, P. Krapp, S. Weber, & S. Heekeren (Eds.), Sprache - Kultur - Kommunikation: Ein internationales Handbuch zu Linguistik als Kulturwissenschaft. De Gruyter, Inc.
Little Bear, L. (2000). Jagged worldviews colliding. In M. Battiste (Ed.), Reclaiming Indigenous voice and vision (pp. 77–85). UBC Press.
MacFarlane, A., & Roche, B. (2018). Blurring the boundaries between researcher and researched, academic and activist. In S. Banks & Brydon-Miller (Eds.), Ethics in participatory research for health and social well-being (pp. 56–79). Routledge.
Marker, M. (2019). Indigenous knowledges, universities, and alluvial zones of paradigm change. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 40(4), 500–513. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2017.1393398
Mas Machuca, M., & Martínez-Costa, C. (2012). A study of knowledge culture in the consulting industry. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 112(1), 24–41. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571211193626
Mendiwelso-Bendek, Z., Reyes, A., & Plata, J. (2020). Construcción de Paz en Colombia, Alianza entre la Universidad y la Comunidad. Co Lab Paz: Marco de referencia sobre la Investigación y la Acción con comunidades. Editorial Universidad de los Andes.
Miklosik, A., Evans, N., Hasprova, M., & Lipianska, J. (2019). Reflection of embedded knowledge culture in communications of Australian companies. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 17(2), 172–181.
Mvanyashe, A. (2019). IsiXhosa proverbs and idioms as a reflection of Indigenous knowledge systems and an education tool. Southern African Journal for Folklore Studies, 29(2), 1–14.
Nakashima, D., Rubis, J., Bates, P., & Ávila, B. (2017). Local knowledge, global goals. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000259599
Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S. J. (2013). The entrapment of Africa within the global colonial matrices of power: Eurocentrism, coloniality, and deimperialization in the twenty-first century. Journal of Developing Societies, 29(4), 331–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0169796X13503195
Nerland, M. (2012). Professions as knowledge cultures. The Knowledge Economy and Lifelong Learning: A Critical Reader, 1994, 207–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-915-2
Newman, B., & Conrad, K. (2000, October 30–31). A framework for characterizing knowledge management methods, practices, and technologies. PAKM 2000, Third International Conference on Practical Aspects of Knowledge Management, Proceedings of the Third International Conference, Basel, Switzerland.
NIRMAN. (2017). Burlang Yatra: The annual indigenous seed festival. Seed Freedom. https://seedfreedom.info/events/burlang-yatra-the-annual-indigenous-seed-festival/
Nyerere, J. K. (1967). Education for self-reliance. The Ecumenical Review, 19(4), 382–403.
Nzewi, M. (2006). African music creativity and performance: The science of the sound. Voices: A World Forum for Music Therapy, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.15845/voices.v6i1.242
Odora Hoppers, C. (2021). Research on Indigenous knowledge systems: The search for cognitive justice. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 40(4), 310–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2021.1966109
Oliver, S., & Reddy Kandadi, K. (2006). How to develop knowledge culture in organizations? A multiple case study of large distributed organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(4), 6–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270610679336
Opheim, D. (2018, May 11). Governance (Indigenous Life in Canada: Past, Present, Future)/Oral Traditions and Storytelling (Indigenous Life in Canada: Past, Present, Future)/Spirituality (Indigenous Life in Canada: Past, Present, Future)/Stewardship (Indigenous Life in Canada: Past, Present, Future)/Treaties (Indigenous Life in Canada: Past, Present, Future)/Truth and Reconciliation (Indigenous Life in Canada: Past, Present, Future). Canadian Review of Materials, 24(1). http://myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fdocview%2F2045243287%3Faccountid%3D14771
p’Bitek, O. (1969). Wer pa Lawino. East African Publishing House.
Peters, M. A., & Besley, A. C. (2006). Building knowledge cultures: Education and development in the age of knowledge capitalism. Rowman & Littlefield.
Polanyi, M. (1983). The tacit dimension. Peter Smith.
Pols, J. (2014). Knowing patients: Turning patient knowledge into science. Science, Technology & Human Values, 39(1), 73–97.
Reddy, S. T. S. (2011). Water management: The neeruganti way. India Water Portal. https://www.indiawaterportal.org/sites/default/files/iwp2/Community_water_management_in_Karnataka_The_Neeruganti_way_2011.pdf
Saini, A. (2016). Physicians of ancient India. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 5(2), 254–258. https://doi.org/10.4103/2249-4863.192322
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2007). Year in review 2006. Montreal.
Somers, M. R. (1999). The privatization of citizenship. In V. E. Bonnell (Ed.), Beyond the cultural turn: New directions in the study of society and culture. University of California Press.
Stevenson, M. (1998). Traditional knowledge in environmental management? From commodity to process. Sustainable Forest Management Network.
Svetlana, Š., & Jucevičius, R. (2011). Investigation of critical attributes of the organizational knowledge culture. In Proceedings of the international conference on intellectual capital, knowledge management & organizational learning (pp. 529–538). http://libaccess.mcmaster.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=69713435&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Syed, J., Murray, P. A., Hislop, D., & Mouzughi, Y. (Eds.). (2018). The Palgrave handbook of knowledge management. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75620-2
Tella, R. D. (2007). Towards promotion and dissemination of indigenous knowledge. A case of NIRD. International Information & Library Review, 39(3–4), 185–193.
Travica, B. (2013). Conceptualizing knowledge culture. Online Journal of Applied Knowledge Management, 1(2), 85–104.
Tremblay, C., Singh, W., & Lepore, W. (2017). Mutual learning and empowering support: Networks and balance between local and global demands. GUNi.
Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Tshimba, D.-N. (2015). Beyond the Mato Oput tradition: Embedded contestations in transitional justice for post-massacre Pajong, Northern Uganda, Journal of African Conflicts and Peace Studies, 2(2), 62–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/2325-484X.2.2.3
Tsouvalis, J., Seymour, S., & Watkins, C. (2000). Exploring knowledge-cultures: Precision farming, yield mapping, and the expert-farmer interface. Environment and Planning A, 32(5), 909–924. https://doi.org/10.1068/a32138
UNESCO. (n.d.). Indigenous peoples. https://en.unesco.org/indigenous-peoples
van Kerkhoff, L. (2013). Knowledge governance for sustainable development: A review. Challenges in Sustainability, 1(2), 82–93. https://doi.org/10.12924/cis2013.01020082
van Kerkhoff, L., & Pilbeam, V. (2017). Understanding socio-cultural dimensions of environmental decision-making: A knowledge governance approach. Environmental Science and Policy, 73, 29–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.03.011
Wakeford, T., & Rodriguez, J. (2018). Participatory action research: Towards a more fruitful knowledge. University of Bristol/AHRC Connected Communities Programme. http://hdl.handle.net/10871/36994
Warren, D. M. (1991, May 21–24). The role of indigenous knowledge in facilitating the agricultural extension process. [Paper presentation]. International Workshop on Agricultural Knowledge Systems and the Role of Extension, Bad Boll, Germany.
Wenger, E., & Snyder, W. M. (2000). Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 139–145.
Wyk, M. M. (2012). [Re]claiming the Riel as Khoisan indigenous cultural knowledge. Studies of Tribes and Tribals, 10(1), 47–56.
Zhu, T., & Ringler, C. (2010). Climate change implications for water resources in the Limpopo River Basin (No. 961). International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
Zurba, M., Maclean, K., Woodward, E., & Islam, D. (2019). Amplifying Indigenous community participation in place-based research through boundary work. Progress in Human Geography, 43(6), 1020–1043. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132518807758