1 Introduction
Oliver and Reddy Kandadi (2006) identify the key definitional features of culture to include the group or the collectiveness; a way of life; and the learned behaviours, values, knowledge and perceptions of the people. They define knowledge culture as “an organizational lifestyle which empowers individuals and motivates them to create, share, and apply knowledge in order to reach consistent organizational success and benefits” (Oliver & Reddy Kandadi, 2006, p. 8). Walczck (2005) in Dilmaghani et al. (2015, p. 4) intimates that the
This case study focuses on the differences in knowledge cultures between academic researchers and early childhood development (ECD) practitioners in Durban, South Africa, and how to bridge this gap in the field of ECD education. The participants comprise authors of this chapter, a doctoral student at the Durban University of Technology (DUT) supervised by the authors, and three ECD practitioners based in the township of Umbumbulu, 40 kilometres south of Durban. We acknowledge with gratitude the participation and knowledge of the three ECD facilitators: Zanele Mpisane, Nomusa Mtshali and Sindisiwa Msomi. Unfortunately, due to COVID-19, we were unable to co-write the case study. We are satisfied that we have captured their views. We hope they are too.
The research undertaken is part of a macro project developed by the UNESCO Chair in Community Based Research and Social Responsibility in Higher Education, the Bridging Knowledge Cultures (BKC) Project. It explores in the context of community-university research partnerships within the Knowledge for Change (K4C) Consortium created by the UNESCO Chair, how to address extant power inequalities between diverse knowledge cultures of collaborating partners to make these partnerships sustainable and secure over time. This study asked the following research questions:
- –What are the different ways in which knowledge is understood, constructed, validated and disseminated in academic and non-academic (community) settings?
- –What are the practical challenges/obstructions that differences create for working across knowledge cultures and how do we address these challenges?
In this chapter, we first set the scene for the inquiry by unfurling the relationship between the aforementioned academics and practitioners. The key role players in this case study were first brought together as part of a doctoral study on ECD in South Africa. In order to obtain a comprehensive picture of this case study in relation to the doctoral research and the collaborative relationship with the ECD practitioners, we first describe the relationship between the participants and thereafter provide a historical context of ECD and the role of ECD practitioners in South Africa. Details of the research process undertaken is presented to answer the research questions, followed by the findings and discussions.
2
The Knowledge for Change (K4C) Hub at the DUT was the first hub to be established in South Africa in 2017. The Rhodes University Community Engagement (RUCE) division together with DUT was formerly incorporated into the K4C Southern Hub in 2021. In the same year, North West University (NWU), in partnership with the University of the Free State (UFS), established the K4C Northern Hub. The Southern Hub’s current research focus is education across the continuum of levels, namely ECD, primary, secondary and tertiary. Initially, this case study’s intention was to explore knowledge cultures at all four levels of education. The ethical approval procedures for this CBPR enquiry could not be obtained by RUCE within the timeframe of the BKC project. The disruptions of the Covid 19 pandemic, especially within the education sector, further exacerbated the challenges for RUCE, who made the difficult decision to withdraw from the project.
It has become imperative for academic researchers working in community-based participatory research (CBPR), to raise at their universities the limitations of the current ethics structures, which tend to cater exclusively for conventional forms of research. We as the DUT team (two academic researchers and a doctoral student) continued with the BKC research project focusing on the doctoral student’s study on integral education at the ECD level. The three ECD practitioners who participated in this case study have an ongoing relationship with the doctoral student and academic researchers since 2018. The overall goal of the doctoral study is the development of a framework for a transformative ECD integral education programme with Ubuntu values for social responsibility and civic participation towards participatory democracy in South Africa. It was possible to collect data for this case study based on the existing ethics approval for the doctoral research.
As mentioned above, the three ECD practitioners are from the district of Umbumbulu, and its surrounding areas is home to about 600,000 people. It is under-serviced with virtually no economy and a place where much suffering has taken place as a result of sporadic political and faction-based violence in the past (Machen, 2011). Since the advent of democracy in 1994, more roads, schools and clinics, and electricity and water are gradually being delivered in Umbumbulu. However, the fundamental problems of poverty, unemployment, crime and political violence remain very much a part of the fabric of township community life (Brankovic, 2019; Machen, 2011). Learners living in townships require a good deal of protection and resilience to overcome the obstacles and adversities in their context of development (Mampane &
3 Contextualizing ECD in South Africa
The early childhood period is considered the most important developmental phase throughout an individual’s lifespan. What happens to the child in the early years is critical for the child’s trajectory and life course (Irwin et al., 2007), particularly in South Africa with its plethora of social ills and various manifestations of violence. These are the formative years in which behaviour, attitudes and values that children are exposed to will be learnt through imitation and role-modelling and which will determine much of their later behaviour (Burton, 2008). South Africa’s National Integrated Early Childhood Development Policy of 2015 (NIECD) confirms this critical link between ECD and outcomes later in life when it highlights that ECD investments bring about higher levels of positive self-regulation which lead to significantly less crime and greater public safety, reduced public violence, and greater social cohesion and civic participation (Republic of South Africa, 2015; Department of Basic Education, 2015).
South Africa has a deep and long history of violence, at the core of which lies colonialism and grand apartheid underpinned by patriarchal relations. Atmore (2013) reminds us that children in South Africa have historically been neglected and abused by the political ideologies and structures of the apartheid government. Prior to 1994, the apartheid education system provided compulsory education for white children and voluntary education for black children, creating a two-tier system. Early learning opportunities based on western models of play and school readiness were available for white children in government-funded pre-primary centres that targeted three- to five-year-olds. There was limited provision for all other race groups, of which black African children were the most disadvantaged (Ebrahim et al., 2021).
From 1940, nursery schools became facilities for the privileged White middle-class, with trained teachers, separated from crèches where African working-class children were only given custodial care. These racial disparities extended to the training of pre-school teachers. From 1958, most training courses for African teachers were restricted, while those for Whites, albeit on a smaller scale, were allowed to continue. Lower-level teacher training courses,
The void in preschool education for the vast majority of Black (African) children led several women from their communities to organise preschools called Educare centres in the rural homeland areas and townships (Stevens, 1997). In many instances, these women had no formal training in early childhood education (ECE), most had not completed secondary education, and few had any formal knowledge of child development. Yet, these community women were motivated to organise ECE centres and become Educare teachers because of their love for young children and their awareness that children needed assistance to lead healthy and safe lives and be prepared for formal primary schooling. In support of the community initiated Educare centres and the absence of support from South African government agencies, non-government organisations (NGO s) assumed responsibility for training Educare teachers (ibid.).
By the 1980s, the state finally began to acknowledge the importance of ECD, especially in the wake of the high drop-out and failure rates among African children in schools. State involvement in education, as with all other sectors, at the time was characterised as inadequate, segregated, fragmented, uncoordinated and lacking a comprehensive vision (Department of Social Development, 2001). Thus, parents, communities and the private sector bore the responsibility for ECD provisioning while state-owned pre-primary schools were few in number.
Post-1994, the National Integrated Early Childhood Development Policy (Republic of South Africa, 2015; Department of Basic Education, 2015) has had the ambitious aim of transforming ECD service delivery to address the gap in universally available equitable services. However, there is a mismatch between the funding strategies and infrastructure to support the aim of the NIECD (Ebrahim et al., 2021). In most cases, NGO s continue to deliver ECD programmes with limited funding. Provision of ECD services include the traditional centre-based ECD model of provision, playgroups and family outreach programmes. Community facilities are often based in private homes where an ECD practitioner converts a portion of her house to accommodate children, or classes can be provided at centre-based facilities where a community has a dedicated building for the children, known as community-based centres (Atmore, 2013). In the absence of adequate subsidies to community-based early learning sites, most rely on parent fees. While this is affordable for those in well-resourced households, it is problematic for families living in poverty. The mushrooming of private providers with business orientations and unregistered sites continues to be a feature (Ebrahim et al., 2021).
From the brief presentation on the historical and current ECD context in South Africa, it is clear that the potential for research and action is immense and urgent. Within this scenario, the relationship between academic researchers and the various stakeholders in ECD, the culture of academics, and their openness to knowledge democracy, the co-creation of knowledge and CBPR in the ECD sector becomes critical to South Africa’s post-apartheid developmental and transformation agenda, which higher education institutions (HEI s) are required to contribute to (Department of Education, 1997).
4 Purpose and Objectives of the Study
Knowledge cultures exist in various sites of knowledge creation and sharing such as families, communities and institutions/organisations. However, differences in knowledge cultures exist within and between these knowledge sites while power dynamics are also at play. As an example, in the case of HEI s, the privileging of knowledge production through standardised western academic forms of research is one way in which the unequal and hierarchical relationship between the academic as researcher and community members as objects of study is evident. The BKC project literature points to tensions caused by the often-unspoken differences in understandings between the knowledge cultures within community settings and the academy. The literature points to one of the biggest challenges being the establishment of truly respectful and equitable knowledge accumulation partnerships.
The purpose of this case study is to understand the different knowledge cultures of university and community partners in the context of ECD training,
- –To understand the different ways in which knowledge is understood, constructed, validated and disseminated in academic and non-academic (community) settings;
- –To examine the practical challenges that differences create for working across knowledge cultures and how to address these challenges.
5 Methodology
5.1 The Case Study Method
The case study method supports the explorative and descriptive nature of this study. A case study is defined as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon (the ‘case’) in depth and within its real-world context” (Yin, 2014, p. 16). In case studies, “in-depth description of a process, a programme, an event, or an activity is undertaken” (Miller & Salkind, 2002, p. 2). The phenomenon under investigation in this case study is the epistemological worldview in community-university research relationships. The focus is on the ways of knowing and learning that highlights the different knowledge cultures in community-university research relationships and its impact on the co-creation of knowledge. One of the procedures that is followed in a case study is asking questions about an issue under examination or about the details of a case that is of unusual interest. The case is then described in detail and an analysis of the issues or themes is presented and an interpretation of the meaning of the case analysis is made (ibid.). Purposive sampling was used in this case study in selecting the three ECD practitioners as the sample of this study.
5.2 Research Participants
This study comprises six participants – five females and a male. Three were ECD practitioners (Z, N & S), two were academic researchers (D, the only male participant and M), who are the authors of this chapter and co-supervisors of K, a doctoral student. D, M & K are representatives of the Durban K4C Hub. The ECD practitioners and the two authors were originally brought together during the exploratory phase of K’s doctoral study titled, Integral Education for Early Childhood Development: Building Values through Indigenous Knowledge in 2019 (Padayachee, 2022).
With eighteen years of ECD combined experience, Z, N and S are rooted in the communities in which they practice. They were considered well qualified experientially to form the participating practitioner team responsible for co-creating with the doctoral student the ECD integral education programme that was the final objective of the doctoral study. Prior to the commencement of the doctoral study, K spent more than five years working on the co-development of community training programmes in the field of ECD. At the time, she worked for a civil society organisation (CSO), whose office was located on the DUT campus where we are currently based. Our paths inevitably crossed because of our work with communities.
During the five-year period alluded to, K developed a relationship with Z and upon commencement of the doctoral programme, she was introduced to N and S and the communities with which all four of them collectively worked. In a sense K anchored the relationship between the community and university partners, representing the interests of both from the commencement of her doctoral research. She was a boundary spanner as contemplated by Christopherson et al. (2021), namely, an individual who crosses the boundaries of a social group to enable knowledge exchange, translate language, and share values among various groups. Over the years, their relationships transcended the boundaries created by varying approaches to the recognition of knowledge generated outside of academia, which is further elaborated in the findings of this study.
The participants in the exploratory phase of the doctoral study comprised parents and grandparents of children in the sample pre-schools and interested community members and key informants. The sample group of the ECD community, directly concerned with the education of their children, was apt because of their lived experiences and close understanding of the relevant issues. The conclusion of the doctoral study and the commencement of this case study overlapped unintentionally. K remained in contact with Z, N and S and with the both of us as her supervisors. Our relative familiarity with each other and collective approach to CBPR, together with the mutual recognition of our lived experiences, knowledge and wisdom made it easy for
5.3 Data Collection
In order to achieve the above objectives, an interview schedule was used for data collection through a focus group meeting. Even though it was a challenge to organise the data collection, given the Covid-19 context, the face-to-face interview method was preferred in this project to achieve our objective of exploring differences in ECD knowledge cultures.
The pre-determined questions were obviously instruments of the academic culture and opportunities were afforded to participants to bear them in mind rather than be governed by them. The interview schedule contained the following questions that guided our conversation:
How do we understand knowledge?
How do we understand culture?
What is/are the source/s of knowledge?
How do we bridge knowledge cultures between university and community?
How do we approach a process of co-creation, validation and dissemination of knowledge?
How did the ECD practitioners experience the process in which knowledge was co-created in the integral education research project with the doctoral student?
The setting for the focus group meeting of the participants was K’s home (the neutral home of the boundary spanner). We sat around a circular table. The table was located at the edge of a garden, near the kitchen door of the home and a garage formed a boundary to the space in which the table was set. The expanse of the garden was visible to most of us. As an icebreaker to the conversation and using the analogy below as a way of explaining the purpose of the case study, D asked each participant to describe our surroundings. As each participant described what they saw, D began asking what appeared to be random questions about the surroundings. For example, in response to some descriptions, the colour of a flower was sought, or the exact number of birds that were visible, or who could see the clouds.
The directed questions were intended to introduce the idea that our responses were different and influenced by our individual perspectives, enabled and/or limited by our positions at the table. Our positions and concomitant views were then used as a metaphor for the differences in our perspectives on what constitutes knowledge; how knowledge is described and
Right from the outset of the interaction between the ECD practitioners and us as academic researchers, it was noted that data gathering became a process; that the prepared questions actually elicited more questions, as it should happen in a case study (Miller & Salkind, 2002). Asking pertinent questions is a clear indication of the critical disposition of the ECD practitioners and their questioning also influenced the research process. Consequently, the whole research process was more organic than structured, notwithstanding the pre-determined questions. The focus group meeting was recorded with the prior permission of all participants.
5.4 Data Analysis
M first transcribed participants’ responses verbatim to ensure that actual utterances informed our thinking (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Data was analysed thematically, with the pre-determined themes drawn from the interview questions above. M then identified initial codes and organised data into meaningful groups to elicit new themes that arose. The themes were discussed with the participants as the first draft of the research report. All participants involved in the study agreed with the themes and the findings of the study. The participants recognised that although they were all at this stage of the proceedings, accustomed to the knowledge cultural devices of the academe (data, interview schedules, codes, themes and findings), they lamented the lack of intentionality in our approach to capture it all in the knowledge culture of the community. This may be an additional outcome of this case study.
6 Findings of the Study
6.1 Understanding Knowledge
First, S asked for clarification on what knowledge we were talking about, general knowledge or knowledge specific to universities. We then proceeded to understanding knowledge generally and then specifically from a community-university relationship perspective.
Knowledge was understood by Z as “coming from experiences and out of these experiences, I choose what knowledge to use and how. Knowledge is
the knowledge we have is suppressed because we do not have the necessary qualification(s) on paper. I can teach very well because of my experiences. I have practical knowledge and teaching is done out of love which is different from a university [where] focus is on theory and seen as experts lacking in practical experience, [and] no love to share with the children.
S supported Z’s statements by saying “with qualified persons, the child is programmed, and the child does not learn much”. She added that the management of knowledge happens according to one’s circumstances. “My parents wrote knowledge on a slate. It was not permanent as it had to be erased … the knowledge disappeared, so my parents had to remember the knowledge”.
S added to the way knowledge was learnt and managed in the past, by using her grandfather as an example. “He would not use a calculator to do his maths but his hands and head – not modern technology”.
6.2 Understanding Culture
Z and N described culture as “a set of practices people engage in to understand what we have in common and what differentiates us”. Z mentioned that: “Western culture suppresses community knowledge. As an example, in child development, local, indigenous knowledge is devalued because of western culture”.
D’s response was
Culture is the collective approach to our common livelihoods (knowledge). Although there are aspects to our approaches to our livelihoods (knowledge) that distinguishes us from others within the collective, it is what we share in common that becomes culture. Culture refers to livelihoods in general and knowledge culture to knowledge.
M described culture as
the values and beliefs of individuals, groups and organisations that guided or influenced the way in which they behaved. These values and beliefs permeated all aspects of their lives. Peoples understanding of certain concepts such as knowledge may be similar, same or different depending on the values and beliefs they hold and their experiences.
According to K, culture refers to the “practices, customs, ideas, habits, behaviours, beliefs of a society or groups of people”. The discussion on knowledge and culture by the participants led to the following question: What is the difference between knowledge and wisdom?
6.3 Understanding Knowledge and Wisdom
Z said that there is a clear difference between knowledge and wisdom.
Information/knowledge is collected from an external source and wisdom comes from within the person. It is innate. In ECD, love comes from within to teach a child, so it is part of wisdom.
She added that she taught herself on how to teach a child: “It was the wisdom from within that taught me how to teach a child”.
Z and S stated that knowledge is what you know to teach a child. All three practitioners agreed that “wisdom must come from within and must have love”. Implicit in this observation is that knowledge is transmitted and/or acquired through instrumental understanding (thought-based) while wisdom does so through relational understanding (emotion-based).
D added his views on knowledge and wisdom which differed slightly from the practitioners’ views: “Knowledge can be learnt and taught. Wisdom is not always learnt. It comes from within and also from experience, depending on the exercise that is being accomplished”. To a large extent the observations of the practitioners are aligned with the academics in that knowledge can be transmitted while wisdom is innate.
Z then asked another question: “How do children with disabilities, such as children with autism, slow learning and dyslexia cope with processing information into knowledge”? She used the example of a teacher telling a story and asking the children to repeat the story.
If there are three children with disabilities in the class, then they would provide a different version of the story in accordance with how they internalised and processed the information. Therefore, the teacher will
have to accept each child’s version of the story according to how they internalised and understood the story. Most often, the teacher expects all the children to understand the story in a specific way, according to what she had planned to be the aim of the story. Moreover, if the child does not understand it this way, then the teacher thinks that the child is wrong and tries to correct the child so that the story is understood according to the teacher’s version.
All three ECD practitioners admitted that they were guilty of telling children who did not answer according to their version of the story that they were wrong. Now, they will respond differently through their understanding that children interpret the information differently and that they should listen to their version of the story rather than saying that they are wrong. This may illustrate the difference between the promotion of an instrumental versus a relational approach to understanding.
The ECD practitioners viewed knowledge (general) as existing in the environment, in people and practical experiences. In comparison, university knowledge was viewed as theoretical with academics seen as the experts. A clear distinction is made between general knowledge (practical) and university (theoretical) knowledge. Interestingly, the practitioners related their knowledge to love (an emotion) while that of the academics is programmed. Even the way in which knowledge is learnt and managed in a community is different from the university. Community members manage their knowledge, for example, in traditional ways, such as through the telling of stories and not through modern technology. Importantly, they believe that the knowledge of those without the ‘necessary qualification’ is not valued. Practical knowledge is valued less than theoretical knowledge. The responses indicate, as do some literature, that there is no single conceptualization of knowledge (Oeberst et al., 2016) that there is no single definition of knowledge. The authors distinguish between individual and social notions of knowledge and point out that different disciplines conceptualise knowledge differently. They conclude that knowledge is not something that can be universally defined, but instead it is what a specific knowledge-related system accepts. The acceptance of what constitutes knowledge is influenced by the culture (values and beliefs) of the specific system. Knowledge is a social and cultural product (Hauke, 2019).
It was agreed by all participants that there is a difference between knowledge and wisdom, especially the source. The source of knowledge is external, and the source of wisdom is from within, and it must include love. D was of the view that wisdom is from within but also derived from external experience.
From the above discussion, we may conclude that the transmission of knowledge is an easier process than that of wisdom. The question then arises, can wisdom be transmitted from one individual to another, or does it require a high degree of self-awareness, reflection and introspection? These qualities may be taught as an enabler towards accessing one’s wisdom but wisdom itself cannot be transmitted if we accept that it is innate, coming from within the individual.
An alternative would be to describe the process of transmitting something which is innate as promoting relational understanding, where the outcome is not an artefact, but a connection.
Z’s question on differentiated learning and processing of information in relation to children with disabilities resonated with the earlier comment that knowledge is not wrong or right. The processing of knowledge and interpretation is largely influenced by our individual worldview and perspectives. Hauke (2019, p. 380) confirms the fluidity in the conceptualisation of knowledge when she states that
knowledge may be thought of as the result of a personal relationship between ideas, sources of evidence (and resulting ‘truths’) and the individual. This is a dynamic relationship that shifts over time, is uncertain and contestable, but provides a working certainty that allows us to further develop that knowledge.
The example that Z provided on the teacher’s response to the three children with disabilities caused all participants to reflect on how we tend to enforce our view as being the right one on those whom we consider to be less knowledgeable than we are. In this example, it is the teacher and the child; this
6.4 The Co-Creation of Knowledge
Z perceived the co-creation of knowledge as a combination of theory and practical knowledge. All three practitioners mentioned fear as the main obstacle to the co-creation of knowledge.
Fear is the major obstacle for communities: they hold back their knowledge because they are scared that they do not know much. Fear of academics as experts.
When asked how we change this, they cited their own experience in the research project with K. N said that
initially there was fear, but it did not remain. It disappeared because K brought it to the practical level. She asked them to talk about their experiences and declared that she did not know much about ECD. She mentioned that there were no right and wrong answers, and they were asked to speak from their own perspective. She did not refer to any study or theory as being the right answer.
Therefore, all three practitioners felt at ease and free to talk. They were surprised that they could participate in the co-creation of the ECD Integral Education programme. It “took them by surprise when they saw the knowledge they have” and accepted the fact that universities do not have all the knowledge in a specific field. “Community has experience and practical knowledge”. The consolidation of academic and community knowledge must be done in such a way that it is seen as having equal value as partners. This is one of the hallmarks of an effective boundary spanner in community-university partnerships.
N then asked the following question: “Why is it that only the knowledge of professors from university is considered to be right”? As an example, she said that “in the case of Covid-19, only the culture of scientific knowledge is deemed relevant and important, not the culture of traditional knowledge”. She said that traditional knowledge was completely marginalised in the understanding of the Covid-19 pandemic.
She pointed out the challenge is that there is an existing norm that the university does not go to the other side (community) because universities think they are superior, but communities are happy to work with universities.
Traditional knowledge is considered barbaric. Universities force us to use what they have. Sometimes they take knowledge from the community, make small changes and present it back to the community as the universities’ knowledge – as proven, tested knowledge. Like the mhlonyane herb taken from the community. The Afrikaners used to take the method from the community and present as theirs.
Z explained that mhlonyane is an indigenous medicinal plant that has been used by local communities to successfully treat flu symptoms. She added that it then becomes a battle between science, the economy, and the community. For example, “garlic becomes expensive because the communities use it as a medicine, then the economy raises the price of garlic. The price of the knowledge and the product is increased. Communities are locked within a cage because of cost”.
6.5 Epistemic Injustice and the Validation of Knowledge
The findings reveal that the co-creation of knowledge will mainly require changes to be made on the part of the university. For too long community knowledge has been appropriated, devalued and voices suppressed. The response that “local indigenous knowledge is devalued because of western culture” highlights the power of one knowledge culture over another. It clearly raises the issue of epistemic injustice. This also applies to the dominance of the university knowledge culture over the knowledge of communities as highlighted in the case of Covid-19 by one of the participants.
The appropriation of traditional/community knowledge by universities may be termed as a difference of ‘knowledge cultures’ – the one which is considered ‘superior’ is known to be usurping the knowledge of the other which is considered ‘inferior’. And university knowledge is presented as right knowledge. What must happen for co-creation of knowledge to work? How should knowledge be validated and disseminated?
The ECD practitioners were unanimous in their responses. Z noted that “the barriers, especially the mindset/thinking that one is superior, and the other is inferior, needs to be broken from both sides”. S added that
when people are told often enough that they do not know anything, they eventually believe it. It is not enough to require of those who think they
are superior to stop. Those who have started to believe in the inferiority need to undo the damage and not wait for the other side to act.
The response to these questions (What must happen for co-creation of knowledge to work? How should knowledge be validated and disseminated?) was once again an organic process, leading to further questions and possible answers. The practitioners were of the view that the responsibility is on the academics to realise that they are not the experts on knowledge with regards to communities. The behaviour and attitudes emanating from academics serve to perpetuate the notion that the majority community are inferior, a notion that was instilled during the apartheid system of inferior education for the majority black community. Hence, the comment by S that “when people are told often enough that they do not know anything, they eventually believe it”.
This was followed by a question of remediation: Where then do we meet with an idea? The response was through co-creation of knowledge but with the proviso that after co-creation everything must be ‘tested’. When asked where? The unanimous response was “in the community where the knowledge was created”.
The practitioners did not know how knowledge should be validated but were of the view that:
together both parties have to reach an agreement on the way to validate the knowledge. When we reach a stage where we can value each other, respect each other, then we can come up with a way to validate the knowledge. Collaboration and partnership must happen all the way. The dissemination of knowledge can take place through media, especially the radio, community workshops and newspapers. There must be follow up because the dissemination of knowledge is not a one-off event.
Godinho et al. (2021) highlight that the use of participatory knowledge co-creation provides a means to address pertinent societal crises. However, they point to one way of ensuring its sustainability through institutionalisation of knowledge co-creation within existing and novel structures. Oeberst et al. (2016) suggest a systemic perspective to knowledge creation where the different systems become epistemic agents and collaboratively construct knowledge. If people participate in different knowledge-related communities, their activities would be expected to differ as a function of the different social systems. Their approach stresses that for successfully achieving the goal of collaborative knowledge creation, reflection about the conditions imposed by a system is an imperative. Higher education institutions need to reflect on and promote CBPR for collaborative knowledge creation between community and university.
6.6
The final question of how the practitioners experienced their involvement in the doctoral study provided the academic researchers with a comprehensive understanding of the effect of academic researcher attitude towards community partners in the research process. The practitioners mentioned they were impressed with the way in which the doctoral student approached them and explained the study and the importance of their participation in the study. Most importantly, she stated upfront that she was not the expert on the subject of ECD and was looking forward to learning from them, which put them at ease and mitigated their intimidation of someone from a university. Subsequent meetings with the DUT team further progressed the non-intimidating relationship in this community-university partnership. The group meeting for the case study readily revealed the mutually respectful relationship between the ECD practitioners and DUT personnel that was progressively established over the years. While we are confident that the description of the relationship as ‘non-intimidating’ was sincere, it would be remiss not to declare that we may not fully know how much was withheld due to politeness, respect and other cultural nuances and expressions that inadvertently impede authenticity.
7 Consolidation of Findings and Discussion
The findings reveal that there is no single definition of knowledge, and that our values and beliefs influence our notion of what knowledge is. We agree with Oeberst et al. (2016) who propose a systemic perspective to knowledge creation through which the difference in knowledge cultures between community and university can be bridged. In addition, more consideration should be given to the building of trusting relationships with community partners, the nurturing of boundary spanners, promoting epistemic justice through prevention of the appropriation and exploitation of community (indigenous) knowledge, the co-construction of knowledge and building knowledge democracy. Currently, institutional structures and procedures (policy) for ethics approval for CBPR at universities in South Africa is a huge challenge. This too requires transformation.
7.1 Relationship Building in CBPR
Establishing a trusting relationship between community and university is one, if not the most, important component of CBPR. Bivens et al. (2015, p. 6) affirmed the importance of building partnerships with the community for CBPR
7.2 Doctoral Student as Boundary Spanner
The doctoral student continued to play the role of boundary spanner in this case study. One possible way for boundary spanning to bridge recognised gaps in knowledge cultures, is for at least one person from each ‘side’ of the boundary to intentionally engage with a person from the other side. Such a relationship, committed to addressing recognised hierarchies at play in, and ameliorating their impact on, the community-university partnerships represents the beginning of the process of bridging the gap. By the time the six participants in this case study met to complete the task set before us, we were
7.3 Knowledge Democracy/Co-Construction of Knowledge
Hall and Tandon (2017) highlight three phenomena that intersect in knowledge democracy: (1) acceptance of multiple epistemologies, (2) affirmation that knowledge is created and represented in multiple forms (for example, text, image, numbers, story, music, drama, poetry, ceremony, etc.), and (3) understanding that knowledge is a tool for taking action to create a more socially just and healthy world and for deepening democracy. D reminded participants of the concept of ‘knowledge democracy’ by drawing an analogy with the equality of each vote in an election. The value of the single ballot cast by a billionaire is equal in impact to that of an hourly paid labourer. This principle was intended to demonstrate that in a knowledge democracy, the knowledge of the representatives of a university and the knowledge of the representatives of the community have the same value (multiple epistemologies). If this is not the case in practice, then the term knowledge democracy should not be used to describe the community-based research that is undertaken in community-university partnerships. Knowledge extraction may be a more fitting alternative to describe these scenarios.
The practitioners’ reflections of their personal experience with the doctoral research project shows that the first step to knowledge democracy is investing in a relationship with community partners (discussed earlier) to allay their fears and mistrust of university academics. Importantly, academics have to be aware of and acknowledge the extant power imbalances inherent in the historical and prevailing context of higher education in South Africa. The consolidation of academic and community knowledge must be done in such a way that it is seen as having equal value as partners. This process is best facilitated through boundary spanning. We posit that such relationship building is an inherent and necessary enabler of the bridging of knowledge cultures, especially when both sides of the divide have boundary spanners bridging the divide.
Collaboration, partnership, respect, valuing each other were considered important factors to bridge the gap, essentially between the ‘practical knowledge culture of community’ with the ‘theoretical knowledge culture of university/academics’. While it did not escape us (the academic researchers) that we were ‘leading the discussion’, the ECD facilitators played a key role in
In the context of the case study, the facilitators used the introductory remarks and questions to engender an organic ‘easy flow of critical conversation’. Notwithstanding the inherent power dynamic at play, the conversational approach was an attempt to mitigate the implicit power asymmetry. In particular, the introductory remarks and explications were (to the extent possible) carefully stripped of the language of the academe, and nuanced in what was common to all of us. Once the hurdle of the introductory remarks was surmounted, it became easier for the six of us collectively to position the conversation as ‘ours’. Even the questions that followed and guided the remainder of the conversation could be deemed ‘ours’. The conversation led us naturally to where we needed to be – a place of contemplation and reflection about us; and the work we have accomplished.
7.4 Ethic Structures for CBPR in South African HEI s
As mentioned in the introduction, the initial sample for the case study anticipated participation from four different projects across Rhodes University and DUT. RUCE could not receive ethics approval for its case study in alignment with the time constraints of the BKC project. The DUT research team took advantage of the fact that although the doctoral study was nearing its completion, the interview schedule for this case study could be included as an extension of the data collection process, especially since the key informants has already been identified and ‘briefed’.
Procedures for ethics approval for CBPR by the relevant ethics committees of HEI s is a challenge that requires urgent consideration by all HEI s in South Africa. Currently, such procedures are an impediment to effective implementation of CBPR (especially with respect to the co-design and co-construction of the inquiry). A number of HEI s have adopted processes that mitigate these impediments (Connected Communities, 2011; Flicker et al., 2007; Pienaar,
8 Conclusion
The South African oppressive apartheid history lends its own particular characteristic to understanding the notion of knowledge, knowledge cultures and bridging the gap between knowledge cultures. A critical lesson learnt from this case study is that relationship building is at the centre of community-university partnerships and CBPR, specifically for the South African context. The DUT researchers are appreciably aware that if the doctoral research had not laid the path of relationship building over a number of years prior to the case study, we would not have been able to collaboratively generate the knowledge to the extent that we have been able to do so in this chapter. To the extent possible, the power dynamics that may have been at play in this study have been mitigated. The DUT personnel are and have been aware of the unequal relationship between universities and communities from their own involvement in community engagement and development and have been keen to learn from the different knowledge cultures prevailing in the diversity of South African communities, prior to the commencement of the BKC project. But we are also aware from our involvement with structures of university community engagement that while there is some movement towards a better understanding of community-based research and egalitarian community-university partnerships, the process is a slow one and it will take time for the majority of academics to put this into practice.
References
Atmore, E. (2013). Early childhood development in South Africa: Progress since the end of apartheid. International Journal of Early Years Education, 21(2–3), 152–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2013.832941
Bivens, F., Haffenden, J., & Hall, B. L. (2015). Knowledge, higher education and the institutionalization of community-university research partnerships. In B. Hall, R. Tandon, & C. Tremblay (Eds.), Strengthening community university research partnerships: Global perspectives (pp. 5–30). University of Victoria and Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA). http://hdl.handle.net/1828/6509
Department of Basic Education. (2015). The South African National Curriculum Framework for Children from Birth to Four. Department of Basic Education. https://www.education.gov.za/Portals/0/Documents/curriculum%20docs/NCF%202018/NCF%20English%202018%20web.pdf?ver=2018-05-14-124718-317
Department of Social Development. (2001). The Nationwide Audit of ECD provisioning in South Africa. Department of Social Development. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228799598_The_nationwide_audit_of_ECD_provisioning_in_South_Africa
Flicker, S., Travers, R., Guta, A., McDonald, S., & Meagher, A. (2007). Ethical dilemmas in community-based participatory research: Recommendations for institutional review boards. Journal of Urban Health, 84(4), 478–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-007-9165-7
Godinho, M. A., Borda, A., Kariotis, T., Molnar, A., Kostkova, P., & Liaw, S.-T. (2021). Knowledge co-creation in participatory policy and practice: Building community through data-driven direct democracy. Big Data & Society, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211019430
Hauke, E. (2019). Understanding the world today: The roles of knowledge and knowing in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 24(3), 378–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1544122
Hornby, D., & Maistry, S. (2022). Developing relationships for community-based research at Rhodes University: Values, principles and challenges. In L. Wood (Ed.), Community-based research with vulnerable populations: Ethical, inclusive and sustainable frameworks for knowledge generation. Palgrave Macmillan.
Irwin, L. G., Siddiqi, A., & Hertzman, C. (2007). Early childhood development: A powerful equalizer. Final report. WHO. https://factsforlife.org/pdf/a91213.pdf
Machen, P. (2011). Durban’s history, our communities: Umbumbulu. Ethekwini Municipality Website. https://www.durban.gov.za/
Oeberst, A., Kimmerle, J., & Cress, U. (2016). What is knowledge? Who creates it? Who possesses it? The need for novel answers to old questions. In U. Cress, J. Moskaliuk, & H. Jeong (Eds.), Mass collaboration and education (Vol. 16). Computer-supported collaborative learning series. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13536-6_6
Ray, D. (2016). Campus–community partnership: A stubborn commitment to reciprocal relationships. Diversity and Democracy, 19(2), 8–11. https://dgmg81phhvh63.cloudfront.net/content/user-photos/Publications/Archives/Diversity-Democracy/DD_19-2_SP16.pdf
Republic of South Africa. (2015). National Integrated Early Childhood Development Policy. Government Printers. https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201610/national-integrated-ecd-policy-web-version-final-01-08-2016a.pdf
Yang, S. (2017). The complex relations between wisdom and significant life learning. Journal of Adult Development, 24, 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-017-9261-1