At the beginning of the Bridging Knowledge Cultures project, we had asked ourselves:
In what ways are trusting and respectful community-university research partnerships established?
How can different knowledge cultures be bridged such that perceived or actual power inequalities between collaborating partners are taken into consideration?
What capacities, methods, practices make building these bridges sustainable and secure over time, to be able to contribute to better lives, social justice, climate solutions and healthier communities?
The studies carried out by the Chair’s K4C hubs, which are presented as ten case studies in this book, sought to seek the answers. The secondary available literature of the diverse contexts, actors and language of knowledge cultures, especially the manifestations and formations of community knowledge cultures, and an analytical framework has been presented in Chapters 2 and 3. The previous chapter has systematised learnings from the case studies. In this chapter, we attempt to explore the imperatives of bridging knowledge cultures for future research and practice.
The knowledge settings which we examined were the sites of practice in each K4C hub. The story of each hub showcases how the university and community partners understand the creation and use of knowledge and what the hub has done to help bridge the differences. What emerges are positive stories of co-creation, trust building and mutual respect between the hub members. Building and sustaining such relationships are not without challenges, which the hubs have faced in trying to work across trans-disciplinary and community-university boundaries.
In addition to the micro context of the concrete co-creation projects, the hubs have also reflected on institutional/organisational practices and systems (meso level) as well as the general national knowledge environment, policy and funding frameworks in their country (macro level).
The analysis of the hubs’ experiences, and the framework for enquiry, throws light on three aspects of knowledge cultures.
1
For many academically trained and professionally certified researchers and knowledge workers, knowledge is created, used, stored and communicated only through ‘scientific’ means. In their worldview, knowledge is the domain of the academy. In the academy, meaning and practice of knowledge are axiomatic. Thus, knowledge culture is taken for granted, as a part of professional training, to imply what academically trained researchers and knowledge workers do.
Academic knowledge creation tends to emphasise value neutrality, distancing from everyday life, feelings and lived experiences, thereby relying exclusively on external standards and protocols of assessing validity of such knowledge. Academic knowledge production is often highly individualistic and competitive; its validation is determined by bureaucratic rules and procedures which are permanent and pre-determined, external to the very act of producing knowledge. Knowledge sharing is linked to individual incentives and careers, with publishing standards acting as gatekeepers. In much of the academic system of knowledge production and dissemination, elderly and tenured professors based in global elite research institutions are mandated to be the standard-bearers.
Community knowledge(s), on the other hand, is located within the ‘main business of life’. Practices of community knowledge are linked to everyday life and the immediate context of the community is the site for producing knowledge – place-based, contextual, contemporary, practical – unlike academic knowledge which puts emphasis on generalisations and on the search for universal truths. Since it helps to solve challenges of everyday life, community knowledge is pragmatic. Contrary to popular imputations, community knowledge is not stagnant or ancient or traditional; it changes with and over time, and is a dynamic response to changes in the immediate and larger socio-ecological contexts. Given its close links to everyday life challenges and expressed as a part of their worldviews, community knowledge production and sharing is functional and need-based. As such functional requirements change over time, as the ‘business of life’ moves ahead, procedures and practices of knowledge also adapt to such shifts. Community knowledge has a normative frame defined by the values of the community and the surrounding eco-system. A community’s everyday cultural symbols, languages and practices ‘curate’ and validate their knowledge. Community knowledge derives internal validation from their worldviews. Protocols for validation are rooted in community ethics and principles of cooperation and mutual aid. Understanding the inner
Both knowledge cultures differ significantly since the underlying worldviews are so vastly different. Academic knowledge is linked to instrumental rationality to control ‘nature’ for progress; community knowledge is linked to ‘lived-in’ emotionality to understand and ‘live with’ nature.
Academic researchers often ignore the rituals, ceremonies and symbols in communities as if these are merely a community living life, without understanding its meanings. They tend to label community knowledge as ‘subjective’, irrational, dogmatic, etc. In the absence of an understanding about a community’s knowledge culture, it is assumed that there are no regulators and standard-bearers of knowledge and its validity. Community elders are designated knowledge-keepers and behaviour regulators in most Indigenous communities; given the spiritual elements of such community knowledge, these Elders and community knowledge keepers also lead rituals of spirituality and ceremonies. These practices are then overlooked as sites and processes of knowledge production by those who do not recognise that knowledge systems can be diverse.
Thus, academic researchers often initiate processes of ‘co-creation’ of knowledge with limited comprehension of what is community knowledge(s), and the shared meanings and knowledge practices valued by a community. Academic partners engaging in CURP are often always surprised to learn about the distinctive culture of knowledge in communities. The ten K4C hubs in our study also made this ‘discovery’.
Examining this critical distinction between the knowledge cultures in academia and community, and finding a working definition of knowledge culture, was a central focus of this research. As part of the theoretical framework (Chapter 2), we defined 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 relates to community-university research partnerships (CURP) is embedded in the traditions and history of both, its participating members and its partnership configuration, and thus includes its own intra- and inter-organisational structures, alongside roles, division of labour, norms, formal and informal arrangements and mechanisms, collective beliefs, (im)personal
interactions/relations and cultural forms – e.g., images, symbols, heroes, rituals and vocabulary/language. These cultural elements shape the way knowledge production is performed within and across organisations and/or communities in any given CURP setting
The most significant insight from this study is the distinctive and different knowledge practices for production and sharing in communities that remain invisible and out-of-sight to the academy. Recognition of diversity of knowledge sites – and associated practices, beliefs and systems – is fundamental to effective co-creation of knowledge. As academic discourses on multiple modes of knowledge production gain momentum, as conversations about ‘decolonising’ higher education multiply, it is imperative that the differences between the singular academic knowledge culture and the plural community ones are recognised and bridged.
2 A Bridge Is Built by Partners
In the process of co-creation of knowledge, academic researchers commonly start from their own singular, academic understanding of knowledge production – its methods and tools of data collection and analysis, and standards of validity. The very reason for co-creation is to add value to what academic researchers can do on their own; if there is no added value, then why bother to co-create? Hence, co-creation starts with recognising different knowledge systems do exist, knowledge is available in non-academic (community) settings, and needs to be valued.
Effective co-creation entails recognition of different understandings of knowledge, its tools of production and methods of dissemination by community partners. Therefore, acceptance and acknowledgement of knowledge available in community settings as different and legitimate is a critical first step in facilitating a bridge between community knowledge and academic knowledge. This acceptance and acknowledgement of different yet legitimate knowledge in non-academic partners must become a foundational principle of any efforts at co-creation and building bridges.
Given past histories of apathy towards academic and community actors, as well as a dismissive attitude of academic researchers towards knowledge and experience of community actors, co-creation requires establishing relations of mutual trust. Relationships of trust are the cement for bridging knowledge cultures. Once experiential knowledge of people living in communities,
Training of academic researchers tends to buttress a sense of arrogance rooted in superior knowledge and scholarship. Trained to speak their own expertise incessantly, listening is not a hugely common practice amongst academic researchers. Blinded by beliefs of neutrality and objectivity, their capacity to listen to others’ words and feelings is limited. When academics ‘learn to listen’, relationships begin to develop.
Balancing feelings with thinking supports relationship building. This process happens gradually, needs time, requires patience. When academics ‘unlearn’, mutuality occurs. Empathic listening entails ‘unlearning’, which creates some tension and anxiety in all persons. The capacity to cope with distress and anxiety caused by such ‘unlearning’ helps create the partnerships required to build bridges.
Academic knowledge creators rely heavily on the written word in the research process, from production to dissemination. In communities, however, knowledge production and sharing occurs through parables, stories, anecdotes, hymns, dance and/or songs. Oral traditions of knowledge production and dissemination are structurally different from written academic traditions. The capacity of academics to accept oral storage and transmission of knowledge, and their openness towards non-written forms of documentation and records as legitimate sources of knowledge, help to support the arch of scaffolding of the bridge to be built. Academic researchers demonstrating a capacity to understand stories and anecdotes as types of data further helps the process of bridge-building. Academic research in recent decades has got bogged down in statistics and numbers, as ever sophisticated tools of algorithms have become available. As a consequence, oral, artistic and physical manifestations of community knowledge are not even recognised, and are dismissed as ‘unscientific’.
3
The case studies have demonstrated, initiatives to co-create knowledge typically begin from academic researchers. Communities hesitate to initiate the partnership for knowledge co-creation. There are multiple reasons for this – communities themselves fail to acknowledge that they are sites and producers of valid knowledge; they view the academy and the researcher as ‘holders of knowledge’; the knowledge economy makes them believe knowledge can only be gained and learnt in the academy; and they see themselves through the lens of the academy as illiterate, uneducated, invisible. Above all, communities lack the power to begin building the bridge.
The cultural, linguistic and status differentials between academic researchers and community actors are so large in many contexts that making connections to initiate dialogues becomes difficult. Hence, an effective mediation process helps to kick-off bridging and rebalance the power. Interlocutors, boundary spanners and intermediaries, who may well come from either or both the community and academic side, play an important role in facilitating the rebalancing of power. The case studies have illustrated the relevance of such intermediation, in whatever form it occurs, to start the bridging process. In some cases, local civil society organisations or school teachers or local government officials acted as the connector intermediary, performing the facilitator functions creatively and contextually.
There are several practical questions that need to be addressed in operationalising mediators between community and academia: Where should the mediators be located? How should they be funded? What decision-making capacity do they need? What skills are necessary? Should it be an individual or a team, with a formal or informal role? How should they demonstrate their accountability to both the community and academia?
A common finding from the BKC study and previous studies done by this UNESCO Chair is the need for a dedicated unit in academia for anchoring the co-creation and bridge building process. Academic institutions are large and divided into multiple units which typically act in silos. To build equitable partnerships with communities, a clear structure within the academy is required. The case studies demonstrate the value of such an administrative mechanism in order to enable and sustain partnerships beyond specific projects.
The creation of visible structures within the academy is key to supporting the transition from disciplinary, academic-led knowledge creation to interdisciplinary co-construction of knowledge with community. Administrative structures within universities provide spaces for the recognition of on-going
4 Missing Glues and Hopeful Futures
Several missing glues have been flagged from the case studies, which need sustained future attention. Despite the important success stories of the field cases we have shared in this book, overall we continue to observe the same patterns as in our 2015 study: many community-university research partnerships work well despite – and not because of – existing policies that seem to discourage, rather than incentivise, equitable partnerships. In cases where institutional support for co-creation of knowledge was available in academic institutions, some encouragement and resources were made available to those academics who took the risk of trying to bridge knowledge cultures. But this support remains largely precarious and uncertain, mostly dependent on commitment of top leadership (which changes frequently).
The analysis of significant institutional/structural mechanisms at meso levels and policy support at macro level was not sufficiently carried out to lend any fine comparative conclusions. However, several national contexts in this study do suggest an emerging trend of supportive national policies and research funding arrangements. In addition to Canada, recent examples of such shift are visible in South Africa and India. The National Education Policy 2020 in India has explicitly acknowledged diversities of knowledge systems, valuing linguistic plurality and engaged teaching and co-creation of knowledge. In situations where national policy in higher education and research is explicitly supportive of co-creation, where policy recognises that community knowledge is important and that linguistic and cultural diversity will need to be taken into account for harnessing such community knowledge, academic leadership is more inclined to invest institutionally. Research funding agencies also look for policy signals to align their research priorities. These trends need to be welcomed and incentivised for future research funding.
Still more systematic research of bridging is called for as community knowledge cultures are studied in-depth. K4C hubs facilitated by the UNESCO Chair are becoming privileged and safe sites for bringing community and academic
During the three-year period when this international study was conducted, several global policy mandates have emerged to support the basic thesis of bridging knowledge cultures. A landmark report was released by UNESCO’s International Commission on Futures of Education in 2021, Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. Its main recommendation is to embed educational programs within the larger societal context of today, and the future. It notes that, “knowledge data and evidence must be inclusive of diverse sources and ways of knowing” (International Commission on the Futures of Education, 2021, p. 154). The report further notes that, “Decolonizing knowledge calls for greater recognition of the validity and applicability of diverse sources of knowledge to the exigencies of the present and future” (p. 126). The Chair of the International Commission, HE Sahle-Work Zewde eloquently captures the call to action as follows, “The future of our planet must be locally and democratically envisioned. It is only through collective and individual actions that harness our rich diversity of peoples and cultures that the futures we want can be realized” (International Commission on the Futures of Education, 2021, p. VII).
Following closely behind the release of the Futures of Education report was the universal adoption of UNESCO’s Recommendations on Open Science in November 2021. Expanding the meaning of science to be open to not merely fellow scientists but also practitioners and citizens, Open Science recommendations also endorse the recognition of community knowledge. Its Open framework has a quadrant of public engagement of science (including citizen science), as well as openness to multiple epistemologies (hitherto excluded knowledge systems, Indigenous knowledge, etc.).
Open science should not only foster enhanced sharing of scientific knowledge solely among scientific communities but also promote inclusion and exchange of scholarly knowledge from traditionally underrepresented
or excluded groups (such as women, minorities, Indigenous scholars, scholars from less-advantaged countries and low-resource languages). (UNESCO, 2021, p. 5) The Recommendation further notes that open science “opens the processes of scientific knowledge creation, evaluation and communication to societal actors beyond the traditional scientific community”.
(UNESCO, 2021, p. 8)
The conversations and recommendations arising from UNESCO’s Third World Higher Education Conference in Barcelona (May 2022) reinforced the perspective of co-creation of knowledge to address critical challenges of our times like growing inequality, post-pandemic health risks and rapid climate distress. Presented during the conference was a report by the UNESCO Expert Group, Knowledge-driven actions: Transforming higher education for global sustainability. The fundamental message from this ground-breaking report is, “the imperative of becoming open institutions, fostering epistemic dialogue and integrating diverse ways of knowing” (UNESCO, 2022, p. 101).
Most significantly, for the first time, the Third World Higher Education Conference had a special session on ways to synergise the teaching and research functions of higher education with Indigenous knowledge systems. The report on the session on Indigenous Perspectives on Higher Education notes that,
To favour the well-being of all people inclusively and the sustainability of societies overall, higher education systems must be deconstructed and co-created into new structures that respect and incorporate Indigenous knowledge and values. They should be redesigned to feel inclusive to Indigenous students and should explore what Indigenous wisdom and culture – developed over millennia – can offer humankind rather than expecting students to conform to existing norms.
(Canadian Commission for UNESCO, 2021, p. 6)
All of the above global policy convergences create an enabling policy environment to promote and deepen bridging academic knowledge and community knowledge by recognising and valuing different knowledge cultures. Higher education institutions can use these enabling policies to move towards inter- and transdisciplinary modes of producing and circulating knowledge; to become open institutions, fostering epistemic dialogue, integrating, respecting and valuing diverse ways of knowing; place truth-seeking skills at the core of the curriculum to reignite imaginations and promote divergent thinking.
We have no doubt that co-created learning and knowledge can repair injustices, and contribute to just and sustainable futures. We know that redesigning structures and cultures of historically rigid academic institutions to do this is a tall order; it will take enormous efforts and investments. We hope a next generation of professional researchers trained to co-produce knowledge by understanding and building appreciation that diverse knowledge cultures exist, and by demonstrating the building of bridges through everyday practice, can overcome the competitive vision of education in favour of a culture of collaboration and cooperation.
References
Canadian Commission for UNESCO. (2021). Indigenous perspectives on higher education. https://en.ccunesco.ca/-/media/Files/Unesco/Resources/2022/05/IndigneousPerspectivesHigherEducation.pdf
International Commission on the Futures of Education. (2021). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379707.locale=en
UNESCO. (2021). UNESCO recommendation on open science. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379949
UNESCO. (2022). Global independent expert group on the universities and the 2030 agenda. UNESCO.