Knowledge creation and dissemination
In sociology, knowledge creation and dissemination play a pivotal role in uplifting voices and moving towards progress. Knowledge creation and dissemination have the capacity to empower and advocate for communities through knowledge exchange.
Anti-oppressive pedagogy marries anticolonial praxis and concepts of coming-together-ness or community care (Liboiron et al., 2024). In practice, this method of pedagogy champions a move from just mere awareness into discovery-based teaching and studying up particularly when it comes to marginalized communities (Liboiron et al., 2024). It recognizes the need for informed consent, which is the essential of relationships and connections, and the core principles of ethics in research that can all be applied to how learning looks (Liboiron et al., 2021).
The understanding of needing to “stay out of the way, systematically” links to the language of anti-oppressive pedagogy (Liboiron et al., 2024). Anti-oppressive pedagogy acknowledges that activism, or solidarity, can look like separation in certain moments and it can also look like shared learning. This shared learning can happen when people have capacity, and only when they have capacity (Liboiron et al., 2024). Anti-oppressive pedagogy understands that emotional labor exists, while simultaneously understanding that it should not be required. It makes one question how colonialism impacts one’s role and responsibilities in day-to-day life in the move towards anti-colonialism (Liboiron et al., 2024). Anti-oppressive pedagogy encourages learning, making mistakes to further one’s own understanding and learning how to apologize (Liboiron et al., 2024).
Anti-oppressive pedagogy
By Sam Walsh
(Photo credit to Squillace, 2022)
Co-Creation of Knowledge
By Isabella Gallant
(Photo credit to Rumee, 2020b)
Defining co-creation of knowledge first requires an understanding that knowledge is discursively constructed and does not merely emerge from ‘discovering’ some objective truth or predetermined natural reality (Hacking, 2004; Liboiron et al., 2024). Rather, what is understood to be valuable or widely acceptable knowledge, particularly knowledge concerning the social world, is situated within historical, cultural, social, economic, and material conditions, such that dominant knowledge is merely a reflection of dominant understandings rather than of some objective reality (Schilling, 2010, as cited by van de Sande & Shwartz, 2017). In the social sciences and beyond, it is thus crucial that we critically deconstruct dominant knowledge, especially within those frameworks which seek to make meaning of the experiences and circumstances of historically marginalized identities. The co-creation of knowledge is ultimately a dynamic process, where understanding is developed alongside those with lived experience, incorporating their valuable lens rather than limiting the construction of knowledge to academic researchers (Dunbar Winsor et al., 2022; Jull et al., 2017; Hughes & Santinele, 2023; Israel et al., 2005; Morton-Ninomiya & Pollock, 2017; Nathoo et al., 2013). Through community-based participatory research methods, we can produce knowledge which serves to benefit and improve the experiences of participants, as opposed to the reputation of the researcher (Jull et al., 2017; van de Sande & Shwartz, 2017). Further, the co-creation of such knowledge allows for furthering principles of social justice, where racialized, queer, or young individuals may engage in the process of identifying barriers and solutions, rather than imposing dominant knowledge frameworks which might further marginalize the community (Carter & Ford, 2013; Dunbar Winsor et al., 2022; Jull et al., 2017; Hughes & Santinele, 2023; Israel et al., 2005; Morton-Ninomiya & Pollock, 2017; Nathoo et al., 2013).
The co-creation of knowledge is a collaborative process through which individuals or groups work together to generate, share, and refine ideas, insights, and understanding. It involves transcending traditional hierarchies of expertise and recognizing the valuable contributions that diverse perspectives, experiences, and forms of knowledge can offer (Jill et al., 2017). Co-creation emphasizes the importance of dialogue, reciprocity, and mutual learning, as well as the democratization of knowledge production and dissemination (Jill et al., 2017) . This concept challenges the notion of knowledge as something static and owned by experts or institutions, instead recognizing that knowledge is dynamic, and socially constructed (Jill et al., 2017). It acknowledges that different people bring unique insights and expertise to the table, and that meaningful knowledge creation occurs through the exchange and integration of diverse perspectives. The co-creation of knowledge can take many forms, ranging from informal conversations and collaborative brainstorming sessions to structured research projects and participatory action research initiatives. It often involves interdisciplinary collaboration, bringing together individuals from different disciplines, professions, and sectors to address complex challenges and generate innovative solutions (Jill et al., 2017).
In the context of academic research, co-creation challenges traditional models of knowledge production that prioritize individual expertise and hierarchical relationships between researchers and subjects. Instead, it emphasizes partnerships and collaboration between researchers and community members, stakeholders, or participants, with a focus on shared goals, mutual respect, and reciprocal learning (Jill et al., 2017). Co-creation also extends beyond academia to encompass a wide range of contexts, including community development, public policy, social innovation, and the arts.
Co-Creation of Knowledge
By Isabelle Williams
(Photo credit to Pham Quoc, 2019)
Knowledge Democracy
By Abigail Caldwell
(Photo credit to Hsu, 2017)
Knowledge democracy is a generated outcome of both community-based participatory research (CBPR) and integrated knowledge translation (IKT). Though their origins are different, both methods share the common goal of social benefit, and both contribute to knowledge democracy (Jull et al., 2017). Within this context, knowledge refers to facts, information, and skills that arise from education and lived experience, while democracy refers to principles of social equity in practice. Together, knowledge democracy contributes to the advancement of collaborative research, where diverse perspectives that are often excluded in higher education institutions inform the research (Jull et al., 2017). Knowledge democracy takes into consideration diverse knowledge systems, such as organic, spiritual and land-based systems, and recognizes their value. It strives to include those who are marginalized and historically excluded, such as indigenous people, racialized groups, and those excluded on the basis of gender, class, or sexuality (Lemkes, 2018). The goal of knowledge democracy is to provide open access to knowledge in order to strengthen the validity of democratic practices. Knowledge democracy looks beyond simply providing open access to data but takes into consideration key questions about who owns knowledge, who has the opportunity to generate knowledge, whose knowledge is credible, and what are the hierarchies of knowledge (Lemkes, 2018). Scientific and quantitative research has become the dominant and superior type of knowledge globally as a result of colonial practices and because of its objectivity. This Western hierarchy of knowledge has done an injustice to marginalized groups, and as a result, their voices are missing, dismissed, and distorted (Lemkes, 2018). Within community-based research, knowledge democracy encourages the flow of knowledge between universities and their communities. Knowledge democracy also emphasizes more creative methods that allow the generation and communication of knowledge from excluded voices in the way that is best suited to them (Lemkes, 2018). Community-based participatory research is an example of how knowledge democracy is used to resist dominant ideas of “what knowledge is”.
Knowledge exchange is the interactive process of exchanging knowledge between researchers and knowledge users (Jull et al., 2017). In contrast to knowledge users, researchers are seen as members of the dominant group as science-practitioners. It offers an understanding that there is a dynamic between identity and knowledge for all involved in research, which can contribute to power imbalances. Therefore, researchers must commit to de-centering the idea of research “expertise,” by sharing power and responsibility throughout the research project (Jull et al., 2017). Due to the objective nature of science, a knowledge exchange requires the researcher to engage in high levels of reflexivity (McCorkel & Myers, 2003). This means they must examine their own position and motives within the research and the dissemination. The central part of the research process includes developing collaborative approaches to generating knowledge through community-based participatory research (McCorkel & Myers, 2003). This often involves including those with lived experience as co-creators of research, where instead of them being labeled as subjects that are being studied or observed, participants are a part of the research team. Researchers will ask questions such as, “what do you think our next step should be?” to guide the research process through community feedback. The principles of a knowledge exchange were driven by an observed gap in what was known from health research, and the actual care that being provided in the healthcare system (Jull et al., 2017). This approach to research dissemination aims to close that gap.
Knowledge exchange
By Emma Etheridge
(Photo credit to Element5 Digital, 2017)
Non-judgmental Research Promotion
By Emma Etheridge
(Photo credit to Izzuddin, 2018)
Non-judgmental research promotion aims to produce promotion materials that are accessible to a wider demographic (Dunbar Winsor et al., 2022). Non-judgmental refers to materials that are inclusive, compassionate, and informed by lived experiences. There is also an added focus on sociological, cultural, and structural factors of research and promotion (Dunbar Winsor et al., 2022). This research process often involves asking for community-based participatory feedback to make edits until a final product is collaboratively decided on. Researchers using this promotion strategy typically aim to engage community partnerships and promote community empowerment (Hughes & Martino, 2023). A common element of a non-judgmental product is using language access strategies and other efforts of accessibility. Accessibility is crucial, as this research promotion is a key mechanism for educating the public about research results and issues surrounding relevant topics (Winsor Dunbar et al., 2022). This type of promotion is especially important, as data shows that typically,the marginalized groups thatthe promotional materials are targeting are the least likely to engage with them (Gartner et al., 2018). Thus, the research is not accomplishing what it is designed to. Instead, the non-judgemental approach to research promotion generally results in research that is more collaborative and relevant to the topic at hand (Hughes & Martino, 2023).
The concept of participatory pedagogy discussed in Godwin and Ward‐Edwards’ (2018) servicelearning program was heavily influenced by Paulo Freire’s foundational writings on critical pedagogy. Under dominant teaching models, the teacher is understood to be the authoritative knowledge holder, with the students acting as passive vessels for knowledge to be placed into; Freire referred to this as the “banking model” of education (Godwin & Ward‐Edwards, 2018, p. 420). This framework serves as an effective means of maintaining existing social structures and unjust hierarchies, as students are deprived of critical thinking skills and imagination, instead being forced into a narrow framework of memorization, standardized testing, disciplinary control, and skills training for the goal of economic security (Giroux, 2010). Conversely, a participatory pedagogical approach seeks to flatten the power imbalance between educators and pupils by understanding everyone to be both a teacher possessing knowledge to share and a student capable of learning new things (Godwin & Ward‐Edwards, 2018). Radical teaching practices — such as community engaged and experiential learning — provide students with the space and agency to ask disruptive questions, participate in reflexive activism, and exercise their power as critically-engaged citizens. Ultimately, participatory pedagogy creates an atmosphere in which transformational learning can take place and students can adopt a social justice identity (Godwin & Ward‐Edwards, 2018).
Participatory pedagogy
By Chloe Jackson
(Photo credit to Sukhinov, 2017)
Research Methods
By Quinn WayLaing
(Photo credit to Tyson, 2017)
Research methods refers to a set of tools to collect, measure, and make sense of data. They are used to apply scientific and/or social inquiry to an activity not otherwise categorized as such. This involves identifying patterns in everyday life and connecting them with larger truths found within established theory and empirical data. These tools can be arts-based or community-focused. For example, theatre, art, song, and dance have the power and agency to reveal schools of thought as they make sense of, or present challenges within, research methods (Carter & Ford, 2013; Dunbar & Sheppard, 2023). Due to dominant power operations, on the conditions of knowledge, research methods can maintain functionalist frameworks through the concept of objectivity in the collection and/or the dissemination of findings. Ideally, due to the nature of constructed knowledge within neoliberalism and post-modernity, research methods should always be participatory. Considering youth, gender non-conforming, racialized, or any stigmatized social group as active agents in the production of knowledge must be the critical focus of the method. Otherwise, a problematic moment presents itself for both the collection and dissemination of results. The importance of this critical focus is to ensure the fundamentally accessible nature within the research process. Namely, there is a collective and agreed-upon understanding of ideas as they are chosen, defined, and operationalized (Israel et al., 2005). The moment above speaks to the reproduction of dominant authoritative ideas within a discourse, but more specifically within the production and dissemination of knowledge and in academia, generally.