**Rebalancing Power in the Co-Construction of Knowledge**

**Walter Lepore, Budd L. Hall and Rajesh Tandon (Eds.)**

Spine <20 mm>

**Walter Lepore, Budd L. Hall and Rajesh Tandon (Eds.)**

**Bridging Knowledge Cultures**

**Bridging Knowledge Cultures**

tions and community groups and organizations.

sive understanding of the world around us.

ISBN 978-90-04-68774-5

edging the wealth of knowledge created by local communities.

Cover illustration: iStock.com/Kedar Diwakar Mandakhalikar

**Knowledge**

**Rebalancing Power in the Co-Construction of**

**Walter Lepore, Budd L. Hall and Rajesh Tandon (Eds.)**

Establishing truly respectful, mutually benefijicial, and equitable knowledge creation partnerships with diverse communities poses signifijicant challenges for academia. *Bridging Knowledge Cultures* provides valuable insights into the dynamics involved and the obstacles encountered when attempting to establish meaningful research partnerships between diffferent knowledge domains. This book goes beyond exploration by offfering practical recommendations to overcome these challenges and forge efffective collaboration between mainstream research institu-

This book includes ten compelling case studies conducted by research and training hubs established through the global Knowledge for Change Consortium. These case studies encompass community-university research partnerships across various geographical locations, tackling a wide range of societal issues and acknowl-

The overarching goal of this book is to inspire the next generation of researchers and professionals to embrace the richness of diverse perspectives and knowledge cultures. By advocating for the construction of "bridges" through practical approaches, the book encourages a shift from competition to collaboration in research. Ultimately, it aims to foster an environment where diffferent forms of knowledge can intersect and thrive, leading to a more inclusive and comprehen-

*Rebalancing Power in the Co-Construction of Knowledge*

*Edited by*

Walter Lepore, Budd L. Hall and Rajesh Tandon

leiden | boston

This is an open access title distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 license, which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited. Further information and the complete license text can be found at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

The terms of the CC license apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources (indicated by a reference) such as diagrams, illustrations, photos and text samples may require further permission from the respective copyright holder.

Cover illustration: iStock.com/Kedar Diwakar Mandakhalikar

All chapters in this book have undergone peer review.

The Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available online at https://catalog.loc.gov

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: "Brill". See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface.

isbn 978-90-04-68774-5 (paperback) isbn 978-90-04-68775-2 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-68776-9 (e-book) DOI 10.1163/9789004687769

Copyright 2024 by Walter Lepore, Budd L. Hall and Rajesh Tandon. Published by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Brill Wageningen Academic, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau and V&R Unipress. Koninklijke Brill NV reserves the right to protect this publication against unauthorized use.

This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

# **Contents**

Foreword ix *Catherine A. Odora Hoppers* Acknowledgements xii List of Figures and Tables xiv Notes on Contributors xvi

### **PART 1** *Theoretical Perspectives*

### **Part 2** *Case Studies*

4 What Academia Can Learn from the Kenjeran Community of Indonesia: Experiences of the *UINSA* K4C Hub, Surabaya, Indonesia 65 *Nabiela Naily, M. Helmi Umam, Noor Wahyudi and Misbakhul Munir*

5 Learning with the Orang Asli Community: Experiences of the Mizan K4C Hub, Malaysia 85 *Mahazan Abdul Mutalib, Izawati Wook, Mohd. Dzulkhairi Mohd. Rani, Khairunneezam Mohd. Noor, Aminuddin Mohamed, Norhyisyamudin bin Kamil, Jufitri Joha and Muhamad Hanapi bin Jamaluddin*

### **PART 3** *Learning to Bridge Knowledge Cultures*

Index 312

# **Foreword**

A slow-motion standoff is being witnessed in the relationship between communities and researchers from formal institutions. Linda T. Smith captures the most poignant expression of this face-off:

The term 'research' itself stirs up in local communities a silence, conjures up bad memories that still offends the deepest sense of our humanity… . It galls non-Western societies that western researchers, intellectuals and scientists trained in that tradition can claim to know ALL that there is to know about other societies, on the basis of brief and superficial encounters with those societies. It often appalls indigenous societies that Western science [and researchers trained in that tradition] can desire, extract, and claim ownership of people's way of knowing, and then simultaneously reject those people who created those ideas, and deny them the opportunities to be the creators of their culture and own notions. (Smith, 1999, p. 1)

Coming from Africa, I assume an African perspective in my analysis of the broader implications of recognising community knowledges worldwide. On entry to the system that associates the non-Western, the non-'developed' with 'bad', it quickly becomes known to indigenous and African children that what is relevant for the West, its insights, its values, its tastes and eccentricities alike, becomes the model for the world. From then on, everything one does and thinks, is defined and compared using Western norms, leaving all else bundled together as the 'rural other', the 'non-urban', often equated with 'community'. This 'other' is the cosmologies of Africa, the Native American, Saami from Scandinavia, Asia and Latin America – otherwise collectively known as the 'Third World'. In fact, it took less than 20 years since President Truman launched the concept of 'underdevelopment' in his inaugural speech in 1949 (Sachs, 1992), to make two billion people define themselves as such (Illich, 1981). With the launching of this concept, all social totalities were collapsed into one single model; all systems of science into one mega science; all development to growth, to GNP. The attitude to what is referred to as 'rural', or 'community', in development jargon, still bears, like father, like son, the hallmarks of subjugative paternalism.

Critiquing the Western, scientific research model without offering an alternative will not be helpful for universities to play a different role and give voice to those who don't have voice. *Bridging Knowledge Cultures* addresses this need x Foreword

for transformation and equity in the political economy of knowledge production. In examining the allocation, use and utilisation of human, financial and infrastructural resources available to the academy, the policy domain and community-based organisations, it faces the question: In establishing trusting and respectful community-university research partnerships, how can diverse knowledge cultures be bridged so that extant power inequalities between collaborating partners are taken into consideration to make these connections sustainable and secure over time?

In urging the fostering of community knowledge cultures and coconstruction of knowledge, leading to transformation and healing between the academy and the communities, knowledge power inequalities between the two have been taken into account in this book. These power differentials at individual and institutional level not only influence the role of partnership members in the entire research process, but also create hierarchies of knowledge(s) based on existing institutional or socio-cultural norms and assumptions. What we need to do is deepen our analysis at the diagnostic level so that action can proceed. This book is a step in that direction.

The intractable problems of modernity cannot be solved within the paradigms of modernity (Odora Hoppers & Richards, 2011). The universities must see to it that its roles include the verification, validation and legitimation of community knowledge, locally and internationally, through sustained dialogue. Equitable relations between the academy and the indigenous knowledge holders must create within its strategic objectives a process in which the marginalised have a 'presence' and 'voice'. It is through affirmation of the multiplicity of worlds, and the recognition that forms of knowledge other than that sanctioned by science *exist*, that it becomes possible to redefine the relationship between objectivity and representation, between subject and object (CODESRIA, 1998), between university and community – a *healing moment* (Nouwen, 1972) in this long chain of *vicarious disenfranchisement*.

*Catherine A. Odora Hoppers*

#### **References**

CODESRIA. (1998, September 14−18). *Introduction to the international symposium on social sciences and the challenges of globalization in Africa* (pp. 1–2). Johannesburg. Illich, I. (1981). *Shadow work: Vernacular values examined*. Marion Boyars Inc. Nouwen, H. (1972). *The wounded healers*. Doubleday.

# **Acknowledgements**

This book would not have been possible without the support, contributions and participation of numerous individuals and organisations who have generously given their time, knowledge and expertise. First and foremost, we would like to express our deep appreciation to the community members and university partners who have collaborated with us through this three-year research project titled *Bridging Knowledge Cultures: The Knowledge for Change Global Consortium on Training of Community-Based Participatory Research*, also known as the BKC project. Our partners' valuable insights, perspectives and experiences have enriched this book and made it a true reflection of the power and potential of community-university research partnerships, and of the diversity and complexity of knowledge cultures in a variety of settings and geographic regions.

To Gloria Aber, Maura Adshead, Andrés Astaiza, Minali Banerjee, René Walter Botha, Beatrix (Bibi) Bouwman, Anuradha Chakraborty, Tanya Clarmont, Hendri Coetzee, Suriani Dzulkifli, Irma Flores, Luisa Fernanda González, Carol Hal, Siraz Hirani, Muhamad Hanapi bin Jamaluddin, Jufitri Joha, Norhyisyamudin Bin Kami, Niharika Kaul, Ahmad Kipacha, Alice Veronica Lamwaka, Daniel Lopera, Darren Lortan, Savathrie Margie Maistry, Haikael D. Martin, Aminuddin Mohamed, David Monk, Alfi Moolman, Misbakhul Munir, Mahazan Abdul Mutalib, Nabiela Naily, Khairunneezam Mohd Noor, Martin Odoch, George Openjuru, Mohd. Dzulkhairi Mohd. Rani, Mwemezi Johaiven Rwiza, Manish Sharma, Priyamvada Shrivastava, Sebastian Silva, Crystal Tremblay, Helmi Umam, Andrea Vargiu, Aniksha Varoda, Karen Venter, Reeta Venugopal, Noor Wahyudi, Clive Allens William-Hunt, Lesley Wood, Izawati Wook, Madhura Yadav – your contributions have made this book stronger. The BKC project and our efforts to advance equal, transparent, accountable and trust-based community-university research partnerships would not have been possible without your dedication, commitment and enthusiasm. Thank you.

We would also like to thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada, the University of Victoria and Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA), which have provided us with the resources and support necessary to carry out this project. Their financial support, research facilities and other resources have been essential to the success of the BKC project.

We would also like to thank our colleagues (academics and practitioners) who provided us with invaluable feedback and support throughout the research and writing process. Their encouragement, critical insights and constructive comments have been instrumental in shaping this book. We are particularly grateful to Barbara Jenni and Sumitra Srinivasan who have provided us with valuable feedback and guidance on this book. Their input, suggestions and editorial work have helped to refine and strengthen the content and structure of our work. We would like to express our gratitude to our family and friends who have provided us with unwavering support, love and inspiration throughout this journey. Their patience, understanding, and encouragement have been essential to our success.

Special thanks to Lorna Wanosts'a7 Williams, for agreeing to write an endorsement of this book, and Catherine Odora Hoppers, for the Foreword.

# **Figures and Tables**

### **Figures**

### **Tables**

# **Notes on Contributors**

### *Gloria Aber*

is a part-time lecturer in medical ethics at PHARMBIOTRAC-Gulu, a project manager, a researcher and a lawyer. She has a graduate degree in law from Makerere University, a Post Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice from the Law Development Centre, a Post Graduate Diploma in Hospital and Health Care Management, a Master's degree in Management specialising in Hospital and Health Care from Uganda Management Institute, and an Executive Master's in Business Administration from NIBM, India. Her research interests are related to health management, governance and community engagement.

### *Andrés Astaiza*

is a professor-researcher with experience in the field of higher education in the areas of psychology, social sciences and systemic thinking. She also has experience in planning and coordinating educational projects and providing individual and group psychopedagogical support to students. Since 2018, she has been working at the University of Ibagué, Colombia, conducting research on the teacher-researcher training processes in the university context, citizen training and systemic thinking. She is a member of the fourth cohort of the Mentor Training Program of the UNESCO Chair in Community Based Research and Social Responsibility in Higher Education.

### *Minali Banerjee*

is a certified mentor of Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) and a growing economist and academician. She is Assistant Professor in Department of Economics, School of Humanities & Social Sciences, Manipal University Jaipur. An avid participatory researcher, her current areas of interest lie in engaged teaching-learning pedagogy, engaged research, community engagement and its institutionalization among Indian higher education institutions.

### *René Walter Botha*

is the Coordinator for Community Based Education and Rural Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Free State, South Africa. He has a Master's degree in Diagnostic Radiography, and doctorate in Health Professions Education from the same university. His areas of research include Community Based Education, Service-learning, Interprofessional Education and Radiation Science. He is responsible for the planning, implementation and monitoring of the Faculty of Health Sciences Rural Community Initiative based in three rural towns (see https://www.ufs.ac.za/health/faculty-of-health-sciences-home/

faculty/community-based-education). As a former member of the Health Professions Council of South Africa, he is still involved with governance and accreditation of decentralised training facilities.

### *Beatrix (Bibi) Bouwman*

is the current Director for Sustainability and Community Impact at North-West University (NWU), South Africa. She has experience as a development practitioner, academic and researcher in the field of microbiology, agriculture, business, sustainable development, in technology transfer, as well as community engagement management for more than 15 years. She has an MSc degree from the University of Johannesburg and an MBA from NWU. As a member of the SA Global Reporting Initiative Focal point, she is driving impact measurement in community engagement. As longest serving executive member of the South African Higher Education Community Engagement Forum (SAHECEF) and previous chairperson, she is well-informed on the latest community engagement developments in South Africa and keen to facilitate the practice of service-learning as a pedagogy in African universities by working with all external stakeholders.

### *Anuradha Chakraborty*

is a faculty in Centre for Women's Studies, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India. She has a Master's in Physical Anthropology and Indian classical music and is a recipient of gold medals for the same. She completed her PhD in Life Sciences. Her areas of interest include epidemiological studies, community health, tribal and rural developmental issues, gender disparities, and education.

### *Tanya Clarmont*

is Teme-Augama Anishnabai on her father's side and French Canadian on her mother's side, and has committed her life to improving relations among all Canadians. She works as the Director of Management Services with Victoria Native Friendship Centre, which includes managing the Victoria Urban Reconciliation Dialogue. She has worked with Friendship Centres for 18 years and held positions at the national, provincial and local levels. Along with her certification under the UNESCO Chair's Mentor Training Program, Tanya holds BA's in Native Studies, Law & Justice, and Creative Writing.

#### *Hendri Coetzee*

is an extraordinary associate-professor at the North-West University's COMPRES research unit and the director of the Nature's Valley Trust. As an engaged scholar, his main research focus encompasses community, conservation and social-environmental topics such as human-environment interactions, community engagement, community well-being, community impact, community-based conservation, human-wildlife conflict and the conservation of the ground-hornbill, to mention but a few. He also has a passion for botany and ornithology.

### *Suriani Dzulkifli*

is the programme manager and co-instructor/facilitator of the UNESCO Chair's Knowledge for Change Global Consortium training programme in community based participatory research. She is also a certified CBPR mentor of the Salish Sea K4C hub. Suriani is a PhD Candidate in Leadership Studies-Adult Education and Community Engagement at the University of Victoria. She is from Malaysia but currently based in Canada.

### *Irma Flores*

is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education of the University of los Andes, Colombia. Her interest, both in research and teaching, focuses on teacher training in qualitative and participatory research, ethnoeducation, diversity and curricular transformation. She has a PhD in Social Sciences, Childhood and Youth; a Master's degree in Educational and Social Development, a specialization degree in Community Development and a graduation degree in Psychology. She is a certified CBPR mentor of the Mentor Training Program of the UNESCO Chair in Community Based Research and Social Responsibility in Higher Education. She is the coordinator of the Colombia K4C hub.

### *Luisa Fernanda González*

is a researcher at University of los Andes, Colombia. Her research agenda focuses on issues of inclusive education, teacher training and support, teacher evaluation, curriculum, practices, public policies and social responsibility in higher education. Luisa has a Bachelor's in Biology and Chemistry from the University of Caldas, a Master's in Education and is a PhD candidate in Education at the University of the Andes.

#### *Budd L. Hall*

is Professor Emeritus with the School of Public Administration, University of Victoria, Canada, and Co-Chair of the UNESCO Chair in Community Based Research and Social Responsibility in Higher Education. He was Former Dean of the Faculty of Education at the University of Victoria, Chair of the Adult Education Department of the University of Toronto, and Secretary-General of the International Council for Adult Education. He is a member of the International Adult Education Hall of the Fame and was selected for the 2005 Canadian Bureau of International Education Innovation in Education Award.

### *Carol Hall*

is Director of Strategic Initiatives with the Victoria Foundation, which is a partner in the Salish Sea K4C hub. She has worked in community development in Victoria, British Columbia and globally to mobilise knowledge and tools to strengthen community wellbeing in an era of rapid change. Prior to moving to Victoria, she was executive director of a foundation in New England that conserved farms and natural areas, and worked on community economic development in southern Africa. She holds a BA from the University of Pennsylvania, and Master's degrees from Georgetown University and University College London, UK.

#### *Siraz Hirani*

is a senior professional with 20 years of strategic and operational experience with international development organisations, including 10 years at leadership positions at global and national levels. He holds an MSc in Disaster Mitigation, MSc in Life Sciences and an MBA with specialisation in finance. He is an alumni of the Harvard Kennedy School with work experience in multi-cultural & challenging countries like India, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Myanmar. His sectoral experience includes habitat development, climate change and disaster risk management. He is a certified CBPR mentor of the Mentor Training Program of the UNESCO Chair in Community Based Research and Social Responsibility in Higher Education. He presently works as Senior Programme Management Specialist at Mahila Housing Sewa Trust (MHT).

#### *Muhamad Hanapi bin Jamaludin*

has a Bachelor's degree in Social Science and Humanity (Malay Studies) and a Master of Arts (Theory of Knowledge and Epistemology) from National University of Malaysia (UKM). He is currently part of the Secretariat Executive of Youth Advisors to Malaysia's Prime Minister, a Committee Member of OIC Youth Forum, Research Fellow of Malaysia Youth Council President, Head of Information for 4B Youth Club, President of WAMY Club Malaysia, and President of Kerapatan Graduan Muda Youth Organisation (KAGUM). He is also an active Malay author of books. Some of his most recent books are *Barat dari Cerminan Watan* (2021) and *Gelintaran Fikiran Al-Attas dan Pendita Za'ba* (2021). He acts as Research Fellow for Jejak Tarbiah, Deputy Secretary of Federasi Kebangsaan Pekerja Belia (FKPB), Manager of Sekolah Pembangunan Pekerja Belia dan Komuniti (SPKB), Co-founder of District Intellectual Discourse Secretariat, and Secretary of Minang Intellectuals Organisation Malaysia. He is now an invited speaker and part of the Mizan K4C Hub as a social activist.

#### *Barbara Jenni*

is of Swiss, French and German ancestry and now lives in W̱ SÁNEĆ and lək̓ʷəŋən territories in Victoria (Canada). She has a Master's degree in Linguistics and has worked for over a decade in various capacities supporting community-led/based research projects. Barbara is a PhD Candidate in the Faculty of Education at the University of Victoria, where she investigates the circumstances, experiences and practices of those doing the labour of knowledge sharing at/from universities. As a Research Assistant, UNESCO Chair in Community-Based Research and Social Responsibility in Higher Education, she has played a coordinating role in the Bridging Knowledge Cultures project.

#### *Jufitri Joha*

is former President of Malaysian Youth Council (MBM). He is Vice President, Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia (ABIM) in charge of youth and intellectual development. He obtained an LLB from International Islamic University of Malaysia (IIUM) and a Master's degree in Community and Youth Work from Durham University, United Kingdom. Currently, he is pursuing his PhD in Youth Studies at Institute for Social Science Studies (IPSAS) of University Putra Malaysia (UPM).

### *Norhyisyamudin Bin Kamil*

(AAP) was born in Kuala Pilah, N. Sembilan, Malaysia. He studied TESL education at the University College of St. Mark & St. John, Plymouth, United Kingdom. After teaching for eight years in a school, he joined the Institute of Teacher Education, Sultan Mizan Campus, Besut. He currently works at the Institute of Teacher Education, Tengku Ampuan Afzan Campus, Kuala Lipis, Pahang. His serious involvement in the development of indigenous education lead to his appointment as Deputy Head at The National Centre of Excellent for Indigenous Pedagogy (PKPPK). He continues to contribute in various fields, especially in indigenous pedagogy, teacher training and professional support, module writing and motivational programmes for indigenous education.

#### *Niharika Kaul*

has been a Research Associate at PRIA, New Delhi, working with Drs. Tandon and Hall. She completed her undergraduate degree in Sociology from Delhi University and her Bachelor of Laws from University of Durham. She has worked extensively with the UNESCO Chair in Community Based Research towards making higher education institutions community-driven and inclusive. Niharika has been engaged in research and advocacy with relevant stakeholders on building knowledge democracy and bridging knowledge cultures between academia and communities. She recently co-authored the chapter 'Towards Societally Embedded Higher Education: A Panoramic Overview of Asia & Oceania' in GUNi Higher Education in the World Report 8 Special Issue (2022), and authored the book *The Knowledge for Change Global Consortium* (2021). She is currently pursuing a post-graduate degree in Gender, Policy and Inequalities at the London School of Economics and Political Science, United Kingdom.

### *Ahmad Kipacha*

works as Senior Lecturer in the School of Business Studies and Humanities of the Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology (NM-AIST) in Arusha, Tanzania. He has a PhD from the University of London (SOAS) and a Master's degree in Applied Linguistics from the University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. He has been associated with interdisciplinary projects and research, and lecturing in areas of research writing in sciences, languages (Swahili and English), ethics in sciences, culture and social entrepreneurship. His current research is about forensic analysis of Swahili texts, academic writing styles, data visualisation, ethics in sciences and community-based research, and the complexity in modern Tanzanian cultural issues in literary and media outlets. Dr. Kipacha has been engaged in PACE Research Network: Project on Post-proverbial in African Cultural Expressions sponsored by Alexander von Humboldt Alumni Awards for Networking Initiatives Post-proverbial in African Studies, in collaboration with Ibadan University. He is a certified CBPR mentor of the Mentor Training Program of the UNESCO Chair in Community Based Research and Social Responsibility in Higher Education with the Nyerere K4C hub.

#### *Alice Veronica Lamwaka*

holds a PhD in Clinical Pharmaceutical Sciences and Pharmacogenomics. She is Senior Lecturer, Head, Pharmacy Programs and Principal Investigator of Covilyce Natural Products used in the management of Covid-19 cases. Her interest in teaching, research and community engagement focuses principally on indigenous knowledge, indigenous cultures and indigenous knowledge systems, on how these can be translated into science that can be well understood by the community. While her work is aligned towards discovery of medicines for managing both communicable and non-communicable diseases including epidemics, she has carried out extensive research on biodiversity, traditional medicine, and alternative medicines principally towards addressing Sustainable Development Goals for improving socioeconomic development of the local peoples of Northern Uganda. She is the Centre Leader for the Pharmaceutical Biotechnology and Traditional Medicine Centre of Excellence at Gulu University, Uganda.

### *Walter Lepore*

is Assistant Professor in the School of Public Administration at the University of Victoria, and co-founder of the Salish Sea K4C hub that provides training in community-based research and indigenous research methodologies. He is also the Research Director for the UNESCO Chair in Community-Based Research and Social Responsibility in Higher Education and former coordinator of the Knowledge for Change (K4C) Consortium. Before joining the University of Victoria, Dr. Lepore was an Associate Professor at the Division of Public Administration of Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (Mexico), and Associate Faculty at the Schools of Leadership Studies, and of Environment and Sustainability at Royal Roads University (Canada).

### *Daniel Lopera*

is Industrial Designer from the Universidad Javeriana, Colombia, with a Master's in Design Futures from Griffith University in Australia and a Master's in Education from Universidad de los Andes, Colombia. He teaches in the areas of design futures, ontological design and research. He has carried out action-research projects in which peasant, indigenous and ex-combatant communities have participated. He led the creation of the current Design academic program at the University of Ibagué, Colombia, of which he was its director for five years. Currently, he serves as Dean of the Faculty of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences of the University of Ibagué.

#### *Darren Lortan*

is Associate Professor of Mathematics at the Durban University of Technology (DUT), is a teacher and an activist interested in sustaining an interest in education at the grass roots level. Previously, he has held several leadership positions in DUT, including Executive Dean, Acting Deputy Vice-Chancellor: Academic, and Acting Senior Director: Engagement. His interest in community engagement began through a project which marketed STEM professions to high school students. Over the years, the focus of his community engagement interests included early childhood development, youth development and educational support, adult basic education, post-school training and local community skills development, and social entrepreneurship. He serves on the boards of the South African Higher Education Community Engagement Forum (SAHECEF), and the International Association for Research on Service Learning and Community Engagement (IARSLCE). DUT joined the global K4C Consortium under his leadership.

### *Savathrie Margie Maistry*

is currently a Research Associate at Rhodes University and the Durban University of Technology. She has held numerous positions at a number of institutions, including director of *community engagement* at Rhodes University; lecturer and head of department (*social work and social development*) at University of Fort Hare; lecturer in the Centre for Continuing Education, University of Waikato, New Zealand; and served as the Africa Region Programme Manager of Volunteer Services Abroad, New Zealand. As a Research Associate with the Durban University of Technology, she was responsible for curriculum development at the Master**'**s and Bachelor's level in Community Development. In addition, she supervised Master's and doctoral postgraduate students in *community engagement* and in an *articulation research* project within the South African Post School Education and Training sector. She has extensive experience in social work and community development practice, management, education and research. She is a member of the national task team established by the Department of Social Development, Community Development Directorate for the professionalization of community development. She has researched and published in the areas of social work, community development, higher education, community engagement, integral education, community based participatory research and women's studies.

#### *Haikael D. Martin*

is a human nutritionist with experience working in Tanzania, particularly in nutrition and health. She is working for The Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology as a senior Lecturer in Human Nutrition and Dietetics. She strives to implement nutrition and nutritional-related programs and interventions that are responsive to societal issues. She is a certified CBPR mentor of the Mentor Training Program of the UNESCO Chair in Community Based Research and Social Responsibility in Higher Education under the Nyerere Hub in Tanzania. She experiences and competencies in human nutrition and health include maternal and child nutrition, adolescent nutrition, nutritional management of disease/conditions (diabetes, hypertension and cancers), advocating for nutrition in different sectors, mentorship of District Nutrition Officers, nutrition surveys, nutrition stakeholders mapping and assessment, agriculture, and nutrition linkages.

### *Aminuddin Mohamed*

earned his PhD from the National University of Malaysia in 2017 after completing his thesis entitled *Kelestarian KEDAP dalam Pembangunan Modal Insan Masyarakat Orang Asli*. He is now working as a lecturer and also heads the Indigenous Pedagogy Centre of Excellence, Kampus Tengku Ampuan Afzan Teacher's College, Pahang, Malaysia. He is actively involved in various research in the field of indigenous pedagogy and socio-cultural study at both national and international levels.

### *David Monk*

is Lecturer in the Faculty of Education and Humanities at Gulu University, Uganda and an honorary Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of Nottingham, United Kingdom. He is also special advisor to the UNESCO Chair in Lifelong Learning Youth and Work and coordinator of the Gulu K4C Hub. His research and community work revolve around inclusive lifelong learning, developing healthy community university relationships, environmental sustainability and innovation, participatory community economics and social entrepreneurship, and understanding the vibrant social skills learning ecosystem in northern Uganda.

### *Alfi Moolman*

is coordinating the University of the Free States's engaged- and e-engaged scholarship activities. She has more than 20 years' experience in community development and project management. She has worked in various industries including government, local and international funding, and corporate, private and tertiary education sectors. Alfi studied psychology and is an SAQA accredited facilitator and assessor. She is a certified CBPR mentor of the Mentor Training Program of the UNESCO Chair in Community Based Research and Social Responsibility in Higher Education, and affiliated with the Global University of Lifelong Learning, in support of community development.

### *Misbakhul Munir*

is an activist and social worker for the Indonesian Traditional Fishermen Association (KNTI) in East Java Province. Munir is active in the advocacy, liberation and empowerment of local fishermen on social inequality, economy and climate change issues.

#### *Mahazan Abdul Mutalib*

is Associate Professor at the Faculty of Leadership and Management, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia (USIM). He obtained his PhD from College of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM) in 2013, a Master's degree in Organisational Leadership from Monash University in 2008, and a Bachelor's degree in Da'wah and Islamic Management from Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia (USIM) in 2005. He has published various books and articles in the field of Islamic leadership, management and community studies. He was the Director for Research Management and Innovation Centre (RIMC), USIM, and Deputy Dean (Academic and Research), Faculty of Leadership and Management, USIM. He is currently Director, Islamic Science Institute (ISI), USIM. He is also the coordinator for Mizan Research Centre (MRC), USIM and a mentor for the Mizan K4C hub. His interest of research is in Islamic leadership and management, community studies and Islamic sociology.

### *Khairunneezam Mohd Noor*

is Associate Professor and Head of Management with Tourism Program in Faculty of Leadership and Management, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia (USIM). Holds a Bachelor of Science (Human Resource Development), Master of Science (Human Resource Development) from Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, and a PhD in Management from La Trobe University, Melbourne. His writings and research revolve around leadership issues, job satisfaction, work-life balance and higher education sector issues.

#### *Nabiela Naily*

is a lecturer at faculty of Sharia and law in UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya, Indonesia. Her focus of expertise is family law, Islamic law, gender and womenchildren protection, and university-community engagement.

### *Martin Odoch*

tragically passed away prior to the publication of this book. Prior to joining the Faculty of Agriculture and Environment at Gulu University as a senior lecturer, Dr. Odoch spent 20 years working as a scientist in the private sector. He was trained to teach CBPR and was a leader at Gulu University. He was best known for his integrity as a lecturer and researcher and for his advocacy and action for human rights and community development. He is missed terribly.

#### *George Openjuru*

is Vice Chancellor of Gulu University, and the chair of the board of Vice Chancellors in Uganda. He is also the coordinator for the UNESCO Chair in Lifelong Learning Youth and Work, a founding director of the Youth Education and Work network, and the founding director of the Gulu K4C hub. His academic background is oriented in adult and lifelong learning and Participatory Action Research. Professor Openjuru is a champion of knowledge democracy and community engaged scholarship in Uganda.

### *Mohd. Dzulkhairi Mohd. Rani*

is a medical doctor and an Associate Professor in Public Health Medicine at Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia (USIM). His research interests include community based intervention, rural medicine and population health. He is also a certified CBPR mentor at the Mizan K4c hub since 2022.

### *Mwemezi Johaiven Rwiza*

is Senior Lecturer in the School of Materials, Energy, Water, and Environmental Sciences (MEWES) at the Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology (NM-AIST), Tanzania. Dr. Rwiza is a certified CBPR mentor of the Mentor Training Program of the UNESCO Chair in Community Based Research and Social Responsibility in Higher Education. He is an Editorial Advisory Board member of the *African Journal of Engineering and Environmental Research* (AJEER). Dr. Rwiza also serves as an African Host University (AHU) coordinator in the Partnership for Skills in Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology–Regional Scholarship Innovation Fund (PASET-RSIF), an African governments-led initiative to strengthen science, technology, and engineering capability in sub-Saharan Africa. He was a Co-Principal Investigator and Programme Coordinator in the just-ended Queen Elizabeth Scholarship-Advanced Scholars Program (QES) that was implemented by Carleton University (Ottawa, Canada) in partnership with Mzuzu University (Mzuzu, Malawi), Nelson Mandela African Institute for Science and Technology (Arusha, Tanzania), and the University of Ghana (Accra, Ghana).

### *Manish Sharma*

is Assistant Professor at School of Architecture and Design, Manipal University Jaipur. His primary research interest focuses on community-university engagement, community knowledge cultures, the concept of an empowered community-university network, urban resilience, urban utilities and urban water, specific to developing nations. He is a certified CBPR mentor of the Mentor Training Program of the UNESCO Chair in Community Based Research and Social Responsibility in Higher Education. He, along with his students, collaborates frequently with various organisations, institutes and local authorities on community-based research projects. He has authored and co-authored several book chapters and research articles. He is a recipient of two international scholarships during his post-graduation and doctoral studies.

### *Priyamvada Shrivastava*

is Professor and Dean of Psychology, Associate Director at the Centre for Women's Studies, and coordinator at the Sangwari K4C hub at Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India. She has taught undergraduate and postgraduate classes in teacher's training in psychology for thirty years. Her area of specialization is health psychology, with research interests women and health, gender issues, guidance and counseling, psychopathology and educational psychology and personality.

### *Sebastian Silva*

is a management consultant and owner of Roundtable Consulting Inc. He has a Master's degree in international law and is a member of the Salish Sea K4C Hub. He supports projects with Indigenous communities in British Columbia, as well as reconciliation initiatives that bring together all levels of government and community groups to address racism and create more equitable systems. As a community-based researcher, he is keen to explore how mainstream institutions can learn from Indigenous protocols that guide community engagement and the transfer of knowledge.

### *Rajesh Tandon*

is an internationally acclaimed leader and practitioner of participatory research and development. He founded Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA) in 1982 and continues to be its chief Functionary. He is Co-Chair of the UNESCO Chair in Community based Research and Social Responsibility in Higher Education along with Professor Budd L. Hall. Dr. Tandon has authored more than 100 articles, a dozen books and numerous training manuals. He was inducted to the International Adult and Continuing Education (IACE) Hall of Fame (class of 2011).

### *Crystal Tremblay*

is a faculty member and Co-chair of the Map Shop in the Department of Geography and Director of CIFAL Victoria at the University of Victoria, Canada. Since 2018, Dr. Tremblay has been the academic lead of the Salish Sea K4C Hub, working to build capacity in CBPR in higher education and communities to advance the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

#### *M. Helmi Umam*

is a lecturer at Faculty of Ushuluddin and Philosophy. His focus of expertise, which also is his current research, is the integration of community engagement in social work in higher education in Indonesia.

#### *Andrea Vargiu*

is Associate Professor of Sociology in the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences of the University of Sassari, Italy. He directs the FOIST Laboratory for Social Policies and Training Processes, which runs CBPR programs since its foundation in 1977. Andrea is Rector's delegate for Third Mission (H&SS) and serves as President of the MA Course in Social Work and Social Policies. He has a solid record in action research and CBPR. He studies civic engagement of universities, social policies, and organised solidarity. He presently co-ordinates impact evaluation of national and regional projects to contrast educational poverty.

### *Aniksha Varoda*

is Research Assistant at the Centre for Women's Studies, and a PhD Research Scholar, School of Studies in Anthropology, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India. Her research interests include women and children, health and social problems, gender, education, rural development, tribal community issues and Sustainable Development Goals.

#### *Karen Venter*

heads the Service-Learning Division within the Directorate of Community Engagement at the University of the Free State, South Africa. Having a PhD in Higher Education Studies, she is responsible for advancing the institutionalisation and glocal networking of engaged scholarship. Her research focuses on the use of appreciative inquiry for flourishing of engaged scholarship in community university research partnerships.

#### *Reeta Venugopal*

is Professor and Head of Physical Education, Director at the Centre for Women's Studies, and coordinator and mentor in the Sangwari K4C hub at Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India. She has taught undergraduate and postgraduate classes in teacher's training in physical education for 29 years. Her research interests include women and health, gender issues, tribal women, and children, specialising in exercise physiology.

is a lecturer in the Faculty of Economics and Business at UINSA, Indonesia. His focus of expertise is accounting information systems, governance, and university-community engagement.

### *Lesley Wood*

(DEd, MA, BASS, BA, PGCHE) is an experienced action researcher of international repute. She has developed and conducted action research training for professional development, organisational development and community development in different contexts. She is founding Director of the research entity, Community-Based Educational Research, at North-West University, South Africa, and has been awarded several national and international grants. She is a National Research Foundation rated researcher and has published over 100 articles, book chapters and books. Her latest books include *Participatory Action Learning and Action Research: Theory, Process and Practice* (Routledge, 2020), and *Community-based Research with Vulnerable Populations* (Palgrave McMillan, 2022)

### *Izawati Wook*

is teaching law at the Faculty of Syariah and Law, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia (USIM). She graduated with an LLB (Hons) and a Master of Comparative Laws from the International Islamic University Malaysia. She obtained a PhD from the College of Law and Justice, Victoria University, Melbourne Australia. She was also admitted and enrolled as an Advocate and Solicitor of the High Court in Malaya. Her research interests are indigenous peoples and law, and legal education. She is a mentor at the Mizan K4C hub since 2018.

### *Madhura Yadav*

is an architect-planner with over two-and-a-half-decade experience in academics, administration and research. She is a recipient of the AICTE scholarship for her doctoral research, along with several awards like Asia Pacific Global Award 2017, Education Leadership Award 2019, and Indo Pacific Architecture Excellence Award 2021, in recognition of her sustained commitment to architecture education. She is on several committees/expert groups set up by the Government of India, serves as a jury member of various architectural and design competitions, and a member of editorial boards of architecture, urban design and urban planning journals in India. Her current research interests are sustainable architecture and cities with inclusive approaches and community-based participatory research. She is currently the Dean of the Faculty of Design at Manipal University Jaipur.

# **PART 1**

# *Theoretical Perspectives*

∵

#### chapter 1

# **Introduction**

*Walter Lepore, Budd L. Hall and Rajesh Tandon*

We are delighted to share the latest book in our series of explorations over the past years of knowledge democracy, community-university research partnerships (CURP), social responsibility in higher education, and the creation of locally contextualised knowledge for social justice and sustainability. This chapter provides the background to our interest in the concept of knowledge cultures, a literature review that has helped us understand knowledge cultures in a variety of settings and a brief overview of the Bridging Knowledge Cultures (BKC) project, conducted between 2020 and 2022, that forms the basis of the case studies and reflections presented in this book.

We start by recognising that knowledge is created everywhere. It is created by everyone in negotiating the life in which they are immersed. We create our own knowledge individually as we grow and experience life. We usually refer to this as 'learning' when it happens on an individual level. The social construction of knowledge happens everywhere as well. Families, neighbourhoods, communities, workplaces create knowledge through shared experience to enable them to survive or flourish depending on their contexts. Indigenous peoples around the world have accumulated knowledge over the millennia through interaction with rest of nature, including the spirit world. Civil society organisations create knowledge with a focus on finding solutions to community or global challenges, and/or to back up requests for financial or political support for their work (Leadbeater et al., 2011; Lutz & Neis, 2008). Trade unions work with knowledge creating capacities of working individuals to fight for better pay and healthier workplaces. Social movements create knowledge through their conversations internally and through their interactions with the authority and the broader public outside their movements. In higher education institutions, which are often seen as the only place where 'real' knowledge is created, knowledge is constructed, used, shared and acted upon in quite different ways. In the broadest terms, knowledge within the academy serves several purposes, such as deepening theoretical understandings of disciplinary fields, contributing to career advancement, and sometimes to support community or policy partners (Britten & Maguire, 2016; Newman et al., 2016).

While the English language word 'knowledge' is used in all the above settings, we cannot assume that people in diverse organisational, institutional, political, or jurisdictional contexts understand, create and use knowledge in the same way. In each of these sites of knowledge creation and sharing, a *knowledge culture* exists. Briefly, we understand knowledge culture 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 specific settings, such as the academic world, civil society organisations, social movements, Indigenous communities, and more.

In the face of global crises and the challenges posed by socio-ecological systems and economic and political uncertainties, a variety of knowledge workers, such as academic researchers, practitioners, policymakers, governments and community members – each with a particular knowledge culture and different interests invested into knowledge processes – are called to work together in the long term to co-develop practical solutions to pressing societal issues. In this context, CURP have been presented as inter-organisational/institutional arrangements able to involve university and community partners in a mutually beneficial, iterative process of learning, reflection and action, whereby the results of such a process are useful to create positive social and institutional change (Hall et al., 2015). To achieve such goals, CURP deploys various strategies: capacity-building, knowledge translation, participatory research, citizencentric development, and policy advocacy, to name a few.

Community-university research partnerships are often based on the assumption (or the ideal) that both the community organisation and the university are – or should be – equal partners and co-owners of the research process as well as the research outputs (Hall et al., 2018; Tandon, 2005). CURP can be also seen as autonomous 'entities', 'mechanisms' or even 'machines' that can be designed and adjusted in a relatively simple way to deliver its promises (Fransman et al., 2021). However, tensions commonly arise in most types of research partnerships based on real or perceived power differences between the academy and the community, for instance, in terms of: decision-making and control of funding; governance and direction of the partnership; ownership of the research process and knowledge outcomes; different understandings of what research and knowledge mean; dynamics of time; analysis and sharing of research results. Structurally, universities often lead community organisations that typically have insufficient institutional and financial capacity to support research activities and collaborations (Hall et al., 2011; Tremblay, 2015), thus putting communities at an unfair disadvantage. Sullivan and Skelcher (2002) refer to such practices as 'pessimist collaboration', a term that indicates one party's "attempts to control or influence the other's activities", thus emphasising that power "resides implicitly in the other's dependency" (p. 40).

Almost all of the key activities carried out in CURP can be seen as deeply rooted in power relations – from setting a research agenda and administering funds to communicating research findings – with individuals from partner organisations also occupying diverse positions of power, and bringing with them a wide range of personal and professional understandings, agendas, practices and identities (Fransman et al., 2021). These power differentials at individual and institutional level not only influence the role of partnership members in the entire research process, but also create hierarchies of knowledge(s) based on existing institutional or socio-cultural norms and assumptions. Failure to fully recognise that power dynamics and tensions between partners are real and inevitable can lead to reaffirming and amplifying certain voices and knowledge while excluding others, particularly those already marginalised and experiencing structural disadvantage, thus undermining the real benefits that CURP can bring (Cornish et al., 2017).

One of the biggest challenges faced by those in the academia working in the field of CURP is indeed the establishment of truly respectful, mutually beneficial and equitable knowledge creation partnerships with diverse communities, social movements and organisations. Not unusually, conflicts between knowledge cultures are based on divergent views of ownership of the research process and control over its knowledge creation, validation and dissemination. Conflicts between the worldviews and traditions of different knowledge cultures in research partnerships remain, rather than being the exception, reifying power differences that inhibit consensus building among partners, and leading to the privileging of one knowledge system over others. These considerations lead us to ask the following question: *in establishing trusting and respectful CURP, how can diverse knowledge cultures be bridged so that perceived or actual power inequalities between collaborating CURP partners are taken into consideration in a way that makes these connections sustainable, secure over time, and able to contribute to better lives, social justice, climate solutions or healthier communities?*

To answer this general question, we decided to lead a global research project titled "Bridging Knowledge Cultures" (BKC) that looked at 10 CURP experiences working on different research areas, such as prenatal health, water management, education, etc. Broadly speaking, in this context we use the term *bridging* to refer to transformative changes at policy, institutional and individual level, which reconfigure system dynamics and power relationships within CURP and lead to the development of inclusive partnership governance arrangements that ensure co-responsibility between academic researchers and a range of research stakeholders (including community and voluntary groups, civil society organisations, state agencies, industry, and professionals). Our understanding of 'bridging' is informed by Sherry Arnstein's (1969) ladder on citizen involvement in planning processes, and by the work of others on community-engaged research (see Lepore & King, 2023). Thus, activities related to bridging knowledge cultures can be classified as different levels of community participation, empowerment and decision-making capacity on a continuum that indicates increasing control, involvement and active participation by the community in participatory research projects.

We used the Knowledge for Change (K4C) Consortium as a 'laboratory' that allowed us to analyse the interaction between diverse (even conflicting) knowledge cultures involved in CURP, and how collaborating partners within and outside academia address extant power inequalities. The K4C Consortium is an international partnered training and research initiative of the UNESCO Chair in Community-Based Research and Social Responsibility in Higher Education. Launched in 2017, the K4C Consortium aims to develop research capacities for the co-creation of knowledge through collective action by community groups and academics working together in training hubs around the world on issues related to the UN Sustainable Development Goals, such as Indigenous wellbeing, water governance, poverty and inequality, climate action, gender equality and violence against women. Each local K4C hub is a formal CURP made up of at least one Higher Education Institution (HEI) and a Civil Society Organisation (CSO) working together on strengthening individual research capacities and professional skills using a variety of training methods, such as classroombased instruction, professional development workshops, open online courses, field research projects and individual mentorship. These training hubs support trans-disciplinary research partnerships that provide practical experience to students, and co-create and mobilise knowledge to university and community members and to local, national and international policy makers. There are currently 22 K4C hubs in 10 countries around the globe (Indonesia, India, Malaysia, Ireland, Italy, Canada, South Africa, Colombia, Cuba, Uganda and Tanzania).

The reason for focusing on the K4C Consortium for conducting this research on power inequalities among knowledge cultures is that, while the Consortium was launched with strong support in its various sites, we cannot yet know the extent to which the hubs have been able to overcome the challenges inherent in developing trusting and egalitarian relations between the distinct knowledge cultures of their partners. In some of the K4C hubs (e.g., Victoria, Canada; Gulu, Uganda; and Arusha, Tanzania) work on bridging different knowledge cultures and power relations is well underway. However, in other locations, it is now clear that it will take more research to uncover how far bridging has proceeded, and how and to what extent those hubs have overcome knowledge cultures challenges. Studying the K4C Consortium thus let us gain deeper understanding of the specific practices, norms and values of intellectuals and their partners, which are in play in academic and community settings as they work together to co-create knowledge.

The BKC project allowed us to create a process of collective knowledge exchange and self-reflection about the nature of the academic and nonacademic partnerships in the distinct cultural, institutional and political environments where the K4C hubs are located. In the process, we tried to identify and build more robust forms of networking and co-construct reciprocal understandings about knowledge, power, trust and equality to strengthen the K4C Consortium in particular, and contribute to an in-depth understanding of structural barriers and power dynamics that prevent mainstream research institutions from collaborating effectively with community groups, in more general terms.

#### **1 The Bridging Knowledge Cultures Project**

To conduct the BKC project, in September 2019 a research team led by Hall and Tandon submitted a partnership development grant proposal to the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). The partnership development funding stream provides funds for formal partnerships between postsecondary institutions and/or organisations of various types to develop research-related activities that can result in best practices or models. In preparing the grant application, the lead team was supported by a diverse set of K4C partners from various regions, with experience in different local, cultural and institutional settings. In order to achieve the project goals, we envisaged a decentralised governance structure able to reflect the diversity of knowledge cultures of our partners. The K4C hubs participating in the BKC project were divided into four regions – Latin America, Africa, Southern Asia, Global North (Canada and Europe) – and a research team was conformed in each region to develop, plan and conduct studies with their regional K4C partners, which would contribute to answering the BKC research question. The teams were led by a member of a K4C hub, who would be responsible for collecting and analyzing primary data from other hubs in their region through field work and community engagement, and for preparing a synthesis of secondary data illustrating the existing knowledge cultures in their regions.

The grant application was positively evaluated and approved by SSHRC, and funds were provided in March 2020. The onset of the Covid-19 global pandemic, however, disrupted the original research plans severely. The Covid-19

restrictions declared in countries where the BKC case studies were to be conducted made it impossible for the regional leaders and their teams to travel internationally to conduct field research. To avoid delays in initiating the project while waiting for local and global health restrictions to be lifted, the lead team together with the participating K4C partners decided that, instead of regional teams being responsible for pulling together all the experiences from the hubs in their region, funding was to be provided to each hub to conduct its own case study on their local knowledge cultures. Participating hubs received research funds upon submission a Plan of Action approved by the editorial team, describing how each team would conduct the study locally, including methodology, timeline and deliverables.

Each case study is informed by an analytical framework on knowledge cultures (see Chapter 2 for more details) designed from inputs from the regional syntheses prepared by the four research teams. The authors of the case studies, which are presented in different chapters of this book, were asked to reflect on the socio-political context where the hub is embedded and the nature of their partnership, to describe the case study methodology, to present a 'map' of knowledge cultures in the hub, to conduct a comparative analysis of academic and community knowledge cultures found in the hub, and to make suggestions for bridging knowledge cultures that could be applied locally in their hubs and transferred to other similar research partnerships.

The empirical part of the project (case studies) started in March 2021. Taking into consideration that local Covid-19 sanitary restrictions might have delayed different stages of the research process (especially for those teams that planned to collect data through art-based methods and community engagement), the teams were given one year to complete their research and submit a final version of their case study. After three rounds of reviews by the editorial team, the outcomes of this global study are presented in this book. Later in the year, this book will be accompanied by a practical guide with recommendations for bridging knowledge cultures within CURP in diverse contexts.

The use of the K4C hubs as individual case studies has allowed for a better understanding of: (a) how university and their community partners understand knowledge, its creation and use; (b) what challenges the hubs have faced in working across both trans-disciplinary and community-university boundaries; (c) what the hubs have done to date to help bridge different knowledge cultures; and (d) what positive stories do they have of co-creation and development of trust and respect between hub members. Thus, we hope that the BKC project will not only contribute to strengthening and developing the K4C Consortium by engaging the hubs in a research and reflection process on the processes of partnership development that they have undertaken, but it will also contribute to a more equal approach to CURP to be used by others.

#### **2 The Road to the Bridging Knowledge Cultures Project**

This research is a continuation of an extensive story about knowledge, community action and learning that for two of the editors began in the mid-1970s. Budd L. Hall, working in Tanzania at the time, and Rajesh Tandon, working in southern Rajasthan in India, both found themselves confronted by a challenge to their work as researchers. Trained in the mainstream research orthodoxies of the 1960s and 1970s, both found that their training did not prepare them for making the practical contributions to adult education and community development that they had hoped for. This story on the formulation of the discourse on participatory research and subsequent creation of the International Participatory Research Network has been written about in many places over the years (e.g., Hall et al., 1982; Hall, 2005; Hall & Tandon, 2017; Tandon, 1981). Budd L. Hall and Rajesh Tandon are co-holders of the UNESCO Chair in Community-Based Research and Social Responsibility in Higher Education, created in 2012. In 2014, Walter Lepore, originally from Argentina with six years of experience working in higher education in Mexico, joined Tandon and Hall as Research Coordinator of the Next Gen research project. At the time, Lepore was a PhD candidate in Public Administration interested in researching how to address highly complex, dynamic and uncertain social issues (also known as wicked problems), which require a new generation of decision and policy makers to play an important role as network facilitators to create the conditions that enable interactions between diverse (and often conflicting) stakeholders, and/ or as knowledge brokers to promote the use of various forms of knowledge co-created by different partners (see Lepore, 2018).

The first study conducted by the UNESCO Chair in 2013 study explored three questions: What are the roles of knowledge in society? What are the roles of higher education in society? And how can CURP be mainstreamed and contribute to knowledge democracy? (see Hall et al., 2015). It was in this study that we first articulated our understanding of knowledge democracy. We noted that the terms knowledge economy and knowledge society, while making specific suggestions on how to understand some roles of knowledge and society, did not bring into question the near monopoly of Eurocentric knowledge systems or the exclusion of experiential or Indigenous knowledges. Knowledge democracy, we suggested, combined an openness to a multiplicity of knowledges, and a much broader set of participatory and arts-based tools for creating, validating, and using knowledge (Hall et al., 2013; see also Gaventa, 2005; In 't Veld 2010; Visvanathan 2009). We have found knowledge democracy is the discourse that best encompasses the various approaches, values and practices of participatory research, as it places collective knowledge at the heart of processes of social transformation and social justice (Lepore et al., 2021).

The main findings of this first project were published in the book *Strengthening Community University Research Partnerships: Global Perspectives* (Hall et al., 2015). The evidence presented in the book shows the prevalence and diversity of CURP around the world. Further, it indicates the strong desire of post-secondary institutions for CURP to co-create knowledge with the community, and to enact positive change in the society through collaboration, but also the need for a range of policies, infrastructure and funding for bringing such partnerships into practice. Our findings also showed that democratic knowledge partnerships, where community action is united with academic knowledge, have the potential for social transformation in ways that the narrow application of university scientific knowledge solutions cannot achieve. Another major finding of the study was that there were few places for university students or practitioners to formally learn about community-based approaches to research.

This led to the next study published in *Knowledge and Engagement: Building Capacity for the Next Generation of Community Based Researchers* (Tandon et al., 2016), in which we explored three further questions: Where and how have people been learning about community-based research (CBR)? What pedagogical principles have emerged from the teaching and learning practices? What kinds of partnerships have facilitated effective learning of CBR? Overall, the study makes evident that there is a high interest in CBR training around the world, demanding diversified training and teaching modalities in a variety of settings. The results also show that a variety of skills are needed for the new generation of community-based researchers to contribute to engaged research processes and knowledge democracy; for instance, group facilitation skills, continuous reflection on ethics issues, and the creation of community-based advisory communities for long-term projects. However, we also learned that most people never received formal training in CBR or simply learn to do it through trial and error, and that the predominant ways of acquiring participatory research capabilities are autodidactic, self-directed learning and on-the-job training. Perhaps the most significant finding was that the training supply itself is skewed. That is, the training taking place in university settings typically focuses on theoretical or procedural approaches to participatory research, while training by community organisations puts emphasis on practical work in the field.

#### Introduction 11

Based on our previous studies and after consultations with our partners in various parts of the world, we decided to design a pedagogical model that offers formal, structured opportunities for the next generation of young people to learn both the theories and practices of community-based participatory research. We named this the Knowledge for Change (K4C) Global Consortium for the Training of Community-Based Participatory Research. The K4C hubs are placed at the heart of the Consortium. As explained earlier, a K4C hub is a formal partnership between a CSO and a HEI, whereby the partners agree to work together to provide learning opportunities to both community workers and university students. The goal of the K4C Consortium is to equip community-based researchers with historical, cultural and scientific understanding of participatory approaches to knowledge creation, and to cultivate in them the expertise, competencies and skills required to collaborate with others to contribute productively to economic, social and technological change at local/regional level. The hubs were established with the explicit goal of institutionalising egalitarian knowledge partnerships. Within the K4C Consortium reciprocal knowledge relations are not just an aspiration, but a requirement. However, to what extent have these goals been achieved to date? How can we share what seems to be working to bridge knowledge cultures and illuminate pitfalls going forward? As we investigated the K4C hubs through the BKC project, we identified their practical challenges, learning from their experiences, and exchanging new knowledge within and beyond the K4C.

### **3 The BKC Project in Context: A Transformative Moment in Higher Education and Knowledge Production**

Traditionally, representations of knowledge in academic settings have often been defined as what Nowotny et al. (2006) call Mode 1 research that is characterised by "the hegemony of disciplinary science, with its strong sense of an internal hierarchy between the disciplines and driven by the autonomy of scientists and their host institutions, the universities" (p. 39). Mode 1, which includes natural and social sciences, linguistics, and literature (Gibbons, 2013), represents a discipline-based research structure, where knowledge validation and quality is controlled primarily by disciplinary peers within a system with powerful hierarchies built into the higher education institutions (Carayannis & Campbell, 2019). In the last few decades, we have been witnessing an expansion of scientific knowledge production towards 'Mode 2' and 'Mode 3' research paradigms. Mode 2 knowledge is "socially distributed, application-oriented, trans-disciplinary and subject to multiple accountabilities" (Nowotny et al., 2006, p. 39). Mode 3 is based on the acceptance and fostering of a pluralism of different knowledge and research paradigms, mutual cross-learning of diverse knowledge modes, and "interdisciplinary thinking and transdisciplinary application of interdisciplinary knowledge" (Carayannis & Campbell, 2019, p. 21).

This changing approach to knowledge production is reflected in the concept of *engaged research* that can be seen in the intersection of various strands of scholarship and practice that have one overlapping characteristic: a democratisation of knowledge and its production. This ambition has led to a renewed interest in how researchers and research institutions interact with non-academic knowledge workers. Engaged researchers, often in collaboration with community groups and/or non-governmental organisations, are at the vanguard of this approach. Such a collective approach to responsibility requires support by public debate and democratic involvement in governance, paralleled by wider and more active participation of citizens in the research and innovation processes. From this perspective, the production of knowledge is conceived as a two-way learning process that redefines how conventional academia investigates and relates to other forms of knowledge production that are developed in the daily life of communities.

Yet, while the idea and practices of engaged research are not new, a generalised growing interest in engaged research is observed within the academic community during the past decades all over the world (Hall et al., 2014; Stoker, 2019; Tapia, 2018). A great variety of studies and initiatives on the ground have indeed flourished in various disciplinary fields in relation to diverse societal issues (Fransman, 2018). In consequence, the list of methods and approaches that identify themselves as a form of engaged research can seem bewildering. Etmanski et al. (2014) identified 27 different types of knowledge production configurations that fall under the umbrella of the community-based research approach. A national survey of Irish researchers carried out in 2017 discovered 47 different terms that were used by different kinds of researchers to describe their collaboration with communities (Campus Engage, 2017). The difference between prevalent engaged research methodologies is, however, often artificial, reflecting distinctive disciplinary concerns and scopes. For instance, what health researchers refer to as 'public patient involvement', other scientists may call 'citizen science'. What some social scientists call 'participatory action research', is called 'action research' in business studies. This varied group of approaches to research are all characterised by an intention to include as many people as possible in deliberative fora designed to provide advice, tacit knowledge and insights for political action and/or policy interventions. Some of the methods employed in engaged research deliberately seek out relevant expertise (e.g., Delphi) or specialised knowledge (e.g., Indigenous ways of knowing), while others – such as discussion circles, autoethnographies, narratives, intergenerational dialogues and the systematisation of experiences – are more inclusive and open in nature. However, they all are characterised by deliberation and consensus building in relation to proposed activities, actions and/or processes. Notwithstanding the new-found enthusiasm for engaged research, it must be acknowledged that this flourishing of alternative participatory methodologies means that we also risk creating a variety of new knowledge cultures, each incapable of speaking to the other.

Community-university research partnerships are a central component of the engaged research approach in the training hubs that make up the K4C Consortium, as they provide a medium/platform/network arrangement that brings university scholars into involvement with those in the community who are often the most disempowered (e.g., newly arrived immigrants, homeless individuals, people with disabilities, etc.) (Silka et al., 2008). To date, research partnerships have expanded remarkably in Canada and internationally as an effective approach to community-university engagement and the co-creation of knowledge. We have reached a stage of maturity in understanding: (a) benefits of collaboration between diverse knowledge actors; (b) changes in research from a focus on individual and institutionally grounded partnerships to broader knowledge systems with their own cultures and incentive structures (Fransman et al., 2021); and (c) a wealth of descriptive and prescriptive literature and toolkits instructing different groups on how to do partnerships (Aniekwe et al., 2012; Cornish et al., 2017; KFPE, 2014; Stevens et al., 2013; Winterford, 2017). We have also found evidence that expressions of power inequalities persist in knowledge creation collaborations, especially in issues related to structures and processes, roles and relationships, artefacts and discourses, partnership configurations and transformations over time, and partners' identities and status. These challenges are further complicated by issues of gender, race, abilities, urban-rural differences, language and social class, which impact the way people engage with research and knowledge, hindering the transformative potential of CURP (Chouinard & Cram, 2020; Cornish et al., 2017; Muhammad, & Wallerstein, 2015; Wallerstein, 1999; Zurba et al., 2022). What seems to continue to be overlooked are the more analytical and practical questions around how to address power inequalities between a wide range of stakeholders (some with divergent interests and values) in research partnerships. The BKC project aimed to fill this knowledge gap and provide practical recommendations to help remove a range of structural barriers and address power dynamics, which prevent mainstream research institutions from collaborating effectively with community groups.

#### **4 The Structure of This Book**

Following this Introduction, in Chapter 2 we develop an in-depth review of previous literature on the concept of knowledge cultures, including mainstream references, grey literature and global sources produced and/or identified by our K4C hub research teams during the pre-investigation phase of the BKC project. Based on findings coming from this literature review, we make the case for a refined and expanded understanding of the concept of knowledge cultures, and an original analytical framework for the purposes of addressing the goals of the BKC project. Chapter 3 focuses on understanding what is community knowledge and the ways in which it is produced, stored, shared and used for action.

Chapters 4 to 13 present the 10 case studies written by our K4C hub research teams. Chapter 14 synthesises the learnings from the case studies, reflecting on possibilities and ways in which the gap between academic and community knowledge cultures can be bridged. Chapter 15 provides final thoughts on the importance of the concept of knowledge cultures, and the need for community voice in our discussions about knowledge and epistemology, raising questions about how best to implement the findings from this and related studies into our community-university research partnerships.

#### **References**

# **A Theoretical Framework to Bridge Knowledge Cultures**

### *Walter Lepore and Barbara Jenni*

### **Abstract**

In this chapter we explore the notion of knowledge cultures (KC) in the context of community university research partnerships (CURP), a particular institutional arrangement not previously considered in the literature on KC. Starting with a review of how KC have been conceptualized in various contexts, we develop an analytical framework that accounts for the tensions and conflicts that may emerge between CURP partners stemming from uneven power dynamics. In this chapter, we pay particular attention to and rely on the knowledge processes existing in diverse settings and geographical regions, beyond Western academia.

### **Keywords**

knowledge culture – community-university research partnership – community knowledges – general knowledge environment – institutional/organizational knowledge environment – knowledge setting/practice

### **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 practices (Knorr Cetina, 2007), or the internal sense-making processes and structures of meaning (Tsouvalis et al., 2000). However, CURP, as understood in the context of the Bridging Knowledge Cultures (BKC) project, represents a particular institutional arrangement made up of at least two organisations with typically distinctive structures, norms, processes, interests and goals, which are called upon to co-create alternative knowledge drawing on local, community-based and multiple epistemological resolutions.

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 Knowledge Culture in Western Academic Literature**

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 a typically power-imbalanced setting. With perceptions of trust, professionalism, flexibility and transparency varying within an organisation, differences in these value-driven aspects are even more pronounced where universities and community partners must open and share their respective knowledges to collaborate and co-create effectively and safely. Another relevant take-away from this work is the observation that the term *culture* encompasses values, norms and actions of the environment in which knowledge co-creation takes place. We will return to this point in our discussion of organisational and occupational dimensions of KC.

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" (van Kerkhoff & Pilbeam, 2017, p. 32). This concept explores how knowledgebased processes are shaped by formal and informal rules and conventions and, importantly, reaches beyond the limitations of the singular organisation. The linking of knowledge creation practices to politics, history and institutions aligns with CURP dynamics, through its consideration of the complexities inherent within governance arrangements aimed at "engaging actors in innovative ways of solving societal issues" (van Kerkhoff, 2013, p. 84). However, spaces where knowledge production takes place inherently contain power dynamics in which universities often assume control and ownership of research-related processes and activities (Hall et al., 2011; Wakeford & Rodriguez, 2018). Knowledge governance models thus recognise that certain knowledge-to-action processes and outcomes are allowed or restricted under a given governance arrangement. The potentials for power imbalances among partners are even more pronounced where governance is – or aims to be – shared between community-based and academic entities.

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 social learning and development in the context of the knowledge economy/ society. They define KC as "the cultural preconditions that must be established before economies or societies based on knowledge can operate successfully as genuine democratic cultures" (p. 29). These preconditions include trust, reciprocal rights as well as responsibilities between different knowledge partners, institutional routines, regimes and strategies. We agree with their understanding that KC s "embody culturally preferred ways of doing things, i.e., learning styles, processes, economies, and systems often developed over many generations" (ibid., p. 29). The authors consider knowledge primarily as being fundamentally different from other commodities. This perspective is somewhat limiting for our context as it is less inclusive of understandings of knowledge – and by extension of KC – which diverge from the dominant Western academic perspectives. In the context of the BKC project, a conceptualisation of KC must account for knowledge(s) as understood beyond Western academia and encompass community or experiential knowledges that fundamentally differ from the view of knowledge as a commodity.

### **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 potential source of conflict and power inequalities lies, for example, in the way some research partnerships are set up, assigning university researchers the so-called expert status and limiting community partners' decision-making authority and control over equitable resource distribution (Fransman et al., 2021).

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 Community-Based Understandings of Knowledge Cultures**

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 nonacademic 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 knowledgesof 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 nature – particularly in fields as agriculture, fisheries, health, horticulture, and forestry – and it is also dynamic, evolving and adapted to the local culture and environment (Stevenson, 1998; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2007). What makes certain knowledges 'traditional' is not its antiquity – much of this knowledge can be contemporary or new – but the way it is acquired and used, its social meaning and legal character, and the social process of learning and sharing such knowledge that is unique to each culture (Four Directions Council, 1996). The essence of TK is found in the language of the people, which is the vehicle by which taxonomic systems, metaphysical perceptions and codified knowledge are passed from generation to generation. TK is based upon customary law and involves the practices of the Elders, who are essential to the relaying of oral traditions (Opheim, 2018).

#### **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).

Latin American native communities maintain a relationship to the land and care for the common home through sensitive affection and care for the other, which allows people to recognise, cooperate, build, project, act, and transmit ancestral knowledge. Native peoples transfer their affection by teaching the production of their material culture in a manner that will guarantee, under their autonomy and cosmogony, the process is sustained and cared for over time (Chamorro & Sicard, 2021).

#### **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/Experiential Knowledge*

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 local people (Akullo et al., 2007), and supporting the resolution and management of conflicts (Jendia, 2019; Tshimba, 2015).

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*  *relates to 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.

### **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 subcultures – 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 cocreation 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:

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

figure 2.1 Knowledge culture framework

and beliefs as well as structural and physical dimensions. Further, the power dynamics present in each of these spaces is expressed in the varied aspects of the KC, i.e., the means through which significance of an idea or activity is attributed (Tsouvalis et al., 2000). We discuss each of the three components in more detail below.

### **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:

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.

#### **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 production in a K4C hub, and how they are framed, understood and executed. Thus, we would be able to 'observe' values and ideologies regarding knowledge 'practices' or cultural forms, as indicated by Hofstede et al. (1990) and Trice and Beyer (1993). Our framework considers the following aspects of this sphere:

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 guiding vision of how work should be organised, conducted and judged within and between partner organisations. Second, our framework suggests that the study of KC s benefits from considering occupational and organisational dimensions of CURP, to better understand and respond to power conflicts that emerge from diverging aspects of KC s.

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.