If
we define academia as an institutionalised pursuit towards producing and
propagating knowledge, how do we set up standards for our hands-on academic end-result? How does our research become useful and what does this utility represent in the first place? Should we strive to inspire
policy-making, ameliorate social conflict, develop new generation technology?
When justifying the need for their research,
academics often argue for the exploration of a perceived literature gap, the necessity
to look at certain topics from a different perspective, using new methods and
up-to-date information. But what happens if we try to step back from our scholastic perspective and seek to get some insights from local stakeholders?
Sarah
Banks et al, in their 2013 article Everyday ethics in community-based
participatory research, proposes an interesting paradigm change towards collaboration and cooperation between people with varying
degrees of education and experience, between laypeople and representatives of
the more institutionalised aspects of knowledge, between various institutions, making
steps into legitimising the co-production paradigm. Co-production commits to
ensuring a dialogue on equal terms between the researcher and the community who
houses the research.
Co-production
seems to be an exciting, new-ish paradigm that proposes a more
ethically-grounded and mindful approach in social sciences, and I had the great
pleasure to talk more about it with Russell Andrews, professor in the
Anthropology Department, Brett Smith, Director of Research in the Department of
Sport and Exercise Studies and Neil Heckels, Senior Policy Engagement and
Impact Manager in the Research and Innovation Services, which I would like to
thank for taking time from their schedules to have a chat with me!
One
of the most intriguing aspects of co-production is how it facilitates a turn
towards action-based and activism-driven research. Through the aid of community
facilitators, activists, trainers and social workers, co-production hopes to
uplift voices that have previously been unheard or not listened to, as for
example, voices from indigenous communities and disabled voices. This is where
the trouble and the questions begin: co-production encompasses an
organisational dilemma and methodological controversies. And, to answer each
bureaucratic enquiry, we need to get specific and adopt a strategy that is tailored to our needs when planning our research.
First
thing to keep in mind is that most, if not all academic institutions, have
fossilised bureaucratic apparatuses and avoid breaking away from them because
they have benefitted for decades or even centuries from this very type of institutionalised,
elitist access to knowledge. Universities thrive and build their reputation on
producing and publishing knowledge that has to rely on an academic
standard. On one hand, the recent growing interest in changing the paradigm
towards research that is inclusive and useful for the local community pushes
towards the need to co-produce, to be involved locally, to form bonds, to
listen and to make knowledge accessible. On the other hand, a researcher’s
reputation and reach is determined by publishing their findings in high-impact
journals, where only a small number of people can engage with their content-
those who are lucky enough to afford passing through the paywall.
It
quickly becomes clear that co-production goes hand in hand with the open access
movement, first and foremost, because it ensures open dialogue with the
community. Research can now be conducted and judged by non-academics, with the
end goal of facilitating social progress and ameliorating conflict. As
academics, our role here is contested- we are no longer the only force
in charge. How can we change our methods? How should we publish our results- if there is any palpable end result in our research anyway? After all, a
big chunk of research is publicly funded- does it mean it always has to be
accessible to the public and benefit the public directly? Is co-production
going to de-legitimise traditional academic research or will the
paradigm change so much in the future that the current co-production model will soon become obsolete? Is our final article going to be read in 10 years?
What
I personally think is that we should have already had these questions in our
minds, as academics, when doing any kind of research, no matter which paradigm
and methods we choose. I would argue that the most difficult questions early
career researchers can ask, is which method is the most suited, why and what is
the probability that the end result will be wasteful. We should be critical of
our own academic traditions and paradigms, while at the same time, admit that
we are, ultimately, building our ivory towers using an imperfect tool: human
knowledge.
Although,
it might help if we think of co-production as an idealised framework rather
than a viable methodology, exactly how Sarah Banks would have later, in a 2018
guide, rephrased her team’s reasoning from their 2013 article. It must be
mentioned that co-production is relatively new, and we have plenty of time to
get better at it in the future. In many ways, practising co-production
resembles being mindful of the conflicts that exist in the community,
deconstructing them and bridging all the parties to the table, enabling a
democratic debate in order to reconcile and find solutions. But organising and
acquiring conflict-solving skills and experience takes time, and most young
researchers lack both of those when they start their academic journey.
Luckily,
various other methods inspired by the participatory paradigm have been described
and standardised in the literature, such as the PAR (participatory action
research)- all of them suited for a diverse range of aims and situations. In
order to attempt useful research, we need, at first, to gain an in-depth
expertise of our methods and tools- and co-production seems especially vague
for anyone not familiar with extensive fieldwork. Going off the beaten path and
being innovative does not need to mean jumping directly into the dangerous
territory of trying methods that are not in our area of competence yet. Young
researchers and PhD students need to push governing bodies and universities to
have realist expectations regarding what we are able to do at this stage of our
academic career.
In
order for the shift towards the participatory paradigm to happen, I strongly
believe that we need to introduce institutional reform within academia -
starting with questioning our place in the power apparatus of knowledge
production and our relationships with the local communities that we inhabit. We
must ask ourselves the question of whether our research is in any way
parasitising for the community that paid for it, and how can we become more
involved with local stakeholders - how to become better listeners and how to
collaborate with other institutions.
Every now and then, we need to acknowledge that there are people and places we cannot fully reach. But, even accepting that that research does not always have to equate or compete with activism, we must remind ourselves of the ideal that got us into the scholarly world in the first place - to do research keeping the hope for a better future.
This
post expresses the author's views in light of the research methods
conversation.
Sorina
Avadanei is a MSc candidate in Sustainability, Energy and Development in the
Anthropology Department, working on a dissertation on the post-industrial
phenomenon in Eastern Europe. You can find her on Twitter @sorina_avadanei.
Comments
Post a Comment