Chapter

Participatory Knowledge Co-creation: Using Digital Mapping as an Emancipatory Method

Authors:
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

Abstract

As a range of social, economic and political issues of the twenty-first century challenge us, academics need to rethink not only what we teach and research but how we learn, teach and conduct research. Neoliberal competitive ideals have continued to promote the idea that “elitist knowledge” is better, and provide little self-critique about how mainstream research approaches and pedagogy continue to reproduce social inequality. In this chapter, we argue for participatory knowledge co-creation as a transformative approach. This method emancipates people, allows power shifting and promotes a greater sense of belonging in the community and environment. The case study, the Maribyrnong Maker Map (M3), showcases a collaborative form of action inquiry where a digital mapping application was used to create a maker map. A maker map is a map of the local productive resources in a community. This emerging knowledge space, located both physically and online, offers new potentials for situated problem-solving and engaged participatory research. The chapter also explores the implications of participatory knowledge co-creation for scholars, researchers, practitioners and activists across the disciplines. Building on Reason’s (1998) four participation imperatives—political, ecological, epistemological and spiritual—we propose that participatory knowledge co-creation offers peace psychologists a much needed bridge between academic knowledge, and grounded and relevant relationships with the reality constructed by people in their communities.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.

... Overall, uMap offers capabilities comparable to Google My Maps. The reasons usually emphasized by those opting to use the former over the latter are its richness in features, ease of implementation, and open-source philosophy (see for instance, Law and Ramos 2017;Rönneberg, Laakso, and Sarjakoski 2019). These advantages have led to the platform being used in numerous contexts, such as activism, community mapping, and risk management. ...
Article
Full-text available
Since their release in 2005, Google Maps-based tools have become the de facto solutions for a variety of online cartograph-ic projects. Their success has been accompanied by a range of critiques denouncing the individualistic market-based logic imposed by these mapping services. Alternative options to this dominant model have been released since then; uMap is one of them. uMap is a free, open-source online mapping platform that builds on OpenStreetMap to enable anyone to easily publish web maps individually or collaboratively. In this paper, we propose to reflect on the potential and limits of uMap based on our own experiences of deploying it in six different mapping projects. Through these experiences, uMap appears particularly well-suited for collaborative mapping projects, due to its ease in connecting to remote data and its high level of interoperability with a range of other applications. On the other hand, uMap seems less relevant for crowdmapping projects, due to its lack of built-in options to manage and control public contributions. Finally, the open-source philosophy of uMap, combined with its simplicity of use and its strong collaborative capacity, make it a great option for activist mapping projects as well as for pedagogical purposes to teach a range of topics including online collaborative cartography.
Article
Disability studies continues to grow as an emerging area of practice and theoretical research, branching out into sundry professions and frameworks. This expansion is leading to perpetual discussion of the more prominent individual (medical) and social models of disability as well as the development of more inconspicuous models. This paper reviews the dominant epistemologies attached to these models of disability with the support of an authentic case vignette from the author’s social work practice. It is argued that the supplementation and immersion of self-determination theory in established and future models of disability will enhance the models’ applicability to professional practice and better reflect the individual’s self. The integration of self-determination theory to models of disability is presented in multiple diagrams.
Chapter
Full-text available
Christie, Wagner, and Winter (Peace, conflict, and violence: Peace psychology for the 21st century, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1–14, 2001) have described a four-way model of peace psychology that focuses on not only on direct violence, but also on structural violence; not only on peacekeeping, but deep and lasting peacemaking. Whereas direct violence is action with the intent of physical or psychological harm, structural violence is harm as the result of inequality and injustice. Peacekeeping focuses on conflict resolution and ending direct violence, while peacemaking is intended to address the structure-based inequalities that perpetuate structural violence.
Article
Full-text available
This article engages in critical reflexivity to investigate the researcher’s own sense of vulnerability when conducting research on social inequality. Using a disruptive experience in an immersive theatrical storytelling performance as a catalyst to deconstruct and raise consciousness about the author’s privilege and her own role in research, this article seeks to unpack the politics at play in qualitative research in social and political psychology. The extent to which our privileged role and our identity as researchers are nested in history, in systems, and in structures is explored, and the risk that this shields us from being able to truly understand the reality, or epistemology, of the vulnerable groups we are seeking to investigate, is examined. The notion of unknowing the researcher’s vulnerability in research is discussed, along with the ways in which systems and structures have allowed researchers to maintain emotional control and dominance in knowledge production. Moreover, through othering vulnerable emotions and legitimising a researcher’s position as emotion-free, value-free, neutral, and objective, we may continue to engender epistemological injustice. Finally, the author emphasizes the importance of reflexivity and re-searching researchers’ humility as ways to address this challenge.
Chapter
Full-text available
World Wide Web technologies create fundamentally new potentials for social interaction and decision-making among diverse social actors. A new generation of Web technologies, accompanied by new political cultures, portends an ushering of radical transformations in democratic decision-making. This chapter asks three critical questions: (1) How do emerging Web technologies deepen democratic participation? (2) How do we avoid or transform scenarios where Web technologies are employed to maintain political-economic oligarchies of power? and (3) What new political cultures or political contracts may emerge through the convergence of Web technology and political engagement? This chapter uses the recent precedent of Liquid Democracy online decision-making experiments in Germany, to answer these questions and peer into the futures of governance. The study came to the following conclusions: (1) We are witnessing a shift from formal representative democracy to situational and fluid forms of governance; (2) Alongside this we are seeing a deepening of political participation, which may bring forth new political cultures and political contracts; and, (3) A number of possible scenarios emerge from the decline of formal representative democracy—A possible “Liquid Revolution” where online governance has transformed democracy; a “Steady-state Oligarchy” where pseudo-representative and oligarchic powers persist; a “Partner State” where representative and online variegated governance is blended; and a “War of the Worlds” where statist and variegated governance online systems aggressively compete for power.
Chapter
Full-text available
In peace programming in humanitarian contexts, evaluations are essential for learning what worked or did not work and for strengthening the practice of peacebuilding. Despite their importance, evaluations are seldom conducted. Worse yet, even when evaluations have been conducted, they may not be peaceful and may actively undermine or limit the impact of peacebuilding programs. The objectives of this chapter are to raise awareness of how evaluations are frequently not peaceful, increase understanding of why non-peaceful evaluations are prevalent, and provide principles and exemplars that support the use of peaceful approaches to evaluation. In examining how evaluations are frequently not peaceful, the first part of the chapter shows how evaluations are typically designed and implemented with technical considerations such as validity, reliability, and robustness in mind. Although these considerations are important, an exclusive focus on them often leads to evaluations that are driven by outsiders, take an extractive approach, discriminate against people who had not participated in the program, and marginalize the categories that guide the thinking of local people about peace and peacebuilding. When this happens, the evaluation process itself can cause unintended harm and actively set back the cause of peace in the local area. The evaluation process evokes fear, assumes colonial dimensions, and becomes an imposition that leaves local people feeling objectified, marginalized, and exploited. In this manner, the evaluation process becomes part of a system of social injustice that is antithetical to peace. The second part of the chapter will explore why non-peaceful evaluations are so widespread. An understanding of the “why” is critical to the efforts to prevent unintended harm and change the institutions, policies, and practices that enable non-peaceful evaluations. Emphasizing the structure of the humanitarian system and the power asymmetries it embodies, this section will examine the power gap that exists between communities and implementing agencies and also between donors and implementing agencies, the donor driven nature of many interventions, the pressures for quick results and for the implementing agency demonstrating positive results, the culture of technical experts, and the use of prespecified questions, surveys, and scales that have been selected primarily on the basis of scientific merit or the desire to impact policy leaders. The third part of the chapter will examine how to make evaluations more peaceful through processes of relationship building, power sharing, deep community engagement and ownership, giving voice to the voiceless , giving constructive feedback, and inclusivity at stages of evaluation design, implementation, analysis, and use of the data and findings. It shows how the use of qualitative data in a mixed methods approach can simultaneously strengthen the technical quality of the evaluation and the process aspects of the evaluation. Two practical exemplars of peaceful approaches to program evaluation will be used to illustrate key points, provide practical tips on how to make evaluations more peaceful, and encourage readers to use peaceful evaluation processes.
Chapter
Full-text available
This chapter explores indigenous paradigm research, highlighting the ways in which indigenous peoples have been negatively impacted by Western research paradigms and methodologies. It then describes, how a number of indigenous scholars are resisting imposed research strategies and creating spaces for fuller expression of research based in indigenous paradigms. The chapter illuminates the epistemic violence perpetuated by unreflective imposition of Western paradigms on indigenous people, exploring the work of scholars who are addressing that violence by re-centering indigenous people and their paradigms. It explains a number of ways of collaborating with integrity when engaging with indigenous people in research, including symmetrical worldviewing, inter-paradigmatic dialogue and respectful engagement with principles of indigenous research. I share examples from my own research, the research of a number of other indigenous scholars and that of emergent paradigm scholars whose epistemologies have significant resonances with indigenous paradigms.
Article
Full-text available
Critical psychology challenges the traditional assumptions of mainstream psychology by identifying the bases of power that maintain inequity and unjust social practices and working towards transformational change. Psychology has the capacity to be at the forefront of a social change agenda to remove the barriers that impede human functioning; the vanguard of such a social change agenda should be the educational settings in which psychology is taught and where psychologists are trained. To this end I propose a curriculum framework embedded in critical theory and critical pedagogy that allows the educational processes (pedagogy) and course content (knowledge) to be (de)constructed and the hidden unspoken discourses to emerge. In addition, in the context of Australia this includes a decolonisation agenda that analyses the ways in which power is used to maintain subordination of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the ways in which education becomes a vehicle of contestation and substantive reconciliation. To this end, I articulate the philosophical and theoretical concepts that I utilised during my doctoral research and which have evolved over the past 10 years of teaching practice and which is now embedded into the Bachelor of Behavioural Science at the University of Notre Dame (Fremantle campus). Such an approach to psychology education has the capacity to increase the diversity of students attracted to the discipline, improve student satisfaction, and contribute to the creation of a more inclusive society as well as achieve the relevance and potential that has been suggested is currently lacking in psychology.
Article
Full-text available
‘Critical thinking’ is a concept which has become widely discussed in debates around innovative learning and teaching in higher education. It has long been considered a valuable skill for students to develop. However, a closer examination of the use of the term reveals essentialised versions which are superficial. This paper will review theories which stem from critical psychology and will examine their value for teaching in psychology. It will then present examples of psychology teaching experiences which have attempted to incorporate these principles, reflecting on what can be achieved and on the barriers which make such practice difficult.
Article
Full-text available
The maker movement consists of a growing culture of hands-on making, creating, designing, and innovating. A hallmark of the maker movement is its do-it-yourself (or do-it-with-others) mindset that brings individuals together around a range of activities, both high- and low-tech, all involving some form of creation or repair. The movement's shared commitment to open exploration, intrinsic interest, and creative ideas can help to transform STEM and arts education. The authors profile several forms of making, makerspaces, and maker networks, and conclude with some ways the movement spreads innovation, providing potential guidance for educational reform.
Article
Full-text available
We describe the dilemmas we encountered in the informed consent process for an HIV prevention project targeting Black gay, bisexual, and non-gay identified young men. We highlight the complexities of applying informed parental consent procedures to sexual minority youth and identify some of the challenges that researchers who work with sexual minority youth face when they must balance the needs and rights of this population against the needs and rights accorded to parents by federal guidelines for protecting minor participants in research.
Chapter
Peace psychology is sensitive to geopolitical context. Given that much of the development of peace psychology has been in the global North, holding the Symposium on the Contributions of Psychology to Peace in South Africa provided an opportunity to explore different paradigms underlying approaches in different spaces and places. Systems of knowledge making (epistemologies) and of the way we construct reality (ontologies) are not only culturally bound in time and space, but are also embedded in power relations. We recognise that it is something of an over-simplification to cluster the diverse forms of peace psychology under the simple polarities of North and South as the reality is more complex and nuanced. However, the dichotomy provides a dialectical starting point. After exploring the basic categories of North and South, we analyse some of the underlying reasons for differences in approach, assess the current situation, and discuss some of the issues facing peace psychology as an emerging discipline as it moves forward. Extant tensions include differences in language, different epistemological approaches to research and data collection, educational systems, and the effect of economic differences in limiting opportunities for participation. Our aim as peace psychologists should be to develop an inclusive approach that acknowledges and incorporates an ecology of knowledge. Awareness of the privileged position occupied by many psychologists is important so that there can be an openness to different epistemologies. The chapter emphasises the importance of self-knowledge as an integral part of peace psychology. Moreover, critical reflection should be accorded a genuine space within our discipline. Finally, we will discuss visions for the future of peace psychology in a rapidly changing world.
Article
From Chapter 1: Empire and the creation of a social science Origin stories Open any introductory sociology textbook and you will probably find, in the first few pages, a discussion of founding fathers focused on Marx, Durkheim and Weber. The first chapter may also cite Comte, Spencer, Tönnies and Simmel, and perhaps a few others. In the view normally presented to students, these men created sociology in response to dramatic changes in European society: the Industrial Revolution, class conflict, secularisation, alienation and the modern state. This curriculum is backed by histories such as Alan Swingewood's (2000) Short History of Sociological Thought. This well-regarded British text presents a two-part narrative of 'Foundations: Classical Sociology' (centring on Durkheim, Weber and Marx), and 'Modern Sociology', tied together by the belief that 'Marx, Weber and Durkheim have remained at the core of modern sociology' (2000: x). Sociologists take this account of their origins seriously. Twenty years ago, a star-studded review of Social Theory Today began with a ringing declaration of 'the centrality of the classics' (Alexander 1987). In the new century, commentary on classical texts remains a significant genre of theoretical writing (Baehr 2002). The idea of classical theory embodies a canon, in the sense of literary theory: a privileged set of texts, whose interpretation and reinterpretation defines a field (Seidman 1994). This particular canon embeds an internalist doctrine of sociology's history as a social science. The story consists of a foundational moment arising from the internal transformation of European society; classic discipline-defining texts written by a small group of brilliant authors; and a direct line of descent from them to us. But sociologists in the classical period itself did not have this origin story. When Franklin Giddings (1896), the first professor of sociology at Columbia University, published The Principles of Sociology, he named as the founding father—Adam Smith. Victor Branford (1904), expounding 'the founders of sociology' to a meeting in London, named as the central figure—Condorcet.
Book
"Wired" magazine editor and bestselling author Anderson takes readers to the front lines of a new industrial revolution as today's entrepreneurs, using open source design and 3-D printing, bring manufacturing to the desktop.
Article
As social, economic and environmental issues have become more prominent in the 21st century, there has been increased critical scrutiny into the ways that outdoor learning interacts with sustainability issues and concepts. As a result, a number of discourses have emerged which interrogate human/nature relationships in traditional outdoor education and propose greater engagement with place-responsive or sustainable approaches. Drawing on research with teachers in Aotearoa New Zealand, this article explores possible intersections between sustainability education outdoor learning. Accordingly, this article focuses on two key ideas: First, the nexus of experience and place offers significant promise for educational endeavours that seek to educate for a sustainable future. Second, traditional conceptions of wilderness as a pedagogical site, can be problematic for outdoor education programs which seek to claim the ground of sustainability. While there is much that can be gained from journeys in remote pristine environments, not all of these experiences necessarily lead to the development of attitudes, understandings, skills, and motivation to live more sustainably. Furthermore, approaches to outdoor learning that seek to develop connection to and care for remote, pristine places, at the same time ignoring more local or impacted places, could present a dichotomous view of ‘nature’ to students, thereby disrupting efforts to educate for sustainability.
Article
After briefly introducing the paradigm of experiential, participative action research, four dimensions of participation – the political, epistemological, ecological and spiritual – are explored. The political dimension concerns peoples’ right to have a say in decisions which affect them, and is linked with participatory economics and the development of learning communities; the epistemological dimension concerns that nature of human knowing in a subjective-objective world; the ecological dimension counters the threats to the natural ecology which result from the positivist mindset; and the spiritual dimension suggests that one of the primary purposes of human inquiry is to heal the splits which characterise modern Western consciousness.
Article
This commentary brings together a collection of articles that addresses several of the important issues in research on personal epistemology. We also propose a more integrated model that elaborates on the following fundamental elements of personal epistemology: (a) a mechanism of change (i.e., epistemic doubt, epistemic volition, and resolution strategies), (b) dimensions of beliefs, (c) advanced beliefs, (d) metacognition, (e) conditions for change (i.e., dissonance and personal relevance), (f) affect, (g) cognitive abilities and environment, and (h) reciprocal causation. Our goal in developing this model is to integrate many of the salient theoretical issues raised by the diverse models of personal epistemology represented in this special issue as a way to guide and inform future research and educational practice.
Article
Abstract This paper starts with a critique of Gubaand Lincoln's (1994) outline of competing paradigms for research, in particular arguing that the constructivist position fails to account for experiential knowing. The arguments for a participatory worldview,are articulated based on a subjective-objective ontology; an extended epistemology of experiential, presentational, propositional and practical ways of knowing; a methodology,based on co-operative relations between co-researchers; and an axiology which affirms the primary value of practical knowing,in the service of human flourishing. Authors' note The authors wish to thank Yvonna Lincoln and the anonymous,QI reviewer for their
Article
Whilst the same group differences can be explained in many ways, explanations of group differ-ences tend to spontaneously figure the distinctive attributes of lower-status groups against a back-ground norm of high-status groups' attributes. We suggest that this asymmetry occurs in the explanations of scientists and laypeople who have been influenced by the history of 'disciplinary power' which works to disempower lower-status people by making them visible to the human sciences. We argue that social groups who are habitually studied first in research programs, more commonly encountered social groups, and prototypical social groups are all less likely than their counterparts to be marked in spontaneous explanations of empirical group differences. We present evidence that groups who are explicitly mentioned in such explanations are assumed to be lower in power. We describe some limitations to current knowledge about such asymmetric explanations and suggest some directions for further research, including our thoughts about how to integrate existing findings with the possibility of formulating cognitive alternatives to the status quo among minority groups.
Article
Among researchers who study students' epistemologies, a consensus has emerged about what constitutes a sophisticated stance toward scientific knowledge. According to this community consensus, students should understand scientific knowledge as tentative and evolving, rather than certain and unchanging; subjectively tied to scientists' perspectives, rather than objectively inherent in nature; and individually or socially constructed, rather than discovered. Surveys, interview protocols, and other methods used to probe students' beliefs about scientific knowledge broadly reflect this outlook. This article questions the community consensus about epistemological sophistication. We do not suggest that scientific knowledge is objective and fixed; if forced to choose whether knowledge is certain or tentative, with no opportunity to elaborate, we would choose “tentative.” Instead, our critique consists of two lines of argument. First, the literature fails to distinguish between the correctness and productivity of an epistemological belief. For instance, elementary school students who believe that science is about discovering objective truths to questions, such as whether the earth is round or flat, or whether an asteroid led to the extinction of the dinosaurs, may be more likely to succeed in science than students who believe science is about telling stories that vary with one's perspective. Naïve realism, although incorrect (according to a broad consensus of philosophers and social scientists), may nonetheless be productive for helping those students learn. Second, according to the consensus view as reflected in commonly used surveys, epistemological sophistication consists of believing certain blanket generalizations about the nature of knowledge and learning, generalizations that do not attend to context. These generalizations are neither correct nor productive. For example, it would be unsophisticated for students to view as tentative the idea that the earth is round rather than flat. By contrast, they should take a more tentative stance toward theories of mass extinction. Nonetheless, many surveys and interview protocols tally students as sophisticated not for attending to these contextual nuances, but for subscribing broadly to the view that knowledge is tentative. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sci Ed85:554–567, 2001.
Article
This article uses an analysis of the 'knowledge politics' of the Botany Community Participation and Review Committee (CPRC) to argue that the Habermasian ideals framing the CPRC are flawed. Habermasian communicative ethics centre upon the notion that fair, free and open forms of debate and communication ensure that no one form of reasoning and/or knowledge dominates others, and so commonly frame attempts to facilitate public participation in technical decision-making. However, in practice, Habermas' advocacy of 'the power of the better argument' (1984) supports adversarial debate and favours conventionally validated (i.e. scientific) forms of knowledge over others. This article identifies this departure from the vision underpinning communicative ethics with the routine deployment of a flawed conception of knowledge. This view - that knowledge is representational in character (that is, in effect, a 'mirror' onto the world) - marginalises lay contributions by rendering them of secondary status (i.e. that they are 'values'); diminishes them by insisting that they take conventional 'expert like' representational form; and supports 'deficit model' approaches (the belief that public antipathy results from knowledge 'deficits' resolvable by expert mediated enhancements in technical literacy). A non-representational epistemology is used to argue that effective participation must rather account for how knowledge is constructed by and through processes, including those of participation/deliberation, rather than existing autonomously of them. The implications of this emphasis on processes, rather than on the sources of and formal characteristics of knowledge, are examined both for public participation and for the dynamics of late-modernity more generally.
Where am I? Locating myself and its implications for collaborative research
  • R D Langout
  • RD Langout
A shift towards industry-relevant degrees isn’t helping students get jobs. The Conversation
  • R Hil
  • K Lyons
River of lives: Final report. Prepared for Maribyrnong City Council in Melbourne
  • S F Law
  • M Grossman
  • C Spark
Marxism and the interpretation of culture
  • G C Spivak
  • GC Spivak