---

Opinion article by Dr Faith Mkwananzi and Dr Mikateko Mathebula, Centre for Development Support and senior researchers from the SARChI Chair in Higher Education and Human Development Research Programme, University of the Free State.

Shifting from epistemic in (practices)

In part, we consider the practice of partnering and collaborating important because, for a long time, research has been dominated by oppressive power dynamics in the creation of knowledge, with researchers seeming to possess all the power to produce knowledge. This was even in contexts where the actual knowledge came from the communities, and the researchers’ role was to package that knowledge into what could be viewed as an ‘eloquent’ way for a knowledge market (audience) outside of the lived realities of the people that the research is conducted ‘on.’ A paradigm shift has been long overdue. A shift that emphasises participants as collaborators in knowledge creation, underpinning each person's epistemic position in knowledge creation. Knowledge for the people, by the people.

We realise that the role of higher education institutions (in which much research is carried out) is to respond to the needs of society, so we place a high value on these collaborations and partnerships. Pragmatic guiding questions accompany this position. If solutions to societal problems do not involve any kind of collaboration with those they are intended to serve, how can they work? If we seek to address epistemic imbalances, how can a one-sided approach to problem-solving be considered as just? In other words, how can we avoid the colonisation of ideas and knowledge – which, like economic colonisation (Gatsheni-Ndlovu), is never benevolent but motivated by self-interest and ‘knowledge exploitation of the researched’?

From on to with

There is a lot that we can do to dismantle extractive research approaches. For example, many researchers have moved from thinking of research as something that is done ‘on’ a certain group of people to instead seeing research as something that is done ‘with’ collaborators, contributors, or co-researchers. In some instances, this has manifested in collaboration with local organisations, including working with youth and allowing them to take the lead instead of just participating in the research process.

It is through social and creative activities that community members, ordinary people, and citizens are given opportunities to lead deliberations and make decisions so that relevant ideas for preferred solutions to persistent problems can ultimately be developed. Through such processes, we can pursue and support both community and funder interests. Our community interest is to help them lead the process in contextually relevant and meaningful ways. Keeping the funder's interests in mind, it is also crucial for us to ensure that the project is still within the parameters within which we claimed there was a justified problem.

Challenges in our project

Genuinely participatory projects do not come without challenges. These challenges vary from project to project, context to context, and are also influenced by researcher interest, self-reflexivity, and positionality. The organisation, group, and community one collaborates with can also bring unique challenges. Whether we work with a political organisation, community-based, grassroots, or long-established international organisation, these challenges can come about. Often, our selection of who to collaborate with is informed by the research objectives.  For example, our project exploring the dynamics of pursuing higher education in contexts of socio-spatial exclusion led to reflection on the benefits and challenges of such collaborations and partnerships. The project involved 12 youths from an informal settlement/developing township in the Free State, South Africa. The community-based organisation acted as a gatekeeper to the community from which the youth came, and photovoice was used to explore what attempts to access higher education looked like for the youth and how this was affected by where they came from. The data collection methods involved an introductory workshop, individual interviews, a series of photovoice workshops, group discussions, and a public exhibition. During the photovoice workshops, the youth were trained to document their past experiences, present opportunities, and aspirations for their futures through photographs. A key objective of photovoice is to stimulate critical dialogue.

Discussions that were politically charged or critical of local government were discouraged by the community-based organisation. However, we see such criticality, especially by the youth, as important to any work interested in understanding the role of youth in politics and the influence of politics on youth development. Still, the youth were hindered from telling their stories freely during the workshops, thereby challenging the autonomy of the youth as participants and us as researchers. Such restrictions are counterproductive to work on youth agency, which supports youth to be agents of change in their communities. But also, if youth are silenced, there is no room for innovative, creative, and fresh ideas about how community challenges might be addressed.  So, while we still see value in spaces that foster critical dialogue and involve multi-stakeholder engagement, this has raised questions about the power we as researchers must yield to do genuinely collaborative work. It also raised the question of whether ‘epistemic’ justice and inclusion are understood and valued outside of academic spaces and whether they should be.

These are important questions to engage with, because, as we saw in our case, the restrictions imposed on the youth by the partnering organisation influenced ‘how’ and ‘what’ the youth told about their experiences. This ultimately undermined the relationship formed with the community-based organisation. Therefore, despite McFadyen's (2017) assertion that gatekeepers play a key role in facilitating researchers' access to potential participants and research sites, the process can be ineffective due to shifting power imbalances. Often, these imbalances can stifle the narrative space enabled through participatory methods such as photovoice. Our experience made us realise how community gatekeeping can silence youth voices, which has harmful effects on youth who are already epistemically marginalised due to where they come from.  It is therefore important that we explore ways to foster relationships between community-based organisations, community members, and ourselves as university researchers in ways that benefit all. There are three helpful practices that can enable us to achieve more equitable knowledge production:

1. Creating clear (and continuous) communication channels

Khoo's (2016) suggestion of having early discussions about who is doing what, when, and how is something we have considered. We like the emphasis, however, on being clear about each role being assumed by collaborators. There are times when these roles and responsibilities can be vague, based on a general assumption that we all share similar interests, which is only sometimes the case. It is at this 'articulation' stage that one might be able to get a sense of how the relationship might progress. Collaboration should not be driven by obligation, which Dodsworth (2019) argues, may lead to a 'marriage of convenience.'

2. Respecting ourselves and each other

For collaboration to succeed, each collaborator must be respected for their capabilities, knowledge, and roles. Respecting each collaborator's approach and execution of their 'clear' duties demonstrates a commitment to shared goals and vision for the project. The commitment is often made in the best interest of the project and the individuals involved, allowing them to work autonomously, but for the same goals.

3. Practising process reflexivity