Advertisement

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

Chapter
Part of the Peace Psychology Book Series book series (PPBS)

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.

Keywords

Knowledge Participation Mapping Community Digital 

References

  1. Anderson, C. (2012). Makers: The new industrial revolution. New York: Crown Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Behar, R. (1996). The vulnerable observer: An anthropology that breaks your heart. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bendixen, L. D., & Rule, D. C. (2004). An integrative approach to personal epistemology: A guiding model. Educational Psychologist, 39, 69–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Connell, R. (2007). Southern theory: Social science and the global dynamics of knowledge. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  5. Dalaston-Jones, D. (2015). (De)Constructing paradigms: Creating a psychology curriculum for conscientisation education. The Australian Community Psychologist, 27(1), 38–48.Google Scholar
  6. Fox, R. (2014). Constructing critical thinking with psychology students in higher education: Opportunities and barriers. The Journal of Critical Psychology, Counselling and Psychotherapy, 14(4), 238–247.Google Scholar
  7. Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 85, 554–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Haffenden, P. (1994). Your history mate: The work of a community museum in Melbourne’s Western Suburbs. Maribyrnong, VIC: Melbourne’s Living Museum of the West.Google Scholar
  10. Hardin, R. (2002). Street level epistemology and democratic participation. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 10(2), 212–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hatch, M. (2013). The maker movement manifesto: Rules for innovation in the new world of crafters, hackers, and tinkerers. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  12. Healy, S. (2009). Toward an epistemology of public participation. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(4), 1644–1654.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hegarty, P., & Bruckmüller, S. (2013). Asymmetric explanations of group differences: Experimental evidence of Foucault’s disciplinary power in social psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 176–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heron, J., & Reason, P. (1997). A participatory inquiry paradigm. Qualitative Inquiry, 3(3), 274–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hil, R. (2015). Selling students short. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  16. Hil, R., & Lyons, K. (2015). A shift towards industry-relevant degrees isn’t helping students get jobs. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/a-shift-towards-industry-relevant-degrees-isnt-helping-students-get-jobs-46128
  17. Hill, A. (2013). The place of experience and the experience of place: The intersections between sustainability education and outdoor learning. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 29(1), 18–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ife, J. (2012). Human rights and social work: Toward rights-based practice. Port Melbourne, Vic: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Irwin, A., & Michael, M. (2003). Science, social theory and public knowledge. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Langout, R. D. (2006). Where am I? Locating myself and its implications for collaborative research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 37, 267–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Law, S. F. (2016). Unknowing researcher’s vulnerability: Re-searching inequality on an uneven playing field. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 4(2), 521–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Law, S. F., & Bretherton, D. (2016). The imbalance between knowledge paradigms of North and South: Implications for peace psychology. In M. Seedat, S. Suffla, & D. J. Christie (Eds.), Enlarging the scope of peace psychology: African and world-regional contributions (pp. 19–38). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Law, S. F., Grossman, M., & Spark, C. (2015). River of lives: Final report. Prepared for Maribyrnong City Council in Melbourne.Google Scholar
  24. Murove, M. F. (2014). Ubuntu. Diogenes, 59(3–4), 36–47.Google Scholar
  25. Peppler, K., & Bender, S. (2013). Maker movement spreads innovation one project at a time. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(3), 22–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ramos, J. (2015). Liquid democracy and the futures of governance. In R. Ono & J. Winter (Eds.), The future internet: Alternative visions (pp. 173–191). Zurich: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reason, P. (1998). Political, epistemological, ecological and spiritual dimensions of participation. Studies in Cultures, Organizations and Societies, 4, 147–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the sulbaltern speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the interpretation of culture (pp. 67–111). London: Macmillan Education.Google Scholar
  29. Walker, P. O. (2015). Indigenous paradigm research. In D. Bretherton & S. F. Law (Eds.), Methodologies in peace psychology: Peaceful research by peaceful means (pp. 159–175). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wessels, M. (2015). Program evaluation: Why process matters. In D. Bretherton & S. F. Law (Eds.), Methodologies in peace psychology: Peaceful research by peaceful means (pp. 381–397). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wynne, B. (2003). Seasick on the third wave? Subverting the hegemony of propositionalism: Response to Collins and Evans (2002). Social Studies of Science, 33(3), 401–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Arts and Education, Victoria UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Institute for Social and Health SciencesUniversity of South AfricaJohannesburgSouth Africa
  3. 3.South African Medical Research Council-University of South Africa ViolenceInjury and Peace Research UnitJohannesburgSouth Africa
  4. 4.Center for Cultural Diversity and WellbeingVictoria UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations