Exploring tensions in knowledge networks: Convergences and divergences from social capital, actor-network theory and sociologies of the south

Abstract

Knowledge networks have been discussed as mechanisms that facilitate access to resources and information. They are noted as organizations that promote the generation of new contacts and interactions between actors in order to produce knowledge that increases the speed and reliability of communication. They are also understood as platforms that encourage learning and knowledge coordination in order to advance technoscientific innovation processes. Despite these benefits, knowledge networks can engender areas of tension. The article examines the tensions in knowledge networks by analysing the theoretical convergences and divergences between social capital insights, actor-network theory and several contributions from the sociologies of the south. The following four categories are discussed: (1) hierarchy production; (2) blockages to the access to resources; (3) the spatialization of networks; and (4) the different ways of understanding power. The latter offer opportunities to make the tensions in knowledge networks visible. The article proposes initiating a discussion focused on the dynamic movement of asymmetries to analyse knowledge networks between the global North and the global South as entities that are in a process of constant negotiation.

A holistic framework of power to observe constraining and enabling manifestations and outcomes of power within international Sport for Development and Peace partnerships

“…Overall, the framework presented suggests that power can be both an enabling and restrictive force, exists in the form of both structure and agency, and is not static but is negotiated through ongoing dynamic relationships between various SDP actors. This approach takes inspiration from Go (2013), Estrada (2017) and Rosa (2015) who sought to develop multi-theoretical dialogues to prioritise localised understandings of networks and relationships. Estrada (2017) has argued for a more flexible holistic understanding of power rather than purely focusing on one theory, which in her view can limit the researcher to a narrow understanding.…”

“…This approach takes inspiration from Go (2013), Estrada (2017) and Rosa (2015) who sought to develop multi-theoretical dialogues to prioritise localised understandings of networks and relationships. Estrada (2017) has argued for a more flexible holistic understanding of power rather than purely focusing on one theory, which in her view can limit the researcher to a narrow understanding.…”

What difference do networks make to teachers’ knowledge?

“…Considering RCTs as the golden standard has also been adopted by some in education (Goldacre, 2013[2]), while others believe in much wider interpretation of quality evidence and point to the complexity of the issue (Hiebert, Gallimore and Stigler, 2002[53]; OECD, 2007 [50]; Nutley, Powell and Davies, 2013 [54]). Sharples defines evidence-informed practice as "integrating professional expertise with the best external evidence from research to improve the quality of practice" (Sharples, 2013, p. 7 [55]). This suggests that evidence-informed practice is underpinned by formal and academic knowledge of the research available in a field.…”