Mobilising knowledge in community−university partnerships: what does a community of practice approach contribute?

Abstract

Over the past decade different approaches to mobilising knowledge inCommunity2University Partnership (CUP) contexts have emerged in the UK. Despite this,detailed accounts of the intricate texture of these approaches, enabling others to replicate orlearn from them, are lacking. This paper adds to the literature which begins to address thisgap. The case considered here concentrates on one particular approach to knowledgemobilisation (KM) developed in the UK context. It provides an account of the authors’involvement in applying the concept, and practical lessons from a community of practice(CoP) approach, to developing knowledge exchange (KE) between academics, parents andpractitioners. The authors’ approach to KM explicitly attempts to combat power differentialsbetween academics and community partners, and problematises knowledge powerhierarchies. The paper explores the CoP concept and critically investigates key elements ofrelevance to developing KE in the CUP context. Specific themes addressed are those ofpower, participation and working across boundaries by CoP members with very differentsubject positions and knowledge capitals. The paper concludes that CoPs can be a usefulmechanism for KM, but have many limitations depending on the specific context in whichKM is being undertaken

Can a community of practice enhance a palliative approach for people drawing close to death with dementia?

“…Three limitations relate to the CoP itself: needs to support 'active' CoP participation, requirements for management of power differentials within the group, and likely benefits from the inclusion of members spanning 'different worlds' (Hart et al, 2013) (eg, hospitals versus residential care). First, it was not feasible for the hospital-based CoP members to implement planned practice changes during the relatively brief study period.…”

“…represented by members (Hart et al, 2013). In this way, a CoP provides a framework for knowledge integration and translation (Palmer and Kramlich, 2011).…”

Who owns educational research? Disciplinary conundrums and considerations

“…Part of the core funding criteria included a commitment to 'co-production' and community co-constructed research. We did draw on sociologically inspired models from, for example Hart and Wolff (2006), and Hart et al (2013) looking at university community partnerships, together with Armstrong and Banks (2011) who, with community partners, explored dialogic co-enquiry spaces. These helped us understand how structure was important to shifting the balance of power between community and university modes of knowledge and enquiry.…”

Collaborative community research dissemination and networking: Experiences and challenges

“…A key and meaningful way of generating understanding, presenting research and its outputs, and implementing and sharing theory in practice is to develop different artefacts or boundary objects (Hart et al 2013). For us, this included art work made by the young people, films, badges and posters, and academic papers, booklets and resources.…”