Our Knowledge Our Way in caring for Country: Indigenous-led approaches to strengthening and sharing our knowledge for land and sea management. Best Practice Guidelines from Australian Experiences.

Woodward, Emma; Hill, Rosemary; Harkness, Pia; Archer, Ricky

doi:10.25607/obp-1565

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Relationships between academic and non-academic partners are equally complex, with hidden power dynamics, biases and assumptions often disrupting planned pathways to impact (Langthaler et al 2012;Scholz and Steiner 2015;Wanner et al 2018;Fritz and Meinherz 2020). Recognising the inherently subjective nature of impact may be the first step that many researchers take towards recognising their own subjectivity and positionality as researchers, and recognising the multiplicity of ways that knowledge can be constructed and used to generate benefits for others [guidance exists on operationalising this in a range of settings, including policy (e.g., Cairney 2021), international development (e.g., Brissett 2020), working with Indigenous groups (e.g., Woodward et al 2020;Gewin 2021) and transdisciplinary research (e.g., Pohl et al 2017;Dannecker 2020)].…”

Section: The Subjectivity Of Research Impactmentioning

confidence: 99%

Re-thinking research impact: voice, context and power at the interface of science, policy and practice

Reed

Rudman

2022

Sustain Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The world is facing unprecedented challenges on a scale that has never been seen before, and the need for evidence-informed solutions has never been greater. As a result, academics, policy-makers, practitioners, and research funders are increasingly seeking to undertake or support research that achieves tangible impacts on policy and practice. However, the impact of research is inherently subjective, with the same outcome perceived as either beneficial or negative by different groups, or by the same group in different contexts. It is therefore important to consider factors that may increase the likelihood that outcomes from research are perceived as beneficial (or otherwise) by interested/affected groups and non-academic partners, to help researchers avoid causing potentially harmful impacts, despite their best intentions. In this overview article, we discuss three considerations for re-thinking how research can deliver such outcomes: (i) sensitivity to context, (ii) representation and legitimisation of diverse voices and (iii) the management of power dynamics. We then discuss how these can be enacted in research and engagement processes that are designed to incorporate multiple ways of viewing reality and knowledge, as researchers become increasingly aware of their positionality, privilege, assumptions and biases. By considering how research and impact generation processes are mediated by context, power and voice, it may be possible to envision just transformations of knowledge systems that foreground the knowledge and needs of diverse groups, including those who have been historically marginalised, and without systematically recognising or privileging one group over another.

show abstract