What's in the 'co'? Tending the tensions in co-creative inquiry in social work education

Abstract

What's in the 'co'? Tending the context-specific tensions of co-creative inquiry in social work education Abstract. Higher education is one of many fields of practice that have undergone a so-called 'dialogic turn' whereby processes of co-creation proliferate as a means of generating knowledge. According to dialogic ideals, co-creation harnesses the transformative potential of dialogue across difference and empowers participants as co-learners or co-researchers. But what does the 'co' of 'co-creation' entail in practice? The aim of the article is to explore the tensions in the 'co' of cocreation through critical, reflexive analysis of the enactment of one particular approach to cocreation, 'Academic Co-Creative Inquiry' (ACCI), in a social work course in a higher educational institution in Aotearoa New Zealand. Using the Integrated Framework for Analysing Dialogic Knowledge Production and Communication, the analysis identifies tensions arising in the interplay between top-down and bottom-up dynamics in a contested terrain of dialogic and neoliberal discourses. It is argued that ACCI's reflexive sensitivity in relation to tensions offers some resistance to neoliberalism in higher education.

Breaking monologues in collaborative research: bridging knowledge systems through a listening-based dialogue of wisdom approach

“…In the different forms of collaborative research, interaction with society is critical. Dialogue and participatory approaches are the primary means to co-create knowledge, empowering participants as co-learners or co-researchers, enabling social transformations (Phillips and Napan 2016). However, studies showed that neither dialogue nor participatory methods are a guarantee of equal participation (Herrador-Valencia et al 2012).…”

“…Academics interested in counteracting the effects of power relations in knowledge production have developed inclusive, decolonising and feminist approaches that try to give voice to those who do not have it (Edwards and Brannelly 2017). These approaches have focused their efforts on developing methodological tools to transform the participants into active agents in a co-creation process (Phillips and Napan 2016). However, some dialogic methodologies tend to romanticise dialogue, ignoring or minimising the impact of power-knowledge tensions on collaborative spaces (Phillips et al 2018).…”

“…Although there is an increasing number of scholars interested in finding new pathways to bridge Western and Indigenous sciences, unfortunately, many of these collaborative research practices ended up reproducing dominant (colonial) schemes (Andreotti et al 2015) and encapsulating fragments of ILK in Western paradigms (Muller 2012). This kind of practices engenders false expectations based on the illusion created by the buzzwords of co-creation, empowerment, and participation (Phillips and Napan 2016). It produces fatigue in communities disappointed by the participatory processes that do not generate real participation or empowerment (Charli-Joseph et al 2018).…”

Investigating the productive uses of uncertainty in knowledge co‐creation practices

“…The fostering of knowledge emergence is a significant research area in information science and a strategic challenge in learning, research‐driven, and innovation environments. Co‐creation practices, defined as the collaborative participation of “different social actors and articulation of multiple knowledge forms” (Phillips & Napan, , p. 4) proliferate as a means to generate knowledge. Although the promises and key elements of co‐creation practices are progressively documented (Beckett, Farr, Kothari, Wye, & le May, ), there is a need for more of an empirical understanding of informational processes facilitating knowledge emergence in those environments.…”

Qualitative Qualities, Meaningful Measurements?

“…Many of us are weary of the debate and bemoan the futility of critique. As countless analyses have demonstrated, neoliberalism permeates practices and subjectivities, rendering active resistance so difficult (Davies & Bansel, 2007Davies, Gottsche, & Bansel, 2006;Gill, 2010;Leathwood & Read, 2013;Olssen & Peters, 2005;Pedersen, 2010;Phillips & Napan, 2016;Shore, 2010;Shore & Wright, 2000;Strathern, 2000). Some commentators have pointed out that the large body of ideological critique has not been accompanied by serious active resistance to the colonization of the academy by neoliberalism (Davies & Bansel, 2007Davies et al, 2006;Gill, 2010;Leathwood & Read, 2013).…”