Co-Construction of Knowledge

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://knowledgedemocracydspace.com/handle/123456789/1081

Browse

Author: search.filters.author.Tandon, RajeshEnd date: 1979

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Challenges in the co-construction of knowledge: A global study on strengthening structures for community university research partnerships
    (0000) Hall, Budd L; Tandon, Rajesh; Tremblay, Crystal; Singh, Wafa
    In this paper, Budd Hall, Rajesh Tandon, Crystal Tremblay and Wafa Singh present a global study on structures that support community-university research partnerships. The study draws on an international survey and national case studies from twelve countries, examining how universities institutionalise community engagement and where this engagement connects with actual research practice. The authors turn to the discourse of knowledge democracy, arguing that community-based research offers a way to address long-standing inequities in whose knowledge counts within the academy. Survey findings point to a gap between universities' stated commitment to co-constructing knowledge and the reality that very few research projects originate from communities themselves. The paper reviews facilitative structures across universities in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, India and elsewhere, and considers the role of national networks and policies in strengthening these partnerships. It closes with recommendations for national policy, higher education institutions, and community and civil society organisations.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    From clarity to anarchy: Participatory research approach (A critique of "The methodology of the participatory research approach")
    (1979) Tandon, Rajesh
    In this paper, Rajesh Tandon responds to a critique of a paper on the methodology of the participatory research approach, presented at the African Regional Workshop on Participatory Research in Tanzania in 1979. A central fallacy runs through the original argument that the wide range of political activism within PRA produces naive idealism and methodological adhocism. Participatory research is not an invention of the seventies; only its label is new, since people organising the rural poor had long practised its elements without naming them. Two vantage points inform the approach, the activist's and the professional researchers, and reconciling them forms the real challenge. Classical research confines inquiry to thinking alone, while PRA treats feeling and acting as equally valid modes of knowing. A genuine risk of subjective, superficial analysis remains, addressed through joint analysis between researcher and people. PRA's apparent anarchism reflects unfamiliarity and variety rather than incoherence.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Issues and experiences in participatory research in Asia
    (1979-06-25) Tandon, Rajesh
    In this paper Dr. Rajesh Tandon examines characteristics and issues of participatory research as practised across Asia during the late 1970s, drawing on meetings held in India and Thailand alongside field reports from researchers. Practitioners engaging with participatory research bring varied motivations, ranging from disillusioned social scientists seeking relevance beyond classical research paradigms to activists redirecting failed development strategies toward decentralized alternatives and educators treating research itself as a vehicle for social transformation. Rural settings dominate the Asian experience, reflecting both the scale of rural populations and the concentration of documented efforts in land, health, and adult education. The paper situates participatory research in close and often uncomfortable relation to social action, tracing the political consequences that follow from this link across varied Asian contexts. It also addresses the largely unorganized condition of underprivileged groups and the corresponding need to build organization alongside inquiry, along with the personal values and behavioural skills researchers need to genuinely facilitate participation rather than reproduce authoritarian patterns. The paper closes by treating these issues as unresolved questions for the ongoing evolution of participatory research in the region, rather than settled conclusions.