Co-production as praxis: Critique and engagement from within the university

Q1 Social Sciences
B. Perry
{"title":"Co-production as praxis: Critique and engagement from within the university","authors":"B. Perry","doi":"10.1177/20597991221129773","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper takes as its starting point the question of whether there is an inherent tension between co-production and critique. Whilst the former requires engagement, proximity, situatedness, an inclusive definition of expertise and an action-orientation, the latter has traditionally been equated with disengagement, distance, academic expertise and theory-building. Tracing both the critique of co-production and the critique of critique, I suggest that co-producing critique could be one basis for rescuing both from their detractors. Drawing on my experiences in the Realising Just Cities programme (2010–2020), I argue that co-producing critique from within the university requires designing boundary spaces, intermediating between knowledge claims and balancing between articulated and attributed values for co-production. This gives rise to co-production as an epistemic praxis, not method, characterised by boundary work, epistemic choreography and triple shifting. I argue that whilst academics should argue for altogether different kinds of institutions, there is also value in recognising how we are tethered to our institutions. More attention should be paid to choreographing universities into, rather than out, of critical-engaged work, in order to mobilise their privilege and position for social justice.","PeriodicalId":32579,"journal":{"name":"Methodological Innovations","volume":"15 1","pages":"341 - 352"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Methodological Innovations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20597991221129773","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

This paper takes as its starting point the question of whether there is an inherent tension between co-production and critique. Whilst the former requires engagement, proximity, situatedness, an inclusive definition of expertise and an action-orientation, the latter has traditionally been equated with disengagement, distance, academic expertise and theory-building. Tracing both the critique of co-production and the critique of critique, I suggest that co-producing critique could be one basis for rescuing both from their detractors. Drawing on my experiences in the Realising Just Cities programme (2010–2020), I argue that co-producing critique from within the university requires designing boundary spaces, intermediating between knowledge claims and balancing between articulated and attributed values for co-production. This gives rise to co-production as an epistemic praxis, not method, characterised by boundary work, epistemic choreography and triple shifting. I argue that whilst academics should argue for altogether different kinds of institutions, there is also value in recognising how we are tethered to our institutions. More attention should be paid to choreographing universities into, rather than out, of critical-engaged work, in order to mobilise their privilege and position for social justice.
作为实践的联合制作:来自大学内部的批评和参与
本文以合拍与批判之间是否存在内在张力为出发点。前者需要参与、接近、情境性、专业知识的包容性定义和行动导向,而后者传统上等同于脱离、距离、学术专业知识和理论建设。通过对合拍作品的批判和对批判的批判,我认为合拍作品批判可以成为将两者从批评者手中拯救出来的一个基础。根据我在“实现公正城市”计划(2010-2020)中的经验,我认为,在大学内部共同创作批评需要设计边界空间,在知识主张之间进行中介,并在共同创作的表达和归因价值之间进行平衡。这就产生了作为一种认识实践而非方法的共同生产,其特征是边界工作、认识编排和三重转换。我认为,虽然学者们应该为完全不同类型的机构辩护,但认识到我们如何与我们的机构联系在一起也有价值。应该更多地关注将大学安排到关键的参与工作中,而不是退出,以调动他们的特权和地位,实现社会正义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Methodological Innovations
Methodological Innovations Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书