Knowledge: What It Is, Who Owns It, Who Creates It
Written By: Daena
What is knowledge?
Merriam Webster defines knowledge as: “information, understanding, or skill that you get from experience or education.” It goes on to say knowledge may pertain to a specific art, science, and technique or it may simply be an awareness of something. I really appreciate that Merriam Webster acknowledges that skill is grown from experience or education. Professionally, education is often seen as having more value than experience, (think applications that filter for education level as the baseline), but it’s experience that is embodiment of knowledge.
It’s experience that is required in a “practice” and it’s that practice that portends adaptation and innovation. Formal education is important and valid, but it is not the only pathway to knowledge and understanding.
As a group of herbalists and midwives, Holistic is well aware of the intrinsic value of experience gained through familial lineages, cultural practices, mentorships, intuition, oral traditions, and hands-on practice.
Who Owns Knowledge?
The specialized information that can come from formalized education often hides behind paywalls, membership fees, passcodes, and logins. If it is deemed the most accurate and the most valued by society, it is endlessly frustrating that it is the hardest to access.
When we published “Supported at-home abortion: An exploratory study of methods, outcomes, and motivations of community-led abortion care in the United States and Canada” with Contraception, we had to pay the journal over $2000 to allow open access, and remove the paywall to the public on publication day. Even though the authors created the proposal, collected the data, analyzed the results, and ultimately wrote the report, we did not own the right to share it.
To become ‘valid’ research in the eyes of the institution required relinquishing the very knowledge we collectively generated.
Who creates knowledge?
As lay researchers, we are driven by curiosity to know and the desire to ‘do better’ by our clients. The questions we are most curious about don't have existing ‘data’ and don't have clear routes to make it. (Like understanding the mechanisms of action behind certain herbs, and why they may work well for some people, but not for others.)
So we’ve innovated ways to adapt our stories and experiences into data that can help us analyze where we are and continue to develop best practices to serve our communities. Attempts to utilize the analytic tools and roadmaps developed and required by the world of scientific research has not always been welcoming.
While academic research continues to adapt to calls for inclusivity and representation of the people being researched, it still often falls short. In most of my collaborations with academic research and publication, I have been brought in as a ‘community expert.’ And while honored to be considered as such, the information flow and benefits ultimately felt one-sided.
Community experts and participants teach the researchers intimate details of our work, care, and expertise, and may or may not be modestly compensated. (I’ve received anything from a $50 gift card to $3000 for a multi-year engaging research project.)
But reaching out and asking for details to understand the hoops and barriers to funding and proposals have not wielded results. Requests for collaborations with professional orgs and institutions are denied (though not uncommon to see a similar proposal made by these same allies months or years later).
Researchers are allowed, permitted, encouraged, and at times required to foray into our worlds, but the invitation is not two ways. They can become professionals, experts based on this foray, but believe the skills (their skills) required of research creation are not transferable.
Community-Based Participatory Research is a model based on active participation and leadership by the people directly impacted in the subject matter. Yet proposals and funding applications are often made by academia before those members have been identified or approached. And when we opted to self-publish our data and findings we were advised that the language of “community research” can not be used to describe our data, unless approved, backed, and ultimately run by representatives of an institution.
Community-Generated Knowledge
So we figure it out. We innovate. We find loopholes and openings in the gate.
We work with friendly gatekeepers willing to open a door from the inside (asking the author or another .edu friend to request access). We fundraise through GoFundMe and other platforms to make this knowledge available (we got the research rights for the papers on homeabortionresearch.com through a GoFundMe).
We collect and share our collective experiences in different ways and through different outlets. We use coded language: It’s not community “research” it’s a community “survey” or an “exploration.” It’s not qualitative data, it’s a storyshare. It’s not data, it’s our quantified direct experiences.
We peer-review through social processes and collective feedback. We self-publish our results in classes, as interviews, and reports. We share on social media and through our personal outlets.
We reclaim the knowledge that was always ours.
About the Author: Daena is a clinically-trained herbalist, writer, and co-founder and director of Holistic Abortions, a grassroots group working to increase access, understanding and availability of various abortion methods as a means of liberation from systems of harm through education, direct care, and culture shifting work.