Situated knowledges, plurality & positionality
The first trio of accompanying scholarly concepts which take this opportunity to highlight, are situated knowledges, plurality and positionality. Here we briefly introduce each term, before inviting some of our guest contributors to reflect a little further on the significance of each in direct connection with their own (care-full) scholarly endeavours.
In the case of situated knowledges, we are particularly guided by the contribution of Donna Haraway who, in 1988, introduced the concept as a way of opposing the idea of objectivity and masculinised traditions of scientific rhetoric. She argued that we must understand the contingency of our position in the world, and thus the contestable nature of our claims to knowledge.
Many feminist scholars have picked up this idea, in the attempt to produce a more adequate, richer, better account of a world. It is also an effort to develop a critical reflexive stance as to our “own as well as others’ practices of domination and the unequal parts of privilege and oppression that make up all positions” (Ref: Haraway 1988, p. 579);
As an accompaniment to situated knowledges, the term plurality gives further emphasis to the diversity of knowledges, beliefs, worldviews and aspirations entrenched in our various social relationships. It also directs our attention towards the plurality of intersectional identities which must be care-fully attended to as an integral part of thinking through what it means to practice care-full scholarship.
To apply this to a sustainability science research context, for example, how response-able or vulnerable individuals or groups are in biodiversity-decision making processes, can in part be attributed to the dominant forms of referential knowledge in play and also to the intersectional make-up of social categories of all those implicated by a particular decision (Kaijser and Kronsell 2014). In the case of this example, far more extensive knowledge is needed of how the resulting power imbalances in turn impact on the state of biodiversity, either directly or indirectly, at both a local and global scale. A similar point can be made with regards to the power imbalances which also feature and circulate within academic institutions.
In the context of care-full scholarship also closely linked to each of the above concepts is the notion of ‘positionality’ - our awareness about our own personally held beliefs, values, power, and expectations in comparison to the communities we study, or the students we teach, or the colleagues we engage with. In propagating this sensitivity, it is important ‘to reflect critically upon our own intersectional identity and how it may influence the research space, hierarchies, gender and cultural norms and the way in which others respond’ to our input (Gender and Inclusion Toolbox 2013: 26).
With the help of our contributors and drawing from their experiences in different contexts, we will now explore these issues a little further. In the pages that follow, you will have the opportunity to hear initial contributions from:
- Dr Geraldine Brown
- Dr Gloria Giambartolomei
- Dr Viola Hakkarainen (RECOMS Fellow)
- Jingjing Guo (RECOMS Fellow)
- Dr Lucy Aphramor
each of whom will also make additional contributions in later Units by way of sharing more about their own ways of practicing care-full scholarship.
