Liaison with the community for the Dialogue of Knowledge
Articulación de vinculación con la comunidad al Dialogo de Saberes
Oswaldo Martillo Mieles*
Johnny Edison Morales Roela*
Vladimir Alexander Guerrero Cortez *
Oswaldo Raúl Martillo Revelo *
Introduction
In recent years,
institutions of higher education (HEIs) have turned to community engagement to
advance research and promote academic knowledge, making it a cornerstone of the
intercultural educational model that connects the university with the
community:
Through this
process of community engagement, we contribute to the recognition of the
community’s non-formal education and the strengthening of formal university
education—that is, the convergence of organized and systematized education in
the classroom with the knowledge that the population possesses and generates
within their communities. Thus, through community engagement, the student
strengthens their research capabilities and develops skills to establish social
relationships with various actors, identifies local knowledge, values, and
attitudes, and acquires various skills for community action by putting into
practice the methodological and theoretical resources available through their
training. (Peña, 2017, p. 271)
This explains the
relationship between the university and society, since the more students are
connected to the community, the greater their chances of entering the labor
market. From this perspective, the university-community relationship is direct
and reciprocal, and it contributes to the core mission of higher education
institutions: to educate competent citizens and professionals who are socially
responsible.
Identifying local
knowledge, values, and attitudes should be part of the objectives of research
projects arising from community engagement processes. Communities are home to
people with sufficient cognitive resources that must be taken into account when
generating knowledge. The reality is that there is a need for “empirical
research documenting how this dialogue between the academic and the community,
between the classroom-conceptual and the experiential, takes place in
university practice” (Mateos & Dietz, 2013, p. 367).
Some authors, such as
Campos and Sánchez, assert that in Latin America, the relationship between HEIs
and their productive environment is an area where much remains to be done
(2006, p. 18).
In Ecuador
specifically, progress has been made in this regard over the past ten years;
the Secretariat of Higher Education, Science, Technology, and Innovation
(SENACYT) promotes the “National Project for the Dialogue of Knowledge,” which
manages its powers and responsibilities through three cross-cutting pillars: These
pillars are: managing the dialogue of knowledge in higher education, managing
the dialogue of knowledge in science, technology, and innovation, and managing
the dialogue of knowledge in intellectual property and knowledge management
(SENACYT, 2017). However, there are still no relevant results or studies
demonstrating progress regarding the relationship between Ecuadorian
universities and their productive environment.
The foregoing serves
as the basis for presenting this study, which, in addition to addressing
concepts related to community engagement, contextualizes them within the
“dialogue of knowledge” research, from the perspective of students in the
Taxation and Finance Engineering program at the University of Guayaquil who
participated in the project “Teaching Basic General Accounting, Ecuadorian Tax
Law, and Their Application in the Preparation of Financial Statements for
Residents of the Cerrito de los Morreños
Community, 2015.” Furthermore, the study identifies internal and external
factors that influence the strengthening of the university’s ties with the
community.
On the other hand, the
dialogue of knowledge facilitates the identification of the social
representations and practices of the residents of the Cerrito de los Morreños community within
their context; knowledge that may be of a conventional or popular nature. The
objective is to analyze the community engagement practices carried out by the
students in the Cerrito de los Morreños
community to provide feedback on the engagement process conducted by the
University of Guayaquil
This research is
considered very important because, in the university’s engagement with the
community, the knowledge of the participating parties is interconnected in a
way that facilitates the construction of new intercultural knowledge.
As highlighted above,
it is essential to consider the communities’ own knowledge for the construction
of new knowledge; therefore, the dialogue of knowledge is considered an
appropriate methodology for this purpose.
Dialogue of knowledge
is part of qualitative research: “its purpose is to generate knowledge about
customs, experiences, and lessons learned, seeking to understand phenomena and
allowing the involved actors to participate from a closer approach that facilitates
the understanding and appropriation of shared knowledge” (Hernández, Carratalá, Lamus, and Orozco, (2017, pp. 242–251). As part
of qualitative research design, action research provides information that
informs decision-making regarding programs, techniques, and structural
transformation.
Leff frames the
dialogue of knowledge as follows:
It is the
deconstruction of the globalized world trapped in the forms of representation
of reality produced by logocentrism and single-minded thinking, which questions
the totalizing project of objective knowledge and the fixation of knowledge in
the present, of history based on “facts,” of a future limited to the
extrapolation of trends in reality, without change, without creativity, without
possibility. (p. 18). The author begins by acknowledging the importance of
knowing, learning, and perceiving both one’s own and others’ perspectives,
without becoming a mere translator of foreign knowledge.
To refine the concept
of the dialogue of knowledges, it is necessary to consider Santos’s
contribution in his work *Epistemology of the South*, in which he opens a space
to explore other forms of knowledge—marginalized, abolished, and discredited by
formal knowledge—in order to appreciate them in their true magnitude (2010, p.
45). He emphasizes that one can acquire other forms of knowledge without having
to forget one’s own (p. 59).
Dialogue arises when
people knowledgeable about a particular topic create a suitable setting to
deepen their understanding. Participants initiate a discussion that transcends
any power dynamic between the interlocutor who supposedly has in-depth knowledge
of the subject and the one who does not. When participants feel that their
opinions will be considered—even if they are superficial—a dialogue emerges
where mutual respect prevails, knowledge is validated, and differences are
accepted with respect without necessarily adopting them as one’s own. The
friendly atmosphere generated in the dialogue allows participants, even when
they hold differing viewpoints, to be willing to learn from one another. The
mutual aspiration to learn becomes the catalyst for the dialogue of knowledge.
The purpose of the dialogue is not to convince one of the parties, nor to
homogenize knowledge, but rather to contribute insights regarding the issue at
hand, while acknowledging the diversity of ideas. In summary, through the
dialogue of knowledge, the experiences and social representations of each
participant are acknowledged—knowledge pertaining to a community issue, as well
as the process of individual, family, and group decision-making—to make room
for community-based thinking. For the approach to be effective, both the
educator and the learner must move beyond their preconceived notions about the
topic that prevent them from engaging with reality.
In line with what was
previously stated, the dialogue of knowledge facilitates the recognition of the
social representations and practices of the residents of the Cerrito de los Morreños community; this
knowledge may be of a conventional or folk nature. It can also be viewed as a
point of convergence between folk and academic knowledge.
Materials
and methods
As a qualitative
design that does not seek statistical representation of an issue, but rather
aims to understand, synthesize, theorize, and contextualize (Souza M. 2010, p.
252).
According to Taylor
and Bogdan (1986), qualitative research consists of ten defining
characteristics: 1. It is inductive: it allows for the understanding and
development of concepts based on data; 2. It is holistic: it investigates
people by considering their past and the situation in which they find
themselves; 3. It is sensitive: due to this characteristic, when interacting
with the people who are the subjects of the study, the researcher tries to
control their interference and reduce it to a minimum; 4. It seeks to
understand: the researcher studies to understand how people experience reality
and behaves as an impartial observer; 5. It sets aside the researcher’s
beliefs: things are observed as if for the first time; no cause or consequence
should be taken for granted. 6. Does not seek only moral perspectives: seeks to
understand in detail the viewpoints of all people, 7. Is humanistic: studies
the personal aspect, their beliefs, their inner life, successes, failures,
their endeavors, moral aspects…, 8. Emphasizes the validity of the study:
aligns the data with what people say and do, avoids standardizing and
controlling the data recorded. 9. People and contexts are both similar and
unique: similar, because general social processes are found in every setting or
group of people, and unique because through individual study, generalizations
are reached regarding a particular aspect. 10. It is an art: it does not follow
rules, procedures, or techniques, but rather flexible guiding principles when
conducting research.
These characteristics
of qualitative research are consistent with the “dialogue of knowledge”
approach, which seeks to gather information through conversations with each of
the stakeholders, in order to subsequently identify common patterns or
practices.
The application of the
qualitative “dialogue of knowledge” method necessarily begins with the
ancestral reconstruction of knowledge, recognizing the intimacy of social
representations and practices, starting with the individual, their family, and
the community to which they belong. It distinguishes between conventional and
popular knowledge (Espinoza and Ysunza, 2009, pp.
293–301). Popular knowledge of the issue must be considered alongside academic
or professional knowledge; the essence of the dialogue of knowledge lies in the
integration of academic knowledge with community representations (Hernández, Carratalá, Lamus, and Orozco, 2017, pp. 242–251).
To analyze the
dialogue of knowledge in the process of community engagement, this study draws
on the reflections of six former students (who have now completed their degrees
in Taxation and Finance Engineering) from the Faculty of Administrative
Sciences, University of Guayaquil who participated in the project “Teaching
Basic General Accounting, Ecuadorian Tax Law, and Their Application in the
Preparation of Financial Statements for Residents of the Cerrito de los Morreños Community, 2015,”
carried out between October 5 and December 13, 2015.
A focus group was held
in which the former students actively participated in exploring and discussing
the knowledge of the community involved. The participants shared comments,
opinions, knowledge, and their perspectives on the dialogue of knowledge in the
Cerrito de los Morreños
community.
The participants’
names were obtained from the Community Outreach Department’s database. Twenty
participants were invited, but only six chose to take part in the study.
The researcher served
as the moderator. A session was held, and it was necessary to develop a
discussion guide containing the key questions to be discussed. Finally, the
report was prepared, separating quantitative and qualitative informationhe school ased
administrations of the instrument.
Results
Dialogue between
people consists of the exchange of information, which can be verbal or written;
it is one of the most common forms of communication. It requires that
participants share common knowledge or experiences; when only one participant
possesses the necessary knowledge, it becomes a monologue.
In this sense,
dialogue occurs when each participant empathizes with the other, recognizing
that every member of the group has something worth hearing. The atmosphere of
dialogue is characterized by symmetry, freedom, candor, and respect for others’
opinions.
The students
acknowledged that, during their dialogue with the community members, there were
always differing points of view, even among the community members themselves—in
other words, there was multidimensional thinking. Given such a wide range of
knowledge, the knowledge and skills related to practical activities prevailed.
These knowledge and skills may have been logical, but they were highly
significant for mutual learning between students and community members.
The dialogue of
knowledge is rooted in multidimensionality and diversity of thought, and for
information to emerge spontaneously and in one’s own language, it is necessary
to build relationships of friendship and trust. One student states that to
achieve this relationship, one must prioritize acting as a person rather than
as a college student.
The relationship of
friendship and trust built with the locals contributes to the development of
citizens who are environmentally conscious, in addition to their professional training.
Principle of the form.
The practice of the
dialogue of knowledge allows students to change their personal ideas and those
of their environment, enabling them to learn from community members. There is
an asymmetry of knowledge between the student and the community members, which
the former could exploit to assert dominance; however, they speak of
collaborative research. Through this approach, they do not impose their
knowledge or social model, but rather accompany the community members in their
search for solutions to their problems. When discussing local issues that are
not part of the community engagement process, students draw on their own
knowledge or knowledge generated independently to support problem-solving.
Every effort is made to ensure that the knowledge gap is not apparent during
meetings; on the contrary, an atmosphere of peer-to-peer interaction is
fostered. It is worth noting that communities also include people with
sufficient cognitive resources—though different from those of academics—who
contribute significantly to the reflective documentation of experiences. Based
on these considerations, the students concluded that during the community
engagement process, they learned techniques practiced by community members that
helped them facilitate knowledge exchanges.
Another point on which
the students agreed was the lack of support from their tutors. The tutors
initially failed to provide guidance on knowledge dialogue as a method for
understanding and engaging with the community, as well as on respecting the
beliefs, techniques, and knowledge of the community members; they also failed
to minimize the knowledge gap as much as possible and to view community members
as people with similar circumstances. Distributed among the different social
actors that make up the community, as well as in the various community spaces.”
The authors argue that in communities there are diverse ways of thinking among
both community members and within the community organization itself. This is
consistent with the findings of the study.
Another finding of the
research is that the methodology of the dialogue of knowledge emphasizes
empathy among participants, recognizing that every member of the group has
something worth listening to. The atmosphere of the dialogue is steeped in
symmetry, freedom, candor, and respect for others’ opinions. The result aligns
with Archila’s (2017) observation that “This is why we are witnessing new forms
of knowledge exchange that affirm difference—no longer between those who know
and those who do not, but between different forms of knowledge, none of which
is inherently superior to the other.” The dialogue of knowledge refers to the
encounter between the academic world and that of social actors, who seek a
sustainable future based on the relevance of nature and the coexistence of
diverse forms of knowledge.
Another accepted
premise relates to students’ limited knowledge of the “Dialogue of Knowledge”
methodology and its application in the community setting—a finding already
anticipated by Campos and Sánchez, who assert that in Latin America, the link
between HEIs and their productive environment is an area where much remains to
be done (2006, p. 18). The students unanimously state that they received little
information about the aforementioned methodology to guide them in the research
activities to be carried out; they are only instructed on the knowledge to be
imparted
Based on the findings,
the premise is accepted that communities also include people with sufficient
cognitive resources—albeit different from those of academics—who contribute
significantly to the reflective recording of experiences. This result is
consistent with the argument put forward by Casillas and Santini (2006), who
note that “the connection with the community is established by recognizing that
there are ways of thinking that, on the one hand, are distributed among the
different social actors that make up the community, as well as in the various
community spaces.” The authors argue that in communities there are diverse ways
of thinking among both community members and within the community organization
itself. This is consistent with the findings of the study.
Another finding of the
research is that the methodology of the dialogue of knowledge emphasizes
empathy among participants, recognizing that every member of the group has
something worth listening to. The atmosphere of the dialogue is steeped in
symmetry, freedom, candor, and respect for others’ opinions. The result aligns
with Archila’s (2017) observation that “This is why we are witnessing new forms
of knowledge exchange that affirm difference—no longer between those who know
and those who do not, but between different forms of knowledge, none of which
is inherently superior to the other.” The dialogue of knowledge refers to the
encounter between the academic world and that of social actors, who seek a
sustainable future based on the relevance of nature and the coexistence of
diverse forms of knowledge.
Another accepted
premise relates to students’ limited knowledge of the “Dialogue of Knowledge”
methodology and its application in the community setting—a finding already
anticipated by Campos and Sánchez, who assert that in Latin America, the link
between HEIs and their productive environment is an area where much remains to
be done (2006, p. 18). The students unanimously state that they received little
information about the aforementioned methodology to guide them in the research
activities to be carried out; they are only instructed on the knowledge to be
imparted.
Conclusions
The dialogue of
knowledge is the path toward fostering horizontal and synergistic relationships
between cultures, thereby reducing the asymmetry of knowledge and academic
power. New forms of social organization demand that they be stripped of the
label of mere informants and instead be recognized as co-researchers of their
own realities. This highlights the importance of implementing new collaborative
methods that, moving away from colonial forms of knowledge, contribute to a
dialogue of everyday practices such as those identified in the process of community
engagement.
Students
who participate in community engagement processes not only put the knowledge
acquired in the classroom at the service of society but also facilitate a
dialogue of knowledge grounded in respect for community knowledge, breaking the
dominant relationship that characterizes academic knowledge over popular
knowledge
..........................................................................................................
References
Alcántar, V. M., & Arcos, J. L. (2004). Community
engagement as a tool for the image and positioning of higher education
institutions. Electronic Journal of Educational Research, 6 (1). Retrieved from https://redie.uabc.mx/redie/article/view/92
Archila, M. (2017). Understanding the dialogue of
knowledge. National University of Colombia. 61-62. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/sun/v33n2/2011-7531- sun-33-02-00242.pdf
Campos
Ríos, G., & Sánchez Daza, G. (2006). University
outreach and its interpretations. Ingenierías, 9(30), 18–25. Retrieved
from
http://ingenierias.uanl. mx/30/30_vinculacion.pdf
Hernández-Rincón,
E., Lamus-Lemus, F., Carratalá-Munuera, C., &
Orozco-Beltrán, D. (2017). Dialogue of knowledge: a
proposal to identify, understand, and address critical issues in public health. Salud Uninorte.
Barranquilla (Col.): 242-251. Retrieved from
http://www.scielo.org.pe/pdf/liber/v13n13/a09v13n13.pdf
Espinosa L, Ysunza A.
Dialogue between medical and traditional knowledge in the context of
interculturality in health. CIENCIA ergo
sum 2009; 16(3): 293-301. Retrieved from https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/104/10412057010.pdf
González, F. (September–December, 2011). University
engagement in the model of intercultural higher education in Mexico. The
experience of a project.
Ra Ximhai, 381-394. Leff, E. (2004). Environmental
rationality and the dialogue of knowledge: significance and meaning in the
construction of a sustainable world. Polis,
Journal of the Bolivarian University,
2(7). Retrieved from https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/305/30500705.pdf
Mateos,
L., & Dietz, G. (2013). Intercultural Universities
in Mexico. In M.t’,
G. Dietz & M. Díaz (Eds.), Multiculturalism and Education (2002-2011) (pp. 349-381). Mexico:
Mexican Council for Educational Research/National Association of Universities
and Institutions of Higher Education of the Mexican Republic A.C.
Peña, J. (2017). Training professionals in sustainable
development in an intercultural higher education program. CPU-e, Journal of Educational Research. 25, 265-282. Retrieved from
https://cpue.uv.mx/index.php/cpue/article/view/2535/4423
Santos, B.
(2010). Refounding the State in Latin America. Perspectives
from a Southern Epistemology. Ecuador: Abya-Yala. Retrieved from
http://www.boaventuradesousasantos.pt/media/Refundacion%20del%20Estado_Lima20 10.pdf
Souza M. (2010). The Structural Concepts of Qualitative Research. Public Health. 6(3):
251-61. Retrieved from https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=73115348002
Taylor, S.
and R.C. Bogdan (1989). Introduction to
Qualitative Research Methods. Paidós, Barcelona. Retrieved from http://mastor.cl/blog/wp-
content/uploads/2011/12/Introduccion-a-metodos-cualitativos-de-investigaci%C3%B3n-
Taylor-y-Bogdan.-344-pags-pdf.