HomePublicationsSeries on Engaged Learning and TeachingPromoting Equity and Justice through Pedagogical Partnership Chapter 5: Tensions in and Limitations of Redressing Harms through Partnership Book MenuPromoting Equity and Justice through Pedagogical Partnership ChaptersChapter 1Chapter 2Chapter 3Chapter 4Chapter 5Chapter 6Chapter 7About the Authors Book Resources Reviews Buy in PrintISBN: 9781642672091June 2021 Chapter 5 of Promoting Equity and Justice through Pedagogical Partnership explores the tensions surfaced by the framework offered in chapter 2, applied to scholarship in chapter 3, and used to analyze case studies in chapter 4. These tensions include the conditions under which partnerships themselves may risk reproducing epistemic, affective, or ontological harms, or preventing the realization of intended and possible epistemic, affective, and ontological redress. Applying the framework in this way allows us to reconsider tensions already well recognized in the partnership literature, such as challenges navigating power differentials in partnership, and brings to light other less known tensions and discusses challenges that require attention if partnership is to contribute to greater justice. The chapter also offers space for the authors to imagine and propose strategies for mediating these possibilities so that partnerships are more likely to meaningfully address inequity. Discussion QuestionsThis chapter identifies epistemic, affective, and ontological tensions that can emerge in pedagogical partnership work. Epistemic tensions include equitable access to partnership, equitable benefit from project outputs, and epistemic uncertainty and doubt. Affective tensions include emotional labor, challenges of belonging, and potentially alienating affective norms. And ontological tensions relate to partnership language, suppression of full selves, and the difficulty of agency. Are there other epistemic, affective, and ontological tensions that could be explored in addition to those listed above? What are the possibilities and limitations of dialogue across differences? Who benefits most, and how can we make dialoguing across differences more equitable for equity-seeking groups? This chapter also offers recommendations for mediating unintentional contributions to epistemic, affective, and ontological harms, and barriers to justice. Recommendations for mediating unintentional contributions to epistemic harm can be found on pages 63-64. Recommendations for mediating unintentional contributions to affective harms can be found on page 69. Recommendations for mediating unintentional contributions to ontological harms can be found on pages 77-78. What other ways could be used to avoid such unintentional contributions to epistemic, affective, and ontological harms? “What might it look like to decolonize partnership given that it is a practice and ethos currently situated within a Eurocentric system of education?” (Verwoord and Smith 2020, 36-37) Verwoord, Roselynn, and Heather Smith. 2020. “The P.O.W.E.R. Framework. Power Dimensions Shaping Students as Partners Processes.” In The Power of Partnership: Students, Faculty, and Staff Revolutionizing Higher Education, edited by Lucy Mercer-Mapstone and Sophia Abbot, 29–42. Elon, NC: Elon University Center for Engaged Learning. https://doi.org/10.36284/celelon.oa2. Share:
