5 Myths About Social Economy Organisations and Research - Busted

Partnerships between Social Economy Organisations (SEOs) and researchers can form a powerful alliance. Yet, there are many misconceptions about it. In this blog, let’s try to bust the top 5 myths about this collaboration: 

Myth 1: "SEOs lack research capacity" 

The Assumption: Research is the exclusive domain of academics with PhDs and with dedicated labs. SEOs, with their focus on community activities, are seen as lacking the time, skills, or infrastructure to contribute meaningfully to scientific inquiry.

The Reality: This view fundamentally misunderstands what "capacity" means. While SEOs may not have a laboratory, they possess a different, equally critical form of capacity, which is social capital. They possess the trust of their communities, deep understanding of their local context, and the practical knowledge of what questions need answering. The role of a project such as RISE is therefore to build bridges, providing the specific scientific support SEOs request to complement their undeniable community expertise. 

Myth 2: "Community knowledge isn't rigorous or scientific" 

The Assumption: Knowledge generated through lived experience is "anecdotal" and lacks scientific backing and the systematic rigor of peer-reviewed science. 

The Reality: Community and practitioner knowledge is a form of data sharpened over time through repeated observation and experience. It is often longitudinal, place-based, and highly nuanced. There are many ways of knowing and all knowledge systems have their own integrity. The question is not whether they are legitimate, but how they can be effectively integrated.  

Myth 3: "Partnering with SEOs will slow down the research process" 

The Assumption: The participatory processes of co-creation, consensus-building, and capacity-building trainings are inefficient bottlenecks that delay data collection and publication. 

The Reality: While the initial stages of a co-creative project may be more time consuming, this investment pays off significantly later in the project. Research co-designed with SEOs is more likely to be relevant to local needs, leading to higher participant recruitment and retention rates; smoother data collection, as SEOs can navigate the local conditions better; and, most importantly, findings that are actually adopted and used. In cooperation with academia, co-production increases the likelihood that knowledge will be used and influential in decision-making.  

Myth 4: "SEOs are just a source of data, not partners in analysis" 

The Assumption: The primary value of an SEO is to provide access to research "subjects" or to collect data according to a protocol designed solely by researchers. 

The Reality: This is an extractive model, not a collaborative one. SEOs are not merely data channels; they are essential interpreters of that data. Their insights are crucial for understanding the why and how. They can identify patterns that might be invisible to an external researcher and provide insights critical to the context that directly shapes the analysis, supporting the validity of data. SEOs are active agents in creating new knowledge, making them a fundamental component of the research process. 

Myth 5: "The only valuable output is an academic paper" 

The Assumption: Success is defined by publishing research in a high-impact journal. Other outputs are secondary.  

The Reality: Academic papers are important for scholarly discourse and present a scientific milestone. However, they are often inaccessible to the communities most affected by the research. For an SEO, valuable outputs are diverse and actionable: a refined community program, a policy brief that influences local government, a social enterprise’s business plan, or increased community capacity. Research impact is regarded as an emergent property of the research process, enhanced through continuous stakeholder engagement. A successful engaged research project is capable of generating a whole range of impacts, with academic papers being only one of many possible contributions. 

Nikita Sharma - ECSA

References: 

• Norström, A. V., Cvitanovic, C., Löf, M. F., West, S., Wyborn, C., Balvanera, P., ... & Österblom, H. (2020). Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nature sustainability, 3(3), 182-190. 

• Meadow, A. M., Ferguson, D. B., Guido, Z., Horangic, A., Owen, G., & Wall, T. (2015). Moving toward the deliberate coproduction of climate science knowledge. Weather Clim. Soc. 7 (2), 179–191. 

• Jagosh, J., Macaulay, A. C., Pluye, P., Salsberg, J. O. N., Bush, P. L., Henderson, J. I. M., ... & Greenhalgh, T. (2012). Uncovering the benefits of participatory research: implications of a realist review for health research and practice. The Milbank Quarterly, 90(2), 311-346. 

• Reed, M. S. (2016). The research impact handbook. Fast Track Impact.