Dialogues of knowledges in research II

This course is the second in the Dialogues of Knowledges series within the SIICHER doctoral programme, the Regional Programme for the Strengthening of Indigenous, Intercultural and Communitarian Higher Education and Research in Colombia and Abya Yala. The programme is a collaboration between OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University in Norway, the Universidad Autonoma Indigena Intercultural (UAIIN-CRIC) in Colombia, and the Universidad de las Regiones Autonomas de la Costa Caribe Nicaraguense (URACCAN) in Nicaragua, among other partner institutions.

The first course, Dialogues of Knowledges in Research I (Spring 2023), established the epistemological and methodological foundations: what indigenous knowledges are, how they relate to and differ from Western scientific traditions, and how CRISSAC (Crianza y Cultivo de los Saberes y Conocimientos Nurturing and Cultivation of Wisdoms and Knowledges) and its English-language variant CCRISAC provide rigorous frameworks for research centred in indigenous ways of knowing. Students who completed that course demonstrated they could engage critically with dialogues of knowledges and produce a scholarly essay reflecting that understanding.

This second course starts from that foundation and takes it into a different kind of practice. The question is no longer what indigenous research is or why it matters. Dialogues of Knowledges in Research II explores how to communicate what it discovers, to a standard that the wider scholarly world can recognise and evaluate. The course is organised around a real, live peer review process. Students arrive with a complete draft article based on their doctoral research. Through multiple rounds of structured peer review, editorial feedback, and revision, they bring that article to a standard of quality that the course coordinators functioning as editors judge ready for publication. That judgement is the exam.

The course is timed deliberately. By the point students enroll, they have completed substantial empirical fieldwork using CRISSAC or CCRISAC methodology and have produced initial findings. What they need now is not more fieldwork or more theory: it is rather the sustained, rigorous writing and revision practice that transforms doctoral research into publishable scholarship. This course provides exactly that, within a community of peers who challenge and strengthen each other's drafts.

Completion of Dialogues of Knowledges in Research I (Spring 2023),or documented equivalent background approved by the course coordinators. The prerequisite is substantive: students entering this course must have working familiarity with indigenous and intercultural epistemologies, with CRISSAC or CCRISAC as a methodological framework, and with the norms of academic writing at doctoral level.

In addition, students must submit a complete first draft of a research article at the start of the course. This draft must present empirical findings from their doctoral fieldwork. The course does not support the production of a draft from scratch; it supports the development of an existing draft through peer review and revision until it reaches publishable and strong quality. Students who do not have a complete draft by the course start date must defer enrolment.

Upon completing the course, candidates are expected to have demonstrated the following:

Knowledge

• The candidate understands the full lifecycle of academic publication in an indigenous and intercultural research context, from initial drafting through peer review, revision cycles, and editorial acceptance.

• The candidate understands what peer review is: a scholarly conversation aimed at strengthening research, not a gatekeeping exercise. The candidate can engage with it as both reviewer and author.

• The candidate understands the structural and stylistic requirements of a strong empirical results article in the field of indigenous and intercultural education, including the requirement that a minimum of 50% of the article present findings, analysis, and conclusions.

• The candidate understands the distinction between a methodology article and a results article and can articulate clearly where their own work sits within that distinction.

• The candidate understands what responsible communication of indigenous research findings requires: community consent, the boundaries of restricted or sacred knowledge, and the attribution of intellectual contributions to communities as knowledge-holders.

Skills

• The candidate can revise a research article substantively in response to peer review feedback, distinguishing between changes that strengthen the argument and changes that risk compromising the integrity of the research.

• The candidate can write with concrete specificity: naming places, people (with permission), sensory detail, and direct community voices, showing rather than telling.

• The candidate can use theory actively, connecting theoretical frameworks to specific moments and findings rather than deploying theory as background or decoration.

• The candidate can give structured, constructive peer review feedback using established review criteria, and can articulate the reasoning behind that feedback clearly.

• The candidate can situate their findings in dialogue with existing indigenous and intercultural scholarship, identifying where their work converges with and where it extends or challenges what is already known.

• The candidate can write a revision response that accounts systematically for reviewer feedback, explaining the changes made and, where relevant, defending choices not to change.

General Competence

• The candidate has demonstrated, through a real peer review process, that their intercultural doctoral research meets the quality standards required for publication in an international academic outlet.
• The candidate is competent in collaborative international scholarly work, including Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL) methodology.
• The candidate can contribute to and learn from a scholarly community of practice in which peers hold each other accountable to rigour, clarity, and the values of indigenous intercultural research.
• The candidate can communicate research findings in ways accessible not only to specialists but to educators, community leaders, and policy makers

Active participation in all phases of the course is required. Required coursework includes: submission of a complete draft article at the start of the course; written peer reviews of at least two fellow students' articles in each review round; active participation in workshop review discussions; submission of revised article versions at each revision stage; and a written revision response accompanying each resubmission, explaining the changes made in response to feedback. Candidates are required to attend at least 80% of scheduled sessions. In cases of documented illness, the course coordinators may accept alternative arrangements agreed in advance.

The exam for this course is a real, live peer review process culminating in an editorial judgement of publishable quality. Assessment is pass or fail.

To pass the course, a candidate must bring an article through the full peer review and revision cycle to the point where the course coordinators, functioning as editors, judge it ready for publication in a relevant peer-reviewed outlet in the field of indigenous and intercultural education. The standard is not perfection, but publication-readiness: an article that makes a clear, specific empirical contribution; presents community voices as sources of knowledge; uses theory to illuminate and discuss findings; and meets the structural and stylistic requirements of scholarly publication in this field.

The course coordinators make the publishability determination as editors, drawing on the evidence of the peer review process as a whole: the written reviews, the revision responses, and the development of the article across rounds. This editorial judgement is the examination. There is no separate grading instrument.

If a candidate's article is not ready for publication by the agreed course completion point, the course coordinators will work with the candidate to define what further revision is needed and set a specific timeframe for a final submission. Candidates who do not achieve publishable quality within the extended timeframe, or who do not engage substantively with required revisions, will not pass the course.

All support material is permitted, provided that citation and reference standards are applied throughout.

Assessment is pass or fail. The course coordinators make the pass determination in their capacity as editors, based on whether the article has reached publishable quality as evidenced by the full peer review and revision process. There is no numerical grade or separate examination instrument.

A candidate who does not achieve a pass within the course timeline may submit a further revised version within a timeframe agreed with the course coordinators. If a candidate fails to engage substantively with required revisions, or does not achieve publishable quality within the agreed extension, the course coordinators will determine whether an alternative path is available.

The course coordinators serve as editors and make the final publishability determination. Peer reviewers are fellow PhD candidates in the course, guided by structured reviewer criteria established at the outset. The course coordinators may also invite external reviewers for specific articles where specialist expertise is needed.