In the know: First Nations partnership playbook | Polarised public opinion | Russian network takes aim at fact checking

In the know is a regular roundup of knowledge management (KM) topics of discussion and the articles, events, videos, and podcasts that are grabbing the attention of KM experts across our community.

First Nations Partnership Playbook

As introduced in the RealKM Magazine article “What is knowledge management (KM)?“¹, we are pioneering a new sixth generation of knowledge management for sustainable development (KM4SD). The sixth generation² represents common aspirations for a fairer development knowledge system, and is characterized by the “decolonization of knowledge.” It has the features of epistemic justice, anti-racism, indigenous and local knowledge (ILK), diversity in KM approaches, new knowledge partnerships, and new knowledge practices.

The Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) feature of the sixth generation of KM4SD seeks the increased use of indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) and respect for indigeneity. Supporting this, the Australian Public Service Commission’s new First Nations Partnership Playbook³ guides government employees to build strong and enduring partnerships with First Nations peoples, communities and organisations. It highlights elements to strong partnerships and the six functions of government as a partner. At its core, it engenders trust, understanding of history, openness and sustainable long-term relationships.

The Playbook should be read alongside The Charter of Partnerships and Engagement⁴, which has been published by the Australian Public Service (APS) Reform Office of the Australian Government. The charter sets out principles for how government can put people and business at the centre of policy, implementation, and delivery. These principles support the multiple knowledges and multi-stakeholder processes aspects of the fifth generation of KM4SD^5,6, which precedes and is now part of the sixth generation. For example, one of the principles is:

Be open to engaging with a diverse range of perspectives to inform policy and program development, so those affected can have a genuine opportunity to have their say.

Polarised public opinion

In his white paper⁷ on societal knowledge management (KM) for The Henley Forum, David Gurteen alerts that polarization is one of the realities of our modern world. Articles in RealKM Magazine have explored this polarization and what can be done about it, for example “Case study: How polarized debates can be the result of rational deliberation, and how they can be resolved“⁸.

In a post in Pannell Discussions⁹, Professor David Pannell alerts that assessments of public opinion will often average them, which can hide the fact that there are polarized attitudes within the community. Drawing on research¹⁰ carried out by Curtis Rollins and colleagues, Pannell then summarizes a method of recognising and unpacking polarised attitudes. Rollins and colleagues looked at strongly polarized attitudes in regard to projects for renewable energy and fracking in the province of Alberta in Canada.

Russian network takes aim at fact checking

Russian organizations and operatives have long been implicated in the global spread of fake knowledge, as reported in a number of RealKM Magazine articles, for example “Are you an unwitting mercenary in the dirty Facebook disinformation wars?“¹¹, “How Russian trolls polarized the vaccine debate“¹², and “US indicts Russians for fake news “information warfare”: can knowledge management help the fight?“¹³.

As discussed in section 3.6 of “The future of knowledge management: an agenda for research and practice“¹⁴, “fake knowledge” can be considered to consist of “MDM” – misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation.

The RMIT Information Integrity Hub reports¹⁵ that, in an evolution of its fake knowledge activity, Russia has launched its own self-described fact-checking association to counter what it calls the West’s “relentless stream of fake stories” and “biased pseudo-fact-checking”, in a move that experts say aims to sow confusion and spread disinformation. As Eiddwen Jeffery and David Campbell write, Russia’s so-called “Global Fact-Checking Network (GFCN)” comes up very short in regard to editorial independence, objectivity, and impartiality.

References: