Writing PD: accounting for socially-engaged research

As participants in participatory process, PD academics report on the practices and outcomes of their work and thereby shape what is known of individual projects and the wider field of participatory design. At present, there is a dominant form for this reporting, led by academic publishing models. Yet, the politics of describing others has received little discussion. Our field brings diverging sensibilities to co-design, conducting experiments and asking what participation means in different contexts. How do we match this ingenuity in designing with ingenuity of reporting? Should designers, researchers and other participants all be writing up participatory work, using more novel and tailored approaches? Should we write more open and playful collaborative texts? Within some academic discourse, considerable value is placed on reflexivity, positionality, inclusivity and auto-ethnography as part of reflecting. Yet, PD spends no time in discussing its written outputs. Drawing on the results of a PDC’16 workshop, I encourage us to challenge this silence and discuss “Writing PD”

Decentring watersheds and decolonising watershed governance: Towards an ecocultural politics of scale in the Klamath Basin

The watershed has long captured political and scientific imaginations and served as a primary sociospatial unit of water governance and ecosystem restoration. However, uncritically deploying watersheds for collaborative environmental governance in indigenous territories may inappropriately frame sociocultural, political-economic, and ecological processes, and overlook questions related to power and scale. We analyse how members of the Karuk Tribe’s Department of Natural Resources have leveraged and critiqued collaborative watershed governance initiatives to push for 'ecocultural revitalisation' – the linked processes of ecosystem repair and cultural revitalisation – in Karuk Aboriginal Territory in the Klamath River Basin. We argue for decentring watersheds in relation to other socio-spatial formations that are generated through indigenous-led processes and grounded in indigenous knowledge and values. We explore two scalar frameworks – firesheds and foodsheds – that are emerging as alternatives to the watershed for collaborative natural resources management, and consider their implications for Karuk ecocultural revitalisation. We attempt to bring watersheds, firesheds, and foodsheds together through an ecocultural approach to scale in which water is one among many cultural and natural resources that are interconnected and managed across multiple socio-spatial formations and temporal ranges. We emphasise 'decolonising scale' to foreground indigenous knowledge and to support indigenous sovereignty and self-determination

Areal Distribution, Thickness, Mass, Volume, and Grain Size of Air-Fall Ash from the Six Major Eruptions of 1980

The airborne-ash plume front from the Mount St. Helens eruption of May 18 advanced rapidly to the northeast at an average velocity of about 250 km/hr during the first 13 min after eruption. It then traveled to the east-northeast within a high-velocity wind layer at altitudes of 10-13 km at an average velocity of about 100 km/hr over the first 1,000 km. Beyond about 60 km, the thickest ash fall was east of the volcano in Washington, northern Idaho, and western Montana. A distal thickness maximum near Ritzville, Wash., is due to a combination of factors: (1) crude sorting within the vertical eruptive column, (2) eruption of finer ash above the high-velocity wind layer at altitudes of 10-13 km, and (3) settling of ash through and below that layer. Isopach maps for the May 25, June 12, August 7, and October 16-18 eruptions show distal thickness maximums similar to that of May 18. A four-unit tephra stratigraphy formed by the May 18 air fall within proximal areas east of the volcano changes to three units, two units, and one unit at progressively greater distances downwind. Much of the deposits beyond 200 km from the volcano has two units. A lower thin dark lithic ash is inferred to represent products that disintegrated from the volcano\u27s summit in the initial part of the eruption and early juvenile pumice and glass. An upper, thicker, light-gray ash rich in pumice and volcanic-glass shards represents the later voluminous eruption of juvenile magma. The axis of the dark-ash lobe in eastern Washington and norther Idaho is south of the axis of the light-gray ash lobe because the high-velocity wind layer shifted northward during the eruption. The areal distribution of ash on the ground is offset to the north relative to the mapped position of the airborne-ash plume, because the winds below the high-velocity wind layer were more northward. Except for the distal thickness near Ritzville, Wash., mass per area, thickness, and bulk density of the May 18 ash decrease downwind, because larger grains and heavier lithic and crystal grains settled out closer to the volcano than did the lighter pumice and glass shards. A minimum volume of 1.1 km3 of uncompacted tephra is estimated for the May 18 eruption; this volume is equivalent to about 0.20-0.25 km3 of solid rock, assuming an average density of between 2.0 and 2.6 g/cm3 for magma and summit rocks. The estimated total mass from the May 18 eruption is 4.9 x 1014 g, and the average uncompacted bulk density for downwind ash is 0.45 g/cm3. Masses and volumes for the May 24 and June 12 eruptions are an order of magnitude smaller than those of May 18, but average bulk densities are higher (about 1.00 and 1.25), owing to compaction by rain that fell during or shortly after the two eruptions. Volume and mass of the July 22 eruption are two orders of magnitude smaller than those of May 18, and those of the August 7 and October 16-18 eruptions are three orders of magnitude smaller. The eruption of May 18, however, is smaller than five of the last major eruptions of Mount St. Helens in terms of volume of air-fall tephra produced, but probably is intermediate if the directed-blast deposit is included with the air-fall tephra

Indefinite Deferral: Imagining Salinas Valley’s Subterranean Stream

The omission of groundwater from California’s Water Commission Act of 1914 was a strategic political maneuver that ultimately favored the growth of a labyrinthine administrative network and led to an unsustainable system of resource management. While groundwater was excluded ostensibly to protect constitutional property rights, it was also exempted in order to facilitate unregulated groundwater extraction and unrestrained agricultural productivity. In this longitudinal casestudy of Salinas Valley groundwater management, I examine how administrative systems have developed under California Water Law in a sitespecific context. The Monterey County Water Resources Agency has been forced to reconcile its task of combating saltwater intrusion with its constituents’ resistance to restraints on groundwater pumping. Though the Agency has made significant progress in its understanding of the basin’s hydrogeologic dynamics, its initiatives have been confined to supply augmentation measures by the basin’s vested agricultural and economic interests. As California searches urgently for more efficient ways of managing its groundwater resources, it is forced to navigate a complicated institutional terrain and confront deeply entrenched legal and economic systems. The history of Salinas Valley groundwater management demonstrates the simultaneous difficulty and importance of designing legal and political systems that are aligned with scientific understanding, environmental priorities, and socioeconomic interests

Indefinite Deferral: Imagining Salinas Valley’s Subterranean Stream

The omission of groundwater from California’s Water Commission Act of 1914 was a strategic political maneuver that ultimately favored the growth of a labyrinthine administrative network and led to an unsustainable system of resource management. While groundwater was excluded ostensibly to protect constitutional property rights, it was also exempted in order to facilitate unregulated groundwater extraction and unrestrained agricultural productivity. In this longitudinal casestudy of Salinas Valley groundwater management, I examine how administrative systems have developed under California Water Law in a sitespecific context. The Monterey County Water Resources Agency has been forced to reconcile its task of combating saltwater intrusion with its constituents’ resistance to restraints on groundwater pumping. Though the Agency has made significant progress in its understanding of the basin’s hydrogeologic dynamics, its initiatives have been confined to supply augmentation measures by the basin’s vested agricultural and economic interests. As California searches urgently for more efficient ways of managing its groundwater resources, it is forced to navigate a complicated institutional terrain and confront deeply entrenched legal and economic systems. The history of Salinas Valley groundwater management demonstrates the simultaneous difficulty and importance of designing legal and political systems that are aligned with scientific understanding, environmental priorities, and socioeconomic interests

Scales of Sovereignty: the Search for Watershed Democracy in the Klamath Basin

AbstractScales of Sovereignty: the Search for Watershed Democracy in the Klamath BasinbyDaniel Reid Sarna-WojcickiDoctor of Philosophy in Environmental Science, Policy and ManagementUniversity of California, BerkeleyProfessor David Winickoff, ChairThis dissertation examines the politics of knowledge in collaborative watershed governance institutions of the Klamath River Basin of Northern California and Southern Oregon. The waters of the Klamath are shared between farmers, fisherfolk, indigenous communities, hydro-electric facilities and one of the most biologically diverse eco-regions in the United States. Since 1986, the watershed has provided the primary spatial unit for resolving resource conflict by coordinating agency and citizen science, guiding integrated resource management and cultivating a shared sense of place and belonging among Klamath watershed inhabitants. For nearly three decades, the Klamath Basin has served as a laboratory for experiments in “watershed democracy”- a form of hydrologically-grounded political association that attempts to facilitate the direct participation of all watershed inhabitants in knowledge production, deliberation and collective action at the watershed scale. Through the idiom of watershed democracy, I connect empirical research on the outcomes of nearly three decades of community-based natural resource management in the Klamath with theoretical debates waged over the last century and a half regarding the question of scale in environmental science, democratic governance and natural resource management.In this dissertation, I analyze the watershed as a scale of knowledge production, a site of democratic deliberation and a unit of environmental governance. I investigate whether the watershed is the most appropriate socio- spatial unit for representing people and place in the Klamath, paying particular attention to the impact of collaborative watershed governance arenas on the ability of Karuk Tribal members to participate in knowledge-production and decision- making for natural resource management in their ancestral territory in northern California.Through participatory research with the Karuk Tribe’s Department of Natural Resources, participant observation, document analysis and interviews withFederal, State, Tribal and local agency scientists and representatives, I follow knowledge and policy-making processes across a diverse range of institutions engaged in Klamath watershed governance. Combining participatory research and participant observation with theoretical insights from political ecology, science and technology studies (STS) and indigenous studies scholarship, I evaluate the processes and outcomes of collaborative watershed-based governance according to its impacts on local watershed ecosystems and communities. Drawing on the theoretical framework of “co-production”, I analyze the mutually constitutive relations between watershed science, watershed governance institutions, the materialities of Klamath watershed-ecosystems and the distributions of resource benefits and burdens in Klamath communities. I follow Klamath experiments in watershed democracy negotiate the basic terms of political life such as property, territory, sovereignty and the public good, as well as the material conditions and flows of watershed resources and the patterns of access to, ownership in and distribution of these resources.While the Klamath experiements in collaborative environmental governance at the watershed scale have opened up oppportunities for Karuk representatives to participate in knowledge production and decision-making, the watershed scale has itself constrained the focus of integrated resource management, limiting the kinds of knowledge that can pattern as reliable and the types of restoration and management projects that can issue from Klamath collaborative governance forums. I demonstrate how Karuk representatives have both leveraged and critiqued the watershed as a way of conceptualizing Klamath watershed-ecological processes and as a socio-spatial unit for approaching ecological restoration and cultural revitalization in their ancestral territory. Watershed science and watershed governance forums were sometimes leveraged by Karuk representatives to substantiate Karuk sovereignty and resource rights and at times rejected for not being able to convey distinct Karuk epistemologies, ontologies and cosmologies. I demonstrate how collaborative watershed management forums have struggled to render different types of indigenous, local and scientific knowledge commensurable and have instead provoked debates about how to produce knowledge about nature in ways that are appropriate for the local community and its ecosystems.I draw attention to the cultural politics of scale to critique watershed-centric management and search for alternative ways of representing the multiple scales through which Klamath inhabitants understand and value nature. I compare watershed-based governance with two other emerging scales of democratic resource governance- firesheds and foodsheds- in their abilities to bring together diverse forms of environmental knowledge around multiple nested scales of social and ecological processes. Firesheds are emerging areas of community-based fire management patterned according to the way fire burns across the western Klamath landscape. Foodsheds are another emerging form of community-based resource governance taking shape in the Klamath around the spatial and temporal characteristics of food resources and their associated management practices in forest ecosystems. Comparing watersheds, firesheds and foodsheds opens up the question of scale in collaborative environmental governance by highlighting tensions among different ways of producing knowledge, managing resources and acting collectively at different bioregional scales in the Klamath.Against watershed-centric approaches to ecological democracy, I argue for deliberative multi-scalar approaches to implementing collaborative environmental governance, cultural revitalization and watershed-ecosystem restoration in the Klamath. Multi-scalar perspectives can accommodate multiple ways of making knowledge while avoiding homogenizing diverse situated perspectives into a single way of seeing Klamath eco-cultural landscapes. I argue for “democratizing scale” in order to define an appropriate scalar framework for producing knowledge, representing human values and making decisions about the management of natural resources. Collaborative environmental governance requires an accompanying democratization of scale to accommodate the myriad ways of knowing nature and making a living in Klamath watershed-ecosystems. Scalar formations that are produced through deliberative democratic processes can provide more inclusive grounds than watersheds for democratic environmental governance and multispecies world-making

Scales of Sovereignty: The Search for Watershed Democracy in the Klamath Basin

This dissertation examines the politics of knowledge in collaborative watershed governance institutions of the Klamath River Basin of Northern California and Southern Oregon. The waters of the Klamath are shared between farmers, fisherfolk, indigenous communities, hydro-electric facilities and one of the most biologically diverse eco-regions in the United States. Since 1986, the watershed has provided the primary spatial unit for resolving resource conflict by coordinating agency and citizen science, guiding integrated resource management and cultivating a shared sense of place and belonging among Klamath watershed inhabitants. For nearly three decades, the Klamath Basin has served as a laboratory for experiments in “watershed democracy”- a form of hydrologically-grounded political association that attempts to facilitate the direct participation of all watershed inhabitants in knowledge production, deliberation and collective action at the watershed scale. Through the idiom of watershed democracy, I connect empirical research on the outcomes of nearly three decades of community-based natural resource management in the Klamath with theoretical debates waged over the last century and a half regarding the question of scale in environmental science, democratic governance and natural resource management. In this dissertation, I analyze the watershed as a scale of knowledge production, a site of democratic deliberation and a unit of environmental governance. I investigate whether the watershed is the most appropriate socio- spatial unit for representing people and place in the Klamath, paying particular attention to the impact of collaborative watershed governance arenas on the ability of Karuk Tribal members to participate in knowledge-production and decision- making for natural resource management in their ancestral territory in northern California. Through participatory research with the Karuk Tribe’s Department of Natural Resources, participant observation, document analysis and interviews with Federal, State, Tribal and local agency scientists and representatives, I follow knowledge and policy-making processes across a diverse range of institutions engaged in Klamath watershed governance. Combining participatory research and participant observation with theoretical insights from political ecology, science and technology studies (STS) and indigenous studies scholarship, I evaluate the processes and outcomes of collaborative watershed-based governance according to its impacts on local watershed ecosystems and communities. Drawing on the theoretical framework of “co-production”, I analyze the mutually constitutive relations between watershed science, watershed governance institutions, the materialities of Klamath watershed-ecosystems and the distributions of resource benefits and burdens in Klamath communities. I follow Klamath experiments in watershed democracy negotiate the basic terms of political life such as property, territory, sovereignty and the public good, as well as the material conditions and flows of watershed resources and the patterns of access to, ownership in and distribution of these resources. While the Klamath experiements in collaborative environmental governance at the watershed scale have opened up oppportunities for Karuk representatives to participate in knowledge production and decision-making, the watershed scale has itself constrained the focus of integrated resource management, limiting the kinds of knowledge that can pattern as reliable and the types of restoration and management projects that can issue from Klamath collaborative governance forums. I demonstrate how Karuk representatives have both leveraged and critiqued the watershed as a way of conceptualizing Klamath watershed-ecological processes and as a socio-spatial unit for approaching ecological restoration and cultural revitalization in their ancestral territory. Watershed science and watershed governance forums were sometimes leveraged by Karuk representatives to substantiate Karuk sovereignty and resource rights and at times rejected for not being able to convey distinct Karuk epistemologies, ontologies and cosmologies. I demonstrate how collaborative watershed management forums have struggled to render different types of indigenous, local and scientific knowledge commensurable and have instead provoked debates about how to produce knowledge about nature in ways that are appropriate for the local community and its ecosystems. I draw attention to the cultural politics of scale to critique watershed-centric management and search for alternative ways of representing the multiple scales through which Klamath inhabitants understand and value nature. I compare watershed-based governance with two other emerging scales of democratic resource governance- firesheds and foodsheds- in their abilities to bring together diverse forms of environmental knowledge around multiple nested scales of social and ecological processes. Firesheds are emerging areas of community-based fire management patterned according to the way fire burns across the western Klamath landscape. Foodsheds are another emerging form of community-based resource governance taking shape in the Klamath around the spatial and temporal characteristics of food resources and their associated management practices in forest ecosystems. Comparing watersheds, firesheds and foodsheds opens up the question of scale in collaborative environmental governance by highlighting tensions among different ways of producing knowledge, managing resources and acting collectively at different bioregional scales in the Klamath. Against watershed-centric approaches to ecological democracy, I argue for deliberative multi-scalar approaches to implementing collaborative environmental governance, cultural revitalization and watershed-ecosystem restoration in the Klamath. Multi-scalar perspectives can accommodate multiple ways of making knowledge while avoiding homogenizing diverse situated perspectives into a single way of seeing Klamath eco-cultural landscapes. I argue for “democratizing scale” in order to define an appropriate scalar framework for producing knowledge, representing human values and making decisions about the management of natural resources. Collaborative environmental governance requires an accompanying democratization of scale to accommodate the myriad ways of knowing nature and making a living in Klamath watershed-ecosystems. Scalar formations that are produced through deliberative democratic processes can provide more inclusive grounds than watersheds for democratic environmental governance and multispecies world-making

Scales of Sovereignty: the Search for Watershed Democracy in the Klamath Basin

AbstractScales of Sovereignty: the Search for Watershed Democracy in the Klamath BasinbyDaniel Reid Sarna-WojcickiDoctor of Philosophy in Environmental Science, Policy and ManagementUniversity of California, BerkeleyProfessor David Winickoff, ChairThis dissertation examines the politics of knowledge in collaborative watershed governance institutions of the Klamath River Basin of Northern California and Southern Oregon. The waters of the Klamath are shared between farmers, fisherfolk, indigenous communities, hydro-electric facilities and one of the most biologically diverse eco-regions in the United States. Since 1986, the watershed has provided the primary spatial unit for resolving resource conflict by coordinating agency and citizen science, guiding integrated resource management and cultivating a shared sense of place and belonging among Klamath watershed inhabitants. For nearly three decades, the Klamath Basin has served as a laboratory for experiments in “watershed democracy”- a form of hydrologically-grounded political association that attempts to facilitate the direct participation of all watershed inhabitants in knowledge production, deliberation and collective action at the watershed scale. Through the idiom of watershed democracy, I connect empirical research on the outcomes of nearly three decades of community-based natural resource management in the Klamath with theoretical debates waged over the last century and a half regarding the question of scale in environmental science, democratic governance and natural resource management.In this dissertation, I analyze the watershed as a scale of knowledge production, a site of democratic deliberation and a unit of environmental governance. I investigate whether the watershed is the most appropriate socio- spatial unit for representing people and place in the Klamath, paying particular attention to the impact of collaborative watershed governance arenas on the ability of Karuk Tribal members to participate in knowledge-production and decision- making for natural resource management in their ancestral territory in northern California.Through participatory research with the Karuk Tribe’s Department of Natural Resources, participant observation, document analysis and interviews withFederal, State, Tribal and local agency scientists and representatives, I follow knowledge and policy-making processes across a diverse range of institutions engaged in Klamath watershed governance. Combining participatory research and participant observation with theoretical insights from political ecology, science and technology studies (STS) and indigenous studies scholarship, I evaluate the processes and outcomes of collaborative watershed-based governance according to its impacts on local watershed ecosystems and communities. Drawing on the theoretical framework of “co-production”, I analyze the mutually constitutive relations between watershed science, watershed governance institutions, the materialities of Klamath watershed-ecosystems and the distributions of resource benefits and burdens in Klamath communities. I follow Klamath experiments in watershed democracy negotiate the basic terms of political life such as property, territory, sovereignty and the public good, as well as the material conditions and flows of watershed resources and the patterns of access to, ownership in and distribution of these resources.While the Klamath experiements in collaborative environmental governance at the watershed scale have opened up oppportunities for Karuk representatives to participate in knowledge production and decision-making, the watershed scale has itself constrained the focus of integrated resource management, limiting the kinds of knowledge that can pattern as reliable and the types of restoration and management projects that can issue from Klamath collaborative governance forums. I demonstrate how Karuk representatives have both leveraged and critiqued the watershed as a way of conceptualizing Klamath watershed-ecological processes and as a socio-spatial unit for approaching ecological restoration and cultural revitalization in their ancestral territory. Watershed science and watershed governance forums were sometimes leveraged by Karuk representatives to substantiate Karuk sovereignty and resource rights and at times rejected for not being able to convey distinct Karuk epistemologies, ontologies and cosmologies. I demonstrate how collaborative watershed management forums have struggled to render different types of indigenous, local and scientific knowledge commensurable and have instead provoked debates about how to produce knowledge about nature in ways that are appropriate for the local community and its ecosystems.I draw attention to the cultural politics of scale to critique watershed-centric management and search for alternative ways of representing the multiple scales through which Klamath inhabitants understand and value nature. I compare watershed-based governance with two other emerging scales of democratic resource governance- firesheds and foodsheds- in their abilities to bring together diverse forms of environmental knowledge around multiple nested scales of social and ecological processes. Firesheds are emerging areas of community-based fire management patterned according to the way fire burns across the western Klamath landscape. Foodsheds are another emerging form of community-based resource governance taking shape in the Klamath around the spatial and temporal characteristics of food resources and their associated management practices in forest ecosystems. Comparing watersheds, firesheds and foodsheds opens up the question of scale in collaborative environmental governance by highlighting tensions among different ways of producing knowledge, managing resources and acting collectively at different bioregional scales in the Klamath.Against watershed-centric approaches to ecological democracy, I argue for deliberative multi-scalar approaches to implementing collaborative environmental governance, cultural revitalization and watershed-ecosystem restoration in the Klamath. Multi-scalar perspectives can accommodate multiple ways of making knowledge while avoiding homogenizing diverse situated perspectives into a single way of seeing Klamath eco-cultural landscapes. I argue for “democratizing scale” in order to define an appropriate scalar framework for producing knowledge, representing human values and making decisions about the management of natural resources. Collaborative environmental governance requires an accompanying democratization of scale to accommodate the myriad ways of knowing nature and making a living in Klamath watershed-ecosystems. Scalar formations that are produced through deliberative democratic processes can provide more inclusive grounds than watersheds for democratic environmental governance and multispecies world-making

Où sont passé·e·s les coauteurs·trices ?

Longtemps marginale, la recherche participative est devenue une approche de plus en plus répandue dans les sciences sociales, biophysiques et les études interdisciplinaires. L’augmentation générale du nombre de publications tirées d’une recherche participative a soulevé la question de la reconnaissance des contributions de collaborateurs et collaboratrices non universitaires. Au moyen de méthodes qualitatives et quantitatives, nous avons analysé les tendances et modèles des pratiques d’autorat et de reconnaissance à partir d’un échantillon de 262 articles de revue restituant les résultats de recherches participatives sur les moyens d’existence en milieu rural, publiés entre 1975 et 2013. Seuls 6 % des chercheuses et chercheurs reconnaissent les contributions intellectuelles de leurs collaborateurs·trices non universitaires en leur attribuant un statut de coauteur·trice, tandis que 51 % se contentent de remerciements. En nous appuyant sur les entretiens menés avec les auteurs·trices principaux des articles coécrits, nous avons examiné les facteurs expliquant les cas où la qualité d’auteur était partagée avec les collaborateurs·trices non universitaires. Malgré un certain nombre d’obstacles, les chercheuses et chercheurs ayant opté pour le coautorat justifient ce choix par un souci d’éthique scientifique, la volonté de reconnaître toutes les contributions intellectuelles et un effort de décolonisation épistémique. Notre propos est non seulement de montrer que la cosignature peut être un vecteur important de justice épistémique dans la recherche participative, mais aussi d’encourager ses praticien·ne·s à faire des discussions sur les enjeux d’autorat avec leurs collaborateurs·trices une partie intégrante de la recherche-action participative [engaged scholarship]. Nous soulignons également que les contributions non universitaires au savoir scientifique doivent être prises en considération dans la compréhension des pratiques de recherche.Originally marginal, participatory research has become an increasingly important methodology in the social, biophysical, and interdisciplinary sciences. The overall increase in publications based on participatory research has raised questions about crediting the contributions of nonacademic collaborators. Using qualitative and quantitative methods, we analyzed trends and patterns in authorship and acknowledgment practices in a sample of 262 journal articles reporting on participatory research on rural livelihoods published from 1975 to 2013. Six percent of the researchers recognized the intellectual contributions of their nonacademic collaborators with coauthorship and 51 percent with acknowledgment. Through interviews with lead authors of coauthored articles, we analyzed factors that shaped whether authorship was shared with nonacademic collaborators. Despite facing numerous barriers, researchers were motivated to coauthor in order to recognize intellectual contributions, practice research ethics, and work toward epistemic decolonization. We argue that coauthorship can be an important component of epistemic justice in participatory research and encourage participatory researchers to discuss authorship with their nonacademic collaborators as a routine component of engaged scholarship. We also note that nonacademics’ contributions to scientific knowledge need to be taken into account in understandings of the practice of science.La investigación participativa, inicialmente al margen de otras investigaciones, ha progresado hasta llegar a ser una metodología destacada en las ciencias sociales, biofísicas e interdisciplinarias. En general, el aumento de las publicaciones de investigación participativa plantea interrogantes acerca de las contribuciones hechas por colaboradores no académicos y la acreditación de tales. Se analizaron pautas y patrones sobre autoría y prácticas de reconocimiento, empleándose métodos cualitativos y cuantitativos, se revisaron 262 publicaciones bajo el rubro de investigación participativa enfocada en los medios de subsistencia rural, divulgadas entre de 1975 y 2013. El seis por ciento de los investigadores agradecen las contribuciones intelectuales de sus colaboradores no académicos por medio de coautoría y un 51 por ciento por medio de reconocimiento. A través de entrevistas con autores de artículos coescritos, se analizaron los factores influyentes para que la autoría resultara compartida –o no –con los cooperantes no académicos. A pesar de los múltiples obstáculos, los investigadores compartieron el crédito de autoría con alacridad para reconocer las contribuciones intelectuales de sus colaboradores, para ejercer éticas investigativas y, para encauzar una descolonización epistémica. Se propone que la coautoría constituiría un notable factor en la justicia epistémica dentro de la investigación participativa e igualmente alentaría a los investigadores a dialogar con sus colaboradores no académicos sobre autoría empujando a la adaptación este dialogo como un factor rutinario en la erudición comprometida. Asimismo, se señala la necesidad de considerar las contribuciones no académicas al conocimiento científico y al entendimiento de su practicidad