Knowledge mobilization of social sciences and humanities research: moving beyond a "zero-sum language game

This dissertation argues that the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada’s focus on knowledge mobilization—meant to address a “paradox of ubiquity and invisibility”—inadvertently results in another paradox: a “zero-sum language game.” While there is increasing pressure to mobilize research knowledge across stakeholder communities—government, media, community organizations and publics—work beyond academic arenas is not sufficiently recognized within academic discourse communities. Discourse theory and game theory brought together illustrate how rules of discourse govern the kinds of “moves” that are made in the language game(s) of discourse communities, however, since what is well received in one discourse community is not always well received in another, the result is a “zero-sum language game.” Two forms of discourse are presented here. The first is an introductory narrative, which frames the dissertation by providing context and disclosing some of the subtext for the doctoral work undertaken, while illustrating what is made possible when different discursive practices invite freedom and diversity of voice and style into academic discourse. The second form of discourse is the more conventional series of dissertation chapters to defend the thesis through the presentation of theory, method, data, analysis and discussion. An overview of the historical context of SSHRC policy (since 1977) and the international context of a shift toward extending the reach of research as a public good are presented. A discussion of rhetorical understandings and Burkean pentadic rhetorical analysis—identifying act, agent, agency, scene and purpose—in several SSHRC documents are presented. Discourse theory and some fundamentals of game theory are presented to explicate what is meant by the term “zero-sum language game.” Evidence of the described “zero-sum language game” is presented in a discussion of issues on tenure and promotion in the research literature and by a review of tenure and promotion policies found in the collective agreements of 38 Canadian universities. The dissertation then suggests two sets of possible changes: the first provides practical considerations that involve revisiting “service” in faculty work; the second requires a revisited understanding of the changing role of academe and academic discourse. The dissertation then concludes with a short, narrative epilogue.