Critical Tacit Knowledge and Epistemic Justice: Methodological Lessons from Community Organizing

This presentation advances the concept of critical tacit knowledge (CTK)—the collective, experiential, and often unspoken knowledge developed through community organizing to confront structural oppression. While tacit knowledge has been widely theorized as implicit “know-how,” it is often treated as politically neutral. We argue instead that tacit knowledge is always shaped by power, and introduce CTK as a novel analytic lens to distinguish knowledge that reproduces domination from that which emerges through resistance. This intervention responds to epistemic injustice (Fricker, 2007), whereby marginalized communities are wronged in their capacity as knowers and their knowledge is systematically devalued or dismissed. By centering CTK, this study contributes a methodological intervention to social work research: how to rigorously study forms of knowing that are embodied, relational, and not readily articulated.

Methodologically, this study integrates three separate community-based participatory research (CBPR) projects with the same lead researcher, under a qualitative multiple case study design (Yin, 2018). All research teams included members both from the communities under study and those who are not, intentionally bringing together embodied, experiential knowledge and critical, targeted questioning. This insider–outsider dynamic was not treated as a limitation, but as a methodological resource that enabled iterative probing of taken-for-granted practices and supported the articulation of tacit knowledge.

Data generation involved in-depth interviews, participant observation, and prolonged engagement, including participation in community organizing activities, cultural events, and collaborative research processes. A central methodological feature was iterative, dialogical engagement through regular Zoom meetings over a two-year period, where scholars, students, and community organizers collectively reflected on experiences, surfaced tacit practices, and engaged in ongoing sense-making. Additional data sources included meeting records, reflexive memos, and analysis of community-generated materials such as archival documents, media, and creative outputs.

Analysis followed an iterative, cross-case thematic approach that attended not only to explicit content but also to relational dynamics, affective expressions, and patterned practices through which tacit knowledge was enacted. Ongoing team-based dialogue functioned as analytic triangulation, incorporating multiple perspectives across insider and outsider researchers and community partners. This process enhanced interpretive validity by grounding interpretations in lived experience while subjecting them to critical, collective reflection. Rather than relying solely on decontextualized coding, the analytic strategy prioritized contextual, embodied, and relational interpretation.

The first case examines Japanese Canadian community building and organizing efforts epitomized in the Powell Street Festival, where tacit practices of democratic leadership, intergenerational organizing, and grassroots autonomy are sustained through an evolving ethics of care. The second case focuses on anti-Asian racism organizing during COVID-19, led by the Chinese Canadian National Council (Toronto Chapter), where CTK informed rapid, trust-based inter-organizational collaboration.

Across both cases, CTK is felt, enacted, and shared through co-presence and collective action. These findings suggest that addressing epistemic injustice in social work requires not only recognizing marginalized communities as knowers, but also developing methodological approaches capable of engaging tacit, embodied knowledge. Implications include advancing justice-oriented research practices, supporting community-led decision-making, and fostering epistemic humility and community-engaged learning within social work education.