Re-Imagining the Research Article: Social-Semiotic Signposts and the Potential for Radical Co-presence in the Scholarly Literature

As a prestigious form of writing, the empirical research article is vital for communication, assessment and legitimisation of community-based research and practice. Yet, the research article is powerful partly because it draws upon social-semiotic conventions for the proper communication of new knowledge and practice, which are deeply and thoroughly embedded within institutions of higher education ‘dominated by technical rationality’, as Donald Schön (1995, p. 31) stressed nearly 30 years ago. This inherent tension is an important, but under scrutinised and underutilised, site of engagement for community-based research. This article sheds light on what genre conventions are, why they are important, and how they might be used and adapted to better support the collaborative, reciprocal and justice-focused change goals of community-based research and practice. Using genre analysis and social semiotics, I undertake empirical analysis of co-authored peer reviewed research articles to reveal authors’ innovative rhetorical strategies. By uncovering the emerging shared patterns – what I call here the symbolic ‘signposts’ for communicating participatory research – I hope to strengthen them collectively. Building on these embryonic efforts, and informed by Santos’s (2018) concept of an ‘ecology of knowledges’, I propose some alternative signposts for reciprocal and non-hierarchical recognition.

Introduction e empirical research article is a form of genre writing. Indeed, genre analyst John Swales (2004, p. 217) has described it as 'this prestigious genre, with its millions of exemplars a year'. Within the Englishlanguage academic publication of both natural and social sciences, where much of the dissemination of community-based research occurs, to write a research article is to broadly follow well-established and familiar conventions of form. Dominant, top-level conventions in uence features such as the order, naming and combination of speci c sections, the use of references to the literature, and the inclusion of tables and graphs in particular sections. ese genre conventions are consistently present in articles across these disciplines (Lin & Evans 2012). Most journal editors, reviewers and readers will look for and expect to see these 'conventionalised associations of conventions', as Atkinson (1999, p. 8, italics in the original) describes them. Undoubtedly, these semiotic conventions of the research article are profoundly socially signi cant.
Yet, therein lies the di culty. As a prestigious social-semiotic resource, the peer-reviewed empirical research article is vital to the critical and communal documentation, assessment and legitimisation of community-based research and practice. At the same time, this resource is powerful, at least partly because it draws upon social-semiotic conventions for the proper communication of new knowledge and practice which are deeply and thoroughly embedded within institutions of higher education 'dominated by technical rationality', as Donald Schön (1995, p. 31) stressed nearly 30 years ago. ere is an inherent tension here for community-based research and practice which, conversely, has been described as 'research that seeks both to challenge and provide an alternative to externally led and expert-driven research' ( Janzen & Ochocka 2020, p. 5). is is an issue of material concern, for it remains the case that too often in journals, but also in scholarly books (and, to a lesser degree, conferences), there is a diminution and erasure of the diverse ways of knowing and being that contribute so substantively and consistently to the research itself. is marginalisation a ects community-based partners certainly, but also university-based students and sta (Koekkoek et al. 2021;Sandmann 2019;Santos 2014).
is article is critically and practically focused on this important, yet under-scrutinised and underutilised, site of engagement. While there is an abundance of knowledge and analysis of genre within its associated elds of linguistics, rhetoric, critical discourse, etc, to my knowledge discourse analysis has been only infrequently considered by community-based researchers (O'Meara & Niehaus 2009;O'Meara et al. 2011). is article seeks to shed light on what genre conventions are, why they are important, and how they might be used and adapted to better support the collaborative, reciprocal and justice-focused change goals of community-based research and practice. I argue that without critical awareness of these powerful conventions of form, authors risk undermining their work in the very act of sharing it with external audiences. Moreover, there are signi cant bene ts to be gained from not only understanding genre theoretically, but also discovering empirically how co-authors in the eld currently use these semiotic conventions. To do so, I draw on research undertaken for my recently completed PhD thesis as well as new analysis I have conducted for this article. I outline some of the major ways in which published co-authors are using, modifying, adapting or rejecting the standard form of the research article in order to respond to their diverse community-based purposes, contexts and methodologies. By uncovering the emerging shared patterns across individual e orts -what I call here the 'signposts' of authentic community-based communication -I hope to strengthen them collectively. e purpose of this research article is thus twofold: one, to analyse how community-university co-authors of empirical research articles currently use and modify some key genre conventions; and two, building o those emergent yet institutionally fragile innovations, to propose some alternative social-semiotic signposts for critical, collaborative and change-oriented scholarly communication and dissemination. In fact, this discussion comes with a proposal: that there is ample room -indeed, need -for peer-reviewed, co-authored empirical research articles that are deliberately experimental, innovative and imaginative in their form and intent. e key question here is: what might a peer-reviewed, co-authored empirical research article look like -what would be its social and semiotic conventions -if we were to seek not just accommodation but radical co-presence?
To frame this discussion, both of what is and what could be, I begin by brie y introducing social semiotics as a theoretical and analytical approach to understanding meaning-making in our texts. Next, I outline the exemplary work of Boaventura de Sousa Santos (2018). His proposal of an 'ecology of knowledges' imagines diverse ways of knowing and being engaged in dialogue and dissent, while resisting the reimposition of hierarchy or false unanimity. My empirical analysis of current practice follows, nishing with a more exploratory consideration of the ways in which an ecology of knowledges might be made material on the page, proposed as a wager on a better world for all.
A note on the author is article is o ered as a contribution to the critical conversations on knowledge democracy and participation in the scholarly literature that are undoubtedly underway globally. Technological innovations in online publication have a vitally important role to play in increasing participation, such as with the creation and sharing of open-source software and the development of open access and self-archiving institutional repositories (Abbott & Ti en 2019;Piwowar et al. 2018). is potential is clearly greater when harnessed to social purpose. I was interested, for example, in a recent editorial by e American Historical Review. In it, the editor argues that if the journal is to 'rectify decades of exclusionary practice [it] requires more than a well-intentioned commitment to diversity", which consists primarily of adding extra avours to the stew' (Future Issues 2018, p. xiv). e journal's response, as detailed in the editorial of the following year, was to adopt an 'ecumenical approach to form' (From the Editor's Desk 2019, p. xviii). e editor was able to point to new sections featuring contributions in a range of formats: essays, interviews and podcasts, as well as reviews of non-traditional historical material such as lms, graphic histories, public history sites and historical fiction.

I am the Editor of Gateways: International Journal of Community Research and Engagement
In a recent editorial, I somewhat similarly traced the journal's evolving use of the metaphor of the 'global research table' from its potential to argue for the legitimacy of non-disciplinary-based experts having a seat at that table to an emerging appreciation of the dangers inherent in this same metaphor, of an 'already-made destination, a place at which community-based research arrives' (Malone 2022, p. 4). I reflected that this rhetorical framework risked perpetuating the very thing the journal sought to challenge: an uncritical acceptance of a hierarchy of what constituted valid knowledge, the criteria by which it is recognised, and the purposes for which it is shared. That is, of an institutionally ordered space at which diverse 'others' are accommodated and integrated, but rarely acknowledged as being present (Visvanathan 2005). This article is, in part, a response to that reflection: a critical examination of the research article, whose powerful conventions are resources we can use to modify, reject and transform these hegemonic metaphors.
This discussion draws primarily on my PhD thesis and is intended for a wide audience. But unquestionably, it is reflexive of my editorial work. As an editor of long-standing, steeped in the genre conventions of research writing and the processes of academic publication, I very much include myself in this exhortation to greater critical and action-oriented awareness.

Multimodal social semiotics and genre: A brief overview
In order to make any claim about the social salience of signs -be they speech, text, image, art, dancethere must be some sort of theoretical framework accounting for the relationship between signs and the world. In this, my work is deeply informed by social semiotics and critical discourse analysis. As social semioticians Kress & van Leeuwen (2021, p. xiii) argue, 'meanings are made in social action and interaction, using existing, socially made, semiotic resources that change ceaselessly in their use'. Further, this motivated sign-making responds to and is shaped by 'environments of communication' which are marked by di erences in power (Fairclough 1993;Kress 2011, p. 209, italics in the original). For discourse analysts and social semioticians, among others, the semiotic resources authors utilise in texts such as the research article are powerful precisely because they in uence 'the distribution of social goods', such as authority, relevance, credibility, legitimacy (Gee 2014, p. 10). rough systematic analysis we can gain clear insights into how texts do this: how they help shape access to and exclusion from these social goods.
Genre thus provides an important site for critical analysis of language-use-in-the-world. In her early in uential article, Miller (1984, p. 151) argues for an understanding of 'genre as social action'; an evolving communal response to the challenge of communicating in recurring social situations. Subsequent research further supports an understanding of genre as socially and historically situated; generative and underspeci ed; and involving both competence and performance (Devitt 2015;Swales 1990;Tardy & Swales 2014). Atkinson (1999, p. 8) writes that genres 'provide answers to the fundamental human question, "What is going on here?"'. His observation once again points to the social signi cance of semiotic conventions. Genre is deeply and dynamically interconnected with what is at stake in society at large, and perhaps this is nowhere more so than the research article. When Wallerstein and Duran (2008) argued that community-based participatory research is an intentionally critical approach that seeks to engage with questions of knowledge, power, relationships and agency in order to e ect positive social change, they may well have had in mind the empirical research article as a key site for that engagement.
In this article, I focus primarily on two key conventions of the research article: the Introduction and the organisation. Swales (1990) rst revealed how the Introduction in natural and social science articles normally follows a three-step move: establish the research territory; establish the gap; occupy the gap. e organisation of articles too follows a pattern broadly emerging from Western experimental science, typically Introduction-Method-Results-Discussion (IMRD), often with a Literature Review before the Methods section. Social semiotician eo van Leeuwen (2005, p. 126) writes that these overarching genre conventions form the 'structure of the telling of the story'. For Charles Bazerman, another, related way to think about these 'top level' structures is metaphorically: these conventions are the signposts of our 'symbolic landscapes' (Bazerman 1997, p. 19). We may not use these dominant conventions of the empirical research article naively or rigidly, but as signposts or structures to frame 'new knowledge', their use cannot be considered 'an apolitical practice of documentation' (Rhodes 2019, p. 26).

From commodity-based to community-based research
A recent report by UNESCO (2022, p. 44) argues that, if institutions of higher education are to move on from 'bulldozer notions of modernity and ideas of saving the world', it becomes necessary to consider 'what knowledge and knowing are about in the rst place'. e report argues that 'mainstream' ideas of knowledge, even when 'recognised as taking di erent forms', can often remain 'notionally static and measurable -as a "resource", or "asset", or form of "capital"' to be integrated 'in supposedly additive ways' (UNESCO 2022, p. 46). e work of sociologist Boaventura de Sousa Santos o ers a rich conceptual and methodological alternative framework. Across his comprehensive and decades-long e orts, Santos (2018, p. 276) has argued that there can be 'no global social justice without global cognitive justice'.
Central to Santos's thinking is his analysis of the 'abyssal' nature of modern Western thought, in particular science and law, which has rendered other ways of knowing and being invisible, erased, nonexistent and thus 'justifying the current state of a airs as the only possible one' (Santos 2018, p. ix). Yet Santos's project is not concerned with establishing 'one more line of criticism' and even less with replacing one hegemonic world view with another, even if now 'subaltern' (Santos 2014, p. viii). Instead, he articulates an expansive understanding of the epistemologies of the South, using the metaphor of ecology as the basis for a thoroughgoing rejection of what he calls the ' ve monocultures that have characterized modern Eurocentric knowledge: valid knowledge, linear time, social classi cation, the superiority of the universal and the global, and productivity' (Santos 2018, pp. 25-26). Instead, he proposes a set of ecologies: 'of knowledges; of temporalities; of recognition; of trans-scale; and of productivities' (Santos 2014, pp. 179-180).
Of these ve, the 'ecology of knowledges' is perhaps most relevant for my focus on the scholarly communication of community-based research. Santos de nes it as an experiential, pluralistic and pragmatic dialogue that involves scienti c and 'artisanal' knowledges. ese latter are described as 'practical, empirical, popular knowledges, vernacular knowledges that are very diverse but have one feature in common: they were not produced separately, as knowledge-practices separated from other social practices' (Santos 2018, p. 43). e ecology of knowledges urges the following: to take seriously other knowledge-practices without forgetting one's own; to acknowledge that all knowledges are incomplete, all ignorances partial; and to engage with diverse others in reciprocal and non-hierarchical dialogue and dissent. Only thus can we proceed together. Far from being excluded, modern Western science is a crucial presence in this intercultural dialogue, its contributions vital once understood as being neither disinterested nor universal. In essence, what Santos is proposing is an engagement, a wager on the possibility of a better world.
In relation to the research article, Santos's analysis of the abyssal nature of Western thought utterly rejects the metaphor of the research territory as some sort of stable, uncomplicated landscape, able to be called fully into existence through reference to the literature and subjected to 'incremental gap spotting' and gap-lling by new research (Alvesson & Sandberg 2013, p. 129). As Grosfoguel (2013, p. 76) writes, the notion of the research territory, so often the starting point for the research article, is based on the Eurocentric 'myth' of knowledge production as 'monological, unsituated and asocial'. Equally, the epistemologies of the South call into question the standard IMRD (Introduction-Method-Results-Discussion) organisation as being fundamentally partial and incomplete. Gieryn (1983, p. 781) writes that 'the special ability of modern science to extend "certi ed" knowledge [is] a result, in part, of the institutionalisation of distinctive social norms (communalism, universalism, disinterestedness and organised skepticism)'. e IMRD organisation, even if understood as idealised, is nevertheless a powerful semiotic a rmation of those social norms. Here, in countless articles, the production of new knowledge is rendered as ordered, linear, unidirectional, compartmentalised. While not used uniformly or equally across the disciplines, the IMRD organisation predominates in the natural and social sciences (Lin & Evans 2012).
In sharp contrast, Santos's proposal for an ecology of knowledges asserts that research occurs in and with sociohistorical terrains that are neither even nor unchanging nor inhabited by those who cannot think credibly and critically for themselves. In essence, this is the principle of non-hierarchical reciprocity, of radical recognition, perhaps the most profound contribution o ered by the long-standing, diverse and growing movement for change that I understand community-based research to be a part of. Extending the metaphor of the wager to the research article, its conventions must (because they already do) involve those with most at stake. e wager calls for social-semiotic conventions that will a ord 'the constitutional right of di erent systems of knowledge to exist as part of dialogue and debate' (Visvanathan 2005, p. 92). Australian ethnographer and linguist Stephen Muecke (2017, p. 1, italics in the original) puts it perfectly when he writes that the task is to nd a way to articulate plurality 'without the one cancelling the other out, without cheap relativism, and without that old-style scienti c condescension that has "us" acknowledging "their" beliefs, while we really know'. Santos (2009, p. 117) writes that the implications, possibilities and challenges of an ecology of knowledges only arise when 'the ways of knowing are faced with problems which, on their own, they would never pose'. Our scholarly writing is only beginning to grapple with this, but other genres may o er insights. Australian cultural and creative researcher Ross Gibson o ers a vivid example of this in his discussion of Patyegarang, a production by Australia's First Nation Bangarra Dance eatre Company. He calls it a 'choreographed rendition of colonialism playing out on stage' (Gibson 2016, p. 79). History, danced. Re ecting on its implications for conventional written historical practices, Gibson writes: 'What if you encountered history that spurred you to mutter: I was just about to sense that! I was just about to get that feeling!' (Gibson 2016, p. 76). In addition to the experimental, he suggests that what is needed are 'experiential modes of history. Modes that put you inside and outside the phenomenon that you are seeking to understand' (Gibson 2016, p. 82, italics in the original). e history he envisages is one that seeks to communicate not just knowing, but understanding, too: is technical and deeply felt, multiperspectival and cohesive. Such a history would pose 'questions concerned not only with detecting how vital a force might be but also with detecting how one might get a sense in the vitals' (Gibson 2016, p. 83, italics in the original).

Genre analysis of co-authored research articles
To empirically explore the above, this discussion draws on the ndings of the genre analysis of 15 articles I undertook for my thesis, to which I have newly subjected six recently published articles (numbered 16-21). All were published in Gateways: International Journal of Community Research and Engagement from 2010 to 2022. Authors were from the USA, Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. To be included for analysis, articles had to be community-university co-authored, peer-reviewed and share the empirical results of a locally based community-university research partnership. As a result, many articles were excluded, including sole-authored articles; theoretical articles; evaluations of perceptions and experiences; non-peerreviewed articles (practice-based and snapshot); and articles featuring other types of engagement, such as volunteering and service-type outreach, and international and multijurisdictional partnerships. Additionally, a number of articles co-authored by university-based partners only were not referenced this discussion, even though they met all the other criteria (and were included in the thesis).
is select group of articles are thus a partial representation only of the full range of partnerships, undertakings, outcomes, author teams, and critical and practical o erings present in the published literature of even just this one English-language online journal. However, given my focus on examining the ways in which genre conventions can both enable and impede participation, this fairly strict criteria enabled a sharp focus on the rhetorical impact of that under-represented and under-scrutinized cohort of contributors to the research literature: community-based partners. ere were no peer-reviewed empirical research articles sole-authored by a community-based partner available for analysis in Gateways journal (non-peer-reviewed articles, yes).
For each, I conducted careful manual (line-by-line) genre analysis of the above mentioned two key conventions: the three-step move in the Introduction (establish the research territory, establish the gap, occupy the gap); and the overall article organisation (IMRD). For space reasons, I do not provide detail on genre analysis as method, other than to note my reliance on the seminal work of John Swales (1990Swales ( , 2004 and Dwight Atkinson (1999), in particular. Nor do I include all of the ndings (for a full discussion, see . My intention here is to present the major repeated rhetorical strategies which were used across the author teams despite their di erences in time and place, focus, content, partnership and methodology. A nal article, a small 'snapshot' published in Gateways journal in 2019, is used as the basis for the more speculative discussion on how we might build on these rhetorical moves to achieve a more transformative co-presence in our written scholarly texts, as suggested by an ecology of knowledges.

THE INTRODUCTION
e standard procedure for research article Introductions, as mentioned, consists of a three-step move: Step 1, establishing a research territory; Step 2, establishing a gap; Step 3, occupying the gap. is widely used strategy was rst revealed by Swales (1990Swales ( , 2004 and has been con rmed by many others over subsequent decades. It is used throughout the science-based disciplines. According to Swales, among the many minor variations, there are two obligatory features: references to the literature must be included as part of Step 1; and the essential act of Step 3 is 'Announcing the present research' (Swales 2004, pp. 230-232). e major implication of these two obligatory features is to make plain that presenting one's research in the academic literature is to participate in that literature. It is a conversation principally with the scholarly archive. Yet community-based researchers are equally talking with and accountable to other audiences, a socio-cognitive principle which needs to nd semiotic realisation. My analysis reveals that authors' engagement with these dominant conventions of the Introduction is not simplistic or passive. Authors modify the three-step moves in three main ways. In the examples given below, Step 1 is in blue, Step 2 is in red, Step 3 is in black.
1. e research territory is established from the outset as engaged, already a space of communityuniversity collaboration. As a consequence, gaps found related to the challenges and potential of community-based research. e speci c research being shared responded to that identi ed gap in the collaborative research territory. For example: Community-university partnerships (CUPs) often aim to address societal injustices, but in practice are challenged by the same unequal power relations they seek to confront … In this article, we use a relational view of power to examine both institutional and interpersonal levels of power, which are not separate at all, but rather deeply intertwined. (no. 16) 2. e research territory is established in a traditional top-down manner, often with extensive reference to the literature, revealing a speci c community marked by signi cant need. e next step identi es a gap, as is expected, but it is not a gap in the research territory but of the research territory. at is, the conventional research territory, established through reliance on external, documented expertise, is found to be fundamentally incomplete. To address this, the research response, by necessity, must be collaborative. For example:

Rural coastal communities in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), Canada, are often cast as victims in the story of the 1992 sheries collapse that shook the province's foundations (Ref ). In particular, the Great Northern Peninsula (GNP) is often associated with high rates of population ageing and youth outmigration (Refs). However, these narratives overlook the GNP's many assets, such as natural resources, social cohesion and cultural heritage (Refs) … In this article, we explore the potential for communities to use storytelling to challenge top-down narratives of rural sustainability. (no. 20)
3. Just under half the author teams dispensed entirely with Steps 1 and 2 (establishing the research territory and establishing a gap). ese authors appeared to consider the conventional research territory a place better avoided; perhaps, a badlands. Instead, these articles began immediately with Step 3 (Announcing the present research) and focused on establishing the authenticity of the partnership. In fact, in every article under analysis, authors spent time doing this, but this group did so in the Introduction (the rest generally in a dedicated 'Background/Context' section). is rhetorical strategy featured 'markers of credibility', as I've called them (underlined in the example below), often written in the rst person (Malone 2023, p. 124

THE ORGANISATION
Overwhelmingly, each article under analysis utilised the basic organisation (IMRD), although always with some modi cations. It was possible to see that di erent rhetorical patterns aligned with di erent communicative purposes, shared by authors despite the di erences of time, place and context. e patterns to the use of conventions related to top-level features such as the order, combination and size of di erent sections, subheading variation and the inclusion (or not) of tables, graphs, quotes and references to the literature. Steven Shapin (2018, p. 12) divided his seminal book on the scienti c revolution into three chapters that 'deal sequentially with what was known about the natural world, how that knowledge was secured, and what purposes the knowledge served. What, how, and why'. ese articles do the same: what, how and why. Broadly, those articles I've grouped as 'what' featured case studies; 'how' related to articles with a focus on partnerships, processes and projects; and 'why' signalled an explicit focus on critical re exive methodologies. A brief discussion follows.

e case study
is type was the most recognisable of the articles analysed, often self-identi ed by authors as a case study. is group adhered most closely to the standard IMRD organisation and clearly articulated a shared primary purpose: the communication of situated, empirical new knowledge. Notably, the IMRD format was consistently amended through the addition of a 'Background/Context' section immediately preceding the Methods and Results. is section often included the Methodology and the Literature Review. e resultsemiotically simple, but socially profound -was the clear assertion on the page of the legitimacy of situated, multiperspectival knowledge, deeply interconnected, rather than simply transitional, across Background/ Context-Method-Results. As I wrote in my thesis, these three sections marshalled 'a mass of contextdependent details, covering social, political, economic, geographic, environmental, historical, methodological, evidential, analytical and technical aspects. In every case, two or more di erent means of gathering data were used, including focus groups, public meetings, interviews, participatory mapping, art-based workshops, questionnaire surveys and kitchen table discussions' (Malone 2023, p. 141). Here, empirical evidence was not extracted from, but inextricably connected to all those, people and place, with a stake in it.

Partnerships, processes and projects
e shared focus of these articles was to theorise, analyse and share lessons regarding the processes, principles, characteristics, challenges and bene ts of community-based research projects. How collaboration secures knowledge is understood as a research question, with signi cance for others in di erent locations, contexts and histories. e conceptual thread running through these articles is the social basis of knowledge production; its semiotic realisation is through communicating the movement of research as exploratory and explanatory, relational and systematic. is article's subheadings are illustrative:

Critical re exive methodology
Only a very small number of the articles under analysis comprised this last group. eir explicit focus was on a question critical to community-based research as a whole, yet more often left implicit: does collaborative research address issues of social and cognitive injustice, and if so, how? Again, the standard IMRD organisation was used, but this time the critique of its limitations found primary expression by challenging the assumed su ciency of the Literature Review. Here are two examples used in its place:

A research program on epistemic injustices and participatory research (no. 15)
Surfacing knowledge (no. 17) ese articles also brought the voices of participants into the 'structure of the telling of the story', as van Leeuwen expressed it. Here, with traces of IMRD still present, community perspective and expertise became part of the signposting. An extended example: (no. 20)

Conceptual approach
Rural sustainability narratives on the Great Northern Peninsula (with quote by community co-author, and map of region)

Community-engaged research methods (with timeline and Table of participants) A deep story of sustainability on the Great Northern Peninsula (with quotes and images)
Honouring the past while looking to the future Re-imagining the research article: Signposting the radical potential of an ecology of knowledges While the bulk of the articles analysed fell into the above three broad groups, shaped by their purpose, a handful did not, or did not completely. ese scattered, fragmentary examples of alternative semiotic strategies suggested the potential for something else, or something more. at is, in addition to 'what, how, why', the wager. Here, following Santos, I nish with some tentative yet serious musings on alternative social-semiotic signposts to support the articulation of knowledge plurality in our texts without false unanimity or a reliance on hierarchy. ese proposals are o ered in the rst instance to authors. However, ultimately, without a transformation in the institutional space, which includes editors and reviewers, radically di erent research articles will not often be assessed as legitimate or credible.
To anchor this discussion, I draw on this editor's equivalent of the sh that got away. A few years ago, Gateways journal published a co-authored, non-peer-reviewed 'snapshot' article, 'Political economics, collective action and wicked socio-ecological problems: A practice story from the eld', by Adams et al. (2019). e article discusses the work of the Victorian Rabbit Action Network (VRAN), rst established in 2014 in Victoria, Australia, which developed a unique response to the management of destructive feral European rabbits. At the heart of VRAN's work is a 'systems-based, participatory, democratic approach to strengthening the social systems for tackling problems caused by rabbits' (Reid et al. 2021, p. 352). eir approach has been recognised internationally, winning a 2019 UN Public Service Award in the category of 'Delivering inclusive and equitable services to leave no one behind'. I focus here on the research they undertook at that time (their work has continued to develop, see VRAN 2022), starting with a simple description, based on their article (Adams et al. 2019):

e European rabbit was introduced to Australia in the 1850s for hunting. Within a decade, the rapidly growing wild rabbit population was raising alarm. Today, it threatens over 300 vulnerable native species and costs agribusinesses more than AUD$200 million per year. In response to this wicked socio-ecological problem, a publicly funded research project was established to support community-led action in rabbit management. ose most a ected by rabbits -public and private land managers, scientists, government o cers, First Nations communities and others -engaged in a participatory planning process. A rstperson narrative of interview extracts informed a subsequent workshop, which identi ed their common passions and concerns, the sheer complexity of the problem, the location-speci c nature of solutions and the critical role of coordination to help ensure long-term change. ese ideas were further developed using rich picture maps and complex systems thinking. is process led to the creation of VRAN and a skills-based steering group.
is example stands in for the work of so many others. When the manuscript was rst submitted, I wondered if it could be worked into a research article, but, after discussions with the lead author, it became clear that the authors were making a point by deliberately not submitting it to the research section. ey were concerned that to do so would have undermined the very thing they had worked so hard to establish: a small 'p' political approach grounded in 'the experience of people at the frontline of rabbit management, with scienti c and government expertise regarded as "on tap not on top" (Boyte 2016)', (Adams et al. 2019, p. 6). Perhaps, instead, it is the journal that could be 'worked into' an appropriate place for their work. e following is an e ort to harness all the evidence from the articles I analysed, the conceptual framework that inspired me and the theoretical insights I gained from the social and political potential of semiotic conventions. I propose six key social-semiotic principles for radical co-presence in co-authored texts.

Overall purpose of the research article as wager
Broadly, co-authors of community-based research submissions seek to authentically and authoritatively present in the text the diversity of ways of knowing and being present in their research partnership, and to do so in ways that do not result in the imposition of hierarchy or false unanimity. At heart, authors are seeking to make material on the page their commitment to reciprocal and horizontal dialogue. Diversity is understood not as a variation on a (universal) standard, but as its own wager on the possibility of a better world.

Speci c purpose and partnership authenticity
Author teams seek to articulate a very clear central purpose, or thread, in their submissions. is may take the form of a research question, or it may relate to an aspect of the partnership, processes, pedagogy or methodology, for example. Justi cation for the validity and signi cance of this focus can draw on a range of sources, which may include references to the relevant literature as well as the lived experiences and knowhow of research participants. Overall, substantive theoretical and practical justi cation will be provided: what in participants' diverse sociohistorical contexts does this speci c research respond to? Establishment of partnership authenticity is vital. is can cover reasons for creation, duration, funding, location, focus, agreements, roles and involvement of partners, including community, faculty, sta , students and other agencies or organisations. It may also include details of the disciplinary, professional and community-based expertise, institutional and lived: open the black box of expertise. ese various 'markers of credibility' are an important part of establishing the authenticity of the partnership and are understood and valued as such by readers.

Introducing the research terrain
e conventional research article Introduction follows three key moves: establishing the research territory; establishing the gap; occupying the gap. ese semiotic moves are widely used by authors, with modi cations. However, authors may seek to displace and decentre, if not replace, the metaphor of the ahistorical and neutral research territory. In uncertain, uneven and complex research terrains, the Introduction for a dialogue-based, non-hierarchical and multiperspectival research article could involve the following alternative three-step moves: Move 1: Establishing complexity by presenting context without unity Move 2: Establishing the wager by introducing those with most at stake Move 3: Presenting the problem, that which sets thinking, feeling, knowing and action in motion For example: Lisa Adams has written elsewhere that she started by asking, '"How does rabbit management in Victoria work?" No one could give me an answer' (Howard et al. 2018, p. 47). Following this crucial insight, the original research team purposively sought out stakeholders with diverse interests, experiences, expertise and concerns. As a group, they then developed the following wager: 'the hypothesis that sustainable strategies are those created by the people most a ected' (Adams et al. 2019, p. 3).

e structure of the telling of the story
e conventional organisation of a research article is Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, with variations. is may or may not be appropriate, or it may be useful for just one strand of the manuscript. As with the Introduction's three-step moves, the organisation of a text (through top level 'infrastructure' such as subheadings, the order and the mix of sections) is a resource that can be modi ed, challenged or replaced. e importance of these semiotic resources comes from what they signal: they are signi cant metaphors for the larger discourses that the research seeks to be part of and is shaped by. us, while the organizational infrastructure can foster internal cohesion, balance, direction and pace, it also reaches out externally to larger ongoing discussions and debates.
One way authors can consider the organisation of their manuscript's content is to think of this overall structure as one of movement. is is always the case, but not always noticed. e conventional arrangement of Introduction-Method-Research-Discussion is linear, segmented and uni-directional. e research journey is presented as one from A to B to C. But perhaps it could be one of A and B and C, etc. It is the 'and' that can mark this organisational arrangement as an experimental and experiential journey of attachments, so that the point of view changes, challenges and evolves. Of primary importance is that this top-level organisational decision-making is participatory and not out of bounds for non-academic experts.
For example: e original snapshot article described how, based on rst-person narratives and complex systems thinking, the research team developed 'rich picture maps' which revealed that 'there were multiple systems depending on whose perspectives, interests, narratives were being shared or considered' (Adams et al. 2019, p. 5). ese maps revealed an interconnected problem that was experienced di erently at local, regional and state levels. e maps also revealed the depth of local and disciplinary-based expert knowledge, know-how and on-the-ground action underway. Here, the three geographic scales could form the overall structure of the telling, with di erent sections the responsibility of di erent individuals or groups, narrated in the rst person, if they wished.

Voice, practice and empirical material
Following on from the above, a key, ongoing question for authors should be, 'Whose voice needs to be part of this submission?' Second, what kinds of empirical material needs to be included, and how could that be presented? Well-established conventions exist for bringing the world to the text, by documenting matters of fact and stabilising and xing them in place (such as in tables, numbers, quotes). Authors may consider turning this activity on its head: to where, in the research terrain (populated, uncertain, complex), does the text need to travel? Consider what needs to be attended to -seen, felt, counted, heard, remembered, drawn, sung -in order that the reader may fully know and understand a problem, and who should participate as knowledgeable guides in this communicative journey of attachments.
For example: VRAN's wager necessitates the active participation of all those with a stake in the wager. is includes community groups and individuals, private landowners and public land managers, First Nations members caring for Country and burial sites at risk from the burrowing habits of rabbits, government agencies, industry and scientists. Also participating are the rabbits themselves, described as 'powerful agents' (Adams et al. 2019, p. 4), plus the 300-odd threatened species of ora and fauna made more vulnerable by the rabbits' actions (Woolnough et al. 2020, p. 211). is last group of plants and animals, with the least powerful presence, is arguably the wagerer with most at stake in the research. What semiotic resources might best represent them?

Authorship
Authorship is understood to be an acknowledgement of, and responsibility for, two main things: an essential involvement with the text (which doesn't necessarily mean with the writing); and accountability as to the wager's integrity. Of greatest consideration is to include all those individuals and/or organisations without whom the manuscript could not have been created. Research partnerships should make their own decisions: there is greater variety than many journal guidelines would suggest. For example, the record for the most authors on a single article is 5154 (Patience et al. 2019). Another, considered response can be seen in a series of articles in which Bawaka Country, in Northeast Arnhem Land, Australia, is accredited as the 'lead Author and an active partner of our research collaboration' (Country et al. 2019). A statement of contributor roles by each signatory and acknowledgements of other contributors are other options (see, for example, Project CRediT (Brand et al. 2015). For a discussion of its challenges and limitations, see Larivière et al. (2021).
Conclusion e focus of this article has been on the empirical research article as a form of genre writing, and the signi cance of those institutionalised conventions for the communication of community-based research and practice. Over the past few decades, the English-language scholarly literature on participatory and action-oriented research has grown rapidly, yet there remains a persistent and troubling lack of substantive contributions by non-academic experts in aligned academic journals. One contributing factor, I argue, is the conventionalised form of the research article itself. ose familiar, well-established rhetorical strategies that mark out a piece of writing as a research article carry signi cant social, political, intellectual and institutional weight. e dominant social-semiotic principles shaping the communication of new, empirical knowledge are often in con ict with the goals and purposes of community-based research. Yet they are not inert or unchanging. As this research into a select group of published articles has shown, co-authors of communitybased research are actively aware of their ability to a rm, modify, challenge and reject these dominant discourses through their creative use of key genre conventions. Further research into other types of articles (theoretical or practice-based, for example) would add to our critical and practical understanding of diverse social-semiotic strategies.