There is an astounding level of hypocrisy in academia.  Critiques of power abound, while individual academics make containers of themselves, waiting for the manna of power, in the form of tenure, publication and prestige, to fall into open, waiting hands.  The abjection of power's failure to act equally abounds.  Aspiring academics, graduate students, and undergraduates are often caught in various wheels of 'knowledge production,' getting in line to have various potentials assessed, passively collecting what passes for knowledge that literally trickles down the trunks of hoary academia, because that is what they are being trained to do.  These 'lesser' receptacles' potentials, once assessed, using 'objective' criteria, are then treated and calibrated for 'success,' according to a banking model of education that treats individuals as more or less worthy based on calculated 'returns on investment' expected to accrue in the future.  Absent from such constructions in academia (in spite of the inclusion of all kinds of analyses of power in various curricula) are robust ontological critiques with the potential to reveal rotting foundations in the various esteemed houses of knowledge of higher education in Canada and the U.S.
It is one of the strengths of the discipline of geography that it has the means of offering such a critique using the 'power of maps.'  Maps are ontological to the extent that they (re)frame and are framed in multiple constructions that provide peeks into the natures of those constructions (see Wood and Fels, 2008, The Natures of Maps).  There is a radical current in geography that lends itself quite well to critiques of power, despite its ability to equal other disciplines in reactionary power.
Participatory mapping includes within cartographic practices peoples 'normally' excluded  by expert framing devices and knowledge systems.  But how are 'bottom-up' and 'grassroots' mapping initiatives achieved?  Some ways, some founding stones marking the beginnings of new, more flexible, cartographic paths, are emerging.  Open source and web 2.0 mapping systems are being used by indigenous groups in North and South America for the purposes of conserving and preserving their fragile heritages and resources.  For instance see: http://news.mongabay.com/2009/1130-indigenous_mapping.html. 
The adoption and adaptation of new mapping technologies by indigenous groups is nothing new.  It has been occurring for thousands of years.  We in academia cannot, must not, reify some moment of achievement as a potential fulfilled once and for all.  No mapping system will be given tenure: maps must now 'earn their keep.'  Maps must now pass the tests given by the people 'on the ground:'  this is the reality of crowdsourcing.  Make no mistake: the expert will not disappear.  But he or she must now wear many hats, be 'expert' in many fields at once, if they wish to break free of the rigidification of their very beings for the purposes of attaining pretigious academic power.  For starters let's inject some cartographic bricolage back into academia.
Meanwhile, somewhere in the rainforest (well, we now know exactly where, there's no mystery anymore) science and technology continue in their own messy, local ways, driven by local needs, preceptions and realities.  Academic research that claims to be community-driven would do well to look at how maps are being used right now for empowerment, not for power, but to challenge power, right now, 'out there,' on the ground.