A critical reflection on knowledge hierarchies, language and development

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the discussion about the developmental value of knowledge by reflecting on the "knowledge for development" (K4D) paradigm. In particular, it draws attention to the interaction between linguistic and communicative processes and the areas of power, knowledge and education. This is considered fruitful to understanding the complex and subtle mechanisms in the reproduction of the North-South knowledge and power divide. Design/methodology/approach -The authors apply an interdisciplinary approach combining concepts from development studies, sociology of education and sociolinguistics. The article first contextualizes the K4D paradigm. It then reflects on knowledge hierarchies and the role of language. Second, it looks at donor policies and the conditions for higher education in developing countries. The Burkina Faso Country Gateway serves as an example of a donor-driven K4D initiative. An analysis of its web site based on sociolinguistic approaches is used to exemplify the above mentioned interrelation. Findings -The article concludes that the K4D paradigm asserts rather than flattens North-South knowledge hierarchies. To allow knowledge production to be inclusive, it is necessary to reflect on how knowledge management and ICT tools must be structured in order to enable interaction with disadvantaged user groups and to facilitate democratic and participative processes. Originality/value -The interplay between power and knowledge asymmetries with language and communication processes is rarely reflected upon in the context of development. This paper seeks to increase the attention paid to these topics.

Participatory multi-criteria decision analysis for prioritizing impacts in environmental and social impact assessments

“…In the area of translational knowledge, the line of work arguing for the need and usefulness of sharing languages and methodological approaches among different areas of knowledge is increasingly productive. 'Knowledge for development' (Langthaler, Witjes, and Slezak 2012) and 'knowledge interaction' (Davies, Nutley, and Walter 2008) are concepts founded on the need for communication between science and society to restore meaning and real productivity to science as a social institution. These are issues and challenges that merit the further effort.…”

Re-thinking research impact: voice, context and power at the interface of science, policy and practice

“…Similarly, it is important to recognise that the relationships between research and impact are complex; a researcher aspiring to achieve one impact may discover unexpected alternative benefits or unintended negative consequences. Relationships between academic and non-academic partners are equally complex, with hidden power dynamics, biases and assumptions often disrupting planned pathways to impact (Langthaler et al 2012;Scholz and Steiner 2015;Wanner et al 2018;Fritz and Meinherz 2020). Recognising the inherently subjective nature of impact may be the first step that many researchers take towards recognising their own subjectivity and positionality as researchers, and recognising the multiplicity of ways that knowledge can be constructed and used to generate benefits for others [guidance exists on operationalising this in a range of settings, including policy (e.g., Cairney 2021), international development (e.g., Brissett 2020), working with Indigenous groups (e.g., Woodward et al 2020;Gewin 2021) and transdisciplinary research (e.g., Pohl et al 2017;Dannecker 2020)].…”

Towards Shared Research

“…lators constitute knowledge and speech style and precisely such qualities of inconsistencies, obstacles and resistance are predominantly obscured from view in participatory approaches (Gal 2015). Understanding is a fundamental aspect of knowledge production processes, these become more complex when multilingual practices and translocal contextualization, reconceptualization and the translation of knowledge are involved (Langthaler et al 2012).…”