Stacey Young, PhD

Development begins with defining: what are the problems, what solutions might work, what should be done, how much will it cost, who should do it, how will we know if it’s working? In the context of evidence-based development programming, the power to define what counts as evidence/knowledge – and whose evidence/knowledge counts – is typically not wielded by developing communities themselves, but rather by organizations that also have the power to fund, plan, manage, assess and terminate development activities. This is true even though we often identify systemic power imbalances as contributors to development challenges, and work in other ways to address them.

Mitigating power imbalances in development relationships requires that we look not only at how funding flows, but also how decisions are made. Donors often give insufficient attention to knowledge about local contexts, solutions that are devised by local actors according to local priorities and experience, and locally important ways of knowing. This can lead us in unpromising directions, failing to course correct sufficiently as we learn more about the local context, and dismissing local priorities and approaches as “not evidence-based” because they are framed differently from how we frame our own relationship to knowledge. Consequently, we may dismiss considerations that are important to local communities, to the detriment of our work with them. We may also dismiss or devalue forms of evidence that rely more heavily on accumulated observations, generational experience, and systems-level inquiry than on replicability through an approach to scientific experimentation that seeks to isolate provable causal factors. At best, we set the two in opposition to each other rather than seeking ways to engage multiple knowledge frameworks in our analyses and planning processes.

What does it look like to include and navigate multiple knowledge systems within analytic processes and decision making regarding development assistance? How can we investigate and address the power imbalances embedded in how we define and adjudicate what counts as credible evidence and knowledge? What does it mean to value, understand and engage local knowledge – and the holders of that knowledge – to make our development programs more effective? What are the practical implications for development organizations’ strategies and programs, and for the organizational learning processes that can embed the changes that are needed within our institutions?

Knowledge management for development must improve how we value and navigate multiple knowledge frameworks, engage local and Indigenous knowledge and knowledge holders equitably, and facilitate strengthening local knowledge and learning systems, in order to deepen our understanding of how to advance development effectively, and to mitigate systemic power imbalances. This includes examining how our organizations define and engage local and Indigenous knowledge, how we build our own staff mindsets and technical capabilities to do so, how we combine it with other forms of knowledge and evidence, how we understand and manage the power dynamics embedded in development processes, how we translate this into practical processes and guidance for our organizations, and how we can support the development sector to advance in these same areas.