Knowledges, Dialogue and Translations : shifting the gaze and practice through traducture, Martha Chinouya and Wangui wa Goro talking at the IKM session at the EADI conference, Geneva, June 2008

Reconciling Multiple knowledges: learning from the field, Valerie Brown talking at the IKM session at the EADI conference, Geneva, June 2008

Multiple Knowledges: views from the IKM programme, Mike Powell speaking at the CTA/IKM/ University of Namibia workshop on Knowledge for Development , Windhoek, November 2009

A summary of where we are with the ideas behind this work is now available here

The report by Adnan Rafiq and Nazish Gulzar on the workshop held to explore these issues in September 2009 is now available as IKM Working Paper no 9

This work is being followed up by a workshop at which all the authors will be present, which is being organised in London for the middle of March.  Further information can be found here.

We have kept it online to preserve some of the posts – and because search engines love blogs – but to all extents and purposes it has been replaced by the organisational website.

This working paper explores the current understanding of the link between knowledge and policy in development. The issue is of relevance for researchers as it will help them make the most of their work and facilitate the changes they would like to see in policy; for policymakers, it will contribute to a better understanding of the link between knowledge and policy which will in turn help to inform the policy design and implementation process and facilitate a more effective uptake of new knowledge in their work; and for intermediaries who are looking to strengthen the link between knowledge and policy this paper should provide a theoretical overview of the knowledge-policy landscape and some potential avenues for work.
There is a great variety of schools of thought focusing on different aspects of the link between knowledge and policy. Within these diverse fields three paradigms emerge as common sets of basic ideas that frame different approaches to the field:
1) Rational: This models the link between knowledge and policy as essentially a knowledge-driven relationship.  Knowledge is seen as providing instrumentally useful and essentially ‘neutral’ inputs that serve to improve policy, and policy-making works in ‘problem-solving’ mode, according to logic and reason.
2) Pluralism and opportunism: This paradigm challenges assumptions about the rationality of the policy process, seeing it as involving pragmatic decisions taken based on multiple factors in the face of uncertainty. The incorporation of knowledge involves often erratic and opportunistic processes, and explicit efforts of various actors. This view retains assumptions that the production of knowledge and its incorporation in policy is generally ‘good’.
3) Politics and legitimisation: This viewpoint argues that power is infused throughout the knowledge process, from generation to uptake. Knowledge will often reflect and sustain existing power structures, and is used in the policy process in processes of contest, negotiation, legitimisation and marginalisation.
Recent theoretical developments on the role of knowledge in the policy process have generally stemmed from the third paradigm. Analysis of the role of power in the policy process has coalesced around three interlocking types of relations:

- Actors and networks: this sees the driving force in policy processes as material political economy, with interest groups competing over the allocation of resources and the formulation of rules and regulations. Knowledge is often seen as subordinate to interests, used tactically or as ‘ammunition’ in adversarial decision-making. Taking a closer look, the effect of actors deploying information and ideas, and the role that knowledge and ideas play in structuring networks, coalitions and ‘interests’, suggests a more active role for knowledge.
- Institutions: this attributes an ongoing force in policy-making to the context and institutions that shape the formal and informal ‘rules of the game’ such as constitutional rules and cultural norms. Knowledge and ideas are refracted, altered and translated to fit prevailing institutions, or certain types of knowledge may be excluded entirely. It can also play a role through becoming institutionalised, embedded in bureaucratic procedures, laws, or organisational forms.
- Discourse: this sees knowledge and power as intertwined, with considerable power held in concepts and ideas seen as relevant for policy, and exerted through interactive processes of communication and policy formulation. There are various areas of study within this, for example: the role of cognitive paradigms in limiting the range of policy options considered, and the dynamics of ‘narratives’ in the policy process, simplifying complex situations and driving policy.
As well as these theoretical insights, there are two key areas of practical interest: the production of knowledge, and the processes linking knowledge and policy. A great deal of work focuses on how the production of knowledge can be oriented in order to strengthen the link between knowledge and policy. Key sources of knowledge are:
- Research: this can provide useful inputs to policy, especially if explicitly focused on policy problems. However, there are calls to broaden this to recognise the need for critical and advocacy work, as well as more fundamental scientific research.
- Process: knowledge generated in the process of implementing development programmes (including, but not restricted to knowledge of the processes) is seen as an invaluable resource for policy. There are a number of practical problems in capturing and using this knowledge, however, as well as political barriers.
- Voice, participation and citizen knowledge: a great deal of work advocates either for citizens to be directly involved in generating knowledge for policy, or to be invited to participate in policy spaces. Criticisms have highlighted that such processes can function as a ‘new tyranny’, requiring a move towards ‘transformative’ participation.
- Multiple sources and interdisciplinarity: recognising that problems are complex, multidimensional and dynamic highlights the importance of integrating multiple disciplines and multiple types of knowledge. This would bring a holistic understanding of the problem, however it faces challenges from the way that work is often divided into ‘silos’.

Processes that mediate between the generation and use of knowledge play a crucial role in the link between knowledge and policy:
- Communicating and translating ideas and knowledge: work on research communication highlights making messages ‘sticky’, short and easy to understand, adapting them to audiences’ mindsets. Critics suggest these principles may result in the ‘wrong kind of influence’.
- Interaction and exchange: This requires stimulating interaction and collaboration in order to take on board the contextual nature of knowledge and the complexities of its use.
- Social influence and persuasion: social factors such as face-to-face communication and social networks spread messages through peer influence.
- Intermediaries and credibility: Sustaining long-term links between knowledge and policy requires intermediary organisations. As well as communicating and translating knowledge, they must also ‘mediate’ between different actors and types of knowledge, which needs trust and credibility.
- Demand for and use of knowledge: work highlights the importance of the right capacities and incentives for policy actors to use knowledge, as well as political determinants of demand.

Systems approaches, specifically innovation systems thinking, are identified as a potential candidate among a basket of choices to address the complexity of knowledge divides. Based on a review of the relevant literature, a convergence model of social innovation and entrepreneurship (SI&E) has been developed and provisionally tested using the evidence from the contemporary blossoming (or in some cases mushrooming) of the practices of forming epistemic communities, communities of practice, communities of interest, learning communities, learning alliances and learning networks, both globally as well as locally. These are various terminologies for seemingly similar processes of learning across conventional boundaries, although finer differences are possible between these communities.

Recognizing semantic ambiguity of the use of the terms, this paper posits the concept of learning networks, as a corollary to the concept of learning organizations, is inclusive of all kinds of learning communities in international development. There is a need for further research on stakeholder engagement in learning networks as a potential
initiative to bridge knowledge divides, specifically using the convergence model of SI&E as a conceptual framework. This framework would be useful to understand processes of social innovation and entrepreneurship, from local to global levels.

An effective learning network should entail a holistic perspective on the convergence of actor structures, resources, processes and values, not just integrating the ways of knowing and addressing the nature of being. In other words, this study argues that a higher order goal of value convergence is necessary to bridge divides arising from multiple realities and multiple knowledge systems. Subsequently, this study develops principles of managing learning networks, with a focus on individual actors, and outlines a few research questions by way of illustration.

• A lack of consensus and clarity in understanding the terms ‘knowledge’ and ‘knowledge management’ (epistemological problem);

• The complexity arising from multiple actors in development, each with their own different world-views, interests, values, power and development agendas (sociological-politicalproblem);

• The large variety, as well as gaps, among the approaches and tools for measuring or assessing the magnitude, utilization and impact of use of intangible assets including knowledge (methodological problem); and

• How to use knowledge to demonstrably create value or other desirable development outcomes (operational problem).

This paper seeks to address these issues. It proposes a simple but generic KM framework to link KM to performance of a development worker as well as to the development goals of an organization or network. The utility and versatility of the KM framework are illustrated through a variety of examples. An initial summary inventory of M&E tools in KM is drawn up and its uses and limitations are discussed. In particular, the paper reviews approaches and solutions that had been tried in highly complex and unstable development environments such as in conflict-torn areas, in order to begin the process of understanding if and how KM can be applied under such conditions. A set of guidelines is proposed for applying the framework for M&E in KM for development.