Margarita Langthaler, Nina Witjes and Gabriele Slezak
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…
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.
Details
Keywords
Gabriele Lakomski and Colin W. Evers
In this chapter, we present a critical assessment of contemporary organization theory variously described as either multiperspectival or fragmented. We argue that analytic…
Abstract
In this chapter, we present a critical assessment of contemporary organization theory variously described as either multiperspectival or fragmented. We argue that analytic philosophy as one of the major tools used for theorizing about organizations has had a major influence on the development of organization theory and largely explains the current state of affairs. At its core, we argue, is a fundamental methodological fissure in analytic philosophy itself: the distinction between descriptive and revisionary methods. The principal focus of descriptive analysis in organization theory is how agents use everyday language in organizational contexts, often by invoking language games. In contrast, revisionary approaches, concerned about the privileging of theories embedded in everyday language, as well as the complexity and ambiguity of ordinary-language use, aim for explicit theory evaluation and greater clarity by recasting ordinary language in formal systems, such as scientific, especially empiricist, theories, characteristic of the mainstream of theorizing about organizations from the 1940s onward. For a number of theoretical and epistemological reasons logical empiricism or positivism is no longer a widely held view either in the philosophy of science or in the organization theory. We examine some critical issues regarding logical empiricist epistemological foundations and propose a methodological naturalistic framework that supports the ongoing growth of knowledge in organization theory, naturalistic coherentism. In developing this new conception of science we thus opt for a revisionary methodology, but one that is beholden to neither the traditional logical empiricist/positivist conception of (organization) science nor the relativism and conservatism of postmodernist theory, widely considered to be the successor of positivist organization theory.