‘Knowledge’– for what and for whom?

The value of knowledge is that humans can use it to increase their capacities and improving their possibilities to live and survive (Liedman 2001, my translation).

I am trying to understand what knowledge is or might be and how it can be useful. Especially in relation to the specific local context of my research and to the processes of social change through the implementation of development projects. It is a very complex matter that raises questions like; What is categorized as knowledge? How do we deal with knowledge? Can anthropological practice (empirical research) guide theory, policy making and affect behaviour? Whose knowledge is valid, is it what comes from the outside or from within?

Without generating an epistemological debate (which is not what I intend to do here) it is useful to be aware of that dealing with knowledge is problematic in much anthropological work. My research participants’ categories of knowledge will most probably not map onto my analytical ones (Green 2009). Maia Green who has vast experience in working both as anthropologist and development worker, discusses whether an anthropologist can successfully engage in practical development or if this profession is limited in ‘just’ writing about culture.

According to Green, it is difficult to engage in policy making as an anthropologist. The discipline is traditionally more enthusiastic ‘to unpack, critique, comment, translate, explain and witness’ (see Savage Minds) than actually actively involve in ‘changing the social’. The engagement of anthropologists in development work has mainly been abstractly through texts. Not surprisingly, this engagement has been largely critical towards much of the work processes within development contexts. Hence, partly explaining the fact that the knowledge derived from anthropology has failed to engage those working in development. However, criticism is by far the most important instrument through which anthropological knowledge is generated.

Green’s key argument is that the failure of learning from each other is due to the categorical distinction of knowledge within international development and in anthropology, i.e. outside expertise inputs vs. local insider perspectives. ‘Insider’ knowledge, however, has gained legitimacy due to its obvious relevance but also its qualitatively moral aspect (in contrast to what comes from an outsider), according to Green. Participatory methods like action research aim to bring forth the knowledge of local communities. Nonetheless, the production of participatory knowledge depends on expertise that can point out target themes for further knowledge processes. The two categories apply to different spheres and achieve different ends within the project organization. Does this mean that both types of knowing are essential  and equally valid as sources for local sustainable development?

Knowledge exists within a context, being largely dependent on social, historical and cultural factors. This means it is created or ’discovered’ by humans, thus representing a reality that can be influenced (Liedman, 2001:37).