Introduction

International development cooperation is understood as one of the essential strategies for achieving United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) (Helgason 2016; OECD 2023; United Nations 2019). As such, international development cooperation fundamentally depends on the way that particular projects are envisioned, planned, designed and implemented. Crucially, all these aspects are shaped by their underpinning knowledge systems (Cummings et al. 2018; Mosse 2014; Powell and Cummings 2019). Such knowledge systems comprise the way relevant actors understand the world in which international development projects are nested, and, consequently, which types of knowledge and resulting interventions in social-ecological dynamics they prioritize and embark on (Powell 2006; Whitfield 2015).

In addition, knowledge serves not only implicitly as the basis of international development cooperation design, but also as an explicit element that gets actively transferred and shaped among actors within project implementation (Mosse 2014; Ojala and Hooli 2022; Shepherd 2010) e.g. in the form of training, workshops and awareness raising campaigns, particularly as transfer and dissemination of knowledge have become the core of many international development projects (Janus et al. 2015; Molina-Maturano et al. 2020; Taylor and Bhasme 2018; Thuijsman et al. 2022).

Thus, it is vital to map and better understand where such knowledge originates from, how it is created, distributed, and utilized. The overarching aim of this paper is to build on the system thinking and sustainability science perspective that is enabling us to reflect on and to unravel the complex mechanisms that are shaping and are being shaped by the diversity of knowledge entering the international development cooperation. To this end, we use the Czech development cooperation (CDC) as a case study to critically analyse its knowledge system, comprising diverse types of knowledge and the actors that engage with them (Apetrei et al. 2021). Furthermore, we identify learning points on how to facilitate knowledge representation and cross-fertilization in the CDC knowledge system to contribute to long-term outcomes of implementation of UN SDGs.

In the development studies perspective, the role of knowledge in development cooperation started to be questioned in the early 2000s after the release of the World Bank’s influential report Knowledge for Development (World Bank 1999). In the report, the World Bank understands the unequal distribution of (mostly technical) knowledge as one of the key impediments of development and promotes knowledge transfers from the Global North to Global South as a major development tool. However, according to Evers et al. (2009) this approach keeps maintaining the asymmetric relationship between the “developed” and “developing” and, as suggested by McFarlane (2006), it prioritizes technocratic and unilinear flows of knowledge from one place to another. This is especially problematic as these approaches hardly pay attention to the local specifics (Bruckmeier and Tovey 2008). Recently, a similar discussion emerged regarding the agenda of the UN SDGs, especially in relation to what Cummings et al. (2018) calls techno-scientific-economic discourse, where top-down scientific and technical knowledge are represented as means for achieving economic growth and development. Another issue is the lack of emphasis on participation in fulfilling the SDGs hence undermining the agency of local people (Lepore et al. 2021). Another strand of development research relates to decolonial approaches to knowledge, urging the acknowledgment and leveraging of Indigenous and local knowledge (Brokensha et al. 1980; Chilisa 2017; Narayanaswamy 2013; Scoones and Thompson 1994). At the same time, this invisibility of non-scientific knowledge leads to epistemic injustices that are further sealing the superiority of scientific and expert knowledge over the knowledge existing on the ground (Boogaard 2021; Latulippe and Klenk 2020). On top of that, decolonial approaches highlight the danger of fortification of existing power relations and imbalances that determine whose values and knowledge are prioritized over another (Chambers 2014; Mosse 2014; Pottier 2003).

As a response for tackling the superiority of the external, primarily scientific knowledge and top-down approaches, there is a long-standing tradition of participatory approaches to design and implementation of development projects (Amauchi et al. 2022; Chambers 1994; Keahey 2021; Rahnema 1990) followed by the recent surge of knowledge co-production and transdisciplinarity in the development practice (Hainzer et al. 2022; Vincent 2022; Wittmayer and Schäpke 2014). However, despite the critique above and the relatively extensive body of research on the role of knowledge in acceptance of new, mostly agricultural, approaches and practices in development (e.g., Bouwman et al. 2019; Girard 2015; Glover et al. 2019; Hermans et al. 2021, 2023), reflection on the complex functioning of the overall knowledge systems in international development cooperation has been limited so far (Jacobi et al. 2017).

The framing of knowledge through decoloniality and epistemic injustice present in development studies can be expanded by the perspective of sustainability science. In particular, the field of systems thinking and leverage points within sustainability science (Meadows 1999; Abson et al. 2017) provides a valuable framework to systematise and structure the analysis of inherently fluid, qualitative and dynamic phenomena such as knowledge systems (Fischer and Riechers 2019). In this respect, within the framing of systems thinking, systems can be framed as specific and tangible objects (e.g., a food system) or as less tangible phenomena (e.g., a knowledge system), with a recognition that they are nested, interconnected, and often shape each other (Davelaar 2021; Leventon et al. 2021). As such, systems are defined as being composed of entities and their flows (e.g., actors, materials, resources, power, knowledge).

There are multiple types of rationale for studying knowledge systems from a qualitative systems thinking perspective. For instance, Apetrei et al. (2021), argue that people operate in specific knowledge systems representing a formative force to our way of knowing, related to individuals, groups or a culture, and that are usually associated with a geographical context. Furthermore, knowledge systems tend to be understood as networks (formal, informal or a mixture of both) (Cornell et al. 2013) in which knowledge is produced, reproduced, exchanged, and used in the process of knowledge translation into practice and actions (Tàbara and Chabay 2013). At the same time, as pointed out by Gorddard et al. (2016), knowledge systems determine agency (i.e., the ability to act based on reasoned choices), and thus underpin decision-making processes.

Importantly, what knowledge systems are understood as legitimate is influenced by particular decision contexts. Thus, sustainability science urges us to embrace the notion of pluralism (Leventon et al. 2022) and knowledge cross-fertilisation (Tengö et al. 2014), i.e. bringing together diverse knowledge systems in search for their complementarities and synergies to be able to actively act upon them. For instance, Chillisa (2017) calls for fundamental re-thinking of how knowledge existing in African countries is being represented and included in existing modes of knowledge production that are influential for the planning and implementation of development projects. In this respect, knowledge cross-fertilisation is a vital formative force for reshaping the existing superiorities of some knowledge systems, hence strengthening the agency of often marginalized voices (Caniglia et al. 2021).

Hence, we argue that sustainability science and its perspective on the functioning of knowledge systems through systems thinking (Apetrei et al. 2021; Cornell et al. 2013; Mazzocchi 2020; Tàbara and Chabay 2013) can provide valuable insights in the role of different types of knowledge in international development cooperation projects that aim to create change for sustainability. To this end, we apply system theory and utilize system properties (paradigms, design, structures, and resources) (Abson et al. 2017; Meadows 1999) as an analytical tool to map the knowledge existing amongst CDC actors, in order to provide a broader reflection of how knowledge is being framed by development actors in Eastern Europe. For the purpose of this study, we define the CDC knowledge system as comprising both the knowledge existing amongst CDC actors, and the knowledge existing amongst actors in Zambia. In addition, we classify which interventions are available to change the respective components of the knowledge system to enable knowledge cross-fertilization (Tengö et al. 2014), especially among CDC actors and target communities of development projects. Finally, we propose a set of learning points that are relevant across different types of development actors. In order to reach these goals, we set two research questions:

  1. 1.

    What are the system properties in the CDC knowledge system (materials, processes, design, and paradigms)?

  2. 2.

    What are the overlooked system properties inhibiting knowledge flows within the CDC knowledge system and associated interventions to tackle them?

Systems thinking as an analytical framework

Conceptual background: systems thinking

When characterising systems, we can refer to their system properties. Meadows (1999) refers to these as 12 leverage points, or system properties that can be altered in order to change the system. These can roughly be put into four categories (Abson et al. 2017): (1) materials; (2) processes; (3) design; and (4) paradigms. Working with these characteristics can help with defining and understanding systems. Furthermore, it is also a useful heuristic framework for considering how interventions aimed at changing the system in focus may work, while remaining reflexive about the social construction of those system boundaries and the implications therein (Lam et al. 2020; Leventon et al. 2021, 2023; Matamanda et al. 2020).

These leverage points can also serve as a way to question how we are intervening with systems; which system property we are targeting with an intervention to create change (e.g. Dorninger et al. 2020; Nabong et al. 2022). Here, interventions are defined as activities that create change by engaging with these system properties. Also, the interventions vary with the system being changed, e.g. interventions in food production systems will be different to those in policy systems. In Meadows’ original essay, she outlines that engaging with these deeper system properties (paradigms and design) creates more fundamental transformation because the other properties are nested within and thus change too. Whereas changing only materials addresses merely a shallow leverage point, this creates very little immediate change to the overall nature of the system in question (though shallow interventions can create impacts to deeper leverage points over time—see e.g., Manlosa et al. 2019). Significantly, deeper leverage points are less tangible and visible, and therefore are often overlooked (Abson et al. 2017). We thus frame overlooked systems characteristics as those that are not often targeted by interventions that are seeking to create change.

Analytical framework: applying systems thinking to the CDC knowledge system in Zambia

We define the CDC knowledge system as a complex web of relations and dynamics among diverse knowledge actors acting and interacting across scales and geographies. We thus understand systems as socially constructed objects with boundaries (Cilliers 2001; Preiser et al. 2018). Knowledge actors include individuals and organisations who hold knowledge that can potentially contribute to development outcomes. These include development cooperation organisations, local communities, government organisations, civil society—simply saying anyone who has a role in shaping, or is influenced by, development cooperation. The system is characterised by the actors recognising multiple forms of knowledge (including e.g. scientific, local and Indigenous knowledge) as ‘materials’ within the system, without our own systems framing giving particular weight or importance to any specific form of knowledge. We thus define the CDC knowledge system in a way that allows for diverse framings of knowledge. Within this system, we operationalise system properties to form an analytical framework (see Table 1) to answer research questions stated in the introduction.

Table 1 Operationalisation of the system properties as used within our systems thinking based analytical framework
Full size table

In our analytical framework the paradigms set the perspective for what happens within the CDC knowledge system—what knowledge entities are included, what processes and dynamics are understood as legitimate and what should be the cornerstone of the policies and strategies for development. This entails considering, for example, whose knowledge counts, even where it represents a radically different way of understanding the world that may not feel comfortable or even valid to the way we are trained (Bohensky and Maru 2011; Hernandez 2022). Despite their limited tangibility and highest level of abstraction, the paradigms fundamentally underpin the entire CDC knowledge system. We understand the paradigms as cross-scale—for example, the agenda of UN SDGs determines the overall agenda of donors and the development organizations but also the thinking of development actors as individuals (i.e. their understanding of what is development and how to achieve it).

Design of the CDC knowledge system encompasses diverse concepts of development practice (e.g., behavioural change, integrated agriculture, market-system development) and approaches to development practice (e.g., evidence-based and place-based projects) that shape the planning and implementation of specific projects. These are often in conjunction with policies and strategies existing on national and sub-national levels in both Czech Republic and Zambia, and indeed shaped by broader development practices and paradigms. Practically, the design translates into what knowledge is to be (co)produced, how and with what purpose.

Materials of the CDC knowledge system are represented by the knowledge held by different actors present in the system—the actors' knowledge. The dynamics and relations across the actors’ knowledge can be understood as processes existing within the CDC knowledge system. However, we understand materials and processes as inseparable since the delineation between what is happening among different types of actors’ knowledge and within them would lead to oversimplifications and reduction.

Importantly, we understand all properties of the CDC knowledge system as dynamic and evolving over time.

Material and methods

Data collection

The study presented in this paper is a part of a broader transdisciplinary research focused on integration of social-ecological research into practice of Czech development cooperation, and it was carried out in close collaboration with People in Need, one of the major Czech development NGOs (see the Supplementary material I for the description of the overall project). To this end, we used several methods of data collection in different contexts (Czech Republic and Western Province of Zambia), employed at three consecutive phases focused on diverse topics. Questions related to understanding of the CDC knowledge system were incorporated in all these research phases, as described in this section. The workflow, aims of particular phases, methods of data collection, and outcomes related to this paper are summarized in Fig. 1. The overview of research participants and their engagement in different research phases is in table S1 in Supplementary material I.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Workflow, aims of the consecutive phases, methods used and outcomes

Full size image

Phase (1) mapping of knowledge and knowledge production processes among CDC actors. In total, we collected 17 in-depth semi-structured interviews with key CDC actors. Using the purposive sampling strategy, the research participants were identified from the list of the CDC actors, based on the following criteria: different types of the actors ranging from representatives of public institutions involved in setting the agenda, diverse representation of the NGOs, private sector, to academia involved in the project planning and implementation in at least one priority country of the CDC, preferably in sub-Saharan Africa.

This phase was focused on what actors’ knowledge (and particular knowledge entities) are important for planning and implementation of development projects, and what paradigms are essential in shaping the CDC knowledge system. To this end, questions asked during the interviews were aimed at understanding what knowledge is used for planning and implementation of development projects and where does it originate from, as well as on the perceptions of the construct of development itself and the understanding of the conception of successful projects.

Phase (2) mapping the interactions and dynamics of CDC knowledge system in the Western Province of Zambia. In phase (2), we collected 15 semi-structured in-depth interviews with key stakeholders in the Western Province of Zambia, carried out 6 focus groups with farmers and community volunteers in the Western Province of Zambia, and organized 2 transect walks with agricultural extension officers in two agricultural camps in the Western Province of Zambia. The categories of the stakeholders in the Western province of Zambia were identified in close collaboration with CDC actors. The specific research participants, including the focus group participants, were then identified with the support of the research partner, People in Need. These research participants were composed of the representatives of local statutory and customary institutions, local employees of the Czech NGOs, representatives of farmers’ association, representatives of local NGOs, CDC project participants, other farmers, and community volunteers, among others. To achieve diversity of participants in the sample and to mitigate possible bias, part of the research participants involved were also approached with the help of other Czech NGO(s)/academic institutions active in the Western province of Zambia, as well as by using the snowball technique.

The purpose of the second phase of knowledge mapping in the Western province of Zambia was twofold. First, the interviews with key stakeholders and transect walks aimed to understand the processes of how different actors’ knowledge from outside of Zambia proliferates into the practice of governmental bodies, especially extension officers who provide services in target communities, and to understand the design and paradigms that are significant for their work. Furthermore, the interviews with key stakeholders were focused on the identification of overlooked system properties and related interventions. To this end, we asked questions related to barriers and opportunities existing within the complex social-ecological system, and that are often knowledge-related. Second, the focus groups with farmers and volunteers were designed to understand the interactions and processes between the actors’ knowledge at the level of communities and actors’ knowledge represented by NGO workers and extension officers. Therefore, the focus groups contained specific questions on how community members access and utilize new knowledge on farming and nutrition, and how they are applying their own experiences in respect to other community members and their work. Both the data collected from key stakeholders and community members allowed the mapping of the properties of the CDC knowledge system in the Western province of Zambia.

Phase (3) validation of the flows within the CDC knowledge system with CDC actors. Within the third phase, we carried out a two-day participatory workshop with CDC actors to reflect on and to discuss the outcomes of the first two phases. In this phase of the research, the purposive sampling strategy, using the same criteria as in the phase one, was employed. The main purpose of the final phase was to gain critical insights and understanding of the CDC knowledge system from the perspective of the CDC actors based in the Czech Republic. Moreover, the outcomes of phase two and phase three were essential for identification of possible interventions for improved knowledge cross-fertilization within the CDC knowledge system. Besides validating the research findings, the third phase also allowed for the internalisation of the research outcomes and their introduction into their day-to-day operation.

The data collection was obliged by strict ethical principles (anonymity and confidentiality, informed consent of research participants, cultural sensitivity). These are outlined, together with the ethical considerations, in Supplementary material II.

Data analysis

The majority of the interviews and focus groups carried out in the first two phases of the research process were recorded. All the recordings were transcribed verbatim, aiming to capture all nuances. We used MAXQDA software for thematic analysis using the combination of inductive and deductive coding strategies in order to answer the two research questions (see below). This approach allowed for identification and interpretation of linkages and patterns emerging in the dataset (Ribbs 2007). Since we do not consider the prevalence of themes across the data set as crucial, we preferably evaluate the importance of the occurring theme in respect to research questions. Below, we provide an overview of specific analytical steps applied to answer the two research questions (RQ) stated in the introduction.

RQ1: What are the system properties in the CDC knowledge system (materials, processes, design, and paradigms)? To answer the RQ1, we depart from the need to first diagnose and map the system in order to get a grasp on the dynamics and flows within it. First, the data from the interviews, focus groups and transect walks generated during the first two research phases were inductively coded to unravel the diverse themes related to knowledge in general, its production, flows and exchanges within the CDC projects. Secondly, we used the system properties as operationalized in our analytical framework as deductive categories for the inductively identified themes. By this approach, we were able to identify paradigms and design that frame the materials and processes of the CDC knowledge system. Additionally, the materials and processes of the CDC knowledge system were analysed through a composition of a diagram (see section “Materials and processes of CDC knowledge system”, Fig. 2) displaying the dynamics and complexities that exist across actors’ knowledge(s) and that simultaneously shape them.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Materials and processes of CDC knowledge system

Full size image

RQ2: What are the overlooked system properties inhibiting knowledge flows within the CDC knowledge system and associated interventions to tackle them? Answering RQ1, as well as responding to the conceptual background introduced in section “Conceptual background: systems thinking”, set the premise that materials and processes are primarily context-specific and practical manifestation of the key system properties that exists at the level of paradigms and design of related knowledge systems. While the materials and processes were visible to CDC actors in Czech Republic and Zambia, the paradigms and design were often overlooked hence creating some of the major barriers to knowledge cross-fertilization in international development cooperation. Therefore, in order to answer RQ2, we examined specifically the themes under the specific categories of system paradigms and design that were identified by the research participants in Czech Republic and Zambia as: (1) often overlooked and/or insufficiently targeted by the diverse actors, hence potentially hindering the materials and processes of the CDC knowledge system; and (2) specific interventions proposed in order to tackle the overlooked system properties to shift the CDC knowledge system towards a higher level of knowledge cross-fertilisation.

The workshop implemented in the Phase 3 was used for the validation of the research results. The key points of the reflection were used for proposing a set of interventions that are essential for pushing the CDC system towards higher levels of knowledge cross-fertilization. These were used to refine the results presented here and inform the recommendations that we make in the discussion section.

Results

System properties and knowledge holders of the CDC knowledge system

Paradigms of CDC knowledge system

The paradigms of the CDC knowledge are inherently derived from the paradigms set by the development agenda on a global level where UN SDGs represent an umbrella for all Czech development cooperation activities. In the CDC knowledge system, SDGs materialize in the notion of a successful project (i.e., how do actors perceive and understand the desired outcomes of the development project). This is composed of three partially interrelated dimensions that exist, in the view of CDC actors, in a hierarchical order. To this end, the overarching aim of the CDC is centred around the achievement of sustainable livelihoods, that stems from the long-term change in target communities and resulting resilience, and that stretches beyond mere project sustainability and fulfilment of project indicators. In its essence, it is often of relatively transformative character, hence it depends on a continuing exchange and mutual understanding of all knowledge holders on both the side of CDC actors as well as local communities.

In this sense, the precondition of reaching sustainable livelihoods is formed by project sustainability, i.e. the continuation of the activities after the end of the project. It expects the taking over of the activities by engaged communities/other actors after the end of the funding period, therefore it depends on higher involvement of target communities and on an emphasis on more hands-on aspects of such trainings. For instance, this can be done by more active engagement of the target communities and through creating space for integrating their knowledge into development of their projects as well as by strengthening capacities of local extension officers and other governmental representatives. Finally, the last dimension of the paradigm of a successful project refers to development pragmatism, i.e. the fulfilment of outcomes and related indicators set during the preparatory phase of the project. Unlike the previous two dimensions, the development pragmatism purely depends on single direction flow of the knowledge of CDC actors, and it practically does not require significant presence of knowledge of CDC project participants nor local governmental bodies and any active knowledge exchange. Although CDC actors communicate reaching their ideal priority to be sustainable livelihoods, it is hard to materialize in reality. Thus, the practice is rather guided by the development pragmatism which is closely tied to the design of CDC knowledge system.

Design of CDC knowledge system

The paradigm of a successful project underpins the design of the CDC knowledge system. This is often embedded in those that are promoted by UN agencies but also other donors (e.g., GIZ, SIDA, USAID) and large development NGOs (e.g., Oxfam, CARE international). In this respect, the design is framed by CDC actors as the concepts and approaches for fulfilling the paradigm of a successful project. To this end, CDC actors suggest that the projects should be built on an equal approach, mutual respect and partnership as well as on cooperation of various types of actors across sectors. From the perspectives of CDC actors, all of these designs are expected to be built on mutual learning, capacity building at the institutional and community levels, and on close cooperation with the governmental authorities in the implementing country at both national and regional levels. Further, they set the ground for the design of place-based and evidence-based projects that nest the projects in the specific context, and are built on a user-friendly approach as well as emphasize the community ownership of the implemented project. Such place-based and evidence-based projects are preconditions for bringing in innovations, such as market-systems development, behavioural change, or integrated agriculture. At the same time, the design is subjected to national policies and strategies in both Zambia and Czech Republic, and to internal guidelines of CDC actors. These are met through aligning the design described above with the respective policies but also with the element of visibility and regionality of the development projects, that is required especially on the side of Czech development cooperation strategy.

At first sight, the design of the CDC knowledge system appears to be a perfect base for knowledge cross-fertilization. However, as shown in Fig. 2 and explained below, these approaches used in projects are often rather proclamatory and mirror the actual practice of CDC actors only partially. The knowledge of CDC project participants is very rarely mentioned by CDC actors in respect to planning and implementation of development projects and it is therefore more likely on the margins of the CDC knowledge system.

Materials and processes of CDC knowledge system

The materials and processes are represented by knowledge(s) of diverse actors ranging from project participants, communities, local government to CDC project implementers, and interactions across them. The materials interact with each other within development projects via diverse workshops, training, establishment of demonstration sites and other activities. Since the knowledge materials and processes are formative to each other and inseparable, we explore them simultaneously and display them in Fig. 2, as rendered by different types of knowledge holders (see Table 2 for description of actors’ knowledge).

Table 2 Description of actors’ knowledge related to the system level of materials and processes, present in CDC knowledge system in relation to the Western Province in Zambia
Full size table

The top part of Fig. 2 explains how the knowledge material of CDC actors is created. As such, it is shaped by constant interaction between the knowledge of local context and expert knowledge and experiences existing within a particular CDC organisation. Furthermore, the knowledge of CDC actors is underlined by knowledge of international development cooperation actors, knowledge of universities and research institutes, and knowledge of global agencies. These three types of actors’ knowledge are influential to knowledge of CDC actors in respect to inspiration on what types of approaches and methods are suitable for specific development projects as well as to acquiring specific baseline data. Additionally, there is also knowledge of other CDC actors, that is often transmitted to knowledge of CDC actors through mostly informal networking and sharing of lessons learnt through implementation of various development projects. Moreover, the knowledge of CDC actors is in complex interaction with actors’ knowledge in Zambia, especially knowledge of extension officers and knowledge of NGOs based in Western province. Both are informing knowledge of CDC actors about local context and conditions. Simultaneously, they are also exposed to new approaches and innovations brought in by development interventions carried out by CDC actors.

However, the knowledge of extension officers and knowledge of NGOs based in Western province do not exist in exclusive interaction with knowledge of CDC actors. Instead, both are in close relationship with each other and both of them are informed by the knowledge of government bodies (e.g., ministry of agriculture) and vice versa. Finally, there is also knowledge of Zambian universities and research institutes, that directly and indirectly feeds into other actors’ knowledge in Zambia. First, it creates a base for knowledge of government bodies and at the same time is driven by their demand. Second, it is also interacting with knowledge of extension officers, especially in terms of trainings and additional education, and with knowledge of NGOs based in Western province by informing it on various data and evidence generated. In some specific and rare cases, it also contributes to the knowledge of CDC actors.

Finally, the bottom part of Fig. 2 describes the knowledge of CDC project participants. It comprises two types of actors’ knowledge: knowledge of lead farmers/volunteers and knowledge existing in target communities. These two are in assumed interaction, i.e. interaction that is expected on the side of CDC actors. However, this interaction is constrained by various issues stemming from a specific position of lead farmers/volunteers in their communities, where they are sometimes perceived as people with special treatment and as someone who is too hard to trust. Therefore, the reliance of CDC actors on the lead farmers/volunteers might bring new power relations within communities and as such inhibit the expected knowledge transfer. Moreover, the knowledge of CDC project participants is underpinned by knowledge of traditional leaders that is safeguarding the traditional knowledge existing within the communities. However, from the perspective of CDC actors, such knowledge is often perceived as backwards hence understood as a potential disabler for new innovations brought to the communities under the development projects.

Although the interaction between the knowledge of CDC actors and knowledge of CDC project participants is predominantly single directional through implementation of development projects, there is also a flow of knowledge that goes the opposite direction. Firstly, the knowledge of CDC actors is being formed by various assessments carried out in target communities that are incremental, especially for knowledge of local context. Secondly, the processes related to monitoring and evaluation should represent a structured way for getting feedback from the target communities and for providing insights into the functionality of the development projects. Both, the assessments and monitoring and evaluation are one of the key formative forces of the knowledge of CDC actors. However, these two processes are often of technocratic character and bring in only limited feedbacks from the target communities that would reflect more profoundly on how the projects impact them and their knowledge. Importantly, there is also a process of observing and learning that happens to a limited extent across knowledge of CDC project participants, knowledge of CDC actors but also knowledge of extension officers and knowledge of NGOs based in Western province of Zambia. To this end, it is apparent that although the design of CDC knowledge claims the importance of presence of knowledge of CDC project participants, it is mostly of demonstrative character. Hence, this situation does not necessarily ensure that this type of actors’ knowledge is considered when planning development projects.

Overlooked system properties of the CDC knowledge system and interventions to act upon them

Overlooked system properties related to the paradigms of the CDC knowledge system and associated interventions to tackle them

The overlooked system properties at the level of paradigms are manifested through values, rules and norms shaping the behaviour of the individuals as well as the whole community. For instance, the narrative of community (pertaining the nostalgy over the life in community despite the gradual individualization of the society that translates to various tensions between generations, traditional and modern) and shifts in inner power relations through specific position of lead farmers/volunteers (who are perceived by the majority of community as those who are protégés of NGOs) implicitly determine who are the knowledge brokers and how are they accepted by their communities. Furthermore, the overlooked system properties of historical burden (emerging from colonial and post-colonial era), mistrust towards people from outside of the community and changes that are being carried with them, and diverse taboos all together translate into the degree of conformism that influences people's willingness to adopt new practices into their daily life. Simply saying, the overlooked system properties at the level of paradigms are underpinning what elements (if any) of knowledge-based development projects proliferate from CDC actors to target communities and who are the actors pivotal to knowledge flows. At the same time, however, these overlooked system properties are critical in terms of what kind of knowledge people in communities share with CDC actors. For example, some of the taboos might simply prevent people in communities to share their insights and thoughts with CDC actors. Therefore, (not) engaging with these overlooked system properties is tightly related to whether sustainable livelihoods, the genuine paradigms of the CDC knowledge system, can be fulfilled or not.

The interventions related to paradigms are expected to tackle the overlooked system properties of historical burden, taboos, mistrust, and conformism. The research participants identified two possible interventions. First, there is an urge for active engagement with traditional leaders. Every development project in Western province of Zambia requires an approval from the respective traditional leader. Although this is an important gatekeeping act providing the legitimacy of a given project, it is not sufficient for tackling the above-mentioned overlooked system properties. Therefore, there is a necessity of active engagement of traditional leaders throughout the development project, especially in terms of knowledge brokerage to both the communities under their custody and the CDC actors, hence breaking down the mistrust, taboos and conformism. Second, a powerful intervention for breaking the wheel of conformism can be found in narratives of success. According to the research participants, if target communities are witnessing the effects of development practices translated into success and significant changes of their peers’ life, it often encourages them to adopt and perform new practices and approaches. Yet, in order to tackle taboos and mistrust, the narratives of success must be rooted in the familiar environment in order to be relatable and not too far from the abilities and capabilities of the target communities.

Overlooked system properties related to the design of the CDC knowledge system and associated interventions to tackle them

The overlooked system properties at the level of design can be understood as challenges related to concepts and approaches to development, respectively to their practical elements, that were introduced by CDC actors. They are also a limiting aspect of the acknowledgement of knowledge of CDC project participants within the CDC knowledge system. For instance, limitations of monitoring and evaluation (in terms of quantity and quality) restrain the space for communities to formally share their experience with the new approaches, to critically comment on the outcomes of the specific projects and to provide insights into how it relates to knowledge and current livelihood strategies of CDC project participants. Similarly, overlooked system properties of limited resources for extension and lack of extension officers, that are linked to governance structures in Western Province of Zambia, have a double impact on the CDC knowledge system. First, these two overlooked properties hinder the dissemination of some of the approaches introduced by CDC actors to communities. Second, they limit the flow of context-specific knowledge from communities to CDC actors and governmental bodies, especially in terms of non-structured and informal day-to-day feedback. Moreover, there are interconnected, overlooked system properties of limited resources for training, passive learning and impossibility of active participation that are directly linked to the means of knowledge transfer from CDC actors to target communities. As such, these overlooked system properties often disable hands-on learning which is essential for the adoption of new practices. Furthermore, all of the overlooked system properties limit the opportunities for target communities to share their own experiences with different (often Indigenous) practices during the trainings, hence potentially contributing to diminishing of the knowledge of CDC project participants. All of the previously mentioned overlooked system properties are strengthened if remote communities are not targeted. This brings another danger of privileging knowledge of easily accessible communities over the knowledge of remote communities, which might be significantly different, and which might be more influenced by the overlooked system properties at paradigms level, such as taboos and mistrust. On top of that, there is danger of development burden, i.e. excessive pressure on communities caused by the presence of multiple actors, who are constantly piling up new practices and approaches for livelihood enhancement. As such, development burden inherently stems from all above-mentioned overlooked system properties. This is often happening without proper explanations and respect for the knowledge already existing in the communities, resulting in possibly contradicting outcomes.

The interventions related to design can be understood as entry points tackling the existing overlooked system properties and resulting challenges. For instance, sensitization (i.e., explaining profoundly the purpose and effect of newly introduced practices) together with empowerment can be understood as vital impulses to embrace new practices in target communities, especially if the overlooked system properties of limited resources for training, passive learning, and impossibility of active participation are strongly present. The research participants suggest that these two interventions strengthen people’s motivation and allow them to make informed decisions about the adoption of new practices and their application in day-to-day activities. Moreover, sensitization and empowerment can also encourage members of target communities to voice out their own knowledge, experience, concerns and needs in respect to a specific development project.

In addition, the overlooked system properties related to restrained flows and exchange between knowledge of CDC project participants and knowledge of CDC actors can be tackled by enhancement of the so-called action-reflection-reaction cycle, a structured reflexive practice of CDC actors based on constant re-consideration and re-exploration of the development project context. This kind of intervention goes beyond the widely used monitoring and evaluation, as it is based on a principle of mutual learning and a more equal approach using continuous feedback from and open discussions with target communities. Therefore, it allows a more profound understanding of the processes within the communities and their livelihood strategies. This intervention can be strengthened through continuous presence of extension officers in communities, who might be great intermediaries between communities and CDC actors. It can also provide improved space for sharing experience and knowledge of CDC project participants also with the governmental bodies. All these interventions are essential for preventing the development burden in the targeted communities.

Discussion: enhancing the CDC knowledge system towards knowledge cross-fertilisation

Towards knowledge-based interventions for international development cooperation

The CDC knowledge system is driven predominantly by the global development agenda that is tied to the UN SDGs. In this respect, the targets set under the UN SDGs are determining the national development policy that materializes through the specific demand, requirements and rules for development projects (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic 2017). Therefore, the knowledge-related processes within Czech development cooperation are principally dependent on the preferred development practices promoted and financially supported by the donors and related resources (time, people, know-how), that are expected to lead towards the fulfilment of UN SDGs. However, since there is only limited emphasis on participation and knowledge co-production in the SDGs themselves (Cummings et al. 2018), the CDC similarly as any other national-level development cooperation suffers from lack of robust and legitimate processes to co-produce knowledge by multiple actors. These processes would bring together existing knowledge in both the “donor” and “recipient” countries (Boucher and Roch 2017; Ojala and Hooli 2022) and allow for knowledge cross-fertilisation (Tengö et al. 2014). Therefore, there is an outstanding question of how to tackle this issue in terms of achieving long-term aims of the UN SDGs.

To this end, the analysis of the CDC knowledge system by using system thinking and leverage points (Abson et al. 2017; Meadows 1999) proved as a suitable approach to unravel what interventions are needed to tackle the overlooked system properties and on what level, thus shaping the system towards a higher level of knowledge cross-fertilisation. Moreover, the application of the analytical framework shows that focusing only on materials and processes, that oftentimes seems to be a straightforward strategy for intervening in the system (ibid.), has two major pitfalls for the CDC knowledge system. Firstly, materials and processes are case and context specific, yet many of the interventions are often not reflecting on the contextuality. Secondly, the materials and processes are practical manifestations of the paradigms and design, hence the interventions might have only temporal and limited effect because the deeper underpinning layers of the CDC knowledge system were not intervened in nor challenged. For instance, many development practitioners would naturally indicate that the major obstacle for robust knowledge co-production lies in the lack of resources resulting in restrained possibility to engage in long-term and high-quality knowledge exchange across a range of knowledge holders. Indeed, increased levels of resources allocated to implementation of development projects would allow for improved flows among different types of actors’ knowledge. Yet, the final effect might be only limited if the overlooked system properties at the level of design and paradigms, such as mistrust in communities and passive learning, are not addressed. Addressing such overlooked system properties requires a greater rethinking of what counts as knowledge, for what purpose, and therefore whose knowledge counts. Therefore, there are other, more complex interventions that are essential for shifting the system that engage with multiple system properties, as we discuss in sections “Proposed interventions at the level of paradigms” and “Proposed interventions at the level of design”.

Proposed interventions at the level of paradigms

Deep understanding of the social-ecological processes in target communities. Projects of development cooperation are embedded in complex social-ecological systems (Whitfield 2015), therefore it is essential to understand what dynamics and interactions across society and nature influence their implementation and outcomes and vice versa. Thus, development projects should be planned and implemented in alignment with collaborative social-ecological system mapping (Vincent 2022), allowing the unpacking of their diverse underpinning drivers but also their understanding across actors. For instance, social-ecological system mapping with a range of actors might help to better understand how the overlooked system properties (such as taboos, conformism, and inner power relations) are being formed, hence it opens up opportunity for co-production of possible interventions on tackling them.

Collaborative mapping of a knowledge system’s paradigms. The broad paradigms that are underpinning the social-ecological system are also comprising the paradigms that are internal to the development cooperation knowledge system. Therefore, it is essential to unravel how the paradigms, such as taboos, are being produced, reproduced, and reinforced. To do so, it is essential to bring together and engage multiple actors (such as citizens, experts, policymakers and/or researchers) who are the holders of a complex mix of knowledge entities (scientific, local, traditional). The knowledge entities are not static nor isolated in the system, they prove to be rather dynamically evolving and constantly interacting with each other, often without explicit recognition. Therefore, it should not be expected that the actors participating in collaborative mapping are exclusive representatives of specific and homogenous knowledge entities. On top of recognizing and valuing the diverse knowledge and actors holding them, the collaborative mapping of the knowledge system’s paradigms must be set in a safe and just environment. This is essential for opening up opportunities to establish new ways of communication that allow for exchange. Simultaneously, it is crucial to consider that all knowledge and its holders are not free from bias and interests. Simply mapping knowledge without further reflection may reinforce existing power structures, create imbalances, and perpetuate overlooked system properties (Chambers 2014). For this reason, it is also crucial to engage not only the “usual suspects”, that might carry or gradually evolve their own vested interest (e.g., lead farmers) but also those who are for any reason usually not involved in such processes to increase the diversity. To this end, significant and long-term change in the system might be achieved only provided the collaborative disentanglement of system paradigms and related specific properties. In such a way, the respect for the knowledge, values and rules of diverse actors (Goddard et al. 2016) will be ensured.

Proposed interventions at the level of design

Co-creation of a conducive environment for project participants’ agency. Although there is a longstanding tradition of participatory approaches to the planning and implementation of development projects (Chambers 1994), the sole invitation of the project’s participants and hearing out their ideas is usually not sufficient (Leventon et al. 2022; Rahnema 1990). Instead, the implementation of development projects should foster co-creation of a conducive and empowering environment in order to allow project participants to pursue their own agency, a vital precondition for the translation of knowledge into practice and actions (Tàbara and Chabay 2013). This might be done through avoiding of extractive practices, such as inviting participants to focus group discussions to generate information flow in one direction. Instead, substantive emphasis should be placed on expectations management, building of trust amongst the involved actors, and on clarification of their roles.

Aligning development approaches through interaction across different actors. The development projects do not exist in isolation and are not based on one particular knowledge-based intervention promoting a specific development approach. Instead, they are in direct interaction with other interventions carried out by other actors active in the area (Hermans et al. 2023). Although some of these interventions are implemented in the very same area, they often bring different innovations that might be even contradictory to each other. Therefore, it is crucial to collaboratively rethink what interventions are implemented and where, and what might be the aftermath of the coexistence of the multiple interventions in one community. This might be done through revising the potential for complementarity across actors and collaborative re-assessment of the designs and strategies to prevent the contradictions among them, thus avoiding the confusion and/or the overburdening of communities by constantly bringing new knowledge and approaches.

Rethinking how the resources are being used. The re-assessment of the roles and responsibilities together with new ways of knowledge co-production among development cooperation actors (as discussed above) creates an entry point for rethinking how the available resources are being used and if there are any options of how to use them more in a collaborative way. An example might be a situation when more actors are preparing training on a new agriculture practice. Instead of doing so independently, they might join their efforts and to do such training less resource intensively in all: time, people, and money.

Figure 3 summarizes the key interventions related to paradigms and design of the CDC knowledge system. It is important to emphasize that interventions at the level of paradigms are underpinning and supporting those at the level of design and preventing them from producing rather weaker effects. We also stress that interventions cannot be considered in isolation; it is unlikely that a single intervention implemented by one specific actor (such as CDC actor) will create all desired changes. Rather, multiple interventions carried out in collaboration across actors will work to target multiple overlooked systems properties.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Summary of interventions related to paradigms and design of CDC knowledge system. Interventions in bold captions are proposed by the research participants and are elaborated in Sect. "Overlooked system properties of the CDC knowledge system and interventions to act upon them". Interventions in light captions were elaborated by the authors and are presented in Sects. "Proposed interventions at the level of paradigms" and "Proposed interventions at the level of design"

Full size image

Conclusion

In this paper, we reflect on the knowledge system of international development cooperation, exemplified by the Czech development cooperation, by using a sustainability science perspective and system theory as an analytical tool. Unpacking the different layers of the system properties allowed us to identify properties that are often overlooked by the system’s actors and hence might be inhibiting the knowledge flows within the system. Moreover, we identify and propose interventions for tackling the overlooked system properties at the level of paradigms and design.

Our paper goes beyond the post-development and decolonial debate on knowledge in development (cooperation) by exploring the interaction of diverse knowledge(s) in the complexity of a knowledge system. To this end, we invite researchers interested in critical examination of knowledge in development (cooperation) to apply our novel approach to other outstanding questions that were outside the scope of this paper. For instance, how the paradigms and design shape power relations within the knowledge system and how do these translate into the system’s materials and processes.

Finally, although the paper is based on a case study of the knowledge system of the Czech development cooperation, the theoretical and analytical framework for proposing interventions on the level of paradigms and design is applicable to development cooperation elsewhere and it might be applicable to other UN SDGs related agenda and tools. In fact, the outcomes of the paper might be used by practitioners, agenda-setters, and other influential actors in other fields with high levels of knowledge-related interaction across a range of actors from different cultural and geographical backgrounds, such as environmental and sustainability governance. Yet the proposed interventions should not be understood as a panacea and must be considered with care and provided with internal checks and balances for navigating the specific system towards knowledge cross-fertilisation.