A Space for Unlearning? A Relational Perspective on North–South Development Research

Abstract

The politics of knowledge is a foundational issue in development research. This includes questioning the processes through which knowledge is produced and the terms of the ‘partnerships’ or ‘collaborations’ involved. Such analyses tend to emphasise structural difference and can reproduce all too familiar tropes of dominating global North and deficit global South. This paper takes instead a relational perspective to investigate how such notions are generated, sustained and may be contested through interactions between people, and between people and their contexts. For data, the paper draws on experiences and observations related in a 2018–2019 workshop series on international collaborations in development research. It argues the need to go beyond a focus on ‘mentoring’ or ‘capacity building’ to explore the interactive generation of researcher selves; temper commitments to generalisability with recognition of the inherent value of the particular; and pay more attention to the unintended outcomes of research, and especially its production of waste.

Résumé

Les politiques du savoir constituent une base fondamentale de la recherche pour le développement. Cela implique de remettre en question les processus de production du savoir, ainsi que les termes des « partenariats » ou des « collaborations » qui sont impliqués. De telles analyses ont tendance à mettre l’accent sur les différences structurelles et peuvent reproduire tous les tropes bien connus d’un Nord dominant et d’un Sud déficitaire. Cet article adopte plutôt une perspective relationnelle pour étudier la façon dont ces notions sont produites, soutenues et peuvent être contestées par des interactions entre les personnes, et entre les personnes et leurs contextes. En ce qui concerne les données, l’article s’appuie sur les expériences et les observations liées à une série d’ateliers réalisés en 2018-19 sur les collaborations internationales dans la recherche sur le développement. Il fait valoir la nécessité: d’aller au-delà de l’accent mis sur le « mentorat » ou le « renforcement des capacités » pour explorer la création interactive du soi chercheur; de tempérer les engagements de généralisabilité en reconnaissant la valeur intrinsèque du particulier; et d’accorder plus d’attention aux résultats inattendus de la recherche, et en particulier à sa production de déchets.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    The series was co-sponsored by the UK Development Studies Association and the Economic and Social Research Council/Global Challenges Research Fund.

  2. 2.

    The focus of the workshops were: Zoonoses and One Health (Institute of Development Studies, Sussex); Ethical research in contexts of post-conflict and displacement (Universities of Reading and Bath); Frontiers in urban infrastructure research and action (Universities of Manchester and Sheffield); Responding to environmental change (University of East Anglia and John Innes Centre); Educational Inequality, Poverty and Development (University of Bristol); Water and Sustainable Development (University of Bradford); Towards More Equitable Interdisciplinary Partnership (SOAS, University of London). For separate workshop reports and other resources see: https://www.devstud.org.uk/interdisciplinary-research/.

  3. 3.

    Different colleagues in each case.

  4. 4.

    I do not mean by this to suggest that gender has some reality beyond the social world, simply that its association with bodily difference means that it is widely accepted as a social (and for many natural) fact.

  5. 5.

    The fear among southern partners of being judged for late delivery of project outputs, mentioned by both Kontinen and Nguyahambi (2020) and Grieve and Mitchell (2020), seems to me an example of this.

  6. 6.

    This resonates uncomfortably with Mudimbe’s (1988) description of colonialism, as involving the ideological destruction of vernacular ways of seeing/thinking and the integration of colonised economy and history into Western economy and master narrative.

  7. 7.

    For more information on this see Chege (2019).

  8. 8.

    Public comment at the EADI workshop, Vienna, October 2018. Henning Melber was President of EADI, The European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes, at the time.

References

  1. Baud, I.S.A. 2002. North-South partnerships in development research: An institutional approach. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development 1 (3): 153–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Binka, F. 2005. Editorial: North-South research collaborations: A move towards a true partnership? Tropical Medicine and International Health 10 (3): 207–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Burkitt, I. 2016. Relational agency: Relational sociology, agency and interaction. European Journal of Social Theory 19 (3): 322–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Carbonnier, G., and T. Kontinen. 2014. North-south research parnership: Academia Meets Development? EADI Policy Paper Series. https://www.eadi.org/typo3/fileadmin/Documents/Publications/EADI_Policy_Paper/EADI_policy_paper_Carbonnier_Kontinen_FINAL.pdf.

  5. Chege, F. 2019. ‘Not just giving your package and walking away’ video at https://www.devstud.org.uk/interdisciplinary-research/bristol.shtml. Accessed 27 April 2020.

  6. Collini, S. 2012. What are universities for?. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Craib, I. 1994. The importance of disappointment. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cronin-Furman, K., and M. Lake. 2018. Ethics abroad: Fieldwork in fragile and violent contexts. Political Science and Politics 51 (3): 607–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Crush, J. 1995. Power of development. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  10. DSA. 2019. Towards more equitable interdisciplinary development research: Five key messages. https://www.devstud.org.uk/downloads/workshopseries/Towards_More_Equitable_Interdisciplinary_Development_Research_Five_Key_Messages.pdf.

  11. Emirbayer, M. 1997. Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology 103 (2): 281–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Eriksen, T.H. 2015. ‘What’s wrong with the global north and the global south?’ Voices 012015. University of Köln. https://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/6399/1/voices012015_concepts_of_the_global_south.pdf. Accessed 27 Apr 2020.

  13. Escobar, A. 1995. Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the third world. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Feighery, L. 2013. Opinion: Academic waste. The Scientist, October 17 2013. https://www.the-scientist.com/opinion/opinion-academic-waste-38547.

  15. Ferguson, J. 1990. The anti-politics machine: ‘Development’, depoliticisation and bureaucratic power in Lesotho. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gordimer, N. 2003. ‘New Introduction’ pp 27–44 in Memmi’s the colonizer and the colonized.

  17. Grieve, T., and R. Mitchell. 2020. Promoting meaningful and equitable relationships? Exploring the UK’s Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) funding criteria from the perspectives of African partners. The European Journal of Development Research. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-020-00274-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gunasekara, V. 2020. (Un)packing Baggage: A reflection on the ‘battle over ideas’ and labour hierarchies in collaborative North-South research. The European Journal of Development Research. The European Journal of Development Research. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-020-00275-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Jamil, I., and S.K.T.M. Haque. 2016. Knowledge generation through joint research: What can North and South learn from each other? In North-South Knowledge Networks: Towards equitable collaboration between academics, donors and universities, ed. T Halvorsen and J Nossum, 239–254. Cape Town: African Minds; Bergen: UIB Global.

  20. KFPE. 2018. A guide for transboundary research partnerships 11 principles. 3rd edition. Swiss Commission for Research Partnerships with Developing Countries (KFPE), Swiss Academy of Sciences. https://naturalsciences.ch/service/publications/9505-a-guide-for-transboundary-research-partnerships-3rd-edition—2018.

  21. Kontinen, T., and A.M. Nguyahambi. 2020. Disrupting habits of North-South research collaboration: Learning in co-authoring. The European Journal of Development Research https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-020-00276-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kothari, U. (ed.). 2005. A radical history of development studies: Individuals, institutions and ideologies. London: Zed Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Memmi, A. 1957/2003. The colonizer and the colonized. London: Earthscan.

  24. Mitlin, D., J. Bennett, P. Horn, S., King, J., Makau, J., and G. M. Nyama. 2020. Knowledge matters: The potential contribution of the coproduction of research. The European Journal of Development Research. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-020-00277-w.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Moore, H. 2011. Still life. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Mudimbe, V.Y. 1998. The invention of Africa. Gnosis, philosophy, and the order of knowledge. London: James Currey.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Omi, M., and H. Winant. 1986. Racial formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s. New York: Routledge.

  28. Pailey, R.N. 2019. De-centring the ‘white gaze’ of development. Development and Change Online. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Rethinking Research Collaborative. 2018 onwards. https://rethinkingresearchcollaborative.com/.

  30. Said, E. 1978. Orientalism. Penguin Books.

  31. Sachs, W. (ed.). 1992. The development dictionary: A guide to knowledge as power. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Stoler, A.L. 1995. Race and the education of desire: Foucault’s history of sexuality and the colonial order of things. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  33. Tuhiwai Smith, L. 2012. Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous people. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  34. West, C., and S. Fenstermaker. 1995. Doing difference. Gender and Society 9 (1): 8–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. White, S.C. 2017. ‘Relational wellbeing: Re-centring the politics of happiness, policy and the self. Policy and Politics 45 (2): 121–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. White S.C., and Jha S. forthcoming. Moral navigation and child fostering in Chiawa, Zambia.

  37. Wood, G.D. (ed.). 1985. Labelling in development policy: Essays in honour of Bernard Schaffer. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah C. White.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Commentary Section draws on a 2018/9 Development Studies Association (DSA) Workshop Series and a DSA conference panel, 2019.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

White, S.C. A Space for Unlearning? A Relational Perspective on North–South Development Research. Eur J Dev Res 32, 483–502 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-020-00278-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • International development research
  • Partnerships
  • Collaboration
  • Relational social science