Conceptual framework

Abstract

The chapter introduces the main concepts of our research. Firstly, we expand on the concept of knowledge and argue why it is important to focus on the relationship between knowledge and power structures. Secondly, we explain how power structures manifest in knowledge interactions and how we operationalise this theoretical concept to conduct our empirical research. Thirdly, we introduce the concept of modalities of knowledge interaction and present our typology of modalities of knowledge interaction.

The following chapter introduces the main concepts of our research on cooperation modalities of knowledge interaction. Firstly, we expand on the concept of knowledge and argue why it is important to focus on the relationship between knowledge and power structures when looking at knowledge in development cooperation. Secondly, we explain how power structures manifest in knowledge interactions and how we operationalise this theoretical concept to conduct our empirical research in practice. Thirdly, we introduce the concept of modalities of knowledge interaction and present our typology of modalities of knowledge interaction.

2.1 Knowledge and Power

We see the importance of knowledge in all aspects of daily life: children attend school, people absorb information on gardening or sport exercises from YouTube, and governments look to Silicon Valley when they want to foster a supportive environment for start-ups. Yet, it is impossible to concisely and conclusively define what the term knowledge actually encompasses (Evers et al., 2010).

We argue that looking at knowledge from a perspective of power relations, especially in the sphere of development cooperation, helps to better understand what knowledge is, how knowledge interactions between people take place and how they influence people’s lives. As Chakrabarti and Chaturvedi (2021) note, the existence of “development disparities” can be explained by variations in different types of resource, such as economic resources—amongst which they count knowledge—and the power to negotiate access to them. Accordingly, development cooperation is crucially premised on access to resources and capability (Andrews et al., 2017; Chakrabarti & Chaturvedi, 2021; De Francesco, 2021). Therefore, it is important to understand knowledge as well as knowledge interactions in development cooperation, and the solutions and capability improvements they are meant to bring about in the context of the asymmetrical power relations shaping them.

First of all, knowledge exhibits a pluralistic nature, in which different conceptual understandings evolve over time, co-exist and influence each other (Dolowitz, 2021; Jensen, 2000). Even today, we find the Aristotelian categorisation of knowledge into “experience (empeiria), craft (technê), and theory (epistêmê)” (as cited by Tenkasi & Hay, 2008, p. 52) and the underlying distinction into “a priori” and “a posteriori” knowledge—strongly shaped by Plato’s writings on the topic—lying beneath many pseudo-universal definitions and claims about knowledge. When looking at different notions of knowledge globally, it becomes evident how diverse concepts of knowledge evolved at different times and places, and shaped societal development in very distinct ways.

From a historical point of view, different ideas of knowledge do not prevail over and influence humankind in an equal manner (Acharya, 2010). Due to shifting power relations and historical events, some schools of thought have taken a more dominant role than others (Van Assche et al., 2020, p. 25). Most notable is the Eurocentric discourse on knowledge, which has had consequences that reach far beyond Europe’s philosophical landscape. Postcolonial scholars highlight that Eurocentric knowledge production has been hegemonic and influential on colonial aspirations (cf. Hostettler, 2014; Lavallée, 2022). The claim to possess universal knowledge and truth and therefore the right to rule the world and “educate” the Global South underpinned the imperialist ethos of the Global North for centuries (cf. Simpson, 2007) and ultimately led to a “suppression of knowledge” (de Sousa Santos et al., 2007, p. xix) that deviated from European conceptions.

In present times, recognition of a diversity of approaches to knowledge is increasing. This is particularly evidenced by the currently widespread conceptual distinction between “global” and “local” forms of knowledge. On the one hand, “global knowledge” describes a universal and generally applicable type of knowledge that is used to solve problems across many different contexts (Ching, 1998, p. 25). “Local knowledge”, on the other hand, is regarded as beliefs and everyday practices of place-bound communities (Radhakrishnan, 2007). This kind of knowledge is based on personal experiences, resides within the population directly involved in the matter, and is often not expressed formally (Nygren, 1999). It is the authors’ view that only by a combination of “global” and “local” knowledge can development issues be tackled successfully (Kuramoto & Sagasti, 2002).

However, this local–global distinction has also received criticism for reinforcing a (post)colonial dichotomy and unequal power relations. Although it acknowledges diversified views on knowledge and ascribes more importance to them, it yet again creates division and hierarchy by differentiating between knowledge that is only valid in a specific context, i.e. local knowledge attributed to contexts in the Global South, and knowledge that is general and universally true, i.e. global knowledge, which is de facto closely connected to discourses mainly originating from actors in the Global North (Semali & Kincheloe, 1999, p. XV). This is why we emphasise such conceptual drawbacks as well as acknowledging that “global” and “local” knowledge do not exist as such, but that knowledge dynamics are entangled globally.

A wider and more open conceptualisation of knowledge is necessary—one that encompasses the pluralism and diversity of knowledges underlying the practices of different social groups across the globe (de Sousa Santos et al., 2007).

In search of more adequate perspectives on knowledge, we identified three conceptualisations in the literature that proved especially helpful to approach our research subject:

• 1. A sociological working definition that regards knowledge as “[a]nything that helps to understand the world and ourselves in it, anything that gives insight and the insight itself” (Van Assche et al., 2020, p. 22). This rather broad definition underlines the importance of looking at knowledge in its multidimensionality and openness.

• 2. The common differentiation between “tacit knowledge” and “explicit knowledge”. Within this perception, tacit knowledge describes knowledge that exists but that cannot be made explicit through articulation—“the fact that we can know more than we can tell” (Polanyi & Sen, 2009, p. 4). Hereby, the knowledge process occurs through experience, interaction and careful observation with one another (Shimomura & Ping, 2018; Yanguas, 2021). In certain cases, however, tacit knowledge can evolve into explicit knowledge. This form of knowledge is conscious and can be represented (Mingers, 2015) and symbolised (Collins, 1993, p. 116). Further, it is codified and transmitted systematically (cf. Shimomura & Ping, 2018), for example through artefacts like books or databases (cf. Mödritscher et al., 2007). Thus, explicit knowledge can also be explicitly communicated.

• 3. Collins’ conceptualisation of knowledge, which differs from the processual tacit/explicit understanding and the idea of tacit knowledge potentially evolving into explicit knowledge. He differentiates between four layers of knowledge that are related but rather overlapping instead of evolving from one into the other:

  • symbol-type knowledge that can be transferred through passing, signal-like symbols (Collins, 1993, p. 97);

  • embodied knowledge that is “contained in the body”, such as embrained knowledge that has to do with cognitive abilities and the physical set-up of the brain (Collins, 1993, p. 97); and

  • encultured knowledge—the dimension of socially embedded knowledge that is closely linked to the discourse on local and global knowledge that was previously introduced.

Taking all this into account, we perceive “the value of knowledge [as] ‘entangled’ in the specific context in which that knowledge is being simultaneously enacted and produced” (Eklinder-Frick, 2016, p. 235). These different knowledge conceptualisations guide us when taking into consideration the close link between power and knowledge (production), which several authors describe (cf. e.g. Brunner, 2016; Foucault, 1978). Thus, in our research process we take an in-depth look at the intersubjective component of knowledge that manifests in interaction processes (e.g. Keller, 2011; Wilkesmann & Wilkesmann, 2011) between individuals, groups, societies and organisations. What constitutes interaction processes and how they can be analysed is what we intend to explain in the following section.

2.2 Knowledge Interactions

Within the context of development cooperation, knowledge interactions shape many forms of cooperation. Technical cooperation, technical assistance, capacity building and capacity development have been dominant terms for activities related to knowledge interactions in the context of ODA from the very beginning. Typically, there is a distinction between free-standing capacity-development activities (for example, addressing reform needs of a public institution in a developing country) and capacity development activities attached to financial cooperation engagements (e.g. road construction with a component to strengthen the road authority in a country) (Klingebiel, 2014).

For us, knowledge interactions describe interaction processes in which knowledge is shaped and communicated. This includes the act of sending, absorbing, processing (Ipe, 2003) but also (co-)creating knowledge. Besides a theoretical focus on individuals as actors (Jensen, 2005; Nooshinfard & Nemati-Anaraki, 2014; Verburg & Andriessen, 2011), it is important to take into account the role of and consequences for their wider setting. Through the engagement of members of organisations and other (societal) groups in knowledge interaction processes, these bigger units can be engaged in similar interactions.

Knowledge interactions can take different characteristics. In general terms, we make a distinction between knowledge interactions as a transfer process and as an exchange (Martinéz & Müller, 2017). Here, we see both extreme forms as hypothetical pure types on the opposing ends on a theoretical scale (see Fig. 2.1).

Fig. 2.1

(Source Authors’ own figure)

Knowledge interaction model

In the case of knowledge interactions as a transfer process, the interaction process itself is characterised by uni-directionality. This hypothetical pure type describes a hierarchical transfer process of knowledge from “knowledge sender(s)” to “knowledge receiver(s)”, which can have significant implications for power structures. The knowledge sender actively determines the content of the transferred knowledge, while the knowledge receiver is more passive in the shaping of the interaction and internalises the knowledge of the “sender” (Martinéz & Müller, 2017).

In the context of international cooperation, knowledge transfer has been criticised for its uni-dimensional approach, especially in the context of traditional OECD development cooperation that often focused on knowledge transfer from “donor” countries to “recipient” countries (e.g. Keijzer, 2020, p. 5). In certain situations, however, knowledge transfer is an advantage. Let’s take an exemplary country A that struggles with prioritising gender as a cross-cutting issue to promote equality. In order to tackle the issue, it can be of great help for country A to interact with country B, which faced similar challenges in promoting gender equality and now transfers its experiences and solutions to country A.

In the case of knowledge interactions as an exchange, the interaction process is bi- or multidirectional. Knowledge is exchanged mutually and internalised. An example is a forum of international cooperation experts, in which each representative shares their experiences regarding a certain topic. In the theoretical ideal of knowledge exchange, the approach is based on equality, with ownership and possibilities of participation distributed evenly among all actors involved (Martinéz & Müller, 2017), pp. 21–23).

As additional forms of knowledge interactions, literature commonly introduces knowledge sharing. Nevertheless, this concept lacks concision and is “constantly evolving” (Ayala Martínez, 2017, p. 19; Paulin & Suneson, 2012, pp. 82–83). It is used as synonym for knowledge transfer as much as for knowledge exchange (Paulin & Suneson, 2012, pp. 82–83). To apply this to our previous example, the presentation of solutions regarding gender-equality by country B both fall under the category of knowledge sharing—and we lose the opportunity to systematically observe differences between both interactions. For the sake of clear and nuanced analysis, we therefore refrain from the inclusion of knowledge sharing as a separate manifestation of knowledge interaction. Instead, we exclusively concentrate on the exchange and the transfer models—fully aware that reality (almost) never corresponds to the absolute poles of this theoretical conceptualisation but lies somewhere in between.

At the same time, knowledge interactions can be conceptualised in a more fluid manner. Rather than framing knowledge as a separate entity that can be transferred or exchanged (almost like a solid good), this conceptualisation focuses on a co-creative process, in which knowledge is formed iteratively and collaboratively between a diverse configuration of actors and expertise (Norström et al., 2020, p. 183). Practically, this means that knowledge creation is not the sum of knowledge of a given actor x plus the knowledge of an actor y, but that both actors create new forms of knowledge through the interaction with each other. This process equals a chain of knowledge creation in which the eventual creation of knowledge also depends on the pre-existing knowledge base of the involved actors. The combination of prior knowledge and the newly created knowledge in turn serves as a “new knowledge base” for subsequent knowledge creation (Shimomura & Ping, 2018, pp. 31–34). Further, the effects of knowledge co-creation and chain reactions of such processes may also go beyond knowledge itself by having lasting effects on the development of inter-personal relations, social capital, economic activities and policy making (Norström et al., 2020).

In development cooperation, these chains of knowledge co-creation can take various forms. While Shimomura and Ping (2018) analyse chains of knowledge creation in “donor-recipient interfaces”, they can also occur in other cooperation modes—be it “donors” and “recipients” or actors beyond this dichotomy, e.g. in triangular development or multi-stakeholder partnerships (Ayala Martínez, 2017).

Contributing to overcoming “traditional” dichotomies in knowledge interactions, Southern actors often claim to play an exceptional role, as they carry context-specific knowledge most traditional donors are lacking. Thus, SSC providers often reflect a diversity of knowledge(s) that they have acquired both as “recipient” and “donor” of development cooperation and in roles in-between or beyond that (Shimomura & Ping, 2018). However, the horizontal encounter of stakeholders and their knowledge is an idealised image. Due to power imbalances in development cooperation, knowledge (co-)creation is dominantly shaped by traditional donors/DAC countries, who often transfer alleged “global” knowledge. Co-creation on more equal terms, however, can be institutionalised in knowledge partnerships. Such knowledge partnerships can be regarded as “associations and networks of individuals or organizations that share a purpose or goal and whose members contribute knowledge, experience, resources, and connections, and participate in two-way communications” (ADB, 2011, p. ix). The various forms knowledge interactions can take is what we call “modalities of knowledge interaction”.

2.3 Modalities of Knowledge Interaction

In this section we elaborate on the diverse use of the term modalities by different actors and literature around development cooperation. We clarify how we conceptualise modalities of knowledge interaction. Our concept of modalities and our typology of modalities, which we introduce in this chapter, have evolved and informed each other simultaneously.

2.3.1 Definition and Conceptualisation of Modalities

For us, modalities of knowledge interactions are the forms of cooperation between partners in which knowledge plays the central role, consisting of the meta-modality, modality function, format and activity. Our operationalisation of the term is informed by literature on the multitude of existing interpretations of modalities.

In literature, the term modality is used to refer to any possible tool of the toolbox used in development cooperation. Common examples of modalities in the literature are the different forms of financial cooperation, such as budget support, sector programme support, project support or technical assistance in general (Bandstein, 2007; ECLAC and OECD, 2018). Also, South–South and triangular cooperation (TrC) are referred to as modalities of development cooperation (de Renzio & Seifert, 2014; Prantz & Zhang, 2021; Ramos-Rollón, 2021). Along the same lines, individual scholars outline the interchangeable use of “modalities” with “approaches”, “tools”, “procedures” and “mechanisms” (Lim, 2019), or explain modalities as “how development assistance is agreed between provider and recipient, delivered, monitored and evaluated” (Abdel-Malek, 2015, p. 34). International platforms such as the OECD understand modalities as “approaches to delivering development assistance or to channelling donor support to the activities to be funded” (Lim, 2019) or, more broadly, as “a way of delivering ODA”, as described in a blog post of the World Bank (Tavakoli, 2013).

The compilation of the many different uses of the term brings issues to the forefront: modalities have been used as a term that can describe any form of cooperation; the use of the term is commonly not supported by a conceptual background.

To capture the meaning of the diffuse term “modalities” and to operationalise it for our research, we have come up with a concept of modalities (Fig. 2.2) that breaks down the many nuances and the complexity of this term. The starting point of the development of our concept was a literature review. This conceptual base was then complemented by our empirical evidence and drafted in an iterative approach.

Fig. 2.2

(Source Authors’ own figure)

Components of modalities of knowledge interaction

In our understanding, a modality of knowledge interaction is a multi-layered combination of different aspects that make each modality unique. To reduce the complexity, we break down a modality into four different layers that in sum constitute a complete modality:

• (i) Meta-modality—This describes whether the cooperation is situated in the context of knowledge, financial, or technical cooperation.

• (ii) Modality function—This offers insight into the overall purpose and objective that is to be achieved by the modality concerned, such as policy advisory, capacity development or discourse shaping.

• (iii) Modality format—This describes concrete approaches and strategies utilised in order to achieve one or more modality functions. It refers to events or programmes, such as a lecture series, e-learning platforms, multi stakeholder dialogues, that are directed at fulfilling modality functions.

• (iv) Modality activity—This is the lowest level element of modality. Modality activity refers to knowledge interaction processes that combine to form a modality format. This may, for instance, include the activity of meeting and interacting with other actors, such as in workshops, trainings, webinars and discussions.

Since we are solely concerned with modalities of knowledge interaction, the meta-modality for the empirical case selection is set. In this book, we consider modalities that are rooted in the meta modality knowledge cooperation.

2.3.2 A Typology of Modalities of Knowledge interaction

Based on our conceptual definition of modalities presented above and our empirical findings (see Chapters 5 and 6) we developed a typology (Fig. 2.3). This typology combines the modality functions, formats and activities that we have identified in our analysis according to our concept of modalities. Beyond the initial modality concept itself, context modalities were also included as a new layer in the typology to highlight that modalities can happen in the scope of SSC, ODA or triangular or trilateral cooperation.

Fig. 2.3

Typology of modalities of knowledge interactions