Gender and Practice

Knowledge, Policy, Organizations

Marcia Texler Segal, Kristy E. Kelly, Vasilikie (Vicky) Demos, Marcia Texler Segal, Kristy Kelly, Vasilikie Demos

• Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781838673895
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Gender Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

This book contains an Open Access Chapter
In 1995, the Fourth World Conference on Women: Action for Equality, Development and Peace affirmed the need to address gender inequalities and foster gender integration. Ever since, the field of gender professionals has been growing, yet the experiences, insights and data gathered have not been systematically examined and incorporated into an accessible body of knowledge.
Working to address this, expert contributors demonstrate the depth and breadth of gender and practice. Including examples from Brazil, Cameroon, Ecuador, Nigeria, Sao Tome and Principe, the USA, and Vietnam, as well as chapters that take a global perspective, the research here looks at issues and activities relating to infusing gender in knowledge management, training, and practice. Including subjects such as education, agricultural production, and tourism, this volume offers a variety of perspectives that will appeal to any researcher in gender.
Throughout the volume, expert practitioners situate their real-world experiences in the broader intersectional framework employed by their academic colleagues, offering policy makers, students, scholars, practitioners, and activists concrete examples of how and why gender is central to development.

PART I

KNOWLEDGE

CHAPTER 1

EXPLORING THE SPACES, LIMITS, AND FUTURE POSSIBILITIES FOR FEMINIST PERSPECTIVES ON KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND BEYOND

Åsa Corneliusson

ABSTRACT

Departing from an online interactive Gender Café on the topic of Knowledge Management (KM), jointly hosted by a UN agency and the Society of Gender Professionals, this chapter seeks to provide gender practitioners and others with practical examples of how to “gender” KM in international development. Through analyzing the travel of feminist ideas into the field of KM with inspiration from Barbara Czarniawska’s and Bernard Joerge’s (1996) theory of the travel of ideas, the chapter explores the spaces, limits, and future possibilities for the inclusion of feminist perspectives. The ideas and practical examples of how to do so provided in this chapter originated during the café, by the participants and panellists. The online Gender Café temporarily created a space for feminist perspectives. The data demonstrate how feminist perspectives were translated into issues of inclusion, the body, listening methodologies, practicing reflection, and the importance to one’s work of scrutinizing underlying values. However, for the feminist perspective to be given continuous space and material sustainability developing into an acknowledged part of KM, further actions are needed. The chapter also reflects on future assemblies of gender practitioners, gender scholars and activists, recognizing the struggles often faced by them. The chapter discusses strategies of how a collective organizing of “outside–inside” gender practitioners might push the internal work of implementing feminist perspectives forward.

Keywords: Knowledge Management; international development; feminist theory; gender practitioners; translation; monitoring and evaluation

In June 2018, I had the opportunity to conduct a fellowship with a UN agency at the headquarters in New York City. At the time, the team had the privilege to join were in the process of writing a global Knowledge Management (KM) strategy. The process was startled by the report of the 2016 Joint Inspection Unit of the United Nations System’s recognition of knowledge as a comparative advantage and valuable and strategic core asset for UN agencies, urging the agencies to develop KM guidelines and strategies. Interestingly, knowledge is also specifically referred to as what makes co-operation between the UN member states possible in the twentieth century.

The United Nations System is the generator and catalyst of a special kind of knowledge – one that is based on values. It is knowledge that makes cooperation possible among Member States-irrespective of their size and location-in so many areas of high complexity and diversity. Knowledge is acquired from lessons learned together with new ideas and concepts. (Dumitriu, 2016, p. 3)

As our work moved forward, the team came to reflect on the importance of feminist perspectives on KM and how this could possibly be integrated into the forthcoming strategy, and KM in international development more broadly. Earlier research has shown that there could be several entry points for gender and feminist perspectives to KM as neither institutions, organizations, nor knowledge are gender or power neutral (Acker, 1990; Narayanaswamy, 2016). To explore these feminist perspectives, the UN team partnered with the Society of Gender Professionals (SGP) and organized an interactive Gender Café (online webinar). This chapter demonstrates the travel of knowledge and illustrates what a gender/feminist perspective to KM could look like in practice, bringing back an internal perspective on the KM practices in the UN system itself.

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

The literature in the field of KM reflects adichotomy between information processing and information technology (IT) and a community network approach (J. E. Ferguson, Mchombu, & Cummings, 2008). This division is evident in the definition of KM provided by Mats Alvesson and Dan Kärreman (2001).

Division of interest in the field of knowledge management in the exploitation of knowledge through technical means versus the exploration of knowledge, which heavily focuses on people and interactions (in which case IT may, or may not, be enabling). (p. 1004)

This might be a reflection of the fact that KM originated within the business sector (J. E. Ferguson et al., 2008). However, there are many other definitions of KM. Julie E. Ferguson (2008) and her co-authors share their view:

knowledge management should be considered as relating primarily to the social processes and practices of knowledge creation, acquisition, capture, sharing and use of knowledge, skills and expertise, and not to the technological component of this which needs to support the social processes and practices. (p. 8)

This definition sheds light on social processes and practices and the importance of incorporating knowledge of these in one’s KM work and practice. Julie E. Ferguson, Kingo Mchombu, and Sarah Cummings critique the extensive focus of knowledge strategies on methodologies, good practices and tools. Instead they stress the importance of investigating organizational processes from a knowledge perspective, identifying how the knowledge on an individual level can be harnessed also at an organizational level. For KM to be successful, knowledge strategies need to be intimately entangled with organizational goals and objectives (see also Hagmann & Gillman, 2017). Other crucial factors for a successful establishment of KM are believed to be a nurturing culture and the establishment of learning by doing (Bhatt, 2001).

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Knowledge is recognized as an essential asset and tool for improving the overall performance by the majority of development organizations, including the United Nations system (Glovinsky, 2017). Steve Glovinsky stresses that most UN agencies describe themselves as knowledge units. However, few successful examples of effective KM initiatives within the UN are available leaving KM to still be considered a challenge. Glovinsky argues that this could perhaps be because of the transformations that a successful KM initiative requires. In the following quote Glovinsky (2017) shares his view of the relation between KM and the UN development system. “The world badly needs the UN development system to be the best that it can be. Transforming it through KM could make that happen” (p. 4).

Interestingly, in the development context KM is often translated into IT projects or information management (Hagmann & Gillman, 2017). Jürgen Hagmann and Helen Gillman stress that the development sector today has seen an increasing demand for better delivery results including the use of measurable data, which to some extent also meant a stronger focus on knowledge. This development has led to a more collective focus on knowledge and to the growth of networks and partnerships. Even though KM is often mainstreamed in many organizations there is a lack of recognition of the need for KM. In line with Glovinsky’s observation of the lack of transformations required, Hagmann and Gillman (2017) stress:

The complexity and systemic nature of KM require behaviour change among individuals, and broader changes in organizational strategies and processes, making it too complicated for many, and downright threatening for others. KM cannot be separated from organizational change and development, and the “trick” is to get the mandate to make the changes necessary to be a learning organization. (p. 5)

As the quote above demonstrates, KM implicates an internal focus on organizational structures, processes and behaviors entangled with broader organizational changes. This chapter is situated in international development, which means that it is somewhat difficult to draw strict boundaries between internal and external knowledge flows. In Management of knowledge for development: meta-review and scoping study, J. E. Ferguson et al. (2008) stress the importance of knowledge to development work, arguing that the development organizations do not yet appreciate the potential and strategic importance of knowledge. Their working paper is dated but is supported by more recent research analyzing the role of knowledge in the sustainable development goals (SDGs). The Agenda 2030 has been celebrated and embraced for its transformational visions and strategy, however, criticism has also been directed toward it. Some of the criticism brought forward by scholars has been directed toward the Agenda’s marginal attention to knowledge, knowledge societies and local knowledges. The dominant discourse on knowledge societies, identified as present at the level of implementation of the goals, is a “techno-scientific-economic discourse” (Cummings, Regeer, de Haan, Zweekhorst, & Bunders, 2017, p. 735). This is important as it steers how knowledge is thought to be a part of international collaboration and its role in reaching the SDGs. Sarah Cummings and her co-authors stress that the SDGs reflect the broader battleground that currently surrounds knowledge societies and knowledge. They stress that the efforts taken to achieve the agenda might be unsuccessful unless the goals and implementation work are able to harness the “transformational power of knowledge” (p. 741).

PROBLEMATIZING KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The relationship between knowledge and development has been problematized by many. Not only is knowledge intimately entangled with power (Foucault, 1977), knowledge has also constructed immensely powerful categories and discourses about development and the Global South. Powerful interests have determined rightful ways of knowing (see Escobar, 1995) establishing a hierarchy in whose knowledge is acknowledged as such (Narayanaswamy, 2019). This is important for this chapter as KM in itself may be a site of exclusion of different ways of knowing or different ways of dealing with knowledge, thus not named KM.

In 1998, the World Bank released a World Development Report, Knowledge for Development, stressing that one of the key barriers to development in the Global South was access to information and knowledge. This initiated a renewed focus on the role of knowledge in aid and development at the time. The World Bank received extensive criticism for promoting a knowledge paradigm as a technical and market-driven approach where knowledge was to be transferred from the Global North to the Global South, understood as less developed (Narayanaswamy, 2013). However, the idea around knowledge transfers, put forward by the World Bank, was absorbed by development practice, where, as Narayanaswamy notes, the need for knowledge remains an unquestioned assumption within international development. Whether there is a need for the disseminated knowledge provided by the development institutions is thus not investigated. The evaluation practices that are actually in place are more likely to simply measure that the knowledge is made available, rather than engaging with the demand or evaluating whether the provided knowledge made any difference.

In Narayanaswamy’s opinion, the values underpinning the report from 1998 and knowledge for development initiatives such as K4Dev tend to frame global inequality as a problem of unequal access to knowledge. Large development initiatives, non-governmental organizations and organizations focus on disseminating knowledge to the Global South upholding the belief that if knowledge is only available individuals will make informed choices out of poverty and marginalization. This approach does not only put responsibility on the individual but also treats information as an isolated entity and with no recognition of “embedded inequalities in both existing market structures and in the mainstream knowledge infrastructure, increasing the access to, and the volume of, information produced is not inherently valuable” (p. 1075).

Problematic aspects of knowledge for development are also highlighted by John Briggs and Joanne Sharp (2005) who argue that the failure of top-down development has led to an increased interest in indigenous knowledges. Taking a postcolonial perspective, Briggs and Sharp offer a critical reading of the new-found interest in the inclusion of indigenous and/or local knowledge, arguing that development actors and institutions fail to engage with alternative perceptions of development. Indigenous knowledge is rarely interrogated and is more understood as a consensual knowledge that is waiting to be tapped into. J. E. Ferguson et al. (2008) question the intentions of KM initiatives by development organization, shedding light to political and ethical problems it brings with it. Are KM for development initiatives able to recognize power structures? What is the objectivity, validity and relevance of the knowledge that is provided by development organizations? (J.E. Ferguson et al., 2008).

The focus of organizational science epistemology in the twentieth century has shifted toward a more collective one, acknowledging that knowledge is intimately entangled with human interaction. Information gains meaning and knowledge gains value, through the ways in which people use it (J. E. Ferguson & Cummings, 2008). As social interaction becomes more acknowledged it is also important to implement a focus on hierarchies and power dynamics within these social relations.

FEMINIST PERSPECTIVES ON KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

Feminists have shed light to the connection between location, body and knowledge for decades. Critiques have historically been directed toward science for its exclusion of women, bringing forward new ways of understanding objectivity (see Haraway, 1988; Harding, 1992; Smith, 1987). Feminists have also called for the acknowledgment of the material of knowledge (Barad, 2007), stressing the material consequences of both science and knowledge (Hekman, 2010). As a gender practitioner, I entered the world of KM with these perspectives in my backpack. The insight of the importance of social relations, made me more certain of the relevance of feminist perspectives to the different levels of KM in the UN and beyond. Minu Ipe’s research (2003) reflects on knowledge’s dependence on social relationships between individuals. Her data demonstrate that social relationships and power equations within organizations affect how individuals share, create and use knowledge, suggesting that human resource scholars partner with te...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Gender and Practice: Introduction to Knowledge, Policy, Organizations
• Part I. Knowledge
• Part II. Policy
• Part III. Organizations
• Index