beyond the dichotomies in technology for development

copy 2007 The AuthorJournal Compilation copy 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Geography Compass

12 (2007) 119ndash135 101111j1749-8198200700005x

DEVELOPMENT

Beyond the Dichotomies in Technology for Development

Gordon

Wilson

The Open University

Abstract

That technology is essential for development has been written many times Howevera few years ago technology was increasingly seen as part of a problem that con-tributed to the depoliticisation of development and reinforced existing societalstructures In response this century has seen a reconceptualisation of technologyrsquosrole alongside that of science Thus it is now seen as part of a system of pluralknowledges in contrast to its previous role as major player The challenges of thisreconceptualised role are (1) to promote synergies between different knowledgesthrough dialogue and respect for difference (2) to generate new knowledgethrough lsquolearning withrsquo in addition to recycling existing knowledge throughlsquolearning fromrsquo each other and (3) to manage power relations so that no know-ledge is intrinsically favoured (or put last) These challenges represent a call to layto rest old dichotomies and antagonisms between different kinds of knowledge

and to avoid inventing new ones

1 Introduction

It is easy to make a list of historical examples showing how technology hassometimes contributed to social justice In the fourteenth century the newtechnology of printing changed the face of Europe bringing books and edu-cation out of the monasteries and spreading them far and wide among thepeople More recent technologies were [those] of public health clean watersupply sewage treatment vaccination and antibiotics (Dyson 1999 50)

When the eminent physicist Freeman Dyson published those words in1999 his was a lonely voice In the social world a positive view oftechnology was distinctly out of fashion The thinly veiled tendency forsome years had been the opposite to treat technology as part of a problemthat hampered social justice

Dyson provided historical examples of the contribution of technologyto social progress in the now-developed world of Western Europe andNorth America However a few pages further on from those quotedabove he recognised that he could just as easily find a list of technologies

120 Beyond the dichotomies in technology for development

copy 2007 The Author

Geography Compass

12 (2007) 119ndash135 101111j1749-8198200700005xJournal Compilation copy 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

that have had predominantly negative social consequences (ibid 56) Hegave as starting examples of the latter the gas chamber and nuclear weapons

Meanwhile within development studies there had been for some timean antitechnology flavour in many academic articles where it was seen tohelp preserve the status quo through to quote one metaphor providinglsquoband-aidsrsquo (Yanarella and Levine 1992) Even agencies that had been setup to promote technology in development such as the IntermediateTechnology Development Group (ITDG now Practical Action ndash see Box1 later in this article) had become circumspect emphasising the lsquosoftwarersquoof human relations social interaction and cultural context in their workand downplaying the lsquohardwarersquo of gizmos

Technology was also conflated with a critical development studiesliterature on professional expertise Pejorative labels were used to con-demn many development interventions and to damn their perpetrators(Wilson 2006) These included

bull lsquoTechnical fixrsquo to describe interventions that seek to solve developmentproblems by technology (understood as hardware) alone The lsquogreen rev-olutionrsquo in India of the 1960s where high yielding cereals were introducedwas often described as a technical fix to that countryrsquos problem of foodsecurity

bull lsquoInstrumentalrsquo in the sense of following specified routines to design andimplement an intervention Such routines might be described as socialtechnologies (as opposed to physicalhardware technologies) that enablean efficient and effective intervention in relation to its objectives How-ever when thought of pejoratively an instrumental approach is claimed toconstrain wider thinking It is a narrow blinkered means to an end Oneinteresting accusation of lsquoinstrumentalrsquo has been levelled at ParticipatoryRural Appraisal (PRA) developed by Robert Chambers for use in par-ticipatory development (Chambers 1994) Here PRA is claimed to bepre-occupied by a set of methods rather than by the broader principles ofparticipation in development (Biggs and Smith 1998)

bull lsquoTechnocraticrsquo as a description of development intervention that embracesboth lsquotechnical fixrsquo and lsquoinstrumentalrsquo Originally it pejoratively describedinterventions designed and implemented by professional experts withoutreference to the receiving population More recently it has been used todescribe participatory development projects where participation of localstakeholders is solicited primarily for the purpose of enabling professionalexperts to find out about this population and incorporate the dataobtained into the design and implementation of the project whichremains under her or his control In this sense it is interchangeable withlsquoinstrumentalrsquo as a critical descriptor of PRA

bull lsquoTechnocratsrsquo as a description of professional experts who steer design orimplement development practice that is technical fixinstrumentaltechnocratic The original meaning of technocrat was a person who is a


Geography Compass


Beyond the dichotomies in technology for development 121

member of a knowledge elite who would then exclude from decision-making those perceived to be ignorant However in the era of participatoryapproaches to development the scope has been broadened (Wilson 2006)to describe

a) A member of a lsquolearning elitersquo who learns about receiving populationsin order to design better interventions (see also above)

b) A member of an lsquoenabling elitersquo who helps a population find out foritself what needs to be done This meaning embraces the contempo-rary advocacy of lsquoownershiprsquo in development practice Joseph Stiglitzwhen he was chief economist at the World Bank summed up hisinstitutionrsquos position thus lsquoIf a global knowledge-based institutionwants a country to learn a ldquotruthrdquo about development then it shouldhelp the local knowledge institutes and policy-makers to learn itfor themselves ndash to make it a ldquolocal social discoveryrdquorsquo (Stiglitz 1999)The critique of this argument is that the only lsquotruthrsquo that a developingcountry is allowed to discover is that of neo-liberal capitalism whichthen frames all action (Cooke 2004)

Both a knowledge perspective and a development perspective inform theuse of the above pejorative labels

In the former the labels relate to Francis Baconrsquos famous statementthree centuries ago that knowledge is power Originally the statementwas used to justify rule by experts or technocrats as holders of superiorknowledge The more recent formulation of a technocrat as a member ofa learning or an enabling elite however draws on a twentieth-centurythinker Michel Foucault and his essay on lsquoGovernmentalityrsquo thatargues that the art of modern government lies in knowing the populationto be governed and its self-discovery of fundamental truths (Foucault1979)

Underlying these formulations is a debate about knowledge itselfFor centuries knowledge especially scientific knowledge was based ondiscovery ndash objective truths exist lsquoout therersquo waiting to be found Such aview of knowledge is called positivism It contrasts with the constructivistview in which all knowledge is socially constructed between social actorsand is contingent For Foucault and others power interactions betweensocial actors determine what knowledge comes to be accepted generallyas the lsquotruthrsquo One reason why technology in development has been outof fashion is that positivism of which science and by extension techno-logy has been seen to be an exemplar is now lsquolargely a past stationrsquo atleast in the social sciences (Nederveen Pieterse 1998 355)

In many ways the association of technology with science is unfortunatebeing based on an old and crude definition of technology as the applicationof scientific knowledge for human ends More recent definitions suchas those that have predominated for some time in my own institution ndashthe Faculty of Technology at the Open University ndash regard it more as a



Geography Compass


complex of knowledges (including but by no means exclusively scientificknowledge) that enables practical action In this regard it is also interest-ing to note the following comment from an engineer who I (with acolleague) interviewed about his involvement in a UKndashUganda municipaldevelopment cooperation partnership that was conceived as lsquopractitioner-to-practitionerrsquo (see Box 3 later in this article) lsquoAny practising engineerwill tell you that what is written in books and manuals is only a smallpart of the job The rest is down to experiencersquo However most writingdoes not recognise this nuanced view of technology tending instead toconflate it with science In the rest of this article I am often forced to dothe same because the writers I quote do so Wherever I can however Irefer to technology only

Turning to the development perspective that informs the above pejorativelabels the underlying criticism is that development practice becomeslsquodepoliticisedrsquo because it is presented by agencies as a technical and hencepolitically neutral exercise Such depoliticisation the argument continuesserves to hide the fact that decisions about development practice are basedon how to allocate resources where there are both winners and losersMore deeply it legitimises the dominant global social order or attemptsto establish it where it does not yet exist by maintaining that

there is noalternative

(the TINA effect) (Cooke 2004 Ferguson 1990 256 Kothari1997 149)

At heart this criticism relates to the tension between developmentas a vision of a desirable future and development as lsquoamelioration of thedisordered faults of [capitalist] progressrsquo (Cowen and Shenton 1996 7Thomas 2000) In the Dyson quotation with which this article begantechnology in development is obviously part of a progressive vision AsYanarella and Levinersquos lsquoband-aidrsquo however it helps to ameliorate thedisordered faults of progress shoring up an inequitable social system andeffectively depoliticising development practice From here the pejorativelabels flow

Yet can that be the conclusion the end of the story of technology indevelopment Although Thomas (2000 777) has argued that the domi-nant sense of development as lsquowe enter the twenty-first centuryrsquo has cometo mean lsquoameliorationrsquo it is also obvious that any vision of a desired statemust have a strong technological component For Dyson in the twenty-first century it is predicted to be solar power (the sun) biotechnology(the genome) and communications technologies (the Internet) Butwherever we live in the world we are dependent on technology for oursurvival at least and more often than not our quality of life As is oftenwritten by academics and policy-makers alike technology and scienceare essential for development although there is also acknowledgement ofa lsquorecent reconceptualisation of its rolersquo (Ayele and Wield 2005) There isthus a growing sense that technology has to be part of a progressive visionof the future


Geography Compass



2 Re-engaging technology the signs

21

the emergence of new ideas about the role of technology and science in development

Ideas emanating from science and technology studies are progressivelyconnecting and interacting with new thinking about participation anddevelopment (Institute of Development Studies (IDS) 2006 Leach et al2005) Led by the science and citizenrsquos programme at the IDS theseconnections emphasise participation whether in development interven-tions or science and technology policy processes as a citizen right ratherthan being at the behest of higher authorities It is an active conceptionof lsquoperformativersquo citizenship (Leach et al 2005 12ndash14 28ndash29) wherecitizens are lsquomakers and shapersrsquo rather than simply lsquousers and choosersrsquo(Cornwall and Gaventa 2000) In some arenas the connections havecrystallised into a call to lsquodemocratise technologyrsquo in developmentthe subject of an ITDG initiative in 20042005 and also a lsquoGoverningtechnologyrsquo workshop organised by the UK Open University Centre forInnovation Knowledge and Development (IKD) in 2006 (See Box 1 fora brief exposition of the organisations named in this paragraph)

A superficial glance at this literature and associated initiatives suggests acontinuation of the negative perception of technology as part of theproblem in development But a superficial glance misses the point of whatis happening What we are witnessing is a concerted attempt to re-engagewith science and technology where under democratic control and abroad active citizenship it can become part of a progressive vision

In tandem with the emergence of science and technology studies indevelopment thinking the critical literature on participatory approachesto development referred to above has itself moved on This critical liter-ature where participation is little more than a set of social technologiesthat depoliticises development reached its most voluminous and acerbicwith the publication of Cooke and Kotharirsquos (2001) edited collection

Participation The new tyranny

However 3 years later a follow-up editedcollection

Participation From tyranny to transformation

was published (Hickeyand Mohan 2004a) This later volume has examined the potential andconditions for participation to re-engage with politics through connectinglsquoimminentrsquo development (ie deliberate and practical intervention) with acritical consciousness of lsquoimmanentrsquo development (the self-reinforcing historicalprocess of capitalist development) (Hickey and Mohan 2004b 9ndash11)

22

the entry of innovation and innovation systems into development thinking

The specialist field of development economics has had a longstanding interestin innovation and innovation systems Now however the concepts appear



Geography Compass


to be broadening their appeal Thus in 2005 a special issue of the

Journalof International Development

was devoted to innovation and innovationsystems in the context of agricultural biotechnology with contributionsfrom a range of disciplinary perspectives (Chataway 2005) In this broaderperspective innovation is not simply a key element of a successful capitalisteconomy but is also extended to social and institutional development

Box 1 IDS ITDG and IKD

Although not the only ones these entities referred to in the texthave been key to ongoing processes of thinking about therelationship of technology (and science) to development One(ITDG) is practitioner-oriented and two (IDS and IKD) have anacademic orientation

The Institute of Development Studies (IDS ndash wwwidsacuk)Founded in 1966 IDS is an independent research institute at theUniversity of Sussex UK The institute is also widely recognisedfor its postgraduate teaching and communications services oninternational development It is acclaimed as a world leader oninternational development its reputation being based on thequality of its work and its commitment to applying academic skillsto real world challenges Of its five research areas lsquoKnowledgetechnology and societyrsquo and lsquoParticipation power and socialchangersquo are directly relevant to this article

The Intermediate Technology Group (ITDG ndash wwwpracticalactionorg)ITDG was also founded in 1966 ndash by the radical economist E FSchumacher who wrote the seminal book lsquoSmall is beautifuleconomics as if people matteredrsquo where he argued for a people-centred lsquointermediate technologyrsquo As a UK-based internationalnongovernmental organisation with regional offices around theworld and a strong anti-poverty focus it has been at the forefrontof technology and development debates for many years Itchanged its name to Practical Action in 2005

The Centre for Innovation Knowledge and Development (IKD ndashwwwopenacukikd)

Established in 20032004 IKD is a relatively new cross-disciplinary research centre at the UK Open University TheCentre spans the Universityrsquos Faculties of Social Science andTechnology and the Business School A primary focus of IKD isto explore ways in which knowledge and innovation cancontribute inclusive and sustainable development


Geography Compass



Innovation is inextricably linked to technology for without technologicalcapability there can be no innovation Even innovationrsquos definition asknowledge that is put to productive use (ibid) is synonymous with ageneralised definition of technology However more interesting for thisarticle are

innovation systems

that at root concern systems of knowledgeand its production and application (Hall 2005) and where science andtechnology are key but not the only elements (Ayele and Wield 2005)

23

development agencies too have started to think again about technology and science

Global fora and major agencies are re-engaging with science and techno-logy For example the 2005 Commission for Africa recommended thecommitment of US$3 billion over ten years to develop centres of excellencein African institutes (IDS 2006) Similarly the World Bank calls for a lsquocon-certed effort to augment the education science technology and innovationcapacityrsquo in its client countries in order to create a lsquowell-educated techni-cally skilled work force producing high value knowledge-intensive goodsrsquofor national prosperity (World Bank 2006)

Among the developed country agencies the UK Department forInternational Development (DFID) was recently the subject of scrutinyby the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UKGovernment 2004) after increasing disquiet over its perceived failure toengage adequately with science and technology The Committeersquos reportwas critical of DFID especially its lsquofundamental lack of scientific culturereflected in its failure to appreciate the cross-cutting nature of science andhence to reap the full benefits offered by the application of science andtechnology to developmentrsquo

The report had an immediate impact Even before it was published thesecretary of state for international development Hilary Benn sought toaddress its anticipated criticisms by announcing the appointment of a chiefscientific adviser for DFID Its publication was then followed in 2005 withwell-publicised speeches by Hilary Benn emphasising the importance ofscience and technology to fighting poverty and supporting science andtechnology capacity building in Africa Science and technology alsoenjoys a high profile in DFIDrsquos latest strategic funding framework for theDepartmentrsquos central research (DFID 2005)

Also in the UK an early sign of reconceptualising technology by adevelopment agency was ITDGrsquos attempts in the mid-1990s to establishparticipatory technology development as a

modus operandi

Then in 1998

Engineers against poverty

was set up with support from the UKrsquos leadingprofessional engineering institutes the Royal Academy of Engineeringand DFID itself (see Box 2 for a brief exposition) It has since establisheda high profile and gained significant influence in government circles(Engineers Against Poverty 2006a)



Geography Compass


3 The message from the signs knowledge knowledges and learning

The signs above are united by a central concern with knowledge how itis conceptualised produced and disseminated Driven especially by the19981999 World Development Report

Knowledge for development

(WorldBank 1999) this concern finds fertile ground within mainstreamdevelopment practice where knowledge has become a major buzz wordamong several major agencies The World Bank itself has repositioned asthe lsquoknowledge bankrsquo (Mehta 2001) while the United Nations Develop-ment Programme (UNDP) has increasingly highlighted the K-word in itsannual reports this century UNDPrsquos 2005 report also has a key sectioncalled

Knowledge A world of shared solutions

(UNDP 2005) while theGerman Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ) has as its 2006 theme

Knowledge powers development

(GTZ 2006)Alluded to above the recent reconceptualisation of the role of science

and technology in development represents a shift from a single positivistconception of valid knowledge to acceptance of a plurality of knowledgesand of actors purveying them Scientific knowledge is one important kindof knowledge in this plurality and scientists are important actors How-ever theirsrsquo is not the only valid knowledge a notion that is starting tobe accepted by scientists and (especially) engineers themselves (EngineersAgainst Poverty 2006b)

Contemporary thinking in development studies science and technologystudies and innovations systems together reinforce the reconceptualisationIn development studies and science and technology studies ideas aboutparticipation have thus moved beyond social technologies that enableprofessionals to find out about their clients and the contexts in which theyare expected to work Instead they emphasise creating spaces for experts andcitizens to learn and create new knowledge together through lsquotwo-wayunderstandings and dialoguersquo (Wynne 2004 66) acknowledging the lsquosubstantive

Box 2 Engineers Against Poverty (EAP ndash wwwengineersagainstpovertyorg)

Established in 1998 the UK-based EAP describes itself as aninternational development nongovernmental organisation that iscommitted to producing practical policies and innovative solutionsto support the alleviation and eventual ending of world povertyEAP brokers and supports public-private-civil society partnershipsand develops other innovative pro-poor initiatives It has specialexpertise with respect to corporate social responsibility Its work issupported by major engineering institutions and several lsquohousehold-namersquo corporate entities EAP receives financial backing from theUK Department for International Development


Geography Compass



value of diversityrsquo (Stirling 2004 231) and the lsquoemergence of co-operativerelationships between citizens and expertsrsquo (Fischer 2003 220)

Similarly innovation systems have moved away from a linear modelinvolving scientific discovery followed by its diffusion and finally applicationto a nonlinear interconnected multi-agency learning process (Ayele andWield 2005 Ekboir 2003 Mytelka and Smith 2002) Thus examiningagricultural biotechnology in developing countries Hall (2005) concludesthat there are many innovation lsquosystemsrsquo in the arena that include forexample a network of international research centres pro-poor participatorygroupings of farmers agri-business and development agencies Thechallenge is to find synergies while respecting their differences

There is thus convergence between contemporary development studiesscience and technology studies and innovation systems with each promotingplural knowledge learning and respect for difference This convergencedoes two things First it helps break out of lsquounhelpful dichotomiesrsquo (Hall2005) of expert and beneficiary indigenous and Western knower andignorant and local and universal knowledge

Second it helps highlight the predominantly tacit nature of knowledgeAs chief economist of the World Bank Stiglitz (1999) observed thatcodified theoretical knowledge is little more than the tip of the icebergthe rest being experiential and tacit Extending this observation Chatawayand Wield (2000) have commented that tacit knowledge is context-specific which makes simple notions of its transfer problematic Withininnovation systems especially the predominantly tacit nature of know-ledge has implications for learning Thus exchange and production oftacit knowledge relies on interaction demonstration and discussion(Alcorta and Peres 1998) or what Freeman (2002) calls lsquoexchanges inexperiencersquo Such learning is by definition nonlinear and a long process

4 The challenges of re-engagement

41

learning to learn with each other

The focus is thus shifting from knowledge as a thing to processes of learningamong engaging actors But just as the reconceptualisation has unpackedand re-assembled a different concept of knowledge so we need to think hardabout the nature of learning when technological and other actors engage

Elsewhere I distinguish heuristically between lsquolearning fromrsquo and lsquolearn-ing withrsquo (Wilson 2006 2007) In lsquolearning fromrsquo the actors learn theknowledges of other actors This is essentially about sharing existingknowledge or recycling it Knowledge here is

captured

Having beencaptured it might be replicated or adapted for use in new contexts It isunlikely to lead to breakthrough knowledge however being more aboutproblem-solving within existing structures or to use development languageamelioration In contrast lsquolearning withrsquo requires the actors to pool their



Geography Compass


different knowledges and engage in a process of interactive deliberationto create something new Knowledge here is thus

constructed

Within innovation systems Mytelka and Smith (2002) describe a process

similar to lsquolearning withrsquo which has the potential to transcend structuralboundaries to be genuinely new and is therefore liberating or lsquosubversiversquolsquoLearning fromrsquo and lsquolearning withrsquo might also be regarded within scienceand technology studies as the processes that lead respectively to Fischerrsquosfirst- and second-order discursive practices In this formulation theformer represents practical tasks of communication at the level of thework place the latter communication that leads to the broader critiqueof societal institutions themselves (Fischer 2003 227ndash229)

Echoing the recent participation literature on connecting imminentand immanent development Fischer calls for a more comprehensiveperspective that connects first- and second-order discursive practicesWithout denying this need we must be careful however not to disregardactual engagements where both forms of discourse might already besimultaneously present and lsquoconnectedrsquo This is why I have describedabove the distinction between lsquolearning fromrsquo and lsquolearning withrsquo as aheuristic device It is useful for analysis but they are not necessarilyseparated in practice On the contrary they can be mutually reinforcing

For example I referred earlier to joint research on UgandandashUK municipalpartnerships that were conceptualised as practitioner-to-practitioner (seeBox 3 below for a short exposition of this research) We found that UKlocal authority environmental health officers and associated engineerslearned

from

their Uganda counterparts about how things are done in acash-strapped environment and about lsquoanother culturersquo The Ugandanofficers learned

from

their UK counterparts technical skills and skillsrelated to lsquobest practicersquo (eg time management) However there werealso instances where the two sets of officers learned

with

each other ndash oneprime example being to construct together the importance of publicengagement in proposed activities Thus one UK Highways engineerreflected on his role in proposing gaining acceptance for and helping tofacilitate a multiple stakeholder meeting about traffic management inKampala a process that at the time was new to Ugandan municipalities

We have re-thought our public engagement here [in the UK] No longer is ithere is an engineering problem and a solution and this is how wersquore going todo it We had had some experiences here ourselves but having to go throughthat process [in Uganda] of getting people on board has made you realise howimportant it is here For example we wanted to put a bus lane on one ofour roads We were able to get local people to support us ndash the communitythe disabled This is a better way and it questions the whole foundationson which you stand ( Johnson and Wilson 2007)

Notwithstanding this and other examples lsquolearning withrsquo is howeveroften at best latent in practical engagements As something to be con-sciously promoted it faces a significant challenge It draws on Habermasrsquo


Geography Compass



(1990) lsquoideal speech situationrsquo with its emphasis on genuine dialoguewhere different knowledges are valued as a source of creative learning andhence new knowledge The over-arching challenge therefore is to create theconditions that might promote genuine dialogue between technologicalagents and citizens We can examine this challenge at two levels at thelevel of micro-engagement between actors and at the institutional level ofincentives and promoting particular behaviours

At the level of micro-engagement trust between the actors is essentialOnly under such conditions are they prepared to expose themselvesbefore each other push the boundaries of what they know explore radical

Box 3 Knowledge sharing and production in UgandandashUK municipal partnerships

Several UgandandashUK municipal partnerships were created duringthe mid-1990s brokered by organisations such as the UK LocalGovernment International Bureau and funded for projects by theEuropean Union the Commonwealth Local Government Forumand in the case of the Kampala-Kirklees partnership that weresearched the World Bank

The methodology of these partnerships involved officers frompartner municipalities engaging together in knowledge transfer andjoint problem-solving in areas such as planning finance andenvironmental health ndash hence the term practitioner-to-practitioner

Our research focused on two such partnerships between Igangain Eastern Uganda and Daventry in England and betweenUgandarsquos capital Kampala and Kirklees Metroplitan District inEngland The focus of both partnerships was environmental healthbroadly defined We interviewed environmental health officersassociated engineers other senior officers and politicians in eachmunicipality Our aim was to examine the processes of claimedknowledge transfer and knowledge production and the degree ofmutuality (ie the extent to which both UK and Ugandan officersgained relevant knowledge)

We were very much struck by the high degree of reflexivity of ourinterviewees in all four municipalities Our findings with respect tothe importance to partner officers of having a common professionalbase and the relative value placed on UK and the Ugandan officersrsquoknowledge are discussed in the text Other findings concerned theaspired mutuality of the partnerships and the ability to scalefrom individual officer learning to organisational learning in themunicipalities For a full discussion of this research see Johnson andWilson (2006 2007)



Geography Compass


ideas together and embrace disagreement where necessary These are theingredients of genuine dialogue but developing trust is no easy taskwhere there are likely to be deep-seated ontological differences (differentways of being) between the actors While an international network ofscientists might see the world in broadly the same way wherever theirindividual physical locations similarly a partnership of problem-solvinglocal government practitioners this is unlikely to be the case when forexample scientists and locally based civil society groups or problem-solving and participatory process-oriented practitioners attempt to relateto each other

However trust can be built through repeated engagement includingespecially joint practice which can be an important leveller of hierarchicaldifferences between theoretical and experiential knowledge It also helpsestablish shared values assumptions and motives what Habermas (quotedin Fischer 2003 199) calls a lsquobackground consensusrsquo that lies behind everynarrative exchange

Turning to the institutional level I indicated above that promotingappropriate behaviours might be less of an issue for technology and engi-neers than it is for science and scientists Engineers and applied scientistsespecially tend to appreciate the professional challenge of working out ofthe laboratory and in the lsquoreal worldrsquo where they have to engage repeatedlywith others Environmental health engineers involved in the aforementionedresearch used the words lsquoprofessional satisfactionrsquo or lsquoprofessional challengersquorepeatedly to describe incentives to participate One young UK engineerwas asked why he went to Iganga a small town in Uganda in his owntime and with no extra pay

My profession engineering obtained its status [in the UK] through the greatpublic health works of the 19

th

century Working in Iganga reminded me ofthose roots Many of the [UK] engineers I went to University with would giveanything for that experience

Within the private sector too there are signs of similar thinking amongpractising engineers at least those who work broadly in internationaldevelopment International consulting engineers Ove Arup with 7000staff worldwide for example have a longstanding commitment to socialresponsibility have developed an environmental policy and are currentlyworking in partnership with the nonprofit development nongovernmentalorganisation WaterAid (Ove Arup 2006) Engineers Against Povertymeanwhile is committed to lsquobrokering and supporting multisector part-nerships between the state private and civil society sectorsrsquo (EngineersAgainst Poverty 2006a also Box 2 above)

These and other examples illustrate the potential but it has to beaccepted that much still needs to be done institutionally within techno-logy and perhaps even more so science to promote engagement andrespect for different knowledges as normal practice One early response


Geography Compass



to this issue was Chambersrsquo seminal work on participation and develop-ment

Whose reality counts Putting the first last

(Chambers 1997) in whichhe exhorted experts (the lsquofirstrsquo) to act instead as facilitators of clientlearning A similar message is contained in Fischerrsquos call in science andtechnology studies for professionals to become facilitators of lsquocollaborativelearning processes of empowermentrsquo (Fischer 2003 216)

As a practical institutional manifestation of these exhortations in UKlocal government we now see demands for a new breed of professionalswho have lsquosoftrsquo skills of facilitation and negotiation and brokering in orderto engage with local residential communities and the private sector Whilerecognising the need for such a role there is danger in its embodimentin a primary stakeholder where it maintains the divide between the pro-fessional (now re-invented as someone who manages the learning process)and other stakeholders (those who participate in the process) For metherefore there exists a further challenge which is neither to put thescientific or technological expert first or last but lsquowithrsquo the other actorsas part of that learning process In other words it is to maintain respectfor onersquos own professional knowledge as well as the knowledge of others

42

managing power relations

Underlying lsquolearning withrsquo dialogue collaboration indeed any engage-ment between actors are power relations While the call is for synergybetween different groups of people where everyonersquos prior knowledge isrespected is not it more likely that some knowledges will be perceived ascarrying more authority than others which at least influences if notwholly determines outcomes

Put simply and paraphrasing Chambers whose knowledge counts Thiswas a persistent issue highlighted in the UgandandashUK municipal partner-ships research (Box 3 above) The UK environmental health officers andengineers were perceived by all parties as having a generalised knowledgeof lsquobest practicersquo which they might transfer to Uganda The Ugandancounterparts were conversely perceived as having knowledge of local con-text to which at most lsquobest practicersquo might have to be adapted It was amoot point therefore whether these two kinds of knowledge were givenequal value Certainly there were some ill-fated attempts to replicate withminimal adaptation UK practices in Uganda However other Ugandanofficers did think about what lsquobest practicersquo might be in a Ugandancontext conceiving it as something potentially very different from theUK model ( Johnson and Wilson 2007)

This research was carried out in a context in which there was at leasta basis for knowledge parity Professional training had been similar forboth UK and Ugandan officers and more generally they shared thesame problem-solving world view often expressed as lsquoWe spoke the samelanguagersquo In short there existed Habermasrsquo (see above) background



Geography Compass


consensus between the officers that allowed for narrative exchange Inother situations such as when scientists and engineers are engaging withcitizens establishing this consensus is much more difficult but is perhapspossible through exploring assumptions together and establishing a systemof mutual accountability between actors ndash in other words managing thepower dynamics ( Johnson and Wilson 2000) In this way one potentiallygoes beyond power as a zero-sum game (your power means my lack ofpower) to a notion of lsquopower withrsquo (Rowlands 1995 102) a concept towhich Engineers Against Poverty (2006b) also subscribes

5 Conclusion

Technology and science in development have been re-conceptualised andin this article I have examined three sources participation in developmentscience and technology studies and innovation systems Rather than beingclaimed as the authoritative knowledge technology is thus now conceivedas part of a complex of knowledges for development where differencebetween actors is a resource for learning rather than a problematic divideIn this it contributes potentially to new visions of development throughlsquolearning withrsquo

The reconceptualisation helps overcome the old dichotomies betweendifferent sources of knowledge However we must beware of not repli-cating other dichotomies or even creating new ones For example theexhortation of professionals ndash scientific technological or any other kindndash to put themselves last was undoubtedly a necessary process in the 1990sas it forced them to engage in overdue thinking about their role How-ever the exhortation is no longer helpful as it leads to re-invention ofprofessionals as managers of learning that only re-defines the dividebetween them and those who actually engage in the process

In addition the distinctions between imminent and immanent development(Hickey and Mohan 2004b) first and second order discursive practice(Fischer 2003 227ndash229) and lsquolearning fromrsquo and lsquolearning withrsquo (thisarticle) relate to the longstanding structurendashagency dichotomy Basicallysocial structures constrain thinking and action whereas purposeful agencycan liberate them (and potentially change the structures) The calls inHickey and Mohan and Fischer are to connect the two again throughpurposeful action However this is tantamount to accepting the divide asa kind of natural order and consequently fails to recognise that suchconnections potentially occur in any learning engagement between actorsTo be sure left to themselves the connections are often problematic butthe need is to examine more carefully these engagements and from myperspective the conditions that foster interplay between lsquolearning fromrsquoand lsquolearning withrsquo

Technology which requires interplay of knowledge also relates to theseconnections However it differs from other approaches because its usual


Geography Compass



entry point is practice rather than ideas In this practice one might learn

from

others to conceive design and implement a development interven-tion but one learns

with

them through mutual engagement in the actualwork There is nothing like getting your hands dirty together for fosteringtrust dialogue and an acute sense of what is good or bad

Finally the reconceptualisation might seem to afford technology a moremodest role compared with the great modernising infrastructure projectsof the postcolonial 1960s and 1970s where it was the major playerHowever with modesty often comes increased effectiveness within amuch more collaborative endeavour

6 Short Biography

Gordon Wilson is Director of the inter-Faculty Programme area Envi-ronment Development and International Studies at the Open UniversityMilton Keynes UK He has produced numerous multimedia materials fordistance teaching for both undergraduate and postgraduate students andhas chaired several Open University course production and presentationteams including

International development Challenges for a world in transition

(2002)

Development Context and practice

(2003)

Working with our environment

(2001) He has researched and published extensively in the broad area oftechnology and development including technological capabilities andmore recently technologies and partnerships for knowledge productionHis most recently published journal article concerns the role of professionalexpertise in development (Beyond the technocrat The professional expert indevelopment practice Development and Change May 2006) Journal articlesthat will be published in 2007 include Development management as reflectivepractice (co-authored in Journal of International Development) Knowledgeinnovation and re-inventing technical assistance for development (Progress inDevelopment Studies) and Knowledge learning and practice in North-Southpractitioner-practitioner municipal partnerships (co-authored in Local GovernmentStudies) He holds a BSc and PhD from Leeds University

Note

Correspondence address Development Policy and Practice Faculty of Technology the OpenUniversity Walton Hall Milton Keynes MK7 6AA UK E-mail gawilsonopenacuk

References

Alcorta L and Peres W (1998) Innovation systems and technology specialization in LatinAmerica and the Caribbean Research Policy 26 pp 857ndash881

Ayele S and Wield D (2005) Science and technology capacity building and partnership inAfrican agriculture perspectives on Mali and Egypt Journal of International Development 17(5) pp 631ndash646

Biggs S and Smith G (1998) Beyond methodologies coalition-building for participatorytechnology development World Development 26 (2) pp 239ndash248


copy 2007 The Author Geography Compass 12 (2007) 119ndash135 101111j1749-8198200700005xJournal Compilation copy 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Chambers R (1994) The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal World Development22 (7) pp 953ndash969

mdashmdash (1997) Whose reality counts Putting the first last London Intermediate TechnologyChataway J (2005) Introduction is it possible to create pro-poor agriculture-related biotech-

nology Journal of International Development 17 (5) pp 597ndash610Chataway J and Wield D (2000) Industrialization innovation and development what does

knowledge management change Journal of International Development 12 (6) pp 803ndash824Cooke B (2004) The managing of the (Third) World Organization 11 (5) pp 603ndash629Cooke B and Kothari U (eds) (2001) Participation the new tyranny London Zed BooksCornwall A and Gaventa J (2000) From users and choosers to makers and shapers

repositioning participation in social policy Institute of Development Studies Bulletin 31 (4)pp 50ndash62

Cowen M and Shenton R (1996) Doctrines of development London RoutledgeDepartment for International Development (DFID) (2005) Research funding framework 2005ndash

2007 [Online] Retrieved on 21 August 2006 from httpwwwdfidgovukpubsfilesresearchframeworkresearch-framework-2005pdf

Dyson F J (1999) The sun the genome and the internet tools of scientific revolutions Oxford UKOxford University Press

Ekboir J (2003) Research and technology policies in innovation systems zero tillage in BrazilResearch Policy 32 pp 573ndash586

Engineers Against Poverty (2006a) Welcome to the Engineers Against Poverty (EAP) website[Online] Retrieved on 21 August 2006 from httpwwwengineersagainstpovertyorg

mdashmdash (2006b) Our development perspective [Online] Retrieved on 21 August 2006 from httpwwwengineersagainstpovertyorgindexaspPageID=13

Ferguson J (1990) The anti-politics machine lsquodevelopmentrsquo depoliticization and bureaucratic statepower in Lesotho Cambridge UK Cambridge University Press

Fischer F (2003) Reframing public policy discursive politics and deliberative practices Oxford UKOxford University Press

Foucault M (1979) Governmentality Ideology and Consciousness 6 pp 5ndash22Freeman C (2002) Continental national and sub-national innovation systems ndash complementarity

and economic growth Research Policy 31 pp 191ndash211German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ) (2006) Spotlight of the year 2006 knowledge

powers development [Online] Retrieved on 12 January 2006 from httpwwwgtzdeen13459htm

Habermas J (1990) Moral consciousness and communicative action Cambridge UK Polity PressHall A (2005) Capacity development for agricultural biotechnology in developing countries

An innovation systems view of what it is and how to develop it Journal of InternationalDevelopment 17 (5) pp 611ndash630

Hickey S and Mohan G (eds) (2004a) Participation from tyranny to transformation LondonZed Books

mdashmdash (2004b) Towards participation as transformation critical themes and challenges InHickey S and Mohan G (eds) Participation from tyranny to transformation London ZedBooks pp 3ndash24

Institute of Development Studies (IDS) (2006) Science and citizens global and local voicesBrighton UK IDS Policy Briefing Issue 30 May 2006 University of Sussex

Johnson H and Wilson G (2000) Biting the bullet civil society social learning and thetransformation of local governance World Development 28 (11) pp 1891ndash1906

mdashmdash (2006) North-SouthSouth-North partnerships closing the lsquomutuality gaprsquo PublicAdministration and Development 26 pp 1ndash10

mdashmdash (2007) Knowledge learning and practice in North-South practitioner-practitionermunicipal partnerships Local Government Studies (accepted for publication)

Kothari R (1997) The agony of the nation state In Rahnema M and Bawtree V (eds)The post-development reader London Zed Books pp 142ndash151

Leach M Scoones I and Wynne B (eds) (2005) Science and citizens London Zed BooksMehta L (2001) The World Bank and its emerging knowledge empire Human Organization

60 (2) pp 189ndash196



Mytelka L and Smith K (2002) Policy learning and innovation theory an interactive andco-evolving process Research Policy 31 pp 1467ndash1479

Nederveen Pieterse J (1998) lsquoMy paradigm or yoursrsquo Alternative development post-development reflexive development Development and Change 29 (2) pp 343ndash373

Ove Arup (2006) Global home [Online] Retrieved on 23 August 2006 from httpwwwarupcom

Rowlands J (1995) Empowerment examined Development in Practice 5 (2) pp 101ndash107Stiglitz J (1999) Scan globally reinvent locally knowledge infrastructure and the localization of knowledge

Berlin Germany Keynote address to the first Global Development Network ConferenceDecember 1999

Stirling A (2004) Opening up or closing down Analysis participation and power in the socialappraisal of technology In Leach M Scoones I and Wynne B (eds) Science and citizensLondon Zed Books pp 218ndash231

Thomas A (2000) Development as practice in a liberal capitalist world Journal of InternationalDevelopment 12 pp 773ndash787

UK Government (2004) The use of science in UK international development policy London Houseof Commons Science and Technology Committee 26th October 2004

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2005) A time for bold ambition Together wecan cut poverty in half New York Annual Report 2005 UNDP

Wilson G (2006) Beyond the technocrat The professional expert in development practiceDevelopment and Change 37 (3) pp 501ndash523

mdashmdash (2007) Knowledge innovation and re-inventing technical assistance for developmentProgress in Development Studies (accepted for publication)

World Bank (2006) Science technology and innovation (STI) [Online] Retrieved on 21 August2006 from httpwebworldbankorgWBSITEEXTERNALTOPICSEXTEDUCATION0contentMDK20457068simmenuPK2458448simpagePK210058simpiPK210062simtheSitePK28238600htmlTop

mdashmdash (1999) Knowledge for development Oxford UK Oxford University PressWynne B (2005) Risk as globalizing ldquodemocraticrdquo discourse Framing subjects and citizens

In Leach M Scoones I and Wynne B (eds) Science and citizens London Zed Books pp66ndash82

Yanarella E and Levine R (1992) Does sustainable development lead to sustainabilityFutures 24 pp 759ndash774



Geography Compass


that have had predominantly negative social consequences (ibid 56) Hegave as starting examples of the latter the gas chamber and nuclear weapons

Meanwhile within development studies there had been for some timean antitechnology flavour in many academic articles where it was seen tohelp preserve the status quo through to quote one metaphor providinglsquoband-aidsrsquo (Yanarella and Levine 1992) Even agencies that had been setup to promote technology in development such as the IntermediateTechnology Development Group (ITDG now Practical Action ndash see Box1 later in this article) had become circumspect emphasising the lsquosoftwarersquoof human relations social interaction and cultural context in their workand downplaying the lsquohardwarersquo of gizmos

Technology was also conflated with a critical development studiesliterature on professional expertise Pejorative labels were used to con-demn many development interventions and to damn their perpetrators(Wilson 2006) These included

bull lsquoTechnical fixrsquo to describe interventions that seek to solve developmentproblems by technology (understood as hardware) alone The lsquogreen rev-olutionrsquo in India of the 1960s where high yielding cereals were introducedwas often described as a technical fix to that countryrsquos problem of foodsecurity

bull lsquoInstrumentalrsquo in the sense of following specified routines to design andimplement an intervention Such routines might be described as socialtechnologies (as opposed to physicalhardware technologies) that enablean efficient and effective intervention in relation to its objectives How-ever when thought of pejoratively an instrumental approach is claimed toconstrain wider thinking It is a narrow blinkered means to an end Oneinteresting accusation of lsquoinstrumentalrsquo has been levelled at ParticipatoryRural Appraisal (PRA) developed by Robert Chambers for use in par-ticipatory development (Chambers 1994) Here PRA is claimed to bepre-occupied by a set of methods rather than by the broader principles ofparticipation in development (Biggs and Smith 1998)

bull lsquoTechnocraticrsquo as a description of development intervention that embracesboth lsquotechnical fixrsquo and lsquoinstrumentalrsquo Originally it pejoratively describedinterventions designed and implemented by professional experts withoutreference to the receiving population More recently it has been used todescribe participatory development projects where participation of localstakeholders is solicited primarily for the purpose of enabling professionalexperts to find out about this population and incorporate the dataobtained into the design and implementation of the project whichremains under her or his control In this sense it is interchangeable withlsquoinstrumentalrsquo as a critical descriptor of PRA

bull lsquoTechnocratsrsquo as a description of professional experts who steer design orimplement development practice that is technical fixinstrumentaltechnocratic The original meaning of technocrat was a person who is a


Geography Compass












Geography Compass









Geography Compass




21









22





Geography Compass












Geography Compass




innovation systems


23






modus operandi

Then in 1998





Geography Compass















Geography Compass








41




captured




Geography Compass



constructed





from


from


with





Geography Compass












Geography Compass






th





Geography Compass







42







Geography Compass



5 Conclusion






Geography Compass




from


with



6 Short Biography



(2002)


(2003)



Note


References
































60 (2) pp 189ndash196



















Geography Compass












Geography Compass









Geography Compass




21









22





Geography Compass












Geography Compass




innovation systems


23






modus operandi

Then in 1998





Geography Compass















Geography Compass








41




captured




Geography Compass



constructed





from


from


with





Geography Compass












Geography Compass






th





Geography Compass







42







Geography Compass



5 Conclusion






Geography Compass




from


with



6 Short Biography



(2002)


(2003)



Note


References
































60 (2) pp 189ndash196




















Geography Compass









Geography Compass




21









22





Geography Compass












Geography Compass




innovation systems


23






modus operandi

Then in 1998





Geography Compass















Geography Compass








41




captured




Geography Compass



constructed





from


from


with





Geography Compass












Geography Compass






th





Geography Compass







42







Geography Compass



5 Conclusion






Geography Compass




from


with



6 Short Biography



(2002)


(2003)



Note


References
































60 (2) pp 189ndash196



















Geography Compass




21









22





Geography Compass












Geography Compass




innovation systems


23






modus operandi

Then in 1998





Geography Compass















Geography Compass








41




captured




Geography Compass



constructed





from


from


with





Geography Compass












Geography Compass






th





Geography Compass







42







Geography Compass



5 Conclusion






Geography Compass




from


with



6 Short Biography



(2002)


(2003)



Note


References
































60 (2) pp 189ndash196




















Geography Compass












Geography Compass




innovation systems


23






modus operandi

Then in 1998





Geography Compass















Geography Compass








41




captured




Geography Compass



constructed





from


from


with





Geography Compass












Geography Compass






th





Geography Compass







42







Geography Compass



5 Conclusion






Geography Compass




from


with



6 Short Biography



(2002)


(2003)



Note


References
































60 (2) pp 189ndash196



















Geography Compass




innovation systems


23






modus operandi

Then in 1998





Geography Compass















Geography Compass








41




captured




Geography Compass



constructed





from


from


with





Geography Compass












Geography Compass






th





Geography Compass







42







Geography Compass



5 Conclusion






Geography Compass




from


with



6 Short Biography



(2002)


(2003)



Note


References
































60 (2) pp 189ndash196




















Geography Compass















Geography Compass








41




captured




Geography Compass



constructed





from


from


with





Geography Compass












Geography Compass






th





Geography Compass







42







Geography Compass



5 Conclusion






Geography Compass




from


with



6 Short Biography



(2002)


(2003)



Note


References
































60 (2) pp 189ndash196



















Geography Compass








41




captured




Geography Compass



constructed





from


from


with





Geography Compass












Geography Compass






th





Geography Compass







42







Geography Compass



5 Conclusion






Geography Compass




from


with



6 Short Biography



(2002)


(2003)



Note


References
































60 (2) pp 189ndash196




















Geography Compass



constructed





from


from


with





Geography Compass












Geography Compass






th





Geography Compass







42







Geography Compass



5 Conclusion






Geography Compass




from


with



6 Short Biography



(2002)


(2003)



Note


References
































60 (2) pp 189ndash196



















Geography Compass












Geography Compass






th





Geography Compass







42







Geography Compass



5 Conclusion






Geography Compass




from


with



6 Short Biography



(2002)


(2003)



Note


References
































60 (2) pp 189ndash196




















Geography Compass






th





Geography Compass







42







Geography Compass



5 Conclusion






Geography Compass




from


with



6 Short Biography



(2002)


(2003)



Note


References
































60 (2) pp 189ndash196



















Geography Compass







42







Geography Compass



5 Conclusion






Geography Compass




from


with



6 Short Biography



(2002)


(2003)



Note


References
































60 (2) pp 189ndash196




















Geography Compass



5 Conclusion






Geography Compass




from


with



6 Short Biography



(2002)


(2003)



Note


References
































60 (2) pp 189ndash196



















Geography Compass




from


with



6 Short Biography



(2002)


(2003)



Note


References
































60 (2) pp 189ndash196














































60 (2) pp 189ndash196


















beyond the dichotomies in technology for development

Documents