Exploring challenges and politics of knowledge production in the global South - Evidence from Bangladesh’s aid and development sector

Abstract

This article takes Bangladesh as a case study and explores the motivations (or lack of), challenges, and politics of knowledge production with a particular focus on development scholarship and practice. This piece is based on qualitative research methods and draws from 25 semi structured interviews with highly experienced and senior Bangladeshi development practitioners and academics. Empirical evidence and consequent analysis presented in this work contribute to the debates around the schism in access to resources, politics of aid, and power over knowledge production. This article also reveals local cultural contexts as consultancy works are perceived to be more financially rewarding. This is manifested through current practices that have created a condition where local researchers and practitioners feel they have no time (or incentive and motivation) to engage in knowledge production. Moreover, this article explores whether one’s race and/or nationality play any role in knowledge production, and how the respondents reflect about these issues based on their lived experience. In doing so, findings of this study further the arguments of structural inequality and colour-blind approach within aid and global development landscape. This article offers a rich account of how existing practices favour staff members from the donor countries and exclude Bangladeshi researchers and practitioners from knowledge production processes. This article also brings forward an important issue which highlights that, as perceived by the respondents of this study, one’s institutional affiliation with prestigious Western institutions might matter more in knowledge production (as we know it) than the content, ideas and credibility of knowledge that are generated in the global South. This article contends that by excluding, rejecting, side-lining, and subjugating knowledges produced in the global South development policies and practices will continue to manufacture a particular type of knowledge that will circumvent equity in knowledge production and perpetuate Western hegemony.

Introduction

Equity in knowledge production between the global North and global South ¹ has garnered significant attention and continues to be a key issue in academic discussions, major conferences and cognate forums. This is a topic of paramount importance because, broadly speaking, current knowledge ² , as we know it, is mainly produced in the global North with minimal or tokenistic participation from the global South. It is not an exaggeration to say this largely applies to most major academic disciplines ³ . Since most top-ranking universities, research centres, laboratories, funding organisations and cognate support mechanisms are located in the global North the current epistemic hegemony may seem a logical consequence to some. Such inference may hold some truth but also highlight large-scale structural inequality in knowledge production processes. As Sundberg (2023) argues the existing structural disparity between the scholars from global South and global North might limit participation from the global South scholars. Additionally, Lundsgaarde (2016) and Gulrajani (2015) assert that institutional and bureaucratic barriers further hinder supporting ideas from low- and middle-income countries, widening the existing gap in knowledge production. This is further exacerbated by the implication that scholars from the global South are either not capable of producing knowledge, including about their own societies/realities, or whatever knowledges they produce are not credible enough (Kamruzzaman, 2021; Koch, 2020; Pratt and De Vries, 2023).

Against this backdrop, this article takes Bangladesh as a case study, focusing on development studies scholarship, to explore the motivations, perceived challenges and perspectives of global South scholars on the politics of knowledge production. This choice is based on two primary rationales: namely Bangladesh’s development context and the author’s positionality in exploring this topic. Firstly, Bangladesh has a long history of colonial intervention spanning nearly two-and-a-half centuries. After gaining independence in 1971, it inherited a war-ravaged fragile economy and underwent reconstruction while recovering from political instability. Until the 1990s, it relied heavily on foreign aid for economic development (Raihan et al., 2010). Once dismissed as a basket case, Bangladesh was seen by many donors as a test case for development (Faaland and Parkinson, 1976). However, Bangladesh has emerged as one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, supported by a demographic dividend, and achieving remarkable progress in human and economic development over the last few decades. It is now cautiously described as a ‘success story’ in recent literature (Lewis, 2011). Numerous NGOs, consultancy firms, and think tanks are engaged in various development projects, employing many international and national development professionals. Despite attaining notable progress, Bangladesh remains on the periphery of knowledge creation, making its context highly significant. Secondly, the author, originally from Bangladesh, moved to the UK for doctoral studies in the early 2000s and is now a professor at a UK university. The author’s background, encompassing their upbringing, education, and early professional experience in Bangladesh, provides unique insights into researching the topic. The author’s longstanding interest in Bangladesh’s socio-economic development along with numerous publications in major international journals and from leading academic presses demonstrate their expertise, which is congruent with Williams, Meth and Willis’s (2014) concept of having an appropriate background for researching development knowledge production in Bangladesh.

Reviewing the role, ability and credibility of global North/South scholars in development knowledge production

Historically, knowledge production in global development (broadly speaking) has been primarily led by those who are perceived to have already experienced ‘development’, positioning them to prescribe how others might achieve ‘development’ ⁴ . As Parpart (1995:221) asserts, development often assumes that some people and places are more developed, and those who have the knowledge and expertise are best equipped to help those who are not. Although a sweeping generalisation would not be prudent, but this highlights that development incorporates the view that socio-economic problems at communal, national, regional and global levels can scientifically and rationally be solved through specialised institutions and expert knowledge (Parpart, 1995; Rist, 1997). For Escobar (1997: 91), development frames social life as a technical problem, that is likely managed by rational decisions of development professionals whose specialised knowledge allegedly qualified them for the task. Instead of embedding change in unique historical and cultural contexts of each society, these professionals devised mechanisms to conform societies into pre-existing models of modernity’s structures and functions (ibid).

The nature of development thus heavily relied on transferring ideas, models, and knowledge from ‘developed’ global North to the global South. However, to recipient societies/countries perceived as lacking specialist knowledge, this might seem like an intricate process often presented through alien frameworks. In this regard, brokering development plays a key role in explaining how development knowledge is translated and foisted upon through external frameworks (for example, see Bierschenk et al., 2002; Olivier De Sardan, 2005; Lewis and Mosse, 2006). This approach explains how development meanings are produced and negotiated in practice and how development processes and interactions have different significance for various actors (Arce and Long, 2000; Long and Long, 1992). One of these actors, namely the experts, engage in various levels of negotiation to bring a development programme/project to life. For Latour (1996: 194–5), they produce interpretations that are performative where they transform the world to align with their perspective of the world. Brokering development knowledge/recipe is essentially a type of entrepreneurship (Lewis and Mosse, 2006) that demonstrates intermediaries operating at the ‘interfaces’ of different worldviews and knowledge systems, and reveals their importance in negotiating roles, relationships and representations. By managing both strong and weak ties (Granovetter, 1973) in these negotiations, different social actors such as experts and senior development practitioners ‘steer or muddle their ways through difficult scenarios, turning ‘bad’ into ‘less bad’ circumstances’ (Long, 2001: 14). Here, it is important to recognise that knowledge produced in this manner can represent views from afar ⁵ as Mosse (2005) described their experience of producing knowledge in an Indian project. He illustrates that their knowledge of the project derived from short visits after long journeys, sleepless passage through airports, on overnight trains, within busy itineraries that connected thinking about the project to other intellectual endeavours such as research, teaching, policy advice, conferences or consultancies in other places. For him, perceptions of development (and relevant knowledge) were shaped by structured visits and information flows: meetings with managers, the core team and field staff dutifully assembled to represent experiences and events; short visits to particular villages accompanied by staff accustomed to interpreting (both language and events) to foreigners; meetings with village groups and walks across the ‘treated’ landscapes; training workshops; appointments with senior officials and evening reviews at the guest house, or dinners with dignitaries (ibid: 133). In the context of knowledge production in global development, it is imperative to recognise that such process/practice might be driven or dictated by one’s race, ethnicity and nationality. In particular, racial disparity (or white privilege) has held significant influence in international development for a long time and can be traced back to its historical past. For example, White (2002: 408) insists that, in 1980s Bangladesh, she experienced a position of marked racial privilege as a white person and benefited significantly from it. She explains that her whiteness, without her conscious intention, repeatedly opened her doors, allowed her to skip queues, filled her plates, and led to numerous invitations to speak at various forums. People liked her very quickly and she became used to being called ‘Madam’. A contrasting example can be found from Kothari’s (2006: 16) experience where she felt devalued while working as a consultant in Bangladesh for a bi-lateral agency alongside a white colleague. As a non-white person, she found that field visits decisions were based on perceived authority and who would be taken more seriously rather than who had more appropriate experience and knowledge. As a result, her white colleague was assigned meetings at Ministries and head offices of international development agencies, while she was allocated meetings with smaller NGOs and lower ranked government officials. The examples of White (2002), and Kothari (2006) highlight a largely common trend in the practice of global development where credibility (of views and knowledge) and authority are often determined by a person’s race or ethnic origin. The perceived superiority of aid giving West and western scholars is deeply rooted in development studies’ colonial past and hegemonic nature of Eurocentric knowledge. Development studies has long been critiqued for its Eurocentric foundation, deeply rooted in colonial legacies and perpetuated by Western institutions. To illustrate, many scholars (such as Appadurai, 2000; Alatas, 2006; Bhambra, 2007) argue that the dominance of Eurocentric knowledge is evident in how it structures the global hierarchy of knowledge, where Southern intellectuals are often seen as inferior unless they conform to Northern standards. Beyond being an academic issue it reflects the enduring legacy of colonialism, where knowledge and power remain deeply intertwined. As Crush (1995:3) stated, ‘the production of Western knowledge is inseparable from the exercise of Western power’. This is evident in how international development distinguishes between the ‘developed’ and ‘underdeveloped’ worlds, perpetuating a narrative that positions the West as the harbinger of progress and modernity (Kothari, 2006; Midgley, 1998). The epistemologies of the South, a framework proposed by Santos (2014), challenges this narrative by asserting that European/Western knowledge is not the only form of legitimate knowledge. This framework encourages an appreciation for diverse epistemologies and ontologies, suggesting that understanding the world requires a broader lens than the dominant Western-centric perspective. It underscores the importance of recognising the distortions in knowledge production caused by colonialism (Bhambra, 2020; Escobar, 2020). The recognition of multiple epistemes and ontologies suggest that the world’s understanding is much richer and more complex than the Western-centric model allows (Escobar, 2020).

In tandem with its colonial legacy, nature and practice of development, the relationships of aid (Eyben, 2006) also provide important insights into understanding knowledge production in global development. Diverse relationships of aid in development practices often demonstrate how Western ideas, and knowledge regulate the development process, where the authority of knowledge production is usually external to the targeted communities. This reinforces unequal power relationships between developed and aid recipient countries (Kothari, 2005). As a result, knowledge production remains mostly within the remits of the actors in the global North. Since the West produces and controls the knowledge and discourses of global development, it is unsurprising that knowledges from the global south is often excluded in the development literature, raising questions about whether development scholarship is colour-blind (White, 2002). While contrasting examples of White (2002) and Kothari (2006) above neatly back up such claim, some commentators have even argued that development is often framed in ‘white gaze’ and ‘whiteness’, which helps to establish and maintain asymmetrical power relations (Kothari, 2006; Pailey, 2020). This echoes Harrod’s (1982) claim that the vocabulary of development knowledge has largely been the vocabulary of domination.

In fact, western knowledge is often considered superior to local knowledge, especially by international organisations/western governments supporting development interventions in many low- and middle-income countries (Koch, 2020; Kranke, 2022; Sou, 2021). Academics, researchers, practitioners and scholars from the global South ⁶ , with their deep contextual understandings and knowledge, are presumably well-equipped to make significant contributions to addressing development problems ⁷ . Indeed, as Watene and Yap (2015) argue, local experts can provide different perspectives that significantly contribute to a shared understanding of development. Extant inequalities and power disparities among the Western and global South scholars make the knowledge of Southern scholars seem less reliable (Koch, 2020). Perhaps, this explains why many national staffs are assigned with ‘inferior desk-based roles’ in local country offices (Sundberg, 2019) where they are tasked with less important undertakings (Kothari, 2006) focused on ‘doing’ rather than thinking and designing development (Peters, 2020) while receiving significantly lower remuneration (McWha, 2011). The credibility deficit of global South scholars may be inherently linked to the credibility excess of global North scholars who are perceived to be more knowledgeable and competent in addressing development challenges (Koch 2020: 483). Given this context, the remaining sections of the article explore potential opportunities, challenges and politics of knowledge production in development studies for the global South scholars, as perceived by Bangladeshi researchers and practitioners within the aid and development sector.

Before proceeding, however, a methodological note on data collection and analysis used to formulate the evidence and arguments of this article would be helpful.

Researching knowledge production processes in Bangladesh’s development sector

The article adopts qualitative research methodology and draws on insights from 25 semi-structured interviews conducted in Bangladesh between July and September 2019. This choice was made to gain an in-depth understanding the perceptions, challenges, and potential politics involved in Bangladesh’ knowledge production processes, as experienced by development researchers and practitioners in the field. Over one-third of the respondents were female (9 out of 25), and the respondents held a range of authoritative positions. Specifically, among academic researchers, the study interviewed associate and full professors from various disciplines, including development studies; anthropology; public health; international relations; and environmental sciences. For development professionals/practitioners, the study interviewed Country Directors; Executive Directors, and Directors of (I)NGOs; Founders and Co-Founders of national-level research think tanks; and a president of an Indigenous rights-based organisation. Furthermore, development professional respondents also include senior officials from INGOs; UN organisations; and donor agencies (i.e. Monitoring and Evaluation Managers, Programme Development Specialists, Facilitation and Capacity Building Managers, and senior advisors). Bangladesh’s development sector employs numerous national staff who have worked for many years in senior roles, adhering to Kamruzzaman’s (2017) idea of national development experts (NDEs), who are recognised as legitimate authorities in the field of development. These respondents have extensive lived experience in Bangladesh’s development sector and have likely witnessed firsthand the processes through which knowledge is produced in their field. They are also aware of how this process might exclude certain individuals or groups for various reasons. Therefore, they are well-positioned to offer detailed and deep insights into the topic in hand.

As mentioned about the author’s positionality above, access to some respondents was obtained through the author’s personal and professional contacts. Moreover, snowballing sampling technique was also employed in accessing additional respondents. Interviews were conducted in Dhaka and all interviews were conducted in Bengali using face-to-face interactions during work and off-work hours of the respondents. The discussions, during the interviews, focused on the respondents’ professional experience in the development sector, their motivations and experiences in knowledge production, and perceived challenges, barriers and other cognate issues surrounding the topic. Some might argue that the views presented here might lack complete objectivity, as respondents discussed their own roles and associated processes/politics in knowledge production. However, this is crucial to recognise the significance of this group (and their lived experience) whose accounts are largely absent from existing scholarship. While the positionalities of the author and respondents may impact objectivity (Holmes, 2021), the perspectives offered by these interlocutors are valuable for shedding important light on the subject matter (Mathijssen et al., 2023).

The author is a native speaker of Bengali and therefore it was believed to be most effective to conduct the interviews in Bengali. Being a native speaker enables a deeper understanding of cultural and linguistic contexts, fostering trust with respondents and facilitating richer conversations during interviews, as well as a nuanced interpretation of the conversation/data (Merriam et al., 2001; Welch and Piekkari, 2006). All interviews were recorded with the informed consent of the respondents. These were later transcribed in Bengali, followed by translation in English. The English transcriptions were analysed based on the emerging themes (such as motivation, critical self-reflections, challenges, anticipated reward, local project led development practices, structural inequality, power relationships, and whiteness/nationality) identified through reading and re-reading the transcripts. In doing so, primary and secondary codes were developed, and indexing was used in identifying patterns and emergent themes in the data. The thematic analysis was iterative and reflexive (Braun and Clarke, 2019). The respondents’ testimonies provide crucial insights into the processes and politics of knowledge production in Bangladesh’s aid and development sector. Additionally, the positionality of both the respondents and author believed to have contributed to gain a deeper and more nuanced understanding. The ethical guidelines of the Association of Social Anthropologists (ASA) have been followed in conducting this study, including data collection and data analysis. As such, to ensure respondents’ anonymity and confidentiality, no names are included in presenting empirical evidence in this article. The respondents’ occupations are the only identifiers used when presenting their views throughout this article.

Findings

This section offers empirical evidence on some key themes described by the respondents of this study, including motivations (or lack thereof) for knowledge production, critical self-reflections, the process of knowledge production in Bangladesh, local culture and practice of knowledge production, reward and recognition for publication, structural inequalities and power relations in aid sector. Despite knowledge can take variable forms (see footnote 2), it was most often expressed through publications, such as, among others, journal articles or research monographs from renowned international publishing houses. There has been a degree of commonness in acknowledging that Bangladeshis (academics/researchers and development professionals) working in the aid and development sector are not actively engaged in knowledge production. However, there were differences in respondents’ views that explain the presumed nonparticipation. Some respondents suggested one of the main reasons might be a lack of motivation among the Bangladeshi researchers and practitioners, as quoted below.

…there is a serious lack of motivation in producing knowledge in Bangladesh. If you look at the Bangladeshi universities globally, their ranking is very low, And most of the [academic] staff are aware of this. Even the senior professors, who should be more responsible in generating high quality knowledge, more specifically new knowledge - they're not doing it. They know what is expected of them, but there is a significant lack of seriousness. [An Associate Professor of Public Health]

…mindset is a major issue. Most of us think we’re just doing a job, we can make a presentation using PowerPoints and that’s enough. How we can turn our practises into new theories does not seem to be on anybody’s list. There is no such mindset or dedication in that aspect. [Program Director of an INGO]

While some respondents highlighted a lack of motivation and mindset issue as important reasons for the minimal contribution of Bangladeshi development researchers and practitioners to knowledge production, others expressed frustration, regret and embarrassment for not being able to publish or contribute to knowledge production. There was critical self-reflections that, given their experience and expertise, they should have contributed more to the country’s development knowledge. A sense of regret is evident in following quotations.

I deeply regret that I have not published anything substantial yet. If I end my career and retire without writing anything, then I’ll be really ashamed of myself. [Executive Director of a national research foundation]

This is an embarrassing issue for me, and I am sorry for not publishing. [Executive Director of an NGO]

I would really like to build the [name of the institution] as a knowledge hub on human rights and governance issues that would combine theory and practice. The vast experience we have accumulated over many years we should be able to do that. [Executive Director of a national research foundation]

Following the discussions of motivations (or lack thereof) for knowledge production and critical self-reflections, respondents were probed about the process of knowledge production in Bangladesh. In doing so, they were also asked to explore the roles, opportunities or challenges for global South scholars/actors, including themselves. This was underscored that there are some intuitive issues in the knowledge production processes by the researchers and practitioners of global South. To illustrate, there has been an acknowledgement that getting published ⁸ in a renowned outlet (e.g. a peer-reviewed journal or other formats) is rather difficult. This was perceived to be even harder for global South scholars as one respondent suggested:

…publishing world is very Eurocentric, West-centric. That’s a problem for third world intellectuals anywhere in the world. Publication is not easy. You may require a lot of resources to read before publishing. So if you don’t have access to resources, how do you write? Just because you have raw data doesn’t mean you can write an excellent academic paper. You need access to most updated knowledgebase because publishing is a fast-moving world…and if you consider my university, I do not have that access. [Professor of Anthropology 1]

For some, such difficulties maybe discouraging, keeping them largely distant from peer reviewed knowledge production outlets. This, to an extent, might lead some to opt for easier alternatives, such as writing and expressing views on social media platforms where peer reviewing and familiarity with updated theories and practices maybe less significant, as one respondent said:

Majority of the Bangladeshi experts are not keen on academic writing or knowledge production. They would write something on their Facebook but will not publish ten percent of their professional experience and learning unless they are paid or contracted for such activities. [Program Director of an INGO]

In tandem with inherent challenges in contributing to development knowledge production in Bangladesh, respondents persistently emphasised on a local cultural practice that may deter them from actively engaging in such efforts. To elaborate, this was highlighted several times that people need to be rewarded for their work. Naturally, this will encourage and motivate someone to engage in intellectual task such as knowledge production. However, there seems to be a widespread belief that there is no plausible reward or recognition, both financially and professionally, for contributing to knowledge production in Bangladesh. Furthermore, knowledge production (particularly in published forms) is often a painstaking and time-consuming process. However, respondents expressed a sense that there is little regard for whether individuals have published, or the credibility of the platforms which they were published.

…it really does not add any credibility, believe me. In my entire career, nobody has asked me in any interview or elsewhere how many publications I have. Rather people ask me how many people I have managed, what difficult situations I handled, what was my failure and what are my successes. People in this country are not looking for who is an academic or researcher [who can possibly publish]. There may be a handful of people who want to do research, but they are really isolated. [Program Director of an INGO]

…there are multiple reasons one has to consider. Academic promotion in our country is extremely easy. You have publication somewhere and that will be counted in. There are no rigorous criteria about high quality publications like many foreign countries have. That’s one perspective. Another is that most people believe publications do not offer any incentive. For example, at public universities, salaries are very low. In order to survive many professors from public universities are now teaching at private universities where salaries are higher. Or, some are taking up project-based consultancy jobs. So, the simple matter is most academics and researchers cannot dedicate the required time that those in foreign universities can. [An Associate Professor of Public Health]

The feeling of not being rewarded or recognised for knowledge production led some respondents to delve more into the existing practice of Bangladesh’s aid and development sector. Some felt the system by default does not allow enough time to write/produce academic publications, which demands that other activities need to be completed in a timebound manner, often aligned with very tight project deadlines. The projects are also designed to focus on field-based interventions rather than on producing authoritative knowledge on Bangladesh’s aid and development. Furthermore, for some, project based development practice create new and repeating opportunities. The result is some, though not all, get involved or requested through personal and professional networks to take up roles in several development projects. This might lead them to struggle to complete the tasks on time and wash away any plans or aspirations they may have for knowledge production.

I think Bangladeshi development experts and professionals are not involved in academic publications mainly for two reasons. Firstly, our development professionals do not get the comfort to write something. We are always on edge. Secondly, by the time someone gets space for publication they reach at a stage or age where they cannot keep up with academic writing. The reality is there is no balance and space to coordinate field operations and publications. [An Advisor for an INGO]

I have worked for several organisations. Frequently, I think about how different organisations adopt and implement policies, which could be a good topic [for writing]. I also feel inclined to write about other organisational incidents but then cannot manage to write anything. I work fulltime, have a family and need rest. I work with my husband here. We have registration for another organisation, and we do some consultancies through that. I have another business and a farmhouse. I have a big dream. [Senior Program Development Specialist of a donor organisation]

The project-based nature and practice of Bangladesh’s aid and development sector, often in the form of consultant roles through personal and professional network, can significantly limits the potential for someone to meaningfully engage in knowledge production. This approach can often feel relentless. Respondents in this study mentioned that, perhaps this is not entirely comparable to high pressure environments in some corporate sectors, the deadlines can be very demanding. Moreover, due to associated conditions, such as presentations and participation in high level meetings/dissemination events, Bangladeshi academics/researchers (working as paid consultants) and practitioners become engrained in fulfilling the terms and references of the consultancy/job contracts. That is how the payment (reward from a financial perspective) is warranted, not through publications/knowledge production.

Since we are full-time development professionals, employers always keep us under pressure. Only in a handful of international organisations you might find some scope if you can convince your manager/supervisor that publication is important for the project. There is hardly any opportunity while working in an NGO or project-based development work. Either as an employee, you are responsible for completing timebound tasks/activities or as a consultant you have taken money to deliver something. So there is always overwhelming work pressure that will not let you publish. [Facilitation and Capacity Building Manager of an INGO]

The above highlights the respondents’ apparent lack of motivation, regrets and aspirations alongside the challenges posed by extant practices within Bangladesh’s aid and development sector. Furthermore, some respondents also indicated that inequalities within the ‘structure’ and in power relationships within development practices obstruct their participation and inclusion in knowledge production. To elaborate, in practice, there seems to be a remarkable gap between scholars of the global North and South. The unequal structure within Bangladesh’s aid and development sector presents additional challenges for the Bangladeshi researchers and practitioners who experience that the landscape favours the overseas actors particularly from the donor countries. Current practices seem to have their ‘chosen ones’ responsible for leading knowledge production. Almost exclusively they are not the Bangladeshi researchers and practitioners. Such practice perpetuates inequality, as ‘young volunteers’ from the donor countries soon occupy senior positions and wield influence in setting the development agenda or fulfilling the donors’ agenda. As one respondent mentioned:

There is a huge inequality in terms of capacity building and opportunity [for knowledge production]. When I worked in [name of the organisation removed], I saw how they create experts. There used to be a few volunteers and interns from overseas who had a passion to work in Bangladesh. They were given many flexibilities and institutional support by offering them formal positions. They were encouraged to participate in high-level meetings and asked to produce research reports or other publications. Within a couple of years, I saw them working as senior experts on Bangladesh [Project Manager of a UN Organisation].

Data generated from the research projects/activities led by Bangladeshi professionals may seem cutting edge and exciting, but this does not guarantee that these professionals will lead knowledge production. Power differentials within the sector often limit Bangladeshi researchers and practitioners while privilege overseas researchers or scholars. This represents a practice that is essentially and structurally inequal. Although data produced in Bangladesh, led by Bangladeshi researcher/practitioner might end up being published, perhaps in some high-quality outlets, but that would often mould into the western models and led by foreign/western consultants/researchers. As can be seen from the following:

There is a discontent when donors impose their perspectives on research projects. Frequently, donors tell us who should be included as consultant for the project, mostly their own people. This turns into frustration when the foreign consultant cannot relate to the local context and tries to fit things into a common, traditional Western model. This makes you wonder whether you meant to be involved in that research, and any remaining desire to write from that research flies away by then [Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Manager of an INGO].

…whether a Bangladeshi staff can produce knowledge through academic publications depends on the project design. Most of the time, one cannot go beyond the scope of the project, and Bangladeshi development professionals are too busy solving field-level problems. We are solving these problems while we are sleeping, when we are with family and even during the weekend. A research publication demands deep thinking and requires additional time. Most often, development projects do not permit that unless the employing organisations have pressure to produce academic publications, which is rare luxury, and it is not same for all organisations. [Project Manager of a UN Organisation]

A crucial element is recognising that knowledge production is not solely attributed to one particular actor involved in aid and development sector. Nevertheless, there is a tendency of passing the onus onto others. While the academic researchers feel that (I)NGO professionals may not have the required theoretical knowledge, the practitioner community imply that knowledge production should be the job for the academics. Clearly, there is a gap that needs to be addressed for meaningful participation in knowledge production, as one respondent suggested:

I feel someone needs to bridge the gap between theory and practice. In NGO work, we often blame academics for not producing good publications, while the academics blame the NGO practitioners for not having enough theoretical understanding. In most cases, NGOs develop some tools to deliver their projects. In other words, we spend money to finish projects without linking theory and practice. [Project Manager of a UN Organisation]

This section, based on the views offered by the respondents, covers issues ranging from lack of motivation to financial or other recognition/rewards, local practices, unequal structure within the aid sector that may favour northern scholars over local researchers and practitioners. This indicates that there might be assorted reasons why Bangladeshi researchers and practitioners seem to lack a distinctive interest in academic publication and/or not making significant contributions to development knowledge production. While it is difficult to focus on any particular reason or challenge, a combination of factors might provide a useful angle in this regard, as summed up by one respondent:

…we also work with some foreign consultants who are the PIs of our projects. We know they lead the research, design the study, and as far as I know, do not get any financial benefit from these projects. Research and publications from these projects would further their careers. It seems they work with us to publish from the projects. On the other hand, when we include local professors, they are not keen on publications they more keen on consultancy fees. Publications will not add anything to their (local professors’) careers or guarantee a promotion. So, to me, the difference is clear. Foreign researchers seem to be keen on publications because that is required for their careers, whereas local researchers think cash money will be good for their life and wellbeing. [Country Director of an INGO]

Moreover, respondents highlighted that institutional affiliation bears significant weight in development knowledge production. They felt the Western universities and institutions get more credibility and preference from the onset (i.e. submission of a work) of the knowledge production process, limiting the participation and inclusion of the global South scholars.

There are times when who is a Bangladeshi expert and who is an international expert does not matter that much. Instead, it comes down to who works where – in the West or in Bangladesh. Institutional affiliations matter hugely when it comes to international acceptance. For example, if someone from Harvard or Cambridge or London School of Economics writes about Bangladesh, that work seems to be more credible than someone from Bangladesh writing on that topic. What I mean to say is that institutional affiliation often plays a role in knowledge production and, in my view, that creates a structural impediment for generating knowledge by Bangladeshi development experts and professionals [An Associate Professor of International Relations].

Discussion

The views presented above offer important yet critical insights into understanding the disparity into knowledge production between the scholars from the global North and South ⁹ . The assenting evidence of such disparity highlights areas and aspects that need critical scrutiny in discerning the processes and practices of development knowledge production. Respondents of this study have offered a wide-ranging perspective that should be carefully considered against any generalised viewpoint (e.g. perceived ability and credibility of scholars from any specific region/location). There is an acknowledgement that working in the global South often comes with a default feature of resource limitation. This may present a major challenge in achieving equal or comparable participation in global development knowledge (see above as the respondents highlighted how personal and institutional resource limitations constrain them from making meaningful contribution to knowledge production). Self-reflections of the respondents, who acknowledged that their minimal contribution might result from a lack of motivation, can also be seen as an important marker of non-generalisability of the empirical evidence presented in this article. It is important to recognise that some from Bangladesh (and perhaps in other parts of the global South as well) may lack conviction and motivation towards knowledge production, as they may be keen on more immediate material rewards such as consultancy fees ¹⁰ . While Heng et al. (2023) observed a similar tendency in Cambodia, this is perhaps neither applicable to all global South scholars nor limited only to actors in the global South.

Empirical evidence presented here further contributes to the critical scholarship of global development by arguing that various forms of aid relationships can often reinforce the extant hierarchy within the aid architecture. This reproduces the current hegemony in which the aid givers’ knowledge is deemed superior to the aid recipients. This issue seems to have historical significance, as Goulet (1980) reveals how development knowledge, mainly through prescribing and imposing universal recipes (despite variable social conditions and realities where these are applied) legitimises the knowledge power of Northern actors and expands the intellectual subordination over others. In fact, the issue of power relations was repeatedly emphasised by the respondents in this study. It appears to be the norm (possibly with some exceptions) that global development as a subfield of knowledge is mostly led by academics, consultants, donors and other practitioners from the global North, who aim to deliver policy solutions for the global South and produce knowledge along the way ¹¹ .

The way power creates/maintain inequalities between the Northern actors and the researchers and practitioners of the global South, as evidenced in this article, eventually exclude the latter. This complements and adds new insights into the existing understanding of various relationships around aid, including how international organisations perform and maintain their roles as global experts and producers of exclusive knowledge by bordering/excluding others (Kranke, 2022). Evidently, those who supply and control resources have leverage over those who rely on them. Current practices of aid and development, as illustrated above in a Bangladesh context, create and maintain an atmosphere where the researchers and practitioners from the global South feel overwhelmed by collecting field data (and coordinating field related matters) while further intellectual tasks (e.g. knowledge production) are seemingly reserved for their foreign counterparts. People working in this sector know which group they belong to. The terms and conditions of their engagements ensure there remains no doubt about who is in charge. Current practices can then be likened to the common saying of he who pays the piper calls the tune. The disparity and imbalance of power allow one group (the donors) to not just dictate the other (the aid recipients) but also favour aspiring volunteers, interns or young professionals from the donor countries who possess lesser experience of the sector, and limited knowledge about local socio-cultural and political contexts. The lesser importance or exclusion of global South scholars in knowledge production within existing practices of global development therefore result in (re)producing a type of knowledge that reinforces Western superiority and hegemony. This may circumvent the scope and options for local researchers and practitioners who desire to make positive contributions to their countries’ development. For example, Sundberg (2019) shows that in Tanzania development practitioners working for foreign donors face the risk of being perceived as having ‘local bias’ due to their deep contextual insider knowledge. Such suspicion can lead to losing the trust of their foreign employers resulting in sidelining their insights and reinforcing the dominance of foreign perspectives in aid and development, thus limiting the value of local expertise in Tanzania’s development. This aligns with Peters’ (2016) argument that in aid and development sector, knowledge and contributions of local actors are often not as recognised as those of Northern expatriates.

What causes the exclusion of global South scholars within the hegemonic practices of knowledge production in global development? In conjunction with the empirical evidence presented above, one can potentially argue that prevailing practices, which exclude researchers and practitioners from the global South in development knowledge production, may result from the colour-blind nature of global development (White, 2002). The current practice privileges Northern actors while frequently ignoring other perspectives (Roth, 2019), and the underrepresentation of global South scholars in development scholarship reflects a structural bias (Sundberg, 2023). Put simply, such discrimination contradicts with the development ‘ideals’ of ‘reducing inequality’. This article demonstrates how Northern professionals are given preferential treatments, a pattern also observed in Ghana by Kamruzzaman and Kumi (2023). They show that senior local researchers in Ghana often ‘mentor’ young interns from the donor countries who generally lack practical experience and understanding of local socio-cultural and political contexts. However, this was common in Ghana for those young interns to be promoted within 6 months to 2 years to positions where they supervise and ‘line manage’ the local senior researchers who previously mentored them.

Understanding the social construction of (under)development is crucial for addressing the exclusionary hegemonic practices of development. Knowledge about (under)development is predominantly constructed in Northern institutions (e.g. universities and think tanks) that are involved in development cooperation and practice in various ways. For global South scholars to find an ‘equal voice’ in development knowledge production, it is important for them to publish widely, among other initiatives. However, as evidenced here, alongside the perceived lack of motivation among global South scholars, the structure and practices of aid architecture significantly widen the existing gap in knowledge production. Pertinent to this, language barriers can significantly impede non-native English-speaking Global South scholars from contributing to knowledge production. Limited proficiency in academic English might results in disadvantages and discrimination, restricting their ability to publish in English-dominant journals and other platforms (Heng et al., 2023; Kubota, 2020; Pratt and De Vries, 2023). Additionally, global South scholars often do not receive due credit and deserved authorship for their contributions to knowledge production (see Kumi and Kamruzzaman, 2021). Reproducing dominant knowledge or being pressured to be validated by the Eurocentric hegemonic knowledge can also pose significant challenges (Bhambra, 2020; Escobar, 2020; Santos, 2014). This can occur through the training Southern actors receive, whether at home or at overseas/Northern universities, which often frame them into similar mindset, and limit alternative thinking and knowledge production along the way. Respondents in this study articulated their concerns and frustrations when data collected by them were moulded into a universal model for publication by the Northern actors who control knowledge production from afar (Mosse, 2005). In addition, institutional affiliation (whether the author is based in the global South or global North) often outweighs the content and ideas of development work. Respondents confirmed this from their experience in contributing to knowledge production. This issue not only highlights a penchant for global Northern institutions ¹² but also reflects the divide between public and private universities in Bangladesh. This also underscores disparity between Bangladeshi scholars based in overseas/Northern institutions and those affiliated with institutions in Bangladesh.

Notwithstanding, several studies (e.g. Kamruzzaman 2017; Koch 2020; Sundberg 2019) suggest that many researchers and practitioners from the global South, often with highest educational degrees from globally renowned universities, are highly capable of producing valuable knowledge for their own countries and contributing critically to global development scholarship. Their engagements in various consultancies, academic outputs and technical reports are clearly symptomatic to this fact. As detailed by some respondents, the issue (global South scholars’ low or nonparticipation in knowledge production) could be more of a cultural phenomenon, as academic and cognate publications often do not add much value for their careers (e.g. in terms of reputation, more consultancies, higher salary or promotion). This, on one hand, may highlight that some researchers and practitioners from the global South deliberately choose not to pursue academic publication or other forms of knowledge production. But, on the other hand, this also reveals an important aspect of the process where current structure and practices within development landscape subtly push them away from knowledge production. Subsequently, they may prefer to engage with donors and foreign researchers in a manner, which opens doors and opportunities of immediate material benefits (e.g. paid consultancies) rather than collaborating on knowledge production in their fields. This is not to say that some researchers and practitioners are not involved in knowledge production; there is some evidence of participation in this aspect. But two things seem common. First, knowledge production is not the primary objective, and second, in most cases, global South scholars are included as co-authors rather than leading the process.

As mentioned above, terms such as ‘global North’, ‘global South’ and ‘scholars’ (in the field of global development) cannot be fully comprehended through singular universal conceptualisations, nor do these concepts have universally accepted definitions. They may or may not represent elite or privileged groups within their societies, as they do not necessarily occupy the powerful or economically dominant positions. They, however, have the authority to operationalise and validate external development frameworks, thereby (re)producing the kind of knowledge that can enhance the position of national elites. By doing so, they often get rewarded with influential positions and improved economic prospects. It is, therefore, important to recognise that a blanket binary approach may not be helpful. To illustrate, recent works by Peters (2020) and Sundberg (2019; 2023) show that, in Angola, Tanzania and Kenya, in-country development professionals often possess similar types of knowledge due to their education and training (often in western universities) and class background (largely from affluent or elite backgrounds with little job insecurity). Kamruzzaman (2013) describes them as a ‘comprador class’, pursuing self-interest and other benefits by ‘parroting’ the donors’ language. Moreover, Stirrat (2008) criticises global North actors/experts, suggesting that their motivations are driven more by personal profit and career advancement than by a desire to ‘do good’ or an interest in foreign cultures. Whether this is a performative action (aimed at gaining favour with the donors) is perhaps a larger issue, but it is crucial to avoid the indiscriminate suggestion that individuals born in a specific country inherently possess deeper local knowledge than outsiders/foreigners. Nevertheless, it is important to emphasise that the hierarchical nature of global development often positions the local researchers and practitioners as beneficiaries of development interventions, rather than professionals with equal or greater expert authority than their foreign colleagues (Peters, 2020; Sou, 2021; Sundberg, 2019). Even if we hypothetically assume that many Northern scholars may possess superior local knowledge, the overwhelming experience indicates that in-country development professionals’ knowledge is believed to be ‘less credible’ anyway (Koch, 2020: 483). This perpetuates unequal power relationships favouring western knowledge over local knowledge (Kothari, 2006; Pailey, 2020; Sou, 2021). As Kamruzzaman and Kumi (2023) argue that the deliberate exclusion of non-Western expertise and knowledge in global development scholarship stems in part from the hegemonic nature of development, where non-Western knowledge is often considered secondary. Similar concerns about the under/non recognition of non-western perspectives have been highlighted elsewhere in the global development literature (see, for example, Pailey, 2020; White, 2002; Koch, 2020).

Conclusion

Achieving equity in knowledge production, not as a mere rhetoric but in practice, between the global North and global South is of paramount importance. Without it, we will have partial knowledges and fragmented realities that may not account for the entirety of diverse social realities that exist in different corners of the world (Kamruzzaman, 2017). It is important to recognise that knowledges produced outside the Eurocentric world and frameworks might be more farsighted and ‘perhaps even more appropriate and meaningful than those produced from the detached perspectives’ (Escobar, 2020: 49-52). In this vein, lack of discussion about the contribution of global South scholars to knowledge production may reflect a wilful silence within the aid architecture and global development practices. As Kothari (2006: 20) suggests, such silence allows the key protagonists to ‘avoid being accountable for the power, privileges and inequalities that continue to flow from whiteness’. This resonates with the critique that global development suffers from a white-gaze problem where ‘Western whiteness remains a signifier of expertise’ (Pailey 2020: 731) and this article contends that this also applies to knowledge production. The lack of participation by global South scholars in existing scholarship creates a knowledge gap with serious implications for efforts to ‘open up development’. Ignoring this issue risks producing partial development knowledge, resulting in biased, hegemonic and non-holistic knowledge of aid and development, as we currently know of. This, in turn, may reinforce the (re)production of colonial discourses of knowledge and power (Alatas, 2006; Bhambra, 2007; Kothari, 2006; Midgley, 1998) while preserving existing inequalities within aid and global development practices. Therefore, incorporating the perspectives of global South scholars into development scholarship will serve to re-balance the predominantly Western ideals and narratives of development. Evidence and arguments presented in this article highlight that by rejecting, sidelining, and subjugating knowledges produced in the global South, development studies scholarship and other social sciences are manufacturing a specific type of knowledge that circumvent equity in knowledge production and prolongs Western hegemony.

Understanding how different contexts influence the success or failure of development interventions in many low- and middle-income countries requires scrutinising how and whether global South researchers and practitioners can influence development. In echoing Pailey’s (2020: 732) argument, it is imperative to realise that until the views of global South scholars are not incorporated into development discourses, policy and practice, development will continue to suffer from the Western or white gaze problem. This article, however, acknowledges that the scholars from the global South do not represent a homogenous category, and there will be variations in positions, aspirations, and power within this group. Indeed, the same might be true for the scholars based in the global North. As such, on one hand, some global South scholars may be well connected with their foreign counterparts and are trained to (re)produce knowledge, in some capacity, that preserves existing inequality and hegemony. In addition, global South scholars based in Western countries may enjoy comparative advantages, albeit they might still face institutional inequality/racism that potentially limits their progress and endeavours to attain an equal voice in knowledge production. On the other hand, some scholars from the global North may also experience job insecurity through untenured, fixed term or hourly paid teaching intensive contracts, which leave them with little work-life balance and insufficient time for publication and knowledge production – akin to perceived challenges for knowledge production as reported by global South scholars in this article. Although this is beyond the scope and focus of this article, it is important to acknowledge this issue to avoid oversimplification. Nevertheless, the power relations within aid and global development practices will be very difficult to shift as they are deeply embedded in hegemonic knowledge production processes, which has remarkable resilience, and the ability to co-opt challenging and dissenting views (Cox, 1999). Empirical materials and arguments presented in this article provide an opportunity to diversify the understandings of the processes, inequalities, and power relationships that shape and control the development studies scholarship. In doing so, this article contributes to the discourse on the disparities in access, resource politics, and power dynamics in development knowledge production, as revealed by the respondents. It explores how consultancy work is often financially more rewarding within local cultural contexts, and in Bangladesh, contributing to knowledge production appears less beneficial for career advancement. While it is difficult to definitively link this to a global hegemonic process in knowledge production, this study highlights that Bangladesh’s aid and development sector tends to relegate local researchers, academics, and practitioners to data collection roles, reserving critical analysis and knowledge building for Western scholars. Greater equity in knowledge production is essential to exemplify the richness of cultural diversity and alternative modes and meanings of life, happiness, humanity and development. This is also crucial to examine the transnational and regional dynamics exploring the processes and politics of development knowledge production to address uneven intellectual flows and ‘epistemological diffidence’ (Appadurai 2000:4). Deserved appreciations of diverse worldviews and epistemologies of the South (Escobar, 2020; Santos, 2014) is crucial for advancing global development knowledge, as this challenges the superiority of western ideals of modernity, enlightenment and growth-oriented notion of progress/development.