Session 3: Knowledge, Economy and Intercultural Policy

Session 3: Knowledge, Economy and Intercultural Policy
Chair: Marjorie Greene

Managing Knowledge Pluralism
S. Ram Vemuri
Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia

This paper is about (i) recognizing existence of knowledge diversity in contemporary societies and (ii) addressing the need for managing knowledge pluralism. There are still many who deny its existence although it manifests itself in many ways. Not only is there is a need to examine why some believe in the existence of knowledge pluralism and why others deny it, but there is also a need to identify the costs of its denial to society at large.
The paper is organised as follows. The first part of the paper traces out the philosophical and historical basis for existence of knowledge pluralism in contemporary societies. The second part of the paper analyses the impact of knowledge pluralism, in particular, on economic thinking and the influence on policies for pursuing economic betterment. It will be suggested that many of the economic management challenges confronting modern day economies can be more appropriately dealt with by not only recognising the existence of knowledge pluralism but also managing economic pluralism. The third part of the paper examines strategies for managing knowledge pluralism.

The Belief in Life as a ‘zero sum game’ and the Belief in Life as a ‘non-zero sum game’ and Intercultural Relationships
Patrick Imbert
Research Chair, University of Ottawa, Canada

The belief in life as a zero-sum game means that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The belief in life as a non-zero-sum game is to think that it is possible to increase wealth, either through the “trickle down effect” or through social redistribution. In the Canadian context, the belief in life as a zero-sum game is linked to the exterior as well as to the interior. For instance, in the context of NAFTA, Mexico can be seen as a dangerous competitor ready to destroy the Canadian job market. Inside Canada , for Francophones, bilingualism can be seen as leading to assimilation to English, while for Anglophone it can be seen as a loss of economic opportunities for unilingual citizens. In a nutshell, the belief in a zero sum game leads to reject change, alterity and new contexts. The belief in life as a zero-sum game is partly rooted in modernity. It leads to an ideology trying to foster a monosemy or an essentialism linked to stable roots. In the case of the promotion of multiculturalism, it leads to a ghettoized and bureaucratic multiculturalism, divided into separate spaces such as the one criticized by Neil Bissoondath in Selling Illusions. The belief in life as a zero sum game is opposed to an interculturalism open to hybridity and reflexivity, that is to new ways to create symbolic and economic wealth through the exploration of new types of exchanges activated by the postmodern/postcolonial legitimation of geo-symbolic displacements. The belief in life as a zero sum game is counterproductive in a society where the population has to efficiently manipulate knowledge in order to be able to compete creatively in a globalized world by being able to produce new significations and new solutions to complex global problems.

Download Conference Paper –

Cross-sector Policy and Practice at the UK Government Department for International Development (DFID) in the UK and Nepal
Catherine Bovill
Institute for International Health and Development, Queen Margaret University College, Edinburgh, Scotland

Within international development, global agreement around the goals of poverty elimination and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) has led to renewed emphasis on ‘joined-up working’, partnership, and cross-sectoral approaches. This emphasis has been motivated by concerns to ensure coherent policy and practice between the plurality of actors in an increasingly complex global arena. The realisation that previous sectoral approaches to development have often failed to impact beneficially on poor people, has added to the calls for more cross-sectoral approaches that better reflect poor people’s cross-sectoral lives.
This paper is based on research into cross-sector policy and practice at the UK Government Department for International Development (DFID), in the UK and Nepal . Definitions and concepts of cross-sector policy and practice are explored including a ‘cross-sector continuum’ model representing different levels of collaboration. Visual diagramming and other participatory methods were utilised as techniques for exploring and representing cross-sectoral processes and relationships.
DFID have made some significant structural changes and have engaged in discussion to improve cross-sectorality. There are examples of varying levels of cross-sectoral engagement throughout the organisation, but these were strongest at country and project levels. Gender, sustainable livelihoods and HIV, along with individuals that have a particular commitment to collaborative approaches, can act as catalysts for institutional change in cross-sector policy and practice. Other factors that facilitate cross-sectoral approaches were also identified. However, the research found that collaborative rhetoric within DFID documentation is not matched by the same level of commitment to operationalising cross-sectoral approaches. DFID face some major barriers to adopting cross-sectoral approaches including: a disjuncture between its role as a government bureaucracy and its role as a development organisation; a primary focus on product rather than processes; and the current pursuit of central level and sectoral approaches thought by some to be incompatible with cross-sectorality. The challenge is exacerbated by ‘disciplinarity’ and ‘territoriality’ within DFID, particularly involving the health sector.
Although this study focused on DFID, the findings and some of the participatory methods used in this research offer lessons about cross-sectoral and broader collaborative working to a much wider audience.

Download Conference Paper –