What with IKM-Emergent 2

Presentation by Sarah: 

Where are we at?

Proposal developed by Sarah with inputs from Mike and Ewen and others.

Proposed timeline and plan:

  • Continue to work on this, on the basis of the ToC developed, remaining in discussion inside and outside the programme (DGIS / MinBuZa) and other donors.


  • Our critique: the knowledge foundations of current development practice are fundamentally inconsistent with what is actually needed if development is to take place. No masterplan due to complexity, no external prescriptions, local knowledge/context, multiple knowledges, traducture.
    • Hannah: we need to add/ress power relations
    • Michael: Claim the power! Look at power from different perspectives e.g. presenting information from non dominant power structures.
  • Our analysis: holistic approach.
    • Development knowledge ecology, connecting multiple knowledges, local knowledge/content, practice in organisations, information artefacts.
    • Mike: the knowledge ecology metaphor emphasises inter relations between actors and also on how knowledge is produced and how it relates and should lead to a common public good.
    • Pete: this discussion about knowledge ecology triggers a lot of discussion so we should unpack it further.
  • Proposal objectives: raise awareness of dev knowledge cology, develop new approaches/understandings, act as international extra-organisational source of countervailing knowledge, promote development-oriented innovation within Info/Knowledge management, act as space where dev practitioners can reflect/learn and experiment, encourage and support new dev't practice.
  • Model on adaptive pluralism adapted to IKM-2.
  • Proposed programme structure: Chapters (knowledge ecology, local knowledge, information artefacts, practice, steering group and co-ordination);
  • Other points: communication (collective sense-making internally, collective engagement strategy externally), evaluation based on collective learning spiral (open, inclusive, reflexive, future orientation, collaborative, creative), theory of change, institutionalisation.
  • Points for discussion: Regional hubs (in and then out), role of individuals, funders? Any other comments?

What issues?

  • How to continue without funding?
  • What would you like to do? 
  • Mike: we evolved from a research project to an influencing / change project based on the network that we are.

Group work: