Who Shapes Development Knowledge? Epistemic Justice, Local Context, and Why It Matters

Sep 12
In international development, we often focus on funding, institutions, policy, and impact. But there’s a deeper layer we don’t always stop to consider: Whose knowledge is guiding the work in the first place?

This is what philosophers call epistemic justice. It’s about fairness in who gets to be heard, trusted, and taken seriously as a “knower.” When certain voices—often those closest to the challenges—are overlooked, development risks becoming misaligned or even harmful. When knowledge is shared and co-created, change becomes more context-driven, sustainable, and just.

WHY EPISTEMIC JUSTICE MATTERS IN DEVELOPMENT

Miranda Fricker (2007), who first developed the idea, reminds us that injustice isn’t just about material outcomes—it can also be about being silenced or misunderstood. In development, this plays out when local communities are consulted but not listened to, or when donor reporting matters more than community accountability.

Research today shows us that this isn’t just a theoretical issue. Projects fail when they ignore local context, undervalue community insight, or assume solutions can be copied from one place to another. Cummings, Dhewa, Kemboi et al. (2023) highlight structural and linguistic injustices—such as when local knowledge systems are dismissed or erased. And Parviainen et al. (2025) emphasize the importance of building capacities for locally led knowledge co-production in areas like climate adaptation.

Put simply: Whose knowledge counts often determines whether a project thrives or quietly fades away.

WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE IN PRACTICE

Think about it:

  • Have you ever seen a program look strong on paper, yet miss the mark in practice?
  • Or a project with good intentions that didn’t stick once the funding ended?

Often, these challenges tie back to issues of epistemic justice. For example:

  • Institutions can claim to be “inclusive” while still privileging external expertise over local realities.
  • Accountability can lean upward to donors rather than downward to communities (And who decided “downward” was the right word when we talk about responsibilities to communities? Whose knowledge and perspective shaped the normalization of this language?)
  • Context can be overlooked in favor of one-size-fits-all models.
  • Community engagement can feel more symbolic than substantive. Reinforcing hierarchies rather than redistributing power.

These aren’t just abstract problems—they’re everyday realities that shape whether development creates lasting impact.

PRACTICAL SHIFTS YOU CAN MAKE

So how do we start addressing epistemic injustice in our own work? A few ideas:

  1. Begin with context. Move beyond “best practices” and take time to understand local histories, languages, and cultural frameworks before co-designing solutions.
  2. Rethink accountability. Ask who really benefits from your reporting systems: donors, or the communities you partner with? Build mechanisms that give communities real power to shape and evaluate projects—not just report back.
  3. Value diverse knowledge systems. Pair quantitative data with lived experience, history, and indigenous knowledge.
  4. Recognize power openly. Be transparent about who is making decisions—and who isn’t. Who sets agendas, who funds them, and how decisions are made.

These shifts may sound simple, but they change the entire foundation of how development is done.

HOW THE COURSE HELPS YOU EXPLORE THIS

In Beyond Aid: What Really Drives International Development?, several modules bring these ideas to life in practical ways:

  • In the module on inclusive vs. extractive institutions, we examine how structures can either amplify or silence community voices.
  • In the module on accountability systems, we look at who holds real power and why downward accountability matters.
  • In the module on context, we explore why strategies that ignore local realities often fall short.
  • And in the module on community-based development, we reflect on what it takes to move from “delivering to” communities to truly “working with” them.

While the course doesn’t label these issues as “epistemic justice,” the connections are clear. At its core, it’s about learning to recognize patterns of exclusion and rethinking how change can be done differently.

CLOSING REFLECTION

Epistemic justice reminds us that development isn’t just about resources or institutions—it’s about voice, dignity, and inclusion. When we ignore these questions, we risk reinforcing the very inequities we want to change. But when we make space for diverse knowledge and real accountability, we begin to create development that lasts.

The challenge is also the opportunity: To pause, to question whose voices are missing, and to commit to approaches that honor equity and context. That’s the kind of mindset that reshapes the field—and it’s the kind of reflection at the heart of Beyond Aid: What Really Drives International Development?

REFERENCES

  • Cummings, Sarah, Charles Dhewa, Gladys Kemboi, Stacey Young, et al. “Doing Epistemic Justice in Sustainable Development: Applying the Philosophical Concept of Epistemic Injustice to the Real World.” Sustainable Development, 2023. https://edepot.wur.nl/587676
  • Fricker, Miranda. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
  • Gebremariam, Eyob Balcha. “Epistemic Justice, Development Studies and Structural Transformation.” European Journal of Development Research, 2024. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41287-024-00681-6?
  • Parviainen, Janne, Sukaina Bharwani, Natascha Ng, et al. “Capacity Development for Locally Led Knowledge Co-Production Processes in Real World Labs for Managing Climate and Disaster Risk.” International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 125 (2025): 105398. https://www.sei.org/publications/capacity-development-for-locally-led-knowledge-co-production/


The views expressed here are those of Beyond Social Science and do not represent the views of the author’s affiliations.
Created with