Following previous posts on Eurocentrism and epistemology, decolonising knowledge production means moving away from dominant ideas about knowledge, its production, and its place in our work. That can include Eurocentric approaches, but it’s also about stepping away from academic forms of knowledge, traditional science, and the conventional wisdom of what constitutes ‘data’ and ‘expertise’.

Eurocentrism has shaped how problems are understood, how solutions are devised, and who is considered an expert. It’s a crucial step towards creating more inclusive and equitable development practices that truly reflect the diverse realities and experiences of the communities we work with.

Eurocentrism can look like the prioritisation of ‘Western’ theories and methodologies in academic and policy circles and the marginalisation of non-‘Western’ and non elite knowledge systems. This has real-world consequences, such as when projects are designed based on Eurocentric assumptions. This bias can often fail to address the specific needs and contexts of the communities they are intended to benefit from, by viewing a place from an external rather than internal perspective.

Think of projects designed by one group of people, physically distant from the place where the project will happen, and written on behalf of another. The project designers and implementers often bring in their own biases and assumptions about the work.

Since hardly any NGOs in our space hire people without university degrees, or without a good working knowledge of at least one UN language, or some other conventional markers of elite knowledge, think about how that translates into how our sector is designed as a whole – and how that trickles down to project design.  

Decolonising knowledge production involves challenging these assumptions and creating space for alternative ways of knowing. It means recognising that knowledge is not a one-size-fits-all concept but is deeply rooted in cultural, historical, and social contexts. For example, indigenous knowledge systems, which have evolved over centuries to address local challenges, can offer valuable insights and solutions that are often overlooked by elite or traditional science approaches. One example is the role of storytelling in our work: it’s rarely seen as a dominant type of knowledge, but rather as a supplement to survey or interview data, or transformed into a case study to lend ‘colour’ to the work.

One practical way to decolonise knowledge production is by shifting the locus of research and knowledge generation to the places where your project takes place. This means supporting local researchers, scholars, and institutions in leading research that is relevant to their own communities. That also means centring their values around knowledge and expertise. This means these people should lead the co-design process, including data collection, analysis, sensemaking, and dissemination.

Beyond the practicalities of our work, it also involves questioning the power dynamics that dictate who gets to produce knowledge and whose knowledge is considered legitimate.

In addition to supporting local knowledge production, decolonising knowledge also requires rethinking how knowledge is shared and disseminated.

Traditional academic publishing often reinforces Eurocentric dominance by privileging English-language publications and academic standards. To counter this, we can support open-access publishing models, promote multilingualism, and create platforms that amplify the voices of marginalised communities. This means translating the outputs of all our projects, sharing multiple drafts for feedback from different groups of people, and publishing them online and in open-access journals.

Decolonising knowledge production is not just about adding more diverse perspectives to the existing body of knowledge. It is about fundamentally rethinking how knowledge is produced, who produces it, and for what purpose.