Whose Knowledge Is It? towards Reordering Knowledge Production and Dissemination in the Global South

IntroductionAn evolution is necessary, one that dismantles our legacy of knowledge and brings our society into alignment with the values of our Constitution. This reordering in the domains of knowledge development would reconnect South Africa with changes afoot in other post-colonial societies. (Leonard Martin, 2012, para. 2)International scholarship on the politics of knowledge, its production, and dissemination is abundant (see for example, Apple, 2000; Brown, 2011; Fiske, 1989; Muller, 2000; Weiler, 2011; and others). Similarly, informed largely by the research we produce, a plethora of interventions have been developed and implemented in communities and institutions identified as needing development. With these initiatives, both local and international donors and governments have spent huge amounts of financial and other resources. In spite of this, the development challenges South Africa faces seem to be continuing, with little sign of improvement.As Weiler (2009) pointed out, explanations for this may lie largely in the fact that available research, which informs such interventions, tends to pay scant attention to the political conditions under which knowledge is often produced and used-and the consequences thereof. According to him, our scholarship continues to pay lip service to the ways in which knowledge is produced (and who produces it), how it is disseminated and used, and its links to the power dynamics in institutions, communities, and society. Thus, as Martin (2012) argued:Almost 20 years after the demise of apartheid, South Africa has failed to undertake and complete its own knowledge transition consistent with the constitutional ambition of a democratic, just and peaceful society. The legacy of knowledge that constitutes and shapes our learning institutions is in fundamental need of change, (para. 1)While there is no shortage of research addressing the various social issues plaguing our communities and institutions, such research seems to be having very little impact on social change. As this article asks, could the reasons lie in the fact that available research and the knowledge it produces about social issues tends to be created without any substantial participation and contribution from those most affected?To illustrate, science, as opposed to other forms of knowledge, continues to sit at the top of the pyramid in the hierarchy of knowledge, globally. South Africa is no exception. From our quest to address our societal challenges, including poverty, HIV infections, and others, to our desire to compete equally with other countries (for example, in education, innovation, and the economy), it is to science that we often look for answers. This status of science can be traced back to, among others, Herbert Spencer's 1860 essay, which, in relation to what children should learn or be taught in schools, concluded that "learning the meanings of things, [was] better that learning the meanings of words" (pp. 93-94).But what is it about science that has propelled it to this status, and why does this view of the hierarchy of knowledge persist? What have been the consequences of this view of knowledge on social change in contemporary societies, including South Africa? In an academic context that privileges science as a form of knowledge, what, if anything, can social science and humanities scholars contribute to knowledge for social change? For Hans Weiler (2009; 2011) the answers lay in an exploration of the nature of contemporary discourses on knowledge. Writing on the nature of scholarship on knowledge in North America and Europe, Weiler's thesis was that to this day, Contemporary discourses include no critical view of what knowledge means and how this has changed over time. Furthermore, such discourses have paid little attention to "the political conditions and consequences of the production and use of knowledge . . . i.e., the politics of knowledge" (Weiler, 2009, p. …