Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Development Theory 2nd Edition, Jan Nederveen Pieterse

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Progress in Development Studies
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mohan, G.
Right arrow Articles by Wilson, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The antagonistic relevance of development studies

Giles Mohan

The Open University, Development Policy and Practice Department, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK, g.mohan{at}open.ac.uk

Gordon Wilson

The Open University, Development Policy and Practice Department, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK

This paper discusses relevance in development studies. We argue that current debates around relevance assume a hegemonic view of development, which is bolstered by the high levels of research funding from key policy-making institutions. We feel relevance can be pluralized and radicalized, but that this requires us to be ideologically transparent and to examine other ways of undertaking and validating knowledge production. This involves first, acknowledging the material and ethical connectedness, but not sameness, of people; secondly, a relational tension between discipline and interdiscipline; thirdly, that problem-framing and influencing involves ‘researchers’ and ‘users’, whereby ‘users’ include students, practitioners, decision-makers and ‘the poor’. Further, we argue that such dialogic approaches require alternative criteria for rigour. Positivistic criteria imply a distinctive form of rationality, but if rationality is also pluralized then alternative epistemologies and methodologies of working with multiple rationalities is necessary.

Key Words: Development studies • dialogue • interdisciplinarity • interdisciplinary • knowledge • relevance • rigour

Progress in Development Studies, Vol. 5, No. 4, 261-278 (2005)
DOI: 10.1191/1464993405ps121oa


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Prog Hum GeogrHome page
J. Popke
Geography and ethics: spaces of cosmopolitan responsibility
Progress in Human Geography, August 1, 2007; 31(4): 509 - 518.
[PDF]