NGOs as knowledge producers

Pratyoush Onta
TKP, 29/03/09

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have been defined variously in the academic literature and by practitioners. Ten years ago, in an article published in the journal World Development, A. Vakil defined NGOs as “self-governing, private, not-for-profit organizations that are geared to improving the quality of life for disadvantaged people”. This is the kind of definition of NGOs one is likely to encounter in the development literature. For my purposes here, some parts of this definition are fine while others unnecessarily restrict the domain of NGOs.

I do think of NGOs as self-governing, not-for-profit entities. However, I do not think NGOs should necessarily be defined as “geared to improving the quality of life for disadvantaged people.” Instead, I think of them as entities created by individuals who, exercising their fundamental right to form organizations, have come together to pursue some shared interest. It could be an interest to pursue some hobby with little potential for generating public good or it could be an academic interest with a potential for a large public good. This broader definition is especially significant for state-dominated societies such as the one in Nepal where the constitutionally protected right to form organizations to pursue one's interests -- no matter how weird, insignificant or important -- has a very short history. This broader definition makes NGOs interesting to a set larger than those in the development business. Defined this way, NGOs become a part of the story of the history of democratic transitions.

Having defined NGOs in this broad manner, let us now look at the working definition of 'knowledge' as used here. Without being caught up in philosophical discussions, I use the term here to refer to, in a very general sense, what is known from cumulative societal practice. I recognize that when defined so broadly, some people might say that knowledge is everywhere and everyone is a knowledge producer. They might add that any definition of knowledge useful for analytic purposes must come with some specificities: e.g. some form of specificity might be required in terms of its institutional sources of production (often through a process called research), techniques of its organization and dissemination through peer-reviewed books and journals, modes of pedagogy or forms of reproduction through print or other means.

From the vantage point of the modern universities and colleges engaged in research and teaching, say in the US, these specificities matter because they are the stuff of both disciplinary legitimacy and management, and the academic job market has been designed to pick up the corresponding signals. However, if we recognize the modern university as only one site -- a dominant one, no doubt -- in the landscape of the knowledge enterprise and disciplinary practices as only one form of cultural organization of knowledge production and reproduction, then it becomes obvious why we might begin with a more general definition of knowledge. Such a broad definition allows analysts to recognize that there are other institutional sites of knowledge production in the landscape, and prepares the ground for critical engagement.

When knowledge is defined thus, it becomes easy to see why a substantial number of NGOs in the global south are a part of the knowledge enterprise. This is so simply because, in the course of their work, they produce knowledge of various kind, quality and utility. Within this set of NGOs, many apply the knowledge they produce directly back into their work without bothering to document that knowledge in print, visual or hybrid media. Nevertheless, through practice, they help enhance the repertoire of knowledge in the societies where they work.

A smaller subset of other NGOs, however, produces such documentation without pretending to be in competition with universities, research centres or policy think-tanks. They engage in such practice mainly for three reasons. First, to provide evidence based on which they can design their advocacy work. Second, to enhance the visibility of their organizations. And third -- and this applies more for NGOs with a built-in culture of self-reflection regarding their work -- they recognize that documentation is essential not only to the effectiveness of their own practice, but also very useful to other practitioners-at-large who desire to learn from each other

And finally there is a tiny subset of NGOs that not only document knowledge but also produce academically engaging articles, reports, edited volumes, journals and monographs. These academic NGOs, often managed by academics whose knowledge and research skills have been credentialed by universities that also generate the faculty members who teach at traditional universities, make explicit claims to being knowledge producers, consolidators and distributors. In other words, through tangible end-products that are made public following very rigorous evaluation protocols that match those used by university-based academics and presses, these NGOs make claims to producing theoretically informed and contextually rich knowledge. Often lacking the social legitimacy of traditional universities or the financial certainty of state-supported academies (pragya pratisthans in our case) or research centers, these academic NGOs overcome their legitimacy deficit and financial uncertainty through persistent commitment to pursue excellence. In so doing, they have proven that they are serious institutional sites to reckon with as far as the global knowledge enterprise is concerned.

Why bother about NGOs in their knowledge production capacity? First, in what I have read of the published literature on NGOs, I have not seen much discussion regarding this aspect of NGO existence. Perhaps I have not looked at the right places (in that case, I would appreciate guidance). However, if I am right, the absence of attention to NGOs as knowledge producers is a result of how the development imperative forces us to focus on service delivery of the immediate relief mode and prevents us from looking at the agency of NGOs in the broader social canvas.

Second, since they constitute an important site in the landscape of the knowledge enterprise, NGOs should be a subject of critical public discussion. Their work needs to be elaborated and scrutinized in the manner similar to those in which analysts have looked at other institutions in the same landscape, namely, universities, academies, media, etc. Such a scrutiny is also a preliminary exercise in comparative thinking about the relationships between various types of knowledge production/producers and local and translocal efforts to democratize societies.

Third, at this juncture in Nepali politics, there are additional reasons to pay attention to NGOs as knowledge producers. After the new constitution is written and adopted and Nepal completes the journey from being a one-time unitary kingdom to a fully federal republic, it will still be the thousands of small effective practices backed by the resources of relatively more progressive federal units and a facilitating centre that will make Nepali society democratic. In other words, the new constitution by itself, will not be the magic wand that will deliver us a fully formed 'new' Nepal. In all sectors of society, many intermediate agents will be key to this transformation. Among them for sure will be NGOs in their knowledge production avatars (along with educational institutions, media, the private sector and so on).

Fourth, the political formation that is leading us through this transition, the Maoists, is long on revolutionary rhetoric and short on hands-on knowledge of everyday practices that will make our transformation a real one. The party leaders might want to acknowledge that accepting a pluralistic polity means that their articles of faith are not necessarily the last truths for everyone in our society. They might want to put aside their knee-jerk reaction to the term NGO (as 'imperialist agents'), and ask if there are lessons to be learnt from the thousands of experiments thus far launched by Nepali NGOs in the last 20 years alone, that are useful to the new Nepal in the making.

Finally our collective romance with the state has been excessive. The increasing incidence of violence amidst the young in our society is one result of this romance. Those who advocate non-violent means of societal transformation have to not only ensure the cessation of violence at the state level, but also provide guidance toward viable avenues to channel the idealism and the commitment of the young. NGOs can be one such avenue. That is not going to happen if NGOs continue to be described, in the boring idiom of “dollar kheti”.
Are there any takers out there?

(Onta is a historian based at Martin Chautari, an academic NGO in Kathmandu.)