It’s time to address the coloniality in knowledge management (KM)

This article is part of two series: decolonising knowledge and KM and cultural awareness in KM.

In 2018, I wrote about the world’s unequal knowledge and knowledge management (KM) map¹ which shows a profound bias in global research knowledge, with most research including research about knowledge management (KM) produced in the Global North, in particular Europe and North America. The Global South, including Africa, Southeast Asia, and much of South America, effectively withers off this research knowledge map.

Then, following on from this, I started to advocate in 2019² for the decolonization of not just knowledge, but also knowledge management (KM). This was in reaction to the widespread belief that KM concepts and approaches developed in the Global North are globally universal, which is highly unlikely given the Global North biases in both the research base and significant global differences in the ways in which knowledge is conceptualized, described, and worked with.

Progress in the decolonization of knowledge

While there’s still much more to do, we’ve made significant progress in the decolonization of knowledge in the time since 2019.

Our paper³ “‘We have a dream’: proposing decolonization of knowledge as a sixth generation of knowledge management for sustainable development” was launched in a landmark event at the Dr Martin Luther King Jr Memorial Library in Washington DC on 9 May 2023.

This sixth generation paper was then a reference for the KM and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) campaign⁴ mounted in 2024 by RealKM Cooperative Limited, the Knowledge Management for Development Community (KM4Dev), and Knowledge for Development Partnership (K4DP). The campaign successfully informed a decolonization of knowledge outcome in the United Nation (UN) Pact for the Future⁵, being “Action 32. We will protect, build on and complement Indigenous, traditional and local knowledge.”

Through the work of Knowledge Management for Development Journal Editor-in-Chief Dr Sarah Cummings, the sixth generation paper and full generational framework for knowledge management for sustainable development (KM4SD) have also become a foundation for the evaluation of KM practices in UN agency IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development), as shown in points 22 and 23 on page 7 and Box 4 on page 58 of an evaluation report on KM practices in IFAD⁶.

RealKM Cooperative is continuing its decolonization of knowledge advocacy, including recently making a submission⁷ to the 2027 Global Sustainable Development Report (GSDR) and providing comments⁸ on the Zero Draft of the Ministerial Declaration of the 2026 High-level Segment of UN Economic and Social Council and UN High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF).

But what about the decolonization of KM?

Sadly, the situation with the decolonization of KM stands in stark contrast to the progress being made in the decolonization of knowledge. The widespread belief that KM concepts and approaches developed in the Global North are globally universal unfortunately continues to persist, despite mounting evidence against this notion.

As I wrote in 2018 and 2019, there has been a profound bias in the global KM research base⁹, with most KM research having been produced in the Global North, in particular Europe and North America. As John Edwards and Antti Lönnqvist document in their landmark 2023 paper exploring the future of KM research and practice¹⁰, KM practice also has its foundations firmly in the Global North, in particular Europe and North America.

Some of these Global North KM approaches may also work to some degree in parts of the Global South. But others won’t. Approaches that originate locally within the various parts of the Global South will be more locally relevant because of differences in thinking related to differences in culture and language. These differences in thinking influence the ways in which knowledge is created, stored, used, and shared.

I will illustrate this, drawing on both the extensive KM research and case study knowledge base here in RealKM Magazine, and my own more than a decade of lived experience as an Australian in China (where this article is being written right now). I’m one of relatively few people in the KM community to have moved from the Global North to the Global South and to have lived here as a normal resident.

Differences in thinking related to differences in culture and language

It should be obvious that the terms “knowledge” and “knowledge management” don’t even exist in China because these are English language words, and English is not the national language here. Other English language KM terms such as “tacit knowledge,” “explicit knowledge,” “transactional knowledge,” and “relational knowledge” also don’t exist here.

As well as considering differences in language, a recent i2Isights article¹¹ republished in RealKM Magazine alerts to the need to also recognize and value conceptual differences across cultures. An example is the term “Indigenous.” While this term is widely used, such as in Action 32 of the UN Pact for the Future as discussed above, it is not universal. For example, in Australia, “First Nations Australians” is a more preferred term¹².

It’s not just that there can be different terms for the same concept. There can also be different concepts for the same term. For example, in Islamic Knowledge Management (IKM), all “knowledge” is seen as being God-given, with significant implications for how knowledge is managed. I explore this in a 2-part series of articles^13,14 in RealKM Magazine, drawing on the growing body of IKM research. IKM is an important aspect of global KM, with the Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Knowledge Foundation (MBRF)¹⁵ and Knowledge Oman¹⁶ both being significant leaders in KM that have engaged very large numbers of people in their communities. From a knowledge management for sustainable development (KM4SD) perspective, MBRF has also established very strong collaboration with UN agencies, including to publish the Global Knowledge Index (GKI)¹⁷.

Further, what can be thought to be the same term when translated between different languages can actually mean notably different things in each language. For example, university colleagues here in China questioned my use of the term “traditional Chinese medicine.” They advised me that there’s no such thing in China, only “中药” (Zhong Yao) which translates simply as “Chinese medicine.” The “lesser other” thinking that English language speakers are reflecting through their use of the term “traditional Chinese medicine” is the complete reverse in Chinese. The primary term is 中药 and the “lesser other” term is “Western medicine.”

The Global North-biased “traditional Chinese medicine” terminology is unfortunately quite insidious. For example, if I search Google Maps for “Chinese medicine” in Baotou, Inner Mongolia, China¹⁸ (one of the cities where I’ve lived), the search results show numerous “traditional Chinese medicine clinics.” However, there is absolutely no character in the names of any of those clinics equating to the English word “traditional.” It has been added by Google. There is only 中医 (Zhong Yi), which means “Chinese medicine.” 中药 (Zhong Yao), which I reference above, means “Chinese medicine” in a general sense, whereas 中医 (Zhong Yi) in the context of these clinics means “Chinese medicine as it relates to Chinese medicine doctors.”

In a number of Global South cultures such as China, language is also a secondary aspect of communication and knowledge transfer. As Edward T Hall wrote in his book Beyond Culture¹⁹, low-context cultures depend on explicit verbal communication and clear, direct messages, whereas high-context cultures rely heavily on implicit communication, non-verbal cues, and the surrounding context to convey meaning. Examples of low-context cultures include many Western cultures, such as the United States and Germany. Examples of high-context cultures include many Asian and Middle Eastern cultures.

I recently set a task here in RealKM Magazine²⁰ asking readers what they think went wrong in an example of knowledge transfer between high- and low-context cultures. All three commenters are leaders in KM, and have contributed high-quality articles to RealKM Magazine. However, while all made highly valid observations, they focused on what was said, that is, the low-context aspects of the communication. As I advise in a comment on the task article²¹, all missed the key high-context aspect of the communication. This highlights that it is not as straightforward as might be assumed for people from low-context cultures to be able to successfully facilitate knowledge transfer in the high-context parts of the world.

A manifestation of differences in thinking related to the differences in culture and language I discuss above can be seen in China’s ever-growing list of GB (Guobiao) knowledge management and knowledge management system standards²² which are different in structure, emphasis, and approach to the Global North-produced ISO 30401:2018 Knowledge management systems – Requirements²³ standard. An i2Insights article²⁴ also provides great insights into how Chinese thinking approaches complexity.

It’s time for change!

It’s time for the KM community to accept the evidence-based reality that differences in culture and language lead to differences in thinking which influence the ways in which knowledge is created, stored, used, and shared. This needs to be reflected in KM research, with much more research done not only in the Global South but through a Global South lens. It also needs to be reflected in KM practice, with a lot more listening to and learning from Global South communities, replacing the current automatic belief that Global North approaches can be used regardless of local ways of knowing.

Indeed, as shown in Table 5 of the anti-racism section of our sixth generation of knowledge management for sustainable development (KM4SD) paper²⁵, the automatic belief that Global North approaches can be used regardless of local ways of knowing can be described as the “Eurocentrism” dimension of racism:

Table 5: Dimensions of racism in development narratives

Source: Lartey, 2023²⁶.

Another field working on knowledge transfer, the conversation analysis (CA) field of my former Shanxi University colleague Professor Yu Guodong²⁷ (now at Ocean University), is an example to KM of what can be done. Professor Yu and his students are part of and actively share knowledge with the international CA community. Their research looks at the knowledge transfer aspects of both China’s national language Mandarin and the thousands of local dialects (Mandarin actually comes from one of those local dialects, from near Beijing), and considers the cultural context of communication.

Header image source: Created by Bruce Boyes with Microsoft Designer Image Creator.

References: