Knowledge Sharing in Challenging Social Settings

What is it about?

Knowledge sharing is central to reducing inequality and alleviating poverty. However, communities in settings of extreme poverty are often bounded by distinct perspectives and understandings that hinder knowledge sharing. Furthermore, social fault lines may create internal boundaries that impede interaction, further complicating knowledge sharing. Despite these challenges, some knowledge sharing efforts are successful. The purpose of this study is to better understand how knowledge sharing overcomes boundaries in settings of extreme inequality and poverty. Using qualitative data from rural India, we find that boundary work performed by boundary spanners overcomes external and internal boundaries by creating space for action, observation, and reflection in the recipient community. These actions, or syncretizing mechanisms, transform newly introduced knowledge, which then facilitates further boundary work, resulting in community transformation. Under certain circumstances, we see how boundary work and syncretism can lead to significant knowledge and recipient transformation. Thus, we seek to contribute to the literature by more fully exploring the transformative power of knowledge sharing within contexts of extreme poverty, and by explaining the process by which it occurs.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

We believe that our study has important practical implications for knowledge sharing. Our study highlights how those sharing knowledge must carefully consider the characteristics of the recipient community. When recipient community perspectives and social practices vary from those of the source, the actor initiating knowledge sharing may need to engage in efforts to transform the recipient community rather than transfer new practices. Such an approach has implications for the structure of knowledge sharing efforts. One obvious example of this is the choice of transmission channel. In our study, communal video screenings provided a fruitful opportunity for engagement and discussion, both of which were critical for community transformation. Other technologies may provide fewer opportunities. Mobile technology, in particular, is much more individualized, thus lessening the opportunity for discussion. While we believe that mobile platforms offer great promise in terms of increasing access to knowledge, we encourage practitioners to carefully consider the trade-offs in terms of community transformation. A second practical implication of our study is how practitioners influence the success of knowledge transfer by engaging in specific practices. Of particular importance were the ground rules that the local NGOs implemented for discussion. In some regions, NGOs were much more successful in facilitating rich discussion that spurred permanent community changes. While we saw little evidence that the NGOs changed the broader social context in the short time-span of a few years, our study suggests that small changes in practice can have dramatic effects on the success of knowledge sharing across social groups. In conclusion, our study explores knowledge sharing in the context of inequality and poverty. We explore how boundary work and syncretism can transform knowledge and the recipient community. While the process is complex and fragile, such efforts may present an important path for social and economic transformation in some of the poorest areas of the world.

Perspectives