Whose Knowledge Counts?
Reflections from the PWLES Webinar on Reimagining Pacific Research into Gender Equality
Written by: Nikki Bartlett
I sat on the panel for the first webinar in the Pacific Women Lead (PWL) series held on February 26, 2025. This open-to-all webinar is the first in a Pacific-led development learning series, exploring how PWL is working to advance locally led development. We were discussing the PWL Formative Situational Analysis —a piece of work that my fellow co-authors Ofa Guttenbeil-Likiliki (Women and Children Crisis Centre Tonga), Virisila Buadromo (Urgent Action Fund Asia & Pacific), Michelle Reddy (Pacific Feminist Fund), Niketa Kulkarni (Clear Horizon) and I had poured ourselves into over the past two years. But this was more than just a research presentation.
This was a conversation about power, credibility, and who gets to decide what counts as knowledge in gender research.
As panellists, we came together to unpack our experiences of undertaking research in the Pacific, especially in gender equality work. Our discussion wasn’t just about the findings in the report—it was about what it took to enable this work as a departure from the norm and what this experience revealed about the larger system we work within. The fact that it is considered an example worth sharing underscores the urgent need for systemic change within the development sector.
Unlearning what we were taught about research
One of the first questions we were asked during the webinar was about unlearning—what did we have to unlearn to do this work? For Niketa and me, as non-Pacific evaluators, the answer was clear: we had to unlearn Western academic traditions that have shaped our training in research and evaluation.
For years, development research has been dictated by the needs and expectations of donors, the demands of managing contractors, and the pressure to produce research that fits neatly into predefined indicators and accountability frameworks. Add to that that donors are usually in ‘Western’ or ‘Global North’ countries; therefore, accountability mechanisms are oriented toward a Western approach and understanding of what can be known and how. Thankfully, the DFAT team and the PWL team knew from the beginning that business-as-usual wasn’t going to work for this piece of research; it had to be led by Pacific women, be responsive to the needs of DFAT and the feminist and women’s movements in the Pacific, and centre the voices of Pacific women as contributors to and sense makers of the research.
That this exemplifies a radical departure from the norm is telling in and of itself.
Who decides what is credible?
One of the most powerful themes of our discussion was the question of credibility. So much of international development research is still governed by an unspoken hierarchy of knowledge—where Western academic methods are seen as rigorous, and everything else is measured against that standard.
But credibility is not neutral. It is defined by power. When credibility is questioned, we must first ask, credibility as defined by whom? My colleague ‘Ofa asserted that Pacific ways of knowing should not have to be legitimised by Western research traditions. Pacific knowledge systems—built on relationships, reciprocity, storytelling, and collective sensemaking—are credible on their own terms. Moreover, in the context of PWL, which aims to promote women’s leadership, realise women’s rights, and increase the effectiveness of regional gender equality efforts in the Pacific, to have adopted any other approach to the research would have meant missing critical insights and understanding of the current situation as well as lacking credibility in the eyes of Pacific women and allies at the forefront of this work in the region.
Moving from extraction to ownership
For too long, development research has been done to Pacific communities rather than with them. The harmful effect of extractive research is widely known, where international consultants fly in, collect data, and leave without any accountability or benefit to the people they consulted. PWL was determined to do things differently, which meant restructuring the research process to:
- Ensure Pacific authorship and leadership in the research
- Broaden the purpose of the research to incorporate priorities from the women’s and feminist movements to ensure that the findings were useful to practitioners, not just DFAT
- Recognition that knowledge sharing and co-creation is non-linear, takes many forms, including collective sensemaking, and that not all knowledge can or should be shared.
This was done through the use of feminist Pacific methodologies, such as talatalanoa, which allowed for meaningful, culturally grounded sensemaking rather than forcing findings into rigid, predefined categories.
Where do we go from here?
Our conversation ended with a challenge to those of us working in international development – whether we chose to use that term:
“Are we truly yielding power, or are we reinforcing existing hierarchies?”
– ‘Ofa Guttenbeil-Likiliki.
This underpins this year’s theme for International Women’s Day: March Forward: For ALL Women and Girls. It is a call to action for each of us to examine our positionality and power, how we can wield it, and when we should yield it as we march forward in feminist solidarity to uphold the rights of women and girls in all their diversity.
Want to hear more from Pacific women authors and artists?
- Check out Mercy Masta and Elisabeth Jackson’s work on ‘using culture to change culture’ in Gender equality, the Pacific way
- Understand the inequities in funding directed toward Pacific Women’s Organisations to support gender equality efforts in Where is the Money for Women and Girls in the Pacific?; research undertaken by the Fiji Women’s Fund and the Urgent Action Fund for Women’s Human Rights, Asia & Pacific
- Learn from Ofa’s research about the role Global North organisations can and should adopt in to ensure they are Creating Equitable South-North Partnerships.
- Find joy in the artistry of Mia Kami in her song ‘Rooted’
