Indigenous Knowledge and Development
Monitor, December 1998 Indigenous Knowledge and Development
Monitor, December 1998
Contents IK Monitor 6(3) | IKDM Homepage | Suggestions to: ikdm@nuffic.nl | (c) copyright Nuffic-CIRAN and contributors 1999.
- Indigenous knowledge: the proof is in the eating of the pudding.
- Three definitions of indigenous knowledge
- IK, IKS and ITK
- Defining indigenous knowledge: the knowledge continuum
- Indigenous knowledge: in effect 'local' knowledge
- Indigenous knowledge: sustainability and empowerment
Indigenous knowledge: the proof is in the eating of the pudding
More than six years have elapsed since the first issue of the Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor was published. During that period we have seen a continuous increase in the quantity and variety of information on indigenous knowledge (IK), alongside a growing interest on the part of the 'development enterprise' in the potential contribution of indigenous knowledge to crucial sectors of development. The time has now come to present the development enterprise with tangible examples of how IK can be put to use in the search for cost-effective and sustainable survival strategies for poor communities.
The first issue of the Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor was published in February 1993, as a follow-up to the IDRC-funded international conference on Indigenous knowledge and sustainable development, held in September 1992 by the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR) in Silang (Philippines). Conference participants felt that there was an urgent need for a journal in which to disseminate information on the relevance of indigenous knowledge for sustainable development. This need reflected the vision and conviction—in particular in the academic world—that indigenous knowledge could contribute to a better understanding of sustainable development in all its ecological and cultural complexity, and therefore had a role to play in the global knowledge system and in participatory approaches to development. This vision of the role of indigenous knowledge is totally in line with the reorientation in policy which several international development agencies have introduced on the basis of Agenda 21, the global programme of action adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) in June 1992. We have seen an increase not only in the number of publications on indigenous knowledge, but also in the scope and variety of academic disciplines contributing material. In the previous ten years most of the academicians active in the field of indigenous knowledge had professional training in anthropology and/or geography. Today important contributions to our understanding of indigenous knowledge systems and practices are coming from an impressive range of disciplines in the life sciences and natural sciences, such as biology, botany, medicine (human and animal), pharmacology, agronomy, and soil science, to mention only a few. This broader academic interest has had a major impact, creating the basis for a more varied approach to formal—i.e., Western and international—knowledge as well as indigenous knowledge. This has fostered a better understanding of development, and provided an innovative methodological incentive in the search for cost-effective and sustainable survival strategies for poor and marginalized communities. In such areas as food security, human and animal health, and natural resources management, the developmental relevance of indigenous knowledge (IK) is becoming more visible and more tangible. This may explain the growing interest of development agencies (governments, as well as bilateral and multilateral organizations) in the ways in which indigenous knowledge can contribute to the development process. These institutions are looking for concrete examples and cases that indicate the added value of indigenous knowledge to the impact and sustainability of development interventions. Recent examples are UNCESCO's plan to include 'IK best practices' in its MOST database, and the World Bank's initiative on 'Indigenous Knowledge for Development'. (See also CIRAN's report, under IK resource centres) In other words, advocates and propagators of indigenous knowledge are being challenged by the development enterprise to put indigenous knowledge to good use. The time has come to show that there is no rhetoric in John Madeley's statement, "...indigenous knowledge is the largest single knowledge resource not yet mobilised in the development enterprise...". 1
Challenge CIRAN contributes to activities that provide the development enterprise with concrete, tangible and transparent examples of the contribution which IK makes to development. CIRAN will continue to interact with academic researchers, producers and owners of knowledge, policy makers, development practitioners, and development sponsors. One of the instruments which CIRAN employs to that end is the Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor, the first and best-known product which it supplies to the international community. It is for this reason that the editor raised the question of how we define indigenous knowledge. To promote a better understanding of 'indigenous knowledge', its role and its effects, she invited readers to present their definition of IK (see Three definitions of indigenous knowledge). We wish to thank all those who responded. Your reactions have stimulated and clarified our thinking on indigenous knowledge and its relevance for development, and they will be shared with all our readers (see below). CIRAN wishes to continue the debate on IK, in particular with persons and institutions who have practical experience in the area of indigenous knowledge, such as researchers, policy makers and development practitioners. We therefore invite you to extend the debate beyond the definition of IK and open the floor to contributions that exemplify, in a tangible and transparent way, the added value of indigenous knowledge. We challenge all those who believe that indigenous knowledge must not be overlooked in development interventions to give us real cases, and to indicate what further action is needed in the area of research, innovative research strategies, and new ways to store and disseminate indigenous knowledge. This is no easy task, but the challenge has been launched by the development enterprise itself. There is a saying that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The proponents of IK have taken it upon themselves to 'prepare the pudding', and if they do not succeed in producing a palatable dish, the achievements which have thus far been made in the promotion of IK will be diminished, and the potential contribution of indigenous knowledge to development interventions will remain in the realm of rhetoric. Guus von Liebenstein Director Centre for International Research and Advisory Networks (CIRAN) P.O. Box 29777 2502 LT The Hague The Netherlands
Anna van Marrewijk Editor, Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor
1 John Madely, International Agricultural Development, (July-August 1993) 13(4).
top of the page
| Three definitions of indigenous knowledge
In the July 1998 issue, the editorial mentioned three definitions of indigenous knowledge to be used in the Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor. First, there was the late D.M. Warren's definition, which we would like to quote in full: "The term 'indigenous knowledge' (IK) is used synonymously with 'traditional' and 'local' knowledge to differentiate the knowledge developed by a given community from the international knowledge system sometimes also called 'Western' system, generated through universities, government research centres and private industry. IK refers to the knowledge of indigenous peoples as well as any other defined community."1 The second definition is the one proposed by Louise Grenier in her guide for researchers2: "The unique, traditional, local knowledge existing within and developed around the specific conditions of women and men indigenous to a particular geographic area." In the guide, this definition is followed by several characteristics of indigenous knowledge. The third definition was based largely on that of Ms Grenier, but with a few alterations: "Indigenous knowledge is the sum total of the knowledge and skills which people in a particular geographic area possess, and which enable them to get the most out of their natural environment. Most of this knowledge and these skills have been passed down from earlier generations, but individual men and women in each new generation adapt and add to this body of knowledge in a constant adjustment to changing circumstances and environmental conditions. They in turn pass on the body of knowledge intact to the next generation, in an effort to provide them with survival strategies." We then invited our readers to put forward their own favourite definitions of the concept. 1. Unauthored contribution, 'Background to the international symposium on
indigenous knowledge and sutainable development'. The symposium was held in September
1992 in Silang, Philippines. The defenition was formulated by D.M. Warren and agreed upon
by all symposium participants. See IK&DM 1(2), 1993. |
The term 'indigenous knowledge', as used in the title and the contents of the
Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor, is an extremely broad concept. This presents
no problems where we are talking about the journal, but research-based development
requires a definition.
Let us consider the two definitions which have been put before us,
that of Louise Grenier and that of the editor of the Monitor They are similar in that they
both see indigenous knowledge in terms of space ('local' or 'particular
area') and time ('traditional'). The editor's definition goes one step
further and adds 'skills'.
To me, the major difficulty with Grenier's
definition is the word 'indigenous', which is repeated in the definition itself.
Obviously, Ms Grenier wanted to avoid such designations as 'native' or
'belonging naturally', but an ethnic connotation is still present. The problem
here seems to me the historical demarcation. Apparently, this has not been lost on the
editor of the Monitor, whose definition elaborates the historical dimension in an effort
to capture the dynamics of knowledge, but leaves open the question of a historical
reference period. The editor's definition qualifies indigenous knowledge as the
'sum total of knowledge and skills'. This is indeed correct, as I will argue
below.
In defining the concept of indigenous knowledge, one must keep in mind the
practical needs as well as the research needs. Therefore, I suggest that we differentiate
between on the one hand, indigenous knowledge (IK) as a general or umbrella concept, and
on the other hand, the concepts of 'indigenous knowledge systems' (IKS) and
'indigenous technological knowledge' (ITK). Thus in general indigenous knowledge
is the participants' knowledge of their temporal and social space. Indigenous
knowledge as such refers not only to the knowledge of indigenous peoples, but to that of
any other defined community.
For purposes of clarity, indigenous knowledge must be
distinguished from traditional knowledge. True tradition comprises proven ancient,
original and distinctive customs, conventions and routines. Thus tradition operates on the
practical level of repeated actions based on opinion or belief. The actors need not have
any knowledge, indigenous or otherwise, to successfully carry out and pass on their
traditions. In this context, Hobsbawn's warning about the use of the term
'tradition' should be taken to heart. True tradition must be distinguished from
'invented tradition', which in effect means "a set of practices, which seek
to inculcate certain values and norms of behaviour by repetition, which automatically
implies continuity with the past" (Hobsbawn 1983:1).
The concept of indigenous
knowledge systems (IKS) delineates a cognitive structure in which theories and perceptions
of nature and culture are conceptualized. Thus it includes definitions, classifications
and concepts of the physical, natural, social, economic and ideational environments. The
dynamics of IKS takes place on two different levels, the cognitive and the empirical. On
the empirical level, IKS are visible in institutions, artifacts and technologies.
Indigenous technological knowledge (ITK) is of a practical nature, concerned with
operationalized local thinking in such fields as agriculture, fisheries, health,
horticulture, and forestry.
Most of the contents of the Monitor are related to ITK, and
quite often to indigenous technologies in isolation. To understand indigenous practices,
one must have a knowledge and understanding of the concepts on which they are based (IKS).
This is particularly relevant in cases where intervention in, or re-activation of
indigenous practices in changing ecological and economic scenarios is aimed at social
sustainability.
Dr Jan Brouwer Director, Centre for Advanced Research on Indigenous Knowledge Systems (CARIKS) P.O. Box 1 Saraswathipuram Mysore 570 009 India
References
- Hobsbawn, Eric and Terence Ranger (1983) The invention of tradition.
Cambridge: University Press.
Back to: Top of the page | Contents
IK Monitor 6(3) | IKDM Homepage
Suggestions to: ikdm@nuffic.nl
(c) copyright Nuffic-CIRAN and contributors 1999.