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.

Reactions

- 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

Defining indigenous knowledge: the knowledge continuum

The meaning of the term 'indigenous knowledge' is by no means clear to everyone, especially now that it is rapidly coming into more current use in development circles. There is a wide range of alternatives employed by the various writers, as they discuss what this field entails and the possible approaches. Nonetheless, they all share a certain common idiom and address the same broad issues. All manner of other terms for indigenous knowledge are to be found in the literature, such as rural people's knowledge, indigenous technical knowledge, traditional environmental knowledge, local agricultural knowledge. I think that we should use indigenous knowledge as the one of widest currency in contemporary development debates. Furthermore, being an anthropologist, I would like to stress that indigenous knowledge research equates largely with anthropological research, except that it is focussed on development-defined problems, not academic ones.
Today, despite globalizing trends, we find people in various regions who have unique cultural traditions and histories, which continue to condition their views of the environment and life in significant ways. These are concerned with different issues and priorities, reflect different experiences and interests, and are codified by means of different idioms and styles. They are informed by cultural repertoires that have evolved over generations, albeit not in isolation. While influenced by others, and characterized by certain points of similarity and overlap, they nevertheless maintain their distinctiveness. (Until recently the contrast between different traditions has correlated closely with geographical distance).
It follows that the dichotomy between the scientific 'we' and the indigenous 'they' is to some extent inescapable, and it would be unrealistic to argue that we should not distinguish between different intellectual cultures. The distinction between indigenous and scientific, and local and global knowledge is indeed defensible. What is made of the obvious differences between indigenous knowledge and science depends on one's view of development. But the stark distinction between the scientific and the indigenous that characterizes current development literature is incorrect, if not downright misleading with regard to the relationship between the two, even where it argues for a reversal of that relationship between them in favour of participation and indigenous knowledge. It is not particularly helpful to contrast indigenous knowledge with science. We are not talking about two tenuously connected knowledge traditions separated by a cultural-epistemological gulf, but rather a spectrum of relations. While knowledge systems are not the same whatever the culture, the current trend towards a global culture and history is now modifying the distinctions between them.
We can conceive of the relation between scientists and farmers as comprising a continuum. This novel perspective better reflects the current position, and takes us to the heart of the debate over the definition of indigenous knowledge, and its correctness. At one end of the spectrum we have poor farmers without any formal education, whom we may take to be as close as we might hypothetically come to 'real' indigenous knowledge, derived from their own cultural tradition. At the other end of the continuum we have Western scientists, who are trying to incorporate some empathy with local perceptions and practices into their work, as they wrestle with the problems of interdisciplinary research. In between we have various gradations of local insider and global outsider knowledge, depending on community of origin and formal education. Each of these potentially influences the other, in a process which indigenous knowledge research attempts to mediate.
As we pass along the continuum, starting from poor persons whose entire experience is of their locality, we come to local people who have received some formal schooling, and have some passing acquaintance with science, which they will blend with their locally derived knowledge and cultural heritage. Their education informs not only their own understanding but also that of their uneducated relatives and neighbours, to whom they will in some measure impart the foreign knowledge they have derived. All of them will have access to extension advice, whether first-hand or second-hand, from government agencies, non-governmental organizations and the like, which is increasingly being transmitted through the mass media.
Travelling along the continuum, we come to the more advantaged members of the community, who may progress through school to college and university. We have our national collaborators on research and development projects, whom we may see as being mid-way along the continuum. They have an extensive formal scientific background, but they also have a familiarity with the indigenous culture, as native-speaking members of its metropolitan society. This gives them a unique perspective, with its own potential insights and blind spots. Some of them may come from rural families, a further conduit by which scientific understanding passes into local communities. They inevitably pass on some of their learning to relatives and friends when they return home. Social scientists researching local communities, especially anthropologists, may also fall somewhere near the centre of the continuum, often—though not exclusively—serving to connect the two poles and brokering indigenous knowledge between them.
All knowledge potentially passes into the local pool, is blended with what is already known, and then informs today's understanding and practice. Rural peoples' understanding of natural resource management issues is a blend of knowledge from various sources, which it is difficult to disentangle. It is syncretic knowledge. There is no repository of traditional indigenous knowledge, as it is constantly changing under the influence of outside ideas. In indigenous knowledge research we are trying to facilitate some communication along the continuum and beyond to policymakers and others. The idea of a continuum extending from poor local resource managers to research scientists should help us to overcome the pernicious side of the 'we' and 'they' divide by uniting us all.
We need to devise a methodology that mediates effectively between the contradictions that characterize the promotion of scientific research from an indigenous knowledge perspective. These contradictions equate with the poles of the indigenous-to-scientific-knowledge continuum: local indigenous knowledge contrasts with global scientific understanding. The one is culturally more narrowly contextualized, whereas the other is cosmopolitan and has universal theoretical aspirations. The methods of the former are more inductive, with a 'weak' model of the world underlying the knowledge tradition, which to outsiders involved in development is largely unknown (even unknowable according to postmodern thinkers). The methods of the latter, by contrast, are more deductive, with a 'strong' model of the world and established methods for investigating it. This means that we cannot expect the one to be congruent with the other; rather we must seek the contrasts and parallels. We must reconcile indigenous knowledge, which is wide and holistic and encompasses systemic understanding, with scientific knowledge, which comprises the narrow, in-depth understanding of highly trained specialists. In so doing, we will promote cross-culturally informed research.

Paul Sillitoe Professor, Department of Anthropology University of Durham 43 Old Elvet Durham DH1 3HN England Tel.: +44-191-374 2856/2841. Fax: +44-191-374 2870. E-mail: Paul.Sillitoe@durham.ac.uk

top of the page

Indigenous knowledge: in effect 'local' knowledge

I would like to share some experiences pertaining to the definition of indigenous knowledge which are relevant for the staff of non-governmental organizations (NGO) and governmental organizations working in the field. While I was associated with the Regional Program for the Promotion of Indigenous Knowledge in Asia (Reppika) at the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR) in the Philippines, we developed a training module 'using indigenous knowledge in development', which we included in the training courses offered by IIRR on rural development, regenerative agriculture, and other topics. In this module, we based our definition on Warren (1991): Indigenous knowledge is the knowledge that people in a given community have developed over time and continue to develop.
Presenting this definition to training participants regularly triggered the question: how can we decide what is or is not indigenous knowledge when we enter a particular community? Is a rubber tire used to stabilize a wall in the famous Banaue rice terraces in the Philippines indigenous or modern knowledge? What about a tractor? In some cases, the tractor may stand rotting in a corner, in which case it has clearly not become part of the community's indigenous knowledge. In other instances, people use tractors and develop their own ways of repairing and maintaining them. Where does indigenous knowledge end and modern knowledge begin?
We concluded that from a development point of view it does not matter whether something is 'truly indigenous'. What is important is that we take into consideration all the local resources and practices that we encounter in a community at the beginning of a project and take this as the basis for further development.
We employed a working definition that took into account the development context and the goal that we had set: the active use of indigenous knowledge in development projects. We still made use of the above definition, but we added that, from a development point of view, outsiders should treat all information, experiences, skills, material things, etc., that they found in a community as the indigenous knowledge of the people, and investigate how selected aspects of that knowledge could be used to solve the problems to be addressed by the project. In this context the term 'local' knowledge would actually have been more appropriate. But because IIRR's programme was called Reppika and not Repplka, we stuck to the term 'indigenous' but used it interchangeably with 'traditional' and 'local' (see IIRR 1996). Again, what mattered in NGO training was not theoretical definitions, but the goal of building development on indigenous knowledge, in other words, seeing what is there in the community, selecting what is potentially useful and—depending on the item selected deciding whether and how it could be used, improved, adapted or merged with outside technologies.

Evelyn Mathias Weizenfeld 4 51467 Bergisch Gladbach Germany Tel.: +49-2202-932 921. Fax: +49-2202-932 922. E-mail: evelynmathias@netcologne.de

References
- IIRR (1996) Recording and using indigenous knowledge: a manual. Silang: International Institute of Rural Reconstruction.
- Warren, D. Michael (1991) Using indigenous knowledge in agricultural development.
- World Bank Discussion Paper No. 127. Washington: The World Bank.

Indigenous knowledge: sustainability and empowerment

Indigenous knowledge is not limited to the technical skills of traditional producers. In an ancient culture such as that of Iran, our everyday life is so immersed in indigenous knowledge (IK) that we hardly notice it. IK is gained through experience and passed down from one generation to the next. The context of this knowledge is the local environment, in all its cultural, social, economic and physical aspects. To meet the demands of the ever-changing nature of local conditions, people have had to be creative and resourceful. This has made IK dynamic, since it is constantly being modified to suit the needs, conditions and priorities of the moment, while remaining practical and effective. One aspect of IK which makes it unfamiliar to professionals is its oral nature. But what is important, in my view, is not simply preserving indigenous knowledge, or carrying out scientific analyses, or promoting it commercially in the form of 'IK packages', but rather using it to foster sustainable development as a means of empowering rural and tribal populations.
Historically, indigenous peoples of Iran have gained knowledge which has a much better chance of producing the desired qualitative results. However, this knowledge has virtually been 'disowned' in the rush to embrace the idea that, by definition, 'more is better', which has long been favoured by the dominant development culture. For example, we have the tradition of animal sacrifice among our pastoralists. We know now that in addition to its religious function, animal sacrifice was an extremely effective method of maintaining the balance between the available grazing land and the size of the herds. Moreover, the meat distributed within the tribe was a respectable means of practicing charity and distributing wealth and resources. The practice also served to strengthen social bonds within the tribe.
Studying today's pastoral societies in Iran, we find that throughout the year many of them use two different sets of measurement units and farming practices, depending on where they are camping at the time. This proves that the selection and application of methods and approaches is determined largely by the environmental limits of grazing land and farmlands used in the dry or wet seasons. These variations testify to the flexibility, dynamism and complexity of indigenous knowledge.
Before there was general awareness of the value of IK, certain practices were condemned as being a form of superstition, such as declaring certain areas of the forest in the north of Iran off limits, because the locals believe that harmful spirits live there. Currently, areas of the forest are being similarly protected against intrusion and logging by means of barbed wire and court sanctions. Evidence shows that the former areas are far better protected than the latter. Old 'superstition' has been replaced by the mistaken belief that legal sanctions and protective walls around natural resources will bring about understanding, cooperation and participation. However, it is far more rational and sensible to integrate indigenous knowledge into development, for the simple reason that it is less expensive, readily available, environmentally appropriate and familiar, and most important of all, it has a proven record of effectiveness.

The above is based on the contribution of Dr Mohammad H. Emadi, Deputy Head, Rural Resource Centre (RRC) Iran, to a seminar organized by the RRC on 14 April 1998, entitled Indigenous knowledge: research and application for sustainable development. (See also report under IK resource centres)

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.