Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor, November 1999

Contents IK Monitor (7-3) | IKDM Homepage | Suggestions to: ikdm@nuffic.nl | © copyright Nuffic-CIRAN and contributors 1999.

Understanding interactions between indigenous knowledge and scientific information

by Oscar Ortiz

How can indigenous knowledge and scientific knowledge best be integrated, in the interests of sustainable development? The first requirement is to understand the interaction between farmers' existing knowledge and the new information they need to deal with emerging problems. The author discusses a pest management project in the Peruvian Andes with a typology of cognitive interactions has been developed, alongside a model for further development.

It has been argued that indigenous knowledge and scientific information should be combined in order to solve emerging problems of a practical nature (Salas 1994; De Walt 1994; De Kruijt et al. 1995). However, little is known about the nature of the interaction between new and pre-existing knowledge among farmers. This article presents a typology of cognitive interactions between indigenous knowledge and scientific information and a model for information interpretation. It is based on analyses of information dissemination among potato farmers in the Peruvian Andes, following the completion of an integrated pest management extension programme.

Potatoes in the Andes
Farmers in the Peruvian Andes have grown potatoes for thousands of years and have succeeded in generating a great diversity of varieties, as well as special cropping techniques designed to cope with the variability of Andean agro-ecosystems. Farmers have traditionally made use of a number of pest control practices, the most important of which is crop rotation (Horton (1987). At present, the major pest problems are caused by the Andean potato weevil (APW) and the potato tuber moth (PTM), resulting in serious crop losses. The specific practices which farmers use to control the APW and the PTM include crop rotation; repellent plants; feeding the larvae to chickens; early harvesting; exposing damaged tubers to sunlight; and the use of chili juice, ash or lime (Rhoades et al. 1988; Ewell et al. 1990 and Ortiz 1997). However, the APW is still a serious source of concern to Andean potato growers (Ortiz et al. 1996).

Extension projects
The International Potato Center (CIP) and the National Research Institute of Peru conducted nearly ten years of basic and applied research into the integrated management of APW and PTM. From the early 1990s on, the findings have been disseminated among farmers (Alcazar et al. 1994; Palacios et al. 1994; Cisneros et al. 1995). Information on integrated pest management (IPM) began to reach Peruvian potato farmers through a number of collaborative projects set up by research and extension organizations (Fano et al. 1996). One of these projects, which involved the CIP and the non-governmental organization CARE-Peru, was designed to enhance farmers. knowledge and skills with respect to insect reproduction and behaviour, and IPM practices. This project was implemented between 1993 and 1996 and documented by Ortiz (1997). It should be noted that research and extension projects related to IPM still reach only about 5% of potato growers in the Peruvian Andes (Ortiz et al. 1996). Nevertheless, even these preliminary results make it possible to examine the interaction between farmers. knowledge and scientific information pertaining to insect reproduction and behaviour.

The process
The process described here involves the information flow which takes place when individuals who have certain knowledge are confronted with new information. Once the new information has been interpreted, an interaction takes place between the pre-existing knowledge and the new information. In the case that forms the basis of the present article, this happened when farmers, extension workers and researchers exchanged information during a number of training activities related to potato IPM (Chiri et al. 1996). This resulted in the formation of an agricultural information system (Röling 1990) devoted to potato IPM in Peru. Although cognitive processes are highly complex (Pennington 1986; Malim 1994), four main types of interaction between farmers. knowledge and scientific information can be identified and are described below (Ortiz 1997). Formative interaction occurs when new knowledge is formed which, in some cases, replaces the previous beliefs held by the individual. This happened when farmers had access to scientific information about insect biology (see photo). Many farmers had always thought that larvae and adults were different insects (Bentley 1990; Ortiz et al. 1996). Most of them believed that the potato worm (APW larvae) originated in the soil, that plagues were sent from the sky by God, and that worms came from hailstones. Once farmers had access to, and were able to interpret, specific scientific information, new knowledge was formed and they were able to understand how the reproductive cycle of insects functions (Ortiz 1997). Modifying interaction occurs when farmers. knowledge is slightly adjusted by scientific information, so that farmers are better able to understand the biological principles behind the things they observe. This type of interaction was seen when farmers learned about the reproduction cycle of the potato tuber moth. They were familiar with this moth, as it is commonly found wherever potatoes are stored, and they already had some idea of the reproductive phases of the insect. They were able to identify adults, larvae and pupae, but thought that larvae originated from pupae, while it is actually the other way around. When they were given scientific information, they made a slight adjustment to their knowledge and gained a better understanding of the reproductive cycle of this insect. Another example of knowledge modification involved the practice of using sheets to pile potatoes on at harvest time, which is quite common in the Andes. APW larvae usually come out of tubers during harvest and remain in the sheets. When farmers shook out the sheets, the larvae were able to return to the ground and continue their cycle. Once farmers understood the importance of insect life cycles and the need to interrupt them, larvae were collected and used as food for chickens. In this way a traditional practice was slightly modified as a result of the interaction between farmers. knowledge and scientific information (Ortiz 1997). Reinforcing interaction occurs when scientific information confirms the farmers. own knowledge. Reinforced knowledge allows them to feel confident about their own observations and practices. Here, certain practices already known to the farmers were also included in IPM, such as crop rotation, the use of repellent plants, and the use of chickens to get rid of larvae. These practices were better implemented when farmers understood insect reproduction and the need to interrupt insect life cycles (Ortiz 1997). Confusing interaction occurs when there is a conflict between farmers. knowledge and scientific information. This is often seen when scientific information is presented in an inappropriate manner, or when farmers lack a knowledge of biological principles related to insect behaviour.

Modelling information interpretation
I would now like to present a model designed to simplify the complex cognitive processes by which scientific information about IPM of the potato crop is interpreted by farmers, and the factors that influence that interpretation. Such a model may help us to understand the principles which underly the process, and enable extension workers to design suitable approaches to farmers. There are three groups of factors which influence the interpretation of information.

The first group includes those factors which are related to the quantity, comprehensiveness, and sequence of the information, and the way in which it is presented to farmers. For example, we found that those activities that involved the direct participation of the farmers and the observation of insects in natural settings were usually a better way of acquiring suitable information. They facilitated formative, modifying and reinforcing interactions, while conventional training activities (such as talks) tended to produce confusing interactions. The second group of factors influencing information interpretation are related to the presence of key knowledge elements on the farmers. cognitive map (i.e., everything that is known by a person and retained in his memory). The first possible conclusion from the model is that where there is no appropriate pre-existing knowledge (i.e., about insect biology), new information (i.e., about IPM practices) either cannot be interpreted or is likely to be misinterpreted, resulting in a confusing interaction and the formation of inappropriate knowledge. This scenario was common when farmers who had no knowledge of biological principles were first given information on IPM. A second conclusion from the model concerns the acquisition of a suitable minimum set of cognitive elements designed to help farmers interpret subsequent information and thus acquire appropriate IPM-related knowledge. The farmers. understanding of natural phenomena generated a positive attitude towards new information. It was possible to change attitudes if the individual had access to new and meaningful information and transformed it into knowledge. In short, interpretation follows the correct path if pre-existing and/or new knowledge allows individuals to process and understand information. Understanding generates new and appropriate knowledge that provides feedback to another interpretive cycle. Conversely, interpretation follows the wrong path if there is no appropriate pre-existing or newly acquired knowledge that can be used to process new information, leading to incorrect interpretation and confusion. The third group of factors that influence information interpretation consists of the continuous inputs of external pest-control information which differs from that contained in the new information given to the farmers. In the present case, messages which contradicted IPM (i.e., use of insecticides) tended to cause confusion, interfering with the correct interpretation of IPM information. It is important to remember that scientific information and farmers. knowledge does not interact in isolation, but rather within the dynamics of knowledge evolution in the farming community, and that there is sometimes conflict and competition between them.

Challenges and conclusions
Indigenous knowledge is constantly evolving. Its enrichment will depend on whether it can interact with new types of information, and can be used to solve emerging problems. However, the process by which pre-existing knowledge and new information interact needs to be explored, so that research and extension approaches can be designed to facilitate the acquisition of knowledge by farmers, and counteract the erosion of their prior knowledge. This article has put forward a classification that may provide an insight into the different forms of interaction between farmers. knowledge and scientific information pertaining to the use of IPM in the Andes. Identifying forms of interaction and the factors that influence the process of information interpretation may be useful in evaluating extension approaches. Where necessary, they can be adjusted with a view to creating a synthesis between indigenous and scientific knowledge that will be be of benefit to decision makers. To facilitate knowledge formation and the modification and reinforcement of indigenous knowledge, scientific information should reach farmers in an appropriate form. This means that research and extension projects are needed that enhance the farmers. capacity to deal with pest problems.

Oscar Ortiz
International Potato Center (CIP)
Av. La Universidad 795
Apartado 1558
Lima 12
Peru
Tel.: +51-1-349-60 17.
Fax: +51-1-349-56 38.
E-mail: O.Ortiz@cgiar.org
International Potato Center (CIP)
http://www.cipotato.org/ciphome.htm

References
Alcázar, J., W. Catalán, K.V. Raman, F. Cisneros, H. Torres, O. Ortiz (1994) Control integrado del gorgojo de los Andes . Lima: International Potato Center.

Bentley, J. (1990) . Conocimiento y experimentos espontaneos de campesinos hondureńos sobre el maíz muerto. , Manejo Integrado de Plagas Vol. 17: 16-26.

Chiri, A., H. Fano, F. Cama, W. Dale (1996) Final evaluation of the integrated pest management for Andean communities (MIP-Andes) project . Lima: CARE.

Cisneros, F., J. Alcázar, M. Palacios, O. Ortiz (1995) . A strategy for developing and implementing integrated pest management. , CIP Circular 21(3): 2-7.

De Kruijf, H., G. von Liebenstein, A. Tick (1995) . Indigenous knowledge systems for plant protection: impressions from a symposium. , Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor 3(2): 14-16.

De Walt, B. (1994) . Using indigenous knowledge to improve agriculture and natural resource management. , Human Organization 53(2): 123-131.

Ewell, P., H. Fano, K.V. Raman, J. Alcázar, M. Palacios, J. Carhuamaca (1990) Farmer management of potato insects in Peru . Lima: International Potato Center.

Fano, H., O. Ortiz, T. Walker (1996) . Peru: Inter-institutional cooperation for IPM. , pp. 85-98 in L.A. Thrupp (ed.) New partnerships for sustainable agriculture . Washington DC: World Resources Institute.

Horton, D. (1987) Potatoes. Production, marketing and programs for developing countries . Westview Press-IT Publications.

Malim, T. (1994) Cognitive processes. Attention, perception, memory, thinking and language . London: MacMillan.

Ortiz, O., J. Alcázar, W. Catalán, W. Villano, V. Cerna, H. Fano, T. Walker (1996) . Economic impact of IPM practices on the Andean potato weevil in Peru. , pp. 95-110 in T. Walker and C. Crissman (eds) Case studies of the economic impact of CIP-related technology . Lima: International Potato Center.

Ortiz, O. (1997) . The information system for IPM in subsistence potato production in Peru. Experience of introducing innovative information in Cajamarca Province.. Ph.D. Thesis, Agricultural Extension and Rural Development Department, the University of Reading, UK.

Palacios, M., K.V. Raman, J. Alcázar, F. Cisneros (1994) Control integrado de la polilla de la papa . Lima: International Potato Center.

Rhoades, R. M. Benavides, J. Recharte, E. Schmidt, R. Booth (1988) Traditional potato storage in Peru: Farmers. knowledge and practices . Potato in Food Systems. Research Series. Report No. 4. Lima: International Potato Center.

Röling, N. (1990) . The agricultural research-technology transfer interfaces. A knowledge systems perspective. , pp.1-41 in D. Kaimowits (ed.) Making the link. Agricultural research and technology transfer in developing countries . USA: Westview Press.

Salas, M. (1994) . The technicians only believe in science and can not read the sky: the cultural dimension of the knowledge conflict in the Andes. , pp.41-52 in I. Scoones and J. Thompson (eds) Beyond farmers first. Rural people's knowledge, agricultural research and extension practice . London: Intermediate Technology Publications

Websites that may interest readers of this article.

Back to: top of the page | Contents IK Monitor (7-3) | IKDM Homepage
Suggestions to: ikdm@nuffic.nl
© copyright Nuffic-CIRAN and contributors 1999.