Indigenous knowledge and western science: the possibility of dialogue

Abstract

In recent years, a number of scientific bodies and development agencies have called for indigenous and traditional systems of knowledge to be recognised as valuable reservoirs of learning - a move inspired, in part, by the prospect of multinational biotechnology corporations exploiting traditional non-western medical, agricultural and ecological knowledge. But recognising the legitimacy of indigenous knowledge, albeit partially, has profound implications for conceptions of science. First, the relationship between science and bodies of knowledge hitherto repudiated as myth and superstition needs to be rethought so that indigenous knowledge is demarcated from both science and pseudo-science. Second, the histories of science and mathematics need to recognise consistent criteria for establishing the existence of cross-cultural transmissions. Third, strategies need to be found to legitimise, where possible, indigenous theoretical and methodological discoveries. Fourth, a multicultural idea of science needs to be developed that is distinct from a postmodern, anti-science stance.

Reclaiming aboriginal knowledge at the cultural interface

“…Although he asserts this space is highly political and contested, it also carries a strong reconciling dynamic (Nakata, 2007a). Elsewhere in the literature, the interface is seen as an opportunity for innovation and creative dialogue (Ball, 2004;Bala & Joseph, 2007), a harnessing of two systems in order to create new knowledge (Durie, 2005).…”

Objective styles in northern field science

“…This 17 General works in postcolonial science studies include: Anderson and Hecht (2002), Anderson and Adams (2008), Harding (2011Harding ( , 2008Harding ( , 2006Harding ( , 1998, Hess (1995), McNeil (2005), Nader (1996), Schaffer, Roberts, Raj, andDelbourgo (2009), andSeth (2009). Works which specifically discuss science and indigenous knowledge include: Agrawal (1995), Anderson and Nuttall (2004), Bala and Joseph (2007), Bravo (1996Bravo ( , 2000, Cajete (1999), Cruikshank (1981Cruikshank ( , 2001Cruikshank ( , 2005, Govind (2014), Scott (1996), TallBear (2013a, 2013b), Turnbull (2000), Turnbull and Watson-Verran (1995), Verran (1998Verran ( , 2002Verran ( , 2013 suggests a different postcolonial analysis from the kind offered by Nadasdy and Sandlos, one which seeks to push the decolonisation project one step further. Rather than reproducing the dualistic image of a Manichean struggle between two incommensurable knowledge systems, we might instead attune ourselves to the profound ways in which reliable natural knowledge can grow from the rich soil of sometimes radical cultural difference.…”

Development and the Documentation of Indigenous Knowledge: Good Intentions in Bad Company?

“…Plenty has been written on science and indigenous knowledge, their differences and the relationship between these two forms of knowledge (e.g. Bala & Joseph 2007;Sillitoe 2007 When dealing with indigenous knowledge the importance of its social and cultural context is emphasised. This is usually not the case when talking about science.…”