Development and Local Knowledge

Alan Bicker, Johan Pottier, Paul Stillitoe

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2004
• ISBN:
  9781134368167
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Anthropology
• Index: Social Sciences

There is a revolution happening in the practice of anthropology. A new field of 'indigenous knowledge' is emerging, which aims to make local voices hear and ensure that development initiatives meet the needs of indigenous people. Development and Local Knowledge focuses on two major challenges that arise in the discussion of indigenous knowledge - its proper definition and the methodologies appropriate to the exploitation of local knowledge. These concerns are addressed in a range of ethnographic contexts.

Chapter 1

---

Introduction

Hunting for theory, gathering ideology

Paul Sillitoe and Alan Bicker

---

Development agencies are increasingly sympathetic to the proposition that indigenous knowledge should feature in the planning and implementation of programmes. They are ever more receptive with the failure of many development projects, the emergence of ‘stakeholder participation’ and the advancement of policies targeting the poor who depend heavily on indigenous strategies. Such work, briefly, seeks to facilitate a larger role for local peoples’ knowledge and aspirations in interventions planned for their regions.

There is some academic debate over the propriety of the term indigenous knowledge, and by extension the correctness of engaging in such work (Agrawal 1995; Antweiler 1998; Ellen and Harris 2000), an argument taken up by Fisher in this book. Some are unhappy at the use of the word indigenous, on the grounds that it is difficult to determine the status of indigene (e.g. Colchester 2002; McIntosh 2002), and suggest other terms such as local or traditional knowledge. Whatever term we use, there are objections. It is no easier to define local or traditional than indigenous. And indigenous is the label, for better or for worse, that has caught on in development circles. We have taken up the debate over the definition of the term indigenous knowledge, and gone even further to question the meaning of the term development, in a companion volume to this one, entitled Participating in Development: Approaches to indigenous knowledge (Sillitoe, Bicker and Pottier 2002), which originated from the same conference. This was the millennial Association of Social Anthropologists of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth (ASA) Conference (at London University’s School of Oriental and African Studies, April 2000), which aimed to further debate about the place of indigenous knowledge in development.

We should not claim to have laid the definitional debate to rest and the term indigenous knowledge remains contentious. Indeed, it is a recurrent theme throughout the contributions to this volume. Veronica Strang (Chapter 6) points out that definitions of indigenous knowledge that neatly fit Western scientific models necessarily confound the very essence of emic definitions of that knowledge. Colin Filer’s observation (Chapter 5) that most definitions of indigeneity emphasize the subordinate political status of the peoples concerned, means that their indigenous knowledge is itself demeaned. Which brings us to Strathern and Stewart’s enquiry in Chapter 4: what do we mean by indigenous? And how do we distinguish knowledge from performance? Nonetheless, we must give some indication of what it encompasses. indigenous knowledge, to define it concisely, is any understanding rooted in local culture. It includes all knowledge held more or less collectively by a population that informs interpretation of things. It varies between societies. It comes from a range of sources, is a dynamic mix of past tradition and present innovation with a view to the future.

Indigenous knowledge challenges

The incorporation of indigenous knowledge in development presents us with a number of interesting challenges beyond deciding the content of the field and arguing over the rightness of engaging in such work. It is not straightforward work. It is necessary to proceed cautiously, aware of the difficulties. They demand attention to integrate indigenous knowledge into the development process. We need to formulate strategies that meet the demands of development – cost-effective, time-effective, generating relevant insights, readily intelligible to non-experts, etc. – while not downplaying the difficulties so as to render the work effectively valueless. While development project managers will assess attempts to advance on current techniques according to their resource effectiveness, they should set these demands against the range of information collected and its reliability.

At first sight indigenous knowledge work seems straightforward enough, we just have to ask some local culture-bearers what they think. But we soon run into cross-cultural problems that challenge what we think we know, as any anthropologist will confirm. The task of sympathetically accessing concepts in local usage, and conveying something about them, is large. Knowledge is diffuse and communicated piecemeal in everyday life. As Hans Siebers (Chapter 3) shows in his discussion of the management or what he terms the ‘creolization’ of indigenous knowledge, there is often no consensus among the natives, and local stakeholder knowledge is not homogenous. People transfer much knowledge through practical experience and are unfamiliar with expressing all that they know in words. They may also carry knowledge, and transfer it between generations, using alien idioms featuring symbols, myths, rites and so on. Translating what we hear into foreign words and concepts further misconstrues whatever it is that we manage to comprehend about others’ views and actions. Understanding is inevitably limited given our outsider perspective, development-oriented indigenous knowledge work is no different from any other ethnographic enquiry in this respect (see another companion volume to this one, Pottier, Bicker and Sillitoe (2003) for a full discussion of the negotiated nature of indigenous knowledge, and the sometimes conscious translations to which indigenous knowledge-as-we-know-it can be subjected).

The advancement of interdisciplinary work is central to indigenous knowledge research, particularly when combining the technical know-how of natural scientists with the empathy of social scientists. An integrated perspective implies a willingness to learn from one another, as well as from local people. The indigenous knowledge component of any research and/or development project should not necessarily dominate. There must be a genuine two-way flow of ideas and information between all parties. Motivation depends in considerable measure on fostering consensus decisions, joint ownership and open debate: issues eloquently addressed by Michael Fischer (Chapter 2) and Paul Spencer (Chapter 11). Indeed, Spencer’s discussion of Chamus negotiating skills and practices in particular, and those of East African pastoralists in general, provides an object lesson for many natural and social scientists (including anthropologists). In addition to exploring the meanings attributed to indigenous knowledge and development, the above Participating in Development volume addresses these interdisciplinary issues. indigenous knowledge research should maintain a wide socio-cultural perspective to contextualize the narrowly focused work of technical specialists. In science-speak, we cannot understand cultures by looking at individual parts in isolation, as complex systems they manifest emergent properties that we can only see when all the parts are working together. It is not possible to predict which cultural domains might relate intimately with others, often unexpected practices impinge on one another. Michael Fischer (Chapter 2) illustrates the need for caution here in his insightful description of differing perceptions of what constitutes a useful potato – in his Pakistani example, it was not just the Swiss advisers who differed from their Pathan clients but the Pakistani government’s own experts.

A key problem is facilitating meaningful communication between development personnel and local people to establish what each has to offer, informing science with ethnographic findings about people’s knowledge and locals about the scope of science and what it might offer, so that they can better understand the alternatives available in addressing problems, so realizing the comparative advantages of each. As Ilse Kôhler-Rollefson and Constance McCorkle (Chapter 9) show in their plea for domestic animal diversity. This is not to imply that science is better, for as the café owner in Zadie Smith’s novel White Teeth comments, ‘Science ain’t no different from nuffink else, is it? I mean, when you get down to it. At the end of the day, it’s got to please the people, you know what I mean?’ It is however the system of knowledge which underpins the technological capacity that informs development. The promotion of more effective participation in the identification and researching of problems can only be achieved so far as awareness, knowledge and socio-political barriers will allow. We have to seek ways forward that allow both outsiders and insiders to contribute as necessary, as several of the chapters to this book argue, balancing between technocrats defining the problem/constraint, which can be arrogant and ethnocentric, and the local people doing so, which hits cultural barriers that thwart scientific research. The objective is equitable negotiation, a central tenet of participatory development. The negotiations may be complex but development initiatives are more likely to be locally appropriate and sustainable. The presentation of indigenous knowledge in a manner accessible to others, such that they can see its relevance to their work, means avoiding jargon-loaded and obscure accounts, while not overlooking insights gained in cross-cultural research, often using subtle arguments. There is a need to avoid oversimplification of complex issues, inviting distortion and misrepresentation in the search for user-friendly accounts.

It is necessary to promote a collaborative atmosphere in which neither scientific nor local interests feel threatened, assuring all parties that they have a role in negotiations, with vital skills and knowledge. This implies demonstrating how awareness of indigenous knowledge will improve the relevance of development work and vice versa. The second volume resulting from the ASA millennial conference, entitled Negotiating Local Knowledge: Identity, power and situated practice in development intervention (Pottier, Bicker and Sillitoe, 2003), explores further the issues surrounding communication and negotiation. Negotiation also goes on within local communities: people constantly reappraise what they know and modify it in the light of experience, including political interests. The dynamism of indigenous knowledge exacerbates the difficulties we experience in representing it. As indigenous knowledge is neither static nor uniform, it cannot be documented once-and-for-all, but is subject to continual negotiation between stakeholders. As Greg Cameron shows in Chapter 8, the dynamics that constitute indigenous knowledge are often subject to murky power struggles within and between the state and NGOs, frequently to the detriment of local perceptions and aspirations. If we hope to accommodate to the dynamic nature of local knowledge we need an iterative research strategy, closely linking development interventions to on-going indigenous knowledge investigations. After all, development aims to accelerate change, dramatically modifying indigenous knowledge with scientific perspectives.

The time scale required in ethnographic research is normally considerable which presents problems in development contexts with short-term politically driven considerations demanding quick returns. Managers need to understand that indigenous knowledge research is usually long term, as the research that informs the contributions to this book show, some of the authors have decades of experience working in the regions they describe. It can take several years, not months or weeks, for someone unacquainted with a region to achieve meaningful insight into local knowledge and practices, and from this perspective to inform development projects. The understanding that can be accomplished in a single project cycle will be of a different order. While some indigenous knowledge research may be attempted in short time frames, it is necessary to be aware of the costs of necessary compromises. It is not just a question of the time it takes to learn language, cultural repertoire, social scenario and so on, but also the investment needed to win the trust and confidence of people who frequently have reason to be extremely suspicious of foreigners and their intentions.

The one-off nature of indigenous knowledge research also hampers its deployment in development, impeding the formulation of generalizations that might inform wider policy and practice. Its small-scale, culturally specific and geographically local nature hinders the advancement of an integrated approach. This is possibly a red herring given the variety of knowledge traditions worldwide, their internal variations regarding individuals’ assorted understandings and their constant revision over time. This variation makes generalization potentially dangerous, imputing ideas elsewhere that may be inappropriate. Nonetheless it is argued that we need to evolve principles that will facilitate a degree of reliable generalization from indigenous knowledge research, to go beyond local case studies that are not cost effective to replicate in large numbers. It is to this issue that the contributions in this volume relate, for they are in the case history tradition.

Indigenous knowledge theory?

Indigenous knowledge research as currently conducted is largely ethnographic documentation of others’ environmental relations and livelihood systems. It is not analytical regarding these systems nor is it framed to identify and help address scientifically researchable constraints that limit their productivity. It has proved effective in some small-scale NGO work conducted by those working close to a few communities, notably featuring limited appropriate technology interventions, but has so far had little large-scale impact, failing to inform wider understanding of problems, and regional policy and practice. Even in NGO contexts there is scope for a deeper anthropological awareness among those who advocate both indigenous knowledge and participatory approaches, but in the context of bilaterally and multilaterally funded research and development (e.g. DFID, FAO, USAID, etc.) there is an urgent need for it, or else there is the danger of indigenous knowledge advocacy appearing amateurish, produced by social scientists ignorant of technical research. We need a professional edge to penetrate the scientific research establishment. The absence of a coherent indigenous knowledge intellectual framework that might interface effectively with science and technology contributes to natural scientists failing to appreciate it and see how it might inform their research. Consequently indigenous knowledge research appears to contribute to the accumulation of exotic ethnographic documentation and databases that are sterile and undynamic from a developmental perspective, even potentially disempowering people by representing their knowledge in ways inaccessible to them and beyond their control, and maybe even infringing their intellectual property rights. As Greg Cameron shows (Chapter 8) there are various levels at which this disempowering process can take place locally. NGOs may accept the arguments of international indigenous rights advocates, which encompass indigenous knowledge, to the detriment of local resistance to top-down development policies.

These shortcomings of indigenous knowledge research suggest that we need to formulate some theory to give it coherence and structure. This is what development agencies currently seek, a general approach that they can commission globally, like crop breeding or soil fertility research, to help solve problems. But after giving it some thought we are not convinced that this is the way forward. It may even be a wrong-headed endeavour, not only because of the diversity of knowledge traditions globally and the danger of ethnocentrically imposing some uniform theoretical straitjacket on them, but also the incomparability of scientific theory with whatever might masquerade as an indigenous knowledge theory (even if, as Michael Fischer proposes in Chapter 2, applications of scientific knowledge and indigenous knowledge may undergo processes with similar qualities. Anthropology long ago gave up trying to formulate a theory for humankind analogous to the powerful theory of natural science, following efforts such as those of functionalism, which hypothesized that socio-cultural institutions exist to ensure human survival – in initial formulations ensuring biological needs are met and subsequent reformulations focusing on the maintenance of orderly social environments. But this was less a theory in the scientific sense than an analogy that drew on anatomical theory, likening social customs to biological organs, functioning to keep any society in existence. It came up with nothing like a zoological theory-equivalent to explain the social analogues of heart, lungs, circulation, etc., nor even a way of identifying the counterparts of these organs.

A review of anthropology’s attempts at universal cross-cultural generalizations should further warn us against trying to come up with a globally relevant indigenous knowledge theory to match against scientific theory. These are, by and large, grandiose statements of the obvious, often camouflaged in obscure clever-sounding arguments. The early functionalist theory of Malinowski (1944) is a good example, and has the merit of being written in comprehensible prose, which perhaps reveals its naïveté so clearly. It boils down to arguing that cultural arrangements ensure that human beings reproduce, secure food, have shelter, etc. We can embellish our theories with complex exegeses and classifications of various marriage institutions, behavioural taboos, livelihood regimes or whatever – e.g. humans think in binary opposites, communicate in various ways, seek to dominate and exploit others – but these scarcely advance our understanding of humanity in the way that atomic theory affords insights into matter. It seems that we have two meanings of the word theory.

If the idea of anthropological, and by extension indigenous knowledge theory, is incommensurate with the idea of scientific theory, this prompts us to ask ‘what is anthropological theory?’ While the word theory features prominently in anthropological discourse (to achieve greatness, invent one), we confess that the idea of anthropological theory has long puzzled us. It is not merely the obscure jargon that some writers use to express convoluted ideas (ideas that are often surprisingly straightforward when one translates the jargon), but the notion of theo...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Illustrations
• Contributors
• Acknowledgements
• Chapter 1
• Chapter 2
• Chapter 3
• Chapter 4
• Chapter 5
• Chapter 6
• Chapter 7
• Chapter 8
• Chapter 9
• Chapter 10
• Chapter 11