This paper contrasts Indigenous knowledge systems (IKS) with the modern scientific knowledge system (MSKS), defining Indigenous knowledge (IK as “the cultural and technological product, or knowledge product, from a society or culture’s interaction and engagement with daily living”. The following contrasts are highlighted:
- IKS do not emphasize theoretical grounding which is forms the foundation of the MSKS
- “IKS are developed through daily engagement and through trial and error to see what meet a particular community’s needs” (p. 125)
- “Intellectual property is not a strong point in the IKS ecosystem — knowledge is supposed to be shared for the benefit of the community and not for private gain” (p. 125)
- “IKS is not static — it changes as is required and in response to the various stressors that a community faces” (p. 125)
The fact that theoretical grounding is not a highlight of IKS, but rather IKS are “developed through daily engagement and through trial and error to see what meets a particular community’s needs”. I think this acknowledges the fact that a community’s needs have not always been theoretical grounding, that when you are focused on the health of a community, these knowledge systems offer much more than simply answers to problems. Living in Hong Kong, we have the parallel systems of modern Western Scientific Medicine (WSM), and Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), both in full practice. What is interesting to see is some of the overlap as traditional methods are tested using the scientific method and thus accepted into the body of WSM.
The paper highlights the challenge of defining appropriate technology (AT), emphasizing the importance of:
- “grounding in specific communities” (p.126)
- “implementation within the constraints of local community-specific socio-cultural and geographical contexts” (p.126)
- “and that the end result .. must result in building community capacity and empowering the community at the local grass roots level” (p.126)
The paper also emphasizes “the holistic inclusion of the local targeted community in the entire development process”. Some examples of appropriate technolgies shared are:
- The use of Turmeric “in agriculture, animal husbandry and in health and medicinal applications” (p. 127)
- vrikshaturveda which “focuses on agricultural practices that only call for organic and natural interventions into the farming process and cycle” (p. 127)
There is a helpful flowchart in figure 1 (p. 131) that emphasizes developing and promoting IKS within communities first before looking to the outside for appropriate technology.
In reading this paper, it is clearer to me the incredible challenge faced when trying to integrate modern technologies into Indigenous communities, since so much of modern technology is developed and focused on a systematic, machinistic approach to solving problems, whereas so much of Indigenous knowledge forms the foundation of the community itself, serving a greater and more complex role than simply solving a problem. In this paper, the authors emphasize the importance of institutionalizing support, stating the “support for indigenous knowledge and systems must emanate from the state” (p. 129). Particularly mentioning that government support for IKS offers scientific backing and support. While I can see how scientific backing and support helps to validate IKS with members of the MSKS, I would question whether that applies to all situations however, since if the state is comprised entirely of knowledge systems foreign to the Indigenous community, this support could end up disrupting the community in an effort to support. It seems that this may be only half of the solution.
References
Tharakan, J. (2017). Indigenous Knowledge Systems for Appropriate Technology Development. In Indigenous People. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.69889