Working with Indigenous Knowledge Systems: Basic Considerations
The international agenda, over the past decade, has emphasized the value and importance of Indigenous Knowledge (IK) and Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) for addressing some of our critical environmental and ecological challenges — biodiversity, water, climate adaptation and resilience[1], and even the psychological impacts of the ‘metacrisis’ (Yunkaporta, 2020; for more on the metacrisis, see Neal, 2023; Milbank & Pabst, 2016). As a consequence, many new initiatives emerge to ‘harness’ and ‘link’ this knowledge with existing dominant knowledge systems, research systems, policy agendas and approaches (Zurba & Papadopolis, 2021). Aside from the extractive nature of many well-intentioned projects, organisations, and approaches, a number of other issues warrant discussion to support a better relationship in terms of working with Indigenous, or any ‘other’ knowledge systems.
Consent and ‘use’ of Indigenous knowledge
The United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples[2] was adoped in 2007 and affirms the rights of Indigenous peoples, including their right to maintain, control, protect, and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions.
Best practice, as articulated in Art 23.2 of UNDRIP is Free and Prior Informed Consent whereby:
“States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.”
In this case, ‘other resources’ also refers to knowledge. It is a fundamental right of Indigenous communities and individuals to be able to provide consent for the use of their knowledge, to understand and agree upon the purposes for which that knowledge will be used, and be fully aware of how their identity or identities will be credited or acknowledged in the sharing of any of their knowledge for whatever purpose. Navigating the process of this consent differs by community, and securing this consent can be a process involving community leaders or chiefs, knowledge holders themselves, and understanding collective informal rules related to this knowledge.
Indigenous knowledge extends beyond that which is ‘useful’ or ‘needed’ by western or dominant knowledge systems. When pulled out of context, it cannot simply slot into a framework to provide a key, missing piece of information that allows for a solution for a complex challenge to emerge. The Indigenous knowledge is likely rooted in deeper levels of experience, relationships, and understanding — linked with rituals, stories, songs, and multi-generational observation and learnings (McGregor, 2021). Not only should it not be extracted, it simply cannot be extracted in a way that will serve a fast-moving, output-oriented, solution-seeking model.
Understanding the priorities that a community or group has for its knowledge system is a critical first step — as that priority may differ or even deviate from that of the dominant knowledge system, or the one seeking to ‘extract’ the key knowledge, whom we shall call the ‘researcher’ moving forward in this essay. Understanding these priorities both requires and is a key element in building trust between the researcher and the knowledge holder. Working through community associations or NGOs that already have a strong understanding of local Indigenous issues and priorities and who can support the building of trust is an important way to gain access to the knowledge systems and ways of thinking that can lead to being able to learn from Indigenous communities in a respectful and non-extractive way.
Researchers operate within a paradigm of project logic, with objectives and outputs, constrained by timelines and deliverables, budgets and risk. Working with Indigenous knowledge requires that we step outside of these action-result ways of thinking and doing, and instead that we embrace relating-learning with no end-goal. Co-creation provides a framework and ‘process’ for relating-learning and working with different worldviews and knowledge systems, including Indigenous knowledge. Fundamental to co-creation is the word creation, which requires researchers to operate beyond the space of ‘thinking’, bringing our hands and hearts into the collaboration space and not just our intellect and analytic abilities (Delfau, forthcoming).
Intellectual property and its exploitation
Intellectual property and copyright are two issues where many people have mental blocks. Bring up these two things in a conversation and it may quickly shut down discussion because of the weight of any legal implication. However, by understanding them through the lens of and by bringing them into any work with Indigenous knowledge systems, we can build upon the principle of FPIC.
Article 31 of UNDRIP explains:
“Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions.”
Indigenous Peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect, and develop their knowledge, ways of thinking and doing, and rooted understandings of the world. As researchers, our role is to respect that sovereignty over these systems of knowledge and to not exploit them. This means explaining what any knowledge could be used for — which is basically what copyright is: a standardized way to grant public permission to use someone else’s work.
As researchers we gather knowledge, we analyse it, and we share it. When we work with Indigenous knowledge we need to recognize how this knowledge has come from being situated in one context and is then brought into another context. We need to take extra time and care to make sure that the knowledge shared outside of its original context is done in a way that reflects the principles of the UNDRIP, in particular FPIC. Consent has been secured, and we understand the broader architecture that the knowledge comes from and sits within. We respect its foundations and underlying systems, including priorities of the Indigenous communities and knowledge holders. Those who have shared their knowledge understand how it will be used and for what purpose(s). Knowledge holder identities will be shared and credited or protected according to an agreement made based on trust.
Any Indigenous knowledge remains their knowledge, their intellectual property, is treated with respect and care, and does not become another stolen asset.
References:
McGregor, Deborah, “Indigenous Knowledge Systems in Environmental Governance in Canada” (2021). Articles & Book Chapters. 2887.
Milbank, J., & Pabst, A. (2016). The politics of virtue : post-liberalism and the human future (Ser. Future perfect: images of the time to come in philosophy, politics and cultural studies). Rowman & Littlefield International.
Neal, J. (Ed.). (2023). Personal, educational and organizational transformation : leading during times of metacrisis (Ser. Future of business and finance). Springer.
Yunkaporta, T. (2020). Sand talk: how indigenous thinking can save the world. First edition. New York, New York, HarperOne, an imprint of HarperCollins Publications.
Zurba, M. & Papadopolis, A. (2023). Indigenous Participation and the Incorporation of Indigenous Knowledge and Perspectives in Global Environmental Governance Forums: a Systematic Review. Environmental Management (2023) 72:84–99.
Originally published at https://medium.com on October 25, 2023.
