Local Knowledge

I have always been an advocate of alternative resources. Things like songs, poetry, oral histories etc... I feel that they have allowed me to broaden my own perspective, creating research that reflects sides of an issue that need to be heard, but often are not. Especially now, in our digital age, where innovations in communication technology are occurring at a rate never seen before, it seems that there is the potential to revolutionize the relationship between academics and the rest of us.

Not to downplay the significance of academic learning. Quite simply, there are some things that can only be learned in a university. University, though, is not the only source for knowledge. There are vast stores of untapped local knowledge as well. Given academia's tendency toward written sources, local knowledge is not always well represented in research and findings. Given a topic such as migrations of fish, though, it is clear that a collaboration between academic and local sources of knowledge (maybe marine biologists and local fishermen) could contribute to a fuller understanding of the topic.

Incorporating these two, however, is not as easily said than done. Recently I came across a couple of articles that have helped me in thinking about how to incorporate local knowledge and information from alternative sources into academic research. The two articles, Integrating Local and Scientific Knowledge by Steven Mckinnon and Linking Western Science and Innu Environmental Knowledge in Creating a Sustainable Environment by Trudy Sable, attempt to address the issues inherent in this topic.

As his title suggests, Mackinnon proposes a method for integrating local knowledge into mainstream research. Through a series of heuristic rules, all pieces of information, whether scientific or from a local source, are to be weighted based on existing evidence, notoriety of the individual providing it, and the number of times it occurs. Based on this weighting, all pieces of information are presumably incorporated equally in order to create a better understanding of the topic. At one point, Mackinnon asserts, “Remarkably, there were no instances in which knowledge accumulated from any single source opposed another or diverged from that found in scientific literature. Information either complemented previous knowledge (from interviewees or literature) or added additional understanding.” This, it seems, is an amazing occurrence in itself. Surely, in most areas, disagreement exists. He argues that in such instances of disagreement, a rule would be created in order to allow for both pieces of information. This would necessarily lead to an excessive amount of heuristic rules in situations of great complexity and disagreement. Though he has good intentions, his method seems impractical.

Sable identifies several issues surrounding the relationship between local knowledge and scientific knowledge that Mackinnon doesn't touch on. Firstly, this relationship is usually characterized by apprehension on the part of the scientific community to accept the offerings of local knowledge. This apprehension, however, Sable suggests is shared. Using Innu aboriginal communities as an example, she remarks that local communities such as the Innu have a long history of neccassary apprehension toward outsiders of their community, and showed frustration when scientists claimed to hold a better knowledge of their ancestral lands. They had watched as technology and industry affected their environment, altering migration patterns of the animals they traditionally hunted, and they now saw their children being taught in a foreign language. In the case of the Innu, very real concerns exist that future generations will be assimilated, losing their traditional culture and, by virtue, their local knowledge.

Sable's argument is more qualitative than that of Mackinnon. It is less based on complex series' of rules. Instead, Sable seems to be searching for a more effective interaction, attempting to establish a tangible middle ground between two communities of equals. In six points she outlines the prerequisites to effective interaction between local and scientific communities:

1.Have all people been engaged in determining the motivation to undertake the project.
2.Does the research serve the community as well as the investors? Who is the ultimate beneficiary of change?
3.Who is defining the knowledge being gathered and documented? Is it inclusive of all stakeholders?
4.Who is governing the decision making process and to what end?
5.To what extent have avenues of communication, e.g. different languages, been included and respected?
6.To what extent have cultural land use practices and values been included in co-management agreements?

Sable's argument is not perfect. Again, the relationships between academic and local sources of knowledge are complex, and as with Mackinnon, it may not be possible to develop, improve or understand these relationships based only on a series of rules. The issue, however, is important and one that we must be aware of. Though these authors haven't yet revolutionized our knowledge base, they are working in the right direction.