Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T04:53:36.450Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - Co-production between Indigenous Knowledge and Science: Introducing a Decolonized Approach

from Introduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2022

By
Marie Roué  and
Douglas Nakashima
Edited by
Marie Roué ,
Douglas Nakashima  and
Igor Krupnik
Marie Roué
Affiliation:
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Paris
Douglas Nakashima
Affiliation:
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), France
Igor Krupnik
Affiliation:
Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC
Get access

Summary

We have entered the era of the Anthropocene. Our rapid transformation of the planet poses a particular threat to socio-ecological systems and the Indigenous peoples who create and sustain them. A strengthened partnership between Indigenous knowledge holders and scientists is required based on decolonized knowledge co-production (DKC). Quite the opposite of scientific extractivism, which selectively exploits local and Indigenous knowledge to its own advantage, and more ambitious than the mere recognition and appraisal of Indigenous knowledge, DKC requires dedicated partners from knowledge systems who have learned through years of collaborative work. This introductory chapter proposes a methodology and ethic for DKC based on a problem-oriented and engaged approach built around mutual trust and benefits, and a profound equity between knowledge systems. It examines the intellectual contributions that laid bare the legacies of colonialism and the hegemony of science, opening the way for DKC: Elinor Ostrom who first coined the term co-production, Bruno Latour and Sheila Jasanoff from science and technology studies, with decisive insights from, among others, Edward Said, Vincent Deloria and Tuhuwai Smith.

Keywords

decolonized knowledge co-productionindigenous knowledgemethodologyethnoscienceco-managementinterdisciplinarityequityenvironmental changeOstromFleck
Type
Chapter
Information
Resilience through Knowledge Co-Production
Indigenous Knowledge, Science, and Global Environmental Change
 , pp. 3 - 24
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adelle, C., Pereira, L., Gorgens, T. and Losch, B. 2020. Making sense together: The role of scientists in the coproduction of knowledge for policy making. Science and Public Policy, 47 (1): 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scz046Google Scholar
Armitage, D., Berkes, F., Dale, A., Kocho-Schellenberg, E. and Patton, E. 2011. Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: Learning to adapt in Canada’s Arctic. Global Environmental Change, 21(3): 995–1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.04.006Google Scholar
Balée, W. L. (ed.). 2002. Advances in Historical Ecology. New York, Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Berkes, F. 1982. Waterfowl management and northern Native Peoples with reference to Cree Hunters of James Bay. Musk-Ox : A Journal of the North, 30: 23–35.Google Scholar
Berkes, F. 1999. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management. Philadelphia, Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Berlin, B., Breedlove, D. E. and Raven, P. H. 1966. Folk taxonomies and biological classification. Science, 154: 273–275.Google Scholar
Biolsi, T. and Zimmerman, L. J. 1997. Introduction: What’s changed and what hasn’t. pp. 2–23 In Biolsi, T. and Zimmerman, L. J. (eds.). Indians and Anthropologists: Vine Deloria, Jr. and the Critique of Anthropology. Tucson, University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Burger, T. R. 1977. Northern Frontier, Northern Homeland: The Report of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry. Toronto, James Lorier and Co.Google Scholar
Clifford, J. and Marcus, G. (eds.). 1986. Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley, University of California Press.Google Scholar
Conklin, H. 1954. The Relation of Hanunoo Culture to the Plant World. New Haven, CT, Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Deloria, V. 1970 [1969]. Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto. New York, Avon.Google Scholar
Deloria, V. 1997. Red Earth, White Lies: Native Americans and the Myth of Scientific Fact. Golden, CO, Fulcrum Publishing.Google Scholar
Descola, P. 2005. Par-delà Nature et Culture. Paris, Editions Gallimard.Google Scholar
Ellen, R. 1983. The Cultural Relations of Classification: An Analysis of Nuaulu Animal Categories from Central Seram. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellen, R. 2006. The Categorical Impulse: Essays in the Anthropology of Classifying Behavior. New York, Berghahn.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. 1995. The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials. Science, Technology & Human Values, 20(4): 408–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399502000402Google Scholar
Epstein, S. 1998. Impure Science: AIDS, Activism and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley, University of California Press.Google Scholar
Feit, H. 1973. Ethno-ecology of the Waswanipi Cree: Or how hunters can manage their resources. pp. 115–125. In Cox, B. (ed.). Cultural Ecology. Toronto, McClelland and Steward.Google Scholar
Fleck, L. 1979 [1935]. Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Translated by Bradley, F. and Trenn, T. J. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, M. M. R. (ed.). 1976. Inuit Land Use and Occupancy Project. Vols. I to III. Ottawa, Minister of Supplies and Services Canada.Google Scholar
Freeman, M. M. R. and Carbyn, L. N. (eds.). 1988. Traditional Knowledge and Renewable Resource Management in Northern Regions. Edmonton, Boreal Institute for Northern Studies.Google Scholar
Friedberg, C. 1999. Diversity, order, unity: Different levels in folk knowledge about the living. Social Anthropology, 7: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0964028299000014Google Scholar
Haraway, D. 1988. Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3): 575–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huntington, H. 2011. The local perspective. Nature, 478: 182–183. https://doi.org/10.1038/478182aGoogle Scholar
Jasanoff, S. 1996. Beyond epistemology: Relativism and engagement in the politics of science. Social Studies of Science, 26: 393–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631296026002008Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (ed.) 2004. States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order. London, Routledge.Google Scholar
JBNQA. 1998. James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and Complementary Agreements. Quebec, Les Publications du Quebec.Google Scholar
Johannes, R. E. 1978. Traditional marine conservation methods in Oceania and their demise. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 9: 349–364. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.09.110178.002025Google Scholar
Johannes, R. E. 1981. Words of the Lagoon: Fishing and Marine Lore in the Palau District of Micronesia. Berkeley, CA, University of California Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, N., Pearce, T., Breton-Honeyman, K., Etiendem, D. N. and Loseto, L. L. 2020. Knowledge co-production and co-management of Arctic wildlife: Editorial. pp. 124–126. In Knowledge mobilization on co-management, co-production of knowledge, and community-based monitoring to support effective wildlife resource decision making and Inuit self-determination. Special Issue. Arctic Science, 6: 124–360.Google Scholar
Kofinas, G. and Braund, S. 1998. Local Caribou Availability: A Draft Report from Community Involvement Phase 2. Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage.Google Scholar
Krupnik, I. and Jolly, D. (eds.). 2002. The Earth Is Faster Now: Indigenous Observations of Arctic Environmental Change. Fairbanks, AK: ARCUS.Google Scholar
Krupnik, I., Allison, I., Bell, R., Cutler, P., Hik, D., López-Martínez, J., Rachold, V., Sarukhanian, E. and Summerhayes, C. (eds.). 2011. Understanding Earth’s Polar Challenges: International Polar Year 2007–2008. University of the Arctic: Rovaniemi, Finland, CCI Press: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada and ICSU/WMO Joint Committee for International Polar Year 2007–2008.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B. 1990. Postmodern? No simply amodern. Steps towards an anthropology of science: An essay review. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 21: 145–171.Google Scholar
Latour, B. 2013. An Inquiry into Modes of Existence: An Anthropology of the Moderns. Cathy Porter (tr.). Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lemos, M. C., Arnott, J. C., Ardoin, N. M. et al. 2018. To co-produce or not to co-produce? Nature Sustainability, 1: 722–724. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893–018-0191-0Google Scholar
Levi-Strauss, C. 1962. La pensée sauvage (The Savage Mind). Paris, Plon.Google Scholar
Meadow, A. M., Ferguson, D. B., Guido, Z., Horangic, A., Owen, G. and Wall, T. 2015. Moving toward the deliberate coproduction of climate science knowledge. Weather, Climate, and Society, 7: 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-14-00050.1Google Scholar
Miller, C. A. and Wyborn, C. 2018. Co-production in global sustainability: Histories and theories. Environmental Science and Policies. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.01.016Google Scholar
Nakashima, D. and Roué, M. 2002. Indigenous knowledge, peoples and sustainable practice. pp. 314–324. In Munn, T. (ed.). Encyclopaedia of Global Environmental Change. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Nakashima, D., Krupnik, I., and Rubis, J. T. 2018. Indigenous Knowledge for Climate Change Assessment and Adaptation. Cambridge, University of Cambridge Press and Paris, UNESCO Publishing.Google Scholar
Nakashima, D. J., Galloway McLean, K., Thulstrup, H. D., Ramos-Castillo, A. and Rubis, J. T. 2012. Weathering Uncertainty: Traditional Knowledge and Climate Change Assessment and Adaptation. Knowledges of Nature 5. Paris, UNESCO and Darwin, UNU.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. K. 1969. Hunters of the Northern Ice. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Orlove, B., Chiang, S., John, C. H. and Cane, M. A. 2002. Ethnoclimatology in the Andes. American Scientist, 90: 428–435. https://doi.org/10.1511/2002.5.428Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. 1985. Formulating the Elements of Institutional Analysis. Paper presented at a conference on Institutional Analysis and Development, Washington, DC, Studies in Institutional Analysis and Development.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. 1993. Covenanting, co-producing and the good society. PEGS Newsletter, 3: 7–9.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. and Whitaker, G. 1973. Does local community control of police make a difference? Some preliminary findings. American Journal of Political Science, 17: 48–76. https://doi.org/10.2307/2110474Google Scholar
Ostrom, E., Parks, R. B., Whitaker, G. P. and Percy, S. L. 1978. The public service production process: A framework for analyzing police services. Journal of Policy Studies, 7: 381–389.Google Scholar
Pinkerton, E. (ed.). 1989. Cooperative Management of Local Fisheries: New Directions for Improved Management and Community Development. Vancouver, University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Pohl, C., Rist, S., Zimmermann, A., Fry, P., Gurung, G. S., Schneider, F., Speranza, C. I., Kiteme, B., Boillat, S., Serrano, E., Hirsch Hadorn, G. and Wiesmann, U. 2010. Researchers’ roles in knowledge co-production: Experience from sustainability research in Kenya, Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal. Science and Public Policy, 37(4): 267–281. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234210X496628Google Scholar
Rabeharisoa, V. and Callon, M. 2002. L’engagement des associations de maladies dans la recherche. Revue Internationale des Sciences sociales, 171: 65–73. https://doi.org/10.3917/riss.171.0065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabeharisoa, V. and Callon, M. 2004. Patients and scientists in French muscular dystrophy research. pp. 142–160. In Jasanoff, S. (ed.). 2004. States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order. London, Routledge.Google Scholar
Rabinow, P. 1983. ‘Facts are a word of God’: An essay review. In Stocking, G. W. (ed.). Observers Observed. (History of Anthropology I.). Madison, University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Richards, P. 1995. Participatory rural appraisal: A quick and dirty critique. PLA Notes, 24: 13–16 (accessed November 27, 2020) http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/G01591.pdfGoogle Scholar
Rivière, A. 2013. Manifeste de Dingdingdong, précédé De La Chorée (1872) de G. Huntington. Translated by V. Bergerat. Paris, Editions Dingdingdong.Google Scholar
Roué, M. and Nakashima, D. 2018. Indigenous and local knowledge and science: From validation to knowledge co-production. In Callan, H. (ed.). The International Encyclopaedia of Anthropology.Google Scholar
Ruddle, K. and Johannes, R. E. (eds.). 1984. The Traditional Knowledge and Management of Coastal Systems in Asia and the Pacific. Jakarta, UNESCO.Google Scholar
Saïd, E. W. 1978. Orientalism. New York, Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Scoones, I. and Thompson, J. 1994. Beyond Farmer First: Rural People’s Knowledge, Agricultural Research and Extension Practice. London, Intermediate Technology.Google Scholar
Sillitoe, P. (ed.) 2007. Local Science vs. Global Science: Approaches to Indigenous Knowledge in International Development. New York, Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
Smith, L. T. 1999. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Dunedin and London, Zed Books and University of Otago Press.Google Scholar
Stengers, I. 2013. Une autre science est possible ! Paris, Ed. La Découverte.Google Scholar
Strathern, M. 1987. Out of context: The persuasive fictions of anthropology. Current Anthropology, 28(3): 251–281.Google Scholar
Sturtevant, W. 1964. Studies in Ethnoscience. American Anthropologist, 66: 99–131. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1964.66.3.02a00850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toledo, V. M. 1992. What is ethnoecology? Origins, scope and implications of a rising discipline. Etnoecologica, 1: 5–23.Google Scholar
Warren, D. M., Slikerveer, L. J. and Brokensha, D. (eds.) 1995. The Cultural Dimension of Development: Indigenous Knowledge Systems. London, Intermediate Technology Publication.Google Scholar
White, L. Jr. 1967. The historical roots of our ecologic crisis. Science, vol. 155. no. 3767: 1203–1207.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×