We contrast two understandings of traditional knowledge: as enframed in the discourse of modernity (MTK), and as generated in the practices of locality (LTK). Where `indigenous knowledge' is opposed to science, it always appears in the guise of MTK. This modernist understanding rests on a genealogical model of transmission that separates the acquisition of knowledge from environmentally situated practice. For local people, by contrast, traditional knowledge is inseparable from the practices of inhabiting the land that both bring places into being (...) and constitute persons as of those places. To illustrate the meaning of LTK, we describe how Saami people in northernmost Finland perceive their environment, focusing on their experiences of the weather. These are shown to be embedded in life-histories, dependent on tasks of travel, multisensory, crucial to spatial orientation and the co-ordination of activities, and seasonally periodic. To regard people's knowledge of the weather as an aspect of tradition means thinking of tradition as process rather than substance, as part of a way of life conceived not as the enactment of a received script but as the continual negotiation of a path through the world. Here there is no contradiction between continuity and change. LTK, we show, is tantamount to skill: a property of the whole organism-person, having emerged through a history of involvement in an environment. From the perspective of LTK, there is no opposition between traditional knowledge and science. For science is itself a form of LTK, differing from other forms in the practices through which it is generated, rather than in the epistemological status of the knowledge itself. (shrink)

Two distinct theoreticalstreams flowing in the investigation,documentation, and dissemination ofMarginalized Peoples' Knowledge(s) (MPK)are identified and a third suggested.Systems thinking, which originally coined theterm Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS),continues to predominate the growinginterdisciplinary interest in MPK. Thisapproach has tended to view knowledge or itsproduction based on systemic principles.The asystems approach challenges theusefulness of MPK as a systemsconstruct. Its central proposition is that MPKdoes not always represent a coherent system ofknowledge with underlying principles.Asystemists tend to prefer the term LocalKnowledge (LK) and approach the (...) subject fromvery different, even opposing, epistemologicalassumptions. Although both the systemsand asystems research streams are oftenconcerned with power, an in-depth explorationof power-issues is not inevitably integral toeither approach. A third Subaltern Knowledge(s)(SK) perspective is suggested. The SK termembodies a central condition of many LKsvis-à-vis the scientific/Western knowledgeestablishment – that of being marginalizedbut resisting or with the potential to resistthis process. More benign terms in literature(IK, LK, Rural Peoples' Knowledge (RPK), etc.)fail to make this condition explicit. Such aconceptual recasting overtly invites aconsideration of the intertwined nature ofpower and knowledge in the exploration ofMPK. (shrink)

This article examines differences in the research approaches of farmers and scientists and analyzes how these differences are related to the conditions under which both groups engage in experimental work. Theoretical considerations as well as practical experiences are presented to emphasize the great potential of farmer–researcher collaboration for rural innovation. In the first part of the article, the innovative power of farmer research and experimentation is acknowledged by presenting examples such as crop and animal breeding, development of new production systems, (...) farm equipment, and social innovations. Considering the respective comparative advantages of farmers and scientists, and inspired by theoretical concepts in the fields of knowledge management and innovation processes, we discuss five topics for optimizing the collaboration between farmers and scientists in the field of technological innovation: user orientation, decentralization, informal modes of experimentation, externalization of tacit knowledge, and economic considerations. A better understanding of such issues could help researchers to define their own role in the research process, acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses of their own and farmers’ research approaches, overcome communication gaps, and find creative solutions for problems that typically occur in the process of participatory technology development. (shrink)