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)

The article explores the ways knowledge and space are co-produced performatively through bodily movement in an examination of the Maltese megaliths the first complex stone structures in the world. It is argued that knowledge is best seen as spatialized narratives of human actions and objects as materialized forms of those spatial narratives. Rewriting our social and historical narratives so that the performativity of place, space and knowledge is restored opens new possibilities for rethinking the social and material order.

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)