Traditional Central American peasant farmers know more about some aspects of the local agroecosystem than about others. In general farmers know more about plants, less about insects, and less still about plant pathology. Without discounting economic factors, ease of observability must explain part of this difference. Certain local beliefs may affect what farmers observe and know. For example, a belief in spontaneous generation may lead people to fail to observe insect reproduction. The implications of the gaps in farmer knowledge are (...) discussed in terms of the sustainable agriculture movement. (shrink)

The anthropological approach is the central focus of this study. Laboratories are looked upon with the innocent eye of the traveller in exotic lands, and the societies found in these places are observed with the objective yet compassionate eye of the visitor from a quite other cultural milieu. There are many surprises that await us if we enter a laboratory in this frame of mind... This study is a realistic enterprise, an attempt to truly represent the social order of life (...) in laboratories and institutes of research, just as they are. By bringing the philosophical issues to the surface as matters not of prejudgement but as matters of concern, Karin Knorr-Cetina has developed the first really positive challenge to the philosophy of science since the days of paradigms and internal definitions of meanings. (shrink)

Written by major scholars and practitioners of Goethean science today, this book considers the philosophical foundations of Goethe's approach and applies the ...

First published in 2012. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

This article argues that all knowledge is inherently local and that localness provides the basis for comparison between indigenous scientific traditions or knowledge production systems. As collective bodies of knowledge, many of the significant differences between knowledge production systems lie in the work involved in creating assemblages from differing practices. Much of the work can be seen in the social strategies and technical devices employed in creating equivalences and connections whereby otherwise heterogeneous and isolated knowledges are enabled to move in (...) space and time from the local site and moment of their production and application to other places and times. In this way contemporary technosciences are compared with the knowledge systems of the medieval mastermasons, the Anasazi, the Inca, the Australian Aborigines and the Pacific navigators. (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)

The challenge of producing sufficient food to feed a growing world population cannot now be met by industrialized and green revolution agriculture as production is currently at or above a sustainable level. Future growth has to occur on resource-poor and marginal lands, where farmers have little or no access to external resources or research and extension support. A precedent for such growth occurred during the agricultural revolution in Britain. Over a period of two centuries crop and livestock production increased 3–4 (...) fold as innovative technologies and techniques developed by farmers were extended to other farmers through tours, farmer groups, open days, and publications, and then adapted to local conditions by rigorous experimentation. These technologies maximized the use of on-farm resources at a time when there was no government ministry of agriculture, no research stations, and no extension institutions. But at the same time as this revolution in on-farm resource use, agriculture also expanded into uncultivated lands, increasing aggregate production but destroying common property resources and so threatening the livelihoods of the poor. (shrink)

Farmer participatory research (FPR) has generated many programmatic statements and few technologies. FPR has probably been of interest more because of dissatisfaction with the green revolution and agricultural establishment research than because of a proven ability of scientists and farmers to collaborate together. There are several barriers between farmers and scientists, not the least of which is social distance. The role of FPR should be critically examined; it may work best setting research agendas or in the case of researchers who (...) can dedicate themselves to FPR full-time for quite some time. (shrink)

This study of arable agriculture in East Anglia, UK, draws on the experiences of farmer participatory research and the use of indigenous knowledge in agricultural development in less developed countries. Farmers were found to be continually doing research, although agricultural science has tended to play it down. Farmers' research was found to be closely linked to the specific locality and the strategies, aspirations, and experiences of farmers. The diversity of agriculture within East Anglia makes local research necessary and the idea (...) of blueprints for agricultural production untenable. The process of generating information can come from learning while working, which may appear to be experiential rather than experimental. Other ideas are generated by observing chance occurrences and some farmers were found to be doing more structured experiments similar to agricultural science. Criticisms of farmers' own research are reviewed. However, this paper proposes that such research should not be compared to scientific method, since agricultural science has the primary objective of generating information while farmers' research is embedded in the local context and is part of the farming practice. It is therefore necessary to have complementary roles for farmers' own research and formal research rather than an attempt to combine or translate indigenous knowledge and farmers' experimentation in agricultural science. (shrink)