Indigenous Innovation - Sense Publishers

A D V A N C E S

I N

I N N O V A T I O N

E D U C A T I O N

Universalities and Peculiarities Elizabeth Sumida Huaman Arizona State University, USA and

Bharath Sriraman (Eds.) The University of Montana, USA

Rooted in diverse cultures and in distinct regions of the world, Indigenous people have for generations created, maintained, and negotiated clear and explicit relationships with their environments. Despite numerous historical disruptions and steady iterations of imperialism that continue through today, Indigenous communities embody communities of struggle/resistance and intense vitality/creativity. In this work, a fellowship of Indigenous research has emerged, and our collective intent is to share critical narratives that link together Indigenous worldviews, culturally-based notions of ecology, and educational practices in places and times where human relationships with the world that are restorative, transformative, and just are being sought.

SensePublishers

ISBN 978-94-6300-224-0

AIIE 2

Elizabeth Sumida Huaman and Bharath Sriraman (Eds.)

Photo of Tipón window, Cusco, Peru. Taken by Elizabeth Sumida Huaman

Indigenous Innovation


A D V A N C E S

Spine 11.887 mm

I N

I N N O V A T I O N

E D U C A T I O N

Indigenous Innovation Universalities and Peculiarities Elizabeth Sumida Huaman and Bharath Sriraman (Eds.)


ADVANCES IN INNOVATION EDUCATION

AIMS AND SCOPE

Industry, Government-sanctioned Research and development and the Private sectors have historically been the champions of fostering innovation with the aim of addressing changing human needs as well as economic gain. The connectivity of the 21st century coupled with advances in information systems and the unchecked advent of globalization have resulted in challenges to existing institutional structures in place as well as a greater awareness of inequities within and across different regions of the world. Innovation and innovation education are the new buzz words increasingly inundating popular discourses in different media. The aim of this avant-garde book series is to unfold the conceptual foundations of innovation from historical, socio-political, economic, scientific and ethical perspectives, as well as apply these foundations towards issues confronting education, science and society in the 21st century. Series Editor: Bharath Sriraman, The University of Montana International Advisory Board: Don Ambrose, Rider University Robert Este, University of Calgary Allan Luke, Queensland University of Technology, Australia Marianna Papastephanou, University of Cyprus Robert Sternberg, Oklahoma State University Ian Winchester, University of Calgary

Indigenous Innovation Universalities and Peculiarities

Edited by Elizabeth Sumida Huaman Arizona State University, USA and Bharath Sriraman The University of Montana, USA

A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN: 978-94-6300-224-0 (paperback) ISBN: 978-94-6300-225-7 (hardback) ISBN: 978-94-6300-226-4 (e-book)

Published by: Sense Publishers, P.O. Box 21858, 3001 AW Rotterdam, The Netherlands https://www.sensepublishers.com/

All chapters in this book have undergone peer review.

Printed on acid-free paper

All Rights Reserved © 2015 Sense Publishers No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements from the Editors

vii

1.

Indigenous-Minded Innovation in Shifting Ecologies Elizabeth Sumida Huaman

2.

Alternative Imaginations: Examining Complementarities across Knowledge Systems Netra Chhetri and Nalini Chhetri

3.

Deep Sovereignty: A Foundation for Indigenous Sustainability Anya Dozier Enos

25

4.

Waewaetakamiria: Caress the Land with Our Footsteps Huia Tomlins-Jahnke and Margaret Forster

43

5.

Local Knowledge, Cultural Economies: “To Live Well” in an Indigenous Municipality of Bolivia Karen Marie Lennon

57

6.

Spirit Food: A Multi-Dimensional Overview of the Decolonizing Diet Project Martin Reinhardt

81

7.

Turkana Indigenous Knowledge: Environmental Sustainability and Pastoralist Lifestyle for Economic Survival John Teria Ng’asike and Beth Blue Swadener

107

8.

“Why Can’t We Admire Our Own?”: Indigenous Youth, Farming, and Education in the Peruvian Andes Elizabeth Sumida Huaman

129

9.

Adharshila Shikshan Kendra: An Experiment to Reconstitute Possibilities for Adivasi Children Karishma Desai

149

10. Ruvden as a Basis for the Teaching of Mathematics: A Sámi Mathematics Teacher’s Experiences Anne Birgitte Fyhn, Ylva Jannok Nutti, Ellen J Sara Eira, Tove Børresen, Svein Ole Sandvik and Ole Einar Hætta

v

1

11

169

TABLE OF CONTENTS

11. Mônahaskwêwin Pahki-Nahâpaminâkonan (Harvesting Is a Part of Our Identity): Harvesting as a Traditional Land Use and Technology Paradigm Eli Suzukovich III, Fawn Pochel, David Bender and Janie Pochel Book Contributors

vi

187 209

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS FROM THE EDITORS

The editors would like to thank each contributing author and their families and communities for the meaningful work they have shared with us. From the United States to Aotearoa to Kenya, we find the work of these scholars inspirational. The editors would also like to thank our institutions—Arizona State University and University of Montana, Missoula, for their support of our research and academic work. Elizabeth Sumida Huaman would like to thank the following individuals for their support and encouragement of her research and work: Bryan Brayboy, Beth Blue Swadener, and Mary Margaret Fonow. She also acknowledges colleagues who provided advisement and support during this project—including Wendy Cheng and Karen Leong with photography advisement and assistance with the book title. She also offers her most heartfelt thanks to her family members: Hortensia Huaman Carhuamaca de Sumida and Masahiro Sumida for their love and support; Tia Ines Callalli Villafuerte, Tia Michicha, for her guidance, strength, and teaching; Steve Smith (White Earth Nation) for his comments and suggestions that continue to shape Indigenous innovation, Indigenous STEM priorities, and a deeper understanding of traditional ecological knowledge; her communities of Huamanmarca and Chongos Bajo; and her family who are the descendants of Natsu Sumida, Chiyo and Kunimitsu Sumida, Paulina Limaymanta Alvarado, and Antonieta Jesus Carhuamaca Alvarado de Huaman and Antonio Huaman Rojas. Both Elizabeth Sumida Huaman and Bharath Sriraman also thank the editorial team and the staff at Sense Publishers for their support of this work.

vii

ELIZABETH SUMIDA HUAMAN

1. INDIGENOUS-MINDED INNOVATION IN SHIFTING ECOLOGIES

LOCAL INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS

Rooted in diverse cultures and in distinct regions of the world, Indigenous people have for generations created, maintained, and negotiated clear and explicit relationships with their environments. Despite numerous historical disruptions and steady iterations of imperialism that continue through today, Indigenous communities embody communities of struggle/resistance and intense vitality/creativity. In this work, a fellowship of Indigenous research has emerged, and our collective intent is to share critical narratives that link together Indigenous worldviews, culturallybased notions of ecology, and educational practices in places and times where human relationships with the world that are restorative, transformative, and just are being sought. We are not alone in this work. Rather, we take inspiration from local community and family members, as well as those whose research and ideas have been disseminated across the globe. In the 1990s, Yupiaq educational scholar Angayuqaq Oscar Kawagley composed a dissertation using participant observation research to examine the relationship between Indigenous knowledge and western knowledge with Yupiaq community members in Alaska. This work offered not only Yupiaq and Alaska Native communities, but also Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations worldwide, demonstration that local Indigenous knowledge rooted in the environment— epistemologies, languages, cultural practices, and beliefs—could be linked with western modern science (WMS) in order to promote Indigenous self-determination and self-reliance. This work would later become A Yupiaq Worldview (1999, 2006), celebrated as a seminal piece of research and writing on nature-mediated education, which Kawagley argued could be accomplished in teaching through the culture. In 2005, Kawagley and Ray Barnhardt further theorized the vastness of Indigenous ways of knowing, environments, languages, and cultural practices as Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS). They wrote, Indigenous peoples throughout the world have sustained their unique worldviews and associated knowledge systems for millennia, even while undergoing major social upheavals as a result of transformative forces beyond their control. Many of the core values, beliefs, and practices associated with those worldviews have survived and are beginning to be recognized as being E. S. Huaman & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Indigenous Innovation, 1–9. © 2015 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

E. S. Huaman

just as valid for today’s generations as they were for generations past. The depth of Indigenous knowledge rooted in the long inhabitation of a particular place offers lessons that can benefit everyone, from educator to scientist, as we search for a more satisfying and sustainable way to live on this planet. (p. 9) They argued that our engagement with the natural world, science, and our own local knowledge systems was a dynamic for all of humankind to reconsider—that Indigenous peoples might pursue western modern science but not at the expense of their own local knowledge, and that non-Indigenous peoples could benefit from multiple ways of understanding and relating to the world (p. 9). This call to embrace Indigenous knowledge and western modern science, and to do so for the sake of diversity—that the world needs diverse and creative approaches and solutions—was also paired with a call for Indigenous educational researchers to conscientiously move Indigenous knowledge from the margins to the center. While this is a challenging journey, Kawagley’s work, like that of other Indigenous scholars before him and since then, reminds us to explore knowledge in ways that are respectful and appropriate for us as Indigenous peoples and members of particular tribes, villages, communities, and collectives. However, while there are shared values in engaging in the type of educational research that is rooted in firm recognition of Indigenous knowledge systems, Indigenous peoples are diverse—exercising unique cultural tenets, speaking different languages, and part of distinct ecosystems. The United Nations, for example, does not recognize a singular official definition of who is Indigenous but does offer a series of potential identifiers, including self-identification, strong link to surrounding natural resources, and distinct languages, cultures, and beliefs, as well as “resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environment and systems as distinctive peoples and communities.”1 This idea of resolve is of central interest to educational researchers who are culturally, emotionally, spiritually, and intellectually invested in Indigenous communities as “resolve” implies commitment, responsibility, and accountability to Indigenous people, places, and issues. The need for resolve is increasingly urgent, particularly as local forms of Indigenous knowledge have been and are being oppressed and subjugated into endangerment and extinction. Because there is no one singular, homogenous, or universal “Indigenous knowledge,” when local forms of knowledge are threatened and begin to disappear at varied rates, as Indigenous peoples, researchers, and global citizens, we are compelled to interrogate this process. In the past decade, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) has been signed by some of the world’s most powerful nations. However, governmental acknowledgement of the UNDRIP is not synonymous with real endorsement and actual enforcement of its articles. Despite these gaps, UNDRIP articles do provide insight into the priorities that Indigenous peoples have identified as widespread and pressing, and community members of all ages and policy makers alike have the opportunity to refer to a document today that in 2

INDIGENOUS-MINDED INNOVATION IN SHIFTING ECOLOGIES

many ways, represents the historical record and a call to action for this and future generations. The very idea that there are things at stake, threatened things, things we need to protect—these outline historical struggles and very real work that we are confronted with today: Article 23: Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for exercising their right to development. In particular, indigenous peoples have the right to be actively involved in developing and determining health, housing and other economic and social programmes affecting them and, as far as possible, to administer such programmes through their own institutions. Article 31: 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions. 2. In conjunction with indigenous peoples, States shall take effective measures to recognize and protect the exercise of these rights.2 Although the UNDRIP and priorities addressed through articulation of its articles demonstrate the interdisciplinary nature of Indigenous rights where land and environment cannot be disconnected from education, for example, Articles 23 and 31 outline some key notions that we address directly in this book. Article 23 emphasizes the right of Indigenous people to development but on their own terms, while Article 31 expresses the relationship between land, culture, and rights. Each of the articles in the UNDRIP, taken as a collective, convey a particular way of viewing the world as interconnected. This interconnectedness—of fields of study, research methods, ecosystems, and multiple forms of knowledge—is of critical importance when working with Indigenous communities today. INDIGENOUS INNOVATION

Although innovation is not a new concept, in recent years, Indigenous innovation has started to gain momentum. In some cases Indigenous innovation describes social enterprise, and in other cases has been co-opted by national governments to promote an agenda involving a move away from industrial production and technological reproduction to driving invention. While those characteristics of Indigenous innovation should be part of a larger conversation on related notions of Indigenous so-called tradition, change, adaptability, and perhaps indigeneity, what we are concerned with here is clarifying that Indigenous innovation is not solely a response 3

E. S. Huaman

to colonization per se or to the narrowly constructed dominant characterizations of Indigenous people and cultures as static such that pairing “Indigenous” with “innovation” is all that revolutionary. Rather, our baseline assumption is that Indigenous peoples, communities, cultures, languages—indeed, our ecologies—are quite dynamic, and further, borrowing from United Nations and grassroots Indigenous movements, that Indigenous peoples have legal, cultural, moral, and spiritual rights to identify, maintain, protect, revitalize, improve, strengthen, and develop their lands, languages, cultural practices, and forms of knowledge. Our contributions to Indigenous innovation build on these ideas of rights and responsibilities, as well as the work of scholars like Kawagley and what we have learned from fellow educators, community members, and youth in the field. As such, Indigenous innovation in this book is concerned with these key points: cultural autonomy, remembrance and retrieval, self-determination, and community-based values linked with the maintenance, preservation, restoration, and revitalization of Indigenous knowledge systems that merge episteme with place and cultural practice. In order to remain relevant, however, each of these points must be continually articulated, debated, redefined, and expanded both within and outside of Indigenous communities. Indigenous innovation put into practice is a part of this dialogue and necessarily takes into consideration not only the need to acknowledge and understand multiple epistemologies—Indigenous, other non-western, and western—but also, the need to do so in our own and other shifting ecologies, in a globalized world with ever-increasing flows of capital, technology, people, and ideas where both opportunities and inequalities have increased. Of course, Indigenous peoples are not the first or even the most recent voices to question globalization and its promises in the last decade and half. In 2002, Joseph Stiglitz outlined some of the supposed characteristics of globalization, including trade liberalization, promotion of the market economy, and reduction of isolation and increased integration of countries and people—all leading to increased flows of capital, goods, technology, causes, and ideas. In his analysis of the dominant global institutions, the architects and drivers behind these characteristics, like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, he asked, why—if given the good of globalization—the force was so controversial. To Stiglitz, globalization was a system of global governance without global government where a few dominant institutions determined the process and outcomes for those most affected yet ultimately silenced. He argued that globalization could be reshaped, that the rules governing the international economic order needed to be changed, and decisions made at the international level reconceptualized to also ask “in whose interests” (22). These arguments remain relevant today. Indigenous peoples and communities are among those most vitally impacted yet silenced by the dominant institutions Stiglitz described—the IMF, the World Bank, and finance, commerce, and trade ministries in partnership with private and corporate interests. There are numerous manifestations of these partnerships, including prominent historical and recent examples of extractive industries on Indigenous lands. In 4


some cases, Indigenous peoples participate and collaborate with dominant financial and industrial institutions, for whatever reasons, in the active exploitation of their ancestral lands. While the right of Indigenous peoples is to develop their own lands as they see fit, this process must include comprehensive understanding and consistent evaluation of what these decisions will mean for this and future generations. The role of a particular type of education that is rooted in local Indigenous knowledge about the environment, local community-based values, and local culturally-based decision-making methods can serve as a strategy for Indigenous peoples to confront with full understanding what has happened, is happening, or being proposed in their homelands. The chapters in this book offer examples of such conscientious educational design, and the notion of Indigenous innovation emerges with consideration to the threats shaped by ecological challenges, which include environment, cultural practice, and language. Over the past several decades, these elements have been recognized by Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars as not only comprising what we mean by ecology, but also what is crucial to living a healthy and good life with our world. Scholars have increasingly argued that Indigenous people, their cultures, their languages, and their systems of knowing and believing cannot be separated from their environments: The work of Marie Battiste and colleagues offered visions of cultural restoration in a postcolonial context (2000); Luisa Maffi’s work on biocultural diversity brought together western scientists with proponents of local and Indigenous knowledge to consider language, knowledge, and environment (2001); and Laurelyn Whitt’s vital contribution to the discussion of western scientific and Indigenous knowledges as dominant and subordinate knowledges analyzes the role of power in the construction and perpetuation of research and knowledge (2014). For researchers, the work of these colleagues and our own Indigenous community members is extended by also questioning and redefining conventionally accepted terms that have been universally assigned but targeted towards marginalized and Indigenous people. “Development,” “progress,” and “modernization” are psychologically powerful banners waved by the nation states of which we are a part, promoted globally by the dominant decision-makers Stiglitz critiqued. Widely accepted practices associated with these banners, like “education,” “science,” and “technology,” are also problematic, and singularly-defined, these terms paired with their underlying ideologies have been disruptive and destructive to Indigenous communities. In some ways, Indigenous innovation is a move from the margins, a response to a great collection of challenges—historical, contemporary, and unanticipated—that we share together in this world. In other ways and as demonstrated by the work presented in this book, Indigenous innovation is distinctive, already at the center, as theory, process, and practice that is a) driven by Indigenous people (i.e., who are accountable to local community); b) seeks to restore, reclaim, protect, maintain, and revitalize local Indigenous knowledge linked with Indigenous cultural practices and languages; c) draws from local Indigenous knowledge systems; d) is equipped to 5

E. S. Huaman

conscientiously respond to imperialisms and their strategies, including colonization and capitalism; e) creates spaces where metanarratives are problematized, approaches evaluated and reevaluated, and tensions appropriately addressed; f) opens, expands, and rebuilds dialogue within and between indigenous communities; g) explores and builds connections with other knowledge systems (i.e., western modern science); h) is concerned with how Indigenous people are benefitted and for how long. SUMMARY OF THE CHAPTERS

The chapters in this book have been constructed by researchers with long term commitments to the people and lands they describe, and this work is offered to all, especially in light of some of the recent tragedies that cycle through the regions we call home—the earthquakes in Nepal (2015) and Kenyan regional and national unrest (2015). In the midst of these hardships, this collection offers narratives and counter-narratives, qualitative fieldwork reflections, quantitative data, and theoretical perspectives. In many cases, contributors are from these communities, live and work in these places, and advocate for the human and environmental rights that connect the local with the global. Their work is based on collaboration with Indigenous communities, representing a collective move away from positivist research traditions towards locally relevant and respectful research conduct that honors their connections with home. As a result, authors have explored the following types of questions in the work they present, and readers are also encouraged to consider these in their own work while also growing the list of what communities of researchers might consider: 1. What is our vision for self-determination today—meaning, how can we rebuild ourselves (personal sovereignty) and our communities (Indigenous community sovereignty)? 2. How do we identify, heal, resist, and negotiate our present lives with imperialist forces and a continuous colonial presence? 3. How do we recognize and honor our past, drawing from local Indigenous and other resources? 4. What do we recognize and honor from our past and why? 5. Who benefits from innovation? Further, each chapter describes innovation in Indigenous contexts while also discussing dominant discourses of progress or development that impact their communities and the tensions that result. In “Alternative Imaginations,” Netra Chhetri and Nalini Chhetri offer a critique of “science-centric” knowledge while examining alternative knowledge systems, particularly non-western and Indigenous. As each form of knowledge is valuable, they conceptualize alternative imagination as a space supporting complementary perspectives. In her work with the New Mexico Pueblos in the southwestern United States, Anya Dozier Enos broadens this discussion by introducing 6


deep sovereignty, which distinguishes itself from political definitions of sovereignty. In “Deep Sovereignty,” she argues the centrality of a Pueblo way of life to a broader consideration of sovereignty for the purposes of cultural survival and protection. In “Waewaetakamiria,” Huia Tomlins-Jahnke and Margaret Forster contribute to the conversation provoked by Chhetri, Chhetri, and Dozier Enos by describing in depth an example of what Indigenous communities are valuing, protecting, and preserving today with the case of a tribally-initiated place-based education programme in Aotearoa. They argue that attachment to place for Indigenous peoples is vital in addressing the long-term effects of colonisation while promoting cultural and environmental sustainability. While Tomlins-Jahnke and Forster offer a triballydriven educational experiment that draws from Māori cultural knowledge and practices, Karen Lennon provides an important account of Indigenous responses to national government-driven initiatives in Bolivia. In “Local Knowledge, Cultural Economies,” she discusses how local Indigenous people in one community attempt to negotiate and balance conflicting lifeworlds exacerbated by multiple internal and external forces. Following Lennon’s work on a governmental policy of “living well,” is Martin Reinhardt’s richly detailed description of a research project where researchers and participants engaged in a study of reclaiming an Indigenous diet. In “Spirit food,” the fundamental, cultural, and spiritual relationship between food and Indigenous peoples in the Great Lakes region of the United States is presented. This work offers a critical discussion of knowledge recovery and renewed cultural practice. Related to Reinhardt’s discussion of recovering a way of life, “Turkana Indigenous Knowledge,” portrays a region and people in transition—where the Turkana pastoralist way of life, including their cultural knowledge for food cultivation, is increasingly threatened in Kenya. John Ng’asike and Beth Blue Swadener describe Turkana pastoralists relationships with their environment, which have been maintained for generations but that are popularly viewed as conflicting with Kenyan national government discourse on modernity and progress. A discussion on nationalizing discourses of progress is expanded in “Why can’t we admire our own?” by Elizabeth Sumida Huaman. Drawing from work with Wanka youth in the Andean highlands of Peru, she describes the tensions between Indigenous farming, cultural practices, schooling, and dominant development agendas where youth consider their roles and places both at home and in larger Peruvian society. Related to the topics explored by Sumida Huaman is Karishma Desai’s “Adharshila Shikshan Kendra.” Beginning with a review of colonization and the production of the Adivasi Indigenous category, Desai then examines Adivasi social movements for land and natural resources—which in the case she describes, are linked with educational initiatives. She provides insight into Indigenous microlevel forms of resistance to colonization and nationalizing pressures through Adivasi social justice curriculum and pedagogy whereby Adivasi citizenship and belonging in India is reimagined. 7

E. S. Huaman

A detailed look at educational innovation through local Indigenous knowledge is also offered in “Ruvden as a Basis for the Teaching of Mathematics.” Anne Birgitte Fyhn, Ylva Jannok Nutti, Ellen J. Sara Eira, Tove Børresen, Svein Ole Sandvik, and Ole Einar Hætta portray their work introducing the Sámi practice of ruvden into mathematics curriculum in one school in Norway. Through explanation and analysis of a study involving one particular Sámi teacher, they demonstrate the interplay of Sámi cultural practice, mathematics, curriculum development, student and teacher responses. Following this description of cultural practice and curriculum, Eli Suzukovich III, Fawn Pochel, David Bender, and Janie Pochel of the American Indian Center in Chicago, Illinois, recount their critical work redefining science through the construction of a regional Indigenous science program that is inextricable from a conversation on Indigenous subsistence rights and the reclaiming of Indigenous lands. “Mônahaskwêwin pahki-nahâpaminâkonan (Harvesting is a part of our identity)” describes a comprehensive project of community based citizen science from which a traditional land use paradigm is both strengthened and asserted in urban communities in the United States. Each of these chapters provides local and regional examples—affectionately referred to as “peculiarities” in the title of the book. These peculiarities endeavor to supply ideas and stories that are vital to both their own contexts and to the diversity of what we offer this planet. As an extension of this assertion, “universalities” complement and enhance our peculiarities. While in no way should Indigenous research or education aim to be universally applicable or generalizable—indeed the beauty of distinct approaches and practices should be fundamentally recognized for their unique contributions and implications—we have undeniable connections to each other and to our vast world. The work of these universalities is to then strengthen these relationships through concern for the environmental-humanistic challenges in our world and our shared participation in making this a good place for us and our descendants. Special Note to Readers In this book, the editors made a conscientious decision to capitalize the “I” in Indigenous in order to highlight distinct populations who are by no means homogenous but who have the opportunity to offer unique perspectives that have been historically silenced. Furthermore, the editors have also followed the example of Māori contributors, Huia Tomlins-Jahnke and Margaret Forster, by not italicizing Indigenous words in order to “normalize the use of Indigenous language in the every day” (in their words). This choice reflects the belief that Indigenous languages are not the exception to the English language and are on par with the quality, use, and symbolic power of English, for example. Other dominant languages that have widely recognized structural power and are protected because of their power present another situation, and there are a few instances in some chapters where words in 8


other dominant languages are italicized, following the conventional norm, in order to distinguish them from English for the purposes of readability. NOTES “Indigenous Peoples, Indigenous Voices” Factsheet by the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/5session_factsheet1.pdf 2 Both articles 23 and 31 were pulled from the UNDRIP, which can be accessed through the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues or here: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/ documents/DRIPS_en.pdf 1

REFERENCES Battiste, M. (Ed.). (2000). Reclaiming indigenous voice and vision. Vancouver (BC), Canada: UBC Press. Kawagley, A. O. (1999). A Yupiaq worldview: A Pathway to ecology and spirit. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. Maffi, L. (2001). On biological diversity: Linking language, knowledge, and the environment. Washington (DC), WA: Smithsonian Institution Press. Stiglitz, J. (2002). Globalization and its discontents. London, UK: W.W. Norton & Co. Whitt, L. (2014). Science, colonialism, and indigenous peoples: The cultural politics of law and knowledge. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

9

NETRA CHHETRI AND NALINI CHHETRI

2. ALTERNATIVE IMAGINATIONS Examining Complementarities across Knowledge Systems

ABSTRACT

The “science-centric” knowledge derived from narrow criteria and vetted by limited number of experts inadvertently excludes wider participation of knowledge forms. The adjective “alternative,” associated with non-western knowledge is often used synonymously with “irrational.” We argue that alternative knowledge systems have a rationale of their own and are intricately woven into cultural, social and ecological fabric of society. Alternative knowledge is as intelligible as modern knowledge and could both complement and enrich public discourse on sciences and their outcomes. We hold that both forms of knowledge are valuable, especially for addressing the complex challenges of the modern world. While proposing a conceptual framing, this paper (a) articulates the legitimacy and efficacy of alternative knowledge systems; (b) highlights the potential overlap between scientific and nonscientific modes of thinking; (c) compares diverse potential modes of engagement between scientific and nonscientific cultures; and (d) addresses the role of normative standards that shape interactions between scientific and nonscientific cultures. While embracing knowledge that heralds from the scientific methods, alternative imagination offers cultural and intellectual openness to ideas and approaches that are not traditionally considered as knowledge. By working collaboratively with stakeholders, both intra- and inter-institutionally, alternative imagination constructs complementary perspectives on interactions between science and technology of non-western societies. INTRODUCTION

Science, technology, and globalization are major 21st-century trends. The inquiry of science and technology—a prominent feature of modern, western knowledge—value empirical evidence and rational justification. Rooted in the Age of Enlightenment, western knowledge systems are anchored in the scientific method of inquiry. Knowledge generated through this method is vetted as authentic and intelligible. Characterized by rationality, this form of knowledge disengages the mind from the body and the world (Visvanathan, 1997). In the pursuit of “objectivity,” modern knowledge is understood through concepts and representations constructed through E. S. Huaman & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Indigenous Innovation, 11–23. © 2015 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

N. CHHETRI & N. CHHETRI

reason (Taylor, 1989). Modern knowledge has served many purposes: as a vision of the good society, as a legitimizer of regimes, and as a shorthand expression of the needs of the poor (Nandi & Visvanathan, 1990). Modern knowledge has also spurred a new community of scholars, policy makers, development managers, and activists (Brand & Karvonen, 2007). While this “science-centric” approach serves to produce new knowledge, it reveals little about context and outcomes (Sarewitz & Pielke, 2007). This singular form of knowledge production is devoid of alternative thinking based upon learning derived from traditions, cultural practices, and rituals of everyday life which, paradoxically, have been the foundation of knowledge systems for millennia. The “science-centric” knowledge derived from narrow criteria and vetted by limited number of experts inadvertently excludes wider participation of knowledge forms (Hickman, 1992). The adjective “alternative,” often used synonymously with “irrational,” is deemed inferior (Marglin & Marglin, 1990), and associated with non-western knowledge systems. We argue that alternative knowledge systems have a rationale of their own and are intricately woven in a society’s social, cultural, and ecological fabric. We hold that both forms of knowledge systems are valuable, especially for addressing the complex challenges of the modern world. In fact, alternative knowledge systems could complement or even enrich modern knowledge systems. For this reason, we argue the need for frequent conversation around knowledge complementarities. Interest in alternative knowledge is growing (Berkes, 2010), partly due to a recognition that such knowledge may contribute to desired societal outcomes such as biodiversity conservation (Gadgil et al., 2002), species protection (Colding, 1998), sustainable resource use (Agrawal, 1995; Berkes et al., 1998), and climate adaptation (Chhetri et al., 2013). While environmentalists, conservation biologists, and ecologists have long held shared interests in alternative knowledge, none have discussed it from the perspective of complementarity because of the association of 19th century attitudes towards non-western knowledge – that it is simple and primitive (Warren, 1995). In recent times, however, alternative knowledge has become more established. Its natural evolution through an adaptive process as well as its role of cultural transmission are being increasingly recognized as a viable pathway to more sustainable interactions with the natural world. For example, informal seed exchanges have proven successful and demonstrate the resilience of local seed systems, as seed supply is adequately maintained despite consecutive crop failures (Chhetri et al., 2013). In areas where the disappearance of traditional cultivar is rapid, traditional social practices can be an alternative approach to preserving genetic resources (Subedi et al., 2003). If the informal flow of genetic materials continues through the exchange of seed it can facilitate in situ and ex situ linkages of genetic diversity, which ultimately could facilitate better adaptation to climate change. Perspectives of alternate knowledge systems have broadened and enriched public discourse on science and technology and their outcomes. It can and has enabled 12

ALTERNATIVE IMAGINATIONS

greater understanding of the dynamics of human and cultural elements of science. Understanding this process assumes that acceptance of the complementarities between the two knowledge systems would broaden our methods of inquiry. The first step of acceptance could be a tried-and-tested approach of continuous exposure of these alternative knowledge in various forms that allows bot academics and the public to become familiar and comfortable thereby initiating a cultural shift in thinking. It has been argued that the science of alternative knowledge does not fundamentally differ from modern knowledge. These two ways of knowing, as argued by LeviStrauss (1962: 269), are two parallel modes of acquiring knowledge about the physical world where it is “approached from opposite ends in two cases: one is supremely concrete, the other supremely abstract.” Ostrom and Hess (2007) argue that knowledge is a “common,” and that the value of knowledge is enriched when it includes ways of knowing embedded in a locale’s cultural and social fabric. There is tacit consensus, however, that alternate knowledge systems that present diametrically opposed viewpoints to any public discourse may face considerable challenges from entrenched knowledge systems given that “rational thinking” pervades our learning and training. So the question is – in the face of such inevitable resistance, how do we stimulate acceptance of alternative knowledge systems? This chapter creates a space where both knowledge systems finds common ground and acknowledges each other’s value. We propose, first, to develop a conceptual framing to address the role of normative standards shaping interactions between scientific and non-scientific or (alternative) cultures; second, to highlight the potential overlap between scientific and non-scientific modes of thinking; and finally, to examine diverse modes of engagement between scientific and nonscientific cultures (e.g., agreement, conflict, orthogonality, complementarity, and partnerships). A science-centric approach to knowledge presumes that events in society occur in consistent patterns comprehensible through systematic study. With foci on three related realms: scientific worldview, scientific methods of inquiry, and nature of the scientific enterprise, the next section describes scientific knowledge and its history. Alternative knowledge is often seen as incompatible and is considered unintellectual. Modern knowledge systems reside in disciplines and, unlike traditional knowledge, can be faithfully replicated and transferred around the world, regardless of differences in language and culture. A look at traditional knowledge systems, however, shows that though they offer unique and dependable insights they are not seen to be easily duplicated or transferrable. SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE AND ITS WORLDVIEW

Portrayals of scientific knowledge refer to Bacon, Descartes, Leibniz, Newton, and Locke to demonstrate the power of methods, mind-nature dualism, power over nature, private appropriation of natural world, infinitesimal analysis of natural processes, and deterministic materialistic mechanism. The modern scientific worldview not 13


only illustrates the period’s intellectual innovations, they were instrumental in the rise of European colonialism. In The Death of Nature, Carolyn Merchant (1980) captured the profound shift in attitudes about nature that made scientific knowledge possible, but extended the argument to establish how significant shifts of social power affecting nearly every aspect of social, legal, and economic life in Europe accompanied the change of ideas. The transformation of nature into natural resource, the loss of the commons, the mechanization of labor, the resulting diminution of the economic power and status of women, and the rapid accumulation of capital accelerated the progress of modern European culture, and gave legitimacy to the scientific method of knowledge inquiry. Yet there is a prevailing myth that science is good and, if well applied, can solve the problems of poverty, malnutrition, and inequality (e.g., Bush, 1945). By extension, science—and policies that emanate from it—must lead to greater equity, never to greater inequity. However, history begs to differ. Does this contradiction mean then that the dogma of science and technology policy houses internal tensions between science and equity? One task to reveal this tension is to reflect on the policy around science and technology and to open the “black box: around democracy, governance, and science.” Societies make tacit assumptions about knowledge that communities take for granted. The notion of scientific progress depicts an inexorably positive role in societal evolution, making unthinkable any inquiry into whether the science might contribute to societal inequity (e.g., Visvanathan, 1997). Mainstream philosophy of science does not grant legitimacy to non-scientific knowledge systems. Thus, it is important to confront internal tensions directly and realize that even the best-motivated science may not achieve their societal goals. INTERSECTIONS OF SCIENCE AND TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE

Scholars have explored similarities and differences of both knowledge systems from a variety of disciplinary frameworks. In addition to anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss and his argument emphasizing dual modes of acquiring knowledge, philosopher Ernst Cassirer (1953) maintained that there is a continuity of symbolic forms ranging from mythic to scientific; each has integrity with respect to its worldview. The noteworthy difference lies between modes of thinking and products of thought. Whether the products of thought are abstract or concrete, the attitude one has toward them may vary considerably. “Mythical” is not synonymous with “primitive,” nor is “modern” synonymous with “empirical.” For example, the history of science is replete with instances of the scientist who succumbs to deep mythical commitments to abstract theoretical ideas, defending them at all costs, and treating them as though they were his own flesh and blood. On the other hand, much of our pharmacopoeia, nearly all of it occurring before the 1900s, was discovered by pre-modern, preliterate indigenous peoples of the world, and without the benefit of “rational thought” or “the scientific method.” 14


Rational and empirical thinking drives modern knowledge, yet we have not exorcised our so-called irrational tendencies. The drivers of scientific and technical progress are not always scientific and technical necessities. Feminist epistemology, science and technology studies, and other disciplines have demonstrated that modern thought is far from fully rational; furthermore “rationality” is not synonymous with “scientific.” Philosopher Lorraine Code (2006) argued that Western thought does not—indeed cannot—live up to its own ideals of rationality and that the very concept of rationality is inextricably embodied, context-dependent, and requires case-bycase critical appraisal by stakeholders. The concept of science must, Code argued, incorporate such self-knowledge. Other scholars, such as Steve Fuller have reached similar conclusions, though with different arguments. We believe that open debate and discourse on alternate knowledge systems that embrace non-western cultural values could complement and improve deficiencies in mainstream rationalist epistemologies of science and technology studies. A growing body of research also exemplifies successful partnerships between scientific and indigenous knowledge (Berkes et al., 2000; Barbour, 1990; Laidler, 2006; Ojha et al., 2008) as well as formal and informal (traditional) institutions. For example, traditional farmer-managed irrigation systems of Nepal represent an important form of informal social capital with traditional norms, values and governance structure (Ostrom, 1990). These traditional social capital performs a range of activities, including pooling of resources for maintenance of irrigation waterways, regulating of water distribution and allocation, monitoring of violation of rules, and easing of conflict arbitration and negotiation (Pradhan, 1989). Historically informal institutions have been instrumental in safeguarding resources, including the management of forest and watersheds (Agrawal, 2010). In recent decades these informal institutions have played important role in bridging the gap between scientists, policymakers, development practitioners and community at large (Gyawali et al., 2007). The outcome has been the development of hardy rice varieties in a region of Nepal that suffers perennially from poor production due to extreme climatic conditions. This kind of collaboration, facilitated by community-based informal institutions, allows knowledge to flow between key groups—breeders gain information about the farmers’ preferences for specific traits, knowledge and cultural value associated with local crop variety and farmers learn about and experiment with improved varieties (Chhetri et al., 2013). We argue that technologies that explicitly addresses local need through complementarities could fill knowledge gaps However, while these studies are valuable, successes of such partnership often obscure the legitimacy of alternative cultural imagination. MODES OF ENGAGEMENT AT THE INTERSECTION

Modern knowledge can be interpreted as knowledge that have been sanctioned as providing truthful claims about the globe, global processes and systems, or events 15


or activities of relevance to global policy decisions. Further, modern knowledge includes knowledge systems called for by international treaties for purposes of global policymaking, factual claims made in international policy disputes, international standards for knowledge-making, or the knowledge sanctioned by international expert advisory bodies. Thus, in some sense, modern knowledge is the opposite of alternative knowledge. However, modern knowledge is not disconnected from the local and should be rooted in local knowledge systems. Here, the alternative knowledge serves the need of modern knowledge by looking into contexts of knowledge at international levels. Without the consideration of local knowledge system our understanding of modern knowledge would be partial. Modes of engagement between modern and traditional knowledge may vary considerably with different regions and different sciences. Nevertheless, amidst this diversity are points of commonality. For example, much of the current research has taken place at the intersection of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), environmental science and ecology, and governance of natural resources— highlighting growing concerns over tracking the human and biological impacts of climate change. But intersections between science and traditional knowledge go beyond the domain of ecological science. Going beyond set parameters demands engaging with institutions from across societies and creating knowledge in partnerships on issues of development, environment and social conflict and communication (Chhetri & Easterling, 2010). This process also implies creating: 1) institutional and intellectual homes to share, exchange, and engage in the production of knowledge, strategies, and solutions; 2) dialogues and engagements on multiple levels and with stakeholders (field level, local, regional, national, and global levels); and 3) models of engagement at the level of ontology, epistemology and morality that are requisites for deep partnerships between and among cultures. While these considerations are essential for establishing common grounds for mutual understanding, independently, they are not sufficient. Furthermore, cooperative action of several knowledge systems originating in different parts of society together determine the range of practical possibilities for partnership between science and traditional knowledge. The past decade has seen growing interest in the study of intersections between science and religion, as well as between science and local knowledge. In building our conceptual framework, we will benefit from adapting the mode of interactions between science and religion developed by Ian Barbour (1999), when he highlighted conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration (see Table 1). Though designed for different purposes, clear relationships are evident. For example, Unacknowledging and Essentialist scenarios are variations of Barbour’s (1999) Conflict and Independence stances, respectively, while Barbour’s (1999) Dialogue stance is represented, in Utilitarian, Paternalistic, and Neo-colonial scenarios, but here asymmetrical power relationships shape the exchange. Finally, Intercultural science manifests the ideal expressed as Integration. While Barbour’s (1999) typology was broadly applicable, the scenarios of Rist and Dahdouh-Guebas 16


Table 1. Barbour’s typology of modes of interaction between religion and science (1999) Conflict

Science and religion are opposing views on reality. There is agreement on one point: only one can ultimately be right. Proponents: Literalists in science and religion: Dawkins, Hitchins, Sagan, Creationists. Conflict: “We agree that one of us is clearly wrong!”

Independence

Science and religion are incompatible. Adherents of both sides agree that each has irreducible integrity but operate in separate domains. Science and religion ask different questions, use different language, and serve different purposes. Independence: “We respect the integrity of our differences and place a strong focus on boundaries and limit questions.”

Dialogue

Similar to the independence stance, but admits parallels between the two sides and holds that comparison and contrast serves to sharpen the perspective of both sides. Boundaries are seen as permeable to the flow of information, resulting in transformation. Dialogue: “We require dialogue for the sake of self-knowledge.”

Integration

Similar to the independence stance, but goes further to integrate the two perspectives with respect to key points, on the assumption that both are ultimately addressing the same reality in significantly similar ways. Integration: “Each of us is partially wrong, but we agree that we may yet transcend all apparent boundaries.”

(2006) conveyed the concreteness of specific “forms of life” that practitioners can expect to find in the field. The cooperative action of knowledge systems originating in different parts of society (Laidler, 2006; Ojha et al., 2008) determine the range of practical possibilities for partnership between science and traditional ecological knowledge. In addressing the interaction of multiple knowledge systems, the model of deliberative rationality that Habermas (1984) proposed, could be a good fit. In addressing the relationship between science and local knowledge, our conceptual framework would also benefit from proposed contrasting scenarios of Rist and Dahdouh-Guebas (2006), Table 2. Rist and Doudah-Gueber (2006) affirmed that indigenous knowledge is so firmly embedded within the cultural worldview that they cannot be separated. The hope of dialogue and integration with western science lies in respectful sharing of common ground. Common ground was found in the practical needs, on the one hand, and ontological, epistemological, moral, and religious understandings on the other. A counterbalance to the scholar’s attention to deeper philosophical and religious dimensions of intercultural dialogue is represented in the more pragmatic approach adapted in protocols of community-based participatory research programs. This approach is represented in Laidler’s work with residents of the Arctic and Ojha et al. (2008), including the governance of natural resources. Though Laidler’s (2006) 17


Table 2. Interface between science and local knowledge: Contrasting scenarios (Rist & Dahdouh-Guebas, 2006) Unacknowledging

Science simply ignores a practice based on local knowledge.

Utilitarian

Elements of local knowledge that can be scientifically understood or validated are accepted to increase the stock of scientific knowledge.

Paternalistic

Traditional knowledge is conceived of as a starting point that requires “updating” by science.

Neo-colonial

Traditional knowledge and local data are taken from local people and research institutions.

Essentialist

Local knowledge is fundamentally better than science and should have the right to remain as is. Western technology should not influence it.

Intercultural science

Science is aware that it is only one type of knowledge among others and that knowledge is always embedded in cultural and historical settings. Science and local knowledge benefit from comprehensive interaction.

approach is careful, culturally sensitive and rooted in sound community-based participatory research practices, the result is still utilitarian and/or paternalistic (see Table 2) at best. Ojha et al. (2008) addressed these issues in the context of natural-resource governance. They described four categories of societal agents with different knowledge systems (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Four types of knowledge systems interface in local level natural-resource management practice (Ojha et al., 2008: 13)

18


By shifting attention to a knowledge/power perspective, Ojha et al. (2008) revealed more practical dimensions of the interactions between science and indigenous knowledge through a Habermasian (1984) approach to deliberative interfaces between knowledge systems. Habermas’ reconstruction of rationality, according to Ojha et al. (2008: 6) “has sought to locate the communicative domain of learning away from the technical domain” which is credited for inspiring deliberative approaches to governance, especially natural-resource management at the local level (Bohman & Rehg, 1997). As articulated earlier, our conceptual framework enables us to: 1) articulate the legitimacy and efficacy of alternative knowledge systems; 2) highlight the potential overlap between scientific and nonscientific modes of thinking; 3) compare diverse potential modes of engagement between scientific and nonscientific cultures; and 4) address the role of normative standards that shape interactions between scientific and nonscientific cultures. Like any other common pool resources, knowledge is a common; which requires engagement with a wide array of stakeholders—scientific technical, political, economic, social, and comparative analyses of ethnographic, philosophical and religious practices and commitments. Depending on the type and conditions of resources, these societal agents (See Figure 1) need to nurture different types of knowledge and learn to coproduce knowledge through deliberative engagement and commitment from all agents on interdisciplinarity, stakeholder participation, and usability. KNOWLEDGE AS COMMONS

Charlotte Hess and Elinor Ostrom’s Understanding Knowledge as a Commons offered a way of conceptualizing knowledge (Hess & Ostrom, 2007). Like any other common pool resources, knowledge is a shared resource, representing the accumulated assimilation of data and information into something useful. Unlike other resources, a knowledge commons is not subtractable: when someone obtains knowledge from a commons, that knowledge does not cease to exist for use by someone else. Seeing knowledge as a shared resource ensures that measures will be taken to sustain that resource. By thinking of knowledge in this way, Hess and Ostrom were able to suggest multiple types of knowledge and explain that analyzing a knowledge commons includes evaluating equity, efficiency, and sustainability. In terms of equity, we should be interested in “issues of just or equal appropriation from, and contribution to, the maintenance of a resource” (Hess & Ostrom, 2007: 6). Ostrom demonstrated that knowledge should be dynamic and growing rather than shrinking. According to Hess and Ostrom (2007), the idea of knowledge as common has its root in the field of interdisciplinary study of shared natural resources. Knowledge, irrespective of the “form in which it is expressed or obtained” can be as intelligible and as informative (Hess & Ostrom, 2007: 7). While “common” refers to a pool of resource shared by a group of people, knowledge common can consists of 19


multiple ways of knowing that has many characteristics of a common. The western knowledge system, while accumulating a vast amount of knowledge, has failed to acknowledge the plurality knowledge commons, consequently failed to tackle the issues of sustainability, equity, and empowerment. One reason may be that scientists tend to study these complex systems from a single perspective constructed entirely from the perspective of modern, rational, logical knowledge system. But the systems that have worked in most of the world (e.g., social cohesion, survival, and adaption to the adverse climatic and economic conditions) have been based on traditional value systems from which modern rational science gained. The social fabric of most societies is interwoven with belief systems embedded in religion, rituals, social norms, and cultural values as diverse as societies themselves. The coherence, logic, and science of alternative systems may offer its own rationale on what constitutes effective production and consumption systems. Alternative knowledge systems compensate for the unilateralism of modern knowledge systems by considering the overlooked cultural and social dimensions of society. It is also well established that the governance structure of modern knowledge enterprise perpetuates the current hierarchy of knowledge systems. Alternative Imagination: A Platform for Sharing Knowledge Systems A platform that offers the cultural and intellectual openness to ideas and approaches that are not traditionally considered as knowledge, while embracing knowledge that heralds from the scientific method has been motivation behind the creation of Alternative Imagination. By working collaboratively with stakeholders, both intra- and inter-institutionally, alternative imagination constructs complementary perspectives on interactions between science and technology in non-western societies. Approaches in shaping intellectual responses to the vision of alternative imagination emphasize the oft-neglected cultural aspects of knowledge interaction. Religious ideas are the foundations of most non-scientific societies and are integral to knowledge discourse. Such ideas incorporate metaphysical, epistemic, and ethical commitments requiring explicit attention to avoid significant impasses. The platform of alternative imagination is designed to harness the breadth of the knowledge that is locked in practice of cultures across societies. At the programmatic level, western science will gain from traditional cultural modes of knowledge and management. For most of history and in most parts of the world, social cohesion, survival, and adaptation to adverse climatic and economic conditions have derived from traditional value systems. The social fabric of most societies interweaves with belief systems embedded in religion, rituals, social norms, and cultural values that are as diverse as the societies themselves. The coherence, logic, and science of alternative systems may offer their own rationale on what constitutes effective production and consumption systems. Alternative knowledge systems compensate for the unilateralism of modern knowledge systems by accommodating a society’s overlooked cultural and social dimensions. Nurturing 20


a space that acknowledges the roles of both knowledge systems is a harbinger of a more holistic system. Society can learn as much from grand systemic failures as from success stories. The alternative imagination seeks to collect and compare successes and failures of environmental rehabilitation as well as enhancements in productivity, progress, and profits. Advancing a research agenda should be broad enough to include the scientific and technical, to political, economic, and the social, as well as comparative analyses of ethnographic, philosophical, and religious practices and commitments. Such an approach would benefit from knowledge mapping portal that organizes scholarship and other documentation of alternative knowledge systems. The university is a distinct part of the public sphere where debates and knowledge are public. It is responsible for global and local engagement, one of the design aspirations of all modern universities. This demands that we examine the social character of the university and the binaries that create its proverbial tensions, which include the traditional battles between elitism and openness, excellence and relevance, trusteeship and innovation, and classicism and interdisciplinarity. In today’s world, the university must be reexamined as a site for democracy, a representation for knowledge, and as a vehicle for innovation. As knowledge enterprises, universities create opportunities for rethinking the role of science, technology, and policy. The university as a knowledge society demands a reworking of public controversy in terms of diversity and exclusivity. Similarly, science as a knowledge society demands that the relationship among information, knowledge, communication and meaning be restated. We also require universities to confront the issue of governance. Governance today cannot rely on the old traditional public administration or Mandarin model but demands stakeholder engagement over space and time and a diversity of cultures. Alternative imagination demands new forms of knowledge innovation and new forms of democratization from the university, goals not easily achieved. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We wish to acknowledge Arizona State University faculty members and students who nurtured the idea of “Alternate Imaginations.” Without their generous, thoughtful, and insightful contributions, this discourse would not have developed. First and foremost, we acknowledge the genius of Shiv Viswanathan, a visiting scholar from India who collaborated with us at ASU’s Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes. He stimulated our thinking, coined the title “Alternate Imaginations,” and continues to inspire us. Merlyna Lim and Farzad Mahootian, close colleagues and part of our core academic family, helped us to further develop this concept; Dan Sarewitz and David Guston provided the platform for this thinking to flourish and disseminate. Finally, our students, who are now academics in their own rights, were central to our work. Thanks go out to Christine Luk, Debjani Chakravarty, and Lijing Jiang. 21


REFERENCES Agrawal, A. (1995). Indigenous and scientific knowledge: Some critical comments. Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor, 3, 3–6. Agrawal, A. (2010). Local institutions and adaptation to climate change. In R. Mearns & N. Norton (Eds.), Social dimensions of climate change: Equity and vulnerability in a warming world. Washington (DC), WA: New Frontiers of Social Policy, The World Bank. Barbour, I. G. (1990). Religion in an age of science: The Gifford lectures 1989–1991 (Vol. 1). London, UK: SCM Press. Berkes, F. (2010). Linkages and multi-level systems for matching governance and ecology: Lessons from roving bandits. Bulletin of Marine Science, 86, 235–250. Berkes, F, Kislalioglu, M., Folke, C., & Gadgil, M. (1998). Exploring the basic ecological unit: Ecosystemlike concepts in traditional societies. Ecosystems, 1, 409–415. Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications, 10, 1251–1262. Bohman, J., & Rehg, W. (Eds.). (1997). Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics. Massachusetts, MA and London, UK: The MIT Press. Brand, R., & Karvonen, A. (2007). The ecosystem of expertise: Complementary knowledges for sustainable development. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, 3(1), 21–31. Cassirer, E. (1953). Language and myth (p. 103). New York, NY: Dover. Chhetri, N., & Easterling, W. E. (2010). Adapting to climate change: Retrospective analysis of climate technology interaction in rice based farming systems of Nepal. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 100(5), 1156–1176. Chhetri, N., Subedi, M., & Ghimire, S. (2013). Niche-based responses in addressing the climatic constraints to farm production: Analogues to climate-change adaptation in Nepal. Climate and Development, 5(2), 174–181. Code, L. (2006). Ecological knowledge: The politics of epistemic location. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press of New England. Colding, J. (1998). Analysis of hunting options by the use of general food taboos. Ecological Modelling, 110, 5–17. Gadgil, M., Seshagiri Rao, P. R., Utkarsh, G., Pramod, P., & Chhatre, A. (2000). New meanings for old knowledge: The people’s biodiversity registers program. Ecological Applications, 10, 1251–1262. Gyawali, S., Sunwar, S., Subedi, M., Tripathi, M., Joshi, K. D., & Witcombe, J. R. (2007). Collaborative breeding with farmers can be effective. Field Crop Research, 101, 88–95. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 1: Reason and the rationalization of society (p. 114). Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Haught, J. (1995). Science and religion: From conflict to conversation. New York, NY: Paulist Press. Hess, C., & Ostrom, E. (2007). Understanding knowledge as a commons. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hichman, A. (1992). Population and the culture of the expert. In L. Winner (Ed.), Democracy in the technological society. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Laidler, G., & Ikummaq, T. (2008). Human geographies of sea ice: Freeze/thaw processes around Igloolik, Nunavut, Canada. Polar Record, 44(229), 127–153. Laidler, G. (2006). Inuit and scientific perspectives on the between sea ice and climate change: Do they complement? Climatic Change, 78, 407–444. Levi-Strauss, C. (1962). The savage mind. London, UK: Weidenfeld and Nicholson. Merchant, C. (1980). The death of nature: Women, ecology and scientific revolution. San Francisco, CA: Harper and Row. Marglin, F. A., & Marglin, S. A. (Eds.). (1990). Dominating knowledge: Development, culture, and resistance. Oxford, England: Clarendon. Nandy, A., & Visvanathan, S. (1990). Modern medicine and its non-modern critics: A study in discourse. In F. Apffel-Marglin & S. A. Marglin (Eds.), Dominating knowledge, development, culture and resistance (pp. 145–184). Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.

22

ALTERNATIVE IMAGINATIONS Ojha, H. R., Timsina, N. P., Chhetri, R. B., & Paudel, K. P. (2008). Knowledge systems and deliberative interface in natural resource governance: An overiew. In H. R. Ojha, N. P. Timsina, R. B. Chhetri, & K. P. Paudel (Eds.), Knowledge systems and natural resources management, policy and institutions in Nepal (pp. 1–22). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: IDRC/ New Delhi, India: Cambridge University Press. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action (p. 280). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Hess, C., & Ostrom, E. (2007). A framework for analyzing the knowledge commons. In C. Hess & E. Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding knowledge as a commons (pp. 41–81). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pradhan, P. (1989). Patterns of irrigation organization in Nepal. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Irrigation Management Institute. Rist, S., & Dahdouh-Guebas, F. (2006). Ethnosciences – A step towards the integration of scientific and indigenous forms of knowledge in the management of natural resources for the future. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 8, 467–493. Sarewitz, D., & Pielke, R. A. (2007). The neglected heart of science policy: Reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environmental Science, (1), 5–16. Subedi, A., Chaudhary, P., Baniya, B. K., Rana, R. B., Tiwari, R. K., Rijal, D. K., … Jarvis, D. I. (2003). Who maintains crop diversity and how: Implications for on-farm conservation and utilization. Culture and Agriculture, 25, 41–50. Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210. Warren, D. M. (1995). Comments on article by Arun Agrawal. Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor, 4, 13.

23