Introduction: Indigenous Knowledge

in Development
Paul Sillitoe

ABSTRACT: This is an introduction to indigenous or local knowledge (IK) in develop-

ment. After discussing problems of definition, various models to represent relations
between, and structure enquiries into, different knowledge traditions are outlined,
including the continuum and sphere representations. This discussion includes a sum-
mary of points that justify why agencies should seek better to incorporate considera-
tion of local knowledge into development programmes; and sketches the several
methodological issues that we have to address to take this work forwards. Finally, this
introduction concludes with some comments on the work of the Durham Anthropol-
ogy in Development (AID) group.

KEYWORDS: Indigenous Knowledge (IK), models, methodology

It is some two decades since certain commen- Definition of Indigenous Knowledge

tators started to advocate that international
development take the incorporation of indige- Indigenous knowledge (IK) is any understand-
nous or local knowledge and practices into pro- ing rooted in local culture. It includes all knowl-
grammes more seriously (Howes and Chambers edge held more or less collectively by a pop-
1979; Brokensha et al. 1980; Rhoades and Booth ulation that informs interpretation of things. It
1982; Richards 1985; Thrupp 1989; Chambers varies between regions. It comes from a range
et al. 1989). Several of us have subsequently of sources, is a dynamic mix of past ‘tradition’
added our voices to the chorus (Kloppenburg and present invention with a view to the future.
1991; Warren 1991; DeWalt 1994; Warren et al. People in different regions have unique cul-
1995; Purcell 1998; Antweiler 1998; Sillitoe tural traditions and histories, which critically
1998a; Ellen et al. 2000; Shepherd 2004; Bentley shape their views of their environments, liveli-
and Baker 2005). In Durham we seek to take this hood choices, health and illness, social behav-
work forwards in the Anthropology in Devel- iour and so on. Indigenous knowledge research
opment (AID) Group, which focuses on local seeks to incorporate these views more into
knowledge in development issues. The articles development. The term, particularly the in-
presented in this issue of Anthropology in Ac- digenous part, has been subject to politically
tion illustrate some of our interests and con- correct debate (‘how can one define indigenous
cerns in the field of indigenous knowledge in in the modern cosmopolitan world?’) and sev-
development. eral alternatives have been proposed including

Anthropology in Action, 13, 3 (2006): 1–12 © Berghahn Books and the Association for Anthropology in Action
doi:10.3167/aia.2006.130302
AiA | Paul Sillitoe

local knowledge, traditional knowledge, peo- ment. They seek to make other views heard, in
ple’s knowledge, ‘glocal’ knowledge and citi- the participatory tradition, while being aware
zen science, to name some. We use indigenous that such methods may encourage shallow un-
knowledge as the term largely heard in develop- derstanding, are not culturally neutral and are
ment discourse and, where acronyms abound, subject to manipulation, outsiders often using
the inevitable shorthand IK. them to ventriloquize their intentions (Wright
Indigenous knowledge informs behaviour, and Nelson 1995; Cooke and Kothari 2001).
learnt from birth onwards. It focuses on pro-
vincial interests and concerns, often communi-
cated in foreign idioms and styles, which we Indigeous Knowledge and
understand to varying extents. It is the heri- International Science
tage of everyday life, based on experience, often
tested over centuries of use, adapted to local Indigenous knowledge is often contrasted with,
conditions. Repetitive practice may typify its and until recently has been undervalued in com-
learning, it being equally skill as formally trans- parison to, international scientific knowledge.
mitted knowledge. It is understanding, evolved This can hinder collaboration between scientists
over generations, subject to continual revision. working in development and local people. In-
While it is ever-changing and modified by in- digenous knowledge relates to specific cultural
formation from elsewhere, it maintains its dis- contexts whereas science has universal theo-
tinctive character, subject to ongoing local, retical aspirations (Table 1). Indigenous practice
regional and global negotiation. is more inductive, with a ‘weak’ model of the
Indigenous knowledge exists nowhere as a world (often largely unknown to development
totality, or in comprehensive annals or all- outsiders), whereas scientific practice is more
encompassing abstractions, although it may deductive, with a ‘strong’ model and agreed
achieve some coherence in cosmologies, rituals methods of investigation. We cannot assume
and symbolic discourse (which are notoriously that the two will be congruent, rather we have
difficult to access convincingly). While not to seek contrasts and parallels. We have to rec-
replicating one another’s knowledge, mem- oncile IK, which is broad-based, workaday un-
bers of the same culture share an indetermi- derstanding, with scientific knowledge, which
nate amount, having a common history, values comprises narrow, specialist understanding, in
and so on. Although IK is more widely shared seeking to promote cross-culturally informed
generally than specialized scientific knowl- research into development problems.
edge, no one person or social group knows it
all. Its distribution is uneven. There may be Table 1: Contrasts between IK and scientific research
some clustering of certain knowledge within Indigenous Knowledge International Science
populations (e.g. by gender, age, specialist sta-
Local (specific) Universal (generic)
tus etc., maybe reflecting political power).
Indigenous knowledge enquiries go back, Community dynamics Research team
strictly speaking, to the beginning of anthropol- and power relations dynamics:
ogy, but they are relatively recent in develop- interdisciplinarity
ment, their emergence linked to farming systems Participation Directive
and participatory approaches (Sillitoe 1998b). (collaborative) (top-down)
These are wide ranging, in the farming sys- Process Blueprint
tems tradition (FAO 1989), while not confining
research largely to professionals, privileging This bipolar discrimination between indige-
scientific analysis and limiting local involve- nous and scientific knowledge is inadequate, if

2 |
 Indigenous Knowledge in Development | AiA

not misleading as to the relationship and dis- pins technological advances, the dissemination
tinction between the two. We are not talking of which, to reduce poverty, comprises much
about two tenuously connected knowledge tra- development. In advocating that we draw on
ditions separated by a cultural gulf, but rather the strengths of both perspectives, we acknowl-
a spectrum of relations. We can conceive of edge that conflict is inherent because some-
these relations as comprising a continuum (Fig- times their aims and values are not readily
ure 1). At one end are locals with little formal reconcilable. The objective is equitable negoti-
education, whose knowledge is largely locally ation, a central tenet of participatory develop-
derived, and at the other are trained scientists, ment. The negotiations may be complex but
contending with interdisciplinary research. In development initiatives are more likely to be
between are various intergradations of ‘local locally appropriate and sustainable.
insider’ and ‘global outsider’ knowledge. In- A problem with the continuum model is
digenous knowledge research attempts to facil- that with its two ends it invites hierarchical
itate some communication along the continuum discrimination between actors dotted along it,
and beyond to policymakers, and so on. when in reality their positions may overlap, al-
The distinction between indigenous and sci- though their knowledge differs (e.g. ethnogra-
entific knowledge has an unpleasant political phers and national scientists). It is also static,
edge, with connotations of superiority and in- with no sense of the dynamism that character-
feriority (Agrawal 1995). What is made of the izes knowledge. In pondering these issues, I
apparent differences differs with views of de- decided that the circle, with no separate extrem-
velopment. The transfer of technology approach ities, is perhaps more inclusive, everything be-
emphasizes differences; whereas the participa- ing linked together, as with no beginning or
tory approach downplays them, encouraging end it shows the mutuality of all knowledge
collaboration. The continuum seeks to over- and subverts notions of hierarchy (see Sillitoe
come the pernicious side of the “we” and 2002 of which the following is a summary state-
“them” divide by uniting us all. We need to be- ment). We also have a sense of movement, as
ware of privileging one tradition above another science may cycle to IK, and equally IK to sci-
in development contexts. The contributors to ence, underlining the contemporary, syncretic
this volume believe that the ‘stronger’ scien- character of IK (Figure 2).
tific view should not dominate the ‘weaker’ The circle may be an advance but the poten-
local one, nor vice versa. While arguing for a tial for hierarchical thinking remains, with two
more prominent place for local knowledge, we poles customarily seen as top and bottom. It
acknowledge that scientific knowledge under- also suggests that some persons know less than

Figure 1: The knowledge continuum

| 3
AiA | Paul Sillitoe

Figure 2: The circle model

of science and indigenous-
knowledge relations

others about their fields (e.g. a national scien- may be variously defined (e.g. geographically
tist knows less science than a visiting, foreign [e.g. as a local community], institutionally [e.g.
one situated at the science pole). It also contin- as a development agency] or academically [e.g.
ues to represent the indigenous and scientific agricultural science]). We can plot within it the
as two monolithic knowledge traditions, when positions of individuals who interact within
they comprise many strands (e.g. the knowl- the domain, according to their knowledge of
edge of a soil physicist differs from that of a meridian issues. The meridians act to pull them
pest controller, and the knowledge held by into a certain location, in effect locating individ-
members of any local community varies). uals for a range of continua, in their knowledge/
Realizing this I have suggested that we think culture cluster (Figure 3).
in terms of meridians on a globe, each repre- Persons interact in more than one global do-
senting a different domain of knowledge, which main and we have to visualize linking several
allow us not only to cover variations in knowl- together (e.g. scientists visiting communities
edge according to disciplines at the science pole overseas come from institutions elsewhere).
and life experience at the indigenous one, but We have to work multidimensionally to repre-
also to accommodate any cultural domain (e.g. sent the resulting complex galaxy networks,
according to religion, politics, economics etc.), with many globes potentially interacting with
complying with anthropological holistic de- one another. The complexity increases further
mands. We do not have to envisage the meridi- when we consider that no individual or cultural
ans arranged like lines of longitude, all crossing constellation remains static over time. The multi-
at the same two polar points. We can arrange dimensional connections between domains are
them randomly about the globe, obviating any not rigid but constantly changing sets of rela-
tendency to depict knowledge hierarchically. The tions. We have to accommodate such dynamism
globe represents an interaction domain, which in seeking to incorporate IK research into devel-

4 |
 Indigenous Knowledge in Development | AiA

Figure 3: The globe model of science and indigenous-knowledge relations

opment. The aim of development after all is to event of natural disasters. After briefly outlin-
promote such change, dramatically modifying ing the culture concept and anthropology of
IK with scientific perspectives. This model is communication, they turn to what computer
currently no more than an intellectual construct modellers call ‘ontologies’ to show how anthro-
which, while it may help us to conceptualize pological understandings of such displaced com-
relations between knowledge traditions, will munities can further dynamic modelling of
demand considerable work to make it useful. their sociocultural systems, such that authorities
This is necessary if we are to use it in develop- might contribute to, rather than undermine, their
ment contexts that demand practical action and resilience. They take the example of izzat or ho-
not mere reflection. It will demand sophisti- nour in South Asia to demonstrate the work-
cated computer modelling, something that the ings of the ontology idea in a cultural system.
AID group is exploring through an e-science
initiative.
In their contribution to this special issue, Justifying IK in
Stephen Lyon and Michael Fischer take up the International Development
issue of computer modelling, addressing it
in the context of population displacement fol- The following are some of the points made in
lowing natural disasters and pointing out how arguing for the incorporation of IK in develop-
long-range planning to manage disasters will ment. The contributions to this special issue of
benefit from anthropological insights. They ar- Anthropology in Action illustrate several of
gue for formal modelling of cultural systems these points ethnographically.
using the multi-agent approach and artificial
intelligence to promote understanding of how • Indigenous knowledge enriches under-
disparate communities might co-exist in the standing of development opportunities

| 5
AiA | Paul Sillitoe

within a cultural context, promoting cul- (c) It facilitates interdisciplinary, partic-

turally appropriate interventions relevant ipatory research, recognized as necessary
to people’s needs; in development contexts to overcome
(a) Projects, by understanding and narrow sector biases, IK being interdis-
valuing people’s (indigenous) knowl- ciplinary by definition.
edge, can acquire a better understand- • Indigenous knowledge furthers empower-
ing of the local position. ment of the poor through respect for their
(b) Appreciation of local ideas and knowledge and management practices.
practices encourages more sustainable (a) It encourages people to have a voice
development interventions. and discourages unwanted interfer-
(c) Indigenous knowledge helps avoid ence in their lives.
expensive mistakes by preventing re- (b) It promotes more effective local par-
search and development initiatives that ticipation in planning, decision-making
start from false premises through fail- and so on.
ing to show respect for local views. (c) It may advance scientific understand-
• Indigenous knowledge facilitates commu- ing, as it may reveal intelligence un-
nication across the interface between de- known to science, and even challenge it.
velopment project and local community, • Indigenous knowledge advances aware-
raising awareness of scope of research and ness of local social issues.
possible development alternatives. (a) It helps assess the social impact of
(a) It promotes identification of jointly development interventions, notably re-
perceived problems and negotiated lations between different interest groups
action. such as the wealthy and the poor.
(b) It allows others to teach us, and dis- (b) It seeks to assess local variation in
courages imposition of inappropriate knowledge (by gender, age, class, occu-
foreign ideas. pation etc.) and accommodate different
(c) It helps reconcile different and po- perspectives and agendas.
tentially conflicting cultural perspec- (c) It predicts possible conflict due to
tives regarding development initiatives different interest groups manipulating
by promoting awareness of others’ interventions to their advantage.
views. • Indigenous knowledge informs extension
• Indigenous knowledge realizes the com- with a local view, encouraging informa-
parative advantages of both insider and out- tion flow towards locals.
sider knowledge, creating opportunities for (a) It helps tailor technical messages
synergy. to problems as perceived locally, so
(a) It conveys local knowledge to tech- that people can make more informed
nicians/scientists such that they can decisions.
appreciate its relevance and links com- (b) It encourages uptake by addressing
munities more effectively with high- problems from the local perspective.
tech scientific research /development. (c) It helps inform people of the conse-
(b) It recognises that science may com- quences of various choices.
plement local understanding where it
is inadequate; some interpret IK enquiry Echoing the above contribution by Lyon and
narrowly as identifying such knowledge Fischer on managing natural disasters, Mari-
gaps and targeting scientific research ella Marzano explores in her article how farm-
and extension to fill them. ers manage resources in a region of eastern Sri

6 |
 Indigenous Knowledge in Development | AiA

Lanka, with a particular focus on how they cope alternatives and realize their comparative ad-
with environmental, notably climatic, perturba- vantages. The promotion of more effective par-
tions. If global climate change proceeds as many ticipation in the identification and tackling of
scientists now predict, to what extent will these problems can only be achieved so far as aware-
farmers’ current knowledge and practices be ness and socio-political barriers will allow. We
able to cope? They will doubtless be dependent need a methodology that allows both ‘out-
on their local heritage to a considerable meas- siders’ and ‘insiders’ to contribute as neces-
ure and the authorities need to know what this sary, balancing between technocrats defining
comprises and people’s possible capacity to problems/constraints, which is arrogant and
manage before predicted climate change im- ethnocentric, and the local people doing so,
pact on their regions. Global warming is likely which hits cultural barriers that thwart scien-
to negate interventions aimed at alleviating pov- tific research.
erty. It is a topic of planned future AID research. It is necessary to promote a collaborative at-
While local communities are well placed to mosphere in which neither scientific nor local
contribute to finding viable solutions, already interests feel threatened, all parties having a
responding to the effects of climatic variations role in negotiations, contributing vital skills
in their regions, little knowledge of their expe- and knowledge. The absence of a coherent IK
rience reaches mainstream discourse on climate approach that might interface effectively with
change (Rojas Blanco 2006). There is a pressing science and technology is a limitation. The
need for better two-way communication be- presentation of IK in a manner accessible to
tween policy discussions on climate change others, such that they can see its relevance to
and poverty alleviation, and local experiences their work, means avoiding jargon-loaded and
of coping with ever-changing environments obscure accounts, while not overlooking in-
(Adger et al. 2003). sights gained in cross-cultural research, often
in subtle arguments. There is a need to avoid
oversimplification of complex issues, inviting
Some Methodological Issues distortion and misrepresentation in the search
for user-friendly accounts.
Indigenous knowledge work is not straightfor- The advancement of interdisciplinary work is
ward. Several problems surround it, demand- central to IK research, particularly combining
ing attention to integrate IK into the develop- the technical know-how of natural scientists
ment process. We need to formulate strategies with the cultural empathy of social scientists
that meet the development’s demands—cost- (Sillitoe 2004). An integrated perspective re-
effective, time-effective, generating relevant quires learning from other disciplines, in addi-
insights, readily intelligible to non-experts etc.— tion to local people. There must be a genuine
while not downplaying the difficulties so as to two-way flow of ideas and information be-
render the work effectively valueless. Much of tween all parties. Motivation depends in con-
the work done by members of the AID group siderable measure on fostering consensus
seeks to address these generic methodological decisions, joint ownership and open debate.
issues. (See Sillitoe et al. (2005) for a detailed We cannot understand cultures by looking
discussion of IK methodological issues.) at individual parts in isolation: as complex sys-
A key issue is facilitating meaningful com- tems, they manifest emergent properties that
munication between development staff and lo- we can only see when all the parts are working
cal people, informing ‘outsiders’ about IK and together, and IK research seeks to introduce
‘insiders’ about what scientific technology socio-cultural perspective into the narrowly fo-
offers, so that both can better understand the cused work of technical specialists. It is not

| 7
AiA | Paul Sillitoe

possible to predict which cultural domains is a question not just of the time it takes to
might relate intimately to others; often unex- learn language, cultural repertoire, social sce-
pected practices impinge on one another. But nario and so on, but also of the investment
we need to beware of accumulating ethno- needed to win the trust and confidence of peo-
graphic information not directly related to ple who frequently have reason to be extremely
development issues, and even potentially dis- suspicious of foreigners and their intentions.
empowering people by representing their At first sight IK work seems straightforward
knowledge in inaccessible ways beyond their enough; we just have to ask some local culture
control, maybe infringing their intellectual bearers about their views of issues of devel-
property rights. opment interest. But we soon encounter cross-
The ‘one-offness’ of IK—small-scale, cultur- cultural issues that challenge what we think we
ally specific and geographically local—hampers know. Sympathetically accessing local concepts,
its incorporation in development, impeding and conveying something about them, is con-
the formulation of generalizations that might tentious. Knowledge is diffuse and communi-
inform wider policy and practice. It is neces- cated piecemeal in everyday life. It is not homo-
sary to evolve principles that will facilitate re- genous; there is often no consensus among the
liable generalization, going beyond case studies ‘natives’. People transfer much through practi-
that are not cost effective to replicate. Alterna- cal experience, and are unfamiliar with express-
tively, the advancement of a standard approach ing all that they know in words. They may also
may be a red herring, considering the variety carry knowledge, and pass it between genera-
of knowledge traditions worldwide, their in- tions, using alien idioms featuring symbols,
ternal variations and their constant revision over myths, rites and so on. Translating what we hear
time. This makes generalization potentially dan- into foreign words and concepts further mis-
gerous, imputing ideas elsewhere that may be construes whatever it is that we manage to com-
inappropriate. prehend about another’s views and actions, as
The dynamism of IK presents difficulties. In- the postmodern critique affirms (Fabian 2002,
digenous knowledge cannot be documented Sidky 2003). Understanding is inevitably lim-
‘once and for all’, as it is neither static nor uni- ited given our outsider perspective, as in any
form. It is subject to continual negotiation be- ethnographic enquiry.
tween stakeholders. We need an iterative
strategy, closely linking development inter-
ventions to ongoing IK investigations. The AID Research Group
The time scale required for ethnographic re-
search is normally lengthy. It can take several Staff associated with the AID Group are com-
years, not months or weeks, for someone unac- mitted to advancing the life chances of the
quainted with a region to achieve meaningful very poor by contributing to international
insight into local knowledge and practices, development work (http://www.dur.ac.uk/
and from this perspective inform develop- anthropology/research/aid/). We focus on
ment. This presents problems in development participatory approaches and empowerment
contexts with politically driven short-term de- through advancing the indigenous or local
mands for quick results. The understanding knowledge in development agenda. We are
that can be accomplished in a single project building on a long tradition. The Anthropology
will be of a different order to that achieved in Department in Durham has a history of promot-
long term ethnographic research. While some ing anthropology in development, with such
IK research may be attempted in short time distinguished scholars as Norman Long, Lucy
frames, this normally involves compromises. It Mair and Philip Mayer associated with it. We

8 |
 Indigenous Knowledge in Development | AiA

think that the discipline of anthropology is well Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs)

suited to furthering local-level work of the kind play a notable part in the promotion of local
that is now burgeoning in development, nota- knowledge in development contexts. The IK
bly with the advent of participatory approaches. networks, initially coordinated by the Indige-
Anthropology has, after all, long recognized the nous Knowledge and Development Monitor and
significance of IK to furthering development IK Worldwide and now functioning under sev-
interventions. It is the intellectual home of the eral regional umbrellas, actively seek to promote
ethnographic approach that underpins such local knowledge, as opposed to incorporating
work. As anthropologists we are trained to in- it by and by in development programmes as
vestigate cultural phenomena in depth, skilled largely occurs when local NGOs co-operate
to research social issues and view people in so- with agencies. Those NGOs rooted in the local
ciocultural context, and able to focus on prob- community are particularly aware of the local-
lems relating to poverty, gender and so on. knowledge issues, although such grass-roots
The contribution to this issue of Aneesa Kas- bodies have scarcely any influence. It is the na-
sam and Alemayehu Lalise illustrates these tional, regional and international organizations
points well in their discussion of the emotive that have more clout but, as Manzurul Man-
issue of female circumcision in parts of Africa. nan argues in his contribution to this issue,
It has long puzzled me, perhaps reflecting a cer- they identify more with the policy aims of out-
tain ethnocentricity, how parents could allow side agencies in their bid to secure support and
their children to endure the painful operations resources. They manipulate local interests to
often associated with initiation, particularly in comply with what they think are the priorities
the New Guinea context where they can be bru- of international funding agencies rather than
tal. The article by Kassam and Lalise illustrates represent these interests, particularly if they
the strong social pressures on people to con- think they may jeopardize their chances. Draw-
form and ensure the marriageability of their ing on his extensive experience of working with
daughters. Until recently, attempts to stop the the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Commit-
practice of female genital cutting in Africa have tee (BRAC), one of the largest and most success-
failed to change behaviour significantly. The ful NGOs in the world, Mannan shows how the
authors describe how an indigenous NGO has resulting conflicts of interests militate against
recently succeeded in reforming the practice in not only the incorporation of local knowledge
the Oromia region of Ethiopia, by facilitating into development initiatives but also the sub-
discussion in communities using participatory version of research itself.
methods, informing people of the detrimental The AID Group is well placed to undertake
health consequences of the practice and, criti- work in IK and related efforts to promote grass-
cally, involving elders in debates about aban- roots participation. It has experience of work-
doning it. Its success compares with a few other ing with NGOs, helping, for instance, to establish
programmes undertaken using similar strate- the Bangladesh Resource Centre for Indigenous
gies. The authors argue that these interventions Knowledge (Sen et al. 2000), part of the South
have led to enduring change because they were Asian network of NGOs that seeks to promote
made with a full understanding of the cultural local knowledge in development. The interdis-
context of the practice they sought to trans- ciplinary nature of anthropology further makes
form, a nice demonstration of a key tenet of the it suitable for promoting integrated and sys-
IK approach to development. Furthermore, the tems approaches to rural development. The AID
success of these programmes shows what can Group, for example, not only brings together a
be achieved by empowering communities to considerable range of disciplinary skills and
direct the process of change from within. experience able to address a wide range of

| 9
AiA | Paul Sillitoe

development issues, but also collaborates reg- lighted by the empowerment agenda of partic-
ularly with colleagues in a range of other De- ipatory approaches.
partments, both in Durham and elsewhere. It The AID Group, in short, undertakes a
is part of the Developing Areas Research Net- range of anthropologically informed develop-
work in northeast England. The group has ex- ment work featuring innovative participa-
perience of short- and long-term research proj- tory approaches related chiefly to IK research
ects or consultancy work, and expertise in the and related efforts to promote grass-roots par-
design and management of research develop- ticipation. We are particularly well qualified
ment projects. It also has experience of moni- to pursue research involving a wide array of
toring and evaluating missions, and, of course, methodologies from in-depth, ethnographic,
training and education. We can offer training community-level studies to various social sur-
in IK work in development, ethnographic re- vey techniques, both qualitative and quantita-
search methods, social research methodologies tive, including Participatory Rural Appraisal
and participatory approaches to development. (PRA) and Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA). The
Staff have accepted visiting teaching appoint- Durham Anthropology Department is broad
ments to strengthen institutions involved in based, covering both the sociocultural and bio-
development work and assisted in relevant logical sides of the discipline, and members of
curricula advancement. the group contribute to research and develop-
Another issue where the AID Group has ment on livelihood and health in a sociocultu-
practice in assisting the understanding of local ral and biological context, which covers the
peoples’ views concerns the arrival of large- sustainable management of natural resources
scale primary industry in their regions, such as (agriculture, fisheries, forestry etc.) and the im-
mineral mining and commercial logging. In her provement of health and well-being (disease,
contribution to this issue, Emma Gilberthorpe nutrition, sanitation). Our experience particu-
discusses problems of communication between larly qualifies us to assist in work on the envi-
Fasu speakers and the oil company piping crude ronment, as it is broadly defined. Regionally, we
from their territory in the southern highlands have almost global coverage with staff work-
of Papua New Guinea. She has experimented ing extensively in Africa, South and Southeast
with video to facilitate better understanding of Asia, Europe, South America and the Pacific.
issues by both sides. And there is also the loom-
ing issue of what happens when oil extraction
stops and the royalty cheques cease to arrive Acknowledgement
for a population that has become used to them,
the younger generations unfamiliar with pre- I presented a version of this article at Newcas-
vious subsistence practices of sago extraction, tle University as the keynote address to the
shifting cultivation, and hunting and fishing. Developing Areas Research Network meeting
We have worked on the converse of extractive on ‘Indigenous Knowledge and Development’
industry too, on conservation and biodiversity and I am grateful to participants for their help-
projects, some staff having knowledge of the ful comments.
problems that attend the establishment of na-
ture reserves/parks, when local landowners are Paul Sillitoe is Professor in the Department of An-
excluded from parts of their territory. We have thropology at the University of Durham. Research
experience of land rights issues and associated interests include natural resources management,
litigation, and an ongoing interest in intellectual appropriate technology, and development, both
property rights issues which are increasingly sustainability and cultural aspects and changing
prominent in development contexts, high- relation to the social order. Other areas of interest

10 |
 Indigenous Knowledge in Development | AiA

are economics, politics, social and environmental Howes, M. and R. Chambers 1979. ‘Indigenous
change, conservation, land issues, human ecology Technical Knowledge: Analysis Implications
and ethnoscience. He has long-standing interests and Issues’, Institute of Development Studies Bul-
letin 10 (2): 5–11.
in the Pacific (Papua New Guinea) and South
Kloppenburg, J. 1991. ‘Social Theory and the
Asia (Bangladesh). (Paul Sillitoe, Department of De/construction of Agricultural Science: Local
Anthropology, University of Durham, 43 Old Knowledge for an Alternative Agriculture’,
Elvet, DURHAM DH1 3HN, UK. E-mail: Rural Sociology 56 (4): 519–548.
paul.sillitoe@durham.ac.uk.) Purcell, T.W. 1998. ‘Indigenous Knowledge and Ap-
plied Anthropology: Questions of Definition and
Direction’, Human Organization 57 (3): 258–272.
Rhoades, R. and R. Booth 1982. ‘Farmer-Back-to-
References Farmer: A Model for Generating Acceptable
Agricultural Technology’, Agricultural Adminis-
Adger, W.N., A. Huq, K. Brown, D. Conway and tration 11: 127–137.
M. Hulme 2003. ‘Adaptation to Climate Change Richards, P. 1985. Indigenous Agricultural Revolu-
in the Developing World’, Progress in Develop- tion, London: Hutchinson.
ment Studies 3 (3): 179–195. Rojas Blanco, A.V. 2006. ‘Local Initiatives and
Agrawal, A. 1995. ‘Dismantling the Divide Be- Adaptation to Climate Change’, Disasters 30 (1):
tween Indigenous and Scientific Knowledge’, 140–147.
Development and Change 26: 413–439. Sen, S., B. Angell and A. Miles 2000. ‘The Bangla-
Antweiler, C. 1998. ‘Local Knowledge and Local desh Resource Centre for Indigenous Knowl-
Knowing: an Anthropological Analysis of Con- edge and Its Network’, in P. Sillitoe (ed.)
tested “Cultural Products” in the Context of De- Indigenous Knowledge Development in Bangladesh:
velopment’, Anthropos 93: 469–494. Present and Future, London: Intermediate Tech-
Bentley, J.W. and P.S. Baker 2005. ‘Understanding nology Publications, 213–218.
and Getting the Most from Farmers’ Local Shepherd, C.J. 2004. ‘Agricultural Hybridity and
Knowledge’, in J. Gonsalves, T. Becker, A. the “Pathology” of Traditional Ways: The Trans-
Braun, D. Campilan, H. Chavez, E. Fajber, M. lation of Desire and Need in Postcolonial Devel-
Kapiriri, J. Rivaca-Caminade and R. Vernooy opment’, Journal of Latin American Anthropology
(eds) Participatory Research and Development for 9 (2): 235–266.
Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Man- Sidky, H. 2003. A Critique of Postmodern Anthropol-
agement: a Sourcebook, CIP-UPWARD/IDRC. ogy, Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press.
Brokensha, D., D.M. Warren and O. Werner 1980 Sillitoe, P. 1998a. ‘The Development of Indigenous
(eds). Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Develop- Knowledge: A New Applied Anthropology’,
ment, Lanham: University Press of America. Current Anthropology 39 (2): 223–252.
Chambers, R., A. Pacey and L.A. Thrupp 1989 Sillitoe, P. 1998b. ‘What Know Natives?: Local
(eds). Farmers First: Farmer Innovation and Agri- Knowledge in Development’, Social Anthropol-
cultural Research, London: Intermediate Technol- ogy 6 (2): 203–220.
ogy Publications Limited. Sillitoe, P. 2002. ‘Globalizing Indigenous Knowl-
Cooke, B. and U. Kothari 2001 (eds). Participation: edge’, in P. Sillitoe, A. Bicker and J. Pottier (eds)
The New Tyranny, London: Zed Books. Participating in Development: Approaches to Indige-
DeWalt, B.R. 1994. ‘Using Indigenous Knowledge nous Knowledge, London: Routledge (Associa-
to Improve Agriculture and Natural Resource tion of Social Anthropologists’ Monograph
Management’, Human Organisation 53 (2): Series No. 39), 108–138.
123–131. Sillitoe, P. 2004. ‘Interdisciplinary Experiences:
Ellen, R., P. Parkes and A. Bicker 2000 (eds). Indige- Working With Indigenous Knowledge in Devel-
nous Environmental Knowledge and Its Transforma- opment’, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 29 (1):
tions, Amsterdam: Harwood Academic. 6–23.
Fabian, J. 2002. Time and The Other, New York: Co- Sillitoe, P., P. Dixon and J. Barr 2005. Indigenous
lumbia University Press. Knowledge Inquiries: A Methodologies Manual For
FAO 1989. Farming Systems Development, Rome: Development, London: Intermediate Technology
FAO. Publications.

| 11
AiA | Paul Sillitoe

Thrupp, L.A. 1989. ‘Legitimizing Local Knowl- Warren, D.M., L. Slikerveer and D. Brokensha 1995
edge: From Displacement to Empowerment for (eds). The Cultural Dimension of Development: In-
Third World People’, Agriculture and Human digenous Knowledge Systems, London: Intermedi-
Values 3: 13–25. ate Technology Publications.
Warren, D.M. 1991. Using Indigenous Knowledge in Wright, S. and S. Nelson. 1995 (eds). Power and Par-
Agricultural Development, World Bank Discus- ticipatory Development: Theory and Practice, Lon-
sion Papers, No. 127. Washington, D.C. don: Intermediate Technology Publications.

12 |