Sillitoe 2

8/8/2019 Sillitoe 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sillitoe-2 1/18

P A U L S I L L I T O E

What, know natives? Localknowledge in development

There is a revolution occurring in the pursuitof ethnography, yet strangely, anddisconcertingly, many anthropo logists seem blithely unaware ofit . What is happeningbeyond academe? Th e change has to d o w ith the shift in emphasis that is occurring inthe development world fr oma focus on the ‘top down’ imposition of interventionstoa ‘grassroots’ particip atory perspective. It is as if countless graffiti messages, iconisingunrepresented views, have finally registered. The implications, and oppo rtunities, foranthropo logy are considerable.’

Th e time has come for a nthro polo gy to consolidate its place in developmentpractice, not merely as frustrated post-intervention critic but as imp lementing pa rtner(Rew 1992). There are growing demands for its skills and insights. The developmentfraternity has been casting around over several years for alternative approaches withmounting evidenceof resources wasted in ill-conceived, frequently centrally imposedschemes that havenot only failed to improv e matters in lesser developed countries bu thave on occasion made them worse (Chambers1983, 1996; Hill 1986; Hobart 1993).

While some anthropologists are abreast of these changes, engaging in developmentrelated work (many of them as they seekto build careers outside resource-starvedacademia), the discipline has yet fu lly to acknowledge and acton them. Anthropologyneeds to foster the potential of the new relationship emerging with development,building on its maligned applied anthropological tradition, according some priorityand giving disciplinary creditability to this work. There isa need for mutualprofessional support, guidelines for practice, contributions to new and appropriatemethodologies, institutional capacity building an d assistance networks, andso on.

Th e discipline needs to tu rn from over-interest with social philosophy, literarycriticism and so on to engage more w ith developm ent problems,or face furth er prob a-ble diminu tion in the cu rrent political and economic climate, evidenced in the cur ren tupsurge of hand-w ringing literatureon the discipline’s futur e (A hm ed and Shore1996;Moore 1996; Wallman 1992). But there is more at stake here than disciplinary self-interest. Many of the people anthropology studies are poor, marginalised and dis-advantaged, and where it can, it should d o something to assist them. If an thropolog ists

1 I acknowledge lively discussions with Peter Dixon, Piers Blaikie, Kate Brown, Lisa Tang andLouise Shaxon on the issues discussed in this paper, and also the participants at both a Departmentfor International Development, then an Overseas Development Administration workshop, onsocio-economic methodologies in renewable natural resources research (Farrington 1996), and at

Edinburgh U niversity An thropology Department’s demi-centenary conference ‘Boundaries andidentities’, at wh ich I presented parts of this paper to the ‘Dev elopment, ecology and environment’session.

Social Anthropo/og)r (1998), , , 03-220. @ 1998 European Association of Social Anthropologists 208

8/8/2019 Sillitoe 2


in the colonial era have been condemned, somewhat erroneously on occasion, ascontributing to the disempowerment of colonised populations (Goody1995), thenpost-colonial anthropologists shou ld bew are being labelled as com fortable intellectualliberals who ignored the plight of the poor while building careerson their culturalbacks. Until recently we could argue that the development world shut us out by itsconcern for top-d own transfer of technology, no t thinking that it neededto know aboutassum ed beneficiaries: a position vividly caricatured ina cheeky studen t graffito- Chad

peering over his wall, saying ‘W hat,no natives?’. But it n o longer pertains (Haile1996).We are obliged to take up the challenge, difficult ethical dilemm as and all.

What is the focus of the revolution that concerns anthropology? It is theappearance, within the broad context of the recent participatory approach to develop-ment (Farrington and M artin1988), of a new field of specialism that in developmentcircles has com eto be called among othe r thingslocal knowledge? Th is is an emergingarea of expertise, in the process of establishing a place for itself within developmentpractice (Brokensha, Warren and W erner1980; Warren 1991). It has recently becomepopular beyond anthropology to point out that indigenous peoples have their owneffective ‘science’ and resource-use practices (Morrisonet al. 1994), and that to assistthem we need to understand something about their knowledge and managementsystems (Atte 1992; Gladwin 1989; McCorkle 1989). There is a growing acknowl-edgement that effective development assistance benefits from some understanding oflocal know ledge and practices, as som e anthropologists have argued for decades (Pitt1976;Warren and Cashman 1988).Th is review picks up on this anthropologically self-evident point, summarises the recent emergence of this field and current interestswithin it.

W h a t i s l o c a l k n o w l e d g e ?

Local knowledge in development contexts may relateto any knowledge held col-lectively by a population, inform ing interpretation of the world. It may encompass anydomain in development, particularly that pertaining to natural resource managementin particular. It is conditioned by socio-cultural tradition, being culturally relativeunderstanding inculcated into individuals from birth, structuring how they interfacewith their environm ents. According to this definition, it is difficultto see wh ere localknowledge differs from anthropology as studied for the greater part of this century(Brookfield 1996).While grandly defined in dictionaries as ‘the study of humankind’,the discipline has largely concerned itself with the documentation and understanding

of socio-cultural traditions worldwide, which encompasses local knowledge bydefault. In this event, what is the difference between them ?It would appear to be oneof emphasis. Research in local know ledge relatesto development issues and problems;its objective is to introduce a locally informed perspective into developmenq topromote an appreciation of indigenous power structures and know-how. Research inanthropology, on the o ther hand, is more of an intellectual pursu it, its objective beingto further o ur un derstandingof the human condition, ultimatelyto elucidate ho w oursocio-cultural and biological heritage contribu te to o u r uniqueness among animals. In

2 All manner of other acronyms are to be found in the literature for LK, such as RPK (rural peop le’sknowledge),

ITK(indigenous technical knowledge),

TEK(traditional environmental knowledge),

and IAK (indigenous agricultural knowledge). I prefer LK as the simplest acronym of widestcurrency.

204 PA U L S l L L l T O E

8/8/2019 Sillitoe 2


som e regards, local kno wle dge is the- some would argue long overdue- ntroductionof a more overt anthropolo gical perspective an d awareness into dev elopm ent, bringinganthropologyto bear on its urgent pro blems.

Anthropology needs to pay it attention or else others will supplant it indevelopment contexts. There is evidence that many are readyto d o so; agriculturaleconom ists and hu man geographers, even foresters and plan t patholog ists, are stealingo u r disciplinary clothes and wearing them to less effect. This is unfo rtuna te fo r both

anth ropo logy an d development, the discipline having wide experienceof these issues.Th ere is a danger that o thers mig ht sell the discipline sho rt, using its intellectual capitalin attempts to further their work, as evidenced in practices like Rapid Rural Appraisal(RRA) and Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA ) (Cham bers1987; Gujit and Cornwall1995). The problems encountered in tryingto understand something about others’socio-cultural traditions are considerable and n otto be glossed over in glib method-ologies (Richards 1995). Anthropologists have been wrestling with these problemsever since they entered the field, and s hou ld be thereto ensure that th e recent interestshown in local knowledge results in its successful incorporation into developmentpractice: misrepresenting the difficulties that attend its excogitation will not furtherthis in the long run but lead to disillusionment on the part of other developmentspecialists.

Th e curre nt deba te over wheth er it is justifiableto distinguish between local andwestern knowledge illustrates the need for an anthropological contribution, for itultimately questions the discipline’s existence (Agrawal1995: Indigenous Knowledgeand Development Monitor 1995, 1996). It is argued that the conflation of others’knowledge traditions into a single local meta category distinct from the westernscientific one is insupportable because it overlooks differences within each traditionan d similarities betwe en various indig eno us and scientific perspectives. I t fails o n three

grounds: substantive because of similarities in the essentials and contentof thesedifferent knowledge systems; epistemological becauseof certain similarities in themethod s used to investigate reality; and co ntex tual because science is n o less cultu rallylocated than othe r know ledge traditions.

Furthermore, and perhaps more disturbing than the foregoing parody of theanthropological perspective, it is argued that distinguishing between others’ knowl-edge traditions an d o urs privileges th e scientific perspective (N ad er1996). First, few ifany anthropologists, wou ld wishto imply that there is any difference in the thoughtprocesses of humans from different cultures, and certainly not in their cognitivecapacities. M any wou ld agree that there are su bstantial similarities and overlaps in thesubstantive con tentsof various non-western and western knowledge systems (LCvi-Strauss 1966; Atran 1990). If this were not so, it is difficult to conceive how we couldcommunicate with one another. Second, it is undeniably questionableto attempt todistinguish scientific from any other knowledge on formal grounds: that it is moreobjective, for example, or exclusively tests deductive models using experimentationwhile others do not. (Local farmers are probably someof the world’s more avidexperimenters: Richards1989; Johnson 1972; Rhoades 1987.) Third , scientific kno wl-edge is indisputably a nchored culturally in western society, w her e it largely originated(Pickering 1992), although with the contemporary communications revolution andcultural globalisation, hybridisation is occurring and blurring distinctions betweenscientific and ot he r know ledge on so cio-cultural grounds.

Should this paper aban don its attemptto discuss local knowledge in develop ment,

L O C A L K N O W L E D G E I N D E V E L O P M E N T 20 1

8/8/2019 Sillitoe 2


which necessarily involves some distinction between it and scientific knowledge, i n theface of this critique, given the differences within, and similarities between, theseknowledge traditions?I think not. This dichotomy overlooks anthropological knowl-edge, which sits uneasily between the scientific and indigenous perspectives. It isastrange hybrid understanding, involving bo th others and o u r occidental selves, as thereflexive debate of the past decade has affirmed. Its ex istence challenges an y attempt todispose of o ur notions of the scientific and indigenous, o r the global and local. It will

be necessary first to demolish the disciplineof anthropology and reveal its ethno-graphic heritage as m isconstrued. Cu rren tly, in different partsof the world, we findpeople with different cultural traditions and historiestha t continue to condition insignificant regards their views of the environment, life andso on. A New Guinean’sknowledge of the natural world differs from an Eskimo’s, and both differ from anEnglish scientist’s understanding, an d no t o nly because they inhab it strikinglydifferent natural environments. They concern different issues and priorities, reflectdifferent experiences and interests, and will be codified in different idioms and styles,which we come to understand to varying, currently debated, extents. They areinformed by different cultural repertoires that have evolved over generations, albeitnot in isolation - being influenced by others, having some points of similarity andoverlap, yet maintaining a distinctiveness, with the contrast between different tradi-tions until recently correlating closely with geographical distance. If we cannot agreeon this, then the discipline of anthropology has been an act of imagination, andcontemporary reflexive post-modern worries illusory.

If we take several people look inga t a woo ded hillside, they all see the same naturallandscape but they may perceiveit, know and think about it , entirely differently,according to their culturally conditioned understanding and experiences.A shiftingcultivator will see potential swidden sites, assessing their value by a range of criteria

such as species composition indicating fertility status, tenure rightsa t differentlocations and so on. A local entrepreneur might see a tou rist location, perhaps a hotelwith forest views and outdoor pursuits.A forester may see a mature standing crop,calculating its value according to whetherit is harvested sustainably or clear-felled,with attendant erosion risks.A western conservationist m ight see a beautiful naturalenvironment that demands protection against any human depredations, as the habitatof endangered wildlife. When those with different views come together, as in thedevelopment process, they have to negotiate some shared understandingof eachothers’ perspectivesof the hillside or whatever, and reach some consensus aboutit ,with power relationships influencing the outcome. The words they use will reflecttheir priorities: are they goingto manage, develop, exploit or protect the for est?

Advocates of local knowledge in development argue that we should aim to playoff the different perspectives, the strengths and weaknesses, advantages and dis-advantages of different knowledge traditions t o improv e ou r overall understanding ofissues and problems by generating synergy between them. But conflict is inherent inthe process too because we are not just talking abou t furthering understand ing and ofadvancing more rounded views, but of employ ing the knowledge to effect some action.Sometimes the values that underpin them are not readily reconcilable. Perhaps the aimshould be equitable negotiation, which is a central tenet of local knowledge inparticipatory development. The negotiations become far more complex but thedevelopment initiatives are more likely to be appropriate for more people and hencemore sustainable.


8/8/2019 Sillitoe 2


It is obscurantism to argue in effect that we should not distinguish betweendifferent cultural traditions - of which knowledge systems are, after all, a part-wh ether th e scientific on eof western society o r the mo ther earth traditionof PlainsIndians. They are not the same, although the cu rrent trend tow ards global culture andhistory is eroding distinctions between different culturally specific knowledge sys-tems. The tussle for promin ence- of which the indige nous versus scientific know ledgedeb ate is an aspect- ooks set to be on-going, w ith interm inable battles over the ‘big’

intractable issues like ideology, values and belief, defining who we think we are, whywe are here, the proper way to live, andso on . A linguistic analogy illustrates theposition, language commonly being taken as an important discriminating marker indistinguishing one socio-cultural heritage from another, and language constantlychanging processually like ot he r aspectsof these traditions, includin g knowledge.’ Th eadoptionof some foreign words- ike satellite, television, fertilisers o r wha tever- doesno t make distinguishing one language fro m an othe r problematic; likewise the positioncurrently with indigenous and exogenous knowledge. Hu ma n beings have been doingthis for millennia: it is wh at interes ts diffusionist theo ry. B ut clearly, if the b orro wi ngprocess exceeds a certain indeterminate rate we shall haveto revise o u r discrimina-tions.

The implication of distinguishing between different knowledge traditions,wheth er different folk ones o r indig enous and scientific, is not tha t on e is necessarilyprivileged above another. Any privileging that occurs is not inevitable. It is dubiousindeed to privilege scientific discourse asits costs, both environmental with pollution,non-sustainability etc., and social wi th red und ancy , alienation etc., beco me increas-ingly evident. Nonetheless,it is undeniable that scientific know ledge has und erpin nedmassive technological change, allowing human beingsto interfere with, and extendawesome control over, nature. It is the disseminationof this technology for the

betterment of humankind that underpins the notionof develop ment (even w here it is acynical front to further political control). It is the wish of the majority of thepopulations of lesser developed countriesto share in this technological advance, notjust to increase their standardof living, but sometim esto stave off starvation, sicknessand death, particularly with the relentless exp ansionof some popu lations.

A p p ro a c he s t o l o c a l k n o w l e d g e a n d n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s

The history of local kno wledge enquiries stretches back, strictly speaking,to the startof anthrop ology, whenever one caresto date it. But as it relates to natural resources,and more specifically to develop ment work, it has a considerably shallow er pedigree.There are two strands to the evolution of these ideas, which although they haveinfluenced one anoth erto a limited extent, have remained largely inde pen den t. It is on eof this paper’s tenets that the y sh ould come closer together. These t w o strand s are theacademic and development approaches. The studyof indigenous knowledge issuesrelated to natural resources in academia over the last fou r o r five decades falls into t wobroad categories: ethnoscience and human ecology (Meehan1980). It has involved arange of disciplines within the hum an and en vironm ental sciences.

Ethnosczence refers to local knowledge systems that relate broadlyto biological

phenomena, comprising a number of sub-fields like ethnobotany, ethnozoology,3 I am grateful to Jeff Bentley for suggesting this useful analogy

L O C A L K N O W L E DG E I N D E V E L O P M E N T 207

8/8/2019 Sillitoe 2


ethnomedicine and so on. Tw o approaches have emerged w ithin this tradition. O n e isthe study of taxonomic systems, with an interest particularly in classification pro-cesses: largely an intellectual pursuit. Among the interesting debates that characteriseit, is a concern for the nature of human classification abilities, a debate which boilsdown to, on the one hand, those who argue that human classificatory behaviourfollows a universal pattern, and on the other, those who maintain a culturallyrelativistic stance. It mirrors in som e regards t he foregoing deba te ab out the desirabil-

ity or otherwiseof distinguishing local from scientific kno wled ge, and revolves aro un dthe tension inherent in any an thropolo gical investigation between the differences an dsimilarities that characterise h uman beings fr o m different cultural back ground s, andho w these cond ition ou r shared huma nity (see Berlin1992; Brown 1984; Atran 1990;Ellen 1993; Riley and Brokensha 1988; Sillitoe 1996). Another debate concerns thehuman compunction to classify. Again two sides have emerged, o ne argu ing that it isthe usefulness of phenomena that determines how elaborately people classify, theoth er that it is a symbolic endeavou r that relatesto culturally rooted attemptsto makesense of the world (Brown 1995; H a y s 1991; Lhi-Strauss 1966; Needham 1979;G o o d y 1977).Tho se working in natural resources develop ment incline mo re tow ardsthe utility argu ment, but an awareness of b oth the empirical an d sym bolic perspectivesis oft en necessary to appreciate others’ perceptions of their env ironmen ts, wh ich th eyfrequently express in idioms aliento science. They co nfirm th at local know ledge is adifficult field to research and document, not one that you can master quickly, forexample in tw o week’s Rap id Ru ral Appraisal.

The o ther approach to ethnoscience concerns the potential market valueof thisknowledge, being the search for new commercially exploitable natural resources. Theassump tion is that people may have knowledg eof the natural productsof their regionsthat have commercial potential: for example new cosmetic products, new drugsto

tackle diseases from Aids to influenza, and so on (Chadwick and Marsh1994). Theworld’s rainforests are consideredto be particularly likelyto yield such products and itis though t tha t investigating local knowledg eof these resources might leadto valuablefinds, it being estimated that maybe three-quartersof the plant-derived drug s incurrent use were used in traditional medicines. There are also connections with thebiodiversity lobby, some suggesting that local knowledge might serve as a staringpoint for conservation projects, which might build on what local people know andpractice (Colches ter1994; Shyamsundar and Lanier1994).Th e problems here are lessintellectual and more ethical, and concern the thorny issuesof intellectual propertyrights (Gupta 1991). Some fear expropriation of others’ knowledge for commercialgain, even its paten ting by fo reign companies after ind ustria l interv entio n (e.g. geneticmanipulation), without due acknowledgement and a fair shareof the profit going tothe original owners (Brush and Stabinsky1996). Those who advocate market forcessort out these issues argue for legal contracts between local communities and themultinational private sector, formalising property rights, rules and agreements, andregulating bo th the discoveryof new commercially exploitable raw materials and theconservation of biodiversity, control of bioprospecting and biopiracy (Blum1993).Ot he rs are sceptical and call for a strengthen ingof rights generally, including hu ma nrights, intellectual and cultural property rights (Brown1994). These are difficult topolice effectively because once local knowledge is published and enters the publicdomain, the original indigenous owners- who may have no notion of privateownership in the first place, it being communal property- are no longer able to


8/8/2019 Sillitoe 2


monitor and control its use. This may deprive themof the opportunity to receivemonetary or other benefits from its use, which may not even occur to them as apossibility. Anth ropolog ists regularly disseminate ethno scientific inform ation, accord -ing to the canons of our open scholarly tradition, without explaining to localcom mun ities its possible use by othe rs, no r ho w this might affect local rightsto eithercontrol or benefit from it. These are extremely controversial issues currently underheated debate internationally, nationally and regionally by governments and non-

government organisations, including indigenous peoples’ representatives (Posey andDutfield 1996; Gusta fsson 1996).

Human Ecology draws on biological science systems thinkingto account forhuman beings’ relations with their environments, considering themto occu py nicheslike other animals which they are adapted to exploit, interfacing with their varioustechnological assemblages (O rlov e 1980). T w o appro ache s are also identifiable withinthe hum an ecological tradition. On e is the production systems approach which has aredoubtable history (e.g. Forde 1934). It comprises accountsof subsistenc e regimes,ranging f rom shifting cultivation system sto pastora list strategies, hunter-ga therers andso on. Some excellent studies are on record from this tradition, und ertaken by scholarsin various disciplines, notably anthropology, geography and environmental studies(Conklin 1957; Freeman 1955; De Schlippe 1956; Dove 1985). Those working in thenatural resources field in deve lopm ent relate m ost stron glyto this academic approa chas nearest to the sort of understandings they achieve of local knowledge issues,peoples’ food production arrangements andso on. This work is largely within theethnographic documen tation tradition, giving thoro ugh accountsof subsisten ce prac-tices, related knowledge and so on (Brosius, Lovelace and Martin 1986). It infre-quently draws on agricultural or environmental science, focusing on socio-culturalissues, such accounts relating largely to sociological matters like family and clan

structures, land tenure arrangements, labour supply, reciprocal work arrangements,the sharing and consumptionof produce, the symbolism of consumption and so on.Th ey encompass what are by and large descriptive accounts, sometimes suppo rted byquantitative data, describing horticultural, fishing, herding and other practices, andincluding lists of species exploited (e.g. crops), background information on naturalenvironments, sometimes accountsof mo re esoteric practices like fer tility magic, an dso on . But th ey infre quen tly include any substantial, scientifically frame d, analysisofenviro nme ntal data, standing largely as hum anistic records of produ ction regimes.

It is to eco-systems theory, the oth er approachto human ecology, that scholarsw h o have become engaged in the analysisof data o n produc tion systems have largelyturn ed to stru ctur e their analyses, drawin g on ecological models.A popular approachhas been ecological energetics, that is tracing the kilocalorific energy relationshipsbetween humans and their environments (e.g. Rappaport 1968; Lee 1969; Morren1986). Some attention has also been paidto population dynamics within ecologicalcontext. Th e problem has been the qualityof the data scholars have attemp tedto use inadvancing ecological models of human environmental relations. It has provedextremely difficult so fa r to collect the rigorou s scientific data necessaryto substantiatetheories of human ecology because human behaviour isso diverse as to compromiseany attemp ts at controlled e xperim entation. Th e result is intellectual de bates found edo n hypotheses that haveso far prove d b eyo nd verification.

The foregoing academic approaches that incorporate local knowledge issuesgenerally bear little relation to development problems. This is not entirely dueto

L O C A LK N O W L E D G E I N D E V E L O P M E N T 209

8/8/2019 Sillitoe 2


academics, although harder lobbying might sooner have ledto the incorporation oflocal knowledge consideration s into d evelopm ent policy and practice. O nl y recentlyhas an interest started to be sho wn in these issues, involving a marked change in theparadigms that inform thinking abo ut development problems, and acknowledgementthat they m ight have a place, offering op portu nity fo r the inclusionof research fromthese ethn ograph ic perspectives. Th e second s trand in th e evo lutionof local knowl-edge approaches, focusing on the studyof these issues as they relate to natural

resources development, th at has emerged over the last on e o rtwo decades also falls,like the academic approaches, into two broad categories: farming systems andparticipatory development.

An awareness of the role that local know ledge research can play in d evelopm enthas grown in part out of thefarming systems research tradition. There are manyvariants but broadly speaking farming systems research features multidisciplinaryteams documenting and analysing all the complex elements- environmental, socio-economic, agrono mic etc.- hat comprise farm-househ old livelihoods, informing theirmembers’ multiple objectives, acco mm odating their dynam ic na ture an d capacity forchange (FA0 1989). It includes the conduct of experiments on-farm, designed toaddress researchable problems und er farmers’ management constraints. The sy stemsemphasis is anthropological in tone with its holistic parallels, being reminiscentoffunctionalist dictums ab out cultural interconnectedness. Bu t considerable prob lemshave merged with farming systems research and its systems perspective withindevelopment contexts. Its largest flaw from an anthropological viewpoint is theludicrously short time frames in which it was thou ght research could be co ndu ctedtoachieve u nderstandin gof highly complex socio-cultural systems. This contributedtothe perceived failure of farming systems researchto address development issuespertinently. Anoth er co ntribu tory factor was its inabilityto focus tightly o n identified

researchable constraints within the system, and promote meaningful, problem-centred, systems-focused, interdisciplinary co-operation, insteadof implying thatresearchers had to encompass the entire system. These methodological problemsremain: namely ho w can scientists focus on co nstraintsof a researchable kind w itho utlosing the overall systems view? There is a key role fo r local know ledge here, helpingto place technical research within the systems perspective, it being embedded bydefinition within the wide r context.

The participatory approaches have affinities with farming systems research,comprising a growing family of techniques with associated battery of dauntingacronyms (Okalie t al . 1994).The y aim to enable local peopleto participate actively i nresearch and decision-making, to plan, act on and evaluate development proposals.They promote ‘home rule’. Those in favourof participatory research argue that itcreates channels for farmers to contribute to the identification of researchableconstraints and so promo tes a better fit between proposed technological interventionsand farming regimes, identifies interventionsof benefit to the poorest sections ofsociety more effectively and better adjusts technologyto prevailing environmentalconditions through its on-farm work (Chamberset al. 1989; Haverkort et al. 1991;Scoones and Thompson 1994; Burkey 1994; Nelson and Wright 1995). It is alsoincreasingly building on local knowledge, focusing on farmers’ experimentation,encouraging them to amend and design trials. The joint enterprise, or stakeholderparticipation approach, to development poses some of the most challenging andstimulating problems in th e field today.A major issue is ho w to facilitate meaningful


8/8/2019 Sillitoe 2


participation . Th is problem com prises tw o parts: first, determin ing wh at technologicalalternatives m ight be culturally and e nviron men tally appro priate, and sec ond, inform -ing the local population about these, and the possible social, ecological and otherconsequences of any choices they make. Local knowledge research can, and should,play a key role in both stages. It is not always clear in farmer participatorydevelopment how the link is established and operates between our scientific researchcapacity with its technological possibilities and the experimenting farmers with their

problems and ideas, although all mannerof methods have been pioneered (rangingfrom participatory m apping with all sortsof media, featuring diagrams and calendarsdrawn on the ground using twigs, beans, and stones,to game play and theatricals, tomo re conventional paper and pen participatory surveys: Barker 1980; Cha mbe rs 1992).Th e approaches vary widely in the scope they afford farme rsto participate (Martin andSherrington 1996), from consultation (outsiders retaining control),to collaboration(co-op eration as equa l partners) , to collegiate (ins iders making research decisions). Th emethods employed, however- maps, diagrams and so on - are not neutral butculturally relative and subjectto man ipulation, failing to access local knowled ge w iththe subtlety demanded by anthropological experience. Furthermo re, deciding whati tis important to represent is not only a culturally specific but also an individuallyinformed judgement, the drawer, game-player or whoever having controlof therepresentation and manipulating it accordingto their individual interests and inter-pretation of reality. A number of other problems attend participatory approaches(Chambers 1996), including lackof compatibility between farmer-led a nd scientificapproaches, difficulties in selecting participants (the wealthier and more powerfulmembers of communities dominating and directing researchto their benefit), thelimited influence that farmers have in the wide r policy are na whe re decisions a re madethat affect them, and problems with the analysisof data given the design of some

experiments.

A n t h ro p o lo g y ’s o p p o r t u n i t y : p a r a d i g m a t i c s h i f t s i nd e v e l o p m e n t p r a x i s

Th e emergenceof the second de velopment strand in the evolutionof local knowledgeideas and practice has depended crucially on a sea-change recently in the paradigmsthat structure conceptionsof development: a change that affords social an thropolog ythe opportunity to appear respectable in development contexts insteadof maverick.Th e dom inant development paradigms until a decade orso ago were modernisation,

the classic transfer-of-technology model associated with the political right, anddependency, the Marxist-informed model associated with the political left. They areboth blind to local knowledge issues, as captured in a witty rejoinde r scraw led und erChad’s ‘no natives’ query, to the effect ‘no, they’re all post-modernised’, a pu n whichalso intimates the limitations of more recent grass-roots paradigms, with currentquestioning of the status of others’ knowledge and th e extent knowableto outsiders.The new bottom-up oriented development paradigms that have recently emergedtochallenge these top-down perspectives are the market-liberal and neo-populist. Bothgive m ore credence to local perspectives b ut otherw ise m irror t he sam e political divide,the fo rm er associated with the political right, a nd th e latter associated with the politicalleft (Farrington 1996; Blaikiee t al. 1996). T he correspondence between this paradig-matic shift and the end of the C ol d War is impro bably coincidental, overseas aid n o

L O C A L K N O W L E D G E I N D E V E L O P M E N T 211

8/8/2019 Sillitoe 2


longer being imposed so blatantly to advance hegemonies in different partsof theworld with th e collapseof one of the super-powers, allowing for the potentially m orepolitically volatile expression of poor peoples’ views.

The modernisation approach to development is largely informed by modelsderived fro m western econom ic histo ry and theo ry. I t is state-instigated and managedby central authorities, epitomising the b lueprint app roachto develop ment projects. I tassumes that economic development occurs through the applicationof advanced

technology, the commercialisationof subsistence agriculture, the industrialisationofproduction and the urbanisationof populations, through top-down planning and theimpositionof policies on local populations. T he mod ernisation approach is essentiallyevolutionary, seeing development as a unilinear process. It expects changes in lesserdeveloped cou ntriesto imitate what occurred in the west with th e industrial revolutionand its aftermath. It assumes the transformation of traditional societies, with appro-priate changes in technology and social arrangements, into economically ‘advanced’nations. It no t on ly dismisses local kno wled ge bu t also views it as pa rtof the problem,being non-scientific, traditional and risk-adverse, even irrational and primitive. Afterfifty years of attempted modernisation, the approach is now widely discredited,although many people remain weddedto it, often implicitly (as in many scientificresearch projects), and explain failure as due to inadequate state bureaucracies,conservative, uncooperative farmers andso on, and call for m oreof the same, namelyimproved, to p-do wn , expert-led technological change, no t m ore farmer participation,who se knowledge remains sidelined and ignored.

The dependency app roach emerged as a ma jor challengerto modernisation theory.According to this perspective, economic and political inequalities exist within under-developed countries, facilitated by arrangementsof internal domin ation. It assumes amarked class structu re with the d om inan t class controlling th e meansof production

and financial institutions, and participating in national level institutions and politics,with the dominated masses having limited access. These markedly divided under-developed nations are in turn linked by d epend ency relationshipsto external industrialpowers. These metropolises expropriate a considerable proportionof the satellites’economic surplu s. Th e latter are unableto exert much influence over capital invest-ment, world markets or international politics and cannot achieve autonomous devel-opment, their economic growth depending upon more powerful nations. Again theperspective is top-d ow n and state-centred. Econo mic gro wt h assumed b y mod ernisa-tion and m anipulated by outside pow ers has ledto the impoverishmentof the m ajorityand improv ement fo r a small elite. This indigeno us bourgeoisie has a vested in terest inseeing maintained the exploitative structure s based on differential co ntr olof economican d political resources. It por tray s po o r farmers as helpless victims, local kno wle dge isagain sidelined, this time as the viewof the powerless.

Theories of underdevelopment, like those of modernisation, overlook thespecific socio-historical circumstancesof different cultures, and how unique internalsocial factors interact to influence the direction of any change. They assume thatwhen capitalism intrudes into other societies it eliminates former socio-economicarrangements. This is not so. While the previous system may undergo considerablemodification, it may come to co-exist with the new capitalist arrangements. Theanthropological stud yof different ‘modes of production’, and the processes wherebythey repro duce themselves, has so ugh tto explore interconnections between traditionaland capitalist systems. Dependency theory is not correctto argue that metropolitan


8/8/2019 Sillitoe 2


8/8/2019 Sillitoe 2


have over many external factors tha t impinge o n their lives, not ably th e wider politicalarena where decisions are made that affect them. It is this arena that th e emp ow erme ntlobby target, giving riseto innum erable othe r problems, n ot least the unwillingnessofthe powerful to relinquish any authority. Another problem with this approach is itslocal focus. Successes are often co mm un ity specific and c an no t be replicated o n a largescale. This again suits it to non-government organisations rather than bilateral andmultilateral aid agencies wh ich target large regions and strive fo r tangible results i n sh or t

time-frames. This time perspective is another problem. Participatory approaches cantake a considerable timeto sho w a ny results- albeit these m ay be mo re sustainab le inthe long term- whereas national an d inte rnatio nal agencies have political imperativestodisburse resources an d sh ow almost immed iate returns.

These different dev elop men t paradigms are no t mutu ally exclusive, and are oftenmixed up in policy and projects. Sometimes those who subscribeto on e view of thedevelopment process borrow ideas from others, maybe intentionally making an alli-ance, other times unintentionally with confused or fortuitously beneficial results.Regarding the more recent market-technical and populist-empowerment approachesthat allow for a grass-roots perspective and advocate local knowledge research, bothtechnological and socio-political issues featureto an extent, inextricably entwined. I t isa matter of emphasis. And participation , facilitated by outsiders, does no t acco mm odatecultural diversity b ut rather encourages p eopleto enter the modern capitalist world,sharing here modernisation’s assumptions, albeit shifting responsibility locally fordecisions and ultimately pro ject failure (Stirrat1996). The eclectic mixing of assump-tions is applaudable, strivingto reach a consen sus betweentwo extremes, symb olisedinitially by the right and left political poles. The re is perhaps noth ing n ew here in theying and yung of development, fu rther represented by the association o n the on e handof technological advances and improv ements w ith n atural scientists an d h ard systems,

and on the other empowermentof the po or and disadvantaged wi th social scientists andsoft-systems approaches. While there is nothing novel in applauding attemptstoencourage a rapprochem ent betw een thesetwo positions, promoting creative tensionand synergistic space, facilitating allowance for, and u nde rstan dingof, th e issues raisedby each, this in no way diminishes the perennial difficulties and frustrationsof suchwork, w hich at roo t come d ow n to differences in values and priorities.

L o c a l k n o w le d g e I n d e v e lo p m e n t : e m e rg e n c e a n dc o n s o l i d a t i o n

The local knowledge approach has emerged over the last decade with these paradig-matic shifts which, paying m ore atten tionto ‘grass roots ’ perspectives, no t on ly affordanthropology a chance to become meaningfully involved in development, but alsorecommend it as the intellectual homeof participatory development, affording itdisciplinary pedigree and coherence. This relatesto the need to draw together theacademic and development strands that have contributed in varying extentsto localkn ow ledg e research, as outline d above,to build on the ir combined strengthsto furtherdevelopment, modifying established practices.

Local knowledge research sets out explicitlyto make connections between otherpeoples’ understanding s and practices and thos eof scientific researchers and develop-ment workers, notably in the natural resources sector (Rhoades1984; Warren,Slikkerveer and Brokensha 1995; Chambers 1996; Richards 1985). By furthering ou r


8/8/2019 Sillitoe 2


understanding of agricultural, fo restr y and fishing regimes, it aims to c ontr ibute in thelong term to gainful development and positive change, promoting culturally appro-priate and environmentally sustainable adaptations acceptableto people as theyincreasingly exploit their natural resources commercially. Its beginnings in develop-ment are dated to the appearance of some provocative works around the early 1980s(Swift 1979; Bell 1979; Ho we s 1980; Brok enshaet al. 1980; Ch am ber s 1983), althoug hsome pioneering applied work predates these, such as that at theCentro Inter-

natiocional de la Papa into potato post-harvest technology (Rhoades 1984).Such research has grown rapidly since then with a proliferationof conferences,

symposia, edited volumes and technical reports, and the establishmentof an inter-national n etwo rk w ith a quarterly newsletter (Warrenet al. 1993). M uch of this wor khas recently appeared un der th e auspicesof the Intermediate Techno logy Movem ent,and bears the stam pof its robu st conc ern for addre ssing practical issues in app rop riatecontexts: technically, culturally and environ men tally. It is difficult as a conseque ncetodefine the intellectual stance of local knowledge studies, which are currently veryheterogeneous in their approaches, reflecting a healthy interest in any academicparadigm relevantto enquiries an d pertinent to developmental problems in a ny region(the majority have affinity to ethnographic accounts of production systems). Theresult is that local know ledge research cu rren tly lacks paradigm atic o r metho dologic alcoherence. Ind eed it is caught in a battle of perspectives (L on g and Lo ng 1992; Apffel-Marglin and Marglin 1990) as practitione rs tussle in argum ents characterised as rightversus left, natural versus social science, hard-system versus soft, andso on.

Nonetheless, the philosophy underlying local knowledge research is unexcep-tionable. The proposition that an understanding and appreciationof local ideas andpractices will further development work is self-evidentto any anthropologist. I t isincreasingly acknowledged as sound sense in development contexts that where we

think that we can offer technical assistanceto other societies based on our scientificapproach, people are more likelyto respond positively if the new ideas are presentedsympathetically with regard f or their know ledge and understanding. But this positionhas still to be comprehensively validated to be wide ly accepted (W arren 1991). Th echallenges that cu rren tly face local knowledg e centre on its effective inco rpo ratio n intothe de velopm ent process, which implies the formulationof appropriate methodologies(Bark er 1977). Th is is no straightforw ard ende avou r involving the im po rt of tried andtested approaches from anthropology, like participant-observation, sample surveys,case histories etc. (Ellen 1984). It involves th e for mu latio nof research strategies thatmeet the demands of development- cost-effective, time-effective, gen era ting ap pr o-priate insights, readily intelligible to non-experts etc.- while not compromisinganthropological expectations or downplaying the difficulties attending the excogita-tion of others’ knowledgeso as to render the work effectively v al ~ el e ss .~t involves thereconciliation of tensions evident between the natural and social sciences, it being

4 The issues are large and beyond investigation within the limitsof this paper (Mettrick 1993;Fairhead n.d.). I take them up elsewhere, in a paper entitled ‘The developmentof indigenousknowledge: a new applied anthropology’, inCurrent Anthropology. They include the need to

develop a coherent local knowledge intellectual frameworkto interface effectively with westernscience; the promotion of facilitatory anthropological research methodsto foster meaningful

dialogue between natural resources scientists and local peopleto establish wha t research m ay haveto offer; and advancem entof a metho dolog y that recognises that local know ledge is not static noruniform, but subject to continual negotiation berween stake-holders, partof the globalisation


8/8/2019 Sillitoe 2


assumed that western science has som ethingto contribute to the development process,and that indigenous knowledge needsto be conveyed t o natural scientistsso that theycan appreciate its relevance (DeWalt 1994). This is the way to dismantle the dividebetween indigenous and scientific knowledge, notto contend that it is bogus todistinguish between them (A grawal1995).

It is widely agreed in development circles that ‘folks rule, okay’: that it isnecessary to know the natives. The problem is howto achieve this and contribute

meaningfully to development. There is considerable scope, and increasing deman d, fo rthe refining and reformingof anthropological methods to meet development require-ments, methods which have been strangely ignored du ring recent post-modern debatesover what the discipline has achieved (the criticisms of which relate inno smallmeasure to fieldwork practice). The element of scientific collaboration in localknowledge research may strike some anthropo logists as contentious, inviting unneces-sary distortion (Reyna1994).But any interpretationof another culture is unavoidablydistorting, an inevitable limitation of our research methods, as current post-moderncriticism affirms, and this development-oriented indigenous knowledge work isnodifferent to any o the r ethnog raphic enquiry in this respect.It differs in its struggle toaccommodate hard natural science and soft social science perspectives in under-standing and interpreting othe r cultures and their environm ents, and has the virtueofno t pretending to aspireto some insider’s interpretation.

PAULSillitoeDepartment of AnthropologyUniversity of Durham43 Ol d ElvetD ur ha m D H 1 3 H NEngland

process. This involves on-going revisionof knowledge and understanding, an d people interpretingand modifying for themselves any information that reaches them in the light of their socio-culturaltradition and experience. Research methods need to anticipate this, facilitating adoption ofinterventions by promoting partnership and an awarenessof local perspectives. This negotiationwill be difficult, not only because of cross-cultural communication and difficulties of under-standing, but also becauseit will inevitably have a political aspect.

Local knowledge is not locally homogenous. Differences exist along gender, age, class,occupational and other lines, and between individuals of similar social status (Scoones andThompson 1994), and the interpretation that people put on shared knowledge may differ,

depending on how it affects their interests (Mosse1994). The implications of variations inknowledge within local communities demand assessment and the advancementof appropriatemethodologies to gauge them. We haveto address the issueof whose knowledge we are goingtoprivilege. Can we represent everyone’s knowledge, andif so, what is the intellectual statusof suchall-encompassing knowledge? The local knowledge movement, engaging with peoples’ lives inways not heretofore anticipated by anthrop ology, need s to address some contentious ethical issues,for contributing to development which aims to assist certain people over others it inevitablyinterferes in their lives. Local knowledge research is not socially neutral. T he time-scale involved inethnographic research presents problems too in development contexts, with their short-termorientation and politically driven considerations demanding immediate returns. This will requiresome compromises. The difficulties encountered in formulating generalisations applicableon a

large scale also present a considerab le barrierto local knowledge research in development, and thereis a need to evolve methods and form ulate principles that will allow so me reliable anthropologicalinput in to policy debates.


8/8/2019 Sillitoe 2


ReferencesAgrawal, A. 1995. ‘Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge’,Develop-

ment and Change 26: 413-39.Ahmed, A. and C. Sh ore (eds.).1996. Th e fut ure of anthropology. Its relevance to the contemporary

world. London : Athlone.Apffell-Marglin, F. and Marglin, S. A. 1990. Dominating knowledge. Development, culture and

resistance. Oxford: O xford University Press.

Atran,S.

1990. Cogn itive founda tions of natural history. T owards an anthropo logyof

science.Cambridge: Cam bridg e University Press.Barker, D. 1977. Some methodological issues in the measurement, analysis and evaluation of peasant

farmer’s knowledge of their environment. MARC repor t no . 9. London: Monitoring andAssessment Research Centreof the Scientific Committee on Problemsof the Environment,Chelsea College, Universityof London.

1980. ‘Appropriate methodology. Using a traditional African board game in measuring farmers’attitudes and environmental images’, in Brokensha,D., and Warren, D. M. (eds.), Indigenousknowledge systems and development.Lanham: University Pressof America.

Bell, M. 1979. ‘The exploitationof indigenous knowledge o r the indigenous exploitationof knowledge.Whose use of what for what?’ in Rural development. Whose knowledge counts?, IDS Bulletin,

Berlin, B. 1992. Ethnobiological classification. Principles of categorization of plants a nd anim als intraditio nal societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Blaikie, P., Brown, K., Dixon, P., Sillitoe, P., Stocking, M. and Tang, L. 1996. ‘Understan ding localknowledge and the dynamicsof technical change in developing countries’. Paper presented atO D A Natural Resources Systems Program me Socio-Economic Methodologies W orkshop.

Blum, E. 1993. ‘Making biodiversity profitable. A case studyof the Merck-INBio agreement’,Environment 35(4): 17-45.

Brokensha, D., Warren, D. M. and Werner, 0. (eds.). 1980. Indigenous knowledge systems anddevelopment. Lanham: University Pressof America.

Brookfield, M. 1996. ‘Indigenous knowledge: a long history and an uncertain future’,People, Land

Management and Environmental Change News and Views6 (March): 23-9.Brosius, J. P., Lovelace, G . W. and M artin, G .G. 1986. ‘Ethnoecology. A n approac hto understandingtraditional agricultural knowledge’, in Martin, G. G. (ed.),Traditional agriculture in south-eastAsia. A hu ma n ecology perspective,187-97. Boulder: Westview Press.

Brown, C. H. 1984. Language and living things. Uniformities in fol k classification and nam ing.N ewBrunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Brown, C. H. 1995. ‘Lexical acculturation and ethnobiology. Utilitarianism versus intellectualism’,Journal of Linguistic Anthropology5( 1): 51-64.

Brown, K. 1994. ‘Approaches to valuing plant medicines. T he econom icsof culture or the cul tureofeconomics?’Biodiversity and Conservation3: 734-50.

Brush, S. and Stabinsky,D. 1996. Valuing local knowledge. Indigenous people and intellectual property

rights. Washington DC: Island Press.Burkey, S. 1994. People first. A guide to self-reliant participatory rural development. London: ZedBooks.

Chadwick, D. J. and Marsh, J. (eds.). 1994. Ethnobotuny and the search for new drugs. CIBAFoundation Symposium185. Chichester: Joh n W iley.

Chamb ers, R. 1983. Rural d evelopment. Putting the last first.London: Longman.

lO(2): 44-50.

1992. ‘Rural appraisal. Rapid, relaxed and participatory’,IDS Discussion Pape rs31 1: 1-90.1996. Whose reality counts? Putting t he first last.London: Intermediate Technolog y Publications.

Chambers, R., Pacey, A. and Thrupp, L. A. (eds.). 1989. Farmers first. Farmer inn ovatio n andagricultural research. Lon don: Intermediate Techn olog y Publications.

Colchester, M. 1994. Salvaging nature. Indigenous peoples, protected areas and biodiversity conserva-

tion. Discussion Pape r55 . Geneva: UN RI SD and Gland:WWF.

Compton, J . L. 1989. ‘Strategies and meth ods for the access, integration and utilizationof indigenousknowledge in agricultural and rural development’, in War ren,D. M., Slikkerveer, L.J. and T itilola,


8/8/2019 Sillitoe 2


S . 0. (eds.), Indigenous knowledge systems. Implications for agriculture and internationaldevelopment.Studies in Technology and Social Change, no.1 1 . Ames: Iow a State University.

Conklin, H . C . 1957. Hanun oo agriculture. A report on an integral system of shifting cultiva tion in thePhilippines.F A 0 Forestry Development Paper, no.12. Rom e: F.A.O.

DeWalt, B. R. 1994. ‘Using indigenous knowledge to improve agricultural and natural resourcesmanagement’, Human Organisation 53(2): 123-3 1 .

Dove, M. R. 1985. Swidden agriculture in Indonesia. The subsistence strategies of the Ka limantanKantu. Berlin: Mouton .

Ellen, R. F. 1984. Ethnographic research. A gu ide to general conduct.London : Academic Press.1993. The cultural relations of classification. An analysis of Nu au lu anima l categories fr om C ent ral

Fairhead, J. n.d. Indigenous technical knowledge and natural resources management in Sub-Saharan

FA O . 1989. Farming systems development.Rome: FAO .Farrington, J. 1996. ‘Farmers participation in research and externsion. Lessons from the last decade’,

Tropical Agriculture Association Newslette r16(2): 9-15.Farrington, J. and Martin, A.1988. Farmer participation in agricultural research. A rev iew of concepts

andpractices. O D A Agricultural Administration Unit, Occasional Pap er no.9. London : OverseasDevelopment Institute.

Forde, C. D. 1934. Habita t, economy and society. A geographical introduction to ethnology.London:Methuen.

Freeman,J. D. 1995. lb an agriculture. London: Stationery Office.Gladwin, C. 1989. ‘Indigenous knowledge systems, the cognitive revolution and agricultural decision

Good y, J. R. 1977. The domestication of the savage mind.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Serum. Cambridge: Ca mbr idge University Press.

Africa. A critical ove rview.Cha tham : Natu ral Resources Institute.

making’, Agriculture and Human Values3: 25-32.

1995. The expensive moment. Anthropology in Britain and Africa,1918-1970. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

Gujit, I. and A. Cor nwa ll (eds.)1995. ‘Critical reflections o n the practiceof PRA’, PL A Notes24.Gupta, A. 1991. ‘Peasant knowledge. W ho has rightsto use it?’, in H aver kort, B., J. van de r Ka mp and

A. Waters-Bayer (eds.), Joining farmers’ experiments. Experiences in participatory technology

development.London: Intermediate Technology Pub lications.Gustafsson, R. 1996. The way w e work wit h indigenouspeoples.Geneva: I L O Publications.Haile, J. 1996. ‘Umbilical’, Anthropology in Action. Journal for Applied Anthropology in Tbeory and

Practice 3(2): 52-5.Hav erko rt, B., van der Kamp, J. and Waters-Bayaer,A. 1991. joining farmers’ experiments. London:

Intermediate Technology P ublications.Hays, T. E. 1991. ‘Interest, use, and interest in uses in folk biology’, in A. Pa wley (ed.),Man and a ha&

Essays in Pacific anthropology and ethnobiology in honour of Ralph Bulmer,109-14. Auckland:Polynesian Society Memoir no.48.

Hill, P. 1986.Developmen t economicson trial. T he anthropological case fo r the prosecution.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Ho bar t, M. (ed.) 1993. A n anthropological critique of developmen t. The growth of ignorance.London:Routledge.

Howes, M. 1980. ‘The use of indigenous technical knowledge in development’, in Brokensha, D.,Warren, D. M. and Werner, 0. eds.), Indigenous knowledge systems and development,323-34.Lanham: University Pressof America.

Johnson, A. W. 1972. ‘Individuality and experimentation in traditional agriculture’,Human Ecology 1 :

149-59.Lee, R. B. 1969. ‘!Kung Bushman subsistence. An input-output analysis’, in A. P. Vayda (ed.),

Environment and cultural behavior.Austin: University of Texas Press.Livi-Strauss, C. 1966. The savage m ind.Lon don: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.Long, N. and Long , A. (eds.)1992. Battlefields of know ledge . T he interlocking of theory andpracti ce in

Martin, A. and Sherington, J.1996. ‘Participatory research methods. Implementation, effectiveness andsocial research and development. London: Routledge.


8/8/2019 Sillitoe 2


institutional linkages’. Paper presented at O D A Natur al Resources Systems Progra mm e Socio-Economic Methodologies Worksho p.

McCorkle, C . M. 1989. ‘Toward a knowledge of local knowledge and its imp ortan ce for agriculturalR D and E’,Agriculture and Human Values4(3): 4-13.

Meehan, P. 1980. ‘Science, ethnoscience and agricultural kno wled ge utilization’, in D . Brokensha , D.Warren and 0 . Wer ner (eds.), Indigenous knowledge systems and development,383-92. Lanham:University of Chicago Press.

Mettrick, H. 1993. Mobilising indigenous knowledge. Development oriented research in agriculture.

Netherlands: IC RA.Moore, H. L. (ed.) 1996. The future of anthropological kno wledg e.London : Routledge.Morren, G . E. B. 1986. The Miyanmin. H um an ecologyof a Papua New Guinea society. Ann Arbor:

Morrison, J. , Geraghty, P. and Cr ow l, L. (eds.)1994. Science of Pacific Islandspeoples. Suva, Fiji: Th e

Mosse, D. 1994. ‘Authority, gender and knowledge. Theoretical reflections on the practiceof

Nader, L. 1996. Anthropological mquir y in to boundaries, power and know ledge.London: Routledge.Needham, R. 1979. Symbolic classification.Santa Monica: Goo dye ar Publishing.Nelson, N. and Wright, S. (eds.) 1995. Power and participatory development. Theory and practice.

Okali, C., Sumberg,J. and Farrington, J. 1994. Farmer participatory research. London : Intermediate

Orlove, B. S. 1980. ‘Ecological anthropology’,Annual Reviewof Anthropology 9: 235-73.Pickering, A. (ed.)1992. Science as practice and culture. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Pitt, D. C. (ed.) 1976. Development from below. Anthropologists and development studies.Mouton,

The Hague, Paris: IXth International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences,Chicago 1975.

Posey, D. and Dutfield, G. 1996. Beyond intellectual property. Toward traditional resource rights f o rindigenous peoples and local communitiesOttawa: IDR C Books.

Rappaport, R. A. 1968. Pigs for the ancestors. Ritual in the ecology of a New Guinea people. N ew

Haven: Yale University Press.Rew, A. 1992. ‘The consolidation of British development anthropology’,Development Anthropology

Network lO(1): 23-6.Reyna, S. P. 1994. ‘Literary anthro polo gy and the case against science’,Man 29(3): 555-81.Rhoades, R. E. 1984. Breaking new ground. Agricultural anthropology.Lima: International Potato

1987. Farmers and experimentation. O D 1 Agricultural Administration (Research and Extension)

U M I Research Press.

University of the South Pacific Institute of Pacific Studies.

participatory rural development’,PLA Notes24: 27-33.

London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Technology Publications.

Centre.

Network Discussion Paper, no.21 . London: Overseas Development Institute.Richards, P. 1985. Indigenous agricultural revolution. London: H utchinson.

1989. ‘Farmers also experiment.A neglected intellectual resource in African science’,Discovery and

1995. ‘Participatory rural appraisal: a quick and dirty critique’,PLA Notes24: 13-16.

Innovation 1989(1 ) 19-25.

Riley, B. W. and Brokensha, D. 1988. The Mbeere in Kenya. Vol.I I , Botanical identities and uses.

Schlippe, P. de 1956. Shifting cultivationin Africa. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Scoones, I. and Thompson, J. 1994. ‘Knowledge, power and agriculture. Towards a theoretical

understanding’, in Scoones,I., Thompson,J. and C ham bers , R. (eds.),Beyond farm er first,16-31,Lon don: Intermediate Technology Pub lications.

Shyamsundar, P. and Lanier, G . ti. 1994. ‘Biodiversity prospecting. An effective conservationtool?’,Tropical Biodiversity 2(3): 441-6.

Sillitoe, P. 1996. A place against time.Amsterdam: Harwood.Stirrat, R. L. 1996. Paper o n participation as a millenial movement, presented in the Development,

Ecology and Environment session at Edinburgh University Anthropology Department’s demi-centenary conference ‘Boundaries and Identities’.

Lanham: University Pressof America.


8/8/2019 Sillitoe 2


Swift, J. 1979. ‘Notes on traditional knowledge, modern knowledge and rural development’,IDSBulletin lO(2): 41 -3.

Wallman, S . (ed.) 1992. Contemporary futures. Perspectives from social anthropology. A S AMonograph 30. London: Routledge.

Warren, D. M. 1991. Using indigenous knowledge in agricultural development. Discussion Paper no.127. Washington DC: World Bank.

Warren, D. M. and Cashman, K. 1988. Indigenous knowledge for sustainable agriculture and ruraldevelopment. Gatekeeper series, no.SA10. London: International Institutefor Environment and

Development.Warren, D. M., G. von L iebenstein and L. Slikkerveer.1993. ‘Networking for indigenous knowledge’,

Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor 1( ) : 2-4.Warren, D. M., Slikkerveer,L. J. and Brokensha, D. 1995. The cultural dimensions of development.

Indigenous knowledge systems.London: Intermediate Technology Publications.


Sillitoe 2

Documents

Transcript of Sillitoe 2