By Alemu Tesfaye
Has the movement to decolonize knowledge production caught your attention in recent academic discussions? Do you recognize how colonialism has deeply influenced traditional knowledge systems, embedding biases and inequalities in our academic practices? Given the noble aspiration behind decolonizing knowledge, have you ever paused to critically examine its feasibility and achievability? Are we embarking on a realistic journey towards change, or are we chasing an idealistic endeavor?
Understanding the Challenge
My research journey into decolonizing knowledge production, particularly within the context of forced displacement, revealed stark contrasts between conventional academic narratives and the rich, nuanced perspectives of historically marginalized communities. This experience highlighted the deep-rooted biases and structural inequalities embedded within traditional knowledge systems. Decolonizing knowledge production entails dismantling the structures, biases, and power dynamics that have historically favored Western knowledge systems. This process involves addressing the legacy of colonization, imperialism, and the prevalence of Eurocentric ideas within academia and research. The following key challenges are integral to this discussion:
Historical Inertia: Centuries of colonialism and its legacy have deeply entrenched certain knowledge systems, hierarchies, and biases. These are not easily uprooted.
Power Structures: Knowledge production is closely tied to power structures, both within academia and society at large. Decolonization threatens these power dynamics, which can lead to resistance.
Institutional Barriers: Universities, research institutions, and funding bodies often perpetuate existing knowledge paradigms. Changing these institutions is a complex, time-consuming process.
Epistemic Pluralism: Balancing the promotion of alternative knowledge systems while maintaining rigorous academic standards can be challenging.
Global Interconnectedness: In today’s globalized world, knowledge production spans across borders, intertwining numerous cultural and regional influences. This complex web of global interconnectedness makes it difficult to pinpoint the origins of knowledge and poses significant challenges to efforts aimed at decolonizing knowledge production, as diverse global influences often dilute and obscure local and indigenous contributions.
Strategies for Progress
While achieving complete decolonization may be a lofty goal, there are essential steps the academic and research community can take to make meaningful progress:
Acknowledgment and Awareness: Recognize the historical and ongoing impacts of colonialism on knowledge production. This includes acknowledging biases and inequalities within research and academia.
Inclusivity: Promote diversity in all aspects of knowledge production – from researchers and scholars to the subjects and methodologies chosen. Include voices from marginalized communities.
Interdisciplinary Approaches: Encourage interdisciplinary research that draws from various knowledge systems, fostering a more holistic understanding of complex issues.
Global Collaboration: Facilitate international collaborations that involve scholars from both the Global North and the Global South, ensuring that different perspectives are integrated.
Ethical Research: Emphasize ethical research practices that prioritize the well-being and consent of research subjects, particularly in the context of indigenous knowledge.
Curriculum Revisions: Reevaluate and revise educational curricula to include a more diverse range of authors, theories, and perspectives.
Community Engagement: Engage with local communities and indigenous groups to understand and incorporate their knowledge into research and development projects.
Conclusion
The pursuit of decolonizing knowledge production is not a simple task, and it may never lead to complete decolonization, given the historical and systemic factors at play. However, it is a critical endeavor for addressing the inequities and biases embedded in our knowledge systems.
By fostering awareness, inclusivity, collaboration, and ethical research practices, we can make meaningful progress towards a more equitable and diverse knowledge landscape. While the journey may be long and challenging, the ultimate goal of decolonizing knowledge production is one that aligns with principles of justice, equality, and a more accurate understanding of the world we live in.
Could the pursuit of decolonizing knowledge production pave the way for a more equitable and inclusive academic and research environment? Or, do the challenges seem too daunting? I invite you to share your experiences and insights on navigating these complexities in your fields.
Biography: Alemu Tesfaye MBA is Regional Programs Manager (Research, Communication, Knowledge Management and ICT (Information and Communications Technology)) at the Organization for Social Science Research in Eastern and Southern Africa (OSSREA), in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. His interests include communication, knowledge management and translation, and community engagement.
Dear Alemu,
Can the drive to decolonize knowledge production pave the way for a more equitable and inclusive academic and research environment?
With your permission, I would like to express a few thoughts.
To answer your question, it is necessary to clarify the definitions of what is hidden under the term “knowledge”. Authoritative dictionaries state that Knowledge is the result of the process of cognition of reality, which has or has not been confirmed in practice.
In our case, it is important to recognize that there is a distinction between ordinary and scientific knowledge.
Everyday or everyday knowledge is based on common sense and forms of everyday practical activity. Everyday knowledge serves as the basis for a person’s orientation in the world around him, the basis of his behavior and foresight.
Scientific knowledge differs from ordinary knowledge in its systematicity, validity and depth of insight into the essence of things and phenomena. Science combines disparate knowledge gained in everyday practice into coherent systems based on a set of basic principles, which reflect the essential connections and relationships of things – in scientific theories.
After we have remembered the definitions of “knowledge”, we can divide your general question into two questions.
(1). Is it possible to colonize scientific knowledge and the process of producing this knowledge?
Representations, concepts, judgments, theories and laws of science are objective or intersubjective (supported by most scientists). In science, it is important not only to confirm the objectivity of knowledge about the world around us, but also the ways in which this knowledge is obtained. Consequently, it is very difficult to colonize scientific knowledge and the process of obtaining it.
(2). Is it possible to colonize everyday or everyday knowledge?
Ordinary, or everyday, knowledge is not intended for deep insight into the essence of things and phenomena. The purpose of this knowledge is to demonstrate common sense and accompany everyday practical activities. If the colonialists managed to pervert the common sense of the daily practical activities of a particular people of a particular country, then this knowledge and the process of its production can be considered colonized. In this case, colonization looks like a substitution of the common sense of the daily practical activities of this people with the common sense of the practical activities of the colonizing people.
If I have understood this situation correctly, then we can only talk about the decolonization of everyday, or everyday, knowledge and the process of its production. I am sure that the way out of this situation is obvious. It is important, first of all, to restore the context of common sense of the daily practical activities of the colonized people. By the term “context” I mean the ancient wisdom of the deep people of a colonized country. I call the ancient wisdom a socio-cultural code that restricts the interpretation of the content and meanings of the needs, benefits, values and goals of this deep people. This wisdom or socio-cultural code determines the content of the worldview of the deep people, forms their culture, human attitude to themselves, to nature and society. Unfortunately, especially in the countries of the Global South, much of this wisdom was lost due to the policies of the colonialists. Simply put, the colonialists often simply destroyed the bearers of the wisdom of the deep people. Consequently, the solution to the problem of decolonization of colonized knowledge and the process of its production can be achieved not with the help of books and knowledge of the Global North, but with the restoration of common sense in the context of ancient wisdom in the minds of people.
If you are interested in the concept and methodology of restoring the content of the ancient wisdom of the deep people, then we can talk about it in another message. I hope my reasoning will be practically useful in achieving your goals.
Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed response to my blog post. I appreciate your engagement and the nuanced distinction you’ve drawn between scientific and everyday knowledge in the context of decolonization.
I agree that decolonizing knowledge production, especially everyday knowledge, is crucial in restoring the socio-cultural codes and ancient wisdom of colonized peoples. This approach not only reclaims the context of common sense but also enriches the academic and research environment by incorporating diverse perspectives and wisdom traditions.
Now when I come to your reasoning towards: “Is it possible to colonize scientific knowledge and the process of producing this knowledge?
Representations, concepts, judgments, theories and laws of science are objective or intersubjective (supported by most scientists). In science, it is important not only to confirm the objectivity of knowledge about the world around us, but also the ways in which this knowledge is obtained. Consequently, it is very difficult to colonize scientific knowledge and the process of obtaining it.”
Here is my view point:
1. Context of Coloniality
Coloniality refers to the enduring patterns of power, control, and domination established during colonialism that persist in contemporary social, economic, and cultural institutions. In the context of knowledge production, coloniality manifests as epistemic dominance, where Western ways of knowing and scientific practices are privileged over non-Western epistemologies.
2. Objectivity in Science
The statement posits that scientific knowledge is objective or intersubjective, supported by most scientists, and implies that this inherent objectivity makes it difficult to colonize scientific knowledge and its production. However, this view overlooks several critical points highlighted by decolonial theorists:
• Social Construction of Science: Scientific knowledge is not produced in a vacuum. It is influenced by the social, cultural, and historical contexts in which it is developed. As Sandra Harding (2016) argues in “Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?”, scientific practices and epistemologies are deeply embedded in specific social orders, which can carry the biases and power structures of those orders, including colonial ones.
• Eurocentrism in Science: Modern science has often been constructed and disseminated within a Eurocentric framework, marginalizing other forms of knowledge. For instance, Aníbal Quijano (2000) discusses the “coloniality of power,” which includes the imposition of Western scientific paradigms as universally applicable, thereby disregarding or devaluing Indigenous and non-Western knowledge systems.
• Epistemic Injustice: Miranda Fricker (2007) introduces the concept of epistemic injustice, which occurs when certain groups are unfairly excluded from participating in knowledge production. This exclusion often happens in scientific communities where the norms and practices reflect and reinforce the dominance of Western epistemologies, thereby colonizing the process of scientific knowledge production.
• Decolonial Science: Arturo Escobar (2007) in “Worlds and Knowledges Otherwise” argues for a decolonial approach to science that acknowledges and incorporates diverse epistemologies. This perspective challenges the purported objectivity and universality of Western science, emphasizing the need to decolonize scientific practices and methodologies to include marginalized voices and knowledge systems.
3. Intersubjectivity and Scientific Consensus
While the statement highlights that scientific knowledge is intersubjective and supported by most scientists, it fails to recognize that the consensus within scientific communities can be shaped by dominant cultural and intellectual traditions. This dominance can lead to the marginalization of alternative scientific paradigms and methodologies that do not conform to Western standards. Thomas Kuhn’s (1962) concept of “paradigm shifts” in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” illustrates how scientific consensus is not static and can be disrupted by new, often initially marginalized, ways of thinking.
4. Decolonizing Scientific Knowledge
Decolonizing scientific knowledge involves re-evaluating and transforming the ways in which knowledge is produced, validated, and disseminated. This process includes:
• Inclusion of Indigenous Epistemologies: Recognizing and valuing Indigenous knowledge systems and integrating them into scientific practices. For example, Indigenous environmental knowledge has been shown to provide valuable insights into sustainable practices and biodiversity conservation (Berkes, 2012).
• Participatory Research Methods: Employing methodologies that involve local communities as active participants in the research process. This approach ensures that the knowledge production process is inclusive and reflective of diverse perspectives (Smith, 1999).
• Critical Reflexivity: Encouraging scientists to critically reflect on their positionality, biases, and the broader socio-political contexts in which their research is situated. This reflexivity helps to uncover and address colonial legacies within scientific practices (Haraway, 1988).
Therefore, the assertion that it is difficult to colonize scientific knowledge and its production is problematic when viewed through the lens of coloniality and decolonial theories. Scientific knowledge is not immune to colonial influences; rather, it has often been a tool for perpetuating colonial power dynamics. Decolonizing science requires acknowledging these influences and actively working to create more inclusive, equitable, and contextually relevant knowledge systems. By doing so, we can move towards a more pluralistic and just scientific practice that values and incorporates diverse ways of knowing.
Hello Vmokiy. I think Alemu has offered a comprehensive answer to your assertion that “In science, it is important not only to confirm the objectivity of knowledge about the world around us, but also the ways in which this knowledge is obtained”. Your definition that you proffer is a very narrow view of what “science” is or can be . The idea that we can confirm the objectivity of knowledge has been questioned from people from many, many angles, as noted by Alemu. Indigenous scholars for their part provide very detailed accounts of how the idea of striving for objectivity in science is already a particular perspective, which holds that somehow we can get access to “the world around us” in an unmediated way. How can we ever decide that we have achieved this or even come close to achieving this? By suggesting that we must strive for objectivity we already exclude positions which argue that such striving is in vein (as we can never confirm that we have attained such knowledge).
Therefore Indigenous scholars emphasise the importance of the concept (and practice) of epistemological relationality. This goes beyond just scientists supposedly intersubjectively agreeing with one another (which often is not the case) and it calls for “scientists” (or what can be called professional researchers) to enter into dialogue not only with other “scientists” in various academic disciplines and across disciplines but also with communities in what you would call everyday life . This is the definition of transdisciplinary research. It means researchers ensure that they enter into relations with people who may have different approaches to knowing (and which indeed can also be called science if we define science as harboring context-based experiences and sharing of these over a long period by those inquiring and dialoguing in relation to different experiences). Even the word experience means something different in such a science – because it is recognised that the way we name experiences makes a difference to how we together create worlds-in-the-making, which are shaped by the way in which we perceive and indeed enact our various relationships, including with the more-than-human world. This is a point stressed by Indigenous authors – we cannot distance ourselves from a posited world supposedly “out there” n order to try to “know” it . We are always participants in world-making and the way we participate will make a difference to how outcomes unfolds. This is called a participatory onto-epistemology as, for example, discussed by Santos in his book called Epistemologies of the South and by Escobar too in his accounts of the implications of such an epistemology. (They also speak of cognitive justice to avoid Western definitions of science ruling the day and excluding other visions.)
Anyway, in short, your account of what science is, is exclusive of other definitions of what science involves. Cajete also provides a good account of why we can speak of ethnoscience as a specific contextually-based approach to science which requires community participation in defining how to proceed in our relationships with each other and with the more-than-human worlds. These are just some names that immediately spring to my mind. Chilisa is another author who makes this point in discussing an Indigenous paradigm for research and its relation to sustainability science . The rigid separation between the so-called realm of science and the realm where people not situated in academia develop their ways of knowing needs to be questioned – and this is what transdisciplinary knowing tries to achieve.
I hope that this entry of mine makes some sense to you (and perhaps to other audiences of this blog). I believe your entry has opened a discussion on what might be meant by the contested concept of “science”.
Thank you Alemu for all your thoughts on decolonising knowledge production and your suggested strategies towards this aim. I see that you mentioned that “decolonizing knowledge production entails dismantling the structures, biases, and power dynamics that have historically favored Western knowledge systems”. Yes the focus is on decolonising the way that “knowledge” becomes produced. Francis Akena Adyanga , in his (2012) article entitled “Critical analysis of the production of Western knowledge and its implications for Indigenous knowledge and decolonisation”, offers detail on how such knowledge becomes produced in such a way that “other” ways of knowing are inferiorised. The article is in the Journal of Black Studies, 43(6), 599-619. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0021934712440448.
On the question of the hybridisation of knowledge systems mentioned in some of the commentaries above, I think that we need to stress, as I think you are doing, not the content of the “knowledge” but the way of knowing. I am reading your piece as putting the focus on how Indigenous relational ways of knowing are what distinguish them from Western approaches to knowledge production. Hence you speak of the challenges inherent in decolonizing knowledge production, that is, the process of such production. I believe that you have offered feasible “strategies for progress” as you call them. They are feasible insofar as more people choose to enact them and are not daunted by the prospect of doing so!
Thank you for your thoughtful response and for highlighting Francis Akena Adyanga’s work, which indeed provides critical insights into the production of Western knowledge and its implications for Indigenous knowledge and decolonization. The emphasis on dismantling structures, biases, and power dynamics is crucial, as these elements have historically marginalized alternative ways of knowing.
I agree with your point about the hybridization of knowledge systems. It is essential to focus on the processes and methodologies of knowledge production rather than just the content. Indigenous relational ways of knowing, which prioritize community, interconnectedness, and holistic perspectives, offer a valuable contrast to the often fragmented and hierarchical nature of Western knowledge production.
Your encouragement to not be daunted by the challenges of enacting decolonizing strategies is inspiring. The collective effort to embrace and implement these strategies can significantly contribute to creating more inclusive, equitable, and contextually relevant knowledge systems. Thank you for your engagement and for adding depth to this important discussion.
Hello again Alemu. I find your point about the distinctiveness of “Indigenous relational ways of knowing, which prioritize community, interconnectedness, and holistic perspectives”, as offering “a valuable contrast to the often fragmented and hierarchical nature of Western knowledge production”‘ to be a useful distinction. This is what renders the knowing process inclusive, equitable, and context relevant, as you mention. This is why we do not need to speak of “indigenous” and “traditional” knowledge as such (as identified by Bruce below) but of Indigenous ways of knowing , which therefore means the content is never static. But the principle of seeking relational and inclusive ways of knowing remains. This means that we do not speak of “indigenous” and “traditional” knowledges as though they are pure state entities (as mentioned by Bruce) – but we can still use the term Indigenous and even traditional wisdom (many Indigenous authors speak in these terms ) as incorporating an approach to processes of knowing.
Bruce, when we speak this way we do not Other Indigenous approaches by placing them lower on a knowledge hierarchy (as in a colonial mentality) but we call for a de-centre-ing of Western modes of knowledge production, which is the point made by Francis Adyanga to which Alemu also refers above. Yes Bruce, as Alemu points out, we need to be on the lookout for colonial logics embedded within the terminology and frameworks used in decolonization efforts so as to enable ensuring genuine inclusivity and equity. This means ensuring that the modes of knowing which prioritise community, interconnectedness, holistic, and contextually relevant knowing are credentialised rather than denigrated: We can still connect the valuing of these ways of knowing with Indigenous and even traditional ways of knowing , as long as the speakers are aware that we are not speaking about static knowledge content, but about knowing as a relational process as forwarded by many Indigenous sages and scholars (and those who support them).
I find this to be a very interesting discussion as initiated by you, Alemu, and also as cautioned by Bruce when he reminds us not to reify knowledge content and even cultural heritages, but to draw out what we consider valuable in terms of the principles.
These are my thoughts!
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I completely agree with your points about the importance of emphasizing Indigenous ways of knowing as relational and inclusive processes. It’s essential to avoid static representations and instead focus on the dynamic and evolving nature of these knowledge systems. This approach aligns with the need to decenter Western knowledge production and ensures genuine inclusivity and equity. Your reflections, along with Bruce’s cautions, provide valuable insights for our ongoing discussions on decolonizing knowledge. I appreciate your engagement and look forward to continuing this meaningful conversation.
Hi Alemu. You state very well your thoughts in engagement with others on this site. I am learning a lot by seeing how you respond! By the way, yesterday I was attending a session at the International Society for the Systems Sciences 68th annual conference, and the person (Tomas Wong) identified his approach as Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). So he expressly used the term “traditional” to preface the phrase Chinese Medicine. By using this term he was signaling that the basic principles of such an approach were formulated a long time ago in ancient times. And I think that is why many Indigenous scholars from colonised geographical regions also do not shy away from using this terminology (while also endorsing the onto-epistemology of an Indigenous research paradigm).
Thank you for your kind words, and I believe that continuing the discussion around these topics is essential.
Thank you for your reply!
In my opinion, you have provided convincing arguments to defend your point of view!
Perhaps I have overly generalized and simplified the idea of science and the problematic nature of its colonization.
Note how this problem is described in the UNESCO Science Report: towards 2030 – Executive Summary (UNESCO 2015) https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/unesco-science-report-towards-2030-ex-sum-en.pdf
“Many dilemmas appear increasingly common to a wide range of countries, such as that of trying to find a balance between local and international engagement in research, or between basic and applied science, the generation of new knowledge and marketable knowledge, or public good science versus science to drive commerce” (Luc Soete, Susan Schneegans, Deniz Eröcal, Baskaran Angathevar and Rajah Rasiah).
In such a structure of perception of science and scientific research, it is possible to colonize only:
– results of local scientific research with international participation;
– the process of producing knowledge that is in demand in the market;
– science as the driving force of commercial activity.
I agree that in this case, decolonization will be facilitated by “more inclusive, equitable and contextually relevant systemic knowledge.”
However, it is problematic to colonize science in the interests of the public good, as well as fundamental and applied research. They can only be “colonized” by ignorance or lack of information about the world around them. In this case, “decolonization” is unlikely to be helped by “a more pluralistic and fair scientific practice that values and includes diverse ways of knowing.” “Decolonization” will be associated with a new paradigm that makes a breakthrough in conceptual and methodological possibilities in understanding the world.
Hopefully, within the framework of such an argument, we will come to full agreement in describing the colonization and decolonization of science, scientific knowledge and ways of producing it, and we will also be able to develop the most effective ways to decolonize knowledge and the process of its production.
Thank you for your thoughtful response! I’m glad you found my arguments convincing. I appreciate you sharing the UNESCO Science Report, which highlights the critical dilemmas in balancing local and international research, market-driven science, and public good science. As you rightly stated, embracing a pluralistic and fair scientific practice that values diverse ways of knowing can enrich our understanding and drive meaningful decolonization. I look forward to furthering our discussions on effective strategies for decolonizing knowledge production.
Thank you Norma for your comment, and apologies for my slow reply.
There are two things that originally started my thinking in regard to “othering” being a matter needing consideration. One was First Nations friends in Australia asking me to not use the term “indigenous” because they saw it as a corralling term coined and owned by white people. They asked me to instead use “First Nations”, which they saw as a term that they had ownership over. I wondered if their concerns were universal, and a web search brought me to the “What term is best to use?” section on the AIATSIS website “Australia’s First People’s” page https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/australias-first-peoples This also advises that “First Nations” is the preferred term. So, out of respect for the perspectives of both my First Nations friends and the wider community of First Nations, that’s the term I’ve used in an Australian context ever since, to the greatest extent possible.
The other thing that first stimulated my thinking about “othering” is university colleagues here in China questioning my use of the term “traditional Chinese medicine”. They advised me that there’s no such thing in China, only “中药” (Zhong Yao) which translates simply as “Chinese medicine”, and that the “othering” was instead reflected in the term “Western medicine.” So, again out of respect for the perspectives of my Chinese colleagues, I have used the term “Chinese medicine” to the greatest extent ever since not only in a Chinese context, but more widely. I have also started to used the term “intrinsic knowledge” to describe the continued use of premodern Chinese knowledge in China, rather than “indigenous” or “traditional” which, because of their othering and its direction, don’t fit this Chinese context. I note your comments about Tomas Wong identifying his approach as Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) in a session at the International Society for the Systems Sciences 68th annual conference, but I would suggest that this is most likely because he felt the need to reflect the terminology used in the conference’s North American location. However, in the wake of the pandemic, it’s very pleasing to see Chinese academics and students, including my own colleagues and students, increasingly rejecting the western hegemony in favour of asserting the need for their own terminologies to be used (and, related to a range of issues including this, I’ve started to argue that hegemonic injustice needs to be considered an aspect of epistemic justice).
Similarly, in a recent discussion on the terminology topic with colleagues from the Knowledge Management for Development (KM4Dev) community, an academic / practitioner from Argentina stated: “As per the terminology, in Abya Yala, the continent called Latin America since the French attempt to recolonize it after the Spanish, in the last decades there has been a switch from “native” to “originarios” to refer to local traditional/before colonization people and knowledges. “Pueblos originarios” would be our “First Nations” version and it is now the preferred denomination when referring to the original owners of the land.”
“Indigenous” and “traditional” might be useful catch-all terms for researchers who are working in a global or wide context, but they can be very inappropriate in local or regional contexts. If we don’t respect these local and regional contexts by at least acknowledging the limitations of the indigenous/traditional terminology, then we can be engaging in unintentional top-down othering, and indeed, coloniality.
In regard to the knowledge itself rather than the terminology, I agree that the fluid and complex nature of knowledge (as well as the need for epistemic justice) means that indigenous/traditional ways of knowing needs a much greater emphasis. However, the primary focus of both government policy and government research bodies is on the knowledge rather than (or to some degree with) ways of knowing. Examples include the White House Indigenous Knowledge Guidance for Federal Agencies https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/OSTP-CEQ-IK-Guidance.pdf and CSIRO’s Our Knowledge, Our Way guidelines https://www.csiro.au/en/research/indigenous-science/Indigenous-knowledge/Our-Knowledge-Our-Way This is because, if as in the Australian context we can disentangle genuine First Nations knowledge from the later colonial influences, the knowledge itself has great value in decision-making. It means that we *do* need to keep speaking of “indigenous” and “traditional” knowledge as such, alongside raising the profile of ways of knowing.
Further, I would consider that this needs to apply not just to what researchers call indigenous/traditional knowledge, but also to other knowledges in a multiple knowledges approach. I discuss the importance of a multiple knowledges approach in https://realkm.com/2024/06/04/why-the-un-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs-will-fail-without-a-multiple-knowledges-approach/
Hello Bruce
Thanks for this elaborate account with examples of the terminology that people may prefer to use. I found all your examples very important and worth attending to so as to use appropriate terminology in different contexts.
I hail from South Africa and the communities with whom I am engaged in Venda prefer to use the word Indigenous to refer to the Indigenous knowledge, ways of knowing and ways of life shared and discussed through intergenerational learning encounters in the community. They use the term to express what they feel has been threatened by past as well as current forms of colonization and which require to be resuscitated (in some form) as a resistance to colonization.
Mphatheleni Makaulule who founded the organization in 2007 called Dzomo La Mupo does not shy from using this term to indicate that Indigenous values and ways of knowing need to be revived. She is very well known in communities in South Africa and elsewhere, and also has worked with Indigenous communities (as she names them) in the Amazon. She speaks for example of the “indigenous skills of traditional agriculture which support agro-ecological farming”. See, for example also her write up of her various involvements: https://www.thedzomolamupo.org/who-we-are/. She explains that besides her founding Dzomo La Mupo to help revive Indigenous knowledge, know-how and ecologically attuned ways of living, as a non-executive Director of Wild Law Institute, she represents what she calls ”the indigenous voice and the activists representing community voices on the mission of the Rights of Mother Earth”.
Bagele Chilisa is another author widely appreciated in Africa as elsewhere for her account of what she calls a postcolonial Indigenous research paradigm. In her summary of this paradigm in a chapter in a book on mixed methodology (2024) and also expressed in her book on Indigenous research methodology (2020) she states that:
Relational ontology, epistemology and axiology emphasizes connectedness and relationality as Indigenous systems thinking that promotes interaction of knowledge production structures and the importance of building relationships with and among participants and with the environment … .
Also a Native American person with whom I am familiar is La Donna Harris who founded the organization called Americans for Indian Opportunity (AIO) in 1970 (and who is also very well known in certain Indigenous circles). She uses the term Indigeneity to talk about what Indigenous people can contribute to global discourse in the face of rapid and unchecked globalization marked by Profit and Power instead of by Indigenous values. See this site: https://aio.org/background/. And also this article of hers with a co-author: https://www.humiliationstudies.org/documents/WasilewskiIndigeneity.pdf .She furthermore is involved with an organization called Advancement of Global Indigeneity – AGI).
These are just some examples that spring to my mind – but I don’t think you are suggesting that as a general rule we must do away with the terminology of Indigenous or tradition, as long as we recognize that Indigeneity and tradition are in in any case never static but are evolving in relation to new discussions and new social and ecological conditions. I appreciate that the examples you offer are nice ways in which “original” peoples have decided to take ownership of their ways of defining themselves. But many communities still feel that the term Indigenous describes what they are seeking in terms of reviving their ways of knowing and being-in-the-world as a kind of resistance to continued forms of colonization.
By the way, Tomas Wong has been using the term Traditional Chinese Medicine in conferences in all parts of the globe for a long time – but yes it may have also suited the Washington audience. I think with terminology we need to be aware also of what the author is trying to express. In my next encounter with him I will ask him why he prefaces Chinese Medicine with the word “traditional”. But his approach is also against capitalist ways of thinking and he uses the example of what he calls Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) to offer a way into criticising the narrow (non-systemic) view of economics by arguing that TCM is more systemic.
These are my thoughts for now!
But I very much valued all the points you made! I intend reading in depth the good example you supplied in regard to a multiple knowledge approach at : https://realkm.com/2024/06/04/why-the-un-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs-will-fail-without-a-multiple-knowledges-approach/
So far from my brief skimming of it, I can see that it is an important text to read!
Norma
Thank you, Bruce and Norma, for your thoughtful contributions to this enriching discussion. Bruce, you emphasized the importance of being mindful of cultural and regional preferences when selecting terminology to avoid unintentional hierarchies and honor the self-identification of communities. Norma, your insights into the South African context and the examples from various Indigenous communities underscore the necessity of context-specific terminology. The conversation around decolonizing terminology is vital as it influences our understanding and engagement with diverse knowledge systems. By recognizing the fluidity and adaptability of these terms, along with local preferences, we can foster more inclusive and equitable knowledge production practices. I am eager to continue this insightful dialogue and delve deeper into the multiple knowledges approaches highlighted in your references.
Thank you Norma for your further reply.
My African colleagues have also advised that “indigenous” is a preferred term in Africa and in an African context, in both research and practice, but unfortunately many of them have also assumed the universality of that term when they haven’t actually considered if this is really the case. I’m not suggesting that we should completely do away with the terms “indigenous” or “traditional” at this point, rather that there needs to be a recognition that both terms are contextual and so not universal. However, I think that both terms will be used less and less over time as the Global South becomes increasingly empowered. Both terms are English language words, with the dominance of the English language in research and academic publishing an increasingly recognised bias, while at the same time, local and regional communities are increasingly using or even creating their own terms. Further examples in addition to those I’ve already given previously include Mātauranga Māori in Aotearoa New Zealand https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03036758.2016.1252407 and the four African philosophies discussed in an article here on the i2insights blog by Truphena Mukuna https://i2insights.org/2024/07/16/afro-centric-research-philosophies/
In regard to indigeneity, we’ve included reference to this in the Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) feature of the sixth generation of knowledge management for sustainable development, which has the identifying concept of the “decolonization of knowledge” https://realkm.com/2023/05/29/we-have-a-dream-proposing-decolonization-of-knowledge-as-a-sixth-generation-of-knowledge-management-for-sustainable-development/ But it needs to be recognised that, just like indigenous, the term indigeneity is contextual and not universal, despite some apparent assumptions in this regard.
Turning to the discussion of Chinese medicine, part of my work at Shanxi University (northern China) involved helping senior academics from universities and public agencies in the province to prepare for their time overseas as visiting experts. A couple of these experts were from Shanxi University of Chinese Medicine https://www.sxtcm.edu.cn/ and it was they who first made me aware of the “traditional” terminology issue. Their university had previously been called the Shanxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine but changed its name to Shanxi University of Chinese Medicine to remove the “othering” from western medicine. Other Chinese medicine universities have made similar changes, but not yet all of them. The “traditional Chinese medicine” terminology is unfortunately quite insidious. For example, if I search Google Maps for “Chinese medicine” in this city (Baotou, Inner Mongolia, China), the search results are numerous “traditional Chinese medicine clinics” https://www.google.com.au/maps/search/chinese+medicine+near+Baotou,+Inner+Mongolia,+China/@40.6537977,109.7996636,14z?entry=ttu
However, there is absolutely no character in the names of any of those clinics equating to the English word “traditional.” There is only 中医 (Zhong Yi), which means “Chinese medicine.” 中药 (Zhong Yao), which I referenced in my earlier comment above, means “Chinese medicine” in a general sense, whereas 中医 (Zhong Yi) in the context of these clinics means “Chinese medicine as it relates to Chinese medicine doctors.” It is the western-centric Google that is inappropriately misrepresenting these Chinese medicine clinics as traditional Chinese medicine clinics.
Something I recently read in relation to another topic is also usefully relevant advice in regard to these terminology issues. In the conclusion to their book on open access academic publishing, which I’ve been progressively summarising in RealKM Magazine, editors Martin Paul Eve and Jonathan Gray lament how the universality of a European open access initiative has been assumed when the global leadership on open access has actually come from South America and other Global South regions. They state that the European initiative “…has insufficiently contextualized its own creation and implementation, say in the light of South American initiatives. In other words, understandings drawn from a diverse set of geographic locations and histories are important…” https://realkm.com/2024/08/12/open-access-to-scholarly-knowledge-in-the-digital-era-conclusion/ These understandings can be gained through multiple knowledges and multi-stakeholder processes, as discussed in (1) https://realkm.com/2024/07/17/why-the-un-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs-will-fail-without-a-multiple-knowledges-approach/ and (2) https://realkm.com/2018/10/11/moving-towards-a-fifth-generation-of-km4d/
Thanks Bruce, I have spotted your reply as Gabriele alerted me to it. All these discussions about terminology and the non-universality of terms used in different contexts are important . Terms used are evolving too, as people come to discuss the implications of using them. I have read the piece on multiple knowledge approaches that you cited as one of your references; and I especially liked the idea that trying to address what are defined as wicked problems requires that we use our imaginative thinking as part of the process of knowing together. Thanks for all the careful thoughts. Norma
Thank you Alemu for your very valuable post. In 2019, I first started taking up the key challenges you identify (https://realkm.com/2019/12/13/new-initiatives-begin-decolonising-research-libraries-and-knowledge-systems-but-what-about-decolonising-km/), and then last year, we launched the decolonization of knowledge as a new sixth generation of knowledge management for sustainable development (https://realkm.com/2023/05/29/we-have-a-dream-proposing-decolonization-of-knowledge-as-a-sixth-generation-of-knowledge-management-for-sustainable-development/). The sixth generation builds on the elements of the five previous generations to advance the practice-related strategies for progress that you list. There are also potential benefits also for the other strategies you list related to research, through the pathway of the Knowledge Management for Development Journal, the academic journal of the Knowledge Management for Development (KM4Dev) community. Decolonization will also be an integral aspect of the new fourth edition of the Agenda Knowledge for Development, which is currently being prepared (https://k4dp.org/agenda/). We are asking the UN to adopt the Knowledge Development Goals of the Agenda Knowledge for Development as one of the primary outcomes of our current knowledge management (KM) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) campaign (https://realkm.com/knowledge-management-km-and-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs-campaign/).
However, I contend that we will have only limited success in these endeavors unless, and I must alert that what I’m going to write is controversial and potentially confronting, we decolonize decolonization. There are two aspects to this.
Firstly, at present, the decolonization of knowledge movement is advocating for and encouraging the greater use of “indigenous” and “traditional” knowledge, but these terms and the knowledges they describe actually sit below western knowledge and knowledge systems in persistent colonial “othering” hierarchies. If we are to advance decolonization, then decolonization must itself be decolonized to remove its embedded “othering” colonial logics. As Ibtisam Abujad writes in the editorial of the most recent edition of Decolonial Subversions journal (http://decolonialsubversions.org/docs/pdfs/2023/Main/Abujad.pdf):
“Culture as thing, reified as property and not as process, creates divides between a modern, knowing peoples and an Other who is traditional, backward, and savage … Culture, in other words, was exclusive and produced a hierarchy of supremacy/degradation or superiority/inferiority … thinking Other-wise begins with the act of unmasking—uncovering how colonial logics become classificatory and ordering.”
As an example of what the end result of thinking Other-wise might look like, here in China, much of which was never successfully colonized, the colonial superiority logic “othering” term “traditional Chinese medicine” doesn’t exist. There’s 中药 (Zhong Yao) which translates simply as “Chinese medicine”, but with no colonial logic “othering” qualifiers such as “indigenous” or “traditional” added because this medicine and its practices are seen as intrinsically Chinese by Chinese people. Rather, in China, the “othering” qualifiers can be seen in terms such as “western medicine.”
Secondly, “indigenous” and “traditional” knowledges are discussed as though they are pure state entities, when the extent of knowledge system disruption from colonial dispossession means that, to some extent at least, what are being referred to as “indigenous” and “traditional” knowledge are actually hybridized forms of knowledge. In some areas, for example large parts of Eastern Australia, the knowledge system disruption has been so extreme that “indigenous” knowledge is in reality highly hybridized with western knowledge. This raises some difficult questions that must be explored if decolonization is to be fully achieved. Should we really be using terms such as “indigenous knowledge” or “traditional knowledge” to describe hybridized western-indigenous knowledge, and who decides? For example, if these terms are used imprecisely or too broadly, then there is the risk that the decolonization project will attract cynicism or even opposition, but on the other hand, shouldn’t “indigenous knowledge” holders be able to rightfully still see their knowledge as “indigenous” even if it has hybridized?
I would be interested in your thoughts on these two issues.
Thank you for sharing your thoughtful insights and engaging with the complexities of decolonizing knowledge production. Your experience and initiatives in advancing the decolonization agenda through knowledge management for sustainable development are commendable and inspiring.
Your point about the need to decolonize decolonization itself is thought-provoking and brings attention to important nuances within the movement. The recognition of colonial logics embedded within the terminology and frameworks used in decolonization efforts is crucial for ensuring genuine inclusivity and equity. Your example from China illustrates the significance of language and framing in shaping perceptions and hierarchies within knowledge systems.
Additionally, your discussion on the hybrid nature of “indigenous” and “traditional” knowledge highlights the complexity of decolonization in contexts where knowledge systems have been disrupted by colonial dispossession. The recognition of hybridized knowledge forms raises important questions about terminology, identity, and ownership, which are essential considerations in decolonization efforts.
Addressing these issues requires ongoing dialogue, critical reflection, and a commitment to centering marginalized voices and perspectives. By engaging in these conversations and challenging colonial logics, we can work towards more inclusive and equitable approaches to knowledge production and decolonization.
Thank you and I look forward to continued dialogue and collaboration in advancing decolonization efforts.
Thank you Alemu for your reply, and apologies for my slow response.
The different perspectives put forward in the comments and replies on your article show that, in advancing the decolonization of knowledge, we need to be able to put ourselves and our approaches under the same lens that we’re putting coloniality, or we could just end up replacing once set of unfair structures with another. This suggests the need for more action research in decolonization research.
As part of continuing contributions to related discussions in the knowledge management (KM) community, I look forward to republishing both this article and your new article “Why scientific knowledge needs to be decolonised” in RealKM Magazine in the near future.
Thank you for your thoughtful response and for engaging with the discussion.
You raise an important point about the necessity of self-reflection in the process of decolonizing knowledge. It is indeed crucial to scrutinize our own approaches and methodologies to ensure that we do not inadvertently replace one set of unfair structures with another. This underscores the value of action research in decolonization efforts, as it allows for iterative reflection and adaptation.
I appreciate your intention to republish both this article and my new article “Why scientific knowledge needs to be decolonised” in RealKM Magazine. It is through such continued dialogue and dissemination that we can collectively advance our understanding and practices in knowledge management.
Thank you once again for your engagement and support.
Thank you Alemu for your further replies. It’s a pleasure to have now republished this article in RealKM Magazine, and I look forward to shortly republishing the second.
This is a topic that has lurked at the back of my mind during my 60+ years of engaging with knowledge systems around the world. I see that part of your interest and skill set is translation. My experience has been that those who forge language bridges have much to contribute to the decolonisation of knowledge through the development of pathways for those less able to interact with alternative systems to the one they have been schooled. I believe there is a will to engage with alternatives but very little understanding of how to do it. Tyson Yunkaporta gives us a great model to adopt in Australia.
Editor’s addition: see https://experts.deakin.edu.au/45373-tyson-yunkaporta.
Bruce particularly recommends:
Yunkaporta, Tyson (2019). Sand talk: how indigenous thinking can save the world. Deakin University. Book. https://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30130138
Thank you for sharing your insightful perspective and experiences on engaging with knowledge systems over the years. Your reflections on the importance of language bridges and pathways for accessing alternative knowledge systems resonate deeply with the challenges inherent in decolonizing knowledge production.
I wholeheartedly agree that knowledge translators and language facilitators play a crucial role in bridging gaps between different knowledge systems and making alternative perspectives accessible to a broader audience. By facilitating communication and understanding across diverse linguistic and cultural contexts, they contribute to the democratization of knowledge and empower individuals to engage with alternative ways of knowing.
I appreciate your recommendation of Tyson Yunkaporta’s work and his book “Sand Talk: How Indigenous Thinking Can Save the World.” I will read it.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this important topic. You gave me a lot to think about! I look forward to ongoing discussion on this topic.
You’re very welcome! I’m glad to hear that you found the discussion thought-provoking, and I appreciate your engagement with this important topic. Continuing the conversation on decolonizing knowledge production is crucial for fostering understanding, promoting inclusivity, and advancing meaningful change in academic and research communities.