By Chels Marshall, Rosalie Chapple and Joanne Wilson
2. Rosalie Chapple (biography)
3. Joanne Wilson (biography)
What is Indigenous science? How can it be properly recognised? How can we overcome current practices where Indigenous knowledge-holders are generally not regarded as experts, their knowledge is not used as evidence or in decision-making, and non-Indigenous people think Indigenous knowledge needs to be ‘validated’ by Western science?
Lack of recognition of Indigenous data sovereignty raises concerns about the conduct of research – by and for whom? Indigenous cultural knowledge is often used without permission or proper protocols, and is used and appropriated under Western science.
What does successfully honouring Indigenous knowledge look like?
“Our culture is the science.”
“All partners contribute a thread that builds a bigger picture – weaving a mat based on cultural heritage management that we can all sit on together.”
- The term ‘Indigenous science’ being used to recognise cultural ways of observing, testing and producing evidence.
- The evidence produced through cultural knowledge would be respected for its own integrity and principles in how it observes, respects and learns from nature. It would be recognised that Indigenous spirituality, interconnectedness, relatedness to environmental processes, and relationships and practices in nature and culture create a holistic knowledge embedded in culture and Country (see glossary below).
- Indigenous knowledge and science would be recognised as equal status to Western science.
- Right-way science principles would be applied where Indigenous knowledge and conservation science are appropriately woven with Western science based on free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC).
- Sovereignty is recognised, with Indigenous knowledge and data protected, respected and cared for through Indigenous cultural and intellectual property (ICIP) agreements.
- Co-production of knowledge systems together, such as co-design of collaborative decision-support tools.
- Indigenous-led and Indigenous-controlled – further shared practice is needed to understand what this looks like.
What are the challenges?
“Need to guard against researchers becoming the expert because they have the data.”
- Western scientists need to partner with traditional owners and custodians (see glossary below) in scientific data collection, data usage and data translation. This involvement of traditional owners and custodians shifts the power away from Western scientists, to be shared.
- Indigenous people confront difficulties in protecting their intellectual property while Indigenous knowledge is not recognised as a science equal in status to Western science.
- Indigenous knowledge, cultural landscapes and culturally important species and ecosystems are not being recognised or respected.
What needs to change?
“Trusting in 60,000 years of knowledge is a risk that Western science needs to take.”
- Western scientists don’t always ask if they can work on Country or if they are welcome on Country, and that must change.
- Scientists need to not only respect Indigenous owners’ and custodians’ rights and knowledge and ask permission to conduct research on Country, but also to evolve their approach to the co-design and co-delivery of research.
- Benefit-sharing is critical – scientists should ask how this can be achieved. Traditional owners and custodians should be given access to research data when researchers do research on Country. Researchers need to involve traditional owners and custodians in scientific data collection, data usage and data translation – this shifts the power.
- Results of Western scientific studies need to be shared with traditional owners and custodians in a timely and understandable way.
- Equity in approaches towards two knowledge systems – how can Indigenous science be recognised as a branch of science on its own and to be of equal status to Western science? It is time for a paradigm shift in science, time for another scientific revolution that involves a fundamental change in society’s world views and attitudes towards nature, that constitutes a shift in how we relate to the natural world. Re-asserting the legitimacy of the cultural evidence system requires removing misconceptions that there can only be one standard of production of scientific evidence.
- Indigenous people need access to affordable legal advice when negotiating agreements.
- Indigenous people need to be fairly remunerated for their participation in projects and for their knowledge.
Conclusion
Our experience with the issues discussed in this i2Insights contribution has arisen in the Australian conservation context. How does this gel with experience in other countries and research contexts? Do you have success stories and lessons to share?
To find out more:
Chapple, R., Wilson, J., McCreedy, E., Archer, R., Gore-Birch, C., Hunter, B., Davey, K., Malcolm, L, Cochrane, P., and Humann, D. (2023). Reimagining Conservation: Working Together for Healthy Country. Report of 3-day Reimagining Conservation Forum, Meanjin / Brisbane, November 2022, produced by the North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance, Australian Committee for IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), and the Protected Areas Collaboration. (Online): https://www.aciucn.org.au/reimagining-conservation-forum
Much of the text is taken verbatim from a chapter in this report.
In the Australian context, the AIATSIS (Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies) Code of Ethics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research sets national standards for the ethical and responsible conduct of all research undertaken by, with and about Indigenous people. It is for use by those undertaking research, reviewing research or funding research, including individuals, universities, governments, industry and community organisations. (Online): https://aiatsis.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-10/aiatsis-code-ethics.pdf (PDF 608KB).
Reference:
Australia State of the Environment. (2021). “Indigenous” chapter, (Australian Government). (Online): https://soe.dcceew.gov.au/indigenous/introduction
Biography: Chels Marshall PhD is a cultural systems ecologist belonging to Gumbaynggirr Jagun from the Baga Baga/Ngambaa clan (Northern New South Wales, Australia). She is a senior research fellow in the Indigenous Knowledges Systems Lab of the National Indigenous Knowledges Education Research Innovation (NIKERI) Institute at Deakin University in Melbourne, Australia. She implements cultural ecological knowledge and First Nations science frameworks to creating virtual and physical environments for sharing knowledge through art, science and Indigenous metaphysics.
Biography: Rosalie Chapple PhD is a senior research fellow in the TD School, University of Technology Sydney, Australia. She is an animal ecologist, with a focus on protected areas and wildlife, and is inspired to work with Indigenous peoples in reimagining protected areas and other conservation measures, so they are more effective, inclusive and equitable. Her research engages with the conundrum of the overlapping boundaries between animals seen as pest, pet or wild, and with socio-politically contentious issues such as bushfires, feral animals, dingoes, wild horses and (currently) Indian street dogs.
Biography: Joanne Wilson PhD works for the New South Wales Environmental Protection Authority in Port Macquarie, Australia and is a member of the Board of the Australian Committee of the International Union for Conservation of Nature. Over her 30-year career she has worked in diverse roles across governments, industry and non-government organisations often at the nexus of environmental science, management, policy and community engagement. She has worked in diverse cultural settings and currently works with Aboriginal people and communities to bring cultural values, perspectives and knowledges to environmental protection.
Yuma from Ngunnawal country! This is an area of interest of mine so thank you for providing some dot points for me to share with colleagues. I agree with a lot what has been stated, however, within the policy space – there seems to be very little commitment to providing the much needed funding to support these processes. Yes, we recognise the need and importance of more Indigenous input, but it seems really hard to be able to make it happen.
Thanks for posting Louise. And yes – it’s a slow process of change….
HI ALL. You all are engaging vital concerns across cultures, world views, and human dignity issues. Thanks for your good works. Integrating and reconciling ontological, epistemological, and axiological grounding amongst very different peoples has always been a challenge. Your efforts are showing us the way. Maybe our upcoming book on Human Dignity: Problem Solving for Citizens and Leaders from Springer might be of interest. Carry on! Susan Clark, Yale University
Thank you Susan! I look forward to the book – is it available online yet?
I appreciate this article for its clarity and clear advice to non-Indigenous scientists.
Coming from a very western science focussed environmental sciences school, I know how little most non-Indigenous scientists know about the depth and sophisticated nature of Indigenous sciences, or, importantly, how to approach First Nations peoples and places respectfully during research projects. At the school where I am just finishing a phd program, we had to develop a working on country protocol to help guide non-Indigenous scientists in working with mob. Sadly it hasn’t gone as we’d hoped because the head of school decided we were trying to compel people to use it. Which sends a less than positive message to those interested in doing better science, in better ways. Ironically the protocol has been widely adopted, with positive effects, to guide others outside the school to build meaningful and respectful working relationships with First Nations people and organizations.
As a First Nation scientist trained in both Indigenous and western sciences, i know for sure that Indigenous sciences offer much more than data for non-Indigenous scientists to prop up their own research agendas. And that First Nations groups are absolutely science-based. How do you survive for many 10s of thousands of years without science?
Science is essentially the scientific basis (observation, experimentation, seeking to understand systems and patterns over time and space…) plus cultural values. It is the values and beliefs overlaying the scientific basis that leads to different types of science being practiced. Western science is, among other things, fundamentally human centred and extractive. Indigenous sciences are fundamentally country-centred and relational. The difference is stark, and consequential.
The impact of 236 years of human centred extractive science in the place now called australia has wrecked havoc on every aspect of ‘the environment’ that can be named. And this is without considering the attendant socio-cultural problems that come with human centred extractive priorities. Over many 10s of thousands of years, First Nations sciences supported and encouraged relatively stable and healthy countries where all entities, human and more-than-human, could live and enjoy all that country holds and offers.
In southeast asia, western science has created similar environmental problems by supporting imperial and colonial priorities and practices. The Indigenous sciences there have been flattened, homogenized and reduced to the ‘folk practices’ of those outside cities and the (western-based) education system. Yet before imperialism and colonization, these sciences were highly regarded by the ruling elite and intellectuals, as well as farmers, fishers, textile makers and others. In Thailand for example, the english translation for these sciences has become ‘local wisdom’, yet the word translated as wisdom also means intellect.
As the authors of this article note, trusting in 60,000 years of knowledge is a risk that Western science needs to take. After all, Indigenous sciences could hardly produce worse outcomes for water, soil, animals, the air, plants or landforms than the hegemonic scientific system currently generates.
Thanks for your response Kate. I heard you speak at the AIATSIS summit in Perth last year and I’m glad our article seemed to hit the mark.
Hello Kate . Yes we must consider the outcomes of Western science (based on a human-centred and extractive approach to nature), which has resulted in the disasters for water, soil, plants, and landforms that we see today. Indigenous science practised for many 10s of thousands of years was organised through a co-operative relationship with nature (of which people felt/feel a part and not apart). As you say, the science involves observation, experimentation, seeking to understand systems and patterns over time and space… while also incorporating cultural values that lead to the eco-friendly types of science being practiced. I liked your summary that Indigenous sciences are fundamentally country-centred and relational. And it is important to name this as indeed science so as to avoid hegemonic (Western) conceptions of what science means.
I found your suggestions very well expressed in regarding to conceiving Indigenous science as a branch of science. Bagele Chilisa (from Botswana) makes a similar point in her writings. Her Google scholar site is: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=zQAGonEAAAAJ&hl=en
Her article on decolonising transdisciplinary approaches in sustainability science (2017) resonates with the approach you are suggesting (via your excellent practical suggestions). And in some of her other writings she suggests that instead of just speaking of Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) we should explicitly name these as a scientific approach. Other authors (e.g., Native American Gregory Cajete) in his book on Native Science also makes the point that Indigenous science offers a way of understanding, experiencing, and feeling the natural world. He calls this ethnoscience in some of this writings.
By the way, not all non-Indigenous people as you call them “think Indigenous knowledge needs to be ‘validated’ by Western science”. Indeed many people schooled in Western educational institutions do adopt this stance. But some of us (I put myself under this category by calling myself Indigenous-oriented) try to subvert this idea. A community-engaged project in which I am involved in South Africa (Venda) is developing networks of relationships where we recognise that expertise comes from many sources and where we all try to learn from one another, also in relation to a responsiveness to the voice of nature (of which we are a part). The organisation called Dzomo la Mupo founded by Mphatheleni Makaulule in 2007 has strong links with the University of Venda (through a long-established relationship with Vho Vhonani Netshandama), with the aim to encourage intergenerational knowing together, while being responsive to all creative life forces.
In short I found all your suggestions that you offered in your many bullet points for weaving knowledge systems (and ways of knowing) to be very pertinent; and in this comment I am taking up your call for commentary to express ideas from other geographical locations.
Norma Romm
Dear Norma, thank you so much for your thoughtful response. Yes you are right, not all non-Indigenous people think Indigenous knowledge needs to be validated by western science – Jo and I clearly included! This statement is an example of the report being written as closely as possible to ‘what was heard’ at the forum without editorial edits. Thank you also for your notes on other writings in this space. Best wishes, Rosalie