A Methodology for the Utilization OfIndigenous Knowledge

7/27/2019 A Methodology for the Utilization OfIndigenous Knowledge

1/4

Introducing MIKS:A Methodology for the Utilization of

Indigenous Knowledge

Lars Christian Smith

(CERAM, CSE, France)

Abstrak

Bertolak dari pengalamannya sebagai konsultan manajemen, penulis mengajukan argumentasibahwa pendekatan terhadap pengetahuan lokal seharusnya mengikuti pendekatan yang dipakai

seorang konsul tan terhadap pengetahuan lokal yang ada pada sebuah organisasi bisnis. Penulis

melihat organisasi bisnis sebagai klien sekaligus majikan, dan mempermasalahkan bagaimanakonsultan melayani majikan dengan cara membantu mereka memanfaatkan pengetahuan merekasendiri. Untuk itu ia mengajukan Methodology for the Utilization of Indigenous Knowledge Sys-tems (MIKS). MIKS mempergunakan pengetahuan klien untuk membantunya mencapai tujuan-tujuan khusus, merancang atau menemukan jenis-jenis intervensi yang dibutuhkan. Metodologiini didasarkan pada teori bahwa tingkah laku harus dijelaskan dengan mengacu pada tujuan-tujuan yang dimaksudkan oleh pelaku-pelaku yang dipandang mampu melakukan kontrol ataskehidupan mereka sendiri. Dalam upaya mencapai kondisi yang diinginkan, pelaku mengembangkan

suatu mental model tentang keadaan kini dan keadaan yang diinginkan . Namun tidak semuamodel itu merepresentasikan realita secara tepat. Menjadi tugas seorang konsultanlah untukmemodifikasi model yang kurang atau tidak tepat tersebut, sebelum melangkah ke tahap berikutnya,

yakni: melakukan intervensi . Intervensi yang baik adalah intervensi yang cocok dan alamiah,adaptif, kecil tetapi katalitik, yakni memiliki efek yang lebih besar dari pada upaya yangdikerahkan.

Indigenous knowledge should be ap-

proached in exactly the same way a manage-

ment consultant approaches the indigenous or

expert knowledge in a business organization.1

This knowledge is largely ephemeral, context-

specific, and the property of the business or-

ganization. The task of the management con-

sultant is not to record this knowledge just to

use it as input for a future project. His task is

not that of an archivist, nor is he an equal part-

ner in the development process. The partner-

ship is not equal. In fact, the client is the boss,

and the job of the management consultant is

to serve his client.

Once this is clear, the big quest ion is how

a management consultant can assist his or her

clients in using their knowledge? A methodol-

ogy has been developed to do exactly that. I

call it MIKS (methodology for the utilization

of indigenous knowledge systems). It is a meth-

odology of analytic reasoning that uses the

clients expert knowledge to assist him or her

1 The original paper was published inIndigenous Knowl-edge and Development Monitor1997, 5(2):17-18. The edi-

tor of ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA is grateful to the edi-tor of IKDM for the permission to reprint this article here.


2/4

in reaching specific goals. This approach has

already proved successful in a large number of

cases, mainly in business organizations in Eu-

rope and North America. It has been used to

br in g ab out chan ge wi th in or gani za ti on s,

change in business strategies, change in the

way companies do business, and in conflict

resolution.

No magic

When MIKS works well, the client is of-

ten surprised: It worked like miracle! How

can this be? Allow me to point to Arthur C.

Clarkes Third Law: Any sufficiently advanc-

ed technology is indistinguishable from magic

(Clarke 1984). MIKS is not magic, but it is cer-

tainly an advanced methodology, specific, well-

defined and widely applicable.Having worked with many consultants, I

know them inside out. One of their most com-

mon failings is the fact that they are like a child

with a new hammer who discovers that every-

thing needs hammering. If you call in a com-

puter consul tant, you get a computer solution,

and if you call in an organizational develop-

ment consultant, you get lots of training pro-

grams, no matter what the problem is. MIKS,

by contrast, uses the clients expert knowledge

to design or discover the kind of intervention

needed. Solutions are not served up on a plat-ter. We do not ask the client: How would you

like your solution? Rare, medium, or well-

done? With mashed potatoes, baked potatoes,

or French fries? It is not a cafeteria approach,

but a joint effort.

How is it done? The theory behind MIKS

is based on the observation that one cannot

explain the behaviour of a person or any other

living system in terms of cause and effect. As

Gregory Bateson (1972) pointed out, if you kick

a stone, the result is predictable; in principle,

one can calculate the trajectory of the stone

before actually kicking it. Kicking a dog, how-

ever, is a different matter.

What a living system does depends not just

on what happens to it, but also on the intended

purpose. As William James observed inPrin-

ciples of Psychology (1983), human beings

employ variable means to obtain regular ends.

If you accept James observation, and if you

accept that people are autonomous and that

they control their own lives, you can start build-

ing a theoretical foundation for your model.

The concept that control is not a metaphor but

the essence of the way people function is cru-

cial to that theory.

The following example will illustrate the

concept. A thermostat is an example of a

simple control system. For a thermostat to

work there must be:

a reference value: the desired temperature;

a perceptual function: the measurement of

the actual temperature;

a mechanism for making comparisons:

measuring the difference between the ref-

erence and the actual value;

the means to increase the temperature

from the actual to the desired tempera-

ture.

In other words, we can define control as

the production of intended perceptual results.

Restating this insight so that we can discuss

the concept of how people control their own

lives, what is needed is:

a reference value: an image of the desired

state;

a perceptual function: the ability to observe

the existing state;

a mechanism for making comparisons: the

ability to compare the existing state and

the desired state for differences;

the ability to act to bring the existing state

closer to the desired state.

The process of getting from an actual state

to a desired state can break down anywhere in

this circular process. But experience showsat


3/4

least in organizations in Europe and the USA

that it is most often either the definition of the

desired state or the definition of the interven-

tion that causes problems. Let us consider these

two crucial stages.

Mental models

In attempting to get from the existing state

to the desired state, people define a mental

model of each one, a kind of construction in

the mind. People use these models to provide

order, so that they can take action, in the belief

that their action will be effective. Some mod-

els are adequate, in that they represent reality

sufficiently well for the purpose of the intended

action. Other models provide misleading or

insufficient representations of reality, and are

therefore inadequate.One way of thinking of a mental model is

to see it as a map of reality. For example, you

are about to visit Berlin for the first time, and

you bring along a guidebook which happens

to be a Baedecker published in 1914. De-

pending on your purposes, that guidebook may

or may not provide you with an adequate

model. Reality has changed, but the map has

not. Two related characteristics determine how

useful a map is: the scale of the map and the

features it includes. Maps should not have too

many features, but neither should they be tooabstract. If you need a map to understand the

map, it will not be very useful.

From the clients point of view, the prob-

lem with most research reports is that both the

scale of the map and the features included are

wrong. The map produced by the researcher is

at the wrong level of abstraction and does not

tell the client where to go from where he is now.

It also has the wrong features, and most people

are not able to use it without a map of the map

(e.g., higher education).

In order to be effective, consultants must

get rid ofor modifythe clients inadequate

map of the desired state and the existing state,

by decontextualizing it, filtering out the clients

tacit assumptions, in order to get an objective,

observable description of the problem and the

solution. This is not in fact very complicated,

and there are various techniques which can be

used. To mention just one: ask what James

Wilke calls the miracle question. Suppose a

miracle happened, and your problem was sud-

denly solved. What would you see, hear or feel

that would make you sure that your problem

was solved? (OHanlon and Wilk 1987). Once

the desired state is defined objectively, in terms

of actual physical observations, we can start

working on a set of interventions that will bring

about the desired change.

InterventionsThe second stage at which problems can

occur is in defining the intervention. An in-

tervention is a purposeful action based on a

mental map. What is a good intervention? One

that fits and is natural. The aim is not utopian

social engineering or a radical redesign of tra-

ditional social structures. The aim is to find

adaptive interventions. If the client says: This

is so simple, why didnt I think of it myself?,

then you probably have a good intervention.

The intervention must be small but catalytic.

That is, the effect must be much larger thanthe effort. So, is it the smallest possible inter-

vention that will bring about the desired

change? Minimalism has not typically been a

characteristic of projects financed by donor

organizations. But doesnt change evoke resis-

tance, you will ask. In truth, there is no such

thing as resistance to change, there are only

badly designed interventions.

Miracles happen

To get back to magic and miracles: Clarkes

Third Law is not really a new idea. Saint Au-


4/4

gustine expressed the same idea a millenium

and a half before when he said: Miracles hap-

pen not in contradiction to nature, but in con-

tradiction to our understanding of nature.

If we change our understanding of nature,

we will be able to produce results that may

seem surprising to those who do not share our

understanding of human nature. MIKS enables

us to perform small miracles in the spirit of

References

Bateson, G.

1972 Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballantine Books.

Clarke, A.C.

1985 Profiles of the Future. New York: Warner Books.

James, W.

1983 Principles of Psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

OHanlon, B. and J. Wilk

1987 Shifting Contexts: the Generation of Effective Psychotherapy. London: Guilford Press.

Saint Augustine. For those who understand

MIKS, there is absolutely nothing miraculous

about it. It is simply an effective, collaborative

methodology for making increasingly accurate

models of reality, relative to a specific purpose.

The basic principles of MIKS are simple and

can be taught in a few days. Unfortunately, like

most worthwhile activities, they take years to

master.

Documents

A Methodology for the Utilization OfIndigenous Knowledge