Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ARTICLE IN PRESS
The International Information & Library Review (2008) 40, 64–72
The InternationalInformation & Library Review
1057-2317/$ - sdoi:10.1016/j.i
E-mail addr
www.elsevier.com/locate/iilr
Indigenous knowledge and the knowledge commons
Kate Joranson
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Summary This paper studies the frameworks used to understand the commons,the knowledge commons, and indigenous knowledge. Discussion of enclosure,participation, rivalrous and non-rivalrous commons reveals that information andknowledge are resources that increase in value through use. The author examinescurrent IK practices, focusing on documentation strategies and the role of thelibrarian. Studying IK practices in relation to the commons allows shared language toemerge. Challenging the frameworks, discourse and practices of both IK and thecommons exposes and strengthens their connections to one another. This provides aplatform for stronger advocacy for IK projects and the commons in general.& 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1
Introduction
As discourse on the knowledge commons, and thecommons in general, grows, it is useful to look atthe role indigenous knowledge (IK) can play inchallenging and strengthening the discussion. Tobegin, looking at a definition of the commons isuseful; Charlotte Hess and Elinor Ostrom describethe commons as ‘‘y a general term that refers to aresource shared by a group of people’’ (Hess &Ostrom, 2007, p. 4). IK is comprised of suchlocalized expertise as the ability to distinguishfertile and unfertile soils by color and scent, andcomplex fishing tactics designed to produce fishwith the highest possible vitamin and mineralcontent. For hundreds and even thousands of years,people living in arid climates have been naturallymodifying genetic plant material to develop strainsof crops that are well adapted to the extreme
ee front matter & 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserveilr.2007.09.002
ess: [email protected]
climate. Many indigenous people also have theirown highly specialized taxonomic systems forclassifying plants and animals.1 This knowledge isheld in common among members of a localcommunity, and in many cases functions as aknowledge commons. The World Summit on theInformation Society recognized the importance ofthese resources in their declaration of principles:
Preservation of content in diverse languages andformats must be accorded high priority inbuilding an inclusive Information Society y
The development of local content suited todomestic or regional needs will encourage socialand economic development and will stimulateparticipation of all stakeholders, including peo-ple living in rural, remote and marginal areas.(WSIS, 2003)
d.
These examples are gathered from LINKS’s (Local andIndigenous Knowledge Systems, part of UNESCO) website, whichprovides short summaries of a variety of ongoing IK projects.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Indigenous knowledge and the knowledge commons 65
This paper will examine IK in a global context ofthe knowledge commons. By studying the com-mons, knowledge commons, and IK alongside oneanother, the frameworks used to understand thembecome visible and expose the intricacies of theirrelationships with one another.
The commons
In 1968, biologist Garrett Hardin wrote ‘‘TheTragedy of the Commons,’’ for Science. This articlehas been cited frequently since then, often servingas a connection point among disciplines invested inthe idea of ‘‘the commons.’’ The portion of thearticle that is often quoted tells a story of a groupof cattle herdsmen who must share grazing pasture.Each herdsman is continually faced with thedecision of whether or not to add another animalto his herd. In weighing the outcomes, eachherdsmen asks himself if adding another animal tohis herd will do him more harm or more good. Eachherdsman individually decides to add anotheranimal to his herd, again and again, eventuallydepleting the pasture’s food supply (Hardin, 1968,p. 1244). The conclusion Hardin draws is that,‘‘Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush,each pursuing his own best interest in a society thatbelieves in the freedom of the commons. Freedomin a commons brings ruin to all’’ (Hardin, 1968, p.1244). He went on to describe example afterexample of commons tragedies, such as the USNational Parks, grazing lands in the western US, andthe oceans. All of these, he determined, weredestined to deteriorate due to the over-use of themand the fact that they are finite resources. Heurged readers to stop treating these resources likea commons (Hardin, 1968, p. 1247). These exam-ples offer powerful images of the destructive powerof over-use of finite resources by humans. Hardingoes on to articulate his opposition to the UnitedNation’s declaration from 1967. It stated that thedecision of how many children a family should havemust lie within each individual family and cannotbe imposed by any government or organization.Hardin argued that only when we relinquish the‘‘freedom to breed,’’ could we end the tragedythat is the commons (Hardin, 1968, p. 1248).Despite the controversy of this issue, what isimportant to note is the context for Hardin’sherdsman story. Hardin was writing about theexponentially growing human population and wastrying to offer a way to understand populationgrowth in relation to finite global resources. Thecontext of population growth is useful in under-standing the full scope of the term, ‘‘the com-
mons,’’ as it opens the discussion to a globalcontext and sets the stage for the interconnected-ness of commons-related issues.
Hardin has been cited in articles about everythingfrom sustainable tourism, to emergency medicine,and environmental policy. Avoiding Hardin’s ‘‘tragedyof the commons’’ has been part of many urgent callsto action—many extremely important to preservingresources around the world. Despite its usefulness, ithas fueled further debates, revisions, and refine-ments. For example, describing this tragedy actuallypoints to the difference between a rivalrous com-mons and a non-rivalrous commons. Many authorsuse this terminology borrowed from economic theoryto describe this difference. Hess and Ostrom’ssummary is useful here. Rivalrous commons arethose that are depleted through use (also referredto as ‘‘subtractive’’), such as forests, clean water,air, etc. Non-rivalrous commons are not depletedthrough use (Hess & Ostrom, 2007). A piece of musicis not used up once heard by an audience: a work offiction, a scientific theory, a sculpture, the same. (Infact, Lewis Hyde and others might argue that theirvalue increases through use. I will return to this pointlater.) After reading Hardin’s article, one is led toassume that a commons is inherently rivalrous andthat the world is composed of resource pools that arecontinually at risk of being ‘‘used up,’’ just as theherdsmen’s animals over-grazed the pasture. How-ever, information and knowledge are different. Theyare often put in the category of non-rivalrouscommons, as they do not become depleted. Hessand Ostrom write that ‘‘the unifying thread in allcommons resources is that they are jointly used,managed by groups of varying sizes and interests’’(Hess & Ostrom, 2007, p. 5). Commons discourse hasgrown considerably since Hardin’s article, much of itexamining participation and management of thecommons. Thirty years after Hardin’s article ap-peared, Hardin wrote a revision, indicating that his‘‘weightiest mistake’’ was not inserting the word‘‘unmanaged’’ (Hardin, 1998). His revised title mightread, ‘‘The Tragedy of the Unmanaged Commons.’’The contexts of Hardin’s writing about the commonsserve as guides for the following discussion ofknowledge commons, and more specifically, interna-tional IK practices and discourse. The issues raised byHardin will surface later in my analysis of thelanguage and practices of IK.
The knowledge commons
Defining knowledge as a kind of commons is key toexamining the language of IK discourse andpractices. In Hess and Ostrom’s introduction to
ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Joranson66
Understanding Knowledge as a Commons, theydescribe knowledge as ‘‘y all intelligible ideas,information, and data in whatever form in which itis expressed or obtained’’ (Hess & Ostrom, 2007,p. 7). They go on to cite several definitions thatmake fine distinctions among data, information,and knowledge (Hess & Ostrom, 2007, pp. 8–9), asdo many other authors who write in this area.Though these delineations can be fruitful, for thepurposes of this paper, I will use the term ‘‘knowl-edge commons’’ to express shared resource poolsthat contain ideas that result from perception,experience, and/or study.2 This definition will serveas a point of departure for examining the participa-tion in a knowledge commons and enclosure of thecommons, two important concepts that we willtake with us into a later examination of IK discourseand practices.
The knowledge commons and enclosure
Knowledge commons are continually at risk ofenclosure. ‘‘Enclosure’’ is defined in the AmericanHeritage Dictionary: ‘‘To fence in so as to preventcommon use: enclosed the pasture.’’ Thoughtsreturn to Hardin’s pasture; by surrounding theresource with limits, the resource is preventedfrom expanding, permission to use it is required,and participants begin to fear its deterioration.Universities in the United States provide a primeexample and raise issues that will provide a contextfor examining IK practices. Universities have longbeen understood to function as a knowledgecommons, where ideas are exchanged, challenged,and build upon one another. Giving one’s prede-cessors appropriate credit has been the norm asideas shift and grow. Universities have traditionallyoccupied a social space outside of market forces. Asuniversities become increasingly market-driven,the ideas generated in this setting risk enclosure.David Bollier writes about this enclosure, andquestions whether academic integrity can bepreserved when, ‘‘scholarly arenas are reconcep-tualized as market resources, to be treated asholdings in an investment portfolio y’’ (Bollier,2002, p. 20). Nancy Kranich writes, ‘‘Understandingknowledge as a commons offers a way not only ofcountering the challenges of access posed byenclosure, but of building a fundamental institutionfor twenty-first century democracy’’ (Kranich,2007, p. 93). Kranich points out the power oflanguage in expressing the urgency of the situation.
2This definition is adapted from the American HeritageDictionary definition of ‘‘knowledge.’’
By using the word ‘‘commons’’ to discuss knowledgeand ideas, one can contextualize knowledge as partof an intricate network of shared resources.Kranich goes on to say, ‘‘The commons elevatesindividuals to a role above mere consumers in themarketplace, shifting the focus to their rights,needs, and responsibilities as citizens’’ (Kranich,2007, p. 94). This language of the commons ispowerful not only in communicating a community-level context, but also in providing a voice forindividuals. It allows an individual to imaginehimself or herself as one who generates ideasrather than one who merely consumes them.
The knowledge commons andparticipation
In thinking about the role of the individual, it isimportant to wonder about who can and doesparticipate in a knowledge commons. The term‘‘knowledge commons’’ is often used in conjunctionwith academic research. However, it can apply toknowledge shared in common in informal settings,and that which is shared in communities outsideacademia. Peter Levine encourages this view:
y the process of creating public knowledge asan additional good, because such work buildssocial capital, strengthens communities, andgives people skills that they need for effectivecitizenship. If this is correct, then we should aimto include as many people as possible in thecollaborative creation of ‘‘free’’ (i.e. open-access) knowledge. Not only scholars and librar-ians, but ordinary people should be knowledgecreators. (Levine, 2002, p. 247)
Levine directs our attention to the importance ofkeeping ordinary people in the forefront of thediscussion of knowledge commons. Though theterm ‘‘ordinary people’’ can be troubling, the pointis important and Levine’s work is valuable. It isimportant to see the knowledge generated outsideacademia as a vital part of the discussion on theknowledge commons, including the online networkof content producers using YouTube, blogs, andwikis.
Indigenous knowledge and theknowledge commons
Definitions of IK abound. Often cited, Ellenand Harris’s (1997) 10 characteristics of IK arecomprehensive and are often embedded in later
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Indigenous knowledge and the knowledge commons 67
definitions. The following is a condensed version ofEllen and Harris’s 10 characteristics of IK.
(1) IK is local, and tied to a particular place andset of experiences. (2) IK is orally transmitted.(3) IK is the consequence of practical engage-ment in everyday life, and is constantly re-inforced by experience and trial and error. (4)The first and third characteristics support afurther general observation, that it is empiricalrather than theoretical knowledge. (5) Repeti-tion is a defining characteristic of tradition. (6)Tradition is ‘‘a fluid and transforming agent withno real end’’ when applied to knowledge;negotiation is a central concept (Hunn, 1993,p. 13). (7) IK is characteristically shared to amuch greater degree than other forms of knowl-edge. (8) Although IK may be focused onparticular individuals and may achieve a degreeof coherence in rituals and other symbolicconstructs, its distribution is always fragmen-tary: it does not exist in its totality in any oneplace or individual. (9) Despite claims for theexistence of culture-wide (indeed universal)abstract classifications of knowledge y whereIK is at its densest and directly applicable itsorganisation is essentially functional. (10) IK ischaracteristically situated within broader cul-tural traditions; separating the technical fromthe non-technical, the rational from the non-rational is problematic. (Ellen & Harris, 1997)
The United Nations Educational, Scientific, andCultural Organization (UNESCO) offers three defini-tions of IK, the second of which states:
Indigenous knowledge is the information base fora society, which facilitates communication anddecision-making. Indigenous information systemsare dynamic, and are continually influenced byinternal creativity and experimentation as wellas by contact with external systems. (Flavier etal., 1995)
Boven and Morohashi, authors of UNESCO’s BestPractices Using Indigenous Knowledge, caution thatit is extremely difficult to define such a term:
It is only when we try to translate these localpractices into western terms that we areconfronted with the need to choose a certaindefinition, and we see how difficult it is to givevoice to a worldview, which is sometimescompletely different from our own. (Boven &Morohashi, 2003, p. 12)
When such a concept is grounded in multiple,particular worldviews, it is difficult to be both self-examining and appropriately descriptive. Working
out the language, however, is key to being able tocontinue a dialog and to challenge the language.Local and indigenous knowledge systems (LINKS),which is a part of UNESCO, offers similar languageand builds on the definition by adding that theknowledge systems ‘‘are a part of a complex thatalso includes language, attachment to place,spirituality and worldview.’’ (LINKS, 2003) Manyother terms are used in a similar way, including,‘‘traditional knowledge,’’ ‘‘local knowledge,’’‘‘folk knowledge,’’ and ‘‘folk science,’’ amongothers. On their Web site, LINKS goes on to describehow in IK, rational and objective thoughts andexperiences are inseparable from intuitive andeven sacred ideas. (LINKS, 2003) Examining IKgenerates an awareness of strict delineations intraditionally western thought processes. Observingand challenging these delineations can assist inanalyzing IK discourse and practices.
By looking at the process of defining IK, we learnthat IK does not fit neatly into the more compart-mentalized ways of understanding it. IK does,however, seem to situate itself in the knowledgecommons. When linking these ideas, it is importantto notice the distinctions and relationship betweenIK discourse and IK practices. One might usecommons-language to describe an IK practice;yet, commons-language may also be absent frompractices that demonstrate commons-thinking.
Examples of indigenous knowledgeoperating as a knowledge commons
Pointing to the existence of IK is an act that isdistinct from deciding to record, preserve, ordisseminate IK. These activities do not need to bepresent for IK to be considered a knowledgecommons. When they are present, however, theycan be important components to building a knowl-edge commons. Depending on how the recording,preserving, and disseminating is implemented, theseactivities could shift the IK practice out of the realmof knowledge commons and into market-drivenresource pools. With recording and disseminating IKcomes a risk of piracy and inappropriate use. Thefollowing examples provide an opportunity to exam-ine a variety of IK practices and discourse and lookfor evidence of a knowledge commons at work.
Indigenous knowledge anddocumentation
IK projects often incorporate some form of doc-umentation of the IK, such as producing a video
ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Joranson68
recording or a database. Before moving intoanalysis of these situations, it is helpful to describehow IK operates in a project that does not includerecording of the IK. UNESCO’s best practicesdocument describes a community in Kenya thatlives in an area where most water sources arecontaminated. Storage of water is problematic.Several interventions have been attempted butfailed. Success occurred when the local pottersworked with the Nyanza Healthy Project team tomake modified clay pots to store the water. Theseclay pots allowed people to store their water in thetraditional way while using the potters’ knowledgeand skills to make modifications (Boven & Moroha-shi, 2003, pp. 30–37). The livelihood of the potterswas not threatened by an outside vendor andownership of the production remained within thecommunity. The UNESCO best practices documentmakes no mention of recording information ontechniques used to make the modified pots. Whatmakes this an example of a knowledge commons,however, is that the knowledge of the pottersremained a shared resource and continues to be thefoundation for the addition of the new techniques.
Indigenous knowledge, documentation,and ownership
In her article from 2005, Bharati Sen takesinventory of many IK documentation and dissemi-nation practices in India. Many of her examplesinvolve digital databases containing IK. She pointsout that in creating and managing these databases,documentation and dissemination are often simul-taneous processes (Sen, 2005, p. 381). The pro-cesses gradually overlap as knowledge is added tothe database, news of it spreads, and new peoplemake contributions to the database while accessinginformation it contains. Sen emphasizes the im-portance of the community maintaining ownershipof the IK and its documentation. Many westernsystems of ownership focus on the corporation andthe individual, ignoring the community. She states,‘‘yownership of traditional knowledge and ex-pressions of culture is not based on individualrights, but on a system of collective rights that aremanaged on a custodial basis according to custom-ary laws’’ (Sen, 2005, p. 382). Sen describes severalIK practices that take these considerations ser-iously. Kalpavriksh, an environmental action group,together with the Save the Seeds Campaigndocumented agricultural practices in a village inUttar Pradesh. Copies of the documentation werekept in the village as well as by Kalpavriksh. An
agreement was made that distribution would bepossible only with the consent of the villagers. Thisagreement keeps the knowledge base within thecontrol of the people who generated the knowledge(Sen, 2005, p. 380).
Indigenous knowledge and dissemination
Sen, as well as Posey and Dutfield, describe theHoney Bee Network, an organization dedicated todocumenting and disseminating practices and in-novations in local languages. It started in India andhas now spread to over 75 countries. The Honey BeeNetwork, part of The Society for Research andInitiatives for Sustainable Technologies (SRISTI),publishes The Honeybee Newsletter and maintainsan online database, which are the vehicles forsharing the IK. The newsletter is printed in manylanguages, and the emphasis is on informationprovided by the farmers, horticulturalists, andartisans themselves. Their Web site describes theirphilosophy:
Honey Bee collects pollen without impoverishingthe flowers, and it connects flower to flowerthrough pollination. The idea is that when wecollect knowledge of people we should ensurethat people don’t become poorer after sharingtheir insights with us. (SRISTI, 2001)
They are concerned with ‘‘the ethics of knowl-edge extraction, its documentation, disseminationand abstraction into theories, institutions or tech-nologies.’’ The language used to describe this IKpractice demonstrates commons-thinking. Connec-tion and sharing of ideas without exerting indivi-dual ownership over the ideas allows the knowledgeto move freely and grow while protecting commu-nity authorship. This documentation provides aframework for protecting the IK from piracy andenclosure by those who have not contributed. AnilGupta, founder of the Indian Institute of Manage-ment, explains, ‘‘The formal sector cannot use theknowledge of the poor without acknowledgments,citation, and of course, prior informed consent’’(Gupta, 1997, p. 37) Both the practice and thediscourse reflect a knowledge-commons approach.
Indigenous knowledge and the librarian
Liauw Toong Tjiek writes about IK practices at PetraChristian University in Surabaya, Indonesia. Shedescribes Desa Informasi (which translates toInformation Village), which is a university-wide
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Indigenous knowledge and the knowledge commons 69
program to develop a digital collection of docu-ments produced by students and faculty thatcontain IK. Tjiek makes an interesting point abouttheir strategy, describing it as an ‘‘attract andabsorb’’ approach:
3
pro4
descolret
This approach stipulates that librarians conductthe collection process, rather than providing thetools and expect the communities to do itthemselves. While the latter is a perfectapproach, I believe that most of the time itdoes not work, at least not in the early stages ofthe initiative, since it takes time to buildinterest. It is a strategy to ‘absorb’ proactivelyas many resources as possible from the commu-nities. (Tjiek, 2006, p. 126)
Tjiek is referring to statements such as this: ‘‘Ifindigenous peoples are to collect, record, andcontrol knowledge useful to themselves, theyshould ideally initiate research projects ratherthan be participants in other people’s plans’’ (Posey& Dutfield, 1996, p. 140). It is interesting to includeTjiek’s perspective to the discussion of a knowledgecommons because it emphasizes the importance ofindividual initiative and connects these issues tolibrarians. Individuals who have the background andforesight to recognize the need for documentationof a knowledge base may be necessary in beginningdocumentation projects. A librarian’s initiative canbe the spark that starts an IK documentationproject, which then reveals the extensive knowl-edge that had been taken for granted.
A librarian’s role in developing the metadata forsuch IK documentation projects is significant. Sendescribes the importance of metadata that reflectsIK in her article cited previously. The SNDT3
Women’s University Library evaluates the disserta-tions and theses for IK content. Sen points out theneed for accurate metadata that will capture thenuances of the subject matter (Sen, 2005, p. 381).In the article on Desa Infomasi, Tjiek also describesthe importance of involving librarians in IK pro-jects, and details their library’s approach. They usean expanded Dublin Core metadata set4 to buildthematic collections (Tjiek, 2006, p. 124). Ade-quate metadata is key to providing access to the IK,maintaining access is key in calling it a knowledgecommons.
SNDT refers to ‘‘Shreemati Nathibai Damodar Thackersey,’’ aminent advocate for women’s education.Dublin Core is a metadata (data about data) system used tocribe individual items in a collection, often used for digitallections. This descriptive information allows items to berieved from the database.
Indigenous knowledge, knowledgecommons, and language
The topic of ‘‘language’’ points to many issueswithin IK, such as preservation of endangeredlanguages, and the translation of IK. These issuesare important to understanding IK policies andpractices, yet they are beyond the scope of thispaper. I will focus on how language is being used todescribe the knowledge commons and IK. Pleas formore powerful language to describe the impor-tance and the urgency of the commons abound.Many authors return again and again to ecologicaland environmental imagery, suggesting that knowl-edge operates like an ecosystem. James Boyle, whowrites about the need for an ‘‘environmentalism forthe Net’’ and describes information as an ecosys-tem, is often cited (Boyle, 1997). Writing about thegrowth of commons discourse, David Bollier citesconservationist and writer, Wendell Berry in thefollowing passage:
y however useful market-based policies may bein some arenas, the market system as a whole isnot likely to conserve nature of its own accord.As essayist Wendell Berry has explained, ‘‘Weknow enough of our own history by now to beaware that people exploit what they havemerely concluded to be of value, but theydefend what they love. To defend what we lovewe need a particularizing language, for we lovewhat we particularly know.’’ (Berry, 2000, p. 40;Bollier, 2007, p. 34)
Bollier is looking to Berry for insight into the needfor language that embodies the intimate under-standing one has of one’s surroundings. Bollier isfinding in Berry’s writing a glimpse into howpowerfully motivating the articulation of this canbe. Boyle’s analysis of commons discourse is usefulhere; he describes the concept of ‘‘the environ-ment’’ as an important term that allows for a‘‘generalized reflection’’ on the otherwise diverseand particular situations it encompasses. He sug-gests that in a similar way, the language of thecommons can help us to ‘‘re-imagine creation,innovation, and speech on a global network’’(Boyle, 2003, p. 74). It is interesting that thelanguage of environmentalism is called upon toassist in building a parallel case for a more powerfullanguage of the commons, when the air, water, andsoil are often categorized as examples of thecommons. We are, then, not looking outside thecommons for assistance, but looking inside andexpanding the boundaries of a discussion already inprogress.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Joranson70
Though the terms are often used interchange-ably, the concept of ‘‘ecology’’ pre-dates that of‘‘environmentalism.’’ Developing an understandingof ecosystems made it possible for later insightsinto the destruction of these intricately connec-ted resources. ‘‘Environmentalism’’ refers toorganized efforts to educate and advocate forthe preservation of ecosystems. The dynamicrelationship between ecology and environmental-ism is mirrored in the knowledge commons. Under-standing the inherent ‘‘ecology’’ of knowledgeallows an ‘‘environmentalism,’’ to grow. Thoseinvolved in the knowledge commons are work-ing on building awareness of the interconnectednature of knowledge production and access toinformation.
In examining the language of a knowledgecommons, it is important to notice the environ-mental and ecological references that run through-out writing about IK. This occurs in part because IKhas played a critical role in managing naturalresources for hundreds of years. IK comes from,and is inseparable from, ecology. One hears thisechoed in LINKS’ statement of philosophy; ‘‘Natureand Culture are not opposed and circumscribed bysharp boundaries. Knowledge, practice and repre-sentations are intertwined and mutually depen-dent’’ (LINKS, 2003). The Honey Bee network alsouses an ecological metaphor to communicate theirintent. Honeybees feed on flower nectar while theirbodies pick up pollen grains that pollinate the nextflowers visited. They return to the hive to producehoney that nourishes the next generation ofhoneybees. The flowers and the honeybees benefit,neither being depleted, and in fact produce fruit asa result. The second part of the metaphor is that ofthe honeybee network. One imagines elaborate,complex communication for which honeybees areknown. It is also the network of interactions amonghoneybees, flowers, and other elements of theecosystem that generates a vivid image of knowl-edge both traveling and growing, satisfying appe-tites and bringing forth new growth and life. Thehoneybee metaphor is powerful in that it makesvisible an aspect of knowledge often overlooked. Itis the incidental—the aspect of chance—that isperhaps not chance at all, but rather a cycle that isnot fully understood.
One of ecology’s first lessons was that, beneathall the change in nature, there are steadystates characterized by cycles. Every parti-cipant in the cycle literally lives off theothers with only the ultimate energy source,the sun, being transcendent. (Hyde, 1983,p. 19)
Lewis Hyde’s description of ecology’s basicprinciple of cycles is used to describe gift econo-mies. He describes gift economies as systems wherewealth and value grow as property moves andtravels through gift giving. He traces gift economiesthrough history, building an argument that creativ-ity belongs to gift economies rather than toeconomies of commodities. The objects of gifteconomies increase in value through their move-ment. Hyde continues, ‘‘y the circle is a sign of anecological insight as much as of gift exchange. Wecome to feel ourselves as one part of a large self-regulating system.’’ (Hyde, 1983, p. 19) It is in thecycles and networks of ecosystems that knowledgecommons and IK are best situated.
Contradictions and conclusions
Studying the practices and discourse of IK allows usto situate it in the knowledge commons. It invitesus to look inside the commons, finding languagethat refutes ‘‘the tragedy of the commons,’’ andbuilds an understanding of knowledge operating ina separate sphere that does not become depletedthrough use. We have uncovered examples ofknowledge operating like ecosystems; yet, anecosystem, because it can be used up, belongs tothe rivalrous commons. Why do we look toecosystems for metaphoric language to describe aknowledge commons that is non-rivalrous in nature?What can we learn from this seemingly contra-dictory situation?
Suspending this question for a moment, it isuseful to look back at the major frameworks usedto understand the commons, the knowledge com-mons and IK. By examining Hardin’s ‘‘tragedy of thecommons,’’ we understand the commons in termsof rivalrous and non-rivalrous resources. We learnthat information is a non-rivalrous resource thatcan increase in value through use. The concepts ofenclosure and participation take us further into thediscussion, providing ways of framing IK. Finally,ecosystems, networks, and cycles lead us throughmetaphoric language used to describe knowledgecommons and IK. This leaves us to wonder how aknowledge commons can derive so much powerfrom an ecosystem metaphor and yet is soinherently different. Reading Arun Agrawal’s de-scription of the circular problem of IK providessome context:
y the nature of the Indigenous is shaped by theworkings of power y The necessity, urgency,and importance of research on the Indigenousderives from assumptions that such knowledge
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Indigenous knowledge and the knowledge commons 71
is disappearing, the rate of disappearance isfast and possibly accelerating, and that suchknowledge is valuable. But the value one istalking about is quite specific; it is useful inimproving scientific knowledge, it is useful forpursuing development, and so forth. This issomewhat puzzling because it is developmentthat to begin with threatens Indigenous knowl-edge—it is the progressive spread of science andscientific knowledge that threatens the waysIndigenous cosmologies and knowledge work. Sothe spread of what threatens Indigenous knowl-edge is also precisely what many advocates ofIndigenous knowledge seek to advance by iden-tifying, documenting, collecting, and system-atizing Indigenous knowledge. (Agrawal, 2005,pp. 73, 75, 76)
Agrawal points out the cycle in which IK iscaught. The cycle, however, is not a cycle to whichIK belongs, such as the cycle of gift economies. Thecycle is one that is imposed upon it, and is of atraditionally western European nature. Being‘‘caught’’ in this cycle is in fact not a problem ofIK, but a problem with the frameworks applied toit. This allows us to look at the seeming contra-diction from earlier; if an ecosystem belongs to therivalrous commons (that which can be used up),why do we look to ecosystems for metaphoriclanguage to describe a knowledge commons, whichis non-rivalrous in nature? Is this not a contra-diction? Thoughts return to the statement by LINKS;‘‘Nature and Culture are not opposed and circum-scribed by sharp boundaries. Knowledge, practiceand representations are intertwined and mutuallydependent.’’ (LINKS, 2003) Perhaps borrowing ametaphor from the rivalrous commons to describe anon-rivalrous commons is not a contradiction at all,but rather a problem in the framework originallyapplied. As we continue to develop language todescribe the knowledge commons, it is importantto explore language that does not keep theseresources in opposition or as separate, but makestheir mutuality visible. Articulating these relation-ships can provide guidance in developing practicesand policies that are grounded in the inherentqualities of IK. This will continue to challenge andstrengthen knowledge commons discourse andpractices.
References
Agrawal, Arun. (2005). The politics of indigenous knowledge. InM. Nakata, & M. Langton (Eds.), Australian indigenousknowledge and libraries (pp. 73–84). Canberra: Australian
Academic & Research Libraries for the Australian Library andInformation Association.
Berry, Wendell. (2000). Life is a miracle: An essay againstmodern superstition. New York: Perseus Books.
Bollier, David. (2002). The enclosure of the academic commons.Academe, 88(5), 18–23.
Bollier, David. (2007). The growth of the commons paradigm. InCharlotte Hess, & Elinor Ostrom (Eds.), Understandingknowledge as a commons: From theory to practice(pp. 27–40). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Boven, Karin., & Morohashi, Jun. (2003). Best practices usingindigenous knowledge. Paris: UNESCO/MOST.
Boyle, James. (1997). A politics of intellectual property:Environmentalism for the net? /http://www.law.duke.edu/boylesite/Intprop.htmS; accessed 05. 07. 07.
Boyle, James. (2003). The second enclosure movement and theconstruction of the public domain. Law and ContemporaryProblems, 66(33), 33–73.
Ellen, Roy, & Harris, Holly. (1997). Concepts of indigenousenvironmental knowledge in scientific and developmentstudies literature—a critical assessment. UK: APFT Project./http://lucy.ukc.ac.uk/Rainforest/SML_files/Occpap/indig-know.occpap_TOC.htmlS; accessed 05. 07. 07.
Flavier, J. M., et al. (1995). The regional program for thepromotion of indigenous knowledge in Asia. In D. M. Warren,L. J. Slikkerveer, & D. Brokensha (Eds.), The culturaldimension of development: Indigenous knowledge systems(pp. 479–487). London: Intermediate Technology Publica-tions.
Gupta, Anil K. (1997). The honey bee network: Linking knowl-edge-rich grassroots innovations. Development, 40(4), 36–40.
Hardin, Garrett. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science,162(3859), 1243–1248.
Hardin, Garrett. (1998). Extensions of the ‘‘Tragedy of theCommons’’. Science, 280(5364), 682–683.
Hess, Charlotte., & Ostrom, Elinor. (Eds.). (2007). Understand-ing knowledge as a commons: From theory to practice.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hunn, Eugene. (1993). What is traditional ecological knowledge?In N. Williams, & G. Baines (Eds.), Traditional eco-logical knowledge: Wisdom for sustainable development(pp. 13–15). Canberra: Centre for Resource and Environ-mental Studies, ANU.
Hyde, Lewis. (1983). The gift: Imagination and the erotic life ofproperty. New York: Vintage Books.
Kranich, Nancy. (2007). Countering enclosure: Reclaimingthe knowledge commons. In Charlotte Hess, & ElinorOstrom (Eds.), Understanding knowledge as a commons:From theory to practice (pp. 85–122). Cambridge, MA: MITPress.
Levine, Peter. (2002). Building the electronic commons. TheGood Society, 11(3), 3–9.
Local and Indigenous Knowledge Systems (LINKS) (n.d.). Whatis local knowledge? /http://portal.unesco.org/sc_nat/ev.php?URL_ID=2034&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201S;accessed 05. 07.07.
Posey, Darrell Addison., & Dutfield, Graham. (1996). Beyondintellectual property: Toward traditional resource rights forindigenous peoples and local communities. Ottawa: Interna-tional Development Research Centre.
Sen, Bharati. (2005). Indigenous knowledge for development:Bringing research and practice together. InternationalInformation and Library Review, 37, 375–382.
Society for Research and Initiatives for Sustainable Technologiesand Institution (SRISTI). (2001). Honey bee network./http://www.sristi.org/honeybee.htmlS; accessed 05.05.07.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Joranson72
Tjiek, Liauw Toong. (2006). Desa informasi: The role of digitallibraries in the preservation and dissemination of indigenousknowledge. International Information and Library Review,38, 123–131.
World Summit on the Information Society. (2003). Declaration ofprinciples: Building the information society: A globalchallenge in the new millennium. /http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.htmlS; accessed 05. 07.07.
