Local knowledge

27

level in particular (van der Geest (2004:12; also see Ribot, 1995). In the assessment of van der Geest (2004:12), empirical analysis of vulnerability at the household level is relatively unexplored and evolving. To this effect, “vulnerability as a concept does not rest on a well developed theory; neither is it associated with widely accepted indicators or methods of measurement.”(Watts and Bhole, 1993:45). The significant contribution of Watts and Bhole (1993) should be understood in this context. They bring together three approaches, namely the entitlement, empowerment and political economy approaches in developing a causal structure of hunger and famine, which they termed as the „space of vulnerability‟. Their space of vulnerability is represented by an analytical triangle. “The empowerment approach emphasises that limited command over food results from limited rights and power in three political domains: the domestic domain, referring to intra-household politics; the work domain, referring to production politics; and the public – civil sphere, referring to state politics” (Bhole, 1993:49-51; in van der Geest, 2004:12). The political economy approach draws on class structure to explain structural –historical patterns of entitlement and empowerment processes of marginalization that created inequality and vulnerability. In reference to the triangle, “the space of vulnerability is the intersection where the three causal factors determine risk exposure, coping capacity and recovery potential. The three bundles of causality are not mutually exclusive: they exist simultaneously and reinforce each other. Their relative weights can explain the distribution of vulnerability and security among different regions and social groups in the real world. Vulnerable groups in society are (1) the resource poor and those vulnerable to market disturbances; (2) the peripheral/dependant regions and (3) the crisis – prone regions (Watts & Bhole, 1993:52-57).

28

environmental change. Finally, I discuss the social construction of local knowledge and how power shape processes of local knowledge production.

In general, knowledge concerns the way people understand and interpret the world, and attach meaning to their experiences (Arce and Long, 1992; Blaikie et al, 1997). All terminologies of knowledge therefore, relate to this general understanding of knowledge.

A distinction between „local knowledge‟ and „scientific knowledge‟ is a useful starting point for understanding the former. Some authors use alternative terminologies to classify knowledge systems along similar lines: „western‟ or „indigenous‟, „formal‟ or „informal‟,

„insider‟ or „outsider‟ (Okali et al, 1994; Blaikie et al, 1997: 218). According to Piers Blaikie and others, the distinction between „local knowledge‟ and „scientific knowledge‟

depend on the particular development paradigm and set of assumptions being used. They distinguish these knowledge systems by the following characteristics: local knowledge is holistic and contextualized while scientific knowledge is abstract; it is conservative and adaptive while scientific knowledge puts in motion radical and rapid technological change; it is transmitted informally while scientific knowledge is transmitted formally (Blaikie et al, 1997:219). They note that depending on the paradigm, development professionals have distinguished between local knowledge and scientific knowledge in ways that give advantage to one over the other. Local knowledge is one of a plethora of terms that is used to refer to the knowledge that people hold and apply for their daily sustenance. I will like to restate that a pluralistic view of local knowledge is adopted for this study. This view combines two distinctive schools of thought on local knowledge.

First, depending on disciplinary orientations, some authors use alternative terminologies that „share‟ in the first school of thought. These include „traditional knowledge‟,

„indigenous knowledge‟, „indigenous knowledge systems‟, „indigenous technical knowledge‟ and „rural peoples knowledge‟ (Arce and Fisher, 2003). Blaikie et al (1997) classify these terminologies as sub-categories of „local knowledge‟. For Antweiler (1998) local knowledge may also be called indigenous knowledge. The second school of thought is a departure from associating „local knowledge‟ to the unique and bounded knowledge of a group of people residing in their unique environment. In this school of thought, it is widely acknowledged that local knowledge embodies a fusion of both „indigenous

29

knowledge‟ and „scientific knowledge‟ at local levels. For instance, it is asserted that knowledge is an embodied practice and its production is negotiated within the context of knowledge interfaces (Long and Long, 1992; Pottier, 2003). The processes in local knowledge production involve the interaction between local communities who have their own practices and discourses, and external agents of change, who have their own practices and discourses (Pottier, 2003). Beyond this, local knowledge may have properties beyond language (Machand, 2003; in Pottier, 2003) and even beyond the strictly local (Kaur, 2003; in Pottier, 2003). Thus, „localization‟ of knowledge i.e.

allowing in and adapting external knowledge to local situations is done through the mediation of established cultural parameters. As a result, the view that „local knowledge‟

is strictly local and always accessible by verbal communication is a misconception that ought to be corrected (Pottier, 2003). It is important to note that the origin of knowledge as emanating either from „within‟ or „outside‟ the community is implied in distinguishing between these two schools of thought on local knowledge.

Local knowledge is considered an important strategic resource for development. In its generic form, knowledge is regarded as the major driving force of innovation and development (World Bank, 1999; Also see Evers and Gerke, 2004:1). Despite the strategic role of knowledge in development, „wide knowledge gaps‟ are said to exist between the Developed and Developing Countries. The World Bank (1999) underscore two important issues: First, that knowledge is the driving force for global scientific development; and second, that the development gap between the Developed and Developing Countries is much greater in terms of knowledge than GNP. Closing this

„knowledge gap‟ is recommended as a development strategy (Evers, 2003). Much as the role of development experts is important for closing this gap, they have been criticized for a biased preference for scientific-rational knowledge to the neglect of social and cultural considerations (Goulet, 1980; Evers and Gerke, 2005). This gives rise to a neglect of the role of „local knowledge‟ in development (Evers and Gerke, 2005).

However, many scholars e.g., Chambers et al, 1989; Warren et al, 1989; Marsden, 1990;

Antweiler, 1998; Pottier, 2003; Evers and Gerke, 2005 acknowledge the important role of local knowledge in development. For instance, local knowledge is asserted to have a big

30

development potential because it the knowledge that actors posses at that level for effecting change or improving their livelihoods. The rationale for promoting local knowledge in development therefore, lies in its effective role in sustainable development, especially for the sustainable management of natural resources (Antweiler, 1998). The importance of local knowledge in development is captured vividly by Pottier (2003:3-4):

“The problems of rural development are no longer seen to reside in „traditional cultures‟

of under-developed people, but rather in the partial and biased understandings that have emanated from the unreflexive application of a western scientific rationality…….Indeed

„traditional cultures‟ are now seen as containing the bases for any effective development………There is a heightened awareness of the central importance of indigenous knowledge systems in the construction of sustainable strategies for rural development……The „blue-print‟ approach is giving way to a negotiated, situation-specific approach which demands a dialogue between the different parties to the interventions that are constructed in the name of development, and which recognises the important, often crucial knowledge that traditional recipients of development aid have to offer”

There is growing awareness that local knowledge can no longer be presumed a system in isolation or bounded, but that, it interacts in a variety of ways with the science and practices of development agencies. Indeed, local knowledge is dynamic and ever changing (Sikana, 1994; Niarmir, 1995; Sillitoe, 1998; Aluma, 2004). This gives rise to diverse knowledge and practices (Pottier, 2003). People‟s knowledge is never exclusively local, but results from complex negotiation practices linked to knowledge interfaces (Pottier, 2003). Scoones and Thompson are accredited for arguing in the mid 1990‟s that rural people‟s knowledge (RPK) and western agricultural science is similar. They are general and specific, theoretical and practical. Both are value laden and context specific and are influenced by social relations of power (Scoones and Thompson, 1994: 29-30;

Also see Pottier (2003:4). These opposing knowledge systems very often interact in complex and contradictory processes to structure development at the local level (Pottier, 2003).

The role of „local knowledge‟ in development brings to attention the need to examine ways in which „local knowledge‟ is expressed and shared. This is important for understanding patterns in knowledge flows and how this can be tapped into for local level

31

development. Anthropologists have questioned whether language is a sufficient tool for accessing knowledge in how knowledge is expressed and accessed. Paul Richards has shown that indigenous knowledge among farmers in West Africa contains strong elements of improvisation. These include drumming and altering cropping patterns to address contingencies. These however go without notice when „scientific‟ agricultural experts assess farmer knowledge (Richards, 1993). This point is re-echoed in the assertion that focusing on language as the principal means of knowledge transmission may be inadequate for understanding the transmission of knowledge skills (Marchand, 2003). Although the discussion point to different modes in knowledge expression, according to Pottier (2003), there seem to be a thin line between verbally expressed knowledge, performance and creativity.

Local knowledge everywhere is the output of a social construction that shapes the way it flows and the way it is shared. In contrast to positivist view that knowledge is unitary and systematized, Long (1992) and Pottier (2003) share the view that the dynamic nature of development necessitates a consideration of different guiding principles regarding knowledge. In a review of the work of Long (1992), Pottier identifies these principles:

These among others include discontinuity and not linkage, transformation and not transfer of meaning. Knowledge then emerges as a product of interaction and dialogue between specific actors. There may be a multiplicity of possible frames of meaning. It may be fragmentary and diffuse rather than unitary and systematized. Different parties including farmers, extensionists and researchers may share the same priorities and parameters of knowledge. However, „epistemic‟ communities (that is, those that share roughly the same sources and modes of knowledge) ought to be differentiated internally in knowledge repertoires and application (Pottier, 2003:15).

The positivists regard science as superior to local bodies of knowledge, and therefore, believe that their superior knowledge can easily be transferred or should be transferred to replace „backward‟ local knowledge (Pottier, 2003). This understanding very often runs contrary to reality. Reality is often characterized by intended and unintended consequences and outcomes. Such outcomes also being shaped by ongoing, interlocking, interplay and mutual transformation of different actors‟ projects (Long and van der Ploeg,

32

1994:81). In-depth understanding of knowledge in development therefore, requires grasping the ways that different knowledge processes interrelate, reinforce and transform each other in rural development interfaces (Arce et al, 1994: 156; Pottier, 2003:15).

Knowledge is therefore, a social construction that emanates from a particular context and often reshaped by the encounters and discontinuities that emerge at the points of intersection between actors‟ life worlds (Long and Villarreal, 1993: 160). Contributions to ethnographies of development dialogue emphasize the social context of knowledge.

The point is made local knowledge should be understood in its broadest terms to encompass both peoples understanding of the universe they inhabit and their rights (Pottier, 2003). Sillitoe and Willson contextualize this understanding in relation to mining in Papua New Guinea, thus, “when we talk about indigenous knowledge…we are referring largely to the need for a better understanding of, accommodation to, people‟s knowledge of their rights to land, their tenure arrangements and their approach to payments such as compensation” (Sillitoe and Wilson, 2003:244). Knowledge is therefore, inseparable from the social context. The social context and underpinning power relations are central to a meaningful understanding and analysis of knowledge production (Pottier, 2003). In addition, it is also important for understanding knowledge flows and sharing in the local context.

In my discussion of the theories relevant to this study, I have pointed out that the implications of environmental change for development is my concern. Environmental change presents a range of perturbations as a result of which people‟s livelihoods are to

„some extent‟ vulnerable to the former in the Volta Basin, West Africa. In order to analyze how households respond to these vulnerabilities, I will turn my attention to a conceptual framework that enables this study explore and analyze the role of local knowledge for reducing livelihood vulnerability to environmental change in the Atankwidi basin.

33