Paper short abstract:

We explore some reasons why the local knowledge initiative has not had the development impact some of us anticipated. They include shortcomings of participatory approaches, power imbalances and community variability; all demand advancement of more effective methodologies and interdisciplinary research.

Paper long abstract:

Co-Author: Mariella Marzano

One view is that local knowledge has no future, either for insider custodians or outsider researchers. The forces of globalisation will drive it to extinction, which is the development-as-modernisation view. We disagree and think the evidence supports us. Since anthropology's Victorian founders, observers have warned about the disappearance of cultures and need for salvage ethnography. Yet hunter-gatherers continue to hunt and gather, shifting cultivators to shift and cultivate, people to believe in local deities, clan obligations to structure social life etc. Local ways, albeit subject to change, continue against the apparent odds. They are stubbornly resistant to the blandishments and threats of global capitalism and modernism. It is increasingly realised that local knowledge of natural resources is an integral aspect of any environment; for example in biodiversity management and conservation, where its loss is as damaging as the loss of species.

Yet, after nearly two decades, the local knowledge approach has not had the impact in development that some of us expected. It is arguable that it has had its brief development fashion moment on the back of the participatory movement, passing out of favour as the shortcomings of the latter become evident, due in part to outsider manipulations. Local knowledge has not shown its potential because stranger controlled agendas have distorted and masked it. This takes into political issues, notably how to address the power imbalance. A major challenge for the future is to get alternative views of what development might be on the agenda. One 'ally' in this should be the various indigenous movements currently seeking a voice for their views, and also certain locally rooted NGOs. It is highly contentious, challenging the hegemony of currently politically dominant nations and could be viewed as subversive. A related point is the need to overcome the prejudicial science versus local knowledge distinction. A possible way is to advance the spheres of knowledge model. This model also affords a way to handle community variability (even conflict of views - where previously swept under the normative carpet), particularly with advances in computer modelling and e-science.

We are only likely to be heard if we engage with development, as sideline criticism is unlikely to prove effective. So, in the future, local knowledge should continue 'business as usual', on the margins of big development, trying to get local views and practices on the agenda. Some valuable work has been done along these lines (e.g. on local farming practices in programmes seeking to improve food security). The advancement and refinement of more effective methodologies should feature here (e.g. making participatory approaches work). There are several issues, among them: advancing interdisciplinary work (facilitating meaningful communication, promoting a collaborative atmosphere etc.), making socio-cultural perspectives accessible, delivering research results quickly, making 'process' as opposed to 'blueprint' approach to development work etc. But this work is limited because hampered by capitalist views of development, which returns us to creating space for local ideas of development in the future. We shall explore these issues drawing on our research experiences in South Asia and Europe, and consultancy work for agencies.