Bridging Indigenous and Western Scientific Knowledge
Indigenous cultures have accumulated scientific knowledge intergenerationally for hundreds of thousands of years, yet our world is dominated by “Western science”, emerging only a few millennia ago. Indigenous and Western sciences are often considered mutually exclusive. This damaging misconception deprives our world of a diverse and powerful union of knowledge and is reinforced by the rituals and group norms of Western science.
Western science ritualises celebration of successful endeavours, neglecting to acknowledge risk-taking approaches that offer learning opportunities. Furthermore, it is customary for Western science to seek solutions and explanations within its own academic sphere, overlooking valuable information held within Indigenous cultures.
Solutions sought by Western science are often highly specific, rather than holistic. Countless solutions are provided to many interconnected problems as opposed to a single solution surfacing from addressing problems at their societal and cultural root. Mistry and Berardi (2016) highlight the increased resilience to various shocks and stresses afforded by a “systems thinking” approach.
Western scientific groups tend to pigeonhole Indigenous scientific evaluations as qualitative observations, labelling them as subjective and arbitrary. Contrarily, Western scientific observations are considered empirically backed and objective, inferring credibility and legitimacy (Mistry and Berardi 2016). As a result, Western science has ritualised attempts to validify Indigenous scientific observations by employing purely Western scientific methodologies.
Contemporary scientific endeavours are heavily influenced by politically dominant Western agendas, the status quo being that the structures of Indigenous knowledge implementation ought to be determined by Western science. The group norm of delegitimising Indigenous science due to epistemological differences drives division between these two approaches, belittling the representation of indigenous science in both social and governance contexts.
Bridging the gap between Indigenous and Western scientific knowledge is an adaptive challenge; a challenge grounded in the complexity of values, beliefs and loyalties (Heifetz et al. 2009). The first step is recognising the legitimacy of multiple epistemological approaches (Kutz and Tomaselli 2019). This requires mutual respect for the philosophical theories and assumptions that underpin our knowledge systems, acknowledging limitations and capitalising on strengths.
Mistry and Berardi (2016) foreground that Indigenous knowledge is typically local and context-specific, communicated orally or through imitation and demonstration, accumulated through shared social memory and interlinked with facets of people’s lives. Thus, it is crucial to liaise meaningfully with Indigenous knowledge holders and ensure active participation in co-design. (Kutz and Tomaselli 2019).
Approaches that produce power imbalances or include Indigenous knowledge superficially have the potential to misinterpret information and lose deeper insights. Kutz and Tomaselli (2019) assert that addressing the barriers dividing Western and Indigenous science does not entail Indigenous knowledge being co-opted into, or validated by the scientific knowledge system.
“[Bridging Indigenous and Western scientific knowledge] requires engagement in meaningful dialogues that enable different knowledges to interface.” — (Kutz & Tomaselli 2019, p. 1136)
Fostering such an environment is an adaptive challenge, requiring people to change their ways.
Numerous archetypes of adaptive challenges are present within the task of bridging the gap between Indigenous and Western scientific knowledge. There is a clear gap between espoused values and the reality of organisations that include Indigenous knowledge superficially or fail to engage Indigenous knowledge throughout the process, risking further marginalisation of Indigenous people (Mistry and Berardi 2016).
Indigenous and Western scientific knowledge systems present competing commitments. Indigenous systems value social knowledge, acquisition and memory. Conversely, Western systems prioritise Individualistic thinking (Yunkaporta 2020). Furthermore, the need to meet scientific credibility proposes competing commitments.
The benefits of speaking the unspeakable can contribute to addressing challenges. In many cases, Indigenous lands were colonised by Western nations and remain unceded. This has lasting ramifications, such as the presence of systemic racism toward Indigenous people in many societies. It is imperative that dialogue directly addresses these facts and their implications in a sensitive manner.
Yunkaporta (2020) highlights the tendency of Western science to avoid systems thinking. This can be attributed to work avoidance, another adaptive challenge archetype. Despite the greater effort required to consider all constituent parts of a system, the robust nature of a holistic approach has the potential for efficiency.
Bridging Indigenous and Western knowledge systems requires meaningful interpretation of varied epistemologies and intertwined cultures, necessitating levels of cultural competence that take work to acquire. Moreover, the logistical difficulties of collating information held by communities are often remote and acquired through experience at a broad spatial and temporal scale. This information then needs to be translated in a meaningful and accessible manner, only achieved through diligence.
Although complex, the adaptive challenge of bridging Indigenous and Western scientific knowledge is achievable. Now more than ever, exposure to the extensive intergenerational knowledge our Indigenous cultures possess is imperative to understanding the world.
