chapter 3

The development of a TEK indicator that has global application and can be replicated and understood by different people requires clear definitions of the phenomena that will be recorded and measured. The task of operationalizing the indicator variables and procedures will be dealt with in greater detail in section 6. However, it is also important to delineate some of the basic parameters and properties that have been put forth to define and distinguish the concept of traditional environmental knowledge (TEK). Such parameters must be taken into account when designing the method so that the indicator is robust, reliable and representative.

The task of specifying exactly what is TEK must begin with a consideration of the broader field of indigenous and local knowledge (ILK), of which TEK may be considered a subset. This is no simple matter due to the vast enormity and complexity of this phenonema as well as the variety of interpretations that have been made of it. A recent review of the evolution of the field over the last 50 years reveals that representations of ILK have undergone considerable paradigmatic shifts and these are still being revised with the ongoing accumulation of new studies and the adoption of fresh epistemological perspectives. This dynamic state of intellectual development is reflected in the proliferation of terminologies used to label it and its subtypes as well as the multitude of different definitions that have been proposed to distinguish it from other knowledge forms. No universal or broad consensus has yet emerged about what the correct term or definition should be and this lack of epistemic unity constitutes a problem for meaningful communication, especially if we are to move beyond the level of qualitative description of empirical facts and bodies and their useful applications to the level of quantitative measurement and intercultural comparison. At the same time, however, it seems only fitting that divergent ideas about it should prevail given that the subject matter itself is synonymous with the notion of intellectual diversity. The fundamental dilemma confronting our attempt to build a culture-based knowledge indicator with wide applicability is how to bridge the epistemological gulf between representations of knowledge that are meaningful at a local or cultural scale and those that are valid at a global or intercultural scale. The former perspective(s) can only be determined by gaining access to local frames of reference and the VITEK method depends on fulfilling this requirement. The latter demands a more abstract and comparative position to the extent that it is possible (see section 6.2). The present section attempts to outline this position and is based on a comprehensive review and reflection of the literature of IK research and its collective findings over several decades.

3.1. Diagnostic Properties of IK

Given the inherent difficulties of defining IK in absolute and universal terms, some investigators have dealt with the definitional problem by listing the general properties that they have in common or are widespread across many such systems. It is important to emphasize that such properties should be understood in relativistic, rather than essentialistic, terms and there is no sharp dichotomy between indigenous and scientific epistemologies. Sillitoe argues that the relationship between indigenous and scientific, local and global, types of knowledge is better viewed as a continuum of graded differences . Ellen and Harris provide a comprehensive list and explanation of IK properties which is summarized below. Some of these descriptions are qualified in reference to the findings of other studies.

1. Local: It is rooted to a particular place and set of experiences and is generated by the people living in those places. Thus transferring (or dislocating) parts of it to other contexts necessarily alters its meaning and purpose. This does not mean, however, that such transfer cannot occur. Diffusion of words, symbols, material culture and techniques across cultural boundaries is of course a common event throughout human history. For example, it is believed that agriculture and cultigens spread mainly through such borrowing. Furthermore, local knowledge systems are by no means isolated from external knowledge systems, including western or global science, nor can too sharp boundaries be drawn between them. Agrawal (1995) points out that local and scientific knowledge have been in contact and have exchanged information for centuries. On one hand, the origin of pharmacology can be traced to herbal medicinal traditions that were written down and it has continued to absorb information from folk sources (Balick & Cox 1996). On the other hand, many local traditions exhibit the ability to incorporate information from global science (Brodt 2002), However, such incorporation still entails translation and reconfiguration according to local situations and cultural criteria. Thus, even though the distinction between local and nonlocal is becoming increasingly blurred in the modern world, we can still speak of its uniqueness in terms of the local blend and the particular real world situations in which it is put to use. In any case, the property of being local is relative to the size and complexity of the reference group.

2. Oral and Visual Transmission: It is transmitted orally or through imitation and demonstration, and also may be acquired through personal observations and experience. The mode of transmission is usually informal, based on participation in a range of customary activities, closely tied to the cultural and ecological context(s) in which it occurs, and influenced by the structure and density of social relationships. Writing it down potentially changes some of its fundamental properties, making it more permanent, portable, abstract, formal and decontextualized. However, as with other properties described here, the status of being nonliterary is recognized more as a general tendency rather than as an absolute and exclusive criterion. Some arguably traditional knowledge forms (e.g. Ayurvedic and Chinese medicine) are codified in written texts, local practitioners are increasingly exposed to formal education and book knowledge which they incorporate into their intellectual repertoire, and a number of communities are now recording their ancestral knowledge traditions in registers, databases or pamphlets. In any case, information derived from or stored in written form still tends to be communicated and transmitted through traditional means at the local level.

3. Practical: It is the consequence of practical engagement in everyday life and is reinforced by experience, trial and error, and experiment. The lessons learned from these experiences are often accumulated and passed along from one generation to the next. Its persistence over time attests to its positive fitness value because it is constantly being tested in the harsh laboratory of survival
.
4. Empirical: It tends to be empirical and empirico-hypothetical knowledge. While much of the content focus may be on concrete facts and behaviors, all IK systems also include aspects of abstract conceptualization, such as categorical induction, rules-of-thumb (i.e. simplifying procedures), and unique worldviews (e.g. eco-cosmovisions) that affect their understanding of how and why things happen and what is the appropriate behavioral response
.
5. Repetitive: Repetition is a defining characteristic of tradition, aiding retention and reinforcing ideas. However, replication over time and space is never perfect since new knowledge may be added and on-the-ground experiences and situations vary from generation to generation and individual to individual.

6. Dynamic: It is constantly changing, being produced as well as transformed, discovered as well as lost. The fluid, shifting nature of IK is a consequence of its practical responsiveness and integral connection to other variables of the surrounding social and physical environment. When the environmental context undergoes change, some aspect of IK will usually be impacted. This does not mean, however, that all such changes confer practical benefit.

7. Shared: It is characteristically shared to a greater degree than other forms of knowledge even though its distribution is uneven (see 7). Certain types of knowledge are typically more widely disseminated than others (e.g. cultivated vs. wild plants, food plants vs. medicinal plants), leading some observers to make a distinction between common or generalized knowledge and specialized knowledge even though such differences may be relative instead of sharply marked. Uncertain inheritance and open-access, common property attitudes facilitate its exchange within local communities but also make it highly vulnerable to appropriation by outsiders.

8. Fragmentary: It is differentially distributed among community members. In some cases, certain individuals are recognized as specialists of certain domains (e.g. healers, mid-wives, boat-builders, weavers) by virtue of social-political-ritual authority, or personal experiences and abilities. In other cases, different types and amounts of "common" knowledge are segmented according to social statuses (e.g. age, gender, class/caste) and the work roles and responsibilities associated with each one. To the extent that knowledge is dependent upon social interaction and communication, it also tends to vary along kinship and residential lines.

9. Functional: It is organized and oriented toward the pragmatic fulfillment of identifiable goals, ranging from subsistence to health to spiritual well-being. Thus it is often referred to as "know-how" or "knowledge in practice". While some authors argue that ethnobiological taxonomies are motivated by purely intellectual, or non-functional, criteria, others contend that even these components of IK have clearly functional implications if care is taken to investigate what these are.

10. Holistic: It is integrated and situated within broader cultural traditions. Thus separating technical from non-technical, and rational from non-rational, aspects is problematic.

3.2. Traditional Environmental Knowledge (TEK)

The focus here on traditional environmental knowledge is determined by the specific goal set for the proposed indicator: to measure the change/continuity of knowledge about the natural environment among diverse local groups. The "traditional" label is controversial because it has sometimes been interpreted as the opposite of "modern" or "scientific" phenomena, or as denoting simple, primitive, anachronistic, or irrational. We use it in the restricted sense of signifying continuity from the past to the present, but also caution that this does not mean that traditional knowledge and associated practices are totally static and invariant over time (see below). All societies undergo cultural changes through time, incorporating new information and technology, thus making it difficult to separate traditional from non-traditional elements. However, by traditional we wish to emphasize that it is the cumulative result of the collective historical experience of groups and individuals (often over very long periods of time) and that it is usually handed down from previous generations through customary modes of transmission. The notion of traditional also signifies that it is deeply embedded in the local culture and lifestyle in the sense of being embodied in language, classifications, beliefs, values, rituals, social institutions, and daily practices. This integration or interdependency with other aspects of cultural life enhances its qualitative distinctiveness as being specific to a particular people and place.

Environmental knowledge refers to the subset of knowledge dealing with the natural environment and people's relationship to it. This is broadly conceived as encompassing knowledge of biological entities (species, biotopes), abiotic components (e.g. soils, geology, astronomy, climate), the interrelationships among these, and the processes affecting them (including human-made impacts). Because such knowledge depends on direct contact and interaction with nature and is geared toward the practical engagement of it, it is often bound together with resource appropriation, management and utilization behaviours. At the same time, vital aspects of it may be intimately associated with spiritual beliefs, notions of health/disease, social behaviours, and symbolic expressions. Due to its multi-dimensional and interconnected nature, the demarcation of environmental knowledge from other kinds of cultural-based knowledge is somewhat ambiguous and arbitrary, and in many societies implies a conceptual imposition that has no meaning for local members.