Ethnoecology, Resource Use, Conservation And Development In A ...

1.2.4 Does the nature of ethnoecological knowledge provide the basis for
its integration with scientific approaches in ecology?
The complementary nature of scientific and indigenous knowledge systems is
discussed by DeWalt (1994). DeWalt’s distinction between the ‘immutable mobiles’
of science and the ‘mutable immobiles’ of traditional knowledge emphasise the site-
specificity of the latter. Unlike scientific knowledge, indigenous knowledge is highly
local in its scope, but flexible with respect to changes in the context within which it
operates. DeWalt presents three case studies, each of which illustrates the synergism
that can result from the combination of the two approaches. Other analyses have
stressed the methodological difference: Posey (1990: 54-55) suggests that
hypothesis testing can serve as a linkage between the two systems: ethnobiological
information provides hypotheses that can be tested by scientists, thus advancing
scientific understanding of the phenomena under investigation. Such an approach is
being applied in agricultural development, and is reported to have successfully aided
the communication and interaction of rural farmers and development staff (Warren
and Rajasekaran 1993). More advanced investigations, centred around the harvesting
of particular species of forest plants, attest its efficacy in enhancing the economic
and conservational potential of local systems for the management of these resources
(Donovan and Puri n.d.; Puri 2001).
In a similar vein, Sillitoe (1998: 226-7) advocates the use of scientific methods in
evaluating indigenous knowledge, identifying gaps in knowledge and instances of
maladaptation caused by rapid change. I would like to give greater emphasis to the
political implications: local empowerment and self-determination are implicit in
schemes whose primary basis is the local body of capacities, rather than the esoteric
knowledge of an outsider. Scientific knowledge and practice can offer people a
greater range of intellectual tools and experimental methods than are available in the
traditional setting, and offer insights that might be difficult to achieve within the
constraints of traditional knowledge systems (Puri 2001). Ortiz (1999) describes
how the incorporation of novel scientific information can successfully effect adaptive
modifications of agricultural techniques, but emphasises that the information content
and the manner of its presentation must be compatible with pre-existing belief
structures if this is to be achieved. Agrawal (1995) argues that the notion that there
are inherent differences between scientific and non-scientific systems of knowledge
can not be sustained. This argument largely rests on a lack of attention to the sort of
empirical detail that would show that DeWalt’s conclusions, for example, are largely
borne out by the facts. It does, however, raise the important point that scientific and