Unit 3-Blog Post

Designing a prototype within the climate action space that is inclusive, useful, and unique is complex and multi-faceted. It requires utilizing a lens that incorporates a wealth of teachings from various backgrounds, fields of study, and ways of knowing. For the CALS501 design challenge, our group is undergoing the process of integrating Indigenous knowledge, story, and practice into our climate action software model. How can the integration of Indigenous knowledge, from various nations in a given region, be implemented into our prototype in a respectful, non-colonial, and conscientious way? 

The risk of creating a prototype that leans heavily on Indigenous knowledge is that there is an opportunity and space to appropriate and take advantage of the identified culture, language, or knowledge base. This is certainly not the intention, but as Professor Linda Tuhiwai Smith (2012) points out, researchers, by nature, have the role of enabling knowledge extraction, which is rooted in a colonial and racist agenda (p. 93). Research, at its core, is colonial as the “relationship between the researcher and researched can resemble that between the oppressor and the oppressed or the colonizer and the colonized” (Hales, 2006, p. 244). 

I interviewed a friend and colleague of mine recently for the design challenge, whose name I will leave out of this blog. He is a proud Indigenous man from the Tla’amin nation in what is now known as Powell River, BC. When I explained to him the goals and desired outcome of our prototype, he offered some important insights. First, he noted that Indigenous communities may not simply share their story, cultural practices, or traditional ecological knowledge for the sake of a research project driven by a colonial institution. The idea that one cannot go into a community and expect cultural and historical knowledge of a place and people to be handed over without reciprocity. Trust is built over time. What could we, as students and researchers, give in return? Is the creation of a prototype that is meant to educate and inform of local nations, climate related events, and drive youth engagement around climate action enough? Is that reciprocity? My colleague’s insights brought rise to a topic not yet discussed in our group. We have an expectation to fulfill the vision of a prototype but where is the cultural sensitivity and expressed gratitude in the process of obtaining information?

As we spoke more of integrating cultural sensitivity into the research and prototype development stage, my colleague brought up another valuable insight. Having the knowledge of a people and a culture is an immense privilege but how many conversations are needed in order to legitimize story and cultural practice of a nation? Families, within nations, may tell stories a different way and if knowledge is obtained, how is that information fact checked? And who builds the system to validate that knowledge? If that system is developed by the research institution, the knowledge will likely be validated and sorted through a colonial lens. I was once again brought to the conclusion that, yes, integrating, as a core component, Indigenous knowledge into our prototype is essential but more dialogue is needed around creating cultural sensitivity and establishing transdisciplinarity within the research process. 

As identified in both CALS501 and CALS503, the research process is often one-dimensional, lacking Indigenous perspective, and yet that process informs our thinking and, in many ways, the development of our western societal structure and how we are taught to perceive the world. In MACAL, there is such an emphasis on the concept and practice of transdisciplinarity, one that I believe will aid in the climate agenda moving forward, however, how prevalent really is it in the academic context? Given that the transdisciplinary approach seems rooted in the voice of Indigenous knowledge I see little evidence within academia and the traditional research agenda of this practice unfolding and allowing for inclusion of knowledge systems that aren’t backed by peer review.

The CALS501 design challenge has made me reflect on my own role within academia and how I envision transdisciplinarity impacting the climate action space. Nicolescu (2014) adds that the “goal [of transdisciplinarity] is the understanding of the present world, of which one of the imperatives is the unity of knowledge” (p. 187). It’s difficult for me to see past the need for the academic system to be restructured with a change in focus and priority from accolades to inclusion, collective action, or ‘unity,’ as Nicolescu states. We have much work to do and I thank my friend for sharing his input, wisdom, and expanding my intellectual horizon. 

References

Hales, J. (2006). An anti-colonial critique of research methodology (Dissertation). Available from Brill scholarly publishing database.

Nicolescu, B. (2014). Methodology of transdisciplinarity. World Futures, 70(3-4), 186–199. doi.org/10.1080/02604027.2014.934631

Tuhiwai Smith, L. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. 2nd Edition. Zed Books. Retrieved from the Ebook Central e-book database