Abstract:

The frequent invocation of indigenous knowledge, and the many exhortations to ‘preserve’ and ‘mainstream’ it, make it important to ask what exactly is meant by the term. Important theoretical questions lie at the root of this dis cussion. Is ’indigenous knowledge’ different from science, and if so, how? What is meant by ‘science’ itself? Is there such a thing as ‘modern’ science, and is it the same as ‘Western’ science? In this article, the author examine how the term ‘indigenous knowledge’ (often shortened to IK) has been used in policy circles, by historians of science and by anthropologists, and argue that the concept of IK has long been an imprecise one. Further, recent scholarship suggests that ‘indigenous’/‘traditional’ knowledge, on the one hand, and ‘modern’ science, on the other, are to a large extent constructed categories that emerged in particular historical circumstances. The study also discussed briefly on the notion that if indeed IK and what is call ‘science’ are comparable forms of knowledge, there need a change in terminology to avoid privileging the latter over the former.