ARTICLE IN PRESS

The International Information & Library Review (2008) 40, 6472

The International
Information &
Library Review
www.elsevier.com/locate/iilr

Indigenous knowledge and the knowledge commons

Kate Joranson
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Summary This paper studies the frameworks used to understand the commons,
the knowledge commons, and indigenous knowledge. Discussion of enclosure,
participation, rivalrous and non-rivalrous commons reveals that information and
knowledge are resources that increase in value through use. The author examines
current IK practices, focusing on documentation strategies and the role of the
librarian. Studying IK practices in relation to the commons allows shared language to
emerge. Challenging the frameworks, discourse and practices of both IK and the
commons exposes and strengthens their connections to one another. This provides a
platform for stronger advocacy for IK projects and the commons in general.
& 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction
As discourse on the knowledge commons, and the
commons in general, grows, it is useful to look at
the role indigenous knowledge (IK) can play in
challenging and strengthening the discussion. To
begin, looking at a denition of the commons is
useful; Charlotte Hess and Elinor Ostrom describe
the commons as y a general term that refers to a
resource shared by a group of people (Hess &
Ostrom, 2007, p. 4). IK is comprised of such
localized expertise as the ability to distinguish
fertile and unfertile soils by color and scent, and
complex shing tactics designed to produce sh
with the highest possible vitamin and mineral
content. For hundreds and even thousands of years,
people living in arid climates have been naturally
modifying genetic plant material to develop strains
of crops that are well adapted to the extreme
E-mail address: kmj19@pitt.edu

climate. Many indigenous people also have their

own highly specialized taxonomic systems for
classifying plants and animals.1 This knowledge is
held in common among members of a local
community, and in many cases functions as a
knowledge commons. The World Summit on the
Information Society recognized the importance of
these resources in their declaration of principles:
Preservation of content in diverse languages and
formats must be accorded high priority in
building an inclusive Information Society y
The development of local content suited to
domestic or regional needs will encourage social
and economic development and will stimulate
participation of all stakeholders, including people living in rural, remote and marginal areas.
(WSIS, 2003)
1

These examples are gathered from LINKSs (Local and

Indigenous Knowledge Systems, part of UNESCO) website, which
provides short summaries of a variety of ongoing IK projects.

1057-2317/$ - see front matter & 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.iilr.2007.09.002

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Indigenous knowledge and the knowledge commons
This paper will examine IK in a global context of
the knowledge commons. By studying the commons, knowledge commons, and IK alongside one
another, the frameworks used to understand them
become visible and expose the intricacies of their
relationships with one another.

The commons
In 1968, biologist Garrett Hardin wrote The
Tragedy of the Commons, for Science. This article
has been cited frequently since then, often serving
as a connection point among disciplines invested in
the idea of the commons. The portion of the
article that is often quoted tells a story of a group
of cattle herdsmen who must share grazing pasture.
Each herdsman is continually faced with the
decision of whether or not to add another animal
to his herd. In weighing the outcomes, each
herdsmen asks himself if adding another animal to
his herd will do him more harm or more good. Each
herdsman individually decides to add another
animal to his herd, again and again, eventually
depleting the pastures food supply (Hardin, 1968,
p. 1244). The conclusion Hardin draws is that,
Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush,
each pursuing his own best interest in a society that
believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom
in a commons brings ruin to all (Hardin, 1968, p.
1244). He went on to describe example after
example of commons tragedies, such as the US
National Parks, grazing lands in the western US, and
the oceans. All of these, he determined, were
destined to deteriorate due to the over-use of them
and the fact that they are nite resources. He
urged readers to stop treating these resources like
a commons (Hardin, 1968, p. 1247). These examples offer powerful images of the destructive power
of over-use of nite resources by humans. Hardin
goes on to articulate his opposition to the United
Nations declaration from 1967. It stated that the
decision of how many children a family should have
must lie within each individual family and cannot
be imposed by any government or organization.
Hardin argued that only when we relinquish the
freedom to breed, could we end the tragedy
that is the commons (Hardin, 1968, p. 1248).
Despite the controversy of this issue, what is
important to note is the context for Hardins
herdsman story. Hardin was writing about the
exponentially growing human population and was
trying to offer a way to understand population
growth in relation to nite global resources. The
context of population growth is useful in understanding the full scope of the term, the com-

65
mons, as it opens the discussion to a global
context and sets the stage for the interconnectedness of commons-related issues.
Hardin has been cited in articles about everything
from sustainable tourism, to emergency medicine,
and environmental policy. Avoiding Hardins tragedy
of the commons has been part of many urgent calls
to actionmany extremely important to preserving
resources around the world. Despite its usefulness, it
has fueled further debates, revisions, and renements. For example, describing this tragedy actually
points to the difference between a rivalrous commons and a non-rivalrous commons. Many authors
use this terminology borrowed from economic theory
to describe this difference. Hess and Ostroms
summary is useful here. Rivalrous commons are
those that are depleted through use (also referred
to as subtractive), such as forests, clean water,
air, etc. Non-rivalrous commons are not depleted
through use (Hess & Ostrom, 2007). A piece of music
is not used up once heard by an audience: a work of
ction, a scientic theory, a sculpture, the same. (In
fact, Lewis Hyde and others might argue that their
value increases through use. I will return to this point
later.) After reading Hardins article, one is led to
assume that a commons is inherently rivalrous and
that the world is composed of resource pools that are
continually at risk of being used up, just as the
herdsmens animals over-grazed the pasture. However, information and knowledge are different. They
are often put in the category of non-rivalrous
commons, as they do not become depleted. Hess
and Ostrom write that the unifying thread in all
commons resources is that they are jointly used,
managed by groups of varying sizes and interests
(Hess & Ostrom, 2007, p. 5). Commons discourse has
grown considerably since Hardins article, much of it
examining participation and management of the
commons. Thirty years after Hardins article appeared, Hardin wrote a revision, indicating that his
weightiest mistake was not inserting the word
unmanaged (Hardin, 1998). His revised title might
read, The Tragedy of the Unmanaged Commons.
The contexts of Hardins writing about the commons
serve as guides for the following discussion of
knowledge commons, and more specically, international IK practices and discourse. The issues raised by
Hardin will surface later in my analysis of the
language and practices of IK.

The knowledge commons

Dening knowledge as a kind of commons is key to
examining the language of IK discourse and
practices. In Hess and Ostroms introduction to

ARTICLE IN PRESS
66
Understanding Knowledge as a Commons, they
describe knowledge as y all intelligible ideas,
information, and data in whatever form in which it
is expressed or obtained (Hess & Ostrom, 2007,
p. 7). They go on to cite several denitions that
make ne distinctions among data, information,
and knowledge (Hess & Ostrom, 2007, pp. 89), as
do many other authors who write in this area.
Though these delineations can be fruitful, for the
purposes of this paper, I will use the term knowledge commons to express shared resource pools
that contain ideas that result from perception,
experience, and/or study.2 This denition will serve
as a point of departure for examining the participation in a knowledge commons and enclosure of the
commons, two important concepts that we will
take with us into a later examination of IK discourse
and practices.

The knowledge commons and enclosure

Knowledge commons are continually at risk of
enclosure. Enclosure is dened in the American
Heritage Dictionary: To fence in so as to prevent
common use: enclosed the pasture. Thoughts
return to Hardins pasture; by surrounding the
resource with limits, the resource is prevented
from expanding, permission to use it is required,
and participants begin to fear its deterioration.
Universities in the United States provide a prime
example and raise issues that will provide a context
for examining IK practices. Universities have long
been understood to function as a knowledge
commons, where ideas are exchanged, challenged,
and build upon one another. Giving ones predecessors appropriate credit has been the norm as
ideas shift and grow. Universities have traditionally
occupied a social space outside of market forces. As
universities become increasingly market-driven,
the ideas generated in this setting risk enclosure.
David Bollier writes about this enclosure, and
questions whether academic integrity can be
preserved when, scholarly arenas are reconceptualized as market resources, to be treated as
holdings in an investment portfolio y (Bollier,
2002, p. 20). Nancy Kranich writes, Understanding
knowledge as a commons offers a way not only of
countering the challenges of access posed by
enclosure, but of building a fundamental institution
for twenty-rst century democracy (Kranich,
2007, p. 93). Kranich points out the power of
language in expressing the urgency of the situation.
2

This denition is adapted from the American Heritage

Dictionary denition of knowledge.

K. Joranson
By using the word commons to discuss knowledge
and ideas, one can contextualize knowledge as part
of an intricate network of shared resources.
Kranich goes on to say, The commons elevates
individuals to a role above mere consumers in the
marketplace, shifting the focus to their rights,
needs, and responsibilities as citizens (Kranich,
2007, p. 94). This language of the commons is
powerful not only in communicating a communitylevel context, but also in providing a voice for
individuals. It allows an individual to imagine
himself or herself as one who generates ideas
rather than one who merely consumes them.

The knowledge commons and

participation
In thinking about the role of the individual, it is
important to wonder about who can and does
participate in a knowledge commons. The term
knowledge commons is often used in conjunction
with academic research. However, it can apply to
knowledge shared in common in informal settings,
and that which is shared in communities outside
academia. Peter Levine encourages this view:
y the process of creating public knowledge as
an additional good, because such work builds
social capital, strengthens communities, and
gives people skills that they need for effective
citizenship. If this is correct, then we should aim
to include as many people as possible in the
collaborative creation of free (i.e. openaccess) knowledge. Not only scholars and librarians, but ordinary people should be knowledge
creators. (Levine, 2002, p. 247)
Levine directs our attention to the importance of
keeping ordinary people in the forefront of the
discussion of knowledge commons. Though the
term ordinary people can be troubling, the point
is important and Levines work is valuable. It is
important to see the knowledge generated outside
academia as a vital part of the discussion on the
knowledge commons, including the online network
of content producers using YouTube, blogs, and
wikis.

Indigenous knowledge and the

knowledge commons
Denitions of IK abound. Often cited, Ellen
and Harriss (1997) 10 characteristics of IK are
comprehensive and are often embedded in later

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Indigenous knowledge and the knowledge commons
denitions. The following is a condensed version of
Ellen and Harriss 10 characteristics of IK.
(1) IK is local, and tied to a particular place and
set of experiences. (2) IK is orally transmitted.
(3) IK is the consequence of practical engagement in everyday life, and is constantly reinforced by experience and trial and error. (4)
The rst and third characteristics support a
further general observation, that it is empirical
rather than theoretical knowledge. (5) Repetition is a dening characteristic of tradition. (6)
Tradition is a uid and transforming agent with
no real end when applied to knowledge;
negotiation is a central concept (Hunn, 1993,
p. 13). (7) IK is characteristically shared to a
much greater degree than other forms of knowledge. (8) Although IK may be focused on
particular individuals and may achieve a degree
of coherence in rituals and other symbolic
constructs, its distribution is always fragmentary: it does not exist in its totality in any one
place or individual. (9) Despite claims for the
existence of culture-wide (indeed universal)
abstract classications of knowledge y where
IK is at its densest and directly applicable its
organisation is essentially functional. (10) IK is
characteristically situated within broader cultural traditions; separating the technical from
the non-technical, the rational from the nonrational is problematic. (Ellen & Harris, 1997)
The United Nations Educational, Scientic, and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO) offers three denitions of IK, the second of which states:
Indigenous knowledge is the information base for
a society, which facilitates communication and
decision-making. Indigenous information systems
are dynamic, and are continually inuenced by
internal creativity and experimentation as well
as by contact with external systems. (Flavier et
al., 1995)
Boven and Morohashi, authors of UNESCOs Best
Practices Using Indigenous Knowledge, caution that
it is extremely difcult to dene such a term:
It is only when we try to translate these local
practices into western terms that we are
confronted with the need to choose a certain
denition, and we see how difcult it is to give
voice to a worldview, which is sometimes
completely different from our own. (Boven &
Morohashi, 2003, p. 12)
When such a concept is grounded in multiple,
particular worldviews, it is difcult to be both selfexamining and appropriately descriptive. Working

67
out the language, however, is key to being able to
continue a dialog and to challenge the language.
Local and indigenous knowledge systems (LINKS),
which is a part of UNESCO, offers similar language
and builds on the denition by adding that the
knowledge systems are a part of a complex that
also includes language, attachment to place,
spirituality and worldview. (LINKS, 2003) Many
other terms are used in a similar way, including,
traditional knowledge, local knowledge,
folk knowledge, and folk science, among
others. On their Web site, LINKS goes on to describe
how in IK, rational and objective thoughts and
experiences are inseparable from intuitive and
even sacred ideas. (LINKS, 2003) Examining IK
generates an awareness of strict delineations in
traditionally western thought processes. Observing
and challenging these delineations can assist in
analyzing IK discourse and practices.
By looking at the process of dening IK, we learn
that IK does not t neatly into the more compartmentalized ways of understanding it. IK does,
however, seem to situate itself in the knowledge
commons. When linking these ideas, it is important
to notice the distinctions and relationship between
IK discourse and IK practices. One might use
commons-language to describe an IK practice;
yet, commons-language may also be absent from
practices that demonstrate commons-thinking.

Examples of indigenous knowledge

operating as a knowledge commons
Pointing to the existence of IK is an act that is
distinct from deciding to record, preserve, or
disseminate IK. These activities do not need to be
present for IK to be considered a knowledge
commons. When they are present, however, they
can be important components to building a knowledge commons. Depending on how the recording,
preserving, and disseminating is implemented, these
activities could shift the IK practice out of the realm
of knowledge commons and into market-driven
resource pools. With recording and disseminating IK
comes a risk of piracy and inappropriate use. The
following examples provide an opportunity to examine a variety of IK practices and discourse and look
for evidence of a knowledge commons at work.

Indigenous knowledge and

documentation
IK projects often incorporate some form of documentation of the IK, such as producing a video

ARTICLE IN PRESS
68
recording or a database. Before moving into
analysis of these situations, it is helpful to describe
how IK operates in a project that does not include
recording of the IK. UNESCOs best practices
document describes a community in Kenya that
lives in an area where most water sources are
contaminated. Storage of water is problematic.
Several interventions have been attempted but
failed. Success occurred when the local potters
worked with the Nyanza Healthy Project team to
make modied clay pots to store the water. These
clay pots allowed people to store their water in the
traditional way while using the potters knowledge
and skills to make modications (Boven & Morohashi, 2003, pp. 3037). The livelihood of the potters
was not threatened by an outside vendor and
ownership of the production remained within the
community. The UNESCO best practices document
makes no mention of recording information on
techniques used to make the modied pots. What
makes this an example of a knowledge commons,
however, is that the knowledge of the potters
remained a shared resource and continues to be the
foundation for the addition of the new techniques.

Indigenous knowledge, documentation,

and ownership
In her article from 2005, Bharati Sen takes
inventory of many IK documentation and dissemination practices in India. Many of her examples
involve digital databases containing IK. She points
out that in creating and managing these databases,
documentation and dissemination are often simultaneous processes (Sen, 2005, p. 381). The processes gradually overlap as knowledge is added to
the database, news of it spreads, and new people
make contributions to the database while accessing
information it contains. Sen emphasizes the importance of the community maintaining ownership
of the IK and its documentation. Many western
systems of ownership focus on the corporation and
the individual, ignoring the community. She states,
yownership of traditional knowledge and expressions of culture is not based on individual
rights, but on a system of collective rights that are
managed on a custodial basis according to customary laws (Sen, 2005, p. 382). Sen describes several
IK practices that take these considerations seriously. Kalpavriksh, an environmental action group,
together with the Save the Seeds Campaign
documented agricultural practices in a village in
Uttar Pradesh. Copies of the documentation were
kept in the village as well as by Kalpavriksh. An

K. Joranson
agreement was made that distribution would be
possible only with the consent of the villagers. This
agreement keeps the knowledge base within the
control of the people who generated the knowledge
(Sen, 2005, p. 380).

Indigenous knowledge and dissemination

Sen, as well as Posey and Duteld, describe the
Honey Bee Network, an organization dedicated to
documenting and disseminating practices and innovations in local languages. It started in India and
has now spread to over 75 countries. The Honey Bee
Network, part of The Society for Research and
Initiatives for Sustainable Technologies (SRISTI),
publishes The Honeybee Newsletter and maintains
an online database, which are the vehicles for
sharing the IK. The newsletter is printed in many
languages, and the emphasis is on information
provided by the farmers, horticulturalists, and
artisans themselves. Their Web site describes their
philosophy:
Honey Bee collects pollen without impoverishing
the owers, and it connects ower to ower
through pollination. The idea is that when we
collect knowledge of people we should ensure
that people dont become poorer after sharing
their insights with us. (SRISTI, 2001)
They are concerned with the ethics of knowledge extraction, its documentation, dissemination
and abstraction into theories, institutions or technologies. The language used to describe this IK
practice demonstrates commons-thinking. Connection and sharing of ideas without exerting individual ownership over the ideas allows the knowledge
to move freely and grow while protecting community authorship. This documentation provides a
framework for protecting the IK from piracy and
enclosure by those who have not contributed. Anil
Gupta, founder of the Indian Institute of Management, explains, The formal sector cannot use the
knowledge of the poor without acknowledgments,
citation, and of course, prior informed consent
(Gupta, 1997, p. 37) Both the practice and the
discourse reect a knowledge-commons approach.

Indigenous knowledge and the librarian

Liauw Toong Tjiek writes about IK practices at Petra
Christian University in Surabaya, Indonesia. She
describes Desa Informasi (which translates to
Information Village), which is a university-wide

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Indigenous knowledge and the knowledge commons
program to develop a digital collection of documents produced by students and faculty that
contain IK. Tjiek makes an interesting point about
their strategy, describing it as an attract and
absorb approach:
This approach stipulates that librarians conduct
the collection process, rather than providing the
tools and expect the communities to do it
themselves. While the latter is a perfect
approach, I believe that most of the time it
does not work, at least not in the early stages of
the initiative, since it takes time to build
interest. It is a strategy to absorb proactively
as many resources as possible from the communities. (Tjiek, 2006, p. 126)
Tjiek is referring to statements such as this: If
indigenous peoples are to collect, record, and
control knowledge useful to themselves, they
should ideally initiate research projects rather
than be participants in other peoples plans (Posey
& Duteld, 1996, p. 140). It is interesting to include
Tjieks perspective to the discussion of a knowledge
commons because it emphasizes the importance of
individual initiative and connects these issues to
librarians. Individuals who have the background and
foresight to recognize the need for documentation
of a knowledge base may be necessary in beginning
documentation projects. A librarians initiative can
be the spark that starts an IK documentation
project, which then reveals the extensive knowledge that had been taken for granted.
A librarians role in developing the metadata for
such IK documentation projects is signicant. Sen
describes the importance of metadata that reects
IK in her article cited previously. The SNDT3
Womens University Library evaluates the dissertations and theses for IK content. Sen points out the
need for accurate metadata that will capture the
nuances of the subject matter (Sen, 2005, p. 381).
In the article on Desa Infomasi, Tjiek also describes
the importance of involving librarians in IK projects, and details their librarys approach. They use
an expanded Dublin Core metadata set4 to build
thematic collections (Tjiek, 2006, p. 124). Adequate metadata is key to providing access to the IK,
maintaining access is key in calling it a knowledge
commons.
3
SNDT refers to Shreemati Nathibai Damodar Thackersey, a
prominent advocate for womens education.
4
Dublin Core is a metadata (data about data) system used to
describe individual items in a collection, often used for digital
collections. This descriptive information allows items to be
retrieved from the database.

69

Indigenous knowledge, knowledge

commons, and language
The topic of language points to many issues
within IK, such as preservation of endangered
languages, and the translation of IK. These issues
are important to understanding IK policies and
practices, yet they are beyond the scope of this
paper. I will focus on how language is being used to
describe the knowledge commons and IK. Pleas for
more powerful language to describe the importance and the urgency of the commons abound.
Many authors return again and again to ecological
and environmental imagery, suggesting that knowledge operates like an ecosystem. James Boyle, who
writes about the need for an environmentalism for
the Net and describes information as an ecosystem, is often cited (Boyle, 1997). Writing about the
growth of commons discourse, David Bollier cites
conservationist and writer, Wendell Berry in the
following passage:
y however useful market-based policies may be
in some arenas, the market system as a whole is
not likely to conserve nature of its own accord.
As essayist Wendell Berry has explained, We
know enough of our own history by now to be
aware that people exploit what they have
merely concluded to be of value, but they
defend what they love. To defend what we love
we need a particularizing language, for we love
what we particularly know. (Berry, 2000, p. 40;
Bollier, 2007, p. 34)
Bollier is looking to Berry for insight into the need
for language that embodies the intimate understanding one has of ones surroundings. Bollier is
nding in Berrys writing a glimpse into how
powerfully motivating the articulation of this can
be. Boyles analysis of commons discourse is useful
here; he describes the concept of the environment as an important term that allows for a
generalized reection on the otherwise diverse
and particular situations it encompasses. He suggests that in a similar way, the language of the
commons can help us to re-imagine creation,
innovation, and speech on a global network
(Boyle, 2003, p. 74). It is interesting that the
language of environmentalism is called upon to
assist in building a parallel case for a more powerful
language of the commons, when the air, water, and
soil are often categorized as examples of the
commons. We are, then, not looking outside the
commons for assistance, but looking inside and
expanding the boundaries of a discussion already in
progress.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
70

K. Joranson

Though the terms are often used interchangeably, the concept of ecology pre-dates that of
environmentalism. Developing an understanding
of ecosystems made it possible for later insights
into the destruction of these intricately connected resources. Environmentalism refers to
organized efforts to educate and advocate for
the preservation of ecosystems. The dynamic
relationship between ecology and environmentalism is mirrored in the knowledge commons. Understanding the inherent ecology of knowledge
allows an environmentalism, to grow. Those
involved in the knowledge commons are working on building awareness of the interconnected
nature of knowledge production and access to
information.
In examining the language of a knowledge
commons, it is important to notice the environmental and ecological references that run throughout writing about IK. This occurs in part because IK
has played a critical role in managing natural
resources for hundreds of years. IK comes from,
and is inseparable from, ecology. One hears this
echoed in LINKS statement of philosophy; Nature
and Culture are not opposed and circumscribed by
sharp boundaries. Knowledge, practice and representations are intertwined and mutually dependent (LINKS, 2003). The Honey Bee network also
uses an ecological metaphor to communicate their
intent. Honeybees feed on ower nectar while their
bodies pick up pollen grains that pollinate the next
owers visited. They return to the hive to produce
honey that nourishes the next generation of
honeybees. The owers and the honeybees benet,
neither being depleted, and in fact produce fruit as
a result. The second part of the metaphor is that of
the honeybee network. One imagines elaborate,
complex communication for which honeybees are
known. It is also the network of interactions among
honeybees, owers, and other elements of the
ecosystem that generates a vivid image of knowledge both traveling and growing, satisfying appetites and bringing forth new growth and life. The
honeybee metaphor is powerful in that it makes
visible an aspect of knowledge often overlooked. It
is the incidentalthe aspect of chancethat is
perhaps not chance at all, but rather a cycle that is
not fully understood.
One of ecologys rst lessons was that, beneath
all the change in nature, there are steady
states characterized by cycles. Every participant in the cycle literally lives off the
others with only the ultimate energy source,
the sun, being transcendent. (Hyde, 1983,
p. 19)

Lewis Hydes description of ecologys basic

principle of cycles is used to describe gift economies. He describes gift economies as systems where
wealth and value grow as property moves and
travels through gift giving. He traces gift economies
through history, building an argument that creativity belongs to gift economies rather than to
economies of commodities. The objects of gift
economies increase in value through their movement. Hyde continues, y the circle is a sign of an
ecological insight as much as of gift exchange. We
come to feel ourselves as one part of a large selfregulating system. (Hyde, 1983, p. 19) It is in the
cycles and networks of ecosystems that knowledge
commons and IK are best situated.

Contradictions and conclusions

Studying the practices and discourse of IK allows us
to situate it in the knowledge commons. It invites
us to look inside the commons, nding language
that refutes the tragedy of the commons, and
builds an understanding of knowledge operating in
a separate sphere that does not become depleted
through use. We have uncovered examples of
knowledge operating like ecosystems; yet, an
ecosystem, because it can be used up, belongs to
the rivalrous commons. Why do we look to
ecosystems for metaphoric language to describe a
knowledge commons that is non-rivalrous in nature?
What can we learn from this seemingly contradictory situation?
Suspending this question for a moment, it is
useful to look back at the major frameworks used
to understand the commons, the knowledge commons and IK. By examining Hardins tragedy of the
commons, we understand the commons in terms
of rivalrous and non-rivalrous resources. We learn
that information is a non-rivalrous resource that
can increase in value through use. The concepts of
enclosure and participation take us further into the
discussion, providing ways of framing IK. Finally,
ecosystems, networks, and cycles lead us through
metaphoric language used to describe knowledge
commons and IK. This leaves us to wonder how a
knowledge commons can derive so much power
from an ecosystem metaphor and yet is so
inherently different. Reading Arun Agrawals description of the circular problem of IK provides
some context:
y the nature of the Indigenous is shaped by the
workings of power y The necessity, urgency,
and importance of research on the Indigenous
derives from assumptions that such knowledge

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Indigenous knowledge and the knowledge commons
is disappearing, the rate of disappearance is
fast and possibly accelerating, and that such
knowledge is valuable. But the value one is
talking about is quite specic; it is useful in
improving scientic knowledge, it is useful for
pursuing development, and so forth. This is
somewhat puzzling because it is development
that to begin with threatens Indigenous knowledgeit is the progressive spread of science and
scientic knowledge that threatens the ways
Indigenous cosmologies and knowledge work. So
the spread of what threatens Indigenous knowledge is also precisely what many advocates of
Indigenous knowledge seek to advance by identifying, documenting, collecting, and systematizing Indigenous knowledge. (Agrawal, 2005,
pp. 73, 75, 76)
Agrawal points out the cycle in which IK is
caught. The cycle, however, is not a cycle to which
IK belongs, such as the cycle of gift economies. The
cycle is one that is imposed upon it, and is of a
traditionally western European nature. Being
caught in this cycle is in fact not a problem of
IK, but a problem with the frameworks applied to
it. This allows us to look at the seeming contradiction from earlier; if an ecosystem belongs to the
rivalrous commons (that which can be used up),
why do we look to ecosystems for metaphoric
language to describe a knowledge commons, which
is non-rivalrous in nature? Is this not a contradiction? Thoughts return to the statement by LINKS;
Nature and Culture are not opposed and circumscribed by sharp boundaries. Knowledge, practice
and representations are intertwined and mutually
dependent. (LINKS, 2003) Perhaps borrowing a
metaphor from the rivalrous commons to describe a
non-rivalrous commons is not a contradiction at all,
but rather a problem in the framework originally
applied. As we continue to develop language to
describe the knowledge commons, it is important
to explore language that does not keep these
resources in opposition or as separate, but makes
their mutuality visible. Articulating these relationships can provide guidance in developing practices
and policies that are grounded in the inherent
qualities of IK. This will continue to challenge and
strengthen knowledge commons discourse and
practices.

References
Agrawal, Arun. (2005). The politics of indigenous knowledge. In
M. Nakata, & M. Langton (Eds.), Australian indigenous
knowledge and libraries (pp. 7384). Canberra: Australian

71
Academic & Research Libraries for the Australian Library and
Information Association.
Berry, Wendell. (2000). Life is a miracle: An essay against
modern superstition. New York: Perseus Books.
Bollier, David. (2002). The enclosure of the academic commons.
Academe, 88(5), 1823.
Bollier, David. (2007). The growth of the commons paradigm. In
Charlotte Hess, & Elinor Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding
knowledge as a commons: From theory to practice
(pp. 2740). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Boven, Karin., & Morohashi, Jun. (2003). Best practices using
indigenous knowledge. Paris: UNESCO/MOST.
Boyle, James. (1997). A politics of intellectual property:
Environmentalism for the net? /http://www.law.duke.edu/
boylesite/Intprop.htmS; accessed 05. 07. 07.
Boyle, James. (2003). The second enclosure movement and the
construction of the public domain. Law and Contemporary
Problems, 66(33), 3373.
Ellen, Roy, & Harris, Holly. (1997). Concepts of indigenous
environmental knowledge in scientic and development
studies literaturea critical assessment. UK: APFT Project.
/http://lucy.ukc.ac.uk/Rainforest/SML_les/Occpap/indigknow.occpap_TOC.htmlS; accessed 05. 07. 07.
Flavier, J. M., et al. (1995). The regional program for the
promotion of indigenous knowledge in Asia. In D. M. Warren,
L. J. Slikkerveer, & D. Brokensha (Eds.), The cultural
dimension of development: Indigenous knowledge systems
(pp. 479487). London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Gupta, Anil K. (1997). The honey bee network: Linking knowledge-rich grassroots innovations. Development, 40(4), 3640.
Hardin, Garrett. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science,
162(3859), 12431248.
Hardin, Garrett. (1998). Extensions of the Tragedy of the
Commons. Science, 280(5364), 682683.
Hess, Charlotte., & Ostrom, Elinor. (Eds.). (2007). Understanding knowledge as a commons: From theory to practice.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hunn, Eugene. (1993). What is traditional ecological knowledge?
In N. Williams, & G. Baines (Eds.), Traditional ecological knowledge: Wisdom for sustainable development
(pp. 1315). Canberra: Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, ANU.
Hyde, Lewis. (1983). The gift: Imagination and the erotic life of
property. New York: Vintage Books.
Kranich, Nancy. (2007). Countering enclosure: Reclaiming
the knowledge commons. In Charlotte Hess, & Elinor
Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding knowledge as a commons:
From theory to practice (pp. 85122). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Levine, Peter. (2002). Building the electronic commons. The
Good Society, 11(3), 39.
Local and Indigenous Knowledge Systems (LINKS) (n.d.). What
is local knowledge? /http://portal.unesco.org/sc_nat/ev.
php?URL_ID=2034&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201S;
accessed 05. 07.07.
Posey, Darrell Addison., & Duteld, Graham. (1996). Beyond
intellectual property: Toward traditional resource rights for
indigenous peoples and local communities. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.
Sen, Bharati. (2005). Indigenous knowledge for development:
Bringing research and practice together. International
Information and Library Review, 37, 375382.
Society for Research and Initiatives for Sustainable Technologies
and Institution (SRISTI). (2001). Honey bee network.
/http://www.sristi.org/honeybee.htmlS; accessed 05.05.07.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
72
Tjiek, Liauw Toong. (2006). Desa informasi: The role of digital
libraries in the preservation and dissemination of indigenous
knowledge. International Information and Library Review,
38, 123131.

K. Joranson
World Summit on the Information Society. (2003). Declaration of
principles: Building the information society: A global
challenge in the new millennium. /http://www.itu.int/
wsis/docs/geneva/ofcial/dop.htmlS; accessed 05. 07.07.