Doing is Learning: Analysis of an Unsuccessful Attempt to Adapt TEK/IK Methodology to Norwegian Sámi Circumstances

Abstract

This article describes a case where an attempt was made to introduce TEK/IK into a conflict between Sámi reindeer owners and environmental institutions. The conflict was brought on by the establishment of a national park in Southern Sámi areas in Norway. At first, the Sámi were in favour of the park, but later on their attitudes changed as the content of planned national park developed. The reindeer owners discovered that the size of the park would be reduced, leaving out what they thought were significant areas in need of protection. They saw the encouragement of increased tourism activities as a threat to reindeer herding and felt alienated by the number of representatives they received in the park management structures. On the basis of these observations reindeer owners protested, but were ignored. As researchers well-established in the Southern Sámi area, we were brought into conversations regarding the park as the local reindeer owners searched for ways of bringing new arguments into the process. At this point we thought TEK/IK represented an opportunity to add weight to Sámi perspectives. As the title of this article indicates, as push came to shove we did not succeed in making room for local participation in our TEK/IK project, despite these existing on-going relations. The article attempts to understand what happened. Our analysis is based upon a perception of TEK/IK as not one, but at least two co-constituted knowledge practices. The premise is that research failures are as important to publish as successes. Our joint ethnographic experience has methodological implications for future TEK/IK research.

Keywords:

• Traditional Ecological Knowledge
• Indigenous Knowledge
• Southern Sámi National Parks
• Empowerment

Acknowledgements

This article was written with the support of the Norwegian Research Council, project 186810/V10. We would like to thank Sámi University College as project host. We would also like to thank all our local partners, whom in this article remain anonymous, as well as anonymous reviewers along with Jon Altman, Jelena Porsanger, Britt Kramvig, Arne Kalland, Nanni-Mari Westerfjeld, Berit Inga and Randi Nymo.

Notes

1. We do not mean to imply that Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Indigenous Knowledge are the same to anthropologists and other academics. The reason why we use both is because they are used interchangeably in the larger debate.

2. Such efforts are also currently undertaken by Sámi University College in their introduction of the term “Arbediehtu” (see Riseth, 2011). Coined, arbediehtu avoids similar pitfalls.

3. INTERREG IIIC is an EU-funded programme that helps Europe's regions form partnerships to work together on common projects. By sharing knowledge and experience, these partnerships enable the regions involved to develop new solutions to economic, social and environmental challenges. See http://www.interreg3c.net/sixcms/list.php?page=home_en