Significance of different ways of knowing in responding to the climate crisis: The necessity for Indigenous knowledge

In the third millennium, a fundamental transformation is taking place in research institutions. As young Indigenous scholars increasingly engage in scholarship in the biological, physical, and social sciences, as well as the humanities, it has become clear that the future of institutionalized science is no longer solely in the hands of descendants of settler-colonialists, and that Indigenous voices will increasingly be present in shaping the future of scholarship in all these fields. A separate but equally significant and related point is that: Indigenous cultures that have faced colonization and are, today, at the vanguard of climate change may also provide the necessary intellectual depth to climate change impacts and potential insight into adaptation strategies [1, 2]. Therefore, these young Indigenous scholars may potentially contribute to multiple ways of knowing and transdisciplinary thinking in research as well as teaching of a new generation of citizens, scholars, and policy makers [3]. They are part of a groundswell of intellectual pluralism that can substantially contribute to responding to the climate crisis. Given the legacy of colonialism, structural injustice, and the resultant sustained violence on Indigenous and rural communities and their habitats, any effective policy response to climate change defies easy and singular formulations [4–6]. This is because of the entangled nature of sociocultural, economic, and ecological impacts of climate change on existing inequities. These effects are difficult to perceive and understand due to the complex interdependencies between food systems, livelihoods, and the local ecological contexts [7]. Therefore, responses to the climate crisis resist quick resolution because of continually changing social and ecological circumstances. As a result, collaborative and participatory approaches to articulating responses are effective in engaging the simultaneously occurring impacts of climate change and teasing out their complex structures; apprehending feedback loops; determining multiple optimalities; and dealing with unintended consequences of combined mitigation and adaptation strategies [4, 8]. The current situation is made even worse by willful blindness to the suffering of Indigenous and rural communities by mainstream societal structures and their communications media [9]. Both popular news outlets and research institutions are equally culpable. Despite genocidal injustice perpetrated out on these Indigenous societies, they should not be viewed monolithically as mere victims nor as some romanticized and essentialized saviors of humanity. Rather, PLOS CLIMATE


Intellectual pluralism
In the third millennium, a fundamental transformation is taking place in research institutions. As young Indigenous scholars increasingly engage in scholarship in the biological, physical, and social sciences, as well as the humanities, it has become clear that the future of institutionalized science is no longer solely in the hands of descendants of settler-colonialists, and that Indigenous voices will increasingly be present in shaping the future of scholarship in all these fields. A separate but equally significant and related point is that: Indigenous cultures that have faced colonization and are, today, at the vanguard of climate change may also provide the necessary intellectual depth to climate change impacts and potential insight into adaptation strategies [1,2]. Therefore, these young Indigenous scholars may potentially contribute to multiple ways of knowing and transdisciplinary thinking in research as well as teaching of a new generation of citizens, scholars, and policy makers [3]. They are part of a groundswell of intellectual pluralism that can substantially contribute to responding to the climate crisis.
Given the legacy of colonialism, structural injustice, and the resultant sustained violence on Indigenous and rural communities and their habitats, any effective policy response to climate change defies easy and singular formulations [4][5][6]. This is because of the entangled nature of sociocultural, economic, and ecological impacts of climate change on existing inequities. These effects are difficult to perceive and understand due to the complex interdependencies between food systems, livelihoods, and the local ecological contexts [7]. Therefore, responses to the climate crisis resist quick resolution because of continually changing social and ecological circumstances. As a result, collaborative and participatory approaches to articulating responses are effective in engaging the simultaneously occurring impacts of climate change and teasing out their complex structures; apprehending feedback loops; determining multiple optimalities; and dealing with unintended consequences of combined mitigation and adaptation strategies [4,8].
The current situation is made even worse by willful blindness to the suffering of Indigenous and rural communities by mainstream societal structures and their communications media [9]. Both popular news outlets and research institutions are equally culpable. Despite genocidal injustice perpetrated out on these Indigenous societies, they should not be viewed monolithically as mere victims nor as some romanticized and essentialized saviors of humanity. Rather, their cultural presence in the third millennium speaks to a nuanced awareness of their strength, resilience, and capacity. These communities have extant knowledge systems which provide insight into and understanding of their habitat.

Attributes of Indigenous knowledge
Indigenous knowledge is diverse because of the variety of cultural systems, social structures, spiritual practices, and ecological spaces from which it emerges. For this reason, Indigenous or local knowledge is also context specific as it conveys relationships between humans, animals, plants, natural forces, and landforms within a defined habitat by a people. This knowledge reveals complex connectivity or entanglements that give insight into the labor of day-to-day living. A person does not exist outside of their ecological systems but lives within them and exists because of them. Hence, the dichotomy between the biotic and abiotic disappears resulting in a deep and lasting relationship to both. It is an indivisible whole. Such a way of being, reveals profound phenomenological insights as we try to perceive the impacts of the climate crisis. By necessity, Indigenous and local knowledge is empirical because it is observational, analytical, practical, and effective in historically sustaining the well-being of diverse cultures and societies. It expresses the breadth and depth of relationships between humans, animals, plants, and their respective habitats. Therefore, it offers significant insights into climate change impacts at the level of species and landforms and their interactions. As such Indigenous knowledge is cumulative and thriving. These knowledge holders are not only cognizant of the observations and insights of their own generation but also those that preceded them. The original meaning of the word 'tradition' is apt in describing Indigenous knowledge as it literally describes the process of "passing on" or "handing down" information and insights to the next generation. Therefore, the knowledge is dynamic and adaptive. Like the various disciplines of the sciences and humanities, there is a plurality of perspectives emerging from a diversity of life experiences and engagement with their respective habitats; therefore, Indigenous knowledge holders are neither homogeneous nor always in agreement with each other [10,11].

Recent US government policy to engage Indigenous knowledge
Recently the US government made significant strides in acknowledging Indigenous knowledge. Having re-established the Tribal Nations Summit in November 2021, President Biden committed ". . .to work with the Tribes to comprehensively incorporate Tribal-Tribal ecological knowledge into the federal government's scientific approach, helping us fight climate change" [12]. In the subsequent Summit in November 2022, he reiterated that: "Respect for Indigenous knowledge and Tribal consultations as a key part of the federal agency decisionmaking" [13]. Caution should be exercised in the name of collaboration as government and research institutions tend to co-opt Indigenous knowledge systems. When government bureaucracies take over, they can calcify, they can remove the vitality, the organic-ness of a holistic and dynamic knowledge system of these societies. A history of colonization and cultural genocide precedes our current moment. Therefore, we need to be vigilant that collaboration does not lead to bureaucratization and co-option of Indigenous knowledge.
Knowledge and power are deeply connected. Power, like knowledge, is exercised not seized. Similarly, the application of knowledge is not devoid of the power of institutional structures. Hence, power and knowledge, while conceptually distinct, are mutually dependent [11]. Because of a genocidal colonial history of unequal power relations with the federal government and its scientific institutions, Mr. Biden further clarified: "Respect means we'll defend Tribal sovereignty and self-government and self-determination" [13]. Any effort to include Indigenous knowledge systems informing federal policy and decision making must be grounded in an ethical framework which understands that the relationship between the United States and Indigenous peoples is Nation-to-Nation; even where this acknowledgement of distinctness still needs to be established. Recognition of Indigenous self-determination and sovereignty is a fundamental aspect of the trust relationship between federal agencies and Indigenous communities. Therefore, accompanying the public remarks, the Office of the President issued Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Indigenous Knowledge (2022) [10].

Moving forward to co-create knowledge
Participation of Indigenous peoples in research and policy formulation is not a euphemism for free labor. While Indigenous scholars at universities and community colleges have always mastered literacy in the institutionalized sciences, the converse has not been true. Therefore, genuine transdisciplinarity and knowledge co-creation mean scientists of different backgrounds need to respectfully work with knowledge holders who may be farmers, herders, hunters, fisher folk, orchardists, Elders and so on. We depend on each other to build new ideas and new approaches.
Indigenous knowledge has been characterized as filling the gaps for institutionalized sciences. However, this characterization is simply false. It is a confused causality and continuation of colonial mentality. Institutionalized science is the outcome and handmaiden of industrial culture that is primarily responsible for climate change. Indigenous knowledge provides insight into particular local phenomena where institutionalized science lacks insight.
When engaging with Indigenous and local knowledge, the disciplinary boundaries of the biological, physical, and social sciences, as well as the humanities, become permeable. Instead, a more hybridized and participatory form of knowledge generation is relevant to addressing injustice and the impact of the climate crisis. As disciplines and government departmental structures become limiting, a transdisciplinary mindset accompanied by respect for the "other" and humility towards another way of knowing becomes a precondition for engagement. Human knowledge is not generated by a single heroic individual because there are limitations to a single mind in amassing insights and understanding to address injustice and apprehend the climate crisis. Collaboration and participation are necessary precursors.