60
The understanding and application of Indigenous knowledge is a difficult task. Firstly, the knowledge must be acknowledged and understood with a consideration of how this knowledge is translated
by the respective Indigenous community themselves. The fundamental principle is to understand that
Indigenous knowledge is ‘holistic’ in nature. As noted by Berkes, Indigenous knowledge is holistic in
outlook and adaptive by nature, gathered by generations through observations, as their lives depended
on this information for survival (Berkes, 1998). This knowledge accumulates incrementally and is
tested by trial and error, told in narratives from generation to generation and shared in practical experiences (Berkes, 1998).
The sharing of this knowledge is also not straightforward, in a simple linear context, but it is more
like a network between different members of families and clans, in a structured storytelling process
tying everything together in a kinship system. The vast complexities in the Aboriginal kinship systems
and Country, the way stories form intricate webs of networks across Country, the images and metaphors used to communicate across different cultural groups, and the ancestral practices are all required
to share the knowledge (Yunkaporta, 2019, p. 199).
In Australia the Indigenous knowledge from Aboriginal Elders is only made available if the group
of Elders (or in some instances, one Elder) grants permission. Collecting data and gaining and understanding of Indigenous knowledge occurs through listening to the story telling of the Elders at workshops, interviews and fieldwork assessments accommodating Elders by ‘walking the land’. The
‘Indigenous Knowledge Generation Process’ by Smylie et al. (2003) has been adopted and used during interviews in 2014 by the author, and the below diagram (Fig. 5.2) demonstrates the process for
capturing local Aboriginal knowledge. The diagram represents the overall fundamentals of an
approach that is participatory. These findings are thus empirical and evidence-based.
However, it must be noted that in the reporting of stories by interviewees, their view and interpretation are reflected. According to Riessman (1993), attending and recording an experience suggests that
the interviewee selects what they notice based on their own interests and biases. Thus, the interviewee
will construct realities of the observations at this level in a way that is most relevant to that individual.
The narrative is then inevitably a representation of the self in a socio- spatial context (Riessman,
1993). Finally, the reading of the story will be the final representation of the experience as an output
of the participatory process, and the reader will interpret the narrative.
Examples of this participatory model trace back many years, as it has been used by early researchers of Australian Aboriginal culture and history, including A.W. Howitt’s The Native Tribes of South
East Australia (1904) and the preparation of the Lake Condah Heritage Management and Strategy
Plan (1993). More recently, examples include Cultural Management Plans such as Planning for the
future: Yawuru Cultural Management Plan (2011), the Bonye Buru Booburrgan Ngmmunge: Bunya
Mountains Aboriginal Aspirations and Caring for Country Plan (2010), the Ngarrindjeri Nation
Yarluwar-Ruwe Plan, Caring for Ngarrindjeri Sea Country and Culture (2006), and the Kooyang Sea
Country Plan (2004). In Geelong’s Changing Landscape: Ecology, Development and Conversation
(2019), Jones and Roös captured knowledge of the Wadawurrung through this participatory process.
Elders Uncle Bryan Powell’s and Tandop David Tournier’s storytelling of the history are recorded and
written down in Chap. 4 – Welcome to Wadawurrung Country (Powell and Tournier, in Jones & Roös,
2019, pp. 44–84). All of these examples demonstrate how participation, interviews and local knowledge can be conceptualised and then recorded in the format of a Western report and publication.
The question is how this participative model can be applied in gathering Indigenous knowledge
(Aboriginal knowledge), resulting in its integration into the discourse of the design and planning of
future sustainable developments and regenerative-adaptive environments. It is my belief that the fundamentals of the regenerative- adaptive pattern language are embedded in an interconnected participatory process, similar to the arguments by Alexander that the people of the place have in-depth
knowledge of it that can be captured in a similar framework to that of A Pattern Language (Alexander
et al., 1977).
5 Origins of Advanced Knowledge
The understanding and application of Indigenous knowledge is a difficult task. Firstly, the knowledge must be acknowledged and understood with a consideration of how this knowledge is translated
by the respective Indigenous community themselves. The fundamental principle is to understand that
Indigenous knowledge is ‘holistic’ in nature. As noted by Berkes, Indigenous knowledge is holistic in
outlook and adaptive by nature, gathered by generations through observations, as their lives depended
on this information for survival (Berkes, 1998). This knowledge accumulates incrementally and is
tested by trial and error, told in narratives from generation to generation and shared in practical experiences (Berkes, 1998).
The sharing of this knowledge is also not straightforward, in a simple linear context, but it is more
like a network between different members of families and clans, in a structured storytelling process
tying everything together in a kinship system. The vast complexities in the Aboriginal kinship systems
and Country, the way stories form intricate webs of networks across Country, the images and metaphors used to communicate across different cultural groups, and the ancestral practices are all required
to share the knowledge (Yunkaporta, 2019, p. 199).
In Australia the Indigenous knowledge from Aboriginal Elders is only made available if the group
of Elders (or in some instances, one Elder) grants permission. Collecting data and gaining and understanding of Indigenous knowledge occurs through listening to the story telling of the Elders at workshops, interviews and fieldwork assessments accommodating Elders by ‘walking the land’. The
‘Indigenous Knowledge Generation Process’ by Smylie et al. (2003) has been adopted and used during interviews in 2014 by the author, and the below diagram (Fig. 5.2) demonstrates the process for
capturing local Aboriginal knowledge. The diagram represents the overall fundamentals of an
approach that is participatory. These findings are thus empirical and evidence-based.
However, it must be noted that in the reporting of stories by interviewees, their view and interpretation are reflected. According to Riessman (1993), attending and recording an experience suggests that
the interviewee selects what they notice based on their own interests and biases. Thus, the interviewee
will construct realities of the observations at this level in a way that is most relevant to that individual.
The narrative is then inevitably a representation of the self in a socio- spatial context (Riessman,
1993). Finally, the reading of the story will be the final representation of the experience as an output
of the participatory process, and the reader will interpret the narrative.
Examples of this participatory model trace back many years, as it has been used by early researchers of Australian Aboriginal culture and history, including A.W. Howitt’s The Native Tribes of South
East Australia (1904) and the preparation of the Lake Condah Heritage Management and Strategy
Plan (1993). More recently, examples include Cultural Management Plans such as Planning for the
future: Yawuru Cultural Management Plan (2011), the Bonye Buru Booburrgan Ngmmunge: Bunya
Mountains Aboriginal Aspirations and Caring for Country Plan (2010), the Ngarrindjeri Nation
Yarluwar-Ruwe Plan, Caring for Ngarrindjeri Sea Country and Culture (2006), and the Kooyang Sea
Country Plan (2004). In Geelong’s Changing Landscape: Ecology, Development and Conversation
(2019), Jones and Roös captured knowledge of the Wadawurrung through this participatory process.
Elders Uncle Bryan Powell’s and Tandop David Tournier’s storytelling of the history are recorded and
written down in Chap. 4 – Welcome to Wadawurrung Country (Powell and Tournier, in Jones & Roös,
2019, pp. 44–84). All of these examples demonstrate how participation, interviews and local knowledge can be conceptualised and then recorded in the format of a Western report and publication.
The question is how this participative model can be applied in gathering Indigenous knowledge
(Aboriginal knowledge), resulting in its integration into the discourse of the design and planning of
future sustainable developments and regenerative-adaptive environments. It is my belief that the fundamentals of the regenerative- adaptive pattern language are embedded in an interconnected participatory process, similar to the arguments by Alexander that the people of the place have in-depth
knowledge of it that can be captured in a similar framework to that of A Pattern Language (Alexander
et al., 1977).
5 Origins of Advanced Knowledge