Copyright © 2011 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance. Bohensky, E. L., and Y. Maru. 2011. Indigenous knowledge, science, and resilience: what have we learned from a decade of international literature on “integration”? Ecology and Society 16(4): 6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04342-160406 Synthesis, part of a Special Feature on Integrating Indigenous Ecological Knowledge and Science in Natural Resource Management: Perspectives from Australia Indigenous Knowledge, Science, and Resilience: What Have We Learned from a Decade of International Literature on “Integration”? Erin L. Bohensky 1 and Yiheyis Maru 1 ABSTRACT. Despite the increasing trend worldwide of integrating indigenous and scientific knowledge in natural resource management, there has been little stock-taking of literature on lessons learned from bringing indigenous knowledge and science together and the implications for maintaining and building social-ecological system resilience. In this paper we investigate: (1) themes, questions, or problems encountered for integration of indigenous knowledge and science; (2) the relationship between knowledge integration and social-ecological system resilience; and (3) critical features of knowledge integration practice needed to foster productive and mutually beneficial relationships between indigenous knowledge and science. We examine these questions through content analyses of three special journal issues and an edited book published in the past decade on indigenous, local, and traditional knowledge and its interface with science. We identified broad themes in the literature related to: (1) similarities and differences between knowledge systems; (2) methods and processes of integration; (3) social contexts of integration; and (4) evaluation of knowledge. A minority of papers discuss a relationship between knowledge integration and social-ecological system resilience, but there remains a lack of clarity and empirical evidence for such a relationship that can help distinguish how indigenous knowledge and knowledge integration contribute most to resilience. Four critical features of knowledge integration are likely to enable a more productive and mutually beneficial relationship between indigenous and scientific knowledge: new frames for integration, greater cognizance of the social contexts of integration, expanded modes of knowledge evaluation, and involvement of inter-cultural “knowledge bridgers.” Key Words: ecological; indigenous; integration; knowledge; resilience; science; social INTRODUCTION More than a decade ago, Nadasdy (1999) lambasted the “project of integration” of traditional knowledge and science for what he saw as its flawed central assumption: the cultural beliefs and practices referred to as traditional knowledge conform to western conceptions about knowledge. Integration, Nadasdy elaborated, is too often viewed mainly as a technical problem, ignoring the role of power relations between indigenous people and the state and ultimately creating products that serve scientists and the state rather than indigenous knowledge holders. More recently, other scholars have resisted integration on the grounds that the conceptual models and ontologies of traditional knowledge and science are sufficiently distinct to make these knowledge systems incommensurable (Atran 2001, Verran 2001, Cruikshank 2005), and that some forms of integration can have unintended and undesired consequences (Fox et al. 2005). “Knowledge integration” is defined on Wikipedia as “the process of synthesizing multiple knowledge models (or representations) into a common model (representation)” and “the process of incorporating new information into a body of existing knowledge.” This requires “determining how the new information and the existing knowledge interact, how existing knowledge should be modified to accommodate the new information, and how the new information should be modified in light of the existing knowledge” ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kn owledge_integration). This definition, simple though it may appear, encapsulates the very dilemma knowledge integration faces in the arena of indigenous knowledge and science: whose knowledge is “new,” whose is “existing,” and who decides? Nevertheless, interest in integrating indigenous, local, or traditional knowledge and science is steadily growing along several lines of argument (Rist and Dahdouh-Guebas 2006, Houde 2007). One is that these forms of knowledge are essential for maintaining global cultural diversity and the biological diversity with which it is intricately connected (Maffi 2001, Maffi and Woodley 2010), and will only be appropriately valued and protected through integration that brings benefits to both scientists and local people interested in maintaining that diversity (Edwards and Heinrich 2006). A second argument is that these types of knowledge contribute invaluable information for science and natural resource management; indeed, they often fill gaps in understanding that science cannot (Baker and Mutitjulu Community 1992, Johannes 1998). A third argument is that recognition of traditional knowledge in natural resource management has importance beyond scientific or broader societal merit: it is tantamount to social justice, sovereignty, autonomy, and identity of indigenous peoples (e.g., Agrawal 1995, Nelson 2005, Aikenhead and Ogawa 2007). These different motivations for integrating knowledge are neither mutually exclusive nor entirely harmonious. 1 CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences