Introduction

INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE

An extensive body of literature has been written on Indigenous knowledge since the 1980s. A literature review shows that Indigenous knowledge has been often defined in opposition to Western knowledge, whose origins can be traced back to the Enlightenment and the European scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. According to Linda Smith, the development of Western, rational, scientific knowledge was connected with colonialism and the “discovery” of the Indigenous Other by Europeans (1999, 59). Similarly, Mi’kmaw scholar Marie Battiste (2002) has pointed out that knowledge production from the West constitutes a form of imperialism that disregards and erases other types of knowledge.

Indigenous knowledge is often defined as “traditional knowledge” (TK), a label that emphasizes non-scientific, practical knowledge that is “handed down through generations by cultural transmission, about the relationship of living beings (including humans) with one another and with their environment” (RCAP 1996, 454; Berkes 2008, 9). This type of knowledge is not only specific to place but also cumulative, holistic, experiential, and dynamic (McGregor 2004; Kolawole 2005). Orally based Indigenous knowledge draws “on the knowledge of a population who have lived experience of the environments in question, and provide peoples with ownership of the development process” (Briggs and Sharp 2004, 661). Although these definitions emphasize the fact that Indigenous knowledge is socially and culturally transmitted, they continue to focus on the performativity of knowledge.

Though in the past Indigenous knowledge was regarded as an obstacle to development, in the 1990s it became an essential element of development policies (Agrawal 2004). Indigenous communities, academics, and to some extent governments insisted on the benefits of using Indigenous knowledge in the planning, management, and monitoring of land and resources. Policies passed by the Northwest Territories government, for example, challenged policy makers to “incorporate Traditional Knowledge into government decisions where appropriate” (Parlee 2012, 56). International conventions have noted the importance of protecting Indigenous knowledge. Similarly, in 2014 the United Nations Inter-Agency Support Group on Indigenous Peoples’ Issues noted that Indigenous women could provide a unique and valuable perspective on the emergent water crisis (Inter-Agency Support Group 2014). The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007) stresses the right of Indigenous peoples to control and maintain their social and cultural differences by living according to their own historically developed ways of life. In 2012, a United Nations resolution further recognized “the value and the diversity of the cultures and the form of the social organization of Indigenous peoples and their holistic traditional scientific knowledge of their lands, natural resources and environment” (n.p.). Thus, Indigenous knowledge is closely considered in the search for appropriate and sustainable ways of managing resources. Many of these discourses imply that Indigenous peoples are the holders of some kind of magical secret that can save the world.

This increased attention to Indigenous knowledge also raises concerns over the hierarchical relationship between Western and Indigenous knowledge. Conflict often develops between Indigenous knowledge holders and scientists due to the insistence of Western knowledge on categorizing, organizing, and objectifying the knowledge (Kendrick 2003). For some pursuing the integration of Indigenous knowledge into Western knowledge, the process has become “a convenient abstraction, consisting of bite-sized chunks of information that can be slotted into Western paradigms, fragmented, decontextualized, a kind of quick fix, if not a panacea” (Ellen and Harris 2000, 15). In their attempts to universalize highly localized knowledge, actors have coopted what is essential to their interests while overlooking the power imbalances driving such cooptation (Wohling 2009, 2).

Others regard Indigenous knowledge as static and unchanging, while a few question the relevancy and even existence of such knowledge (Widdowson and Howard 2008; Flanagan 2008). The assumption that Indigenous knowledge is a relic of both an “idealized” and “backward” past is rooted in the colonial discourse of the nineteenth century (Nadasdy 2003; Howitt 2001), and was used to justify colonialism and land dispossession. Political, methodological, and epistemological differences are at the heart of the divide that exists between Indigenous knowledge and Western knowledge. Indigenous scholars have been extremely critical of the way scientists have treated Indigenous knowledge, noting that indigenous knowledge has been generalized or abstracted from specific context as a way to “scientize” it. As John Briggs notes, “such an approach misses the point of the special character of local needs” (2005, 110). Patrick Sikana and Timothy Mwambazi also argue, such an approach ignores the reality of the “socio-economic and historical situation of the local community in which the technology is applied” (1996, 108).

According to Arun Agrawal (2004), “it makes much more sense to talk about multiple domains and types of knowledge, with differing logics and epistemologies” than to focus on the differences between Indigenous knowledge and Western knowledge. He argues for “the recognition of a basic political truism” based on the usefulness of knowledge to different peoples instead of a focus on “the sterile dichotomy between Indigenous and Western, or traditional and scientific knowledge” (5). By concentrating on a productive dialogue that safeguards the interests of those who are disadvantaged, one is able to go beyond labels and “make intellectual space for Indigenous cultural knowledge systems that were denied in the past” (Rigney 2001, 9).

Scholars have established the need to deconstruct the hegemony of Western knowledge in order to emphasize Indigenous ways of being in the world and ways of knowing. Indigenous knowledge systems have developed over millennia and are grounded in living relational schemas. Relationships not only highlight the strong attachment Indigenous peoples have to their homelands but also underline the ontological framework that land occupies in those relationships (Coulthard 2010, 79). These relationships are reciprocal and develop among people as well as between people and non-human beings. The moral code, norms, and laws governing those relationships are based on the principles of respect, reciprocity, and obligation (Trask 2007; Kuokkanen 2009). The norms, laws, and systems of governance that guide these relationships at the level of the family, community, and human and non-human interactions are specific to place (Cajete 2000, 1995; Kuokkanen 2009) and are more than a set of practices. As such this knowledge is not fragmented into silos or categories; rather, ontologies, epistemologies, and experiences are interwoven into this system.

Indigenous knowledge draws on different sources such as stories, dreams, visions, practices, and experiences (Young-Ing 2008). Similarly, Marie Battiste and Sa’ke’j Henderson (2000) note that the interconnection of aspects of Indigenous knowledge is communicated in oral tradition, songs, artifacts, stories, dances, and ceremonies (9). From these points of view, the legitimacy of Indigenous knowledge comes from social relationships and cannot exist without them. These relationships are not only embodied by human beings but also by animals, plants, spirits, water, and mountains.

Indigenous ontologies have not been destroyed by colonization although they are worn out by it (Coulthard 2010). Inuvialuk activist Rosemarie Kuptana (2008) argues that because Indigenous knowledge reflects unity rather than fragmentation, when something new is learned “the new knowledge is incorporated into a holistic worldview and becomes part of the explanation of the entire ecosystem as a whole, and explains the working of the ecosystem and not just an isolated particle” (n.p.). From these points of view, Indigenous knowledge evolves and changes over time and these new forms are a valid expression of indigeneity (Wohling 2009, 3) that continue to guide alternative visions of social relationships and coexistence (Coulthard 2010). Indigenous knowledge can be useful to operationalize a past in the face of contemporary colonialism. As such, Indigenous knowledge is a source of resistance and decolonization. In Dancing on Our Turtle’s Back: Stories of Nishnaabeg Re-creation, Resurgence, and a New Emergence, Leanne Simpson (2011) stresses the importance of “researching back” Indigenous intellectual traditions. She calls for Indigenous peoples to “delve into their own culture’s stories, philosophies, theories and concepts to align themselves with the processes and forces of regeneration, revitalization, remembering, and visioning” (148). Thus, rather than returning to a frozen Indigenous past, it is about reclaiming Indigenous knowledge to make sense of the present and imagine future possibilities. As Kahente Horn-Miller demonstrates in her chapter, “Distortion and Healing: Finding Balance and a ‘Good Mind’ Through the Rearticulation of Sky Woman’s Journey,” stories have the potential to strengthen families and communities and provide a better understanding of the role women play in the governance of the community.

INDIGENOUS WOMEN’S STANDPOINT

Although scholars have done an important job in conceptualizing Indigenous knowledge, they have paid less attention to how knowledge is specific to place and differs according to gender, age, sexuality, livelihoods, and experiences of colonization. These factors have an impact on individuals’ access to knowledge and ability to use it. Gender differences raise particularly important issues. Indigenous women’s ways of knowing are shaped by their livelihoods and shared experiences of racism, colonialism, and by their experiences as leaders, mothers, sisters, and grandmothers. The “Indigenous women’s standpoint” approach developed by Maori scholar Aileen Moreton-Robinson (2000), focuses on Indigenous women’s knowledge and is informed by a feminist paradigm (1). According to Moreton-Robinson, at the centre of this methodological paradigm is a shared positioning among Indigenous women and an acknowledgment that they also have diverse individual experiences. She argues that “the intersecting oppressions of race and gender and the subsequent power relations that flow from these into the social, political, historical and material conditions of our lives [are] shared, consciously or unconsciously. These conditions and relations discursively constitute us in the everyday and shape the problems Indigenous women confront” (5). As Moreton-Robinson puts it, a “different way of being human” and the colonized status of Indigenous women provide us with a unique vantage point from which to analyze colonizing power (7).

Privileging Indigenous perspectives involves understanding that being Indigenous and being woman are derived from the relationships established with place, spiritual beings, humans, and the environment. Men and women inhabit, experience, and belong to the world and as such they are holders of knowledge. This knowledge and belonging to the world are based on the interconnections among the social, political, spiritual, economic, and natural spheres.

In Indigenous societies, gender roles and responsibilities stem from and are part of broader relationships. That is to say, Indigenous peoples and societies differentiate between the roles that women and men assume based on social interactions and survival needs of their collective society (Cohen 1999). Feminist scholars have explored how men and women have differential knowledge of natural resources. Gender differentiation and specialization means that the Indigenous knowledge and skills held by women often differed from those held by men; this affects patterns of access, use, and control of land and resources and results in different perceptions of landscapes and priorities (Agarwal 1992). Others have shown that although men often have privileged access to resources, women have specific knowledge of resources that allows for the survival of the household (Rocheleau 1996; Wangari, Thomas-Slayter, and Rocheleau 1996). However, Indigenous women’s knowledge expands beyond the activities done by women and involves a system of inquiry that reveals Indigenous processes of observing and understanding and the protocols for being and participating in the world.

Because Indigenous knowledge is inherently tied to land, there are particular landscapes, landforms, and biomes where ceremonies are held, certain stories recited, medicines properly gathered, and transfers of knowledge properly authenticated (Morphy 1995; Basso 1996). The knowledge held by Indigenous women is lived and embodied, is a process of sharing social life, histories, economic, and political practices. Because relationships to land and identity have been mediated by colonial regulations and policies, Indigenous women’s knowledge and experiences have been underpinned by a variety of personal and communal experiences and gender processes.

As the contributors to this book show, such processes shape how knowledge, knowledge sharing, and revitalization take place. Each chapter in this book converses with these different manifestations and weaves the threads of legibility and illegibility through stories, histories, struggles, and resistance. Although the chapters mainly focus on Canada, the endeavour to stimulate a transnational conversation is also present. Altamirano-Jiménez enters these dialogues as a Zapotec scholar teaching in Canada and Kermoal enters as a Breton historian working with Métis people in Canada. We are both committed to building ethical and collaborative relationships with Indigenous scholars and communities and to centering the experiences and voices of Indigenous women. The book is organized relative to the various dimensions of Indigenous women’s knowledge. It begins with examinations of Indigenous oral history and experiences, and follows with explorations of Indigenous women’s knowledge of the land and the political, social, legal, and economic implications of misrepresenting such knowledge. The colonial inequalities of the past that continue on into the present become apparent in legal cases, cartographic approaches, and grievances about the loss of land. The authors show that challenging and displacing hegemonic Western knowledge is required to enable other forms of literacy and knowledge to coexist. This book is a tribute to Indigenous women’s profound and expansive literacy and knowledge.

In chapter 1, Kahente Horn-Miller shows how ancient stories provide teachings for contemporary Kanien’kehá:ka women regarding their roles and responsibilities. Horn-Miller, who comes from a matrilineal culture, refers to herself as Sky Woman’s great-granddaughter, and as such she—as well as the other women in her community—passes down Sky Woman’s knowledge. Combining first-hand knowledge with cultural and communal creation stories, Horn-Miller demonstrates how traditional learning helps to strengthen families and communities, generating new possibilities to resistance. According to the author, “it is in the interactions between Sky Woman’s life as a theory of being and our life in actual practice that her experience provides special insights” for understanding the role of Indigenous women in governing and sustaining communities.

The fact that stories have the political potential to resist the everyday exercise of power is also addressed in chapter 2. Shalene Jobin, of Cree and Métis descent, writes that her grandmother’s learning and passing on of Cree stories and teachings was a way of resisting assimilation and cultural genocide after attending a residential school. Jobin notes that the Cree stories that her grandmother recorded convey teachings “about ways of being in the world, ways of interacting with other humans and animals, and ways of being in relationship with the land.” In their respective chapters, Horn-Miller and Jobin emphasize how Indigenous knowledge continues to guide women’s resistance as well as provide alternative visions of social relationships.

In chapter 3, Carole Lévesque, Denise Geoffroy, and Geneviève Polèse are concerned with knowledge and the roles Naskapi women play in the development of the Naskapi cultural and ecological heritage. Through interviews with elders from the Kawawachikamach community in Northern Québec, the authors identify four main organizing principles of the knowledge and expertise of men and women and show how social laws govern the rules around knowledge and who is a holder of knowledge. Neither Indigenous knowledge nor laws are confined to knowledge of the environment. Both are rooted in different ways of knowing and that knowledge is simultaneously gendered and spiritual.

Although Indigenous women’s knowledge has continued to exist and guide their lives, it has also remained largely “invisible.” As the contributors to this book show, this invisibility is not an accident but is rather an expression of the power relations that flow into the social, political, and historical structures that shape Indigenous women’s lives and the challenges they confront in the present. For instance, large-scale resource development rarely takes into consideration the socioeconomic and cultural implications that such projects have for communities as a whole, to say nothing of the impact on women in particular. Little attention has been paid to Indigenous women’s knowledge in resource management or land use studies despite the fact that Indigenous communities in Canada and beyond have retained many aspects of their traditional resource use and allocation systems: including how and what to harvest in specific seasons and how to produce, prepare, and preserve food. Most of the research in the area of resource management has focused on male-dominated activities, and as a result we have relatively scant understanding of the role that women play in the gathering and processing of resources. As Brenda Parlee and Kristine Wray note in chapter 7, contemporary studies still reflect the idea of “man the hunter.” An idea that has been reproduced in the legal recognition of Indigenous rights in Canada.

In chapter 4, Isabel Altamirano-Jiménez and Leanna Parker analyze how the model of the male breadwinner was also replicated in the case brought against Nicaragua by the Awas Tingni community. Based on research conducted in the Atlantic coast region of Nicaragua in 2008, the authors explore the use of mapping in securing land rights and how it not only tends to impose a western understanding of land and resources on Indigenous communities but it also rests on a frozen understanding of Indigenous traditional economic activities. These authors show that the cartographic legal approach unevenly benefits certain groups of people and redefines Indigenous peoples’ relationship to the land. This approach is even more problematic for Indigenous women, who have already seen their land rights eroded through colonialism. Neither the law nor geography are neutral, they are embedded in Western knowledge and values. Altamirano-Jiménez and Parker argue that if Indigenous mapping is to benefit Indigenous peoples, maps must be presented in ways that articulate the legal systems of Indigenous peoples.

Similarly, in chapter 5, Nathalie Kermoal notes that, in the wake of the 2003 Supreme Court decision in R. v. Powley, Métis rights are often framed around male activities such as hunting and fishing, rarely taking into consideration Métis women’s roles and responsibilities. By focusing on the medical expertise of Métis women in western Canada, Kermoal presents a compelling case for the connections women have with the environment. Instead of always positioning women at the periphery of inquiries, she proposes to centre Métis women’s knowledge for greater empowerment of communities. Kermoal urges scholars to undertake gender-sensitive research to understand how Métis women conceptualize their relationships with the land, and how these conceptualizations have changed over time, in order to better understand identity and territory. She argues that effective environmental consultation requires a holistic approach, which should centre on Métis women, as their knowledge may provide a deeper and richer perspective on the land.

In chapter 6, Kathy Hodgson-Smith and Nathalie Kermoal move away from “man the hunter” and discuss the traditional occupancy and land use study experience of the Métis of northwestern Saskatchewan. This land use study included the work and knowledge of women and provided valuable insights about women’s activities and their longstanding relationship to the territory and to the land. The study demonstrated that Métis women’s activities adapt to changing conditions and when faced with challenges due to appropriation or regulations, alternatives are created and developed.

On the basis of research carried out between 2007 and 2011 with seven communities in the western Arctic, Brenda Parlee and Kristine Wray argue in chapter 7 that the representation of women in the spheres of natural resource management, including the management of barren ground caribou, has in large part been obscured by stereotypes of the past. As they point out, the oversimplified image of “man the hunter” in management and policies narrows “our understanding of the place of caribou in the lives and livelihoods of peoples in the Canadian North” and has a tendency to “discount, rather than embrace, the complexity and diversity of the relationships that exist in northerly communities between human beings and the environment.”

Parlee and Wray’s findings also apply to fishing, as Zoe Todd demonstrates in the final chapter. Drawing on research conducted in Paulatuuq, Northwest Territories, Todd examines the intersections of women’s knowledge of harvesting, fishing, and food security. She found that “these activities are crucial to a sense of continuity, providing opportunities for Paulatuuqmiut to connect with memories of the past, to create and sustain relationships with other people and with the environment, and to pass knowledge along to children and grandchildren.” In a time of climate change and potential resource exploration, this knowledge is vital to guide decision making at the local, territorial, and federal level.

The chapters in this book explore different dimensions of Indigenous women’s knowledge in different locations and through different disciplines. In the questions raised and the possibilities offered, these chapters call for transforming knowledge, colonial power imbalances, and male-dominated political processes. We hope to contribute to expanding the intellectual space for the visibility of Indigenous women’s knowledge.

REFERENCES

• Agarwal, Bina. 1992. “The Gender and Environment Debate: Lessons From India.” Feminist Studies 18: 119–58.
• Agrawal, Arun. 2004. “Indigenous and Scientific Knowledge: Some Critical Comments.” Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor 3 (3). http://www.iss.nl/ikdm/ikdm/3-3/articles/agrawal.xhtml.
• Basso, Keith. 1996. Wisdom Sits in Places: Landscape and Language Among the Western Navajo. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
• Battiste, Marie. 2002. “Indigenous Knowledge and Pedagogy in First Nations Education: A Literature Review with Recommendation.” Paper prepared for the National Working Group on Education and the Ministry of Indian and Northern Affairs. http://www.afn.ca/uploads/files/education/24._2002_oct_marie_battiste_indigenousknowledgeandpedagogy_lit_review_for_min_working_group.pdf.
• Battiste, Marie, and James (Sa’ke’j) Youngblood Henderson. 2000. Protecting Indigenous Knowledge and Heritage: A Global Challenge. Saskatoon: Purich Publishing.
• Berkes, Fikret. 2008. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis.
• Briggs, John. 2005. “The Use of Indigenous Knowledge in Development: Problems and Challenges.” Progress in Development Studies 5 (2): 99–104.
• Briggs, John, and Joanne Sharp. 2004. “Indigenous Knowledge and Development: A Postcolonial Caution.” Third World Quarterly 22 (4): 661–76.
• Cajete, Gregory. 2000. Native Science: Natural Laws of Interdependence. Santa Fe, N.M.: Clear Light Publishers.
• Cohen, Alex. 1999. The Mental Health of Indigenous Peoples: An International Overview. Geneva: Department of Mental Health, World Health Organization.
• Coulthard, Glen. 2010. “Place Against Empire: Understanding Indigenous Anti-Colonialism.” Affinities: A Journal of Radical Theory, Culture, and Action 4: 79–83.
• Dhamoon, Rita. 2015. “A Feminist Approach to Decolonizing Antiracism: Rethinking Transnationalism, Intersectionality, and Settler Colonialism.” Feral Feminisms 4: 20–38.
• Ellen, R., and H. Harris. 2000. “Introduction.” In Indigenous Environmental Knowledge and Its Transformations, edited by R. A. Ellen, P. Parkes, and A. Bicker, pp. 1–33. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.
• Flanagan, Tom. 2008. First Nations? Second Thoughts. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
• Howitt, Richard. 2001. Rethinking Resource Management: Sustainability, Justice and Indigenous Peoples. London: Routledge.
• Inter-Agency Support Group on Indigenous Peoples’ Issues. 2014. “The Knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and Policies for Sustainable Development: Updates and Trends in the Second Decade of the World’s Indigenous People.”
• Kendrick, Anne. 2003. “Caribou Co-Management in Northern Canada: Fostering Multiple Ways of Knowing.” In Navigating Social-Ecological Systems, edited by Fikret Berkes, Johan Colding, and Carl Folke, pp. 241–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Kolawole, Oluwatoying Dare. 2005. “Mainstreaming Local People’s Knowledge: Implications for Higher Education in the South.” South African Journal of Higher Education 19: 1427–43.
• Kuokkanen, Rauna. 2009. “Indigenous Women in Traditional Economies: The Case of Sámi Reindeer Herding.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 34 (3): 499–503.
• Kuptana, Rosemarie. 2008. “Relationship Between Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Cultural Properties: An Inuit Perspective.” In Department of Canadian Heritage Discussion Papers. Traditions: National Gatherings on Indigenous Knowledge–Final Report. www.traditions.gc.ca.
• McGregor, Deborah. 2004. “Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Sustainable Development: Toward Co-Existence.” In In The Way of Development: Indigenous Peoples, Civil Society and the Environment, edited by Mario Blaser and H. A. Feit, pp. 72–91. New York: Zed Books.
• Moreton-Robinson, Aileen. 2000. Talkin’ Up to the White Woman: Indigenous Women and Feminism. St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press.
• Moreton-Robinson, Aileen, and Maggie Walter. 2009. “Indigenous Methodologies in Social Research.” In Social Research Methods, edited by Maggie Walter, pp. 1–18. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Morphy, Howard. 1995. “Landscape and the Reproduction of the Ancestral Past.” In The Anthropology of Landscape: Perspectives of Place and Space, edited by Eric Hirsch and Michael O’Hanlon, pp. 184–209. Oxford: Clarendon.
• Nadasdy, Paul. 2003. Hunters and Bureaucrats: Power, Knowledge and Aboriginal State Relations in the Southwest Yukon. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
• Parlee, Brenda. 2012. “Finding Voice in a Changing Ecological and Political Landscape: Traditional Knowledge and Resource Management in Settled and Unsettled Claim Areas of the Northwest Territories, Canada.” Aboriginal Policy Studies 2 (1): 56–87.
• Rigney, Lester-Irabinna. 2001. “A First Perspective of Indigenous Australian Participation in Science: Framing Indigenous Research Towards Indigenous Australian Intellectual Sovereignty.” Kaurna Higher Education Journal 7: 1–13.
• Rocheleau, Dianne E., and David Edmunds. 1996. “Women, Men and Trees: Gender, Power and Property in Forest and Agrarian Landscapes.” World Development 25: 1315–71.
• Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. 1996. Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Vol. 4, Perspectives and Realities. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services.
• Sikana, Patrick M., and Timothy N. Mwambazi. 1996. “Environmental Change and Livelihood Responses: Shifting Agricultural Practices in the Lakes Depression Zone of Northern Zambia.” In Sustaining the Soil: Indigenous Soil and Water Conservation in Africa, edited by Chris Reij, Ian Scoones, and Camilla Toulmin, pp. 107–16. London: Earthscan Publications.
• Simpson, Leanne. 2011. Dancing on Our Turtle’s Back: Stories of Nishnaabeg Re-creation, Resurgence and a New Emergence. Winnipeg: Arbeiter Ring Publishing.
• Smith, Linda Tuhiwai. 1999. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London: Zed Books.
• Trask, Milani. 2007. “Indigenous Women and Traditional Knowledge: Reciprocity Is the Way of Balance.” In Women and the Gift Economy: A Radically Different Worldview is Possible, edited by Genevieve Vaughan, pp. 293–301. Toronto: Inanna Publications and Education.
• United Nations. 2007. “United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.” New York: United Nations.
• ———. 2009. “United Nations’ Panel on Traditional Knowledge on Water.” New York: United Nations.
• ———. 2012. “Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly: 66/142 Rights of Indigenous Peoples.” New York: United Nations.
• Wangari, Esther, Barbara Thomas-Slayter, and Dianne Rocheleau. 1996. “Gendered Visions for Survival: Semi-arid Regions in Kenya.” In Feminist Political Ecology: Global Issues and Local Experiences, edited by D. Rocheleau, B. Thomas-Slayter, and E. Wangari, pp. 127–54. New York: Routledge.
• Widdowson, Frances, and Albert Howard. 2008. Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry: The Deception Behind Indigenous Cultural Preservation. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
• William, Carol. 2012. “Introduction.” In Indigenous Women and Work: From Labor to Activism, edited by Carol Williams, 1–26. Illinois: University of Illinois Press.
• Wohling, Marc. 2009. “The Problem of Scale in Indigenous Knowledge: A Perspective from Northern Australia.” Ecology and Society 14 (1): 1.
• Young-Ing, Greg. 2008. “Indigenous Knowledge and Intellectual Property Rights in Context.” In Canada, Department of Canadian Heritage, Discussion Papers for Traditions: National Gatherings on Indigenous Knowledge.