INDIGENIZE THE ACADEMY!

At the same time, Indigenous academics warn that the predicament of includ-ing Indigenous knowledge into Western-dominated academies risks transforming oral-based epistemes into print-based ones (Kovach 12), validating Indigenous knowledges and methodologies solely according to Western standards, subjecting the knowledge to Western control (Grenier 13, 55), and, moreover, potentially appropriating, tokenizing, and exploiting these knowledges as happens in the pharmaceutical industry.7 Indigenizing the academy must thus proceed according to the principles of respect, recognition, reciprocity and responsibility (Grenier 42; Evans et al. 5; Kovach 67; Kuokkanen 144 ff. 157; Wilson 77). Integrated re- search approaches must counter neocolonial patterns in universities, must not be extractive, and must be accountable to Indigenous standards, honoring a tribal worldview (Kovach 28-29). And the academy must go beyond the hackneyed and token "giving of respect" and seriously engage with Indigenous epistemes (Kuok- kanen 149). It is essential to understand Indigenous knowledges and practices not as static, solely traditional, and directed at a precolonial past, but as dynamic, innovative, and changing according to neo/colonial influences, new technologies, and political developments (cf. Grenier 6).8 Likewise 'Western' and 'Indigenous' perspectives must not be seen as entrenched oppositions but as polar points of a contact field where both knowledge systems face each other from various posi- tions within the field, depending on the discipline and aspect, degree of openness of the discipline, and the history of their contact. Pertaining to the environmental sciences, for example, they might be fairly close, while in chemistry or econom- ics they might still have immense gaps between them. The objective is to bring the knowledge systems closer together and encourage them to develop mutual respect, understanding, and eventually cooperation. In general, however, Indigenous scholars notice that there are two knowledge systems in place with one almost arrogantly ignoring the other, simply because of its historically developed authoritative power position. There is still not much collaboration between Indigenous and Western people, scholars, and scientists and there is little respect for, or genuine interest in, Indigenous knowledge and observations on the part of Western academia. This is largely due to sanctioned Western hegemonies, cultural and intellectual, but also to often very diverging worldviews as Kuokkanen states, "[FJrom the perspective of indigenous peoples, liberal humanism and its values- equity, individualism, rationalism, progress, and democracy, among others- are inherently problematic in that in many cases they run squarely counter to key principles of indigenous philosophies and worldviews" (19). And yet, Western science cannot meet the challenges of, for example, envi- ronmental problems on its own. Louise Grenier argues on the basis of Darshan Shankar: "Western technoscientific approaches are (in themselves) an insufficient response to today's complex web of social, economic, political, and environmental challenges. The paradigm in support of 'one technology or one knowledge system fits all' has been debunked. IK [Indigenous knowledge] systems suggest a different approach to problem solving" (11). The academy will fail to achieve its objectives if it continues to exclude Indigenous epistemes, as its knowledge is based only on a fraction of world knowledge (Kuokkanen 153, 157)- the point being to alert Western scholars and scientists to this fact.