have been replaced by ‘objective rational-
ism’. We can understand the ways in which
environmental behaviour is grounded in par-
ticular structures of knowledge (e.g., ratio-
nalist, indigenous), expressed through domi-
nant modes of communication (conversa-
tion, media), codified (formally and informal-
ly) in societal institutions (religion, law),
which structure practice (tradition). We can
also appreciate how these differ within and
between cultural groups and perhaps most
importantly, the role they play in contribut-
ing to identity; how they help to tell people
who they are. To say that something is cul-
tural, is to observe the effect of this inter-
play. But it is not be to say that something
is uniform, homogeneous or unchanging.This starting point implies much for applied
research seeking to understand relations
between culture and practice. On the one
hand, it does point out the need to be con-
textually specific and to remain cautious of
the abstracting potential of managerial lan-
guage such as ‘best practice’. On the other,
it also points to the need for the detailed,
intensive, and long-term collection of ethno-
graphic data in a variety of contexts.
Unfortunately, little
work of this nature
exists. Rarely, cultural
systems are analysed
and appreciated in their
dynamic nature; in the
way in which they
change through
processes of transcul-
tural interaction and
give rise to, and are
structured within, rela-
tions of power. While
studies have addressed
some of these compo-
nents, few have taken a
comprehensive system-
atic approach to
addressing conservation as a cultural prod-
uct. What is more common are studies that
attempt to relate conservation to a particularaspect of culture. A partial synopsis of this
work is provided below:Conservation and knowledge systems—
Since the early 1980s an almost overwhelm-
ing amount of literature focused on what are
variously termed indigenous knowledge tra-
ditional ecological knowledge, or local
knowledge. The beginnings of this can be
located in the work of David Brokensha^8 and
Paul Richards.^9 This early work laid out
detailed procedures for investigating contex-
tualised knowledge systems and contributed
to an understanding of localised conserva-
tion processes. Investigating the knowledge
structures of small-scale societies allowed
these groups to be seen as active decision-
makers and knowledgeable actors, motivat-
ed but not determined by cultural values,
economic goals, or unpredictable events.
Such societies actively and creatively shape
their surroundings—sometimes experimen-
tally—and when confronted with the results
or consequences of their own work, decide
autonomously how and when to react.
There is little doubt that so-called local peo-
ple have significant knowledge of ecological
dynamics and diversity that can contribute
to the promotion of conservation goals, but
there is no reasons to believe that such
knowledge indicates a uniform willingness to
maintain resource uses that are consistent
with the goals of conservation
organisations.^10 Unfortunately, however,
knowledge studies in the realm of conserva-
tion have often been simplified and romanti-
cised through activist promotion of an
indigenous politics.^11 This has resulted in a
two-tiered approach to local knowledge –
one of which pays attention to the complexi-
ties and subtleties of knowledge systems
and appreciates how knowledge is dynamic
and changes through processes of interac-
tion, and another that simplifies these com-
plexities.Unfortunately, applied conservation studies
on local knowledge have been dominated by
an approach based on documenting modesConservation aas ccultural aand ppolitical ppractice
...conservation oorgani-
sations hhave rrarely
been tthe ssubject oof
research ddesigned tto
investigate hhow tthey
produce aand aact uupon
environmental kknowl-
edge.... ggiven tthe ppower
of ssuch oorganisations,
they aare bbetter aable tto
escape ((or ccontrol) tthe
scrutiny oof rresearchers
than sso-ccalled ttradi-
tional oor iindigenous
communities.