Guest  

 
Search: 
Search By: SubjectAbstractAuthorTitleFull-Text

 

Showing 1 through 5 of 5,206 records.
Pages: Previous - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 1042 - Next  Jump:
2018 - Comparative and International Education Society Conference Words: 941 words || 
Info
1. Shizha, Edward. "Indigenous knowledges and knowledge codification in the knowledge economy" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Comparative and International Education Society Conference, Hilton Mexico City Reforma Hotel, Mexico City, Mexico, Mar 25, 2018 <Not Available>. 2019-06-16 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p1355191_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Knowledge production and utilization are very important to the development of economies. The advancement, storage and distribution of knowledge play a vital role in socio-economic development. How knowledge is produced, stored and ascribed ownership are important fundamentals to knowledge codification and its place in the knowledge economy. Often, these requisites are addressed within a Eurocentric, dominant, hegemonic approach that alludes that knowledge economy prevails because of scientific/positive knowledge that is produced through testable and verifiable methodologies. Empirical/positivist approaches, which determine ‘acceptable standards of knowledge’, tend to marginalize the place of indigenous knowledges (IKs) in development, and lack of codification is seen as an excuse to relegate IKs to the periphery of the knowledge economy (Shizha, 2017). IKs are misclassified as non-empirical ontological bodies that exist outside the scientific jurisdictions of verifiable, reliable and patentable inventions and discoveries. The question of ownership and intellectual property (IP) rights is held as an important aspect of the knowledge economy.

As argued by Tonina Simeone (2004), the difficulty experienced by indigenous peoples in trying to protect their knowledge under IP stems from its failure to satisfy the requirements for protection under existing Eurocentric IP laws that require a product to be new, original, innovative or distinctive to qualify for protection. These requirements make it difficult for IKs – generally handed down from generation to generation – to obtain IP protection. The assumption of this problem is that IKs are static, outdated and not distinctive (Kapoor & Shizha, 2010). However, such an argument is hegemonic and colonizing (Shizha & Abdi, 2014). Indigenous plants and genetic materials are being exploited by western ‘scientists’ to develop medicinal and dietary products. Therefore, the perception that it is impossible to accord IKs intellectual property rights and protection is simply perpetuating the exploitation and misappropriation of indigenous genetic materials (Mgbeoji, 2006; Shizha, 2010). IKs and genetic materials are playing a vital role in the current knowledge society where information and ideas are being distributed and shared globally. Because of cultural globalization, it is vital to respect indigenous communities, their cultures and their knowledges. Simeone (2004) notes that a key concern of indigenous peoples worldwide is that the present IP rights favour multinationals and non-indigenous interests. Therefore, it is vital that IKs and cultures receive protection from exploitation by outsiders who do not acknowledge indigenous communities as the sole owners of their knowledges. The group ownership of IKs should be respected by providing communal IP rights. When it comes to protection of rights, group rights and not individual rights should be the focus of IP for indigenous communities (Kimble, 2013; Leistner, 2004). From an indigenous perspective, emphasis of existing western IP rights on individual proprietary rights does not address the indigenous collective nature of their knowledges. Because western IP law is based on individual property ownership, its aims are incompatible with those of indigenous communities (Simeone, 2004). For indigenous communities, communal IP would help maintain group identity and survival, rather than promote individual economic gain.

The overarching question for this paper is: Do patents and IP rights apply to the communally and collectively owned indigenous epistemologies (shared collective knowledge as opposed to individually owned knowledge)? The paper examines this question and addresses challenges that IKs face when knowledge codification is applied to indigenous epistemologies in order to be acknowledged as having a role to play in socio-economic development. The paper discusses knowledge codification, how it relates to IKs and how patents and IP rights (laws) relate to protecting IKs. The paper concludes that IKs do not need to be verified using Eurocentric ‘standards’ which codification is based on. Hegemonic and dominating theories on knowledge construction, preservation/ archivization and dissemination should be questioned when they are applied to IKs. On another note, if knowledge is not codified, it might get lost and may lose the purpose for which it was created or discovered. When elders within indigenous communities pass on, a whole library of information passes on with them. This may mean that the communities lose a whole range of important pieces of information vital for socio-economic, cultural, spiritual and health development. Whether IKs should be codified is a question that requires the input of indigenous communities. As Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999) proposes indigenous communities should be involved in research that decolonises them from the dominant Eurocentric perspectives. While it is important to codify knowledge, it is equally important to remember that knowledge codification might lead to the misappropriation of the indigenous communities’ IP.

REFERENCES
Kapoor, D. & Shizha, E. (Eds.) (2010). Indigenous knowledge and learning in Asia/Pacific and Africa: Perspectives on development, education and culture. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kimble, C. (2013). Knowledge management, codification and tacit knowledge. Information Research, 18(2). Retrieved May 2, 2015 from: http://InformationR.net/ir/18-4/paper577.html
Leistner, M. (2004). Analysis of different areas of indigenous resources. In S. von Lewinski (Ed.), Indigenous heritage and intellectual property, genetic resources, traditional knowledge and folklore (pp. 49-63). The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
Mgbeoji, I. (2006). Global biopiracy: Patents, plants and indigenous knowledge. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Simeone, T. (2004). Indigenous traditional knowledge and intellectual property rights. Ottawa: Parliament Research Branch of the Library of Parliament.
Shizha, E. (2010). The interface of neoliberal globalization, science education and indigenous African knowledges in Africa, Journal for Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences (JAPSS), 2(3), 27-58.
Shizha, E. & Abdi, A.A. (Eds.) (2014). Indigenous discourses on knowledge and development in Africa. New York: Taylor & Francis/Routledge.
Smith, L.T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. London: Zed Books.
Shizha, E. (2017). Indigenous knowledges and knowledge codification in the knowledge economy. In Ngulube, P. (Ed.). Handbook of research on theoretical perspectives on indigenous knowledge systems in developing countries (pp. 267-288). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

2013 - International Communication Association Pages: unavailable || Words: 7042 words || 
Info
2. Bergan, Daniel. "Why Do Knowledgeable Partisans Polarize?: Cueing Knowledge, General Political Knowledge, and Policy Attitudes" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Hilton Metropole Hotel, London, England, Jun 17, 2013 Online <APPLICATION/PDF>. 2019-06-16 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p635672_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Knowledgeable partisans polarize in policy attitudes (e.g. Abramowitz 2010, Berinsky 2007, Hamilton, 2009, Zaller 1992). Zaller’s (1992) Receive-Accept-Sample (RAS) model predicts that knowledge about politics polarizes partisans’ policy attitudes as it allows partisans to filter arguments, accepting arguments consistent with their dispositions and rejecting ones that are not. We distinguish between cueing knowledge and general political knowledge to resolve the contrary empirical evidence on this theory. Using ANES data, we show that partisans polarize in policy attitudes when they can correctly identify the parties’ positions of the issues. This direct effect of party cues on attitudes is large and robust. After controlling for the direct effect of cueing knowledge, general political knowledge does not polarize partisans’ policy attitudes. That is, knowledgeable partisans polarize because they are aware of the major party positions on relevant issues, not because they are particularly adept at accepting considerations that are consistent with their predispositions.

2015 - Eleventh International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry Words: 148 words || 
Info
3. Buergelt, Petra. "Transcending Accumulated Knowledge: Pulling together Knowledges and Ongoingly Co-creating Knowledges" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eleventh International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, May 20, 2015 <Not Available>. 2019-06-16 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p1010808_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In our knowledge-creating civilization knowledge has been and is accumulating in unprecedented speed. At the same time, I am hearing that current research often repeat projects done in the past and that the bulk of new research doesn’t add much to what we already know. It occurs we are constantly reinventing the wheel. Even worse, the state of humanity and our planet shows that much of the knowledge developed doesn’t really make a difference in improving the human condition. I am proposing that new knowledge will come from pulling together what we already know within and across disciplines, ongoingly co-creating knowledge with key players, and/or linking accumulated knowledge in new ways. I critical qualitative inquiry seems in the best position to provide the tools to do this effectively. I also put forth that critical qualitative inquiry is the most effective approach to create knowledge that makes a difference.

2003 - American Association for Public Opinion Research Words: 134 words || 
Info
4. Canache, Damarys., Mondak, Jeffery. and Stewart, Kristin. "Gender, Culture, and Knowledge: A Cross-National Examination of Cultural Determinants of Gender Disparities in Political Knowledge" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Sheraton Music City, Nashville, TN, Aug 16, 2003 <Not Available>. 2019-06-16 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p116228_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Although numerous studies have demonstrated that political knowledge levels among men generally exceed political knowledge levels for women, the magnitude of such gender disparities varies widely cross nationally. A modest gender gap exists in the United States, for example, versus much larger gaps in Central and Eastern Europe, and quite small gaps in Scandinavia.
In this paper, we examine possible determinants of the gender disparity in knowledge. Three explanations are considered: 1) that the gap in knowledge arises because political socialization encourages men to be more politically attentive and active than women; 2) that the gap stems from structural factors that impede political activity by women; and 3) that cultural norms in some nations discourage women from answering knowledge items in a manner that accurately reflects how much they do, in fact, know about politics.

Pages: Previous - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 1042 - Next  Jump:

©2019 All Academic, Inc.   |   All Academic Privacy Policy