Indigenous knowledge and rural development: origins and challenges

Introduction
Indigenous knowledge as an important topics has received a particular attention from researchers and theorists in the literature of development in general and that of rural development in particular in recent decades. Its use has often been mentioned as one of the concrete and efficient alternatives for the development of poorer rural communities in many developing countries. Such an approach seems controversial, owing to the fact that while its proponents consider it the only alternative for development or meeting indigenous/local/rural needs, its opponents consider it as a type of discursive project aiming to challenge the validity of popular/official science. This article intends to clarify the dimensions of these claims. For this purpose, it explores empirical and theoretical roots of emphasis on indigenous knowledge.
Methodology
Based on the research objective, this study is regarded as a documentary, historical and analytical research. For this purpose, it examines a wide range of related written sources, which often include the available written work (books, articles, notes, and research reports) of the most prominent thinkers, researchers, and writers. These works are mainly either based on the field research of researchers in the area of rural development or are the result of the theorizing of thinkers or scholars. Some of them have focused on the epistemological aspects and some of others have concentrated on the policy outcomes of development intitiatives and actions inspired by those discourses.

Results
This article argues that, on the one hand, indigenous knowledge has a root in the unsuccessful consequences of development programs and policies, inspired by the official scientism of the modernism era. On the other hand, it contends that this knowledge has an origin in the emergence of critical discourses such as postmodernism and post-colonialism, which provided theoretical foundations for its coherent debate in scientific and policy-making circles. The article attributes the origin of these extreme stances to a kind of Descartes dualism, which in practice has led to fanatical and exaggerated epistemological polar opposites as well as abstractionism from realities. Since phenomena (such as development) are independent and more complex occurrences, these claims and tendencies are not consistent with realites, resulting in a kind of dogmatism.

Discussion
Based on the historical background of the emergence of tendencies towards local knowledge in the literature, it is argued that there is a kind of dualism in the alternative approach(s) aiming to polarize the factual world. While the facts are independent of these approaches. There are also some problems with science, such as what Escobar (1995) calls the "seduction of the simple solution". It seems that the debates about features of indigenous knowledge such as being value oriented and dependence on settings (cultural and environmental), and particularism can also be raised about western/formal dominant science. This characteristic is consistent with the result of Krugly-Smolska 's (1994) argument regarding the uncertainty of using new science in solving developmental problems. Indigenous knowledge has an advantage over western science mostly in the context of poor communities, where information is measured in terms of survival. Contrary to the opinion of researchers like Mackay (2022), the idea of merging two knowledge is not a proper solution to the conflict. By stating the challenges of native knowledge as an epistemological alternative, the findings of this study are closer to the view of researchers such as Chambers (2001) that, despite conceptual and methodological differences, native knowledge and new knowledge are not in conflict with each other. Since the new specialized knowledge is based on observations, tests and validation methods, but the native knowledge is holistic and based on systemic understanding. Therefore, they can epistemologically be complementary rather than conflicting with each other. A major problem in this regard, confirmed also by the post-colonialism and postmodernism, is the power of the holders of official science, who value the methods and procedures of new science, while indigenous knowledge does not benefit much from it.

Conclusion
While criticizing approaches such as the integration of new/official science and indigenous knowledge, as well as the alternative approach of indigenous knowledge, the paper concludes that these two are not necessarily in conflict with each other, and each of them explains and clarifies particular areas of the reality of development and underdevelopment, according to the epistemological and methodological foundations. However, official science still has a high hegemonic power. To create a balance, practical measures are required, such as promoting awareness of indigenous knowledge as a form of decolonization education, promoting supporting networks for the promotion of educators in indigenous educational centers, a sustainable collective action and inventing political actions to confront the process of power and domination.

Acknowledgments
This study did not receive any special grant from any funding agencies, in the public, private and non-profit sectors.

Conflict of interest
The author decaled no conflict of interest.