Thank you for your question.
We're actually seeing results in the examples just cited a moment ago. In our work, and in ongoing joint building efforts, we have managed to show that the integration theme doesn't enable us to achieve the objectives that we share with our non-indigenous colleagues. When we refer to integrating indigenous knowledge in science, we risk trivializing the value and robustness of those knowledge systems. Instead we need to go to something that enables connection and interaction. So it can't just be about integration. From the moment you refer to integration, you downplay the role of knowledge and the entire structure of knowledge systems. By not referring to integration, we've managed to update practices, skills and competencies that otherwise wouldn't have been considered.
When you talk about integrating knowledge and science, you reduce indigenous knowledge to information, to specific data points. That doesn't mean it isn't important; it simply means we're losing sight of the entire social and community system that forms the basis of indigenous knowledge. It means that no consideration is being given to what accompanies that information, whereas we very well know that science isn't just a about data. It's about protocols, methodological procedures, inquiries and competencies that scientists and researchers develop.
In an indigenous context, if you merely integrate information and science, you lose sight of the ways in which knowledge is learned and transmitted. You lose sight of the intergenerational significance of that knowledge. This is how we've made progress and how that progress has had a knock‑on effect in many projects and fields.