A case study of an agroecology program in Guatemala’s dry corridor, this dissertation develops and systematically studies the implementation of a methodological approach for integrating Indigenous and Western sciences in processes of community-based co-design.
In recent years, the United Nations and other international bodies have paid growing attention to the impact of global climate change on Indigenous Peoples. Increasingly, this attention has shifted from a sole focus on Indigenous communities’ disproportionate vulnerability to the critical role that their knowledge and worldviews can play in responding to this global crisis. Yet despite the growing recognition of Indigenous knowledge, there are few specific methodological frameworks to guide the design of community-based programs that integrate Indigenous and Western paradigms to foster the resilience of communities.
Drawing on four years of collaborative research with the organization Voces y Manos in the Maya-Achí region of Baja Verapaz, Guatemala, this design-based study addresses a critical gap in the literature by pursuing two inter-connected aims: (1) To co-develop, with Voces y Manos colleagues, a systematic, four-stage approach called Participatory Design for Buen Vivir (PDBV) to guide efforts involving both external researchers and Indigenous communities in co-design processes; (2) To longitudinally study how shared visions — what I call “collective design imaginaries” — came to take shape among members of the Voces y Manos team as they implemented the PDVB approach. Together, these aspects of the research contribute both to the practice-based, methodological literature and to advancing our empirical understanding of tensions and points of synergy that can be achieved between Indigenous and Western approaches to enhancing the climate change resilience of communities.
Building on mounting critiques of the conventional framework of “development” as a Eurocentric imposition, the methodology of PDBV aims to more closely align community-based work with Indigenous communities’ self-defined life projects. To move beyond broad and general calls for a “post-development” paradigm, the methodology of PDBV consists of the following four iterative steps: (1) Eliciting an understanding of communities’ valued cultural practices, knowledge, and self-defined visions of change; (2) Developing a theory of change framework for guiding program implementation; (3) Implementing activities and iteratively reflecting on systematic challenges that emerge while translating theory into practice; and (4) Leveraging lessons learned to strengthen the theory of change and to develop new long-term strategies. Each chapter of this dissertation tracks one of these four phases of design.
In addition to outlining the methodological approach, I systematically analyze the affordances and constraints of this methodology, using Voces y Manos’ efforts to promote agroecology as a case study. In the Maya-Achí region, agroecology is one of the key means through which Indigenous knowledge is being utilized to respond to the climate emergency. Drawing on thousands of years of Maya agricultural expertise, practices of agroecology are recognized both by many Maya-Achí leaders and by international scientific bodies for their ability to foster climate change resilience. However, the value and significance of agroecology are understood in distinct ways by these two groups.
The PDBV methodology showed promise for aligning community outreach workers’ commitments and visions of agroecological change with those of the community members with whom they collaborate. These included commitments to eliminating the use of agrochemicals; sustaining collaborative learning and cultural practices; respecting mother earth; respecting elders and reclaiming ancestral knowledge; and preserving native seed varieties. If the terms and frameworks of Buen Vivir and agroecology gestured toward these kinds of commitments, I argue that the specific form they took could not have been specified in advance. Thus, my analysis shows how meanings of Buen Vivir — and practices associated with it — were co-constructed in dialogue and in practice. This shows the promise of the PDBV methodology for moving beyond abstraction to the identification of specific practices whose promotion is simultaneously attentive to environmental concerns, matters of farm productivity, and to cultural regeneration. At a time when Indigenous knowledge has often been either devalued or granted merely symbolic status, this research illustrates the concrete possibility of constructive engagement between Indigenous and Western knowledge systems and offers pragmatic tools for aligning climate change resilience efforts with Indigenous communities’ goals and priorities.
