Human Ecology, Vol. 34, No. 4, August 2006 (

C

2006)

DOI: 10.1007/s10745-006-9009-1

Adaptive Learning Networks: Developing
Resource Management Knowledge through
Social Learning Forums

Iain J. Davidson-Hunt

1

Published online: 19 September 2006

The purpose of this paper is to explore adaptive learning networks as a con-
temporary means by which new resource management knowledge can de-
velop through social learning forums. The paper draws upon recent discus-
sions within two disparate literatures on indigenous knowledge and network
theory and is grounded in fieldwork with two Anishinaabe First Nations in
northwestern Ontario. The paper has three objectives. First, problematize the
principle of representation as a basic way of including the knowledge of in-
digenous peoples within natural resource and environmental management.
Second, utilize network theory as a way to weave together adaptive learning
by individuals into a cross-cultural social learning process. Finally, propose
an adaptive natural resources and environmental framework that brings to-
gether, through a social learning process, the different ways individuals, in-
digenous peoples and resource managers, perceive environmental change.

KEY WORDS: resource management; adaptive learning; social learning; indigenous knowl-
edge; networks.

INTRODUCTION

The adaptive management literature has suggested that natural

resource and environmental management (NREM) organizations include
social learning processes so that new resource management knowledge
can be developed in response to environmental change (Holling,

1978

).

Adaptive management has often been operationalized through the use of

1

Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba, 70 Dysart Rd. Winnipeg, Manitoba,
Canada, R3T 2N2; e-mail: [e-mail].

593

0300-7839/06/0800-0593/0

C

2006 Springer Science

+Business Media, Inc.

594

Davidson-Hunt

monitoring systems that include measurable categories known as criteria
and indicators (C&I) (Duinker and Trevisan,

2003

; Walters,

1986

). This

management framework requires that all decision-makers are in agreement
that a category and corresponding measurement signify something that
warrants a change in management practice and/or individual behaviour.
As NREM frameworks have begun to include scientists from a greater
diversity of disciplines, and citizens with a variety of world views, the back-
bones of adaptive management, scientific authority and C&I, have become
problematic.

The inclusion of adaptive management into new contexts of shared

NREM decision-making has been referred to as adaptive co-management
(Olsson et al.,

2004a

,

b

). One of the emerging challenges of including a di-

versity of actors in the development of new NREM knowledge is how to
facilitate social learning in a pluralistic context (Folke et al.,

2003

). How do

two societies, of different cultural backgrounds, agree upon the signifiers
of environmental change? How do they agree that such change is positive
or negative? How can they bring their knowledge of environmental change
into a societal learning process that develops new NREM knowledge?

There is a large literature that has considered how to create bridges,

or linkages, between the resource management knowledge of indigenous
peoples and people working within resource management agencies of na-
tion states (Berkes,

1999

; Williams and Hunn,

1982

). Early efforts focused

on the documentation of knowledge and the consideration of universal cat-
egories of environmental perception that were common to many societies
(see Berlin,

1992

). Recent work has turned to consider how such categories

could be included as criteria and indicators within NREM frameworks
(Natcher and Hickey,

2002

). However, other work has noted that equally

important, to the inclusion of one’s knowledge within NREM framework,
is the ability to directly bring one’s knowledge into the processes by which
new knowledge is produced (Agrawal,

1995

,

2003

).

The direct participation of people within knowledge producing pro-

cesses is the first step in developing new NREM frameworks. However, for
many indigenous societies, the problem is deeper than a simple resolution
that would be based upon an idea of representative seats for indigenous
people within a NREM process. The problem, as I will discuss in this
paper, is that indigenous knowledge of environmental change is produced
out of the direct relationships between knowledgeable people and their
environments (Davidson-Hunt and Berkes,

2003a

). This means that an

individual’s knowledge cannot be represented by other individuals or by
more abstract categories such as measurable criteria and indicators in
which an individual’s knowledge becomes widowed from the knowledge
producing process (Lane,

2002

). A cross-cultural adaptive management

Adaptive Learning Networks

595

framework will require the ability to bring together individual attentiveness
to environmental signs and signals with a social learning process.

In this paper I ground the discussion in work that I have undertaken

in cooperation with Anishinaabe people of northwestern Ontario. This
work has largely focused on Anishinaabe categories of environmental per-
ception, intergenerational learning processes and long-term dynamics of
their land-based livelihoods (Davidson-Hunt,

2003a

,

b

; Davidson-Hunt and

Berkes,

2003a

). However, recently, this work has turned to a consideration

of how social learning processes can result in cross-cultural understanding
of changes in the land. My thinking on these topics is influenced through
my research with the people of two Anishinaabe First Nations. The Shoal
Lake Resource Institute was established by Iskatewizaagegan No. 39 In-
dependent First Nation (IIFN) to build Anishinaabe knowledge about the
Shoal Lake watershed. IIFN straddles the Ontario/Manitoba border ap-
proximately 200 km east of Winnipeg, Manitoba. The Whitefeather Forest
Initiative was started by Pikangikum First Nation (PFN) as an economic
revitalization initiative and as a way that they could use their knowledge
to care for their lands. PFN is located in Ontario approximately 200 km
northwest of Red Lake.

My intention in this paper is threefold. First, problematize the princi-

ple of representation as a basic way of organizing the participation of in-
dividual Anishinaabe actors in a cross-cultural NREM framework. I use
organizational scale in this paper to refer to the spatial scale for which an
organization considers that it has NREM responsibilities (Stern et al.,

2002

).

Second, utilize recent network theory to provide an approach that links in-
dividual perception of environmental signs and signals with cross-cultural
social learning. Social learning, in the context of NREM, refers to the pro-
cess by which a group develops knowledge that is held collectively and can
influence the behaviour of individuals who are members of the group (Keen
et al.,

2005

). Third, propose an adaptive NREM framework to understand

changes in the land that is built upon individual perception of environmen-
tal signs and signals and social learning. I know turn to a consideration
of the problem of representation as the basis of an adaptive management
NREM framework that includes indigenous perspectives.

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND THE CO-PRODUCTION

OF NREM KNOWLEDGE

An indigenous adaptive management framework to develop new

NREM knowledge begins from the first order proposition that indigenous
people hold planning and management authority for specified territories.

596

Davidson-Hunt

Each indigenous community has different perspectives regarding how re-
source management responsibilities are shared across organizational scales
of governance. Within nation states that emerged out of British colonial
rule, for instance, Aboriginal peoples often consider that treaties embody
a premise of sharing natural resources while having distinct duties regard-
ing the land (Chapeski,

2002

; Rangan and Lane,

2001

; Smith and Wishnie,

2000

). This understanding is rooted in the collective experience, both mate-

rial and spiritual, of a people on the land (Posey,

2002

). In the specific case

of Anishinaabe people this authority is considered as part of the natural and
sacred laws that govern the Anishinaabe (Overholt and Callicott,

1982

).

Authority flows through the beings of the land and/or directly from the
Creator who placed the indigenous society on the land and gave them the
responsibility to care for and keep it (Berkes,

1999

). In other words, man-

agement authority places upon the Anishinaabe, both as an individual and a
collective, a duty to respect the beings with which they share their lands and
a need to be aware of the consequences of their actions (Davidson-Hunt
and Berkes,

2003a

). This basic, indigenous first order premise of NREM

management has been translated as “stewardship,” “guardianship,” “custo-
dianship,” or “keepers of the land” (Chapeski,

2002

; Lane,

2002

; Rangan

and Lane,

2001

).

Anishinaabe authority regarding resource knowledge is related to both

geography and specialized knowledge. Authority for specific lands comes
from the Creator through an individual’s direct experience and intimacy
with a geographically defined place; these we can call locational respon-
sibilities. Broader custodial responsibilities are also based on the intimate
and recognized expert knowledge of an individual in relation to a special-
ized set of resources and associated knowledge (e.g. medicinal plants). In
both cases, the authority to speak for a specific piece of land, or specialized
resources, emerges from an individual’s personal experience (Lane,

2002

).

People who are knowledgeable about certain places and resources are of-
ten called “providers” or “wise Elders” and such people will only speak
authoritatively about those places and resources for which the Creator has
specifically given them personal responsibility.

The proposition that personal responsibilities over specific lands and

resources have been given to particular individuals means that notions
of delegation and representation are typically considered inappropriate
within many indigenous societies (Lane,

2002

). Categories of knowledge,

data and representatives can not do the work, from an Anishinaabe point
of view, which is required from such a NREM framework. Responsi-
bilities given by the Creator to an individual cannot be delegated to or
represented by abstract knowledge or another person. Knowledge that is
“distanced” from those responsible for the land cannot form the basis of

Adaptive Learning Networks

597

authoritative and legitimate knowledge that might develop out of an
adaptive NREM process.

An adaptive NREM framework has to include a way to link the expe-

riential knowledge and personal calling of an individual with the processes
that can allow social learning to occur. This means moving NREM frame-
works beyond orthodox approaches in which indigenous peoples supply
“local” knowledge as information for complex models and decision-making
processes. New adaptive management frameworks include indigenous peo-
ples as actors fully engaged in the co-production of new NREM knowledge.
Before turning to consider such a framework for adaptive management I
draw upon network theory to consider how individual attentiveness to en-
vironmental signs and signals can contribute to processes of social learning.

INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE AND SOCIAL LEARNING: A

NETWORK APPROACH

In this section of the paper I propose that Anishinaabe knowledge

is both traditional and adaptive and that this statement is not necessar-
ily a contradiction (Ingold,

2000

). In order to explore the dynamics of

Anishinaabe knowledge I focus on a mode of learning that has been
termed adaptive learning (Davidson-Hunt and Berkes,

2003a

). Adaptive

learning focuses on the processes by which knowledge is produced, as
opposed to the information and categories of knowledge. Dominant
societies often portray Indigenous Knowledge, through the process of its
documentation and translation, as knowledge artifacts to be utilized within
NREM decision-making processes controlled by actors situated at other
organizational scales (Sillitoe,

2002a

). Indigenous Knowledge becomes an

unchangeable tradition waiting to be documented and revealed through
research rather than a dynamic process that links individual and social
learning within and across societies (Agrawal,

1995

,

2002

). In order to move

away from orthodox approaches that have tended to freeze Indigenous
Knowledge as tradition I utilize recent network theory as a vehicle to fur-
ther develop an adaptive learning framework. This becomes the basis upon
which, in the concluding section, I develop a cross-cultural, and cross-scale,
adaptive management framework for developing new NREM knowledge.

Network theory provides an opportunity to develop a human-in-

ecosystem concept as dynamic, social-ecological networks consisting of
individual actors linked through relationships and processes (Capra,

2002

;

Davidson-Hunt and Berkes,

2003b

; Ingold,

2000

). Most network theory

has emerged out of the use of large databases allowing the theory to be
strong in terms of general patterns and principles of networks but not in

598

Davidson-Hunt

Fig. 1. The basic architecture of a human-in-ecosystem environment.The network is made
up of actors linked through relationships with each other. A focal actor is necessary to begin
mapping the network. The identity of each actor is expressed through shading while the nature
of relationships is conveyed through the use of different lengths of lines. The dashed lines
encircling elements and networks represent the boundaries that create an identity for each.
Weak ties are relationships which create larger scale clusters with their own identities.

their operations at smaller scales (Barab ´asi,

2003

). My interest, however, is

to understand how individuals as members of networks can bring together
individual attentiveness to environmental signs and signals with social
learning that crosses organizational scales. I begin with the structure of lo-
cal networks and the processes by which knowledge is both conserved and
created. The basic building block for this exercise is the network of an indi-
vidual actor as presented in Fig.

1

. The circles represent individual actors in

relationship with other actors while the dotted line represents a boundary
that allows for the creation of a network identity. An individual actor may
be a member of multiple networks so that each actor can have multiple
identities. For instance, the actor represented by the circle filled with dots
is a member of both networks in Fig.

2

. The particular actors, relationships

and boundaries give each bounded set a unique identity. By utilizing the
idea of an actor’s network we can draw out three points from network
theory to help understand the knowledge network of an individual actor.

First, individual actors are not organized as randomly distributed

networks but rather networks with distinct architectures that emerge
through the processes of boundary formation and maintenance that embed
an individual actor within a system with a distinct identity. The result

Adaptive Learning Networks

599

Fig. 2. Tradition as conservative process of knowledge transmission. The replication of knowl-
edge over time results in a network whose trajectory does not change over time. Change, in
this perspective, only occurs through transcriptions errors when knowledge is moved from one
head to another. Change is perceived as a negative event as opposed to an adaptive process.

is a “clustering” pattern as noted by current work on network theory
(Barab ´asi,

2003

).

Second, as noted by Granovetter (

1973

), it is the weak ties that provide

linkages by which new knowledge can enter a bounded network through re-
lationships between individual actors. In Fig.

1

, a weak tie is diagrammed

as a dashed line between two elements with the result that the two bounded
networks are linked. Strong ties are those relationships formed by elements
within a bounded network and are important to conserve the system’s tradi-
tional identity. Weak ties provide a mechanism that cross the boundaries of
each bounded network allowing a partially open network to emerge with-
out requiring a loss of boundaries that impart identity.

Third, this basic network approach can be applied to other scales of

organization. An individual actor could be a human person, an enterprise,
an agency or a government. In network theory, Fig.

1

can also represent

how an industry, at a particular scale, forms relationships with other indus-
tries and becomes more complex organizationally through such clustering
of individuals actors into groups with boundaries and identities. It is also
important to recognize that, in network theory, organizational scale is an
attribute of an individual actor since an actor can be active at multiple or-
ganizational scales.

The ability of actors to operate at multiple scales in network theory

is one of the principle reasons that the focus is on the patterns by which

600

Davidson-Hunt

individual actors cluster, the linkages amongst and between clusters, and
the processes by which individual clusters emerge and are maintained over
time. The process of scaling-up, in a network approach, considers individual
actors who link different clusters and by doing so creates a larger cluster.
Larger clusters may be examples of scaling-out in which clusters of sim-
ilar organizational scale are joined or of scaling-up in which a cluster at
one organizational scale is linked to a cluster of a different organizational
scale (Hooper et al.,

2004

). As mentioned, however, in a network diagram

it is not possible to represent hierarchic scale except by attaching organi-
zational scale attributes to individual actors and clusters. This provides a
new approach for organizational theory and moves beyond the idea that
organizations are members of a rank within a hierarchic taxonomy in which
lower scales are embedded by higher ones and linkages are either horizon-
tal within a rank or vertical ones that cross ranks (Stern et al.,

2002

).

A three dimensional representation of the clustering pattern found

within networks have led some theorists to consider networks as “scaleless”
(Barab ´asi,

2003

; Capra,

2002

). A network approach to indigenous knowl-

edge begins with identifying individual actors, relationships and identities
of bounded networks and how they cluster within the processes by which
local knowledge is produced (Raffles,

2002

). Utilizing this idea from net-

work theorists provides a way to think about how local knowledge is pro-
duced through relationships between actors embedded within different or-
ganizational scales (Sillitoe,

2002b

; Raffles,

2002

). The caveat, or course, is

that along with network architecture it is critical to examine how power is
distributed within the networks and influences the co-production of local
knowledge (Agrawal,

1995

,

2002

).

While network theory can be utilized to examine individual actors that

are communities, enterprises or governments my focus in this paper is to
understand how an individual indigenous person can participate in the pro-
duction of NREM knowledge for a locality. This necessitates a focus on
who might be considered an individual actor within indigenous knowledge
networks. In Anishinaabe philosophy, persons are those beings that posses
power; power being the ability to direct one’s own life course and influence
that of others (Black,

1977

; Overholt and Callicott,

1982

; Ingold,

2000

). The

learning environment of an individual Anishinaabe person is the network
of individual actors who emit signs and signals to which one is attentive
(Davidson-Hunt and Berkes,

2003a

). An Anishinaabe knowledge network

thus includes individual actors who may not be included within another so-
ciety’s. This approach to how NREM knowledge develops links an individ-
ual actor’s attentiveness to environmental signs and signals to a process of
social learning. The advantage of this approach is that it is possible to fo-
cus on the processes that link a local environment, individual actors and

Adaptive Learning Networks

601

social learning networks instead of dichotomous categories of knowledge
types such as indigenous versus scientific (Agrawal,

1995

). I know turn to

consider such processes.

INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE: TRADITIONAL

AND CREATIVE PROCESSES

It is often assumed that Indigenous Knowledge systems are traditional

in the sense that they do not adapt nor change over time. This has resulted
in a common perception that indigenous knowledge is like a set of encyclo-
pedias that can be handed down through the generations via a mechanism
that results in its replication from the heads of one generation to another
(Ingold,

2000

). This point is illustrated in Fig.

2

in which the knowledge

system is idealized as timeless and projected backward into the past and
forward into the future. A linear trajectory across time is created and the
specific actors, relationships, boundaries and identity of the system are as-
sumed to remain constant over time. A change in knowledge is assumed to
result from transcription errors in the process of moving content from one
head to another whether across generations or societies. Unfortunately, the
focus on the transmission of the content of knowledge through time and
space has resulted in a perspective where tradition is theorized as continu-
ity and change as a loss.

In this perspective on tradition, knowledge changes, not through

agency and creativity, but as a result of errors in the transmission process.
Errors can be those of omission, caused by a breakdown within a society’s
transmission process, or imposition, as more powerful persons and pro-
cesses impose a new knowledge system upon a society. In drawing upon
a network approach for indigenous knowledge it is possible to consider the
ability of indigenous peoples to be co-producers of the knowledge being
generated for their people and localities. Tradition would not be consid-
ered to be knowledge from the past but the ability to actively participate
in the processes that maintain the continuity between the past and the fu-
ture. While tradition can refer to the processes that maintain identity over
time, the concept of creativity can be utilized to focus on the processes by
which attentiveness to environmental signs and signals can result in adap-
tive learning.

One of the challenges of linking adaptive learning to environmental

signs and signals is that not all change is equal. In Fig.

3

environmental signs

and signals are linked to a change in the configuration of a network. How-
ever, some signs and signals are a part of cyclical change within a network
while others denote change that may require adaptive learning. The mode

602

Davidson-Hunt

Fig. 3. The creative processes of an adaptive learning mode. Creativity is initiated by environ-
mental signs and signals. Adaptive learning processes can result in a change in the trajectory,
actors and boundaries while maintaining historical continuity and network identity.

of adaptive learning requires tradition, so that knowledge of cyclic change
is maintained over time, as well as the ability to be creative and adapt in the
face of environmental signs and signals that are unfamiliar.

An important component of the adaptive learning mode is the ability

to become attentive to the signs and signals of one’s environment. How-
ever, how do societies reduce the background noise given that there are a
multitude of signs and signals encountered everyday? What kind of frame-
work do indigenous societies utilize to make sense of environmental signs
and signals? My work with Anishinaabe colleagues leads me to propose, at
this time, a framework that focuses on three modes by which environmental
signs and signals can be perceived.

First, there are the signs and signals related to the mundane, or the

daily living of a person within a dynamic social-ecological environment. The
phenology of plants can provide people with signs and signals that it is time
within the yearly cycle for certain activities to occur (Lantz and Turner,

2003

). The Anishinaabe, for example, utilize environmental signs and sig-

nals to indicate both the change in seasons and moons (Davidson-Hunt and
Berkes,

2003a

). They can also link apparently disparate events such as the

time when raspberries are ripe is the time to harvest birch bark (Davidson-
Hunt,

2003a

). This set focuses on the type of change which is developmen-

tal or cyclic as the signs and signals can be predictive of other events. Over
time a person becomes attentive to a great deal of this type which begins to
create a sense of normalcy for cyclic events. Obviously, a sense of what is
normal change can be learned as part of a society’s traditions and provides

Adaptive Learning Networks

603

a baseline for what might be noted as change outside of the experience of a
society.

Another important type of environmental sign and signal for a social-

ecological system framework are those that emphasize novelty. A person,
who is attentive to their environment, will over time, begin to note the
unexpected. In a workshop with Ella Dawn Green of Iskatewizaagegan
No. 39 First Nation she noted two different examples (Davidson-Hunt,
unpublished field notes, 2004). In the first, she told the story regarding the
spring of 2004 in which she observed geese who were flying south instead
of north. She wondered why and began to discuss with others if they had
noticed that flock of geese and what they thought it might mean. The
second story was regarding the singing of frogs during the spring of, 2004.
In this case, it was not their singing, but the absence of their singing in late
spring which drew her attention. Then, in late April it snowed, and she
knew why the frogs were not coming out to sing and the geese were flying
south. Through time, reflection, experience and discussion with others she
came to understand what the geese and frogs were trying to communicate
to her. A framework of signs and signals for social-ecological systems relies
both on knowing which require one’s attention as well as developing the
intimate relationships necessary to receive the messages of a place.

Another piece of a framework can include those signs and signals

which take on a special status within a community. One such set are those
beings which tell people to pay attention to certain types of events. These
might be considered as omens received through an encounter, in daily life or
during dreams, with a specific type of person, for example a bird, thunder-
bird or spirit-being, and for which there is a known message; or a message
that can be interpreted by another. Finally, there are certain signs and
signals that are paired in twos and fours and require a person’s attention.
These two sets of signs and signals have a special status within Anishinaabe
society. They help to reduce the background noise of an individual actor’s
environment and bring into focus those that are important for the adaptive
learning mode. One way to think of this is as a training wheel (Sillitoe,

2002b

). First, the sets reduce the number of signs and signals a person

monitors in daily life. Second, a person considers whether the relationship
between the opposing pairs, and within the set of four, is as expected.

The examples provided above indicate a mode of adaptive learning

that links an individual actor with environmental signs and signals. How-
ever, it is also necessary to bring together individual adaptive learning
with the social learning processes by which collective meaning can emerge
within a group and result in the development of new NREM knowledge.
The mode that I propose in this paper is that heuristic and adaptive learning
operate through individual actors but that such actors are embedded in

604

Davidson-Hunt

networks of communication that provide the architecture for social learning
processes.

AN ADAPTIVE LEARNING MODE: LINKING HEURISTIC

AND SOCIAL LEARNING

Heuristic learning is a process by which a learner is guided to discover

things for oneself. The adaptive mode of learning presented here guides
a learner to be attentive to the signs and signals of one’s learning envi-
ronment. As mentioned earlier this occurs through learning the tradition
associated with particular signs and signals imparted through a society’s
teachings (Davidson-Hunt and Berkes,

2003a

). Creativity begins when an

environmental sign and signal is encountered by an individual and for which
there is no widely accepted meaning found within social memory. Both pro-
cesses, however, are heuristic in that the learner discovers things for oneself
albeit with different guides at different stages in a learner’s life cycle.

The mode of adaptive learning and the heuristic method is taught from

a young age within Anishinaabe society. A young person, at the beginning
of their life’s journey, encounters many unknown signs and signals. The en-
vironment emits much noise that gradually forms itself into patterns as the
young person’s attention is directed to certain signs and signals through en-
counters structured by their mentors. During early years the learning en-
vironment is structured by family as the individual participates in different
types of activities. The learner may also be provided with spirit guides and
human guides important to learn specialized knowledge (Davidson-Hunt
and Berkes,

2003a

; Overholt and Callicott,

1982

).

Tradition and creativity interact within heuristic learning as tradition

is made available to the learner who must then adapt it to their contempo-
rary environment. However, over the course of a person’s life, no matter
how much experience gained within a particular environment, there will be
disturbances for which no meaning nor response exist within social mem-
ory. As Ella Dawn Green noted above the frogs and geese were telling
her something and she did not know what they were trying to say. These
types of events require individual and collective creativity to discover the
meaning of such events and also experimentation with the types of changes
required in response.

The adaptive learning mode provides for the continual adjustment of

knowledge though small adjustments made by learners as they bring tradi-
tion to bear in the present. In bringing together tradition and creativity the
heuristic method includes both slow and fast phases of adaptive learning.
However unknown signs and signals can tip the balance toward creativity

Adaptive Learning Networks

605

FATHER

MOTHER

WILD
GINGER

MOOSE

Fig. 4. A holistic learning environment consisting of those capable of communication with
other individual actors. Tradition acts as a boundary that creates perception of signs and sig-
nals and provides associated meaning. The use of one way arrows from others directed at the
learner emphasizes this as a conservative process.

and result in a fast phase of learning that can lead to changes in an individual
actor’s knowledge and the collective knowledge of a network. Of course, it
is during this stage of fast learning that human creativity, undertaken by ei-
ther individuals or groups, must be able to result in codification as tradition
in order for the knowledge to become collective and influence individual
behavior within a network. Otherwise, individuals, or small groups within a
society may adapt, but unless tradition changes, the network will not influ-
ence the behavior of its members. In the next section of the paper network
thinking is utilized to link individual perception of environmental signals to
the process by which collective knowledge develops.

In Fig.

4

a characterization of an individual Anishinaabe person’s

learning environment is presented as a bounded network. The network in-
cludes, as an example, four other actors who have established relationships
with the focal actor. In this example I have included the individual’s hu-
man father and mother as well as moose (Alces alces), the spiritual guide
of the individual, and namayapin (Asarum canadensis) as an example of
the specialized relationships of this person as a healer. All of these actors,
for an Anishinaabe person, can transmit signs and signals through the re-
lationships that have been established. The traditional institutions of learn-
ing structures influence who establishes relationships with the focal actor
that in turn influences the perception of environmental signs and signals
(Davidson-Hunt and Berkes,

2003a

). As a person matures their networks

606

Davidson-Hunt

expand and they accumulate experience and knowledge of their environ-
ment. Tradition provides both the process by which relationships are built
as well as the meaning of environmental signs and signals within the expe-
rience of the society.

One of the key roles of a guide within the adaptive learning process

is to reduce and clarify the noise of an environment so that messages can
be perceived and understood. There are three traditional processes of
heuristic learning that reduce the noise of an individual actor’s learning
environment. First, the institutions of learning within Anishinaabe society
provide rules that structure who is a member of a learner’s bounded net-
work at different stages of maturation (Davidson-Hunt and Berkes,

2003a

).

Second, perception of disturbance is not innate to humans but develops
as a learner’s attention is drawn to certain signs and signals. Perception
becomes a filter which attenuates attention to some while muting it for
others. Third, network membership and perception are two key processes
in forming and maintaining the boundaries of a learner’s environment.
Boundaries provide a structured learning environment through the guided
establishment of communicative relationships and the reduction of the
signs and signals received by the individual. As the individual develops
a sense of identity, as part of a group, learning tends to occur within
established, albeit expanding, boundaries. These traditional processes
work to reduce environmental signs and signals perceived by an individual
actor as well as providing associated meanings and appropriate responses.

Heuristic learning, within the adaptive mode, ensures that this trans-

mission of knowledge occurs in relation to a dynamic environment allowing
for small adjustments over time while maintaining network identity. Indi-
vidual variation and small adjustments accumulate as individuals develop
and mature through their own experience within a dynamic learning envi-
ronment (Ingold,

2000

). This allows for individual fine-tuning based upon

preference and skill. However, the one-way arrows in Fig.

4

emphasize that

traditional processes maintain the linkage between tradition and creativ-
ity. Thus individual variation does not change the basic codification of the
meaning of signs and signals as part of the collective knowledge of a society.

In heuristic learning meaning is not just imparted through verbal

instructions and the transmission of context but through experiencing an
activity with a guide. Transmission of codified knowledge of environmental
signs and signals is built in context as the institutions, rituals, language,
gesture and other media of communication become part of a learner’s
heart, mind, body and soul through the practice of activities (Overholt
and Callicott,

1982

). While traditional processes are an important part of

adaptive learning, as they maintain the identity of a network, so too are the
creative processes.

Adaptive Learning Networks

607

TIME

Signs and Signals

Fig. 5. The adaptive learning mode that brings together tradition and creativity. This figure
brings together the previous figures to describe an overview of how the adaptive learning mode
is integrated into processes of social learning.

The creative processes of adaptive learning require the perception by

an individual of an environmental sign and signal outside of an individual
actor’s networks or the failure of an encoded response. Such an event initi-
ates processes of human creativity as individuals begin to search for and
experiment with new interpretations for the event and new practices in
response (Turner et al.,

2003

). As illustrated in Fig.

5

an individual may

consult with other individuals of the network, try new practices, undertake
rituals or draw upon “weak ties” with other networks to try and locate in-
formation about the sign and signal.

In Fig.

5

, the adaptive learning mode shifts from tradition maintain-

ing processes, as represented by one-way arrows, to creative processes, as
denoted by two-way arrows, that provide an opening for exchanges of in-
formation between individuals and other networks. As different individu-
als experiment with a variety of creative responses there is also negotiation
amongst members of the bounded network about such experimentation.
Human creativity is the process by which individuals and groups experiment
with new ideas and practices but the development of collective knowledge
requires a process that links individual creativity to social learning. Social
learning is the process by which technologies, techniques, practices or insti-
tutions, can become codified as part of a society’s tradition. Once codified,

608

Davidson-Hunt

the meaning and response to the environmental sign and signal that initi-
ated the creative processes, becomes part of the tradition of the network
and available to others who are linked to that network.

As shown in Fig.

5

, once a solution becomes part of tradition the adap-

tive learning process may move back toward a slow phase in which more
emphasis is placed upon tradition and less upon creativity. The adaptive
learning mode has the flexibility to move between traditional and creative
processes to undertake slow and fast learning. As outlined in this paper
adaptive learning can occur through attentiveness of an individual actor to
the signs and signals received through that person’s relational networks.
The adaptive learning process links an individual’s attentiveness with the
tradition of her society as well as providing a mechanism so that creativity
can generate new knowledge that becomes tradition. How then can contem-
porary NREM frameworks provide for the Anishinaabe mode of adaptive
learning that focuses on individual experience of signs and signals while
partnering with systems of criteria and indicators that focus on categories,
data and measurement? Can such a framework allow for Anishinaabe peo-
ple to maintain influence within the social learning process so that they are
able to maintain the continuity between tradition and creativity?

AN INDIGENOUS NREM FRAMEWORK

In this special issue of Human Ecology the broad question of how re-

source management knowledge develops is considered (

Berkes and Turner,

this volume

). In this paper, my interest is to consider an adaptive manage-

ment framework that would allow indigenous people, and the knowledge
that is generated out of their adaptive learning mode, to be active partici-
pants in the co-production of new NREM knowledge. At the outset of the
paper I asked a number of questions. How do two societies, of different cul-
tural backgrounds, agree upon the signifiers of environmental change? How
do they agree that such change is positive or negative? How can they bring
their knowledge of environmental change into a societal learning process
that develops new NREM knowledge? One of the key challenges in devel-
oping such a framework is to understand how individual actors can work
together to co-produce new NREM in a pluralistic context.

In order to answer such questions I drew upon recent network theory

to provide a learning mode that brings individual attentiveness to environ-
mental signs and signals into a process of social learning. One of the basic
ideas in network thinking is that an individual is embedded in relational net-
works that provide the architecture for the processes by which knowledge
can develop. As pointed out in the paper, an individual is embedded in an

Adaptive Learning Networks

609

environment made up of both strong linkages with others of a bounded
network and weak linkages that provide bridges to other network clusters.
In a contemporary context this approach provides a more realistic repre-
sentation of indigenous peoples as linked with other knowledge producing
clusters.

In the past it has often been assumed that indigenous peoples were

isolated on the basis of physical, social or linguistic boundaries. While it is
true that boundaries provide the mechanism through which an identity can
emerge, network theory has also demonstrated that weak linkages can turn
an apparently closed system into a partially open one. It has often been
through the weak linkages, as boundary crossers, that new information, in-
stitutions, technologies, crops, diseases and other things have been trans-
mitted from one area to another. The adaptive learning mode, as described
in this paper, develops new knowledge internally, but may do so by drawing
upon weak linkages that provide access to external sources of information,
institutions, technologies and other things that are then locally internalized
within the bounded network.

The adaptive management framework that I propose is rooted in the

adaptive learning mode of Anishinaabe people, who are attentive to envi-
ronmental signs and signals, and the learning mode of many resource man-
agers based in measurable criteria and indicators. The difference, however,
is that rather than trying to privilege one type of knowledge over another
the proposed NREM framework brings individuals together into a group
to generate new knowledge through a process of dialogue. As our Anishi-
naabe colleagues have insisted this is the only framework that allows an
individual Anishinaabe person, active on the land and attentive to envi-
ronmental signs and signals, to fulfill their responsibilities to a territory or
a specialized set of resources. The adaptive management framework, that
can allow new NREM to be co-produced, does not begin with categories of
knowledge but dialogue amongst knowledgeable people regarding environ-
mental change. This is different then many current approaches that attempt
to bring indigenous knowledge into NREM frameworks through the con-
version of indigenous knowledge into measurable criteria and indicators.
Although indigenous knowledge is included in those frameworks, when it
is time for the meaning of such information to be produced, the observa-
tion and measurements are often given meaning through the use of com-
plex models and interpretation by “scientists.” What would a forum look
like that could bring together knowledgeable individuals into a social learn-
ing process that would allow them to co-produce the meaning of changes in
the land?

Drawing upon network theory it can be proposed that such a forum

would be established by linking individuals from different organizations so

610

Davidson-Hunt

that a new knowledge producing cluster, or what could be called a learn-
ing community, emerges. Each individual actor would also be embedded in
other knowledge producing clusters that will provide them with the knowl-
edge they bring to the social learning process. The new NREM knowledge
that is developed within the cluster will also become available to individual
actors to take back to their other network clusters.

A practical example of such a framework can be developed for the

northwestern Ontario context. An Anishinaabe person could come to a fo-
rum with knowledge built out of attentiveness to environmental signs and
signals from a specified territory. An individual actor from a resource man-
agement agency or corporation will likely come to the table with knowledge
built upon the basis of measurable criteria and indicators. It is likely that
some synergies can be built between categories common to the mundane
signs and signals of Anishinaabe people and some criteria and indicator
categories of the resource manager. The important point is that there will
be multiple sources of information brought to the forum by different indi-
viduals and that the meaning, and subsequent actions, will emerge out of a
process of social learning.

The forum and social learning process becomes the adaptive manage-

ment framework out of which new resource management knowledge devel-
ops in a contemporary context. However, while such a knowledge cluster
can develop new resource management knowledge there are many barriers
to the implementation of that knowledge in influencing NREM decision-
making and individual human behavior.

In a purely operational sense such a forum will require a high degree

of investment in cross-cultural communication. While this challenge is cap-
tured under the rubric of translation it will surpass the simply conveyance
of ideas in two different languages. Anishinaabe elders often communicate
through the use of complex narratives that draw upon foundational narra-
tives as well as local stories and shared history. It will take time for a per-
son trained in a university to understand the meaning behind the narratives
that are shared in such forums. Likewise, it will take time for an Anishi-
naabe person to understand the significance of the information conveyed
through tools such as maps, models, categories and measurement. In both
cases, it will be necessary to work with different types of representation to
facilitate cross-cultural understanding. The process will require a substan-
tial investment in both developing media that can enable communication
and the process of dialogue so social learning can occur within the forum.
The larger challenge, of course, is procuring the money needed to fund what
are often considered to be soft processes not directly relevant to NREM.

Another basic challenge will be to obtain agreement amongst individ-

ual actors that the objective of the forum should be to develop new NREM

Adaptive Learning Networks

611

knowledge. The risk of participating in such a forum is that through the
social learning process the knowledge that a person brings to the forum
may become transformed. In many NREM processes the objective seems
to be to convince others of the validity of one’s own knowledge or simply
inform others of one’s knowledge. An unwillingness, institutional inability,
or political constraints may prevent some actors to implement the changes
in management practices or individual behavior that emerge from a social
learning forum.

As noted at the outset of this paper the most important caveat to

the development of new NREM frameworks is the distribution of power
within the network cluster. The objective of the cluster may be to develop
new resource management knowledge however if the cluster does not hold
decision-making power what will happen to the knowledge that is devel-
oped? Some clusters may emerge out of a co-management process in which
the cluster is also the organization that holds decision-making power over a
specified territory. However, another scenario is that knowledge producing
clusters will not hold decision-making power. In this case, individual ac-
tors within the cluster will take what they have learned and will bring such
knowledge to other groups of which they are members. New NREM knowl-
edge will go through another process of social learning and transformation
as it becomes represented and validated in each specific context. This will
provide the mechanism by which the new knowledge becomes codified as
tradition and in turn will influence the behavior of individuals who are part
of the group. The proposed NREM framework produces new knowledge
out of a cross-cultural and cross-scale cluster but also depends upon the
ability of individual actors to make the new knowledge meaningful and op-
erative in their own specific contexts.

The NREM framework that I am proposing, as opposed to most

current approaches, does not begin with an attempt to create a set of
categories (criteria and indicators), nor representatives, that can speak for
individual Anishinaabe people. Rather, a new approach for NREM begins
by bringing individuals attentive to environmental signs and signals into di-
alogue through a social learning process. Such forums will respect both the
understanding of changes in the land of the Anishinaabe person and those
of university trained resource managers. Such a framework will assume
that each has their own way to create meaning regarding environmental
change that can be communicated in its own form, be that narrative, or
measurement. The challenge is to find a way to allow such knowledgeable
individuals to engage in a dialogue facilitated through the use innovation
media and representations of knowledge. Such a facilitated social learning
process may provide the means by which individual actors can understand
each other’s voice in order to generate shared meanings of environmental

612

Davidson-Hunt

change and required changes in management practices and individual
behavior.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I could not have completed this research without the assistance of the

Shoal Lake Resource Institute of Iskatewizaagegan #39 Independent First
Nation (IIFN) and the Whitefeather Forest Management Corporation of
Pikangikum First Nation (PFN). I also thank the Chiefs and Councils of
IIFN and PFN, who over the years have changed, but as administrations
have been supportive. Financial support was provided by the Sustainable
Forest Management Network (SFMN) and by the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). Fikret Berkes and Nancy Turner
provided the impetus for this paper by providing an opportunity to present
preliminary thinking at the 2004 International Association of Common
Property Conference, Oaxaca, Mexico.

REFERENCES

Agrawal, A. (1995). Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. De-

velopment and Change 26: 413–439.

Agrawal, A. (2002). Indigenous knowledge and the politics of classification. International So-

cial Science Journal 173: 287–297.

Barab ´asi, A.-L. (2003). Linked: How Everything is Connected to Everything else and what it

Means for Business, Science, and Everyday Life, Plume/Penguin Group, New York.

Berkes, F., and Turner, N. J. (this volume) Knowledge, learning and the resilience of social-

ecological systems. Human Ecology.

Berkes, F. (1999). Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Manage-

ment. Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia.

Berlin, B. (1992). Ethnobiological Classification, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Black, M. B. (1977). Ojibwa power belief-system. In Fogelson, R. D., and Adams, R. N. (eds.),

The Anthropology of Power. Academic Press, New York, pp. 141–151.

Capra, F. (2002). The Hidden Connections: Integrating the Hidden Connections Among the

Biological, Cognitive, and Social Dimensions of Life, Doubleday Press, New York.

Chapeski, A. J. (2002). Liberating Canada from the settler mythology. In Bird, J., Land, L., and

Macadam, M. (eds.), Nation to Nation: Aboriginal Sovereignty and the Future of Canada,
Irwin Publishing, Toronto, pp. 74–84.

Davidson-Hunt, I. J. (2003a). Journeys, Plants and Dreams: Adaptive Learning and Social-

ecological Resilience. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Manitoba, Winnipeg.

Davidson-Hunt, I. J. (2003b). Indigenous lands management, cultural landscapes and Anishi-

naabe people of Shoal Lake, Northwestern Ontario, Canada. Environments 31(1): 21–42.

Davidson-Hunt, I. J., and Berkes, F. (2003a). Learning as you journey: Anishinaabe perception

of social-ecological environments and adaptive learning. Conservation Ecology 8(1): 5.
[online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol8/iss1/art5

Davidson-Hunt, I. J., and Berkes, F. (2003b). Nature and society through the lens of resilience:

toward a human-in-ecosystem perspective. In Berkes, F., Colding, J., and Folke, C. (eds.),

Adaptive Learning Networks

613

Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 53–82.

Duinker, P. N., and Trevisan, L. M. (2003). Adaptive management: progress and prospects

for Canadian forests. In Burton, P. J., Messier, C., Smith, D. W., and Adamowicz, W.
L. (eds.), Towards Sustainable Management of the Boreal Forest, NRC Research Press,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, pp. 857–892.

Folke, C., Colding, J., and Berkes, F. (2003). Synthesis: building resilience and adaptive capac-

ity in social-ecological systems. In Berkes, F., Colding, J., and Folke, C. (eds.), Navigating
Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp. 352–387.

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78: 1360–

1380.

Holling, C. S. (1978). Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management, Wiley, London.
Hooper, M., Jafry, R., Marolla, M., and Phan, J. (2004). Scaling-up Community Efforts to

Reach the MDGs: An Assessment of Experience from the Equator Prize, UNDP, New
York.

Ingold, T. (2000). The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and

Skill, Routledge Press, London.

Keen, M., Brown, V. A., Dyball, R. (2005). Social learning: A new approach to environmen-

tal management. In Keen, M., Brown, V. A., and Dyball, R. (eds.), Social Learning in
Environmental Management: Towards a Sustainable Future, Earthscan, United Kingdom,
pp. 3–21.

Lane, M. B. (2002) Buying back and Caring for Country: Institutional arrangements and possi-

bilities for indigenous lands management in Australia. Society and Natural Resources 15:
827–846.

Lantz, T. C., and Turner, N. J. (2003). Traditional phenological knowledge of aboriginal peo-

ples in British Columbia. Journal of Ethnobiology 23(2): 263–286.

Natcher, D. C., and Hickey, C. G. (2002). Putting the community back into community-based

resource management: A criteria and indicators approach to sustainability. Human Orga-
nization 61(4): 350–363.

Olsson, P., Folke, C., and Berkes, F. (2004a). Adaptive comanagement for building resilience

in social-ecological systems. Environmental Management 34(1): 75–90.

Olsson, P., Folke, C., and Hahn, T. (2004b). Social-ecological transformation for

ecosystem management: The development of adaptive co-management of a wet-
land landscape in southern Sweden. Ecology and Society 9(4): 2. [online] URL:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss4/art2

Overholt, T. W., and Callicott, J. B. (1982). Clothed-in-Fur and other Tales: An Introduction to

Ojibwa World View, University Press of America, Washington, DC.

Posey, D. (2002). Upsetting the sacred balance: Can the study of indigenous knowledge reflect

cosmic connectedness? In Sillitoe, P., Bicker, A., and Pottier, J. (eds.), Participating in
Development: Approaches to Indigenous Knowledge, Routledge, London, pp. 24–42.

Turner, N. J., Davidson-Hunt, I. J., and O’Flaherty, M. (2003). Living on the edge: Ecological

and cultural edges as sources of diversity for social-ecological resilience. Human Ecology
31(3): 439–463.

Rangan, J., and Lane, M. B. (2001). Indigenous peoples and forest management: Comparative

analysis of institutional approaches in Australia and India. Society and Natural Resources
14: 145–160.

Raffles, H. (2002). Intimate knowledge. International Social Science Journal 173: 25–35.
Sillitoe, P. (2002a). Participant observation to participatory development: making anthropol-

ogy work. In Sillitoe, P., Bicker, A., and Pottier, J. (eds.), Participating in Development:
Approaches to Indigenous Knowledge, Routledge, London, pp. 1–23.

Sillitoe, P. (2002b). Globalizing indigenous knowledge. In Sillitoe, P., Bicker, A., and Pottier,

J. (eds.), Participating in Development: Approaches to Indigenous Knowledge, Routledge,
London, pp. 108–139.

Smith, E. A., and Wishnie, M. (2000). Conservation and subsistence in small-scale societies.

Annual Review of Anthropology 29: 493–524.

614

Davidson-Hunt

Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Dolˇsak, N., Ostrom, E., and Stonich, S. (2002). Knowledge and questions

after 15 years of research. In Ostrom, E., Dietz, T., Dolˇsak, N., Stern, P. C., Stonich, S.,
and Weber, E. (eds.), The Drama of the Commons, National Academy Press, Washington,
DC, pp. 445–489.

Walters, C. (1986). Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources, MacMillan Publishing

Company, New York.

Williams, N. M., and Hunn, E. S. (eds.) (1982). Resource Managers: North American and

Australian Hunter-Gatherers, American Association for the Advancement of Science,
Washington, DC.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.