*Sucharita Beniwal, National Institute of Design, India
Lesley-Ann Noel, Stanford University, USA
Sahil Mathur, National Institute of Design, India
Cilla Pemberton, The University of the West Indies
Suchitra Balasubrahmanyan, Ambedkar University, Delhi, India
V. Sakthivel, National Institute of Design, India
*contact: sucharita_b@nid.edu

Around the world, colonisation has led to intractable damage in various fields, especially in the domain of local knowledge. We have museumised native practice-based experiential knowledge of doing/making things/problem solving and accepted scientific knowledge as a logical path of doing things. This has created a divide and differentiation in knowledge domains, often questioning the role and relevance of people and their vernacular occupations. Hegemony of one knowledge system over another has been the subject of debate in many disciplines (Escobar 2018; Marglin, 1990).
Science seeks objectivity and is unable to comprehend the categories and codes that subjective experiential knowledge has to offer. Practice-based experiential knowledge is understood through the subjective engagement of a practitioner. The privileged expertise position of science is merited through its transference and objectivity. Yet, interval and again arguments are made for merits of subjective and tacit knowledge that making/doing/problem-solving inherently holds (Sennett, 2009; Lansing, 2006)
The impact of divide between the objectivity and subjectivity is felt because there is no common language to share dissimilar coding of a similar knowledge. Through this track, we seek examples, scenarios and frameworks of innovation driven by tacit knowledge to challenge the hegemony of the current system.
How do innovations gainful respond from tacit knowledge? What worlds of undifferentiated knowledge can exist if we absorb and desorb the objectivity and subjectivity that different domains offer? What are the other systems of understanding and action in the world? What are the experimentations and scales in these knowledge domains? How can they be understood through their own system of language? What are the ways of creating a dialogue between plural ways of knowing? What is the role of local knowledge and culture in creating and transforming innovation? How can one knowledge style learn from the other and enhance its quality? How can one knowledge not colonise another and bring equality to practitioners of experiential knowledge?
It is anticipated that contributions to this track will challenge the hegemony of dominant knowledge systems, open a dialogue for recognition, acceptance and create an exchange between disparate system.

Indicative References

Escobar, A. (2018). Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical interdependence, autonomy, and the making of worlds. Durham: Duke University Press.
Lansing, S. (2006). The perfect Order: Recognizing Complexity in Bali. Princeton University Press.
Marglin, F. and Marglin, S. (1990). Dominating Knowledge: Development, Culture, and Resistance. Wider and Clarendon
Rangaswamy, N., & Densmore, M. (2013). Understanding Jugaad. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Information and Communications Technologies and Development Notes – ICTD 13 – Volume 2. doi:10.1145/2517899.2517938
Sennett, R. (2009). The Craftsman. Penguin UK.
Santos, B. S. (2016). Epistemologies of the South and the future. From the European South: a transdisciplinary journal of postcolonial humanities, 1, 17–29.
Tunstall, E. (2013). Decolonizing Design Innovation: Design Anthropology, Critical Anthropology and Indigenous Knowledge. In W. Gunn, T. Otto, & R. C. Smith (Eds.). Design Anthropology: Theory and Practice (pp. 232–250). London: Bloomsbury.