Indigenous Science and School Science Curriculum: Possibilities for Integration in Nepal

Abstract

Purpose

This paper mainly focuses on the scenario underpinned by the possibilities of integration of Indigenous science and school science curriculum in Nepal.

Design/Approach/Methods

This study utilized a literature review in the field of national and international educational policies of indigeneity, Western science practice, curricular policy, and reformative approach to the science curriculum. It used a PRISMA flow diagram for the inclusion and exclusion of literature. Finally, 57 documents were included for this conceptual study.

Findings

Different knowledge practices by Indigenous and cultural peoples before scientific discoveries were made, were eco-friendly and empirically handed down through generations via cultural transmission. However, the hegemonic and imperative Western knowledge system denies the life-world knowledge of cultural peoples. The Nepali science curriculum largely emphasizes Western scientific practices, portraying them as modern and superior, while Indigenous knowledge is often overlooked or dismissed as dogmatic. Revisiting the curriculum to integrate Indigenous science is crucial for fostering inclusivity and recognizing its value.

Originality/Value

Cultural assimilation and acculturation are prioritized in science teaching rather than enculturation due to political and policy-level obstruction. Dialogue with different stakeholders and political commitment is a prerequisite for present science teaching and curriculum reforming.

Introduction

Kamal's (the first author) father, though non-literate, often advised against sleeping with the head pointing north, a belief passed down through generations. He learned from elders that this position caused mental stress, though he did not know the scientific reasoning. Later, as Kamal studied science, he understood that sleeping in a north–south orientation aligns the body with Earth's magnetic field, potentially affecting brain function and causing headaches and mental problems to people.

Such practices, deeply rooted in communities, represent Indigenous knowledge, as described by Koirala (2022), reflecting wisdom developed over generations to address practical life challenges. The above-mentioned Indigenous knowledge is considered to be an Indigenous science (Semali, 1999) because it comes from what local people have known and practiced for generations through trial and error processes to cope with change (Siambombe et al., 2018). However, limited researchers (e.g., Aikenhead & Ogawa, 2007; Silva et al., 2023; Snively & Corsiglia, 2000) have valued the use of Indigenous knowledge in science education in South Asian countries like Nepal (Upadhyay et al., 2020) and African countries (Semali, 1999). Shizha (2007) found that the differences between modern science and Indigenous science exist not only in content but also in the ways of knowing and interpreting knowledge. These worldviews have different approaches to understanding the world, that is, their epistemology and ontology. However, both are equally important to solve human problems through the integration of two knowledge systems to improve science education (Chitera & Moyo, 2021; Koirala & Parajuli, 2022). This paper presents Indigenous knowledge as Indigenous science and explores its connection with the current Western-based school science curriculum. We dig out Indigenous science-related content from the Indigenous knowledge/practices and link it with the present school science curriculum.

United Nations, UNESCO, World Bank, and many international conferences such as the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro have dedicated and fully recognized the importance of Indigenous knowledge systems for human rights, development, education, and environmental protection and care (Shizha, 2007). Student's participation in the use of Indigenous knowledge needs to be made visible in science education, which brings students’ school experiences closer to their home and allows them to develop their talents and abilities for confidence and self-esteem (UNICEF, 2004).

Some scholars claim that Indigenous science (IS) is practiced as Indigenous Technical Knowledge (ITK), Indigenous Knowledge (IK), Ethnoecology, Folk-Science (FK), Aboriginal Knowledge (AK), Indigenous Science Knowledge (ISK), Individual and Personal Science (IPS), Traditional Knowledge (TK), Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), Cultural and Societal Science (CSS), Native Science (NS), Peoples’ Science (PE), Indigenous Knowledge System (IKS), and Local Knowledge (LK) (Aikenhead & Elliott, 2010; Grenier, 1998; Hoppers, 2002; Koirala, 2022; Posey, 1999; Shizha, 2014; Silva et al., 2023; Slikkerveer, 1999; Snively & Corsiglia, 2000). The term IS is used to understand the application practice of IKS (Alteiri, 1993; Silva et al., 2023; Snively & Corsiglia, 2000). However, in this paper, IS refers to the systematic study, understanding, and application of scientific principles and practices within Indigenous communities. It consists of traditional ecological knowledge, astronomy, technology, medicine, agriculture, and various other field practices by communities (Semali & Kincheloe, 1999; Snively & Corsiglia, 2000). It works as a self-epistemic framework which can differ from mainstream Western science in terms of worldview, ontologies, and methodology, whereas IKS refers to the holistic body of knowledge, beliefs, practices, and wisdom that is passed down to new generations within Indigenous communities. It not only includes scientific knowledge but also interconnects cultural, spiritual, social, and environmental knowledge. Modern science refers to the systematic body and exploration of the natural world using empirical evidence, logic, and scientific methods. It refers to various disciplines such as physics, chemistry biology, astronomy, geology, and so many others.

Western scientists refer to IS as ethnobotany, ethnopharmacology, ethnomedicine, ethno-cosmology, and ethno-astronomy (Semali & Kincheloe, 1999). It is recognized as an IKS that has arrived through a plurality of peoples’ experiences living within the localized places and landscapes indicating a body of knowledge and ways of knowing, living, and being in the natural world by the first nation-state peoples in various countries (Baker, 2016). This is further justified by Cajete (1994), arguing that IS is a term conceived by ethnologists to define and describe philosophies, concepts, and experiences by which a primitive group of people obtains and applies knowledge about the natural world. As such, IS interprets cultural perspectives mainly focusing on agriculture, astronomy, navigation, mathematics, medical practices, engineering, military science, architecture, and ecology (Snively & Corsiglia, 2000). This is also an area of study within “anthropology” or original culture (Hoppers, 2002). In this context, Indigenous knowledge, skills, and practices hold superiority. However, Western sovereignty and its dominance are evident in the knowledge construction process in the Nepalese political, educational, and economic sectors, which lack knowledge, ideas, thought, and curriculum development process. Many students have a pre-existing worldview that makes scientific perspectives difficult to learn, but this does not make sense in terms of their original assumptions and values (Webb, 2011). In this paper, our purpose is to decolonize (Held, 2019; Koirala, 2023) the present epistemic practice of science teaching by emphasizing the cultural knowledge and practices as the IS connecting with Westerners or modern science (Koirala & Parajuli, 2022; Silva et al., 2023).

Methodology

This conceptual paper used a literature review to examine the implementation of IS and its potential integration into Nepal's school science curriculum. It assumes that diverse studies exist on Indigenous practices in school science and their impact on teaching, addressing questions such as how Indigenous knowledge demonstrates scientific principles and its relevance in the classroom. To explore this, we extended our research to include both national and international practices of IS and its influence on school science education. The review was conducted, guided by the latest PRISMA flow diagram (Page et al., 2021), as illustrated in Figure 1, to select and analyze the literature.

Figure 1.

PRISMA flow diagram.

The search was undertaken on September 21, 2023, utilizing the database of Web of Science, Scopus, ERIC, Science Hub, Library Genesis, Taylor and Francis Online, and Google Scholar for searching documents using keywords such as Indigenous education OR native OR aboriginal OR decolonization OR “school science” OR traditional. However, some search was carried out until May 19, 2024 for justification of this study. Journal articles, doctoral dissertations, reports, books, and chapters related to topic areas were downloaded based on their titles, abstracts, and keywords from the databases, where inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to select appropriate literature that aligns with the focus of our study. The search covered literature from 1993 onwards related to decolonization, Indigenous knowledge/science, science teaching, and colonial science. The search resulted in 1,557 literature. These were reduced to 73 after selecting those that met our study criteria (see Figure 1, PRISMA diagram). Altogether 57 documents related to this topic were identified (see detail in Figure 1). From the selected documents, the following themes were determined and presented in a thematic heading to justify the title heading of this study. Each theme was justified based on the selected literature.

Findings and discussion

Worldview of Indigenous knowledge and linkage to the school context

It is considered that the root of Western science and philosophy is based on the observation and political interpretation of local observation of nature (Slikkerveer, 1999). Implementing a culturally responsive science curriculum (Baker, 2016) or integrating cultural and community-based knowledge (Brown & Livstrom, 2020) focuses on bridging the gap between Western science education and the knowledge and values of local communities (Aikenhead & Ogawa, 2007; Chinn, 2007; Koirala, 2023). Aikenhead (2006) argued that Science and Indigenous knowledge are similar in that both involve observations and data collected through experiments and field studies, with descriptions and explanations based on rational ways of knowing within different culture-laden rationalities, even though they involve different epistemic practices of knowledge construction.

The traditional knowledge that is practiced by community people is now marginalized in colonized countries (Koirala, 2022). Mostly in colonial oppression, problems of alienation are magnified for Indigenous students whose home culture is dramatically different from the culture of school science (Aikenhead & Elliott, 2010; Koirala, 2023; Shizha, 2007). Indigenous ways of living in culture have not generally been welcomed in school science classrooms, and Indigenous students must suppress such knowledge to meet the conventional goal of thinking, behaving, and believing like scientists (Aikenhead & Elliott, 2010). As said by Aikenhead (2006), school science has attempted to facilitate the enculturation of students into a Western scientific way of knowing, replete with its canonical knowledge, techniques, and values; the same condition is found in the Nepali science education system (Parajuli, 2014). While Western science provides universal frameworks, it often overlooks local contexts and Indigenous knowledge systems that are deeply connected to Nepal's environment and culture (Koirala, 2022). Integrating Indigenous knowledge into science teaching can foster a more balanced and inclusive educational approach (Koirala & Parajuli, 2022). Promoting research on Indigenous practices and incorporating them into the school science curriculum is crucial for transformative teaching (Koirala, 2024).

The above argument is supported by Battiste (2010) saying that IK remains a neglected field of knowledge and inquiry, and the teaching of IK has not been applied to conventional education. Modern science has gained the status of officially recognized science and is taught in schools from the primary level to the higher levels, following formal research and decision-making processes for development at the government level (Haverkort & Reijntjes, 2010). However, natural science has forgotten to justify how scientific knowledge is related/linked to everyday experiences (Milne, 2019). Regarding Indigenous knowledge, it can be seen as important in every context of the world. Aikenhead and Ogawa (2007) stated that the knowledge-generating systems of Indigenous people are more empirical than those of Western scientific thought—especially at the individual level. Every Indigenous person may try to be a scientist through a personal effort as a hunter, fisherman, forager, or farmer with minimal mechanical technology. This argument indicates that Western science has faced difficulties in linking knowledge with the sociocultural practices of Indigenous perceptual world-life. However, Indigenous knowledge is strong for the border crossing of Indigenous people rather than the abstract scientific model (Qstergaard et al., 2008).

Nepali culture encompasses knowledge akin to science, with individuals gaining understanding through direct experiences with the natural world (Barnhardt & Kawagley, 2005). For example, Nepali calendars (Bikram Sambat) and agricultural activities are based on lunar and solar cycles, guided by traditional astronomical observations; these align with concepts of the Earth's rotation, the lunar cycle, and seasonal changes in modern science. Farmers in Nepal predict weather changes by observing animal behavior, cloud patterns, or the flowering of specific plants; these practices are connected to atmospheric science and modern meteorological tools. Those traditional education processes were carefully constructed around observing natural processes over extended periods, adapting modes of survival, obtaining sustenance from the plant and animal world, and using natural materials to make their tools and implements (Barnhardt & Kawagley, 2005; Milne, 2019). Indigenous knowledge keepers (e.g., local herbalists or agricultural practitioners) demonstrate consistent use of logical reasoning that stems from their axiom-like ideas, along with empirical data, acting within a cognitive world where applicable and its rationality is culture-based (Aikenhead & Ogawa, 2007; Milne, 2019). Indigenous knowledge is understood as a culture-dependent reality, passed down through generations via daily social and cultural practices. This knowledge is rooted in collective experiences that transcend individual understanding (Ogawa, 1995). McKinley (2007) emphasizes that both modern science and Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) share an empirical foundation, derived from observations of the natural world. These observations have been systematically gathered, stored, and transmitted over time, either orally or in written form.

Despite these advantages, Brandt (2007) criticizes academia for privileging Western science as more powerful and desirable, leading to the exclusion of Indigenous knowledge as a legitimate approach to understanding the physical and natural world (p. 602). Parajuli (2014) disagrees with the above argument and opines that “localized cultures and economic pattern, focued on subsistence and harmony with nature, developed their own knowledge, skills, system, and practices to mobilize and manage the natural resources available to them” (p. 103).

The community-based knowledge is practiced in different areas of Nepal, considering the geographical and cultural context of the Nepali people (Koirala, 2023; Koirala & Parajuli, 2022). The hegemonic impact is seen in the Nepalese education system with the establishment of a centralized education system influenced by the Western education system to provide the modern education system in Nepal by the recommendation made by the National Education System Plan (NESP) in 1971. The NESP focuses on the more unitary type of education system across Nepal without considering the language, culture, diversity, and social and geoeconomic situation. As a result, different cultural practices in education such as Sanskrit Shiksha, Madarasa Shiksha, and the Buddhist Education System (the traditionally applied community-practiced knowledge systems of Nepal) have been displaced from the school education system, being blamed as unproductive and unscientific education (garikhane janashakti utpadan nagarne shiksha) (Parajuli, 2014). Whenever the National Education Policy (NEP) is established, it somehow tries to connect Eastern philosophical knowledge to the education system of Nepal (The Ministry of Education Science and Technology [MoEST], 2076 BS). The National Education Policy of Nepal outlines the country's strategic vision for education, aiming to foster equitable access, quality learning, and lifelong opportunities for all citizens. The policy emphasizes inclusive education, addressing the needs of marginalized communities and ensuring gender equity. It aligns with Nepal's commitment to global frameworks like the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 4 on quality education. Key aspects include curriculum modification, teacher training, the integration of technology, and vocational education to enhance employability. The policy also seeks to preserve Indigenous knowledge and promote education in mother tongues, reflecting Nepal's cultural diversity (MoEST, 2076 BS). However, the curriculum reform is lacking to address such types of knowledge systems as mentioned by NEP.

The national and international practice of Indigenous knowledge

Many African studies show that Indigenous people demonstrate greater intellectual engagement when provided with a curriculum rooted in subjugated epistemology, life experiences, and local relevance (Semali & Kincheloe, 1999). However, the dominance of Western knowledge in school-level science curriculum undermines Indigenous knowledge, dismissing it as unscientific, traditional, archaic, and ineffective (Baker, 2016). Haverkort and Reijntjes (2010) argue that the Western-dominated system introduces exogenous concepts that replace local traditions and identities, systematically marginalizing Indigenous ways of knowing.

Indigenous knowledge and Western science share common ground in areas such as agriculture, technology, medicine, ecology, forest management, conservation, crop production, and protection, differing mainly in worldview and epistemological approach. The integration of Western scientific principles and methodologies enhances Indigenous knowledge, creating a more comprehensive and holistic framework for scientific inquiry in classrooms (Shizha, 2007).

IS is practiced mainly in Australia, Canada, India, Japan, New Zealand, and the United States (especially Alaska), where steps have been taken to recognize and include Indigenous knowledge in education (Khupe, 2014). In Nepal, different ethnic-cultural groups practice varied IK within their communities. The community practices of IK are primarily developed in relation to nature: mountains, springs, rivers, grass, and other natural hazards like strong winds, cold, lightning, and rain. These practices are linked to the school science curriculum as Indigenous pedagogy (Khupe, 2014, 2020; Mpofu, 2016). IS is transmitted through inclusive intergenerational oral transmission, experiences, and observations of nature (Cajete, 2000; Mpofu, 2016). It supports the “community-centered, context-sensitive IS education, with research studies pointing to the richness of local contexts as resources for science teaching” (Khupe, 2020, p. 460). Nepali people develop IS in areas such as fishing, agriculture, dampening, seed preservation, the use of herbal plants, use of fertilizers and pesticides, disease control, harvesting procedure, ecological balance, seasoning, and local technological practices.

Like other Indigenous practitioners in China, Japan, South Africa, Canada, Australia, India, New Zealand, and the United States, Nepalese practitioners also implement Western scientific knowledge without undermining people's Indigenous identities, languages, values, and practices.

It is believed that anthropology, agriculture, fisheries, forestry, ecology, biology, botany, and medicine have begun to document the adaptability and viability of local systems for the international development process (Slikkerveer, 1999). The practical validation methodology of IS is to analyze the conversation to disclose the skills that people use to make sense of reality collected through participant observation and semi-structured interviews and the use of community cartography in close cooperation with members of the community (Slikkerveer, 1999).

The linkage between IS and modern science can be generalized into four categories, where IS can be explained within the framework of modern science, but the explanation has yet to be fully developed to show the link between them. Not only has it enabled generations of people to survive and prosper for millennia, but it has also resisted oppressive politics of assimilation and attempted cultural and physical genocide (Baker, 2016). Therefore, passing down the conservation-focused Indigenous management practices over generations is an appropriate methodology for transforming knowledge in the context of Nepalese classroom teaching.

The sovereignty of modern science over Indigenous knowledge

The Indigenous people have lost their cultural diversity in many countries due to unbalanced historical processes of “acculturation and transculturation” (Higgins, 2016a) because of the domination of knowledge and technology from the West. Higgins (2019) claimed that Indigenous, diasporic, and other post-colonial students, such as school science regularly produce experiences of cultural assimilation and acculturation rather than enculturation. He further argues that school science also produced such types of cultural assimilation and acculturation rather than enculturation for the vast majority of students (Higgins, 2016a, 2016b). This idea was implemented by Thomas Macaulay who introduced English education in India and said that “Indian in blood and color, but English in taste, opinion, morals, and intellect” (Osborn & O’Hara, 2010, p. 17). Commercial resource management schemes of Westerners, rampant in international development cooperation activities, have affected human and animal health, agriculture, forestry, and fishing (Slikkerveer, 1999). As Slikkerveer (1999) states, during the 1980s, many ideas of Indigenous people about conservation and management practices, along with local farmers’ knowledge and skills in the selection, breeding, and utilization of their flora and faunal resources, attracted the interest of Western scientists. They started to scientifically verify locally practiced knowledge. For example, local people used Asuro (Adhatoda vasica) to control local pests which was later verified by modern science as an organic pesticide and fertilizer.

Moreover, teachers acquire their knowledge of educational science in linear skill (Higgins, 2016b; Shizha, 2014) or subskill process, which distances children from their parents in the construction of knowledge of reality (Semali & Kincheloe, 1999). It is pointed out that “decolonizing Science education must be a movement that creates openings in neocolonial systems and it makes space for honoring Indigenous people, places, practices, and priorities” (Higgins, 2019, p. 230). However, in practical reality, there is no proof of focus and implementation of the enculturation of Indigenous knowledge within modern science (Higgins, 2016a). School science usually attempts to enculturate all students into the culture of academic Western science (also called Eurocentric science), replete with its canonical knowledge, techniques, and values (Aikenhead & Elliott, 2010). In Eurocentric modern science teaching, many science teachers want all their students to be able to think like scientists, behave like scientists, and believe what scientists are purported to believe (Aikenhead & Elliott, 2010). Supporting the ideas of Nyerere and Juliu on the values of Indigenous knowledge, Semali and Kincheloe (1999) state that pupils learn important knowledge about farming and nutrients from their elders before school, but the same knowledge is not acquired or taught in the school education system.

The integration of tradition, with the value placed on knowledge developed in local realities and the modern knowledge systems is necessary for sustainable management and conservation. However, by devaluing Indigenous knowledge as unscientific, irrelevant, invalidated, and thereby worthless, the scientists could have commercialized an already available recognized knowledge system (Emeagwali & Shizha, 2016). IK is better understood as practical, personal, and contextual units that cannot be detached from an individual, their community, or the environment (Emeagwali & Shizha, 2016). It can be linked to the school science curriculum through the dialogue at the policy level and among curriculum designers for its incorporation into the school science curriculum.

IS focuses on everyday science-related problems such as agriculture and animal husbandry, hunting, fishing, natural resource management, conflict transformation, health, the naming and explanation of natural phenomena, and strategies to cope with fluctuating environments (Semali & Kincheloe, 1999). However, in many developing countries, Western commercialized knowledge is destroying the well-developed Indigenous knowledge systems in irrigation systems, dams and terrace-building for agriculture, climate-appropriate house constructions, and systems for locating food and organizing their social groups. For students whose daily life experiences continue to be negatively impacted by Eurocentrism and reproduced beyond science, the cultural practice of school sciences is largely seen as epistemic violence, as the vastly cited experience is one of assimilation (Higgins, 2016b). These activities demonstrate that Westerners’ sovereignty is prioritized over Indigenous knowledge, focusing on assimilation and acculturation rather than the enculturation of the science curriculum.

Political and policy-level barriers to implementing Indigenous knowledge

Nowadays, the school system ignores the cultural capital that learners bring to school, thus failing to provide a supportive home–school learning environment (Shizha, 2014). Therefore, bridging local/Indigenous wisdom with Modern scientific knowledge has significant potential through schools (Baker, 2016; Koirala, 2022). However, learners do not get the opportunity to extend their previous knowledge through the medium of instruction in the Nepali classroom (Pokhrel, 2019). Though Nepal was not directly colonized in terms of its terrestrial land, the colonial impact was observed in the recommendations of various education plans and commission reports to implement Eurocentric knowledge (Parajuli, 2014) as modern science, which was reflected in curricula the different levels.

The MoEST prepared the High-Level National Education Commission Draft in 2075 BS (which has not been implemented to date) and attempted to connect national-level policy to Indigenous knowledge (MoEST, 2019). However, the rigid policies and attitudes of professionals, politicians, and administrators (Pokhrel, 2019) have hindered the implementation and recommendation of Indigenous/Ethno practices in the education system. Moreover, the modernist and scientific worldview of policy practitioners has also created conflicts in implementing traditional knowledge (Pokhrel, 2019), which ultimately missed the opportunity to establish a strong home–school relationship (Baker, 2016). Additionally, scholars argue that practices grounded in modernism have lost their power to address local problems in nations (Dalin, 1998; Pokhrel, 2019).

The implication of Indigenous knowledge is difficult in Nepal because Indigenizing education has largely been a rhetorical and political commitment rather than a practical one. They have not thought on a political level to act on or legitimize valuing Indigenous knowledge, thinking about the failure of present education policy and practice (Higgins, 2016b; Shizha, 2014). In Nepal, there is a lack of political coordination for the implication of Indigenous knowledge (MoEST, 2019). In our view, the main cause is the High-Level National Education Commission Draft which lacks political commitments and bureaucrat's Western-centric hegemony in their academic intervention and knowledge construction practice.

In Nepal, the curriculum development process is seen as technically useful to some extent. However, the decisions on curriculum content are made by powerful stakeholders (Shizha, 2014). The sovereignty of Western knowledge is, thus, evident in the documentation and writing of the curriculum and textbooks, where borrowed knowledge is imposed with foreign aids, without analyzing the national and local needs of the country (Parajuli, 2014; Pokhrel, 2019). This is an indication of power for the knowledge-building system. As Shizha noted, power and decision-making on curriculum issues are mainly controlled by the elite who were schooled under colonial education systems. Therefore, to implement Indigenous knowledge, as mentioned by Pokhrel (2019), politicians and policymakers in Nepal need to provide both Modern and traditional ways of understanding. However, as stated above, this approach is not yet found in practice.

In the current federal government system, decentralization and internalization of the curriculum seem appropriate for generating and implementing knowledge from the local level, considering the multicultural, multilingual, and economically diverse socio-cultural backgrounds, the geographically diverse situations, and the presence of diverse epistemological knowledge systems (Koirala, 2021). For this, both political leaders and policyholders should be aware to implement Indigenous knowledge based on their sociocultural reality as far as possible (Koirala, 2023; Koirala & Parajuli, 2022).

Reconfiguring science curriculum and pedagogy through Indigenous perspectives

Native and Western cultures, with their seemingly irreconcilable ways of knowing and relating to the natural world, must explore common ground and establish a basis for discourse (Cajete, 2006; Higgins, 2016a). It is a realization that the mechanistic, Cartesian model reveals itself as wholly insufficient and unsuitable for founding the kinds of institutions that are inclusive and multidimensional for the twenty-first century and beyond (Cajete, 2006). Supporting the above argument, Qstergaard et al. (2008) claimed that the teacher hurries on and delves further into the instrumental, abstract, practical, technical, and mathematical knowledge, to the point where the children no longer participate with their eyes, ears, and hands in studying science.

It is known that Western science is shot from non-Western cultural science (Higgins, 2016a). Higgins further argued that Indigenous knowledge does not exist in pristine form unaffected by the influence of other knowledge, and that Western understanding is also immune to the impact of Indigenous and other knowledge systems (Higgins, 2016a). There has been a major paradigmatic shift in science education in recent decades, shifting the emphasis from knowing what scientists know (i.e., cognitivism, intra-personal learning, scientific knowledge as a representation of nature) to enculturation into how scientists come to know (i.e., socio-constructivism, inter-personal learning, scientific knowledge as a representation of culture) (Aikenhead, 2006; Aikenhead & Elliott, 2010). However, there is no proper enculturation practice in science teaching in the education system of Nepal.

Reconfiguring the science curriculum is a decolonizing process at both policy and practice levels (Battiste, 2013). It is a two-pronged process that entails: the deconstruction of colonial structures and strategies, and the reconstruction of Indigenous, diasporic, and other postcolonial ways of knowing and being, in reshaping place-based processes based on educational research (Higgins, 2016b). Moreover, it argues by using the photovoice, as a form of pedagogical practice where deconstruction, reconstruction, and transformation (Koirala, 2024) are carried out in the reconfiguration of the differential embarrassment of theory, practice, and ethics which inspires the Indigenous voices through relational and performative acts based on land-based pedagogy and curriculum with the ecological phenomenon (Barnhardt & Kawagley, 2005; Cajete, 2000; Higgins, 2016a, 2016b). IS displays and deploys ingenuity, creativity, resourcefulness, and the ability of people to learn and teach a harmonious way of existence with nature (Cajete, 2000). Therefore, people, via science education, can learn so many things to balance their Indigenous way of knowing and its practices.

Conclusion and implication

Scientific knowledge is deeply embedded within various aspects of Indigenous knowledge, practiced across diverse natural and cultural contexts (Cronje et al., 2015). However, educators of Western science often hesitate to integrate IS, fearing it may be perceived as pseudoscience or lacking a basis in scientifically validated methods (Cronje et al., 2015). This highlights the need for a balanced approach that recognizes and validates Indigenous knowledge within scientific education frameworks. Indigenous knowledge, skills, and practices play a superior role; however, Western sovereignty and its dominance are noticeable in Nepali political, educational, and economic sectors. One of the major causes behind the decline is the imposition of Western hegemonic epistemic practice without considering sociocultural context (Webb, 2011), so the teachers and students should understand the nature of science to cross the cultural borders in order to implement Indigenous knowledge in a science classroom integrating both cultural and community sources of knowledge (Brown & Livstrom, 2020; McKinley, 2007; Webb, 2011). The learning framework underpins the two knowledge systems that should be seen as connecting and complementary to each other for the better attainment of cultural knowledge but it is not becoming practicable in the context of Nepal.

Socio-constructivism, interpersonal learning, and scientific knowledge represent a cultural part of Indigenous knowledge. However, the present school science curriculum resides outside the communities, especially those of non-mainstream or Indigenous populations, and tends to be separated from learners’ experiences, local science issues, and traditional ecological knowledge. The transformation of knowledge from a student's individual life into a science classroom (Koirala, 2024) is a cross-cultural experience for most students. In this context, the present positivist Western science curriculum system should be changed into a collaborative, socio-political value-laden, and empirical science curriculum with culturally relevant content in the school system (Brown & Livstrom, 2020). The performative act based on land-based pedagogy and curriculum with the ecological phenomenon can be designed by central and local-level governments in the multicultural context of Nepal. However, political commitment and enthusiasm need to be generated in all levels of government as a prerequisite in order to develop the pedagogical aspects of Indigenous knowledge in science education at the policy level to develop the long-term implementation and integration of East and West.