Indigenous and local knowledge （ILK） is expected to play an important role in the global environmental policy arena, rather than simply being cut off by scientific knowledge （SK）. As per the literature, the relationship between ILK and SK can be conceptualized by （1） the “incorporation” of ILK into SK, （2） the “incorporation/taming” of SK into ILK, （3） the “coordination” of ILK and SK, and （4） the “fusion” of ILK and SK to create new knowledge and systems. To realize the state of coordination or further fusion, two approaches can be derived from a logical perspective. The first is “coexistence.” This is an idealistic option that attempts to maintain a state in which ILK and SK are equal, respect each other, and, as far as possible, do not interfere with each other or try to coordinate with each other. The second approach is “strategic simplification.” This is a pragmatic option that focuses on those values that are likely to be approved in the wider society and assigns those values to ILK through collaborative work between the parties involved and “conscientious outsiders.” To realize these options as a national policy, it is essential to consider the distribution of economic benefits.

  This paper answers two questions: whether, assuming the wholeness and integrity of indigenous and local knowledge, an equal fusion between it and scientific knowledge is feasible or not, and what the validity and feasibility of coexistence and strategic simplification might amount to. Regarding the first question, it is pointed out that adherence to the concept of wholeness and integrity should be abandoned, and indigenous and local knowledge should be considered incomplete, fluid, open, and relational. In response to the second question, coexistence is not a valid option amounting to being an essentialist view. The strategic simplification is valid in that it does not adhere to wholeness and integrity, and aims to transform existing policies and social perceptions. However, to achieve its goal, a more concrete and realistic logic for the central phases of circulation and application is required.

  This paper explores the interplay between Indigenous and Local Knowledge (ILK) and the concept of cultural commons. We propose the idea that the ownership, management, and benefits of cultural resources mutually shape their status, and from this dynamism, a cultural commons emerges. By positioning ILK as a cultural commons, both protected and shareable, we suggest that societal benefits can thereby be reaped. The interaction between ILK and scientific knowledge can generate new insights. However, this synergy also raises critical questions regarding the equitable distribution of economic benefits and the protection of ILK. The Nagoya Protocol has made progress in addressing the equitable sharing of benefits, but ensuring fair distribution remains a challenge. One possible solution is to introduce a monitoring function for benefit sharing. However, this could inadvertently lead to the emergence of “licit intermediate exploiters.” Collaborative efforts under the Protocol can increase non-monetary benefits. An open/closed strategy led by “conscientious outsiders” who are sensitive to the sentiments of the parties involved and who seek to harmonize the facets of the cultural commons will be beneficial in addressing these issues.

  Today, “indigenous,” “traditional,” and “local” knowledge are gaining increasing attention around the world. It seems to be a reaction to the substitution of human knowledge production by Artificial Intelligence and imposition of ‘universal’ knowledge circulated globally. The purpose of this article is to examine the dynamic relationship between “indigenous” knowledge and modern scientific knowledge. To this end, we will first examine the “happy relationship” between scientific knowledge and indigenous knowledge, so to speak, in which both parties work together to address difficulties. However, a more direct and fundamental examination of the relationship between the two will be required when they are in an “unhappy” relationship, that is, when the content and direction of modern scientific knowledge and indigenous knowledge are at odds with each other. When the “fact” is scientifically verified so that the content of indigenous knowledge is not only scientifically incorrect but also that its use is harmful and worsens the current situation, the question is how we can interpret and judge this situation. This essay aims to explore this from a conviviality-based perspective.

  The purpose of this special issue is to explore the possibility that collaboration between anthropologists and citizens who do not necessarily have a strong interest in anthropology can lead to practices aimed at solving public problems. To this end, the special issue compares the planning, writing, and editing processes of three auto-ethnographies that were commercially published simultaneously in 2022 from the perspective of 1.5 ethnography [Kimura, Naito, and Ito 2019] and examines their public anthropological meanings.

  What all three works have in common is that they were planned, written, and edited outside of formal (or accredited) educational programs at universities. The commercial publication of documents written as outcomes or reports of formal university courses or extracurricular activities involves some "excesses" that deviate from the usual institutional context. The papers in this special issue therefore examine the nature of the "excesses" that drove each publishing project. In addition, most of the students who wrote these papers were not cultural anthropology majors. Thus, although this is a collaboration between anthropologists and university students, it is more a response by anthropologists to the demands of the public than an education in the specialized knowledge and skills of anthropology. The papers suggest the possibility of dialogue and collaboration between anthropologists and citizens through ethnographic writing.

  The purpose of this paper is to consider the situation in which cultural anthropologists support the citizen-scientific practice (DIY anthropology) of people who have not received professional training in cultural anthropology as a public anthropological practice, and to consider the possibilities of such a practice. To this end, the process of writing and editing 'University students living the COVID-19 pandemic: sharing pandemic experiences during study abroad' [Naito & Kitano 2022], an auto-ethnographic record of the suffering and learning experienced by undergraduate and postgraduate students during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, is examined from the students' perspective. The process of writing and editing the book [Naito and Kitano 2022] is reflected upon from the students' perspective. It then explores the possibilities for citizens to collaborate with cultural anthropologists on public issues.

  This paper aims to consider that the significance of the collaborative work of “writing together” through the case of our book, Tokyo Survivor, a para-ethnography by an anthropologist and non-anthropologists. Focusing on qualitative changes in the relationships that emerged among the co-authors over the “writing together”, this paper will discuss how “writing together” itself was a practice of actual anthropology, viewing the para-ethnographic practice as a process of making “common”.

  This paper examines the possibilities of para-ethnography for multicultural co-existence through describing the process leading up to the publication of the author’s edited book , “A Life History of People Living in Shin-Okubo”, using the method of first and half order-ethnography. In particular, focusing on the reasons for choosing the life history method, the way the social research was conducted, the author's commitment in the practice, the students' learning outcomes, and the reasons for the decision to publish commercially, this paper presents the idea of 'public sphere as a movement around boundaries'. The author, who was in charge of the social research class in the Faculty of Sociology at Toyo University, has the students conducting interviews on life-histories with people of foreign roots in Shin-Okubo for three years from 2017 to 2019. Although the author did not initially intend to publish the outcomes of this class commercially, as a result of working with the students, the author has gradually come to realize the significance of commercial publication. This realization was due to the fact that, in addition to the absorbing contents themselves, the students' writings were reader-oriented: using plain vocabularies and avoiding complex sentences. In addition to this, the author also realized that the whole process of the training and the attempt to publish the book was a movement towards multicultural co-existence.

  This paper delves into exploring refugee agency and engagement within the field of Refugee Studies, examining current research subjects and initiatives and seeking avenues for enhancement. The discussion draws insights from anthropological advancements, particularly within Indigenous Studies, to discern their applicability to the realm of refugee research. Drawing on previous studies, the paper begins by shedding light on key issues within Refugee Studies, such as the homogenization of refugee representations and the marginalization of those directly affected by displacement. To tackle these concerns, the paper introduces research that places refugee agency at its core, aiming to transcend the outlined limitations. Subsequently, the paper examines case studies from Carleton University in Canada and Oxford University in the United Kingdom, showcasing collaborative efforts and researcher training initiatives focused on individuals with a background in forced migration. Finally, the paper considers the potential for fostering engagement and collaboration with refugees, drawing insights from the evolution of Indigenous Studies within the field of Anthropology