Increasingly, fisheries researchers and managers seek or are compelled to “bridge” Indigenous knowledge systems with Western scientific approaches to understanding and governing fisheries. Here, we move beyond the all‐too‐common narrative about integrating or incorporating (too often used as euphemisms for assimilating) other knowledge systems into Western science, instead of building an ethic of knowledge coexistence and complementarity in knowledge generation using Two‐Eyed Seeing as a guiding framework. Two‐Eyed Seeing (Etuaptmumk in Mi’kmaw) embraces “learning to see from one eye with the strengths of Indigenous knowledges and ways of knowing, and from the other eye with the strengths of mainstream knowledges and ways of knowing, and to use both these eyes together, for the benefit of all,” as envisaged by Elder Dr. Albert Marshall. In this paper, we examine the notion of knowledge dichotomies and imperatives for knowledge coexistence and draw parallels between Two‐Eyed Seeing and other analogous Indigenous frameworks from around the world. It is set apart from other Indigenous frameworks in its explicit action imperative—central to Two‐Eyed Seeing is the notion that knowledge transforms the holder and that the holder bears a responsibility to act on that knowledge. We explore its operationalization through three Canadian aquatic and fisheries case‐studies that co‐develop questions, document and mobilize knowledge, and co‐produce insights and decisions. We argue that Two‐Eyed Seeing provides a pathway to a plural coexistence, where time‐tested Indigenous knowledge systems can be paired with, not subsumed by, Western scientific insights for an equitable and sustainable future.
Environmental decision-makers and practitioners need and deserve high quality environmental evidence for effective decision-making. We collate and share a suite of best practices for applied environmental researchers to support their capacity to inform such decision-making processes. This raises a number of important questions: What does “relevant” and informative evidence look like? How do we know when evidence has been applied? We assembled an experienced team of knowledge generators and users in Canada to identify insights that have emerged from their work and that could serve as guideposts for others who seek to apply environmental research to policy challenges. By reflecting on successes and failures, we define “success” in applied environmental science as respectfully conducted, partner-relevant research that is accessible, understandable, and shared, and that can create opportunities for change (e.g., in policy, behaviour, management). Next, we generated a list of best practices for delivering “successful” applied environmental research. Our guidance emphasizes the importance of engaging early and often, in a respectful manner, with partners, generating high-quality, relevant research (which requires flexibility), having a plan for communicating and sharing outputs, and being transparent about uncertainties and limitations. Other important considerations include acknowledging partners for involvement and training early career researchers in applied partnership research. Finally, we generated a list of specific, measurable indicators for evaluating success including: quality and quantity of scientific outputs, the relationship with the partner(s), relevance and connectedness of the research, accessibility and availability of outputs to users, provision of outputs that are digestible and usable by different audiences, training and capacity building, and ultimate outcomes (e.g., including social, environmental, and economic outcomes, as well as partner satisfaction). We encourage those embarking on applied environmental research to consider embracing the strategies, to continuously reflect on progress toward shared research goals, and to be flexible. Doing so will increase the likelihood of delivering research that is “successful” and in doing so contribute to overcoming and addressing environmental issues and problems.
frawler-caught cod were frozen before and after rigor mortis in brine (23l, NaCl) and between refrigerated plates, thawed in circulating water at 7 C or in a conveyorized microwave oven, then processed into fillets which rvere packaged, plate-frozen, and stored at -18 C.All samples thawed satisfactorily in circulating water. Some overheating was encountered during thawing in microwaves. But the equipment was not developed sufficiently to permit assessment of the commercial potential of microwave thalving.Examinations of the fillets from the thawed fish for appearance, odor, and texture showed that freezing pre-rigor is preferable to freezing post-rigor and that thal,r'ing by means of microwaves is preferable to thawing by means of water. Freezing or thawing methods did not affect the /H of the thawed fillets.Results of organoleptic and chemical tests to determine the changes in quality of the refrozen fillets packaged and stored at -18 C for 12 months indicated that neither the average taste panel scores nor the chemical tests for moisture, total lipid, free fatty acids, and extractable protein nitrogen showed any difference attributable to state of rigor, freezing method, orthawing method. The taste panel slightly preferred the texture of fillets from fish frozen pre-rigor and from fish frozen in brine. Free fatty acids increased sharply as a result of thawing and refreezing, and the rapid increase continued during the first 2 months of. frozen storage. Taste panel scores correlated significantly with free fatty acids (l/6 level) and with extractable protein (5/6 level).
The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) published the second edition of its International Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration in 2019. We conducted a pan-Canadian study using semi-structured interviews with restoration professionals to explore the extent to which restoration practitioners are aware of the document and use it. Overall, we found that direct uptake of the document by practitioners was lower than expected, with approximately 37.7% of all participants that were both aware of and consulting the publication for guidance in their practice of ecological restoration. This is due in part to low awareness of the document itself, with only a small majority (56.5%) of interviewees being aware of it. Other reasons listed by practitioners such as the structure of the publication, its added value, and its suitability for on-the-ground work revealed why some individuals aware of the existence of the document still failed to consult it. Here, we present a more nuanced assessment of these observations and share our findings with the ecological restoration community to address this disconnection. With intensifying pressures to achieve restoration success internationally, SER's guidance is critical. We analyze why it seems guidance from SER is not being taken up as fully as it might, and ways in which future versions may be improved.
A simple, rapid method for determining the amount of minced fish in mixed fillet-minced cod blocks was tested by 9 collaborators. Each collaborator first examined 2 practice blocks containing 20% mince, and then examined 6 blind duplicate samples of 5 lb cod blocks from each of 3 test lots containing, respectively, 26.25, 18.75, and 12.5% mince. The data from one of the 9 collaborators was not usable because of a malfunctioning scale. Standard deviations (SD) for the 3 lots (all 8 collaborators combined) were 1.77, 1.51, and 1.65, and coefficients of variation (CV) were 6.8, 8.9, and 16.2%, respectively. For comparison, the results of an informal collaborative study by 10 participants on 16.5 lb mixed cod blocks containing 20.1% mince were SD 2.72 and CV 0.136%. Collaborators reported no problems with the method, and statistical analysis shows the method to be sufficiently precise for this type of determination. The method has been adopted official first action for cod.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.