Beyond artificial academic debates: for a diverse, inclusive, and impactful ethnobiology and ethnomedicine

Abstract

In answer to the question “Should ethnobiology and ethnomedicine more decisively foster hypothesis-driven forefront research able to turn findings into policy and abandon more classical folkloric studies?”, in this essay I argue that a major strength of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine is their ability to bridge theories and methods from the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities. Hypothesis-driven research is a powerful way to structure thinking that can lead to forefront research findings. But hypothesis-driven research is not the only way to structure thinking and is not a necessary condition to impact policymaking. To increase policy impact, ethnobiology and ethnomedicine should continue nurturing a mixture of complementary methods and inclusive approaches as fragmentation through opposing different approaches might weaken the discipline. Moreover, with the aim to play a fundamental role in building bridges between different knowledge systems and co-producing solutions towards sustainability, the discipline could benefit from enlarging its epistemological grounds through more collaborative research. Ethnobiologists' research findings, hypothesis-driven, descriptive, or co-constructed can become leverage points to transform knowledge into actionable outcomes in different levels of decision-making.

Are we romanticizing traditional knowledge? A plea for more experimental studies in ethnobiology

“…While open databases allow for information exchange and their (changing) content for the formulation of hypotheses, Reyes-Garcia has correctly pointed out that results obtained from hypotheses-driven studies do not automatically translate to approved policies or scientific reorientations [ 33 ]. Here I must acknowledge that neither do experimental studies.…”

“…Here I must acknowledge that neither do experimental studies. The strengths of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine lie in the possibilities to “draw on theories and methods from the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities” [ 33 ]. The flip side of this asset is that the vast breath of ethnobiology potentiates the complexity of seemingly simple research questions augmenting the possibility for overlooking or not being able to account for important confounders.…”

The global relevance of locally grounded ethnobiology

“…[ 15 ]). Compilations of published data linking cultural and environmental diversity have resulted in the creation of open-access online databases such as the recently compiled global overview of culturally important species [ 13 ], the Ethno-ornithology World Atlas (EWA; www.ewatlas.net ), and global conservation surveys of all palm species with documented ethnobotanical uses [ 49 ]. As a case in point, the data collected in D-PLACE, a Database of Places, Language, Culture, and Environment, a corpus of information for over 1400 human societies [ 50 ], highlights studies at the intersection of environment and religious diversity [ 51 ], the global geography of human subsistence [ 52 ], or drivers of global variation in land ownership [ 53 ].…”

Indigenous Peoples and local communities report ongoing and widespread climate change impacts on local social-ecological systems

“…This work relies on the wealth of qualitative information collected across case studies and published elsewhere 24 . We emphasize the importance of working with both quantitative and qualitative data to identify common trends as well as idiosyncrasiesboth of which are important to understand global trends and the myriad of climate change impacts across the world 25 .…”