Bridging Indigenous and Western sciences in freshwater research, monitoring, and management in Canada

Abstract

1. Mutually respectful and reciprocal relationships between people and their environment is a central tenet of many Indigenous worldviews. Across the Americas, this relational connection is particularly evident when it comes to freshwater ecosystems. However, there are numerous threats to these central relationships between Indigenous peoples and their environment. Using all available ways of knowing to conserve, prioritize, and restore relationships between Indigenous peoples and the environment they live in, and are a part of, is critical. Despite legislative requirements and policy commitments, developing and implementing inclusive approaches that bridge multiple ways of knowing remains a challenge.2. This systematic map examines the extent, range, and nature of published case studies that seek to bridge Indigenous and Western sciences in ecological research, monitoring, or natural resource management across Canada's freshwater aquatic ecosystems. A total of 74 Canadian case studies from 72 articles were included in the systematic map. There were 30 distinct species of focus across the collection of case studies.3. This systematic map highlights the diversity of ways knowledge systems can be woven, but that the application of these approaches is limited to some key regions (the Pacific and northern regions) and species (whitefish and salmon). The extent and nature of information provided with regards to demographics (e.g., gender, age) of Indigenous knowledge holders contributing to the studies varied widely and in general was poorly reported. Across all of the case studies included in the systematic map there were 78 distinct Indigenous knowledge systems represented. 4. Fifteen different methodological approaches were identified with communitybased participatory research being the most prevalent approach. The presence and diversity of Indigenous methodologies employed was also notable and was greater as compared to a previous study of Canada's coastal marine regions.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Freshwater fisheries monitoring in northern ecosystems using Indigenous ecological knowledge, genomics, and life history: Insights for community decision-making

“…Indigenous knowledge (Box 1) is increasingly paired with Western science for biodiversity research, monitoring, and management (Alexander et al 2019;Alexander et al 2021;Henri et al 2021). In addition, when resources for conservation are limited, methods for monitoring wild populations need to be efficient.…”

Moving Forward Together: Weaving Indigenous and Western Sciences with Practices and Peoples in Aquatic Research in Inuit Nunangat

“…Community-researcher collaborations generally center around the knowledge documentation or data collection phase of the research process, where community participation is often heightened through reliance on local expertise (Dale and Armitage, 2011;Turreira-García et al, 2018;Thompson et al, 2020). A wide variety of methods and approaches are used to compile and document Indigenous scientific knowledge regarding aquatic environmental change, including interviews, participatory mapping, focus groups, workshops, and participant and field observations (Alexander et al, 2019;Thompson et al, 2020;Alexander et al, 2021;Drake et al, in press). Western scientific data is frequently collected alongside Indigenous scientific knowledge, and can involve an equally diverse array of methods, such as mapping, telemetry, sea ice measurements, tissue sampling, or natural history observations (Alexander et al, 2019;Thompson et al, 2020;Alexander et al, 2021;Drake et al, in press).…”

“…A wide variety of methods and approaches are used to compile and document Indigenous scientific knowledge regarding aquatic environmental change, including interviews, participatory mapping, focus groups, workshops, and participant and field observations (Alexander et al, 2019;Thompson et al, 2020;Alexander et al, 2021;Drake et al, in press). Western scientific data is frequently collected alongside Indigenous scientific knowledge, and can involve an equally diverse array of methods, such as mapping, telemetry, sea ice measurements, tissue sampling, or natural history observations (Alexander et al, 2019;Thompson et al, 2020;Alexander et al, 2021;Drake et al, in press). While understanding the methods used in knowledge documentation and data collection is important for assessing environmental change, so too are the background and fundamental characteristics of strong community-researcher partnerships.…”

“…This term was chosen to move beyond a narrative of integrating, incorporating, or combining Indigenous and Western sciences, which can connote the assimilation of Indigenous sciences into a Western scientific paradigm (Reid et al, 2021). 'Weaving' shares similarities with terms used by other authors, including 'braiding' (e.g., Kimmerer, 2013a;Hopkins et al, 2019) or 'bridging' (e.g., Aikenhead and Michell, 2011;Rathwell et al, 2015;Mantyka-Pringle et al, 2017;Alexander et al, 2019Alexander et al, , 2021. I favour 'weaving' as it alludes to the numerous possible ways to bring these sciences together at broad levels, such as between institutions or organizations (i.e., weaving large pieces of fabric), or at finer levels, such as through personal relationships (i.e., weaving individual threads).…”

“…While there are several contributing factors (e.g., knowledge exchange and mobilization difficulties, see Nguyen et al, 2017), positioning communities as leaders in the research process can help rectify this misalignment, and can be an expression of Indigenous governance (Pecl et al, 2017;Morton Ninomiya and Pollock, 2017;Wilson et al, 2018). This self-governance can extend into co-management, policy-making, and decision-making structures that support learning and are grounded in and embed Indigenous knowledges (Rathwell et al, 2015;Alexander et al, 2021). Such change can enhance the applicability of and community support for outputs derived directly from research, and limit the potential for decontextualization or compartmentalization of Indigenous sciences (Ford et al, 2010;Grimwood et al, 2012;Wong et al, 2017;Henri et al, 2020).…”