Futures for indigenous knowledges

Turnbull, David

doi:10.1016/j.futures.2008.07.002

Cited by 27 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our manual search identified 14 (30%) papers that discuss the relationship between integration and resilience (Table 4). In the 14 papers that include a substantive discussion of knowledge integration and resilience, we note several questions for further research: 14 (30) 2 (18) 9 (75) 2 (12) 1 (14) Papers are: Berkes et al (2000), Salmón (2000), Becker and Ghimire (2003), Davidson-Hunt and Berkes (2003), Long et al (2003), Milestad and Hadatsch (2003), Donovan and Puri (2004), Folke (2004), Garibaldi and Turner (2004), Roth (2004), Tengö and Belfrage (2004), Boyd (2006), Lebel (2006), andTurnbull (2009).…”

Section: Knowledge Integration and Resiliencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although Roth (2004) does not mention "resilience" in her paper, but cites several resilience-related works, her argument resonates with the social-ecological resilience basis for knowledge integration that we have noted. Some authors focus on the role of knowledge integration in enhancing ecological resilience (Donovan and Puri 2004) but not social resilience, whereas others discuss resilience in a social but not ecological context (Turnbull 2009). …”

Section: What Empirical Evidence Is There For a Relationship Between mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indigenous peoples and their rights are increasingly acknowledged as the ultimate drivers of IK and of integration processes. Turnbull (2009) in particular emphasizes that a future for indigenous knowledge can only be ensured by ensuring the survival, resilience, and flourishing of indigenous peoples. In efforts to integrate scientific knowledge with IK, there is an imperative to acknowledge and even address the destructive forces that impinge upon IK holders.…”

Section: New Framesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Indigenous Knowledge, Science, and Resilience: What Have We Learned from a Decade of International Literature on "Integration"?

Bohensky¹,

Maru²

2011

E&S

349

266

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Despite the increasing trend worldwide of integrating indigenous and scientific knowledge in natural resource management, there has been little stock-taking of literature on lessons learned from bringing indigenous knowledge and science together and the implications for maintaining and building social-ecological system resilience. In this paper we investigate: (1) themes, questions, or problems encountered for integration of indigenous knowledge and science; (2) the relationship between knowledge integration and social-ecological system resilience; and (3) critical features of knowledge integration practice needed to foster productive and mutually beneficial relationships between indigenous knowledge and science. We examine these questions through content analyses of three special journal issues and an edited book published in the past decade on indigenous, local, and traditional knowledge and its interface with science. We identified broad themes in the literature related to: (1) similarities and differences between knowledge systems; (2) methods and processes of integration; (3) social contexts of integration; and (4) evaluation of knowledge. A minority of papers discuss a relationship between knowledge integration and social-ecological system resilience, but there remains a lack of clarity and empirical evidence for such a relationship that can help distinguish how indigenous knowledge and knowledge integration contribute most to resilience. Four critical features of knowledge integration are likely to enable a more productive and mutually beneficial relationship between indigenous and scientific knowledge: new frames for integration, greater cognizance of the social contexts of integration, expanded modes of knowledge evaluation, and involvement of inter-cultural "knowledge bridgers."

show abstract

Section: Knowledge Integration and Resiliencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: What Empirical Evidence Is There For a Relationship Between mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: New Framesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Indigenous Knowledge, Science, and Resilience: What Have We Learned from a Decade of International Literature on "Integration"?

Bohensky¹,

Maru²

2011

E&S

349

266

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is particularly likely if the validation of IEK is undertaken by scientists and/or government agencies unilaterally, with little or no involvement of legitimate holders of IEK. In this case the validation of IEK weakens indigenous knowledge systems and cultures (Casimirri 2003, Turnbull 2009, and is often unsuccessful because without considering the social and spiritual dimension of IEK systems it fails to harmonize incompatible worldviews (Casimirri 2003, Brook and McLachlan 2005, Aikenhead and Ogawa 2007. The adoption of our framework by Australian environmental agencies would allow indigenous communities to actively enter the validation process as an equal partner, and would enable them to present their own information without risking disempowerment and disrespect.…”

Section: Toward a Framework For Knowledge Validationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Validation of Indigenous Ecological Knowledge a Disrespectful Process? A Case Study of Traditional Fishing Poisons and Invasive Fish Management from the Wet Tropics, Australia

Gratani¹,

Butler²,

Royee³

et al. 2011

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the growing recognition of the contribution that indigenous ecological knowledge (IEK) can make to contemporary 'western' science-based natural resource management (NRM), integration of the two knowledge systems has not reached its full potential in Australia. One explanation is that there is an implicit requirement for IEK to be validated by western scientific knowledge (SK), which has stalled its application and perpetuated the primacy of SK over IEK. Consequently, there is little experience of IEK validation, indigenous peoples' perspectives of the process, and no formal frameworks to achieve mutual and equitable validation of both IEK and SK. In this paper we assess the opportunities and limitations of validation processes using a case study of traditional fishing poisons for invasive fish management in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area of Australia. The study was conducted within a coresearch approach between the Aboriginal holders of the IEK, who are among the paper's authors, and science-based biologists. We jointly carried out scientific laboratory trials that demonstrated that fishing poisons are effective at immobilizing invasive tilapia. Retrospective interviews with indigenous coresearchers showed that they did not find the experience of validation disrespectful, but instead empowering and necessary for their IEK to be understood and appreciated by scientists and included in NRM. Based on our experiences and knowledge of socialization theory we present a framework for the potential future design of collaborative validation processes to facilitate the integration of IEK into mainstream NRM, and the acceptance of SK within indigenous communities in Australia

show abstract

“…Co-construction processes that work with researcher-derived knowledge and IK are, from this perspective, implicitly embedded within the political struggles of indigenous peoples and peasant communities (e.g. Bryan 2009;Turnbull 2009). Environmental management, however, has historically taken a more instrumental view of IK, with researchers and practitioners seeking to use it to fill gaps or validate scientific knowledge to improve the way natural resources are managed (e.g.…”

Section: The Risks Of Co-construction For Indigenous Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

Moving Beyond Co-Construction of Knowledge to Enable Self-Determination

Apgar¹,

Mustonen²,

Lovera³

et al. 2016

IDS Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is increasingly recognised that co-construction of knowledge which brings together researcher-derived understanding, with local, practitioner or non-researcher understanding is necessary to address current global challenges. Emerging empirical evidence suggests challenges remain in bridging across scales and ensuring inclusion of the marginalised. It is unclear whether espoused approaches are in practice enhancing the wellbeing of those currently on the front lines of ecological, social and political crises, or, whether they are inadvertently increasing inequality. In this article, we explore co-construction from our experience as embedded researcher-practitioners through two case studies: the ecological restoration of fisheries by the Skolt Sámi in Finland, and the conservation of agro-ecological and forest management practices by peasant communities in Paraguay. We challenge the idea that co-construction of knowledge is sufficient to engage with regressive institutional and political dynamics that continue to marginalise, arguing for a focus on self-determination to be the foundation for co-construction.

show abstract

Futures for indigenous knowledges

Cited by 27 publications

References 6 publications

Indigenous Knowledge, Science, and Resilience: What Have We Learned from a Decade of International Literature on "Integration"?

Indigenous Knowledge, Science, and Resilience: What Have We Learned from a Decade of International Literature on "Integration"?

Is Validation of Indigenous Ecological Knowledge a Disrespectful Process? A Case Study of Traditional Fishing Poisons and Invasive Fish Management from the Wet Tropics, Australia

Moving Beyond Co-Construction of Knowledge to Enable Self-Determination

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About