Mapping styles of ethnobiological thinking in North and Latin America: Different kinds of integration between biology, anthropology, and TEK

Reséndiz, Radamés Villagómez

doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2020.101308

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We see a resemblance between productive complicity as a mode of partnering and others’ suggestions for improving TEK research, such as coproduction and the multiple evidence base approach (Hill et al, 2020; Malmer et al, 2020; Matuk et al, 2020; Villagómez-Reséndiz, 2020; Wheeler et al, 2020), coexistence (Buell et al, 2020), parallel knowledge (Davies et al, 2020), two-eyed seeing (Hall et al, 2021), knowledge coordination (Weiskopf, 2020), constructive engagement (Shackeroff and Campbell, 2007), indigenous-led research (Eckert et al, 2020) and adopting a problem-focused approach (Cebrián-Piqueras et al, 2020; Chua et al, 2020; Hastings et al, 2020; McElwee et al, 2020b; Samuel-Nakamura, 2020). Where productive complicity differs from these approaches is by focusing attention on the dynamic, political and temporally-situated nature of any TEK collaboration.…”

Section: Toward Productive Complicitymentioning

confidence: 82%

“…In the “how-to” literature, many authors state that “power asymmetries” negatively affect researchers’ engagements with TEK (e.g. Eckert et al, 2020; Hill et al, 2020; Kourantidou et al, 2020; Malmer et al, 2020; Matuk et al, 2020; McElwee et al, 2020a, 2020b; Schott et al, 2020; Villagómez-Reséndiz, 2020; Wheeler et al, 2020). The aspect of power relations that receives most attention is how to produce knowledge that includes both western science and TEK, with many arguing that scientists must do more than integrate TEK into a western science framework (Buell et al, 2020; Cajete, 2020; Chua et al, 2020; Eckert et al, 2020; Hall et al, 2021; Hastings et al, 2020; Henri et al, 2020; Hill et al, 2020; Malmer et al, 2020; Matuk et al, 2020; Villagómez-Reséndiz, 2020; Wheeler et al, 2020; see also Molnár and Babai, 2021).…”

Section: Tendencies Of Tek Usementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Toward productive complicity: Applying ‘traditional ecological knowledge’ in environmental science

Singleton

Gillette

Burman

et al. 2021

The Anthropocene Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Culture and tradition have long been the domains of social science, particularly social/cultural anthropology and various forms of heritage studies. However, many environmental scientists whose research addresses environmental management, conservation, and restoration are also interested in traditional ecological knowledge, indigenous and local knowledge, and local environmental knowledge (hereafter TEK), not least because policymakers and international institutions promote the incorporation of TEK in environmental work. In this article, we examine TEK usage in peer-reviewed articles by environmental scientists published in 2020. This snapshot of environmental science scholarship includes both critical discussions of how to incorporate TEK in research and management and efforts to do so for various scholarly and applied purposes. Drawing on anthropological discussions of culture, we identify two related patterns within this literature: a tendency toward essentialism and a tendency to minimize power relationships. We argue that scientists whose work reflects these trends might productively engage with knowledge from the scientific fields that study culture and tradition. We suggest productive complicity as a reflexive mode of partnering, and a set of questions that facilitate natural scientists adopting this approach: What and/or who is this TEK for? Who and what will benefit from this TEK deployment? How is compensation/credit shared? Does this work give back and/or forward to all those involved?

show abstract

Section: Toward Productive Complicitymentioning

confidence: 82%

Section: Tendencies Of Tek Usementioning

confidence: 99%

Toward productive complicity: Applying ‘traditional ecological knowledge’ in environmental science

Singleton

Gillette

Burman

et al. 2021

The Anthropocene Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, it has been seen that ethnobotanical knowledge, for example, has increased by incorporating new species and uses of other plants [ 20 ]. It is also the case that, although the migration is momentary, upon returning to their place of origin, people might replace the knowledge and use of local wild resources with global knowledge and prefer to use widely distributed products that they can buy [ 21 – 23 ]. In the case of the use of fungi, by not finding the species that migrants recognize, their knowledge, traditions, and management related to them could be lost, interfering with the transmission of ethnomycological knowledge [ 24 , 25 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sociocultural drivers of mycological knowledge: insights from Wixarika and Mestizo groups in western Mexico

Haro-Luna

Vázquez

Ruán-Soto

et al. 2022

J Ethnobiology Ethnomedicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Traditional mycological knowledge (TMK) is complex, not distributed equally among the entire population, and constantly adapting to current social situations. There are sociocultural factors that could influence the fact that some people retain a greater wealth of knowledge, for instance, cultural affiliation, migration, occupation, level of schooling, and person's age. Methods We analyze the distribution of the TMK based on sociocultural variables and 12 indicators to quantify the TMK based on a literature review. We chose two sites where there was a Wixarika and Mestizo population with records of use and consumption of wild mushrooms. In each site, 150 semi-structured interviews were conducted. The format of the semi-structured interviews was made up of sociocultural questions plus 12 questions corresponding to each of the indicators. With the data obtained, we performed linear regression tests and principal components analysis (PCA); furthermore, the significance of the groupings obtained by PCA was tested with a discriminant function analysis. Results We find that TMK was determined by the cultural group to which a person belongs. Contrary to what was expected, age and formal schooling did not influence people's level of knowledge. Likewise, migration and occupation were not determining factors either, although in some specific cases they did influence the differences in knowledge about mushrooms between people. The indicators that most helped to differentiate between the Wixarika people, and the Mestizos were knowledge of the nutritional contribution, propagation methods, and knowledge about toxic mushrooms. Conclusions In general, sociocultural differences did not affect the transmission of the TMK due to the valorization of this knowledge among the young generations and the maintenance of the use of wild resources. Specifically, the Wixaritari had and preserved a greater TMK thanks to their pride in their cultural identity, which had allowed them to adapt to modernity while preserving their traditions and knowledge. On the other hand, the Mestizos increasingly disused wild resources due to urbanization. The indicators proposed here provided a good tool to quantify TMK; however, to replicate the study in other sites it is necessary to adapt the indicators to the context of the place.

show abstract

“…The recent emergence of a new philosophy of ethnobiology (Byskov 2020; Kendig 2020; Ludwig 2016; Massimi 2022; Villagómez-Reséndiz 2020; Weiskopf 2020) provides an opportunity for addressing this complexity at the interface of critical reflection and transdisciplinary action. In this special issue, we are embracing this opportunity by aiming to show how philosophy and ethnobiology can stimulate each other in reflective action.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pluralist Ethnobiology: Between Philosophical Reflection and Transdisciplinary Action

Nieves Delgado,

Ludwig,

El-Hani

2023

Journal of Ethnobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the introduction to this special issue on ethnobiology and philosophy, we consider how the included papers show that ethnobiology is an inherently pluralist project that has a unique potential to foster inter- and transdisciplinary perspectives on issues such as the complex multispecies relations between humans and non-humans that one finds in livelihood practices such as farming and fishing, in conservation management, or in industrial resource extraction, which need to be addressed to deal with planetary challenges from climate change to food inequality. We also argue that a pluralist ethnobiology moves beyond priority disputes between different disciplines by recognizing that its foundations are inherently diverse but still embraces intellectual synthesis that brings insights from various fields together. We provide, finally, an overview of the contributions to the special issue.

show abstract

Mapping styles of ethnobiological thinking in North and Latin America: Different kinds of integration between biology, anthropology, and TEK

Cited by 4 publications

References 24 publications

Toward productive complicity: Applying ‘traditional ecological knowledge’ in environmental science

Toward productive complicity: Applying ‘traditional ecological knowledge’ in environmental science

Sociocultural drivers of mycological knowledge: insights from Wixarika and Mestizo groups in western Mexico

Pluralist Ethnobiology: Between Philosophical Reflection and Transdisciplinary Action

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About