Using Traditional Methods for Collaborative Fieldwork in a Uranium Food Chain Study on Diné Lands in the US Southwest

Abstract

Collaborative research between scientists and local community members is often required to collect needed study samples and inform the overall study. This is particularly true in Indigenous communities where local knowledge and practices are integral to data collection, analysis, and dissemination. This study reports on a traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) collaborative methodological approach utilized for data collection in this unique community. In collaboration with Diné (Navajo) tribal harvesters and leaders in northwestern New Mexico, participants were recruited utilizing chain-referral recruitment and selection from a preexisting cohort. The research examined the extent of metal(loid) contamination in the primary food chain in a uranium (U) mining impacted area. Key food chain items (sheep, squash, herbal tea plants), water, and livestock forage samples were collected and determined for metal(loid)s (cesium, cadmium, molybdenum, lead, thorium, U, vanadium, arsenic, and selenium). This paper reports on the five-step process employed that involved local Diné food harvesters incorporating indigenous TEK and practices with Western science-based knowledge and practices. The five steps of harvest-based monitoring are: (1) identify goal and research questions, (2) design the study according to Diné and scientific protocols, (3) determine respective collaborative roles during fieldwork, (4) implement the fieldwork, and (5) analyze and disseminate the findings. Collaborative work supported constructs of respectfulness, trust, kinship, enhanced communication, and provided better understanding of contamination by researchers, community members, and leaders. The study allowed for the collection of baseline data and realistic reassessment goal recommendations for the future.

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

“…Mazzocchi, 2020; Zidny et al, 2021); a way to achieve sustainability (DiPrete Brown et al, 2020; Hosen et al, 2020); part of ecosystem services (Afentina and Wright, 2020); a source of knowledge about environments and/or environmental processes that researchers are unable to investigate using western scientific methods (e.g. Davies et al, 2020; Ferreira-Rodríguez et al, 2021; Peacock et al, 2020); a way to make environmental initiatives more palatable to local groups (Matuk et al, 2020; see also Chua et al, 2020); or a resource for ecotourism (Zerbe et al, 2020), development (Congretel and Pinton, 2020), health data (Samuel-Nakamura, 2020), or pharmaceutical knowledge (Gaddy, 2020; Schultz et al, 2020).…”

“…Several how-to articles suggest that power asymmetries can be managed methodologically (e.g. Davies et al, 2020; Ferreira-Rodríguez et al, 2021; Malmer et al, 2020; McElwee et al, 2020a, 2020b; Peacock et al, 2020; Samuel-Nakamura, 2020; see also Molnár and Babai, 2021). We agree that the methods used to integrate western science and TEK significantly affect the knowledge produced, but “power asymmetries” cannot be fully addressed by methods.…”

“…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.…”