{"title":"Limits and Possibilities: Understanding and Conveying Two-Eyed Seeing Through Conventional Academic Practices","authors":"S. Roher, Ziwa Yu, Anita Benoit, Debbie Martin","doi":"10.15273/hpj.v2i2.11295","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article offers conceptual and theoretical insights that we gained in a scoping review project to understand the Mi’kmaw guiding principle Two-Eyed Seeing/Etuaptmumk. Reflecting on the experiences and outcomes of the scoping review project, we explore the following questions: (a) To what extent can we rely only on written works and the English language to understand Two-Eyed Seeing? (b) How do academia’s conventional ways of thinking and sharing knowledge shape our abilities to understand and convey Two-Eyed Seeing to others? (c) What strategies can academics draw upon to better understand Two-Eyed Seeing? Ultimately, we contend that, to develop a richer and more nuanced understanding of Two-Eyed Seeing, we need to move beyond academic conventions and engage with a multiplicity of knowledge systems, approaches, and methods, including dialogical, visual, and experiential practices.","PeriodicalId":302892,"journal":{"name":"Healthy Populations Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Healthy Populations Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15273/hpj.v2i2.11295","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This article offers conceptual and theoretical insights that we gained in a scoping review project to understand the Mi’kmaw guiding principle Two-Eyed Seeing/Etuaptmumk. Reflecting on the experiences and outcomes of the scoping review project, we explore the following questions: (a) To what extent can we rely only on written works and the English language to understand Two-Eyed Seeing? (b) How do academia’s conventional ways of thinking and sharing knowledge shape our abilities to understand and convey Two-Eyed Seeing to others? (c) What strategies can academics draw upon to better understand Two-Eyed Seeing? Ultimately, we contend that, to develop a richer and more nuanced understanding of Two-Eyed Seeing, we need to move beyond academic conventions and engage with a multiplicity of knowledge systems, approaches, and methods, including dialogical, visual, and experiential practices.