Care-fully?: The Question of “Knowledge Co-production” in Arctic Science

Caitlin Wylie, Luis Felipe Rosado Murillo
{"title":"Care-fully?: The Question of “Knowledge Co-production” in Arctic Science","authors":"Caitlin Wylie, Luis Felipe Rosado Murillo","doi":"10.28968/cftt.v9i2.39359","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Understanding and redressing the climate crisis in the Arctic demands acknowledging and translating perspectives from frontline communities, environmental scientists, Indigenous knowledge bearers, and social scientists. As a first approximation to the question of how Arctic scientists conceptualize and enact “knowledge co-production,” we analyze how they write about it in their academic publications through a systematic literature review. Based on the results, we identify the lack of clear definition and practical engagement with “co-production” understood as a practice of integrating knowledges and methodological approaches from various disciplines and cultures. We raise concerns regarding researchers’ claims of co-production without understanding what it means, which is particularly harmful for Arctic communities whose knowledge practices scientists have long marginalized and exploited. In response, we argue that feminist STS scholarship provides crucial guidance on how to create and sustain meaningful relationships for knowledge co-production. These relationships can potentially subvert power inequities that have prevented many Arctic science teams from breaking out of traditional disciplinary silos to create new forms of knowledge exchange, particularly those based on notions of care for collaborators, communities, and equity.","PeriodicalId":72536,"journal":{"name":"Catalyst (San Diego, Calif.)","volume":"54 5","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Catalyst (San Diego, Calif.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.28968/cftt.v9i2.39359","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

Understanding and redressing the climate crisis in the Arctic demands acknowledging and translating perspectives from frontline communities, environmental scientists, Indigenous knowledge bearers, and social scientists. As a first approximation to the question of how Arctic scientists conceptualize and enact “knowledge co-production,” we analyze how they write about it in their academic publications through a systematic literature review. Based on the results, we identify the lack of clear definition and practical engagement with “co-production” understood as a practice of integrating knowledges and methodological approaches from various disciplines and cultures. We raise concerns regarding researchers’ claims of co-production without understanding what it means, which is particularly harmful for Arctic communities whose knowledge practices scientists have long marginalized and exploited. In response, we argue that feminist STS scholarship provides crucial guidance on how to create and sustain meaningful relationships for knowledge co-production. These relationships can potentially subvert power inequities that have prevented many Arctic science teams from breaking out of traditional disciplinary silos to create new forms of knowledge exchange, particularly those based on notions of care for collaborators, communities, and equity.
Care-fully吗?北极科学中的“知识合作生产”问题
理解和解决北极的气候危机需要承认和翻译来自前线社区、环境科学家、土著知识承载者和社会科学家的观点。作为对北极科学家如何概念化和实施“知识合作生产”问题的初步近似,我们通过系统的文献综述分析了他们如何在学术出版物中描述这一问题。根据研究结果,我们发现“合作生产”缺乏明确的定义和实际参与,将其理解为整合来自不同学科和文化的知识和方法方法的实践。我们对研究人员在不了解其含义的情况下声称合作生产表示担忧,这对北极社区尤其有害,因为北极社区的知识实践长期以来被科学家边缘化和利用。作为回应,我们认为女权主义STS奖学金为如何创建和维持有意义的知识合作生产关系提供了至关重要的指导。这些关系可能会颠覆权力不平等,这种不平等阻碍了许多北极科学团队打破传统的学科孤岛,创造新的知识交流形式,特别是那些基于关心合作者、社区和公平的概念的知识交流。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信