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

B. Singleton, M. Gillette, Anders Burman, C. Green
{"title":"Toward productive complicity: Applying ‘traditional ecological knowledge’ in environmental science","authors":"B. Singleton, M. Gillette, Anders Burman, C. Green","doi":"10.1177/20530196211057026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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?","PeriodicalId":74943,"journal":{"name":"The anthropocene review","volume":"10 1","pages":"393 - 414"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The anthropocene review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20530196211057026","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

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?
走向生产性共犯:在环境科学中应用“传统生态知识”
文化和传统长期以来一直是社会科学的领域,特别是社会/文化人类学和各种形式的遗产研究。然而,许多研究环境管理、保护和恢复的环境科学家也对传统生态知识、土著和地方知识以及地方环境知识(以下简称TEK)感兴趣,尤其是因为政策制定者和国际机构推动将TEK纳入环境工作。在本文中,我们研究了2020年发表的环境科学家同行评议文章中TEK的使用情况。这篇环境科学学术概论既包括如何将TEK纳入研究和管理的关键讨论,也包括为各种学术和应用目的所做的努力。根据对文化的人类学讨论,我们在这些文献中确定了两种相关的模式:本质主义的倾向和最小化权力关系的倾向。我们认为,那些工作反映这些趋势的科学家可能会有效地利用研究文化和传统的科学领域的知识。我们建议将富有成效的共谋作为一种反身性的合作模式,并提出一系列问题,以促进自然科学家采用这种方法:这个TEK是为了什么和/或谁?谁和什么将从这个TEK部署中受益?报酬/学分如何分享?这项工作是否回馈和/或促进了所有参与其中的人?
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