边界叛变?从垃圾理论的角度审视基于ilc的保护合作

IF 0.7 Q3 ANTHROPOLOGY
B. Singleton, Maris Boyd Gillette
{"title":"边界叛变?从垃圾理论的角度审视基于ilc的保护合作","authors":"B. Singleton, Maris Boyd Gillette","doi":"10.14237/ebl.14.2.2023.1830","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many conservation researchers and practitioners argue that knowledges traditionally conceptualized as non-academic are useful for guiding environmental decision-making and stewardship. As demonstrated by the articles in this special issue, bringing Indigenous and local knowledges to bear on environmental conservation requires forging new relationships and, de facto, new political arrangements. In this article, we seek to clarify what is at stake in such efforts to change (or maintain) what counts as knowledge by applying rubbish theory to the volume’s case studies. Redrawing the boundaries of what counts as conservation knowledge in engagements between academic researchers and practitioners trained to “do conservation” according to western science traditions, on the one hand, and Indigenous peoples and local communities who possess knowledge generated in non-academic contexts, on the other, effects demarcations of expertise and so challenges existing social hierarchies. Unsurprisingly, tension emerges about how far such changes should go. By increasing awareness of the relationship between (re)defining knowledge and (re)configuring social and political hierarchies, we hope to make it easier for participants to manage such collaborations.","PeriodicalId":43787,"journal":{"name":"Ethnobiology Letters","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mutiny on the Boundary? Examining ILK-Based Conservation Collaborations through the Lens of Rubbish Theory\",\"authors\":\"B. Singleton, Maris Boyd Gillette\",\"doi\":\"10.14237/ebl.14.2.2023.1830\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Many conservation researchers and practitioners argue that knowledges traditionally conceptualized as non-academic are useful for guiding environmental decision-making and stewardship. As demonstrated by the articles in this special issue, bringing Indigenous and local knowledges to bear on environmental conservation requires forging new relationships and, de facto, new political arrangements. In this article, we seek to clarify what is at stake in such efforts to change (or maintain) what counts as knowledge by applying rubbish theory to the volume’s case studies. Redrawing the boundaries of what counts as conservation knowledge in engagements between academic researchers and practitioners trained to “do conservation” according to western science traditions, on the one hand, and Indigenous peoples and local communities who possess knowledge generated in non-academic contexts, on the other, effects demarcations of expertise and so challenges existing social hierarchies. Unsurprisingly, tension emerges about how far such changes should go. By increasing awareness of the relationship between (re)defining knowledge and (re)configuring social and political hierarchies, we hope to make it easier for participants to manage such collaborations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43787,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethnobiology Letters\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethnobiology Letters\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14237/ebl.14.2.2023.1830\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethnobiology Letters","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14237/ebl.14.2.2023.1830","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

许多保护研究人员和从业者认为,传统上被概念化为非学术性的知识有助于指导环境决策和管理。正如本期特刊中的文章所表明的那样,将土著和地方知识与环境保护联系起来需要建立新的关系,事实上也需要新的政治安排。在这篇文章中,我们试图通过将垃圾理论应用于本卷的案例研究,来澄清改变(或保持)什么是知识的努力中的利害关系。在根据西方科学传统接受过“保护”培训的学术研究人员和从业者与拥有非学术背景下产生的知识的土著人民和当地社区之间的互动中,重新划定了保护知识的界限,影响专业知识的划分,从而挑战现有的社会等级制度。不出所料,人们对这种变化应该走多远感到紧张。通过提高对(重新)定义知识和(重新)配置社会和政治等级之间关系的认识,我们希望让参与者更容易管理这种合作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mutiny on the Boundary? Examining ILK-Based Conservation Collaborations through the Lens of Rubbish Theory
Many conservation researchers and practitioners argue that knowledges traditionally conceptualized as non-academic are useful for guiding environmental decision-making and stewardship. As demonstrated by the articles in this special issue, bringing Indigenous and local knowledges to bear on environmental conservation requires forging new relationships and, de facto, new political arrangements. In this article, we seek to clarify what is at stake in such efforts to change (or maintain) what counts as knowledge by applying rubbish theory to the volume’s case studies. Redrawing the boundaries of what counts as conservation knowledge in engagements between academic researchers and practitioners trained to “do conservation” according to western science traditions, on the one hand, and Indigenous peoples and local communities who possess knowledge generated in non-academic contexts, on the other, effects demarcations of expertise and so challenges existing social hierarchies. Unsurprisingly, tension emerges about how far such changes should go. By increasing awareness of the relationship between (re)defining knowledge and (re)configuring social and political hierarchies, we hope to make it easier for participants to manage such collaborations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ethnobiology Letters
Ethnobiology Letters ANTHROPOLOGY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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