Fostering horizontal knowledge co-production with Indigenous people by leveraging researchers' transdisciplinary intentions

Abstract

Transdisciplinarity involves knowledge co-production with non-academics. This co-production can be horizontal when equal consideration is given to the contributions from different knowledges and ways of knowing. However, asymmetric power relations and colonial patterns of behavior, which are deeply rooted in academic culture, may hinder horizontality. Using Icek Ajzen's Theory of Planned Behavior, we elicited and analyzed the attitudes, perceptions, and behavioral intentions towards knowledge co-production of a team of seven Ecuadorian biologists while they were conducting fieldwork in Indigenous communities. All biologists acknowledged the benefits of collaborating with indigenous people. However, researchers with less fieldwork experience held unfavorable attitudes towards knowledge co-production. While all criticized the colonial biases of Ecuadorian society, more experienced participants were the only ones who perceived colonial dynamics as intrinsic to dominant scientific practices, and who expressed favorable attitudes towards horizontal co-production. They also perceived lower social pressure against co-production and greater behavioral control (i.e., greater confidence in their ability to perform co-production) than their peers; all of which confirmed their stronger behavioral intention to perform transdisciplinary co-production. Our analysis identified three structural factors affecting researchers' intentions: (1) disciplinarity predispositions acquired through formal education, (2) lack of decolonial approaches in academic curricula, and (3) pressures in academia to do more in less time. Personal decisions by more experienced participants, such as voluntarily engaging with transdisciplinary training or cultivating personal connections with Indigenous culture, appeared to be key enablers of horizontal forms of co-production. Understanding researchers' behavioral intentions might be key to seize, or waste, the decolonization opportunities brought about by the rapid advance of transdisciplinarity that is taking place in fields like sustainability or conservation science.

Full text

Copyright © 2021 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance.
Manuel-Navarrete, D., C. Buzinde, and T. Swanson. 2021. Fostering horizontal knowledge co-production with Indigenous people by
leveraging researchers' transdisciplinary intentions. Ecology and Society 26(2):22. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12265-260222
Research
Fostering horizontal knowledge co-production with Indigenous people by
leveraging researchers' transdisciplinary intentions
David Manuel-Navarrete 1, Christine N. Buzinde 2 and Tod Swanson 3
ABSTRACT. Transdisciplinarity involves knowledge co-production with non-academics. This co-production can be horizontal when
equal consideration is given to the contributions from different knowledges and ways of knowing. However, asymmetric power relations
and colonial patterns of behavior, which are deeply rooted in academic culture, may hinder horizontality. Using Icek Ajzen's Theory
of Planned Behavior, we elicited and analyzed the attitudes, perceptions, and behavioral intentions towards knowledge co-production
of a team of seven Ecuadorian biologists while they were conducting fieldwork in Indigenous communities. All biologists acknowledged
the benefits of collaborating with indigenous people. However, researchers with less fieldwork experience held unfavorable attitudes
towards knowledge co-production. While all criticized the colonial biases of Ecuadorian society, more experienced participants were
the only ones who perceived colonial dynamics as intrinsic to dominant scientific practices, and who expressed favorable attitudes
towards horizontal co-production. They also perceived lower social pressure against co-production and greater behavioral control (i.
e., greater confidence in their ability to perform co-production) than their peers; all of which confirmed their stronger behavioral
intention to perform transdisciplinary co-production. Our analysis identified three structural factors affecting researchers' intentions:
(1) disciplinarity predispositions acquired through formal education, (2) lack of decolonial approaches in academic curricula, and (3)
pressures in academia to do more in less time. Personal decisions by more experienced participants, such as voluntarily engaging with
transdisciplinary training or cultivating personal connections with Indigenous culture, appeared to be key enablers of horizontal forms
of co-production. Understanding researchers' behavioral intentions might be key to seize, or waste, the decolonization opportunities
brought about by the rapid advance of transdisciplinarity that is taking place in fields like sustainability or conservation science.
Key Words: co-production of knowledge; Indigenous knowledge; transdisciplinary; horizontal co-production; decolonization
Anthropology had no urgency other than losing precious
information about disappearing cultures. They could
shed tears [...], but their duty was to record these
cultures, then dry their tears with a sight of nostalgia.
Now things are more tense [...], it is our turn to be
threatened, our turn to realize we will disappear (Latour
2016:339).
INTRODUCTION
Transdisciplinarity has been described as a new way of thinking
about knowledge and inquiry with significant implications on
how we design and implement tangible solutions to real-world
problems (Bernstein 2015). Researchers who engage in
transdisciplinarity usually have the goal of democratizing
knowledge production by involving participants from outside
academia in the design, implementation, dissemination, and/or
use of research. In general, transdisciplinarity seeks to co-produce
knowledge through more inclusive dialogues with non-academic
actors and their forms of expertise (Darbellay et al. 2008, Beech
et al. 2010). Co-production is often justified instrumentally by
arguing that it can yield more socially relevant knowledge with
increased capacity to leverage societal change (Schneider and
Buser 2018, Schäfer and Bergmann 2020). However, co-
production can also enhance research methodologically,
epistemologically, ontologically, or axiologically; that is by
expanding how knowledge is produced, what counts as valid
knowledge, what is knowable, and what it is worth knowing
(López-Huertas 2013, Latulippe and Klenk 2020). For instance,
transdisciplinary knowledge can be instrumental in supporting
and grounding sustainable resource management, but it can also
support sustainability research that transcends the conventional
dichotomy between objective and subjective viewpoints, or
scholarship that addresses complex phenomena as occurring
across non-equivalent levels of reality (Nicolescu 2010, Manuel-
Navarrete 2015).
Despite the growing appeal of transdisciplinary co-production,
its implementation is plagued with barriers derived from
colonialism, power asymmetries, and centuries of Western/
Northern techno-scientific knowledge supremacy towards non-
European cultures. In fact, transdisciplinarity may act as a subtler
reproducer of existing power inequalities by inadvertently
replicating colonial scripts (Schmidt and Neuburger 2017). Power
relations are embedded in current academic institutions and social
structures (Fritz and Meinherz 2020), but they are also
internalized by researchers through practices, perceptions, and
attitudes that may result in low behavioral intentions towards co-
production (Hargreaves 2011). This can continue justifying both
exogenously created research designs that omit endogenously
generated approaches, and externally conceived solutions to local
problems. Furthermore, while researchers who partner with
Indigenous communities might be motivated to adopt
transdisciplinary perspectives that overcome traditional
definitions of Western scientific knowledge, institutional
incentives often point to the opposite direction. For instance,
Newig et al. (2019) found that including non-academics and their
knowledge in research has a negative impact on academic outputs
1School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 2School of Community Resources and Development, Arizona State University,
3School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies, Arizona State University

Ecology and Society 26(2): 22
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss2/art22/
and citations, and doctoral researchers who are involved in
transdisciplinary projects are less likely to complete their PhDs
successfully.
Coloniality, a structure of management based on attaining
control through homogenization, is especially pervasive when co-
production is attempted at the boundary of Indigenous and
Western scientific cultures (Mignolo 2017). Indigenous
communities’ interactions with research are particularly linked to
histories of colonialism and complex neocolonial information
networks that categorize and archive Indigenous knowledges
through methods and categories of Western science (Nakata
2002). Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999) examined the imperialistic
and colonial mechanisms often employed by researchers working
with Indigenous communities. Research groups often repurpose
colonial constructs that relegate Indigenous groups to culturally
submissive roles, ascribe them demeaning monikers, and
subjugate Indigenous worldviews (Chilisa 2017). A call to action
from Indigenous studies scholars has imbued scholarship on
decolonization of research (wa Thiong’o 1986, Tuhiwai-Smith
1999, Simpson 2001, Talbot 2002, Hodge 2012). This body of
literature draws on critical analyses on power and inequity; it
politicizes knowledge production and co-production; highlights
the need for critical consciousness; and problematizes pervasive
forms of colonial thinking in theoretical and methodological
approaches to research. As a framework, decolonization is both
a critique of the past and a conscription for the future; and to this
latter point, it highlights the vital role academia should take on
countering Euro-centric hegemony.
Sustainability and biodiversity conservation scholars can help to
decolonize and indigenize transdisciplinary research by critically
and reflexively embracing horizontal forms of co-production with
Indigenous cultures. For instance, scholars can embrace
pluralistic and non-extractive practices based on fairly
recognizing and rewarding Indigenous contributions. In perfectly
horizontal co-production, Indigenous People would participate
in research on equal footing (Buzinde et al. 2020). Elinor Ostrom
pioneered the analysis of co‐production in public service
provision (Ostrom et al. 1978), paving the way for subsequent
explorations of knowledge co-production between scientists and
Indigenous communities in relation to sustainable co-
management of resources (e.g., Kofinas 2002, Armitage et al.
2011). There is abundant evidence of the benefits of working with
Indigenous People and their knowledges for co-managing natural
resources, understanding social-ecological change, and
addressing other sustainability challenges (e.g., Bohensky and
Maru 2011, Johnson et al. 2016, Athayde et al. 2017, Hill et al.
2020). A recent literature review on the role of Indigenous and
local knowledge in sustainability transformations indicates that
co-production can substantially contribute to not only better
descriptions, but also more plural understandings of
transformations (Lam et al. 2020). However, there are fewer
analyses of how horizontal forms of knowledge co-production
with Indigenous and local people demand significant changes
from researchers and science itself. Miller et al. (2020) have
recently argued that sustainability science tends to frame co-
production as a normative aspiration, and in doing so it de-
emphasizes existing power asymmetries. We argue that
sustainability science needs to emphasize and address not only
power but also coloniality. This means that sustainability
researchers need to “make room” and “move over” in Latulippe
and Klenk’s (2020: 9-10) sense:
To make room is to value Indigenous ways of knowing,
being, and doing on their own terms and to create
culturally-relevant, appropriate spaces for Indigenous
scientific research to flourish within existing knowledge
production infrastructure. [...] to move over is to make
way for Indigenous research leadership on Indigenous
lands. It is to de-center Western science and institutions
as primary sites of knowledge production and leadership
— to give up power and privilege.
Part of the colonial bias the academy has to address is related to
the fact that many pedagogical contexts, whether in higher
education or earlier, are utterly disciplinary and disallow for the
incorporation of Indigenous knowledge (Nicolescu 2010), which
is often defined as local, context-specific, adaptive, collective and
situated in people's lives (Mistry and Berardi 2016). Raffles (2002)
reminds us that Indigenous knowledge is only local in relation to
the construct of supra-local science. Viewing dominant and
mainstream ways of knowing as the only legitimate knowledge,
or as delocalized, is inherently colonial (wa Thiong’o 1986, Talbot
2002). Decolonizing knowledge co-production will require
conscientization (Freire 1970); that is, unlearning and facilitation
of critical consciousness to make room for awareness of
Indigenous epistemologies and politicize what counts as
knowledge (Turnhout et al. 2020). Indigenous studies scholars
and decolonial theorists have long argued that inter-cultural
interactions require the “[c]rossing [of] borders from the academic
to the real lives of people” and are often “fraught with tensions
and misunderstandings” (Brayboy and Deyhle 2000, 163).
According to this conception, researchers have to unlearn what
they know and have been taught about research, particularly as
relates to work undertaken in Indigenous communities. However,
unlearning is rarely considered by transdisciplinary methodologies
emerging more generally within science to deal with complexity,
sustainability challenges, and, the sustainable management of
resources.
This paper explores perceptions and attitudes of academic
investigators to understand their behavioral intentions towards
engaging in transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge. Our
analysis also maps perceptions and attitudes towards co-
production in relation to horizontality. Intentions to perform
behaviors account for considerable variance in actual behavior
(Ajzen 1991). We empirically examined a group of biologists
conducting fieldwork with Indigenous People in a remote
community of the Ecuadorian Amazon. Understanding
researchers' intentions towards horizontal co-production, vis-à-
vis the structural barriers existing in academia and society, can
inform strategies to advance decolonizing dialogues between
majority and minority cultures, and help to overcome pervasive
power differentials between academic researchers and the holders
of other forms of knowledge, such as Indigenous People. More
specifically, this understanding can foster self-reflection, by
researchers, on the genesis of their own intentions towards co-
production as well as collective deliberations on how current
institutional arrangements in education and academia frame and
influence these intentions. Based on our findings, we discuss ways
in which transdisciplinary co-production can take into account

Ecology and Society 26(2): 22
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss2/art22/
how and why researchers' intentions are embedded in wider socio-
political contexts and science-society relations, which are often
marked by uneven power and coloniality.
ADDRESSING POWER AND COLONIALITY IN
TRANSDISCIPLINARITY
Diverse transdisciplinary approaches and methodologies address
knowledge co-production, horizontality, and decolonization in
different ways and degrees. Horizontal co-production can happen
inter-disciplinarily (i.e., different disciplines participate on equal
footing), or trans-disciplinarily (i.e., knowledges from academic
and non-academic actors are considered equally valid and their
quality is assessed in relation to their own cultural values and
worldviews). Addressing power relations is key for horizontal co-
production, but power is hardly central to transdisciplinary
discourse and approaches, which tend to focus on the goal of
producing socially robust knowledge to address wicked problems.
One of the most popular typologies of transdisciplinarity
research, McGregor’s (2015) binary classification between
“Nicolescuian” and “Zurich” approaches, illustrates that
horizontality and power are often marginal in transdisciplinarity.
The “Nicolescuian approach” focuses on distinguishing multiple
levels of reality and acknowledging that we need a different type
of knowledge for each level (Nicolescu 2010). This approach
enables horizontality by recognizing the inter-dependent co-
existence of unlimited competing cultural truth claims about
reality, but it is not clear how this welcomed plurality can solely
foster offsetting the hegemony of the Euro-centric science model
(Adams 2018). The “Zurich approach” (or mode-2 knowledge
production) focuses on solving problems rather than addressing
power asymmetries in knowledge production. It assumes that
solutions no longer emanate from science, and advocates research
partnerships between academics and non-academics (Nowotny
et al. 2003). Both approaches seek to end the monopoly of science,
but they do not directly challenge the enduring power
asymmetries between different ways of knowing.
A broader classification of transdisciplinarity discourses
proposed by Klein (2014) is more explicit about power,
horizontality and decoloniality. Similar to McGregor’s (2015)
dual classification, Klein (2014) identified “transcendence” and
“problem solving” discourses, but she also identified a
“transgression” discourse. This third discourse draws from
humanities, critical approaches, and cultural studies frameworks
that explicitly aim at ending the privileging of dominant forms of
knowledge to foster democratic participation in knowledge co-
production. Similarly, Bernstein’s (2015) historical review of the
transdisciplinary field also concurs with McGregor’s binary
classification. However, in line with both Klein’s transgressive
discourse and the idea of horizontality, he concluded with a call
to “think laterally” in order to intentionally bring non-academic
participants on an equal footing with investigators (Bernstein
2015:10).
As a form of research that entails co-production,
transdisciplinarity is a relational and social process shaped by the
power dynamics of the contexts in which research collaborations
take place as well as the actors’ relative positions within these
contexts (Fritz and Meinherz 2020). Addressing power in
researcher-practitioner interactions has been recognized in
transdisciplinary theory and discourse, but the actual
participation of non-academic actors in the research process is
often vague and uneven (Brandt et al. 2013, Schmidt and
Neuburger 2017). The contrast between the theory and the
practice of transdisciplinarity is described by Callard and
Fitzgerald (2015) as the “official fantasy of ‘mutuality’”. One
thing is to acknowledge the necessity of sharing power over the
research processes, but another thing is to make power relations
a central element around which the research process itself is
designed (Bieluch et al. 2016). However, Callard and Fitzgerald
(2015: 98) also warn us about falling for another fantasy in which
we see relations of power as something that can be “overcome
through dialogue, mutual respect, frank talking, and
manifestations of emotions appropriate to the situation”.
Instead, they propose that knowledge co-production will always
involve some “adjusting to, precariously acquiescing to, and, on
occasion, becoming curiously attached to, states of subjugation”
(Callard and Fitzgerald 2015: 99).
Transdisciplinary co-production is currently entangled with
asymmetries, coloniality, and other legacies of the hegemonic
Euro-centric science model. In this context, academics hold
disproportionate power to define, organize, produce, theorize,
represent, and control knowledge. Therefore, co-production can
easily fall into co-option under the guise of knowledge
“integration”, “incorporation”, or attempts to reach “consensus”
among different ways of knowing across cultures (Klenk and
Meehan 2015, Schmidt and Neuburger 2017, Lam et al. 2020).
This underscores the importance of acknowledging and explicitly
tackling power asymmetries and colonial legacies in
transdisciplinarity research with Indigenous Peoples. In practice,
this means raising field researchers’ awareness of structural,
discursive, and behavioral barriers to horizontal co-production,
including their acquired attitudes and perceptions towards non-
academic forms of knowledge. Ultimately, both researchers and
academic institutions need to foster “collective intentionality”
towards horizontal co-production and decolonization (Manuel-
Navarrete et al. 2019).
HORIZONTAL CO-PRODUCTION WITH INDIGENOUS
PEOPLE
When transdisciplinary co-production involves Indigenous
cultures, achieving horizontality generally requires overcoming
deeply held, and often unacknowledged, perceptions and
attitudes (Velasquez Runk 2014). As discussed by Lotz-Sisitka
(2017), the very designation of “indigenous” and “nonindigenous”
is a Western construct supported through objectification and the
colonial logics of “othering”, which tends to invisibilize
Indigenous ways of knowing that cannot be “fitted” into modern
knowledge systems. In particular, phenomenological, cultural,
embodied, spiritual, and social-historical connections to the land
are devalued by ontological, epistemological, axiological, and
other types of assumptions shared by modern science and
coloniality (López-Huertas 2013, Lotz-Sisitka 2017). Indigenous
knowledge is generally framed as local, context-specific, adaptive,
collective, and situated in people's lives. However, the belief that
scientific research is somehow separable from the local cultural
contexts where it is produced can promote extractive behaviors
that relegate Indigenous ways of knowing to accessory roles.
The horizontal approach discussed here seeks balancing power
disparities between Indigenous worldviews, perspectives, needs
and questions, and Western canons of knowledge production and

Ecology and Society 26(2): 22
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss2/art22/
problem-solving (Adams 2018, Apgar et al. 2009). A key challenge
is avoiding the temptation of codifying contextual knowledge into
any “universal” language of transdisciplinary science. Instead,
Santos (2014) suggests that curiosity and openness to otherness
must guide iterative dialogues between Indigenous and non-
Indigenous knowers, and Buzinde et al. (2020) consider the key
role of boundary individuals and knowledge brokers in
facilitating collaborations across cultural boundaries that respect
difference. Horizontality highlights that science is, in fact, just one
culturally specific knowledge production system amongst 6,900
documented culturally and linguistically-mediated Indigenous
knowledge systems (Cole 2017). Research that is practically
relevant and socially inclusive needs to start recognizing science’s
cultural biases. Such as, for instance, the historical fact that science
has been culturally white, Euro-centric, and patriarchal
(Grosfoguel 2011, Mamdani 2019).
Horizontal co-production requires that Indigenous voices
participate in the definition of transdisciplinarity as a trans-
cultural field of research (Nicolescu 2014, Frandy 2018). For
example, Cole (2017) characterized his own Indigenous (Mâori)
transdisciplinarity in terms of a value-based approach to
knowledge development created over centuries of maintaining
the survival and wellbeing of whânau Mâori (translated by Cole
as the “Mâori family ecosystem”). This Mâori transdisciplinarity
emerges from “‘animistic’ identification with the ‘natural world’
as a genealogical extension of the human Mâori family. By
contrast, [...]`western culture' came to transdisciplinary
methodology and practice as a result of attempts to extend [...]
classical western scientific method.” (Cole 2017: 137). Cole
concludes that (horizontal) dialogue between Indigenous and
Western “transdisciplinarities” is particularly pertinent in New
Zealand given Western science’s failure to maintain the survival
and wellbeing of whânau Mâori.
Horizontal transdisciplinarity challenges power asymmetries
inherent to Western researchers’ socially-attributed roles, and
their institutional positions as producers of knowledge, as well as
related financial and social privileges. In addition to these
organizational asymmetries, there are epistemic and value-laden
conflicts, unresolvable or very difficult to solve, between Western
and Indigenous knowledge systems (Koskinen and Mäki 2016).
Decolonial approaches are useful in identifying, making visible,
and articulating these asymmetries as well as finding “interstitial
spaces” between opposing epistemologies and values (Cram and
Phillips 2012). In addition, researchers working in the field with
non-academic actors can question, in-situ, and sharpen their
awareness of their own and others’ perceptions and attitudes
towards co-production.
This paper contributes to knowledge of how field researchers’
perceptions and attitudes affect their behavior and positionality
in the co-production process, as well as what ideas, interests,
claims, and scopes of action they bring to their relations with
other participants (Rosendahl et al. 2015). Researchers may
unwittingly infuse co-production practices with dominant norms,
rules, and discourses about, for instance, who controls resources
or what needs to be researched and how (Zingerli 2010). We apply
the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) as an analytical lens to
explain co-production behavior as a function of "individuals'
attitudes" (is the behavior perceived positively or negatively?),
"social norms" (which social pressures are perceived?), and
"perceived behavioral control" (how easy is the behavior’s
performance perceived by the individual?) (Ajzen 1991, Grilli and
Notaro 2019). TPB proposes that these are the three main
determinants of any behavioral intention (is the individual ready
to perform the intended behavior?). Applying TPB to the analysis
of our interview data allows us to identify patterns of behavioral
intentions towards different forms of co-production in
collaborations with Indigenous Peoples.
METHODS
Study area
The Napo and Curaray rivers, where most Waorani reside and
where Gomatan and Geyedape are located (Fig. 1), is a
biodiversity hotspot hard to access by biologists and other
researchers (Beckerman et al. 2009). The first documented contact
occurred in 1956 when five North American male Protestant
missionaries landed their plane on a sandy beach by the Curaray
River with the goal of converting the Indigenous Peoples of the
region to Christianity. All five missionaries were killed, reportedly
over a cultural misunderstanding. News reports about the
incident widely permeated US mainstream media; “publicity
surrounding the missionaries’ deaths both sensationalized [the
Waorani] and dehumanized them” (Long 2019, 23). Some
accounts attribute the incident to the “long history of outside
aggression against the Waorani” which may have “fueled their
anger” towards the missionaries (Long 2019, 19). The incident
also illustrated the vehemence of Western religious institutions in
imposing their value system and altering Indigenous ways of
being and knowing. Peaceful contact with the Waorani was made
two years after the tragedy by two missionaries, (spouses of the
killed men) Rachel Saint and Elizabeth Elliot, who created a
settlement that with time housed many Waorani (Beckerman et
al. 2009). It should be noted that, to date, there are still groups of
uncontacted Waorani Peoples who are voluntarily isolated and
reside deep within the Amazon forest.
There are many recent cases of inter-cultural conflict between
Indigenous communities and groups of Spanish descendants
called Colonos. Encroachment on Indigenous Peoples’ lands by
Colonos is increasingly a major source of conflict in Ecuador. The
Waorani inhabit an expansive and biodiversity-rich area under
high pressures from logging, oil exploration, and illegal trading
of exotic species. Cognizant of geographical, infrastructural, and
economic limitations, some Waorani people are hopeful that
tourists and field researchers will generate needed revenue while
offering opportunities for capacity building, and forms of
participation in the global economy that do not involve losing
their culture (personal communications with our Waorani
partners). But for these hopes to materialize field researchers need
to have a disposition towards co-production of knowledge.
Access to the two Waorani communities, where interviews were
conducted, requires five hours in dugout canoes and several hours
of driving on dirt roads. Travel time is contingent upon water
levels and can double in the dry season. There are basic clinics
but no hospitals in the area (emergency cases are airlifted out in
a three-passenger plane) and this absence might have indirectly
contributed to sustaining the local culture of ethnobotany. The
Waorani worldview entails a view of the physical and social world
as undivided (Rival 1993).

Ecology and Society 26(2): 22
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss2/art22/
Fig. 1. Location of the Andes and Amazon Field School main station (Iyarina), and the two Waorani
communities where interviews were conducted (Gomatan and Geyepade). Basemap source: Landsat /
Copernicus, accessed through Google Earth
Data collection
We interviewed a team of fieldwork-engaging biologists while we
were implementing a transdisciplinary project in Ecuador. The
transdisciplinary project intended to advance sustainability in
Indigenous communities through expanding the operations of
the Andes and Amazon Field School (AAFS) into two remote
Waorani communities, Gomatan and Geyepade (Fig. 1),
composed of two extended Waorani families (around 30 members
each). The AAFS was founded by an Ecuadorian-Kichwa family
in 1999 and employs mostly Kichwa people to foster
collaborations while teaching Indigenous languages and
biocultures to Western researchers and students. The AAFS is
based at Iyarina, a station by a Kichwa community near Tena
(Fig. 1), where it provides educational and research tourism
infrastructure and inter-cultural co-production processes by
acting as a boundary organization that connects academics and
Indigenous partners (Buzinde et al. 2020).
The team of field biologists interviewed for this study gained
access to Waorani communities through the AAFS networks. The
authors travelled together with the team of biologists in 2018 and
stayed together for about ten days. The biologists’ main goal was
to assess water quality, and the populations of birds, bats, insects,
amphibians, snakes, and fish. We observed and interviewed the
team of biologists while also working with Waorani people in
creating infrastructure to host students from study abroad
programs. Biological fieldwork started with community meetings
organized by the biologists to explain the research and coordinate
collaboration. Almost all community members participated in
supporting the biology research, and they, as well as the
community as a collective, were remunerated according to
amounts previously negotiated with community leaders.
Interviews were the selected method for this study because they
allow participants to describe meanings they associate with
certain aspects and experiences of their life worlds (Kvale 1996).
The interviews were semi-structured and took place during
various times of the day, before or after the biologists had gone
out in the field, accompanied by members of the local community,
to collect biological samples. Topics covered in the interviews
included the researchers’ approach to Indigenous knowledge,
involvement of community members in scientific research and
influence of broader societal views about Indigenous Peoples. The
same open-ended questions were asked of all participants. All
interviews were taped upon obtaining consent from the
participants; each interview ranged from 30-40 minutes. The
research questions and transcripts were translated from English
to Spanish and back translated; the authors are fluent in English
and Spanish whilst the participants were Spanish speakers. We
did not interview Waorani people because our focus was on the
researchers’ behavioral intentions. We also wanted to protect our
long-term partnership with these communities by avoiding an
informant-researcher relation.
Interviews were conducted with the group of 7 biologists (5
women and 2 men, 4 in their 20s and 3 in their 40s); gender and
age specificity is not provided in the findings to preserve
anonymity. However, we make reference to older and younger
researchers to discuss general patterns in the data. One of the
older participants self-identified as having an Indigenous
background, rooted in the Ecuadorian highlands. The majority
of participants had years of fieldwork experience in local
communities, but some of the younger participants had very
limited fieldwork experience. They were all Ecuadorians, some
foreign educated but they all worked in partnership with a local
prestigious university through which funding for their biological
research had been secured. None of the participants had
previously been to the Waorani communities wherein the
interviews were conducted. Research approval was granted by our

Ecology and Society 26(2): 22
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss2/art22/
university Institutional Review Board, which is responsible for
ensuring minimum risk to research participants.
Data analysis
An iterative analytical process was adopted in this study, which
allowed for a repetitive and thorough evaluation of participants’
accounts and intertextual links as well as the connections between
the data and theory. As themes and sub-themes were identified
and clustered across participants, diverse patterns of researchers’
perceptions and attitudes towards co-production emerged from
the iterative process. We are cognizant that our small sample limits
any pretension of generalizability, but it provides highly
contextualized insights that capture a diverse set of perspectives,
including both positive and negative attitudes towards
transdisciplinary knowledge co-production and towards different
forms of horizontality. The identification of preliminary
categories was documented during interviews and through the
iterative and inductive process stable themes, related to the
questions posed, were developed. Codes were identified by
analyzing the transcribed data line-by-line and then combined
into consolidated major themes and nested subthemes (Weston
et al. 2001).
Themes and subthemes were interpreted and classified along the
variables of Ajzen’s (1991, 2002) Theory of Planned Behavior
(TPB), which explains individuals’ intentions to perform certain
behaviors as the result of three determinants (Fig. 2): (1) Attitudes
toward the behavior: the degree to which researchers viewed co-
production favorably or not; (2) Subjective norms: the perceived
social pressure to engage, or not, in co-production; and (3)
Perceived behavioral control: the perceived ease or difficulty,
according to past experience and anticipated obstacles, of
performing co-production (self-efficacy) plus the extent to which
performance is up to the actor (controllability).
Fig. 2. Determinants of behavior and their relations according
to the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen 1991)
RESULTS
Attitudes toward knowledge co-production and horizontality
All participants recognized or ascribed some value to Indigenous
and local knowledge systems, which the Intergovernmental
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) defines
as “a cumulative body of knowledge, practice and belief, evolving
by adaptive processes and handed down through generations by
cultural transmission, about the relationship of living beings
(including humans) with one another and with their environment”
(Diaz et al. 2015:13). Researchers agreed that involving locals as
collaborators (or participants) in scientific research has practical
benefits. For instance, all perceived that locals are already more
capable at carrying out certain research tasks, such as locating
species, and that with some training they can also surpass
academics in other tasks such as placing sensors or collecting
certain data. One interviewee even associated collaboration with
his/her own maturation as a researcher due to the opportunities
it offered for intercultural exchange and self-reflection. Overall,
there was consensus about collaboration with Indigenous Peoples
being beneficial to accomplish certain tasks, accelerating them,
and facilitating fieldwork. However, attitudes towards more
horizontal forms of knowledge co-production were strikingly
diverse with some highly experienced field researchers perceiving
them positively, while younger and less experienced field
researchers negatively or neutrally.
Some highly experienced researchers displayed favorable attitudes
towards codesigning research (e.g., community mapping to
inform sample collection site), but not to the point of
contemplating co-analyzing results, and co-authorship. They also
pointed to the advantages of adapting research protocols and
including Indigenous knowledge in their design:
You either create a protocol a priori or you adapt it and
create something tailored to the communities you plan
on working with. [...] I always include local scientists to
combine local and other knowledges.
In general, highly experienced researchers agreed that research in
Indigenous settings benefits from three types of adaptations,
which are indicative of positive attitudes towards co-production.
First, adapting to locals’ particular sense of time. In particular,
deaccelerating while avoiding strict timelines. Second, willingness
to participate in local rituals and practices, when invited. Third,
maintaining an attitude of respect, sharing, openness, and
flexibility. Overall, adaptability was perceived as hinging on the
researchers’ willingness to leave personal needs aside and to stay
outside one’s comfort zone. However, only some highly
experienced researchers expressed positive attitudes towards
horizontal forms of co-production. They valued Indigenous
knowledges vis-à-vis scientific knowledge and recognized some
equivalent epistemological standing between the two. For
instance: “often they know more than us”; “what is referred to as
their local scientific knowledge”; or “their sense of being and
knowing”. Although not entirely explicit, these excerpts indicate
some openness to genuinely believe that scientific research is
commensurate with Indigenous ways of knowing.
The instrumental value of Indigenous knowledge was
consensually acknowledged, particularly in terms of carrying out
scientific work more effectively (e.g., “they [locals] tend to know
where to locate certain species”). Culturally, it was generally
perceived that Indigenous knowledge is more attuned to the “the
reality of the Indigenous community” and therefore valuable for
these communities in ways that science cannot deliver. However,
while attributing cultural value to Indigenous knowledge can be
seen as a positive attitude towards co-production, it is also an
expression of Western culture’s habitual separation between
science and culture (Nicolescu 2014). Disagreement was most
evident in terms of attributing intrinsic value to Indigenous
knowledge. The majority of participants were unfavorable to the
idea of epistemological parity between Indigenous knowledge

Ecology and Society 26(2): 22
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss2/art22/
and science, thus displaying negative attitudes towards horizontal
co-production.
Highly experienced researchers who also showed favorable
attitudes towards horizontality still tended to use terms like
“integrate”, “combine”, or “link”, which do not bring power
relations or asymmetries to the fore (Turnhout et al. 2020). The
most explicit references to horizontality were in terms of making
scientific forms of knowing permeable to other forms of knowing;
for instance, ideas such as, “we have to change certain protocols”
or “enrich each other’s sense of knowing”. Overall, they
acknowledged a certain degree of equivalence, correspondence,
and unique contributions from Indigenous knowledge. The
following excerpts are exemplary of these sentiments: “treat them
as equal to educated scientists”, or “[l]earn and be educated by the
community”. However, it is important to note that no participants
explicitly addressed scientific knowledge as culturally-specific.
Horizontality was generally implied in terms of “elevating” certain
aspects of Indigenous knowledges to the status of science by
situating them beyond their cultural specificity and somehow on
par with science. The following quote is illustrative of this view:
“[a]cquire knowledge at the cultural level given that we are in an
Indigenous community but also figure out ways to link this
knowledge to scientific thinking”.
Other highly experienced field researchers showed favorable
attitudes towards co-production, but in a very limited sense and
leaving no room for horizontality. They generally highlighted the
culture-science divide by making clear distinctions between, on the
one hand, valid knowledge, and, on the other hand, beliefs (e.g.,
“someone has to be in charge of unifying their cosmovision with
scientific information because science is so abstract and it may
never be compatible with what they do on a daily basis”). They
tended to see the process of co-production in asymmetric or
vertical fashions, as is indicated in the following quote: “[locals]
learn a number of methodologies and more information...and we also
get lots of information...they help us locate research sites”. These
participants valued local involvement in research but only to the
extent that it served their research goals. They also expressed
unfavorable attitudes towards knowledge co-production. For
instance, in one participant’s account, involvement of locals in
research aids only in the acceleration of data collection:
The community has a lot of knowledge and this is great
because scientists need to save time and optimize all [...]
locals are the best people to help you take advantage of
the location. So, I would not say that this has changed my
work but involving them has helped me accelerate and
facilitate my work.
Similarly, another participant commented that:
...locals can be involved only because they tend to know
where to locate certain species in a way that researchers
from the outside may not. So as guides they are excellent,
and this should be the extent of their involvement in
research. For instance, if you are doing research on
mushrooms they will know where to locate them or on
certain other plants. So simply as guides and nothing else.
Unfavorable attitudes towards any form of knowledge co-
production were uttered particularly amongst the least experienced
field researchers. Scientific knowledge was perceived as either
superior or the only legitimate form of knowledge. For some
participants, incorporating knowledge or insights from
Indigenous Peoples was perceived as polluting or biasing science.
These informants regarded collaboration with local people as
transactional and purely instrumental. Even ethnobiology
research was considered with suspicion as it can contaminate
scientific results; diminishing the rigor required of scientific
research. This shows that being aware of transdisciplinary
alternatives does not automatically engender favorable attitudes
towards co-production.
All participants showed more favorable attitudes towards co-
producing solutions than co-producing knowledge. There was
consensus that Indigenous People “need” to be involved in nature
conservation and in implementation of solutions to local
problems. The most enthusiastic participants expressed that co-
produced solutions should include consideration of Indigenous
knowledge in the design of solutions; co-generation of
technologies; collaborative teams; and participation in the
application of scientific results. More generally, involvement was
associated with improving outcomes and the effectiveness of
solutions because as stated by one of the interviewees: “at the end
of the day locals are the ones who remain in the area”.
When asked whether knowledge co-production benefits
Indigenous collaborators, all groups considered both pros and
cons. The most commonly mentioned benefit, as perceived by
researchers, was money and access to knowledge. All informants
stressed the importance of financial compensation for local
collaborators. Another common concern was that collaborating
takes time away from daily subsistence practices. Cultural impacts
resulting from exposure to Western culture or appropriation of
Indigenous knowledge were also mentioned by some as potential
threats. The establishment of personal relationships and
facilitation of consensus-building processes were mentioned as
vital to avoid misunderstandings.
Finally, locals were perceived by all informants as potential users
of scientific knowledge. Less experienced field researchers
emphasized skills and specific data that locals may acquire or use
from scientists. More experienced field researchers focused on the
challenges of communicating and translating scientific findings
in ways that locals are able to understand and use. Effective
communication was described in terms of understanding locals’
points of view and their discursive mannerisms; avoiding jargon;
residing within and being part of the community; and developing
trust.
Subjective norms
In TPB, subjective norm refers to the perceived social pressure to
perform, or not to perform, a behavior. In his evaluation of
available empirical evidence confirming TPB’s predictive
capacity, Ajzen (1991) found that attitudes and behavioral control
tended to overshadow the influence of subjective norms on
intentions for a set of analyzed behaviors. In our case, all
participants perceived the larger social context in Ecuador as
promoting marginalization, discrimination, and racism; thus,
potentially hindering collaboration with local people. This
suggests a general perceived social pressure to not engage in co-
production, but further research would be necessary to evaluate
the actual influence of these perceived pressures on the
researchers’ behavioral intentions.

Ecology and Society 26(2): 22
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss2/art22/
When asked about how the social context influences mainstream
perceptions of Indigenous communities in the nation,
interviewees depicted prevalent inequalities and preponderance
of stereotypical frames. Colonial biases and practices in
Ecuadorian society were criticized by all participants, but only
those researchers with favorable attitudes towards horizontal co-
production implied that the normal practice of science has a built-
in colonial bias. The rest were aware that social colonial biases
may influence the practice of science but did not perceive colonial
dynamics as intrinsic to science. Some of them depicted science
as completely apart from society’s colonial predispositions. They
justified this separation disciplinarily by regarding community
and community related issues as ‘social’ issues which from their
vantage point were not directly related to the natural sciences.
Reflecting on the social dimensions, one participant asserted that
full consideration of these matters reduces the legitimacy of
science:
I always felt that the social component was vital to include
in research projects. But incorporating the social can also
lead to biases or biased results that a real biologist would
not have to deal with. We focus on capacity building but
science is science and there is no changing that because
it has to be rigorous to be valuable and done right.
The above vantage point is thus indicative of the fact that the
participant has not reflected on the vital role Indigenous
knowledge plays in understanding the natural and cultural worlds.
Interestingly, researchers with less favorable attitudes towards co-
production were particularly graphic in their criticism of
Ecuadorian society’s prejudices. For instance, one participant
stated that “[m]any still view Indigenous communities as savages
and wild and people who will kill outsiders...[with] no common
sense or rationality”. Notably, such criticisms of society were
absent in their views of science. Some in this group were also
remarkably articulate in their discussion of issues related to
colonial views, prejudice, hierarchy, and racism. Surprisingly,
those most favorable towards horizontal co-production used a
milder tone and were more cautious in their criticism of
Ecuadorian society. This may suggest that they perceived less
social pressure against co-production.
Behavioral control
Behavioral control is the perceived ease or difficulty of performing
a behavior according to past experience and anticipated obstacles.
It denotes the subjective degree of control over performance of
the behavior itself, not over the outcomes of the behavior (Ajzen
2002). All participants identified difficulties to any form of
collaboration with Indigenous communities due to constraints
imposed by the Ecuadorian academic system and its increasingly
competitive and neoliberal culture. The system was perceived as
promoting decontextualized research designs by encouraging
short-term, discontinuous, and intensive fieldwork campaigns
that disallow opportunities to share results or develop
relationships with locals. These obstacles were contextualized in
the growing pressures in academia to do more (i.e., produce more
research outputs) in less time. There were also references to lack
of incentives to collaborate and poor practical training on how
to engage with non-scientists. The habitual existence of tensions
within communities was also identified as making collaboration
more difficult.
Overall, participants agreed that academia and education, writ
large, do not promote meaningful involvement of Indigenous
Peoples in research. However, contrary to the distribution of
perceptions about the Ecuadorian social context presented above,
participants with favorable attitudes towards horizontal co-
production clearly surpassed their counterparts in the detail,
depth, and eloquence of their criticism, analyses, and opinions
about structural difficulties created by the dominant academic
culture. They identified indoctrinations, teaching styles, and
inadequate curricula as root causes of misperceptions and biases,
which ultimately constitute major barriers for collaboration and
knowledge co-production.
Participants with less favorable attitudes towards co-production
did not perceive the academic and education systems as
problematic in themselves, but rather insofar as they indirectly
impose logistical constraints, such as growing pressures to
produce more in less time. One participant mentioned that the
extensive work needed to collect data meant not having time to
connect with the community. Underpinning this assertion is the
assumption that one only makes time for legitimate and important
research-related tasks and according to this analogy, interactions
with members of the communities in which research is taking
place is peripheral to the goal of research. This particular
participant also attributed the role of liaising with the community
as central to development projects, but not to research-related
activities:
I have been on trips like these 3-4 times a month, some
are short and others are long. In my work we have very
little contact with the communities given the amount of
work we have to do in terms of data collection and it is
exhausting and does not allow for contact with
communities.
Interestingly, highly experienced participants who also held
unfavorable attitudes towards horizontal co-production tended
to highlight their status as “scientists”, and/or disciplinary
affiliation as “biologists,” and in so doing perhaps reducing their
perception of behavioral control over performing co-production.
In the excerpt below one participant asserts his/her title and then
proceeds to offer an account of how the inclusion of locals in
research is justified as long as it serves the goals of the researcher:
I am a biologist so the only change is to be attentive to
things that could compromise the livelihoods of locals. I
have locals in mind but not as active participants in my
scientific work. I talk with them (locals) to the extent of
coming to a consensus regarding what is going to be done,
who is going to help us accomplish those goals so as to
not have misunderstandings.
Changing attitudes towards horizontal co-production
Researchers with favorable attitudes towards horizontal co-
production recognized that such attitudes had grown on them
after graduation and are indeed not the norm. As described by
one participant who attributes this trend to the education system:
It is not common to see biologists adopt the practices I
have described because many of us cannot let go of the
perception of academia that we have been indoctrinated
in. It is difficult for many academics to adopt new
approaches and many do not feel comfortable working

Ecology and Society 26(2): 22
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss2/art22/
with Indigenous communities. They prefer to work in the
manner they were taught in school which tends to not
include participatory approaches to research. Here in
Ecuador, there is a lot that has been done on this front in
part because we are doing some interesting work on
ethnobiology; but generally, this is not mainstream
perspective.
The excerpts below richly describe how the attitudes of this
participant changed over time, including the adoption of practices
more attuned with horizontal transdisciplinarity:
I started this work in 2001 and a lot has changed. What
you get in class is one thing and when you are in the field
there is a difference. I have changed my approach. There
are those who have a strict agenda and are inflexible. But
here time is seen differently and you have to change
because here people stop and drink chicha [a fermented
beverage]. We have to deaccelerate while here and with
a smile because people in these communities are always
happy because they are immersed in nature. We have to
standardize research but here you have to change certain
protocols.
The above excerpt indicates that change entailed accounting for
differences in perception of time when working with communities.
The participant gives the examples of allowing for engagement
in rituals, traditions, and/or practices that are not directly related
to scientific research but that are essential to the establishment of
a relationship between community members and research teams.
Another participant alluded to the process of increasingly valuing
Indigenous knowledges and incorporating them in research
protocols:
I started getting data and that was the main objective but
with time I realized that it was not just about getting data,
one had to share day-to-day events, be ready to leave your
needs aside and cater to them. [...] Someone from outside
would not survive this alone, local input and support are
needed. You have to interact with them, share knowledge
and learn from them. [...] treat them as equal to educated
scientists.
However, some participants with less fieldwork experience were
less open to shifting unfavorable attitudes towards horizontal
forms of exchange. In explaining why his/her research approach
had not changed as a result of working in the community, one
participant juxtaposed his/her biological approach to certain
types of researchers who, from his/her perspective, are less
scientific because they tend to incorporate local ways of knowing:
For instance, I am not in agreement with what
ethnobiologists do, which is to take information from
local Indigenous groups and incorporate it in scientific
studies, because that is not science. Sometimes locals talk
about curative plants but those could be placebos and to
include such elements in research work biases the research
and is not scientific. I thus am not in agreement with such
approaches, at all.
The overall assumption was that Indigenous knowledge needs to
be subjected to validation from science.
DISCUSSION
Our findings show a diversity of interconnected perceptions,
attitudes, and behavioral intentions towards co-production and
horizontality. Favorable versus unfavorable attitudes were
distinctly connected to participants’ perceived ability to perform
co-production (behavioral control), and social pressures against
co-production (subjective norms). Figure 3 builds on the
relationships between the three determinants of TPB to sketch
three patterns of behavioral intentions towards co-production as
expressed by the researchers who participated in this study: (1)
horizontal co-production; (2) vertical co-production; and (3)
aversion to co-production. These patterns are consistent with the
actual behaviors observed during our fieldwork. The horizontal
co-production pattern tended to be articulated by older
researchers with high fieldwork experience, while vertical co-
production and aversion to co-production were consistently
expressed by less experienced and/or younger participants.
Fig. 3. Identified patterns of researchers’ behavioral intentions
towards co-production according to TPB Determinants of
Behavior. Notes: TPB: Theory of Planned Behavior; +/-:
favorable/unfavorable attitude, positive/negative social pressure
or high/low behavioral control for co-production
The diversity of attitudes and the split across age groups was
unexpected. Our initial assumption was that younger generations
would hold more positive attitudes towards carrying out
transdisciplinary co-production, as we were assuming that both
academia and Ecuadorian society are increasingly veering away
from coloniality and academic silos. We were puzzled by some
participants’ open abidance by colonial scripts to substantiate
their views that communities should not be active collaborators

Ecology and Society 26(2): 22
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss2/art22/
in the research process. Even though our sample is not
representative, this finding suggests deficits in formal education
in Ecuador, which does not seem to encourage graduates to value
and engage in transdisciplinary and decolonial approaches to
research.
Researchers with favorable attitudes towards horizontal forms of
co-production expressed softer criticisms of existing colonial
biases in Ecuadorian society. This was another unexpected
finding. However, from the standpoint of TPB, it might indicate
a perception of lower social pressure (subjective norm) against
co-production, which would further support the favorable
attitudes and behavioral intentions expressed by these researchers.
Reasons for such lower perceived pressure might include exposure
to transdisciplinary training (e.g., ethnobotany), or personal
connections with Indigenous cultures. That is, the fact of
belonging to social sub-networks, which are more favorable to co-
production than the average of Ecuadorian society, would make
these researchers perceive lesser social pressures against co-
production. In terms of perceived behavioral control, these
researchers were much more articulate and poignant in
recognizing and describing the structural difficulties posed by
academia’s institutional culture, including the field of biology as
a whole. However, unlike their peers, they did not perceive co-
production as detrimental to their own careers, suggesting higher
degrees of perceived control to perform transdisciplinarity
Overall, there was a pattern linking perceptions of lower social
pressure, fewer difficulties to perform co-production, and
favorable attitudes towards it, particularly in the case of older and
highly experienced researchers. These researchers recognized that
their perceptions and attitudes had changed over the years as they
tried to enhance local engagement in their research. This indicates
that accumulated fieldwork experience working in local
communities can change the attitudes acquired through formal
education. However, other researchers with comparable amounts
of fieldwork experience did not change their attitudes. As
mentioned above, this variance could be explained by career
choices as well as social/ethnic background and personalities.
Thus, other subjective factors not captured by the notion of
“subjective norms” might explain behavioral intentions toward
co-production.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, some researchers with less
fieldwork experience expressed a very different pattern of
behavioral intentions towards co-production (Fig. 3). First, they
did not link science to the larger colonization biases that they
identified in Ecuadorian society, thus tending to situate science
outside of society. In fact, they were highly suspicious of
transdisciplinary knowledge co-production and appeared to have
naturalized and internalized disciplinary prejudices that highly
experienced researchers identified as obstacles to co-production.
Second, they were aware of, albeit unacquainted with, decolonial
approaches to research, wherein elements such as cross-cultural
proficiency and anti-extractive approaches to research resonate.
They could not come up with any reasons that they perceived as
legitimate enough to significantly change their methodological
approaches. They held true to the paradigm taught in school. For
instance, one participant mentioned that the only change s/he
could report as resulting from working with local communities
was in the choice of sampling areas and, in his/her recollection,
“[i]n the scientific part, not at all”.
Even though some younger researchers expressed mixed attitudes
(favorable and unfavorable) towards vertical co-production, they
all were explicit about their low behavioral control (Fig. 3). Thus,
while not all younger researchers were ideologically opposed to
co-production or considered that altering their methods to
include other knowledges was detrimental to research or anti-
scientific, they all agreed that it would take time away from doing
“actual” work, thus reducing productivity and hindering career
success. This perception has been confirmed by research on the
higher challenges of transdisciplinary researchers to produce
academic outcomes in comparison to disciplinary research
(Newig et al. 2019). The culture of foregrounding and maximizing
measurable outcomes has been discussed in relation to neoliberal
discourse and practice in academia (Bell and Pahl 2018).
Referring to the notion of expediency in research, some decolonial
scholars have used the term “helicopter scientists” to describe
individuals that merely rush in to collect data and leave while
including locals to the extent that they can expedite the process;
this process can indeed lead to ingrained perceptions of mistrust
towards scientists by Indigenous community members (Adams et
al. 2014).
Overall, our research explored the complex relations between
perceptions, attitudes, and intentions of researchers performing
co-production behavior. We identified three distinctive patterns
of behavioral intentions towards co-production from a small
group of field biologists. The diversity of patterns reflected
differences in age and fieldwork experience. However,
accumulated experience does not guarantee positive attitudes
towards horizontal co-production. The patterns depended on
biographic trajectories and subjective decisions, but also on
university training, research incentives, academic culture, and
perceptions of colonial prejudices existing in society. It is
important to acknowledge that they reproduce pervasive power
differentials between academic researchers and the holders of
other forms of knowledge such as Indigenous People. All these
factors are tied to power relations within academia and between
majority and minority cultures. Our findings suggest that
horizontal co-production can be fostered from academic
institutions through curricular strategies, adequate research
incentives, and changes in academic culture. Individual
researchers can also contribute by self-reflecting on their attitudes
and perceptions and understanding how their behavioral
intentions towards co-production arise from them. A critical
change to foster horizontality is greater recognition of the vital
role Indigenous knowledge plays in understanding the natural
and cultural worlds. This is particularly true when one considers
that the cultural identities of Indigenous Peoples are inextricably
linked to the natural world.
CONCLUSION
Extant research indicates that transdisciplinary knowledge co-
production can contribute to the decolonization of scientific
research (Buzinde et al. 2020). We examined perceptions,
attitudes, and behavioral intentions of a team of Ecuadorian
biologists conducting fieldwork in two remote Waorani
communities in the Amazon. Participants with less fieldwork
experience tended to show unfavorable attitudes, and perceive less
capacity and stronger social pressures against co-production. This
highlights the importance of research on how to increase
awareness of decolonial frameworks and their applicability to the
fieldwork context. Of particular interest was the fact that some

Ecology and Society 26(2): 22
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss2/art22/
participants with extensive fieldwork experience still expressed
doubts about the actual value of Indigenous knowledge beyond
practicalities of facilitating the carrying out of scientific research
tasks for researchers. We showed how this unfavorable attitude
towards horizontal co-production might have been reinforced by
perceived pressures and low behavioral control linked to careerism
and the highly competitive culture of neoliberal academia. We
found a persistent underlying assumption that Western
theoretical thought is the only knowledge informing, or that
should inform, the scientific realm. Resultantly, a limiting
worldview and a lack of awareness of the value of cross-cultural
interactions pervades. This is problematic because opportunities
to co-produce transdisciplinary knowledge and co-create
solutions to global problems, such as those related to ecology, are
inevitably lost when limiting worldviews on knowledge
production are espoused.
Views of taking into account power relations and colonial legacies
when conducting fieldwork in Indigenous communities were not
a commonly shared vantage point. In fact, no participants in our
study considered scientific knowledge as culturally specific. This
suggests that a reflexive process for researchers is needed to allow
for critical assessments of their own attitudes and perceptions,
and related socio-political histories, as well as, uncovering power
relations and coloniality in research practices. This process could
then set a foundation on which researchers can begin to
contemplate how to unlearn certain attitudes towards Indigenous
knowledge systems and transdisciplinarity with the goal of
accounting for mutually beneficial research-related outcomes.
Understanding this interaction between Indigenous cultures and
the techno-scientific culture is crucial to advancing horizontal
forms of transdisciplinary knowledge co-production as well as
tackling complex sustainability problems through transdisciplinary-
oriented solutions. Key systemic barriers embedded within the
structures of academia and internalized by researchers in the form
of behavioral intentions pose a major roadblock.
A key element that emerged from the data is the role of higher
education in the provision of knowledge and skills that enable
field researchers, operating in Indigenous or marginalized
contexts, to do their job in a manner that meets the goals of the
research product but also contributes to horizontal forms of
transdisciplinary co-production. To accomplish this, there is a
need to inculcate critical consciousness and decolonizing
pedagogies as crosscutting curricula across disciplines in higher
education, particularly research methods or community service
classes. The inclusion of histories of tribal communities in
pedagogical contexts requires the facilitation of what Freire
(1970) refers to as critical consciousness. This decolonial approach
allows for socio-political conversations on cognitive imperialism,
histories of colonialism, and omission of non-Western
epistemologies (Battiste 1998, Dei 2000). It also allows for
conversations about local and Indigenous worldviews, as well as
ethical issues related to community-based research.
Responses to this article can be read online at:
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/issues/responses.
php/12265
Acknowledgments:
Funding for this project was granted by the Global Consortium for
Sustainability Outcomes to foster synergies between research,
educational tourism, and the biocultural sustainability of
Indigenous communities. We are grateful to the team of biologists
and the members of the Waorani community that made this study
possible. We thank the anonymous reviewers for their extremely
thorough and comprehensive comments.
Data Availability:
The data are not publicly available due to containing information
that could compromise the privacy of research participants.
Research approval was sought and granted for this study by Arizona
State University's Institutional Review Board (IRB # 00008895)
as well as permission from the Indigenous leaders of the Waorani
communities.
LITERATURE CITED
Adams, D. 2018. An experience-based perspective on the
relationship between Indigenous and Western epistemic systems
in research. Evaluation Matters—He Take Tô Te Aromatawai
4:35-66. https://doi.org/10.18296/em.0028
Adams, M. S., J. Carpenter, J. A. Housty, D. Neasloss, P. C.
Paquet, C. Service, J. Walkus, and C. T. Darimont. 2014. Toward
increased engagement between academic and indigenous
community partners in ecological research. Ecology and Society
19(3):5. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06569-190305
Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50:179-211. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Apgar, J. M., A. Argumedo, and W. Allen. 2009. Building
transdisciplinarity for managing complexity: lessons from
Indigenous practice. International Journal of Interdisciplinary
Social Sciences 4(5):255-270. https://doi.org/10.18848/1833-1882/
CGP/v04i05/52925
Athayde, S., J. Silva-Lugo, M. Schmink, A. Kaiabi, and M.
Heckenberger. 2017. Reconnecting art and science for
sustainability: learning from indigenous knowledge through
participatory action-research in the Amazon. Ecology and Society
22(2):36. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09323-220236
Armitage, D., F. Berkes, A. Dale E. Kocho-Schellenberg, and E.
Patton. 2011. Co-management and the co-production of
knowledge: learning to adapt in Canada's arctic. Global
environmental Change 21(3):995-1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2011.04.006
Battiste, M. 1998. Enabling the autumn seed: towards a
decolonized approach to Aboriginal knowledge, language, and
education. Canadian Journal of Native Education 22(1):16-27.
Beckerman, S., P.I Erickson, J. Yost, J. Regalado, L. Jaramillo, C.
Sparks, M. Iromenga, and K. Long. 2009. Life histories, blood
revenge, and reproductive success among the Waorani of
Ecuador. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106
(20):8134-8139. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0901431106

Ecology and Society 26(2): 22
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss2/art22/
Beech, N., R. MacIntosh, and D. MacLean. 2010. Dialogues
between academics and practitioners: the role of generative
dialogic encounters. Organization Studies 31(9-10):1341-1367.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840610374396
Bell, D. M., and K. Pahl. 2018. Co-production: towards a utopian
approach. International Journal of Social Research Methodology
21(1):105-117. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2017.1348581
Bernstein, J. H. 2015. Transdisciplinarity: a review of its origins,
development, and current issues. Journal of Research Practice 11
(1):R1.
Bieluch, K. H., K. P. Bell, M. F. Teisl, L. A. Lindenfeld, J. Leahy,
and L. Silka. 2016. Transdisciplinary research partnerships in
sustainability science: an examination of stakeholder
participation preferences. Sustainability Science 12/1:87-104.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0360-x
Bohensky, E. L., and Y. Maru. 2011. Indigenous knowledge,
science, and resilience: What have we learned from a decade of
international literature on “integration”? Ecology and Society 16
(4):6. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04342-160406
Brandt, P., A. Ernst, F. Gralla, C. Luederitz, D.J. Lang, J. Newig,
F. Reinert, D. J. Absone, and H. Von Wehrden. 2013. A review of
transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecological
Economics 92:1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04.008
Brayboy, B. M., and D. Deyhle. 2000. Insider-outsider:
researchers in American Indian communities. Theory Into
Practice 39(3):163-169. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_7
Buzinde, C. N., D. Manuel-Navarrete, and T. Swanson. 2020. Co-
producing sustainable solutions in indigenous communities
through scientific tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 28
(9):1255-1271. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1732993
Chilisa, B. 2017. Decolonising transdisciplinary research
approaches: an African perspective for enhancing knowledge
integration in sustainability science. Sustainability Science 12
(5):813-827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0461-1
Cole, A. 2017. Towards an Indigenous transdisciplinarity.
Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering & Science 8:127-150.
https://doi.org/10.22545/2017/00091
Cram, F., and H. Phillips. 2012. Claiming interstitial space for
multicultural, transdisciplinary research through community-up
values. International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies 5
(2):36-49. https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcis.v5i2.89
Darbellay, F., M. Cockell, J. Billotte and F. Waldvogel, editors.
2008. A Vision of Transdisciplinarity: Laying Foundations for a
World Knowledge Dialogue. CRC Press. https://doi.
org/10.1201/9781439808023
Dei, G. 2000. Rethinking the role of Indigenous knowledges in
the academy. The International Journal of Inclusive Education 4
(2):134-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/136031100284849
Díaz, S., S. Demissew, J. Carabias, C. Joly, M. Lonsdale, N. Ash,
A. Larigauderie, J. R. Adhikari, S. Arico, A. Baldi, et al. 2015.
The IPBES Conceptual Framework—connecting nature and
people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14:1-16.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002
Frandy, T. 2018. Indigenizing sustainabilities, sustaining
indigeneities: decolonization, sustainability, and education.
Journal of Sustainability Education 18.
Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the oppressed. The Continuum
Publishing Corporation, York City, NY.
Fritz, L., and F. Meinherz. 2020. Tracing power in
transdisciplinary sustainability research: an exploration. Gaia-
Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 29: 41-51. https://
doi.org/10.14512/gaia.29.1.9
Grilli, G., and S. Notaro. 2019. Exploring the influence of an
extended theory of planned behaviour on preferences and
willingness to pay for participatory natural resources
management. Journal of Environmental Management 232:902-909.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.11.103
Grosfoguel, R. 2011. Decolonizing post-colonial studies and
paradigms of political-economy: transmodernity, decolonial
thinking, and global coloniality. Transmodernity: Journal of
Peripheral Cultural Production of the Luso-Hispanic World 1(1).
Hargreaves, T. 2011. Practice-ing behaviour change: applying
social practice theory to pro-environmental behaviour change.
Journal of Consumer Culture 11(1):79-99. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1469540510390500
Hill, R., Ç. Adem, W.V. Alangui, Z. Molnár, Y. Aumeeruddy-
Thomas, P. Bridgewater, M. Tengo, R. Thaman, C. Y. Adou Yao,
F. Berkes, et al. 2020. Working with indigenous, local and scientific
knowledge in assessments of nature and nature’s linkages with
people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 43:8-20.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.12.006
Hodge, F. S. 2012. No meaningful apology for American Indian
unethical research abuses. Ethics & Behavior 22(6):431-444.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2012.730788
Johnson, J. T., R. Howitt, G. Cajete, F. Berkes, R.P. Louis, and
A. Kliskey. 2016. Weaving Indigenous and sustainability sciences
to diversify our methods. Sustainability Science 11(1):1-11.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0349-x
Klenk, N., and K. Meehan. 2015. Climate change and
transdisciplinary science: problematizing the integration
imperative. Environmental Science & Policy 54:160-167. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.05.017
Kofinas, G., 2002. Community contributions to ecological
monitoring: knowledge coproduction in the US-Canada arctic
borderlands. In: The Earth Is Faster Now: Indigenous Observations
of Arctic Environmental Change. Arctic Research Consortium of
the United States. Fairbanks. 54-91.
Koskinen, I., and U. Mäki. 2016. Extra-academic transdisciplinarity
and scientific pluralism: what might they learn from one another?
European Journal for Philosophy of Science 6(3):419-444. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s13194-016-0141-5
Kvale, S. 1996. InterViews: an introduction to qualitive research
interviewing. Sage.
Lam, D., E. Hinz, D. Lang, M. Tengö, H. von Wehrden, and B.
Martín-López. 2020. Indigenous and local knowledge in
sustainability transformations research: a literature review.
Ecology and Society 25(1):3. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11305-250103

Ecology and Society 26(2): 22
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss2/art22/
Latour, B. 2016. A dialog about a new meaning of symmetric
anthropology. Interview by Carolina Miranda. In P. Charbonnier,
G. Salmon, & P. Skafish, editors Comparative Metaphysics:
Ontology After Anthropology. 327-345.
Latulippe, N., and N. Klenk. 2020. Making room and moving
over: knowledge co-production, Indigenous knowledge
sovereignty and the politics of global environmental change
decision-making. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
42:7-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.10.010
Long, K. 2019. God in the Rainforest: Missionaries and the
Waorani in Amazonian Ecuador. Oxford University Press. https://
doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190608989.001.0001
Lotz-Sisitka, H. B., 2017. Decolonisation as future frame for
environmental and sustainability education: embracing the
commons with absence and emergence. In P. Corcoran and J.
Weakland, editors. Envisioning Futures for Environment and
Sustainability Education. Wageningen Academic Publishers.,
Wageningen. 45-62. https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-846-9_2
Mamdani, M. 2019. Decolonising universities. In T. Halvorsen,
K. Skare Orgeret, and R. Krovel, editors. Sharing Knowledge,
Transforming Societies: The Norhed Programme 2013-2020.
African Books Collective, 48-67. https://doi.org/10.18772/22019083351.6
Manuel-Navarrete, D. 2015. Double coupling: modeling
subjectivity and asymmetric organization in social-ecological
systems. Ecology and Society 20(3):26. https://doi.org/10.5751/
ES-07720-200326
Manuel-Navarrete, D., C. Morehart, B. Tellman, H. Eakin, J.M.
Siqueiros-García, and B.H. Aguilar. 2019. Intentional Disruption
of Path-dependencies in the Anthropocene: Gray versus Green
Water Infrastructure Regimes in Mexico City, Mexico.
Anthropocene 26(100209). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2019.100209
McGregor, S. 2015. The Nicolescuian and Zurich approaches to
transdisciplinarity. Integral Leadership Review April - June.
Mignolo, W. D. 2017. Coloniality is far from over, and so must
be decoloniality. Afterall: A Journal of Art, Context and Enquiry
43(1):38-45. https://doi.org/10.1086/692552
Miller, C.A., and C. Wyborn. 2020. Co-production in global
sustainability: histories and theories. Environmental Science &
Policy 113:88-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.01.016
Mistry, J., and A. Berardi. 2016. Bridging indigenous and
scientific knowledge. Science 352(6291):1274-1275. https://doi.
org/10.1126/science.aaf1160
Nakata, M. 2002. Indigenous knowledge and the cultural
interface: underlying issues at the intersection of knowledge and
information systems. IFLA journal 28(5-6):281-291. https://doi.
org/10.1177/034003520202800513
Newig, J., S. Jahn, D.J. Lang, J. Kahle, and M. Bergmann. 2019.
Linking modes of research to their scientific and societal
outcomes. Evidence from 81 sustainability-oriented research
projects. Environmental Science & Policy 101:147-155. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.08.008
Nicolescu, B. 2010. Methodology of transdisciplinarity-levels of
reality, logic of the included middle and complexity.
Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering & Science, 1:17-32
https://doi.org/10.22545/2010/0009
Nicolescu, B. 2014. From Modernity to Cosmodernity: Science,
Culture, and Spirituality. SUNY Press.
Nowotny, H., P. Scott, and M. Gibbons. 2003. Introduction:
'Mode 2' revisited: the new production of knowledge. Minerva 41
(3):179-194.
Parrado-Rosselli, A. 2007. A collaborative research process
studying fruit availability and seed dispersal within an indigenous
community in the Middle Caqueta River region, Colombian
Amazon. Ecology and Society 12(2):39. https://doi.org/10.5751/
ES-02219-120239
Raffles, H. 2002. Intimate knowledge. International Social Science
Journal 54(3):325-335. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2451.00385
Rival, L. 1993. The growth of family trees: understanding
Huaorani perceptions of the forest. Man 28(4): 635-652. https://
doi.org/10.2307/2803990
Rosendahl, J., M.A. Zanella, S. Rist, and J. Weigelt. 2015.
Scientists’ situated knowledge: strong objectivity in transdisciplinarity.
Futures 65:17-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.10.011
Santos Boaventura de Sousa. 2014. Epistemologies of the South:
Justice against Epistemicide. Paradigm Publishers, Boulder, CO.
Schmidt, L., and M. Neuburger. 2017. Trapped between privileges
and precariousness: tracing transdisciplinary research in a
postcolonial setting. Futures 93:54-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
futures.2017.07.005
Simpson, L. 2001. Aboriginal peoples and knowledge:
decolonizing our processes. The Canadian Journal of Native
Studies 21(1):137-148.
Talbot, S. 2002. Academic Indianismo: social scientific research
in American Indian studies. American Indian Culture and Research
Journal 26(4):67-96. https://doi.org/10.17953/aicr.26.4.j3w2317170370937
Tuhiwai-Smith, L. 1999. Decolonizing methodologies: research
and indigenous peoples. University of Otago Press. Dunedin, New
Zealand.
Turnhout, E., T. Metze, C. Wyborn, N. Klenk, and E. Louder.
2020. The politics of co-production: participation, power, and
transformation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
42:15-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.11.009
Velasquez Runk, J. 2014. Enriching indigenous knowledge
scholarship via collaborative methodologies: beyond the high
tide’s few hours. Ecology and Society 19(4):37. https://doi.
org/10.5751/ES-06773-190437
wa Thiong’o, N. 1986. Decolonising the Mind. James Currey Ltd.,
London
Weston, C., T. Gandell, J. Beauchamp, L. McAlpine, C. Wiseman,
and C. Beauchamp. 2001. Analyzing interview data: The
development and evolution of a coding system. Qualitative
Sociology 24(3):381-400. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1010690908200
Zingerli, C. 2010. A sociology of international research
partnerships for sustainable development. The European Journal
of Development Research 22(2):217-233. https://doi.org/10.1057/
ejdr.2010.1