No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Negotiating Co-production: Climbing the Learning Curve
Abstract
Confronted with the complex environmental crises of the Anthropocene, scientists have moved towards an interdisciplinary approach to address challenges that are both social and ecological. Several arenas are now calling for co-production of new transdisciplinary knowledge by combining Indigenous knowledge and science. This book revisits epistemological debates on the notion of co-production and assesses the relevant methods, principles and values that enable communities to co-produce. It explores the factors that determine how indigenous-scientific knowledge can be rooted in equity, mutual respect and shared benefits. Resilience through Knowledge Co-Production includes several collective papers co-authored by Indigenous experts and scientists, with case studies involving Indigenous communities from the Arctic, Pacific islands, the Amazon, the Sahel and high altitude areas. Offering guidance to indigenous peoples, scientists, decision-makers and NGOs, this book moves towards a decolonised co-production of knowledge that unites indigenous knowledge and science to address global environmental crises.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
1. There have been calls for greater inclusion of Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) in applied ecosystems research and ecological assessments. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Global Assessment (GA) is the first assessment to systematically work with ILK and issues of concern to Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLC) at the global scale. In this paper, we review and reflect on how the GA worked with ILK and lessons learned.
2. The GA engaged in critical evaluation and synthesis of existing evidence from multiple sources, using several deliberative steps: having specific authors and questions focus on ILK; integrating inputs from ILK across all chapters; organizing dialogue workshops; issuing calls for contributions to identify other forms and systems of knowledge; and encouraging IPLC to be key stakeholders and contributors.
3. We identify content areas where attention to ILK was particularly important for questions in applied ecology. These include: 1) enriching understandings of nature and its contributions to people, including ecosystem services; 2) assisting in assessing and monitoring ecosystem change; 3) contributing to international targets and scenario development to achieve global goals like the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and the Sustainable Development Goals; and 4) generating inclusive and policy-relevant options for people and nature. However, challenges in engaging different knowledge systems in a transparent, equitable and legitimate manner were also encountered.
4. Policy implications: The GA demonstrated the global importance of Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLC) to biodiversity conservation and ecosystem management. Initiatives seeking to engage Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) can learn from the experience of the GA and other IPBES assessments. Successfully bringing ILK into assessment processes and policy arenas requires a deliberate framework and approach from the start that facilitates recognition of different knowledge systems, identifies questions relevant at various scales, mobilizes funding and recognizes time required, and engages networks of stakeholders with diverse worldviews. In turn, fostering inclusion of ILK and partnering with IPLC can help future assessments understand how natural and cultural systems co-produce each other, identify trends of change through diverse biocultural indicators, and improve sustainable development goals and policies.
Background
Drawing upon multiple types of knowledge (e.g., Indigenous knowledge, local knowledge, science-based knowledge) strengthens the evidence-base for policy advice, decision making, and environmental management. While the benefits of incorporating multiple types of knowledge in environmental research and management are many, doing so has remained a challenge. This systematic map examined the extent, range, and nature of the published literature (i.e., commercially published and grey) that seeks to respectively bridge Indigenous and science-based knowledge in coastal and marine research and management in Canada.
Methods
This systematic map applied standardized search terms across four databases focused on commercially published literature, carefully selected specialist websites, and two web-based search engines. In addition, reference sections of relevant review articles were cross-checked to identify articles that may not have been found using the search strategy. Search results were screened in two sequential stages; (1) at title and abstract; and (2) at full text following a published protocol. All case studies included were coded using a standard questionnaire. A narrative synthesis approach was used to identify trends in the evidence, knowledge gaps, and knowledge clusters.
Results
A total of 62 articles that spanned 71 Canadian case studies were included in the systematic map. Studies across the coastal and marine regions of Inuit Nunangat accounted for the majority of the studies. Whether the focus is on management and decision making or research and monitoring, the predominant ecological scale was at the species level, accounting for over two-thirds of the included studies. There were 24 distinct coastal and marine species of central focus across the studies. Nunavut had the greatest taxonomic coverage as studies conducted to date cover 13 different genera. The predominant methodology employed for combining and/or including Indigenous knowledge was case study design, which accounted for over half of the studies. Other methodologies employed for combining and/or including different ways of knowing included: (i) community-based participatory research; (ii) mixed methods; (iii) ethnography; and (iv) simulation modelling. There are a suite of methods utilized for documenting and translating Indigenous knowledge and an equally diverse tool box of methods used in the collection of scientific data. Over half of the case studies involved Indigenous knowledge systems of the Inuit, while another significant proportion involved Indigenous knowledge systems of First Nations, reflecting 21 unique nations. We found that demographics of knowledge holders were generally not reported in the articles reviewed.
Conclusions
The results of this systematic map provide key insights to inform and improve future research. First, a variety of methodologies and methods are used in these types of studies. Therefore, there is a need to consider in more detail how Indigenous and science-based knowledge systems can be respectively bridged across subjects while also recognizing specific place-based needs of Indigenous communities. Second, the work highlights the need to better report the demographics of knowledge holders. Further inquiry focused on the extent of knowledge co-production and assessing Indigenous participation across different stages of the research process would serve the research community well to improve future research and monitoring in support of, and to strengthen, evidence-based environmental management.
For millennia Indigenous communities worldwide have maintained diverse knowledge systems informed through careful observation of dynamics of environmental changes. Although Indigenous communities and their knowledge systems are recognized as critical resources for understanding and adapting to climate change, no comprehensive, evidence-based analysis has been conducted into how environmental studies engage Indigenous communities. Here we provide the first global systematic review of levels of Indigenous community participation and decision-making in all stages of the research process (initiation, design, implementation, analysis, dissemination) in climate field studies that access Indigenous knowledge. We develop indicators for assessing responsible community engagement in research practice and identify patterns in levels of Indigenous community engagement. We find that the vast majority of climate studies (87%) practice an extractive model in which outside researchers use Indigenous knowledge systems with minimal participation or decision-making authority from communities who hold them. Few studies report on outputs that directly serve Indigenous communities, ethical guidelines for research practice, or providing Indigenous community access to findings. Further, studies initiated with (in mutual agreement between outside researchers and Indigenous communities) and by Indigenous community members report significantly more indicators for responsible community engagement when accessing Indigenous knowledges than studies initiated by outside researchers alone. This global assessment provides an evidence base to inform our understanding of broader social impacts related to research design and concludes with a series of guiding questions and methods to support responsible research practice with Indigenous and local communities.
Cambridge Core - Climatology and Climate Change - Indigenous Knowledge for Climate Change Assessment and Adaptation - edited by Douglas Nakashima
This review paper addresses the challenging question of “how to” design and implement co-production of knowledge in climate science and other environmental and agricultural sciences. Based on a grounded theory review of nine (9) published case studies of transdisciplinary and collaborative research projects, the paper offers a set of common themes regarding specific components and processes for the design, implementation, and achievement of co-production of knowledge work, which represent the “Modus Operandi” of knowledge co-production. The analysis focuses on practical methodological guidance based on lessons from how different research teams have approached the challenges of complex collaborative research. We begin by identifying broad factors or actions that inhibit or facilitate the process, then highlight specific practices associated with co-production of knowledge and necessary competencies for undertaking co-production. We provide insights on issues such as the integration of social and professional cultures, gender and social equity, and power dynamics, and illustrate the different ways in which researchers have addressed these issues. By exploring the specific practices involved in knowledge co-production, this paper provides guidance to researchers on how to navigate different possibilities of the process of conducting transdisciplinary and co-production of knowledge research projects that best fit their research context, stakeholder needs, and research team capacities.
“Co-production” is becoming an increasingly popular term in policymaking, governance, and research. While the shift from engagement and involvement to co-production in health care holds the promise of revolutionising health services and research, it is not always evident what counts as co-production: what is being produced, under what circumstances, and with what implications for participants. We discuss these questions and propose that co-production can be understood as an exploratory space and a generative process that leads to different, and sometimes unexpected, forms of knowledge, values, and social relations. By opening up this discussion, we hope to stimulate future debates on co-production as well as draw out ways of thinking differently about collaboration and participation in health care and research.
Though climate change is a global process, current discussions emphasize its local impacts. A review of media representations, public opinion polls, international organization documents, and scientific reports shows that global attention to climate change is distributed unevenly, with the impacts of climate change seen as an urgent concern in some places and less pressing in others. This uneven attention, or specificity, is linked to issues of selectivity (the inclusion of some cases and exclusion of others), historicity (the long temporal depth of the pathways to inclusion or exclusion), and consequentiality (the effects of this specificity on claims of responsibility for climate change). These issues are explored through a historical examination of four cases—two (the Arctic, low-lying islands) strongly engaged with climate change frameworks, and two (mountains, deserts) closely associated with other frameworks of sustainable development rather than climate change. For all four regions, the 1960s and 1970s were a key period of initial involvement with environmental issues; the organizations and frameworks that developed at that time shaped the engagement with climate change issues. In turn, the association of climate change with a few remote areas influences climate change institutions and discourses at a global scale.
This compendium presents a wide-ranging overview of more than 400 projects, case studies and research activities specifically related to climate change and Indigenous Peoples. It provides a sketch of the climate and environmental changes, local observations and impacts being felt by communities in different regions, and outlines various adaptation and mitigation strategies that are currently being implemented by Indigenous Peoples – the world’s “advance guard” of climate change – as they use their traditional knowledge and survival skills to trial adaptive responses to change.
When considering climate change, indigenous peoples and marginalized populations warrant particular attention. Impacts on their territories and communities are anticipated to be both early and severe due to their location in vulnerable environments, including small islands, high-altitude zones, desert margins and the circumpolar Arctic. Indeed, climate change poses a direct threat to many indigenous societies due to their continuing reliance upon resource-based livelihoods. Heightened exposure to negative impacts, however, is not the only reason for specific attention and concern. As many indigenous societies are socially and culturally distinct from mainstream society, decisions, policies and actions undertaken by the majority, even if well-intended, may prove inadequate, ill-adapted, and even inappropriate. There is therefore a need understand the specific vulnerabilities, concerns, adaptation capacities and longer-term aspirations of indigenous peoples and marginalized communities throughout the world. Indigenous and traditional knowledge contribute to this broader understanding.
Indigenous and rural peoples, however, are not only potential victims of global climate change. Attentiveness to environmental variability, shifts and trends is an integral part of their ways of life. Community-based and local knowledge may offer valuable insights into environmental change due to climate change, and complement broader-scale scientific research with local precision and nuance. Indigenous societies have elaborated coping strategies to deal with unstable environments, and in some cases, are already actively adapting to early climate change impacts. While the transformations due to climate change are expected to be unprecedented, indigenous knowledge and coping strategies provide a crucial foundation for community-based adaptation measures.
This publication reviews the rapidly growing scientific literature on the contributions of indigenous and traditional knowledge to understanding climate change vulnerability, resilience and adaptation.
Recent environmental changes are having, and are expected to continue to have, significant impacts in the Arctic as elsewhere in the world. Detecting those changes and determining the mechanisms that cause them are far from trivial problems. The use of multiple methods of observation can increase confidence in individual observations, broaden the scope of information available about environmental change, and contribute to insights concerning mechanisms of change. In this paper, we examine the ways that using traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) together with scientific observations can achieve these objectives. A review of TEK observations in comparison with scientific observations demonstrates the promise of this approach, while also revealing several challenges to putting it into practice on a large scale. Further efforts are suggested, particularly in undertaking collaborative projects designed to produce parallel observations that can be readily compared and analyzed in greater detail than is possible in an opportunistic sample.
The IPCC is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change, forming the interface between science, policy and global politics. Indigenous issues have been under-represented in previous IPCC assessments. In this Perspective, we analyse how indigenous content is covered and framed in the Working Group II (WGII) portion of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). We find that although there is reference to indigenous content in WGII, which increased from the Fourth Assessment Report, the coverage is general in scope and limited in length, there is little critical engagement with indigenous knowledge systems, and the historical and contextual complexities of indigenous experiences are largely overlooked. The development of culturally relevant and appropriate adaptation policies requires more robust, nuanced and appropriate inclusion and framing of indigenous issues in future assessment reports, and we outline how this can be achieved.
Indigenous sea ice experts from three Alaskan communities, geophysicists, an anthropologist, and information technology specialists collaborated to develop an observational framework and a database to record, archive, disseminate, and analyze sea ice observations. Observations are based on ice uses and information about ice conditions, weather, ocean state, and animal behavior relevant to hunters and to community members. Daily logs kept during the ice season have been archived since 2006, with key variables extracted for subcategories pertaining to weather and ice observations, ice-related activities, and wildlife. The observation program and the development of the associated database are discussed in terms of community wishes and information needs and the potential uses for hunters, students, and others in coastal Alaska. Database records for Gambell, Wales, and Barrow, Alaska, are analyzed to arrive at a representative seasonal cycle of ice conditions for 2006/2007. This single year is placed into a longer-term context by examining interannual variability for freeze-up and breakup dates from 2006 through 2011 extracted from the database. We discuss the adaptive nature of the database framework and its relevance to coastal communities in gathering and transmitting knowledge about the ice environment that can help in adapting to rapid Arctic change.
International awareness of the role of indigenous knowledge in resource management is of recent date. This article is based on interviews with Cree Indians of Whapmagoostui (James Bay, Canada) compiled by the authors in 1994, in the context of a social and environmental impact assessment of the proposed Great Whale River hydroelectric project. One Cree hunter, disturbed by the many gaps he had identified in the developer's environmental impact assessment document, made a concerted effort to convey his knowledge and world-view. His systematic analysis, of which data concerning the beaver are focused upon here, highlights the ecological relationships that interconnect humans, mammals, birds, and fish, including the species-specific needs of human and non-human beings for habitat, food, and shelter. Transcending the compartmentalised view of Western science, his vision combines the material, aesthetic and ethical while taking into account the impacts of human action on both natural and spiritual worlds. Furthermore, it demonstrates the predictive capacity of Cree knowledge and thought, as well as their relevance and legitimacy as assessment tools.
Indigenous and other traditional peoples are only rarely
considered in academic, policy and public discourses on climate
change, despite the fact that they are and will be greatly impacted
by present and impending changes. Symptomatic of the neglect of
indigenous peoples, the recently released IPCC II (2007) report
summary on climate change impacts makes only scarce mention of
indigenous peoples, and then only in polar regions and merely as
helpless victims of changes beyond their control. The IPCC III
(2007) report on mitigation of climate change does not consider
the role of indigenous peoples at all. This view of indigenous
peoples as passive and helpless, at best, is not new, with roots
going back to colonialism and reoccurring in contemporary
discussions of development, conservation, indigenous rights, and
indigenous knowledge.
The inhabitants of Oceania traditionally obtained 90% of their animal protein from the sea; terrestrial food supplies were limited and often precarious. Deliberate marine conservation measures were characteristic, such as closed seasons, size selection and allowing a portion of the catch to escpae. The impact of westernization was such that a money economy was introduced, traditional authority broke down, and new laws and practices were imposed by colonial powers. Although there may soon be a return to economic and nutritional self-sufficiency, the traditional island conservation ethic will continue to be eroded as long as capitalist economies dominate in these Pacific islands. -P.J.Jarvis
In this paper we explore how Western scientific concepts and attitudes towards indigenous knowledge, as they pertain to resource management and climate change, differ from the prevailing view in modern Russia. Western indigenous leaders representing the Inuit and Saami peoples are actively engaged in the academic and political discourse surrounding climate change, whereas their Russian colleagues tend to focus more on legislation and self-determination, as a post-Soviet legacy. We contribute to the debate with data from the Nenets tundra, showing how different research has employed the three crucial Western research paradigms of climate change, wildlife management and indigenous knowledge on the ground. We suggest that the daily practice of tundra nomadism involves permanent processes of negotiating one's position in a changing environment, which is why “adaptation” is woven into the society, and cosmology as a whole, rather than being separable into distinct “bodies” of knowledge or Western-designed categories. We argue that research agendas should be placed in their proper local and regional context, and temporal framework: for example, by collaborating with herders on the topics of weather instead of climate change, herding skills instead of wildlife management, and ways of engaging with the tundra instead of traditional ecological knowledge.
This paper examines the use of interactive models of research in the US regional integrated scientific assessments (RISAS), using as a case study the climate assessment of the Southwest (CLIMAS). It focuses on three components of regional climate assessments: interdisciplinarity, interaction with stakeholders and production of usable knowledge, and on the role of three explanatory variables––the level of ‘fit’ between state of knowledge production and application, disciplinary and personal flexibility, and availability of resources—which affect the co-production of science and policy in the context of integrated assessments. It finds that although no single model can fulfill the multitude of goals of such assessments, it is in highly interactive models that the possibilities of higher levels of innovation and related social impact are most likely to occur.
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’. Resolution adopted 13
- Un General Assembly
Knowing Our Lands and Resources: Indigenous and Local Knowledge of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Europe and Central Asia
- M Roué
- Z Molnár
Understanding the Arctic through a Co-production of Knowledge
- C Behe
- R Daniel
- J Raymond-Yakoubian
The Changing Arctic: Indigenous Perspectives
- H Huntington
- S Fox
- F Berkes
- I Krupnik
Our ice, snow and winds”: From knowledge integration to co-production in the Russian SIKU project
- I Krupnik
- L S Bogoslovskaya
Watching Ice and Weather Our Way/Sikimengllu Eslamengllu Esghapalleghput. Washington DC: Arctic Studies Center, Savoonga Whaling Captains Association, and Marine Mammal Commission
- C Oozeva
- C Noongwook
- G Noongwook
- C Alowa
- I Krupnik
Can co-management save arctic wildlife? Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development
- G Osherenko
Indigenous and Traditional Peoples and Climate Change
- M Macchi
Voices from the Bay: Traditional Ecological Knowledge of Inuit and Cree in the Hudson Bay Bioregion Ottawa: Canadian Arctic Resource Committee, and Sanikiluaq
- M Mcdonald
- L Arragutainaq
- Z Novalinga