Access to this full-text is provided by Wiley.
Content available from Ecological Solutions and Evidence
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Ecol Solut Evid. 2024;5:e12351.
|
1 of 9
https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.12351
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/eso3
Received:23May2023
|
Accepted :16May2024
DOI: 10.1002/2688-8319.12351
REGISTERED REPORT STAGE 1
Approaches and methods used to bring together Indigenous
and Environmental science Knowledge in environmental
research: A systematic map protocol
Emma Pirie1 | Tom Whillans2 | Jennie Knopp3 | Chris Furgal1,4
This is an op en access arti cle under the ter ms of the CreativeCommonsAttribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium,
provide d the original wor k is properly cited.
©2024TheAut hor(s).Ecological Solutions and Evidence published by John Wiley & S ons Ltd on b ehalf of British Ecologic al Society.
1Indigenous Environmental Institute, Trent
University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada
2School of the Environment , Trent
University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada
3Oceans North , Ott awa, Ont ario, C anada
4Indigenous Environmental Studies and
Science s Program, Trent Universit y,
Peterborough, Ontario, Canada
Correspondence
Emma Piri e
Email: emmapirie@trentu.ca
Funding information
Northern Scientific Training Program
Handling Editor: Costanza Rampini
Abstract
1. The bringing together of multiple knowledge sources, such as Indigenous knowl-
edge(IK)andEnvironmentalscienceKnowledge(ESK),isatopicofconsiderable
interest and significance in environmental research. In the areas of resource man-
agement for exa mple, the brin ging together of IK and E SK datasets h as raised
considerable interest for its potential to increase understanding and provide in-
sights into complex phenomena such as the effects of climate change and vari-
ability on wildlife health and distribution.
2. The potential benefits that exist from merging these knowledge sources have
been widely acknowledged. However, navigating the complex processes involved
in knowledge linking continues to pose significant challenges. This systematic
mapping protocol will guide the collection and analysis of literature to examine
the approaches and methods used in published studies that aim to bring together
Indigenous and Environmental science Knowledge in environmental research.
The particular focus of this examination is placed on identification of the types of
approachesandmethodsusedtomergeIKandESKdatasetsatthestagesofdata
analysis, results, and interpretation/discussion in the research process.
3. Through a scoping exercise, a draft search string was developed based on a prede-
termined list of keywords. Consultation was held with a senior Indigenous scholar
toadviseonthekeywordsusedandconsiderationforIKlikelytoberepresented
in the collected literature. The final search string will be applied to online biblio-
graphic databases to collect studies published in peer- reviewed journals. The final
capture ofthesearch will bescreenedintwostages:(1)attheleveloftitleand
abstractand(2)atfull-text.
4. All studies inclu ded will be coded using a s tandardised cod ing template and a
narrative synthesis approach will be used to identify patterns in the evidence,
including knowledge gaps and clusters.
5. Practical implication: The resulting systematic map, following the outlined pro-
cedures in this protocol and considering guidelines from the Collaboration for
2 of 9
|
PIRIE et al.
1 | INTRODUC TION
1.1 | Background
The bringing together of Indigenous Knowledge (IK ) and
Environmental science Knowledge (ESK) baseshasbeen a topicof
interest within academic research, natural resource management
andIndigenouscommunitiesforsometime(Turnbull,2003).Inthe
areas of natural resource management for example, the bringing to-
getherofIKandESKhasraisedconsiderableinterestforitspotential
to increase understanding and provide insights into complex phe-
nomena such as the effect s of climate change and variabilit y on wild-
lifehealthanddistribution (e.g. Gagnon & Berteaux,2009; Hauser
et al., 2021). The recognition of the role of multiple knowledge
systems in sustainable resource management and biodiversity con-
servation has led to various international reports and agreements,
such as The Brundtland Report, The Convention on Biodiversity,
andAgenda21, emphasisingtheimportanceofengagingandincor-
porating knowledge held by Indigenous peoples for more informed
environmentalpolicyanddecision-makingprocesses(Higgins,1998;
Tengö et al., 2017). Effective wildlife and resource management
practices require a holistic and accurate underst anding of ecosystem
dynamic s and must also refl ect the needs of resource use rs involved/
affected (Gilchrist et al., 2005; Huntington, 2000; Laidler, 2006;
Russell et al., 2013). Furthermore, ithas longbeen consideredim-
perative to recognise the role that active and equitable engagement
of Indigenous peoples can play in advancing environmental research
and decision- making, fostering inclusivity and promoting collabora-
tionbetweenknowledgesystemsandholders(McGregor,2000).
Subsequently, there have been numerous ar ticles published in
the field of environmental sciences and studies attempting to link
bothIndigenousandEnvironmentalscienceKnowledge(seeTable 1
for definitions). The processes involved in knowledge linking are
complex and should not be viewed with a one- size- fits- all perspec-
tive(Bohensky&Maru,2011; Johnson et al., 2023).Thisstudyrec-
ognises that there are many levels of knowledge linking; different
methods and approaches exist at each level; and that there is overlap
between and among linking levels or phases.
Various studies have explored knowledge linking across different
stages of research, ranging from project design and collaboration,
to research methodology, and data collection (Figure 1a). For ex-
ample, re searcher s such as Thornt on and Scheer ( 2012),Castleden
etal. (2017),Stefanelli et al. (2017 ) and Henri et al. (2021)have fo-
cused primarily on identifying methods and approaches related to
knowledge linking t aking place at the level of projec t design and col-
labo rat io n.Add it ion al ly,C ast le den et al .(20 17) ,Ste fa nel li etal.(2017),
EnvironmentalEvidence(CEE)andReportingstandardsforSystematicEvidence
Syntheses(ROSES),canservetosupportandinformfutureresearchendeavours
engagedinworkingtowardsthelinkingofIKandESK,withpracticalimplications
for communities and policymakers.
KEYWORDS
decision-making,ecologicalresearch,environmentalmanagement,IndigenousKnowledge,
policy, science, systematic map
TABLE 1 Definitionsofkeyconcepts.
Indigenous Knowledge
IndigenousKnowledge,aspartofalargersystemofknowledge,
can be def ined as ‘a cumulative body of knowledge, practice
and belief, evolving by adaptive processes and handed down
through generations by cultural transmission, about the relation of
livingbeings(includinghumans)withoneanotherandwiththeir
environment’(B erkesetal.,2000).AccordingtoBattis te(20 19),
IndigenousKnowledgesare‘diverselearningprocessesthat
come from living intimately with the land, working with resources
surrounding that land base, and the relationships that it has fos tered
overtimeandplace’(p.33).IndigenousKnowledgehasalsobeen
commonly referred to in the academic literature as Traditional
EcologicalKnowledgeandIndigenousScience(Cajete,1999).
Environmental science Knowledge
EnvironmentalscienceKnowledge,afieldofscience,whichis
part of a broader s ystem of knowledge that can be traced back
to the philosophical traditions of ancient Egypt, India, China and
Greece,aswellasthemorerecentRenaissance(Mazzocchi,2006).
This knowledge is represented by various models of inquiry, such
as classical, hypothetico- deductive and pragmatic approaches.
AlthoughitisoftenassociatedwithEurocent ricworldviewsand
epistemologies(Aikenhead&Ogawa,20 07)andcommonlyreferred
toas“WesternScientificK nowledge”withintheenvironment al
studies and sciences literature, the authors acknowledge that
scienceisnotinherentlyWestern(Raju,2009)andwillusetheterm
“EnvironmentalscienceKnowledge”throughout.
Knowledge linking
Knowledgelinkinghasbeencommonlyreferredtointheacademic
literatureasKnowledgebridging ,merging,weavingandbraiding
(Johnsonetal.,2016)andcanoccuratoneormores tagesofthe
knowledgeproductionp rocess.Forthepurposesofthisstudy,
knowledge linking can be broadly defined as any planned and/or
purposeful undertaking of the bringing together of Indigenous and
EnvironmentalscienceKnowledgeasrepresentedbydatagenerated
through epistemologic al processes accepted within each knowledge
system. This def inition is inclusive of that put forth by Johnson
etal.(2016)onco-productionofknowledge,includingIndigenous
Knowledges,andbyAlexanderetal.(2021)whenspeakingof
knowledge bridging. The focus in this paper is more specific than each
of these though in that we examine this phenomenon at the stage of
interconnected analysis of data originating from the two knowledge
systemsandthereforeclarifyouruseoftheterm“linking”here.
|
3 of 9
PIRIE et al.
FIGURE 1 (a)Examplesofworkthathaveexploredandexaminedaspectsofknowledgelinkingatvariousstagesoftheresearchprocess.
(b)Focusoftheproposedreviewanditsintendedcontributiontotheliterature.
(b)
Linking through data
analysis
Linking to inform data collection
Linking to inform research
methodology
Linking for project design and collaboration
(e.g. Castleden et al., 2017; Henri et al., 2021; Stefanelli
et al., 2017; Thornton & Scheer, 2012)
(e.g.Alexander et al., 2019a,b, 2021; Castleden et al.,
2017; Henri et al., 2021; Stefanelli et al., 2017)
(e.g. Alexander et al., 2019a,b, 2021; Castleden et al.,
2017; Henri et al., 2021; Stefanelli et al., 2017)
(e.g. examination of challenges in and review of
linking through statistical analysis (Bélisle et al.,
2018; Stern & Humphries, 2022))
(a)
4 of 9
|
PIRIE et al.
Alexander,Provencher,Henri, Taylor,and Cooke (2019), Alexander,
Provencher,Henri,Taylor,Lloren,etal.(2 019),Alexanderetal.(2021)
and Henr i et al. (2021) have explore d knowledge l inking with in the
context of approaches and methods for data collection as they relate
towaterorterrestrialresearchandmanagement.Bélisleetal.(2018)
examined how common challenges to local ecological knowledge
(LEK) inclusion in ecological modelling have been confronted inthe
literature, while Stern and Humphries (2022) reviewed the meth-
ods used to weave experiential wildlife knowledge into quantitative,
mixed methods analyses of population and habitat models.
The current work extends this research to further explore the pro-
cessesinvolvedinlinkingIKandESK,butspecificallyatthestageofdata
analysis, presentation and interpretation, and across multiple fields of
environmentalstudiesandsciencesaroundtheglobe(Figure 1b).
Many different methodological approaches, methods and tech-
niques have been developed and used in dif ferent regions around
the world f or the purpo ses of bringin g together IK an d ESK at vari-
ous stages of the research process and this number continues to grow.
Thediversityhighlights thecomplexnatureofIKandESK knowledge
interaction in environmental research. In support of the ongoing im-
portance of fostering meaningful engagement of both Indigenous and
environmental science knowledges in research, and in recognition of
the existence of multiple levels of knowledge interactions, the aim of
this systematic map is to contribute to this existing body of literature
and support ongoing research using or further exploring ways to bring
together these knowledges to address important environmental chal-
lenges. This will be done by using a systematic mapping approach to
identif y and examine the approaches and methods used in published
studies from around the globe that aim to bring together Indigenous
and Environmental scienceKnowledges within the fields ofenviron-
mental studies and sciences, with particular emphasis on methods and
approaches used for data analysis, results and interpretation/discus-
sion stages of the research process.
1.2 | Primary research question and objectives
This work is guided by the question: What approaches and meth-
ods do peer- reviewed papers in the field of environmental studies
and sciences use to bring together Indigen ous Knowledge (IK ) and
Environmental scienceKnowledge(ESK)during the dataanalysis,re-
sults and/or discussion stages of the research process? In this study,
we will employ a systematic mapping approach to categorise and clas-
sify key aspects of existing research papers within the scope of our in-
vestigation. It is the intent of this protocol to outline the methodology
for the conduct of a systematic map. In contrast to systematic reviews,
our methodology will concentrate on organising and thematically de-
scribing the available literature, without the need for data synthesis or
evaluating the quality or validity of individual studies, as outlined by
CollaborationforEnvironmentalEvidence(CEE)(2018).Thisapproach
is particularly suited to the broad objectives and scope of our work.
This method will allow us to provide a comprehensive over view of
theresearchlandscape, identifyinggeneral studycharacteristics(e.g.
publicationyear,geographic distribution,focusof study,etc.)andkey
approaches and methods used to bringtogether IK andESK, specifi-
cally those used at the stage of data analysis, results and discussion in
the research process.
1.3 | Components of the research question
For this proto col and the re sulting sys tematic map, de scription of
identified and explored articles will include the following compo-
nents(seeTable 2formoredetails):
• Population: Articl es within the fie lds of environmen tal sciences
and studies.
• Study intent: Articles thataimtobring togetherboth Indigenous
KnowledgeandEnvironmentalscienceKnowledge.
• Geographical scope: There will be no geographic limit applied to
this search.
2 | MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1 | Author positionality
The authors recognise the import ance of disclosing their positional-
ity, shaped by their personal, social, cultural and political context,
as it can significantly influence their perspective, interpretation and
TABLE 2 Descriptionofeligibilitycriteria.
Population
In recognition of the growing diversit y of liter ature available and
considering the time constraint s of this systematic map, our focus
will be limited to peer- reviewed studies that focus on any aspect
ofecologicalorenvironmentalresearch.Forthepurposeofthis
review, ecological or environmental research will be defined
broadly as any planned and/or pur poseful inquiry per taining to the
environment, including those studies examining the environment as
a determinant of human health.
Study intent
ArticlesthatpurposefullyandactivelybringtogetherIndigenous
Knowledge(IK)andEnvironmentalscienceKnowledge(ESK )and
present empirical results will be included. Specifically, we will
considerarticlesthatincorporatebothIKandESKcomponents,
offeringempiricalevidencetosuppor tthemer gingofIKandESK
datasets. Our inclusion criteria will be f urther refined to include
papers that have employed some form of a convergent parallel
design. Review papers and articles prop osing fr ameworks for
mergingIKandESKwithoutaccompanyingempiricalassessments
will be excluded.
Geographic scope
The geogr aphic context for this systematic map will include all
geographic areas identified wit hin the final capture.
Language
English.
|
5 of 9
PIRIE et al.
analysisoftheresearchtopic(Creswell&Poth,2016).T hisacknowl-
edgment not only adds transparency to the research process but
also enhances the quality and rigour of qualitative research methods
used.
Emma Pirie is a non- Indigenous researcher who currently works
alongside faculty and postdoctoral researchers at Trent University
to identif y research and monitoring projects involving Indigenous
communitiesaroundtheLaurentianGreatLakesinanefforttosup-
port Indigenous- led research and conser vation effor ts. Ms. Pirie is
a graduate student and research assistant with Trent University's
Indigenous Environmental Institute.
Dr. Tom Whillans is a non- Indigenous scholar who has researched
and taught about community- based co- management, cogeneration
of knowledge and restoration of fisheries, wetlands, biodiversity,
watersheds and lakes since 1972. He has had experience apply-
ing local, Indigenous and Environmentalscience Knowledge in the
NorthwestTerritories,Ontario,theGreat Lakesand LatinAmerica.
Currently Professor Emeritus in the School of the Environment,
Trent Universit y,h e Co-Chair s the Committe e of Advisors of the
Great L akes Fisher y Commission, si ts on the Ont ario Biodiver sity
Council,andBoardsoftheAnishinabek/OntarioFisheriesResource
Centre, Watersheds Canada, and Haliburton U- Links.
Dr. Jennie Knopp, a non- Indigenous researcher, has worked on
bridging the gap between different knowledge systems and fos-
tering collaboration between Indigenous and Environmental sci-
ence Knowledge through her work on harvesting, conservation,
and monito ring proje cts. Wit h over 15 years of ex perience in t he
Canadi an Arctic, D r.Kn opp has active ly engaged wit h communi-
ties, local experts, co- management boards, researchers, land claim
organisationsandfederalgovernmentdepartments.Dr.Knoppcur-
rently holds the position of Community and Science Direc tor with
Oceans North.
Dr. Chris Furgal, a non- Indigenous scholar, has been involved
in research activities in partnership with Indigenous communities
across theArcticand elsewhere forover 30 years. Research activ-
ities he works on with and for communities focus on environmental
health risk monitoring and assessment, food securit y and climate
change,andknowledgemobilisationandcommunication.Dr.Furgal
iscurrentlyanAssociate Professor atTrentUniversity whereheis
theAss ociateDirectoroftheChanieWenjackSchoolforIndigenous
Studies, and Co- Director of the Indigenous Environmental Studies
and Sciences Program and Indigenous Environmental Institute.
In our collective work and engagement at the intersection of
Indigeno us Knowled ge (IK) and Envi ronmenta l science Know ledge
(ESK)withinenvironmentalsciencesandstudies,ourteambringsto-
gether unique perspectives and experiences. We recognise the im-
portance of enhancing understanding of and bringing clarity to the
complexnatureofknowledgeinteractionsofavarietyofforms.Asa
team, our work on these topics is influenced, informed and enriched
by our interactions and learning with our Indigenous colleagues with
whom we work in partnership on a daily basis, and in particular for
this project, our colleague and senior Onondaga Scholar, Professor
David Newhouse. Embracing this perspective, our commitment lies
in fostering inclusive dialogue, promoting mutual understanding
and advancing collaborative effor ts working towards the bringing
togetherofmultipleknowledgesystems,suchasIKandESKinaca-
demic research.
2.2 | Systematic maps
Systematic mapping approaches can be used to synthesise, cat-
egorise and classify all available evidence per taining to a specific
research question/objective(CEE, 2018). Th e systematic ma pping
protocol presented in this manuscript provides a transparent and
replicable method to capture and synthesise evidence in a standard-
isedandsystematic manner(Haddawayetal.,2016).Thisproposed
systematic mapping protocol considers guidelines provided by
CEE(2018)andfollowsthestandardsofROSES(i.e.adheringtoand
completion of ROSES form; Supporting Information 1; Haddaway
et al., 2018).
2.3 | Searching for articles
Using four online bibliographic databases, this search aimed to cap-
ture all relevant studies in the peer- reviewed literature that relate
to the primary research question. The scope of this map report was
limited to documents written in the English language as translation
capacity is limited.Articles included willbelimited to therange of
database date coverage as well as the date of final capture.
2.3.1 | Searchstringdevelopment
Alist ofkeywordsandsynonyms informedby theprimar yresearch
components were compiled in order to begin the development of
asearch string.The web-basedsearchengine Google Scholar was
used as an aid to scope out key words and related synonyms. Various
keywords and synonyms were compiled and combined using Boolean
Operators(AND,OR, NOT) and wildcard characters in order toas-
sess the sensitivity of possible search terms and combinations within
the onlin e bibliographi c database, Web of Scie nce. Search ter ms were
separated into three groups, guided by the primary research compo-
nents,and combinedusing BooleanOperators“AND”and/or“OR”
and the pr oximity indi cator “NEA R/#” (Supporting Information 2).
Keywordswereincludediftheyresultedintheadditionofanynum-
berofrelevantsourcesrelatingtotheprimaryresearchquestion.A
listof benchmark articles(n = 15;Supporting Information 3),identi-
fied through hand searching, was used to ensure relevance and com-
prehensiveness of the search string. These benchmark articles are
representativeofthediversityofparameters(i.e.linkingIndigenous
KnowledgeandEnvironmentalscienceKnowledgewithinthefields
ofenvironmentalstudiesandsciences)includedinthesearchstring
protocol. It is expected that the search protocol will capture the
benchmark articles. If the benchmark ar ticles are not captured with
6 of 9
|
PIRIE et al.
the search protocol, the search protocol will be revised or picked up
by hand searching as necessar y.
2.3.2 | Bibliographicdatabasesearches
Atotaloffourdatabasesweresearchedforpeer-reviewedarticlesin
the English language. The final search string was developed in Web of
Science and was standardised and adapted to each database. Search
abilities and capacities for each dat abase were considered when de-
termining whether to include or exclude a database; for example the
batch export function and capacity, the coverage and extent of re-
searchtopicsincludedineachdatabase (e.g.disciplinaryfocus),and
the range of publication dates included in the database. The search
was conduc ted until no further relevant articles were found. The
following databases will be searched using subscriptions from Trent
University:
1. EBSCOhost Academic Search Elite: a multidisciplinary database
that offers full text for scholarly journals covering several
areas of academic study including social sciences, sciences
and humanities.
2. EBSCOhost Bibliography of Indigenous Peoples in North
America(BIPNA):abibliographicdatabasecoveringallaspectsof
Indigenous Peoples in North American culture, histor y,and life
and including topics such as archaeology, multicultural relations,
gaming, governance, legend and literacy.
3. ISI Web of Science(Core Collection): multidisciplinar y database
consisting of various subject areas including science, social sci-
ences, and arts and humanities.
4. P roQuest I nternation al Bibliogr aphy of Social S ciences (IBS S): a
bibliographic database for social science and interdisciplinary
research.
2.4 | Screening articles and eligibility criteria
2.4.1 | Screeningprocess
Results from the online bibliographic databases will be expor ted into
Endnote 20 and duplicates removed before stage 1 of the screening
process.Remainingsourceswillthenbescreened int wostages: (1)
attheleveloftitleandabstractand(2)full-textanalysis.
Stage 1: Title and abstract screening
The title and abstract for each study will be screened for relevance
during stage1.Anystudies thatfullyorpartially align withtheinclu-
sion crite ria (see eligibil ity criteri a below) will proce ed to stage 2 of
thescreeningprocess.Articleswhichdonotalignwiththeprimaryre-
search question will be excluded at this level. To test the consistency
ofthe screeningprocess,the two reviewers,EPand CF,will indepen-
dentlys cr ee nt hesa mesubseto ftitlesanda bs tract s(5%)andcompare
results. The selection of a subset of ar ticles will be made by choosing
articles from varying disciplines and publication years to ensure di-
verserepresentation.Atrainingphasewill beundertakenpriortothe
independent screening where the two reviewers will meet to practice,
discuss and adapt the eligibility criteria on 100 test titles and abstracts.
Stage 2: Full- text analysis
This stage will involve a manual search and review of entire articles.
In order to ensure eligibility criteria are consistent across and ap-
plicab le to captured a rticles , a subset of art icles (10%) will be se-
lected andscreenedindependently by EP and CF.Theselection of
a subset of ar ticles will take place by choosing articles from varying
disciplines and publication years to ensure diverse representation.
The two reviewers will meet to compare their result s, discuss and
adapt the eligibility criteria as necessary. Similar to stage 1, a training
phase will be undertaken prior to the independent screening where
the two reviewers will meet to practice, discuss and adapt the eligi-
bility criteria on 50 test full texts. The goal of these meetings will be
to ensure both reviewers have a clear understanding of the eligibility
criteria and their application.
Alistofexcludedarticlesandreasonsforexclusionatthelevelof
full- text review will accompany the resulting systematic map report.
2.4.2 | Eligibilitycriteria
Asetofpre-established inclusion/exclusion criteria will beusedto
guidethescreeningprocess(Table 2).Allinclusioncriteriawillneed
to be met in order for an ar ticle to be included in the final dataset.
2.5 | Study validity assessment
It is not the intention of this systematic map to assess the validity of
identified articles.
2.6 | Data coding strategy
Followingthefull-textscreening(stage2),remainingstudieswillbe
exported from Endnote 20 into Microsoft Excel where they will be
coded using a pre- established and standardised coding template
(seeSupporting Information 4).Thetemplatewasdesignedtoreflect
and capture key information about the articles based on multiple pa-
rameters, including:
1. Bibliographic information.
2. Geographiclocationofstudy.
3. Discipline of study.
4. MethodsusedtocollectIKandESK.
5. Linking approach segments from the article.
6. Categorical identification of linking approach and method used
indataanalysis (informed bylinking approach segmentfromthe
article).
|
7 of 9
PIRIE et al.
7. Location in the research process where evidence of linking is
reported.
8. The study'sstated intentor purposeofbringing togetherIKand
ESK.
In order to avoid misrepresentation of articles while coding,
missing information regarding any of the parameters will be coded
as Unspecified.
Forextraction of information identifyingthe aim or goal of the
linking ofdata from theIK and ESKdatasets,aswellas the analyt-
ical processused to link them(items 5, 6 and 8)—a comprehensive
examination of each article will be conducted. This examination will
include a thematic content analysis, wherein ever y section of the
article, including captions and other details contained in figures and
tables, will be reviewed. The identification and categorisation of
content per taining t o items 5 and 6 (above) will b e guided by the
following questions:
1. How is each individual dataset being analysed?
2. How and where inthe research process (and paper) are there-
sults of individual dataset analyses being connected with each
other? Is there anything that is being done to each dataset to fa-
cilitateinterconnection(i.e.transformationofdatabeforemerged
analysis)?
3. How and where are the linked results presented and interpreted
in the paper?
Data fromall included articles (i.e. each article remainingafter
fulltextscreening)willbecodedusingthestandardisedcodingtem-
plate. A seriesofdata codingsessionswill take placebetweenthe
primar y reviewer, EP,an d a secondar y senior reviewe r,CF. In the
first session, coding will be tested on a sample of 15 articles during
a face- to- face meeting. This meeting will ensure that each reviewer
understands the metadata to be extracted from each article and
anyadaptationstothislist.Followingthis,EPandCFwilleachinde-
pendently code a test sample of 30 articles. They will then compare
their interpretations of the extracted data. Discrepancies will be
carefully examined and discussed, leading to any necessary adjust-
ments to the coding strateg y. In the final phase, EP will proceed to
codeallarticles,withCFverifyinganyidentifiedasbeingchallenging
or questionable to code. This process will be done to ensure the ac-
curacy and consistency of the coded data.
2.7 | Study mapping and presentation
Study cha racterist ics (such as year of p ublication, g eographic dis-
tribution,disciplineofstudy)andapproachesandmethodsusedto
bringtogetherIKandESKatthestagesofdataanalysis,resultsand
discussion, will be coded, analysed and presented through the ap-
plication of a narrative synthesis approach, using thematic content
analysisanddescriptivestatistics(Saldaña,2021).Resultsofanalysis
will be presented in tables and figures and knowledge gaps and
clusters will be highlighted through the use of a framework- based
synthesisusingstructuredmatrices(Alexander,Provencher,Henri,
Taylor, & Cooke, 2019; Dixon- Woods, 2011;McKinnonetal.,2016).
The final output will include a published systematic map.
3 | DISCUSSION
This mapping exercise aims to produce a protocol and systematic
map that will identif y the approaches and specific methods used
tobring together IK and ESK inpublished scientific ar ticleswithin
environmental research, with par ticular emphasis on the stages of
data analysis, results and interpretation / discussion steps in the
research process. The growing methodologic al complexity that ex-
ists in bringing together these diverse knowledge systems, presents
a unique opportunity to provide an identification of the types of
approaches and methods being used to bring together IK and ESK
data through interconnected data analysis, presentation and inter-
pretation of result s. If we are to adopt appropriate approaches and
methods in future research and decision- making and leverage the
opportunities that arise from accessing multiple knowledge systems
pertaining to a particular issue, learning from any attempt is criti-
cal. By identifying and analysing studies, which have aimed to bring
together I K and ESK, the r esults of this st udy will yield a u nique
resource for researchers and policy makers and suppor t ongoing
efforts that recognise the opportunities involved in engaging with
multiple knowledges in environmental research and management.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Th ep roj ect wasco nceiv edbyEmm aP iri ea n dC hri sFur g al .Th em an-
uscript was drafted by Emma Pirie.Chris Furgal,TomWhillansand
Jennie K nopp provided co mments and rev isions. All aut hors read
and approved the final manuscript.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the guidance and advice
provided by our colleague, Onondaga Scholar Professor David
Newhouse, in our planned processes to appropriately search out
and enga ge with represe ntations of Ind igenous Knowl edge in the
academic literature.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
PEER REVIEW
The peer review history for this article is available at https:// www.
webof scien ce. com/ api/ gatew ay/ wos/ peer- review/ 10. 1002/ 2688-
83 19. 12 3 51 .
DATA AVA ILAB ILITY STATE MEN T
This article does not contain data.
8 of 9
|
PIRIE et al.
ORCID
Emma Pirie https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5746-0011
REFERENCES
Aikenhead, G. S., & Ogawa, M. (2007). Indigenous k nowledge and sci-
ence revisited. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2(3),539–620.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1142 2- 007- 9067- 8
Alexander,S. M.,Provencher,J.F.,Henri, D.,Nanayakkara,L., Taylor,J.,
Berberi,A.,Lloren,J.,Johnson,J.T.,Ballard,M.,&Cooke,S.(2021).
Bridging Indigenous and Wes tern sciences in f reshwater research,
monitoring, and management in Canada. Ecological Solutions and
Evidence, 2,1–19.https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ 2688- 8319. 12085
Alexander, S. M., Provencher, J. F., Henri, D., Taylor, J., Lloren , J. I.,
Nanayakkara, L ., Johnson, J. T., & Cooke, S. J. (2019). Bridging
Indigenous and science- based knowledge in coastal- marine re-
search and management in Canada. Environmental Evidence, 8, 36.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s1375 0- 019- 0181- 3
Alexan der, S. M., Prove ncher, J. F.,H enri, D. A ., Taylor,J. J ., & Cooke,
S. J. (2019). Bridging Indigenous and science-based knowledge in
coastal-marineresearchand managementinCanada:Asystematic
map protocol. Environmental Evidence, 8, 1–7. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1186/ s1375 0- 019- 0159- 1
Battis te,M.(2019).Decolonizing education: Nourishing the learning spirit.
UBC Press.
Bélisle,A.C .,Asselin,H.,LeB lanc,P.,&Gauthier,S.(2018).Localknowl-
edge in ecological modeling. Ecology and Society, 23(2),11.h t tps: //
doi. org/ 10. 5751/ ES- 09949 - 230214
Berkes,F.,Colding,J.,&Folke,C.(20 00).Rediscoveryoft raditionale co-
logical knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications,
10(5), 1251–1262. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 8 9 0 / 1 0 5 1 - 0 7 6 1 ( 2 0 0 0 )
0 1 0 [ 1 2 5 1 : R O T E K A ] 2 . 0 . C O ; 2
Bohensky,E.L .,&Maru,Y.(2011).Indigenousknowledge, science,and
resilience: What have we learned from a decade of international
literatureon“integration”?Ecology and Society, 16(4),6.h t t p s : // d o i .
org / 10. 5751/ ES- 0 43 42 - 1604 06
Cajete , G. (1999). Native science: Natural laws of interdependence. Clear
Light Publishers.
Castleden, H. E., Hart,C .,Harper,S.,Martin,D.,Cunsolo, A.,Stefanelli,
R., Day, L., & L auridse n, K. (2017). Im plementi ng Indigeno us and
western knowledge systems in water research and management
(part 1): A system atic realist revi ew to inform water policy and
governance in Canada. International Indigenous Policy Journal, 8(4),
7–3 3 . https:// doi. org/ 10. 18584/ iipj. 2017.8. 4. 7533
Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE). (2018). Guidelines
and standards for evidence synthesis in environmental management.
Version5.0(Pullin,A.,G.Frampton,B.Livoreil,andG.Petrokofsky).
http:// www. envir onmen talev idence. org/ infor matio n- for- authors
Creswell,J. W.,& Poth, C. N.(2016).Qua litative inquiry and resea rch de-
sign: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications.
Dixon-Woods,M.(2011).Usingframework-basedsynthesisforconduct-
ing reviews of qualit ative studies. BMC Medicine, 9(1),1–2.h t t ps: //
doi . or g/ 10 . 1186/ 1741- 7015- 9- 39
Gagnon,C. A., & Berteaux, D. (2009).Integrating traditionalecologic al
knowledgeandecologicalscience:Aquestionofscale.Ecology and
Society, 14(2),1–27.
Gil ch ri st ,G .,Ma ll or y,M .,&Merkel ,F.(20 05).C anlo cale co logicalknow l-
edge contr ibute to wildlife management? Case studies of migratory
birds. Ecology and Society, 10(1),1–12.
Haddaway, N. R., Bernes,C .,Jonsson,B.G., &Hedlund, K. (2016). The
benefits of systematic mapping to evidence- based environmental
management. Ambio, 45,613–620.
Haddaway, N. R ., Macura, B., Whaley, P.,& Pullin, A . S. (2018). ROSES
RepOrting standards for systematic evidence syntheses: Pro
forma, flow- diagram and descriptive summary of the plan and con-
duct of environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps.
Environmental Evidence, 7(1), 1–8. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s1375
0- 018- 0121- 7
Hauser, D. D., Whi ting, A. V., Mah oney, A. R., G oodwin, J. , Harris, C .,
Schaef fer, R. J., Schaeffer, R., Sr., Laxague, N . J. M., Subramaniam,
A., Witte, C. R., Betcher,S ., Lindsay, J. M., &Zappa, C. J. (2021).
Co- production of knowledge reveals loss of Indigenous hunting
oppor tunities in the f ace of accelerating Arctic climate change.
Environmental Research Letters, 16(9), 0950 03. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1088/ 1748- 9326/ a c1a36
Henri, D. A.,Provencher,J.F.,Bowle s,E., Taylor,J. J., Steel,J., Chelick,
C., Popp, J. N., Cooke, S. J., Rytwinski, T., McGregor,D., Ford, A .
T.,&Alexander,S.M .(2021).WeavingIndigenous knowledgesys-
tems and Western sciences in terrest rial research, monitor ing and
managementinCanada:Aprotocolforasystematicmap.Ecological
Solutions and Evidence, 2(2), e12057. http s:// doi. org / 10. 10 02/
2688- 8319. 12057
Higg in s,C .(19 98 ). Th er oleo ft rad it io nalecol og ic a lk no wl edgeinman ag-
ing for biodiversity. The Forestry Chronicle, 74(3),323–326.
Hunting ton, H. P. (2000). Using traditional e cological knowledge in
science: Methods and applications. Ecological Applications, 10(5),
1270–1274.
Johnson,J.T.,Howit t,R .,Cajete,G.,Berkes,F.,Louis,R.P.,&Kliskey,A.
(2016).WeavingIndigenousandsustainabilitysciencestodiversify
our methods. Sustainability Science, 11,1–11.
Johnso n, L. R., W ilcox, A. A ., Alexa nder, S. M., Bowle s, E., Cas tleden,
H., Henri,D.A ., Herch ,C., King ,L., Provencher,J.F.,& Orihel, D.
M. (2023). Weaving Indigenous and Western ways of knowing
in ecotoxic ology and wi ldlife heal th: A review of Ca nadian stud -
ies. Environmental Reviews, 31, 452–470. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1139/
er- 2022- 0087
Laidle r,G . J. (2006). Inui t and scientif ic perspec tives on the rela tion-
ship bet ween sea ice and climate change: The ideal complement?
Climatic Change, 78(2–4),407–444.
Mazzocchi, F. (2006). Western science and tr aditional knowledge:
Despite t heir variations, different for ms of knowledge can learn
from each other. EMBO Reports, 7(5),463–466.
McGregor, D. (2000). From exclusion to co- existence: Aboriginal par-
ticipation in Ontario forest management planning. University of
Toronto.
McKinnon,M.C.,Cheng,S.H .,Dupre,S.,Edmond,J.,Garside,R.,Glew,
L., Holland, M. B., Levine, E., Masuda, Y. J., Miller, D. C., Oliveira, I.,
Revenaz, J., Roe, D., Shamer, S., Wilkie, D., Wongbusarakum, S., &
Woodhouse,E.(2016).Whataretheeffectsofnatureconser vation
onhumanwell-being?Asystematicmapofempiricalevidencefrom
developing countries. Environmental Evidence, 5(1), 1–25. ht tp s://
doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s1375 0- 016- 0058- 7
Raju,C.K.(20 09).Is science Western in origin? Daanish Books.
Russel l, D.E. ,Sv ob oda ,M .Y. ,A ro ki um,J.,&C ooley,D.( 20 13).A rct ic bo r-
derlands ecological knowledge cooperative: Can local knowledge
inform caribou management? Rangifer, 33, 71–78. https:// doi. org/
10. 7557/2. 33. 2. 253 0
Saldaña,J.(2021).The coding manual for q ualitative researchers.1–440.
Stefane lli, R. D., Cast leden, H., Ha rper, S. L., Mar tin, D., Cunsolo ,A .,
& Hart, C. (2017). E xperiences with integrative Indigenous and
Western k nowledge in water re search and manage ment: A sys-
tematic r ealist review of lit erature from C anada, Austr alia, New
Zealand,andtheUnitedStates.Environmental Reviews, 25(3),323–
333. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1139/ er- 2016- 0114
Stern,E.R.,&Humphrie s,M. M.(2022).Interweavinglocal,exper t,and
Indigen ous knowledge in to quantitati ve wildlife analy ses: A sys-
tematic review. Biological Conservation, 266, 109444. ht t p s : // d o i .
org / 10. 1016/j. b iocon. 2021. 10944 4
|
9 of 9
PIRIE et al.
Tengö, M., Hill, R ., Malmer, P., Raymond, C. M., Spierenbur g, M.,
Danielsen, F.,Elmqvis,T.,& Folke, C. (2017).Weaving knowledge
systemsinIPBES,CBD and beyond—Lessons learned for sustain-
ability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26, 17–25.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cosust. 2016. 12. 0 05
Thornto n, T.F., & Sch eer, A. M. (2012). Col laborative en gagement of
local and traditional knowledge and science in marine environ-
ments: A r eview. Ecology and Society, 17(3), 8 . https:// doi. org/ 10.
5751/ ES- 04714 - 170308
Turnbull, D. (20 03). Masons, tricksters a nd cartographer s: Comparative
studies in the sociology of scientific and Indigenous knowledge. Taylor
&Francis.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supporting information can be found online in the
Suppor ting Information section at the end of this article.
Supporting Information 1. ROSES form for systematic mapping
protocols.
Supporting Information 2. Search strings.
Supporting Information 3. Benchmark list.
Supporting Information 4. Coding template.
How to cite this article: Pirie,E.,Whillans,T.,Knopp,J.,&
Furgal,C.(2024).Approachesandmethodsusedtobring
togetherIndigenousandEnvironmentalscienceKnowledgein
environmentalresearch:Asystematicmapprotocol.Ecological
Solutions and Evidence, 5, e12351. ht t p s: // do i .
org/10.1002/2688-8319.12351
