Setting a foundation for Indigenous knowledge systems‐guided boreal caribou (tǫdzı) conservation planning in the Western Boreal Region of Canada: A systematic map protocol

I am grateful for the financial contributions provided by the Canadian Indigenous of Health Research (CIHR), Institute of Indigenous Peoples Health and Gender and Health, with First Nations Health Authority, the Canadian Nurses Foundation, and the University of Victoria.

Aunty Mary Graham, Kombu-merri elder and philosopher, says: "You are not alone in the world." We have a responsibility to each other, as well as to the land; and violence is the refusal of this relationship that binds us (Rose). In this paper, I use Emannuel Levinas’s ethics as first philosophy and epistemological violence to consider how non-Indigenous educators come to know Indigenous people. In his philosophy, Levinas presents a paradox: that to act as if one is a free being, as first philosophy, is to ignore that one is not alone in the world and that the presence of others evokes responsibility. However, to claim to know another is to bring them into one’s totality, one’s knowledge framework; an act of reducing another to who you think they are. We must find a new relationship to knowledge, one that is not based on possession. For non-Indigenous educators learning about teaching Indigenous students and perspectives in schools, much of the curricular material draws on the corpus of knowledge constructed by non-Indigenous researchers, politicians, and professionals about Indigenous people (Nakata, Cultural Interface). This material is already bound by others' interests and motivations. How can non-Indigenous educators engage with Indigenous peoples, histories and knowledges in a way that foregrounds the responsibility that our entanglement prompts? In this paper, I present data from my research into pre-service teachers undertaking a compulsory university subject in Indigenous education, where the pre-service teachers wrote weekly reflective learning journals. This data is drawn primarily from the end of the semester, where students reflected on what their learning would mean as they moved into future practice. I explore the role of responsibility in regards to the ethical violence that Levinas discusses.

Indigenous rights, knowledge, and value systems are linked inextricably to the lands, waters, and non-human beings that form the environments of Indigenous Peoples. Across the globe, the rights of Indigenous peoples are being formally recognized and as a result, efforts are being made to include Indigenous Knowledge and value systems in environmental policy and decision making. Scientists and decision makers must not only recognize this reality, but also operationalize these efforts through meaningful changes to create space for the inclusion of Indigenous Knowledge, Indigenous values, and sovereignty within the current methods for scientific enquiry and the development of environmental policies. Professionals in the environmental field have a responsibility to ensure that their work has a positive impact on Indigenous Peoples and their environments. In this study, we explore the concept of consultation and informed consent through the lens of the development of environmental policy and decision making. We will discuss these concepts in the context of ecological risk assessment related to a case study focused on contaminated sediment in a harbor within the Great Lakes. We will demonstrate a process that deconstructs the current protocols for risk assessments at sites with localized pollutants in sediment and rebuilds them with elements that recognize both Western and Indigenous knowledge systems. This process includes collaborative fieldwork, relationship building, and informal and formal interviews with participants and community members. By utilizing such approaches, we were able to develop a risk assessment framework that recognizes the sovereignty of Indigenous peoples and promotes effective Nation-to-Nation decision making.

BackgroundThe incorporation of multiple types of knowledge (e.g., science, Indigenous knowledge, traditional ecological knowledge) is an important undertaking, which can strengthen 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, successfully doing so has remained a challenge. In response there has been a number of recent reviews that have sought to better understand the what and how, when it comes to bridging Indigenous and science-based knowledge. Yet there continues to be a need for methods, models, and approaches for integrative work. This systematic map seeks to examine the extent, range, and nature of the published literature (i.e., peer-reviewed and grey) that integrates and/or includes Indigenous and science-based knowledge in coastal-marine research, monitoring, or management in Canada. Results from this study can be used to inform new and ongoing research and monitoring efforts and highlight evidence gaps.MethodsThe systematic map will aim to capture all available studies relevant to the question found in the peer-reviewed and grey literature. Accordingly, the search will leverage four databases focused on peer reviewed publications, carefully selected specialist websites, and two web-based search engines. Reference sections of relevant review articles will also be cross-checked to identify articles that were not found using the search strategy. All searches will be conducted in English. Search results will be reviewed in two stages: (1) title and abstract; and (2) full text. All screening decisions will be included in the database. The systematic map will employ a narrative synthesis approach that will include the use of descriptive statistics, tables (including SM database), and figures (including map with the studies geospatially referenced). In addition, an online version of the map and queryable database will be developed similar to other knowledge mobilization tools.

The bringing together of multiple knowledge sources, such as Indigenous knowledge (IK) and Environmental science Knowledge (ESK), is a topic of considerable interest and significance in environmental research. In the areas of resource management for example, the bringing together of IK and ESK datasets has raised considerable interest for its potential to increase understanding and provide insights into complex phenomena such as the effects of climate change and variability on wildlife health and distribution. 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 approaches and methods used to merge IK and ESK datasets at the stages of data analysis, results, and interpretation/discussion in the research process. Through a scoping exercise, a draft search string was developed based on a predetermined list of keywords. Consultation was held with a senior Indigenous scholar to advise on the keywords used and consideration for IK likely to be represented in the collected literature. The final search string will be applied to online bibliographic databases to collect studies published in peer‐reviewed journals. The final capture of the search will be screened in two stages: (1) at the level of title and abstract and (2) at full‐text. All studies included will be coded using a standardised coding template and a narrative synthesis approach will be used to identify patterns in the evidence, including knowledge gaps and clusters. Practical implication : The resulting systematic map, following the outlined procedures in this protocol and considering guidelines from the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) and Reporting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses (ROSES), can serve to support and inform future research endeavours engaged in working towards the linking of IK and ESK, with practical implications for communities and policymakers.

BackgroundDrawing 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsThe 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.

In this thesis I examine the barriers to the integration of Indigenous and Western Knowledge within the Western framework of ‘natural resource management’. Traditionally natural resource management is seen as the domain of Western science and the term conveys how Western Knowledge constructs relationships to land. Western Knowledge perceives a separation between ‘nature’ and ‘culture’, which constructs management as a matter of control over resources. Many anthropological studies have shown that Indigenous Knowledge is intimately connected to land; ‘natural’ cannot be disassociated from ‘cultural’ and management is constructed as a process of negotiation. Traditionally Western science has excluded Indigenous Knowledge and failed to recognise its validity and importance for natural resource management. However, current attempts by Western science to include Indigenous Knowledge can also be damaging in that Indigenous Knowledge is fragmented, essentialised or appropriated. To highlight the barriers inherent in Western perceptions of natural resource management I employ a case study of dingo management in the Fraser Island Great Sandy Region National Park. Through this case study I find that the barriers to the integration of Indigenous and Western Knowledge are at both epistemological and practical levels. In working towards ethical and equal negotiation between Indigenous and Western Knowledge I examine joint management as one possible approach. I argue that current joint management structures in Queensland are not entirely appropriate in terms of the problems identified in the analysis of the case study. I conclude that there must be change at both epistemological and structural levels and that solutions mus t be tailored to suit the local needs and interests of each party.

Framed within the broader discourse on decolonising African education, this article aims to contribute to the project of integrating indigenous and Western knowledges in southern African education. Following a participatory action research (PAR) cycle, a team of five South African science teachers and one German researcher explored whether and how indigenous knowledges (IK) could be integrated into the teachers' regular classes. The article focuses on the first two phases of the PAR cycle and discusses how challenges impeding knowledge integration were solved and how science lessons that integrated aspects of Western and indigenous knowledges were planned. While the South African science curriculum explicitly invites knowledge integration, it hardly contains any IK and there are no generally available teaching materials. Moreover, some of the participating teachers did not have IK. Yet, integration was possible, for example, through using the learners' communities as resources, a strategy that worked well in both primary and secondary grades. The article suggests that the very practice-oriented research process was also a process of intellectual empowerment and decolonisation. Calling on the agency of teachers, parents, community elders, traditional healers, and academics, the article argues for a bottom-up approach to knowledge integration and to decolonising education.

Mutually respectful and reciprocal relationships between people and their environment is a central tenet of many Indigenous worldviews. Across the Americas, this relational connection is particularly evident when it comes to freshwater ecosystems. However, there are numerous threats to these central relationships between Indigenous peoples and their environment. Using all available ways of knowing to conserve, prioritize, and restore relationships between Indigenous peoples and the environment they live in, and are a part of, is critical. Despite legislative requirements and policy commitments, developing and implementing inclusive approaches that bridge multiple ways of knowing remains a challenge. This systematic map examines the extent, range, and nature of published case studies that seek to bridge Indigenous and Western sciences in ecological research, monitoring, or natural resource management across Canada's freshwater aquatic ecosystems. A total of 74 Canadian case studies from 72 articles were included in the systematic map. There were 30 distinct species of focus across the collection of case studies. This systematic map highlights the diversity of ways knowledge systems can be woven, but that the application of these approaches is limited to some key regions (the Pacific and northern regions) and species (whitefish and salmon). The extent and nature of information provided with regards to demographics (e.g., gender, age) of Indigenous knowledge holders contributing to the studies varied widely and in general was poorly reported. Across all of the case studies included in the systematic map there were 78 distinct Indigenous knowledge systems represented. Fifteen different methodological approaches were identified with community‐based participatory research being the most prevalent approach. The presence and diversity of Indigenous methodologies employed was also notable and was greater as compared to a previous study of Canada's coastal marine regions. Collectively, these findings point to a potential emerging transformation in research focused on freshwater ecosystems, habitats, and species to a practice that elevates the role of Indigenous communities, centres Indigenous science and knowledge, and is informed by Indigenous ways of being and doing.

Transmission of indigenous knowledge systems under changing landscapes within the vhavenda community, South Africa

An excellent antidote to the power of our Western hierarchical oppositions and the theory of knowledge upon which they ride is an acquaintance with other theories of knowledge and ontologies. – Joanna Overing Introduction Keeping in mind the caveats voiced above about the need to acknowledge differences within, and similarities across, indigenous and western knowledge systems, the burden of this chapter is to acknowledge some of the differences between them. One of the most consequential of these is the fact that knowledge tends to be tied to the natural world in very different ways within indigenous and western knowledge systems. Among indigenous peoples, for example, the belief that knowledge and land are intimately bound to one another is widely shared, as is the accompanying belief that the natural world is alive, spiritually replete. Not only are these beliefs generally not shared by the dominant knowledge system, but they are at odds with varying aspects of it. Without some appreciation of such differences, we cannot fully grasp the force of indigenist critiques of biocolonialism, nor can we understand well how contemporary relations of power sustain cultural imperialism. The policies which legitimate biocolonialism, and the practices which constitute it, arise within a cultural milieu notable for its marginalization and dismissal of indigenous knowledge systems. This chapter and the next situate the struggle over biocolonialism within the context of indigenous and western knowledge systems, and the dynamics of power which structure their interaction.

The implementation of Indigenous and Western knowledge systems in integrative water research and management is gaining prominence in the realm of academia, particularly in four countries with a shared, albeit different, history of British colonialism: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. While integrative water research in particular is gaining popularity, currently there is a gap in our understanding regarding where, when, why, how, and for whom this type of research has been successful. A systematic review method was used to identify peer-reviewed literature from each of the four countries and to understand where and when integrative water research projects were taking place. Then, we used a realist review method to synthesize and analyze the included peer-reviewed literature to determine why, how, and for whom this type of research has been successful, or not. Our systematic literature search provided 669 peer-reviewed articles from across the four countries, of which 97 met our inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Our findings indicate that the total number of integrative water research projects has been increasing since 2009, though these projects are largely concentrated within the realm of social science and conducted by non-Indigenous authors. Recognition of the value of Indigenous knowledge systems, coupled with an understanding that the use of Western knowledge systems alone has not remedied the disparity in access to safe water sources in Indigenous communities, has led researchers to recommend collaborative partnerships and governance structures as a potential pathway to effective integrative water research. Our research was conducted to enhance contemporary understanding of the strengths of implementing Indigenous and Western knowledge systems and to encourage readers to continue working towards a common goal of reconciliation and equality in all partnerships.

Cross-cultural environmental research in New Zealand: Insights for ecological economics research practice

Researchers have sought to understand how Indigenous and Western knowledge systems can be bridged for development research to be (a) more inclusive of local actors and knowledge and (b) more relevant to the problems it aims to address. Research in Amazonian Indigenous contexts remains dominated by a ‘Western’ science struggling to accommodate bottom-up development research. This paper examines how Indigenous and Western knowledge is bridged in knowledge co-production with Amazonian Indigenous communities, and what outcomes such bridging incurs. The paper uses a systematic realist review analysing 22 studies. It finds that the bridging of Indigenous and Western knowledge, in co-production with Amazonian Indigenous communities, was based on partnership between Indigenous and scholarly communities. Emphasising mutual respect, power-sharing, and empowerment of Indigenous communities, this bridging contributes to generation of knowledge that is more legitimate and beneficial for all actors involved in the co-production process. However, the paper also observes a gap between knowledge co-production in theory and practice. Power-relations between Western scientists and Indigenous communities need to be further addressed in development research. More work is needed to enhance the legitimacy of knowledge, in order to further empower Indigenous communities to address local challenges according to their own contexts and needs.

A ‘co-production of knowledge' transdisciplinary approach connects different systems of knowledge that are in collaboration with each other. The transdisciplinarity presupposes bringing natural, social sciences, and Indigenous knowledge together. A growing body of literature on knowledge co-production and better control over research by Indigenous stakeholders contributes to a better collaboration of different knowledge holders. However, as power imbalance and issues of trust continue to persist, further analysis of case studies, where different knowledge holders collaborate, allow for a better understanding of how better long-term collaborations could be built. This reflection paper examines several observations and parts of interviews carried out during a recent ethnographic study on urban Indigenous identity preservation in Anchorage, Alaska in collaboration with the urban Yup’ik population. It may serve as an illustration of some challenges that might hinder the co-production of Indigenous knowledge and Western science. The observations examined in this paper may contribute to a further understanding of different approaches to learning of Arctic Indigenous and Western knowledge systems that are in need of further clarification to enable their better interaction for meeting current sustainability challenges.