The need for transformative changes in the use of Indigenous knowledge along with science for environmental decision-making in the Arctic

Wheeler, Helen and Danielsen, Finn and Fidel, Maryann and Hausner, Vera and Horstkotte, Tim and Johnson, Noor and Lee, Olivia and Mukherjee, Nibedita and Amos, Amy and Ashthorn, Heather and Ballari, Oystein and Bene, Carolina and Breton-Honeyman, Kaitlin and Retter, Gunn-Britt and Buschman, Victoria and Jakobsen, Paviarak and Johnson, Frank and Lyberth, Bjarne and Parrott, Jennifer and Pogodaev, Mikhail and Sulyandziga, Rodion and Vronski, Nikita (2020) The need for transformative changes in the use of Indigenous knowledge along with science for environmental decision-making in the Arctic. People and Nature, 2 (3). pp. 544-556. ISSN 2575-8314

[img]
Preview
Text
Published Version
Available under the following license: Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.

Download (1MB) | Preview
[img] Text
Accepted Version
Restricted to Repository staff only
Available under the following license: Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.

Download (5MB)
Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10131

Abstract

Recent attention to the role of Indigenous knowledge (IK) in environmental monitoring, research and decision‐making is likely to attract new people to this field of work. Advancing the bringing together of IK and science in a way that is desirable to IK holders can lead to successful and inclusive research and decision‐making. We used the Delphi technique with 18 expert participants who were IK holders or working closely with IK from across the Arctic to examine the drivers of progress and limitations to the use of IK along with science to inform decision‐making related to wildlife, reindeer herding and the environment. We also used this technique to identify participants' experiences of scientists' misconceptions concerning IK. Participants had a strong focus on transformative change relating to the structure of institutions, politics, rights, involvement, power and agency over technical issues advancing or limiting progress (e.g. new technologies and language barriers). Participants identified two modes of desirable research: coproducing knowledge with scientists and autonomous Indigenous‐led research. They highlighted the need for more collaborative and coproduction projects to allow further refinement of approaches and more funding to support autonomous, Indigenous‐led research. Most misconceptions held by scientists concerning IK that were identified by participants related to the spatial, temporal and conceptual scope of IK, and the perceived need to validate IK using Western science. Our research highlights some of the issues that need to be addressed by all participants in research and decision‐making involving IK and science. While exact approaches will need to be tailored to specific social‐ecological contexts, consideration of these broader concerns revealed by our analysis are likely to be central to effective partnerships.

Item Type: Journal Article
Keywords: Arctic, Community-based, Coproduction, Decision-making, Indigenous knowledge, Leverage points, Participatory, Policy, Research, Wildlife
Faculty: Faculty of Science & Engineering
SWORD Depositor: Symplectic User
Depositing User: Symplectic User
Date Deposited: 15 Jun 2020 08:49
Last Modified: 04 Sep 2020 12:04
URI: http://arro.anglia.ac.uk/id/eprint/705635

Actions (login required)

Edit Item Edit Item