Community participation in coastal and marine research and monitoring in Inuit Nunangat: a scoping literature review

IF 2.9 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES Facets Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1139/facets-2021-0067
A. Drake, A. Perković, C. Reeve, S. M. Alexander, V. Nguyen, K. Dunmall
{"title":"Community participation in coastal and marine research and monitoring in Inuit Nunangat: a scoping literature review","authors":"A. Drake, A. Perković, C. Reeve, S. M. Alexander, V. Nguyen, K. Dunmall","doi":"10.1139/facets-2021-0067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Canada, the participation of Indigenous communities in research and monitoring is growing in response to calls for partnerships and heightened interest in bridging Indigenous and Western science-based knowledge. Yet, as settler scholars, we have noted inconsistencies in the articulation and operationalization of community participation in peer-reviewed literature. We conducted a scoping review of community participation in coastal and marine research and monitoring across Inuit Nunangat. This resulted in 72 studies, most of which were undertaken in Nunavut. Fourteen terms were used to articulate community participation, the most common being: participate, collaborate, community-based, consult, or variations of these terms. Among the studies that used community participation terms, we found that authors only defined terms 10% of the time. Community participation was operationalized primarily through interviews, mapping, and field observations. We assessed studies across a spectrum of community participation levels and found that most studies (81%) reflected minimal levels of participation (i.e., consultative, contractual, and less than contractual). Our results highlight the need for clarity in language use, transparency in reporting research practices, and stronger efforts to support Indigenous leadership and decision-making authority, all of which must be defined on a community or project basis.","PeriodicalId":48511,"journal":{"name":"Facets","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Facets","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2021-0067","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

In Canada, the participation of Indigenous communities in research and monitoring is growing in response to calls for partnerships and heightened interest in bridging Indigenous and Western science-based knowledge. Yet, as settler scholars, we have noted inconsistencies in the articulation and operationalization of community participation in peer-reviewed literature. We conducted a scoping review of community participation in coastal and marine research and monitoring across Inuit Nunangat. This resulted in 72 studies, most of which were undertaken in Nunavut. Fourteen terms were used to articulate community participation, the most common being: participate, collaborate, community-based, consult, or variations of these terms. Among the studies that used community participation terms, we found that authors only defined terms 10% of the time. Community participation was operationalized primarily through interviews, mapping, and field observations. We assessed studies across a spectrum of community participation levels and found that most studies (81%) reflected minimal levels of participation (i.e., consultative, contractual, and less than contractual). Our results highlight the need for clarity in language use, transparency in reporting research practices, and stronger efforts to support Indigenous leadership and decision-making authority, all of which must be defined on a community or project basis.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
因纽特人努南加特社区参与沿海和海洋研究与监测:范围界定文献综述
在加拿大,土著社区越来越多地参与研究和监测,这是对建立伙伴关系的呼吁的回应,也是对弥合土著和西方基于科学的知识的兴趣的提高。然而,作为定居者学者,我们注意到同行评议文献中社区参与的表述和运作不一致。我们对整个努南加特因纽特人社区参与沿海和海洋研究与监测进行了范围审查。这导致了72项研究,其中大部分是在努纳武特进行的。14个术语被用来表达社区参与,最常见的是:参与、合作、以社区为基础、咨询或这些术语的变体。在使用社区参与术语的研究中,我们发现只有10%的作者定义了术语。社区参与主要通过访谈、绘制地图和实地观察来实施。我们评估了一系列社区参与水平的研究,发现大多数研究(81%)反映了最低水平的参与(即咨询、合同和非合同)。我们的研究结果强调了语言使用的清晰度,报告研究实践的透明度,以及支持土著领导和决策权威的更大努力的必要性,所有这些都必须在社区或项目的基础上进行定义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Facets
Facets MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES-
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
6.50%
发文量
48
审稿时长
28 weeks
期刊最新文献
Conducting community-led research using trail cameras to develop baseline wandering domestic cat local abundance estimates Laws matter: a foundational approach to biodiversity conservation in Canada British Columbia freshwater salmon hatcheries demonstrate minimal contribution to piscine orthoreovirus (PRV) regional occurrence with no evidence for nonendemic strain introductions Using Holocene paleo-fire records to estimate carbon stock vulnerabilities in Hudson Bay Lowlands peatlands Strengthening health care in Canada post-COVID-19 pandemic
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1