在生态毒理学和野生动物健康方面编织土著和西方的认识方式:加拿大研究综述

IF 4.3 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Environmental Reviews Pub Date : 2023-04-05 DOI:10.1139/er-2022-0087
Lydia R. Johnson, Alana A. E. Wilcox, S. Alexander, E. Bowles, H. Castleden, D. Henri, Chris Herc, Lucas King, J. Provencher, D. Orihel
{"title":"在生态毒理学和野生动物健康方面编织土著和西方的认识方式:加拿大研究综述","authors":"Lydia R. Johnson, Alana A. E. Wilcox, S. Alexander, E. Bowles, H. Castleden, D. Henri, Chris Herc, Lucas King, J. Provencher, D. Orihel","doi":"10.1139/er-2022-0087","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Western-trained, non-Indigenous researchers in Canada have an ethical responsibility to collaborate with Indigenous Peoples and to re-envision the scientific research process through the lens of reconciliation. The health of the natural environment has long been a concern to both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples, and weaving different ways of knowing could provide a path forward to address critical wildlife health concerns. Here, we conducted a review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature that claims to weave Indigenous and Western ways of knowing in ecotoxicology and wildlife health in Canada, coding for background information, wildlife health stressors, research methods, Indigenous participation, and research outcomes. Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria, the majority of which were published since 2015 and took place in Canada’s North. Research collaborations were often between First Nations or Inuit knowledge holders (most frequently, active harvesters and Elders) and Western-trained, non-Indigenous academics. Most studies were initiated by mutual agreement between community partners and researchers, but no study was “Indigenous-led” at any stage of research. Studies investigated environmental contaminants and health-related topics in a range of wildlife, usually traditional subsistence species. The most commonly studied disease was avian cholera, and the most studied class of toxicants was metals and trace elements. Indigenous knowledge was primarily collected via interviews. Studies often used multiple methodologies to braid or weave knowledge, but the most frequently used methodology was community-based participatory research. To provide a more holistic understanding of the process of weaving knowledge, we conducted an in-depth examination, applying a decolonizing lens, of two exemplar cases of collaborative research with Indigenous communities. This exploration led to the conclusion that research that weaves ways of knowing must not be approached with a “one-size-fits-all” mindset, but instead should emphasize relationship building, continuous engagement, and ethical practices. By adopting such practices, Western-trained, non-Indigenous academics can better address critical wildlife health concerns while contributing meaningfully to advancing healing and reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples.","PeriodicalId":50514,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Reviews","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Weaving Indigenous and Western ways of knowing in ecotoxicology and wildlife health: a review of Canadian studies\",\"authors\":\"Lydia R. Johnson, Alana A. E. Wilcox, S. Alexander, E. Bowles, H. Castleden, D. Henri, Chris Herc, Lucas King, J. Provencher, D. Orihel\",\"doi\":\"10.1139/er-2022-0087\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Western-trained, non-Indigenous researchers in Canada have an ethical responsibility to collaborate with Indigenous Peoples and to re-envision the scientific research process through the lens of reconciliation. The health of the natural environment has long been a concern to both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples, and weaving different ways of knowing could provide a path forward to address critical wildlife health concerns. Here, we conducted a review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature that claims to weave Indigenous and Western ways of knowing in ecotoxicology and wildlife health in Canada, coding for background information, wildlife health stressors, research methods, Indigenous participation, and research outcomes. Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria, the majority of which were published since 2015 and took place in Canada’s North. Research collaborations were often between First Nations or Inuit knowledge holders (most frequently, active harvesters and Elders) and Western-trained, non-Indigenous academics. Most studies were initiated by mutual agreement between community partners and researchers, but no study was “Indigenous-led” at any stage of research. Studies investigated environmental contaminants and health-related topics in a range of wildlife, usually traditional subsistence species. The most commonly studied disease was avian cholera, and the most studied class of toxicants was metals and trace elements. Indigenous knowledge was primarily collected via interviews. Studies often used multiple methodologies to braid or weave knowledge, but the most frequently used methodology was community-based participatory research. To provide a more holistic understanding of the process of weaving knowledge, we conducted an in-depth examination, applying a decolonizing lens, of two exemplar cases of collaborative research with Indigenous communities. This exploration led to the conclusion that research that weaves ways of knowing must not be approached with a “one-size-fits-all” mindset, but instead should emphasize relationship building, continuous engagement, and ethical practices. By adopting such practices, Western-trained, non-Indigenous academics can better address critical wildlife health concerns while contributing meaningfully to advancing healing and reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples.\",\"PeriodicalId\":50514,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Reviews\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2022-0087\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2022-0087","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

加拿大受过西方培训的非土著研究人员有道德责任与土著人民合作,并通过和解的视角重新设想科学研究过程。自然环境的健康长期以来一直是土著和非土著人民关注的问题,编织不同的认识方式可以为解决关键的野生动物健康问题提供一条前进的道路。在这里,我们对同行评审和灰色文献进行了审查,这些文献声称在加拿大的生态毒理学和野生动物健康方面编织了土著和西方的认知方式,对背景信息、野生动物健康压力源、研究方法、土著参与和研究结果进行了编码。17项研究符合纳入标准,其中大多数自2015年以来发表,在加拿大北部进行。研究合作通常是第一民族或因纽特人知识持有者(最常见的是活跃的收割者和长老)与受过西方培训的非土著学者之间的合作。大多数研究是由社区合作伙伴和研究人员之间的共同协议发起的,但在任何研究阶段都没有“土著主导”的研究。研究调查了一系列野生动物(通常是传统生存物种)的环境污染物和健康相关主题。研究最多的疾病是禽霍乱,研究最多的毒物是金属和微量元素。土著知识主要通过访谈收集。研究通常使用多种方法来编织或编织知识,但最常用的方法是基于社区的参与性研究。为了更全面地了解知识的编织过程,我们运用非殖民化的视角,对与土著社区合作研究的两个典型案例进行了深入研究。这一探索得出的结论是,编织认知方式的研究不应以“一刀切”的心态进行,而应强调建立关系、持续参与和道德实践。通过采用这种做法,受过西方培训的非土著学者可以更好地解决关键的野生动物健康问题,同时为促进与土著人民的康复与和解做出有意义的贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Weaving Indigenous and Western ways of knowing in ecotoxicology and wildlife health: a review of Canadian studies
Western-trained, non-Indigenous researchers in Canada have an ethical responsibility to collaborate with Indigenous Peoples and to re-envision the scientific research process through the lens of reconciliation. The health of the natural environment has long been a concern to both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples, and weaving different ways of knowing could provide a path forward to address critical wildlife health concerns. Here, we conducted a review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature that claims to weave Indigenous and Western ways of knowing in ecotoxicology and wildlife health in Canada, coding for background information, wildlife health stressors, research methods, Indigenous participation, and research outcomes. Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria, the majority of which were published since 2015 and took place in Canada’s North. Research collaborations were often between First Nations or Inuit knowledge holders (most frequently, active harvesters and Elders) and Western-trained, non-Indigenous academics. Most studies were initiated by mutual agreement between community partners and researchers, but no study was “Indigenous-led” at any stage of research. Studies investigated environmental contaminants and health-related topics in a range of wildlife, usually traditional subsistence species. The most commonly studied disease was avian cholera, and the most studied class of toxicants was metals and trace elements. Indigenous knowledge was primarily collected via interviews. Studies often used multiple methodologies to braid or weave knowledge, but the most frequently used methodology was community-based participatory research. To provide a more holistic understanding of the process of weaving knowledge, we conducted an in-depth examination, applying a decolonizing lens, of two exemplar cases of collaborative research with Indigenous communities. This exploration led to the conclusion that research that weaves ways of knowing must not be approached with a “one-size-fits-all” mindset, but instead should emphasize relationship building, continuous engagement, and ethical practices. By adopting such practices, Western-trained, non-Indigenous academics can better address critical wildlife health concerns while contributing meaningfully to advancing healing and reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Environmental Reviews
Environmental Reviews 环境科学-环境科学
自引率
3.50%
发文量
45
期刊介绍: Published since 1993, Environmental Reviews is a quarterly journal that presents authoritative literature reviews on a wide range of environmental science and associated environmental studies topics, with emphasis on the effects on and response of both natural and manmade ecosystems to anthropogenic stress. The authorship and scope are international, with critical literature reviews submitted and invited on such topics as sustainability, water supply management, climate change, harvesting impacts, acid rain, pesticide use, lake acidification, air and marine pollution, oil and gas development, biological control, food chain biomagnification, rehabilitation of polluted aquatic systems, erosion, forestry, bio-indicators of environmental stress, conservation of biodiversity, and many other environmental issues.
期刊最新文献
A review of the assessment techniques used for population monitoring at different life stages of sturgeons Review of climate change and drinking water supply systems: employee perspectives and potential tools for adaptation The Acadian Forest of New Brunswick in the 21st century: what shifting heat and water balance implies for future stand dynamics and management Managing exploitation of freshwater species and aggregates to protect and restore freshwater biodiversity Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in Assessing Watershed Scale Pollution Risk: A Review of Combined Approaches and Applications
×
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