Traditional knowledge

About: Traditional knowledge is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 10825 publications have been published within this topic receiving 202790 citations. The topic is also known as: indigenous knowledge & indigenous knowledge system.

“Two‐Eyed Seeing”: An Indigenous framework to transform fisheries research and management

Abstract: It is with t’ooyaks (Nisga’a for ‘thanks’) to senior author and Mi’kmaw Elder Dr. Albert Marshall that we (the author team) have come to learn and embrace the concept of Etuaptmumk (Mi’kmaw for ‘TwoEyed Seeing’) and it is through his guidance that we have envisioned a new path for fisheries research and management. The knowledge Albert has imparted through his work over the decades, he is adamant, is not his own to claim, for he is but a conduit for the knowledge of generations. It is thus to those generations of Mi’kmaq Received: 28 April 2020 | Revised: 23 August 2020 | Accepted: 25 August 2020 DOI: 10.1111/faf.12516

The Role of Animal-derived Remedies as Complementary Medicine in Brazil

Abstract: Although animal-derived remedies constitute an integral part of folk medicine in many parts of the world, particularly for people with limited or no access to mainstream medical services, their role in health care has generally been overlooked in discussions about public health, conservation, and management of faunistic resources and ecosystem protection. Brazil’s high biological and sociocultural diversity translates into a wealth of traditional knowledge and practices, including the use of animals for medicinal purposes. In this chapter, we report on the use of 354 medicinal animal species in Brazil, 96% of which are wild caught and 21% of which are on one or more lists of endangered species. Further population declines may limit users’ access to these bioresources and diminish the knowledge base upon which traditional medicine is built.

Collaborative Integrated Management in Canada's North: The Role of Local and Traditional Knowledge and Community-Based Monitoring

Abstract: The objective of this article is to take stock of integrated management in the Canadian North, assessing its contribution to the advancement of knowledge and practice regarding the role of indigenous knowledge and community-based monitoring. This is done in three steps. (1) The Beaufort Sea, designated a Large Ocean Management Area under Canada's Oceans Action Plan, is used as an example of a consultative planning process, with special attention to indigenous peoples. (2) How specifically can indigenous knowledge contribute to integrated management? The problem of Arctic marine food web contamination is used to illustrate the strengths and limitations of traditional ecological knowledge and its relationship to science. (3) The discussion of community-based monitoring relies on Voices From The Bay study involving the Inuit and Cree of Hudson and James Bay, and Inuit observations of climate change study in the Canadian western Arctic. The examples together address integrated coastal management and the healt...

The Anti-Politics of TEK: The Institutionalization of Co-Management Discourse and Practice [Traditional Ecological Knowledge]

Abstract: IntroductionOver the past 20 years, co-operative management (comanagement) has become the accepted-even preferred-approach to wildlife management in the Canadian north.1 Throughout this period, provincial and territorial governments have worked with First Nations to establish a wide variety of co-management boards and committees throughout the region. Some of these co-management initiatives have been ad hoc responses to specific management problems; but, increasingly, First Nations and governments are establishing permanent co-management bodies through the land claims process. Given the cross-cultural nature of co-management, it is not surprising that anthropologists have been involved with such efforts from the beginning. Whether based at universities, working as consultants, or employed directly by First Nation governments, anthropologists have played an important role in advocating, designing and evaluating processes of wildlife co-management. Despite this involvement, however (and perhaps partially because of it), anthropologists and other scholars studying co-management have generally failed to engage in much critical analysis. Although they have identified numerous problems with the design and implementation of various co-management schemes, few have critically examined the project of co-management itself and the assumptions underlying it. Instead, most have accepted at face value proponents' claims about the potential beneficial effects of co-management and have worked to improve and facilitate co-management processes.2In the standard view advanced by its proponents, co-management has two important potential benefits. First, proponents believe that co-management will lead to an overall improvement in the practice of wildlife management. For one thing, it allows for the integration of "traditional ecological knowledge" (TEK) held by First Nation hunters with the knowledge produced by wildlife biologists, thus increasing the overall stock of knowledge on which management strategies are based. In addition, decentralized co-management regimes are potentially more responsive to local ecological conditions and more adaptive to highly variable northern ecosystems than are more centralized systems of state management. Secondly, proponents of co-management claim that the use of TEK will empower the aboriginal elders and hunters that hold such knowledge-and, by extension, aboriginal communities more generally (on the potential benefits of co-management, see e.g., Berkes 1994; Freeman 1992; Freeman and Carbyn 1988; Johannes 1989; Johnson 1992).In this article, I argue that we must not simply accept these claims at face value if we hope to understand co-management as a social phenomenon and gauge its real impact on northern native communities. Accordingly, I question-rather than proceed from-the standard assumptions about co-management. Without denying the sincerity of those who hope for improved management and the empowerment of First Nation people through co-management, we must also acknowledge that the complex process of co-management may have a number of other unforeseen-and unintended-consequences (see Ferguson 1994: 20-21). To get at these unintended effects, I focus on the "institutionalization" of co-management discourse and practice. The need to integrate co-management processes with existing institutional structures of state management has led to a tendency to view co-management as a series of technical problems (primarily associated with the question of how to gather "traditional knowledge" and incorporate it into the management process), rather than as a real alternative to the existing structures and practices of state management. This view effectively obscures the political and ethical dimensions of co-management. Indeed, it has engendered and naturalized a discourse that specifically excludes political and ethical considerations, which are treated as externalities, if they are considered at all. …

Minireviews: Exploring the Basic Ecological Unit: Ecosystem-like Concepts in Traditional Societies

Abstract: Ancient conceptualizations of ecosystems exist in several Amerindian, Asia-Pacific, European, and African cultures. The rediscovery by scientists of ecosystem-like concepts among traditional peoples has been important in the appreciation of traditional ecological knowledge among ecologists, anthropologists, and interdisciplinary scholars. Two key characteristics of these systems are that (a) the unit of nature is often defined in terms of a geographical boundary, such as a watershed, and (b) abiotic components, plants, animals, and humans within this unit are considered to be interlinked. Many traditional ecological knowledge systems are compatible with the emerging view of ecosystems as unpredictable and uncontrollable, and of ecosystem processes as nonlinear, multiequilibrium, and full of surprises. Traditional knowledge may complement scientific knowledge by providing practical experience in living within ecosystems and responding to ecosystem change. However, the “language” of traditional ecology is different from the scientific and usually includes metaphorical imagery and spiritual expression, signifying differences in context, motive, and conceptual underpinnings.