Participatory research approaches in mining-impacted hydrosocial systems

Abstract

As demonstrated by Indigenous and rural scholars, participatory research approaches can facilitate capacity building, promote data accessibility, and accomplish community goals within complex hydrosocial systems. To demonstrate challenges and opportunities for participatory research, we describe hydrosocial territories in a mining-impact region in northern Idaho. We then compare two communityuniversity partnerships in the study region, which included Tribal and non-Tribal rural communities. We find that the Participatory Action Research and Indigenous Research Methodologies frameworks provide a robust set of practices and methods for conducting more equitable and inclusive research. Further, participatory research approaches in research involving mining-impacted hydrosocial systems should: (1) build from established programs, goals, and practices; (2) identify respectful levels of partnership engagement, and (3) recognize partnership limitations. Future inquiry in complex hydrosocial systems should continue to build from the existing collection of participatory scholarship to address power imbalances and cultural differences and implement non-intrusive approaches to evaluate outcomes.

How does co-produced research influence adaptive capacity? Lessons from a cross-case comparison

“…Continuous interactions and partnerships as integral to co-production of knowledge may be warranted for specific groups. Our evidence suggests that including Indigenous communities and partners in projects through intensive co-production processes (if they want to work with collaborators and agree to the project in the first place) (Torso et al 2020(Torso et al , p. 2342) may positively influence adaptive capacity outcomes, as was exemplified in Case 5 in our data (and should be designed through a partnership format and implemented through highly interactive co-production processes). However, as was shown in Case 6, purely stakeholder-based projects that do not include a partnership design or include stakeholders in project design, although still time-intensive, can still have remarkable adaptive capacity outcomes (including Scope 2 outcomes).…”

“…For example, coproduction approaches may be particularly well-suited to the sorts of "boundary managing" functions, including communication, translation, and mediation, that Cash et al (2003, p. 38) argue are essential for increasing the salience, credibility, and legitimacy of information designed to bridge the knowledge-action divide [see also Delozier et al (in review) who explore how people with boundary spanning skills work across disciplines to build trust in collaborative processes-people with these skills would be invaluable in co-production processes]. Moreover, as we stated before, working with Indigenous communities may warrant a coproduction approach when appropriate and if desired by the community (Torso et al 2020). Finally, knowledge coproduction processes that build materially substantive partnerships and constituencies beyond the university setting may be especially instrumental for sustaining the legitimacy of public research institutions whose mission and finances are increasingly threatened, in part, by accusations of outof-touch elitism, culture-war politics, and state and federal austerity budgets (Wu 2017, p. 2).…”

How Central Water Management Impacts Local Livelihoods: An Ethnographic Case Study of Mining Water Extraction in Tarapacá, Chile

“…Of course, another way of broadening the evidence base and appreciating uncertainties might have been to allow non-technical knowledge to be included. It is precisely because "the socio-hydrological model itself becomes a political 'actor' that is socially constructed and therefore not neutral in its effect on the socio-hydrological reality" [60] (p. 1435) that modeling ought to attempt to integrate local stakeholders' perspectives [59,82]. Our paper has shown how local people indeed try to articulate their concerns vis-à-vis the regulatory constellation-or be it in a rather uncoordinated process.…”

“…Instead, interdisciplinary approaches have been suggested that allow for dialogue between different knowledge systems in diverse fields such as climate change adaptation [57] or water allocation [58]. Various methodologies have been developed that seek to incorporate and encourage the participation of local actors and stakeholders in the shaping of a more "holistic" and "democratic" knowledge base in and for modeling [59]. Such participatory modeling has been implemented in a number of cases [57,[60][61][62].…”

“…However, as we have already noted, the problem has more to do with the application of certain models and the use of modeling outcomes rather than the models themselves in a generic sense. There have already been several experiences that demonstrate that different knowledges can enter a fruitful dialogue through participatory modeling that provides greater stability, legitimation, and robustness to applied knowledge [59][60][61].…”