Taking different ways of knowing seriously: cross-cultural work as translations and multiplicity

Zanotti, Laura; Palomino-Schalscha, Marcela

doi:10.1007/s11625-015-0312-x

Cited by 37 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the context of sustainability, knowledge creation consists of more than the rational, cognitive and technical procedures of science as previously understood. Instead, knowledge creation is perceived as a process or practice (Zanotti & Palomino-Schalscha, 2015) that needs to deal with unstructured problems. Unstructured problems are characterized by a lack of repeatability due to uncertainty over elements of components of the problem, such as norms and values (Hugé, Block, Waas, Wright, & Dahdouh-Guebas, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of techniques for eliciting views and judgements in decision‐making

Zabala²,

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract1. Decision-making is a complex process that typically includes a series of stages: identifying the issue, considering possible options, making judgements and then making a decision by combining information and values. The current status quo relies heavily on the informational aspect of decision-making with little or no emphasis on the value positions that affect decisions.2. There is increasing realization of the importance of adopting rigorous methods for each stage such that the information, views and judgements of stakeholders and experts are used in a systematic and repeatable manner. Though there are several methodological textbooks which discuss a plethora of social science techniques, it is hard to judge the suitability of any given technique for a given decision problem.3. In decision-making, the three critical aspects are "what" decision is to be made, "who" makes the decisions and "how" the decisions are made. The methods covered in this paper focus on "how" decisions can be made. We compare six tech- 4. Based on structured reviews of 423 papers covering all six methods, we compare the conceptual and logistical characteristics of the methods, and map their suitability for the different stages of the decision-making process. While interviews and FGD are well-known, techniques such the Nominal Group technique and Q methodology are relatively under-used. In situations where conflict is high, we recommend using the Q methodology and Delphi technique to elicit judgements. Where

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of techniques for eliciting views and judgements in decision‐making

Zabala²,

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The methodology does not fit neatly into any category, but draws on decolonising research approaches (Smith, 1999;Kovach, 2009) and grounded theoretical principles (Glaser and Strauss, 1967;Pidgeon, 1996), while simultaneously seeking plural spaces of learning (Howitt and SuchetPearson, 2003;Zanotti and Palomino-Schalsha, 2006;Johnson et al, 2016). This theoretical framing was underpinned by Kaupapa Māori research principles (Smith, 1990(Smith, , 1999Te Awekotuku, 1991;Mead, 2003).…”

Section: Methodological Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Māori oral histories and the impact of tsunamis in Aotearoa-New Zealand

King

Shaw

Meihana

et al. 2018

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Māori oral histories from the northern South Island of Aotearoa-New Zealand provide details of ancestral experience with tsunami(s) on, and surrounding, Rangitoto (D'Urville Island). Applying an inductive-based methodology informed by "collaborative storytelling", exchanges with key informants from the Māori kin groups of Ngāti Koata and Ngāti Kuia reveal that a "folk tale", published in 1907, could be compared to and combined with active oral histories to provide insights into past catastrophic saltwater inundations. Such histories reference multiple layers of experience and meaning, from memorials to ancestral figures and their accomplishments to claims about place, authority and knowledge. Members of Ngāti Koata and Ngāti Kuia, who permitted us to record some of their histories, share the view that there are multiple benefits to be gained by learning from differences in knowledge, practice and belief. This work adds to scientific as well as Maōri understandings about tsunami hazards (and histories). It also demonstrates that to engage with Māori oral histories (and the people who genealogically link to such stories) requires close attention to a politics of representation, in both past recordings and current ways of retelling, as well as sensitivities to the production of "new" and "plural" knowledges. This paper makes these narratives available to a new audience, including those families who no longer have access to them, and recites these in ways that might encourage plural knowledge development and coexistence. Whakarāpopototanga. Ko ngā kōrero tukuā-waha Māori oTe Tauihu o te Waka a Māui e whakaahua nei i ngā wheako o ngā tūpuna ki te/ngā taiāniwhaniwha ki runga i te motu o Rangitoto, ki tōna takiwā anō hoki. Mā te whai i tētahi pūnaha, ko tōna tūāpapa ko ngā tirohanga ki te hapori,ā, he mea tohutohu hoki e 'te tuku kōreroā-kāhui', i mārama ai iētahi whakawhitinga kōrero kiētahi māngai matua o ngā iwi Māori o Ngāti Koata me Ngāti Kuia, tērā tētahi 'pūrākau' i tāngia i te tau 1907, ka taea tōna whakataurite me tōna whakakotahi atu kiētahi kōrero tukuā-waha e ora tonu nei, kia whai tirohanga ai kiētahi aituā parawhenua waitai nui o nehe. Koēnei momo kōrero tuku he whai wheako maha, he whai tikanga maha anō hoki, mai i te whakamaumahara ī etahi tūpuna o nehe me ngā mahi i oti i a rātou, tae atu ki ngā kōrero mō te rohe, mō te mana, mō te mātauranga anō. Ko tā ngā mema o Ngāti Koata me Ngāti Kuia i tuku kia hopukinaētahi oā rātou kōrero tuku e whakaae nei, he hua nui ka puta i te whai māramatanga ki ngā rerekētangaā-mātauranga, a-tikanga,ā-whakapono anō. Ka whakawhānui tēnei mahi i ngā māramatangaā-pūtaiao, otirā, i ngā māramatanga o te Māori ki ngā pūmate o te taiāniwhaniwha (me ngā kōrero tuku anō). He mea whakatauira anō e tēnei, e whai kiko ai te whai wāhi atu ki ngā kōrero tukuā-waha Māori (me te iwi e honoā-whakapapa ana ki ngā kōrero), me aro pū ki te taha tōrangapū o te tū hei māngai mō tangata kē, ki ngā hopukanga kōrero o mua, ki ngā ara tuku kōrero anō o nāianei,ā, me aro pū hoki ki ngā k...

show abstract

“…Engaged research attempts to move beyond academic or institutional spheres by emphasizing active involvement of stakeholders and participants throughout the research process (Harney et al 2016;Osborne 2017). One of the key features of engaged research design is the co-production, or the integration of different knowledge systems to create new knowledge or, in the case of some decolonial approaches, a "two-eyed" way of seeing (Alhojärvi and Sirviö 2018;Iwama et al 2012;Rodriguez 2017;Tengö et al 2014;Gallopín and Vessuri 2006;Zanotti and Palomino-Schalscha 2016). The growth of engaged work within the environmental social sciences and political ecology has been motivated in part by the recognition that research done with instead of on people and communities is ethical, and produces better science and more directly beneficial outcomes to all stakeholders (Kirsch 2010;Low and Merry 2010;Sillitoe 2016).…”

Section: Engaged and Decolonial Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Political ecology and decolonial research: co-production with the Iñupiat in Utqiaġvik

Zanotti

Carothers

Apok

et al. 2020

Journal of Political Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental social science research designs have shifted over the past several decades to include an increased commitment to multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinary team-based work that have had dual but complementary foci. These address power and equity in the substantive aspects of research, and also to adopt more engaged forms of practice, including decolonial approaches. The fields of political ecology, human geography, and environmental anthropology have been especially open to converge with indigenous scholarship, particularly decolonial and settler colonial theories and research designs, within dominant human-environmental social science paradigms. Scholars at the forefront of this dialogue highlight the ontological (ways of knowing), epistemological (how we know), and institutional (institutions of higher education) transformations that need to occur in order for this to take place. In this article we contribute to this literature in two ways. First, we highlight the synergies between political ecology and decolonial scholarship, particularly focusing on the power dynamics in research programs and historical legacies of human-environmental relationships, including those of researchers. Second, we explore how decolonial research pushes political ecologists and other environmental social scientists to not only consider adopting international and local standards of working with, by and for Indigenous Peoples within research programs but how this work ultimately extends to research and education within their home institutions and organizations. Through integrating decolonized research practices in the environmental social sciences, we argue that synthesizing multiple knowledge practices and transforming institutional structures will enhance team-based environmental social science work to improve collaboration with Indigenous scientists, subsistence practitioners, agency representatives, and sovereign members of Indigenous communities.Keywords: Alaska; collaboration; co-production; decolonial; Indigenous Knowledges; Iñupiaq Peoples

show abstract

Taking different ways of knowing seriously: cross-cultural work as translations and multiplicity

Cited by 37 publications

References 45 publications

Comparison of techniques for eliciting views and judgements in decision‐making

Comparison of techniques for eliciting views and judgements in decision‐making

Māori oral histories and the impact of tsunamis in Aotearoa-New Zealand

Political ecology and decolonial research: co-production with the Iñupiat in Utqiaġvik

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About