Toward productive complicity: Applying ‘traditional ecological knowledge’ in environmental science

Abstract

Culture and tradition have long been the domains of social science, particularly social/cultural anthropology and various forms of heritage studies. However, many environmental scientists whose research addresses environmental management, conservation, and restoration are also interested in traditional ecological knowledge, indigenous and local knowledge, and local environmental knowledge (hereafter TEK), not least because policymakers and international institutions promote the incorporation of TEK in environmental work. In this article, we examine TEK usage in peer-reviewed articles by environmental scientists published in 2020. This snapshot of environmental science scholarship includes both critical discussions of how to incorporate TEK in research and management and efforts to do so for various scholarly and applied purposes. Drawing on anthropological discussions of culture, we identify two related patterns within this literature: a tendency toward essentialism and a tendency to minimize power relationships. We argue that scientists whose work reflects these trends might productively engage with knowledge from the scientific fields that study culture and tradition. We suggest productive complicity as a reflexive mode of partnering, and a set of questions that facilitate natural scientists adopting this approach: What and/or who is this TEK for? Who and what will benefit from this TEK deployment? How is compensation/credit shared? Does this work give back and/or forward to all those involved?

Inevitable epistemological conflict: Reflections on a disagreement over the relationship between science and indigenous and local knowledge

“…As we argue elsewhere, an alternative framing for scientist-IPLC engagements and indeed extended peer communities more generally is “productive complicity” (Singleton et al, 2021 ). Productive complicity refers to contingent, politically sensitive collaborations that affirm temporary but useful essentialisms, such as “indigenous and local knowledge”, in order to achieve shared objectives.…”

“…In their initial paper, Reyes-García et al ( 2022a ) argue for integrating indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) into biodiversity science, echoing other environmental scientific rhetoric (cf. Singleton et al 2021 ). They argue for the importance of ILK for biodiversity and sustainability transitions and the importance for science-ILK integration for indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLC) rights and territorial claims.…”

“…In the recent exchange between Reyes-García et al and Lopez-Maldonado, important points are raised, but both sides fail to recognise their embeddedness in an ongoing conflict about the epistemological boundaries of science and the social category of expert within the “extended peer community” (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1994 ). In the following paragraphs, we briefly discuss what we feel has been missed, arguing for an approach to western science-ILK engagements called “productive complicity” (Singleton et al 2021 ).…”

Natural and Indigenous sciences: reflections on an attempt to collaborate

“…They have differing power dynamics and levels of formality, affected by all kinds of variables including gender, language and race (Riley et al 2003;Chen 2011;Muhammad et al 2015). When ecological research has included Indigenous perspectives, there has been a notable lack of attention given to power relations between different parties (Cameron 2012;Whyte 2013;Ford et al 2016;Mosurska and Ford 2020;Singleton et al 2021). As it stands, it is often the scientists that hold the power, controlling the research funding and data interpretation, use and presentation.…”

The many faces of knowledge: Do science and traditional ecological knowledge coexist in federal assessments?

“…With this paradigm shift, new sources of information are pooled with scientific expertise. However, this information emanates from processes understood, characterized, and sometimes wrongfully essentialized as diametrically different from the causal inference methods typically used by Canadian authorities (Singleton et al, 2021). Thus, this knowledge, referred to as local ecological knowledge, Indigenous knowledges, Aboriginal traditional knowledge or traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) 1 , may be perceived by policymakers or experts as anecdotal or socio-cultural constructs (Varghese & Crawford, 2021).…”