Advertisement

Sustainability Science

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 139–152 | Cite as

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

Special Feature: Original Article Weaving Indigenous and Sustainability Sciences to Diversify Our Methods (WIS2DOM)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Special Feature: Weaving Indigenous and Sustainability Sciences to Diversify Our Methods (WIS2DOM)

Abstract

This article discusses the roles, challenges and opportunities of non-Indigenous academics working at the interface of Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledges. Sustainability scientists have both questioned and advocated for cross-cultural research, and in this article we reflect on what working across different ways of knowing entails for non-Indigenous researchers at the professional, personal and epistemological level. Grounded on our experiences of on-going engagement with Indigenous communities, this article explores multiple pathways of taking Indigenous knowledges seriously while working in “Western” academic settings. In doing so, it highlights issues around the role and responsibility of non-Indigenous researchers in decolonising the (re)production of knowledges and the multiple contexts in which this can take place in sustainability science. It then deals with some of the challenges and ethical dilemmas we have encountered along the way, mainly with regards to issues of representation, translation in a broader sense, participation, and authority. Finally, this article discusses some of the epistemological consequences of engaging in such work, and how despite being fraught with tensions and contradictions, it can help to foster spaces of plural co-existence.

Keywords

Indigenous knowledges Cross-cultural work Translation Multiplicity Participation Decolonisation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

To Jay Johnson, Renee Pualani Louis, and Andrew Kliskey for inviting us to Wis2dom Workshop and later to write in this special edition. We also would like to extend thanks to the other workshop participants. Thanks to the communities that have invited us into their homes and to whom we are forever indebted to this work. A final thanks to Patrick Freeland, who emphasised the importance of honour and respect in research praxis, and was very much an inspiration for this article.

References

  1. Barnes TJ, Sheppard E (2010) ‘Nothing includes everything’: towards engaged pluralism in Anglophone economic geography. Prog Hum Geogr 34(2):193–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Behar R (1997) The vulnerable observer: Anthropology that breaks your heart. Beacon Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  3. Behar R (2013) Traveling heavy: a memoir between journeys. Duke University Press, DurhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beilin R, Bohnet I (2015) Culture-production-place and nature: the landscapes of somewhere. Sustain Sci. doi: 10.1007/s11625-015-0289-5 Google Scholar
  5. Benessia A, Funtowicz S, Bradshaw G, Ferri F, Raez-Luna EF, Medina CP (2012) Hybridizing sustainability: towards a new praxis for the present human predicament. Sustain Sci 7(Suppl 1):75–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berkes F (1999) Sacred ecology. Taylor and Francis, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  7. Berkes F (2004) Rethinking community-based conservation. Conserv Biol 18(3):621–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bernstein RJ (1992) The new constellation: Ethical-political horizons of modernity/postmodernity. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Bishop R (1994) Initiating empowering research? N Z J Educ Stud 29(1):175–188Google Scholar
  10. Cahill C (2007) Participatory data analysis. In: Kindon S, Pain R, Kesby M (eds) Participatory action research approaches and methods. Connecting people, participation and place. Routledge, London, New York, pp 181–187Google Scholar
  11. Cajete G (2000) Native science: natural laws of interdependence. Clear Light Publishers, Santa FeGoogle Scholar
  12. Cepek M (2012) A future for Amazonia. University of Texas Press, AustinGoogle Scholar
  13. Charnley S, Poe MR (2007) Community forestry in theory and practice: where are we now? Annu Rev Anthropol 36:301–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cupples J (2002) Disrupting discourses and (re)formulating identities: the politics of single motherhood in post-revolutionary Nicaragua. Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Geography at the University of CanterburyGoogle Scholar
  15. De la Cadena M, Starn O (2007) Introduction. In: De la Cadena M, Starn O (eds) Indigenous experience today. Berg Publishers, Oxford, pp 1–30Google Scholar
  16. Deloria V Jr (1969) Custer died for your sins: an Indiana manifesto. MacMillian, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. DeLyser D, Sui D (2013) Crossing the qualitative quantitative chasm III: Enduring methods, open geography, participatory research, and the fourth paradigm. Prog Human Geograph 1–14Google Scholar
  18. Denzin NK (2010) The qualitative manifesto: A call to arms. Left Coast Press, Walnut CreekGoogle Scholar
  19. Denzin NK, Lincoln Y (2008) Introduction: Methodologies and indigenous inquiry In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, Smith LT (eds) Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies. Sage, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  20. Elmhirst R (2011) Introduction new feminist political ecologies. Geoforum 42(2):129–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fine-Dare K, Rubenstein S (2009) Border crossings: transnational Americanist anthropology. University of Nebraska Press, LincolnGoogle Scholar
  22. Fisher W (2003) Name rituals and acts of feeling among the Kayapó (Mebengokre). J Roy Anthropol Inst 9(1):117–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Forsey G (2010) Ethnography as participant listening. Ethnography 11:558–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Frantz K, Howitt R (2010) Geography for and with indigenous peoples: Indigenous geographies as challenge and invitation. Geo J 77:727–731Google Scholar
  25. Gallopin GC, Funtowicz S, O’Connor M, Ravetz J (2001) Science for the 21st century: from social contract to the scientific core. Int J Soc Sci 168:219–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gibbs M (2001) Toward a strategy for undertaking cross-cultural collaborative research. Soc Nat Res 14:673–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ginsburg F (2008) Rethinking the Digital Age. In: Wilson P, Stewart M (eds) Global indigenous media: cultures, poetics, and politics. Duke University Press, Durham, pp 287–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gombay N (2012) Placing economies: lessons from the Inuit about economics, time, and existence. J Cult Geograp 29:19–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Graham LR (2005) Image and instrumentality in a Xavante politics of existential recognition: the public outreach work of Eténhiritipa Pimentel Barbosa. Am Ethnol 32(4):622–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Haig-Brown C (2003) Creating spaces: Testimonio, impossible knowledge, and academe. Int J Qual Stud Educ 16(3):415–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Haig-Brown C, Archibald JA (1996) Transforming First Nations research with respect and power. Int J Qual Stud Educ 9(3):245–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Haraway D (1988) Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspectives. Feminist Stud 14(3):575–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Harrell S, Wubumo B, Erzi M (2000) Mountain patterns: the survival of Nuosu culture in China. University of Washington Press, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  34. Hermes M (1998) Research methods as a situated response: towards a First Nations’ methodology. Int J Qual Stud Educ 11(1):155–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hodge P, Lester J (2006) Indigenous research: whose priority? Journeys and possibilities of cross-cultural research in geography. Geogr Res 44(1):41–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Howitt R et al. (2010) Nurturing new geographies of coexistence: Rethinking cultural interfaces in land and sea governance. Paper for presentation at the Institute of Australian Geographers/Geographical Society of New Zealand Conference, Christchurch, July 2010Google Scholar
  37. Howitt R, Stevens S (2005) Cross-cultural research: Ethics, methods, and relationships. In: Hay I (ed) Qualitative research methods in human geography. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  38. Howitt R, Suchet-Pearson S (2003) Ontological pluralism in contested cultural landscapes. In: Anderson K, Domosh M, Pile S, Thrift N (eds) Handbook of cultural geography. SAGE Publisher, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. Howitt R, Suchet-Pearson S (2006) Rethinking the building blocks: ontological pluralism and the idea of management. Geografiska Annaler Series B Human Geogr 88:323–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hunn ES (1999) The value of subsistence for the future of the world. In: Nazarea V (ed) Ethnoecology: situated knowledge/located lives. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp 26–30Google Scholar
  41. Johnson JT, Larson S (2013) Introduction: A deeper sense of place. In: Johnson JT, Larson S (eds) Deeper sense Of place: stories and journeys Of Indigenous-academic collaboration. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, pp 7–18Google Scholar
  42. Jolles C (2006) Listening to elders, working with youth. In: Stern P, Stevenson L (eds) Critical Inuit studies: an anthropology of contemporary arctic ethnography. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp 35–53Google Scholar
  43. Jones A, Jenkins K (2008) Rethinking collaboration: Working in the Indigene-colonizer hyphen. In: Denzin N, Lincoln Y, Smith LT (eds) Handbook of critical and Indigenous methodologies, N. Sage, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  44. Kaomea J (2001) Dilemmas of an Indigenous academic: a Native Hawaiian story. Contemp Issues Early Child 2(1):61–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Komiyama H, Takeuchi K (2006) Sustainability science: building a new discipline. Sustain Sci 1:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kovach ME (2000) Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversation, and contexts. University of Toronto Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  47. Larkin PJ et al (2007) Multilingual translation issues in qualitative research: reflections on a metaphorical process. Qual Health Res 17(4):468–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Larsen SC, Johnson JT (2012) In between worlds: place, experience, and research in Indigenous geography. J Cult Geogr 29(1):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lassiter LE (2005) The Chicago guide to collaborative ethnography. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lather P (1986) Research as Praxis. Harvard Educ Rev 56(3):257–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Latour B (1993) We have never been modern. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  52. Laurie N, Andolina R, Radcliffe S (2005) Ethnodevelopment: social movements, creating experts and professionalising indigenous knowledge in Ecuador. Antipode 37:470–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Louise Pratt M (1991) Arts of the contact zone. Profession 33-40Google Scholar
  54. Low SM, Merry SE (2010) Engaged anthropology: diversity and dilemmas. Curr Anthropol 51(S2):S203–S226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Manathunga C (2009) Research as an intercultural ‘contact zone’. Discourse Stud Cult Politi Educ 30(2):165–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Manzo LC, Brightbill N (2007) Toward a participatory ethics. In: Kindon S, Pain R, Kesby M (eds) Participatory action research approaches and methods. Connecting people, participation and place, Routledge, London, New York, pp 33–40Google Scholar
  57. Mauro F, Hardison P (2000) Traditional knowledge of Indigenous and local communities: international debate and policy initiatives. Ecol Appl 10(5):1263–1269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. McGregor D (2004) Coming full circle: indigenous knowledge, environment, and our future. Am Indian Quart 28(3/4):385–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nadasdy P (1999) The politics of TEK: power and the “integration” of knowledge. Arctic Anthropol 36(1–2):1–18Google Scholar
  60. Nicholls R (2008) Research and Indigenous participation: critical reflexive methods. Int J Soc Res Methodol 12(2):117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Niezen R (2003) The origins of Indigenism: Human rights and the politics of identity. University of California Press, BerkeleyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Nixon, R (2011) Slow violence and the environmentalism of the poor. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  63. Overing J, Passes A (2000) The anthropology of love and anger: The aesthetics of conviviality in Native Amazonia. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  64. Pain R (2004) Social geography: participatory research. Prog Hum Geogr 28(5):652–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pain R et al. (2007) Conclusion: the space(s) and scale(s) of Participatory Action Research: constructing empowering geographies? In: Kindon S, Pain R, Kesby M (eds) Participatory action research approaches and methods. Connecting people, participation and place, Routledge, London, New York, pp 225–230Google Scholar
  66. Rayner S (2012) Uncomfortable knowledge: the social construction of ignorance in science and environmental policy discourses. Econ Soc 41(1):107–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Robbins P (2012) Political ecology a critical introduction. 2nd ed. J. Wiley & Sons, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  68. Rouch J (1991) Speaking for, speaking about, speaking with, or speaking alongside—an anthropological and documentary dilemma. Visual Anthropol Rev 7(2):50–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Smith LT (1999) Decolonizing methodologies: research and indigenous peoples. Zed Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  70. Spagenberg JH (2011) Sustainability science: a review, an analysis and some empirical lessons. Environ Conserv 38(3):275–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Swadener BB, Mutua K (2008) Decolonizing performances: Deconstructing the global postcolonial. In: Denzin N, Lincoln Y, Smith LT (eds) Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies. Sage, Los Angeles, pp 31–43Google Scholar
  72. van der Leeuw S, Wike A, Harlow J, Buizer J (2012) How much time do we have? Urgency and rhetoric in sustainability science. Sustain Sci (Supplement 1):115–120Google Scholar
  73. Wright S et al (2014) Working with and learning from Country: decentring human author-ity. Cult Geogr 29(1):39–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Zanotti L, Chernela J (2008) Conflicting cultures of nature: ecotourism, education and the Kayapó of the Brazilian Amazon. J Tourism Geogr 10(4):495–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Zapata C (2006) Identidad, nación y territorio en la escritura de los intelectuales mapuches. Revista Mexicana de Sociología 68(3):467–509Google Scholar
  76. Zimmerman B, Peres CA, Malcolm JR, Turner T (2001) Conservation and development alliances with the Kayapó of South-eastern Amazonia, a tropical forest indigenous people. Environ Conserv 28(1):10–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Anthropology, Center for the EnvironmentPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.School of Geography, Environment and Earth SciencesVictoria University of WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations