Advertisement

Ethics and Research Methodologies for the Study of Traditional Forest-Related Knowledge

  • Christian Gamborg
  • Reg Parsons
  • Rajindra K. Puri
  • Peter Sandøe
Chapter
Part of the World Forests book series (WFSE, volume 12)

Abstract

This chapter examines some of the main research methodologies for studying traditional forest-related knowledge (TFRK). Initially, we address ethical issues, asking, for example, what constitutes proper handling of research results. The relationship between TFRK and modern science is then discussed from a methodological perspective, after which an account of some of the main methods used for studying such knowledge—including participant observation, interviews, cultural domain analysis, questionnaires, and workshops—is provided. Ethnographic approaches are recommended for documenting both verbal and tacit knowledge embedded in skills and practices, while the tools of cultural domain analysis allow for both quantitative and qualitative analysis of individual variation in knowledge. Finally, recurring elements of best practice are presented. If ethical and methodological questions are not addressed in a consistent and systematic manner from the outset of the research, the rights of TFRK owners may well be infringed, meaning that benefits will not accrue to the owners and that access to resources (such as genetic resources) may be suddenly curtailed. Thus, all parties must address the challenges raised by the maintenance, use, and protection of traditional forest-related knowledge when there is interaction between the holders and users of such knowledge.

Keywords

Access and benefit-sharing Best practices Intellectual property rights Participatory research Research methods Science ethics Traditional knowledge 

References

  1. Agrawal A (1995) Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. Dev Change 26:413–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alaska Native Science Commission (2004) Ethical guidelines for the use of traditional knowledge in research and science. Adapted from traditional knowledge research guidelines—Council of Nations. Available via http://www.cyfn.ca/index.html. Cited 15 July 2009
  3. Battiste M, Youngblood HJ (2000) Protecting indigenous knowledge and heritage. Purish Publishing Ltd., SaskatoonGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker CD, Ghimire K (2003) Synergy between traditional ecological knowledge and conservation science supports forest preservation in Ecuador. Conserv Ecol 8(1):1Google Scholar
  5. Berkes F (2004) Rethinking community-based conservation. Conserv Biol 18(3):621–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berkes F (2008) Sacred ecology, 2nd edn. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernard HR (2000) Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  8. Bernard HR (2005) Research methods in anthropology, 4th edn. Altamira Press, Walnut CreekGoogle Scholar
  9. Bishop R (2005) Freeing ourselves from neo-colonial domination in research: a Kaupapa Māori approach to creating knowledge. In: Denzin N, Lincoln Y (eds) The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 109–138Google Scholar
  10. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [CIHR] (2007) CIHR guidelines for health research involving aboriginal people. CIHR, Ottawa, 46 p. Available via http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/ethics_aboriginal_guidelines_e.pdf. Cited 15 July 2009
  11. CGIAR (2009): See Consultative Group on International Agricultural ResearchGoogle Scholar
  12. Clayoquot Alliance for Research, Education and Training (2003) Standard of conduct of research in Northern Barkley and Clayoquot Sound communities. Available via http://depts.washington.edu/ccph/pdf_files/standardconduct_jun03-1.pdf. Cited 15 July 2009
  13. Colfer CJP, Colchester M, Joshi L, Puri RK, Nygren A, Lopez C (2005) Traditional knowledge and human well-being in the 21st century. In: Mery G, Alfaro R, Kanninen M, Lobovikov M (eds) Forests in the global balance—changing paradigms, vol 17, IUFRO World Series. International Union of Forest Research Organizations [IUFRO], Helsinki, pp 173–182Google Scholar
  14. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research [CGIAR] (2009) CGIAR guidelines on the acquisition and use of traditional knowledge. Unpublished manuscript, draft 2009. Available via http://cgiar.org/pdf/grpc_24th_meeting_minutes.pdf. Cited 15 July 2009
  15. Cooperative Research Centre [CRC] (Desert Knowledge) (2007) What are ethics? CRC briefing paper 6. Available via http://www.desertknowledgecrc.com.au/socialscience/downloads/DKCRC-SS-BP6-What-are-ethics.pdf
  16. Davidson-Hunt IJ (2003) Indigenous lands management, cultural landscapes and Anishinaabe people of Shoal Lake, Northwestern Ontario, Canada. Environments 31:21Google Scholar
  17. Davidson-Hunt IJ, O’Flaherty MR (2007) Researchers, indigenous peoples, and place-based learning communities. Soc Nat Resour 20:291–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Davis SM, Reid R (1999) Practicing participatory research in American Indian communities. Am J Clin Nutr 69(Supplement):755S–759SPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Dickson D (2003) Let’s not get too romantic about traditional knowledge. Editorial. Science and Development Network. Available via http://www.scidev.net. Cited 15 July 2009
  20. Donovan DG, Puri RK (2004) Learning from traditional knowledge of non-timber forest products: Penan Benalui and the autecology of Aquilaria in Indonesian Borneo. Ecol Soc 9(3):3, Available via http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art3. Cited 13 Sept 2009Google Scholar
  21. Duerden F (2005) Relations between traditional knowledge and western science (review). Arctic 58(3):309–310Google Scholar
  22. Ellen RF, Harris H (2000) Introduction. In: Ellen R, Parkes P, Bicker A (eds) Indigenous environmental knowledge and its transformations: critical anthropological perspectives. Harwood Academic Press, Amsterdam, pp 1–33Google Scholar
  23. Fernandez-Gimenez ME, Huntington HP, Frost KJ (2006) Integration or co-optation? Traditional knowledge and science in the Alaska Beluga Whale Committee. Environ Conserv 33(4):306–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Folke C (2004) Traditional knowledge in social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 9(3):7Google Scholar
  25. Forest Peoples Programme et al (2005) Broken promises: how World Bank group policies fail to protect forests and forest peoples’ rights. Available via http://www.forestpeoples.org/documents/ifi_igo/wb_forests_joint_pub_apr05_eng.pdf. Cited 20 July 2009
  26. Fortmann L (ed) (2008) Participatory research in conservation and rural livelihoods: doing science together. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  27. Fricker M (2007) Epistemic injustice: power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Goodenough W (1970) Description and comparison in cultural anthropology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Headland TN, Pike K, Harris M (eds) (1990) Emics and etics: the insider/outsider debate. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  30. Huntington HP (2000) Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: methods and applications. Ecol Appl 10:1270–1274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Huntington HP, Brown-Schwalenberg PK, Frost KJ, Fernandez-Gimenez ME, Norton DW (2002) Observations on the workshop as a means of improving communication between holders of traditional and scientific knowledge. Environ Manag 30(6):778–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Huntington HP, Suydam RS, Rosenberg DH (2004) Traditional knowledge and satellite tracking as complementary approaches to ecological understanding. Environ Conserv 31(3):177–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Huntington HP, Trainor SF, Natcher DC, Huntington OH, DeWilde L, Chaplin SFI (2006) The significance of context in community-based research: understanding discussions about wildfire in Huslia, Alaska. Ecol Soc 11(1):40Google Scholar
  34. Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics (2010) Tri-Council policy statement: ethical conduct for research involving humans (TCPS2), 2nd edn. Interagency Secretariat on Research Ethics, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  35. International Council for Science [ICSU] (2002) Traditional knowledge and sustainable development. ICSU series on science for sustainable development 4. International Council for Science, Paris. Available via http://www.icsu.org/. Cited 15 July 2009
  36. International Institute for Sustainable Development [IISD] (2005) A guide to using the working draft ABS management tool—a management tool for implementing genetic resource access and benefit sharing activities. IISD, Winnipeg, 72 p. Available via http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2005/standards_abs_mt_user_guide.pdf. Cited 20 July 2009
  37. International Institute of Rural Reconstruction [IIRR] (1996) Recording and using indigenous knowledge: a manual. Cavite, SilangGoogle Scholar
  38. International Society of Ethnobiology (2006) International Society of Ethnobiology code of ethics (with 2008 additions). Available via http://ise.arts.ubc.ca/global_coalition/ethics.php. Cited 16 Sept 2009
  39. Johannes RE (1989) Fishing and traditional knowledge. In: Johannes RE (ed) Traditional ecological knowledge: a collection of essays. IUCN, Gland, pp 39–43Google Scholar
  40. Kitson JC (2004) Harvest rate of sooty shearwaters (Puffinus griseus) by Rakiura Maori: a potential tool to monitor population trends? Wildl Res 31(3):319–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Laird SA (ed) (2002) Biodiversity and traditional knowledge: equitable partnerships in practice. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. Martin GJ (2004) Ethnobotany: a methods manual. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  43. Mazzocchi F (2006) Western science and traditional knowledge. EMBO Rep 7(5):463–466PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McDonald JA (2004) The Tsimshian protocols: locating and empowering community-based research. Can J Nativ Educ 28(1–2):80–91Google Scholar
  45. McGregor D (2008) Linking traditional ecological knowledge and western science: aboriginal perspectives from the 2000 state of the lakes ecosystem conference. Can J Nativ Stud 28(1):139–158Google Scholar
  46. McManis CR (ed) (2007) Biodiversity and the law: intellectual property, biotechnology and traditional knowledge. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  47. Medeek WW (2004) Forests for the future: the view from Gitkxaala. Can J Nativ Educ 28(1–2):8–14Google Scholar
  48. Moller H, Berkes F, Lyver PO, Kislalioglu M (2004) Combining science and traditional ecological knowledge: monitoring populations for co-management. Ecol Soc 9(3):2Google Scholar
  49. Newing H, Eagle C, Puri RK, Watson CW (eds) (2010) Conducting research in conservation, a social science perspective. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  50. O’Flaherty RM, Davidson-Hunt I, Manseau M (2007) Keeping woodland caribou (Ahtik) in the Whitefeather Forest, vol 27, Sustainable Forest Management Network Research Note Series. Sustainable Forest Management Network, Edmonton, Available via http://www.sfmnetwork.ca/docs/e/E27%20Caribou%20in%20the%20Whitefeather%20forest.pdf. Cited 4 Oct 2009Google Scholar
  51. Parsons R, Prest G (2003) Aboriginal forestry in Canada. For Chron 79(4):779–784Google Scholar
  52. Pike KL (1967) Language in relation to a unified theory of structure of human behaviour, 2nd edn. Mouton, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  53. Puri RK (2001a) Local knowledge and manipulation of the fruit ‘mata kucing’ (Dimocarpus longan) in East Kalimantan. In: Victor M, Barash A (eds) Cultivating forests: alternative forest management practices and techniques for community forestry. RECOFTC, Bangkok, pp 98–110, Available via: http://www.recoftc.org/pubs_interreports.html#Cultivating. Cited 16 Sept 2009Google Scholar
  54. Puri RK (2001b) The Bulungan ethnobiology handbook. Center for International Forestry Research [CIFOR], Bogor, Available via http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications. Cited 16 Sept 2009Google Scholar
  55. Puri RK (2005) Deadly dances in the Bornean rainforest: hunting knowledge of the Penan Benalui. KITLV Press, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  56. Puri RK (2007) Responses to medium-term stability in climate: El Niño, droughts and coping mechanisms of foragers and farmers in Borneo. In: Ellen R (ed) Modern crises and traditional strategies: local ecological knowledge in Island Southeast Asia. Berghahn, Oxford, pp 46–83Google Scholar
  57. Puri RK (2010a) Documenting local knowledge. In: Newing H, Eagle C, Puri RK, Watson CW (eds) Conducting research in conservation, a social science perspective. Routledge, London, pp 146–169, Chapter 8Google Scholar
  58. Puri RK (2010b) Participatory mapping. In: Newing H, Eagle C, Puri RK, Watson CW (eds) Conducting research in conservation, a social science perspective. Routledge, London, pp 187–198, Chapter 10Google Scholar
  59. Puri RK (2010c) Participant observation. In: Newing H, Eagle C, Puri RK, Watson CW (eds) Conducting research in conservation, a social science perspective. Routledge, London, pp 85–97, Chapter 5Google Scholar
  60. Ramakrishnan PS, Chandrashekara UM, Elouard C, Guilmoto CZ, Maikhuri RK, Rao KS, Sankar S, Saxena KG (eds) (2000) Mountain biodiversity, land use dynamics, and traditional ecological knowledge. UNESCO and Oxford and IBH Publishing, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  61. Reason P, Bradbury H (eds) (2001) The SAGE handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  62. Roslin A (2005) The Ndoho Istchee vision. Waswanipi Cree Model Forest, Waswanipi Cree First Nation, QuebecGoogle Scholar
  63. Sandker M, Suwarno A, Campbell BM (2007) Will forests remain in the face of oil palm expansion? Simulating change in Malinau, Indonesia. Ecol Soc 12(2):37, Available via http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art37/. Cited 16 Sept 2009Google Scholar
  64. Sandøe P, Jensen KK (2008) How should the CGIAR handle ethical challenges? Issues and proposal for a strategic study. In: Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research [CGIAR] (ed) Ethical challenges for the CGIAR: report of three studies. CGIAR Science Council Secretariat, Rome, pp 9–31. Available via ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/i0501e/i0501e00.pdf. Cited 15 July 2009
  65. Sandøe P, Ejeta G, Lipton M, Jensen KK, Gardiner P (2008a) Ethics and CGIAR mission: study III. In: Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research [CGIAR] (ed) Ethical challenges for the CGIAR: report of three studies. CGIAR Science Council Secretariat, Rome, pp 83–111. Available via ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/i0501e/i0501e00.pdf. Cited 15 July 2009
  66. Sandøe P, Adair L, Dias C, Jensen KK, Gardiner P (2008b) Ethics and CGIAR research: study II. In: Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research [CGIAR] (ed). Ethical challenges for the CGIAR: report of three studies. CGIAR Science Council Secretariat, Rome, pp 49–74. Available via ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/i0501e/i0501e00.pdf. Cited 15 July 2009
  67. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2002) Bonn guidelines on access to genetic resources and fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of their utilization. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Available via http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop. Cited 15 July 2009Google Scholar
  68. Sheil D, Puri RK, Basuki I, van Heist M, Wan M, Liswanti N, Rukmiyati, Sardjono MA, Samsoedin I, Sidiyasa K, Chrisandini, Permana E, Angi EM, Gatzweiler F, Johnson B, Wijay A (2003) Exploring biological diversity, environment and local people’s perspectives in forest landscapes: methods for a multidisciplinary landscape assessment, 2nd edn. Center for International Forestry Research [CIFOR], Bogor, Available via http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/mla/download/publication/exploring_bio.pdf. Cited 16 Sept 2009Google Scholar
  69. Sheil D, Puri RK, Wan M, Basuki I, van Heist M, Liswanti N, Rukmiyati I, Rachmatika I, Samsoedin I (2006) Local people’s priorities for biodiversity: examples from the forests of Indonesian Borneo. Ambio 15(1):17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Smylie J, Martin CM, Kaplan-Myth N, Steele L, Tait C, Hogg W (2004) Knowledge translation and indigenous knowledge. Int J Circumpolar Health 63(suppl 2):139–143PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Stehr N, Grundmann R (2005) Knowledge: critical concepts. Taylor and Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  72. Tobias T (2000) Chief Kerry’s moose: a guidebook to land use and occupancy mapping, research design and data collection. Union of BC Indians and Ecotrust Canada, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  73. Trosper RL (2009) Resilience, reciprocity and ecological economics: Northwest Coast sustainability. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  74. Turnbull D (1997) Reframing science and other local knowledge traditions. Futures 29(6):551–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Turner NJ (2005) The Earth’s blanket, traditional teachings for sustainable living. Douglas and McIntyre, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  76. United Nations [UN] (2007) United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples 2007. Adopted by the General Assembly 13 September 2007. Available via http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/declaration.html. Cited 15 July 2009
  77. Vayda AP, Walters B, Setyawati I (2003) Doing and knowing: questions about studies of local knowledge. In: Bicker AJ, Sillitoe P, Pottier J (eds) Investigating local knowledge: new directions, new approaches. Ashgate Publishing, London, pp 35–58Google Scholar
  78. Wa G, Uukw D (1992) The spirit in the land: statements of the Gitksan and Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, 1987–1990. Reflections, GabriolaGoogle Scholar
  79. Weller S, Romney A (1988) Systematic data collection. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  80. Whitefeather Forest Research Cooperative [WFRC] (2004) Whitefeather Forest Research Cooperative agreement. Pikangikum First Nation, Ontario. Available via: http://www.whitefeatherforest.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/wfrc_agreement.pdf. Cited 4 Oct 2009

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Gamborg
    • 1
  • Reg Parsons
    • 2
  • Rajindra K. Puri
    • 3
  • Peter Sandøe
    • 4
  1. 1.Danish Centre for Forest, Landscape and PlanningUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Canadian Forest Service, Atlantic Forestry CentreNatural Resources CanadaFrederictonCanada
  3. 3.School of Anthropology and ConservationUniversity of Kent at CanterburyCanterburyUK
  4. 4.Danish Centre for Bioethics and Risk AssessmentUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations