Use of Visual Stimuli in Ethnobiological Research

  • Patrícia Muniz de Medeiros
  • Alyson Luiz Santos de Almeida
  • Reinaldo Farias Paiva de Lucena
  • Francisco José Bezerra Souto
  • Ulysses Paulino Albuquerque
Protocol
Part of the Springer Protocols Handbooks book series (SPH)

Abstract

In this chapter, we discuss and review the use of visual stimuli in ethnobiology and ethnoecology and present a proposal to standardise the terminology for the use of visual stimuli in these fields. We focus on the use of photographs, drawings, voucher specimens, in situ individuals and recently collected plants and animals.

Key words

Projective interviews Local knowledge Data collection 

References

  1. 1.
    Honigmann JJ (1954) Culture and personality. Harper, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zubin J, Eron LD, Schumer F (1965) An experimental approach to projective techniques. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anderson HH, Anderson GML (1967) Técnicas projetivas do diagnostico psicológico. Mestre Jou, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anzieu D (1986) Os métodos projetivos. Campus, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Minayo MCS (1993) O desafio do conhecimento científico: pesquisa qualitativa em saúde, 2nd edn. Hucitec–Abrasco, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Curtis V, Biran A, Deverell K et al (2003) Hygiene in the home: relating bugs and behaviour. Soc Sci Med 57(4):657–672PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Martin GJ (2001) Etnobotánica: manual de métodos. Colección Pueblos y Plantas No. 1, Nordan Comunidad, MontevideoGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Garcia GFC (2006) The mother–child nexus. Knowledge and valuation of wild food plants in Wayanad, Western Ghats, India. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 2:39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wester L, Yongvanit S (2006) Naming consistency for forest plants in some rural communities of northeast Thailand. Ethnobot Res Appl 4:203–212Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Griffin D (2001) Contributions to the ethnobotany of the Cup’it Eskimo, Nunivak Island, Alaska. J Ethnobiol 21(2):91–132Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alexiades MN (1996) Selected guidelines for ethnobotanical research: a field manual. The New York Botanical Garden, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Blanckaert I, Vancraeynest K, Swennen RL et al (2007) Non-crop resources and the role of indigenous knowledge in semi-arid production of Mexico. Agric Ecosyst Environ 119(1–2):39–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Monteiro JM, Albuquerque UP, Lins-Neto EMF et al (2006) Use patterns and knowledge of medicinal species among two rural communities in Brazil’s semi-arid northeastern region. J Ethnopharmacol 105:173–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Monteiro JM, Almeida CFCBR, Albuquerque UP et al (2006) Use and traditional management of Anadenanthera colubrina (Vell.) Brenan in the semi-arid region of northeastern Brazil. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 2:6PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Anderson AB, Posey DA (1985) Manejo de cerrado pelos índios Kayapó. Bol Mus Par Emílio Goeldi Ser Bot 2(1):77–98Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Case RJ, Pauli GF, Soejarto DD (2005) Factors in maintaining indigenous knowledge among ethnic communities of Manus Island. Econ Bot 59(4):356–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Case RJ, Franzblau SG, Wang Y et al (2006) Ethnopharmacological evaluation of the informant consensus model on anti-tuberculosis claims among the Manus. J Ethnopharmacol 106(1):82–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nguyen LT (2003) Comparison of food plant knowledge between urban Vietnamese living in Vietnam and in Hawai’i. Econ Bot 57(4):472–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gavin MC, Anderson GJ (2006) Socioeconomic predictors of forest use values in the Peruvian Amazon: a potential tool for biodiversity conservation. Ecol Econ 60:752–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thomas E, Vandebroek I, Van Damme P (2007) What works in the field? A comparison of different interviewing methods in ethnobotany with special reference to the use of photographs. Econ Bot 61(4):376–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gaur RD, Bhatt BP (1994) Folk utilization of some pteridophytes of Deoprayag area in Garhwal Himalaya: India. Econ Bot 48(2):146–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Milliken W, Albert B (1996) The use of medicinal plants by the Yanomami Indians of Brazil. Econ Bot 50(1):10–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Asase A, Oteng-Yeboah AA, Odamtten GT et al (2005) Ethnobotanical study of some Ghanaian anti-malarial plants. J Ethnopharmacol 99(2):273–279PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gupta MP, Solís PN, Calderón AI et al (2005) Medical ethnobotany of the Teribes of Bocas del Toro, Panama. J Ethnopharmacol 96(3):389–401PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Phillips O, Gentry AH (1993) The useful plants in Tambopata. Peru: I. Statistical hypothesis tests with a new quantitative technique. Econ Bot 47(1):15–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mutchnick PA, McCarthy BC (1997) An ethnobotanical analysis of the tree species common to the subtropical moist forests of the Peten, Guatemala. Econ Bot 51(2):158–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Albuquerque UP, Andrade LHC, Silva ACO (2005) Use of plants resources in a seasonal dry forest (northeastern Brazil). Acta Bot Bras 19(1):27–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Villagrán C, Romo M, Castro V (2003) Etnobotánica del sur de los Andes de la Primera región de Chile: un enlace entre las culturas altiplánicas y las de quebradas altas del Loa superior. Chungará 35(1):73–124Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mourão JS, Nordi N (2002) Comparações entre taxonomias folk e científica para peixes do estuário do rio Mamanguape, Paraíba—Brasil. Inteciência 27(12):1–6Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Alarcon DT, Costa RCSD, Schiavetti A (2009) Abordagem etnoecológica da pesca e captura de espécies não-alvo em Itacaré, Bahia (Brasil). Bol Inst Pesca São Paulo 35(4):675–686Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mourão JS, Araujo H, Almeida F (2006) Ethnotaxonomy of mastofauna as practised by hunters of the municipality of Paulista, state of Paraiba, Brazil. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 2:19PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Marques JGW (1995) Pescando pescadores: etnoecologia abrangente no baixo São Francisco. NUPAUB/USP, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Souto FJB (2008) A ciência que veio da lama: etnoecologia em área de manguezal. NUPEEA/Sociedade Brasileira de Etnobiologia e Etnoecologia, RecifeGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Maciel DC, Alves AGC (2009) Conhecimentos e práticas locais relacionados ao aratu Goniopsis cruentata (Latreille, 1803) em Barra de Sirinhaém, litoral sul de Pernambuco, Brasil. Biota Neotrop 9:29–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Silva G (1988) Tudo que Tem na Terra Tem no Mar. Dissertação de Mestrado, PPGAS/MN, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Szpilman M (2000) Peixes marinhos do Brasil: guia prático de identificação. M. Szpilman, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Posey DA (1981) O conhecimento entomológico Kayapó: etnometodologia e sistema cultural. Anu Antropol 81:109–124Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Araújo HF, Lucena RFP, Mourão JS (2005) Prenúncio de chuvas pelas aves na percepção de moradores de comunidades rurais no município de Soledade-PB, Brasil. Interciencia 30:764–769Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nesheim I, Dhillion SS, Stolen KA (2006) What happens to traditional knowledge and use of natural resources when people migrate? Hum Ecol 34(1):99–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Campos MT, Ehringhaus C (2003) Plant virtues are in the eyes of the beholders: a comparison of known palm uses among indigenous and folk communities of southwestern Amazonia. Econ Bot 57(3):324–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrícia Muniz de Medeiros
    • 1
  • Alyson Luiz Santos de Almeida
    • 1
  • Reinaldo Farias Paiva de Lucena
    • 2
  • Francisco José Bezerra Souto
    • 3
  • Ulysses Paulino Albuquerque
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Applied and Theoretical Ethnobiology, Department of BiologyFederal Rural University of PernambucoRecifeBrazil
  2. 2.Departamento de Fitotecnia e Ciências AmbientaisUniversidade Federal da Paraíba Centro de Ciências AgráriasAreiaBrazil
  3. 3.Área de Botânica, Laboratório de Etnobotânica Aplicada (LEA), Departamento de BiologiaUniversidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Dois IrmãosRecifeBrazil

Personalised recommendations