Knowledge "inclusion": Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 09:55, 13 January 2025

You have found a "Wrecksite". Here and there, "shipwrecks" will manifest themselves. They gesture to the apparatuses that produce conditions under which some phenomena can exists within polar bear monitoring, my research and this knowledge-land-scape- and others cannot. Different shipwrecks gesture to different possibilities and futurities. This one allows you to think with the im/possibilities of knowledge (co-)production in polar bear monitoring and co-management.

To be meaningfully co-produce scientific knowledge, is to co-determines what is included and what is excluded from the properties and meanings of "scientific knowledge" as a phenomena.

In scientific wildlife co-management and research the properties of ‘science’ are mostly determined by the agential cuts of post-positivist western natural sciences and its understanding of the world through representative data (Brook, 2005; Smylie, 2014). Without meaningful inclusion of other knowledge systems, the phenomena of ‘science’ materializes not only in a very small resolution of its possibilities.

Scientist seeking to make IQ ‘’intelligible’’ within this performance of western natural sciences, either need to break it down into such representative data, or placed IQ completely outside of the phenomena of Science to become intelligible as ‘another phenomena’ like; values, beliefs, ethics or cultural identities. Neither of those cuts can be considered meaningfully co-constituted with Inuit ways of knowing and being. Making IQ intelligible only as a category that can exist outside of science, continues a form of erasure in which the west views itself “as the center of legitimate knowledge, the arbiter of what counts as knowledge and the source of ‘civilized’ knowledge” (Smith, 1999, p. 63).

Besides, the Gjoa Haven HTA, has indicated a couple of times that they feel that research seems to be ever ongoing, without it ever impacting their polar bear harvest quota. Over the last couple of years they have been trying to get BearWatch researchers to turn their focus towards the available polar bear harvest quota. Tomorrow, 20 people will come to talk about how a harvesting moratorium from 2001 has had reverberating impacts on them up until today. You should keep moving, because you still need to buy coffee and snacks for that meeting.<\span>

Return to Cut 3: BW project

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-It is important to first reiterate here again what can be seen as ‘meaningful’ inclusion, through the paradigm of agential realism. To be meaningfully included within a phenomena like scientific knowledge, is to be an agential force that contributes to the determining cut that distinguishes between what is included and what is excluded from the properties and meanings of such a phenomena. In this case, to be meaningfully included, means to co-determine the meaning of ‘scientific knowledge’. Without meaningful recognition or consideration of different knowledge systems within the phenomena of ‘science’, for example, the properties of ‘science’ become intelligible only through the agential cuts of one philosophical paradigm. In scientific wildlife co-management and research this is usually the cut of post-positivist western natural sciences and its understanding of the world through representative data (Brook, 2005; Smylie, 2014).
+You have found a "Wrecksite". Here and there, "shipwrecks" will manifest themselves. They gesture to the apparatuses that produce conditions under which some phenomena can exists within polar bear monitoring, my research and this knowledge-land-scape- and others cannot. Different shipwrecks gesture to different possibilities and futurities. This one allows you to think with the im/possibilities of knowledge (co-)production in polar bear monitoring and co-management.
-Scientist seeking to make IQ ‘’intelligible’’ within this performance of western natural sciences, either need to break it down into such representative data, or placed IQ completely outside of the phenomena of Science to become intelligible as ‘another phenomena’ like; values, beliefs, ethics or cultural identities. Neither of those cuts can be considered meaningfully co-constituted with Inuit ways of knowing and being. Making IQ intelligible only as a category that can exist outside of science, continues a form of erasure in which the west views itself “as the centre of legitimate knowledge, the arbiter of what counts as knowledge and the source of ‘civilized’ knowledge” (Smith, 1999, p. 63). While the breaking down of IQ into a reductionist western version of TEK, constitutes an ‘insidious form of cultural assimilation’ in which IQ is appropriated under the guise of knowledge co-production and co-management (Stevenson, 2004 ; 2006).
+To be meaningfully co-produce scientific knowledge, is to co-determines what is included and what is excluded from the properties and meanings of "scientific knowledge" as a phenomena.
-<span class="return link" data-page-title="Wayfaring_the_BW_project_Point_of_Beginning" data-section-id="5">[[Wayfaring the BW project Point of Beginning#4. TEK workshops|Return to cut 3]]</span>
+In scientific wildlife co-management and research the properties of ‘science’ are mostly determined by the agential cuts of post-positivist western natural sciences and its understanding of the world through representative data (Brook, 2005; Smylie, 2014). Without meaningful inclusion of other knowledge systems, the phenomena of ‘science’ materializes not only in a very small resolution of its possibilities.
+Scientist seeking to make IQ ‘’intelligible’’ within this performance of western natural sciences, either need to break it down into such representative data, or placed IQ completely outside of the phenomena of Science to become intelligible as ‘another phenomena’ like; values, beliefs, ethics or cultural identities. Neither of those cuts can be considered meaningfully co-constituted with Inuit ways of knowing and being. Making IQ intelligible only as a category that can exist outside of science, continues a form of erasure in which the west views itself “as the center of legitimate knowledge, the arbiter of what counts as knowledge and the source of ‘civilized’ knowledge” (Smith, 1999, p. 63).
+<span class="next_choice"> Besides, the Gjoa Haven HTA, has indicated a couple of times that they feel that research seems to be ever ongoing, without it ever impacting their polar bear harvest quota. Over the last couple of years they have been trying to get BearWatch researchers to turn their focus towards the available polar bear harvest quota. Tomorrow, 20 people will come to talk about how a harvesting moratorium from 2001 has had reverberating impacts on them up until today. You should keep moving, because you still need to buy coffee and snacks for that meeting.<\span>
+<span class="return to cut 3 link" data-page-title="Wayfaring the BW project" data-section-id="2" data-encounter-type="return">[[Wayfaring the BW project#Fieldtrip BW team Coral Harbour Summer 2021|Return to Cut 3: BW project]]</span>