Aesthetic Action: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
=Introduction= | =Introduction= | ||
==Nunavut polar bear management and monitoring== | Ever since the 1990’s there has been an ongoing and widespread interest among community-based environmental conservation researchers to engage with Indigenous Knowledge (IK). Such interest was initially mostly geared towards broadening and improving scientific knowledge and management in conservation research (see e.g., Freeman, 1992; Mailhot 1993; Berkes, 1994; Brooke, 1993; Inglis, 1993; Huntington, 2000). Over the last thirty years however, this question of how and whether it is even possible to relate knowledge systems rooted in two different ways of being and knowing the world - respectively western-based science and those knowledge systems specifically attributed to Indigenous peoples - has undergone major changes. Self-determination efforts, increased awareness around the need for western-based science to decolonize and become more inclusive, as well as a shifting paradigm regarding the relationship between the natural environment and Indigenous people, have all led for the efforts of knowledge relating in conservation research and management to become more equitable and inclusive. At least in theory. It has also been revealed to be a ‘site of significant struggle’ (Tuhiwai-Smith, 1999). Linda Tuhiwai-Smith identifies such struggle in research as taking place between ‘the interests and ways of knowing of the West and the interests and ways of resisting of the Other’ (ibid, p.2, capitalization in original). It brings to the fore questions of whose knowledge is deemed valid - according to whose qualifiers? And which research questions get asked in the first place. Whose interests are served with research? And who owns the research? Rather than a technical challenge of filling gaps in scientific knowledge, knowledge relating within environmental research and management has become more explicitly a question of relational encounter, and on whose terms such encounter takes place. The question of how to ethically relate Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledges has increasingly been recognized to be just as much about Indigenous and settler(-state) reconciliation as it is about various forms of knowledge co-production and ethical engagement within research. | ||
==Reconciliation in Nunavut polar bear management and monitoring== | |||
The Canadian Inuit, like the Norwegian Sami, have been at the forefront of Indigenous efforts around the globe to develop political structures and build autonomous governance regimes within their respective states (Wilson and Selle, 2019). The Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, now renamed Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK) was founded in 1971. As a representative organization, they pursued land claims and demanded a role in wildlife management. Their goals were for Inuit to ‘preserve the traditional way of life (…); enable them to become equal and meaningful participants in Canadian society; achieve fair compensation and benefits in exchange for their lands; and preserve the ecology of the Canadian Arctic’ (Lévesque, 2014 p.117). In 1993, their efforts led to the Nunavut act, creating the territory- and installing the Government of Nunavut (GN), funded through federal payments and representing all Nunavummiut (both Inuit and non-Inuit). At the same time the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement (NLCA) was passed. This ratified the Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. (NTI) with jurisdiction and responsibility to promote and develop Inuit culture and society in the domains of education, language, wildlife and culture. Wildlife management in Nunavut, as a result, is a co-management affair; a site of Inuit-Crown encounter with its terms of engagement outlined in the Aajiiqatigiinniq: Working Together agreement in 2011 (Government of Nunavut and NTI 2011). | |||
The guiding policy document for polar bear management and research at the territorial level, is the Nunavut Polar Bear Co-Management Plan (Government of Nunavut, 2019). This document has been prepared by the GN-Department of Environment (Department of Environment) in cooperation with NTI, Regional Wildlife Organizations (RWOs), Hunters and Trappers Organizations (HTOs), and Inuit community members from throughout Nunavut. The plan refers to the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA) as its overarching guiding framework in terms of conservation principles, which clearly reflects Inuit Qaujumajatuqangit (IQ); Inuit ways of knowing, -being and -valuing (reference). The NLCA is meant to ensure Inuit of meaningful engagement in the process of management and decision-making on polar bears, as well as IQ to be included in the data-collection that informs this decision-making process. In its executive summary the polar bear co-management plan even recognizes the heavy reliance on western-science for such data-collection in the past, and a commitment is made to increase use of IQ and Inuit participation in all aspects of its harvest management moving forward (GN, 2019). | |||
Although recent years have seen the rollout of large scale Inuit-led research programs and initiatives, much of the infrastructure around polar bear monitoring and decision making continues to prioritize western-based science and -values. Polar bear monitoring in Nunavut remains natural science-heavy, while the philosophical and political challenges involved in meaningfully engaging different knowledge systems extend beyond the training of many natural scientists. As a result, conciliating knowledge in Nunavut polar bear research is often reduced to the technical design of various interfaces between explicit, categorial and transmittable data. It rarely concerns matters of process, or conversations on knowledge as part of a larger culturally embedded ‘system’ of practices, values and…. (McGregor, 2021; …). What is at stake in current approaches around knowledge integration include concerns about ongoing (settler) colonialism and the politics of accessibility to knowledge (Tuck, 2009), as well as questions on the process and purpose of bringing different ways of knowing together, and whose interests are served by doing so (Simpson, 2001; 2004). | |||
==Knowledge relating as ethical engagement; practice, process and values== | ==Knowledge relating as ethical engagement; practice, process and values== | ||
ITK reported in 2018 in their Inuit National Strategy on Research that, despite prevalent claims of knowledge co-creation or -integration in wildlife research reporting from the Canadian Arctic, Inuit are rarely involved with setting the research agenda, monitoring compliance with guidelines for ethical research, and determining how data and information about people, wildlife, and environment is collected, stored, used, and shared (ITK, 2018). This indicates that legislative agreements like the NLCA, on its own, are not enough to secure meaningful engagement between western-based science and IQ. Power dynamics around knowledge relating takes place ‘in-between, beyond and underneath formal structures’ (Lindroth et al., p.8, 2022). Such is reiterated by the Indigenous Circle of Experts who state that relationships need to be negotiated at all levels, and on an ongoing basis (ICE, 2018). Establishing ethical relationships is a regenerative, situated process, and needs to be renegotiated in every context, at all scales. Reform at the institutional level to support- and resource Inuit-led research is just as important as negotiating terms of engagement and developing ethical research practices at the situated research project level. Relating different knowledge systems in its most radical form, if at all, should therefore not only be employed as a praxis of inclusive research, but it should also be its precursor; establishing terms of engagement, defining what inclusivity means - and whether that should be the goal in the first place. The Ethical Space of Engagement (ESE), as a guiding framework has potential to reframe the challenge of knowledge relating away from one that is data-driven, towards one of process and practice, and to include such negotiation of terms of engagement. | |||
The ESE, as formalized by Ermine in 2007, derives from Indigenous traditions of nation-to-nation conciliation, and can be applied to create a space or physical site that functions as an in-between; a meeting space that can facilitate trans-cultural dialogue and cross-validation between different communities, nations, or knowledge systems. By providing an in-between, or a ‘third space’ (see for another example of third space Turnbull, 1997), the model re-imagines opportunity for encounter and opens space to explore and practice the principles of respect and reciprocity underlying such encounter (Ermine, 2015; Indigenous Circle of Experts, 2018). | |||
=Aesthetic action and the ESE= | =Aesthetic action and the ESE= | ||
Revision as of 07:32, 5 November 2024
Point of beginning
Abstract
Introduction
Ever since the 1990’s there has been an ongoing and widespread interest among community-based environmental conservation researchers to engage with Indigenous Knowledge (IK). Such interest was initially mostly geared towards broadening and improving scientific knowledge and management in conservation research (see e.g., Freeman, 1992; Mailhot 1993; Berkes, 1994; Brooke, 1993; Inglis, 1993; Huntington, 2000). Over the last thirty years however, this question of how and whether it is even possible to relate knowledge systems rooted in two different ways of being and knowing the world - respectively western-based science and those knowledge systems specifically attributed to Indigenous peoples - has undergone major changes. Self-determination efforts, increased awareness around the need for western-based science to decolonize and become more inclusive, as well as a shifting paradigm regarding the relationship between the natural environment and Indigenous people, have all led for the efforts of knowledge relating in conservation research and management to become more equitable and inclusive. At least in theory. It has also been revealed to be a ‘site of significant struggle’ (Tuhiwai-Smith, 1999). Linda Tuhiwai-Smith identifies such struggle in research as taking place between ‘the interests and ways of knowing of the West and the interests and ways of resisting of the Other’ (ibid, p.2, capitalization in original). It brings to the fore questions of whose knowledge is deemed valid - according to whose qualifiers? And which research questions get asked in the first place. Whose interests are served with research? And who owns the research? Rather than a technical challenge of filling gaps in scientific knowledge, knowledge relating within environmental research and management has become more explicitly a question of relational encounter, and on whose terms such encounter takes place. The question of how to ethically relate Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledges has increasingly been recognized to be just as much about Indigenous and settler(-state) reconciliation as it is about various forms of knowledge co-production and ethical engagement within research.
The Canadian Inuit, like the Norwegian Sami, have been at the forefront of Indigenous efforts around the globe to develop political structures and build autonomous governance regimes within their respective states (Wilson and Selle, 2019). The Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, now renamed Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK) was founded in 1971. As a representative organization, they pursued land claims and demanded a role in wildlife management. Their goals were for Inuit to ‘preserve the traditional way of life (…); enable them to become equal and meaningful participants in Canadian society; achieve fair compensation and benefits in exchange for their lands; and preserve the ecology of the Canadian Arctic’ (Lévesque, 2014 p.117). In 1993, their efforts led to the Nunavut act, creating the territory- and installing the Government of Nunavut (GN), funded through federal payments and representing all Nunavummiut (both Inuit and non-Inuit). At the same time the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement (NLCA) was passed. This ratified the Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. (NTI) with jurisdiction and responsibility to promote and develop Inuit culture and society in the domains of education, language, wildlife and culture. Wildlife management in Nunavut, as a result, is a co-management affair; a site of Inuit-Crown encounter with its terms of engagement outlined in the Aajiiqatigiinniq: Working Together agreement in 2011 (Government of Nunavut and NTI 2011).
The guiding policy document for polar bear management and research at the territorial level, is the Nunavut Polar Bear Co-Management Plan (Government of Nunavut, 2019). This document has been prepared by the GN-Department of Environment (Department of Environment) in cooperation with NTI, Regional Wildlife Organizations (RWOs), Hunters and Trappers Organizations (HTOs), and Inuit community members from throughout Nunavut. The plan refers to the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA) as its overarching guiding framework in terms of conservation principles, which clearly reflects Inuit Qaujumajatuqangit (IQ); Inuit ways of knowing, -being and -valuing (reference). The NLCA is meant to ensure Inuit of meaningful engagement in the process of management and decision-making on polar bears, as well as IQ to be included in the data-collection that informs this decision-making process. In its executive summary the polar bear co-management plan even recognizes the heavy reliance on western-science for such data-collection in the past, and a commitment is made to increase use of IQ and Inuit participation in all aspects of its harvest management moving forward (GN, 2019). Although recent years have seen the rollout of large scale Inuit-led research programs and initiatives, much of the infrastructure around polar bear monitoring and decision making continues to prioritize western-based science and -values. Polar bear monitoring in Nunavut remains natural science-heavy, while the philosophical and political challenges involved in meaningfully engaging different knowledge systems extend beyond the training of many natural scientists. As a result, conciliating knowledge in Nunavut polar bear research is often reduced to the technical design of various interfaces between explicit, categorial and transmittable data. It rarely concerns matters of process, or conversations on knowledge as part of a larger culturally embedded ‘system’ of practices, values and…. (McGregor, 2021; …). What is at stake in current approaches around knowledge integration include concerns about ongoing (settler) colonialism and the politics of accessibility to knowledge (Tuck, 2009), as well as questions on the process and purpose of bringing different ways of knowing together, and whose interests are served by doing so (Simpson, 2001; 2004).
Knowledge relating as ethical engagement; practice, process and values
ITK reported in 2018 in their Inuit National Strategy on Research that, despite prevalent claims of knowledge co-creation or -integration in wildlife research reporting from the Canadian Arctic, Inuit are rarely involved with setting the research agenda, monitoring compliance with guidelines for ethical research, and determining how data and information about people, wildlife, and environment is collected, stored, used, and shared (ITK, 2018). This indicates that legislative agreements like the NLCA, on its own, are not enough to secure meaningful engagement between western-based science and IQ. Power dynamics around knowledge relating takes place ‘in-between, beyond and underneath formal structures’ (Lindroth et al., p.8, 2022). Such is reiterated by the Indigenous Circle of Experts who state that relationships need to be negotiated at all levels, and on an ongoing basis (ICE, 2018). Establishing ethical relationships is a regenerative, situated process, and needs to be renegotiated in every context, at all scales. Reform at the institutional level to support- and resource Inuit-led research is just as important as negotiating terms of engagement and developing ethical research practices at the situated research project level. Relating different knowledge systems in its most radical form, if at all, should therefore not only be employed as a praxis of inclusive research, but it should also be its precursor; establishing terms of engagement, defining what inclusivity means - and whether that should be the goal in the first place. The Ethical Space of Engagement (ESE), as a guiding framework has potential to reframe the challenge of knowledge relating away from one that is data-driven, towards one of process and practice, and to include such negotiation of terms of engagement.
The ESE, as formalized by Ermine in 2007, derives from Indigenous traditions of nation-to-nation conciliation, and can be applied to create a space or physical site that functions as an in-between; a meeting space that can facilitate trans-cultural dialogue and cross-validation between different communities, nations, or knowledge systems. By providing an in-between, or a ‘third space’ (see for another example of third space Turnbull, 1997), the model re-imagines opportunity for encounter and opens space to explore and practice the principles of respect and reciprocity underlying such encounter (Ermine, 2015; Indigenous Circle of Experts, 2018).