UDTR — Radar mondial des droits de la Nature

Toward productive complicity: Applying ‘traditional ecological knowledge’ in environmental science

Identification

Clé publique

doi:10.1177/20530196211057026

Auteurs

Benedict Esmond Singleton · Maris Boyd Gillette · Anders Burman · Carina Green

Année déclarée

2021

Langue déclarée

en

Type source

article

Première détection

2026-11-09T19:04:47.754128+00:00

Dernière observation des métadonnées

2026-11-09T19:16:04.350753+00:00

Dernière vérification HTTP

Non effectuée

Institutions déclarées par la source

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences · University of Gothenburg · Örebro University

Pays d’affiliation déclarés

SE

Résumé documentaire — langue originale

Culture and tradition have long been the domains of social science, particularly social/cultural anthropology and various forms of heritage studies. However, many environmental scientists whose research addresses environmental management, conservation, and restoration are also interested in traditional ecological knowledge, indigenous and local knowledge, and local environmental knowledge (hereafter TEK), not least because policymakers and international institutions promote the incorporation of TEK in environmental work. In this article, we examine TEK usage in peer-reviewed articles by environmental scientists published in 2020. This snapshot of environmental science scholarship includes both critical discussions of how to incorporate TEK in research and management and efforts to do so for various scholarly and applied purposes. Drawing on anthropological discussions of culture, we identify two related patterns within this literature: a tendency toward essentialism and a tendency to minimize power relationships. We argue that scientists whose work reflects these trends might productively engage with knowledge from the scientific fields that study culture and tradition. We suggest productive complicity as a reflexive mode of partnering, and a set of questions that facilitate natural scientists adopting this approach: What and/or who is this TEK for? Who and what will benefit from this TEK deployment? How is compensation/credit shared? Does this work give back and/or forward to all those involved?

Identifiants

OPENALEX

W4200079467

DOI

10.1177/20530196211057026

Repères documentaires

Famille documentaire

Doctrine

Types déclarés par les sources

article

Les mentions d’entités ne constituent pas une preuve de reconnaissance juridique. La juridiction étudiée est distincte du pays d’affiliation des auteurs.

Sources

OpenAlex · Document 1 · Document 2

• DOI · https://doi.org/10.1177/20530196211057026
• OpenAlex · https://openalex.org/W4200079467

Relations bibliographiques documentées

Références et liens déclarés par les sources ; ils ne constituent pas une preuve juridique ni une qualification UGLC. Affichage limité à 20 références sortantes.

• openalex:w1541629980 · CITES
• openalex:w1707742347 · CITES
• openalex:w1991627270 · CITES
• openalex:w2013045877 · CITES
• openalex:w2046986445 · CITES
• openalex:w2049554267 · CITES
• openalex:w2053408958 · CITES
• openalex:w2060431762 · CITES
• openalex:w2067341437 · CITES
• openalex:w2071663527 · CITES
• openalex:w2084530896 · CITES
• openalex:w2099043095 · CITES
• openalex:w2107274132 · CITES
• openalex:w2118628106 · CITES
• openalex:w2122925767 · CITES
• openalex:w2125640645 · CITES
• openalex:w2171933098 · CITES
• openalex:w2186146349 · CITES
• openalex:w2315557293 · CITES
• openalex:w2319420365 · CITES

0 références entrantes au sein du corpus détecté

Statut documentaire

Pertinence à examiner

Bibliothèque

Cette identité n’est pas encore intégrée à la Bibliothèque juridique.