Description
In light of the global and local social-ecological crises, Indigenous and Local Knowledge, also known as Traditional Ecological Knowledge (ILK/TEK), is frequently evoked as an essential source of experiences and practices that should be, in some way, integrated and intertwined with Western approaches to ecology. Rightly so, as Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities have long been stewards of ecosystems and biodiversity. Indigenous Peoples in particular hold deep, meaning-full and value-laden relationships with nature. However, there has been much discussion on the challenges of doing this "knowledge integration" especially in the context of ecology and potentially addressing the social-ecological crises. There are persistent epistemic hierarchies, power dynamics and differing objetives between actors -especially researchers dominating and designing collaborations-, problems of tokenism, and romanticism of ILK/TEK, among others. Multiple Evidence Base and Two-Eyed Seeing approaches provide promise in avoiding the pitfalls of "validating" ILK/TEK with ecological evidence and doing research "in a good way". However, in the rapid expansion of Artificial Intelligence, can these methods be operationalized in large language models and ecological syntheses? How can the slow process of trust-building and the core values of respect and reciprocity -- essential in co-production of knowledge -- be maintained in the age of rapid knowledge production? Or rather, should the question be whether they should be considered at all, if integration will be done poorly and without a focus on values? In the context of South-Central Chile and academic collaborations with the Mapuche Indigenous Peoples, I share some critical considerations of how deep listening -- a skill absent in modern and rapid approaches -- is essential to knowledge-weaving.
| Topic | Topic 1: : Methods for integrating social and ecological knowledge |
|---|