MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4404651471 · doi:10.1108/qrj-04-2024-0086

Decolonizing botanical gardens

2024· article· en· W4404651471 sur OpenAlexaff
Kelsey Leonard

Notice bibliographique

RevueQualitative Research Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueAnimal and Plant Science Education
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Waterloo
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSociologySocial scienceAnthropology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this article is to untangle the influence of Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s Decolonizing Methodologies on botanical gardens, particularly in the context of commemorating 25 years since its publication. By examining the intersections between decolonial theory and botanical practices, this article seeks to elucidate the ways in which Smith’s work has informed and inspired efforts to decolonize botanical research, conservation and education. Through a narrative review and case study analysis, this article highlights key insights, challenges and opportunities for botanical gardens to embrace decolonial practices and foster more equitable and inclusive relationships with Indigenous communities, science and knowledge systems. Design/methodology/approach The design and methodology of this article involve a narrative literature review and comparative case study analysis (Petticrew and Roberts, 2006; Goodrick, 2014). The review synthesizes scholarly articles, books and reports on decolonizing botanical practices, focusing on literature that stems from Indigenous science, identifies engagement strategies and advocates for systemic change within botanical institutions. Key themes and recommendations are identified and analyzed to provide insights into future directions for decolonizing botanical gardens. This approach allows for a thorough examination of current discourse and best practices in decolonial theory and botanical research, informing actionable recommendations for advancing decolonization within botanical gardens. Findings The findings reveal that Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s Decolonizing Methodologies has significantly influenced botanical gardens, inspiring efforts to prioritize Indigenous knowledge systems, deepen community engagement and advocate for systemic change. While progress has been made in integrating decolonial practices, challenges persist, including the need for greater institutional commitment, capacity building and accountability. However, opportunities abound for botanical gardens to continue advancing decolonization, particularly through partnerships with Indigenous communities, educational outreach and policy advocacy. Overall, the findings underscore the importance of ongoing reconciliation and action in cultivating more equitable and respectful relationships that advance principles of Indigenous data sovereignty and governance. Research limitations/implications While this article offers valuable insights into the influence of Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s Decolonizing Methodologies on botanical gardens, several limitations must be acknowledged. Firstly, the literature review may not document all relevant transformations undertaken by gardens to date if such initiatives are not documented in the public domain, such as institutional websites. Additionally, the review primarily focuses on English-language literature, limiting the exploration of decolonial practices for botanical gardens in non-English-speaking contexts. Practical implications This article holds several practical implications for botanical gardens seeking to decolonize. Firstly, by prioritizing Indigenous knowledge and deepening community engagement, botanical gardens can foster more inclusive and respectful relationships with Indigenous communities. Secondly, advocating for systemic change and policy reforms will address institutionalized inequities and recognize Indigenous People’s rights, including biocultural and intellectual property. Additionally, investing in educational outreach and capacity-building initiatives can enhance institutional and public understanding of decolonization. Overall, embracing decolonial practices can contribute to the adoption and advancement of Indigenous Data Sovereignty and the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance within botanical gardens and beyond. Social implications This article highlights the importance of decolonizing botanical gardens for promoting justice and equity. By centering Indigenous rights to data sovereignty, such as attribution of traditional and biocultural knowledge, botanical gardens can contribute to reconciliation efforts and promote respect for Indigenous rights and sovereignty. Additionally, addressing colonial legacies and systemic inequalities within botanical institutions can advance botanical justice and help build more just and equitable societies. Moreover, this transformation also aligns with a growing legal movement recognizing the inherent rights of Nature, including plant relatives collected, stored and stewarded by botanic gardens. Originality/value This article contributes to the literature by exploring the intersection of decolonizing methodologies and botanic gardens, particularly in the context of Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s influential work. By synthesizing key insights and offering actionable recommendations, this review provides guidance on future directions botanic gardens can follow to advance their decolonization strategies and initiatives in furtherance of botanical justice.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,989
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,059

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,009
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0110,016
Communication savante0,0050,005
Science ouverte0,0020,010
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,429
Tête enseignante GPT0,638
Écart entre enseignants0,209 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations9
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueQualitative Research JournalMême sujetAnimal and Plant Science EducationTravaux en français237 207