Weaving Indigenous and Western ways of knowing in ecotoxicology and wildlife health: a review of Canadian studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Western-trained, non-Indigenous researchers in Canada have an ethical responsibility to collaborate with Indigenous Peoples and to re-envision the scientific research process through the lens of reconciliation. The health of the natural environment has long been a concern to both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples, and weaving different ways of knowing could provide a path forward to address critical wildlife health concerns. Here, we conducted a review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature that claims to weave Indigenous and Western ways of knowing in ecotoxicology and wildlife health in Canada, coding for background information, wildlife health stressors, research methods, Indigenous participation, and research outcomes. Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria, the majority of which were published since 2015 and took place in Canada’s North. Research collaborations were often between First Nations or Inuit knowledge holders (most frequently, active harvesters and Elders) and Western-trained, non-Indigenous academics. Most studies were initiated by mutual agreement between community partners and researchers, but no study was “Indigenous-led” at any stage of research. Studies investigated environmental contaminants and health-related topics in a range of wildlife, usually traditional subsistence species. The most commonly studied disease was avian cholera, and the most studied class of toxicants was metals and trace elements. Indigenous knowledge was primarily collected via interviews. Studies often used multiple methodologies to braid or weave knowledge, but the most frequently used methodology was community-based participatory research. To provide a more holistic understanding of the process of weaving knowledge, we conducted an in-depth examination, applying a decolonizing lens, of two exemplar cases of collaborative research with Indigenous communities. This exploration led to the conclusion that research that weaves ways of knowing must not be approached with a “one-size-fits-all” mindset, but instead should emphasize relationship building, continuous engagement, and ethical practices. By adopting such practices, Western-trained, non-Indigenous academics can better address critical wildlife health concerns while contributing meaningfully to advancing healing and reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".