Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".