hechallengesandopportunitiesofincorporating

informationcollectedthroughscientificstudies
withtheexperiencebasedknowledgeofresource
dependentcommunitieshavebeenthefocusof
numerousstudies(e.g.,Freeman1992,Agrawal
1995,WeeksandPackard1997,Turneretal.
2000).However,therearerelativelyfew
examplesinwhichecologicalscienceandlocal
knowledgehavebothbeensuccessfully
incorporatedtoprovidemeaningfulinputinto
resourcemanagement(Berkes2004).Intheir
recentarticleinEcologyandSociety,Gilchrist
etal.(2005)provideathoroughevaluationof
LocalEcologicalKnowledge(LEK)usingexpert
basedecologicalstudiesoftenreferredtoas
westernscience.Althoughweapplaudtheir
recognitionofthevalueofanddesireto
promoteLEK,itisunfortunatethattheyuse
expertbasedecologicaldataasatestto
determinethereliabilityofLEK.Eventhough
theauthorsindicatetheirwishtousethetwo
differentapproachestoidentifyconstraints
andlimitationsofbothapproaches,theyfail
todiscusstheassumptions,limitations,or
constraintsoftheecologicalstudiesthatthey
use.Wedonottakeissuewiththeirecological
studies;wepresumetheyareofthehighest
quality.However,toassumethattheecological
studiesareerrorfreeandwithoutanybiasor
limitationisperhapssomewhatmisguided,albeit
anassumptionthatmanyscientistsstillmake
(Harding1991,Rykiel2001).Indeed,Freeman
(1992)providesexamplesinwhichconflicts

occurredintheCanadianArcticbetweenLEKand
expertbasedscienceoveraerialsurveysof
bowheadwhalesintheBeaufortSeaandcaribou
inwhatisnowNunavut,wherelocalperceptions
ofthestateofthesewildlifepopulationswere
initiallyconsideredunreliablebutwere
resolvedwhenbiasesinecologicalstudieswere
correctedusinglocalknowledge.Thesecase
studiesillustratethelimitationsofecological
researchandmonitoring,andprovidea
cautionarytaleagainstacceptingthemas
truth.
BothLEKanddataderivedbyexpertbased
sciencevarytemporallyandspatially.Theareas
thathuntersfrequentandthedegreeof
familiarityvarytremendouslyamongindividuals.
Theresponsesreceivedbyresearcherswhen
interviewinglocalpeoplealsovarybecauseof
manyotherfactors,includingthecontextfor
theinterviews,theleveloffamiliaritywith
theintervieweesandlocalcultureasawhole,
howtheresultingdataareinterpreted,andhow
muchopportunitythereisforiterative
interactionandfeedback(e.g.,Huntingtonand
FernandezGimenez1999,Turneretal.2000).
Furthermore,interviewsalsoreflectaworld
view.Otherfactors,includingthepersonality
andgenderoftheinterviewer,influencethe
natureoftheresponses(Shank2002).Similarly,
ecologicalstudiesconductedatmultiplescales
oftengeneratevaryingand,insomecases,
contradictoryresults.Forexample,Schneider

(2002)reviewednumerousstudiesthat
consistentlyshowedtheassociationbetween
marinebirdsandtheirpreyasbeingstrongat
somespatialscalesandweakornonexistentat
others.Scienceexpertsalsofrequentlydisagree
regardingdatainterpretation,whichhas
promptedtheadaptationoftechniques,suchas
Delphiandconsensusapproaches,togenerate
muchsoughtafteragreement(e.g.,Morganetal.
2001).Thus,thecommonalityamongallstudies,
whethertheyarebasedonscientificdataon
wildlifepopulations,documentingLEK,or
incorporationofthetwo,isthattheapproach
taken,themethodsused,andthescaleof
considerationallfundamentallyinfluencethe
studyresults.
Iflocalknowledgeistobeusedinarespectful
waythatrecognizesitsinherentandusevalue,
communitymembersshouldbemeaningfully
involvedinmost,ifnotall,aspectsofa
study,especiallywhenmakinglinkagesbetween
LEKandscience.WeeksandPackard(1997)show
thatresidentsoftenusetheirownunique
criteriawhenassessingscientificinformation
andsowillhavenovelcontributionstoany
discourseregardinghowlinkagesmightoccuror,
indeed,iftheyevenshouldbeconsidered.
AlthoughMillarandCurtis(1999)foundthatthe
equitableinterchangeoflocalandscientific
knowledgecanproducesynergisticoutcomesthat
benefitbothresearchersandlocalcommunities,
thisinterchangeremainsrareinthepeer

reviewedliterature.This,inlargepart,is
becauseresourcedependentcommunitieshave
oftenbeenpolitically,socioeconomically,and
culturallymarginalizedinstarkcontrasttothe
relativeprivilegeandinfluencethatscientists
enjoy.Indeed,thegrowingrecognitionofLEK
canleadtoappropriationandmisuse,further
marginalizingtheoriginalholdersofthis
knowledge(McGregor1999,Simpson2003).The
incorporationofbothlocalandscientific
knowledgeisinevitablyinfluencedbythese
powerdynamics(Foucault1980,Nadasdy1999).
Thus,whenGilchristetal.(2005)suggestthat
theuseoflocalknowledgeismostappropriate
insituationsinwhichempiricaldataare
unavailableandonlywhenLEKisvalidatedusing
scientificstudies,itaidsinmaintainingthe
balanceofpowerinthehandsofthescientists
andmarginalizingthecontributionoflocal
people.
AlthoughthetablepresentedbyGilchristetal.
(2005)providesasuccinctwayofsummarizing
LEK,amoreusefulapproachmightbetoexamine
eachknowledgesource,inisolationandin
relationtotheother,withoutmakingvalue
judgementsaboutreliabilityorvalidity.In
thisway,Nicholsetal.(2004)indicatethe
levelofagreementwithineachquestionamong
respondents.Thisstrategywouldidentify,at
best,howbothapproachesmightcomplementand
strengthenoneanotherand,ifneeded,howany

apparentcontradictionsmightmeritfurther
explorationanddiscussion.
Aprimarygoalofanystudythatinvolvesthe
applicationorcollectionofLEKshouldthusbe
toempowercommunitiestocontributein
meaningfulwaysandensurethatthestudiesare
oflocalbenefit(Berkesetal.2005).An
importantfirststepformanyscientistsisto
recognizehowvalueladentheirresearchis.It
isencouragingthatsomenortherncommunities,
suchasinNunavutandtheInuvialuitSettlement
Region,havedirectinputintotheresearch
permittingprocessthatthengivesthemsome
influenceontheresearchprocess.However,
scientistsmustrecognizethatthetrustbased
relationshipsthatareneededtoachievetrue
collaborationgenerallyrequiremanyyearsof
localactionandcommitmentonthepartof
researchers.Inthiscontext,differencesthat
inevitablyremainbetweenLEKandexpertbased
sciencetendtoreflectdifferencesinscalesof
consideration,limitationsinmethodsof
collection,orfundamentaldifferencesinworld
view,ratherthananyinherentunreliabilityin
approach.Indeed,Agrawal(1995)emphasizesthat
itistimetobreakawayfromthatsterile
dichotomybetweenLEKandexpertbasedscience.
Assuch,therealchallengeistoidentify
mutuallyaffirmingwaysinwhichscientistsand
marginalizedcommunitiescanallusetheir
experiencesandexpertisetodealwith
environmentalandsocioeconomicproblemsthat

ultimatelygivemeaningandurgencytothese
initiatives.

RESPONSESTOTHISARTICLE

Responsestothisarticleareinvited.If
acceptedforpublication,yourresponsewillbe
hyperlinkedtothearticle.Tosubmita
response,followthislink.Toreadresponses
alreadyaccepted,followthislink

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Wewishtoacknowledgethepeoplelivingwithin
RidingMountainBiosphereReserveinManitoba
whocontinuetoshapeourthinkingregarding
workingwithcommunitybasedresearchandlocal
knowledge.ThanksalsotoHarveyLemelin,Doug
Clark,andEvanRichardsonforcommentsonthe
manuscript.

LITERATURECITED

Agrawal,A.1995.Indigenousandscientific
knowledge:somecriticalcomments.Indigenous
KnowledgeandDevelopmentMonitor3(3):35.

Berkes,F.2004.Rethinkingcommunitybased
conservation.ConservationBiology18:621630.
Berkes,F.,N.Bankes,M.Marschke,D.Armitage,
andD.Clark.2005.Crossscaleinstitutionsand
buildingresilienceintheCanadianNorth.Pages
225247inF.Berkes,R.Huebert,H.Fast,M.
Manseau,andA.Diduck,edotors.Breakingice:
renewableresourceandoceanmanagementinthe
CanadianNorth.UniversityofCalgaryPress,
Calgary,Alberta,Canada.
Foucault,M.1980.Power/Knowledge:selected
interviews&otherwritings19721977.Pantheon
Books,NewYork,NewYork,USA.
Freeman,M.M.R.1992.Thenatureandutility
oftraditionalecologicalknowledge.Northern
Perspectives20(1):912.
Gilchrist,G.,M.Mallory,andF.Merkel.2005.
Canlocalecologicalknowledgecontributeto
wildlifemanagement?Casestudiesofmigratory
birds.EcologyandSociety10(1):20.[online]
URL:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art2
0/.
Harding,S.G.1991.Whosescience?Whose
knowledge?Thinkingfromwomenslives.Cornell
UniversityPress,Ithaca,NewYork,USA.

Huntington,H.P.,andM.E.FernandezGimenez.
1999.IndigenousknowledgeintheArctic:a
reviewofresearchandapplications.Indigenous
KnowledgeandDevelopmentMonitor7(3):1114.
McGregor,D.1999.Indigenousknowledgein
Canada:shiftingparadigmsandtheinfluenceof
FirstNationadvocates.Pages192198in
Conferenceproceedingsofscienceandpractice:
sustainingtheborealforest(Edmonton,1999).
SustainableForestManagementNetwork,Edmonton,
Alberta,Canada.
Millar,J.,andA.Curtis.1999.Challengingthe
boundariesoflocalandscientificknowledgein
Australia:opportunitiesforsociallearningin
managingtemperateuplandpastures.Agriculture
andHumanValues16:389399.
Morgan,M.G.,L.F.Pitelka,andE.
Shevliakova.2001.Elicitationofexpert
judgmentsofclimatechangeimpactsonforest
ecosystems.ClimateChange49:279307.
Nadasdy,P.1999.ThepoliticsofTEK:powerand
theintegrationofknowledge.Arctic
Anthropology36:118.
Nichols,T.,F.Berkes,D.Jolly,N.B.Snow,
andtheCommunityofSachsHarbour.2004.
Climatechangeandseaice:localobservations
fromtheCanadianWesternArctic.Arctic57:68
79.

Rykiel,E.J.,Jr.2001.Scientificobjectivity,
valuesystems,andpolicymaking.BioScience
51:433436.
Schneider,D.C.2002.Scalingtheory:
applicationtomarineornithology.Ecosystems
5:736748.
Shank,G.D.2002.Qualitativeresearch:a
personalskillsapproach.PrenticeHall,
Columbus,Ohio,USA.
Simpson,L.Traditionalecologicalknowledge:
marginalization,appropriation,andcontinued
disillusion.[online]
URL:http://www.snowchange.org/snowchange/content
/view/s28/2.
Turner,N.J.,M.B.Ignace,andR.Ignace.
2000.Traditionalecologicalknowledgeand
wisdomofaboriginalpeoplesinBritish
Columbia.EcologicalApplications10:12751287.
Weeks,P.,andJ.M.Packard.1997.Acceptance
ofscientificmanagementbynaturalresource
dependentcommunities.ConservationBiology
11:236245.
AddressofCorrespondent:
RyanK.Brook
DepartmentofEnvironmentandGeography

ClaytonH.RiddellFacultyofEnvironment,
Earth,andResources
211IsbisterBuilding
UniversityofManitoba
Winnipeg,Manitoba,CanadaR3T2N2

ryan_brook@umanitoba.ca

Home|Archives|About|Login|Submissions|
Notify|Contact|Search