Integrating Local and Scientific Knowledge for Environmental Management. Raymond, C. M., Fazey, I., Reed, M. S., Stringer, L. C., Robinson, G. M., & Evely, A. C. 91(8):1766–1777.
Integrating Local and Scientific Knowledge for Environmental Management [link]Paper  doi  abstract   bibtex   
This paper evaluates the processes and mechanisms available for integrating different types of knowledge for environmental management. Following a review of the challenges associated with knowledge integration, we present a series of questions for identifying, engaging, evaluating and applying different knowledges during project design and delivery. These questions are used as a basis to compare three environmental management projects that aimed to integrate knowledge from different sources in the United Kingdom, Solomon Islands and Australia. Comparative results indicate that integrating different types of knowledge is inherently complex - classification of knowledge is arbitrary and knowledge integration perspectives are qualitatively very different. We argue that there is no single optimum approach for integrating local and scientific knowledge and encourage a shift in science from the development of knowledge integration products to the development of problem-focussed, knowledge integration processes. These processes need to be systematic, reflexive and cyclic so that multiple views and multiple methods are considered in relation to an environmental management problem. The results have implications for the way in which researchers and environmental managers undertake and evaluate knowledge integration projects. [Excerpt:Conclusion] A variety of ontological, epistemological and application challenges exist when integrating multiple knowledge types for environmental management. This study proposes a framework comprising of four themes and seven questions which may assist researchers and environmental managers consider and address these challenges. We then show how this framework could be applied to three knowledge integration case studies located in the United Kingdom, Solomon Islands and Australia. A comparative analysis of the three case studies indicated that there are multiple methods available for integrating different knowledge types; some of these methods favour scientific knowledge over local knowledge, whereas other methods actively encourage the sharing of knowledge between local stakeholders and scientists. We argue that knowledge integration project teams need to assign more effort to: [::1)] the identification of the different epistemological beliefs which underpin knowledge claims; [::2)] the engagement of different knowledges, including how the knowledge integration methods established different ways of knowing, [::3)] the evaluation of how the knowledge integration mechanisms and processes supported learning and shared understanding, and; [::4)] the level of application of knowledge integration outputs by multiple stakeholders during the project and after project completion. [\n] Based on theoretical insights and case study findings, we conclude that there is no single optimum approach for integrating local and scientific knowledge and encourage a shift in science from the development of knowledge integration products to the development of problem-focussed, knowledge integration processes.
@article{raymondIntegratingLocalScientific2010,
  title = {Integrating Local and Scientific Knowledge for Environmental Management},
  author = {Raymond, Christopher M. and Fazey, Ioan and Reed, Mark S. and Stringer, Lindsay C. and Robinson, Guy M. and Evely, Anna C.},
  date = {2010-08},
  journaltitle = {Journal of Environmental Management},
  volume = {91},
  pages = {1766--1777},
  issn = {0301-4797},
  doi = {10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.03.023},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.03.023},
  abstract = {This paper evaluates the processes and mechanisms available for integrating different types of knowledge for environmental management. Following a review of the challenges associated with knowledge integration, we present a series of questions for identifying, engaging, evaluating and applying different knowledges during project design and delivery. These questions are used as a basis to compare three environmental management projects that aimed to integrate knowledge from different sources in the United Kingdom, Solomon Islands and Australia. Comparative results indicate that integrating different types of knowledge is inherently complex - classification of knowledge is arbitrary and knowledge integration perspectives are qualitatively very different. We argue that there is no single optimum approach for integrating local and scientific knowledge and encourage a shift in science from the development of knowledge integration products to the development of problem-focussed, knowledge integration processes. These processes need to be systematic, reflexive and cyclic so that multiple views and multiple methods are considered in relation to an environmental management problem. The results have implications for the way in which researchers and environmental managers undertake and evaluate knowledge integration projects.

[Excerpt:Conclusion]

A variety of ontological, epistemological and application challenges exist when integrating multiple knowledge types for environmental management. This study proposes a framework comprising of four themes and seven questions which may assist researchers and environmental managers consider and address these challenges. We then show how this framework could be applied to three knowledge integration case studies located in the United Kingdom, Solomon Islands and Australia. A comparative analysis of the three case studies indicated that there are multiple methods available for integrating different knowledge types; some of these methods favour scientific knowledge over local knowledge, whereas other methods actively encourage the sharing of knowledge between local stakeholders and scientists. We argue that knowledge integration project teams need to assign more effort to: 
[::1)] the identification of the different epistemological beliefs which underpin knowledge claims; 
[::2)] the engagement of different knowledges, including how the knowledge integration methods established different ways of knowing, 
[::3)] the evaluation of how the knowledge integration mechanisms and processes supported learning and shared understanding, and; 
[::4)] the level of application of knowledge integration outputs by multiple stakeholders during the project and after project completion. 

[\textbackslash n] Based on theoretical insights and case study findings, we conclude that there is no single optimum approach for integrating local and scientific knowledge and encourage a shift in science from the development of knowledge integration products to the development of problem-focussed, knowledge integration processes.},
  keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-7085623,~to-add-doi-URL,decision-making-procedure,environment-society-economy,environmental-modelling,epistemology,featured-publication,hidden-knowledge,incomplete-knowledge,knowledge-engineering,knowledge-integration,management,multi-stakeholder-decision-making,multiplicity,science-society-interface,scientific-knowledge-sharing},
  number = {8}
}

Downloads: 0