Mutiny on the Boundary? Examining ILK-Based Conservation Collaborations through the Lens of Rubbish Theory
Many conservation researchers and practitioners argue that knowledges traditionally conceptualized as non-academic are useful for guiding environmental decision-making and stewardship. As demonstrated by the articles in this special issue, bringing Indigenous and local knowledges to bear on environmental conservation requires forging new relationships and, de facto, new political arrangements. In this article, we seek to clarify what is at stake in such efforts to change (or maintain) what counts as knowledge by applying rubbish theory to the volume’s case studies. Redrawing the boundaries of what counts as conservation knowledge in engagements between academic researchers and practitioners trained to “do conservation” according to western science traditions, on the one hand, and Indigenous peoples and local communities who possess knowledge generated in non-academic contexts, on the other, effects demarcations of expertise and so challenges existing social hierarchies. Unsurprisingly, tension emerges about how far such changes should go. By increasing awareness of the relationship between (re)defining knowledge and (re)configuring social and political hierarchies, we hope to make it easier for participants to manage such collaborations.
Alfred, T. 2005. Wasáse: Indigenous Pathways of Action and Freedom. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Beaulieu‐Guay, L. R. 2022. The many faces of knowledge: Do science and traditional ecological knowledge coexist in federal assessments? Canadian Public Administration 24:403-20. DOI:10.1111/capa.12491.
Berkes, F. 2004. Rethinking Community-Based Conservation. Conservation Biology 18:621–630. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00077.x.
Berkes, F. 2018. Sacred Ecology. Routledge, Abingdon.
Blaser, M. 2009. The Threat of the Yrmo: The Political Ontology of a Sustainable Hunting Program. American Anthropologist 111:10–20. DOI:10.1111/j.1548-1433.2009.01073.x.
Blaser, M. 2016. Is Another Cosmopolitics Possible? Cultural Anthropology 31:545–570. DOI: 10.14506/ca31.4.05.
Blaser, M. 2018. Doing and Undoing Caribou/Atiku: Diffractive and Divergent Multiplicities and Their Cosmopolitical Orientations. Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society 1:47–64. DOI:10.1080/25729861.2018.1501241.
Bollettin, P., D. Ludwig, and C. N. El-Hani. 2023. Challenges of Symmetrical Dialogue: Reflections on Collaborative Research in Northeast Brazil. Ethnobiology Letters 14(2):47–55. DOI:10.14237/ebl.14.2.2023.1836.
Bosco, S., and B. Thomas. 2023. The Skarù·ręʔ (Tuscarora) Food Forest Project—Reconciliation in Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education through Cross-Cultural Agroforestry Demonstration. Ethnobiology Letters 14(2):56–71. DOI:10.14237/ebl.14.2.2023.1840.
Cajete, G. A. 2020. Indigenous Science, Climate Change, and Indigenous Community Building: A Framework of Foundational for Indigenous Community Resilience and Revitalization. Sustainability, 12. DOI:10.3390/su12229569.
Chappell, P. 2013. Paper Routes: “Bleak House”, Rubbish Theory, and the Character Economy of Realism. ELH 80:783–810.
Duhem, S., É. Roffidal, M. B. Gillette, L. Schroeder, A. J. Allen, and P. Ansas. 2019. Entretien: Regards Croisés sur la Vraie et Fausse Porcelaine de Chine. Les Cahiers de Framespa 31. DOI: 10.4000/framespa.6428.
Fisher, D., and B. Smiley. 2015. Adapting Rubbish Theory for Heritage Tourism. Journal of Heritage Tourism 11:143–154. DOI:10.1080/1743873X.2015.1080711.
Gillette, M., and B. E. Singleton. 2022. Inevitable Epistemological Conflict: Reflections on a Disagreement Over the Relationship Between Science and Indigenous and Local Knowledge. Ambio 51:1904–1905. DOI:10.1007/s13280-022-01739-7.
Gustafsson, K. and R. Lidskog. 2012. Acknowledging Risk, Trusting Expertise, and Coping with Uncertainty: Citizens’ Deliberations on Spraying an Insect Population. Society & Natural Resources 25:587–601. DOI:10.1080/08941920.2011.620598.
Hill, R., Ç. Adem, W. V. Alangui, Z. Molnár, Y. Aumeeruddy-Thomas, P. Bridgewater, M. Tengö, R. Thaman, C. Y. Adou Yao, F. Berkes, J. Carino, M. Carneiro Da Cunha, M. C. Diaw, S. Díaz, V. E. Figueroa, J. Fisher, P. Hardison, K. Ichikawa, P. Kariuki, M. Karki, P. O. B. Lyver, P. Malmer, O. Masardule, A. A. Oteng Yeboah, D. Pacheco, T. Pataridze, E. Perez, M.-M. Roué, H. Roba, J. Rubis, O. Saito, and D. Xue. 2020. Working with Indigenous, Local and Scientific Knowledge in Assessments of Nature and Nature’s Linkages with People. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 43:8–20. DOI:10.1016/j.cosust.2019.12.006.
Kashwan, P., R. V. Duffy, F. Massé, A. P. Asiyanbi, and E. Marijnen. 2021. From Racialized Neocolonial Global Conservation to an Inclusive and Regenerative Conservation. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 63:4–19. DOI:10.1080/00139157.2021.1924574.
Keleman, P.-J., R. M. Sá, and M. P. Temudo. 2023. Rooted in the Mangrove Landscape: Children and their Ethnoichthyological Knowledge as Sentinels for Biodiversity Loss in Northern Guinea-Bissau. Ethnobiology Letters 14(2):10–21. DOI:10.14237/ebl.14.2.2023.1826.
Lidskog, R. and G. Sundqvist. 2018. Environmental Expertise. In Environment and Society. Concepts and Challenges, edited by M. Boström and D. J. Davidson, pp. 167–186. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Lopez-Maldonado, Y. 2022. Practice What You Preach: Ensuring Scientific Spheres Integrate Indigenous Peoples’ and Local Communities’ Rights and Agency Too. Ambio 51:811–812. DOI:10.1007/s13280-021-01663-2.
Marwoto, I. 2019. From Rubbish to Cultural Identity; Making Archaeology Relevant for the Contemporary Community. Wacana 20:317–351. DOI:10.17510/wacana.v20i2.678.
McElwee, P., Á. Fernández-Llamazares, Y. Aumeeruddy-Thomas, D. Babai, P. Bates, K. Galvin, M. Guéze, J. Liu, Z. Molnar, H. T. Ngo, V. Reyes-Garcia, R. Chowdhury, A. Samakov, U. Babu Shrestha, S. Díaz, and E. S. Brondizio. 2020. Working with Indigenous and Local Knowledge (ILK) in Large-Scale Ecological Assessments: Reviewing the Experience of the IPBES Global Assessment. Journal of Applied Ecology 57:1666–1676. DOI:10.1111/1365-2664.13705.
McGuire, G., and A. Mawyer. 2023. Cultivating the Unseen: Paʻakai and the Role of Practice in Coastal Care. Ethnobiology Letters 14(2):22–36. DOI:10.14237/ebl.14.2.2023.1825.
Molnár, Z., and D. Babai. 2021. Inviting Ecologists to Delve Deeper into Traditional Ecological Knowledge. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 36:679–690. DOI:10.1016/j.tree.2021.04.006.
Morrell, B., W. Lipworth, R. Axler, I. Kerridge, and M. Little. 2011. Cancer as Rubbish: Donation of Tumor Tissue for Research. Qualitative Health Research 21:75–84. DOI:10.1177/1049732310373753
Nadasdy, P. 2011. "We Don't Harvest Animals; We Kill Them." Agricultural Metaphors and the Politics of Wildlife Management in the Yukon. In Knowing Nature: Conversations at the Intersection of Political Ecology and Science Studies, edited by M. J. Goldman, P. Nadasdy, and M. D. Turner, pp. 135–151. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Rayner, S. 2004. The Novelty Trap: Why Does Institutional Learning About New Technologies Seem So Difficult. Industry and Higher Education 18:349–355. DOI:10.5367/0000000042683601
Rayner, S. 2012. Uncomfortable Knowledge: The Social Construction of Ignorance in Science and Environmental Policy Discourses. Economy and Society 41:107–125. DOI:10.1080/03085147.2011.637335.
Ravetz, J. 2006. Towards a Non-Violent Discourse in Science. In Human Security and International Insecurity, edited by B. Klein Goldewijk, and G. Frerks, pp. 249–286. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen.
Reyes-Garcia, V., A. Fernandez-Llamazares, Y. Aumeeruddy-Thomas, P. Benyei, R. W. Bussmann, S. K. Diamond, D. Garcia-Del-Amo, S. Guadilla-Saez, N. Hanazaki, N. Kosoy, M. Lavides, A. C. Luz, P. Mcelwee, V. J. Meretsky, T. Newberry, Z. Molnar, I. Ruiz-Mallen, M. Salpeteur, F. S. Wyndham, F. Zorondo-Rodriguez, and E. S. Brondizio. 2022. Recognizing Indigenous Peoples’ and Local Communities’ Rights and Agency in the post-2020 Biodiversity Agenda. Ambio 51:84–92. DOI:10.1007/s13280-021-01561-7.
Rose, D. C. 2018. Avoiding a Post-truth World: Embracing Post-normal Conservation. Conservation and Society 16:518–524. DOI:10.4103/cscs_17_131.
Sandroni, L. T. 2023. Conservation at Stake: Institutionalized Environmentalisms and Indigenous Knowledges About How to Protect the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Ethnobiology Letters 14(2):72–82. DOI:10.14237/ebl.14.2.2023.1832.
Shebitz, D. J., L. P. Agnew, S. Kerns, A. Oviedo, and J. Ha. 2023. Let it Grow (Back): A Call for the Conservation of Secondary Forests as Medicinal Plant Habitat. Ethnobiology Letters 14(2):37–46. DOI:10.14237/ebl.14.2.2023.1831.
Sidorova, E. 2020. The Incorporation of Traditional Ecological Knowledge in the Arctic Council: Lip Service? Polar Record 56. DOI:10.1017/S0032247420000273.
Singleton, B. E. 2021. The Whale Watched and Whaled: Exploring the Orderings of a Complex Environmental Issue Through the Lens of Rubbish Theory. Journal of Political Ecology 28:396–415. DOI:10.2458/jpe.2928.
Singleton, B. E., M. Gillette, A. Burman, and C. Green. 2021. Toward Productive Complicity: Applying ‘Traditional Ecological Knowledge’ in Environmental Science. Anthropocene Review. DOI:10.1177/2053019621105702.
Smith, L. T. 2012. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Zed Books, London.
Swedlow, B. 2007. Using the boundaries of science to do boundary-work among scientists: pollution and purity claims. Science and Public Policy 34:633-643. DOI:10.3152/030234207X264953.
Swedlow, B. 2017. Three Cultural Boundaries of Science, Institutions, and Policy: A Cultural Theory of Coproduction, Boundary-Work, and Change. Review of Policy Research 34:827-853. DOI:10.1111/ropr.12233.
Tengö, M., B. J. Austin, F. Danielsen, and A. Fernandez-Llamazares. 2021. Creating Synergies between Citizen Science and Indigenous and Local Knowledge. Bioscience 71:503–518.
Thompson, M. 2003. Time’s Square: Deriving Cultural Theory from Rubbish Theory. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 16:319–330. DOI:10.1093/biosci/biab023.
Thompson, M. 2008. Clumsiness: Why Isn't it as Easy as Falling off a Log? Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 21:205–216. DOI:10.1080/13511610802404922.
Thompson, M. 2017. Rubbish Theory. The Creation and Destruction of Value, 2nd edition. Pluto Press, London.
Turner, N. J., A. Cuerrier, and L. Joseph. 2022. Well Grounded: Indigenous Peoples’ Knowledge, Ethnobiology and Sustainability. People and Nature 4:627–651. DOI:10.1002/pan3.10321.
Verweij, M., and M. Thompson, eds. 2011. Clumsy Solutions for a Complex World. Governance, Politics and Plural Perceptions. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
West, P. 2006. Conservation is Our Government Now. The Politics of Ecology in Papua New Guinea. Duke University Press, London.
Copyright (c) 2023 Benedict E. Singleton, Maris Boyd Gillette
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain ownership of the copyright for their content and grant Ethnobiology Letters (the “Journal”) and the Society of Ethnobiology right of first publication. Authors and the Journal agree that Ethnobiology Letters will publish the article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC 4.0), which permits others to use, distribute, and reproduce the work non-commercially, provided the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal are properly cited.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
For any reuse or redistribution of a work, users must make clear the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC 4.0).
In publishing with Ethnobiology Letters corresponding authors certify that they are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements. They warrant, on behalf of themselves and their co-authors, that the content is original, has not been formally published, is not under consideration, and does not infringe any existing copyright or any other third party rights. They further warrant that the material contains no matter that is scandalous, obscene, libelous, or otherwise contrary to the law.
Corresponding authors will be given an opportunity to read and correct edited proofs, but if they fail to return such corrections by the date set by the editors, production and publication may proceed without the authors’ approval of the edited proofs.