Research on local ecological knowledge-a plea for parity: critique on local ecological knowledge (LEK) in interdisciplinary research and application: a critical review (Ruddle and Davis 2013)
2013
Brook, Ryan K.
While the ecological literature is replete with published papers assuming that local ecological knowledge (LEK) can and should be used in combination with conventional ecological science, there are relatively few that challenge or assess this assumption on theoretical, moral, or empirical grounds. Ruddle and Davis (2013) recently compiled a critical review of a small sample of literature on the application of LEK which provides some interesting insights into theory and practice of research that uses LEK. I fully agree that it is important to examine more closely the research that is using LEK and how it is evaluated and applied. Unfortunately, Ruddle and Davis (2013) conflate cautions raised about how to best use and evaluate LEK in comparison to ‘western’ or ‘expertbased’ science (e.g. Brook and McLachlan 2005) as suggesting that these cautions suggest that those individuals “simplistically claim that LEK is incontestably valid”. This reflects an ongoing simplistic dichotomy that suggests there is only a binary choice to fully support or fully oppose comparing LEK with science. What Ruddle and Davis (2013) fail to recognize or discuss in their review is that the comparisons between LEK and science are not just comparing two datasets, but are inevitably tied to critical issues of power and control. The assumption that concerns raised about how LEK should be collected and used are actually total opposition to comparing LEK with science are almost invariably wrong. More often, these discussions are actually a reflection that approaches to comparing LEK and science need improvement.
اظهر المزيد [+] اقل [-]الكلمات المفتاحية الخاصة بالمكنز الزراعي (أجروفوك)
المعلومات البيبليوغرافية
تم تزويد هذا السجل من قبل Universiti Putra Malaysia
