Applied Filters
- Perspective
- EthicsRemove filter
- FACETSRemove filter
Topics
Publication Date
Author
- Ahenakew, Cash1
- Ballegooyen, Kate1
- Beirne, Christopher1
- Berentsen, Susan Maria Johanna1
- Blom, Fenneke1
- Bobiwash, Kyle1
- Bowman, Jeff1
- Burton, A Cole1
- Chow-Fraser, Gillian1
- Crowson, Eva1
- Evans, Steve1
- Francis, Abraham1
- Galappaththi, Madu1
- Ghorpade, Sarah1
- Gjerris, Mickey1
- Goddiksen, Mads Paludan1
- Granados, Alys1
- Hill, Lowine Stella1
- Ignace, Lawrence1
- Johnson, Mary Jane Gùdia1
- Kwong, Lian1
- Mendes, Wilson1
- Miettunen, Anita1
- Nakagawa, Hanika1
- Nakagawa, Phoenix1
Access Type
1 - 7of7
Save this search
Please login to be able to save your searches and receive alerts for new content matching your search criteria.
Filters
You do not have any saved searches
- OPEN ACCESSIn 2015, after documenting testimonies from Indigenous survivors of the residential school system in Canada, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission released 94 Calls to Action to enable reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians. Without personal connections to Indigenous communities, many Canadians fail to grasp the depth of intergenerational impacts of residential schools and associated systemic racism. Consequently, reconciliation remains an elusive concept. Here we outline 10 Calls to Action to natural scientists to enable reconciliation in their work. We focus on natural scientists because a common connection to the land should tie the social license of natural scientists more closely to Indigenous communities than currently exists. We also focus on natural sciences because of the underrepresentation of Indigenous peoples in this field. We draw on existing guidelines and our experiences in northern Canada. Our 10 Calls to Action are triggered by frustration. The authors have witnessed examples where natural scientists treat Indigenous communities with blatant disrespect or with ignorance of Indigenous rights. These 10 Calls to Action challenge the scientific community to recognize that reconciliation requires a new way of conducting natural science, one that includes and respects Indigenous communities, rights, and knowledge leading to better scientific and community outcomes.
- OPEN ACCESSThere is a growing interest in training on responsible conduct of research (RCR). The availability and range of such training materials, for a diversity of audiences and addressing a diversity of RCR related topics, is growing too. This is of great help to all who are looking for materials to set up their RCR training, but how can one select what topics to include within the often-limited time available for training? In this paper we propose a step-by-step approach to set the agenda for RCR training, using the target audience as a narrative guide. The process consists of six steps: (1) mapping the needs and translating them into learning objectives; (2) prioritizing, selecting, and combining objectives and themes; (3) demarcation of the training; (4) completion of the program; (5) development or adaptation of training materials; and (6) pilot and evaluation. The development process of a training program for researchers in Dutch Universities of Applied Sciences is used as an example to illustrate the step-by-step process.
- OPEN ACCESSMore and more research institutions are implementing courses in research integrity (RI). Recent studies indicate that teachers of RI courses are increasingly adopting a “phronetic” approach to their teaching, where the focus is on nurturing values and practical wisdom—what Aristotle called phronesis. When adopting a phronetic approach, it is important to understand what phronesis in relation to RI entails and how and to what extent an RI course can contribute to the development of research phronesis. This paper contains a practice-based discussion of the realistic aims of RI courses and a first step towards a specification of the skill set necessary for developing research phronesis drawing on experiences from the PhD courses on Responsible Conduct of Research at the University of Copenhagen. We discuss the limited extent to which research phronesis can be taught in short courses and examine the broader implications of this for the role of RI courses in the training of good researchers.
- OPEN ACCESSWith growing attention to the ethical and equity implications of Western-based approaches to research, the urgency of decolonizing research has emerged as a critical topic across academic disciplines, including the field of sustainability. The complexity and messiness of this endeavour, however, may translate into uncertainty among researchers about how and where to start. This is partly due to a lack of guidance, training, and accountability mechanisms through Western academic institutions. In this paper, we advance a three-step process that systematically guides critical reflection toward respectful engagement of local and Indigenous communities, as well as other marginalized groups, by drawing on the literature and on learnings from a recent graduate student-led initiative. The process we develop aims to provide a pragmatic starting point for decolonizing research and a counterpoint to conventional modes of research. Such a process will not only foster accountability, respect, and reciprocity but also movement toward locally relevant, context-appropriate, and action-oriented research outcomes. Our three-step process also challenges Western-based and extractive research practices and seeks to facilitate a shift in mindset about the purpose of research and how to approach it.
- OPEN ACCESS
- Catherine Sun,
- Alys Granados,
- Christopher Beirne,
- Gillian Chow-Fraser,
- Abraham Francis,
- Lian Kwong,
- Peter Soroye,
- Helen Yip,
- Anita Miettunen,
- Jeff Bowman, and
- A. Cole Burton
Funding is critical in ecology and related fields, as it enables research and sustains livelihoods. However, early-career researchers (ECRs) from diverse backgrounds are disproportionately underrepresented as funding recipients. To help funding programs self-evaluate progress towards increasing equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in their funding opportunities, we introduce the Stage-based Assessments of Grants for EDI (SAGE) Toolkit. Developed using existing literature, semi-structured interviews, and coauthors’ experiences, the toolkit considers how each funding stage (Advertisement, Application, Review, Awarding) interacts with applicants from racialized and other underrepresented backgrounds. The toolkit offers specific criteria and recommendations, with explanations and examples from funding agencies, to support applicants who have been historically marginalized in ecology and are often left out of equitable funding consideration. Changes in funding mechanisms alone will not reverse the marginalization of communities and peoples in the field of ecology, but advancing EDI must include action throughout the grant process. Efforts to increase EDI must be sustained, and the toolkit allows for additional considerations and evolving best practices. With the SAGE Toolkit, efforts to increase EDI can help to transition away from a transactional dynamic between funder and applicant to instead supportive community and collaboration. The SAGE Toolkit is available online at bit.ly/ediSAGEtoolkit. - OPEN ACCESS
- Sharon Stein,
- Cash Ahenakew,
- Will Valley,
- Pasang Y. Sherpa,
- Eva Crowson,
- Tabitha Robin,
- Wilson Mendes, and
- Steve Evans
There is growing interest among Western-trained scientists in engaging with Indigenous sciences. This interest has arisen in response to social pressures to reckon with the colonial foundations of Western science and decentre Western ways of knowing, as well as recognition of the need to draw upon the gifts of multiple knowledge systems to address today's many complex social and ecological challenges. However, colonial patterns and power relations are often reproduced at the interface between Western and Indigenous sciences, including the reproduction of epistemic Eurocentrism and extractive modes of relationship between settlers and Indigenous Peoples. This paper seeks to support Western-trained scientists to recognize and interrupt these patterns in order to create the conditions for more ethical, respectful, and reciprocal engagements with Indigenous sciences. We also offer a map of the different ways that Western sciences have thus far engaged Indigenous sciences. We particularly highlight the emergent possibilities offered by a reparative approach to engagement that emphasizes the responsibility of Western science to enact material and relational repair for historical and ongoing harm, including by supporting Indigenous self-determination and sovereignty in science and beyond. - OPEN ACCESSIn this conceptual paper, we argue that the assumptions behind laboratory and field studies are that chemical and compositional analysis may reveal structures unseen by means of human observation. However, replacing human observation to make it obsolete is not the purpose of science; if something can be seen, but is not measurable, that does not make it irrelevant. Although science is frequently primarily regarded as a quantitative field, we argue that qualitative data inclusion is necessary determine the consequences of research on Indigenous communities. We discuss key points, including historical and anthropocentric views of science, suggesting that Indigenous Science requires greater wisdom-based knowledge in association with traditional ecological knowledge. We introduce a new conceptual model called “Pollen Sovereignty”, a sister to Indigenous food sovereignty, to begin critical discussions around the ethics of field research and the impacts of research on the environment, land management, and Indigenous communities. That is, through simple scientific concepts, critical thought, and logic new conceptual frameworks and avenues of research, Indigenous knowledges cannot merely be coopted and reused, but respected and valued.