Journal of
Ethnobiology
2021 41(2): 170–191
Ethnobiology Phase VI: Decolonizing Institutions, Projects,
and Scholarship
Alex C. McAlvay1*, Chelsey G. Armstrong2, Janelle Baker3, Linda Black
Elk4, Samantha Bosco5, Natalia Hanazaki6, Leigh Joseph7, Tania Eulalia
Martínez-Cruz8, Mark Nesbitt9, Meredith Alberta Palmer10, Walderes
Cocta Priprá de Almeida11, Jane Anderson12, Zemede Asfaw13, Israel
T. Borokini14, Eréndira Juanita Cano-Contreras15, Simon Hoyte16, Maui
Hudson17, Ana H. Ladio18, Guillaume Odonne19, Sonia Peter20, John
Rashford21, Jeffrey Wall22, Steve Wolverton23, and Ina Vandebroek1
Abstract. Ethnobiology, like many fields, was shaped by early Western imperial efforts to colonize
people and lands around the world and extract natural resources. Those legacies and practices
persist today and continue to influence the institutions ethnobiologists are a part of, how they carry
out research, and their personal beliefs and actions. Various authors have previously outlined five
overlapping “phases” of ethnobiology. Here, we argue that ethnobiology should move toward a
sixth phase in which scholars and practitioners must actively challenge colonialism, racism, and
oppressive structures embedded within their institutions, projects, and themselves. As an international
group of ethnobiologists and scholars from allied fields, we identified key topics and priorities at
three levels: at the institutional scale, we argue for repatriation/rematriation of biocultural heritage,
accessibility of published work, and realignment of priorities to support community-driven research.
At the level of projects, we emphasize the need for mutual dialogue, reciprocity, community research
self-sufficiency, and research questions that support sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples and Local
Communities over lands and waters. Finally, for individual scholars, we support self-reflection on
language use, co-authorship, and implicit bias. We advocate for concrete actions at each of these
levels to move the field further toward social justice, antiracism, and decolonization.
Keywords: ethics, social justice, antiracism, colonialism, parachute science
Institute of Economic Botany, The New York Botanical Garden, 2900 Southern Blvd, Bronx, NY 10458.
Indigenous Studies, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada.
3
Anthropology, Athabasca University, Athabasca, Alberta, Canada.
4
United Tribes Technical College, Bismarck, North Dakota.
5
Horticulture Section, School of Integrated Plant Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
6
Departamento de Ecologia e Zoologia, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil.
7
School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria, BC, Canada.
8
Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, Chatham, United Kingdom.
9
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, UK.
10
Science and Technology Studies Department, American Indian and Indigenous Studies Program, Cornell University, Ithaca,
New York.
11
Departamento de História, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil.
12
Equity for Indigenous Research and Innovation Coordinating Hub, Anthropology and Museum Studies, New York University,
New York, New York.
13
Department of Plant Biology and Biodiversity Management, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
14
Ecology, Evolution and Conservation Biology Graduate Program, Department of Biology, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada.
15
Centro de Investigaciones Multidisciplinarias sobre Chiapas y la Frontera Sur, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México,
Chiapas, México.
16
Department of Anthropology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
17
Te Kotahi Research Institute, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
18
INIBIOMA (CONICET-Universidad Nacional del Comahue), San Carlos de Bariloche, Río Negro, Argentina.
18
CNRS-LEEISA (USR 3456), Cayenne, French Guiana.
20
Biocultural Education and Research Programme, St. James, Barbados.
21
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, College of Charleston, Charleston, South Carolina.
22
Department of Geography, Environment and Geomatics, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
23
Department of Geography and the Environment, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas.
*
Corresponding author (amcalvay@nybg.org)
1
2
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Ethnobiology on 06 Jul 2021
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
Ethnobiology Phase VI: Decolonizing Institutions, Projects, and Scholarship
171
Resumen. La etnobiología, como muchos otros campos, ha sido moldeada por los esfuerzos
imperialistas occidentales para colonizar gente y tierras alrededor del mundo y extraer sus recursos
naturales. Estos legados y prácticas aún persisten hoy en día y continúan influyendo en las instituciones
donde los etnobiólogos son parte, las formas en cómo desarrollan la investigación, sus creencias
personales y acciones. Varios autores han resaltado anteriormente cinco fases superpuestas de la
etnobiología. En este documento, nosotros argumentamos que la etnobiología debe moverse hacia
una sexta fase en la que los académicos y practicantes deben activamente confrontar el colonialismo,
el racismo y las estructuras opresivas que están embebidas dentro de sus instituciones, proyectos y
de ellos mismos. Como un grupo internacional de etnobiólogos y académicos de campos aliados,
identificamos temas centrales y prioridades en 3 niveles: a nivel institucional, nosotros abogamos por
la repatriación/rematriación del patrimonio biocultural, la accesibilidad a los trabajos publicados,
y la realineación de prioridades para apoyar la investigación liderada por las comunidades. A
nivel de proyectos, nosotros enfatizamos la necesidad de un diálogo mutuo, de reciprocidad, que
las comunidades sean autosuficientes en cuanto a investigación. Además, que las preguntas de
investigación apoyen la soberanía de los Pueblos Indígenas y las Comunidades Locales sobre sus
tierras y aguas. Finalmente, en el caso de los académicos, apoyamos los procesos de reflexión interna
acerca del uso del lenguaje, las coautorías y los sesgos implícitos. Nosotros abogamos por acciones
concretas en cada uno de estos niveles para movilizar a la etnobiología para que sea socialmente
justa, anti-racista y descolonizada.
Palabras clave: Ética, Justicia Social, Antiracismo, Colonialismo, Ciencia Paracaídas
Introdução. A etnobiologia foi moldada, como muitas áreas de estudo, por anseios imperialistas
do Ocidente para extrair recursos naturais e colonizar terras e povos ao redor do mundo. O legado
destas práticas persiste até hoje e continua a influenciar as instituições que etnobiólogos fazem parte,
como eles fazem suas pesquisas, e suas ações e crenças pessoais. Muitos autores já delinearam cinco
fases na Etnobiologia que se sobrepõem. Aqui, nós argumentamos que a Etnobiologia deve de se
mover para uma sexta fase, onde acadêmicos e praticantes deveriam desafiar ativamente as estruturas
opressoras de racismo e colonialismo que são tão presentes em suas instituições e em seus próprios
projetos e em si mesmos. Como um grupo internacional de etnobiólogos e acadêmicos de áreas em
comum, nós identificamos tópicos essenciais em três níveis de prioridade: numa escala institucional,
nós prezamos por uma repatriação/rematriação de patrimônio biocultural, acessibilidade de
trabalhos publicados e um realinhamento de prioridades para auxiliar pesquisas direcionadas pelas
comunidades. No nível de projetos, enfatizamos a necessidade do diálogo mútuo, reciprocidade,
à auto suficiência de pesquisas comunitárias, e questões de pesquisa que apoiam Povos Indígenas
e comunidades locais e sua soberania sobre suas terras e águas. Para o nível acadêmico individual,
nós apoiamos a autorreflexão no uso da linguagem, co-autoria, e vieses implícitos. Nós defendemos
ações concretas em cada um destes níveis para impulsionar cada vez mais o campo de estudo na
direção da justiça social, anti racismo e descolonização.
Palavras-chave: Ética, Justiça social, Antiracismo, Colonianlismo, Ciência paraquedas
Dén lálá to togtũ to pil: Dén ve to vãnhlán lálá dén to vãnhlá la
Dén pledeg jé ke te kũ tõ ũn pil han kũ, te u ve tẽ kũ to mẽ ag bag gó tẽ tẽ génh kan mũ. Dén mẽ
plẽdeg ge tẽ tõ vel há tẽg te kũ, pa´i tõ to nõdẽg te óg ẽ jogzẽ tẽ ha lan lán gé ke mũ. Ũ tõ dén to mẽ
vanhlán lán gé ké mũ te óg ẽ vanh lá lá tẽ tõ hun ge mũ. Tóg tẽ ki, ag ha na dén plẽdeg ke te zé txul
kũ vãtxika zé ke vã, kũ vaha ũ tõ dén zópalag nõ óg ha vũ to nõdẽ kũ to vẽ ke tẽ tẽ like ti, jé ũ tõ mẽ
ãggónhka óg kulégvég gé ke mũ te óg, vel to nõ ũ ha tã paí nõdẽ kũ ẽ han dén ti zé vanhlán lán gé ke
mũ. Ag mõ gojvanh mẽ nõ óg vãtxo vagzun kũ zé zópalag nõdẽ, u ta tẽ ag mõ like te jé je ta ag pate
tég: Vel ag ha na dén u tẽ ze txul kũ tõ lẽl tẽ tõ ag tẽ te kũ, zé lanhlanh ke te jé u tég like te jé ha ve
kũ ha to dén tẽ han ge tẽ aglẽl te óg mõ. Vanhlán lálá te to mẽ óg blé vẽ kũ óg ve kũ han ge tẽ, kũ
vel jé ta u tég kũ a ve kũ ha to un pã han ge tẽ aglẽl te óg mõ, jé ta ãggónhka te óg mõ vel tég óg ka
te mẽ óg goj te blé. Vel ẽ tõ dén zópalag nõdẽ te óg mõ vãnhku tẽ ké, ag mõ ta u tẽ te lán lálá tẽ, kũ
vãnhõ blé dén han ge jé ta tég, dén jógdẽg to akleg mãka. Dén u zé aklén kũ to zópzlag ge jé ta tég.
Journal of Ethnobiology 2021 41(2): 170–191
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Ethnobiology on 06 Jul 2021
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
172
McAlvay et al.
Introduction
In this paper, we make a call for an
ethnobiology centered on anti-oppressive
activism that addresses colonial legacies
and ongoing colonialism. We recognize that
hundreds of years of colonial policies and
practices have contributed, and continue
to contribute, to poverty, exclusion, state
violence, sexism, classism, and racism
in many contemporary societies. They
additionally continue to shape academic
institutions, research projects, and individual beliefs and actions.
Over time, ethnobiology as a scientific
discipline has taken major turns that have
been conceptualized as phases (see Table 1)
(Clément 1998; Hunn 2007; Nabhan et al.
2011; Wolverton 2013; Wyndham et al.
2011). Rather than mutually exclusive categories or an evolutionary trajectory, these
phases highlight major trends and emerging
lines of inquiry in the field. In introducing Phase 1, Clément (1998) explains that
while humans have engaged in ethnobiological research for thousands of years,
contemporary academic ethnobiology has
its roots in late nineteenth century European and Eurodescendant researchers’
efforts to “discover’’ new uses for plants
that can benefit settlers and/or colonial
powers. This interest in ethnobiology was
global. That is, by 1914, the majority of the
world’s countries had been colonized by
Europeans (Ferrante 2014) and, since the
fifteenth century “Age of Discovery,” newly
encountered spices, seeds, tea, furs, and
other goods were being funneled toward
European powers.
In the twentieth century, additional
trends emerged with a focus on local taxonomic systems (Phase II) and traditional
ecological knowledge (Phase III). The late
twentieth and early twenty-first centuries
saw increasing attention to ethnobiologists’
responsibilities to the communities they
work with (Phase IV) and growing application of ethnobiology to global environmental challenges (Phase V) (Nabhan et al.
2011; Wolverton 2013; Wyndham et al.
2011). Ethnobiologists continue to carry out
Table 1. Five phases of ethnobiology proposed by Clément (1998), Hunn (2007), Wyndham et al. (2011),
Nabhan et al. (2011), and Wolverton (2013).
Phase
Hallmarks
I. Utilitarianism
Documentation of plant and animal uses that could benefit the
researcher’s society (e.g., Heinrich and Bremner 2006)
II. Cognitive Ethnobiology
Linguistics and psychology incorporated to study how cultures
conceive of and classify organisms in the environment (e.g.,
Berlin 1992; Conklin 1954)
III. Ethnoecology
Traditional ecological knowledge and its application
increasingly emphasized (e.g., Berkes 2012; Toledo and
Alarcón-Cháires 2018)
IV. Indigenous Ethnobiology
Increasing awareness of the importance of rights of Indigenous
peoples to control how their knowledge is extracted, shared, or
used (e.g., Golan et al. 2019; Posey 1990)
V. Interdisciplinarity in an Era of Rapid
Environmental Change
Emphasizes interdisciplinary collaboration to address pressing
human-environmental issues such as climate change (e.g.,
Reyes-García et al. 2019; Salick et al. 2009)
Journal of Ethnobiology 2021 41(2): 170–191
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Ethnobiology on 06 Jul 2021
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
Ethnobiology Phase VI: Decolonizing Institutions, Projects, and Scholarship
work oriented toward all the above phases
and usually blend them together.
We call for a Phase VI to address
colonial legacies in the field and ongoing
colonialism globally. Guided by turns in
other disciplines, we argue that ethnobiologists’ work needs to go beyond adhering
to and satisfying ethical guidelines and be
actively decolonizing (Atalay 2012; Baker
et al. 2019; Harrison 2010; Radcliffe 2017;
Smith 2012). Here, we define colonialism
broadly as “the control by individuals or
groups over the territory and/or behavior
of other individuals and groups” (Horvath
1972:46). The contexts of colonization vary
dramatically between and within countries, including “settler colonialism,” where
settlers claim land and become the majority, “extractive colonialism,” which involves
exploitation of local resources but does
not entail permanent occupation, and any
combination of other forms (Shoemaker
2015). Many scholars also note that, even in
“decolonized” countries, colonial dynamics
can persist through “neocolonialism” in the
form of economic exploitation and political manipulation (Rahaman et al. 2017), as
well as internal structures set up by colonialism related to power, wealth, race, and
class (Maitra and Guo 2019). We argue that
concrete steps should be taken to “decolonize” the discipline of ethnobiology in two
senses of the word: 1) by remedying lingering colonial legacies embedded within
institutions, research projects, and scholars,
and 2) by actively opposing ongoing colonialism by supporting sovereignty over land,
waters, and biocultural heritage by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities.
As in Phases I-V, which overlap and
interact with one another, we believe that
there is potential synergy between Phase
VI and other phases. For example, Phase
VI, like II (cognitive ethnobiology) and III
(ethnoecology), valorizes local perspectives
of the natural world and Phase IV (Indigenous ethnobiology) overlaps with our call to
reexamine relationships with the communi-
173
ties ethnobiologists work with. Additionally,
an actively anti-oppressive ethnobiology
VI may improve ethnobiologists’ ability to
address the global challenges of Phase V,
such as environmental justice.
In this paper, we organized our thinking
across three overlapping scales: institutions,
projects, and scholars (Figure 1). Inspired
by the teachings of historian and antiracist
activist Ibram X. Kendi (2017), we started
from institutions, policies, and structures,
which Kendi argues are at the root of inequity and, in turn, influence our actions and
ideas. Next, the two coordinating authors
(McAlvay and Vandebroek) contacted other
colleagues who, in three sub-groups, jointly
reflected on and wrote about decolonizing
ethnobiology at these thematic scales. This
larger author network invited other authors
from around the world based on previously
expressed interest, professional experience,
or their answers to a few questions circulated by the coordinating authors online
about decolonizing ethnobiology. The
final group of 24 authors brings together
ethnobiologists, conservation specialists,
and geographers based at universities and
non-profits in 10 countries. The authors
include Indigenous and non-Indigenous
scholars, but nearly all contributors work
closely with Indigenous Peoples and Local
Communities. We consciously worked to
minimize discipline-specific jargon to be
inclusive of a diverse readership.
We recognize that communities worldwide have been affected by colonialism,
including many who do not identify as
Indigenous. In general, the analysis and
recommendations in this paper refer to all
those who face structural disadvantage as
a result of historic and present-day colonialism, including Indigenous Peoples
and Local Communities in many parts of
the world and descendants of enslaved or
indentured peoples. Continued reflection
on issues of inclusion resulting from the use
of “local” is crucial, so as not to exclude,
for example, Afrodescendant communities
Journal of Ethnobiology 2021 41(2): 170–191
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Ethnobiology on 06 Jul 2021
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
174
McAlvay et al.
Figure 1. Key topics and priorities for decolonizing ethnobiology at the three thematic scales discussed in this
paper, narrowing from institutions to projects and scholarship.
historically displaced from their ancestral
lands from dialogue on traditional knowledge systems defined by long histories of
interactions between peoples and their
natural surroundings. We also emphasize
that ethnobiologists frequently work in their
own communities; there is not necessarily
a distinction between “researchers” and
othered “community members.”
Decolonizing Institutions
Ethnobiology is embedded in a variety
of institutions, including universities, museums, botanical gardens, non-governmental
organizations (NGO), global consortia,
funding agencies, scholarly associations,
for-profit organizations, and publishers.
These institutions play key roles in training ethnobiologists, funding research and
projects, enabling networking and dissemination, setting ethical standards (cf. ISE
2006; SOLAE 2016), and maintaining
biocultural collections (Salick et al. 2014).
While these institutions enable ethnobiologists’ work in many ways, they can
also perpetuate issues of access to information and biocultural heritage, hamper
ethnobiologists’ ability to carry out truly
community-engaged research, and disproportionately limit career opportunities for
marginalized groups. We believe that ethnobiologists can take concrete steps toward
decolonizing institutions of which they are
part, either in leadership roles or through
advocacy (see Table 2; Supplemental Table
S1A; see also Fernández-Llamazares et al.
2021). We recognize that many institutional
issues require structural change, but we
focus below on areas where ethnobiologists
can take critical action that leads towards
structural change, drawing on valuable
experience from other fields, for example,
ecology and conservation (Chaudhury and
Colla 2020; Massey et al. 2021; McGill et
al. 2021; Tseng et al. 2020).
Advocating for institutional change
can be daunting. Recognition of the need
for change will be strongly influenced by
the attitudes of senior management. Effective change must work at different scales,
Journal of Ethnobiology 2021 41(2): 170–191
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Ethnobiology on 06 Jul 2021
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
Ethnobiology Phase VI: Decolonizing Institutions, Projects, and Scholarship
175
Table 2. Ways in which ethnobiologists can take action toward decolonizing institutions.
Type of Institution
Actions
Educational institutions
• Work to promote the inclusion of different ways of knowing in curricula
Universities, museums,
botanical gardens etc.
• Work toward institutional transparency surrounding the relationship
between the institution’s history and colonialism
• Reward service to the communities ethnobiologists work with and
research outputs like guidebooks and ecocultural restoration projects
Natural History Collections
• Encourage repatriation/rematriation of biocultural heritage
Academic Societies
• Establish more travel awards for participants from Indigenous and Local
Communities (e.g., Abernethy et al. 2020)
• Audit the culture of academic societies and conferences to ensure
inclusivity
Academic publishing
• Move toward open access models with minimal (affordable) fees
• Incentivize articles focused on methods for inclusion, sovereignty,
ecocultural restoration, and other topics
Funding Agencies
• When serving on review panels, be cognizant of the time it takes for
relationship building and consultation with communities, and advocate for
alternative “deliverables”
Conservation organizations
• Argue for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities as expert managers
of their environment
from the individual to the institution and,
for many institutions, from the local to
national and/or global. Allies must amplify
under-represented voices and take on the
labor of change. For members of institutions, whether or not with active managerial
support, establishing or finding supportive
groups to do this work generates solidarity,
enables learning from varied lived experiences, and reduces strain on individuals
(Chaudhury and Colla 2020).
Systemic change depends on greater
representation in institutional membership,
crucially including leadership positions
(Maas et al. 2021:Figure 4; Massey et al.
2021; Tseng et al. 2020). Ethnobiologists
can be active and attentive to diversity
and inclusivity while organizing academic
meetings and making nominations for
awards, editorial boards, panels, and commissioned publications.
Access and Repatriation/Rematriation of
Biocultural Heritage
The centralization of biocultural resources—archives and repositories typically
coded by and for Euro-Americans—can
be an extractive endeavor which alienates
people from their cultural and biological
heritage. Failure to acknowledge histories
of colonialism and trade, whereby peoples’
heritage and intellectual property was
taken and displayed in colonial museums
in the world’s richest countries (Cornish
and Nesbitt 2014), has led to the continued marginalization of non-Western forms
of knowledge. Repatriation/rematriation of
biocultural heritage implies the recognition
of the rights of communities to their knowledge and biological resources, from the
genetic varieties of the crops they develop
to the landscapes they create (Toledo and
Alarcón-Cháires 2018).
Journal of Ethnobiology 2021 41(2): 170–191
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Ethnobiology on 06 Jul 2021
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
176
McAlvay et al.
Since the international call for repatriation/rematriation of heritage by the United
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN General Assembly
2007:Article 11), a variety of new forms of
repatriation/rematriation have been developed in the museum sector (Anderson
and Christen 2019; Coombes and Phillips
2020). Digital access constitutes one part
of a more complex conversation about
collections that recognizes colonialism is
embedded within the infrastructures themselves—including cataloguing and labeling
(Anderson and Hudson 2020). However,
many argue that decolonization must, in
part, be grounded in the return of physical resources gained through colonization
(Tuck and Yang 2012). Ethnobiologists can
play an active role in advocating for repatriation/rematriation, as many ethnobiologists
are housed at institutions with biocultural
collections. In some contexts, this heritage is often overlooked, as in the case of
herbaria hosting biocultural heritage in the
form of ethnobiological information and
voucher specimens (Odonne et al. 2020).
To prevent future dispossession of biocultural heritage and erasure of Indigenous
Peoples and Local Communities from metadata, ethnobiologists can also advocate
for changes to the ways their institutions
acquire new information and physical heritage in the first place.
Equity in Access to Literature, Publishing,
and Conferences
Journals, presses, and academic societies are central to the dissemination of
ethnobiological research to the larger
research community, but access costs and
the dominance of English language remain
a significant barrier to academics, members
of the communities in which ethnobiologists work, and the global public (Clavero
2010; Espin et al. 2017; Mori et al. 2015).
The pattern of colonial research is perpetuated when, for example, community
members are unable to access the products
of the ethnobiological research in which
they participated because of paywalls or
the language of publication of journal articles. While Open Access journals mitigate
this issue to some extent (Lepofsky et al.
2021), they often require expensive article processing charges (in part mitigated
by waivers). While ethnobiologists cannot
single-handedly change a problematic publishing system, they can challenge its
monopolistic nature through choosing to
publish in the journals of scholarly societies
(e.g., Economic Botany or Journal of Ethnobiology), where profits are invested in the
research community, and through ‘Platinum’
Open Access journals that have no author
or reader fees (e.g., Ethnobotany Research
and Applications or Ethnoscientia: Revista
Brasileira de Etnobiologia e Etnoecologia). It
is similarly problematic when members of
the communities ethnobiologists work with
are unable to attend conferences where
their traditional knowledge is being shared.
Many academic societies have added travel
scholarships for Indigenous Peoples and
Local Communities and we support the
continuation of this trend.
Realigning Institutional Priorities to
Support Community Leadership
While it is increasingly recognized
that ethnobiology research should be truly
collaborative with partner communities
and that benefits should flow back to those
communities (e.g., Gilmore and Eshbaugh
2011), these priorities do not always align
with those of host and funding institutions
or scientific journals. To move toward
decolonizing ethnobiology, ethnobiologists
can push to broaden the criteria for research
outcomes and accommodate flexibility in
project timelines.
Ethnobiology thrives when institutions
and their representatives forge genuine
relationships with communities, a process
which requires trust-building resulting from
continuous and extensive consultation,
commitments, and dialogue (cf. Adams
Journal of Ethnobiology 2021 41(2): 170–191
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Ethnobiology on 06 Jul 2021
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
Ethnobiology Phase VI: Decolonizing Institutions, Projects, and Scholarship
et al. 2014; Christen and Anderson 2019)
which can be incompatible with standard
durations of research funding. To promote
alternatives to extractive data collection—
the “parachute science” discussed further in
the section on Decolonizing Projects—we
encourage ethnobiologists serving on grant
assessment panels to support the extra time
and resources necessary for these processes.
Similarly, research outputs that may be
favored by communities are not always the
same as those favored by funders, departmental promotion criteria, or academic
journals. We advocate for incentivizing
alternative research outputs that are useful
to communities, such as guidebooks or
ecocultural restoration projects.
Education
Much has been written on decolonizing education, but ethnobiologists have a
unique set of skills and perspectives that
could be useful to contribute to this effort.
Local and Indigenous knowledge systems
have historically been sidelined in many
arenas, including education (Chapman
and Schott 2020). Ethnobiologists, because
of their experience navigating different
knowledge systems, are well positioned to
encourage their institutions to incorporate
different ways of knowing into curricula
(Baptista and El-Hani 2009) or help develop
new models of education that normalize Indigenous worldviews and teaching
methods like those emerging in Latin America (Alvarez-Santullano Busch and Forno
Sparosvich 2017; Baldauf 2019; López
2020; Pedota 2011).
Conservation
While many conservation organizations promote community-based natural
resource management, some governments,
backed by international NGOs, continue
to treat local human-environment interactions as inherently destructive and continue
to forcefully remove Indigenous communities from their homelands in the name of
177
protecting biodiversity, in a form of “fortress
conservation” (Eichler and Baumeister
2018; Santos Fita et al. 2009). Ethnobiologists and other scholars who bridge social
and natural sciences are uniquely positioned
to serve as advocates for the conservation
benefits of land management by Indigenous
Peoples and Local Communities and the
role of ethnobotanical research in resolving tensions between nature conservation
and human livelihoods, when these arise
(Baldauf and de Oliveira Lunardi 2020; Brittain et al. 2020; Kareiva and Marvier 2012;
Schaefer et al. 2020).
Revealing Excluded Histories
Many universities, museums, conservation organizations, and botanical gardens
have colonial histories that continue to
negatively impact the descendants of
displaced communities through past or
present extraction of natural resources,
labor, and wealth (Brockway 1979; Davis
1995; Drayton 2000; Schiebinger 2009).
For example, recently, attention has been
drawn to how the United States used Indigenous land misappropriated through deceit,
violence, or intimidation to fund land-grant
universities (Lee et al. 2020). Ethnobiologists embedded in universities and other
institutions are well positioned to spearhead
inquiry and dialogue around decolonization due to their ability to communicate
across boundaries of disciplines, cultures,
and knowledge-systems (Ladio 2017).
Decolonizing Projects
There exists a long history of research
projects causing damage, building mistrust,
and disempowering Indigenous Peoples
and Local Communities (DeLeeuw et al.
2012; Gaudry 2015; Pierotti and Fogg 2020;
Simpson 2004, 2017; Thomas 2015; Wilson
2008). Research projects continue to have
outcomes that can be detrimental and
re-traumatizing to communities who have
survived centuries of colonial oppression
and continue to face systemic racism and
Journal of Ethnobiology 2021 41(2): 170–191
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Ethnobiology on 06 Jul 2021
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
178
McAlvay et al.
marginalization (Coulthard 2014; Joseph
and Turner 2020; Regan 2010; Simpson
2017). When planning and implementing ethnobiology projects, it is essential to
understand the historical and contemporary
contexts that Indigenous Peoples and Local
Communities face as a result of colonization, and the impacts on their knowledge
systems and cultural and spiritual traditions
(Geniusz 2015; Kimmerer 2013; Simpson
2017). In this section, we explore ways in
which researchers can take proactive steps
toward decolonizing their research projects
(see Table 3; Supplemental Table S1B; see
also Fernández-Llamazares et al. 2021) by
focusing on three overlapping principles:
reciprocity, self-sufficiency and sovereignty, and supporting social justice and
self-determination.
Reciprocity
In addition to ongoing self-reflection
about the responsibility of ethnobiologists to
the people they work with and benefit from,
a researcher must consider tangible actions
of resource distribution, training, and other
forms of reciprocity (“giving back”; Baker
2016). This relational accountability or
Inawendiwin (in Anishinaabemowin), as
Nicholas Reo (2019) points out, is an ethical
guideline that implies that researchers are
responsible for nurturing honorable relationships—that ethnobiologists are committed
to community partners regardless of budget
and time constraints. Building reciprocal
relationships is community specific as there
is no “one size fits all” approach.
Western scientists are often caught in
the web of doing “parachute science” by
visiting and collecting data from field sites
in communities and returning to their resident institution to complete the project
without contributing to community interests
and forging meaningful relationships in the
study regions (Barber et al. 2014; Chapman
et al. 2015). These practices have strained
the relationship between scientists and partners and impeded conservation research in
Table 3. Ways in which ethnobiologists can take action toward decolonizing research projects.
Stage in project
Actions
Planning phase
• Learn about the history and politics of land and resource sovereignty
in collaborating communities
• Engage in sufficient consultation with communities to make sure
projects align with local needs and interests
• Consider ways projects can support sovereignty of lands, waters, and
resources in collaborating communities
During the lifecycle of the project
• Find ways to reduce the burden on the community imposed by the
project
• Reimburse community members for their time monetarily or
otherwise
• Consider the fieldwork safety of at-risk individuals
At the end of the project
• Consider alternative/additional project outputs to peer-reviewed
publications if desired by the community
• Ensure that the community has granted permission for any use of
information and media collected. Consider continued co-curation
through a mechanism like biocultural labels
• Continue involvement with the community beyond the end of
funded projects
Journal of Ethnobiology 2021 41(2): 170–191
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Ethnobiology on 06 Jul 2021
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
Ethnobiology Phase VI: Decolonizing Institutions, Projects, and Scholarship
the biodiverse countries that need it the
most (Barber et al. 2014). Also challenging
are large scale comparative projects where
it may be difficult to foster genuine connections with communities (Coleman and Von
Hellermann 2012).
Self-sufficiency and Sovereignty
Métis scholar Adam Gaudry (2015)
writes about the importance of moving
toward research sovereignty in communities where Indigenous Peoples’ right to
self-determination in relation to research
objectives, agendas, methodologies, and
uses of data is respected (DeLeeuw et
al. 2012). The increasingly rich literature on Indigenous data sovereignty will
guide researchers who are seeking to
build self-sufficiency without shouldering
community partners with unprocessed or
inaccessible data. For example, the Native
Nations Institute (NNI) of the University of
Arizona has collaborated with many Native
Nations throughout the U.S. to develop
a set of recommendations for researchers to protect Indigenous Peoples’ rights
to be consulted (Hiraldo et al. 2020) and
to retain data sovereignty through various open-source software and web-based
platforms (NNI 2021). Indigenous data
sovereignty principles should be employed
throughout the life of a project—from
designing objectives and methodologies to
validating research results, disseminating
results, storing data, and ensuring access
(Kukutai and Taylor 2016; Rainie et al.
2017; Walter et al. 2020).
Advocates for Indigenous data sovereignty center the importance of Indigenous
control over data that comes from Indigenous peoples or from Indigenous lands and
waters. One practical mechanism that has
been developed to address community interests in biodiversity and genetic resources is
the Biocultural Labels and Notices (Anderson and Hudson 2020). The Biocultural
Labels (for use by Indigenous Peoples and
Local Communities) and the accompanying
Notices (for use by researchers and institu-
179
tions) are an initiative focused on accurate
provenance, transparency, and integrity in
research engagements with these communities. The Biocultural Labels are data-markers
that help define community expectations
and consent about appropriate and future
use of research data (Liggins et al. 2021).
They provide a practical application of the
Nagoya Protocol (Buck and Hamilton 2011)
to issues of access and benefit-sharing for
genetic resources and support international
expectations around the disclosure and
origins of community data used in research
contexts. For specific examples, see Local
Contexts1, ENRICH2, and Stó:lō Research
and Resource Management Centre/Stó:lō
Nation (2016).
Supporting community self-sufficiency
in research is a way of enacting reciprocity.
This process is not necessarily about training
Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities
in Western research methods, but rather
making space for community-led research
that is grounded in their worldviews and
driven by community priorities. A shift is
required in the way projects are imagined,
moving away from pre-designed projects,
which too often capture and “refunctionalize” local knowledge to fit outsiders’
research agendas (Escobar 1998), toward
projects which are designed or co-designed
by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities on their own terms (AIATSIS 2020;
Rodrigues et al. 2020). Ethnobiologists can
also support self-sufficiency by engaging in
in situ biocultural conservation programs in
addition to, or instead of, ex-situ conservation, which preserve languages, knowledge,
plants, seeds, and history in collections
but can lead to separation from local and
historical contexts (Braverman 2014). For
example, ethnobiologists can promote
herbaria, community seed banks, and
medicinal plant gardens that are managed
by Indigenous communities and have been
demonstrated to be effective in conservation and social justice (Dierig et al. 2014;
Martin et al. 2016).
Journal of Ethnobiology 2021 41(2): 170–191
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Ethnobiology on 06 Jul 2021
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
180
McAlvay et al.
Supporting Social Justice and SelfDetermination
Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities typically have a strong reciprocal
relationship with their homelands and the
biota therein. We argue that an important way that ethnobiologists can engage
in decolonization is through carrying out
research that supports traditional sovereignty over these territories and the relationships they encompass (Turner 2020). In
1969, Nehiyaw (Cree) thinker, teacher, and
political activist Harold Cardinal wrote
about “The Great Swindle,” contemplating
how Indigenous rights to land and waters
were erased by settler nations in a matter
of decades. He reflected, “He, the white
man, talked one way and wrote another”
(Cardinal 1969:33) referring to the empty
promises, doublespeak, and outright lies
used by colonial-settlers to steal land and
waters from Indigenous peoples. Globally,
scientists seeking to “decolonize” their
research projects might reflect on Cardinal’s
words, as decolonization at its core should
involve the return of lands and waters and
their governance to Indigenous peoples
(Simpson 2014; Spice 2018; Tuck and Yang
2012). Like Posey and Dutfield (1996) and
Hunn (2007), we recognize the responsibility of ethnobiologists in supporting the
territorial and resource sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities.
“Action ethnobiology” is a term recently
coined to urge our discipline to organize
more thoughtfully around land use and land
rights among Indigenous Peoples and Local
Communities (Armstrong and McAlvay
2019). Ethnobiological research can play an
important role in challenging current power
inequalities in projects implemented with
Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities
(Moeller 2018; Wolverton et al. 2014) or
involving extractive industries (Spice 2018).
Ethnobiologists conducting action-oriented
projects include research for, and with,
people facing violence on frontlines
(Armstrong and Brown 2019), working with
Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities
on reclaiming public lands (Fowler 2019),
working (critically) with NGOs promoting sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples
and Local Communities (Blair 2019),
re-structuring research partnerships toward
relational accountability—responsibility of
researchers to entire communities and the
non-human elements of where they work
(Reo 2019), and joining with other disciplines like biomonitoring and toxicology to
expose health inequalities and environmental racism (Caron-Beaudoin and Armstrong
2019; Golzadeh et al. 2020).
Decolonizing Scholars and Scholarship
A major step toward decolonization
is reflecting on how ethnobiologists, as
scholars and as individuals, may be influenced, shaped, and privileged by colonial
policies and legacies, and complicit in
perpetuating inequity and racism (see Table
4, Supplemental Table 1C). To break down
or challenge oppressive legacies and practices that persist in society requires a deeper
engagement with the impacts of colonial
history on sexism, systemic racism, classism, oppression, academic disciplines,
and scholars (Armstrong and Brown 2019;
DiAngelo 2018; Regan 2010).
Rejecting Colonial and Derogatory
Language
One step toward decolonizing ethnobiology scholarship is awareness of the
language used when writing about work
with Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. In the influential book Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire (1970)
stated that language is never neutral; it is
crucial that ethnobiologists look for ways
to avoid diminishing, overgeneralizing, or
exoticizing Indigenous peoples and their
knowledge systems (Alves and Albuquerque
2010; Duncan 2018; McClatchey 2005).
For example, “discovering Indigenous uses”
or “lost plants” can imply that knowledge
does not exist if it is not published in an
Journal of Ethnobiology 2021 41(2): 170–191
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Ethnobiology on 06 Jul 2021
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
Ethnobiology Phase VI: Decolonizing Institutions, Projects, and Scholarship
181
Table 4. Ways in which ethnobiologists can take action toward decolonizing themselves.
Category
Actions
Language
• Consciously choose words that do not perpetuate colonial
stereotypes and power dynamics
• Favor words for peoples and places that are preferred by the
peoples living in those places
Acknowledging the validity of diverse
knowledge systems
• Avoid using one knowledge system as an objective measure to
evaluate another
Inclusive citation and authorship
• Opt for inclusive co-authorship with community members and
others
• Cite diverse international scholars
Critical Self-reflection and Responsibility
• Reflect on personal privilege, positionality, and personal biases
• Work to reduce the burden on members of marginalized
communities to educate others on issues surrounding
colonialism and racism
academic venue, even if it is well-known to
the source communities. Likewise, saying
that the ethnobiology of a given community
or people is “new” or “unknown” similarly
implies that knowledge is only valid when
documented by outsiders. Authors, reviewers, and editors urgently need to eliminate
derogatory terms, such as “uneducated”
and “primitive,” and in contemporary
contexts, “pre-literate” and “pre-industrial,”
which, when referring to contemporary
peoples, implies a trajectory of cultural
evolution (Younging 2018). The use of “Old
World,” “third world,” “New World,” and
“developing world” also carry Eurocentric
connotations. Rethinking the relationship
of “informant” with the more equitable
and respectful “participant,” “collaborator,” or “local partner” replaces hierarchies
with relationships of collaboration and
co-production of knowledge (Gilmore
and Eshbaugh 2011), but this replacement
should reflect an effective change in the way
of collaborating, and not just a change of
words. The terms that community members
use to name and describe themselves in
their own language (endonyms) should be
set as an ethical standard in writing, rather
than exonyms which are often derogatory
and inaccurate (for a style guide, see Young-
ing 2018). When appropriate, terms that
do not downplay the impacts of colonialism (e.g., “unceded territory”) should be
used. Furthermore, as per the recommendations of the National Aboriginal Health
Organization of Canada and the Native
American Journalists Association, the term
Indigenous Peoples should be capitalized
as a sign of respect. In addition, the plural
form knowledge systems of Indigenous
Peoples and Local Communities should be
used to indicate that these are not uniform
or monolithic. Finally, we advocate for less
jargon-rich discipline-specific language (including acronyms; Wyndham 2017) as it
limits the accessibility of research results
for the communities and even more so
for non-native speakers of the publication
language.
Terms for plants, animals, and places
should be checked for offensive and racist
connotations and community rules should
be followed for names that can or cannot
be spoken or written in public contexts.
Scholars should be inquisitive and reflexive
about the existence of racist and xenophobic plant and place names and choose
alternative common names that are known
for these species and places. For example,
some English common names of plants
Journal of Ethnobiology 2021 41(2): 170–191
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Ethnobiology on 06 Jul 2021
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
182
McAlvay et al.
have origins in white supremacy and slavery
(e.g., dumb cane for Dieffenbachia spp.), or
anti-Semitism (e.g., wandering Jew for Tradescantia spp.). Warnings from community
members about culturally restricted plant
and animal names, imagery, and content
need to be clearly placed at the onset of articles and films. The Culturally Sensitive and
the Seasonal Traditional Knowledge Labels
(mentioned under Projects as a part of the
Biocultural Label initiative) are practical
mechanisms that can be used by communities to support the recognition of these
sensitivities. Bringing community protocols
into scholarship, practice, and pedagogy are
part of ethnobiological decolonial strategies
for change (Walter and Guerzoni 2020).
stick to measure the value or accuracy of
another perpetuates the dominance of the
former. The contexts of comparing knowledge systems vary greatly. For example,
while a community might recognize a local
landscape as especially diverse, governmental conservation organizations may be
more likely to protect the area if that diversity is documented in specific scientific
terms (e.g., species richness and evenness).
Communicating to other academics and
the general public the frequent findings that
Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities
are often savvy stewards of their environments can be done with scientific analysis
but should always respect the integrity of
local knowledge.
Acknowledging the Validity of Diverse
Knowledge Systems
Reflecting on how ethnobiologists conceptualize, write, talk, and teach about the
relationships between the different knowledge systems is an important step toward
decolonization. Training in ethnobiology
is often grounded in scientific traditions
with a direct origin in the European Age
of Enlightenment (Hankins 1985), such as
chemistry, pharmacology, and ecology—
lenses through which ethnobiologists often
examine traditional knowledge systems
(Vandebroek 2013). While ethnobiology
as a field has been at the forefront of documenting diverse worldviews and knowledge
systems, in many cases, they are presented in
the context of being “validated” by specific
dominant scientific lenses. Awareness of
language around this issue is also relevant
as, for example, “pharmacologically validating Native American knowledge of Taxus
brevifolia” conveys a different relationship
between the two knowledge systems than
“examine pharmacological and Indigenous
knowledge about Taxus brevifolia.” While
ethnobiologists are well situated to facilitate
exchange and dialogue between different knowledge systems (Ladio 2017), the
use of one knowledge system as the yard-
Inclusive Citation and Authorship
In addition to writing in respectful
and accessible language, it is important
to reflect on who are invited as coauthors
and whose work is cited as references
(Cooke et al. 2021; Marušić et al. 2011),
including collaborators from local research
institutions (Dahdouh-Guebas et al. 2003).
Ethnobiologists also need to consider
Indigenous, racial, gender, and youth representation when inviting collaborators (see
also Castleden et al. 2010). For example,
are community co-authors invited to talk
about their own cultures, perspectives, and
ways of life (Todd 2016)? Is there gender
balance among the authors who ethnobiologists invite as collaborators, and among the
authors of papers used when analyzing the
social roles of different genders related to
ethnobiological knowledge? Finally, scholars can consider positioning themselves as
editors and traditional knowledge holders
as authors in books to reflect the contributions of community members.
Global science underutilizes publications that are written in languages other
than English (Nuñez and Amano 2021;
Rau et al. 2017) making invisible not
only other languages, but also forms of
scientific thinking that might be based in
Journal of Ethnobiology 2021 41(2): 170–191
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Ethnobiology on 06 Jul 2021
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
Ethnobiology Phase VI: Decolonizing Institutions, Projects, and Scholarship
worldviews that are at odds with colonial
science (Escobar 1998). This can also create
significant barriers to prospective authors
whose mother tongue is not English, including financial strain to pay for translation
and editing (when not provided by journals), reading comprehension difficulties,
and anxiety from increased rejection of
their papers based on English proficiency
(Ramírez-Castañeda 2020). One way ethnobiologists can work to address this issue is to
proactively broaden searches for literature
and include co-authors familiar with literature in languages other than English. At the
same time, ethnobiologists can advocate in
English-language journals for the possibility
of publishing in other languages. Likewise,
English-language publications can be translated to other languages to repatriate/rematriate research results to local collaborators, as practiced already by Ethnobotany
Research and Applications. In an attempt to
make this article more accessible, we have
provided Portuguese and Spanish translations in the supplement.
Critical Self-Reflection and Responsibility
Colonialism has impacted how cultures
relate to race, gender, sexual orientation,
class, and other aspects of society and, in
many cases, left lasting legacies of discrimination (Bassil 2005; Bourassa et al. 2004).
In addition to racial hierarchies, imported
forms of sexism, attitudes toward LGBTQ
individuals, and class systems persist.
These legacies disproportionately impact
those who fall under multiple marginalized social categories (e.g., McDowell and
Hernández 2010). Ethnobiologists are not
exempt from these legacies, and without
self-examination, they risk perpetuating
them. Understanding how colonial history
and racism intersect with ethnobiology
can lead ethnobiologists to prepare for
encounters with colleagues, institutional
leadership, students, family members, or
friends who base their understanding of
Indigenous and other non-white people
183
on racist foundations (White and Draycott
2020). Though it is often easier to choose
silence and comfort, ethnobiologists need
to situate themselves against upholding
systems of racism where they live and work
(DiAngelo 2018).
Ethnobiologists have the responsibility
to continuously reflect upon, and identify, their own prejudices. This begins with
examining the various cultural factors (identity/race, gender, social class) that affect a
person’s experience of privilege or discrimination, and how this shapes their belief
systems, expectations, and unconscious
bias (Gaudry 2015). These reflections can
continue with examining the history of one’s
family, customs, and institution in relation to
colonial oppression; for example, on whose
Indigenous lands were you raised; where
do the plant foods you eat come from;
and on whose Indigenous lands does your
institution exist? Additional approaches to
directly examining implicit bias include
engaging in “dialogue to action” exercises
(Lyiscott 2019) and writing personal “race
stories” (Magee 2019; Tatum 2017:112).
Critical examination of one’s implicit biases
also necessitates confronting the historical realities of injustice. In many places,
for example, the historically shaped social
construct of race shapes nearly every aspect
of life, influencing everything from their
physical safety, quality of healthcare, access
to education, how much money someone
will make, and what their overall life expectancy will be (DiAngelo 2018).
Conclusions
Colonial
legacies
and
ongoing
colonialism continue to influence how ethnobiologists’ institutions work, how ethnobiologists carry out research, and how they
behave as scholars. Moving beyond the
pervasive influence of colonialism and
toward a more just and equitable ethnobiology requires sustained engagement. We
hope this article will serve as the start of a
wider and deeper conversation about decol-
Journal of Ethnobiology 2021 41(2): 170–191
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Ethnobiology on 06 Jul 2021
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
184
McAlvay et al.
onizing ethnobiology, which, we suggest,
needs to be tackled at three different scales
(Figure 1). As part of this conversation, we
offer a series of questions to foster reflection
(Supplemental Table S1A-C) and a repository of relevant literature for those wanting
to engage further (Supplemental Table S2).
A great deal more could be written on interwoven issues like classism, gender, sexual
orientation, ableism, and intersectionality,
and we encourage our colleagues to continue these conversations and develop this
work as it relates to ethnobiology.
While we have presented general
recommendations for moving toward decolonizing ethnobiology, we also recognize
the significant global variability in historical contexts of colonization and cultural
contexts of how its legacy persists—and
that different types of geographic localities,
institutions, research, and applied projects require different approaches. These
approaches need to prioritize the particular
needs and requirements of each community
with whom ethnobiologists seek collaborative partnerships. We acknowledge that our
authorship and literature is skewed towards
the Anglophone scholarship and extend a
call to other scholars worldwide to share
their viewpoints, including those that differ
radically. We hope to continue learning and
re-adjusting our own viewpoints as a result
of these collaborations.
Notes
www.localcontexts.org.
2
www.enrich-hub.org.
1
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the invaluable efforts
which this manuscript builds from of many
who have worked, and continue to work,
to promote social justice, anti-oppression,
inclusion, and reciprocity, including members of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans,
Queer (LGBTQ), Afrodescendant, Latinx,
Indigenous, and other communities. We
thank the editor and reviewers of this
manuscript (Dana Lepofsky, Victoria Reyes-
Garcia, Natasha Lyons, and two anonymous
referees) for their detailed and thoughtful
reviews.
References Cited
Abernethy, E. F., I. Arismendi, A. G. Boegehold, C. Colón-Gaud, M. R. Cover, E. I.
Larson, E. K. Moody, B. E. Penaluna, A. J.
Shogren, A. J. Webster, and M. M. WollerSkar. 2020. Diverse, Equitable, and Inclusive Scientific Societies: Progress and
Opportunities in the Society for Freshwater
Science. Freshwater Science 39:363–376.
DOI:10.1086/709129.
Adams, V., N. J. Burke, and I. Whitmarsh. 2014.
Slow Research: Thoughts for a Movement
in Global Health. Medical Anthropology
33:179–197. DOI:10.1080/01459740.201
3.858335.
AIATSIS (Australian Institute of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Studies). 2020. Code of
Ethics. AIATSIS, Canberra, Australia. Available from: https://aiatsis.gov.au/research/
ethical-research/code-ethics.
Alvarez-Santullano Busch, M. P., and A.
Forno Sparosvich. 2017. Educación Intercultural: Educadoras Mapuches en Escuelas
Ajenas: Narrativas en Ocho Poemas. Estudios Pedagógicos (Valdivia) 43:7–26.
DOI:10.4067/S0718-07052017000300001.
Alves, A. G. C., and U. P. Albuquerque. 2010.
Ethno What? Terminological Problems in
Ethnoscience with a Special Emphasis on
the Brazilian Context. In Recent Developments and Case Studies in Ethnobotany,
edited by U. P. Albuquerque and N.
Hanazaki, pp. 67–79. Sociedade Brasileira
de Etnobiologia e Etnoecologia, Pernambuco, Brazil.
Anderson, J., and K. Christen. 2019. Decolonizing Attribution: Traditions of Exclusion.
Journal of Radical Librarianship 5:113–152.
Available at: https://journal.radicallibrarianship.org/index.php/journal/article/
view/38. Accessed on May 1, 2021.
Anderson, J., and M. Hudson. 2020. The Biocultural Labels Initiative: Supporting Indigenous Rights in Data Derived from Genetic
Resources. Biodiversity Information Science
and Standards 4:e59230. DOI:10.3897/
biss.4.59230.
Journal of Ethnobiology 2021 41(2): 170–191
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Ethnobiology on 06 Jul 2021
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
Ethnobiology Phase VI: Decolonizing Institutions, Projects, and Scholarship
Armstrong, C. G., and C. Brown. 2019. Frontiers
are Frontlines: Ethnobiological Science
Against Ongoing Colonialism. Journal of
Ethnobiology 39:14–31. https://doi.org/
10.2993/0278-0771-39.1.14.
Armstrong, C. G., and A. C. McAlvay. 2019.
Introduction to Action Ethnobiology. Journal
of Ethnobiology 39:3–13. https://doi.org/10.
2993/0278-0771-39.1.3.
Atalay, S. 2012. Community-Based Archaeology: Research With, By, and For Indigenous and Local Communities. University of
California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Baker, J. M. 2016. Research as Reciprocity:
Northern Cree Community-Based and
Community-Engaged Research on Wild
Food Contamination in Alberta’s Oil Sands
Region. Engaged Scholar Journal: Community-Engaged Research, Teaching, and
Learning 2:109–123. DOI:10.15402/esj.
v2i1.201.
Baker, K., M. P. Eichhorn, and M. Griffiths. 2019.
Decolonizing Field Ecology. Biotropica
51:288–292. DOI:10.1111/btp.12663.
Baldauf, C. 2019. From the Colonialist to the
“Autobotanical” Approach: The Evolution of the Subject-Object Relationship in
Ethnobotanical Research. Acta Botanica
Brasilica 33:386–390. DOI:10.1590/010233062018abb0343.
Baldauf, C., and V. de Oliveira Lunardi.
2020. Multiple Perspectives on Biodiversity Conservation: From Concept to
Heated Debate. In Participatory Biodiversity Conservation, edited by C. Baldauf,
pp. 15–32. Springer, Berlin, Germany.
DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-41686-7_2.
185
Science 90:197–210. DOI:10.5343/bms.
2012.1108.
Bassil, N. N. 2005. The Legacy of Colonial
Racism in Africa. Journal of Contemporary
Analysis 77:27–40.
Berkes, F. 2012. Sacred Ecology, 3rd edition.
Routledge, New York.
Berlin, B. 1992. Ethnobiological Classification.
Principles of Categorization of Plants and
Animals in Traditional Societies. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Blair, J. J. 2019. Splintered Hinterlands: Public
Anthropology, Environmental Advocacy,
and Indigenous Sovereignty. Journal of
Ethnobiology 39:32–49. https://doi.org/10.
2993/0278-0771-39.1.32.
Bourassa, C., K. McKay-McNabb, and M.
Hampton. 2004. Racism, Sexism and
Colonialism: The Impact on the Health of
Aboriginal Women in Canada. Canadian
Woman Studies 24:23–30.
Braverman, I. 2014. Conservation Without
Nature: The Trouble with In Situ Versus Ex
Situ Conservation. Geoforum 51:47–57.
DOI:10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.09.018.
Brittain, S., H. Ibbett, E. Lange, L. Dorward, S.
Hoyte, A. Marino, E. J. Milner-Gulland,
J. Newth, S. Rakotonarivo, D. Veríssimo,
and J. Lewis. 2020. Ethical Considerations
When Conservation Research Involves
People. Conservation Biology 34:925–933.
DOI:10.1111/cobi.13464.
Brockway, L. 1979. Science and Colonial Expansion: The Role of the British Royal Botanical
Gardens. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Baptista, G. C. S., and C. N. El-Hani. 2009.
The Contribution of Ethnobiology to the
Construction of a Dialogue Between Ways
of Knowing: A Case Study in a Brazilian
Public High School. Science & Education
18:503–520. DOI:10.1007/s11191-0089173-3.
Buck M., and C. Hamilton. 2011. The Nagoya
Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources
and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of
Benefits Arising from their Utilization to
the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Review of European Community & International Environmental Law 20:47–61.
DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9388.2011.00703.x.
Barber P. H., M. C. A. Ablan-Lagman, A.
Ambariyanto, R. G. S. Berlinck, D. Cahyani,
E. D. Crandall, R. Ravago-Gotanco, et al.
2014. Advancing Biodiversity Research
in Developing Countries: The Need for
Changing Paradigms. Bulletin of Marine
Caron-Beaudoin, É., and C. G. Armstrong.
2019. Biomonitoring and Ethnobiology:
Approaches to Fill Gaps in Indigenous
Public and Environmental Health. Journal
Cardinal, H. 1969. The Unjust Society. Hurtig,
Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Journal of Ethnobiology 2021 41(2): 170–191
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Ethnobiology on 06 Jul 2021
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
186
McAlvay et al.
of Ethnobiology 39:50–64. https://doi.
org/10.2993/0278-0771-39.1.50.
Castleden, H., V. S. Morgan, and A. Neimanis.
2010. Researchers’ Perspectives on
Collective/Community Co-authorship in
Community-Based Participatory Indigenous
Research. Journal of Empirical Research
on Human Research Ethics 5:23–32. DOI:
10.1525/jer.2010.5.4.23.
Chapman J. M., D. Algera, M. Dick, E. E.
Hawkins, M. J. Lawrence, R. J. Lennox,
A. M. Rous, et al. 2015. Being Relevant: Practical Guidance for Early Career
Researchers Interested in Solving Conservation Problems. Global Ecology and Conservation 4:334–348. DOI:10.1016/j.gecco.
2015.07.013.
Chapman, J. M., and S. Schott. 2020. Knowledge Coevolution: Generating New Understanding Through Bridging and Strengthening Distinct Knowledge Systems and
Empowering Local Knowledge Holders.
Sustainability Science 15:931–943. DOI:10.
1007/s11625-020-00781-2.
Chaudhury, A., and S. Colla. 2020. Next Steps in
Dismantling Discrimination: Lessons from
Ecology and Conservation Science. Conservation Letters 14:e12774. DOI:10.1111/
conl.12774.
Christen, K., and J. Anderson. 2019. Toward
Slow Archives. Archival Science 19:87–
116. DOI:10.1007/s10502-019-09307-x.
Clavero, M. 2010. “Awkward Wording.
Rephrase”: Linguistic Injustice in Ecological Journals. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25:552–553. DOI:10.1016/j.tree.2010.
07.001.
Clément, D. 1998. The Historical Foundations
of Ethnobiology (1860-1899). Journal of
Ethnobiology 18:161–187.
Coleman, S., and P. Von Hellermann, eds. 2012.
Multi-sited Ethnography: Problems and
Possibilities in the Translocation of Research
Methods. Routledge, Oxford, UK.
Conklin, H. C. 1954. The Relation of Hanunó’o
Culture to the Plant World. Doctoral
Dissertation. Department of Anthropology,
Yale University. Available from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses database (UMI No.
6704119).
Cooke, S. J., V. M. Nguyen, N. Young, A. J. Reid,
D. G. Roche, N. J. Bennett, T. Rytwinski,
and J. R. Bennet. 2021. Contemporary
Authorship Guidelines Fail to Recognize
Diverse Contributions in Conservation
Science Research. Ecological Solutions and
Evidence 2:e12060. DOI:10.1002/26888319.12060.
Coombes, A. E., and R. B. Phillips, eds. 2020.
Museum Transformations: Decolonization
and Democratization. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Cornish, C., and M. Nesbitt. 2014. Historical
Perspectives on Western Ethnobotanical
Collections. In Curating Biocultural Collections: A Handbook, edited by J. Salick, K.
Konchar, and M. Nesbitt, pp. 271–293.
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond,
Surrey, UK.
Coulthard, G. S. 2014. Red Skin White Masks.
University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Dahdouh-Guebas, F., J. Ahimbisibwe, R. Van
Mol, and N. Koedam. 2003. Neo-Colonial
Science by the Most Industrialised Upon
the Least Developed Countries in PeerReviewed Publishing. Scientometrics 56:
329–343. DOI:10.1023/A:1022374703178.
Davis, E. W. 1995. Ethnobotany: An Old Practice, A New Discipline. In Ethnobotany:
Evolution of a Discipline, edited by R.
E. Schultes and S. Von Reis, pp. 40–51.
Dioscorides Press, Portland, OR.
DeLeeuw, S., E. S. Cameron, and M. L. Greenwood. 2012. Participatory and Community-Based Research, Indigenous Geographies, and the Spaces of Friendship: A
Critical Engagement. Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien 56:180–194.
DOI:10.1111/j.1541-0064.2012.00434.x.
DiAngelo, R. 2018. White Fragility: Why It’s
So Hard for White People to Talk about
Racism. Beacon Press, Boston, MA.
Dierig, D., H. Blackburn, D. Ellis, and M.
Nesbitt. 2014. Curating Seeds and Other
Genetic Resources for Ethnobiology. In
Curating Biocultural Collections: A Handbook, edited by J. Salick, K. Konchar, and
M. Nesbitt, pp. 107–125. Royal Botanic
Gardens, Kew, Surrey, UK.
Journal of Ethnobiology 2021 41(2): 170–191
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Ethnobiology on 06 Jul 2021
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
Ethnobiology Phase VI: Decolonizing Institutions, Projects, and Scholarship
187
Drayton, R. 2000. Nature’s Government:
Science, Imperial Britain and the ‘Improvement’ of the World. Yale University Press,
New Haven, CT.
Geniusz, M. S. 2015. Plants So Much to Give
Us, All We Have to Do Is Ask: Anishinaabe
Botanical Teachings. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Duncan, S. 2018. The Words We Use and The
Worlds We Build. Ethnobiology Letters
9:9–12. DOI:10.14237/ebl.9.1.2018.1045.
Gilmore, M. P., and W. H. Eshbaugh. 2011.
From Researcher to Partner: Ethical Challenges and Issues Facing the Ethnobiological Researcher. In Ethnobiology, edited by
E. N. Anderson, D. M. Pearsall, E. S. Hunn,
and N. J. Turner, pp. 51–63. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ.
Eichler, L., and D. Baumeister. 2018. Hunting
for Justice: An Indigenous Critique of the
North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. Environment and Society 9:75–90.
DOI:10.3167/ares.2018.090106.
Escobar, A. 1998. Whose Knowledge, Whose
Nature? Biodiversity, Conservation, and
the Political Ecology of Social Movements. Journal of Political Ecology 5:53–82.
DOI:10.2458/v5i1.21397.
Espin, J., S. Palmas, F. Carrasco-Rueda, K. Riemer,
P. E. Allen, N. Berkebile, K. A. Hecht, et
al. 2017. A Persistent Lack of International Representation on Editorial Boards
in Environmental Biology. PLoS Biology
15:e2002760. DOI:10.1371/journal.pbio.
2002760.
Fernández-Llamazares, Á., D. Lepofsky, K.
Lertzman, C. G. Armstrong, E. S. Brondizio, M. C. Gavin, P. O.’B. Lyver, et al.
2021. Scientists’ Warning to Humanity on
Threats to Indigenous and Local Knowledge Systems. Journal of Ethnobiology
41:144–169.
Ferrante, J., 2014. Sociology: A Global Perspective. Cengage Learning, Boston, MA.
Fowler, C. S. 2019. Applied Ethnobiology and
Advocacy: A Case Study from the Timbisha
Shoshone Tribe of Death Valley, California.
Journal of Ethnobiology 39:76–89. https://
doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-39.1.76.
Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
The Continuum International Publishing
Group, New York, NY.
Gaudry, A. 2015. Researching the Resurgence:
Insurgent Research and CommunityEngaged Methodologies in 21st-Century
Academic Inquiry. In Research as Resistance: Revisiting Critical Indigenous and
Anti-Oppressive Approaches, edited by L.
Brown and S. Strega, pp. 243–263. Canadian Scholars’ Press, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Golan, J., S. Athayde, E. A. Olson, and A.
McAlvay. 2019. Intellectual Property Rights
and Ethnobiology: An Update on Posey’s
Call to Action. Journal of Ethnobiology
39:90–109. https://doi.org/10.2993/02780771-39.1.90.
Golzadeh, N., B. Barst, N. Basu, J. Baker, J.
Auger, and M. McKinney. 2020. Evaluating the Concentrations of Total Mercury,
Methylmercury, Selenium, and Selenium:
Mercury Molar Ratios in Traditional Foods
of the Bigstone Cree in Alberta, Canada.
Chemosphere 250:1–10. DOI:10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2020.126285.
Hankins, T. L. 1985. Science and the Enlightenment. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.
Harrison, F. V., ed. 2010. Decolonizing Anthropology: Moving Further Toward an Anthropology for Liberation, 3rd edition. American
Anthropological Association and the Association of Black Anthropologists, Arlington,
VA.
Heinrich, M., and P. Bremner. 2006. Ethnobotany and Ethnopharmacy- Their Role for
Anti-Cancer Drug Development. Current
Drug Targets 7:239–245.
Hiraldo, D., S. R. Carroll, D. M. David-Chavez,
M. B. Jäger, and M. Jorgensen. 2020. Native
Nation Rebuilding for Tribal Research and
Data Governance. NNI Policy Brief Series.
Native Nations Institute, University of
Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
Horvath, R. J. 1972. A Definition of Colonialism.
Current Anthropology 13:45–57.
Hunn, E. 2007. Ethnobiology in Four Phases.
Journal of Ethnobiology 27:1–10. https://
doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771(2007)27[1:
EIFP]2.0.CO;2.
Journal of Ethnobiology 2021 41(2): 170–191
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Ethnobiology on 06 Jul 2021
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
188
McAlvay et al.
ISE (International Society of Ethnobiology). 2006.
International Society of Ethnobiology Code
of Ethics (with 2008 additions). Available at:
http://ethnobiology.net/code-of-ethics/.
Joseph, L., and N. J. Turner. 2020. “The Old
Foods Are the New Foods!”: Erosion and
Revitalization of Indigenous Food Systems
in Northwestern North America. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 4:270.
DOI:10.3389/fsufs.2020.596237.
Kareiva, P., and M. Marvier. 2012. What is
Conservation Science? BioScience 62:962–
969. DOI:10.1525/bio.2012.62.11.5.
Kendi, I. X. 2017. Stamped from the Beginning:
The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in
America. Nation Books, New York, NY.
Kimmerer, R. W. 2013. Braiding Sweetgrass:
Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge
and the Teachings of Plants. Milkweed
Editions, Minneapolis, MN.
Kukutai, T., and J. Taylor. 2016. Indigenous Data
Sovereignty: Toward an Agenda. ANU
Press, Canberra, Australia.
Ladio, A. H. 2017. Ethnobiology and Research
on Global Environmental Change: What
Distinctive Contribution Can We Make?
Ethnobiology and Conservation 6:7.
DOI:10.15451/ec2017-07-6.7-1-8.
Lee, R., T. Ahtone, M. Pearce, K. Goodluck, G.
McGhee, C. Leff, K. Lanpher, and T. Salinas.
2020. Land-Grab Universities: How the
United States Funded Land-Grant Universities with Expropriated Indigenous Land
[online]. High Country News. Available at:
https://www.landgrabu.org/.
Lepofsky, D., C. Heckelsmiller, Á. FernándezLlamazares, and J. Wall. 2021. Seeking a
More Ethical Future for Ethnobiology
Publishing: A 40-Year Perspective from the
Journal of Ethnobiology. Journal of Ethnobiology 41:122–143.
Liggins, L., M. Hudson, and J. Anderson. 2021.
Creating Space for Indigenous Perspectives
on Access and Benefit-Sharing: Encouraging Researcher Use of the Local Contexts
Notices. Molecular Ecology 30:2477–2482.
https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.15918.
López, L. E. 2020. What is Educación Intercultural Bilingüe in Latin America Nowadays:
Results and Challenges, Journal of Multilin-
gual and Multicultural Development. DOI:
10.1080/01434632.2020.1827646.
Lyiscott, J. 2019. Black Appetite. White Food:
Issues of Race, Voice, and Justice Within
and Beyond the Classroom. Routledge,
New York, NY.
Maas, B., R. J. Pakeman, L. Godet, L., Smith, V.
Devictor, and R. Primack. 2021. Women
and Global South Strikingly Underrepresented Among Top-publishing Ecologists.
Conservation Letters e12797. DOI:10.1111/
conl.12797.
Magee, R. V. 2019. The Inner Work of Racial
Justice: Healing Ourselves and Transforming our Communities Through Mindfulness. TarcherPerigee, New York, NY.
Maitra, S., and S. Guo. 2019. Theorising Decolonisation in the Context of Lifelong Learning
and Transnational Migration: Anti-Colonial
and Anti-Racist Perspectives. International
Journal of Lifelong Education 38:5–19.
DOI:10.1080/02601370.2018.1561533.
Martin, A., B. Coolsaet, E. Corbera, N. M.
Dawson, J. A. Fraser, I. Lehman, and I.
Rodriguez. 2016. Justice and Conservation: The Need to Incorporate Recognition.
Biological Conservation 197:254–261.
DOI:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.03.021.
Marušić, A., L. Bošnjak, and A. Jerončić. 2011.
A Systematic Review of Research on the
Meaning, Ethics and Practices of Authorship across Scholarly Disciplines. PLoS
ONE 6:e23477. DOI:10.1371/journal.
pone.0023477.
Massey, M. D. B., S. Arif, C. Albury, and V. A.
Cluney. 2021. Ecology and Evolutionary
Biology Must Elevate BIPOC Scholars.
Ecology Letters 24:913–919. DOI:10.1111/
ele.13716.
McClatchey, W. C. 2005. Exorcizing Misleading
Terms from Ethnobotany. Ethnobotany
Research and Applications 3:1–4.
McDowell, T., and P. Hernández. 2010. Decolonizing Academia: Intersectionality, Participation, and Accountability in Family
Therapy and Counseling. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy 22:93–111.
McGill, B. M., M. J. Foster, A. N. Pruitt, S. G.
Thomas, E. R. Arsenault, J. Hanschu, K.
Wahwahsuck, E. Cortez, K. Zarek, T. D.
Journal of Ethnobiology 2021 41(2): 170–191
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Ethnobiology on 06 Jul 2021
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
Ethnobiology Phase VI: Decolonizing Institutions, Projects, and Scholarship
Loecke, and A. J. Burgin. 2021. You Are
Welcome Here: A Practical Guide to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion for Undergraduates Embarking on an Ecological Research
Experience. Ecology and Evolution 11:
3636–3645. DOI:10.1002/ece3.7321.
Moeller, N. I. 2018. Plants That Speak and Institutions That Don’t Listen: Notes on the
Protection of Traditional Knowledge. In
Food Sovereignty, Agroecology and Biocultural Diversity: Constructing and Contesting
Knowledge, edited by M. Pimbert, pp. 202–
233. Routledge, London, UK.
Mori, A. S., S. Qian, and S. Tatsumi. 2015.
Academic Inequality through the Lens of
Community Ecology: A Meta-Analysis.
PeerJ 3:e1457. DOI:10.7717/peerj.1457.
Nabhan, G. P., F. Wyndham, and D. Lepofsky.
2011. Ethnobiology for a Diverse World
Ethnobiology Emerging from a Time of
Crisis. Journal of Ethnobiology 31:172–
175. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-077131.2.172.
NNI (Native Nations Institute). 2021. Native
Nations Institute, University of Arizona.
Indigenous Governance Database [web
page]. URL: https://nnigovernance.arizona.
edu. Accessed on May 1, 2021.
Nuñez, M. A., and T. Amano. 2021. Monolingual Searches Can Limit and Bias Results in
Global Literature Reviews. Nature Ecology
& Evolution 5:264. DOI:10.1038/s41559020-01369-w.
Odonne, G., M. Tareau, and T. van Andel. 2020.
Geopolitics of Bitterness: Deciphering
the History and Cultural Biogeography
of Quassia amara L. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 113546. DOI:10.1016/j.jep.
2020.113546.
Pedota, L. 2011. Indigenous Intercultural
Universities in Latin America: Interpreting
Interculturalism in Mexico and Bolivia.
Master’s Thesis, Loyola University, School
of Education, Chicago. Available at: https://
ecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1515&context=luc_theses. Accessed
on Jan 6, 2021.
Pierotti, R., and B. R. Fogg. 2020. Neocolonial
Thinking and Respect for Nature: Do Indigenous People have Different Relationships
with Wildlife than Europeans? Ethnobi-
189
ology Letters 11:48–57. DOI:10.14237/ebl.
11.1.2020.1674.
Posey, D. A. 1990. Intellectual Property Rights:
What is the Position of Ethnobiology?
Journal of Ethnobiology 10:93–98.
Posey, D. A., and G. Dutfield. 1996. Beyond
Intellectual Property: Toward Traditional
Resource Rights for Indigenous Peoples and
Local Communities. International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Ottawa,
Canada.
Radcliffe, S. A. 2017. Decolonising Geographical Knowledges. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 42:329–333.
DOI:10.1111/tran.12195.
Rahaman, S., R. Yeazdani, and R. Mahmud.
2017. The Untold History of Neocolonialism in Africa (1960-2011). History
Research 5:9–16. DOI:10.11648/j.history.
20170501.12.
Rainie, S. C., J. L. Schultz, E. Briggs, P. Riggs,
and N. L. Palmanteer-Holder. 2017. Data
as a Strategic Resource: Self-Determination, Governance, and the Data Challenge
for Indigenous Nations in the United States.
International Indigenous Policy Journal 8:1.
DOI:10.18584/iipj.2017.8.2.1.
Ramírez-Castañeda, V. 2020. Disadvantages in
Preparing and Publishing Scientific Papers
Caused by the Dominance of the English
Language in Science: The Case of Colombian Researchers in Biological Sciences.
PLoS ONE 15:e0238372. DOI:10.1371/
journal.pone.0238372.
Rau, J. R., A. Monjeau, J. C. Pizarro, and C. B.
Anderson. 2017. Cuanto Más Publicamos,
Menos Nos Citan. Ecología Austral 27:385–
391. DOI:10.25260/EA.17.27.3.0.453.
Regan, P. 2010. Unsettling the Settler Within.
UBC Press, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Reo, N. J. 2019. Inawendiwin and Relational
Accountability in Anishnaabeg Studies: The
Crux of the Biscuit. Journal of Ethnobiology
39:65–75. https://doi.org/10.2993/02780771-39.1.65,
Reyes-García, V., D. García-del-Amo, P. Benyei,
Á. Fernández-Llamazares, K. Gravani, A. B.
Junqueira, V. Labeyrie, X. Li, D. M. Matias,
A. McAlvay, and P. G. Mortyn. 2019. A
Collaborative Approach to Bring Insights
Journal of Ethnobiology 2021 41(2): 170–191
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Ethnobiology on 06 Jul 2021
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
190
McAlvay et al.
from Local Observations of Climate Change
Impacts into Global Climate Change
Research. Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability 39:1–8. DOI:10.1016/j.cosust.
2019.04.007.
Rodrigues, E., F. Cassas, B. E. Conde, C. Da
Cruz, E. H. P. Barretto, G. Dos Santos,
G. M. Figueira, et al. 2020. Participatory
Ethnobotany and Conservation: A Methodological Case Study Conducted with
Quilombola Communities in Brazil’s
Atlantic Forest. Journal of Ethnobiology and
Ethnomedicine 16:1–12.
Salick, J., K. Konchar, and M. Nesbitt, eds. 2014.
Curating Biocultural Collections: A Handbook. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Surrey,
UK.
Salick, J., Z. Fang, and A. Byg. 2009. Eastern
Himalayan Alpine Plant Ecology, Tibetan
Ethnobotany, and Climate Change. Global
Environmental Change 19:147–155. DOI:
10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.01.008.
Santos-Fita, D., E. Naranjo Piñera, and R.
Mariaca Méndez. 2009. Hacia un Etnoconservacionismo de la Fauna Silvestre. In
Manual de Etnozoología, edited by E. M.
Costa Neto, D. Santos Fita, and M. VargasClavijo, pp. 96–118. Tundra Ediciones,
Almenara, Castellón, Spain.
Schaefer, J., K. Magellan, R. Sluka, S. Kolipaka,
O. Gonzalez, A. A. M. Razali, G. R. Clements, and C. Elkin. 2020. The Efficacy of
Using SCB Guidelines to Facilitate Conservation Science-Faith Collaboration: Experiences in the Field. Frontiers in Environmental Science 8:558956. DOI:10.3389/
fenvs.2020.558956.
Schiebinger, L. 2009. Plants and Empire.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Shoemaker, N. 2015. A Typology of Colonialism. Perspectives on History 53:29–30.
Simpson, L. B. 2004. Anticolonial Strategies for
the Recovery and Maintenance of Indigenous Knowledge. American Indian Quarterly 28:373–384.
Simpson, L. B. 2014. Land as Pedagogy: Nishnaabeg Intelligence and Rebellious Transformation. Decolonization: Indigeneity,
Education & Society 3:1–25. Available at:
https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/
des/article/view/22170. Accessed on May
1, 2021.
Simpson, L. B. 2017. As We Have Always Done:
Indigenous Freedom Through Radical
Resistance. University of Minnesota Press,
Minneapolis.
Smith, L. T. 2012. Decolonizing Methodologies.
Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY.
SOLAE (Sociedad Latinoamericana de Etnobiología). 2016. Código de Ética. Etnobiologia
14 (Suppl. 1). Available at: https://asociacionetnobiologica.org.mx/aem/codigo-de-etica-de-solae. Accessed on May 1, 2021.
Spice, A. 2018. Fighting Invasive Infrastructures: Indigenous Relations against Pipelines. Environment and Society 9:40–56.
DOI:10.3167/ares.2018.090104.
Stó:lō Research and Resource Management
Centre/Stó:lō Nation. 2016. Stámés Sxwōxwiyám Sqwélqwel [web page]. http://
digitalsqewlets.ca/traditional-knowledge_
connaissances_traditionnelles-eng.php.
Tatum, B. D. 2017. Why are All the Black Kids
Sitting Together in The Cafeteria? and Other
Conversations About Race, 2nd edition.
Hachette Book Group, New York, NY.
Thomas, R. Q. 2015. Honoring the Oral Traditions of the Tat Mustimuxw (Ancestors)
Through Storytelling. In Research as Resistance: Revisiting Critical, Indigenous, and
Anti-Oppressive Approaches, edited by L.
Brown and S. Strega, pp. 177–198. Canadian Scholars’ Press, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Todd, Z. 2016. An Indigenous Feminist’s Take
on the Ontological Turn: ‘Ontology’
is Just Another Word for Colonialism.
Journal of Historical Sociology 29:4–22.
DOI:10.1111/johs.12124.
Toledo, V., and P. Alarcón-Cháires. 2018. Tópicos
bioculturales. Reflexiones sobre el concepto
de bioculturalidad y la defensa del patrimonio biocultural de México. Universidad
Autónoma de México, Mexico City.
Tseng, M., R. W. El-Sabaawi, M. B. Kantar, J. H.
Pantel, D. S. Srivastava, and J. L. Ware. 2020.
Strategies and Support for Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour in Ecology
and Evolutionary Biology. Nature Ecology
& Evolution 4:1288–1290. DOI:10.1038/
s41559-020-1252-0.
Journal of Ethnobiology 2021 41(2): 170–191
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Ethnobiology on 06 Jul 2021
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
Ethnobiology Phase VI: Decolonizing Institutions, Projects, and Scholarship
Tuck, E., and K. W. Yang. 2012. Decolonization is
not a Metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity,
Education & Society 1:1–40. DOI:10.1093/
acprof:oso/9780199253487.003.0014.
Turner, N. J. ed., 2020. Plants, People, and
Places: The Roles of Ethnobotany and
Ethnoecology in Indigenous Peoples’ Land
Rights in Canada and Beyond (Vol. 96).
McGill-Queen’s Press-MQUP, Montreal,
QC, Canada.
UN General Assembly. 2007. United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples. A/RES/61/295. Available at: https://
www.refworld.org/docid/471355a82.html.
Accessed on February 12, 2021.
Vandebroek, I. 2013. Intercultural Health and
Ethnobotany: How to Improve Healthcare
for Underserved and Minority Communities?
Journal of Ethnopharmacology 148:746–
754. DOI:10.1016/j.jep.2013.05.039.
Walter, M., and M. Guerzoni. 2020. How a
University Can Embed Indigenous Knowledge in a Curriculum and Why it Matters. The
Conversation. October 15, 2020. Available
at: https://theconversation.com/how-a-university-can-embed-indigenous-knowledgeinto-the-curriculum-and-why-it-matters147456. Accessed on February 6, 2021.
Walter, M., T. Kukutai, S. Carroll, and D. Rodriguez-Lonebear, eds. 2020. Indigenous Data
Sovereignty and Policy. Routledge, New
York, NY.
191
White, W. A., and C. Draycott. 2020. Why the
Whiteness of Archaeology is a Problem.
Sapiens. October 7, 2020. Available at:
https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/
archaeology-diversity/. Accessed on January
25, 2020.
Wilson, S. 2008. Research is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods. Fernwood Publishing, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Wolverton, S. 2013. Ethnobiology 5: Interdisciplinarity in an Era of Rapid Environmental
Change. Ethnobiology Letters 4:21–25.
DOI:10.14237/ebl.4.2013.11.
Wolverton, S., J. M. Nolan, and W. Ahmed.
2014. Ethnobiology, Political Ecology,
and Conservation. Journal of Ethnobiology
34:125–152. https://doi.org/10.2993/02780771-34.2.125.
Wyndham, F. S. 2017. The Trouble with TEK.
Ethnobiology Letters 8:78–80. DOI:10.14237/
ebl.8.1.2017.1006.
Wyndham, F. S., D. Lepofsky, and S. Tiffany.
2011. Taking Stock in Ethnobiology: Where
Do We Come From? What Are We? Where
Are We Going? Journal of Ethnobiology
31:110–127. https://doi.org/10.2993/02780771-31.1.110.
Younging, G., 2018. Elements of Indigenous
Style: A Guide for Writing by and about
Indigenous Peoples. Brush Education,
Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Journal of Ethnobiology 2021 41(2): 170–191
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Ethnobiology on 06 Jul 2021
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use