When I began working on my thesis, I spent months conducting a literature review through publication databases. Article after article, I would find the phrase “as a part of a long-term ecological study” somewhere in the introduction or methods sections. I have even used those words before in my own work when referencing “long-term” datasets. But then I began to reflect on what constitutes long-term? And how does long-term Western science compare to the length of other knowledge systems?

Western science is not the only way of knowing. Communities and cultures have different ways of structuring and accumulating bodies of knowledge. Two commonly discussed knowledge systems in the environmental realm are Local Ecological Knowledge and Indigenous Ecological Knowledge. Local Ecological Knowledge refers to knowledge acquired from observations or interactions with an area or species across one’s lifetime or generations. Indigenous Ecological Knowledge, sometimes also called Traditional Ecological Knowledge, refers to active and complex knowledge systems held by Indigenous communities specifically. These cumulative and intergenerational bodies of information can span thousands of years and remain adaptive and dynamic today. So when it comes to understanding the natural world and how it has and continues to change in the face of factors like climate change or biodiversity loss, these knowledge domains are critical.

Increasingly, different knowledge systems have become highly valued for their importance. In academic settings, everything from department speaker series to conference symposiums focuses on knowledge systems. And just this past month, knowledge systems have been at the forefront of national and international news. At the national level, following the 2021 White House Tribal Nations Summit, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and the White House Council on Environmental Quality released a memorandum to commit to elevating Indigenous Traditional Ecological Knowledge in federal science and policy.

Internationally, global efforts to prioritize Indigenous Knowledge at COP26 made headlines. Following the Paris Accords in 2015 recognizing the role of Traditional Knowledge in addressing the climate crisis, many thought that Indigenous voices would be at the forefront on the global stage at the United Nations Climate Change Conferences. However, it became clear that Indigenous voices were left out of many discussions and negotiations at COP26 this past month. For example, when the topic of incorporating different knowledge systems into decision-making was brought up, it appeared the actual knowledge keepers were not being included.

Despite these proclamations at the national and international levels, recognizing the importance of knowledge systems is not enough. Many of these knowledge systems have been existing and evolving long before these institutions were put in place, and formally stating their importance does not change that. Acknowledging that Western science is not the only way of knowing is only the beginning. So how do we go beyond recognition and work with knowledge systems in a just and equitable way?

To start, knowledge keepers need a seat at the table. Local, Indigenous, and Traditional Knowledge are often not included in the policy or decision-making processes because knowledge keepers are left out entirely. The solution, in this case, is not necessarily to bring in an outside researcher to a community and act as a middle-man, taking the knowledge from the knowledge keepers and bringing it to the entities that make the policies and decisions. Using knowledge without elevating the voices of the knowledge keepers can perpetuate colonial practices. Instead, there need to be opportunities for knowledge keepers to be at the forefront of policy and decision-making processes and have the chance to speak for themselves.

Furthermore, working with knowledge systems cannot be done in an extractive or exploitative way. It is vital to reflect on practices that have historically harmed knowledge holders and fundamentally change how knowledge systems are used in research settings to inform policies or decisions. For example, many institutions have recently highlighted the dangerous and damaging practices of parachute science. Parachute science – also commonly termed colonial science or helicopter science – refers to researchers “parachuting” into a community, conducting research without community involvement, and then leaving without creating any strong relationships, lasting infrastructure, or beneficial impacts to the community. Although parachute science is often used to describe Western science, it can also apply to researchers using knowledge systems in their own work.

In contrast to parachute science, rooted research refers to having rooted partnerships with a foundation in the community. It includes co-creation of a project through agreement on the research goals and outcomes, capacity building that establishes infrastructure, sustainability of the project and its outcomes, and openness throughout the process. If you are working with knowledge systems, using this participatory and transdisciplinary research framework provides a foundation to start.

One example of this form of work used in various disciplines to avoid extractive and colonial research is co-production. In contrast to a researcher from an outside institution or organization doing work in a community alone, co-production produces knowledge through collaboration between researchers and stakeholders or communities. In practice, co-production can take on various forms and includes different levels of collaborative work on a continuum. Co-production does not mean considering communities or stakeholders as an extra step in the research process. It refers to a fundamentally different way of working with knowledge exchange.

“Co-production does not mean considering communities or stakeholders as an extra step in the research process. It refers to a fundamentally different way of working with knowledge exchange.”

In co-production, the knowledge holders are involved in the entire process. Therefore, in contrast to the researcher coming up with questions to be answered, one should start with a blank slate, not going in with preconceived ideas or notions of what work needs to be done.

It is important to work as a partner during every step of the process, beginning with defining priorities that communities have and letting that lead the way for research topics. Building trust and relationships sit at the core of co-production. Creating connections is a gradual process that requires a lot of communication and honesty, yet is a critical step for transforming the dynamic of a researcher working with “subjects” and “collecting data” to working with colleagues throughout an iterative sharing of knowledge process. Long-term collaboration and accountability of the intentions and outcomes of the work are essential for making that happen.

Beyond creating and maintaining relationships with the community where one hopes to work, it is also vital to recognize the unequal distribution of power that can immediately come into play between academic or research institutions and communities that hold knowledge systems. For example, many communities have been subject to “damage-centered” research, where the community is portrayed as broken and damaged in some way, usually to leverage acts of reparation or resources for the community. However, these narratives only further reinforce the notions of insider/outsider research and can have long-term effects on communities being repeatedly described as less than whole in some way.

Knowledge holders want to protect their knowledge, and no work should be done to put that at risk. It is vital to respect the knowledge systems and recognize that you are working with someone else’s intellectual property. Local, Indigenous, and Traditional Knowledge do not need to be molded into a Western science framework or assimilated into academic institutions. Knowledge systems can stand on their own. Individuals in a community are experts about the environment they live in. And questioning knowledge systems or trying to validate them through Western science processes can often be not only disrespectful but can put preserving knowledge systems at risk.

There can be additional restrictions for graduate students who want to elevate and work with knowledge systems. The short time we have at our institution creates barriers in and of itself. For students pursuing master’s degrees, you may only have two years, and sometimes that amount of time alone is not even enough to build meaningful relationships with communities. Even when one’s research aims to be co-productive, existing norms and structures in academia and institutions can make working with knowledge more of an “academic pursuit.” So what can we do?

We can join existing projects that work off relationships others have already formed. Joining community activities, such as workdays, can also be an opportunity to meet people in the community and learn about their culture and values. And when it comes to making a project, co-create the entire process with those from the community you have been building relationships with. Often, the only formal process for reflecting on a proposed project in academia is through Institutional Review Boards (IRB). So we can all benefit from practices like reflexivity, where you critically evaluate your assumptions, actions, and values. One should assess how their research serves the communities where it takes place throughout the entire process. As difficult as it may be, considering if the work you want to do needs to be done at all and if it should be done by a graduate student in the first place is an important step.

The outcomes of work with knowledge systems need to go beyond publishing a paper or turning in your thesis. Although we are often pushed to write up the results of our work, an article published behind a paywall does not necessarily benefit the community where we work. Especially in a short graduate program, the norm is to complete a project quickly and leave when more can be done. Think about what you can leave behind or how the work can be continued. What can you do to continue the work based on what you have established and the relationship you have formed?

With recent strides to recognize knowledge systems as essential parts of understanding our changing world, there needs to be even more effort to decolonize research practices and push for modes of equitable and just work.