Inclusion of diverse knowledge systems at science-policy interfaces is crucial for effective evidence-based policy and decision-making, especially on substantive matters such as environmental management, sustainability, and climate change. In this post, we explore the concept of weaving ways of knowing to highlight the importance of combining different forms of knowledge—western science, Indigenous, local, and experiential—to create policies that are both scientifically rigorous and contextually relevant.
The multiple meanings of knowledge
As societies navigate complex challenges, such as climate change, public health crises, and sustainability, the relationship between science, policy, and society must be well understood (Klenk, 2024). This understanding requires deep engagement with the diverse meanings and functions of knowledge within the context of a science-policy interface (Klenk, 2024). Recognizing the different forms of knowledge and their respective roles in policymaking can significantly enhance the effectiveness of solutions implemented in addressing these challenges. For example, scientific knowledge can provide the empirical data and broader theories needed to understand complex systems, while Indigenous, local, and experiential knowledge can offer contextual insights and practical solutions that are finely tuned to local conditions and ecosystems.
Klenk (2024) highlights several key themes related to knowledge, e.g., knowledge transfer, knowledge brokering, knowledge co-production, knowledge exchange, knowledge infrastructure, actionable knowledge, Indigenous knowledge, local knowledge, climate knowledge, and sustainability knowledge. These themes highlight various mechanisms through which knowledge is generated, shared, and utilized to influence policy and practice. The ability to understand and apply new knowledge is fundamental to achieving positive policy outcomes, as this competence supports evidence-based decision-making. Out of 60 articles published in 2022 and 2024, with the title word “knowledge,” scientific knowledge appears in half (30 articles) (Klenk, 2024). Other forms of knowledge, such as local knowledge (14 articles) and Indigenous knowledge (12 articles), were less frequent, yet can still inform policy, especially in context-specific settings.
Ethical research partnerships with Indigenous communities
Weaving diverse knowledge systems together at the science-policy interface is predicated upon a collaborative and well-regarded approach to research in partnership with Indigenous and local communities. Through discussions with research funders and Indigenous researchers, Sidik (2022) identified practical suggestions for approaching research relationships. Implementing these suggestions begins with an understanding of Indigenous knowledge as rigorous, reliable and accurate, offering opportunities for broadening the science sector. Additionally, Indigenous knowledge is described as multifaceted, drawn from thousands of communities with different knowledge backgrounds. The interviewees called for sufficient funding to allow for long-term relationship development prior to and after conducting research. Perhaps most significantly, the interviewees suggested using models for research funding and coordination that grant autonomy and control to Indigenous communities, ensuring that protocols and projects are relevant to the communities.
A values-based research methodology
As an example of thoughtful relationship development, Kemp et al. (2024) presented a compelling case study that offers a model for a mixed methods, community-based approach to research in partnership with Indigenous communities. This study illustrated weaving Indigenous and Western sciences together through a community wildlife monitoring program co-created with the Magnetawan First Nation (MFN). Astute attention to methodology and a spirit of collaboration ensured meaningful inclusion of Anishinabek Knowledge and voices throughout the study. Kemp et al. (2024) took the time to conduct semi-structured interviews with MFN residents, resulting in the identification of five key community values: respect, relationships, reciprocity, collaboration, and interconnection. These values guided the creation of the wildlife monitoring program in collaboration with MFN and are suggested as a framework for future research partnerships.
Indigenous knowledge systems in fisheries management
Despite the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)’s verbal commitment to reconciliation and collaborative governance models, inclusion of Indigenous knowledge systems (IKS) in policy-making decisions remains inconsistent. Moffat et al. (2024) completed an in-depth analysis of the extent to which IKS are included in DFO decisions on fisheries management. The researchers used semi-quantitative indicators developed to determine IKS inclusivity to analyze 88 DFO produced and co-produced documents. The results demonstrated a need for greater collaboration between both Indigenous and western science knowledge systems. To create a truly holistic approach to fisheries management, IKS must be included in a meaningful way throughout the entirety of decision processes, rather than being consulted at selected convenient points in time. This approach not only strengthens conservation and sustainability efforts but also upholds Indigenous rights.
A reconciliatory science-policy interface
Kukutai et al. (2024) call for policy development approaches that reflect the principles of Te Tiriti and Mātauranga Māori. Te Tiriti o Waitangi (or simply Te Tiriti) is Māori for “Treaty of Waitangi,” Aotearoa’s founding document, and Mātauranga Māori generally refers to the Māori knowledge ecosystem. Public authorities in Aotearoa (New Zealand) tend to exclude Māori expertise from the realm of science advice. Therefore, what does a just and reconciliatory science-policy interface look like? Kukutai et al. (2024) argue that: (a) investing in research to address colonial harms, (b) increasing support for Māori innovators, (c) training more Māori researchers, (d) recognizing the legitimacy of Māori knowledge for all time, and (e) establishing Māori-controlled data infrastructures are necessary conditions to create a just and reconciliatory science-policy interface. Other priorities include developing Tiriti-based funding guidelines, appointing Māori chief science advisors, creating a Mātauranga Māori commission, and establishing regional Te Ao Māori policy hubs.
Conclusion
A more nuanced understanding of various knowledge types than previously, coupled with their definitions and applications, is critical for improving the relevance and effectiveness of policy decisions. By weaving together diverse ways of knowing, policies can be crafted that are both grounded in scientific evidence and responsive to the social, cultural, and environmental realities of local and Indigenous communities. Adopting this inclusive approach ensures that policies will be effective in addressing global challenges and sensitive to the needs and values of the communities they aim to serve. Ultimately, blending of knowledge systems fosters more holistic, inclusive, and sustainable environmental decision-making. By embracing the richness of diverse knowledge systems, societies can craft public policies that are scientifically rigorous and contextually grounded and inclusive of all stakeholders.
References
Kemp, C., Yarchuk, K., Menzies, A., Perron, N., Noganosh, S., Northrup, J., & Popp, J. (2024). Weaving ways of knowing in practice: A collaborative approach to prioritizing community knowledge and values in wildlife camera monitoring with Magnetawan First Nation. Facets, 9. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2024-0030
Klenk, N. (2024). The multiple meanings of knowledge in scholarship at the science-policy interface. Environmental Science & Policy, 162, 103948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103948
Kukutai, T., McIntosh, T., Boulton, A., Durie, M., Foster, M., Hutchings, J., Mark-Shadbolt, M., Moewaka Barnes, H., Moko-Mead, T. T., Paine, S.-J., Pitama, S., & Ruru, J. (2024). Te Pūtahitanga: A Tiriti-led science-policy approach for Aotearoa New Zealand [Report]. AgResearch. https://doi.org/10.57935/AGR.26001496.v1
Moffat, K., Snook, J., Paul, K., & Frid, A. (2024). Inclusivity of Indigenous knowledge systems in fisheries management [Preprint]. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5523126/v1
Sidik, S. M. (2022). Weaving the lore of the land into the scientific method. Nature, 601(7892), 285-287. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-00029-2
Authors: Sarah Clarkson, Alexandre Legault, Jinny Priya Pasad, and James Tazzeo
This blog post is part of a series of posts authored by students in the graduate course “Information in Public Policy and Decision Making” offered at Dalhousie University.
Tags: Information Use & Influence; Public Policy & Decision Making; Science-Policy Interface; Student Submission
