“Two-eyed seeing” supports wildlife health – Science Magazine

Valuing Indigenous Knowledge

Accounts related by Indigenous knowledge holders, and even local idioms, provide tremendous insights into wildlife biology, health, and disease ecology. People living in close intimacy with their environment have a comprehensive understanding of the dynamic nature of the systems in which they live, including indicators of ecosystem health and their natural variability. Systematically documenting Indigenous knowledge can result in early detection of ecological changes (5). For example, observations by subsistence hunters of thinner animals can predict an impending population decline long before detection by conventional population surveys.

Whether it be overt events such as disease outbreaks or more insidious population changes, early detection is essential to respond effectively to conserve wildlife and to protect human and domestic animal health, food security, and livelihoods (6). Conservation organizations are increasingly recognizing that respecting Indigenous knowledge is essential for equitable development and environmental sustainability (7).

Despite these advances, application of Indigenous knowledge for wildlife health assessment and conservation is in its infancy, and there remains uncertainty, and at times skepticism, among decision-makers on how to combine local perspectives with scientific insights for evidence-based decision-making around wildlife. Fundamental barriers include the “need to meet scientific credibility” to produce reliable accounts and the difficulty to “translate user perceptions into categories/criteria that rely on numbers” (8). Addressing these barriers does not mean that Indigenous knowledge must be coopted into the scientific knowledge system or to be validated with science; rather, it requires engagement in meaningful dialogues that enable different knowledges to interface.

The Power of “Two-Eyed Seeing”

Recognizing the legitimacy of multiple ways of knowing is the first step in bridging knowledge types. This includes mutual respect for different philosophical theories and assumptions underlying knowledge systems, acknowledging limitations, and capitalizing on strengths (9, 10).

Scientific knowledge is widely regarded as the gold standard because of its focus on measurable and objective criteria. However, scientific surveillance of wildlife health is often limited in space and time, only documents certain types of information, and is difficult to interpret when data are fragmented. These limitations are especially evident in remote settings where fieldwork is expensive, logistically difficult, and often restricted to specific months of the year.

Indigenous knowledge, a holistic body of knowledge acquired through experience at broad spatial and temporal scales, cumulatively captures information across multiple interdependent elements (10). Indigenous knowledge holders generally cannot talk about caribou populations, behavior, or health without discussing the environment, wolves, insects, and caribou-human interactions. In many ways, Indigenous knowledge provides an ideal example of the “One Health” approach, in which animals and the complexities of their environment, including the human element, are considered simultaneously. Unfortunately, the legacy of colonial practices, together with rapid socioecological changes and an aging population of knowledge holders, has led to the breakdown of intergenerational transmission of Indigenous knowledge, putting the continuity of this rich knowledge system at risk.

Bridging multiple knowledge systems requires drawing on natural and social sciences’ methodologies and constant consideration for the value systems of all knowledge holders, a process that is based on ongoing iteration and feedback (see fig. S1). The Mi’kmaq principle of “Etuaptmumk” or “two-eyed seeing” captures the concept of bringing different knowledge systems together to increase our collective breadth and depth of understanding: “learning to see from one eye with the strengths of Indigenous knowledges…and from the other eye with the strengths of Western knowledges…and learning to use both these eyes together, for the benefit of all” (11).

Participatory epidemiology provides a pragmatic framework for applying this principle to understand wildlife health. Participatory epidemiology was developed, and is still largely applied, in low-income countries to enhance livestock disease surveillance. The two-eyed seeing principle is achieved through triangulation, or corroboration of information by using multiple methods and sources, including knowledge from resource users and conventional veterinary methods. This approach was essential for the global eradication of the infectious viral disease rinderpest: Pastoralist knowledge identified the last foci of rinderpest in remote areas of East Africa where scientific methods had failed, guiding targeted control (12).

In Arctic Canada, participatory epidemiology was used to understand health in a declining muskox population (5). Knowledge of Inuit harvesters identified and characterized changes in population demographics, condition, emerging disease syndromes, and mortality. Together, scientific and Inuit knowledge generated a greater understanding of mechanisms that drive muskox populations. The utility of participatory epidemiology applied to wildlife health extends beyond the Arctic and Indigenous peoples—particularly to developing countries, where data on wildlife are often scarce, and strong interactions between people, wildlife, and livestock create hotspots for emerging zoonoses.

Overcoming Barriers

Bridging Indigenous and scientific knowledge holds considerable promise in wildlife health ecology and surveillance; however, challenges remain. As the combined use of Indigenous and scientific knowledge becomes increasingly encouraged and mandated, there is risk of implementing approaches that produce power imbalances or include Indigenous knowledge only superficially. To ethically bridge knowledge systems, meaningful engagement with knowledge holders is necessary at all stages, from project design to data interpretation and project evaluation (10, 13).

To move from anecdote to the data that will be used by decision-makers, documentation of local knowledge must follow rigorous qualitative research design, including repeatable and transparent methods (“need to meet scientific credibility”) (5, 9). Identification of expert knowledge holders, thematic saturation and triangulation (qualitative research methods used to avoid missing and to corroborate information, respectively), and validation and cointerpretation of results will ensure accurate accounts, interpreted and applied in context, and will serve as an internal peer review process (5).

Through participatory appraisal exercises (such as mapping, timelines, and proportional piling), qualitative information from resource users can be translated into spatial, temporal, and numerical representations (“into categories/criteria that rely on numbers”) (5). These types of data enable inclusion of local knowledge into familiar formats used for management decisions. As with scientific data, quantifying local observations allows us to understand variability around observations and act with knowledge of that uncertainty. However, qualitative and quantitative data must be documented and interpreted together to avoid misinterpreting information and loss of deeper insights.

Growing efforts to incorporate local knowledge into quantitative models [such as Bayesian Belief Networks (14)] can provide tools that further facilitate inclusion of this knowledge into decision-making. However, sophisticated mathematical models can pose technical barriers to participation, producing power imbalances (15). When applying these tools, it is paramount to ensure that Indigenous knowledge holders actively participate at all stages and share control of the process.

Inevitably, at times, Indigenous and scientific knowledges will conflict. Partners then need to coevaluate the strengths and limitations of the respective studies and jointly reflect on disparate findings. Such a contention arose in 1977 between scientists and indigenous whalers around the number of bowhead whales, which resulted in a hunting ban (10). This conflict was resolved only when the knowledge of Iñupiat whalers on bowhead whale behavior was considered, leading scientists to realize that they had severely underestimated the stock size based on faulty assumptions. This example is a reminder that such instances of conflict are opportunities for the greatest insights into ecological processes to be revealed, transformative knowledge generated, and improved dialogue among partners achieved, enabling the development of shared solutions.

“Don’t shoot the leaders” echoes as a call for action to enable today’s elders to pass their knowledge to the youth who will be tomorrow’s leaders. The creation of an inclusive platform for knowledge exchange around wildlife health, a theme so central to many Indigenous cultures, improves wildlife conservation and public health protection, promotes intergenerational learning and retention of Indigenous knowledge within contemporary contexts, and contributes to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. Respecting Indigenous knowledge and working collaboratively with knowledge holders will build capacity and empower Indigenous communities to set their own agendas as advocated by the United Nations (7). The latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) highlights the rate at which climate change is affecting the Arctic and other regions of the world (2), emphasizing the urgency with which we all need to embrace the concept of Etuaptmumk, to cogenerate knowledge and to learn from each other “for the benefit of all.”