PROPUESTA DEL MANUAL DE PROCEDIMIENTOS PARA EL REGISTRO DE

Since the 1970s, the discussion and research about TEK, with a special focus on the causes of TEK loss, has earned increasing attention from non-indigenous societies and academics. In the literature I have reviewed for this research (time ranged from 1976 to 2010), a great variety of drivers of TEK loss have been identified. Most of these studies focus on particular cause/s in particular locations22 _{(e.g. Benz et al., 2000; Case et al.,}

2005; Crystal, 2000; Godoy et al., 1998; Milton, 2001; Nettle and Romaine, 2000; Olsen and Helles, 1997; Raza, 2007; Ross, 2002; Wavey, 1993), while several studies focus on synthesising the causes of TEK loss into categories (Ellen, 2007; Lizarralde, 2001; Zarger and Stepp, 2004; Zent, 2001).

However, the level of the agreement on these causes or on categorising the threats is limited. The lack of a widely used threat classification system might be caused by

differences in research attributes such as location, disciplinary perspectives, domains of TEK that the research focuses on, and different research methods. For example, while traditional language loss has been recognised as a key cause of TEK loss by a number of

72

linguists and anthropologists (e.g. Crystal, 2000; Maffi, 2001, 2005; Zent and Maffi, 2009), market influence has been highlighted from a political economic perspective (e.g. Godoy et al., 1998, 2005; Reyes-Garcia et al., 2005a; Ross, 2002). This example reflects the fact that researchers from different disciplines approach issues from different perspectives and may focus on different domains of TEK. It is thus inevitable that they come up with findings and results that differ from each other.

Measuring TEK change has never been an easy task. There are several major challenges faced by TEK researchers. The first and most common challenge is the lack of baseline data. The academic research of TEK has only been carried out for several decades. The record of TEK prior to this period is missing from many locations around the world. This scarcity of baseline data creates a fundamental difficulty for any quantitative

measurement and comparative study of TEK change (Zent, 2001). Thus, virtually all TEK research, including this study, is structured within a limited time-frame over the last few decades. This time frame may capture some significant TEK change (e.g. Tang and Gavin, 2010), but the relatively short research period and lack of baseline data means that researchers are sometimes unable to measure the change. Alternatively, many

researchers measure the variation of TEK based on its social variables, such as age (Zent and Zent, 2004), gender (Begossi et al., 2002; Case et al., 2005), residence length

(Nythus et al., 2003), involvement in formal education (Quinland and Quinland, 2007; Reyes-Garcia et al., 2005b), access to market (Geust, 2002; Godoy et al., 2005; Reyes- Garcia et al., 2005a), and comparisons between different communities or regions (e.g. Ghimire et al., 2004; Reyes-Garcia et al., 2007a, 2007b). Putting all this research together may help to draw a clearer overall picture of TEK change.

The second challenge for examining TEK change over time is the lack of a standard methodology. As Reyes-Garcia et al. (2005a:21) point out, “researchers have used a large range of methods to collect data on traditional ecological knowledge, but few studies have replicated methods used in previous research or compared results across different methods… This situation exacerbates the difficulty of comparing studies”. Let us take an example of data collection to see the variety of research methodology used in the field.

73

For measuring the theoretical dimension of TEK (e.g. the knowledge of medicinal plants, the knowledge of canoe-building), researchers usually choose semi-structured

interviews or structured questionnaires. However, questionnaires may include a wide variety of data-gathering mechanisms, including multiple-choice questions, pile-sorting, true-false questions, free-listing, and triad tasks (Reyes-Garcia et al., 2006c) (for the description of these methods, please see Bernard, 2010). For assessing practical dimensions of a TEK system (e.g. the skills of using medicinal plants, the skills of trail reading for hunting activities), data may be collected through researchers’ direct

observation, or through informants’ self-reports. In addition, the sample size of different TEK studies varies enormously (e.g. seven in Geissler et al., 2002 to 622 in Nyhus et al., 2003). This lack of methodological uniformity inhibits comparability and is the main obstacle to a more simplified comprehension of the complex empirical reality of TEK threats (Zent and Maffi, 2009).

The third challenge is the multiple domains of TEK systems. As Berkes’ (2008) TEK concept diagram indicates (see Chapter 1, Figure 1.1), TEK is a multi-level system which encompasses knowledge of local environment, animals and plants, resource

management practices, social institutions, worldviews and beliefs. TEK research thus requires cross-disciplinary perspectives and mixed research methodologies. It is

common that a researcher or a research team is able to access and study one or a limited number of TEK domains, but rarely, if ever, has TEK research undertaken a

comprehensive whole system assessment. So far, most TEK research efforts have focused on ethnobotanical knowledge of indigenous societies, including medicinal plants (Benz et al., 2000; Geissler et al., 2002; Prince et al., 2001; Sternberg et al., 2001), wild food plants and crops (Boster, 1986; Godoy et al., 1998; Rocha, 2005; Zarger and Stepp, 2004; Zent, 2001), and other plants with significant economic values (Byg and Balslev, 2001; Hanazaki et al., 2000; Kristensen, 2003; Reyes-Garcia et al., 2005a, 2005b; Uma Shaanker et al., 2004). The wider layers of TEK, especially the social institutions, world view and beliefs of indigenous populations, have been studied to only a very limited degree (Reyes-Garcia et al., 2006).

74

There is also a variety of terminology that researchers have used to describe similar or even identical phenomena (see an example under section 1.3). This variety of

terminology can be troublesome for cross-project and cross-region communication. Valid communication and comparison of TEK threats requires a standard classification system. Such a system would enable comparable results to be produced and identify common patterns of TEK status despite the different disciplinary backgrounds and terminologies of researchers.

From the above discussion, we can see disagreements or disconnects about TEK threats from three aspects: 1) researchers often emphasise different threats due to their

different research perspectives; 2) the methodologies of TEK threat identification are different; and 3) the terminologies used when describing the problems are different. These disagreements thus make the threats identified from different studies difficult to compare. The variety also makes cross-study communication and comparison difficult, which can inhibit the development of TEK understanding at a global scale, and the formation of a global network of TEK monitoring and conservation. As Zent (2001:191) points out, “Although some analysts have pointed out rather vaguely and generally to cultural and economic globalisation forces as the main reasons why TEK is disappearing at such an alarming rate, the precise determining factors, whether of local, regional, national, or international origin, and their complex interactions are still not well understood”.

The above discussion has pointed out several gaps in the literature. By applying a global survey and comprehensive review of the global pattern of TEK threats, and developing a standard classification of TEK threats, this study aims to fill these critical research gaps.