TY - JOUR
T1 - Enacting boundaries or building bridges? Language and engagement in food-energy-water systems science
AU - Gagnon, Valoree S.
AU - Schelly, Chelsea
AU - Lytle, William
AU - Kliskey, Andrew
AU - Dale, Virginia H.
AU - Marshall, Anna Maria
AU - Rodriguez, Luis F.
AU - Williams, Paula
AU - Price, Michael Waasegiizhig
AU - Redd, Elizabeth A.
AU - Noodin, Margaret A.
N1 - Locally, regionally, across Turtle Island, and worldwide, we acknowledge the ancestral, traditional, and contemporary Indigenous Lands, Waters, and People as the original caretakers and knowledge keepers, and recognize their contributions to the stewardship and governance of all living beings and forces. We extend our gratitude to members and staff of many communities across the globe, including the Great Lakes region suburban households, Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Lake Superior Band of Chippewa, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, Southern Idaho’s Upper Snake River basin residents, and Caras con Causa in Puerto Rico, for their commitment to building relationships, participatory research, and shared learning and engagement practices. We remember that the teachings and practices we carry today were built and continued by many who came before us, including our human ancestors and many relatives with fins, wings, legs, and roots. We also acknowledge our research and scholarship sponsors: the National Science Foundation, grants # 1639342, #1856059, #1934346, and #2009258: INFEWS/T3: Reducing Household Food, Energy and Water Consumption: A Quantitative Analysis of Interventions and Impacts of Conservation; EngageINFEWS RCN: Developing best practices for community engagement at the nexus of Food, Energy, and Water systems (FEWS) science; GCR: Collaborative Research: Socio-Technological System Transitions: Michigan Community & Anishinaabe Renewable Energy Sovereignty (MICARES); and CNH2-S: Convergence Research: Bridging Knowledge Systems and Expertise for Understanding the Dynamics of a Contaminated Tribal Landscape System. Finally, an earlier version of this paper was developed through an interdisciplinary workshop supported by the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) Advancing scholarship and practice of stakeholder engagement in working landscapes grant no. 2020-01551 project accession no. 1023309 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
Locally, regionally, across Turtle Island, and worldwide, we acknowledge the ancestral, traditional, and contemporary Indigenous Lands, Waters, and People as the original caretakers and knowledge keepers, and recognize their contributions to the stewardship and governance of all living beings and forces. We extend our gratitude to members and staff of many communities across the globe, including the Great Lakes region suburban households, Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Lake Superior Band of Chippewa, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, Southern Idaho’s Upper Snake River basin residents, and Caras con Causa in Puerto Rico, for their commitment to building relationships, participatory research, and shared learning and engagement practices. We remember that the teachings and practices we carry today were built and continued by many who came before us, including our human ancestors and many relatives with fins, wings, legs, and roots. We also acknowledge our research and scholarship sponsors: the National Science Foundation, grants # 1639342, #1856059, #1934346, and #2009258: INFEWS/T3: Reducing Household Food, Energy and Water Consumption: A Quantitative Analysis of Interventions and Impacts of Conservation; EngageINFEWS RCN: Developing best practices for community engagement at the nexus of Food, Energy, and Water systems (FEWS) science; GCR: Collaborative Research: Socio-Technological System Transitions: Michigan Community & Anishinaabe Renewable Energy Sovereignty (MICARES); and CNH2-S: Convergence Research: Bridging Knowledge Systems and Expertise for Understanding the Dynamics of a Contaminated Tribal Landscape System. Finally, an earlier version of this paper was developed through an interdisciplinary workshop supported by the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) Advancing scholarship and practice of stakeholder engagement in working landscapes grant no. 2020-01551 project accession no. 1023309 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
PY - 2022/6
Y1 - 2022/6
N2 - Scientific study of issues at the nexus of food–energy–water systems (FEWS) requires grappling with multifaceted, “wicked” problems. FEWS involve interactions occurring directly and indirectly across complex and overlapping spatial and temporal scales; they are also imbued with diverse and sometimes conflicting meanings for the human and more-than-human beings that live within them. In this paper, we consider the role of language in the dynamics of boundary work, recognizing that the language often used in stakeholder and community engagement intended to address FEWS science and decision-making constructs boundaries and limits diverse and inclusive participation. In contrast, some language systems provide opportunities to build bridges rather than boundaries in engagement. Based on our experiences with engagement in FEWS science and with Indigenous knowledges and languages, we consider examples of the role of language in reflecting worldviews, values, practices, and interactions in FEWS science and engagement. We particularly focus on Indigenous knowledges from Anishinaabe and the language of Anishinaabemowin, contrasting languages of boundaries and bridges through concrete examples. These examples are used to unpack the argument of this work, which is that scientific research aiming to engage FEWS issues in working landscapes requires grappling with embedded, practical understandings. This perspective demonstrates the importance of grappling with the role of language in creating boundaries or bridges, while recognizing that training in engagement may not critically reflect on the role of language in limiting diversity and inclusivity in engagement efforts. Leaving this reflexive consideration of language unexamined may unknowingly perpetuate boundaries rather than building bridges, thus limiting the effectiveness of engagement that is intended to address wicked problems in working landscapes.
AB - Scientific study of issues at the nexus of food–energy–water systems (FEWS) requires grappling with multifaceted, “wicked” problems. FEWS involve interactions occurring directly and indirectly across complex and overlapping spatial and temporal scales; they are also imbued with diverse and sometimes conflicting meanings for the human and more-than-human beings that live within them. In this paper, we consider the role of language in the dynamics of boundary work, recognizing that the language often used in stakeholder and community engagement intended to address FEWS science and decision-making constructs boundaries and limits diverse and inclusive participation. In contrast, some language systems provide opportunities to build bridges rather than boundaries in engagement. Based on our experiences with engagement in FEWS science and with Indigenous knowledges and languages, we consider examples of the role of language in reflecting worldviews, values, practices, and interactions in FEWS science and engagement. We particularly focus on Indigenous knowledges from Anishinaabe and the language of Anishinaabemowin, contrasting languages of boundaries and bridges through concrete examples. These examples are used to unpack the argument of this work, which is that scientific research aiming to engage FEWS issues in working landscapes requires grappling with embedded, practical understandings. This perspective demonstrates the importance of grappling with the role of language in creating boundaries or bridges, while recognizing that training in engagement may not critically reflect on the role of language in limiting diversity and inclusivity in engagement efforts. Leaving this reflexive consideration of language unexamined may unknowingly perpetuate boundaries rather than building bridges, thus limiting the effectiveness of engagement that is intended to address wicked problems in working landscapes.
KW - Anishinaabe language
KW - Community engagement
KW - FEWS science
KW - Indigenous knowledges
KW - Stakeholder engagement
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85128352936&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85128352936&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s42532-022-00110-0
DO - 10.1007/s42532-022-00110-0
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85128352936
SN - 2524-5279
VL - 4
SP - 131
EP - 148
JO - Socio-Ecological Practice Research
JF - Socio-Ecological Practice Research
IS - 2
ER -