Do You Know What You Know? Perspectives on Traditional Ecological Knowledge Bruce David Low B.A., Brandon University, 1994 M.A., University of Saskatchewan, 1997 Project Submitted In Partial Fulfillment Of The Requirements For The Degree Of Master ofNatural Resources and Environmental Studies The University of Northern British Columbia July 2007 © Bruce David Low, 2007 UNNERSITY of NOHTHE BRITISH COLUMBIA UBRARY Plince George, B.C. ABSTRACT In order to achieve a meaningful and acceptable economic transition to a position of self reliance, the people of the Kitsumkalum First Nation stress that all resource management within their territory should be coop~ratively directed within their community by their members in association with the federal and provincial governments. Consequently, the Kitsumkalum First Nation recognize the importance of establishing a community-based land and resource management plan for their traditional territory, one that takes into consideration their Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), but which will also harmonize with Western Scientific Knowledge (WSK). Therefore, this paper is an examination ofhow TEK is understood within academic TEK literature, by academic TEK researchers, and within the Kitsumkalum First Nation traditional territory. The author hoped this study would produce a framework for integrating TEK with WSK. That framework was not attained. Upon completion of this study the author concludes that when it comes to defining TEK there are almost as many definitions and approaches put forward as there are researchers working on this topic. Further, the author concludes that the application of a Western reductionist approach for TEK does not work and it is folly to continue to try to separate and fit TEK into neat categories to fit within research paradigms. The fact is that TEK is so much a part of First Nation culture that it is just part of everyday lives; aboriginal people never really stop to think about what TEK is. TEK is just what aboriginal people do. Methods of analysis include thematic and content analysis. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract 11 Table of Contents lll List of Tables v List of Figures VI List of Appendices Vll Acknowledgement Vlll Introduction 1 Chapter One Project and Terminology Rationale 6 Chapter Two Defining Indigenous Ways ofKnowing, TEK, WSK and Integration 10 Chapter Three Ethical Considerations 17 Chapter Four Kitsumkalum First Nation 18 Chapter Five Methods 27 Chapter Six Community-Based Research 41 Chapter Seven Academic TEK Literature Review 48 Chapter Eight Survey of Academic Researchers 68 Chapter Nine Data Collection for the TEK Survey Conducted Within the Kitsumkalum Tradition Territory 77 Chapter Ten Results from the Analysis of the Literature Review, Academic TEK Survey and the TEK Survey Conducted Within the Kitsumkalum Traditional Territory 80 Conclusions 117 Chapter Eleven Bibliography 124 Appendix 1 134 lll Appendix 2 136 Appendix 3 137 Appendix 4 139 lV LIST OF TABLES 1. Berkes, F. 1993, Traditional Ecological Knowledge 2. Traditional Knowledge Terminology 3. Characteristics ofTraditional Ecological Knowledge by Key Authors 4. Themes in the Disagreement of what Constitutes TEK 5. Fundamental Elements differentiating TEK and WSK 6. Distinctions between Traditional and Scientific Knowledge 7. Distinctions between Western Science and Indigenous Knowledge 8. Distinctions between Indigenous and Western Scientific Knowledge 9. Differences between Traditional and Modem Science 10. Responses to "What does Tradition in an Indigenous context mean to you?" 11. Responses to TEK and WSK Commonalities 12. Responses to TEK and WSK Differences 13. Responses to the Integration ofTEK and WSK 14. Researcher Thematic Analysis of the Kitsumkalum Community ro~ 15. Researcher Thematic Analysis ofthe Non-Kitsumkalum Group 16. Researcher Content Analysis 17. TextAnz Content Analysis 18. Kitsumkalum Participants Combined 19. Non-Kitsumkalum Participants Combined 20. Academic TEK Literature 21. Academic TEK Researcher Survey 22. Summary of Content Analysis Re-Examination Coding 23. Comparison ofResearcher Coding with TextAnz Coding 24. Comparison ofResearcher Coding with Diction Coding 25. Comparison ofTextAnz Coding with Diction Coding v 30 49 58 59 60 61 63 64 65 71 72 74 75 81 84 89 90 94 95 96 97 99 100 101 102 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Kitsumkalum and Tsimshian Nation Territory 2. Proposed Differences and Commonalities of TEK with WSK 3. Chart of Activity Scores 4. Chart of Optimism Scores 5. Chart of Certainty Scores 6. Chart ofRealism Scores 7. Chart of Commonality Scores 8. Chart of Insistence Scores 9. Chart of Embellishment Scores 10. Chart ofVariety Scores 11. Chart of Complexity Scores VI 2 31 104 106 107 109 110 112 113 115 116 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1. Survey of Academic TEK Researchers: Questionnaire Appendix 2. Definitions for Question 5 and 6 Appendix 3. Traditional Knowledge Questionnaire Interview Appendix 4. Diction: Description of Scores Vll 134 136 137 139 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A person cannot go through a process such as this study without the support and encouragement of friends and family. I thank all those that supported me throughout this study. I would be remiss ifi did not make special mention of my mother though, who has always been a pillar in my life . I would like to thank the Chief and Council and Treaty Office ofthe Kitsumkalum First Nation for providing me with the support and authority to conduct this project within their traditional territory. A special thank you also goes out to the people ofKitsumkalum who participated in this research and to the Non-Kitsumkalum individuals that agreed to participate as well, without all of whom there would not have been a study. A special thank you goes to my committee members: Annie Booth, Ray Chipeniuk, and Alex Hawley. Not only has your direction and guidance been invaluable to me, but your support for my work has been sincerely appreciated. I also extend thanks to my external examiner, Michael Murphy, for his insight and assistance. I could not possibly thank each of you enough. Vlll INTRODUCTION Change and transition are especially evident within First Nation communities, which have also been impacted heavily through colonization. One such First Nation is the Kitsumkalum. The Kitsumkalum First Nation community is located within the northwest region of British Columbia at the confluence of the Kalum and Skeena Rivers between the Coast Range in the west and the Hazelton Ranges in the east (Figure 1). The Kitsumkalum are a member band ofthe North Coast Tsimshian Nation (Figure 1). The Kitsumkalum First Nation is experiencing significant shifts in their historic economic bases as a result of development initiatives being controlled outside their communities, including diversification of economies into resource sectors such as tourism. Other issues causing change and transition include: "technological change, international competition, public policy decisions, endangered species, and other environmental concerns" (Conway et al. 1997, 1). In order to achieve a meaningful and acceptable economic transition to a position of self reliance, the people of the Kitsumkalum First Nation stress that all resource management within their territory should be cooperatively directed within their community by their members, in association with the federal and provincial governments. Their goal is stable sustainable economic development that promotes good governance, environmental stewardship and social enrichment, and maintains and enhances the self-defined character of the Kitsumkalum First Nation community. Areas of particular concern to the Kitsumkalum 1 :.:-···-· •: ,~ . . I l(J, ,M. /! ·... ~ y Prince Rupert ~ I \ ..; .' .,.. ..I. "'.·i- .. \ \ '. . \ . '·.. \ '; \ .. ... Tsimshian Nation Boundary I 's \. ~ \ \ \ ·--·. ..·•. - \ Figure 1: Kitsumkalum and Tsimshian Nation Territory (Trim Data Sources: Cadastral Database Management System; Terrain Resource Information Management System; North American Datum 83; Universal Transverse Mercator; UTM Zone 9; UTM coordinates are derived from TIM base). 2 ' First Nation includes community social well-being, economic capacity and environmental sustainability. Accordingly, the Kitsumkalum First Nation is striving to achieve the following objectives in significant and measurable ways (Low 2005): A healthy, sustainable, working community, which would achieve: a. Acceptable employment levels; b. Social programs in support of individual and family healing; c. Community infrastructure that promotes pride and supports healthy living and a revitalized and living culture; d. Security for the future; and e. Meaningful, sustainable, economic initiatives. One of the ways the Kitsumkalum First Nation is attempting to meet these goals is by the development of a community Strategic Land and Resource Management Plan in order to have policy that achieves a balance among economic development, environmental stewardship, and the social principles of its members. An emphasis on community-based collaborative research and the integration of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) with Western scientific data are important aspects that the Kitsurnkalum First Nation stress must be included in their land and resource management endeavours. The Kitsumkalum people are concerned that the Western scientific basis of provincial strategies, such as the Kalum Forest District Land and Resource Management Plan, does not take into account their needs, values, or Traditional Ecological Knowledge. It is the belief of 3 the Kitsumkalum that a formal land and resource management plan that incorporates TEK into the planning regime should lead to a new relationship among the Kitsumkalum First Nation community, the Government of Canada, and the Province ofBritish Columbia regarding the management of lands, water, resources, and all development activities occurring within Kitsumkalum First Nation tribal territories. This paper begins with a brief discussion of project rationale and ethical considerations. Kitsumkalum First Nation traditional and contemporary culture is then discussed at length. Next, the methods used in the study are presented. The literature review examines academic researcher definitions for TEK; then results are presented of a survey of academic TEK researchers conducted in 2005. Finally, the data collected within the Kitsumkalum traditional territory is presented. This paper concludes with a discussion of the findings from this study. The fundamental questions explored in this study are: 1. How is TEK defined within academic TEK literature? 11. How is TEK defined by academic TEK researchers? 111. How is TEK understood by Kitsumkalum people and Non-Kitsumkalum individuals that work on various resource and economic development issues within the Kitsumkalum First Nation traditional territory? tv. What are the essential features required to integrate TEK with Western Scientific Knowledge (WSK)? 4 The term TEK is used in this study more for convenience than for championing of the term, since it is the form of traditional knowledge that is most commonly identified within the literature. In addition, this study is focused on the Kitsumkalum First Nation and based within its traditional territory; the reason is simply that the researcher is employed by the Kitsumkalum First Nation and coordinating their land and resource management endeavours. 5 CHAPTER ONE: PROJECT AND TERMINOLOGY RATIONALE When the author first met with the treaty negotiator for Kitsumkalum First Nation he was informed that Kitsumkalum wanted to have a community land and resource management plan developed that integrated Kitsumkalum TEK with WSK. Kitsumkalum has much information on file in their community regarding Kitsumkalum traditional use and history, but not on integrating TEK with WSK, and so Kitsumkalum did not know how to proceed in that process. Therefore, Kitsumkalum hoped that because the author came from a Western scientific background that he would be able to integrate TEK with WSK in the development of their Kitsumkalum land and resource management plan. However, since the author was not aware of the procedures necessary to integrate TEK with WSK either, he informed Kitsumkalum that it would be necessary to conduct an examination of several aspects of TEK, primarily what procedures have been identified by advanced academic researchers working on TEK for integrating TEK with WSK and what are the similarities and differences between TEK and WSK. This paper begins with the examination of academic TEK literature. The author believed that since the focus of academic researchers is within their particular area of specialization, which in this instance is TEK, the concept of TEK, and the clarification and process involved in integrating TEK with WSK, should be well understood and defined within academic literature. However, the examination ofthe academic literature on TEK did not provide the author with the clarity and understanding on TEK that was sought. In fact, the overall concept of TEK became less clear following the literature 6 review. For one thing, academic researchers do not agree on a definition for TEK. Furthermore, there is considerable debate in the TEK literature on whether TEK can or even should be integrated with WSK. Within academic resource use/management literature TEK is defined many ways. Although TEK definitions vary widely the impression gained from reading the literature is that the application of TEK appears to principally relate to First Nation knowledge and management of resources, with a few exceptions. However, academic literature reveals that the theoretical incorporation ofTEK within the larger First Nation land and resource management-planning framework is rare. The author of this study notes that there is TEK literature that deals with various aspects of land or resource management, such as indigenous knowledge within numerous resource contexts and a range of co-management issues, but the literature does not include the holistic blend of culture and resource management/use that First Nations employ in its practice. Also, the literature indicates it may be possible to integrate TEK and Western Scientific Knowledge (WSK), but the author could not isolate any criteria or suggestions from the literature as to how to carry that out. Since a clear understanding of how to appropriately apply TEK within the Kitsumkalum Land and Resource Management Plan could not be attained from the literature, further research was deemed to be necessary. A survey of academic researchers was conducted from January to April 2005 in an attempt to clarify the meaning and understanding of TEK and its integration with WSK. The data only further established that there is much confusion, uncertainty and diversity of thought on the subject ofTEK overall. The survey was completed as the project requirement for University 7 of Northern British Columbia course "INTS 700 Social Research Methods" under the direction of Dr. Don Munton, who held a blanket ethics approval for this course and the student research conducted within that course. Through the use of a questionnaire survey, the author attempted to determine what academic researchers in TEK identified as the major criteria of indigenous knowledge and how that differed from WSK. Of those who did reply to the questionnaire, the range and tone of the responses were unexpected. Results will be discussed later. However, it was clear that the information collected from the academic TEK survey would not provide the direction sought for the Kitsumkalum Land and Resource Management Plan, and therefore, further research was still required. Kitsumkalum administrators had already informed the author that they were not aware how to integrate TEK with WSK. In addition, the author had conducted an extensive literature review on TEK and this did not address how to integrate TEK with WSK either. Further, the survey of academic researchers did not address how to integrate TEK with WSK. An additional quandary was that the more research the author conducted on TEK the more ambiguous the concept of TEK appeared. Consequently, given the results from the literature search and survey noted above, it was determined that primary data collection within the Kitsumkalum First Nation traditional territory was imperative. The study within the Kitsumkalum traditional territory had two main purposes. First, the author wanted to know exactly how Kitsumkalum members and Non-Kitsumkalum individuals working on various aspects of resource development in the Kitsumkalum traditional territory viewed TEK and how their views compared or differed from the 8 academic discourse. Second, the author hoped that conducting a TEK survey within the Kitsumkalum traditional territory would provide additional data, which could then be combined with the literature review and academic survey materials, from which the author could produce a framework for integrating TEK with WSK. Limitations of this study include time constraints, financial considerations, and the scope of the Research Project in the UNBC MNRES program. Sample size had to be kept small and manageable, and the scope of the project restricted to the Kitsumkalum First Nation. However, despite research limitations this study provides a useful starting place for subsequent studies and, in general, is a useful contribution to the field of TEK. 9 CHAPTER TWO: DEFINING INDIGENOUS WAYS OF KNOWING, TEK, WSK, AND INTEGRATION Throughout this paper several terms/concepts are repeatedly used, these are: ways of knowing, TEK, WSK and integration. In order to provide the reader with a clearer understanding as to how these terms/concepts are understood and applied by the author, the following explanatory information is presented. Ways of Knowing "Science is but one system of knowledge amongst many. Other knowledge systems, embedded in a wide array of cultures and sustaining a broad spectrum of ways-of-life, constitute a rich and diverse intellectual heritage that is attracting increasing attention worldwide" (Nakashima 2000:1 ). We now recognize that "given the huge gaps in 'formal knowledge', we have to look to other forms of knowledge to complement the scientific approach" (Bundy 1999, 3). However, Booth (2000, 4) notes that "one wonders where the 'alternative way of knowing' really is while ploughing through tedious, elaborate, jargon-laden and unnecessarily complex presentations on the importance of intuitive understanding". Further confusing the issue is that objectives ofTEK are "loaded with 'western' words and contexts" (Roots 1997, 42). The reports from TEK research are often more like scientific reports and remove the traditional knowledge from cultural and ecological context. This confuses the issue. As Booth (2000, 9) states, "the quest for knowledge is complicated by the form in which we are willing to accept that knowledge". 10 "Knowledge systems by definition are evolutionary in nature [and] evolve through human interactions among themselves as well as with nature within and without" (Gupta nd, 11 ). All knowledge and wisdom ultimately flow from practice, but it is their organization that differs among the different streams ofknowledge (Gadgil et al. 2000). "People have different experiences, and they draw different conclusions based on similar experiences" (Jentoft 1999, 5). "This fine-grained interplay between societies and environments provides traditional knowledge systems with their diverse structures and content, their complexity, versatility and pragmatism, and their distinct, internal logic anchored in specific worldviews" (Nakashima 2000, 2). These other systems are an alternative view and way ofknowing nature to that ofWSK (Howard 1994 4). Nakashima (2000, 2) states that "these 'other systems' are the sophisticated sets of information, understandings and interpretations that guide human societies around the globe in their innumerable interactions with the natural milieu". The most common term identified in the literature for these other ways of knowing is TEK although Indigenous Knowledge is frequently used as well. Guanish (1997, 14) has declared that TEK "is the product of observations of the environment over thousands of years and of the sharing of those observations, shaped by our beliefs, values, and customs ... We could not have survived if we had not heeded the teachings of our elders". Conversely, Langill (1997, 5) argues that Indigenous Knowledge: "has its limitations, and these must be recognized. IK is sometimes accepted uncritically because of naive notions that whatever indigenous people do is naturally in harmony with the environment. There is historical and contemporary evidence that indigenous peoples have also committed environmental 'sins' through over-grazing, 11 over-hunting, or over-cultivation ofthe land. It is misleading to think ofiK as always being 'good,' 'right' or 'sustainable'". Langill ( 1997, 1) does add that "it is usually a mistake to think of indigenous knowledge as 'old-fashioned,' 'backwards,' 'static' or 'unchanging"'. "The aboriginal scientist lives in a world of constantly reforming multidimensional interacting cycles, where nothing is simply a cause and effect but where all factors are influences impacting other elements in the system as a whole" (Newhouse 2004, 14). TEK "forms part of these relationships and has been acknowledged as a contributor to understanding the effects of management decisions and human-use impacts on long-term ecological composition, structure, and function" (Watson et al. 2003, 1). According to Bruyere and Bergland (nd, 6) TEK is seen to be comprised of two aspects, its practical base and its spiritual aspect, which "is integral to the ethical beliefs and world views oflndigenous peoples" Although, Bruyere and Bergland (nd, 7) also state that "it may be virtually impossible to measure scientifically the validity or truth value of the spiritual aspects of traditional knowledge, but its social existence and transmission can be witnessed". "Indigenous knowledge systems generally provide a way of connecting, ... way of feeling and also a way of doing" (Gupta nd, 15) and thus, consist of"a diverse and complex set of ways ofknowing" (Huntington 2005, 1). TEK (Traditional Ecological Knowledge) Much of this paper is focused on trying to define and gain an understanding of TEK, of this 12 other way ofknowing. Accordingly, the concept ofTEK will be expanded on much more thoroughly throughout this paper. However, as an initial defining point, TEK within this paper is considered by the author to be Indigenous holistic knowledge that integrates the physical and spiritual into a worldview, which evolves over time, and emphasizes the practical application of skills acquired through careful observations and responses to ever changing environmental, economic and social conditions. WSK (Western Scientific Knowledge) The author of this study views Western Scientific Knowledge as the knowledge gained by the systematic and theoretical study of the facts or principles of the physical/material world gained through observation and experimentation. In this instance, Western science is seen as being reductionist in nature, the idea that everything that exists can be explained as the interactions of a small number of simple things, which obey physical laws. This is similar to the American Heritage Dictionary (2006), which defines WSK as the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Integration The term 'integration' is used and understood by the author to be the combining ofTEK and WSK into one common, but altered state. That is, integration is viewed by the author as a recombination event where separate parts or elements are combined through coordination 13 into a unified whole. However, this simple explanation belies the extremely complex nature of TEK integration with WSK and whether it should, or even can, be done. Johnson (1992, 8) claims that, "most scientists, governments, and aboriginal peoples agree that, given the pluralistic nature of modem society and the ecological interdependence among nations, Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Western science must be integrated" . Hawley et al. (2004, 36) make a similar claim in their comment that "recent transitions in resource management and recognition of the role of First Nations in resource management have heightened the need for conciliation of these two different views of the world and the place of people in it (world view)''. However, as McFetridge and Howell (2001, 6) note, "the difficulties with linking Traditional Knowledge and western science lie in the differences between the two knowledge systems .. .. The reductionist nature of western science contrasts can conflict with the holistic, integrative and value-laden nature of traditional knowledge". In addition, some researchers, for example, Berkes ( 1993, 6-7), question "how scientific knowledge and Traditional Ecological Knowledge can be integrated - and whether such integration is desirable in the first place". Problems inherent with the integration process ofTEK and WSK, as noted by Langil (2005, 5), are that "pressure on indigenous peoples to integrate with larger societies is often great, and as they become more integrated, the social structures which generate indigenous knowledge and practices can break down". Additionally, Drew (2005, 1288) makes the comment that while TEK "has the potential to augment Western scientific research programs . .. not every person in an indigenous community is likely to hold (or divulge) the culture's 14 entire TEK". Michel (2002, 5) counters these points with the comment that "the process of integrating Indigenous People's Knowledge can start with something as simple and basic as incorporating .. . ceremonial [activities] and prayers for each day and each meal as part of any meeting or discussion". In addition Lertzman, K (2002, 30) states that "rejecting a scientific idea doesn't 'reject' Indigenous belief'. If true integration ofTEK with WSK is to occur several conditions must be met. Johnson (1992, 13) identifies four such conditions as: i. Support for the comprehensive documentation ofTEK before it is lost; n. Recognition of alternative knowledge systems. Governments and the scientific community must work to develop a process that is flexible enough to accommodate new ideas and methods; m. Support for cross-cultural education of both Western scientists and aboriginal peoples to introduce them to each other's knowledge system; tv. Political recognition of aboriginal claims to land and resources with equal authority and legal standing. Hawley et al. (2004) also present several criteria they feel are essential for the integration of traditional and western science. Hawley et al. (2004) state, that "in the pursuit of amalgamated management systems" these fundamental traits need to be considered. The traits include: 1. Respect: • World View, 15 • Knowledge. n. Communication - is the most fundamental aspect of knowledge sharing; iii. Learning - is essential for bridging the gaps in understanding between TEK Management Systems and Science-Based Resource Management; 1v. Identifying Shared Goals- Science-Based Resource Management and TEK Management systems have many points of commonality; v. Helping the Disenfranchised- who do not understand, respect, or appreciate the importance of Science-Based Resource Management or TEK Management Systems. 16 CHAPTER THREE: ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS Ethical considerations for this research include the following: i. That participants' rights were protected; ii. That participants' privacy was respected; iii. That individuals were not coerced into participating in the research; iv. That information was disseminated in such a way that individuals understood: a. The research goals and objectives, b. The impact the research may have on them, c. What benefits to expect from the research. v. Gaining permission to conduct the research from community authorities and general membership; vi. Involving Band members collaboratively in all aspects of the research; vii. Reciprocity between the researcher and Kitsurnkalum First Nation. Consideration of the above ethical issues helped to strengthen the research and the relationship between the researcher and participants within this study. Written Band Council Resolution in support of this research was received from Kitsurnkalum First Nation. Written Ethics Board Clearance for this research was received from the University ofNorthem British Columbia. 17 CHAPTER FOUR: KITSUMKALUM FIRST NATION Culture History/Economy/Worldview The Tsimshian Nation is one of the largest groups of First Nations people on the northwest coast of British Columbia, Canada. British Columbia's northwest coast is a beautiful, ecologically rich, mountainous region intersected with several major watersheds containing diverse and abundant species of fish, wildlife, and vegetation, which continue to sustain the Tsimshian people. The Tsimshian Nation comprises approximately 10,000 members belonging to the seven members of the Tsimshian Nation, which include: Kitsumkalum, Kitselas, the Allied Tribes of Lax Kw'Alaams, Metlakatla, Kitkatla, Gitga'at (Hartley Bay) and Kitasoo (Klemtu). The traditional territory of the Kitsumkalum First Nation lies between the Coast Range in the west and the Hazelton Ranges in the east and extends from Nisga'a Settlement Lands in the north down to and including the Skeena River in the south. It covers an area of approximately 270,000 hectares, extending through the Kalum and Zimagotitz watersheds. The topography of the area is varied, and the rugged Coastal Mountains and salmon-bearing rivers dominate the landscape. The major freshwater lake is Kitsumkalum Lake. This large lake and a number of small lakes within the area support significant fish populations. Major rivers include the Skeena and Kalum rivers. Forests of the area are dominated by western and mountain hemlock, amabilis and subalpine fir, sitka and Engelmann spruce, red and yellow cedar, and lodgepole pine. Deciduous species include cottonwood, trembling aspen, 18 paper birch, and red alder. The immature forests tend to be less than 30 years old, while many of the mature forests are over 300 years old and generally situated on medium to poor growing sites. Extensive aggregate resources are also found throughout the region. The Kitsumkalum are an indigenous people whose lives and sustenance are rooted in the lands and the waters that surround them; their economy, belief systems, and social forms are woven into the ways they use the land. Kitsumkalum First Nation culture has flourished for thousands of years with the Kitsumkalum's own system of government, laws, belief systems, religion, economy and social forms, which are based upon the natural northwest coast environment, which Kitsumkalum inhabit. However, as with all First Nations people of the Kitsumkalum First Nation have suffered the impacts of colonization. With the dispersal ofFirst Nation cultures into Western society through actions such as the establishment of reserve systems, the Indian Act and racism, the people of the Kitsumkalum First Nation found themselves disenfranchised and cast out of the mainstream economy and unable to pursue much of their traditional economies due to restrictive measures concerning where and when aboriginals could hunt and fish. Poverty and displacement, in combination with policies of the government in power, detrimentally affected almost every aspect of aboriginal people's lives, including structures of governance, economy, education, religion and family. The native language ofthe Kitsumkalum First Nation is Sm'Algyax, which is the mother language to the Coastal and Southern Tsimshian, the 19 it~ a and the Nisga'a; each Nation has their own dialect, and culture and language are strongly connected to the territory they have been part of for millennia. The Kitsumkalum First Nation traditional economy was like that of all Tsimshian, in that the land and resources were vital to every aspect of life; they hunted, fished, and gathered foods and medicines, within specific areas of their traditional territories and at certain times ofthe year, in a seasonal cycle (Boas 1906, Garfield 1939, McDonald 1985). As defined by Boas (1906) the natural seasonal cycle began with oolichan fishing in the spring, berry picking, plant gathering (both for food and medicine), and salmon fishing in the summer, gathering various kinds of seafood in the fall and winter months, and ending in the dark cold months as the Tsimshian settled on their traditional winter hunting grounds for formal feasts. According to McDonald (1985) the current seasonal cycle of the Kitsumkalum First Nation is simple: i. Berry-collecting occurs as the resource ripens during the late spring and into the fall. ii. Seaweeds and seafood are gathered throughout the late spring and summer, as they become available. In addition to providing for community needs the Kitsumkalum First Nation also traded those resources, usually within large social gatherings, such as feasts. As well as being an opportunity for social interaction and cultural trading, feasts were, and still are, the foundation for the Kitsumkalum First Nation legal system. There was a great deal of social interaction and cultural borrowing among the First Nations up and down the coast with much of it through feast systems and seasonal gathering places. Food and wealth accumulated 20 during the previous summer were used as gifts and in feasting (Boas 1906, Garfield 1939, McDonald 1985). Most of the important Kitsumkalum First Nation ceremonies and potlatches, including house building, were held at the now abandoned winter village of Port Essington from November until February. It is important to note that prior to settlement, Port Essington was known as Spoksuut, a traditional fall camp and gathering place for many First Nations. Port Essington with its canneries settlement was established in the 1800's. Port Essington was vital to the fishing industry and at one time had three fish processing plants, which provided employment for many, including people of the Tsimshian First Nation who were much valued in the north coast cannery (Boas 1906, Garfield 1939, McDonald 1985). With the influx of traders, the Kitsumkalum First Nation found economic opportunity in trade. Before steamships began passing up the Skeena River the Kitsumkalum would also transport the traders and many other people and goods from the coast up to Hazelton and back. They later worked on the steamers that had replaced their canoes (McDonald 1985). Traditional Structures, Practices, and Governance The Tsimshian social/political organization is based upon the clan system, which is highly structured, matrilineal (family lines, crests, names, stories, and related territories are passed down through the mother), and hierarchal. In fact, all Kitsumkalum First Nation worldview and practices are imbued in the clans, house groups, territory, and adawx 21 (narratives/histories), which are intimately connected to the world in which Kitsumkalum live. The class structure was divided into graded ranks based on the importance of each title, in descent from people of noble lineage, such as titleholders, chiefs (Sm'ooygit I Sm'gyiget), and other headmen, to non-noble lineages, which include the commoners and the slaves (McDonald 1985). The chiefs stood at the head of house groups, which were and are associated with specific territories. These territories, their resources and the natural landmarks within, were defined by the story (adawx) that was attached to it. Families belong to these ancestral houses, and are one of four phratries (p'teex), or clans. These are the Ganhada (Raven), Gisbutwada (Killerwhale), Laxgibuu (Wolf), and Laxsgiik (Eagle). These house groups hold title and resource rights for specific areas of their tribal territory (laxyuup) (McDonald 1985). In the tradition of the Kitsurnkalum First Nation one's identity in the traditional system was determined matrilineally, through the mother's line. If your mother's mother was a Kitsumkalum First Nation member, so would you become one no matter where you resided. Alternatively, a person is a member of the Kitsurnkalum community if they are adopted into one of the community's clans at a feast ("Indian adoption"). These methods are still active in traditional Tsimshian Nation communities (McDonald 1985). Impacts of Colonization As the fur trade and gold rush eras passed, and the settlement period began, colonial policies 22 determined that the interrelations between Europeans (in particular, the British) and British Columbia First Nations moved from that of being fairly equitable and mutually beneficial to being regarded as a burden and an interference with the newly established colonial government and colonists. Poverty and displacement, in combination with the paternalistic attitudes and policies of the government in power, detrimentally affected almost every aspect of First Nation people's lives, including their structures of governance, economy, education, religion and family (Fisher 1990). The struggle for recognition of aboriginal sovereignty and rights has never stopped, with First Nations fighting to protect and maintain their ways of life. Their social and political institutions, material culture, and spiritual beliefs are based upon the viability of a way of life dependent on a land base and self-government (Asche 1999). Although First Nations were rendered politically impotent, this did not negate the assertion that Aboriginal rights exist, and have existed before and after European contact, acquisition and sovereignty ofNorth America (McKee 2000). There is a clear assertion that aboriginal people have a right to continue to live on their lands as their forefathers lived and that this right has never been lawfully extinguished (as assessed, for example, in cases like Calder v. Attorney General of British Columbia [1973] and Delgamuuk [1997]). Aboriginal rights protect and uphold First Nation cultural identity (Macklem 1991) and are delineated by the First Nations themselves through royal prerogatives and treaties, Canadian Common Law and the Constitution (Frideres 1996). Much of the recent case law has affirmed this fact for all First Nations (for example: R. vs. Vander Peet (1996), Delgamuukw 23 v. British Columbia (1997), Taku River Tlingit v. Ringstad (2002, 2004), and Haida Nation v. BC and Weyerhaeuser (2002, 2004)). Prior to contact, people of the Kitsumkalum First Nation were a thriving independent group that were sustained by the lands and waters on which they resided. This way of life was disrupted, but not eliminated, with the arrival of the Europeans. Although the Canadian government replaced the hereditary system with its own parliamentary and legal system, these principles of self-governance have survived into the modem era. Kitsumkalum First Nation is currently in the Tsimshian Treaty Process to regain enough of traditional territory to become self-sustaining in its ongoing effort toward self-determination and to be able to preserve the land and its resources for generations to come. The Tsimshian First Nations have never relinquished their title or rights to their territories. Modern Land Use Planning The Kitsumkalum First Nation recognizes that natural resources are a critical part of Kitsumkalum lives. Resources ofthe land were vital to every aspect ofKitsumkalum existence as they continue to be today. They provide human and natural communities with an array of products and services, and they are also a source of beauty and inspiration. Consequently, healthy, fully functioning ecosystems are a basis for community wellbeing. Good stewardship recognizes resource values by maintaining the ecological integrity of resources, minimizing negative impacts on biological diversity and respecting and conserving the economic value of resources now and for future generations. 24 Today, British Columbia provincial strategic LRMPs set most aspects of management direction for land and resource use on crown land from a largely scientific perspective. Strategic land use planning is a process for determining how land will be used, both now and in the future. The purpose of land use planning is to promote development of a shared vision. Through the land use planning process, needs are identified, land use zones are defined, objectives are set and strategies for managing resources in those zones are developed. The process is designed to help find balanced solutions to meet social, economic and environmental needs. Ultimately, these solutions are intended to provide land use certainty. Certainty, in turn, promotes investment opportunities and economic growth, and fosters the stability of jobs and communities. Just as important, land use planning helps protect the environment, as well as natural and cultural diversity (ILMB nd). During the development of the Provincial Kalum LRMP the Kitsumkalum First Nation noted that it could not participate in the provincial plan in any meaningful way. The Kitsumkalum First Nation was concerned that the provincial Kalum Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) would not take into account their needs, values, or TEK. The position of the Kitsumkalum First Nation is that it must continue to retain an interest in the whole of its traditional territory. From this perspective, a Kitsumkalum strategic land and resource management plan grounded in the policies, programs and practices of the Kitsumkalum First Nation will provide an integrated resource management tool that addresses a diversity of resource values and contributes to various economic, social, and environmental objectives. In fact, a land and resource management plan would create formal management direction for 25 the Kitsumkalum First Nation and provide a baseline for resource activities and resource ISSUeS . From the researchers personal work with the Kitsumkalum First Nation the importance of establishing a community-based land and resource management plan for their traditional territory was realized through numerous personal community presentations and discussions within the Kitsumkalum First Nation. It is clear that Kitsumkalum hope a formal land and resource management plan will lead to a new relationship between their community, the Government of Canada and the Province ofBritish Columbia, regarding the management of lands, water, resources, coastal areas and all activities occurring within Kitsumkalum First Nation tribal territories. Optimistically, a formal land use planning process would assert Kitsumkalum rights to land and resources, and incorporate and support, not interfere with, negotiations on Kitsumkalum self-government and treaty processes. Furthermore, consideration of traditional resource values within the Kitsumkalum First Nation Territory should ensure that Kitsumkalum concerns and interests in land and resource use are recognized as an integral part of Kitsumkalum culture, tradition, and quality of life. 26 CHAPTER FIVE: METHODS This study was conducted according to the concept of community-based collaborative research. The term "community-based" refers to communities having full and generally autonomous responsibility for the stewardship and use of natural resources. This approach has derived from or been modeled after indigenous systems of natural resource management, where local knowledge, norms and institutions have co-evolved over long periods of time with the ecosystem in question (Uphoff 1998). It involves, for example, the collaboration of First Nation community members, grassroots activists, community-based organizations, and :dition to experts represented by university researchers and ute 2002). Given the importance of community-based 1er discussion of this concept is provided in Chapter Six. ~ a review of academic TEK literature in the context of First tgement, a survey conducted by the researcher in 2005, and . Sources of primary data included both Kitsumkalum members CUJU -'.&'-' ........ - _ :duals who work on various aspects of resource and economic development within the Kitsumkalum traditional territory. The intent was to attain an understanding of the views ofKitsumkalum First Nation members as well as nonKitsumkalum First Nation individuals in regard to TEK. This approach was taken to determine if these diverse groups would provide multiple perspectives regarding TEK, or alternatively, if they would put forward a generally all-encompassing view acquired from working in the same general region. 27 Secondary Materials Starting in 2004 and continuing thru 2006 a range of TEK definitions were extracted from the academic literature. This review was not all inclusive given the time and scale dimensions ofthis project, however, an attempt was made to be as extensive as was realistic and included both academic journals and website resources (restricted to academic journals and various government sites to ensure a measure of reliability of sources used). In addition, much of the discussion in the literature seems to be relatively recent, having developed during the early 1990s and continuing to the present date. The TEK references reviewed were all selected from this time frame. The literature review is presented to illustrate the diversity of thought on TEK within published academic sources. Material collected from the survey of academic TEK researchers conducted in 2005 was utilized. Data collection was conducted by an email survey for which the questionnaire included six questions (Appendix 1). The definitions applied to each word category in questions 5 and 6 from the questionnaire are listed in Appendix 2. Researchers were contacted based on their publication activity and/or their participation in previous workshops in this field of study, as determined though a literature search of TEK. Although TEK is a complex issue, all questions within the questionnaire were kept deliberately simple. The intent was to see what level of agreement or disagreement researchers had upon the very basic principles they identified in their research regarding indigenous knowledge, and not to get into a complex philosophical debate or discussion on 28 the matter. The questionnaire was constructed with four qualitative and two quantitative questions for two purposes: First, since the researcher was examining other researchers' views on TEK, it was inappropriate to presuppose their responses. Therefore the qualitative section was designed to elicit genuine or original knowledge ofthe subject from respondents. Furthermore, Questions 1 - 3 were designed specifically so that researchers could freely discuss their views of"tradition", the characteristics that distinguish TEK from WSK and the common characteristics of these knowledge systems. Secondly, the quantitative questions were designed so that a correlation analysis could be conducted of researcher responses to statistically determine the level of agreement or disagreement between respondents. The TEK and WSK categories for questions 5 and 6 were attained through a general content analysis of the academic TEK researcher literature that will be discussed later in Chapter Seven. From the literature review two references were specifically referred to since they most clearly identified the differing characteristics of TEK versus WSK. One list is from the article Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Perspective (Berkes 1993) published in Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Concepts and Cases, ed. J. T. Inglis (Table 1). The other list is presented in Handbook for Culturally-Responsive Science Curriculum (Stephens 2000), published by the Alaska Science Consortium and the Alaska Rural Systemic Initiative (Figure 2). It is of note that Stephens (2000) chart is the only one I identified within the 29 - Table 1: Ed. Julian T. Inglis. International Program on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and International Development Research Centre. Ottawa. TEK differs from scientific ecological knowledge in a number of substantive ways: 1 TEK is mainly gualitative (as opposed to guantitative); 2 TEK has an intuitive component (as opposed to being purely rational); 3 TEK is holistic (as opposed to reductionist); 4 5 6 7 8 9 In TEK, mind and matter are considered together (as opposed to a se2aration of mind and matter); TEK is moral (as opposed to supposedly value-free); TEK is SQiritual (as opposed to mechanistic); TEK is based on empirical observations and accumulation of facts by trial-and-error (as opposed to experimentation and systematic, deliberate accumulation of fact); TEK is based on data generated by resource users themselves (as opposed to that by a SQecialized cadre of researchers); TEK is based on diachronic data, i.e., long time-series on information on one locality (as opposed to synchronic data, i.e., short time-series over a large area). 30 Traditional Native Knowledge • part to whole • holistic • includes phusical & metaphysical world linked to moral code • emphasis on practical application of skills and knowledge • trust for inherited wisdom • respect for all things • w1iversie is unified • body of knowledge stable but subject to modification . limited to evidence and explanation within physical world • emphasis on understanding how Habits ofMind • honesty, inuisitiveness • perserverance • open-mindedness • skepticism Slc'ills and Procedures • practical experimentation • empirical observation in natural settings • pattern recognition • verification through repetition • inference and predicition • tools expand scale of direct and indirect observation & measurement . local verification • hypothesis falsification • cmmnunication of metaphor • global verification & story connected to life . • quantitative written record Knowledge values, and proper behavior • communication of • plant and animal behavior, chcles, procedures, evidence and habitat needs, interdependence theory • properties of objects and materials • position and motion of • discipline-based objects • integrated and applied to • micro and macro theory daily living and traditional cell biology & physiology, (e.g. subsistence practices atomic theory, plate tectonics, etc.) • qualitative oral record • mathematical models Figure 2: Proposed Differences and Commonalities of TEK with WSK (Stephens 2000) 31 literature that also presented common ground between TEK and WSK. Stephens (2000) list ofTEK and WSK commonalities will be discussed further, later in this paper. Once a list of researchers was established through a literature search on TEK, an extensive web search was conducted to locate their present locations and email addresses. In total 64 researchers were identified and located, and they were sent the questionnaire by email. Of the 64 researchers who were sent the questionnaire, 9 were returned as undeliverable, leaving a total of 55 possible respondents. The results attained from this questionnaire illustrated the current range of confusion, uncertainty, and diversity of thought among academics specializing in TEK. A third data source was a review ofKitsumkalum First Nation cultural heritage, economics, worldview, traditional structures and practices, governance, impact of colonization, and land use planning initiatives. Materials were selected from published and archival materials, as well as from the author's personal experience working in the Kitsumkalum Treaty Office from 2001 to the present. Primary Data Collection Data collection was conducted in an interview format. The author personally implemented, recorded, transcribed and analyzed responses to a preset list of questions from a questionnaire (Appendix 3). The questionnaire design was based on the academic TEK researcher survey and contained both open-ended (qualitative) and close-ended (quantitative) 32 questions. There was confusion associated with the early survey regarding the meaning of the terms used in the questionnaire. Therefore, this study used simpler synonyms for many of the terms. In all cases a definition of each term was provided regarding the authors understanding of its meaning. For instance, when a participant was asked whether they thought either TEK or WSK was 'Legitimate' the question was qualified by adding that to the researcher "legitimate" means 'being in accordance with established or accepted principles, patterns, rules and standards of society'. Further, as with the previous survey, the qualitative section was designed to elicit genuine knowledge of the subject from respondents so that they could freely discuss their views of TEK terminology, the characteristics that distinguish TEK from WSK, as well as their understanding of the common characteristics and/or differences in these knowledge systems. The quantitative questions for the TEK survey conducted within the Kitsumkalum traditional territory were designed so that a correlation analysis could be conducted regarding participant responses to determine the relationship and/or understandings ofTEK and WSK between each participant and respondent group. As with the academic TEK survey, the categories for the quantitative questions in the survey conducted within the Kitsumkalum traditional territory were obtained from a general content analysis of researcher literature on TEK, in particular from Stephens (2000) and Berkes (1993), since these two researchers clearly defined the differences between TEK and WSK. Kitsumkalum First Nation members were categorized by community members into three subsets: 33 1. Current elected Chief and Council, 11. Hereditary Chiefs, who are Sm' ooygit and sit on the Kitsumkalum Board of Directors, 111. Band Members, other than from 1 and 2 above. The need to establish these three sub-groups was based on two factors . Firstly, the probability was that each group would have very different perspectives, given their various backgrounds, levels of experience, and responsibilities to the community, and therefore they would likely have quite different (current) views ofTEK. Second, it was desirable not to skew the sample by selecting participants from only one segment ofthe Kitsumkalum First Nation and possibly attaining only one perspective ofTEK, rather than a general overall understanding of it within the community. Chief and Council are from the general First Nation community select through governmentally regulated elections. That is, Chief and Council are the individuals who form the government for their First Nation as recognized by the federal government of Canada. However, an elected Chief and Council is not the traditional system of most First Nations and within Kitsumkalum First Nation, as with many other aboriginal groups, the Chief and Council are considered one of two governing bodies for their communities. The other group from the traditional governance system of First Nations consists of the Hereditary Chiefs. Hereditary Chiefs who are Sm'ooygit are the highest-ranking Chiefs and speak for the head of their p'teex (clan). These leaders are the members who form the Board 34 of Directors within their communities and represent the traditional side of the community. Smgyigyet (Chiefs) traditionally maintained rights over issues of resource management and land ownership and there is an attempt to continue the practice of this system today. Ultimately, however, it is the Chief and Council who are recognized by Indian and Northern Affairs of Canada as the governing body. If, as within the Kitsumkalum First Nation, the Chief and Council choose to acknowledge the authority of the Hereditary Chiefs, and accept their advice on resource management and land ownership issues, they can and will work cooperatively, but decisions by the elected Chief and Council are final. The third subset consists of the general population ofKitsumkalum First Nation Band Members, which includes both on-reserve and off-reserve individuals. Given the limits of time, scope and finances of this study however, only members of the Kitsumkalum First Nation currently residing in the vicinity of the village ofKitsumkalum and the city of Terrace were approached. In addition, Band Members were selected only if they were listed on the Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) derived band membership held by the Kitsumkalum Administration Office. This process was followed to ensure that participants were hereditary members born into the community and not, for instance, married into the community. Persons who married into the community would most likely have quite different views and opinions on TEK than those born into the community and raised and taught by it. In order to identify factors that might influence the perspectives of individual Kitsumkalum First Nation members, information on gender, age, and past and current employment were collected. For example, it is anticipated that men and women would have quite different 35 perspectives given the different roles they play within the community. In addition, older individuals would have a different life experience from the younger population, which is assumed to be more assimilated into mainstream Western society, and individuals working in the Administration Office are likely more aware of current issues and policy affecting their community. It was also assumed that an individual's past and/or current employment may have influenced their perspectives and understanding regarding TEK. Members were classified into three age groups: 17 and under, 18 to 65, and over 65. This classification was for convenience and in general refers to the age of youth, full-time employed adults, and retired individuals. A person working on treaty issues, or one who had done so, would certainly have a view different from that of a general band member who practiced TEK but did not analyze or understand its importance from a management perspective. The comparison group, non-Kitsumkalum First Nation individuals that work on resource and economic development in the Kitsumkalum traditional territory, were selected based on their known research activity for the Kitsumkalum First Nation, as identified through discussion with the Chief and Council, the Treaty Office and other band members who provided information in this regard. The authors own experience with the Kitsumkalum First Nation over the past several years also provided substantial knowledge about researchers working with, or for, the Kitsumkalum First Nation. As previously noted, several elementary factors, including time constraints, financial 36 considerations, and the scope of the Non-thesis research project in the UNBC MNRES program, heavily influenced decisions made about sample size and collection. First, five participants were selected from Non-Kitsumkalum researchers and seven from Kitsumkalum First Nation (one Chief, one Councillor, two Hereditary Chiefs, and three general band members). Second, individuals within the 18 - 65 age class were selected only if they were employed. This group was the easiest to contact and meet. Third, participants were selected randomly regardless of gender and therefore the genders are not represented equally within the sample. These decisions were made because in striving for depth the study had to make the trade-off for breadth. Qualitative Analysis For the qualitative analysis, methods considered included: thematic analysis, content analysis, and cultural consensus analysis. A literature review of library and web resources for these techniques was conducted to assist in selecting the most applicable method for the sample size and data collected. Thematic Analysis - Performing a thematic analysis involves several steps. The first step is to collect the data, preferably with the use of audiotapes in order to study the interview (Spradley 1979). From the transcribed conversation experiential patterns can be listed from direct quotes or paraphrasing of common ideas (Aronson 1994). The next step is to identify all data that relates to the identified patterns or themes (Aronson 1992 and 1994). Themes are developed from ideas or experiences that are often meaningless when viewed 37 independently (Leininger 1985). Next, themes are combined and catalogued into related patterns of meta-themes. In the gathering of meta-themes to obtain a comprehensive view of the information patterns begin to emerge. When patterns emerge it is best to obtain feedback from the informants about them, which can be done as the interview is taking place. The interviewer uses participant feedback to establish the next set of questions in the interview. Building a valid argument for choosing the themes is done by reading the related literature. By referring back to the literature, the interviewer gains information to make inferences from the interview. Once the themes have been collected and the literature has been studied, the researcher can formulate theme statements. A developed story line helps the reader comprehend the process, understanding, and motivation ofthe interviewer (Aronson 1994). Thematic analysis was conducted on the interview transcripts, but not in its truest sense, since participant feedback was not sought following the interview. However, given the general theme of the questionnaire and the relative brevity of the interviews, feedback was deemed not to be necessary. Content Analysis - Content analysis is a research tool used to determine the presence of certain words or concepts within texts or sets of texts. To conduct a content analysis on any such text, the text is coded or broken down into manageable categories on a variety of levels--word, word sense, phrase, sentence, or theme- and then examined using one of the basic methods of content analysis: conceptual analysis or relational analysis. In conceptual analysis, a concept is chosen for examination, and the analysis involves quantifying and tallying its presence. The process of coding is basically one of selective reduction. Relational analysis also begins with the act of identifying concepts present in a given text or 38 set of texts. However, relational analysis seeks to go beyond presence by exploring the relationships between the concepts identified. The focus of relational analysis is to look for semantic, or meaningful, relationships (Palmquist, Carley, and Dale 1997). Content analysis offers several advantages. It looks directly at communication via texts or transcripts. It can allow for both quantitative and qualitative operations. Finally, it can alternate between specific categories and relationships. However, content analysis also suffers from several limitations. In particular, content analysis can be extremely time consuming and often disregards the context that produced the text, as well as the state of things after the text is produced (Palmquist, Carley, and Dale 1997). A combination of conceptual and relational Content Analysis was conducted qualitatively on the interview transcripts through manual coding and the use of a software program called TextAnz (TextAnz nd) . Cultural Consensus Analysis - Grant and Miller (2004) identify cultural consensus analysis as a formal and mathematically warranted procedure for examining a database consisting of respondents "true-false" judgements about a set of propositions. According to Sobo and de Munch (1998), it was originally conceived to be used in the field of anthropology when "thick description" was more the researcher' s concern than probability or generalization. Since the propositions are concerned with a set of belief 'that is, what people assume to be true or false' cultural consensus analysis may provide some useful insight into respondent opinions. Further, Shim (2004) notes that compared with other research methods 39 often used in social science studies, consensus analysis usually works well with small samples. Consensus analysis does three things. It tests the degree of agreement among informants regarding the things that supposedly belong in a common cultural category. It measures the cultural knowledge of each informant about the topic under consideration. Depending on the understandings among informants, it allows the researcher to estimate culturally defined right answers estimated from the consensus (Dressler 1996). One of the Limitations of consensus analysis is that it requires considerable expertise in its use and is difficult to apply. Consequently, consensus analysis was not used to analyze the research data presented in this paper. Quantitative Analysis Content analysis was conducted quantitatively on the interview transcripts derived from the TEK survey completed within the Kitsumkalum traditional territory, the academic TEK Definitions, and the academic TEK researcher Survey, through the use of the software program called Diction (Diction nd). Diction uses a series of thirty-one dictionaries to search a passage for thirty-five variables compiled into five Master Variables and four Calculated Variables. Appendix 4 presents an overview of the properties for the Diction dictionaries and a description of the scores calculated by Diction. 40 CHAPTER SIX: COMMUNITY-BASED RESEARCH Given the importance of community-based research for the empowerment of all First Nation communities moving towards self-governance, especially in regard to natural resource management decisions, the Kitsumkalum First Nation considers this approach essential for all research and researchers within its traditional territory. Community-based research is conducted by, for, or with the participation of community members and it builds on the wisdom, social resiliency and cultural integrity of local communities in the way that they make a living from the land, the water and the air that surrounds them (Macintosh and Kearney 2002). It is generally broken into two categories: Community-Placed and Community-Centered. Community-Placed is research that takes place within a community. Community-Centred is research that is based in the community's experiences, agendas and cultural values (McDonald et al. 2004). In addition, the movement toward more locally based, collaborative decision-making processes for management of natural resources can be organized into the four general categories (Carr and Halvorsen 2001) as described below. 1. The value of local decision-making processes have positive effects beyond the actual outcomes of the process by empowering communities to participate more fully in subsequent decisions. According to Brosius and Tsing (1998) community-based research is based on the premises that local populations and communities have a greater interest in the sustainable use of resources than do the state or distant corporate managers; are more cognizant of the intricacies of local ecological processes and practices; and are better able to effectively manage those resources through local or traditional forms of access. 41 Community-based research is not simply the devolution of responsibility to communities. It is a result of discussions and negotiation, seeking agreement on terms and conditions that are not unilaterally determined and whose fulfillment is collaboratively reviewed and assessed (Uphoff 1998). Proponents of community-based resource management argue that situating decision-making closer to the place of resource use and subjecting decision-makers to the repercussions of their decisions creates the potential for more flexible and prudent resource management. Further, greater community stability may potentially be achieved by empowering communities to develop their own strategies for local economic development (Bradshaw 2003). 2. The value of locally appropriate solutions. Intimate knowledge of the decision-making context that is part of locally led decision-making processes can yield outcomes that are better suited to local social, economic, political, and ecological conditions (Brosius and Tsing 1998). Managing natural resources involves understanding and manipulating complex systems containing both human and natural components. To manage these systems, groups with divergent interests and expertise are often called upon to work together. Each group involved in a collaborative effort will have its own interests and expertise. The creation of knowledge and the standards that determine its validity will also be unique to each group. Collaborative methods have arisen as part of the trend toward greater valuation of local knowledge (Blumenthal and Jannink 2000). 3. The practice of participatory democracy. People move beyond simple compromises to achieve solutions that are better than what any individual interest can create. A participatory 42 perspective recognizes that planning is a social, political, and economic process in addition to being a scientific endeavour. Participation serves several practical purposes in collaborative management (Gray 1989). Multiple perspectives can lead to the recognition of different values, interests and concerns involved in managing a set of natural resources, both within and outside the local community (Anderson et al. 1998). 4. Developing integrated and sustainable management alternatives. Emphasis is on integrating physical, biological, and social dimensions of ecosystems to devise sustainable alternatives for resource management, with a focus on the integration of community wellbeing, citizen participation, and ecosystem sustainability (Uphoff 1998). Objectives of Community-Based Research Community-based research is crucial for incorporating community knowledge and values into projects, political goals, and building sustainable and healthy communities. Communitybased research means more than just research based in the community. In the context of resource management it implies a research plan created as a result of community involvement and designed to match community interests (Amudavi and Mango 2004). Community-based research also implies the attainment of adequate and stable returns from the harvesting of local resources without irreparably damaging the resource base (Bradshaw 2003) in order to build self-sustaining local economics and sustainable alternative livelihoods (Macintosh and Kearney 2002). The main aim is to mobilize people for collective action, empowerment and institution-building (Pretty 1995, Chambers 1989, Nyden 2003). 43 Combining scientific and traditional monitoring methods can not only build partnerships and community consensus but also, and more importantly, allow indigenous users to critically evaluate scientific predictions on their own terms and test sustainability using their own forms of management (Moller et al. 2004), which involves creating mechanisms that validate, apply, and strengthen local knowledge concerning ecosystems and how they may be best managed to ensure their own sustainability and that of communities that interact with them (Amudavi and Mango 2004). Community-based research puts the process of producing knowledge into the hands of the community (Sclove et al. 1998). Participation is key to research, as the group, organisation or community members are ideally engaged in every step of the research process, including defining the research problem, deciding on the research methods to be used, collecting data, carrying out interpretation and analysis, disseminating research results and taking action (Greenwood and Levin 1998, Stringer 1999). Community based research incorporates socioeconomic equity concerns and confronts questions about who is included and who benefits. It focuses on knowledge generation not as an end itself but as a means to empower people to change the circumstances oftheir existence (Tom and Sork 1994) and advocates strong value commitments from communities themselves to control the use and management of resources (Macintosh and Kearney 2002). A community-based approach recognizes and reinforces the stakeholder role of people living 44 in, on and around vulnerable natural resources, both for these people's sake and for that of future generations, for people living in the immediate area but also in the rest ofthe country and the rest ofthe world (Uphoff 1998). It often involves the collaboration of community members who are lay people with experts in academic fields (Pretty 1995). Increasingly, community-based research is being carried out through community-university partnerships in which the research and course-work of undergraduate and graduate students is integrated with the research needs of community organisations, providing much-needed intellectual resources to community groups while giving students invaluable experience in applying their academic skills (McDonald et al. 2004, Savan and Sider 2003). Rather than directing or controlling the research agenda and process, the role of university or other external researchers is that of facilitators, teachers and resource persons (Greenwood and Levin 1998, Stringer 1999). Community-based research enables integration of processes. In fact, a critical feature of community-based research is its inclusiveness. Community-based research collaboration on information sharing and gathering is a process that involves different interest groups constructively exploring their differences and aims, and then seeking a vision and solutions agreeable to all parties (Petheram et al. 2003). Collaboration involves more than just organised participation - because, in collaborative management, stakeholders must come to the table with a desire to develop shared goals and then work out strategies for achieving those goals (Gray 1989). 45 Community Since the concept of community is not essential (key) to the present study no attempt has been made within this project to define community beyond the discussion provided here. Attempting to define "What is Community?" goes well beyond the scope of this research, and in fact, there is a huge volume of literature on it. Readers interested in further information on the discussion of Community should therefore refer to the literature on the topic. That being stated, a brief discussion of the concept is necessary, since the sample selected for this study will be drawn from the Kitsurnkalum First Nation community, or rather, several subsets of the larger Kitsurnkalum First Nation community. Some explanation is necessary, therefore, in order to clarify the study population that was sampled. The concept of community is a sociological construct with fuzzy boundaries. Communities are not the same as human individuals, but grow and change by their own sets of principles; they have a life that goes beyond the sum of all the lives of all its residents. A community is not a harmonious unity, it is full of factions, struggles and conflicts, based upon differences in gender, religion, access to wealth, class, ethnicity, education level, income, ownership of capital, and many other factors (Bartle 2005). In general, a community denotes a group of persons living within a territorially defined area, such as a town or neighbourhood. An idealized sense of community by one of its members is characterized by a perception of similarity to others, an acknowledged interdependence with others, a willingness to maintain this interdependence by giving to or doing for others what 46 one expects from them, and the sense by the member that one is part of a larger structure. It is regularly assumed that members of a community have, as part oftheir shared interests, an intense concern for the particular place where they live. However, a community is not a static, isolated group ofpeople. Communities are multidimensional, cross-scale, sociopolitical units or networks changing through time (Berkes 2004, Carlsson 2000). People currently residing in the Kitsumkalum community who belong to other First Nation communities or are of other First Nation ancestry have the opportunity to become members of Kitsumkalum by being adopted into one of the Kitsumkalum four clans. Kitsumkalum members that reside in other communities, who might not be on the band list, would have the opportunity to participate in Kitsumkalum community life. People who were adopted out of Kitsumkalum would have the opportunity to be adopted back as a Kitsumkalum member. The problem today is that not even the Kitsumkalum First Nation knows who all its members are. Thus, it tends to rely on the Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) defined band list for its membership. As a result, given the complexity of answering the question of who, exactly, constitutes a member of the Kitsumkalum First Nation, and consequently what members comprise the entire 'community', the sample for this study was recruited from hereditary members listed on the INAC defined band list. Consequently, when the term 'Kitsumkalum Community' is used in this study it refers only to those members listed on the INAC band list. 47 CHAPTER SEVEN: ACADEMIC TEK LITERATURE REVIEW TEK literature reveals that the incorporation ofTEK within the larger First Nation land and resource management-planning framework is rare. There is TEK literature that deals with various aspects of land or resource management, including indigenous knowledge within numerous resource contexts, scientific land and resource management, and a range of comanagement issues, but most research does not examine land and resource planning holistically with both traditional and scientific characteristics. Further, definitions are incomplete (Rahman 2000) and there is much disagreement in regard to the meaning ofTEK or its application among academic researchers. For example, Table 2 presents the disparate terms relating to TEK as discussed in the literature by different researchers. Each term appears to apply to traditional based knowledge of a particular group, although each term also appears to refer to a slightly different expression for the meaning of that knowledge. Furthermore, the holistic, integrated blend of culture, spirit and resource use and management that First Nations employ in carrying out TEK is not present. Hawley et al. (2004), however, state that it is worth noting that it is not aboriginal people, but, nonaboriginal people who have put forward the majority ofTEK definitions. The wording ofTEK definitions also differ in their structure, for example, Johnson (1992, 5) stated that TEK is "cumulative and dynamic, building upon the experience of earlier generations and adapting to the new technological and socioeconomic changes of the present". Although similar, Berkes' (1993) definition differs in its wording. He states that TEK is "a cumulative body ofknowledge, practice and belief, handed down through 48 T abl e 2 : T ra d"ttiona . I Kn owe I dtge T ermmo ogy Aboriginal Knowledge (Usher 2000) Community Knowledge (Gupta nd, Wilson 2000) Customary Law (Hawley et al2004, Johnson 1992, McFetridge and Howell2001) Ecological folk Knowledge (Jentoft 1999) Ecological Knowledge (Ruddle 1993, Sinclair 1999, Wilson 2000) Environmental Knowledge (Ruddle 1993) Ethno-ecology (Hawley eta!. 2004, Johnson 1992) Farmer's or Pastoralist's Knowledge (Langill2005) First People's Knowledge (Reid eta!. 2002) Folk Ecology (Hawley eta!. 2004, Johnson 1992) Folk Knowledge (Dadgil eta!. 2000, McFetridge and Howell2001) Folkloric Knowledge (Gupta nd) Indigenous Ecological Knowledge (Gupta nd, Johnson 1992, Reid eta!. 2002) Indigenous Knowledge (DeGuchteneire eta!. 1999, Gupta nd; Heyd 2000, Johnson 1992, Langill2005, McFetridge and Howell2001, Rahman 2000) Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices (DeGuchteneire et a!. 1999) Indigenous People's Knowledge (Hawley eta!. 2004) Indigenous Technological Knowledge (DeGuchteneire eta!. 1999, Langill2005) Knowledge of the Land (Hawley eta!. 2004, Johnson 1992, McFetridge and Howell2001) Local Knowledge (DeGuchteneire eta!. 1999, Gupta nd, Heyd 2000, Jentoft 1999, Langill2005, Rahman 2000, Usher 2000, Wilson 2000) Local Ecological Knowledge (Bear 2000) Local Environmental Knowledge(Reid et a!. 20021 Local Technical Knowledge (Gupta nd) Naturalized Knowledge (McFetridge and Howell2001) Non-Western Indigenous Knowledge (Reid eta!. 2002) Practical Knowledge (Jentoft 1999) Rural Knowledge (Langill2005, Ruddle 1993) Traditional Knowledge (DeGuchteneire eta!. 1999, Heyd 2000, McFetridge and Howe112001, Rahman 2000, Sinclair 1999, Usher 2000, Wilson 2000) Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) (Bear 2000, Hawley et a!. 2004, Johnson 1992, Wilson 2000, McFetridge and Howe112001, Reid eta!. 2002, Usher 2000, Watson eta!. 2003) Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Wisdom (Watson eta!. 2003) Traditional Environmental Knowledge (Langill 2005, McFetridge and Howell2001) Traditional Environmental Knowledge and Management Systems (Hawley et al. 2004) 49 generations by cultural transmission, about the relationship of living beings (including humans) with one another and with their environment" (Berkes 1993, 3). Peiera (1999, 2) simply states that TEK is a "Cumulative and adaptive body ofknowledge that is associated with indigenous people's world wide". Femadez-Gimenez (2000, 1) expands on all ofthese by stating that TEK consists of "biophysical observations, skills, and technologies, as well as social relationships, such as norms and institutions that structure human-environmental interactions ... transferred from one generation to the next, representing cumulative local knowledge, but is modified and amended as a result of new experiences and observations". One major difference with this latter definition is that Femadez-Gimenez (2000) puts in a qualifier, 'local', which is not in the other definitions. Inglis (1993, vi) states that TEK is "the knowledge base acquired by indigenous and local people over many hundreds of years through direct contact with the environment. Corsiglia and Snively ( 1997, 1) also note that TEK is "knowledge and experience that has been acquired over thousands of years of direct human contact with specific environments" but they also add that it is combined with "current observation". Stephens (2000, 13) definition also notes that TEK is acquired "over time by observations of nature", but adds an interesting perspective by stating that it is obtained through "trial and error, dogged persistence and flashes of inspiration". Usher (2000, 186) states that TEK is "the knowledge claims of those who have a lifetime of observation and experience of a particular environment and as a result function very effectively in that environment", but adds that it is attained by those "who are untutored in the conventional scientific paradigm" (Usher 2000, 186). 50 Other definitions include those by Stiplen and Deweerdt (2001, 2), who state that TEK is "the body of information about the natural world that is developed and refined through centuries of empirical observation by indigenous people". Butler and Menzies (2002, 2) state that TEK is "the knowledge and beliefs that indigenous peoples hold of their environments ... handed down through the generations". The Gwich'in Tribal Council (2004, 3) policy statement identifies TEK as "that body of knowledge, values, beliefs and practices passed from one generation to another by oral means or through learned experience, observation and spiritual teachings". Turner (ND, 72) states that, TEK "embodies - as well as philosophies and practical strategies for sustainable living - ways of communicating knowledge, ideas, and information within families and communities, and from one generation to the next". Freeman ( 1992, 1) states that TEK is "more than merely esoteric; it is directed toward gaining a useful understanding of how ecological systems generally work, to how many of the key components of the total ecosystem interrelate, and how predictive outcomes in respect to matters of practical concern can best be effected". The approach of McFetridge and Howell (2001, 4) is that TEK is "generated through everyday experiences and observations on the landscape, and is directly related to the health and longevity of the cultures and languages that support it". Several other definitions include such phrases as: -"The result of a continuous process of experimentation, innovation, and adaptation" (DeGuchteneire et al. 1999, 4); -"Tend to see connections between the 'natural' and 'supernatural"' (Lertzman 2002, 30); 51 -"Based on experiences; practical, iterative, and rooted in a particular place" (Shukla 2004, 6); -"Reflects belief systems and ways of life that are distinct from modem, industrial belief systems and ways of life" (Bruyere and Bergland nd, 59); and, -"A knowledge-practice-belief complex" (Davidson-Hunt and Berkes nd, 81). Sinclair (1999, 2) identifies TEK as "a form of ecological knowledge most intimate in and sensitive to the relation of ... resource harvesting to the livelihood, practices, needs and demands of community-based, native and commercial resource harvesters." Wilson (2000) emphasises how TEK is rooted in a long community memory. Watson et al. (2003, 10) call TEK "a quantitative source of information that could probably be retained as a significant part of traditional lifestyles outside of wilderness." Usher (2000, 184) notes that TEK "is conceived of as something specific to place, if not also to particular people, and it is differentiated presumably in both form and content from other types of knowledge generally and from science specifically." Heyd (2000, 4) states that Indigenous Knowledge is "knowledge held by Indigenous people, where 'Indigenous' stands for aboriginal, native or autochthonous people." He is referring here to "people who comprise the descendants of the original inhabitants of a land" (Heyd 2000, 4). He adds to this description that a "crucial ingredient leading to the adoption ofland ethic lies in the particular ways of knowing that issue in Indigenous knowledge" (Heyd 2000, 1); whereas, Shikla (2004) says that TEK is a sub-set ofindigenous Knowledge. 52 Langill (2005) uses the term Indigenous Knowledge interchangeably with Local Knowledge, but adds that Indigenous Knowledge refers to the original occupants of an area, while Local Knowledge refers to people who have resided in an area for a long period of time. DeGuchteneire et al. (1999, 4) equate Indigenous Knowledge with Traditional Knowledge and Local Knowledge, which is "embedded in the community and is unique to a given culture, location or society ... developed outside the formal educational system, and that enables communities to survive." Heyd (2000) states that Local Knowledge is Indigenous knowledge held in a particular locale no matter how recent the people's arrival. Bear (2000) states that in the context of indigenous people the defining ofTEK has led to an association with the term 'local'. However, according to Bear (2000, 2), these "terms are not interchangeable." He feels that Local Ecological Knowledge (LEK) includes TEK, since TEK is not wholly local but may "include knowledge of the ecology and environment through indirect contact" (Bear 2000, 2). Zwanenburg (1999) states that Local Knowledge can be classified as both quantitative knowledge and qualitative knowledge; the meaning of quantitative knowledge is noted as relating to information gathered by measuring things and qualitative knowledge is information which is not gathered by measuring things. Zwanenburg (1999) also describes Local Knowledge as being both historical and current. Wilson (2000) identifies Local Knowledge as being place-based knowledge. Similarly, Jentoft (1999) says Local Knowledge is knowledge derived from a specific locale. Langill (2005, 2) expands on Local 53 Knowledge somewhat by defining it as the knowledge of any people that have resided "in an area for a long period of time." In regard to other terminology, Ruddle (1993) states that Ecological Knowledge and Environmental Knowledge includes the social environment. In particular, Ecological Knowledge "implies ... awareness in a given society of the systemic interaction among the components of an environment and he says it is "an ethnoecological construct" (Ruddle 1993, 18) and that in the absence ofthis construct "the topic is really Traditional Environmental Knowledge" (Ruddle 1993, 18). Watson et al. (2003, 1) state TEK, through "traditional relationships with nature", can be expanded to Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Wisdom. They posit that Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Wisdom go beyond quantitative descriptions of those relationships to include wisdom "acquired through understanding and maintaining these relationships in a complex system" (Watson et al. 2003). Wilson (2000) states Indigenous Knowledge is knowledge situated in a culture. TEK "does not consist merely of personal observation or opinion ... TEK becomes authoritative in aboriginal communities through continuity and sharing of experience, through telling and retelling" (Usher 2000, 188). "Just as traditional knowledge and its transmission shape society and culture, culture and society shape knowledge" (Ruddle 1993, 18). 54 Bourgeois (2002, 3 8) states, the "traditional information that I hold wasn ' t just given to me overnight. It was a long process of listening and learning and requiring a lifetime commitment" . Ruddle ( 1993, 18) states that, "the transmission of traditional knowledge has fundamental socio-cultural importance to any society". He further adds that TEK focuses on community priorities within a local context (Ruddle 1993). Sorsiglia and Snively (1997, 1) also note that, "stories and testimonies of indigenous peoples are usually related to the context of the home place". Bourgeois (2002, 36) adds to these points that "when we talk about First Nations community, we talk about that band and everybody in it, including people who belong to the band who are not necessarily living there". If TEK is contextual then it can be stated that "the way indigenous peoples view the world and their role in it greatly influences how they approach problems, resolve issues, gather information and ... manage ... resources" within the social environment of their communities (Lambrou 1997, 4). In fact, it is the context of this learning process that is so important to the understanding of Indigenous Knowledge. This is certainly true in regard to the diffusion of TEK, which "is a complex and fundamental process embedded within the deep sociocultural structure" (Ruddle 1993, 24). In addition, an element that is fundamental "to the protection of traditional knowledge is the preservation of language in its cultural context [since] language is the primary basis by which knowledge is passed on within any culture" (McFetridge and Howell2001 , 15). This is a position upheld by Brockman (1997, 3) who states that, "without our language, we will cease to exist as a separate People". The above 55 points are summed up quite succinctly by the statement that "all aspects of traditional Aboriginal life are integrated, such that specific information about resources is only one component of TEK Management Systems and is not separable from all other aspects of life. Thus, TEK Management Systems are not a part of traditional Aboriginal culture, they are traditional Aboriginal culture". (Hawley et al. 2004, 41) A further term, Folk Knowledge, is defined by Gadgil et al. (2000, 1307) as "maintained, transmitted, and augmented almost entirely in the course of applying it in practice; it lacks a formal, institutionalized process for handling .... [and is] highly sensitive to changing relationships between people and their ecological resource base." Jentoft (1999, 5) defines traditional knowledge as Ecological Folk Knowledge, which he suggests is broad, inclusive and attained from experience, but he adds that users of the term do not "always agree on what is valid Ecological Folk Knowledge." Johnson (1992, 5) notes that some prefer the use of the term Indigenous Ecological Knowledge (IEK), since it avoids the debate over "traditional" and "explicitly emphasizes indigenous people." Bear (2000, 2) states that "the term 'traditional' is perhaps confusing as it suggests knowledge gained purely from the past. Although this is an important element, 'tradition' is adaptable and, as such, draws on the contemporary experiences of the knowledge-holders." Wilson (2000, 1) also prefers to use Indigenous Ecological Knowledge, since it "emphasizes the cultural while referring indirectly to both the traditional and placebased nature of the knowledge." Hawley et al. (2004, 38) preferred the term Traditional Ecological Knowledge Management Systems, because "it recognizes the ancestral roots of 56 the concept, and it better reflects the full integration of knowledge and practice." However, as Huntington (2005, 1) states, "different ways of studying traditional knowledge are more a product of different academic perspectives than of qualities inherent to traditional knowledge". Several researchers itemize characteristics specific to TEK, which Table 3 summarizes by the key authors. One consistent TEK characteristic between the researchers in Table 3 is 'knowledge of environment.' However, other than knowledge of environment, the only other characteristics noted more than once are local (twice) and worldview (twice), with all other characteristic defined in Table 3 being quite disparate. Reid et al. (2002, 7-8) put forward what they see as six recurring themes in the dispute over the differing concepts of what represents TEK; Table 4 summarizes these themes. This table provides a unique insight into the problems inherent with integrating TEK and WSK and focuses on such concepts as 'opposition', 'resistance', 'reconcilability', and 'misunderstanding' of different ways of knowing. Consequently, Reid et al. (2002) see the integration of these two systems of knowledge as being complicated by their vast dissimilarity. Berkes (1993, 4) presents nine fundamental elements in Table 5 that he considers differentiate TEK from WSK. Rahman's (2000, 4) distinctions between Traditional Knowledge and Scientific Knowledge are presented in Table 6. Brascoupe and Mann (2001, 4), add a third element to Berkes ( 1993) and Rahman (200)), which is the factor involved in 57 )y ey Ath e 1ge bK I 1083 IE co og1ca IK now ld u ors Ta bl e 3 : Ch aractenstics o fT ra dT Knowledge about the environment; Knowledge about the use of the environment; Values about the environment; The knowledge system. TEKis: Usher (2000, 1): Butler and Menzies (2002, 6-8): Cumulative and Long_-Term _(an ever-growing body of knowledge); Dynamic (adapts to change and incorporates contemporary information and technology); Historical (provides a historical understanding of environmental change); Local (locally developed); Holistic (all elements are viewed as interconnected and cannot be understood in isolation); Embedded (not only specific to an ecosystem, but also to a way of understanding the world); Moral and Spiritual (grounded in a spiritual and reciprocal relationship between the people and their environment). Shukla (2004, 4): The first stratum starts at the village/local level ... This sort of knowledge is largely based on diachronic observations, and therefore has been able to survive through ages. At the second level, TEK exists in the form of land or resources management systems, which is inclusive of the frrst level and requires additional understanding of the functional relationships among various species and/or ecological processes. The third level of analysis requires TEK embedded in the social institutions or informal rules in use as practiced by communities or groups having a common stake and interdependence in the resources. The final stratum of TEK analysis includes the worldview, which shapes the belief systems and shapes our interpretation of our surrounding world. These levels are not distinct, and sometimes they intermingle so tightly that they may appear to be the same. MVEIRB (2005, 6): Knowledge about the environment - based on direct observation and experience, shared information within the community and over generations; Knowledge about use and management of the environment; Values about the environment- This element oftraditional knowledge includes moral and ethical statements about the environment and about the relationships between humans, animals, and the environment; the "right way" to do things. Davidson-Hunt and Berkes (nd, 81): Local knowledge of plants and animals; Land and resource management systems; Social institutions; World view. 58 Table 4: Themes in the Disa reement of what Constitutes TEK. 1. Opposition and resistance to participatory approaches to resource management, to appeals to tradition or excessive reverence of particular knowledge systems (insider or outsider), or to expectations of selfgovernance based on the knowledge outcomes (e.g., indigenous people' s management and use of endan ered s ecies . 2. The validity, credibility, and compatibility of competing claims to knowledge, the form in which the knowledge is expressed (e.g., objective/subjective, hard/soft, fragmentary/holistic), and the expertise and independence that is attributed to its producers or holders about an environment, in management and eda o ic settin s e.. , when construed as Western science vs. folk wisdom . 3. The reconcilability of differing worldviews and/or opposing knowledge systems (e.g., in educators and learners choosing to translate ideas and concepts from one culture to another, or in being able to pursue touchstones re ardin ex lanation and inte retation ofknowled e . 4. Where outsiders and insiders as interest groups have competing claims of ownership or use rights over resources and territorial areas, or seek a voice in decision-makin that is denied. 5. Political and psychological obstacles to the application ofTEK within policy-making in management and education; for example, in the structuring of environmental impact assessment and IPR regimes, in prejudice or ignorance, or in misunderstanding, fear or distrust of "the Other" and different ways of k:nowin in sha in the desi of curricula. 6. When ownership by, benefits for, and/or reciprocity with the local community that creates and sustains the information is undermined, as in ro e ri hts violations and com ensation claims. 59 ~ Table 5: Fundamental Elements differentiating TEK from WSK Western Scientific Knowledge Traditional Ecolo2ical Knowled2e Quantitative Qualitative Intuitive Rational Reductionist Holistic Separation of mind and matter Mind and matter are considered together Value-free Moral Spiritual Mechanistic Deliberate accumulation Trial-and-error Data generated by a specialized cadre of researchers Data ~e erate by resource users themselves Synchronic data Diachronic data 60 Table 6: Distinctions between Traditional and Scientific Knowled e 61 the decision process. Their distinctions between Indigenous Knowledge and Western scientific thought are summarized in Table 7. In Table 8, Bruyere and Bergland (nd, 69) also put forward a number of traits they posit differentiate Indigenous Knowledge from WSK. Within Tables 5-8 it is important to note that TEK and WSK characteristics are viewed as being 'either' /'or' of this and that. Further, although Tables 5 and 8 are almost identical in character (Note: one of the authors is a co-author in both Table 5 and 8), Tables 6 and 7 present quite unique and disparate characteristics from Tables 5 and 8, as well as between Table 6 and 7. Once again this illustrates the divergence of thought among academic researchers in regard to TEK when compared to WSK. Reid et al. (2002, 3-5) present a very extensive list of differences between traditional and modem science, which they adapted from Studley (1998). Their extended information is presented in Table 9. As with previous researchers, the list of characteristics represented in Table 9 are also viewed as being 'either'/'or' ofthis and that. The uniqueness ofthe information presented by Reid et al. (2002, 3-5), however, is that they identify the area they see as the understanding, or rather, cognition that separates their list ofTEK and WSK characteristics. For example, when they state that 'traditional science' is 'holistic' and 'modem science' is 'reductionist' they identify the ability of each group to acquire that knowledge as based on how each group integrates their specific worldviews within their culture. As another example, they see the 'Basis of cognition' for traditional science as 'intuitive and subjective', whereas they view the 'Basis of cognition' for modem science as 62 - Table 7: Distinctions between Western Science and lndie;enous Knowlede;e Factor How approached How communicated How taught How explained Science Compartmental Written Lectures, theories Theory, ''value free" 63 lndieenous Knowledee Holistic Oral Observations, experience Spiritual, social values ~ Table 8: Distinctions between Indi2enous and Western Scientific Knowled2e Western Scientific Knowledg_e Indigenous Knowledge Quantitative Qualitative Rational Intuitive Reductionist Holistic Supposedly value-free Moral, spiritual Mechanistic Considers "mind" and "matter" together Based on experimentation and systematization Based on empirical observation Generated and held by the users themselves Generated by specialists Diachronic (long-time series of information on one Synchronic (short-time series over a large area) locality 64 Table 9: Differences between Traditional and Modern Science. I Indigenous- I ~ ,.--- - generated through observations and experiments of uses and by identification with the object of knowledge ,I j intuitive and subjective usually recorded and transmitted orally, sometimes via sacred texts - I - -- - Epistemology (knowledge) -- - -Means of knowledge learned in abstract manner, not always linked to acquisition application and from the separation of the observer from the object of knowledge ~ I r ~a alytic~a Basis of cognit;;;;; l I Cosmology (the universe) views all matter as having ~ life force, including inanimate formsAnimistic e of life forces ----- F pla atio of ognizes only plants and animals as having life ce-separation between God and people - ~ e pla atio derived thmugh testing ofhypotheses, using theories and laws of nature environmental phenomena predicated on people's ability to dominate nature shaped by the ecological r j Basis ofrelationship system in which it is with nature located a finite good relational context - conceptually discrete components spiritual explanations of ~ environmental phenomena, revised and validated over time ~ all entities in a -- reductionist, objective, positivist, disembedded compartmentalized--convergent-homogeneous - - - - - - - - - , . --- -- - Perception ofnature hierarchically organized and vertically and life forms compartmentalized-the environment is reduced to ecological-based on worldviews which emphasise social and spiritual relations between life forms I - F ansmitted deductively through written word Process of knowledge transmission ---,.-------Integration with worldview and culture holistic, subjective, experiential, embedded, and integrated in the social, cultural, and moral dimension objective Nature of knowledge as a "good" J View of universe Iinfinite good - - - -- - -- - - - r;;-trumentalism (views everything as sources of Igratification) I a-lity _ b_e_tw __e_e_n_l_ifi_e_ll sees humans (especially Western men) as superior forms life form, with an inherent right to control and exploit nature ------------------------------ stresses inter-dependency and equality of all life forms 65 r - Ontology (self) Basis of self worth predicated on group values or 'holism' II a phenomenon to be rejected or integrated into worldview r predicated on individualistic values-nothing but the sum of a biological core and behavioural surfacesthe product of random genetic activity-identity and significance are derived from economic production or consumption ,-new-;!, techndogy I- a measure of civilization or backwardness Context achronic-based on a long r Dealing it~ c a~ ime series in one locality over tzme (phenomenological) r~y c ro ic a e on short time series over a large area Itime is measured cyclically I Time measurement ftime is llne;; und by time and space, r -Contextual va ocial contextuality and moral factors I requires a commitment to r I I the local context -- ~ ~ perior on the basis of universal vali i~ Geographic - - !values mobility and weakens local co te~ contextuality I I Accountability r associated with a system of ~ ocial accountabilitysocial accountability (e.g., a Shaman) 66 ~ - ·- - - --- t usually associated with a system of social countability except theoretical physicists in their le as "high priests of science" 'analytical and objective'. However, as with the previous researchers, Table 9 also demonstrates a view of distinct differences being perceived between TEK and WSK. According to Howard (1994, 15), the "exploration of alternative ways of knowing and development of a capacity for sharing knowledge in such a way as to preserve and reinforce core . . . values" is fundamental. However, it is clear that within the academic literature agreement on the terminology ofTEK is far from settled (Reid et al. 2002). Unfortunately, this situation "belies the reality that [TEK] includes a system of classification, a set of empirical observation about the local environment, and a system of self-management that governs resource use" (McFetridge and Howell2001 , 2). 67 CHAPTER EIGHT: SURVEY OF ACADEMIC TEK RESEARCHERS Having gained no clear direction from the literature review with which to proceed in integrating TEK with WSK, it was clear that further analysis of TEK would need to be conducted. Consequently, in 2005 a survey of academic TEK researchers was conducted under a blanket ethics approval held by Don Munton for a graduate Social Research Methods class at University ofNorthern British Columbia. The Author had hoped that the results of the academic TEK survey, submitted to TEK researchers, would provide some clarity regarding how TEK should be defined, classified, applied and integrated with WSK, and thus provide some authoritative guidelines as to its application within the Kitsumkalum Land and Resource Management Plan. Potential participants were selected based on the information collected during the literature review and included academic researchers that had TEK publications or who had participated in TEK workshops. Information was solicited through a questionnaire (Appendix 1) submitted via email. Since this research was conducted as part of a class under a course blanket ethics approval the actual names of the respondents are withheld from this discussion. It was a requirement of the UNBC ethics approval given that no personal information could be used, including the identification of respondents. In addition, only the results from the qualitative portion of that survey are presented as the results from the quantitative questions were inconsistent and not quantifiable. The results from this survey are presented as a further illustration of the current 68 uncertainty and diversity of thought among academics specializing in TEK and support the need for framework development and necessity for the current research. Of the 55 researchers who received the questionnaire only 8 answered and returned it. Unfortunately, of these 8 respondents one answered only the qualitative portion of the survey, two answered the quantitative questions (5 and 6) qualitatively (with extended answers), which were not quantified, and one researcher answered all the questions in essay format rather than within the questionnaire. Regrettably, this latter individual sent his comments out to the entire list of contacts. Since the author was attempting to elicit individual original attitudes regarding this issue he felt this action would have an effect on the outcome of the questionnaire, perhaps turning it into a group discussion, which could potentially alter responses. Of the returned questionnaires, only 4 could be used in the intended format. The other 4, while not in the intended format, did provide useful qualitative comments and direction on TEK, as well as ideas for future research. Question 1. "What does Tradition in an Indigenous context mean to you?" The general theme of responses to this question was that it is grounded in long-term practices that continue to evolve to meet socio-cultural objectives. Although, the way tradition was described varied considerably among respondents as presented in Table 10, as was researcher understanding of how other researchers are using the term. For example, Respondent 8 suggests that researchers are not considering the term "Tradition" in its larger meaning. 69 However, this characteristic is exactly one of the main points that the other respondents in Table 10 identified as an essential element oftradition. Respondent 8 further states, "We need to include considerations of knowledge that comes from people who spend long periods on the land, and who from this have acquired long-term detailed and practical familiarity with many features and interrelations of the environment." While Respondent 8 does not believe researchers are considering the environmental familiarity in TEK, the principle of interrelations of the environment is also to some extent identified by the other respondents, and it is a principal component of tradition identified within the TEK literature. Contribution to Current Study: The responses to Question 1 did not provide a list of qualities that could be combined into a clear description of tradition. In fact, the responses show that although many researchers identify tradition in an indigenous context as being something environmentally relevant that is passed down through time there is much disagreement as to how this is or was carried out, as shown in Table 10. Question 2. List three commonalities you believe to exist between Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Western Scientific Knowledge. What the author was looking for here was what did researchers consider to be the features, attributes, or sets of attributes that are shared by TEK and WSK? This question was designed to elicit meaningful responses in which the respondents could freely elaborate on their individual viewpoints. The responses to Question 2 are presented in Table 11. 70 Ition m an In d"1genous con t ex t mean to you. T abl e 10 : R espouses to "Wh at does T ra d". Respondent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Responses Tradition is a negotiated and contingent compromise between a people's past and present. It reflects a combination of continuity and dynamism. Its meaning changes over time due to both internal and external influences. Tradition in an indigenous context means those customary behaviours or beliefs that continue to be considered normative or influential, despite whatever changes have occurred over time in response to changing living circumstances. I understand "traditions" to be dynamic systems of knowledge of the land and its inhabitants (inclusive of all sentient beings, as understood locally) inclusive of knowledge of how to live in that landscape as a member of the community of co-resident beings. Traditions are prototypically inherited by those born and raised in a community rooted in a local landscape by virtue of a subsistence practice encompassed by that landscape. It thus tends to be an oral tradition, transmitted face-to-face in the context of daily living. I consider "tradition" to mean 1) arising from practice and belief that arose from long-term tenure in a particular place and 2) rooted in the indigenous worldview and corresponding to the values and perceptions embedded in a culture. I don't think of"traditional" as old and static, but constantly evolving in its specifics, yet underlain by a stable, enduring worldview and epistemology. It means grounded in long-held practices and beliefs. It does not mean, "stuck in the past." A tradition is an activity or value that has been passed down through time within a culture. It reflects some aspect of a unique relationship between people, between people and nature, or between people and spirit. Continuing institutional and ecological practices in order to fulfill socio-cultural goals. This term is generally used to make some kind of claim about the authenticity of something based on its purported long-standing usage among a particular group ... it suggests that our interest in aboriginal knowledge is essentially limited to those aspects that have existed within the group for many generations ... If Canadian society is going to recognize, value and take account of indigenous knowledge, we need to include all indigenous knowledge of the environment, particularly those aspects that are cumulative, and that take account of change. 71 T a ble 11 : Respouses to TEK an d WSKC om mona lif1es. Respondent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Responses a. Both are dynamic. b. Both are socially determined. c. Both are socially differentiated. a. Empirically-based b. Verified by systematic or repeated observations c. Heuristic a. Empirically grounded, that is, responsive to an external reality b. Symbolically mediated, that is, knowledge is a conceptual representation of the data of experience c. Socially affirmed, that is, knowledge requires confirmation by independent observers a. Both are driven by human curiosity and the desire to make orderly, internally consistent explanations about the natural world and human relationships to it b. Both are highly empirical, based on detailed observations of the natural landscape. In both cases, the land itself is the source ofknowledge. c. The questions both ask and the approaches to answering them are influenced by a particular worldview, both TEK and SEK are coloured by cultural assumJ>tions a. Based on careful and systematic observation b. Has predictive powers c. Has common goals: to better understand our world a. TEK is quantitative knowledge, western scientific knowledge can be; also TEKW is qualitative application of TEK. b. Both are accumulated across time. c. They both are aimed at efficiency a. Experiential derivation b. Broad synthesis of information c. Transmission of findings a. Both TEK and science tend to focus mainly on knowledge that is useful for planning, explanations and problem solving b. Both reflect the dominant interests of the groups that use them c. Each makes inferences about underlying causality d. Each is based on a particular set of classificatory principles that underlie the key elements within the relevant knowledge sub-system. e. Both have a common mode of analytic problem-solving, but both may also make use of analogical thought (e.g. metaphor) in order to get past the boundaries entailed by analytic thought. 72 Contribution to Current Study: The responses to Question 2 clearly illustrate an even broader diversity of thought regarding TEK as almost every response describes different commonalities between TEK and WSK. As Table 11 indicates, it is evident that there are wide-ranging concepts applicable to both TEK and WSK but, this diversity does not allow for a concise, cohesive perspective to be produced for TEK. Question 3. List three differences you believe to exist between Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Western Scientific Knowledge. The intent of this question was to gather evidence for the specific points or elements distinguishing TEK from WSK. This question was also designed to elicit meaningful responses where the respondents could freely elaborate on their individual viewpoints, which are presented in Table 12. Contribution to Current Study: The responses to Question 3 also illustrate a broad diversity of thought regarding TEK since almost every response identifies different differences between TEK and WSK. Again, these disparities do not allow for a concise and cohesive classification of TEK. Question 4. Do you believe that Traditional Ecological Knowledge can be synthesized with Western Scientific Knowledge? This question asked researchers to indicate how strongly they agree with whether TEK could be synthesized with WSK, 1 (strongly believe) and 5 (strongly disagree), with 3 being undecided (3.2 average). The intent of Question 4 was to make a determination in regard to the extent researchers believed the notion of integrating TEK and WSK was actually attainable. 73 Table 12: Responses to TEK and WSK Differences. Respondent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Responses a. TEK is more likely to be defined in comparison to dominant knowledge systems b. TEK is embedded in more locally specific cultural systems where as WSK tends to be constructed by and validated by larger and dominant cultural systems c. WSK tends to draw its authority from a perceived lack of cultural construction, whereas TEK draws its authority from its cultural specificity a. TK is infrequently quantitative and frequently holistic/systemic in orientation; WSK seeks to be quantitative and remains frequently reductionist/particularistic in nature and approach. b. TK occurs within a specific/localized cultural base; WSK is believed to constitute a generalized/universally-applicable culture (of science) c. TK is held within, validated by and transmitted through an oral tradition; WSK is held within, validated bb, and transmitted primarily through a written/literate tradition a. TEK is local, directly linked to living "at home"; "Western Scientific Knowledge," a.k.a. "modem" as opposed to "folk" or "ethno-" science, is global, that is, self-consciously intent upon formulating theories that will hold everywhere in the universe b. TEK is quotidian knowledge, typically widely if not universally shared within a local community; modem science is professional, highly specialized, that is, it is a way oflife or career abstracted from the mundane concerns of making a living and conducted in an institutional context c. TEK is integrated within the life of the community, not defined in opposition to other aspects of society and person, such as "religion\" or "economics." a. TEK tends to be local and specific while SEK tends to be more abstract and general. TEK can emphasize the significance of deviations from "average", while SEK puts greater significance on "average" conditions. b. TEK knowledge systems incorporate spiritual as well as material explanations, while SEK privileges only "material" explanations c. TEK is generally based on longer term data than SEK. a. Traditional Ecological Knowledge incorporates values and beliefs (so does WSK, but it purports to be value-free and objective) b. Traditional Ecological Knowledge tends to be more holistic and considers many aspects of a question together, whereas WSK tends to break down and compartmentalize phenomena to be able to understand and control them better c. Traditional Ecological Knowledge has a very long time depth but is focused within one area or region; WSK tends to rely on data gathered over a very short time depth, but is more extensive geographically (i.e. global in extent) d. Traditional Ecological Knowledge is a system of knowledge, practice and belief in which those holding the knowledge are resident within the area encompassed by the knowledge; Western Scientists tend to separate their lives from the areas and phenomena that they study. e. Traditional Ecological Knowledge is communicated and transmitted orally and experientially across generations and from one community to another; WSK tends to be restricted to those with specific, focused, institutional training, and conveyed through academic/scholarly conferences and publications. a. Methods of proof are different, one more mathematical, one more practical (e.g., survival) b. TEK is accumulated through oral history, primarily, WSK through written word, primarily c. TEK is less accepted by science, science is less accepted by indigenous people. a. Frequent cosmological foundation (TK) b. Lack of deductive speculation (TK) c. Narrow focus (WK) a. Science makes the assertion that it is of universal applicability and is culture-free. b. Most empirically based indigenous knowledge is also in principle universal in its application -Science has clearly been influenced by Western religious and other values of the day c. There is a great deal of hard-nosed, practical indigenous knowledge that can, for analytic purposes, be separated out from its religious and spiritual value context 74 Responses to this question ranged between 2 and 4 with a mean of3.2. Comments made by respondents as to why they chose a particular stance are presented in Table 13. Contribution to Current Study: Two respondents said yes, two respondents said no and four respondents were undecided on whether TEK and WSK could and should be integrated. Responses to the academic TEK survey show that there is a great diversity of thought regarding the concept of TEK among academic researchers. Thus, after assessing the data presented above it was obvious that further research on the topic of TEK was required. 75 . tegra f Ion ofTEK an dWSK T abl e 13 : R espouses t0 th e m Respondent 1 Responses 3. I believe that TEK can be productively included in mainstream resource management scenarios, however, there are significant methodological and political barriers to this. The two forms of knowing can be linked in useful ways, but the problem with conceptualizing this as synthesis is the persisting dominance ofWSK. 2 3 4 The politics of TEK make collaboration possible but synthesis is problematic and difficult. 4. I believe quite strongly that these two systems of knowledge can be "incorporated" into a variety of research projects (e.g. in wildlife, forestry, fisheries, etc), but I do not believe that it is easy, useful or likely achievable to seek to "integrate" these two quite dissimilar systems of knowledge. 2.5. Indigenous knowledge oflocal plant and animal species, their population dynamics, ecological requirements, and patterns of behaviour may complement comparable expertise of modern scientifically trained resource managers or investigators, while the modern scientific knowledge may enhance the power of local knowledge ifunderstood in local terms and applied to local issues. I believe an effective synthesis will depend on the indigenous community and the scientific community recognizing common interests, e.g., protection local lands and livelihoods from destructive commercial exploitation. 4. Since these two knowledge systems are manifestations of different worldviews I don't think you can synthesize or integrate them. Their empirical findings may frequently converge, but the cultural assumptions are too different to synthesize them. 5 6 7 8 Both should be valued as distinctive epistemologies, not blended. We need the distinctive strengths of each way of knowing. 3. I think they can be linked, they can be mutually supportive, but they cannot be "synthesized" 2. Both are quantitative information and should be able to be synthesized, but ... seldom are. There are good examples ... of indigenous people and other subsistence people with TEK also seeking western science to make themselves more efficient. 3. Reliance on cosmological root explanation and resistence (sic) to external validation make me sceptical of any complete or near-complete integration . . . . a great deal of indigenous knowledge can already be integrated with that of science. For other aspects that appear to conflict scientific principles, synthesis could occur in one of two ways. Either we openly recognize the normally hidden religious and evaluative cultural intellectual frame that is inherent in Western science, or we can set about distinguishing and separating out distinct aspects within indigenous knowledg_e ... 76 CHAPTER NINE: DATA COLLECTION FOR THE TEK SURVEY CONDUCTED WITHIN THE KITSUMKALUM TRADITIONAL TERRITORY The author felt that a study of select members ofKitsumkalum First Nation and nonKitsumkalum individuals working on resource and economic development within the Kitsumkalum traditional territory might provide new and clear insight into the actual application ofTEK in the field and among members of the Kitsumkalum community. It was hoped that TEK information collected directly from within the Kitsumkalum traditional territory might fill the gaps missing from the literature review and survey of academic researchers, and perhaps the three sources of data could be synthesized in developing a framework for integrating TEK with WSK. Data for the TEK survey conducted within the Kitsumkalum First Nation traditional territory was collected from two groups: 1. Kitsumkalum community group, n. Non-Kitsumkalum group. For the Kitsumkalum community group, information was collected from Kitsumkalum First Nation members, who were categorized into three subsets from the Kitsumkalum community members: 1. Current elected Chief and Council, 77 11. Hereditary Chiefs, who are Sm'ooygit and sit on the Kitsumkalum Board of Directors, 111. Band Members, other than from 1 and 2 above. Seven members of the Kitsumkalum First Nation agreed to participate in the study (1Chief, 1- Councillor, 2 Hereditary Chiefs, and 3 general band members) and include: 1. Steve Roberts - Chief (at the time of the interview), 11. Ernie Gerow- Councillor, 111. Gerald Wesley - Hereditary Chief and Chief Tsimshian Treaty Negotiator, IV. Alex Bolton- Hereditary Chief and Kitsumkalum Treaty Negotiator, v. Charlotte Guno- Band Member and Kitsumkalum Education Coordinator, v1. Troy Sam- Band Member and Kalum Ventures Ltd. Forest Tech, and v11. Lynn Bolton- Band Member and Treaty Office Administrative Assistant. For the comparative group, information was collected from individuals who conducted or were involved in some form of resource research and economic development within the Kitsumkalum First Nation traditional territory, but who were non-Kitsumkalum members. The five Non-Kitsumkalum participants are: 1. Clyde Smith- Kitsumkalum Fisheries Manager, 11. David Brown -Lands Manager- Integrated Land Management Bureau, 111. Joe Bevan- Kalum Ventures Ltd. Controller, 78 IV . Patricia Vickers- UNBC Aboriginal Education Program, Terrace, v. Rick Brouwer- Registered Professional Forester- Northwest Timberlands Ltd. The decision was made to only contact individuals within the 18 to 65 age group who were employed because these were the easiest to contact and meet with. All data collection was conducted in an interview format at the Kitsumkalum Treaty Office. The author recorded, transcribed and analyzed the responses to a formal questionnaire (Appendix 4). The questionnaire contained both open-ended (qualitative) and close-ended (quantitative) questions. Interviews averaged approximately 30 minutes in duration. Tapes and the transcripts are held within the Kitsumkalum Treaty Office archives. In addition, all participants were asked to sign a form stating they understood what this project is about, how the information would be collected and used, where the information would be archived, and whether or not they agreed to the above, as well as to the release of the information and of their identity. All respondents positively supported the project and agreed to the use of the project information as described to them, as well as to the use of their identity in reporting the collected information. 79 CHAPTER TEN: RESULTS FROM THE ANALYSIS OF THE LITERATURE REVIEW, ACADEMIC TEK RESEARCHER SURVEY AND THE TEK SURVEY CONDUCTED WITHIN THE KITSUMKALUM TRADITIONAL TERRITORY Thematic Analysis Each interview from the TEK survey conducted within the Kitsumkalum traditional territory was analyzed by individual so as to ensure the most appropriate themes were identified, rather than combine the interviews into Kitsumkalum Community Group and NonKitsumkalum Group. Once the themes were selected responses were then compared between groups as well as between individuals. Results of the researcher's manual application of Thematic Analysis on the interview transcripts are outlined in Tables 14 and 15. The information presented in Tables 14 and 15 initially seemed intangible with key themes difficult to identify, particularly given the long list of themes created. The information appeared to be disparate. Also, once the themes were selected it was necessary to reread the text several times to ensure the appropriate themes were identified. Consequently, this was quite a time consuming process. Further, the author initially felt that the selection of themes applicable to this study were, for the most part, subjective. However, after re-analyzing the themes several times three broad-spectrum views emerged from the data: 1. The knowledge and understanding First Nations have of resources, u. The use of resources by First Nations, and 80 Table 14: Researcher thematic Analysis of the Kitsumkalum Community Group Steve Roberts Kitsumkalum - Chief First Nations traditional knowledge, a lot of it is gone, a lot of it is missing Our people have forgotten what benefits come out of wildlife for food. Even with the people that are older than I am have a problem understanding traditional Knowledge. They become textbook experts. Western science has really brought us, at least modem day society, forward a lot. A lot of changes. Western science hasn't conquered the survival of the fittest mentality Even our people practice the survival of the fittest They utilized the land and resources in the past that allowed us to, I guess some would say, Live in harmony with nature. Making life too easy. Sometimes it has some extravagance that we can do without. I want that, that will make it better for me. The people who are able to succeed in the free enterprise world are the ones who are able To understand how they are doing. If you weren't so concerned about being better you would not be jet setting around the Country side trying to make this happen or that happen. You learned from your parents and grandparents, you learned from the people who have Been there and done that, you learn what is good and what is not good through generations of Living with nature. Modem science you can learn that through education without having to live it. Some of it they have, others they don't. Even modem science at times doesn't have an understanding of what is out there based on Teachings that have been passed down from generation to generation Regardless of what we think or what we do change is going to happen. It is a life process I don't know if would be traditional knowledge, but to an extent that we are creatures of Habit, we do the same thing that our parents do, that their parents did, that their parents did. Move forward and make it better for us. That would be nice. It is a struggle. Ernie Gerow Kitsumkalum - Councillor I think it was something that First Nations had to have. The land and how it is currently used is far different It all comes down to money. I think that ... regardless of what resource you are looking at ... if all we did ... was to use What we needed to use ... we wouldn't have any shortages Today's downfall has been the commercialization of our resources. 81 Traditionally peo_I)le did harvest more of a particular item than they did use, but they generally Used that to trade with neighbours for something they didn't have. Gerald Wesley Kitsumkalum - Hereditary Chief/Chief Tsimshian Ne2otiator It is the knowledge ... information and awareness, realities ... passed on from generation to Generation by our Elders. It is passing on the real and positive evidence. Traditional knowledge, traditional law ... is based very much on attachments to the world around Us and good common sense A different kind of exacting evidence The strength of traditional knowledge is consistency Contemporary science and studies are too focused, and too narrow in scope and understanding, And not able to see a bigger and broader picture The link that I look for is for contemporary science and research to be able to confirm what our Traditional knowledge is and the attachments that we have. As long as there is a willingness to work cooperatively There has to be a combination of the different types of relationships. There has got to be a greater level of understanding from both There has been breaks in the passing down of our traditional knowledge and information systems I think it is our nature to find the easiest and most appropriate way to get a task done, doesn't matter what it is. I want to make sure part of system as we carry on is the recognition. Particularly amongst Aboriginal people to try and make sure we don't totally lose that spirit of our traditional knowledge And the awareness of our governing_ systems because that is really what it boils down to. Alex Bolton Kitsumkalum -Hereditary Chiefffreaty Negotiator Historic use How we have utilized What we have utilized it for Stewardship A lot of common sense. Our people have always protected fresource1cycle and just ensure that cycle continues. Put that kind of knowledge to our benefit to protect that cycle Make sure we are planning My thought on western knowledge right now is to make use of it. Protect our wildlife and habitat for future. Money overrides common sense Good planning in protecting the wildlife, everybody is into that, both aboriginal and Non-aboriginal, the professionals. Politicians too, can't forget the politicians. 82 Aboriginal involvement Our value is we utilize the forest for food and making things. The other society just sees The forest as cutting down and making money. There has to be a balance in there to appease both sides We have two different values that we have to match. It is almost impossible. I never really think about it, but we still utilize the resources quite a bit. Just use common sense and knowledge to make use of the resources, but not to destroy it Just make sure that they have something there left to allow continuing for the future. Amen. Charlotte Guno Kitsumkalum- Education Coordinator It is diminishing. Going to residential school and striving to be a white man I didn't have or did not use my culture. I am working very hard on regaining my culture and .. . my language. I don't really think the western scientific has done anything for First Nations in regards to Protecting what was normally theirs. We think about money rather than protecting our natural habitat I think that what stands out is probably an individual who understands who they are and what is Expected of them. It's not written in the books that this is what you do it'sjust a way oflife. We just haven't worked together. I believe that we both want to preserve .. . we haven't Worked together on it yet. The scientist ... deal with facts .. . and First Nations deal with what' s here. I would prefer that they get to know the people, get the history, and then work with the people On whatever they are doing to achieve their scientific knowledge. Troy Sam Kitsumkalum- Forest Tech. Kalum Ventures Ltd. Traditional ecological knowledge, that's something that I'd get from my elders. Modem science, that's textbook. I feel that it is a narrow vision. The traditional side I feel ... is holistic. The views are different from what I've learned I think is a valuable tool that everybody can use Lynn Bolton Kitsumkalum- Treaty Office Administrative Assistant Your culture. Knowing your language, how to make your own traditional food We learn from birth. Learned through professors. That is different .. . well not really, professors would be the same as A parent. We are losing some of our benefits. I wish that we could learn our language again. 83 I . 0 fth e N on-Kit sum k a I urn G roup Ta bl e 15 : Researc her Th ema t'IC A nalySIS Clyde Smith Non-Kitsumkalum- Kitsumkalum Fisheries Manager First Nations knowledge on the resources and the use of the resources Scientific end of the resources, how they function, how they survive ... to ensure the Survivability of the resource. Distinguishing characteristic would be the usage of the resource .. . to ensure their Survivability, or survival of their culture. Science based, everything is done by numbers. In order to achieve .. . results you have to have regulations imposed on users of that resource. Whereas with First Nations it is just based on the need. The use of our resource has increased with non First Nations and First Nations. Now you have .. . a commercial gain from the resources . there has got to be a system in place that will identify all user groups and insure that it will be A sustainable resource. Do I use my knowledge, as in practicing the way First Nations have for hundreds of years ... When harvesting, not in the methods, but in the words that were passed on. I think that there is room to mesh the two together, with the traditional knowledge and the Scientific knowledge. In order to maintain a sustainable resource you have to have the scientific studies David Brown Non-Kitsumkalum- Lands Manager- Integrated Land Management Bureau First Nation Traditional Ecological Knowledge is the kind of understandings and knowledge Of the land .. . passed on to generations ... learning from the past The scientific basis is .. . breaking it down into its component parts Study and observation in many ways is sort of similar to traditional ecological knowledge It is ... a whole way of looking at things ... in terms of how one should interact or deal with The natural environment. There seems to be a lot of similarities in terms of the learnings I would say it would be wrong not to combine them. The pressure is really on the First Nation more than anything to actually define what that Traditional ecological knowledge is. They would be sort of required to explain that to us and what it might mean and we can use That to formulate management objectives or other activities that we might want to do together. Joe Bevan Non-Kitsumkalum- Kalum Venture Ltd. Controller They know things about flows and what have you, usually how it is tied into the environment Ours is more through experience and theirs is trying to figure out looking back and seeing What happened and bringing it up to now 84 The amount of time that we've had to view it ... a time process We've both decided to observe it, and see, and probably try to ask the same question of why We sort of explain it a little differently than the scientific side of things. I think that it is just that just over time ... we sort of explained ours in a legend of some type, As for them they have scientifically explained it. The scientific side of things would probably dominate I don't use the traditional knowledge. I guess mainly because I don't now enough about it, Or have not heard enough about it. I think that traditional knowledge is very useful. [What] really stands out for me was the legends I ... like it, just for its simplicity. Patricia Vickers Non-Kitsumkalum- Abori2inal Education Pro2ram UNBC- Terrace It means that my grandparents have passed on to me how to be connected to my heart and other Human beings and the land. In western scientific knowledge ... ifl was to critique it, it would be the absence of Acknowledgement of the connection of human beings to the supernatural world to nature. The most important thing is maintaining balance ... the spiritual part, of maintaining balance and Not to be separated from the legal aspects which is what you are involved in land and resources, The physical things, the material things of life. There is certainly a part of ancestral law ... just emphasized in a different way. I think that science broke away from spirituality and holds some kind of arrogance The supernatural is always a part of life whether you acknowledge it or not. Observing, reliability, and validity. I think they are very much a part of ancestral law. A history of imbalance. There is no separation between personal and professional life I am the same person in both lives. Traditional ecological knowledg_e is foreign language ... if you are wanting to support the ayaawx I think it is important to use language that partners with it. Rick Brouwer Non-Kitsumkalum- Re2istered Professional Forester- Northwest Forestry Knowledge that a First Nation has with regard to how they were active on the lands that they Occupied and the ways that they carry out those activities. Primarily the textbook type of stuff ... it is the theoretical base of science. It is handed down or passed on ... from generation to generation, or just within a community Traditional knowledge is almost certainly gained by virtue of trial and error. I think that they are possibly just packaged differently .. . I think that they actually are very similar. Things you should do or can do and probably just the way the transfer of knowledge I suspect is The biggest difference. Traditional knowledge, because it is a survival thin& would have been an adaptive management 85 Style of knowledge gained and taught. Pure academics may have a problem with the idea of traditional knowledge because it is more of A story telling oral tradition versus you know the black and white test this theory kind of concept. I would say almost all of western science ultimately started from a traditional knowledge base. A kind of wall has been raised between the two, but it's not really a wall of science it is more a Wall of politics. You shouldn't accept western science blindly, but you shouldn't accept traditional knowledge Blindly either. You need to take a good look at it to see if it makes sense for what you are doing. You get that argument of who's funding the science and whether that is good, right or wrong, The amount of that information that is available is fairly limited. It is not easy to do so. I think there is a big challenge trying to take traditional ecological knowledge and then actually 86 111. The concern ofFirst Nations for the protection and sustainability of those resources for future generations. Interestingly, the above views were evident in both the Kitsumkalum Community Group and the Non-Kitsumkalum Group. Where there were differences in the information presented those differences appear to relate more to the understanding of the terms and questions used during the interview. For instance, general Band members were unfamiliar with the term TEK and it was necessary to provide a brief summary of the meaning and how the author was using the term. Consequently, most of their responses tended to be fairly brief, whereas, participants who were familiar with the term TEK provided more extended responses. Since the author perceived the Thematic Analysis to be fairly subjective and the themes broadspectrum, as opposed to displaying clearly identifiable characteristics, it was not used further in this study. Rather, Content Analysis was chosen as the primary method of data analysis for this study. Content Analysis Content analysis was conducted by coding the text into manageable categories based on key words and then examining the words using conceptual analysis, which is basically a coding process of selective reduction. The reduction of the text to categories consisting of select coded words allowed specific patterns (themes) to emerge. Results from manual application of Content Analysis on the TEK survey conducted within the Kitsumkalum traditional territory are outlined in Table 16. 87 As with the Thematic Analysis it was difficult to identify a central point of view from the respondent groups since the code word list indicated diverse views for TEK. Thus, this study was not able to identify any particular coding theme from Table 16. The author felt this was likely a direct result of the experience of the coder in conducting Content Analysis and therefore it was necessary to analyze the data further. The results of the Content Analysis with TextAnz on the TEK survey conducted within the Kitsumkalum traditional territory are presented in Table 17. This analysis provided traits that were more easily identifiable than those of the manual Thematic and Content Analysis results. For one thing, TextAnz does a word frequency count of all words present in a given text. Unfortunately, there are no functions within the program to make decisions based on, for example, semantic features, so the author had to make some decisions as to which words to leave in the lists and which to remove. The decision to leave a word in the TextAnz selection was based on my prior readings and research regarding the TEK method. However, given the way TextAnz analyzes text, the diversity of word selection in the coding is much greater than that from the manually applied Content Analysis. Since the author had to select from the coding list those words he deemed relevant to this study the results produced with TextAnz were more qualitative than quantitative. Therefore, a further analysis of the material from the TEK survey conducted within the Kitsumkalum traditional territory was performed using the software program Diction. Diction has a level of coding and statistical reliability that could not be attained through manual coding or the 88 I . T a bl e 16 : R esearc h er C on ten tA nalySIS Alex Bolton Steve Roberts Ernie Gerow Charlotte Guno Gerald Wesley Historic Stewardship Knowledge Protect Common-Sense Money Planning Money Future Assimilated Knowledge Change No Balance Forward Value Utilized Harmony Extravagance Easy-Life Survival-of-theFittest Learning Habit Change Me-Decade Struggle Knowledge Survival Sustenance Bad Management Money Use Commercialization Live Economics Land Diminishing Money WayofLife Destroying Selling Preservation Areas Facts Understanding Knowledge Awareness Realities Passed on Oral-Tradition History Law Common Sense Stewards Study Questions Prove Consistency Adversarial Language Focused Narrow Scope Confirm Attachments Reaffirm Conflicts Traditional Governing Systems Troy Sam Learned Textbook Narrow Oral Experience Different Views Viewpoints Valuable History Lynn Bolton Culture Language Food Technology Computers Future Learned Status Benefits Advantages Patricia Vickers Passed on Acknowledgement Presence Awareness Responsibility Balance Reliability Validity Observance Arrogance Observing Reliability Ancestral Law Supernatural Ayaawx Understanding Rick Brouwer Knowledge Lands Activities Textbook European Theoretical Described Passed on Theory Structured Experimental Trial & Error Time Survival Traditions Oral Experiences Opportunity Perception 89 David Brown Understandings Knowledge Use Passed on Components Replicable Study Observation Holistic Social Components Focus Incorporate Joe Bevan Knowledge Time Process Observation Explanations Usefill Simplicity Oral Clyde Smith Use Survivability Different Technical Numbers Results Rules Regulations Users I . T a ble 17 : TextAnz Con tent A nalySIS Participant Alex Bolton Participant Charlotte Gumo Participant Joe Bevan WordForms Cycle Protect Frequency 11 8 Utilize Knowledge Planning Common Sense WordForms Resource Nations Frequency 20 14 8 8 7 7 Harvest Science Survive Knowledge 12 6 5 5 Value Traditional Future Different Roots Stewardship Destroy Manage 5 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 Provide Family Different Sustainable Tradition Technical Imposed Regulations 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 WordForms Knowledge Frequency 13 WordForms Thing Frequency 16 Science Culture Nation Trraditional Natural Community Protect Different Preserve Destroy Share Activities Language Consultation Environment 10 9 9 9 8 5 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 Traditional Knowledge Science Ecological Other Effect Focus Learning's Natural Environment Manage Perspective Observation Method Understanding Different 11 10 8 6 6 5 4 4 4 3 3 WordForms Learn Language Knowledge Traditional Different Benefits Frequency 7 4 3 3 3 2 WordForms Science Knowledge Tradition Version Happening Legend Stories Environment Significant Dominate Characteristic Participant Clyde Smith Participant David Brown 11 Frequency 16 10 10 7 5 4 4 4 Participant Lynn Bolton '"' .) 3 3 90 '"' .) '"' 2 2 2 .) Participant Patricia Vickers Participant ErmkmGerow Understand Comparative Record 2 2 2 WordForms Being Frequency 10 Certain Language Belief Responsibility Science Ayaawx Presence Understanding 7 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 Supernatural Aware Different Acknowledge Personal Balance Observance Connection Knowledge Ancestral Validity Reliability 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 WordForms Harvest Commercialization Resource Manage Management Knowledge Safeguard Environment Balance Political Designing Natural Traditionally Different Frequency 8 Participant Rick Brouwer Participant Troy Sam 6 5 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 91 WordForms Knowledge Frequency 27 Tradition Science Information Different Packaged Structured Concept Culture 24 19 12 Adapt Management Taught Ecological Experiences Understanding Generation Adaptive Applicability Opportunity Context Experimental 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 WordForms Traditional Different Science Connection Holistic Documenting History Knowledge Territory Experiences Activities Learned Frequency 15 5 4 4 4 8 6 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 2 2 Participant Gerald Wesley WordForms Tradition Knowledge Understanding Different Territory Generations Manage Right Common Sense Practical Science Access Awareness History Evidence Resources Attachments Consistency Cooperation Frequency 24 21 10 9 9 9 7 7 6 6 6 5 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 Participant Steve Roberts 92 WordForms People Science Traditional Change Knowledge Understanding Survival Harvest Society Values Learn Resource Nature Generation Recognize Acceptance Political Practice Benefit Harmony Different Frequency 20 19 15 11 10 8 6 5 5 5 5 4 3 a 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 use ofTextAnz. Diction was therefore also used to analyze the TEK literature and academic TEK survey materials and compared between all data sets. The results produced through Diction were then compared with the manually coded data to corroborate comparability of results, and as an added test between the consistencies of all methods of analysis. The results of the Diction analysis are as follows. Among the Kitsumkalum Community Group the most frequently occurring words are "traditional", "knowledge", "use", and "people" (Table 18). Among the Non-Kitsumkalum Group "knowledge", "traditional", and "use" also appear most frequently (Table 19). The results that emerged in the academic TEK literature are "knowledge", "traditional", and "ecological" (Table 20). The highest frequently occurring word from the academic TEK survey is "knowledge" (Table 21 ). After completing the previous analysis it seemed obvious that the most frequently occurring words identified in the Content Analysis ofTEK literature would naturally be, "traditional", "ecological" and "knowledge", as well as ''use". As a result, the Diction analysis in Tables 18-21 was reexamined eliminating the words, "traditional", "ecological", "knowledge", "western", "science" and "use", and then the next most frequently occurring terms were selected. For the Kitsumkalum Community Group the most frequently occurring terms are, in order of frequency: "people", "land", "different", and 'life' (Table 18). For the Non-Kitsumkalum Group from the most frequent terms are: "things", "sort', "guess", and "first" (Table 19). The most frequent terms identified in the TEK literature list are: "generation", "indigenous", "nature" and "opposed" (Table 20). And finally, the most commonly occurring terms from the academic TEK researcher survey are: "indigenous", "cultural", "people", and "systems" (Table 21 ). These results are summarized in Table 22. As illustrated in Table 22 interpreting 93 . t s C om b"med Ta bl e 18 : Kit sum k a I urn P arfICipan ~ ~ Total Words Analy_zed Nwnber of Different Words Word TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE USE DON'T PEOPLE SCIENCE LAND WESTERN WORK MODERN WAY WORLD DIFFERENT LIFE CYCLE LOT SENSE WILDLIFE FIELD FOREST LITTLE NATURAL RESOURCES STUFF CEDAR CUTTING FISH GUESS YEARS RIGHT BIT COMMON CULTURAL CUT GOLD SCIENTIFIC SOCIETY THINGS TREES COMMUNITY PLANNING RIVER Occurrences 57 51 37 35 34 25 18 18 16 16 14 13 11 10 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 SURVIVAL EXAMPLE FIRST HARVEST NATIONS PARENTS PART TIME VALUES ABORIGINAL BIG BUSINESS CHANGE CONNECTION CULTURE FARM FARMS GREAT GREATER HAND HAVEN IillNT LANGUAGE LOGGING LOOK WILLINGNESS WOOD MANAGEMENT MEAN MONEY ORAL OTHERS PRESERVATION SHARE SITES SOCIAL SORT STUDIES UNDERSTANDING UTILIZING VIEW 94 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 '"' .) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ,., .) '"' .) 3 3 3 '"' .) '"' .) 3 . ts C om b"me d Ta bl e 19 : N on-Kitsum k a I urn P art•ICipan Total Words Analyzed Number of Different Words 6519 2531 Word KNOWLEDGE TRADITIONAL SCIENCE THINGS USE GUESS SORT FIRST WESTERN LOOK NATIONS THEORY WAY DON'T INFORMATION RESOURCE RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC BEING TERMS TIME ECOLOGICAL PART LANGUAGE NEED BACK TEST BLAH CULTURE DIFFERENCE FAMILY HUMAN MEAN NUMBERS PEOPLE SAYING UNDERSTANDING AWARENESS BEINGS CLAN DIFFERENT EFFECTS END FORMAT LAND LAW LIFE LOT MANAGEMENT NATURAL ORAL PAST PRESENCE REASON SAME SIDE SIGNIFICANT STORY STUDY STUFF STYLE THING VIEW WALL YEARS MODERN Occurrences 47 35 24 23 23 18 18 15 15 13 13 13 12 11 11 9 9 9 8 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 95 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 ,., .) 3 3 3 3 ,.,.) ,., .) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ,., .) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ,., .) 2 Table 20: Academic TEK Literature 2000 942 Total Words Analyzed Number ofDifferent Words Word KNOWLEDGE TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL GENERATION INDIGENOUS NATURE OPPOSED TEK ENVIRONMENT PEOPLE COMMUNITY SPIRITUAL DIFFERENT MAP SOCIAL SYSTEMS ABORIGINAL Occurrences 74 28 17 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 4 4 4 ASPECTS CULTURE DATA ENVIRONMENTAL EXPERIENCE GENERATIONS HUMAN INFORMATION LIFE LIVING LOCAL ORAL SCIENCE SYSTEM TIME UNDERSTANDING 3 96 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 T abl e 21 : A ca d ernie . TEK R esearc her Survey 1696 901 Total Words Analyzed Number of Different Words Word KNOWLEDGE TEK INDIGENOUS SCIENCE CULTURAL LOCAL PEOPLE SYSTEMS ECOLOGICAL Occurrences 36 18 12 12 8 8 7 7 6 WSK TRADITION TRADITIONAL TWO COMMUNITY SPECIFIC TIME ASPECTS WESTERN 97 6 5 5 4 3 3 '"' .) 2 2 the text without the words "traditional, "ecological" and "knowledge" gives quite a different picture regarding key word coding. Comparison of Results by Analysis Method The data from the researcher application of Content Analysis when compared with that attained through TextAnz indicates that on average only 34.5% of the words manually coded by the author are present in the TextAnz word list. Furthermore, there is a wide range of results within the author's manually coded word list compared to the TextAnz results, ranging from 0% to 80% between individuals. The breakdown of this comparison is as outlined in Table 23. The key word list from the researcher Content Analysis coding when compared with that attained through Diction indicates that on average only 24.6% of the researcher word list is displayed in the key word list attained from the Diction analysis. The breakdown of this comparison is presented in Table 24. The key word list from the TextAnz analysis when compared with the Diction coding indicates that on average 46.0% of the key word inventory from the TextAnz results are displayed in the key word list from the Diction analysis, as outlined in Table 25. As Tables 23- 25 outline the key word coding from the author's manual analysis are the most disparate from the key words attained from Diction. The range of disparity between the TextAnz and Diction results is likely due to researcher manipulation, whereas the Diction analysis runs primarily independently of the researcher. 98 I . R e- E xamma f Ion c od"me;. T a bl e 22 : Summary ofC on t en t A nalySIS Kitsumkalum Non-Kitsumkalum TEK Literature Academic TEK survey People Land Different Life Things Sort Guess First Generation Indigenous Nature Opposed Indigenous Cultural People Systems 99 T ex tA nz C od'mg. T a bl e 23 : C ompanson ofR esearch er C 0 d'mg W'th I % of Researcher Coding present in TextAnz Coding Alex Bolton Charlotte Guno Clyde Smith David Brown Ernie Gerow Gerald Wesley Joe Bevan Patricia Vickers Lynn Bolton Rick Brouwer Troy Sam Steve Roberts 62.5% 00.0% 33.3% 30.8% 33.3% 30.8% 14.3% 80.0% 30.0% 27.8% 44.4% 26.7% Average 34.5% 100 n·ICf IOU c od.mg. T a bl e 24 : C ompanson ofR esearc h er c 0 d.mg w·th I % of Researcher Alex Bolton Charlotte Guno Clyde Smith David Brown Ernie Gerow Gerald Wesley Joe Bevan Patricia Vickers Lynn Bolton Rick Brouwer Troy_ Sam Steve Roberts 25.0% 27.3% 44.4% 23.1% 22.2% 19.2% 28.6% 26.7% 10.0% 22.2% 33 .3% 33.3% Average 24.6% 101 o i ~ present in Diction o i ~ n·IC f IOU C od"mg. T a ble 25 : C ompanson of T extA nz C 0 d"mg W"th I % of TextAnz Coding present in Diction Coding Alex Bolton Charlotte Guno Clyde Smith David Brown Ernie Gerow Gerald Wesley Joe Bevan Patricia Vickers Lynn Bolton Rick Brouwer Troy Sam Steve Roberts 42.9% 53.3% 57.1% 50.0% 14.3% 55.6% 37.7% 33.3% 33.3% 38.1% 75.0% 61.9% Average 46.0% 102 The results outlined in Tables 23 to 25 are based solely upon incidence. Beyond selection of words from insistence scores, Diction also uses a series of thirty-one dictionaries to search a passage for thirty-five variables, as outlined in Appendix 4. The variables are then are compiled into five Master Variables: Activity, Optimism, Certainty, Realism and Commonality. In addition, four Calculated Variables are also used. The Master and Calculated Variables provide a much more thorough interpretation of the materials analyzed. Master Variables Five overall measures, Activity, Optimism, Certainty, Realism and Commonality were composed by standardizing all previous scores, combining them via addition and subtraction, and then by adding a constant of 50 to eliminate negative numbers. How each of these categories applies to the groups analyzed is discussed below. Activity (Figure 3)- Activity language features movement, change, implementation of ideas and the avoidance of inertia. It is of note that the highest score was attained from the Kitsumkalum Community Group, with the academic TEK Definition and academic TEK researcher groups being just slightly below that. Since the Kitsumkalum are in a transition and seeking change this is to be expected. However, the low score for the Non-Kitsumkalum Group would tend to reflect less willingness to implement new ideas regarding TEK, which is surprising, since this was not evident during the interviews and, in fact, the author would have stated the opposite from the impressions he had formed during the interviews. It may also simply be an outcome of misinterpretation of activity developed within the Diction 103 I0 Activity I / Academic TEK Researchers / ' Non-Kitsumkalum Group ' Academic TEK literature Kitsumkalum Community Group I / ' / I 19.4 I 43.38 I 0 CJ I I 42.72 0 46.61 l ... / / / / 0 10 20 30 40 Figure 3: Chart of Activity Scores. 104 CJ / so program. Optimism (/Figure 4)- Optimism language endorses some person, group, concept or event, or highlights their positive elements. Since this study examines tradition in a First Nations context and their indigenous knowledge it is not surprising that the Kitsumkalum Community Group scored the highest in this category. Nor is it surprising that all groups scored high here since the whole proposition ofTEK is the endorsement of First Nations traditional use and knowledge. What is enlightening is the order of the scores from high to low, which was Kitsumkalum Community Group (55.55), Non-Kitsumkalum Group (54.74), academic TEK Definitions (53.01), and finally, academic TEK researchers (51.25). Certainty (Figure 5)- Certainty language indicates resoluteness, inflexibility, completeness, and a tendency to speak ex cathedra (with authority or from the seat of authority). Considering the character of this category, the high score for the academic TEK Definitions is predictable since academic researchers would tend to speak from a position of assumed authority and whose influence would be evident in academic TEK Definitions and TEK classification. The high and relatively comparable scores for the Kitsumkalum Community Group and academic TEK researcher data are also understandable as both groups would tend to speak, even if the language is different, with authority on First Nations tradition. The lower score for the Non-Kitsumkalum Group is a reflection of their acknowledgement that they speak on a lower position of authority on TEK than do First Nations people, as was apparent in the interviews. 105 I0 Optimism I TEK Researchers TEK Literature Non-Kitsumkalum Kitsumkalum Community "v I 51.25 I t I ~ I IV IV v "" 49 0I 53.01 I I I 54.74 I/ I I I CJ 55.55 / so / / / / / 51 52 53 54 55 Figure 4: Chart of Optimism Scores. 106 CJ / 56 I0 Certainty I ~ ..... Academic TEK Researchers v• Academic TEK Literature I v Non-Kitsumkalum Group v Kitsumkalum Community Group ' ~ / 10 0 Figure 5: Chart of Certainty Scores. 107 45.88 I I 52.61 I I I J 38.07 1 J 46.63 I 0 0 CJ / / / 20 30 40 CJ / so / 60 Realism (Figure 6) - Realism language describes tangible, immediate, recognizable matters that affect people's everyday lives. As with the optimism scores, since this study is examining a subject that is a concern to the lives of First Nations directly, it is not surprising that the Kitsumkalum Community Group scored the highest in this category. This score reflects their recognition of the immediate and tangible activities affecting their way of life. The order of these scores is also enlightening. That is, there is a considerable difference in the score from the Kitsumkalum Community Group to that of the academic TEK researcher group, which is 53.06 to 42.89 respectively, which indicates that the latter group is less interested in the matters that affect people's everyday lives than they are in speaking ex cathedra regarding TEK. Commonality (Figure 7) - Commonality language highlights agreed-upon values of a group and rejects idiosyncratic modes of engagement. The highly comparable scores within this category confirm that all groups are more interested in the collective concerns ofFirst Nations regarding TEK than they are in individual commitments, which is to be expected since TEK relates to group awareness. This is especially evident in the Kitsumkalum Community Group, which scored the highest among the four data sets. Calculated Variables Calculated Variables result from calculations rather than dictionary matches. These include Insistence (a measure of code restriction), Embellishment (the ratio of descriptive to functional words), Variety (a measure oflinguistic dispersion), and Complexity (word size). 108 joRealism I Academic TEK Researchers / • Academic TEK Literature I I Non-Kitsumkalum Group Kitsumkalum Community Group 42.89 I 44.74 I I 0I I I 48.22 1/ I' / / 0 10 20 Figure 6: Chart of Realism Scores. 109 53.06 0 0 0 / / / 30 40 so 60 I0 Commonality I ,/ Academic TEK Researchers Academic TEK Literature Non-Kitsumkalum Group Kitsumkalum Community Group v 1/ 1/ v• 47 52.26 J I L 0 L I 52.45 I I 49.54 I I 0 53.85 0 / v / / / / 48 49 50 51 52 53 Figure 7: Chart of Commonality Scores. 110 0 / 54 Insistence (heavily used words x total occurrences/ 10) (Figure 8)- The Insistence Score calculates text dependence on a limited number of often-repeated words. The insistence scores are all within 1 standard deviation of the mean, although it is interesting that the interview material, both the Kitsumk:alum Community Group and non-Kitsumk:alum Group are below the mean, while the academic TEK definitions and academic TEK researcher groups are above the mean. Although interesting the scores are not surprising since the latter data comes from academics, who would be more inclined to use and understand key terms applied to TEK, since they are the ones attempting to apply structure to the understanding of this discipline. The closeness of the Kitsumkalum Community Group and Non-Kitsumkalum Group results indicates that there is also order to the use of key terms, but not necessarily with the understanding ofTEK terminology. Embellishment (adjectives/verbs) (Figure 9)- The Kitsumk:alum Community Group, Non-Kitsumk:alum Group and academic TEK researcher scores are all within 1 standard deviation of the mean on the minus side, which indicates that these groups all have a closely related use of descriptive to functional words, a situation which emphasizes human and material action. However, the extremely skewed and large score of the Non- Kitsumkalum Group data is surprising and indicates a strong emphasis on the separation of descriptive from functional terminology. This division of human from material actions was not evident during the interviews, nor did the author notice this characteristic while reading the interview transcripts. These results might be understandable if this group had all been from a particular background. However, this was a mixed group that included representatives from industry, government, First Nations, and academic backgrounds. 111 N -- = ~ ... I Academic TEK Researchers Academic TEK Literature Kitsumkalum Group tD ~ () .,c Non- Kitsumkalum Community Group 1J1 tD () tD [!;. = "'..... = ~ .,..... ....c .... :r ('j QO ~ ~ ID I0 Embellishment I E > ::::J c c. ·-Eu E 'C) "' ~ "' E::::J ::::J0 ..:.:: E ::::J II) +J 0 i2 u Q) "C u ~ Figure 9: Chart of Embellishment Scores. 113 Q) ~ w 1- '::::J +J "' '- Q) +J :::; Therefore, the author cannot explain Non- Kitsumkalum group embellishment score. Variety (different words/total words) (Figure 10)- This measure divides the number of different words in a passage by total words. A high score indicates a speaker's avoidance of overstatement and a preference for precise, molecular statements. As can be seen, only the academic TEK Definition data has a low score, whereas the other groups are all above 2, which is not surprising since only the academic TEK Definitions are derived from prepared, distinct text where the overstatement ofTEK would not be abnormal, whereas the other scores are derived from interview and direct communications where avoidance of overstatement and a preference for precise statements would be more probable since the comments tended to be more spontaneous. Complexity (characters/word) (Figure 11) - The measure of complexity is based on the notion that convoluted phrasing makes the ideas of a text abstract and its implications unclear. As illustrated by the scores, the Kitsumkalum Community Group and NonKitsurnkalum Group data are below the mean while the other data is above the mean. However, only the Kitsumkalum data is within 1 standard deviation. The high positive scores for the academic TEK Definitions and academic TEK researcher data are probably a reflection of this material being acquired from academics, among whom more diverse and elaborate presentation of thoughts is routine. The wide separation of the Kitsumkalum Community Group results from the other scores illustrates that there is less understanding of the complex terminology applied to TEK within the Kitsumkalum community than there is among those who use and develop it outside the community. 114 lovariety I 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 o~~~~r ~~~ ~ -0.5 +=------,r------..,...--'==::;._..,.-----r Figure 10: Chart of Variety Scores. 115 ID Complexity I 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 r ~ -0.5 -1 -1.5 ~ r ·-E ~ ,a""'cu cu w ru "'C 1- ""' ru cu u ..... u <( Figure 11: Chart of Complexity Scores. 116 :.:::; r ~ CHAPTER ELEVEN: CONCLUSIONS From the results of this study the author concludes that when it comes to defining TEK there are almost as many definitions and approaches put forward as there are researchers working on this topic. The level of disagreement and uncertainty in the application of TEK is problematic for researchers who aspire to employ and relate past TEK research to their own endeavours. It is certainly true in the case of the present study since the research produced many more questions than it did answers, a fact which has important implications for the integration of TEK with WSK within the Kitsumkalum land and resource plan. That is, the author believed that this study would establish a foundation upon which to develop an integrated land and resource management framework for the Kitsumkalum. That framework was not attained. What was attained was an understanding of the various positions dissimilar groups have in regard to what TEK is or is not. The literature on TEK clearly illustrates the divisiveness of TEK researchers. The academic literature also clearly illustrates that when it comes to equating TEK with WSK the majority of academic researchers see the characteristics of each as primarily having an 'either' 'or' quality with little 'common ground' identified between the two forms ofknowledge. As previously noted, the one exception is Stephens (2000) who states that meaningful consideration of the TEK and WSK systems reveal much in common. However, it is noteworthy that Stephens (2000, 10) is the only researcher from the literature reviewed who presents a list of common ground characteristics between TEK and WSK, presented in Figure 2 (Page 31 ), which include: 117 1. Organizing Principles a. Universe is unified b. Body of knowledge stable but subject to modification 2. Habits ofMind a. Honesty, inquisitiveness b. Perseverance c. Open-mindedness 3. Skills and Procedures a. Empirical observation in natural settings b. Pattern recognition c. Verification through repetition d. Inference and prediction 4. Knowledge a. Plant and animal behaviour, cycles, habitat needs, interdependence b. Properties of objects and materials c. Position and motion of objects d. Cycles and changes in earth and sky Although Stephens (2000) list is basic to the understanding of common ground between TEK and WSK, the list is too general and broad-spectrum to develop specific characteristics that could be used to integrate TEK and WSK in the development of a land and resource management framework. The academic TEK survey illustrated an even broader diversity of thought regarding TEK and respondents were divided on whether TEK and WSK could and should even be integrated. From the manually coded thematic data attained through the Kitsumkalum survey three important broad-spectrum themes emerged: 1. The knowledge and understanding First Nations have of resources, n. The use of resources by First Nations, 118 111. The concern First Nations hold in regard to the protection and sustainability of those resources for future generations. Although the thematic analysis does not provide information on what TEK is it does clearly illustrate the position both the Kitsumkalum and Non-Kitsumkalum groups have regarding First Nation resource knowledge, which is that First Nations have intimate knowledge of the understanding and use of resources, and a real concern regarding the conservation of resources for future generations. The importance of these themes cannot be overstated, especially since they were derived from both the Kitsumkalum and the Non-Kitsumkalum groups. However, given the broad-spectrum nature of the themes they do not display the clearly identifiable characteristics ofTEK sought in this study. Results from the manually coded Content Analysis, attained through the Kitsumkalum survey, seem quite wide-ranging with contrasting views between individuals. Consequently, this lack of consensus in regard to TEK generates a situation of obscurity for researchers, legislators and First Nations seeking to integrate TEK within their current land and resource endeavours, as this project attempts to do. The author concludes, however, that perhaps the varied views within the academic literature and among academic TEK researchers are not so unpredicted. The author expected a more unified view of TEK within the Kitsumkalum group. In actual fact, the author also expected a more unified view from the academic literature, academic TEK researchers and Non-Kitsumkalum groups as well. However, since TEK contains a human element and is a major part of First Nation culture it is reasonable to 119 conclude that individual differences in how TEK is viewed or practiced would be normal. After all, no two humans are alike either, even in the same cultural background. A contrasting position among all data sets is also evident in the results collected from the content analysis performed with Diction, which supports the results attained through the manually coded analysis discussed above. The most important aspects of the Diction code word list are evident once the key words 'tradition', 'ecological' and 'knowledge' are removed from the list. The key words evident once 'tradition', 'ecological' and 'knowledge' are removed are: 1. Kitsumkalum Community Group- 'people', 'land', 'different', and 'life' 11. Non-Kitsumkalum Group- 'things', 'sort', 'guess' and 'first' 111. Academic TEK Literature- 'generation', 'indigenous', 'nature', 'opposed' 1v. Academic TEK Researcher- 'indigenous', 'cultural', 'people' and 'systems' The above list noticeably exemplifies the dissimilar positions the groups represented have regarding TEK. Taking some poetic license in the analysis of the above list produces some interesting conclusions. For instance, the author believes that the First Nation Kitsumkalum Community Group displays the importance that people and land have to life. For the NonKitsumkalum Group, TEK includes things that needed to be sorted and guessed at. Within the academic literature TEK represents the combination of indigenous and nature elements, but which are opposed to other forms of knowledge. And finally, for the Academic TEK Researcher group, although TEK includes indigenous culture and people there is a 120 classification element that views TEK as a system within systems. The four group positions just noted were also evident in the Master and Calculated Variables produced from the Diction analysis. Another important aspect realized from this study was the recognition that the study of TEK often disregards the social context that produced the TEK, and the indigenous language specific to that knowledge base. For example, during the Kitsumkalum survey it was realized that most Kitsumkalum Band members were unfamiliar with the term TEK and it was necessary to provide a brief summary of the meaning and how the author was using the term. Kitsumkalum band members also indicated to the author that perhaps studies focusing on First Nation traditions and practices should be conducted within the context of First Nation languages and not within that of the Western scientific community. All Kitsumkalum band members stated, in one form or another, that they had lost much of their cultural understandings because they had lost a great deal of their traditional language. Through this study the author was attempting to separate and sort TEK into a neat set of categories using his Western reductionist background to develop a framework for the integration ofTEK with WSK. After conducting an extensive literature review, an Academic TEK Survey, and the primary data collection within the Kitsumkalum traditional territory, the author concludes that the application of a Western reductionist approach for TEK does not work. In fact, the results of this study indicate that it is folly for academic and Western researchers to continue to try to separate and fit TEK into neat categories or range of classifications to fit within Western research paradigms. That being stated though, the author 121 still firmly believes that TEK needs to be considered in resource management decisions, but not through integration. The numerous problems inherent in integrating TEK with WSK can be largely attributed to the unique fundamental qualities of TEK, and WSK, and their disparate characteristics. It seems reasonable to the author that, ifTEK and WSK are individually unique and divergent, research efforts spent trying to integrate these two ways ofknowing would be better focused on finding an approach whereby they could be used together collaboratively, but with each system keepings its own distinctive properties. Thus, the author concludes that TEK researchers should carry-out more research that seeks to achieve a code of conduct with management approaches that utilize both unique ways of knowing through a collaborative, mutually beneficial structure. In this instance, the management arrangement would not be produced through an 'integration' of two 'ways of knowing', but through an 'alliance' between two 'ways of knowing. ' While some interesting information was gained through this study, the reality is that TEK is an extremely difficult concept to characterize and an even more complicated one to categorize. The author believes that the classification and attempts at integration of TEK will likely continue to be intangible. The fact is that TEK is so much a part of First Nation culture that it is just part of everyday lives; aboriginal people never really stop to think about what TEK is. TEK is just what aboriginal people do. In truth, most First Nation people the author has talked to find the terminology ofTEK to be empty and confusing, yet when they start to talk about their everyday lives and activities TEK is clearly evident. The bottom line 122 appears to be that for non-aboriginal researchers the nature of TEK is something that is easier to hypothesize about than execute, while for First Nations people it is more easily practiced than reified. 123 BIBLIOGRAPHY Agrawal, Arun. 2002. Indigenous knowledge and politics of classification. International Social Science Journal173: 287-297. American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 2006. Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company. Anderson J, Clement J and Crowder LV. 1998. Accommodating conflicting interests in forestry--concepts emerging from pluralism. Unasy lva 49: 3-10. Armstrong, Jeanette. 2002. Natural ways ofknowing: Positioning Indigenous Peoples ' Knowledge in natural resource management. In Proceedings, Linking Indigenous Peoples ' Knowledge and Western science in natural resource management. eds. H. Michel and D. Gayton, 11-15. Kamloops, B.C.: Southern Interior Forest Extension and Research Partnership. Amudavi, D. M. and N. Mango. 2004. Enhancing community-based research: The case of a participatory action research experience in a rural community in Kenya. http://www.education.up.ac.zalalarprn!PRP_pdf/Amudavi&Mango.pdf. (accessed 2005). Aronson, Jodi. 1992. The interface of family therapy and a juvenile arbitration and mediation program. PhD. diss., Nova Southeastern University. Aronson, Jodi. 1994. A Pragmatic View of Thematic Analysis. The Qualitative Report, 2, no. 1, (Spring), http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/Backlssues/QR2-1/aronson.html (accessed 2006). Asche, M. 1999. From Calder to Vander Feet: Aboriginal Rights and Canadian Law, 19731996. In Indigenous Peoples Rights in Australia, Canada and New Zealand, ed. Paul Havemann. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bartle, Phil. 2005. What is Community? A Sociological Perspective. http://www.scn.org/cmp/whatcom.htm (accessed 2005). Bear, Christopher. 2000. Ecological Knowledge: Key informant approaches for the Gulf of St. Lawrence Lobster Fisheries . Issues Position Paper. Ecological Knowledge Working Seminar II, Antigonish: St. Francis Xavier University. Berkes, Fikret. 1993. Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Perspective. In Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Concepts and Cases, ed. J. T. Inglis, 1-9. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre. Berkes, F. 2004. Rethinking Community-Based Conservation. Conservation Biology, 18, no. 3. 124 Bernard, Andrew. 1999. How does Insight y ield insight into the interdependent nature of human knowing, with respect to 'Ecological Knowledge': my reflections. Issues Position Paper. Ecological Knowledge Working Seminar, Antigonish: St. Francis Xavier University. Blumenthal, D. and J. L. Jannink. 2000. A classification of collaborative management methods. Conservation Ecology 4, no.2, 13. http://www.consecol.org/vol4/iss2/art13/ (accessed 2005). Boas, F. 1906. The tribes of the North Pacific coast, Annual Archaeological Report 1905, 235 -49. Toronto: Minister of Education. Boothroyd, P. and Barry Sadler, eds. 1994. TEK and Modern Environmental Assessment. The International Study ofthe Effectiveness ofEnvironmental Assessment of December 1994. British Columbia: The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, International Association for Impact Assessment and the University of British Columbia. 75. Borrini-Feyerabend G, T.M. Farvar, J.C. Nguinguiri and V.A. Ndangang. 2000. Comanagement of natural resources. Organising, negotiating and learning-by-doing. Germany: Kasperag Verlag. Bradshaw, B. 2003 Questioning the credibility and capacity of community-based resource management. Canadian Geographer: 4 7, no. 2. Brascoupe, Simon and Howard Mann. 2001. A community Guide to Protecting Indigenous Knowledge. Ottawa: Research and Analysis Directorate, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Brooke, Lorraine F. 1993. The Participation ofIndigenous Peoples and the Application of Their Environmental and Ecological Knowledge in the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy, Vol. 1, Ottawa: Inuit Circumpolar Conference. Brockman, Aggie. 1997. When all Peoples have the same story, Humans will Cease to Exist. Dene Cultural Institute. http://www.nativemaps.org/abstracts/all_peoples.pdf (accessed 2005). Brosius, J.P., and A. L. Tsing. 1998. Representing communities: Histories and politics of community-based natural resource management. Society & Natural Resources: 11, no.2. Bruyere, Gord and Einar Bergland. nd. Traditional Knowledge. Contemporary Issues in the Circumpolar World 2, http://www.uarctic.org/bcs/BCS332/Module_ 4.pdf(accessed 2005). Bundy, Alida. 1999Issues Position Paper for Social Research and Ecological Knowledge Systems: Exploring Research Design and Methodological Approaches that Define and Reconcile Contending Perspectives . Issues Position Paper. Ecological Knowledge Working Seminar. Antigonish: St. Francis Xavier University. 125 Butler, Caroline F. 1999. Eco-Knowledge Working Seminar. Issues Position Paper. Ecological Knowledge Working Seminar. Antigonish: St. Francis Xavier University. Butler, Caroline F. 2004. Researching Traditional Ecological Knowledge for Multiple Uses, Canadian Journal of Native Education: 28(1/2), 33-48. Butler, Caroline F. and Charles R. Menzies. 2002. Methodological review and approaches for local/traditional knowledge research, draft report. 1-24. Vancouver: University ofBritish Columbia. Victoria: Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. Calder vs. Attorney General ofBC. 1973. 34 D.L.R. (3d) 145 (also reported:[1973] S.C.R. 313, [1973] 4 W.W.R. 1) Carlsson, L. 2000. Policy Networks as Collective Action. Policy Studies Journal: 28: 502520. Carr, D. S. and K. Halvorsen. 2001. An Evaluation of Three Democratic, Community-Based Approaches to Citizen Participation: Surveys, Conversations With Community Groups, and Community Dinners. Society & Natural Resources: 14, no. 2. Chambers, R. 1989. Reversals, Institutions and Change. In Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. eds. R. Chambers, A. Pacey, and L.A. Thrupp. New York: The Bootstrap Press. Corsiglia, John and Gloria Snively. 1997. Knowing Home: NisGa'a traditional knowledge and wisdom improve environmental decision-making. Alternatives Journal: 23, no.3, 22-27. Conway, F.D.L., P. Corcoran, A. Duncan and L. Ketchum. 1997. A Tool for Towns in Transition. Extension Journal Inc.: 35, no. 4. http://www.adec.edu/clemson/papers/town_ trans.html (accessed 2005). Cowper, D. 1999. Community and Science: A Critical Interface in Co-Management. Paper for MARA 5012. Halifax, NS: Dalhousie University, Marine Affairs Program. Diction. nd. http://www.dictionsoftware.com/. Davidson-Hunt, lain J. and Fikret Berkes. nd. Changing Resource Management Paradigms, Traditional Ecological Knowledge, and Non-timber Forest Products. NTFP Conference Proceedings. DCI (Dene Cultural Institute). 1995. Written submission to the BHP Diamond Mine Environmental Assessment Panel, 6 April1995. Available from BHP Diamond Mine Environmental Assessment Panel, Information Office, 2nd floor, 5-5120 49th St., Yellowknife, Northwest Territories X1A 1P8. Delogamuukw vs. BC. 1997. File No.: 23799. 126 Dressler, W.W. 1996. Culture and blood pressure: using consensus analysis to create a measurement. Cultural Anthropology Met:8, no.3, 6-8. Drew, Joshua A. 2005. Use of Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Marine Conservation. Conservation Biology: 19, no.4, 1286-1293. EIP (Environmental Information Partnership). 1996. Traditional Ecological Knowledge Bibliography. Environmental Information Partnership, Moose river Basin, Ontario Ministry ofNatural Resources. Fernandez-Gimenez, Maria E. 2000. The Role of Mongolian Nomadic Pastoralists' Ecological Knowledge in Rangeland Management, Ecological Applications: 10, no.5, 13181326. Fesenmaier, J. & N. Contractor 2001. The evolution of Knowledge for Rural development. Journal of the Community Development Society: 32, no. 1, 161-175. Fisher, Robin. 1990. Contact and Conflict: Indian- European Relations in British Columbia, 1774-1890, 2nd ed. Vancouver: UBC Press. Fratus N, J. Komoto, C. Morgan, T. Whitaker and S. Worth. 2003. Collaborator 's Handbook: Working together to manage Los Padres National Forest. http://www.cbcrc.org. (accessed 2005). Frideres, J. 1996. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples: The Road to SelfGovernment. The Canadian Journal ofNative Studies XVI, 2(1996):247-266. Freeman, Milton M.R. 1992. The Nature and Utility of Traditional Ecological Knowledge, Northern Perspectives 20, no.1. http://www.carc.org/pubs/v20no 1/utility.htm (accessed 2005). GNWT (Government ofthe Northwest Territories). 1993. Policy, Traditional Knowledge. Deputy Ministers' Offices and the Priorities and Planning Secretariat, Department of Executive. Gadgil, Madhav, P.R. Seshagiri Rao, G. Utkarsh, P. Pramod, Ashwini Chhatre, and members of the People's Biodiversity Initiative. 2000. New Meanings for Old Knowledge: The People's Biodiversity Registers Program. Ecological Applications: 10, no.5, 1307-1317. Garfield, V. 1939. Tsimshian Clan and Society, AES publications, Seattle: University of Washington Press. Godwin, Anne. 1999. Issues Position Paper on Ecological Knowledge. Issues Position Paper. Ecological Knowledge Working Seminar, Antigonish: St. Francis Xavier University. 127 Grant, Kevin L and Marc L. Miller. 2004. A cultural consensus analysis of marine ecological knowledge in the Solomon Islands . SPC Traditional Marine Resource Management and Knowledge Information Bulletin # 17 -December. Gray, B. 1989. Collaborating. Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Greenwood, D. J. and M. Levin. 1998. Introduction to Action Research: social research for social change. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Guanish, Joseph. 1997. Naskapi Environmental Knowledge and its Value. In Terra Borealis: Traditional and Western Scientific Environmental Knowledge. ed. Micheline Manseau. Workshop Proceedings. Northwest River, Labrador. Gupta, Anil K. nd. Indigenous knowledge: Ways of knowing, feeling and doing. http://www.sristi.org/anilg/node/565. (accessed 2005). Gwich'in Tribal Council. 2004. Traditional Knowledge Policy . Gwich'in Social & Cultural Institute. Haida Nation vs. BC and Weyerhaeuser. 2002. Docket:CA027999, BCCA 147. Docket:CA027999, BCCA 462. Docket:SC3394, BCSC 1243. Hawley, Alex W.L., Erin E. Sherry and Chris J. Johnson. 2004. A biologists' perspective on amalgamating traditional environmental knowledge and resource management. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management: 5, no.1 , 36-50. Heyd, Thomas. 2000. Indigenous Knowledge, Land Ethic, and Sustainability. The Electronic Journal ofAustralian and New Zealand History. http://www.jcu.edu.au/afflhistory/articles/heyd.htm. (accessed 2005). Howard, Pat. 1994. The Confrontation ofModem and Traditional Knowledge Systems in Development, Canadian Journal of Communication: 19, no.4. http://www.cjc-online.ca/viewarticle.php?id=231&layout=html. (accessed 2005). Huntington, Henry P. 2000. Traditional Knowledge of the Ecology of Belugas, Delphinapterus Leucas, in Cook Inlet, Alaska. Marine Fisheries Review: 62, no.3 , 134-140. Huntington, Henry P. 2005. "We Dance Around in a Ring and Suppose Academic Engagement with Traditional Knowledge." Arctic Anthropology: 42, no.1, 29-32. ILMB (Integrated Land Management Bureau). nd. Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs) and Regional Land Use Plans in BC. http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/ilmb/lup/lrmp/index.html. (accessed 2006). 128 Inglis, J. T. 1993. Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Concepts and Cases. Canada: International Program on Traditional Ecological Knowledge International Development Research Centre, Ottawa. Jentoff, Svein. 1999. Ecological Folk Knowledge: Some Methodological Remarks. Issues Position Paper. Ecological Knowledge Working Seminar II, Antigonish: St. Franxis Zavier University. Johnson, M. 1992. Lore: Capturing Traditional Environmental Knowledge. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre. Lambrou, Yianna. 1997. Control and Access to Indigenous Knowledge and Biological Resources. Ottawa: Biodiversity Convention Office, Environment Canada. www.nativemaps.org/abstracts/Control97 .pdf. (accessed 2005). Langill, Steve. 2005. Introduction to Indigenous Knowledge. The Overstory #82. http://www.agroforestry.net/overstory/overstory82.html. (accessed 2005). Legat, A. 1991 . Report of the Traditional Knowledge Working Group. Yellowknife NWT: Department of Culture and Communications. Leininger, M. M. 1985. Ethnography and ethnonursing: Models and modes of qualitative data analysis. In Qualitative Research Methods in Nursing, ed. M. M. Leininger. 33-72. Lertzman, Ken. 2002. Science and Indigenous Peoples' Knowledge (summary). In Proceedings, Linking Indigenous Peoples ' Knowledge and Western science in natural resource management. eds. H. Michel and D. Gayton. 29-31. Kamloops: Southern Interior Forest Extension and Research Partnership. Lipscomb, M. R. 2003. A Critical Analysis of Indicators of Community-based Watershed Initiatives. Masters Thesis. Virginia: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. http://scholar.lib. vt.edu/theses/available/etd-05212003-13443 9/unrestricted/etd.pdf. (accessed 2005). Loka Institute, The. 2002. About the CRN: what is community based research? http://www.loka.org/crn. (accessed 2005). Low, Bruce. 2005. Profile: Kitsumkalum: A First Nation Community in Transition. Course Paper from POLS 634 - Resource Communities in Transition, An examination of issues facing rural, remote and northern resource communities across Canada. Prince George: UNBC. Macklem, P. 1991 . First Nations Self-Government and the Borders of the Canadian Legal Imagination. 36. McGill L.J. 129 Macintosh, P. and J. Kearney. 2002. Enhancing Natural Resources and Livelihoods Globally Through Community-Based Resource Management. Proceedings: Learning & Innovations Institute, The Centre for Community-Based Resource Management, a joint program ofthe Coady International Institute and the St. Francis Xavier University Extension Department. http://www.stfx.ca/institutes/ccbm/text/Pdf/ProceedingsLearning%20and%20Innovations%2 Olnstitute%202002.pdf. (accessed 2005). Mauro, Francesco and Preston D. Hardison. 2000. Traditional Knowledge oflndigenous and Local Communities: International Debate and Policy Initiatives. Ecological Applications: 10, no.5, 1263-1269. McDonald, James Andrew. 1985. Trying To Make A Life: the Historical Political Economy of the Kitsumkalum, Ph.D. Diss., Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia. McDonald, J., .B. Guernsey, and B. Low. 2004. Our Future or Yours: A First Nations community-centered approach to sustainability in a time of transition. Communities and Natural Resources in Transition: Linking Social Science, Decision Makers, and Practitioners for A Sustainable Future Forum. Poster presentation. Prince George: UNBC. McFetridge, Robert T. and Geoff Howell. 2001. Linking Western Sciences and Traditional Knowledge, Canadian Information System for the Environment. http://www.cisescie.ca/english/library/bg_papers/Western_ Science/Linking.cfm. (accessed 2005). McKee, Christopher. 2000. Treaty talks in British Columbia: negotiating a mutually beneficial future. Vancouver: UBC Press. Michel, Henry and Don Gayton. 2002. Linking Indigenous peoples' knowledge and Western science in natural resource management: A dialogue. B. C. Journal of Ecosystems and Management: 2, nSo.2 . Moller, H., F. Berkes, P. 0. Lyver, and M. Kislalioglu. 2004. Combining science and traditional ecological knowledge: monitoring populations for co-management. Ecology and Society: 9, no.3, 2. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art2/. (accessed 2005). MVEIRB (Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board). 2005. Guidelines for Incorporating Traditional Knowledge in Environmental Impact Assessment. http://www.mveirb.nt.ca/documents/toolkits/MVEIRB _ TK_Guide. pdf. (accessed 2005). Nakashima, Douglas. 2000. Traditional Knowledge: Resisting and Adapting to Globalization, UNCTAD Expert Meeting on Systems and National Experiences for Protecting Traditional Knowledge. (30 October to I November 2000). Geneva: Innovations and Practices. Newhouse, David. 2004. Indigenous Knowledge in a Multicultural World, Native Studies: 15, no.2, 139-154. 130 Olsson, Per and Carl Folk:e. 2001. Local Ecological Knowledge and Institutional Dynamics for Ecosystem Management: A Study of Lake Racken Watershed, Sweden, Ecosystems 4: 85-104. Nyden, P. 2003 . Partnerships for Collaborative Action Research. In Building Partnerships for Service Learning. 192-233.B. Jacoby & Associates. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Palmquist, M. E. , K.M. Carley and T.A. Dale. 1997. Two applications of automated text analysis: Analyzing literary and non-literary texts. In Text Analysis for the Social Sciences: Methods for Drawing Statistical Inferences from Texts and Transcripts. ed. C. Roberts. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Peat, F. David. 1994. Lighting the Seventh Fire-The Spiritual Ways, Healing and Science of the Native American. New York: Carol Publishing. Peiera, Joanne. 1994. The Contribution ofTraditional Ecological Knowledge to Environmental Impact Assessment. Issues Position Paper, Ecological Knowledge Working Seminar. Antigonish: St. Francis Zavier University. Petheram, R. J., P. Stephen, and F. Maidment. 2003. From engaging the public- to supporting citizens in collaborative partnerships. Insights for extension from community forestry. Australia Pacific Extension Network. http://www.regional.org.aulaulapen/2003/2/114petheramrj .htm. (accessed 2005). Pretty, J. 1995. Regenerating Agriculture: Policies and Practices for Sustainability and SelfReliance. London: Earthscan. R. vs. Vander Peet. 1996. File No.:23803. Rahman, Ataur. 2000. Development of an Integrated Traditional and Scientific Knowledge Base: A Mechanism for Accessing, Benefit-Sharing and Documenting Traditional Knowledge for Sustainable Socio-Economic Development and Poverty Alleviation. Geneva: UNCTAD Expert Meeting on Systems and National Experiences for Protecting Traditional Knowledge, Innovations and Practices. Rathche, B. and E. P. Lacey. 1985. Phenological patterns of terrestrial plants. Annual Review ofEcology and Systematics 16:179-214. Reid, Alan, Kelly Teamey and Justin Dillion. 2002. Traditional ecological knowledge for learning with sustainability in mind. The Trumpeter (2002). Roots, Fred. 1997. Inclusion of Different Knowledge Systems in Research. In Traditional and Western Scientific Environmental Knowledge, ed. Micheline Manseau. Workshop Proceedings. Labrador: Terra Borealis, Institute for Environmental Monitoring and Research. 131 Ruddle, Kenneth. 1993. The Transmission of Traditional Ecological Knowledge. In Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Concepts and Cases. ed. J.T. Inglis. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre. Savan, B. and D. Sider. 2003. Contrasting Approaches to Community-based Research and a Case Study of Community Sustainability in Toronto, Canada. Local Environment: 8, no.3. Sclove, R.E., M.L. Scammell and B. Holland. 1998. Community-Based Research in the United States: An Introductory Reconnaissance, Including Twelve Organisational Case Studies and Comparison with the Dutch Science Shops and the Mainstream American Research System- Executive Summary. Amherst, MA: The Loka Institute. Shim, Jae-Myung. 2004. The Evolution ofLeisure Studies in North America and South Korea: A Study of Cultural Consensus . A Thesis in Leisure Studies. The Pennsylvania State University. Shukla, Shaileshkumar. 2004. Strengthening Community Based Conservation through Traditional Ecological Knowledge. Indigenous Knowledges Conference Proceedings. Interinstitutional Consortium for Indigenous Knowledge, Pennsylvania State University. Sinclair, Alan. 1999. Social Research and Ecological Knowledge Systems: Exploring Research Designs and Methodological Approaches that Define and Reconcile Contending Perspectives. Issues Position Paper, Ecological Knowledge Working Seminar, Antigonish: St. Francis Xavier University. Sobo, E.J. and V.C. de Munck. 1998. The forest of methods. In Using Methods in the Field: A Practical Introduction and Casebook. eds. V.C. de Munck and E.J. Sobo. 13-37.Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press. Spradley, J. 1979. The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Stephens, Sidney. 2000. Handbook for Culturally Responsive Science Curriculum, Fairbanks, Alaska: Alaska Science Consortium and the Alaska Rural Systemic Initiative. Stringer, E. T. 1999. Action Research, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications. Stevenson, Marc G. 1996. Indigenous Knowledge in Environmental Assessment. Arctic: 49, no.3, 278-291. Stiplen, Chuck and Sarah DeWerdt. 2001. Old Science New Science. Conservation in Practice: 3, no.3, 1-7. Taku River v. Ringstad. 2002. Docket:CA027488. Docket:CA027500. BCCA 59. Taku River v. Ringstad. 2004. SCC 74. 132 TextAnz. nd. http://www.cro-code.com/textanz.jsp. Tom, A., and T.J. Sork. 1994. Issues in collaborative research. In Research perspectives in adult education. ed. D. Randy Garrison. 39-56. Malabar, Fla.: Krieger Pub. Co. Turner, N. nd. "Keeping it Living ": Applications and Relevance ofTraditional Plant Management in British Columbia to Sustainable Harvesting ofNon-timber Forest Products. NTFP Conference Proceedings. Uphoff, N. 1998. Community-Based Natural Resource Management: Connecting Micro and Macro Processes, and People with Their Environments. International CBNRM Workshop, Washington, DC. http://www.cbnrm.net/pdf/uphoff_OOl.pdf. (accessed 2005). Usher, Peter J. 2000. Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Environmental Assessment and Management. Arctic: 53, no.2, 183-193. Warren, D.M. 1991. Using Indigenous Knowledge for Agricultural Development. World Bank Discussion Paper 127.Washington, D.C. Watson, Alan E., Lilian Alessa and Brian Glaspell. 2003. The Relationship between Traditional Ecological Knowledge, Evolving Cultures, and Wilderness Protection in the Circumpolar North. Conservation Ecology: 8, no.1. http://www.consecol.org/vol8/issl/art2. (accessed 2005). Wavey, ChiefRobert. 1993. International Workshop on Indigenous Knowledge and Community-Based Resource Management: Keynote Address. In Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Concepts and Cases. ed. J.T. Inglis. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre. Wilson, Douglas. 2000. Research Design Ideas. Issues Position Paper. Ecological Knowledge Working Seminar II. Antigonish: St. Francis Xavier University. Zwanenburg, Kees. 1999. The Incorporation ofLocal Fisheries Knowledge into the Fish Stock Assessment Process. Issues Position Paper. Ecological Knowledge Working Seminar II. Antigonish: St. Francis Xavier University. 133 APPENDIX 1: Survey of Academic TEK Researchers: Questionnaire TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE EXPERT OPINION SURVEY My name is Bruce Low and I am a graduate student within the Department ofNatural Resources and Environmental Studies at the University ofNorthern British Columbia. You were selected to receive this request for information because of your extensive background in Traditional Ecological Knowledge research. This information will be used within my graduate research project on First Nations Land and Resource Planning. It will also form part of an International Studies Social Research Methods project I am currently undertaking. I ask that you please answer these six questions and return this form to me at your earliest convenience. Your participation and support of this request is highly valued. Question 1. What does tradition in a First Nations context mean to you? Question 2. List three commonalities you believe to exist between Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Western Scientific Knowledge. a. b. c. Question 3. List three differences you believe to exist between Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Western Scientific Knowledge. a. b. c. Question 4a. Using the following scale, do you believe that Traditional Ecological Knowledge can be synthesized with Western Scientific Knowledge? 1 2 3 4 56 7 8 9 10 Strongly Believe Strongly Disagree 4b- Why do you believe this? 134 Question 5. Do you believe that Traditional Ecological Knowledge has the following characteristics? Yes No Local Authentication Global Authentication Universe is Unified Holistic Metaphysical Empirical Observation in Natural Settings Trust for Inherited wisdom Hypothesis Falsification Discipline-Based Knowledge of Plant and Animal Behaviour Question 6. Do you believe that Western Scientific Knowledge has the following characteristics? Yes No Local Authentication Global Authentication Universe is Unified Holistic Metaphysical Empirical Observation in Natural Settings Trust for Inherited wisdom Hypothesis Falsification Discipline-Based Thank you for taking the time to complete and return this survey. Your assistance is well-regarded. 135 APPENDIX2: Definitions for Questions 5 and 6 Local Authentication- Characteristic of a particular locality, local customs, or a local point of view, regarding the process of determining whether or not the products of a given observation fulfil a set of established requirements. requirements. Global Authentication - Being comprehensive, all-inclusive, or a complete total regarding the process of determining whether or not the products of a given observation fulfil a set of established requirements. Universe is Unified - Regarded as a whole, the entire aggregation of items from which samples can be drawn, formed or united into a whole. Holistic - Emphasizing the importance of wholes, or with complete systems, rather than with the analysis of, treatment of, or dissection into parts. Metaphysical- Based on speculative or abstract reasoning and the Supernatural. Empirical Observation in Natural Settings- Capable of being confirmed, verified, or disproved by observation or experiment. Trust for Inherited wisdom- Knowledge gained or received from an ancestor. Hypothesis Falsification - To declare or prove to be false a tentative explanation for an observation or phenomenon that can be tested by further investigation. Discipline-Based- A specific branch of knowledge or teaching. Knowledge of Plant and Animal Behaviour- Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study of the action or reaction of plants and animals under specified circumstances. 136 APPENDIX3: TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE QUESTIONNAIRE INTERVIEW Thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview. Your participation and support of this research is highly valued. As noted, the information being collected here will be used in the development of the Kitsumk:alum Land and Resource Management Plan and will form part of graduate research being undertaken through the University of Northern British Columbia. This session is being taped in order that all the information we discuss will be collected. Background Information Name: ------------------------------------------------------------Gender: ------------------------ Date ofBirth: ------------------------ Ethnicity (i.e. Canadian, Tsimshian-Canadian, Norwegian, Scot, Nisga'a, etc.): _________ Governance (have you previously served as elected Chief and Council): Yes No --If yes, when and what position( s): _______________________________________ Employment (Current position): ___________________________________________ QUESTIONS Question 1. What does First Nation Traditional Ecological Knowledge mean to you? Question 2. What does Western Scientific Knowledge mean to you? Question 3. What do you think is a distinguishing characteristic of Traditional Ecological Knowledge? Question 4. What do you think is a distinguishing characteristic of Western Scientific Knowledge? Question 5. What characteristic do you believe to be the same between Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Western Scientific Knowledge? Question 6. What characteristic do you believe to be different between Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Western Scientific Knowledge? Question 7. On a scale between 1 and 5, with 1 you strongly believe and 5 you strongly disagree, do you think Traditional Ecological Knowledge can be combined with Western Scientific Knowledge? 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Believe Strongly Disagree Question 7a. Why do you believe this? 137 Question 8. On a scale between 1 and 5, with 1 you strongly believe and 5 you strongly disagree, do you think Traditional Ecological Knowledge should be combined with Western Scientific Knowledge? 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Believe Strongly Disagree Question 8a. Why do you believe this? Question 9. In regard to your own understanding of Traditional Ecological Knowledge do you b erteve, e1·th eryes or no, th at 1·t h as th ese fleatures.? Is it: Check One Legitimate - that is, being in accordance with established or accepted principles, patterns, rules and standards? Observed - that is, discovered or determined byobservation? Accurate - that is, conforming exactly or almost exactly to facts or standards, or capable of performing with care and precision? Practical - that is, concerned with practical experience and observation rather than theory? Dependable - that is, a reliable source of information and consistent in performance or behaviour? Worthwhile- that is, sufficiently valuable or important to justify the investment of time effort, or interest? Yes No Question 10. In regard to your own understanding of Western Scientific Knowledge do you b e 1"teve, e1t . h er yes or no, th at 1t . h as th e flo 11 owmg . fleatures ?. Check One Is it: Legitimate - that is, being in accordance with established or accepted principles, Yes No !patterns, rules and standards? Observed -that is, discovered or determined by observation? Accurate - that is, conforming exactly or almost exactly to facts or standards, or capable of performing_ with care and precision? Practical - that is, concerned with practical experience and observation rather than theory? Dependable - that is, a reliable source of information and consistent in performance or behaviour? Worthwhile- that is, sufficiently valuable or important to justify the investment of time effort, or interest? Question 11. Do you use Traditional Ecological Knowledge in any of your activities, and if yes how do you apply it to those activities? *** Do you have any additional comments that you would like to make? Thank you for your participation. 138 APPENDIX4: FROM: DICTION 5.0 THE TEXT -ANALYSIS PROGRAM - USERS MANUAL WINDOWS VERSION DIGITEXT, INC., AUSTIN, TEXAS, PART 13: DESCRIPTIONS OF SCORES Overview DICTION uses thirty-one dictionaries (word-lists) to search a text. In addition, five Master Variables are built by concatenating these dictionary scores. Four Calculated Variables are also used. The dictionaries have the following properties: They vary considerably in size, ranging from as few as 10 words to as many as 745 words. The dictionaries contain individual words only (vs. phrases). No words are duplicated across the thirty-one dictionaries. Homographs, words that are spelled alike but that have different meanings, are treated via statistical weighting procedures (thereby partially correcting for context). DICTIONs Report Files produces both raw scores and standardized scores for each of the standard dictionaries. Scanning the Dictionaries The user may view the standard dictionaries in the following manner: 1. Select Dictionaries from the Main Bar: 2. Click on Scan Dictionaries. 3. Use the upper arrow keys to select a particular dictionary (Figure 27). 4. Use the lower arrow keys to scroll through the corpus of words in that dictionary (Figure 28). 5. To exit the scanning function click on Done. Loading the Dictionaries Dictionaries will be automatically loaded into memory at the beginning of each work session. THE CERTAINTY SCORE Definition: Language indicating resoluteness, inflexibility, and completeness and a tendency to speak ex cathedra Formula: [Tenacity+ Leveling+ Collectives+ Insistence.] - [Numerical Terms+ Ambivalence+ Self Reference + Variety] TENACITY: All uses of the verb to be (is, am, will, shall), three definitive verb forms (has, must, do) and their variants, as well as all associated contractions (he 'll, they 've, ain 't). These verbs connote confidence and totality. LEVELING: Words used to ignore individual differences and to build a sense of completeness and assurance. Included are totalizing terms (everybody, anyone, each,fully), adverbs of permanence (always, completely, inevitably, consistently), and resolute adjectives (unconditional, consummate, absolute, open-and-shut). COLLECTIVES: Singular nouns connoting plurality that function to decrease specificity. These words reflect a dependence on categorical modes of thought. Included are social groupings (crowd, choir, team, humanity), task groups (army, congress, legislature, staff) and geographical entities (county, world, kingdom, republic). 139 INSISTENCE: This is a measure of code-restriction and semantic contentedness. The assumption is that repetition of key terms indicates a preference for a limited, ordered world. In calculating the measure, all words occurring three or more times that function as nouns or noun-derived adjectives are identified (either cybernetically or with the user's assistance) and the following calculation performed: [Number of Eligible Words x Sum of their Occurrences] -;. 10. (For small input files, high frequency terms used two or more times are used in the calculation). NUMERICAL TERMS : Any sum, date, or product specifYing the facts in a given case. This dictionary treats each isolated integer as a single word and each separate group of integers as a single word. In addition, the dictionary contains common numbers in lexical format (one, tenfold, hundred, zero) as well as terms indicating numerical operations (subtract, divide, multiply, percentage) and quantitative topics (digitize, tally, mathematics). The presumption is that Numerical Terms hyperspecifY a claim, thus detracting from its universality. AMBIVALENCE: Words expressing hesitation or uncertainty, implying a speaker's inability or unwillingness to commit to the verbalization being made. Included are hedges (allegedly, perhaps, might), statements of inexactness (almost, approximate, vague, somewhere) and confusion (ba.ffled, puzzling, hesitate). Also included are words of restrained possibility (could, would, he d) and mystery (dilemma, guess, suppose, seems). SELF-REFERENCE: All first-person references, including I, I'd, I'll, I'm, I've, me, mine, my, myself Self-references are treated as acts of indexing whereby the locus of action appears to reside in the speaker and not in the world at large (thereby implicitly acknowledging the speakers limited vision). VARIETY: This measure conforms to Wendell Johnson s (1946) Type-Token Ratio which divides the number of different words in a passage by the passage s total words. A high score indicates a speaker's avoidance of overstatement and a preference for precise, molecular statements. THE OPTIMISM SCORE Definition: Language endorsing some person, group, concept or event or highlighting their positive entailments. Formula: [Praise+ Satisfaction+ Inspiration]- [Blame+ Hardship+ Denial] PRAISE: Affmnations of some person, group, or abstract entity. Included are terms isolating important social qualities (dear, delightfUl, witty), physical qualities (mighty, handsome, beautiful), intellectual qualities (shrewd, bright, vigilant, reasonable), entrepreneurial qualities (successfUl, conscientious, renowned), and moral qualities (faithful, good, noble). All terms in this dictionary are adjectives. SATISFACTION: Terms associated with positive affective states (cheerfol, passionate, happiness), with moments ofundiminishedjoy (thanks, smile, welcome) and pleasurable diversion (excited,fun, lucky), or with moments of triumph (celebrating, pride, auspicious). Also included are words of nurturance: healing, encourage, secure, relieved. INSPIRATION: Abstract virtues deserving of universal respect. Most ofthe terms in this dictionary are nouns isolating desirable moral qualities (faith, honesty, self-sacrifice, virtue) as well as attractive personal qualities (courage, dedication, wisdom, mercy). Social and political ideals are also included: patriotism, success, education, justice. BLAME: Terms designating social inappropriateness (mean, naive, sloppy, stupid) as well as downright evil (fascist, blood-thirsty, repugnant, malicious) compose this dictionary. In addition, adjectives describing unfortunate circumstances (bankrupt, rash, morbid, embarrassing) or unplanned vicissitudes (weary, nervous, painful, detrimental) are included. The dictionary also contains outright denigrations: cruel, illegitimate, offensive, miserly. 140 HARDSHIP: This dictionary contains natural disasters (earthquake, starvation, tornado, pollution), hostile actions (killers, bankruptcy, enemies, vices) and censurable human behavior (infidelity, despots, betrayal). It also includes unsavory political outcomes (injustice, slavery, exploitation, rebellion) as well as normal human fears (grief, unemployment, died, apprehension) and incapacities (error, copouts, weakness). DENIAL: A dictionary consisting of standard negative contractions (aren 't, shouldn't, don 't), negative functions words (nor, not, nay), and terms designating null sets (nothing, nobody, none). THE ACTIVITY SCORE Definition: Language featuring movement, change, the implementation of ideas and the avoidance of inertia. Formula: [Aggression+ Accomplishment+ Communication+ Motion]- [Cognitive Terms+ Passivity + Embellishment] AGGRESSION: A dictionary embracing human competition and forceful action. Its terms connote physical energy (blast, crash, explode, collide), social domination (conquest, attacking, dictatorships, violation), and goal-directedness (crusade, commanded, challenging, overcome). In addition, words associated with personal triumph (mastered, rambunctious, pushy), excess human energy (prod, poke, pound, shove), disassembly (dismantle, demolish, overturn, veto) and resistance (prevent, reduce, defend, curbed) are included. ACCOMPLISHMENT: Words expressing task-completion (establish, finish, influence, proceed) and organized human behavior (motivated, influence, leader, manage). Includes capitalistic terms (buy, produce, employees, sell), modes of expansion (grow, increase, generate, construction) and general functionality (handling, strengthen, succeed, outputs). Also included is programmatic language: agenda, enacted, working, leadership. COMMUNICATION: Terms referring to social interaction, both face-to-face (listen, interview, read, speak) and mediated (jilm, videotape, telephone, e-mail). The dictionary includes both modes of intercourse (translate, quote, scripts, broadcast) and moods of intercourse (chat, declare, flatter, demand). Other terms refer to social actors (reporter, spokesperson, advocates, preacher) and a variety of social purposes (hint, rebuke, respond, persuade). MOTION: Terms connoting human movement (bustle, job, lurch, leap), physical processes (circulate, momentum, revolve, twist), journeys (barnstorm, jaunt, wandering, travels), speed (licketysplit, nimble, zip, whistle-stop), and modes of transit (ride, fly, glide, swim). COGNITIVE TERMS: Words referring to cerebral processes, both functional and imaginative. Included are modes of discovery (learn, deliberate, consider, compare) and domains of study (biology, psychology, logic, economics). The dictionary includes mental challenges (question, forget, reexamine, paradoxes), institutional learning practices (graduation, teaching, classrooms), as well as three forms of intellection: intuitional (invent, perceive, speculate, interpret), rationalistic (estimate, examine, reasonable, strategies), and calculative (diagnose, analyze, software, fact-finding). PASSIVITY: Words ranging from neutrality to inactivity. Includes terms of compliance (allow, tame, appeasement), docility (submit, contented, sluggish), and cessation (arrested, capitulate, refrain, yielding). Also contains tokens of inertness (backward, immobile, silence, inhibit) and disinterest (unconcerned, nonchalant, stoic), as well as tranquility (quietly, sleepy, vacation). EMBELLISHMENT: A selective ratio of adjectives to verbs based on David Boder's (1940) conception that heavy modification slows down a verbal passage by de-emphasizing human and material action. Embellishment is calculated according to the following formula: [Praise + Blame + 1] _,_ [Present Concern + Past Concern +I] 141 THE REALISM SCORE Definition: Language describing tangible, immediate, recognizable matters that affect people s everyday lives. Formula: [Familiarity + Spatial Awareness + Temporal Awareness+ Present Concern+ Human Interest + Concreteness] - [Past Concern + Complexity] FAMILIARITY: Consists of a selected number ofC.K. Ogden s (1968) operation words which he calculates to be the most common words in the English language. Included are common prepositions (across, over, through), demonstrative pronouns (this, that) and interrogative pronouns (who, what), and a variety of particles, conjunctions and connectives (a,for, so). SPATIAL AWARENESS: Terms referring to geographical entities, physical distances, and modes of measurement. Included are general geographical terms (abroad, elbow-room, locale, outdoors) as well as specific ones (Ceylon, Kuwait, Poland). Also included are politically defined locations (county, fatherland, municipality, ward), points on the compass (east, southwest) and the globe (latitude, coastal, border, snowbelt), as well as terms of scale (kilometer, map, spacious), quality (vacant, out-ofthe-way, disoriented) and change (pilgrimage, migrated, frontier.) TEMPORAL AWARENESS: Terms that fix a person, idea, or event within a specific time-interval, thereby signaling a concern for concrete and practical matters. The dictionary designates literal time (century, instant, mid-morning) as well as metaphorical designations (lingering, seniority, nowadays). Also included are calendrical terms (autumn, year-round, weekend), elliptical terms (spontaneously, postpone, transitional), and judgmental terms (premature, obsolete, punctual). PRESENT CONCERN: A selective list of present-tense verbs extrapolated from C.K. Ogden s list of general and picturable terms, all of which occur with great frequency in standard American English. The dictionary is not topic-specific but points instead to general physical activity (cough, taste, sing, take), social operations (canvass, touch, govern, meet), and task-performance (make, cook, print, paint). HUMAN INTEREST: An adaptation ofRudolfF!esch's notion that concentrating on people and their activities gives discourse a life-like quality. Included are standard personal pronouns (he, his, ourselves, them), family members and relations (cousin, wife, grandchild, uncle), and generic terms (jriend, baby, human, persons). CONCRETENESS: A large dictionary possessing no thematic unity other than tangibility and materiality. Included are sociological units (peasants, African-Americans, Catholics), occupational groups (carpenter, manufacturer, policewoman), and political alignments (Communists, congressman, Europeans). Also incorporated are physical structures (courthouse, temple, store), forms of diversion (television, football, cd-rom), terms of accountancy (mortgage, wages, finances), and modes of transportation (airplane, ship, bicycle). In addition, the dictionary includes body parts (stomach, eyes, lips), articles of clothing (slacks, pants, shirt), household animals (cat, insects, horse) and foodstuffs (wine, grain, sugar), and general elements of nature (oil, silk, sand). PAST CONCERN: The past-tense forms of the verbs contained in the Present Concern dictionary. COMPLEXITY: A simple measure of the average number of characters-per-word in a given input file. Borrows Rudolph Flesch's (1951) notion that convoluted phrasings make a text's ideas abstract and its implications unclear. 142 THE COMMONALITY SCORE Defmition: Language highlighting the agreed-upon values of a group and rejecting idiosyncratic modes of engagement. Formula: [Centrality + Cooperation+ Rapport]- [Diversity + Exclusion+ Liberation] CENTRALITY: Terms denoting institutional regularities and/or substantive agreement on core values. Included are indigenous terms (native, basic, innate) and designations oflegitimacy (orthodox, decorum, constitutional, ratified), systematicity (paradigm, bureaucratic, ritualistic), and typicality (standardized, matter-of-fact, regularity). Also included are terms of congruence (coriformity, mandate, unanimous), predictability (expected, continuity, reliable), and universality (womankind, perennial, landmarks) . COOPERATION: Terms designating behavioral interactions among people that often result in a group product. Included are designations of formal work relations (unions, schoolmates, caucus) and informal associations (chum, partner, cronies) to more intimate interactions (sisterhood, friendship, comrade). Also included are neutral interactions (consolidate, mediate, alignment), job-related tasks (network, detente, exchange), personal involvement (teamwork, sharing, contribute), and self-denial (public-spirited, care-taking, self-sacrifice). RAPPORT: This dictionary describes attitudinal similarities among groups of people. Included are terms of affinity (congenial, camaraderie, companion), assent (approve, vouched, warrants), deference (tolerant, willing, permission), and identity (equivalent, resemble, consensus). DIVERSITY: Words describing individuals or groups of individuals differing from the norm. Such distinctiveness may be comparatively neutral (inconsistent, contrasting, non-conformist) but it can also be positive (exceptional, unique, individualistic) and negative (illegitimate, rabble-rouser, extremist). Functionally, heterogeneity may be an asset (jar-flung, dispersed, diffuse) or a liability (factionalism, deviancy, quirky) as can its characterizations: rare vs. queer, variety vs.jumble, distinctive vs. disobedient. EXCLUSION: A dictionary describing the sources and effects of social isolation. Such seclusion can be phrased passively (displaced, sequestered) as well as positively (self-contained, self-sufficient) and negatively (outlaws, repudiated). Moreover, it can result from voluntary forces (secede, privacy) and involuntary forces (ostracize, forsake, discriminate) and from both personality factors (sma/1mindedness, loneliness) and political factors (right-wingers, nihilism). Exclusion is often a dialectical concept: hermit vs. derelict, refUgee vs. pariah, discard vs. spurn). LIBERATION: Terms describing the maximizing of individual choice (autonomous, open-minded, options) and the rejection of social conventions (unencumbered, radical, released). Liberation is motivated by both personality factors (eccentric, impetuous, flighty) and political forces (suffrage, liberty, freedom , emancipation) and may produce dramatic outcomes (exodus, riotous, deliverance) or subdued effects (loosen, disentangle, outpouring). Liberatory terms also admit to rival characterizations: exemption vs. loophole, elope vs. abscond, uninhibited vs. outlandish. 143