Children as ethnobotanists

Methods and local impact of a participatory research project with children on wild plant gathering in the Grosses Walsertal Biosphere Reserve, Austria

Bibliographic Data

ID4660488
AuthorsSusanne Grasser (BOKU University), C Schunko (0000-0001-6910-3209, BOKU University, corresponding author), Christian Reinhard Vogl (0000-0002-7899-2682, BOKU University)
Year2016
Volume12
Issue1
Pages46-46
Publication date2016-12-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1746-4269 • E-ISSN: 1746-4269
PublisherSpringer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1186/s13002-016-0119-6
PMID27724928
OpenAlexW2531884997
LanguageEN
Citations received10
References cited39

BACKGROUND: Ethically sound research in applied ethnobiology should benefit local communities by giving them full access to research processes and results. Participatory research may ensure such access, but there has been little discussion on methodological details of participatory approaches in ethnobiological research. This paper presents and discusses the research processes and methods developed in the course of a three-year research project on wild plant gathering, the involvement of children as co-researchers and the project's indications for local impact. METHOD: Research was conducted in the Grosses Walsertal Biosphere Reserve, Austria, between 2008 and 2010 in four research phases. In phase 1, 36 freelist interviews with local people and participant observation was conducted. In phase 2 school workshops were held in 14 primary school classes and their 189 children interviewed 506 family members with structured questionnaires. In phase 3, 27 children and two researchers co-produced participatory videos. In phase 4 indications for the impact of the project were investigated with questionnaires from ten children and with participant observation. RESULTS: Children participated in various ways in the research process and the scientific output and local impact of the project was linked to the phases, degrees and methods of children's involvement. Children were increasingly involved in the project, from non-participation to decision-making. Scientific output was generated from participatory and non-participatory activities whereas local impact - on personal, familial, communal and institutional levels - was mainly generated through the participatory involvement of children as interviewers and as co-producers of videos. Creating scientific outputs from participatory video is little developed in ethnobiology, whereas bearing potential. CONCLUSIONS: As ethnobotanists and ethnobiologists, if we are truly concerned about the impact and benefits of our research processes and results to local communities, the details of the research processes need to be deliberately planned and evaluated and then reported and discussed in academic publications

Archaeology · Biodiversity · Biology · Biosphere · Citizen journalism · Environmental planning · Environmental resource management · Geography · Nature reserve · Political science · Protected area · Children's Rights and Participation · Early Childhood Education and Development · Environmental Science · Ethnobotanical and Medicinal Plants Studies · Participatory Visual Research Methods · Ecology

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access