Managing to both non-cite me and the original methodology The use of the school essay as an RRA technique: a case study from Bong County, Liberia Jennifer A Sutton and Blair D Orr
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
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.
Keywords
Participatory researchParticipatory videoCitizen scienceEthnobotanyEthnobiologyResearch with childrenWild gathered plant speciesLocal knowledge
Background
Ethically
sound research in applied ethnobiology should benefit local communities
by giving them the possibility “to actively participate in all phases
of research and related activities from inception to completion, as well
as in application of research results” (Principle 5 of the ISE Code of
Ethics) [1]. Such approaches to research were summarized under participatory research, roughly defined as research with rather than on people [2], whereas the degrees of involvement of local communities can range from punctual involvement, as in citizen science [3], to full involvement, as in co-enquiry [4]. The benefits for local communities generally include assistance in solving problems as perceived by themselves [2], but in detail depend on the degree as well as the quality of local people’s involvement [5].
In citizen science projects benefits were suggested to include
enhancements in environmental democracy, scientific literacy, social
capital, citizen inclusion in local issues, benefits to government and
benefits to ecosystems [6].
In
ethnobiology a diversity of local actors have participated in research,
whereas the active involvement of children, common in diverse fields of
research [7],
has not yet been seen in ethnobiological projects (one exception is a
Bulgarian study in which high school pupils were asked to interview
family members about their wild plant uses [8]). However, children are increasingly being addressed as research objects in ethnobiological research, for example in Mexico [9], El Salvador [10], Venezuela [11], Bolivia [12], the USA [13], Benin [14], India [15] and Thailand [16].
The meaning of participation
is contested in the body of literature on participatory research with
children. It is argued that much of what is called participatory
research with children is in fact research that is adult-designed,
adult-led and adult-managed rather than adult-supported [17].
It has also been shown that only in a very few cases does research
including the terms community-based participatory research and youth
adopt a partnership approach to research with children in some phases of
the research project [18]. Genuine participation of children in research however needs a genuine sharing of decisional power [19]
and involves exploring children’s perspectives from children’s points
of view and challenging conventional adult-led research processes [20].
The
genuine involvement of children as co-researchers is useful for
understanding children’s perspectives of the world, acknowledging that
children know best about their own views and experiences [21].
The advantages also include obtaining easier access through peer
groups, achieving genuine results by adopting the child’s perspective,
and asking the right questions by prioritising the research agenda and
posing the children’s research questions [17].
Those children taking part can themselves be empowered through their
active involvement in research, which can also support personal
development such as improving study skills and critical thinking and
boosting self-esteem and confidence [17].
Children can be involved at different stages of the research process,
with different levels of participation and different methods [21].
While ethnobiology has been at the forefront of the application and development of participatory methods [22],
scientific papers explaining and discussing participatory research
approaches in detail are rare. Instead, in usual publications in
ethnobiology the methods chapters – participatory or not – are generally
no longer than a few paragraphs and solely report on the methods
applied, while mostly lacking information about the whole research
processes including entry to the field site, building rapport with local
people, reaching agreements on research questions or aims, guaranteeing
benefits for local communities, abandoning field sites or feeding back
results. These themes are likely to be seen by authors as a routine
rather than core element of insight that might drive science ahead more
than perfectly compiled result sections. The lack of detailed
descriptions of research processes hampers a comprehensive evaluation of
the research, including in ethical terms, and encompassing local
challenges and needs addressed by the research or the benefits to local
communities.
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. In doing so, our objective is to
encourage and intensify a discussion on research processes and methods
in journals covering topics in the field of ethnobiology.
Methods
Research area
Research
was conducted in the Grosses Walsertal, a sparsely populated mountain
valley characterised by alpine farming in Vorarlberg, the westernmost
province of Austria. Approximately 3400 people live on a surface area of
192 square kilometres in the six municipalities of Thüringerberg, St.
Gerold, Blons, Sonntag, Fontanella and Raggal. There are approximately
180 agricultural operations, of which around 40 % are certified organic.
The
Grosses Walsertal is characterised by a dispersed settlement pattern on
its hillsides. Five of the six municipalities have a primary school,
while the other municipality has two. The smallest school is in Marul
(part of Raggal municipality) and at the time of the research had seven
pupils aged between six and ten. The largest school in Thüringerberg, at
the entrance to the valley, had 44 pupils in three classes.
Additionally there is one secondary school in the community of Blons,
but many pupils commute out of the valley to attend secondary school.
Since 2000 the valley has been designated a biosphere reserve [23].
Biosphere reserves are known for their rich biodiversity. In the
Seville Strategy of 1996 a key direction is that the human dimensions of
biosphere reserves should be reflected more fully [24].
The Großes Walsertal Biosphere Reserve is known for the strong link
between local people and biodiversity, with gathered plant species being
used as medicine for humans and animals, as food, for customs and
ornamental purposes, and for cultivating home gardens, small arable
plots for subsistence and orchards.
Due
to the principle guidelines of the Grosses Walsertal Biosphere Reserve,
the education curricula of local schools include ecological and social
aims [25].
The sustainable use and processing of natural resources are important
contents in education. A school for all senses should encourage
children’s creative development. The children should be made aware of
cultural values and natural resources as the main means of livelihood
here. Good communication between generations as well as the appreciation
of older, more experienced people in the valley should be fostered, but
young people’s opinions and concerns also have to be acknowledged to
enable their participation in the community [25].
Research context
The
research methodology outlined in this paper was developed in the
context of the “Monitoring of Biocultural Diversity in the Biosphere
Reserve Grosses Walsertal, Vorarlberg, Austria – The use and management
of biodiversity of crops, cultivars and wild gathered plant species”
project, funded under UNESCO’s Man and Biosphere Programme. The general
idea for the project was created by the biosphere reserve management,
who met with the authors in their quest for cooperation. Together we
defined the aims for the project.
The
principal aims were: 1) to document the diversity of wild plant species
gathered by local people with state-of-the-art interdisciplinary
methods, 2) to highlight the close link between biodiversity and local
culture, and 3) to actively support various local initiatives concerning
the sustainable conservation of biodiversity and biosphere management
by involving these actors in the research process and disseminating the
results.
Research process and method
Research was divided into four phases between the years 2008 and 2010 (Table 1).
In phase 1 freelist interviews and participant observation with local
people was done by the first author of the paper. In phase 2 school
workshops were held by the first author and children interviewed family
members with structured questionnaires. In phase 3 children and
researchers co-produced participatory videos. In phase 4 indications for
the impact of the project were investigated.
Table 1
Overview of the research design in four research phases
Research phase
Main objectives
Methods
Samples
Outcomes and intended impact
1
Introduce the project to local people
Introduction of project in local newsletter, participation in plant-based and everyday life activities
Recipients of local newsletter, Alchemilla and Bergtee project members, daily encounters
Confidence and trust of biosphere reserve management and local people
Investigate domain of wild gathered plant species
Freelisting Participant observation
Freelisting:
snowball sample of 36 recommended wild plant experts, participant
observation of plant gathering and processing with local people
Documentation of local knowledge, popular and scientific publications
2
Strengthen awareness about wild plant gathering
Preparatory and follow-up school workshops; two information letters to parents
14 classes of all primary schools in the valley
Improved information and awareness about wild plant gathering of children and local people
Investigate intracultural knowledge variation and motivations
Structured questionnaires
Family members and friends of children, n = 506 people
Insights on knowledge variation and motivations, popular and scientific publications
Encourage knowledge transmission
Children as interviewers
14 classes of all primary schools in the valley
Knowledge transmission through 189 children interviewing 506 respondents
3
Investigate children’s view on wild plant gathering
Two 5-day participatory video workshops with children interviewing local experts
All
17 children of St. Gerold primary school, 10 volunteering children from
the valley, interviewing eleven local experts suggested by children
Children’s view on wild plant gathering, two participatory videos, 20 min each
Encourage transmission and dissemination of local knowledge
Screening
of participatory videos at local cultural festival; publishing of
internet links to videos in local newsletter; DVDs to lend in local
libraries
About 200 visitors of the screening, >500 views of each video in an online video channel,
Dissemination and transmission of local knowledge through participatory videos
Empower children
Participatory video filmed with children with broad decision rights for children
All 17 children of St. Gerold primary school, and 10 volunteering children from the valley
Enhanced knowledge of plant gathering, skills in video production
Questionnaires:
ten children having taken part in the participatory video workshops and
having used plants since then; participant observation during and after
research phases 2–4
Indications about local impact of the research project
Phase 1: Freelist interviews and participant observation
The
main objectives of phase 1 were to introduce local people to the
project and for the scientists involved to become familiar with the
local context by investigating the domain of wild gathered plant
species. This phase took place between July and September 2008.
Thirty-six local people (34 women, 2 men) were interviewed by the first
author using freelists and subsequent semi-structured interviews [26, 27].
Participant
observation of plant gathering and processing with local people
deepened our understanding of the relevance of wild plant gathering in
the Grosses Walsertal and accompanied the whole research process throughout all four phases [26].
The first author of the paper participated in plant gathering and
processing activities with local people and took part in several
activities within two local plant projects - the Alchemilla project (courses on soap making, balsam making, herbal retreat seminar) and the Bergtee
project (annual meetings for all plant-gathering women, gathering
plants and mixing tea blends with project leaders, packing and
distributing the tea) (see [28] for more information on these projects).
The
first author also built up a rapport with local people by taking part
in everyday activities such as shopping, library events, sports
activities, community festivities, cultural activities and attending
church services. A publication in the local newsletter introduced the
project to a wide range of local people [29].
Phase 2: School workshops and structured questionnaires
The
main objectives of phase 2 were to enhance local people’s awareness of
their wild plant gathering practices, to investigate intracultural
knowledge variations and motivations for wild plant gathering and to
encourage knowledge transmission.
We therefore approached the inhabitants via
the valley’s seven primary schools in spring 2009. The first author of
the paper initially informed the Grosses Walsertal committee for
education and culture about the research plans and then discussed them
in a formal committee meeting. The committee included, among others, the
president of the committee, a headteacher, a project leader in the
Bergtee project, the heads of local cultural communities and the manager
of the biosphere reserve. She then contacted the heads of the primary
schools to discuss the idea and later involved teachers and local actors
in order to design the methods approach and organise data collection.
The parents of all participating pupils were told about it in a letter
outlining the project, including its partners, aims and anonymity of
data. In two schools research plans were also presented in a
parent-teacher conference and in two other schools parents were also
informed by the headteachers themselves. The research was also announced
in the biosphere reserve’s local newsletter.
Research
was undertaken in all 14 primary school classes comprising a total of
189 pupils aged between six and ten. We started by running workshops on
wild plant gathering for each class. The methods used in these workshops
were based on long-term experience with children and school workshops,
as well as the first author’s pedagogical education. The aim of the
workshop was to arouse the children’s curiosity in the topic and
increase their knowledge of wild plant gathering.
At
the start of the workshop the children were asked if they were
interested in plant gathering in general and whether they would be
willing to support the research project as co-researchers.
A
poster was then prepared and the pupils were asked which plants came to
mind that grow in the valley and have uses. We wrote down the
children’s answers on the poster. Afterwards the pupils were asked to
imagine that they were one of the plants that had been mentioned and to
say what he or she is used for. The children stood in a circle and threw
a ball from one child to another as they mentioned the plants. In a
next step, the pupils were asked to put together 20 puzzles illustrating
photographs of the 20 plant species mentioned most frequently in the
freelists in phase 1 (Fig. 1).
The pupils then presented the completed puzzles plant after plant to
all their classmates, explaining which plant species can be seen and
what they know about them. Dried and fresh plants as well as products
made out of them were then presented. For example, pupils could try a
balsam made from Calendula officinalis, touch and smell different herbs such as Mentha sp., or taste dried berries of Vaccinium myrtillus.
Fig. 1
Pupils compiling plant puzzles. School workshop in Blons (Photo: Grasser 2009)
At
the end of these workshops we presented a closed-ended questionnaire
consisting of five different sections on five pages and the children
were asked to complete it with several family members separately as
homework. In sections one to three, more detailed information about the
20 plant species mentioned most frequently in the freelists was queried.
The 20 plant species were listed in rows in the first column of a table
and respondents were asked to tick in the following columns of section
one if they knew the respective plant species and used the plant species
for eating, drinking, medicine, veterinary medicine, customs or other
purposes. In section two, respondents were asked to tick if the leaves,
flowers, fruits, seeds, roots, bark, shoots or resin were gathered. In
section three respondents were asked to tick if they acquired the
respective plant species themselves, acquired them from neighbours or
friends in the area or bought them. If the respondents acquired the
plants themselves, they were asked to state whether they grew them in
their home garden, gathered them from meadows near their home, gathered
them from the Maisäß (pastures in the lower mountain regions used before and after summer as the “middle station” to the Alp), the Alp
(pastures in the higher mountain regions used during the summer
months), in the forest or somewhere else. The sequence of the 20 plant
species was distinct in the three sections. Multiple answers were
possible.
In
section four, motivations for gathering wild plant species were
investigated using Likert scales. We proposed seventeen different
motivations, which were created from statements given during the
semi-structured interviews after the freelist interviews in Phase 1. The
respondents were asked to mark in the questionnaire if the proposed
motivations applied to their personal reasons for collecting wild plants
(“1” signified very high and “5” very low agreement). In section five
socio-demographic data about the respondents were investigated and free
space for additional comments was provided.
The
questionnaire was designed in a child-oriented way and included
drawings and invitations for activities, such as looking outside to see
which plant species are growing or checking which plant-based products
could be found in cupboards in the house.
Sections
one to three were checked for quality, practicability and
comprehensibility in a pre-test with two children interviewing a parent
or grandparent. Section four was pre-tested with nine adults during a
meeting with the headteachers and in the committee for education and
culture. Comments and suggestions from the test persons and
schoolteachers were taken into account in the final version of the
questionnaire.
Every
pupil received four copies of the questionnaire. Children were prepared
for the interview task by being shown the questionnaires and discussing
each section. They were told what to ensure when interviewing family
members, e.g. taking approximately half an hour for an interview, not
being disturbed during the interview, explaining the questionnaire to
the interview partner, asking everyone the same questions in the same
order, filling in the answers in the correct columns etc..
In a short role play they tried out interviewing in pairs. General
themes about science and research were not discussed due to time
restrictions.
The
teachers were asked to collect the questionnaires after they had been
completed. The task was to bring all four questionnaires back, but this
was not something we either forced them to do or monitored. At least one
questionnaire from each child was requested.
The data from the questionnaires were entered into an MS Access database with the assistance of five women from the Fontanella community, who were paid a standard wage for the area.
In
the school workshops, the teachers were involved in photographing the
workshop and taking notes about the plants and plant uses mentioned.
The
authors of this paper performed the data analysis. For the discussion
of results and clarification of questions or ambiguities, the leader of
the Bergtee project was
consulted. Data were analysed descriptively first and results returned
to the pupils in feedback workshops that took place about one month
after the initial workshops. The children were introduced to scientific
work in these workshops, and results were presented and discussed in a
child-oriented way, including an emphasis on the importance and
implications of such results.
At
the start of the workshops, the children were asked to guess whether
women or men and older or younger people knew more about wild plant
species. They expressed their opinion by holding up different coloured
cards for each answer. We reduced the presentation of the results to a
minimum, which seemed a relevant way for us to communicate the main
message to the children: to know who to ask when they wanted to know
more.
In
a second step we discussed the other results of the questionnaire with
regard to how the interview partners use the plants, which plant parts
are used and where the plants are gathered. For each section the pupils
could fill in a kind of a crossword puzzle while we talked about these
results so that they could take the results home.
In
a third step we went out of the classroom and collected some of the
wild plant species that had been mentioned. We then ended the workshop
by tasting and enjoying the gathered wild plant species with the wild
plant products we had brought along, while listening to a plant fairy
tale.
Preliminary
results were fed back to the survey respondents by the children who
handed over an information letter and the crossword puzzle.
Phase 3: Participatory video workshops
The
objectives of phase 3 were to investigate the children’s views on wild
plant gathering and encourage the transmission and dissemination of
local knowledge to a wide range of people.
As
expressed by teachers and parents orally, the school workshops and
questionnaires were positively received by local people, and the primary
school teachers requested a continuation of our work on wild plant
gathering in schools. In order to achieve the project objectives of
encouraging knowledge transmission about wild plant gathering and
disseminating local wild plant knowledge to a wide range of people, we
proposed working with participatory videos on wild plant gathering with
the children.
We
presented and discussed the idea with the biosphere reserve manager,
the committee for education and culture and the headteacher of one
primary school.
The first participatory video workshop was held during regular school time in the primary school in St. Gerold
(all 17 pupils aged between six and ten participated) in May 2010, at
the headteacher’s request. A second participatory video workshop was
announced in the biosphere reserve’s local newsletter and ten children
(aged between eight and thirteen) registered from the communities of Thüringerberg, Blons, Sonntag, Fontanella and Raggal. The second workshop was held free of charge during the children’s summer holidays in July 2010.
The
five-day workshops were run by the first author in cooperation with a
professional filmmaker who had prior experience of making participatory
videos with children. The workshops followed a defined sequence (Table 2).
Again, the parents gave prior informed consent by signing an
information letter and indicating their willingness for their children
to participate in the video workshop. The gatherers featured in the
video also stated in writing that they were willing to participate and
that the video could be released afterwards.
Table 2
Process and responsibilities for producing the two participatory videos
Day
Objective
Activity
Children’s responsibilities
Workshop leaders’ responsibilities
Introduction to video-making
Day 1:
½ day
Familiarisation of children with making videos; introduction to roles of video team
Teaching and experimenting with video material and camera equipment
Learning about making videos
Teaching about making videos
Writing of storyboard
Day 1:
¼ day
Composition of storyboard
Collect
children’s knowledge about wild plant gathering and use; write short
stories about especially knowledgeable gatherers and their practices
Generating ideas, writing of storyboard, drafting of interview questions, decision on storyboard
Introducing storyboard writing, decision on story board, defining topic of wild plant gathering
Organisation of video recording
Day 1:
¼ day
Preparation of participatory video recording
Proposing and contacting wild plant gatherers and arranging filming on site
Proposing gatherers to be interviewed
Asking gatherers for their availability if he/she was a relative
Contacting proposed gatherers and arranging filming on site
Video recording
Days 2–4:
3 days
Recording of raw material for videos
Distribution of roles to storyboard team and backstage team, taping of videos
Taping of videos
Guiding and supervising the taping of videos
Intermediary raw editing
Days 2–4:
3 days
Gaining raw versions of the videos to discuss strengths and weaknesses every morning, introducing children to editing process
Raw editing of film material
None
Full responsibility
Development of a frame story
Day 5:
½ day
Writing the storyboard for the frame story to embed videos in a larger context
Brainstorming for storyboard, writing stories and decision for selected story
Bringing costumes for studio recording; suggesting title
Guiding and supervising the development of the frame story
Recording of frame story
Day 5:
½ day
Recording of frame story
Recording frame story, making and recording music to be included in the video, designing of cover of DVD box
Recording the frame story, making and recording music, drawing a cover
Guiding and supervising the recording of the frame story
Discussion of raw version of complete video
Day 9:
½ day
Adjusting ideas of children and gatherers with ideas of workshop leaders
Presentation of videos to children and all involved gatherers starring in the video, discussion of changes
Suggestions for changes
Presentation of videos; taking up suggestions for changes
Final editing
Day 14
Producing final video
Final editing following comments received
None
Full responsibility
At
the start of the workshop the children were asked if they remembered
the plant project from last year. They could remember a lot of the
activities and stated that they were very interested in being a
co-researcher again. They were curious about making a video and
committed to participating in the workshop.
During
a brief introduction, the children were introduced to video-making.
They learned how a film is developed, what roles (producer, camera
operator, sound engineer, interviewer, storyteller, actor etc.) are
necessary and how to use a video camera (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2
Training with the video equipment. Introducing the workshop in the St. Gerold primary school (Photo: Grasser 2009)
The
different duties were then practised with short games and exercises. In
a next step we focused on the plant topic, which the children already
associated with the first author who was now the leader of the
participatory video workshop. The children were asked to identify
interesting themes related to plant gathering and use and to write short
stories about local people who are knowledgeable in wild plant
practices and their wild plant-related activities in the community.
After that, the children and the first author and filmmaker decided
together what the most exciting topics were and which stories it would
be possible to film according to the vegetation in late May. In five
groups the children drew storyboards and devised interview questions.
The following days were organised by the workshop leader in arrangement
with knowledgeable gatherers who the children proposed should be in the
videos. Weather conditions, such as heavy rainfall, plants growing at
that time and the gatherers’ availability, presented a major challenge
day by day.
Within
three days, five stories with five gatherers were filmed in five
different places. During the video production, each child had a defined
role and duty to fulfil. We arranged two teams – one responsible for the
main film and the second for filming the children/film-makers while
they were making the main film – in order to record the development of
the main films, again from the children’s perspective. After each school
day, the workshop leaders undertook a first raw editing of the film
material to discuss strengths and weaknesses with the children the
following morning. Each day we changed all the children’s roles so that
everyone had an opportunity to fulfil each duty.
On
the fifth day a frame story bringing together all the clips along a
common theme was written. Children were asked to bring costumes for the
studio recording and come up with suggestions for a film title. This
frame story was also filmed on the fifth day and a cover of the DVD box
with contributions from each child was designed. The filmmaker gave the
children insight into how editing works and they were to try this out
for themselves on short sections.
We
then finalised the whole video and presented the results to the
children and all the experts involved in a workshop to discuss any
requests for changes. Immediately after this workshop the children were
asked for feedback.
Phase 4: Impact evaluation
One
year after the participatory video project, in August 2011, the first
author called all the headteachers to informally inquire about what
impact the project had had locally. They were then asked to recommend
interview partners among the pupils. The selection criteria for the
children were those who said that they had been using plants since the
plant project, the children who had taken part in the video project, and
children who were available for interview. Ten children were
interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire about their memories
and the lessons they had learned. Participant observation by the first
author, who lived in the valley for the time of research, essentially
contributed to the evaluation of the project’s impact. Participant
observation included playing with the neighbourhood children,
accompanying them on their way to school or leisure activities, taking
part on family trips, spending time on alpine pastures with farmers and
their children as well as everyday activities with local people, as
explained for phase 1.
Despite
such measures to evaluate impact, we admit that they were not
comprehensive enough to provide evidence about the impact of the
project. Rather than that they gave us indications about which impact
the research project had. Future research is asked to test these
indications and to support or refuse our findings through evidence.
Ethical considerations for research with children
We committed ourselves to observing the International Charter for Ethical Research Involving Children [30].
The seven key commitments of the Charter are listed below for a
discussion of the study’s ethical conduct in relation to the involvement
of children. This section has only been slightly modified since it was
first published in [31].
In
planning the research process and in all our interactions with the
children we followed commitment 1 “Ethics in research involving children
is everyone’s responsibility” and commitment 2 “Respecting the dignity
of children is core to ethical research”.
We
followed commitment 3 “Research involving children must be just and
equitable” by ensuring that all project-related tasks were co-designed
with teachers, adapted to the pupils’ knowledge level and included in
the school routine, and that participation was voluntary. It was ensured
that the project-related tasks did not involve additional work for the
pupils: when the children were given the questionnaire task, they were
not given any other homework by the school. The timeframe of the video
workshop was during regular school time. Participation in the video
workshop during the summer holidays was voluntary.
We
followed commitment 4 “Ethical research benefits children” by
maximising the learning experience for the pupils. The first author
organised wild plant workshops with the pupils before and after data
collection to give them information about the topic and then feed back
the results. The questionnaire was designed in a child-oriented way and
provided opportunities to learn about wild plants. In the participatory
video project, the children learned about plants and about video-making,
but there was also social interaction as they had to cooperate in teams
and interact with the plant experts. All the children had the
opportunity to try all the tasks involved in video production. Some of
the results from the study were published in the biosphere reserve’s
local newsletter, which benefited the children by raising the profile
and boosting the value of their work.
We
followed commitment 5 “Children should never be harmed by their
participation in research” by being attentive during all interactions
with the pupils and avoiding any potential risks of harm when planning
the study. In particular we ensured that the workload for pupils
remained balanced with leisure activities and no pressure was placed on
them to complete the assignments. During the outdoor video work, safety
was ensured by taking appropriate alpine paths and carrying a first aid
kit.
We
followed commitment 6 “Research must always obtain children’s informed
and ongoing consent”. For phase 2, we obtained prior informed consent
from the biosphere reserve committee and the headteachers and ensured
the commitment of the committee for education and culture and the
parents of the children involved. The project activities were also
pre-announced in the local newsletter which is sent to every household
in the valley. Informed assent was sought from the pupils during the
first workshops. The children were then told about the study and given
the opportunity not to take part. However, we are aware that in school
settings children may easily feel obliged to co-operate [32].
We did not receive any objections to them participating in the research
activity. For phase 3, informed consent was received from the
headteachers, teachers and parents of the pupils as well as from the
gatherers who were filmed and gave their written consent for the videos
to be published.
We
followed commitment 7 “Ethical research requires ongoing reflection” in
all interactions with the children by reflecting on our practices and
values and the influence these had on the pupils.
Results and discussion
Knowledge and use of wild plants (phase 1)
Each
respondent mentioned on average 25 wild plant species and their uses
and knowledge about the use of 140 different plant species was
documented. Most plant uses were mentioned for medicine and food. Two
local wild plant projects (Alchemilla and Bergtee) play a vital role for promoting and value wild plant gathering [28]. The results of this phase were published in popular [33, 34, 35] and scientific [28] publications.
Knowledge variation and motivations for wild plant gathering (phase 2)
“Women,
older informants and homegardeners report more human medicinal
applications and applications in drinks than men, younger informants and
non-homegardeners; farmers know a greater variety of veterinary
medicinal applications than non-farmers; the place of residence relates
significantly to food and veterinary uses” [36].
Four main motivations of gatherers were identified: most inhabitants
gather because of the highly esteemed product quality of wild plants and
the fun of gathering, far less because of tradition and only a few for
generating income [31]. The results of this phase were published in popular [33, 35, 37] and scientific publications [31, 36].
Children’s view on wild plant gathering and plant uses (phase 3)
The
videos produced give insights on childrens’ perceptions of wild plant
gathering and adult’s expertise about wild plant gathering. The frame
stories elaborated by the children were:
(1) “Kraut im Bild”, a
newscast in which six children moderators invited twelve children
researchers as guests (always two at a time in six sections), who were
briefly interviewed about their plant expertise. Together the moderators
and researchers then went out of the studio into the field and visited
local adults who were experts in collecting wild plants, conducting
interviews and making different plant products with them (Fig. 3).
The name “Kraut im Bild” is linked to the prime time news programme on
Austrian TV, also known by all the children, called “Zeit im Bild”, i.e. communicating that herbs (“Kraut”) are being featured by the news channel.
Fig. 3
Pupils interviewing local plant experts in their community. St. Gerold primary school (Photo: Grasser 2010)
(2) “Ein Zwerg kaut
am Berg Kraut”, a dwarf story in which nine little dwarfs searched for a
remedy to heal their sick king. They went to experienced adults in the
valley to ask for help. With each expert the dwarfs prepared another
plant-based remedy. Finally the root of masterwort healed the king
(Fig. 4). The name of the video literally means “A dwarf chewing herbs in the mountains”
Fig. 4
Filming of the frame story. Summer workshop in the Grosses Walsertal Biosphere Reserve (Photo: Grasser 2010)
Children
asked detailed questions when interviewing gatherers and tried to get
information and understand processes involved in wild plant gathering.
E.g. they asked exactly where and how to gather plants, how to use
plants (e.g. making ointment, fumigate with roots) and what a plant or a
special remedy is used for and how to use it. Several children also
wanted to know from whom their interview partners have learned their
plant knowledge. Children also asked what the interview partners like
about gathering wild plants, making ointment or other herbal remedies
and why they do it. They asked for special experiences connected to
plants - also in the gatherer’s childhood - and therefore inquired
stories besides plant-based information. One sequence of the video was
most exciting for the children as they commented themselves: digging
Masterwort (Peucedaneum osthrutium) in an Alpine pasture and set it on fire for fumigation in a dark old stable was a real adventure.
The videos were first screened at the Walserherbst
cultural festival in September 2010, six weeks after their production.
All the children and local experts who had participated in the video
workshops received an invitation with free admission to the festival.
DVDs were given to all the participating pupils and experts for their
personal use and to all six local libraries. The videos were also
published online [38, 39].
In addition to the videos, the results of this phase were published in popular publications [35, 37, 40].
Local impact of children’s participation (phase 4)
The
local impact of the research was not published before and is thus
presented in more detail below. We adapted a framework originally
designed for evaluating the impact of childrens participation in
development projects to discuss indications for local impact of the
research processes and methods. The original framework builds on five
areas of potential impact, which are personal, familial, communal,
institutional and negative, each including several subcategories [41].
We adapted the extensive subcategories of the framework to the context
of our project and only report on those relevant for our context.
Personal impact
Self-confidence
An increase in self-confidence is a commonly mentioned result of participatory activities with children [41, 42].
In this research project, the children learned to collect data through
questionnaires in phase 2, and co-produced videos in phase 3. They
became confident of being able to produce something valuable for a
general and also an adult audience, as confirmed by the headmaster of
the primary school St. Gerold. Parents of the participating children
declared that the dissemination of results in local newsletters and at
the local film festival has given the participating children pride in
their knowledge and skills, which in turn boosted their self-confidence.
The children received a very positive reception and their work was
highly acclaimed both within the valley and elsewhere.
The
herbal experts who were interviewed in the video were also proud to see
themselves on the big screen at the cultural festival, as local people
from the audience of the Walserherbst
cultural festival noticed. Awareness of the value of people’s own
knowledge is one of the results of the participatory video project, in
which not just the product but the whole process counts [43].
Knowledge and skills
Participatory
research in general, as well as with children, requires the provision
of some kind of training before the research can begin [19].
We used the school workshops for this purpose where the topic of wild
plant species and the questionnaire were introduced and directions were
given as to how to complete the questionnaires. Although capacity
building should not only introduce research methods but also basic ideas
about research to empower children [19], we were unable to meet this objective sufficiently.
Children’s
awareness and knowledge of the research topic, the gathering and use of
wild plants, was increased and many were motivated to gather and use
plants themselves, as far as we could observe. For example, a mother
reported that she had observed her daughter playing with her little
brother in the meadows. He had hurt himself and had a small cut on his
finger. The girl picked ribwort (Plantago lanceolata)
and tied the leaf around her brother’s finger. The mother heard her
telling him that she had learned at school that this would stop his
finger bleeding.
Children
acquired skills in plant gathering and processing by performing these
tasks with the interviewed plant experts. Some told us later about which
plants they gathered themselves, e.g. for making tea or preparing an herbal spread.
Children
also acquired practical skills in conducting interviews and making
films. They performed all the roles involved in a small professional
film production team and had the opportunity to try out all the tasks
involved. The children all seemed to have their own particular strengths
(technical, organisational, storytelling, conducting interviews,
role-play etc.). Whereas
the development of skills is a predictable impact of the involvement of
children as co-researchers, the actual success in skill development is
linked to the methods applied and needs to be evaluated [42].
Videos
do not replace direct interaction with plants. Touching, smelling and
tasting the plants is essential for a holistic approach to learning and
learning using all the senses. Our approach was to capture children’s
attention and motivate them to participate through video recordings, the
backstage team and the story. This approach meant that children who did
not have much interest in plants had learned something about the
plants, along with video recording. Others were more interested in the
plants, plant gathering, plant processing and plant products. The
project offered each of the children something to capture their
interest.
Personal development and social development
Children
highlighted that during the video project they learned about the
importance of teamwork. They experienced being involved in a project and
creating something worthwhile, which some intended to carry on after
the project. For example the leader of the Bergtee
association reported that a couple of months after the project that a
ten-year-old girl, who had participated in the video workshop, had come
to her house and asked if she could join the Bergtee
association. Through the video she had learned that it was open to
everyone and that the more women there are collecting herbs the better.
So this girl joined the Bergtee
association and gathers herbs with its other members. Subsequently, two
other girls from the participatory video workshops joined the Bergtee
association too. Working in a team with peers and joining associations
both is suggested to make an essential contribution to the development
of children’s personalities and social competence [41].
Positive channel for energy and creativity
During
the video workshops the children’s enthusiasm was evident. They worked
hard and were willing to continue even on a public holiday. The teachers
expressed their surprise at some pupils who had fairly weak
performances at school but who impressed them with their great
performance during the video workshop. The children were given the
possibility of trying out different roles, which allowed them to
identify their individual strengths and weaknesses and develop their
creative potential as the partaking headmaster of the primary school St.
Gerold suggested.
Familial impact
On
a family level, the exchange and transmission of knowledge was intended
to be fostered by the project and - as several parents of participating
children mentioned - the status of children was enhanced within
families since children now became researchers, video producers and
experts on wild plants. A mother reported that her daughter came home
with a bunch of dandelions (Taraxacum officinale). The girl wanted to make syrup of dandelion (Löwenzahnhonig),
but neither knew how to prepare it. However through the school
workshops the daughter knew that older women would be likely to know
about wild plant uses, so they went to their neighbour and asked her
elderly aunt.
A mother reported that her son brought her a piece of masterwort (Peucedanum osthrutium).
She just had come home from having a tooth operation and had
significant pain in her teeth. Her son gave her the root and said this
would help with toothache. The mother was a little suspicious, but then
together they watched the video with the sequence of masterwort and the
local experts’ explanation (Fig. 5).
Fig. 5
Knowledge
transmission: A local farmer shows the root of Masterwort. Participatory
video workshop in the Grosses Walsertal Biosphere Reserve (Photo:
Grasser 2010)
Communal impact
Through
the participatory research project, wild plants became a hot topic in
the valley. The community was regularly informed about project
activities through local newsletters and informal dissemination of
information. We received many reports of how exchanging knowledge and
recipes for wild plant products had been encouraged by the project.
For
example, we observed women talking about wild plant uses and becoming
aware that they could prepare products themselves, such as syrup made
from the flowers of the elder tree (Sambucus nigra).
They were aware of this product from their childhood but had never
prepared it. Through the children’s activities and interest, the parents
gained motivation for wild plant gathering and use. One elderly woman
who collected herbs for the Bergtee association decided to stop her contribution one year. However the next year she brought a bag of dried herbs to the Bergtee leader again and explained that her grandson (a boy who was involved in the video workshops through the primary school in St. Gerold)
had become interested in plant gathering so she had to continue to
teach him about the plants that can be gathered, plant uses, gathering
locations etc.
The focus on the topic of wild plant gathering culminated in the screening of the videos during the Walserherbst
cultural festival alongside prominent films by renowned international
filmmakers. Both videos were enthusiastically received by the audience,
with local people apparently realising the value of their own local
knowledge about plant gathering and use, which is suggested to
strengthen local people’s identity (similar to [43]).
Additionally, by watching the videos together, protagonists and local
people were given the opportunity to discuss and reflect on the
practices shown, and the participatory video thereby served as media for
empowerment [44].
Intergenerational transmission of local knowledge is essential for the vitality of local knowledge [45]. The school and participatory video workshops initiated a process of transmission of knowledge (Fig. 6),
initiated through children’s activities. When the children asked older
people about plant gathering and filmed and screened the videos, the
adults themselves affirmed that they became aware that their knowledge
is not that common and is not nothing special, as they often mentioned
during the first research phases, but is important and worth being
transmitted. Awareness of the value of people’s plant-related knowledge
very likely could be raised. Children were observed by the first author
as well as parents and grandparents and other local people (e.g. the
leader of the Bergtee
association) to become curious about plant gathering outside the project
and to perceive their surrounding nature more keenly and to start to
ask questions. The results of phases 2 and 3 were disseminated to and
through the children, which again continued the discussion.
Fig. 6
Neighbours talk about herbs and their use in and around the garden. Farmer’s garden in Blons (Photo: Grasser 2008)
There are three common paths for transmitting cultural traits: vertical, horizontal and oblique ([46] in [47]).
In the project we made use of all the paths: children interviewed their
parents and grandparents (vertical transmission); parents exchanged
their knowledge and children exchanged what they had learned
(horizontal); and children without experts on plants at home (e.g.
knowledgeable grandparents or parents) learned from other older members
of the community (oblique transmission), especially in the participatory
video project. Children also brought their knowledge (which they
learned from other older people in the community) back home, which may
be seen as a fourth path of knowledge transmission (from child to
parent).
Institutional impact
Although we did not intend to introduce ethnobotany and local knowledge into formal
school-curricula, local teachers were inspired by the project
activities to take local plant knowledge into account in their teaching.
For example in the school that hosted the first video workshop, the
teachers now include the videos as didactic material in the school
curriculum.
The
inclusion of local knowledge systems in formal school curricula has the
potential to maintain or revitalise local knowledge in the communities [48].
However, it requires culturally representative ways of teaching.
Therefore we did not teach wild plant uses in the primary schools, but
let the local people talk and present their practices themselves in the
questionnaires and participatory videos. An example from the Tsimane
educational system in Bolivia shows that contextualised learning helps
maintain local knowledge systems [12].
Here the children are taught about local knowledge in the Tsimane
language by Tsimane teachers using educational materials in Tsimane. In
our research we placed the emphasis on contextualised learning with our
approach to let children interview their parents and grandparents, and
by working with participatory video, where the children filmed local
experts on plant gathering and use. By including local knowledge in
formal education systems, intergenerational transmission may increase
and it might be an important way of increasing pupils’ awareness and
participation in environmental issues [48].
One year after the video production, the school hosting one video workshop won first prize for projects in Austria’s national “Umweltzeichen” competition, an ecological label for schools, for their video “Kraut im Bild”. This raised the school’s profile considerably.
Besides the local primary schools, the institutionalised herbal association Bergtee profited from the participatory video project: by being interviewed in one of the videos, the leader of the Bergtee association was able to advertise her Bergtee
project to a broader public. The association acquired three more
members after the screening of the videos: young girls who participated
in the video workshop and are now gathering herbs for Bergtee with older women in the association.
Negative impact
The
family environment in particular has the potential to be negatively
impacted by participatory projects with children. This may include
conflicts of interest between parents and children, problems between
siblings when only one child participates, disruption of power relations
within families or communities, disappointments when projects do not
turn out as intended or overburdening the children [41].
Although we were attentive to such instances, as also promoted by the
International Charter for Ethical Research Involving Children [30], no negative impacts were reported within the scope of this project neither by parents, teachers nor the children themselves.
Reflecting upon children’s participation
Children
can be involved at various phases of the research process, to various
degrees, in various forms of participation and with various methods
(Alderson, 2001). In this chapter we draw on these factors to discuss
the participation of children in the research project.
Phases and degrees for participation of children
The
ladder model is one widely used example for reflecting on the extent of
and form of children’s participation in participatory research projects
[49]. It is comprised of eight rungs, ranging from three types of non-participation to five degrees of participation (Fig. 7).
The types of non-participation are manipulation, decoration and
tokenism. The degrees of participation are assigned but informed,
consulted and informed, adult-initiated shared decision with children,
child-initiated and directed, and child-initiated shared decisions with
adults. The ladder model has also been criticised, however, for example
for reflecting the participation of children who are only in the project
and not the general societal context, for being culturally biased, for
being used as an evaluation tool rather than a scheme for reflection or
for implicitly stating that the higher up the ladder, thus the more the
participation, the better it is and that a development from lower to
higher ranks is being targeted [50].
Fig. 7
Ladder of participation to illustrate children’s degree of involvement (Source: [41])
Following
this model, children were assigned but informed in research phase 2.
They were involved in the data collection process as interviewers, but
the research process and method was selected and designed by the
researchers and supported by teachers. Children were introduced to the
topic and informed about the results, but were not offered the
opportunity to make decisions about the process. Although this kind of
participation is the first degree of participation in the ladder model,
it was not genuinely participatory when sincere power-sharing with
children is identified as a pre-requisite for participatory research [17, 19].
Phase 2 might also not be called genuinely participatory since in the
regular school setting children may easily feel obliged to co-operate [32] and participation might therefore not have been fully voluntary, another pre-requisite for participatory research [49, 50].
The other pre-requisites were fulfilled since in the workshops we
ensured that the children understood the intentions and reasons for
their involvement, and that they had a meaningful, and not merely
decorative, role in the project [49].
Research
phase 2 might thus lie on the edge of what we call participatory
research with children. It suited its purposes of strengthening
awareness about wild plant gathering among children and local people,
encouraging knowledge transmission and data collection. The phase was
valuable for ensuring the project objectives were achieved and involved
benefits for local people and children [50].
Following
the ladder model, phase 3 was adult-initiated shared decisions with
children and most authors would agree that this phase was participatory
since decision-making was shared. The first author came up with the idea
of working on participatory videos and this was then presented and
discussed with the key actors in the valley. The sequence for producing
the videos and the topic of wild plant gathering was also predetermined
by the researchers. Within these conditions, the children and
researchers co-determined the content and storyboard of the videos, the
local people to be interviewed and the scenes and point-of-view shots.
The editing of the videos was again undertaken by the researchers.
Overall,
the children were increasingly involved in the research project as it
progressed. While in phase 1 children were not involved at all, children
collected data in phase 2 and were involved in almost all the stages in
phase 3. Phase 1 was essential for laying the groundwork. It was used
to establish a rapport and obtain the confidence and trust of biosphere
reserve management and local people in the project. This again increased
local people’s willingness and motivation to participate in project
activities. It was essential for the success of the project that
parents, collaborators, key actors and ultimately the whole community
also supported the project. Potential conflicts of interests between
children, parents, teachers and other actors were thereby mitigated [41].
The
involvement of children in the data collection in phase 2 presented a
first entry point for work with the children. Phase 2 was positively
received by local people and the teachers of the primary schools
requested that our work on wild plant gathering be continued in the
schools. This was only possible because the funding agency gave us
relative freedom to undertake the research phases as long as the
objectives were achieved. In phase 3 participatory videos with the
children allowed us to continue the work with children and involve them
in more stages of the research process while still meeting the project
objectives.
Methods for children’s participation
Children
were offered a diversity of methods for expressing their opinions and
experiences in participatory research approaches over the last two
decades. Such methods include written, oral and visual ones and range
from questionnaires or interviewing to drawing, diaries, mapping,
ranking, transect walks, acting, theatre and many more [51, 52, 53].
In this chapter we discuss the main methods applied in this project with children: questionnaires and participatory videos.
Questionnaires
Quantitative methods such as questionnaires have recently been less favoured in research with children [54, 55] since they, with their stringent structure and focus on objectivity, were not perceived as children-friendly by researchers [54].
However, these experiences were challenged and it was highlighted that
some children preferably engage in structured methods and do not fit
into the assumption that all children prefer to draw or play [56, 57].
Reasons might include that the formality of questionnaires supports the
children’s impression that they are doing serious research [57].
Children were thus found to be capable for responding to a diversity of
methods and the most apt way for doing research with children is to
recognize the diversity of interests and affinities of children and
providing choices through participatory approaches rather than assuming
an uniformity of interests of children [56]. In this project, questionnaires were preceded by school workshops where posters, games and puzzles were used as icebreakers [53]
and alternating sedentary and moving activities were used. This was
followed by the introduction of the questionnaire and the relating
homework. We thus intended to provide a diversity of methods for
supporting multiple of children’s interests and for making the workshops
enjoyable (similar to [57]). However we admit that children were not given real choice of participation in the activities.
We
argued that our questionnaires were designed in a child-oriented way
with drawings and intermediary activities, as explained above and in
earlier publications [28, 31, 36].
Terms such as child-orientation or child-friendliness might however be
used as patronising terms and all research subjects, not only children,
benefit from research methods which are adapted to their interests,
backgrounds as well as local environments [58].
Also, the use of child-friendly methods may hide the benefits for the
researcher and may reinforce the researchers’ assumptions about
childhood rather than providing space for choice and development of
children. A distinction between adult-suited and child-suited methods
may thus be misleading and hiding the heterogeneity among children,
their interests and experiences [59].
Alternative and better suited terms might be research-friendly or
person-friendly research or research-participant-centred rather than
child-centred research [58].
Considering such arguments, we believe that our questionnaire was
indeed researcher centred as well as research-participant-centred: it
fulfilled its purposes of providing entertaining data collection for the
children, supporting knowledge transmission from research subjects to
children and gathering scientific data.
Participatory videos
Participatory video is characterized by heterogeneity of approaches [60], and its use by far not only in research but also in applied projects to empower civil society [44].
Key characteristics of participatory videos with children are 1) the
complex process of elaborating participatory videos, 2) the balanced
focus on both the process of elaboration and the resulting output, and
3) linked to complexity and process orientation, the importance of the
multiple relationships between researchers, children and community
members [61].
1)
In our case, we
intended to reduce complexity through pursuing a defined work plan and
at the same time giving space for flexibility and common learning, e.g.
through possibilities for evaluation and feedback [62].
The sequence of the workshop and the topic were defined by the workshop
organizers, whereas the content and the choice of interview partners
was elaborated independently by the children. Whereas the work plan was
not discussible, space for discussion and evaluation was reserved on
three mornings when footage was reviewed as well as during the
presentation of the videos four days after the school workshop.
2)
Knowledge production during the process of the development and the final product are the aims of participatory video [63].
Production and transmission of knowledge on wild plant gathering was
realized during video development when children were interviewing
gatherers and through the public screening and availability of the final
product. Furthermore the children developed personal knowledge and
skills during the development process, as indicated above.
3)
Multiple
relationships around wild plant gathering were fostered during and after
the participatory video project. The relationship between the first
author, the teachers and the partaking children was already established
through the school workshops and the first author was well known for the
topic of wild plant gathering at the time of the video workshops. These
established relationships and trust provided the basis for a smooth
start of the video workshops. The recording of participatory videos then
fostered the relationships between local gatherers and children. Local
gatherers felt free and easy in interacting with the children and
sharing their knowledge. They told their stories not to the camera but
to the children and interacting with children helped the gatherers to be
relaxed while being recorded.
Although
videos are used since decades in research, they still lack recognition
as academic outputs and are rarely presented as such by researchers [63].
This is also true for participatory videos in ethnobiology and
ethnobotany and literally no scientific publications describing,
discussing or analyzing in detail the process of development or
resulting participatory videos are to be found in ethnobotanical
journals. Rather than scientific outputs, ethnobotanical videos were
intended as educational ethnobotanical videos for ethnobotany teachers
and learners, ethnographic videos for broader audiences and local
ethnobotanical videos for community members [64].
Such lack of scientific outputs from videos was suggested to be the
case because visual accounts of cultural practices hardly fit to the
text-based academic institutional practices [63], but also because of funders’ reluctance of supporting process oriented research [4, 61]. This lack provides also potential for further developments in ethnobiology.
Conclusions
We
have presented and discussed the research processes and methods
developed in an ethnobiological research project in which children
participated as co-researchers.
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’s involvement
ranged from non-participation in phase 1 to punctual involvement as
interviewers in phase 2, as co-researchers in participatory video making
in phase 3, and again to non-participation in phase 4. Indications for
local impact were found on personal, familial, communal and
institutional levels and were most pronounced when children actively
participated in the research process (phase two and three). Scientific
output was generated from non-participatory research processes (phase
one and four) as well as through the participation of children as
researchers (phase two). The example of this research project thus shows
how participatory involvement of children in ethnobiological projects
can combine both, local impact and scientific output.
Participatory
video (phase three) is known as an important tool for creating local
impact in ethnobiology. However, less attention was put on creating
scientific outputs from participatory video and e.g. the detailed
methodological discussion of participatory video-making partnerships,
impact evaluation or the presentation of videos themselves as scientific
outputs bear potential in ethnobiology.
Research
projects are frequently complex endeavours and time schedules are
tight. However, if ethnobotanists and ethnobiologists are truly
concerned with the impact and benefits of research processes and results
for local communities, this research needs to be deliberately planned
and evaluated and then reported and discussed in academic publications.
We would appreciate any feedback on our methodological procedure in
scientific publications, via e-mail or posts on ResearchGate [65].
Declarations
Acknowledgements
The
authors are first of all very grateful to the people of the Grosses
Walsertal for participating and supporting this study, and especially to
all the participating children, teachers, interviewees and
protagonists. We would especially like to thank Ruth Moser, the
Biosphere Reserve Manager, for the initiative for the project and her
ongoing motivation; Elisabeth Burtscher, the leader of the Bergtee
project, for support and exchange in all stages of the project; Susanne
Türtscher, the leader of the Alchemilla project, for support and insight
in her great work; David Ganahl, headteacher of the primary school in
St. Gerold, for his trust and uncomplicated cooperation; and filmmaker
Maria Weber for her great cooperation and fun in producing the videos.
Funding
This project received
funding from the Austrian Academy of Sciences under the Man and
Biosphere Programme (Project title: “Monitoring of Biocultural Diversity
in the Biosphere Reserve “Grosses Walsertal”/Vorarlberg, Austria - The
use and management of biodiversity of crops, cultivars and wild gathered
plant species”). The funding body played no further role in the design
of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in
writing the manuscript.
Availability of data and materials
The data collected and analysed during the current study are available from the first author on reasonable request.
Authors’ contributions
SG designed the methods
approach and carried out fieldwork. CS supported the method design. CS
composed the literature review. SG and CS drafted the manuscript. SG and
CS equally contributed to this publication. CRV developed the project
proposal that was funded by the donor after peer review and
substantially assisted in all stages of this study. All authors read and
approved the final manuscript.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Consent for publication
All persons depicted in the figures of this manuscript gave their consent for publication.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Prior informed consent was
received from all teachers and parents when children were involved in
this study. Informed consent was received from all children and
individuals involved in this study.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s)
and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and
indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain
Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Bergold
J, Thomas S. Participatory research methods: a methodological approach
in motion. Forum Qual Sozialforschung/Forum Qual Soc Res. 2012;13(1):30.Google Scholar
Cooper
CB, Dickinson J, Phillips T, Bonney R. Citizen science as a tool for
conservation in residential ecosystems. Ecol Soc. 2007;12(2):11.Google Scholar
Caruso
E, Schunko C, Corbera E, Mallén IR, Vogl CR, Martin G, et al. Lessons
for research policy and practice: the case of co-enquiry research with
rural communities. J Res Pract. 2016;12:1. Article M1.Google Scholar
Shirk
JL, Ballard HL, Wilderman CC, Phillips T, Wiggins A, Jordan R, et al.
Public participation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate
design. Ecol Soc. 2012;17(2):29.Google Scholar
Conrad
CC, Hilchey KG. A review of citizen science and community-based
environmental monitoring: issues and opportunities. Environ Monit
Assess. 2011;176:273–91.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Percy-Smith
B, Thomas N, editors. A handbook of children and young people’s
participation: perspectives from theory and practice. London ; New York:
Routledge; 2010.Google Scholar
Wyndham
FS. Environments of learning: Rarámuri children’s plant knowledge and
experience of schooling, family, and landscapes in the Sierra
Tarahumara, Mexico. Hum Ecol. 2010;38:87–99.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Yates
S, Ramírez-Sosa CR. Ethnobotanical knowledge of Brosimum alicastrum
(Moraceae) among urban and rural El Salvadorian adolescents. Econ Bot.
2004;58:72–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Zent
S, López-Zent E. Ethnobotanical convergence, divergence, and change
among the Hotï of the Venezuelan Guayana. In: Carlson T, Maffi L,
editors. Ethnobot. Conserv. Biocultural Divers. New York: NYBG; 2004. p.
37–78.Google Scholar
Reyes-García
V, Kightley E, Ruiz-Mallén I, Fuentes-Peláez N, Demps K, Huanca T, et
al. Schooling and local environmental knowledge: do they complement or
substitute each other? Int J Educ Dev. 2010;30:305–13.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Cooper CL. Botanical knowledge of a group of South Carolina elementary school students. Ethnobot Res Appl. 2008;6:121–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Fagbemissi
RC, Price LL. From novice to expert: agroecological competences of
children orphaned by AIDS compared to non-orphans in Benin. J Ethnobiol
Ethnomed. 2011;7:4.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Cruz
Garcia GS. The mother-child nexus. Knowledge and valuation of wild food
plants in Wayanad, Western Ghats, India. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed.
2006;2:39.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Setalaphruk
C, Price L. Children’s traditional ecological knowledge of wild food
resources: a case study in a rural village in Northeast Thailand. J
Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2007;3:33.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Kellett
M. Children as active researchers: a new research paradigm for the 21st
century? ESRC National Centre for Research Methods, NCRM Methods Review
Papers. 2005. http://oro.open.ac.uk/7539. Accessed 2 Feb 2016
Jacquez
F, Vaughn LM, Wagner E. Youth as partners, participants or passive
recipients: a review of children and adolescents in community-based
participatory research (CBPR). Am J Community Psychol. 2013;51:176–89.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Lundy
L, McEvoy L, Byrne B. Working with young children as co-researchers: an
approach informed by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child. Early Educ Dev. 2011;22:714–36.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Fox R. Resisting participation: critiquing participatory research methodologies with young people. J Youth Stud. 2013;16:986–99.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Alderson P. Research by children: rights and methods. Int J Soc Res Methodol Theory Pract. 2001;4:139–53.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Stepp JR. Advances in Ethnobiological Field Methods. Field Methods. 2005;17:211–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
UNESCO. Biosphere reserves: the Seville Strategy and the statutory framework of the world network. Paris: UNESCO; 1996.
Biosphärenpark
Großes Walsertal Management. Leitbild Biosphärenpark Großes Walsertal.
Thüringerberg: Biosphärenparkmanagement der REGIO Großes Walsertal;
2011.
Bernard HR. Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches. 4th ed. Lanham: Altamira Press; 2006.Google Scholar
Weller SC, Romney AK. Systematic data collection. Newbury Park, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications; 1988.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Grasser
S, Schunko C, Vogl CR. Gathering “tea”–from necessity to connectedness
with nature. local knowledge about wild plant gathering in the Biosphere
Reserve Grosses Walsertal (Austria). J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2012;8:31.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Grasser
S. Reichhaltiges Erfahrungswissen über pflanzliche Vielfalt. Was steckt
hinter diesem bedeutungsvoll klingenden Titel? Blickwinkel
Informationsblatt Biosphärenpark Großes Walsertal. 2008. p. 41.Google Scholar
Graham
A, Powell M, Taylor N, Anderson D, Fitzgerald R. Ethical Research
Involving Children. Florence: UNICEF Office of Research - Innocenti;
2013.Google Scholar
Schunko
C, Grasser S, Vogl CR. Explaining the resurgent popularity of the wild:
motivations for wild plant gathering in the Biosphere Reserve Grosses
Walsertal, Austria. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2015;11:55.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Gallagher
M, Haywood SL, Jones MW, Milne S. Negotiating informed consent with
children in school-based research: a critical review. Child Soc.
2010;24:471–82.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Grasser
S. Reichhaltiges Erfahrungswissen über pflanzliche Vielfalt. “Gö mr gi
Tee sammla!” – Kinder auf Forschung. Blickwinkel Informationsblatt
Biosphärenpark Großes Walsertal. 2009. p. 45.Google Scholar
Grasser
S. Reichhaltiges Erfahrungswissen über pflanzliche Vielfalt. Auf ins
Frühjahr und die 2.Forschungssaison. Blickwinkel Informationsblatt
Biosphärenpark Großes Walsertal. 2009. p. 44.Google Scholar
Grasser
S, Vogl C, Grabowski M, Vogl T, Vogl-Lukasser B. Biokulturelle
Vielfalt: Vom Lokalen Erfahrungswissen zu Pflanzen im Biosphärenpark
Großes Walsertal. Endbericht zum Forschungsprojekt „Monitoring of
Biocultural Diversity in the Biosphere Reserve Großes Walstertal,
Austria. The use and management of biodiversity of crops, cultivars and
wild gathered plant species”. Vienna: Department of Sustainable
Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences,
2012
Schunko
C, Grasser S, Vogl CR. Intracultural variation of knowledge about wild
plant uses in the Biosphere Reserve Grosses Walsertal (Austria). J
Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2012;8:23.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Burtscher E, Fuchs B. Grasser, editors. Bergtee. Eschen: Verein Alternative Wirtschaft; 2012.Google Scholar
Grasser
S. Reichhaltiges Erfahrungswissen über pflanzliche Vielfalt. Mensch
& Kraut in Bild & Ton. Blickwinkel Informationsblatt
Biosphärenpark Großes Walsertal. 2010. p. 50.Google Scholar
Hart
J, Newman J, Ackermann L. Children changing their world: understanding
and evaluating children’s participation in development. London: Plan;
2004.Google Scholar
Gompertz
SB. Children as co-researchers: The impact of researching their own
learning on attitude to and understanding of school science. Phd Thesis
University of Exeter. 2014.Google Scholar
Tremblay C, Jayme B d O. Community knowledge co-creation through participatory video. Action Res. 2015;13:298–314.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Lunch N, Lunch C. Insights Into Participatory Video: A Handbook for the Field. Oxford: Insightshare; 2006.Google Scholar
Zent
S, Maffi L. Final report on indicator No. 2: methodology for developing
a vitality index of traditional environmental knowledge (VITEK) for the
project Global Indicators of the Status and Trends of Linguistic
Diversity and Traditional Knowledge. British Columbia: Terralingua;
2009.Google Scholar
Cavalli-Sforza
LL, Feldman MW. Cultural transmission and evolution: a quantitative
approach. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1981.Google Scholar
Reyes-García
V, Martínez-Rodríguez MR, Broesch J, Calvet-Mir L, Fuentes-Peláez N,
McDade TW, et al. Cultural transmission of ethnobotanical knowledge and
skills: an empirical analysis from an Amerindian society. Evol Hum
Behav. 2009;30:274–85.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
McCarter
J, Gavin MC. Perceptions of the value of traditional ecological
knowledge to formal school curricula: opportunities and challenges from
Malekula Island, Vanuatu. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2011;7:38.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Hart RA. Children’s participation: from tokenism to citizenship. Florence: UNICEF International Child Development Centre; 1992.Google Scholar
Hart
RA. Stepping back from “the ladder”: reflections on a model of
participatory work with children. In: Reid A, Jensen BB, Nikel J,
Simovska V, editors. Participation and learning: perspectives on
education and the environment, health and sustainability. Dordrecht:
Springer Netherlands; 2008. p. 19–31.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Einarsdóttir J. Research with children: methodological and ethical challenges. Eur Early Child Educ Res J. 2007;15:197–211.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Boyden J, Ennew J. Children in focus: a manual for participatory research with children. Rädda Barnen: Stockholm; 1997.Google Scholar
Molina G, Molina F, Tanner T, Seballos F. Child-friendly participatory research tools. Particip Learn Action. 2009;60:160–6.Google Scholar
Barker J, Weller S. “Is it fun?” Developing children centred research methods. Int J Sociol Soc Policy. 2003;23:33–58.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Fargas-Malet
M, McSherry D, Larkin E, Robinson C. Research with children:
Methodological issues and innovative techniques. J Early Child Res.
2010;8:175–92.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Dockett
S, Einarsdóttir J, Perry B. Balancing methodologies and methods in
researching with young children. In: Harcourt D, Perry B, Waller T,
editors. Researching young children’s perspectives: debating the ethics
and dilemmas of educational research with children. London, New York:
Routledge; 2011.Google Scholar
Bucknall
S. Children as researchers: exploring issues and barriers in English
primary schools. PhD Thesis The Open University. 2009.Google Scholar
Punch S. Research with children: the same or different from research with adults? Childhood. 2002;9:321–41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Hunleth
J. Beyond on or with: Questioning power dynamics and knowledge
production in “child-oriented” research methodology. Childhood.
2011;18:81–93.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
High
C, Singh N, Petheram L, Nemes G. Defining participatory video from
practice. In: Milne EJ, Mitchell C, de Lange N, editors. The Handbook of
Participatory Video. Lanham: AltaMira Press; 2012. p. 35–48.Google Scholar
Blazek M. Participatory Video with Children and Young People. Young. 2016;2:1.Google Scholar
Mistry
J, Berardi A. The challenges and opportunities of participatory video
in geographical research: exploring collaboration with indigenous
communities in the North Rupununi. Guyana Area. 2012;44:110–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Garrett BL. Videographic geographies: using digital video for geographic research. Prog Hum Geogr. 2011;35:521–41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Fuller RJ. Guidelines for using video to document plant practices. Ethnobot Res Appl. 2007;5:219–31.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Fig. 3Pupils interviewing local plant experts in their community. St. Gerold primary school (Photo: Grasser 2010)
Fig. 4Filming of the frame story. Summer workshop in the Grosses Walsertal Biosphere Reserve (Photo: Grasser 2010)
