Breaking Through Disciplinary Barriers:

Human–Wildlife Interactions and Multispecies Ethnography

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

One of the main challenges when integrating biological and social perspectives in primatology is overcoming interdisciplinary barriers. Unfamiliarity with subject-specific theory and language, distinct disciplinary-bound approaches to research, and academic boundaries aimed at “preserving the integrity” of subject disciplines can hinder developments in interdisciplinary research. With growing interest in how humans and other primates share landscapes, and recognition of the importance of combining biological and social information to do this effectively, the disparate use of terminology is becoming more evident. To tackle this problem, we dissect the meaning of what the biological sciences term studies in “human–wildlife conflict” or more recently “human–wildlife interactions” and compare it to what anthropology terms “multispecies ethnography.” In the biological sciences, human–wildlife interactions are the actions resulting from people and wild animals sharing landscapes and resources, with outcomes ranging from being beneficial or harmful to one or both species. In the social sciences, human–nonhuman relationships have been explored on a philosophical, analytical, and empirical level. Building on previous work, we advocate viewing landscapes through an interdisciplinary “multispecies lens” in which humans are observed as one of multiple organisms that interact with other species to shape and create environments. To illustrate these interconnections we use the case study of coexistence between people of the Nalu ethnic group and Critically Endangered western chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) at Cantanhez National Park in Guinea-Bissau, to demonstrate how biological and social research approaches can be complementary and can inform conservation initiatives at the human–primate interface. Finally, we discuss how combining perspectives from ethnoprimatology with those from multispecies ethnography can advance the study of ethnoprimatology to aid productive discourse and enhance future interdisciplinary research.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)749-775
Number of pages26
JournalInternational Journal of Primatology
Volume39
Issue number5
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2018

Fingerprint

anthropology
interdisciplinary research
Pan troglodytes
Guinea-Bissau
Biological Sciences
social sciences
ethnic group
terminology
wild animals
nationalities and ethnic groups
Lens
primate
coexistence
national parks
Primates
national park
case studies
organisms
resource
ethnography

Keywords

  • Conservation conflict
  • Ethnoprimatology
  • Human–wildlife conflict
  • Human–wildlife interactions
  • Interdisciplinary research
  • Multispecies ethnography
  • Primate conservation

Cite this

@article{a57be7e1e50e45158c24780fde3991df,
title = "Breaking Through Disciplinary Barriers:: Human–Wildlife Interactions and Multispecies Ethnography",
abstract = "One of the main challenges when integrating biological and social perspectives in primatology is overcoming interdisciplinary barriers. Unfamiliarity with subject-specific theory and language, distinct disciplinary-bound approaches to research, and academic boundaries aimed at “preserving the integrity” of subject disciplines can hinder developments in interdisciplinary research. With growing interest in how humans and other primates share landscapes, and recognition of the importance of combining biological and social information to do this effectively, the disparate use of terminology is becoming more evident. To tackle this problem, we dissect the meaning of what the biological sciences term studies in “human–wildlife conflict” or more recently “human–wildlife interactions” and compare it to what anthropology terms “multispecies ethnography.” In the biological sciences, human–wildlife interactions are the actions resulting from people and wild animals sharing landscapes and resources, with outcomes ranging from being beneficial or harmful to one or both species. In the social sciences, human–nonhuman relationships have been explored on a philosophical, analytical, and empirical level. Building on previous work, we advocate viewing landscapes through an interdisciplinary “multispecies lens” in which humans are observed as one of multiple organisms that interact with other species to shape and create environments. To illustrate these interconnections we use the case study of coexistence between people of the Nalu ethnic group and Critically Endangered western chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) at Cantanhez National Park in Guinea-Bissau, to demonstrate how biological and social research approaches can be complementary and can inform conservation initiatives at the human–primate interface. Finally, we discuss how combining perspectives from ethnoprimatology with those from multispecies ethnography can advance the study of ethnoprimatology to aid productive discourse and enhance future interdisciplinary research.",
keywords = "Conservation conflict, Ethnoprimatology, Human–wildlife conflict, Human–wildlife interactions, Interdisciplinary research, Multispecies ethnography, Primate conservation",
author = "Parathian, {Hannah Elisabeth} and McLennan, {Matthew R.} and Hill, {Catherine M.} and Am{\'e}lia Fraz{\~a}o-Moreira and Hockings, {Kimberley Jane}",
note = "info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/FCT/5876/147310/PT# UID/ANT/04038/2013; IF/0112801/24",
year = "2018",
month = "10",
language = "English",
volume = "39",
pages = "749--775",
journal = "International Journal of Primatology",
issn = "0164-0291",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Breaking Through Disciplinary Barriers:

T2 - Human–Wildlife Interactions and Multispecies Ethnography

AU - Parathian, Hannah Elisabeth

AU - McLennan, Matthew R.

AU - Hill, Catherine M.

AU - Frazão-Moreira, Amélia

AU - Hockings, Kimberley Jane

N1 - info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/FCT/5876/147310/PT# UID/ANT/04038/2013; IF/0112801/24

PY - 2018/10

Y1 - 2018/10

N2 - One of the main challenges when integrating biological and social perspectives in primatology is overcoming interdisciplinary barriers. Unfamiliarity with subject-specific theory and language, distinct disciplinary-bound approaches to research, and academic boundaries aimed at “preserving the integrity” of subject disciplines can hinder developments in interdisciplinary research. With growing interest in how humans and other primates share landscapes, and recognition of the importance of combining biological and social information to do this effectively, the disparate use of terminology is becoming more evident. To tackle this problem, we dissect the meaning of what the biological sciences term studies in “human–wildlife conflict” or more recently “human–wildlife interactions” and compare it to what anthropology terms “multispecies ethnography.” In the biological sciences, human–wildlife interactions are the actions resulting from people and wild animals sharing landscapes and resources, with outcomes ranging from being beneficial or harmful to one or both species. In the social sciences, human–nonhuman relationships have been explored on a philosophical, analytical, and empirical level. Building on previous work, we advocate viewing landscapes through an interdisciplinary “multispecies lens” in which humans are observed as one of multiple organisms that interact with other species to shape and create environments. To illustrate these interconnections we use the case study of coexistence between people of the Nalu ethnic group and Critically Endangered western chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) at Cantanhez National Park in Guinea-Bissau, to demonstrate how biological and social research approaches can be complementary and can inform conservation initiatives at the human–primate interface. Finally, we discuss how combining perspectives from ethnoprimatology with those from multispecies ethnography can advance the study of ethnoprimatology to aid productive discourse and enhance future interdisciplinary research.

AB - One of the main challenges when integrating biological and social perspectives in primatology is overcoming interdisciplinary barriers. Unfamiliarity with subject-specific theory and language, distinct disciplinary-bound approaches to research, and academic boundaries aimed at “preserving the integrity” of subject disciplines can hinder developments in interdisciplinary research. With growing interest in how humans and other primates share landscapes, and recognition of the importance of combining biological and social information to do this effectively, the disparate use of terminology is becoming more evident. To tackle this problem, we dissect the meaning of what the biological sciences term studies in “human–wildlife conflict” or more recently “human–wildlife interactions” and compare it to what anthropology terms “multispecies ethnography.” In the biological sciences, human–wildlife interactions are the actions resulting from people and wild animals sharing landscapes and resources, with outcomes ranging from being beneficial or harmful to one or both species. In the social sciences, human–nonhuman relationships have been explored on a philosophical, analytical, and empirical level. Building on previous work, we advocate viewing landscapes through an interdisciplinary “multispecies lens” in which humans are observed as one of multiple organisms that interact with other species to shape and create environments. To illustrate these interconnections we use the case study of coexistence between people of the Nalu ethnic group and Critically Endangered western chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) at Cantanhez National Park in Guinea-Bissau, to demonstrate how biological and social research approaches can be complementary and can inform conservation initiatives at the human–primate interface. Finally, we discuss how combining perspectives from ethnoprimatology with those from multispecies ethnography can advance the study of ethnoprimatology to aid productive discourse and enhance future interdisciplinary research.

KW - Conservation conflict

KW - Ethnoprimatology

KW - Human–wildlife conflict

KW - Human–wildlife interactions

KW - Interdisciplinary research

KW - Multispecies ethnography

KW - Primate conservation

M3 - Article

VL - 39

SP - 749

EP - 775

JO - International Journal of Primatology

JF - International Journal of Primatology

SN - 0164-0291

IS - 5

ER -