Rethinking the building blocks: ontological pluralism and the idea of ‘management’
Abstract
. The persistence of indigenous ontologies rooted in human systems that pre‐date the creation of colonial property rights and assertions of frontier conquest and dispossession unsettles the dominant idea that ‘management’ is an unproblematic and universally endorsed goal for communities, regions and nations in their environmental and development discourses. This paper argues that conceptual building blocks which render management, be it of environments, economies or people, as unquestionably good, need to be reconsidered. Drawing on diverse indigenous knowledges in Australia, particularly in relation to wildlife management, the paper examines the hidden cultural specificity of management, planning, institutional strengthening and capacity building as well as their implicit silencing of alternative narratives of the economic, environmental and cultural dimensions of social life.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Both Indigenous and Western knowledge systems centre on improving our understanding of the world, an end more achievable through a plural coexistence where time-tested Indigenous knowledge systems can be paired with Western scientific insights.
“Both centre on improving our understanding of the world around us (Cajete, 2000)-an end that surely becomes more achievable through a plural coexistence (Howitt & Suchet-Pearson, 2006; see glossary: Table 1) where timetested Indigenous knowledge systems can be paired with revelatory Western scientific insights (Benessia et al., 2012;Mistry & Berardi, 2016;Pierotti & Wildcat, 2000).”
From “Two‐Eyed Seeing”: An Indigenous framework to transform fisheries research and management (2021) · cites this paper as Howitt & Suchet-Pearson, 2006
Cited by
Sorted by citations
“Two‐Eyed Seeing”: An Indigenous framework to transform fisheries research and management
Reid, A. J., Eckert, L. E., Lane, J., Young, N., Hinch, S. G., Darimont, C. T., Cooke, S. J., Ban, N. C., & Marshall, A. (2021) · Fish and Fisheries · doi:10.1111/faf.12516 · Cited by 652 · see citing works
Coombes, B., Johnson, J. T., & Howitt, R. (2012) · Progress in Human Geography · doi:10.1177/0309132511431410 · Cited by 159 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Howitt, R., & Suchet‐pearson, S.
- Affiliations
- Macquarie University (AU)
- Department of Human Geography Macquarie University NSW 2109 AUSTRALIA E–mail:
- ORCID
- Howitt, Richard
- Venue
- Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2006-09
- Volume
- 88
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 323-335
- ISSN
- 0435-3684 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-0467
- OpenAlex
- W2127749542
- Cited by
- 253
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 7.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Geografiska Annaler Series B Human Geography (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Health › Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Environmental and Cultural Studies in Latin America and Beyond
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Indigenous Studies and Ecology
- Keywords
- ontological pluralism, Indigenous ontologies, management, wildlife management, indigenous knowledge, dispossession, planning, institutional capacity building, capacity building, environmental management, development discourse, cultural specificity, alternative narratives, Australia
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review