Cited by 253Indigenous Health, Education, and RightsEnvironmental and Cultural Studies in Latin America and BeyondIndigenous Studies and Ecology

Rethinking the building blocks: ontological pluralism and the idea of ‘management’

Howitt, Richard, Suchet‐pearson, Sandra·2006·Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography

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

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1468-0459.2006.00225.x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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

Authors
Howitt, R., & Suchet‐pearson, S.
Affiliations
  • Macquarie University (AU)
  • Department of Human Geography Macquarie University NSW 2109 AUSTRALIA E–mail:
Venue
Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography
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