Reyes‑García  Journal of Ethnobiology Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (2023) 19:36 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-023-00611-6 and Ethnomedicine DEBATE Open Access Beyond artificial academic debates: for a diverse, inclusive, and impactful ethnobiology and ethnomedicine Victoria Reyes‑García1,2,3* Abstract In answer to the question “Should ethnobiology and ethnomedicine more decisively foster hypothesis-driven forefront research able to turn findings into policy and abandon more classical folkloric studies?”, in this essay I argue that a major strength of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine is their ability to bridge theories and methods from the natural sci‑ ences, the social sciences, and the humanities. Hypothesis-driven research is a powerful way to structure thinking that can lead to forefront research findings. But hypothesis-driven research is not the only way to structure thinking and is not a necessary condition to impact policymaking. To increase policy impact, ethnobiology and ethnomedi‑ cine should continue nurturing a mixture of complementary methods and inclusive approaches as fragmentation through opposing different approaches might weaken the discipline. Moreover, with the aim to play a fundamental role in building bridges between different knowledge systems and co-producing solutions towards sustainability, the discipline could benefit from enlarging its epistemological grounds through more collaborative research. Ethnobi‑ ologists’ research findings, hypothesis-driven, descriptive, or co-constructed can become leverage points to transform knowledge into actionable outcomes in different levels of decision-making. Keywords Biological indices, Co-production of knowledge, Epistemology, Indigenous and local knowledge, Methods Introduction descriptive origins, and as data accumulate, theory- Researchers in ethnobiology and ethnomedicine debate inspired and hypothesis-driven approaches to study why the appropriate use of different methodologies and and how local people relate to different elements of the epistemologies [1, 2], with repeated calls for engaging environment have grown [1, 4]. Ethnobiologists’ toolbox in theory-inspired and hypothesis-driven research [3]. to conduct hypothesis-driven research has grown in par- The debate has been framed both in terms of the merits allel and now includes tools such as generalized linear of different approaches [1, 2] and in terms of the devel- modelling, structural equation modelling, phylogenetic opment of the discipline [4]. Indeed, departing from its generalized least squares, social network analysis, species distribution, and predictive modelling [1]. Despite this growth, descriptive approaches continue to be popular in *Correspondence: ethnobiology and ethnomedicine. Moreover, as research- Victoria Reyes‑García victoria.reyes@uab.cat ers in the field come from different epistemological and 1 Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ICREA), methodological backgrounds, the question of whether 08010 Barcelona, Spain 2 hypothesis-driven should replace descriptive approaches Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ICTA-UAB), Cerdanyola del Vallès, 08193 Barcelona, Spain remains, as exemplified in the question set in this ini- 3 Departament d’Antropologia Social i Cultural, Universitat Autònoma de tial Debate Series on the Journal of Ethnobiology and Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Vallès, 08193 Barcelona, Spain Ethnomedicine. © The Author(s) 2023. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecom‑ mons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. Reyes‑García Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (2023) 19:36 Page 2 of 4 To answer the question posed for debate (i.e., “Should Biodiversity and Ecosystems Services (IPBES) [10, 11]. ethnobiology and ethnomedicine more decisively foster While these initiatives do not remain free from power hypothesis-driven forefront research able to turn findings imbalances and disciplinary biases towards natural into policy and abandon more classical folkloric stud- sciences and scientific epistemologies [11], they make ies?”), in this opinion piece, I examine the three compo- a conscious effort to bring together natural and social nents of the question independently. scientists and to incorporate evidence from plural knowledge systems, with particular emphasis on Indig- Should ethnobiology and ethnomedicine foster enous and local knowledge systems [12, 13]. hypothesis‑driven forefront research? Results from these experiences suggest that govern- Formulating hypotheses is a very powerful and potentially ance, planning and decision-making at local, regional, efficient way of structuring thinking. Hypotheses testing national, and international levels generally continues often leads to novel findings that advance our understand- to overlook the ecological knowledge and associated ing of people–environments interactions. For example, worldviews and values and beliefs of Indigenous Peo- the use of indices derived from ecological research in ples and local communities [14–16]. These experiences ethnobotany, first proposed by Begossi [5], has allowed also suggest that successfully bringing Indigenous and testing hypotheses on the relative importance of different local knowledge into policy arenas requires a deliberate plant species according to different criteria and has been effort from researchers and policymakers to create an used to improve ethnopharmacological screening through approach that facilitates recognition of different knowl- testing the efficacy of medicinal plants [6]. Hypothesis- edge systems, identifies questions relevant for different driven research allows to test ideas on the distribution actors at various scales, mobilizes funding, and rec- of reports of climate change impacts on local social– ognizes the extra time required to engage networks of ecological systems [7] or on the medicinal relevance of stakeholders with diverse worldviews [12]. Moreover, species across cultural groups [8]. Results from hypoth- because policy debates often entail epistemological esis-driven research sometimes help challenge assump- differences, attempts to address them should acknowl- tions on the relations between people and plants. For edge these differences. For example, attempts to pro- example, in recent work, Mateo and colleagues use the tect Indigenous and local knowledge systems are largely most comprehensive dataset of traditional uses of plants treated as a matter of intellectual property rights [17]. in Spain to show that gathering medicinal plants for self- However, the regulatory framework of intellectual consumption does not lead to overharvesting [9]. By test- property rights does not necessarily fit with how Indig- ing the connections between the cultural importance of enous Peoples and local communities manage their medicinal vascular plants traditionally used in Spain for knowledge [18]. Consequently, aiming to contribute to self-treatment and their availability, conservation, and this policy debate using results from hypothesis-driven legal protection status, the authors are able to show that— research might—in fact—reinforce the epistemological contrary to what is commonly assumed—most medicinal divide, thus not really contributing to advance the dis- plant species used for self-treatment in Spain are com- cussion and bring about political change. mon, readily available, and not threatened, which suggests All in all, researchers, funding agencies, and global that the use of medicinal plants for domestic purposes science organizations suggest that research aiming at only does not result in overexploitation [9]. addressing the complex nature of contemporary chal- In sum, hypothesis-driven research in ethnobiology lenges is most effective when co-produced by different and ethnomedicine allows for understanding hidden pat- actors [19]. Because they hold knowledge essential for terns in data. Results from hypothesis-driven studies are setting realistic and effective biodiversity targets, have also valuable to communicate with natural scientists, as conceptualizations of nature that can contribute to they share similar epistemological and methodological the vision of "living in harmony with nature," and have backgrounds. However, whether and how results from rights to essential territories and resources, Indigenous hypothesis-driven research contribute to policy action is Peoples and local communities need more recognition a question that should be analysed separately. in policymaking [20]. Given its research interests, eth- nobiology and ethnomedicine are well positioned to Should ethnobiology and ethnomedicine foster engage in the co-production of knowledge with Indige- research able to turn findings into policy? nous Peoples and local communities. Moreover, ethno- Recent years have seen a global effort to include biology and ethnomedicine should aspire to go beyond research results into global policy making, as seen in policymaking and aim to have an impact in other lev- the works of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate els of decision-making at local, regional, national, and Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Platform on international levels. Reyes‑García Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (2023) 19:36 Page 3 of 4 Should ethnobiology and ethnomedicine abandon impoverishing the basis on which we can develop and classic folkloric studies? test hypotheses, but it might also contribute to main- It is easy to argue that descriptive studies in ethnobiology tain barriers that hinder dialogue between knowledge and ethnomedicine continue to be needed. Descriptive systems. As mentioned, formulating and testing theory- studies provide the data needed for hypothesis-driven driven hypotheses is a powerful way to structure think- research. For example, the Spanish inventory of tradi- ing, but restricting knowledge production to only one tional knowledge is the largest compilation of descrip- way of thinking and the assumptions that come with it tions of plant and animal uses in different locations in might simply result in an impoverished view of the world. Spain [21]. Efforts to compile and organize such descrip- tive work have set the bases to test hypotheses, as in the Connecting the dots as a way to conclude work mentioned above [9]. Descriptive studies are also In this essay, I have separately analysed the three sub- important to provide the needed context to interpret questions that constitute the original question posed hypothesis-driven research results. For example, in a crit- for debate. I have argued that, while hypothesis-driven ical analysis of indices used in ethnobiology, Leonti [2] research might lead to forefront research findings, this argues that it is unlikely that a simple number can sum- is not necessarily a condition to impact policymaking. marize the cultural value or importance of a species, for I have also argued that recent experiences show that a which descriptive information provides the needed con- productive way to impact policymaking is to include text to understand and correctly interpret results. the views and values of different stakeholders through Beyond this utilitarian view of descriptive data to sup- empowering dialogues. This implies the ability to gen- port quantitative analysis, three other important argu- erate and communicate knowledge to a wide range of ments support the need for in-depth descriptive work. stakeholders to leverage the field for dialogue. First, descriptive work can lead to important insights in As an interdisciplinary field of research, ethnobiol- its own. For example, the recent IPBES Values Assess- ogy and ethnomedicine draw on theories and methods ment emphasizes the importance of integrating relational from the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the values, or the types of relationships between humans and humanities. Here lies its strength. To increase its policy nature, such as care, social bonding, place attachment, impact, ethnobiology and ethnomedicine should con- and spiritual meanings in biodiversity policy. Research in tinue nurturing a mixture of complementary methods this topic comes from qualitative analyses of the differ- and inclusive approaches, as fragmentation through ent ways people value nature, and not from hypothesis- opposing different approaches might weaken the disci- driven work, but can become an important leverage point pline [23]. Moreover, ethnobiology and ethnomedicine in current biodiversity policies [22]. Second, descriptive could also increase the focus on process. Attention to the work offers a good basis to enable effective empowering underlying assumptions of the ways in which we gener- dialogues among different stakeholders, a key element for ate hypotheses, collect data, test ideas, represent people, integrated sustainability science [4]. Exclusively focus- and use data are important, but often neglected topics ing on results from hypothesis-driven research might of enquiry. Finally, with the aim to play a fundamental lead to organize policy debates in non-inclusive ways, role in building bridges between a range of knowledges thus perpetuating power imbalances between knowl- and co-producing solutions towards sustainability [19], edge systems. Adding results from descriptive research ethnobiology and ethnomedicine could benefit from might help leverage the discussion field between stake- enlarging its epistemological grounds through more holders coming from different epistemologies. Finally, collaborative research oriented to the co-production of results from descriptive research can be translated into knowledge. illustrated field guides (e.g., on local plant uses), which To be policy impactful, ethnobiology and ethnomedi- have a much wider audience than scientists, also reaching cine should continue to build on diverse theoretical policy makers, laypeople, students, teachers, Indigenous and methodological background and increase efforts to Peoples and local communities, who can use them locally include a range of actors, particularly Indigenous Peo- (e.g., in school education, ecotourism, or as a repository ples and local communities, in empowering dialogues of local knowledge). As, in many parts of the world, such for the co-production of new knowledge. Ethnobiologists information is otherwise not available, or not of sufficient research findings, hypothesis-driven, descriptive, or co- quality, descriptive studies in ethnobiology and ethno- constructed can become leverage points to transform medicine can also be locally important. knowledge into actionable outcomes in different levels of In sum, abandoning descriptive work would not decision-making. only close windows to poorly known worlds, thus Reyes‑García Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (2023) 19:36 Page 4 of 4 Abbreviations 11. Balvanera P, Jacobs S, Nagendra H, O’Farrell P, Bridgewater P, Crouzat E, IPBES Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystems Services et al. The science-policy interface on ecosystems and people: challenges IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and opportunities. Ecosyst People. 2020;16:345–53. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ 1080/​26395​916.​2020.​18194​26. Acknowledgements 12. McElwee P, Fernández-Llamazares Á, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y, Babai D, T. Garnatge, G. Mattalia, M. Pardo-de-Santayana, and J. Valles read and com‑ Bates P, Galvin K, et al. Working with Indigenous and local knowledge in mented a previous version of this piece. I thank them for their insights. large-scale ecological assessments: reviewing the experience of the IPBES global assessment. J Appl Ecol. 2020;57:1666–76. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​ Author contributions 1365-​2664.​13705. VRG wrote the manuscript. 13. Hill R, Adem Ç, Alangui WV, Molnár Z, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y, Bridge‑ water P, et al. Working with indigenous, local and scientific knowledge Funding in assessments of nature and nature’s linkages with people. Curr Opin During the writing of this paper, the author was funded by the European Environ Sustain. 2020;43:8–20. Research Council under a Consolidator Grant (FP7-771056-LICCI). This work 14. Turner NJ, Cuerrier A, Joseph L. Well grounded: indigenous peoples’ contributes to the “María de Maeztu” Programme for Units of Excellence of the knowledge, ethnobiology and sustainability. People Nat. 2022;4:627–51. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (CEX2019-000940-M). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​pan3.​10321. 15. Ford JD, Cameron L, Rubis J, Maillet M, Nakashima D, Willox AC, et al. Availability of data and materials Including indigenous knowledge and experience in IPCC assessment Not applicable. reports. Nat Clim Chang. 2016;6:349–53. 16. Carmona R. Global guidelines, local interpretations: ethnography of climate policy implementation in Mapuche territory. Southern Chile Clim Declarations Policy. 2023. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​14693​062.​2023.​21942​67. 17. Golan J, Athayde S, Olson EA, McAlvay A. Intellectual property rights Ethics approval and consent to participate and ethnobiology: an update on posey’s call to action. J Ethnobiol. Not applicable. 2019;39:90–109. 18. Reyes-García V, Tofighi-Niaki A, Austin BJ, Benyei P, Danielsen F, Consent for publication Fernández-Llamazares Á, et al. Data sovereignty in community-based Not applicable. environmental monitoring: toward equitable environmental data govern‑ ance. Bioscience. 2022;72:714. Competing interests 19. Norström AV, Cvitanovic C, Löf MF, West S, Wyborn C, Balvanera P, et al. The author declares that she has no competing interest. Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nat Sustain. 2020;3:182–90. 20. Reyes-García V, Fernández-Llamazares Á, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y, Received: 12 May 2023 Accepted: 31 August 2023 Benyei P, Bussmann RW, Diamond SK, et al. Recognizing Indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ rights and agency in the post-2020 biodiversity agenda. Ambio. 2022;51:84–92. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​ s13280-​021-​01561-7. 21. Pardo-de-Santayana M, Morales R, Aceituno-Mata L, Molina M. Inventario References Español de conocimientos tradicionales relativos a la biodiversidad. 1. Gaoue OG, Moutouama JK, Coe MA, Bond MO, Green E, Sero NB, et al. Madrid: Ministerio de Agricultura y Pesca, Alimentación y Medio Ambi‑ Methodological advances for hypothesis-driven ethnobiology. Biol Rev. ente; 2014. 2021;96:2281–303. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​brv.​12752. 22. IPBES. Summary for policymakers of the methodological assessment 2. Leonti M. The relevance of quantitative ethnobotanical indices for eth‑ of the diverse values and valuation of nature of the intergovernmental nopharmacology and ethnobotany. J Ethnopharmacol. 2022;288:115008. science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES). 3. Gaoue OG, Coe MA, Bond M, Hart G, Seyler BC, McMillen H. Theories and 2022. https://​zenodo.​org/​record/​74102​87. major hypotheses in ethnobotany. Econ Bot. 2017;71:269–87. https://​doi.​ 23. Albuquerque UP, Ludwig D, Feitosa IS, de Moura JMB, de Medeiros PM, org/​10.​1007/​s12231-​017-​9389-8. Gonçalves PHS, et al. Addressing social-ecological systems across tempo‑ 4. Vibrans H, Casas A, Vibrans H, Casas A. Roads traveled and roads ahead: ral and spatial scales: a conceptual synthesis for ethnobiology. Hum Ecol. the consolidation of Mexican ethnobotany in the new millennium an 2020;48:557–71. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10745-​020-​00189-7. essay. Bot Sci. 2022;100:263–89. 5. Begossi A. Use of ecological methods in ethnobotany: diversity indices. Econ Bot. 1996;50:280–9. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​BF029​07333. Publisher’s Note 6. Atanasov AG, Zotchev SB, Dirsch VM, Orhan IE, Banach M, Rollinger JM, Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in pub‑ et al. Natural products in drug discovery: advances and opportunities. lished maps and institutional affiliations. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2021;20:200–16. 7. Reyes-García V, Álvarez-Fernández S, Benyei P, García-Del-Amo D, Victoria Reyes‑García (PhD in Anthropology, 2001, U of Florida) Junqueira AB, Labeyrie V, Li X, Porcher V, Porcuna-Ferrer A, Schlingmann is ICREA Research Professor at the Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia A, Soleymani R. Local indicators of climate change impacts described by Ambientals de la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ICTA-UAB). Her indigenous peoples and local communities: Study protocol. PLoS One. research focuses on Indigenous and local knowledge systems, par‑ 2023 Jan 5;18(1):e0279847. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1371/​journ​al.​pone.​02798​ 47. ticularly in relation to the natural environment, and on the relevance 8. Heinrich M, Ankli A, Frei B, Weimann C, Sticher O. Medicinal plants of these knowledge systems to understand and deal with the climate in Mexico: healers’ consensus and cultural importance. Soc Sci Med. and environmental crises. 1998;47:1859–71. 9. Mateo-Martin J, Benitez J, Gras A, Molina M, Reyes-García V, Tardío J, et al. Cultural importance, availability and conservation status of Spanish wild medicinal plants: implications for sustainability. People Nat. 2023. https://​ doi.​org/​10.​1002/​pan3.​10511. 10. Watson RT. Turning science into policy: challenges and experiences from the science–policy interface. Philos Trans R Soc B: Biol Sci. 2005;360:471.